BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST: New tonight from "The Washington Post," the Mueller team asking House Intel exactly what Roger Stone testified to them. Now all the speculation is about whether Roger Stone will be the next man charged.
President Trump takes to Twitter, blind sides his own military, declaring "we`ve defeated Isis in Syria." Says he`s bringing the troops home while even his closest friend in the Senate Lindsey Graham admits if Obama had done this we`d be all over him.
And what is the administration doing lifting sanctions on a company co- owned by a notorious Russian who loaned Paul Manafort $10 million? We`ll sort through all of it as THE 11TH HOUR gets under way on a Wednesday night.
And good evening once again from our NBC News headquarters here in New York. Day 699 of the Trump administration. Here we are, one away from 700 days in office. Just ahead tonight we`ll have the latest on the backlash over the President`s decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.
And just a short time ago the Senate passed a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded until at least February, something short of a profile in courage. It now goes on to the House. More ahead on that as well. But we begin with brand new reporting from the "Washington Post" on the Mueller investigation involving veteran Trump ally and adviser Roger Stone.
"Post" says the Mueller team wants a copy of Stone`s testimony, his official testimony before Congress last year. A sign that the Special Counsel may be getting closer to charging Stone with a crime.
Reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, who will join us in a moment, shares a byline with three of his colleagues at the paper. They write, the Mueller team, "asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday for an official transcript of Stone`s testimony according to people familiar with the request. It`s the first time Mueller has formally asked the committee to turn over material the panel has gathered in its investigation of Russian interference of the 2016 campaign according to the people."
The piece adds that Stone who was "in contact with the candidate during the 2016 campaign has been a focus of the Special Counsel as Mueller probes whether the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks` release of Democratic e-mails allegedly hacked by Russian operatives."
Now, the "Post" reports that Stone says he has not been -- he had not been notified of Mueller`s request, that the House Intel Committee is expected to take up the transcript request tomorrow in a closed door session and vote on it.
This past weekend incoming Committee Chairman Democrat Adam Schiff of California had this to say about Roger Stone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D) CALIFORNIA INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I believe that there is ample reason to be concerned about his truthfulness, and I do think that with respect to Mr. Stone and perhaps others the Special Counsel is in a better position to determine the truth or falsity of that testimony and that we ought to provide it to the Special Counsel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIMS: As we alluded to, Roger Stone`s been part of Donald Trump`s inner circle for a long time. Friend of almost 40 years. Advising him on both political and business matters.
Back in the 1980s Stone ran a well-known Washington lobbying firm along with ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He`s been loyal to Trump and has publicly said he`s not going to go soft now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER STONE, LOBBYIST: There`s no circumstance under which I would testify against the President because I`d have to bear false witness against him. I`d have to make things up. And I`m not going to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIMS: That comment on ABC News prompted this response from the President, "nice it know some people still have guts."
The feds have been reportedly focusing on another Roger Stone associate in regard to WikiLeaks. Late last month reports emerged that Mueller has e- mails from the New York-based birther and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi written to Stone that seem to anticipate the release of hacked Democratic e-mails during the campaign. Both men deny having any inside knowledge about what WikiLeaks was planning.
Stone has said he spoke to Trump the day after receiving those messages from Corsi. This weekend Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was asked about their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABS NEWS: Did Roger Stone ever give the President a heads-up on WikiLeaks` leaks concerning Hillary Clinton and the DNC?
RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP ATTORNEY: No, he didn`t.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all?
GIULIANI: I don`t believe so. But again, if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks` leaks, that`s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads-up that the "Times" is going to print something.
The crime is conspiracy to hack. Collusion is not a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: In addition to all of that, so much to react to there. The Daily Beast is reporting Mueller is scrutinizing Trump associates who may have tried to shape the administration`s foreign policy by offering to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia.
According to three sources, "The special counsel`s office is preparing court filings that are expected to detail Trump associates conversations about sanctions relief and spell out how those offers and counterproposals were characterized to top figures on the campaign and in the administration."
