Analysis and discussion of the days top stories and compelling issues from Lawrence ODonnell. Have always said the purpose of the meeting was, so get information on Hillary Clinton. The original trump lie about this meeting was that the meeting was about russian adoptions. But the president s lawyers were forced to admit in a letter to the Special Prosecutor that President Trump dictated a false statement to the New York Times about that meeting knowing it was false, a statement saying the meeting was about russian adoptions. The legal implications of the president s tweet are gravely threatening to the president s son. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics. But it is not done all the time in politics, and its totally, totally illegal. If it is a meeting with foreign citizens trying to help the Trump Campaign. Federal law makes it a crime for a Foreign National to, quote, directly or indirectly help an American Campaign with financial contributions or, quote, an other thing of value. Federal election law recognizes Opposition Research as, quote, a thing of value. Federal election law makes it a crime to, quote, solicit, accept or receive a thing of value to a campaign for Foreign National. The email traffic setting up the meeting in trump tower during the campaign with russian nationals shows donald trump jr. Eagerly soliciting what they call dirt on Hillary Clinton after they had clinton dirt to contribute to the Trump Campaign. The president s tweet yesterday said that the meeting, quote, went nowhere. The trump line of defense about the meeting was that the russians didnt hand over any dirt on Hillary Clinton. As we sit here tonight, we dont know if thats true. We dont know what happened in the meeting. We dont really know what happened after the meeting. We dont know whether the russians directly handed over
dirt to the Trump Campaign about Hillary Clinton directly to donald trump jr. Or to anyone else in the campaign. But there are three ways to violate federal election law on contributions from Foreign Nationals. The trump line of defense says the Trump Campaign did not actually receive any dirt on Hillary Clinton from the russians, and, so, there was no crime. They are now insisting that the meeting was legal because they did not receive any dirt on Hillary Clinton. And so if that is true. Donald trump jr. Is not guilty of having received a thing of value from the Trump Campaign from russians. But he did solicit it. It is illegal to solicit, accept or receive a thing of value from a russian national. He said i love it. Other emails show donald trump eagerly setting up the meeting in which he hoped to accept and receive help from the russians. All Donald Trumps eager maneuvers could fit the Legal Definition of solicit. President trump reportedly knows that. And according to one report has expressed worries about Donald Trumps legal jeopardy, which brings us back to why. Why would the president write a tweet yesterday morning that might put his son in even more legal jeopardy . Leading off our discussion now, Jill Winebanks and mimi roca. Shes an msnbc contributor. Jill, it was a quick 44 years ago that Richard Nixon yesterday was handing over those tapes and three days later was gone. On the anniversary of that moment, of the handing over of the tapes, we get this extraordinarily strange tweet
from the president. Since i read that tweet, all i have been wondering about is why. Can you make any sense of the why that tweet would go out . I have long since given up trying to figure out why the president does anything because almost none of it makes any sense. That was very harmful, not just to his son who he was throwing under the bus by admitting the real purpose of the meeting, but to him as well because he drafted a fake report about why the meeting happened. So now hes admitting to obstruction of justice, not just to working with the russians. And you clearly defined what the law is. You cannot accept anything. And if you tried to get it but failed, you have attempted to violate the law. And thats just as much a crime as actually taking it. If i go into a bank and say, give me your money and you refused, i still tried to rob
your bank, and i can be tried for a crime. So the fact that he didnt succeed or at least says he didnt and as you pointed out, we dont know whether he actually got dirt or not. We certainly know that there was an announcement that there would be dirt and then there was a leak of the emails. So did they know that thats what was going to happen . That would be conspireing with the russian government to hurt the election. And thats a crime. Mimi roca, we dont know if the president had help with this tweet. We dont know if someone else gave him that big, fancy word, fabrication. But if he did have help with this tweet or a lawyer looking over his shoulder on this tweet, can you find any conceivable legal theory that would suggest this tweet could be somehow helpful . I dont think he had a good lawyer helping him, if he had a lawyer helping him. Okay. But, so no. I dont see a great legal theory. One, he sees the Writing On The Wall about his son and that, you know, all arrows point to his son is going to likely be charged with something in relation to this meeting and hes trying to engender some part of sympathy. My poor son. Woe is him. There are some people out there, some Trump Supporters who may go along with that and feel that. This is part of the witch hunt without using the word witch hunt. There is a second part of the tweet that what hes done in the tweet is after 100 tweets of no collusion, no collusion. He now has basically said without using the words in this tweet, yes, collusion. But it was my son and i feel bad for him and i didnt know about
