For the Record with Greta, Transcript 3/30/2017

Margaret Carlson, Bill Kristol, E.J. Dionne, Shane Harris, Chris Swecker, Steve Clemons, Matthew Rosenberg, Eliana Johnson, Ken Dilanian,Ed Markey

Show: For the Record with Greta 
Date: March 30, 2017
Guest: Margaret Carlson, Bill Kristol, E.J. Dionne, Shane Harris, Chris
Swecker, Steve Clemons, Matthew Rosenberg, Eliana Johnson, Ken Dilanian, Ed

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOR THE RECORD HOST: You can`t make this stuff up,
Chuck. We have another bombshell and it`s about the White House. There
are new questions tonight of possible collusion between house intelligence
chairman Devin Nunes and the Trump White House. The New York Times
breaking the news the two White House officials helped give Nunes
intelligence reports. So, who are those White House officials? According
to the times, Ezra Cohen-Watnick is a senior director for intelligence at
the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis who works in the White
House council office. But get this he used to work for Chairman Nunes on
the house intelligence committee. So, is Chairman Nunes talking today
finally telling us what happened at his Tuesday night rendezvous at the
White House? No, silence from him. He`s not talking. His spokesperson
only saying this, quote, he has stated many times Chairman Nunes will not
confirm or deny speculation about his sources` identity, and he will not
respond to speculation from anonymous sources. And, yes, you have heard
that many times.


into the sources. We never talk about sources and methods. We don`t talk
about sources at this committee. We want more people to come forward.


VAN SUSTEREN: Well, the other alleged source, Ezra Cohen-Watnick was the
subject two weeks ago of this political report about how President Trump
stepped in to keep the 30-year-old aide on his staff, the president over
rule a decision by his national security advisor, Lt. General H.R.
McMaster. Now just minutes after the Times broke that story, White House
press secretary Sean Spicer took to the podium.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: I want to ask you something you said here quoting on
March 23rd when you were originally asked if the White House might have had
any role in providing information to Chairman Nunes. You first said it
didn`t make any sense to you. And you went on to say, and I`m quoting you
here, I don`t know why he, Chairman Nunes, would brief the speaker and then
come down here and brief us on something that we would have briefed him on,
doesn`t seem to make a ton of sense. So I`m not aware of it, but it
doesn`t really pass the smell test. You said it doesn`t pass the smell
test on March 23rd. Now there`s reporting.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: . the White House that they were the sources of this.
I`m trying to put the two things together.

SPICER: number one, the first quote that you`re reading if you actually go
back, I was responding – I was very clear that I said based on what
Chairman Nunes has said, the following doesn`t make sense.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: You told us that you`re willing to look into.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: . and ask questions about the process and provide us

SPICER: No, no, please don`t put words in my mouth. I never said I would
provide you answers. I said we would look into it.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Are you disputing the reports in the New York Times?

SPICER: I`m not commenting on the reports.


VAN SUSTEREN: He`s not commenting, but the White House is now inviting the
leaders of the intelligence committees to review new information. Here is
the letter that was sent to them, but top Democrat on the house
intelligence committee is not satisfied.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: If in fact the National Security Council staff that
discovered these materials reportedly in the ordinary course of business
are the same national security staff that provided them to the chairman to
be provided to the president, it raises a profound question why they were
not directly provided to the White House by the national security staff,
and instead were provided through a secure dis-route involving the
chairman. If that was designed to hide the origin of the materials, that
raises profound questions about just what the White House is doing.


VAN SUSTEREN: With me are three reporters who`ve been working this story
for weeks. On the phone Matthew Rosenberg who had today`s bombshell
article for the New York Times, Eliana Johnson from Politico, and Ken
Dilanian from NBC News. Let me go first to you, Matthew. Tell me about
these two, who are these people at the White House?

MATTHEW ROSENBERG, THE NEW YORK TIMES: You know, Mr. Cohen-Watnick is –
he`s an accolade of Michael Flynn who was the former national security
advisor who was fired after only 25 days because he misled the vice
president about the nature of phone calls he had before the inauguration
with Russian ambassador. Mr. Ellis, the person who appears to have
actually allowed Mr. Nunes to see the documents, he was until a few weeks
ago working for Mr. Nunes. And Mr. Cohen-Watnick also served on the
transition as well, so this very small circle of people who all do sort of
know each other. And they`re in senior jobs at the White House. Mr. Ellis
has been described as his boy scout, somebody who would definitely not be
freelancing in the estimation from people who knows him. So we do have
real questions that we not be able to answer about how far this goes, how
high this went. Were they doing this without permission? Was this an
organized effort by more senior people at the White House?

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any indication that either one of these two men at
the White House that before going to Nunes, and it sounds like Ellis went
to Nunes as best I can figure out, before they went to Nunes they told
anyone in the White House about any of the information that they
subsequently told to Nunes? Or showed Nunes?

