tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 5, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
♪ one vote to heal our land >> the cain 2012 campaign actually ended in december 2011 after he faced several accounts of sexual misconduct. thank you for being with us and good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. >> tonight on all in -- >> release the mueller report as soon as possible. >> a torant of complains from the mueller team. >> the mueller report was great. >> against the attorney general. >> barr is an agent of the president. he was put there for papurpose. >> the latest issues. >> barr did not come in with clean hands. >> renewed urgency to release the report. >> i want the report out publicly. >> then the national security
nightmare of mar a lago. >> many great leaders request to come to mar a lago and palm beach. they like it. i like it. >> spies may be trying to infiltrate the winter whose. >> it's just a fluke. >> a congressional rebuke to the gun lobby. >> the nra is becoming a toothless tiger. >> trump is a big guy. looks like a football player. >> becky becky stan stan. >> all in starts now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. after two years of total silence from robert mueller's investig investigators, the dam has broken open. it's been about 24 hours since the story broke that attorney general william downplayed the findings in their report and in that time the thrust of the "new york times's" reporting has been matched in quick succession by
other outleads including nba news. there are conflicting accounts of what went on behind the scenes leading to the speedy release of the now infamous four-page sinomsis. the simple fact that all of these stories and outlets are coming out, after two years without a peep from inside the special counsel's office shows that people involved in the investigation are deeply frustrated with barr's characterization of their work. they want the public to know about it. we now know the special counsel's team prepared summaries for each section of the more than 300 page report though it's not clear if they were ready to be released from the public. according to the "washington post" quoting an unnamed u.s. official, the report was prepared so that the front matter of each section could have been released immediately or very quickly. it was done in a way that minimum redaction fist any would have been necessary and the work
would have spoken for itself. now, other sources dispute that, claiming the summaries contain sensitive information requiring redaction by the justice department. every page was flagged for material potentially protected by grand juriy is creaty. in a letter, jerry nadler is demanding that the summaries which we now know about be made public and that barr turn over his communications with the special counsel's office about the final report. the post and nbc news are unhappy about barr's specific handling of the question of obstruction of justice. after mueller himself declined to reach a conclusion about the president's conduct. barr found the evidence insufficient to prove that the president obstructed justice saying it was much more acute than barr suggested. according to an official, it's least one faction with the
special counsel's office said their intent was to leave the legal question of obstruction open for congress and the public to examine the evidence. then the question of whether the trump campaign colluded with russia on which mueller found insufficient evidence to teab a experience according to barr. while that part is accurate, some team members say mueller's findings paint a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated intelejens operation. there is only one way to resolve these discrepancies and get to the truth and that is to release the report as soon as possible and as much as possible without jeopardizing ongoing cases or grand jury secrecy. protesters are demanding that, hitting the streets to disclose all of mueller's findings while much of the public wants that to happen, the same cannot be said for the president's allies in congress.
for the fifth time, senate republicans blocked a call for unanimous consent, calling for the report to be released. to help understand what all this means, i am joined by two people running federal investigations. joyce vance, u.s. district of alabama. chuck rosen berg, former senior fbi official who worked with robert mueller and both msnbc contributors. they have been on prosecuting and investigaing teams. what is going on in the last 24 hours? >> i think we have to read the mueller report to get the ultimate answer to that. it's not unusual for teams to disagree about what the evidence says and whether or not there should be indictments and if so, what for? what's irregular is we have a decision maker, robert mueller, who was entrusted with resolving the conflicts and making a decision. he chose not to make a decision about obstruction. whether he believed he shouldn't
make one where a sitting president couldn't be indicted which seems very likely or whether there is a different answer, the only way to resore public confidence is for all of this to come out now. >> it was always clear that there was in the full report more derock torrey information about the president than in the synopsis. we know that because barr chose to include the quote from robert mueller saying ex-pressley, this is not an exoneration. what do you make of that? >> you're right, chris. it's not at all surprising that there would be more in the report. it's 300 or 400 pages. you don't take that much to say nothing happened, move on. that's interesting to me. what joyce said is really important. prosecutors disagree with one another and disagree with agents and agents disagree with prosecutors all the time. this is an art, not science.
