funneled from donald trump -- two things i hope end up on mie doorstep. out of time. my thanks to our panel. that does it for our hour. back here for "deadline white house" at 4:00 p.m. rachel has the night off. she will be back on monday. the friday night of a roller coaster week for the president and his associates. a bunch of great reporters lined up to look at what this week's developments mean for the president. his family and his business. plus, some new reporting on what we know or don't know about what russia may be up to when it comes to the midterm elections this fall. but i want to start this night with these important questions. do you own a private jet? do you park that jet at an airport that you have to drive to from your house? are you unsatisfied with the proximity to your private jet? if you are, you're not alone.

>> ease and comfort are what it's all about, but some people aren't content just vacationing and doing business with their private jet. they want to be able to live with it. across the country, private aviation communities or air parks are sprouting up. the most ambitious air park to date is jumbo air in ocala, florida. it will eventually offer residents a gated community with its own country club, a bed and breakfast, an equestrian center, and a health club. >> private aviation communities, fly-in communities. they are apparently a thing that exists. in fact, there are apparently hundreds of them in the united states. they're cataloged on a website called livingwithyourplane.com. not kidding. and that big one in ocala, florida, jumbolair, a few years ago they decided to expand.

in 2014, a piece of land next to jumbolair just outside of ocala, florida, came up for sale in a tax foreclosure auction. the owners had not paid the tax. and the gentleman who owns jumbolair, frank merschman, bought it. soon after buying it, he got a call from someone representing the previous owners of the land he bought. the caller said he represented a qatari company that had owned the land. would mr. merschman like to buy two additional pieces of land from the qataris, he asked? so they acquired two more pieces of land from the qataris for $650,000. the qataris' representative, the guy who first contacted frank merschman made off with a cool $100,000 for brokering the deal. that broker, the man representing the qatari company in this 2014 real estate deal at

this ocala, florida, air park, that man was an executive with the trump organization. the man's name is michael cohen and "the wall street journal" was able to chase down this strange real estate deal that michael cohen brokered a few years ago because this week michael cohen pled guilty to among other things hiding the $100,000 that he made selling property to a private aviation community in florida. hiding that $100,000 from the irs and failing to pay taxes on it on a property that was possessed because the owners didn't pay tax. frank merschman, the owner of jumbolair tells "the journal" the fbi interviewed him a few months ago about the transaction and said "i cooperated with them 100%." mr. merschman says he doesn't know how michael cohen and the qataris knew each other but says, quote, cohen knew all the people, he had done work for mr. aziz. mr. aziz being the qatari royal

who owns the company that sold the land. and who would have thought that one real estate deal involving the qatari royal family and a florida air park would end up as part of a federal court plea four years later. if nothing else, this is a good reminder that michael cohen during his decade as a trump executive at the trump organization had his hands in all kinds of deals. there was, of course, the trump tower moscow project that cohen and trump were pursuing during the presidential election while simultaneously denying that any such deals were being pursued. plus, projects cohen was involved in with eastern europe that "the new yorker" adam davidson has reported were likely hotbeds of money laundering. there's a lot we don't know about the inner workings of the trump organization, which is why it probably made michael cohen, donald trump, and everyone else in the trump organization really nervous when the news broke today that the man who knows

everything that has gone on inside that company for decades, well, he's been granted immunity by federal prosecutors, this man you are looking at, allen weisselberg, he's the chief financial officer of the trump organization. he's in his 70s. he's worked for the trump family his entire adult life. he started off working for the president's father. he has been at the trump organization apparently since its inception. according to the "wall street journal," weisselberg was close enough to the president and his family that he handled household expenditures, personal expenditures, and purchases for them, including various dealings with banks. mr. weisselberg is the treasurer of the trump foundation, separate organization, which is under aggressive legal scrutiny in new york state. weisselberg is such an important and senior figure in the president's empire that when trump announced he was handing off day-to-day control of the trump organization now that he's president, the common shorthand

