channel and accept this bipartisan compromise. >> they said that progress is being made with this committee. just so you know, we're building the wall anyway. coming up here, one of the lead negotiators on the deal, democratic senator patrick leahy of vermont. and women rule. five women now running to take on president trump. but is it a fair fight? a new look at sexism on the campaign trail. >> i might have a little more happy demeanor than some of my colleagues. it doesn't mean i'm not steely and tough and can deal with this. good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington with some big breaking news for president trump. we have nbc news exclusive reporting that two years of bipartisan work from the senate intelligence committee has found so far no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. this after intense focus by the committee and their staff including 200 interviews. and it comes days after republican committee chair rich burr told cbs news there was also nothing to suggest collusion between the campaign and russia. joining us now, ken dilanian, chuck rosenberg, and matt miller. ken, you yourself have put in a lot of caveats in your reporting. tell me your bottom line here, because it's clear that the senate intelligence committee has not seen the evidence that robert mueller has, has not had access to all the witnesses, and we already know from plea agreements that several of those witnesses lied under oath. >> that's right, andrea, that's all-important to point out. our bottom line for this story is that after two years, 200 interviews, 300,000 documents, the senate intelligence committee, both republicans and democrats, are telling us that they do not have direct evidence proving a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia which is after all the main question they set out to answer in their investigation. they're not saying they're completely finished but they're on the road to being done. and after they interview their last witness, it will take another six to seven months, i am told, for them to produce a report. and where the disagreement comes, andrea, is in the implications of all the contacts that we already know about between trump campaign officials and russians. republicans are saying, and chairman burr said in that cbs interview, that he can't really assess the motivations behind those contacts, it doesn't add up to collusion, however. democrats are saying, not so fast, there's a pattern here, that you can infer collusion. but that's different from saying there's a conspiracy. these people have access to highly classified intelligence, so if there was a smoking gun communication from a russian intelligence officer to a member of the trump campaign, they would see that. apparently that has not emerged. what they don't have, and you pointed out, they don't have the domestic surveillance robert mueller has been able to do through subpoenas and court orders. that's a law enforcement investigation. so it remains to be seen what robert mueller will say about this crucial question of conspiracy. >> so ken, put plainly, this would wall off a lot of information about that meeting, unless there were e-mails back to russia or calls back to russia, a lot of information about the meeting in trump tower, a lot of information about roger stone and connections to wikileaks, manafort and his connections to kilimnick. unless there was something that would have been picked up on a fisa search, they would not have seen that. >> that's correct. we just learned from the manafort transcript that emerged last week that he turned over internal polling data to a man named konstan kilimnick who is said to have ties to russian intelligence. mark warner came out and said this is the closest we've seen to collusion. so yes, you're absolutely right, there's a lot of evidence that the mueller team has and that the senate doesn't have, and mueller will have the final word on whether there's a criminal conspiracy here, andrea. >> ken, i want to highlight for chuck and also for matt here, a key sentence from your piece on nbcnews.com. we were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, hey, vlad, we're going to collude, one democratic aide said. chuck, your take. >> right, so that's really important, andrea. i'll tell you what else is important, the phrase "no direct evidence." not to be a lawyer. >> but you are. >> i certainly am. the phrase "direct evidence" has a very specific meaning to prosecutors. at the end of the every case i've ever tried, the judge instructs the jury that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence have equal weight. and jurors are welcome to consider it however they want. for instance, if you walk out of your house this morning and there's snow on the front lawn, that's circumstantial evidence that it snowed. it's compelling circumstantial evidence. maybe it didn't snow. maybe someone backed up a truck to your house and dumped the snow on your front lawn. but circumstantial evidence is every bit as important and as compelling. and often in cases like this, you don't have direct evidence. it's not surprising that there isn't a signed contract between vladimir putin and donald trump. so prosecutors look for circumstantial evidence. direct evidence is wonderful, but you often don't have it. >> what about all the talk about the president having engaged with the russians through the trump organization, through the campaign, much longer into the campaign than we had previously been told about a trump tower project? and this involved people in his organization, including his children, and presumably him getting reports back. it was a very small group. at the same time as they were talking about sanctions relief that russia wanted desperately that came up in that june trump tower meeting. that is all perhaps circumstantial evidence, presumably mueller has a lot more connecting those dots, potentially. >> those are all very important pieces of the investigation. look, we don't obviously know yet whether there was a direct criminal conspiracy here between the trump