in the united states, in europe, for instance. and so they had hired the a couple of lobbying firms here in washington. the question has been, you know, whether or not these men were supposed to register as foreign agents, because they were doing this work for the former ruling party in ukraine. they did not initially do that. they have now corrected that. they filed retroactively a registration under the foreign agents' registration act earlier this year, chris, a and alisyn. so both of these men, we knew, were certainly the focus of this investigation, at least parts of the focus of this investigation. and so it's not a surprise that these charges would be brought, you know, against manafort, and as you said, i believe "the new york times" is reporting that rick gates may also have been notified about possible charges. >> evan, it's the top of the hour here on the east. it's 8:00. so for people that are just joining us. let's recap the big breaking news this morning. cnn had reported on friday that charges would be forthcoming

this week as early as today. >> charges were presented, indictments were returned, under seal, but now we have new information. >> and an arrest might be happening as early as today, but there was no word on who that might be. and in just the past few minutes, evan perez has new reporting that, in fact, paul manafort, who you know was the trump campaign chairman will be surrendering today to the fbi. >> that's what's expected from evan. do you want to fill that out a little bit for you, evan, and we'll wring you some helpers. cnn legal analyst, michael zeldin, and former candidate for illinois attorney general, mario regnati. we also have cnn justice reporter, shimon prokupecz. we have the whole complement of people in here. do we still have evan? do we have enough boxes? evan had to go, he has to do more reporting. shimon, bring us up in terms of what we know about what could happen today in terms of manafort. "the new york times" reporting

that one of his business associates may also be involved. give us some context. >> and we're working to verify that gates is also expected to surrender. basically within the last few hours, we've learned that manafort was told to surrender. he was seen leaving his home. and presumably, he's now on his way to fbi offices here in washington, d.c., where he will be processed. fbi agents will take him into custody and it is there that they will begin the process of fingerprinting him, taking his photo, and then later today, he will appear at district court here in d.c., where there will be an arraignment or a presentment on the charges. and that it is at that point, or perhaps maybe sooner, we hope, we will learn exactly what he was charged with. >> michael -- >> as evan said earlier, some of this has to do with his financial dealings with ukraine, with some other financial dealings. we don't yet know how this relates in the larger russia investigation. that may come out. that may come out in the

documents, once the indictment is filed. but we don't know that yet. >> michael zeldin, your thoughts? >> well, it will be interesting to see whether this is pure tax in the domestic sense of failing to report this income or whether this is also these laws they call fbar, which is a money laundering tax reporting statute or a fatca, which is a money laundering thing. because if it is, it complicates the flynn income group and others who have earned income overseas. it so may have tentacles beyond manafort. also, it was reported that manafort, at the time that he disclosed his $17 million that he received from ukraine, which had not previously been reported, that was taking simultaneously with purchases of new york property, using limited liability companies, shell companies, and the passage of money to his children. and so we'll see again whether or not this has money laundering

implications that if it does, could implicate others who are doing real estate deals in new york, cohen and kushner, and trump businesses themselves. so, it could be very narrow or it could be roads leeading to a broader view of where mueller is looking to take his charges. >> right. it's very important for people to remember, renadeau, this indictment is just a first step. they get multiple bites on the apple, not on these charges, but in terms of bringing in other ones. let's fill that out a little bit. when that name, tony podesta popped up, the politics obscured the operation. he's only relevant because of the operation that manafort set up. podesta was one of the firms that came in to help him. that was a big indicator to people that prosecutors were really drilling down on that. how do you see this moving forward in terms of tax and

russia influence? >> sure. so, look, what today's news suggests to me is that mueller is pursuing an early indictment in an attempt to get manafort to flip. you know, really, federal prosecutors usually wait until the end of the investigation to bring all of their indictments. the reason to bring it early here is because he has some charges against manafort that he feels are very strong. that he feels very confident he can prove. >> and he has time sensitivity, also, right? just to bring in that one fact. time sensitivity on the tax charge? >> for sure. you know, absolutely. so what he can do now is, he can bring, for example, on the statute of limitations, off great point. he has -- he has to bring that tax charge. and whatever he knows he's got manafort on now, then he can do what we call supercede later on. at the end of his investigation, he can bring all the rest of the charges against manafort. he can charge other people. so this doesn't prevent him from

doing, you know, continued investigation in many ways, it may actually help, because it's going to show people that he's serious and he's found something. so what i would expect is, you know, this only to intensify the investigation going forward. >> and if i can add a point to that, chris. we've learned that some of the tax charges or some of the tax activity that bob mueller has been looking at in relation to paul manafort dates as far back as 2005 and 2006. so they have gone all the way back to look at some of his dealings, his financial dealings with the ukrainians and other people. again, you know, as part of, also, the counterintelligence investigation, into russian meddling, there's always been this concern that russia has worked these people, for many, many years, to develop these relationships with them, with someone like paul manafort, so that perhaps they can influence them. and i think that's going to be interesting to see, where all of that plays in the elements of

the indictment. >> so, michael -- >> may i add something on that? >> go ahead. >> what's an interesting point, and i agree with shimon on that, is that the so-called steel dossier reflects this exact point that shimon is making, these relationships were being cultivated back as far as 2005. and so, this may be some form of corroboration of the voracity of the steel findings, as well. which, if that's true, sheds a whole different light on the matter. >> right. we're just showing a picture now of the field office here. what do we -- >> this is the scrum of media, you know, like everybody's getting in position, because they think that this is where manafort is going to be surrendering, momentarily. people had seen -- one of our local affiliates got some video of him leaving his apartment, so they believe he's going to be going to the washington field office to surrender. >> and it sheds more light on the nature of this being sealed. jeffrey toobin this morning was not wrong when he suggested that often in federal cases, you seal an indictment so the person who's being indicted doesn't know.

