need in this. >> thank you. we have a podcast, it's. true every tuesday you can get an episode. i talk to people about the news. this week, nancy northup. you can download and subscribe anywhere on tune in. tune in on with pod. rachel maddow starts right now. >> good evening. thank you. much appreciated. thank you for joining us this hour. happy thursday. so the prosecution says they will rest their case tomorrow in the first felony trial of the president's campaign chairman, paul manafort. now, we had known heading into today that the prosecution would try squeeze in a bunch of witnesses between now and the end of the presentation of the case. what we didn't know before

tonight is that pros clurts apparently end their case with a flurry of evidence and testimony tomorrow that is about the trump campaign. this is an unusual case. you might remember the defense lawyers argued that nothing related to his time running the trump campaign should be discussed or even alluded to at trial. and the prosecution side largely conceded that they wouldn't make the trial about his time running trump's presidential effort. except, they said, for one thing. they advised the court that they did intend to present evidence about paul manafort allegedly telling the ceo of a tiny little bank in chicago that that ceo could be secretary of the army. once trump was elected president. that bank ended up giving paul

manafort about $16 million in loans between election day and the inauguration. it's been a little hard to figure out. when it would ultimately be flushed out in court west haven't seen hide nor hair of this ceo who apparently really did think he would get to run the u.s. army once trump was sworn in. we've been wondering all along if he himself might have worked out a deal with prosecutors. where is this guy? we've been trying to figure out how this allegation about selling this army job might relate to the multiple felony charges. we haven't understood why this one aspect of paul manafort's case was cleared to go ahead when all other aspects of the trump presidency have been

blocked. it's pen sort of a juicy allegation, an interesting one. we haven't really known where it was going. tonight we know. now we know about tomorrow, on the last day of the prosecution presenting their case, they are apparently going to finally lay it all out so we will finally know what they've been getting at with this. two employees of that little chicago bank were given immunity deals in exchange for their testimony against paul manafort. those would witnesses who were given immunity have not testified thus far. we now understand that they will both be called to the stand tomorrow morning. we also learned late tonight that prosecutors have added a third new witness from this same bank. a witness we had never heard of before tonight. that they announced that they will call the third witness from that little bank in chicago tomorrow as well.

and prosecutors have now presented new documentary evidence that appears to be about this allegation that the chairman of the trump campaign offered to basically sell the job of u.s. army secretary in exchange of several million dollars for himself in dodgy bank loans. it is apparently all going to get laid out. we'll have more on that ahead tonight. what this means for your news consumption plans, if nothing else, is that prosecutors will throw a big trump-related twist into the manafort case right at the very end of it tomorrow. so that should be fascinating. we'll have more on that coming up over the cost of the hour. also, here's an intriguing development. this is something that we talked about on the show when it happened two days ago in court. it happened tuesday afternoon in court in the manafort trial.

this was kevin downing, paul manafort's defense lawyer, cross examining trump's deputy campaign chairman rick gates. question. now in terms of your quoopgs the office of special counsel, after you took your place, did you have occasion to be interviewed by other members of the office of special counsel about the trump campaign? answer from rick gates. yes. question, were you interviewed on several over gagss your time at the trump campaign? no answer. at that point greg andres, the prosecutor, jumps in. objection, your honor. all right. do you need to come to the bench? mr. andres says please. the judge says all right. you may do so. and then what happens next? we have no idea. pages 1309 through 1405 filed under seal. so we talked about this tuesday night after it happened. this was intriguing when it happen. there has only been this one

other reference in the whole paul manafort trial to his time on the trump campaign. this thing i previously mentioned about him maybe offering the job of running the u.s. earl or the a bank president who approved the loans for him. that's the only other reference in the trump campaign thus far. two days ago out of the blue, the manafort defense lawyer asks rick gates, did mueller ask but your time in the trump campaign? the prosecutor gets up and objects. the judge summons both sides to come to the bench. he flips on, i kid you not, the white noise machine which is a real thing. so the jury and the spectators hear crashing waves instead of the conversation. none can hear what's being said. they have this long private communication. we know it is long because we know it takes six pages to

