what a great conversation. we need a lot more time for it. mara gay with the "new york times" and a republican strategist and author of everything trump touches dies. the rachel maddow show starts now. i hand it to you on time. >> did you say the wrath of the rachel maddow show? >> i started to, but i didn't. >> in general i have very little wrath, but whenever it is expressed, it is always towards fishing equipment and never towards my beloved colleagues. thanks for joining us at this hour. the federal criminal trial of the president's campaign chair is going to go to the jury tomorrow. the defense and the prosecution have rested their respective sides of the case, closing arguments will be tomorrow. the judge in this case likes to keep the closing arguments from one sides to one single day. because of that we have every reason to believe the ros

cushion will start their closing arguments on time and it will go an hour and a half to two hours depending on how long they need to convince the judge. there will be the closing argument from the defense and the jury will get it. of course there is absolutely no way to tell how long the jury will deliberate on paul manafort's fate. if the president's campaign chairman, paul manafort, is convicted, we should keep in mind that that would probably mean that this particular criminal case against manafort would keep going. paul manafort of course would have the right to appeal if he is convicted. also, and i think it's now increasing to start keeping this in mind as a national political matter, as a national matter and the rule of law, because of the nature of this case and who paul manafort is and who he was on the trump campaign, it is also possible that at any point in the process from here on out,

the president himself could decide to intervene in this case and decide he is being to issue paul manafort a pardon. if that happens, that's the only eventuality that might happen next in this case that could affect the next criminal kril against paul manafort. if he is pardoned, all bets are off. provided he is not pardoned, whether paul manafort is acquitted or convicted by the jury that will deliberate his fate tomorrow, he is due to start a second felony trial in washington, d.c. in just a fee weeks. that's next month. that next trial will be before a different judge in a different courthouse in a different place with a different jury and different lawyers on one or both sides. now we are coming to the end of the first trial. we are looking ahead towards

that second trial. it is striking that prosecutors from robert mueller's office, the special counsel's office, they have steered this first manafort case to be much more about the trump campaign than we thought it was going to be at the out set. that may affect the president's thinking about whether or not he wants to intervene to spring paul manafort by pardoning him. this first criminal trial in the eastern district of virginia had its last witnesses on the stand related to something having to do with the trump campaign and the last motions related to something having to do with the trump campaign. and the last batch of physical evidence the prosecution introduced in court about this one part of the case related to the trump for president campaign. there might be some mention of

this stuff. we doesn't know this was where it was going to end up. the first piece we got to see is when rick gates was on the stand against paul manafort and they introduced this e-mail to rick gates from november 24th, 2016 after the election in that e-mail he said to rick gate, rick, we need to discuss steve caulk for secretary of the arm. paul, steve caulk was the bank ceo whose little bank in chicago gave giant loans to paul manafort between election day and inauguration day. we learned in the course of his trial that the loans were the biggest loans ever made by this little bank and the bank apparently lost nearly $12 million on the loans thus far. steve caulk reportedly overruled

objections from other palm who worked at the bank opposed to giving paul manafort the loans, but he was the ceo and major shareholders and he made sure manafort would get this money. that game up while gates was on the stand. he was saying we have to consider this guy for secretary of the army. now we've got this. this is also from the trial. more evidence introduced by the prosecution. this is another e-mail exchange involving paul manafort. it's also right after the election. a few days after the e-mail to rick gates. this piece of evidence shows manafort sent on to jared kushner his recommendation that this bank ceo from should go should be considered for high profile cabinet level jo jobs in

the administration. he sent over the recommendation at 3:00 in the afternoon on wednesday and kushner sends back his response. two words. on it. it's not every day you get concrete black and white evidence that they were doling on the senior job prospects to people who gave millions in cash to the campaign chairman. it's nice to be here with you for this moment. remember where you were when you learned? there is a few consequences from this evidence that prosecutors introduced and that we expect they may walk the jury through. first of all, there is the question of whether there is going to be criminal liability associated with the scheme. there was a bench conference between the lawyers and the

