russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> good morning. welcome to "am joy." happy anniversary. i didn't get you anything, i was a little busy. today is the three year anniversary of the infamous words by donald trump. what better way to commemorate the day the republican candidate for president personally invited russia to launch a cyber attack on an american citizen to help him get elected, and to give
vladimir putin a pass. that's what happened when mitch mcconnell blocked two bipartisan bills in the senate which would have helped protect your vote from foreign interference. one, to help get election machines to have paper ballots, second to mandate campaigns with foreign offers of help to report to the fbi. the timing couldn't be more perfect. it came one day after former special counsel robert mueller told us in his own words what he and his team found in their 18-month investigation, that the trump campaign wholeheartedly accepted any help russia had to offer. >> the trump campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take russian help. you wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through russian efforts. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> mueller came to capitol hill with a warning about this next election which couldn't be any
more clear. >> in your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they would try to do this again? >> they're doing it as we sit here and expect to do it during the next campaign. >> you know what else happened the day after mueller's testimony? the republican led senate intelligence committee came out with a bipartisan report finding extensive election interference by the russians which targeted all 50 states, that's not a typo. all 50 states. because the world saw how russia was able to get away with intervening in an american election, "the washington post" on that same day reported on efforts by iranians and other countries to jump on the 2020 election meddling bandwagon. so when my colleague joe scarborough dubbed mcconnell moscow mitch, it wasn't just
snark. he is refusing to protect his country from foreign election influence. he believes donald trump can't win without foreign help, so he is propping the door open for whoever wants in. there's no other way to explain what he's doing. well, there's also donations that moscow mitch fwot frgot fr voting lobbyists before blocking the bills. according to the outlet sludge. the man that failed to prove barack obama was born in kenya was helped by the man that failed to make barack obama a one term president, and both a-okay with help from russia. perfect. we'll have more on mitch soon. first, let's discuss yet another anniversary. let's go back a moment to three years ago this weekend when my next guest predicted that we would eventually find out that russia meddled in our election. >> i think we are in a situation
of a national security crisis that's only going to get bigger. i think the russians are running a strategic political warfare operation against the united states, what appears to be happening, they're running an operation to select or influence their preferred candidate to get into the white house. democratic establishment of choosing a presidency is under attack now. and we really need to take this seriously. >> joining me, malcolm nance, msnbc contributor, author of "the plot to destroy anniversary." >> is that true, three years later, i have to come back, reiterate everything i said in 2016. >> and you said repeatedly. we were not not warned. we knew what was done, thank goodness we are friends with you and were able to talk about it. what do you make of the fact that the speaker of the house,
knowing what happened, whether or not he read your books, which he should have, we toedon't knof he read them or not, the murellr report is known, we don't have a consensus on binding the country together to protect this from happening again. >> there is a consensus, the problem is that doesn't include the president of the united states or anyone in the republican party. and certainly not the republican leadership. moscow mitch as he called him, at any time in the cold war, that's what he would have been labeled is now using his position as the leader of the senate to block all ability of the united states to defend itself at the state level, defend itself at a federal level. and is allowing them, putting building blocks in to allow them to attack this election without consequence. >> there's a couple of things
here. news week has an article talking about receiving donations from voting machine lobbyists before blocking election security bills. senate bills would burden the two largest voting machine vendors in the united states with new regulations and financial burdens. together the companies makeup 80% of voting machines used in the country, both have far ac lobbying arms in washington, d.c. many lobbies contributed to the mcconnell campaign reported sludge last month. i mean, mitch mcconnell as leader of the united states senate, you would think his first order of business would be to protect his country, but he does seem to be reluck at that particular time -- reluctant to do anything preventing his guy being in the white house. >> back in the '70s, remember all of the made for tv movies
where they would show a shadowy group referred to as "the man" manipulating the giant levers of how people were controlled and what happened in the government. no one believed there was the man. now we're seeing it. you can actually see the political mash nations, where one person is deciding whether american elections from now on and before will be free and fair. this is not just voter suppression. we may have a circumstance where the electoral process is directly attacked. where foreign actors, whether it is north korean intelligence, has robust cyber warfare capability, in their interest to keep donald trump in office, the chinese or again, vladimir putin and his entire russian organ, the republican party defends them.