transcribe. but we can't see the pages because they are sealed. now, we do know after that bench conference, whatever happen there, the conversation picked back up again the same lawyer questioning rick gates and rick gates, after that bench conference, whatever happen, he no longer faced more questions the trump campaign or whatever he told special counsel with the trump campaign. so whatever happened with the judge there, paul manafort's lawyer felt the need to change course. that's one of the most intriguing moments. it has been a real mystery as to what that was. today, fascinating development. prosecutors today filed this. it is a formal request to keep that side bar discussion at the bench, where it is just the judge and the lawyers from both sides with the white noise machine on, they filed a request to keep that discussion secret. it is sealed already. in the course of the trial under

normal circumstances, that would eventually be unsealed. prosecutors filed this motion saying that whole discussion has to be kept secret and sealed. quote, on october 7, 200 -- during side bar conference, substantive evidence pertaining on an ongoing investigation was revealed. the following portion of the side bar conference transcript identifies that evidence or reveals details about that evidence. and then they lay it out specifically. page 1399. lines 14-19. page 1402. lines 1-2. 14-17. page 1403. lines 12 to 15. that's where the evidence was discussed. the evidence was revealed pertaining to an ongoing investigation. so the prosecutors argued, identifying the identified

portions would reveal substantive evidence pertaining on an ongoing investigation. the government's interest in protecting the confidentiality of its ongoing investigations is compelling. law enforcement agencies must be able to investigate crime without the details of the investigation being released to the public in a manner that compromises the investigation. the government has a paramount interest in releasing the release of government which may reveal the direction is that progress of ongoing investigations that is not otherwise known to the public. so something came up at that moment in court. it was prompted by these questions about gates. we don't know exactly what happened. but something about this concerns rick gates. it concerns ongoing investigations that must be kept secret according to prosecutors.

fascinating when they filed motion. fascinating to see that it was sealed and now fascinating to say it has to stay sealed. then tonight the judge issued the order and he agrees prosecutors. yep, it will be kept secret. whatever happened after rick gates was asked about what he's told robert mueller about his time on the trump campaign, that will continue to be kept secret by the court because of other ongoing investigations. what other ongoing investigations? this is the part where i want to say, tell me more. no. you are not getting anymore. nobody else is either. we will find out when whatever that is turns up in some other case, i guess. what other case? we don't know. fascinating. we'll have a little more on that

ahead tonight as well. that's been unspooling in the late afternoon into tonight. now, last night at this time, we made public here this show an audio recording that we obtained from a closed door fund-raiser that took place last week. this is an audio recording on which the chairman devin nunes and kathy mcmorris rodgers, they appeared to admit at this closed door event where they didn't know they were being recorded. they appear to admit that despite public statements to the contrary, there is a house republican man to pursue the impeachment of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein who overseas the bob mueller investigation. we broke that story last night it is plowing through today's news in a couple of ways you should know about. a couple of weeks ago, you might

remember a small group of hard line pro trump congressional republicans introduced articles of impeachment for rod rosenstein. you might also remember that house speaker paul ryan immediately distanced himself and the rest of house republicans from that effort. >> do i support impeachment of rosenstein? no, i do not. for a number of reasons. first, it takes -- i don't think we should be cavalier with this process or this term. number one. number two, i don't think. this rises to high crimes is that misdemeanors. >> given what you just said, did you try to discourage your colleagues from taking this step and do you view it as legitimate effort or a stunt? >> so congressional republicans, at least the leadership, that

they think this idea of impeaching rosenstein is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. behind this closed door, house intelligence chairman devin nunes and kathy mcmorris rodgers, they appeared to indicate that republicans in congress do support impeaching rod rosenstein. they don't want to do it yet. answering a question at this fund-raiser for rodgers, answering a question from an audience member about who are not it had any support in congress, devin nunes explained that there is support for the impeachment of rosenstein. he said you won't get an argument about that from our colleagues but he said they're not talking about it now before the election. they plan to pursue it, a, once the election is over, and b, crucially, after republicans have confirmed brett kavanaugh

to the united states supreme court. this is not a man they've talked about publicly but apparently they are talking about it behind closed doors. >> appears from outsiders -- >> well, so it's a bit complicated. i say that because you have to -- we only have so many months left. so we vote to impeach, right? what that does, the senate only has so much time. you don't want to drop everything and not confirm the new supreme court justice.

