in.many people and often it doesn't work out very well. those many people are not doing us right. >> america has twos new citizens, the parents of our first lady who also happens to be an immigrant though most around him believe the president's campaign against chain migration will likely continue. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. happy thursday. 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 was going to try to squeeze in a whole bunch of witnesses between now and the end of the presentation of their side of the case at the end of the day tomorrow. what we didn't know before tonight is that prosecutors are apparently going to end their case with a flurry of evidence

and testimony tomorrow that is about the trump campaign. this is an unusual turn in the manafort case. in hearings before the trial started you might remember the manafort defense lawyers argued nothing related to his time running the campaign should be discussed or even alluded to at trial and prosecution said largely conceded that they weren't going to make the manafort trial about his time running trump's presidential effort. except they said for one thing. they advised the court before the trial even started 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

inauguration. it's been a little bit hard to your figure out what to make of that allegation. whether that mysterious allegation would be fleshed out in court. we haven't seen hide nor hare of this poor sod, thceo from chica who thought he would run the army once trump was sworn in. we have been wondering if he worked out a deal with prosecutors. we've been trying to figure out how exactly this allegation about selling this army job might relate to the multiple felony charges pending against manafort in this specific trial. we haven't understood by this one aspect of paul manafort's relationship with the trump campaign and the trump presidency was cleared to go ahead in this court case when all other aspects of his relationship to the trump campaign and trump presidency have been blocked. so it's been a very intriguing allegation sort of a juicy

allegation. an interesting one. but we 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 potential testimony against paul manafort. those two witnesses who were given up munity 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 at the last minute, prosecutors have also now

introduced new exhibits, 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. earp secretary in exchange for several million dollars for himself in dodgy bank loans. it's apparently finally all going to get laid out. we'll have more on that ahead tonight. what had means for your news consumption plan though if nothing else is that prosecutors are apparently going to throw a big trump-related twist into the manafort case right at the very end of it tomorrow. and so that should be fascinating. we'll have more on that coming up over the course of this hour. also, here's an intriguing development. this is something that we talked about here on the show when it happened two days ago in court. 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. this is from the transcript. question, now in terms of your cooperation with the office of special counsel, after you took your plea, 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, and were you interviewed on several occasions about your time at the trump campaign. >> no, because at that point greg andres the prosecutor jumps in. objection, your honor. >> the judge says all right. do you need to come to the bench? he says please. the judge says all right. you may do so and then what happens next? we have no idea. this is what's next in the transcript. do you see it? pages 1399 filed under seal. we talked about this tuesday night after it happened. this was intriguing when it happened. there's only been one other reference in the whole trial to his time on the trump campaign this thing i previously

mentioned about him maybe offering a job running the u.s. army to a bank president who approved these loans for him. that's the only other reference to the trump campaign in the trial thus far. but two days ago, out of the blue on cross-examination, the manafort defense lawyer asks rick gates, hey, did mueller's prosecutors talk to you about your time working on the trump campaign? did you talk to them about that? prosecutor from the special counsel's office gets up and objects. the judge summons both lawyers to come to the bench. he flips on the white noise machine which is a real thing so the jury and spectators hear the sound of like crashing waves instead of the conversation. the jury, the reporters in the room, spectators none of them can hear what's being said at the bench. the lawyers on both side stay up there and they have this long prust communication. we know it's long because we know it takes six pages to transcribe. but we can't see those pains because they are sealed.

now, we do know after that bench conference whatever happened there, the cross-examination picked back up again with the same lawyer questioning rick gates and rick gates after that bench conference whatever happened he no longer faced any more questions about the trump campaign or when's he told the special counsel about the campaign. whatever happened talking to the judge there paul manafort's defense lawyer fet the need to change course. but that was one of the most intriguing moments in the whole trial thus far. a real mystery what that was. today, fascinating development. prosecutors today filed this. it is a formal request to keep that sidebar discussion at the bench that's just the judge and lawyers from both sides with the white house noise machine on, they filed a request to keep that discussion secret. it's sealed already. in the course of the trial under normal circumstances, that would eventually be unsealed but prosecutors filed this motion

saying that whole discussion has to be kept sealed and secret. "on october 7th, 2018, so tuesday, the court held a sidebar conference 0 address a line of questioning pursued by the defense during their cross-examination of richard gates. during the conference, substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation was revealed. the following portions of the sidebar conference transcript identifies that evidence or reveals details about that evidence. and then they lay it out specifically. page 1399, lines 14 through 19 is, page 1402 lines 1 and 2. page 1403 lines 12-15. that apparently is where the evidence was discussed, is the evidence was revealed pertaining to an ongoing investigation. so the prosecutors argue "disclosing the identified transcript pourings would reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation. the government's interest in

