wikileaks, i love wikileaks, this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. >> another one came in today. this wikileaks is like a treasure trove. >> getting off the plane, they were just announcing new wikileaks, and i wanted to stay there, but i didn't want to keep you waiting. i love reading those wikileaks. >> shimon, how those significant might those old statements be to mueller? >> no doubt they could be very significant. i think the issue here, we have nothing in the sbimtd that says what roger stone was doing in reaching out to wikileaks or using intermediaries to reach out to wikileaks, there is nothing in the indictment that says what the trump campaign was doing to try to get this information was illegal. we have not seen that yet. we don't even know if we're going to see that at some point. there is a lot of legal reasons for that, and i'm not going to bore people with that at this point. the issue really becomes what were people lying about. did they get to a point where they knew they were dealing with shady characters? as the indictment alleges. obviously, roger stone, they

wikileaks, i love wikileaks. >> this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. it tells you the inner heart.otta read it. >> we have learned so much from wikileaks. >> boy, i love reading those wikileaks. >> is mueller getting closer to trump? >> he's absolutely getting closer to trump. i mean, he's a little bit coy or teasing in the way that paragraph that evan read a few minutes ago is written, in the passive voice. >> someone directs a senior campaign official. >> it's a mystery for us to try to figure out or stay tuned until the next indictment. if there is one. but it's definitely closer to trump. in part because of that and also because stone is someone who has had a long association with trump. and just the mere fact that it's someone who is this close to trump is being charged with a crime. trump is obviously a little bit nervous about it. he praised stone for hanging tough, essentially, last month in a tweet. that was unusual. >> right, and of course, you point out they have known each other for decades. manafort and trump may have known of each other but were not related until the

and wikileaks released it. roger stone really brought this attention on himself by bragging publicly that he was in touch directly with julian assange, something he later said wasn't true, he back-pedalled on that, and then it became clear he was dealing with wikileaks through an intermediary named randy credico, who is a talk show host, and then saying to randy credico, see if they have this stuff, see if we can get more information out. that's what he claimed to have done. the mueller team says they have e-mails and texts claiming that he did. the problem for him is when he went before congress in september of 2017, he denied all that and then directed, according to mueller, told randy credico to lie about it, and that's the person you're talking about in the clip from "the godfather," he said be like that guy in "the godfather" and if you don't lie, i'm going to take your dog. that's the essence of what this is. the picture that's painted here is he was bragging about his contacts with wikileaks and the trum

wikileaks, i love wikileaks. and i said write a couple of them down. >> so, again, that is october 10th of 2016. and by then, a lot had been exposed about the e-mail hack. legally, how do you look at what the president was saying around the campaign trail in light of all we all know. >> that clip has not aged well for the president. he's not going to like a video where he's saying i like wikileaks. the question will be how deep within the campaign did the knowledge go? the key phrase is senior trump campaign officials. note the senior, note the plural, officials. and we have that mysterious passage where one of the officials was directed by an unnamed person. i think the biggest question i have here, we know stone was in contact with senior campaign officials. who were they? how senior were they? and how much did they know? they knew wikileaks was involved in dumping these, and they were coordinated strategically about what types of e-mails, what types of messages, which i think it is a big step against the whole

i knew it was coming from wikileaks. they were getting it from a hostile foreign government? >> it could be. you have to knowingly commit a crime, especially for something of that severity. the point i think that jeffrey made before, there's so much puffery involved with how roger stone has operated throughout this entire thing. we have have wondered how much did he actually know ahead of time versus how much did he put himself out there as someone who was all knowing? he repeatedly said he was contact with assange. was he actually in contact versus going through some intermediary? >> as frustrating as it is to figure this out, people like jerome corsi, roger stone saying they had contacts. now they say, no, i may have talked about it but i didn't have them. imagine what it's like to be a prosecutor on the team. >> i'm sure mueller knows more. jeffrey? >> i just -- yes, it's true that maybe stone didn't know that wikileaks was getting these e-mails from russia. but everyone knew they were stolen e-mails. the idea that ev