that we use for that transaction, look at the screen, is that the president handed over control of his business to his two sons, don jr. and eric. that's not entirely true. the group to which he actually handed over control of his businesses consists of his two sons don jr. and eric and allen weisselberg. not incidentally, mr. weisselberg is also reported to have been personally responsible for preparing donald trump's tax returns for years. and today nbc news is reporting that allen weisselberg was directly involved in the hush money payments to women who claim to have had affairs with donald trump. michael cohen pled guilty to two felonies for arranging those payments and said in court that he committed those felonies at the direction of donald trump. nbc news reports that weisselberg is executive one in the criminal information filed in the michael cohen case. according to that court filing,

cohen sent executive one, allen weisselberg, an invoice to be reimbursed for his hush money payment to stormy daniels. quote, executive one, weisselberg, forwarded that to another employee at the company stating, quote, please pay from the trust, post to legal expenses. put retainer for the months of january and february 2017 in the description. but the money wasn't a retainer for michael cohen's legal services. it was reimbursement for a payoff, a reimbursement that executives at the trump organization, quote, grossed up by hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond what cohen had paid out in hush money. whether allen weisselberg knew the true purpose of those funds and falsely reported them in the company's books why michael cohen was paid all that extra money, who else at the trump organization was involved, these are all presumably questions that federal prosecutors got the answers to in exchange for giving mr. weisselberg immunity.

and there's one other thing to keep in mind with all of this news today, that this top executive at the trump organization, essentially donald trump's right-hand officer at his business, has been given immunity by federal prosecutors. and it's this, david pecker, this guy, "the national enquirer" chief who was the keeper of donald trump's tabloid secrets, well, he's flipped and given information to prosecutors. michael cohen, the keeper of donald trump's personal secrets, he's pleaded guilty to crimes he says he committed with trump and now allen weisselberg, the keeper of donald trump's financial and business secrets, he's been given immunity. donald trump is running out of hiding places. the other two executives who run the trump organization with allen weisselberg and who run the trump trust from which weisselberg ordered the cohen reimbursements be paid, they're both named trump. where are prosecutors going to go next? joining us now is david fahrenthold, "washington post"

reporter, winner of a pulitzer prize for his coverage of the workings of the trump foundation and organization. david, great to have you with us. thank you for being with us. thank you for your reporting. i don't know if we can overstate how important allen weisselberg is to the trump organization, to the trump foundation and to donald trump. it's a name not everybody knew about more than a few weeks ago after we heard the tape from michael cohen, but this guy has been with trump from the beginning. >> that's right. donald trump tebded to treat all points of his personal empire -- personal expenses, company, charity -- as one big pot of money and the person who oversaw all as one bit pot of money and wie weisselberg handled that. he would bring in checks individually for donald trump to sign. he didn't have a lot of executive responsibility, but he had a lot of administrative responsibilities, he handled the ins and outs of the money. if i was to pick one person besides donald trump sr. that was sort of integral to the operation of the trump organization, it would be allen

weisselberg, it wouldn't be don or eric, it would be allen weisselberg. >> interesting. we're trying to get to the bottom of how valuable weisselberg is to investigators. given what you know about how the trump organization works -- and it's a little unorthodox, it's not like a lot of corporations. some of it feels like a corporation, some of it feels like something else -- what's your sense of how the reimbursement to michael cohen would have worked? obviously as you say weisselberg would have been involved but would he have had to get approval from someone else? would there have been more people involved? >> well, there's only -- at this time, january and february 2017 there were only three people really who had authority over the trust that donald trump put his business into. remember, donald trump still owns his business but the administration of it is left to this trust which is run by eric, don, and allen weisselberg. so, allen weisselberg to me is not somebody who typically does things on his own, somebody tells him to do it, we don't know in this case who gave that order. as you saw in the charging documents, the only executives mentioned are allen weisselberg