protecting the confidentiality of its ongoing investigations is compelling and justifies sealing the limited portion of the sidebar conference at issue here. 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 preventing the release of information which may reveal the direction and progress of ongoing criminal investigations that is not otherwise known to the public." so something came up at that moment in court. and it was prompted by these questions about gates talking to the special counsel about his time on the trump campaign. we don't know exactly what happens. but something about this concerns rick gates. it concerns ongoing investigations that must be kept secret according to prosecutors. fascinating when they filed that motion today. it was fascinating when it

happened, fascinating see what whole portion of the transcript was sealed. now fascinating that the prosecutors say that has to stay sealed. late tonight, the judge issued his order and he agrees with the prosecutors. yep, it will be kept secret, whatever in that discussion at the bench after gates was asked about what he's told robert mueller about his time on the trump campaign, that will continue to be kept secret from all of us by the court because of its relevance to other ongoing investigations. what other ongoing investigations? this is the point where i want to say tell me more. but the judge just ruled tonight no, no madam, 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 more on that ahead tonight, as well. that's been unspooling over the course of the late afternoon

into tonight. now, last night at this time, we made public here on this show an audio recording that we obtained from a closed door republican fund-raiser that took place last week. this is an audio recording on which the house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes and the number four republican house leadership kathy mcmorris rodgers appear to admit at this closed door event where they didn't know they were being recorded they appeared to admit that despite public statements to the contrary, there is a house republican plan to pursue the impeachment of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein hob oversees the bob mueller investigation at the justice department. we broke that story last night. we played that audio. that news that we broke last night is now pinballing through today's news in a couple different ways including one you should know about. all right. a couple 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 house speaker paul ryan immediately distanced himself and the rest of house republicans from that effort. >> do i support impeachment of rod 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 with this term. number one. number two, i don't think that this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. >> given what you just said, did you try to discourage your colleagues from taking this step and do you view this as a legitimate effort or as a stunt? >> look, i think they know how i feel about this. >> so congressional republicans at least their leadership, they have tried to make it known that they think this idea of impeaching rod rosenstein is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. no way we're pursuing that. that's a fringe thing.

we're not board with that at all. that's the public line. behind closed doors at this fund-raiser though, house intelligence chairman devin nunes and the number four republican in house leadership mcmorris rodgers appeared to indicate that republicans in congress do support impeaching rod rosenstein but don't want to do it yet. answering a question from an audience member at this fund-raiser for rodgers answering a question from an audience member whether or not those impeachment articles against rosenstein actually had any support in congress, devin nunes explained that there is support for the impeachment of rosenstein. he said you won't get at argument about that from our colleagues but he said basically 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 trump nominee brett cab anyhow to the united states supreme court. now, this is not a plan that

congressional republican leadership has talked about publicly. quite the contrary. apparently they are talking about it behind closed doors. >> but also on things that came up in the house on rosenstein impeachment thing and it appears from an outsider that the republicans were not supporting. >> yeah, well, it's -- so it's a bit complicated, right? i say that because you have to -- so we only have so many months left. so if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does, that triggers the senate then has to take it up. well, you have to decide what you want right now because the senate only has so much time. do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the supreme court justice? so that's part of why -- i don't think you have -- you're not getting trump, like i said,

hopefully rosenstein deserves to be impeached. so i don't think you're going to 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. then you take the risk of not getting -- not getting kavanaugh confirmed. so it's not a matter of -- it's a matter of timing. > it's a matter of timing. don't think that we're not against rosenstein. don't think we might not impeach rosenstein. it's a platter of timing. the reason to impeach rosenstein is not because republicans don't like him or don't. it's because he oversees the special counsel investigation of the russia attack which is being run by former fbi director robert mueller. forcing rosenstein out of office through impeachment is the one

direct way that republicans in congress could end the mueller investigation because removing rosenstein would allow him to be replaced with somebody who would shut mueller down. it's a matter of timing. again, this is what they're saying behind closed doors, not in public. if this is the way they're planning to sequence their actions this raises the possibility that congressional republicans know that are moving to end the mueller investigation by impeaching rod rosenstein, that could precipitate some kind of constitutional confrontation if not a constitutional crisis if their plan is to make sure that brett kavanaugh is on the supreme court when that happens for just such an occasion, well, that changes meaning of the kavanaugh confirmation. that raises the stakes even further and sort of changes them as to when and whether kavanaugh will be confirmed. i want to tell you we reached out to paul ryan about this news particularly because he has said that republicans in congress