wikileaks -- i love wikileaks! this wikileak stuff is unbelievable. it tells you the iinner heart. you got to read it. >> it's been amazing what's coming out on wikileaks. another one came in today. this wikileaks is like a treasure trove. as i was getting off the plane, they were just announcing new wikileaks and i wanted to stay there but i didn't want to keep you waiting. let me run back into the plane and find out. boy, i love reading those wikileaks. this just came out. wikileaks. >> it's another example of the american president being more pro-russian propaganda than he is american national security. >> i think what happens when an indictment comes out and reads it to say is there conduct by the president to violate federal statue? i don't think that's the correct inquiry. is the conduct by the president candidate and president that violates his oath of office, because at the end of all of these deals, financial trees about trump tower moscow, political deals about wikileaks, conduct by the president in which his end of the bargain was enact the most pro-russia, pro-putin, ob

we've learned so much from wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks. wikileaks just came out with lots of unbelievable things. >> trump, at the time a candidate, was interested to see what wikileaks had to say. that raised some alarms among others in the 2016 campaign run-up. >> yes, you know, the hacking of those e-mails was not some side event. the discovery, the wikileaks, the dumps of those john podesta e-mails became a core part of trump's message in the general election. he talked about it almost every day at the rallies. it was top of mind for candidate trump. he saw these e-mails. and everything that it uncovered, be it the sort of palace intrigue within the clinton campaign to those clinton goldman sachs speech transcripts that created all dines of problems for her with the progress ev left. trump saw that as a way to help him win. it was a message he usedness rallies. it was a message he used in his debates. he was thinking about it a lot and paying attention to the discovery of those e-mails. >> roger stone, by the way, is at that

the secretary of state mike pompeo who has called wikileaks, he said it is time to call out wikileaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often embedded by state actors like russia and now we have been told by robert mueller's team that the trump campaign was trying to make contact and coordinate with a non-state hostile intelligence service often embedded by state actors like russia. i can make one other point? i don't think these fbi agents are getting paid. i think these are right now furloughed fbi workers working without a salary doing their job showing up to work without pay and that job today involves taking into custody and arresting someone very close to the president. jeffrey toobin, our chief legal analyst joins us right now. also happens to be someone who's written exsetensively about rog stone. this is a day people saw coming, jeffrey? what's your take. >> roger -- you're not roger, berman, i was just in that house two weeks ago. i am a in a little bit of shock watching this video. it's, you know, i have known roger stone for a very long time,

. >> that's wikileaks. stone say to organization one? did they talk? >> what did they say to him? >> garrett, quick last thought and we'll take a break. your final thought on all of this we just discussed? >> so what's hard to know at this exact moment and anne sort of hinted at this, is whether this is all that mueller has on roger stone or is this the beginning? because it is notably an indictment that's focused only on really those false statements and that obstruction and it doesn't get into some of those charges that we would expect to see like conspiracy against the united states or campaign finance violations that could point to sort of those larger questions of collusion. so the question is, is that still to come? >> all right, guys, dig in, get a copy of this indictment we're looking at, dig in. we're going to have much more on this. stick around. breaking news, roger stone taken into custody by the fbi. what does this mean for the mueller investigation? more coming up. man 1: this is my body of pr

where's the wikileaks collaboration? where's the evidence that i received anything from wikileaks or julian assange? and passed it on to donald trump or the trump campaign? >> let's bring in our panel. former u.s. attorney joyce vance, frank figliuzzi, who in the past has worked for robert mueller. jeremy bash former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon, and philip rucker, white house bureau chief for "the washington post." joyce, by our reckoning it's been about 18 hours since the the feds showed up with battering ram, if needed, at roger stone's front door for the folks who have lived a friday in america, perhaps just getting home from work and getting caught up, what was your takeaway from this today >> i think the most important thing that we saw today was the fact pattern that you referenced in your opening comments we learned today that someone directed a senior campaign official to have roger stone find out what else wikileaks had. and of course we're all speculating about whether or not that's the president we

remember, of course, this is while he was campaigning saying, i love wikileaks. it's not like he thought wikileaks is the outlaw organization that his cia director later described it to be. >> right. >> this, i think, the use of the passive voice in that sentence is extremely interesting and potentially important. >> go ahead, david gregory. >> what does it add up to is a critical question. i obviously agree with jeffrey if the president is directing this contact, you know, we know a few things at this point as the indictment spells out. the dnc gets hacked. the russians are behind it. mueller has already indicted russian security personnel for hacking. now you have someone close to trump who was in contact indirectly according to the indictment with wikileaks. the candidate says wikileaks is great. he's calling on the russians to find missing e-mails. and he's clearly open for any kind of opposition research wherever it comes from. stone is acting like a gadfly is his defense here. he's just b.s.ing and pumping things up. is the extent of it that, hey, roger, fi

