Interviews with political figures and news updates. Interviews with political figures and news updates. The jury that there is a third option, there is guilt, there is not guilty, and there is a hung jury. The judge declined to do that and said that if the jury were to come back again and say they remain deadlocked, the judge will ask them how many counts theyve reached a verdict on. Hell then consult with the lawyers and decide whether or not to take whats called a partial verdict which means to have the jury announce those counts to which theyve reached unanimous agreement. Now, correct me if im wrong, the trials that ive covered in the past, dan, and youre the lawyer and former prosecutor, a judge will only repeat that allen charge so many times, or else risk, you know, being overturned on appeal if it ends up being a conviction, that east putting too much pressure on a deadlocked jury. Youre exactly right, andrea. Even the judge mentioned that his objective was not to be coercive to the jury. And thats the Legal Standard that gets reversed on appeal. If a judge is trying to coerce
the jury into a verdict. So it sounds like he is not going to read the allen charge again to them before at least giving the option of taking a partial verdict. He may decide to take a partial verdict and give them another allen charge and send them back in. Usually the law, as i understand it, an allen charge twice is not reversible error, but once you get much beyond that, it starts to be coercive. Again, it all depends on how many counts were talking about. As ken just said, if they have guilt on 17 counts and theres one count on which theyre hung, then maybe the prosecution just accepts the motion for a mistrial. But that also depends on which count that is. Not all counts are equal. So we have a lot more information than we did at the end of the day yesterday, andrea, but we still have a lot of questions that remain. Andrea, we should clear up for our viewers, because dan was in the courtroom and i wasnt, its perhaps more ambiguous than i represented. Its possible theyre saying theyre deadlocked on all of the
counts, it sounds like from what youre saying. Its possible, but i think unlikely. I think the implication of the note is that they have reached unanimity on some counts and the question, again, was, if we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill out the verdict form for that count. So it doesnt necessarily mean there is only one count. But it does give at least the implication that they have reached union a. Animity on some counts. One last question, dan, as a prosecutor, are you surprised
that he red them the allen charge on this first note on being stuck on one of the counts . Thats a very good question, andrea. Often the judge will just say, you know, answer this question to say, just keep trying, essentially, and then before the next time they come out to reed the allen charge. Im not surprised because theyve been out for three days diligently working. This is not a jury that seems to be eager to get out of there thats trying to give short shrift to the evidence. I think everyone who observes this thinks theyre meticulously going through it, they decided themselves to stay late last night. When they work this long on a trial, it did seem reasonable and appropriate to give the allen charge and neither of the parties objected to the judge doing so. We appreciate both of your expertise there, thank you so much. Obviously well have more Breaking News as it develops do you go our hour and throughout the day. More Breaking News, involving Michael Cohen. Multiple sources familiar with the matter telling nbc news the president s former personal attorney is discussing a possible guilty plea with federal prosecutors in new york in connection to alleged tax fraud and banking matters. Joining mow now, nbc White House Correspondent kristen welker, msnbc political analyst peter baker, and wnbc chief Investigative ReporterJonathan Dienst who is breaking this story. Jonathan, theres been silence for the last a couple of weeks from the Michael Cohen camp, from lanny davis, his lawyer, which certainly indicated that he might be in conversations with the prosecutors. This is not the mueller team, this is the prosecutors, as you know so well, in new york at the southern district. What do we now know from your sources . We know these talks are under way between Michael Cohens attorneys and federal prosecute erg ers, and that a deal on a potential guilty plea could be reached as early as this
afternoon. And preparations are under way now in Federal Court for that possible hearing. Of course nothing is done until its done. But that is our understanding at this hour, that both sides are very close, and that Michael Cohen is considering accepting a plea deal with federal prosecutors in lower manhattan. The u. S. Attorneys spokesman declined to comment, as did lanny davis, with these talks ongoing. The fbi, the irs investigating the bank fraud and other possible crimes related to his taxi medallion business. This is why this case is being handled here out of new york and is not part of the Mueller Investigation. These are his separate Business Dealings and questions of whether he broke any laws regarding bank fraud and tax fraud. The New York Times this weekend reported that it involves bank fraud totaling close to 20 million. Thats being looked at by prosecutors and the fbi. So that is ongoing. But what is newsworthy here today is the timing. Weve known that theres been talks ongoing for weeks. The issue now is it all may be coming to a head today in lower manhattan. Well know more within the next hour or two, whether they have formally reached a deal. Or if not, if it falls apart, then its our understanding from several sources reporting, Sarah Fitzpatrick and tom winter, prosecutors would then attempt to move forward with an indictment and just charge him in the days or perhaps week ahead. But as of now, the goal, we are told, is for the two sides to reach a guilty Plea Agreement which could happen, which could happen sometime today. According to your reporting, jonathan, and i want to bring peter baker in with regards to the New York Times reporting, this would not necessarily
