The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell, Transcript 3/22/2017

Michael McFaul, David Corn, Ken Dilanian, Adam Jentleson, Eric Swalwell, Rajesh De, Mieke Eoyang, Matthew Rosenberg

Show: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Date: March 22, 2017
Guest: Michael McFaul, David Corn, Ken Dilanian, Adam Jentleson, Eric
Swalwell, Rajesh De, Mieke Eoyang, Matthew Rosenberg

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Dead – Nbc has been doing – you can`t get nor do
they appear to want any Democrats votes, that means their magic number in
terms of no votes from Republicans is 21.

If 22 Republicans vote no, the bill is dead. Nbc has been doing a whip
count of no votes, and the list of Republicans who say that they`ll vote no
tomorrow or are that leaning strongly against the bill tomorrow right now
is well above 22.

It`s 28 say they are no or leaning no. Again, 22 no votes and it`s dead.
You have to wonder if that self-imposed 7:00 p.m. deadline is really

But they tell us tonight they`re still going to try for it. Tomorrow is
going to be another big day. We will see you again tomorrow, now it`s time
for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, good evening, Lawrence.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST, THE LAST WORD: Hey Rachel, so every once in a
while they do go to the floor with the bill in the House where they think
they`re maybe six votes shy or something like that.

And they put all the pressure on those guys on the floor, and you watch
them extend the time of the vote. But 28 –


O`DONNELL: Twenty eight like –

MADDOW: I know. Well, I mean, they can go down to 22 no votes. They`ve
got – we`ve got 26 in the whip count right now. Presumably, people are
going to get some – you know, brutal knocks on the door this evening.

They`ve got, you know, 21 hours to try to make this happen. It`s going to
be a pretty intense time.

O`DONNELL: We will be watching.

MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. Well, the chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee has described a cloud of scandal over the White House.

And today he chose to walk straight into that cloud himself. We have a
member of the House Intelligence Committee with us to respond to what
happened today.

We have an expert panel tonight, a former NSA general counsel will join us,
former staffer of the House Intelligence Committee will join us, a “New
York Times” national security reporter will be here.

We have got all of the angles of this story covered today on this
remarkable day in Washington. It was a day like we`ve never seen before,
of course, thanks to Donald Trump, and this time Devin Nunes.


INTELLIGENCE: The intelligence community incidentally collected
information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Today`s actions I think have really
been a body blow to the credibility of the committee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a true break-down in the entire oversight

Trump ammunition to cover his crazy tweets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel vindicated by Chairman Nunes coming over to
this place?

you, I somewhat do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did Obama actually wiretap Trump Tower which we know
didn`t happen?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the physical act of wiretapping – do you see
anything in the information?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today was Devin Nunes standing on his tippy-toes trying
to hold an umbrella over the president during a political hurricane.

NUNES: The reports that I was able to see did not have anything to do with

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This should not be as political as it is. This is
about Russia attacking our elections.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s clear this investigation is picking up steam. And
this may be an attempt by the chairman and the White House to slam the
brakes on it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have never seen a committee chairman come out in
front of the press to just kind of pour gasoline all over himself and light
himself on fire, which is basically what he did.


O`DONNELL: This has been the most extraordinary week in Devin Nunes`
career, and it`s only Wednesday. On Monday, he chaired a historic hearing
in the House of Representatives that was devastating to the president of
the United States.

The FBI director and the director of the National Security Agency told the
House Intelligence Committee that the president lied when he tweeted that
President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower and wiretapped Donald Trump.

Devin Nunes as the Republican chairman of that committee did not offer one
word of defense of the Republican president`s tweet. Not one word.

No Republican member of that committee defended the president. They almost
all tried to change the subject to a completely unrelated matter.

They expressed concern about leaks to “The Washington Post” that revealed
that Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied about his
conversations with the Russian ambassador for which Flynn was then fired.

Only, of course, when “The Washington Post” exposed that Donald Trump had
known about those lies for two full weeks. That hearing went very badly
for Donald Trump.

Not a single Republican defended him. They did more defending of Michael

And then today, Chairman Nunes apparently having obtained some new
information about surveillance that incidentally picked up information
about people working in the Trump campaign, possibly even Donald Trump
decided to walk that information straight into the place filled with people
being investigated by the FBI for possible contacts with the Russian
government or Russian agents during and after the presidential campaign.

