eugene robinson, michael avenatti, elyse jordan. that does it for us. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. it's a seamless hand-off. >> it's a hot potato. lu take it? >> this could be the most consequential day of the trump presidency yet. it's all happening. good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington, and welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight with breaking news, and it's all crumbling on top of the president's head. mine'll cohen,'s the president's fixer and personal attorney, is an admitted felon who says he admitted campaign violations at the direction of the candidate who cohen technically did not name in court. and paul manafort, president

trump's former campaign chief-s now a convicted felon. we're going to get to the cohen story in a moment, but first let's start in alexandria, virginia. paul manafort has been found guilty on eight counts. five counts of tax fraud, one count of failing to file a foreign bank account, and two counts of just regular old bank fraud. the judge has declared a mistrial on the other ten counts that manafort was charged with. after the jury failed to reach a consensus on those counts. look, all of this news is just coming in literally. the manafort verdict and the michael cohen plea deal were happening simultaneously. so we're going to start in virginia and get up to new york. very big day and that means a huge slate of experts to kick off the hour. joining me here's the panel. "washington post" political reporter eugene scott, cnbc contributor and former white house political director under george w. bush sarah fagan. nbc news analyst and just all-around honcho of a guy howard fineman. i've got kristen welker at the white house, ken dlinian outside the courthouse. legal experts for the hour

daniel goldman former assistant u.s. attorney, also gene rossi a former prosecutor, d.o.j.'s tax division. point is we've got this covered from so many different angles but let's begin with ken dilanian. kerngs eight counts guilty, ten counts mistrial. walk me through what more do we have on the ten counts that there wasn't a consensus and what's going to happen next? >> well, first, i'll tell you chuck that paul manafort showed no reaction. he was stone-faced. nor did his wife, after the verdict. prosecutors shook hands with one another and the judge admonished the jury that they did not have to talk to the press in the wake of there verdict. prosecutors got a little of everything here. not a 100% victory for the prosecution but they got five counts of tax fraud, they got one count of failing to file a foreign bank account report, and

two counts of frank fraud, aban appeared that the jury went through meticulously through the evidence and they latched on to two of the stronger bank fraud charges where there are documentable lies. in one case paul manafort doctored a profit and loss statement to defraud a bank to get loans at a time when he was badly in need of quash. this jury was super thoughtful it appears in their deliberations and earlier today they told the judge they were unable to reach consensus on a number of counts. the judge asked them to go back and deliberate they tried for about four hours were unable to do it and so the judge declared a mistrial. the government can try paul man frlt on the ten counts. he's facing as you know, another trial in washington, d.c. next month that carries even more prison time. >> daniel goldman, i'll go to you, and not just because you're standing next to ken. explain this to me. if you're the prosecutor are you

happy? does this feel like a solid win? >> look, it's not a resounding victory but it is a definite victory and in particular for the reason ken said. because the jury somewhat unusually and atypically picked and chose among the different types of charges what they convicted him of, the prosecution will be able to argue that the sentencing judge here should consider all of the conduct that he was charged with because there's a lesser standard. so from the prosecution's standpoint it is better to have some bank fraud charges of which he was convicted, some foreign bank account reports, and he got all the tax fraud. so the fact that they dribbled it through the indictment is actually helpful to the prosecution and also shows that in each of their different groups of charges that they were justified and they were legitimate because the jury convicted on at least some of them. >> ken, do we have a sense on the other ten? was it 9-3, 10-2, 11-1, 6-6? what kind of -- do we have a

sense on the other ten if it was most of them were leaning one way or the other? >> did the judge poll the jury on those? >> the judge polled the jury and they all just agreed that they could not reach the verdict, but they done did not say where where they came out. that happens usually after the trial where the media can speak to the jurors and try to figure out what it is. >> sentencing. when would that happen? >> i defer to my legal expert. >> i ran out of the -- they set a date. i think it would normally be in about three months. i know they did set a date and we'll get that for you in a minute, chuck. we just ran out of the courtroom. >> what is the maximum -- the sentencing guidelines. we have eight counts here. if the max was hit on all of them, what are we looking at here?

>> so i was trying to do i rough rough calculation with ken here. if he was convicted of everything, the best calculation for the prosecution would be about 11 to 14 months -- sorry, 11 to 14 years. >> on each count? >> no, total. >> okay. >> the way the sentencing guidelines work is they group all the counts together so there will only be one guideline range for the whole indictment. and the way i roughly calculated it is that for everything he was susceptible to here it would be 11 to 14 years. the prosecution will argue that. if you just look at the counts of conviction, my rough estimate is about seven to nine years. that the guideline range would be. and then the judge is free to vary from that how he wishes. and often in white collar cases judges go below the guidelines. >> and chuck, i don't have to tell you the big question now is obviously looking at what happened with michael cohen today what will paul manafort do? will he continue to fight this case? this legal defense must be costing him millions of dollars. will he go forward with a trial in washington, d.c. where the

penalties are even higher, the evidence is even more volume nous, or will he cut his losses, cut a deal and tell what he knows if anything about potential collusion between donald trump and the russian election interference effort? >> let me bring in the panel now. i want to get to my legal experts, more of my legal experts. by the way, a little more breaking news, the cohen hearing is officially over. sentencing is scheduled for december 12th for his guilty plea at 11:00 a.m. he's out on $500,000 bail which was co-signed by his wife and a second person. we're going to go there. but donald fryman is is on air force one on his way to west virginia to prepare for a rally for the west virginia senate race. how is he feeling? >> we think he's emotionally and politically in as much of a corner psychologically as he's been since he's become president of the united states. he's worked very hard to get at

