tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 31, 2017 12:00am-1:00am PDT
on clothing. all of it spent at amen's store in new york and another one in beverly hills. again, 1,369,000 and change on men's >> that's what he said. that's what i -- that's obviously what our position. >> the man who ran donald trump's presidential campaign is charged with conspiracy against the united states.
>> by the way, paul manafort was replaced long before the election took place. >> three arrest, a guilty plea, and a surprise proactive cooperator who is actively trying to collude with the russian government. >> george papadopoulos. he is an oil and energy consultant, excellent guy. >> tonight the massive fallout from robert mueller's twin bombshells. plus, what did the president know and when did he know it? and how does carter page fit into all of this? >> has the special counsel reached out to you? >> my exclusive interview, when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. tonight the former chairman of the donald trump presidential campaign paul manafort has been placed under house arrest, ordered to home confinement while out on $10 million bail. same goes for second trump adviser richard gates, indicted along with manafort and free on $5 million bail. but it was a guilty plea by a
third adviser that was truly an astonishing move today by special counsel robert mueller. first came the indictments of the two senior campaigns to the president on 12 charges, including conspiracy against the united states. according to the unsealed indictment, former trump campaign chairman paul manafort and long-time associate rick gates stand accused of working as a unregistered foreign agents for russia's former puppet regime in ukraine and illegally laundering part of a $75 million flow of pavements over a period that lasted into the campaign. both men pleaded not guilty. under any other circumstances, the indictment of the president's former campaign chairman on those charges would be an a earth shattering event in washington. enough to provoke a major political crisis. but now it's not even the biggest story of the day. because minutes after the indictments were announced, we learned that a little known campaign aide named george papadopoulos had already pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about efforts to collude with russian representatives during the
campaign, and that he has been actively cooperating with the mueller investigation for at least the past three months. papadopoulos is one of a small group of foreign policy advisers appointed to the campaign in march 2016. days later, after that appointment, according to court filings, he was approached by an intermediary who put him in touch with people who put him in touch with the russian government. what followed with repeated contacts between papadopoulos and those individuals in an effort to set up meeting between trump and senior russian officials. those efforts were regularly relayed back to, even encouraged by top trump campaign aides. they were also known to the president himself. on march 31st, 2016, donald trump attended a meeting in washington with his national security team, headed up by current attorney general jeff sessions. and right there in the middle of the table facing sessions is
george papadopoulos. who when he introduced himself, stated in sum and substance that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then candidate trump and president putin. but perhaps most significantly, papadopoulos was told the russians had thousands of e-mails damaging to hillary clinton. and he was told this crucially months before the public found out about the democratic e-mail hacks. on march 19th, 2016, clinton campaign chairman john podesta received that fishing e-mail, the one that gave russian hackers access to his entire inbox. days later a staffer at the dnc received a similar e-mail which led to what was a second round of dnc hacks. now it wasn't until june 14th that either of those attacks became public. but here is the thing. on april 26th, just about a month after the hacks, but six full weeks before anyone in public would know about them, papadopoulos, the man who plead guilty, met with his
intermediary, supposedly of the russian government, who said of hillary clinton, they, the russians, have dirt on her. the russians had e-mails of clinton. they have thousands of e-mails. today the white house press secretary argued, pretty implausibly that papadopoulos was just an obscure volunteer whose case had nothing to do with the campaign. but the special counsel seems to think otherwise. we have now learned that papadopoulos was arrested on july 27th on arrival at dulles international airport. since then, according to court filings, he has been working with investigators as what's called a proactive cooperator. carrie cordero is a former attorney with the justice department's security division. and nick akerman, a special watergate prosecutor. an astounding day. >> absolutely. this is amazing. >> first of all, it feels to me that the track that american history is on switched today. >> totally.
