Kate Bolduan gives a fresh take on today's top stories.
Kate Bolduan gives a fresh take on today's top stories.
Kate Bolduan gives a fresh take on today's top stories.
three of the names included the word senate, which meant -- which appears to mean that they were trying to go after certain senators, certain senate offices. it's not clear because microsoft did intervene in what looks like an early stage which senators they might have gone after. we do know last month, we heard that senator mccaskill of missouri, one of the most vulnerable democrats, was targeted also by russian military intelligence. we have not heard from the white house yet today. we have heard from the kremlin. of course, you can imagine they did come out denying any knowledge of this hacking group, of the hackers many it's . it says, from the u.s. we hear there was not any meddling in the elections. whom exactly they are talking about, what is the proof and on what grounds are they reaching such conclusions? think about that. they are saying from the u.s. we hear that there was not meddling in the elections. every level of the u.s. government, intelligence and
Kate Bolduan gives a fresh take on today's top stories.
elections, but focused on perhaps critical viewpoints of vladimir putin who are up for election or who will also be engaging in u.s. elections. >> they are focused on what is best, obviously for vladimir putin. national security adviser john bolton suggested a couple of days ago that russia isn't the only threat here. talk a listen. >> i can say definitely it's a sufficient national security concern about chinese meddling, iranian and north korean meddling that we are taking steps to try and prevent it. it's all four of those countries really. >> all four of those countries. are they on the same par, the other three, with russia? >> what we can say is that russia is the most aggressive actor in trying to interfere in the united states' political discourse. we would expect other nation states to mount influence operations. it's abundantly clear that russia is the most aggressive
unsettled. he didn't know everything that happened when white house counsel don mcgahn, everything he said to special counsel robert mueller about the russia investigation. trump tweeting, he allowed mcgahn to testify and didn't seem concerned. those same sources tell cnn the president did not know the conversations lasted 30 hours. nor that his legal team did not fully debrief mcgahn afterwards. ryan nobles is at the white house. how is this playing in terms of tension within the white house and don mcgahn? >> it can't be easy. keep in mind that don mcgahn serves as white house counsel. he is here at work on a regular basis, still has to deal with the president as well. i think the interesting thread in all of this is that mcgahn seems trying to make sure everyone understands that he views the role of the white house counsel as being someone who protects the presidency and is the legal voice for the presidency as the office, not for donald trump the person.
that's where the divide seems to be right now between the president, his legal team and don mcgahn. what "the new york times" article clearly states is that when don mcgahn was told by the president's private lawyers he should go and take part in these interviews and they were not going to be holding up attorney/client privilege, that mcgahn became concerned that perhaps he was being set up, that this was something that could be used to make him the fall guy if the special counsel determined there was obstruction of justice. the president and his legal team have gone out of their way to say this was all part of their plan, they were trying to be as transparent as possible. what we're finding after this "new york times" report came out is that they did not know the full breadth of what don mcgahn talked to with the special counsel. there are few people that know exactly what's going on here in the white house over the past year and a half than don mcgahn. that appears to be what has the president and his legal team concerned. >> ryan nobles with the latest. thank you. just ahead, can the president actually take over the
mueller investigation? in a new interview, president trump says, yeah. but is that really the case? plus the president takes aim at another former intel official who dared to criticize him, phil mudd. we will look at what sparked the new threat next. booking a flight at the last minute doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline. when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual,
you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782. liberty mutual insurance. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
there has been another note from the jury. this is the third note that we have seen throughout these deliberations. this is day four of deliberations. we understand now that the defense team, the prosecution and the jury, they are all in judge ellis's courtroom. at this point, we will find out a little bit more what this note says. the previous notes we have seen, most of them have related to when jurors want to adjourn for the day. given this is about 11:15 in the morning, they have only been at it for less than two hours, that seems quite improbable. it's likely that this note may seek some further instruction from the judge. as the defense team was walking in, kevin downing was asked, do you think this is a verdict? kevin downing said, no, this is just a note. their understanding is that this is likely just some -- jury just seeking clarification from the judge. remember, erica, we saw one such note on the first day of deliberations.
the jury in that instance asked four questions. they asked for some specifics about the tax filings, the foreign bank accounts. they also asked the judge, you can clarify for us what reasonable doubt means. that was the one question that this judge answered. he basically said, reasonable doubt. the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable daughter. it's more than just possible doubt. it's not beyond all reasonable doubt here. wondering what exactly this juror -- the jury is asking the judge in this case. we're going to see this play out. i will give you more information as soon as we know. >> we know you will let us know as soon as you have that. appreciate it. thank you. president trump is raising eyebrows. in a new interview with lawyers he says he is leery of sitting down for questions in the russia investigation because the special counsel could be setting a perjury trap. he says he is keeping his distance for now. i decided to stay out, he says. i don't have to stay out, as you know. i could go in and i could do
whatever. i could run it if i want. let's bring in one of the reporters who took part in yesterday's interview with president trump, jeff mason, white house correspondent for reuters. being in that room -- did the president really mean, i could replace robert mueller with myself? >> well, all i can say is what he said. that is what he said. the context of that, the in between part that was question is he said that i have decided to stay out. i wouldn't have to, but i have decided that it's better for me to stay out. he made clear it was an option and the fact that part of the option at least in terms of what he said yesterday was to run the thing is understandably getting a lot of attention. he said -- the overall context of that comment was, he is keeping himself at arm's length despite feeling like he has another option not to do that. >> in terms of robert mueller, he brought up mueller and security clearances. what did he say on that front?
>> we asked him about that. just last week, on friday when he was boarding marine 1, he spoke to reporters and in the same breath talking about the next person, mr. ohr at the justice he was considering taking security clearance away from, he started talking about mueller having conflict of interest. i asked him, are you considering taking mr. mueller's security clearance away? he paused for a second and then said, i haven't given a lot of thought to that. when we followed up later, he said, no comment. i don't know. if it's something he has considered or not, he certainly is very critical of the mueller investigation. he repeated again in our interview he viewed it as a witch hunt and talked about in that same context the possibility of doing an interview with mueller's team, that being a potential perjury trap like his lawyer rudy giuliani has said.