where is the wikileaks collaboration? where is the evidence that i received anything from wikileaks or julian assange and passed it along to donald trump with the trump campaign >> leads bring in our lead-off panel, joyce vance, frank coluzzi, director for counterintelligence who in the past has worked for robert mueller. jeremy bash, former counsel of the house intel as well, and philip rucker, bureau chief for the "washington post." joyce,reckoning, it's been about 18 hours for battery ramming at the stones' front door after getting caught up, what was your takeaway from this today? >> i think the most important thing we saw today was the pattern that you referenced in your opening comments. we learned today that someone directed a senior campaign official to have roger stone find out what else wikileaks had. and, of course, we're all speculating about whether or not that's the president we don't know for certain. but someone powerful enough to direct someone high up in the campaign was involved in this. so stone can go

. >> this just came out, wikileaks, i love wikileaks.kileaks stuff is unbelievable. it telling you the inner heart. you got to read it. >> it's amazing what's coming out on wikileaks. another one came in today, wikileaks is like to a treasure trove. they were announcing about wikileaks, i wanted to stay there but i didn't want to keep you waiting. boy, i love those wikileaks. >> joey, can you see the president at all opening himself up to vulnerability here with those statements, maybe incriminating himself? >> i really do, christi. let me just say this not as a partisan, but as an octave, trying to analyze the situation, you ask yourself at home, wikileaks, you don't think somebody in his campaign is feeding information regarding wikileaks regarding a contact they have that knows that information is coming out that is damaging. that the president knowing nothing number any contact or coordination between mr. stone or anyone else supplying the information. maybe he doesn't, okay? but from us in the courtroom, we tell you, ladies and gent

roger stone and wikileaks. and the dnc and the stuff that was stolen from the democratic party and the clinton campaign by russian government hackers. andrew miller complied with that request for documents and communications. he did hand stuff over to the fbi. but when he was also subpoenaed to testify about those same matters, to come to washington, d.c. and testify in person to the grand jury convened by the special counsel, to that subpoena, andrew miller said no. and the reason anybody has paid any attention to andrew miller's case since then is because his no, his refusal to testify to the grand jury, that has become a legal vehicle for conservative legal groups who are using mr. miller's case as a way to try to attack and derail the special counsel's investigation overall. andrew miller saying no to that subpoena, him subsequently being held in contempt of court, him risking jail time for refusing to testify to the grand jury, that is the way some conservative legal groups are trying to challenge the cons

they wanted my client to testify about roger stone and wikileaks. well, roger stone and wikileaks, he got arrested. he's in court, done. the grand jury can't keep collecting evidence about that defendant if the indicting part of their job is done. andrew miller is off the hook, right? no. it turns out he's not. really? tell me more. sara murray and caitlyn at cnn report that andrew miller's lawyer, his defense lawyer contacted the special counsel's office after roger stone got indicted to ask whether andrew miller would still be needed, whether they would still want him to testify before the grand jury and according to cnn, the special counsel's office told andrew miller's attorney, actually, yeah, we still want your client's testimony before this grand jury. andrew miller's defense lawyer says the special counsel's office told him that they consider this quote still a live case. well, all grand juries do is indict people. if they have a live case, that means i mean, if the grand jury is still working on this, still taking more testimony on this aft

wikileaks staff member replies and attempts to distance w wikileaks. the false claims of association being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. don't go there if you don't want us to correct you. wikileaks tweeted this statement from an assange lawyer friday. the charges against mr. stone do not allege that mr. stone lied about his lack of contacts with assange. but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications. and goes on to say that the office of the special counsel has never spoken with mr. assange. fredricka, as for assange, he is now well into his seventh year of staying here in the ecuadorian embassy. the ecuadorian government is now enforcing new tougher stricter house rules on its guests, including a ban on him doing anything or saying anything with the intention of interfering in the affairs of another country. fredricka. >> all right, phil black, thank you so much, in london. let's talk more about this. with me now is josh campbell who is a former fbi supervisory speci

