standing by for us tonight. and the last senate race of 2018. results from election night in mississippi, steve kornacki at the big board as "the 11th hour" gets underway on a busy tuesday night. this has been an eventful day. 677 of the trump administration and once again tonight we begin with breaking news, the first of which from the "new york times." michael schmidt, who's standing by to talk to us as part of a triple byline story that says paul manafort's lawyer apparently briefed trump's legal team on what he's been telling the special counsel mueller and what they've been asking manafort. the reporters write that manafort's lawyer "repeatedly briefed president trump's lawyers on his client's discussions with federal investigators about mr. manafort after mr. manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel according to one of mr. trump's lawyers and to other people familiar with the

conversations." the arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with mr. mueller's office when prosecutors discovered it after mr. manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. some legal experts speculate it was a bid by mr. manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with special counsel robert mueller for a reduced sentence. rudolph giuliani, one of the president's personal lawyers, acknowledged the arrangement on tuesday and defended it as a source of valuable insights into the special counsel's inquiry and where it was headed. this news comes just one day after we learned the special counsel has scrapped manafort's plea agreement because they say manafort has been lying to the feds. this report comes just hours after manafort vigorously denied a report from the british newspaper "the guardian," that said he met with wikileaks founder julian assange several times, including in march 2016, right around when manafort would

join the trump campaign. and that brings us to tonight's other major piece of new reporting, broken by nbc news. mueller's team has obtained e-mail communications from august of 2016 between the conservative author and conspiracy theorist jerome corsi there on the left and trump adviser and long-time friend roger stone on the right concerning the wikileaks release of e-mails stolen from the clinton campaign. these corsi-stone e-mails showed up in a draft court filing sent from mueller's team to jerome corsi's lawyer. nbc news reports that according to court papers corsi told investigators that an associate, identified by corsi as roger stone, asked him in the summer of 2016 to get in touch with an organization, identified by corsi as wikileaks, about unreleased materials relevant to the presidential campaign. nbc says corsi told mueller that

he declined the request. but mueller's team says that wasn't true. the court document says corsi passed on the request to someone in london and then eventually did e-mail stone in august saying wikileaks had damaging information on clinton and it would release it in october of 2016. one more interesting note about that court document. it says the person assumed to be roger stone who asked corsi to contact wikileaks was someone who corsi "understood to be in regular contact with senior members of the trump campaign, including with then candidate donald j. trump." well, according to the "washington post" tonight, "the inclusion of trump by name infuriated trump's legal team, which obtained a copy of the draft the week before thanksgiving. the president's attorneys formally complained to both the special counsel's office and the d.o.j. according to giuliani. it's gratuitous. it's not necessary, he said. if you read out of context, it

creates a misimpression that we were in contact with the president during this critical time. and i believe that was done deliberately." a spokesman for mueller did not immediately reply to a request for comment. all of this, the corsi story, the word that manafort's lawyers were talking to trump's lawyers, helped to explain an angry outburst from trump exactly one week before thanksgiving that we covered on this broadcast. it included this language, and we quote, "the inner workings of the mueller investigation are a total mess. they have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. they are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want." the president is also speaking out tonight about mueller in a new interview with the "washington post." two "post" reporters, josh dawsey and our guest tonight phillip rucker, sat down with

the president in the oval office. here's what he had to say when asked if he'll try to stop the russia investigation. quote, "the mueller investigation is what it is. it just goes on and on and on, trump said. when pressed is whether he would commit to letting the probe continue until its conclusion, he stopped short of making an explicit pledge. this question has been asked about me now for almost two years, the president said, at which point counselor kellyanne conway chimed in, a thousand times. trump continued, and in the meantime he's still there. i have no intention of doing anything." well, let's bring in our lead-off panel on this tuesday night, michael schmidt, pulitzer prize-winning reporter and one of the by-lines on this latest story from the "new york times." phillip rucker, pulitzer prize-winning bureau chief for the "washington post," who interviewed the president among other things today. kimberly atkins, washington bureau chief for the "boston herald." and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence who in the past has worked for and with robert mueller. michael, i'd like to begin with you.

what kind of information was shared, as far as you know, by manafort to trump through the intermediaries of their specific lawyers and how did the president's lawyers according to your reporting take that information and weaponize it, my word, not yours? >> the most significant thing we learned about this was that mueller's investigators, led by andrew weissman, were pressuring manafort, this is according to manafort's lawyers, to tell them what he knew about the 2016 up from tower meeting and what specifically the president knew. did the president know that his son was going to be meeting with russians who are offering dirt on hillary clinton and what did the president know about it afterwards? and giuliani says that they hammered on manafort about this. manafort, who was in solitary confinement, was being brought out for these interviews every few days with weissman.