judge in which prosecutors describe the bank ceo as the coconspirator. proos kout oars described the bank ceo of having some other criminal liability. that bank ceo has been an unusual absence in the courtroom, right? there has been a lot of detail and evidence introduced about the trump campaign trying to sell off the high ranking job offers, but steve caulk himself has not appeared as a witness in the courtroom. we have e-mails and discussions related to him, but he hasn't been there. among other things that might imply he hasn't made a deal with prosecutors to result in immunity for his prosecution in exchange for his testimony, at least in the manafort case. this one thing that remains to be resolved and explained about this part of what was exposed in the case. secondly, there is also the

question as to how this all relates to the overall criminal charges that paul manafort is facing. that the jury will deliberate tomorrow. today was the day when he made a virtue out of this scheme for paul manafort. some happened in open court today. i will read a piece from the court print where the judge throws a lightning bolt in the courtroom at that argument. what manafort's lawyers tried to do at the end of this case is tried to say, tried to argue to the court that this bank ceo wanted a trump administration job so badly, he would have approved any loan from his bank for paul manafort no matter how big it was and how ridiculous the paperwork was to supposedly apply that loan. no matter what he asked for, this guy was going to give it to him, because he wanted that job.

that's the argument being made by the defense, arguing that the bribery scheme selling high profile job offers in the federal government, that scheme was so effective, it rendered the bank fraud moot. the bank president would have opened the door and let him take whatever he wanted to be secretary of the army. you realize how cool that is to run the whole army? that was the defense argument. you will see how that worked out in a second. i have that from the transcript, but there is i think one last big consequence for us as americans watching this trial unfold involving involving the campaign chair. it's not injurily about the changes that manafort might face. it's this bigger question about us as a country and us as

citizens in our government. this weird turn in the manafort trial has shown this interesting light on what grounds the administration considered people for high ranking positions in the federal government when they were setting up the new administration. this is a live issue for us. the president literally started publicly deriding as a dog and as a crazed low life. his former white house senior adviser, omarosa. this tabloidy spectacle for him to be attacking him the way he is. the president raises serious concerns about who gets into the white house. about his own ability to hire

people for senior jobs. when the president calls his adviser a crazed low life today, it's as if he has no idea how the crazed low life got hired to be his senior adviser in the first place. who hired her, big guy? to that same point, how did this bank ceo get to the point where he was on it to see he was considered to be secretary of the u.s. army. we talked about the prosecution's evidence on that point last night. document number 452 in which the bank ceo gave what amounted to his job application. his statement of qualifications. the full list of the jobs he wanted to be considered for. the list of jobs he wanted was

titled by perspective rolls. not prospective, but perspective and not roles, but rolls like dinner rolls. perspective rolls. reading through this, marveling at the jobs he thought he would be up for. secretary of commerce, secretary of the army. these are the jobs he thought he would be up for because he had given paul manafort a lot of money. what strikes you about the fact that manafort, the former campaign chair wasso selling th guy and installed this guy on a formal advisory commission and he was telling rick gates who was working for the trump transition that this guy needed to be considered for running the army and stove piping this recommendation and jared kushner

said he was on it. what strikes you when you look at the way he represented himself as being interested in all these jobs and qualified for all these jobs, it's nuts to think he would be remotely considered for these jobs. beyond the misspellings at the top of the page, mr. caulk's competence character, commitment, and loyalty. he is someone who will uniquely serve in the roll, misspelled again, the roll, the somersault of the secretary of the army for the trump administration for great effect. he developed his expertise with strategic planning and implementation. he possesses a keep reservoir of competence and has verifiable

accu- men. somebody looked up a new word. financial accu- men, academic proficiency and national reputation is without equal in the area of financial management, budgeling, analysis, and planning. there is nobody equal when it comes to budgeting and financial management. nobody equal in terms of their national reputation to this bank who runs a tiny bank in chicago who gave gigantic cash loans to paul manafort that didn't get paid back. he is without peer for budgeting? what? it's nuts, right? something made him being he had this job in the bag. the "wall street journal" reported after the inauguration, he pauled the pent gon and asked to speak to people at the army

