illegal voting. this stuff is having a really corrosive effect and there is no question we'll see in the upcoming election, these issues play themselves out in real -- on the national stage as they should. >> thank you both for your time. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. it's been a tremendously busy day. a federal judge ruled alex acosta broke the law when he was a u.s. attorney and gaifzve a secret non-prosecution agreement to a non-serial sex offender. alex acosta is still serving as of tonight. so far the white house had no response to that federal judge's ruling today. also today, in that botched election in north carolina that resulted in there being no member of congress seated from that district, we now know how we are going to get somebody

seated from the district. the state elections board unanimously ordered that a new election must be run from scratch. also today, lawyers for the president's long-time advisor roger stone put mr. stone on the stand to explain why he put a picture online this week targeting the federal judge who is overseeing his case. that judge did not jail roger stone today, which she might have done. she did issue a strict gag order and she warned that if stone breaks the gag order by speaking pub l publicly about his case in any way, he will go to jail ahead of his trial. the judge told him today specifically, quote, i will find it necessary to adjust your environme environment. so been a very busy, busy news day and of course, the weather system looming over everybody's environment now is reports from multiple news agencies that the mueller investigation may soon be producing its report. now, as always, the most

important thing there is that nobody really knows other than mueller and his team and they don't leak and they don't make public comments so nobody really knows but the expectation robert mueller is about to produce the final report, they are more heightened now than they have ever been and it in that context tonight we're bringing you this rachel maddow show special report. this is something that we have been working on for awhile now. and it's based on documents we have obtained most of which have previously never been seen by the public. so let me just give you a little table of contents in terms of how this will go tonight. first of all, there is a couple sets of documents i'll show you that are things that have just never before seen the light of day or widely seen the light of day. one of them adds a previously unknown element to our understanding of a recent president. another set of these documents adds a fairly explosive new set of facts to what we know about

an important white house scandal. so couple of sets of documents. one about a recent president and one about a relatively recent white house scandal but where we land is on documents and revelations including one very important interview. which have direct implications for some of the thornest questions we're facing when it comes to this presidency and the potential resolution of the scandal that has surrounded the trump presidency and the trump election from the very, very beginning. so that's your table of context. get comfortable. deep breath. here comes some stuff we have really never heard about before. all right. where we are going to start tonight is october 1988. just a few weeks before the 1988 presidential election. the 1988 press terribidential e was between michael dukakis and the nominee the sitting vice president of the united states,

george herbert walker bush. just a few weeks before that election, that october when those two nominees squared off in a presidential debate. a debate that would become the stuff of political legend. it was the final debate that year. it was held in los angeles on the campus of ucla. and the big moment that everybody still remembers from that debate, all these years later, is actually a moment that came right out of the gate. came right at the top of the debate. the democratic nominee michael dukakis was asked at the start of the debate what he would do if his wife kitty were raped and murdered. sure, michael dukakis was opposed to the death penalty but what if his wife was raped and murdered? would he be against the death penalty still? it was the first question of the debate and i don't know how you give a right answer to that question, but this at the time was seen as not the right

answer. >> governor, if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered would you favor a death penalty for the killer? >> no, i don't bernard and i think you know that i've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. i don't see any evidence that's a detouour rent and there are better and more effective ways to deal with better crime. >> again, hard to know what the right way is to answer that particular question. but that dispassionate calm answer from governor was seen as a political disaster and the oh my god, he blew the whole election kind of moment. and in fact, the dukakis campaign did not come back after that last debate. he had had a huge lead over george h.w. bush that summer of 1988. i mean, vice president bush was vice president but essentially trying to run for a third term of the ronald reagan presidency

and it's always hard to ask voters to give the same party three presidential terms in a row. bush was strung by a running mate, dan quail to be his vice presidential running mate but even though dan quail was liked enough as a senator, as a potential vice president he was seen as not ready for prime time. seen as not up to the task of being a heart beat away from the presidency. and in the summer of 1988 when george h.w. bush was on the ropes and looked like he wasn't going to win way down in the polls and looked like dukakis was going to beat him, he reached out to an old friend for help to come back and win the election. that debate in los angeles was held on october 13th, 1988. two days before the debate on october 11th, george h.w. bush