>> they are sending that message out. he also mentioned in terms of the mueller investigation -- we know about the continued threat we are facing. we have findings from microsoft this morning. the president continuing to ignore in this interview -- he was saying if it was russia and he was concerned the investigation is actually playing into russia's hands. doesn't seem to be concerned his continued denial could be playing into russia's hands. >> no, indeed. he brought that up on his own. we didn't ask him again, are you convinced russia was responsible for the 2016 election. that's something he has weighed in on. corrected himself on during and after the helsinki press conference. yesterday, we were talking about what he felt he had achieved in his relationship with president putin. and about that mueller investigation. he said, look, i think things are going very well for my aminute straami administration. the economy is going well. the one place it's not going well is the mueller investigation and it's playing into putin's hands.
included in that answer was another dig at the possibility of russia not having been responsible for meddling in the 2016 election despite the evidence and conclusion by his own intelligence agencies. >> appreciate you joining us today. thank you. >> my pleasure. with us now, jack quinn, white house counsel in the clinton administration and cnn political analyst and national political reporter, eliana johnson. picking up where we left off in terms of the president's mindset on russia, not surprising what he told jeff there. we heard this from the president before. as everything else is playing out around him, he was noting -- jeff was noting the president brought this up on his own. clearly, it must be top of mind. and yet, we're seeing all the other things are swirling. we have omarosa last week. we have mcgahn this week. cnn reporting the president is feeling unsettled by everything. how much is all of this starting to weigh on the west wing itself and what's actually getting
done? >> you know, i think we're in the dog days of summer. we have seen the president sort of filling the void in the west wing by tweeting out attacks on robert mueller on twitter. clearly, all of this stuff is top of mind for him. the mueller probe, which he has been told is coming to a close, paul manafort's trial which we may be getting a jury verdict on any day. the upcoming midterm elections which will be its own verdict on the first two years of the trump presidency. i think the president knows that he is going to be getting the voters -- the voters will vote on his first two years in office. he is feeling the heat, both from the mueller probe and from voters going to the ballot box. >> in terms of feeling the heat, we don't hear much from robert mueller. not a lot of leaks. the president has upped his attacks, jack, on robert mueller. not on mcgahn but in the wake of
what we learned about don mcgahn, upping his attacks on robert mueller and actually saying, i could run the thing. how should we read that? how do you think robert mueller reads that? >> i'm sure he is as baffled as many of us are. he can't run this thing. to do so would require getting rid of robert mueller and the team under him. that would create a constitutional crisis. hopefully, he was being hyperbolic and once again exhibiting the egoism that he brings to the job and feeling that he can run this as well as anything, because he is the supreme commander. >> he also brought up, jack, this idea of a perjury trap, which he and rudy giuliani have floated multiple times, which a number of attorneys i have spoken with, said, that's a term they are putting out. you don't set a trap for someone
to come in and lie. does the president have a point when you look at it that a couple of people can be in the same conversation and they can both walk away with different interpretations of how it happened? >> that's different. that's not a perjury trap. in a prosecution, you are trying to get to the truth. a perjury trap is a term of art which refers to a situation in which a prosecutor lures an otherwise innocent target into the grand jury, for example, and -- for the sole purpose of getting that person to commit perjury. knowing the person will deny something, for example, that the prosecutor already knows. a perjury trap is only a trap in a circumstance in which, number one, the prosecutor is acting
with ill motive and number two, when the target is -- you know for sure that that person is going to lie. in normal circumstances, a perjury trap doesn't exist when the witness will tell the truth. the solution to any perjury trap, of course, is simply telling the truth as you know it. >> you make that sound so easy, jack. we have to leave it there. appreciate you joining us. we are getting more activity from outside the courthouse. we are waiting on a verdict in paul manafort's trial there. the jury sent a note. jessica schneider is live with more. what are you hearing? >> reporter: it appears that this is not a verdict. we are hearing from the courtroom that the jury has, in fact, submitted yet another note. again, we have seen a note from this jury before. it was on thursday where they asked those four questions. we're waiting to get the details of exactly what question or
questions the jury has now submitted to the judge. we understand that the defense team, prosecutors, they are in the courtroom. how this unfolds, the jury will be brought into the courtroom. the judge will -- the clerk probably will read the question from the jury and then the judge would determine how exactly to answer this. what's interesting is, last week on thursday, the jury asked four questions and the judge actually only answered the one pertaining to reasonable doubt. as to the other ones, he didn't provide any specific instruction. he said, just rely on your recollections, your best memory of what happened during trial. we will wait to see what the question is from the jury. it is important to remember here, we're all counting the minutes and hours and days of the deliberations. but these are 18 complicated counts that this jury has to come to a unanimous verdict on each and every count, whether that's for conviction or acquittal. we seem to be quite antsy, but
it's possible this jury is just really being painstaking about this and we will see what this note entails to see maybe what charges they might be up to, what might really be a sticking point for them and then we will go from there. we will keep you posted as this jury has, in fact, submitted a note. we're waiting to find out exactly what this question is for the judge. the question or questions and how they will be answered in court. >> jessica with the latest for us. thank you. just ahead, a new threat from the president sparking new questions about who will be allowed to keep their security clearance. trump warning fill mudd, a former cia and fbi official. why the warning? stay with us. labor day event! ...where you can shop with confidence and convenience plus get these 4 benefits from kenmore at sears. up to fifty percent off appliances with your sears card. like this washer and dryer for $539.99 each. and this refrigerator for $899.99. hurry in to sears today. my dbut now, i take used tometamucil every day.sh
it traps and removes the waste that weighs me down, so i feel lighter. try metamucil, and begin to feel what lighter feels like. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? because hotels.com lets me do me. who wants to floss me? hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. you may be learning about, medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything
...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide.
mom: okay we need to get all your school supplies today. school... grade... done. done. hit the snooze button and get low prices on school supplies all summer long. like these for only $2 or less at office depot officemax. like these for only $2 or less i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable.
now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. totally unglued. president trump continuing to taught his critics. his latest target, phil mudd. the president reacting to this exchange from friday's ac 360. >> when i am requested to sit on an advisory, let me ask you one question. how much do you think i'm paid to do that at the request of the u.s. government? give me one answer. you got ten seconds. how much? >> i will ask you a question. how much are you paid for your -- >> answer the question.
>> your contracting gig for -- >> i have no contract with the u.s. government that pays money. zero. >> in a tweet the president said mudd was unglued and weird and questioned his mental condition. the president has seen controversy after yanking the security clearance for john brennan last week. let's break it down with chris alizza. he tweeted about clapper maying maybe clapper is being nice to me in his criticism of john brennan so he doesn't lose his security clearance. it feels like it is becoming a reality show of what can i do to keep my security clearance or take it away. >> becoming a reality show. the only thing i disagree is i think it's been a reality show for a while. this is the latest twist. we know donald trump likes the idea of revoking security clearances in the same way he likes the idea of presidential pardons because he can just do it.
there is a sort of policy in place by which typically security clearance are considered to be revoked. a wrote a piece last week. there are 13 ways and reasons by which they are typically revoked, mental stability is one, alcohol or drug abuse or suspected drug abuse. those are the usual reasons. disagreeing politically -- this is in regards to john brennan -- is not one. not being friendly enough to the administration as kellyanne conway said john brennan wasn't is not one. i do think when you are sort of dangling it in front of people -- that's not what the revocation process is supposed to look like. >> the president also dangled the status of robert mueller's own clearance in addition to there was an article talking about that revoking clearances is something that has been talked about 17 months ago.
