chuck rosenberg is back with us.eah. lawrence, in a shocking development, mr. giuliani does not know what he's talking about. there is a memo from then attorney general eric holder in 2012 which tells all department prosecutors that they may not interfere in an election. but leading up to an election you can still take covert, or quiet investigative steps. you just can't take overt investigative steps. and by the way, if the mueller team feels that they need to suspend something between september 1st or october 1st, some date and the election, all they have to do is hit pause, and the day after the election they can hit pause again and do everything they could have done yesterday or tomorrow. so this makes absolutely no sense. >> i want to take you back to the issue of the paul manafort defense and some people staring at it today say it looks like a defense that is geared to a pardon. offering no witnesses, putting on no defense at all in the courtroom. what would be the result -- if paul manafort is convicted of any

also nbc white house correspondent geoff bennett, reporter ashley parker, and chuck rosenberg, former senior attorney and fbi official. chuck, you were in the courtroom. what do you think led to the defense decision to rest, and would the mistrial motion have already been ruled on by the judge before we heard that the defense had rested? >> i'll answer your second question first. it does not seem that the judge has ruled on the mistrial motion, only because at some point, while the judge was figuring out scheduling issues, just a couple of minutes ago, he indicated that he needed to receive a further brief from the government before he can resolve an outstanding issue. and my suspicion is the only outstanding issue that remains is this sealed motion that julia was just talking about, that we believe is related to some issues with the jury, given that the judge had held a lengthy sealed hearing this morning where he interviewed the jurors. as to the defense's decision, it is not that surprising in a case where the defense has set up the main culprit and most of their defense around the

chuck rosenberg and the panel are still here.tler, it's remarkable to me that this -- it has been reported, president president's lawyers are aware of the fact that donald trump's desire for jeff sessions to unrecuse -- i don't even know if that's a thing. is this to get his a.g. to unrecuse himself is one of the flash points in the investigation into the president. >> it's crazy. especially when we remember what this investigation is about, is whether republican campaign operatives conspired with the russians to try to subvert our democracy and what chairman nunes is saying is i don't care if the russians installed donald trump as president. we need to keep him in office. so i've been reluctant to use the phrase constitutional crisis to describe what's going on. but if what he's saying is no matter what kind of evidence mueller turns in to congress, he's not looking at it, all he's trying to do is keep donald trump president. then we have a situation in which the congress is not doing its constitutional responsibilities of check

here to help us answer that question, the very best of the best, chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official. maximum well, former clinton campaign advisor now director of progressive programming for sirius xm, jonathan swan, national political reporter for axios. also back with us, frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence and steve schmidt is back. steve, you're going to end up with one name by the end of this. let me start with you, chuck. take me through what i understand now may not be a distinction worth making, that the president is somehow comforted by the fact he's been told he's not a target, he may never officially cross becoming one. >> i think i explained it well. it gets weedy. here it goes. someone in the scope of an investigation, we don't know if we're going to charge that investigation or not, but we're looking at her. a target is a likely defendant, but as you said, if you can't charge a sitting president, could he actually be a target? and the answer is maybe, maybe he'll be a target when he's no longer

nicolle wallace, michael schmidt, emily jane fox, chuck rosenberg and daniel goldman. chuck, talk about robert mueller. talk about what quarter we may be in of this investigation. i guess the motto there continues to be steady as you go. >> steady as you go. every time you ask me a bob mueller question, brian, i say something like steady as you go. we're not in the first quarter anymore. i know that. i don't think we're in the fourth quarter either. i guess that only leaves two other quarters. but my sense is that there's a lot more work to be done. by the way, i don't think i agree with professor tribe. far be it for me to disagree with a harvard law school professor. but plea agreements in the federal system have to be the entire agreement. there can be no side agreements. we make that clear in court and in writing. and so i still believe that mr. cohen may cooperate at some point, and i'm sure mueller would want it. of course, he would, if it's truthful and helpful. but i don't believe there are side agreements here. somebody who would know more about that practice i

