tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC July 20, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
adviser will be interviewed by the senate intelligence committee in a closed session. kushner's lawyer said in a statement -- joining me now, msnbc contributor for the "new york times" who interviewed donald trump. so let's go into that meeting. the headline, donald trump saying he never would have appointed jeff sessions to be the attorney general. did you get sense that he is saying that because he didn't understand that jeff sessions had involvement in the russian issue? or that he thought he would be in a position to cover his back essentially in that job? >> i'm not sure. he did not explain exactly why he felt that way. but he's clearly very disappointed in sessions. he clearly sees this. >> and we've heard reports before that donald trump was disappointed in sessions. it seems the go down to that one thing.
that donald trump is not in a position to weigh in. i have to ask you, were there any follow-up, why would it matter if he recused himself unless he thought jeff sessions could provide him some cover? >> we did follow up with questions. it is difficult with the president. he speaks very quickly and he says a lot of things in the conversation and can me andier. we had reported that sessions, that trump was upset with sessions about his decision to recuse and the appointment of mueller, what's different is that publicly the president is doing this. now he has an attorney general who is not necessarily had the legs cut out from underneath him but clearly on the bad size of the president. and it will be interested to see what the fallout is. is there any impact on sessions and his ability to do his job. or is this just something that sessions shrugs off and continues going forward. trump is clearly upentity the
fact mueller has been appointed and he is looking at these different issues. and that he has the ability to take his investigation. >> we're going to get to that. take a listen. >> sessions gets the job. right after gets job, he recuses himself. he was out of -- he should have never recused himself. if he was going on recuse himself, i would have picked somebody else. >> he gave you no heads up. >> zero. so jeff sessions takes job. gets into the job. recuses himself. which frankly very unfair to the president. how do you recuse yourself? if he would have recused himself
before the job, i would have said, it is extremely unfair. and that's a mild word to the president. so he recuses himself. i then end up with a second man. who is a deputy. >> i want to stay with this for a minute. the crux of the anger about the ongoing investigation has consumed his presidency. i want to move on to robert mueller who you did mention. in this investigation, according to this, the entire interview is on the website. he gets sue the question of muler and whether or not he thinks his investigation could conceivably go too far. did he then get into whether or not, if he thought mueller strayed into areas he thought were unfair, whether or not he would fire him? >> so he wouldn't commit to firing mueller if he goes beyond a certain line. he did say there's a red line. if emanueler is looking at things related to his finances, related to things outside the
russian investigations, it would be a violation. he didn't define what he meant by a violation. he clearly sees the purview to look at russian meddling in the election. any time folks around him, the president, and folks had russia. but he doesn't see the mandate is going any further than that. and the question is, that what will happen with mueller's investigations. as we've seen with special counsels or special prosecutors in the past, they end to turn order a lot of rocks and look at a lot of things. often different from what they start. with the clinton investigation, it was a whitewater investigation that led to monica lewinsky. so folks had trump world are very concerned about where mueller may go and what mueller may do and whether this becomes an unwieldy thing casts a shadow over his presidency. i think if he had his way. obviously mueller wouldn't be
there. if he had his way going forward, it would be a russian investigation that wraps up pretty quickly. he gets to some conclusions and allows him to move on with his presidency. >> isn't it the case that it has to do with the trump family and the financials are directly related to russia. i wonder if you asked whether or not he understands, part of the reasons it is irrelevant, it is thought that might be an inducement to the russians. >> we did talk to him about his financials and he said he has no real ties to russians money. that maybe russian folks may have bought a condo in one of his buildings and he did have the miss universe contest in russia several years ago but he said there's nothing more to it than that. he basically says, that there's nothing there on any of this stuff related to him.