campaign and the russian government. if we do ever get an answer to that question, i don't think it was ever going to come from the senate intelligence committee. not to belittle their investigation, they'll have important findings for, for example, policy choices that congress needs to make. but they don't have the investigative tools that bob mueller has, intelligence he's been able to gather that they don't have access to. they don't have the threat of sending someone to jail to turn people into cooperating witnesses the way mueller has. underlying this entire debate, there's always been this question of whether we would find a criminal conspiracy. that doesn't mean there hasn't been collusion that's staring us right in the face. to some extent the collusion has been out in the open. we know -- whether there was ever a direct agreement between the russians and the president's campaign or not, we know that both sides knew what the other's interests were. you had as early as july of 2015, a month after trump got into the campaign, him saying that if he was president, he didn't think there would need to be sanctions against the russians. you have him publicly asking the russians to hack his opponent's e-mails. you of course have his son telling the russians he would welcome their help. there may not ever be a direct agreement that rises to a crime. we'll know the answer to that when mueller finishes his investigation. that doesn't mean there was collusion between the two sides in some way. >> you alluded to a question about what his russia policy would be, asked by maria butina who he thought was just an audience member, perhaps, but it was clearly a planted question in some way, that she got the question there and was able to ask about russia policy. chuck, just a quick clarification here, collusion is not a crime. conspiracy is a crime. >> right. >> the fact that there's no collusion is a great talking point and the president used it last night at the rally already, richard burr says there's no collusion, and this will certainly affect the appearance of whatever the mueller probe is, if it is more damaging than this. >> i think of those two words, frankly, as synonyms. the work "bank heist" doesn't appear in the criminal code but bank robbery is a crime. whether you call it collusion or conspiracy, if two people agree to do something that the law forbids and one takes a step to further that goal, that's a crime. you can call it collusion, you can call it conspiracy. it's illegal either way. >> thanks to you, chuck rosenberg, matt miller, and of course ken dilanian, thanks for breaking that news on our program. for breaking news in washington, why wouldn't we, it's tuesday in washington. president trump moments ago addressing the bipartisan border deal for the first time, the deal to avert another government shutdown, saying during a cabinet meeting, quote, i can't say i'm happy, i can't say i'm thrilled. let's take you through the key points of the deal hammered out by the house and senate, republicans and democratic negotiators, $1.4 billion for 55 miles of new fencing at the border, none of which would be a concrete wall, along with a big increase in homeland security funding. current funding levels will gradually decrease detention beds for undocumented immigrants throughout the year but there is no definitive cap on the number of beds for undocumented immigrants being held in cities around the country. these are not border apprehensions. joining me now, vermont democratic senator pat leahy, one of the two lead negotiators on the deal, with republican senator shelby on the other side. thank you so much, senator, i know you've been working through the weekend. so far, no flat rejection from the president, he's not happy, he's not thrilled, that leaves a little wiggle room. what do you expect to happen next? >> we were not trying to pass something to thrill the president or anybody else. every one of us had to give on it. we had meetings late until last night in my office of fice i hae in the capitol with senator shelby, myself, a. each one of us had to give something. that's how you finally get a deal. nobody wins everything. we started off knowing that even though the president gave his solemn word during the campaign that mexico was going to pay for this wall, that it is not going to be, he is not going to be able to carry through with what he promised the american people. but we have the responsibility to do a whole lot of things. we've got six other bills besides homeland security here. we've reached agreement on all of them. i mean, this covers everything from opioids to infrastructure to security along the border. >> senator leahy, the president still has several options. he can reject this again, even though he signals acceptance, then when he got the legislation before christmas, we know what happened, we had a shutdown. he can reject it, we think that's unlikely given the republican opposition to that. he can accept it reluctantly but declare an emergency and find the money that way and get into a court fight. or, and this appears to be more likely now, his omb director and acting chief of staff is hinting at finding unallocated money, unspent funds that he could take from military spending for housing on bases, from puerto rico emergency relief, from flood relief for northern california where they've got mudslides and flooding now after the wildfires. would that third option make it impossible for you to stop him from doing anything? >> well, mr. mulvaney has come up with something that doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. the fact is, he should have accepted what he said he would accept in december. instead he wanted to do a show thing about a shutdown, which has cost america $10 billion, created havoc in a lot of people's families, and accomplished absolutely nothing. what he ought to do is let the serious republicans and democrats who have worked together, we all believe in national security, we all believe in a secure border, we all believe in stopping criminals. but i don't think any of us think