Skip to main content

tv   The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell  MSNBC  January 26, 2018 10:00pm-11:00pm PST

10:00 pm
seemed possible. so can this kennedy harness that and break the state of the union reply? now it's time for "last word with lawrence o'donnell." good evening. >> i will see you tomorrow on your show. >> absolutely. >> i enjoyed hearing you speak with so much authority about 1968 when you were not alive. but i know where you got that. i think you read a -- >> i read an amazing book about it by somebody you might know. his name rhymes with lawrence o'donnell. >> you can still find it but you have to climb over the piles of michael wolff's book. we have michael wolff here with us tonight.
10:01 pm
his first public reaction to what we learned yesterday that the president ordered the firing of the special prosecutor. >> amazing. can't wait for that. >> thank you joy. >> thanks, lawrence. last night the obstruction of justice case took on a new and dramatic turn when it was reported that the president ordered the firing of the special prosecutor in june and don mcgahn refused to carry out that order and threatened to resign if the special prosecutor was fired. here is every word the president said about that important story today. >> mr. president why did you fire robert mueller? why did you want to fire robert mueller? >> fake news, folks. "new york times" fake story. >> in the nixon era that's what they called a nondenial denial.
10:02 pm
joining us with his first reaction to the public reaction is the author of the best selling book in the world right now, michael wolff, the author of the "new york times" best-seller "fire and fury," inside the trump white house. thank you for coming back. >> thank you for having me. >> your book is filled with versions of the president complaining about the special prosecutor, making references to wanting to fire the special prosecutor. the special prosecutor has talked to reince priebus, the special prosecutor is going to talk to steve bannon, who you spent a lot of time talking to. the special prosecutor has been talking to many of your sources in this book. has the special prosecutor reached out to you to talk to you about either the firing of the special prosecutor or any other elements of this story? >> he has not. >> and if the special prosecutor does want to interview you, would you cooperate with that? >> good question, and i don't know the answer.
10:03 pm
but i think that the answer is, yes, because i have nothing to hide. everything i know is in the book. >> what about the sources that are -- many sources are revealed in the book and many quotes attributed to people. but there are a lot of unattributed quotes. if the special prosecutor would point to the book -- >> and say who is the source here, and it's a source i can't reveal, i clearly would not. >> you know there's no privilege. the special prosecutor could hold you in contempt and you could end up in jail by refusing to answer that. >> i've had a lot of threats over the last few weeks. we take them as they come. >> the -- i want to go to a passage about don mcgahn that's in your book, because i have to the say, for readers of this book, the detail that the president specifically ordered the firing is just one more little piece that fits into this story completely and the characters behave in the way we understand them from your book.
10:04 pm
here's reference to don mcgahn, paige 212 of your book. mcgahn tried to explain that, in fact, comey himself was not running the russia investigation, that without comey the investigation would proceed anyway. mcgahn, the lawyer whose job was to issue cautions, was a frequent target of trump rages. typically these would begin as a kind of exaggeration or acting and then devolve into the real thing. now the president is focussed in a vicious fury on mcgahn and his cautions about comey. that's just comey. so we can presume something similar went on with that with the attempt to fire mueller. >> let me give a slightly different context than the "new york times" gives. the "new york times" makes it sound like trump thought about it, sat down, determined that he should fire -- that he should
10:05 pm
fire mueller, that he should act on this, and then told mcgahn to cary this out. and that's not untrue. but the difference is, he does this constantly. every day the president is saying he's going to fire somebody. anybody who he feels is -- has annoyed him, irritated him, gotten in his way, disagreed with him is going to be fired. the firing of mueller was talked about by trump, especially in this june, july period, before his legal team really got in and took over, this became an obsession with the president. he had to get rid of mueller. now -- but n an obsession with this president becomes, instead of -- instead of an order, it becomes kind of like wallpaper,
10:06 pm
it just goes on and on and on. he just repeats and repeats and repeats. is it serious? is it just him spouting off ultimately that's what the special prosecutor will have to decide. and it's a key thing, because the special prosecutor has to prove intent. if he's just a crazy person, which, in part he is, it's going to be very hard to prove intent. so was there a moment in which he directed this to happen? well, actually, yes, but there were hundreds of moments in which he does that and in which everybody sort of deflects. equally, the times has mcgahn threatening to quit. mcgahn has probably threatened to quit a hundred times. actually what they say in --
10:07 pm
even now, mcgahn would like to get out of there, they just can't find somebody else to replace him. so they have to come and each time beg him to stay. >> you have bannon in here saying -- quoting him now and attributing it to him, it's not one of the unacknowledged quotes it's bannon saying to you, if he fires mueller it just bring it is impeachment quicker. was that the widespread view in the white house? >> completely. everybody believed firing mueller would be suicidal. and everybody had to deal with this every day, it was always fire mueller, how can we fire mueller? get rid of this guy? and again, this was regarded as something less than real. it was just the stuff that comes out of the president's mouth uncontrollaby and often meaninglessly. >> so you're describing a work
10:08 pm
place they don't take the guy seriously that they have to execute it, but if he pushes it to an order then they have to issue threats to resign? >> yes. the question is -- but even that -- that's always going on. the efforts to resign because nobody wants to be there. so it's this -- it's a kind of -- the "new york times" curiously makes this sound normal. even though -- >> what do you mean normal? >> makes it sound like there is a man who has thought through something and made a decision. there are no decisions here. it's just blater. of course, blather can become a decision. the comey firing. nobody expected it to happen, and then it happened because he did it on his own.
