intentional and very malicious in the way they went about this. i want to talk a little bit about christopher steele. i was looking in appendix a. i think it's page 419. and it says in there he was paid $95,000 over a three-year period of time, i believe. >> correct. >> okay. and what was that money paid to him for? >> so, that would have been for various pieces of information that he gave -- >> okay. >> after being chs in 2013 but not related to crossfire. >> hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we have beent' watching questioning of justice inspector general michael horowitz before the senate judiciary committee on the findings of his investigation into the origins of the russia probe. horowitz today consistent on the facts as he found them when it comes tohe allegations against e fbi and justice department of illegal spying in a deep state conspiracy against donald trump.

there is zero evidence to support some of the president's most serious conspiracy theories peddled over and over again for the pastnd three years. and though horowitz finds serious problems at the fbi related to a national security surveillance program, problems that fbi director christopher wray has already committed to fixing immediately with reforms. but those problems with the fisa process do not, however, undermine the legitimate basis for the investigation launched into trump's campaign according to the i.g. it's an investigation horowitz stressed was lawfully predicated. we will bring you some of the highlights ofso today's testimo andf fact-check some of the mo outrageous attacks on the fbi. most of those coming, all of those coming from the gop. but first the significant moment in trump's impeachment unfolding simultaneously today on capitol hill. in just a few hours, another milestone in that process, one that's clearly gotten way under

donald trump's skin in recent days. house judiciary committee will gavel into session at 7:00 p.m. tonight to begin mark-ups. those are basically edits on the twoca articles of impeachment. abuse of power and obstruction of congress. that will pave the way for the historic full vote in the house on donald trump's impeachment. a vote d expected as early as nt week. and today we're getting a clearer picture of what a senate trial might look like. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell now saying it could start next month according to reporting in "the hill." senate republicans are weighing aep speedy impeachment trial th could include no witnesses for trump's legal team or for house democrats. it's an apparent departure from the white house's position and ideas, and by extension trump's, that thens trial should be a spectacle and feature witnesses like hunter biden and adam schiff. that's where wer start today wh some of our favorite reporters and friends. formerep assistant director for counter intelligence at the fbi,

frank figliuzzi. matt miller. plus, with us from capitol hill, politico senior writer jake sherman. fromak the white house the "associated press's" jonathan lemire. and from "the washington post" ashleyos parker. ashley parker, i'm going to start withar you. the oipresident's allies seem t focus onal things that you woul think the president wanted him to focus on. but you'veoc reported, and we a sawd, with our own eyes that its his impeachment that is keeping donald trump up at night, not any problems with the fisa court systeme at this juncture. >> that's exactly right. that was clear in his rally last night. i think it came through on tv, and certainly if you were there in hershey, pennsylvania, in person, as i was, the crowd was electric. the president was fired up and angry for a lot of it. and heof touched on other theme the low unemployment rate. but he kept coming back to for

extended risk impeachment. you can tell that the president is obsessed with it, and understandbly so to be fair. and infuriated by it. he called it ridiculous. he called it flimsy. he called it ugly. the flipside of that, of course, is he is sort of very upset that this will bring an asterisk, at the very least, to his presidency. but it's something he can't stop talking about, in part because he thinks there is somepa political advantage. you also saw him last night mention the silver lining, the idea that that's the only reason the usmca trade deal got passed and also saying that this is impeachmentin light. it's not even real impeachment. and frankly trying to fire up his base by saying this is democrats basically trying to subvert your will. they couldn't win in 2016, they can't win in 2020 and this is how they are trying to do it. >> jonathan lemire, it does put the president on four to five sides of every two-sided

question in washington whether this is good or bad politically for democrats. he's taken three or four positions there. and it is, according to people close to this president, it is the kind of history that he abhores, one that shrinks him, one that makes him in his own view, less of a legitimate president. >>ma right. we've seen a real dwichltd remember for months even during the mueller probe we would hear that the people around the president white house nd strategist, members of the campaign, sort of his inner circle, all thought impeachment be good politically for him. andd even now we are seeing br parscal, tweeting out just today polls that they have suggesting that there are some house democrats who are supporting impeachment in some of these battleground states who are struggling, who are underwater, that the trump campaign is focusing on how impeachment is playing on the trio ein midwest states and other states that includes pennsylvania of course that could determine the election in 2020. but the president has always taken a different approach.