wrote this note, check it out. ted, as i head for the coast, i want you to know i got your last two letters. i think the quail attacks have not hurt long run. now off to the last debate. best wishes, g. ted, that vice president g was writing to there was the honorable ted agnew. the disgraced convicted former vice president of the united states who had been absent for 15 years since he had to plead to tax evasion and resign the vice presidency in 1973 in a way that only quite narrowly avoided him going to prison. two days before the key last presidential debate in los angeles in 1988, maybe the most important moment of george bush's political life up to that point and bush was secretly consulting a convicted felon for political advice? since we released our pod cast

series bag man about the mostly forgotten scandal that led to the removal of vice president agnew from office, one of the things that happened is we've been able to get ahold of new documents related to agnew and they turn out to be documents that shed light on details of modern american history that haven't been known before like these previously unknown personal correspondences between george h.w. bush and agnew. agnew was meeting with at least one advisor. i mean, again, agnew was a convict ed felon. they would run a mile to keep their distance from agnew.

he was george h.w. bush writing to convicted felon, quote, i'd love to have a paper with you for any suggestions you'd care to make. i'd welcome such a paper, i really would. this is him asking for written advice from agnew how bush could best plan his campaign to beat dukakis and not like george bush was naive or not knowing about the past, he was brought into what looks very much like a criminal obstruction of justice scheme orchestrated by the nixon white house to try to pressure the federal prosecutors working on the agnew case that they should drop the case. george h.w. bush was personal new in on that and part of the scheme and knew what had gone down with agnagnew but thanks t

the documents, we can see bush kept up this secret back channel communication with agnew for years after that including right through his own 1988 presidential campaign. so that bush agnew correspondence is a piece of presidential campaign history, which is worth knowing about poppy bush and the 1988 campaign and agnew in light of his disgrace and the way he was removed from office but i tell you that in part to lay the groundwork for some of the other stuff that we've obtained. in the course on the research and thereafter, we have also obtained some other materials that don't just give us an interesting new footnote in presidential history, these are materials that i think are simply pretty explosive. so let me just show you what we got. what you are looking at here is a telegram, a telex that was sent in 1980. as you can see at the bottom of

the telex, it's a telegram sent by spiro t. agnew. this was a telegram he sent seven years later in 1980 when he was a pry sivate citizen and sent this message to, as you can see, his excellence. what spiro agnew was asking for was something very specific. he wanted an audience with the saudi crown prince at the time. agnew wrote it would be appreciated if your excellence could arrange for me to have an audience as soon as possible. the matter to be discussed involving a personal emergency that is of critical importance to me. this is former vice president

spiro agnew in 1980 saying i need to meet with the crown prince on something of critical importance, a personal emergency. agnew says quote in the past his royal highness assured me he would be available should i need to see him. so this is a former vice president basic recalling in a chit of some kind. he once told me i could call on him if i ever needed help. i need help. what he gets back is two, spiro agnew read your telex to have an audience with his royal highness prince. we can arrange for that on august 15th. regards. we get agnew's response, telex back to the saudi protocol chief, i am very pleased to accept your kind offer to arrange an audience with prince

fahad on august 15th. quote, please advice time and location when available. so america's relationship with saudi arabia is complicated in the best of times. think where we're at now. as we speak the relationship right now revolves around among other thing as suspected illicit relationship between the saudi royal family and the "national enquirer" headed up by the president's long-time friend david pecker. questions whether the "national enquirer" was acting of an agent of the saudi government when it went against jeff bazos. "the post" has been critical of the saudi government over the murder of washington post journalist jamal khashoggi inside a consulate. jeff bezos suggested the saudis may have retaliated against him for that coverage with an extortion and blackmail effort run out of the of the "national

enquirer" while the trump administration continues to resist blaming the saudi government for the murder at all. just this week, it was announced that the trump administration is being investigated in congress over a secret plan to transfer highly sensitive nuclear technology to saudi arabia. against the warnings of top national security officials and potentially against the law. this nuclear thing was a plan that several people asoels uaso with the president appear to have a significant personal finance stake in. so the relationship between the u.s. and saudi arabia is complicated for a long time. it is still messy as all geto ot right now but what we know is the modern history of saudi arabia and presidencies in trouble might be more complicated than we previously understood because what disgraced vice president spi spiro agnew wanted from the desperate plea he was making to