ROSENBERG: I have to be careful here because we have indications of that.
We can`t nail that down. And so I want to be clear that right now we don`t
know. It certainly looks that way, but we don`t know that for sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything – do we know anything about whether Nunes
– whether either one of these men did anything wrong?

ROSENBERG: You know, whether – it doesn`t look like they were doing
anything illegal, but they certainly look to have been using intelligence
to advance a political agenda of the administration. And that is – that
kind of politicization of intelligence is what the Trump administration is
basically accusing the Obama administration of doing. And there`s not much
evidence the Obama administration was doing it, but there`s bounding
evidence that the Trump administration is using intelligence to achieve its
political ends.

VAN SUSTEREN: We go to you, Eliana, you in Politico wrote an article two
weeks ago about one of these men. Who was it and what did you write?

ELIANA JOHNSON, POLITICO: We chronicled a couple of weeks ago that as a
result of complaints from the CIA to national security advisor H.R.
McMaster, he sought to remove Ezra Cohen-Watnick from the National Security
Council and was overruled by President Trump who wanted to keep him there.
I think it`s important to note that Ezra Cohen-Watnick distinguished
himself as a very young but ambitious and capable behind the scenes worker
on the National Security Council, and developed a relationship with Jared
Kushner and Steve Bannon in his short time at the White House and was able
to appeal to them to stay in his position. He is in a position typically
occupied by a senior level analyst from the CIA. He had come from the
defense intelligence agency. I also think it`s important to note we don`t
know that either Ezra Cohen-Watnick or Michael Ellis did anything
appropriate when you`re talking about the politicization of intelligence,
it may be that they sought to give information to Devin Nunes, the chairman
of the house intelligence committee, that would bolster the president`s
case. It also appears that the intelligence that they showed him the names
of American officials who were working for Donald Trump were not redacted
from that information. And that`s also inappropriate and concerning I
think should be a subject of concern for all Americans. It doesn`t seem to
be – that seems to be getting lost in all of this. So I think on both
sides, on the Trump side and on the Obama administration side there are
matters of deep concern for everybody.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Why did McMaster not want Cohen-Watnick on the
team after he arrived? He of course replacing General Flynn.

JOHNSON: You know, according to our reporting he got complaints from the
CIA, and he wanted to placate those complaints. He`s somebody who wanted
to smooth interagency process. The National Security Council is charged
with coordinating the interagency process, which means that it coordinates,
it collects views of all the different agencies in the government and is
charged with collecting and presenting those views to the president. And I
was told that he personally had no problem with Mr. Cohen-Watnick, and he
wasn`t looking to fire him but to put him in a different position and to
placate the CIA`s request and put somebody from the CIA in his position and
put Mr. Cohen-Watnick in a different position.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ken Dilanian, we know what`s being said publicly by Spicer
and at least a spokesperson for Nunes. Do you have any sense of what`s
going on inside the White House whether they think this is much ado about
nothing, or whether they`re running for cover, or whether these two men
will keep their jobs, whether Nunes is in trouble with his job?

KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS: I think running for cover might be a good way to
describe it, Greta. I just want to make a couple points though. First
that NBC News has not confirmed this New York Times reporting, although we
have been hearing these names for days as likely suspects. And I`ve been
speaking to a former National Security Council official who explained to me
the process of how this intelligence would be accessed. And it`s really
only a tiny number of people that would have access to signals
intelligence, intercepts that has incidental collection about Americans,
and one of them would be Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the head of the intelligence
directorate. So that`s sort lends credence to the idea that he at least
has access in this information. But the bottom line, whoever it was it`s
clear it came from somebody in the White House because this official also
told me that it`s not like an official from another agency can go over to
the White House secure room and start hunting around in that computer for
this very sensitive intelligence. So, if we accept the fact that it came
from the White House, that raises a host of questions stepping back about
this explosive claim that Nunes made that he had found evidence of
incidental collection on the Trump transition and, you know, it threw the
house intelligence investigation into disarray. Donald Trump saw it as
vindication of his bogus wiretapping claim. The fact that all now seems to
have emanated from the White House raises fundamental questions about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Incidental collection, I understand that
happens. And I wouldn`t like particularly if my communications were picked
up, although it would probably be like something about my husband and me
talking about our pets or going to the grocery store. But is there
anything in terms of what was actually collected that was in any way
sensitive or important or, you know, is there any problem with it?

DILANIAN: Well, we don`t know the answer to what was collected, but
actually it`s interesting. Nunes initially said that Trump and his aides
had been monitored, leaving the impression that their conversations or
their e-mails or some communications had actually been captured, they were
one party to the conversation. But now it turns out that the vast majority
if not all of this stuff officials are telling us and I think the New York
Times also reported that the vast majority of this stuff was foreigner-to-
foreigner surveillance about Donald Trump and his aides. And of course
that would be perfectly normal. It was the transition. Foreign embassies
are talking to their capitals about these guys. And I would take issue
with my political colleague. The fact of it may have been unmasked is not
necessarily improper at all because there are procedures to unmask the
names of U.S. officials who are spoken about to better understand the
intelligence, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Matthew, do you know anything about the substance of what
this incidental collection? That`s my first question. And the second
question is the White House distressed by this at all?

