of donald trump, the president he serves. any final thoughts, matt? >> when in the world is going on? >> good as question as any. my thanks to chuck rosenberg, matt miller, ashley parker and phil rucker. that does it for our hour, i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck todd. >> what a day. thank you. and if it is thursday, the president is inviting vladimir putin to washington. tonight, the intel quotient. dan coats sounds off on the president's conflicting statements on the intelligence community. >> well, my thoughts were that i needed to correct the record for that. plus indecent proposal. what the white house is saying now about letting russia interrogate americans. >> unbelievable that they wouldn't confirm that they're not entertaining that for a second. >> we'll talk to one of the people in the kremlin's
crosshairs. and would he? wouldn't he? wouldn't you like to know what's really going on? this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening, i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd and welcome to "mtp daily." we begin with breaking news. get this, just moments ago the white house announced on twitter that president trump is inviting vladimir putin to come to the white house this fall. yes, that news came at the same time that the president's spy chief, his director of national intelligence, was rebuking the president for what he said at that disastrous press conference with vladimir putin. he also seemed completely blindsided by the news. here is dan coats reacting to the breaking news in an interview that just wrapped up a moment ago with my colleague, andrea mitchell.
>> we have some breaking news. the white house has announced on twitter that vladimir putin is coming to the white house in the fall. >> say that again. >> vladimir putin coming to the white house -- >> did i hear you? >> yeah, yeah. >> okay. that's going to be special. >> in that interview, coats talked about how he needed to take a stand against his own president on monday after watching mr. trump question the u.s. intelligence community while standing right next to vladimir putin. >> what we had assessed and reassessed and reassessed and carefully gone over still stands. and it was important to take that stand on behalf of the intelligence community, on
behalf of the american people. i believed i needed to correct the record. obviously i wished he had made a different statement. but it's undeniable that the russians are taking the lead on this. basically they are the ones that are trying to undermine our basic values and divide us with our allies. they are the ones that are trying to wreak havoc over our election process. >> there is a lot more from this interview, including one moment where coats paints the portrait of a president easily duped by the russians. also the news of the white house's invitation to putin comes as the fbi director is also rebuking the president's views on russian intelligence and firing back at the president's claims that the investigation into russian meddling is a witch hunt. >> he's got his view, he's expressed his view. i can tell you what my view is. the intelligence community's assessment has not changed. my view has not changed, which is that russia attempted to
interfere with the last election and that it continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. i do not believe special counsel mueller is on a witch hunt. i think it's a professional investigation conducted by a man that i've known to be a straight shooter in all of my interactions with him in my past life in government and certainly since then. so i don't think it's a witch hunt. >> folks, winston church ill once said that figuring out russia was like figuring out a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. who would have thought figuring out the white house's position on russia would be just as hard? because, of course, after a dizzying week of confusion and chaos about what the president thinks about putin and after a massive white house cleanup operation designed to prove that the president isn't cozying up to putin, they invite putin to the white house. joining me now fresh off her interview with dni dan coats is
andrea mitchell, nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of "andrea mitchell reports" here on msnbc and tonight's panel, danielle pletka, an nbc news contributor, jonathan lemire, an nbc news contributor and heather mcghee, senior fellow at demos action and also an nbc news contributor. andrea, let's start with you. you were able to break the news to the dni in the moment, vladimir putin is coming to the white house. your reaction to that and the interview as a whole. it was remarkable. >> what was so remarkable was that, first of all, he honestly did not know that putin had been invited. he acknowledged that he would certainly recommend that there not be a one-on-one again without note takers, that he did not think it was a good idea. still does not know what took place in helsinki in that private meeting, has not been
fully debriefed. there have been some comments by the president, but they don't fully know and don't know certainly how to counteract what is being said in moscow. he said that he did not know in advance that foreign minister lavrov from russia and ambassador kislyak were going to the white house that day. so you have, he said, a president who came from the private sector, had never been in government before. there were a lot of things that this intelligence community has had to deal with. he certainly welcomed the clarifications post helsinki. he said that he stood up and made the statement that he made after that news conference because he felt he owed it to the intelligence community, that that is his job. that's the job he signed up for, to explain honestly what the assessments are from the intelligence community. he made it very clear, katy, that nothing happens in russia without vladimir putin, as he described it, the former kgb chief, knowing about it, directing it, being in charge. and while he did not say that,
