The Washington Post in this russia investigation. Times journalist Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman report President Trump spoke to witnesses about their conversations with special counsel Robert Muellers team. We will talk with Michael Schmidt in just a moment. They write according to three people familiar with these encounters the special counsel has learned of two conversations in recent months in which President Trump asked key witnesses about matters they discussed with investigators. In one episode the president told an aide that the white house counsel, don f. Mcgahn ii, should issue a statement denying a New York Times article in january. The article said mr. Mcgahn told investigators that the president once asked him to fire the special counsel, robert s. Mueller. Mr. Mcgahn never released a statement and later had to remind the president that he had indeed asked mr. Mcgahn to see that mr. Mueller was dismissed, the people said. In the other episode, mr. Trump asked his former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how his interview had gone with the special counsels investigators and whether they had been nice, according to two people familiar with the discussion. Now to the latest from the Washington Post. Robert mueller has gathered evidence that a secret meeting in the seychelles just before the inauguration of donald trump was an effort to establish a back channel between the Incoming Administration and the kremlin. Apparently contradicting statements made to lawmakers by one of its participants, according to people familiar with the matter. In january 2017, erik prince, the founder of the private military company blackwater, met with a russian official close to president Vladimir Putin and later described the meeting to congressional investigators as a chance encounter that was not a planned discussion of u. S. russia relations. A witness cooperating with mueller has told investigators the meeting was set up in advance so that a representative of the trump transition could meet with an emissary from moscow to discuss future relations between the two countries. The post goes on to note an associate of erik prince, lebanese businessman george nader, attended and helped organize the seychelles meeting. Nader for himself has testified before a grand jury and is cooperating with the mueller investigation. That should be enough to talk about over these next few minutes. And first things first. Lets begin with tonights New York Times piece and the coauthor, Michael Schmidt, who is with us by phone tonight. Michael, it seems to me there are two competing concerns here in your story. Trumps concerns over what was asked and what was said to the special counsel, and the concerns of those who are hearing trump is asking about what happened with the special counsel. Theres a longstanding expectation and advice that folks who are in the center of an investigation should not speak, either with prosecutors or with witnesses, as it could create an appearance of trying to interfere with an investigation. And the president has disregarded this, disregarded it back in february 2017 when he spoke to jim comey about the flynn investigation, and now as the investigation intensifies, engaging with Reince Priebus about his interview, engaging with don mcgahn about reports that mcgahn had been told by trump to fire mueller. And if youre someone who is concerned about the appearance of obstruction, these types of things would alarm you. You point out in the story, you and maggie do, that i forget the wording you used that hes very curious, and such an effort by him to find out, hey, what did you guys talk about in there, would be natural if not proper. Tell us about one of your stories that you and maggie also coauthored back in january 25th that prompted one of these conversations. We reported that last summer, trump had gone to mcgahn and asked him to get rid of mueller. And in the aftermath of that story, trump was very upset, especially because this had come out that mcgahn had told mueller about this and mueller knew about it. Trump went to rob porter, who was still at the white house at the time, and told him that the President Trump said that he wanted mcgahn to put out a statement that this was not true and that he would get rid of him if he didnt do that. Porter relayed that message to mcgahn. Mcgahn and the president then had a confrontation in the oval office in which the president said, look, this never happened. And mcgahn had to remind him of what had occurred over the summer when trump told him to call rosenstein and say that mueller had these conflicts and needed to go. Just an incredible yarn. Michael schmidt, one half of the writing duo of schmidt and haberman on the board tonight over at the New York Times supplying our lead story. Michael, thank you as always for being here with us on the show. And here to react now further, chuck rosenberg, a former u. S. Attorney, former senior fbi official, currently an msnbc contributor. And we welcome back mika oyang, attorney and former staffer for the house intelligence and Armed Services committee. Good evening and welcome to you both. Chuck, if you watch too many movies or legal shows on tv, you go around using phrases like, witness tampering. Is there anything legally wrong, if this story in the New York Times proves true, if the president had at least these two encounters with people, and say, hey, what did the special counsel ask you about, what did you tell those guys . You probably dislike when it lawyers say, maybe. But maybe. And heres why, its a maybe. The first thing that prosecutors do, and i was prosecutor for a long time, is ask witnesses, who else did you talk to . The first thing