least some n. some polls his popularity polls up, get him a sense of confidence. he's going to west virginia tonight which is a state that gave him -- >> i think it might be -- >> the two coal states. it was wyoming and west virginia. he's kind of going to his mountain retreat. >> yes. >> where the citadel, the psychological citadel exists, where he's going to go before this rally and he's i'm guessing going to denounce mueller. he's going to denounce the thugs. he's going to denounce brennan. he's going to denounce the deep state. he's going to do all of those greatest hits of his core that will try to buck him up. but even donald trump, as he's speaking in front of that cheering crowd in charleston, has got to be thinking that the walls are closing in. one other quick point. everybody says robert mueller is not a political prosecutor. but he's a psychological prosecut prosecutor. and what he's going to donald trump psychologically as he works his way from the outside in and from the bottom up is

nothing short of torturous to this man. >> and he had some tough times in the white house but probably nothing like this as a staffer where this has got to be rattling to the staff. it's admitted felon and convicted felon on the same day. >> it's very rattling to the staff. in particular anybody who in the campaign may zhsomehow have interacted with michael cohen or had a working relationship with paul manafort. paul was largely tried on his own former business dealings. his next trial of course is going to be more aligned with what's been talked about in this russian investigation. i think if you're a staffer who's been active in this campaign during this period where cohen was active and manafort was active you're wondering what particularly cohen, what does this mean for me. >> we've got live pictures here, we're seeing -- this appears to be new york city. we're i think preparing to see michael cohen leave the building. yooij, i know we're going to get an official statement from the

trump legal team. but i think the big question, is he going to defend manafort? does he end up trying to dangle a pardon and does that matter? >> i think he'll defend manafort if he believes manafort's still going to protect him. we have new supporting that cohen said that his actions were at the direction of the candidate. he did not name the candidate. but it's the candidate. and so we know that trump was supposedly afraid that cohen was going to turn on him. and if that is what ended up happening we can see him turning on cohen and we can expect many among his base, not all trump supporters, to go in the direction of the -- >> courthouse to courthouse here. this is donald trump's presidency right now. a new york courthouse and an alexandria, virginia courthouse. >> on the cohen manafort sort of side by side. you can see this president based on what we know about him to look at manafort, who didn't put up a defense, who sat there stone-faced, took it. >> up from's going to like that. >> and trump's going to say he

looked strong, this whole case is a fraud, he shouldn't be up for these charges, whereas cohen looks like a rat today and he looks weak and he's in the courthouse emotional. i think that will play into how donald trump reacts. >> paul manafort playing not for a hung jury, for a pardon. and he's kichbconsistently play that role. >> let me go to two of my legal experts here. gene rossi, former u.s. attorney in virginia. you got this conviction as the prosecutor. do you -- how open would you be if manafort says could we cut a deal? >> i would take it in a heartbeat. and i've had this happen -- yes, i would. and i'll tell you why. mr. manafort is not a good man. he's now a greedy and convicted man. and having said all that, as a

prosecutor you want cooperation. and i've had times where somebody went to trial and they were found guilty or they pleaded guilty during trial. i always wanted cooperation. number one. and number two, if he cooperates he's going to waive all appeals. i want to do a shout out to one of my old bosses, chuck rosenberg. we don't like appellate work. trial attorneys don't like appellate work. and chuck will agree with me. if you get a person to cooperate, they will waive all appeals, and that is a big deal. just ask the trial team for governor bob mcdonnell, the prosecutors there. if mcdonald had cooperated after his conviction, they wouldn't have that supreme court case. so yes, i would take cooperation in a heartbeat on this type of case. now, if you have a violent gang member or a serial murderer, i prosecuted a guy who killed 35 people, i don't want his cooperation. i want him in prison. so yes, i would accept his cooperation.

but it's not -- >> all right, gene. let me go to your boss. your former boss here. chuck rosenberg. how much you know you're going to put manafort on trial again in the district. you know he's going on trial again in a few weeks. so if he's coming for a deal how much hardball do you play? >> well, you have a lot of leverage now. and gene is right. this is the type of case in which you would take cooperation even after a guilty verdict. and there's another factor here too, chuck, which i think is important. mr. manafort didn't testify at trial. meaning i think he didn't testify falsely. meaning i think that he's still potentially valuable as a witness. he didn't concoct a false story. he didn't commit perjury on the stand. he remains silent. of course that's his right to do so. but from a prosecutor's standpoint, if he has information we want it. particularly if he's going to tell it to us truthfully and

fully. >> let me ask you this -- all right. now we're going in. this is the attorney for mr. manafort. >> -- of not getting acquitals all the way through or a complete hung jury on all counts. however, he would like to thank judge ellis for granting him a fair trial, thank the jury for their very long and hard-fought deliberations. he is evaluating all of his options at this point. thank you, everyone. >> that was super quick. chuck rosenberg, let me pick back up. you just eared, he's reviewing all options. the fact they don't immediately say they plan to appeal to me says a lot. i feel like in previous -- any other trial, somebody that feels emphatic that they were wrongly convicted they immediately start talking appeal. there was no talk of that. >> it's hard to know if they're just trying to catch their breath, chuck, or keeping the door open. i would hope they're keeping the door open because the notion that you can run the table in