that contradicts what another cabinet secretary, kirstjen nielsen said to peter alexander where she was expressing ambivalence about whether it was putin and russia. he stuck to the intelligence assessment of 2017, said it has been revisited time and time again. they have assessed it, reassessed it and that is their assessment. that is their report to the president and to the american people, that it was vladimir putin and the russians who were attacking the american election. >> and what was so remarkable about that interview, we so often hear donald trump's officials talking points and unwillingness to go there when asked a direct question. dni coats seemed willing to go there and give his honest assessment, a little more diplomatically than we would hear maybe from somebody not in the administration but certainly a more honest assessment than we've seen from most. let me play you a moment, you referred to his reaction to the oval office meeting that donald trump had with the foreign minister, sergey lavrov and
other russian officials early on in the administration. >> did you know beforehand that kislyak and lavrov, the ambassador and the foreign minister, were going into the oval office that day? >> i did not. >> what was your reaction afterwards? we all learned about it. >> probably not the best thing to do. but no, i was not aware of that. i'm not aware of anything like that since. you have to understand you have a president who did not come through the system, came from the outside. i don't think there was any nefarious attempt there to do anything, but that's history. >> andrea, is it just me or is he seeming to painting the portrait of a president who could be easily manipulated by the russians? >> well, he would not say that, but that is certainly the
inference, that they have to be very careful and he has to be better prepared. the fact is that for whatever reason, and we can't really speculate because we don't have hard evidence, as to why there is this affinity between the president and vladimir putin, the invitation for a return visit to the white house is extraordinary. you saw his reaction. he said, well, that's going to be something. he had no idea that this was coming. and he said -- he described the way the president takes his information, that they extend the intelligence briefing when he does it. he does it on the road, but it's not as extensive and he has been traveling a lot. we've noticed that it hasn't been on his schedule very regularly lately, but he doesn't read it. they all take it differently. he does ask a lot of questions, but clearly this is a president who is not well prepared for helsinki. >> coats said the president likes it orally, his intelligence briefing. andrea mitchell, remarkable
interview, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> okay, guys, let's get into this and let's also remind our viewers that that oval office meeting between lavrov and kislyak and the president is the one where he reportedly told them about top-secret information, intelligence that is real passed on to us, and one where he said that he is relieved of the great pressure that he was under because he fired james comey. so there's the context of that. there is a firestorm of criticism this week for the president meeting with putin on monday and then having that press conference on monday and fawning over him. in what universe does a white house think that now is a good time to announce that we're inviting putin to the white house? >> i think this is another example of the president versus the presidency. the administration clearly does not think this is a good idea. we knew from our reporting that the helsinki summit was a very guided white house as to whether the president should do this at all. there were more objections about whether he should have this
one-on-one meeting. but he insisted he wanted to do this. he was in there, just the two of them and the interpreter. we shouted some questions, they each gave a statement, that was it. they proceeded to be in there more than two hours. we are still days later not really sure what was discussed. >> it's not just the reporters, it's u.s. officials as well. you just heard dni coats say he didn't know what was head in that interview. when you have a president that passed on top-secret information to the foreign minister and ambassador in the oval office, does that leave you to believe that something bigger could have been passed on from the president to the other president face to face? >> no, no. i think we can write off the first lavrov/kislyak meeting to inexperience, to a businessman in this office, to bad judgment. donald trump's signature, bad judgment. but as far as the meeting in helsinki went, we have a sense of what was discussed. the problem is we have no idea what the president said. i don't -- i doubt the president
was -- >> why are you so confident that he's not passing on intelligence? why are you so confident? where does that trust come from? >> it's not trust but i think the president got smacked pretty hard from his advisers. i think that's why he's parted from a lot of people inside the white house because they said to him, this is secret, this is top secret, this is code word, can't pass this on. this is human intelligence. buddy, don't repeat this. now, whether the president has the judgment or not, i don't think -- the problem is that everything is by the seat of the pants. i find that my best guide with donald trump is to think back to high school. i hate to say it, it was quite a long time ago, but remember when mom told you i don't like that boy or i don't like that girl and the answer was, well, i don't care. i'm going to bring him over to our house and you better host him for dinner and i'm going to bring him there and you're going to eat it. that's the feeling you get from the relationship that he has with his advisers. they're saying i don't like that girl and he's going i don't care