weissman, giuliani alleges, was pushing manafort to essentially lie and say things that manafort said were not true. now, this is an allegation from giuliani, but this has given and sort of opened up a new front for the trump legal team, which has launched new attacks now on mueller. giuliani saying to us tonight that mueller was not overseeing weissman properly, that weissman needs adult supervision. >> now, michael, in the lingo of federal prosecutors, when someone flips, when they decide to cooperate, they will say either they've chosen to work for the home team or they've joined team usa. and here's why i say that. was there any specific language that barred manafort from sharing this with team trump or was it just considered such an

outlandish thing that one would do while working for the feds they didn't have to put it in writing? >> there's nothing we know of in the agreement or legally that would have stopped this. but it's a pretty interesting phenomenona, because there is essentially two people in the world who would control paul manafort's fate. one of them was mueller who, if he thought manafort had cooperated a lot, could go to a judge and ask for a more lenient sentence. the other person is donald trump, who has the power to pardon him or commute his sentence. and the question is, why was it that manafort was not telling the truth to mueller's investigators? was this a simple disagreement of facts? i saw something one way, you saw it another? or was there something else going on here. >> michael, i have one more for you and then we have a couple of ravenous journalists and at least one former fed waiting to get on the air. and that is how does it fit into the timeline of known outbursts

by donald trump vis-a-vis what he had just learned about the status of the mueller investigation? >> well, about two weeks ago trump was prepared to send his responses to mueller after nearly a year of trying to negotiate about an interview. and what happened was sort of three things came together. one was that they learned about the language in the corsi plea. the other thing was they saw the unsealing of a document in virginia that showed that assange had been charged. and they were very surprised by this. and they didn't understand what was going on with mueller. the third thing was the manafort stuff, the pushing of manafort. and this led the trump team to put on the brakes and say, hey, we're not going to send in our responses just yet. the president's lawyers demanded a meeting with the justice department and with mueller's team. they went in and they aired their concerns and mueller's team said look, we're not out to get you, we're not plotting against you, and then the president finally sent his

responses in. >> now, mr. rucker, of the four of us you were with the president most recently and that would be late today for your interview in the oval office. the transcript was fascinating. you found him in an expansive mood. he went after his head of the federal reserve. he relitigated the sweeping and the cleaning of the forest floors and said that california has particularly dirty forest floors. and then you got to mueller and whitaker, and tell our viewers what happened then. did it tighten up? >> he did, brian. one of the first questions we asked in the interview, what's the president's reaction to the news, i guess it was just yesterday, that mueller's prosecutors, the investigators determined manafort had been lying and violated the terms of his plea. and the president would not address that at all. he was disciplined. and what i mean by at all is on the record. he spoke about it at length with

us off the record but repeatedly said he would not discuss this issue on the record, he does not want to insert himself into this discussion about manafort and mueller. and that is rather uncharacteristic for him because he's known, as you know, to be a president who kind of says what he believes when he's asked. he did talk a little bit about mueller, though. he said he has no intention of shutting down the investigation now that he's changed the leadership at the justice department with the new acting attorney general. however, he would not explicitly pledge with us that he would allow mueller to continue his work until its conclusion. he said the investigation just keeps going on and on and on but that he has no intention right now of doing anything to stop it. we asked whether whitaker, the acting attorney general, matt whitaker, had briefed him on the status of the mueller investigation and he said, look, i don't talk regularly with matt whitaker. but he would not deny that they had ever discussed the russia

probe or the state of the investigation. >> frank figliuzzi, you told one of our producers tonight that manafort could be turning out to be a triple agent. after our heads exploded and we put them back together, i vowed to ask you what you mean by that and explain it as simply as you can. >> i'm using a counterintelligence term. when someone is pretending to work for multiple parties. so manafort in my mind is working for russia. he's worked for trump. he's pretended to work for mueller. the question is who is he really working for other than himself? he's a con man. he's out for himself. he was playing three sides against the middle. and i think ultimately he's going to be the loser here. but imagine this scenario, brian. imagine that the president in drafting his written responses to mueller was relying on manafort's assertions of what mueller has and doesn't have all based on what mueller's been asking manafort. so manafort's saying, i think

