tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC July 25, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
t my room from the floor plan... free wi-fi... ...and the price match guarantee. so with hilton there is no catch. yeah the only catch is i'm never leaving. no i'm serious, i live here now. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. that is going to do it for us tonight. see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with the great lawrence o'donnell. >> you did my favorite guest introduction when you said someone who needs no intersection, which has a certain cliche ring to it, which is true and you say the part that i really liked and for whom there is no need for an explanation about why he's here. cut to michael -- >> yes, sort of the only person i could do that from but honestly, if you just like the cameras came on and oops, wrong cameras came on and showing michael instead of me, everyone would know why he's here. >> yes. i did not know who you were talking about until michael appeared and it made perfect
sense. >> cascaded into shape. >> val will join us and be our guest tonight. >> i didn't know you had her. i would have tried to steal her. >> sorry, i would have stolen michael. here is what i love about what we saw in yesterday's hearings, and you see this frequently in hearings with katy porter for example. you see the background of that congressperson coming out in the hearings in katy porter's case, a law professor and val demings case, former police chief in orlando, florida with all of that law enforcement experience and watching what that informs in the way she handles a situation like yesterday's hearing was really kind of wonderful to watch. it was -- everything she said was just filled with her experience and then directly tailored into what the issues of
the day were. >> and i would also say, don't -- i don't want to be weird but the fact that she was not only has such a law enforcement and distinguished career but she was chief for so long. part of the way you can read that is the way she brings everything to a halt when she speaks. she has the chief thing going on where she owns every room she's been on and you can't help but hang on every word. she has the natural authority thing that makes you get in line. >> you're used to that, rachel. owning every room you've ever been in. that's your thing. [ laughter ] >> well, that room. that room you're in right now. that one. that one. >> maybe. thank you. >> thank you, rachel. >> joyce vance published a new piece in "time magazine" in which she identifies what she thinks is the single most important question and answer in robert mueller's testimony yesterday and because we have so much to cover tonight, we won't get to joyce vance's most
important question until the end of this hour but our first guest tonight will be congresswoman val demings, former police chief of orlando, florida who is the person who asked the question that joyce vance says is the most important question that was asked yesterday. so we're perfectly book ended in this hour. tonight, the chairman of the house judiciary committee the day after robert mueller's testimony says that the next step for the committee is to hear from the most important witness in the mueller report, the witness who delivers the most damming evidence of donald trump's obstruction of justice and crimes former trump white house counsel don mcgahn. here is chairman jerry nadler tonight on msnbc. >> the american people have to hear directly, for example, from don mcgahn as to -- he has to testify in front of the congress so he can say what the president said to him, what illegal instructions the president said to him.
we have to hear from other witnesses who testified to mueller but we need to hear and the american people need to hear their testimony directly. this is blocked and we're going to court to unblock it. >> chairman nadler says committee lawyers will be in court tomorrow, tomorrow seeking to enforce their subpoena of don mcgahn as a witness, his name appears in the mueller report more than 500 times and several committee members asked robert mueller was don mcgahn yesterday. >> your investigation found that president trump directed white house counsel don mcgahn to fire you, isn't that correct? >> true. >> the president told the white house staff secretary rob porter to try to pressure mcgahn to make a false denial, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> it's accurate to say the president knew he was asking mcgahn to deny facts that mcgahn quote had repeatedly said were accurate unquote, isn't that right? >> correct. >> congresswoman val demings had
two opportunities with robert mueller, first in the judiciary and intelligence committee. here is what congresswoman demings asked in the judiciary committee. >> by trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation. >> i would generally agree with that. >> later in this hour, you will hear joyce vance identify that question as the most important question of the day and explain why and explain how that question links volume 1 and volume 2 and this was asked later in the intelligence hearing. >> i want to focus on the written responses that the president did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. were the president's answers submitted under oath?