ROSENBERG: I mean, look, I think we also have to understand that there are
serious significant civil liberties issues with our surveillance kind of
state that we live in and the amount of surveillance that goes on. But
that`s not what the Trump White House is concern here or discussing here.
The incidental collection they`re discussing is something that if you`re up
a foreigner under surveillance or foreigners they`re talking about you
could caught up in, that includes probably Obama administration officials
when they were in power, that I know I`ve been caught up, and so if anybody
else who worked overseas or people overseas. And so the content of this
what we understand was mostly foreign officials talking to each other about
how they were trying to get to know people on the Trump team ahead of the
inauguration, which is their jobs, basically. And we don`t understand, we
don`t know if there`s anything really sensitive in there, but we`ve not
been told that. And that`s been the entire problem with this is that Nunes
came out and made these kinds of broad claims and this kind of very
troubling kind of materials he`d seen, but refused to describe it what it
was. It`s so classified – can see it. There`s also the question if he`s
so troubled this stuff was disseminated, it kind of suggests a lot of
people saw and it a lot of people didn`t see it. The circle of people who
are allowed to see it is incredibly small, we`re talking a dozen, two
dozen, maybe three dozen.

VAN SUSTEREN: Eliana, if this is much ado about nothing, as of course, you
know, naturally the White House is going to say that and Nunes – you know,
why has it been bungled so poorly coming out of the White House and Nunes?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the president made an explosive claim, which was
that President Obama had tapped the wires of Trump Tower. And it looks as
though, at least Devin Nunes, the chairman of the house intelligence
committee, has bungled the objects of this such that he`s made it look as
though he`s trying to come to the defense of the president and provide
evidence to bolster the president`s claim. It looks as though the evidence
that exists is only that routine intelligence collection that would take
place in the transition from one president to another is what took place
here. We don`t know yet if any intelligence collection outside the scope
of that that wouldn`t have taken place, you know, in the transition of
power from any administration from one to another took place yet. And I
think that`s where the confusion is stemming from. Did anything outside
the ordinary happen? Was intelligence collection – was intelligence
collected that wouldn`t have happened, you know, otherwise, or that wasn`t
routine collected. And those are the questions that we don`t know answers
to. And certainly nobody I think is going to provide evidence or it would
be very difficult to muster evidence to bolster the president`s tweet which
he is yet to back off of.

VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you all. Got to take a break. Next we go live to
Capitol Hill for reaction to these explosive reports about the White House
and the Republican house intel chairman who is leading the Russian
investigation. Was there any collusion or improper contacts? Democratic
Senator Ed Markey from the foreign relations committee will be joining us.
And another bombshell revelation tonight, senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz
were also targeted by Russian hackers. I know what you`re thinking, where
does this end? Plus, Vladimir Putin for the first time speaking out with a
big denial about what he was up to during the American election, you`re
going to hear directly from Putin. And a twist so bizarre that I just had
to tell you about it, why the North Koreans are now threatening war because
of something said right here on this TV show.



UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Isn`t it abundantly clear that at least some White
House officials had to be involved in him getting information here because
they would need to help him access the complex?

individuals were.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Right, it was someone at the White House, right?

SPICER: Again, if I start going down the path of confirming and denying
one thing that we`re going down a very slippery slope.


SPICER: I`m not going to comment on it.

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would it not be smart to have an outside independent


VAN SUSTEREN: White House press secretary Sean Spicer refusing to comment
on the New York Times report. Meanwhile, the fire under Chairman Nunes
gets even hotter. Questions are mounting over possible collusion between
Devin Nunes and the White House. At the same time Spicer was feeling
questions on the report the senate intelligence committee was holding its
first open hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election. With me
Senator Ed Markey, Democrat from the great state of Massachusetts, who
serves on the foreign relations committee. Nice to see you, sir.

ED MARKEY, U.S. SENATOR: Thank you. Good evening, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, I`m trying to figure out whether this is much ado
about nothing and I`m sort of blowing this up, or if this is extremely
serious. And of course, Chairman Nunes` bizarre behavior makes me
understandably suspicious, so tell me what you think.

MARKEY: Well, this is a jaw dropping new set of information that has been
made public. Devin Nunes went down to the White House, if the New York
Times is accurate, and then was briefed by a former staffer of General
Flynn, who met with the Russians in December, and with his own former
staffer who is now on the White House staff. If that`s the case, then it`s
clear that there is an attempt to turn Devin Nunes from being the
investigator of this Russian hacking into American elections and then into
the Trump administration after they were elected rather than being an
investigator to be a defender of the Trump administration, to be a shield
against a charge that the Russians compromised the White House and our
elections. So this is historic now. And it actually smells of a cover-up
that is being orchestrated out of the White House that drew Devin Nunes in
to become part of that cover-up.

