News, analysis and interviews with politicians and observers. back in the jury room. so how this all unfolded, just after 11:00 a.m., the jury did send a note to the court asking the judge, judge, what do we do if we can't come to a unanimous decision on one of the 18 counts. that implies that perhaps they have reached a decision unanimously on the other 17 counts, but they haven't said that definitively. what the judge had to do was he had to come up with instructions to give the jury as it pertained to them going back and deliberating yet again. that just happened. in just the past few minutes, the judge instructed the jury, go back into the jury room and continue to work on that one final count. try to continue to work, to come to some unanimous verdict on that one remaining count. outside of the presence of the jury, the judge indicated that he might be prepared to accept a partial verdict if they weren't able to come to a conclusion on that one remaining count that they seem to have indicated. but the judge, however, did not specifically instruct the jury that he'd be willing to accept that partial verdict. that's important because he doesn't want the jury going back into the jury deliberation room saying, okay, well, why try that hard because this judge would, in fact, perhaps accept that partial verdict. this judge wants the jury to know that he is anticipating, hoping for a full verdict here. so again, just a few minutes ago, the jury going back into the deliberation room with the instructions from the judge, keep going at it, see if you can, in fact, reach a decision on this one count that's giving you trouble. and john, we don't know what that count is, but these are 18 complicated counts that include tax fraud, bank fraud, as well as issues around foreign bank accounts. so they've been working on this pretty painstakingly. it's really the first we've heard a substantial question from the jury since thursday. so we'll see as the time continues to tick forward what this jury will do. john? >> and jess, have we heard anything specific beyond their curiosity and i'm sure their is known as a sawyer charge. he instructed them to try again, to listen to each other, whether or not there's only a couple of them who are stuck on one side of the equation, and to consider changing their vote if that doesn't violate their conscience. he was trying to remind this jury that they had a duty to come to a unanimous decision so long as that didn't violate their conscience. the judge wanted to remind both sides before he brought the jury back that what could happen next. if this jury remains stuck, we don't know how long that might be, we don't know how long he'll let them continue, but if they come back and say that they cannot reach a final decision on all of these counts, he told them he would consider obviously accepting a partial verdict. obviously we don't know which particular counts they've reached their decision on. we don't know which side of this they've come down on. so there's still a great deal of mystery for the defense and for the prosecution in this case. something that just came in from our team at the courthouse. manafort's attorney asked judge ellis to give the jury a new verdict form after the jury said we'll need another form please in their tuesday note. ellis said he would not. downing said he wished jurors would be given a third option, a hung jury option for each count. take me inside. if you're the prosecutor or the defense lawyers and you're at this stage, what are your options and where are you powerless? >> well, i think if you're the prosecutor on this case, it certainly feels like you might be winning on 17 counts because when a jury is sort of on that kind of roll, checking off innocent, innocent, innocent, are they going to stay around and argue about one final count if they think the guy was falsely charged or improperly charged on the first 17? usually you'd have to say no. on the other hand, if you're finding somebody guilty and they can go to jail under certain counts, you're carefully going up to the trial, but also during the trial. what goes through your mind, and what information do you have? >> i think this was much more complicated than any of us had anticipated. it seemed like there was overwhelming evidence. but these are 18 counts, very confusing perhaps at times. look at this jury note. they're probably confused in some ways too. it's clear they've made a lot of progress. we've been waiting to hear what's going on for days. we really haven't heard where they stand. now we know. i think when they write a note like if we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we fill in the verdict sheet? so clearly maybe they either wanted the judge to take something off the verdict sheet. that part is very confusing. i think as paul said, the idea that the judge wouldn't give them a new verdict sheet -- i also think this judge just does not want to meddle in this deliberation. go back, keep at it, and let's see what happens. he also said in court before he sent them back in, continue to deliberate, and he did tell the court that he does not intend to take a partial verdict at this point. let's see what happens. they could come back and maybe he does take a partial verdict. >> does not intend to take a partial verdict at this point. let's step back to a minute for the importance of this case. if you're robert mueller the special counsel, these charges have nothing to do with president trump's 2016 campaign. these charges ahave nothing to o with russian interference in the 2016 election. there was testimony, however, that