10:09 pm
he just went rogue and suddenly it happened. so i believe that everybody expected and continues to expect mueller to be fired. but how that happens is a -- it's a kind of a three-dimensional thing because every day he's firing mueller. so how does it become -- how does that go from this kind of, you know, the president -- presidential gas to the actually happening? >> it's making that case for his lawyers to try to make that presentation of the character is made virtually impossible because of his job. meaning, a prosecutor and the people looking into this aren't going to believe that a president is just that nutty and flaky and constantly saying things that aren't really?
10:10 pm
>> i don't know if that's true. i think that is what -- is what mueller -- they ultimately -- that will be the ultimate question. was there intent here or is -- or was this just daily stupidity really, incompetence, disregard. >> there's a passage in here about the -- everybody in the white house believing that if the investigation moved long term into the trump financial transactions that that would be disastrous for the president. and the president seemed to confirm that by having that be the thing that made him keep saying, i can fire mueller, i can fire mueller. >> completely. and then at one point, of course, he says -- he gives an interview to the "new york times" and he -- he draws the line. he says, mueller can't go here. you know, can't go into his family finances. and, you know, bannon then pointed out to me afterward
10:11 pm
bannon makes this noise, he says let's just tell the prosecutor what he can't look at. >> yes. imagine for us as you know this trump character and i think have conveyed him better than anybody has conveyed him because you get these dimensions that are difficult to capture, all these weird dimensions. imagine him in an interview with the special prosecutor when the special prosecutor says why did you order don mcgahn to have me fired? what does trump say to that? >> i think it's almost unimaginable, and from the point of view of the prosecutor, it's both you're both going to get things that are immediately and stunningly incriminating, but you're also going to have to step back and say this is so stunningly incriminating that maybe it's not incriminating,
10:12 pm
maybe he's just -- that's where we are -- >> the insanity defense. >> -- playing stupid. >> the stupidity or insanity defense. i've asked lawyers all week, what happens if lawyers convince him you can't talk to the special prosecutor, and then the special prosecutor decides to subpoena him and they refuse to respond to a subpoena? is that imaginable to you that he would refuse to respond to a subpoena and if he's held in contempt of court will he respond to that? >> it's never happened before. i have no idea. i would say because i'm a reasonable person, it can't happen and eventually he has to respond. i remember bannon going in there and the president would go, i have executive privilege, i have executive privilege and bannon would say no, you don't. we've gone through this before.