VAN SUSTEREN: How do we get Chairman Nunes or the White House to just set
the facts straight and to tell us? Because they`ve made this such a
circus, and they made it so bizarre that we`re distracted from health care.
We`re distracted from the underlying investigation on Russian interference.
I mean, the behavior, I mean even – assuming nothing sinister they have
made it sinister. They have made it totally sinister. If there`s
something sinister, well then they are covering it up. But is there any
way to sort of pry this out of it so we can at least get the facts and move

MARKEY: Well, right now the only way that we`re going to be able to pry
the information out of them in a way that has credibility with the American
public is through the investigation of the senate intelligence committee
led by Richard Burr and Mark Warner, because right now what Devin Nunes has
done is to compromise his own investigation. I think Adam Schiff has
pointed that out over and over again. That when you don`t cooperate with
the Democrats on a committee investigating the executive branch, you make
it very clear that you are not interested in getting to a bipartisan
solution or answer to the big questions on whether or not the Russians were
engaging in their own get out the vote operation, and by the way trying to
compromise Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well. And then after the election
trying to compromise new White House appointees who would have a say in
what our relationship was going to be with Russia, and the sanctions which
the United States has imposed upon the Russians. So I just don`t think
that unfortunately Devin Nunes any longer can play any kind of a credible
role. He has to step out of the way. And now the senate investigation
steps front and center to be the only way we`re going to have something
which gives the answers to the American public.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you at all suspicious that the president himself is
involved in any of this? Or is this just people who work for him as
transition team or people at the White House? Do you assign any sort of
responsibility, or do you think anything`s going on with the president?

MARKEY: Well, we`re getting to a what did the president know and when did
he know it, now that we know that it is his own staffers who were briefing
Devin Nunes. So this is getting closer and closer to the oval office. We
don`t know the answers, however. No one can say conclusively as to what in
fact did happen. But we now have to be sure that those answers are given
to the American public because.

VAN SUSTEREN: If you could ask one question of the president, what would
it be on this?

MARKEY: It would be, what did you know about Paul Manafort and Michael
Flynn and others in your campaign before the election in terms of their
relationship and conversations with the Russians. And then, Mr. President,
what did you know about Michael Flynn and others in your family and on your
staff in their conversations with the Russians after the election in terms
of what your policies would be as the president. And until we get those
answers we`re not going to know how successful Vladimir Putin was in his
ability to compromise our elections and then to compromise policies that
could influence Russia in the years ahead.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, thank you for joining us.

MARKEY: Glad to be here.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ahead, the top ranking Democrat on house intel responding to
the White House invitation to review new information on surveillance.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: If they`re ready tomorrow, I`m ready to go tomorrow.
The letter I got from White House counsel certainly raises far more
questions than any it answers.


VAN SUSTEREN: Also, did Russian president Vladimir Putin`s election
meddling run even deeper than we knew? And what we are learning today
about whether the presidential campaigns of senators Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio were also hacked.


UNINDENTIFIED MALE: A sophisticated and capable adversary.

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: There`s nothing to stop them from doing this all over
again in 2018.




UNINDENTIFIED MALE: We are seeking to determine if there is an actual
fire, but there`s clearly a lot of smoke. For instance, an individual
associated with the Trump campaign accurately predicted the release of
hacked e-mails weeks before it happened.


VAN SUSTEREN: Today the senate intelligence committee trying to get to the
heart of the investigation had its first hearing on the Russian hacking,
and at the same time White House press secretary Sean Spicer dropping this


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: A letter was transmitted just
recently to the ranking member and chairman of the house and senate
intelligence committees that said in the ordinary course of business
national security staff discovered documents that we believe are in
response to your March 15, 2017 letter to intelligence community seeking,
quote, documents necessary to determine whether information collected on
U.S. persons was mishandled and leaked, end quote. We have and will invite
the senate and house ranking members and chairman up to the White House to
view that material in accordance with their schedule.


VAN SUSTEREN: The house intel ranking member Adam Schiff saying today that
he accepts the White House`s invitation.


ADAM SCHIFF, U.S. CONGRESSMAN: If they`re ready tomorrow, I`m ready to go
tomorrow. The letter that I got from White House council certainly raises
far more questions than any it answers. Highly concerning to me that on
the same day that this New York Times story reports, and I don`t know
whether the New York Times sources are accurate about whether the two
people mentioned in that story, but the fact that Sean Spicer yesterday had
no idea who may have been involved in that review by the chairman. Today
they suddenly do.


