if i think of bannon and manafort, how do they fit in? >> those are two recent examples. both were charged or convicted federally. donald trump pardoned both of them on his way out of office. what happened in both instances was state prosecutors picked up the charge. paul manafort went really poorly because state prosecutors in new york charged him after he had been pardoned and the state courts said you can't do that. steve bannon was charged federally, then pardoned by trump and then recharged by the state. that prosecution remains ongoing. this makes me point. why should paul manafort and steve bannon be reprosecuted but not any of the hundreds of other people pardoned by donald trump? are they being picked out simply because they're seen as politically odious by certain prosecutors? i think that's the only answer and i think that's unacceptable. >> the same rules ought to apply to trump as any other defendant. people can send all their negative reaction to you on this one and not to me. >> please do. bring it on. >> i'm going to read something from social media. what

he's violated fara, the same way they dragged paul manafort through the mud, threw paul manafort in jail to flip on donald trump. that's what's going on with the biden family and the department of justice has been cover up for this, the fbi did not do full investigations over this and so it is incumbent for house republicans to stip and get the job done for the american people. maria: i spoke with kevin mccarthy on sunday, the speaker of the house suggested to me that that impeachment inquiry is coming this september. here's what he said. >> will you bring an impeachment inquiry against president biden this september? >> if you look at all the information we've been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry, just so your viewers understand what that means. that provides congress the apex of legal power to get all the information they need, because remember what's laying out there right now. we have an attorney general that could have lied to the american public. maria: congressman, i want to get your take on what's happening i

the way they change manafort and other people, unless this is a sweet hea sweetheart cover-up. >> markwe know now that he was getting a blanket future immunity from future prosecutions. but at the same time, this is what is the most interesting piece of this and most disgusting, that is they said and continue to say it was part of an on going investigation. they were shielding themselves from congress ever looking into this, because -- one hand they were resolving the claims, including future claims, as diversion agreement reads and saying it continued to be under investigation, now that judge saw what was happening, and poked a hole and it deflated quickly, we're finding out that is what happened. remember mark, our system is based on advers adverse aerial justice. >> the department of justice is ripping joe biden and his -- representing joe biden and his family, hunter biden has his own lawyers representing hunter biden. but the information that come out now, the testimony that devin archer gave makes it clear, it was clear with laptop and witnesses involved and other business partne

paul manafort thank you. joining me former trump senior adviser stephen miller. you're obviously in touch with a lot of friends now the trump campaign. what is their reaction and your reaction personally? >> let me just say everybody in trump world everybody who was a friend associate colleague of president trump's staff is appalled and horrified by not just the persecution relentlessly of president trump but of anybody who has ever worked with him, anybody who has served with him, this is an all out effort to use our legal system to purge president trump and his staff out of the political system entirely. you just talked to paul manafort. he was a political prisoner. mike flynn was a political prisoner. michael stone. now they want donald trump to be a political prisoner and as levin said they're adding up indictments that could lead to a thousand years in jail. north korea wouldn't even dream of something like. this my question tonight is at what point are elected republicans going to realize the gravity and the severity of this threat? the radical left just ke

to the misinformation machine if this is televised, even tonight, what did fox news have on, paul manafort, donald trump's former campaign chair, who was jailed for tax evasion, talking about the two-tiered system of justice, right, ted cruz, a u.s. senator was standing outside of the courtroom as though he was a reporter talking about joe biden , villainization the justice system for his own political game. how much will that make it difficult to push this information or deflect if this thing ends up on tv? >> that is a great question, what we have seen so far is expectations that an indictment or two or three and eventually four would somehow change the fo public view, that hasn't been the case up until now. of course donald trump has donea better on republican supporters after the first three indictments, so the question is, what a trial be different? what a trial presenting evidence day in and day out especially televised when americans are watching what it make a difference? that is unknown, we can answer, we are in uncharted territory. traditionally i think a televised trial would be

