reporter for "the new york times" and msnbc national security contributor michael schmidt. pete williams. anita kumar, and joining the conversation from new york, former fbi special agent and msnbc national security analyst clint watts. thank you all for being here tonight. >>> michael schmidt, i want to start with you because this book that we have been learning about the last few days, the interview set to air tonight, james comey in many ways this saga was touched off by your reporting in "the new york times" about hillary clinton's use of private e-mail when she was secretary of state. what in this book that comey has put out do you feel is going to make a material difference in how events unfold with the mueller investigation as we go forward? >> i'm not sure how much it really changes the equation there. the one thing is that if comey were to ever be a witness against trump, like in front of the -- in front of congress or even at a trial or anything, they could say, look, and you had a real motivation to go after the president. you wrote this whole book. you made all

michael schmidt, i want to ask you to start things off. the president tweeting today seeming to believe the comey memos somehow exonerate him. true or false? >> not sure i guess it depends that beauty is in the eye of the person reading the memo. these memos in many ways, i think, are troubling for trump. they show a repeated pattern, this obsession, as you pointed out, with the russia investigation. we knew a lot of the things, the big ticket items that were there there, but we learned things like the president gave comey a chronology of his time in russia in 2013, the period of time when the dossier says the russians have this tape of trump with these prostitutes. he's saying he went through a chronology at least twice with him about it. that is an entirely new thing that we didn't know anything about. we didn't know about the president's comments to comey, he said putin talked to him about prostitutes there. it's those kind of details, those new revealing things i can't imagine are helpful for the president. >> natasha, let me just su,

let me go to is michael schmidt still on? michael, what's your reaction to this? >> let me go to jennifer on this. the legality of this question. we were talking about this whole question of scooter libby and this pardon offer. what's it say to the people out there keeping information away from the prosecutor right now who might want to flip now? >> well, it's troubling obviously because they're trying to develop these witnesses and already have developed witnesses in rick gates and michael flynn. if he were to pardon them, all of a sudden, what's going to happen with those witnesses? it seems to be a message to them given the timing. it's questionable whether it's an obstruction in and of itself. he's clearly incidentally interfering with the investigation. you have to prove intent to show it was obstruction. >> ashley, this question of the dossier looking more profoundly accurate now. the fact that elements in it now will, what did or didn't happen in the hotel but the question how that aretative presented to the government about the role trump played in russian

michael schmidt broke that story. pete williams joins me now. michael, what?still trying to figure out exactly what it is on the "access hollywood" video that they want. what is it about it? because the narrative about the access would video is that trump didn't remember it, it wasn't something on their radar. it sort of pops up on that day in october and actually a remarkable day in october. that's a month before the election, the same day the obama administration calls out russia and the same day that john podesta's e-mails leaked. >> october 7th. >> and so the question is, is that what was michael cohen trying to do? we know that a focus of the investigation on him are these catch and kills, going out, finding stories that were going to be damaging to trump, getting money to these folks to get them to not talk. part of it is connected to the "national enquirer." how it comes back to access hollywood i don't know. but this was something that was included in a search warrant. something that they had to get court approval for. this is not simply a fishing exer

"new york times" reporter michael schmidt joins us now. he contributed to this report. michael, there's a ton in here. we've said time and again on the show, as people have said, he'll never fire bob mueller. if for nothing else, than for his own self-interest. as he knows this would lead to a crisis and could cost him his presidency. it appears time and again in your now second report that he is entertaining the idea of firing bob mueller and in fact sarah sanders said from the podium yesterday, he believes, the president does, he has the right to fire bob mueller. >> you're right this is something that he thinks he has the right to do. something he has thought a lot about. this is not a new thing. the president has thought about getting rid of sessions, rosenstein and mueller since last may. when the special counsel was announced. actually when it happened, the president going immediately to try and get rid of sessions, sessions surviving. the biggest question now is, is maybe not mueller as much as it is rosenstein. rosenstein someone who comey had called the ultimate

i'm joined by michael schmidt, an msnbc contributor. paul butler is a former federal prosecutor. shannon pettypiece, a white house reporter for bloomberg. jennifer ruben. we've got a great first line here. let me talk starting with michael across the room there, across this panorama that seems like one room. it's a couple of rooms. first of all, your comment from what you just heard from matt at the post? >> well, this is this interesting thing that has hung over the administration for over a year now. what does the president really want to do with sessions and rosenstein? wanted to get rid of sessions when mueller was appointed. has talked about getting rid of rosenstein. has talked about mueller. the president has put an enormous amount of time and effort into these questions, and ultimately he hasn't done anything, which is interesting. he's gone ahead and done things with rex tillerson. he's cleaned out his veterans affairs secretary. but on the justice department, he understands how big of an issue it would be if he were to do something there, and clearly sessions here sendin