involve payments to women and that whole other issue of whether or not they were improper payments made that could have violated election law involving the president. Andrea, thats exactly right. But obviously if the prosecutors, the fbi, irs, can put pressure on mr. Cohen on those separate business matters, what might he ultimately cooperate, will he decide to cooperate. And again, will this be a straight plea deal and hell plead to the crimes, if thats what happens, or is it a plea deal that includes cooperation on those other trumprelated matters, the Stormy Daniels matter, et cetera. So that is all to be determined. We could learn a lot more, if this Court Hearing goes forward this afternoon, where mr. Cohen would have to appear. If he does plead guilty, he would have to recite his crimes, as would any other defendant, and then we might hear from prosecutors, the irs, and the fbi, and their explanation as to
what the crimes are. Were getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, because were told no deal is done yet, but that the two sides are close, the talks are happening, and we are told from multiple places that it could happen as early as today. And kristen and peter, you both cover the white house. Youve both been noting the increasing tempo of not only the tweets but what seems like a lot of, shall we say, Nervous Energy from the president as things seem to be closing in. Kristen, first to you, you even have the president with reuters discussing how he could take over the Mueller Probe if he wanted. We know this is not the Mueller Probe, but if he sees that Michael Cohen may be cutting a deal, as the New York Times was reporting this weekend, and weve confirmed how close this could be, his own personal lawyer could be doing it, don mcgahn spending 30 hours, and them at least until this weekend not knowing the details of what he did tell or didnt tell mueller, this could explain a lot of what were seeing out of the white house, kristen. It could, andrea. We have seen this president and frankly his legal team step up their attacks against the Special Counsel. And the president , as you said during that remarkable interview with reuters overnight, saying he could take over essentially the russia investigation. When i pressed white house officials, his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on specifically what he meant, they couldnt give me a clear answer. But of course we all remember that President Trump has said he believes he has the authority to fire rod rosenstein. Privately hes talked about trying to have mueller ousted. I did speak with Rudy Giuliani earlier today, andrea, who told me that the prospects for an interview between mueller and the president are not looking good, trying to turn up the heat on the Special Counsel to get back to the president s legal team in terms of what their new deal would be for a potential interview. But again, andrea, all signs are pointing to the possibility that an interview with the president and the Special Counsel are increasingly less likely. The president himself in that
interview overnight saying hes concerned about a potential perjury trap. The president not only ramping up his attacks against the Special Counsel but against Michael Cohen as well, andrea. Remember, after that tape came out of the president and Michael Cohen discussing what seemed to be that payoff to one of the women who alleged having an affair with President Trump, the president lashed out at Michael Cohen, calling the fact that he would record him without his knowledge so sad. So this is something that the president is watching very closely as well, andrea. And peter baker, weve seen, as we say, a lot coming out of the white house with the president going after so many of his avowed enemies on his enemies list on the security front, a lot of distractions. Rudy giulianis conversation, it seems to me, is a continuing onesided conversation, weve heard nothing from mueller about any of this so its hard to see what thats all about. But right now the threats to the Mueller Investigation, where do
