FMR. Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort sentenced. TRANSCRIPT: 3/7/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Josh Gerstein, David Cicilline, Dan Rather
Transcript:

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  Yes, if we get our act together and invest now,

it`s a better future in both directions. 

 

David Wallace Wells, thank you for your time. 

 

If you want to hear more about his book, “The Uninhabitable Earth”, or

about this subject, you can check out our discussion on my podcast, “Why Is

This Happening”, which is available wherever you get your podcast.

 

That is ALL IN this evening.

 

“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. 

 

Good evening, Rachel.

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Chris.  Thanks my friend. 

 

HAYES:  You bet.

 

MADDOW:  And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. 

 

Nothing like this has ever happened before.  Almost.  Ish.  There was that

one other time. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REPORTER:  Today, a limousine brought former Attorney General John Mitchell

to court.  They caused to call him the “big enchilada” at the White House. 

He came to be sentenced as a convicted felon. 

 

For 64 days, this man sat in Judge Sirica`s courtroom.  When the time came

for a final statement, Mitchell and his lawyer had nothing to say.  All

eyes were on the man who is known as Maximum John. 

 

The judge wasted no time on a speech.  Mitchell, Haldeman and Ehrlichman

must serve at least 2 1/2 years in prison, maybe as long as eight years. 

 

Judge Sirica would not comment on the case as he left the courthouse.  John

Mitchell left, growling, it could have been worse.  He could have sentenced

me to spend the rest of my life with Martha Mitchell.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  It could have been worse.  He could have sentenced me to spend the

rest of my life with Martha Mitchell, my wife – my ex-wife. 

 

John Mitchell was Richard Nixon`s presidential campaign manager.  When

Nixon won the presidency in `68, John Mitchell`s marriage to Martha

Mitchell had broken up in 1973 in the midst of the Watergate scandal.  And

the year after that, of course, 1974, Nixon resigned in scandal.  He at

least was pardoned for his own Watergate-related crimes. 

 

But the following year, 1975, when Nixon campaign manager and ex-U.S.

Attorney General John Mitchell was sentenced for his own crimes in the

Watergate scandal, when he was sentenced for conspiracy and obstruction of

justice and perjury and lying to investigators, his only comment to the

press upon getting his federal prison sentence handed down was that at

least we wouldn`t have to spend any more time with his darn wife.  Sure,

I`m going to prison, but could be worse. 

 

You know, every generation thinks it invents the newest and worst kinds of

scoundrels and scumbags in public life.  Honestly, history gives us some

good ones, too.  Do not give history short shrift even on historic days

like this.  Today for the very first time, it was the sitting president of

the United States whose campaign chair was sentenced to federal prison. 

 

John Mitchell at least didn`t get his sentence until Nixon was out of

office and was a former president.  John Mitchell was sentenced to 2 1/2

years in prison back in 1975.  Mitchell ended up getting released from

prison after serving 19 months because of poor health.  Today, it was

President Trump`s campaign chairman Paul Manafort and he`d beat Mitchell`s

record today because he was given a much longer sentence that Mitchell was. 

 

Manafort today was sentenced to 47 months, just shy of four years in

federal prison.  Now, there is no parole in the federal prison system

anymore, so even though we don`t know exactly how long Manafort will serve

on this sentence, you can sort of do a little bit of the math in your head. 

You can start at 47 months, which is what he got today.  You should then

subtract nine months credit, they`re apparently giving him credit for the

time he`s already served in the Alexandria Federal Detention Center while

he`s been on trial and awaiting this sentencing today.  Then maybe I think

you can subtract a little good time credit for that. 

 

If you do that math, again, back of the envelope and you never know how

these things will go, but it`s maybe a ballpark figure of three years of

real time that he will serve on this sentence.  Ish.  We will get some

expert advice on that later on this hour. 

 

But this is a remarkable thing.  I mean, this is history.  It`s the

campaign chairman for the sitting president of the United States going to

federal prison for years, for multiple felonies, only halfway through that

president`s term in office.  Paul Manafort was the first indictment

announced by special counsel Robert Mueller back in 2017. 

 

Manafort was originally charge add long side his deputy campaign chair from

the Trump campaign Rick Gates.  The two of them appeared from the outset to

have linked fates, both in terms oh what they were charged with and in

terms of how their cases would proceed through the criminal justice system. 

They appeared to be peas in a pod until Gates bailed. 

 

Gates decided to plead guilty and become a cooperating witness, working

with the prosecution in their case against his former boss Paul Manafort

and working with them on other ongoing investigations as well.  And now

Manafort`s case is coming to an end.  Manafort is learning how much time he

will spend in prison.  Meanwhile, Rick Gates` cooperation with prosecutors

continues.  Gates doesn`t yet have his own sentencing date. 

 

But his life is very different than Paul Manafort`s since he pled guilty. 

I mean, unlike Manafort, Rick Gates has been at home all of this time.  He

hasn`t been in jail even for a day, although there is still the prospect

that that`s where he`s heading when his cooperation is fully over and he`s

finally sentenced. 

 

The convictions for which Paul Manafort was sentenced today were the only

jury verdicts thus far in any case brought by special counsel Robert

Mueller or in any derivative prosecution that`s related to any of these

scandals.  It`s the only jury verdict.  Everybody else has pled and is

either awaiting sentencing or they`ve already been sentenced by a judge. 

Nobody else has yet faced a trial other than Paul Manafort. 

 

And at his trial this summer, you will recall that Paul Manafort didn`t

take the stand in his own defense.  There was tons of testimony against him

from, among others, Rick Gates, his former deputy.  Also from accountants

and bookkeepers who testified on Manafort`s crimes.  In the end, that jury

in Virginia convicted Manafort on five felony counts of tax fraud, two

felony counts of bank fraud and one felony count related to him not

reporting his foreign bank accounts. 

