here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. all right. playing the part of united states federal district court judge, tanya s. chitkin, playing that part will be me and playing the part of thomas m. saunders federal prosecutor in the d.c. u.s. attorney's office, that part will be played also by me, and playing the part of robert driscoll, who represents accused russian secret agent maria butina, as her defense attorney, that part will also be played by me. i know that sounds cheap. it's a delicate balance here. what we're saving on the

salaries of actors with speaking roles, we're making up for in terrible acting by me. so what's going on here is that accused russian secret agent, maria butina, has been in jail a week and half. she was arrested last weekend right before the trump-putin summit in helsinki. she was actually arrested before the summit started even though we didn't find out about it at the time. the court didn't unseal the case against her until a few hours after the summit was concluded. the coincidence of those two events is potentially interesting because she's accused of being an agent of the russian federation, right? secretly mound aginfluence operation in this country on behalf of the russian government to influence the republican party around the 2016 presidential election. since they unsealed her case, we have learned a lot of interesting stuff about what exactly the government is accusing her of.

it's all fascinating. i think we are hardwired as humans to think that secret agent stuff is inherently fascinating. otherwise there wouldn't be books with shany covers for sale in airport book sforpz right? we love this stuff. in terms of the country and this presidency and in terms of the big scandal that has followed the president home from that summit with putin in helsinki last week, there does were one really big as yet unanswered question about the maria butina case. does her case stand alone or does it link into the larger russia scandal, the other prosecutions, the russian government's effort to swing the election? does it link in to the crucial question whether the president and his campaign were somehow in on that russian operation to influence the election? so today, court hearing for maria butina.

i should tell you, the bottom line here is that part of what came out in this court hearing today is that prosecutors say her case is connected to the larger story, at least the evidence in her case is connected, they say, to other ongoing cases and investigations. i should warn you in advance, there's also a little argument about sex and her personal diary. i swear it is relevant to the larger questions here, but you should know what happens. okay, here goes. this is the initial discussion in court, starts right away. it's about discovery. it's about the evidence and materials the prosecution has seized in their case against maria butina. this question is now being litigated in court as to whether and when and how her defense lawyer is going to be allowed to see all that stuff the government has seized. here we go. mr. saunders, the prosecutor. good morning, your honor, thank you very much. the judge, good morning. prosecutor, we've had preliminary discussions about discovery.

i think where we are right now is that the government has substantial discovery that they're ready to turn over right away. right now we already have about 4 to 6 terabytes of data the equivalent of over 1.5 million files that we're ready to turn over just as fast as it can be loaded onto a portable hard drive. there's another batch of data approximately 4 to 6 terabytes. then the judge jumps in. let me stop you. with regard to that first batch, how long do you think that will take to trans fer? prosecutor, barring the issue of a protective order which i'll get to in a moment it, shouldn't take more than a couple days. the judge says all right, okay. the prosecutor. the second batch should be ready in maybe two weeks? once it's ready it shouldn't take more than a couple of days to put it onto a hard drive and provide it to defense counsel. the judge says okay. prosecutor, so the bottom line is, the government wants to provide this to the defense right away immediately so that they can begin to prepare their defense in the courtroom. the problem we're having is, your honor, agreeing on a protective order.

and a protective order from the government's positionings is essential not just for the normal reasons of protecting third parties' personal identifying information but also to protect potential ongoing investigations. and just given the sensitive nature of this case. in our discussions, the question that seems to be overlying the conflict between the two the parties, to put it frankly is, whether or not the defense counsel wants this information right away so he can prepare for a defense in this court or whether defense counsel wants this information so that they can use it on cable news. the reason i put it that way, your honor, we proposed a basic protective order that says the information can be used for defense in this case. it gives the defense wide latitude to use it in this case, including showing it to the proupt witnesses, showing it to those witnesses' attorneys. the defense rejected that offer and the defense's response is no, we should have free rein to use that material however we

want. now, our protective order says that you can use it for this case but you can't use it for other purposes including public disclosure like going on the press. the defense says, no, no, no. we should have free rein. an exact quote from defense counsel. our concerns about protecting this information would be -- and then the judge jumps in. other than the personal identifying information, what are your other security concerns? prosecutor. our concerns are protecting integrity of potential ongoing investigations not just related to this case but potential other cases as well. the judge says, all right. potential other cases as well. that might be affected by the disclosure of the evidence in the maria butina case. so the prosecutors here are telling the judge it's bad maria butina's defense lawyer has been going on dreaded cable news and talking about her case and defending her in the court of public opinion.