you see that . Well, look, you know, its interesting. The president has gone where no president has gone before in attacking the prosecutor. Other president s or politicians who have gotten in trouble have questioned the motivations or biases or what have you of the prosecutors. But youve never seen a president do what this one has, to threaten to use the power of his office to shut down the investigation, that would be crossing a line that even republicans in congress have said would be too far. For all the harsh talk, all the tweets, the president has respected that line up until now. It seems reasonable to suppose that he sees that as a red line that would create danger for him if he crossed it. And so while he dangles that sword over robert mueller, he hasnt actually used it to this point. Its not clear whether he would, given the political backlash that he could expect if he did. Thank you so much, peter baker, kristen, and of course Jonathan Dienst for yourBreaking News. Well be on watch for anything coming on the Michael Cohen front as well. Meanwhile, another big breaking story today. New evidence that the same Russian Military operation, the intelligence operation that hacked the 2016 campaign is at it again. This time going after antitrump conservative groups that have called for russia to be sanctioned. Microsoft says it has executed a court order to shut down six websites created in recent weeks by the same Russian MilitaryIntelligence Unit named in Special CounselRobert Muellers indictment for alleged interference in the 2016 election. The fake sites were intended to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by conservative institutions that were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials. Joining me now in it his first interview since this news broke, brad smith, microsofts chief legal officer. Thank you for bringing us this information. Obviously this is a cause of major concern. Weve heard from the national
security team that they are upping their defense, they say. But what is microsoft doing . Tell us what you and your counterhacking operation is doing to defend against this. I think what this really underscores is the need for all of us to strengthen our defenses. Were really active on multiple fronts. One was the one we announced last night, taking this type of action to transfer control of the six fake domains clearly intended for use to target certain groups, the people in the United States senate, these two conservative think tanks. Were also taking new steps today by providing a new service to really share our most advanced Threat Intelligence and technology and cybersecurity features, at no additional cost to all political candidates and campaigns at the federal, state, and local level, to the political parties, to think tanks. It gives us the opportunity to work with customers and others so that we can all strengthen
our cybersecurity defenses. Some experts are saying this is a cat and mouse game, its like playing whackamole, you get after one and another pops up. So how can you really protect the elections as the midterms approach . I think that it is a cat and mouse game, in part. We need systemic responses. The kind of step were announcing today, this account guard initiative, is a systemic feature. I think the kind of step we took last week is systemic in the sense that weve now been able to apply the strategy 84 times. But ultimately i think we also need to recognize something that is more sobering. There is clearly innovation on the other side. Were going to have to continue to innovate as well. I think its fundamental to what it means to protect democracy in the 21st century. Mr. Smith, the president as recently as last night was suggesting there could be other players, it could be china who
hes in a trade war with. John bolton this weekend said it could be iran, it could be china, it could be russia. Do you have any doubt that this is russia . I think we need to perhaps think about two things and how they connect. There are cybersecurity threats from multiple actors including multiple nationstates around the world. They sometimes tend to focus on somewhat or slightly ditch things. At the same time there is this specific set of attacks. There is no doubt in our minds that this specific set of websites was created by the socalled fancy bear or strontium group associated with the russians. There is no doubt in our minds this is the same Group Responsible for attacks in the United States during the 2016 elections. There is no doubt in our minds this is the same group that targeted every major president ial candidate last spring in france. And this is the same group that is in this case going after
putin enemies, because these are conservative groups but conservative groups that want to sanction russia, want to sanction putin and his oligarchs. Its certainly true the International Republican institute and the Hudson Institute have been longstanding defenders of democratic principles, really around the world. Theres no doubt that theyve often advocated a strong stand on some of the practices in russia. We also saw a focus on three fake websites clearly focused on the United States senate. I think the smart thing for us to conclude as a nation is that everyone across the political spectrum is both vulnerable and a potential target of attack. We need to put aside enough of our differences to come together, to do what it takes to defend the democratic process in this country. And when you said the targeting of the senate, are you talking about Senator Nelsons and Senator Mccaskills
campaigns . The three websites that were the heart of what we addressed this past week were Generic Senate sites. They werent focused on any specific senator or senate office. And the good news is both with respect to those sites and the Hudson Institute and the International Republican institute, there is no evidence that these attacks were successful. We were able to transfer control of these domains, we believe, before they could be used. But there is no longer in our view a reason to think that this is just aimed at one side of the aisle or the other in the United States. Brad smith from microsoft, thank you so much. Thanks for bringing this to us. Well continue t