he's no indication that he himself is under investigation. and that he is deeply skeptical of all these accusations about russia. >> did you take it as threat to mueller to back down? >> it certainly puts mueller on notice that he will be watching him closely. that they'll be looking at mueller and seeing if he steps outside the russia lane. if he does that, the president does have the power to get rid of mueller. the president does control the justice department. so that will be the question. if mueller steps out, what will trump do? could he politically survive getting rid of mueller? most people would say he wouldn't be able to survive politically getting rid of comey. he did get rid of comey. he paid an enormous price for that. he has continued on. so would he get rid of mueller? that's not something we really
got a definitive answer about. >> and the judiciary committee's hearings which is the reason that some of the other associates were being called in to talk to that committee. i want to talk to you about comey. you did talk about jim comey and apparently he made some additional allegations about the former fbi director if could you expand. >> yeah. so january 6, comey is that some of the other intelligence officials went to trump tower to brief trump on the russian meddling in the election. afterward, he pulled trump aside and told him about the dossier. this is collection of reports by a former british spy about information the russians may have on trump. blackmail information and business ties between trump associates and russia. what trump says is that in hindsight, looking back, he thought comey was trying to get leverage.
as comey was maneuvering to get his job, it was a play for leverage what comey has testified about, if you talk to folks at the fbi, what they would say is that comey was trying to tell trump, look. there's this information out there about you. the media may be publishing it and we have it and you have a right, you should know about it. to put him on notice about it. that it was not trying to compromise the president. >> i have to talk about vladimir putin. i don't know how much of your interview talked about vladimir putin. a lot of trust, i guess. in the word of vladimir putin when he said he didn't interfere in the election. he seemed the take his word for it. did you talk to him about the russian president and what did he say? >> we talked to him about this second meeting he had with putin at the nato conference several days ago. more than a week ago. and he talked about it and said when he went and spoke with it, it was after this dinner with putin.
that they discussed adoption. the interesting thing about the issue of adoption is that was the initial answer provides by don junior when it came out about ten days ago that he had had these meetings promising information about hillary clinton that what don junior had said, that it was about adoption and lobbying about adoption. that was an interesting coincidence. we weren't able to make essential, whether it was anything more than that. and the conversation veered off in other directions. >> all right. thank you so much for joining us at the last minute. this breaking news. thank you very much for your reporting and of course, everybody can read your interview. appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. >> paul butler, a professor and former federal prosecutor. i'm going to go through this point by point. telling "the new york times" hrgs he known he would recuse himself, he never would have appointed him. what does that say to you? >> he wants a loyalty pledge.
he misunderstands the way the department of justice works. which means that it is supposed to be independent of political interference even from the president of the united states. so again, this is vintage trump wanting everyone who works for him to pledge allegiance. but that simply isn't the way that our process works. >> and i'm wondering firgts strikes you the way it struck me, when i read that and heard that. it sounds as if he's saying that he specifically intended or wanted sessions to be available to kind of take care of things on russiagate. am i hearing that wrong? >> that's the way that i think special counsel mule her consider that. when we think about the law here, obstruction of justice comes to mind. this would be make him guilty of that. it does go to a state of mind. the statute says you're guilty of obstruction if you attempt on impede an investigation.
and it seems like a lot of trump's motives including hiring people to work in law enforcement centers around his concerns about russia. and his concerns about an investigation. >> and let's go to mueller. speaking of. investigation. he is the one leading it. what did you make of this statement by donald trump in his interview that essentially he would consider it to be out of bounds. for mueller to have gone too far if his investigation strays into the family finances. does that sound like threat to you to fire mueller if he gets beyond what trump believes is related to russia? >> it certainly sounds like a threat. and it will soumd like threat to spounl mueller. the last thing you want to do, if you're the subject of an investigation, is to issue a threat. either veiled or explicit to one of the best prosecutors in the country who has an ace team of
fbi agents who aren't looking at the actions. the family and campaign operatives. he is creating the impression, the president is, that he has something to hide. that he is fearful of what an investigation wants to uncover. timally the political line would be, i welcome the investigation. it will xonl rate me. that's not what we're hearing from this president. >> it's interesting. the fact donald trump seems to be very skittish about any investigation into his financials. can you explain from a prosecutor's point of view, the relationship the finances have to the case in chief? don't prosecutors have to look into what inducementes were there for them to cooperate including financial? >> absolutely. so this is an investigation about national security.
