joining us now is andrew weissmann, a former senior member of robert mueller's team, the author of "whereee you. thank you for joining us tonight. >> nice to be here. >> i know that there are parts -- you have to be careful, your ethical obligations to the justice department as a former prosecutor are real and present and i know you take these very seriously, and i don't want to ask you to talk about anything you are precluded from talking about by the ethical constraints that you are under. with that said, at the time you were detailing manafort's lies to the court in 2019, and we can see so much more of that now with the new unredactions, we have learned since then that he was passing on polling data to the russian intelligence services. you told the court at the time that the polling data was about battleground states and the word trend was all over the data. how should we understand the point that you were making to the court there? what should we take away from that given public information we have had since then? >> wel -- there was a group of people that focused on paul manafort wa

robert mueller and his team of prosecutors laid out over several hundred pages, detailed evidence of all the multiple times they believed president trump committed crimes by obstructing justice while he was in office. when that report was completed, and submitted to the justice department, william barr said instantly that justice department had william barr said instantly that the justice department had carefully reviewed every little bit of that evidence and concluded that nothing the president did seemed like a crime. that's why president trump was never prosecuted for his actions. well now, this federal judge has actually seen what happened behind the scenes. it turns out, their public representations about what was going on inside the justice department while considering this evidence was a lie. it turns out they never considered trump's allege blithe -- bribes. they just decided in her words as a given, from the outset, that trump wouldn't be charged with anything, no matter what. then they created a pseudo-illegal paper trail to cover their tracks on that after the fac -- fact.

on friday, march 22nd, 2019, special counsel robert mueller delivered his report of the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to then attorney general of the united states william p. barr. but the attorney general did not share it with anyone else. instead, before the weekend was over, he sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to summarize the principal conclusions set out in the report, compressing into less than four pages the approximately 200 highly detailed and painstakingly footnoted pages of volume one which discusses russian interference in the election and the almost 200 equally detailed pages of volume two which concerns acts taken by president trump in connection with the investigation. the attorney general's four-page letter says the attorney general did not draw a conclude whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction of justice. it went on to announce attorney general barr's own opinion that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that president trump committed

is outlined in the mueller report, is done began was asked by former president trump to fire robert muellerhat's not really the critical part. it's that when this came to light and the washington post reported on it, trump said i want you, don mcgahn, to lie about my request that you fire robert mueller, and don mcgahn said, i'm not doing that. and he was going to resign. a critical question to ask don mcgahn is if you didn't think he was committing a crime, or are you going to up and resign? you don't do that unless it's quite serious, being the white house counsel. and clearly, there was so much he was going to stomach. i think that would be damaging testimony, but i won't hold my breath. also, for expecting an obstruction indictment of the former president. >> could the house judiciary committee just hand there transcript of this testimony over to the justice department with a recommendation for an investigation of some kind, or prosecution? >> they absolutely could. it's worth remembering the justice department already has that because the mueller investigation consisted of fbi intervie

finally going to testify under oath about donald trump's attempts to fire special prosecutor robert muellerns of justice? our next guest believes donald trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. "the wall street journal" is reporting that the manhattan district attorney has subpoenaed records from a private school where donald trump may have paid $500,000 in constitution for the grandchildren of allen weisselberg. does that mean they could with implicated in the tax evasion scheme for that $500,000? is if donald trump is indicted could he try to hide out in florida under the protection of florida's republican governor who might block donald trump's extradition to stand trial as a defendant in new york city? and will trump imitator, florida congressman matt gaetz have to worst day of his life on monday if joel greenberg pleads guilty to any of the 33 federal charges he currently faces? if joel greenberg pleads guilty and becomes a cooperating witness in the investigation of matt gaetz, then monday is going to be a worse day for matt gaetz than the day he was arrested for drunk driving or th

found last year that when robert mueller turned in his report on the russia investigation to the justice department, attorney general william barr lied to the public about what was in it. the judge's ruling said quote attorney general barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the report causing this court to question whether attorney general's barr's intent was to create a one sided narrative about the mueller report, a narrative that is clearly substantially at odds with the actual report. that was last year. a federal court finding that trump's attorney general william barr told the public a porky pie, told the public an untrue story about what was in the mueller report. well, now, today a second federal judge has just ruled that bill barr and the trump era justice department were also disingenuous with the court. they in effect lied to the court when they told her and they told the public a made up story, a lie, about why former president donald trump was not put on trial, was not charged with obstruction of justice on the basis of the evidence that