let me bring in "new york times" reporter michael schmidt who co-authored that article. michael, we usually hear about alleged ties to russia. what more can you tell us about these ties to ukraine? >> well, this was a ukrainian steel magnet that made this donation to trump's foundation. he's not someone that is closely aligned with putin. he's not someone who has done work with paul manafort we know about, the president's former campaign chairman, who's been indicted. this is someone else. what happened was in september of 2015, donald trump gave this sort of awkward talk through a video link to a conference that was going on in the ukraine. michael cohen, the same michael cohen that's in the news for the search warrant that was executed on his office, had the group that mr. trump gave the presentation to, donated $150,000 to his foundation. the trump organization in response to a subpoena that was given to them by mueller earlier this year, has handed over documents about this payment. now, the interesting thing, if we remember, is all the controversies about president t

we're back with michael schmidt, paul butler, shannon pettypiece and jennifer ruben. with you, michael, how does this fit with the latest stuff tonight that jeff sessions was thinking of walking if trump fired rod rosenstein? >> i'm not sure how much it relates to that, to the sessions at the justice department, who is going to be at the justice department. but what is going on behind the scenes is that the trump folks think they are okay with mueller and that they just sort of need to wrap up the end here. trump does not want to sit for an interview but realizes he certainly has to do that to bring an end to this. so they're going to bring in giuliani to negotiate the end, to go to mueller and say look, let's get this thing wrapped up. the problem is that if there's a big difference of opinion or idea what's going on here. if the trump folks think there's no problem here but mueller thinks there's significant issues, i don't think this thing is going to be wrapped up so quickly in a fashion like that. but the trump folks think that the mueller stuff is far less of a

maggie haberman and michael schmidt broke the story in "the new york times" this evening.joins us now by phone. so, maggie, explain what you've uncovered here. >> sure. thanks for having me. the special counsel is investigating by way of a is subpoena a payment to the president to go into his private foundation for a 20-minute speech that he gave in september 2015 when he was already a candidate, to a yalta conference that was sponsored primarily by ukrainian oligarch named victor pinchuk, also donated quite heavily to the clinton foundation. essentially, mueller is looking for payments to the president from non-u.s. people and the speech qualified. it has always been curious why the money went to the foundation in the first place as opposed to going directly to the president, but it is another instance of a deeper entanglement of the investigation into the president's finances and the first that i'm aware of of any kind of look at money involving the foundation which has raised its own questions over the last couple of years. >> so did then-candidate donald trump do anyth

want to bring michael schmidt in from "the new york times" who's just written this piece.for joining us on this. what is this news all about? why were they apparently looking for these things related to this tape. >> what they were looking for were efforts by michael cohen to suppress negative stories on president trump and the run-up to the campaign. obviously the "access hollywood" video was one of those things. up until this point i don't believe we had known anything related to whether trump's folks knew about the video but this seems to -- leads us to believe that there is some reasonable cause to think that michael cohen knew about it, was trying to do something to suppress it. >> tell me the connection that the fbi or the southern district of new york, u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york would make between what michael cohen was trying to do if he was trying to suppress information and what federal laws might be broken. >> well, it would be -- there would be lots of legal questions if michael cohen was out there with cash trying to pay people to be q

with us now michael schmidt here onset joining sabrina and amber, and also robert driscoll. president called you out this morning, michael, as he was railing against fake news, even though your article is not fake. right? what happened? >> yeah. the president criticized our story for not saying who had set up this meeting, saying that this -- someone this long time person he's known had actually arranged it. but the story actually does say that. i'm not sure whether the president had not read to that part in the story or simply ignored it. >> back up two seconds for people who may not have read your story and explain this meeting and why it's significant here. >> okay. we reported that donald trump had received $150,000 donation to his foundation during the campaign. it was actually in september of 2015. it was in exchange for a speech he had given via skype to a conference in ukraine. it was about a 20-minute speech, and the trump organization which has documents on this, has handed over information on it to the special counsel's office in response to a subpoena. so we were

michael schmidt, "new york times" washington correspondent and an msnbc contributor. jennifer rogers, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york at the center of the story tonight. now with columbia law center for the advancement of public integrity. and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. joyce, let me start with you because a former federal prosecutor said to me tonight, ignore the u.s. attorney's manual. there are two things that they had to have suspected michael cohen of doing to have obtained this search warrant. one, either he was non-responsive to subpoenas, or, two, they have evidence or suspicion that he was destroying evidence. your thoughts? >> i think it's unlikely that he was just non-responsive to subpoenas. i think that they would have continued to try to work that out. that leaves me with the choice behind door "b," the fact that they believe there was evidence that was at risk of destruction. and also that they believe that they were entitled to pierce this veil that really covers lawyer-client conversations and communications