they do not stand for the constitution of the united states. if they attack this election, it may be the last free and fair election that we go into which may come out with a corrupt result, which could fracture this nation. >> and make it even more local for moscow mitch as he was dubbed by our colleague joe scarborough. this is from fox news.com, no less, aluminum giant is among russian companies hit with sanctions for connections to oligarch dare pass ka. treasury announced he was removing rusal and two others, removing them from the sanctions list on the grounds that they reduced dare pass ka's direct and indirect share holding stakes in the companies. so we have russia coming in to
make money. we have a leader of the united states senate who seems more interested in putting as many right wing judges on the court as possible, keep the pen in donald trump's hands, he seems less interested in stopping these kinds of things. >> yeah, but you have to understand these kinds of things work for his base constituency. this is what's amazing about the republican party today. the republican party are literally commie lovers. okay? they talk about democrats being socialist, they love ex-kgb officer, former communist and his allies who are all communists, now dropping money in their districts to buy their politicians. they love kim jong-un. a north korean dictator communist. they have no problem with doing business on an equal level, allowing emoluments clause
violations by donald trump's children with china, a communist run autocrasy. they don't care if the money comes to their districts, they'll take commie money, then they'll go off and call anyone that opposes that anti-american. this is the most anti-american thing happening in this country today, the selling of american politics to dictators and communists. >> dana mill wrote a piece hitting mitch mcconnell, because what mitch mcconnell is claiming, that democratic attempts to protect our elections from foreign meddling, you made a clear point, now it is not just russia that are interested in getting involved in our elections and choosing our president, helping to choose our president. here's from the op-ed. here are things in the system today are, quote, partisan, in the sense if we were to do them, they advantage the democratic party or republican party. securing our voting system from foreign hacking. allowing every american to vote.
make it easy as possible for americans to vote, ensuring all votes count equal. now mitch mcconnell doesn't want fair elections. what is the explanation for saying he is more concerned about free and fair elections than he is about foreign influence? >> actually, your book goes to this point. america is no longer the melting pot we thought it was, the club sandwich many people describe it as. it is now turned into tribes. we're dealing with tribalism. and the tribe they represent is the white male tribe. and they say that. donald trump himself and fox news almost accidentally the other day came out and said this is a matter of the color of the country. and that color is a neutral color. the rest of us, the other 65% of america who believe with our hearts in the phrase e plur bus unum, we are no longer part of
their calculations. their tribalism is to put one tribe at the top and keep it at the top, whether it is apartheid system or not. that's why donald trump uses racist tropes and pushes white supremacy, allows them to feel good about owning america. and they're willing to sell the country to do it. i, for one, defended this nation every second of my life. i will go to my grave defending the constitution of the united states. but the constitution is for all of us. it is not for one tribe, it is not for one group, it is truly an equalizing document, and as the model of the u.s. army is, this will defend. they won't defend it because they no longer believe in it. >> let's do a little scaring is caring as we like to say. give us, if the next election is intervened in not just by russia but maybe by north korea or
china, maybe by many others that want to do business with donald trump, give us what that scenario could look like. give us worst case scenario. what is that like if elections are no longer between americans and other americans. >> this could be bad. i don't see that with any measure of hyperbole. my entire life has been boiled down to, my career goals were intentions of our enemies and warnings, giving you that. i am not joking when i say this could be the last free and fair election in american history. it may not be a free and fair election. even players like iran who have also a good cyber warfare capability, they have an initiative, an interest to make this election be filled with as much chaos as possible if only to punish donald trump. we should see all sorts of foreign actors, cyber actors and
humans, human intelligence agents as we saw russia bring into the united states before, it is in their interest to create not just chaos but to bring the united states to the point where this system of government no longer functions for the american people. >> this is scary. but we do it because we care. malcolm nance, thank you very much. always good to talk to you. happy anniversary to us talking about this
interference in our elections. >> nothing happy about that. >> thank you very much. love to talk to you. congress up, congressman ted lieu on robert mueller's testimony and what democrats will do now. ocrats will do now.