what you think. i'm the boss and i decide. >> i don't like that girl, she burnt down our house. she tried to burn down our house. here's the evidence to prove it. and you're also talking that way about a 72-year-old man who's the leader of the free world. >> part of the problem is it's not just contained to his own version of reality, right? we've seen now recent polling that shows that only 32% of republicans know and understand that russia interfered on behalf of the trump campaign. i am still gobsmacked that secretary nielsen said mere hours ago in aspen that she hadn't seen any evidence that it was both sides that russia was trying to help, that it was just this discord in general. she said she hadn't seen any evidence that it was helping the trump administration. it's unbelievable. then she followed that up with another both sidism of
charlottesville. it's not just president trump, it's the republican party. >> is that why this interview with coats was so remarkable. >> he definitely spoke extremely candidly. he was willing to break from the president in moments we have not seen from other cabinet members in public. behind the scenes that's happened a lot, rex tillerson among others, but it was refreshing. to the point that i know i talk to white house officials soon after that interview. was that his exit interview, is he on his way out after this? i don't think there is a suggestion that's the case. we keep waiting for that moment. we keep waiting for some senior official saying enough's enough. not just about russia but every firestorm this administration has faced, we've had maybe one quit on principle and that was gary cohn about tariffs. there's been none about something like this. >> there is still so much confusion on where the president stands on meddling. he gave another interview yesterday with cbs where he attempted to clean it up.
let's play donald trump in the past three days about what he thinks of our intelligence. listen. >> they said they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. >> the sentence should have been i don't see any reason why it wouldn't be russia. >> president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial. >> i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. >> you say you agree with u.s. intelligence that russia meddled in the election in 2016. >> and i've said that before, jeff. i have said that numerous times before. i would say that that is true, yeah. >> could be other people also. there's a lot of people out there. >> coats says the threat is ongoing. do you agree with that? >> well, i'd accept it. he's an expert. >> is russia still targeting the
u.s., mr. president. >> thank you very much. no. >> yesterday the white house tried to say he was saying no to more questions. here's the official transcript that was released by the white house. mr. president, is russia still targeting the u.s.? is russia still targeting the u.s., mr. president? the president, thank you very much, no. no, you don't believe that to be the case? the president, no. that's their own transcript. >> this is the thing. i'm not confused, i just think he is, what is the s.a.t. version of the word dissembling when he tries to do anything else other than russia interfered in the election. we know that the trump administration -- excuse me, the trump campaign was eagerly seeking out, being reached out to and was happy to have russian intelligence about the opposition campaign. so anything else he says at this point is just lying, and that's just a difficult thing because we've not been in this place, certainly not in my lifetime, where we all have to sit here
with a president not telling the truth. >> hang on. >> hold on. "the new york times" is reporting that he had an intelligence briefing two weeks before the inauguration where he was presented, danielle, with evidence, text messages and other evidence that vladimir putin directed, directed the meddling. he knew about it two weeks before he was inaugurated. how do you explain away the way he's talking about it now? >> i can't plain it. >> and has been talking about it the last year and a half. >> none of us can explain it. it's clear the russians sought a particular outcome in the election. it's enclosuclear they had thei into hillary clinton. the problem is how donald trump sees this. i believe, i don't know the man, but i believe what he hears when we say russian interference is your election wasn't legitimate and he can't stand that. as for the notion, by the way, that he's the first president who's lied to us, oh, i wish. i'm sorry, i wish. >> danielle, jonathan, heather, guys, stick around. coming up, another day, another walk-back from the white house. >> he offered to have the people
working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. i think that's an incredible offer. able options chains? ones that make it fast and easy to analyze and take action? how about some of the lowest options fees? are you raising your hand? good then it's time for power e*trade the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. alright one quick game of rock, paper, scissors. 1, 2, 3, go. e*trade. the original place to invest online. until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month.