if wikileaks and stone's camps deny stone and assange ever meeting and wikileaks said there wasn't a back channel tweeting these are only stone/corsi attempts at braggadocio. we know that stone and wikileaks have communicated directly from the private messages on twitter. october 13, 2016, stone messages wikileaks that since he has been defending them and assange they may want to re-examine the strategy of attacking him. a staff member attempts to distance wikileaks from stone. we appreciate that, however, the false claims of association have been used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. don't go there if you don't want us to correct you. wikileaks tweeted this statement from a lawyer on friday. the charges against mr. stone do not allege that mr. stone lied about his lack of contacts with julian assange but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications. and goes on to say that the office of the special counsel has never spoken with mr. assange. as for assange, he's well into the seventh year of being confined to t

it looks like mueller may be able to connect wikileaks to the trump campaign and russia to wikileaks. we have not seen the threats to connect trump to russia on the roger stone line of investigation. >> correct and nor does this indictment connect roger stone to russia. it says that roger stone was bragging that he could get this stuff and the campaign said well go for it, see what else you can get, and he then freelancing on his own, instead of in a self promotional way, he is trying to push other people to see what they can get from wikileaks. he painted this own target on his back. he was publicly claiming early on he had been in touch with julian julian assange. but nothing directly connects him to the campaign or the russians. >> so what is wikileaks. is it a journalistic organization, which if it is, i think the questions of what is criminal and what isn't as sal put it, you may not like it, it may be unethical, but it may not be illegal. or are they a front for russian intelligence. and it seems the american intelligence community is convinced they're a conduit. what is that in

>> in the way they haven't characterized wikileaks. there's nothing to suggest even if they were exchanging this information with wikileaks or anyone in the campaign, there's nothing here that says that was a crime. the crime that we keep seeing that have been committed in this entire investigation -- >> lying. >> -- is lying. and the question is what is going on? why were people consistently lying? has to be for political reasons. they didn't want to damage on the don and his chances for being elecced. they knew there were a lot of questions about wikileaks and there whether there was an exchange of information and they did everything they could to hide that. they didn't want it getting out publicly. that's what year seeing consistently from michael cohen to roger stone, michael flynn, other people, george papadopoulos. we don't knohis entire reason. but in the end it's about protecting donald trump politically. >> i've heard so many people say you get in there and -- even the defense of roger stone. you get in there and they confuse

we also know that wikileaks work with the russians and former chief mike pompeo worked with wikileaks to form a hostile service. if the indictment is true, we basically have the trump campaign trying to get damaging information about clinton from wikileaks working with the russians. >> so there are the facts of the indictment where prosecutors are alleging he was seeking this information from wikileaks and that he was coordinating with trump campaign officials as he was doing it, but when you look at the charges that have to do with witness tampering and lying, there is a different thing. so you think this is just showing where the charges ultimately, the actual counts, are going to go beyond what we've seen today? >> the most stunning part of the indictment is that a senior trump campaign official was directed to contact roger stone. so what i want to know is who did that. certainly it wasn't melania. it can only be a certain number of people that could have made that high-level direction. jared kushner, donald trump jr. or even donald trump himself. as the facts come out and i'm on

suggesting he had information on wikilea wikileaks. stone in the days leading up to the democratic national convention, he seemed to hint on twitter and in public, he had a way of knowing something would happen with john podesta's e-mails. that is notable. after the "access hollywood" tape dropped in october, the hacked e-mails came out. the timing of all this is peculiar >> it certainly is more questions to answer when it comes to the president and what he will say and what's next when it comes to this we will watch that julia, thank you for being with us >>> the headline reads, we can see collusion with the soon i indictme indictment e thauthor of the article joins me next to talk about it and saying, "really?" so capital one is building something completely new. capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reim

roger stone was working wikileak for information. and most significantly also that senior level people, as you said, don, knew about this, were asking him to do more. and then who was directing this senior campaign person? we don't know that. and i think it is a good point that you make, that who would be higher than this senior level person? we don't yet know. you know, there have been a lot of questions whether or not trump campaign knew about -- had a heads up on these wikileaks e-mails, how much did they know? i think this indictment answers that question quite clearly. they knew things were going on. >> john, listen, no one wants that knock at any time, especially in the middle of the night or early morning. what do you think is going through roger stone's head when that happened? >> i suspect he was pretty shocked. and i suspect his dogs were pretty shocked too, from what i can pick up from today's news. you know, i -- i don't like to see law enforcement embarrass potential defendants that are charged. and i don't know that tha

