Interviews with political figures and news updates. Interviews with political figures and news updates. the jury that there is a third option, there is guilt, there is not guilty, and there is a hung jury. the judge declined to do that and said that if the jury were to come back again and say they remain deadlocked, the judge will ask them how many counts they've reached a verdict on. he'll then consult with the lawyers and decide whether or not to take what's called a partial verdict which means to have the jury announce those counts to which they've reached unanimous agreement. >> now, correct me if i'm wrong, the trials that i've covered in the past, dan, and you're the lawyer and former prosecutor, a judge will only repeat that allen charge so many times, or else risk, you know, being overturned on appeal if it ends up being a conviction, that east putting too much pressure on a deadlocked jury. >> you're exactly right, andrea. even the judge mentioned that his objective was not to be coercive to the jury. and that's the legal standard that gets reversed on appeal. if a judge is trying to coerce the jury into a verdict. so it sounds like he is not going to read the allen charge again to them before at least giving the option of taking a partial verdict. he may decide to take a partial verdict and give them another allen charge and send them back in. usually the law, as i understand it, an allen charge twice is not reversible error, but once you get much beyond that, it starts to be coercive. again, it all depends on how many counts we're talking about. as ken just said, if they have guilt on 17 counts and there's one count on which they're hung, then maybe the prosecution just accepts the motion for a mistrial. but that also depends on which count that is. not all counts are equal. so we have a lot more information than we did at the end of the day yesterday, andrea, but we still have a lot of questions that remain. >> andrea, we should clear up for our viewers, because dan was in the courtroom and i wasn't, it's perhaps more ambiguous than i represented. it's possible they're saying they're deadlocked on all of the counts, it sounds like from what you're saying. >> it's possible, but i think unlikely. i think the implication of the note is that they have reached unanimity on some counts and the question, again, was, if we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the verdict form for that count. so it doesn't necessarily mean there is only one count. but it does give at least the implication that they have reached union a.animity on some counts. >> one last question, dan, as a prosecutor, are you surprised that he red them the allen charge on this first note on being stuck on one of the counts? >> that's a very good question, andrea. often the judge will just say, you know, answer this question to say, just keep trying, essentially, and then before the next time they come out to reed the allen charge. i'm not surprised because they've been out for three days diligently working. this is not a jury that seems to be eager to get out of there that's trying to give short shrift to the evidence. i think everyone who observes this thinks they're meticulously going through it, they decided themselves to stay late last night. when they work this long on a trial, it did seem reasonable and appropriate to give the allen charge and neither of the parties objected to the judge doing so. >> we appreciate both of your expertise there, thank you so much. obviously we'll have more breaking news as it develops do you go our hour and throughout the day. more breaking news, involving michael cohen. multiple sources familiar with the matter telling nbc news the president's former personal attorney is discussing a possible guilty plea with federal prosecutors in new york in connection to alleged tax fraud and banking matters. joining mow now, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, msnbc political analyst peter baker, and wnbc chief investigative reporter jonathan dienst who is breaking this story. jonathan, there's been silence for the last a couple of weeks from the michael cohen camp, from lanny davis, his lawyer, which certainly indicated that he might be in conversations with the prosecutors. this is not the mueller team, this is the prosecutors, as you know so well, in new york at the southern district. what do we now know from your sources? >> we know these talks are under way between michael cohen's attorneys and federal prosecute erg ers, and that a deal on a potential guilty plea could be reached as early as this afternoon. and preparations are under way now in federal court for that possible hearing. of course nothing is done until it's done. but that is our understanding at this hour, that both sides are very close, and that michael cohen is considering accepting a plea deal with federal prosecutors in lower manhattan. the u.s. attorney's spokesman declined to comment, as did lanny davis, with these talks ongoing. the fbi, the irs investigating the bank fraud and other possible crimes related to his taxi medallion business. this is why this case is being handled here out of new york and is not part of the mueller investigation. these are his separate business dealings and questions of whether he broke any laws regarding bank fraud and tax fraud. "the new york times" this weekend reported that it involves bank fraud totaling close to $20 million. that's being looked at by prosecutors and the fbi. so that is ongoing. but what is newsworthy here today is the timing. we've known that there's been talks ongoing for weeks. the issue now is it all may be coming to a head today in lower manhattan. we'll know more within the next hour or two, whether they have formally reached a deal. or if not, if it falls apart, then it's our understanding from several sources reporting, sarah fitzpatrick and tom winter, prosecutors