it caused tension between him and robert mueller, barr and robert mueller. that was a huge moment for donald trump because it framed the way this was seen. this memo relats to how that took place. the judge is underscoring that they were not candid and up front with the court and that they were not candid and up front with the public. >> did any of this as far as you can tell put new jeopardy on those involved including the former president? >> look. i can't speak to what the level of jeopardy would be. as far as i can tell, so far this is literally about a memo and how the doj interacted with the court. i don't see how we, unless we come up with something, we, meaning the public record, told bill barr to do that. i don't see how this touches on donald trump other than donald trump was obviously pleased with the way bill barr put out the mueller report and he has said so. at the moment, however, it raises for us fresh question about bill barr and his justice department and why they handled it the way they did, and that's not going to go away. >> it makes you

he did not believe that special counsel robert mueller should have been appointed.cutive power than any attorney general before him. you combine all the things together, and he had an incredibly protective posture around the president. then during the election, we saw he was doing everything he could from walls of the justice department to get trump re-elected. without that, you kind of see career prosecutors unfettered to go through an investigation with a leadership that's going to give them the benefit of the doubt and in most cases let them do what they think is correct. >> there's other non-federal criminal exposure, too. there's the manhattan d.a. and then georgia. the law is like anything. it's debatable. that's why there are lawyers like yourself who can argue different sides. i said this before and i will say it again. that phone call, someone who covered politics in chicago when i was younger, that phone call from a chicago alderman to the county clerk about an election, gets that alderman indicted by the northern district of illinois within the week. no q

andrew weizmann, former senior member of robert mueller's team. thank you. >> thanks so much rachel. >> all right, we've got more ahead tonight. stay with us. stay with us ♪ ♪ with cutting-edge tech, world-class interiors, and peerless design... their only competition is each other. the incomparable mercedes-benz suvs. extraordinary runs in the family. lease the glb 250 suv for just $429 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. this is the epson ecotank color printer. no more buying cartridges. big ink tanks. lots of ink. print about... this many pages. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. with relapsing forms of ms... there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. it can all add up. kesimpta is a once-monthly at-home injection... that may help you put these rms challenges in their place. kesimpta was proven superior at reducing the rate of relapses, active lesions, and slowing disability progression vs aubagio. don't take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b, and tell your doctor if you have had it, as

. >>> remember the former special counsel robert mueller?er nearly two years of investigation, he laid out ten different ways that then president donald trump's actions represented obstruction of justice. ten examples of textbook obstruction could be prosecuted once trump left office. before that report could see the light of day, william barr intervened, declaring there's nothing to see here. movie testified developed by the special counsel isn't sufficient to establish the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. >> that's right. despite the overwhelming evidence that trump had obstructed evidence, he was never held accountable thanks to barr. she has order the release of the a secret internal memo created to justify the decision. in her scathing opinion, judge amy berman jackson suggested barr didn't think twice about letting trump off the hook. that it was foor gone conclusion. quote, the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given, she writes. in fact, barr began with that conclusion and then had his staff prepare a l

andrew weissman, former senior member robert mueller's team, former fbi general counsel, andrew, greato have you here. thank you. >> thanks so much, rachel. >>> all right. we have more ahead tonight. stay with us. we have more ahead tonight stay with us (vo) nobody builds 5g like verizon builds 5g. thousands of engineers taking peak performance to a new level. that's why in parts of many major cities where people can use massive capacity we added verizon 5g ultra wideband, the fastest 5g in the world. nice. it isn't just a step forward, it's a leap forward. because the more you do with 5g, the more your network matters. it's us pushing us. it's verizon vs. verizon. and who wins? you. ♪ the light. ♪ it comes from within. it drives you. and it guides you. to shine your brightest. ♪ as you charge ahead. illuminating the way forward. a light maker. recognizing that the impact you make comes from the energy you create. introducing the all-electric lyriq. lighting the way. ♪ age before beauty? why not both? visibly diminish wrinkled skin in... a. a. crepe corrector lotion... only from gold b