over the course of this hearing today, they go on to fight with him about why that is bad in and of itself. the judge at one point says to maria butina's defense lawyer, do you think it's in your client's best interests to have your case tried in the press? she later says i certainly don't want to impose a gag order as other judges have in other cases in this court but i will entertain a motion or a request to do so if you think that your statements violate our local rules so i am cushioning you. there's this fight in court today over the defense lawyer of maria butina talking to the press about her case and the prosecution is pressing their argument and the judge seems to basically agree butina's defense lawyer shouldn't be doing that. the judge bluntly warns her defense lawyer that beak he should watch it in terms of him talking to the press. she also later tells the defense

counsel there will be a protective order in this case, at least for some material, which means the judge said today in open court she will set limits on what butina can do and can't do with the evidence against her that the government has turned up once the government has to hand that over to them so they can prepare their defense. they had this fight today. it definitely lands in a very one-sided way. for us watching this case and thinking about the national significance of this case and how this fits into the bigger existential scandal that looms over this presidency, on the big question of does this dramatic case against this accused russian agent play into the larger scandal involving russia and the election and all the other indictments that have come out, the prosecutors today said yeah, this case is connected. it's connected to other ongoing cases and other potential cases as well. they're saying that's related to why we need to stop her attorney from putting the evidence against her out in the press. that stuff is sensitive and

relates to ongoing cases and potentially other cases, as well. the judge goes with that. here's the defense lawyer. "your honor, the government's theory is that the documents and items possessed by my client before they were seized by the government somehow become confidential once they're seized by the government. when the government gives them back they can protect them under a protective order. the judge jumps in, mr. drus col, if material that was seized that was in the possession of the defendant concerns material, for example, on her computer that the government is using in connection with an ongoing investigation, well, merely because it was in the possession of your client doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be -- because there are ongoing investigations. the fact it was in your client's possession doesn't give it some kind of tas is manic position. i'm not understanding your position. defense lawyer. it's my position it's the government's burden to say what

needs to be protected and why. for example, my client's diary and my client's notes, documents of my client. my client's immigration papers all those things simply because they came into the posession of the government she doesn't lose her first amendment rights or ability to do with those documents what she wants. the juk, well, this is a pending criminal case. i'm sort of curious as to what you would be planning to do with her immigration documents or her diary in advance of the trial. defense lawyer, well, i mean, they might be evidence at the trial but there might be other purposes for which they would be used. there are ongoing congressional investigations, for example, that we've been dealing with. a lot of these same documents have already been introduced to the intelligence committee. the judge, well, certainly if those documents are subjects of a subpoena you can go to the government and says these documents or items have been subject to subpoena. >> this is the judge whittling

the defense lawyer down to a toothpick here. he's saying, hey, this was her stuff the government seized. we should be able to do whatever we want with it. you can't stop us from giving it to the press. the judge says, seriously, it's evidence in a criminal trial and if what is seized from her is relevant to other ongoing open investigations, then of course, you can't do anything you want with it. on that last point of the transcript how his client has already been questioned by other parts of the government he raises congressional investigations and stuff, that actually ends up being important, too. we'll come back to ha in a second. there's one last thing you should see from the hearing today. i mentioned there was a discussion about sex related allegations. this is that part. it does not go well for the defense lawyer. remember where this came from. last week, the prosecutors laid out a case for the judge maria butina shouldn't be released on bail. they were arguing she's a flight risk and might go back to russia.

they said there was no reason to expect she would feel bound to stay in the united states and face this trial. in order to make that case the prosecutors argued what appeared to be her personal ties, even her emotional ties to the united states, they argued those ties weren't real. this is what they filed with the court last week under the headline "butina's quote tie to the united states is a duplicitas relationship." this was prosecutors a few days ago. "during the course of this investigation the fbi determined maria butina gained access through u.s. person 1 to an extensive network of u.s. persons in positions to influence political activities in the united states. butina, age 29 and u.s. person 1, age 56, are believed to have cohabitated and been involved in a personal relationship during the course of butina's activities in the united states. but this relationship does not represent a strong tie to the united states because maria butina appears to treat it as