won't pursue anything like there. right? since kathy mcmorris rodgers is on his leadership team and apparently talking about this plan privately at a fund-raiser in her state, it raises the question whether or not republicans have one plan they're telling voters and reporters about before the election but once the election's over, they are planning some sort of surprise u turn. we've had no response yet from speaker ryan's office in response to our questions but we'll let you know if we do hear from him. you should also know that there is a big news storm brewing when it comes to kavanaugh's supreme court nomination and whether republicans are trying to block access to specific documents from his past because democrats say those documents might prove that kavanaugh actually lied under oath to the senate the last time he had a con firmation hearing. in 2006, a much younger brett kavanaugh appeared before the

senate judiciary committee, the same committee that will consider his nomination for the premium court. some of the members of that committee are still there. and were there in 2006, they're still there now. brett kavanaugh was white house staff secretary at the time of that nomination before that, he worked for the white house council's office during the george w. bush administration. senators at the time had a lot of questions about his proximity to various bush administration scandals specifically to the bush administration's policies on torture and treatment of detainees. senators wanted to know what role brett kavanaugh, what role brett kavanaugh might have played in forming those policies if any. but each time they asked him about it, the response from him was nope, not me. had nothing to do with me. >> i was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of

combatants or and so i do not have any involvement with that. >> what about the documents relating to the administration's policies and practice on torture? did you see anything about that or had you -- did you first hear about that when you read it in the paper? >> i think with respect to the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees, i was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memos that subsequently came out in the summer sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. this was not part of my docket either 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 actually that answer got its own national headline at the time. because cab anyhow's nomination was so controversial. kavanaugh denies role in detainee policies. well, it turns out that denial may not have been true.

about a year after that brett kavanaugh was confirmed to a federal appeals court to, the dc circuit court, is "the washington post" and npr reported brett kavanaugh had actually been personally involved in one very significant white house discussion on that very issue. it was part of what he dealt with when he worked in the george w. bush white house. now, this has a whoa bunch of consequences. number one, had brett cab anyhow admitted in his confirmation hearings he had in fact taken part in white house policy discussions about enemy combatants and other so-called detainee issues after 9/11, it's quite possible had he admitted that, that he would have been expected once he was on the dc circuit court to recuse himself from being a judge in any case that touched on those issues. that's not a the hypothetical. the d.c. circuit court is the court that handles those issues in the federal system. that's the court that has exclusive jurisdiction for cases under the detainee treatment act and military commissions act.

and in fact, once he was confirmed and he landed on that court, the very first case tried before brett kavanaugh as a d.c. circuit court judge was a case about detainees at guantanamo. the lawyer who represented those guys at guantanamo told npr had he known that in fact kavanaugh had been part of white house discussion about detainees, he might well have demanded at that trial that kavanaugh had to recuse himself from hearing that case. so cab anyhow denying under oath before the u.s. senate that he had had anything to do with any policy discussions about detainees when he in fact was part of those discussions, that had real world troubling legal consequences. for his time already as appeals court judge. as an even simpler consequence, 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 these news reports emerged

in 2007 about his participation in those white house discussions, despite his denials to the contrary and his confirmation hearing, illinois senator dick durbin wrote to then newly minted judge kavanaugh requesting an explanation for his contradictory statements during his confirmation the year before. we collected in with dick durbin's office. they're still waiting for a response from judge kavanaugh now 11 years later. the mail is slow but geez. senator pat leahy was chairman of the judiciary committee at the time. he even referred brett cab anyhow to the public integrity section of the justice department for possible prosecution for lying to senators under oath. the bush justice department did not take up that request and prosecute coo judge kavanaugh but sort of still hanging out there. it's kind of amazing this is the guy who is now nominated for the u.s. supreme court with this particular loosened just hanging out there still from the last time he was confirmed for

something which caused such controversy. this really never was settled. and the fact that the senate -- these senators get old in the senate and the guys there 11 years ago and so mad about potentially being lied to, some of those are still there. that's how the senate works. so now the aforementioned new storm brewing because republicans are now blocking democratic requests to receive and review documents from brett cab anyhow's time working in the bush white house including the specific records that might settle the issue once and for all as to whether or not judge cab anyhow did lie to the senate the last time he was up for confirmation when he got his current seat on the appeals court. democrats are now trying out an unprecedented series of actions to try to get these documents from cab anyhow's past. over republican objections. we'll hear about more of that in a moment. but that was all before we learn

about these discussions by republicans about them trying to sequence the brent kavanaugh nomination so it's done and he's in place befo. this was already going to be a red hot fight. it is now more like a raging inferno. we've got more ahead on this. stay with us. to buy. you ready for this, junior? 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.