but it was always suggestive here that that wasn't the case. this was about cutting deals for a surrender. renato, give us some perspective. what happens next? manafort comes in, suggestively, with counsel, and what happens? >> right. so we will be asked booking questions, so they're just simple questions about who he is, where he lives, things like that. he will be -- he will be fingerprinted. then there will be what's called an arraignment today. an arraignment is just your first appearance after there's been an indictment in court. he will be advised of his rights. he'll be told that, for example, he has the right to a lawyer and a right to counsel, you know, his attorney will be provided a copy of the indictment before the arraignment. manafort will plead not guilty to all the charges. that happens in pretty much every arraignment or almost every arraignment. that's something we can expect, as well. and the nature of the charges

and the maximum penalties under law will be provided to him there. so in some ways, it's more of a ceremonial thing, but it is part of our process, it's part of what we do to make sure that people are aware of what they're facing. and in the case of paul manafort, he obviously has very fine and, you know, very experienced lawyers, so he doesn't need all of that procedure, probably, to know what's going on, but that's how our system works and he's afforded the same rights as every other american. >> hey, shimon, we're looking at the front entrance there of the fbi field office. that's probably not how manafort is going to enter. when we saw that other garage entrance, we have a slightly different shot, where you see a guard's booth and you see a garage. my guess is that he will be ushered in that way in a car, so anybody wanting a perp shot might not get it. will probably be like shaded windows and you probably won't have that moment of seeing -- >> well, he's surrendering, also. so they're not going to walk him in in trench coats. although, they were hard on him when they went to his house.

that was very atypical protocol in a situation like this to do a bang and bust on that warrant. michael zeldin, i'm sure you were aware of that. imagine the phone calls you would have gotten from your client if they were -- if they thought they were talking and working with investigators and all of a sudden they came knocking on the door with guns drawn. >> yeah, it was a shocking act, i think, by the bureau. but it struck me, as well, that there must have been some level of distrust or mistrust of manafort, that they would enter in a no-knock sort of way. usually in these cases, it is cooperative. obviously, because of the manner in which they feel manafort has been dealing with them, remember, they subpoenaed his attorney, they subpoenaed his press spokesman. so they're leveraging him as if he's a non-cooperating person. it's nice, in a sense, that they let him voluntarily surrender, rather than have the show of arresting him in front of his

apartment with a so-called perp walk, the perpetrator walking to the car in handcuffs. i never liked that. maybe in organized crime cases it was appropriate, but in a case like this, it never struck me as necessary. so i'm happy for that. >> so michael, also, just to fill in one thing about what's going to happen today. you know, sometimes you -- the arraignment comes later, because this is just an initial arrest. but that's not this situation. they've handed down an indictment proceeding this. so, you know, that sixth amendment tool of the arraignment to have these charges presented to him could likely be today. >> well, i would -- you know, it could be, as described, that today is an arraignment, which means an entry of a plea. i would have thought perhaps it would be an initial appearance, where charges are read and rights are advised. and the time is set down for an arraignment. you won't have a preliminary hearing, because that is where, you know, you get to test the

charges. but those charges have been returned. by indictment. so i think you'll have today, presentment and initial appearance and then an arraignment, where he'll plead and then it will be set down for trial and probably in a case like this, it will be set down for the lawyers to start talking about whether there is a way for them to find a negotiated plea. but the fact that they went in with this no-knock sort of thing believes -- you know, leads me to believe that they don't trust this guy. and if you don't trust this guy, you're not going to enter a plea with him. >> shimon, it's impossible for us to know if any of these cars entering the garage there are significant to our breaking news of paul manafort surrendering. you don't know if he's driving himself, if he surrendered right there at his house to fbi agent sho s somehow. >> that's exactly right. we've been told, usually in these kind of cases when someone does surrender, either you go directly to the fbi office, in whatever district you live in.

but sometimes what they do is they have a meeting point, so the fbi will say, meet us at this hotel or this gas station or this area and we will then take you into custody and drive you into the fbi offices. they will not allow his own vehicle into that garage. so if he was to arrive at that location, at the fbi offices here in washington, d.c., he would have to walk in. so then we would see a shot of him. but he could be meeting fbi agents at a location that they've designated and said, you know, show up here at 9:00 a.m. and we will then take you into custody. and then they will drive him in, through the garage and take him up to their offices. and then we will not see him until he's in court again. >> right, and just to kind of close the loop on this, michael, we really don't have any better sense of what they want out of manafort from this, because if they do, as "the new york times" is reporting, and i know shimon and evan and the rest of the team are trying to track it down, but if gates, his business

partner, from that time, when he was working in ukraine, if they're both coming in, then both possibilities are still open, right? that this is about how he moved money for himself and arguably others, or how this leads to relationships that came to play during the campaign. >> yes, probably both. it would seem to me, logically, that if it's gates and manafort, that this deals with the business that they ran, their consulting group, and how they acquired and reported income and it also well could be the first step toward a fuller analysis of manafort's activities, as i mentioned. schneiderman and the u.s. attorney in new york and mueller all are looking at these shell purchases of real estate in manhattan. and then we also know, of course, that there's a don jr. june 9th meeting that manafort was at. we know that manafort supposedly