paul manafort. thank you. all right, joining us now. with reaction. fox news contributor charlie hurt former trump senior adviser stephen miller. stephen let's get your obviously in touch with a lot of friends in the now the trump campaign and hearing from them tonight. what is their reaction to you? and what's your reaction personally? well, let me just say that everybody in trump world everybody who is a was a friend and associate a colleague of president trump's and his staff is just appalled and horrified by the not just the persecution relentlessly of president trump by anybody who's ever worked for him. anybody who's ever served with him. everybody has been associated with him. this is an all out effort to use our legal system to purge president trump and his staff out of the political system entirely. you just talked to paul manafort. he was a political prisoner. mike flynn was a political prisoner. roger stone was a political prisoner one after another after another. and now they want donald trump to be a political prisoner. and as mark levin

paul manafort, donald trump's former campaign chair who was jailed for tax evasion talking about the two tiered system of justice. right, ted cruz, a u.s. senator, was standing outside the courtroom as though he was a reporter talking about joe biden vilinizing the justice system for his own political gain. how much of that will make it difficult to push this misinformation or deflect if this thing ends up on tv? >> well, it's a great question actually. what we've seen so far is expectations that an indictment or two or three, eventually four would somehow change the public view. and that hasn't been the case up until now. if anything, of course, donald trump has done better among his republican supporters than after the indictments. especially if it's televised, especially if americans are watching and making a difference. traditionally i would think a televised trial would be important for the public. people have in fact made up their minds, and whether it's open to rethinking that is big question. people will misinterpret evidence and information and everything else so far it seem

manafort made that argument, lost.gument to say i want to be in front of a jury where there are more republicans. and also, if you're saying that there's too much pretile publicity in the case, that's true in any, any courtroom in this country. so that's just requiring having very careful jury selection. so that's just a loser. that won't be decided before august 28th. i do anticipate that there are attacks on the judge, whether they move to recuse her based on what really will be trumped up issues. they could try to do it. there's nothing at all that i think is going to go anywhere. i think on august 28th, there is going to be a court appearance. and she, as she indicated today, is going to be making a decision on the trial date that day. after hearing from both sides. >> okay, and let's talk about this discovery, this issue. one of the things we did talk about earlier is that the defense, the trump defense wants to delay this trial as much as possible. they would love for it to be after the election. hoping he wins a

a really good example of that as the manafort case. the one juror at the trial who spoke said she was a maga republican, she had a red maga hat. and i love this. she said i left my hat in the car. house just a great symbolic way of saying i have an oath of office and i did my job. she voted to convict. she had a very cute line afterwards. she said let me give some advice to president trump who is it present at the time. paul manafort should not be pardoned. and she acted out of principle. that is what you are looking for, somebody who is if the government is not prove its case is going to say, you know what? not guilty. they're not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and they have the gonna do with the judge instructs. >> that's so well put and fascinating. you talked about someone who shared the former president's 2016 campaign. not. nobody ballots turned to these trials investigations from three prosecutors and four probes, at least in your day, hush money scheme that we've been following. special counsel smith both overseeing t

that is the argument that the watergate defendants made, that's an argument that paul manafort made. you do not get to go to a jurisdiction where you think there are more people who are friendlier to you. that's a question of jury selection. that's just a dead loser. that will not -- that's simply not the law in any court in this country. >> joyce, obviously, we live in a divided country. there are lots of places all across the united states where people can certainly claim, because of how people vote, that it's biased one way or another. to andrew's point, if this is going to come down to the judge really being very careful about jury selection, assuming this goes to trial, assuming it happens in washington, d.c., what does careful selection of a jury look like, joyce? >> judges are careful about jury selection in every case. when andrew says, this is not the law in reference to trump's arguments, he is dead on the money in that regard. there's no merit to a motion to swap the venue here, because jury selection is about individual jurors. it's not about how large groups of people vo

well, you remember derkach's tapes, you remember the case against biden, you remember you accuse manafort of allegedly trying to find support during the election for trump , that is, we will communicate with all of us , no one can accuse us of not being are present and what i see and hear from my contacts, ms. oksana makarova copes with this quite well, that is, conditionally, of course, we have not communicated with all of them yet, because i'm sorry, you already have republican candidates, well , hell, to put it mildly, but the primaries have just begun, we will make parties in contact and the most important thing here is a short remark like this, there are also braids in the congress and in both houses and in the senates in the house of representatives each of them consists of 50% democrats 50% republicans and we are with them at meetings constantly, we as an expert environment, we them diplomatic environment, that is, no party will be able not to accuse us of being biased, and this is the most important thing, and that is why i am talking about the work of the statesman, not about the