the president pushing back on that reporting. it's interesting to see how much this is now since john brennan, this is a part of what we talk about every day. >> well, look, note this. it's consistent with what we know about donald trump. he does believe that there's a deep state conspiracy out to get him, that didn't want him to win in the first place and that is working to actively undermine him. whether that's bob mueller, james comey, at times rod rosenstein, andrew mccabe, bruce ohr who he mentions regularly. he believes that. therefore, the security clearance question, whether it's john brennan or michael hayden or clapper, whoever you want, that's all of a piece with this logic, that, well, of course, these people are out to get me so i will show them. again, even if you support president trump, what you should consider is, would you be okay
with whoever -- let's say a democrat gets elected president in 2020 or 2024. would you be okay with that person revoking, let's say, gina haskell's security credentials because she's an yououtspoken critic? my guess is that's no. but it should be no. >> you make it seem so simple, chris. thank you my friend. >> thank you. we are continuing to follow breaking news in the paul manafort trial. learning more, hopefully, about this note the jury has submitted. jessica schneider is live with the latest. >> reporter: a little bit of this mystery now unveiled. the jury did submit a note to the judge. we have gotten word as to what the jury wants to know. specifically, they want to know from the judge if they can't reach a conclusion on just one count, what does that do for the other counts?
remember, there are 18 counts that paul manafort is facing here. this jury seems to be asking, what if we can't come to a decision or even a unanimous decision on one of those 18 counts? the jury right now along with the defense team and the prosecution, they are in this courtroom. the judge will be deciding how exactly he is going to answer this question. they have to come to a unanimous verdict on each and every count. it does remain to be seen if, perhaps, they can't reach a conclusion on one of the 18 counts, perhaps there might be a hung jury on one of those counts. that's up to the judge to determine how to instruct them moving on. it also does sort of lead to speculation that perhaps the jury has pretty much wrapped this up on 17 of the 18 counts. this is all speculation based on that question. this jury asking the judge, what do we do if we can't figure out
one of the counts? what does it do for the other 17 counts? erica, perhaps a lot of speculation here. we're going to learn more as this judge definitively instructs this jury as to how to proceed. they have also asked for a new verdict sheet. presumably, they have been marking down the verdicts as to each count as they have been going. now they want a new sheet to maybe clean things up or to redo it. a little uncertainty with this question. it seems to imply maybe they are close to a final verdict and are having trouble on one count. perhaps we will know more as to the clarification the judge will give and what this means for the deliberations here when we hear from the judge himself. we are standing by in the courtroom. we will get back to you as to exactly what the judge says here. again, it does give that impression that perhaps this jury is close here. erica? >> it does. jessica, we will wait for the update once we hear more from the judge inside the courtroom. thank you. want to bring in cnn legal
analyst paul callan. i saw you shaking your head as jessica was saying if -- if they are asking about one count, perhaps it could mean that the other 17 there's not an issue with. if it's just one count out of 18 where they can't come to a unanimous decision, based on your experience, what could that mean to this trial as a whole? does this end up being a hung jury on one count? >> it wouldn't be a hung jury on one count. the judge can call them in and just say, all right, we will take a verdict with what you have now. the judge could take a verdict on the 17 counts that they have made a decision on and send them back out only on the one that they are hung on. what that does is it would preserve the jury verdict on the 17 counts. sometimes you are afraid they will go back in and they will start rearguing the counts where they say they have reached a decision. that would preserve the 17 and then just have them try to decide the last one. what this means is a very interesting question.
my view of it is -- it's always dangerous to speculate about this stuff. but if they have reached a decision on 17 counts, if you find somebody innocent on 17 counts, i don't know if you would be fooling around about the last count. i think you would probably find him innocent on that as well. >> you are saying, in your gut -- >> it feels like more probably than not, they may be looking at guilt on 17 counts and then they are having a problem with the evidence on the 18th count. as i say, this is speculation. >> i want to bring in evan perez, our justice reporter outside the courthouse. what more are you learning? >> reporter: we were inside the courtroom. the judge read the note to the -- both sides, to the defense and prosecution. he prepared them for what he wants do next. what he wants to do next is to give them instruction to go back and see if they can come to a decision, come to consensus on
that one count that appears one count is what they are not able to reach a decision on. then he says he also is prepared to tell the jury that if they have only a partial verdict that he is prepared to accept that. this is something that he gave the prosecution and the defense some notice on. he wants to hear from them as to what their view is on his instructions. that is the -- he has given them a few minutes to go over the language that he is going to use. essentially, he will bring back the jury. he will give them some instruction to go back and see if he had can work out a consensus on that one count that they appear to be stuck on. and then if they still cannot reach one -- reach a final verdict, then he will accept a partial verdict. he has said that to the courtroom. we are waiting in the next few
minutes, the nudge wijudge will back the jury and we will see what next steps he will provide to the jury. >> we will be waiting for that. we are continuing to talk more of this. as we look at this, if it's just this one count as we heard from evan and the judge is saying, if you can't -- i'm sending you back in, if you can't come to a consensus on that, i'm going to accept what you found, on the other 17 counts, i mean, how quickly do we think we could learn what that decision is? >> we can learn pretty quickly here. we are learning the judge is basically having discussions with the two sides, with the prosecutors and the defense team, in terms of what kind of instruction he is going to give to the jury. it seems he is going to tell them to go ahead, go back in and continue to deliberate, to continue to work through this so they can come to a unanimous decision. the judge, according to our folks that are inside the courtroom, is saying this is very typical that this happens. keep in mind, you have 18 counts
here. pretty complicated legal case. the law here is complicated. it's not that easy. it's not uncommon for jurors to ask these kinds of questions. really what's going on now, while the court is in recess, is the two sides are discussing with the judge what the instruction to the jury will be. it's likely he will just send them back in to go ahead and deliberate. what happens if they come back and they say, we have tried and we still can't come to a conclusion, a decision on this one count? perhaps the judge will then discuss with the attorneys and they may all agree, let's take a partial verdict. the point here -- i think this is what's important here -- is that we have progress. it seems the jurors have worked through a lot of this. it seems they have at least come to some conclusions, some decisions. now perhaps they are hung up on this one issue, this one count. maybe we will get more news on that after the judge gives them their instruction and they go back and have lunch and continue to discuss and we will see where things progress from there.
