he was the first cap nbinet appt of of president-elect donald trump s. now, he could be the first attorney general to be fired by a president. presidents before asked their attorney general to resign. some quit on their own. gonzalez in 2007. firing is different. at one point in our history, it wasn t legal. nobody is making that argument now. president trump seems to want to take advantage. his legal team has apparently talked him out of it. i m told he agreed several months ago not to take any action on sessions until after the special counsel investigation is over. if and when after that the president does sack sessions, he might not get as much pushback as you might think from republicans on capitol hill. even richard shelby, also from alabama, who was by sessions side in the senate for two decades, is telling the washington post, nothing lasts forever. nbc s hans nichols is at the white house. hans, i know you had a chance to
time and move their cases up to the top of the court docket. but it wasn t legal in 2016. it s unclear hoits going to be legal now. julia ainsley thank you for the clear and succinct explanation of something that s usually difficult to get your head around. kristen welker we will be back with you once we hear that the president has signed that order and of course we ll see you tonight on nicely news. the president is getting ready to sign that order ending family separation but the debate over immigration reform is far from over. the house is expected to vote on a bill tomorrow that the white house appears to support. here s how speaker ryan explains what s in it. this is very good compromised legislation. not only solves the child separation issue at the border, it also solves the border, solves daca, solves a lot of our he can broen immigration parts. right now we are focused on passing this legislation that s coming on the floor tomorrow.
jail time and i don t think it is going to be on the order of 30 to 40 years but when folks are looking at jail time, three years is a lot of time for us. right? we don t want to do that. a year would be a lot of time. six months. how about five minutes. so there are these two structural things that are dangled in front of folks who are in trouble acceptance of responsibility and cooperation. and both of those things can work to reduce sentences. i ve seen lots and lots of people talk tough. i ve seen almost all of them plead guilty and cooperate. hank, have you ever seen or dealt with or heard anything about michael cohen doing anything that wasn t legal? it is the persona that gives off the kind of sense that maybe something s not right. but that s very much new york. it s also philadelphia. i ve been pr counsel in criminal trials involving public officials all over the country. it is what you show and what you show tends to give off the suspicion. that s part of the
difference between leave winning over remain was just a few percentage points. and almost 2/3 of a million pounds makes all the difference. and it wasn t legal. reporter: now that s a drastic conclusion. but here is what sanni alleged. it hit its legal spending limits so it gave the surplus to youth activists who they behave believe gave to it canadians for digital advertising that is illegal sanni and some legal expert says if there is coordination with the leave campaign. sanni says e-mails and shared drives prove coordination. believe campaign deny any wrongdoing and say they got electoral watchdog permission to pass it on. uk elected officials say they haven t said what they conclude of the evidence. all this really exposes is how poorly equipped british campaign finance law is along with those who are meant to enforce it.
separate campaign group to deliberately spend more than the authorized campaign limit. in effect they overspend and not just by small amounts, by 2-thirds of a million pounds they overspent and the impact of that, the difference between the difference between that was just a few percentage points and that makes all the difference and it wasn t legal. the majority of that money allegedly went to the canadian data firm called aggregate iq. they have been linked to cambridge analytica. they were accused of using facebook user data to target voters. they cheated and people were lied to and the referendum wasn t legitimate.