And tonight the "Wall Street Journal" reports that Trump`s testimony from investigations in 1988 and again in the year 2000 show he was well acquainted with campaign finance laws. Back in 1999 he told Larry King no one knew more about campaign finance than he did.
The "Journal" writes, that knowledge could "be critical if investigators ever pursue a case against him over his alleged direction of hush money payments in the 2016 campaign."
The paper adds that Rudy Giuliani previously argued that Trump had limited understanding of campaign finance laws.
With all of that in mind we bring in our lead-off panel on a Wednesday night. Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for the "New York Times." Mimi Rocah, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, now a Distinguished Fellow in Criminal Justice at the Pace University School of Law. And the aforementioned Manuel Roig-Franzia, Features Writer for the "Washington Post."
Manuel, I`d like to begin with you because it`s your shared byline that begins our broadcast tonight. Tell us what you know about this request and what it may portend.
MANUEL ROIG-FRANZIA, THE WASHINGTON POST FEATURES WRITERS: Well, it`s a significant request for this reason. Legal experts say that prosecutors, when they`re in the final stages of their investigation, when they`re leading up to potentially bringing charges against someone, they need an official transcript of their remarks. And that`s exactly what Mueller has been asking for right now from the House Intelligence Committee.
It`s viewed as a possible signal that they could be moving towards charges against Roger Stone, who as you mentioned is such a significant figure in the history of Donald Trump and has such a close relationship with him for so long.
WILLIAMS: Manuel, we happen to have a legal expert with us, in fact a crackerjack lawyer, and that`s Mimi. And Mimi, I heard this describes this way earlier tonight. If you`re going to file a tax case, even though you can work from Xerox copies as you`re compiling the case, on the eve of filing you`ve got to see and feel the actual signed return like it is with this transcript.
Maybe Mueller`s office has been working off a dependable Xeroxed or electronically sent transcript. This has to have the imprimatur of the committee. And do you follow the rest of this story that this could mean very bad things for Roger Stone?
MIMI ROCAH, FMR. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTY. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Yes, Brian, I do agree with that inference that people seem to be drawing from this, under the rules of evidence you need to get the best or original document. You can`t -- you know, to charge someone to put into court. And obviously they would want to have that, you know, just to make sure that the copies that they`ve been looking at are accurate. But more importantly, under the rules of evidence you need to have the original the documents eventually in court.
You know, look, I think it is not a question if Roger Stone is going to be charged but when and this make it seem more imminent and what he will be charged with. This seems to indicate that he will be charged with some kind of false statements relating to his testimony in Congress. But I suspect he will also be charged with other things. And so I think that`s really, you know, sort of the hanging question out there.
Is he going to be charged with some kind of not collusion but conspiracy? Will he be charged with, you know, crimes in addition to the false statements, and what will the false statements be? What will the evidence be that Mueller puts forward of his lies to Congress? That will be very revealing to us.
WILLIAMS: And Peter, let`s take our theme from Mimi. I`m not going to ask you if the West Wing is preoccupied with all these preliminary matters. I`m going to ask you how much.
Keeping in mind last night the U.S. Senate passed a groundbreaking landmark piece of legislation on criminal justice and sentencing reform. It`s going to free thousands of people from our prisons across the country. That could have been a lay-up day. An easy victory lap for a normal White House, could it not?
PETER BAKER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It`s very striking if you look at this President`s schedule for the last week or so, basically has almost nothing on it from day to day. Now, you can say that`s because he has this looming government shutdown to worry about and therefore maybe better to keep the schedule clear.
But I think what it indicates as well is just how consumes he is and how consumed his White House is with all the incoming fire coming across his bow at this point. Not just the latest reporting you mentioned tonight but in the last two weeks we`ve seen day after day, we saw, you know, the Flynn hearing and Manafort and Cohen and Maria Butina and so forth. It`s been more intense, more rapid, more accelerated than we`ve seen it since the beginning of this set of investigations more than a year ago. And it`s definitely consuming the White House at a time when they don`t know what`s ahead of them. Democrats are about to take the House, about to take over subpoena power. Much is, you know, about to happen for him on the investigation front with that as well.
