out safely. people you don't know care about you. it's kind of one of those things where you can't even thank somebody. to protect what you love, call 1-800-adt-cares good day, everyone. i'm alex witt here at msnbc headquarters. it's 1:00 in the east, 10:00 a.m. out west. the wait in washington. the mueller investigation charges. who's in the crosshairs for arrest, and how will it all go down. >> there's going to be a knock on somebody's door at 6:00 tomorrow morning. and arrests are going to be made, and the news media is going to be right behind the agents. >> the name game. if past headlines are prologue, does paul manafort need to plan for a dark monday? >> plus, waiting for wednesday. the details in the dollars of the gop's tax cut plan. will it change the calculus of the cuts? >> getting the tax bill done right is a critical ingredient

to the success of our country. >> so again, the economic evidence suggests that this is exactly the wrong time for a big wasteful regressive tax cut like this. >> let's start with politics and mountic speculation over the target of robert mueller's indictment. new reaction from adam schiff, ranking member of the house intel committee on just how significant the person or persons could turn out to be. >> it could be manafort. it could be flynn. many people have been pointing out that you generally go after the small fish first. >> right. >> those are not small fish. we're talking about the national security adviser for the president and talking about the president's campaign manager. if those are the small fish, then the big fish has to be pretty big. >> meanwhile, republicans on capitol hill weighing in on attempts by some to remove robert mueller from the investigation because of his ties to former fbi director james comey. >> is this still a witch hunt? >> i don't know where he's going.

it brings to mind a lot of questions, especially who he hired at the beginning. a lot of attorneys who played in politics, who have given money on the democratic side. the one thing i know for sure, let the investigation go where it may. >> there are issues here which he's going to have to address because it's going to involve the investigation of what the fbi was doing and not doing at a critical time during our relationship with russia when he was head of the fbi. so i'm not calling on him to resign, but there are issues he's going to have to address and discuss them publicly. >> i would encourage my republican friends, give the guy a chance to do his job. the result will be known by the facts, by what he uncorbs. the personalities involved are much less important to me than the underlying facts. i would say give the guy a chance to do his job. >> and to go over all the latest developments, i'll speak with congressman ted lieu of the house judiciary committee, erin mcpike, nicholas confessore of "the new york times," and kelly o'donnell at the white house, with a welcome to all four of you, kelly, i'm going to begin with you.

the president, as you have been covering, firing off a series of tweets today. any direct reference to tomorrow's expected indictment? >> not obviously and directly in the president's tweets, but i can tell you that i now have an on the record statement from the president's internal white house special counsel, ty cobb, special counsel might be confusing because robert mueller, of course, is on the outside, but the internal lawyer hired by the president to serve on the government pay roll to facilitate the white house's cooperation with the mueller investigation tells me that the tweets today from the president are not, as some have asked, a reaction to anything involving the special counsel with whom the white house continues to cooperate. let's take a look at those tweets to get a sense of how people will take their own assessment of what the president was saying. in a string of tweets, five of them, he talks about never seeing so much republican anger and unity as he has concerning the lack of investigation on the clinton made fake dossier. now that's a reference to the

campaign season unflattering collection of anecdotes about candidate donald trump that we have learned has been paid in part by the dnc and the clinton campaign. the president goes on to list his grievances against the hillary clinton era and the campaign. uranium to russia, 33,000 plus deleted e-mails, the comey fix, as he puts it, and instead, he says they look at trump phony russia. the president senting a message to his own base, trying to brand this investigation as phony. collusion, which he says does not exist. he says that publicly quite often. the dems bad for our country witch hunt for evil politics. but republicans are now fighting back like never before. the president tweets, there's so much guilt by the democrats, and clinton, he contends, now the facts are pouring out, do something. he finishes up this string saying all of this, quote, russia talk, right when republicans are making their big