offered an intelligence briefing to ukrainians in return for moneys that were owed. so there's a lot of opportunity here to expand this beyond what was probably driven by the statute of limitations on the tax charges. >> regnnato, michael's done a great job about talking about the tentacles that might stretch out from this, even if it is charges, what could happen next. and he's talked about some of the other names that we've obviously heard connected possibly to some sort of wrongdoing. and you know, when you say the na name, jared kushner, obviously, everybody's ears perk up. what do you think? where do you think a paul manafort arrest leads from here? >> wow, well, certainly, the possibilities are pretty extensive, as he was just -- >> okay, here he is! >> all right, we're seeing manafort come in now with counsel. >> he is entering through the front door. >> walking through the front

door, which shows that this negotiation went pretty well, by his standards, right, renato, speak to this. because, again, they banged on this guy's doors with guns drawn to execute a warrant. that does not show that you're giving him much benefit of the doubt. this is a little bit of a different disposition. >> exactly right. so i will say, it is very highly unusual to execute a search warrant at all in a white collar case. and i spent many years investigating white collar crime. to have a no-knock warrant means that they had specific information that he was going to destroy evidence. >> we're just watching him walk up there. we're just replaying again him entering the fbi field office in washington, d.c. all we see is him approach from the curb. we're not sure how he arrived, but we see him there with his lawyers marching up and through the front door. continue. go ahead. >> okay. so, that meant that there's actually specific information that they had that they had to present to a judge to get permission to do a no-knock

warrant, which just so viewers understand, that literally means that the fbi picked the lock on his door and showed up and, you know, woke him up without even knocking on the door. and to do that, that means that there's specific concerns about destruction of evidence. by now, it's fairly clear, i think, that, you know, at this point, they got the evidence that they needed. you know, paul manafort, by all accounts, there's been a lot of reporting, you know, he's defiant and says he's going to fight the charges, which is not surprising at this stage. most folks in white collar cases have a similar tack. what i'm interested in, if i was still a federal prosecutor, investigating a case like this is, how is that associate who's also charged, how does he feel about this? is he going to flip on manafort? that is the sort of thing that a federal prosecutor is thinking about at this point. >> well, we haven't seen him yet. we only saw manafort come out. "the new york times" is reporting that he may be involved with the indictment today. i guess that would have to mean that he has an indictment of his

own. does manafort go home today, renato? >> yeah, he will probably go home today, unless there's some specific information about a flight risk. i would expect that prosecutors would agree a bond today. but that issue of bond will be determined today, because in addition to i had mentioned an arraignment earlier, this is also the initial appearance in court. and that is one of the matters that is discussed. and there'll be limitations, generally set, on what he can do, where he can travel, without, you know, getting prior permission from the court and an agency of the court called pre-tile services, which monitors defendants before trials. >> go ahead, shimon. >> he'll probably have to turn in his passport. >> yeah, it's symbolic here, in some ways, of manafort walking in to the fbi offices. that was sort of planned, right? you know that this is almost, in some ways, theater. you could see him walking in,

being greeted by an fbi agent. that's an fbi agent there, greeting him, shaking his hand, and now they're walking in, where he's going to be processed. but look, there was all planned probably for some time. and there's a reason it's being done this way. the washington field office, the fbi here, in washington, d.c., has been investigating manafort for several years. before even the russia collusion investigation started. we've talked about the ukraine stuff, we've talked about the ferris stuff. so they have been on this case for quite some time. and you know, that is kind of symbolic. he is coming to them, he is -- it is something that they have worked on for years. and now he is surrendering to the fbi. it's quite a big deal for them, because they've been working this case for many, many years. >> and it's something that a lot of people around trump certainly, when this first came out, said we'd never see, that it would never happen. what do we know now about his business associate, gates? >> well, we don't know much more. we're obviously still trying to verify that. but as evan said earlier, they

worked together on this ukraine deal. so going back to what we had heard on friday, we did hear that they were going to be surrenders, that at least two people were expected to surrender. but we have -- we were sort of cautious in how we dealt with that, because we needed to verify it. and this morning, at least one of those people, we've been able to verify. they will both appear together, presumably, if it is rick gates, in court. and then we will hear arguments from prosecutors, probably, but more importantly, it's going to be interesting to see what manafort's defense lawyer has to say. manafort's people have taken issue with the scope, with what mueller, however he's been going, how far back he's been going. they have always felt that this investigation has gone well beyond his scope. well beyond the special counsel's scope. and they were even preparing some activity to try to express that. so that's going to be an

interesting moment there in court when his attorney gets up, presumably to argue for bail or whatever it may be. it's going to be interesting to see how he argues, what mueller has done here, and how far the special counsel has gone. s and also, you know, when we did this big story about a month or two ago, about the investigation, about the direction of the special counsel investigation, and how now it's been focusing on the financial dealings. and in that story, we talked about the president's view on that. and how, you know, he talked about this red line. that if he had some concern that the special counsel was now looking at finances of people close to him, of his family, some of that may also come to play today and again, it's going to be really interesting to see what's contained in the indictment in those documents, sort of the elements of this crime that will probably come out and bore out in those documents. >> oh, yeah. all of this is interesting. gentlemen, stand by for a second. do we have evan right now? evan is with us and i believe he has more information on rick gates, the business associate of