you're not getting from what i said publicly, i don't think you'll get any argument from most of our colleagues. the question is, the timing of it right before the election. >> so the senate has to start -- >> the senate would have to drop everything they're doing and start to start with impeachment on rosenstein. and then take risk of not getting kavanaugh confirmed. so it is not a matter of rosenstein. it is a matter of timing. >> it is a matter of timing. don't think that we're not against rosenstein. don't think we're not going to impeach rosenstein. it is not just because they don't like him or not, it is because he oversees the special counsel investigation which is being run by robert mueller.

forcing rod rosenstein out of office by meext, that's the one way republicans could end the mueller investigation. removing rod rosenstein would allow him to be replaced with somebody who would shut mueller down. it is a matter of timing. again, this is what they're saying behind closed doors. not in public. if this is the way they're manning to sequence their actions, this raises the possibility that congressional republicans know that could it represent a constitutional confrontation if not a crisis if the plan is to make sure that brett kavanaugh is on the supreme court when that happens for just such an occasion. well, that changes the meaning of the kavanaugh confirmation. right? that raises the stakes even further. it sort of changes them as to when and whether cavanagh will be confirmed.

we reached out to paul brine this news particularly because he has said that republicans in congress won't pursue anything like this. since kathy mcmorris rodgers is on his leadership team and she is talking about this at a fundraiser in her home state. it raises the question wl republicans have one plan. then once the election is over, they are planning a surprise u-turn. we've had no comment from the speaker's office in response to our questions but we'll let you know if we do hear from him. you smng there is a big new storm brewing when it comes to kavanaugh's supreme court hearing and whether or not republicans are trying on block access to specific gromts kavanaugh's past because democrats say those documents might prove that kavanaugh lied under oath to the senate the last time he had a confirmation

hearing. in 2006, he appeared before the committee. the same committee he will appear before for the nomination for the supreme court. he was white house staff secretary at the time of that nomination. before that he worked for the white house during the bush administration. senators had a lot of questions about his proximity to various bush administration scandals. specifically to the policy on torture and detainees. senators wanted to know what role brett kavanaugh might have played in forming those policies if any. each time they asked him the response from brett kavanaugh was, no, not me, had nothing to do with me. >> i was not involved and am not

involved in the rules governing detention of combatants. >> what about the documents relating to the administration's practices and policies on torture? did you say anything about that? or did you first heard about it when you read about it in the paper? >> i think with respect to the legal justifications, the policies relating to detainees, i was not aware of the memos that came out in the summer sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. this was not part of my docket in the counsel's office or as staff secretary. >> i was not aware of any issues on that. this was not part of my docket. that answer got its own national headline at the time. because kavanaugh's nomination was so controversial.

kavanaugh denies floel detainee policies. it turns out that may not have been true. about a year after brett kavanaugh was confirmed to a federal appeals court, the "washington post" and npr reported that brett kavanaugh had been personally involved in at least one. it was part of what he dealt with when he worked in the george w. bush white house. now, this has a whole bunch of consequences. number one, had brett kavanaugh admitted in his confirmation hearings that he had taken part in white house policy discussions about enemy combatants and so-called detainee issues in 9/11, it is quite possible had he admit that, he would have had to remove himself from the issues. that's the court that has exclusive jurisdiction for cases

under the detainee treatment act and the military commissions act. in fact, once he was confirmed and he landed on that court, the very first case tried before brett kavanaugh as a d.c. court judge was a case about detainees at guantanamo. the lawyers who represented them at guantanamo told npr that had he known kavanaugh had been part of white house discussion about detainees, he might well have demanded that kavanaugh recuse himself from that case. so kavanaugh denying under oath before the u.s. senate that he had anything to do with any policy discussions about detainees, that had real world troubling legal consequences. there's also the question of