meet with the saudi crowned prince, what this disgraced former u.s. president was approaching saudi arabia about and asking for is breathtaking but we'll show you. spiro agnew was writing to soe s solicit their help to lead a propaganda campaign in the united states to expose the jews, to wage a political war on jews in america, no really. the reason spiro agnew wrote the telegram is made clear in this draft of a letter stated august 25th, 1980. your highness, at the request of sheik amad, i'm writing this letter to discuss the principle reasons for my request to see you. your highness is familiar with the efforts to destroy me. during the time i was under

attack from former attorney general elliott richardson the reason for their need to drive me out was stated by richardson several times. he said i could not be trusted to act properly in the middle east. therefore i was framed and driven from office. the reason was that the united states knew i would never agree to the continue of israel and they had to get me out of there so i would not succeed nixon. they have orchestrated a well-organized attack on me to use lawsuits to bleed me of my resources and continue my effort to inform the american people of their control of the media and other influential sectors of american society. i'm sure that one of the lawsuits agnew was dealing with was encouraged and in congestion with the publication of my book, i've taken every opportunity to speak out against the catastrophic u.s. policies regarding israel. this has spurred my enemies on

to greater efforts. i need desperately your financial support so that i can continue to fight. former vice president then asks the saudi crown prince to put $2 million in a secret swiss bank account for him. from which agnew would live off the interest and it would be untraceable to saudi arabia. quote, if your highness is willing to help me but this method is not suitable, i would be grateful for any idea that would give me $200,000 a year for the next three years. i do so want to continue my fight against the enemies who are destroying my once great nation. and here is my favorite part. this is the way agnew signs off this letter to the saudi crown prince. he says quote, my congratulations to your highness on the clear and courageous call to jihad. the pzionest have me, i am

respectfully spiro t. agnew. it is reference he public recalled for a holy war against israel. so congratulations on that from the american vice president. i mean, just to be clear, this is a former american vice president writing to a foreign government asking for their help in fighting jews in america because the jews framed him and it's the j eshlgsews fighting a and will lead for $200,000 a year from the royal family. on one hand, okay, this is what became of old spiro agnew after he was forced out of office and looking to drum up money and support in all kinds of ways including this. on the other hand, this is the former american vice president approaching the saudi government behind the scenes and saying help me wage war on the jews in

america. which is exactly as nuts as it sounds. but it gets worse because you should also know that the correspondence that we've obtained suggestions that the saudi government appears to have done it. again, spiro agnew was asking for a $2 million loan to be parked in a bank somewhere and he would live off the interest or maybe there was a way to take in $200,000 a year. about a month after he sent that urgent request for financial support, give me money to fight the jews, look, about a month later, look at this. agnew drafted another letter thanking the saudi crown prince for coming through for him with the funds. thank you for the prompt response. i am now in a position to meet my obligations for about six months under the frame work set forth in my letter to you.

and to make clear that what he's talking about there is money, agnew says he'll try to drum up additional business in saudi arabia which will quote give me the resources to continue the battle against the zionist community in the united states and agnew appears to have received a letter back from the crown prince wishing him great success in his efforts. so okay, less than ten years of office, a vice president orchestrated a secret financial deal with saudi arabia to fight jews in this country. that seems like something that maybe should matter even today in what's going on between our country and theirs, right? is it okay the saudi royal government, royal family, government, funded agnew to do that? back in the day? it tells you something about agnew and something about the royal family, as well, which is the same family in charge now. we came into possession of these

documents after they were uncovered by a historical document collector greg snider that shared them with us after we obtained the documents and authenticated them we consulted nbc's presidential historian who told us he thinks these letters, these documents have never been known about publicly before. so like i said, the reporting we did for bag man yielded unexpected stuff. but as promised, there is something else we turned up in reporting out this story that has quite direct implications for today, maybe even for this week. and specifically for the now quite pressing question of how exactly the investigation into the current president might end specifically the question of whether the president could be indicted and that is still ahead. stay with us. indicted and that l ahead. stay with us

♪ when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna. neighbors...loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? call and tell congress, stop cuts to part d drug coverage medicare patients depend on. stop cuts to part d drug coverage all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge.