two well intentioned people can come up with a different answer. that happens all the time. i'm not surprised that there is more. whey think will be interesting will be the arm chair quarterbacking after we see what that is. inevitably whether bill barr is right or wrong, he will be second-guessed vociferously given the fact that so much of the obstruction stuff is public facing stuff. we have seen it. recusals or calls for recusals and unrecusals and pashd ones and firings that are ob sfruktive behavior. whether or not it constitutes a crime remains to be seen. >> three government officials said a dispute within the special counsel's office on the facts and the law was one factor behind mueller's is decision not to make a call on obstruction. a point you made. then the question of the summaries. in some ways we have a factual dispute in the reporting which
is worthy, ready to go and ship out publicly or did they need to be redacted. i want to had the you what jerry nadler has written to the department of justice about those summaries and grand jury material. it is notable in the press statement does not deny the existence of the summaries and merely indicatedwas marked may c protected under section 6 e. if they were produced for public consumption by experienced prosecutors, it should not be an impediment in a short period of time. now they are zeroing in on the lawyerly push back saying something was stamped on every page. >> yeah. that's not particularly unusual. i'm focused on this in a very short time language. what that seems to mean is that prosecutors out of an abundance of caution should go to a district court judge and get an order permitting them to release grand jury and make it available
to congress and perhaps even to the public, depending on what's contained in it. this seems like an excuse put forth by doj where one doesn't exist. if they said there was national security information, they need to screen. that would have been one thing. the push back was grand jury material. that's easy to take care of. >> there is also the counter intelligence part of this. nbc news is the only ones with the reporting on that part of it. i always thought, look, the whole point of this is we know that there was a criminal sabotage and enterprise undertaken for intelligence apparatus to tip the election in one direction. that's pretty well established. >> unanimity. >> we have seen the facts backing that up at least asserted by prosecutors. there has always been a question of let's say they were clean as daisies and didn't realize what they were doing. what was going on with the
contacts? that? n and of itself is something the president doesn't like to talk about and is contained within the report. >> to your point, not every counter intelligence investigation yields a criminal indictment. criminal charges. many, many if not most counter intelligence investigations are designed so we understand what our adveraies are trying to do. russia is an adversary. make no mistake. we saw what they were trying to. i imagine that mueller is done and the counter intelligence piece will be carried on by the fbi for years. >> what are do you mean by that? >> russia has not gone away. they have not closed up shop. their work is not done. whether it's interference in the 2016 election or the 2020 election or economic espionage or attempts to eavesdrop on our public officials. the counter intelligence work will continue because russia is an adversary.
>> joyce vance and chuck rosen berg, great to have both of your perspectives. a member of the senate judiciary committee who has been a vocal critic. mazie hirono of hawaii. your reaction to 24 hours worth of reporting across multiple outlets that there is unease on the part of mueller's team about the characterization of the report from barr. >> i think these concerns being expressed that the barr four-page letter did not accurately characterize the 400 page report makes it even more important and more critical that report is made public. there conversations -- we know it's having on the house which is under democratic control and jerry nadler with control. lindsey graeme is taking a laissez-faire approach this things. is there talk about thou deal with all of this? >> of course the democrats on
that committee as well as other democrats are very much focussed on the need for the mueller report and the underlying materials to be made public. you have a president who started off by saying sure, let's make it public. the house that voted unanimously to make it all public and suddenly there is all this the four-page letter is good enough. what are they trying to hide? if i were the president and thought i was exonerated, i would want everything to be laid out for the public. that's what he said. now they are backing off that. they are hiding the ball. what's going on? that's why the report has to be made public. >> you voted against barr to be attorney general. he passed none the less. how do you feel about that vote in the light of his actions in the past week and a half? >> well, we all know that he auditioned for the attorney general's position with a 19-page unsolicited memo about how the president cannot be
accused of obstruction of justice and when the mueller investigation did not draw a conclusion on that very issue, lo and behold, barr steps in and said there is no obstruction of justice. we know what we saw and heard. we heard the president fire and saw him firing comey and wanting to fire mueller. continuously calling this a witch hunt which he still calls. i think the president is now calling for an investigation into how this investigation began. it began because the russians tried to interfere with our elections and don't you think it's the least we can expect from the president that he did not collude or conspire with a foreign country out to interfere with our elections? that's the least we can expect. my goodness, what does he have to hide? why doesn't he go with what he originally said, which is let it all come out? >> is there anything that william barr can do now to