 

And the best news that Manafort got that day was that despite the fact that

that jury in Virginia convicted him of eight felonies, as John Mitchell

might say, it could have been worse that day.  Because Paul Manafort that

day was actually facing 18 felony charges at that trial.  Remember, of the

12 jurors in the Manafort trial, there was just one holdout.  Eleven jurors

wanted to convict him on all 18 felonies, but one juror held out and said

no on ten of them. 

 

And that`s – it`s been a little weird to figure that out ever since.  I

mean, that one juror went along with his or her fellow jurors on the other

eight counts.  There did not seem to be any difference in the amount of

evidence put forward on those ten counts where the juror held out versus

the eight counts where the juror went along. 

 

Nevertheless, that`s how it went.  Juries are juries.  They can do what

they want.  And so, Paul Manafort came out of that trial, lucky guy, with

eight felony convictions to his name. 

 

And when a jury can`t come to an unanimous decision, that`s called a hung

jury.  So he got a hung jury on those ten felony counts where there was a

hung jury, the prosecutors from Mueller`s office, they initially reserved

the right to try Paul Manafort again for those ten charges.  You can do

that in the case of a hung jury. 

 

It`s very interesting to me, and I`ve never quite understood the strategy

behind this.  Mueller`s prosecutors initially reserved the right to bring

Manafort up on those ten charges where he had the hung jury again, if they

decided they wanted to.  But they never went through with that decision. 

 

They never tried him again on those ten felonies, those ten felonies on

which there was a hung jury, but they did make sure that when Manafort

later pled guilty in a different federal court in D.C., his guilty plea in

that other court included him explicitly confessing that, yes, maybe he

wasn`t convicted on those ten other felony charges where there was that one

juror who was the holdout.  Yes, maybe he hadn`t been convicted on those 10

felonies, but Manafort confessed in his plea deal that actually he was

guilty of those ten felony charges, too. 

 

Why didn`t they charge him with those again?  Why have him admit that he

committed those crimes later on in a different proceeding while also giving

up your right to bring him up on those charges again?  That was just one of

those amazing curve balls in this case. 

 

So, Manafort pleads not guilty to 18 felonies in Virginia.  He goes to

trial.  The jury squashes him.  Guilty, eight felony counts.  The other ten

are floating out there for awhile until on the eve of his next trial, where

he was going to be tried for another seven felonies, this time in D.C., he

surprises everybody, right? 

 

He does what appears at the outset to be this U-turn and he admits guilt to

those ten charges on which there had been a hung jury in Virginia.  He

pleads guilty to two conspiracy charges.  Prosecutors agree to drop all of

the other felony charges against him and he says he is going to become a

cooperating witness, right? 

 

And that, you know, part of that play – so he pleads guilty, he says he`s

going to become a Cooperator.  They drop all the other charges.  He admits

that he was guilty in those ten felonies.  They didn`t bring him up on

trial again for, right?  And they could potentially – they could have

potentially been brought against him in trial again. 

 

That was supposed to be the start of a whole new Paul Manafort, right? 

Coming clean, pleading guilty, admitting guilt to the ten charges on which

they didn`t retry him, right?  At that moment when he decided to plead and

become a cooperator, that was him as the prosecutors say, that was him

joining team USA. 

 

That first trial, yeah, guilty on eight counts, but before he even got to

that second trial, no, it`s a whole new Paul Manafort.  He`s joining Team

USA, joining with prosecutors, admitting his guilt. 

 

It turns out it didn`t work out that way, right?  The cooperation aspect of

Manafort`s case is another fascinating curveball.  I mean, before tonight,

prosecutors had never given any substantive public account as to what

Manafort might have given them as a cooperator, as to how helpful he was as

a cooperating witness. 

 

Today in court, the special counsel`s office was as blunt as they have been

on that subject ever.  Tonight in federal court, they told the judge in

Virginia that Manafort, quote, did not provide valuable information to the

special counsel.  After Manafort`s defense team tried to raise in court

this issue of him having spent tons of hours in meetings with the special

counsel, they were trying to get him credit for that from the judge. 

Prosecutors told the judge tonight that the number of hours Paul Manafort

spent with the special counsel, quote, that number is not reflective of the

value of the information we received. 

 

Quote, he told us 50 hours of things we already knew.  He did not provide

us information that was useful. 

 

So, that`s important from the prosecutors` perspective, right?  Because it

means they didn`t want this judge to give Manafort any credit for

cooperating, his cooperation was useless.  He gave them information they

already had and lied to them.  No matter how much time his defense team can

say he spent with the prosecutors, the prosecutors found him worse than

useless. 

 

So, that`s interesting in terms of informing the judge`s decision tonight

in terms of how much time to give Manafort.  But for us watching from the

outside trying to figure out how the Manafort case fits into the larger

scandal here and into potential other cases against other people, that was

also a signal from the special counsel`s office that there was no way

they`d be relying on Paul Manafort as any kind of witness against anyone. 

 

I mean, once you`re telling the judge bluntly, hey, this guy repeatedly

lies, even to prosecutors who he is supposed to be helping, that makes him

useless as a potential witness against anyone else in any other case.  And

you`ll remember, during Manafort`s trial in Virginia, the judge there, the

sort of famously cantankerous judge – he basically yelled at the

prosecutors in court, right?  It was this big dramatic moment in court in a

hearing before the trial started.  The judge said in open court, you don`t

really care about Mr. Manafort`s bank fraud.  You really care about getting

information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and

lead to his prosecution or impeachment. 