10:13 pm
presidents have to testify when they're subpoenaed. >> i put out on twitter about questions, and one of the biggest questions was about nikki haley. let's look to an interview that nikki haley did today that part of the interview was provoked by something you said last week. let's listen to this. >> he told the comedian and television host bill maher that he's president sure that the president is having an affair and close readers of his book would be able to figure out who the president is having an affair with. so wolff writes in the book, quote, that the president had been spending an amount of private time with nikki haley on air force one and was seeming to groom her for a national public future. i don't think you have to be sherlock holmes to see what he's insinuating. but i would like to get your
10:14 pm
response to that insinuation. >> it is not true. it is highly offensive. and it's disgusting. if you look at what -- i've said this before. it amazes me what people will do and the lies they will say for money and power. and in politics, it's rampant. but here you have a man who's basically saying i've been spending a lot of time on air force one. i have literally been on air force one once and there were several people in the room when i was there. he says i'm talking a lot with the president in the oval about my political future. i never talked once with the president about my future and i'm never alone with him. >> do you believe that the u.s. ambassador to the united nations is having an affair with the president? >> what i know is in the book. >> what's your reaction to what you just heard? >> i don't know who the reporter
10:15 pm
is who is, in fact, making the insinuation. >> so you're saying you invited people to read between the lines publically. >> read between the lines. if i knew it, i would have said it. >> is she reading between the right lines? that reporter who brought this question to nikki haley. >> is she reading -- i'm not going to go further than what's in the book. >> do you think it's reasonable that this reporter brought this question to nikki haley based on what she read in the book? >> i think all questions are reasonable. >> so -- but you did say you believed the president is currently having an affair. not in the book, but you said that publically. >> i believe the president -- well, you know it's -- what is an affair? remember that question? >> let's put it this way, sex with someone who's not his wife.
10:16 pm
>> i -- i believe there -- a number of reliable, and i would say authoritative, people in the white house have said that. >> and nikki haley saying that's not true, it's highly offensive, it's disgusting, seems to agree the implication is that it's her. >> she seems to be, yes. i don't know. it is literally what's in the book. if you want to infer, i -- >> well, i do want to -- ip to clarify for the public record. you never said nikki haley. you never said any name. >> i did not. >> so anyone who has brought nikki haley in this has done so through their own reading? >> yes. >> going back to the obstruction case with the president. as you hear these various scenarios being played out and you hear john dowd saying, it's
10:17 pm
not the president who's going to decide, i'm going to decide whether the president agrees to do this interview. do you think this is how this will happen? john dowd will say to the president yes, you can or no, you can't? >> i think he will. but this is donald trump. he will do what he wants to do, and it's likely he will decide i can go in there and charm these guys, i can sell them. >> michael wolff thank you for joining us again tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> coming up the, the panel is joining us. they will consider everything that's developed. some of them taking notes during michael wolff's conversation here. we'll see what they think the special prosecutor is going to react to. also adam schiff will join us, that's coming up. ♪
10:18 pm
♪ave a cold, stuff happens. ♪ { sneezing ] shut down cold symptoms fast [ coughing ] with maximum strength alka seltzer plus liquid gels. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at why make something this intelligent... (engine starting up)
10:19 pm
...when it can get by on looks alone? why create something that stands out, when everyone expects you to fit in? it's simple. you can build a car, or you can build a cadillac. come in now for this exceptional offer on the cadillac cts. get this low-mileage lease on this 2018 cadillac cts from around $469 per month. visit your local cadillac dealer.
10:20 pm
the firing of mueller was talked about by trump, especially in this june, july period, before his legal team really got in and took over. this became an obsession with the president. he had to get rid of mueller. now an obsession with this -- this president becomes, instead of -- instead of an order, it becomes kind of like wallpaper, it just goes on and on and on. he repeats and repeats and repeats.
10:21 pm
>> that's the instant replay of my interview with michael wolff. joining us now ron kline the former chief counsel to the senate judiciary committee and chief of staff to janet reno. and jill wine-banks. and matt miller. jill, i want to go with you, my discussion with michael, i wish i had a lawyer with us. because there were moments he talked about what the special prosecutor was going to find from this witness donald trump and from others that there was this vague blanket of noise that he described ultimately as wallpaper that was the fire mueller wallpaper and was that really a specific demand to fire mueller and michael was speculating the special
10:22 pm
prosecutor is going to have to get inside the president's head to figure out what his actual intent was in those statements. what was your reaction to that? >> i think intent was one of the more interesting parts of that interview. he also said that the president likes to say, you're fired, and he does it all the time. he apparently learned his lesson on "the apprentice" all too well. as far as intent it's tricky for a lawyer to be able to prove intent. but in this case there are so many acts in furtherance that a jury can infer intent. and the other problem is if he didn't intent the corrupt firing of mueller and, let's face it, of comey, then if wolff is correct, he sounds like the alternative is the man is crazy. if he's crazy and incompetent and stupid, which are the words michael wolff used then we have
10:23 pm
to look at the 25th amendment and congress has to stand up and say the man is incompetent. those seem to be the fwo choices he was saying, it was hard to choose intent because he's crazy. that leads up from impeachment possibly to the 25th amendment. possibly it's a lose for trump. >> and the 25th amendment is mentioned specifically by steve bannon and steve bannon gives it a 33% in his calculations of it actually being used against this president for exactly this kind of stuff in michael wolff's book. >> ron, jill said a jury can infer intent, which is what i was thinking when i was listening to michael. if this was a normal case, the issues michael wolff was talking about, does he mean it, that would be left to a jury. with the president it's not clear if this gets brought to a
10:24 pm
jury. it might be brought to congress and in an impeachment proceeding that's one of the things for congress left to decide. >> donald trump may be crazy, but he's not legally insane. the standard on that is very high. i think mr. wolff's legal analysis is kind of back wards, all due respect. and jill pointed out there are specific acts of obstruction. he wasn't spouting off when he did fire james comey, when he instructed a false statement be produced by don junior about that trump tower meeting. so there are a lot of specific acts. and what mr. wolff calls the wallpaper i think is powerful evidence of intent. the fact that trump is saying we ought to get rid of mueller, do this, that, just shows a focus on stopping the investigation.