paul manafort. what have you learned, evan? >> well, one of the things that i couldn't talk about when we first broke the news a short while ago was that rick gates was also supposed to show up in court. he is expected to turn himself into the fbi. he has been notified that these charges have been filed. now, these charges are still under seal, as we mentioned, so paul manafort and rick gates are going to be turning themselves into the fbi. we just saw manafort and his attorney, kevin downing, walk into the washington field office. we expect the same, perhaps to happen with rick gates. and later this morning, we're going to see whether they go to court and ask for this indictment to be unsealed, which is the normal procedure for handling this type of thing. so we now know that there are two indictments. this is information that we already knew from friday. we sort of -- as shimon pointed out a little while ago, we held back some of this, because we wanted to see whether or not the attorneys were going to be notified. they were not immediately

notified, which was a bit of a surprise to us on friday. we now know that those notifications happened earlier today, and we expect both of these men to appear in federal court here in washington, d.c., to see what these charges are. get these charges unsealed. and then begin the proceedings there in federal court. chris and alisyn? >> right, separate appearances, obviously, because they would bnt indi n't be indicted together, they would be indicted on their own, maybe because of a joint set of facts. so michael zeldin, let's talk about what this means, all right? you guys are not a political panel. there's no question that the optics are bad. we have a president right now who was brought in to drain the swamp and one of his closest advisers just got indicted. so that's not good from pa political perspective. and the president conspicuously silent since this news came out. he had been tweeting this morning, talking about how hillary clinton's the real problem. now he just had one of his main guys walk into a field office to surrender. so, the optics have shifted.leg

the reaction of, this is all they got? manafort on some money from a hundred years ago? obviously there's nothing to this, otherwise they would have started with something about this campaign? >> well, i think ty cobb, counsel in the white house to the president on this matter knows better than to suggest that this is much ado about nothing. because until, first, we see the indictment and see what charges are made, we don't know how much there there is there. but i expect you're right, that the president, if it is just collateral tax charges that are disconnected to the conspiracy collusion inquiry might well say, this doesn't involve me. remember, the president said sort of famously, paul manafort, the name rings a bell, but i'm not sure that i remember him all that well. so it may well be that he distances himself from mfr mfan.

remember, he said he was with the campaign for a short period of time, even though he was campaign chairman. so you may get that line. but i think the notion that mueller is exceeding his mandate will be something that may play out politically if this is really just tax charges from 2012 forward. the red line that the president tried to draw in "the new york times" interview is something i think has got to weigh on him, because if they feel that they have the authority to look at manafort for taxes, then probably they want the president's tax returns. they probably want the kushner financial dealings, the cohen financial dealings, the flynn financial dealings. so all of those things get implicated in this and i expect that there may well be some attempt to push back politically. legally, i don't think they can push back. mueller's mandate is mueller's mandate and rosenstein defines what it is along with mueller. and you don't really have an opportunity in court to say, this indictment is no good,

because we believe it exceeds mueller's mandate. that's, you know, for the president, he might say, i've had it. we see this as a fishing expedition. i order you, rod rosenstein, to fire mueller. and that sets off another whole line of actions that could portend terrible things for the president legally, along the obstruction of justice, abuse of office continuum. >> gentlemen, thank you all for being here. please stand by. obviously this breaking story continues with developments. but we want to bring in republican congressman shaun duffy of wisconsin. he's been a supporter of president trump's. congressman, great to see you. i know that you've, watching this breaking news unfold, as have we, as have our viewers, since paul manafort just surrendered in the past few minutes to the field office in washington, d.c. of the fbi. what are your thoughts? >> well, listen, i don't have many thoughts quite yet, in that i don't know what this is about. is this about collusion between the trump campaign or russia or

is this about something that happened before the campaign and was it paying taxes, was it financial dealings with some foreign entity before manafort was involved in the campaign? those are questions that we haven't answered yet. and i think the seriousness of this will be determined as that information comes in. this could be a big old nothing burger if it was pre-campaign. but post-campaign, it's going to be serious stuff. >> yeah, but i mean, look, our experts have said, it can't be a nothing burger if, in fact, he had some sort of shady deal with a russia-friendly ukraine, you know, leader. and took money and then became the chairman of the trump campaign. don't these things bleed into each other? >> no, well, listen, fufirst of all, if he had these interactions before the campaign, that doesn't mean he brought donald trump into his mess. >> but did he bring his mess to

donald trump? >> well, that's a large leap to make, alisyn. i just, i can't make that one with you. and so to taint donald trump with things that manafort did before the campaign win, i thins a leap too far. but listen, we're going to look at this full picture, and as you reported, we'll see what the charges are for manafort, but we'll also look at the campaign with regard to the dossier and the clintons, we'll look at uranium one. the whole spectrum should be looked at and i think americans should know, what involvement russia had in our elections, who were they partnering with or colluding, and what tools or techniques did they use to influence or change our election. >> yeah, but the fact that the chairman of the trump campaign today surrendered to the fbi, in terms of significance on scale of 1 to 10, you think that's what? >> i don't know yet. it depends what the charges are. but alisyn, let me tell you this. what concerns me the is leaks that happened. that cnn, and good for you guys for getting this story, it's a

