[John King, Inside Politics:] Welcome back. The Special Counsel investigation into Russian election meddling now reaching inside social media giant, Facebook. Sources confirming to CNN, Robert Mueller's team has obtained a search warrant compelling Facebook to surrender information about campaign-related ads bought by account that now been linked back to the Russian government. Here's why this could really matter. To get such a sweeping warrant, prosecutors need to demonstrate probable cause of a crime. It's illegal for a foreign national to interfere in the U.S. election and it would be a crime if any U.S. citizen worked colluded with them, for example, to offer political advice like with issues and states. Those ads should target. So this is a, A, it's big deal anyway to have a private company like Facebook, have the Special Counsel come knocking saying, turn over the records. And now you get into this whole question, this collusion question and the idea is the Trump campaign will tell you. Their team dragged about their use of digital space particularly Facebook in the final weeks of the campaign they think is what turned Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Now the question is, if this Russian accounts, Russian bought ads were in the same places, coincidence or not?
[Julie Pace, Chief White House Correspodent, Associated Press:] Well, I mean, it's a huge open question I think at this point, but this is what the Mueller team is after right now. We've been in this space with the Russian investigations where you've had a lot of rumors floating around, a lot of ticky-tack things out there. This is pretty serious. This is a big deal not just for this investigation. It's a big deal for future U.S. elections. And Facebook, the company that has been pretty opaque in their political dealings, pretty opaque in terms of how their ads are purchased, who they deal with there. So the consequences of this, not just for the Mueller investigation but broadly for politics, for big tech and its relationship with Washington are could be hugely consequential.
[Jackie Calmes, Whit House Editor, Los Angeles Times:] That's right. I mean, we're into the mid-term cycle now which is a hugely consequential mid-term. I mean, most of them are, but this one really is and with the control of Congress at stake in the mid-term of the Trump administration. So, it's really you know, you have to wonder what's going on now that is going undetected. They were so successful apparently in the 2016 election.
[King:] It's a great point both for the any campaign regulatory agencies and the social media giants in the idea that what do you have to do to more properly vet
[Unidentified Female:] Right.
[King:] when you're taking money from, where is that money coming from. It's hard, you say about its fake account, it's hard, but it's doable. That's one of the challenges. I want to go out for another piece of the story, dramatic story of the New York Times today about two of the President's lawyers sitting outdoors in a Washington D.C. steak house talking about the strategy in dealing with the special counsel investigation we just talked to. Talking about debates within the team about how cooperatively, debates within the team about transparent it could be. Let's listen to the New York Times reporter who was sitting as close as I I'm to you, Jackie, Ken Vogel. The President's lawyers are there. He's, hance, at the next table and he hears this.
[Ken Vogel, Reporter, New York Times:] As I sat there by myself at this table taking notes on my iPhone, they preceded to discuss
[Unidetified Female:] Wow.
[Vogel:] some of the, you know, the most sensitive of the sensitive area in way that was very easily audible to me and allowed for us to get at some of these issues.
[King:] Among the things they are talking is how cooperative to be. And there's a picture of the two attorneys. They're talking about
[Perry Bacon, Senior Political Writer, Fivethirtyeight:] The idea that it's in a restaurant, of course, bad form,
[Karoun Demirjian, Reporter, The Washington Post:] And even what they've exposed also is a question it opens the question of whether other people in the White House will be now brought into Mueller's probe. When you are in a yes, there is a turning point from this, but it's not exactly the same when you are an, you know, employee of the White House and you see. They could now be brought in especially if there is, you know, credible evidence spoken out of the mouths of lawyers themselves, that there may be documents in the state for other things there. You may see some of these other people getting pulled into the probe now which complicates the legal defense for the Trump team and even more.
[Bacon:] And with the White House.
[King:] There's a paragraph of the story about the fear inside the White House trepidation about this, inside the White House, that there are some people think that some of the colleagues might be wearing a wire, were wearing a wire for Bob Mueller. I mean, that again, great going to work every day, right?
[Calmes:] Well, and we saw some of that during the investigations on the second Clinton term.
[King:] Right.
[Calmes:] But not like that. I mean, this is a far more serious. That went to the personnel
[Bacon:] Conduct.
[Calmes:] conduct of the President. This goes to the entire campaign and potential colluding with an adversary.
[King:] And potential, emphasis potential, potential with Special Counsel looking into obstruction by the President
[Calmes:] Right, exactly.
[King:] of the United States, it's not the candidate.
[Demirjian:] But exactly it is potential and if we you know, if McGhan is right that there's nothing there and that's why he should be handing over more documents because it will show the President
[King:] Could be unlocking the safe, it's not locking the safe.
[Demirjian:] Definitely. But again, I mean, if this and this means something that is a self-constructed nightmare that didn't need to be there, then why?
[Calmes:] Why did you say quickly I mean, nothing about what the lawyers reportedly said to each other surprised me really. And Don McGhan, it is his job as a White House counsel, not to represent the President individually, but to represent the office of the President. So he has to be concern about President set. What surprised me about this is that they were saying this. I worked in the New York Times Bureau for nine years. I had many lunches at DOT. There, or any place out, I always looked around the room to see who was there before I talked. And the fact that the two lawyers didn't is astounding.
[King:] Common sense. That's one is interesting to watch. We've seen the President blow off his legal team in the past. We'll see how this story sets with the President today. Up next, it seems the President spend a lot of time on Twitter this weekend. But was it presidential tweets, including the rocket man. Next.