tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC July 26, 2019 9:00am-10:00am PDT
reports," what now? any moment house judiciary chairman jerry nadler announcing his next steps as nancy pelosi, fresh off a meeting with alexandria ocasio-cortez trying to tamp down calls for impeachment. >> i'm not doing that. let's get sophisticated about this, okay? we will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner. punching back. a more aggressive joe biden ready for a rematch. new attacks from kamala harris and this time cory booker. also on the same debate stage for the first time. >> look, i'm disappointed it's taken joe biden years and years until he was running for president to say he made a mistake, especially because he's partly responsible for the crisis we have now. >> cory knows that's not true. if he wants to go back and talk about records i can do that but i'd rather talk about the future. mass arrests. 16 u.s. marines arrested at camp
pendleton and accused of illegal activities, including human smuggling and drug related offen offenses. >> they took their opportunity when they saw it to make extra money, recognizing even so that it was against the law and they did it anyway. and good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. house democrats are divided over impeachment. you can see a live picture of the press briefing room on the house side as they leave for a six week summer break. we have just heard from speaker pelosi pushing back against members of her own caucus who are demanding an immediate start to impeachment hearings. >> their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage. i have no complaint with what they're doing. i'm willing to take whatever heat there is there to say the
decision will be made in a timely fashion. >> she met with alexandria ocasio-cortez to not bury the hatchet. >> we have differences, respect that instead of making a big issue of it. respect that. >> and joining me now as we are await a briefing from jerry nadler is jeff bennett, jeff mason and margaret crossen, nan donna edwards, now a washington post opinion writer. jeff bennett, at the white house, you've covered the white house and the hill. the white house obviously watching this, the jerry nadler briefing. he's probably going to talk about don mcgahn and the legal steps to get mcgahn, a reluctant
witness. >> reporter: house democrats are going to get access of the grand jury material. they also intend to go to the courts to reaffirm their oversight authority and responsibilities, really, to get don mcgahn the former white house counsel who was a key player in the mueller proceed to testify before that committee. this is part of the process that nancy pelosi says she wants to see play out before house democrats move or potentially move towards impeachment. again, today, we heard her reiterate she's not against starting impeachment proceedings against this president, she's just not for it right now. she wants democrats to be able to be in the best position to make the best legal argument as she puts it. right now she sees that process as playing out through the courts. there have been those progressive whose have accused her of trying to run out the clock. the clinton impeachment was a five to six month period. it started in october of '98 and
carried out through that february. if you start that clock, that takes us to the heart of the 2020 election. there's an argument that any potential hearings get less consequential not more. but nancy pelosi when questioned directly if she's trying to run out the clock, she said no. she sees her view as speaker as trying to build unity with the strongest common denominator. we talk often about those 90 house democrats who calling for impeachment. as one aide put it to me, yeah, that's true but there's 60% of the 235 member democratic caucus who aren't calling for impeachment. right now, those voices, joined by nancy pelosi, are articulating the strategy here. we'll have to see what jerry nadler says when he comes before the podium. he chairs that committee where any impeachment proceedings would begin. >> john edwards you were a member of that caucus, you know the ins and outs. they're leaving for six weeks.