and somebody who obviously works for allen weisselberg. there's nobody above. so, if there's some conversation between allen and don sr., don jr. or eric, it's not captured in that information. >> let me just ask you to be clear about what this trust is, there's the trump organization. there's the trump foundation, a charity that is being looked at now legally by the attorney general of new york, but this is a trust. weisselberg said, please pay this from the trust. is this the company that donald trump got up in that press conference and announced he was handing over to his sons? >> that's right. the trump trust is basically an umbrella group that includes the trump organization. so, when donald trump entered office, he kept ownership of his company, he kept the right to withdraw money from it at any time, he just changed something about the administration of it so while he still owns it and can withdraw money from it, he put it in this trust run by eric, don, and allen weisselberg. it's not a blind trust -- donald trump is still -- >> correct, he and his lawyers

implied it was a blind trust. it's simply not a blind trust. >> he spends half its time in his businesses so it's not a blind trust but there's no hard divider that says donald trump sr. can't know what's happening in his business. they sort of made vague promises. they won't talk to him very often about it. he said he'd stay away but there's no bar on him reaching into his business. the trust is an administrative structure that doesn't keep donald trump out but gives day-to-day control to thee these executives, don junior, eric and allen weisselberg. >> what role, if any, would prosecutors be looking at in terms of these transactions that might involve donald trump jr. or eric? do we think they're involved? >> we know allen weisselberg was asked about this in his testimony in the southern district of new york in the cohen case. we know from the criminal information that he gave some information about it. we don't know the full picture and the question i have lingering is were they interested? were the prosecutors interested in anybody else in the trump organization? somebody who would have given

the go ahead, said, yes, pay michael cohen for this reimbursement. somebody who would have given an order to allen weisselberg. if that order happened, it's not mentioned in the cohen charging documents and i think every reporter in america is trying to figure out what more is the southern district going to do. is there more out there they haven't told us about yet? >> that's the big question. if anybody gets the answer, it will probably be you. david fahrenthold, "the washington post" reporter. thank you for your time. for more on this conversation, the legal implications of this, i'm joined by former u.s. attorney for alabama, joyce vance. jase -- joyce, great to see you, thank you for being with us. your first reaction to allen weisselberg, the trump organization cfo being given this immunity. what's your first reaction as somebody who has been at the other side of the deal on this where you've given people immunity. why? >> so typically you give immunity to someone because you're hoping that they'll be able to either provide information or testify against someone who is a little bit higher up on the food chain than they are. you don't use a big fish to eat a smaller fish.

so, my read into this is that he s -- gets immunity in the hope that he can provide help with someone else and cohen doesn't look like the big fish that sdny would be going after here. >> so the implication is there's a bigger fish, we're trying to figure out who that is. the obvious choice is donald trump sr. but it could be donald trump jr. or eric. those are the only possibilities of somebody who's more senior to weisselberg in the organization. would that be true? >> at least in the organization, and it's important that when you give someone immunity and try to keep going up the chain in a prosecution, you don't always succeed. but these are good prosecutors, they know how to do these kinds of cases. it seems unlikely to me that they would have given weisselberg a pass if they didn't think he had value to offer them. >> the benefit of immunity is that i guess you're supposed to tell the prosecutors whatever they want to know or whatever you know, and in exchange for that you can't be prosecuted for the things that you tell them. i'm assuming there may be different flavors of immunity

but i guess the point is allen weisselberg can't get out there and plead the fifth. >> you know, there are different flavors of immunity, and they come with some different rights and responsibilities. but one of the important things to remember about immunity is that it's always better to have a witness who is cooperating with you voluntarily because they'll share information that they know. they're doing that to get a good deal for themselves. when you give a witness immunity, you compel them to speak to you. the only answers you get are the answers to the questions that you know to ask that witness. so it's always preferable to have someone cooperating voluntarily and it's just not clear yet what's going on here. >> i need you to go deep into the recesses of your mind into ancient history all the way back to tuesday when -- >> was that about six years ago in the trump administration. >> right, it is. it's light-years, and when michael cohen announced -- when they announced what was

happening with michael cohen, strangely, the prosecution, the southern district of new york, did not announce a cooperation deal with him. now a number of lawyers -- and you and i have spoken since then -- have told me that sometimes a cooperation deal emanates from a plea deal. where do you think we are on that? >> it's hard to know. i thought it was real surprising to see cohen plead straight up to this indictment. it looks like he has someplace between four and six years of exposure. hard to know why he would have done that. he could have possibly gotten some cooperation. there's been some speculation that his wife might have had exposure. he might have gone ahead and entered a plea of guilt to spare her. i just don't think we know yet and, of course, prosecutors could decide down the road that cohen does have some value and conclude a cooperation agreement with him at a later time. >> i think the tag line for the trump administration is i don't think we know yet. joyce, always great to see you. thank you at least for helping us get through it. joyce vance is a former u.s.