that we help national security by stealing money that we have appropriated to the military for various things, taking money that we've had to secure our country from floods, and natural disasters. so no, i think they should stop the rhetoric, face the reality and start working with us on what is the best way to protect america. we all believe in protecting america. but some of us believe in doing it with reality, not rhetoric. >> senator pat leahy, thank you so much. just to inform you and all of our viewers, we have breaking news from new york. a verdict has been announced in the trial of mexican drug kingpin he wi"el chapo." joining me now is danny iscevals in new york. >> reporter: yes. we don't know what the verdict will be yet. the big charge is the continuing criminal charge. there's always a possibility of a not guilty. that would not be the end of "el chapo's" legal woes because he faces prosecution in several other districts, even if he somehow hangs a not guilty verdict on prosecutors in this case. >> and chuck rosenberg, this is an important verdict. some people were surprised that the jury took so long, but there were very complex instructions, as i understand it in this case. it would seem "el chapo," who has escaped so many times and has been responsible, according to the allegations, for so many deaths, it would be a no-brainer for a jury, but you never know. people are afraid, also, of any threats. this was not a sequestered jury. >> it was not, and that would have been unusual. you have multiple counts, a lot of evidence. in my experience, andrea, jurors take their obligations very seriously. even as we as outsiders think, wow, the evidence looks overwhelming, jurors take their time with it, they go through the counts, they go through the evidence, they have a verdict form they have to complete. not terribly surprising that they take a while, just jurors doing their jobs. >> we'll have more and we'll be back in a moment. stay with us. e back in a moment stay with us [cell phone rings] where are you? well the squirrels are back in the attic. mom? your dad won't call an exterminator... can i call you back, mom? he says it's personal this time... if you're a mom, you call at the worst time. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. where are you? it's very loud there. are you taking a zumba class? to most, he's phil..pro golfer. it's very loud there. to me, he's... ...well, dad. 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 some place 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 16 years. not having a good breakfast can make you feel like your day never started. get going with carnation breakfast essentials®. it has protein, plus 21 vitamins and minerals including calcium and vitamin d, to help your family be their best. carnation breakfast essentials®. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. and that verdict which has been announced in the trial of mexican drug kingpin "el chapo," they're reading through it, which takes a while. rehema ellis is outside the courthouse, this is a complicated case, it may take them awhile. >> reporter: it may indeed take a while. we've been told there is a verdict in this trial for the man known as "el chapo." this comes on the sixth day of deliberations in this trial that's been going on more than three months. this jury of seven women and five men, they've been deliberating for several days on ten counts against he wi"el ch." there are several components within each of these ten counts. it's been a lot for these jurors to sit through, as i say, it's been a more than three-month trial. it will be a lot before we hear the actual reading of the ten counts involving drug smuggling and drug trafficking, andrea. >> i know you'll be standing by, rehema, as is danny cevallos, thanks very much. let's bring in msnbc political analyst robert costa, national political reporter at "the washington post" and moderator of "washington week." robert, from what we're surmising from what's taking place in the cabinet room, we'll have that tape playback momentarily, the president says there's not going to be another government shutdown, i think they've learned their lesson, but they have other options, one is an emergency action to move funds around. the other option is for mick mulvaney who can shift unspent monies for the military, for flood relief in california and puerto rico, without congressional action. what are you hearing in terms of what richard shelby and others are telling you about this deal and whether the president will ignore the cable cancophony on the right, if you will, and accept it? >> what you just laid outlines up with my reporting. senator cornyn was on air force one traveling with the president to and from el paso. he said the president is keeping his options open for executive authority, whether that's an executive order, unlikely to be a national emergency declaration. he also had senator shelby tell reporters here at the capitol that he has not spoken with the president yet but he believes that the house and senate, if they pass this deal by a good margin, will land on the president's desk and he could sign it, then take extra authority, take other steps beyond that deal. >> and it takes a couple of days to get this formatted into legislative language. they have a couple of things coming up on the house side and the senate side, the memorial service for john dingell on thursday, a number of congressional delegations supposedly heading to munich, germany on friday for the munich security conference, an annual conference. they can delay that, and they've got access to military planes, but they need to do this before friday. >> and there's an appetite to do it before friday. senator cornyn said the president is well aware republicans don't want another shutdown. leader mcconnell has been urging the president publicly to support this deal, not pressuring the president per se, but you have both democratic and republican leaders saying they're going to move forward with what the appropriators have come up with. the president may not like that