that is our broadcast on a monday night as we start off the new week. thank you so very much and good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. happy monday. the former head of the national security division at the justice department is going to be our guest here tonight. i'm excited about that and there is a bunch of news that unfolded over the course of really the last 48 hours, but also the day to day and into the night tonight. a whole bunch of news that is national security division at the justice department kind of news. i'm happy we have that guest on top. he will be here in just a few minutes. that's a big deal. in august 2016, specifically august 19th, 2016, the chairman of the donald trump for president campaign resigned. now looking back on that moment now, it is important and strange for a bunch of different reasons. at the time it was remarkable

that the campaign chairman of a major party nominee for president was resigning for the campaign under a cloud of allegations that he received millions of dollars from a pro russian political party operating in the former soviet union. in the history of presidential politics, that was a moment in itself. in terms of the immediate electoral politics, that august 19th be departure because he received his party he nomination 2.5 months before the general election. that is him losing yet another chairman. having to get a third campaign chairman. that moment this time, august 19th, 2016 ended up being a historical turning point. the new campaign chair who came on to replace paul manafort was the publisher of a fairly obscured super hard line right

wing website associated with the white nationalist movement in this country. it was also oddly associated with over the top passionate support for britain leaving the european union. the brexit campaign and the trump campaign would both later come under scrutiny for being illegally assisted by the russian government. at the time that was only one of a million bizarre story lines in the election of 2016. looking back at that date, looking back at august 19th, the day paul manafort left the trump campaign, we can see one other very, very specific reason why that date of manafort leaving the campaign was so important. and ultimately so weird. on that date, that exact day when paul manafort quit, he also somehow found time that same day to set up a new llc called

summer breeze. huh? you might think he would be busy that day being ousted from running the republican party's campaign weeks before the election, but nope. that day he found time to set up this holding company. i don't know why holding company, but it turned out to be a handy company. in doesn't 2016, after the election in the transition, that company, summer breeze, which manafort set up on the day he quit the campaign, that company received a $9.5 million loan from a tiny bank in chicago that supposedly specialize said in loaning to u.s. veterans. paul manafort is not a veteran. not only did he get that loan from that chicago bank in doesn't 2016, the following month he got two more

multimillion loans from the same bank for a total of $16 million in cash from the one bank that specializes in lending to veterans. the "wall street journal" was first to report on these odd transactions between manafort and this chicago bank including the fact that the holding company was set up on the day that manafort left the campaign. the loans to paul manafort was hugely outsized compared to the resources of that bank. that $16 million that the bank handed over to paul manafort over a few weeks between december 2016 and january 2017, the loans represented nearly a quarter of all the loanable assets for that little bank. in february 2018, nbc news reported that robert mueller's office, special counsel's office was looking into those loans to paul manafort in the transition and somewhat ominously for paul manafort and the bank, in,

about, c repothey learned that were questionable. one source said at least one of the bank employee who is felt pressured to approve the manafort deals is now cooping with investigators. eek. that same day the "wall street journal" reported that the bank's decision to give all that cash to paul manafort in the transition might have been part of an almost too ridiculous to be believed quid pro quo. around the time his bank made the manafort loans in late 2016 and 2017, the chief executive of the chicago bank was seeking to become secretary of the army. now, like the u.s. army. secretary doesn't always mean highest job, but being secretary of the army mean this is guy from the chicago bank who has given this money to paul manafort, he thought he was going to run the u.s. army.

