bloomberg. are you willing to release all of those women from the nondisclosure agreements? >> they signed those agreements and we'll live with it. >> democrats take a risk if we substitute one billionaire for another. >> bloomberg in utah today trying to laugh it off. >> how was your night last night? [ laughter ] >> look, the real winner in the debate last night was donald trump. because i worry that we may very well be on the way to nominating somebody who cannot win in november. >> to the bitter end with bernie sanders now the solid front-runner heading into super tuesday and its big haul of delegates. sanders argues whoever is ahead by the convention should get the nomination even if he has not reached the required number, setting the stage for a convention brawl. >> i think that the will of the people should prevail, yes.

the person with the most votes should become the nominee. >> soft landing, donald trump's friend and political operative roger stone is about to be sentenced after being convicted of lying to congress even as the president dangles the potential of a pardon. >> what is certain is that judge amy berman jackson is taking a much tougher view of this case than the president and attorney general william barr and she's going to decide the sentence today. >> and good day. i'm andrea mitchell in las vegas. we have breaking news before we start with the breaking news from washington where president trump's long-time friend and political operative roger stone is in a washington, d.c., courthouse at this hour for sentencing. stone was found guilty in november of lying to congress and urging a witness to lie to a house panel. prosecutors originally had recommended that stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. they were overruled by attorney

general bill barr and calls for barr to resign. joining me now, ken dilanian is at the federal courthouse in washington, kelly o'donnell at the white house, joyce vance is also joining us. what are they saying? >> judge amy berman jackson is about to pass sentence. he she's going through the facts of the case. roger stone decided to make no statement whatsoever. the judge is saying that stone flatout lied to congress. she's also making the point that this was not a political case. she said roger stone was not pursued by his political enemies and that stands in reputation to what right-wing media has been saying and echoed in tweets by president trump as recently as today. and another really interesting development at this hearing, andrea, is that the prosecutors

went in today and essentially seemed to revolt against that lesser sentencing memo that they were required to file by attorney general bill barr. they argued for the enhancements that bumped the sentencing recommendation up today to about six to seven years, not the seven to nine that was in the original sentencing memo. they argued, essentially, against their own memo that they were required to file -- a prosecutor who signed the second memo after the four original prosecutors quit the case. went into the court and argued that roger stone should get a significant prison sentence and he deserves hethese enhancement. it's up to the judge in the end how long roger stone will get. we're going to hear any minute now, andrea, what that sentence for roger stone will be. >> and, ken, let's just emphasize what you're just telling us, that the new prosecutors reversed their

softer recommendation, the one that was criticized as being politically inspired with the bill barr, the attorney general interfering, after four prosecutors resigned from the case, one quitting the justice department completely in protest. these prosecutors now, the second team of prosecutors went for a tougher sentence. so clearly the outcry has had a huge impact on the justice department? >> i think that's the only fair conclusion here, andrea. the attorney general william barr went on television and said that the seven to nine year representation was grossly unfair. no one agreed with it. that wasn't true. the original prosecutors in the case made an argument that this is what the guidelines called for. that doesn't mean the judge is going to adhere to those guidelines. she has discretion. but generally prosecutors argue for the tougher sentence and they pulled back in the second memo which we know was the product of bill barr's

interference because he told us that. in court today, the prosecutor who signed that second memo, made a tougher argument and he was grilled by the judge about what happened there, who wrote the second sentencing memo and why it happened, and he refused to answer some of those questions. he wouldn't get behind that decision-making. but he made the argument that roger stone deserves some significant period of confinement. and judge amy berman jackson is about to decide that. >> and i know our team inside the courthouse is going to be communicating that very rapidly. kelly o'donnell, the president has been tweeting about this nonstop and so he's certainly not hands off as his attorney general allegedly requested. >> absolutely, andrea. the president acknowledges that is probably making the attorney general's job harder but he's going to do it anyway and he has talked about roger stone and

then pivoted to his targets, james comey, and andrew mccabe, claiming they have been liars or leakers in the past and that is somehow a mitigating circumstance in the president's view based on his tweets. he's retweeted about potentials for pardon for roger stone. we know the president has pardoned more than two dozen people, commuted the sentences of ten other and is would he use this power which is an unmatched power that the president has to either commute a sentence and expunge a conviction. we don't know what the president's thinks is on that currently. he has a team inside the white house to help review potential pardons. traditionally, that's been done through the department of justice long after someone has served their time and publicly been sorry about their convictions, whatever they might but that's the old way of doing

