burglary. he would be replaced by then vice-president gerald ford one month later on september 8. he was granted a full and absolute pardon. thank you for watching this afternoon. "deadline white house" with my friend nicolle wallace starts right now. /s >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump's lawyers this afternoon rejected special counsel robert mueller's latest offer for an interview. jay sekulow, one of the president's lawyers, confirmed that a letter had been sent and rudy giulianied added what sounded like a threat saying in a statement, quote, millions of pages of documents along with testimony from dozens of witnesses have been provided. we're restating what we have been saying for months. it is time for the office of the special counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay. a source close to giuliani, mr. trump, tells me today the legal team strategy, quote, both sides are being played. the special counsel's office and

the president. there won't ever be a presidential interview. "the new york times" reports on the eight-month-long back and forth over the elusive presidential interview writing, quote, the negotiations have dragtd on in part because they are concerned if he is interviewed mr. trump could perjure himself. they had been prepared last week to tell mr. mueller mr. trump would decline an interview, but the president who believes he can convince mr. mueller he is innocent pushed his lawyers to continue negotiating. it's the rare instance in which robert mueller and donald trump want the very same thing, which is striking especially in light of new reporting we brought you earlier this week from a source close to the trump legal effort who tells us that there are serious concerns the president may have already engaged in conduct that leaves him vulnerable to charges of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. joining us to discuss today's development, some of our favorite reporters and friends. daniel goldman is a form assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york now an msnbc contributor. heilman is back.

he's an msnbc and msnbc national affairs analyst. >> i'm like madonna at this point. >> i gave you one name. some day you'll thank me. we'll talk about that later. daily beast politics editor sam stein is here and my friend steve schmidt. we're going to boil you down to one name, too. take us through the significance of this sort of -- i think it's just a side show. people have told me that from emmet flood to don mcgahn to rudy giuliani to everyone who is now departed the president's team, no one thinks the president can survive an interview with the special counsel. >> the president can't survive twitter. >> that's right, special counsel is now looking at his tweets. >> every tweet has a misstatement or a lie, so they're absolutely right to be concerned that if the president were to go into an interview with incredibly well prepared prosecutors who have not just the president's tweets and his own statements, as rudy giuliani

correctly pointed out, millions of documents, testimony from dozens of witnesses, they know the back story much better than any of us sitting here know it. and when they question donald trump, he would lie within the first 30 seconds because it's just -- he believes that what he says is true. and the problem is when you're dealing with a federal investigation, there are objective facts. it's not a subjective belief. and so i think what's really going on here is that this is an effort by his lawyers and i don't know how much he's implicated in this or not, to set up a situation where they can say to the american public, we wanted to, it's not our fault, but it's bob mueller's fault. he's being unreasonable because it's -- >> here's what they ruled out. they've ruled out questions about obstruction of justice. questions about collusion and questions that could lead trump to lie. i guess -- that's really all they're investigating. >> what's the interview?

>> the special counsel is investigating russian meddling and whether or not anyone in the trump campaign colluded or conspired with the russians and whether or not in the process of attacking the investigation and trying to fire jeff sessions as sitting attorney general, trying to fire rod rosenstein, trying to impede the investigation, whether the president has obstructed justice. so other than their golf games, what else would he talk about? >> that's part of the reason why it's a side show. let's step back for a second. this is an active ongoing legitimate investigation no matter what the president says. the president of the united states is a subject of that investigation or, at a minimum, it's related to his campaign. what world are we living in where the president of the united states will not sit down for a legitimate interview as part of an investigation? that's shocking. every government official that's involved in an investigation sits down and tells it or they resign. >> our old boss, george w. bush and vice-president dick cheney sat or an interview with pat

fitzgerald in the investigation of the leaking of valerie plame's name. you're right. i guess bill clinton had to be subpoenaed before he testified, but the idea that they're going to side step the special counsel investigation into the president's campaign because they're afraid the president would lie is sort of another trumpian reveal. >> and it doesn't seem to be particularly legally compelling as grounds to avoid being interviewed by the special counsel in all of this. look, at the end of the day, every statement that this white house, that this president, senior members of the administration, the campaign have made about what went on in the campaign, about james comey's firing, it's all been lies. so that's what the vulnerability here is. the special counsel, as was pointed out, they have a good sense knowing much more than we do here, what exactly it is that happened or didn't happen. and i think that trump knows and those facts are not compelling in his favor probably. >> john heilman, someone