about whether the campaign colluded with the russians to subvert our democracy. and one issue is, why would they do it? or what's in it for them? so there might be a political motive if they thought that president trump would be better for russia than president hillary clinton. but there might be a financial motive. we look at the tools that were used. they're sophisticated. russian organized crime now is very into cyber terrorism. and hacking. and that's expensive. you have to pay for it. so what the deal was. was there a quid pro quo? how did the finances go down? you have to think about money launldering and look at the finances. again, what you do is welcome the investigation.
we have yet more breaking news. the office of senator john mccain saying that he has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. give us what we know. >> sure. well, we know from the senator's mayo clinic that this comes after this surgery that he had friday night to remove a blood clot over his left eye. the pathology test was the outstanding piece of the puzzle here. it came back today and the senator has been diagnosed with the primary brain tumor known as gio blastoma. i'm not an expert.
the statement says he's recovering well. that he's doing fine. he's resting comfortably, talking with his friends and family. we're hearing statements from his fellow senators, including senator flake talking about how tough he is. mitch mcconnell, talking about how tough he is. if you're starting to notice a pattern, there's no question, mccain msnbc is the toughest man in the senate. this is someone shot down in vietnam and tortured. he's had melanoma in the past. he's been through a lot. and i don't think it is an overstatement to say he is one the of most widely respected figures on both sides of the aisle. a lot of folks polling for him. no timetable yet on his return. that's something that will come from his doctors down the line. a lot of anxious people in the u.s. senate tonight thinking
about and praying for john mccain. >> all right. thank you very much. we appreciate that reporting. joining us now, medical correspondent, dr. torres. he made the comment that he is not a doctor and he can't explain what it is so we would appreciate if you would explain it. >> it is a type of brain tumor. unfortunately, it is very, very aggressive. it is a ma lving nanlt tumor. they say in their report that they got most of the tumor. at least they did. most people with this, the survival rate is 14 months to three years. this is not good news. >> and doing a quick calculation, he is 80 years old. give us the factors there. because john mccain has had many,le health problems. with the blood clot that he was treated for have been a signal
that indeed was what he was suffering from? >> that sounds like what happened. these tumors can bleed quite well. so they've done samples and looked at i under the micro scope. at his age, you have to worry with health kernels. he does have other ones. that will make his recovery are tougher as well. are there's radiation and chemotherapy. the main thing was getting out most of that tumor and they did. that's good news. >> talk about the long road. what would be involved? getting out as much of the tumor as they could. how long before doctors might know whether or not they got it all? >> so they scanned them and they say most of it. that doesn't highlight every little piece and every little cell is important when it comes to this. so they'll probably do radiation therapy. that's what they do. then they'll look and see what they do with it and how much is still left.
and then they'll decide whether to go to chemotherapy or not. that's tougher on the body and given his age and health conditions, they may say we don't want to do it. let's see what happens. it is a very fast moving tumor and aggressive and kit spread rapidly. the medium survival is just a few years in cases like this. >> we really appreciate the information. of course we're all pulling for senator john mccain. we really appreciate it. just ahead, more on the breaking news from donald trump's interview with "the new york times," warning special counsel robert mueller not to delve into his family finance that's he says are not related to russia and said he wouldn't have appointed jeff sessions if he knew sessions would recuse himself.
"the new york times" conducting a wide ranging interview with donald trump. he said he would not have hired jeff sessions had he known he would recuse himself. emthat robert mueller's investigation had the leash on it if donald trump feels it goes too far or delves into his family finances. there could be some finances unspecified. and he talked about the extra meeting that he had with vladimir putin. and we want to discuss that aspect of the interview now. joining me, former u.s. ambassador to the russian federation. and author of the plot to hack america. i've seen you on this air over the last few nights talking about the extra pull-aside meeting which isn't tech anybody what i a pull-aside is. in your view, what do you think are the primary damages of
having that kind of a meeting without any other americans beside the president in attendance? >> well, generally i think it is a good thing that diplomacy when heads of state have conversations, informal conversations. i work for president obama for five years. he did that at gatherings like this one. what was peculiar about this particular meeting in my opinion, number one, that it went on for so long. there are a lot of other heads of state. our ally who is the host. and president trump close to focus on president putin. we have a lot of other issues and guests. that's not good manners. also not good diplomacy. and you don't just chat about the weather and your kids for an hour. i've been in meetings with president putin. to have the president there without his talking points, without his officials, without
his advisers, to go one-on-one with putin for an hour suggests to me that something might come up that might not be in america's interests. and once president trump says something to president putin, that's really tough to walk back in terms of policy. >> and in addition to the other strange things, you had putin's translator there. how would donald trump even be sure he was being told what putin was really saying? it does seem to be a security. it's not a good idea. >> he made this point earlier in the day. that the only people who had any idea was vladimir putin and his translator and that said something completely different. >> most important was that he brought a japanese translator with him which means he planned to speak to president abe from japan.
