Report: first charges filed in Mueller Russia probe Transcript 10/27/17 The Rachel Maddow Show

Paul Fishman

Date: October 27, 2017
Guest: Paul Fishman

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, ALL IN: That`s “ALL IN” for this evening. THE
RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now, which I`m going to watch because I`m like
what`s going on here. Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: This is our long awaited night where we take
calls from viewers on difficult gardening questions to the shoulder season.
So, it`s a really been sludge year –

HAYES: Good. But do not, don`t kill that, go with your gut on this.

MADDOW: I`m telling you, every week when Susan drops me off at work on
Monday morning, she says, now, you let me know if you need consulting to do
the gardening show.

HAYES: Well, tell Susan I said hello –

MADDOW: I will do. We`re doing that tonight. Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Thanks.

MADDOW: All right. Thanks to you at home for joining this hour.

So, as Chris was alluding to there, there`s a lot of to talk about right
this second. I will tell you that there have been a whole bunch of scoops
that have broken in the press today, this afternoon and now into tonight.
This has been a Neiman lights day for a whole bunch of American
journalists, for a conservative journalist in particular, for a “Wall
Street Journal” journalist, somebody from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence made a whole bunch of news in his own right today.
We`d just had some really, really, really interesting reporting out of the
Eastern District of Virginia, which is the sleeper story, which I think is
a huge deal. A whole bunch of important news has broken today. We`re
going to be talking about all of those stories tonight.

But I have to tell you, CNN has reported in the last few minutes, citing
two sources familiar with the matter, CNN is now reporting that the Robert
Mueller special counsel investigation has produced its first criminal
charges. Now, I would elaborate further right now on what CNN is reporting
on this matter tonight, but that really is all they`re reporting.

This is not confirmed by NBC News. This is not confirmed by any other news
organization at this point. So, this is just CNN`s work. They`re saying
that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. today approved the first
charges in the investigation that`s being led by the special counsel, by

Now, we don`t know what the charges are. The charges are reportedly
sealed, under orders from a federal judge. Let`s find out what that means
in just a moment. We also don`t know who the charges are against. If
they`re against one person or multiple people, or who those people are if
there are, in fact, charges against them.

Now, we also don`t have any reason to believe that anybody who might be
charge if this report is accurate, we don`t have any reason to believe that
any of those people have been notified of the fact that they have been
charged, if, in fact, these charges are still under seal.

So, the headline is very provocative. We know very little detail beyond
that. I mean, other than the fact prosecutors associated with the Mueller
investigation were seen entering the room where the grand jury meets in
D.C., in the federal courthouse in D.C. Other than the attorneys being
spotted in that room, which has happened before, we have no corroborating
information about whether or not this is true.

So, obviously, this is a very provocative prospect. We`re keeping an eye
closely on that for additional reporting. Lots of news organizations are
scrambling to do their own corroboration, their own approach to the story.
I`ll tell you as somebody who has covered the Russia story and Russia
investigation probably more extensively than anybody else in cable news, I
– I`ll just tell you that there have been lots and lots and lots and lots
of rumors that this was about to happen. And there have been lots of sort
of credible, single source reports, unconfirmed single source reports that
charges, in fact, were imminent from Mueller investigators.

But, you know, you follow all that stuff. You try to track all these
things down, but until you`ve got multiple credible sources, it`s not
reportable. CNN says it`s reportable at this point, nobody else does. If
they`re right, this is the first reported multisource account that these
charges may happen.

Now, on this story as in every story, there`s no reason to speculate
further, especially with no further details to speculate on. But based on
what they reported so far, how we should understand the significance of
this if this story is proven out.

Joining us now is Barbara McQuade. She`s former U.S. attorney.

Ms. McQuade, thank you very much for having – for being here with us
tonight. I have a lot of other things to talk to you about tonight as
well, but I`m really glad you were here for this.

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Oh, you bet. Happy to talk about
all of it.

MADDOW: All right. So, we don`t know – again, NBC News has not confirmed
the CNN reporting. But let me ask you about some of the terms that they`re
describing, just as a law enforcement professional, as a former federal
prosecutor, tell us what this means.

A federal grand jury in Washington D.C. approved the first charges in the
investigation being led by Mueller. Tell us about the work of a grand jury
and what it means to say that a grand jury has approved charges.

MCQUADE: Well, typically, what happens in a grand jury investigation is
they hear evidence. It could be little case, where they hear it for one
day, or a big case, like the one that we`ve been talking about here, where
they hear testimony and see exhibits over a matter of months.

And then at some point, the prosecutor makes a decision to seek or decline
to seek an indictment. They think they`ve gotten to the point where
they`ve got probable cause and sufficient evidence to go forward. So, the
prosecutor will draft the proposed indictment, present it to the grand
jury, discuss the law and the elements of the offenses, answer any
questions they have, and leave the room and leave the grand jury to
deliberate among themselves and make a decision whether they approve or
decline to approve – they call it issuing a true bill or issuing a no true
bill. It sounds like if this report is accurate, they did issue a true

MADDOW: Now, that`s at that point, not an adversarial process. There`s
nobody making a presentation to the grand jury that they shouldn`t approve
the proposed indictment from the prosecutor, right? This is between the
prosecutor and the grand jury without any intervening – any intervention
from somebody who might be representing the target of the proposed

MCQUADE: That`s right. And that`s why, you know, the defendant is still
presumed innocent. They have not had a chance to cross-examine witnesses,
confront accusers, or do all of the things they have a right to do at
trial. It`s been very one sided and the standard is, not guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, but simply probable cause.