demonstrate to you that he does have integrity and is acting properly? >> by releasing the report. by releasing the report and when you start hearing from the people who worked for two years on this investigation expressing the concerns that his four-pager did not accurately reflect this investigation, that's cause for concern and the way he can remedy that is to make the report available and open. >> do you imagine a universe in which -- i think in the house will issue subpoenas for it and there will be back and forth and jerry nadler asking for the summaries. do you envision a university in which the senate judiciary hears from people about this and talks to barr about all of this? >> well, barr has offered to
testify before the senate judiciary committee and me, so that's good. we will be able to question him, although i hope we will have time to review the -- i hope as un redacted a version of the mueller report as possible. it's not as though lindsey graham, the chair of the judiciary committee is jumping up and down and wanting to go down the path of full disclosure. i'm disappointed in that, but the american people can thank goodness that the house at least in terms of a number of the chairs are investigating various aspects of the trump organization. thank goodness. that's good for the country that we have some level of checks and balances at least on the house side in particular. >> final question, do you view these three or four stories coming out about the unease of the mueller folks as effectively a warning and them saying that there will be further
disclosures unless in fact the report comes out? >> i think that that kind of question will always hang in the air until this report is made public. for the good of the public interest, that report needs to be totally transparent. otherwise these kinds of questions will always linger. for the president to run around saying that he has been totally exonerated, we know that is not true. when you think about a foreign country interfering with the elections and still doing it, by the way. i think we need to know what's in that report so that we can draw our own conclusions. >> mazie hirono, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next, the barr-shaped cloud hanging over the department of justice and why a former doj official said the attorney general an open warfare with the special counsel's office. that's in two minutes.
why are all these business owners so excited? we're going to comcast. it's ahead of the game, ahead of the curve. it's going to add to the productivity of our business. it's switch and save days at comcast business. right now, get fast, reliable internet for $49.95 a month and save $600 a year. just one more way we take your business beyond. but hurry, switch and save days ends april 7th. internet that's reliable. internet that's fast. that's super important. i just want to get it right now. call today. comcast business. beyond fast. that's in two minutes.
attorney general william barr came into the job with a fairly decent reputation in washington from the first time around as ag despite during that time he recommended pardons for six reagan administration officials involved in the iran contra scandal of 1992, later saying he thought they had been unjustly treated by the special counsel including lying to congress. it has been nearly two weeks since mueller completed his 300 plus page report and all we have to show for it is a four-page summary characterizing it. it looks like barr is either white washing here or worse case scenario engaged in covering something up. as spokesperson matt miller wrote in politico, the actions raised suspicions about whether he is acting primarily to benefit the president because they don't make any other sense.
along with the watergate prosecutor jill wine banks. how is barr's behavior impacting the integrity of the department as a bhoel? >> if you look at his actions, every time he had a decision to make about how to handle the conclusion of this investigation, he has chosen an option that benefits the president. instead of other options like say releasing the summaries we know that mueller's team wrote or not releasing anything until he had a chance to go through and make full redactions or going to the district judge and asking for grand jury material to be released, things in the typical practices of the department, he instead inserted himself and chosen the path that would not only favor the president, but bring controversy upon himself. that's something that attorneys general don't try to do. you don't try to choose controversy. if you put yourself in his shoes and ask why are you choosing the path of most resistance when it goes against the best practices
or previous precedents of the department and say the only reason he is doing it is because it's an option that benefits the president. it means it puts a taint on his actions and i think a cloud over him and the department at a time the department has been suffering under politization and accusations they can't afford for going on three years now. >> do you agree? >> i completely agree with everything matt said. i would go even further. because nothing that has happened makes me trust barr. he wrote a memo to audition for the job in which he made an argument that made no legal or factual sense. he basically made up facts to support an argument that didn't seem to be legally supportable. he also in his four-page letter refers to the fact that there needs to be an underlying crime in order to have obstruction and we know from the watergate case