>> paul call as the judge is di this with attorneys for both sides, what are the attorneys saying in that discussion? what are the cases they are making as to how the judge should proceed and what should be said? >> what they are discussing is something lawyers call an allen charge. it's given when a jury is deadlocked and you want to send them back out and you want to get them to try to get back to work and milwaukake a decision. they call it sometimes the dynamite charge. there's not so much dynamite in it in my opinion. what it says essentially is, we want you to go back out and conscientiously examine your own views but compare those to the views of other jurors, be respectful of each other, try to reach a decision. if you don't reach a decision, another juror my may have to do. that's if you had no agreement. here you have 17 counts. i think what you are going to see is a modified allen charge. you will see a gentler approach
from the judge saying, you know, thank you for the work you have done so far. you have done a great job at reaching a conclusion. why don't you go back out and get back to work on that last count and see if you can reach a conclusion. i think it's going to be a mild instruction to them to just keep on working to resolve it. if you can't, come back, because the judge is going to take a partial verdict. he is not going to have a problem doing that. >> we will continue following this breaking news. we take a quick break. when we are back, more from the courthouse where the jury is asking what happens if we cannot come to a unanimous decision on one of the 18 counts. for a single dad, and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.
we are following breaking news outside -- live outside the courthouse where we are waiting on a verdict from the jury, day four of deliberations. they have sent a note to the judge. the fourth question they have asked. jessica schneider is live outside the courthouse with the latest on the question and what more we can glean from it. jessica? >> reporter: about an hour and a half into the jury deliberations today, that's right, the jury sent a note. they asked the judge, what do we do if we can't come to a unanimous decision on one of those 18 counts, how would that inability to determine that one count affect the other 17? that is the question up to this discretion of the judge. what's happening right now in
court is that there's a five-minute recess. the judge is coming up with a way to explain to the jury he wants them to go back into the jury room and try yet again to come up with a unanimous decision on this one count that seems to be the one remaining count that they are having trouble with. so the judge needs both sides, the defense and prosecution, to agree on this language that he will instruct the jury with before sending them back into the room. the judge has also said that he is prepared to accept a partial verdict in this case, but he does want to have the jury go back for another try at this. so that's what's going to unfold right now. you know, the judge did say this isn't completely unusual, that these types of things happen. tw there are 18 counts pending here. sometimes jurors ask, what do we do if we can't come to a decision on all of the counts that we're considering here? so really, this happening fairly quickly in day four of deliberations here. we saw that note on thursday where they asked the four
questions. since then, there hasn't been any note of substantial questioning from this jury. so this is really the first time since thursday we've seen the jurors asking questions, showing that perhaps they have made substantial progress here but can't determine what to do about this one remaining count. so we're going to see in a little bit just exactly how the judge instructs this jury and presumably that jury will go back and try again on this one count. we'll see from there. it could be a while, or we might see something, some more movement today. >> jessica schneider, live outside the courthouse. also with us is shimon prokupecz. jessica mentioned the possibility of a partial verdict. what are the judge's options at this point? >> that's certainly an option. he'd have to consult with the attorneys. it's more on really the defense attorney's side, manafort's attorneys, and what they want to do here. they can go ahead and tell the judge, okay, let's take a partial verdict here. obviously prosecutors would have some say. really, the person who has all the say here is the defense
team. obviously the judge. so he could. it's likely that he's going to send them back in. in fact, that's what we believe. at least that's the indication he gave to everyone in court, that he had planned to send them back in to try and figure out this one count. we don't know which count it is. that's the issue here. is it the last count? is it the first count? of course, these kind of counts all work together, so we don't really have any understanding of what count this is. the judge seemed to think he knew what they were talking about, but he didn't want to go there. he didn't want to further prod, ask questions of the jury. when you're in such a sensitive situation like deliberations, you don't want to sway them in any way. so it's clear the judge is trying to stay out of the deliberations and probably just wants to keep it very broad and just say to them, go back in, keep working, have your lunch, and let's see what happens after that. it's likely that's what's going to happen here, unless the defense team decides or argues perhaps they'll take a partial verdict here.
>> we are all waiting with baited breath here as we wait to see what happens. shimon, thank you. also want to bring in cnn legal analyst paul callen. shimon is saying unless the defense will take a partial verdict, what to you think the chances are of that? >> i don't really -- i don't know that it will be entirely up to them because if this jury comes back and says, we just can't reach a verdict on one count, traditionally the court would declare a hung jury on that count and then take the verdict on the other counts. so the defense may try to delay that and say, judge, let them go back out and continue deliberating, especially if they think the counts are not guilty counts on the first 17. >> although, it's interesting, as you said to me just before the break, that this says to you there's probably a better chance that it would be guilty on those other 17 counts because if you're finding someone not guilty on 17 counts, it's a little easier to look at that
last charge and say, well, you know, as we look at this again. >> yeah, the last -- they might say -- and it's a momentum thing, all right. you're going through all of these complicated charges. on every one you say he's innocent. there's sort of a momentum that builds up. then are you going to ding him just on the one last count? because, you know, maybe it's a closer call. no, i don't think so. i think most juries probably once they're in that innocent sort of role, they're going to just check off innocent all the way down. that's why i think this feels like guilty on the other counts. >> it is so complicated. this is something you and i were talking about earlier today. in terms of how complicated each one of these charges are, how much evidence there is. what, 372 different pieces of evidence. at one point, the jury said, can you help us, remind us what goes with what. exhibits 1 through 20 go with charge one. and the judge wouldn't do that. >> no, he wouldn't. you know, this is such a complex case, and it moved so quickly because judge ellis wouldn't put
up with anything delay. he pushed the case on. we have ten days of testimony, 27 witnesses, over 370 exhibits. and we have counts involving income tax evasion, bank fraud, involving offshore banks, implications with ukraine and other countries. we have an enormously complex fact pattern here. so i can see how this jury would have struggled with this complex case. and by the way, these tax cases and money laundering cases and bank fraud cases, they're all very, very complicated cases. very, very hard on juries to reach decisions. >> in terms of how difficult it is to sort of get all of those ducks in a row, because these are such complicated charges, are you surprised that at this point they are saying it's just one charge that we can't agree on? >> yeah, i am surprised. i mean, the fact they've agreed on 17 charges is remarkable in a
complex case. also, remember how the prosecutors thought it out in this case. this is what they frequently do, federal prosecutors. first of all, they get convictions in 90% of the cases they try. so they're used to winning. they lined up the ostrich coat and other things that made manafort look bad, like he was spending too much money. it looks like it could be a fast verdict if they were just looking at the ostrich coach. >> we'll all be waiting to see. paul, appreciate it. thank you. stay with us. we'll have the very latest on "inside politics" with john king. stay with us on cnn. you always pay your insurance on time. tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today.
liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly.
