joining us now is andrew wiseman, former fbi general counsel and of course msnbc legal analyst and someonewhole series of sagas for us on this channel andrew, first let's just talk about the nature of these threats and how unprecedented this is. i mean and you know what it's like to prosecute the crime family >> if you're prosecuting all cases i've done in the mob there's a rule, you do not go after judges, you do not go after prosecutors, after their families why? not because they're good people and they don't think it's a good thing to do. it's bad business to go after agents and prosecutors and judges is only going to lead to more scrutiny on what they're doing. plus, you know what, i have a big ego, but i'm fungible. if you take out one prosecutor just another one -- >> another one is going to pop up >> exactly the idea this is the former president of the united states where there was a serious discussion in court with a respected judge having to address this issue, he led the free world he was the head of our justice department, and there in court is the issue of his inciting violence

"new york times" reporter katy benert is back also msnbc legal analyst andrew wiseman, whose backgrounds get better and better and better as jack smith's probe gets more intense. he is a former justice department prosecutor, former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation. charlie is back, he has epic backgrounds, editor at large of the bulwark. watching you get mic'd up, made me nis one thing about covid, seeing inside everyone's homes we've sort of walked up to this point this week, i think, in seeing stephen miller and seeing the mostly secret court proceedings yield legal defeat after legal defeat after legal defeat so far for donald trump in terms of withholding some of this testimony from jack smith i wonder what you make and if you could take me through what your colleagues are reporting about where things stand for jack smith. >> yeah. so what we are seeing is witnesses finally have to testify. it gives him an opportunity to create the fullest account we have seen of the events leading up to january 6th and the former president's role in those events now, k

the first one to do it was the trump-hating lawyers like andrew wiseman and trump-hating federal agentse peter strzok that were part of the mueller investigation where bob mueller admitted four years ago that donald trump had to conclusively prove his innocence. he was the first person and only person in the history of the county of justice to have that standard -- the department of justice to have that saturday applied to him. and nancy pelosi shows that for the four years she was the speaker from 2018-2022, that's standard she applied. she applied that to deprove donald trump of due process during two impeachments where he wasn't allowed legal counsel, the first president to not have that during the house proceedings, and we've seen it continue over into the biden administration and department of justice, jim jordan talking about the disparity in treatment, unequal treatment under the law between president trump versus president biden on the classified documents issue. so, you know, the issue, you know, has continued now for years, and what's happening in new york is only sort of the

nbc news legal analyst andrew wiseman, he weighed in on the subpoena last night on msnbc let's take a look at what he had to say >> when i heard that today, i was thinking jim jordan is going to have another sort of, you know, dud on his hands, but so far that's really backfired for him. putting mark pomeranz who used to lead the case in front of the american people we know what he's going to say because he wrote a book the book was unauthorized. it's just his version and there's been some controversy, but this is what he said in his book donald trump is guilty, and he should have been prosecuted long ago. he should have been prosecuted for more than what he's been prosecuted for that's going to be a very odd thing for a republican to elicit to the american people so there was a part of me like bring it on. >> all right joining us now to discuss this all is msnbc legal analyst danny duvalos. always appreciate your willingness to get up at these horrific hours let's start with the new subpoena for jim jordan first. i kind of want to know do you actually think this is enforceable since

andrew wiseman, your thoughts. >> when you were talking to governor kasich, there is a discussion about whether this is a sad day and i just wanted to give a different way that i think the prosecutors in this case might be looking at it, many viewers, which is there is no question that there is a sadness to what we're seeing and having a former president who is under arrest, but -- >> take the person out of it, but the fact that somebody who was the leader of the free world is now under indictment. >> absolutely. but i think the sadness is the -- if you're looking at this from a prosecutor's perspective, i think they would say the sadness was the crimes committed. that's the sadness you have somebody who has committed crimes and now charged with committing crimes before he became president and partly while he was president and he's under criminal investigation for crimes while he was president and after he was president the whole panoply of charges that are under investigation some of which have now been charged and so being held to account on having the criminal justice system catch up