things. president trump wants that done inside the white house, along with his son-in-law jared kushner. will the president use that power for someone who's been a long-time loyal friend. the president has been asked about this many times. he doesn't say publicly he's considering it and he questions along those lines. that's something to be watching for. the president is up for re-election, has months to go before his time at the ballot box and that could be a consideration given the hot nature of this russia-related conviction for roger stone going back to the russia investigation. as we've seen since the president was acquitted at his impeachment trial and the russia investigation ended without finding any particular fault directed right at the president, although there were lots of ininstances alleged of obstruction, that the president appears

appears emboldened to go after others. that's when we see the president attacking james comey, andrew mccabe and the president wanting to communicate what he thinks about how justice should be served in a case like roger stone's even at the same time this is before the judge with the judge having all the power. the president not going silent. andrea? >> and, kelly, right now reading notice from our people inside the courthouse, reporting that judge jackson is going through all of stone's actions saying he has not prosecuted by his adversaries, quote, this case arose because roger stone injected himself into one of the most significant issues of day, meaning the wikileaks dump, of course, which interfered with the 2016 campaign. joyce vance, talk to us about what the range of sentencing could be here. the prosecutors have revised their softer recommendation and

they are recommending significant jail time. >> so keeping up with doj's position has been a little bit like watching a ping-pong match, andrea, and i expect we'll here official or unofficial commentary after sentencing ends about why the government's different positions are all consistent. we'll have to assess that when it happens. but the judges is in the process of building a record. she knows this sentence will be appealed, wherever she decides to sentence, whether it's within the guideline range or above or below it, she knows stone will likely appeal any significant sentence. she's making an air-tight record that will be difficult for the court of appeals to review, dislodge in any significant way. that sentence is based on stone's prior criminal history. he has none and also assessment

of his conduct. there's an assigned value for the conduct. but what the judge is doing now is looking at additional factors to decide whether stone's range should be higher than a typical defendant convicted of these crimes and she has applied enhancements based on his threatening conduct in the most part. this means he'll be looking at a significant sentence. the low end of the range that she's assessed is around five years and eight months. but she has total discretion here. she can go above or below that. that's why she's spending so much time building a strong record that will be airtight on appeal. >> as we continue to wait and the judge is continuing to go through all of this, we're going to have all of you standing by. we're going to talk about what is happening here in las vegas and dramatic changes in the 2020 political campaign. and obviously bringing you the

latest from ken dilanian at the courthouse and everyone else. here in las vegas, democrats are in recovery mode now after the political carnage we witnessed on the debate stage last night. michael bloomberg falling flat in his first introduction, his introduction to primary voters, unable to handle a barrage of attacks through the first hour of the debate. the focus on bloomberg giving president trump and front-runner bernie sanders reason to be optimistic about their 2020 chances, at least to become the -- for bernie to become the a she brought a gun to a knife fight, waiting only minutes to go after bloomberg and keeping it up throughout the entire two hours. take a listen. >> let me tell you what i do at my company and my foundation and in city government when i was there, in my foundation, a person that runs it is a woman, 70% of the people there are women. in my company lots and lots of

women have big responsibilities -- >> i hope you heard what his defense was. i've been nice to some women. [ applause ] >> that just doesn't cut it. he has gotten some number of win, dozens, who knows, to sign nondisclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. so, mr. mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those nondisclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story? [ applause ] >> we have a very few nondisclosure agreements -- >> how many is that? >> let me finish. none of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn't like a joke i told. >> joining me now is maria teresa kumar, kristen welker and

karen tumulty back in washington. kristen, you were there last night, talked to joe biden afterwards as well. witnessed this brawl, this wrestling match which really alters the entire course of the 2020 campaign from my perspective. the democrats have a real problem now on their hands. >> they do. a couple of things happened, i think, last night, andrea, you saw this remarkable pile on on former new york mayor and he struggled to background, stop-and-frisk, controversial comments he made about women in the workplace, when he was pressed about whether he would release them from the nondisclosure agreements, he wouldn't commit to that. expect that to be an ongoing, continuing theme that you're going to hear from senator warren, for example. his campaign is saying, look, he's just getting warmed up. he hasn't had a debate since