i received nothing from wikileaks or from the russians. i passed nothing on to donald trump or the trump campaign. we have been through this ad nauseam. it is a wild goose chase. >> reporter: white house press secretary sarah sanders responding to the developments this morning. >> this has nothing to do with the president and certainly nothing to do with the white house. this is something that has to do solely with the individual. not something that affects us in this building. >> reporter: stone has recently said i will never testify against trump. for his part the president recently said it's nice to know some people still have guts. meanwhile, nbc news learned that the the president's former top adviser steve bannon is one of the campaign officials referenced in the statement. bannon cooperated with mueller and mueller only considers him a witness. president trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with russia. savannah and hoda? >> thank you. >> we'll bring in pete williams. he's been poring over the indictment. good morning. a lot of

to get in touch with wikileaks. is something that is going to foreign entity, one that is lined with a foreign government before, asking for dirt on your political opponents. as andy said, it's smelly icky political stuff and you don't go to jail for that. that's one thing. but it brings more attention to don jr. and that meeting at trump tower. which we know there have been lies about. >> harris: also, to my knowledge, not mentioned in here is that -- as jessica is putting it -- the house select committee on intelligence is the venue that roger stone is alleged to have lied to. we have seen lying to congress, areas where people have been caught in investigations of mueller. talk to me about that part of the indictment. i believe it's on page 3. >> andy: harris, looking at this, i think we are going to have a harder time proving the false statements than they are proving the witness tampering. it looks based on the text that you have here, the witness tampering looks very strong. but i am very surprised that some of

i never talked to him quote about wikileaks.e may have just talked to him about getting dirt on hillary from this interesting source. >> i can honestly say that candidate trump, president trump and i have never discussed the wikileaks disclosures before, during or after -- >> well, that's hard to fathom in light of today's indictment which alleges stone lied about discussing wikileaks with several members of trump's campaign. further more he was frequently in touch with trump. >> how often do you talk to him? >> from time to time, not on a daily basis but from time to time. >> when is the last time you talked to him? >> saturday. >> we talk from time to time. i decline to characterize the content of those conversations. >> i speak to donald trump yesterday. he's in good spirits. >> can you divulge to us, raunler, i respectfully answer this question, some of those middle of night phone conversations you had with mr. trump? >> i can't and it's been my policy not to discuss personal conversations or it will end, honestly. >> he see

it is one how does the intelligence community view wikileaks? >> much as pompeo characterized it as a hostile intelligence service. we have unfortunately a long track record going back to the manning revelations that he shared -- or it is a strong connection. >>. >> you pointed out to my colleagues there are striking parallels between with what the trump campaign was saying in relation to hillary clinton. what is most concerning to you? >> just that the c word that everybody is dancing around, whether there was collusion, conspiracy from my part, and i'll doubtline this, the striking par rits and similarities and what the rush shaps. it was respect to hillary clinton. can't say there's a conspiracy and nothing in the indictment about that or solution but this is another brick in the wall if. >> thanks so much for joining us. >> thanks. >> a much more on all of the breaking news right after this. at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with f

we should remind people wikileaks in the view of the u.s. intelligence was a russian cutout, a middleman. russia stole e-mails, used wikileaks to distribute them to the world. looking at today because folks at home have trouble piecing it all together because stuff from the investigation has come out in drips and drabs. the significance of what we learned today in the bigger picture of the mueller investigation. >> sure. first of all, jim, people always lie for a reason. that's something you learn as a prosecutor. it's something people inherently know as a matter of common sense. why is roger stone lying here? what is he lying about? he's lying to the house about the nature of his contacts with the trump campaign on one side and with wikileaks on the other side through intermediaries. why is he trying to hide it? what's wrong with it. if you look at the indictment, one of the big questions is what does roger stone do now? he's famously slippery. he's really pinned down by the indictment. this is an exceptionally sharply drafted and well supp