attorney. >> thanks. much more to get to at the end of this incredible week of news. still ahead, the question just what may have changed in the last few days to change the way that prosecutors may confront the president. we've got that and much more ahead. stay with us. ndle 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.

it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief

"the tonight show" will not be seen tonight so we may bring you the following nbc news special report. >> good evening. the country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in its history. the president has fired the man you just saw, the special watergate prosecutor archibald cox, and he has sent fbi agents to the office of the special

prosecution staff and the attorney general and the deputy attorney general and the president has ordered the fbi to seal off those offices. >> now, as tipping points go, the saturday night massacre was a biggie setting in motion a series of events that would ultimately take down the nixon presidency. the saturday night massacre occurred on october 20th, 1973. but less than a month before that date something else happened that didn't get saturday night massacre level attention, but it was arguably just as important. you see, on september 24th, 1973, the office of legal counsel, the olc, part of the department of justice issued a memo that concluded, "criminal proceedings against a president in office should not go beyond a point where they could result in so serious a physical interference with the president's performance of his official duties that it would

amount to an incapacitation." in plain english, please do not indict a sitting president. that was the opinion of the department of justice in 1973. 27 years later in the year 2000, the same office of legal counsel doubled down on that opinion. quote, the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. the question of whether a serving president can be indicted came up again this week with president trump playing an unindicted role in a pair of felonies to which his former personal lawyer, michael cohen, pled guilty. the president's lawyers would have you believe that the olc's opinion is a hard and fast rule and that, therefore, the special counsel robert mueller cannot indict president trump while he

is still in office, and it's generally understood that the special counsel has to follow department of justice guidelines but it's also true that there are trap doors in those doj guidelines. trap doors that might mean actually there is a way to indict a sitting president. quote, should the special counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the attorney general. so, if robert mueller feels the state of the russia investigation rises to the level of extraordinary circumstances, he could in theory at least ask deputy attorney general rod rosenstein for a hall pass to ignore that olc memo about not indicting a sitting president and, by the way, that's not the only trap door. there's another one snack dab on the office of legal counsel's home page.

quote, by delegation from the attorney general, the assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel provides legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies." all executive branch agencies, that's important. provides legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. guess who's not part of the executive branch? state attorney generals like new york's attorney general barbara underwood who just subpoenaed michael cohen as part of an investigation into the trump foundation. yale law professor una hathaway says the idea of a state attorney general trying to indict a sitting president, "if a case went forward that it would be up to the courts to decide whether the president is immune from criminal prosecution. up to the courts, not the department of justice. so, if you were hypothetically looking for a trap door in the office of legal counsel's opinion on indicting a sitting president, the trap doors are

there if you know where to look. joining us now is matt axelrod, a former justice department prosecutor and senior department of justice official under president obama. matt, thanks for joining us. you have been looking into this. you have been thinking about this and the provocative argument here is that even if we assume robert mueller's hands are fully tied by the olc opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted in 1973 and in 2000, there might be other people who can step in, namely state and local prosecutors. can you think of any precedent for this? >> no, there's no precedent. this is truly uncharted territory. the one caution i would say, ali, is the olc opinion is as you said binding on the executive branch which includes the special counsel. it's not binding on state attorneys general. but the underlying analysis in the olc opinion concludes that indictment of a sitting president is unconstitutional. if that analysis is correct, in

