taxmoney to resolve that and then resigned. never mind al franken or john conyers. there are others. this has been within the last two years. >> of course, much of it brought to light by the me too movement and everything that's happened. jen, thank you for being here. we should say, good on them for making these changes. >> finally some good news. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump has been engaged in a day-long rolling, rambling and rage-filled commentary on his own legal fate and on the sentencing of his former fixer and lawyer. coming in multiple tweets. his central contention that he isn't a crook. >> number one they say it's not a campaign finance violation. number two, or it's not even under campaign finance. number two, if it was, it's not even a violation. number three, it's a civil

matter. >> this was someone whoer iss p sereptitiously recorded you. yet this is someone that was in your inner circle. >> it happens. i usually hire good people but it just happened. i never directed him to do anything wrong. whatever he did, he did on his own. he's a lawyer. a lawyer who represents a client is supposed to do the right thing. that's why you pay them a lot of money. >> the president's legal analysis, though, not even passing the fox news smell test. listen to what judge napolitano had to say. >> a very, very telling statement came out of the judge's mouth yesterday after he read all the documents and heard all the arguments from the government, prosecutors in d.c., prosecutors in new york, michael cohen and his lawyers. and that was about the president. the judge finding that the president ordered and paid for michael cohen to commit a crime. that is very telling. >> what crime?

>> the intentional deception and failure to report campaign payments. >> the president not even able to keep his supporters at fox news quiet about the clear and mounting evidence that he may very well face criminal liability in the cases out of the southern district of new york which may explain his private concerns about impeachment as nbc news reports today. despite president donald trump's public declaration that he isn't concerned about impeachment, he's told people close to him in recent days that he's alarmed by the prospect. trump's fear about the possibility has escalated as the consequences of federal investigations involving his associates and democratic control of the house sink in. and his allies believe maintaining the support of establishment republicans he bucked to win election is now critical to saving his presidency. here to discuss, another dramatic day in the unfolding trump legal drama, nbc news national political reporter carol lee from "the washington

post," white house bureau chief phil rucker and senior fbi official, daniel goldman, and we're going to start with nbc news investigative reporter tom winter who has just broken a significant development. you very humbly point out that we're matching what "the wall street journal report"ed. this feels like a big, big deal. >> i think -- so let's go back to where this started, back in august of this year. michael cohen pled guilty to criminal information inspect that criminal information it said the first discussions of these kind of payments or this catch and kill involving american media, the parent company of the national enquirer, and that company's ceo david pecker, michael cohen and an unnamed other campaign official, those first discussions started back in august 2015. if any stories came up about donald trump and women they'd try to pay for those stories and then hold those stories so nothing embarrassing came out about the president. and then yesterday we had this nonprosecution agreement that came out involving ami, that

american media incorporated. in there, a statement of the facts. things that american media incorporated and the southern district, as you referenced, things they agree about. again this meeting comes up. the first discussion of this so-called catch and kill comes up in august 2015. and so "the wall street journal report"ed back in november and nbc news has now confirmed, that in fact, the other campaign official in the room is the guy at the head of the campaign itself, donald trump. and so -- >> it's unbelievable. >> let me read some of what you are reporting. you state clearly, donald trump was a third person in the room in august 2015 when his lawyer michael cohen and national enquirer publisher michael pecker discussed ways pecker could help counter negative stories about trump's relationship with women as part of a nonprosecution agreement disclosed wednesday. ami admitted that pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential

candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased in their publication avoided. chuck rosenberg, it feels like right here in those two paragraphs what is laid bare is this is not what rudy giuliani described. rudy giuliani described an effort by michael cohen to funnel money from a law firm to protect donald trump in his marriage. from embarrassment. from embarrassing his wife and his family. this is very clearly laid out as a campaign endeavor. >> that's right, nicolle. as a campaign endeavor, it's a violation of both federal civil law and federal criminal law. and what distinguishes one from the other is whether it was done knowingly and intentionally. and so far we know that both michael cohen and ami, the parent company of the national enquirer, have admitted in open court under oath that it was done knowingly and intentionally. in cohen's case with ami, they

reached a nonprosecution agreement. but the statement of facts there made the same admission. so this is a crime. it's a crime to contribute more than federal election law permits. it's a crime to cover it up. it's a crime to misreport it. and regardless of what rudy giuliani or donald trump says or has said, it's pretty clear what this is shaping up to be. a criminal conspiracy. >> a criminal conspiracy, daniel goldman, that involved the president of the united states, tom winter confirming for nbc news the president was the campaign official in the room where the criminal conspiracy was harbed. a conspiracy designed to keep secrets to pay money to keep women quiet about affairs for the purpose of benefiting his presidential campaign. >> and what is significant about this development today is chuck correctly and very well explained how cohen and ami committed campaign finance violations. the open question is whether and to what degree donald trump was