 

The judge had said that in open court.  You don`t care about Manafort. 

You`re only using him to get his testimony to get evidence and information

he can give you to get bigger fish, to go get the president, and he sort of

reamed the prosecutors out for that, scolded them, almost sort of mocked

them in the court because he could tell that was their real intent. 

 

Well, the prosecutors fundamentally rebutted that, right?  They rebutted

that outburst from the judge tonight when they came to him at Paul

Manafort`s sentencing and said, nah, this guy, we can`t use him for

anything.  We can`t use him against anyone.  We can`t use him for any other

case. 

 

All he does is lie.  He`s pointless as a witness.  He`s of no help.  This

case is just about his crimes and that`s it. 

 

This judge, though, Judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia, he was super aggressive

with the prosecutors throughout the Manafort proceedings.  Today when it

came time to sentence Manafort, the ball was completely in that judge`s

court.  Judges have freedom when it comes to sentencing in federal court. 

 

The sentencing guidelines spelled out that Manafort should get 19 to 24

years in prison, but those guidelines are merely a guide.  Judges are free

to depart from those guidelines in either direction, as far as they want

to.  The only thing a judge can`t do is exceed the statutory minimum

sentence defined by law for the crimes for which Manafort was convicted. 

 

When it came time to decide tonight how much time Manafort would actually

spend in prison, the judge went way below that sentencing guidelines range. 

He didn`t go 19 to 24 years, he gave him a little less than four years and

he took time to criticize the sentencing guidelines in open court. 

 

The judge said tonight, quote: these guidelines are quite high.  He said,

quote, I think this sentencing range is excessive. 

 

Paul Manafort has already spent nine months in that federal lockup in

Virginia.  You`ll remember, he ended up in jail when he had his bail

revoked because prosecutors said they caught him witness tampering while he

was out on bail, so he had to go to a federal lockup awaiting trial, and

then during his trial and until today awaiting sentencing. 

 

Since he`s been in jail all this time, all these nine months, his defense

team told the court today that he`s really fallen apart physically. 

Manafort`s defense team told the court today that Manafort now has severe

gout, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, psoriasis, arthritis,

unspecified thyroid trouble, anxiety, panic attacks and claustrophobia. 

 

And he will apparently get credit against his sentence, this four-year

sentence that he got, he`ll get credit for the nine months he`s already

served in that federal lockup, but his fate at this point really is still

an open question.  Manafort`s next stop will be the federal courthouse in

D.C.  He is due to be sentenced in D.C. next Wednesday for more felonies,

for those two felonies that he pled guilty to, and that will be a whole

different judge who has been through a whole different proceeding with or

him.  For that sentencing next week, the maximum sentence that D.C. judge

would be allowed to hand down would be ten years. 

 

But that judge next week now has the benefit of knowing what Manafort`s

sentence was in this other court tonight.  So that D.C.  judge next week,

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, she`ll not only be deciding on her own terms on

the basis of the felony charges before her how much time in prison Paul

Manafort should get, she will also be deciding whether the time she gives

should run concurrently with this other sentence he got tonight or whether

it will be consecutive. 

 

She can give him up to ten years.  Let`s say she gives him five years.  If

they run concurrently, he`ll run both of those sentences at the same time,

right?  Start day one, he`ll end up serving a total of five years in prison

because the four-year sentence and the five-year sentence will run at the

same time.  But judges, if they want to be harsher, they have the ability

to sentence you to serve your other sentence first, right? 

 

Then when you`re done with that one, you can start this next sentence that

I`m going to give you.  You can start this next sentence thereafter.  If

that happened, theoretically with the four years he got in Virginia

tonight, let`s say he got five years next week in D.C., that would mean

that he`d be looking at nine-year sentence in total. 

 

If the judge next week completely throws the book at Manafort, that would

be a ten-year sentence from that D.C. judge next week.  If she gives him

the maximum that she could give him, ten years and she has it run

consecutively not concurrently, that means the total maximum Manafort could

be looking at would be just under 14 years in federal prison. 

 

Now, to be clear, he could get anything under that, including no additional

time beyond the sentence he got tonight, but the max prison time he could

be looking at, again, just shy of 14 years. 

 

So, historic day.  We`ve got this – this one bottom line, right?  The

presidential campaign chairman for the sitting president of the United

States just got a four-year federal prison sentence.  But another shoe is

about to drop for that campaign chair in the next few days that will make

all the difference in terms of his ultimate fate. 

 

When Manafort`s defense lawyer was asked outside the courthouse tonight if

he thought this four-year prison sentence was fair for his client,

Manafort`s lawyer wouldn`t even answer that.  He said he wouldn`t know the

answer to that until they get the other sentence, too. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REPORTER:  How are you feeling about the sentencing next week in

Washington?

 

KEVIN DOWNING, PAUL MANAFORT`S LAWYER:  We look forward to it. 

 

REPORTER:  Do you think the sentence today was fair for Paul Manafort? 

 

DOWNING:  I`ll let him speak to that after we`re done in D.C. 

 

REPORTER:  Sir, do you have any comment on the sentence that was handed

down? 

 

DOWNING:  No. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Have any sentence – any comment on the sentence that was handed

down?  No. 

 

So, for Paul Manafort, one sentence down, another to come in less than a

week.  I have lots of questions about all of these things, including what

it was like in the court while all of this was happening today. 

 

But before we bring in some folks to answer those questions, let me just

interject one last thing into this conversation and story before we bring

in people who actually know these things and can give us some perspective

here.  Here is one last thing.  It`s actually the other thing that Paul

Manafort`s defense lawyer said tonight on the courthouse steps after this

sentencing. 