VAN SUSTEREN: With me Margaret Carlson, comes from the Daily Beast, E.J.
Dionne a columnist from the Washington Post, and Bill Crystal founder and
editor of the Weekly Standard. Margaret, first to you, I guess there`s a
best case and worst case scenario for Nunes and the White House, is that
best case scenario is that this is sort of keystone cops and really bungled
this and made us all suspicious. Worst case scenario is what?

MARGARET CARLSON, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, that – you know, Nunes sought
out what Donald Trump would want him to do in order to prove (inaudible) a
tweet he sent out weeks ago about being wiretapped and went about doing
that business in what looks like a fairly cloak and dagger or underhanded
way that where the details are dribbling out and it makes him look
bumbling, you know, last night on your show Senator Graham called him
Inspector Crusoe which would work except that inspector Crusoe had no
nefarious notions. He was just bumbling about. And this looked like it
was totally intended to ingratiate Nunes, to ingratiate himself with the
administration. And in a closed loop going to the White House to get
information to then approve the White House but getting laundered in some
ways through Nunes. There`s no other way to look at it as to who benefits
and who was doing the dirty work to achieve that benefit.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Bill this is sort of like – part of this I`m very
focused on a tweet from the president where he accuses a prior president of
breaking the law, wiretapping. While we`re so consumed with that, Nunes
some sort of parachutes in and makes it more bizarre. Meanwhile we`ve got
this terrible situation with Russia hacking into our election. And it`s
exploded all over us. How do you sort this out?

serious than people are saying, honestly. I don`t buy any of this
inspector Crusoe stuff. Donald Trump knew what he was doing when he made
that tweet. He wanted to divert attention from the investigation into
Russia to make it about whether the Obama administration had loosened the
rules of masking and unmasking and that sort of thing in a way that was
politically motivated. That is an issue, I think there`s a fair question
about the masking rules and maybe the Obama administration had some
political stuff in mind when they changed those the way that was processed
in early January. But look at the White House situation. President Trump
does that tweet on March 4th and then for the next two weeks we`re supposed
to believe that a 30-year-old national security mid level official and a
32-year-old council also works on the national security council, they just
go about looking into this on their own and then discover some stuff they
think helps their case that the unmasking might have been politically
motivated and don`t tell anyone or suddenly call Devin Nunes on a Monday
night and he hurries over, really? And meanwhile these national security
officials, (inaudible) reported H.R. McMasters in charge of the national
Security Council wanted to fire him and he gets protected by someone, by
whom? This goes all the way – the question is who did they report to at
the White House? I worked at the White House. I cannot conceive that
these two young men just did it kind of, hey this is pretty interesting,
and I`m going to spend 12 hours a day looking at this stuff. Doesn`t their
boss ever say what are you doing there? McMaster doesn`t like, didn`t
sound like, didn`t trust Mr. Cohen-Watnick, so maybe he talks to someone
else, and is it Steve Bannon? I think this goes very quickly up the chain
in the White House. Maybe goes to the oval office in the sense Trump knew
what was going on, in which case the whole question of the use of Nunes
becomes not just Devin Nunes stumbling into something, but Devin Nunes
being a pawn of the White House in an attempt to divert attention from the
Russia connection.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it has been reported at least I`ve seen in more than
one place that Cohen-Watkins, Eliana was just here talking about McMasters
and the president intervened after Bannon went to him on behalf of Cohen-
Watkins. But EJ, what in the world were these two – why were they burning
the midnight oil these two in the White House combing through all these
documents? Is that their job to go through this stuff? Think the NSA is
sorting through this and if they find something they then ship it over

E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNITS: Well, Trump totally politicized
this when he did his tweet about Obama groundlessly. It doesn`t shock me
at all these that two guys were probably tasked to find any shred of
anything that might remotely justify an unjustifiable tweet. And I think
Eliana`s reporting and the reporting in general that Trump saved this guy`s
job only heightens the belief that he was somehow involved with their doing
this. The problem at the other –

VAN SUSTEREN: Isn`t that sort of the serious – one of the serious
charges? If the president tweeted something that whether he did it
deliberately, whether he did it for whatever motive, accidentally, pick any
motive you want, but once he did that if he then tasks two people to go out
and make him right and go through all these records, isn`t that a problem?

DIONNE: I think it`s a big problem. I mean, first of all he never should
have sent the tweet. And the question is what were they ransacking? And
they`re doing this solely for political reasons. The problem at the other
end of Pennsylvania Avenue is I don`t see how Paul Ryan can just let Devin
Nunes keep his job after something like this happens. Because the notion
that he can in any way be a fair chairman of this committee, I think that
was pretty clear earlier, but they did have one good hearing. And as soon
as that hearing happens and some really bad stuff emerges that hurts the
administration, Nunes does everything he can to sabotage his own committee.
And so Ryan really has to be accountable for what he is going to do with
his chairmanship.