involved in this scheme. michael cohen pointed the finger at trump but he's not available as a witness, and he also brings his own baggage. ami cooperated yesterday, and they announced the nonprosecution agreement, but there was nothing in that that specifically identified donald trump as someone that was involved. but now we have trump in the room. and we have trump in the room in august of 2015 coordinating with cohen and david pecker of ami to hatch this scheme to conceal any payments to women. this is a major development in any potential case against donald trump. the hits just keep on coming. >> chuck, what seems to add to the implausibility of trump's defense, which is that it's a civil matter or that he paid his lawyer to do this properly is that there's no proper way to defraud the voters, and the intent is now revealed. the intent was to hide things he thought would be politically perilous to him. suggests he has more shame than

i would have predicted. but what's clear from ami's -- what they have attested to. is that this was all designed for his political purposes and that is the almost textbook definition of a campaign finance violation. >> you're right about that, nicolle. by the way, this is only the latest iteration of his defense. as i recall, the first defense was, i have no idea what in the heck you're talking about. this never happened. so we're at a different defense. and it's also unavailing. i think he's also -- he the president -- has also hinted there's an advice of counsel defense. and dan knows this better than anybody, but there's a fascinating problem for the president. if he really wants to travel down this path, which is if you are going to assert advice of counsel, you're also effectively waving any attorney/client privilege. put aside the fact that advice of counsel defenses almost never work, the president may have

just opened up a whole new avenue of hurt, legally, if he really wants to assert that he relied on cohen. i don't think that's going to work, and i don't think it's wise. >> i want to get all of you on the record about allen weisselberg. he ran the money at trump organization. a narrow immunity deal with the southern district of new york. what he is on tape, what he is referenced to on the secret recording from trump was basically someone who processed invoices. so in the manafort indictment, you guys talked about a paper case. it seems like there's also paper evidence of this operation. >> yeah, and i think that's referenced numerous times in the criminal information that michael cohen plead guilty to and referenced in other documents we've seen with this case. as far as going forward here, which is what everyone is asking about and what you may be hinting to is that prosecutors and investigators are going to have to take a look at all the evidence they've gotten here. they've taken michael cohen

referenced in court yesterday how many phones were taken. they reconstructed documents that were shredded. there's a lot of information that investigators and prosecutors in new york have in this case. they've taken testimony. there's a lot of detail that's in the criminal information. "wall street journal's" reported there was going to be an 83-page indictment if michael cohen didn't plead guilty. that's a very long indictment for one person and for only eight charges. so i think there's probably a lot of information here that they have and we'll have to see whether allen weisselberg or anybody neelse in the trump administration are people that become players down the line when it comes to criminal liability. >> you don't need us to tell you this. look at the southern district filing themselves. i worked there for ten years. they put in their sentencing memorandum as to michael cohen that donald trump coordinated and directed this scheme. they would never, ever have put that in there just based on michael cohen's testimony. there's a lot more evidence we're starting to see trickle out.

but they have the goods. >> and this is what i wanted to ask you, chuck. you were there sunday night when former fbi director comey said the difference between what cohen pleaded to in the summer and what showed up in the sentencing memo, the word he used was sponsoring. the federal prosecutors are now sponsoring this information. what do you understand now to be behind that? it's, perhaps, paper evidence in the form of invoices. it's this -- trump was in the room. it's cohen's testimony. what strengthens this assertion that trump was directing this conspiracy? >> well, it's going to be a bunch of things. it's going to be all the things you mentioned. plus, remember, nicolle, michael cohen had tape recordings, including a recording of then candidate trump, i believe, discussing how these payments would be made. they mentioned the elections, polls. they mentioned weisselberg in that conversation. they mentioned, i believe, pecker. and so as dan pointed out, it's

a confluence of events and people and testimony and e-mails and documents and recordings that begin to show that really difficult thing we always have to show. intentionality. that what the president did, he did it knowing that it was illegal. knowing that the law forbade it. that's what makes this a criminal conspiracy involving, i believe, donald trump. >> let me -- he played dumb, though. let me play that and get your thoughts on it. >> let my just tell you about -- i don't think, and i have to go check. i don't think i even paid any money to that tab lid. i was asking the question. i don't think we made a payment. and then you have the other situation, and every lawyer, look, trump didn't violate campaign finance laws, and either did the president. >> anyone reading their own clips is usually in deep do-do.

>> he doesn't understand conspiracy law. that has been consistent for the last two years. so this is a conspiracy. you don't have to -- the trump organization does not have to pay ami for this to be a crime. let's take a step back and take a look at what his defense has been. that recording that we referenced was in mid-october, we think. and rudy giuliani even went on hannity and said imagine how bad it would be in mid-october if this came out and for the election which is an admission right then and there. the stormy daniels payment was right before the election. this was all after the "access hollywood" report. there was a general consensus this was done somewhat haphazardly and quickly to kill any more damage following the "access hollywood" report. but what we're learning now is that this scheme was actually hatched over a year earlier. that this was a broad scheme to conceal any affairs that donald trump had from the voting public. it just seemed they didn't get word of the "access hollywood"

tape and couldn't catch and kill that but this is a much bigger master minded, premeditated scheme than we ever anticipated. >> phil rucker, the president has been doing his version of damage control, showing his clips there to harris faulkner and tweeting up a storm. what do you make at the attempt at a defense? >> well, i don't know how effective it's going to be. it clearly shows the president is paying close attention to this news and is bothered by it. sources i've talked to in the white house earlier today and in the president's orbit say that there's a great deal of uncertainty. people don't really know what the next shoe to drop is going to be. it's unclear, you know, what more evidence may have been gathered. they don't know where the mueller investigation is headed. it could be going to a dark place. that's certainly the fear among some trump allies but there's a sense this is outside their control. it's always been outside their control. but it feels especially that way right now for the administration. and we should point out that it comes at a fragile time.

