Rachel Maddow takes a look at the days top political news stories. Summit was less than an hour and didnt have any follow through and that match is reporting the Trump Administration has no central policy for Election Security and no one is in charge. While were running through the facts, note that another appointee flagged that they dont have a key person minding the store in Cyber Security because the Trump Administration eliminated the job of Cyber Security coordinator. So thats a lot of facts. That is the current policy baseline. Experts noting the trump approach looks more like cyber lackadaisical than cyber secure. That is the framework for what happened today. A list of intelligence vips, marching into the White House Briefing room. And you can see it there. They were rolling deep. You see the leaders of intel announcing that contrary to what their boss says, the recent reports in the news of russian midterm meddling are true. That russian interference and u. S. Politics continu
Rachel Maddow takes a look at the days top political news stories. So that was the answer. Thats the tension on the intelligence. Then there is a separate tension about how do you investigate, indict and punish the people identified by that very intelligence for Attacking American Democracy . We all know, there is a busy Special Counsel that trump has denigrated and at sometimes lied about. So a question on that was posed to the fbi director who of course, lets not forget has this job because his predecessor was fired because of the same russia probe and that firing is now part of the obstruction inquiry. I have a question for director wray. Thank you. The special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted more than 20 russian officials based on work by the fbi for med ding in the 2016 election. The president has tweeted that that investigation by the Special Counsel is a hoax and should be shut down. I know youve said you dont believe it is a hoax. Why would the American People
believe what
charges related to bank fraud. with regard to those charges, they need to show the motive that he was running out of cash. so that s why he was involved with this money. so there are two different motives. two different theories for the two different sets of cases. the legal standard under the rules of evidence is the evidence should be permissible unless it is substantially more prejudicial than it is probative. because it is probative, these the things he himself bought. it is hard to argue that it is substantially more substantial than probative. and josh, what about the big question that we ve teed up tonight and has come up before in reporting in the new york times and your publication, as well, that this was an unusual volunteer arrangement? there is no question about that. and at a particular moment. i think it s because this is case spans a long period of time from 2010 or back to 2005 to 2016 and 2017 right into the heart of the trump campaign and beyond.
question that we ve teed pup has come up before in reporting in new york times, and your publication as well, that this was an unusual volunteer arrangement? there is no question about that. and at a particular moment. i think this case span as long period of time. from 2010 back to 2005 to 2016 and 2017 right into the heart of the campaign and beyond. in 2010, manafort seemed to be doing okay. he was bringing in a lot of money. and the oligarchs supporting the party of regents. he spent $60 million in ukraine. you can manage to spend a few years on $60 million but hit begun to dry up in 2015 and 2016 and that s when the desperation set in. and the real question is, was that job at the top of the trump campaign a product of this desperation? was he going to go through the