whether or not brett kavanaugh lied under oath to the senate in order to get that last judgeship. after the news reports in 2007, despite his denials to the contrary in his confirmation hearing, dick durbin wrote to then newly minltd judge brett kavanaugh. we just checked in with dick durbin's office now, they say they're still waiting for a response from judge kavanaugh, now 11 years later. the mail is slow. senator leahy referred for prosecution for lying under o h oath. they did not take up that issue but it is still hanging out there. it is kind of amazing that this is the guy now nominated for the u.s. supreme court. with this particular loose end

just hanging out there still from the last time he was confirmed for something which caused such controversy. this was never settled. and the fact the senate, the senators get old in the senate. the guys who were there 11 years ago, some of them are still there. that's how it works. so now the aforementioned storm brewing, democrats have requested to receive and review gromts kavanaugh's times including the document that's might settle it once and for all. democrats are now trying out an unprecedented series of actions to try to get these documents from kavanaugh's past. over republican objections. we'll hear about more of that in a moment. but that was all before we

learned about these discussions by republicans, about them trying on sequence the brett kavanaugh confirmations so we hear that he's done and in place before any move to impeach rod rosenstein and end the mueller investigation. this was already going to be a red hot fight. it is now more like a raging inferno. more ahead. dear foremothers, your society was led by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com 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. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. this bed hugs my body. i'm now a morning person. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize air flow to keep you cool. hello bed of my dreams. order online we'll build it, box it and ship it to your door for you to enjoy. sleep on it for up to one hundred nights and love it! or you'll get a full refund. returns are free and easy. i love my leesa. today is gonna be great. read our reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order now and get $150

off, and free shipping, too. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. nick was born to move. 3 toddlers won't stop him. and neither will lower back pain. because at a dr. scholl's kiosk he got a recommendation for our custom fit orthotic to relieve his foot, knee, or lower back pain, from being on his feet. dr. scholl's. born to move.

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.

this week democrats in the senate made history in a way they are not happy about. for what is believed to be the first time ever, senators on the judiciary committee, democratic senators on the committee, took this unprecedented step to try on vet a nominee for the supreme court. they filed foia requests. freedom of information requests, the kind thing journalists do when nobody gives us information we're asking for. u.s. senators don't usually have to do that to get documentation related to a nominee for the judiciary.

that's what they're trying to do. this is vetting somebody for one of the most important jobs in the country. certainly the most pivotal job in our country's history. republicans are blocking democrats from getting most of the documents from kavanaugh's long record in public service. republicans just want to get it done and get him on the court quickly. democrats are doing stuff even stuff they've then done before. that nobody has ever done to get the paper work that kavanaugh has produced in his long washington life. joining us now, richard blumenthal, one of the members who has been trying on learn these new tricks to get access to kavanaugh's records tonight. >> thank you. >> members of the senate have never filed foia requests. am i right this is unprecedented

some. >> never before have any republican or democratic senators had to filed freedom of information requests for these kinds of documents. the reason is quite simply, senate republicans are hiding and concealing. massive number of documents. tens of thousands of payments relating to judge kavanaugh's service as staff secretary to president bush. remember he served for three years. that was the time a the love these detainee issues arose. it is unprecedented and very unfortunate. unfortunately the senate republicans have really shattered the norms and they're violating the intent and letter of the presidential records act. >> there are a lot of elements of judge kavanaugh's records and his position on the law that

will come under scrutiny and that have been under various degrees of controversy. as far as how we're supposed to do this as a country. we have reason experience of a nominee for the court who has an extensive paper trail because of work in the white house. elena kagan had a long record in washington. and there was no issue in terms of receiving all the documentation, all the records from her time working in the administration. what is the justification for treating elena kagan differently? >> there is no principal explanation for it. only that the republicans obviously want to rush through this nomination. they have not only limited the scope of the documents that they will allow access to but they've