i want to do a shout out to one of my old bosses, chuck rosenberg. we don't like appellate work. trial attorneys don't like appellate work. and chuck will agree with me. if you get a person to cooperate, they will waive all appeals, and that is a big deal. just ask the trial team for governor bob mcdonnell, the prosecutors there. if mcdonald had cooperated after his conviction, they wouldn't have that supreme court case. so yes, i would take cooperation in a heartbeat on this type of case. now, if you have a violent gang member or a serial murderer, i prosecuted a guy who killed 35 people, i don't want his cooperation. i want him in prison. so yes, i would accept his cooperation. but it's not -- >> all right, gene. let me go to your boss. your former boss here. chuck rosenberg. how much you know you're going to put manafort on trial again in the district. you know he's going on trial again in a few weeks. so if he's coming for a deal how much hardball do you play? >> well, you have a lot of leverage now. and gene is right. this is the type of case in which you would take cooperati

but those days are coming. 74 days away. >> let me bring chuck rosenberg into this conversation. , i heard the congressman say he believes michael cohen lied before congress. is there a potential in the future for some sort of global cooperation agreement where michael cohen could say, we'll let you off the hook for lying to congress which i believe is a federal crime if you are helpful to any investigation ongoing in the mueller probe, helpful to any future or current investigations in the southern district, helpful -- i know he picked up the phone and called some state law enforcement officials. is that something -- is he a candidate for something like that? he a i think that's plausible, nicolle. i could imagine that a lot of folks would like to talk to him again, or for the first time. let me tell you how i would have analyzed it when i was u.s. attorney. i'm not sure i would prosecute cohen again even for the lie to congress. i'm not saying that's not important. it is important. but the question to me would be were u.s. interests adequately or fully vindicated by his guilty p

chuck rosenberg, thank you very much.ing up next, president trump is finally getting involved in what is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched races. are republicans getting nervous about losing a seat they've held for decades? your mornings were made for better things, than psoriatic arthritis. as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain... ...swelling and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests, and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you

joining me, chuck rosenberg, former senior fbi official.you for sticking around to help me with this. >> my pleasure. >> i understand contempt of court meaning you have been told to do something by the court and you're not doing it and you don't have an option. in this case, the court ruling that mr. miller is in contempt for defying the subpoena, what is the consequence? does this mean that he will go to jail? >> conceivably. i'm going to get a little nerdy on you. >> yay! >> there's civil contempt in which case the judge, judge howell, simply wants miller to comply. as soon as he complies, as soon as he testifies, as soon as he follows her order, the contempt is lifted. there's criminal contempt designed to punish. not to enforce compliance. it seems the to me she held him if civil contempt. all you need to do is comply with my order and we're square. so he has an easy out. if he doesn't comply, she can continue to hold him in contempt until he does, which means putting him in jail or fining him or something else to try to coerce his comp

attorney and former senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. former u.s. attorney barbara -- i feel like we should launch a legal show today. and white house reporter jonathan la mere. chuck and joyce, we've been talking about the fact that cohen had likely done some sort of deal by thursday of last week. chuck, you said that his silence was deafening. joyce, you agreed the very next day. once again, you were both right. but tell me what it means that there is, according to "new york times" reporting, there is a plea deal for cohen, but it is not known or hooking as though there is not an agreement to cooperate. chuck, is that something that could come later or is this sort of cooked at this point? >> it's not fully koo y cooked. it can come later, but if the reporting is accurate, he's pleading straight up, meaning he's just saying essentially i did it, you got me. but he gets some credit for that, first off. second, he can get more credit if the government wants to hear his story and he wants to give it. so not precluded. but we'll have to wait and see wh

attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. chuck is also an msnbc contributor. and harvard law school professor and co-author of to end a presidency, the power of impeachment, lawrence tribe. everybody, welcome. jeff, first to you. the president seems to be making it clear that john brennan was the first of many. what are you hearing at the white house? >> well, that's right. he could be the first of many. you heard president trump say today that he intends to take action against bruce ohr. certainly, the president is unmoved, unbothered by this blistering rebuke from really what is an unbroken chain of intel chiefs datek baing back t decades, cia directors who worked for both republican and democratic white houses. the president is embracing a view that we heard from richard burr, the senate intelligence chairman, who happens, we should say, to be fairly an honest broker in all of this, sort of a neutral voice. he is making the point, looking at the op-ed that brennan wrote, saying if president trump's add mirgs or assertion, rather, that there was no russian c