But I will say this – you sometimes hear this complaint that a prosecutor
can indict a ham sandwich before a grand jury. I don`t think that`s true.
Not the least of which it`s a strange metaphor but because there is an
obligation under DOJ ethics rules to present the grand jury with
significant exculpatory information so they are understanding the whole

MADDOW: Does Robert Mueller, over his years in law enforcement, in the
Justice Department and the FBI, does he have a reputation in terms of how
aggressive he might be about charging people? Is he known for approaching
these things in any particular way?

MCQUADE: I`d say the one thing he`s known for is approaching
investigations with a sense of urgency. I think we`re seeing that here, to
have charges filed now. I mean, some people may not think that this is not
very quick, it seems very quick to me. But it is his reputation to work
very hard, to drive his people very hard, to leave no stone unturned.

And so, I think we`re seeing the fruits of that sort of effort tonight.

MADDOW: Now, according to CNN`s report, and this is not confirmed by NBC,
in their language the charges are still sealed under orders of a federal
judge. What would it mean for the grand jury, as you described, to have
approved a proposed indictment but then for the charges to be sealed? How
does that work and why is that done?

MCQUADE: Sealing is fairly common at this stage when you have an
indictment that is issued – or approved as it was – may have been today.
And the reason is that law enforcement kind of wants to get its ducks in a
row before they go out and arrest the defendant or even notify them. It
may be they don`t arrest whoever this defendant is because they worked out
a relationship with his or her defense attorney to bring them in to appear
on the case.

But, you know, it`s late on a Friday afternoon, they want to keep it secret
so at a moment of their choosing, they can either inform the defendant that
he or she has been charge, or they can surprise them with an arrest first
thing Monday morning, Tuesday morning, whenever they choose to do it.

MADDOW: Can charges like this, an indictment like this, can it be sealed
indefinitely? How long can a seal like this last?

MCQUADE: It can be sealed for some time. Sometimes there are strategic
reasons to seal an indictment for longer period of times. You may want to
arrest other people that you`re continuing to investigate, and you don`t
want to alert them that someone else has been charged. It could be someone
is a fugitive and you don`t know where they are, and so, you don`t want to
alert them of the charges, in the meantime, while you look for them.

At some point, it is considered against the defendant`s speedy trial rights
if you keep an indictment sealed for too long. And certainly there`s the
five-year statue of limitations from the time the conduct was committed.
So, it can be sealed forever. But my guess is in this case, they`re
sealing for some period of time just so they can effectuate either an
arrest plan or an appearance by the defendant in court.

MADDOW: Let me ask you an admittedly very damn question about this and I
am not a lawyer. I have no law enforcement connections whatsoever, other
than speeding tickets. But is it possible – I`m thinking about the
treatment by the special counsel thus far of Paul Manafort in particular.
The no-knock warrant to go turn up at his house in the pre-drawn hours,
including picking the lock. And he first finds out that they`re there when
they`re knocking at his bedroom door.

The reports that prosecutors working with special counsel Mueller told Paul
Manafort expect to be indicted. We have no reason to think these charges,
that they have anything to do with Manafort. But I`m just thinking about
that form of aggression that they seemed to have taken at least to that one
figure in the case.

Is it possible that you would bring a proposed indictment to a grand jury,
you`d the grand jury approve it, you`d seal the indictment, and you would
do that basically as a form of pressure on a target? Pressure on a
suspect, not necessarily because the end game is to put that person in jail
but you want to scare the bejesus out of that person so that they tell you
something for a larger part of your investigation.

MCQUADE: That seems unlikely to me. I think even the examples that you
gave were not so much scare tactics as necessary steps in the
investigation. Telling someone they`re a target of the investigation just
puts them on notice, that if you want to come in and cooperate, now is the
time. Maybe you can talk us out of it, if you can provide us information.

The no-knock warrant, I think, you know, you have to show a judge that
you`ve got a reason for that. There was some legitimate concern, if that
report is true, that maybe evidence would be destroyed, you know, deleting
of a document that`s saved on a cell phone, for example, that would be done
in a few minutes it takes for a knock and answer of a door. So, I don`t
think so. I think it seems unlikely that they would file an indictment
under seal just to scare somebody.

I think they mean business. I think if there`s an indictment, they`re
going to show it to somebody. I think they probably will use it as
leverage in hopes of getting cooperation against more egregious offenders.
But I guess it remains to be seen who the defendant or defendants are in
this case.

MADDOW: Barbara, let me just ask you one last question here and I`m going
to ask you to stay with us for the hour and come back and talk to us about
these things in a moment, but before I let you go for now, you did mention
that you feel like just in your – in your opinion, this feels quick to
you? This feels like this might have been faster than you were expecting
there to be charges and an indictment in this case. Can I just ask why you
said that?

MCQUADE: It seems like such a complex case, you know, when you think about
the big picture, about any connections between Russia and the Trump
campaign, seems like such an enormous case that it could take many, many
months to get to the bottom of it. But even in if it`s a charge against
Manafort or Flynn or someone else, it seems there`s so much new news all
the time with such complex financial issues that it seems it would take a
team of lawyers a very long time to get to the bottom of it.

But as I said, Robert Mueller does have a reputation for working with
urgency and he`s got a team of 16 really topnotch prosecutors so I`m sure
they`ve been working days, nights and weekends to get this done.

MADDOW: Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, thank you very much. And
again, I`d love for you to stick with us for the hour.

MCQUADE: You bet.

MADDOW: I have a feeling we`ve got a lot more to talk about.

I want to bring in the conversation now, Matthew Miller. He`s the former
spokesperson for the Justice Department.

Mr. Miller, thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate it.