WILLIAMS: Manuel, you`ve covered so many stories over the years both domestically and in far-flung places overseas. I also know you have had the intense pleasure of enjoying Roger Stone`s interpersonal charms up close for a profile you did. Explain to our viewers just what that is like other than his notoriously pugnacious and provocative personality. And I guess my question is does he try to keep that up even though he appears to be in great peril?
ROIG-FRANZIA: Oh, yeah. I think you can be assured that Roger Stone will be out there throwing punches both above the belt and below the belt. He lives in this world where you are constantly spinning. He travels with a camera so that he can get on air immediately for shows that he anchors on infowars.com, which is a conspiracy-minded site. And also for his own writing.
So one of the things he is going to be able to do throughout this whole saga is point to the fact that he is a braggart, that he exaggerates, and that he likes to spin. And this is something that should actually augur to his benefit, and that this is going to be viewed by people who are trying to parse his words as a kind of defense for him. It will be interesting to see whether that flies.
WILLIAMS: Please don`t tell our bosses that traveling with a camera is a viable option.
Hey, Mimi, the "Wall Street Journal" is out with a piece just before we came on the air about William Barr. He is the selection of the Trump administration to return to a job he once held as attorney general. They have found an unsolicited memo he wrote earlier this year to DOJ that calls the Mueller investigation into potential obstruction of justice "fatally misconceived, that could cause lasting damage to the presidency and the executive branch."
Beyond whether or not you concur with the opinion, how much of a problem is this going to be a la Whitaker, the rap on Acting A.G. Whitaker was that he somehow prejudged the most pressing matter happening under the DOJ umbrella?
ROCAH: Well, I think that it`s a problem because people are going to see it through the lens of gee, what a coincidence that Trump keeps picking people for this position, whether it be acting or permanent, who have expressed to some criticism of the Mueller investigation. So when you look at it, analyzing Trump`s state of mind, it`s problematic.
However, I think there are real differences between what Barr did here and what Whitaker did. First of all, you know, Barr is going to be subject to questioning in a confirmation process. That is something we didn`t have with Whitaker. And so he will be able to be asked about this.
He also was expressing skepticism about one part of the investigation, and it is based on a legal theory that some people have put forward about the executive power. And whether you agree with it or not, he was expressing that theory. And he acknowledged apparently in the memo he didn`t know all the facts. So, I do view this as different from Whitaker, who seemed to be prejudging the entire investigation and was much more hostile to it.
And also who people were not going to have a chance to question, which made I think a big difference. Here, we`ll be able to other hear his answers. And I think those should be listened to carefully.
WILLIAMS: An important distinction to make as this story comes in to us tonight.
Peter Baker, 20 years ago tonight I am guessing crouched over a tandy 1000 or similar high-tech early computer you were banging out along with your co-author what we call the "a-1 lead-all," the Peter Baker piece then on the front page of the "Washington Post," the headline plain for our viewers to see. The question to you is, is this White House at all prepared for the day when one Peter Baker perhaps is asked to write his second a-1 lead- all cover story on the topic of impeachment in as many decades if that possibility comes to pass?
BAKER: Yes. And I think it was an Underwood manual type writer. I could be wrong. Certainly a laptop today if we have to go through this again.
You know, I think this White House is aware that this is out there. And in fact, you know, you heard the President talk about it on the campaign trail, actually as a political argument for the election of his allies in the midterm elections didn`t work in the House obviously.
I think they recognize intellectually it`s coming. I don`t think that they understand, you know, sort of viscerally just how difficult this year is about to become.