Devin Nunes took that information straight to the White House and straight
to President Trump, who we discovered in Devin Nunes` own hearing on Monday
is himself being investigated by the FBI for possible contacts during the
campaign with Russia or Russian agents.

No one in the Congress, no one in Washington had ever seen anything like
what we saw today. The best run committees in the House and Senate are led
by Democrats and Republicans who share important information with each
other cooperatively.

The senior Republican and the senior Democrat do their best to keep each
other aware of the committees` business. The intelligence committees have
a very special obligation to do that.

Because they`re not passing partisan legislative bills. In the
intelligence committees, there is no such thing as partisan intelligence or
there isn`t supposed to be.

It is both in the tradition and the practice of the intelligence committees
that the chair of that committee share crucial new information with the
senior member of the opposing party on that committee.

They don`t have to share with the entire committee. In this case, just the
top Democrat Adam Schiff. Today, Adam Schiff was stunned by what his
chairman did.


SCHIFF: The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an
independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of
potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians or he is
going to act as a surrogate of the White House or because he cannot do

And unfortunately, I think the actions of today throw great doubt into the
ability of both the chairman and the committee to conduct the investigation
the way it ought to be conducted.


O`DONNELL: Republican Senator John McCain was shocked by what Chairman
Nunes did today, and said he now thinks the House Intelligence Committee
is not capable of doing their job, and that a special committee should be


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: What this is now really, Greta, is a
requirement for a select committee. I believe that there`s a better
relationship in the intelligence committee in the Senate between Senator
Warner and Senator Burr.

But this just shows a tremendous chasm between the two senior members of
the House Intelligence Committee.


O`DONNELL: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he could not understand
why Chairman Nunes would rush down to the White House. Here is what
Chairman Nunes said he told the president.


NUNES: This is information that was brought to me that I thought the
president needed to know about incidental collection where the president
himself and others in the Trump transition team were clearly put into
intelligence reports that ended up at this White House and across a whole
bunch of other agencies.


O`DONNELL: The question everyone in Washington is asking is why did he do
it? Why did he do it? You just heard him say that the information he
brought to the White House was already known in the White House.

He meant the Obama White House. But what made him think that none of that
information was transferred to the Trump White House?

And more importantly, what made him think it was his job to serve that
information to the Trump White House? One of the answers, just one of the
possible many answers, one of those answers is Paul Ryan.

Donald Trump is the second person that Devin Nunes gave that information to
today. The first was Paul Ryan, his boss in the House of Representatives.

And Paul Ryan then told Chairman Nunes to bring it to the president. To
completely bypass his committee, to completely ignore the tradition and
practice of sharing that with the Ranking Member of his committee, Adam

Just run it right down to the White House. And so Paul Ryan left Devin
Nunes wide open to accusations that he was running down to the White House
to offer some political protection for the damage his committee did to the
president on Monday.

And the White House immediately tried to use the information exactly that


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel vindicated by Chairman Nunes coming over to
this place?

TRUMP: I somewhat do. I must tell you, I somewhat do. I very much
appreciated the fact that they found what they found.


O`DONNELL: Here is the most important single reason that Devin Nunes did
what he did today. He is a 43-year-old man who grew up on a big family
farm in California that`s been in his family for generations.

Went to community college, then got a bachelor`s degree in agriculture at
California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

Worked his way into the good graces of the very powerful congressman
representing his district, who was the Republican chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee.

Who then retired, leaving an opening for Devin Nunes to win his seat in the
House of Representatives where he has stayed faithfully close to the
leadership of John Boehner and now Paul Ryan, who made him the head of the
intelligence committee because the supply of intelligence in the Republican
House of Representatives is so low that they do not have enough capable
chairmen to go around.

And so Devin Nunes with no military experience, with no experience working
in the intelligence community, Devin Nunes, the congressman from the
overwhelmingly Republican farming district 200 miles north of Los Angeles
is in way over his head.

Way over his head. That`s what he showed everyone today. Anyone in
Washington who didn`t know that already, knows it now.

If Devin Nunes was trying to help the president today, he did a terrible
job of it because he is in way over his head. You can`t help the president
by making your investigation of Trump campaign contacts with Russia look

In other words, you can`t help the president in a situation like this by
looking like you`re trying to help the president. And the smart chairman
and experienced chairman would know that.

