barbara mcquade and jill wine-banks, we always need your expertise and we're lucky to have it tonight. thank you for joining us and we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> when we come back, the democratic congress will investigate why intelligence experts and donald trump's own top aides didn't want jared kushner to have a top security clearance. but president trump gave it to him anyway. >>> and freshman democratic congressman tom malinowski will join us. he is going to introduce a resolution in the house of

barbara mcquade, i think everyone remembers following that story. mueller shoots it down.do you make of this? >> i think it gives us a way of reconciling all the different versions of this kind of telling the same story. robert mueller and prosecutors in general are so careful not to play their hand. they are all correct that there was no direct statement by donald trump directing michael cohen to lie. i think it was that idea that robert mueller wanted to get out of the headlines because that was overstating the fact. >> you're saying the overstating fact was they didn't like the idea that there was an expectation many out there that it was a harder direction than it was. >> i think that's right. all they said was the statement was not accurate. they did not say that president trump implied not to make that statement. because of trump's lawyers and because of them saying. in the same way, he says the crowd at my i nanauguration wase biggest ever. it can be hard to prove when someone maintains that plausability by talking in code. but if you can get enough people together

barbara mcquade and jill wine-banks, we always need your expertise and we're lucky to have it tonight. thank you for joining us and we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> when we come back, the democratic congress will investigate why intelligence experts and donald trump's own top aides didn't want jared kushner to have a top security clearance. but president trump gave it to him anyway. >>> and freshman democratic congressman tom malinowski will join us. he is going to introduce a resolution in the house of representatives that says kim jong-un is indeed responsible for the torture and death of otto warmbier in direct contradiction to what donald trump has said about it. tom malinowski will join us. at the end of this hour, we will use more material from the michael cohen hearing, starring jimmy gomez, alexandria ocasio-cortez, with a cameo appearance from a fictional congressman max santos played by jimmy smitz from "the west wing" and it will lead to a lesson for the democratic presidential nominee on how to handle president trump on the presidential debate stage. alexandria o

joining us now is barbara mcquade. former u.s.>> thanks, rachel. you ought to play that mystery music for the barr letter. >> you know, i will say, i should come up with some sort of branding. first of all, because i do think it's the barr report and people shouldn't confuse it with the mueller report we haven't seen, but also because what barr did here does appear to be sort of being greeted with more, you know, scratching of heads, more raised eyebrows, more of a puzzled reaction as time goes on. i think it was surprising to people at the outset, but as these last couple of days have gone on, people have seemed to find it more puzzling and not less. >> i agree with you. i think the first takeaway from reading the barr letter was the finding that the evidence did not establish a conspiracy with russia. that was big news. but i think as people have delved a little bit more deeply into it on the obstruction of justice issue, they find it incredibly curious that, one, robert mueller did not make a decision, but, two, william barr di

i'm joined by federal prosecutor barbara mcquade.ows this story mueller shooting that town. what do you make of this? >> i think this gives us a way to sort of reconcile all the different versions of this as kind of telling the same story. you know, robert mueller and prosecutors in general are scrupulously careful not to overplay their hand, so they are correct, they're all correct that there was no direct statement by president trump directing michael cohen to lie, and i think it was that idea that robert mueller wanted to get out of the headlines -- >> that's interesting. >> because that was overstating the facts. >> you're saying the overstating part was that they didn't like the idea that there would be an expectation out there that it was a harder -- a harder directs than it was? >> i think that's right. if you look at what they said, the statement was not accurate. they did not say that president trump did not in some way imply or directly indicate and instruct cohen to make this statement. what he testified was the edits beca

jeremy bash and barbara mcquade and former u.s. attorney for the eastern democratic for the state of michigan and clint watts is here, the author of "messing with the enemy, surviving in a social media world," clint, i would like to begin with you. talk about the under-pending documents and what you read in here. what they are looking for and timing and what stands out to you here? >> the thing that stands out the most is how quickly this came after the special counsel have started. that's a book. document. this does not happen over night. i would imagine they already looked into cohen some where in the fbi and investigated apparatus. what you learn in that within 60 days they have gone up on multiple e-mail accounts and looking for specific things. they had fraud down there and foreign influences. when you look at that stack and how quickly that occurred, when you rewhine to the summer before, they were talking about russian influence and there were four people essentially named and being the target of the visor. now, you are look

. >> and jonathan, i want to bring in barbara mcquade for a moment, msnbc contributor, former u.s. barbara, one of the things here that anne and peter are making clear is, we don't know what is there that could be damaging or exonerating for the president, that does not reach the level of something that can be prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt which is the justice department standard for bringing a case. >> yes, and two very curious things about this, the department of justice has said a sitting president cannot be indicted and the only remedy is impeachment, yet we see william barr using the standard that gets used in routine criminal cases for indictment, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. i would submit that's the wrong standard to go looking at this. and the other thing is, as they have pointed out, we don't know what other facts are out there. and i can't help but wonder if this delay, which william barr now says will take weeks before we see the full report while redactions are made to grand jury material, if this isn't a deliberate effort to be able to sort of cherry pick th