it is a national security imperative that we have a president of the united states who will actually work within the norms of foreign policy so that we are defending, as josh marshall, a talking points memo put it. donald trump clearly had something he needed to speak to vladimir putin about that he wanted no other american to know about. >> and i want to ask you both this question. when donald trump told "the new york times" in the interview, what he talked and chatted with vladimir putin about was adoption. when i think adoption, i think magnitsky law. if that's what they're talking about, are you concerned what that conversation revolved around was repealing or rolling back the magnitsky act? >> absolutely. what other topic could there be?
it sanctioned human rights abusers in russia, including those responsible for the wrongful death. president putin then signed into law the law which banned adoptions from american citizens. >> there's no way unless lifting sanctions are on the table. either the magnitsky sanctions or some of the others put in place including ones for what russia did when they invaded ukraine or what they did when they did in our elections. so those are intertwinled. >> if you could explain to the audience, let's say the
magnitsky act was rolled back. let's say donald trump gave them with a they want. what would that enable vladimir putin to do in the united states if that sanction were gone? >> well, i think rachel maddow did a very good expose last flight on explaining how to eighth person in the room was a gentleman associated with russia creating companies, front companies in the united states, who had money laundered perhaps for thousands of russian interests. illicit money that's could have come into the united states. the this is actually hurting the russian oligarchy and personally hurting vladimir putin. these sanctions are personal. they are the tops of his priorities. to throw everything including hacking the american election
and getting rid of hillary clinton and pressuring donald trump. it is absolutely extraordinary. this is a question of money and i think vladimir putin knows, donald trump responds to money. and he went directly to him and quite possibly, he responded in a way which would harm the united states in the future to come. >> and it is interesting, when you talk about the russian oligarchs, the quasi oligarchs because putin stripped them of a lot of money. you find the investments in real estate. we know paul manafort was in heavy debt including one who had sued him. even got a lot on rachel's shows and in the air. one of the things he was doing was stashing money, often cash. how important is it around the
world? >> well, lots of russians want to invest in the united states. it is a safe place to invest. and where they invest is something we need to know. in terms of these ties. i think it is likely that they could lift the magnitsky act. it is a law in support from democrats is that republicans. i don't see that being able to be lifted any time soon. i think he needs an excuse to lift the sanctions on some of these people we're talking about. the ones done by executive order. he can say, it didn't just give away the concessions. i got something in return. i think that's a really bad deal. but trying to piece it together, i can say, we're going to give
back those properties. we'll lift sanctions on some of these businessmen in russia. in rush, i got the lift on the adoption ban that are against american citizens. >> that does not sound like an equal trade to me. >> thank you both. really appreciate it. blockbuster better view with donald trump ahead.
campaign promises, donald trump convened a lunch at the white house where he aggressively pressured gop senators to get anything to his desk. >> i've been here just six months. i'm ready to act. i have pen in hand. pen in hand. i don't think we should leave town unless we have a health insurance plan. unless we can give great health care. my message is simple. we shouldn't leave town. we should hammer this out and get it done. >> he at one point even threatened dean hell here opposed the most recent version of the bill. >> this was the one we're worried about. you weren't there.
