tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBCW October 31, 2017 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
for a second day in a row we exsect two indictments and plea deal to dominate today's briefing. questions like who brought george papadopoulos on to the campaign and who knew about his meetings with russians? and what was discussed at this foreign policy meeting ing d.c. with that picture you just saw with then candidate donald trump and advisers including papadopoulos? earlier today the president was pressed about the developments in mueller's investigation but he had nothing to say. >> mr. president, you called george papadopoulos an excellent guy. what is your reaction? >> thank you. >> manafort and gates have pleaded not guilty. the white house has argued that the indictments against them and the papadopoulos plea deal have nothing to do with the
president. >> from what i recall george was a low level volunteer. he was not a person who was involved with the day to day operations of the campaign or a person who i recall interacting with on a regular basis at all. >> i never heard of papadopoulos. he never showed up at trump tower. never had interaction with campaign leaders. >> collusion in and of itself, what is a violation of law here? >> and as mueller's investigation enters its next phase reports surface that there is a secret plan to knee cap the special prosecutor. is steve bannon behind the -- it's worse than you thought. the scope of russia's efforts to use social media to manipulate the election. top lawyers will be grilled on the hill in a half hour are expected to detail jaw dropping numbers about just how many
americans were impacted. first let's turn to our team of reporters covering every angle of the stories. kristen welker is live at the white house. kasie hunt is on capitol hill. pete williams is in our washington newsroom. and nbc political analyst jake sherman is senior writer with politico. and barbara mcquaid is former u.s. attorney in michigan and msnbc contributor. the president is not answering questions about the mueller probe but he certainly is still tweeting about it. what is he saying? >> before we get to business congratulations. we are all thrilled for you. to answer your question, look, the president, the white house really trying to distance itself from what we saw yesterday. let me read you a tweet from the president earlier today about george papadopoulos that unpaid volunteer who is at the center
of the latest fire storm, the president tweeting fake news is working overtime as paul manafort's lawyer said there was no collusion. few people knew the young low level volunteer named george who was proven to be a liar. check the dems. the problem with that is that you have this picture of then-candidate trump in a meeting with george papadopoulos and we know that papadopoulos according to court documents exchanged a number of e-mails with top campaign officials with paul manafort and saying i have been in communication with russian officials. we don't know how much information he gave them about the conversations with the russians. we don't know exactly what the response was. we know there ultimately were no meetings. i can tell you behind the scenes there is discort about how to proceed. you have the president's legal
counsel advising him to continue to cooperate with special counsel robert mueller and then steve bannon saying he needs to get a lot tougher against robert mueller. we are watching closely. >> potentially go out and make it look like robert mueller is not doing the job of the american public and that he is wasting money and try to discredit him before the charges can really hit the surface. i know i missed the past couple of days. i know the white house is trying to distance itself from manafort and gates even though manafort was campaign chairman. papadopoulos, on the other hand, is somebody that we did not see on the campaign trail. he was not a visible member of this team. there was that photo that we have seen with him and the president. there is a lot of questions, though, about what was being said in that meeting and what
this man had to offer this campaign. i know you were covering the clinton campaign at the time, but the white house, do they have a defense here when they say that this guy was just -- nobody at the time wanted to be a part of this campaign? he was one of the hangers on someone like carter page to play devil's advocate here. >> reporter: i think they stressed that point that this was someone who wasn't very visible. as you point out you were c covering the campaign on the day to day basis. you have audio of then-president trump praising him as a great guy. i talked to people whee say he doesn't remember who george papadopoulos was. it is significant because this is the first time that really there is a link between these discussions with russian officials and the campaign. but i also have to tell you a number of people behind the scenes say this is going to blow
over that ultimately if this is what robert mueller has that it is not going to amount to anything significant for the president and say it has nothing to do with the white house. the president wants to be focussed on tax reform. and then at the end of the week the most consequentual foreign trip he is heading to asia. that is what he wants to be focussed on. i think you will see a pretty robust effort to try to turn the page. >> white house wants to focus on something else and don't get their way mostly because the president ends up tweeting about things. interesting you say he doesn't remember because back in november of 2015 i had an interesting phone call where he told me emphatically that he had the world's greatest memory. said it over and over again. at that point he was talking about muslims chairing 9/11 in jersey city which didn't happen.