that that is simply not true. there is no evidence that richard nixon knew about the break in until after it happened, but he certainly immediately got into the obstruction and was impeached for that. he would have been indict and was named an unindicted coconspirator for his and no doubt in my mind that was completely legal. it just doesn't make sense and also doesn't make sense to me from the moment i read his summary that that could be true. i cannot believe that mueller would have given to him the power to make a decision where mueller knew what the decision would be based on his original memo. it just doesn't make sense and it's really fishy that we allowed this to happen and that he's gotten away with it. he's definitely helping the president because it's hard to overcome a first impression. the first impression was him saying that he was exonerated for one and while he was not
exonerated, he was not convicted or indicted for the other either. that's the impression that people have and it may not be true. we need to see the full report. >> matt, there is another theory. one is that he is acting in bad faith as an agent of the president as opposed to independent. one thing you tacked about during jeff sessions's tenure is the president's ha ranging and belittling and public bullying of his own ag was ineffective in the sense that he didn't unrecuse himself. it created a context in which barr knows if he crosses the president, he will be subject to haa ranges and bullying and trump base being mad at him. you wonder how much that effects him if he tells himself he is acting in good faith. >> that's right and that's the word you have to have with them. barr made the opposite case about himself at his
confirmation hearing. he said i have been in a place where i don't need to be bullied by anybody. i can be independent. that's the case he made to convince senators he wouldn't be pushed around by the president. when you look at his actions, they don't make sense through any other lens. the point that jill made is a key one. when he got picked for the job, most when they came into office with that question of whether there could be bend over backwards to go in the other directions. it's one of the most respected prosecutors known for his integrity, the smartest, easiest, least controversial thing was to defer to him. barr not only deferred to him, but inserted himself in to make his own conclusions and released the report in a way that at least some of mueller's prosecutors find misleading.
>> one more question on this. one of the things that appeared in the times that seemed clear if you read through the lines with the department of justice officials giving their versions of events although not with their name on it or on the record. he didn't want to release derogatory information and repeat the kind of sin of james comb we his big announcement of hillary clinton where he passed judgment on her behavior. does that scan to you? >> i think it does in a way. you don't want to make the says mistake twice, but we learned from the episode with comey that it only took a very sort few days to go through everything and to determine there was nothing there. instead of comey announcing there was a reopening, he should have done that first and never opened his mouth. that's what should have happened here. barr has the resources at his
fingertips and could have done any redaction necessary. matt mentioned this. going to the judge and asking that the release of the grand jury testimony be done in the public interest is an easy thing to do. if he was serious, that's what he would have done. that's what should have happened. americans have a right to know and certainly congress has a need to know. they must get this. the only thing that throws me off a little is that i don't think that barr is stupid. i think he may be politically motivated, but it would be stupid to say something in that four-page document that is 180 degrees from what mueller intended. that throws me off a little bit. >> i don't anticipate for that reason that we will see something 180 degrees. it's the shades of the degrees in between. thanks for joining us. ahead, how a woman carrying a mal wear infected thumb drive managed to get on to donald trump's mar a lago property and how big are the security
florida estate next trump's ownership of mar a lago corrupt is anyone can pay and put a bug in his ear about regulation hurting their business. that creates a problem with the club where the president conducts open air diplomacy. in 2017, trump ordered missile strikes from mar a lago that was described as the after dinner entertainment. the club is quite obviously a
massive target for foreign intelligence and anyone who wants relatively cheap access to the most powerful man in the world. the former operator of the spa named in a prostitution operation in february is accused of selling access to trump to chinese executives via events at the club. she denies the allegations. a chinese citizen tried to enter mar a lago with a thumb drive containing malicious software. this may be part of a broader trend. the "miami herald" reports that since trump became president, long time members noted the increased presence of foreigners at charity events and galas and large contingents of chinese people who spoke little english. it's a circus, one employee told the herald are anonymously for fear. they would bring electronics and ask them to help get trump on time with his family. kaitlyn, what have you learned
about how things have changed at mar a lago since trump became president? >> we know from employees and people who have worked there that mar a lago is essentially very hard to secure logistically on that secret service said that they don't screen the people. they don't decide who comes into mar a lago because it's a private club. people can bring guests and people can purchase tickets. getting into mar a lago is still relatively easier than most event that is the president would ordinarily be at and poses a security challenge for the intelligence to make sure that that area is completely secure. so there has been this influx of chinese nationals that staff have said they noticed at the club and that raised concerns
