tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 22, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
how many trees in new york central park would be left standing if it were up to him? how much sunlight would there be in that park if trump's tractors were allowed in? today, earth day trump said what he had to say about climate change, he said nothing. that's all for "hardball" right now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> nancy said we're not looking to impeach you. i said, that's good, nancy. that's good. >> democrats debate impeachment. >> we may get to that. we may not. >> as speaker pelosi holds an all hands on deck meeting. >> i'm not there yet, but i can foresee that possibly coming. tonight, what we know about the new democratic strategy with congresswoman ra rashida tlaib. >> we're going to go in there and prosecute the [ bleep ]. prosecutable crimes
according to robert mueller. why democrats afraid of overreach are taking the wrong lesson from the '90s. >> impeachment is about cleansing the office. and congressman eric swalwell on new subpoenas from his committee and why he thinks he should be the next president when "all in" starts now. good evening from new york. i'm joy reid in for chris hayes. donald trump has officially changed his tune to a less happy one. he's no longer claiming total exoneration on the mueller investigation, since a redacted version of the investigative report was released last week. rendering the summary by trumpian attorney general william barr moot. with more and more damning information emerging from even the redacted mueller report by the day, trump is back to attacking the mueller investigators on twitter and ranting about why he should definitely not be impeached. it's a revealing sign of where the president's head is in the wake of documented evidence that his campaign saw to benefit from
russia's attack on our election and evidence the president himself obstructed justice in trying to shut the investigation down. the question now is what democrats in congress are going to do about it. earlier this evening house speaker nancy pelosi held a 90-minute conference call with her caucus to discuss that very question. according to reports, some members said that they were struggling to justify not impeaching the president. pelosi is said to have stuck to the same message that she conveyed in a letter to her colleagues earlier today. "while our views range from proceeding to investigate the finding of the mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. it is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the president accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings." well, today the house judiciary committee subpoenaed testimony
and documents from former white house counsel don mcgahn, a key witness in the obstruction case. so far elizabeth warren has been the lone senate democrat and one of just two 2020 candidates to call for impeachment proceedings since the mueller report was released telling rachel maddow it's a necessary step to defend the rule of law. >> i get it, that there are people who think politically, no, it's going to be too hard to do this. this isn't about politics. this isn't even specifically about donald trump himself. it is about what a president of the united states should be able to do and what the role of congress is. equal justice under law. no one is above the law, and that includes the president of the united states. it is the constitutional responsibility of congress to follow through on that. >> warren said impeachment is the right thing to do, even if it doesn't result in the president being removed from office. and that is the most likely outcome. in the history of the united states, only two presidents have
actually been impeached and neither was convicted by the senate in an impeachment trial and removed. the one president who was removed removed himself. richtd nixon stepped down to avoid an impeachment and likely conviction. which means as columnist charles blow pointed out in yesterday's "new york times" that an impeachment vote in the house has to this point been the strongest rebuke america is willing to give a president. and if the conduct described in the mueller report doesn't deserve that strongest rebuke, then what does? a small number of house democrats have not been shy about demanding impeachment proceedings, including congresswoman maxine waters and congressman al green and brad sherman who have introduced previous articles of impeachment that drew little support. first term congresswoman rashida tlaib introduced her own resolution last month before the mueller report came out. after it was finally released last week, she circulated the proposal again, earning support
from a small but vocal contingent of the freshman class including ayanna presley, ilhan omar and alexandria ocasio-cortez. thank you for joining me. >> thanks for having me. >> what did that accomplish and were you a participant in it? >> no, i wasn't on the call so i can't really talk about. the resolution i introduced it holds the president accountable to anti-corrupt laws in the u.s. constitution. prior to mueller's report before it came out, one of the things i kept hammering down on is the fact that we have a president -- first time ever in history that hasn't divested in his domestic and foreign businesses. why that's important is to understand that when he makes decisions, when the president, the person that's in the oval office makes decisions on behalf of the american people, it can't
be in direct conflict with his businesses. and that's why if you have the emoluments clause in the united states constitution. in the same breadth we have companies like t-mobile who wants to merge with sprint, you know, spending close to $200,000 at the d.c. trump hotel and lobbying the federal government at the same time, you know, there are worries that that is corruption and that's some sort of way to what i call the upgraded version of pay to play into the coordinator of power. and the fact that we have a sitting ceo that is president of the united states is like a corporation is running our country. it's lawlessness that we constantly see. for folks that are concerned obviously about what's in the mueller report, they should be even more concerned about the fact that the president of the united states after he took the oath of office, after he said he's going to uphold the united states constitution, still to this day hasn't divested in his businesses. and has made profits, like $40 million in 2017, while he's sitting as a sitting president. i don't care if you're a republican or democrat, you
