Analysis and discussion of the days top stories and compelling issues from Lawrence ODonnell. Joining us now intelligence and National Security reporter for nbc news, politics editor at theroot. Com and former Chief Adviser or al gore and a former senior aid to president obama. When a trump tweet ends with National Disgrace, a tweet that includes a misspelling by the president , it reminds me of the days when misspelling was a National Disgrace when done by the Vice President of the United States, dan quayle on the word potato, days that no one can really remember at this point. Here is the president and the only reason i read the tweet is to note the level of hysteria, which increases in direct proportion, it appears, to just how disturbed the president is by the news hes reading or being read to him in the New York Times. Lawrence, you can almost say he was unhinged. You could, yes. By the way he seems to be
responding to these things. I have to say i have been avoiding that word sin
Erin Burnett stays ahead of the headlines, delivering a show that is indepth and informative. Nice to have you all. John dean, let me begin with you. You heard the president out there try to defend himself today. Did he do himself any favors . Every time he opens his mouth he seems to conflict with a prior statement so i dont think he did himself any favors. They have not developed a Clear Strategy or approach or answer or response to any of this. And it is reminiscent of others in high places that got themselves in trouble. Some of them kept a better message than trump has. David, to you, the defense from the president again and again is, you know, the payments didnt come out of the campaign. He said and i quote, they being the payments, came from me. If what he said on fox is true, that statement, then at the very least he admitted to a payment that was not disclosed on the Financial Disclosure forms, which very well may be illegal, but how does the court of Public Opinion see it ton
A recap of the days headlines and a look at whats in store for tomorrow. All tried to convince her to look at the paper trail, we laid it out in front of her again and again and she still said she had reasonable doubt and that is the way the jury worked. We didnt want it to be hung so we tried for an extended period of time to convince her that in the end she held out and that is why we have 10 counts. Is that where the note did not come from, performance in the note and said can you explain reasonable doubt . Wasnt connected to that . It was. Most of us did not want that question out there but one of the jurors did. We felt a little foolish sending it but that is the way the jury works. Deliberation requires we submit that question to the judge. Judge ellis said this about the situation. I received criticism and threats. I can imagine they would too meaning of your names were released. If you told jurors their names would be public at the outset of this trial i might see some request
A newscast reviewing and analyzing top stories of the day as they happen. Did you find him to be credible . No. I think he would have done anything that he could to preserve himself. Thats just obvious in the fact that he flipped on manafort. Shepard but that juror went on to convict Paul Manafort. Peter doocy will have more on that in just a moment and john roberts will have a detailed wrapup on a renewed throw down between the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the president. First, lets get to Rick Leventhal with more on the reported immunity deal for the publisher of the National Inquirer and now former trump friend david pecker. Former friend. Sources are confirming this Wall Street Journal report that the u. S. Attorneys office offered immunity to david pecker so that he would talk about what he knew about Michael Cohens handling of those payments to those women, david pecker, longtime friend of the president and runs the National Inquirer. The journal reports the details include
Chris Cuomo asks the tough questions to newsmakers in Washington and around the world. Thats something that i think is very foreign. I guarantee it, chris, even though he koops, hes smart enough, Michael Cohen, not to say he was present at any meeting in which the president said i have an arrangement with the russians. Witnesses dont do that. Why not . If the question of collusion is on a scale one to ten, hell move it up to seven. Hell say, well, the president says he has a good arrangement with the russians but hell never say that the president said that he had a Collusive Arrangement with the russians. But thats t not the standard. What if he were present for a meeting where somebody gave the president information about something the that was going to happen that was a 23u7ks of the hacking and the president therefore knew about it at a time when he said he did not know about it . What if the president that would be punishable. Meetings that he said he doesnt know about and Michael