also, even to the limits number of documents they're willing to make available, they have delegated, or outsourced the prescreening, cherry picking process to a republican lawyer, bill burke, who just coincidentally happened to work as a subordinate for judge kavanaugh when they were both working in the bush white house. bill burke is now bush's lawyer. he is also dan mcgahn's lawyer. >> isn't bill burke also recommending reince priebus in the russia investigation? >> exactly. >> that's the person? >> in effect sanitizing all these documents. without any explanation, any log or any record of the ones that he is withholding. >> we had a story here last night, a republican fund-raiser

where devin nunes, and kathy mcmorris rodgers on the republican side, they were talking about the potential impeachment of rod rosenstein and the need to shut down the mueller investigation and they seemed to be talking about timing that in relation to the kavanaugh confirmation. the story was we believe news worth worthy. what do you think will happen in terms of the timing of the confirmation? republicans seem to be making it clear in different terms, in public and behind closed doors, they want to get this done very fast. definitely before the election. >> first, understand that very few of us are ever going on cast a more important vote. i will never cast a more important vote than this one on this nomination and it is one that will live with us for history. it is the one that our grandchildren will say, how did

you vote on the cavanagh nomination? and we need to approach with it that. it will affect the air and water you drink. whether you can marry the person you love. if you can decide where and when you want to become pregnant. all of these rights and liberties will depend on brett kavanaugh. what do i think will happen in terms of timing? i think the republicans will try to rush through this nomination. my question is, what are they hiding? what are they afraid of the american people seeing in the thousands of pages of documents? >> republicans think they have an election issue that could swing either way in terms of of this coming up. they think the fight against kavanaugh will like will you be the most potent issue for the democratic party in this election as well. senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, thank you for being

here. >> much more ahead. stay with us.

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. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent

infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. the smoother the skin, the more comfortable you are in it. and now there's a new way to smooth. introducing new venus platinum. a premium metal handle boosts control... to reveal up to 100% smooth skin. venus

so you have become accustomed to a little courtroom drama in your daily news now, right? especially when it comes to the russia scandal. something happened today that was not at all about the russia scandal but it was incredible drama in a federal courtroom. it was basically about the trump administration badly screwing something up.

the trump administration lawyer standing there in the court couldn't explain why it happen. was apologizing to the judge. the judge had an incredibly dramatic on the record freakout right there in the courtroom. ended up with the judge ordering a plane to turn around in the air immediately. it was unbelievable. we've got that story and the transcript, next. this is not a bed.

it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999, intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts. so you wake up ready to train for that marathon. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends wednesday. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma♪ ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™

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. the wonderful thing about polident is the fact that it's very, very tough on bacteria, yet it's very gentle on the denture itself.

polident's 4 in 1 cleaning system consists of 4 powerful ingredients that work together to deep clean your denture in hard to reach places. it kills 99.99% of odor causing bacteria and it helps to remove stains. polident should be the first choice of every person that wears a denture, to clean their denture. we heard that this happened in the middle of the afternoon but we just got the transcript a couple minutes before we got on the air. so check this out. the drama starts with a recess. the court will stand in recess for about ten minutes or so. thank you. it says in the trans crip, there upon a recess in the proceedings occurred. then they come back in court. the judge says, all right. counsel, aclu lawyer, if i may, your honor, before we get started. we have an unexpected matter we would like to raise with you.

the judge, sure, go right ahead. aclu lawyer. we just learned during recess that carmen and her little girl, the ones we were told would not be removed before 11:59 p.m. today, we just received information suggesting that they likely were removed. we learned from the direct service provider of the dilley detention facility where karmen and her little girl were detained that they were taken from their rooms this morning at dilley. we understand there was an 8:15 a.m. flight out of san antonio so they would have been taken directly from dilley to the san antonio. it suggests they may have been removed or put on a plane. we wanted to raise this because this is obviously unacceptable to plaintiff. it violates the represent participation the government made to us as well as the recommend participation the government made in court yesterday, that our clients would not be removed before