july of 2016, stone informed senior trump campaign officials that he had information indicating wikileaksad documents whose release would be damaging to the clinton campaign close quote then after the first batch of dnc e-mails were released in late july, a senior trump campaign official was directed to contact stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information wikileaks had. stone thereafter told the trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by wikileaks. as of the only thing we don't know the identity of that, quote, senior trump campaign official or the person who defect direct them to contact stone here's what told reporters after his appearance in shackles before a florida court today >> after a two-year inquisition the charges today relate in no way to russian collusion, wikileaks collaboration or any other illegal act in connection with the 2016 campaign at the crack of dawn, 29 fbi agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles with their lights flashing when they could simply have contacted my attorneys and i would have been more than wi

wikileaks, wikileaks. yet he knew nothing of stone's efforts to contact wiki on his behalf?mes in to save the convention, winds up being the face and central point of the campaign, and yet the president doesn't know what he's doing? and if he did know and lied to you about it, you know what? that may not be a crime. but it is a really big breach of public trust, and one that may incite a popular call for political action. is it impeachable? look, it doesn't have to be a crime to be impeachable. it is whatever congress says it is. and we've never had a sitting president stand accused of seeking to coordinate or exploit the efforts of a foreign power, let alone an inimical one, let alone russia in their attempts to interfere in an election, let alone efforts that were meant to be to his benefit in his election. this is serious stuff. for now, it comes down to the three amigos. almost 40 years of wheeling and dealing that got them where they always dreamed of being, the white house. how did they do it, and what role did the president play? in fact, it may come down to just one

i never received any of the wikileaks disclosures. i never communitied with wikileaks. on the other hand, i don't have a valid passport, either that or it's about to expire in the next few days. i have no previous record. i do not own a firearm, i am not violent and there was no need to have 29 fbi agents with assault weapons and hand grenades to smash in my front door. they could have called my attorney and i would have surrendered voluntarily. my wife is deaf. she was in the upstairs bedroom. i had a concern that she did not know what was going on and could be shot or injured. my dogs are not dangerous. they're tiny, although they were terrorized. so when you don't have evidence, you use theatrics. it was an overreaction and the real proof of it is the judge only hours later gave me a $250,000 surety bond on my own signature. if you're a flight risk, they wouldn't have done that. >> he didn't have to give you any bond, but when you say there's no proof. i don't want to dig into the merits. i know the legal council you have been given and i understand it. i'm surprised

gru doing the hack and some cutout to get it to wikileaks and there's wikileaks and then wikileaks has some intermediary to roger federer a-- roger stone you attenuate the chain. the gru doesn't hack the emails and show up in trump tower and hand it to donald trump. to the extent you have an attenuated chain the question is at what point does it become attenuated enough you can't charge anyone or you can't get them on the actual transfer? >> right, the short answer legally is it doesn't have to go very far if you want to charge a conspiracy or an attempt which i think we may well be seeing and i want to second both mimi and marcy's point. stone is one garrulous fellow and the search is going to turn up quite a number of emails of the like that he has already sent but it's the part of the whole counterintelligence side as you say, there is once you get into sort of the espionage world it's all a hall of mirrors and denials and plausible counter ways of portraying these things and gru and the trump organization are experts at sort of sussing out how to make it seem that there is at least

not that i had communications with wikileaks.e worked with randy credico because i don't think roger ever believed. i don't recall roger thinking, if i had a contact with wikileaks, i think roger would have leapfrogged me immediately and taken the contact himself. >> all right. jerome corsi, thanks for s answering our questions today. >>> could a democrat from texas be the right candidate to take on trump in 2020. julian castro will be here in moments. a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. neutrogena® you see clear skin. cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or

continued releasing stolen e-mails, candidate trump cheering them on. >> wikileaks, i love wikileaks! >> reporter: mueller does not say stone spoke to wikileaks directly, but the indictment reveals a trail of e-mails and communications implying he was abreast of their plans. in october, 2016, stone writes to a supporter involved with the trump campaign, "the payload is still coming." soon after, wikileaks releases the first batch of podesta's e-mails. according to the indictment, "an associate of the high ranking trump campaign official sent a text message to stone that read, well done." prosecutors say stone tried to cover up his activity. he is charged with lying to congress, obstruction, and witness tampering. >> i will plead not guilty to these charges. i will defeat them in court. >> reporter: he vows he won't turn against president trump. >> there is no circumstance whatsoever under which i will bear false witness against the president nor will i make up lies to ease the pressure on myself. >> reporter: the white house says president trump is in the clear. >> this has nothing t