2009, but i'm not sure in this type of of an election cycle there's time for getting warmed up, andrea, and a lot of pressure on democrats to choose a candidate who can beat trump. >> he did not react, he did not seem prepared and just take a look at this exchange on that very subject of the problems with the nondisclosure agreements, elizabeth warren and michael bloomberg. >> i watched you in action. one of the commentators said tonight is that you brought a shotgun to a knife fight. right out of the bat, what was motivating you. >> look, we're getting down to who's going to be president of the united states and i've been fighting for working families all my life. i think it's time to fight harder for them, that's exactly what i did tonight. >> you went after mike bloomberg, particularly because he had laid out a charge that everybody else should get out of the way in order to stop bernie sanders. tell me why that made you so

angry. >> what makes me so angry is mike bloomberg thinks he can buy this election and he's drowning everybody in money. he's doing tv ads every single place and i guarantee you after tonight, he's reaching into his pocket right now and spending a hundred million dollars to try to erase everyone's memory of what happened to him on that debate stage. >> obviously my conversation with elizabeth warren afterwards. karen tumulty, mike bloomberg should have been alerted to what to expect just from looking at your columns over the past week. >> yeah, it's -- you get the sense -- there's this phenomenon you see too when incumbent presidents go back and debate, barack obama in 2012, ronald reagan in 1984. very often they get owned by whoever their opposition is in that first debate just because

they're out of practice and i imagine that michael bloomberg is living in an environment where he just doesn't get challenged very often. and on top of that, there's been this presumption that he could live behind this big wall of advertising. that's not the way that presidential campaigns work. at some point people do get to see the living, breathing, flesh and blood candidates and, you know, if he is not better prepared for the next debate, which is only a week >> the -- the other key, angry moments were between pete buttigieg and amy klobuchar where clearly buttigieg feeling that klobuchar had robbed him of a victory in new hampshire by eating into his moderate votes

and klobuchar feeling that this was perhaps her last chance to really score just went at each other. he started the exchange. >> you're literally in -- part of the committee that's overseeing these things and we're not able to speak to literally the first thing about the politics of the -- >> are you trying to say that i'm dumb or are you mocking meh? i said i made an error. >> you voted to confirm the head of border protection under trump who is do you know the message that sends to people in nevada? >> i did not agree with these policies to separate kids from their parents and in my first 100 days, i would immediately change that. and i would add one more thing, i have been in the arena. ted kennedy made a big allegation against me again and i think i should have a right to respond. >> i'm stating the facts. these are votes that you took. those votes set you alone among the democrats running for

president. >> maria teresa kumar, how does that play in the country and here in nevada as we're two days away from the caucus? >> the biggest challenge watching the debate yesterday, you never felt you were in the very beginning of the states that are going to help decide the election when it comes to demographic changes. literally the debate last night could have been any town and that exchange between them didn't make sure that they actually popped at all. it was interesting, biden right now is technically number two and amy and pete had an opportunity to say, i should be the one that should be biden opportunity. but they didn't do that. they went after each other instead of going after bernie or bloomberg. they were fighting for crumbs instead of uplifting themselves. >> thanks to all, maria, kristen. a wild day in las vegas. and we're waiting for the stone verdict back in washington. meanwhile the frustration between pete buttigieg and amy

klobuchar spilled out into the spin room where i spoke to both of them afterwards. >> you and amy klobuchar mixing it up tonight, that was very, very tough. what is your take? >> i think we have a different perspective. if you're going to run on your washington record, then you should be prepared to defend your washington record. that's what we debated. >> what was going on between you and pete buttigieg. >> it's pretty obvious, i've been going up in the polls, he doesn't like it. so he decided to go on the attack. that happens in debates. what i think matters is my base argument, that you don't want someone heading up the democratic ticket that tried to, one, run for the democratic national committee chair and lost. >> it seemed very personal. >> yeah. >> is gender involved? >> who knows. i think that attack on not remembering one name, when in fact i have repeatedly talked about policy with regard to

mexico and i think his decision to say that he wanted to call them mexican cartels terrorists organization was a huge mistake. much bigger than making a temporary error about someone's name. and what was interesting was nearly everyone on that debate stage came up to me on the break and recalled moments that they had forgotten names. if he wants to make that the centerpiece of his campaign, let's see what regular people think of it. >> one of the things she said that was so poignant was that i'm glad everyone is as perfect as you are, pete. kate bedingfield joining me now. as you watch those two mixing it up, as the biden manager you had to be pleased that somebody else was being really savaged on the debate stage. >> i think what we saw last night were some really important contrasts that democratic voters should be considering when they go to the polls. i think that obviously we had