involved, former senior justice department official, very well versed and having been in the room for special counsel interviews with subjects and witnesses said that what it would look like would be that robert mueller may be in a room, it will probably be one of his deputies involved as well in the questioning. there could be stacks of binders there. that the testimony of perhaps his white house counsel, the testimony perhaps of his sitting attorney general. and the idea that it's a perjury trap, no one traps you into lying. to avoid the perjury trap all you have to do is tell the truth. but rudy and jay seem to be saying he's incapable of that. >> yes, they've been saying that over and over again. just to go back to -- i think it's relevant to this question. first of all, i think the president sometimes believes things he's saying when he says things that are not true. other times the president knows full well the things are not true and he's lying with conscious forethought. i point you to his years long campaign about how barack obama was born in kenya.

the president knew that was a lie and he lied anyway for political gain. bill clinton did not have to be subpoenaed and it is important that he didn't because he was threatened with a subpoena. in order to avoid the subpoena, because it's not tested whether a president is sit for a subpoena. it's a side show what rudy is saying. it's a side whshow what jay sekulow is saying. what's not a side show is the special counsel's posture in all of this, bob mueller's posture in all of this. as he goes through the motions of watching this do this side show, he has put himself in a position where he can say, we have given them every opportunity. we have been open to negotiations. we've been willing to put some things in writing to limit the scope. i want to be in a position where we've given them every opportunity to be reasonable, and now when i make the move, if he does make the move to subpoena the president of the united states, this will not have been a side show for him because he's playing a very serious game. this is where it's going to come to, is the question of does bob

mueller decide that it is imperative, that he must get donald trump in front of a grand jury and get questions answered? if it is imperative where it's worthwhile to delay the investigation, have it take additional months and maybe lose in court because we don't know what the supreme court would say on this matter. that's where we're going. and that's why, although there's a lot of this is that is comical and stupid and the very end something is happening and bob mueller is not make in a frivolous way. >> i agree with everything john said. what trump is relying on is jay sekulow and rudy giuliani telling him that bob mueller won't take that step. and i have been counseled over and over again from people who are still in contact with robert mueller, robert mueller doesn't leak about this investigation whether people who worked alongside him during his 13 years as fbi director, democrat y -- democratic and republican investigators of the fbi. he said bob mueller wouldn't tell his mother what he was

going to do. so the idea that they've given the president the reassurance that he won't do that -- i think "the new york times" reports today they told the president that bob mueller wouldn't want to risk losing in court. mr. mueller threatened to subpoena the president if he didn't sit for a voluntary interview. law enforcement officials who work with mull early, head of fbi from 2011 to 2013 will try to get the president to answer questions. he will probably subpoena him if he doesn't agree to be questioned voluntarily. those are the kinds of people who worked alongside him. the president's lawyers have tried to reassure the president that he wouldn't take that step. that seems like a dangerous -- >> a high risk. how does one follow pele? >> how do you sue a name? >> one doesn't. one passes back the balance of your time to steve schmidt. >> i want to hear. >> in addition to all this, i feel like there is a kind of

math game happening here in which the president's legal team are trying to get mueller to show some cards. you say, no, i'm not going to sit down for those questions. send me some written ones. >> they have all the questions. >> they have broad strokes. >> we know -- >> we know the descriptions. >> rudy wasn't there. >> i think they would like to try to tease out a little bit more specifics so they can get prepped in advance. i also think, maybe this is cynical of me -- >> let me pretty you. they know the areas they have trump on. >> yes, i think that's what they're trying do, get them to tell a little more. i think it's cynical they're trying to push this after the elections. they firmly believe mueller will respect this protocol which says you don't make huge announcements or deliver reports until election or something like that. they think if they can get within that window maybe they'll avoid some political catastrophe that would come if this report were released before. there are other sort of micro calculations happening here. but in the end, the big one is will mueller use a subpoena.