rick gates remains t cooperating on other matters, number one, and there was testimony that among the misdeeds, the influence peddling, if you will, that paul manafort was accused of doing by prosecutors, was including trying to get a job in the trump administration from a bank president with whom he was trying to get a loan. >> to your point, i think it's important to emphasize that while this is robert mueller's team that is prosecuting this case, this is not directly tied to the questions of russian interference, nor is it tied to the questions of obstruction we've seen really circling around donald trump. at the same time, the trump team is obviously really closely watching what's going to happen here, in part for trump's political argue, which is that the mueller probe as a whole is a political witch hunt, that there's nothing to it. certainly if manafort were to get off, that would feed into that narrative. if manafort is found guilty, it will lend real credibility to the mueller probe, that he was able to put someone who was the campaign chairman, not an insignificant player in trump's world, on trial and get a guilty verdict. a lot of nervousness in the trump administration, in the west wing right now as they wait for this verdict. >> and that nervousness exhibited by the president himself on friday, who did something remarkable. many people would say reprehensible, when he publicly talked during jury deliberations about how he thought this was sad that the government was putting paul manafort on trial, that paul manafort was a good man, despite the federal government of the same united states saying he's guilty of -- saying they want guidance on being hung on one count. theoretically, they could be having some dissension on other counts too. >> paul, one more quick question here. as a former prosecutor, if you're robert mueller and you know you have another manafort trial, you're under constant attack by the president of the united states, you have to decide what to do with the papadopoulos sentencing, the michael flynn sentencing. you know the other evidence you have or don't have, are still looking for. how important is it to win the first one out of the gate when you're not only in a complicated legal situation but an incredibly complicated political mess? >> it is very important, john, to win that first one because, you know, mueller has been under constant attack bit president. the president has got a new derogatory nickname for mueller every week. there's a new one that's added to the list. so his credibility is on the line here, and that is so important in an investigation like this and in trials to come in the future. a lot of times in these really complicated tax cases, paper cases, the jury, if they trust the prosecutor and believe in the integrity of the prosecutor, when they get to a point where it's really too hard for them to understand the law or it's difficult to understand what the accountants mean with the charts that have been put up, they rely on the prosecutor and maybe come forward with a jury guilty verdict, as they do, by the way, in 90% of federal cases. so his credibility is really important, and this is the first test, the first public test of his credibility. >> going to ask our legal experts to not go terribly far from the camera. we're going to continue to track what's happening in that courthouse in northern virginia. we'll bring you the latest as soon as we get any update. up next, moving on to a somewhat related story. microsoft uncovers a russian cyber campaign to mess, again, with american democracy. -i've seen lots of homes helping new customers bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that. the jury still deliberating, but just moments ago sending a note to the judge asking, what do we do if we cannot reach a unanimous consensus on one of the 18 counts. that's paul manafort's attorney outside the courthouse. we'll return to the trial as soon as we get new information. moving on to other top news today, new glaring evidence that vladimir putin lied to president trump and russia is still attacking u.s. democratic institutions. microsoft, the software giant, revealing overnight that russian military intelligence units launched cyber attacks targeting conservative think tanks and the united states senate. according to microsoft, hackers for fancy bear, the same group of cyber criminals implicated last month by the russia special counsel, set up fake websites meant to entrap visitors into coughering up pa coughing up passwords and other sensitive information. this is a mirror image of how the russians broke into john podesta's e-mail accounts. the sites identified by microsoft mimicked real ones used by united states senate staffers and bore official sounding web addresses. russian hackers built two other imposter sites, one for the hudson institute, and one for the international republican institute. both are conservative groups that have broke within the president, and both have very hawkish views when it comes to russia. cnn's fred pleitgen is in moscow for us. fred, the kremlin response today, i suspect, was deny? >> reporter: i would say it's even more than deny. the kremlin spokesman was in a conference call with reporters earlier today, and he didn't just deny these new allegations, he basically said that the russians had absolutely no idea what all of this is about. they say that so far, they believe that not enough information was provided for them to even issue a denial, and they say a lot of the players that are involved in this, they don't even know if these players