>> yes. yes. >> what did you determine about the president's credibility? >> and that i can't get into. >> well, let's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility because it seems to me his answers were not credible at all. did some of president trump's answers relate to trump tower moscow. >> yes. >> did president trump answer followup questions according to the report there were follow up questions because of the president's incomplete answers about the moscow project. did the president answer your followup questions either in writing or orally? and we're now in volume 2, page 150 through 151. >> no. >> he did not. in fact, there were many questions you asked the president that he simply didn't answer, is that correct? >> true. >> there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct director mueller? >> yes. >> director mueller isn't it fair to say the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete
because he didn't answer many of your questions but where he did, his answers showed he wasn't always being truthful? >> i would say generally. >> leading off our discussion tonight is val demings of florida a member of the house intelligence committee. thank you very much for joining us tonight congresswoman demings. appreciate it. i know it's been a busy week. >> good to be with you, lawrence, thanks for having me. >> i want to go to what we just saw you questioning robert mueller about and that is reminding us all that the president did submit to written questions and answering written questions but as you illuminated, he did to put it mildly a terrible job of answering the written questions. >> he did a terrible job and let's start with director mueller not being able to comment on the president of the united states credibility.
and then his answer regarding the written questions and we do know the president refused to do a sitdown interview, director mueller tried to get him to do that for a year, he refused but then obviously in his written answers, he was not always truthful as director mueller indicated. >> and the mueller report does comment on the credibility of other witnesses, comments favorably on the credibility of witnesses where it finds them credible and so robert mueller could have if he found the president's written answers credible said so. >> i think it's reasonable to assume that if as you've just indicated, if the president thought or if director mueller thought the president was credible, he certainly would have said that. he even commented about the credibility of gates and cohen, michael cohen saying after thorough vetting, he was able to find their testimony about wikileaks credible, but he
wasn't able to comment on the president's credibility. >> bringing all of your years of law enforcement into what you heard yesterday, what is your assessment of the criminal liability of donald trump? >> you know, yesterday lawrence was actually a very painful day. you know, what we -- what director mueller confirmed is that russia interfered. the president didn't seem to care much about that. matter of fact, he loved it and welcomed it and that he engaged in multiple instances of obstruction of justice to impede the investigation into russia interference. the section about don mcgahn where the president repeatedly asked him to get rid of the special counsel and then called in multiple times asking him like a mobster if it had been done. yesterday was a painful day but clearly indicates why director mueller was unable to exonerate
the president or find him innocent, basically, of any wrongdoing. >> you brought up the point that with the written questions they had followup questions after they had seen the answers, especially since the answers were incomplete and some they didn't answer at all and then the president didn't answer any followup questions. >> according to director mueller, he was strong there and said, you know, to a direct question, did he answer any of your follow up questions, no. and if you read the president's responses over 30 times, over 30 times the president said he did not recall or remember key instances or key conversations during the case. so the president i clearly understand after listening to director mueller why he was unable to exonerate the president. >> and in your career in law
enforcement, you've seen cases that are slam dunks. you've seen cases that are close calls, not sure. should we charge? should we not charge? do we have here? you've seen cases get dismissed in court. you've -- and not been surprised and then sometimes surprised because you understand the various weights that evidence can have. what's your assessment of the case against the president that robert mueller assembled in this report? >> lawrence, when the report first came out and i had an opportunity to read it and remember as a member of both committees i've had an opportunity to read the unredacted version, as well. when i first read the redacted version, i was convinced then that the elements of multiple crimes was there and that we should have begun impeachment proceedings at that time. certainly after reading the unredacted version and just everything being topped off with director mueller confirming some very critical portions of the
report, i have no doubt in my mind as a 27-year law enforcement officer, police detective and police chief the president engaged in wrongdoing and were it not for the department of justice olc opinion, he would have been indicted. >> is it only members of the intelligence committee who have been able to see the unredacted version? >> i can't -- i'm not sure about that particular portion. i believe there are some limited members of the judiciary like the chairman but i know members of the intelligence committee have been able to review it. >> can you give us some sense of how much more people would understand if they were able to see the unredacted version? >> well, the unredacted version really has more to do with identifying information and sometimes when you know who is