News, analysis and interviews with politicians and observers.
back in the jury room. so how this all unfolded, just after 11:00 a.m., the jury did send a note to the court asking the judge, judge, what do we do if we can't come to a unanimous decision on one of the 18 counts. that implies that perhaps they have reached a decision unanimously on the other 17 counts, but they haven't said that definitively. what the judge had to do was he had to come up with instructions to give the jury as it pertained to them going back and deliberating yet again. that just happened. in just the past few minutes, the judge instructed the jury, go back into the jury room and continue to work on that one final count. try to continue to work, to come to some unanimous verdict on that one remaining count. outside of the presence of the jury, the judge indicated that he might be prepared to accept a partial verdict if they weren't able to come to a conclusion on that one remaining count that they seem to have indicated.
but the judge, however, did not specifically instruct the jury that he'd be willing to accept that partial verdict. that's important because he doesn't want the jury going back into the jury deliberation room saying, okay, well, why try that hard because this judge would, in fact, perhaps accept that partial verdict. this judge wants the jury to know that he is anticipating, hoping for a full verdict here. so again, just a few minutes ago, the jury going back into the deliberation room with the instructions from the judge, keep going at it, see if you can, in fact, reach a decision on this one count that's giving you trouble. and john, we don't know what that count is, but these are 18 complicated counts that include tax fraud, bank fraud, as well as issues around foreign bank accounts. so they've been working on this pretty painstakingly. it's really the first we've heard a substantial question from the jury since thursday. so we'll see as the time continues to tick forward what this jury will do. john? >> and jess, have we heard anything specific beyond their curiosity and i'm sure their
is known as a sawyer charge. he instructed them to try again, to listen to each other, whether or not there's only a couple of them who are stuck on one side of the equation, and to consider changing their vote if that doesn't violate their conscience. he was trying to remind this jury that they had a duty to come to a unanimous decision so long as that didn't violate their conscience. the judge wanted to remind both sides before he brought the jury back that what could happen next. if this jury remains stuck, we don't know how long that might be, we don't know how long he'll let them continue, but if they come back and say that they cannot reach a final decision on all of these counts, he told them he would consider obviously accepting a partial verdict. obviously we don't know which particular counts they've reached their decision on. we don't know which side of this they've come down on. so there's still a great deal of mystery for the defense and for the prosecution in this case.
something that just came in from our team at the courthouse. manafort's attorney asked judge ellis to give the jury a new verdict form after the jury said we'll need another form please in their tuesday note. ellis said he would not. downing said he wished jurors would be given a third option, a hung jury option for each count. take me inside. if you're the prosecutor or the defense lawyers and you're at this stage, what are your options and where are you powerless? >> well, i think if you're the prosecutor on this case, it certainly feels like you might be winning on 17 counts because when a jury is sort of on that kind of roll, checking off innocent, innocent, innocent, are they going to stay around and argue about one final count if they think the guy was falsely charged or improperly charged on the first 17? usually you'd have to say no. on the other hand, if you're finding somebody guilty and they can go to jail under certain counts, you're carefully going
up to the trial, but also during the trial. what goes through your mind, and what information do you have? >> i think this was much more complicated than any of us had anticipated. it seemed like there was overwhelming evidence. but these are 18 counts, very confusing perhaps at times. look at this jury note. they're probably confused in some ways too. it's clear they've made a lot of progress. we've been waiting to hear what's going on for days. we really haven't heard where they stand. now we know. i think when they write a note like if we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we fill in the verdict sheet? so clearly maybe they either wanted the judge to take something off the verdict sheet. that part is very confusing. i think as paul said, the idea that the judge wouldn't give them a new verdict sheet -- i also think this judge just does not want to meddle in this deliberation. go back, keep at it, and let's see what happens. he also said in court before he sent them back in, continue to deliberate, and he did tell the
court that he does not intend to take a partial verdict at this point. let's see what happens. they could come back and maybe he does take a partial verdict. >> does not intend to take a partial verdict at this point. let's step back to a minute for the importance of this case. if you're robert mueller the special counsel, these charges have nothing to do with president trump's 2016 campaign. these charges ahave nothing to o with russian interference in the 2016 election. there was testimony, however, that rick gates remains t cooperating on other matters, number one, and there was testimony that among the misdeeds, the influence peddling, if you will, that paul manafort was accused of doing by prosecutors, was including trying to get a job in the trump administration from a bank president with whom he was trying to get a loan. >> to your point, i think it's important to emphasize that while this is robert mueller's team that is prosecuting this case, this is not directly tied to the questions of russian interference, nor is it tied to the questions of obstruction
we've seen really circling around donald trump. at the same time, the trump team is obviously really closely watching what's going to happen here, in part for trump's political argue, which is that the mueller probe as a whole is a political witch hunt, that there's nothing to it. certainly if manafort were to get off, that would feed into that narrative. if manafort is found guilty, it will lend real credibility to the mueller probe, that he was able to put someone who was the campaign chairman, not an insignificant player in trump's world, on trial and get a guilty verdict. a lot of nervousness in the trump administration, in the west wing right now as they wait for this verdict. >> and that nervousness exhibited by the president himself on friday, who did something remarkable. many people would say reprehensible, when he publicly talked during jury deliberations about how he thought this was sad that the government was putting paul manafort on trial, that paul manafort was a good man, despite the federal government of the same united states saying he's guilty of --
saying they want guidance on being hung on one count. theoretically, they could be having some dissension on other counts too. >> paul, one more quick question here. as a former prosecutor, if you're robert mueller and you know you have another manafort trial, you're under constant attack by the president of the united states, you have to decide what to do with the papadopoulos sentencing, the michael flynn sentencing. you know the other evidence you have or don't have, are still looking for. how important is it to win the first one out of the gate when you're not only in a complicated legal situation but an incredibly complicated political mess? >> it is very important, john, to win that first one because, you know, mueller has been under constant attack bit president. the president has got a new derogatory nickname for mueller every week. there's a new one that's added to the list. so his credibility is on the line here, and that is so important in an investigation like this and in trials to come in the future. a lot of times in these really complicated tax cases, paper
cases, the jury, if they trust the prosecutor and believe in the integrity of the prosecutor, when they get to a point where it's really too hard for them to understand the law or it's difficult to understand what the accountants mean with the charts that have been put up, they rely on the prosecutor and maybe come forward with a jury guilty verdict, as they do, by the way, in 90% of federal cases. so his credibility is really important, and this is the first test, the first public test of his credibility. >> going to ask our legal experts to not go terribly far from the camera. we're going to continue to track what's happening in that courthouse in northern virginia. we'll bring you the latest as soon as we get any update. up next, moving on to a somewhat related story. microsoft uncovers a russian cyber campaign to mess, again, with american democracy. -i've seen lots of homes helping new customers bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop.
a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.
