. >> with me now is nick ackerman, christina greer, and liz plank. thanks to you all for being here. christina, what do you think it means to have a newer congress, not only a bluer congress? >> i think it's a great opportunity for democrats. once they figure out who their leader will be, then they can set forth a progressive or centrist agenda. a lot of people are still thinking of 1998 and making sure impeachment isn't the only thing on the table. there are certain democrat who is really want that. but the new composition really wants to put forward an agenda of what will democrats do to combat this particular president or work with the senate republicans to actually give us either legislation or some sort of substantive policy beyond just fighting trump and, you know, thinking about just taxes and just impeachment and just jared kushner and robert mueller. >> there's an old saying, liz. this isn't your daddy's movie or your daddy's mug or whatever. when people used to say this wasn't your daddy's congress, for many years this was your daddy's cong

nick ackerman, we're having fun. i wish you were down here. >> i wish i was there too, it's very cold up here. >> i don't know anything about that. let me start with you, then we'll go to guy. viewers of "the beat" are accustomed to nick ackerman saying, if there's a development that might hurt donald trump's approach to the law, it's a good thing, and it's going places. but i want to press you, sir. do you admit tonight that it is a long shot to get a state lawsuit here to interfere with the president's power to appoint someone? >> this isn't a state lawsuit, this is filed in federal court. >> federal court, but it's by a state. >> right. it's by a state. but the issue they raised is a very significant issue. under the federal rules, when an officer, a federal officer, resigns, who's a defendant or a party in a case, the other party -- it has to be replaced. what this lawsuit is saying is that it has to be replaced with somebody who can actually be an attorney general, otherwise, whatever actions this person takes i

nick ackerman joins me. the news tonight for the first time ever we can report, donald trump has submitted answers on russia questions to bob mueller. what does it mean, in your view? >> in my view, it means that robert mueller is focused on the conspiracy charge. he's looking at the conspiracy that involved the russians to hack into the democratic national committee and stage and release the documents and e-mails. he's looking at the conspiracy that dealt with social media to try and suppress the hillary clinton vote. and so i think -- i could easily envision questions that could put donald trump in the soup. you've got four cooperating witnesses. you've got paul manafort, the campaign manager. you've got the lawyer -- >> michael cohen. >> michael cohen, the personal lawyer. you've got the deputy campaign manager. you've got the national security director. when you put these four very high-level people together, it is very simple to come up with some very pointed questions that could really put donald trump

. >> it is interesting, nick ackerman, to see that out in the streets. people there want to protect mueller. they don't say at this hour, we're not reporting, any action from whitaker yet. but what do you think is incumbent on the justice department and these professionals who are in the justice department who have a new boss when you see someone who has effectively said in public there is nothing left to do in this probe. if there was no collusion, that's unknown. >> first of all, you got somebody who should absolutely recuse himself from having anything to do with this investigation. he has taken a very hard stance on what he believes this investigation is about. if there is anybody that's got bias and already has formed an opinion before he's even become attorney general, he has no business having anything to do with this investigation. you need to have an attorney general who is out there that is fair and impar recall and will weigh the evidence and look at whatever the evidence turns out to be as a result of this investigation. i mean you wouldn't e

. >> with me now is nick ackerman, christina greer. thanks to all of you for being here. kristina, what do you think it means to have a different congress? >> i think it is a great opportunity for democrats. once they figure out who their leader is going to be, they will figure out whether it is a progressive agenda. obviously you know, there are certain democrats who want that. the new composition wants to put forward an agenda of what will democrats doing to combat. substantive policy beyond fighting trump. >> there is an old saying liz, you know, this isn't your daddy's movie, or this isn't your daddy's mug or whatever. people used to say this isn't your daddy's congress, for many years, it was. overwhelming white male and quite frankly elderly. and it is not that any of those things are good, bad or in between, but in a democracy, they don't look like the rest of the nation. as a young person, about the fact that this new wave of freshman has lowered the age by a decade. >> i love older white men. we talk about the blue wave, but there is always a brown wave. so many

i'm joined by nick ackerman, former watergate special prosecutor. how does this bombshell impact the collusion part of the probe? >> i think this is what the probe's all about, conspiracy. not collusion. conspiracy is the crime. and this is more evidence of that conspiracy. in fact, i think the big takeaway from paul manafort -- the fact that his cooperation agreement was torn up is that bob mueller has significant evidence on conspiracy. the same conspiracy he charged the russians with with respect to the hacking and the dissemination and distribution of the e-mails and documents. >> do you think this report makes it more likely that paul manafort or his allies on the trump campaign could be on the other side of that original mueller indictment of the russians as coconspirators? >> i think that's right. they're going to be -- the coconspirators on the american side, they are part of at least the staging and release of those e-mails. but this new evidence almost makes you believe that it's possible that they were also involved in the conspiracy to h

watergate prosecutor nick ackerman, matt miller who worked at the justice department and another former federal prosecutor paul butler back with me. nick? >> let me start off with my legal opinion. liar, liar, pants on fire. this guy is not telling the truth. first of all, when you look at somebody and you decide whether they're telling the truth, you don't leave your common sense at the door post. what he says about suddenly coming up with the exact timing for the podesta e-mails to come out doesn't ring true. but what i think is the real killer here that really puts the lie to him is that later on between january 13, 2017 and march 1, 2017, he deleted those e-mails. the very e-mails that you were questioning him about that had to do with these contacts with julian assange. >> you're saying the proof at the time about trying to get the goods is stuff that he tried to hide? >> and he did, he deleted it. and he deleted it -- that time period is extremely significant because that's when the congressional committee, the senate committee, was bringing in roger stone and was starting to ask

nick ackerman, maya wiley and sam nunberg, who has appeared directly before bob mueller's grand jury. and you're here as a freeman, partly thanks to maya wiley. >> that is right. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> when you look at this, and you're the only person in this room who has actually been inside with those prosecutors, what do you clean for these developments and the way these folks, some of them who you used to work with, are cooperating? >> in terms of the president, perhaps, i can't speak on behalf of them and i've had no communications with their lawyers or anything. it was no coincidence they are working on these written responses after the results of the midterms. i'm not so sure, perhaps, they would have given any answers because even if you read the recent book, "the apprentice" by "the washington post" reporter, i can't remember his name, one of the issues in terms of the original lawyer leaving, dowd -- >> you're talking about the woodward reporting in "fear"? >> no, "the apprentice" by -- >> the miller book. yes. and both of those books talk a

joining me now, nbc news senior investigative producer, ana schecter and nick ackerman, former assistant special watergate prosecutor. next, to you first. an assistant attorney general, his office told the white house, before they made this appointment, that choosing whitaker was a-okay. the quote is, the president could designate a senior department of justice official, such as whitaker, as acting attorney general. maryland has said that's unconstitutional. i think san francisco has, as well. >> i think it is unconstitutional. we don't know what the question was. if he said he was going to be acting attorney general for three hours or three days, yeah, that probably would be okay. but any period of time where he would be actually making decisions that you would expect to be made by a principle under article viii of the constitution, someone who has to be confirmed by the u.s. senate, cannot be acting attorney general. trump cannot just move people out of these cabinet posts and just put other people -- >> except, he did. >> he did. and he's not supposed to do that. and hopefully this ca