MADDOW: So, you heard that discussion that I just had with Barbara
McQuade. You`ve seen this reporting that`s come out. Again, I need to –
I need to underscore that NBC News has not confirmed this reporting tonight
and as of five seconds ago when I last checked with the control room, no
other news agency has as well.

This is CNN`s reporting alone. They say they`re citing two sources
familiar with the matter and they`re saying that the first charges have
been brought. They`ve been brought. They`re under seal and so we don`t
know what they are.

Let me ask your top line response to that news if this turns out to be the

MILLER: I think what Barbara McQuade said is accurate. This shows that
Bob Mueller is moving very quickly. And he`s known for moving quickly,
but, you know, there are a lot of people that thought he might pursue this
entire investigation over months, into next year at some point, and then
wrap this all up at one time, with a series of charges, maybe a report to
Congress about actions by the president that wouldn`t result in criminal

And it appears, if this report is accurate, that he`s decided not to take
that course of action, but to bring, at least one indictment, maybe more
another maybe more than one set of indictments early in this case while he
continues to investigate other things. And I think that`s important to

This does not mean, obviously, that we are at the end of this
investigation. I think this is the first indictment, maybe set of
indictments, we`ll see when the charges are unsealed. And there could be
more to come.

MADDOW: Matt, from a DOJ perspective, part of the reporting that CNN has
done tonight which is more background rather than it is sort of some new
fact that they`ve dug up. But the way they`re characterizing their report
tonight is that the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who`s
overseeing all matters related to the Russia investigation because of the
recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, as the person
overseeing the Mueller investigation, would he have had to see this
proposed indictment? Would he have had to have been informed about these
proposed charges in order for the Mueller investigation to have gone this

MILLER: You know, technically, under the regulations, he wouldn`t have to
see the indictment. It would really be up to the relationship that he and
Mueller worked out under the terms of the appointment. The appointment
document itself is very narrow about what – you know, it kind of sets out
the things Mueller can investigate, it doesn`t set out the relationship he
and the deputy attorney general would have.

I would have expected Mueller would have informed Rosenstein about this,
would have briefed him about who he plans to indict, when he plans to do
it. But I – you know, I don`t know if he would brief him on the actual –
you know, what he`s actually found. I think, especially given the real
concerns that people have raised about Rosenstein`s independence, Mueller
will be aware of those and I think he might be careful about how much
detail he actually does share with the deputy attorney general.

MADDOW: Matt, on the issue of the political opposition that the Mueller
investigation and that the congressional Russia investigations have run
into, one of the things that`s been discussed over the last few days is
whether the Mueller budget request, whether the actual funding, that needs
to go in some ways go through Congress in order to keep the Mueller
investigation going, whether that might be a point of leverage that
Republicans in the White House could use against the Mueller investigation
and given the timing of when that investigation started, when he was put in
charge of this probe, which was just about six months ago, maybe that
question was starting to come due.

Do that – I want to know what your reaction is to that recent reporting
and those concerns by people who were worried about the independence of the

MILLER: You know, look, I think it`s clear that everyone from the
president to his allies in Congress to the conservative media have been
orchestrating a kind of escalating drum beat against the special counsel,
and that includes raising questions about his budget, includes raising
questions about whether he ought to be fired. And I think that shows
nervousness on their part about where his investigation might go, who he
charge, what he might find, and what changes now.

If indictments are unsealed next week, it means you`re interfering with an
ongoing criminal investigation, but you`re interfering what investigation
that a grand jury has found probable causes to charge someone criminally.
It becomes a question of really – it`s obviously not obstruction of
justice for Congress to do that, but it becomes, you know, blocking an
investigation that as borne fruit. It becomes a more questionable activity
after he`s filed charges than it was before.

MADDOW: One last question for you, Matt. One of the stories that we were
planning on leading with tonight before this news broke was the interesting
and unexpected news out of the eastern district of Virginia, that the U.S.
attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Dana Boente, who has played a
number of stand in roles, being brought on as acting attorney general,
acting deputy attorney general, he`s now the acting assistant attorney
general on national security matters, he announced his resignation today.
And that may be a totally separate matter from this, it may be absolutely

There has been some speculation that Dave Boente, because of the job he had
in the Trump administration, particularly being the person at DOJ who James
Comey was reporting to during that contested time that James Comey has said
the president was really pressuring him on the Russia investigation,
there`s been some reporting, some speculation that maybe Dana Boente may
end up being a witness in part of this investigation, maybe that has
something to do with him stepping down today.

Do you have any thoughts on that matter?

MILLER: You know, I don`t know if it`s true he`ll be a witness. I do
know – I talked to someone today that said they talked to Dana as recently
as several days ago, and all he can talk about was how eager he was for his
successor at the national security division where he`s been acting
assistant attorney general right now to be confirmed so he could retake his
job in the eastern district of Virginia. What that says to me is he did
not decide two days after having that conversation to resign, but that he
was forced out by the Trump administration.

We don`t know the answer to that, obviously. We don`t know whether it has
anything to do with the Mueller investigation, but the timing has been
curious with his sudden departure from the department.

MADDOW: Just to underscore what you just said there, that was a
conversation he had a couple of days ago in which he did not express any
desire and, in fact, expressed enthusiasm about continuing in the Eastern
District of Virginia and today mysteriously, or at least surprisingly, he

MILLER: Yes, exactly right. I think you can draw from that, it wasn`t a
resignation that wasn`t of his own volition.

MADDOW: Fascinating, and an important piece of this news. Matthew Miller
former DOJ spokesperson, thank you for being with us on short notice
tonight, Matt. I really appreciate it.

MILLER: Thank you.