mayor bloomberg having to answer some tough questions about why, for example, he didn't support barack obama in 2008, why he called the signature accomplishment of the obama administration a disgrace. i think you saw him having to answer for issues with his record. and i think you also saw bernie sanders having to answer some tough questions about guns. our campaign has a new video out this morning, senator sanders the morning of the tragedy at sandy hook says he doesn't believe the gun manufacturers should be held liable for the damage their weapons do. the vice president is going to be speaking in nevada. he's going to be talking about guns. he's the democrat on this stage who got the assault weapons ban passed, who fought to get the brady bill that's an important contrast. >> this is a turning point. but you have a video out, but i suspect it's a digital video. you don't have the money that

mike bloomberg has to smother the air waves with paid commercials whereas if you were in great shape, you would have a lot of money to spend, nevada, south carolina. you're going to be facing a national primary in super tuesday and only two weeks from now. >> i think last night's debate showed that all the money in the world can't paper over a terrible record and i think that what you saw last night was in biden somebody who embodies democratic values and can win and get things done. i think, you know, $60 billion is a lot of money, but it doesn't rewrite your record. for somebody like mayor bloomberg, this was his first time on the debate stage in a democratic primary debate, he really struggled to answer a lot of questions about his record and i think for voters who were looking for who is the candidate who embodies my democratic values, who can win, take the fight to trump and win in these batthe saw last night in joe biden, a leader, a

questions for peopleho can do with his performance last night. >> one of those questions was joe biden's about these nondisclosure agreements jumping in and pressing bloomberg about it. let's play that. >> let's get something straight here. it's easy. all the mayor has to do is say you are released from the nondisclosure agreements, period. you think that women in fact were ready to say, i don't want anybody to know about what you did to me? that's not how it works. the way it works, this is what you did to me and the mayor comes along and his attorney says i will give you this amount of money if you promise you'll never say anything. >> they were made consensually and they have every right to expect that they will stay private. >> if they want to release it, they should be able to release themselves. say yes. >> so that

prepared, much more aggressive joe biden last night after, you know, trailing in new hampshire and iowa. >> well, look, he's somebody who's been on the side of victims his entire life. he wrote the violence against women act. he feels passionate about this. and it raised some important confessi questions about transparency. we have a president in the white house who is the least transparent president in american history and i think voters are looking for, you know, who is the polar opposite of who we got right now. i think that exchange showed you that joe biden is the person who has the character, the commitment to transparency to take on donald trump. >> briefly, how do you from the campaign react to the fact that bernie sanders was the only person on that stage who wouldn't say that he would obey party rules if he has a lead in the delegates, which is likely given his momentum going into super tuesday, but hasn't nailed the 19,091 needed on the first

ballot to get the nomination. you're going to have a contested brawl at the convention. >> i think we have always believed this is going to be a dogfight, it's going to be a long fight. our campaign is preparing for that. i think you heard the vice president say last night he believes the process should play out. that's why we're in nevada, in south carolina on super tuesday fighting for every vote. >> kate bedingfield, thank you very much for coming on after a rough night in las vegas. >> it's my pleasure, thank you. artificial intelligence, international outrage after president trump appoints his controversial ambassador to germany to become acting director of national intelligence. we'll talk about the impact of that and we're still waiting of course for the roger stone sentence. we'll bring it to you as soon as it breaks from the federal courthouse in washington. stay with us, you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. ♪

♪wild thing, you make my heart sing.♪ ♪you make everything... groovy...♪ done yet? yeah, yeah, sorry, sorry. you sure? hmm.mmm. ♪come on, come on, wild thing. if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

oh, it's beautiful. so you guys are welcome to use the car while i'm at work. i'll text you a key. how do you text a key? it's technology, dear. i got this. better text it to me. it has to be a smart phone, dad. are you saying i gotta dumb phone? no. it's cool. we'll just do it old school. hyundai digital key; now there's a better way to share. hey, press that button there. only on the all-new sonata. where's the car going? technology, dear. that's technology. how we worship, or who we love. and the 2020 census is how that great promise is kept. because this is the count that informs where hundreds of billions in funding will go each year for things like education, healthcare, and programs that touch us all. shape your future. start here. learn more at 2020census.gov

breaking news as we sit here in las vegas reviewing the politics. the roger stone sentence is eminent. we will bring it to you live as soon as we can. judge amy berman jackson has said to the court that she does feel that the original prosecutors's recommendation of seven to nine years in prison