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.

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. the chili pepper sweat-out. not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort,and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.

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 to vet a nominee for the "uss 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. to get documentation and records related to brett cab anyhow's work in the george w. bush white house. this is vetting somebody for one of the most important jobs in the country. certainly the most pivotal job at this particular point in our country's history. republicans are blocking democrats from getting most of the documents from kavanaugh's long record in public service.

republicans quite clearly just want to get this done and get him on the court quickly. democrats are doing even stuff they've never done before that nobody has ever done before to try to get all the paperwork 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 cab anyhow's records. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> members of the senate have never filed foia requests to try to get access to documents for a supreme court nominee before. am i right this is unprecedented? >> never before have any republican or democratic senators had to file 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 it of thousands of pages of

documents relating to judge kavanaugh's service as staff secretary to president bush. remember, he served for three years in that capacity. that was the time that a lot of these detainee issues arose. other kinds of civil rights and civil liberties issues that will come before him as a justice on the supreme court. it is unprecedented and very unfortunate because 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 different leapts of judge kavanaugh's record and his positions on the law that are going to come under scrutiny and already the subject of various degrees of controversy. on this point just as a matter of how we're supposed to do this as a country, we do have recent experience of there being a no knee for the court who has an extensive paper trail because of work in the white house, elena kagan, one of president obama's

nominees had extensively worked in the white house, had a long record in washington and there was no issue in terms of receiving all of the documentation, all of the records from her time working in the administration you. what's the justification for treating elena kagan completely opposite from how they're treating judge cab anyhow? >> there is absolutely no principled explanation for it. and the only reason is 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 as to those limited number of documents they're willing to make available, they have delegated or outsourced the prescreening cherry picking process to a republican lawyer, bill burck, who just coincidentally happened to work as a subordinate for judge cab anyhow when they were both working in the bush white

house. bill burck is now bush's lawyer. he is also don mcgahn's lawyer. don mcgahn was involved in picking judge kavanaugh. there is a kind of. >> isn't bill burck also representing is reince priebus and steve bannon in the russia investigation. >> exactly. >> that's the person they're having produce all the records. >> sanitizing all these documents, cherry picking the ones he's going to allow us to see without any explanation, any log or reported of the ones that he is withholding. > we had a story last night that involved some audio recorded as a republican fund raiser where devin nunes and cathy mcmorris rodgers in the house leadership on the republican side were talking about the potential impeachment of rod rosenstein and the need to shut down the mueller investigation. they seemed to be talking about timing that in relation to the cab anyhow confirmation. the story was controversial and

we believe news worthy because of the linkage of those two issues among these influential members of congress on republican side. what do you think is going to happen in terms of timing of the confirmation? republicans seem to be making it clear in different terms in public and behind closed doors that they want to get this done very fast definitely before the election. >> first, understand that very few of us are ever going to cast a more important vote. i will never cast a more important vote than this one on this nomination. and it's one that is going to live with us for history. it's the one that our grandchildren are going to say, how did you vote on the cab anyhow nomination and we need to approach it with that kind of deliberation. it's going to affect the air and water you drink, whether kuck marry the person you love, whether you can decide when and whether you want to become pregnant, all these fundamental rights and liberties will depend on brett cab anyhow as a

potential swing vote on the court. what do i think is going to happen in terms of timing? the republicans will try to rush through this nomination. and my question is, what are they hiding? what are they afraid of the american people seeing in those thousands of pages of documents? >> republicans think they may have an election issue that could swing either way in terms of this coming up before the election. the democratic fight against kavanaugh is likely to be the democrats potentially the most potent issue for the democratic party in this election, as well. senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, thank you for being here. i appreciate you being here. much more ahead tonight. stay with us. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost.

unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. and now, save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, no interest until january 2021. ends wednesday. your digestive system has billions of bacteria but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself with align probiotic. and try new align gummies with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪

add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

so you have become accustomed to a little courtroom drama in your daily news now, right? especially when it comes to the russia scandal and the trump campaign and blah, blah. 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 happened. was an poizing to the judge. the judge had an incredibly dramatic on the record freakout right there in the courtroom. it had 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.