the campaign welcomed russian help, did they not? >> i think we report in the report indications that occurred, yes. >> the president himself called on russians to hack hillary's emails? >> there was a statement by the president on those general lines. >> the trump campaign officials built their strategy, messaging strategy around those stolen documents? >> generally that's true. >> and then they lied to cover it up. >> generally that's true. >> one of the most damning things to come from the mueller report and his testimony this
week was the extent to which the trump campaign accepted and even welcomed foreign help from russia during the 2016 campaign. now that we know russia targeted election systems in all 50 states, and republicans won't do anything to stop it from happening again, what are democrats going to do about it? joining me, congressman ted lieu from california, a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you for being here, congressman. in light of what we now know, that russians targeted not 26 states but all 50 states, and the fact that the senate leader mitch mcconnell refuses to take action, is there anything democrats can do to protect the next election? >> thank you, joy, for the question. anyone watching robert mueller's testimony can only conclude three things, that russians attacked us in a sweeping, systemic manner in 2016, that the trump campaign embraced that
attack, used information from it to their advantage, and president committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice to stop investigation into the attack. the house of representatives passed multiple bills to the u.s. senate to improve election security. mitch mcconnell has not taken them up for vote, very disappointing. we have to put pressure on the u.s. senate and mitch mcconnell to take the bills up for vote. >> one of the bills that mitch mcconnell is refusing to put on the floor would call for any campaign, american campaign getting offers of help from foreign government to report it to the fbi. he will not, mitch mcconnell won't allow that on the floor nor the other bill that allows paper ballots. here is what donald trump said in june, just in june to george stephanopoulos on abc whether or not he would be willing to accept foreign help. >> your campaign this time, foreigners, if russia, china, someone else offers information, should they accept it or call the fbi? >> i think maybe you do both. i think you might want to
listen. there's nothing wrong with listening. >> given the fact that donald trump said he would be open to taking help from norway or any other country that wanted to weigh in, help him win, when you also have no deal able to be reached between democrats and the republicans on both pledging not to accept foreign help, even though the republicans claim they don't want foreign help, they won't pledge with democrats to do it, the fact that nrcc has already been hacked, already had information stolen in a huge 2018 attack, so it could happen to them as well, but they won't agree with democrats. how will the next election be free and fair? how can we be confident that the next election will not be riddled with foreign interference from iran, saudis, from anyone else? >> that's a great question. there's two things going on. there's what the president says and then there's everybody else in the executive branch.
i have gone through briefings, including classified briefings on election security, and what i can say is that we have very capable, very patriotic fbi agents, department of homeland security officials, national security intelligence officials that don't want our elections hacked. you also have 50 secretaries of state, both republican and democrat that don't want our elections hacked, so you have a lot of people working to push back against the russians and other foreign powers. so we're investing more money, people are much more aware of the capability of our elections being hacked. i think we're doing the best we can in 2020. but i do trust that these patriotic americans are going to do what they said they were going to do, uphold the oath to the constitution. >> do you believe the president of the united states doesn't want foreign interference, does he not want our elections hacked? >> i don't pretend to understand how donald trump thinks. what i can say is that you never know first of all which side russia will choose. you also don't know what other countries are going to do.
so if we don't have safe and secure voting systems, it delegitimizes our entire election, and that is bad for a republican, for a democrat, for everyone across america. >> let me play the key moment from your questioning of robert mueller this week which later he had a correction on. here's the questioning. >> i believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met and i would like to ask you, the reason again that you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? >> that is correct. >> he went back later and corrected. that's one thing he went back and did correction on, he said that was not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report in the opening, we did not reach determination whether the president committed a crime. as a former prosecutor, do you believe he could be indicted for obstruction of justice after he
leaves office? >> absolutely. and right before i ask those questions, i had robert mueller walk through three elements of obstruction of justice. he said yes to the first two, and then with a third element, intent, i read from his report, and his report said there was, quote, substantial evidence, unquote of intent. so all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice were met, and let me just give analogy for basically what happened. it is like robert mueller saying here's a piece of bread, i'm putting ham on it, putting on top of it another slice of bread. we go that's a ham sandwich. he says well, i didn't make determination whether or not it is a ham sandwich because i was instructed i can't call it that. it is still a ham sandwich. >> good analogy. quickly, has to be a short answer. is what we're seeing in the house impeachment inquiry? >> so impeachment is not a binary question, it is a process. we have been investigating the president's misconduct. robert mueller's testimony was a watershed moment, he said yes and no to a large number of
devastating facts against the president. that's giving us predicate basis to go forward to actively consider whether or not we should file articles of impeachment. that's why we need grand jury information, as much as we can, for final litigation. >> i hate to press you. is what you described impeachment inquiry? >> i would call it impeachment investigation. i think people can call it impeachment inquiry. we are in the process of determining whether or not to file articles of impeachment. >> congressman ted lieu, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. robert mueller's testimony and theater versus substance.