they've got this wrong, they're asking me about this, they don't know about this, they haven't asked about this, and trump relies on that to submit his written responses and perhaps those written responses are flawed or even lies based on manafort. that would be an intriguing scenario. >> that would be an intriguing scenario. that would be submitting false answers of a sort. and let me ask you this. is manafort's decision to share the inner goings-on with trump's lawyers, is that in and of itself potentially an act of obstruction of justice? >> well, the answer is the legalese here as always is it depends. it depends on what the lawyers were thinking when they were sharing this information and if the intention -- and if this was a two-way sharing, brian, then i feel very comfortable saying we're looking at obstruction. by that i mean if upon hearing from manafort's team what was being asked and answered the trump team went back and said, well, do this, say this next

time they question you. now we've got a serious problem. we don't know the answer to that yet. but this could likely be obstruction. and ironically, manafort's attorney may have handed manafort an out here because his conduct has caused manafort to be exposed to additional prison time. so wouldn't it be something if manafort were to say i had ineffective assistance of counsel, i've got longer prison time because of what my attorney decided to do with trump? >> and finally, the story that we were going to lead our broadcast with until "the new york times" came along, and that is the reporting on corsi and mr. stone and what do you think is taking place there? >> brian, if you read the e-mails between corsi and stone, you are watching communications between two criminal co-conspirators. they sound something like this. hey, corsi, the stolen stuff is in london, go get it. yes, boss. boss, should we be worried --

should we be even talking about mr. credico? don't worry about credico. he's taking the fifth. these are not two guys who have faulty memories, can't remember what happened on a certain day. these are two guys who are conspiring together. >> now, kim, the rest of us have to go on covering the ongoing story that is the trump administration. there came a moment in today's briefing, rare as it was, to have an on-camera briefing with sarah huckabee sanders. i'm going to play what she said about the president and collusion and get your response on the other side. >> i remain confident in the white house's assertion that the president was involved in no wrongdoing, was not part of any collusion. >> the president was involved in no wrongdoing, was not part of any collusion. kim, to our ears that was a first. that's different. that's a change. and that is the first start of kind of distancing from others who may be in your orbit. are we correct about that?

>> i think so. it was a very carefully worded statement about this given all of these recent developments that we're talking about which happened in real time, to do exactly that, distance the president from anything that was going on. in the past it was there was no collusion, nobody talked to russia. now it's well, the president did not do any wrongdoing. sort of changing what could likely be coming, more indictments based on all the people that we have been talking about. and also this affirment that the president isn't interested in stopping the investigation and he's had many chances to do that and he hasn't done it. it's almost veshtd im to what the president said to phil earlier today. so you can really tell that the white house is trying to carefully craft its reaction, carefully craft its statements aside from the president's twitter feed, of course, which

has been an indication that the president is very concerned about what's going on with this mueller probe. the vitriol he's expressing on twitter toward it is ramping up but at the same time they're trying to be careful not to say something that could be more inculpatory than whatever evidence the mueller investigators may have. >> things are starting to get interesting in terms of both this presidency and our hour-long broadcast. so we've asked our friends michael schmidt, phil rucker, kimberly atkins and frank figliuzzi to stick around with us through this break. on the other side of this break we'll get a quick update on the last u.s. senate race of 2018. the numbers coming in tonight from mississippi. we'll go to steve kornacki at the big board. still later in this hour, after yesterday's punishing news from a great american carmaker, the president threatens to punish the carmaker back. "the 11th hour" as we said just getting started on this busy tuesday night. liberty mutual accident forgiveness

means they won't hike your rates over one mistake.

see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

here's what's happening. we have these twin breaking stories starting us off tonight. our panel is standing by because there is a lot more to talk about on that, but i wanted to at least get the headlines from tonight's senate race, the last of 2018, in mississippi before we go to steve kornacki for all of the numbers later in this hour. let's at least get the headlines from him. cindy hyde-smith versus the democrat, mike espy, our national political correspondent covering it all tonight. hey, steve. >> hey, brian. yeah, the bottom line here, cindy hyde-smith, the republican, she has won