actually put michael cohen -- was it the doj or sdny, i'm starting to get my offices confused andrew wiseman, bring us back to the moment when michael cohen was indicted and individual one. and why donald trump was never, even after the fact, even as he was out of the office, why he had not been federally charged, even though the feds have said, he was individual one who directed michael cohen >> the michael cohen criminal case it began in the special counsel mueller investigation. if you remember, michael cohen was charged in the special investigation, for lying to congress he admitted to that, and the theory was he was doing so for the then current president donald trump but part of the case that related to michael cohen's own financial misdeeds and campaign finance was carved out of this special counsel mueller investigation. and was sent to the southern district of new york, an arm of the department of justice, where he also pleaded guilty and as neil reported, he pleated guilty, admitted it was a crime. the defense lawyer obviously understood it was a crime. the prosecutors thought it w

kuru usa andrew wiseman, let's see his interview, i don't know why.iations were carried out from above by their actions, only confirmed their previous intentions, namely to establish control over half of ukraine the most valuable part of it from trump, it was only required to wink, but he didn’t wink no, and what he said about nord stream. this he, of course, well done, but this is not the case when the secret becomes clear here, the secret was immediately clear. in general, it is clear to everyone. they just pretend they can't believe it. that's how irokamson had a very talking face. during this entire interview , i looked like this. here are the secret ones. uh, probably, uh, a lot of people and countries. uh, do not believe in this saying. here is a recent example for you they hope that, as it were, something can be hidden, something can be hidden, i don’t know. for some reason, like all adults should understand that this does not happen. here is the information received. uh, from ukraine it has not yet been officially confirmed, but there are a lo

andrew wiseman is back we've been listening to him all afternoon. he investigated donald trump during his work with the mueller report former florida congressman david jolley is also here. lucky for us, they're all msnbc contributors unlucky for david, he's headed to your home state let's focus on what alvin bragg has done he successfully kept secret really until donald trump was inside the courtroom i heard you say 34 felony counts. >> one thing that's interesting, the speculation before we knee these charges is he would charge some misdemeanors, some felonies, canned this is a bold indictment this is 34 felonies. there are no merchandise the people who are saying, is it appropriate for a former president to be charged with a misdemeanor, which, by the way, it should, because he's not above the law. that's no longer an issue. these are 34 felony counts, which is, you know, kind of remarkable there are 12 general ledger charges, 11 checks charges, and 11 invoices. it's a little unclear how they got there, just to be fair if you -- it's not required

spreading lies i think the rest of that is internal and i'm not able to speak to >> i want to ask if andrew wisemanend and colleague can lob a question at you. >> of course >> congratulations in terms of the result but also the documents you were able to turn over i had sort of two related questions. one is were there documents that we would have seen you're able to talk about or does this settlement preclude you from talking about what we might have learned -- not thought what we learned was chop liver but is it more than that we would have learned at the trial >> i can't think of a document for instance going to be in the opening or high on my list that hadn't seen the light of day i think we accomplished what we wanted through the discovery judgment process >> and is there some reason that fox didn't try to settle -- or maybe they did try to settle -- to avoid all of those documents coming to light? that was certainly something when all of our jaws were dropping learning what you knew and now made public why fox didn't try to settle before that happened when presumably you had enormous leverage

why people write editorials or talk on shows like this let's bring in nbc news legal analyst andrew wiseman andrew, i've been stunned the past couple days, the way fox -- and i'm not going to blame the lawyers because they do what the clients tell them to do -- but the way fox stumbled they pay $787 million, and they still have another suit out. all the things that they paid for, almost $800 million to make certain things go away, didn't go away. not going to go away in fact, rupert murdoch, the hosts, the discovery, all of that is still going to be out there if they don't now settle for probably even more money to smartmatic and they've got more so i just have no idea the logic of it all, to drag it all the way to the end after all the embarrassing discoveries out, then go ahead and pay almost $800 million none of this makes any sense legally or business wise can you give us some insight into why it happened that way? >> so i think you're putting your finger on a real problem here, which is that, logically, you don't understand, and i don't understand, and i don't think we've gotten answer