Devin Nunes hurt the president today by looking like the president`s errand
boy. And he hurt the integrity of the congressional investigative process.

And he added to the image of chaos surrounding the president and the
congressional Republicans as they stumble toward a vote this week on their
most important legislation so far, repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

And as they desperately try to change the subject from Russian influence
on Donald Trump, Russian influence on Paul Manafort, Russian influence on
Michael Flynn, who worked as the Trump White – worked in the Trump White
House for three weeks, while they desperately try to change the image of
Donald Trump being Vladimir Putin`s errand boy.

Devin Nunes runs down to the White House and creates another scandal within
the scandal. The picture of the chairman who was supposed to be
investigating this case running down to the White House to help out in any
way he can the people being investigated, looking like Donald Trump`s
errand boy.

And doing it because squeaky, clean Paul Ryan told him to. That`s the
image Paul Ryan has always wanted for himself, a squeaky, clean politician
who only cares about policy.

But Paul Ryan is in over his head this week too. He has never tried to
manage the passage of major legislation as the speaker of the House before.
And he is so far doing a terrible job of it with an open revolt among his
own members who show no fear of him whatsoever.

And in the midst of the chaos of that legislative procedure, Paul Ryan
dispatched Devin Nunes down to the White House because Paul Ryan is in over
his head too.

He is the only speaker of the House in history who has had to deal with the
president of his party, who he is working with every day being the subject
of an FBI investigation.

Paul Ryan has a much worse job than the impossible job that John Boehner
had as speaker of the Republican House.

Because Paul Ryan has Donald Trump in the White House. And John Boehner
had Barack Obama in the White House. And tonight, Paul Ryan is in way over
his head. just like Devin Nunes and just like Donald Trump.

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell; he is a member of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

And Congressman, I just have to ask you, how long did it take for the shock
to wear off? Because the traditions of the way your committee operates as
you know is a very strong bipartisan history of the operations of that

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D), CALIFORNIA: Lawrence, I`m still shocked. This
committee for the past three years for me has been the most fulfilling
thing I`ve done in Congress.

Because it`s a place you go to find bipartisanship to make the most
important decisions. And today, our chairman betrayed the independence
that our committee must show during one of the most trying times in
American history.

He should have shared this with the intelligence committee first. He never
should have shared it with a president whose campaign is under federal
criminal investigation.

And now I think more than ever, the case has been made that we need an
independent bipartisan commission to get to the bottom of exactly what

O`DONNELL: Are you at the point of actively wanting to give up on your
committee`s ability to proceed?

SWALWELL: I actively want to find out how we were so vulnerable, how the
Russians were able to attack us.

Whether any U.S. persons on the Trump campaign were involved. And most
importantly, how do we get out of this mess so this never happens again?

I`m very disappointed in our chairman, and I think we need to take this
outside of Congress to depoliticize it, declassify as much as possible, and
debunk the countless myths out there that the president continues to

O`DONNELL: You and Devin Nunes both represent California. You have more
ways of running into him and doing business with him than just on the
intelligence committee.

What is it about him you think that allowed – where he allowed himself to
get drawn into this mess this way? What did he miss? You know the person.
Why didn`t the person you know turn to Congressman Schiff and make the
right move?

SWALWELL: I`m puzzled, Lawrence. Because I`ve seen Devin Nunes be a
leader on this committee. We passed the bipartisan cyber security bill.

We were able to pass an intelligence reauthorization act to make sure our
intelligence services had everything they needed. And that was Devin Nunes
on his best day.

And we`re not all as good as our best day. But now, what he`s done today
has put our investigation on life support. And today so far is his worst

So we don`t judge people on their best days, we don`t judge them on their
worst days, I`m going to judge him on what he does tomorrow.

Does he come to the committee at our hearing tomorrow and give us the
evidence that he took over to the White House, apologize for what he`s
done, and show that this committee can do the work that the American people
are counting on us to do.

O`DONNELL: Has he acknowledged to any of you members of the committee that
because he was a member of the Trump transition team, he needs to be extra
careful and kind of extra above board in his dealings with this material?