joining us now is chuck rosenberg, a senior fbi official, also a former u.s.attorney for the eastern district of virginia, which is where the first manafort trial was held. mr. rosenberg, chuck, thank you very much for your time tonight. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> is it normal practice for a defense team to come to prosecutors to try to cut a deal for their client literally while the jury is out and deliberating on their client's fate? >> no, because it's highly unusual for someone to have two trials that they're facing, one in virginia and one in d.c. it's not unusual, however, rachel, for defense lawyers to explore with prosecutors the possibility of resolving a case short of trial. >> they reportedly, according to the "wall street journal," were trying to lessen or eliminate the felony charges that manafort was facing in the second trial of seven felony counts. they are similar, too, in some ways but also they depart from the kinds of charges that he faced in virginia. why would they have thought that they had leverage with the special counsel's office at t

jeff mason joins me as well as harry litman, and chuck rosenberg, along with nbc correspondent kristen welker. kristen, let's talk about the aftermath of two stunning decisions yesterday. >> i can tell you, andrea, it's tense here. a number of top officials have been huddled in meetings throughout the morning. that's not necessarily unusual, but clearly this is something that is consuming this administration. and the question is what happens next, how will they respond. we're getting a sense of how the president and his legal team plan to respond, and that is to essentially paint michael cohen as a liar. i've been talking to rudy giuliani as well as others who are familiar with the strategy, who say, look, the bottom line is cohen is on tape, including with some journalists in instances saying he made the payments, so-called hush money payments, on his own, not at the direction of the president. and now he's essentially changing his tune. that's what they're planning to argue, andrea. and so they're going to say, was he lying then or is he lying now? they're going to try to attack his

attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, who's also an msnbc contributor, and senior fellow s at the brookings institution and the editor in chief of law fare, ben wittis. chuck, the president says this is illegal. he's citing scholars but not saying which scholars. maybe it's alan dershowitz. after all here's what he said. the court should in my view disallow any questioning of a sitting president about the motives behind actions he took that were authorized by article ii of the constitution. allowing the president's motives to be questioned by prosecutors sends us down a slippery constitutional slope, especially in a real world where all presidents have mixed motives for their actions. chuck, does it send us down a slippery constitutional slope? >> i don't think so, katy. i think the more dangerous path, by the way, is if somebody, the president, anybody, is above the law. now, of course this question has to be decided by the courts. ultimately the supreme court, whether a sitting president can be subpoenaed and questioned. my guess paced on precedent is he can and my polic

you bet. >> chuck rosenberg, it's so great to have you. >> it's a pleasure, katy. >> enjoy your weekend>> some breaking news before we go to break. we were expecting more former intelligence officials to join in rebuking the president's recent move to revoke john brennan's security clearance. moments ago 60 former cia officials put out a statement backing john brennan saying that it is their firm belief that the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views. >>> still ahead, steve bannon is back with a new plan to remake the country, and it's in president trump's image. welcome to the place... where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some

it's not their job. >> chuck rosenberg, as always, sir, happy friday. have a good weekend. >> you too. >>> up ahead, a full-on republican nightmare in kansas. we'll explain. if you use some of these moves way too often... then you might have a common condition called dry mouth... which can be brought on by many things, like medication and medical conditions. biotène provides immediate, long lasting relief from dry mouth symptoms. it is clinically proven to soothe and moisturize a dry mouth. plus, it freshens breath. biotène. immediate and long lasting dry mouth symptom relief. the new united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insura

and chuck rosenberg. thank you. xhnchlthsi >>> coming up, include a campaign finance violation charge. the former fec commissioner joins me next to talk about the timing and the circumstances around the payments involved and what they say about the case. i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. >>> in just a few minutes donald trump's former personal attorney michael cohen is appearing in court. a plea deal to include a campaign finance violation charge. payments that cohen made to women who claim they had sexual encounters with donald trump. those payments are key to figuring out whether cohen broke campaign finance laws. joining me now on the phone is ann, former commissioner. ann, thanks for joining us. i think most people who don't know much about campaign law could tell you