i mean completely took everything off of the oh, it's a witch-hunt routine to we've got something really serious that we're dealing with. >> i want to -- let's start with this idea, carrie, of proactive cooperator. i want to talk what that could mean, what the significance of the fact that he was secretly arrested and secretly been cooperating and secretly plead as to what this investigation is. what do you think about that? >> obviously there was a huge investigation going on. they had information indicating probably already information they knew of what papadopoulos had been involved in. so because, remember, this was a long-standing investigation even before the special counsel was created there was an fbi investigation and intelligence community looking into russian influence on the campaign. so there is more that they knew all along that time. but they obviously explained to him a little bit about in terms of the jeopardy that he was in. he was interviewed, and he lied. and lying is just one theme that
i think is revealed throughout both the papadopoulos situation where he lied during an fbi interview when they warned him that lying is a federal offense, as well as throughout the manafort indictment that indicates lying in a whole host of other contexts. >> nick, what leapt out to you? we can talk about manafort and gates. but i want to talk about papadopoulos. what leapt out to you? >> what leapt out to me is he started cooperating in july. this was kept quiet until today. to me, that says that they had him out there playing dial a crook, calling people with a wiretapped phone, meeting with people, wearing a wire. there are all kinds of people. look how many different campaign officials were mentioned in that information. not by name, but simply by position. and if i were the prosecutor, i certainly would have sent him out with all kinds of stories about being pressured by the
fbi, being subpoenaed, what do i tell them, what do i do? and i'll bet anything that they've got a whole array of tapes that have already been made, and there are a lot of other people in mueller's sights. >> to nick's point, there are three individuals that are mentioned in the papadopoulos document. campaign supervisor, senior policy adviser, high-ranking campaign official. we don't have definitive -- we have some source saying one of those campaign supervisors might be paul manafort. >> right. >> we don't definitively know who the others are. >> some are done in the plural too. so there is a number of people. >> there is also, carrie, i want to come back to this timeline issue. this really strikes me as significant. the world does not know until june that there are these e-mails that have been hacked, that the dnc has been hacked. and yet you have someone in meets with the candidate. we've got the photo. he is in meetings with the candidate, with donald trump. there he is.
you've got that guy on e-mail chains with senior people on the campaign about setting up a meeting who is also being told by intermediary we have e-mails from clinton. that seems like pretty close to the heart of the matter of what we're talking about here. >> it really does. and this really is probably one of the -- if not the most significant perhaps one of the most significant things that has been learned today, which is that not only did papadopoulos become informed by an individual who portrayed themselves as affiliated with the russian government, that the russians had her e-mails, hillary clinton's e-mails. he repeatedly communicated to other more senior campaign officials that he was in contact with russian government affiliated people in relation to this topic. and what did they do?
they didn't say what are you talking about? >> right. >> or they didn't say you can't be part of this campaign anymore. this is stuff that we don't want to get involved in. they had so many based on just his information, on his plea agreement, which is limited information there is a lot more that the special counsel's office probably has that's not in that document. but just based on what's in that document, they had -- the campaign had repeated opportunities to turn away an individual who said that they were trying to set up meetings, that they were trying to coordinate efforts, that they were trying to be on the receiving end of information from the russian government. and they did not cut him off. >> that's a great point. it's now two -- we have two documented examples there is the infamous trump tower meeting. we've got this now. >> right. >> we've now learned over the course of the last several months, there is two points at essentially russian cutouts. would you like some dirt on hillary clinton?
and in both cases the campaign is saying yes. did it stop at two? did got it to three, four, and five? and did they do anything reciprocally. >> and did they get stuff. it's hard to believe that they didn't. >> carrie cordero and nick akerman, thank you both. matt miller is an nbc analyst who served under attorney general eric holder. matt, big news. >> i want to pick up on something you were just talking about, this meeting that george papadopoulos had where he was promised or told that the russians had dirt on clinton and e-mails. i think there was a very significant tell on the way bob mueller's team wrote that indictment. if you go through the previous indictment -- not the indictment, the rest of the plea agreement after that paragraph, it talks in great detail about his attempt to arrange meetings with russian officials. you get chapter and verse about that. you get nothing else about what george papadopoulos did with that information about the stolen clinton e-mails. >> ha. >> you don't know if he went to his supervisor about these
meetings? we don't know if he talked to other officials on the campaign. you know who does know that, though? bob mueller knows because papadopoulos is cooperating. i think putting that out there was a significant way for mueller to tell the rest of the world i know what happened. i know what papadopoulos did, i know who he talked to. you need to talk to me when i come knock on your door. if you don't, i'm going to charge you with the most serious crime i can prove. there is also something here, i want to play a little sound. i think it's important to zoom back out to 30,000 feet there are now two undisputed sets of facts around people representing themselves as intermediates of the russian government, promising dirt on hillary clinton. in one case e-mails that they have stolen, all before, right, the whole thing blows up. and yet this is donald trump during the debate, okay. when his own campaign has been privy to this knowledge. this is what he has to say about whether it was russia that hacked e-mails. take a listen.