let's do this. (♪) okay you gotta be kidding me. hold on, don't worry, there's another way. directions to the greek theater. (beep) ♪can i get a connection? ♪can i get can i get a connection?♪ ♪ohhh can i get a connection? ♪trying find the old me it's a high-tech sleep revolution. the sleep number 360 smart bed intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts.
so you wake up ready to run the world. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. sfx: [cell phone dialing] no. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites. welcome back. there is so much today to talk about. discussions are under way for vladimir putin to come to washington for another meeting, even as the president's director of national intelligence and other top advisers say they don't even know what happened in the first meeting. joining me now is frank f figliuzzi, an nbc news national security analyst. our panel is back. frank, the president has invited vladimir putin to washington and he still -- he is still
embroiled in the controversy and the drama that that first meeting has created. they still haven't cleaned up the mess from all of the muddled and confusing statements and the terrible walk-backs that he's made in the past few days to clean up after that first meeting. what do you make of inviting vladimir putin to washington this fall? >> katy, i've been half joking today upon hearing this news that the timing is great because putin's indictment should be ready by then and they can nab him at the airport. but seriously, i do think what we're seeing here, as surprising as it is, is the continuation of this double down practice of the president, the what i call the "you are not the boss of me" attitude when leading members of congress say this is not good, he's doubling down. he's saying not only am i in charge, i'm doing what i want to do and i've got a strategy and a method to my madness, and that's what we're seeing here.
but it's a dangerous, dangerous situation we're in because if he continues to have unilateral discussions without planning, preparation and witnesses, we're left to conclude that something nefarious is going on between the two of them and that's not a good place to be. >> that's the way he worked in the campaign as well. when you would tell him not to do something, his advisers or pundits or whatever would say you can't do that, he would go at it. you can't go after hillary clinton for her gender because she's a woman. he would go straight at it and embrace it and say all these very gendered -- give all these very gendered attacks on her. he embraces the drama of it. having putin in the oval office, what is the one thing that he needs to be prepared on in your opinion to make this meeting go more successfully than the last if he's going to have it? >> if he's going to have it, he's got to bring in a team of credible respected advisers, ask
for a scripted plan for the interview, come out -- or for the discussion, and then come out transparently and say this is what we discussed, these are the issues. do it beforehand. tell congress, if he's going to do this in a politically savvy way and he's learned a lesson here, he's got to do it in a transparenent bipartisan fashio. is that going to happen? i'm not going to hold my breath. >> donald trump, in talking about the confidence he has in his intelligence, jonathan, he keeps saying my intelligence, my people, the agencies headed by my people. does he not respect or believe intelligence that was gathered before he was president? does that mean that everything that happened before is political and not to be trusted? >> that's the deep state, katy. that's exactly what the president is saying. he feels like the heads of the intelligence agencies, the national law enforcement, people who had those posts under president obama are out to get him. that's james comey, that's the other intelligence -- the heads of the other intelligence
agencies, and he feels that only now that his people are in charge he can trust them. now, having said that, he seems to disagree with them plenty too. for him that seems to be an easy way of bifurcating good versus bad. it seems unlikely to frank's point -- the odds of him doing that are very slim. the president does not surround himself with advisers and take their advice. he does not go into a meeting with a bullet points battle plan. >> is it because he doesn't trust his advisers right now? >> it's a couple of things. on the whole i think he's been happier with his staff of late. he had gotten rid of a lot of people who challenged him and some of the people around him they were more willing to say yes. but he has soured on them on this issue for sure. he didn't like the pushback. he didn't think they had his back. and that he is more and more just going on his own. >> why invite vladimir putin on the eve of the midterms? >> i think he -- he looks at the same poll numbers that we see,