 

And it was – I guess it shouldn`t be a surprise to me at this point, but

it was a surprise when he got up there and said, no collusion, no

collusion, no collusion. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DOWNING:  Good evening, everyone.  As you heard in court today, Mr.

Manafort finally got to speak for himself.  He made clear he accepts

responsibility for his conduct and I think most importantly what you saw

today is the same thing that we had said from day one. 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved with any

collusion, with any government official from Russia.  Thank you, everybody. 

 

REPORTER:  What do you think of the sentence? 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Was he involved with collusion with anybody else in Russia who

wasn`t a government official? 

 

Also, why even bring that up and why is that the most important thing?  I

think most important what you saw today – is that the most important

thing?  I mean, not only was Manafort not charged with anything having to

do with Russia in this case, in this case for which he was just sentenced,

this was the trial where Judge Ellis actually banned any discussion of

Russia collusion at all in his courtroom.  So, nobody could have tried to

prove anything like that against Manafort in this trial in Virginia, even

if they had wanted to. 

 

And these no collusion, no collusion public arguments from the Manafort

defense team which we have seen increasingly from them in public filings

and now today on the courthouse steps as Manafort has come to the end of

his rope, these no collusion arguments – they are absolutely outside the

four corners of this case in Virginia, so why do they keep bringing that up

and why would that be the most important part about this case where the

judge ruled that that could never be discussed in this case?  Why keep

going back to that issue?  Especially when there are, in fact, collusion

questions that remained about Paul Manafort`s case. 

 

You might remember, there was an accidentally un-redacted filing that Paul

Manafort`s defense team submitted in D.C. a few weeks ago, and in that

accidentally un-redacted filing, we learned one of the things that Manafort

lied to prosecutors about when he was supposed to be cooperating with them

was the number of meetings he`d had with a Russian guy who prosecutors say

is linked to Russian intelligence.  Specifically, Manafort also lied to

prosecutors about providing Trump campaign polling data to that Russian guy

who prosecutors say is linked to Russian intelligence, right?  That was all

supposed to be under seal, but it accidentally peeked out because they

screwed up one of their redactions. 

 

And even though we have never seen charges on that subject, right, we`ve

never seen any criminal charges about the Trump campaign giving internal

secret polling data to Russian intelligence as, you know, as personally

related to Russian intelligence interfering in the election, I mean, that

reference in Manafort`s case and the fact that it was supposed to stay

redacted, it does raise questions about Manafort`s involvement with Russian

intelligence during the campaign.  As “The New York Times” knotted it up

today, quote: The special counsel`s office had wanted that information kept

out of the public eye to protect an open investigation. 

 

What open investigation? 

 

Quote: It remains unclear why Mr. Kilimnik would want such polling data. 

Also, it remains unclear what exactly he did with it and whether the data

transfer might have helped inform the Russian government`s covert operation

to interfere with the American election. 

 

So that`s – I mean, Manafort`s fate still to be settled in terms of next

week`s sentence, but in terms of the story here, and in terms of the

scandal and in terms of how Manafort fits into all of this, the one big

dangling thread here is not what can Manafort tell prosecutors about the

president or about anybody else?  They`re not interested in anything he has

to say.  They think he`s a liar.  They don`t think he`s useful. 

 

The big dangling thread here with Manafort now learning his fate, right,

next time we`ll know if he will be spending even more time in prison than

he was just sentenced to tonight.  With Manafort`s case becoming clear and

his case ending, there is this thread, there are uncharged allegations

described in the Manafort case about alleged contacts and the provision of

secret data from the highest ranks of the Trump campaign to Russian

intelligence while Russian intelligence was interfering in the election to

try to help Trump win. 

 

Prosecutors told the judge in Manafort`s case in D.C. that that allegation

is – that thing that he lied to prosecutors about, it goes to the heart of

what the special counsel is investigating.  But those charges are clearly

not being adjudicated against Paul Manafort.  We know that now.  His case

is coming to an end in two federal jurisdictions.  So, why is the

government redacting that allegation in his case?  Why is the government

trying to keep all references to those allegations under seal in his case? 

 

The government says they wanted those redactions from those documents in

order to protect ongoing investigations.  What ongoing investigations?  If

they`re not using those allegations in their case against Paul Manafort,

where are they using those allegations, in what case, against who? 

 

Joining us now is Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs contributor for

politico.com.  He had a long day in the courtroom today.

 

Mr. Gerstein, thank you very much for being here tonight. 

 

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CONTRIBUTOR, POLITICO:  Hey, Rachel. 

My pleasure. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me just ask big picture what did you think of this sentencing

hearing today and the behavior of the judge, the behavior of the defendant,

Mr. Manafort.  What was your biggest impression? 

 

GERSTEIN:  Well, the top line, of course, is the takeaway of it being just

a 47-month sentence.  I would say the consensus of most of the people I was

sitting amongst in the room, lawyers, observers, journalists, would be we

would see a sentence between 7 to 10 or 12 years.  Maybe not up in the

guidelines of 20 to 24 years, but a substantial sentence nonetheless.  Four

is a lot lighter than many people were expecting. 

 

Another thing that struck me was the lack of any public contrition from

Paul Manafort.  His statement was very brief.  We were in the courtroom for

about three hours altogether today, and his statement amounted to four

minutes. 

 

The strongest thing he said was that he recognizes that it`s his conduct

that has brought him here.  But there was no regret, really, certainly no

remorse and no kind of granular description of any of the things he had

done wrong or that he intended to break the law or recognized the severity

of what he`d done.  So it was mostly a statement, you know, thanking his

family, praising the judge, he must have done that on I think three

different occasions, and sort of apologizing for the trauma that his

friends and loved ones had experienced, but very little introspection

beyond that. 