would then attempt to move forward with an indictment and just charge him in the days or perhaps week ahead. but as of now, the goal, we are told, is for the two sides to reach a guilty plea agreement which could happen, which could happen sometime today. >> according to your reporting, jonathan, and i want to bring peter baker in with regards to "the new york times" reporting, this would not necessarily involve payments to women and that whole other issue of whether or not they were improper payments made that could have violated election law involving the president. >> andrea, that's exactly right. but obviously if the prosecutors, the fbi, irs, can put pressure on mr. cohen on those separate business matters, what might he ultimately cooperate, will he decide to cooperate. and again, will this be a straight plea deal and he'll plead to the crimes, if that's what happens, or is it a plea deal that includes cooperation on those other trump-related matters, the stormy daniels matter, et cetera. so that is all to be determined. we could learn a lot more, if this court hearing goes forward this afternoon, where mr. cohen would have to appear. if he does plead guilty, he would have to recite his crimes, as would any other defendant, and then we might hear from prosecutors, the irs, and the fbi, and their explanation as to what the crimes are. we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, because we're told no deal is done yet, but that the two sides are close, the talks are happening, and we are told from multiple places that it could happen as early as today. >> and kristen and peter, you both cover the white house. you've both been noting the increasing tempo of not only the tweets but what seems like a lot of, shall we say, nervous energy from the president as things seem to be closing in. kristen, first to you, you even have the president with reuters discussing how he could take over the mueller probe if he wanted. we know this is not the mueller probe, but if he sees that michael cohen may be cutting a deal, as "the new york times" was reporting this weekend, and we've confirmed how close this could be, his own personal lawyer could be doing it, don mcgahn spending 30 hours, and them at least until this weekend not knowing the details of what he did tell or didn't tell mueller, this could explain a lot of what we're seeing out of the white house, kristen. >> it could, andrea. we have seen this president and frankly his legal team step up their attacks against the special counsel. and the president, as you said during that remarkable interview with reuters overnight, saying he could take over essentially the russia investigation. when i pressed white house officials, his attorney, rudy giuliani, on specifically what he meant, they couldn't give me a clear answer. but of course we all remember that president trump has said he believes he has the authority to fire rod rosenstein. privately he's talked about trying to have mueller ousted. i did speak with rudy giuliani earlier today, andrea, who told me that the prospects for an interview between mueller and the president are not looking good, trying to turn up the heat on the special counsel to get back to the president's legal team in terms of what their new deal would be for a potential interview. but again, andrea, all signs are pointing to the possibility that an interview with the president and the special counsel are increasingly less likely. the president himself in that interview overnight saying he's concerned about a potential perjury trap. the president not only ramping up his attacks against the special counsel but against michael cohen as well, andrea. remember, after that tape came out of the president and michael cohen discussing what seemed to be that payoff to one of the women who alleged having an affair with president trump, the president lashed out at michael cohen, calling the fact that he would record him without his knowledge "so sad." so this is something that the president is watching very closely as well, andrea. >> and peter baker, we've seen, as we say, a lot coming out of the white house with the president going after so many of his avowed enemies on his enemies list on the security front, a lot of distractions. rudy giuliani's conversation, it seems to me, is a continuing one-sided conversation, we've heard nothing from mueller about any of this so it's hard to see what that's all about. but right now the threats to the mueller investigation, where do you see that? >> well, look, you know, it's interesting. the president has gone where no president has gone before in attacking the prosecutor. other presidents or politicians who have gotten in trouble have questioned the motivations or biases or what have you of the prosecutors. but you've never seen a president do what this one has, to threaten to use the power of his office to shut down the investigation, that would be crossing a line that even republicans in congress have said would be too far. for all the harsh talk, all the tweets, the president has respected that line up until now. it seems reasonable to suppose that he sees that as a red line that would create danger for him if he crossed it. and so while he dangles that sword over robert mueller, he hasn't actually used it to this point. it's not clear whether he would, given the political backlash that he could expect if he did. >> thank you so much, peter baker, kristen, and of course jonathan dienst for your breaking news. we'll be on watch for anything coming on the michael cohen front as well. meanwhile, another big breaking story today. new evidence that the same russian military operation, the intelligence operation that hacked the 2016 campaign is at it again. this time going after anti-trump conservative groups that have called for russia to be sanctioned. microsoft says it has executed a court order to shut