Defense Attorneys do, at least good ones, they tell their clients, dont talk to anyone else. At the very least theres an appearance of impropriety. More than that, the witness tampering statute that you alluded to, brian, requires not that you succeed at tampering with the witness, but just that you try an endeavor, an attempt is sufficient to trigger the statute. You cant really tell just from this reporting whether or not the president was trying to influence their testimony or get them to withhold testimony. But in the larger patchwork of all the things hes been saying and doing, maybe thats what he was trying to do. And if in fact he tried it, whether or not he succeeded, that is witness tampering. Now mika, is it notable to you that witnesses and or lawyers or both felt strongly enough about this to have gone and reported it to muellers staff . Yeah, i think that is significant. It shows that they dont think that this is innocuous. They also know that hes not supposed to be asking them about this. One of the challenges you see in these questions is, even though hes been advised by his lawyers not to ask anyone, he cant help himself. And its this kind of impulsiveness and erratic behavior that really will cause him problems down the line if hes speaking to federal investigators. And chuck, what about i looked at several of the Cable Networks tonight. I saw a graphic on the screen that said obstruction of justice. Does this match any definition of obstruction of justice that you know . Absolutely. Theres a lot of overlap between the obstruction of justice statute and the witness tampering statute. Incidentally, body of them only require an attempt. Again, whether or not you succeed at obstructing justice, whether or not you succeed at tampering with a witness, the fact that you tried is enough to trigger it. And frankly, a prosecutor could charge either or both in this situation. Mika, tossed into this story like a grenade is the fact that john kelly is present for at least one of these encounters with the president. Now what does that do to john kellys chances of getting a request from across town to talk to muellers folks . If he doesnt have one already, he will now. Hes been present in so many of these conversations, in so many instances with the president. Hes very trusted by the president. He will get that request, then the question will be how much does he provide to mueller what does he know . I want to throw up the Washington Post story on the screen. As people look at that, i have a question for you about this meeting. Its a complicated story to tell. Perhaps just as complicated as to ask a guy like you, if you werent present, you werent invited, you didnt know bill in realtime, how do investigators go about finding transportation records, guest lists, what was talked about, at a meeting that was shrouded in secrecy for good reason in the seychelles for Goodness Sake in 2017 . If you look at other indictments that have surfaced youve seen this Investigative Team is very good at uncovering stuff. Airline travel, you get out of the country and get back in youre going to need a passport, thats all recorded by customs. Hotel and lodging. Credit card records. Phone calls. Text messages, emails. Everywhere we go, every one of us leaves an enormous digital trail. You cant go to the indian ocean without doing that. Mika oyang, erik prince is a very interesting individual. He and his company came along just at a time when the American Armed forces decided it was a good idea to contract out more of our war fighting and support work, and that made him a very wealthy, connected man. He happens to be brother of the current education secretary, betsy devos. Fit turns out that erik prince didnt tell the whole truth to a congressional committee, what kind of trouble is that . I think that hes actually this meeting and his attempt to set up a back channel, especially if hes not being truthful about it, will cause him a lot of problems with his business. Because in doing business with the United States military, in wanting to get security clearances, you have to go through these same processes that have tripped up so many others and you have to be truthful about that process. Lying in the security clearance process can get your clearances revoked which means that you cannot get the business anymore. So it may also cause him problems with trustworthiness as a partner for the military. And you really have to trust the people that youre working with when youre asking them to provide security for you. Were always grateful of to be able to talk to you, two of the very best in the legal business, mika oyang and chuck rosenberg, thank you for explaining all we had to explain here at the top of the broadcast. The other lead story today and tonight, the latest in this case of the porn star versus the president. And news tonight of an attempt to silence the woman suing donald trump. And then later, Jeff Sessions goes to california and then goes after california in a speech. Then the governor of california goes after him. Well have all of it for you. The 11th hour is just getting under way on a wednesday night. But im not standing still. And with godaddy, ive made my ideas real. I made my own way, now its time to make yours. Everything is working, just like it should you know whats not awesome . Gigspeed internet. When only certain people can get it. Lets fix that. Lets give this guy gig really . And these kids, and these guys, him, ah. Oh hello. That lady, these houses yes, yes and yes. And dont forget about them. Uh huh, sure. Still yes xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. Now you can get it, too. Welcome to the party. Were back and we have a lot more to get to. New