So we know she met with muellers team. Do we have any idea what they asked her . We dont right now, anderson. What was asked by muellers team to davis. But we know this woman, as you said, known as the manhattan madam voluntarily spoke with investigators. And what she knows and how she fits isnt exactly clear. But sources tell cnn muellers team would like her to testify in front of a grand jury. This really points to the fact that the Special Counsel seems to be focusing on stone as they continue this Overarching Investigation into russias interference in the 2016 election. And davis really has a very close relationship with stone. Theyve known each other for a decade. Stone is the godfather to davis 2yearold son. Stone put davis on his payroll. And conversely, when davis made a new york gubernatorial run, stone worked on her campaign. Perhaps she has information on his finances, his connections, his friendships, any other personal life matters. We should mentioned, anderson, that stone did release a statement saying this, quote, Kristin Davis is a longtime friend and associate of mine. Im the godfather to her 2yearold son. She knows nothing about russian collusion, wikileaks collaboration or any other
but stone hasnt been interviewed by muellers team as far as we know. We have to make that point. Brynn gingras, appreciate it. Now the president s former campaign chairman, his trial and what appears to be his growing legal troubles two accountants for Paul Manafort took the stand. What they have to say about his taxes will leave a mark. Shimon prokupecz joins us for that part. What happened today . It was big day really for the prosecution. They had their first person of testifying really with direct knowledge of manaforts alleged scheme obviously to hide money in offshore accounts, to lie on his taxes. This witness who testified, cindy laporta, she was one of the witnesses Given Immunity. She was one of the five Given Immunity by the Special Counsels office. And really, anderson, it was big day for prosecutors. Damaging testimony for manafort. She testified that manafort asked her to falsify documents, and some of this activity while he was running the Trump Campaign in 2016. In one case she said that money
that manned for claimed he had in offshore accounts, that it was a loan when in fact it was income that he had made, that by doing so that reduced his taxes by 500,000. There is emails of communications between her and Paul Manafort. Really, this is setting up quite the number of witnesses that are going to be coming and really all the evidence that prosecutors seem to have against Paul Manafort. Did the accountant explained why she lied for manafort initially . Yeah, she was regretful, anderson, certainly. She said he was an important client to her and she simply did not want to fight him. She didnt stand up to him. But in the end, really her only reason for not doing it was because she felt he was too important a client. Do we know when gates is going to testify, rick gates . That is going to be a big day. We thought maybe it could start today. We now think it is likely, if there is any chance that it could probably be monday the earliest. It could be on tuesday. They have to finish with this
but the goal was to get him convicted to give him a goal of choice between dying in prison or turning on his former associate. Yeah, thats what this is about. John, do you agree thats what this is about . Theyre not really interested in the charges of bank fraud, money laundering, violating Disclosure Law or evading taxes, that its ultimately about squeezing him . That is a possibility. They certainly appear to have stacked up some charges. The reason there are two case, there is one in d. C. And one in virginia is that manafort refused to waive the venue issue, otherwise these would have all been tried together. As you watch the trial, you watch the information, whats curious is that manafort went to work for trump when the guy apparently was flat broke and asked for no salary. So this suggests somebody as the commentators are saying who might have been ripe for pickings by the russians. And that may be the cliff this trial leads us on. Professor dershowitz, this is within the purview of muellers team. Theyre directed the Special Counsels office is authorized to investigate, quote, any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. Thats a pretty broad mandate. I think thats right. And i think the judge wrote the right decision when he refused to dismiss it. But nonetheless, the judge did say that the purpose is obviously to try to get manafort. Look, manafort was smart not waiving venue because he is much better off with judge ellis and a virginia jury than he would be with a judge who revoked his bail in washington, d. C. And a d. C. Jury, which is going to be largely democrat. And so but it gives the prosecution two shots. Its risky on both sides, but in the end they will probably get a conviction and probably try very hard to squeeze manafort. We cant know at this point whether manafort will, a, sing or compose, or b, whether hell be pardoned. It was interesting, john, to hear all the details how far
manafort went to attempt to hide a very significant amount of income and how many different ways he allegedly went about trying to do it. Yes. His accountants on the stand today were certainly revealing his Modus Operandi and how little they actually knew about some of his affairs, yet they were enough aware the fact that his taxes were not accurate, and they put that into evidence today. And this defense of blaming everything on gates is getting tougher and tougher as they report that manafort himself was signing many of these documents. Professor dershowitz, about gates, he is expected to testify monday. How important do you think his testimony is going to be in the case . Because certainly defense has been trying to paint him as the bad guy from the start. Well, a little less important than i previously thought because this accountant, who doesnt seem to have an ax to grind did testify pretty persuasively. Now, of course, she could conceivably have been prosecuted because she did sign the tax