and they will test that theory, i believe, if they have to. we'll see where it goes, but it colors everything including the supreme court fight they were having over brett kavanagh. >> lindsey graham said -- you were here yesterday when that story broke. lindsey graham said, to sam's point, this is an objesession f the president. >> 20 times. >> i don't know how long a round of golf is. >> four hours. >> i'm not good at math either. five times an hour, four times an hour. firing the special counsel. i read in rudy's statement today a threat to do just that. rudy saying, we're restating what we've been saying for months. it's time for the office of special counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay. all that's missing is the, or else. >> absolutely. and, look, without any question trump's base will go along with it lock, stock and barrel. so you'll have somewhere 35 to 40% of the country will believe this is a deep state conspiracy,

that bob mueller is a bad guy. up is down, down is up. red is blue, blue is red type of trump world we live in. but the constitutional crisis, it seems to me, is looming out there and gets closer every day. >> and the idea, too, that obstruction was the thing that they're most worried about, i've said this over and over again and you've reported, you've covered the campaign. his friends really thought that he was removed enough from the operations of the campaign, not physically, not because it was so big or sophisticated, but they were afraid he would leak. on the question of being part of the conspiracy with the russians, they thought the president was probably safe. on this question of obstruction, i talked to another person this week close to the legal effort on this idea it could be witness tampering to have people come back and query them what they were asked about. and this idea that perhaps people that have gone in and out multiple times, that he was involved in other -- wanted to know what they said or suggest

answers. they think there are real vulnerabilities for the president there. >> there absolutely are vulnerabilities. the only reason i could think bob mueller would be negotiating as much as he reportedly is -- i have to say reportedly because we're only getting one side. >> right. >> not because he's worried about the court case, because i think the precedent is pretty darn strong that, n notwithstanding the arguments they would win, because testimony is far more difficult to get than documents. and that's what the precedent is, nixon turning over the tapes. it's harder to get testimony. you can't get that elsewhere. that's a losing argument. i would say 80 to 90% of the time. but it's what john said about the length of this dragging on, and it's also the point that i don't think the president, if they're negotiating and if he's not going to subpoena him, he's just not that important a witness. >> let me press you. what does robert mueller care about the length of time? that seems to be robert mueller's leverage. he's going to stay on this until

it's done. >> that's why it goes to the second part, which is i don't think trump is that important a witness. he's the ultimate target potentially of an obstruction of justice case or a witness tampering case. the only reason you give him an interview, which is the same thing they did with hillary clinton, is to clear your name. do you have anything more that you'd like to explain to us so that to show us all the evidence that we've built is wrong? and if he doesn't want to do that -- >> i want to ask you about your friend roger stone. >> except for one thing, though. you're bob mueller and you know that to prove an obstruction case against the president of the united states, you need to prove corrupt intent. you lawyers told me it's important to prove corrupt intent. you've seen in the interview with lester holt blurt out, yeah, russia was on my mind if i fired comey. if i'm bob mueller i want to interview that guy because there is a reasonable chance to not get him to per purjure himself.

you can get him to get corrupt intent in the room. >> that's way more than a prosecutor could otherwise. >> he could be the slam dunk witness against himself on obstruction of justice -- >> he usually is. >> correct. >> let me ask you about your friend roger stone. a lot of murmur -- >> please, do. everybody in the world explain you being sarcastic. >> there is a great episode of the circus where you interview him at the russian tea room is one of my favorite -- >> he has taken out his insizers, his molars and flashed them, i fear from my jugular. >> i remember watching your interview in the circus. the rumble he will may be near the point where he's facing serious legal jeopardy, the manhattan madam, is that her name? kristen davis has been

interviewed by the special counsel investigators. what part of the story is roger stone? >> well, i think he's more a part of the collusion, certainly part of the collusion question rather than the obstruction question. >> right. >> if there is collusion, that's where he fits. >> he's the colluder perhaps. >> one of the great mysteries about roger stone is he's like donald trump, a liar, lies all the time about things. he was always -- he made a point of being vague about how much he was talking to the president during the course of the campaign. it was always -- you could never tell whether his vagueness was to cover up the fact they were talking all the time or to cover up the fact they were never talking and he was trying to inflate his own self-importance. so what did donald trump know? we don't know the answers to that. given the connection s to what we've seen, the number of communications he was having of people who ended up being involved in the hacks -- >> hackers. >> including the hawkers themselves.

he is squarely in the middle of that. so many people close to roger stone have now been interviewed, either by mueller or brought in front of the grand jury, they have not yet done that to roger stone, every day passes roger stone is not interviewed by anyone, but people around him, even people who are relatively attenuated like the manhattan madam who is not sam nunberg, not people who work more closely with him. it's a big group now. so, again, if you're painting that picture, you've got to be -- stone himself thinks he's going to get indicted. he's probably going to get indicted. >> thank you for spending time with us starting us off. when we come back the president who promised to hire the very best people seems to hire the biggest liars. we'll show you the greatest trump ally going down today for lying to federal investigators. also ahead, the manafort defense team may have a distinct advantage. the judge. new questions about the startling role the judge is playing in the trial of the president's former campaign chairman. and blue wave rising. how last night's results may predict a wipe out for republicans in districts that

have never been in danger for the gop before. stay with us. alice is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash,

and loss of appetite. alice calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.