MADDOW: I want to bring into the conversation now, another former U.S.
attorney, Paul Fishman who until very recently was the U.S. attorney
representing the great state of New Jersey.

Mr. Fishman, thank you very much for joining us on short notice.

PAUL FISHMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY (via telephone): Thanks for having me
back, Rachel.

MADDOW: Let me underscore again this is news that has not been confirmed
by NBC. This is one news organization reporting that charges, the first
criminal charges have been filed in the Mueller investigation. We don`t
know what those charges are. They`re reportedly still sealed, under orders
from a federal judge.

This is unconfirmed news, but this is CNN`s reporting tonight. Mr.
Fishman, I know you`re familiar with what CNN is reporting. Let me ask
your top line response to it?

FISHMAN: So, obviously, Rachel, when we talk about this investigation,
it`s not just one investigation. There are multiple parts and lots of
moving pieces to it. There`s the Manafort piece, the Flynn piece, the
potential obstruction of justice, the collusion with the Russians.

And it looks from the team that Bob Mueller has assembled that he`s got
multiple groups of lawyers working on different parts of the investigation,
and that would make sense. It`s a great way to organize the operation.
And it seems like that one particular piece of that investigation has now
gotten to a place where Mueller is comfortable returning charges against at
least one person if CNN`s reporting is correct.

That doesn`t mean that they`re finished. It doesn`t mean that that`s –
those will be all charges against even that individual, but he`s obviously
gotten to a place, if the reports are true, where he`s comfortable asking a
grand jury to indict, knowing he shouldn`t or wouldn`t do that unless he
has sufficient evidence to convict.

MADDOW: And in terms of how this is being handled, again, if the CNN
reporting is accurate, if the charges are sealed, CNN reports plans were
prepared today for anybody charged to be taken into custody as soon as
Monday. We just got an explanation from Barbara McQuade, your former
colleague in Michigan, about what it means for a judge to have sealed these

What is your take on the decision to seal them? The possibility they`d be
unsealed on Monday? And the question of whether or not attorneys for the
targets of this reported indictment will be notified?

FISHMAN: Well, so I think all of those things are possible. Typically,
when an indictment is returned, what it means is the majority of the grand
jury has voted that the person should be charged and then the indictment is
presented to a judge and then it`s filed on the docket of the court. If
the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors, believe there was a reason to
seal the indictment right away, they can ask the judge to do that until
certain things happen.

There`s always a reason that the prosecutors would give to the judge.
Sometimes, as Barb said earlier on your show, it`s because they want the
element of surprise for the arrest, sometimes it`s because the
investigation is continuing, and they don`t want to unseal at the moment.
Sometimes, it`s because they haven`t had a chance to tell the lawyer for
the person or people who are getting indicted and because they`ve been
having a dialogue over some period of weeks or months, they think out of
fairness, they would like the opportunity to do that before it becomes a
matter of public record.

MADDOW: In terms of the question I also asked Barbara McQuade, is it
possible that these are charges that are going to remain sealed for a long
time? That this is something being used as leverage against somebody in
this investigation who is maybe a smaller fish who they`re trying to
pressure into talking about stuff they haven`t previously been willing to
talk these investigators about? Is an indictment, a sealed indictment used
that way?

FISHMAN: So, sometimes it can be used that way. It`s not typical, I
think. What is – in my experience, what typical happens is when somebody
like Bob Mueller gets to a place he`s ready to indict, a conversation would
ensue between him or between somebody on his staff, and the lawyers or
lawyers representing the target of the investigation, saying we`re ready to
go, here`s a copy of the indictment. It`s time to actually come to the
table and, if your guy is going to come to the table and talk.

And that happens or it doesn`t happen. Typically, though, if the person
says, no, indict me, then that`s what happens. And then the person will be
arrested or will be given an opportunity to voluntarily appear in the
courtroom, to answer the charges and enter a plea of not guilty. And so,
what we don`t know is whether on Monday and we`ll see on Monday. We`ll
have a lot more information then, if the story is true. It`s possible
someone could be arrested over the weekend or Monday morning.

It`s possible that on Monday, Bob Mueller or somebody could have a press
conference announcing the indictment and the person`s appearance will
follow by some number of days. We just don`t know. It`s too early to

MADDOW: One last kind of dumb question for you. If there are people who
know they might potentially be indicted in this investigation and they just
heard that there`s a sealed indictment, is it possible people could like
flee the country this weekend?

FISHMAN: I – my guess is if Bob Mueller and his team of prosecutors and
agents had any fear that anybody was going to flee this weekend, they
probably have – they probably would have taken them into custody either
today or over the weekend to prevent that possibility. I think that`s
unlikely under a circumstance like this, particularly when people have
known for a while their conduct has been examined.

MADDOW: Paul Fishman, former U.S. attorney from the great state of New
Jersey, Mr. Fishman, thank you for joining us on short notice. Really
appreciate it.

FISHMAN: Thanks for having me back.

MADDOW: All right. So, again, this is news that is not confirmed by NBC
News or by any other news organization, but CNN is reporting that the first
charges have been filed in the special counsel investigation being led by
former FBI Director Robert Mueller. As you know, that Mueller-led
investigation started six months ago, the overall FBI investigation
reportedly started a year ago. Mueller`s remit is to look at the Russian
attack on the presidential election and the question of whether or not
anybody associated with the Trump campaign was in cahoots with that attack.

We don`t know what the charges are, if there are in fact charges. They`re
being described as sealed charges that we may find out about on Monday if
they`re unsealed on that day. So, somebody can be taken.

Again, unconfirmed reports in terms of NBC News. This is CNN`s reporting
as of right now. We`ll stay on it. Stay with us.