it is funny that you say he doesn't remember things. phil, you had one of your bombshell pieces again yesterday talking about the president how he is reacting to these indictments specifically after hearing about george papadopoulos. it was interesting to see him tweet no collusion and then go silent after the papadopoulos plea deal was made public. >> that's right. the president spent much of yesterday morning in residence. staff was wondering why he was so late. he was totally digesting the news. he had cable news on listening to commentary and calling lawyers several times that morning and growing frustrated in part because he saw manafort and gates as having done misdeeds that predated his campaign and were still pulling him down. he hated that the tv were saying trump campaign in association
with these indictments and that really gnawed at him and bothered him. >> i thought was saying the president was focussed on tax reform and the asia trip yesterday. >> he tried to be very focussed on that. when he did get to work he had meetings related to that. >> what time was that? >> planning for the asian meetings. you can't ignore the indictments. the president woke up before dawn and was tuned in and ready to go. he knew these were coming. he apparently according to our sources didn't have any heads up about what was going to happen. he was sort of watching it unfold in real time like we all were with lawyers. >> and pete you have new reporting on papadopoulos. the plea deal being just the beginning. what do you mean by that? >> it's ample clear from a couple of sources that were unveiled as the result of his
unsealing his plea deal. what the mueller team intended to do and how he would know. let me explain that. in asking the judge to keep the case entirely under seal mueller's team says to the judge we want to follow up on what george papadopoulos has told us. we want to talk to certain people on the campaign that were in touch with him about contacts with the russians. judge, if you unseal this now they are going to be reluctant to talk to us and afraid of the about. please keep this a secret. that's how we know what they intended to do. how do we know they did it? because they said to the judge as soon as we are done with that then we will move to unseal the case and of course they unsealed the case monday. >> the timing yesterday, you are saying that they basically had their fill of papadopoulos and used him for all that they could. is that essentially what you are saying? >> actually, more that they talked to the people on the
campaign they wanted to talk to. they clearly wanted to talk to the people that he was e-mailing with. we believe we know who those folks are and we believe this means that mueller has talked to them. now, you can ask another question, why did they unseal it yesterday at the same time they are doing the manafort documents? you can pause at a lot of reasons for that. one reason may be that they wanted to note the contrast. here is manafort and gates facing very serious charges the maximum penalty for any is 20 years. here is george papadopoulos likely going to get by without jail time whatsoever for lying to the fbi. >> talk about the people who got e-mails from papadopoulos. i know we have an idea who they are. we asked former campaign manager about that on the "today" show this morning. savannah guthrie did. listen to what he had to say. >> are you the, quote, high
ranking campaign official who received three or four e-mails from george papadopoulos during this prl, may, june time period during the campaign? >> it's a great question. i don't know the answer to it because as the campaign manager i was receiving thousands of e-mails a day. i don't know if that was specifically referring to me or was that paul manafort or somebody else. >> so he doesn't know if it is him or paul manafort in the campaign but if it does turn out that it was any of those people or anybody else for that matter what are the implications for that person being the recipient of those e-mails from papadopoulos? >> by itself not much in terms of the criminal investigation. there is no crime in receiving an e-mail from somebody who wants to do this. it may be of interest in exploring whether the russians were trying to influence the campaign which is a noncriminal
question but something that robert mueller has to look at. i must say that it is easy to understand if you put yourself in the position. you know how chaotic it is to cover the campaign. imagine yourself in the position of a campaign official. it is from every direction. to ask them specifically what the interactions were, that's an understandable answer. i don't think we have a clear picture of how big a deal george papadopoulos was to the campaign. were they just treating him as an overeager puppy dog who had a lot of ideas or was he seriously engaged? we just don't know. >> he was invisible. i knew what he was by virtue of the president listing him on the foreign policy adviser's list. i personally called him multiple times and was never able to get him on the phone. he wasn't out there that much talking about foreign policy for
this campaign. i think not to diminish it because it still stands to reason that there are questions about why he thought relations with russia, contacts with russia could have been valuable to this campaign. barbara, it is notable that none of the charges that mueller brought yesterday with gates and manafort specifically are about collusion. are they still open to potentially being charged with that down the line or is this the end of the line for them? >> if you look at robert mueller's mission it is to look at links between russian int interference in the election to cases that may arise and perjury, false statements and the like that coming come up during the investigation. this is a case in the second category, crimes that may arise as a result of your investigation. i don't think robert mueller is