. >> all right, michael schmidt here from "the new york times" with some breaking news here, top of the 1:00 hour. michael, thanks. do come back in there's more news to share. tom, we also learned that deputy attorney general rob rosenstein signed off on this raid himself. what does that tell us? >> that tells us frankly they're following along with the guidelines that he'd been given. if you want to look at this from a sports analogy, craig, rob rosenstein is the president and gm of this investigation and robert mueller is the coach. he's the one that's kind of calling the day-to-day plays, that's looking at the strategy. rob rosenstein's role here is oversight. the fact we know this investigation came out of the special counsel's office, that they're doing it in coordinate with prosecutors here, federal prosecutors here in manhattan, that tells us in this case rosenstein is saying, you know what, it's a little bit better if we have -- and it's more appropriate given what robert mummer's been charged with looking into versus other crimes that have arisen out of this. it's more appropri

michael schmidt, great reporting as always. thank you. >> back in december, senator mark warner, advice of the senate intelligence committee gave a barn burner speech that seemed to come out of nowhere in which he warned the president not to the cross a red line by firing muler. moments ago the top aide to that senator said when he delivered his red line speech to warn back in december, a lot of people asked why now, this is why. she linked to the story breaking from the "new york times" we just discussed. i happened to speak to senator warner tonight just before that story broke. >> senator, what do you think about sarah huckabee sanders saying is the white house has made the determination the president himself has the power to fire robert mueller? >> well, this white house and this president seem to think he can in effect support some laws and ignore other laws. i'm not the legal expert here. but i would actually agree with republican senator lindsey graham that if mr. trump tried to fire mr. mueller, that will be the beginni

. >> joining me is michael schmidt reporter for "the new york times," heidi przybyla with nbc news, chuck rosenburg, former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official and contributor, and paul butler, msnbc legal analyst. what do you make of huckabee sanders saying is obviously speaking for the president he has the right it out fire mueller, the man investigating him? >> it's front of minds for the president and i think the president. >> it's what? front of mind? >> this is something that he has talked about for almost a year now. since the day mueller was appointed. you now have this incredibly aggressive move. i think sometimes in this era, we get numb to what's going on. the justice department got a judge to sign off on this to go in to the president's lawyer's office to take these documents. that is -- they have to have a real reason to do that. this is not just sending out a subpoena to satisfy there wasn't a crime or asking someone questions in an interview. it's going to the heart of the things that donald trump has said he's most concerned about. this red line that he put up with m

dozen reporters contributed to "the new york times" as russia coverage including our colleagues michael schmidt two prizes and. and the run-up to the alabama special election won for commentary. congratulations. pulitzer prizes. what a lifetime achievement. we'll be right back. ♪ today is a good day to make a plan for your financial goals and your everyday ones too. pnc can help. we'll be with you every step of the way. let's start today. >>> i actually believe he is morally unfit to be president. and i say that because someone who is able to see moral equivalence in charlottesville or to speak and treat women like they're pieces of meat, and to lie constantly, and who appears to lack an external moral framework that collection of attributes makes a person morally unfit to be a leader, no less the president of the united states. >> that was james comey's harsh assessment of president trump. it's one of the many explosive charges the former fbi director has made in promoting his new book, "a higher loyalty." in his latest interview with susan page of usa today, comey would not rule out the possi

joining me here on set, "the new york times" reporter michael schmidt, matt miller chief spokesman for the justice department, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official, all luck ill for us, msnbc analysts. you watched this interview, mike schmidt. how much did the president do to him snefl >> sort of a repeated pattern of behavior where he comes out hurting himself, go back to the tweet last may about comey on tapes. comey, i hope there's no tapes. prompts comey to release the memo that leads to mueller being appointed. going after sessions, criticizing the investigation. constantly undermining himself. we've seen it so many times before. why are we surprised? >> and he's still in the process of trying to recruit more and better lawyers. i know he's added rudy. he would like a ted olson and a caliber attorney representing him. this does not show him to be a particularly disciplined client. >> he had john dowd, a long-time washington lawyer, someone who had investigated pete rose, done a lot of things. john dowd concluded he could not get the president to listen to him. a ver