trump, while dealing with defending himself in the public arena on the michael cohen situation, he's also trying to find a chief of staff and has not been able to nail down a candidate to do that job yet. he's got a lot of pressures on him. >> phil, you watch and cover and follow and understand this president as much as anybody. i wonder what you make of what even for trump passes as below the belt attacks on michael cohen's family. maggie haberman writes that mr. trump suggested that despite his plea deal, cohen's family could face future charges. something prosecutors have not raised publicly. it's trash talk. it's nasty and it's coming from the leader of the free world. >> yeah, it's pretty extraordinary. the president, according to his confidantes, feels betrayed by michael cohen's cooperation with these investigations. feels betrayed that his fixer and personal lawyer is implicating him in a felony here. and so he's lashing out, which is his nature. that's what we've seen him do

all along. another interesting dynam siic trump always wants an enemy, someone to point the blame to. in this case, he can point the blame to michael cohen, so when he feels the heat or his own legal exposure, he can say, it's michael cohen's fault and try to finger michael cohen. but this is a potentially bigger problem for trump as the president. >> carol lee, you were here because we were going to spend the last 16 minutes talking about your giant scoop which is that the president privately is talking to aides about impeachment. we -- more evidence mounted that might explain why that's the case but take us through what you're reporting. >> sure. our reporting, because you were involved in our reporting, too, showed that the president has in recent days really begun to worry about impeachment. and i think everything that you and your guests just talked about up until this point explains why. things keep coming out every

day. and there always seems to be something new. they don't know what else is coming. and you know there's real concern that is particularly these establishment republicans in congress are going to start to break with the president. and in terms of helping democrats, should they choose to go down the path of impeachment. there's an effort to really hold the line there. but you know, what we've seen is that there's at least some very small, we should add, cracks, particularly coming from, say, senator rubio who said over the weekend that nobody is above the law and that comment in particular really got caught the notice of people around the president because it's the kind of thing that would signal that perhaps he's moving in a direction that could be detrimental to the president in terms of impeachment. he's talking about that, calling people, venting. feels like nobody has his back. that he's not supported and wonders what people are going to do about this. not only the mueller investigation and the report

that he is supposed to come out with, but our reporting showed that people around him have said that democrats, once they take over congress, could request information about the southern district of new york's investigation. and they would have to contend with that. so there's a whole number of ways in which this is all heating up and is really starting to stoke fears in the president of potentially his worst nightmare that he'd have impeachment proceedings begin. >> i detected a little bit of irony in the reaction from people around him who said the irony is that all of the energy and effort and time that the president has spent smearing mueller and thinking about mueller and maligning mueller and peppering west wing staff when they come back from talking too mueller and ultimately getting rid of don mcgahn. we don't know if it was caused by by, but it followed the revelation he spent 13 hours

talking to mueller. the cases involving michael cohen, where impeachable offenses are uncovered and transcribed and submitted to congress, do you pick up any sense from talking to people on the hill that the white house is just even more flat-footed on that front? >> absolutely. because you make a great point. if you look at the way the president has attacked this investigation, he is really focused only on mueller. he's primed his base to not believe what the -- anything that mueller comes up with. that this is a witch hunt. and, you know, it hasn't been as effective necessarily on this other piece of things. and this -- the pieces that are coming out publicly in the last week really put him at the center of it. and he hasn't laid the groundwork necessarily politically at least for fending that off in the same way that he has about robert mueller's investigation. >> phil rucker, let me give you the last word here. there's some sense, and i hate

overusing this metaphor of the wall is closing in but there is this sense that all of the things you can rely on when he's in a corner are at least weakened at this point. some critiques from fox news. the very fact that when someone says they care about the rule layoff, trump takes it as a slight seems to be at least a flashing yellow light for him. and this u.s. attorney's office in the southern district is run by a trump appointee. someone hand picked by don mcgahn. >> yeah, i mean, we've been saying the walls are closing in for two years, but it feels like they're closing right now because this is so much more sort of substantive. it's not speculative. it's actually happening. his personal attorney is going to be going to jail. there is an actual crime, felony, that the president has been implicated in by the justice department. by the southern district of new york. and he's coming at it with so little credibility. remember, the president lied outright about not knowing anything about these payments and had his spokespeople say so as well. and month after month as we