that the people that he really thinks matters, right, my people, as he calls them. i'm not just talking about the people he's appointed, i'm talking about the segment of the country that is his base, still is with him on it. and i think he thinks that if he does that, if he invites putin to the white house, he's showing that he has nothing to hide. i also think that he has some unfinished business with vladimir putin. we don't know what that is. vladimir putin may have asked him, can i come to the white house? he probably said great. i'd love to show you my big ole house. >> as a quick aside, that was the president's original plan. he wanted to make this a white house summit. he didn't think helsinki wasn't glamorous enough, he had to be talked into it because it had been a traditional meeting spot between u.s. and soviet leaders. >> you do have to ask yourself, though, i think the timing issue is just staggering. okay, let's say that in fact he'll have a better meeting. he just really wants to straighten it all out. maybe, god willing, that's the case. but right before the midterms? why would you possibly want to energize your opposition in this
way? >> what if more indictments come down from robert mueller? what if there's more breaking news from robert mueller. >> they most certainly will. but unfortunately, he's got this channel that is both literally in terms of fox news, but also a very clear conduit to the people that, again, he thinks matters. it's his base who absolutely doesn't believe robert mueller, who agrees it's a witch hunt and unfortunately we haven't seen enough republicans standing up to protect the investigation so that he thinks it's not going to matter. >> frank, it's not just what if more indictments come out, you have dni coats and other intelligence officials saying they are still meddling. they are trying to meddle. they're meddling right now. we are voting right now. there are primaries going on right now, there are special elections going on right now. to invite vladimir putin on the eve of the elections, what does that say, the midterm elections, what does that say to the intelligence community? >> yeah, katy, this is a thumbing of the nose at the entire intelligence community. the white house is our house,
it's the people's house. he's inviting someone who has ordered meddling with our electoral process. we have indictments of intelligence officers up to the rank of lieutenant colonel and the person in charge of all of that is being invited to our house, the people's house. the continued use of qualifiers -- >> i'm sorry, it's not even that the president doesn't know this, frank. he's been told this repeatedly, that vladimir putin ordered this. he's been shown highly classified information. given that, why does he think it's a good idea? >> right. so out of one side of his mouth, katy, he's saying i'm with the intelligence community, i have confidence in them, i accept their findings. then he attaches the qualifiers and the caveats, right? well, dan coats thinks it's the russians. no, dan coats doesn't think it's the russians. this was the most conclusive intelligence report of the entire intelligence community that you can possibly see. analysts qualify everything. but there's nothing qualified in these findings. it is russia. there's no 400-pound guy in his
head doing this hacking. yet, we see the complete dismissal of that. it's appealing to his base. i'm my own guy, i don't listen to traditional washington, i'm doing my own thing. >> let's set aside the american politics for just one second. let's think about -- let's pretend this never happened. what about the fact that they murdered a british citizen. what about the fact that they are assassinating their opponents in the uk using nerve gas. what about the fact that we're confronting them -- >> a coup in montenegro. >> and not the first time, by the way, that we are fighting them face to face in syria, that they are backing iran. set aside the election, i understand that donald trump may be nuts on that topic. but what about everything else? that makes it all the worse. >> danielle, you bring up a very good point. frank, thank you for joining us. also thank you to your squeaky chair. panel, stick around. and we wouldn't want you to miss what's next. it would be a big mistake to go anywhere, wouldn't it?
today, there are more sensors on our planet than people. we're putting ai into everything, and everything into the cloud. it's all so... smart. but how do you work with it? ask this farmer. he's using satellite data to help increase crop yields. that's smart for the food we eat. at this port, supply chains are becoming more transparent with blockchain. that's smart for millions of shipments. in this lab, researchers are working with watson to help them find new treatments. that's smart for medicine. at this bank, the world's most encrypted mainframe is helping prevent cybercrime. that's smart for everyone. and in africa, iot sensors and the ibm cloud are protecting endangered animals. that's smart for rhinos. yeah. rhinos. because smart only really matters, when we put it to work- not just for a few of us, but for all of us. let's put smart to work.
each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment.
welcome back. would you bear with me here for a moment. i would like to show you something, if you wouldn't mind. >> i would say that that is true, yeah. well, i would, because he's in charge of the country. i think that would be a great thing if we could do it. i would say that, no, nuclear war is our biggest problem. i'm saying the same thing.