exist or who they are. i want to read a little bit of the statement that was put forward. he said, quote, our reaction has already become traditional. we don't know which hackers they're talking about. we don't know what is meant about the impact on elections. it was interesting because we asked in that same call what about these six websites that were stopped by microsoft? he said, look, i have no idea what fancy bear is or what this has to do with any sort of russian intelligence services, which is interesting because cybersecurity experts believe fancy bear is directed by the russian military intelligence, by the gru. so the russians certainly issuing a very strong denial and going on further beyond that. >> fred pleitgen in moscow. appreciate that reporting. i'll be waiting to see vladimir putin say it's a 400-pound guy in his basement. microsoft's newly documented evidence of russian meddling puts the president, who has repeatedly questioned russian interference, in a fresh bind. the disconnect between what the president says and what his intelligence community says highlighted again just yesterday. in an interview with reuters, this from the president. mueller's probe played right into the russians. if it was russia. they played right into the russians' hands. the key words there from the president of the united states, again, despite all of the evidence, if it was russia. julie pace is back with us. also joining the conversation, jonathan martin of "the new york times." cnn's phil mattingly. if it was russia. the president has been told by everybody on his national security team including most of his appointees, that this is continuing. you have microsoft saying we caught them again, the same people mueller has indicted. the president says if it was russia. >> he can't help himself when it comes this. he's really on an island by himself. the only other person who's continuing this narrative that russia was not involved in this is vladimir putin. everyone else, as you say, even the president's own appointees in the intelligence community, go to him with evidence saying russia was clearly behind this, you have u.s. companies combatting this on a day-to-bda basis. it begs the question, and there's no good answer, why does the president continue to question this? it leads you back to the questions about his ties to russia. is there a reason why he can't just get over this hurdle, why he can't side with american intelligence? >> and fred pleitgen going through what you would expect from the kremlin. they say what are you talking about, we don't know anything about this, just as vladimir putin has said. if you talk to the cyber people, including u.s. intelligence officials who work for president trump, they say that russia is getting caught on purpose, that russia is leaving fingerprints. if they wanted to be more clever, if they wanted to be for nefarious -- that they want -- we're still going this. >> we're in the game. >> we're still in the game. this is the president's own director -- two administration officials today testified on capitol hill. this is still going on. their boss, the man they report to, the director of national intelligence. this is dan coats last month at the hudson institute, one of the conservative think tanks microsoft said was hacked. >> in regards to state actions, russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor. no question. they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy. the warning signs are there. system is blinking and it is why i believe we are at a critical point. >> the location more than ironic, but he didn't say if russia did it. he says the lighting are blinking, we're at a crisis point. >> the purpose for russian interference is to create distrust, to create chaos in the political system. and that's exactly what they're doing. they're succeeding in that with administration officials like dan coats saying things like that. then we have the president completely going the other way and saying if russia did it. so you know, vladimir putin right now is succeeding, if that's the goal, in terms of creating this chaos we've seen in the last year. >> i think the interesting bit, you mentioned the hearing on capitol hill where you had officials from across the spectrum of agencies controlled by president trump saying without hesitation this is something that's happening, this is something that was happening, and there's no question about it. but the interesting element is there are policy ramifications to the president's unwillingness to seemingly embrace this wholeheartedly. you had senators from both parties on capitol hill. the reason the hearings are happening today, they're considering new sanctions on russia. that would seem to undercut what the president wants to do in terms of bettering the relationship. perhaps that means easing sanctions. congress is considering ramping them up. then you look across the spectrum on the cyber capability side of things where you have the defense department considering offensive action or reaction on something like this, which is also extremely important and very, very kind of touchy when it comes to a legal standpoint. you have all of these things happening as the president can't seem to embrace it. the net of it is that what the president wants in terms of a relationship with russia, he can't get because he won't accept it in the first place. >> and it complicates other relationships, including with key u.s. allies. listen to the uk's foreign minister in town today essentially saying, yeah, i see what the president says on twitter, but i call mike