Has he – has he recognized his own vulnerability here as a member of the
Trump transition team and what that means as he goes forward in this

SWALWELL: No, and there`s always been an asterisk around his leadership
because of his connections to the Trump team. But he did agree with our
ranking member to follow the evidence.

We had an open hearing this week where our concerns about the Trump-Russia
ties personally, politically and financially converged with Russia`s attack
on our campaign were validated by the FBI director confirming an

But what he has done today, it`s really setting us back and the future is
in peril. And so he has to divulge to us tomorrow at our 9:00 hearing
just exactly what`s going on.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you very much for joining us
tonight, I really appreciate it.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

O`DONNELL: Thank you. Coming up, how could the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee have taken that information and rushed it down to
the White House?

There`s a lot more to talk about with experts who have worked on this
subject. We have a former staffer from the House Intelligence Committee
joining us, a national security reporter for “New York Times” and others.
We`ll be right back.



NUNES: This is information that was brought to me that I thought the –


O`DONNELL: Information that was brought to me. Who could legally bring
him that information? That is one of the unknowns at the moment. We`ll ask
three experts about that, including a former staff member of the committee,
a former general counsel to the NSA and a national security reporter for
the “New York Times”.

Who could legally bring him that information? That`s next.



NUNES: In the dozens of reports I was able to see, I was able to
determine that it was – it looks like it was legal collection, incidental
collection, but then made itself into intelligence reports.

So it has to deal with FISA and there`s, you know, multiple number of FISA
warrants that are out there. But there`s nothing criminal at all involved.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Rajesh De; former general counsel to the
National Security Agency, Mieke Eoyang; a former House Intelligence
Committee staffer.

And Matthew Rosenberg; a national security reporter for the “New York
Times”. Raj, you were basically the NSA`s lawyer, you were the – one of
the lawyers for the 9/11 Commission.

Who has the – who could legally have brought this information to the
chairman based on the descriptions you`ve heard of the information from the

Lawrence. As a legal matter, any of the agencies could bring the
information forward. I think the two big questions are why would it be
brought forward simply to the chairman, as opposed to the chairman and the

And who legally authorized what seems to be public discussion of classified
information. That latter category is a far more limited universe of

O`DONNELL: Was it your practice at the NSA in a situation like this to –
if you were bringing information like that, that you would specifically
bring it to the chairman and the ranking member?

DE: Yes, that is standard practice at a minimum to bring it to both the
ranking and the chairman, if not the entire committee.

O`DONNELL: Mieke, your experience of working on the committee, again, the
same question, who would legally – who would you expect to walk in the
door with this kind of information?

of disclosures to the committee. One are the official channels that Raj is
talking about. They got brought to both the chairman and ranking.

But then often you get whistle-blowers. Folks who feel like the
administration or their supervisors are not really listening to them, and
they tend to come in on their own.

They`re protected by law, and they can bring disclosures to any member of
Congress. And that may be what we have here, even the way this turns out -

O`DONNELL: And Mieke, does that law protect anyone at any level in the
intelligence bureaucracies to kind of – to walk into the chairman`s office
like that?

EOYANG: It does. There is some question about whether or not those
protections apply to contractors like Edward Snowden. But federal
employees should be protected, but this is a really bad sign to whistle-
blowers across the government.

If you have a concern about the Trump administration and you bring it to
Devin Nunes, he is going to take it straight to the White House.

O`DONNELL: Matthew Rosenberg, the – you see that the people who have done
this for a living are among the most shocked by it.

Trying to convey that outside of the Washington definition of shocked might
not be easy for the country where they probably sense like this stuff
happens all the time.

But how – what has been the reaction in Congress and in the intelligence
community to what Devin Nunes did today with the information that he

think you see it in Representative Schiff and others where the Democrats
are simply saying this doesn`t work.

Running off to the White House before telling us about this, about this
intelligence, it simply means this investigation is not going to be

We need an independent investigation. That`s been the reaction from the
Democrats. I guess even John McCain on the Republican side.

Intelligence community – I got to tell you, I talked to a lot of people
over there today, and a lot of them were just amazed at what was going on
and kind of saying we won`t take a pass on this one.

I mean, what in the world is going on here where you`ve got incidental
collection being portrayed as surveillance where the president is tweeting
things out, it`s just a mess.

O`DONNELL: Talk about that difference, Matthew, between incidental
collection and surveillance, and how that seemed to get blurred today.