he is someone who is deeply mindful of hisis legacy, of the brand. and heeg knows that this will b even if he is impeached and even in he's not removed that it's in the third sentence that he's t impeached. he doesn't want that's asterisk. heat doesn't want that black ma on his record. and, to your point, because it feels like it would diminish him. and that's part of the reason why he was so reluctant to acknowledge the idea of russian interference last time in 2016 because he felt that diminished his ability as president. thatil made him illegitimate president. and hehi fears that if he's impeached, even if he survives a trial in the senate that that will do so again now. >> jake sherman, nancy pelosi, a very house speaker by any measure, especially overer the last three months, but i think frank figliuzzi herest would age she could double as someone with a degree in psy-ops.

she has made him look and feel smaller and really check-mating him on the politics by narrowing theol articles to two undeniabl facts that eabused his power and that he proudly thumps his chest at over taking up this investigation. and howr she landed on sort of keeping this squarely in the undeniable, indisputable range in terms of the facts that have emerged. >> well, the h president is use to dealing with congressional leaders who bend to his with ill and cater to his whims. and h nancy pelosi doesn't do that. she isnape steely. sheat looks straight ahead and kind of barrels through any problems and concerns that other people might have. she's very good at that and has been for the better part of a decade. this isn't new. her behavior, her strategy, her tactics are nothing new if you've been watching politics for the lastwa decade. the president maybe hasn't been observing the house or didn't

when nancy pelosi was speaker. but even he in 2006 through 2007 said that she was the greatest in a letter to her. but, listen, narrowing these impeachment articles is a savvy move to the extent that it doesn't bring in mueller. mueller was a, not disputed but definitely hotly contested process. and nancy pelosi left that on the side and this is the lowest common denominator for house democrats. these two articles which are going to be debated tonight and tomorrow. i justde wantto to make another point here on the senate trial because it's stunning to me that the white house keeps saying time andep time again that they want hunter biden and joe biden, they expect this spectacle. it's just not going to happen. not only is it not reality. it's not approaching reality. and we are talking about a long trial versus a short trial. this is alll going to be determined by mitch mcconnell and chuck shuber who have to cobble together the rules and do it without the input from the

president. any rules that are passed, any guidelines for this trial have to get votes in the senate. this is not a unitary body. this is a majoritiarian institution. and the fact that the president is setting the bar for his base that joe biden and hunter biden are going to be part of this trial should be deeply concerning forld republicans. because it only sets up a construct in which senate republicans are going to be letting down their b base. so i don't understand what the white house strategy is. and,wh frankly, i'm not alone because manyly people in the whe house who are not in the communications operation are scratching their heads and wondering what'sir going on her. and it's easy to wonder that because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to promise something t that will not happe inil a politically tenuous situation. so again we are entering a period in which the white house is going to have to be coordinating with republicans on strategy, not leaving them and hanging them out to dry. and, again, something that's going to be played on every

network and every cable network for the next month. >> you know, matt miller, jake is hitting on a point that i think about all the time. the message that's been mainlined to the trump base is we've got this. but all of their conduct suggests otherwise. and i've worked on republican campaigns. and if you're republican, you've never got this. you are hugely hanging by a thread. and that is the case with this white house. to suggest that everything's fine, nothing to see here, we have no political worries and but we promise you hunter and joe biden, adam schiff, and every third day the whistle-blower, suggests that there's a lot more concern under thelo surface. >> i'm sure they are concerned about it. i suspect the reason they make these ridiculous promises is the sames reason the president alws does. he doesn't have a long-term political strategy thought out. he does whatht feels good at th time. he seeks out the kind of cheap sugar high of a segment on fox and friends talking about

getting hunter bidenin and gettg joe biden. but i think what they ought to be worried about is where republican senators are. they should be thinking about how republican senators are under pressure. because it's not just the president's political future that's on the line here but the political future of people like susan collins in maine and cory gardner in colorado. i don't think there is any world in which you are going to find 20 votes to convict the president. but a world when, say, 51 votes to convict him, a majority that decides he abused his power and obstructedwe congress. that's a very political outcome for the president than one where there is just aes party line vo. so i would be very worried about it because i think -- i don't think they started this impeachment process because they thought it was necessarily the politicallyec right thing to do. they started because they thought the evidence demanded it. that said if you'ret going to down this road you have to win the political fight. they seemedpo committed to winng the political fight and making