push for historic tax cuts and reform, is this convincedantal? it's the greatest hits of his frustrations toward the clinton era, and there are issues that are certainly something for the white house politically to try to shape the public conversation here, to try to speak to their own supporters and citizens broadly. and to try to get people to think about what is being discussed in this intervening period between when we learned of an anticipated indictment and when facts related to that are known. we have a couple of days here with a lot of time to fill in the national conversation. so the president appears to be reacting to some of that, but as i said, on the record comment from the president's lawyer saying this is not a reaction to anything from the special counsel with whom the white house continues to cooperate. alex. >> so kelly, it's interesting to me that ty cobb feels compelled to make sure the interpretation of donald trump's tweets today

do not cross over that line that, that he is not directly commenting on the issuance of the indictments, right? because that's very grave were he to have done that. >> pressured to give us an on the record statement, because how many times have you asked me, is there an official statement, and there hasn't been one. i have urged him to say something we could fully report. what he chose to say is that these tweets are not about the special counsel. i think his intention to that is that he's speaking to the larger political environment in which robert mueller is doing his investigation. cobb, who is interfacing with the mueller team on a regular day-in, day-out basis, certainly would not want to -- this would be my analysis of this, would not want to exacerbate any tensions there, but he is explaining the president's tweets as we have seen so often, the president's own personal megaphone to say what he wants and to try to direct or shape the conversation on talking points that matter from the president's point of view at the very time we have been talking

about the expected indictment of an unknown person for unknown crimes at this point, but something stemming from the russia investigation. alex. >> that or he's just answering a question from our excellent nbc news reporter kelly o'donnell. thank you so much. let's bring in democratic congressman ted lieu. a member of the judiciary committee. welcome, good to have you back on the broadcast. i want to talk about the president's tweets this morning on the dossier, on hillary clinton, all this renewed effort this week to try to steer the russia probe in this direction. is it far fetched to say that someone may have known this indictment was coming and thereby wanted to muddy the waters? >> thank you, alex, for that question. it's certain possible. let me first say that white house special counsel ty cobb is lying. americans are not stupid. the president had a full blown twitter meltdown this morning precisely because an indictment is going to be unsealed tomorrow and show that someone is going to be prosecuted for the trump russia investigation, and what makes america great is that the president doesn't get to decide

if it's a witch hunt. law enforcement decides, and the judge and jury will decide if there's enough evidence to convict, and i trust the judicial process. >> how about this diversion of attention, of focus, and moving things into the focus on the democrats and hillary clinton? >> it is straight from the donald trump playbook. they always look at issues that have nothing to do with the main issue at hand. whether or not there was anything illegal about what happened with some uranium transaction seven years ago, which there was no evidence that it was illegal, has nothing to do with whether donald trump or his associated colluded with russia in last year's elections. those are totally separate issues. >> i know that you can't tell us precisely what you're learning from your colleagues on capitol hill or the judiciary committee upon which you serve, but can you give us a sense of what we will see tomorrow. is there someone or several people you have in mind that you think we're going to see indicted tomorrow? >> i was at a march earlier this year, and people were chanting

lock him up. and i got so confused because i didn't know if they were talking about paul manafort or michael steele or jared kushner or jo-wilfried tsonga dr. there are a number of people who appear to have violated federal laws. it could be any one of them tomorrow and we'll wait and see. >> okay, we were talking about ty cobb earlier. i wanted to play what he said in an interview published last night, conducted on thursday, the day before the news of the indictment broke. here's that. >> i think he would be sad for them, as a friend and a former colleague, if the process results in punishment or indictments. but to the extent that that happens, that's beyond his control. and obviously, he's not trying to influence that in any way. but the president has no concerns in terms of any impact, as to what happens to them, on his campaign or on the white house. >> so are you interpreting his

confidence there as a signal that whatever paul manafort or mike flynn possibly did can't be traced back to president trump? >> that's not how i interpret it at all. both that statement as well as today's statement shows that ty cobb is doing everything he can to make sure that donald trump doesn't keep engaging in obstruction of justice. that's why he's so freaked out about any attempt from the president to influence this investigation. it's why he keeps talking about the president not doing it. when in fact the president is trying to do that. if you look at the firing of the fbi director and the reasons for doing it, that's straight up obstruction of justice. i'm a former prosecutor. that's a really broad statute. and it meets every element of that statute. >> regardless who ends up being the focus of this sealed document here, what are you looking for once the indictment is revealed? >> look at the underlying facts. there are republicans who are calling for special counsel mueller to resign, which is completely ridiculous. i want people to wait and see