tonight's runoff. you see 54-46 right now. still a little bit of a vote coming in. this might even get a touch closer. mike espy the democrat here. democratic areas, heavily black areas along the miss miss river still coming in late. eight points, maybe a little bit less, will be the final margin in this thing. look, from the democratic standpoint they'll say this is the closest senate election in mississippi in at least 30 years. you've got to go back at least to 1988 to find when a democrat was even this close in mississippi. they were missing what democrats needed to get them over the top. look, they got strong black support. they did better, the democrats did, in a suburb right here, desoto county, outside memphis. a ten-point jump there, mike espy versus hillary clinton a couple of years ago. look at madison county outside jackson here. again, a five-point jump. basically, there just aren't enough suburban areas in mississippi for democrats. this is a heavily rural state. they've got improvement in the suburbs. they've got strong black turnout. but what was missing here, rural

areas of the state, particularly the northeastern part of the state right there, trump-level support for cindy hyde-smith. the republican. you add it all up together, eight-point win it looks like for cindy hyde-smith tonight. >> steve, we're going to ask you to remain on station. we're coming back to you later. for now more with our panel. mike schmidt, phillip rucker, kimberly atkins, frank figliuzzi. michael, we have been quoting a piece of reporting you did earlier this year that has come roaring back and become so important, and that was when mr. dowd, the long-time washington lawyer, worked for donald trump, the notion that he was mentioning, dangling, giving the briefest credence to perhaps a commutation or a pardon to people. remind us what you reported then, why it's so important right now. >> there were discussions many, many months ago, last year, between dowd and lawyers for

mike flynn and paul manafort. mike flynn being the former national security adviser who pled guilty to making false statements in this investigation. and obviously manafort. and that is something that mueller has been looking at himself. mueller was looking at the question of why is it that the lawyer was offering a pardon? why was he discussing a pardon? it was among the 49 questions that mueller wanted to ask the president, that had fallen to the obstruction bucket. that was not in the responses the president sent just a few weeks ago. those were related to russia. but sort of a larger looming question over the investigation and that continues to loom now over manafort is would there be a pardon? what would the president do about that? and how would he use that authority? and if he used that authority would that be obstruction? >> phil, your interview dealt with putin and russia. for part of it people have

referred to putin and russia as the original sin of the administration. how was the president during that portion of the discussion? >> it was interesting, brian. as you know, the president, trump, has been so unwilling to really challenge putin, to criticize his actions or his leadership in russia. but we asked him about russia's seizure of these three ukrainian ships in the black sea overt weekend, the ships and the crews, which has been widely condemned by western allies. and trump said, look, i don't like that aggression at all. that it should be a cause for concern to americans. he was anticipating getting a briefing sometime tonight from his national security team. and said he was considering canceling a planned meeting he has with putin in argentina, where i'm going to be later this week covering the group of 20 summit there, the leaders summit. trump said he'll have to see what that briefing from his team is like tonight but that he is considering, he is threaten iin

canceling that meeting with putin as some sort of retaliation for the maritime activity over the weekend. >> hey, frank, since you've worked with robert mueller, tell us how he is likely to ask -- act when corsi, and i probably didn't explain this well, corsi's about to do a deal with the feds. and they hand him the document the way they're going to lay it out and what he is to sign. at the last minute he says i ain't signing this, in fact i'm going to leak it to the media. so what he's done there is leak in part the work product of mueller. how's mueller going to react to that kind of thing? how's mueller going to react when learning that manafort is still talking to his first team? >> so on the one hand there shouldn't be any surprise on mueller's part. clearly the president has surrounded himself with people of a like ilk. these are con artists. they lie for a living. and they're trying to perpetrate one last fraud. so this is not a surprise. and there might even be some

strategy here. but i have to tell you, when you're dealing with a man of honor, a respected, dedicated public servant, as mueller is, and his team, and certain cooperation understandings are in place with long-time lawyers representing these targets and defendants, and those understandings are violated, this is not a healthy situation for the defendant. and it ultimately will backfire. mueller doesn't express anger openly and in a very dramatic fashion, but you understand when he's very, very upset. his team knows that he's likely upset by this. and they have a strategy to deal with it. >> we keep mentioning a wounded u.s. marine combat veteran from the vietnam war. and kim, we waited almost a year for the president to complete what we've been calling the take-home test. the written answers to questions from mueller. now we know he has submitted

them. now we also know the information, or that he was in receipt of information during that process. it makes for an interesting optic now, doesn't it? >> it really does. because we also know now that whatever paul manafort had been telling the mueller team, at least some of it was lies. and if the president answers coincide with that, that's going to be a big problem for this president. and we're hearing more information about what corsi and roger stone may have done as well. all of these are little pieces that mueller's team has been putting together for two years now, trying to find out exactly who said what and when and whether that amounts to collusion and/or obstruction. and now the frpresident is on record. judging from his twitter feed, he is expressing some worry about this. and we will have to wait and see exactly what comes out of it. >> well, on this busy night our thanks to michael schmidt, to

phil rucker, to kimberly atkins, to frank figliuzzi. greatly appreciate you guys coming out and staying extra late to talk about all we had to talk about. coming up, the president's national security adviser explains why he won't be listening to a key piece of audio evidence in the murder of a "washington post" journalist. that when we come back.