 

The final thing I really took away, Rachel, was that this judge continues

to have deep reservations about Mueller`s operation.  You know, he said at

one point – he sort of snapped, we all know why we`re here.  One

prosecutors at one point said the government`s position on this is that we

don`t recommend – I`m sorry, he said the special counsel`s position on

this is we don`t recommend specific sentences for specific defendants and

the judge snapped, don`t say special counsel`s office, say the government`s

position.  You`re talking about the government. 

 

So it seemed like Judge Ellis still has an issue with special counsels

generally and maybe Mueller specifically, and the degree to which that may

have colored the sentence that he delivered today, I don`t know.  He

insisted that it didn`t, but it`s obviously a lighter sentence than many

people expected. 

 

MADDOW:  Well, to that point insisting it wasn`t a factor for him, a whole

bunch of people who have argued trials in this courtroom, who have observed

this judge over the course of his three decades on the bench told us to

expect that any allocution today from Manafort today would be important. 

That it`s very important to this judge that people do accept

responsibility, that they do express regret, that they do appear to be

sincerely remorseful.  That`s like the notes that we were taking into

today`s hearing, watching that for Manafort. 

 

For Manafort to then not provide that, to not give the judge any of that

and judge to nevertheless give him this big downward departure from the

guidelines, did the judge give any indication of why he was giving such a

lighter sentence than the guidelines would have suggested he might have? 

 

GERSTEIN:  Well, the judge did say he was surprised that Manafort didn`t

make a more remorseful statement or more regretful statement or even

acknowledge that he was wrong to have broken the law, but then the very

next thing that the judge said was that`s not going affect my decision here

today. 

 

The best explanation he gave about why he was going way below the

guidelines was that he felt that they`re out of whack compared with the way

people are generally sentenced in cases that involve primarily tax evasion

and not reporting your foreign bank accounts.  He said a typical sentence

in cases such as that is usually somewhere in the range of six months to a

year.  Many of them result in probation only. 

 

This particular judge had a case about a year or two ago where somebody had

hidden $220 million overseas and stashed I think – avoided about $18

million in taxes and got something only on the order of a seven-month

prison sentence.  So, it seemed like the judge, Judge Ellis, felt that

Manafort`s case was maybe a little more severe than a garden variety tax

evasion case, but he wasn`t buying the notion that this was an incredibly

dangerous scheme that really needed to be punished with an extraordinarily

long sentence. 

 

MADDOW:  Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs contributor for “Politico” –

Josh, can I book you right now to go to the D.C. sentencing next week?  Are

you busy? 

 

GERSTEIN:  I`m planning to be there with bells on. 

 

MADDOW:  All right, all right.  I`ll talk to you, if not before then.  I`ll

talk to you then.  Thanks, Josh. 

 

GERSTEIN:  OK.

 

MADDOW:  Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade was in the courtroom for most of

the Manafort trial.  She`s going to join us next. 

 

We got lots more to get to tonight.  Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  The president`s campaign chairman Paul Manafort has received a

sentence of 47 months in federal prison for tax crimes and bank fraud, just

under four years in federal prison is what he`s looking at.  But that is

also well below the sentencing guidelines that were spelled out for Paul

Manafort`s crimes. 

 

Before the sentencing today, it`s interesting, we contacted former senior

FBI and Justice Department official Chuck Rosenberg to ask Chuck, because

he used to be the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.  We

asked him what we should watch for today at this sentencing, basically what

we should expect.  And Chuck told us, quote, if he goes low, don`t be

shocked. 

 

I don`t know if I`m shocked by the amount of time that Paul Manafort is

getting.  I think I still remain the capacity just to be shocked by the

fact that the campaign chairman for the sitting president of the United

States is going to prison at all. 

 

But for some perspective, now that we`ve got these numbers, joining us now

is Barb McQuade, former U.S. attorney in Michigan.  She was in the

courtroom for much of Manafort`s trial in Virginia. 

 

Barb, thanks very much for being here.  It`s good to have you here. 

 

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY IN MICHIGAN:  Thanks for having me,

Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  So having seen a lot of that trial, knowing what you know about

Judge Ellis, knowing the sentencing guidelines, the overall context of

Manafort`s case, what is your reaction to the sentence that Manafort got

tonight? 

 

MCQUADE:  Well, I still think this is an absurdly low sentence in light of

the sentencing guidelines.  I did observe Judge Ellis to be kind of quirky

and also to have expressed some hostility about this case, and the special

counsel and Manafort`s connection to President Trump. 

 

I don`t know that those things informed his decision.  One of the things

that you often see in cases is judges who impose very lenient sentences

against white collar defendants.  And, you know, the sentencing guidelines

are based on real data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission collects from

around the country.  It`s based on real cases. 

 

And the idea behind it is we don`t want unwarranted disparities between

sentences.  If you commit a crime in Washington, D.C. or New York or Texas,

you`re likely to get the same sentence regardless of where the judge is who

sentences you.  And so, that`s what the guidelines are there to serve, to

give you that baseline so that equal crime is being punished equally. 

 

To drop down from 19 years to 24 years all the way down to four years, I

think suggests that the wealthy and the powerful do better in court than

many other defendants do, and I think it is a – an attack on the

legitimacy of the criminal justice system.  If you are someone who is

indigent or lacking in power, I think you look at a sentence like this and

it causes people to have less trust in the criminal justice system. 

 

MADDOW:  Barb, separate and apart from what Paul Manafort will face next

week in D.C., just imaging that`s not going to happen, just with this

sentence that he got tonight, which, again, you`re describing as absurdly

low, absurdly life given the sentencing guidelines here.  How long should

we expect he will actually serve?  I keep hearing that there is no parole

in federal prison but people can get time off for good behavior, can`t

they? 