what the facts are, and ultimately, a judge and jury is going to weigh the facts and decide whether to convict or not. i think we should all pause and wait, see what the allegations are, what the facts are, and then america collectively can make a decision. >> also want to get back to the clinton campaign, the dnc's payments to fusion gps. i know you have run campaigns. you know the process of getting opposition research, which everybody does. can officials, though, truly claim plausible deniability and do you understand the scrutiny surrounding the payment element of this? >> i don't really understand why people didn't know who paid for it. but it's very clear to me that nobody talked about this steele dossier before last november's elections. you didn't hear the clinton campaign talk about it or the dnc, and they didn't use it, so i don't see how it could have influenced last november's elections. what influenced the elections is russian ads as well as the russian cyberattack on america to undermine our faith in

democra democracy. >> ted lieu, thank you for talking to me. >> we have breaking news out of puerto rico just a short time ago. the governor demanding that the island's power company cancel that $300 million contract with whitefish energy. gabe gutierrez has the late breaking details from san juan, puerto rico. gabe, one more time to you, this is a big topic. what have you learned? >> reporter: hi, there, alex. yes, the governor deciding to pull the plug on this controversial contract. it's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, but we're expecting the puerto rican power authority at some time this afternoon to comment for the first time. the board still has to meet and decide whether to terminate this contract, but the governor has appointed that board, and he came out very strongly today, essentially saying that this contract of the $300 million to the small montana-based company has essentially become a distraction, and that he wants it canceled at this point, alex. we're still awaiting a response from whitefish energy, but i did

speak with its ceo yesterday. he seemed to not see this coming. he said he would be in puerto rico for as long as it takes. he argued they're doing hard work and trying to restore power to this island. certainly more than five weeks after maria, about 70% of puerto rico remains without power, alex. >> hey, gabe, i know having heard the interview that you did with the ceo there, he said that this contract was drawn up very quickly because there were a million people in puerto rico without any power. so that things that may have been placed in that contract are not necessarily gone over with a fine tooth comb, such as not needing to have oversight or accountability. does he defend that properly? was he surprised by that even being in that contract? >> let me break it down exactly how he says this contract came about. so remember, weeks before hurricane maria, there was hurricane irma. and that storm just grazed puerto rico. because of its damaged

infrastructure, it did knock out power to a million people. right after hurricane irma, this whitefish ceo says that he reached out to officials here on the island through linkedin. exactly, social networking site. he said he got ahold of them and stayed in contact with them over the next few weeks. when hurricane maria hit several weeks later, that storm knocked out power to eventually the entire island. it was on september 26th, six days after hurricane maria made landfall, that he flew down to puerto rico, met with the officials, and that's when they decided to hash out that contract, but yes, he says that while they hashed it out, they were using their cell phone lines to go through the hall ways because the building they were in didn't have power. and they say he and the head of preppa are basically admitting this one part of the contract that said that fema had reviewed and approved this contract, that that part was actually inaccurate and it should not have been inside. in an interview with the "wall

street journal," the head of prepa said it was basically an oops. the only explanation he had for it. we're expecting to hear from him later on this afternoon and expecting to see if in fact this contract is canceled by the board. >> a complicated issue. thank you for breaking it down for us. gabe gutierrez in puerto rico. >> nobody knows when robert mueller's indictment will be served or who the target will be, so what's going on inside the white house as the president's staff prepares for the next phase of this investigation? businesses are thinking. factories are thinking. even your toaster is thinking. honey, clive owen's in our kitchen. i'm leaving. oh never mind, he's leaving. but what if a business could turn all that thinking... thinking... endless thinking into doing? to make better decisions. make a difference. make the future. not next week while you think about it a little more. but right now. is there a company that can help you do all that? ♪ i can think of one. ♪ i'm ryan awith chantix.king smoking was comforting.