11:59 p.m. thursday, meaning today. it also violates the entire premise of this entire meeting. we would like to ask the score to order to bring her back. all right. her flight has departed? is that correct? aclu lawyer, that is our understanding, your honor. we believe the government may have more accurate information than us. thank you, counsel. whereupon he says yes, i learned of this just as plaintiff's counsel learned of this. in fact the two plaintiffs have been removed contrary to my representation in open court. i will, we will do everything we can to remedy that. the judge says, i will -- i want those people brought back forthwith. we will bring them. that is what i have asked them to do. the judge, i am not asking. i am ordering the government to do it. someone in the government made a decision to remove those plaintiffs and i am not happy at all about that. if they are not brought back

forthwith, i am going on issue orders to show cause why people should not be held in contempt of court and i'm going on start with the attorney general. government lawyer, your honor, we fully understand. i have been on the fwoenl folks from-the judge. i appreciate that, counsel. government lawyer. and i'm doing everything i can. the judge, it's a forthwith -- >> to fix this. the court, it's a forthwith order. i am not happy about this at all. the judge. i am raising my voice but i am extremely upset about this. the judge says, this is not acceptable. i am going to issue a separate order with respect -- i've already issued the order. i am going to put in it writing and issue the forthwith order. directing the government, directing the attorney general and subordinates and the government and i will spell it all out on an order. an appropriate orderful are they on a government plane? the judge, this is pretty outrageous. somebody in pursuit of justice who has alleged a credible fear

in her mind and is seeking justice in a united states court is just, is spirited away while her troerns arguing for justice for her? it's outrageous. government lawyer. i don't disagree the sentiment. to answer your question, i would be speculating but gently it would be a plane chartered by the government. if they are on a plane, when they land, they can be turned around and brought back and that's what i have conveyed to the agencies, particularly i.c.e. who is responsible for -- the judge, i will directing the government to turn that plane around. either now, while it is in the air or while it lands. turn it around. it is outrageous. government lawyer. i completely understand. i know it is not your fault. government lawyer. we will -- the order is out there. it is on the record. government lawyer, no, not -- i've already -- i've already sent -- i've already e-mailed

them xagtly your words. the judge. all right. government lawyer. that's the best i can do. the judge. what else can do i? i don't want to put knew an awkward position but what else can do i? cynic we're talking about expedited, we're talking about an expedited return now. i think your order accompanied by your oral order, be directed at the attorney general and others, i think in my blum opinion, that should suffice, your honor. the judge says, i'm really upset. i really am. i am sorry to keep going back to it. but when you think about it, these people are seeking justice in the united states court. i expect somebody to file something or post something on the docket if and when, not if, when they are returned. all right. a case brought by the aclu challenging the trump administration for sending back

people to countries that they 58 dangerous. they have a credible fear for their lives without giving them an adequate case. an adequate opportunity to make their case in this country. we are told after this happen today, after the judge quite literally ordered that plane to turn around in the air. we are told that carmen, suda pseudo anymore, they are expected to remain here for a while. but had the trump administration gotten its way, they would have been gone. had that recess not happened and the aclu lawyer not gotten that phone call and the judge not come back hair on fire, ordering the plane to turn around. oh, hee on earth ♪ uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪

i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]

♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ you never listen to your dad when you're a teenager. my dad- he always gave me two pieces of advice. one was to always be humble. and the second was to always do the right thing.

now that i'm the new ceo of uber, i've taken that advice to heart. and i'm using that advice to change our company. moving forward, we're taking into consideration what's good for our driver partners, our riders, and the cities that we operate in. and it's going to make us a much, much better service. 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. prosecutors in the paul manafort plan to rest their case tomorrow. but there is one part of the case the prosecution has been slowly sort of strangely building that we now know is apparently going to be the finale. it is about a little bank in chicago called the federal savings bank. that bank loaned paul manafort $16 million. this is the guy in charge of that bank and ultimately responsible for those manafort loans. right around the time that he was loaning away a huge portion of his little bank to paul manafort, he was reportedly

seeking to become secretary of the u.s. army, including calling up the pentagon to ask for briefings to prepare himself for a possible job. none of this made any sense until this week in court when prosecutors produced as evidence an e-mail from paul manafort telling rick gates that he basically expected this bank guy to be considered for army secretary. so it's intriguing, right? it is the chairman of a presidential campaign appearing to be selling the promise of a job to run the u.s. army in exchange for money. it's fascinating. it's luring. but why is this part of the special counsel's case against paul manafort? yesterday the prosecutors updated the list of evidence to include what appears to be more evidence about this offer. now we're told two former employees of that bank are going to give testimony tomorrow, testimony for which they were granted immunity. on top of that, late today the government added yet another