>> a good rule of thumb is to always agree with chuck rosenberg, former u.s.ff at the fbi, former head of dea. chuck is dead on the money here. cohen has gone from volatile public presence to radio silence and that is a sign loud and clear that he is cooperating or approaching cooperation with prosecutors in the southern district of new york. >> you're nodding. >> yeah, i think, of course, he's cooperating because he has no cards left to play. it looks like there's overwhelming evidence on him suggesting bank fraud and tax fraud. i think when they first leaked, started leaking tapes, i think they were sending signals to trump that he should pay attention to him. and now he's gone silent and i do think he's cooperating. i don't think his value to prosecutors is on campaign finance violations. i don't think that's a real threat to the president. he does have knowledge, however, about the machinations in trump tower in june of 2016 in that famous meeting when a group of russians came with compromising information on hillary clinton. and that has always been portr

because, again, pete alluded to this earlier, chuck rosenberg talked about this as well. president has made it a habit, if you will, of going after his attorney general on twitter, on television as well. this morning on fox news, he criticized him once again, saying that he hasn't been in control of his department of justice since day one. has the thinking, nancy, inside the white house, changed at all on jeff sessions? is it different this time? >> well, think it's just really the president who's thinking has sort of changed. we're reporting the story to figure out what exactly is going on. really, president trump has been angry with jeff sessions, you know, since march of -- march of 2017 right after he was inaugurated. he's furious that sessions didn't recuse himself from the russia investigation. he's made that really known publicly. he's tweeted about sessions. he said in interviews that he wants sessions out. he has privately belittled sessions. so i think the combination of all the legal developments this week and then just this ongoing frustration may be boiling o

. >> let me go to chuck rosenberg. talk if you can about sentencing g what will ternment be looking for here, and what are they likely to get? >> right. the government will first wait as will the defendant for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. will take anywhere from 70 to 90he days. thenarties will go to sentencing. and as dan just sai lester, all of his conduct comes in, everything mr.ma fort did wrong, all the bank fraud, all the tax fraud, including stuff that he did wrong that's charged in the district of columbia. so i agree with what nick ackerman said earlier. one count of conviction is sufficient, eight counts of conviction are compelling, and mr. manafort will be forced reckon for all of his criminal conduct at sentencing. >> you c chuck rosenberg, thank you. again, if you're just joining us, eightlt g counts against paul manafort, president trump's former campaign chairman related to bank and tax law violations. 18 counts against him but ultimately 8 guilty verdicts. the rest amistrial. as we watch t

. >> chuck rosenberg, ben, thank you. happy weekend. that will wrap things up for me this hour. chris jansing picks things up right now. hi, chris. >> hi, katy, thank you. what an extraordinary day it's been of honoring the best in america. >> really truly remarkable. aretha franklin's funeral, we're watching it on television but i almost feel like i'm there. >> thank you so much. have a great weekend. hello, everyone, i'm chris jansing in for ali velshi. the iron will of john mccain and aretha franklin in a class all by herself. two monumental figures in american history devoted to bringing people together are being honored and remembered in two very different ways today, even as their examples of grace and class are the same. in washington a solemn remembrance on both sides of the political aisle for a man who so honorably served his country. >> we celebrate six decades of devotion to the american idea and the cause of human freedom. generations of americans will continue to marvel at the man who lies before us. the cocky, handsome, naval aviator who barely scraped through sch

i will start with chuck rosenberg new to the show and get your reaction to what the mueller team thats proposed in terms of an interview with donald trump. this is according to the new york times, this he would discuss possible coordination with trump associates and the russians whether trump tried to obstruct justice, this he would agree to accept some written answers from the president and preserve the ability to have trump answer follow-up questions in person. what do you make of that proposal? is that standard operating procedure? how unusual would that be? >> there's nothing standard about this, joy, but what i think mueller and his team are trying to do here, and it's a strategic decision, is avoid a fight. meaning if they can get all or most of what they need voluntarily, that's better than issuing a grand jury subpoena and litigating the issue inevitably before the supreme court. there is a difference between need and want. all prosecutors, and i was a federal prosecutor for a long time -- all prosecutors want as much evidence as they can possibly get. they want to talk to eve