other words, if courts were to agree with that analysis, that would preclude state attorneys general as well as federal prosecutors from return an indictment. >> so in other words the state attorney general is not bound by the rule not to indict the president, but it would obviously appear before a court and that court may say it doesn't matter who did it, it's not constitutional. >> yeah, that's exactly right and also i think one other thing worth pointing out, the way prosecutors work is they're not looking for trap doors in policies. they are trying to figure out what the law is, what the facts and the evidence are and what the law allows. so, if a state attorney general looking at this on the merits concludes in their office that the olc got it right, that it would be unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, they're not going to go forward just because they're not bound by the olc opinion. on the other hand, if they in good faith looked at the issues and concluded that they think the olc got it wrong and that it is constitutional to indict a sitting president, then

maybe that's a different story and maybe they would think about going forward if they had the facts and evidence to support a charge. >> i think it fair to say that a lot of people don't know about the olc. they do come up with these sort of guidelines and rules and they did so in 1973, and then they re-examined it. i'm not sure what caused it to be re-examined in 2000 but they did it again. could there be cause to re-examine it yet another time? >> sure. so, if the special counsel or if rod rosenstein wanted the olc to take another look at the issue, they could make such a request and ask the olc to reconsider. it's not clear what has changed between 2000 and now that would cause olc to reach a different conclusion, but certainly they can make that request and ask olc to revisit the issue. so, this thing that's on the web page, the home page of the olc that should the special counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance inappropriate, he or she may

consult directly with the attorney, what does that make you think about? what's potentially extraordinary circumstances? i've had people tweeting me saying obviously if the president likes to talk about shot someone in the head on fifth avenue, that would constitute unusual circumstances that would result in somebody being able to indict him. what does that line look like? >> i think it's important to remember that the extraordinary circumstances language is in the special counsel regulations and it applies to extraordinary circumstances that would allow the special counsel to seek dispensation from the attorney general not to comply with any of a variety of department of justice policies and procedures, it's not specific to this particular olc opinion and i may be in the minority in this but i actually don't really see any extraordinary circumstances that would justify departure from the olc opinion here. in other words, the crux of the olc opinion holds it's unconstitutional to indict a

sitting president. that's exactly what special counsel mueller would be doing, i guess, in your hypothetical so it's hard to see what the circumstances of indicting would carve out, would allow and would sort of justify the attorney general from departing from olc opinion which binds the executive branch. i may be in the minority but i don't see that as a likely scenario. >> mostly what i'm trying to do, because we talk frequently about how, you know, what they say you can't indict a sitting president, i just want to help the viewers get to an understanding of where that rule comes from and this is fundamentally what it is and you've helped us understand that. matt axelrod, former justice department prosecutor, senior doj official under president obama, thanks for your time. >> thank you. still ahead, the cautionary tale of a trump cabinet member who believed he had friends in washington and a real-life spy mystery. stay with us. stay with us. we'll be right back.

it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians, or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event, now through august 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

a lot can change in a year, especially in the trump era when everything can go haywire in the few seconds it takes to type out a tweet. but one thing has stayed pretty constant for much of president trump's administration and that is his displeasure with attorney general jeff sessions. for a full 18 months, ever since sessions recused himself from the russia probe, the president has been complaining about his attorney general, threatening to fire him. somehow jeff sessions has hung on through all of that but today feels like a newly dangerous

moment for the embattled ag. it started, as do so many things related to donald trump, with a tweet storm early this morning. quoting sessions himself, trump writes, department of justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. jeff, this is great. what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the other side, including deleted e-mails, comey lies and leaks, mueller conflicts, mccabe, strzok, page or open the papers and documents without redaction. come on, jeff, you can do it. the country is waiting. and then a few minutes later, ex-nsa contractor to spend 63 months in jail over classified information. gee, this is small potatoes compared to what hillary clinton did. so unfair, jeff. double standard. that is warning sign number one for jeff sessions. warning sign number two, well, we got a flashback for that,

flashback friday, if you will to july 20th, 2017. here is senator lindsey graham, a member of the judiciary committee at that time. >> this effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the senate. if jeff sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay. >> there will be holy hell to pay. that was lindsey graham then. here's lindsey graham yesterday. >> clearly attorney general sessions doesn't have the confidence of the president. after the election, i think there will be some serious discussions about a new attorney general. >> ooh, snap. graham is not the only republican coming out this week to voice doubts about jeff sessions. senator bob corker said last night, quote, moves are being made to oust sessions after the midterm elections, while senator richard shelby who was once sessions' co-senator from