sure that this vote doesn't just accrue to the president but any republican who votes to overlook this behavior owns it for the rest of the time donald trump is in office. >> frank, we have spent so many hours on tv together, i don't remember which way we talked about this, butmb the fact that the democrats have made this about protecting the next election.t they have made this a national security question. let's docu something before cheating occurs in 2020. let's, as jake and others have reported, let's leave 2016 aside. let's -- we agree for the purposes of this impeachment, this is about protecting 2020. the president has already confessed to standing on the white house lawn, he's done it in full view seeking to have foreign governments medicine in 2020. in terms of a clear and present danger, he's already outed himself asea exactly that. >> in the press conference we heard after the decision to move forward with articles of impeachment, i lost track of the number ofim times i heard the phrase national security. and i heard threat to democracy

and threat to the constitution. so you are right to the masterful way in which speaker pelosi has prepped the battlefield. she is presenting this accurately as a clear and present danger to the security of the next election and our national security. that's something the american people should get their hands around. and i think that what they led to saw today in inspector general's horowitz's hearing. why do i say that? you mentioned psychological ops. we are seeing now the republicans' bright, shiny object. we heard very painful testimony today about mistakes over and over again in the carter page fisa process. ite pained me as a career fbi y to hear of those mistakes. but make no other mistake. what they will use this for in the gop is the bright, shiny object to detract from and meddle with the impeachment process. they will say the whole thing is wrong, weg should never even b here. e there is a deep state, and that's going to be the bright,

shiny object wehe hear in the weeks ahead. >> that's a strategy they are banking on, the president and his attorney general have made no secret about their deep sadness and disappointment in the fbi director christopher wrayi for not going along. they both contradicted him and horowitz and really been singing offbe a different song sheet. i agree with frank. i worked in a white house that relied very much for controversial national security purposes the fisa court and the fisa process. it is painful to see 17 omissions or mistakes in the application process for one individual, carter page. but that wasn't the president's message. and i didn't hear a clip of him talking about the carter page fisa processrt with 17 omission andit mistakes. their message was what was debunked bys horowitz. their message was that it was a deep state conspiracy and an unlawful opening, an unlawful predication for the investigation. is anyone inr that white house able to go to the president and twist him to what is true? or is that not even on the

agenda anymore? >> well, i think the thing you're seeing here with the i.g. report, and all the way back to mueller is a lot of these issues and drip, drip, drips of information that come out. they have, as a lot of people in the white house republicans on capitol hill put it to me, a little bit of something for everyone. and sofo you can sort of cherry-pick whatever side you areer on. the bits and pieces that help you make your case and help you make the pitch that your reality, even though it may not be based in fact, is the predominant, prevailing reality. and we saw that with the president in the mueller report. we are seeing that with the president now andee his handlin of what the i.g.'s findings actually are. and, again, we are seeing that when the president, gets up at rationalize and he goes on extended rants that we fact-check them. butfa some of his voters, they speak to what they would say is sort of a broader truth.

the facts and details may be wrong, and they often ilare, bu they say, you know, he is holding the swamp accountable or there was something in that fbi process that just doesn't smell right. with the bidens, maybe they didn't technically do anything wrong in lyukraine, but it sure does feel swampy. and so that is the way the president is operating. it's the way he's been operating for aay while. to answer your original question, no, there are not that many people in the white house who are going to him and saying, well, we really need to be precise edhere, mr. trump. >> or accurate or factual. jake sherman, take me inside what happens at 7:00. i've never seen the markup of two articles of impeachment for a sitting president. what does it look like? what happens? will people be shouting at each other? what's it going to look like? >> so today, tonight is just going to be opening statements and kind of the beginning phases of this process. they are going to recess at some point, i would imagine, in the