learn more and more and we've learned a lot in the last 24, 48 hours, it's exposed him. it's not having much credibility with this case and exposed him in being much more involved than he's been willing to admit until now. and so it's a difficult space for him to be in, and it's why some of the people who work for him or are advising him or friends of him feel so concerned right now because they just don't know where this is all headed. and it feels very uncertain and uncomfortable. >> that's a great point. i wonder if -- that's how we cover it. it feels like the hits keep coming. this is your beat. do you feel like the revelations are, you know, you poke your finger in, but you can get in to your elbow. do you feel like there's more there, there? >> with every single federal investigation going on, there's a lot more there. i think i've never seen an investigation run this tightly where so little information is coming out. and i think there are things they have done and that they are up to as far as avenues they've pursued that we just don't have

a full, complete grasp of yet. and that would be concerning to me if i was the one under investigation or those around me. i want to make a quick point about jeff berman. being a trump appointee. that's absolutely correct. however, he was recused from this case. >> i understand from parts of it, but not all of it. >> my understanding is just with respect to the cohen investigation. as far as any other avenues that they may be pursuing, i'm not aware any of. i don't know whether he's been recused from anything else. you may have more information than i do. >> i never have more information than tom winter. never. >> won't be so sure. you look at the totality and going back to your original question. there are a lot of different avenues they've pursued. i think there are things in documents. there's investigations we haven't even heard of that we're seeing in deredacted documents. there's a lot here we'll be hearing about in the months to come. investigations involving the special counsel's office and other districts as well. >> chuck rosenberg, button this up for me. donny deutsch sat here yesterday and talked about this being the

uncorking of all -- any and all malfeasance or criminal conduct through a 30-year career in real estate, which, as i understand, from people in real estate is not uncommon. what is this moment? can you try to put this moment in context for us? >> it's a hard question, but i'm going to try, nicolle. the moment seems to be encapsulated by the people around donald trump falling one by one. but falling for the truth. michael cohen spent much of his professional career as an enabler. as a liar and as a criminal. he's now admitted in open court that he's a convicted felon who committed some of his crimes at the direction of the president of the united states. if you want to talk about moments, that's a big one. ami, the parent company of the national enquirer, you know, a legitimate ongoing business, even if i don't read their stuff. >> i don't believe you.

>> i really don't. entered into a nonprosecution agreement. that's a moment. that's remarkable. so it's beginning to fall. and it's beginning to fall apart. and we'll see that the president has been concealing and lying about the extent of his involvement. there's more to come, but i do think what happened in new york over the last several days is a turning point. >> carol lee, phil rucker and tom winter, you all blow my mind day after day. grateful to have you all here. after the break, donald trump once described the trump family businesses as a red line for federal prosecutors. but it's those businesses and trump's associates who now represent a grave threat to the president. we'll take a closer look. also, all things russia as one russian agent pleads guilty and agrees to cooperate with the government. the president's former national security adviser stays mum on his big lie about his contacts with russia. we'll bring those story to you. and the very public search for a new white house chief of staff from dream job to job no one

sane would take. new reporting. stay with us. maria ramirez? hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. but he has plans today.ain. mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

♪ ♪ this holiday season, families near you need your help. visit redcross.org now to donate. discover.o. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been

rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

donald trump trying to distance himself from michael cohen may be a fruitless exercise at this point because the investigation now goes further and deeper than the public tweets and courthouse confessions. "new york times" pointing out the investigation that resulted in the charges against mr. cohen and his guilty plea has now shifted to focus on mr. trump's family, real estate company and weather several executives there may have known about or played a role in the hush money payments. and some of the information mr. cohen provided to prosecutors that intensified that inquiry a person briefed on the matter has said. cohen calling into doubt the president's contention he had no endanglements with russian officials. court papers say mr. cohen's information was credible and consistent with other evidence obtained by the special counsel and has been useful in four significant respects.

mr. mueller's office said that cohen said an unnamed russian offered him government level synergy between russia and mr. trump's campaign in november 2015. months earlier than other approaches detailed in an indictment secured by prosecutors. joining our discussion, nick confessore, donna edwards and rick stengel. i've been dying to ask you what you make of the cohen developments and campaign finance violations that appear to most people that they -- on the legal and political side to be pretty obvious. but what of the -- we haven't paid quite as much attention to this synergy revelation. also now sponsored by federal investigators about cohen and russia. >> the amazing thing about the revelation is that i believe cohen said he hadn't taken him up on the offer because he was already dealing with somebody who offered -- >> he's like, i got this. >> it shows once again the depth

and consistency of russian approaches to the trump campaign and the trump family and trump business through many difference ways. i'm so fascinated to see how that trump tower thing plays out and what is next. every time a special counsel or feds have put down any paper on this, we've learned something brand-new and they've taken it even further. and the walls are closing in as you were saying. we don't know what the box is going to look like in the end. >> what's underneath the rubble if you will. >> what do you make of yesterday's developments and more importantly more recent, the president's reaction today. this almost sort of sad, you know, harris faulkner, let me read you from my tweet sheet i printed out. it's like he's literally alone defending himself from the indefensible. >> and the fact is that he is alone and what's been interesting to me is to listen over the course of this last week to the republican responses to the president's circumstance. and i think increasingly, democrats find themselves in a place of waiting to see how many