alabama admitted, quote, a lot of those jobs are tenuous when you're in the cabinet. well, if you're jeff sessions and you suddenly see your former colleagues and protectors in the senate saying your days are numbered, it starts to seem like a very clear signal, not a good signal, but a clear signal. for the rest of us, we still have the questions of how we got to this point in an american presidency and what comes next. hold that thought. sarah always chooses to take the stairs.

but climbing 58,070 steps a year can be hard on her feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they're clinically proven to relieve pain and give you the comfort to move more. dr. scholl's, born to move. now i know you're thinking, "i don't want to hear about insurance." cause let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance, right? which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. i like dennis quaid. awww. and they want me to let you know that, cue overdramatic music, they're on a mission to make insurance painless.

excuse me, you dropped this. they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and they know it's expensive. yeah. so they're making it affordable. thank you. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. now, you might not believe any of this since this is a television commercial, but that's why they're being so transparent. anyways. this is the end of the commercial where i walk off into a very dramatic sunset to reveal the new esurance tagline so that you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. 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™ copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way."

i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. this really has been one of those weeks in the news that feels like riding a roller coaster without a seat belt on.

the first loopty loop came over the weekend. top trump aide gives mueller coveted details. white house counsel strategy evolves into survival tactic. monday trouble came in the form of the president's long-time personal lawyer, loans inquiry may soon put michael cohen in a bind. that was a generation ago. on tuesday, wow, the president's campaign chairman paul manafort was convicted of eight criminal felonies. he's facing around a decade in prison with another trial ahead. on any other day, that story would have had the front page all to itself. but look over to the left of your screen. it was pushed to the side in the relatively humble font by this, pleading guilty, cohen implicates president. the president's personal lawyer saying he committed eight different felonies with two of those felonies, quote, in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office. we know that to be donald trump. there is reason this headline is in all caps. there's a reason it stretches

the entire length of the newspaper and seems to be screaming at you at the top of its newspaper lungs. this is the sitting president basically being called an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime as an active participant in an illegal hush money payment by michael cohen to boost trump's chances of becoming president. this is trump's long-time personal lawyer, this guy here, declaring in open court under fear of perjury that he was directed to commit that crime by candidate donald trump and that they conspired together in the act for the sole purpose of getting donald trump closer to the oval office. that's what michael cohen pled guilty to in those two felony counts. that news this week, that the sitting president was not only adjacent to criminal activity during the election but an active participant in it. that opens a brand-new window into the way we view this presidency and what might come

next. joining us now is adam liptack, court reporter for the "new york times" and barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. thank you for being with us on a friday night. adam, let me just start with you. let me ask you about the gravity of what happened this week because for those of us who are in it all the time and covering it, it does feel like something different happened here, something about the way we have to look at and refer to and treat this presidency. >> we've crossed a significant step here. the president's former lawyer said the president directed him to commit campaign finance violations in order to influence an election, to say nothing of the fact that the concerned affairs with playboy models and porn stars. it's an extraordinary thing to have your lawyer say that and there is next step it would be an indictment of the client directing the lawyer to do these acts. >> barbara, the legal liability

faced by the president has widened and deepened substantially this week. the legal liability of the president is no longer an abstraction. you may believe it or you may not believe it, but it is now on the doorstep of the president, and that has meant that some people are openly talking about impeachment. but let's put that aside for a second. how do you view the fact that the president now can't continue to push away the idea that nothing illegal happened around him or at his direction? >> yeah, illegal on so many different fronts now just in this week alone that has unfolded as adam just talked about, this conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations and as you said potential impeachment for that. but the things happening in the state of new york i find also really interesting. this attorney general's civil suit involving the trump foundation, which she has now referred to for a criminal tax investigation. that is one that suggests to me that it has some legs. you know, a case that we