that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. rudy giuliani had got news for him, one of the lawyers for president donald trump for him it was like winning the super bowl and the way you know he felt like he had just won the super bowl was because he went around and talked to every news outlet he could find and he was uncharacteristically on message with every one of them. here is now nbc news reported it. mueller doesn't plan to indict trump because of doj rules jewel

go giuliani says. mueller told trump's team he couldn't indict a president. this was "the new york times." mueller won't indict trump if he finds wrongdoing giuliani says. ah-ha, trump cannot be indicted. game set and match and giuliani went to scream from the rooftops. this is what he told two great reporters, hallie jackson and kirsten welker. the special counsel's office acknowledges the fact they cannot indict us giuliani told nbc news on wednesday. they know they don't have that power so their function is to write a report, we would like it to be the fairest report possible but even if it isn't, we're prepared to rebut in great detail so we'd like them to do it. it's as clear as can be they don't have the right to indict under justice department rules and i know they are not going to indict. rudy giuliani had a lot of not good days being president trump's lawyer.

he coareened from one damaged development to another but that day in may last year was the best media day ever for rudy giuliani. he said that special counsel robert mueller's office told him, they told president trump's legal team that under justice department rules, they know they cannot indict president trump. even if they find that trump has definitely committed serious crimes. and the reference that giuliani kept making on those interview that day, that phrase under justice department rules is a reference in fact to the standing internal justice department policy that says a sitting president of the united states can't be indicted. not a law that says a president can't be indicted, it's not written into justice department regulations. it's just a department policy. and it is a policy that derives from a specific place. if mr. giuliani was on cloud nine and felt like the revelation about justice department policy meant that his client is in the free and clear no matter what he did i hope for

the sake of mr. giuliani's happiness level he's maybe not watching now because in reporting out the story for our pod cast series "bag man" we hit upon something that's now important and definitely provocative in light of the news that all of these different news outlets are reporting that we may come to the close of the mueller investigation and in fact to some sort of report about mueller's findings so this is the crux of our special report tonight. we're about to break news here that has not been reported elsewhere. do stew with us. reported elsewhere. do stew with us. at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your retail business. so that if your customer needs shoes, & he's got wide feet. & with edge-to-edge intelligence you've got near real time inventory updates. & he'll find the same shoes in your store that he found online he'll be one happy, very forgetful wide footed customer. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &.

& if your customer also forgets socks! & you could send him a coupon for that item. when your blanket's freshness fades before the binge-watching begins... that's when you know, it's half-washed. next time, add downy fabric conditioner for up to 7 days of downy freshness. downy and it's done. when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress.

glucerna. you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more.

this is robert dickson in the fall of 1973 was head of the legal counsel, the o.l.c. is the office inside the justice department that essentially advices the attorney general on the legality of complex legal matters. the olc drafts legal opinions

and give the attorney general official olc guidance on legal stuff. and in the fall of 1973 when robert dixson was the head of the olc, there was one specific important matter that dropped on his desk like a load of bricks. and it had to do with spiro spiro t. agnew the vice president of the united states and also a crook. a team of young federal prosecutors in baltimore had discovered earlier that year in the spring of 1973 that vice president agnew was conducting a bribery and extortion scheme demanding cash kickbacks. agnew started running this enterprise when he was the top elected official in baltimore county, ma rar laryland and in after he was reelected to his second term as vice president, federal prosecutors discovered he was running the same criminal scheme from inside the white

house as vice president. he was literally taking envel e envelopes of cash cribs inside his vice presidential office and because of what those prosecutors had turned up, that fall of 1973, attorney general elliott richardson had a problem because he knew what spiro agnew were up to and if richard nixon went down in watergate, an active criminal was next in line to replace him. but it was not entirely clear to the attorney general if he, if the justice department could actually bring charges against the vice president. it wasn't clear if it was legal to indict a sitting vice president of the united states. agnew's defense lawyers proclaimed that you could not. they were saying to anybody who would listen that agnew was immune from prosecution simply because he was vice president. and that's where robert dixson came in because that fall as head of the olc it was dixson's job to figure out what exactly

the policy on this, what the justice department position was can you indict a sitting president and 40 count felony indictment against the president simmering on the stove on the u.s. attorney's office in maryland ready to be served up at any time. was he in fact immune from such federal charges? could that indictment be filed against him? legally they needed to know. also, practically. with nixon teetering because of watergate, with the threat with the guy that would succeed nixon was a known and active criminal and the attorney general elliott richardson needed to know if he would use at least the threat of being able to indict agnew to force him out of office there by protecting the line of succession. robert dixson was a law professor before he was head of the olc and respected legal