going out and charging people with crimes just because he can. i think he believes there is some relationship between the charges against manafort and gates and the larger picture of the russian investigation. one strategy prosecutors use is to charge someone with an unrelated crime in hopes of using that as an inducement to get them to cooperate in exchange for a promise of recommendation of leniency you ask them to provide truthful testimony and information to use in the case. that is what is going on with manafort and gates. >> we can't ignore the political fallout. you are on capitol hill. it seemed like republicans were tripping over themselves or at least one case tripping over an american flag to avoid being asked or to avoid answering questions about these two indictments about this plea deal. you can see chuck grassley there almost knocking over an american flag trying to get out of the way of reporters at a news
conference. is the tone and tenor of republican reaction changing today? >> i spoke too soon. mitch mcconnell is being asked about russia. >> with senator chairman burr and ranking member working on that. that's our role in it. and special counsel has his job to do. we will concentrate on what we are doing here in the senate. >> you have said from this podium multiple times that there is that the votes nor interest to change rules for filibusters. >> let me correct you. >>. >> saying what they have to do with this in the investigations in the senate and house. other republican reaction that you are hearing today. >> a lot of republicans are afraid of which is the president
doing something outside the bounds of what he should be doing according to them which is fire mueller which they don't want him to do. broadly speaking i don't think that is uniform. secondly is pardoning anybody who gets indicted in this investigation. i don't want to overstate this but the people i have talked to are worried what kind of action they would have to take a year out from the election. i'm not saying he will be impeached. the political impacts of a president getting involved in an investigation and probe like this are bad for republicans who by the way in a year from now face a tough hill to climb to keep control of the house. you never know what can happen in the senate. and so i just think that it's not getting the oxygen it deserves because the charges are so big. this is a huge political issue for members of congress who are not up for reelection in 2020
but in about 13 months from now. >> i feel like if this was happening to the democrats there would be a lot of noise from the republican side about this. every time republicans have come out and spoken strongly about this president it seems like they are caught in this rock and a hard place where they can't get reelected and they are essentially afraid of their voters because their voters seem to be on the side of donald trump no matter what is swirling around them, no matter what allegations. now, of course, there are the questions about whether or not the president is going to end up trying to fire robert mueller. so republicans are being asked about that. here is what lindsey graham said. >> i have zero concern that mr. mueller is in jeopardy of losing his job. effort to do it without a good reason would be holy hell to pay. >> not firing robert mueller but word that steve bannon is trying to encourage the president to
defund mueller's investigation. to knee cap his investigation. >> i just don't think this is at all in the realm of possibility. congress would have to pass a bill in certain language to defund it and get the president to sign it. it's not going to happen. it won't be defunded whether he fires him or not is not something i can predict. there are many, many lawmakers here on capitol hill who are much more willing to protect mueller than to fire him. i think that is very clear from the people i talked to up here. i wouldn't be surprised to see that happen if there is any clue or hint that mueller is in danger. you have seen that in the senate which is usually the hard chamber to get things through. you have seen a perfect willingness from people like graham. if he is in danger we will do something about it. bannon can do whatever he would like. >> not willing to step into that
particular. thank you very much. guys, good to see you. >> thanks. and next we'll dig deeper into today's hearings on capitol hill with executives from facebook, twitter and google. the next grilling that they are going to see is going to get underway in the senate at the bottom of the hour. and that's when we expect to also see sarah huckabee sanders. they like to line these things on top of each other. sanders is going to get asked about a lot of things, not to mention chief of staff john kelly who was on fox news last night in a rare interview where he defended confederate status and the character and intentions of robert e. lee.
i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay. then it hit me... managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor, i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease even after trying other medications. in clinical studies, the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
words from a doctor... stage 2 breast cancer. i have three little kids. my baby's seven years old. i can't have cancer. we really wanted a cancer team. so we thought that we would travel to cancer treatment centers of america and see what they had to offer. one of the things that we loved about ctca was that there is no one option, that they give you a series of options, and you do what's best for you. every patient that walks through the door is being discussed by this team in various forms. dr. fernandez was wonderful. he said it was up to me to do what's best. it's about giving her options, where amy has all the information to make a decision that's best for her.
we left the hospital on day one feeling like this is go be okay. we're gonna beat this and this is the place that's gonna help us do it... that feeling is priceless. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.