prosecuted in michigan against the former mayor of detroit was a case very similar to that, using a charitable foundation as a personal slush fund. that can be charged as wire fraud. it can be charged for tax charges, so i think president trump finds himself a potential target of criminal investigations on many fronts. >> barbara, talk to me a little more about that because there's donald trump, there's the trump organization. there's the trust which we discussed earlier which he handed over to his sons and allen weisselberg. and there's a foundation which, by the way, weisselberg is also involved with. why is that relevant that new york state, the attorney general of new york is involved in this? >> well, one reason that could be very significant is that pardons are not available in the state system. so even if president trump wants to pardon everybody who gets convicted in the federal system he lacks the ability to pardon anybody who gets charged in the state system. and the other thing about that is, as you mentioned earlier with matt axelrod, although the

department of justice has this guidance about not indicting a sitting president, they're not bound in the state by those same guidelines. so, although the supreme court may ultimately decide the constitutional question, there's nothing that would prevent them from charging the president with a crime in the state system. >> adam, we non-lawyers have become very interested with the intricacies in the legal system and that conversation i had earlier with matt axelrod about indicting a sitting president. there's another conversation about impeachment. a lot of people don't want to have it and 40% of americans might be interested, more than half are not, democrats don't want to talk about it and no republicans do but you wrote a remarkable article about what the framers of the constitutions thought about reasons for impeachment. tell us a bit about this. >> i might have thought that you draw a bright line that the president should be impeached for things he does in office, for abusing the power of his office, for corrupting his office and stuff he did before he got into the office is for

the criminal system. it's not for impeachment. but when you look back at the founding documents, at the debates in the constitutional convention, it turns out they cared deeply about this middle zone of someone who obtains the office corruptly, in particular they said let's assume the president bribes a member of the electoral college, surely we're not going to let that person keep his office. and similarly, this kind of conduct we're hearing about now if true is in that zone. this is alleged to be an effort by the president to keep citizens from knowing information that they might well want to know in voting for the president by corrupt means, so it's just the kind of thing the founders cared about quite a lot. >> so there's some legal scholars who think this is actually relevant. barbara, there are others who say every dollar spent in a campaign is meant to influence the election, some is legal, some is not.

but in this particular case the argument the president did something illegal prior to being in office but did so with the aim of gaining office becomes relevant to the impeachment discussion. >> yeah, i think so. i mean, i agree with what adam has to say there. an analogy to that might be when people procure their naturalization by fraud. they become a u.s. citizen but if you go back and unwind it and look at their application, if they lied to obtain citizenship, then a judge can strip someone of their citizenship. it's kind of the same concept. if you obtain this thing by fraud, you should not be permitted to keep the benefit of that fraud, so i also think this week president trump has never looked more frightened and more like a mobster than when he talked about that flipping should be illegal. >> unbelievable. >> people who talk like that are people who are really afraid of people who are telling the truth about them. so, i think that he is cornered and he knows it and he's very concerned about those who might

tell the truth about him. >> barbara, you helped me make sense of things this week. barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. adam liptak, a reporter covering the supreme court. if you had not had a chance to read his last article, you should. it's good reading. still ahead, sometimes the most urgent alarm makes no sound at all. that story ahead. stay with us. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ] until i held her.a place managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours

for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat,

extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans.

the intelligence community continues to be concerned about the threats of upcoming u.s. elections. both the midterms and the

presidential elections of 2020. in regards to russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by russia to try to weaken and divide the united states. >> earlier this month, dan coats, the director of national intelligence, issued the latest in a string of warnings from the intelligence community about continued russian interference in u.s. elections. now, his warning dove tails off the intelligence community's report from january 2017 documenting for the first time in detail just how russia sought to influence the 2016 election. the classified version of that report included information about not only the methods used to collect the information but also the sources, sources which are now at risk, according to new reporting in "the new york times." the paper today reads kremlin sources go quiet leaving cia in