Now, that doesn`t mean the Democrats are necessarily going to go to impeachment. It really does depend on what Robert Mueller comes back with. Democrats take from that lesson 20 years ago, you know, that Republicans, you know, didn`t succeed in the impeachment with Clinton because they couldn`t get a bipartisan 2/3 majority in the Senate.
Democratic leaders understand today they do not have a 2/3 bipartisan majority in the Senate for anything like this today. And so it would be, you know, an unsuccessful effort if they were to proceed under the current information they have. That may change if Robert Mueller comes back with something.
And the other thing that`s important to remember is that the Democratic leaders are under enormous pressure from their own base, their liberal base, which is agitating for action against the President. Nancy Pelosi said, "Wait a second, let`s hold off from Mueller, in the meantime we`ll have some hearings of our own." We`ll see how long she`s able to push back against that, you know, sentiment within her own party.
But you`re right. I never would have suspected 20 years ago tonight that we would be talking about this again just two decades later.
WILLIAMS: Peter baker, who we`re happy to report found work after leaving the "Washington Post" at "The New York Times," we thank you as we thank Mimi Rocah and Manuel Roig-Franzia. Thank you all very much for joining us on a Wednesday night.
And coming up for us, the President declares mission accomplished against Isis, says it`s time to bring American troops home. But tonight coalition military officials reached by said "New York Times" call it "catastrophic and reckless."
And later, why is it that the possibility of a government shutdown before Christmas is still a glimmer tonight? That and more. We`re just getting started on a Wednesday evening.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WILLIAMS: In what was a major U.S. policy shift, President Trump is pulling troops out of Syria. NBC News reports it`s a move that blind sided senior officials at both the Pentagon and the State Department.
Earlier tonight the President Posted a video declaring Isis defeated in Syria, saying it`s time for U.S. troops to leave.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We`ve been fighting for a long time in Syria. I`ve been President for almost two years, and we`ve really stepped it up. And we have won against Isis. We`ve beaten them and we`ve beaten them badly. We`ve taken back the land. And now it`s time for our troops to come back home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: That`s all we saw of the President today. Video from the Rose Garden. Reaction to his announcement was swift and mostly harsh. A lot of it from Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: If Obama had done this, we would be all over him as Republicans.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: The decision to withdraw American -- an American presence in Syria is a colossal in my mind mistake. A great error.
SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: Obviously, this makes what Obama did in Iraq, it`s replicating that but in many ways it`s even worse.
GRAHAM: So the decision today by the President, and I think it was his alone, I think is disastrous to our own national security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: "New York Times" reports senior national security officials have been warning President Trump against this very move. "In a series of meetings and conference calls over the past several days Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other senior national security officials have tried to dissuade Mr. Trump from a wholesale troop withdrawal, arguing that the significant national security policy shift would essentially cede foreign influence in Syria to Russia and Iran at a time when American policy calls for challenging both countries."
Our friends Ann Guerin and Josh Dawsey at the "Washington Post" report tonight Secretary Mattis is now "at a low point in his influence with Trump and potentially also a short-timer."
Well, with us tonight to talk about it, Retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, a decorated combat veteran of Vietnam. He`s one of 74 living recipients of the Medal of Honor. Also with us tonight another decorated combat veteran of Vietnam, two-time recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, former Battlefield Commander in the Gulf War, Retired U.S. Army Four-Star General Barry McCaffrey. We`re happy to say both gentlemen are military analysts for this network.
Jack Jacobs, home field advantage, you get to go first. What just happened today? Who wins and who loses as a result?
COL. JACK JACOBS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, winners, Assad. Although we haven`t been in Syria to beat up on Assad, mostly Isis. Russia has expanding their influence.
WILLIAMS: OK.
JACOBS: They want to stay in Syria because they get warm water ports. Otherwise, their fleets are bottled up in the Black Sea and can be short- circuited by -- through the Dardanelles by Turkey. Iran, which is trying mightily to expand its influence.
And Turkey actually is a winner because it would like the opportunity to beat up on the Kurds, who are -- whom we are supporting inside Syria.