they did the paul manafort case in the grand jury activity in the investigation were mike pence provided testimony specific to this investigation. host: is there any word of potential protests at the courthouse today? guest: not that we are aware of. there are barricades going up around the capital. they will be an increased police presence around the courthouse for sure. in many ways, it's ironic that the former president is being arranged at the courthouse just stepped from the capital which figures majorly in the indictment. host: our guest is with the guardian and his piece just published this morning early at the guardian.com. trump will appear in court to it respond to charges of election subversion efforts. we welcome your calls and comments for our guest on today's arraignment of former president donald trump. (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 and for others (202) 748-8002 the text number is (202) 748-8003 and you can hit us up on social media. i read somewhere earlier today. yesterday that something like almost 1000 january 6 suspects have been tried at that courtho

attempts failed and it's also worth mentioning it has failed with former trump allies in the paul manafortof peers more resembling one's politics and a judge pointedly noting that's not what a jury of one's peers means. it's not a referendum i'll find me a jurisdiction where people share my political views. so, just from recent history and history over the past half decade, in and near thisjurisdiction, it's a past half decade, in and near this jurisdiction, it's a very tough lift forformer tough lift for former president.— tough lift for former resident. , ., president. ok, so timing potentially _ president. ok, so timing potentially tricky. - president. ok, so timing i potentially tricky. location looking unlikely in terms of a swap. what about things like witnesses and contacts? a difficult will that be? well, that is, difficult will that be? well, that is. as _ difficult will that be? well, that is, as you _ difficult will that be? well, that is, as you can - difficult will that be? well, that is, as you can clearly. that is, as you can clearly imagine, there are quite a few witnesses

there was constant communication between paul manafort and sean hannity while she was out on bail with restriction to not have those communications. and this is honestly what donald trump said as amy said it's not true. it is factually false and something that should be challenged with someone who's a member of the news media as opposed to some kind of, you know, public figure or news figure but not a journalist. and that is a real problem in terms of doling out to -- to republicans this idea that donald trump is being prosecuted simply because he challenged an election. well, you know, he challenged an election in over 60 courts. he had his day in court repeatedly, and he lost all of that. so no one has denied him that. it is that he then took the law into his own hands. that is what he is charged with, and he'll also have his day in court as a criminal defendant to challenge the government's proof on those issues like any other defendant. >> barbara mcquade, i know there are people in the audience wondering where is the line, what is the limit of what donald trump can say about distr

paul manafort who worked to elect a pro-kremlin president in ukraine.was convicted in 2018 of bank and tax fraud. ultimately pleading guilty against the united states. obstructing justice. president trump deemed it, quote, a very sad day for our country. in terms of sweetheart deals, and december of 2020, at the end of his term, president trump granted full pardon to his close allies. flynn, stone, manafort, allowing them to escape accountability for their numerous crimes. now, that is a sweetheart deal. they got away with everything. not by hunter biden, pleading guilty, such as the reputational damage an embarrassment to his family, the widely publicized facts of his drug addiction, and this was a trump appointed u.s. attorney. they prosecuted this for four years. president biden did not seem to remove him. it happens when a new president comes into office. mister chairman, i yield back. . >> i'm going to simplify this for the american people. we are here today because our institutions are broken. the doj, the fbi, the irs has transformed from a balan

allowed his son to violate being an unregistered foreign agent that is the thing that they fear paul manafortfor so he would flip on donald trump. his son was violating him they stuck it in a plea deal and the only reason we found out they stuck it in a plea deal the judge started asking questions you cannot have this as a country where the first family is essentially getting millions and millions and millions of dollars to sell access to the president, then vice president, don't sit here and tell me the $30 million or $40 million that this family has received over the last six years has all been paid for just because they have a prosecutor fired in ukraine, i don't believe it another does anybody else. >> i change the subject and ask you to look at the headlines is about florida getting a lot of negative press, a lot of it coming from the new york times. the media seems to me there trying to soften up the santos and trump are both floridians, soften them up before the election. >> that is the mo of the times it is funny the new york times reported how bad florida is when you're at the new yo