down six websites created in recent weeks by the same russian military intelligence unit named in special counsel robert mueller's indictment for alleged interference in the 2016 election. the fake sites were intended to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by conservative institutions that were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials. joining me now in it his first interview since this news broke, brad smith, microsoft's chief legal officer. thank you for bringing us this information. obviously this is a cause of major concern. we've heard from the national security team that they are upping their defense, they say. but what is microsoft doing? tell us what you and your counterhacking operation is doing to defend against this. >> i think what this really underscores is the need for all of us to strengthen our defenses. we're really active on multiple fronts. one was the one we announced last night, taking this type of action to transfer control of the six fake domains clearly intended for use to target certain groups, the people in the united states senate, these two conservative think tanks. we're also taking new steps today by providing a new service to really share our most advanced threat intelligence and technology and cybersecurity features, at no additional cost to all political candidates and campaigns at the federal, state, and local level, to the political parties, to think tanks. it gives us the opportunity to work with customers and others so that we can all strengthen our cybersecurity defenses. >> some experts are saying this is a cat and mouse game, it's like playing whack-a-mole, you get after one and another pops up. so how can you really protect the elections as the midterms approach? >> i think that it is a cat and mouse game, in part. we need systemic responses. the kind of step we're announcing today, this account guard initiative, is a systemic feature. i think the kind of step we took last week is systemic in the sense that we've now been able to apply the strategy 84 times. but ultimately i think we also need to recognize something that is more sobering. there is clearly innovation on the other side. we're going to have to continue to innovate as well. i think it's fundamental to what it means to protect democracy in the 21st century. >> mr. smith, the president as recently as last night was suggesting there could be other players, it could be china who he's in a trade war with. john bolton this weekend said it could be iran, it could be china, it could be russia. do you have any doubt that this is russia? >> i think we need to perhaps think about two things and how they connect. there are cybersecurity threats from multiple actors including multiple nation-states around the world. they sometimes tend to focus on somewhat or slightly ditch things. at the same time there is this specific set of attacks. there is no doubt in our minds that this specific set of websites was created by the so-called fancy bear or strontium group associated with the russians. there is no doubt in our minds this is the same group responsible for attacks in the united states during the 2016 elections. there is no doubt in our minds this is the same group that targeted every major presidential candidate last spring in france. >> and this is the same group that is in this case going after putin enemies, because these are conservative groups but conservative groups that want to sanction russia, want to sanction putin and his oligarchs. >> it's certainly true the international republican institute and the hudson institute have been longstanding defenders of democratic principles, really around the world. there's no doubt that they've often advocated a strong stand on some of the practices in russia. we also saw a focus on three fake websites clearly focused on the united states senate. i think the smart thing for us to conclude as a nation is that everyone across the political spectrum is both vulnerable and a potential target of attack. we need to put aside enough of our differences to come together, to do what it takes to defend the democratic process in this country. >> and when you said the targeting of the senate, are you talking about senator nelson's and senator mccaskill's campaigns? >> the three websites that were the heart of what we addressed this past week were generic senate sites. they weren't focused on any specific senator or senate office. and the good news is both with respect to those sites and the hudson institute and the international republican institute, there is no evidence that these attacks were successful. we were able to transfer control of these domains, we believe, before they could be used. but there is no longer in our view a reason to think that this is just aimed at one side of the aisle or the other in the united states. >> brad smith from microsoft, thank you so much. thanks for bringing this to us. we'll continue to follow of course your efforts and the efforts you're calling for around the country to be on the defense and on alert. >> thank you. >> thank you. coming up, drawn the swamp? senator elizabeth warren will join me to talk about the regulations she's talking about to keep money out of politics and this alleged hacking attempt from russia. stay with us. insurance that won't replace the full value of your new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ tremfya® is fors caadults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. i'm ready. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options. committee, who has outlined new proposals today to end lobbying as we know it and get corporations out of rulemaking, what she calls an anticorruption initiative. senator, welcome. you're straight from a banking committee hearing on russia and sanctions. we've just heard from brad smith from microsoft that they've caught russian intelligence in the act of hacking two conservative republican think tanks who were going up against putin and calling for more sanctions. >> mm-hmm. and this banking committee hearing we're in, because we're responsible on sanctions, asking about the enforcement of sanctions, asking whether or not treasury is cooperating and following through, asking how rusol happened. treasury is doing its tap dance, oh, we're there, we're watching all this, but not so much. when are we going to get our public reports? not so much, not so much. >> so you don't think they're going to take the hammer to putin? >> no, i don't, and i think that's what putin thinks as well. when donald trump shows up in helsinki four days after 12 russian agents have been indicted, stands next to putin and attacks the u.s. intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and then turns around and gives putin a big wet kiss, what kind of message do you think putin takes away from this? he takes away from it that he'll keep doing what he's doing. >> and reuters interviewed the president yesterday, jeff mason and colleagues, and said that he again neglected to blame russia for the hacking. >> every intelligence agency has said it's russia. the whole notion that the president keeps doing the back-off and the dance and this and that. it's not just the american people who can see that. it's vladimir putin who can see it. >> the president told reuters he can run the mueller investigation if he wanted to, he could take it over. is the senate -- are the senate republicans, they're in the majority, are they going to do anything to stop this from happening? >> i don't know. what i do know is that donald trump cares about exactly one person in america: donald trump. and he will do everything he can to protect himself. and that's the direction he keeps heading. and whatever it does to rule of law, to our established agencies, to law enforcement, it's all about donald trump for donald trump. >> he promised to drain the swamp, memorably, in the campaign. you came out with an initiative today against lobbyists, against government rulemaking. why? why is it so critical to you now? >> look, this is a problem, though, i would like to say, this is a problem that only is with donald trump. it wouldn't be true. this is a problem that's been going on now for decades. as corporations, billionaires, those who have money, the well-connected and the wealthy, keep making more and more of their influence felt in washington, and tilt one decision after another decision after another decision. so here's how i see it right now. the trump administration is the most corrupt administration in living memory. this is the moment when people across this country see what's happening. they see donald trump himself -- what happens? are the saudis shoveling money into his pocket every time they take a floor at the trump hotel? we don't know. we know he didn't divest himself of his businesses. betsy devos used to invest in a lot of for-profit educational outfits. now she maintains three secret family trusts. the head of epa, right, one has to go out on a corruption scandal. the new one who comes in is a coal lobbyist. >> they have new rulemaking today that jerry brown says is an outrage against humanity, giving states the role rather than the federal government over pollution, when pollution doesn't observe state boundaries. >> that's exactly right. but it's what the powerful industry wants, because they know regulation will be less effective, then they can go to the state governments, lobby the state governments, make their influence felt there. so what i did is i put together a bill that's not about campaign finance reform. campaign finance reform is powerfully important, and we need to make changes, we need to overturn citizens united. but even if we did that tomorrow, there would still be a huge problem in washington for the influence of money, the influence of the wealthy and the well-connected. so what i did is put together a bill that tries to go straight at the pieces of that, that goes after lobbying, that goes after the capture of our regulatory agencies, that even talks about the importance of the judiciary and being more forthcoming and following a clear set of ethical rules. >> now, what david wassermann from the cook political report is projecting is that it would take a victory of some 60 seats of a switch on the house side to offset what he anticipates will be a continued republican control on the senate side or a much rougher patch on the senate side and really most likely gridlock. how do you get legislation like yours to go anywhere given what's happening in this country? >> look, this is not legislation that is going to be driven by people who are inside washington. they already know how the game works, and there are a lot of people who have already figured out that reinvolvivolving door they make their fortune. this is legislation that's driven from the outside. like the consumer financial protection bureau, this was an idea, way back when, following the financial crisis, to say we need a cop on the beat who watches out for consumers, not for the big banks. now, it was lobbying. boy, the lobbying dollars poured in. the big banks spent over a million dollars a day over a year to be able to stop that agency. how did we get it passed into law? it was people across this country who said enough. democrats and republicans who said enough. and i think this is the moment on corruption. i think enough people in this country understand, they want a government that doesn't work just for the wealthy and well-connected. they want a government that works for the people. >> could this be a 2020 issue for you if you choose to run? >> i am running for senate in massachusetts, 2018. we've got 77 days to go. i am taking nothing for granted. i just had my 34th town hall. >> you're not ruling it out? >> i'm focusing on where we need to focus. it always worries me that people want to act like all that matters is what happens every four years. no. we are in fights right now. kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. we've got a budget that's going through. and we've got this midterm election in 77 days. we have got to stay focused where we need to make change right now. >> elizabeth warren, thank you so much, senator, thanks for being with us today. >> it's good to see you, take care. >> good to see you, thank you. coming up, power of the president. how donald trump reportedly wanted to punish barack obama, taking his security clearance away. we'll talk about that and continue to monitor the courthouse in alexandria, virginia, where the manafort jury continues to deliberate at this hour. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc as we watch everything. to most people, i look like... most people. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from moderate, to even severe fibromyalgia pain and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help. it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. president trump is denying a new report that he considered restricting former president obama's access to intelligence briefings last year. according to "the new yorker," then national security adviser h.r. mcmaster had to talk the president out of the idea after some white house officials pushed for it in 2017. the president called that report fake news on twitter, saying he never thought of restricting obama's access. joining us is the undersecretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, which means a lot of sanctions back in your day. thank you very much, david. let's talk about these security clearances. is there any precedent at all for withdrawing a former president's clearance? >> so far as i know, it's never been done before. the tradition is former presidents get briefed when and as they request on current issues in part so when they meet with foreign leaders, they can be aware of the -- sort of what's happening in the world and can help to -- you know, to move along the issues the current administration cares about. it's always been something that has been done. >> in fact that is the same rationale for the more recent continuation of clearances for former cia and deputy cia. do you still have your clearance? >> i do. >> and you signed that letter? >> i did sign that letter. >> james clapper is target ed b the president in a tweet this morning, even clapper has admonished john brennan for having gone totally off the rails. maybe clapper is being nice to me so he doesn't lose his security clearance. a lot conflated in there and a personal attack and misstating what clapper said. i think clapper was among those who perhaps would not have joined the "treasonous" adjective that was used by brennan after helsinki. >> there's a lot of misdirected focus on, you know, the specific comments that john brennan may have made or that others may have made. the issue here i think fundamentally is that you have a president who is abusing his power, who is using a national security tool that has never been something that was politicized previously, and using that in a way to try to punish critics, punish those who upset him in some fashion, whether it's john brennan, whether it's mike hayden, whether it's bruce ohr. you see the president withdrawing security clearances or threatening to withdraw because of sort of petty partisan and personal interests. we've never seen that before. >> brennan says his concern is for current officials, the chilling effect for mid-level analysts who would be reluctant to send up in the presidential daily brief any critical information that north korea is not complying, as the u.n. and others are now saying, that russia is not doing what it's supposed to be doing. you know, that iran actually is observing the nuclear restrictions. >> exactly. there are any number of people in the -- currently in government, whether in the intelligence community or in the law enforcement community, who need to have clearances to do their jobs. and if the president is going to go after somebody who upsets the president, whether it's an intel analyst who brings information that the president doesn't want to hear, or a prosecutor pursuing a case that the president doesn't want to see pursued, and the president uses this authority to withdraw security clearances as a way to punish, that undermines one of the basic precepts of our democracy. >> doesn't he have the power right now to actually withdraw the clearances from the mueller team and they can't continue their investigation, it's a counterintel investigation? >> the folks on the mueller team need clearances to do their job. if the president were to withdraw those clearances, they would be out of business. it would be tantamount to firing mueller and his team. >> david cohen, thank you so much. coming up, power check. a top democrat tried to rein in the president's power over security clearances. senator mark warner is joining us next. and we're keeping a very close watch on that courthouse in alexandria where the manafort jury continues to deliberate after sending a very provocative note to the judge. new sketches show the judge, paul manafort, and the prosecutors as the jury sent back that question. looking for great deals on travel? just use priceline. you can save up to 60% on hotels. that's like $120 a night back in your pocket. go to priceline to get deals you won't find anywhere else. people at microsoft. >> what you're seeing, andrea, is what all of us from the intelligence community have said throughout post-2016. the russians felt they were successful in 2016. they haven't slowed their efforts. it's cheap, it's effective.chea. we're now seeing them going on to a different tech company in terms of microsoft. our coordination