>> if he says that, i would accept that. i will tell you, though, it better not be. >> that would just be a few of the times over the past few days that the president used the word "would." not including the one time he said what he said but then said he didn't mean to say what he said. we wouldn't want to play that one, after all, it would be out of context now. >> i said the word would instead of wouldn't. the sentence should have been i don't see any reason why it wouldn't be russia. sort of a double negative. >> what if all the presidents woulds this became wouldn'ts. it would be very confusing, wouldn't you agree? because wouldn't it be better if we would all just laugh. >> what do you think about the white house not clearly saying they wouldn't saying -- >> what was the question again? i'm not sure i heard it right.
welcome back. the president is inviting vladimir putin to the white house this fall, as the white house today tries to clean up another controversy from president trump's summit with vladimir putin earlier this week. a proposal to let russian authorities interrogate americans in exchange for letting mueller's team sit in on questioning of 12 intelligence officers indicted for 2016 election hacking. president trump said on monday that it was a, quote, incredible offer. yesterday the white house didn't rule it out. but now the white house says, quote, it is a proposal that was made in sincerity by president putin, but president trump disagrees with it. the kremlin critics that putin wants include a familiar face to many of our viewers, msnbc analyst and former u.s. am ba ambassador to russia, michael
mcfaul. also bill browder. but putin singled out browder at that press conference, who's led a human rights campaign resulting in sanctions against the kremlin. and now vladimir putin wants to get his hands on him. bill browder joins me now. i guess we should say putin has wanted to get his hands on you for quite some time, not just now. what do you think of the president inviting putin to the white house this fall? >> well, i didn't think that donald trump should have given putin the benefit of sitting on a stage with him in helsinki, and i don't think that he should give him the benefit of a state visit to the united states. vladimir putin is a menace to the world. he's invaded ukraine, he's shot down passenger planes with innocent people on them, he's killed innocent women and children in syria, he's meddled with elections, spreading chemical weapons around the
center of england. this guy is a global menace. to invite him to washington after sitting on a stage as equals in helsinki is the enormous gift to vladimir putin that vladimir putin absolutely doesn't deserve. >> does it make you personal low nervous that he's inviting him? after all, the white house said yesterday that they were considering allowing putin and russians to question you and some other american citizens. >> well, it doesn't make me particularly nervous, although my accent betrays it. 29 years ago i immigrated to london. i'm a british citizen. and so it's not as if he has jurisdiction over me. and furthermore, to the extent that when i am in america, the united states is a rule of law country. the courts are -- the courts have power over the government and i don't think that anything untoward would happen to me. but it does bother me that vladimir putin is getting all
these free gifts of credibility when he should be contained, not flattered and engaged. >> you said that you do live in britain so i guess the president should have been asking a different head of state if he really wanted to talk to you, theresa may, although she probably wouldn't be so apt to give you to him given on what happened on her soil with the poisoning of the ex-russian spy. talk to us about what sort of security measures you've put in place for yourself. are you worried about your safety generally? >> well, the first thing i should point out is although the world has seen vladimir putin's anger against me, this has been going on five years. this is at no different a level now than it was five years ago. he's very angry. he wants to destroy me, kill me or arrest me and he's been trying those things for a number of years. yes, i do have many security measures in place. the most important security measure is legal security. i only go to countries where
governments will support me and not hand me over to vladimir putin. >> that severely limits your travel, i would assume. >> well, not really. i mean there are a number of like rule of law countries around the world. >> but if you go to a european country, they could put out an alert on entinterpol. >> that happened to me about six weeks ago. rubba put out an interpol arrest warrant. the spanish police acted on it, arrested me, but two hours later i was released. i don't think that i would have been sent back to russia from madrid. but let's say i had been in dubai, i'm sure those guys would be happy to give vladimir putin a little gift. >> you say vladimir putin is upset at you about the magnitsky act, which is all the sanctions that have been put on those close to vladimir putin over the years. why is he also accusing you, though, of avoiding paying russian tax debts and funneling money to the clinton foundation -- i'm sorry, hillary