9:00, 10:00, 11:00 neighborhood. but i think they are going to resume tomorrow. they want to be out of town because there is a congressional delegation going to mark the 75th anniversary of the battle of theth bulge so they have priorities beyond impeachment. i just h want to make one point that's a little bit different, a little bit contrary to what everyone is saying and hopefully i can sustain this point. but the idea that this is about the next election is a complicated argument to make because once this impeachment is over so the house is going to impeach, the senate is going to acquit, and the democrats are making the point that absent this action the 2020 elections are in danger. now, nothing is going to happen because the senate is likely going to acquit. so, democrats are creating this construct, this narrative that the 2020 elections are at risk unless they impeach. and unless something happens on capitol hill. well, it's going to be status quo.be so i'm not sure where democrats pivot to after that to give

confidence to the electorate that now is hearing from their elected officials and from the speaker of the house and the majority leader and top democrats, presidential candidates that election is at risk. what is the next step in that? and i'm just raising that as a question because it seems to be a weakness in the messaging here. and i understand what the idea is behind it, that this is not i partisan, it's about national security. but they're using their ultimate kind of remedy, and they're not taking it tody a conclusion because the senate is republican. so i just wonder about the long-term impacts of that on the electorate andth on kind of the national security election climate, if that makes sense. because i don't think that's been explored all the way.th i don't know what the answer is to that. >> i don't have an answer, and i wouldn't try to answer for them. but i would add another question. we've run the sound over and over andov over again of christopher wray sitting before congress with a slumped body posture, former nsa director in

the same position slumped over his chair amid questioning almost always from democrats about whether or not we are to protect our democracy from russians. and maybe if they fail to remove thisy president who has, in th open, h called for foreign interference, the hope is to strengthen thee policymakers w have testified under oath that they're not doing enough. we are not doing enough. so iug wonder, we have you on enough, maybe you can follow up on thatn and let us know if the is actually a policy prescription and a strengthening of our democracy from a policy perspective that they're seeking. i'mhe going to let matt miller jump in too because you took us in a different direction, but it's an important one. >> the's way it might be a political weakness is if you assume that donald trump is not going to do this again. and everything in his history -- >> well, he already did it again. >> he is ait career recidvist. and he will seek to get other countries to interfere. maybe china, maybe russia, but he is going to do other things

tohe abuse his office between n andic 2016 he will do other things -- >> 2020. >> he will do other things to try to win re-election. and i think the arguments democrats will be able to make is, see,s we told you he was going to hurt this election. and all these republican senators, they own everything he's done because they knew he would doca it too and they did nothing about it. >> maybe we should have a three strikes you're outlaw just like many states do with repeated felons so that the third time you are impeached you are out. that seems to be where we're headed. >> jonathan lemire, i'm going to give you the last word. >> t no, i think that's exactly right. to frame it this way, we don't know the ramifications yet for next year's election. of course the white house, people in the building behind me are making those calculations. democrats are too. but i think we've seen that speaker pelosi and those in the congress feel like they are doing this not for electoral purpose but because they are adhering to the rule of law and

to the constitution. and that therefore this is potentially risky but they are going to do it anyway because they feel like if they don't take the stand, that the president, you know, will be that much more emboldened going forward. now the counter argument of course is that if he's impeached and not removed and does win w re-election, then what possible check do they have left? what else do they have in their arsenal in order to keep him in line? but that of course is a question for another day. >> you all made my brain ache with all of your answers and all of your questions. i am so grateful. jake sherman, grateful for that. thanks for starting us off. when we come back, more on today's hearing. the inspector general coming out against the u.s. attorney general andt attempting to put stop tote trump's three-year sp campaign to slam the fbi. also ahead, the white house and the kremlin at odds now over whether or not trump raised election meddling in his meeting

with sergiy. plus, joe biden denying a report that he's considering pledging to a single term in the white house. all those stories coming up. ng . ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started.

because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa sa new buick? for me? to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. oh i shouldn't have but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... don't forget you this holiday season, get an s-you-v, from buick. celebrate the holidays with up to 25% below msrp for current eligible non-gm owners and lessees on most of these 20-19 buick models. ♪ey mr. jones find great gifts for everyone on your list this holiday, ♪ everybody... with low prices and free shipping on millions of items at amazon. ♪ the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology,

you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

okay. did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration affected the fbi's decision to open the investigation into george papadopoulos? >> no. >> did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected

the decision to open the investigation into paul manafort? >> no, we don't. >> did you find any evidence of political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into michael flynn? >> we did not. >> did you find any investigation of political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into carter page? >> no documentary or testimonial evidence or other evidence. >> so we are clear. did your report uncover systematic political bias at the fbi? >> um, as to what we looked at in the openings, we did not find documentary testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias. >> that was the justice department inspector general michael horowitz in his own words this afternoon debunking some of the most serious allegations against the fbi that have been peddled by the president and his allies in an attempt to discredit the entire russia investigation. and just in the last hour, democratic senator and former