Losers, the Kurds and the United States of America. This is really not a very good idea. And I think it`s counter to all the advice he`s received from people far and wide, and not just inside the United States but also overseas.
And I think as you noted another loser is Mattis. And the national security establishment generally. You`re going to have isolationists in all these posts soon.
WILLIAMS: General McCaffrey, what did this just do to all the professionals in the Pentagon, not all of them with stars on their shoulders, whose life`s work is strategy and policy and support and putting a lot of hard brain power into problems like this? Does this diminish their work?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, first of all, I think Jack Jacobs entirely got it correct on who benefits out of this sort of impulsive short-term decision. National security is not just the Pentagon. It`s the state department. It`s CIA. It`s treasury and others.
By and large they are consummate professionals with careers following these issues. By the way, i do think that you can form a rational argument on why you ought to pull troops out of Syria. I don`t support it. But there has been incredible success in both Iraq and Syria by very small footprints of U.S. militaries backed up by some incredible air power from the navy and air force. So we have pushed back Isis remarkably.
There`s still 20,000 or 30,000 left. But I think what you can`t form an argument for is having sort of a lone ranger foreign and national security policy where you don`t bring your own government aboard, you don`t bring your allies aboard, you don`t think about the next step, you don`t have a strategy. So it looks like we don`t know what we`re doing.
WILLIAMS: Jack Jacobs, I want to show you and remind our audience about a constant complaint on the campaign trail having to do with military policy by then candidate Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They announced four months ago, three months ago, we`re going into Mosul. We`re going to get the leaders of Isis because they`re living in Mosul. Guess what? Twelve minutes later the leaders -- they left. Whatever happened? Remember the great generals it was called, "the element of surprise."
What you do is you do a sneak attack or a surprise attack. Right? Right? We`re too predictable.
We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything.
We`re sending troops. We tell them. We`re sending something else, we have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Jack, is this any different from that?
JACOBS: No, not at all. And it points out a lot of other things that are related to the use of the military instrument of power. It always takes more resources to hold on to an objective than it does to take it in the first place.
You asked who are the winners and who are the losers. Isis a winner in this case. It`s not defeated and it will come back now that we`re not there to make sure that they are not only gone but they stay gone.
I`m reminded of the "Seinfeld" episode where he tries to get the mid-size car and he says you don`t know the purpose of a reservation. One man (ph) says, "We do." I said -- he said, "No, no, you don`t. You know how to take the reservation. You just don`t know how to hold on to it."
We know how to take reservations but we don`t know and we don`t have the political will to hold on to them. I think Isis is a big winner here.
WILLIAMS: Barry McCaffrey, we have referred to General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, on this broadcast and elsewhere as kind of -- as one of the human guardrails within this administration. Are you concerned -- and I know you`re a big fan of Secretary Mattis as a kind of combination soldier scholar in the modern world. Are you concerned that this kind of thing will hasten his retreat?
MCCAFFREY: Well, I think so. And by the way, it`s not just Secretary Mattis. Somehow he has managed to recruit and get through the Trump White House as well as approved by the Senate a remarkable team of civilians in the Pentagon. I mean, the service secretary, deputy secretary of defense, these are really solid folks.
I don`t think Secretary Mattis will ever quit. And probably Mr. Trump is leery of firing him. He`s a four-star marine with iconic status. And not just in the arm forces but in the country, deservedly so.
You know, I`d add to this, Brian, I listened to a rant by a distinguished journalist earlier today talking about hawks and stupid wars in the Middle East and endless wars, basically supporting the Trump argument. I think the worst thing we ever came up with was exit strategy. We`re still in Germany, Japan, South Korea because it fits our long-term security interests and because we think we`re helping keep the peace.
So you know, Afghanistan`s a distressing situation. That`s not going the right direction. But Iraq and Syria we`ve actually done extremely well. Pulling abruptly out, leaving our allies, the kurds -- by the way, the French and the Brits have been in there with us also, is simply appalling, impulsive bad judgment.