should be worried about this because this sets a precedent that it's okay that you have these conflicts, that there is this corruption that's happening, and that businesses, including foreign governments can just go stay at the trump hotel and lobby our government to support certain positions, and it's wrong because this will not be the last ceo that runs for president of the united states. we need to send a strong message that you won't do that. you will not corrupt our democracy. you will not use the most powerful position in the country for your benefit in putting profits before people. >> well, congresswoman, it sounds like you're making a case for impeachment based on potential violations of the emoluments clause, potential corruption involving donald trump's businesses. that is not what was covered by robert mueller's investigation. so would you then object to the position of a lot of members of your leadership say that there should be hearings that then draw out things like what you just talked about and draw out other cases that could potentially lead to impeachment but that are not impeachment right now? >> absolutely. so my resolution is what we, you
know, president nixon and what happened there. same thing. it was a resolution to investigate whether or not there had been impeachable offenses. the resolution introduced is gaining some support. i'm trying to encourage folks to use the congressional committee process to actually investigate this president in his actions, you know, folks who want to focus on before, that's great. but i also say let's see how much of what mueller's talking about has seeped into the oval office and the white house and the administration. we've already seen that in mueller's report that it has seeped into our democracy in a way that i feel goes way beyond nixon or any other president before him was being investigated on. you know, we can't sit back and do nothing. because if anything, even if he's not impeachable at that time, if he doesn't -- if we're not successful in impeaching him, at least we're investigating it, doing our due diligence to hold him accountable. you never know. one, a lot of people laugh at me when i say maybe he'll try to
comply and actually do what he's supposed to do. second, look at the mueller report and some of the actions, over 1,000 contacts between the trump organization and the trump administration since he's been in office. that alone gets you into criminal corrupt activities that as a sit member of congress i couldn't get away with. we can't let him get away with not holding him accountable. let's do the process of the committee and investigate and dig deeper into this. and, again, we can't focus on these -- around political strategy. it's around putting our country first. >> well, a lot of your colleagues, and it sounds like your leadership, are concerned that what rudy giuliani said is actually true, that impeachment would be the best thing that happened to donald trump. it will make him -- it will make his based more fired up for the 2020 election. what do you make of that argument that is being made by a lot of folks in your own leadership? >> look, at right, right here in the 13th congressional district. i hear from people, how come he can get away with that? how come you guys are not looking into this deeper.
put character flaws aside, this president has a lot of character flaws. put it aside. look specifically at the actions. access to health care, from holding, you know, for corporations accountable to pushing back on high rates on insulin. all of those things are directly connected to how this president acts on these policy areas. if we have outside, you know, corporations and those folkes using this upgraded investigator of pay to play, knowing this guy has not -- this president, the sitting president has not divested in his business, they know how to get to him. they're getting to him through his businesses. and that to me is dangerous. we need to hold him accountable to that. and i'll tell you, many, many residents are sitting back asking why aren't we doing more. >> right. >> and i'll tell you, more and more people when it comes out of the committee process, not through the media, not through articles, not through social media, but through the official united states congress congressional committee hearing, people will start understanding that this is so much more, so
much bigger than being a republican or a democratic issue or whether or not it's a 2020 issue. >> right. >> they're going to see that this is a united states of america issue. and, again, we can't set a precedent to allow this president to get away with violating the united states constitution any longer. >> congresswoman rashida tlaib, thank you very much for joining me. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. for more, i'm joined by democratic senator richard blumenthal of connecticut who is a member of the senate judiciary committee. senator, you heard that very passionate, the congresswoman. three co-sponsors for her resolution, which is impeachment proceedings, not based on what's in the mueller report but based on alleged conflicts of interest with donald trump's businesses. what do you make of that argument? how do you argue that any president can be impeached if the collection of facts we now know about donald trump both through the media reporting and the mueller report do not result in impeachment? >> well, let's begin with the mueller report. it presents an indictment in all but name. it is a chilling portrait of massive criminal misconduct.