presidential hopeful kamala harris shifted the focus of the hearing to trump's attorney general william barr who's been critical of this report's findings and consistently on message with the president. >> general horowitz, i appreciate your extensive work and the work that your office has devoted to this investigation. but, in addition, you have the power and the duty to investigate misconduct committed by the attorney general of the united states, who is doing the bidding of the president to undermine our intelligence community. and i trust you take that duty seriously. >> i do. and i would just like to add that under the law, under the inspector general act, it carves out from my authority the ability to look at misconduct by department lawyers from the line lawyer all the way to the top and the attorney general. the law has to change, senator. >> so are you recommending the law -- if i propose legislation, would you support that? >> absolutely. in fact -- >> joining our conversation

former aid to president george w. bush elise jordan. jonathan lemire is still with us from the white house as well. i am going to start with you, frank figliuzzi. what'd you make of those moments? >> so, the senator harris clip is so crucial because let's break down what that was about. what she's basically saying is inspector general, can you investigate misconduct by this attorney general? and he doesn't say, well, no, i have no reason to do that, why would i do that, what misconduct? he actually says i actually need the authority to do that, please. so here's what that's all about. we've been watching the attorney general of the united states craft a false narrative over the last 48 hours, and that false narrative says add this i.g. report i don't agree with it all of it, there is still a problem here. and the i.g. of course has the facts on his side and says, no, i didn't find that. so we need to investigate what motivates this attorney general to keep going with this narrative to now point this

toward yet another investigation run by his hand-picked u.s. attorney in connecticut john durham who's violated doj policy by coming out with a statement in the middle of his inquiry. we're all supposed to be now waiting with baited breath for what's going to come out in the future that may or may not learn about, but it will be timed just right, mark my words, to help trump in the election. >> along with learning russian pronunciations, i need a glossary of legal terms. predication means probable cause, good reason. >> do you have the goods to open a case? do you have the evidence to properly open a case. >> so this was one of the disputes. one of what was so -- part of what was so dramatic monday is that as this report was coming out that finds serious problems with the fisa into carter page. that wasn't the focus of the president and his allies. the focus was bashing horowitz's finding that there was probable cause to open all four of those investigations and crossfire hurricane which was the investigation kept secret by the

fbi into the campaign's ties with russia. so let me just play a little bit of horowitz trying to explain the contradiction which was pushed out by the attorney general in a statement that seemed just in my personal opinion coerced out of durham. let me play this. this is horowitz explaining the daylight between himself and mr. durham. >> during your investigation, attorney general barr stated his belief that, quote, spying on the trump campaign did occur, end quote. and, as you said, your investigation found no evidence that the fbi placed any confidential source within the trump campaign or tasked any confidential source to report on the trump campaign. that's correct, right? >> that's correct. >> and, further, no evidence of political bias or improper motivations influenced the decision to use confidential sources as part of the investigation? >> that's correct. >> did your office ask attorney

general barr and u.s. attorney general john durham to share whatever evidence they had that might be relevant to your investigation? >> um, we asked mr. durham to do that. >> and what about attorney general barr? >> and attorney general barr. >> thank you. so nothing they could provide altered your office's conclusion that the fbi did not place spies in the trump campaign? >> none of the discussions changed our findings. >> that was even more important. we are going to get to the difference between what horowitz and durham claimed on monday. but that feels even more important. to build on frank's point, just how people understand the significance of that. >> i think it's incredibly significant that what the inspector general is saying he found is that the fbi had the lawful authority to open that investigation. and i do think it goes to this dispute over what john durham said and what the attorney general said on monday. because for two days what we

heard is the attorney general saying no they didn't, they didn't have the authority, i disagree. and the attorney general is saying not only do i disagree, but john durham disagrees. and what horowitz said today is that, no, john durham didn't really disagree that the fbi had no reason to open the investigation, he just disagreed about what kind. he thought it ought to be a preliminary investigation and not a full-fledged investigation. and that's not at all what we were led to believe by john durham. it's not all we were led to believe by the attorney general yesterday. i was at the department the last time john durham was asked to conduct a investigation by eric holder. he never once came out to me to ask me to put out a statement. he didn't put a statement out at the end of that investigation. never said a word. >> sounds like someone else we have covered, robert mueller. >> and what it tells me is that the attorney general, once again, is trying to take the findings, this time of the