KRISTOL: Greta, let me just add one point. Said the president may have
tasked these two young men to do this. I think that well could be the
case. But I don`t think the president personally picked up the phone and
called them. He probably doesn`t know who they are, so through whom? Not
through H.R. McMasters, who is head of the national Security Council. So
through the White House council, through Steve Bannon, there`s a real
question of who was involved in this from the beginning.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I need to cut all three of you off for one
second because we`re getting breaking news into NBC. “The Wall Street
Journal” is now reporting former Trump national security advisor General
Michael Flynn offering to testify in exchange for immunity. Joining me
Shane Harris, Wall Street Journal reporter who broke that story, Shane,
tell me what you know.

SHANE HARRIS, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, Greta, what we know right now is
Michael Flynn through his attorney offered to both in the Intelligence
Committee investigating the Russian interference in the election as well as
the FBI to be interviewed in exchange from immunity for possible
prosecution. We don`t know exactly what he offered to tell them, but of
course as the former national security advisor to the president and given
his own interactions with the Russian government, he very well may have
information that is germane to that investigation. But our sources are
telling us that he was only willing to talk about it if he could be
promised that nothing that he said would be used against him in a future
legal action.

VAN SUSTEREN: Shane, thank you very much. Let`s go back to the panel.
Margaret, if I were his lawyer, I`d make that offer too because remember
old Oliver North. You testify before on Capitol Hill and you get immunity.
They can then haul you before a grand jury and go after you in a criminal
court if you`ve done something wrong. I mean, getting immunity the best
thing that could happen to Flynn on Capitol Hill if he has got a criminal

CARLSON: Yes, lawyer-to-lawyer that is exactly right. And you find these
stories begin to unravel when one person is given immunity, the thread is
pulled and then a lot comes out. Just to rewind for a minute in this
jagged timeline. It`s general McMasters coming into the middle of this and
then seeing that he has got a staffer in the green eye shade pouring over
documents night and day and says let`s get this person out of here. Here`s
like the guy who comes in the movie and finds that the police captain`s on
the tape. Let`s get this guy out of here. And then he is overridden. And
that is a huge data point in this whole jagged story.

VAN SUSTEREN: E.J., what do you think about the news that Wall Street
Journal just broke that Flynn has offered to testify in exchange for
immunity? I presume that means offer testify in the house or senate. He
is not talking about a criminal prosecution down at the courthouse.

DIONNE: I don`t think this makes the White House very happy. And he is
not entirely surprising, because after supporting Flynn, the White House
sort of rapidly pulled away from Flynn and tried to pretend that a lot of
things that had happened didn`t happen. So I`m not surprised d he could
turn on them. But the other thing is there`s a two-week period when Sally
Yates, the acting Attorney General told the White House, Flynn has been
lying to you and they did nothing. I think it`s going to be fascinating
what light Flynn can shed on what officials above him did let alone on what
he can shed about the whole Russia connection from the very beginning.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Bill, there are also the report in “The Wall
Street Journal” also saying he offered to the FBI if he`d get immunity he`d
speak to them as well. But E.J. raises his own interesting point. If you
go back at Flynn`s histories, you have the fact Sally Yates was acting
Attorney General had said that he should at least as I understand it that
Flynn should register as a foreign agent having gotten money from foreign
agent. He did get money apparently from Russia. But also you`ve got the
situation that former CIA Director Woolsey told “The Wall Street Journal”
and taped on “The Wall Street Journal” website in which Woolsey says he
walked into a meeting at the Essex house in New York and there was Flynn
talking to Turkish officials about avoiding the extradition rules here in
the United States or procedure and extracting that Turkish opponent of
Erdogan out of Pennsylvania.

KRISTOL: Yeah. I mean, I think it`s very big this news about Flynn. He
was quite – he was high up. I mean, as you pointed out. Holly North got
immunity, testified, brought down Poindexter, as I recalled, the National
Security Adviser, Poindexter said you never discussed with the president
and it stopped right there. Flynn was the national security advisor. I
don`t think he can get immunity and say I`m not going to discuss my
conversations with the president. Or at least if I were running in the
investigation I would make sure he is not going to get immunity and then
clam up about discussions with either Candidate Trump or President-Elect
Trump or President Trump, so now you`re right at the oval office door.

VAN SUSTEREN: Stunning news “The Wall Street Journal” breaking tonight
about Flynn. Anyway, thank you all. And we`ve been looking at how the
story of chairman Devin Nunes has evolved over time. Watch.


will never reveal sources.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even to members of the committee?

NUNES: Nope, never.


VAN SUSTEREN: The house intel chair Devin Nunes still not revealing his
sources, but a timeline in “The Washington Post” raising questions about
coordination with the White House. Here is what we know. March 15, in the
evening President Trump tells Fox News this.


submitting things before the committee very soon that hasn`t been submitted
as of yet. But it`s potentially a very serious situation.