are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome.

is it time to start calling it a trend? another one of president trump's allies indicted today in the southern district of new york. republican congressman chris collins, trump's first congressional endorser charged with insider trading and lying to investigators. that's a popular one these days in trump's orbit, and here's the best part. according to prosecutors, collins' financial crime went down on white house grounds. of course it did. collins was allegedly attending the congressional picnic when he

passed an insider tip on a pharmaceutical company's failed drug trial to his son. i'm sorry. here is how a prosecutor described it. >> so, as the indictment alleges, at least at 7:10 p.m., congressman kohl indiana pace congressman collins was aware of the inside information. a minute later, congressman collins attempted to call his son. the period of five minutes there are six unsuccessful calls. on the seventh call at 7:16 p.m. as alleged in the indictment, congressman collins tips, illegally tips his son cameron about the drug trial results so that his son cameron could trade on those results. >> what is wrong with these people? congressman chris collins entered a not guilty plea just in the last hour in the southern

district. joining the table now is a former member of congress herself, donna edwards. what is wrong with these people? >> i must be going to the wrong picnics. >> seriously, if you wrote that in some sort of political pilot, some sort of wanna be house of cards, you'd be thrown out for implausible, stupid. who does that? >> i have to tell you when i heard it, obviously this investigation has been pending for a while. i was not surprised. >> why not? >> just wasn't surprised. disappointed. what's really surprising is that he continued until today to serve on the energy and commerce committee. he has jurisdiction overall of those issues, especially when it comes to medical devices and pharmaceuticals being approved through the fda. >> so talking about not being supplies surprised. he plans to stick it out and run to keep his seat in 2018. but are you not surprised because you were aware of this sort of conduct? i want to read you something jake sherman from politico reminded us of today.

something from january 11, 2017. chris collins talking loudly on the phone bragging about how many millionaires i made in buffalo. he bragged about a stock tip shared with people. did you know he was corrupt? >> what i did know is that he mixed business and pleasure. >> that's illegal. >> in this case it was the pleasure of serving in the congress on behalf of the people in his district in new york. and his own business. and so in that respect it's not surprising. you know what? the president came in and said drain the swamp. chris collins was one of the first to endorse -- the first to endorse president trump. >> the. >> there goes the swamp for you. >> and it's stunning. what we were talking about, you couldn't make this up. chris collins joins a list of other people who thought it was okay to lie to federal investigators. paul manafort, rick gates, george papadopoulos and now

chris collins. >> so, yeah. look, many of these things are unconducted. chris collins is a -- >> they all lied to the fbi. >> a different matter. it's not connected to this other set of problems donald trump has. >> but just being untethered, disrespectful and disdainful of fed riddle law enforcement. it's hard to find five people in the last 15 months who lie to the fbi. and frankly they're all unrelated -- >> i've never tried. i'm not sure. >> i'm amazed you think it's only going to be five. [ laughter ] >> remember, susan -- on the over/under, that seems definitely under. >> these are all the ones they charged. there may be more they've identified. >> a lot of people -- i'm going to ask steve a question because i want to hear what he has to say about this. a lot of people have been saying for awhile now, forget built russia inquiry. focus on the things that matter. focus on health care and focus on corruption. there's a lot of corruption around the swamp and the ways in

which donald trump is not drained it, but has filled it up to the point where it's like an infinity pool. >> filled it up like toxic waste. >> one of those infinity pools you can see forever. i want to know from you and this guy is incredible, novelistic incredible. the first guy to endorse trump, the whoem thing. the indictment is incredibly tight. >> do you think trump would pardon him? what's in the bad wiring? i'm going to take this call at the white house picnic because trump will pardon me. >> someone is doing -- this is not just illegal behavior, unethical behavior, but he conduct the the insider trading in such a stupid obvious ridiculous way. >> call from your car. >> text message. >> sending text messages, my god, how moronic can you be? someone that dumb is untethered from rationality. someone like you who is a communicator, who still does, not congressional candidates, but thinks about how to communicate things, what's the