he was close to the president when telling the president what he should say to robert mueller or not say to robert mueller as the case was and he was front and center in the president's ear in those waning weeks, ali, when the president was insisting the election was rigged despite all evidence to the contrary. >> carol, good to see you, as always. thank you for your great reporting and book. she's the author of "a very stable genius, donald trump's testing of america" and "the rise and fall of the secret service" that coming out shortly. >>> joining me is a member of several committees including budget and finance. always great to see you. thank you for joining us. i wanted to talk to you about the various efforts underway right now with this administration, some of which are working their way through the senate. let start with the american jobs plan. the democratic name for what is in part on infrastructure bill and the various struggles and imaginations going on to get this passed. >> well, first of all, ali, always great to be with you and i appreciate all of your efforts every d

we should heed what robert mueller told america in 2019. >> in your investigation, did you think that involved in our election, or did you find evidence they will do this again. >> they were doing it as they sat there. they were doing it this year, even if not this month according to the most recent attack. when you see american companies in a matter of days send millions off to anonymous cyber hackers, obviously, it shows the power they have and the risk of this type of conduct occurring again. now, we're going to fit in a break. but up next, we have something very special for you to end the week. beat viewers will appreciate it. that's next. that n'sext. he things, you say ♪ ♪ your purple prose just gives you away ♪ ♪ the things, you say ♪ ♪ you're unbelievable ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's irresist-a-bowls are back. dig in for just $8.99. [ heavy breathing ] allergies with nasal congestion overwhelming you? breathe more freely with powerful claritin-d. claritin-d improves nasal airflow two times more than the leading allergy spray at hour one. [ deep inhale ] claritin-d. get more airflow. this

after robert mueller's investigation. appreciate your time today, hope to see you back this time tomorrow. thanks for joining us, it's a very busy day. ana cabrera picking up the coverage right now. ♪ >>> thanks for joining us, i'm ana cabrera in new york and happening this hour president biden is meeting with members of george floyd's family, one year after his death, it comes as lawmakers missed the president's deadline for police legislation but there are progress as negotiations are still under way. today george floyd's brother is set to urge president biden in person to help get the bill passed and to sign it following a year of unrest and a growing demand for racial equality sparked by floyd's death in minneapolis. happening right now, a celebration of life for the man whose name continues to ring out among calls for change. that is a live look at events under way in minneapolis, we have a reporter there, omar jimenez as well as kaitlan collins live at the white house for us. kaitlan, starting with you, what are you

the decision was made, whether it was made by robert mueller who decided not to prosecute for whatever reason or the decision was made by bill barr because of his own slant on things and his own efforts to spin it and this memo which we will see which was ostensibly supposed to be legal advice really was political and strategic advice that judge jackson says was designed essentially to do what judge walton said he did which was to spin this in trump's favor, and remember, as you pointed out at the top of the show, this really changed the whole messaging about the mueller report. this was three full weeks, maybe even a little bit more before the redacted report came out and it completely misconstrued what mueller said. you played that clip, nicole, was there no collusion and -- collusion is not a legal term and robert mueller went through great pains to say that he did not look into collusion, but by the way, what we are also learning recently in the release of the sanctions on -- or the issuance of the sanctions on russia is that there was collusion. constantine kolevnick gave it to th

had a friend who knew julian assange, and, you know, there's been more public information from robert mueller's working with russian intelligence, that it was probably more like, you know, what one would predict from roger stone's entire career which was he was sort of an opportunist, and he saw an opportunity to sort of promote trump and promote himself at the same time and became part of the process of, you know, building an audience for him, building suspense about these dumps of e-mails hacked by the russians and, you know, essentially designed to undermine clinton's campaign. ♪♪♪ michael: according to the indictment of stone, in july 2016, a senior trump campaign official was directed to contact stone to find out what else wikileaks had on the clinton campaign. stone then asked a contact to go to the ecuadorian embassy to get the "pending wikileaks e-mails. they deal with the clinton foundation, allegedly." roger stone: i actually have communicated with assange. i believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the clinton foundation, but there's no telling what the october surprise m

in many ways it's what robert mueller did. by the book, he brought a feather to a knife fight, not realizing people on the other side were lawless and corrupt. i think the new justice department decided we're going to play by the same rule books, appeal this decision, and i think the problem with that is they didn't have to appeal. even if they disagreed, even if they should worried by protecting prosecutors in future cases, they could have simply said, look, we disagree with this decision, its reasoning, but we're not going to appeal it. this is the people's memo, and release it, not because of technical argument. just simply saying, sometimes transparency requires an extraordinary result. leave it at that. you can fight to protect prosecutors in cases down the road. to me, this decision is rather baffling, unfortunate, undemocratic, and untransparent, and i hope to see this rectified in the days to come. >>> with your help we'll stay on it. i hope so, too. neal katyal, thank you for your time. >>> another vaccine milestone t