the jury still deliberating, but just moments ago sending a note to the judge asking, what do we do if we cannot reach a unanimous consensus on one of the 18 counts. that's paul manafort's attorney outside the courthouse. we'll return to the trial as soon as we get new information. moving on to other top news today, new glaring evidence that vladimir putin lied to president trump and russia is still attacking u.s. democratic institutions. microsoft, the software giant, revealing overnight that russian military intelligence units launched cyber attacks targeting conservative think tanks and the united states senate. according to microsoft, hackers for fancy bear, the same group of cyber criminals implicated last month by the russia special counsel, set up fake websites meant to entrap visitors into coughering up pa coughing up passwords and other sensitive information. this is a mirror image of how the russians broke into john podesta's e-mail accounts. the sites identified by microsoft mimicked real ones
used by united states senate staffers and bore official sounding web addresses. russian hackers built two other imposter sites, one for the hudson institute, and one for the international republican institute. both are conservative groups that have broke within the president, and both have very hawkish views when it comes to russia. cnn's fred pleitgen is in moscow for us. fred, the kremlin response today, i suspect, was deny? >> reporter: i would say it's even more than deny. the kremlin spokesman was in a conference call with reporters earlier today, and he didn't just deny these new allegations, he basically said that the russians had absolutely no idea what all of this is about. they say that so far, they believe that not enough information was provided for them to even issue a denial, and they say a lot of the players that are involved in this, they don't even know if these players exist or who they are. i want to read a little bit of the statement that was put forward. he said, quote, our reaction has
already become traditional. we don't know which hackers they're talking about. we don't know what is meant about the impact on elections. it was interesting because we asked in that same call what about these six websites that were stopped by microsoft? he said, look, i have no idea what fancy bear is or what this has to do with any sort of russian intelligence services, which is interesting because cybersecurity experts believe fancy bear is directed by the russian military intelligence, by the gru. so the russians certainly issuing a very strong denial and going on further beyond that. >> fred pleitgen in moscow. appreciate that reporting. i'll be waiting to see vladimir putin say it's a 400-pound guy in his basement. microsoft's newly documented evidence of russian meddling puts the president, who has repeatedly questioned russian interference, in a fresh bind. the disconnect between what the president says and what his
intelligence community says highlighted again just yesterday. in an interview with reuters, this from the president. mueller's probe played right into the russians. if it was russia. they played right into the russians' hands. the key words there from the president of the united states, again, despite all of the evidence, if it was russia. julie pace is back with us. also joining the conversation, jonathan martin of "the new york times." cnn's phil mattingly. if it was russia. the president has been told by everybody on his national security team including most of his appointees, that this is continuing. you have microsoft saying we caught them again, the same people mueller has indicted. the president says if it was russia. >> he can't help himself when it comes this. he's really on an island by himself. the only other person who's continuing this narrative that russia was not involved in this is vladimir putin. everyone else, as you say, even the president's own appointees
in the intelligence community, go to him with evidence saying russia was clearly behind this, you have u.s. companies combatting this on a day-to-bda basis. it begs the question, and there's no good answer, why does the president continue to question this? it leads you back to the questions about his ties to russia. is there a reason why he can't just get over this hurdle, why he can't side with american intelligence? >> and fred pleitgen going through what you would expect from the kremlin. they say what are you talking about, we don't know anything about this, just as vladimir putin has said. if you talk to the cyber people, including u.s. intelligence officials who work for president trump, they say that russia is getting caught on purpose, that russia is leaving fingerprints. if they wanted to be more clever, if they wanted to be for nefarious -- that they want -- we're still going this. >> we're in the game. >> we're still in the game. this is the president's own director -- two administration officials today testified on capitol hill. this is still going on. their boss, the man they report to, the director of national
intelligence. this is dan coats last month at the hudson institute, one of the conservative think tanks microsoft said was hacked. >> in regards to state actions, russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor. no question. they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy. the warning signs are there. system is blinking and it is why i believe we are at a critical point. >> the location more than ironic, but he didn't say if russia did it. he says the lighting are blinking, we're at a crisis point. >> the purpose for russian interference is to create distrust, to create chaos in the political system. and that's exactly what they're doing. they're succeeding in that with administration officials like dan coats saying things like that. then we have the president completely going the other way and saying if russia did it. so you know, vladimir putin right now is succeeding, if that's the goal, in terms of creating this chaos we've seen in the last year. >> i think the interesting bit,
you mentioned the hearing on capitol hill where you had officials from across the spectrum of agencies controlled by president trump saying without hesitation this is something that's happening, this is something that was happening, and there's no question about it. but the interesting element is there are policy ramifications to the president's unwillingness to seemingly embrace this wholeheartedly. you had senators from both parties on capitol hill. the reason the hearings are happening today, they're considering new sanctions on russia. that would seem to undercut what the president wants to do in terms of bettering the relationship. perhaps that means easing sanctions. congress is considering ramping them up. then you look across the spectrum on the cyber capability side of things where you have the defense department considering offensive action or reaction on something like this, which is also extremely important and very, very kind of touchy when it comes to a legal standpoint. you have all of these things happening as the president can't seem to embrace it. the net of it is that what the president wants in terms of a relationship with russia, he can't get because he won't
accept it in the first place. >> and it complicates other relationships, including with key u.s. allies. listen to the uk's foreign minister in town today essentially saying, yeah, i see what the president says on twitter, but i call mike pompeo and say, what are you going to do as opposed to what is he going to say. >> he's particularly active on twitter, and it's a very different style of politics, but it's very important to look at what he does as well as what he says. when it comes to sanctions, it was this administration that first said that they were going to take economic action against russia as a result of what happened in salisbury. it wasn't europe. it was the united states that were first to do that. >> that's so fascinating. what he's doing there is basically saying out loud that there is a gap between the trump administration policy and the trump twitter riffs, which is what everybody knows. it's striking to hear our most important ally say it out loud
in washington, d.c., like that. he's totally exposing what everybody gets, which is that there are two different policies. to phil's point, i'm sort of almost innered to this groundhog day routine of saying if they did it. what i'm more interested in now is action. will trump at rand paul's urging kind of go easier on some of these sanctions? will he let russian legislators visit the u.s.? that's wrihere i think it gets more interesting, less him sowing doubts and more following up by easing up on putin. that could create a rubber meets the road issue with congress. they're okay, at least okay turning a blind eye to the tweets about if they did it, but they wouldn't be okay, i think, with actually easing the sanctions. >> something to watch in the weeks ahead because rand paul is pushing the president to do something on that specific issue.
we'll watch. up next, somewhat related, damned if you do, damned if you don't. president trump says sitting down for an interview with the special counsel would be a no-win situation. there's a lot to love about medicare.
there's also a lot to know. part a that's your hospital coverage, part b is all the doctor stuff... the most important thing to know? medicare doesn't pay for everything. and guess what that means... yep...you're on the hook for the rest. that's why it's important to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. a plan like this helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. so you could end up paying less out of your own pocket. that's nice. and these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. it feels good to have someone looking out for you. want to find out more? call unitedhealthcare insurance company now to request this free decision guide, with aarp medicare supplement plan options
to fit your needs. and learn how this type of plan works together with a part d prescription drug plan. here's something else good to know. with a medicare supplement plan, you have freedom. freedom to go with any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you're not restricted to a network. ever. and if you need to visit a specialist, you'll have a choice there, too. your coverage goes with you, too, anywhere you travel in the country. we have grandkids out of state. they love our long visits. not sure about their parents, though. call unitedhealthcare now to learn more and ask for your free decision guide. want to apply? go ahead, apply. anytime's a good time. remember, the #1 important thing, medicare doesn't pay for everything. a med supp plan could help pay some of what's left. and this is the only plan of its kind endorsed by aarp.