great scoop for the network. but as a lawmaker, i sit and go, why are we leaking information from the, special counsel to a news network? good for you, but i think bad for america. >> but, listen -- >> as we've seen all of these -- let me make the point. we've seen all these leaks take place. i'm sure that if there was evidence of collusion between donald trump and campaign with russia, this would would have been leaked out. you had the meeting between comey and donald trump on the dossier. you had this information, which is a crime to leak this information to you about an indictment. i believe that information would have been leaked out if it existed. and it hasn't yet, which makes me go, well, i think president trump's probably okay in that there was no collusion here and they have no evidence of collusion between trump, trump campaign, and russia. >> do you still -- i hear what you're saying. do you think still watching that picture of paul manafort surrender to the fbi, knowing that bob mueller's investigation has at least led to this indictment, do you think that this is all a witch hunt? >> well, listen, if you're paul

manafort, this is not good for you. you know, mueller's coming for you. you're sitting in the fbi building right now. you have serious problems on your hands. tlets not sugar coat that, alisyn. my concern is do we take that next leap and say, is that going to taint donald trump? i cannot take that leap. >> but can you say the whole investigation has not been a witch hunt. >> listen, i have very limited information on the investigation. >> but it's led to -- it's led to paul manafort surrendering and an indictment. >> yeah, so, if this was focused on campaign collusion with russia, no, i think this would be appropriate. but if we've gone back 15 years and looking at records of manafort, yeah, i think we're outside that scope. i mean, one of the -- first of all, i support the investigation. i'm not asking for it to end. but i do have concerns that

mueller is bringing in democrat campaign donors at a very high level. and i'm sure there are a lot of attorneys in america that haven't given to the republicans or democrats, that are very talented, that he could bring in to this investigation. that we've chosen to bring in democrat campaign donors. and i think that's a mistake on his part. let's bring in non-partisan folks that at least don't have a partisan record. because i think -- >> but you don't mean bob mueller? >> are you saying -- >> i'm saying the team that he's hiring. the team that he's hiring. the different lawyers who are giving to the dnc or hillary clinton, i think he opens himself up to attack when he brings in those kind of guys. we have a wide array of talented people in america. bring in people who haven't given to republicans or democrats. >> walter shaub just tweeted, every member of congress who cares about the public should pledge now to take decisive action against the white house if robert mueller is fired. your reaction. >> well, listen, i just told you

that i think that mueller should stay in place. and we should -- >> and you would take action to try -- you would take action against the white house if the president made some sort of move to get rid of robert mueller? >> listen, as facts change, so, too, can my opinion. but at this point, what we see this morning, i think that we should continue on. but, alisyn, what i think is important is, let's look at manafort. let's look at president trump. but, i mean -- and i get frustrated sometimes when i hear some of your reporting this morning. we also have to look at what impact did russia have with hillary clinton? and her campaign and the dossier. and uranium one. these are all big and bold questions. >> i hear you, i understand. it just feels like a diversion and a deflection this morning as we watch paul manafort surrender. >> no, no, i've been talking about this for weeks. the only collusion point we do have is the sense of dnc and hillary paying money to a law firm that went to fusion that

then paid russia agents to provide information and dirt on trump. i mean -- >> a british -- i don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole with you. >> i don't either. but i think my point to you, alisyn is, i want to look at all of it. and i think fair-minded americans say look at trump, look at clinton, look at the dnc, look at the rnc, we should look at all of russia's involvement here. but as you pointed out, as we've seen this video of manafort this morning, it's serious for him. and me as a republican congressman, i look forward to see whing what the charges are how serious this is and does it bleed into the campaign of president trump and where does it go? >> thank you very much for joining us this morning. chris? >> duffy would be a lot more upset if he were as curious as these charges as he is about hillary clinton and the dossier. i'll tell you that right now. let's bring in some people who aren't going to be motivated by politics on this, but we now know as fact. cnn senior political analyst, ron brownstein, and let's bring back legal analyst, michael zeldin, former prosecutor mario

renato and shimon prokupecz. let's bring up a name that we haven't said enough this morning, gates. gates matters a lot here. because he is not just a business associate of manafort, okay? he follows him everywhere, including into the campaign. fact, he was at the campaign after manafort left. people don't talk about that. he has been staying in contact with the white house. he was part of the inaugural committee. he moved outside into a lobbying firm that was helping with the president's efforts. so, he matters here. he's going to be a new name for people. it's an interesting political question. if he has been at the white house, if he has been in contact, those visitor logs come up again. >> yep. >> so what is your take? >> we don't know. >> what is your take on the politics of this recent development? >> you know, look, i think, you know, the argument from the president's support -- first of all, we don't know exactly what

the -- right, we don't know exactly what the charges are. >> but knowing who is charged matters. >> is critical. >> i thought the critical -- as i said earlier this morning, i think the critical question here is not how the president reacts, it's how the republicans react to whatever the president does. because, alisyn, your question at the end for all of the talking points, whether you want to talk about uranium one, the dossier. the place where there is a blade, where there is actual action from the congress is whether they will signal to the president that if he moves to end this special counsel investigation, they will, in some way, vote to reinstate it. and i think that everything else from the hill, at this point, is kind of talking points. something you have to talk about -- >> you heard them, sticking like glue. >> when you go on television. the key question is, everything that we see from this president, and brings it into a closer relationship -- everything we've seen from him is that he is not bound by the usual conventions of what we consider the kind of boundaries that limit a president in the way he

exercises his power. and if republicans on the hill do not want to spend the 2018 election defending the firing of the special counsel, i think they have to make very clear, in advance, that that is something they would act against very strongly. >> michael zeldin, what do you see in the past 35 minutes of all the news that has unfolded here, with paul manafort showing up at the fbi field office? >> well, we have a serious charge against an important player, the scope of which is unknown. the tentacles of which could be very far-reaching, and that will be played out. but that mueller has put a marker down that he believes financial crimes are relevant within his mandate to investigate matters that may arise out of the russia collusion counterintelligence inquiry. and so mueller's view that he has the authority to bring these charges, irrespective of whether they're tied to the main