you're looking meanwhile at a live picture from capitol hill. senators from the judishry are about to question executives from facebook, twitter and google about their role to influence the 2016 election. the same executives will appear before the house and senate intelligence committees tomorrow. the hearing takes place as we learn more about the efforts. facebook will reveal that an estimated 126 million americans received russian backed content during the campaign roughly a third of the u.s. population. twitter will say it found nearly 27,000 accounts believed to be linked to russia and those accounts sent over a million tweets seen hundreds of millions of timesfelt tha. that's why my twitter is such a mess. google will tell senators it
found 18 youtube channels likely connected to the russian campaign, channels that posted over 1,000 videos. joining us now nbc's kasie hunt on capitol hill, kara shisher and malcolm nance also msnbc terrorism analyst and author of "the plot to hack america." i want to ask you but i will wait. first i want to talk about the news at hand which is social media testifying on capitol hill today. what did we learn? >> i have to tell you that first i want to talk about your marriage and congratulations to you and the newly minted mr. katy tur. congratulations to you both. >> welcome to the club. on the social media front this
is something where the question and the evolution of what the social media companies have been able to do is an important part of this puzzle because they were unwilling to help in any way to turn over information. they were insisting that this is not something they could comply with based on privacy concerns. i think they realized that the political pressure was very intense. so i think that the way that this is going to play out, the more we learn and the numbers that you read through are just staggering the number of voters that came across something that was touched by the russians on facebook during the course of the election and as well on other platforms there are now many lawmakers who are calling for regulation, political transparency in the advertisements. everyone of them has been in front of the camera making a campaign ad where they have to say i approve this message. it turns out there is quite a bit not only not identified but
completely untraceable. i think there are questions about whether lawmakers can keep up with, they are clearly already behind. if they got into the game of trying to do the regulation whether they can keep up with it. i think you will see some questions answered at the hearings. >> whose responsibility is this? i was talking to somebody at facebook who said as casey was mentioning we welcome lawmakers giving us regulations and trying to pursue some sort of oversight. as was mentioning it's not clear that lawmakers would have the wherewithal to keep up with it. >> these are huge numbers. i think the story from facebook, twitter, it's huge numbers. we are trying our best. initially they were very much nothing to see here especially mark zuckerburg who runs facebook. then they were like maybe there was some. and then all is just a little bit and now the numbers are growing which i said to you
before. they are going to find a lot more once you find it is like termites you keep finding them. i think the question is are they able to get their hands around how bad of a problem this is and fair it out in real time because elections happen every year all over the globe. the second thing is what should we do about it and what should lawmakers do about it and these companies do about it. i think there is no question that regulation is coming for this so they have to act like they are happy with that, but they are not. they obl don't want that to happen. it is going to happen so they will take it. >> somebody who presumably is happy about this is russia. >> yeah. russia is absolutely thrilled about this because what we had over the last two years is we have had a weaponization of freedom of speech and the weapons system or cruise missile so to speak was social media. they were used as weapons to launch propaganda, malicious
material into the blood stream of american democracy and poison it. right now many of these companies just do not want to admit it. the funny thing is over the last two years they did a great job with limiting the information from isis and terrorist groups and terrorist media. even with the information put in their face only recently we have learned 128 million people on facebook, 288 million impressions on twitter all of which came from foreign propaganda developed by a foreign intelligence agency. they are going to have to face up to that and then they are going to have to fix it themselves. i don't think regulation will do it. >> we should mention that a number of representatives from facebook, google and twitter sat down in the senate committee room. the crime and terrorism subcommittee will be questioning them trying to get to the bottom
of how much influence russia may have had through social media and what they plan on doing about it. we're talking about this in abstract terms to a degree. but this is happening right now and it's not like we are far out from another election. 2018 is around the corner. how are we as the american public, as social media companies, as congress going to be able to get a handle on this to make sure that it doesn't further influence any of our elections? >> awareness is the first part. everyone now knows and is paying attention. there are two parts of it. a lot of these hearings are focussed on ads. you can definitely control those. they do it with a lot of other things. they do it with spam. i think the issue that is really interesting there are three hearings in total. is going to be content, organic content created which is just
like propaganda and adds whether they pay for it or get it for free they are one in the same t. is mixed in with what is real content and factual. >> can you spot out bots? i feel like i can figure out who is a bot and who is not. shouldn't twitter and facebook and google be able to figure that out much more easily than me, regular old katy tur looking at her feed? >> it is hard to spot these things. there are good bots and bad bots. a lot of bots are used to help you get information so it's a really problematic thing. i think the weaponization is the weaponization of social media. when you take these tools they can be used for good or bad and in this case russia. remember one thing. it is a country attacking companies. it's not another company attacking a company. that's what makes it important that there is huge amount of