simply a necessary aspect of her activities. for example, on at least one occasion butina offered an individual other than u.s. person 1 sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization. further in paper seized by the fbi butina complained about living with u.s. person 1 and expressed disdain for continuing to cohabitate with u.s. person 1. so that was the prosecution last week. they're saying, listen, she's a spy, she's only involved with this guy because it's part of her cover as a spy. today, butina's defense lawyer went off on that. he and his client are absolutely not going to stand for that from the prosecution. he went after them on this specific issue in court today and it didn't go well. defense lawyer -- we did make a special request with the government to receive on an expedite basis any evidence they had to back up their claim miss

butina traded sex for a job. that has become unfortunately a big issue in the media. it was proffered you know as proffered in the bonds hearing before. we have no idea what the government's talking about. we don't believe it's true. the government has -- we presume they could give that part of it to us so we could see what it is. the government has not agreed to do that. they said we can wait for discovery to do that. the judge jumps in, mr. saunders, speaking to the prosecutor now, what's your position with regard to the information mr. driscoll just requested? prosecutor: our position is twofold. one is we want to make sure the protective order is in place before giving over anything and second, we're concerned about to what use anything will be put. if the defense is seeking particular pieces of evidence to take them to the news media we don't want that violation of the local rules. the judge. right. i mean, i think, driscoll, you're certainly entitled to discovery and to know the basis of the charges against your client in

accordance with our local rules but i'm not sure you're entitled to certain pieces of evidence to rebut media reports. i'm sure it's not pleasant to read incorrect things about your client. no lawyer likes that. my obligations are to get this case resolved whether that be through trial or any other way in an expeditious and fair manner. as to when you get that information you will get it as you would any other information in this trial. no, i'm not helping you figure out why the government said that thing about you and your client and trading sex for a job. the prosecution said part of maria butina's secret cover for her operation in this country was she was supposedly involved with this older man, a political activist in south dakota. the government is making that case because they say that relationship wasn't an earnest relationship, it wasn't real, they're saying that was part of er who cover story as a secret agent carrying off this influence operation on behalf of

the russian government. whether or not it turns out to have been true love, this ends up being sort of a key element in how the maria butina secret agent case relates to the rest of the russia scandal and potentially the president's campaign. there's a few of these connections, actually, this is one of them. one of the links already established, prosecutors say maria butina was funded for this u.s. operation by a russian billionaire. the "washington post" has since named that russian billionaire and also reported that that russian billionaire's son worked on the trump campaign. we have contacted the trump campaign to ask them about whether that's true and if so, what role was played on the campaign by the son of the man who is alleged to have funded this russian influence operation during the campaign. so far we have not heard back from the campaign on that and we will let you know when we do. another potential link to the trump campaign is through this

person one, the unnamed american citizen maria butina was involved in this personal relationship. he lives in south dakota. i am here to sing the praises of a local hero south dakota journalist named seth tupper from the rapid city journal because he tracked down a proposed order of cooperation between maria butina and federal prosecutors in south dakota and an offer that dates back to may of this year. maria butina was apparently considering offering testimony or evidence to federal prosecutors for their investigation of her supposed boyfriend in south dakota. she was offering the u.s. attorney in south dakota or considering an offer from the u.s. attorney in south dakota that she would cooperate with them in their investigation of her supposed boyfriend. depending how things worked in that particular relationship that would seem to bolster the prosecution's case maybe this wasn't true love, if she was talking to prosecutors about

what evidence she might be able to give them against her guy. well, her guy, this american man, has not been charged with anything as far as we know but he is described in court filings as beak a co-conspirator helping her with her efforts to influence the republican party in large part through the nra. it is remarkable, stepping back for a second, it is remarkable that the nra has had no comment on this case at all. no comment on this indictment since it was first unsealed. this is federal prosecutors itch including veteran counter espionage prosecutors now saying in court and offering evidence in court that the nra was used by the russian government in an illegal intelligence operation. no comment by that nra, for more than a week now? in january, mcclatchy reported that the fbi was investigating

whether the russian government funneled money through the nra to help trump win the election. that might have seemed nuts at the time when mcclach ewe published this report. but that was before we got the indictment how else russia was using the nra to try to influence the election. that was before we got information how else russia was trying to influence the election before butina's defense lawyer said in court she was contacted by the fec in march whether certain political donations had been made to campaigns before the "washington post" said butina testified to the intelligence senate committee one of her sources of funding in the united states in 2016 was a $5,000 a month consulting deal she had with the outdoor channel television network to provide advice on a planned program on hunting in russia. how did she get hooked up with the outdoor channel? quote, the outdoor channel's chief executive, jim libator,