mr. caulk was placing calls to the spent gon and specifically to army hundred quarters asking for briefings to obtain information and preparing himself for a possible job according to a person familiar with the inquirienquiries. his overtures raised questions with military leaders as to how to respond. the "wall street journal" was first on the story out of the gate. they had the initial reports on something unusual having happened between the trump campaign chairman who resigned under the weird cloud related to russia and the bank in chicago. they had the first reports in the spring of 2017 not long after the inauguration and the journal stayed on the story ever since. even as we have seen them slowly simmer and steam and boil over a year now, it is still rather astonishing that somehow the president's campaign chair duped this guy in chicago not only into giving him $16 million, but he apparently duped him into

doing that after the trump campaign chair had already been kicked off for being too obvious of a russian stooge. months after that he convinces the guy to give him $16 million and persuades the guy that that will result in him becoming secretary of the army. this guy not only was allegedly trying to get this quid pro quo. he thought he got it. he dials 1-800-go army. this is the new guy. can i speak to my office? i need my briefing materials. what? this is months after manafort redesigned in disgrace. we haven't seen that bank ceo, this guy steve caulk since the allegations surfaced. no charges were brought against him, but this allegation is no longer just in the papers. it made its way into the federal criminal case against paul manafort.

this is from a filing from earlier this month. counts 29 through 32 of the superseding indictment charnlth defendant with bank fraught and conspireing to commit bank fraught against a financial institution, lender d, in seeking and securing loans totalling approximately $16 million. it is financial institution in this filing, they call it lender d. we have every reason to believe that lender d in this case is steve caulk's bank. the federal savings bank in chicago. it's a tiny institution. between april 2016, during the campaign, and january 2017, the month of the inauguration, he made and conspired to make false representations to secure these loans. both loan applications were approved by a senior executive at the federal savings bank who sought the defendant's

assistance to obtain a position which he obtain and later in the administration of president trump which he did not obtain. so from reporting at nbc news and the "wall street journal" and other places, we believe that this bank executive from this bank in chicago, he did get a position on an economic advisory counsel that was advising trump. but if these public reports are true, he was also persuaded by paul manafort that he was going to get the army, too. he would be put in charge of the army. he never did actually obtain that job. in the list of evidence they filed with the court showing what evidence they are going to cite in their case against paul manafort, there is a number of e-mails that reference this bank ceo. including with the subject line, need steve caulk resume. or do you?

so he can run the army? two weeks before manafort gets kicked off the trump campaign, e-mail leads steve caulk professional bio. he is probably already calling him mr. secretary. now today in court, the why j in the case starred to show us the substance behind the allegations that have mostly been steled out in the press. the judge unsealed the fact that not just one, but two employees of this bank in chicago have been granted immunity in exchange for come as witnesses of the are prosecution. five witness were all pleading the fifth and saying they wouldn't testify to avoid incriminating themselves. prosecutors got permission from a senior official at the justice department department limited immunity so their testimony can be compelled.

they can be forced to testify and the testimony can't be used against them as long as they don't lie in court. the judge today accepted all of those immunity deals and surprise, the judge also decided in court today in sort of one of those sessions you have seen in courtroom dramas on where the judge asked counsel to approach the bench and the people can't hear what's going on and it happens at the judge's bench. that's how they had this discussion today. in that discussion that people in the courtroom couldn't hear and we got the transcript of it, the judge explains that yeah, he has to grant immunity, but surprise, he's also going to reveal their identities. the prosecution wanted all their names kept secret unless and until they actually ended up testifying. the judge said i'm telling everyone who they are. the people who watched the

hearing didn't hear this happen, but we know we just got this a few minutes ago. the judge. i received a number of motions that were under seal, requested to be under seal for the witnesses. why do they need to be under seal. these are witnesses granted immunity by the government and are reluctant or don't want to testify. therefore you are asking the court to issue an order because you granted immunity on their testimony. they still don't want to testify and you want an order. why should that be under seal. the prosecutor, we have told them that immunity from the court which i understand the court must grand under statute. the reason it's under seal, the individuals have not been made public. the department has a policy to not name them unless we have and the judge intervenes and said i don't have that policy and it's going to be public.