to the average person, a six week break, i know they call it an august break. it's a six week break. if there were any urgency, they would be staying in, she could be convening hearings if she wanted to. another 95 actually, 95 house members and catherine clark is the latest. she's the sixth ranking member. >> catherine clark is a leader. it's significant he came in. the president has moved on, the republicans have moved on. it feels like democrats are moving on. i don't think that democrats across the country are ready to move on at all. the mueller report laid out a clear line of lawless behavior on the part of this president. i think it's irresponsible not to act on it. there's no reason at all that impeachment proceedings did not begin today and continue on the
same track with these legal battles. those two things are not inconsistent with each other. and while the speaker says she isn't moving the -- trying to wait out the clock. it's beginning to feel that way. and i think that that is unacceptable. in the unlikely event, i think, of the president winning in 2020, democrats will have lost every single bit of their leverage if they don't move forward now. >> jeff mason, does the white house still believe that they have won this battle, despite the fact that the mueller testimony, if you look at it in terms of the headlines that came out of it, it's pretty devastating. he's not exonerating the president of the united states. the president of the united states did not generally tell the truth in even his written responses to questions. but do they feel victorious in that they ran out the clock and were able to avoid a person --
one-on-one interview? >> i think the answer to that is yes, andrea. everything you say there is right in terms of the commentary -- the facts of what robert mueller said, both in his testimony and in the report. this white house, more than probably any other white house looks at performance. and the president came out at the end of robert mueller's testimony and basically declared that performance a dud. this is a former reality tv show host, obviously, who values that very much and also sees the value that americans put in that in terms of watching things on television and whether or not seeing things on television ends up resonating with voters. they see that as having been a good day for republicans and the president. they're ready to move on. >> heidi, with the addition of cathrerine clark, it's 96 democrats. that's not by any means a majority, but it's a significant number. >> it's notching up.
that's why if you talk to reporters who are on the hill yesterday who covered the caucus meeting after mueller's testimony, there were members who said they felt like there has been some movement by speaker pelosi and she's allowing if more members come out over this recess that she herself may switch positions. when she says we're not going to move until we have everything we need, she's not necessarily talking about evidence. they're not going to get anymore evidence over the six-week recess. there's not going to be witnesses that are going to come forward. >> what she said is by going to court they think they can get to the tax returns, the finances. they now know that mueller did not go into any of those areas. >> it's a two track process. maybe they could get things through the court process if that process is moving on an expedited level. but they're waiting to see what these members experience and encounter when they go back home. to donna's point, there's a big
disconnect between the caucus and what the polling is telling us about the broader democratic party, which a majority of democrats are for impeachment at this point right now. >> you know, what's good about the six weeks, if anything, andrea, is that democrats will go home. you know, we judge the mueller testimony by trump standards. a "celebrity apprentice" president is judging the hearings and we're all taking it and the overnight ratings are that mueller flubbed it. he was too slow, didn't answer properly. if you look at the summations, it's so powerful. and people outside our group here, who look at mueller versus trump, mueller the bronze medal winner, lifelong government service versus the president who has none of those values and none of that background, i think they're going to weigh mueller much more heavily.
and the report is damning and now his testimony was damning and the summaries are damning. >> let's talk about the absence of that dramatic moment, the compelling moment to dramatize in the way that, you know, political figures as well as expect to see something like this dramatized. perhaps people were not watching all seven hours. that's most likely. how does it play with people across the country as these members go home from recess? >> in terms of political theater, there probably was not enough theater, theatrical moments for the democrats to come away saying this was a big victory in terms of showing and demonstrating and illustrating for the american people which was in that report. that said, there are probably a few soundbites that came from robert mueller that will end up in democratic commercials. there may be a few on the other side as well. at large, in terms of the
performance aspect and that shouldn't be the only way that people judge this, but it's one way that the white house is judging it. it probably did not go the way democrats wanted. and that, at least, last week, is a victory for this white house. >> we see the members of the democratic judiciary committee leadership with jerry nadler, the chairman coming in after their extensive hearings with robert mueller. we want to hear from the chairman, how he's going to proceed. >> good afternoon, i'm joined by many of my colleagues from the house judiciary committee. we want to say a few words about director mueller. what we learned from his testimony and next steps in our work to hold president trump accountable for his conduct. robert mueller was a man of honor and integrity. he has led a life defined by