involved, it really helps you to better be able to piece the pieces of the puzzle together. >> would you say the unredacted version would add to possible impeachment charges against the president? >> remember, i've thought for a long time for four months now there was plenty evidence in the redacted version to begin impeachment proceedings but every bit of information, every bit of evidence certainly helps us get to the point where we need to be. >> congressman val demings, thank you for leading us off tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you. and the question that i was most looking forward to in yesterday's hearing was asked by congressman sean patrick maloney. >> why didn't you subpoena the president? >> we were almost towards the end of our investigation and had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president. we decided that we did not want
to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation. >> what did you think of the president's written responses, mr. mueller? >> certainly not as useful as the interview would be. >> by my account there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection and i take it by your answer it wasn't as helpful. that's why you used words like incomplete, inprecise, inadequate, insufficient. is that a fair summery of what you thought of the written answers? >> that is a fair summery. i have presume that comes from the report. >> sir, i ask this respectfully, by the way, the president didn't ever claim the fifth amendment, did he? >> i'm not going to talk to that. >> nobody told you you couldn't subpoena the president, right? >> no, we understood we could subpoena the president. >> did you have sufficient evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice is
and is that why you didn't do the interview? >> no, there is a balance how much evidence you have to satisfy the last element against how much time are you willing to spend in the courts litigating the interview of the president. the reason we didn't do the interview because of the length of time it would take to resolve the issues attending to that. >> joining our discussion now is sean patrick maloney of new york. congressman, thank you for asking the question that i wanted to ask but it was such an obvious question and i was sure someone would ask it. do you feel it was answered? do you feel you now know why they did not subpoena the president? >> yes, i sure wish they had, though. i think it's very important to listen to what the director said and what he said is -- by the way, they wrote this in appendix c and volume 2 they had significant and substantial
evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice and they said a bunch of cases where it -- you know, those cases point out that you frequently show intent to obstruct justice without an interview of the investigation subject, that's often how it works because people don't admit they were trying to obstruct justice and in those cases, it's more than enough to infer intent and when you say you have substantial and significant evidence of the president's intent, my point was simply they are telling us on those pages that they thought they had enough. >> yes, and i had found that use of the word intent and i have to say it surprised me when i landed on that use of the word intent because how would you establish intent without talking to the witness but as you point out, they believe that they had so much information that it clarified intent, but, but, the report does not then say what the intent was and robert mueller didn't say that yesterday. >> well, that's because remember the special counsel is basically in a box.
he can't prosecute the president and he said that fairness concerns would prevent him from accusing the president of a crime without giving the president the opportunity he would have to defend himself in a normal situation where he was charged with a crime. therefore, this is the most you can do. in other words, you can forgive the special counsel for laying it all out on ten different instances of obstruction saying he had sufficient evidence without an interview of the president's intent, a key element and believing that the attorney general would care about that and wouldn't lie about it to the american public or dissemble or hide it for weeks. by the way, that the congress would care. i think he told us everything he could tell us under the department's rules and under the fairness concerns they were operating under. >> yeah, those department rules that prevented him from discussing deliberations was an enormous thing to leave out. you could have asked him about the discussions of the office about this decision to not issue
the subpoena but what about the part of his answer where he said we basically just didn't want to take the amount of time given that there was no time limit on the investigation, why would he be concerned about the amount of time it would take to enforce that subpoena? >> yeah, i think that's a hard question and i'm disappointed that they didn't take that time. i served in the white house when a president was put under oath for hours before a grand jury on videotape under oath and that was because the independent counsel had subpoenaed the president. that was president clinton and that was the moment they had to see him answering questions under oath. donald trump should have been put in a chair and asked tough questions and i regret that. respectfully because i believe here the special counsel was telling us something important, which is that he had a -- he had substantial and significant evidence. those are his words of the president's intent to obstruct
justice and they lay it out chapter in verse and under constraints previous counsels were not under. in a sense, this is the best you were going to get. >> big distinction he was not an independent counsel like ken starr and unfortunately for robert mueller and his team, that meant they could be fired at any time and there was the president of the united states in effect publicly threatening to do that. then there comes a day in don mcgahn testimony where they discover the president has already a couple of times ordered robert mueller to be fired and one of the questions i was wondering about which no one got to yesterday but further investigation it will come out, was robert mueller or anyone in the mueller team concerned, concerned about the possibility of being fired by the president and if they were concerned did that affect the speed of their investigation? did that in effect speed them up?