>> i don't think anybody knows it was russia that broke into the dnc. she is saying russia, russia, russia. but i don't -- maybe it was. it could be russia. but it could also be china. it could also be lots of other people. it also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay. you don't know who broke in to dnc. >> i mean, that's six months after we now know from a federal charging document that someone who in national security meetings with donald trump is being promised e-mails from hillary clinton by someone representing themselves as an agent of russia. >> yeah, i think that's exactly right. and one of the questions bob mueller obviously have had for papadopoulos is who did you tell? and he is going to go up the chain of command. and if papadopoulos told someone else, mueller is going to ask that person who he told. he is going to want to find out what the then candidate, now president of the united states told. that clip you just played is going to look a lot different in retrospect than it did at the time. you go back to it's the same issue as the statement he helped
write on air force one that we now know is misleading that his son put out. it goes to something called concealment. if prosecutors can show you were lying to the public, that in itself isn't a crime. but it shows you were trying to cover up something you did and it shows consciousness of guilt potentially. >> matt miller, always a pleasure. thanks for making time. >> thank you. congressman jim himes, from connecticut. a member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, let me start by showing you what sarah huckabee sanders had to say about george papadopoulos and the role he played. the line from the white house is manafort and davis were from before the campaign. and papadopoulos, we barely know the guy. take a listen. >> could you just explain what george papadopoulos' role with the campaign was? >> it was extremely limited. it was a volunteer position. and again, no activity was ever done in an official capacity on behalf of the campaign in that regard. he reached out and nothing happened beyond, that which i think shows, one, his level of importance in the campaign. and two shows what little role he had within coordinating anything officially for the campaign.
>> does that square to you? >> well, it only squares as much as it sort of illustrates the strategy that we've seen from moment one in this investigation, which has been to deny. and then when you're proven to be incorrect in denying, minimize. this is what we saw, you know, don jr., don jr. his meeting, which you correctly related to what we're learning today. started out as a magnitsky act meeting. it had nothing do with russia. until these people are presented with indictments and facts on pieces of paper that come from the doj, they deny. they obfuscate. at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether this was a major operative or a minor operative. he was member of the campaign, acting for the campaign. and as we now know, rather than doing and i think carrie got it exactly right. rather than saying my god, this is an enemy of the united states with nothing but ill wishes for the united states, we shouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole.
his reaction was exactly don jr.'s reaction which was let's do it. let's keep this conversation going and let's see what we can get on hillary clinton. that obviously, i don't know if that's collusion. everybody has a different definition of collusion. it is certainly cooperation. it is certainly working with an enemy of the united states to help compromise an election for the president of the united states. >> congressman, you work on the intelligence committee, which is one of the investigatory bodies here. and one thing that struck me today, particularly the papadopoulos announcement is that there is a set of facts that we are completely not privy to that did not leak. let me ask you this. do you know things about the facts that are not public yet? >> well, i do, as you might imagine. this investigation has been going on for a long time. members telephone two committees, the senate and the house know things that aren't throughout in the public realm. but i will observe a couple things. number one, at least my committee did not see this coming. we were not briefed on what
mueller had, what the fbi was about to do. and i think that's appropriate, obviously, given the nature of what he is doing. and i would also observe, so this is the big story today. clear attempts to cooperate with the russians. and we'll see what comes out of that. you know, the same thing with the don jr. meeting with an agent of the russian government which is we didn't find that either. the media found that. and that's important, chris. because interestingly enough, as early as sort of 24 hours ago, my republican colleagues were saying we should just shut this down there. is nothing to see here, folks. let's just go away and talk about clinton and uranium one, and boom, mueller comes out. and now the lesson is my god, we better keep looking because every time we look or somebody looks, there is more there, there. >> do you believe that sort of following up on that that mueller knows more than the committees do? >> i absolutely believe he knows more than the committees do. and that's not because i know what he knows. but it's just, again, i as i guess the second most senior democrat on that committee was not in any way briefed about the activities that came to light today. and look, it stands to reason,
right? bob mueller has resources that the congressional committees can only dream of. he can put people -- he can put people with wires on the phone. he has massive investigatory resources. so it doesn't surprise me that he's got much deeper probes into this than we could ever have. >> final question. is this moving faster than you anticipated? >> well, you know, there is a lot of talk, chris, it is fast or is it slow? this is as serious as it gets. this is something that reaches into the oval office that pertains to how we as a people handle an attack on the core of our democratic system. sadly, it's become very partisan. but listen, it was an attack on the core of our democratic system. so none of us should be looking for fast or slow. we should be looking at comprehensive. and i give mule area lot of credit. just at very moment that an awful lot of people were saying
he should resign. by the way people you think of having some creditability like "the wall street journal," although maybe that's -- >> the editorial page. eye of the beholder. >> in the very moment in which people, colleagues of mine on the republican side, the editorial page of the "wall street journal" are calling for mueller to resign, at the very moment they're trying to distract with uranium deals, boom, this hits. and it reminds us that there is serious stuff here. and we shouldn't be hurrying this along. >> congressman jim himes, thanks for taking the time tonight. >> thank you, chris. still to come, former trump campaign foreign adviser carter page on what he makes of today's indictments. my exclusive interview is ahead. and next, a look at all the major warning signs on the campaign, on paul manafort simply ignored. in two minutes.