service to his country. some have argued that because director mueller was reluctant to testify and seemed older than some remembered him, his work is somehow diminished. it's not. before he ever stepped into our hearing room, the director had rendered our country a great and necessary public service. he showed through his report and his indictments that the united states was attacked and remains under siege by a foreign adversary. he showed that the trump campaign, both welcomed and benefitted from this attack on our country. and he showed that the president repeatedly lied to cover it up. and if that were not enough, director mueller's testimony removed all doubt. he told us that donald trump obstructed justice and abudssed
his office by attempting to block the investigation and attempting to fire the special counsel. he told us that donald trump lied to the public about the trump tower meeting in new york. lied to the public about his plans for trump tower in moscow. and lied in his written responses to the special counsel. he told us in a remarkable exchange with mr. li that but for the department of justice policy from prohibiting from doing so, he would have indicted president trump. and it's clear that any other citizen in this country who behaved as the president has would have been charged with multiple crimes. notably, my republican colleagues were unable to refute a single one of these facts. so where do we go from here? we will continue to seek
testimony from key fact witnesses. as many of you know the committee has authorized several additional subpoenas. our work will continue into the august recess and we'll use those subpoenas if we must. we will also continue to seek important documents from the department of justice and the white house. we have made some progress on this front. there appears to be compelling evidence of the president's misconduct outside of the four corners of the redacted version of the mueller report. we'll work to uncover that evidence as well. finally today, we are filing an application for the grand jury material underlying the mueller report. that information is critically important for our ability to examine witnesses, including former white house counsel don mcgahn and to investigate the president's misconduct. i will not comment on reports of our ongoing investigations with
mr. mcgahn. unless he complieswise our accommodation efforts in very short order, we expect to file an additional suit to force his testimony. that will be next week or earlier next week. i should note that the committee could not have brought these lawsuits without help and support of speaker pelosi who is as dedicated to holding this president accountable for his crimes as any of us gathered here today. before i take your questions, let me share just a few sentences for the petition we're filing with the court today. quote, because department of justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the united states' house of representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can hold president trump accountable for these actions. to do so, the house must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise
its full article i powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, recommendation of articles of impeachment. that duty falls in the first instance to the house committee on the judiciary. closed quote. as i said, that was from the court filing today. we take that responsibility seriously. no one can be above the law. not even president trump. i'll now take some questions. >> half of the members up here -- >> let me just say take questions. ask members of the committee to field questions as well. >> half of the members up here have come out in support of impeachment. how are you dealing with disagreements with the speaker on that issue? especially heading into this six-week long recess to expect that those divisions to go away soon?
>> i don't know that there are real divisions with the speaker. i would refer you to her earlier comments in which she said we must make the strongest case. if our committee is going to recommend articles of impeachment to the house, we must make the strongest possible case both to our colleagues and the american public. that we're in total agreement. >> will you break from the speaker and you announce publicly your support? >> we are, as i said -- this is clear in the court filings -- we're exercising our full article i authority. we are continuing the investigation into the president's malfeasances. we'll do what we feel -- we'll consider what we have to consider, including whether we should recommend articles of impeachment to the house. that's the job of our committee. we may decide to recommend
articles of impeachment at some point we may not. it remains to be seen. and there's no point speculating on whether the speaker or anybody else will agree with our decision at that point. >> what's holding you back -- [ inaudible question ] >> impeachment isn't a binary thing that you either are or youerayou aren't. we've been starting a process, engaging in an investigation to see if we should recommend articles of impeachment. it's a process. we started it some months ago in some ways. we're waiting for the report and the hearings we've already had. you know, it's an ongoing process. the court filings today are the next step and we'll continue down that road to see whether we have a strong case.