the district of columbia, get acquitted on all of the charges there, then get all of the charges on which you're convicted in virginia overturned on appeal is approaching absolute zero. so if he's keeping his options open i think it's a wise thing to do but it may be just a throwaway line. >> what do you do with the pardon issue as a prosecutor? that that's sort of hanging up there. not many clients that you successfully convict, you know, have a pardon they might be able to pull out of their back pocket pretty quick. >> i would say there's almost nothing you can do. you have no control over it. it's the unfettered right of the president to pardon whoever he wants to pardon whenever he wants to pardon them. and so while you know it's in the background it's hard to control things you can't control, chuck. i would put it aside. >> we are i think about to move -- we are awaiting a press conference in new york city on

the cohen thing. gu guys, are we ready to move over to that? let's move over to that courthouse now. press conference split screen day. >> with me is bill sweeney, assistant director in charge of the new york field office of the fbi, and james rodna, who is the supervisory agent in charge of the new york office of the irs. also with me are the prosecutors from the united states attorney's office in the southern district of new york who prosecuted the cohen matter. i'm going to have a brief statement and will not be taking any questions. today as you heard, michael cohen pled guilty to eight felony charges. five of those dealt with tax evasion for the years 2012 through 2016 in which he failed to report approximately $4.1 million in reported income. approximately 2.5 of that money was from interest payments from a personal loan that he failed

to report. approximately $1.3 million of that money was from the operation of his taxi medallion bips approximately $100,000 of that money was from brokerage commissions. and over $200,000 was from consulting fees. that's over $4.3 million over a five-year period, which translates into a loss to the united states treasury of approximately $1.3 million. in addition, in count 6 mr. cohen pled guilty to making false statements to a financial institution in connection with an application for a home equity line of credit. in that application he failed to disclose more than $14 million in debt that he will, and as a result of that concealment he obtained that $500,000 line of credit which he would not have been entitled to had he been candid and honest.

in addition, mr. cohen pled guilty to two campaign finance charges, one for causing an unlawful corporate contribution and a second one for personally making an excessive personal contribution, both for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. in addition, what he did was he worked to pay money to silence two women who had information he believed would be detrimental to the 2016 campaign and to the candidate and the campaign. in addition, mr. cohen sought reimbursement for that money by submitting invoices to the candidate's company which were untrue and false. they indicated that the reimbursement was for services rendered for the year 2017 when in fact those invoices were a sham. he provided no legal services

for the year 2017 and it was simply a means to obtain reimbursement for the unlawful campaign contribution. a couple of points i'd like to make, first these are very serious charges and reflect a pattern of lies and dishonesty over an extended period of time. they are significant in their own right. they are particularly significant when done by a lawyer, a lawyer who through training and tradition understands what it means to be a lawyer, to engage in honest and fair dealing and adherence to the law. mr. cohen disregarded that training, disregarded that tradition, and decided that he was above the law and for that he's going to pay a very, very serious price. with respect to the campaign finance violations, the campaign finance laws are designed to prevent the use of illegal money in elections and to maintain the integrity of those elections.

mr. cohen made guilty pleas for those campaign violations, and those are core violations. and what he did was these pleas remind us that it is illegal for corporations to make contributions to candidates and it is illegal to make contributions in excess of the amount that congress set for individuals. that is a strong message today, and we will not be -- we will not fear prosecuting additional corporation -- campaign finance cases. lastly and perhaps most importantly, this case is unique in many ways. just witness the gathering of all of you here today. and in other ways it's unique as well. but in really important ways this case is not unlike many cases that my office, the united states attorney's office, brings, that the entire department of justice brings and

that the law enforcement agencies do as well including the fbi and the irs. is this case has more in common with all those cases because they all share the same message. and that message is that the rule of law applies and that for law enforcement, all all of whom are gathered here, it is our commitment that we will pursue and vindicate those who choose to break the law and vindicate the majority of people who live law-abiding lives, who follow honest and fair dealing and live lives of lawful behavior. the message is that we are here, prosecutors are here, law enforcement is here, the department of justice is here, the law enforcement agencies here. we are a nation of laws and the essence of this case is about is justice and that is an equal playing field for all persons in

the eyes of the laws and that is a lesson that mr. cohen learned today and it is a very harsh one for him. thank you very much. >> who is the candidate you're talking about? >> one other thing. i'm sorry. i'd also like to introduce -- sorry. my fault. i really want to thank mr. sweeney and james robned of the irs and the agents who work for them. we do many cases with them. and their determination and their fair dealing and their vigor with which they pr suh their cases is really inspirational. to the prosecutors in my office, i cannot express the gratitude for the hard work they did in this case. assistant united states attorneys andrea griswold and nick roose and tom mckay as well as the deputy chief of the public corruption unit and russell capone, the chief of the public corruption unit. for all of these people, i could

go on and on about their many virtues and fanlts talentalents are satisfied with simply being known as public servants, prosecutors and law enforcement agents who are doing their job. thank you very much. >> that was robert kazami. he is the deputy u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york there. you heard him lay it all out. but there's a big sort of meatball hanging out there on the plea deal. we all know what michael cohen -- what the government has essentially offered not to do now and what michael cohen has offered in exchange for this plea deal, but let's try to break it down. i've got the same panel here. i've also got danny cevallos, one of our legal experts who's been in new york following the cohen plea all day. so danny, let me start with you. you're a long-time defense lawyer. what did michael cohen do today and what is he getting out of it? because i still am not clear on