 

MCQUADE:  Yes, that`s right.  Since 1987, when the sentencing guidelines

went into effect, Sentencing Reform Act, there has been no parole in the

federal system.  So, unlike what you might see in the state system, where

after somebody serves a portion of the sentence, they`re eligible to go

before the parole board and be able to be released after that. 

 

That does not exist in the federal system.  But there is something called

good time where defendants can earn up to 54 days per year to provide an

incentive for them to behave themselves while they`re in prison.  So, if

you do the math, roughly four years, 54 days per year, remove from that, it

adds up to, what, 216 days.  About seven months. 

 

So seven months off of the 47, is 40.  You mentioned the nine months for

credit – time served off of the 40 gets him to 31 months. 

 

So, I think that`s the actually time he will serve starting today. 

 

MADDOW:  Provided he gets all the good time to which he is potentially

entitled. 

 

MCQUADE:  Well, that`s a good point.  If he doesn`t behave himself, he

wouldn`t.  And, of course, Judge Jackson sits there next week and has the

ability to impose up to ten years and could make every bit of that

consecutive so he could see an additional ten years added on to that. 

 

MADDOW:  Well, when Judge Jackson makes that decision next week, obviously,

that`s going to be fascinating to watch.  She`s a totally different judge. 

It`s a different jurisdiction.  She`s looking at a totally different set of

felonies. 

 

There is a big difference in the set of circumstances that brought him

before her in terms of his guilty plea, his botched cooperation deal. 

She`s the judge who I think revoked his bail in the first place so he had

to serve time in jail while he was awaiting trial in the first place. 

There`s a whole different narrative that goes into explaining what Judge

Jackson`s going to decide next week. 

 

Specifically, though, in terms of how judges make their decisions, is she

allowed to take into consideration the length of time that he was sentenced

for this week?  Is she essentially allowed to pass a little bit of judgment

on what Judge Ellis did tonight and factor that in to what she gives

Manafort next week? 

 

MCQUADE:  No, not necessarily, but she can decide whether it is concurrent

or consecutive.  Judge Ellis was looking at the case just before him, final

fraud, failure to declare foreign bank accounts and tax counts and that`s

his case.  She`s going to look at a very different case, as you mentioned,

that involves obstruction of justice, the failed cooperation agreement. 

She knows a lot about this case, too, because of the hearings that she`s

had to hold to have fact finding on his failure to cooperate in the breach

of that cooperation agreement. 

 

So, she`s looking at a very different case, and so, no, I don`t think she

should be considering what Judge Ellis did in this case, but I do think she

can decide that ten years is an appropriate sentence in her case and that

it is appropriate to make that consecutive to the sentence that Judge Ellis

imposed. 

 

MADDOW:  One last quick question for you, Barb.  Manafort, as I was just

discussing with Gerstein, didn`t really express remorse and didn`t take

responsibility for his crimes the way a lot of defendants do when it comes

to their allocution at sentencing.  We don`t have a transcript from hearing

because it went so late.  But Gerstein told us the judge basically

expressed surprise that Manafort didn`t express remorse when he had the

opportunity to in court before Ellis handed down this sentence. 

 

Should we think of that in terms of Manafort angling for a pardon, do you

think?  I mean, him not saying I did any – not still – even at that point

not saying I did anything wrong, not saying that he`s sorry for what he

did, not saying that he feels bad about it or there was anything wrong

about his behavior, is that – should we think about that behavior in court

when we think about the prospect of a presidential pardon for Manafort? 

 

MCQUADE:  I don`t think so.  I don`t think it matters.  Remember, he

pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to all of the remaining counts

in the Eastern District of Virginia case as well as that case.  And I don`t

think so. 

 

In fact, a pardon doesn`t mean – it`s not the same as an appeal.  It

doesn`t mean that you are innocent.  What it says is we are expressing

mercy and forgiveness for you for committing this crime.  In fact,

ordinarily, part of the pardon is an acceptance of responsibility and

remorse. 

 

What I think this is, instead, is arrogance.  You see it very frequently in

white collar cases where the defendant comes in and says, I feel so much

shame, your honor.  I have been punished enough already.  Why I can`t go

into my country club without feeling shame and getting letters from

prominent people to write letters of support for a lenient sentence. 

 

Tell that to the indigent defendant who doesn`t have the opportunity to

make those arguments.  I think it is the arrogance that goes with being

wealthy and powerful. 

 

MADDOW:  Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of

Michigan – it is an honor to have you as a colleague always, but

especially on nights like this.  Barb, thank you. 

 

MCQUADE:  Thanks very much, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  All right.  A lot more to get to tonight.  So, stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Now that we know Paul Manafort`s prison sentence in this federal

case in Virginia.  Now that we`ve seen the Virginia judge depart downward

from the federal sentencing guidelines to give Manafort 47 months instead

of a possible 24 years under those guidelines, as I mentioned earlier,

there remains some interesting and potentially important dangling threads

when it comes to the special counsel`s case against Paul Manafort.  One of

them is about Konstantin Kilimnik, this longtime Manafort employee who is

Russian, who is assessed by the FBI to have active ties to Russian military

intelligence. 

 

As part of their case against Manafort in D.C., prosecutors said in court

that Manafort shared Trump polling data with Kilimnik that was related to

the 2016 campaign while the campaign was going on.  And, no, Paul Manafort

was not charged with colluding with Russia in their attack on our election. 

 

But this thing that looks like potential Russia collusion really is sitting

there in the middle of his case.  If we don`t hear anything more about that

in court because the Manafort case is wrapping up, what happens to that? 