about what he needed to know to get up to speed for his new job. apparently he was not only prepared to take up this job himself and looking to the army to start his briefings because he figured he would be secretary of the army, he was offering other jobs to other people who he thought he would bring on to work for him. mr. caulk himself says, talking to himself in the third person, he has already identified highly experienced candidates for all key positions reporting to secretary of the army and can have that team on boarded within 30 days of confirmation. all on boarded. clearly this is your guy. look at the title of this thing. look at the title. the title is literally qualification memorandum articulating his qualifications. quality qualification, i'm sure. so, again, there is a list of perspective rolls, all the jobs

he wants in rank order in the trump administration. uls where in the document he misspells the word role in the same way again. just a few lines down after he misspells role again, he gets the word correct. see the first rord in the paragraph? he misspells the word role everywhere else, but here he gets it correct. and weirdly, this whole paragraph in his sort of resume qualifications, this is cogent. it's the only paragraph that is cojept. it sounds reverse translated from a couple of other languages. because this one paragraph stands out as the only normal paragraph to be secretary of the army or a number of cabinet officials, we googled this paragraphs. this was just copied correctly word from word from wikipedia

which is why it makes sense as opposed to everything else he wrote. cut and pasted from the role and responsibilities of the secretary of the army. that's the wikipedia page from 2016 which we have screen shotted on the bottom and the paragraph from steve caulk on the top which is exactly the same. in case you want to clip and save it as a reminder of how the trump administration was on it, considering people for jbs like running the u.s. army in the transition when the only time they made sense and stopped misspelling basic single syllable words is when they were copying and pasting directly from wikipedia. like freshmen. actually freshmen are nice. they don't deserve that. i'm sorry. before you get in trouble and realize you can't do that. you will get caught. so as the manafort case goes to the jury, the big question is

how the jury will decide manafort rfort's case. there are still elements of the case that are under seal. they had no spectators allowed in the courtroom and again for two hours this morning. we have no idea what that was about or why it was sealed. informed speculation who know how the trials tend to go suggesting there might be an issue the defense raised about something going wrong with the jury? after the defense team rested without calling any witnesses, they gave a short statement to the press, a defense lawyer said mr. manafort rested his case because they believe the government has not met its burden of proof. it's a short statement saying here's what you should read into the fact that we didn't call witnesses to stand up for paul manafort. after he made that statement, they chased the defense lawyer to try to ask him follow-up

questions, including from julia ansly that did not get a response. this is a reporter's audio recording that was exchange. >> what do you say to those who say this makes your client look gui guilty? >> we live in the united states of america. you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. >> sorry there a problem with the jury in this case? you confident going into the closing arguments tomorrow? >> very confident. thank you. >> three clear questions there. he answers the first one. skips the second, answers the third one. the one he skip side from julia ansly. is there a problem with the jury in this case. kevin downs paused and looked at julia when he asked that question and kept looking at her and said nothing in response. whether there is something going on with the jury or whether that's the defense's contention

and the cause of the sealed motions and hearings, we don't know. we will find out sooner rather than later. the judge said in open court that all of those motions and all of those transcripts of these closed hearings will be unsealed when the trial ends. we will eventually find out. as i mentioned though, manafort's defense lawyer tried to explain to reporters why no witness were called to stand up on the defense side of the case. in court that included a certain lengthy or description of why paul manafort was not standing on his own to testify as a witness. here's how that went in court today. the judge, now we turn to the fact that the government has rest and it is my obligation to ask the defendant, mr. doup iwn. the defense rests, your honor. >> the defendant is not required

to present evidence. all of this is being done out of the defense of the jury. i have to question, voyeur dire the defendant that he doesn't wish to testify. does he wish to testify? >> he does not. >> mr. manafort, you understand you have an sbut right to testify before this jury and have a right to remain silent. if you remain silent, the court will instruct the jury that the jury may draw no inference from your silence. i will instruct the jury when the jury retires, they cannot even discuss the fact that you have not testified. you may not be penalized for exercising that right. i'll end by saying again you do have the right to testify. have you discussed this matter with your counsel. paul manafort, i have, your honor. you satisfied with the advice you received?