the trial against trump's campaign manager paul manafort, for example. we know how those trials work. but what about a case against 19 people? what about a rico case? how will this all work? and now that 19 of these individuals are facing serious jail time how soon until someone in this case flips? because make no mistake as much is trump is surrounded by cospirators here in both the federal case and georgia case, even someone like rudy giuliani is ultimately just a capo in this criminal enterprise. the big boss, the end game here is donald j. trump, and the question tonight is does the rico law that rudy giuliani built his career on, does that ultimately ensnare donald j. trump. joining me now is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama, and laura jarrett, senior legal correspondent for nbc news. laura and joyce, great to have you both with me tonight. laura, let me start with you in terms of the many people named in this indictment down in fulton county. i want to start with the news we have on mark meadows. because mark m

, stone was there again suggesting his own long time business partner, stone in the middle, paul manafort next to him, who went on to run the campaign in the closing and through the unlikely win that fall. stone also would do things some republicans would not. he didn't just attack hillary clinton, but he darkly suggested that he knew the worst wikileaks about her were yet to come. eb everyone insinuated he might have some foreign or secret spy help. that's something most people hide if they do have it. people in the cia don't talk a lot about the sources or method of their intel. stone drew heat on himself. both congress and mueller probed whether roger stone crossed criminal lines to -- with foreign powers. nobody knew yet. kicking around as a question. roger stone's approach, we should note, left many others in the lurch. you're looking at four trump allied witnesses from that probe here is what they in their own words told us the mueller investigators asked about most. >> who did they ask most about? >> they asked mostly about roger stone. >> you? >> rojer and michael. >> roger stone.

violating the same foreign agent registration act so many others have been prosecuted for like paul manafort company. >> trace: it's a fair argument, if you had access to the vice-president doesn't matter where you are or what you're selling, it matters the level of involvement you have. what do you think about this? >> that's a good point trace and kash makes an excellent point. that if you are really selling influence and getting some kind of money in exchange for above benefits like getting a prosecutor in ukraine fired from american pressure, then you have the painingings of a bribery case. now, we've got to be clear that we don't know yet. we've got to take the investigation slowly. but at least what devon archer's testimony makes cheer now and it's worth emphasizing is that joe biden is now a witness, not scombluft hands-off guy watching his son get in trouble, he's an actual witness, and that is why we need to have a special counsel, because it's impossible for the justice department to interview and investigate someone who's the head of executive branch. >> trace: but it's selling wh

about trump's twitter account was used, by whom, and whether it was sort of used in a way that paul manafortg ground for what ultimately became his communications. >>. that's a great, great. point lisa rubin, as always, on point. >> thank you. >> the republican front runner for the nomination to be president is facing 19 won charges over four indictments, you probably heard a little bit about that. if that's something that gives you pause, you might actually be a republican primary voter. not the majority of them, but there's a lot of them. david plouffe and jen psaki and some are harboring poll numbers ahead. er ahead. and forms an antibacterial shield. try parodontax active gum health mouthwash. >> one year ago today, the inflation reduction act, the most significant piece of climate legislation in u.s. history, was signed into law. there's a case to be made it's one of the most significant and successful pieces of legislation ever passed. i mean, just look at the, name and look at what it did. and august of last year, when inflation reduction act was signed into law, inflation was 8.3%. o

some of the low, really low level people in the campaign, one of whom was, what's his name, paul manafort, and his friend were very involved in it and they were involved at a level i can't understand it had to do with foreign money and all of that, they were extremely involved in it and when it was all over, reagan offered those men any position they wanted in his administration. this was published in an article in the atlantic monthly and they turned him down because they said oh, they had-- would make a lot more money doing other things. ... refer to the iran-contra scandal, the truth of the matter is, that's when it really began and that's when it really began. because when the bush was trying to get well when reagan was president and the actually the way it was, the scandal came out that was -- hostages which was illegal, and then they went back to the early part of reagan's presidency. really explained it when george hw bush was up for reelection and what he said from 1989 to 93, he didn't get reelected but when he was up for reelection that is when it really exploded because people