among experts of who is getting access. >> to go back to a point you made, it's the president's club and secret searches put out a statement after this woman was apprehended and attempting to talk herself in. they don't control who goes in and out of mar a lago because it is a club. they just make sure that the guests -- anyone who is invited can go and get next to the president, more or less? >> right. they have their own security that checks people into the entryways of the club, but that's really up to the club's discretion. >> how often -- it seems to be the case when the president is down there, he is not sequestered. he gets a kick oust mingling with people at mar a lago. it's not outside the realm of possibility that if you are
there, you can get a face time with the president that is unbelievably valuable. >> right. that was being marketed by cindy yang and others on chinese social media. we can get you access to the president and the people within his family and his orbit and mar a lago was one of the main ways in which they pitched that. this is a place where you can get access to the president. >> what are do we know about the woman who was apprehended and facing charges that was harassed the other day? >> we know from audio of her first court appearance that she said she was an investor and consultant with a chinese asset company. aside from that, we don't know that much about her. she is something of a mystery to federal investigators as far as we know as to how she got there exactly. she said she heard about the event through a message from one
of the bundlers of cindy yang's events. she said she was there tow go swimming and united nations friendship event and we really don't know that much about this woman just yet. >> thank you so much for being with me tonight. >> thanks. >> herman kaine and steven moore on how the remaking of his federal reserve is a reelection plan. why the vice president is demanding we return to the moon by any means necessary. (danny) let me get this straight. after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally!
thing one tonight, we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the u.s. sending men to walk on the moon and vice president mike pence is already making big plans. >> now has come the time for us to make the next giant skpleep return american astronauts to the moon. >> wait. another giant leap? no, no, no. the last thing was the giant wleep we went to the moon the first time. we already left. remember? >> one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. >> that was almost a half century ago, but for some reason mike pence seems to want to go back to that time.
so mike pence has been among the voices on the right beating up on the green new deal. to do something about climate change before it's too late. he is pushing a different moon shot to go to the actual moon which of course we already did. that's why it's called the moon shot. going to the moon was hard and expensive when we can d it a half century ago and proving hard and expensive now. nasa is struggling with the moon rocket and they're going to need additional means. while there are practical reasons to go back to the moon, we are not sure why it's a national emergency that we have to go now by any means necessary. maybe mike pence just wants to go back and live like it's 50 years ago.
a big bipartisan majority of the house of representatives voted to reauthorize the violence against women act. it included a new provision that expands restrictions on gun purchases and ownership for people kwrkted of domestic abuse and stalking. unlike a lot of votes in the house, it was not party line. 33 republicans, which is a lot these days, except for colin peterson of minnesota to pass it. the gop was energetic and rather hyperbolic. he called it an adult on biologist. mostly republicans were standing four square with the nra, which not surprisingly, lobbied
desperately against the bill because it would apply fairly common sense restrictions to gun ownership. now, we know that abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a gun. a recent analysis found a majority of mass shootings from 2009 to 2017 were related to domestic or family violence. and keep in mind, and i think this is important. unlike the proposals to ban those on the no-fly list from access to firearms, the due process complains are moot since the people in question are all people with convictions or pleas. that said, it is a big loss for an nra that is slowly but surely losing the aura of invincibility. luckily for the gun lobby, there is a republican majority that will be much, much more friendly to the idea that violent and abusive romantic partners should be able to get their hands on guns.
these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer
a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen.
to start your free 30-day trial, text listen5 to 500500 today. ♪ there is one man who most threatens donald trump's re-election chances and it's not robert mueller or any democratic candidate. it is jerome powell, the chair of the federal reserve. a man trump nominated for that position because he literally thought the last fed chair was too short, that's why he fired her. but ever since powell took office trump has repeatedly berated him for raising interest rates. trump regards powell as one of the greatest mistakes of his administration, and that's saying something. probably has more to do with whether trump is releected than almost any single factor so clearly worried about that, the president has decided to try to
stuff the board with preposterous cronies. first, stephen moore has been wrong about almost all of his predictions as $75,000 of unpaid taxes, was found in contempt of court of shorting his ex-wife in $300,000 of alimony and has said he's going to have to learn about the fed on the job. >> i'm going to be on a steep learning curve myself about how the fed operates, how the federal reserve makes its decisions, and this is real exciting opportunity for me. >> well, it'll be exciting to learn, won't it, while you're doing the job? former ceo of godfather's pizza and republican presidential candidate hurman king, maybe you remember him. >> so do you agree with president obama on libya or not? >> okay, libya.