christopher steele had firewalls directly to hillary clinton, had lied under oath to congress, robert mueller based all the invigoration on the dossier couldn't remember that at existed. james comey, 250 times under oath to congress that he couldn't remember much about it. only t an idiot science told us would think that there is a connection between a level four virology lab with associations with the chinese military and conducting research a mile or two go away from the supported origins by a bat, maybe it's a pangolin, of the virus. anyone who suggests that they didn't know anything about viral sequencing, yet that's probably a much more likely scenario. dr. fauci, no need to go there, but he told as masks are essential, they are not essential. one mask is okay -- no, two is better. he said to herd immunity in 90%. every time he was called to me he reverted to a platonic noble "i lied because it was for your own good." remember those weird 1200 medical professionals who said, given our expertise we think the science says if you are going to protest for blm to come up you don't have to she

indirectly through firewalls working with hillary clinton, they had lied under oath of congress, robert mueller based all of his information couldn't even remember it existed, 250 times under oath to congress that he couldn't remember much about it and so then we moved on to talking about the wuhan virus but only an idiot told us there is a connection between a level four biology lab with associations with the chinese military and conducting gain of function meet research a mile or two away from the suppose it origins by a bat or a pangolin of the virus and anyone who suggests that didn't know anything about viral sequence and yet that is probably a much more likely scenario. dr. fauci, no need to go there but he is told us masks are essential, not essential, when mask is okay, two is better. herd immunity is 60, 70, 80, 90% and he reverted to the noble platonic act that i lied because it was for your own good. then those weird 1200 medical professionals who said given expertise, the science says if you're going to protest for blm, you don't have to shelter in place, you don't have to shout soc

don mcgahn essentially handed robert mueller the keys to donald trump's efforts to obstruct the russia a long and winding legal road for don mcgahn. in that time you'll remember trump instructed mcgann to refuse to comply with a federal subpoena, an action that result in a lawsuit demanding his testimony. after joe biden withdraws elected, his administration inherited is the issue. two important questions remain. one, what if anything can lawmakers learn from mcgann? and can donald trump still mess things up for congress? let's bring in joyce vance. i remember your testimony around this topic. i wonder if can you speak to both questions. what could we learn we don't already know from don mcgahn, and talk about what is at stake in having millennium share what he knows with congress. >> there's such high value in having don mcgahn, who was the white house counsel, repeat under oath what reporters have reported on in the context of the mueller report, so perhaps it's worth rehearsing again giving the passage of time. the fact is that mcgann's torrie is trump asked him to seek to it that m

robert mueller couldn't -- didn't find sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. he did find some evidence that donald trump tried to cover it up. you get to 2020. russia is trying to interfere again. how? well, russia was trying to shield itself from responsibility for having interfered the first time, spread the misinformation that ukraine was involved. at the same time that donald trump was pressuring the ukrainian government for dirt on joe biden to help him. that's what got him impeached. and rudy giuliani was working with a russian-linked ukrainian member of parliament also to get dirt on joe biden. so this is all part of the same thing. now, is there any probability that there would be a demonstrable criminal conspiracy that you could prove in what rudy giuliani was doing? we don't know the answer to that. he hasn't been charged with anything. but to the extent that that is a possibility, that that's the backdrop here, rudy giuliani, the deeper he gets in trouble, the more potential there is if he knows things that donald trump has done specifically that wo

he was the lead prosecutor for special counsel robert mueller's office and chief of the fraud section at the department of justice. good evening to you. let's talk first about the new york attorney general's announcement her investigation has shifted from a civil one to a criminal one. what would it take for that to happen, andrew? what does that say about the strength of the evidence her office and inmanhattan d.a.'s office have in their possession? >> well, what's interesting is that the new york attorney general has limited criminal authority. in other words, they primarily do civil cases. for them to transfer the case for essentially being partially civil to partially criminal means that they have run into probable one of two things. either a criminal task fraud case as to which the new york attorney general has jurisdiction or the martin act, which is a very broad statute that the new york attorney general has authority to prosecute, which involves securities or real estate fraud. so that's sort of on the new york attorney general's side. and then what you heard also this week th