that. >> well, what's very significant is probably what we didn't hear the u.s. attorney's office say today, and that is this. we should be very careful not to conclude right now that there is zero cooperation because it often is the case that a defendant will enter a plea and there will be not one mention of a cooperation agreement and there will be not one mention in open court even at the sentencing of a cooperation agreement. instead that reference will be at sidebar, out of the ears of the public. and the reason for that is the cooperation agreements are often kept secret. for a couple of very important reasons. one, publicity of a cooperation agreement could scare off other big fish. and it's for the safety of the cooperator because they want to avoid snitches getting stitches. so in this case there may be cooperation but there may be no way for us to know that. these plea negotiations go on in

secret. we will never know the words that were exchanged in reaching this final agreement. we may get the plea in open court but the cooperation may pour now remain a mystery. >> danny, stick with me here. i've got mimi rocca on the phone, a former u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. all right. i know speculating you don't want to speculate too much, but give a sense of what's likely, what kind of cooperation has been agreed to. you've seen what he's agreed to plea to and as howard fineman points out to me, he's pleading already to cooperation. he fingered the president. so in some ways we get what the prosecutors -- some of what the prosecutors got out of this. but mimi, what do you think is happening behind the scenes? >> well, chuck, i think danny's right. when we see the documents, if and when we see the documents, the plea agreement, we'll know a lot more in the sense of is it formal cooperation, which i know there had been some reporting that that wasn't happening.

and formal cooperation would mean that once he pleads guilty in his agreement cohen is agreeing to give information and be a witness whenever the government asks. if sounds like from that reporting that won't be what this plea agreement is going to be but we won't know until we see it. but i think just as important is, again, as danny pointed out, he's being cooperative in the sense that he allocuted under oath, it's not just anymore what mike cohen says through something, gossipy. this is under oath. this is serious. he knows, especially with a lawyer like guy petrillo, that he really can face serious consequences if he lied. sew has now said under oath that these campaign finance violation payments were at the direction of what everyone understands to be donald trump. and that is huge. now, that statement alone cannot be used, that sworn statement

cannot be used against someone else, the guilty plea, but it makes it more possible now for prosecutors to do something they don't normally like to, do which is subpoena a witness who isn't a cooperating witness. >> and mimi, what about -- >> that is a possibility now too. >> what about the other stuff? the other stuff in this case of michael cohen includes the at&t, the novartis, all that -- the pay to play investigation portion. is that -- are we to assume that's just not been dealt with yet or that's -- with michael cohen there is a lot of sort of rivals. >> you make a really good point, chuck. i think there's a couple of different options and we just don't note answer yet as frustrating as that is. one is this is a plea to certain charged in a certain area and they're going to deal with the rest of it later. that may signal that he's going to start offering and talking to the government in a more extensive way but they wanted to get this done now and sort of put their stake down on this.

and he can keep working with them and resolve those other charges later. it could mean he got immunity for some of those charges in his plea agreement. you asked what's he getting out of this. when we see the documents, which we just haven't seen yet, one thing so look at is what does he get immunity for, is it just what he pled to or is it other conduct? and i don't know that. and the third option i think is that he's done this guilty plea but then he will be talking to mueller and his team. this is the southern district and maybe this closes the chapter of what they were dealing with and maybe mueller is looking at the other stuff and possibly contacting him about that. ? daniel goldman, you had something you wanted to quickly chime in on. you have the political panel back. >> i have the plea agreement here. >> well, then go for it. give me the plea agreement. >> i wish i could send it over immediately. but it is a standard plea

agreement. it is not a cooperation agreement. there is no agreement that michael cohen will cooperate with the southern district going forward. though mimi mentioned something about whether he gets immunity for any conduct that he did not plead guilty to. there is one sentence about a credit decision from sterling national bank which he was not charged with but which he gets immunity from. ordinarily, if this were just a simple place holder that michael cohen would be pleading guilty to the charges that are -- to the investigative charges that are public, it has been reported about the campaign finance fraud, the bank fraud and the tax fraud which he pled guilty o'and then they were going to work through the cooperation at a later date, i'm a little surprised to see that he would get immunity. in addition, the parties did not agree on the sentencing range. that all indicates there's some contentiousness or some disagreement among the parties -- well, no, they could be done. that actually to me indicates

they are done. if this is a place holder they're going to put this down as a place holder and deal with it later. that's not to say they can't deal with it later but it is a little surprising to see there is immunity for something he's not charged with and that they do not agree on the sentencing guideline range, which means this is a negotiated plea agreement, so to speak, which ordinarily happens when there is not cooperation. >> very interesting. all right. sarah fagan. >> you know what's most odd about all this to me is that the southern district attorney didn't use trump's name either. it makes me wonder was that part of an agreement, that cohen didn't use trump specifically? it's odd you that refer to him as a candidate. but then why would the attorney come out and refer -- >> do any of the four of us -- i don't have a law degree. law degree? when is the last time you practiced it? i want to ask our legal experts about that. >> i think it has to do with what was said earlier about