inspector general and mislead the american public about what happened at the fbi. he is attacking his own department. i think it is a new low moment for bill barr. >> let me just follow up. and i do want to get to him explaining where the distinction is. i mean, why would that be? >> because he's trying to cover up for the president. i think he wants to attack this investigation -- >> by destroying the people in his own institution? >> he does not care. he wants to give the president the full clean bill of health going into the 2020 re-election. it's not enough for him to have come out and said there was no obstruction of justice, i am going to make a finding beyond what bob mueller found. there never should've been an investigation in the first place. so going into 2020, the president will have the attorney general of the united states saying my justice was wrong, the justice department and the fbi were wrong. it's a witch hunt that never should've been conducted against the president in the first place. that is a powerful thing for the president and it is a disgraceful step for the attorney general to take. and the significance with what

happened today is that horowitz explains this effort at spin on monday and says that the decision to open the investigation taken by m mr. prestep who was the head of counter intelligence, right? is that the job you held? >> yes. >> was right, it was properly predicated, it had probable cause. that all that durham was weighing in on was that the next step was something he didn't see the same way. let's watch that sound. >> durham tasked by attorney general barr to also investigate the origins of the russia investigation, stated, and i quote, last month we advised the i.g. that we do not agree with some of the reports' conclusions as to predication and how the fbi case was opened. what's your reaction to that? >> um, well, i was surprised by the statement i didn't necessarily know was going to be released on monday.

we did meet with mr. durham, as i mentioned. we provided him with a copy of the report, as we did others, through our factual accuracy review process. we met with him in november. with regard to that we did discuss the opening issue. he said he did not necessarily agree with our conclusion about the opening of a full counter intelligence investigation, which is what this was. but there is also an investigative means by which the fbi can move forward with an investigation. it's called the preliminary investigation. so there are two types of investigations, full and preliminary. they opened the full here. he said during the meeting that the information from the friendly foreign government was, in his view, sufficient to support the preliminary investigation. and as we noted in the report, investigative steps such as

confidential human source activity that occurred here are allowed under a preliminary investigation were under a full investigation. >> so we need a little bit of translating. but my understanding is that what barr pushed back against was just annihilated by that testimony. barr said on monday in his second paper statement. so they knew this was coming, they had seen it and they couldn't get all of their smears against the fbi and horowitz on one piece of paper. i was a press person. that's like a stage four foul. but what did he take apart there? >> so this should've been one of the many headlines coming out of today. for me this says all we need to know about what barr and durham are up to because we heard this tremendously explosive statement. durham's pushing back. a.g. barr's pushing back g the predication finding. and what did we find out today? when the it should've been a full investigation or a preliminary inquiry. and the fbi in this case never used any techniques that would have required them to go to a

full. so they had a full, which meant they had specific and articulable facts that someone's a spy. and they never went to all the techniques you could use. so all of this talk of wiring sources up and talking to people, guess what, that could have happened under preliminary. that's what all of this is about? that tells me that this is a false push-back by durham and barr. >> and, elise, i guess i want to get to you on sort of pattern recognition. barr did this with mueller because what? what was your sense of why he did that with mueller? because it represented a threat to the president. >> it was absolutely politically advantageous to get his narrative out first. and any of the details within the report evaporated because he captured the american public's imagination, boom, he won that round. that was upsetting to plenty of democrats at the time. >> upsetting to mueller. >> about what was actually in the report was what was not barr said. but he managed to do it. and now look at his pattern of

coming out so hard, when actually there is a lot there to begin with. there is plenty in that i.g. report that the trump administration could cling onto without just blatantly lying. there is some bad stuff in there. it really is not a good report. it was a bad day for the fbi and the institution which is exactly what donald trump wants. and you just see how they are seizing on this narrative and it's going to have just enough truth in it that at the end of the day that will carry donald trump over the finish line with his supporters. >> we are going to sneak in a break. but after that, the white house's mexed messaging on russian election interference. any comments doug?