cooperation between the government and these companies in a way that i think is probably unprecedented. >> talk about that, malcolm. it's not just a corporation in america trying to kirkm vent the rules or play fast and loose with the rules or a person trying to get more eyes on what they happen to be selling. this is a foreign government who effectively is trying to interrupt, to influence, to attack our democratic process. what sort of role -- how strong do lawmakers need to be in order to make sure that they are upholding their constitutional duty which is to protect democracy? >> they should be playing a great role in this. they should be at crisis level panic in the house and the senate, but it isn't. there are hearings on the senate side. house intelligence committee seems completely disinterested in this. the united states was attacked. the russians didn't medal, they
attacked. they used social media as the weapons platform to damage american democracy and so distropical storm. if they take that as basic fundamental ideology that america shouldn't be attacked like this then they can reach out with the public/private partnership they need to identify real humans that are spreading propaganda and shut them down the way they did with terrorist media. >> let's listen to senator lindsey graham. >> we can talk among ourselves in 140 characters. some people are better at that than others. some should probably do less of it. these technologies also can be used to undermine our democracy and put our nation at risk. the platforms that i have just described that add value to individual american lives and to our country also can be used by terrorists to recruit in cyber
world people to their cause, can be used by foreign governments. we have seen an example of that in 2016 to create chaos within our democracy. information is power. ideas are the essence of democracy, the exchange of ideas being able to criticize each other is one of the things we cherish the most. we have to be on guard as a nation is having people who want to undermine our way of life using these platforms against us. i think this is the national security challenge of the 21st century. here is what david petraeus said about jihadists online. there are also exploiting vast largely ungoverned spaces in cyber space demonstrating increasing technical expertise and agility in the face of
efforts to limit its access. it is clear that our counter extremism efforts and other initiatives to combat extremism online have until now been inadequate. the purpose of this hearing is to figure out how we can help you. i believe that each of you in your own way are taking these problems seriously. the one thing i can say without a doubt, what we are doing collectively is not working. you have a foreign government apparently buying thousands of dollars worth of advertising to create discontent in the 2016 election. you have foreign entities going to websites like we don't have enough to fight about on our own. the bottom line is the platforms are being used by people who wish us harm and wish to under cut our way of life. if you are a man like putin democracy is your worst
nightmare. the idea of exchanging information about what is good and bad in putin's russia is something you dare not do because you won't last very long. so to those who wish to undermine the american way of life they found portals into our society that are intermingled with every day life and the challenge of this hearing and of this focus is to how to keep the good and deal with the bad. we'll never be 100% perfect but the goal is to be better than we are today. and to the extent that legislation can help we would like to know about what we could do to help. to the extent that the status quo is acceptable we want to be on the record and say it is not. so with that i will turn it over. >> thank you for organizing this fourth subcommittee hearing into
russia's meddling in the 2016 election. i'm very proud of the work we are doing on this issue. i hope it will continue and i hope that you and your team see me and my team as loyal partners in this effort. understanding what happened, how russia applied the varyed methods in election interference tool box to interfere with our democracy is an important step towards protecting integrity of future elections and our democratic process. each hearing the subcommittee holds gets us closer to that understanding. at our first hearing in march we talked about the subcommittee's intent and i quote to begin a conversation about the means and methods russia uses to undermine democratic government. we heard testimony from expert witnesses who outline the various tools through which the kremlin exerts influence abroad
through traditional methods like compromising political figures to hacking and leaking stolen information to disinformation, propaganda and provocation through both traditional media and social media networks. at a subcommittee hearing in may i went through a check list to see which methods have been deployed. >> as you can see sarah huckabee sanders has taken the podium. she will go through scheduling ins and outs of the white house -- before we dip into her your thoughts on the opening statements so far? >> just what we talked about what is going to happen here and want to figure out what is going on. i think this is just the beginning. this is not just a congressional thing. the white house has to be involved. they haven't staffed the science and technology staff. everybody needs to work together, white house, congress and these companies. that's the only way it will be fixed or fixed as much as it can be. new technologies are being
developed every second. it's not just what is existing but what is coming. >> thank you so much for joining us. let's get into this press briefing. sarah huckabee sanders is talking tax cuts and she is slamming the democrats. listen in. >> economy grew by over 3.5% on average. some democrats must have been paying attention to history because as recently as last year they publically supported many principles for which the president is advocating today including lowering the corporate tax rate so that our greatest businesses can be more competitive. presidents obama and clinton both advocated for cutting corporate tax rates. senate democratic leader called our tax system upside down and inside out and last year he actually admitted that cutting corporate taxes is quote really important for american competitiveness. nancy pelosi apparently agreed because she said, quote, it is
long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate tax rate. the only thing that seems to have changed since then is who michael okwu occupies the white the president has been committed to jump starting the economy. under the framework supported by the president our economy will grow, businesses will invest and american workers will see wages grow. in fact, the council for economic advisers estimates that a typical hardworking american family would get a $4,000 pay raise. so to democrats in congress particularly those who like to place american jobs and middle class tax relief ahead of partisan politics the question is simple, do you believe the american people deserve a pay raise? we certainly do and that is what we are focussed on and fighting for. the search is yours. with that we will take your questions. >> for tax deduction for state and local taxes?