accompanied to moscow in 2015 hosted by maria butina and indeed, there's the guy from the outdoor channel and a whole bunch of officials from the nra in moscow in december, 2015 with accused russian agent maria butina. december 2015 exactly the same time that trump national security advisor, mike flynn, was also in moscow sitting next to vladamir putin at a banquet dinner for russian state tv. same time period, right before the republican presidential primary started. what was the nra all doing in moscow right before then? what was mike flynn doing in moscow before then? the outdoor channel would not confirm to the "washington post" today they did have this accused russian agent on their payroll for $5,000 a month in 2016. we were able to reach them late in the day today and they did confirm to us that, yes, they did, they had her on the payroll, $5,000 a month.

there's no reason to think that the outdoor channel knew at the time that the person they had put on their payroll was a secret agent who is now accused of running a russian government influence operation to influence our election, no indication that they knew that's what they were doing at the time but that is what they did. so, last point here. were these gun rights folks potentially a conduit for russian money alongside other forms of russian government influence on our 2016 campaign? mcclatchy was on that story first. honestly they took tons of heat for that story and stood by it throughout. but now i don't think they'd take heat for that story today. now, it is a much more open question. it would be really really good to find that out. the nra, according to federal prosecutors was a conduit for a

secret russian government operation designed to hit the campaign. were they a conduit for another kind of influence from russia, too? mcclatchy reports the fbi has been looking into russian money flowing into the nra to benefit trump. did that happen? on the day we learned maria butina was arrested, her arrest warrant and criminal complaint against her, the fbi affidavit against her, the day that was all unsealed on the day of the trump/putin summit in helsinki, the trump administration influenced they would be dropping the requirement which has existed for nearly 50 years in this country, they would be dropping the requirement that organizations like the nra have to disclose their major donors to the irs. on the day the maria butina case was unsealed they dropped that requirement. seriously. why that new rule and why that day?

let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean.

fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness.

-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.

they are taking their first whack at it. here we go. the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, is not just the second in command at the u.s. department of justice, he's also

basically robert mueller's boss, in charge of overseeing the special counsel's investigation. because of that, deputy attorney general rosenstein has been under months of sustained attack from house republicans who are trying to protect the president by undermining the mueller investigation however they can. the most controversial way that they have approached that effort thus far is by demanding that the justice department hand over lots of secret law enforcement sensitive material from the ongoing investigation so that the congress can get hold of it and so in many cases it can either be made public or presumably given to the white house for their defense or both. we've been watching that for months. now, republicans in congress have gone to a new level, pro trump republicans in congress late tonight introduced articles of impeachment against deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. they are accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors.

both crimes and misdemeanors. these congressional republicans are alleging in five articles of impeachment rod rosenstein has failed to respond to their demands to hand over justice department materials related to the investigation. they say he signed off on improper searches and surveillance. they say "by such conduct he warns impeachment and trial and removal from office." the attacks by pro trump republicans against the fbi and justice department have been going on for the better part of a year now. senior officials at the justice department and fbi have promised that they wouldn't give in to efforts to shut down their work, they would hold a firm line against any politically motivated attacks designed to undo or undermine the ongoing work of the justice department and fbi as law enforcement agencies. tonight, 11 republican congressman have now changed that fight, they're calling for the deputy attorney general to be thrown out of office.

it's not clear tonight whether or if republican leadership might take this thing up, but the president's conservative allies in congress are officially now making their run at it. what happens next here? joining us now is kyle chaney, a congressional reporter politico.com joining us now. thanks for being here. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> we had heard that these articles of impeachment were around. deputy attorn rosenstein had made comments where he teased the republicans for leaking their own draft of these articles of impeachment. we've known they were circulating for a while. do we have any understanding why they may have been actually been introduced tonight? >> this has been long in the making. these pro-trump republicans in particular have made rosenstein the symbol for all of their frustrations with the justice department and with the mueller investigation.