narrative if you were advising the dccc, i want to make a n narrative i want to you tell for the mid terms, what would you say? >> first off, if you have a general disposition for crookedness and criminality, you combine it with arrogance and stupidity, it's a bad combination, gets you sent up to the big house which is probably where he's going. look, at the end of the day, the corruption in washington, d.c. is unfathomable. and i've spent a lot of years working in politics and washington, d.c. this moment in time, what's going on. you look at scott pruitt. how in the world did scott pruitt hang in there for as long as he hung in there? you look at ryan zink. you look across the depth and breadth of this administration. part of this -- and we look back to the days of jake abramoff. he's going to look like a piker when this is all said and done, right? in the age of manafort.

and it's not paul manafort alone. there's a lot of paul manaforts out there across washington, d.c., and people right now are feeding at the public trough, ripping off the american taxpayer, breaking all manner of rules, ethics, laws. and so far they haven't been called to account on it. but what's always been the case is that corruption has worked as an issue in political campaigns and that to be the reform party, to be the good government party, to be the clean government party is a powerful place to be. >> i think democrats are prepared to be that. i mean, if you look across the section of candidates who are running and who are winning now, a lot of them are coming in as reformers. they're not business as usual. they're not your typical politician. and they're coming in to reform the system so that they can do things for people at home. and i think that that is a message that's going to resonate and it doesn't have to be about donald trump and russia. >> let me get sam --

>> did paul ryan strip him of his committee today? >> yes, he did. >> when democrats retake the house, one of the major thematic points was culture of corruption. and the whole mark foley scandal fed into that and gave -- >> sex scandals, it was gros. >> it was all comprehensive and it was gros. and i think and to some degree a lot of democratic strategists think they can rerun that play book. the truth is you need to actually put out an actual contractor formula. a set of principles you want to apply to washington, d.c. and one of the things you can do with relation to chris collins is you're allowed to serve on a board of a company if you're a member of congress. you take no compensation. >> amazing. >> you are allowed to do these types of tratdes, provide you don't do insider information. there are dubious things that could target legislation,

reformed legislation, but we don't see the democratic party making that into a case yet. >> everyone around this table is too young to remember a thing i remember vividly which is the 1994 midterms which is -- >> speak for yourself. >> you're too young to remember. i'm the only old man old enough to remember this. that election when republicans took back control of the house the first time in 40 years, it was the combination of anti-incumbent, anti-clinton feeling with the fact that newt gingrich had put together whatever you want to say about the substance of it, it seemed like he had a positive agenda for the republican party. in that environment, the corruption of people like dan rostenkowski, if you go back and look at his climbs in light of today, it's comical. they're like parking tickets. >> pales in comparison. >> you could beat jim right and speaker of the house tom foley, even though he was not corrupt, you could beat people in that

because you had rampant corruption and something on the positive side. that's the challenge. they have to have both. >> a case is moving at lightning speed and raising eyebrows for the conduct of the judge. the first person to survive alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen by funding scientific breakthroughs, advancing public policy, and providing local support to those living with the disease and their caregivers. but we won't get there without you. join the fight with the alzheimer's association.

plenty of drama today right up through the final minutes of testimony from rick gates, the star witness in the fast-moving high stakes trial for paul manafort. gates' three-day stint on the stand is now over after helping the prosecution make its case against donald trump's former campaign chairman. the defense did its best to paint gates as a serial liar and if philanderer. washer joining us is eugene robinson and barbara mcquade in

alexandria. i heard you tell someone how strange it is chiming in helping the defense make its case. tell us what happened and how do you recover from that if there is an impression in the jurors' mind that the judge may have a preference? >> yeah, i don't know that i would go so far as to accuse the judge of trying to help one side or the other, but he is a very hands-on judge. he makes a lot of editorial comments and he sometimes asks his own questions. and you know, when it is the government that has the burden of proof in a case like this, you could be concerned he could be affecting the outcome. for example, yesterday rick gates testified that paul manafort paid very close attention to the finances. and the judge interjected, well, obviously not close enough because he didn't notice that you were stealing from him. that is the absolute theory that the defense is trying to explain to the jury. that's their argument. and so when the judge makes that point, you can't help but think that the jury who sees the judge as the independent authority figure expert on the law is there telling them this. it makes the argument all the

