Case without calling any witnesses. But that came after a 2 1 2hour delay. A sealed hearing today between the judge and jurors. Meaning we dont know what they talked about. But it has spurred plenty of speculation. There is fear of a tainted jury. And maybe you remember a fivehour long delay last week that put the former Trump Campaign persons trial on hold. Wow, its all coming in fast, julia. What more do we know about that sealed hearing today . So, chris, it seems this sealed hearing might have thing to do with the jury. While we waited outside the courtroom, waiting hours to get in, we did see individual jurors going back into the room. We know from speaking to a Security Officer the judge was in that room, judge ellis, probably questioning them individually. As you would want to do to figure out if any one of them has been tainted. Whether they talked amongst themselves or with people from the outside. That would also be likely because this jury is not under sequester. Ive seen them in the elevators. In the lunchroom. This is a very highprofile case. You know the media saturation is high. So it would be an obvious Defense Strategy to say we think these jurors have been tainted or one of them has perhaps tainted the entire bunch by talking about the case. And therefore we should move to a mistrial. We know just a few hours ago, actually, probably less than an hour ago, the government filed an opposition brief under seal. They filed that opposition to something that started with the defense which is likely the kind of motion that you would see if the defense was moving towards a mistrial. So as we know, theyre not calling any witnesses. So it could be the defenses best strategy right now to try to dismiss this entire trial and then start over again because right now it doesnt seem that they have evidence or witnesses to come speak on behalf of their client. Closing arguments set to begin tomorrow morning. What can we expect . So this judge has been allowing things to move a long, even while this side issue takes up a large portion of the time here. We can expect closing arguments from both sides. Hes limiting it to two hours. Again that doesnt preclude the idea of a mistrial. If we move to that, that doesnt mean the mistrial is definitely a closed and shut case. We can expect to hear from the government trying to show Paul Manafort was a desperate man financially. He committed bank fraud. He committed tax evasion at times, inflating his income, in order to get loans. At times deflating his income in order to evade taxes. And of course not declaring the many, many Bank Accounts he had overseas. The defense on the other hand is trying to quietly or subtlety undermine every piece of that evidence. We saw that during cross examination. Where they started to ask yesterday, for example, a man who worked at federal savings bank, thats the bank that gave Paul Manafort 16 million. They said you wouldnt have approved this loan based on what Paul Manafort gave you, correct . He said thats correct, but i did so because of my boss. So theyre trying to prove in that case that this loan was actually given to Paul Manafort not because he lied on his loan applications but in return for a favor. And without lying, that couldnt be bank fraud. You see these little pieces theyre trying to rip apart so that a jury going through each of those counts in the indictment might have a reason to doubt. All right, thank you so much, julia ainsley. For more, im joined by the former u. S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant attorney general during the clinton administration. Danny cevallos, an msnbc legal analyst. Let me start with the questions being raised with the jury not being sequestered. Do you think the judge is thinking maybe i should have done it . I mean, it does seem very obvious. Yes, i think thats right. This is all surmise, chris, but it seems to original from a jurors having seen a stray piece of paper on a counsel paper last friday and possibly talking to others. He had the long hearing on friday. And he had the juror by juror examination today. There are some alternates there. And probably at the end of the day its something hell probably permit to go forward, he has some discretion. But as julia says, this might be best shot now for the defense to really put on it hard. Judge ellis needs to make a good record for appeal. I think hell take it seriously but probably deny it. This is a serious guy, danny. From the beginning, this is on what they called the rocket docket, which means he wanted this thing to move along. It had been moving along. Two hours only by the way for your closing arguments. I think they wanted it for. What do you make, a fivehour delay, i think it was friday. Now a 2 1 2hour delay today. Should we not make too much of it . In any highprofile case, you have to safeguard the sanctionty of the jury. In a run of the mill case, even in the federal government, that the media doesnt care about, you just dont have that concern at the forefront as you do in a case like this. One juror, one tainted juror can ruin the entire jury and the entire trial. So its worth being careful. About the rocket docket, federal court in general is one big rocket docket compared to state courts. But even for federal court pace, this trial has moved exceptionally quickly. But at the same time, a delay of five hours, very reasonable, when youre investigating any potential juror misconduct or jurors accidentally seeing or hearing or clicking on something that they should have avoided. And hes the kind of guy who wants to make sure hes covered all his bases. Let me go back to, if i can, the defense resting without calling a single witness. Are you surprised . What do you make of it . Well, a little startling. I think people who saw the trial expected manafort not to testify. Im not sure though that the jury and maybe the viewers did. He couldnt have afforded to, given what would have happened. But people