it was like a security blanket. it made me feel good, it really did. i would doubt myself that i could actually quit, but with chantix i did it. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. i'm so proud to be a non-smoker. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later

every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

concerns in terms of any impact as to what happens to them on his campaign or on the white house. >> and that was white house special counsel ty cobb on how president trump might react if the target of the mueller indictment ends up being paul

manafort or former national security adviser mike flynn. joining me now, erin mcpike, chief white house correspondent for independent review, and nicholas confessore, reporter for "the new york times." with a good day to you both. nicolas, i want to get your reaction to what was being said just a short time ago. my colleague kelly o., the president's tweets have nothing to do with this looming indictment. that was a statement that was issued to her directly from ty cobb. how are you reading into that response and the timing of it, so soon after these tweets? >> i can only kind of laugh a little bit. you know, the president is not a guy who hides his feelings very much. he tends to react to provocations a lot. he tends to react on twitter. he likes being able to react on twitter. so i would say all indications are in fact that this is about the reports that we're seeing. he often comments on news reports, on twitter. look, the mueller investigation is a life-changing event for donald trump. this is a man who he can't

intimidate or bluff or force into an nda. it's a force he's never really encountered before in his life. i imagine it's a little terrifying as it would be for any politician investigated by a special counsel. i think it's probably on the president's mind today. >> what are you hearing, erin, about how the white house staff and the president's lawyers are scrambling the last 48 hours? is there a sense of what their posture is going to be if it does turn out to be manafort or flynn or someone very close to the inner circle? >> well, alex, i haven't exactly communicated that, but what i would say is that they obviously are getting their allies on board here with trying to weaken mueller, at least in the public eye. i say that because just today, the "wall street journal" editorial board was calling for mueller's resignation, and at the very beginning of this hour, you played some clips of a number of republican congressmen who are close to president trump who were saying this investigation has been tarnished some because of the leaks that

came out on friday from cnn and others. so i think that is some sort of influence campaign because, i mean, while the president's approval ratings are falling, they at the same time are trying to weaken mueller. that's very important. i don't think that president trump will fire mueller any time soon, but he might. after they weaken him. >> to your point, erin, interpret for me the lack of uniformity within the gop. you also heard trey gowdy, and he said let this guy do his job. he was pushing back. >> he did say that. but he also said that it's been compromised some because of the leaks on friday. and he traced that all the way back to mueller, although it was obvious it wasn't mueller who leaked that or wanted that to be leaked. but he pointed that out. so he was making those two points at the same time in order to make himself sound a little more credible. >> okay. we have the president, his tweets today continuing the

renewed effort to try to steer the russian probe to hillary clinton. is it far-fetched that someone may have known this was coming, they wanted to muddy the waters and pivot? >> look, i'm seeing a coordinated effort in republican circles and conservative media to change the subject here. i see it on fox, in the "wall street journal" editorial page, in the "new york post." what you have is a set of talking points. talking points are mueller is tainted, he should be considered to be removed from his position. and making a big deal about the fact that the clinton campaign had financed the late stages of the dossier research. it's basically an attempt to change the subject, as is the renewed focus on the uranium one deal. if you want to have somebody review that deal and see if that company should own it, feel free. you should go do that, and the government can do that. it's not really relevant to the question of russian intervention in the 2016 campaign. what we're seeing is really what

happens when the end is nigh, and what happens when a party establishment sees a special counsel coming. >> so erin, to nicholas's point, the democratic campaign paying fusion gps for opposition research, is it plausible the clinton camp, they did not truly know about these payments? >> well, i don't know about that, but what you said is an important point that everybody does that. already, we're seeing republicans. we're seeing some conservative media jump on that to try to say that the clinton campaign engaged in collusion, too, which is ridiculous, but i think that democrats are not doing a good job right now of trying to message that in saying that what they did is opposition research, as you said. everyone does it, everyone pays for opposition research, and it's not collusion. and i don't -- i think a lot of people don't understand the