we're back.

and as we mentioned, the president has threatened to cancel this upcoming meeting with putin over the weekend at a summit in argentina. the cancellation would be a way of protesting the capture of ukranian ships in the black sea by russia on sunday. the president told the "washington post" today he's waiting for a full report on the situation before deciding, quote, "maybe i won't have the meeting, maybe i won't even have the meeting. i don't like that aggression. i don't want that aggression at all." meanwhile, earlier today in his own white house, his own national security adviser john bolton told reporters there is a full agenda for the meeting. >> what do you expect to be on the agenda for the president's meeting with putin? >> well, i think all of the issues that we have, on security issues, on arms control issues, on regional issues including the middle east, i think it will be a full agenda. i think it will be a continuation of their discussion in helsinki.

>> as we say, what could go wrong? with us to talk about it, malcolm nance. his latest book just might have touched on this subject. it's called "the plot to destroy democracy: hue putin and his spies are undermining america and dismantling the west." the author, our own analyst in this field-s a veteran of naval intelligence, special ops and homeland security with nothing short of 35 years working in counterterrorism. so malcolm, i have a three-part question to start you off. will they meet? do you think they should meet? and what's the chance trump gets played? >> oh, there's no doubt here no matter what is said, donald trump will meet with vladimir putin and with crown prince salman of saudi arabia. despite all of their protestations. he just can't help himself. he loves to surround himself with autocrats, and he will listen carefully to vladimir putin and his protestations against the ukrainian clash that

occurred in the sea of azov and by the time he comes out of the meeting he'll be calling the sea russian waters and will completely agree with the kremlin. should he meet? of course he shouldn't meet. there's no way the president of the united states should be is up plikant to autocrats such as vladimir putin. but donald trump appears to have been mentored by vladimir putin and he will do whatever he has to to ensure that he makes him happy and that will guarantee that he will meet him at the g20. >> do you have any doubt that this has been part of the putin strategy that you've talked so much with me about on the air? weaken nato, weaken the uk, weaken the u.s. and now he creates this test for all other nations as he moves overseas. >> well, it is certainly part of putin's strategic plan to weaken the united states. and he's done a great job of that. even the breaking news that you

had on at the top of the hour. now we're finding out that too may have been part of a strategy where paul manafort may have actually been an agent of the kremlin directly, injected in there to work with wikileaks to essentially steal an american electi election, put in an obsequious sycophant in the presidency who essentially works for moscow. and as much as i want that to be a conspiracy theory, it's proving itself more accurate every day. >> i want to ask you about the national security adviser john bolton. on top of the president who says he has not listened to the au o audiotape that cia says gives us the audio story of the khashoggi murder, now mr. bolton, who is the president's man on this topic, also has not and has no plans to listen to it. here's how he answered the question on this topic. we'll talk about it on the other side.

. >> no, i haven't listened to it. and i guess i should ask you why you think i should. what do you think i'll learn from it? >> you're the national security adviser. you might have access to that sort of intelligence. >> how many in this room speak arabic? >> you don't have access to an interpreter? >> well, you want me to listen to it? what am i going to learn from it -- if they were speaking korean i wouldn't learn any more from it either. >> an interpreter would be able to tell you -- >> then i can read a transcript too. >> so you don't think it's important to hear that as the national security adviser? >> i'm just trying to make the point that everybody who says why don't you listen to the tape, unless you speak arabic what are you going to get from it? >> people who speak arabic have listened to the tape and they have given us the substance of what's in it. >> you know, malcolm, i heard director clapper, i heard others on television tonight say what about sheer intellectual curiosity? what about duty? and wanting to hear at least the atmospherics? this is part of your job description. the atmospherics and the background. whether or not there's a language barrier.