voice on voting rights and election law but now being asked to figure out if it was constitutional to indict a sitting vice president. and what robert dixson ultimately concluded back in the fall of 1973 just ahead of agnew resigning in office, in the midst of that crisis around that criminal vice president, dixson's answer when he was asked that question about agnew for decades now it has been used to support the position that a president can't be indicted. what he went through that fall to form late that ocpinion is stunning. a former justice department official named j.t. smith. j.t. smith searched at the cia and defense department and that fall of 1973 he was serving in the justice department and one of the closest advisors to the attorney general elliott richardson and the executive assistant. and j.t. smith was there, was there when richardson asked the

head of the olc robert dixson to come up with an official justice department answer to the suddenly very pressing question about whether a sitting vice president could be indicted. and what j.t. smith told us in an interview for bagman is that robert dixson, that pressure packed fall of 1973, robert dixson really wasn't sure what the right answer was to that question. listen. >> he was asked by the attorney general as one should do to write an objective legal opinion on the amenability of the vice president to criminal process. >> right. >> and his office dug through 200 years of constitutional deliberations and opinions and ended up being in sort of a head

scratching place where the opinion could come out either pro or con criminal process for the vice president and at that stage, one evening, i took a phone call from the late robert dickson who said do you have any idea how the attorney general wants this to turn out? >> do you have any idea how the a.g. wants this to turn out? and honestly, who could blame robert dixson? it's not like you can pull out the constitution and find an answer to whether the vice president can be indicted. nobody had thoroughly grappled with this question before. what j.t. smith says he told robert dixson on the phone he hope that opinion would come ou

sitting vice president and he was using anything he could to get agnew out of office. his opinion did conclude as richardson wanted that a vice president can be indicted but listen to what j.t. smith says and what else got folded into the opinion for robert dixson to get to that desired position. >> he could have written it either yes or no. and he wrote it yes but in order to get to yes, he had to draw a distinction between the vice president and the president. so the opinion came down on the side that the president's constitutional duties are so important that it is not acceptable for the president to be subject to criminal process while in office but by distinction the vice president whose duties are nowhere near as

important can be subject to criminal process. and that the o's one of the mem sited for the proposition. when it was written, it was a very close question and the professor in charge of the office of legal counsel wasn't clear how to answer but got answered against the imperative of dealing with the agnew heart beat away problem. >> got answered against the imperative heart beat away from the presidency problem and that is sort of critical for then and now. what the dixson memo said in 1973, what that memo said was you could indict a vice president but incidentally, you couldn't indict a president and the way that the history has been remembered since then is that that 1973 olc memo was written specifically with the richard nixon watergate problem in mind and a definitive look at

the issue of whether a president can be indicted and the context of watergate, they believe that nixon really it was about agnew and specifically trying to get to an outcome where the answer would be yeah, you can bring charges against agnew. what j.t. smith is saying here and again, he was there when it was written is in the course of expressing the view that a vice president can be indicted, which was the imperative of the moment, robert dixson opined on the president's ameanbility to the indictment but wasn't the intent of the memo but asserted that about the president to make the relevant case about the vice president. which is important about that history and important in terms of how that memo became woven into what we currently understand as how the justice department works. because to some extent the justice department position right now that a president can't be indicted rests on the conclusions of that 1973 office of legal counsel opinion by robert dixson. that's where it started.

that's the foundation. the justice department did take another look at the matter in 2000 during the clinton administration but the roots of the position, which is a position sta th position that stands as doj policy starts with the 1973 opinion. we've spoken to j.t. smith some more about this in recent weeks and what it says about the drafting in 1973 as somebody who was there, it's just striking given the role that that memo now plays in lending de facto immunity to the president from prosecution and again, remember he told us quote when prepared it's purpose was to allow indictment and revolve of agnew and not serve on the last word of indictbili bt omentbility of president and reviews important historical material that could support an opposite conclusion