but you're going to be. he wants to remain a senator. doesn't he? i think the people of your state, which i know very well, i think they'll appreciate what you hopefully do. >> they had done relatively little and at times undermined the effort, most notably when he told the gop senators upon which their bill was based and for which he threw a big pre mature party in the white house garden was, quote, mean, mean, mean. today he blamed the fellow republicans for not building up their plan enough. >> so they're selling their plan and we don't sell our plan. if we're weak on anything, it is on letting people know how good it is. >> how good is it? they released a new health care bill, having agreed. they release ad straight out repeal bill. it is a doozy.
the congressional budget office reports it would leave 32 million people without health care and double americans premiums by 2026. they will vote next week. while there are signs mcconnell may not have the votes, points of the bill remain engaged. at the capital today, 155 people, many with pre-existing conditions, were arrested while protesting the gop effort to dismantle obamacare's protections. meanwhile, at this very hour, the republican senators are meeting on capitol hill in a seemingly last-ditch effort to work out a compromise and get 50 votes to move open. sues an collins of maine who was only told this afternoon and said she had a prettily scheduled engagement. if there's anything you would
like the say on that matter, with john mccain. now that we know his situation is quite serious. >> god speed to the flyer of arizona. >> the western members of congress all stick together in a lot of ways. mitch mcsxonl the body across the way from you has moved to repeal only. away from what had been repeal and replace. do you support the idea of straight repeal? >> well, here's where i'm at, speaking just for me. listen, when the senate does something, i would be happy to talk about it in detail. as you put in the lead-in, they've been everywhere from breakfast to dinner and dessert and back. health care is not a prit sweet spot. our bill had problems.
>> i think the idea we'll let it sit there and blow up. the republicans own health care now so we ought to take a shot at i. the that i haver is on the mound and we have a bat. let's take a swing. >> let's stay senate took swing and all they were able to get was full repeal. that means really back to status quo he and worse. 35 middle people losing health care. premiums doubling. you would have to go home and explain why you let that happen. do you oppose going down that path? >> whatever it does goes back to us. with all due respect to people who got a c. in government, i would expect to have a say.
nobody will be happy but nobody will be really excited about things until we focus on the two primary issues. what are the overall cost drivers that we can affect in this deal? and the second part is, what do you do about people who are on exchanges in the private market and expansion. >> i'm glad you said that. it is not just one bill. there's medicaid on the other side. do you support cutting a trillion dollars out of medicaid? >> i would have to see which context it was done in. i don't with an't to get to the overall stuff. what this needs is focus. >> but you did vote to cut. >> i did. and they're still getting reimbursed.
signed up for two more years. people who didn't make their employer job. they are reasonable. the challenge for the house bill was, when 2020 passed, if it were the law, what do you do with the expansion people? and i don't think a subsidy will work. >> we'll see if donald trump weighs in. thank you vex for joining me. >> thank you. joining me now, the former deputy chief of staff to senate minority leader harry reid. now at the center for american progress. in order for him to figure out where he is, they have to do something. they don't appear to have the votes. what do you make of miss mcconnell's strategy.
okay, fine, caucus, you can't agree on the trump care or whatever we're calling it so we're going back to full repeal. what does that say but to mitch mcconnell and where he is strategically at this point? >> well, it says he is failing. it is strangely punitive. to say if they don't go i know what the plan, he will punish them by forcing them, that could put the members up for re-election like senator heller in nevada in a very difficult spot. to make them walk the plank because they won't go along with his plan. >> when you talk about obamacare. that was his bill.
he was joined by harry reid who shoved it through and it did get through. it had his stamp to it. trump has been more on monday morning, repeal and replace. wednesday morning trump is meeting with the senators tonight sans one who wasn't 100. >> he is not showing that he will stand by they will. the different positions that you just highlighted doesn't give senators any confidence that he will stick with them. if going to take a look, you want the xfs the president will use his bull by pulpit. they have no confidence that he
is going to be in the same position saturday as he was today or tomorrow. >> do you remember ever seeing a president threaten like that? >> president trump is manufacturing content for senator heller's opposition. i've never seen anything in it in my life. >> thank you for being here. i appreciate it. after the break, the remarkable interview that donald trump gave to the "new york times" issuing a warning to special counsel robert mueller and talking about the second discussion with vladimir putin.