once we are here, everything ought to be in open court. the prosecutor said can i make one other point? the judge said yes. he said some of the witnesses we prepared out of abundance of caution, we are prepared to call the balances, but there is a chance we will not calling them. resealing them is admitting exposure and we don't call them as a witness. we are trying to be thoughtful. the judge,ings phi do it here in court, i issue an order, it's going to be public. prosecutor, no question, your honor. the judge, i don't care whether they testify or not. i understand your reasons for wanting to be under seal, but i think it's appropriate to identify. that's all happening at the observe. the judge and the lawyers are talking about whether or not the witnesses are going to have their names made public. the prosecutors are like we don't think that's necessary. the judge is like i'm making them public. and he did.

so these are the people whose immunity deals were unsealed by the judge. these are not household names. these appear to be people who worked in services related to manafort. these two here are apparently former or current employees for kwc, manafort's accounting firm. this person is related to an insurance firm. that suggests it was involved with manafort getting big bank loans, but these two guys, these two guys are current or former employees of that little bank in chicago. furthermore savings bank in chicago. if all the reportings of his interactions with that bank and offering to sell a fake job in the trump administration to that bank president in exchange for $16 million, if that public reporting is even close to accurate, that's a bad sign for

mr. manafort that two employees from that bank have been granted immunity to testify for prosecutors in their case against paul manafort. but that is just way in which things have continued to go very badly for mr. manafort in court. he sat in court in a rumpled dark green prison jump suit and not called upon to say anything and he didn't say anything. you can't imagine he is happy with how things are going. he continues to lose either in whole or in part every single substantive motion related to his case. today, for example, his lawyers tried to exclude from consideration the nature of the work that manafort did in ukraine when he worked for the pro putin, pro russian strong man president ousted in a popular up rising. manafort's lawyers said that information about who his big client was, that would be prejudicial information and

would turn the jury against him. unnecessary to prove or disprove the specific changes that manafort is facing in virginia. the judge considered that argument today at length. there was a lot of back and forth about that, but the judge said no. they said the jurors need to know where paul manafort made his money and why he suddenly might have been in need of a new source of funds after his new money client went back to moscow to live in exile. the jurors will have to know about what happened to the big spiggot of money he was latched on to until 2014. that's what prosecutors said. here's how that played out in court with the judge. the judge it is you are seeking to preclude the government with the work they did for the ukrainian president. is that right? >> that's correct.

the judge, and why wouldn't that be relevant? the judge decide that is the prosecutors won that argument. paul manafort's lawyers today tried to exclude from his trial any reference to manafort's time as chairman of the trump for president campaign. the judge also rejected that from manafort's lawyers. basically saying this is this allegation about manafort getting the $16 million from this chicago bank in exchange for him running the army. the judge today ruled yeah, whatever else we decide about this information about you running the trump campaign, that has to stay in. the judge said the defendant seeks to preclude argument concerning any collusion with the russian government and defendant's affiliation with the trump campaign. the prosecutor said we don't

intend to admit evidence about russia collusion, but we said that as a small portions of the trial deals with bank fraud relating to a particular bank. mr. manafort's role is relevant because a motivation to extend the loan not with standing the fraud was that the chairman sought and obtained a position in the trump campaign for mr. manafort and sought, but did not ultimately obtain a position in the trump administration. the judge said did this person know the information submitted was not accurate. the prosecutor said yes, he did. the judge said doesn't that present you with a problem of fraud? the attorney said no because the fraud was on the bank and not the individual. the judge said all right. mr. manafort's involvement was prevalent throughout, but it's hard to take out the facts, if

not impossible. the judge said respect to the affiliation with the trump campaign, it's denied as to what you just receiver referred to. the bank loan with respect to the banker who went along with the fraud so he could get a job. the judge's ruling that that part of manafort working for the trump campaign, that's going to be in the trail. paul manafort skz forasked for delay until after his other felony trial in washington, d.c. this september. one reason he is asking sfor tht delay is he only got access to his records recently. manafort's lawyers made the case that he needs more time to go through his own bookkeeping records. the judge in this hearing today did not seem impressed with this line of argument. the judge said you are saying