MADDOW: Always happens on a Friday. We`re following some breaking news

According to CNN, the investigation being led by special counsel Robert
Mueller has issued its first criminal charges. Now, these charges are
reportedly under seal and we do not yet know what those charges are, or who
may being charged, we don`t know if this report is accurate. NBC News has
not confirmed this reporting yet, but we will update you if an when we get
any more details on that front, either confirming or denying that CNN

But I got to tell you, this has been a wild day of scoops broken by
reporters across the country. Let me start with Rebecca Ballhaus at “The
Wall Street Journal”.

Rebecca Ballhaus has got a scoop today that I believe may end up being one
of the more important stories about the Russia scandal overall. It`s about
a crucial time when we first became aware as Americans that Russia was
doing something in the election. The first report that we as a country had
about that was on June 14th last year.

Ellen Nakashima in “The Washington Post,” last summer, that headline from
her, Russian government hackers penetrated DNC. That was the first
indication we had as a country that something was up in our election that
specifically had to do with the Russian government. Now, the date of that
first public report ends up being really important. That was June 14th
last year.

Now, keeping that in mind, there was some interesting reporting earlier
this week from Rebecca Ballhaus at “The Wall Street Journal” among others,
that was about the data firm Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica is
now famous as the data firm that worked for the Trump campaign, right?

But Rebecca Ballhaus at “The Journal” was first to report this week that
investigators have seen an e-mail in which the head of Cambridge Analytica
says that last June, June 2016, he made an on overture to WikiLeaks. He
offered that Cambridge Analytica, his firm, would like to help WikiLeaks,
disseminate all of those thousands of documents that had been stolen from
Democrats during the campaign. Cambridge Analytica specifically offered to
index the stolen Democratic emails and documents to make them online
searchable so there could be, you know, more stories written about them so
they could spread further.

Now, that offer from Cambridge Analytica to WikiLeaks that`s potentially
very important, right? If you`re looking for concrete evidence of the
Trump campaign helping out in the Russian plot to interfere in our
election, in a way that would harm the chances of Clinton winning that
election, well, that looks like a big deal, right? Here`s the Trump
campaign data firm offering to literally help more efficiently distribute
the Democratic documents that the Russians had stolen. That`s potentially
huge, right?

But here`s the problem with that. Here`s the reason the Cambridge
Analytica thing didn`t ring everybody`s bell this week. If that offer from
Cambridge Analytica went to WikiLeaks in June of last year, the first
important thing to know about that is that in June of last year, Cambridge
Analytica didn`t work for the Trump campaign. They didn`t start working
for the Trump campaign until the following month, in July.

Also, though, again about that timing. We don`t know exactly when in June
that overture was made from Cambridge Analytica to WikiLeaks, and because
of that, we also can`t assume that Cambridge Analytica knew the stolen
Democratic e-mails they were offering to help distribute, we can`t assume
they knew that those Democratic e-mails had been stolen by the Russian
government, right?

The first public reporting of that was June 14th. If Cambridge Analytica
made this overture to WikiLeaks before June 14th, maybe they had no idea
what they were proposing to do was weaponize and further spread documents
that were literally stolen by Russian military intelligence. Maybe they
didn`t know. Maybe had they known that, they would have been horrified.

Now if their overtures to WikiLeaks happened after June 14th, after it
became public knowledge that those documents weren`t just stolen by rondos,
they were stolen by the Russian government, well, that would be a different
story, right? That would be an interesting thing to figure out if that`s
the case.

Is the overture before or after June 14th, before or after you knew those
things were stolen by the Russian government, right? That question puts a
spotlight on Cambridge Analytica. They should probably explain the
specifics of that timeline so we know exactly what they though they were
doing in making that overture and whether they knew they were offering to
help a Russia intelligence operations.

So, I mean, there`s definitely more reporting to do there. That`s an
important interesting part of this. But even if it turns out that the
worst is true about Cambridge Analytica here, it remains the fact they
weren`t working for the Trump campaign at the time that overture happened,
so that still doesn`t implicate the Trump campaign in part of what might be
Russian collusion.

If you`re looking to implicate the Trump campaign in Russia collusion, for
that, you had to wait for Rebecca Ballhaus` scoop that came out tonight.

OK, remember the – there goes my pencil. All right. Remember that date
again, right, that specific date when we the public first learned that the
Democratic documents that were stolen weren`t randomly taken by some thief,
they were taken as part of a Russian intelligence operation. That news
first broke June 14th, last year. When that news broke on June 14th, it
was not a subtle thing. It was everywhere, right?

This was that initial report, Russian government hackers penetrated DNC.
That started a litany, a torrent of reporting about that. Cyber
researchers confirmed Russian government hack of DNC, U.S. officials say
little doubt Russia behind DNC hack. Russia is behind email release. Spy
agency consensus grows that Russia hacks DNC. Security experts say Russia
probably hacked the Democrats. FBI investigating possible Russian
connection to the leaked DNC e-mails.