leaving leeway for things that michael cohen can still testify about. in other words, he has -- what he pleads to can't be used specifically in another venue but if they leave it vague enough it will help give leeway to mueller and others to allow cohen to be used as a witness in other places. >> but it almost smells to me like here is a lawyer who is now a rat according to trump. those weren't his words but you can insinuate. the way he's talking about other lawyers. >> and he may say that at some point. >> tonight. >> it's that he's still worried about his approval. he's still worried about putting his name out there in connection -- it is the oddest thing he doesn't name him in this. >> eugene, i've got to bring up something here. this is an important contradiction. the campaign lied to the "wall street journal." when the "wall street journal" broke the story about the nchk nnk essentially doing the catch and release on karen mcdougal,

one of the two people he's pled guilty to, they agreed to pay 150,000 fds they didn't publish, it right? hope hicks, a trump campaign spokesperson at the time, is this is in 2016, said of the agreement with miss mcdougal, we have no knowledge of any of this. she said miss mcdougal's claim of an affair with donald trump is entirely not true. this is what michael cohen is contradicting. >> since then we've seen the president lose confidence in michael cohen. we've seen the changing attitude and tweeting that he has taken on since that time -- it has been report thaed sees cohen as getting weak and getting less secure and less confident in his relationship with trump. we haven't seen cohen say he'll take a bullet for trump in quite some time and that's because we've had reporting saying that cohen's concerned about his kids, cohen's concerned about money. these are things manafort has to worry about in terms of having young kids. >> i'm confused about the novartis at&t, that whole aspect

of it. although they may be not done with it. >> i think for reasons i can't entirely figure out i think the whole prosecutorial team here, and you have to assume that mueller and the southern district know what the other hand is doing. they decided, the prosecutors decided they wanted to lay down a marker with cohen. i don't think they're finished with cohen by any means. >> that's what it feels like to me. >> i think you're right to some extent also that cohen might be und error the illusion or self-delusion that somehow he's still standing -- this is like smoke signals going up between mueller and trump here. mueller's saying this is just the beginning and trump is worried it's just the beginning. >> mimi roca, you want to jump in here. >> i want to make one small point on the reason why cohen or the prosecutors didn't mention trump by name.

there's actually department of justice guidelines and rules about that. you're not really allowed to name a person who's not charged as a defendant. there are some exceptions to that. but generally speaking. and 245s why especially here. i just don't want anyone to get the wrong impression as to why someone wasn't using anyone's name. >> this is the u.s. attorney's decision to keep his name out, not michael cohen's is what you're saying. >> absolutely. absolutely. the u.s. attorney used the language that's in the -- i take it it's in the information. maybe dan has that as well. the charging document. but i think the u.s. attorney isn't going to use his name in a formal document or proceeding and mike cohen was likely told he's not allowed to. >> so far we're still awaiting word from the white house or the president's legal team. kristen welker's standing by from the white house. it's one of those days i remember you stand, stand, we're all waiting. it's one of these rolling crazy news days as we've been going from courthouse to courthouse

along the eastern seaboard here. kristen, what do we have? anything yet? i know you're a frequent communicator with mr. giuliani. >> we're also checking our phones every few minutes, chuck, and so far nothing. but but i have been told the legal team is going to be putting out a statement in short order. as soon as i get that i'll bring that to you and to our viewers. i know the president has just landed in west virginia. he has sort of saved by the rain. it was pouring when he departed. we didn't have a chance to ask him questions about all of this but obviously as you pointed out he was watching on air force one. the pool within the press pool vague they have access to fox news, that was on so, we know they were watching this unfold in real time. and obviously this is something that quite frankly is terrifying the administration. president trump was asked recently if he was concerned about michael cohen flipping on him. he said "no, i'm not worried because i did nothing wrong."

at the same time he's really amped up his attacks against cohen. and sort of the split-screen strategy here in terms of dealing with cohen versus manafort. because when he was asked if he was planning to pardon manafort just last friday he said i don't talk about that, i think the whole manafort trial is very sad. so showing some compassion for paul manafort, not disputing that a potential pardon's on the table. but let's remind everyone where we started the day. with this remarkable statement by president trump to reuters overnight saying i could run it in reference to the russia investigation. we're trying to figure out wla specifically he meant and what that would look like. i think the real question mark becomes does this rhetoric we have seen become increasingly eated from the president as it relates to the special counsel investigation turn into real action? as you know there's some real concern about him potentially either getting rid of rod rosenstein or trying to defang robert mueller. i think that's where it heads next. >> let me do a quick reset and

remind you, the magic number is'll today, by the way. mike cohen pled to eight counts in his guilty plea, in his various pleas, including fingering essentially the candidate, which we know to be donald trump, in ordering him to do the campaign finance violations they made. and then a jury in alexandria, virginia -- you could say it's coincidental it happened in the same 30-minute period. convicted paul manafort of 8 of 18 counts he was on trial for, mostly of tax and bank and wire fraud. here we are. political fallout. fascinating. john cornyn. well, on the cohen plea deal, if it implicated trump. i don't think it implicates him at all, particularly with the russia investigation. there is a little bit of spin that i've noticed in republican circles going. well, where's russia? max slap. i don't see the words russia here. is that something that they should feel good about? >> well, chuck, a source and friend of mine who's very close

to the white house -- the white house legal team took pity on me after i attempted to explain why trump's name wasn't mentioned. so he's calling in real time. it is in fact -- >> that's why we have mimi rocca. >> it's generally not done. but he added a political twist here. because he said it's not appropriate for a prosecutor to malign someone who is not before them. this is an effort tonight anti-comey. to not shoot your mouth off and be political but to play this spriktly by the book. that's what the prosecutors were doing there, they were being restrained. >> the president has tweeted. "just landed in virginia. big crowd." you're seeing him walking down now. shelley moore capito. look forward to seeing the big crowd. and hashtag maga. it's going to be an epic night from the president we think. >> absolutely.