it's around $1.37 billion for fencing, that's nowhere close to the $5.7 billion he originally requested. appropriators are saying at this 11th hour in congress, this is the best they can get and if he wants to do something else, so be it, they may fight him on that, but this is the deal congress has come up with. >> i have to say, from my own experience, the relationship between shelby and pat leahy, a family relationship, a friendship relationship, they trust each other, they are the kind of old lions of the senate, if you will, who are veterans who know how to cut deals together, and that represents the kind of negotiating that we used to see more often in the past. >> real quick on that, i know your time is limited, but senator leahy actually had a camera and he was pretending he was a photographer ten minutes ago, coming up to the scrum of reporters talking to chairman shelby, they were all joking with each other. it was a scene right out of the old congressional days, just like you said. >> leahy used to bring that camera to those conferences with reagan and company at the white house, and was always the class photographer. he's got some wonderful candids going back decades. thanks so much. if you don't mind standing by a second, joining me now is nbc white house correspondent geoff bennett, and host of "kasie d.c.," kasie hunt. kasie, you've been watching this as long as anyone, the house side also managed to work together. those 17 members were carefully chosen by the leadership. >> they were indeed, andrea. and nita lowey, very close with speaker pelosi, she of course was the lead negotiator on the democratic side. but the reality was none of the people sitting around that table were fire brands or i de idealo on the left or right of their parties. this is how big things have happened. now, we've gotten away from that in recent years which is part of why you've seen in some ways shutdown after shutdown, this last historically long government shutdown, sparked really by the president, not necessarily by members of congress here. i'm used to the guys i cover every day being the ones who are creating the problems when we shut down the government, but under president trump that simply has not been the case in the last instance. so, you know, what we're all waiting on, and, you know, peter alexander was in the oval office, i know we'll have more details of what has unfolded there, here in a couple of minutes, but he seemed to say he's not thrilled with the deal that these members have come up with, but that he wants to add some things to it, that i think -- i haven't had the chance yet to ask members about exactly how they would feel about that, but suffice to say, andrea, and you know this as well as anybody, that's not how things work around here. if they have cut a deal and both sides have signed off on it, you know, you don't just sort of sprinkle in something here or there or make changes in a way that actually is going to get something done. so everybody's waiting here to see what the president is going to do. >> it's a giant jigsaw puzzle, and you take one piece out, the whole thing can go asunder. >> exactly. >> we have peter alexander with us who was the pooler inside. peter, some quotes from you, i don't think you're going to see a shutdown, if you did have it, it's the democrats' fault, that was a quote from what the president said. but you were in the room, you tell us. >> yeah, andrea, there were a series of interesting moments that played out in the course of this cabinet meeting, by our count the 19th of the trump presidency, president trump saying among other things that he's not happy, "not thrilled" in his words about this congressional compromise as it comes to immigration. the president not ruling out the possibility of declaring a national emergency, pointed out that past presidents, bush, obama, and clinton, have declared numerous national emergencies. the president did appear to be clearing a lane, as we've heard from some other senior advisers at this white house, to reprogram, basically effectively to find money that exists right now and appropriate it toward construction of the wall. he did not rule out altogether signing onto this compromise deal. it's notable, though, that some of the president's sort of television cabinet, as it were, laura ingraham and sean hannity, have already railed on it, describing it as garbage by hannity, a charade by ingraham. among the other moments you'll see in the course of playing these clips for you as soon as we get them turned around, there was a striking moment at the end of his initial remarks before we began asking him questions, the president went out of his way to call out the acting attorney general matt whitaker and said he's taken a, quote, tremendous amount of abuse. he commented his appearance, his performance before the judiciary committee. >> we can see the applause right there. the president having just praised matt whitaker for his performance. let's listen to the questions. >> reporter: have you seen the border deal? >> i'm not happy about it. it's not doing the trick. i'm adding things to it. when you add whatever i have to add, it will all happen, we will build a beautiful, big, strong wall that's not going to let criminals and traffickers and drug dealers and drugs into our country. it's very simple. it's very simple. we're building a wall. and now i'm saying we're finishing a wall. we just started a big, big section on the rio grande. you probably saw it, some of you were there when you started, you went there, you didn't believe it, you went there, you see trucks all over the place, you said, hey, he's not kidding. i never kid about construction. i love construction and i know how to do it for the right price. and we're getting a beautiful looking structure that's also less expensive to build and works much better. that's a good combination of events, because it was crazy what they were putting up. in fact i happen to think the walls they were building were no unattractive and ugly that walls got bad names, if that means anything. but they were