hi, eric. >> whoa! >> don't be scared. it is just me, robert mueller, your dad's friend from work. >> i'm not allowed to talk to you. >> that's fine, eric. it was pretty clear early on that you don't know anything. >> nope. >> i wish i could say the same for some of your dad's friends. >> mr. mueller, people say you're the worst thing to ever happen to my dad. >> no, eric, getting elected
president was the worst thing that ever happened to your dad. >> that is robert de niro, a famous, brilliant actor whose job is to entertain and move you on screen. robert mueller is not robert de niro. seems pretty elementary to say, i say it despite our reality show in the white house and the saturated entertainment culture we live in, it is kind of important to be reminded the national security of the united states is not entertainment. and it is not robert mueller's job to entertain. when robert mueller was named the special counsel over russia gate, his job was to investigate any links or coordination between the russian government's attack on our election and individuals associated with the trump campaign. follow me on this a moment. it is important. once and for all, to make this clear, mueller's team determined
that russia attacked our election in two specific ways. by hacking the clinton campaign emails and distributing them to turn people off clinton and by using social media to try to lure americans to support trump. or not to vote at all. the first half of the mueller report offers extensive proof russia did all that to help donald trump win. the investigation led to charges against 34 people, including 26 russian nationals, some of trump's closest aides and advisers. mueller set out to determine whether anyone in the trump campaign helped the russian government hack the clinton campaign or distribute stolen democratic emails. on that score, they could not find evidence to convict anyone in the trump campaign of helping with two specific things, the hacking itself or helping with the distribution. that's it.
during the investigation mueller's team found a slew of other crimes as often happens in criminal investigations, including people who lied to the fbi or to congress about their interactions with russians. michael flynn, rick gates, pled guilty to lying to the fbi. michael cohen was caught lying about a trump organization real estate project in moscow. and paul manafort and rick gates were caught lobbying for foreign governments without registering as foreign agents. mueller also set out to determine whether trump tried to obstruct justice to stop the investigation into what russia or his team did. mueller's team found at least ten instances in which trump's actions raised concerns about possible obstruction of justice. the mueller report indicates that four of those instances had substantial evidence of supporting an obstruction of justice charge.
here's the catch. trump is president. and since the doj policies prohibit indictment of a sitting president, mueller's team believed they were not even allowed to ask whether he committed a crime. but here's the key, and this and not the thee atrics, not robert mueller's age or whether he gets an academy award for entertaining the media, this is the point. robert mueller was asked this key question in the first five minutes of the hearing. and this was the only answer that really matters. >> the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that's not what your report said, is it? >> correct. that's not what the report said. t that's not what the report said. think all premium fuels are the same? new shell v-power nitro+ premium gasoline is engineered with four levels of defense against gunk, wear, corrosion and friction.
at the hearings mueller confirmed the president of the united states was not totally exonerated. mueller also agreed trump obstructed the investigation multiple times. russia tampered with the election in trump's favor, and that the president welcomed that help, lied about welcoming it, and encouraged others to lie about it. in short, boring! >> the impact of trump's reality tv presidency became crystal
clear this week when robert mueller's testimony was critiqued as less than stellar performance with lackluster ratings. the media went on and on about mueller being old and slow. the lifelong civil servant that refused to take the bait, even when screamed at by republicans about the dossier stuck to his report, testifying that trump was not exonerated of crimes, something the mueller report repeats not once but twice. saying he could be charged with a felony crime of obstruction of justice after he leaves office. jaw dropping moments that took a back seat to mueller's lack of pizazz. joining me, clint watts, security analyst, author of moem messing with the enemy. thank you for being here. coming to you first, clint. going to play some critiques of mueller. take a listen. >> the movie was a senator, and part of it was frankly because
robert mueller seemed not in control of his brief, didn't seem in charge. >> not only did bob mueller not want to be there, he didn't have a good grasp of the information that was contained in his report. >> there were times in the hearing he was sharp as a tack, but we can't avoid the fact that there were times in the hearing that he was not. sometimes they spoke very quickly, they were not particularly polite and respectful of the fact this was a 74-year-old. >> let's ask garrett. >> so that kind of coverage drove me up the wall watching it. you also had a "new york times" piece saying the block buster that wasn't, mueller disappoints the democrats. it was not the movie the democrats sought or was mr. mueller star they cast. this was not a movie. the united states was attacked by a hostile foreign power, we are doing theater critiques of robert mueller and on his age when what he said i thought was clear, i had low expectations