why tonight? it's not entirely clear. the house is about to leave on a five-week recess. by dropping this tonight, it insures that this is part of the conversation going forward at sort of a critical moment in some of these investigations. there's been a lot of new headlines in the mueller investigation lately. this will now be part of that discussion over the next few weeks. >> that makes it sound like the strategy is sort of a political messaging strategy rather than a legislative strategy. to that end, do we have any indication from leadership in the house whether or not this might conceivably come up? they're not bringing this up as a privileged motion. they're not forcing this as a matter for the house to vote on it and not sure whether this is anything other than a message motion. >> absolutely. that's when you know it's a message motion when they could have forced a vote on it. these republicans decided not to go that route this time.

this is not a unanimous feeling among house republicans. house speaker ryan has kind of minimized their dispute with rosenstein and the justice department and not really favored this drive towards impeachment. this is really coming from members of the freedom caucus coming from trump's strongest allies in the house. it really divides the republican conference here. there's not a big appetite among leaders to take up this fight especially in the homestretch of an election year. >> i was thinking about the comments of trey gowdy retiring but influential member of house leadership who was asked about the possibility of impeaching rosenstein and he said impeach him for what? clearly a device ibish among their own members. i know today a couple members of the freedom caucus who filed this motion tonight, jim jordan and mark meadows were told that they met today with the general counsel of the fbi dana bant ta and also the inspector general

of the fbi -- of the justice department michael horowitz. do we know if that meeting -- if how that meeting went had anything to do with the decision to file these tonight? >> i think they certainly did. this was a last ditch attempt to getting to and try to head something like this off. other members were in that meeting. people like trey gowdy and bob goodlatte, two powerful committee chairman didn't come away necessarily with the same rejection of what doj had to say. so it really is sort of where these members were going into the meeting is kind of where they were when they left. so it didn't solve anything. that's why they came out andified the impeachment articles pretty much right away after this meeting. kyle cheney, joining us on short notice tonight after these impeachment articles were filed, kyle. thank you very much. good to have you with us tonight.

>> thank you. >> in response to this, as you heard kyle report there, very clear about it, this is not something expected to unify republicans, nor is there any indication there will be actual legislative movement on this, this is sort of an effort by pro-trump republican members of congress to i think hype up their constituents before they head home for a long recess maybe? but it is being greeted critically and seriously by people who oppose it. i should just tell you that dianne feinstein, veteran democratic senator on the judiciary committee, she reacted strongly to republicans doing this. a lot of people are dismissing this as norris pro-trump republican stunt by house republicans tonight. but senator dianne feinstein had a really strong response. she called the filing of these impeachment articles partisan nonsense. then she also said, quote, it's dangerous for the rule of law and it needs to stop. they're clearly doing this as

some sort of messaging thing. the message may be loud on this on both sides. we shall see. much more to come tonight. stay with us. -i've seen lots of homes helping new customers bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.

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. gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one . technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet?

sacrilegious question, i know, forgive me ahead of time. does that tape thing really matter at all? that tape, that tape of donald trump and his lawyer, michael cohen, talking about how to pay off karen mcdougal for her story

about her alleged affair with donald trump and maybe there was a check or maybe it was cash and somebody said pam or hon and somebody said get me a coke. did we actually learn anything from that tape? i know it's gotten a ton of news coverage but does it deserve it? honestly, is there anything we have learned from that thing other than the fact the president apparently did not tell the truth when he said he didn't know anything about any payment to karen mcdougal, we've learned that. in terms of potential legal jeopardy and how this may relate to other difficulties the president is facing on a legal front, honestly, i don't know. it doesn't sound like there was any crime committed on that tape. did we learn anything from hearing it? i don't know. i presume some day we will find out from the prosecutors if this thing is legally relevant. i want to posit, if you like me, are skeptical why this tape and this whole issue between

trump and cohen merits so much attention, i think there is one known reason why this thing is interesting. and i say this as a skeptic on this story in general. there's one thing here that grabs me. we have known that the publisher, who paid this woman, karen mcdougal $150,000 for the story and killed the story, didn't run it. we know that he company is american media incorporated. they publish had the "national enquirer" and mens journals and other names you have heard of. we have known that company, american media got a federal subpoena at some point this spring in new york. today, "wall street journal" today was the first to report american media's subpoena arrived on the exact same day michael cohen got his office and his home and his hotel room and his safety deposit box all raided by the fbi. he got raided april 9th. american media got a subpoena from the feds that same day, april 9th. cohen gets raided april 9th and

american media reportedly gets a subpoena that same day. that means legal pressure of various kinds was brought to bear on people close to the president, on his lawyer, this publishing firm basically his best friend. does that kind of pressure on people closely related to the president, does that ultimately redound to the president's own legal woes? we don't know but we've been watching the dynamics with interest. here's something else we know. nine days after the raid and they got the subpoena, they announced a new settlement with karen mcdougal with very specific plans for her to start appearing more often in their publications including on the cover of men's journal magazine in september. men's journal, karen mcdougal, men's journal, karen mc -- mostly on men's journal it's ben affleck. but it's going to be karen mcdougal apparently.