the dark about putin's plans for midterms. vital kremlin informants have largely gone silent leaving the cia and other spy agencies in the dark about precisely what mr. putin's intentions are for november's midterm elections, according to american officials familiar with the intelligence. well, according to "the times," the officials do not believe the sources have been compromised or killed. instead, they have concluded that they have gone to ground amid more aggressive counterintelligence by moscow, including efforts to kill spies like the poisoning in march in britain of a former russian intelligence officer that utilized a rare, russian made nerve agent. losing just a few sources could have dire consequences, by the way. "the times" continues, informants close to putin are very rare according to current and former officials. if those people go silent for their own protection, it can

make it very hard for the agency to look inside moscow. joining now, michael mcfaul, former u.s. ambassador to russia. good to see you again tonight. >> sure. thanks for having me. >> hasn't it always been extremely dangerous to be a spy in russia or a source that's close to putin? what's made it more dangerous? >> well, the answer to your first question, of course, is yes, extremely dangerous. and, you know, what has changed, i don't know. i mean, the reporting was quite extraordinary to me. i'm wondering how do we know this, who are these american officials telling this story. it doesn't sound like it was coming from those directly involved. and, you know, i just have to trust that they know that for a fact. i mean, the theory that you just described and what's described in the story could make sense, but there could be alternative theories, too, as to why this line of inquiry, this line of information is no longer producing in the way it did before. >> right. everything about the story is strange, the fact it is a news

story and someone is a source for it, it makes me wonder is it true and what would be the purpose of telling this story. i mean, it's got to be difficult to cultivate someone in vladimir putin's orbit, in his inner circle anyway. >> it is very difficult. you know, he's a spy himself. he understands these things. he takes precautions. there have been breaches before. and those people have been dealt with in horrible ways. and remember what is a source as somebody who used to read this stuff, and i need to be careful here, it could be somebody in the inner circle or somebody that interacts with the kremlin from time to time. >> right. >> we don't know exactly who they are talking about. >> a source doesn't necessarily mean a spy, it doesn't mean a cia asset. it could be somebody with whom there's a good relationship. >> exactly. >> a relationship. >> but to me the point is we're confused about putin's intentions for the 2018 election and on that i agree. you know, i'm somebody that follows russian politics and

what russian officials say in the nonclassified domain now. i used to do it in both domains and i don't think it is obvious what they're seeking to achieve in 2018. it might just be to keep sowing division in society and amplifying those divisions that are already there and just that's it. and one very, you know, plausible hypothesis, theory we have to keep in mind is that putin and the kremlin said, hey, we're not going to play in this election. it is too confusing, it's too hard to know who helps us and who doesn't. we will take a time out here and then we will become complacent. we'll say, oh, we solved this problem and we haven't. we'll say, oh, there was no big russian thing and, of course, there was. and then the big fight in 2020, we won't be ready for again. >> yeah. that's the warning we need to take very seriously. michael mcfaul, good to see you as always. ambassador, thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be right back. 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? heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief

♪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™ it's absolute confidence in 30,00or it isn't. arts, it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians, or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event, now through august 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

coming into this week, the senate had a piece of legislation ready to go, bipartisan legislation to secure american elections by, for instance, requiring a paper trail for all voting. the senate rules committee was preparing to start marking up the bill wednesday morning and then suddenly senate republicans dropped it. no one knows why. turns out there was a noble answer. yahoo! news reports that senators were indeed ready to go ahead. it was a bipartisan election security bill, and the white house apparently killed it. you'd think the recent attempt at hackings of their fellow lawmakers might focus republican senators on election scrutiny as

a concern, but apparently not if that does it for us tonight. rachel will be back on monday and i will see you on my shows at 11:00 and 3:00 eastern. weekdays here on msnbc. it is time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." lawrence, it is a pleasure to speak to you live. we so rarely get the chance. >> good evening, ali. thank you very much for allowing rachel to have a well deserved friday night off for a change. >> have a good evening, sir. >> thank you, ali. this was donald trump's worst week as president and no doubt the worst week of his life. the second worst thing a businessman or a politician can hear is, your accountant has immunity. the worst thing is you are under arrest, and that is usually the next thing that happens to you when your accountant gets immunity, and that's what we discovered today about donald trump, his accountant has immunity