going in, i thought he was clear saying he could not exonerate this man of crimes. >> he made some specific comments on wikileaks interaction between the campaign and wikileaks which were damning. the setup was wrong, should have done the russian part first and then gone to the election. you only have the audience the first hour, started at 8:30, it was a great opportunity. it wasn't surprising to me in many ways because i have been in briefings with then director mueller. he doesn't talk much. he is not a talkative person. haven't heard from him in two years. expectations were out of whack. i thought back to when have i seen hearings before. i remember watching iran contra hearings. no one wondered what the show was going to be like. this wasn't even part of the discussion. and really speaks to the current environment, if you win the crowd, you win the fight. whether there's substance behind it or not. it is really fascinating, the
speed when in real time people are evaluating how he is doing in terms of performance when performance art has never been his job. he is there to be reliable and speak to the report. >> does it infuriate you as somebody who yourself worked with the fbi that people seem to be ignoring what i thought were block buster repetitions. most people haven't read this. i destroyed mine, but when he reiterated out of his own mouth, he is a dignified person, to hear him say did you exonerate him, no. that means he potentially committed crimes he could go to prison for. that should be jarring in and of itself. does it infuriate you to hear people ignore that, listen to the theater of it? >> it has been going on a year and a half to two years, my frustration. it is very clear, one thing about this, it was a hacking and influence campaign. it is all out in the open. you hear there are going to be secret things. what's happening in the public is damning. this is not good. we don't need a report to solve
this. so the frustration the public doesn't mobilize around what happened is more who wins the show. i think that's what i'm most hurt by three years down the road. >> and navid who has been in this business as well, dealing with russia, beyond the russia piece there were other revelations that were block buster. toward the end, it was almost a throw away at the end, we found out it is not just russia, there are lots of other countries trying to buy their way into our elections. do you feel like we in general missed that and missed that headline? >> yeah, i think that's right. that was sort of buried in the lead. but that's exactly it. we know paul manafort and flynn and a bunch of other people in the trump orbit had their hand out looking for money. i think what we saw is not just the russians getting into that game, i worry the saudis and others got into it. you're out writing a check to a super pac and that goes to the trump campaign, now we have policy that's being shaped by
that donation, that's pro-saudi, anti-iran, drive us closer to war, that's shocking. again, the problem that i left with mueller, intelligence operations are as clint said, lot of people think they're secret. lot of ways we know russia is attacking our country. they're after us. we know what i said all along, americans helped them. the problem is as we saw our laws are and the kwated, a lot of actions don't rise to criminality. wikileaks quickly, wikileaks was clearly a dump meant to help donald trump. it has no cash value. as absurd as it sounds, because it has no cash value, may not be something you can indict on. someone had written a $10,000 check could be indictable. it is absurd. clearly it was a foreign hostile act and it is not indictable. >> the other thing that happened, natasha, republicans had their own operation, to take what was a hearing about attack on the election and turn it into
a scream fest in which they put up all sorts of other issues popular on fox news. here it is. >> he knows he is innocent. what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice. >> having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead. you put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran. >> drafting of a publication of some of the information in his report, without indictment, without prosecution flies in the face of american justice. >> how offensive to watch these men scream at a veteran war hero like he is a child and go hysterical at him, rather than help him defending our country against foreign attack. beyond that, in your reporting did republicans do what they wanted in their mind, this was
about making robert mueller look small? what was their plan. >> we expected this was going to happen, their line of attack, to discredit mueller and his team and make the entire hearing about the potential biases of his team. that was expected. i also think, you know, going back a little bit to this being a little more focused on theatrics than substance, we have to look at what the democrats had been saying for weeks and weeks leading up to the hearing, and what they were briefing reporters on in background, the refrain of people are going to watch the movie but they're not going to read the book, right? we were kind of anticipating this show and we were anticipating, you know, that mueller would go as far as to read directly from the report, which we found out the day of the testimony that mueller's team had gone to the democrats and said we're not going to allow mueller, and he doesn't
want to do this, doesn't want to read directly from the report. some blame has to be shifted to expectations put on the hearing, even though that's something mueller didn't want to do in the first place. >> they could have had the team sitting next to him, had them participate in briefing what was in the report because guys, just because it is called the mueller report doesn't mean mueller wrote all this. this was written by his team. they could have had the team there, too. thank you very much. coming up, have democrats gotten comfortable with impeachment? kind of. of. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith, who met with humana to create a personalized care plan. at humana, we have more ways to care for your health, and we find one that works just for you. no matter what your name is.
so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you.
here, it all starts with a simple... hello! -hi! 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.