it. So hes trying to distance himself. Its just it is a total what we call false exculpatory, what he says about his knowledge. It looks false because it is. And so i think, again, if he had a lawyer advising him, it was not a good lawyer. And, jill, the idea that this is helpful to the president himself alone saying this is a way of saying that the president isnt guilty of anything, i still cant think of any reason to put that in a tweet, even if thats what the president believed, that He Wasnt Guilty of anything. Hes not getting very good legal advice. And something she said also reminded me of why, for example, Rosemary Woods was never indicted for perjury. She testified she erased 18. 5 minutes and described how she did it and the testimony showed that that did not happen. But we didnt indict her because it would have been a distraction. I dont think the same is true with donald trump jr. Donald trump jr. Played a pivotal role in the campaign and he is not just some Assistant To The President who shouldnt be indicted. If he did as his email said, please give me the dirt. I love it. Especially release it later in the summer when it will do maximum damage, thats an indictment crime and he should be tried for it. If donald trump jr. Solicited this information from russian nationals without knowing that that was a crime, how does that factor into charging this crime or defending against this charge . He doesnt have to know that it is a crime. What he has to have is a general intent here that he knew, you know, what he was doing. So here he knew he was accepting information. Whether it be, you know, actual
documents. When we talk about dirt, as you mentioned, it could just be that they told him they were going to do something or that they had access to information, and thats why, you know, trump made that announcement. So he does not have to know. Ignorance of the law is no defense and people are familiar with that. There are some crimes when you have to have a more specific intent. But here it would have to be general knowledge about the conduct that he was doing, not the specific law that he was violating. And in particular, if were talking about conspiracy law, you know, he could be liable for joining a conspiracy that the russians already had underway when they hacked into the democratic emails and had them in their possession. You can join a conspiracy at any time. You dont have to be there from the beginning, as long as you are aware of the general object of the conspiracy and you join it and do something in furtherance, which again all
arrows point to trump jr. Did that. Thank you both for starting us off tonight. Really appreciate it. When we come back, the Prosecutions Star Witness took the stand today in the trial of former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort and immediately implicated Paul Manafort in several crimes. And new reports from white house sources indicate the president is more worried than ever about the Special Prosecutors investigation, especially the investigation of donald trump jr. The fact is, there are over ninetysix hundred roads named park in the u. S. Its americas most popular street name. But Allstate Agents know thats where the similarity stops. If youre on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the Washoe Zephyr could damage your siding. And thats very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. But no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local Allstate Agents knows yours. Now that you know the truth, are you in good hands . Crisp leaves of lettuce. Freshly made dressing. Clean food that looks this good. Delivered to your desk. Now delivering to home or office. Panera. Food as it should be. Panera. This is not a screensaver. Game. This is the destruction of a cancer cell by the bodys own immune system, thanks to medicine that didnt exist until now. And today can save your life. Today rick gates, the star prosecution for the case of the United States of america versus Paul Manafort testified that he committed crimes with the former Trump Campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The prosecution asked did you commit any times with mr. Manafort. Gates again responded yes. Gates is manaforts longtime business association, who is cooperating with mueller in exchange for a reduced sentence. Gates spent his first hour on the stand admitting to the jury most of the bad things and crimes that he has done. Gates admitted to helping Paul Manafort commit bank and tax fraud, Holding Money in hidden bank accounts, money that was