more plausible. what can you do about it? i'm not sure you can do much of anything. if the government is to lose this case, they have no right to appeal because of the double jeopardy clause and the 5th amendment. they're sort of left to do their best to try to rebut those arguments through witnesses. i suppose in theory they could ask for a jury instruction and a routine instruction says what the judge says is not the law on these sort of comments and remarks. but you do have to worry about the impact it could have on the jury when they go back into the jury room to deliberate. >> barbara, i take your point about not being able to say this is the judge's intent. i'm not a lawyer, we don't have any lawyers on our staff. this is just a list of the things we observed the judge to have done that seemed to us non-lawyers who most of what we know about trials from tv trials. and tell me how this adds up in the mind of a juror, again, who isn't usually a lawyer. i don't think lawyers are usually in high demand on juries like this, are they? >> no, no.

typically lawyers often get excluded from juries because there is a fear among the parties that the lawyer is going to take over the deliberations and run things behind the scenes so most often lawyers are excluded from the jury. i don't know of the employment of any of these jurors. i'd be surprise ed if there is a laura mong them. we felt today like we had a long enough list to present this to our viewers. tell me if i missed anything. so far judge ellis has interrupted the prosecutors' opening statements to remind them that paul manafort being wealthy is not in and of itself a crime. he has berated them for introducing exhibits too slowly. wanted them to do that quickly. he demanded they move faster. he's narrowed the evidence they are allowed to present. this is the weirdest. he accused the prosecutor of tearing up, like starting to cry during a tense exchange. the prosecutor i think came back and said he was not starting to cry. he took a shot at the prosecution's witnesses when he told rick gates that manafort

couldn't have kept too close an eye on his money if gates was able to steal some of it. those seem like really weird, weird, weird things for a judge to do, no? >> it's very unusual. i've never seen anything like it, but i will say that i have heard that judge ellis does have this reputation for being very involved. now, on the plus side he's engaged. he's paying close attention. he has strong knowledge of the law. but i just feel like he is interjecting so much it could be a distraction for the jury. the other thing he does and you mentioned is he is kind of obsessed with moving the case along quickly. all judges are to some extent, but i have never seen it to this degree. and so much so that i worry that it could impact the government's ability to meet its burden of proof. it's a very complex document intensive case and so many times when the government has asked to publish their exhibits, that is, show them to the jury in real time, the judge has said, the jury can look at that later in the jury room. it's very difficult i think for jurors to keep track of which exhibit they're supposed to go back and look at later after

hearing voluminous evidence on documents, on complex international bank documents and go back and figure out which part of the document to look at. judges do allow the jury to see it in real time so they can match it up with the documents that will prove the case in the end. i do worry it could have a negative impact on the government's ability to carry that burden of proof. >> barbara mcquade, thank you for being our eyes and ears and translator. we really need it. thank you. eugene, so take me through how this looks to you. i mean, you follow more of these cases than me. when someone tells me to read something later, it's usually like the insurance policy of a car rental agreement. yeah, i'll look at that later. i never do. >> subject to terms and conditions, click here, read it later. >> my warranty for dvr, i never read it later. do you think jurors are going to stay late and read the exhibits? that seems like a pretty material omission in the fact

pattern. >> i assume he meant in the jury room later when they start deliberations, when they can have the evidence and the documents and you can go back and read it and see what it says. you know, they call that the rocket docket. they don't call it rocket docket for nothing. so the judges there do collectively have a reputation for moving things along. you know, you could argue that the judge is being over scrupulous perhaps, but certainly scrupulous in pairing down the prosecution's case to its essence. or you can argue, you know, you could raise the name lance ito. >> what do you think? >> i don't know the judge, and let's see the rest of the trial. let's see his comportment, let's see his jury instructions. but, you know, as barbara said,

this is one shot the government gets on these charges. now, there are other charges, of course, in washington. >> let me ask you a question. so people have put the importance of mueller succeeded here at do or die. i don't know that makes sense to me. 40% of the country as we talk about all the time thinks mueller is running a witch hunt. the rest of the country probably sees it gates is probably a cooperating witness for the broader mueller investigation. this is just one prosecution in which he's assisting the government. do you really think it's do or die for mueller? >> i don't think it's do or die for mueller. even paul manafort in this country is entitled to a presumption of innocence. he is an innocent man who is on trial. and the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty of the crimes that he's accused of. so, we live in an era where we have the president chanting and the attorney general chanting lock her up. we have people talking about locking up political opponents. i think this is an important