WILLIAMS: Two men who know what they`re talking about and have sacrificed a lot for their country. Colonel Jack Jacobs, General Barry McCaffrey. Gentlemen, as always, thank you.
And coming up for us, are signals being sent to particular Russians in regard to sanctions? That discussion when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WILLIAMS: Welcome back. The Trump Administration is about to impose fresh sanctions on Russia. And we`ll get to that. But the news of today is that they are lifting sanctions on companies tied to one of Putin`s closest allies.
According to our own treasury department they`ve come to an agreement that "Reduces Oleg Deripaska`s ownership below 50 percent, thereby untangling and protecting these companies from the controlling influence of a Kremlin insider."
If that name there, Oleg Deripaska, sounds familiar, it`s because he`s also linked to Trump`s former campaign manager, this man, Paul Manafort. As for those new sanctions they are aimed at 15 Russian intelligence officers in response to "Russia`s continued disregard for international norms." so there`s that.
That includes meddling in our own presidential election. Some of the names on that list have already been named in an indictment from the special counsel`s office, be that as it may and with us to talk about it tonight, an expert in this area, former Ambassador Michael McFaul. He was our U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration.
Ambassador Joyce Vance does not come from the diplomatic ranks, rather from law. What you have in common is you were both appointed by the same President. But she said this on social media today, and I wanted to start with it.
"These are sanctions Congress voted on a bipartisan basis and to impose and that Trump dragged his feet on, missing the deadline for months. Now they simply go away like magic for the oligarch Paul Manafort is rumored to have been deeply in debt to."
Ambassador, does she have it about right there? And tell the folks what you know about this Deripaska.
AMB. MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: Well, Brian, it`s a complicated story because on the whole seeing these new sanctions I support them. I think it`s right. The two gentlemen that tried to kill Mr. Skripal in the United Kingdom, they`re on this list.
It`s a little nebulous in that they just list all the negative things that these Russians have done. When you want it to be an if-then statement, we`re sanctioning them for this and if they change their policy we`ll lift them.
But to the point about Deripaska, I am perplexed by what they did today, because the goal of U.S. Foreign Policy should not be in my view to reduce Oleg Deripaska`s shares in these companies. What national interest does that serve?
And it seems to me that somebody wants to get Rusal and his other companies off of the sanctions list. And again, I don`t understand how that changes Putin`s behavior. I don`t understand how that punishes Putin for what he did in the 2016 election or the many other things that were listed today.
WILLIAMS: Well, are we doing a classic news media thing and losing the forest for the trees, do you think it`s overall a good day for the U.S., meaning net, net sanctions have just increased on Russia or do you think there`s satisfaction in Russia tonight that Deripaska is partially off the hook. And let`s not forget that welcome news that the U.S. is getting out of Syria.
MCFAUL: No, I think the net in the Kremlin is this is good news. Rusal is a major Russian company, important to the Russian economy and important to the world economy, which makes me wonder if that`s why they`re getting off the list.
And just because Deripaska`s shares have decreased, we don`t know who is the new owners of those shares. They could very well be people just as close to President Putin. So I see that as the big story that we need to understand more.
And yes, most certainly to follow up on the conversation you just had, one of the big net winners of the decision to pull out of Syria most certainly is Vladimir Putin. He`s been waiting for this day for a long, long time. Maybe won`t be the winner in the long run because I think there`s going to be a lot of turbulence in Syria for years and decades to come. But in this instance this is good for putin and i think it`s bad for our national security.
WILLIAMS: So many of our questions are about things that turn out to have been done in plain sight. And they`re kind of amazing to watch because who would do that in plain sight. Could this turn out to be somebody -- the fix was in and somebody put in the good word at treasury for Dripaska`s interest?
MCFAUL: I want to be clear, Brian. I don`t know the facts. I most certainly don`t know. But I do know Rusal. I know Oleg Deripaska. When I was ambassador I would deal with those people and him personally.