10:25 pm
not about conflict of interest or supervising the justice department, it's about stopping the investigation. that would be powerful evidence of his intent, this is not someone who acts like an ininnocent person, lawrence. that's the most important thing that comes out of the picture that wolff paints. >> i was struck by that term wallpaper that michael wolff used. it tells us a lot. if you ever listened to the wiretaps of mafia headquarters in new york or boston or different places, the wallpaper was we need to get rid of that guy, and at some point that guy would be gotten rid of with or without a specific order on those mafia wiretaps. but you're all taking notes while michael wolfff was talking. your reaction to what you heard? >> i was struck by what he
10:26 pm
called the wallpaper and what we see. we see in other reports a picture of donald trump strained against the legal and ethical constraints of office. you know, constantly kind of lashing out against prosecutors and fbi agents who want to just pursue the rule of law. you see him complaining about it but also taking official acts. that was clear in the "new york times" story last night. it was when he crossed the line from not just complaining about bob mueller but kwhen he issued the order to fire him. under the statute, you don't have to be successful. you have to take an action where you intend to obstruct justice to be guilty of a crime. you mentioned the wiretaps in mafia cases, we don't have wiretaps in this case, but what bob mueller has is conversation after conversation that aides to donald trump can reproduce. he's taken the aides and braugtd them in for interviews. and to the extent he ever said
10:27 pm
if james comey doesn't stop this investigation, i'm going to fire him. and the likelihood that he talked to an aide like that, is intent. >> we're going to squeeze in a break here. adam chief, the ranking member of the intelligence committee will join us next. any object. any surface.
10:28 pm
10:29 pm
if you've got a life you gotta swiffer i had severe fatigue, became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma. he was a good candidate for immune therapy, which is allowing his immune system to attack the tumor. learn more at here's what happened in the house of representatives today when reporters tried to ask the republican chair of the judiciary committee about the president trying to fire the special prosecutor. >> what's your reaction to reports that president trump ordered special counsel mueller
10:30 pm
fired. >> i'm here for a hearing. i don't have anything to comment on any other issues. >> copy right law is, of course, in the view of the judiciary committee one of their lowest priority issues. but today, for republicans, it was more -- it was more important than the most important story in washington, the president ordering the firing of the special counsel. charlie dent, who has given up on continuing his congressional career is free to say things like this today, i believe now that this revelation has been made public that there will be increasing pressure to protect mueller. joining us now adam schiff, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee. congressman, thank you for joining us tonight. i really appreciate it. i have to say, as a house watcher, i think you and i probably have never heard someone say i can't talk about the most important issue of the
10:31 pm
day i have to go to a copyright hearing. that's a new one. >> it is hard to top copyright in terms of interest. >> i want to get your reaction to something that michael wolff just said on this show. it's an issue that in a criminal case would be left to a jury and an impeachment case would be brought to you. and that is, if there is an obstruction of justice case that is presented to the house of representatives and one of the elements of an obstruction of justice case is that the president ordered the firing of robert mueller, what michael wolff just said is he was saying that all the time. he was saying fire mueller the time. i want to fire mueller all the time. michael wolff said it was like wallpaper so people did not take it seriously and it might, in the president's mind, have never been a specific order. and since it wasn't carried out he may not believe he issued the order.