so ugly with rusted steel and big ugly plates on top, called tin can, and they're waving because the heat makes them expand and contract, tin can. i said, why didn't you paint the steel? well, sir, we saved money by not painting it. i said, yeah, but it's going to rust. i've ordered a lot of steel. i've never seen in my whole life steel come to me that was unpainted. this could only happen at the border. it wasn't me. it was our past geniuses. so i can tell you that -- am i happy at first glance? i just got to see it. the answer is no, i'm not. i'm not happy. but am i happy with where we're going? i'm thrilled, because we're supplementing things and moving things around and we're doing things that are fantastic and taking from far less -- really from far less important areas. and the bottom line is we're building a lot of wall. right now we're building a lot of wall. and you think it's easy. we're building in the face of tremendous obstruction and tremendous opposition from a small group of people. one thing that happened that was i think very revealing. we had the biggest and best border agents and experts come up and see the committee. and they said, more than anything else, you need a barrier, you need a wall. and the recommendation was unacceptable to the committee. so that tells you more than anything else. >> reporter: [ inaudible ] shutdown? >> i don't think you're going to see a shutdown. i wouldn't want to -- if you did have it, it's the democrats' fault. i accepted the first one and i'm proud of what we've accomplished, because people learned during that shutdown all about the problems coming in from the southern border. i accept that. i've always accepted it. but this one, i would never accept if it happens. but i don't think it's going to happen. but this would be totally on the democrats, okay? >> reporter: mr. president, are you saying that you may send back the proposed compromise or that you may grudgingly accept it? >> it's always nice to negotiate a little bit. you know, whatever you get. but i would hope there won't be a shutdown. i am extremely unhappy with what the democrats have given us. it's sad. it's sad. they're doing the country no favor. they are hurting our country very badly. but we certainly don't want to see a shutdown. but you'll be hearing fairly soon. the bottom line is, on the wall, we're building the wall and we're using other methods other than this and in addition to this. we have a lot of things going. we have a lot of money in this country. and we're using some of that money, a small percentage of that money, to build a wall which we desperately need. >> reporter: [ inaudible ] president xi at the end of march? >> not at this moment. i just got a report, things are going well with china. china wants to make a deal very badly. i want it to be a real deal, not just a deal that makes -- cosmetically looks good for a year. we have a chance to really make a deal, a real deal with china. we've never been in this position before. we've always been the lame duck. and we're not the lame duck anymore. we've gone up tremendously in value as a country, in economic value, tremendously. larry, we've gone up, what, $11 trillion, $14 trillion? and china's gone down close to $20 trillion since we started this whole -- >> china is the worst performing stock market in the world. >> has anybody ever heard of larry kudlow? that voice, i hear that voice. and you think money, right, larry? >> thank you, sir. >> i didn't even know that. so china, he said, is the worst performing stock market right now in the world. and we don't want that. we want china to do -- but -- and that's because of us. and we're -- have to be one of the best performing stock markets. but we are the best performing country. and we have a lot of potential for further growth. so we're doing very well over in china. our people are there. you know the people very well. and i think we're going to have some good answers. you know, i think either way i'm happy. i'm happy either way. i could live receiving billions and billions of dollars a month from china. china never gave us ten cents. it was always the opposite way. now they're paying billions of dollars a month for the privilege of coming into the united states and, honestly, taking advantage of our country. we'll see how it works out. at some point i expect to meet with president xi who i have a lot of respect for and like a lot, and make the parts of the deal that the group is unable to make. that's the way deals happen. >> reporter: will the march 1st deadline slide, do you think? >> well, thus far i've said -- as you know, the tariffs -- for us, we take in much more money. because the tariffs -- and there's nothing they can do that's comparable, so it's not like tit for tat. they're paying 25% on $50 billion, okay? and they're paying 10% on $200 billion. so we have $250 billion. we have $267 billion that we were very nice about and we're not taxing. on the $200 billion, we're paying the 10%. the 10% or $200 billion goes up to 25% on march 1st. and so far i've said, don't do that. now, if we're close to a deal where we think we can make a real deal and it's going to get done, i could see myself letting that slide for a little while. but generally speaking, i'm not inclined to do that, okay? >> reporter: would you consider declaring a national emergency to build a wall? >> i consider everything. i'm considering everything. you know, we already have national emergencies out there. president obama, president clinton, president bush, they've declared many -- this is not unique. they've declared many national emergencies. many, many. and you have some out there that we can use in addition to one that we can declare if we wanted to do it. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> reporter: [ inaudible ] ami investigating jeff bezos? >> reporter: shut the mueller report be made public, sir? >> the president taking questions about china, the trade deal, which is facing a march 1st deadline as well, saying that if they're close to a deal, he's going to extend it, also saying he's not wild about this congressional deal but he has some other options, not ruling out the declaration of an emergency, but it seems to be leaning more towards moving around some funds and adding to it with money for his border wall that is not comprised in the deal, which would then be legislated before friday in order to avoid another government shutdown. he does seem to be leaning against another government shutdown especially if the votes are strong enough in the house and senate. meanwhile, that other breaking news story in new york, a big one, nbc's rehema ellis joins us now from outside the correlate. there is a guilty verdict on "el chapo." i know there were a lot of counts, 17 counts. what do you know now? >> reporter: what i can tell you, andrea, is that this is the verdict that federal prosecutors were hoping for. of ten counts, number one is engaging in continuing criminal enterprise. the jury has found "el chapo" guilty of that. and there are 27 violations included in that count. they found that he was guilty of all 27 except number 18 and 24. but that alone is enough for the federal government now to see that he has been found guilty and he could face life in prison in a maximum security federal facility for the rest of his life. this is what authorities were hoping for. our producer in the courtroom said there was no visible reaction from "el chapo" when the verdict was read. this jury of eight women and four men, this is their sixth day in their second week of deliberation, in a trial that had gone on for more than three months, of someone who is considered the most notorious criminal in terms of drug trafficking in the world. this is a man who had been known for his ability to escape from mexican prisons. and this is a man who federal authorities have been investigating for ten years. they've held him here in the united states for some two years. again, this trial going on for more than three months. and now a jury has found "el chapo" guilty of count one, engaging in continued criminal enterprise regarding illegal trafficking of drugs. there are ten counts that he was being judged on. i'm just now hearing that he was found guilty on all ten of the counts that he was being tried for. this is a huge day for the prosecutors. guilty on all ten counts. this could lead to life in prison, andrea. >> rehema, thank you so much. as you were getting the report from inside, seeing that it was guilty for all ten counts, this is a real victory for the jury system. 12 men and women, i don't know the composition of this jury, average citizens willing to stand up and take this decision against one of the most notorious criminals in history who has been known to retaliate against civilians over and over again and has a widespread network. joining me now, nbc legal analyst danny cevallos, general barry mccaffrey, the former white house drug czar. so the significance of this case, danny, first to you. >> this is a very significant verdict because it represents on a global scale the united states exercising its extraterritorial jurisdiction to reach out and get defendants who commit crimes that have their effects here in the united states. obviously the drug scourge and the drugs that have been imported into the united states, to bring those defendants from other countries here to the united states and prosecute them and ultimately incarcerate them in facilities that will prevent any chance of escape, unlike the prior facilities that "el chapo" guzman was incarcerated in in mexico, which seemingly could not hold the infamous drug lord. >> and to barry mccaffrey, you were on the ground level of the war against drugs back in the clinton administration. you've seen this, and of course you've seen it around the world, the challenge for the military as well in going against these drug lords. how significant is this? >> well, i think it's a monumental day. it certainly underscores the enormous effectiveness of the dea's drug enforcement administration. they've literally gotten as good as the cia in conducting very sensitive, covert, long term criminal investigations without blowing it. so, very impressive. andrea, we have to remind ourselves that the mexican cartels tend to be the most serious criminal threat in america. 200-some-odd cities in the u.s. that's who really dominates the drug trade. "el chapo" guzman was a real monster and got to the top of the heap through murder, intimidati intimidation, bribery. there was an unsubstantiated allegation against the last mexican president, nieto, that "el chapo" had given him a $100 million bribe. i don't believe that, but it's emblematic of the scale of this criminal activity. >> speaking of that scale, let me ask you about the sophistication. this was not guys crossing the border with backpacks. this was not what the president talks about with a wall. they had submarines. they had military equipment. they had helicopters. they had all kinds of planes. this was basically an army, as well-armed as any. >> no question. and their primary adversary wasn't mexican law enforcement. it was other drug gangs. but they literally, as you suggest, have built submarines. they have sophisticated air transport. they hire law firms and public relations firms and use bribery not against an individual judge, but to basically penetrate and invalidate law enforcement systems in mexico. and poor mexico, i mean, these wonderful people, so vital to our economic future, have been literally helpless to defend themselves. only the mexican army, not without its problems, and the mexican marines, have basically been a tool that the mexican government could go to when they were in extremis. it's as bad if not worse than it ever was. >> there are all kinds of implications about former presidents of mexico and governors of various states. we should say a word about the journalists who have died covering this war on drugs, on these cartel leaders who have assassinated journalists as well, american and mexican journalists at will. our thanks to barry mccaffrey, danny cevallos, and of course the intrepid rehema ellis in new york. we'll be