that's the icing on the cake... i love cake. finding the right aarp medicare supplement plan for you could be just a quick call away. so...call. for you could be just a quick call away. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans.
so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. welcome back. president trump revealing in a new interview that no matter what he says, he thinks the
special counsel robert mueller will find a way to call him a liar. the president shares this insight in an interview with reuters. so if i say something and former fbi director james comey says something and it's my word against his and he's best friends with mueller, mueller might say, well, i believe comey. even if i'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. that's no good. today the drudge report echoing the president's concern,. of course, sad to say, the president already is a liar. comey and mueller know each other from past government service but are not best friend, as the president likes to say. the president's trouble with the truth is one reason his lawyers want no part of a mueller interview. that concern isn't new, but it is heightened now after revelations that white house counsel don mcgahn sat for 30 hours of interviews with mueller's investigators. two people familiar with the president's thinking say that news has him unnerved.
not a surprise exactly, but more clarity now even though the public line is the president wants to testify that he has zero intention of answering questions from bob mueller, right? >> it was a fascinating set of comments he made to reuters there, using language we've heard from people like rudy giuliani saying an interview is potentially a perjury trap. that's the concern that the white house team has, not that mueller is trying to set him up, but that trump could commit perjury because he changes his story so often. i think you're right. this at one point looked like trump did want to do an interview, that he felt like there was a political imperative to going forward. it seems increasingly unlikely he's going to do this. the concern from him and his legal team seems to be too great at this point. >> also in that same interview, this from the president about, you know, can you shut down the mueller investigation or will
you shut down or try to assert more control? quote, i can go in and do whatever. i could run it if i want. but i decided to stay out. i'm totally allowed to be involv invol involved if i wanted to be. sometimes the president says things that he knows are provocative and that he knows are not of the planet, shall we say, to stir up conversations. but when you have, among the things don mcgahn has talked to the special counsel about, is he wanted me to fire you, mr. mueller. he's several times wanted to make runs at jeff sessions. he wanted to go after the deputy attorney general. >> the fact is he hasn't stayed out at all. he just wants to put that image out there. the other thing i think has been effective from his legal team in terms of the conversation about the perjury trap is that the president is a paranoid person. we've seen this now again take place with the conversation about don mcgahn. he's paranoid.
so the way they get him to not interview is to kind of make him think this is a setup. if he goes into it, this is going to to be a setup and a trap. that seems to have worked. now he's kind of again making things up about how he's actually more in control than it might seem. >> interesting too is the authority or whether the president has the authority has always been understood to be the case. he probably does have some authority to shut down or try and get in the way through various dominos falling if he wanted to. it's always been the political ramifications of what would happen if he tried to pull that trigger. that's what terrifies republicans on capitol hill. that's what i'm told repeatedly white house officials have had to make calls to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, speaker paul ryan, assuage their concerns. it's almost as if the president is relaying what he's been told about his own authority while also ignoring the fact that the result of what would happen if he did that would be cataclysmic, which is generally understood across his party,
which for the most part has turned a blind eye. >> and saying it out loud in interviews and tweets, it would be like if the nixon tapes were played in realtime on the evening news back in the early '70s. you could hear it all, right. it makes you curious as to what we're not hearing. we get so much of the inner monologue. he's musing out loud aboutic i could run the investigation myself. >> we know what he's thinking because he's glaringly transparent. for example, i pulled those security clearances because brennan was involved at the beginning of the russia investigation, not because of anything he said on television. >> the lester holt interview about why he fired comey. >> this is jack quinn, former white house counsel, worked in the attorney's office back in the clinton administration, back during the lewinsky investigation. his take on the impact of having it now public knowledge that the white house counsel don mcgahn not only cooperated with investigators but spent 30 hours with them. >>. >> nobody wants to be the last one standing.
nobody wants to watch one's colleagues go in, spill the beans, and be the one who's last in line to cooperate. i think there's a good chance you'll see a lot of people making phone calls to the special counsel's office asking when their interview can take place. >> is that fair in the sense that -- you know, my understanding is not only is don mcgahn given 30 hours, but don mcgahn's instructions to all the younger lawyers around him have been protect yourself, tell the truth. >> and we've seen many people who have gone in to already talk to the special counsel from the white house staff. the more interesting thing to look at there is think about the effect in the west wing. you have advisers showing up every day looking at each other, knowing they've all gone in to talk to bob mueller, wondering what everybody has said, who's pointing a finger at who. that is a really difficult work environment if you're actually trying to get something done running the government. >> although, i keep saying for months now, if you did nothing wrong, and you all told the
truth, why are you so nervous and agitated? but we'll leave it there. before we go to break, a flashback from the trump presidency. the fighting grinds on in afghanistan. a look back at a promise the president made exactly one year ago. >> from now on, victory will have a clear definition. attacking our enemies, obliterating isis, crushing al qaeda, preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan. it's the sears labor day event! ...where you can shop with confidence and convenience plus get these 4 benefits from kenmore at sears. up to fifty percent off appliances with your sears card. like this washer and dryer for $539.99 each. and this refrigerator for $899.99. hurry in to sears today. now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us. unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways share with others. unlimited ways to live for the moment.
all for as low as 30 bucks a line. unlimited for you. for them. for all. get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile.
topping our political radar today, two top government officials say despite claims to the contrary, they've seen no evidence florida's election infrastructure has been compromised. the homeland security secretary and the fbi director say they cannot corroborate claims from democratic senator bill nelson who said recently that certain jurisdictions around florida have already been penetrated by russians. a manhunt happening right now for a man suspected of making death threats against president trump. the 27-year-old of pennsylvania allegedly made a facebook post earlier this month threatening to kill a local district attorney and the president. he was last seen cumberland, maryland, thursday. the trump administration this morning following through on a 14-year-old deportation order for the last known nazi collaborator in the united states.
the 95-year-old plucked from his home in queens, placed in an balanc ambulance, and sent back to germany. he was an armed guard at a labor camp where some 6,000 jews were shot to death. when we come back, president trump's supreme court nominee making the round. the kavanaugh conundrum for red state democrats front and center today. ed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery. ends saturday.