>> we laid out priorities for the tax cut plan. those haven't changed. the president is going to continue to work with the pous and the senate to push forward and make sure the principles are achieved. we haven't made any adjustments to that at this time. >> what babout the mortgage interest deductions? >> we haven't made priorities. i'm not going to negotiate between you and i. the president is going to be involved in ongoing conversations with members of the house and senate and we have laid out our priorities and we will stick to those. >> conversation with speaker ryan? >> they are still meeting now and will have a read out once it is completed. >> thank you. question on yesterday's mueller news. president trump's nominating chief science adviser as sam clovus, the campaign supervisor cited in the papadopoulos plea. lawyers acknowledge he
encouraged papadopoulos to make a trip to russia to meet with russian officials about the campaign. given all that is the president still comfortable with him serving the administration? >> i'm not aware that change is necessary. >> is the administration aware of who the other three or four campaign individuals who were referenced in that papadopoulos were? and are any serving in or advising the administration? >> i'm not aware of specific individuals. i think that papadopoulos is an example of actually somebody doing the wrong thing while the president's campaign did the right thing. all e-mails were voluntarily provided to the special counsel by the campaign and that led to the process in the place we are in right now is the campaign cooperating with that. what papadopoulos did was lie. that's on him and not on the campaign. >> john kelly said the council investigation has been very
distracting to the president. can you elaborate on that? is this effecting his ability to get his job done? >> i don't think it is effecting his ability to get his job done. you guys seem completely obsessed with this while there are other things happening around the country and other things care more about the media refuses to cover it. that is the distraction instead of the focus being on tax cuts and tax reform if you look at the records the questions i take and hear have far more to do with an investigation that frankly most americans don't care too much about and a lot less to do with policies that impact them. >> why are you confident that the investigation won't go on much longer? >> we have confidence that it will come to a close in short time. glen has a call. maybe he needed to phone a friend to get help with his question. i had more faith in you to ask a
question all by yourself. >> the other thing that general kelly said yesterday was in reference to general lee and he said that the civil war was the result of a failure to compromise. was he suggesting that there would be a compromise on the abolition of slavery? >> look, all of our leaders have flaws. washington, jefferson, jfk, roosevelt, kennedy. that doesn't diminish their contributions to our country and it can't erase them from our history. general kelly was making the point that just because history isn't perfect doesn't mean it is not our history. >> you are a proud daughter of the south. when you see a statue of nathan bedford forest, is there a differentiation you think with certain confederate figures who don't deserve to be honored?
>> i don't think we should debate every moment of history. i think those moments took place. there are moments that we are a lot less proud of than others but we can't erase the fact that they happened. i think you have to determine where that line is. the president has said those are something that should be left up to state and local governments. i'm not going to get into the back and forth on it. >> thanks a lot. just to follow up on what you said yesterday and what you have reiterated about this investigation and your belief that is going to be wrapping up soon, yesterday you said those are the indications that we have at this time. from your point of view, is what you are saying wishful thinking? is it spin? are you getting leaked information that gets you that indication? why do you continue to say that you believe that it is wrapping up soon? >> again, that position has not changed and we do think that it will wrap up soon. i didn't say it would be three or four days.