collusion conspiracy thing, i think is an important thing for all the players the who are in the orbit of this investigation. >> right. well, that's also something that the talking point neglects. the idea of saying, this went back a long way, renato, so obviously it has nothing to do with the campaign. that is a naive assumption. because the theory of the case is, well, they made relationships during that time. how did those relationships come to bear? and that's why i go back to rick gates. because the trump team kept him around after manafort left, which, you know, politically, is now going to look like an even more suspect decision. he stayed in the campaign. he stayed with a central role. he was in the inaugural committee. and then when he did leave, he went into a lobbying firm that was still very connected to the white house. is it relevant if he stayed in contact with the wlohite house? if he's visited the white house? >> well, if they are transmitting information, sure. >> what does that mean, renato,

transmitting information? >> yeah, well, certainly, certainly that's something that mueller will be looking at. and i have to say, i heard testimony congressman's comments to us a minute ago. maybe i don't know the politics of it all, but i would say from a legal perspective, if i was a lawyer advising the president and his team or his associates, what i would tell them is, don't make any assumptions at all about what mueller has or what he's investigating based on this single indictment. because if you think that this is the end for this investigation, you're mistaken. this does not mean that mueller doesn't have other evidence. it doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more there. what it means is, this is what he is very confident and ready to charge today. he may have charged it because there's a statute of limitations issue, and just for viewers, what that means, you cannot go back too far in terms of charging a crime. there's a deadline, essentially,

for prosecutors. so he met his deadline today on certain charges. that does not mean that we will not see paul manafort face additional charges in the future. and today, we've -- you know, a number of have discussed, does this go beyond mueller's mandate and will they make arguments? i can tell you, and i represented people on the other side, too, as a criminal defense attorney, after leaving as a federal prosecutor. i think that is a very, very limited and potentially very weak legal strategy to say, look, my client is fating an indictment. my defense is that the special counsel shouldn't be the one bringing this indictment, it should be brought by the united states attorney's office or someone else. you know, frankly, that's the sort of thing where, fine, then this indictment gets dismissed and it gets rebrought, you know, by somebody else a day later. ultimately, it's something that's of very little consequence. what matters for paul manafort is, you have been charged with a federal crime and i suspect that that federal crime is going to be a felony. it's a very serious matter. and if anyone thinks that's a nothing burger, i would, in the

manafort camp, they have serious -- they have serious problems in terms of their legal analysis. >> so shimon, all of this breaking news that we've been following this morning follows your reporting, your -- you and the team from cnn, reporting -- i mean, cnn broke the news on friday to watch and that this would be happening. and in fact, lo and behold this morning, it is happening. so today, we just saw paul manafort surrender at the washington field office of the fbi. will the public hear the charges laid out today against him? >> well, absolutely. they will hear it through us, once these documents are released. now, we don't -- you don't necessarily have to wait until this afternoon, when they appear in court for the documents to release. there are instances where once someone is in custody, once they've been arrested, the u.s. attorney will then ask the judge to unseal the indictments. so that could happen within the next hour. you know, court opens at around 9:00 a.m. so we could, at any point,

starting around 9:00, 9:30, maybe 10:00 a.m., once rick gates is the in custody and once they're close to finishing the process of the bookings, we may get copies of those indictments and really start to learn what this is all about. because up until now, everything has been sealed. and you know, we've heard, this goes back to 2005 and 2006 and finances and it has to do with maybe trips in russia and financial dealings overseas. but that's all really -- all we really know, what bob mueller has been looking at. but we just don't know exactly what charges are here. >> all right, we've got -- >> hopefully within the next hour, we'll get some indications of what these guys are charged with. >> we have jeffrey toobin coming back in right now and we're filling out the reporting. obviously, the big headline, paul manafort surrenders this morning to the washington field office of the fbi. but probably just as important, but i want your take on this, is his business associate, rick gates. because that's not all he is, okay? he followed manafort into the campaign. he stayed in the campaign after

manafort was gone. when he did eventually leave, he went to a lobbying firm that was very connected to the president. our understanding is that he stayed in contact with the white house. how big a deal is rick gates, who's only on record as having said, everything was done legally and with the approval of our lawyers. nothing to my knowledge was ever done inappropriately. well, he's just been indicted. >> when you're indicted for felonies, everything is a big deal. and this is enormously significant for mueller's investigation, and for the white house. i mean, these people were intimately involved with the trump campaign. and they are going to want to know what their contracts were, both before and after the president was elected. another thing to keep in mind about a white collar crime indictment is these cases do not move very quickly. this case, if it goes to trial, if there are no guilty pleas, it will almost certainly take place mid- or late 2018.