my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch! build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy.
next scandal." a former lobbyist who has been linked to one corruption scheme after another. in fact, by the time that that piece came out, which is less than a month after getting the gig, manafort had already e-mailed a ukrainian contract about leveraging his new role in the trump campaign, how do we use to get whole? as ovd operation seen? an apparent connection to oleg deripaska who had millions of dollars of business. and manafort's protege, richard gates, even stayed on with the trump campaign despite working with manafort on the same projects. gates' continuation with the white house, tweeting that barrack was at the white house with gates in tow. two white house officials
confirmed. natasha bertrand wrote today, "the special counsel just complicated the president's attempts to distance himself from paul manafort." and msnbc political analyst, "times" reporter nick confessore was shining the light on gates months ago with that profile. good to have you both here. natasha, so the indictment. it's funny because in some ways it almost feels like an open source document because so much of it has been publicly reported. it's sort of all drawn together and put in one place. >> right. it's kind of like we have connected all of the dots now and they've put all together in one place for the world to see. you know, on friday, when the news of the indictments broke, everyone kind of figured, well, it's either paul manafort or it's michael flynn. but it was really unlikely everyone thought that mule worry be going for such big fish so early on in the investigation. i mean, he has only been leading it for about five months. but on the other hand, everyone was like, well, manafort is the obvious choice because he is so
vulnerable. everything that is already been reported about his past financial ties, about his fara violations, about his alleged money laundering there was a "wall street journal" report last week that he is the target of yet another moneylaundering investigation in new york. this was all building for so long that there was really no way it couldn't be manafort. >> and nick akerman who he just had here made a really good point to me. he said it's a very ingenious charging documents because the charges all revolve around documentation, like failures to file things which are tough to defend against. it's not about witness credibility. they can make a lot of the cases just on paper alone. and it puts manafort in a tough spot in his calculation, i would imagine about whether he is going to talk or not. >> exactly. the fara violation. excuse me, the foreign agents act. it's been said that he worked for ukrainian interests and didn't disclose it and didn't file properly. and they have him chapter and
verse on that it appears. and they're shining a light by the way on entire business model in washington of lobbying for foreign governments and pretending not to by laundering the lobbying through nonprofit groups overseas. so right there they had him on something that is technically very, very serious, but not prosecuted very often. >> and you've also -- so then the question becomes, at the core of this, i want to get to gates in a second. but the core of this is it really looks like paul manafort was way in debt when he got this job. >> right. >> not only was he in debt, he was up to a lot of stuff that whether it was on this side of the law or not, wasn't the kind of stuff you really want people looking at. and yet he gets himself into the center of the campaign. the big question is why. >> he was in debt. and he pitched himself to lead the campaign. he really, really wanted to lead the campaign. he wanted this high level position. and as we saw, as soon as he got on to the campaign, he tried to leverage that. he mailed his long time business associate konstantin kilimnik who is a russian, a friend of his and how do we use this to
get whole. he was essentially trying to collect past debt. they had a falling out and accused him of essentially stealing $17 million. >> i want to clear there is a lot of facts and names here. right? but manafort says, manafort's engaged in this according to robert mueller this moneylaundering scheme. this flow of income. he pitches himself to the campaign, right? he gets them to take him on as campaign chair. and then turns around immediately and goes to his associate in the ukraine, has oleg's people seen this? how do we use it to get whole? it's not a crazy conclusion that was part of the reason he wanted to be in the center to begin with. >> it seems incredibly deliberate. the next month he actually wrote to his associate rick gates who was also named in the indictment this morning that he wanted to discuss these overtures that the russians were making to george papadopoulos. let's discuss further. we need to make sure that there is no signal that is being sent. well need low level campaign people to be traveling to