returns, but thats rarely done. So gates will still be important. He will be easy pickings for a good crossexaminer because hes gotten the deal and he can be shown to have an interest in being stating testimony that would be acceptable to the prosecution. But if he has corroborated testimony and if hes corroborated by the accountant, then his testimony can be per sways alternative a jury. John, it is possible to make a deal once the trial start . Absolutely. As the professor im sure could instruct us, and maybe in his own experience, i understand that you can you take a plea up to the time the jury is even out to deliberating. Is that right, professor . Yes. And that has happened. There is a famous case where Rudy Giuliani was a young assistant district attorney, and a congressman was on trial, and the plea was obtained after giuliani devastated him on crossexamine. He then submitted a plea. There is another famous case
where while the jury was out, they accepted a plea, and then the jury came back and acquitted. Nonetheless, the guilty plea was accepted. So you can do it any time. Thank you. John dean as well. Stick around. Were going to talk to you in the next hour of 360. There is a lot more ahead tonight in this hour, including the question of why the president always seems to be at odds with the rest of his administration on russias threat to u. S. Elections. Keeping him honest if they ever seen anything like this before. And a judge gives a tonguelashing and all the kids who have not been reunited with their families. See how he is keeping them honest tonight on 360. So what do you guys want . Pistachio. Chocolate chip. Rocky road. I see Whats Going On here. Everybodys got different taste. Well, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans so everybody gets the plan they want, without paying for things they dont. Jetsetting moms can videochat from europe. Movieobsessed teens can stream obscure cinema. Its like everyone gets their own flavor of unlimited. chuckles its a metaphor. Simile, not a metaphor. Hm. Well played. vo one family. Different unlimited plans. Starting at 40 per line. Switch now and get 300 off our best phones all on the network you deserve. Stay at la quinta. Where were changing with stylish makeovers. Then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. Bravo, tall meeting man. Start winning today. Book now at lq. Com
crisp leaves of lettuce. Freshly made dressing. Clean food that looks this good. Delivered to your desk. Now delivering to home or office. Panera. Food as it should be. Its these new freshfx car Air Fresheners from armor all. Each scent can create a different mood in my car. Like tranquil skies. Armor all, its easy to smell good. The new united Explorer Card hooks me up. Getting more for getting away. Traveling lighter. Getting settled. Rewarded learn more at theexplorercard. Com kremlin today lashed out at the russia investigation. A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman referring to it, and im quoting here, the twoyear hysteria
surrounding the russian interference in 2016 elections that did not happen. It sounds almost exactly like what President Trump said last night. Speaking at a rally in eastern pennsylvania, the president had warm words about his summit with Vladimir Putin, harsh words about the russia probe. We got along really well. By the way, thats a good thing, not a bad thing. Thats a really good thing. Now were being hindered by the russian hoax. Its a hoax. Ill tell you what, russia is very unhappy that trump won, that i can tell you. But i got along great with putin. Were being hindered by the russian hoax, he said. Now the president sometimes clarifies what he means by that, saying any notion of collusion is a hoax, but he often doesnt make that distinction, and seems to imply the entire Mueller Probe into the election is an attack or the attack itself is one. Any claims he said in helsinki
on camera he wanted trump to win, and the pat has ever attack ed putin the way he has other world leaders, even allies of the u. S. He determines the Foreign Policy course he wants to set for the country. Thats not the issue. Keeping him honest, this is. The president s position on russia often undercuts his administrations position and the tough statements his own advisers make, which raises the obvious question, is the president trying to have it both ways . Or it is now explicit white house policy to speak out of both sides of its mouth on a Vital National security issue . Regardless of the motivation, this is something thats been happening over and over again, the president undercutting his own National Security team after the fact or undermining their message beforehand. Again, here is what the president said last night. Now were being hindered by the russian hoax. Its a hoax, okay . All right. He says its a hoax. Here is what his top National Security and counterintelligence officials said on his orders at the white house just a few hours before he said that. Our democracy itself is in the crosshairs. What we see is the russians are looking for every opportunity regardless of party, regardless of whether or not it applies to the election to continue their pervasive efforts to undermine our fundamental values. I fully share the Intelligence Community and the odnis past efforts and those today to interfere with our election and of the current threat. They stepped up their game bigtime in 2016. Thinking is a threat we need to take extremely seriously, and to tackle and respond to with fierce determination and focus. Have you heard the president say anything like that . These are the president s own top advisers and Cabinet Members sent out with his blessing to push a message that he himself doesnt seem to fully accept. Here is the secretary of Homeland Security again, Kirstjen Nielsen again on tuesday. Two years ago, as we all know, a foreign power launched a Brazen Multipassed influence