[ inaudible question ] >> you said it should not be diminished by his presentation. what would you have liked today have gotten out of him in that presentation? >> he didn't fail to do anything. two days ago -- >> repeatedly from members of your side of the aisle. >> if you show up expecting a broadway show sure you may have been disappointed. if you listen to what he said, he said the russians attacked us. they had a preference for donald trump. the trump campaign welcomed it and planned around it. when the police investigated it they took great lengths to cover it up, including the president. the president is the only person in america who would be shielded from being held accountable because of what they did. that's pretty cut and dry. and what you've seen is not members who have called for impeachment saying take me off
that call in light of what mr. mueller have said. six members since have come forward and said add me to that call. >> failed to do in that hearing, he failed tod exonerate the president. he said he could not exonerate the president. >> let me add an extra point. throughout the entire time of mr. mueller's presence before the house judiciary committee, he evidenced elements of a crime. he was not in any way shortchanging his answers that crimes have been committed. he said yes, to the three elements of obstruction. he said yes that one element of obstruction could result in jail
time. he also said that -- when i say said -- answered questions that said you did not have to have an underlying crime to be able to be convicted of obstruction. i don't think the american people have ever heard that in that manner before. i know there are some who may have read both volumes. but they never heard it as it was played out with the members of this committee that when you finish a judiciary committee's question and when you started with chairman nadler who did an enormous job on framing our questioning by getting right to the meat of the issue of obstruction and then exoneration, which director mueller openly and i think quite vividly said that he was not exonerated. and then we continued methodically to reinforce that to the extent that the elements
of obstruction, which i wanted to just talk about for a moment. obstructive act, nexus between an act and official proceeding and intent was associated with the actions of this president. the american people have never heard that. and i will close by simply saying on this question you asked, for those of us who have seen director mueller before this committee and a number years as fbi director, he has always been stoic and a former marine. just right to the point. certainly has enormous talent of investigation. so when he came today or yesterday on wednesday, he made true of what he said to the committee. he was going to stick with the report. he did that. but in doing so, every single question that would warrant someone being convicted of a crime is answered. >> i'd like to add one thing i
think's been overlooked. mr. mueller made a point in response from questions of mr. buck. the president could be indicted after he left office. now, mr. mueller earlier said, maybe in the report, that one of the reasons to get all that information was to get at witnesses while it was fresh in their mind and most -- preserve it for later use. if you didn't believe you had a criminal act, why would you want to preserve the evidence? by the very fact he preserved the evidence and said it was important to get these people while it was fresh in their mind. he said the time may have to come after his -- >> house democrats wrapping up their conclusions from the lengthy mueller testimony we all
heard. and defending the presentation by mueller, if you heard jerry nadler say that despite being older and not as dramatic in his conclusions were very much condemning of the president from their perspective. he did misstate one thing, jeff mason, he did -- the chairman did misstate the fact that robert mueller came back and clarified that he did not intend to be saying to congressman ted liu that absent the office of legal counsel restrictions he would have proceeded and prosecuted the president. he said he never reached that point because they never investigated that. >> that's right. mr. mueller came back and corrected that. and that in fact was something that president trump jumped on last week -- excuse me i keep saying last week -- earlier this week. >> it fields lieels like a week >> exactly. president trump used that construction to sort of negate a lot of the things that mr. mueller had said during that
testimony. but i guess my impression also, andrea, from what the democrats who were just speaking was their message is we are not moving on. the white house may have moved oner on, others have moved on but we're going to keep pursuing. >> jeff bennett, the president has done his best to brand right away coming out on the south lawn and talking to all of you immediately after mueller's testimony concluded that that does not comport with the facts of what mueller reported to the world, really in seven hours of testimony. >> reporter: the president is in no way moved by the substance conveyed in that hearing. a staffer told me they know how to fight this battle. because they've been fighting that same battle for the last two years. i think what was particularly interesting with this nadler
press conference, the chairman of the judiciary committee was questioning about perceived divisions in the democratic caucus. he looked down at his notes and said we're going to move forward when we have the strongest possible case. literally reading from his notes, literally on the same page with the house speaker on this issue spl she was in that very same room just about 20 minutes earlier before he was. thanks so much. joe biden is getting tough after widespread criticism that he was rolled over by kamala harris in the first debate. this time biden's team says he's going to be ready for attacks from all sides, not just from harris but also cory booker. appearing on the same stage as the former vice president for the first time. booker has been slamming biden's 1994 bill.