a couple weeks ago the "wall street journal" checked in on that plan the paper reported back, current and former employees of publisher american media inc" said they believe karen mcdougal's planned appearance on the cover of september's issue is intended to protect the company from a federal investigation in new york. american immediate said they always planned to put her on the cover. they said it was strictly a business decision. but those unnamed staffers were not buying it. they said putting her on the cover was meant to bolster the argument they entered into the contract with her for editorial reasons rather than to benefit mr. trump's campaign. okay, now i'm interested. because that raises the question of whether or not this was an actual publishing contract, right? rather than a political expenditure to help donald trump win an election. after seeing in the "wall street journal" about the timing of the subpoena we wen back and asked american media about all this today and they directed us to

the original statement from april about the settlement and cover date from men's journal, otherwise we got nothing new from them at all. i have one big question and a half here. is american media potentially in legal trouble here? if they are trying to make it look like they were doing something as a publishing company under their own first amendment rights it was just a business decision for them as a publisher, even their own employees don't believe that and even their own employees believe that they are backtracking and trying to cover up what was actually a political act and an expensive one by that company, are they in legal trouble for that in the reason i care about that is that there is the possibility that legal trouble for people and entities close to the president that could ultimately become legal trouble for the president if in fact that legal trouble is so worrying that those entities and those people consider flipping and cooperating with prosecutors for any other larger cases they might be bringing. that part i care about. joining us now is rebecca

o'brien, a law enforcement reporter on the "wall street journal" who has been reporting on this story. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me here. >> my preface is totally honest, i don't care about the personal dynamics between mike cohen and president trump and i don't feel edified by the tape. but this issue about potential legal jeopardy for people associated with the president in this case, do i get that right? is there anything wrong there with the ways those things might shake out? >> i think what our reporting revealed today and what federal prosecutors are paying attention to is this question whether the dynamic between michael cohen and donald trump and ami, this publishing company, at times shifted away from being just a strictly media -- whether ami wasn't a straightforward media organization all the time and whether at times it acted as an appendage of sorts of donald trump and his campaign.

>> there would be legal consequences of that. obviously, if you're acting as a publisher, you can hire and fire editors and contributors and make decisions who's on covers and who gets columns. all of that stuff. all of those decisions are absolutely protected by the first amendment and the government has no say there. there would be no criminal implications of any decision like that. but if those decisions were a ruse in order to disguise what was in effect a political action, an action designed to cause a political effect especially if it was done in conjunction with the campaign, then ami itself might have some legal concerns? >> right. sure. first of all, it is a big deal to subpoena a media organization especially without any prior warning. if prosecutors choose to bring a campaign finance case, these guys could find themselves in -- considered a party to a conspiracy to commit campaign -- if they decide -- this

amounts -- these rather overt acts, they publicly favor donald trump in print, they savaged his opponents, if they decided that amounts to campaign finance violations they could be considered part of a criminal conspiracy. >> when we talk about criminal campaign finance violations, everybody laughs because they think we don't actually police those or enforce those anymore in this country. those come as two different kinds of apples, right, you can have a campaign finance violation everybody says is terrible and gets laughed off or you can have a knowing willful deliberate campaign violation particularly one carried out as part of a conspiracy. those do get handle not just fcc but those get handled as prosecutable cases. >> sure. >> theoretically at least. >> theoretically at least. >> in terms of ami's jeopardy, is there any sign they are behaving differently since they

received the subpoena or they are concerned? >> i think the timing of the subpoena was important, the fact it was served the same day, same morning as the raid on michael cohen suggests something about the relationship between the president's lawyer and this organization. i think, as you pointed out, our reporters have previously dug into some of the men's health journal cover for september and whether what karen mcdougal is doing on that cover. they sort of seem to have, you know, i guess what will end up being of interest is what they produced for prosecutors. i can't say much more than that. >> yeah. with the subpoena you don't have a choice. it may just turn out this is all about her amazing abs. >> secrets. if only i knew. >> rebecca, nice to have you here. >> thank you very much. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. greatness of an suv?