difference at all. >> and wait a minute. the june 2016 meeting at trump tower that donald trump jr. wrote love it in anticipation of going to this meeting, it was all about just getting opposition research. that's what he was told, about hillary clinton, right? >> yeah, that's true. but you know, obviously, there's a big -- there are multiple investigations going on into this, and to how far and how deep that goes. so it's a little bit different. >> okay. last word to you, nicholas? >> you know, if that dossier had never existed, there would still be an ample basis for the mueller probe, and we have already seen, as you pointed occupant, that there were meetings between people close to the kremlin and the trump campaign. it doesn't mean there was collusion. but it's obvious there was a lot of discussion and back channeling happening at different points in the campaign. the dossier has some salacious stuff, some less salacious stuff. some of it has been verified, but the bigger picture is it's

not necessary to the mueller investigation. he has his own facts and his own sources. >> always good to see both of you. thank you so much for joining me. taking a critical look at the potential mueller investigation charges. what can we learn tomorrow about where this probe is headed? we'll hear from a former federal prosecutor with some very specific thoughts on this subject.

it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees.

fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. for over 100 yearsaking like kraft has,al cheese you learn a lot about people's tastes. honey, what do you want for dinner tonight? oh whatever you're making. triple cheddar stuffed sliders. sold! so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian.

i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. we'll ask a former prosecutor about the president's tweets today and whether they could be used against him. first, ghosts, goblins, and goodies. americans are celebrating halloween and spending on it like never before. the national retail federation is projecting americans will spend a collective $9.1 billion, which is $700 million more than last year. >> 26 days until the madness of black friday, and americans appear to be ready to spend big time this holiday season. a new survey found on average, americans plan to spend $906 on gifts this year.

that's the most in ten years. far more than the $785 last year. about a third of americans say they'll spend at least $1,000. switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey. oh. that's my robe. is it? you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. and the wolf huffed like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement

of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! (child giggles) symbicort. breathe better starting within 5 minutes. get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

welcome back, everyone. i'm alex witt at msn bbc headquarters in new york. we have this breaking news. new reaction just this hour from white house attorney ty cobb. he says today's tweets by the president have nothing to do with the indictment expected to be handed out tomorrow by special counsel robert mueller. earlier today, you're seeing him there, the president firing off several tweets about hillary clinton, accusing his former campaign rival of colluding with russia. let's bring in former federal prosecutor samuel buhl. with a good day to you, want to get your reaction to what we have been told by white house lawyer ty cobb and his feeling the need to come out and clarify that the president's tweets are not a direct reflection of anything regarding bob mueller and the indictment being handed down.

>> well, i think it's they expect as we all do that if there is an indictment handed down tomorrow, it's not an indictment of the president. generally, a lawyer is going to tell his client or position his client, you know, don't pick a fight with the prosecutors. don't criticize the prosecutors. don't involve yourself in the case as a player if it doesn't have anything to do with you. and the smart play, i think tomorrow, if this were an indictment of manafort or somebody else senior in the trump campaign operation is to say, well, this is all news to us. we don't know anything about this. it might or might not be true, but it didn't have anything to do with me. but we're in bizarro trump world now, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the president tomorrow, if somebody in his operation is indicted, uses this to take swings at mueller no matter what his lawyers want him to do. >> does it matter if the president wasn't reacting to the special counsel intentionally? could tweets be used against him anyway? >> i think it depends on the tweet, obviously. some of things that were tweeted

factually around the comey affair are potentially very damaging to him, assertions he made about why things were done around that. i think this kind of stuff, you know, taking a swing at the independent counsel, the special counsel, criticizing the prosecutors. you have a right to do that. it's not smart, especially if you're not the one who is about to get indicted. why do that? why associate yourself with this kind of thing? but you're allowed to criticize the prosecutors. this is the sort of thing that martin shkreli, the pharma bro who was recently prosecuted for fraud, was doing every day to the consternation of his lawyers, calling the prosecutors the junior varsity and so on. the strange thing with even stranger thing with somebodies like trump doing this is that he actually has the authority to fire the people he's criticizing. >> yeah, there is a certain irony in there. last month, i know you wrote an article for "slate." special counsel mueller's