russia, not donald trump himself. >> that's a great point that is in the document. that's someone who kind of knows where the line is and how to avoid it, right? he is thinking about this signal. who is gates as someone who wrote a profile on him? were you surprised to wake up and find him indicted? >> i wasn't totally surprised. rick gates was the protege for paul manafort. and for many years, if paul manafort was doing business somewhere, gates was the guy helping him do it. working out contracts, hiring people, arranging flights, setting up shell companies, including the shell companies in cypress where a lot of the money from eastern europe and russia flowed and from which it came back to the u.s. he was everywhere that paul manafort does or was. when i spoke to him in june, he would not talk that much about the purpose of these things. he always said i didn't know much about the money side of it. but we see in this charging indictment that the prosecutors, the special counsel office believe head was deep in every detail of these arrangements. >> all right. natasha bertrand and nick
on march 21st, 2016, presidential candidate donald trump met with "the washington post" editorial board and named some members of his foreign policy advisory team. now these were the five individuals who donald trump announced would be the foreign policy department of the trump campaign. it made news. people noticed. the candidate certainly at that point needed some sort of
foreign policy secret. but it also caused some head scratching because of the names candidate trump offered. >> walid phares who you probably know, ph.d, adviser to the house of representatives caucus and is a counterterrorism expert. carter page, ph.d. george papadopoulos. he's an oil and energy consultant. excellent guy. the honorable joe schmitz. lieutenant general keith kellogg. and i have quite a few more. but that's a group of some of the people that we are -- that we're dealing with. >> the names on that list were not generally well-known. but one of them we found out today george papadopoulos was arrested at dulles airport july 27th. has since been cooperating with the mueller investigation and plead guilty to lying to federal
today former trump campaign chairman paul manafort was indicted. and we learn that former trump campaign adviser george papadopoulos, who plead guilty to lying to the fbi, has been cooperating with the mueller investigation. just last friday former trump campaign adviser carter page met behind closed doors with intelligence committee staff for more than five years. carter page joins me now.
how you, carter? >> great to see you. i'm great. >> congratulations on not being indicted. >> of course not. >> you're a free man. let me start with this. george papadopoulos. did you know him? >> we met briefly a couple of times early in the campaign. >> yeah. >> do you recall -- i mean, first of all, you were part of that group of people, right? the key moment in the trump campaign, it's march. and it's like where is your foreign policy credit? it gives this interview to "the washington post" editorial. he says his name. papadopoulos's name, a few other people. they're saying now like these people were basically like people that came in off the street. they're no different than volunteers who sort of answered phones. that an accurate characterization? >> it's funny. i heard the end of that clip which i haven't heard in quite some time. and he said there are a lot of people coming on. and that is absolutely the case. so there were many people as time went on that we kept -- >> right. but you were doing something
with the campaign. the candidate -- the candidate doesn't say the name of a person randomly, right? >> chris, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest thing i ended up doing is responding to all these fake reports that kept coming out against me particularly. >> right. but at this point there are no fake reports. >> they're starting pretty early. >> but it's march. the reason, there is five people named there. one of them just got pinched, right? you're another one of them. were you -- what was the role of those five people who were named there? were you guys on e-mail chains together, you and papadopoulos? >> look, there is a lot of e-mails all over the place when you're in a campaign. >> yes or no. were you on e-mail chains with papadopoulos? >> probably a few, yeah. >> were you on e-mail chains about russia? >> it may have come up time and time again there is nothing major, yeah. >> well, i mean, nothing major. it was enough for him to lie to federal investigators about and then plead guilty to that he was
having an intermediary come to him and say you should come to london and talk to someone who has hillary clinton's e-mails. >> listen, i've been focused on other things today. but someone -- i've been getting calls all day asking this from various reporters. i finally hit back and i said well, where is the main thing. what is your real question in terms of me. they said there is something in there about some meeting in august. >> yep. >> and what's interesting about august is by then, you know, they're saying well, they refer to some random or anonymous people. were you one of those people dealing with him in august? remember, in july is when they started this dodgy dossier with all these kind of false stories. i have been totally -- >> let's stick for the record. >> but i had nothing to do with any of that. i'm none of those. >> i'm going stipulate for the record you feel you've been unfairly smeared, that the dodgy dossier was untrue, that your name has been dragged through the mud. >> yeah. >> i get that. i want to zero in on what we know.