jeremy bash and barbara mcquade and former u.s. attorney for the eastern democratic for the state of michigan and clint watts is here, the author of "messing with the enemy, shoourviving in social media world," clint, i would like to begin with you. talk about the under-pending documents and what you read in here. what they are looking for and timing and what stands out to you here? >> the thing that stands out the most is how quickly this came after the special counsel have started. that's a book. document. this does not happen over night. i would imagine they already looked into cohen some where in the fbi and investigated apparatus. what you learn in that within 60 days they have gone up on multiple e-mail accounts and looking for specific things. they had fraud down there and foreign influences. when you look at that stack and how quickly that occurred, when you rewhine to the summer before, they were talking about russian influence and there were four people essentially named and being the target of the visor. now, you are loo

barbara mcquade, former federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of the state of michigan. and clint watts is here. he's a former fbi special although, an expert in this area and the author of "messing with the enemy: surviving in a social media world of hackers, terrorists, russians and fake news." clint, i'd like to begin with you. talk having gone on raids like this, talk about the underpinning documents and what you read in here. what they were looking for, timing. what stands out to you here? >> i think the thing that stands out the most is how quickly this came after the special counsel essentially started. that is a book essentially of documents. this does not happen overnight. i would imagine that they were already looking into cohen somewhere in the fbi or some sort of investigative apparatus. and what you learn in that is within 60 days they'd gone up on multiple e-mail accounts and they were looking for very specific things. they had fraud down there. they had foreign influence. so when you look at that

joining us now, nbc intelligence and national security reporter ken dilanian and barbara mcquade, former uss attorney for the eastern district of michigan and currently law professor at the university of michigan. >> ken, let's go to you first. the actual mueller report for a second. no one knows what it is. help us understand the other department of justice cases connected to the mueller investigation, because i think that the novice eye thinks it's all in the report and then it's over. >> that's a great question, stephanie, because these things often get conflight conflated. he investigated whether there were links between the trump campaign and the russia interference. that investigation is going to live on regard lgs of what robert mueller does. it is an investigation into the trump inaugural committee and some members of the trump organization. and michael cohen is kotbing in that investigation as is rick gates who hasn't been sentenced yet. there are other investigations we know less about. there's been reporting that a fund-raiser named elliott is in the crosshairs of federal pros

attorney barbara mcquade, msnbc contributor emily jane fox, national correspondent for "vanity fair," and "atlantic" staff writer franklin mcfaul. where do we come down today on what michael cohen said yesterday, whether it does spark some legitimate questions among republicans? >> it certainly has, andrea. a lot of folks will remember that last week michael cohen testified that he has never asked for a pardon from president trump, nor would he accept one. overnight his attorney lanny davis telling nbc news that in reality, going back to those early days after his offices were raided, that in fact there was some discussion about a potential pardon, that he directed his attorney to have that discussion with rudy giuliani. here is the important thing to know about that time frame, andrea. there was a joint defense agreement between cohen and the president's legal team. so it allows them to have those sorts of conversations. now, according to lanny davis, those conversations ended, of course, once the joint defense agreement ended. and so he's standing by the testimony, that original tes

attorney, barbara mcquade, now a law professor at the university of michigan. at the risk of being a little too 2019, i will note, barbara, that you are back in a panel with mr. nunberg, who was more or less advised to comply with the document request from mueller, which, sam, you ultimately did. >> yes, sir. >> people remember that. >> barbara, we don't have the indication, as i noted, that there is that kind of defiance right now. what does it mean when you see nadler saying so many people are complying? and what does it mean if nadler gets what are effectively the follow-up documents that federal prosecutors in some cases like sdny have been looking at? >> yeah, so he the submitted letters and requests. these are not subpoenas so there's no compulsion to comply. but it's a letter, it's a request. most people, most entities will do that, because there's also the possibility that if you don't voluntarily comply, it will be followed by a subpoena with compulsion. but i think if representative nadler is able to get compliance with these, he will at least in part

. >> barbara mcquade, always good to talk to you. thank you. ood to talk to you thank you.john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪ the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford? let's take a ride with some actual customers and find out. - well, tell me about your experience when you switched to the hartford. - when i switched to the hartford, i'm sitting there thinking, "man, i should have "turned 50 years ago." they saved me a bunch of money. you can't beat that. - what blows me away about the hartford is their lifetime renewability benefit. now this is their promise not to drop you even if you have an accident. - i know when i'm driving, i'm covered. - [narrator] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto i

joining me is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and an msnbc contributor. to start with you. you wrote an opinion piece in "usa today," i love this headline because it feels like so much of what we're doing today, the breadcrumbs, you call it, why the cohen document dump should worry donald trump and others. what do you mean by that? what's your thesis on this? >> there are a few clues that appear in these 800 pages. one of them, as you mentioned, are the redactions. there are 18 1/2 pages of redactions after a heading that says the illegal campaign contribution scheme. the only reason to seal materials from the public disclosure is to protect the integrity of the investigation. so that means besides michael cohen, there are still matters that are being investigated there. when you think about that scheme involving checks paid to michael cohen in reimbursement for his payments for hush money, it's a pretty small universe of people who are under investigation there. it could be president trump himself, could be donald trump jr., could be the trump organizatio