returning to the breaking news tonight, in a wide ranging interview with "the new york times," donald trump said he never would have appointed jeff sessions as attorney general had he known that jeff sessions would have recused himself. >> sessions gets the job. right after he gets the job, he recuses himself.
on well, sessions should have never recused himself. if he was going to, he should have told me before he took job and i would have picked somebody else. >> he gave you no heads up at all. >> zero. so he takes the job. gets into the job. recuses himself. which frankly, i think is very unfair to the president. how do you take a job and then recuse yourself? if he would have recused himself before the job, i would have said, thank you. it is extremely unfair. that's a mild word to the president. he recuses himself. i then end up with a second man who is a deputy. >> there's a lot more in that interview including what could be perceived as threat to special counsel robert mueller.
top story on a full day of breaking news. remarkable interview with "the new york times" in which donald trump told about the conditions of which robert mueller might in his view go too far. asked if mueller's investigation would cross a red line if it expands to look at his family finances beyond any relationship to russia, mr. trump said, i would say yes. he would not say what he would do about it. i think that's a violation. look, this is about russia. joining me, charlie pierce for "esquire," and leon wolf at the blaze. welcome both of you. leon, what did you make with this? it sure sounds like a threat to robert mueller. >> well, you know, it's interesting. it's not something that an ordinary president would do. of course, trump does things very differently from any other president before him. it certainly is something that sends up a lot of red flags. look, i don't know what the end result of all this russia investigation is going to be.
i tend to think that the russians were more interested in sowing chaos than tipping the election one way or the other. but he sure does have a knack for making himself look guilty. and that's kind of the -- i mean, he's done it throughout all this entire time. he's acted in such a way that makes it difficult for people like me who find the whole scenario of russia actually changing the election implausible, just because of the way he acts. >> doesn't it include -- this sort of weird extra meeting with vladimir putin is on. if you're somebody who is concerned that russia is making you look bad, is there some innocent explanation i haven't thought of why he would take a side meeting without your interpreter, leon? >> again, donald trump just doesn't seem to have that little trigger in the back of his brain that says, you know, regardless of whether this is bad, it might look bad so i'm not going to do it. the thing that most politicians have, it doesn't seem to be present at all with him. i definitely don't know what the explanation is.
i think that's likely we'll probably never know. >> charlie, if he doesn't have the little trigger in his head, neither does michael flynn or jared kushner or paul manafort and his son. he's surrounded by people who have curious sides with russia. it was said the meeting was about russia. >> however he may be monetizing the presidency now, he needed money to keep his business enterprises afloat long before he ran for president. i think he went and got it with russia. donald trump jr. has pretty much said that prior to the campaign. and i think that the not releasing the tax returns, and all of this has to do with how much he owes certain financial
interests in russia. i mean, to me, that seems to be the way to cut the gordian knot. >> that would explain why he wouldn't want his businesses looked into, right? because of the way russians are induced western, you know, people to become agents of influence is if they have need or greed. greed is a pretty serious inducement. >> it's definitely a plausible scenario. i think it's one of the more plausible russia related scenarios i think people are looking into. look, if organized crime elements in russia could compromise deutsche bank, which is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, who's to say they couldn't also get to donald trump. again, it's difficult to know without the records that we can't get because trump hasn't released his taxes. >> charlie, one of the ways we've seen is the nexus of the corrupt activities of the gang that's around vladimir putin, and real estate. real estate investment seems to be a big part of it. what did donald trump do for a
living before he was president of the united states? real estate, and the reality tv show. >> it's significant also that the other figure, i guess we've settled on a number on the meeting with donald trump jr., right? we aren't waiting for -- >> as we know. as far as we know. >> yeah. i mean, we haven't got a leak now that the bolshoi was performing in the living room while they were having this meeting. the guy was looked into for money laundering. if i were a russian -- i don't know there's any real distinction anymore between russian government officials and russian organized crime, but if i were working in that nether world, and, you know, i was looking for somebody who wanted -- who needed a lot of money, and i had some rubbles i needed cleaned, i know where i'd look. >> leon, at what point does the sort of com la tiff effect of these pronouncements start to penetrate the right? at what point do conservatives, republicans start to care?