was too tough which was of course part of william barr's criticism and a lot of what the president has been talking about. but where she's going to come down yet we don't know. she has been very critical as she reads her conclusions about his record and some of the things that she's done along the way. that said, here in las vegas, talking politics. big changes in the 2020 campaign and meanwhile while all this was happening, president trump has named a controversial figure, richard grenell, his u.s. ambassador to germany, not a career foreign service person, as the new acting director of national intelligence overseeing the nation's 17 spy agencies who the president has railed against. the president singling that loyalty is more important than kree denles. he was a specialist in communications and public

relations. he was the press secretary at the u.n. when the -- when john bolton was acting ambassador to the u.n. back in the 1990s during the bush administration, bush 43 administration. all of that is causing great concern among current and former intelligence officials. joining me now, ned price, formally with the cia and the white house. what is your initial reaction to rick grenell who's been very controversial as ambassador to germany and very active on social media attacking everyone from reporters to angela merkel becoming the head of national intelligence? >> i would say that germans are happy to see him go but apparently he's not leaving his role in germany. donald trump plans to have him serve concurrently. i think the broader point though

is that yesterday donald trump formalized what we have long known. he doesn't want a director of national intelligence and to the determent of our national security, he feels like he doesn't need one. number one, he very pointedly did not in a moment rick grenell to be the cabinet-level official of dni in that position. rather, he wants him in a temporary acting role presumably so he can have him in this pliable context under his thumb where rick grenell can serve donald trump's interests and not necessarily the u.s.'s interests. but he doesn't want someone serving in the traditional role of dni. what i mean by that is in the best of times, the dni can form and can play an important role coordinating between the 17 departments and agencies in our intelligence community.

rick grenell is not someone who can do that because he has absolutely no experience in intelligence and that's in contrast to many of his predecessors. what grenell does have in spades though is loyalty to donald trump and i fear that trump wants him in this position chiefly because he knows that the impeachment scandal involving ukraine originated from within the intelligence community. he wants rick grenell there to be able to protect him, to ensure that something like this does not happen again rather than cease with the betrayal and the lawlessness, donald trump wants a protector there to make sure it doesn't become public. >> thanks so much, ned price. and now we do have the breaking news. the verdict in the roger stone case, ken dilanian outside the courthouse. >> reporter: andrea, judge amy berman jackson has sentenced

roger stone to 40 months in prison, about three and a third years and a $20,000 fine. 40 months in prison. much less, obviously, than the harshest recommendation of prosecutors, both in their original memo and in the courtroom today. and the judge had some very tough words for stone and his conduct. she said the dismay and disgust at the defendant's belligerence should transcend party. she answered in very strong terms, she said the truth still exists, the truth still matters. roger stone's insistence that it doesn't should trouble everyone. bottom line, andrea, 40 months in prison for roger stone. he did not address the court at all, so he didn't comment, didn't apologize, didn't explain his conduct and donald trump has

signaled today that he's considering a pardon of roger stone. that's where it stands. >> ken dilanian, thanks so much. former u.s. attorney joyce vance. what is your take from her harsh comments and the sentence? >> so what judges do in sentencing, andrea, is that they take into account a number of different factors before arriving at the sentence. this sentence that ken has just told us about is a little bit below where i imagine her guideline sentencing range ended up. we haven't seen the precise calculation but it looked like she was headed toward a range that would be about 5 1/2, maybe a little bit more years, at the low end of the range. this tells us that she carefully considered the factors, viewed them not in any sort of a political way which would of course be inappropriate for a judge, was not out to hammer or harm stone, but fairly looked at

the law and the facts in reaching a sentence which as the law requires is designed to keep him in prison for no longer than is necessary to achieve the underlying goals of federal sentencing. this is a fair sentence arrived at by a judge who took all of the relevant issues into consideration. it will likely stand up on appeal in the federal courts. the only issue will be whether the president decides to give stone an outright pardon. >> and as a former defense lawyer and an expert on all of this, what would be the basis for an appeal pending whatever the president is going to do and whether or not he intervenes before that stage? >> first, as to the sentence, i'm a biassed criminal defense attorney and with great respect to my colleague, the sentencing guidelines themselves have been advisory since 2005. we talk about this guideline range. should it be 87-103,