crimes can be piled on each other before they initiate impeachment or some more deep investigation. republicans are in a place where they are looking to figure out, when do i need to bail? how quickly do i need to bail and kick this guy to the curb? >> rick, a longtime senior intelligence official said to me over the transition, when i despaired almost daily revelations about contacts with russia that was really norm busting, said truth-based sciences always prevail. the intelligence community will goat the bottom of russia's role. law enforcement will get to the bottom of any crimes that were committed and his point was -- and journalists will shine a light on all of this. how are the fact-based sciences doing this well. >> how are the what? >> the fact-based -- >> the southern district of new york putting down these facts and the evidence and we've got a president who sort of lives in this bubble where he constantly is at war with the intelligence community, with the law enforcement community, with the

people building slow, methodical cases. people like robert mueller who aren't engaged in rapid response who don't care what the president tweets or when he reads off a little piece of paper to a fox news anchor. they are prosecuting their cases, charging their cases, investigating their cases. >> you give me the hardest questions. you were to give me a -- >> you're so worldly. you are in-house statesman. >> it's interesting to see, speaking of how trump regards the law, vis-a-vis the legal system, and fact-based industries. how he regards lawyers are, lawyers are -- their job is to subvert the law in my favor and not get caught. and it was very clear mr. cohen regarded his job in that same way. my hobby horse today, and we can talk about this, although i don't want to divert everybody is, why doesn't the southern district or the district of columbia indict a sitting president? there's just two crummy justice department memos that basically say this is not the norm that a

president can't be indicted. i read them this afternoon. the whole premise of them is the president's job has become so important. he's so powerful, there are only 24 hours in a day. he waents can't do the job if h under indictment. for 18 hours a day he seems to be watching television or being on twitter. it violates the whole premise of the memo. why wouldn't a -- the southern district challenge that? i think they should. >> i am going to take you up on your diversion and raise you one former doj official who may take issue with you calling his documents crummy. chuck rosenberg? >> they may be crummy, although i don't frankly subscribe to that. but they are the existing department of justice policy. now it doesn't mean it can't be changed, and it doesn't mean that prosecutors in new york or virginia or d.c. can't go to the deputy attorney general and urge him to revisit it. the mueller team has and michael dreben, one of their attorneys, one of the smartest appellate

attorneys in the country. so i'm sure they're thinking about it and have looked at it. they may be discussing it. but it is policy. and as long as it's policy, it arguably binds prosecutors in the southern district of new york. >> you want to defend that crummy document? >> not really. >> i don't work for the department of justice anymore. chuck is right. they have to follow the policy. but we are now in a situation where -- that we've never been in before where it looks like someone violated the law in order to obtain an office that -- >> to be president! >> that then can be protected from criminal charges. and that is a different animal than was contemplated in 2000 after bill clinton had lied under oath to protect the -- his family or embarrassment of his own affair. so it is a different animal, but there are policies and procedures, and they would have to go through them. now in an ordinary department of justice, you might actually think they would entertain this

in the office of legal counsel would say this is a different scenario. maybe there are parameters we need to address. maybe there are restrictions. also the statute of limitations is an issue that needs to be addressed because if that president wins again, he can run out the clock. >> the circumstances those memos were written in, right? one was written by the nixon justice department. one written by the clinton justice department to protect them. so you have to look at the context of that. ultimately -- >> we're in the trump justice department. >> they turn themselves into a pretzel. >> matt whitaker to take over as attorney general. >> also the memos -- >> and why -- it's ultimately a constitutional issue. why not test it as a constitutional issue? >> these memos also presume a functional political process as well. and we don't have a functional political process where the legislative branch really acts as that check and balance. and i think you can't operate under a set of policies and then

have this political branch that's not functioning at all because it doesn't -- >> i'll challenge you on that because you have to assume that the checks and balances work, otherwise our whole system breaks down. you may be right we don't have the checks -- >> are we broken down? did you see the footage from the hallway yesterday? all these republican congressman saying, doing a graduate jeat j- >> "the new york times" is the tip of the spear on covering a lot of this. is this a question you ask whether or not this crummy memo is -- >> that's a legal term, by the way. >> is this -- or do you guys consider this settled as well? >> it's a topic for analysis. we have people who focus on this at the paper. ultimately, it's up to the department to rescind it or not. it's the policy of the land. and other context, i think people on the left would be upset if prosecutors were ignoring the policy they were under. i will say if you take the maximum or maximal view of the worst that trump could have done, based on the things we