>> i am. >> have you decided whether you wush to testify? paul manafort, i have. >> do you wish to testify? >> no, sir. >> the judge, you may be seated. paul manafort, thank you. >> that brings us to the end of the evidence in this case. that's the end of the evidence. all the evidence is in and there won't be any more witnesses including the defend himself. >> the defense made one last effort related to the trump campaign and this guy who wanted to be secretary of the army and thought he would be and was hiring up to get ready to take the job. last night paul manafort's team filed last minute motion to acquit. a last minute move to get the judge to throw out the case and acquit on all charges instead of letting the jury decide his fate. in particular, in this motion to acquit, they singled out this stuff with the bank ceo as part

of the strongest part of their argument that manafort should be acquit and shouldn't go to the jury. here's how that went today in open court. the judge, i will hear argument on the rule 29 motion in which i hear briefs from both sides. should you have that in mind. go ahead, you should proceed. >> we made a motion to dismiss while rule 29 motion with all the counts and briefed the counts in the indictment that relate to the lending arrangements enter into with the federal savings bank. we highlighted that because we think the evidence has not demonstrated that any statements made to the bank were material to its decision to lend. and that is an element of the offense that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >> paul manafort might have given fraud lend information to the bank as part of the application process, but that didn't matter. he was going to get the loans

anyway. he was offering this dude amazing jobs in exchange for the money. so it doesn't matter what fraudulent information he tried to pass off on the bank. so the defense offers that in court today. they argue it back and forth for sometime. both sides. the judge said this. the judge said, all right, i have reviewed that. in the end i think the defendant makes a significant argument, but i think materiality is an issue for the jury. they are going to decide whether on the evidence they think it was material. that's the way it shk. it's a injury issue. all of the other counts. not just the counts we are discussing, butt other counts beyond. the tax counts and everything else. those are all jury issues. they, the jury, will be instruct and they will have to make a determination. the motion for july of acquittal pursuant to rule 29 is denied. at this point i think probably what happened is reporters got

up and ran out of the courtroom to go file their stories. he's not going to be acquitted. it's going to be jury. the next line in the transcript is the judge saying -- we have this. next line. now, let me confirm that the -- then he said anyone else need to leave the courtroom? the response in the room court to the transcription is laughter. last ditch effort to acquit on all changes before the thing went to the jury failed, rejected in total. the effort to make it a good thing that paul manafort was describing the ceo with job offers appeared to have not gone over with the jury. he thinks the jury should hear about that themselves. as of tomorrow, we will have closing arguments and waiting on a verdict. alongside that, we will be looking to clean up the other stuff that came up over the course of this trial.

what was sealed that may or may not have had something to do with the jury that may or may not have had to do with rick gates in other cases being investigated by robert mueller? any potential liability or repercussions related to the evidence that the campaign tried to sell cabinet seats and pentagon positions in exchange for cash? jared kushner said he was on it. did he know what it really was? there are more loose ends here in terms of stuff opened up in terms of this trial including a big one by the associated press. we will have more on that coming up tonight. stay with us. ♪[upbeat music]

♪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™ lojust use priceline.ls on travel? you can save up to 60% on hotels. that's like $120 a night back in your pocket. go to priceline to get deals you won't find anywhere else.

(indistthat was awful.tering) 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. this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome.

in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. here's the big fight and awkward moment at the end. the fight is about things that the judge has said in the courtroom during the course of the trial. stuff he said about comments about the case that he made or questions that the judge made himself to various witnesses. they are fighting about that. the judge, you want it

eliminated? the prosecutor, we want it revis revised, your honor. the judge, you are giving me a brief now? >> i am. but your honor, it's attached to the brief at the back should be the proposed instruction. the judge, did you submit this brief prior to today? we have not, your honor. we think that as the brief suggests that the post instruction is actually a more accurate statement of fourth circuit law on the comments of questioning of witnesses. the judge, it leaves out the fact that the law of the united states permits a federal judge to comment to the jury on the evidence in the case. that is still the law of the land. but in any event, i don't need to say that. i don't care that much. what's your objection to this one. the only thing it leaves out is i, the judge, have the right to comment on the evidence. i will tell you another reason i don't like it. the diction is wrong.

