Chris Hayes discusses the days top news. Confused, one goal of mr. Giuliani was pretty evident. Ive been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Its not. Collusion is not a crime. I dont even know if thats a crime, colluding about russians. Okay. You start analyzing the crime, the hacking is the crime. That certainly is the origin of the the president didnt hack. Of course not. Thats the he didnt pay them for hacking. As you know, it has led the meeting with the russians. If you got the hacked information from the russians here at cnn and you played it would you be in jeopardy of going to jail . Of course not. Okay. The president didnt hack and he didnt pay for the hacking. So thats an interesting thing to say. That, though, you that see there, is an idea that trumps allies have trotted out before. It doesnt hold up to legal scrutiny at all, particularly when you consider that mueller has already charged more than a dozen russians with conspiring against the United States. The kind of conspiracy that could later be augmented with additional coconspirators, be they russian or be they
so theres this mixture of your nutty grandfather who might get loose and walk around the back yard late at night and youve got to pull him back in the house, and someone whos specifically trying to do something. Thats the thing. I cant tell. Im a little bit like is this a bit or not. The hitting the head theatrically. Where was i . Is that a bit or is that like i think hes very illinformed on the fact pattern. Yes. I dont think hes doing his own work. Or hes being lied to by his client. Or all of the above. It could be all of the above. What you have is hes a sort of Whirling Dervish in the midst of this and what hes doing along the way is hes trying to smear peoples reputation. On cnn this morning he accused mueller of having Business Conflicts with trump. He went after andrew weissman, one of the staff prosecutors on muellers team, saying that he was a scoundrel. Called him a scoundrel. Without offering any proof. Its pure mccarthyite kind of tactics. I think anybody in Law Enforcement or politics whos watched rudys career is seeing someone devolve into a fairly
hateful operator whos throwing a smokescreen around this whole investigation in the service of President Trump. Is there also it seems to me also theres maybe this attempt to try to like take away its like lets say youre being blackmailed by someone, right . And you just decide im going to tell the world what theyre blackmailing me about bays take away all your leverage. I wonder if were seeing some strategy where rudy just tries to tell everyone what Michael Cohen might know. You see what im saying . So Michael Cohen doesnt have any leverage on him. You are speaking the same kind of truth that people in Michael Cohens world have been saying for the past two weeks, that theyre trying to take cards systematically, one by one, out of his deck to prevent at the very best to prevent Michael Cohen from controlling the narrative around whats on each of those various cards. Whether or not that makes him less likely to cooperate, less likely to be able to cut a deal, or just less likely to control what is said and how its spun. It is sort of an effective pr strategy. I dont know that its working
meeting at trump tower. It brings you back to the president inviting the russians to hack hillarys email. He doesnt have to pay for the hackers. He doesnt have to sit with them at the computers. If he creates an environment in which hes facilitating the crime, thats aiding and abetting. The irony here is giuliani made his bones, right . Became famous by prosecuting the mob. Mob cases are rico case. Theyre conspiracy case. The whole thing is like talking to someone isnt a crime. But if you talk to them to tell them to do something in furtherance of a conspiracy then you might be criminally liable. Right . Conspiracy is whats at the center here. If you lead that document which is why he used rico to go after the mob. Thats right. He used a Conspiracy Charge to take the mob down. And he relied on the testimony of made members of the mob, all of whom had their own agendas, like everyone in this case. Thats a great point. Like sammy the bull gravano. While the former u. S. Attorney for the southern districts going around calling andrew weissman, a federal prosecutor, a scoundrel. A man who has an impeccable
career and impeccable credentials. Emily jane fox and tim obrien, thank you both. For more on the pr and legal strategy, if you can call it that, of the president and his attorney lets turn to legal analyst ben wittes, National Security contributor matt miller, former Chief Spokesperson for the justice department. I want to play this sound for and you get your response to it, ben. Him talking about sort of the call that went that don jr. Made after he sort of has the exchange about setting up the meeting he calls a blocked number, House Intelligence Committee famously refused to find out what that number is. Listen to what he says about that. The meeting with the russians, how can you be sure that the president didnt know beforehand . Youre saying it was just a he said nobody can be sure of anything. But the one who came in and allegedly told the president about it was donald, which donald denies, the president denies and theres no corroboration of. And cohen has never said this at