I mean, it was everywhere. And you know what? Even if you can`t read and
all you do is sometimes watch the TV news, no matter what kind of TV news
you were watching, you couldn`t help being exposed to this story, even if
the only TV news you watch is on FOX.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From the campaign trail, “The Washington Post”
reporting the Russian government hacked into the computer network of the
Democratic National Committee.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were able to access all e-mails going in and out
of the DNC since last summer. So, these hackers, and apparently the
Russian government, now have inside information into the Democrat strategy
for 2016.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re tracking another major story case, a case of
cyber espionage targeting the Democratic Party. U.S. intelligence agencies
believe Russian cyber spies hacked into the computers belonging to the
Democratic National Committee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was a clear espionage attempt by the Russian
government to steal information about the U.S. political process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The clues point to two Russian intelligence agencies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A bizarre story now from where cyber space meets the
campaign trail. “The Washington Post” reports the Russian government
hacked into the computer network of the Democratic National Committee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three private security firms concluded that the hackers
are Russian. Some security experts say Russian intelligence could be
behind the attacks with the goal of interfering in the election. Documents
taken in the hacks have been showing up on line.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Several American cyber security experts told NBC
Russia`s goal in leaking the e-mails through WikiLeaks was to sow chaos in
American politics and help Donald Trump win the presidency.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are trying to give Trump an indirect edge, or an
indirect weight by which they can help him accomplish his goals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cyber experts say the DNC was hacked by the cyber units
of both Russian military intelligence and new KGB, nicknamed Fancy Bear and
Cozy Bear. They used signature IP addresses and malware associated with
Russian state actors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “The New York Times” reports on the growing FBI
investigation into the Democratic National Committee email hack. Secretary
of State John Kerry this morning raised the issue with Russia`s foreign


MADDOW: That was what the news was like last summer after “The Washington
Post” first broke the news that the Russian government was behind the
stealing and hacking of e-mails and documents out of the Democratic Party.
Now, there was a lot of news like that. It was not subtle.

If you were contacting WikiLeaks and offering to help in this operation in
early June, before any of that reporting started, it`s possible you might
not have known this was pretty well understood to be a Russian intelligence
operation that WikiLeaks was helping with. But once mid-June hit, this was
not a story hiding its light under the bushel, right? This story was
everywhere. Even if you didn`t pay attention to the news, by July 25th,
Trump himself was joking about Russia leaking the DNC e-mails, quote,
because Putin likes me.

By July 27th, he was making his stone-faced, nobody laugh joke, hey,
Russia, if you`re listening, go get more Clinton e-mails.

This is a subject of wide, wide discussion in the regular media, in the
conservative media, on the campaign, by the candidates. It was a matter of
widely reported international diplomacy between the United States and
Russia. From starting in mid June and through the end of June into July,
into August, it was no secret that Russia, the Russian government, hacked
the Democrats e-mails.

Well, tonight, Rebecca Ballhaus of “The Wall Street Journal” reports that
on August 26th, so well after the Russian involvement was widely known,
Rebekah Mercer, major Trump donor, founder of Cambridge Analytica and
“Breitbart” and everything else in the pro-Trump media universe, Rebekah
Mercer and her billionaire family, the single largest financers of the
Trump campaign, full stop, on August 26th, she directed Cambridge Analytica
to help WikiLeaks distribute the Democratic e-mails that by then everybody
knew had been be stolen by the Russian government.

And, yes, we know from reporting this week that Cambridge Analytica had
that idea on their own a couple months earlier, but she directed them to do
it once we all knew those WikiLeaks documents were part of a Russian
intelligence operation. And she directed Cambridge Analytica to help with
that once the Mercer family was very much a part of the Trump campaign.

And that means, bottom line, the major funder of the Trump campaign,
appears to have knowingly tried to help out with the Russian government
hack of Democratic documents, to better weaponize them to Trump`s benefit
in the presidential campaign. So, that`s a serious scoop from Rebecca
Ballhaus at “The Wall Street Journal”.

Then later tonight, we got another one. Conservative reporter Byron York
got a scoop tonight about the Republican funder behind Fusion GPS, which is
the research firm that produced the Christopher Steele dossier on Trump and
Russia. We`d actually known since October of last year, since before the
election, that the research firm that commission the dossier of alleged
Russian dirt on Trump, we knew they`d been initially funded by a Republican
who was opposed to Trump in the Republican primary, then after Trump got
the nomination, Fusion GPS instead got a Democratic donor to keep funding
their work, the Democratic funder in support of Clinton against Trump in
the general election. We knew that already, we really did know that from
the beginning, from David Corn`s first initial report on Halloween night
last year.

Now, we learned earlier this week, no surprise, that the Democratic funder
of the latter part of the Fusion GPS research was, in fact, a Democratic
funder in support of Clinton. It was a law firm connected to the DNC and
the Clinton campaign.

Well, tonight, Byron York is first to report that the initial funder was
`The Washington Free Beacon”. Huh? It`s a conservative website. It`s
kind of like “The Washington Times” or “The Daily Caller”, the Glenn Beck
thing. It`s like one of these flurry of Republican web publications that
started up in D.C. in the past few years.

And, honestly, no snark intended here at all, serious credit to Byron York
for getting this. Even before he got this scoop tonight, Byron York had
done really good work on this story. He interviewed tons of Republican
operatives and even Republican candidates who had opposed Trump during the
primary. He got lots of them on the record about not being the Republican

But after having done the leg work tonight, he was rightfully first to
report who was that funder. So, kudos to him for the scoop. Now we know.

Now, on that Trump dossier, whether or not you care who funded it, I think
it`s also flown a little bit under the radar in the last 24 hours that the
general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
right, so we have the Director of National Intelligence, that`s an office.
The guy who`s the top lawyer there.

He has come out and declared in very blunt terms that when the intelligence
community put out its assessment that, yes, Russia did attack our election,
they didn`t rely on the dossier to produce that report. They didn`t even
use the dossier to produce that conclusion. Robert Litt was the top lawyer
in the office of the director of national intelligence under the Obama
administration when that assessment came out, he`s in a position to know.
He says the DNI and the intelligence community, they came to their
conclusions about the Russian involvement in the election based, quote,
entirely on other sources and analysis. They did not use the dossier.