right back with more. york we'll be right back with more what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ we know that when you're >> tspending time with thelass grandkids... ♪ music >> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ and joining me now on this day of breaking news on all fronts, msnbc contributor ruth marcus, deputy editorial page editor at "the washington post" and "usa today" bureau chief susan page. welcome, both. the president saying he's not wild about it, indicating he might accept it, he doesn't want a shutdown. peter alexander was in the cabinet room, he said he was considering other options. he could take unspent money and move it around according to his acting chief of staff and omb director, susan. >> a lot to parse from the president's words. he didn't convey the image of a guy who was eager to bring about a shutdown. he seemed like a guy who was making the case why he may accept this deal and do some other things, that's how it sounded to me, although there are no guarantees with president trump until he puts his signature -- >> until he watches fox news. >> they've already started blowing back today. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, on your birthday. >> and happy birthday, susan. >> thank you very much. >> the same people who torpedoed the previous pre-christmas agreement causing all that hardship down the road, a shutdown that neither republicans nor democrats wanted. they had a unanimous consent agreement on the senate side, republican-led senate. and then all these people who weren't paid, these contractors who still have not been paid back and may never get paid back, the damage to air safety. we hear from the flight attendants, ruth, that they are going to stage a rally about air safety if this deal is not signed, sealed, and delivered on friday. >> well, i really interrupted susan, but the reality is that while there may be blowback from conservatives, the president does not seem -- and i think would be correct not to be pushing for another shutdown. it did not behoove him. this deal with a worse deal than the one he could have had pre-shutdown, so let's just remember that. and he can scrounge in the couch cushions and come up with some other money and announce to his supporters that it's all fine and we're building the fall, in fact it's already built, done. >> we're going to talk about 2020 and other political fallout in just a moment. we have a very important anniversary to commemorate today. thursday this week is the first anniversary of the massacre at the marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland where 17 students and staff members were killed. today democrats are reintroducing the keep americans safe legislation that would ban magazines. joining me now is david hogg, a graduate of marjory stoneman douglas and co-author of "march for our lives." david, thank you for your forbearance, we had the president commenting on the possibility of another shutdown and of course the verdict of "el chapo." but one year later, you've learned so much, you and all of your fellow students. tell me what your big takeaway istakeaway is as to how america has responded to your cries for help. >> i think the biggest is when we continuously get into debates after mass shootings, gun violence, that is not what is going to solve gun violence. when we on end up attacking each other, that's not solving the issues. americans have to come together as human beings united against all forms of suffering. and the understanding that even though many people may love me or hate me, we have to realize that the one thing we cannot fight against each other, the one thing we cannot fight against in this fight is each other. we have to fight against the source of the evil, gun violence. being u nignited in that front. agree with funding mental health care more. with intervention programs. where they're able to reduce gun violence by 40% within their first year through programs like jamaica queens in new york. i think the biggest takeaway is we have to stop debating and realize even though we may not have the solution, one thing we can agree on, for example, is the fact that mass shooters shouldn't be famous. the people who should be remembered from my high school are people like peter, people like coach chris hixen and others that were heroes that day a long with other victims, not the shooter. it was interesting you had the "usa today" chief editor from washington, d.c. on because they're one of the worst offenders of that. they're one of best news organizations at making mass sho shooters famous. they always plaster the shooter's face everywhere. that's what the shooter in my school asked me. he literally interviewed himself before the shooting and said i'm going to be famous from this and organizations like "usa today" and others are responsible. they have to realize and be held accountable for these acts. >> all of us speaking just more broadly, all of the media do focus on the killers, and on their backgrounds, perhaps to try to learn something more about prevention, but i take your point, david. that they should not be glorified, they should not be commemorated. i did not mention -- >> because we can -- yes, yeah. >> let me also ask you, does this speak to local action? you spoke of a number of initiatives. does this mean it's going to be very hard to get agreement on congressional action that perhaps it has to be state by state, city by city? >> yes, sometimes it does have to be state by state. even at the state level, sometimes they don't want to work with us. along with several family members of people that were lost in the shooting at my high school, we introduced a ballot initiative to ban assault weapons in the state. so the truth of the matter is weapons like the ar-15 have an effective range of over 1500 meters. you are hunting a human being. i don't think any civilian needs to be having their hands on a military weapon like that. >> i know you're going to go on to i think harvard next fall? you've got a lot ahead of you. we really look forward to talking to you