joining me now, two msnbc contributors, barbara mcquade and joyce vance. the last time roger stone was in court as they enforced that gag order,en the judge, judge jacks, said there isn't baseball, there's two strikes but not three.o >>no i am surprised she didn't impose some penalty. it is a tricky area. people have first amendment rights to speak about things of public interest and this certainly is one of them. ordinarily whenne gag orders ar imposed, the judge is able to justify it on the basis of what's called strict scrutiny, finding that there's a compelling governmental interesp in protecting a fair trial, and then narrowly tailoring that order to comply with that need. and so here i think she would have been within her rights to order even more restrictions on what he's m saying or to impose penalties for violating it, but perhapsit mindful of his first amendment rights and not wanting to give n any basis for recusin her, did not impose any additional considerations today. i amti a little bit surprised, t it's a tough issue and maybe she thought i

barbara mcquade was just very eloquent about that. the sentencing guidelines exist. they're not binding. but they exist essentially to give statistically sound guidance to judges who are looking at trying to make sure that people get sentenced in like ways for like crimes. and to have this big a departure from those guidelines, again, it's totally within the judge's rights to do it. i'll be interested to see when we finally get the transcript from this long hearing as to how the judge justifies that huge departure. but regardless of how manafort's crimes stack up against other people and how long the sentence is compared to those guidelines, it's still four freaking years in federal prison while the president who he helped elect is still sitting in his first term in office. it's just -- it's worth being stunned by that anew. >> yeah, it is. we haven't been here since the nixon administration. >> and not even then. >> exactly. thank you, rachel. we have a lot of ground to cover tonight, beginning with the first sentence that paul manafort has now been handed for the c

. >> barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in the eastern district of michigan. it is an honor to have you as a colleague always, but especially on nights like this. bhaush, thank you. >> thanks rachel. >> a lot more to get to tonight. stay with us. >> a lot more to get to tonight. stay with us arb, thank you. >> thanks rachel. >> a lot more to get to tonight. stay with us. rachel >> a lot more to get to tonight. stay with us live from the starlite lounge. ♪ one plus one equals too little too late ♪ ♪ a sock-a-bam-boom ♪ who's in the room? ♪ love is dangerous ♪ but driving safe means you pay less ♪ ♪ switch and save ♪ yes, ma'am excuse me, miss. ♪ does this heart belong to you? ♪ ♪ would you like it anyway? [ scatting ] [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ . >>> now that we knew paul manafort's prison sentence in this federal case in virginia. now that we've seen the virginia judge depart downward to give manafort 47 months instead of a possible 24 years under those guidelines, as i mentioned earlier, there remains some

barbara mcquade. david's book is coming out, russian roulette. >> paper back a few months from now.t's coming. >> >>> coming up the conspiracy theories to the chief. that would be the president. he's at it again. >> all of the current and former officials who paid for, promoted, and perpetuated the single greatest hoax in the history of politics in our country. they have to be, i'm sorry, they have to be accountable. [ chanting ] >> trump's performance last night showed us what we have in store for the next two years, don't you think? with friends like these, president trump pulled the rug out from under his own education secretary, betsy devos after she announced plans to eliminate funding for the special olympics yesterday. trump said he had overridden her and will fund it after all. a nice guy and he's so bad. as betsy devos' predecessor under president obama said, that must be the sound of a bus going over you. we have a lot more on that one tonight. people that work for trump are his pratt boys. stay with us. our grandparents checked their smartphones zero times a day. times ch

. >> barbara mcquade, you knew a couple of judges or two or three. what do you think will happen this coming week as natasha is underlining so well for us what we'll see possibly with paul manafort? >> well, he faces up to ten years in prison, additional to the 47 months that he got from judge ellis. i think that the sentence he got from judge ellis was shockingly low. he was facing 19 to 24 years based on the sentencing guidelines and that is a calculation done based on the loss amount, based on his role in the event and all kinds of things. and although many judges do offer very low sentences in white-collar cases which is one of the great disparities in our criminal justice system even for a white-collar case we saw a drastic reduction from 19 to 24 years down to less than four years. i don't think we're going to see the same story from judge jackson. she has seen a very different side of paul manafort. although he went to trial in the judge ellis case, the case before judge jackson in washington, d.c. also includes witness tampering, which caused

attorney and msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquade. welcome both.this were anyone else, someone not the president, how hard would it be to prove obstruction? as you heard mccarthy saying, has the president done nothing wrong? >> well, the key element for obstruction of justice and the hardest part to prove in any case is a corrupt intent. not so much what he did but why he did it. and when it's the president because he's the chief executive, he might have done it for a legitimate reason. if hypothetically he truly believed he's done nothing wrong and it is a waiste of resources and politically damaging, that might be a pure intent that is not criminal. if on the other hand he did collude with russia or he knows others were and he even tried to end the investigation, that could be the kind of corrupt intent necessary for an obstruction of justice charge. >> there's this new washington post article, jill, which details how republicans refused to turn on their own party as investigation and threats are looming over the president. you have democratic se