pompeo and say, what are you going to do as opposed to what is he going to say. >> he's particularly active on twitter, and it's a very different style of politics, but it's very important to look at what he does as well as what he says. when it comes to sanctions, it was this administration that first said that they were going to take economic action against russia as a result of what happened in salisbury. it wasn't europe. it was the united states that were first to do that. >> that's so fascinating. what he's doing there is basically saying out loud that there is a gap between the trump administration policy and the trump twitter riffs, which is what everybody knows. it's striking to hear our most important ally say it out loud in washington, d.c., like that. he's totally exposing what everybody gets, which is that there are two different policies. to phil's point, i'm sort of almost innered to this groundhog day routine of saying if they did it. what i'm more interested in now is action. will trump at rand paul's urging kind of go easier on some of these sanctions? will he let russian legislators visit the u.s.? that's wrihere i think it gets more interesting, less him sowing doubts and more following up by easing up on putin. that could create a rubber meets the road issue with congress. they're okay, at least okay turning a blind eye to the tweets about if they did it, but they wouldn't be okay, i think, with actually easing the sanctions. >> something to watch in the weeks ahead because rand paul is pushing the president to do something on that specific issue. we'll watch. up next, somewhat related, damned if you do, damned if you don't. president trump says sitting down for an interview with the special counsel would be a no-win situation. there's a lot to love about medicare. there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less out of your own pocket. that's nice. and these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. it feels good to have someone looking out for you. want to find out more? call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, with aarp medicare supplement plan options to fit your needs. and learn how this type of plan works together with a part d prescription drug plan. here's something else good to know. with a medicare supplement plan, you have freedom. freedom to go with any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you're not restricted to a network. ever. and if you need to visit a specialist, you'll have a choice there, too. your coverage goes with you, too, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp. that's the icing on the cake... i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call. for you could be just a quick call away. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. welcome back. president trump revealing in a new interview that no matter what he says, he thinks the special counsel robert mueller will find a way to call him a liar. the president shares this insight in an interview with reuters. so if i say something and former fbi director james comey says something and it's my word against his and he's best friends with mueller, mueller might say, well, i believe comey. even if i'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. that's no good. today the drudge report echoing the president's concern,. of course, sad to say, the president already is a liar. comey and mueller know each other from past government service but are not best friend, as the president likes to say. the president's trouble with the truth is one reason his lawyers want no part of a mueller interview. that concern isn't new, but it is heightened now after revelations that white house counsel don mcgahn sat for 30 hours of interviews with mueller's investigators. two people familiar with the president's thinking say that news has him unnerved. not a surprise exactly, but more clarity now even though the public line is the president wants to testify that he has zero intention of answering questions from bob mueller, right? >> it was a fascinating set of comments he made to reuters there, using language we've heard from people like rudy giuliani saying an interview is potentially a perjury trap. that's the concern that the white house team has, not that mueller is trying to set him up, but that trump could commit perjury because he changes his story so often. i think you're right. this at one point looked like trump did want to do an interview, that he felt like there was a political imperative to going forward. it seems increasingly unlikely he's going to do this. the concern from him and his legal team seems to be too great at this point. >> also in that same interview, this from the president about, you know, can you shut down the mueller investigation or will you shut down or try to assert more control? quote, i can go in and do whatever. i could run it if i want. but i decided to stay out. i'm totally allowed to be involv invol involved if i wanted to be. sometimes the president says things that he knows are provocative and that he knows are not of the planet, shall we say, to stir up conversations. but when you have, among the things don mcgahn has talked to the special counsel about, is he wanted me to fire you, mr. mueller. he's several times wanted to make runs at jeff sessions. he wanted to go after the deputy attorney general. >> the fact is he hasn't stayed out at all. he just wants to put that image out there. the other thing i think has been effective from his legal team in terms of the conversation about the perjury trap is that the president is a paranoid