so this is not the beginning of the end. this is the end of the beginning. >> second person to quote that this morning. >> did i? >> i apologize for recycling that cliche. but it is -- you know, it's true. this is months and months of trial preparation, motions to dismiss the case, motions about discovery. you know, if anyone was hoping that this case will wrap up by the end of the year, today's announcement is a guarantee that it won't. >> and it also feels like we are at the point in the story where it becomes very important to differentiate between arguments and actions. it's pretty clear from what you heard from congressman duffy and over the weekend that republicans on the hill are going to raise up the visibility of the dossier, raise up the visibility of uranium one, convene hearings, do all of that kind of thing. >> it's already happening. >> the president is going to argue that this is a witch hunt, that it is motivated by partisan malice to undermine their agenda. fine, they can make all of those arguments they want. the question is, what are the

actions? does the president move in any way to terminate the investigation? and if he does, whatever else -- whatever else hearings they're convening, do the republicans on the hill accept that and take the risk of accepting that into the 2018 election or move to block it? i think the argument and the actions now have to be seen through very different lenses. >> and the real possibility is that the house of representatives, under paul ryan, may impeach hillary clinton for being a citizen of chappaqua. because that's all she is at this point. and, you know, the idea that, you know, hillary clinton -- an investigation of her is a good use of their time. >> well, it works fine, politically. it works well with the base. >> gives them something to talk about on talk radio. >> every time he says "hillary clinton," it's like in the mel brooks movie, every time they say "nurse" and you hear the horn go, whoo! so it works on that level. but renato, we're in much deeper water now. do you agree with jeffrey

toobins that this is just the end of the beginning? >> there's no question about that. jeffrey is completely right on that point. you know, wherever somebody is indicted, people don't realize, you know, we have a long legal process in this country. people have rights, including paul manafort. he has the right to challenge the indictment, as mr. toobin said. he has a right to get discovery. in other words, get the documents and evidence from the government. and then, you know, by the way, at some point, if there were additional charges, we don't know if that's the case, but just for your viewers to understand, if additional charges are brought, that could start the clock going again. you know, in other words, it could restart the clock. i mean, really, the reason that federal prosecutors often wait until late or the end of the investigation to make charges is because it puts them on a clock and starts the legal process going. but that legal process will last for quite some time. and i will say this, as well, because we're talking about the possibility of an investigation being ended, you know, if bob mueller was removed by the

president of the united states, which i have to say, is unprecedented, and as somebody who was in law enforcement for a long time, and is committed to the criminal justice process, i think it's a horrifying possibility, but if that was the case, that does not mean that the indictment is dismissed. that does not mean that the fbi just disappears. it doesn't mean that the evidence in their files, in their computer system is terminated. it doesn't mean that the case is closed. and so, even if that action was taken, you know, to the extent people who are involved in politics are watching, that does not necessarily mean that the wheels of the criminal justice system stop for paul manafort. >> michael, i want to ask you about what congressman sean duffy just told us. and that was, basically, his attitude was, this could be ancient history, if this is some sort of financial thing that happened a decade ago, when he was working in ukraine, it has no connection to the trump campaign. why broil the trump campaign in this if it's old history with paul manafort. what are your thoughts on that? >> so, first thing that comes to

mind is wishing doesn't make it so. he may wish this to be the case, but until we see what the indictment charges, it doesn't make it so. and the fact that it is disconnected, if it is, from the core collusion conspiracy charge does not mean that it doesn't open the door further to either charges directly in that case, with respect to manafort and the activities that he he is alleged to have undertaken with respect to the june 9th meeting and the promise of access to the president, if he's paid moneys owed from uranium, if he's not done other things that are communicative in the collusion context. but it also opens the door potentially for an agreement with manafort to offer testimony with respect to others. because flynn, i think, sits in a very similar legal situation to manafort. that is, that he, in the flynn intel group, with his son, did

similar types of activity to what manafort is alleged to have done with respect to ukraine. they both received money. they both didn't declare the money. there may be foreign tax violations with respect to that non-reporting. there may be conspiracies with others, with respect to that -- the hiding of that money and bribe payment, with respect to the covering up of the source of those funds. so there's a lot of stuff here that still has to be fleshed out, but which may portend deep trouble for other people who are similarly situated to manafort. and that could be trump. you can't rule that out. as i said, wishing doesn't make it so for representative duffy. and it's too early to say that, which is why i think they're, in political terms, sticking to the talking points. >> okay. on that note, gentlemen, thank you all very much for the perspective. we will have you standing by, but we do need to take a quick break. >> all right. interesting to note, still no word from the president since

this news of paul manafort, one of his main advisers, turning himself in. we'll be right back with new details. where could we be going from here?

by listening to an thiaudiobook on audible.ame and this guy is just trying to get through the day. this guy feels like he can take on anything. this guy isn't sure he can take it anymore. unwavering self-confidence. stuck in a 4-door sedan of sadness. upgrade your commute. ride with audible. dial star star audible on your smartphone to start listening today. you wof your daily routine, so why treat your mouth any differently? complete the job with listerine® help prevent plaque, early gum disease, bad breath and kill up to 99.9% of germs. listerine® bring out the bold™ feel the power of thenew power...smax. ...to fight back

theraflu's powerful new formula to defeat 7 cold and flu symptoms... fast. so you can play on. theraflu expressmax. new power.