clinton's campaign? he's also even calling you a serial killer. why? >> well, he basically takes -- they make up criminal accusations against their enemies, serial killing. they call me a spy. they said that i stole $4.8 billion of imf money destined for russia in 1998. they just throw this stuff out like candy against their enemies. they basically in order to try to discredit people who are fighting corruption or fighting for human rights, they try to criminalize them. it's a standard operating procedure. they do it, every single person that's a human rights activist. the more effective you are, the more allegations they throw out there. thankfully they don't stick in the west but that is his modeus operandi. >> explain why the magnitsky act has got under his skin. our viewers will know that act
and find that familiar because that's the guys that the donald trump jr. meeting was about in trump tower in 2016. >> it all comes back to the fundamental principle that vladimir putin is a very corrupt head of state, a kleptocrat. what that means is he's stolen a lot of money from the russian people through many, many different crimes and schemes. some of those crimes and schemes required him to take hostage or kill businessmen or people who stood in his way. and so as a result of this, he's done two things, committed a lot of crimes and accumulated a lot of money. the money that he's acoupkuccum sits in bank accounts in the west. what the magnitsky act does, it says anybody involved in gross human rights abuses can have their money seized, so it applies directly to that type of person, to the vladimir putin type of person who's committed crimes and has a lot of money. and in vladimir putin's case, he thinks, and he's not unrealistic in thinking this, that his offshore wealth is at risk because of actions that i've
taken and because he could potentially be sanctioned under the magnitsky act. >> bill browder. bill, thank you for being with us today, we do appreciate it. call it a walk-back or clarification or cleanup. whatever you call it, it's happened not once, not twice, not even three times, but four times this week alone from the white house. ♪ ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%.
welcome back. tonight "meet the midterms." president trump has georgia on his mind, weighing in on the state's hotly contested republican gubernatorial runoff. in a surprise move, the president is now endorsing georgia secretary of state brian kemp over the state's lieutenant governor. and the atlanta journal constitution reports that vice president pence will be in georgia this weekend to headline a rally for kemp. you may remember him from this ad. >> two things, if you're going to date one of my daughters -- >> respect. >> and? >> a healthy appreciation for the second amendment, sir. >> we're going to get along just fine. >> brian kemp for governor. >> pointing guns at teenagers. politics. the president's endorsement of kemp puts him at odds of georgia's governor. the race is likely to come down to the wire with the latest polling showing kemp with a slight lead. the runoff is tuesday and we'll
right now, buy one hp ink and get a second at 30% off at office depot officemax . time now for "the lid." the panel is back. guys, walkbacks this week alone there have been four. it is only thursday. so every day this week. well, really because it was wednesday, tuesday, thursday, four times in three days of this week. jonathan, that's a record for even this white house. it's walkback week. >> it is walkback week. not quite infrastructure week. this is a president who we all know hates to say he's sorry or made a mistake. but yet time and time again the administration has had to furiously back pedal to get out from something he said. this is the best example yet. it's nonsensical walkbacks about whether he said no or not in what he was responding to, the
would or the wouldn't. at the end of the day, none of that approaches the heart of it. if anyone watched the news conference from helsinki on monday, even if you quibbled with a word here or there and you believed him, the other 99% of the press conference backed up the other viewpoint. >> the republicans found his walkbacks -- not all, but a lot of them found his walkbacks to be just fine. marco rubio, yeah, the clarification does it for me. >> they needed something to hold onto. this is not a president they want to break with. they feel very clear, for the most part, right, for the most part republican elected officials do not want to get on the wrong side between trump and his base. i think it's remarkable that the congress could have done a whole bunch of things in response to helsinki. i would like to have seen them pass legislation to protect the investigation. to demand that he release his tax returns, for example, these are things that would actually move the ball forward. instead they have to play cleanup on a ridiculous vote today to say no, we're not going