>> this is an inadequate solution to what is a raging crisis in our country. >> cory knows that's not true. if you look at the mayor's record in newark, one of the provisions i wrote in the crime bill, pattern and practice of misbehavior, his police department was stopping and frisking people, mostly african-american men. if he wants to go back and talk about records, i'm happy to do that. i'd rather talk about the future. >> joining me now is the president and ceo of the national urban league which has been hosting several of the candidates this week. thank you very much. this is happening for the urban league at a critical time when race is front and center in the campaign. largely because of the president and his racist comments about the so-called squad, the four democratic congresswomen, the freshmen women of color. but because of his dispute that cory booker and kamala harris
have opened up with joe biden about his own record. >> i think what's healthy and we've had all three of them and nine candidates in total, is it reflects a debate and a competition for the african-american vote. these candidates are not ignoring nor taking the african-american vote for granted. i think it's a fair conversation about the '93 crime bill. it's a conversation about now in 2019 what will be the strategy around continuing the need to end mass incarceration and criminal justice reform. i find the discussion, honestly, to be frank and refreshing. it's what we ought to be discussing. for them to go back and forth for them to have a discussion and have a debate is what our constituents really want to hear. it demonstrates they're clued in to the issues that the african-american community feels are most important. >> are you at all surprised that
joe biden is dominating in a new poll out of south carolina with a large african-american democratic constituencies despite the attacks on his record. that was a big issue, of course, with both booker and kamala harris in the first debate. >> i think what joe biden's probably got going for him is a long, long record. a long set of relationships. and probably some sensibility that not only is he electable but also prepared to be president. kamala harris and cory booker and christian jigillibrand and y klobuch klobuchar, all who did a good job at presenting themselves. haven't been around as long or
not as well known. i think the community is evaluating who would be the most viable general election candidate. i also say, you know, it's early, we're in july. the primaries don't start for many months. there's a lot of campaign to be run, a lot of discussion to be had. a lot of debate to be had and a lot of issues to be talked about. i don't think the state of the race today may remain the state of the race or could remain the state of the race. this is a competitive environment. i think people in the community -- joe biden is probably been to the national urban league ten times in the last 15 years. we know kamala harris, we've honored her. great sentiment for her. cory booker grew up in the urban league. this is a healthy competition for the support and votes of our community. why people may be shocked is
because we haven't had generally speaking a vigorous competition for the african-american vote in the democratic primaries. we've had a lot of candidates who do drive by politics. they may have ignored the community, taken the community for granted. this is a new normal in the changing demographics of america. >> and the president's comments -- i haven't heard from -- i know you have spoken about it. i haven't been able to ask you personally how you feel about the way the president has attacked these members of congress. >> when the president attacked these members of congress, a chill went up my spine. i was reminded of being a kindergarten and first grader going to an integrated school, elementary school in new orleans and leaving school and being chased home by older white boys who said go back to where you
came from. those words are racist. those words mean something. those words are unamerican. a chill went up my spine. it's not presidential to do it. wedge politics and the politics of demonization, where you seek to demonize people in an effort to gain political advantage is not the type of politics, not the type of democracy that is in the best interest of this nation. so it affected me, you know, in a personal way because it reminded me of being treated poorly, badly as a boy growing up in new orleans as the country -- before the civil rights act. i started school in 1963. the schools had been integrated just a year before i went. >> thank you for your reflections on all of that. it's very good to talk to you, sir. meanwhile, a new fox news poll today showing joe biden has
a commanding two to one lead ov over bernie sanders. welcome all. mark murray, these polls are pretty stunning for joe biden. because for all the talk about how he faltered and stumbled quite a bit and was not punching back in the first debate, he is not lost elevation. >> it's a lot like dorothy at the end of the wizard of oz, and realizing everything was a dream. that debate where joe biden is the exact same place in that fox news poll he was back in june. to me, it's kind of a reminder when you have these debates that they can be clashes and moments but sometimes they revert back to the mean. it was in 2012 when barack obama had that rough debate performance with mitt romney.
after a couple good debate performances everybody forgot about it. that's the challenge for joe biden. he can afford one bad debate performance, but two, i think would really destabilize this race. that's what i'm going to be watching. >> in fact, you know, his team -- everyone is projecting he wants to punch back. he said i'm not going to be as polite this time around. he's been going after cory booker, his record as mayor of newark saying he was investigated by the justice department. held responsible for stop and frisk operations against african-american men. so that's really coming right back at booker after booker's attack on the 1994 crime bill. >> he's doing what he didn't do in the debate, which is launching counterattacks. he's not initiating attacks but he's counterattacking. a bit more effectively than he did in the debate stage. i think what's actually really happened here with the vice president is he has one essential argument, which is i am the strongest candidate to go up against trump.