the other is, you know, paul manafort in virginia, we indicted him in january or february. he was on trial in july. that was in front of a judge who also was very conservative. in d.c., his trial took 11 months to go from indictment to trial. i actually found the submission from the defense sort of facially amusing, and if you scratch under the surface, it made no sense at all. to have a diagram of how many war & peace volumes this would be, that's not how discovery works here. in the days where it's electronic discovery, of course, there's mountains and mountains of evidence if you turn it into paper documents. that's not what happened. that hasn't happened for over 25 years. judge chutkan isn't going to be fooled by that. that's something that was done for his base but not for the court. >> and by the way, this is how much of a nerd i am. i read war and peace in high school. and walked around with it, looked like a giant door stop. and it's actually -- >> by the way, you don't need to read it seven times to prepare. you only need to read it once. >> once is enough, trust

the mueller cases, i keep on using the manafort case as an example of a d. c. we'd still be waiting for that. page by page review is no longer done, whether in civil cases are criminal cases because of the vast volume of electronic data. you do electronic searches. that is just commonplace in all of these courtrooms. judge chutkan knows it, the defense lawyers know it, the prosecutors know it. this is written for someone else. but having said that, the real issue for her is, what is the delta of additional material that the government is turning over and how much time do they need to look at that material? remember, they've already gotten a lot from the january six committee, as we all did. so that delta is a thing that he needs to be focusing on and making sure that they have enough time to master that evidence and present it. in terms of what the defenses are to it. >> amy lee copeland, as a criminal defense lawyer, i don't know how many times a day you have had to read war and peace, but this does sound like a pretty heavy burden that they have. how much tim

robert mueller said in his report that donald trump tried to obstruct, intimidate or influence paul manafortl cohen and general michael flynn, roger stone, she said i was intimidated by all of the tweets the sitting president put out thargetting smee. >> you said what we used to do in the in the old days, he's going to billy witnesses, youiers, do you come in the country, my advice is you is saw a nonmouts forever. ? i wanted in back to the poll. we put up the larger, poll, when cbs news asked if the indictments against trump are trying to stop the trump campaign, 86% of republicans said it's trying to stop the trump campaign. an attack on people like you, 56% upholding the rule of law only 28% said it's upholding the rule of law and only 26% of republicans said that it is defending democracy. at this point, mehdi, he's poisoned the jury pool. all he needs is one of them on the jury in either of his two trials. that's the goal that his lawyers have set out. they seem to have at least achieved it among a majority of republicans? they are very good at messaging, we have to admit. his gaslighti

how trump's twitter account was used by whom and whether it was sort of used in the way that paul manafort, as a staging ground for what he ultimately became his communications. >> that's a great point. lisa rubin, as always, on point, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the republican front runner for the nomination to be president is facing 90 when charges over four indictments, and in that sentence gives you pause, you might be a republican primary voter. not the majority, but there are a lot. david plouffe and jen psaki on some heartening new poll numbers, ahead. numbers, ahead arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪♪ i'm currently out of the office... focusing on a little blue-sky thinking. i'll be taking meetings... with family and friends. and checking voicemail... as my activities permit. i'll connect with you... after reconnecting with me. ♪♪ get 1.9% apr for 36 months plus $1,500 purchase allowance on a 2024 xt5 and xt6 when you finance through cadillac financial. ♪♪ my husband and i have

paul manafort went to jail for years. rudy giuliani's home was raided by the fbi on suspicion of his failure to -- hunter e gets nothing. elizabeth: it was like hunter was doing the same things. the breaking news coming in, the corruption scandals are now hitting biden's polls. gallup now finds a majority, nearly 6 out of 10 americans, think this biden white house is not ethical, and that old was just completed on july 27th. -- poll was just completed. they found similar reaction to the trump white house, but gallup says biden's scores are lower than all other administrations since reagan. or archer also reportedly said, quote, it's categorically false for biden to say he he had no role in his son's business or knowledge of it, saying that, you know, biden was aware of hunter's business, he met with hunter's business partners. critics say biden to begin with should never have been in on those calls or meetings. and for the president to systematically lie about this to the american people is now hitting his polls. you see