>> you know, it's difficult for me to say. i think most of the people that i talked to on the right have mostly totally tuned this issue out, to be a hundred percent honest. there's been so much of it, there comes a point people stop listening. >> does that surprise you? i don't know how old you are, but you may not have grown up with the cold war mentality that -- >> i -- there are many things that happened in the last year and a half, though, that i haven't been able to fully explain that are consistent with the movement that i kind of grew up in. and that's probably number one among them. you know, look, again, i find it implausible that the russians actually were capable of tipping the election, because it's much more their speed to get somebody within the inner orbit of somebody who's high in power who's compromised. i think that's a very likely and plausible scenario. it disturbs me that more people aren't more interested in it. but i think that people at this point are just saying, look,
there's been enough, we want to talk about other things. he's been persistent. he maintains probably 35%, 40% approval rating despite all this other stuff. i'm not sure this is the issue that will penetrate it. >> meanwhile, there could be another "new york times" report out tonight, that in fact trump's finances specifically loans from the financial institution deutsche bank, in fact under scrutiny by banking regulators, in that the bank is expected to eventually have to provide information to robert mueller's committee. joining me is david k. johnson, author of the making of donald trump. unpack that for us. explain. >> well, donald absolutely does not want any inquiry into his financial dealings that will trace back to the russians. there's an active lawsuit going on right now about the trump soho and how the prove its disappeared under the thumb of one of the oligarchs.
donald has sold properties at points when he was in financial trouble for outrageously overpriced figures to russians. and i'm not the least bit surprised that the -- we're going to see a deep inquiry now into deutsche bank which was fined over $600 million just for laundering money for the russians. >> why deutsche bank? how did deutsche bank get caught up in this sort of nexus of money laundering? >> deutsche bank has been engaged in all sorts of nefarious activities. it was one of the biggest promoters of the tax shelters i was exposing in "the new york times" around the turn of the century. it's been deeply involved in helping russians and others move their money around. and it's the only major bank that would directly loan money to trump. when american banks that weren't going to loan you money anymore after he said i borrowed money knowing i wouldn't have to pay
it back. so what is astonish is trump telling "the new york times" in this half-hour interview today basically, you better not start looking into my family's finances. you're kidding. really? that's exactly where this is going to go. and everybody who's been paying attention should have known that a long time ago, including, of course, donald. >> for somebody who has covered him for a long time, how would donald trump react if this investigation uncovers real wrongdoing, or shady, embarrassing stuff that has to do with the trump family businesses? do you think he would fire robert mueller? >> he might fire robert mueller. he's going to have difficulty reaching down to find somebody to do it, who will be his robert bork. it's entirely possible he may decide to preemptively pardon himself and others. that, of course, covers criminal matters. it would not protect him from the issue of impeachment and removal from office which is a political act. but at the end of the day, you can always count on donald will look out for donald, and the person to watch here now is
jared kushner. jared kushner is the member of the family most subject to pressure from mueller's office and to leverage, and jared kushner is going to face some difficult choices down the road as this investigation goes forward. >> i would imagine manafort would as well, in deep debt to the russians. >> the other two people who are most subject to leverage by saying, you know, cooperate or face the music, are paul manafort, longtime representative of many dictatorial regimes, and close connections here with the russians and the ukrainian -- the pro-russian ukrainians and general michael flynn who has already said, i've got a story it tell. >> please tell it. >> but he wants immunity. >> that means he's guilty. thank you all so much for joining me. our coverage continues. breaking news we're covering tonight, senator john mccain diagnosed with brain cancer.
the former p.o.w., two-time presidential candidate announces the news just days after surgery. also tonight, the stunner from donald trump, courtesy "the new york times." the president criticizes his attorney general and robert mueller and james comey and draws a red line on where the investigation better not go. one of the times" journalists who covered that interview joins us live as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a wednesday night. and good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york, day 181 of the trump administration brought a steady stream of late-breaking news, yet one of the late stories that broke tonight not about trump or the white house. it had to do with a huge figure in american politics. a short time ago, an senator john mccain's office revealed following surgery days ago, his