9/11 commission report came out during or right around the time when you are working for one robert mueller at the fbi. tell the folks watching how useful it was to have it looked into and laid out before, you're giving irresponsibility as a fed?irresponsibility as a fed >> i think the 9/11 commission, brian, did an excellent job, an astonishing job. it was in the perfect report, but it was incredibly important. to what carroll just said, five republicans and democrats, and a staff of a couple dozen people, they did 1200 interviews, better stated the interviewed 1200 people, are you two and a half million documents, took a little bit under two years to complete the report. in fact, they didn't even start until the winter of 2002. i think they were enacted in the public law in november of 2002. sometimes, it was a painful process for those of us at the fbi while the commission was doing its work. they ask hard questions. they found fault, with many of the things that happened at the fbi and at the cia. but it was, fair and it was important. as the commissioners wrote in the preface, and by t

if my math is right, the report came out around or during the time you were working for one robert mueller at the fbi. tell the folks watching how useful it was to have it looked into and laid out before you given your responsibility as a fed. >> look, i think the 9/11 commission, brian, did an excellent job, an astonishing job. it wasn't the perfect report, but it was an incredibly important report. to what carol just said -- five republicans and five democrats were appointed as commissioners. they had a staff of a couple of dozen people. they did 1,200 interviews. really, better stated, they interviewed 1,200 people. reviewed 2.5 million documents. they took a little bit under two years to complete the report. in fact, they didn't even start until the winter of 2002. i think they were enacted into public law in november 2002. and sometimes it was a painful process for us at the fbi while the commission was doing their work. they asked questions and found fault with the fbi and cia. but it was fair and important. as the commissioners wrote in the preface -- by the way, i brought a prop. n

donald trump has eluded robert mueller's investigation to impeachments.eat at the polls and in each one of those cases, he's tried to impugn the process throughout. he says they're politically motivated and then he incites an insurrection to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election. i think he's going to continue to attack tish james and cy vance to obviously sow doubt among his closest supporters but to everyone else in the public there's nothing legitimate about the investigation and it's political. there's nothing to uphold that, but that's what he's going to say. >> you compare donald trump to al capone. they got him for tax stuff, not necessarily violence, but tax stuff. that's what makes allen weisselberg so important, the financial wizard. based on what you know about weisselberg over the years, do you think he will flip? how will he behave here? >> i think there's a far greater chance weisselberg will flip. if it comes to showing loyalty to donald trump or a prison term, you know, i don't think he's going go to prison. we know now he's the

he skated past two impeachments and robert mueller's federal probe of wrongdoing by him and then he walks in an election and f fermented an insurrection. what he'll do is rely on the fact that he believes he has nine lives. he's demonstrated he has nine lives and he will take his case first and foremost to his supporters and he will get people to take to the streets. he will get his allies in the media to disparage the process and in the same way he's tried to undermine the rule of law and democracy, he's also going to go after the judiciary system as being politicized and bias towards people like him. that will be his playbook and he won't walk at all about burning down any norms he needs to bring down to save his skin. >> jim, who advices the former president with legal matters these days? obviously, rudy giuliani i wouldn't imagine is in the picture now? >> no, he's not sending rudy giuliani to four seasons landscaping. he has a high powered group of attorneys working for him. remember, mark was working on tax issues and jay. he has heavy hitters working on his behalf. they will be rea

we know that, for example, because robert mueller told us and misled the public about his report. now two federal judges have said the same thing. that is such an unusual and extreme thing for a federal judge to go on record and say the attorney general, you misled me. i was always taught as a prosecutor all you have is your creditability. you never lie or exaggerate or stretch the truth. to have multiple federal judges say you lierd, that's very rule >> very quickly, what are we going to see? >> merrick garland needs to get out of this litigation. doj has been fighting to protect bill barr's back ever since he did damage at doj. merrick garland needs to take the position, we're going to put it out there. merrick guardland has a decision to make at the heart of the report. that can still be charged. >> we're going to see this memo. >> i think, for sure. >>> other big development overnight having do with rudy giuliani, the deraid, the devices that were obtained there. we're understanding the prosecutors are asking for a special master -- that's a specific term -- to do through this