VAN SUSTEREN: Five days later, March 20th, the day of the House Intel
Committee hearing, the New Yorker`s Ryan Lizza reporting before the hearing
starts that the White House gives him a tip about incidental collection.
The White House clearly indicated to me that at noon Nunes would highlight
this issue. It`s a back door surveillance where it is not just incidental,
it is systemic. The White House official said watch Nunes today at 10:00
a.m., the hearing begins. Here is Nunes in his opening statement.


NUNES: The intelligence community has extremely strict procedures for
handling information pertaining to any U.S. citizens who are subject even
to incidental surveillance. It`s still possible that other surveillance
activities were used against presidents Trump and his associates.


VAN SUSTEREN: The following day, Tuesday March 21st, according to “The
Daily Beast,” Chairman Nunes gets a message on his phone and heads to the
White House grounds, specifically the Eisenhower executive office building.
The next day, Wednesday March 22nd, Nunes tells reporters he viewed dozens
of reports.


NUNES: On numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally
collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the president also part of that incidental
collection, his communications?



VAN SUSTEREN: That same day about an hour later Nunes heads back to the
White House, tells President Trump what he has learned. After meeting with
the president, Nunes again speaks to reporters.


NUNES: The president needs to know that these intelligence reports are out
there. And I have a duty to tell him that.


VAN SUSTEREN: Moments later President Trump responds to his briefing by


TRUMP: I somewhat do. I must tell you, I somewhat do.


VAN SUSTEREN: Thursday, March 23rd, White House press secretary Sean
Spicer is asked whether the White House tipped off congressman Nunes.


SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don`t know why he would travel
– brief the speaker and then come down here to brief us on something that
we would have briefed him on. It doesn`t really seem to make a ton of


VAN SUSTEREN: Four days later, Monday March 27th, Spicer says this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you say factually, you know, absolutely flatly
that it is not possible that Chairman Nunes came to brief the president
from something that he obtained from the White House or the administration?

SPICER: Anything`s possible.


VAN SUSTEREN: With me former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker and
Washington editor at large for “the Atlantic,” Steve Clemons. Chris, I
want to talk about the breaking news “The Wall Street Journal” just broke
General Flynn says he will testify if he gets immunity. You hear immunity
and of course everyone thinks guilty. Innocent people, I`m a lawyer.
Innocent people need immunity often because the cards are stacked against
them in the process. But what do you think tonight when you hear that
General Flynn wants immunity from in order to testify?

advice of counsel. I`m an attorney and former prosecutor as well. And you
know that there are different types of immunity here. And I think out of
abundance of caution he probably wants to talk but he is not about to come
forward and say anything if he is exposed to prosecution. So if he is
being advised by counsel, they`re going to tell him not to say anything at
all unless he has some type of immunity.

VAN SUSTEREN: Steve, there`s just so much swirling around Washington right
now. There`s so much going on. Can you step back and just give me sort of
your reflection on how this is going to sort out?

STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: Well, couple of things. First, on General
Flynn, it reminds me of that Broadway show on Hamilton right now of the
folks that were inside the room versus those not inside the room. General
Flynn no matter whether he was culpable or not was in the room in so much
of the iterations of Donald Trump`s interactions on the international and
the national security front, so this is an extraordinary moment whether he
is guilty or not, he was in the room.

Secondly, what`s really interesting about the Nunes side of this is I
remember when the GOP went crazy when Bill Clinton kind of, you know,
charmed his way onto Loretta Lynch`s airplane, former Attorney General.
You know, allegedly perhaps trying to figure out how she was going to go on
Hillary Clinton`s case regarding e-mails and whatnot. And that basically
knocked Loretta Lynch out of action. It created a pathway for James Comey
to find the microphone and comment on stuff. And what we`ve seen with
Devin Nunes and this White House is really in my book a thousand times
worse. Chairman Nunes should have known that when he was offered this he
shouldn`t have stepped forward without Adam Schiff, without consultation
with his committee, without thinking about what his responsibilities were
in this. And so it`s very, very interesting when you look at just a recent
case involving Clinton and Lynch in a Democratic period, a Democratic
tenured president, now we`re about 70 days into Trump-land and we`ve got an
extraordinary moment where potentially the White House has compromised the
leading investigation right now into all sorts of issues. So I don`t know
how it will come out, but I do know this is feeling like, you know, we`re
speculating feeling like a very nixonian time where you imagine people
sitting around with modern –

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Chris, the point that I find suspicious with Nunes
is this that he went that night and he couldn`t have possibly gone – maybe
he got a phone call, come frantically to the White House, we got to show
you something, he goes over there, he sees it and goes home. Then he gets
up the next day. That is sort of the choke point for me. Why didn`t he
call all the other Republicans on the committee? Why didn`t he call Schiff
the ranking member? Why did he keep it to himself? And why did he go back
to the house? He works for the people but also works as part of that
committee. But he abandoned that committee and went to the White House.