name to their witness list for their last day. it is a third employee from that same bank. paul manafort is not on trial for his relationship with this bank president. so why is the government so interested in putting this on the record? and why are they doing? and what is literally going to be the final hour of their case? joining us now is the former u.s. attorney of michigan who has been sitting in the courtroom every day watching the proceedings. great to see you. thanks for being here. >> it's been a fun adventure. >> do you have any insight into how this is going to wrap up and how this secretary of the army small bank in chicago stuff might fit into it? >> well, it is part of the bank fraud scheme in the indictment there is kind of two big categories of charges here. one is the tax fraud where he underreported his income. the other is all of these bank frauds. it's really been quite dry, very methodically going through lots of records showing

inconsistencies in submissions that he overstated his income and understated his debt in order to get these loans. but what is interesting is tomorrow it seems like they could probably do the same thing. if you look at the indictment, it says that the federal savings bank loan was obtained by submitting a false profit and loss report. it seems easy enough to show that on the documents. i think it will be intriguing to hear from these witnesses. two of whom have received immunity. we did get a taste of this during the testimony of rick gates who did testify about this aspect of the case. i guess we'll get a little more of it tomorrow. if i were the prosecutor, i would everything in my power to keep trump's name out of this because it could be such a distraction. you don't know whether jurors have strong feelings about that. but this seems like a deliberate effort. they must believe they need this to prove the necessary intent for paul manafort, which is he had the knowledge and intent to deceive the bank. >> this is sort of a dumb

question. but as a person who is not a lawyer, i have learned not to underestimate any own capacity for ignorance in these matters. as far as i can tell, it sounds like a crime for paul manafort to allegedly offer up a job running the u.s. army in exchange for a loan for himself. but when i read the documents associated with this case, when i read the indictment, it doesn't look to me like this is actually what he's being charged with. this isn't being charged as a criminal manner either being related to paul manafort or the recipient of this, who is not charged with anything. >> and he is not on the witness list, so it doesn't look like they will be calling him. they will be calling three other employees of the federal savings bank. and, so, it seems to me that what might be going on here is that the defense could say, well, the bank was not defrauded. to prove bank fraud you have to show the bank was defrauded. if he went along with it, that's

not bank fraud. that might be some other crime. but it might not be bank fraud if the bank is not deceived. it is likely these other witnesses are going to have to testify about how the bank was defrauded. and so, it may be rebutting a defense that the bank was in on this and therefore not defrauded and closing all of those possible holes that the defense could push through. >> it is such an interesting -- it's been such a dangling thread for this to end up being the finale in court tomorrow is going to be fascinating. i feel like it is a little reward for those of us that paid attention to all these details through the case. i understand that this was your last day to do that, so i really appreciate your being our eyes and ears throughout the week. >> thank you so much. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. yeah, i think i can handle it. no pressure... ...that's just my favorite boat.

boom. (laughs) make summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. and get our best deal of the summer: zero percent financing for sixty months on f-150. right now, get this special offer on f-150: zero percent financing for 60 months - during the ford summer sales event. 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. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. heads up for tomorrow's news. as the prosecution starts their

final day of the presentation of their case against paul manafort, the president's campaign chairman, simultaneously a woman named kristin davis, who is better known in tabloid circles as the manhattan madam will be testifying tomorrow before the grand jury in d.c., convened by the special counsel's office reportedly about her relationship with trump campaign associate roger stone. expect that to be an incredible tabloid scrum, if nothing else. we won't necessarily know what that legally is going to amount to for quite some time, if ever. but those two things are going to happen. one in virginia and one in d.c., both in federal court tomorrow. enjoy your morning. that does it for us tonight. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> you just made the day of every hollywood screen writer who is dreaming of some day getting the assignment for the mini-series of the rober