>> oh, you're absolutely right. i have spent a lot of time in special intelligence and have had to deal with some very, very harsh things that i've had to listen to. not only in arabic. my primary working language. but in other languages on missions which i was supporting. believe me, you can tell when a man is being murdered. and it is important for our leadership to understand that this is not a sanitary little world where they can sit in a room and see dirty works go on and read it on a piece of paper with the letter s or ts in front of it and say that's good enough. you need to hear this man being strangled. he needs to hear this man being dismembered. he also needs to hear, as you say, the atmospherics. you can hear a lot in a room that's confined. you can hear the level of intensity of the aggression. you can hear whether they're laughing as they're doing it. i think john bolton is a coward.

and i think he doesn't want to face up to the fact that the united states is condoning the murder of a u.s. resident and has now made every american citizen susceptible to being kidnapped, abducted, and dissected by our enemies overseas. >> and that, ladies and gentlemen in the saurngs why we tend to listen up when malcolm nance comes on our broadcast. we thank you very much, malcolm, for coming on the broadcast again tonight. coming up for us after a break, donald trump's new and angry threats against general motors after it announced those major layoffs. and new reporting tonight on who trump thinks is really to blame.

if you look at the massive plants being built right now in mexico, car plants, folks, you can kiss a lot of these jobs good-bye.

but not with me. not with me. won't happen. >> i said those jobs have left ohio. they're all coming back. they're all coming back. >> general motors, they're comi coming back. a lot of companies are coming back. and they're coming back to areas you represent. it's a good feeling. it's a really good feeling. >> the president repeatedly promised to bring manufacturing jobs back to the midwest. now one day after gm announced they're closing five north american plants including three in michigan and ohio, trump is fighting back. in an interview with the "washington post" today he criticized the federal reserve, saying its policies are damaging the economy. and earlier in the day trump threatened to cut gm's subsidies as punishment writing, "the u.s. saved general motors and this is the thanks we get. we are now looking at cutting all gm subsidies including for electric cars." here to talk about all of it,

and it's a tall order, but we've called upon a.b. stoddard, veteran journalist, column exist associate editor at real clear politics. thank you for coming on. >> thanks for having me, brian. >> two points. full disclosure, i'm a happy and proud chevrolet owner and driver. and when you say that they may stop lines like the impala and the malibu, that means something to car people. but think of that supply chain and how many families that's going to mean are shopping with lighter wallets this christmas season. and number two, if mary barra, the very effective ceo of gm in a very tough job, were here, what do you think she would say to the president to why they're closing these plants? >> well, she said that they're adapting to the times and they're doing what the company is expected to do to keep afloat and that they wish that things hadn't turned out this way. everybody understands that in a

place like lordstown that plant, for every job -- for every gm employee working there there's something like five, six, seven jobs created in that -- in sustaining that local economy. everyone who's talked about this since the announcement that's local has admitted that this will be just devastating. so president trump is very politically intuitive, and he knows this is an incredible potential hit politically to him in ohio in 2020, particularly because of all his promises that he made in that area, in youngstown, around that area, he has spoken to those very people and said we're going to fill these factories back up and if not we're going to knock them down and build new ones. and so this is a huge challenge, though, by trying to retaliate against gm. i don't know -- first of all, he can't take away those tax

credits for fully electric cars without the congress. maybe he's gotten on the phone with them today. he said we're bringing a lot of pressure. but the idea that -- what he always likes to do is tell his voters that he can control everything. i alone can fix it. even when it's something he can't control. and then he likes to have a punching bag and someone to blame. so right now that's the fed chair and that's the head of gm. >> yeah. his own fed chair. and he went after him in this interview, say he can't say the littlest good thing about him. >> it's the biggest threat to the economy is the fed and it's worse than china. that's a problem is if you work for president trump and you're tasked with doing your job you're not always allowed to do it because he wants the outcome that he wants and he doesn't want to say these are the effects of globalization, these are the effects of -- as sherrod brown, the senator from ohio is saying the effects of the tax policy he helped pass in

congress. so he wants an answer where it's a simple bumper sticker, we're to blame. >> quick question. nancy pelosi has a closed-door vote tomorrow that many believe she will pass overwhelmingly and be on the path to be speaker for the second time. what happens to those freshmen who arrived in town and said we're going to upset the speaker and we don't want pelosi? do they not get maybe the choicest committee assignments that they wanted? >> that's interesting because she actually wants to groom these people and she wants them to thrive and succeed. and she wants them to hold on authorize seats their seats in 2020 and it's going to be hard. she's very smart that way and actually tactically she doesn't punish them in the way that they might fear. but there are a lot of people who wanted to take out nancy pelosi, they just didn't come to the surface and they didn't become public like these ones who ran. they might vote against her in a secret ballot tomorrow.