ROSENBERG: So if the American Intel community surveils any number of
foreign officials and foreign leaders. And if any American is calling them
up, or if two foreign people who are under surveillance are talking about
American, you`re going to get caught up in that surveillance.

You`re going to be incidentally collected on is how I`ll put it. That`s a
far different thing than if somebody says we want to go after a specific

We want to wiretap President Trump. We`ll go and get a warrant and we`ll
look at him. And that`s sort of what the president suggested.

Nunes actually said today that didn`t happen. But the idea that it`s
somehow unlawful or inappropriate to sweep people up in incidental
collection is kind of strange and not – is not – it doesn`t reflect how
things actually work and what the law is.

O`DONNELL: And Raj, based on the question of exactly who is – who is in
this material that Nunes is concerned about and he thought the president
should know about.

He seems to hint today that he knew who it was. And then there were
moments today where it sounded like he doesn`t actually know who was picked
up in this incidental collection. Do we – is that clear yet?

DE: It`s far from clear. And Matt was exactly right in describing
incidental collection. There are all sorts of rules, generally, the names
of people incidentally collected need to be blacked out.

And they can only be revealed in intelligence circles if there is
information relating to a crime or if the name is necessary to understand
the foreign intelligence.

And I think one big question is, which of those circumstances applies here
if the names were in fact revealed in intelligence circles.

O`DONNELL: Mieke, what do you expect to happen at the committee meeting
tomorrow? And what is the staff urging their members to try to achieve
tomorrow in that hearing?

EOYANG: So if I were staffing members in the hearing tomorrow, I would be
urging them to get all the information that the chairman has.

If he is willing to take it to the press, he should share it with every
single member of the committee. They have to be able to talk about it and
see what the context is in which this information was collected, how was it

But I expect it`s going to be a very contentious hearing tomorrow.

O`DONNELL: And Mieke, what`s the future for the chairman on that committee
if when – if this information is revealed?

And it looks to members of this committee as though he wildly overreacted
or he acted very inappropriately.

Is there – is there a way for a chairman to repair that?

EOYANG: So Chairman Nunes serves at the pleasure of Speaker Ryan, Speaker
Ryan can replace him at any time if he becomes a problem.

But you have to remember, Chairman Nunes was running the national security
transition for the Trump administration.

So all the hiccups that we saw during transition, you can lay that at
Nunes` door, and he is grading his own work as the chairman of the

I think that he is in many ways very compromised as he goes forward and
tries to figure out how to conduct oversight of the intelligence community.

O`DONNELL: Raj, who would have told the chairman that it`s OK to run down
to the White House with this and then go out into the driveway and talk to
the reporters about this?

DE: It`s hard to imagine any intelligence professional or experienced
staffer providing that advice. So honestly, that is a big open question.

O`DONNELL: Matt, what happens next?

ROSENBERG: You know, your guess is as good as mine. I`m kind of curious
to see if anybody is going to ask if what Mr. Nunes disclosed was

He has gone on about leakers and the illegality of disclosing classified
information. And he got up today and talked about things that are still
classified as far as I understand.

O`DONNELL: Well, we`re going learn a lot tomorrow morning. Rajesh De,
Mieke Eoyang and Matthew Rosenberg, thank you both – thank you all for
joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

EOYANG: Thank you –

DE: Thank you –

ROSENBERG: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, the story that the Trump administration really
didn`t want anyone talking about, reports that Donald Trump`s former
campaign chairman was paid millions by Vladimir Putin`s confidante.

That`s just broken – that news just broke today.



amazing job. He is here some place. Where is Paul? Paul Manafort. Paul
Manafort has done a fantastic job. And all of Paul`s people, Paul brought
on the staff.

And we really do, we have a great staff of talented people.


LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: That was the day after the republican
convention, which was run by Paul Manafort, just as the Trump campaign was
being run by Paul Manafort at that time. Today the Associated Press
reports before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul
Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to greatly
benefit the Putin government.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan, as early as June 2005
that he would influence politics, business dealings, and news coverage
inside the United States. Manafort pitched the plans to aluminum magnate
Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a
$10 million annual contract beginning in 2006. Paul Manafort has confirmed
that he did work for that Russian billionaire almost a decade ago.