. >> our friend chuck rosenberg says of something of five to ten days. >> the mountain of evidence, isn't it true that they'll get in the jury room. most people are going to say should we take a straw poll to see where we stand. >> a lot of juries do start out that way, i think jurors do pay attention and they are careful, i have seen some very fast verdicts in a couple of hours, i don't expect that here. even when they are not agreeing but they still have to take some time and go back. i am going to go with a friday verdict. >> chad, the judge did something interesting first for me when he was giving them instructions. i am going to give you a copy of this and you can take your instruction back to the jury room. he gave it orally and now their only amendment to rewind is to listen it again to his audio recording of his instruction to the jury. >> that's right. this is kind of ellis being ellis. we have seen his personality as a judge coming out of this case. he made a point of saying i am not going to send back a sheet of paper where you can refer back to throughout when you are making t

with me now, is chuck rosenberg former senior official. what do you make of the back and forth negotiation that is happening between the president's team and the mueller's team over this interview. >> elizabeth stated it well. the president keeps saying he wants to sit down and mueller and has nothing to hide. if you want to talk to mueller, talk to mueller. nothing to hide, hide nothing. i don't know if it is a back and forth. because mueller has not been commenting on it. only seeing one side of this back and forth. in the end if bob mueller has permission to issue a subpoena, and he has the evidence, that is what he will do. >> chris collins announcing. and these are places where the rules of law gets tested. indict a sitting member of congress, first endorsing for the president of the united states. in that respect it seems like it is a passing grade for the rule of law. this was able to happen. this idea that they don't want to do anything within 90 days of the election. and that guided the timing today and i am curious your perspecti

i heard chuck rosenberg. he was theorizing that this could be -- your honor i looked a at the device and i saw television coverage and it would still take a lot o f time to turn to. >> could it be a juror riding on the subway or commuting or seeing a newspaper and glanced at it. this is a process that takes a long time. they have to take the jurors aside and remove the other jurors, hey, what did you find out. a lot of times get burned up. how can we spin this to our side's favor. do we like this juror. one attorney for the defense may say that's a good juror and other may say no, we got to get them out of there. that's why this can take so long because it is a lot of back and forth just because the juror may have flipped on the tv at the wrong time. chad, you were there, what was it like again, we don't know what it is you witness. but, what was it like witnessing it? >> right, so we expected the prosecution to come in and rest their case today. instead we were greeted by a 20-minute huddle between the attor

with us tonight to talk about it, we're so pleased to have chuck rosenberg back, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of attorney, who has spent his fair share of time in that very courtroom where the trial is being held. he also happens to be a former senior official with the fbi. and eric tuck certificate back with us, justice department reporter for the associated press. he was in court for today's proceedings. chuck, i've thought of you so many times because, in plain english, you were u.s. attorney where this trial is taking part. you've had your fair share of time to watch this judge. what do you make of all of it? i've heard straight down the middle reporters say kind of straight up that he has been prejudicial, he has clearly and provably been tougher on the prosecution. >> you know, brian, i've seen him be tough on the prosecution. i've seen him be tough on defense counsel. but there i think is a better way to do it, right? i mean, if a judge has something she needs to say to counsel, defense or prosecution, she can call them to the bench. she can excuse the

barbara mcquaid, also in court today, and chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia and a former senior fbi official. first of all, josh just reported that russia was front and center in some of the testimony from gates today. the trump campaign piece, the inaugural piece, everything that happened afterwards. until the point when he left the side of paul manafort. the judge was being a little bit difficult about how much detail he would be allowed to get into. when they were working in ukraine, they were working with the oligarchs. they were making enormous contributions, much more than we see in this country. they were expected to get huge parts of the country. someone was going to control the energy sector. so the stakes are very high for people involved in political operations. so that's why paul manafort was receiving so much money which he then stored in the bank accounts. so you wonder about the influence. that he may have imported the practice or to what extent they're seeking the same thing in this country. >> pin

. >> i have a well attuned ear to everything chuck rosenberg says and i have never heard him say that before. do you see enough public facing evidence at this point to believe, make another educated guess for us, that there is enough evidence to charge someone with conspiracy to coordinate with a hostile foreign power? >> i don't know we know, i don't think we know all the facts yet. if you want to understand it, just take your july 13th indictment of 12 russian intelligence officers on 11 counts. in there bob mueller and his team lay out exactly what conspiracy looks like. if people want to use the google machine to research it, 18 usc 371. conspiracy to defraud the united states. and a couple of interesting things about that statute. first of all, it states that if two or more people agree to do something to commit an offense against the united states, and one of those people actually goes ahead and does it, then both people are guilty of conspiracy and shall not be imprisoned for more than five years. a classy felony. if there were people inside trump tower, at the trump tower meet

and down in washington tonight chuck rosenberg a former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia. also happens to be a senior official at the fbi. and daniel goldman, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. the jurisdiction at the center of much of today's news. welcome to you all. nicole, i would like to begin with you. mr. goldman's former boss, the former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, said on twitter today just a plain statement of fact. michael cohen in a courtroom in the southern district of new york under oath, declared that the president directed him to commit a federal crime. a lot of this, all of this happened while you were on the air this afternoon. have you had time to inhale just what it is we witnessed today? >> you know, i thought about today. we were on the air together on the day of trump's bizarre inaugural address, my old boss had colored the language to describe. i was thinking about the line about carnage and i was thinking that the real carnage and it was all i