we know that he also exchanged messages with the wikileaks twitter account.think there's more here? >> well, we also know that don junior has changed his account as to what happened on that trump tower meeting. again, the pattern here of so many people from general flynn to donald trump jr. to paul manafort to jared kushner, who have had to change their accounts as it related to dealing with the russians shows a consciousness of guilty. if there was an innocent explanation, they would have offered that first. that's why i think all the arrows continue to point in the same direction. this team was a team of cheats. they were willing to do anything to take help from the russians, and we should, for all these reasons, allow mueller to continue his investigation and get right to work, as we already are doing on the house intelligence and judiciary committee. >> speaker pelosi is out with a statement about the stone indictment, and it says, in the face of 37 indictments, the president's continued actions to undermine the special counsel investigation raise the que

if you connect the dots between him and other sources, it lead directly to wikileaks and wikileaks leadsnd cyber warfare. those are all connections for which rad stone i will testify aga again, the reality is just as you said. the folks who say that the most loudly are often the ones who ultimately do end up cooperating, if the mueller team is willing to offer that agreement. >> rudy giuliani a little less than a month and a half ago when asked whether president trump knew about his communications with roger stone about wikileaks. >> did roger stone ever give the president a heads up concerning wikileaks and the dnc? >> i don't believe so. ben agai-- again, if roger ston gave a heads up -- it's not a crime. s that why this is so weird, strange. the crime is conspiracy to act. collusion is not you a crime. >> let's bring in national security reporter for nbcus as we continue to shift through the seven-count incandidate an arrest of roger stone in florida this morning. what more. i think it gives us a window of where robert mueller goes next. there's a high-ranking trump campaign official

nothing from wikileaks or from the russians. i passed nothing on to donald trump or the trump campaign. >> reporter: but prosecutors say he lied to congress by claiming he had no e-mails or texts documenting his efforts to find out what wikileaks was up to, and they say he urged credico to lie too, invoking a character in one of the "godfather" movies who lies to congress. and threatened to take away credico's dog. >> like other mueller indictments, this indictment suggests there's more to come, there are other shoes to drop, that he's looking at other people for similar conduct. >> reporter: stone is on bail now, soon to face mueller's prosecutors in court. pete williams, nbc news, washington. >>> this is peter alexander. president trump tonight ignoring questions about the indictment of his controversial confidant, roger stone, reserving his outrage for twitter, blasting the russia investigation as the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country, no collusion. the president's aides trying to distance him from the charges

theorist to get to wikileaks. who cares? who cares? but that distinction between those two stories was apparently enough to risk all of this which has now resulted in seven felony charges and getting arrested on cnn before dawn. so now we have a new neon sign in the shape of an arrow blinking, pointing out what otherwise not seemed to be illegal or even particularly scand scandalous behavior. what is it about this -- what is it about this story that you have to go to these lengths to protect? this story which doesn't seem to be anything scandalous has cause grown adults to risk years in prison to try to keep it under wraps. what the red neon arrow is pointing at is whatever this line of communication that goes from the trump campaign to roger stone to jerome corsi to wikileaks. i have never cared about that before, but boy do i now boy do i now, now that i know the links to which these characters were willing to go to make sure that stayed secret and briefly, there is just one last point to know about the roger st

i never received any of the wikileaks disclosures. i never communicated with assange or wikileaks other than the limited on twitter direct message which i gave to the house intelligence committee last september i guess it was. >> so stone denies any of the guilt in these charges. but given a case that prosecutors have built against him and from your expert opinion, how serious is this for him and what does it mean for the man he once advised? >> it is pretty serious and it's probably going to get more serious. when he calls a process crime is a series of lies to congressional committees who are -- were investigating the streamly grave topic of whether russia interfered in the 2016 election. this is not a stray or immaterial misstatement say to an fbi act. but the indictment, in addition, really implicates stone in conduct involving the coordination and even the incitygation of the release of the hacked e-mails that russia obtained and then passed through to julian assange. in other words, i think mueller has begun to lay a predicate f