10:32 pm
>> apparently don mcgahn took it seriously and was willing to resign rather than carry it out. i wouldn't describe this as wallpaper based on what the "new york times" the "the washington post" and others have reported. what leaps out at me about this disclosure, this new report, is how much in common it has with the comey situation. with the firing of comey what the president had at his disposal were memos from rod rosenstein and from jeff sessions that provided a pretext, another explanation to give to the public for why comey was being fired. that is, he treated hillary clinton unfairly. now that is obviously not very plausible and the one who made it clear that was not the real motivation was the president himself. but similarly here with the attempt to fire bob mueller, you had the explanations brought up
10:33 pm
for him, whether it was over golf dues that bob mueller had a dispute with the golf club over or it was over some -- the fact that the mueller firm worked with jared kushner, even though mueller didn't. so this is another effort to present pretext to conceal the real reason for getting rid of mueller. that does go to the intent in an obstruction case. and the fact that the president wanted to get rid of jeff sessions because jeff sessions recused himself and why did that bother the president because it led to bob mueller. that wasn't about dues at the golf club, that was about the president perceiving the russia investigation as a threat and wanting to act on that. >> and in the sessions case, you also have michael wolff and other sources quoting the president as saying things like where's my roy cohen and who's
10:34 pm
going to protect me, expecting the attorney general to protect him. it strikes me that the use of that word "protect" would be of special interest in an obstruction case. >> i think that's exactly right. the president made clear that what he believes he's entitled to in an attorney general, not someone who's loyal to the department, to the american people, but someone who's loyal to him. and not just on a garden variety issue but on the russia investigation, which is paramount for him. so i think all of this does go to intent. and certainly, bob mueller, this "new york times" and "the washington post" story is not news to him because he's been interviewing all these people in the white house and around the president. and i think ron is exactly right. there's probably a lot we don't know that the special counsel does that relates to the issue of the president's intent. >> how secure is bob mueller's job, do you think in the view of
10:35 pm
congress at this point? i know when he was first appointed you got universal acclaim for him, especially on the senate side. there wasn't a single republican senator that had a bad word to say about him, in fact, most of them were gushing praise. that has quieted down. and today no screams of outrage from the republicans in congress, no one rushing to a microphone to say this must not happen, he must not be fired. has robert mueller's support among republicans in congress collapsed? could he be fired? >> i wouldn't say it's collapsed. but you see a weakening of the spine of many of the folks in the gop of congress who when the first suggestions were made that the president could fire mueller and we had no idea that the president could try to fire him, you had a ground swell that was in favor of bipartisan legislation that would secure mueller's job, that would provide a right of appeal by
10:36 pm
mueller if he were fired. no one has acted on that in the majorit what's happened is that there has been an escalation of attacks on mueller in the right wing blogs, and there's been a wholesale attack on the fbi in order to discredit the investigation. all of that is a signal to the white house, unfortunately, that they might shrug if he took the step of firing mueller. people need to speak out now. people that are asked what they think about this, they need to speak out now and it's more important than ever for republicans in congress to say this is a red line that must not be crossed that would provoke a constitutional crisis that would bring down this administration. don't go there. because lawrence i think depending on where the special counsel investigation goes to, if the special counsel for example is looking at money
10:37 pm
laundering as i believe he should, you could see another outburst, outrage by the president that results in another order to fire bob mueller and the whole cascade of events that would bring about. >> congressman adam schiff, thank you very much for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence. >> does the president still want to fire robert mueller? michael wolff believes the president has not stopped thinking about firing robert mueller. more on that next. ♪ ♪
10:38 pm
10:39 pm
10:40 pm
hi. i'm the one clocking in when you're clocking out. sensing your every move and automatically adjusting to help you stay effortlessly comfortable. i can also help with this. does your bed do that? oh. i don't actually talk. though i'm smart enough to. i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed. let's meet at a sleep number store. breathe freely fast wmy congestion's gone. i can breathe again! i can breathe again! vicks sinex... breathe on.