And today he told NBC News I did not work for the Russian government. Once
again, smear and innuendo are being used to paint a false picture. Of
course Paul Manafort is painting a false picture of the AP report, which
does not say that he worked directly for the Russian government and says
that he worked for a billionaire ally of Vladimir Putin.

And so Paul Manafort did not address the new revelations today. Here is
what Sean Spicer said about Paul Manafort in today`s White House briefing.


clients from around the world. There is no suggestion that he did anything
improper or – and – but to suggest that the president – knew who his
clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane.

There is not – he is not a government employee. He didn`t fill out any
paperwork attesting to something. There is nothing he did that suggests at
this point that anything was nefarious. He was hired to do a job. He did


O`DONNELL: Now you know what Sean Spicer looks like when he is lying.
Actually, it`s not that he was lying about that stuff. It`s just that he
always looks the same way. Like when he was lying about Paul Manafort the
other day. Listen to this.


SPICER: And obviously there has been discussion of Paul Manafort, who
played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and MSNBC
contributor Michael McFaul. Also with us David Corn, Washington Bureau
Chief for Mother Jones and MSNBC political analyst, David has been
reporting on the Manafort-Trump connection and wrote an article today
titled “Paul Manafort tried to help Russian oligarch suspected of mob ties
get a U.S. Visa.”

David, you`ve got some real detail there to add for us. I want to start
with the ambassador to talk about the significance of this, of the ways in
which Russian influence works. That Paul Manafort is standing on the point
today that I didn`t work for the Russian government. Based on the story as
it stands tonight, what do you make of that point in the totality of what
we know?

Deripaska. I dealt with him when I was in the U.S. Government and as a
U.S. Ambassador. I think what people should understand is this distinction
between the state and the private sector in Russia is a lot more blurred
there than it is here in the United States or in any liberal democracy.

Mr. Deripaska coordinates very closely with the Kremlin. He made his
fortune because the government basically helped him make his fortune. And
at least in the reporting in the AP story today, the secret document, the
strategy document says very explicitly that Mr. Manafort will help Putin
and his image and the Russian government in all those different arenas, the
political and economic and press arenas.

So even if he is paid by somebody in the private sector, although in this
murky definition of a private sector, the job was to help the Russian
government and the image of Vladimir Putin.

O`DONNELL: David, I basically just want to say go to you and tell what`s
you think we need to know about this story, given everything that has been
said about it today and where we stand at 10:37 p.m. Tonight.

brilliant. And my piece followed up on that just because I was talking to
someone about Manafort who told me years before Manafort signed this deal
with Deripaska, he also was helping Deripaska get a travel visa to the
United States. In the late `90s, the state department had said that
Deripaska could not travel here because he was suspected of having ties to
Russian organized crime.

And really, for the next ten years, and even up to now, the travel visa
issue has been a big matter for him. He hired Bob Dole as a lobbyist as
well and others to try to win a visa for him to come to the United States.
And the FBI let him in here once because they wanted to talk to him about
organized crime ties. Then they said you can`t come back because you
didn`t tell us the truth.

So there`s just been a lot there. But it just goes to show that Manafort,
you know, had a long connection with this guy. And was doing it probably
for a lot of money and the point that Spicer makes, well, you know, this is
all like ten years ago. It doesn`t matter. Well, the point was that a
fellow who had made millions of dollars by helping a Putin ally was running
Trump`s campaign while the Russians were hacking the democrats and the
whole campaign, while Trump was saying very inexplicable things about

So it`s not an odd question for anyone in the White House press corps to
put to Sean Spicer or Donald Trump.

O`DONNELL: And while they were changing the republican campaign platform.

CORN: Of course, that too.

O`DONNELL: On Ukraine and the U.S. Policy there. Ambassador McFaul, to –
to the – one of the points David just raised, the – the idea that this
guy could not get a visa because of suspected mob ties, you`ve dealt with
these cases as the ambassador. They would come across your desk. What –
what level of evidence was necessary in order to push these visa
applications aside on those kinds of suspicions? Was it just any

Was there some certain level of suspicion that had to be reached?

MCFAUL: Well, Lawrence, given your previous conversation before the break
about not revealing secret information, I`m not going to talk about that.
What I will say is that in the governments his case was raised at the
highest levels many times, and he eventually obtained a visa by the way by
becoming a, “diplomat”. Being part of the APEC Summit Delegation and
that`s how he has now travelled to United States from time to time.