reporting from nbc news reveals that President Trumps longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, is trying to silence the porn star, Stormy Daniels, over her alleged relationship with the president. Stay with us here. Last week, cohen obtained a secret restraining order. More on that later. Through an arbitration process that warned daniels shell face penalties if she starts to talk. The news comes one day after we learned that daniels, whose real name is stephanie clifford, filed a lawsuit against President Trump. In it daniels alleged that an agreement not to disclose her intimate relationship with the president is invalid because trump never actually signed the document. The hush agreement as its called in the suit directed 130,000 to be given to daniels in exchange for her silence. Michael cohen says he used his own personal funds to facilitate the payment. He also said neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump Campaign were a party to the transaction. And that neither reimbursed him for the payment directly or indirectly. Cohen has said, in fact, that President Trump vehemently denies the allegations. We should note that daniels is not suing for money but for the freedom to tell her story about her alleged affair with trump, which of course she could eventually sell for a high price. The Stormy Daniels drama was, of course, a major theme at this afternoons White House Press briefing. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about this story relating to daniels 12 times, including multiple questions about what the president knew. Did the president approve of the payment that was made in october of 2016 by his longtime lawyer and adviser, Michael Cohen . Look, the president has addressed these directly and made very well clear that none of these allegations are true. This case has already been won in arbitration and anything beyond that i would refer you to the president s outside council. Did he know about that payment at the time, though . Ive addressed this as far as i can go. The payment, did he know about the at the same time at the time . Not that im aware of, and again, anything beyond what ive already given you, i would refer you to the president s outside counsel. Stormy daniels attorney just spoke to my colleague Lawrence Odonnell tonight and addressed sanders claim that the case has been won in arbitration. I personally like miss sanders, i think she has a nearimpossible job. But the fact of the matter is, and im confident she didnt know it was nonsense when she effectively told that to the world. But its absolutely bogus. Its nonsense. Any claim by the administration that donald trump won in arbitration is no different than me claiming that i won the super bowl a few weeks ago. Its cleat hooey. Well, on that note, here to talk more about all of it, peter baker, chief White House Correspondent for the New York Times and msnbc political analyst. Shannon petty piece, White House Correspondent for bloomberg. Danny savalas, criminal defense attorney and msnbc analyst. Gingerly be very tender with us who are laymembers of the audience. When i ask you to describe what this arbitration process is that sarah Huckabee Sanders is saying the president won. The arbitration process is a form of alternative dispute resolution. And what it means is Companies Love these, big companies, rich folks, because they offer a private, a secret way of resolving disputes in a way retired judge . Exactly, retired judges will often become arbitrators. Its a private court. You can resolve your claims there. Usually you can define the parameters of this secret tribunal in your contract. You can say, theres no appeal. If you read this agreement, and everyone has access to this complaint and this agreement, the terms are so in favor of d. D. , david dennison, whoever that may be. David dennison can pick the arbitrator. David dennison can pick the state, the laws of the state that he wants. David dennison can decide that theres no appeal. David dennison has all the power as to the arbitrator. So that when Sarah Sanders said they won in arbitration, they didnt really win. The contract allowed them to walk over to an arbitrator of their choice and say, question of us a tro, give us a temporary restraining order. And you can see in the arbitrators order that she looked at it, decided that she really didnt have a choice but to issue a tro. That was done without any due process. Why . Because the contract allowed for it. Thats why Stormy Daniels and her team have to invalidate this contract. Because it has an arbitration clause that will keep the trump team exactly where they want to be and thats in arbitration. Peter baker, lets swing back to the News Business and that equals what the publica knows out of the white house today. This arbitration term put this right inside the white house today. Yeah, it did. For the first time in a way the white house has tried very hard to sort of sidestep this story, doesnt want any part of it, you can understand why. When Sarah Sanders today at the briefing did disclose this idea of an arbitration result that was favorable to the president , it seemed to put the white house right in the middle of it. It seemed to acknowledge there was, in fact, a real dispute here. That there is, in fact, an issue that the president has not himself addressed, which is, what is the situation with his relationship with this woman . What kind of arrangement was made that resulted in her getting 130,000 from the president s lawyer, how did that money get authorized, so forth. We dont really have answers to those questions. She didnt give us the answers to those questions. It doesnt sound like the story is going away very soon. Shannon, this is a