methodic pace should comfort americans. look, it's nine months into the trump presidency, only five months after he took over the investigation. it certainly is a major step forward. does it surprise you at all it's happening now? >> no, i think that's a reasonable amount of time to bring your first case. when i think back, for example, to the enron case, i was one of the prosecutors on that case. it took a full two years before the senior executives of that company were indicted. but i think our first charges came about six to nine months after the beginning of the creation of that task force against some of the lower level people that were steps along the road. so i would liken this to a baseball team maybe putting a run on the board in the second inning or something like that. this is a first move, if in fact that's what it is, we don't know for sure yet. and you know, it could be in a white collar case, let's say somebody here is getting indicted and they're not interested in cooperating, which is likely the case if an

indictment is forthcoming, could be a year before that case goes to trial. that might not even be the ultimate charges in his investigation. >> in terms of the style of all this, though, you wrote in the article that mueller and his team have been quietly pulling on the levers of law, but this leak friday night about the seals indictment, that's anything but quiet. how do you explain this? >> alex, it's not at all clear this comes from mueller's team. to return an indictment, you have to -- the rule requires the prosecutor to take the indictment from the grand jury with the grand jury foreperson and bring it into court and present it to a judge. the hallways of the courthouse are public. it's extremely hard to do that without somebody in the courthouse knowing what's going on. >> how many people are we talking about, samuel? can you guess how many different people might be privy to this information outside of mueller's team? is it five, 15? >> the judge to whom the indictment was presented, that judge's law clerks and staff, and more importantly, the staffs of the clerks office and the

court where that indictment has to be docketed and filed even if it's under seal. it's extremely difficult if not impossible to return an indictment in federal court without some people knowing about it, and then, we also have the question we don't know the answer to yet. have any defense lawyers been contacted whose clients might be involved in the case. >> would there be reason to not contact them on friday night to say this is happening on monday? because isn't it standard operating procedure to contact defense attorneys when an indictment is forthcoming? >> if you are planning a court appearance in a white-collar case with a defendant who is not viewed as an extreme flight risk, yes. it would be normal to notify counsel and to arrange to have counsel to bring that client in first to the fbi for processing, which means taking fingerprints and so forth. and then to the courthouse for arraignment. you could see mueller maybe waiting until the last possible minute to do that so that there isn't, you know, a media frenzy over the weekend.

but it would be unusual in a white-collar case to just surprise someone at their house on a monday morning with handcuffs. >> will you be able to determine sort of the pace of the next dominos to fall by how this all is unveiled on monday? >> not determine it really, alex, but there will be some clues. one thing people should understand is that federal prosecutors have an enormous amount of leeway in terms of how little or how much they put into an indictment. a indictment can be very bare bones, just the legal charges, or it could have a lot of facts about what the government's case is. if mueller has decided to write a full-some document, we'll learn an awful lot about where he's been, where he's going, and what might come next. it's really a strategic call on his part how many of his cards he wants to put on the table. there could be a downside to that in that he's tipping his hand, but there could be an upside as well in terms of sending the message, hey, this is well within my purview. you know, pushback on the

critics. we have a strong case. this isn't a reach. in order to -- he can't say those things publicly. the way he says that is to put his case in the indictment. >> all right, samuel, always an excellent conversation and very illuminating. >> thanks. nobody knows a thing. that's the story from both the dnc and the clinton campaign when it comes to knowledge of the trump dossier. a former senior adviser to the campaign will be here in just a moment to discuss it. later today, my colleague thomas roberts speaks with former ambassador to the u.n., bill richardson. patients that i see

that complain about dry mouth they feel that they have to drink a lot of water medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works!

when i feel controlled by frequent, unpredictable abdominal pain or discomfort and diarrhea. i tried lifestyle changes and over-the-counter treatments, but my symptoms keep coming back. it turns out i have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. a condition that's really frustrating. that's why i talked to my doctor about viberzi... ...a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time. so i can stay ahead of my symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain.