might that explain why robert mueller felt there was in effect a time limit with the threat of being fired by the president? >> i suppose that's possible and there was, remember, a brand-new attorney general coming online. >> yes. >> and worked for that attorney general as you point out so the attorney general was confirmed i believe in early march i want to say and the report was done two or three weeks later. i think there were definitely a lot of things coming together at that time frame but honestly, and again, respectfully of mr. mueller because i have enormous respect for him. i was 16 months after his appointment that they got written answers and those written answers were by his own language incomplete, inprecise, inadequate and they were getting roped by the president's lawyers for months and months. they had to know, they had to know they were never going to get anything truly useful out of the answers so there was always going to have to be a subpoena and an in person interview. i guarantee the president's lawyers were surprised they
didn't have to give one of those and i just think it's one of the great missed opportunities of this investigation because we'll never see this president sitting in a chair under oath answering the tough questions and i sure wish we had had that opportunity. >> i could do this with you all night. the one other point i'd make, robert mueller specifically did not answer the question of which was president going to invoke the fifth amendment. so if they had a fifth amendment conversation and mueller and company knew that even if they enforced subpoena, donald trump will sit there and take the fifth amendment to everyone question, that could be another reason not to do it. so much more investigative work for you to do this. >> there are serious unanswered questions and under scores the role congress needs to play given the constraints the special counsel is under. we have work to do. sean patrick maloney, very good work yesterday, thank you for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> we'll follow up on something said on this program last night, something that never occurred to
me and i felt stupid when i heard her say it because i felt it should have occurred to me. tonight, we're going to get a second opinion on how the president actually can be indicted even though the justice department has a policy against indicting the president. ♪ i want it that way... i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin! believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
lick fast like a cookie dough ninja. apply that same speed to the ford hurry up and save sales event. for the first time ever get 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards. it all adds up. don't you love math? so get here asap because tasty deals and summer go fast. get in or lose out on 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards.
plus earn complimentary maintenance through here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.
we at the outset determined that we, when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the olc opinion that indicated that a president, a sitting president cannot be indicted. >> that was in the judiciary committee hearing yesterday, later in that same hearing republican congressman ken buck asked a question everyone knew the answer to and it was not a question comforting to donald trump. >> could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> you believe that he committed, you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? >> yes. >> last night a former watergate assistant special prosecutor jill wine banks made a point about indicting a president that had not occurred to me.
>> the evidence of all the elements of the crime has been established and were he not protected by the office of legal counsel, an opinion by the way that i think is flawed constitutionally and legally, i think it's incorrect, it's time for someone to challenge it or change it. it may take a state prosecutor indicting the president to take it to the supreme court for a decision and whether you can cover up your own crime and get away with it. >> yeah, state prosecutor could get around that justice department rule. >> and joining us our discussion is the former acting solicitor general and msn brksmsnbc contri if they were to appeal that to the united states supreme court and that state got neal to argue the case, could you argue it? how would it go?
>> yeah, i think you could argue it. both of the clips you just showed, lawrence, are right, congressman buck is absolutely right on january 21st, 2020, president trump assuming he loses, he will not have immunity from prosecution at the federal level. so that's one route, january 21st. the second route is jill points out state prosecutors could still indict. now there is this office of legal counsel opinion that is being talked about that mueller is talking about. that's a federal opinion. that's about federal prosecutions but in our constitutional system, we also have a separate set of prosecutors, state prosecutors that aren't bound in any way, shape or form by the office of legal opinion. i expect the president were he indicted by a state prosecutor to make the same kinds of arguments that he's been making all along, he's immune, he's the king and so on and i think that those arguments will get somewhere when it comes to the
trial of a sitting president but i don't think it's going to get to the indictment part, that is i think that the best arguments in terms of constitutional law say you can indict a sitting president at the state level. you may not be able to try them for i think important reasons like 1861 i don't think you'd want south carolina to be able to force abraham lincoln and haul him in to court to face a criminal trial because after all, he has the nation's business to attend to and a war to prosecute. i think the indictment could happen and so i suspect if there are state charges that are viable, that those can and will be brought against the president. >> let's listen to another point raised by mike quig gly yesterday. >> what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations? >> i don't know the answer to that one. >> would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on