on how trump appointees at the doj justified no criminal charges against the president after robert mueller'sr time today, hope to see you back this time tomorrow. thanks for joining us, it's a very busy day. ana cabrera picking up the coverage right now. ♪ >>> thanks for joining us, i'm ana cabrera in new york and happening this hour president biden is meeting with members of george floyd's family, one year after his death, it comes as lawmakers missed the president's deadline for police legislation but there are progress as negotiations are still under way. today george floyd's brother is set to urge president biden in person to help get the bill passed and to sign it following a year of unrest and a growing demand for racial equality sparked by floyd's death in minneapolis. happening right now, a celebration of life for the man whose name continues to ring out among calls for change. that is a live loo

the robert mueller investigation into russia interfering in our election in 2016, that investigation when they produced their report, they published copious details of more than ten instances for which there was significant evidence that former president trump might have committed crimes, specifically he might have committed obstruction of justice. it was just a week and a half ago that this federal judge ruled that attorney general william barr, contrary to his public statements, contrary to his statements to the court, she ruled that barr actually never substantively considered the evidence against trump. she ruled from her review of the record that william barr just determined from the outset, ed regardless of the evidence, that trump would not be charged. and in her ruling, she has ordered the justice department to release documents about that really soon, by monday. the justice department under new management, under merrick garland could appeal that. but if they don't, she's ordered them to release that document, that the trump justice department tried to keep secretu for all th

obtained back a few years ago when the russia investigation story was a dominant one before the robert mueller report came out and all of that. we're going back to the first -- the first period of the trump administration. so some of these records were approved toward the end when william barr was the attorney general and some were attorneys general at the time of the trump year. so it is notable for what it tells us about the trump administration and what it tells us about some of the perils of reporting on highly controversial matters like these investigations. alex? >> thank you for that. we'll be talking with a washington post reporter and get the effect on all those reporters and what they think about it in the newsroom. thank you, kel. >>> we'll go to florida where the republican divide appears to be growing deeper. those two there, marjorie taylor-greene and matt gaetz kicking off their trump tour, bashing not only democrats, but some of their own republican colleague, as well, as we go to nbc's leann caldwell joining us from the villages where that all took place. as i say hi to you, l

karma in it, i suppose, that now you have two new york prosecutors who are going to a place that robert muelleridn't or couldn't. and i think for every challenge trump has met, he has not been the subject of a criminal -- well, he's not been proximate to an intense criminal probe. we don't know yet, because the fact pattern, the evidentiary trail isn't completely clear yet, how much this will land in his lap, but clearly, the legal net is tightening around him quite dramatically, and he's never experienced that before. and he has no leverage over this. he has no leverage as president to try to disrupt it in the way he did the mueller probe. he will, i think, try to unleash popular opposition to it the way he did to his impeachment, both impeachments, but he doesn't have any practical way to stick his fingers into the machinery of both of these investigations. other than to complain about them. and they're the most serious investigations from a financial and legal perspective, i think, that he has ever faced. >> so, tim, i asked barbara about a possible paper trail. i asked her, is there a paper

robert mueller charged with trying to meddle with the 2016 elections.hern district of new york is investigating rudy giuliani, he is a subject and a target of that investigation and the key question in the southern district investigation over in manhattan is was rudy acting on behalf of ukrainians. if the eastern district investigation turns up that kind of information, that could be used to hurt rudy in the investigation across the river in manhattan. the southern district. >> what's the chance that ukrainians ever stand trial in the united states. i don't understand what the point of the investigation is. shouldn't this be an intelligence, you know, matter where instead of a prosecution, it's an intelligence operation? >> yeah, there's almost no chance any ukrainian based in ukraine faces arrest and trial. >> there's no extradition treaty. >> exactly. so, yeah, i think there's two purposes here. one is to sort of make the record. mueller brought these charges that he probably knew he would never be able to make arrests on. it's important that we know.

correspondent peter alexander and andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former member of robert mueller's special counsel that investigated russia's interference in the 2016 election. now, lucky us, nbc legal analyst. peter, let's start with you. what do we know. >> "the new york times" is reporting the state's attorney general's office in new york has been criminally investigating allen weisselberg for months over tax issues. the office of letitia james notified the trump administration in a letter in january it opened that criminal investigation related to weisselberg according "the times." more specifically they're examing whether taxes were made on fringe benefits trump gave mr. weisselberg, cars, tens of thousands in private school tuition for one of weisselberg's grandchildren. previously the ag's office was conducting what was only a civil investigation into the organization, which means it could sue the company or seek fines but not criminal charges. for his part the former president tore into prosecutors, including letitia james, just hours after announced it was joining the inve