do not take viberzi if you have no gallbladder, have pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a bowel or gallbladder blockage. pancreatitis may occur and can lead to hospitalization and death. if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d with viberzi. i certainly would have liked have know who paid for it earlier, but nonetheless, that's just one factor to be considered. it doesn't answer the ultimate question, which is how much of the work is accurate? how much of it is true? and my colleagues don't seem particularly interested in that question, but that's really the most important question for the american people. >> and that was ranking member of the house intelligence committee, congressman adam schiff, talking about the trump dossier and the sources who

funded it. joining me now, joel benenson, former senior adviser to hillary clinton's 2016 campaign and msnbc political analyst. good to see you. do you agree with the congressman's sentiment or the sources funding the dossier just as important as what's in it? >> no, i think what's important is what's in it, and keep in mind that when this first appeared in january, which is when i first learned about this, i think buzzfeed posted it on their news site. it's a 35-page document. and at the time it came out, all news organizations said this has not been verified yet. i think congressman shif is in the right lane. the funding of this started with republicans. the company was hired by republicans to first put together this dossier, and that's where it came from originally. >> certainly originally, yes, but democrats from the dnc and the clinton campaign are all now denying knowledge of the dossier as this campaign was under way, and indeed, money was paid

toward this dossier and its research. so when did you first learn about the dossier? >> i actually, i know exactly where i was. reporters started calling me on the afternoon of january 10th, 2017. it was the night of barack obama's farewell speech in chicago. and i knew nothing about it. i was not in control of the budget on the campaign. and i have been on a lot of campaigns, alex. every campaign has opposition research. we had an internal team that did it. and there were often, i would say that probably on about half the campaigns i have worked on in the past 20 years, there is some project that is kept away from everybody on the campaign for two reasons. you don't want everybody to know about it, and you don't want things leaking out until you have verified things because those things can blow back in your face. so i think it's -- as i say, it's not, you know, the regular way all opposition research occurs, but it is fairly regular to have special projects that are held in a very close hold by

a very small group of people. and that's what obviously happened here. >> but i'm curious, then, who would know about putting $12 million towards this dossier? that is not chump change. >> well, my guess is the people who control the budget on the campaign, and that's usually a couple two to three people at most. obviously, the people who are doing it, which i guess in this case is the law firm that is a well known democratic law firm. but those are the people who would know about it. if you don't want the rest of the campaign of hundreds of people knowing about it, that's how you have to do it. you have to kind of do it enough lock and key. >> yim thinking you, robby mook, brian fallon, hillary clinton, nobody would have necessarily known about this. what about debbie wasserman schultz as head of the dnc? >> i can't speak for debbie wasserma wassermann schultz. she may have, may not have.

i can't speak for the people on our campaign. i don't believe brian knew about it. i didn't know about it. go back to what's going on here now. there's a lot of distraction about this dossier. if you go back and read the 35 pages, what's going on in the world of trump right now is a massive attempt to distract and deflect from it. there are two people in particular who are named in this dossier. again, this is not verified, but i can understand why they might be concerned about some of this. it identified carter page having meetings with people in russia. it identified lawyer michael kohn as possibly meeting with russian operatives in prague. what we know in june is the people on the trump campaign sat down with a russian lawyer connected to the kremlin. that's where the word collusion comes in. and all of this, the rest of this nonsense coming out of trump world is subterfuge. they're probably extremely concerned about what's going to happen tomorrow morning. they don't know who's going to be indicted, but they know it's one of their people. there's now going to start to be

meat on the bones about what's been going on here. >> looking ahead to tomorrow, what do you expect to happen. what do you hope happens? >> look, i'm not -- i am not a federal expert in federal prosecutions, but typically, when you look at things like this, there all one or two people who are indicted early who, you know, they have an iron-clad case against, and they are probably hoping to extract more information from those people. but from those people, but certainly, there's going to be something of substance that we believe to happen tomorrow morning, as your previous guest indicated? >> always good to talk with you. come see me again. thank you. big fish or little fish? predictions for what could come tomorrow in the mueller investigation. for your heart... your joints... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish,

prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. jimmy's gotten used to his whole yup, he's gone noseblind. odors. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy.

love golf. i used to love golf. wait, what, what happened? i was having a good round, and then my friend, sheila, right as i was stepping into the tee box mentioned a tip a pro gave her. no. yep. did it help? it completely ruined my game. well, the truth is, that advice was never meant for you. i like you. you want to show me your swing? it's too soon. get advice that's right for you. investment management services from td ameritrade.

the mueller investigation has caused president trump to tweet many times today, but he has not mentioned the indictment. there is one possible reason.