They have very active lobbyists. They want Rusal to be off that list, and they were making an argument about the health of the world economy, back when they were first put on the list. So the real news is that Rusal is off the sanctions list.
The news is not that Deripaska reduced his share. I mean, who cares about that. Why is that important to American National Security? The real news is they decided to take one of the biggest companies that they had sanctioned, and I applauded that by the way. When they did that, now they`ve taken him off the list. And we dent know the answer as to why.
WILLIAMS: Our former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Thank you for joining us and taking our questions.
Coming up, the President has quietly added a caveat having to do with who will pay for that wall. More on this one-word change when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I get very saddened when I have to write letters or call parents or wives or husbands of soldiers who have been killed, fighting for our country. It`s a great honor. We cherish them. But it`s heartbreaking. There`s no question about it. It`s heartbreaking. Now we`ve won. It`s time to come back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: That video shot in the White House Rose Garden. That`s the colonnade in the Oval Office behind the President. A video produced by the White House this afternoon. Please note what`s missing. Reporters with questions.
But that`s how we got to hear the President lay out the underpinnings of his decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria. As "Newsday" reported tonight, "The White House did not offer a timeline for the removal of troops." This is great.
"Referring questions to the Pentagon, which referred inquiries back to the White House." Past performance tells us it`s only right to ask if such an announcement made on Twitter as an attempt as a shiny object distraction after what`s already been a bad week and then there`s the wall. As you may remember, the president who wants $5 billion in taxpayer money made a promise to his base about where the money would come from for the wall.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Who`s going to pay for the wall?
CROWD: Mexico.
TRUMP: Who?
CROWD: Mexico.
TRUMP: And Mexico will pay for the wall, I promise.
In the end Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLAMS: And now the President has added a new word, which admittedly would have gone over as well on the road with those rally audiences. He now say on Twitter Mexico is paying indirectly for the wall through the new version of NAFTA.
He added, the United States military will build the wall.
Let`s talk about it with an expert. Tamara Keith is back with us, White House correspondent for NPR.
Tamara, lot of news in Washington already just tonight, the Senate as we said something sort of a profile encourage has unanimously by voice vote kicked the continuing resolution over to the House of Representatives. That`ll get government through February.
I`ve always said they -- I would compare them to the behavior of a bunch of drunks but I don`t want to insult a bunch of drunks. And where does the wall play in all this? Will the President`s signature on a continuing resolution mean he has dropped his demand for the 5 billion?
TAMARA KEITH, WHIE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NPR: So I talked to Kellyanne Conway today, the counselor to the President. And she was building this sort of interesting case that the President also seems to be building that -- now, she wouldn`t say precisely whether he`s planning to sign it or not.
But let`s assume that he does. The case she was building is that he`s not going to give up, he`s going to continue fighting for the wall and he`s going to look for other ways potentially to pay for it. And also she said you call it a wall but it`s wall plus. It could also be surveillance and other things.
So, the definition of the wall seems to be shifting somewhat, as is how the wall would be paid for, because that $5 billion is not in this spending bill. And it doesn`t get easier with a Democratic House.
WILLIAMS: And do you have any inside knowledge of what an indirect payment is?
KEITH: So I`ve been trying to divine this and I haven`t quite figured it out. As far as I can tell, what the President is trying to say in his tweet, and Sarah Sanders was asked about this in the briefing yesterday, is that the new trade deal which has not been ratified by the U.S. Congress or the legislatures in Mexico and Canada.
If it were to go into effect would somehow either produce massive economic growth that would lead to more tax revenue that would then pay for the wall or that tariffs that come as a result of it would put more money in the treasury, which would then help pay for the wall.
But economists and trade experts I talked to say that this is not a particularly logical argument. One, the money isn`t there now. Two, money from taxpayers is not Mexico. And tariffs are paid for by the consumers, by the goods in the country that is applying the tariffs, not in the country that`s producing those goods. So we are Mexico. We would be indirectly paying for the wall, Americans.