i said soon. we hope that is the case. in large part because we know that the facts are on our side. there was no collusion and we are looking forward to moving forward and hoping you guys can, as well, and start focussing on some of the things we feel the american people would rather the conversation be turned towards. >> i want to ask you one thing about one of the prosecutors on bob mueller's team. the plea here for mr. papadopoulos last month, he hinted at the possibility of more to come in the investigation. he said the mueller probe is, quote, a large scale ongoing investigation of which this case, the papadopoulos case is a small part. so given what he said as an officer of the court, are you disagreeing with anything that he said in his remarks during that plea hearing? >> maybe his references and looking more to come between
democrats and the clinton campaign since if there is evidence to date it is between them colluding with other foreign governments and not from our side. >> one question about what the president said today. first question is president mentioned in the tax reform meeting that he was going to be announcing soon some companies that are coming back to the united states. can you name them or give us the industry that we are talking about? >> you know i'm not going to get ahead of an announcement the president is going to make. >> the speech he is making being billed as theme for the trip as well asindo pacific. does this administration see india as a pivotal part of the strategy? >> certainly plays a big role and general mcmaster will be here this week to discuss the trip in greater depth and more detail and will be happy to address those questions at that
time. >> steve bannon saying the administration should have pushed back harder against special counsel robert mueller? >> so far all they have done is come up with ways and shown there is no connection between the trump campaign and collusion with russia. >> thank you, sarah. first, the president is quoted last year as calling mr. papadopoulos a great guy. and today it was a liar. and i wonder just to kind of clear the air, how well did he actually know him and was he briefed by him often? did he have frequent meetings? >> my understanding is the only interaction was the one meeting that the advisory counsel gathered together when he was in a large group of other people in the room.
to my knowledge that was the only interaction. this was a campaign volunteer. this wasn't a senior adviser as many want to bill him to be. he played a minimal role if one at all and was part of voluntary advisory board. that's the only incident that we are aware of. >> the other thing i wanted to ask was a few weeks ago when the president sent out twitters about the media he suggested that equal time be applied. to many people that was a euphemism for the fairness doctrine something president ronald reagan helped eliminate. is he in favor of reviving the fairness doctrine and proponent was a young congressman named mike pence. >> i don't know that he is into the deep weeds but i know he
believes in fairness and that he would like to see that applied certainly to his administration in a way that it probably hasn't been so far. >> republican senate candidate roy in a way it hasn't been previously. >> does the president have plans to meet with him today or this week before he leaves for asia? >> no, there are no planned meetings at this point. >> lots of discussions on taxes, salt which was just brought up, possible phasing in the corporate rate just to name a couple of it. when the tax bill, whatever it it is released tomorrow will the president whole heartedly endorse this as his plan? >> as of right now woe see no reason to feel otherwise. until we see the details of it, i'm not going to speculate on where we are. we have laid out what our principles are, and we expect that piece of legislation to reflect those principles. if it does, you will see the administration come in with full
throated support. >> i'm not asking you to give us a name. >> what if i did? wouldn't it be fun? [ overlapping speakers ] >> that's the most excitement we have ever gotten out of this room. sorry. >> if you want to give us a name, we will take it. if not, my simple question is, has the president made his decision? or is he still debating it? >> i can tell you it's not major garrett. beyond that, i don't have anything to weigh in on. no, go ahead. >> president trump during the campaign repeatedly cat at this gated hillary clinton for not coming forward and coming clean when she got debate questions ahead of the debates. why didn't anyone in the trump campaign, including his son, come forward when there were solicitations from russian agents to provide dirt on his opponent? >> i'm not sure how those two things are remotely related. i couldn't begin to figure out how to answer that question. >> trying to get sense of the proactive duty to come clean when there is an ethical
question. and is the president upset that people in his campaign did to the come clean when there were ethical questions and lines being broked. >> i don't believe that's a ethical question, that's a standard campaign operating procedure. it's not collaboration with the russians, sorry noah. i know you want it to be but it just isn't. >> i know you say trump didn't clued but hillary clued. what's your definition of collusion? >> exchanging millions of dollars to distribute false information is a good definition. >> my second question, just to follow up from glen, robert e. lee aside, i understand your point how all leaders have flaws, what kelly said yesterday was an inability to compromise led to the civil war. back in the spring the president said that he thinks that andrew jaxon could have made a deal to
avert the war. what is the compromise that they are talking about, to leave the southern states slave and the northern states free? what was the compromise that could have been been made. >> i'm not going to get into debating the civil war but i know that many historians including shelby foot agreed that a failure to compromise was the cause of the civil war. there are a lot of historians that think that, and there are a lot of different versions of those compromises. i am not going to get up here and relitigate this little civil war but there is certainly historical documentation that many people and there is strong consensus tweem people from the left the right the north and the south believe that if some of the individuals engaged had been willing to come to some compromises on different things then it wouldn't have occurred. >> apropos of what's going onwualu the hill this afternoon and facebook disclosing yesterday that more than 100 million americans were