person. we've seen this now again take place with the conversation about don mcgahn. he's paranoid. so the way they get him to not interview is to kind of make him think this is a setup. if he goes into it, this is going to to be a setup and a trap. that seems to have worked. now he's kind of again making things up about how he's actually more in control than it might seem. >> interesting too is the authority or whether the president has the authority has always been understood to be the case. he probably does have some authority to shut down or try and get in the way through various dominos falling if he wanted to. it's always been the political ramifications of what would happen if he tried to pull that trigger. that's what terrifies republicans on capitol hill. that's what i'm told repeatedly white house officials have had to make calls to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, speaker paul ryan, assuage their concerns. it's almost as if the president is relaying what he's been told about his own authority while also ignoring the fact that the result of what would happen if he did that would be cataclysmic, which is generally understood across his party, which for the most part has turned a blind eye. >> and saying it out loud in interviews and tweets, it would be like if the nixon tapes were played in realtime on the evening news back in the early '70s. you could hear it all, right. it makes you curious as to what we're not hearing. we get so much of the inner monologue. he's musing out loud aboutic i could run the investigation myself. >> we know what he's thinking because he's glaringly transparent. for example, i pulled those security clearances because brennan was involved at the beginning of the russia investigation, not because of anything he said on television. >> the lester holt interview about why he fired comey. >> this is jack quinn, former white house counsel, worked in the attorney's office back in the clinton administration, back during the lewinsky investigation. his take on the impact of having it now public knowledge that the white house counsel don mcgahn not only cooperated with investigators but spent 30 hours with them. >>. >> nobody wants to be the last one standing. nobody wants to watch one's colleagues go in, spill the beans, and be the one who's last in line to cooperate. i think there's a good chance you'll see a lot of people making phone calls to the special counsel's office asking when their interview can take place. >> is that fair in the sense that -- you know, my understanding is not only is don mcgahn given 30 hours, but don mcgahn's instructions to all the younger lawyers around him have been protect yourself, tell the truth. >> and we've seen many people who have gone in to already talk to the special counsel from the white house staff. the more interesting thing to look at there is think about the effect in the west wing. you have advisers showing up every day looking at each other, knowing they've all gone in to talk to bob mueller, wondering what everybody has said, who's pointing a finger at who. that is a really difficult work environment if you're actually trying to get something done running the government. >> although, i keep saying for months now, if you did nothing wrong, and you all told the truth, why are you so nervous and agitated? but we'll leave it there. before we go to break, a flashback from the trump presidency. the fighting grinds on in afghanistan. a look back at a promise the president made exactly one year ago. >> from now on, victory will have a clear definition. attacking our enemies, obliterating isis, crushing al qaeda, preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan. it's the sears labor day event! ...where you can shop with confidence and convenience plus get these 4 benefits from kenmore at sears. up to fifty percent off appliances with your sears card. like this washer and dryer for $539.99 each. and this refrigerator for $899.99. hurry in to sears today. now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us. unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways share with others. unlimited ways to live for the moment. all for as low as 30 bucks a line. unlimited for you. for them. for all. get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile. topping our political radar today, two top government officials say despite claims to the contrary, they've seen no evidence florida's election infrastructure has been compromised. the homeland security secretary and the fbi director say they cannot corroborate claims from democratic senator bill nelson who said recently that certain jurisdictions around florida have already been penetrated by russians. a manhunt happening right now for a man suspected of making death threats against president trump. the 27-year-old of pennsylvania allegedly made a facebook post earlier this month threatening to kill a local district attorney and the president. he was last seen cumberland, maryland, thursday. the trump administration this morning following through on a 14-year-old deportation order for the last known nazi collaborator in the united states. the 95-year-old plucked from his home in queens, placed in an balanc ambulance, and sent back to germany. he was an armed guard at a labor camp where some 6,000 jews were shot to death. when we come back, president trump's supreme court nominee making the round. the kavanaugh conundrum for red state democrats front and center today. ed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery. ends