10:41 pm
10:42 pm
bob mueller should be allowed to finish his job and this president should not be allowed to fire him just on a whim. i agree in this case with the president's lawyer, if the president had carried through on that threat it would have created chaos. the actions of this president seem to not help his case that there's no there there. these are t not the actions of an individual who has nothing to hide. >> "the wall street journal" reports that the lawyers have been looking into a 1990's ruling. in that ruling, the independent counsel seeking records, the court ruled that prosecutors hoping to overcome arguments of executive and presidential privilege must show that such information contains important evidence that isn't available elsewhere.
10:43 pm
also foreign policy is reporting on how the white house war on the fbi was born. president donald trump pressed senior aids last june to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior fbi officials after those officials were likely to be witnesses against him as part of robert mueller's investigation. back with was is our panel and joining us is jennifer an msnbc contributor. the "the wall street journal" is reporting in june, which is when the "new york times" reported last night when the president ordered the firing of robert mueller. the president is saying we have to attack the higher ranking people in the fbi because the special prosecutor is going to use them apparently to corroborate james comey's story. >> this reminds me of law
10:44 pm
school, find all the bits of evidence of obstruction of justice you can, and the person who does the most gets the "a" we can all get the "a" the attempts to get rid of the attorney general. the successful attempt to get rid of the fbi director. the attempt to get rid of andrew mccabe. the attempt now to smear the fbi. it goes on and on and on. you know, i don't think this excuse that he's somehow a babbling fool is going to get him off the hook. for one thing he told us, he got a 30 out of 30 on the mental exam. he's in tiptop shape, he's got a great brain. allow himself to get off on the crazy defense. i think this is an embarrassment of riches for the special counsel. there are so many pieces of intent. he wants to cripple the investigation because he's
10:45 pm
afraid of what they would find. >> ron klain, using the espy case, i believe that was about records instead of testimony and when you're trying to use executive privilege and you're saying you can only have this if you have no other way of getting it, that's something applying to records as opposed to actual testimony. >> that's true, lawrence, and further, in that case on paige 28 it says this would be a different case if the person under investigation was a senior white house aide, oops, here we are. then it goes on further and says in such a case it would be easy for a prosecutor to prove a need for the information. so i do not think the president and his lawyers will get any real protection from this espy case. it's a fantasy to think this
10:46 pm
case is going to help them. the court carved out the exact situation we have here and said in that situation it should be easy for the prosecutors to get the information they want. >> jill, this strikes me as the thing you tell a client, there's something you can hang their hat on, and maybe you'll get a hearing day at a court. >> they might get a hearing, but the espy case is not that much from nixon, which made it clear the president cannot avoid producing evidence if it is about a crime. and that's what mueller is looking at. he's not looking at something to do with political advice or policy advice, any advice he might have gotten from staff. it's about how do i commit a crime? how do i obstruct this case? how do i stop the investigation? that is clearly within the per view of what the supreme court said the president must comply with.
10:47 pm
i think this would be very unwise for the lawyers of the president to be holding out this false hope, i agree with ron this is not going to get them very far. >> matt miller, of course, the special prosecutor knows more about this than we do, since these two stories we're talking about here happened in june. i'm wondering if the special prosecutor is looking at evidence tonight and has testimony from white house staff saying the president ordered the firing of the special prosecutor in june and, in june, the president told us we had to start attacking the higher ranking people in the fbi because they will be used in the investigation against the president. those two stories could be coming together in this overall investigation. >> i assume that's right. he obviously knows much more than we do. i think one of the lessons of the "new york times" story from last night. look, all the exculpatory evidence for the president is basically all out there. we know all of that evidence.
10:48 pm
the white house has been very clear about making their public defense for the president's conduct. the evidence that's damaging to him, we found out last night, a very significant new piece of evidence and it raises the question, how much more is out there that we don't know. i think if you read between the lines of that story, when you talk about obstruction of justice, it's not just the president that has potential legal liability here. there are all the aides that could have participated in one of these schemes, who could be indicted for conspiracy to obstruct justice. you look at the story last night you see steve bannon, reince priebus, don mcgahn, all of whom share the same lawyer, all of whom are portrayed in the story, at least in the instance where the president wanted to fire mueller as standing up and saying no. you read that as three aids that if there is an attempt to obstruct justice here's an instance they said no and can't be held liable. >> according to michael wolff the president has not given up
10:49 pm
the dream of firing robert mueller. when we come back after this break let's go through the scenario if the president actually does fire robert mueller. we'll be right back. regularly with our ameriprise advisor. we plan for everything from retirement to college savings. giving us the ability to add on for an important member of our family. welcome home mom. with the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant.