. >>> joining us now, chuck rosenberg, former justice department and fbi official.ou for being here. >> my pleasure. >> the jury came back after deliberating for just under eight hours today and they had four questions that they posed to the judge in note form. first of all, do juries often ask questions of a judge early on in the deliberations? >> they ask questions all the time. it is reasonably common for jurors to ask questions and always in note form. >> that doesn't -- does that necessarily indicate good news or bad news for the prosecution? >> so it is a parlor game. we have little information to go on so we overindex on the information we have. we study the notes and we look at their faces and try to divine some meaning from it. >> we do know the content of the four questions. the jury asked, not in order but they asked for a definition of reasonable doubt. >> which is a very common question, by the way. >> why is that? >> because it is not apparent what reasonable doubt is. particularly to the lay men and women. if i had to fick one question that gets asked

house bureau chief phil rucker, also an msnbc political analyst, and former fbi sore official chuck rosenberg and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. they are both msnbc contributors as well. hallie, i want to start with you. this has changed so many different times. i know the president was responding to the "washington post" over the weekend, but how are his lawyers today trying to, i guess, clean this up? >> well, there is not a whole lot to be able to clean up when the president tweets something in black and white and in plain english for everybody to read that is the opposite of what he said as you laid out the evolution of this over the last year and a half or so. the opposite of what the president said a year ago. now, one of his attorneys is saying i got bad information initially, presumably from his client when jay sekulow and others worked to frame this as something that was not, in fact, troublesome for president trump. so that begs one question, which is did jay sekulow get lied to by his client? did jay sekulow do the lying for his client, if in fact he knew the truth? if either of

chuck rosenberg sunld it up best.o committed a crime who needed immunity who is in donald trump's inner circle. you may see democrats latch onto that. >> if you look at the numbers in your poll, i find what's important, not the approval number. we should accept the fact donald trump's base is going to stay with him no matter what. >> yep. >> it's the enthusiasm number. 56% of democrats say this congressional election is more important than usual to me. only 38% of republicans say that. who is going to bother to go to vote in the midterm election? it's people who think this is an election that matters to me. that is the more important number. >> though there are some in president trump's orbit the threat of impeachment will motivate this base. >> nancy pelosi spoke to my colleagues at kqed in san francisco, it needs to be a bipartisan thing, a partisan tool. i don't know what else democrats has that's going to motivate them to show up at the polls more ardently than the prospect of doing something about donald trump. i

danny, i heard chuck rosenberg on this network earlier tonight. he was u.s. attorney for this district at one time. he was theorizing that this could be one juror who came in today and said your honor, i looked at a device, i saw television coverage, someone talked to me, i talked to another juror, which would still take a lot of time to churn through, correct? >> absolutely. could have been a juro juror ri on the subway or seeing a newspaper or glancing at if or a juror overhearing another juror. but either way, this is a process that takes a long time. they have to take the juror aside in the presence of counsel, remove the other jurors, ask that juror, hey, what did you find out? and a lot of the time gets burned up as the attorneys huddle in their corners and decide not really so much whether the jury did or didn't do something but how can we spin this to our side's favor? do we like this juror? because there may not even be a consensus on the team whether they like that juror. one attorney for the defense may say that's a good juror for us and the other

and chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia.d zeke are back, too. katie, sources are telling nbc news that administration officials say there is no indication the president is planning to fire jeff sessions right now. however, bob corker told "politico," it is apparent after the midterms he'll make a change and choose someone to do what he wants done. based on your reporting, is that kind of the expectation here? come christmas, jeff sessions will have a new job? >> we've been wondering about when sessions would be fired for a long time. after the midterms makes sense. basically, the president is allowed to fire jeff sessions. we know he doesn't like him. he's not happy with the job he's done. the risk of firing him before the elections suddenly creates a cloud. did the president do something to either obstruct or interfere in ongoing investigations into he and his associates? if so, it could have a ripple effect that hurts republicans going into the midterms. there is no way it could happen before the election, we hope. if it h

chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official. and ashley parker, white house reporter for "the washington post." julia, let me start with you. tell us first of all about that apology from the judge. >> yeah, that came this morning, craig. basically judge ellis said yesterday i might have spoken out of turn, i didn't go back and look at the transcript exactly, but i think i did tell you you were allowed to keep especially expert witnesses in the courtroom. yesterday there was a dispute when a government wanted to call an expert witness on tax and they said, yes, he's been in here all along listening to the testimony of other witnesses and judge ellis got irate. he really didn't care that he had told them previously that they were allowed to do that, he just said i want you to know this isn't what i allow. it got kind of tense. in fact the prosecution attorney just sort of mumbled, you know, okay, judge, i hear you. and then they moved on. this morning he said, okay, i might have said that in the past. this is the rule going forwar

i was just talking to chuck rosenberg off camera a moment ago and he said if she really is coordinatingcooperating, excuse me, with robert mueller's team, there's just no way she would go on television and talk about it. >> well, i think that's probably right. there's no way she should go on television and talk about it if she's coordinating with mueller. i guess that doesn't necessarily mean she wouldn't. she is refusing to answer certain questions that would be way over the line if she's working with mueller. but look, if her -- if she really has some kind of proof other than just her say-so that he knew about wikileaks ahead of time, that would almost make it in my view a slam dunk type of case. so what we've been all talking about and debating and is it a criminal conspiracy is really assuming you don't have sort of a smoking gun like that. >> kasie, last word, 20 seconds. >> you know, this is -- i feel like we say this over and other and over again in the trump presidency, that this feels like uncharted territory. i also feel like a lot of the conversations that we are having aroun

i've talked to chuck rosenberg and others. he could very well be a target of that investigation save for the belief that mueller is following d.o.j. policy which holds that he can't indict a sitting president. >> i think that's right, nicolle. the only thing that keeps sessions in the status of being a subject, not a target of this investigation, is the job that he currently holds. and presumably that won't last forever. he could either be impeached and then prosecuted or this could even form the basis for impeachment, depending on what mueller's findings are. i think, though, to go back to your earlier question, it's interesting to note that when jeff sessions responded to the president's criticism, he did two interesting things. the first one was that he defended him se defended himself against the president's charge that he failed to take hold of the justice department. by saying i have done a better job of implementing president trump's agenda than any other cabinet secretary. he pointed to some of the policies he viewed a

in the scenario that you sketched out, if that's accurate, for example, chuck rosenberg, former prosecutor and our contributor at msnbc news, in an e-mail said look, this happens all the time, it would be a huge victory for the prosecution, knocking out one of the counts would only change the sentencing guidelines by a little bit. according to daniel goldman, another contributor of ours, manafort is looking at up to 14 years in the sentencing guidelines if convicted on all counts. so it's still something over ten if one of these counts goes away, andrea. >> they've been in since thursday night, they got the case. they started deliberating friday. since they've been deliberating, we've heard a lot from the president of the united states, including a very strong defense of manafort, saying he's a good guy, that this is unfair, we've heard a lot. they were not sequestered, they were home with their families. as i've been suggesting to your colleagues in week, the fact that they're not sequestered, barbara mcquade and others have tell us in federal cases they're usually not sequestered unless

chuck rosenberg sunld it up best.the trump cfo has been granted immunity who committed a crime who needed immunity who is in donald trump's inner circle. you may see democrats latch onto that. >> if you look at the numbers in your poll, i find what's important, not the approval number. we should accept the fact donald trump's base is going to stay with him no matter what. >> yep. >> it's the enthusiasm number. 56% of democrats say this congressional election is more important than usual to me. only 38% of republicans say that. who is going to bother to go to vote in the midterm election? it's people who think this is an election that matters to me. that is the more important number. >> though there are some in president trump's orbit the threat of impeachment will motivate this base. >> nancy pelosi spoke to my colleagues at kqed in san francisco, it needs to be a bipartisan thing, a partisan tool. i don't know what else democrats has that's going to motivate them to show up at the polls more ardently than the prospec