over the last few weeks, you've seen even after that debate performance, he was still the top candidate against trump. still had the widest margin against trump. and i think that helps make the argument, as you heard, african-american voters, voters of color, see trump as president and are highly practical. they want a candidate that can beat him. and so i think that's the reinforcing issue for the vice president. as long as he is still the top candidate against trump, he has a lot more leeway. if that falters, if he has one or two, three poor debate performances, then i think he has greater challenges. he has a lot of support in the party. >> there's a lot of support and affection for him in the popular. a lot of familiarity among the african-american voters who are such a large part of the coalition of the democratic base. can he afford another stumble? this time they're coming after
him. they are anticipating, from my reporting, that kamala harris is going to again come after him on some of these, you know, past issues. bussing and some of the other issues. clearly cory booker is armed with all of these arguments about the '94 crime bill. pretty tough bit of language to use against him. they're expecting that kirsten ji gillibrand is going to take him on on women's issues. cory booker, this is going to be the first time he's going to be head to head with the president. >> for joe biden, he's the strong front runner. in fact, if the progressive wing were to consolidate -- >> because sanders and elizabeth are dividing it. >> lucky for him, sanders will never get out of the race. he'll really screw that up.
joe biden has another asset, which he doesn't talk about. if you look at the economy today and it's strong, the gdp came out today, 2.1% which is fairly anemic. but progressives and supporters, democrats believe the obama -- barack obama economy is continuing on. and that trump is benefitting from this. people can argue whether that's true or not. that's what they believe. joe biden was part of that economy. he has to reassure democrats. because you can't ignore the economy, which a lot of them want to do or want to propose things like medicare for all. that's not what most voters want to hear. joe biden has the opportunity to say i was part of that economy and i'll continue that economy, particularly because we are in danger of the economy faltering. >> and when you look at the two nights of the debates coming up, mark murray, you're going to have bernie sanders and elizabeth warren face to face.
they're going to go after each other. joe biden is going to try to make the point that all these others are supporting medicare for all, which will lead to higher payroll taxes. >> we were talking about the clashes you can have on policing and race. but, again, in that first debate, we ended up having good clashes on the economy, what you want to do with the restructuring and on night one as you mentioned, you do have elizabeth warren versus bernie sanders. you are going to end up having beto o'rourke, interesting side debates, but a lot to discuss. >> we're going to have to leave it there. we rely on you for our polling expertise. thank you so much. great to see you both. coming up, under attack, a frightening report as a senate intelligence committee reveals how widespread russia's attack on our election was. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports," only on msnbc. "andreal reports," only on msnbc. here you go little guy.
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. terminix. defenders of home. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements.
don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. the republican led senate intelligence committee is reporting that russia targeted election systems in all 50 states in 2016. this is a far more wide ranging attack that was previously acknowledged. the findings come a day after robert mueller's warning of russia's ongoing efforts and
after mitch mcconnell blocked bipartisan efforts to pass legislation, two bills on the senate floor, that would have safeguarded elections and also prevented cyberattacks. joining me now is clint watts, a former fbi special agent, now an msnbc national security analyst. thank you very much. you've written the book on all of this. now we've got the senate rejecting which would -- what would be preliminary efforts to try to safeguard our elections. >> it's a strange twist. you have the committee set to investigate this, that would make policy recommendations, which they did. i actually thought they were quite good in that report. then you have the senate not passing those very logical bills that one would have thought were initiated right after we started these investigations. imagine if we had gone through all this effort after 9/11 and decided not to have airport security. we've spent three years now looking back at what the russians were doing to try and subvert our democracy.