nevertheless expect to hear him. Once they decided not to call him, it might have been a strategy. It will be interesting to hear what danny thinks about this. To call a couple witnesses to break the momentum. Instead, they chose not to do it and i think go into closing tomorrow, trying to portray a kind of bravado about, well, the government just hasnt made its case and we didnt have to do anything, much less call manafort. So it was a strategic call on their part. Im sure they had a couple little witnesses they could have gone forward with. But theyll try to coudo a compe burden of proof. Do you think the defense really thinks that the prosecution has not made its case . Its such a difficult decision to not put on any case for the defense. Its agonizing. But you commit to it and you say listen, were going to go with the theme of the government, theyve got nothing. If we start putting on witnesses so the opening line in your closing . Right, we didnt put on a defense because we didnt have to. They havent met their burden. We dont have the burden. By not putting on a defense, you highlight the fact that the burden is not the defendants, its the government. With everything he through at us, they still kididnt come up with anything. It is such a difficult choice to rest, calling no witnesses, especially least of all your own client. Its always a gambit. A difficult decision. But sometimes in cases, you dont have an alternate theory. All you can do is chop away at the governments case and hope you poked enough holes for the jury to hang a not guilty verdict on. We heard julia reporting you agree, danny, they couldnt have called manafort, right . They could not have called. He had a constitutional absolute right to testify. That being said, wild horses would have held him away from that stand if his attorneys but as a matter of the legal profession, right, if he goes to his lawyers and said, i am absolutely going to testify, theyve got to let him on the stand, right . He has a constitutional right to get up there and take the stand. However, his attorneys have another right to get him in a head lock and keep him from getting on that stand because it would be a disaster. If you have a client with credibility issues, then putting them on the stand as much as the jury wants to hear from him or her can just devastate your case. If there are credibility issues, generally speaking, your clients better off sitting right where he is. Legally, chris, there are things you can do when he takes the stand that you cant do otherwise to really impeach him. Im sorry, go ahead. No, i was just going to say, we are it seems like everything is in some sort of slow motion, just because of the pace of news any more. Its not that long ago we were talking about the way that Paul Manafort spent his money. Thats the way they sort of began the case. Heres a guy who made tens of millions of dollars consulting on politics and blew through it all by the time he went to work for the president. He didnt have any money left. Theyve got a Legal Defense fund. Word is its not doing very well. Im just curious if either of you guys have a guess how much this is costing him . The Paul Manafort defense fund would need how much money to pay off these lawyers . This isnt the end for it either. Youre asking me to guess at what other Defense Attorneys are making . This is hearsay in the defense part. I can tell you a lot. Its in the millions. Billing aside, its all the any experts theyve used, all the document review. Everything. Its a heavily document intensive case. These white collar cases how much they spent on all these experts, they couldnt put a single one of them on the stand. Thank you. Decline in dignity. The president just called his former staffer omarosa a dog. Now his campaign is taking legal action against her to keep omarosa from spreading stories of racism and lying in the white house. Plus, ladys night. In the year of the woman running for office, most of the women running are democrats. Where are the republicans . Why theyre hearing from key advisers to wait it out. And struck out. A top fbi agent fired after antitrump Text Messages surfaced. Will he sue, though, to get his job back . Attention homeowners age sixtytwo and older. One reverse mortgage has a great way for you to live a better retirement. Its called a reverse mortgage. Call rfree information kityour with no obligation. It answers questions like. How a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for, the ways to receive your money and more. Plus, when you call now, youll get this magnifier with led light absolutely free when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today youll learn the benefits of a governmentinsured reverse mortgage. It will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you taxfree cash from the equity in your home. And heres the best part. You still own yohome. Call now take control of your retirement today 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. Im back. Aleve pm for a better am. Next hour, the White House Press briefing. Press secretary Sarah Sanders almost certainly will be bombarded with questions that quo to the heart of the latest controversies. Are nondisclosure agreements enforceab enforceable. Is it okay to call a woman a dog . Thats just the latest slur that President Trump has made against his former friend and white house aide Omarosa Manigault newman. This morning, filed a civil arbitration claim to put the stop on her tellall tour. Quote, when you give a crazed crying lowlife a break and give her a job at the white house, i guess it just didnt work out. Good work by general kelly for quickly firing that dog. The twotime apprentice stars new memoir was officially released today. She also released a new state that would seem to back up a central claim in her book. Cbs news obtained the secretly recorded conversation. Nbc news has had no access to the tape which does contain an edit and we do not