david kelly and andrew weissman, thanks for leading off our coverage i have our shortest break. we continue with the legal breakdown i promised you when we're back in 60 seconds looking good starts in the dryer with bounce pet. (vo) right now is the best time to roll into verizon and switch. (seth) i got this incredible iphone 14 pro on them. (vo) that's right! switch now and get iphone 14 pro on us. there's more! you get apple watch se and ipad. all three on us. this offer won't last long. verizon mmm, popcorn. (alternate voice) denture disaster, darling! we need poligrip before crispy popcorn. (regular voice) let's fix this. (alternate voice) poligrip power hold + seal gives our strongest hold and 5x food seal. if your mouth could talk, it would ask for... poligrip. you're doing business in an app driven, multi-cloud world. that's why you choose vmware. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. >>> welcome back to special coverage it's a breaking news night i bet you know that we hav

andrew weissman always goes supersized ask enron or the mafia or any of his defendants we're going to watch for how many tentacles are there to neal's point, whether tax and conspiracies come in, that may be more difficult for trump and his lawyers to deal with. >> andrea? >> joyce vance, let's talk about your take -- small, medium, or large? if you've got tax cases involved here, conspiracy and tax, and you know, fraudulent business filings, you're going pretty large. >> i think it is going big and to the point that was being made before people knew what was in the indictment, there were a lot of complaints, many of them motivated by politics, saying that this was an insignificant indictment, that it was just about some records keeping violations i'm sure this becomes more clear when we see the unsealed indictment, but knowing that there is a significant number of felony charges, that it's more expansive than stormy daniels, that begins to give aus a pictue of the work that was done here i have the same question as neal has. i'm interested to know what changes. but having been a pros

joining me now is andrew weissman, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the muellerbe andrew, it's so great to see you in person. >> yes. >> so, last night when we were on our big set and all together talking about this case, my good friend lawrence o'donnell, he brought up a possibility of one reason why the doj let it go and it was that michael cohen had refused to do a full proffer of everything he had every done in his life which would be the normal course, give us all your potential crimes he presented that to michael cohen's attorney, lanny davis. let me play you lanny davis's answer last night on "the last word". >>> why did merrick garland asking me not proceed when something called january 6th occurred, the inauguration occurred and merrick garland probably made a practical judgment, not necessarily one that i would applaud, not to look back and prosecute donald trump who had just left office probably he made the judgment we have better things to do, but that's a second guess we all can make about merrick garland >> does that track to you? >> no, it doesn't

. >> can we just have a moment o the inscription here which is, to andrew weissman if you're dedicationibery that feels extremely bad asked >> i am going to be a barista. >> so andrew, when you wake up in the morning, is walking the dog first thing you do >> totally just hanging out your pajamas, and having a cup of coffee that dog goes crazy. >> no coffee first >> no coffee first are you kidding? >> i'm a coffee before i breathe. >> i turn my coffee machine on and i take the dog to the door and when he's there barkin like crazy, he knows it's me >> he's ready. >> it's my time. he is early good during th night, and then in the morning it's like me time. >> when i have the msnbc on in my office, i feel like every time there is breaking legal news, i see you on there explaining it to me. are you just waiting for you phone in your pocket to buzz with something breaking? >> well, it's interesting. one of the things about being legal analyst is you keep up with what's going on your apartment makes you fee not old and extremely young. >> i am extremely hit before a boring, 30 lawyer. it's a v

the prosecutor from the former mueller probe, head of enron task force, andrew weissman. other titles, but we only have so much time. >> let's get to it. >> danny greenberg, a long time decorated lawyer when you look at the criminal arraignment room, you know your way around that you have overseen the lawyers who defend people with less resources than donald trump, indigent, correct >> yeah, not one of whom paid off a porn star. >> there we go, we can start there. i should mention you're here for your legal acumen, but you're a family friend as well. people can factor that in. >> whatever it does. >> whatever it does. >> fine with me. >> it's transparently disclosed. >> andrew, highlight what we learned and why it matters he's back under court order today what do you think? >> i think the reporting, which is that although donald trump the first time around, as you said, took the fifth over 400 times, the reporting is he is actually answering questions and the issue is, is that a good thing or a bad thing in thinking about it from his perspective, there are a lot of pluses