So, that ends up being important for the political maneuvering that`s going
on right now in Washington. The White House is trying to use this report
as who funded Fusion GPS as a way of saying the whole story of Russia
interfering in the election is some kind of hoax. The logic is a little
thin in that claim anyway. But among this fireworks show of scoops we`ve
had in the past 24 hours, is this news that the intelligence community came
to its conclusions about what the Russians did in our election with no
reference to the dossier whatsoever?

So, naturally, the intelligence community must also be denounced and
discredited, it`s terrible, for having found a true thing.

So in all that new breaking over the last 24 hours, all through today, all
through this afternoon into tonight, there is one other scoop that broke
today that I actually think is the most interesting, especially given the
late night breaking news from CNN about Robert Mueller reportedly issuing
the first charges in his investigation, the thing that I think is the most
compelling, mysterious and, oh my God, I want to figure it out story of the
day is next. Stay with us.


MADDOW: Do you recognize this man? Doesn`t really ring a bell, right? We
did put his name up there which helps. Without the name, I probably
couldn`t pick him out of a lineup. Do you recognize his name, though,
right? It`s pronounced Boente, B-O-E-N-T-E.

In 2013, he became the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of
Virginia. President Obama officially appointed him in 2015. The Eastern
District of Virginia is really powerful prosecutor`s office. It`s right
outside Washington, D.C. They often end up doing really important
terrorism and national security cases. So, Dana Boente was President
Obama`s choice for that very important U.S. attorney`s job starting in

But then in the Trump era, Dana Boente became everything. He got all the
jobs all at once. It was a weird thing for somebody who nobody had really
ever heard of before. I mean, if you`re in law enforcement circles you`ve
heard of the guy, right? But outside of law enforcement circles, why did
Dana Boente start getting every job?

I mean, within the first two weeks of President Trump being in office, you
may recall that he fired Sally Yates. She was the acting attorney general.
She famously had personally come to the White House to warn them that
national security advisor Mike Flynn was compromised by the Russians
whereupon they didn`t respond for 18 days.

She wrote a memo explaining that the Trump Muslim ban was likely to be
found unconstitutional in court. Trump fired her because of that January
30. When he fired Sally Yates, he needed somebody else to come in right
away and become the new acting attorney general, and he chose Dana Boente
who was still onboard in the Eastern District of Virginia. Dana Boente
became the acting attorney general of the United States.

He served in that role until Jeff Sessions was confirmed by the Senate and
sworn in ten days later on February 9th. So at that point, Dana Boente is
no longer acting attorney general. At that point, he became the acting
deputy attorney general. Deputy attorney general is the person who really
runs the Justice Department on a day-to-day basis. He went from being
acting A.G. to acting deputy A.G. once Sessions got there. He served as
acting deputy attorney general until Rod Rosenstein got confirmed by the
Senate to be the confirmed deputy attorney general as of late April.

Now, you might remember in the meantime, President Trump decided to fire
all the U.S. attorneys all over the country. Boom no warning. Get out.
Be gone by midnight. When it came time to actually do the firing, I think,
I think it was Dana Boente as the acting attorney general who actually got
on the phone and did the firing of those prosecutors.

But then Rod Rosenstein came on, and then became the confirmed deputy A.G.,
and then Dana Boente got another role. He became acting assistant attorney
general for national security, which means he runs the national security
division of the Justice Department. That`s a very big deal as well. And
yes, in addition to all of that, he stayed on as the U.S. attorney in the
eastern district of Virginia.

So, the guy had five jobs. That is, you know, that`s a lot. Even just the
Eastern District of Virginia is a busy, big, important national security
prosecutor`s office even in normal times.

At these times, though, in the Eastern District of Virginia, in addition to
all of the other jobs he was dealing with at main Justice, in the eastern
district of Virginia, it was Dana Boente`s office from which we saw the
subpoenas related to Paul Manafort. It was Dana Boente`s office from which
we saw the subpoenas related to Mike Flynn. It was Dana Boente`s office
that has been handling the investigation into WikiLeaks and potentially
charges associated with WikiLeaks, and Dana Boente`s office, right, the
eastern district of Virginia, that`s where special counsel Robert Mueller
first started using a grand jury.

So, this dude is like right in the middle of everything. And today, he

Now, I don`t know what that`s about. We`re about to talk to somebody I
hope who might know, but here`s one last really important point to what
he`s been involved in, right? So, he had the jobs and running this crucial
eastern of Virginia district job, right.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly looking into whether President
Trump obstructed when he fired the FBI Director James Comey. James Comey
has testified to Congress under oath, that the president contacted him
inappropriately, multiple times, to put pressure on him about the Russia
investigation before he fired him.

According to James Comey, one of the witnesses to those inappropriate
overtures by the president was Dana Boente.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: After April 11th, did he ask you
more, ever, about the Russia investigation? Did he ask you any questions?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: We never spoke again after April 11th.

FEINSTEIN: You told the president, I would see what we could do. What did
you mean?

COMEY: It was kind of slightly cowardly way of trying to avoid telling him
we`re not going to do that, that I would see what we could do. It was a
way of kind of getting off the phone, frankly, and then I turned and handed
it to the acting deputy attorney general, Mr. Boente.

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: After that discussion, did
you take phone calls from the president?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

BLUNT: So, why did you just say you need to talk – why didn`t you say,
I`m not taking that call? You need to talk to the attorney general?

COMEY: Well, I did on the April 11th call and reported the calls, the
March 30th call and April 11th call to my superior who was the acting
deputy attorney general.