Does that part of the story become sort of breadcrumbs for other

investigators for potentially congressional investigators to pick up?  Who

runs with that? 

 

I mean, Manafort didn`t get charged for it.  It only accidentally got

spelled out in a publicly-facing filing because of a botched redaction.  We

only learned about it because lawyers for Manafort failed to redact one of

their filings properly. 

 

But that allegation is now out there for us to read because of that

mistake.  The Trump campaign provided Trump polling data to a guy assessed

to be part of Russian intelligence while Russian intelligence was mounting

a campaign to help Trump during the campaign.  Does somebody else, does

Congress now take up that question?  That`s one. 

 

Here`s another one, though.  As you know, Manafort is due to be sentenced

in D.C. Wednesday of next week.  When prosecutors filed their sentencing

memo for D.C., they said they needed to redact parts of that sentencing

memo because, quote, the redactions relate to ongoing law enforcement

investigations or uncharged individuals and public disclosure of certain

information in the submission could unduly risk harming those efforts. 

 

And then in the sentencing memo itself, they refer to this – Manafort

having his lobbying firms contact numerous members of Congress, engaging in

backroom lobbying, using personal contacts and confidential congressional

information obtained secretly by, redacted, from congressional staff. 

 

This is one of these other dangling threads of the Manafort case that is

driving me a little bit nuts.  What name is redacted there in in the part

about Manafort lobbying Congress?  Again, what they`re saying here –

they`ve said there need to be redactions in this filing because of ongoing

law enforcement investigations and uncharged individuals.  And then they

say as part of one of Manafort`s criminal schemes, somebody obtained

personal contacts and confidential congressional information from

congressional staff.  

 

Well, who has access to congressional staff from whom they can secretly

obtain confidential congressional information?  I mean, doesn`t have to be

– who has access to congressional staff and congressional information?  Is

that a member of Congress?  Is that a congressional staffer? 

 

That`s left dangling in the Manafort filings as well.  Is there somebody

else out there who takes up with that question?  I mean, we now know what

Paul Manafort`s sentence is, at least from his first trial.  Next week,

we`ll learn his fate from his next trial. 

 

When it comes to the loose and dangling threads from this case, when it

comes to questions raised and unanswered questions about the involvement of

other people or the handover of polling data to Russia while Russia was

interfering in our election, I mean, what happens to those things?  And if

there aren`t other investigations at least that we can see in which those

breadcrumbs are being used, does Congress take those up?  Make a snack of

them. 

 

Joining us now is Congressman David Cicilline.  He`s Democrat of Rhode

Island.  He`s a member of the Judiciary Committee. 

 

Congressman, thank you very much for joining us tonight.  It`s nice to have

you here. 

 

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:  My pleasure. 

 

MADDOW:  It is a historic day.  We`ve never before had a sitting president

have his campaign chair be sentenced to federal prison.  I want to get your

reaction to that top line reaction to that big news today. 

 

CICILLINE:  Well, obviously, this is a big event.  This is a serious

conviction and sentence.  There are 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or

pleas and now five individual sentenced to prison. 

 

So this is significant, but I agree with your earlier guest, it`s pretty

extraordinary that for the breadth of these offenses, squirreling away $55

million outside of the IRS and avoiding taxes on that, fraud and bank fraud

and the like, that he would receive a sentence so different from the

sentencing guidelines.  Those guidelines are provided to prevent disparity

in sentencing because that disparity brings incredible disrespect for the

judicial system and that`s why they were created. 

 

So, the idea that the court would depart from the guidelines which were 19

to 24 years, so significantly and give Mr. Manafort only a four-year

sentence seems pretty extraordinary and I think is very much a response to

white collar criminals that we too often see in our criminal justice

system.  Our prisons are filled with people who are serving much longer

sentences for small drug offenses. 

 

So I`m disappointed.  I don`t think it did justice.  But it`s only the

first part of his sentencing.  He has another one next week and I am – I

am hopeful that the judge will sentence him appropriately next week and

send a strong message about this kind of corruption and this sort of

conduct and impose a sentence consistent with that. 

 

MADDOW:  One of the things that I`ve found interesting – I initially found

it unusual.  I now find it interesting, that in public-facing filings in

the Manafort case and now increasingly just speaking out loud, his defense

team is mounting a very Trumpian defense for Mr. Manafort. 

 

He`s not – Mr. Manafort is not charged with Russian collusion.  He`s not

charged with having, you know, interacted with Russian government or

intelligence officials at the time that in any way facilitated their attack

on our election to benefit Mr. Trump.  Nevertheless, despite the fact he`s

not charged with that, they`re making this public-facing defense, that is

no collusion, no collusion, no collusion.  You would think it was beside

the point for Mr. Manafort`s case, but they are making this case publicly. 

 

And to me one way that may make sense is if they are trying to make the

case that the president should pardon Mr. Manafort and it shouldn`t reflect

on the Russia case at all if the president does that because Mr. Manafort`s

case is totally separate from the Russia scandal.  I wonder on the

judiciary committee if it is a matter of concern or potential investigation

on your committee the prospect of the president discussing pardons with

people, including Michael Cohen, including Mr. Manafort, including Mr.

Flynn and others as a way to try to protect himself in these various

investigations. 

 

CICILLINE:  Absolutely.  I think there is tremendous interest in that, and

we will certainly continue to conduct oversight on that very issue.  I

thought it was very strange to see his lawyers come to the podium and say

oh, by the way, no collusion.  It was as if President Trump wrote his

lines.  It was very bizarre.  Sort of unrelated to the case in Virginia. 