and abhorrent wrong doing. and the american people need to understand it. the president must be held accountable for this wrongdoing, either through congress or hearings there or through the ballot box, which we'll have an opportunity to do very soon, or through the courts. >> well, let me ask you this because here is the challenge with that argument. the election process was not foreseen in the constitution as a process by which a president who has ongoing wrongdoing is held accountable, right? he's either elected or he's not. that's the people's job. only the congress can really hold the president accountable for alleged wrongdoing, and the only way the constitution gives the congress to do that is impeachment. just having hearings, how is that accountability? >> hearings give us the opportunity to present this case to the american people. and that's the important point here, joy. i think in the next steps ahead, presenting our case to the american people so they can
understand not only the corruption, and, by the way, i know something about that corruption because i have sued the president of the united states. it's called blumenthal versus trump. jerry nadler is a co-plaintiff, as are almost 300 of my colleagues in the congress, saying he's violating the emoluments clause. but also, as an investigation, follow the money and making sure that we present to the american people this really chilling portrait so they understand -- and one more point is very important here, joy. you're asking democrats what are you going to do. the nation ought to be asking republicans. >> well, that would be -- lawrence tribe, very respected constitutional lawyer tweeted today. "impeachment hearings now? yes. voting to impeach now? no. hearings first, voting after, but don't pretend that overside is usual. that sends an awful signal to foreign countries."
and that means republicans as well, why shouldn't any future president simply go and get information from foreign governments, violate the emoluments clause? if there is no penalty, then why shouldn't any future president just behave like donald trump? >> impeachment has to be on the table. it has to be a potential remedy here. there have to be hearings to present this case to the american people, just as in watergate. >> right. those were impeachment hearings, by the way. that's what the watergate hearings were. >> they were impeachment hearings. exactly right. so oversight, as usual. we're talking about a number of house committees doing oversight here, which concern not only violations of the constitutional provision on the emoluments clause and other wrongdoing like obstruction of justice, which is presented in more than ten specific episodes and which may have impacted the collusion investigation. we're also talking about oversight hearings that will protect our national security. >> let me ask you this question. because for a lot of people listening to this and listening to you and some of your
colleagues on the democratic side. what they hear is saying, we'll do oversight, which is a sort of amo amore fuss term that isn't meaningful to a lot of people. on the other side, while democrats seem to be being very magnanimous and saying they're going to keep investigating, the chairman of your committee, senator lindsey graham is saying, well, what we're going to do is we're going to investigate the fbi. we're going to investigate the investigators. they're not being as sort of, you know, congenial. they're saying that they are going to use their investigative authorities to try to go after -- who knows, hillary clinton, so the other side isn't going to play the same way. >> i'm really deeply disappointed in my republican colleagues. barely a handful, if that many, have spoken out in criticism, let alone outrage, and outrage
is what they and we ought to feel because russia attacked our country. they literally committed an act of war against the united states of america, and the president, then candidate, accepted happily. >> should he be impeached for that then? >> that is a step that we need to take, if we take it, after being very deliberative. nothing wrong with being deliberative. there is no deadline for reaching that decision. there should be hearings. and we need mueller and his team, along with don mcgahn and others, and the unredacted report and the evidence and the facts underlying that report in presenting our case to the american people. ultimately they need to hear this case and be educated because very few are going to read this whole report. and here's the really important point that i think ought to be bipartisan. we need to protect america against the continuing attack
and the president saying he believes vladimir putin, that he didn't attack this country. >> we are out of time, but the person who runs the senate right now, mitch mcconnell, when this attack was ongoing warned the president of the united states that if president obama were to come out -- forward and tell the public what was going on, that he would deem that to be partisan. he expressed doubt himself about the russian attack. why should the american people believe that the republican side of the aisle in the united states senate is going to do anything to help in that regard? it sounds like what they're gearing up to do is to go after democrats while democrats are saying, no, no, no, let's play within the rules. >> the american people should have no trust in the republican leadership or in the republicans in the united states senate or the congress if they fail to act in this moment of national peril and crisis. literally, the russians are continuing to attack us and is on the stage in helsinki, the president of the united states said -- he said he believes
vladimir putin over our intelligence community. and that fits the mosaic, the criminal mosaic of wrongdoing in the mueller report because the president continued to accept russian help, knowing that it consisted of hacked emails. >> we are out of time. senator richard blumenthal, gives what you just said, how do you then argue this president should not be subject to the hearings? impeachment is not removal, it is simply hearings. >> well, it is more than hearings, just as a trial is more than hearings, and any proceeding may begin and it has to have a conclusion, but we shouldn't in this sense abandon the opportunity to present this case to the american people. >> senator richard blumenthal, thank you very much. i really appreciate your time. thank you. still to come, what robert mueller's own findings say about the president's actions. a handy guide to at least four clear cases of criminal obstruction laid out by the special counsel. that's in two minutes. there's little rest for a single dad,
and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. red lobster's new weekday five days.s here: five deals. for fifteen dollars get a different deal every weekday til six pm like endless shrimp monday admiral's feast tuesday four course feast wednesday and more. five days. five deals. fifteen dollars. see you before six.