(indistinguishable muttering) that was awful. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.

the new united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. (woooo) taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com 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. can start in the colon constipation and diarrhea and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it helps replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense.

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. and then it says in the transcript 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'd like to raise with you. the judge, sure, go right ahead. aclu lawyer. we just learned during the recess that carmen and her little girl, that's a pseudonym 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 carmen 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 to from the 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 an the representation that the government made to us as well as the representation the government made in open court yesterday that our clients would not be remove before 11:59 p.m. thursday meaning today. it also violates the entire prep miss of this entire expedited stay proceeding. so we would like to ask the court to order the government bring her back. the judge. all right. her sflooit flight has departed? is that correct. >> aclu lawyer. that is your understanding your honor, we believe the government may have more accurate information than us. >> the judge. all right. thank you, counsel.

whereupon the government lawyer says yes, your honor. i learned of this just as plaintiff's counsel learned of this, as well. in fact the two plaintiffs have been removed contrary to my representation in open court. i will -- we do everything we can to remedy that. i will -- the judge says oh, i want those people brought back forth with. government lawyer. we will bring them. that is absolutely what i have asked them to do, but first -- >> 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 aren't brought back forth with, i'm going to issue orders to show cause why people should not be held in contempt of court and i'm going to start with the attorney general. government lawyer, your honor, we fully understand. i have been on the phone with folks from -- >> the judge, i appreciate that counsel. >> government lawyer and i'm doing everything i can. >> the judge, it's a forth with. the government to fix this. >> the judge it's a forthing

with order. i am not happy about this at all. the judge says i know i am raising my voice but i am extremely upset about there. the judge says this is not acceptable. i'm going to issue a separate order with respect -- i've already issued the order. i'm going to post it the forth with order districting the attorney general and subordin e subordinates in the government and i will spell it out in an appropriate order. are those people on a government plane. >> government lawyer, your honor, i. >> the judge, this is outrageous. somebody in pursuit of justice who has alled a credible fear in her mind and seeking justice in a united states is court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her? it's outrageous. government lawyer. i don't disagree with the sentiment, your honor, to answer your question, i would be speculating but generally it would be a plane chartered by the government. if they are in fact on a plane when they land, they will be able to be turned around and

brought right back and that is what i have conveyed to the agencies particularly i.c.e. who is responsible for it. >> the judge, i am directing the government to turn that plane around. either now while it's in the air or when it lands. turn that plane around and bring those people back to the united states. it's outrageous. government lawyer. i completely understand, your honor. the judge sure. i know it's not your fault. government lawyer. we will look for your order and we will make sure that. >> the judge, the order is out there. it is on the record. government lawyer, no, not -- i i've already -- i've already e-mailed them exactly your words. so. >> the judge. all right. >> government lawyer, that's the best i can do. >> the judge, what else can i do? i don't want to put new an awkward position but what else can i do to expedite this? we're talking about an expedited return now. >> government lawyer. i think your order accompanied by your oral order in this open court to fix this immediately

unless orders of contempt or show cause be issued directed at the attorney general and others, i think in my humble opinion that should suffice, your honor. >> the judge says i'm really upset. i really am. i'm sorry to keep going back to it, but when you think about it, these people are seeking justice in a united states court. i expect somebody to file something or post something on the docket not if and when -- not if, when they are returned. >> all right. this is a case brought by the aclu challenging the trump administration for sending back people to countries that they say are dangerous where they have a credible fear for their lives. without giving them an adequate case -- an adequate opportunity to make their case here in this country. we are told after this happened today, after the judge quite literally ordered that plane to turn around in the air, we are told that carmen, again a

pseudonym and her little girl, her daughter are back in the united states tonight. back in a detention center in texas. because of another ruling by the same judge actually they are expected to remain here for awhile. but had the trump administration gotten its way today they would have been gone. had the recess not happened and the lawyer not gotten the phone call and the judge not come back hair on fire ordering that plane to turn around, well, watch this space. -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.

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

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. 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. when the guy in frontd down the highway slams on his brakes out of nowhere.

you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ 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 robert mueller investigation, that there will come a day when the manhattan madam has to walk on to the set in the drama as it unfolds. >> you just got my hopes up because you just suggested that it is possible that some day this will be boil downable into a mini series. i feel like it is an unabridged dvd.