you didn't have access to your own bookkeeping records? correct. the judge it is really, mr. downing said yes. the judge said it's your own book keeper. it's your own book keeper until your book keeper gets a subpoena and demands and the judge said -- the judge said until what? >> mr. downing said they got the book keeper from the u.s. book keeper. they didn't do that and refused to turn the records over. he had conversations to get the files back. the judge said well, go to court and get the do you means that. belong to your client. manafort's lawyer said well, we thought we would get them in discovery. it's a lot cheaper. the judge said no, it depends on

how you calculate the expense other than dollars and cents. the judge considered that request from paul manafort to delay his trial in part because he hasn't reviewed his own bookkeeping records? judge? his book keeper wants to charge money to get them back to look at them. the way evidence unfolds in a case like this, if the government used evidence, the government has to show you what they are going to use and they need to provide copies of what they are going to use. paul manafort decided rather than pay his book keeper to get his records back, he waited until the prosecutors and he would get a copy. he wants to delay the trial until november because he is that cheap about his records. the judge is like really? just because it was too expen expensi expensive. the judge ruled on that and said you can have your delay. you want a four-month delay, you can have a delay.

you can have six days. see you tuesday of next week. i have before me a motion for continuan continuance. there are good reasons on both sides and in the end is i decided to postpone the commencement until the 31st of july. it gives you another week and we will start tomorrow with the juror questionnaires. you will simply have to work hard to complete the review. so jurors will start turning up in virginia tomorrow. a pool of potential jurors will be on site and he will pick the 12 jurors and four alternates. the campaign chairman of the sitting president of the united states is on trial. we don't know if the president is rattled by that or whether or not the trial of the campaign chairman is causing what it seems like we have seen in the past few days with the president seeming more volatile than usual

alongside his escalating public attacks on the russia investigation and the fbi and intelligence agencies. the president has also threatened a war with iran. he had his white house press secretary announce he was maybe going to revoke security clearances who have criticized him in public including specifically named individual who is don't have security clearances now. there is nothing for him to revoke. the president also today at the white house in front of reporters went on an unscripted rant about globalists. whatever you think of that, it was unhinged from the specific topic. he was making remarks on it at that moment. the legal cases keep unfolding here. regardless of the president's complaining and whatever else he says or does, the things keep unfolding and it's worth bracing ourselves that as the legal cases proceed, that may generate more, not less zigging and

zagging and changes of subjects from the president. in terms of what to expect over the next couple of days, we thought that maria butina would be back in court tomorrow, the russian citizen charged with being a secret agent of the russian government operating to influence the republican party around the election. that hearing has been moveed from tomorrow to wednesday. "the washington post" is reporting that butina received significant financial support from a billionaire olegark. he is named in "the washington post." the post notes that that olegark's son worked on the donald trump campaign. the russian guy who apparently funded this alleged illegal russian government influence operation related to the 2016 campaign also had his son working for trump. i know that feels like a marginal new development of the

kind we have been hearing a lot of. that's a remarkable new thing because just over the last couple of days that, kid, the olegark's son is at least the second person tied to an alleged russian government spying operation who is actively working as part of the campaign in 2016. the government took the unprecedented step of declassifying multiple applications for surveillance warrants against a trump policy adviser named carter page. that raised a lot of national security questions about why they did that. why we can see that material and whether it's dangerous. we will get to more of that later on in the show tonight. even though the president responded to that fisa warrant being declassified by insisting that it vindicated him in the russia investigation, what that warrant showed in black and white is that the president named somebody as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign who was believed to be a foreign

agent. a russian foreign agent advising him on foreign policy in the campaign. one week ago today, the president had a summit with vladimir putin and since then his behavior has been volatile and erratic even for him. as we watch the legal cases continue to unfold, i think it is reasonable to expect that things are probably going to get weirder before they settle down, if they ever do settle down. buckle up. we have lots to come. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models

plus $1,000 bonus cash. here's a trip tip: when you search hotels on tripadvisor... enter your destination and the dates of your stay. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to find the best deal on the right hotel for you. tripadvisor. sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life.

[ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. 3 toddlers won't stop him.. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet.

dr. scholl's. born to move.

about a month after paul manafort left the trump campaign was ties to pro russia political entities. another left in similar circumstances. carter page was part of the trump campaign's foreign policy team, but in september 2016, the hmong after manafort left, carter page is being investigated by u.s. intelligence. days after the colors, page resigned saying he was taking a

leave offan sen absence. carter page had no role. they were not aware of any of his activities past and present. this weekend the government declassified four applications for court ordered surveillance warrants for carter page after his time on the trump campaign. these are fisa warrants which were made public over the weekend. they used to not acknowledge these things existed. the applications for fisa warrants in 2016 through late 2017, they bluntly described carter page as an agent of a foreign power. the fbi believes page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the russian government. for months, the president and republicans in congress called the carter page fisa surveillance a gross abuse of power. a prime example of overreach.

in these newly released documents, you can see not just the fbi considering the diesel dossier as a reliable and credible source, you can see them telling the court that steel was hired to do the digging on the trump campaign for political reasons. something that republicans denied the court had been informed about. more substantively than that, we also now just got this mountain of other evidence that went into the fbi calling carter page a russian agent. the meetings to reporting state side to the spy ring that tried to recruit him in new york. republicans are calling if are more of the application for fisa warrants to be revealed and get un redacted and released. -i'm nought sure we have that as much from the parts we all right see. few dealt with fisa on a day to

day basis and signed thousands of applications for approval. joining us now is one of those people. former assistant attorney general for the justice department who who signed many applications and wrote the book on national security investigates and prosecutions for the u.s. government. thanks for your time. >> for a lay audience, can you explain the difference between a fisa warrant and a normal warrant? >> a fisa warrant for a physical search is focused on dealing with agents of foreign powers. national security threats to the united states rather than ordinary crimes. fisa is focused on spies and terrorists where as ordinary warrants are typically focused on ordinary criminals like drug dealers and the like. >> a lot of people looking atty redacted fisa applications were

struck by the heft. we have about 400 pages released this week and 412 pages. given that focus of fisa warrants on spies and terrorists, in order to prove the volume they have to provide to the court to cross that threshold. >> fisa applications are quite long. they are big enough that you don't top the drop them on your foot and they contain a lot of information and detail because the statute is quite exacting and what it hires the government to establish in order to get the government granted. >> in terms of the release this weekend, this is obviously the product of some wrangling in terms of trying to get this made public for political reasons and for giving the public the right to know.

before this, they never had anyone close to this kind of information about fisa warrants or applications. this is an unprecedented disclosure, isn't it? >> it is unprecedented. fisa applications are not even released to defense attorneys in criminal prosecutions of people who have been wire tapped under fisa let alone revealed to the general public. this is an extraordinary event that occurred. >> do you think it's dangerous? are you concern smd. >> by the time we got to these applications, a lot of water was under the bridge thanks to the back and forth by devin nunez and his disclosures of information. what i see in these redacted fisas is that the government revealed things that were already in the public domain thanks to prior activity, but they haven't added new

information or not very much that i see. >> the current calls by republicans in congress to unredact more of this application, they are trying to create political pressure and pressure from the white house to expose even more of this application. i just wanted to ask your reaction to that and whether i'm right in reading this as a layman to wonder if if further redactionses would result in more evidence that carter page was a foreign agent. >> you are right that these applications already substantially undermine the president's narrative and that was his proxies. it seems to me very likely if we get below the tip of the iceberg and submerged, it will get worse and not better. it would also potentially be dangerous to disclose additional informs.