saturday. i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right, with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only $2 or less at office depot officemax. like these for only $2 or less what i just introduced you worto my parents.g? psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. trump-friendly state. cnn's sunlen serfaty is on capitol hill. what have we learned? >> reporter: certainly a big meeting today, john. brett kavanaugh just emerged after an over two-hour meeting with senator susan collins. as you said, a key swing vote here leading up to those confirmation hearings on september 4th. coming out of that meeting, senator susan collins just addressed press. she said essentially that she had not made up her mind, not settled, or not revealing what her vote will be for kavanaugh. certainly she had positive things to say about him coming out of the meeting. she said it was an excellent session, very productive, informative, and she questioned him about his judicial philosophies, of course, but most specifically, importantly, as you noted, she talked to him about precedent and abortion cases, specifically she said she pressed him on whether he considered roe to be settled law or not. so certainly an important meeting lasting over two hours here today. he moves on to a slew of other big important meetings up here on the hill. many democrats on the list. mccaskill, patrick leahy, of course, amy klobuchar, and senate minority leader chuck schumer, leading the charge to get more documented released. a significant day up here on the hill leading to the confirmation hearings two weeks from today. >> sunlen, appreciate the update there. next for us, senator elizabeth warren says washington is still swampy and the trump white house is to blame. her anti-corruption push amid 2020 speculation. liberty mutual saved us almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782. liberty mutual insurance. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ strong words today from elizabeth warren, who said president trump's promise to drain the swamp is beyond laughable. >> the trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. but they are not the cause of the rot. they're just the biggest, stinkiest example of it. corruption is a form of public cancer, and washington's got it bad. >> the democratic senator from massachusetts introducing the anti-corruption and public integrity a integrity act. it would impose a lifetime ban on lawmakers from becoming lobbyists. another big push for national attention by warren, another piece of a populist platform many see as the framework for a possible 2020 presidential run. yet, she insists all the time -- mr. martin, you're looking a little skeptical there. >> a little? a lot, john. >> she insists she's running for re-election in massachusetts. >> well, she is. but i can't help but notice she's not spending all of her time in framingham and dorchester this year. she's been in places like nevada. she's been raising money in salt lake city and in denver too. look, she has a couple staffers who have just gone north to a little place next door called new hampshire, which you may have heard of. >> once or twice. >> to work for the state democratic party up there. it's not subtle. i think everybody who covers politics knows she's moving towards a campaign for president. i think what she's doing today is trying to frame herself as somebody who is not merely another, john, forgive me, liberal from massachusetts but somebody who's a reformer and somebody who is a populist who's running against d.c. >> that directed to michael dukakis or john kerry? >> we can go on, if you want. >> mitt romney. >> ouch. exactly. i think she knows that she's got to define herself as someone who's a reformer, someone who's a pop ulist, not merely the harvard law professor. i think that's the effort today. you run against d.c. you call it a stinky swamp. and you kind of embrace some of the rhetorical strokes that trump did in 2016. she knows she's going to get hit hard from the right with all the usual bug-a-boos and she has to get out early in defining herself. here's one prediction. the oklahoma accent you've heard, i think you're going to hear more in the next year, year and a half. >> in some ways, it seems like she's stealing trump'sov overal message but saying he didn't really act on it, he didn't act on the drain the swamp message. so she's setting herself up as this perfect foil. the democratic primary, as we know, there are probably going to be 17, 18 people running. so she's setting herself up to be that perfect foil for donald trump. >> you think only 17 or 18? >> maybe. a small field. >> the party is shifting to the left, to the progressive wing of the party. with the exception of bernie sanders, she has at least an identity. we don't know if she can put the pieces together of a presidential campaign. from an identity standpoint -- >> she certainly could separate herself from that pack of 17 or 18 or 25 candidates by carving out that niche. i think when you talk to democrats, there is some feeling that if sanders runs again, that he's not going to be able to kind of carve out that same niche that he did last time around and maybe warren could step into that void. she does have pretty decent name recognition nationally, certainly a pretty loyal following among the left wing of the party. can she bridge the gap there, that will be the question. >> another reminder, she's a democratic senator. she can make her case. look, the president has not kept his promise. i'm going to guess majority leader mcconnell is not going to give it anything. >> i haven't seen her on the