campaign to undermine public faith in our democratic process and to distort our president ial election. Let me be clear, our Intelligence Community has it right. It was the russians. We know that. They know that. It was directed from the highest levels. And we cannot and will not allow that to happen again. Again, that was tuesday. A day later, the president tweeted, not backing nielsen up, but instead he tweeted about the one aspect of the russia probe that seems to truly concern him, and i quote. Russian collusion with the Trump Campaign, one of the most successful in history, a total hoax. The democrats paid for the phony and discredited dossier which was along with strzok and his lovely lover lease a page used to begin the witchhunt. Disgraceful. He didnt condemn russian interference in american elections, and certainly didnt use the opportunity to back up his own secretary of Homeland Security. Nonthen and not a couple of weeks before. Here is fbi director christopher
wray, two days before the president had such general words for putin in helsinki and for putins denial he interfered in the 2016 election. The Intelligence Communitys assessment has not changed. My view has not changed. Which is that russia attempted to interfere with the last election, and that it continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. Thats pretty clear. But even as the networks were broadcasting that, they were also still broadcasting this from the president just a day before. I accept our Intelligence Communitys conclusion that russias meddling in the 2016 election took place. It could be other people also. A lot of people out there. Two contradictory messages on russia a day apart the very moment the entire world was asking what the message really was, and two contradictory messages in the very same
president ial statement, one written by the president s staff that he read, and barely a beat later the president s own ad lib thoughts on the matter that it could be other people there is a lot of people throughout. As we said, this happens again and again. Dni coats in february. Take a look. We need to inform the American Public that this is real, that is going to be happening and the resilience needed for us to stand up and say were not going allow some russian to tell us how to vote, how we ought to run our country. And a i think there needs to be a national cry for that. Well, those remarks came just a few days after the president tweeted out something he saw on fox news discrediting the russia probe, blaming the justice department, the fbi for victimizing him during the 2016 campaign. Again, time and time again. One white house, two messages. And time after time, the president prefers the one that lets russia off the hook. It raises a host of yes, some of which well put to our guests. Former obama Chief Of Staff and former cia director leon panetta
and x files host david axelrod, former adviser to president obama. Its pretty remarkable the president at times seems to be more in line with what the Russia Foreign minister is saying than what his own Intelligence Security chiefs are saying. Anderson, i have never in my lifetime seen an administration that is presenting such a confused message when it comes to a National Security threat. And the fact is that its sending a very mixed message to both our enemies and our allies that the United States does not have a clear policy when it comes to russia. Do you know why theyre sending such a mixed message . Well, this has gone on too long to be just the consequence of incompetence. I think this is deliberate. Certainly, its deliberate on the part of the president , but whether its deliberate on the part of his Cabinet Members, i dont think thats the case. But it clearly is deliberate
that hes trying to send two messages here. One is a message to the russians and to his base. And the message to the russians is keep doing what youre doing. And the message to his base is regardless of the facts, please stick with me and listen to me. The other message is one to the majority of the american people, which is that u. S. Policy remains the same, that it remains firm with regards to russia and that were taking steps to try to protect our country. Those are the two messages that are going out. But when you put them together, it creates tremendous confusion about just exactly what the United States of america really stands for. David, obviously you worked this the obama administration. You watched many others. Have you ever seen a president and members of the administration on such different pages when it comes the a National Security threat . Unthinkable, unthinkable. I agree with leon. Ive never seen this, whether in pn politics or my years as a journalist. This is totally unprecedented. You know, there was a time when we had this bipolar world, the u. S. And the soviet union. Now the world looks at us and they see a bipolar administration. And its very hard to determine what the truth is here. But we should point out, like i want to give credit to the members of the National Securities team because i think they did the right thing by standing up. I think dan coats and others