SWECKER: That is right. Well, you`re talking to someone that doesn`t have
a high opinion of congressional investigations to begin with. They do more
testifying than the witnesses do. But in this case there is the
possibility if you understand how sensitive compartmentalized information
is handled, the highest levels of classification, you have to have
sponsors. There are a limited number of people that can get certain types
of information. And there`s a possibility that this information may have
been laundered through a third party, whether it`s Nunes or some other –
someone else.

VAN SUSTEREN: But why not tell ranking member he has got the same security
clearance as Nunes.

SWECKER: Well, we don`t know that. I don`t know what level of security
clearance they have. And what I`m saying is someone in the White House may
have access to SCI information that the chairman doesn`t have or even the
other minority chair has.

CLEMONS: What Chris just said is super important, if I may. Because in
that the compartmentalization of a lot of intelligence is something that
the Bush-Cheney administration got challenged on quite a bit that there
were some people that had access to raw intelligence that hadn`t been
processed, hadn`t been filtered. We don`t know if that is the case here,
but I think what Chris said was really vital. There are sources of
material that haven`t yet been processed.

VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you, gentlemen. Vladimir Putin says meddling claims
are lies. The reporter who talked to Putin will join us. And how do you
prove it? One expert witness had tough advice for lawmakers.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Follow the trail of dead Russians. There have been
more dead Russians in the past three months that are tied to this
investigation who have assets in banks all over the world. They are
dropping dead even in western countries.



VAN SUSTEREN: Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin hits back against
claims that he was meddling in our election. Those comments came in an
interview with CNBC`s Geoff Cutmore, who then filed this report.

GEOFF CUTMORE, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: This Russian-organized international
arctic forum is primarily about showcasing energy resources in the arctic
and showing Russian plans for developing this region while taking care of
the environment. But while I had the opportunity to question the Russian
president, I asked him about the ongoing investigation in the United States
into whether Russia interfered with the U.S. presidential election process.
The president`s answer categorically, we did not.


TRANSLATOR: Ronald Reagan`s runs debating about taxes and said, watch my
lips. No. Watch my lips, no.

The Russian president said there was growing anti-Russian sentiment for
domestic reasons. He accused those criticizing Russia of telling lies. At
this point relations between Moscow and Washington are at a low ebb. There
may be some opportunity, though, to make progress if the two presidents are
to meet. This is Jeff Cutmore in Russia.


VAN SUSTEREN: The Russian president directly addressing the issue that has
consumed Washington.

And in other foreign news, an interview on this show has created a bit of
an international incident. Last week Senator John McCain was a guest and
criticized North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.


JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR: China is the one that can – the only one that
can control Kim Jong-un, this crazy fat kid that is running North Korea.
And they`re the ones. They could stop North Koreans` economy in a week.


VAN SUSTEREN: Now the North Korean government is blasting the senator.
Pyongyang called his comments, quote, and a grave provocation, little short
of declaration of war. That is not all. The North Koreans also claimed
they will deal a merciless sledgehammer blow at those daring to hurt the
dignity of the supreme leadership like a puppy knowing no fear of the
tiger. Senator McCain then responded North Korean a tweet saying, quote,
did they want me to call him a crazy skinny kid? Now, I`ve been doing news
for a long time, and I have to say that is a new one for me.

And coming up, the reason I`m not at my home studio tonight. There is a
big reason. That is next.


VAN SUSTEREN: I have something to say for the record. You may have
noticed that tonight I`m not in my usual haunt, Washington. I`m in
Atlanta, and I came here to honor some who have made their life mission of
not only saving lives but doing so at the real risk of their own lives. It
all starts back in the spring of 2014 when that deadly and highly
contagious Ebola virus broke out in West Africa, killing thousands and
literally threatening the world. Everyone was terrified. People in three
nations in West Africa were dying, and the virus was spreading. Doctors
without borders and Samaritan`s purse responded, two organizations to which
the world owes a debt of gratitude. It`s almost impossible to understand
the magnitude of their sacrifice and what they did for others, but a new
documentary that premieres tonight in Atlanta brings it very close.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ebola is the world`s most dangerous virus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The disease is out of control in West Africa.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Action was needed immediately.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All together, the family member I lose, 17.


VAN SUSTEREN: In October, I traveled to Liberia and went to that very
primitive clinic where Samaritan`s purse cared for those victims and where
the staff not only put their lives on the line, but they also suffered the
daily heartbreak when so many for whom they cared died right in front of
them. My presence at this night is just a small way for me to show them
how much I admire them, and I admire so many others who daily risk their
lives to help people, and usually people they`ve never met. By the way, go
to Samaritan`s and check out how you can see “facing darkness.” I
saw the rough cut already. It was breathtakingly moving. Thank you for
watching. I will see you back tomorrow night from D.C. 6:00 p.m. eastern
and if you can`t watch live, set your DVR and follow me on twitter @Greta
or check out my Facebook page for the behind the scenes video and so much
more. Now “Hardball” with Chris Matthews starts right now.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.