>> the president is skating very carefully on obstruction of justice if he comes out and starts signaling various subject that's are cooperating. >> joining me right now is kari sheffield and bill press. first of all, i would like to say that he called it a witch hunt again. this whole thing was called a witch hunt again. i think he is trying to change the subject or under mine what mooul seueller is doing. i think it is huge. it undercuts everything that trump has been saying for five or six months.

we have robert mueller because he fired james comey. it will go down as one of the biggest mistakes that he will ever seen. this is not a witch hunt. this is real. there is not just smoke, there is fire there. this is just the first wave of his investigations if -- >> i want to ask you about ty cobb. he made a statement less than two hours ago saying the trump tweets today have nothing to do with the potential looming indictment. he is concerned donald trump will be interfering with the investigation and trading into that little area of called obstruction of justice.

in one of his tweets he called it again a witch hunt. i think ty cobb said jesus, my boss is tweeting and i better cover him again. >> so carrie, bill says it's going to get really real tomorrow, how real do you think it is tomorrow? >> we should talk tomorrow and find out exactly what is under the shroud of secrecy right now, but it's important to note that the president himself said that he wanted to make sure that in his orbit, the president himself said that. i think all of us agree the predpr credentials of inspector mule or are high. i think, i hope, people will accept the results of what he is finding. so far what we have seen in terms of the collusion at each little budget we're getting coming out of the news, it is

showing the clintons are the ones who have had all sorts of ties to the russians. when you look back at the russian reset button, that was supposed to be hillary clinton showing leadership. same thing with 2012. mitt romney said the russians were a strategic risk to the country. i think it is laughable they're playing holier than thousand. >> but carrie, if someone close to the president gets indicted tomorrow, how will the president react to that. >> it's all speculation at this point. unfortunately let's wait until we see the results here. i think that in the fog of war, and the thick of a campaign, when no one, especially the liberal media expected the

president to win, a lot was happening and i think it's good that we're getting to the bottom of this. but to dance on someone's grave is really -- >> i have to let you go, bill, i don't think you think this is fun at all. >> what is laughable is trumpers trying to make this about hillary clinton and barack obama. that was 2016. she lost the election. this is about russia's we know, interfering in the 2016 election. an investigation into two things regards donald truing donald tr. was there collusion between his team and kremlin operatives, and did he try to obstruct justice. it has nothing to do with hillary or obama and i think we will find out again tomorrow that everything he has been saying, that there was no connections at all between anyone around him and the russians will prove to be

absolutely false. >> carrie, i have to ask you quickly before we run o ut of time here, the republicans are trying to wage a campaign against the dossier. the campaign chair met with russi russians when they were promising dirt on hillary clinton. >> opposition research is something that happens from any side of the political aisle. we know that to be true. in terms of the intensity of the ties, speaking with russians, it is very common for people once a nomination has been made to meet with people from foreign countries to talk about what foreign policy would look like. >> i think the calling of this particular meeting was to bring opposition research about hillary clinton so let's keep the focus there. guys, thank you so much, have a good one. >> all of you join my colleague,

thomas roberts who is coming up in about four minutes when bill richardson will be here to talk about the latest in the investigation, we'll be back after the break.

by listening to an thiaudiobook on audible.ame and this guy is just trying to get through the day. keeping it together. losing it. upgrade your commute. ride with audible. people would ask me that we traveled,ntries what is your nationality and i would always answer hispanic. so when i got my ancestry dna results

it was a shocker. i'm from all nations. it puts a hunger in your heart to want to know more. hey, everybody. it is the count down to criminal charges, manic monday in dc. less than 24 hours away. who in the trump inner circle will face indictments. >> all of the excitement about the collusion issue has obscured what i believe is the larger issue which is that our country was, it, and will be under attack. >>. >> plus, contract canceled. the deal that did not pass the smell test. what the move might mean for the