there's no reason to believe if won't be based on how he's handled rallies in the past and especially considering everything everyone's talking about including on fox news which has a track record of not even address some of these types of -- >> i think they couldn't have avoided this -- like today fox couldn't do one of their oh, look, there is something else, there's a shiny metal object of medium being denied something. >> but i think your point to senator cornyn and matt schlapp's comments on this it's valid and -- >> hang on. sorry, sara. >> a lot of different people over the years. i think sad about that. i feel today it's a sad thing that happened. it has nothing to do with russian collusion. this started as russian collusion. this has absolutely nothing to do. this is a disgrace. this has nothing to do with what they set out looking for russians involved in our campaign. paul manafort.

he walked for bob dole. he worked for ronald reagan. he worked for me. many people. and this is the way it ends up. it was not the original mission. it was something very much different. so it had nothing to do with russian collusion. they continue the witch hunt. thank you very much. >> it's what he did not talk-b sara, that to me was the biggest tell of them all. he felt terrible for paul manafort. sort of reinforces what you said. he respects someone who took the bullet. he had nothing to say about cohen. but that also is a tell. cohen today implicated him. >> cohen implicated him. and also there's a quite -- a decent possibility that there's going to be more investigations, more trials, more interviews because of all of this. so now every comment, a good lawyer is telling donald trump don't say a word.

>> do you think he actually took legal advice there and that's why he didn't say anything about michael cohen, realizing michael avenatti's on speed dial with any court in the country that will take his case? >> i'm trying to watch this -- watch that through the eyes of paul manafort, who i've known since the early '80s. >> he's sad for him. >> he's sad for him. he left the door open there. >> i thought ajar. i didn't see a pardon. >> and he said it's sad, it has to end this way. the word "end" is not something paul manafort wants to hear in this context. >> he might get a commutation. i don't think he gets a full pardon. scl he's got that other trial he's facing in september. and as others have pointed out that's a z c. jury. another difference is it's not a northern virginia jury. >> that's a big difference anymore? >> it's a d.c. jury. >> it's a d.c. jury. >> you're from northern virginia. >> both of these guys on the pardon question it has more to do with their re-elect than it has to do with whether donald

trump is re-elected than -- >> i agree. after the re-election. it is worth pointing out, lindsey graham's been asked this. today's conviction of paul manafort today means -- this is what graham said. he's more likely to talk. then he added "i can't think of what mr. manafort has done to deserve a pardon." i think that's lindsey graham sending a message saying if you go down this road, you know, i have your back sometimes, i'm not going to have your back on this one. >> to trump we've seen in the past what deserves a pardon is loyalty. that's why joe arpaio got a pardon. so the reality is whether or not graham sees reason for manafort to get a pardon or not it's kind of irrelevant, especially when trump is in a position where he's really concerned about the faithfulness and loiflt people who've worked very closely with him. >> my theory on the trial was having spent a lot of time there if they only came back with one or two kind of judging kofrkss on the 18 that would have given the president a lot more room to

maneuver politically and rhetorically. i was impressed by the fact that he was fairly subdued on this thing. >> let's stay on manafort here because you had the best possible judge you could have asked for. you probably had the best possible jury instruction you could have asked for. manafort, your lawyers are probably telling you, sara fagen, this is probably as good as it gets. >> yes. >> you better start thinking about how you want to spend the rest of your life. >> i think that's absolutely true. and that gets to the conversation we had earlier on the show, which is is there still a deal to be had here? does manafort look at this next trial and think how do i reduce this sentence? because if you're right and the sentence comes after the next trial he has a very big card to play yet and that is whether he cooperates, whether he cuts a deal. >> there is one thing, eugene, that i -- because -- the question is how much does paul manafort have to offer?

he was in the trump tower meeting. that matters. >> absolutely. and that's why we're still looking to see what happened. the whole idea that none of this has anything to do with russia implies this whole situation is over. and we know it's just beginning. >> well, this trial didn't have anything to do with russia. and i think, you know, to the conversation you started earlier before the president -- >> jumped in. >> -- interrupted us, it's a very valid point in the eyes of many -- >> of voters. >> voters and americans who say, you know, yeah, maybe you found something on somebody who did something in this their business but that's not what this was about, and this feeds trump's argument that this is a witch hunt. >> well, it does have something to do with russia, though. because of all the money he collected from the ukrainians who were close to the russians. >> well, that's the next trial that starts connecting this. >> the stormy daniels stuff, even though the investigator is

bound by duty to refer, you know, illegal activity to the justice department, the average voter in my mind looks at that and says that has nothing to do with russia, trump's right. >> gene rossi, i want to ask you about question about -- and whether you agree with my point of view that if you're manafort's lawyers you have this conversation with him. you have the most friendly judge you could have expected, could have ever gotten. the best jury instruction you could have asked for. everything -- you caught every break and you're still staring at 20 years. >> chuck, you brought up a good point. judge ellis, that first week, he didn't use a vefls hammer, he used a sledgehammer with nails. for appeal purposes when the appellate panel sees that they're going to say that defendant got a great trial, a fair trial, though it was very one-sided against the prosecutors. the other thing, you're right about the d.c. juries. i tried about seven jury trials in d.c.