we've identified them. we have recommendations for it but we're not actually following through on it. i think the three acts or the three pieces of legislation that are out there that seemed logical, the honest ads act, and senator warner's addition which if you're contacted by a foreign power you should notify the fbi. all are likely supported by i would say 90% of legislators. yet we can't move this through because it sounds like senator mcconnell doesn't want to move it through. it's perplexing why we wouldn't take these added steps. what we saw in that report was damning. >> senator warner is the vice chair of the committee. he worked closely with his republican chair, senator burr. this comes from a republican-led committee, come has worked in a bipartisan fashion. and is ignored by the republican leadership. i want to play what the house speaker said today about that effort. >> the president calls this a hoax and senator mcconnell refuses to act.
just the other day in the senate, there were a number of bills, one of ours, the safe act that would save our federal elections act, that the republicans objected to bringing to the floor. this is about patriotism for our country. our electoral system is the heart of the matter of our democracy. yet the republicans still continue to say no, need to protect that. >> it's really hard to understand why the president is not leading the way on this. we've been reporting for a couple days now he seems to be a visceral reaction to anything that reflects the fact that the russians could have influenced the campaign, as though it would undermine his authority. he's the president. he won the electoral college. no one is questioning that. there are serious questions. we'll never know how much this influenced. their active measures campaign was profoundly pervasive, as
robert mueller and his report proved. >> this report is remarkable. you saw in there that they specifically were using these hacks to power their influence campaign, to make americans think that there was some sort of tarnish on democracy, that you couldn't have faith and confidence in. if hillary clinton were to win, they were prepared to be all out in terms of undermining her mandate to government with disinformation. so when you watch what's going on in the senate, when you see senator mcconnell not take it seriously, when i rewind back to when i testified to the senate committee. i was brought by a republican led investigation. >> clint watts, thank you as always. thank you for your expertise. house judiciary chairman jerry nadler detailed the next steps his committee is going to take in the wake of robert mueller's appearance. >> where do we go from here?
we'll continue to seek testimony from key fact witnesses. as many of you know, the committee has authorized several additional subpoenas. our work will continue into the august recess and we will use those subpoenas if we must. >> judiciary and intelligence committee member eric swalwell, the former candidate for president, writing today mueller's report gave us everything we need to start impeachment proceedings. congressman swalwell joins me now. there's now 96 or 97. speaker pelosi said there's no rush, that they have time, they need to investigate more. do you think she's trying to run out the clock? >> no, and that number is going to break 100 today, andrea. i don't believe that at all. in fact, what we have just done is we are filing in court and telling a court that we intend to conduct investigations to consider whether we should recommend impeachment. this is the first time we've
used this language in court. we believe it will give us access to grand jury material we don't have access to right now. we're moving forward with the speaker's support. >> now, let me be clear, you're not starting the process, so these are not being reframed as impeachment hearings. do you think the courts will be persuaded by you saying you have that intention in order to give you the underlying grand jury teerm you've not been ail to get from the justice department. >> when you look at nixon and president clinton's impeachment proceedings, they were very different. there's no rule prescribed. the constitution doesn't say how you go about this. one of the remedies we're considering is impeachment. we're doing this our own way. we believe the courts -- we'll see the law is on our side. this will give us the information we need to continue to bring witnesses in. >> what do you do about the fact that the white house is still stonewalling or stopping or you
could use the word obstructing. certainly preventing don mcgahn from testifying? >> that should be an article of impeachment too as far as i'm concerned. obstruction of congress under the nixon impeachment articles was an article. because, again, if you're obstructing the law sees it you have a consciousness of guilt. innocent people cooperate, guilty people obstruct. the reason why the president and t secretary of commerce is obstructing because they have a lot to hide. >> they have managed to delay the mueller testimony and reframe it, rebrand it as william barr did, the estoppel of these witnesses. as time marches on, you get into the 2020 -- you're getting into a presidential campaign. what are your options then? >> i think the worst thing we can do is to think about who wins and who loses politically.
because we have a lawless president. if we do nothing, i think he's going to become more lawless and more dangerous. so we first have to show there will be accountability. that may stop him from being so lawless. but i think about think about f president and they'll base on what we do right now. if we do nothing and we are thinking of the politics of this, you can reduce our ability in the future to hold our president accountable. >> eric swawell, thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> a military scandal. 16 marines arrested on human smuggling and drug related charges. details are coming up next. stay with us on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. d and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks.
ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us you can do it without fingersticks. ♪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... and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed it can with your sleep number setting. can it help keep me asleep? yes, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. save up to $800 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends saturday. and this is me now! i got liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. and so can you!
so your growing life can be more rewarding, too. ♪ what would you like the power to do? ♪ what would you like the power to do? mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
the marines are facing a major scandal involving 16 arrests of human smuggling and drug offenses. this comes after a separate incident involving a group of seal team 7 who brought back from iraq accused of improper use of alcohol and other issues. and joining us as well, jack jacobson, a military contributor. kourtney, what's going on here. first the issues and the marine
7. >> two arrested earlier this month of allegations of human smuggling. they did not bring them across the border but they met them in california with the intent of transporting them for $8,000. more cases of people who may have been involved or known about the human smuggling and also allegations of drugs. they brought all these marines about 800 battalions and they plucked out 16 of them and arrested them. >> that had to be a traumatic moment. >> unbelievable. you had 16 fellow marines pull out a pulledopulle pulled out and taken in handcuffs.
it is unbelievable. to bring in the entire platoon. it is about 20 seals. it is the same platoon as eddie gallagher. there were allegations of misconduct and drinking and other things. when the commander came to them and tried to question these seals and they banded together and refused to talk about. the major general says all right, you are out of here. he sent them all home back to california. >> how did they replace them? >> they have other special forces who can fallen behind them. there is likely to be a gap of a couple of days depending on how long it takes the people from the region to get back in iraq. >> jake jacob, which of a black eye is this? how unexpected is this sort of scandal now with the marines and the special forces? >> well, with respect to the marines. these are people who live in
close proximity and they all know what each other is doing. it is difficult to envision how they did this sort of thing and nobody else knew about it. it is liable to be more about this as time goes on. the investigation continues. with respect to the seals, tradition tradition units they get to employ in large numbers and they are in close proximity of one another. they have levels of supervision that goes all the way to the top. there is a lot of close supervision and special units on the other hand. there are small groups and they operate independently and they're very far removed from the next level of supervision. they rely on the professionalism and the maturity of the people in the seals and other special units so this sort of thing won't happen. it is likely that the chain of commands among the seals, higher ups will be investigated as well
for lacking the supervision to keep this from happening in the first place, andrea. >> what are the charge and accusations that "the new york times" reported that it was not just alcohol with seal team 7 but also potential sex abuse and a rape of a female officer or female platoon member. >> this could be very serious. >> it would actually be -- we have not independently confirmed that. if that's the case and that's what they were banning together about and refusing to testify or say what they know when they were questioned about this allegation. that's even and that makes it more sense for why the two-star general would want to send them home. colonel jacob knows this more than anyone educational. thlelse.
in a case like this where it is at the expense of their integrity and honor, i can see how the two-star general would send them home and lose confidence in them. >> kourtney, and colonel jack jacobs jacobson. thank you so much. >> thank you very much for a busy week. that does it for this edition for "andrea mitchell reports," follow our show online and facebook and twitter, here is chris jansing for "velshi & ruhle." >> hello everyone, it is friday, july 26th, i am chris jansing in for ali velshi and stephanie ruhle. the democratic strategy just laid out how key players are approaching impeachment after robert mueller testimony and how leaders are focusing on the party ahead of 2020. hours before alexandria ocasio-cortez and nancy pelosi had a sit down on capitol hill. the ongoing attacks, we'll be
getti getting into the senate report and all 50 states targeted by russia. new details of jeffery epstein and lesley wexner, why epstein had a hold in the billionaire and power attorney over his finances. >> we begin with the breaking news. by the end of today, 100 of the 235 democrats will be on board with pursuing impeachment. just moments ago, house judiciary jerry nadler outlined the steps his committee is now taking in the wake of robert mueller testimony. despite that testimony, the committee is not slowing its investigation of president trump's actions even going to court today to get more documents. >> we'll continue to seek testimony from key act witnesses and as many of you know, the committee authorized additional subpoenas. our w