 

But I think, you know, the idea that conversations were had or pardons were

dangled in an effort to perhaps persuade people not to cooperate or not be

truthful is of considerable concern to the judiciary committee and is

something I know we will investigate as part of our overall investigation. 

I think the other thing that`s really ironic is on the very week we`re

about to pass this enormous democracy referral cracking down on corruption,

raising ethical standards, getting money out of our political system, there

are these serious convictions that continue in this administration for

corruption that undermine the rule of law in our country and it`s kind of

an interesting contrast. 

 

MADDOW:  Yes.  To have the president`s campaign chair sentenced to years in

prison for various kinds of fraud and next week he`ll face sentencing on

his unregistered lobbying stuff, to have that happen while the House

tomorrow is likely to pass this huge Democratic reform anti-corruption

bill.  It`s as if it is – well, it sort of seems scripted. 

 

CICILLINE:  Right.

 

MADDOW:  Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island of the Judiciary

Committee – sir, thank you for your time tonight.  It`s nice to have you

here. 

 

CICILLINE:  It`s my pleasure.  Thanks.

 

MADDOW:  All right.  More ahead, actually, the great Dan Rather, we have

tracked him down in Texas because we wanted to get his reaction to this

historic news today.  I am told we have found Dan Rather in Texas.  He`ll

join us ahead.  Stay with us.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REPORTER:  Today, a limousine brought former Attorney General John Mitchell

to court.  They used to call him the “Big Enchilada” at the White House. 

He came to be sentenced as a convicted felon. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Only once before in U.S. history has a president`s campaign chair

ended up going to federal prison.  But at least when John Mitchell did it

in 1975, Nixon was already gone.  This time he`s going to federal prison

while the presidential candidate he worked for is still in his first term

as president of the United States. 

 

Joining us now on the phone is veteran journalist Dan Rather. 

 

Mr. Rather, thank you so much for joining us on short notice tonight.  I

realize we had to track you down. 

 

DAN RATHER, VETERAN JOURNALIST (via telephone):  Thank you, Rachel.  It`s

always a pleasure to be with you. 

 

MADDOW:  I want to ask your reaction today to what feels to me like

historic news, this sentencing tonight for Paul Manafort. 

 

RATHER:  Well, I think it was historic and you pointed it out, that the

campaign manager for what is now a sitting president going to prison, there

is no precedent for that. 

 

MADDOW:  Dan, in terms of – I know you covered not only Watergate, the

Iran-Contra affair, fallout from those scandals.  In terms of how this fits

into the larger Russia scandal and the other scandals around the Trump

presidency, do you see this as sort of the end?  Do you see this as the

culmination, the worst it`s going to get or sort of the start? 

 

RATHER:  No, I`m afraid for those who think we`re going to a long national

nightmare that there is no end in sight that I can see.  You know, in this

confusing, chaotic and, yes, dangers time for our country, this decision by

the judge today is a stutter and law students are going to be studying the

case for years to come say nothing of historians.  

 

MADDOW:  In terms of the judge`s decision today, obviously this was a big

downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.  The guidelines are not

binding on the judge.  The judge can do whatever he or she wants.

 

In this case, it was a 19 to 24-year guideline.  We had a former U.S.

attorney, Barb McQuade, here earlier say that this was an absurdly low

departure from those guidelines.  That`s how it certainly feels today.  It

was the initial reaction to it. 

 

I wonder if you feel historically that will be the story of this day or

whether the story of this day will be president`s campaign chair goes to

prison. 

 

RATHER:  No, I think it will be about the lightness sentence.  Look, this

sentence is a straight up rebuke to Robert Mueller and his team.  It`s an

in your face, shame on you statement from the judge to Mueller.  And the

system is just a slap on the wrist to, you know, a big time criminal for

another elite well-connected Washington big shot. 

 

MADDOW:  Hmm.  In terms of the follow-up here, we`re going to have a second

act fairly soon, in less than a week, that same defendant Mr. Manafort is

going to be in a different courtroom before Judge Amy Berman Jackson who

will have the benefit of knowing what Manafort just got sentenced to in

Virginia when she makes her decision about how much time she wants to give

Manafort, if any, about whether or not that time will be consecutive versus

concurrent. 

 

If she decides he needs to spend a lot more time in prison, what you just

described, would that be remedied or is essentially that rebuke of the

special counsel now permanent from Judge Ellis? 

 

RATHER:  Well, we`ll have to see how that goes, but I will say that, you

know, a lot of black kids in the projects routinely get worse sentences

than Manafort has gotten, and a lot of white kids or drug charges do the

same.  But we`ll see how it goes.  You know, as always, time to stay

steady. 

 

MADDOW:  Dan Rather, veteran journalist and a kind soul for letting us

track him down tonight in Texas on zero notice – sir, thank you for being

with us.  I really wanted to talk to you tonight. 

 

RATHER:  Always an honor.  Thank you. 

 

MADDOW:  My pleasure. 

 

All right.  That does it for us tonight.  Of course, the other thing we

didn`t get to tonight because of the time the sentence broke is the fact

that the president`s long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen filed a

lawsuit against the president`s business tonight saying that the president

through his business had agreed to essentially pay Mr. Cohen`s legal fees

through the Russia scandal and they stopped doing that once he became a

cooperator with prosecutors.  That lawsuit, again, filed – a civil lawsuit

filed today by Mr. Cohen, becomes yet another wrinkle in that part of this

ongoing scandal. 

 

And tomorrow`s Friday.  And you know how Fridays tend to go these days. 

 

We`ll see you again tomorrow. 

 

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”. 

 

Good evening, Lawrence.

 

                                                                                                               

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

Copyright 2019 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

content.>