is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the time to get an exceptional offer on the mercedes of your midsummer dreams at the mercedes-benz summer event, going on now. receive up to a $1,250 summer event bonus on select suvs. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. 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. when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger

isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. following up on the report last

night on the white house transcript and video from last week's helsinki press conference that, transcript and video not including the statement from putin that he wanted trump to win the election, following up on that report from us last night, i can tell you now that unnamed white house officials are now admitting that yes, the white house transcript of that press conference is wrong. but they are still not correcting it. hmm. after our report and after questions from white house reporters today and after a piece in the west today speculated that perhaps the white house transcript and video were wrong because they were transcribed from a wonky audio feed or something, the white house did finally say today that yes, their transcript of the press conference is wrong. but they say it wasn't a malicious error and then the white house told the "associated press" that "the transcript has been updated for presidential records." they also told peter alexander

tonight that "an updated version was sent to the archivist." nobody seems to know what that means. i'm here to tell you the white house still has an official transcript of trump and putin's press conference posted on the white house website and it still omits it putin saying he wanted trump to win and i can also tell you that the white house still has a video posted tonight that omits the same thing. so i guess the update is the white house wants to get away with this in the sense they're sticking with their false record of what happened with vladimir putin, but they don't want to be blamed for it while they do it. they don't want anybody to see it as a bad thing even as they keep doing it. so judge for yourself. i'm going to go to break right here. we've got one more segment coming up. as we go to break, i want you to watch this one more time and

check out the white house transcript alongside it. you judge for yourself. >> president putin, did you want president trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? >> translator: yes, i did, yes, i did. because he talked about bringing the u.s./russia relationship back to normal. with one a da. ♪ get ready for the wild life ♪ complete multivitamins with key nutrients that address 6 concerns of aging, including heart health, supported by b-vitamins. your one a day is showing.

ahoy! gotcha! nooooo... noooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. 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.

jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your free hearing test from an industry leader: miracle-ear. 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. add-on advantage. any paint can change the way a room looks. but only one can change how it feels. century, from benjamin moore, is the first-ever soft touch matte finish paint.

its revolutionary texture unlocks 75 unprecedented colors, each with exquisite depth and richness. it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores. heads up about a deadline coming up tomorrow. by the government's own count, we now know the trump administration has taken away

from their parents 2,551 kids between the ages of 5 and 17. they took them away at the border. now, a federal judge, as you know, has ordered the administration to give those kids back. the deadline for the kids ages 5 to 17 is tomorrow. at a hearing in that case yesterday, the justice department said that it has so far on the eve of the deadline only given 1,012 of those kids back to their parents. again, 1,012 kids out of more than 2,500 taken away. as of last night, the night before the deadline, they have only given back less than half. worse than that, the government said last night they were not even going to try to give back more than 900 of these kids. the trump administration now says they have decided that 914 of these kids who they took from their parents are not eligible to be given back to their parents. judicial deadline or not. so what's going to happen to those more than 900 kids who the

government took but now the trump administration says they're not making any plan to give them back? honestly, we do not know. the aclu is the group that has been leading this case against the government. they tell us their lawyers are still working on trying to work of reunification even for those families they say they're not bothering with. the aclu says they're trying to get more information from the government to make these reunifications happen, but for now the trump administration says for 914 of these kids they're not going to do it. court ordered deadline is tomorrow. watch this space. with best in-class towing 2018 ford f-150.

best in-class payload and best in-class torque the f-150 lineup has the capability to get big things to big places --bigtime. and things just got bigger. f-150 is now motor trend's 2018 truck of the year. this is the new 2018 ford f-150. it doesn't just raise the bar, pal. it is the bar. 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 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.

sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink. ♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's.

no sooner do i admit on national television that the michael cohen taped donald trump story is not really about the tapes and the tapes themselves aren't -- "the washington post" has just reported that the government has seized more than 100 tapes that michael cohen made of his conversations with people discussing matters that could relate to the donald trump and his businesses. including with trump himself talking to michael cohen on the tapes. i want to go to sleep and wake up when the tape story is over. is there a snooze alarm for that? that does it for us tonight. i'll see you again tomorrow. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> you are lucky because i love the tapes. i'll take all the tapes they can send me. 100, so that's, let's say, i'd go for one every other day. >> yeah. i don't know why it makes me so crazy.