know now which is that he conspider with a foreign power to win an election in hopes of getting paid off with a real estate deal. that's the big kahuna possibility here. if a president can't be impeached for that, i'm not sure what purpose it has in the sphere of the constitution and checks and balances. >> your argument is that the political process that is our sort of mechanism for holding a politician accountable doesn't seem to be functioning. >> impeachment was design forward the house to decide what it considered high crimes and misdemeanors. it's a political process. it's there for a reason. and the second thing is, if the president is impeached and not convicted, that is also part of the process. if the senate won't convict, doesn't mean the house was wrong. it was built into checks and balances. there are things mueller releases or doesn't release that are found out later that the president did, the house can choose to do that. >> democrats are going to find themselves in a bind because every day there's something else. and you can't have this situation where, you know, you

have this kind of crime and maybe that's impeachable but then another kind of crime and that is not because it's a really slippery slope. the question is whether this congress at this time wants to go down that slope because i think all holds will be off in a subkwents administration. >> let me ask you, i keep hearing it's a possibility for the congress to request the investigative materials from the southern district of new york directly. not as an -- not to go around the justice department but just as an independent office. that they could obtain these materials and this information. and impeach him just on the sdny cases. >> only after the investigation is over. >> right. >> but it's possible that the southern district would issue a similar kind of report. >> it's not just the mueller findings. >> right. now we have -- phil rucker was exactly right. we have trump implicated in a crime in a way he has not yet been with mueller. that doesn't mean it's not coming. we don't know one way or another.

but now we really do essentially know that he has. and so they can go, as rick said, and chuck said, to try to reverse this policy or they can issue essentially their own report to congress and let congress do whatever it's going to do. >> my argument is not that it's not the policy. it obviously is the policy. my argument is -- >> it's a crummy policy. >> it says if the president can't be indicted because it's so important what he does, and modern 20th century presidency was so difference from the 18th century that the framers couldn't imagine, the framers also couldn't imagine donald trump in his bathrobe all morning on his phone. that is unimaginable, too. >> they're not just going to indict him if the policy still exists. they have to reverse the policy. >> your point, though, the fact that he committed a criminal conspiracy to get the office which protects him from being indicted might be the way to undermine that. >> and congress doesn't -- >> we love your diversions. please, please, please promise

me you'll keep diverting us. >> i didn't know the answer to the real question you asked me. >> i read too much "time" magazine as a kid. breaking news on another investigation involving the president on the other side of this break. ♪ junior achievement reaches young people all over the world to prepare them for the future of work. we go into classrooms and we teach entrepreneurial skills and leadership skills. when you actually create a business when you're in your teens,

it raises your self-confidence. junior achievement is really unique because they inspire young people to think creatively. the citi foundation's pathways to progress initiative helped us reach kids in over 50 countries. citi has also loaned us their executives and their employees to help us deliver our programs. our youth are three times more likely to become entrepreneurs and they're more likely to create jobs for others. they are going to bring an entrepreneurial spirit to making our world a better place. ♪ but he has plans today.ain. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors.

and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ douglas! we're running dangerously low on beans. people love your beans, doug. they love 'em. doooooooooug! you want to go sell some tacos? progressive knows small business makes big demands. doug, where do we get a replacement chili pepper bulb? so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. it's a very niche bulb. it's a specialty bulb.

we're back with some breaking news. i'm going to put on the glasses. from "the wall street journal," trump inauguration spending under criminal investigation by federal prosecutors. federal prosecutors in manhattan are investigating whether president trump's 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations. the criminal probe by the manhattan u.s. attorney's office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming trump administration. policy concessions or to influence official administration positions. giving money in exchange for political favors could run afoul

of corruption laws. s there some clues about where some of this information may have come from. in april, raids of mr. cohen's home office and hotel room, fbi agents obtained a recorded conversation between cohen and stephanie winston wocroft, a former adviser to melania trump who worked on the inaugural events. she expressed concern about how the inaugural committee was spending money. according to a person familiar with the cohen investigation. two more paragraphs here and then our experts will weigh in. "the wall street journal" couldn't determine when the conversation between cohen and wolcot took place or why it was recorded. the recording is in the hands of federal prosecutors in manhattan. the inaugural committee hasn't been asked for records or contacted by prosecutors, according to a lawyer close to the matter. what do you make of this, daniel goldman? this is your old office, right? >> absolutely. i think michael cohen is going to be a spree of investigations

for prosecutors because he recorded everything. you'll recall -- >> and more fundamentally, in the middle of all the criminal enterprises on behalf of trump. >> for a long period of time. and you remember, i don't know if it was a year or so ago when we started to learn all these russian oligarchs were in town for the inauguration and we were wondering why on earth are they here and how are they here? and clearly the southern district of new york is now also asking those questions. and i think that's going to be the focus. and there's also a referral to the u.s. attorney's nauoffice i d.c. for inaugural-related violations. it all dovetails back to a common theme we're now seeing which is in the transition period with michael flynn and jared kushner and the back channels. in the trump tower situation. the june 16th, june 2016 meeting about sanctions. russians want to lift the sanctions, and they found willing participants in trump

