chuck rosenburg. chris, let's give it to you first. do we flknow what the questions were and which questions the president answered and are we sure that is the case because so far only seemed to be hearing from rudy giuliani or donald trump. >> right now you're right. we are only hearing from one side. trump's legal team has talked a bit about the questions and for what we understand right now, the only questions posed to the president are about pre-election issues involving potential conspiracy with russia and russian election meddling. robert mueller didn't sentd questions to the president at this point. he's given few hints about what is in the questions and how the president answered them. there's a lot right now we don't know. it's kind of this black box that we're all trying to get a peak at. >> chuck you're skeptical. >> i am. the point you make is so important. i think it's worth reiterating. everything we think we know comes from one side. when bob mueller talks, when his people talk, they talk in court through indictments and

that's chuck rosenburg. chuck rosenburg is going to be here to help us get through a number of different legal stories that broke this evening, all related to the trump administration, including some very puzzling new news about robert mueller and the special counsel's investigation. chuck rosenburg is in new york tonight. he is going to be joining us in studio a little later on in the show. but i also need to tell you we're going to be joined tonight by another very senior former fbi official who you have not met before, who has never done this type of interview before. in just a few minutes, we're going to be joined by jim baker. jim baker was the general counsel at the fbi, meaning he was the top lawyer at the fbi. he left that position earlier this year in may. he's one of the handful of former senior fbi officials who was personally briefed by fbi director james comey about comey's troubling interactions with president trump concerning the russia investigation before trump ultimately fired james comey.

let me bring in chuck rosenburg. s what do you make of what you heard? >> i think this bit about jerome corsi is interesting. what corsi told anna doesn't add up. he should be trying to monotize these powers of deduction. >> buy some lottery tickets. >> i think it was more interesting is the trump's team approach to them. what rudy giuliani told the washington post. what he told the post was president trump has no recollection of discussing welco wikileaks. normally they start with president trump never discuss e wikileaks and they get to that point over time only when they found out they are cornered. the fact that rudy giuliani started at this point has no recollection, leads me to believe they may want to keep some wiggle room in there for reasons this may be clear. >> why would he have done that? >> here's my thinking on this. it is as ken said, highly unusual. manafort is a criminal. he had been a criminal for most of his adult life. criminals lie, cheat and steal which is what manafort does quite well. he's playing all the angles or trying to. he's

joining me is chuck rosenburg, senior fbi official and msnbc contributor. one of the times reporters who broke that story, michael schimdt and anna palmer. we have got a lot to do right here. we're glad that on the eve of this holiday we have you guys with us. let me start with you about your reporting as it relates to this not so much a threat but a desire for the president to order the prosecution's of these two. we heard what he threatened in the past. why is this different and this one so startling and alarming to many? >> he was having the discussion in private with his white house counsel. i think some people make it -- there's a difference between being on the campaign trail and saying things for red meat for his base. >> no doubt. he was acting. >> in another way behind closed doors talking to the person who is spoked to be the liaison. the president had this conversation while he was under investigation for obstructing justice. clearly not deterred at all by that to walk up to the line, if not over it. >> you're right it's unclear if he read the me

joining me, tom leonard, nbc investigations, mimi roker, and chuck rosenburg, former fbi official and msnbc contributor. welcome to you all. tom, let me start with you. this indictment was interesting in that it was filed in new york, mueller kept part of it. explain why this is not an sdny filing and is instead a submit filing. walk me through this. >> chuck, it is an important distinction, one that tells us a little about where it is all headed. special counsel robert mueller's mandate is to look into russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and whether or not the trump campaign had anything to do with that or instructed that. when you saw this summer, michael cohen pled guilty to a number of counts, some involving personal tax evasion, but some involving the trump campaign, but didn't have anything to do with russia, according to the guilty plea then, had to do with payments made to women for alleged affairs involving the president. today is different. in this particular case, chuck, we see something that may have ties directly to robert mueller's inquiry into meddling b

i've got chuck rosenburg here. talk about your reaction to what anna's reporting based on her conversation with jerome corsi, him saying i'd rather sit in prison and rot versus pleading to this count of perjury. >> nobody has to plead guilty. it's straightforward and simple. if the government thinks he commit add crited a crime, they the grand jury to indict him. if he doesn't, he can go to trial. that's what fritrials are for. no federal judge in the country will take his guilty plea. he can go to trial. >> i think he said he misremembered something. a statement he made. he's saying i didn't lie. i just didn't remember it correctly. does that hold water? >> if he actually made a mistake. mistakes are not crimes. accidentals are not crimes. for the government to prove that he committed perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, they would have to show a couple of things including that whatever he said was false was intentionally false and it was material. in other words, it wasn't about what flavor of ice cream he preferre