frequently. and hearing you report back. thank you very much. back in politics. the historic number of women running for president signaling a major political shift. they're facing the same hurdles. "the new york times" dives into this issue of sexism and electability in a powerful story today. shining a light on how perception influence how women are judged differently. back with me, msnbc contributor ruth marcus. and "usa today's" washington bureau chief susan page. commented today that the reason we all cover the news as it's breaking. >> that's right, great to hear about the perceptive audience and to mark this day in history, this week. this is an issue though, how do you cover the news in a way that doesn't glorify the evildoers in a way that illuminates what happens. that's something i know it's hard to do. >> and you are thought to be. let's talk about the women. because we have seen instances where women, what are mistakes they may make, we recounted many times hillary clinton's mistakes along the way in terms of scheduling and other things that happen. we've seen women candidates being judged differently. the latest examples are kirsten gillibrand, you know, not initially eating with her fingers in south carolina. and a lot of comment about amy klobuchar, not about her recoga, not about getting the legislation through in her freshman year, a truly important bill being passed, which took a lot of guts and stick to it-tiveness. but also her staff and whether she's too tough on her staff. >> the story is fascinating. "the new york times" did a great job this morning. she is simultaneously facing accusations that she's too nice, so she's too nice to be president. and that she's too mean. so this is just an illustration of the very narrow window that is particularly narrow for female candidates that they need to be able to navigate through. people should be nice to their staffs. male and female. a problem for her that she was not more attentive to this issue. but also a problem for all of us in society. >> what a double bind for women, right, in so many ways. we find with men, men are also subjected to assessment about whether they're likable. al gore was not as likable as bush in 2000. but we find in research that voters judge women differently. vo voters will support a male candidate they don't like if they agree with him on issues. for a woman candidate, if they don't like the woman candidate, it is a deal breaker. >> let me play you a bit of amy klobuchar talking to rachel maddow last night. a fascinating interview. >> another one said you can't win because you're too nice. that voter said they'll run right over her. people saying they like you too much? >> i think part of that is the nature of our politics. how could someone run for a job like this. i would say look at me out in that snow. i've always had grit. i've always taken on tough fights. i usually win them. maybe not right away but eventually. >> i've enjoyed snowstorms from here to pyongyang but not the intensity of what she did in that rally. the other downside is people saying she's too nice. republicans praise her for getting work done. >> it's been fascinating, our columnist at the "washington post" george will wrote a very full of praise column about senator klobuchar. "the wall street journal" editorial page had some nice things to say about her. i wonder if that's going to help or hurt her in the immediate challenge she faces which is convincing the democratic primary voters to support her. but one thing that i think is really good news about all of this is that we're not only talking about amy chloe batchkl there are five women running. four had their pictures on the front page of "the new york times" today. a magnificent transformation. it's not just that we're going to be picking apart one woman and whether she's likable and one woman and whether she's too assertive. women candidates are going to be the norm. it's not going to be one woman in a field of eight men or ten men. and the more that happens, the more normalized it becomes and the better off we are. >> just to make that point, we have all known male congressmen and senators over the years who have done incredibly difficult things and it never gets reported. i want to also point out for our friend debby dingell whole is in dearborn michigan in the services at this moment with joe biden. the congressional plane from andrews air force base couldn't get -- they struggled for an hour. it was nancy pelosi and two of the speakers, fred upton, a republican from michigan, one of his best friends and also john lewis. he had said one of his proudest moments was helping pass the civil rights bill. they were supposed to speak. they couldn't land in the storm. they came back. presumably they'll be at the thursday service here. john dingell returns today. they will motorcade around the capital here in tribute. thanks to you, birthday girl. thanks, susan panel, ruth marcus. they have an impromptu service was the tweet, on the plane. i can't think of a better person than john lewis to be at that service on a plane. a man raised of course in the southern churches that led the civil rights movement. thank you again so much. that does it for a busy breaking news edition. remember, follow us online on facebook and twitter. i will be heading to europe to warsaw with the vice president and the munich security conference and reporting from there. here's velshi and ruehl. >> thank you, and a great trip. i'm ali velshi. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. it is tuesday, february 12th. let's get smarter. >> a verdict has been announced in the trial of mexican drug kingpin el chapo. >> just now hearing he was found guilty on all ten of the counts. that he was being tried for. this is a huge day forever the prosecutors. >> breaking news right now. nbc news exclusive reporting on the senate intelligence committee. their investigation into russian election interference. >> the senate intelligence committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. >> a big decision on the president's plate. does he