you're saying there's no difference between what you're doing now and impeachment, correct? >> good morning and welcome to "am joy." the battle of impeachment took a major turn on friday with house chairman jerry nadler confirming the house is beginning an impeachment inquiry into donald trump, though they're calling it an impeachment investigation. the court issued a filing on friday demanding underlying grand jury material from robert mueller's investigation so the committee can, quote, consider whether to exercise its full article i powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity: approval of articles of impeachment. as of now, 98 members of the
house support an impeachment vote or inquiry, with that number growing by at least seven since robert mueller's testimony on wednesday. since nadler's announcement, multiple members of congress have called what we're seeing the inception of an impeachment inquiry. however, house speaker nancy pelosi still won't quite cross that line. >> let's get sophisticated about this, okay? the decision will be made in a timely fashion. this isn't endless. and when we have the best strong as possible case. >> joining us now is lawrence tripe, constitutional law professor at harvard university. professor tribe, you are the expert on this. is what we're seeing now an impeachment inquiry, in your view? >> yes. very short answer, it's a very easy question. a petition was filed yesterday by the house of representatives with the approval of the speaker
formally notifying the district court for the district of columbia, the federal district court, that an impeachment inquiry is now underway. so the eagle has taken off. there is no question about it. there may be political reasons for congressman lew, earlier in your program or others, to look for different names for it, but it's irrelevant. this is an impeachment inquiry, and it matters because under the law, as soon as the house of representatives, with or without a formal resolution, authorizing the opening of an impeachment inquiry, as soon as it actually conducts an impeachment inquiry, that unlocks the door to grand jury material and a lot else. that's what's going on now. that's what i've been calling forever since april. people who want more than that are obviously asking for the impossible. there is not going to be an impeachment vote on articles of impeachment until this inquiry
generates more information, even if we already have enough to justify impeachment. but the bottom line is, yes, the answer to your question, an impeachment inquiry is now underway. >> so given that, how does it change the power of the congress to subpoena people? because what we've seen so far is that the house committees subpoena someone in the trump world and they just say no, and they don't show up and then nothing happens. when it's an impeachment inquiry, do they have more power to make people appear? >> absolutely. for one thing a lot of the basis on which they may say no is that there is grand jury secrecy. the federal rules of criminal procedure prevent the release of information from the grand jury. but those rules make an exception under rule 6e once an impeachment inquiry is underway. so a court, quite apart from what any individual may want to do, a court is going to order
the opening of the gates, the release of information, both to the judiciary committee and to adam schiff's intelligence committee. on top of that, when witnesses are recalcitrant or when they hem and haw and they say, you can take your subpoena and, you know, shove it, when they say that, a court is going to push back. because now the house of representatives is invoking its most solemn power to decide whether or not to impeach a sitting president. all of the privileges and immunities and bases for hesitation that individuals might otherwise have go out the window. the priority now goes to the house of representatives and its ability, in a grand inquest of the nation, to get whatever information it needs to make an intelligent decision about whether or not the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and if so, exactly what to do about it.
>> here's my question now, because perhaps a lot of people don't have as much trust as they would like to in the supreme court. could the fact that democrats are reluctant to call it an impeachment inquiry and are calling it an impeachment investigation, could, then, the trump administration take this all the way to the supreme court and claim they don't have to follow subpoenas, et cetera, because the democrats haven't called it the right thing. >> you know, anything could happen. but it seems to me that would be so transparently and blatantly partisan and so manipulative that it wouldn't fly. because the cases make it absolutely clear that to make everything turn on which particular impeachment word you use, inquiry inquiry, it would be a violation of the court and other things, for the supreme
court to tell nancy pelosi what words she has to use, or how much pressure she has to put on her members to stand up and be counted. the house floor might vote on a resolution of some kind as a e prerequisite to getting the information. so it's not impossible but it would be well beyond what this very conservative court has done. >> professor lawrence tribe, it's always a pleasure to be able to talk to you. thank you for clearing a lot of that up. >> thank you, joy. nice talking to you. we have marissa kumar, legal annist paul butler and david jolly, msnbc contributcontribut. i'm coming right to the table with you, ellie. you've had members of congress come out and say yes. you had jay raskin said, we are in an impeachment inquiry.
he's on the side of impeachment. you have, this is an impeachment investigation, says eric swalwell. the professor says it's immaterial. they already filed the documents and now it's going to kick in. do you have faith that if the trump administration tries to play the word game like they did with muslim ban and go to the supreme court and say it's all about language, right, and try to use the partisanship of the majority to get away with saying, we don't have to listen to subpoenas because you didn't say impeachment inquiry. do you have faith in the supreme court at that instance? >> no, i have no faith in the supreme court and i'm shocked that anybody still does, especially after their wall decision yesterday and the muslim ban. professor is in the move, get out of the way.