so what people are talking about is there is a footnote in this document, right. in which there is a back and forth about well, should we set up a meeting? should we have the candidate go himself. >> yeah. >> and someone says, well, you can't send the candidate. should it be a low level person. this is -- let's discuss. we need someone to communicate that d.t. is not doing the trips. should it be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal. now you traveled over the summer to moscow. >> yeah. >> are you the person they're talking about? >> i don't think so. i think that's a separate reference and actually -- >> but you're not sure. you say i don't think so. it's possible? >> i definitely was not. i'm sure on that one that i wasn't. it was very clear. and if you listen to the audio of all or the transcripts of everything i said, i was always there just as a private citizen. and i've spoken at universities in moscow, in russia, in asia, in europe many times. so i was totally separate. >> but you did get the green
light from the campaign to go on that trip? >> they said if you want to go on your own, we're fine with that. >> did you brief anyone when you get back? >> i mentioned a few things i heard. but nothing serious at all. >> well, people keep using these terms like serious or official. but you told them what you did and who you talked to? >> what i said is there is a lot of positive feedback, in general, on the street. the average person is really excited about -- >> donald trump. >> i think just in general about future possibilities. so, again, i had no meetings, no serious discussions with anyone high up or at any official capacity. it's just kind of man on the street, you know. >> let me ask you this. do you remember papadopoulos telling people back then in the spring putin wants to set up a meeting. i can set it up. they're coming to me about clinton's e-mails. do you remember that? >> i know nothing about e-mails. definitely nothing. i heard nothing about that. >> a direct question on this particular thing.
do you remember papadopoulos e-mailing about this stuff? >> there were tons of e-mails happening on a lot of different things. i could have been on them. i might have been. >> you might have been on them. >> thousands of e-mails. but i definitely didn't hear anything on e-mail. >> on them hacking e-mails. >> the only hacking i heard from e-mails is from "the washington post" and "new york times" about my e-mails getting hacked with this fake fisa warrant that was based on the dodgy documents. >> so here is the thing that i find remarkable. people around the trump campaign, right, have this idea that like all this russia stuff is a witch-hunt, right? and yet there is two examples where papadopoulos has someone coming to him, representing themselves as a russian agent saying we have clinton's e-mails. and then months later, someone saying they're a government lawyer sets up a meeting at trump tower to say we want to help donald trump become president, right? how does -- how do people in the campaign not put two and two together when the hacks start happening about what is happening?
>> that -- to me they're totally separate. i don't know anything about anything. i don't know anything about those other meetings. i wasn't part of it. it's nothing. >> carter, the biggest hack -- >> the only hack i know about is the fisa warrant hack and the wiretap. >> do you have legal representation? >> have i some people that are helping me. >> but you have an attorney? >> i have some informal advisers and a formal adviser. >> yes. >> did you bring an attorney to you when you spent five hours before the senate? >> nope, nope. i'm very happy to give all the information i can. in the interest of really getting the truth out there. because i think when the truth comes out, when speaker paul ryan says the fisa warrant or the details about the dodgy dossier and what happened and all this documents surround that is going to be released, that's what i'm really excited about. i think the truth will set a lot of people free. >> have you talked to federal investigators associated with
robert mueller? >> there are -- look, there has been leaks there has been leaks going back to "the washington post" earlier in june. >> i'm asking you right now. >> i think someone mentioned it previously. people are respectful. he has been respectful of confidentiality. there has been leaks that i spent ten hours without a lawyer with -- in "the washington post" mentioning that with the fbi. someone was saying about papadopoulos has been cooperating since july. i've been cooperating since march. i mean, i want to get the truth out there. it's very clear that this is the main offenses were the ones that were -- that happened with the civil rights violations and the wiretapping and the hack against myself. >> you're pursuing a pro se lawsuit about that? >> yeah. the sad part about it is there are two aspects of the january 6 intelligence report. one is the hack. yeah, i was hacked. we'll find out more than when the disclosures come. the other one is propaganda, right?
and the propaganda, if you look at radio free europe in late september, this -- part of the grand premiere, the world premiere of the dodgy dossier are the false accusations courtesy of radio free europe with the broadcasting board of governors. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. this is -- everything that they're talking about in the january 6 intel report is accurate. just i'm speaking about it firsthand in terms of accurate as to u.s. government influence. >> let me just establish. so you and papadopoulos, you probably were on e-mail chains together, right? >> perhaps, yeah. >> those probably included discussions of russia? >> it may have come up, yeah. >> you went to russia. but you are confident that the footnote about sending a low level staffer is not in reference to you? >> i definitely did not represent anyone from the trump campaign during my trip. again, i was busy working on more important things.