you are expressly to understand -- at least it didn't split the infinative. that's not the way i speak or anyone speaks. >> i'm sure your honor will say it however your honor feels. the judge said all right. suppose i change number 11 to say that such comments, let's see, permits a federal judge to comment to the jury on the evidence in the case. do you think i made any such comments? and then the transcript reflects laughter. the judge said do you think i made such comments. the prosecutor does not respond and there is awkward laughter in the courtroom. from another court of the courtroom, from the prosecutor's table, the other prosecutor stands up and speaks from the back of the courtroom. he said to the judge, yes, your honor, yes, you did. that prompts more laughter in the courtroom.

the judge said do you remember one? he said yes, i can remember several. i know when mr. gates was testifying, he said he was careful about his money and your honor said well, obviously not when you stole money from him. that was one that was particularly noteworthy. there are others, your honor. to which the judge said that really hurt the government, didn't it? he said well ---. the judge said never mind. then the transcript reflects a pause. >> have i ever done that? gulp. the other one said yeah, you did. when? that really hurt you? there has been all these wringing of hands and fighting over the judge in the manafort case inserting himself into the trial in dramatic fashion. that devolved today in the final day of wrangling before the case goes to the jury tomorrow.

that devolved into having a sarcastic outburst. this never mind outburst today. at least that's how it reads. was it like that exactly in person? joining us is the senior reporter at politico who has been in the courtroom for the trial and was there for this today. thank you very much for being here. nice to see you. >> good to see you. >> that was the way the transcript read in part about the fight with the judge. they are fighting about the instructions that will be given to the jury and specifically how the jury should consider things that the judge might have piped up about himself during the trial? >> right, and you are quite right to detect it. there was a lot of sarcasm going back and forth and both sides in this case, not the prosecution and the defense, but the prosecution and the judge were really laying it out there. they either lost patience or at this point the trial is close

enough to being over that there is not much point in censoring yourself at this juncture. >> as this is ending with unexpected fireworks like that which is sort of the way it started as well, i feel like there dangling mysteries that i think we will ultimately get answers to. there has been closed hearings. there is some sealed conferences at the bench where lawyers and the judge all talked amongst themselves and the white noise machine playing and spectators couldn't hear it. something seems to still be unresolved. a lot of people are speculating it has to do with the jury. there was a sealed conversation having to do with rick gates offering evidence that might be used by the special counsel and other cases. what do you feel like of all of these things that have been raised, the mysteries raised, should we have an expectation that the things will get cleared up and know what the things were? >> i think the judge was clear

that the information will come out. it's not clear if he means the moment there is a verdict or later in the legal process. they is questionsy over the last few days has been striking and unusual. that court in particular has that reputation as the rocket docket and the observers who can only see the public portion of the trial that the rocket went off course or petered out because things were not progressing as quickly as they normally do. i agree with the other folks that you were quoting earlier who said it did seem like there was an issue related to the jury. there was movement to and from the jury room and it seems like the defense had a minimum is trying to observe objection for appeal, perhaps the judge refused to dismiss a juror who might have shown bias and the defense wants to be on the record making clear that they are objecting to this. if it is an issue on appeal, they have the record and they

can present it to the fourth circuit appeals court that takes this up. >> as someone who is an astute observer of proceedings like this, obviously this is not just anybody on trial. this is the president's campaign chairman. he is about to start another criminal trial when this is done. there is a lot of news attention and discussion by the judge as to whether or not paul manafort might factor into larger investigations involving the president himself. as you watched this unfold, have you seen anything that has given you any indication of how we should think of a presidential parton here or effort by the president to intervene in some way in paul manafort's fate? >> i think there was enough evidence about the trump campaign and now as of last night about the first family with the reference to jared kushner being drawn into the effort to get steve caulk a job in the army secretary position

that any mention of the campaign or the first family or the white house, i think it starts to push buttons over there at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. even the decision by the defense not to really mount a defense that includes evidence or witnesses and just to go with some general strategy that may be to blame this all on rick gates suggests that they don't want to get down in the weeds and get dirty and maybe they think somebody will swoop in and save them and there is only one person i can think of who can do that? . >> senior white house reporter for politico.com, appreciate your time tonight. should be exciting tomorrow. much more to get to including this being election nights in four states. 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.