10:50 pm
10:51 pm
and made it liberating. we took safe and made it daring. we took intelligent, and made it utterly irresistible. we took the most advanced e-class ever and made the most exciting e-class ever. the 2018 e-class coupe and sedan. lease the e300 sedan for $569 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.
10:52 pm
everybody says no collusion, there is no collusion. now they are saying did he fight back? did he fight back? >> what -- >> fight back. you fight back. it's obstruction. >> jennifer ruben, if the president does continue to move
10:53 pm
against mueller and eventually pulls it off meaning he fires rod rosenstein and does whatever he has to do in the justice department to get someone there to fire the special prosecutor, will republicans and congress take a stand against that? >> i have come to the conclusion that they will not. now firing mueller, of course, doesn't end the investigation. the fbi goes on, whoever replaces rosenstein can replace the special prosecutor, that was a lesson of watergate, simply firing cox did not end the matter. so the investigation will frank ly go on. they are not being passive. they are come police. you know who is collucolluding? the white house and devin nunes. that group of people that tolerate that behavior, mr. speaker of the house paul ryan that allows nunes to have his
10:54 pm
post will not take up impeachment. these people will not do anything. we'll stumble along until we get to the midterms and people of the united states can decide whether they want enablers or a democratic congress. so i think we keep hoping for them to kind of figure it out or hoping it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. it isn't. nothing is. they are not world of devin nunes and they are not, i think, unfortunately going to come around and do their constitutional duty. >> if the president reached down far enough and found someone after firing rod rosenstein or whoever it takes and said to that person you're going to be the acting deputy attorney general and empowered to fire the special prosecutor and i want you to disband the investigation, just completely disband it, could he do that?
10:55 pm
>> well, he can certainly try. we know that in fact, the president did a version of this when he fired sally yates early on in the administration, reached down far enough to find someone that would do it and got it done and i assume that's what he'll do. i think jennifer is right. ultimately, you can't make this all go away. he cannot escape accountability sooner or later. >> jill, did you have to consider this, that the possibility of nixon actually getting someone to completely not just fire the special prosecutor but disband it? >> well, we actually were abolished. if you remember the headlines on the day, the president fired cox and abolished the office. we were able to go on for two reasons, one is they didn't actually borrow from the office so we showed up on sunday and monday but by tuesday we were reappointed and a new special prosecutor was appointed. the public pressure forced the president to reverse course and
10:56 pm
appoint a new special prosecutor and allow us to continue. it is true it could end up badly, though. >> jill wine banks gets a very important last word on this subject tonight. thank you-all for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. >> thanks. tonight's "last word" is next. all right! let's teach these freaks some manners! good luck out there, captain! thanks! but i don't need luck, i have skills... i don't have my keys. (on intercom) all hands. we are looking for the captain's keys again. they are on a silver carabiner. oh, this is bad. as long as people misplace their keys, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. cedric, i couldn't even bowl with my grandkids 'cause of the burning, shooting pain in my feet. i hear you, sam. cedric, i couldn't sleep at night because of my diabetic nerve pain. i hear you, claire, because my dad struggled with this pain.
10:57 pm
folks, don't wait. step on up and talk to your doctor. because the one thing i keep hearing is... i'm glad i stepped on up. me too, buddy. if you have diabetes and burning, shooting pain in your feet or hands, step on up and talk to your doctor today.
10:58 pm
step on up you could start your search at the all-new that might help. show me the carfax? now the car you want and the history you need are easy to find. show me used minivans with no reported accidents. boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search and get free carfax reports at the all-new
10:59 pm
tonight's last word is joy, i'll be joining joy reid tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. on her show and this sunday night, co-founder swisher will
11:00 pm
talk with the ceos of google and youtube in a special town hall event revolution, google and youtube changing the world. hour with brian williams" a look at one of the biggest challenges inside the white house, protecting president trump from president trump. "the 11th hour with brian williams starts now". >> tonight, president trump flies home. he's back at the white house touting his successful trip to davos but ignoring questions on robert mueller in light of that bombshell story he had ordered hip to be fired. the next big event in the russia investigation. steve bannon reportedly scheduled to be the next big interview for team mueller. and is it getting more difficult for the trump legal team or the trump west wing team to carry out the task of protecting the president from himself? "the 11th hour" on a friday night begins now.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on