and when you read that 1973 opinion in full, what j.t. smith is saying is true. in terms of the historical record, dixson's opinion states right there in black and white that quote there is no expressed provision in the constitution which confers such immunity upon the president. and that's note worthy because the constitution does and preex provide for prosecution for officials but there is nothing in the constitution providing immunity for prosecution to the president. dixson also notes in the opinion when you go through the various writing debates quote, there are strong statements by others to the point that the convention did not wish to confer such privileges meaning immunity on the president. later on he says quote, the historical evidence on the precise point is not conclusive and yet, he ultimately puts in at the end even though you can't make heads or tails of what the framers in the constitution intended during the past

century, the duties of the presidency have become so ownerous that a president may not be able fully to discharge the powers and duties of office if he had to defend a criminal prosecution. so this is where it all comes from. this is an original document the full reasoning about this opinion indicting the president is there is nothing in the constitution about it. we don't know what the framers intended about it at all. but the job of being president has become so hard now that it would be really hard for a president to get his work done if he was prosecuted. i mean, that's the thickness of it. that's laid out in this 1973 olc memo. and again, the issue is revisited in the year 2000 but this is in part the foundation for the view today which we've all basically come to accept that a sitting president is immune from indictment. except maybe we haven't all come to accept it. looking back at the thinness of these foundations and

contemporaneous commentary of those who were there and saw how it was written, it's interesting to see that common wisdom being challenged. one of the things that's fascinating to watch over the last few weeks and months is high-ranking democrats in congress quietly but steady calling question whether internal justice department policy based on the 1973 memo, whether justice department policy really does definitively preclude an indictment against a sitting president. democrats expressing doubt about that now include the chairman of the house judiciary committee and the chairman of the house oversight committee elijah cummings and adam schiff and the speaker of the house. >> do you believe the special counsel should honor and observe the department of justice guidance that states a sitting president cannot be indicted? >> i do not think that that is a conclusive, no, i do not. i think that is an open discussion in terms of the law.

>> an open discussion in terms of the law. democrats have been telegraphing for a few months now that they believe a sitting president can be indicted by the justice department despite whatever you might have heard about what current internal justice department policy is on this matter. earlier this week, there was a report at politico.com that legal circles are buzzing whether sdny might buck justice department guidance and seek to indict a sitting president. in other words, talking about the prospect federal prosecutors in the southern district of new york specifically might not necessarily feel behold to the justice department policy about a president being off limits from indictment and now, we have someone who was there when the roots of that justice department policy was first crafted saying in pretty blunt terms that the opinion formed back then was never meant to serve as the last word on the indictbility as a president and to put a fine

point on it, he said it would be timely and appropriate for the justice department and robert mueller to reconsider the shaky policy regarding indictbility of a sitting president formulated 45 years ago in this opinion in 1973. j.t. smith told us quote the durability of this opinion is curious. we all believe that the president can't be indicted because that's justice department policy that says you can't. that justice department policy according to people there at the outset of what made that policy say the durability of that idea is curious and this is shaky policy. it is shaky policy that ought to be reconsidered by the justice department according to someone there at the creation. that is the policy that supposedly is preventing any potential indictment against a president, even today. so what do we do with that now? especially -- given what is going on with this president?

we have exactly the person you want to ask about that next. e eu want to ask about that next. the cab is bigger than the last generation. it's the first truck i've seen make you look small. but that's not all... whoo! oh my... whoa! the silverado has more cargo volume than any competitor. very impressive. now, during the chevy presidents day sales event, get 0% financing for 72 months on this all-new silverado. drive yours away this presidents day.

(pirate girl) ahoy!!!!! gotcha! (girl) nooooooooooooo! (man) nooooo! (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker, and is two times more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. because they let me to customize my insurance,

and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

joining us now is walter dellinger. he served our country as head of the office of legal counsel as well as acting solicitor general under president clinton. professor dellinger, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> you are welcome. >> so it's accepted as common wisdom in the news business and i think in general right now that the president cannot face indictment because of justice department policy that precludes that. as someone who used to run the office that creates that kind of policy at the justice department, how solid do you see that policy as being? >> you know, i don't think it's at all solid. i don't think you can make a categorical judgment of that kind. and you've just, you know, added to the notion of how shaky that policy is. your terrific podcast "bag man" is the gift that keeps on giving. the '73 memo, robert dixon was a distinguished lawyer but it's always been seen by me at least as a really shoddy piece of work