joining us are favorite friends and reporters from "the new york times," michael schmidt, jennifer r jennifer ruben. phil rucker. we were both up at 11:00. we can ask for slack at the top. joyce vance, former us attorney now msnbc contributor and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence now an msnbc analyst. so glad you're all here. as you can see i'm having a battle with the teleprompter already. >>> let me start with you, joyce, and a man, a moment and a whole lot of legal bills. michael cohen, take it away. >> michael cohen is looking like the focal point for this investigation or at least one of the focal points right now. and the reason for that, nicolle, i think is because he brings together a lot of the disparate threads in this investigation that all lead back toward the trump campaign's relationship with russia. cohen was around in 2013 when trump first commissioned reports on how he pullolled in all 50 states. at that point cohen said he hadn't spent a million so books could sit on his shelf and gather dust. they will go that far back perhaps

the clinton team was pushing back hard and people like michael schmidt had their integrity questioned, we find out, oh, my god, there was an investigation. >> i also recall those momentum -- moments, joe. so the word -- this is important. >> nick has very vivid memories of those moments. >> for the last six months, comey has been this kind of remote person. he posts pictures of sunsets on twitter and what not. >> as one does. >> as one does. so now we're seeing who he really is. we're seeing him speak for himself. and his explanation for why he put that letter out and was so public about it is a bad explanation. he basically concedes -- >> we need to move on to syria, but how well do you remember those times? were you attacked as well? >> you know, if it was branded into my forearm, it can be anymore vivid to me. no, no, no, look, it was a time when we were under a lot of scrutiny and mike schmidt, my colleague, was also under scrutiny and he was right. >> can say one more thing about jim comey. one thing i found very striking about all of this, the one thing he did last night was on

that is a tweet from her colleague at the "times," michael schmidt, who notes the president, quote, saidve nothing to do with, that, of course, the famous trump thumbs up and that is our friend, maggie, friend of -- ashley parker, this is something that the president does not infrequently. he does, in fact -- there are some reporters he has talked to for years and built these relationships with and now in public, you know, turns around and trashes them. >> yeah, absolutely. and i think any time the president of the united states attacks you especially by name, as he often does with maggie haberman, i think it can be jarring and uncomfortable, but if there's one thing we've learned covering him is when the president calls something fake news, it doesn't mean it's fake. it doesn't actually mean the facts are incorrect at all. what it means in the case of this fantastic story maggie and the "times" did on michael cohen is it's true and hit on clear truth and just so happens too have gotten under the president's skin. now, i don't know if all of this supporters know that, but when you see th

president while the president is by all accounts fuming and remaining away as mike schmidt reported this hour, calling michaelsly his head not on world affairs. >> my knowledge involving the situation involving potential attacks on syria is more at the pentagon than the white house. they did list potential targets to the white house and there was a hole up. this is a slowdown in the process of potentially putting together a serious strike that occurred prior to the decision-making process getting to the white house. there has been reporting since then there have been conversations in the security council about where to strike. but it's important to remember while the white house clearly is not being managed as clearly as possible it's not the only part of the government where things get hung up. and nothing everything that happens slowly or confusingly is the white house's fault. >> you interviewed joe biden. >> it will be on my show sunday morning. >> i want wait until sunday. >> i wanted him to tell me whether he was really going to run. we talked candidly about what he's trying to weigh there. and we talke

michael avenatti, is standing by to join us in a few minutes. but first let's bring in our leadoff panel for tuesday night. mike schmidt, "new york times" washington correspondent who cou could wrote tonight's breaking report. phil rucker, white house bureau chief for "the washington post" and an msnbc political analyst. and jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and the pentagon. he's also an msnbc national security analyst. mike, let's start with you and your reporting tonight. take us through this december episode and just how close the president came to firing robert mueller in december. >> there are reports out there that mueller had sent a subpoena to deutsche bank, a bank that had long been associated with trump, saying that mueller wanted documents directly related to trump and his family. obviously trump has sort of obsessed and the media has obsessed about these so-calledd line he tried to create last summer, saying if mueller was looking at his finances beyond the question of russia, that would have passed it. if you remember, trump never said what he would do about that. but when he saw this back in

michael cohen, that's a president's personal lawyer apparently looking for evidence about payments to stormy daniels, the star who is not from russia and did not hack our election in any case. steve schmidthat many of the constitution would be thrilled by this. they always hated the bill of rights, those guys. >> if you listen closely tonigh tonight, you can hear the faint applause from heaven of this country's founding fathers who bequeathed to us a nation or the rule of law is supreme. we are a nation of laws. >> tucker: the founders wanted to know, did the money go to stormy daniels? what happened to stormy daniels? jonathan turley as a professional at george washington university's school of law and he joins us tonight. i think you were one of the trustworthy people in this conversation. i don't know what your politics are. i don't think we agree politically, but i trust her legal views. what do you make of this raid on the president's lawyer's office? >> part of this is of cohen is making. he players his relationship between a lawyer and a business partner. that's dangerous under any circumstances, but particularly if you're going to evoke client attorney privilege is. he may have t