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. 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.

as the jury gets the paul manafort case tomorrow and we watch the closing arguments tomorrow and start to wait on the jury to happened in their verdict, i mentioned that there were a few other things that have been raised in the trial, many for the first time, that essentially we are left to wonder if and how they will get tied up now that they have been described in open court. one is highlighted by the associated press in a story that has a remarkable lead. ready? jeff horowitz. donald trump's inaugural knee pushed back hard on questions about whether the unprecedented $107 million budget for the

trump inauguration was fraud with cost overruns and misspending. an official assures them that spending was both restrained and monitored. in court last week, that same official, rick gate, acknowledged he personally may have pocketed some of the inaugural knee's money. gates admitted to manafort's lawyers in open court that he possibly wrongfully submitted personal expenses to the knee for reimbursement. only a footnote about tax fraud, extra marital affairs and embezzlement, it raises questions how well they tracked their own spending. it's not clear how much he pocketed or whether the testimony will prompt the knee to review its spending. when paul manafort left the trump campaign, his deputy stayed on through the duration for the transition and was a senior official on the trump

inauguration which was wildly mismatched in terms of the amount of money they raised and the amount of moniy they appear to have spent. what happened to the money? rick gates might have stolen some of it. who follows this up? shouldn't the inaugural knee at least tell us they are being looking into it? is this potentially another criminal matter here? watch this face. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. 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? stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

chair, new laptop headphones, start winning today. with free 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax. it is primary night tonight and we are watching returns roll in. i need to tell you that one of last week's primaries just ended tonight as well. we finally have a winner in last week's republican gubernatorial primary in kansas. the margin was so thin that nobody was concedinconceding. we were looking for provisional ballots. the current governor conceded the race to his challenger, chris coback, the secretary of state. he had only a couple hundred

more votes. we will talk about that upset? kansas and why democrats might be psyched it worked out this way. aside from that result, polls closed in minnesota. among the front-runners in the race for governor is tim waltz with national visibility as a leader on veteran's issues. the republican front runter is tim palenty. others is the race for attorney general. keith ellison who has a big national profile. the deputy chairman of the party running against four democratic opponents to be state ag and the congressman was abuse accused of domestic abuse by a former girlfriend. they further allege there is video evidence. he vigorously denied the

allegations and said this video does not exist because i never behaviored in this way. any characterization otherwise is false. dnc said they are reviewing the allegations made against the congressman, but he is a very popular politician and his el t electoral fate is in the hands of voters. here's the great steve kornacki. it's a very exciting night in lots of states. >> yes it is. in minnesota, ground zero, let's take you through what we know. the primary for governor and democratic from the southern start of the state. more rural. these are early returns, but we are getting a bit of numbers. wall is out in front. murphy is the endorsed farm labor party. she is running behind the most encouraging news in these numbers. a lot is coming from around the twin cities and not are inially

from his district. he seems to be holding his own close to minneapolis, st. paul without a lot from his district coming in. there were electability standpoint in this democratic primary just because his voting record in that district, especially on gun issues, may be to the right of the democratic party. also we've seen female candidates doing so well in democratic primaries. you add these two together, you're close to 60%, but walz here sort of on his own. the only male there among these major candidates right now running out in front. we will see how that goes. the bigger surprise right now when you talk about governor's races in minnesota, though, it's what's happening early on the republican side. we all know this name. tim pawlenty, former two-term republican governor, ran for president on the republican side in 2012, being challenged by jeff johnson. a comeback attempt for tim pawlenty. jeff johnson, he was the republican candidate for governor in 2014. he's tried to run to paw