that doesn't explain why when there's nothing in the constitution you can have a categorical rule against even indicting a president. admittedly, you've got to postpone the trial proceedings while he or she is serving. but more to the point, rachel, that memo was essentially repudiated nine months later. that september '73 memo was repudiated when the united states filed in the united states supreme court, in the united states versus nixon, by leon jaworski, the special counsel, but acting on behalf of the department of justice said they did not accept the proposition, did not accept the proposition that a president could not be indicted and indeed strongly believe he could be an unindicted co-conspirator and did that with regard to nixon. and i think the agnew saga that you tell so well in "bag man" tells us a lot too. one of the reasons agnew resigned was that he was facing

criminal prosecution and indictment and knew that he had to give up the vice presidency as the bargaining chip. >> in terms of -- >> you know -- >> sorry, go ahead, sir. >> go ahead. we learned something very important from the anti-semitic dances that spiro agnew did after he left the vice presidency. now, he was allowed by giving up the vice presidency, he was allowed to plead guilty to one charge of a $10,000 fine and unsupervised probation. and that slap on the wrist, which as you tell it was so hard to take on behalf of the prosecutors in that case of his severe corruption, that allowed him to lead a fairly distinguished life thereafter. and it makes me question whether that light a penalty for agnew was really worth playing if it allowed him to have the kind of role he had with the saudi jihad project. >> and of course all these

things mesh together. i mean, agnew felt compelled to resign because he believed he was subject to indictment. the attorney general was able to bring that pressure to bear on him only because nixon did -- excuse me, because agnew had no reason, real reason to believe he was going to be immune from prosecution. it is striking to me to see this top aide to attorney general elliott richardson at the time from the time the dixon memo was written saying that was never intended to be a definitive pronouncement on indicting a president to the extent that that has laid some of the foundation for us believing as a country that that's completely off the question. that's curious. this shouldn't be seen as something that should be so durable either in the specifics of the dixon memo or anything that's grown since then. do you think, i mean, absent the politics of whether or not this is realistic, do you think this is something the justice department should revisit? should mueller or the office of legal counsel go back at this question about the indictability of presidents and vice presidents? >> i do think they should,

especially -- especially if the president would not waive the statute of limitation for any crimes that time might expire during his time of service. if he won't do that, then i think they should proceed to an indictment if the facts of the law warrant it. and then proceed to prosecution when he leaves office. remember, no one disputes that the president can be indicted once he leaves office, and that's only 22 months out from this term. >> walter dellinger, the former head of the office of legal counsel acting solicitor general. sir, we're really, really happy we were able to get you here to talk to us about this tonight. thanks for making time for us. >> you're welcome. >> up next, something to watch for tomorrow in the special counsel case against the trump campaign chairman. tomorrow we are about to get something that is going to be in my estimation red hot, at least something you are definitely going to want to read. stay with us. that's next. ing to want to read. stay with us that's next. i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying

[indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ this round is on me. hey, can you spot me? come on in! find your place, today, with silver sneakers... included with many medicare plans. call the number on the screen now or visit getsilversneakers.com

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. today former trump campaign chairman paul manafort got a new sentencing date in virginia. he's going to be sentenced on friday march 8th. this is the jurisdiction where manafort was convicted on eight felony counts of bank fraud and tax fraud. prosecutors say the sentencing guidelines suggest a 19 to 24-year sentence for manafort just in virginia. now, that march 8th sentencing date comes five days before his

other sentencing date in the other jurisdiction where he's been charged. that sentencing will be less than a week later on wednesday, march 13th, in washington, d.c. in that d.c. case a judge recently ruled that manafort broke his cooperation agreement when he deliberately lied to mueller's investigators about important stuff, including his contacts with the man who prosecutors say has active ties to russian intelligence. eek. i should tell you tomorrow we're expected to get a detailed sentencing submission from mueller's prosecutors in that d.c. case. we've already seen that in virginia. that's where we got the 19 to 24-year range. we're expecting the d.c. sentencing submission from mueller's prosecutors tomorrow. now, it will be interesting. i mean, i don't have any inside knowledge but given what we know about these types of documents, this filing will be narrative. it will be something you will definitely want to follow the news about. whether or not robert mueller's report is imminent, the sentencing report on manafort in washington, d.c. will be some