point to remember. it's not for people who are opposed to trump who are talking about the importance of the rule of law, fidelity to institutions, the department of justice in this country, to try to put a finger on a scale, try to cheer lead in a jury system, sometimes the prosecutors don't immediate the burden of proof. he could be guilty, but the prosecutors be unable to prove it which means he walks out of there. it's going to be what it's going to be. but i don't think it's connected materially to the many other charges, many other indictments that i think are likely to come. >> there's a reason why in our criminal system we say you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because taking away someone's liberty is the most difficult thing to do. it should be hard to put someone in jail. paul manafort may deserve to go to jail, but it shouldn't be easy. >> we have all these threads, rick gates who was around long, long, long after paul manafort

was gone. we might have -- >> there are a lot of documents. >> right, right, it was called a paper kals for -- case for a reason. >> it's difficult not being in the jury room, not being in the jury box to impose our views on what the jury -- >> you're all so rational and reasonable today. all right. after the break, democrats big night, how coming close in ohio put a spring in democrats' step this morning and what it could mean for november.

last night's special election in ohio may technically be too close to call. it did make one thing clear. trump and the republicans may be in trouble come november. the ohio congressional seat has been solidly red for more than three decades. but now a margin of less than 1% separates the republican and democrat candidates. big take away, this means good things for democrats.

jennifer ruben details why the gop should be worried. quote, running an essentially even race in a district that should not remeetly be in play will please democrats. for republicans, they avert complete disaster but should prepare for a big blue wave. this need to worry about 60 seats less republican than the 12. sam stein is back. sam, let me start with you. it seems like wi we often over read the results of a special election. if you prevail, you read into it, project onto it national import. if you come up short, you make it local. that doesn't seem like an excuse the republicans have for this district. being this close does not mean anything good for republicans right now. >> yeah, and i wouldn't just, you know -- don't take just this one race. look at the totality of races that have been done. the congressional ones, state legislative ones, the senate. in each instance democratic turnout is not far exceeding. democratic turnout is greater than it was in 2016 and far

greater than the republican growth in turnout. what that builds up to is a likely wave. we don't know if it will be across the board. but the more interesting thing to me i guess from last night is that republicans find themselves in a little bit of a box. on the one hand, donald trump's incredible unpopularity has hurt the party politically obviously. but on the other hand, they desperately need him to turnout his voters. and so after last night he can conceivably say, you know what, my visit on saturday to delaware county helped gin up enthusiasm enough i was able to save the republican candidate in the race. i think he can make that argument even though the republican race shouldn't have been that close to begin with. what that means is republican candidates in difficult districts will be left with an impossible choice. do i latch onto the president or do i not? and i don't know if there's really great answers there. >> we have two strategists at the table. what do they do? >> it's really good news for ken

running in the ohio 7, a u.s. navy veteran in a close race there because what it means, when you look at these midterm elections, there's only three elections in 118 years where the incumbent president's party has picked up seats. this isn't going to be one much them. what it indicates is that no matter how deeply red the district is, you're not safe. so today there is panic among the strategists at the house campaign committee. there is glee amongst the democratic strategists who were tapping on the glass on a district they should never have been competitive in. >> you served in congress and people still call you for your advice. what is the proper calibration on the good news from last night without getting over confident? >> back in the spring i said that i thought democrats were going to get 35 to 40 seats and i think the map has been greatly expanded even since then. but it means democrats also have to focus on their districts. not on the larger political narrative, the national political narrative, but focus

on their districts. that is what was done in the ohio district. conor lamb's district in pennsylvania. and i think there democrats will be able to capitalize on the momentum and the energy that is already there for democratic voters based on the national narrative. >> that's harder to do than say, though. i spent a lot of time in the trump counties that flipped for the first time. i went to erie, i went to bay city, i went to a lot of places that hadn't voted republican since reagan. it's the right strategy but hard to execute in a news climate where even the local news leads with donald trump's most outrageous act of the day. >> look, it's always the case that whatever is in the white house is -- we've now nationalized all these races. it used to be you didn't used to nationalize midterm elections. since '94 these have pretty much all been nationalized and they're all about the occupant of the oval office. donald trump is the biggest,