a little different than northern virginia. over the last 20 years the nova juries have changed, but d.c. is not friendly territory for mr. manafort. and i've grot to tell you this. mr. greed. they have to tell mr. manafort, if you want us to fight and go to trial, take your appeal in virginia to the 4th circuit, that's going to cost money. and unless he's hiding money in the cayman island, we don't know, but mr. green is going to have to show up soon because attorneys have to get paid. i'm a criminal defense attorney. you know, that's just the reality. >> eventually you want to get paid is what you're saying? you do this stuff for fame only for so long? >> we can't do it pro bono. but some law firms do. i do think there's a 50-50 chance he may cooperate because chuck, i don't think he's going to get a pardon. i think he's going to get a commutation. but it may not come until after he's sefshrved a couple years. >> lindsey graham pointed this

out. you've got to earn a pardon. he goes last time i checked you should serve time, know you've learned a lesson. as you said, that isn't how the president defines pardoning. it's arbitrary. >> absolutely. you could argue i guess arpaio suffered some and some of the other people he dealt with suffered some, but in terms of what the president thinks is sufficient we don't have proof of that yet. >> you can also point out there's something else besides the meeting that's more important that manafort knows about i think. and that does go back to this trial. because of this financial and political releaseship were all of the pro-putin ukrainian activists in russia -- in ukraine over the period of a decade it isn't, or tths it's at least worth investigating and knowing how much he understood about the role of russia in the campaign. in other words, it isn't necessarily credible to think that paul manafort spent four or five months in the campaign

without knowing anything about the activities of russian operativ operatives. that's where this whole thing i agree now politically it doesn't make sense that they're going after him for this. >> by the way, we've got a little color in the courtroom here on michael cohen. this is according to our reporters that were in there including tom winter. michael cohen got choked up when the judge asked him if he was aware that being convicted of a felony waives his right to volt and to participate on a jury. petrillo comforted him on the back. it came after the judge asked cohen a series of perfunctory questions kofrping he was ware what his plea entitled. the judge confirmed he could be sentenced separately on each of the eight counts and the judge could require cohen to serve those sentences consecutively or concurrently and if served con sectively the judge noted he could serve up to 65 years in prison. of course of note the plea agreement does recommend much less. this is danny cevallos. does this tell you -- what does this tell you -- this seems to be more of a severe plea agreement -- cohen pled guilty

to some serious crimes here. i guess i'm still trying to figure out, he did all this, is he just hoping that mueller doesn't come at him on the pay to play stuff? the novartis, the at&t -- this other aspect hanging over on another part of this investigation? >> well, it's important to understand that yes, the plea agreement indicates that there may be no agreement, there may be no cooperation, but often cooperation is not mentioned in open court. in fact, defendants can even cooperate after they are sentenced under a different rule. cooperation can come very, very late in the game even after sentencing. but it's important to think about probably the judge with the least exposure that cohen pleaded to today was the campaign finance law. but yet that is the one with the most serious political implications. the other ones, at least the

bank and tax issues, those of course can result in the most -- the higher sentences. but i think the takeaway from today with this plea is that michael cohen at least the way we'll know the most is in several months from now, if the government moves to continue the sentencing to adjourn the sentencing to another date. that will be a signal that maybe there's more behind this plea that meets the eye and that more could be cooperation. >> sarah fagan, i was told by somebody who is close to the president who said karen mcdougal scared him more than any other story that was hanging, and this is the former play boy model. this is one of the two people that were bought off, because everything about the karen mcdougal story, stormy daniels -- she's an opportunist, too. >> right. >> that was a real relationship as far as karen mcdougal was concerned and that is the one they thought is politically the most lethal to the president. what do you think?

>> i don't know it's more lethal than stormy daniels. it was probably more lethal to his family relationships potentially and, you know, on the terms of the timing of it. >> right. >> in terms of the fact, you're right, it was a real relationship, it was long-term, long-term for trump in terms of relationships assuming all of it is true. you know, so from that vantage point, you know, somebody who is emotionally wounded is more likely to say very damaging things at press. >> howard, the president is accused of being a liar by his long-time personal lawyer. is the country surprised? >> no. >> does this -- what is -- we know what fall out would be in another era. i think we're all trying to figure out, is this guy immune to this? no other president could survive this. >> the laws of physics don't apply to politics. a pendulum starts swinging in real life, it slows down. but in politics sometimes, and

we're in that kind of period now, once the pendulum starts swinging, it swings more and more violently and erratically. that's where we are right now. i think the key is the base and republicans on the hill, when do they begin, if ever -- the republicans on the hill, almost everybody who looks at them say they're never going to abandon donald trump. you never use the word never in politics, as you know. so that's one thing to look at. the other thing to look at is the fringes of the trump movement, if you will. he calls it a movement. it is a movement. at what point do the facts and the narrative and the noise become so loud that even people who are putting their fingers in their ears because they like what trump represents are going to say, we just can't do it any more. we've asked that for two years and we're still asking it. >> this would be the time, based

on what white evangelicals defending trump repeatedly said. they said they gave trump a mull began. he said he didn't do t. we had people like franklin graham, the president of liberty university, jerry fall well. they believe trump because he said he didn't do it. michael cohen appears to be saying that he did it. at what level, at what point would they say this man that we have called evangelicals' dream president a nightmare? >> include them, absolutely. >> michael also said that trump didn't authorize him to do it. now, of course, you know, he said under oath today he did which is a very valid point by one of the earlier guests. however, you know, for people looking for justification, michael cohen said he didn't do it then he said he did do it to save his own neck. >> but donald trump, why is everybody around him, like when does it become a reflection on donald trump that he has nefarious characters who commit