37-40-something. that guideline range is essentially arbitrary. it's arrived at by using a formula, but that formula is so fraught with inconsistencies it sometimes results in an illegal sentence. in roger stone's case, the more guiding principle should be statistics. what are the averages of offenders actually receiving and what you find is that even if a lower range, 37 or 40-month sentence is still much higher than the average offender with no criminal history who was sentenced as a -- on an obstruction case like this, you find that the average for these offenders is less than ten months. so roger stone, even at 40 months, even though that's squarely within the guidelines range or the original guidelines range, it's well below that range, it still is statistically an anomaly strangely enough. the sentencing we have is strange. most of these sentences are

below guideline sentences. so obviously i'm a biassed criminal defense attorney. i would take the position that this sentence on the -- when compared to the averages is still very harsh. >> acknowledging your posture, let's look at the facts as she recounted in the courtroom, he continued to violate her gag order. he actually tweeted one tweet with a bull's-eye and her which could be construed as a threat to the judge herself. he went rogue time and time again and showed the disrespect to the court that was indicated by his presumed confidence that the president was going to bail him out of that. there is a lot of behavior, i'm just saying, that goes into this. and the stakes for his conviction, the line was about something incredibly important which is the sanctity of the

2016 campaign. >> that's right. so responding to that, you're absolutely right. and had he not made that threat, which resulted in a technical application of the guidelines and an eight-level enhancement, then we would still be talking to the range of 37 to 40 months and that's what was before the judge, considering whatever guideline range she arrived at. we don't know exactly what guideline range she chose to follow. but ultimately if the averages of these defendants, these offenders is way below the sentencing guidelines, that tells us that these guidelines which were created many years ago, may not have as much application today to real-life and real-life reasonable sentences. >> do you want to weigh in on this, joyce? >> so i will because danny is such a good defense lawyers and he makes a persuasive case.

there are very few comparable defendants. roger stone's conduct is in a category of one. i think she found several cases to compare to. the way these sentences are reviewed though on appeal is for two things, procedurally, did she consider all of the factors that she had to consider before making her decision? that's why as we discussed earlier, she spent the -- the judge spent a lot of time discussing stone's conduct, discussing all of the factors that the law requires. and then the question is whether she did something wrong. whether the sentence is so outrageous that a court will reverse it on an appeal. i think it will way heavily in the favor of the unreasonableness in this sentence. even with a good defense lawyer like danny on the case, i don't think this sentence gets reversed by any federal court of appeals. >> joyce is absolutely right,

yes. if it's within guidelines, it's going to be upheld on appeal 99% of the time. >> and i know you have the breakdown for us. refresh people's understanding of just who roger stone is. >> well, andrea, roger stone is one of donald trump's longest-serving associates, if you will. he originally was an official in the trump campaign and then he was fired, although he continued to remain in touch with donald trump throughout the campaign. look, there's a fascinating documentary on netflix about roger stone and it makes clear that roger stone saw presidential potential in donald trump, saw his appeal as a candidate long before almost anyone else did. saw him as a reality tv star who he thought looked presidential in his tv appearances and he's also a self-described dirty trickster. he goes back to watergate in

terms of playing in the dark shadows of politics and his job with the trump campaign, once he left, was to go to wikileaks and figure out what they had in terms of those hacked russian emails. and the trial made clear that he was in close contact with donald trump. they introduced evidence that stone was calling trump, stone was meeting with steve bannon, was briefing them on what he thought wikileaks had, how they could weaponize that information. so the trial painted an unflattering picture of the trump campaign's zeal to obtain these emails that were stolen by a foreign intelligence service. obviously, the mueller investigation found no conspiracy there. but it was extremely unflattering and judge jackson made reference to that in her closing remarks before she passed sentence where she said that stone was convicted of lying to cover up for the

president. the president was brought in as a character into this trial and it may explain in part why he's pushing back so hard against this roger stone case and calling it unfair and political. the judge refuted that today and said roger stone was not prosecuted in any political sense. he was prosecuted fairly and she also credited the jurors for serving admirably and that's important because roger stone has filed a motion for a new trial that she hasn't ruled on and he's alleging juror bias. stone will walk out of the courtroom because the judge is set to rule on the motion for a new trial, andrea. >> is there anything that would prevent him from speaking out when he comes out? he was under a gag order prior to the conviction. >> reporter: i believe that gag order still stands. and so he may not be able to speak. it was very interesting that he didn't address the court before