apparently exposed to what amounts to russian propaganda, what's the white house's view of that notion that more than 100,000 people have been reading and watching what this russian outlet has been putting out? and what do you make of the notion that there ought to be some kind of requirement that facebook be required to disclose the way that many broadcasters are required to disclose when political ads are made. >> i think we need to work this out in the process the next several days. and some of these questions are for facebook. that's not something that the federal government can weigh in on until findings have been proven. >> i wanted to follow up on conversations happen being the slavery compromise i'm not asking you to rewill it gale the civil war. we don't need a history lesson on the compromises that have mapped. does the white house acknowledge that the chief of staff's comments are deeply offensive to some folks andis whoically inaccurate. >> no, because as i said before,
i think that you can't -- because you don't like history doesn't mean you can erase and pretend it didn't happen. that's the point that general kelly was trying to make. and try to create something and push a narrative that simply doesn't exist is frankly outrageous and absurd. i think the fact we keep trying to drive, the media continues to want the make this and push that this is some sort of a racially charged and divided white house -- frankly, the only people i see stoking political racism right now are the people in the groups that are running ads like the one you saw take place in virginia earlier this week. that's the type of thing that i think really is a problem. and i think it is absurd and disgrazeful to keep trying to make comments and take them out of context and mean something they simple see don't. >> sarah, can i follow up on that -- >> -- that shows that the public seems to trust many of the
mainstream media outlets that the president criticizes more than they trust the president himself. why do you think this would be? and do you think the white house agrees with that? >> i haven't seen anything to suggest. that i'd have to look into it. i certainly can't comment on some study i know nothing about and don't agree with. >> sarah, given some of the criticism we've heard from the president'sious advisors is the president happy with his legal team right now. >> does he well fell represented, well defended when it comes the mueller probe? >> i'm not sure how he couldn't considering as i said yesterday and repeated several times today all of the revelations that have taken place over the last several days and hours have nothing to do with the president or his campaign. the further we get into that the more and more we see that happen. kevin. >> thank you sarah. i just wanted to ask about taxes and maybe a very pick follow on the discussion about compromise. if i'm understanding correctly
what you are really saying is he is not suggesting a compromise on slavery he is talking about other compromises that may have been germane to that period of history. >> that's the subject of the conversation a lot of people have had. he didn't get into the specifics because that's something that was discussed widely by many historians from both the north the south the left and right and he didn't get into the details because that wasn't the point he was making. >> on taxes i want to get a sense of what the president might really be interested in as far as the child tax credit and as far as the obamacare individual mandate. is it your opinion that the president would be supportive of both, meaning that they need to be a major tenet of the tax reform that will be unveiling this week? >> he certainly supports the child care tax credit. i'm sorry what was the other fees. >> the obamacare individual mandate. does that have to be part of tax reform? >> i don't believe it has to be
part of tax reform but the child care tax credit is certainly something he would like to see. one last question, major. >> you said moments ago the papadopoulos plea agreement is an example of an individual doing the wrong thing when the campaign doing the right thing. does that include sam encouraging papadopoulos to go to russia on behalf of the campaign. >> my understanding there wasn't encouragement. he made multiple attempts at setting up a variety of meetings that were constantly rebuffed. he also made false statements to investigators. that's something the campaign or the administration would never support. that is how they got to the place they are in right now. >> are you saying that cloves is being misinterpreted by george papadopoulos? >> i'm not getting into the detail of that. i'm talking about the multiple attempts he made in setting up a variety of meetings. there were more than one instance in which he tried to set up meetings that were
rebuffed by campaign. he lied about a lot of those activities. and that is the place that you i think see come through in the e-mails that were voluntarily urned over. >> you said yesterday, you were asked at one point during yesterday's briefing when the president became aware that russia was behind hacking and possession of e-mails, you said i'm not sure of the specific edit when that place so i would have to look and get back to you. >> yeah, i can respond to you on that. the president was briefed in a public li sized meeting in january. during that day he said publicly he received the intelligence briefings and he believed that russia was behind the e-mail hacks. thanks so much, guys. hap hope you have a happy and safe halloween. >> sfz trying to escape a barrage of questions from reporters there. much of that news conference, that briefings, centred around the new allegations, the new revelations, the indictments on manafort and gates, but also george papadopoulos, the foreign
policy adviser for the train campaign who has made a plea deal. the white house and sarah huckabee sanders that they have done nothing wrong that papadopoulos was the one this the wrong. the white house was the one that handed over the e-mails that papadopoulos was sending to campaign officials. and they are the ones that enabled special counsel probe to continue and for these e-mails and this information to come to light. with that, it is the end of my time here at msnbc for this hour only. not forever. ali very well she. >> good you corrected that i would have had tweets. i do come in here early just to spend time with you, not the take your air time. i don't know how much you remember about this but i remember when i first learned that george papadopoulos was among a whole bunch of