i'm joined by andrew weissman, he was the lead prosecutor for robert mueller and he was the former chiefttorney general's announcement that her investigation has shifted from a civil one to a criminal one. what would it take for that to happen, andrew? what's that say about what her office and the d.a.'s office now has in their possession? >> what's interesting is that the new york attorney general has limited criminal authority. in other words, they pry maybely do civil cases. for them to transfer the case from essentially being partially civil to partially criminal means that they have run into probably one or two things. either a criminal tax fraud case as to which the new york attorney general has jurisdiction or the martin act, which is a very broad statute that the new york attorney general has authority to prosecute, which involves securities or real estate fraud. that's on the new york attorney general's side. you also heard that the new york attorney general was sending her staff to assist in the manhattan attorney's case. that suggests to me at least there's some there there. y

robert mueller and, of course, other federal prosecutors investigating him. but he was always relatively quiet about what one state prosecutor back home in new york was up to. and now it turns out the manhattan district attorney's office is the one who possibly posed the greatest threat all along. a criminal investigation into the trump organization could now be in its final stage. "the washington post" reporting overnight, manhattan's district attorney has convened a grand jury that's expected to decide whether to indict former president trump, his company or his business associates. that's according to two people familiar with the matter. according to the post, the grand jury is set to sit three days a week for as long as six months. >> certainly the district attorney could decide not to present any charges relating to anyone or the company itself. at the end of the grand jury's term. but it certainly appears as if things are developing and things are progressing in the direction of some finality here. >> reporter: trump echoing a familiar refrain last nigh

deception played by the attorney general, including his statement to the american public that robert mueller left it to the attorney general to decide whether the president had committed a crime. and she says that's simply not the case. the second part of her decision that was pretty upsetting to many of us was that she said that the trump administration lawyers who presented the arguments to her were misleading to her. so, she was obviously, as a federal judge, quite upset that those statements were made to her that she said were essentially belied by the actual submission, which they fought to have her not see, but she insisted on reading. and when she read it, it led to this decision, saying that the memoranda has to be disclosed. >> so you raise two very important points there, which ultimately begs the question, what do you think the justice department now, this current justice department under merrick garland will do, can do, should do? >> so, that's a hard question because, of course, you and i don't know what is in the sealed submission. one part of her decision seems pretty unasaila

as robert mueller testified in 2019. >> could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> you believe that he -- you can charge the your president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? >> yes. >> earlier today and throughout the day you have stated the policy that exceeded president cannot be indicted, correct? >> right. >> and upon questioning this morning, you were asked, could a president be indicted after their service. correct? >> yes. >> and your answer was they could. >> yes. >> shannon jacobs covers the courts law enforcement and criminal justice for that washington post. she's the coauthor of that bombshell report in the washington post and she joins me now. shannon, thank you for coming on short notice. and congrats on this very big scoop. maybe you can walk us through a little bit of just what's paneling a special grand jury means. what happens now? >> so the district attorney's office has the ability to put together a panel of two dozen people who will sit and listen for months and months and months, often about one

he is answering questions on russian interference and conducted by special counsel by robert mueller and allegations of obstruction of justice. that interview will be transcribed. let's go right to msnbc's amanda golden on capitol hill. how are democrats reacting to the riot commission being blocked. >> democrats are not remaining silent, that's for sure. they are not planning to talk about this commission and further investigation into january 6th, we've already heard from senate majority leader chuck schumer who has it to bring to the vote against the senate floor and it will not get the ten senators needed to break the 60-vote filibuster threshold. we only saw in the vote that happened just yesterday, the six republican senators that allowed democrats to break party in order to move the commission forward. those six senator, we can put up a full screen so you can see include mitt romney, ben sasse, senators bill cassidy, susan collins and lisa murkowski of alaska, but also i want to note that republican senator of pennsylvania, pat toomey was one senator who did say he would have

department memo that barr claims helped guide his decision in declaring that the special counsel, robert mueller, and his investigation did not support a charge of obstruction. that is not what the mueller investigation concluded. joining me now is democratic congressman jim himes of connecticut, a member of the intelligence and financial services committee. good to see you. thank you for being with us. i don't know where to start, there's so much stuff here. i guess part of it is just that the justice department, we are seeing the degree to which the justice department was a corrupt arm of the -- of donald trump really, not even the trump administration. >> yeah, well, that's right, ali. this is not new news. it is not in any way surprising. americans of any political stripe should be frightened by what we're reading today, that the attorney general approved actually the requisitioning of phone records from reporters. look, regardless of where you are in the political spectrum, it is illegal and not a good idea to leak classified information, but the protection of the journalists who get those