i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today. as some democrats debate whether or not there is enough
evidence to proceed with impeachment, it's worth remembering that robert mueller has already done most of the heavy lifting. law affairs has laid out this handy heat map simplifies mueller's own analysis of whether or not trump's actions meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice. an act must meet three criteria to count as obstruction. there needs to be an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding and corrupt intent. each of these columns and one area of possible obstruction that mueller investigated. three orange boxes in a row means that mueller found that there was substantial evidence on all three counts. as you can see, there are four different areas that hit the trifecta, the president's efforts to remove the special counsel, the president's efforts to curtail the special counsel investigation, the president's ordering don mcgahn to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel and the president's conduct directed at
paul manafort. here to help explain mueller's findings is the managing director of law affair and the creator of that great explainer. quinton, thank you for being here. >> happy to be here. >> how did you decide -- sort of explain to me a little bit why three of the four areas that hill all three elements of obstruction, of those four, three of them actually have to do with donald trump's actions against mueller himself. please explain. >> yes, that is correct. so when i was going through, i was looking not only for areas in which to me it seemed like mueller was describing the evidence in such a way that the special counsel was suggesting that that element of the obstruction offense was met, but also particular for areas in which he seemed very confident. now, to be clear, he doesn't state that explicitly. he's very clear at the opening of volume ii on obstruction that he's not reaching a conclusion. but if you parse it closely, i would argue that you can kind of see what direction he's headed.
and as you know, there are these instances related to trying to fire mueller, trying to limit the scope of the probe and trying to cover up that he tried to fire mueller. in all those cases mueller seemed very confidence, he had substantial evidence that the president did indeed meet the elements of obstruction. >> and i wonder if -- because in the case of firing jim comey, which a lot of people think of as the first time, and then admitting it to lester holt as being a clearcut case of trying to obstruct the russia investigation. why would four -- three areas in which donald trump was thwarted by his aides, in which he asked people to do something toward the firing of robert mueller but they didn't listen to him be more sort of spot-on in terms of your chart, in terms of saying theis is more inkidicative than
firing jim comey. >> legally speaking for obstruction of justice purposes, if i try to obstruct justice and fail, that could still be obstruction. you really wouldn't want it any other way because otherwise you'd be encouraging everyone to do their level best to obstruct justice so they could never be caught. so once you look at that, in that light, i think the instances regarding mueller are pretty clear. regarding comey, it's interesting because i agree with you. when i first looked at the way mueller had written that section, i read it as a pretty clearcut obstruction offense. that said, if you look at the way mueller presents the evidence, he seems to be less certain in the way he lays out the evidence for and against that this is obviously an obstruction offense fits all the elements of the offense, and what's interesting is that in the intent section he actually says, well, we don't know if the president's intent here showed that he was trying to obstruct
justice, but it is relevant to understanding how he understood the russia probe more broadly, in that he was frustrated by it, he wanted to shut it down. >> right. >> in that sense, it can help us understand the president's broader pattern of investigation. >> noting that being investigated is not an actual defense against committing obstruction of justice. quinta, thank you very much. really appreciate it. >> thanks. >> up next, did republicans really ever pay a price for impeaching bill clinton? why democratic concerns about impeachment overreach may be overblown. that's next. 's next. ♪
be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them.
ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar.
balanceus.org tto harrison, the wine tcollection.. to craig, this rock. the redwoods to the redheads. the rainbows to the proud. i leave these things to my heirs, all 39 million of you, on one condition. that you do everything in your power to preserve and protect them. with love, california. you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome.
if you believe that he deserves -- >> wait, wait, wait -- wait a minute. >> if you don't do it for this president, then what president would be eligible for impeachment? what would he have to do? >> joy, ask yourself this question. why are the republicans so eager for us to impeach the president? it doesn't say i have a duty to impeach the president. >> if you believe he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. >> excuse me. i don't believe the word "duty" is in the constitution. i am elected to use my brain and to be smart about this. what i'm telling you is i want to play chess not checkers. i don't want to engage in some exercise that feels good for five minutes and gets our heads handed to us because the american people aren't there yet. >> that was democratic congressman sean patrick maloney on friday. he's one of the democrats warning against impeachment. as jemele buoy writes in "the new york times," either the president is above the law or he isn't. voters can't determine this. elections aren't actually the venue for adjudicating that kind of conflict. the constitution assigned that job to congress, but house
democrats like maloney and others in leadership seem particularly leery. some might say they remain snake bitten from bill clinton's impeachment in the 1990s, an impeachment that did not result in clinton being removed from office. he was almost through his second term. which many republicans and democrats claim hurt the gop. but it's worth asking, if democrats are misremembering the full outcome, which included clinton's approval rating spiking during impeachment but eventually fading sharply, clinton's would-be successor al gore avoided using clinton on the campaign trail. while republicans lost some seats, they held on to the house and senate, while democrats in 2000 did not hold on to the white house. to talk about what kind of affect impeachment might have an an extraordinarily unpopular president, i'm joined by liz holtsman, former congresswoman who served on the house judiciary committee that voted to impeach richard nixon. whose book is called "the case for impeaching trump."
curt, nbc news think and "usa today" contributor and former spokesperson for the house oversight committee who has a pete out today entitled, "what would republicans do with a mueller report? build an impeachment case." thank you all for being here. all right. i'm going to go in order of the impeached. i'm impeached. i'm going to go right back to the richard nixon impeachment. the idea that how impeachment confers positive political benefits on a president who is subjected to it, what do you make of that argument. >> well, i just want to go back to the nixon impeachment because people go to the clinton impeachment and they stop there and they don't remember about nixon. the fact of the matter is that congress was initially very reluctant to move forward with the nixon impeachment. it started with an inquiry. nobody knew what the grounds for impeachment were when we started. it was because the president fired the special prosecutor and the american people said, congress, you got to do nothing.
nobody quite knew what to do. they didn't know what the constitution provided. they didn't know what a high crime and misdemeanor was. they didn't know what the case against nixon was. when we started we had to educate ourselves and bring the american people along. this is not a situation where it's all wrapped up like a present with a bow. it's more like a jury trial. it's like saying, well, you know, we can't take a case to a jury because maybe we'll lose. >> right. >> but the point is if you do it the right way and we have a strong case, and you are fair in the process you can educate the american people along the way. and that's what happened in the nixon impeachment. so when we started with, as jonathan reminded me, with less than 50% of the american people supporting impeachment, by the time it was finished we had huge support. by the way, nobody was thinking about the political outcome. >> right. >> because we didn't know what the political outcome was going to be. >> right. >> nobody took a poll of the
house members when we started impeachment. nobody took even a poll of the house judiciary committee members when we started our inquiry and nobody did a poll of the senate. we didn't know where we were going to wind up, but we knew because the stakes were so high, because richard nixon was such a threat to the country that we had to do it in the right way. >> right. >> doing it in the right way, having hearings as the senate had the hearings. the american people could see what was happening, could see the faces, judge the demeanor, judge whether the witnesses were lying, john dean, holderman, ehrlichman, nixon's aids. that's what made the difference. we have to have a process that is fair, that educates the american people and i think mr. maloney, with all due respect, was wrong. conversation was given the responsibility to protect the republic through the impeachment power from a president who was rogue. you can't walk away from it. >> right. and hand it off to the american people. let's go to the clinton impeachment. i think that is a very good place to start with the nixon impeachment -- potential impeachment -- he knew he was
going do be convicted. >> no, no, there was no probable. >> he was going to be convicted and resign. with bill clinton it was a very different matter. bill clinton was a very popular president. he was in the 60s. >> right. >> the republicans had been making it pretty clear they were looking for a reason to impeach him. they went hunting and hunting and hunting dill he wound up in the affair with monica luewinsk. having his secretary lie about the affair, aha, obstruction of justice. why is it that democrats have taken from that experience that impeaching bill clinton was great for bill clinton and terrible for republicans? >> well, i think people are fighting the last war without having learned the actual details of the last war. >> right. >> so there is an assumption that clinton was impeached and then the democrats did very well in the 1998 midterm election. that was actually not the sequence. they did very well in the 1998 in the midterm elections, in
part because people realize that the republicans were off the rails. they should not be going down this path. elections take place then after the elections in 1999. >> mmm-hmm. >> clinton is impeached. he's tried and acquitted in the senate. so according to the logic, the conventional wisdom now, this was then sort of good for bill clinton, the backlash, but there actually wasn't a backlash at that point. clinton's numbers went down -- >> right. >> and having prosecuted the case against bill clinton actually helped republicans in the next election. >> right. >> in 2000. and they will tell you that. because what they did was they kept the heat on bill clinton, and that hurt his vice president al gore. >> that's right. >> when he was trying to succeed him. so if the democrats don't do this, don't keep the heat on president trump over this, they face a situation where they go into the next election in a good economy with less of a chance of winning the white house.