his sentence and you can only speculate about why that would be. if he hasn't -- if he doesn't believe he's guilty, it would be inadvisable for him to say anything no the court. because when you're about to be sentenced in a criminal case, the best thing you can do is apology. if he wasn't prepared to do that, his lawyers may have advised him not to say anything and that's what he did today. >> and according to daniel barnes, he was not showing any emotion at all throughout this procedure. ned price is still with us. the whole world of wikileaks and russian intelligence was behind all of this. it was never established in this case nor in the mueller report. but as someone who worked on the other side of the obama white house, your reactions to this whole saga of roger stone? >> well, it's undeniable, wikileaks has done enormous damage to our national security. of course, even if we leave

aside the 2016 dumping of emails pertaining to the election, we've seen any number of instances where wikileaks has chosen to disseminate whole cloth what were otherwise sensitive information in some cases deep within the vaults of the u.s. government. i'm also reminded, andrea, of what prosecutors said during the final days of roger stone's trial last year. they were explaining to the jury why he went about his efforts to obstruct the congressional investigation and one of the prosecutors, in fact, the prosecutor who resigned only days ago in the midst of this whole sentencing, said that roger stone knew if this information came out, it would look really bad for his long-time associate donald trump. and so now roger stone has been sentenced, i think we will unfortunately have to look to the president to see what, if anything, he does.

whereas in previous cases, he has issued pardons and comations to exonerate his friends, my concern is that in this case, donald trump knows that he is implicated in what roger stone did. he knows that his campaign in 2016 was implicated in this. if he seeks to extend a pardon to roger stone, it will be an effort to exonerate not only his close political ally, but also donald trump himself. >> and joining us now, pete williams, our justice correspondent who's been covering this throughout. what are the implications of this sentence of anything that the president might do to intervene in it being carried out? >> reporter: well, i think -- you know, i'm just guessing here, but i assume since the president is always opposed this prosecution, he said it was political, i don't think it would have mattered what the sentence was. now this was curiously enough, andrea, in line with the revised

recommendation that william barr directed the justice department to make today within this range of -- this is basically three and a third months. but today the prosecutors in court today said the judge should consider all of the sentencing factors that were laid out in that original memo. so as a practical matter, i don't think the revision by the justice department really made any difference in what the government said the judge should consider or what the judge should consider. now, this was really an unusual sentencing for this reason, the judge engaged in a roughly 40-minute, 45-minute tongue-lashing to roger stone, harshly criticizing his conduct here but said roger stone is not being persecuted for political reasons. she said, remember, this was the republican-controlled house intelligence committee that initially raised concerns that

roger stone's testimonyhat he mo congress. in other words, not partisan origins. and she said roger stone wasn't pursued by his political enemies. she said, quote, he injected himself smack into the 2016 campaign by falsely claiming that he knew what wikileaks was planning. she said that he cultivated this image throughout his life of being a bare-knuckled political advocate, but she said that doesn't count. she wasn't passing judgment on roger stone as a man, she was concerned about his lying to congress on what she said was a matter of great national and international significance. and she said he -- she also made a veiled reference, i don't think anyone in the courtroom missed the point of this, she said it's important that the sentence was handed down by

someone who was neutral, who was not engaged in a political battle. and she said the judgment has to be made by somebody neutral, not someone who benefitted politically from roger stone's conduct. a clear reference to the president. she said the comments that have been made outside this courtroom have been inappropriate. so that was obviously her pushback at the president's comments who has been critical of the judge. she said the defense in this case basically was, so he lied to congress. so what? she said the truth still matters and there should be pride in our own democratic institutions, andrea. >> pete williams. and just to reemphasize a point that ken dilanian made, roger stone has been involved in republican politics going back to the nixon days. we're talking about a half

century of republican politics. he even has a portrait of richard back as a young man. >> reporter: and the judge said today none of that counts. >> indeed. thank you very much. it is just interesting. former senator, presidential candidate chris dodd joining us next live from las vegas on andrea mitchell reports. what a day on msnbc. r every lobster fan like wild caught lobster, butter poached, creamy and roasted. or try lobster sautéed with crab, shrimp and more. so hurry in and let's lobsterfest. or get it to go at red lobster dot com a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate.fest. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy.

she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪you got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive♪ ♪ e-lim-i-nate the negative "slow it down a little" ♪ and latch on to the affirmative ♪ "it's okay" ♪ but don't mess with mister inbetween ♪ the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps.

robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

last night's democratic debate in las vegas was a full out pile on, with all candidates going after mike bloomberg as well as one another. >> mayor buttigieg really has a slogan that was thought up by his consultants to paper over a thin version of a plan that would leave millions of people unable to afford their health care. it's not a plan, it's a power point. and amy's plan is even less. it is like a post it note, insert plan here. bernie has started, has a good start, but instead of expanding and bringing in more people to help, instead his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question. >> joining me now, former democratic senator chris dodd, a biden friend and supporter, former colleague who himself ran for president back in 2008 and

is now as a democratic party veteran looking at what, a train wreck really. you have mike bloomberg in there with a ton of money which he will still spend, bernie sanders out in front by double digits in three national polls, doing fairly well in yesterday's debate, and saying he was the only one on stage who said he would not obey party rules going into the convention. so you've got super tuesday with so many delegates at stake, 40% up for grabs two weeks from now, he could come out with a 200 delicate margin, he is saying he is willing to oh way the rules. what happens in milwaukee? >> first on the debate last night, and you mention i am a strong supporter of joe biden, joe looked like the adult in the room. there was all of the snieping with each other. people running for public office have to remember, it is about the people you want to represent, what are they going

through, not what you are going through as a candidate. think of people watching that saying to themselves why don't they talk about me. i am the one with a health care problem, i can't pay tuition for education, i am worried about gun violence. too much about it was personal sniping. >> but elizabeth warren did bring a real fight to the stage having done badly in iowa and new hampshire, and arguably revived her campaign. you saw a number of candidates knowing the stakes were so huge. the real factor was mike bloomberg. >> mike is going to learn, you can't just jump into races, not expect people to do homework. there are so many unanswered questions. people remember mike bloomberg is mayor of new york. after that, there are a lot of issues people will bring up. this is not something you want to chart off in unchartered waters, choosing a candidate you discover things about during the campaign that could cripple the candidacy. mike bloomberg had a terrible

night. i don't know if he can recover. the mandalay issue in this state is not a forgotten issue. bernie only talked about these things. joe biden has done these things. people disregard that. you want to know who is going to function as president, you want to know what they've done. last night was too much of the sniping back and forth, not enough talking about the people and the democratic party have to choose a nominee, then the general public, they're watching as well, which of these people can really beat donald trump in the election. >> can bernie sanders beat donald trump, and at the same time if you mount, if the others mount a stop bernie movement, bernie bros and other supporters are going to get so riled up, the party will be split asunder. >> the 3100 democrats that were elected, those people will tell you what they want at the top of the ticket. you put with all due respect, bernie sanders at the top of

that ticket, those seats are in jeopardy. >> because he is a self avowed socialist. >> that's a reality. to his credit, he admits it, talks about it. anybody that thinks that's a winning candidacy in this country and day and age, they're living in a different country than i am, all due respect. we can't afford that. those 31 seats, nancy pelosi as speaker, winning the senate is also on the ballot november 3rd. choosing that top of the ticket, having someone with a proven record of accomplishing things is critical. and i believe biden is the best. >> what if biden doesn't place first or second in nevada? >> again, andrea, we're in the early process. >> can he afford third, fourth, fifth? >> that's what everyone is saying. each day teaches us something new. let's see what happens saturday, what's in south carolina. march 3rd is the big enchilada in terms of all those states in play. i think we're a ways away from making final determinations

about the outcome of this. last night at 7:00, he would have said mike bloomberg is a sure on, has the money and drive. by 11:00, last night, people had serious doubts about mike bloomberg as a democratic candidate for president. >> will joe biden have money to go on if he doesn't do well in nevada and south carolina? >> my experience has been if you do well, people like them, want to support them. i think that will come. >> a lot of breaking news. we continue with breaking news. that does it for us with this edition of andrea mitchell reports in las vegas. chris jansing takes over with breaking news coverage in new york. chris? >> thank you so much, andrea. i am chris jansing. we are following the continuing breaking news when long time friend of president trump roger stone, sentenced to prison. giving him three years, four months in prison, and $20,000

fine. this sentence of course has been at the heart of a contentious debate garnering headlines for weeks. the doj originally recommended a sentence 7 to 9 years. then of course attorney general bill barr intervened after president trump tweeted it was unfair. stone faced seven counts, including lying to congress, witness tampering, obstruction. joining us from outside the courthouse, ken delanian. glen kir shall ner, former federal prosecutor, and danny is he val oh. take us through what the judge said. that's one of the interesting parts of what's a consequential and fascinating story. >> reporter: that's right, chris. even though the judge did not hand down the max essentially, handed d