federal crime such as this are five years, that a president who serves his second term is therefore under the policy above the law. >> i'm not certain i would agree -- i'm not certain i would agree with the conclusion. i'm not certain that i can see the possibility that you suggest. >> neal, what's the answer? >> the interchange shows one of the main reasons trump wants a second term is to extend his get out of jail free card, that office of legal counsel opinion but the office of legal counsel opinion has in it that says the statute of limitations would be automatically told that is held in advance so you can still indict him afterwards if he were to win a second term. that's number one. number two, lawrence, this goes to the fund mental problem with this administration, which is they are totally lawless. this president is saying and
thumbs his nose at the congress and courts and saying i don't need to show up to be interviewed by mueller. i don't need to give him answers even though there is damming evidence against him. i don't need mcgahn as you talked about the start of the show, his top lawyer doesn't need to show up even though there is a subpoena against him and things like that and, you know, this is the cull men nation of that line of thinking. i am effectively the king. you can't indict me and i have such immuity i can outrun the statute of limitations. i can't imagine what our founders of our great government would have thought about a president making such ridiculous anti constitutional assertions. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. when we come back, it is a routine stop for presidential candidates to go to the naacp convention, but not donald trump but there is another republican presidential candidate who did
go to the naacp convention yesterday. that candidate will join us. beep goes off ] now that you have new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move. my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and this is me now! any physical changes to this man's appearance are purely coincidental. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪work so hard give it everything you got♪ ♪strength of a lioness tough as a knot♪ ♪rocking the stage and we're never gonna stop♪ ♪all strength, no sweat... just in case you forgot♪
♪all strength, no sweat... ♪no no no sweat... staining be done... behr presents: outdone yourself. and stay done through every season. behr semi-transparent stain. find it exclusively at the home depot. there was no hesitation, i went straight to ctca. after my mastectomy, it was maddening because i felt part of my identity was being taken away. when you're able to restore what cancer's taken away, you see that transformation firsthand knowing that she had options that she could choose, helped restore hope. my team made me feel like a whole person again. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
during the mueller hearings yesterday some of the democratic presidential candidates were in detroit at naacp convention. >> this is an inflection moment in the history of our country. it is a moment in time where we are being required to look in the mirror and ask a question that question being who are we. >> i haven't been afraid to be bold and fearless in the face of a president who is the biggest identity politician to come along in the last 50 years
trying to divide us along racial and ethnic and religious lines. >> we have a president who is a racist, a president who is a pathological liar, and a president who is trying to divide the american people up based on the color of their skin where they were born, or their religion. >> there is a lot of stake. we're in a battle for the soul of the country right now and have a president whose done everything to divide us and split us apart and this is not who we are as a nation. >> it's a stop including republican presidential candidates mitt romney and john mccain spoke at the naacp convention when they ran for president but donald trump of course refused an invitation to speak at the naacp convention when he was running in 2016 and
he refused again this year. but the other republican running for president, yesterday, there is another republican running for president former massachusetts governor bill weld did accept an invitation to speak at the naacp convention yesterday. he is the only republican challenging donald trump for the republican presidential nomination in the 2020 republican primaries. here is how the only republican presidential candidate that appeared at the naacp convention yesterday began his remarks. >> good morning, everybody. my name is bill weld and i'm running against donald trump in the republican primaries. [ applause ] >> so, let's get one thing out of the way right at the beginning. donald trump is a raging racist, okay? he's a complete and thorough going racist.
>> republican presidential candidate bill weld joins us next. you don't really talk about your insurance unless you're complaining about it. you go on about how... ...it's so confusing it hurts my brain. ya i hear ya... or say you can't believe... ...how much of a hassle it is! and tell anyone who'll listen... (garbled)....it's so expensive! she said it's so expensive. tell me about it. yes.. well i'm telling the people at home. that's why esurance is making the whole experience surprisingly painless. so, you never have to talk about it, unless you're their spokesperson. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. woman 1: this is my body of proof. man 1: proof of less joint pain and clearer skin. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2: ...with humira. woman 3: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible
joint damage and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. announcer: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. man 3: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action.