what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter. morgan stanley big news here. we've seen the special prosecutor take his first real legal action and it's right on your screen. paul manafort, the former trump campaign chairman, surrendering

at an fbi field office in washington, there with his attorney, going in, of course, this follows the news that he has been indicted. so has his business associate, rick gates. we are waiting to see whether or not mr. gates will surrender today, as well. we'll follow on that. gates, a very important part of this story. a new name for many of you. joining us now, matthew axelrod. he's the former senior justice department official under sally yates. great to get your perspective on this. what does today mean to you and what do we see today with mr. manafort and maybe mr. gates? >> yeah, thanks, chris. i think what's significant about today is i think it makes it hard going forward for people to credibly allege that this is some sort of witch hunt or some sort of waste of taxpayer resources. special counsel mueller and the team of prosecutors and investigators he's assembled are real, they're serious, and they are doing their work methodically, and it's resulted

today in charges against paul manafo manafort, if all the reporting is accurate. and that's a significant step. i think it means that, as i said, going forward, it's harder for people to credibly argue that this is some sort of diversion. because it's a -- if it's an indictment, it's a felony charge. and that's very serious. >> well, if it's not on manafort, i would love to know why he walked in the front door of that field office this morning, because i'm sure it's the last place he wants to be. we're also learning that rick gates has also reportedly surrendered, entered into the fbi field office, so we'll see what happens next. now, to your initial point about people should see this as being the real deal, the pushback will be, well, we don't know what it's about. it could just be about, how he accounted for money he got during activities, many years ago, gates was his business partner then, of course, and has nothing to do with anything that happened during the campaign. your assessment? >> yeah, sure, and look, that's

fair, but i think that what's important is that there was probable cause that was determined by an ordinary group of citizens, sitting as a grand jury, that paul manafort committed a federal crime. and the time frame and the specifics of that federal crime we'll learn, presumably, later today. but what's important is that the efforts of the special prosecutor, the special counsel and his team have not been for nothing. they've resulted in uncovering a federal crime that they believe was committed. of course, he's presumed innocent. but at least there's been a probable cause determination, not only by the prosecutors, but also by this grand jury, comprised of ordinary citizens. which means that this is serious business. whether it ultimately has to do with the trump campaign or not, i think is sort of irrelevant, at this point. what matters is the special counsel and the endeavor he's embarked upon is important and is bearing some fruit at the end of -- you know, at this point in the investigation. >> well, we'll see where it

goes. matthew axelrod, appreciate your perspective on this. this is certainly a place where we needed your help. thanks for being here. we'll come back to you as we learn more. >> thanks, chris. >> let's bring back the rest of our panel, we have michajeffrey toobin, michael zeldin, and renato marrioiottimariotti. what happens next? >> he will be brought over to the courthouse and he will have his initial appearance before the judge. we'll learn which judge is assigned to the case. that's always a very important stage, because there are many different judges and they have different personalities and different approaches to things. the first question to be dealt with will be bail. now, i assume he will be let out on his own recognizance. he may have to post something, he may have to post nothing at all. and this is true for rick gates, as well and then there will be a schedule that will start to be

set. they'll discuss what the schedule will be for motions. >> for our purposes, we will hear the charges. we will know what he is charged with by the end of business today. >> probably before that. because when a -- when a person appears in federal court, we have no cameras in federal court, in the united states. but that is a public proceeding. and the indictment will be made public at that point. >> and that's what the point of the arraignment is, to call to account. doesn't mean he puts in a plea. and it doesn't mean that you won't see more charges. >> right. he probably will plead not guilty. or his lawyer will plead not guilty for him. certainly, he's not going to plead guilty today. it's really the first step in the process. and you're right. an arraignment is to inform the defendant of the charges against -- >> the sixth amendment right. >> exactly. >> and that is also when the charges become public. >> so, back to the rick gates development. though he's not a household name, renato, he is significant. because when paul manafort exited the campaign, he exited,

but rick gates has been at the white house in and out all year. and so it's important to know what he's been doing there. >> absolutely. and i will say, you know, from a legal perspective, what i'm interested in, i know there's been some talk this morning about how there's a statute of limitations as to manafort on a particular tax charge. it will be interesting to see if gates is charged with the same crime or something elsewhere there's a statute of limitations issue. if not, what that would suggest to me is that mueller, you know, is trying to flip gates. what i mean by "flip," is that, you know, he's trying to get his cooperation against manafort. or, potentially, he already has that cooperation and these charges are part of that. it will be interesting to see, but we are going to learn a lot about -- a lot more about mr. gates, and, you know, it will be interesting to see exactly what he's charged with, because he is now facing a lot of legal jeopardy. folks at home are sitting here

talking about indictments and it sounds like, oh, you know, we're talking about it in a technical way. these are not numbers and facts to these individuals. i mean, mr. gates is now facing the very real possibility, or i shouldn't say possibility, i should say, probability that he is going to face some time in federal prison. and that is a very serious matter for anybody. and so, you know, there is going to be a calculus that is going to be going on in his head and in mr. manafort's head. and as they receive the evidence, that's going to be part of the schedule that jeffrey talked about a moment ago. part of the schedule will be, you know, when does discovery need to be produced to the defense? and that means the evidence that will be used by the government against them. as they look at that discovery and see the evidence against them, they'll be weighing a calculation in terms of whether or not they cooperate with mr. mueller and his fbi investigation. >> on the one side, you have the idea, you can indict a ham sandwich. we all know that line. on the other side, rick gates is

now uniquely motivated to tell these guys what he knows. >> it's also a new trip wire. if the president ends the special counsel investigation, he is now, effect, trying to disrupt an actual ongoing criminal case. >> no word from the president yet this morning, though. we'll see what he says. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for helping us with all of this breaking news and all of your expertise. cnn's breaking news coverage continues with newsroom with poppy harlow and john berman. all right. a lot to get to this monday morning. good morning, i'm poppy harlhar. >> i'm john berman. major breaking news this morning. it has begun. former trump campaign chairman, paul manafort, surrendered to this morning. these are the first criminal charges in the investigation from special counsel robert mueller. who knows if they are the last. we also just learned the that key manafort associate rick gates has turned himself in. >> it began as an investigation into russian m