any time up until now. When don don jr. Made as you know that day before the meeting and i think after calls to a blocked number. Was that the president . Heres my question for you, ben. How important is it that clients share all the information with their lawyers . And do you think that is happening here . Well, so one question is whether its happening and the other question is whether the lawyer can have confidence that its happening, whether or not it is. And i think the answer to the second question is clearly not. Nobody who interacts with donald trump can possibly be confident that theyve been given all the relevant information or that theyve been told the truth. When you are particularly if youre a lawyer whos going out on television and Making Representations On Behalf of a client, if youre a remotely responsible lawyer, which here is a condition contrary to fact,
you would want to know everything that could, you know, possibly rise up and bite you in the butt. Giuliani does not seem encumbered by that concern at all. And in addition to the fact that he probably doesnt have full information from his client or at least he cant rely on the fact he does, he also appears to be making up facts as convenient to himself or at least getting very confused about them. And so i think theres a Compounding Effect where the client is not being a good client and the lawyer is not being a good lawyer. And theres also, matt, theres been a pattern about the trump tower meeting more than almost any single instance in this story of these disclosures that are just enough to get through the day. Its like the emails come out and oh, yeah, it was about, you
know it was about adoption. Then it wasnt about adoption. Well, okay, they said heres dirt on Hillary Clinton. Well, then we actually did talk about it after. So this seems to be part of the pattern, where every time you keep pushing on this one meeting you get more disclosure. Yeah, thats right. And its not the only case theyve done that. Its been true about the relationship with Stormy Daniels where they had one story first and they came out with another one. I think it kind of goes to this question two things. One is you talked about the importance of telling your lawyer everything. One of the reasons in a situation like this where your lawyers going to come out publicly and talk su set the goalposts in the right place and you dont set the goalpost first my client never did this only to later move the goalpost to, well, yes, he did it but its not actually illegal after all, which is what we see them doing. In some ways youre right in your analysis at the beginning theyre trying to move the goalposts. But i think in some ways theyre bringing him back not just to the first letter they sent to Special Counsel but what donald trump said at the very beginning
if you go back to 2016 at the Famous Press Conference where he said russia, if you can get Hillary Clintons emails i think youll be greatly rewarded. Katy tur pushed him on it right then if it was appropriate to encourage a Foreign Government to commit a crime. He told her yes, absolutely, and asked her to be quiet. So i think what youre seeing now is kind of the legal strategy, for lack of a better option, getting back to where Donald Trumps take on this has been ever since the beginning. What do you make of the collusion is not a crime line, ben . Its a very silly line. Of Course Collusion is not a crime. But when you collude with some foreign intelligence entity there are many crimes you can commit along the way. And so the question has never been whether collusion is a crime. The question is whether first of all, whether some form of improper collusion took place and secondly, if it did, whether it would violate any of a number
of different laws. By the way, death is not a crime either. That doesnt mean murder isnt. Well said. Matt, i dont know what to make of this idea of a meeting on the 7th in preparation. The president s lawyer seems to be sort of floating as a possibility. If it were to be the case that such a lawyer took place such a meeting took place, it would strike me as completely destroying the idea this is a seat of the pants ad hoc freewheeling, freelancing thing don jr. Undertook. Yeah, if you believe that idea anyways. There arent a lot of freewheeling seat of the Pants Meetings like this that involve the campaign manager, the candidates son, the candidates soninlaw. So i think that ideas always been pretty silly they put out there and this would just completely destroy it. And i think if you the clip that you played before of the president on the day that this premeeting would have happened if it did happen coming out and promising a big revelation about Hillary Clinton next monday. In the immediate sentence after that he actually talked one of the things that he says about Hillary Clinton is hes going
to is he attacks her for her dealings in russia at the state department. So it was the exact same thing that don jr. Had been promised in the email he got from the publicist rod goldstone, which were her dealings in russia. You have to believe in a lot of coincidences to think that they were promised that in an email and then the president came out and talked about it publicly. And then of course never gave the speech because maybe they had the meeting they didnt get what they wanted. And theres 20 times at least they said oh no, he didnt know about it ahead of time and Rudy Giuliani still saying that now although he may change his tune tomorrow. Or tonight. Ben wittes and matt miller, thank you both. Cheers. Coming up the first trial in relation to the Mueller Probe set to begin tomorrow morning. Federal court. The charges against former Trump Campaign chair Paul Manafort. What to expect from that trial in two minutes. Use the chase mobile app® to pay practically anyone, at any bank . All while creating a masterpiece made of tea leaves . Yes. But this isnt for just anyone. Hong yi its for the strongest man in her life. Life. Lived reds way. Chase. Make more of whats yours. 