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough.

it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

in 2018 donald trump stood next to russian president vladimir putin and took putin's side over his own intelligence community when jonathan lemire who's with us today asked us

about meddling in the 2016 election. here we are a year and a half later and there is still confusion about the trump administration's stance is on that russian interference. yesterday trump with sergey lavrov in the oval, the white house's readout of the meeting stated that trump, quote, warned against any russian attempts to interfere in u.s. elections. but in a press lense lavrov held less than an hour later, quote, mr. lavrov suggested that mr. trump had not delivered such a warning, although the minister contradicted himself. he said the two have not discussed elections. and in the second he said he had raised with mr. trump what mr. pompeo had said about election interference in his own public rebuttal to mr. pompeo. joining our conversation columnist for "the washington post" eugene robinson. but let me start with you, mr. helsinki, jonathan lemire. what is the current state on the

white house position on whether or not they do or do not believe the president's position on election interference in 2016? >> would issue warnings against russia and say to them, hey, this is something that we believe happened last time, don't do it again. the president has always been reluctant to do that. helsinki is perhaps the most famous moment, but there may have been others. earlier this year in a summit in giuliani, he and putin met there at the sidelines of the g20. and president was asked if he would warn putin not to do it. and he kind of mockingly scolded him and said don't meddle in our election. and since then he's obviously downplayed it time and time again because he feels like it diminishes his victory in 2016. by doing so he has prevented or at least slowed down efforts to safeguard the election next time around. so the fact there was confusion yesterday i think is somewhat typical for this white house on this subject. first of all to have the foreign

minister lavrov back in the oval office where two years ago the president gave him classified information that a danger to operation and said to him that he was glad to get rid of james comey. he called him a nut job and said the pressure was off of the russia thing because he had just fired the fbi director to bring back lavrov into that same room i think galled a lot of people here in washington. and then to have such mixed messages where the white house puts out this robust statement about saying that he actually did warn about election security, lavrov denied it and then kind of half-walked that back. but we haven't heard it from the president himself. he is currently right now at a hanukkah event in the white house at the moment. but we are not expecting him to take any questions. that's that needs to be put to him is, sir, you just met with a high-ranking criminal official. where do you stand on election security, and what are you doing to protect the ballot in 2020? >> eugene, the president speaks,

i guess you can call it clearly, i will call it simply. he wanted to say something clear about russian meddling he is certainly capable of doing it. he obviously doesn't want to. the russians gave three answers, they ended up on three sides of a two-sided question. >> the president basically denies that it ever happened. and that's, i think, i gather, what he actually believes, what he actually wants to say. and he knows that it's probably not right for him to come out and say that. but he minimizes it. i mean, it's amazing that he says, well, i brought it up or the white house says he brought it up. and think about this. the russian foreign minister is more credible about what happened in that meeting than the president of the united states, than the press secretary. and that's just the fact. so i have to take lavrov's word for what happened in the meeting because you can't believe a word that the president says. >> we talk a lot about, and certainly the press gets

deservedly a hot lot of heat. but nothing's been more normalized than the russian disinformation campaign. to see the straight line from lavrov to trump's mouth to the white house public opinion, you know, official statement to all the republicans in congress. i mean, just talk about how successful this is to a russian perspective. >> this lavrov was a study in who's dominating this relationship. really, from photos to denials and throwing trump under the bus on whether trump warned him or admonished him or not. and then we have lavrov come out in the presser where he says i haven't seen any evidence that russia did this. there's been no collusion. we indicted over two dozen russians including 12 russian gru officers by name. that means american citizens sat in a grand jury and did their public duty and saw the evidence and said, yeah, russia did this.

he's got the report. he's got the indictments. what pompeo and trump should be doing is demanding that they cough up those russians so that they can be tried in the united states. >> you know, nancy pelosi famously stood up in that meeting and said all roads with you lead to putin, pointing at president trump. so i'm not like a big conspiracy theory guy or anything like that. but a lot of roads do lead to russia and vladimir putin. now, so, is it something special about russia? i've also heard from sources who should know that the president really does have a thing for the strong man leaders and for the putins and dutertes of the world, the erdogans who can get stuff done. so is it that or is it russia, russia, russia?