don't you get the one of those travel sites?t they tell you that, but when you book at hilton.com, you get the price match guarantee. so if you find your room at a lower rate, hilton is like... we're gonna match that rate and give you an extra 25% off. what would travel sites do if you found a better price? that's not my problem, it's your problem. get outta here! whoa, i really felt that performance. it's just acting, i'm really good at it.
book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. here is former massachusetts governor bill weld candidate for president at the naacp convention yesterday. >> unless the republican party in washington expressly, expressly rejects the racism of donald trump they are going to come to be university viewed as the party of racism in america. >> and republican presidential candidate bill weld joins us now. thanks for joining us tonight, governor, appreciate it. >> lawrence, always a pleasure, thank you. >> tell us more about your appearance at the naacp convention, why you thought that was an important stop for you as a republican candidate and we showed clips of what you had to
say. what was your basic message there? >> if the republican party doesn't distance itself from the unbelievable racism of president trump, it's going to be stigmatized throughout the country as the party of racism and they are not going to be a national party anymore. they may be able to win the states from 1948 and george wallace won in 1968 but a national party, not so much. that's a message i wanted to deliver to the republicans. you know, i said that the president made the choice to be a racist along time ago when he boasted in the housing business with his father, we have ways to keep people like them, people of color out of our projects but now the republican party has a choice. they act like they think sometimes it's a political choice. it's not a political choice. it's a moral choice and they will be judged by the results of
that choice. >> you know, i think some viewers around the country now having heard what they have heard and silences that they have heard from republicans over the last several years about these issues might be surprised to hear a republican talking this way but what i'm hearing is what i would call an ed brooke republican, when you and i were still in school in boston, ed brooke was the republican senator from massachusetts, the only african american member of the united states senate at the time and so i don't find this at all surprising in the history of massachusetts republican. >> yeah, we were the party of lincoln and, you know, i think it's donald trump who is the rhino and the guy that's republican name only. the best traditions of the party including, you know, the abolition of slavery and conservation movement and environmental conservation is conservative.
fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget like everyone in the country has to do except for the federal government is a republican tradition. a strong foreign policy, not isolationism. that's a republican policy. free trade say republican policy. it donald trump who is the odd man out on all these finest traditions of the republican party. >> let me talk about another republican we saw yesterday and that's robert mueller testifying to the house of representatives. you worked with robert mueller in the justice department. you were his boss. i presume you taught him everything he knows -- [ laughter ] >> he taught me. he taught me. >> i think of you as a mueller republican and i think that's a label you would be proud of. what was your reaction to bob mueller's testimony yesterday? >> i think he confirmed what we all knew there is an over wheeling case of obstruction of justice in volume two of the mueller report. myself, if i had that case i could have charged the president. these office of legal counsel
opinions that everyone is pointing to is not like a judicial opinion with the same force of law. the assistant attorney general is the lawyer for the president and the lawyer for the attorney general. those are his or her only two clients. so it's like siting a brief instead of a judicial opinion to site that office of legal counsel opinion that's the basis for not indicting the president. i think you could have charged him and suspended and sealed the indictment so the statute of limitations would not run out. >> and i would have if i had to case. >> okay. and i want to get another reaction from you and that is the republican senate controlled by mitch mcconnell would not bring to a vote or debate in the senate this week. legislation about election security in the face of all of this testimony that we're getting and all the evidence in the mueller report that we need election security to defend against the russian attack and republican leader of the senate
wouldn't even allow debate on it. >> yeah, i thought that was extraordinary unfortunate timing for mitch. the one thing that bob mueller did do hand springs on was he said look, this russian interference was real and went on and on and it's going on right now and it's the most serious thing i've seen in my life. that's bob mueller talking and, you know, the bill that is getting bottled up is a bill that would simply say that when election officials see evidence of foreign tampering, foreign efforts to tamper with the election, they should report it to federal authorities who obviously have superior investigative capability. and now we know russians aim to target all 50 states and that they got their hands into the illinois database. well, they could easily delete precincts where they thought there were minority voters if they wanted to say favor mr.