i think he might need some support. yes. start them off right, with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. like these for only $2 or less at office depot officemax. like these for only $2 or less what i just introduced you worto my parents.g? psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
trump-friendly state. cnn's sunlen serfaty is on capitol hill. what have we learned? >> reporter: certainly a big meeting today, john. brett kavanaugh just emerged after an over two-hour meeting with senator susan collins. as you said, a key swing vote here leading up to those confirmation hearings on september 4th. coming out of that meeting, senator susan collins just addressed press. she said essentially that she had not made up her mind, not settled, or not revealing what her vote will be for kavanaugh. certainly she had positive things to say about him coming out of the meeting. she said it was an excellent session, very productive, informative, and she questioned him about his judicial philosophies, of course, but most specifically, importantly, as you noted, she talked to him about precedent and abortion cases, specifically she said she pressed him on whether he considered roe to be settled law or not. so certainly an important meeting lasting over two hours here today. he moves on to a slew of other
big important meetings up here on the hill. many democrats on the list. mccaskill, patrick leahy, of course, amy klobuchar, and senate minority leader chuck schumer, leading the charge to get more documented released. a significant day up here on the hill leading to the confirmation hearings two weeks from today. >> sunlen, appreciate the update there. next for us, senator elizabeth warren says washington is still swampy and the trump white house is to blame. her anti-corruption push amid 2020 speculation. liberty mutual saved us almost $800
when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782. liberty mutual insurance. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
strong words today from elizabeth warren, who said president trump's promise to drain the swamp is beyond laughable. >> the trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. but they are not the cause of the rot. they're just the biggest, stinkiest example of it. corruption is a form of public cancer, and washington's got it bad. >> the democratic senator from massachusetts introducing the anti-corruption and public integrity a integrity act. it would impose a lifetime ban on lawmakers from becoming lobbyists. another big push for national attention by warren, another piece of a populist platform many see as the framework for a possible 2020 presidential run.
yet, she insists all the time -- mr. martin, you're looking a little skeptical there. >> a little? a lot, john. >> she insists she's running for re-election in massachusetts. >> well, she is. but i can't help but notice she's not spending all of her time in framingham and dorchester this year. she's been in places like nevada. she's been raising money in salt lake city and in denver too. look, she has a couple staffers who have just gone north to a little place next door called new hampshire, which you may have heard of. >> once or twice. >> to work for the state democratic party up there. it's not subtle. i think everybody who covers politics knows she's moving towards a campaign for president. i think what she's doing today is trying to frame herself as somebody who is not merely another, john, forgive me, liberal from massachusetts but somebody who's a reformer and somebody who is a populist who's running against d.c. >> that directed to michael dukakis or john kerry?
>> we can go on, if you want. >> mitt romney. >> ouch. exactly. i think she knows that she's got to define herself as someone who's a reformer, someone who's a pop ulist, not merely the harvard law professor. i think that's the effort today. you run against d.c. you call it a stinky swamp. and you kind of embrace some of the rhetorical strokes that trump did in 2016. she knows she's going to get hit hard from the right with all the usual bug-a-boos and she has to get out early in defining herself. here's one prediction. the oklahoma accent you've heard, i think you're going to hear more in the next year, year and a half. >> in some ways, it seems like she's stealing trump'sov overal message but saying he didn't really act on it, he didn't act on the drain the swamp message. so she's setting herself up as this perfect foil. the democratic primary, as we know, there are probably going to be 17, 18 people running. so she's setting herself up to be that perfect foil for donald trump.
>> you think only 17 or 18? >> maybe. a small field. >> the party is shifting to the left, to the progressive wing of the party. with the exception of bernie sanders, she has at least an identity. we don't know if she can put the pieces together of a presidential campaign. from an identity standpoint -- >> she certainly could separate herself from that pack of 17 or 18 or 25 candidates by carving out that niche. i think when you talk to democrats, there is some feeling that if sanders runs again, that he's not going to be able to kind of carve out that same niche that he did last time around and maybe warren could step into that void. she does have pretty decent name recognition nationally, certainly a pretty loyal following among the left wing of the party. can she bridge the gap there, that will be the question. >> another reminder, she's a democratic senator. she can make her case. look, the president has not kept his promise. i'm going to guess majority leader mcconnell is not going to give it anything. >> i haven't seen her on the
biden, that's alive. live my son is the smartest person i know, let's hope that's alive. i knew nothing about hunter biden's business dealings. these cases are prosecuted. i'm tired of hearing people say that they are not, this case just has overwhelming evidence in it. and hunter biden is the poster child for why these cases are prosecuted. as they said, he was agitated, he was high strung but he was functioning, remember this was in the military reserves handling a gun until he tested positive. he was driving kids around he was driving all these kids around and participating in foreign business dealings and making tons of money. and the fbi also, remember slow walks these cases were slow walks by the justice department and irs cases, tax cases and two agents testified that he should have been prosecuted for that but they let the clock run.
i'm not i'm not going to pardon hunter biden. that's a lie. erlie. my son's the smartest person i know. i t's hope that'rson is lie. lie. i knew nothing about hunter biden's business dealingknothin lie. you know, and, sean, thesee proc cases are prosecuted. and i'm tired of hearing people saying they're not. this case just has overwhelmingn evidence in it. and hunter biden is the posterce child for why these cases are prosecuted. a tally thesy said he was agita, he was high strung, but he wass . remember, this guy was in the fulitary reserves handling a gun until he tested positive. he was driving until kids aroun. he was driving harley's kids around. he was participate h in foreign business dealings, making tons of moneys an. and the fbi also, sean, remember, slow walked these cases were slow walk by the justice department, the irsd cases, the tax cases. and two irs agents testifiedir.a >> he should have been prosecuted for that, but they
>> the jury will not be aware of the plea deal or terms made, pre-trial -- >> carley: major news, though, maybe they know. >> that is another question for voir dire to make sure they are not aware and many are not, it was wrapped up in other cases and judge limited prosecutor from discussing tax cases unless he take the stand. >> carley: do you think that will happen? >> i don't know if it is necessary, will depend what other evidence is brought in, there is his book and statements he's made the jury will be aware of. i think it will be risky, other things will not come unless he is testifying. >> todd: we heard speculation it was not hunter who lied on the application. i may have been high as a kite
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its...
The government will withdraw all outstanding income tax demands up to ₹25,000 for the period before FY10 and those up to ₹10,000 for the period between FY11 and FY14, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman said. This move aims to reduce frivolous tax litigation and burden from the tax department. The decision will help close 11 million pending demands of income, wealth, and gift taxes, involving less than ₹3,500 crore.
Supreme CourtDefinition Of 'Manufacture' U/s 2(e)(1) Of UP Trade Tax Act Does Not Include Blending And Packaging Tea: Supreme CourtCase Title: Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. v. M/s Mishra Tea...
kicked around and maligned in the public eye. so the public relations objective here was to make the point hunter biden is willing to answer any questions the committee had. >> today's spin was that hunter one and only idiots think that hunter wants to answer wan questions. >> these high jinks are just going to force republicansts to fast track impeachment. to fast track impeachment. have trump in courret and it'll be counter-programming with biden's impeachment hearing. and if trump wins the election, biden to pardon his son during the lame duck. >> and if biden wins reelection, they'll ride the tax cases ous sot for a no k plea deal or a midnight pardon for the effect this is going to have on america's confidence in our political systes m and ourlitical systes judicial system. it's only going to invigorate american populism. >> let's bring in south carolina congresswoman nancy mace. she's a member of the oversight committee. a congressman, why didn't