>> i want to ask your opinion about whether there is anything that the republicans can do to get back to sort of a romney 2012 posture. and do you think they even want to? romney was mocked for saying he viewed russia as the world's greatest geopolitical threat. >> i think that the impeachment presentation from the democrats has to focus on foreign aid for a domestic political gavor, foreign aid that's in his national interest, not in your national interest. and when the message veers from that platform and you've got democrats who are suddenly all about ukrainian freedom fighters, which is just like lindsey graham standing up today and being against fisa court. and it reeks of hypocrisy. at their core i talked to plenty of republicans who are bothered by what donald trump is doing

with our foreign policy with regards to russia. and that he was operating like that from the oval office. but the argument has to go back home to that, in my opinion. >> last word? >> i think the only thing republicans can do to fix it is to somehow nominate a new nominee for president because it's not going to change as long as donald trump is president. he is not going to change. and, you know, they have even changed the republican party. they've gone to where they mostly just ignored his daliances with russia. you've seen that in the last few months. that is a change in the republican party where they have gone closer to him rather than him coming closer to where the republican party traditionally has been. >> all right, jonathan lemire, last word, real quick. >> i don't think the republicans are going to nominate someone else in 2020. [ laughter ] >> me either. >> so putin can wear a maga hat and we will hope for the best, right? >> i think this is the president -- this is his relationship with russia is complicated, but it's also

consistent. he has shown no signs of willingness to stand up to putin or the kremlin, even if other parts of the government want to. >> jonathan lemire, thank you for spending some time with us. after the break joe biden responds to new reporting from inside his campaign that he might be considering a pledge to sv only one term. to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. oh i shouldn't have but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... don't forget you this holiday season, get an s-you-v, from buick. celebrate the holidays with up to 25% below msrp for current eligible non-gm owners and lessees on most of these 20-19 buick models. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye.

when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. the most common side effect is nausea. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis.

serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

a more secure diaper closure. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. we are people helping people. biden, his campaign are today denying a report in "politico" that says that according to four biden aides, he signalled that

he would serve only one term if elected president. but no matter who the democrats decide to be their nominee, it looks like the president will have a tough time beating him or her. the latest quinnipiac poll shows donald trump losing against six of the democratic candidates in hypothetical matchups. 51 to 42 for biden. wow. that's bad. >> i think the president, for all we talk about his base and his base, starts -- he goes into his re-election at a disadvantage just based on his approval rating. he could very much win but he starts at a disadvantage to just about anyone the democrats nominate. as -- as -- as it pertains to joe biden and this rumor about him only serving one term. look. it's not the first time that's come up. i -- that seems to me to be a mistake to telegraph that. it seems to me they're trying to telegraph assurance to voters. and to me, it sends a signal of

weakness and concern. >> it does. >> i think that's why the campaign was out trying to knock it down. >> i worked for a former friend of joe biden's and i'll just -- just in case it is a thing. the idea is that it is not about you. it's about getting the country back on track. and then handing off the mantel to a running mate or to -- i mean, it does make the vp pick more impactful perhaps. it seemed to me, a nod to understanding that he may not represent the future of the party. but i want to put you on the spot because you're -- you're the out of the closet democrat at the table here. kamala harris was pretty stellar today. and i watched her. and i said to you on set. like, why isn't she still in the race? >> look. i agree. i'm a big kamala harris fan. i thought she would have been a great nominee. there were problems with her campaign. i think she struggled to find a message. >> i've done a lot of campaigns. they're always problem campaigns. >> every time you watch her, you see the just raw political talent she has. and look, she's pretty young. we haven't seen the last of kamala harris either in the

senate or i suspect on the national stage. >> i'm equally mistified. i, like everybody else, certainly all my fellow pundits thought she would do a lot better. there are a lot of people who thought -- you know, primary, super-tuesday, california. she -- you know, she just runs the glory. and were right in that scenario months ago. yet after that first bump in that first debate, for some reason and i just frankly don't understand it but for some reason, she just didn't catch on. she just didn't get traction. and, you know, people say people didn't know who she was. well, you do know who she is. i mean, i don't know quite what that means. but it -- >> personal opinion. i think y'all are gonna miss her. all right. we're going to sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. in our last break. we'll be right back. ♪

colon cancer screening for people 50 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective.

i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0.

pointed out frank figliuzzi has been on the air since before the sun came up. he will walk out of this building when it goes down. thank you so much, my friend. my thanks to eugene, elise, matt. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with the aforementioned chuck todd starts now. welcome to wednesday. it's hard to believe it's only wednesday, right? it's "meet the press daily" and good evening. i am chuck todd here in new york city. we are hearing about the origins of the russia investigation has just wrapped u