because there isn't the impeachment resolution in front of congress, i don't know what the supreme court is going to do because the supreme court is compromised and we ever to understand what that exactly means, right? they are a compromised body full of hackery. i understand how nadler is playing this. he's kind of like putting all the chess pieces in exactly the right ordered to the attack on trump. trump is going to show up, he's going to flip over the chess board and say, i win. then john roberts will say what? he may say, well, i don't have the authority to pick up the pieces. i do not trust the supreme court to follow the law as opposed to following whatever makes donald trump happy. >> you have been saying for a really long time. it essentially said in the
mueller report, made it very clear, hey, it's yours now, congress. this is your gig. and you've been saying that, too. i'm not a lawyer, but when i read the decision on allowing the president to spend money he had not been allocated by congress. you read all the way through it and you think, wow. if we can't constituted that the power is sacrosanct if it's their guy. well, this is their guy. i wonder if they'll follow the supreme logic of professor tribe and go with what seems to be on paper or will they go with ly ig uistics. >> the answer is no!
he has joined the three ultra-conservatives that are there to bring decisions that will form his extreme views about political power, including impeachment. it's true when johnson was impeached in 1968, there was no formal inquiry. on the other hand, when clinton was impeached, the house had voted to impeach. pelosi will be safest if she wants to get the extreme superpowers that entry would give her, to get documents and demand testimony, she would be safe to how the house vempl vempltd --. it says that the congress has to
invi invi invite. that's the law. congress has to understand that the only way to remove our president who has obstructed justice and abused his office is with impeachment. >> and marissa kumar, she has a political problem on both sides of life. there was one on the other night saying they just want to do the deal with infrastructure and such. then the constitution says, we're it. there is no one else who can take care of his lawlessness. even in her leadership, let me play adam schiff talking about impeachment and what happens next. here is adam schiff, and i believe this was on friday. oh, thursday thursday. >> does the country benefit going through an impeachment if it's going to be unsuccessful? and we know in the senate, at least, it would be unsuccessful.
i'm not there yet, but i'm keeping on open mind and i may get there. 2020 is no question how he gets removed from office, so we can never lose sight of that. >> then you've got three democrats coming out and writing an op-ed. tz mary. so they're talking out of both sides at this point. what sense can we make of it? >> this is the challenge. if we can go back in time to 2006 when nancy pelosi first received her gavel, the reason the democrats won office is because we were able to expose all the lies that were associated with the iraq war. and the american public viscerally reacted to that. the number one reason that stated they went to the polls, .
that they felt the president was incongruent with their values. the majority of americans know something is off, they know the president isn't telling the truth, and yet there is a drip, drip, drip. as long as democrats take a stand and say, this is what we're going to do. we're going to follow the constitution, we're going to guarantee it will -- even show we know the people of color and people being treated unjustly by the judicial system, this reeks of elitism, it reeks of not having a law that equally treats everybody the same. and when i see this especially in our judicial systems, especially in our media. it's up to the democrats to say, this is what is right, this is what is wrong and go full steam
ahead. >> but they're all taken over by extreme partisanship at this point. literally he said i want america to impeach the president. we just want republicans to be present. that's how bad it was in 2000, let alone today. but inside of the democratic party, for a little reporting from you, david, the other theory of the case is that nancy pelosi knows she doesn't even have 218 votes on impeachment, and maybe the reason she's hemming and hawing isn't because she's against impeachment but because she has 30 conservative members who would vote for impeachment no matter what donald trump did. >> that's exactly right, joy. i think there are 31 to 41 members in the district who trump won. a lot of them have told her, i can't vote for a trump impeachment and tell my people
i'm going for it. if we lose it in 2020 and trump wins, then we're back to a second term of trump with both houses of congress controlled by republicans. that is the nightmare scenario, moving forward with impeachment and losing that fight because of democratic voters in the house is a nightmare scenario. so if you think impeachment won't remove trump, it gives you a different calculation. from my perspective as sort of a journalist here on the panel, i look at it and i think the democrats need to keep telling the story of trump corruption, whether it's russia, obstruction of justice, emolluments.
it's a blur in pennsylvania but who the democrats need to convince. so as we argue about impeachment, if that gets in the way of telling the trump story through oversight hearings and other matters, look at the statement that schiff gave on wednesday at the opening of his hearing with mueller which should have come in the morning. they need to deal with that over and over and over again in the 2020 election, and my concern is fighting about impeachment actually gets in the way of educating those 17 undecided voters. >> here's the problem, and david j jolly, i'm coming to you on this. if you say the brilliant thing that schiff says, but then he says, we're not going to impeach him, you say he's unpatriotic in the way he conducts his campaign, but we're going to let him go. he's making money being president, but we're not going to impeach him, right?