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. Where were changing withs . Contemporary makeovers. Then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. Who has the upper hand now . Start winning today. Book now at lq. Com. Starts with Jury Selection tomorrow. The charges include bank and tax fraud based on more than 60 million. Prosecutors say manafort earned as a consultant for a russiafriendly ukrainian political party. Which he apparently spent on everything from multimilliondollar properties to luxury cars and even a 21,000 watch. This trials expected to last about three weeks, but manafort also faces separate charges in d. C. And that trial starts in september. Even closer to the midterms. For more on whats at stake for Paul Manafort and for President Trump former watergate prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst nick akerman and it former federal prosecutor and also msnbc legal analyst paul butler. Lets start with this. The basic core issues to me are fairly clear here. Its basically that he had a lost income routed to foreign banks and paid stuff out of them without ever telling the irs he made the money. Thats right. Basically cheating the government out of oprobably 30 million worth of cash. Its a lot. What this is is its a tax case. So you have to understand that the proof thats going to come in, theyve got to do a couple things here. First they have to show he made a lot of money, that he earned it, that it wasnt a rich uncle in russia or the ukraine that died and left him 30 million. So youre going to have rick gates lay out exactly what they did to earn that money. Rick gates, who is his deputy, who we know is cooperating with federal prosecutors. Exactly. And then youve got to show that there were badges of fraud, that he deceived the government, that he hid the money, that he put in phony invoices, he created phony Bank Accounts and false names, that he did it through cyprus Bank Accounts and other offshore accounts in order to hide that money. So thats what this case is going to be about. And also in terms of the bank fraud showing that he lied about the value of various properties sew could get more money when he was really short on cash after the Ukrainian Government fell. Paul, in terms of proving this case, i think you called it a paper case before. There should be records they have. In should be people close to him saying heres money moving from x to y and the irs never heard about it. Its fairly straightforward if it in fact happened. It is a very straightforward case. In that case the trials going to be long and kind of boring. Theres going to be a lot of emails, a lot of documents, a lot of bank records. The prosecutors will try to jazz it up with reports of the 3 million brooklyn brownstone, the estate in the hamptons with the putting green, the milliondollar antique rug. But at the end of the day its a tax case. The interesting thing is that mueller has charged 32 people with crimes. Of those 31 have either pled guilty or are russians who wont be extradited to the United States and brought to justice. So manafort is the last man
standing. Hes the highestlevel official prosecuted by mueller with the closest ties to russia. And yet the prosecutor said hes not going to say the r word at trial, hes not going to bring up russia, collusion, or trump. That is an interesting point. Heres what giuliani said about whether manafort has anything on the president. Take a listen. He has no Information Incriminating of the president. I know that for a fact. They can squeeze him. Paul manafort does not know anything. Nor could it be possible that he did. He was with him for four months. This is the exact same thing he said about Michael Cohen a few months ago. Thats the exact same words. I mean, its almost like hes going to join the Liar Category pretty soon. Just like hes called Michael Cohen a liar, he called james comey a liar. Pretty soon hes going to be calling Paul Manafort a liar. But heres the thing. He hasnt cooperated. To pauls point, hes the only one whos faced trial. I should note that not only rick gates but tad devine, who is a longtime strategist who worked for Bernie Sanders very prominently in 2016 and was a Business Partner of Paul Manaforts is also going to be testifying presumably about the work they did in ukraine. I guess the question, paul, is as a former federal prosecutor is your expectation here theyre just going to go through with this trial and theyll do the other trial and if they win Paul Manafort goes to jail and thats the end of that or do you feel like theres Something Else about this set of facts with Paul Manafort in relation to the larger investigation . You know, chris, ive tried cases that have settled, that is, the defendant has pled guilty sometimes the day of trial, sometimes in the middle of the trial. They hear the opening statement, they heard very strong witnesses for the government, and they think, wait a minute. So you know, it remains to be seen. If it goes to trial, its unclear what the defense will be. So far the Public Defense has been this case doesnt have anything to do with collusion and therefore mueller shouldnt
be bringing it. But that has not persuaded the judge. You know, theres one other part of this that i find fascinating which is that he made a lot of money, 60 million, over this thats a lost money. Political consultants make a lot of money but thats a lot a lot of money.