to give over our former ambassadors for russian interrogation. >> we talk about how the republicans are afraid of donald trump's base and they're afraid of getting primaried and losing the election with a wayward tweet from the president. the atlantic had an interesting op-ed, that said if republicans banded together they have strength in numbers. the party ultimately needs them more than they need donald trump. if they were able to come together and work -- and work together to push back on the president they would be able to maintain their integrity and a lot of their policy positions, and at the same time rein donald trump in. >> you're going to have a hard time telling a party that they have to rein their president. >> isn't that what checks and balances is though? >> that's what it should be, but it's not what it is right now. that's for democrats and republicans. there's a much deeper issue here, congress, the bigger
checks and balances problem. the reason that congress and the republicans in congress are sticking with donald trump is because they haven't figured out how to speak to his base. because they don't do anything. you want to talk to donald trump's base, start dealing with the facts of unemployment, start dealing with the fact that people feel disenfranchised, start dealing the fact that people feel left behind, prison and education reform. all of those things would be substantive responses to the people who elected donald trump. and congress just sits there and twidles its hands and you see the response from marco rubio, i'm good with that, i'm good with that meaning of is, is kind of excuse from the president. >> is that something the democrats are capitalizing on? >> i think the democrats right now are, you know, have on the one side a positive agenda that actually does deal with, you know, jobs and wages and the fact that, you know, most working americans haven't seen a
raise in a generation, or, you know, have any savings to speak of. there is this whole agenda that, you know, senate democrats and house democrats like to point to, but it gets no oxygen, as we've done today, we are constantly talking about donald trump. and so they feel stuck. they're finally starting to get an ability to talk about trump in a way that connects to the broader problems. that's specifically around corruption. right? corruption both in the sense of the russia investigation, which polling keeps showing them that's not it, most americans don't think that's one of the top two issues, but also corruption in terms of it turning into policy stuff, under mining the consumer financial protection bureau and our clean water and clean air and letting wall street write the rules again. this is something that people feel strongly about, money and politics, and corruption, and on policy grounds, democrats have the high ground. >> leave it there. jonathan, congratulations on a remarkable question this week. and you really drove the news cycle. >> thank you, katy.
>> good job, good reporting. danielle, jonathan and heather, guys, thank you all very much. ahead, states of confusion. friends, colleagues, gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪
two, down and back up. our phones are more than just phones. they are pocket sized personal trainers... last minute gift finders... siri: destination ahead. and discoverers of new places. it's the internet in your hand. that's why xfinity mobile can be included with xfinity internet. which could save you hunreds of dollars a year. plus get $150 when you bring in your own phone. its a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit a store today. in case you missed it, we've been talking about a lot of white house confusion today. it's not just policy proposals where sometimes the president gets mixed up, a lot of time. take a listen to this. >> one of the states we won, wisconsin, i didn't even realize this until fairly recently, that
was the one state that ronald reagan didn't win when he ran the board his second time. >> come on, don't you remember? reagan lost wisconsin. except that he didn't. reagan won the badger state in both 1980 and 1984. the state he did not win was minnesota. and this is not the first time the president has gotten this particular thing wrong. >> when we won the state of wisconsin, it hadn't been won by a republican since dwight d. eisenhower in 1952. did you know that? but think of wisconsin, reagan had his big win. he won every state except one, the great state of wisconsin. >> there you go again. >> so, mr. president, let's
review, this is wisconsin. and this is minnesota. one is famous for cheese. the other is famous for being nice. one's native sun is liveraci, the other's is jesse ventura. they share a border, but they're not the same. maybe a wall would help. that's all for tonight. back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." i will be here. ari melber, and the beat starts right now. watch seth meyers. >> that will be cool. i feel like i haven't seen you in a while. >> i need to save my choice. again you're going to do this to me. i'm going to have no voice on seth meyers. >> there's something very meta-about you talking about your voice. >> yes, super meta, it's really metawe're talking about my voice talking about my voice. ari, bye. >> bye, katy. the trump-made