they have to make sure that they continue to prosecute the case against trump all the way -- >> yeah. >> and the best way to do that is with an impeachment process. >> let me go to you, curt. i'm going to do a wwrd, what would republicans do, if they had the same hand to play? because in the same case of the nixon impeachment hearings, everyone who had a television was watching that. it was must-see tv. those hearings were riveting to the country. same thing with the clinton impeachment. even though people were aghast at the fact it was so clear this was partisan and had nothing to do with, you know, protecting the country from what? from a presidential affair. but the democrats are convinced somehow that if they were to impeach this president, who is the most unpopular president, i believe in modern american history, that somehow they are the ones who will be punished. if republicans had this hand to play, what would they be doing? >> well, i can dell you, joy, if republicans -- if donald trump were a democrat and republicans had control of congress, they'd be impeaching him right now. there would be no, well, let's
deliberate. let's consider the political ramifications. they would move full throttle, full steam ahead. and i know that because when we were at the oversight committee, when i worked as a republican at the oversight committee during the obama administration, all we did was hold hearings, issue subpoenas. on benghazi alone, we created a special select committee to focus specifically on that issue, that controversy and we wouldn't shut up about it day in and day out, for five years we talked about these things. what i always observed how republicans view democrats, we thaw democrats are big wimps. they're afraid to take action. they're afraid to stand up. they don't have the backbone to do anything to stop up. we would just think that we could run roughshod over them. again, there is a moment that has come. the voters have given democrats a clear mandate for oversight. republicans have set the precedent for aggressive oversight. jim jordan, the ranking republican on the oversight committee, he said when he was voting to hold various obama
officials in contempt of congress the only route to the truth is,000 t through the hous representatives. the table is set, joy, for democrats to do all the republicans did against them. >> they don't want to act like jim jordan. that would not be a good role model for democrats. >> would it be the same -- it wouldn't be the same at all if you're talking about the national security of the country and suborning help from a foreign power. >> let's go back to nixon for one second. nixon was an extremely popular president. more popular than bill clinton. he was elected with one of the biggest landslides in history. >> yeah. >> and the impeachment process. >> yeah. >> because it educated the american people. >> yep. >> changed people's minds. democrats can't walk away from that. >> did bill clinton -- >> they've got to go forward. >> did bill clinton wear his impeachment as a badge of honor and see it as a victory? >> no. >> there we go. >> you know, this will help democrats if they get these folks on stage -- >> yep. >> don mcgahn in there in the congress with a lot of ratings. >> it's the biggest stage. it's the biggest national stage. >> you've got to do that with
impeachment. >> thank you guys. really appreciate you joining us. coming up, there is only one 2020 candidate right now who could vote to begin the impeachment of donald trump. one of the candidates. i'll ask where he stands on the issue. plus, tonight's thing one, thing two starts next. ts next. there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. state of the art technology makes it brilliant. the visionary lexus nx. lease the 2019 nx 300 for $359 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things...
like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. thwho see things others can't.