used to fund Paul Manaforts lavish lifestyle. He testified he knew what they were doing was illegal but said he lied because Paul Manafort directed him to lie. But he also admitted to crimes of his own, such as Embezzling Hundreds Of Thousands of dollars from Paul Manafort and lying to the fbi. This is a crucial element in the manafort defense teams approach, which is to try to blame rick gates for these financial crimes, insisting that Paul Manafort was taken advantage of by rick gates. Paul manafort sat in the courtroom staring down his former aid just at the beginning of this show down and the jury will, in the end, have to pick who to believe, rick gates or Paul Manafort. Joining us now the Intelligence National supporter for nbc news. Mimi is still with us. We dont know if Paul Manafort is going to take the Witness Stand in his own defense. Although, it is hard to imagine a real defense in this case that doesnt include Paul Manafort. So what do you think at this stage the jury is seeing in the rick gates testimony . Well, theyre seeing kind of an unattractive character on the one hand, lawrence, an admitted criminal. A guy that got up there and talked about a crime spree that he and Paul Manafort were involved in by his story. But also admitted, as you said, to all these other crimes, some of this the prosecution said they didnt even know about until mr. Gates brought it to his attention as part of his Plea Agreement where they say you need to confess all your bad acts because it will come out at trial anyway. She thought the jurys body language, they were leaning back in their seats after having been leaning forward as if to express
skepticism about gates. That doesnt mean they wont eventually believe what hes saying. I thought he was an effective and compelling witness even as he was admitting to all these crimes because he is a man with nothing left to lose. His whole goal right now is to minimize his prison term. If he lies on the stand, his agreement is null and void. So, you know, hes only started part way down the road of admitting to all these various charges in the specifics that he acknowledges up front he was guilty of. He was indicted alongside mr. Manafort of the same bank and tax fraud charges. Right up front he said, yes, i was guilty of those charges. I only pled guilty to this one charge, but i was guilty of all this other stuff. Heres what else i was guilty of. Mimi, as a prosecutor, you have dealt with this many times. You put on the stand your star witness is a person that committed crimes with the defendant. So you have the admitted criminal on the Witness Stand in exchange for a reduced sentence saying, that guy over there, that defendant, is a criminal. Absolutely. And, you know, i put on the Stand Witnesses who have been committed just horrible crimes, murders, you know, drug trafficking, liars, fraudsters. As ken noted, the jury does they get it. They dont like those cooperators and they probably dont like rick gates and they may be leaning back in their seat, but that doesnt mean they wont believe them. Thats the key. You dont have to like him. You have to believe him. You dont have to, but you should. And heres why. And then they give the jury reasons to believe the cooperator. The government prosecution is never going to ask a jury to solely rely on a cooperaing witness like rick gates. They will back their case up with corroboration, evidence. They will ask, does this make sense and fit in with the other evidence. They will point to the Cooperation Agreement. It is very important. It is designed, the government corop Ration Agreement that all u. S. Attorneys offices use and the one that was used here to incent vise truth telling. The way a cooperator can mess himself up is to plead guilty under a Cooperation Agreement and lie on the stand. They will end up getting a higher sentence than if they pled guilty on other crimes. Thats how they get a reduction in the sentence. So there is all these different
tools that prosecutors will point to to a jury to explain why they can believe the cooperator. They dont have to like him and they probably wont, but here is why you should believe him. They will also remind the jury that we, the government, we didnt pick this guy. Paul manafort did. And of course he committed crimes. Thats what Paul Manafort was doing. And gates took responsibility for it, and thats why hes here today. And, ken, to mimis point that prosecution is never relying on any one witness, The Gates Testimony follows one of the shortest witnesses in the case so far, federal official simply pointing out the fact that they never reported any of the, what, 15, 14 or so Foreign Bank Accounts that they were legally required to report, gates and manafort. Thats just fact at this point. Yes, lawrence. Absolutely right. Thats why i have been saying tonight that even if gates totally collapsed under crossexamination and the jury
discounts everything he says, there is still a pretty strong case against Paul Manafort on exactly the point that you just made. There was a Treasury Agent who testified about the requirements to report Foreign Bank Accounts. Paul manafort didnt report any of him. And his tax preparer said the reason is because she never disclosed them to her. She was totally unaware of them and that is a felony if it is proven that it was willful. The only manafort defense there is he didnt know it was a crime. There is a lot of evidence to contradict that, lawrence. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it. You bet. When we come back, a former head of t