they won't do it on the floor. and sort of the never nancy movement really failed because they failed to find someone who those freshmen thought was coming to oppose her. someone with a power base. and that person never materialized. and that's why she's going to have this job again. >> we always learn a lot when you visit. a.b. stoddard, always a pleasure. >> thank you. ? thank you very much. coming up for us, it's been three weeks, remember, since the mid-snermz yet the midterms don't seem to want to end. with votes still being decided tonight. we'll have the latest. steve kornacki is back as promised after this.

so, we have really these two political headlines in the midterms, a record raw vote for all time for the democrats for a midterm. in the senate, things got really hard tonight for democrats to block things like federal judge nominees because of mississippi. steve kornacki at the big board with all of it. hey, steve. >> hey, brian.

yeah, so with mississippi, they are still counting the final votes in the final outstanding counties. once all of that's done and it is finally official, 100%, we will be done with all the senate races this year, so, a complete at where the senate stands. you can see, if you have the decimal points here on the screen, basically, this is looking like about a seven-point win tonight for cindy hyde-smith. maybe a little bit more over mike espy. again, the closest democrats have been in mississippi since 1988. the last time they got one to single digits in a senate race. but this is a loss for the democrats tonight. we were showing you earlier, look, strong support for mike espy in the heavily black counties of the delta, along the mississippi river. also strides for democrats. this is a story we saw nationally. we saw it across the south. we did see it in parts of mississippi tonight. suburbs of memphis. desoto county, one of the fastest growing counties in the state, one of the largest counties in the state. you did see a ten-point jump there for espy from how hillary

clinton did just two years ago in the state. so, that speaks to that democratic formula of strong non-white support. then trying to flip those sort of white college-educated professionals. there were parts of mississippi they did that tonight. there just weren't enough parts like that in mississippi. residual strength for hyde-smith in those white rural areas. democrats have really been struggling with voters in those parts of the country and certainly mississippi. so not enough for them in mississippi. we say, though, the senate picture now complete as a result of mississippi. it means when all is said and done democrats end up with 47. republicans end up with 53. remember start of the campaign it was 51-49. so republicans do gain two on that front. quickly we end on the house. because guess what? the house is not over yet. there remains one uncalled race here. see if i can pull it up on the screen. >> lower right hand -- >> there you go. that's the wrong district, brian. i'm sorry. the 21st district of california. let me get it right. from fresno to bakersfield. t.j. cox the democrat leading.

we think there's between 1,000 and 5,000 votes left to be counted here. we're not sure when they'll drop but if cox the democrat hangs on that is a net gain for democrats of 40 seats even in the house if that holds. >> unbelievable that we're still at it. steve kornacki, thank you for all of it. and a last word for us when we come right back.

last thing before we go here tonight, a quick check of the clock and calendar shows that here on the east coast, it is

two minutes from giving way to wednesday. on the west coast, you have hours yet to go until tuesday's gone. the day is important because this is giving tuesday. a few years back, the good folks at the landmark new york cultural center, the 92nd street y, launched the idea of giving tuesday to ingrain in people the notion of charity and giving generously to nonprofits, and the idea was that after black friday, after cyber monday, giving tuesday would be well-timed. it brought in $10 million that first year, back in 2012. it may easily exceed $300 million this year. of course, charity is personal. it's your money. yours to decide where it goes. just under this one roof, among our network family members, we all support diverse causes. the host of the last hour, lawrence o'donnell, delivers school desks to students in malawi. in my family, we support one cause, and it's called horizons

national, a nonprofit student enrichment program designed to help kids overcome education inequality and income inequality. there are also a number of very good charity researchers and recommenders on the web, but as we say, it's personal. and so, in the spirit of today's event, we have heard from dr. christine blasey ford. she had those huge security costs associated with her kavanaugh testimony and the resulting death threats. a go fund me page raised nearly $650,000, and even after her family was forced to relocate, she went ahead and expressed her gratitude for the donations and has closed the account. she says the money she did not need for her security will go back to charity to support trauma survivors. again, because it's personal. so thanks for being charitable this time of year and all year long. that is our broadcast on this tuesday night. thank you for being here with us. good night from nbc news

headquarters here in new york.