i haven't read the sort of fine print. but what was read to me, it doesn't sound like it has negative do with me. again, i never was representing myself, and i never -- >> as part of the campaign. i know. you have cooperated with the fbi and you gave five hours of testimony to the senate intelligence committee. >> yeah. and i'm really looking forward to a more open hearing with congressman himes and the previous house intelligence committee. >> i genuinely hope, carter, you're innocent of everything. because you're doing a lot of talking. it's either admirably bold or reckless. i guess we'll find out. thanks for coming by. >> great to see you. >> chris. >> all right. carter page. coming up, as robert mueller makes his first big play, renewed concerns over whether he the president can fire him. i'll ask someone who helped draft the special counsel regulations just how safe mueller's job is, ahead. and next, beers and burgers in tonight's thing 1, thing 2, next. in the water, in the water
you ready for this? she doesn't like it... you gotta get in there okay, okay careful not to get it in her eyes i know what a bath is... smile honey this thing is like... first kid here we go second kid you coming in mommy? ahh not a chance! by their second kid, every parent is an expert and more likely to choose luvs than first time parents. luvs with nightlockplus absorbs wetness faster than huggies snug and dry. for outstanding overnight protection at a fraction of the cost. live, learn and get luvs
if they knew just howers rich they were.ed the average american home value has increased $40,000 over the last 5 years. but many don't know you can access that money without refinancing or selling your home. with a home equity loan, you can pull cash out of your house for anything you need- home improvement, college tuition, even finally getting out of credit card debt. come to lendingtree.com to shop and compare home equity loans right now. because at lendingtree, when banks compete, you win.
thing 1 tonight. today was a pretty big news day. and in cable news, sometimes you have a rundown you just need to tear up when breaking news intervenes, which happened of course this morn when news broke of robert mueller's first indictments just before 8:00 a.m. and some networks went into rolling breaking news coverage for the hour. but you to admire the stubborn determination of producers over at "fox & friends" who reported that news along with segments on why a magazine questioned american patriotism, whether "newsweek" is racist against irish americans, and this. >> we've been talking about it all morning. can you see what's wrong with this picture? the cheese is underneath the hamburger. who does that? rhonda writes, i worked at a restaurant in my younger days, and we were taught to put the lettuce under the burger to keep the bun from getting soggy. >> way to get to the bottom of that jillian, good work. >> i googled it, and it showed the cheese should the be on top of the burger. >> why don't we have cheeseburgers to try it out? >> i'm for that.
>> but that wasn't even the worst attempt at distraction. the white house press secretary read a decades old chain e-mail from the podium. that's thing 2 in 60 seconds. hi, i'm the internet! you know what's difficult? adulting... hi, guys. i'm back. time to slay! no,i have a long time girlfriend. you know what's easy? building your website with godaddy. get your domain today and get a free trial of gocentral. build a better website in under an hour.
it's hard to imagine a white house press briefing with more significance than the one coming just hours after the president's former campaign chairman is indicted for conspiracy against america. and so press secretary sarah huckabee sanders chose to begin today's briefing by literally reciting a right wing chain e-mail forward about taxes dating back to 2001. >> these ten reporters paid their tab every night the way we pay our taxes. it would go something like this. the first four, the poorest, would pay nothing. the 5th would pay $1. the 6th would pay $3. the seventh would pay $7. i'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. the seventh now paid $5 instead of 28, a 28% savings.
the blaring headline for the washington post reads about like you might expect it to. upstairs at home with the tv on, trump fumes over russia indictments. according to a senior republican with contact with top white house staffers, quote, the walls are closing in. everyone is freaking out. this weekend the president raged tweeted collusion doesn't exist. he wrote, there is so much guilt by democrats, clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. do something, all caps. unclear who that's directed to. and then there are those in trump world who seem to actually believe that hillary clinton is currently president. >> the speculation is so insane
right now, what we should be focusing on are the continued lies of the clinton administration the, the continued tal sizz they continue to perpetuate. >> the lies of the clinton administration. the most dangerous reaction from conservative media is the growing and unmistakable targeting of special counsel robert mueller. >> it's time, folks. it's time to shut it down, turn the tables, and lock her up. that's what i said. i actually said it. lock her up. special counsel and former fbi director robert mueller must be fired immediately. his role as head of the fbi during the uranium deal and the russian extortion case, his friendship with jim comey demands his firing. >> fox news ran a graphic today questioning mueller's credibility with this picture of a giant russian flag and last week "the wall street journal's" editorial board wrote mueller could best serve the country by resigning. the white house has intimated this won't happen.