they're the ones who see a city that make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. at dell technologies, we see it too. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
thing one tonight. millions of americans celebrated easter this weekend, so of course the country was filled with giant easter bunnies. like this one who showed up in john legend and chrissy teagan's l.a. backyard. or this adventurous sky diving easter bunny who made an exciting entrance to an egg hunt in pennsylvania. and of course florida, where every now and then the easter bunny's got to throw down outside the bar. every year buzzfeed will post a collection of the creepiest easter bunnies of all time. easter 1975 was clearly a different time. i would not want to run into that one on the street.
and i think this guy would be better off in a horror movie. ah! but the fine folks at buzzfeed missed a really creepy bunny. ♪ >> and do we love our military? our military is building -- literally being -- >> ah, yes, the one at the white house. hello, doc. it must be time for the big annual easter egg roll. that's thing two in 60 seconds. ♪ when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums smoothies.
it neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪tum tum tum tum smoothies. also available tums sugar-free. and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. ah, yes, today was the annual easter egg roll at the white house. a tradition going back 140 years, which means the south lawn was filled with children. and all sorts of strange characters. like these big eggs and jeffrey the giraffe, mascot of the now defunct toys "r" us. and kellyanne conway and rod rosenstein. a military band doing a dead-on james brown cover song.
♪ i live in america ♪ yes we do ♪ say i >> ah, yes, the godfather of soul would be so proud. but, of course, the star of the show is the easter bunny. in previous years, we know it was actually former press secretary sean spicer in the bunny suit, but he lost that job. ah, poor spicy. we don't think current press secretary sarah huckabee sanders replaced him because the easter bunny's mouth is open but it's not lying. whoever it is, job number one is to stand alongside the president of the united states as he addresses all the gathered children with his annual totally appropriate easter message. >> our country is doing fantastically well, probably the best it's ever done economically. we're setting records on stock markets. we're setting records with jobs and unemployment numbers are the lowest they've ever been. we are completely rebuilding our military. it was very depleted, as you know. a lot of the military folks can tell you.
and it is being rebuilt to a level that we have never seen before. all with great product, the best product in the world. and you know where it's made? in the usa. that's where it's made. it's all made right here. so, again, happy easter -- aster- with advil liqui-gels, you'll ask... aster- what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels.
what would i say to somebody keep being you.? keep loving. keep aspiring. keep striving. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for hiv in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights hiv with three different medicines to help you get to undetectable. that means the amount of virus is so low it can't be measured in lab tests. so keep pushing. keep creating. and keep pouring your soul into everything you do. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems, and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a build-up of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor.
common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're hiv-positive, keep loving who you are, inside and out. ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. ♪ when didwhen i needed ton? jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. ...and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. so you don't have to stash antacids here....tc and take control of heartburn. here... or here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. the 2019 subaru outback is how safe is the car you're considering? an iihs top safety pick plus. the honda cr-v is not. sorry, honda.
which suv would make the best investment? the subaru outback has the best resale value in its class for 2019, according to kelley blue book. even better than the toyota rav4. sorry, toyota. it's easy to love a subaru. a high-profile member of the donald trump's cabinet has been named in a new lawsuit brought against the former ceo of sears. the longtime american institution and department store whose declaration of bankruptcy last year brought great sadness to the president. >> somebody that is of my generation, sears was a big deal. so it's very sad to see. sears has been dying for many years. it's been obviously improperly run for many years, and it's a shame. >> hmm. it is indeed sad a company as
iconic as sears is struggling for survival. once the world's largest retailer, sears was woven into the fabric of the american life for more than a century. the everything store that would sell just about everything to just about everyone. the roebuck catalog helped black americans circumvent jim crow laws at that time when they were treated as second class citizens. the catalog undid the power of the store keeper and by extension, the landlord. black families could buy without asking permission, without waiting, without being watched. it was inevitable that sears would rise like amazon, but it may have gotten a big push on its way to the brink of extinction. sears is suing its former chairman, billionaire hedge if you want to be manager, eddie lampert, claiming they illegally siphoned billions of dollars before it went bankrupt. he denies the allegation. guess who else is named in the lawsuit, none other than steve
mnuchin, the former goldman sachs banker. mnuchin also served as a board member for series and lampert's hedge fund. and he allegedly helped lampert siphon $2 billion from the company. the treasury department is not commenting. >> sears has been dying for many years. it's been obviously improperly run and it's a shame. >> the man known as the foreclosure man in america. it feels like modern capitalism where men like him thrive despite being accused of helping to bring down an iconic american retailer that once gave some of the poorest americans a chance at something more. ore. who are ? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what??
(kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.
question of impeaching donald trump. and that congressman democrat eric swalwell of california joins me now. great to see you. it is a very -- it's a divisive issue in the sense that the base of the democratic party seems very much in favor of proceeding to that step, particularly off the mueller report came out. but leadership does not seem in favor of it. were you on that call today with speaker pelosi? >> yes. i'm someone who thinks we're headed that way but i want to get it right. i'm going to have to prosecute this case. when i was a prosecutor for seven years before i went to court, my pencils sharpened and the evidence ready to be presented. we only get one shot. i want to make sure that we get it right. first things first. bring mueller in. that's going to be illuminating for the american people. get the full unredacted mueller report, which we've also asked forment we're not going to do donald trump justice, just reach
a conclusion and back into the evidence. we're going to do this the right way. i'm confident he's going to be held accountable. he's not going to be president in 2021. he will be removed by the voters or by congress. >> you think impeachment will happen? >> i think we're headed that way. we're closer to that than before the report came out. >> with that impeachment with nixon was rolling along, she made the point that nixon started popular and over time the country was sort of educated through the impeachment hearings. do you think that those hearings themselves could be the -- donald trump is already very unpopular, but people could learn even more? >> seeing is believing. the american people trust him. when he lays out how close this president got us to the russians. even today, joy, never in that report the 200 pages on collusion did he say, by the way, these relationships topped. they might be still ongoing. when he lays that out and the ten different ways he tried to
obstruct, i think the american people will going to be concerned. >> you're running for president. one of the questions a lot of voters ask me is are democrats tough enough to beat donald trump. democrats are want to play by the rules. donald trump is not going to play nice. are democrats tough enough to beat this president? >> i'm tough enough. there's others in the field who are. i beat a 40-year incumbent in my own party just to get to congress. people like me aren't supposed to get to congress. i fought my way there to represent a generation that needed that. the case i would make to the american people without having to get in the mud is that this person may have been right in identifying that you need higher wages, lower health care costs a brighter future. he's utterly failed you in every single way to deliver. here's my viable plan to do that. i think that wins. i don't think you have to accept the premise that immigration is the most important issue facing us or that we're drifting
towards socialism. i'm not going to take that bait and i'm going to punch back. >> you put republicans in your cabinet. is that a message democrats are going to want to hear? >> most of us country wants to see us united. when it comes to some of the democratic reforms we're going to have to make immediately kprft corruption and the graft and the nepotism this president has brought into our country, i want to have republicans that give me credibility. i do believe there's some out there. >> are they essentially donald trump republicans at this point? >> when you look at the polls, the number of republicans is probably going down. so he's more popular among those who have stayed. a lot of people, david jolly, left the republican party. there are a lot of people like him. >> you're running from the great state of california. we know that senator kamala harris is also running from the great state of california. a lot of women are looking at this field that has a lot of diversity in it,
african-americans, women, but the white guys are polling at the top. biden, sarah sanders, o'rourke, and then senator harris in fourth place. why does the field need yet another, to be blunt, another white guy in the field? there are a lot. >> yeah. and kamala harris and i come from the same district attorney's office. i don't think anyone's identity should hold them back, but i think the next president should see all races and identities, but pass the mic to someone who can. i pledged i would ask a woman to serve as vice president. i would put forward policies that would make sure that inherent bias that exists or discrimination that exists in communities would be eliminated and that we would make sure everyone everywhere has opportunities. >> how do you get the nomination? >> i was born there. i understand why people there work hard and what they want in the next president. >> your strategy is an
iowa-based strategy? >> it's a nationwide strategy. i'm going to go everywhere. >> we are out of time. thank you very much. good luck on the campaign trail. that does it for us. the "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening. >> good evening my friend. thank you so much for joining us. happy monday. by the summer of 1970, the u.s. military had been in vietnam in one form or another for nearly 15 years. richard nixon had taken office the previous year, sworn in at the beginning of 1969, promising to finally end that endless war in vietnam. but there, of course, was no sign that it was ending by the following year, 1970. on june 21st, 1970, this was the story on the front page of "the new york times." the headline inquiry quar stirs more dissent among gis." as the war drags on the