lentdy's right. i'm sorry we don't have the live numbers but in the early returns johnson right now running about ten points ahead of pawlenty. i should tell you it looks like johnson's base, hennepin county, is accounting for a lot of the votes so far. but even outside of that base he is early on running ahead of pawlenty. >> ten points ahead running in the early results? >> yes. >> wow. >> disproportionately, we're talking about johnson's base here, hennepin county, that's a part of that. you get outside of that it looks like he's running about five points ahead. but yeah, this would be -- he was the republican nominee in 2014. it's been a while since pawlenty's been active. we've seen that sort of anti-establishment thing. so we'll keep an eye on that. and you set it up too as well there. in the attorney general's race, these are early numbers. keith ellison, a number of opponents. but keith ellison you see basically, you know, better than 3-1 over his nearest opponent right now on the democratic side. there's talk here about a quarter of the vote certainly based on 2016, about a quarter of the vote in minnesota comes in early, maybe a little bit

more here. there was talk that maybe that late-breaking news would affect the same-day vote. but even if this is disproportionately early, that is a lot to make up for any of these other democratic candidates. >> steve kornacki, one of the other things we are watching tonight is actually a result from a primary that was last week. the kansas gubernatorial primary. can you hold on for one second and i can ask you some questions about that when we come back? >> absolutely. >> i'll be right back with msnbc's political genius steve kornacki, right after this. d? well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. esurance. an allstate company. 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.

but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. kansas is very controversial

republican governor sam brownback left office to take a job in the trump administration. that elevated his lieutenant governor jeff colyer to the governor's seat. last he weekcombier had a primary to try to hold on to that seat. it was too close to call. it's been a very ugly week of fighting about that too close to call race all week long. but tonight jeff colyer sort of unexpectedly conceded. msnbc's steve kornacki's still with us. i was surprise that this happened tonight. it seemed like it was still too close to call. but this obviously has big implications in kansas. >> this is the outcome democrats were hoping for in kansas. within the state they think this gives them a shot at winning the governorship. nationally they think hey, if kobach is the face of the republican party nationally that's something that will help them nationally there will be a backlash against that potentially. let's look within kansas. kobach against the republican nominee will square off against laura kelly, the democratic candidate. the theory the democrats have is there are suburbs right around

kansas city, johnson county, kansas in particular, like a quarter of all votes in the giant state of kansas will come out of this one county, bedroom communities right outside k.c. traditional republican voters. they say those voters would be unnerved by kobach. there is some polling evidence to back up that theory. this was a poll that came out just before the primary, and it tested two different republican nominees here, colyer and kobach against kelly. check this out. here's what it found. colyer the incumbent governor was running ten points ahead of kelly. you see greg norman running as an independent. that's a name you might remember from 2014. but the bottom line republicans with colyer were up ten in this poll. substitute kobach in for colyer and all of a sudden kelly the democrat goes up by one. down ten for the democrats, up one democrats say that's the difference of having kobach. and then they say look, you get a midterm year in a climate favorable, maybe that would help too. >> amazing. kind of a todd akin situation is what democrats are looking at

there. steve kornacki, thank you very much, my friend. much appreciated. we'll be right back. stay with us. fruits and veggies are essential to your health, but it's tough to get enough of their nutrients. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley.

not in this house.? 'cause that's no ordinary family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired cheddar and swiss for eggs. beat that! kraft. family greatly. the world is full of different hair. that's why pantene, the world's #1 conditioner brand, has conditioners for every hair type. from air-light foam for fine hair, to nourishing 3 minute miracle for thick and curly. and the moisture-infusing gold series collection. giving more women great hair days - every day. pantene. world's number one... conditioner brand.

one good thing i'm always happy to be able to tell you on election night, including big primary nights like tonight, which is keep watching. we'll be covering this stuff as the votes come in over the course of the evening. polls are closed, but all these races still yet to be decided including a lot with national implications. stay with us through the evening tonight. i will see you again tomorrow. now it's time forlord wlrd with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. and we will have steve kornacki back at the other end of the hour tonight to update us on where things stand on that. and today, rachel, the defense rested. no witnesses, no testimony from paul manafort. we will -- the jury will have this case tomorrow night. >> it seems like the defense was pretty restful before they rested. you know what i mean? like not only did they not put the defendant on the stand, which of course would have been amazing blockbuster dram