MADDOW: The acting deputy attorney general at the time was Dana Boente who
today just quit. Maybe he quit because he`s tired of being central to
everything. He`s exhausted from playing every instrument in the band.
Maybe that`s just tiring.

Is it possible he had to quit because he`s maybe going to have to be a
witness if somebody brings charges against the president on the obstruction
of justice matter?

Former DOJ spokesman Matt Miller just reported on our air moments ago that
as recently as a few days ago, Dana Boente told a friend that he was really
looking forward to handing off control of the national security division at
main Justice so he could get back to work as U.S. attorney for the eastern
district of Virginia. That was two days ago reportedly. But then
suddenly, today, he quit as U.S. attorney.

We don`t know why that is. We are trying to figure it out. We are
literally actively trying right now as I speak to figure that out.

Joining us again is Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney.

Barbara, I want to ask you, given your understanding of Dana Boente`s role,
not just as a U.S. attorney in Eastern District of Virginia, but this
interesting roles that he`s played in the Trump administration thus far,
what do you make of his resignation today?

MCQUADE: Well, I was very surprised to see it. In fact, you know, he sort
of like Rod Rosenstein, someone that I take great comfort in knowing he is
there, actually. He is a career prosecutor who`s worked through Republican
and Democratic administrations and I think cares about the institution and
so, his departure concerns and alarms me a little bit and I don`t know the

MADDOW: Is he actually the person who was called on to tell people to
resign – to fire you and all the other U.S. attorneys?

MCQUADE: Yes. I got a call from Dana. You know, they announced it
publicly at about 3:00 p.m. and then began making phone calls to each of
us. And, you know, we`re all in contact and e-mails each other and I heard
from people in alphabetical order that they`ve gotten their call from Dana,
and as I getting close to the “Ms” my phone rings and I see it`s Dana and I
take the call, I said is this my grim reaper call and he said I`m afraid it

But, you know, he was professional about the whole thing. I commented to a
colleague that I was disappointed that Dana didn`t push back about the
decision to fire all so abruptly, and my colleague pointed out that we
don`t know that he didn`t. So, I always had great respect for him and
sorry to see him go.

MADDOW: Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, thank you for being with us
tonight, Barbara. I really appreciate it. Thanks.

MCQUADE: Thanks, Rachel.

MADDOW: We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: So the big news we have been following tonight is a report of CNN
that the first charges have been filed in special counsel Robert Mueller`s
investigation. We don`t know what those charges are, if they exist, who
has been charged. NBC News has not confirmed that reporting tonight. But
we do have some exclusive news on the Mueller investigation that could
prove relevant, particularly if that news about charging does bear out.

“Reuters” yesterday reported a kind of bonkers story about the former CIA
Director James Woolsey, who is a member of Trump campaign, adviser to Trump
during the transition. You might remember, this spring, James Woolsey told
“The Wall Street Journal” that he`d been present at a meeting during the
campaign with several Turkish officials and Mike Flynn. Flynn was then
national security adviser to the Trump campaign. He was also secretly on
the payroll of the Turkish government.

At this meeting, James Woolsey said there was a fulsome, serious, unnerving
discussion about kidnapping a dude in the United States and shipping him
off to Turkey in the dead of night. James Woolsey was apparently unnerved
by that meeting, among other things because doing stuff like that is

But now, “Reuters” reports that James Woolsey himself, the very next day
after that meeting, he had his own meeting with the Turkish businessman who
was paying Mike Flynn, and according to “Reuters”, Woolsey offered his own
services to the Turks for $10 million to mount a lobbying and PR campaign
to discredit the same guy that Mike Flynn apparently discussed kidnapping.

Now, according to – “Reuters” says that Woolsey – spokesman for Woolsey
tells “Reuters” that Woolsey has no recollection of this proposing this $10
million deal. But what he did say is that the people who funded Mike
Flynn, they`re trying to smear Jim Woolsey.

Look at this quote from the spokesman. Quote: With growing speculation
that indictments could be handed down soon, it`s not a surprise others
attempt to accomplish in the press what they can`t in the grand jury room.

So, this story about Woolsey wanting $10 million to – from the Turks to –
this story`s coming out right now because everybody else is about to be
indicted and turning on each other, right? Interesting theory.

We reached out to Jim Woolsey spokesman today. And we asked them to expand
on those comments. Mr. Woolsey spokesman gave us this statement which is
exclusive to us and NBC News.

Quote: Ambassador Woolsey and his wife have been in communication with the
FBI regarding these September meeting, Ambassador Woolsey was invited to
attend by one of General Flynn`s business partners. Ambassador Woolsey and
his wife have responded to every request whether from the FBI or recently
from the Office of the Special Counsel. It`s unfortunate yet predictable
that in an effort to defend themselves, certain individuals have attempted
to impugn the Woolseys` integrity.

Now, this is the first we have learned that special counsel Robert Mueller
has been in communication with and has made requests of the former CIA
Director James Woolsey who says he was at this crazy meeting with Turkish
officials and Mike Flynn, while Mike Flynn was a Trump campaign adviser and
secretly on Turkey`s payroll. Woolsey went public about that meeting in
March. Since then, he`s been in communication with the FBI and with the
Mueller investigation.

And now, according to him, the people who had Mike Flynn on their payroll,
they`re shopping this story to make James Woolsey look bad. And we don`t
know why. These are very intriguing allegations from people we understand
very little about.

Why is this happening? Why now? And is there any connection to this
reporting tonight from CNN that Mueller has actually filed the first
charges in his investigation? We don`t know but it`s going to be a fun
weekend figuring this stuff out, right? That does it for us tonight. We
will see you again on Monday. Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD.” Joy
Reid filling in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Joy.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2017 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2017 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the