trump in the next election or just say well, we were all over this election, the states that president trump lost there by casting into doubt the election results and the president joked during the 2016 campaign that if he lost, he was going to say the election was rigged. well, i'm not sure that's entirely a joke. it's like him talking about wouldn't it be nice to have a third term. you know, i don't think that's really a joke. i think that's what he would really love to have. >> bill weld, republican presidential candidate, thank you for joining us once again tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence. when we come back, joyce vance will join us to talk about what she thinks what she's identified in a new article as the most important question and the most important answer in the mueller testimony yesterday. you try hard,
you eat right... mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells, for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted.
it is time for the most important questions and answers o f the mueller hearing. a question that she says perfectly links volumes one and two of the mueller report. she will explain that link in a moment, here is congresswoman val demings asked what joy vance thinks of the most important. >> let's talk about lies.
according to your report, witnesses lie to your office and congress. those lies materially impaired the investigation of russia interference according to your report other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on them lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you? >> inspectors are looking at in terms of those who are not telling the full truth or out right liars. >> there were limits on what evidence was available to you investigation of russia elections and interference and obstruction of justice. >> that's the key. >> that lie by trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation. >> i would generally view that.
>> joy vance is with us. to give her enough time, we'll squeeze in a final commercial break because i don't want to do that in the middle of what you say. joyce, hold on, you will tell us what's so important of that question/answer you just saw right after this break. where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.key. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit.
with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need.
not getting in today. not on my watch. pests never stop trying to get in. we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. we are back with a cliff hanger with our joyce vance. let's take another look of the short version of the question/answer that you found so important yesterday. >> it is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both russia election interference and obstruction of justice. >> that's usually the case. >> that lies by trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation. >> i would generally view that. >> joyce vance, you have the floor, why was it so important?
>> it seems to me lawrence that this is the linkage of volumes one and two of the mueller report. we used to look at it separately. yesterday we had two separate hearings. it is important that we understand and mueller made it clear that we needed to understand the obstruction ultimately impacted their inability to charge a conspiracy or other crimes related to connections between the campaign and russia and it ultimately that obstruction of justice not just from the president but also from people around him. people who mueller and the report tells us did not tell the whole truth, lies and destroyed evidence. it is that obstructive behavior ultimately keep the american people in the dark about what happened. >> and so in volume one, when we get to the phrase insufficient evidence, this is part of how we
got to that phrase insufficient evidence. >> you know it is and mueller clarifies that. he says we believe that we have the full story. because there are gaps in our evidence, it is possible that if we have more information, if some of these folks had told the truth, that we would cast the evidence in a new light, we would view it differently or in a completely new light. that's something we should all understand is the risk here that when people obstruct justice, it keeps prosecutors from getting to the full truth and when we are talking about the president of the united states, engaging in a pattern of relationship of behavior with russia, it is very dangerous for us to not know the truth. >> robert mueller seems to suggested it was a lot of lying that they were aware of and different grades of it all the way to out right liar. we can presume michael flynn, he got charged as a crime.
it seems there are not any perjury charges as you may expect prosecutors say we dealt with all of these lies. >> perjury is different. it is a legal charge. it requires you prove intent and prove the materiality of what you are being told. here we have witnesses who came in and perhaps told lies or half truths in a posture where it was possible, feasible or desirable for prosecutors to spend all their time on that and the investigations we saw charges of the most important cases involving lies. i think we don't know and we know because mueller tells congresswoman demings that it
did impact the investigation, what we don't know was how much and how prevasive it was. >> it could be that the drama of that as it unfolds in the reading of the report casts such a shadow that people don't notice, all of this other lying that robert mueller says was impeding their investigation. that's the risk here. we don't know the answer to that ultimate question. was there a conspiracy? we don't know because they're so successful of obstruction. that's a dangerous place for us to be. >> joyce vance. your article @firstname.lastname@example.org. thank you joy vance. just tonight, the senate intelligence committee have
spoken and releasing the report on our presidential election it on our hacked presidential election, calling it a cascading intelligence failure, saying the russians targeted all of our 50 states. and it was just last night the republicans blocked the latest bills to strengthen our elections. and a check in with how we're doing on tyranny with the author of the book of the same name as "the 11th hour" gets under way this thursday night. well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 917 of the trump administration, and we have news tonight the senate intelligence committee is out with its report on our election security, how far the russians exactly tried to reach into our system, how ill equipd