some of this pertains to ongoing activity and intelligence sources and methods and that's why they kept the information back that means we will be in a posture of a symmetric warfare with the president free to make up whatever faxes suit him and the fbi limited in what it can say in response because of his obligation to protect the sources and methods. >> former director of the national security division, thank you for joining us tonight. it's a pleasure to have you here. >> thank you. >> much more to come with us. stay with us. discover our largest variety of crab and crab dishes all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. sweet, juicy king crab and jumbo snow crab cozied up with crab linguini alfredo. even our shrimp is crab-topped! so hurry in and get your butter-dunkin' game on! 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. and now bring home the seafood you crave with red lobster to go. call or order online today.

just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their dayr you crave with red lobster to go. back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or

allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card. well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

they were back out there tonight. a smaller group, but still loud on purpose. now with drummers. now with more organized singing to help them reach the president's ears. they sang the national anthem to launch paul manafort's trial. this marx the eighth night in the row since the president stood alongside vladimir putin. now the post putin protests across the street from the white house are no longer reserved for just across the street. protesters decked themselves out in a specific costume to greet mike pence there to campaign for a republican senate candidate in hand maid's tale red. this might be a-night only event, but across from the white house, this determined group is

telling us they are gearing up for another night of protests tomorrow. i guess every night from here on out across the street from the white house as lout as possible using all possible mean ifs of generating noise. more ahead. stay with us. it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions

from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

whoooo. tripadvisor makes finding your perfect hotel... relaxing. just enter your destination and dates. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the hotel you want for the lowest price. dates. deals. done! tripadvisor.

these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com when the "new york times" reported on one of the most consequential decisions on the history of the supreme court it didn't make the front page. it was on teeny tiny font. in hear tot supreme couerror to. that was how they reported the day after that ruling. this is the ruling that upheld racial segregation and racial law, separate, but equal. it took almost 60 years for the precedent to get knocked back.

the sprurt unanimously ruled that separate but equal was unconstitutional. there are very few cases that are not just legal landmarks and considered consensus cases where everybody agrees that the decision made by the court was either definitely the wrong one or definitely the right one. it's not that many of the big consensus cases. one involved a sitting u.s. president in 1974. the supreme court ruled unanimously that richard nixon had to turn over the audio tapes he made in the oval office that confirmed nixon's role in the watergate cover up. that put a clear sealing on the power of the presidency. the supreme court said unanim s unanimously that not even the most powerful person in the country is above the law.

just days after the public learned what was on those take place, he resigned the presidency in disgrace. nixon has to comply with a court order to hand over the tapes. that is one of the nation's consensus cases. it is almost impossible to find somebody who thinks the tapes should stay secret and the president should be allowed to evade the justice system and get away with it. it's almost impossible to find someone who disagrees with u.s. v nixon. here's someone. herressy though it is to say tow. u.s. v nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power to disclose the information sought by a subordinate branch official. maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision.

that's a transcript from 1999. a transcript of an interview with brett kavanaugh. he was then a lawyer in private practice. he is now president trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court that will be created by the vacancy of anthony kennedy. that turned up ahead of his confirmation hearings. now that we know this about our next nominee. now that it's right there in black and white, maybe u.s. v nixonwrongli lly decided. what are the oughts this come before the case again. now that we know that he is one of the only people you could even imagine in america who would think that actually nixon should have got away with watergate. joining us now is joyce vance, u.s. attorney for the great

state of alabama. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> as a nonlawyer i look at u.s. v nixon and a handful of other cases and see that as a consensus case. in the legal community, in the legal world, is u.s. v nixon a controversial thing? it was a unanimous supreme court ruling. >> it's not controversial and by brown versus board, it's what people agree on and that's why it was shocking to see federal nominees refusing to affirm the principipals of brown. same for nixon. it's revered as a case that was correctly decided. >> this transcript that has just been put forth as part of the documentation around judge kavanaugh's confirmation for the supreme court, this was not him refusing to answer a question