bank and wire fraud like michael, manafort -- >> you're not getting an argument out of me. i'm just telling you it's easy for people who love trump, there is a very -- there's a good rationale to dismiss this based on the way michael cohen conducted himself. >> there is a good -- >> good if you believe in him. >> in terms of law and politics, we're going to get to see soon enough on msnbc live, i assume, donald trump giving his -- >> rebuttal? >> -- best effort to maintain the coalition that we're talking about. the weak republicans on the hill, the evangelical christians, the trump lovers who would practically need a corridor to stop supporting him. >> i think the bell tell all already, maybe it's legal advice, but the fact he only wanted to talk about manafort and he ducked all things cohen, if he does that at the rally tonight, that tells me that lawyers have gotten to him, number one, and two, he realizes

that's a losing battle. manafort, i can at least keep arguing. well, there's no collusion. >> his base will go with him. >> for tonight. >> absolutely for tonight. as they have before and they will trust him and believe that he has said what -- everything he said before now is true. but the reality is we have to remember that the base is not as large of a percentage of the electorate as people think. republicans themselves are only 27% of the electorate. these people who voted for trump, we've seen data suggesting that many of them were like first-time trump triers who aren't willing to give him another chance. >> this is what i've got to be thinking. it's not the trump base that i think republicans have to worry about in november with these stories. >> right. >> it's the, it's the person that held their nose and voted republican because they wanted neil gorsuch. it's the person that, like, i don't know if they're ready to vote democrat, but i don't know if they're going to vote in november. >> i think it's an excellent point. >> the stench. >> you see the democratic base

and we've seen it for months is more energized thanks for joining us republicans as a whole. and independents, you know, who voted for trump have thrown their hands in the air because they hoped for the best and got this. and, yeah, i think it hurts politically a lot. particularly for trump who -- >> can we doing? i think i have this graphic. i want to set you up here. these are all the people and it's sort of that have been about to be locked up or might be locked up. i mean, you hate to use that phrase, but they're the ones that kept using it as a campaign slogan. michael cohen has pled guilty. michael flynn has pled guilty. george papadopoulos pled guilty. manafort convicted felon there. that's quite the track record of a witch hunt. >> i'm thinking -- >> a lot of witches. >> what you're thinking of is suburban vote erdors who are ary pro life, for example, who voted

for donald trump because they were hoping to get neil gorsuch as you said, and brett kavanagh. >> who rationalized trump and say he gave me that. >> or suburbanits who wanted tax cuts. it's the people who held their nose for tax cuts, deregulation and abortion, those three issues. those people are going to look at this and they're going to say, okay, i got the tax cuts, first of all. we got gorsuch. and also we can't stand to be associated with this guy any more. we just can't stand -- >> is it worth the effort this cycle? >> are they going to go back? it almost doesn't matter how many of those people exist if the people who are against trump, people who are on the left are so much more willing to vote against him and mobilize. >> i just don't see that rank and halfticollege-educated republicans, if they're caught in traffic, i'm not breaking a

sweat for this guy right now. >> i think that's right, and i think unfortunately the fact that we're talking about this -- even if a bigger percentage of the electorate says this is washington, this is trump, surrounded with bad people, didn't know, they justified the whole thing. we have a booming economy. we have low unemployment. we have record minority employment. >> by the way, where would we be if -- >> he would be out of office, they would have impeached him. >> it's higher than ronald reagan, bill clinton and some of the boom years. based on historical trends, based on economic numbers, donald trump would get reelected today. >> except -- >> except we're sitting here talking about convictions. >> which is why so many of his people around him politically say, will you stop tweeting? will you stop fighting about this? and by the way, if you did nothing wrong, the whole original idea of getting it over with quickly so you could enjoy

the fruits of the great economy would be out there. but he's stepping on his own best story line at this point. >> he is. >> and he probably won't talk about that tonight in terms of the amount of energy he could put into what he's done right to remind people of why he should be reelected or at least supported. >> he needed a lump of coal to show how dedicated he is to the coal industry. >> i'm curious how much discipline he'll have. the exposure that's now there legally on all things stormy daniels and karen mcdougal do put him in a weird spot where he likes to fight back. what can he fight? if he fights back, myangeloicha avenatti has a civil suit. what do you think? >> and a lot of people showing up in iowa. i'm just saying. >> i have a lot of thank yous to get out before the orchestra starts. i hope i get them right. ken dilanian, daniel goldman,

chuck rosenberg, gene rossy. robert, the former u.s. attorney who took up some of the hour. donald trump. my panel, eugene, sarah and howard. quick programming note. omarosa manigault newman will be on hardball with chris mathews. i have a feeling they'll talk about the book. they're going to be talking about the cohen plea deal. she has a lot to say about michael cohen. they're very close. that's all coming up at 7:00 eastern here on msnbc. the breaking news coverage continues right now on the beat. it it's ali velshi in for ari. >> great to see you. see you soon. i'm ali velshi in for ari melber. one directly implicated president trump himself in criminal wrongdoing. today the jury in the manafort trial delivered eight guilty counts and deadlocked on the other ten, but it's the michael cohen case that's shaking the political and legal worlds ni