WILLIAMS: And on this the President has lost some big name conservatives. Laura Ingraham`s been very tough on him on this. Here is a quote from Ann Coulter. "It`s now crystal clear one of two things is true. Either Trump never intended to build the wall and was scamming voters all along or he has no idea how to get it done and zero interest in finding out.
In other words, trump is doing exactly what I feared he would do in the worst conceivable way. He`s not building the wall while making ridiculous promises right up until the second before he folds."
Say what you will about Ann Coulter, but she heard all the same rallies the rest of us did. What does that mean, that he`s lost Ann Coulter?
KEITH: He lost Ann Coulter a while ago, and she has been on fire about this wall issue for some time. The bigger question is whether he loses Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, whether Mark Meadows in the Congress -- there are a lot of other people to look for to see -- people who are voices that are influential with his base.
To see whether this sort of creative reimaging of the wall and how it will be funded or never funded, to see whether his base buys that marketing or whether his base starts to believe that President Trump is a politician like the politicians he ran against.
WILLIAMS: You`re right. This crossed Ann Coulter`s red line a while back. Thank you so much for joining us late on a Wednesday night. Tamara Keith, national public radio. Appreciate it greatly.
Coming up, are the markets really headed for the worst December since the era of bread lines and Hoovervilles in this country? That when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I put a very good man in the Fed. I don`t necessarily agree with it because he`s raising interest rates. I`m not saying that I agree with it and I don`t (INAUDIBLE). I must tell you, I don`t. I`m not thrilled because we go up and every time you go up, they want to raise rates again.
My biggest threat is the Fed because the Fed is raising rates too fast. And it`s independent, so I don`t speak to him. But I`m not happy with what he`s doing because it`s going to fast.
The problem I have is with the Fed. The Fed is going wild. I mean, I don`t know what their problem is, but they`re raising interest rates and it`s ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: To be clear, presidents never speak that way about the Federal Reserve or its chairman. The President has never held back about this Federal Reserve or its chairman. But the Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, has made it clear he will not allow that to influence him or affect his decisions.
And today the Fed raised its benchmark interest rates a quarter point, signal that it expects additional rate increases next year. Increase was widely expected. It was the fourth rate hike this year. And during a press conference, Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Fed was asked about Trump publicly urging the Fed not to hike rates and here`s his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Political considerations play no role whatsoever in our discussions or decisions about monetary policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: So after the Fed announcement that rates were going up and are likely headed up again. The markets then took a dive. The Dow closed down 351. CNBC summed up all this recent market loss this way.
"The Dow and S&P 500 are on track for their worst December performance since the great depression of 1931. Down more than eight percent and nine percent respectively this month. The S&P 500 is now in the red for 2018 by 6.3 percent. The Dow has lost over 1,250 points this week. Stay tuned.
Coming up, some holiday cheer from a voice of Christmases past.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WILLIAMS: Last thing before we go here tonight, our role here is simply to step back and show you a video put out today by the Children`s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. It`s a reminder of what a former president looks like, and there`s also this.
You just don`t get to see that many presidents in Santa hats. So while you might have seen parts of this earlier, here now, the visit of a former president to children`s hospital in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROWD): We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just want to say thank you to all of you guys. I`ve had a chance to talk to some of the wonderful kids and their families. At a time that obviously is tough for folks, and as a dad of two girls, I can only imagine.
In that situation, to have nurses and staff and doctors and people who are caring for them and looking after them and listening to them and just there for them and holding their hand, that`s the most important thing there is. What a great reminder of what the holiday spirit is supposed to be all about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: You can tell what that, meant to all of them. Former President Barack Obama bringing cheer to those involved in ongoing struggle. He could use it specially this year.
That is our broadcast for this Wednesday night. Thank you so very much for being here with us. Goodnight from our NBC News headquarters here in New York.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END