about whether or not u.s. v nixon was appropriate precedent or whether or not he agreed with that. this was not dodging the question or avoiding saying what his opinion was on it. this was him volunteering that he thought nixon was a bad case. are there other people in mainstream judicial circle who is make that same argument? >> to be fair, i think it's not really clear whether he was throwing this out as an argument for the round table he was participating in or whether it was his own view. it was consistent with his ju s jurisprudence and would be unique. >> there is enough controversy around his nomination around there being a nomination for the supreme court given what happened with the scalia vacancy in 2016. i think it's hard to predict what's going to happen in terms of his confirmation hearings.

do you expect that this will be the center issue at least a central issue for democrat when is it comes to questioning him when it gets to that point whether or not he see this is president as someone who ought to be someone subject to subpoenas, criminal inquiries and giving testimony in another way. is this going to be on which kavanaugh is viewed? >> it should be a central issue that every senator considers. the senators have the constitutional duty to advise and consent with the president on this type of decision and nixon, the case about the tapes is important because it establishes that the president is not beyond the reach of the law. that's something we all fundamentally understand whether we are lawyers or not. we we are a rule of law country. no individual, even the president should be beyond the reach of the courts. this is something that every

senator will need to have the opportunity to consider. >> u.s. attorney for alabama. thank you very much. good to have you with us. we'll be right back. stay with us. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! it's a high-tech revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side

to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. smarter sleep will change your life.

-i think it'll look really: good without the stripes. whatever your home may hand you, behr through it, in one coat. behr marquee, #1 rated interior paint. find it exclusively at the home depot.

heads up about something that will unfold over the next couple of days. we got new information about this. we are hurdling towards a deadline imposed on the trump administration by a federal court. the administration faces a deadline to get all of the kids that the trump administration

forcibly took from their parents and facing a deadline to get the kids back to their parents. that said, the administration has blown the deadline for reunifying kids under 5 with their parents. just over half of the youngest kissed were given back, but nearly half that the government took away from their parents are now deemed ineligible to be given back to their parents. that's how the administration handled the last deadline for kids under 5. nearly half of the kissed they just decided to not give back. the next one upon us now is for kids over the age of 5. that deadline is thursday and we got a progress report on how that is going. we are talking about approximately 2500 kids. the government said of the 2500, there have been under 1200 reunions or other appropriate discharges which we think kids meant to another family member or sponsor. it's possible they went to a

sponsor and got reunited after the government stopped keeping track. here's the thing to focus on the another 900 plus kids are being called by the government not eligible for reunifying or not known to be eligible. we believe those kids will eventually be released to a family member or a sponsor, maybe? something like half the kids have parent who is have been deported and the kids are here in limbo. it's not clear how it will work out, but the deadline is coming. the next hearing is tomorrow where upon we will get hopefully a tighter update and the deadline again is thursday which is supposed to be mandatory. tick tock. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable

after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites deadline again is thursday which so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor.

when you bundle your auto and hwith esurance, you could save with their single deductible. so if you confused the brake with the gas, or if your lamp post jumped out of nowhere, or if you forgot your bike was on the roof rack, you only pay one deductible -instead of two- for a claim involving both your auto and home. and when you save that much, it's almost like it... never even happened. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one. it's going to be a big week, you guys. the process of jury selection starts in the felony trial of the campaign chairman, accused russian agent maria butina will

be in court not tomorrow, but on wednesday. that has been delayed from tomorrow. it's almost like the news gods are trying to pace it out so we have something now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> so i'm a little torn on this. should we be grateful that federal trials are not televised so we actually don't have to spend the entire day glued to the tv on jury selection and everything else in the manafort case? >> i got to say that i am a person who absorbs information better from print than i do from watching moving images, let alone live humans, which i'm sure you could read into from my personalities. but having the transcripts of these hearings it is like the treasured novels that come out every day and i want to bind them and keep them as books. when people watch stuff happen ve