let's talk, a little bit, if we can, andrew weissman, about his legal team which includes a new addition in the last 24, 48 hours. >> sure, the woman that we're seeing to donald trump's right is susan necheles. she is a career defense lawyer she's extremely well respect he was one of the primary people who ordered the trump organization trial she lost that trial, you can be very, very good and still lose a case it's a veryhard case for anyon to prevail in. but she is somebody that has a really good reputation, a very good relationship with the district attorney's office so, we're really actually only seeing donald trump for once actually getting somebody who is sort of appropriate to the occasion and the person to donald trump's left is joe tacopina who i think everyone familiar with this show has seen repeatedly on air i'm not sure he's going to actually enter a notice of appearance being counsel of record, meaning he will actually be on the case if he does, there will be a lot of issues that have been raised about whether that raises a conflict, because he attorneys to have a attorney/

andrew weissman, a good buddy of both of yours. he had a comment about everyonet should just calm down about how this couldn't result, perhaps in a conviction n whatyo the jury could be charged that if you don't find the felony, the bump up, that what's calledc a lesser included offense is the misdemeanorlufense is. the fact that it's n the misdemeanors are not charged doesn't mean that the jury doesn't doesn't allowed to consider them. >>ok okay,ay so david , the president of the united states could be charged with a bunch of misdemeanors with as ag with unpaid parking tickets. here guess that's weissman's conclusion here.ly. >> w said ishat he gambled garbaged garbage. listen, i have personale. experience with him, i ha hatei ha, and i to dignify any comment htee maks with the response. he's the single most ethicallysn bankrupt prosecutor i have ever dealt with in my life. and what he said was just meaningless. but he's been after donaldingles trump for years and yearss.n af trying concoct a theory, as he did with other defendant

andrew weissman said this last night about the subpoena. >> when i heard that today i was thinking, jimpeople, he wrote a book, unauthorized his version and controversy about whether it is accurate but says donald trump is guilty and should have been prosecuted long enough >> better doesn't get better. >> that is going to be an odd thing for a republican to elicit to the american people there's a part saying bring it on. >> so what is congressman jordan hoping to get out of these hearings except maybe gumming up the process and slowing it down? >> that's often the strategy from conservatives this idea to muddy the waters by really throwing anything into the mix that might provide republicans with an opportunity to criticize investigations into donald trump jordan stated that he believes the book and the pressure to put on bragg bolsters the case that bragg acted out of political motivations opposed to moving or legal reasons as a prosecutor. but i think that the point that a lot of democrats are now making that if he does provide documents and records he'll continue to make the case tha

joining us now, nbc news legal analyst andrew weissman. smith because as good as it is for the washington, d.c. prosecutors with hundreds of pending cases that want to know that this is a charge to continue charging, jack smith is going to be thinking about this obstruction charge with respect to the former president. there's nothing better for jack smith to know that this is already been approved by the d.c. circuit meaning he can charge it and unless the supreme court disagrees and will reach the issue he knows that this is a rock solid legal rock solid charge has to prove it factually but getting the sort of pre-clearance is unusual to have and has to be happy that the court ruled that this is a charge that will stick for any potential charge he is thinking with respect to the former president. >> what do you expect -- the supreme court for the most part is upheld lower court rulings, appeals court rulings gone against the president on the issues do you suspect they'll let this stand if it is appealed from the d.c. circuit >> that is a

the business for that's why people write editorials or talk on shows like this let's bring in andrew weissmant. so all the things that they paid for, almost $800 million to make certain things go away did not and murdoch, the hosts, the discovery is still going to be out there. if they don't now settle for probably even more money to smartmatic i have no idea -- the logic of it all to drag it all the way to the end. then go ahead and pay almost $800 million none of it makes sense legally or business wise why did it happen that way >> i think you are putting the finger on a real problem here which is logically you don't understand and i don't understand and i don't think we have answers to why fox if there was going to be a settlement didn't pony up the money before the incredibly damaging emails and texts that showed what people were thinking privately sometimes denial is a big factor and people think it won't be so bad. we have legal arguments. maybe the judge will rule in ways that are favorable. that may be part of it people at fox thinking they could go to trial. maybe take it to the supr