loudest, all consuming presidential occupant of that spot that any of us have ever known so of course every race will be about that. what's really different with that race last night is you're going to rarely have a situation where you have a republican that's going to benefit from two things simultaneously. one, the president genning up his base and a popular anti-trump governor coming in and endorsing you at the last minute and going on television for you. >> so you're saying this is as good as it's going to get. >> with john kasich. he won by the narrowest of margins. i know we haven't officially called it i don't think. but he had to figure out a world in which he could get donald trump and john kasich to both be on his side at the last moment, both motivating. you're just not going to see that kind of concurrence in very many places in america where republicans are in danger. >> gene, i'm guessing the effect for a college educated suburban woman of having kasich come in would be to sand off some of the

most offensive, vile aspects of trumpism. how many other candidates will have the kasich numbing gel. >> probably not many. kasich numbing gel, i like that. but here's what's going to happen. trump has been trying desperately to sort of gen up enthusiasm among his base. that's going to continue, that's going to intensify. >> he's going to build a wall around us, right, if he can't get one around the border. >> so the table is set for democrats, but they have to close the deal. an they have to -- and they have to anticipate that not all republicans are going to be so depressed that they can't bother to drag themselves out of bed. >> here's another thing. you have to look in kansas in the governor's race where kris kobach likely to be the republican nominee. so you have these trump-endorsed candidates -- >> and he's the nuts nut. >> and they're nuts.

so when the nut moves into the general election, these nuts can't win a general election even in deep red republican states like kansas. so now you have the scenario where if he's the nominee, maybe you have a democratic candidate who's going to be elected governor of the state of kansas. so there is down range consequences for this. this is going to be a very bad year for republicans in these midterm elections. >> and in some of these districts, the republican committees are not going to have the $4.5 million that they spent in this special election for districts that should be going republican. these guys are going to have to get out there and raise their own money. >> if marco rubio is the president, this guy would have won by 15 points. this is fundamentally about donald trump. wherever you see suburban areas, that's going to be an anti-trump vote turning out. a lot of that anti-trump vote will be made up of republican women or independent women who have voted for that republican candidate in the past but they're taking a walk this election. >> and this will not have been told effectively, okay, the republican suburban women,

you're scared by donald trump but john kasich is going to come and say it's okay, he's really not that bad. he didn't want him to come here, don't pay attention to the president, pay attention to me. this is not going happen in very many places in america. >> we have to sneak in one more break. we'll be right back. street nam e. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m

let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

looks like michael cohen is not the only one that knows how to hit record on an iphone. omarosa secretly recorded conversations with president trump while she was working in the white house, according to

new reporting from "the daily beast." sam stein is here and "the daily beast" broke this story. sam, what do we know? >> we know that she secretly recorded her conversations or at least part of them -- >> that's awesome. is tom arnold watching? here are the tapes, we found them. omarosa has them. what's on them? >> that we don't know. our reporters talked to a source who heard the tapes. some of it was innocuous, but we don't know the extent of the recordings she did or what kind of conversations she was having. the fact that she took the effort to make these recordings without the president's apparent knowledge says a lot about the people who the president surrounds himself with and a lot about how little they trust trump apparently. obviously she's not the only person who made these recordings. she has a book coming out, this is part of the publicity tour for the book, but i will say it does seem likely that the book will be explosive.

>> and the book is called "unhinged." the president and everybody around him clearly are unhinged. >> as is the author of the book. everybody. >> i mean i didn't give her a job in the west wing, i did. >> of course. but as you were pointing out during the break, how does that set her apart from a lot of other people that work in the white house. but i secretly recorded sam in the green room before the show. and during the break i'm going to play it for you and it's going to blow your mind. >> how dare you! how dare you! >> i'm going to start secretly recording the breaks at the table. this to me, you take the story about, you know, the first-ever person in congress to endorse the president being charged today. you take the omarosa conduct. he is surrounded by low-lifes. >> this is like some sort of comic mob family, right? >> comey was right. >> and we have to remind ourselves this is not -- none of

this is normal. none of this is acceptable. this is -- >> acceptable. >> you shouldn't staff the white house with these kind of people. >> omarosa will be on sunday on "meet the press." we're all heading to the bar. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> i've got my tape recorder. thanks, nicolle. if it's wednesday, sometimes when you win, you lose. tonight, blue wave rising. how the extraordinarily tight special election in ohio sets up for a potential big democratic night this fall. >> we have an election in november. the fight continues. plus, damage control. president trump is taking credit for an ohio victory. but has he instead damaged the gop? we'll talk to governor john kasich, who worked to push his party's candidate over the