hunter got a worse deal than roger stone, who had much more serious crimes or paul manafort, for whom was pardoned after he literally was complicit in an attempt to overthrow the government. this all is crazy. but it is a widespread belief and a deeply held belief, and that's why all the candidates are echoing it. >> and to stay with you for a minute, tim, i feel like it is also what gave the doj pause. and what gave really the response on january 6th pause. there was reporting and there was a sense that because it was maga people, they used kid gloves with them. had that been black lives matter protesters or something else, they would have been armed to the teeth and ready. there has been a standing down and a fear of them. i wonder what you make of that. you have, it seems to me, to be even in the doj a sense that we don't want to go too hard. we have reported on this show, hunter biden, that tax charge, it's normally used for international criminal gangsters. like, they don't really charge that very often. but there is this sense of we have to be proportional and charge a biden wit

when i was a special counsel mueller's team and, famously, roger stone violated those as did paul manafort. i think the big issue for her is that there are now through each trials, so you had donald trump, he's been indicted for crimes before, during and after his presidency, and she is going to figure out when she will be able to slot in her trial. i don't know if that will come up and an arraignment. she will be interested in moving the case along. she'll be very interested in whether the discovery as been turned over. i expect that we will hear prior to thursday from the government, a report about what they have done with respect to discovery. you saw that at the mar-a-lago case, and into the way that the government can try and prompted the judge to try and be focused on a day prior to the general election. >> andrew, it's chris hayes, we're in the same room, so you knew that. the tv, the magic of it all, i'm looking into the camera. so, i guess my question is, there is no precedent here for preferred -- i mean, take away precedence, i can't think of a defendant, just a defendant, they

is some of the low, low level people in the campaign, one of whom was what's his name is it paul manafort and his friend were very involved in it and they were involved at a level i can't understand, but they had all to do with foreign money and and all of that. they were extremely involved. it and when it all over reagan of both of those men any position they wanted in his administration this was published in an article in the l.a. monthly and they turned him down because said, oh, they had been making a lot more money doing other things. okay as you refer to the iran-contra scandal, the truth of the matter is, that's when it really began and that's when it really began. because when the bush was trying to get well when reagan was president and the scandal came out that he was whatever it was, weapons you know, for hostages which was illegal. and then and they went back to the early part of reagan's presidency and the embryo of all of that was end. it was in october it was in the october surprise. it really exploded and when bush h.w. bush was up reelection. and what he served from. 1989

-- and i'm confident this is what will happen because it is what we did in enron and in the paul manafort case, send out hundreds of jury questionnaires that are incredibly detailed. both parties get to have input into what those questions are. everyone then renews those and you weed out people who obviously cannot be there simply based on the answers to those questions. and then the remaining pool of jurors are brought in and the federal judge goes over individually specific questions that are problematic to assure herself that each of those jurors can put aside whatever they have heard, whatever preconceived views they have and just base their verdict on what happens in the courtroom and that they can follow the law. it is a very detailed process and what is the foundation of our rule of law. it is inconceivable to me that this is going to be a case that won't be kept in d.c. there is no other venue where you won't have the same issue. this is widely known throughout the country. and as i mentioned, the supreme court of the united states in united states versus gilling has rule od unite

paul manafort. other close allies. just a couple years, ago i stood in the office of former maricopa county sheriff, joe arpaio. in maricopa county, he had the pardon that donald trump gave him for criminal contempt of court. framed in his office. in large part, donald trump has been a shield for so many empowering and the american political system. so, for battle, trump there's nobody here to pardon him when we watched him go into this jail, he faces serious charges that will ultimately go to trial. when you're talking about his allies, they will use this to their political advantage. because that is the only option that they have. they need to galvanize that potent minority, and the republican electorate, to give him a shot of winning that back the white house. as we go around this country, folks open the talk about some award to me. they made it. because they're concerned, and they see the frustrations over what they believe has been a taking of their own democracy. and their defense of donald trump. >> vaughn, in t