is getting better. i would not be surprised if you won't see other examples of russian intervention towards our 2018 elections. what worried me is twofold. one, this president doesn't fully acknowledge this very real threat. there's nobody at charge at the white house of election security. two, i increasingly fear that local and state election officials aren't taking these warnings seriously enough. >> senator nelson warned the florida officials we have four sources confirming -- i know you can't talk about those kinds of briefings. but we've confirmed at nbc news that took place, contrary to what republicans were saying in florida, campaign. what does someone like senator mccaskill or other senators do in closely fought races? >> that's a challenge. i mean, senator mccass kel, it was turned over that it was russian intervention, the so-called fancy bear group. it is true that senator burr and i thought the letter senator nelson and senator rubio sent out to florida election officials was very appropriate. i am concerned the florida election officials haven't taken that seriously enough. this is a problem that's not going away. they're trying to be successful again in 2018. and all of our jobs are not made easier when you've got a president that continues to not acknowledge this threat and a president that continues to call the whole mueller investigation a witch hunt. this morning in banking committee, we talked about adding on more sanctions and you have these administration officials caught between saying yes they're looking at some of the people from the russian spy agency that mueller indicted about being sanctioned. yet at the same time trying to defend the president's calling the mueller investigation a witch hunt. they're put in a very difficult position. >> the national security adviser just this weekend said that it's russia, it's china. instead of spreading the blame. as did the president in an interview with reuters last night. >> listen, they'd be -- the russia game book is now shared by other possible adversaries and they've seen how cheap, how effective -- in many ways, how vulnerable we are. it would be a real mistake to assume that any other nation has the level of those sophisticated attacks that russia's putting forward. the history of using these attacks both on the election process directly but also in terms of maligned efforts to try to divide americans on hot button issues. >> you have a record of working well with people across the aisle. do you have any republican support for your defense bill amendment that would take away the presence -- exclusive power over security clearances? >> well, this bill would simply -- they lay out very clearly 13 reasons that people should have their security clearance removed if they make violations. one of those violations does not include exercising your first amendment rights. i think there will be republicans that will support the amendment. i've had a number of conversations with them. the challenge is will we actually get an amendment. the majority leader has been unwilling usually to put these amendments, even allow them to be voted on. i'm hopeful and i know we'll get republican support. but whether we actually get that vote or not is something that's still up in the air. >> do you have any concerns the president might take away the security clearances. seems to enjoy this prerogative like the pardon ability. might he go after the mueller team? if he takes away their security clearances, they can't do their job. >> andrea, that's what i warned against when he first took on not only brennan but remember what really concerned me was the fact that he enumerated eight or nine other folks. some of them including current justice department officials who had no charge against them, that he might -- they might be next on the list. so the idea that this white house is going to have these withdrawal of security clearance forms already filled out and then to use them whenever they're having a bad news day, to echo what bob corker said, that's the kind of activity you see out of a banana republic. but i would not dismiss this white house' willingness to do that. and i increasingly feel with threats against mueller, this goes back to a speech i gave last christmas, where i called on my republican colleagues and, for that matter, everyone who supports rule of law. this goes beyond trump or not. this goes on to whether we're going to be a nation of laws, allow our judicial processes to continue unabetted without political interference. he appears to be willing to try to do anything to prevent the mueller investigation from finishing. >> one other thing that came up, a number of things came up, but one of the other headlines out of that roeuters interview is te president went after his own republican appointee. the relatively recent fed chair, jay powell, a republican who was appointed by this president, and he said he wasn't thrilled with his record, raising interest rates, things powell should do more to help boost the economy. this is very unusual criticism by the president. to do it publicly like this and his own appointee. >> andrea, this is -- again, i'm not sure any of your viewers or probably you and i are not surprised, but this president just doesn't respect any of the rules and norms. the whole notion of the fed is that it's supposed to be independent, not subject to political -- political, you know, supervision or political direction. and, you know, there's never been -- at least in my memory, any president that goes out and -- a fed chairman, particularly when it's an appointee. >> mark warner, thanks so much. . yes or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. to me, he's, phil micwell, dad.o golfer. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage, and helps skin get clearer. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 15 years.