But I just want to emphasize again this distinction that they`re trying to
make that this is a private contract that had nothing to do with the
Russian government. That`s not how the Russian system works. It all is
intertwined there in Moscow.

O`DONNELL: Ambassador McFaul, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Really appreciate it.

MCFAUL: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: David Corn, I`m going to need you for a later discussion.
Please stick around.

CORN: My pleasure.

O`DONNELL: When we come back, the investigations. Have you lost track of
them? Can you – do you know how many there are in the congress right now?
The FBI, the investigations of all of these Trump connections to Russia and
Russian influences, we`re going to map it all out for you, next.


O`DONNELL: There is the FBI investigation. There is the house
intelligence committee investigation, there is the senate intelligence
committee investigation, there is the senate judiciary subcommittee
investigation that Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse are leading as
bipartisan partners. How do you keep track of all of them?

And which one is the most important to follow? Joining us now Ken
Dilanian, NBC News Intelligence and national security reporter, Ken, I
suspect the most important one to follow is the one we`re not allowed to
follow which is the FBI investigation because that can actually end up with
people in court being charged with crimes. But of what we can follow,
where should we be keeping our eye, and what do we expect to happen when in
these investigations?

Lawrence, I could not agree with you more. I`m focused on the FBI
investigation because, you know, James Comey revealed to the world what we
had already reported. But it was important that he revealed it, that
they`re doing a counterintelligence investigation into how Russia hacked
and leaked and interfered with the election.

There is also a criminal investigation into whether Trump associates were
complicit and colluded with that effort. And, you know, if you want to
understand the template or one of the template, all you need to do is read
the dossier written by former British Intelligence Operative Christopher

That dossier alleges a well developed conspiracy between the Trump campaign
and Russia. It`s got names. It`s got dates. It has some things in there
that are not true.

But my understand, my sources tell me that the FBI has corroborated some of
it. And, you know, the FBI was prepared to pay Christopher Steele to
investigate for them. That deal fell through. But they have found him to
be credible.

And, you know, I`m told that as many as 100 FBI agents are assigned to this
investigation at three different field offices around the country. They`re
getting help from the CIA and the Treasury Department abroad there are some
challenges. I mean they can`t interview witnesses in Russia, for example.

This investigation has now become public. And so it becomes difficult for
them to do things that they normally do behind the scenes. But, you know,
we know because it`s so public, we know some of the figures that they`re
interested in looking at. Obviously you`ve got Roger Stone, who is
claiming back channel with Wikileaks. We`ve got Carter Page, a former
Trump adviser who traveled to Moscow.

You`ve got Mike Flynn who had to resign after he was alleged to have lied
to the Vice President about the Russian Ambassador. So there is a lot for
the FBI to grapple here. My understanding is they`re going through
records. They`re trying to interview every witness possible. And it may
take some time.

It may take as long as a year or two. And the Congressional Investigations
are inevitably going to have to follow the FBI because the FBI`s got the
investigative firepower. And Congress is going to have to take the
documents and the information from them. And we may not get a neat
conclusion here, Lawrence, but it`s definitely a serious matter and it`s a
story that is not going to go away.

O`DONNELL: So it may be for example in the Congressional Investigations
they reach a point where they can`t get any further because then they would
be – then they would be invading the FBI investigation. And they just
have to wait. That`s something we`ve seen before.

DILANIAN: as you know, you can put an FBI investigation in jeopardy if
you`re a Congressional Investigation. So they may do other things like
bring former CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper to talk
in public about the Russian angle and what they did and how that was a
threat to democracy. So that`s the way they can inform the public while
the FBI is doing its work behind the scenes, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: KEN DILANIAN, thanks for keeping it all organized for us,
really appreciate it.

DILANIAN: Good to be with you.

O`DONNELL: Thanks. So can the Trump Whitehouse get legislation passed
while it`s struggling to survive all these investigations? In other words
if you like your Obamacare, you might no be able to keep your Obamacare.


O`DONNELL: Here`s the leader of the Conservative House Republicans who call
themselves the Freedom Caucus after their meeting tonight on the Trump
Health Care Bill.


MARK MEADOWS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Again, there has been no formal offers
of anything that is a detailed enough manner at this particular point to
suggest that it`s all over. We`re only one component of several people
trying to make a decision here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where would you place the odds that you`ll get to in
the next 24 hours?