and the campaign. and the question is, what is the quid pro quo going on here? >> chuck rosenberg, that seems like exactly what they are suggesting they have learned about this investigation. reportedly by "the wall street journal" in its early stages. i just want to read a little bit of this here again to you. a criminal probe by the manhattan u.s. attorney's office in its early stages is examining whether the committee's top donors gave money in exchange for access, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions. giving money in exchange for political favors could run afoul of federal corruption laws. is this a corruption case? a pay to play case? what does this look like? what is this early report of this investigation into donald trump's inaugural committee look like to you? >> it's those things and perhaps more. could be a wire fraud. could be a money laundering scam. it could be bribery. look. the trump organization more and more appears to be a criminal

organization. it's not like they have been for their entire corporate existence playing by the rules and suddenly made two bad payments to two women with whom the president had affairs. corporations, people who run them, tend to either obey the law or violate the law. and so we're only surprised, i guess, nicolle by the various ways in which they appeared to break the law, not by the fact they do that. and so what "the wall street journal" appears to be describing is a possible public corruption pay-to-play bribery case in which incoming officials or officials sold access. that's illegal for many good public policy reasons. and so another thing for us to watch closely and see where it goes. >> nick? >> this is a shoe i'm waiting to drop for a long time. i commend the "journal" for getting the scoop. the inaugural committee has been a big, fat target for a while.

it raised wait to as -- twice as much money as barack obama's inaugural, yet it's not clear how the money was spent. >> we know it wasn't on the crowds. >> and there is some evidence of large payments out to the firm of trump person who was handling all of this who is mentioned in this story, stephanie winston wolcof. there are real questions about the flow of that money and, plus if you look at the donor list, which is the one thing the public has access to is who gave. in retrospect it looks like a list of all the people getting something out of the administration ever since. pharma companies that got the president to back off on his drug prices promises. private prison companies that got a lot out of the administration and, of course, franklin haney who had a deal for a nuclear power project that was under review at the d.o.e. and worked with cohen himself. so there is a lot in here, and

if they are getting these tax records and the invoices and can follow the money trail, this is a world of hurt potentially. >> i read these stories looking for the names of witnesses mueller has flipped. i found two. michael cohen and rick gates. what could they have done? >> and stephanie winston wolcot. >> is she cooperating? >> in the recording, she expressed concern to cohen about how they were spending the money. that's someone i see and i say, okay, let's bring her in and see why she was concerned. what conversations she had. what did she learn that made her concerned about it? so, yes, i mean, rick gates was on the transition committee at that time. was involved in the inauguration, obviously michael cohen has been very close. i think what we need to keep in mind, and this is very hard in the crazy news cycle that we're in, is that robert mueller has a lot of cooperating witnesses. has a lot of witnesses who are cooperating with him. and while we may move on to the

next thing or ami or whatever it is, he's not. and all these people have been extensively debriefed way more than anything we know. so we learn these things and they trickle out, and it's, you trickle out. nick is right, it was always odd, but there is so much information that he -- that they have that is building and building and building and it feels like it's voi ee's going volcanic. >> can i play my role as contrarian? >> let me get one more fact pattern. you once said on this show that subjects become targets, targets become defendants, defendants become cooperating witnesses. this seems to follow that arc you laid out. if you could just give some voice to what all -- the transportations of testimony. so if it says daniel describes, debrief rick gates, you've got all those transcripts in binders and you have them cross tabbed

with the inaugural committee. if you have michael cohen who has spent 70 hours with mueller. you have those hours of transcripts printed out. you have them in the cohen binder but you have them tabbed out with the inaugural committee. trump businesses, trump tower moscow. what does the evidence in mueller's hands and in the southern district of new york look like right now? >> and nicolollnicolle, you hav and lots and lots of white boards with pictures. they have been weaving this tapestry from the stay they started their investigation. to nick's point, nick mentioned tax returns. you and i have discussed the fact that one of the first things that prosecutors get is tax returns not just of mr. trump but also of his organization. so all of these things have been laid bare in front of dozens and dozens of witnesses.

they have people feeding information back into the central command structure. putting more names and more lines on their white boards, adding documents to their binders. we only see it a piece at a time but this is a complex, ongoing investigation with dozens of witnesses and thousands of documents. >> our friend lydia huff post editor joined us from a flash cam. lydia, you were here before these two stories blew up we had a different show planned but i would love your thoughts on the breaking news. >> if you take these developments together, the payoffs of women and also the "wall street journal" story which just broke. and kudos to the "wall street journal," they've been on fire on this cohen story. we have a couple of developments that really point to major peril for donald trump politically. i think the russian collusion angle is incredibly hard for

many voters to understand but they understand paying off mistresses. they understand money laundering through shady practices like this inauguration committee so this will stick to trump in a way the collusions allegations have not. >> and lydia, your thoughts on what's becoming a -- it's not new to the prosecutors -- >> sorry, i've lost sound. >> we'll come back to you when we get that fix. rick, you wanted to contradict somebody, probably me. go ahead. >> i'd never contradict you. in my best "casablanca" imitation, i'm shocked, shocked. it's not surprising and what's different and with what i agree with chuck said is there are no norms in the trump organization. it's a 30-year criminal conspiracy. so in the obama administration when at&t was giving money for

