thank you, wolf. we could learn paul manafort s sentence in the virginia case any moment now. if we get that word, of course, we ll interrupt this interview. let s talk about what s going on, t.s. elliott, the federal judge, reiterated these crimes are not related to collusion with russia. what does that tell you? well, what manafort has been charged and convicted of is common, garden variety tax evasion, financial fraud and we still don t know to what extent mueller, special counsel, has determined that he was engaged in any kind of effort to p undermine the election. the judge t.s. ellis, i should note. he is facing up to 25 years in prison. he served as the trump campaign chairman. how will this reflect on the president? the real question is, is the
that could be significant, right? yes, that could be significant but it also seems to be contradictory to the idea that he has given false testimony. i mean the testimony he gave seems to contradict the idea of these e-mails. yeah. and to that extent mueller s team will certainly look at that because that s a very traditional path to follow is looking at these sorts of false statements he may have made to congress and then he ll have another opportunity to get himself in trouble when they actually do interview him, and i m certain they will be following up on that. but to be clear, some folks are saying, look, maybe he is a target in this probe given that you usually wait until the end to talk to potential targets, right? that sort of depends on how the investigation develops. but one thing would be very true is his attorneys would be asking that question early and often about his status. shan wu thank you, molly ball, thanks you guys. have a good weekend. right now harve
panicked. now they just sort of know, this is part of being a member of this administration, not dissimilar from badging in every day. so, they don t love it, they re uncomfortable with it but it s a daily reality they re learning to deal with. joyce, one of the things i understand could be a new reality for this white house is they have lulled themselves into a sense of complacency that mueller was clearly looking at obstruction and had let collusion go. i understand that the 13 indictments and rumors about what might be next has the white house staff that participated in the campaign, only a few of them left, on edge. and i want to read you something else from peter s great, great piece because it s back on the obstruction point. peter reports that, to the extent mueller is exploring whether trump obstructed justice by firing comey, the president s defenders contend that under the constitution he has the power to dismiss executive branch officials and dictate their work. they also
what if anything was taking place during the campaign. it looks from the initial things that are being pieced together here we re looking at what happened after the election. it raises it seems to me, a potential different question. not one about this issue of collusion during the election but about this idea of the logan act, about trying to set foreign policy, take actions before somebody is actually in office. conversations with the russians about sanctions involving israel and skaous excuse me, what the obama administration did last september. are we in post election or preelection realm? it seems to be attentively on the post election side. then it is a question too of does flynn actually have, if he is cooperating, what mueller thinks he has and will he cooperate to the extent mueller believes he will cooperate. we have seen cases where the plea deal is struck. the cooperation is agreed to. and six months later the