MEADOWS: This is Washington, D.C. so the odds are never great.


O`DONNELL: According to NBC News whip count, there are now 29 Republicans
opposed to the bill. No more than 22 Republicans can vote against the bill
in order for it to pass without any Democratic votes. Is the Trump
Whitehouse now too distracted in damage control to get its first big bill
passed? That`s next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?

ADAM BENNETT Schiff, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I don`t want to go into
specifics. But I will say that there is evidence that is not
circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigations.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How confident are you that the bill will pass? And
if it doesn`t pass, is there a plan B?


SEAN SPICER, WHITEHOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, there is no plan B. there`s
plan A and plan A. we`re going to get this done.


O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Adam Jentleson, the former Deputy Chief of
Staff to Harry Reid. He`s currently the Senior Strategic Adviser at the
American Progress Action Fund. And back with us is David Corn. And
gentlemen, I just want to show a couple poll items here as we think about
how this health care bill is going to move through Congress. First, on the
Quinnipiac Poll, do you believe former President Obama wiretapped Trump

70 percent say no and then on the approval – the job approval for
President, Trump 37 percent approve. 56 percent disapprove. Adam, when the
President is trying to push a major controversial, difficult legislation
through Congress as he is now with the health care bill, what does it mean
when 70 percent of the public are saying we think he is a liar about the
scandal that he is in the middle of and we strongly disapprove of the way
he is doing his job. 56 percent disapprove. What do those numbers mean
when you`re trying to push legislation?

ADAM JENTLESON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I think it means they`re being pushed
by a very weak President, a President who in the public`s eyes is a loser
and who doesn`t have the support of most people. I think it`s tough to get
your arm twisted by someone who is weak. And the President is weak right

O`DONNELL: David in Washington, all subjects are the same subject. They`re
all kind of glued together. And the Healthcare bill cannot escape what
else is going on this week. And when you`re a republican member of the
house thinking how much do I want to extend myself for this President,
you`re looking at the mess he is in.

DAVID CORN, JOURNALIST: Yeah, you can see he has one foot on the plank. I
mean it seemed like it happened three weeks ago, Lawrence. But it was only
two days ago, doing the math here. Two days ago that the FBI Chief came
out and said the President was in essence a liar for talking about the
wiretapping claims. And oh, yes, by the way, we`ve been investigating at
him, you know, at least his campaign crew since last July to see if they`ve
been colluding with Russia on one of the biggest hacks of U.S. democracy.

So those are not strong positions to be in. and then you also see polling
numbers that Obamacare is now approved by 58 percent of the public. And
that what they want to do is rip health care away from millions of
Americans. So I think this is a tough vote. And if it`s not a tough vote
for a Republican, they should really read the papers again.

O`DONNELL: Adam, the Congress has multiple investigations going on about
the whole Russia connection to Trump world. You have an FBI investigation
going on. You have media investigations going on, David Corn working on it
every day. How do you judge the system to be working at this point? And
what else do you think the system, the overall system might need to get at
whatever this truth is?

JENTLESON: I would say on the press side, the system is working well there
is a lot of aggressive reporting out there. Reporters are the main people
who are getting the truth out to the American people right now. I think on
the Congressional side, it`s an open question. Our democracy is built to
survive, to withstand threats from the executive branch.

But it`s an open question as to what happens when the legislative branch is
complicit in those threats. And i think that`s what you saw with Chairman
Nunes today. Rather than acting as an independent check on the President
and holding him account, he is acting as his surrogate and as his willing,
obedient foot soldier. And I think that`s a problem. And what happens is
an open question.

O`DONNELL: Adam, real quickly before we go. What`s you`re sense of how
all this machinery of scandal is impacting the legislative effort for the

JENTLESON: well, I think it`s going to – it`s not impacting it positively
from their perspective. It`s very difficult to advance a legislative agenda
with a President who is as unpopular and wracked by scandal and unable to
drive a message on a consistent basis as this President is, as he is
constantly dogged new revelations about Russia, new scandals. And I would
just put in a plugs here. Tomorrow we`re launching a big new website called

That one of the things with these stories it`s hard to keep your head
around the whole story. And this is a one stop shop for everything you
need to know


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.