know what came before or after the exce t excerpts presented. We only know that omarosa says this call occurred between Campaign Aides in october 2016 and she says they were discussing a longrumored tape of trump using the n word. Today, the president denied the existence of any such tape. He says that word is not in his vocabulary. We had a Conference Call and we talked about what we would do. Katrina pierson said she thought he actually said it. No, that did not happen. Sounds like shes writing a script for a movie. Im trying to find out at least the context. To help us maybe figure out a way to spin it. I said, well, sir, can you think of any time that this might have happened . And he said no. Well, thats not true. How do you think i should handle it . And i told him exactly what you just said, which is, well, it k depends on what scenario youre talking about. He said, why dont you just go ahead and put it to bed. He said it. Hes embarrassed. You have everything you say in the book backed up by tape or email . Absolutely. If you see it in quotes, it can be verified. Last hour, one of the aides you just saw released a statement. Katrina pierson writes in part, in her secret tape recording of me, it was one of many times i would placate omarosa to move her along because i was weary of her obsession over this alleged tape. Nancy cook, a White House Reporter for politico. Danny cevallos is an msnbc legal analyst. John me chum, let me ask you a big picture question. When you see whats going on. When you see people taping each other, including in the situation room, when you have the president tweeting and calling a woman a dog. It goes on and on and on. What does it say about the culture of this white house, john . Its not recorded whether jefferson and washington taped each other in washingtons cabinet. My pictures a little fuzzy. This is exhibit 6,012 so to speak but whos counting . Exactly. Of this hobsian world that the president has brought to the highest levels. It is an absolute free for all. Its the world frankly that hes most comfortable with i think. This is someone whos comfortable with manufactured and often elective chaos. And remember the New York Times reported very significantly i think that during the transition, trump said to aides, lets treat every day of the presidency as an episode in a tv show where i vanquish my rivals. He needs this conflict. He needs this kind of struggle. A, because it takes away from having to actually do anything substantive, which is hard. And, secondly, this is how he began. This is how he rose to prominence. Was through this kind of just ferocious fighting. And i dont think its ever going to change. Yes, and, i mean, just when you think youve seen everything, you have these two people who became famous through Reality Television basically, going at each other like the battle of the Network Stars or something. And the president , nancy, has been on a bit of a twitter tear about this. I want to read what Eugene Robinson wrote today. He said, its hard to take omarosas word for anything but, lordy, she has tapes. And they offer vivid proof that Donald Trumps white house is part clown show, part nest of vipers. We heard omarosa say if its in quotes in her book, she has a tape or email. How nervous are the people in the white house about this . I feel like they werent nervous last week. There was a lot of eye rolling over omarosas book coming out. I think once they realized she had the tapes, they started to take things more seriously. Omarosa has really been going one for one with the president in terms of trying to dominate the news cycle. You know, theyre sort of out manning each other. He called her a dog on twitter. She released a tape. I feel like what has caught the white house a bit unaware is they are basically entering into a multiday news cycle. When i think originally their plan was to roll their eyes at it, try to cast omarosa as an uncredible source and basically to not really acknowledge or respond to it. Yes, it gets a lot more dicey for the white house when people deny things, but then they turn up on tape. Well see exactly what she has. Again, these tapes that shes released, were only seeing the little bits of them she wants us to see. Lets talk about these ndas. You know, if trumps got people signing nondisclosure agreements and now hes going to court basically to say shes got to stop, who may have the legal upper hand here . Probably omarosa. For a number of reasons. First of all, nondisclosure agreements are not impossible in the context of Government Employees, but theyre not just realistic. Government employees dont have the same First Amendment rights. That doesnt mean they have no First Amendment right whatsoever. Sometimes in the case of sensitive information, that may be governed by a different legal set of principals. But the way donald trump used nondisclosure agreements in his former private life simply wont be as available to him in his public life because if you make a nondisclosure agreement, it can infringe on a Public Employees not only their First Amendment rights but their whistleblower rights. We have a strong incentive in this country that if a Government Employee sees wrongdoing by another government official. You wrote about these. Quote in senior staff meetings, the white houses top attorney don mcgahn. As a nudge to push them to sign it, according to two of the people familiar with the agreement. So if trumps top well, we dont know. Does he really believe that theyre not enforceable or was he just trying to get them to sign these agreements . What can you tell us based on your reporting . Well, i feel like trump has used ndas for years. Yes. He used them as a businessman with the trump organization. The campaign had one which is a stricter one that included a nondespairment clause. I was told trump was the one behind the scenes really pushing the then chief of staff Reince Priebus and the white house attorney don mc