i received nothing from wikileaks or from the russians. i passed nothing onto donald trump or the trump campaign. we've been through this ad nauseam. it is a wild goose chase. >> again, a direct contradiction to what the special counsel says nature is steve bannon. now a person with direct knowledge of this investigation and indictment tells nbc news the president's former chief strategist is referenced at least twice in this indictment. bannon one of those high ranking trump officials mentioned. let me bring in jeff bennett at the white house, julia ainsley in washington, kelly o'donnell is on the hill. jeff, we're hearing from the white house. you spoke with sarah huckabee sanders, and we're expecting any minute to get a formal statement, you could call it from rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer. bring us up to speed. >> the white house strategy so far is to put as much distance as possible between roger stone and president trump. this is really an all too familiar strategy that the white house has used before to separate president tr

wikileaks maintenance maintainst even a back channel.his is stone and corsi braggadocio. amid all of please conflicting statements we know that stone and wikileaks have communicated directly from these private messages. saying wikileaks since he's been defending he and assange, and a staff member replies in attempts to distance from stone. we appreciate that, however the false communication of associations have been used to undermine the impact of our publications. don't go there if you don't want us to correct you. the charges against mr. stone do not allege that will stone lied about his lack of contacts with julian assange. but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications. and goes on to say that the office of the special counsel has never spoken with mr. assange. phil black, cnn, london. >>> was this deal any different from what he's been offered for weeks now? and what does this mean for the fight ahead? >>> plus the list of 2020 presidential candidates grows every day, but, first, everyb

that's what i want. >> i want to ask you one kwquic question on wikileaks.e among your party in 2016. let me play a clip for you from october of 2016 where you pledged never to use anything that came from wikileaks. take a listen. >> i personally will not be talking about any revelations that come about as a result of wikileaks. our intelligence officials who are not partisan people have told us this is the work of a foreign intelligence agency. what i would say to my republican congresses, today it's them, today it could be us. >> if you work with wikileaks, are you working against america? >> look, i don't know if everybody had the same idea i did or had access to the same information i did when i said that. it should be clear by now that wikileaks and others like that could have been tools of foreign intelligence used to divide america. i believe anyone cooperating with them is doing the work of a foreign intelligence agency to harm us. i know what you are getting at with roger stone and all that. i can tell you -- frankly, i mean this in truth, not in a

releases and what other damaging information wikileaks had regarding the clinton campaign.interesting there is how they say the senior trump campaign official was directed to contact stone. the question is, who perhaps could be more senior in a campaign than donald trump at the time? it does not say anything else about the president here. certainly, that line has many of us wondering whether or not they are referring to the president here. >> there's two other questions. one, when did roger stone decide to do the richard nixon victory sign? i have a feeling it was a while ago. i would love to know his thought process on that. what are we learning -- roger stone and his attorney, they have been critical of how the fbi raided him, saying, there was no point in doing that. you didn't need people knocking on the door at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. you could have called his attorney. why did they do that? >> i think roger stone from everything we know in the conversations our reporters have had with him, he was hoping the fbi would call him and tell him to surrender. it could be b

wikileaks staff member replies in an attempt to distance wikileaks from stone. we appreciate that.owever, the false claims of association of being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications, don't go there if you don't want us to correct you. wikileaks tweeted this statement from an assange lawyer on friday. the charges against mr. stone do not allege mr. stone lied about his lack of contacts with julian assange. but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications. and goes on to say that the office of the special counsel has never spoken with mr. assange. phil black, cnn, london. >> phil, thank you. >>> we're tracking developments in the philippines. a military official says at least 17 people are dead, dozens more wounded, after twin blasts at a cathedral. they happened in the town of jolo in southern sulu province. >> the first blast happened inside the cathedral, the second targeted soldiers nearby. the region has seen violence between muslims and christians for decades. >>> rescue workers in brazil have a long ro

wikileaks distributed the documents that russian military intelligence stole from the democratic party be the clinton campaign roger stone is alleged to have lied to congress repeatedly about his communications with wikileaks personally and through intermediaries he's also supposed to have lied about whether or not his efforts with wikileaks were done on his own say so or whether the trump campaign put him up to it. i've got some expert help on this tonight a hot of people who follow this from a legal perspective are suggesting today and tonight the stone indime is something that puts the central question of the mueller investigation closer to president trump and his campaign than any other indictment we have seen thus far again, we will get some expert help on that coming up in just a moment, including the significant of the fact that now yet another person close to the president has been charged with witness tampering in the mueller investigation. that is something the president himself sort of increasingly look, like he may have some legal problem of his own again, we will get to al