this ball, there were norms that said well your lobbyist cans not come as a result. for the trump people it was like, whoa, this is great. they're giving me a million dollars so i'll help them. it's completely transactional. that's the problem with someone who has no experience in washington. and they violated every norm and federal law in the process. >> but it's not a defense in a court of law. it looks like the inaugural committee -- it says it's under criminal investigation. it's another crime ring. >> and here's the thing. another thing voters understand is that they assume there's some quid pro quo. very, very difficult to prove and here what you have is connecting the dots between the ask, the give, and then what's gotten in return and i think voters will understand something like that where they say they were buying access and influence and here are the dots that connect to doing that.

turns out, yes, that was a crime, too. >> lydia, before we lost sound, i started to ask you what do you think of public facing? we know the president was in the room when this criminal conspiracy was hatched between david pecker, michael cohen and the president to cover up affairs. it's now public facing that this inaugural committee was for sale and we now have new evidence in the michael cohen sentencing documents that synergy between russia and the trump organization was offered in 2015. >> i think what we have here is a president who is very much on the ropes and looking for a way to change the subject. we see in the his tweets and the activities that -- this ridiculous reality show on the -- who will get the chief of staff job. this is a political catastrophe for the trump administration. >> what do you think the democrats will prioritize when they take over control of those

investigative committees in january? >> thus far they've been measured about not going straight to impeachment which i think remains politically unpopular but i think we'll see an aggressive flow of subpoenas to the white house trying to get ahold of things like trump's tax returns, getting all kinds of documentation. they have a trove of information to work with now. cohen has been a font unt of al kinds of fact patterns they can work with. >> do you think he already has trump's tax returns? >> no question in my mind from day one, nicolle. the first thing white-collar prosecutors do -- dan knows this, and i was one -- is you get tax returns and you get credit reports and the reason you get those two things -- and they're not hard to get, you get tax returns with an order from a federal judge, you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena, is because those are the documents that give you

leads. they tell you where the money is coming from and going and they tell you who to talk to to get more leads. so does mueller have trump's tax returns? you bet. >> and what do you make, nick? today, since we've been sitting here there have been two bombshells, since i sat in this chair i learned donald trump was in the room when pecker, cohen and trump hatched the hush money conspiracy. since i've been sitting here we learned of this criminal investigation into the inaugural committ committee. what are we looking at? >> the velocity of these indictments and flipping witnesses and these new revelations is astounding even to a reporter. >> who loves breaking news. >> it's beyond anything i've experienced in my time as a reporte reporter. it's hard to think of a president who's been under this much investigation in this many ways before the midterm was over. and this is the first two years of the administration. imagine the next two years.

the usual timeline when these track out is the back half of the first term. >> or the second term. the beginning of the second term starts with a scandal. >> this is a catastrophe, as lydia said. >> i'm dumbfounded by the expense of everything coming out but i'm not surprised and i think at the end what you have to remember is that mueller has been going at breakneck pace for a year and a half with about a dozen or so prosecutors. that's not a huge staff. >> and very opaque. we don't know what they've been doing. >> even in this article there was a reference to a referral that mueller made to the u.s. attorney's office for a lobbyist who was essentially buying access for ukrainian oligarch to the inauguration. that went completely under the radar. >> he just blew that off. >> so i think that to nick's point and to what donna was saying, collusion may be taking -- moving to the back burner. i think this might be a much

larger scheme related to sanctions and a massive cover-up of unparalleled proportions because when you look at cohen coordinating with the white house to lie to congress and michael flynn lying about his transition contacts related to sanctions to russia it all kinds of circles back. and you look at donald trump with the campaign finance and trying to rush that off. it starts and trickles down. that's how criminal conspiracies work and this looks worse and worse everyday. >> chuck, do you agree? >> i do. this is a fascinating time to be a journalist. i'm not one, of course, but i have the pleasure of knowing -- >> we can't live without you, though. >> you're kind. i'm just a hanger-on. but it's a fascinating time to follow these events. i think it's of a massive scale, i think dan is right. it continues to unwind and we would be crazy not to pay very, very close attention.

>> lydia, let me give you the last word. >> i said the word catastrophe. i think that we are really entering a period of uncharted territory for ourselves as a country and where this leads no one knows but for donald trump i suspect nowhere good. >> lydia, let me follow up on that. you said nowhere good. it feels like we've had this conversation. we had in the the heat of the kavanaugh moment and other intense flash points in the mueller investigation. i agree with you this feels different. but do you think trump will act differently? >> i don't want think donald trump based on the evidence that we've seen so far is capable of personal gret or change so i don't know that he'll act differently. to me the key question is will his party act differently. >> you're right. lydia, thank you for joining us. chuck, thank you, daniel goldman, nick confessore and rick stengel. i'm nicolle wallace, "mpt daily" starts now. hi, chuck. >> you had