department memo, that barr claims helped guide his decision in declaring that special counsel's robert mueller'support a charge of obstruction which is not what mueller's report concluded. join cans now, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and the msnbc legal analyst joyce vance. good morning. thanks for getting up early with us. we appreciate it. i want to ask you about this story. what do you make of this fact, that the kind of records were these, and just how rare is it for a justice department to ask for this kind of information, and what does it say about bill barr? >> it's a fascinating situation, because there's a legitimate vote for the d.o.j. to obtain these kinds of records but there is a lot of red flags in this situation that mean we need to dig deeper. d.o.j. guidelines are very stringent regarding obtaining reporters' records an they require the attorney general's personal signoff. the records have to be essential to an ongoing investigation. and there has to be no other way to obtain the information. so as you say, it's exceedingly rare. what's notable here i

we thought robert mueller might get donald trump for some ties to russia if he looked at the businesses. we now know that thanks -- he never looked at the connections. that's the front end of the outside. trump saying that he would view it as a red line if anyone looked into his business conduct or his businesses saying this is about russia. my businesses are over here. along the lines of his almost an ally calls it reptilian instincts for prez ration. he knows it is not pretty under the hood. frank? >> yeah. look. i think trump has misjudged his expose your hire. there's hue brings and bad gambling luck. with folks he believed that he -- he could control them. that they were loyal enough to him -- excuse me, disloyal enough and didn't trust them and needed the pardons. i think he misjudged weisselberg and others. i think he thought he was teflon. emboldened by mueller not going after finances and i think police played this. there's two takeaways from the very brief announcement from the new york state attorney general yesterday. number one, what does it mean when a civil case at the a.

in the end robert mueller removed them after he found they had an anti-trump sentiment.porting is extraordinary. anyway who hasn't read it should go read it at "the new york times." my first question, is it legal to run a sting operation against a sitting national security adviser? >> i think it depends on where you go with that operation. a couple things to know. one, d.c. is a one-party concept state. so what that means is if somebody is recording, as long as one person consents to that, and in this case call them hired escorts out there trying to trap these folks as long as they're willing to be recorded, that's legal in d.c. you don't need both parties to agree to be recorded. another issue that comes into play, certainly when it relates to general mcmaster, who was the national security adviser, frequently their senior figures and their schedule when you look on the calendar, start looking in the future, is sensitive and can be extremely classified. there are foreign intelligence threats who very much want to know what people like the national security adviser, dire

according to the report issued by the special counsel, robert mueller, president trump vocally took issue with don mcgahn taking notes and asked "what about these notes, why don't you take notes, lawyers don't take notes, i never had a lawyer who took notes." mr. smith, in your opinion, is it ever appropriate for a president to attempt to destroy records of meetings with foreign leaders? mr. smith: well, i think in terms of the presidential records act, congressmen, the president has certain responsibilities to preserve records. rep. johnson: my question is, is it ever appropriate for the president to destroy records of meetings with foreign leaders? mr. smith: again, the president has certain responsibilities to maintain certain records in the course of conducting the business of the united states. rep. johnson: mr. brookwood, is it ever appropriate? >> i think the answer to this question is to ensure transparency and accountability we want to strive to keep all records that will help the public know what is going on, but at the same time there are responsibilities and powers a president

according to the report issued by special counsel robert mueller, president trump took issue with don mcgahn taking notes and asked, what about these notes? don't take notes, i've never had a lawyer that took notes, end quote. mr. smith, in your opinion is it ever appropriate for a president to attempt to destroy records of meetings with foreign leaders, particularly those with demonstrated records of adversary to the united states of america? >> i think in terms of presidential acts, the president have responsibility for records-- >> my question is is it ever appropriate for the president to destroy records of meetings with foreign leaders? >> well, again, congressman, the president has certain responsibility under the presidential records act to maintain certain records in the course of conducting the business of the united states. and-- >> let me ask mr. brookwood the question. is it appropriate for a president to destroy records of meetings with foreign leaders? >> i think the answer to this question is to assure transparency and accountability we want to strive to keep all record