i'm ready for the gotcha questions and they're already starting to come, and when they asked me who's the president of -- i'm going to say, you know, i don't know, do you know? president obama supported the uprising, correct? >> chucky ducky as the man would say. but i believe these words came from the pokemon movaly. the media pointed that out. i'm not sure who the original author is, so don't go write an article about -- i do not agree with the way he handles it for the following reasons. no, that's a different one. >> oh, dammit, i hate when that happens.
sent a letter to stephen moore requesting more information on his outstanding debts. the ranking member of the senate finance committee joins me now. what is your concerns about mr. moore? >> first of all, chris, the fed is responsible for bringing us stability and competence with respect to our economy. and you name some unqualified individual who in effect brings in a bunch of economic quackery, and you can really put our economy at risk. now, with respect to mr. moore you have somebody like george w. bush's top economics man saying he was for a bunch of snake oil economics, for mr. cane, nobody can forget his 999 economic
proposal which was just laughed out of any kind of debate at all. and certainly what senator brown and i are going to do is make sure, for example, if somebody like mr. moore isn't paying his taxes, he's got other problems with respect to child support, we want the record to be clear on that point. >> a harvard professor who said of stephen moore he does not have the intellectual gravitas for this important job. do you think fundamentally the president is trying to build a board around powell that can push him, that he essentially knows are loyal soldiers for him on rape decisions and the like so they can sort of bully powell a little bit? >> it sure looks like it. and i think the president just resents powell's independence. i voted for powell. by the way, powell had a history
of working with janet yellin. but let's stick again to the facts. stephen moore, for example, was one of the architects of the horrendous trump tax cut. that's one the trump people said would pay for itself and there were billions and billions of dollars off on that. so this is really a crucial time to recognize that the fed is independent. we want capable, competent people. and we certainly don't want people who are just going to carry water politically as we move into an election cycle. >> you know, there seems to me to be a similarity between the department of justice and the fed. doj is actually within the executive, the fed is independent. but there's traditions of independence and arms length from the president in both cases. and the president hated jeff sessions because he felt he was not obedient enough and now he hates jerome powell for exactly the same reasons. are you worried fundmentally about the feds independence?
the president will be able to successfully harangue, bully, get his cronies on the board and steer the economy in a way that's most favorable for him for a re-election chance. >> well, let's put it this way. i think mr. powell is showing a lot more political independence, which is key for the fed than bill barr is showing at the justice department. >> interesting. >> but we're at a crucial time. as we know in the trade area, my part of the world, what we like to do is innovate. we like to make things, we like to grow things. we're looking at trying to tap asian markets. essentially china has stepped in and really exploited the fact that the trump people are awol there. we can't walk away from these growth areas for our economy, and the trump people don't seem to get that. >> another qualification.
you know, there's a sort of national conversation right now, obviously in the era of "me too" about sexual harassments, groping, unwanted sexual advances. in 2011 cain admitted there were >> it certainly is a serious issues. in other words, we just heard about the cain appointment tonight. it's something very serious and has to be vetted. >> you talked about and voted on the issue of war powers in yemen. historic today in the white house -- i'm sorry, in the house of representatives was passed a war power resolution to end u.s. involvement and aid for the saudi war in yemen. it passed out of the senate already.
now for the first time a war powers resolution will go to the president's desk. how significant is this? what happens next? >> this is enormous. this is making a statement that the congress is not just going to duck and sit on its hands with respect to our constitutional responsibilities as it relates to conflict and war. and for too long the congress has done it. the saudis, of course have singularly walked all over so many of our interests. for example, in the state of oregon we're particularly troubled about some saudi nationals who came in, they engaged in some really reprehensible behavior, seemed to have been involved in manslaughter, and we have real questions about whether the saudi government was involved in actually whisking them out of the country before trials. so we are pushing back, sticking up for american interests. that's what the president said he was all about. now the congress is actually
doing it when the president isn't. >> senator, thank you, sir. for you at home don't forget to check out our podcast, why is this happening. you can find that and all of our episodes wherever you get your podcasts. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. "the 11th hour" on a thursday night starts right now.