the lawyers say there is no plans to do it. the president does what he wants. if he wants to fire mueller he'll have to navigate the special counsel regulations under which mueller was appointed. former acting solicitor general of the united states and the man who literally wrote the rules under which robert mueller was appointed joins me now. so, let's start, neil, with this. when people say will the president fire robert mueller, the president personally cannot fire robert mueller. how would he go about -- what would he have to do to remove him? >> he might try and fire him directly. he might constitutionally be able to do that. or he could order the acting attorney general under the regulations rod rosenstein who is the number two, but jeff sessions is recused because he himself has some collusion with russia allegations or something like that. he could order rosenstein to fire him if rosenstein doesn't fire mueller then he could order rosenstein fired and go fought next person down, rachel brand in the department, and go down until he finds someone willing to fire him. and really this is a consequence
of our constitution. our founders gave the president article 2 powers to over prosecutors. he does ultimately have the ability to fire mueller. what we did in the 1990s was strike the special counsel regulations so if there is any high level interference with a special counsel it has to be reported to congress and sunlight has to be shown on t. >> but those regulations, i want to go back to the first thing you said under the constitution. could he just say, i here by, i as president of the united states hereby relieve robert mueller of duty, and that be effectuated tomorrow? >> well, he could either do that or he could say, i remove the special counsel regulations which are an executive branch creation so they're gone, and now mueller, you don't have any ability to exist any more. so, one way or the other, i wouldn't get hung up with the legal formalities. i think the ultimate question that we were struggling with in the regulations indeed that the republicans have been struggling with even before that, you know,
plato, who will guard the guardians or dr. seuss, the bee watchers and how lucky you are. the ultimate question is how do we set up a system to avoid a government cover up. when you have an allegation that now has become more than an allegation, you know, in which people are literally pleading guilty to attempted collusion with russia and the facts of their plea agreements, boy, this is starting to look really mighty serious. >> what would it mean constitutionally for the president to do something like that, to either fire mueller or withdraw the regulations that you were involved in drafting, or to do a kind of archable cox richard nixon saturday night massacre and sfarlt going down the line, firing justice department officials until they find someone who will get rid of mueller? >> it will be a deep constitutional crisis the likes of which most of us have not seen in our lifetimes. that is to say, if you go back and we study this in the 1990s and the justice department, you go back and over these scandals,
iran contra, white water, lewinsky, you know, the ones that are the worst are the ones in which trust is implicated and which the president looks like he's in it for himself to grab power. that's what watergate was. and what, you know, arguably according to what we're seeing today, what might have happened here. so, if you have a president who is shutting down in the investigation or shutting down the prosecutor, boy, that's going to look awful. >> and indeed it wouldn't be the first time. after all, you know, before -- the whole reason we have a guy named mueller is because before that we had a guy named comey, and comey was investigating nothing else but -- he was investigating one of the things he was investigating was of course the trump campaign's collusion with russia and trump fired him. to do it again, boy, you know, fool me once. but i can't imagine people standing for that. >> there is something that seems analogous to me. the president is arguably under article 2 of the constitution has the ability to get rid of people in the executive, like robert mueller. there would be a constitutional
crisis precipitated. same with the pardon power, it is quite broad in its sort of as a constitutional theoretical matter. what would it mean if he just said blanket pardons to these named individuals? >> right, exactly. so, he might have the constitutional power to do something like remove an executive branch official or grant pardons to certain people, you know, under some circumstances. but having constitutional power and having good judgment are two totally different things. the president has all sorts of constitutional powers just as you and i have the right to say offensive speech in public or something like that. but that doesn't make it smart or good judgment. and here i think the most damning thing in what we learn today, particularly in the papadopoulos plea agreement, is that the russians were attempting to infiltrate the trump campaign. and when the trump campaign found out about that, what did they do? a whopping nothing, you know. if one of us were, you know, in the campaign and got a call from
the russians saying, hey, we have dirt on your opponent, i think our first reaction would be, oh, i got a call on the other line. hit hold, and call the fbi. after all, that's what happened with al gore in 2000 when he got bush's tape. and so, you know, the lack of judgment here is astounding. and i think apart from all these legal technicalities, that's what i think will ultimately resonate with the american people. >> that's great point. neil, thanks for joining us. that is all in for this evening. rachel mad owe show starts now. good evening. that's tonight's "last word." brian williams will have much more on the president's reaction to today's three indictments and a guilty plea. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. the breaking news tonight, a guilty plea and two indictments. a former campaign staffer admits to lying about contacts with russia. plus, donald trump's former campaign manager paul manafort and associate rick gates charged with 12 counts in a 31-page indictment. tonight, what we're still learning about robert mueller's sprawling investigation and where it's headed next. and new reporting this evening on the reaction from