they sentenced people like roger stone, paul manafort, they were there to witness this today, and itlly was just a moment to observe how much this court has been wrapped around special counsel investigations of donald trump as well as the aftermath of january 6th. the courthouse is so close to the capitol building, and this court has had hundreds of prosecutions of january 6th rioters, even some sentenced today by judges in this court. so it really was a moment full circle having donald trump there in court as a criminal defendant now to see his name announced, to see the case announced u.s. v. trump. >> thank you very much. and let's get straight to where kaitlan is talking about this row, elliot. this row of judges. and talking about how highly unusual it is. you got the chief judge and you've got judges ruling in other cases. what -- what do you read into that? >> i have never seen that and i have been an attorney 20 plus years. i have also never seen a former president of the united states indicted on four federal crimes, including conspiring to obstruct official proceedings, so

we saw when i was a special counsel on mueller's team, and he famously violated that as did paul manafort for her is that there are now through each trials, so you had donald trump, he's been indicted for crimes before, during and after his presidency, and she is going to figure out when she will be able to slot in her trial. i don't know if that will come up and an arraignment. she will be interested in moving the case along. she'll be very interested in whether the discovery as been turned over. i expect that we will hear prior to thursday from the government, a report about what they have done with respect to discovery. you saw that at the mar-a-lago case, and into the way that the government can try and prompted the judge to try and be focused on a day prior to the general election. >> and you, it's chris hayes, we're in the same room, if you did not know that the. the tv, the magic of, i'm looking into the camera. so, i guess my question is, there is no precedent here for preferred -- i mean, take away precedence, i can't think of a defendant, just a defendant, they have seen this ma

paul manafort. other close allies. just a couple years, ago i stood in the office of former maricopa county sheriff, joe arpaio. in maricopa county, he had the pardon that donald trump gave him for criminal contempt of court. framed in his office. in large part, donald trump has been a shield for so many empowering and the american political system. so, for battle, trump there's nobody here to pardon him when we watched him go into this jail, he faces serious charges that will ultimately go to trial. when you're talking about his allies, they will use this to their political advantage. because that is the only option that they have. they need to galvanize that potent minority, and the republican electorate, to give him a shot of winning that back the white house. as we go around this country, folks open the talk about some civil war to me. they mean it. because they're concerned, and they see the frustrations over what they believe has been a taking of their own democracy. and their defense of donald trump. >> vaughn,

well let's remember a few things, paul manafort was convicted of passing campaign information to the carter page, who was an advisor to trump during the campaign bragged about being the go-between between anyone who wanted and putin and michael flynn and carter page both sat down with putin in russia. also michael flynn was on the phone to the russian ambassador before he even became national security advisor and lied about it. so i wish these people would quit telling -- quit saying it was a russia hoax because the fbi -- if the fbi had not investigated a, it would been a dereliction of their duty. trump's children sat down with russian agents in trump tower so this repeated line that there was nothing there, it was a russian hoax, why did manafort go to prison? host: last call also from michigan, line for republicans, go ahead. caller: i'm calling in reference to the man that called about marijuana in michigan. children in michigan eating those gummy's, and the rate of emergency visits ages three to 17 has gone up 78% this year. what fool ever thought about putting marijuana in can

won’t sit out a day, of course, but he’s the president’s son, that is, accordingly, he can, and manafortine . here is such a corruption they have, they just read what is this cult what are these banners? what if this corrupt money goes to the west in the pockets of european figures of american figures, then this is no longer corruption, but if they are spinning inside, it is not necessary, of course, to stop this, uh, an insult for the true an american, if ukrainian money ends up in your pocket, a ukrainian, that's, in fact, all corruption is not for that american money for that state. yes, what about the situation? here again, today is a tragic day again or not, replenished with e. just they smashed the house to pieces in a residential working village in the petrovsky district, donetsk on asaliyahim street , a four-year-old girl died, and her grandmother, that is, her mother brought her daughter, just grandparents there for a while, to complete and go documents and so on. here the girl died who has never known peace and, uh, the crime of the ukrainian regime continues, well, of course,

remember, this is the courthouse where paul manafort violated that position and went to jail. it is the courthouse where roger stone threatened a federal judge and posted a picture of her with crosshairs next to her leading to severe sanctions and restrictions on his ability to communicate. it is not surprising to me if you just treat him anyone else that you have that much obstruction and you are going to have these kinds of warnings being given. >> the judge, per our reporters at the courthouse, tells trump you've heard the conditions of release. it is important you comply. you may be held pending trial in this case if you violate the conditions. the judge then says the most important condition is that you not commit a crime while you are release and then the judge that one moment later or excuse me, two minutes later it is a crime to try to influence a juror. while that is obviously true and something those of us with only legal experience is watching tv, to have that or have the former president bluntly warned while he is being threatened with jail if he doesn't comply is

finger on the scales of justice when it came to the cases involving trump allies mike flynn and paul manafort certainly of ethical and not standard practice, he uses doj to investigate baseless claims of voter fraud. now, i know there's an argument that some members on the committee have made that it's a good thing because it's more evidence that trump knew they were all baseless. but it doesn't slow trump down. and i wonder if you could just speak to this sort of sliding of our frame of reference. i mean, these are -- these are the people that stayed with trump to the end when bill barr couldn't and wouldn't, telling trump as you just said it was all bullshit. >> yes. exactly. look, rich donoghue, there is no person who we met over the course of our investigation who was more credible than that guy. i mean, he was a trump appointee. he was u.s. attorney in brooklyn. he moved to washington to be the principal deputy attorney general and then becomes the dag at the end after attorney general barr's resignation. he is a loyal trump supporter. everyone, nicolle, every witness in this case is in

they did the paul manafort case in the grand jury activity in the investigation were mike pence providedestimony specific to this investigation. host: is there any word of potential protests at the courthouse today? guest: not that we are aware of. there are barricades going up around the capital. they will be an increased police presence around the courthouse for sure. in many ways, it's ironic that the former president is being arranged at the courthouse just stepped from the capital which figures majorly in the indictment. host: our guest is with the guardian and his piece just published this morning early at the guardian.com. trump will appear in court to it respond to charges of election subversion efforts. we welcome your calls and comments for our guest on today's arraignment of former president donald trump. (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 and for others (202) 748-8002 the text number is (202) 748-8003 and you can hit us up on social media. i read somewhere earlier today. yesterday that something like almost 1000 january 6 suspects have been tried at that courthous

paul manafort went to jail and was pardoned by former president trump. host: ok.ob in north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning, i'm happy to be speaking with you this morning. i have a genuine concern about our country. have we gone beyond --host: are you there? you cut out a little bit, keep going. caller: i have real concerns about the well-being of our nation now that we are a divided people, particular politically. they say if you take a frog and put them in a cold pot of water and you gradually boil it, am i still on? host: you are. if you're listening to yourself and the television, that may be a concern. guest: i will mute it. if you put a frog in the cold pot of water and toilet and the temperature rises, he will not jump out. we are like the frog in the pot. the temperature is rising on us as a nation. we are a house divided against ourselves. as there adversaries watches on the outside, what do they think? will we be able to unite once again as a people? america has a history of having been a united people. if you go to the cemeteries today

mike was one of the founding fathers tv, along angela fathers of tv, along with angela rippon and manafort. and of many chats. and one of the many things about mike was he things i'd say about mike was he was guy to work was a great guy to work alongside because he always had time runners in the time for even the runners in the research the producers research and the producers didn't star. didn't come. the big star. but you know, one of the team you know, he was one of the team and a great, journalist and a great, great journalist and a great, great journalist and chat show host. and a fantastic chat show host. >> john, as well as being >> now, john, as well as being a very highly trained and experienced journalist, what in your , gave parky that your opinion, gave parky that special quality to make people just open up to him and converse as if they'd known him for years? that's very easy, i can tell you, because unlike some of its successors, mike parkinson was genuinely was actually genuinely interested in his guests and he didn't himself to be the didn't want himself to be the star. >>