>> if democrats had what the republicans have, how long would it take them to impeach the president, even if they didn't have the votes? >> i was going to say one day, but you're right, probably one second. he and his coworker said that in nadler's file it releases letters of impeachment. every time nancy pelosi talks about impeachment, it's as though she's suffering through an inconvenience of some sort. i'm just going to be frank, i know we'll make a lot of people angry. every time i see nancy pelosi talk about impeachment, i see susan collins. because nancy pelosi has taken a susan collins approach on the impeachment matter. she's talked about the actions.
in 1974 with richard nixon and 2008 with bill clinton, the full house of representatives passed a resolution by the majority of the house directing the judiciary committee to open an inquiry, to take evidence and to report back to the house on whether impeachable offenses had occurred by the president of the united states. the house won't do that because nancy pelosi doesn't want that to happen, and at some point, we ever to expect our leaders to lead or what's the point of putting our faith in them. i think millions of people trust nancy pelosi. hats off to you. i understand there is reason to put your faith in her. but there are millions of people who don't at this moment and are questioning her leadership. >> what if she doesn't have the votes, david? it's a great strategy but you can't do that. >> i love that question and here's my answer to that because i appreciate you saying that in the last segment. at some point it is less important to protect your vulnerable members and more important to protect the
constitution. she's protecting them from doing that, but if we can't ask our leaders to take hard votes, what's the point of this? >> people are acting like the speaker of the house is in a benign position. there is nobody better at making people swallow a vote whether they like it or not. go back to health care. those liberals in the house did not want to vote for the senate bill. nancy pelosi made that happen because she whipped on it, and when she speaks, they listen to her. she could whip on it, she clearly is not going to at the moment. maria. >> not only could she whip on it but she also has the power of the purse. she can say, hey, guys, this is where a lot of deals can be sweetened when it comes to why people are on the fence or not. this is why there are dirty politics people don't like to talk about, but there is an incredible arsenal that she has, and that's from years of working in congress.
there are ways you can encourage people to vote a certain way, one way or the other. when folks say we don't want to talk about impeachment, i just remind people of benghazi. the benghazi hearings where it was a nothing burger but that literally marred hillary clinton when she came up to the presidency, because every single person, whether they were fully following the benghazi hearings or not, felt there was something questionable because it was always something that hung over her head. unless we do something that is that explicit, that transparent for the american public, all of a sudden we rely on word of mouth. is this something that's actually happening? and the way people get their information is through c-span and they're not trusting regular information. so how do they have this transparency? >> paul and ellie. >> maybe pelosi could get the votes in the house but probably not the two-thirds vote in the
senate that's required for removing the president from oflofl office. but some things you have to do for principal because it's the right thing to do. trump needs that historical stain on his record. in addition to the corruption and obstruction, the racism. that's an abusive office. that makes him unfit to serve. he literally said, go back to your own country. that man does not deserve to be president and congress must impeach him. >> ellie? >> i'm going to go all wait back to the english resolution because what needs to happen is for the people to stand up and start taking control of their government. if you go back to the english re revolution, king charles said he couldn't be tried. half the population said king charles couldn't be tried. but the republic went to king charles' house and brought him to parliament and tried him. that's what it's going to take. we're going to have to go to don mcgahn's house, lift him up and
put him in front of congress. if we're not willing to do that as a p.m., then trump, again, is going to keep flipping over the chess board and refuse to play ball. >> elie, we'll be back a little later. maria theresa kumar, paul butler, elie miss although, david jolly, thank you. the power of the people. do not miss it. thank you the power of the people. do not miss it the music event of summer...
the crowd stretched for miles. a sea of outrage in limbo. despite the rain, hundreds of thousands of people turned out, by far the largest demonstration yet. >> there's been corruption and we need a change. and we need the governor to resign. >> and resign he did. the soon-to-be governor was forced out of office after two weeks of island-wide protest in puerto rico. this came after a leak of almost 900 pages of crass, misogynistic material. protesters insist that the text messages were just the latest example of government corruption. this is what democracy in action
looks like, when americans hold their leaders accountable. so why hasn't this message gotten through to the rest of us? joining us now live from san juan is the politician elizabeth morahito who was the counsel from 2014 to 2017. thank you for being here, melissa. you were one of the people attacked by this governor. was it his crass interviews that cost him his job or something more? >> i think exposing the 900 pages, the center for investigative journalism put it out there. i think it just laid bare what many people had known. this is not you just about him, this is about the systemic corruption that has existed, about how the people were not being made the proiiority.
this was all about special interests and using your friends and going against the power of the individual. i think it was just laid bare and it was just the breaking point for people that said, you know what, enough of this, we're in a moment of crisis. we're in the rebuilding after hurricane maria, we're in the middle of a fiscal crisis. there was no interest from that administration to make the people and the will of the people the priority. so it really is an incredible moment. historic is definitely an understatement about what we have seen when half a million and close to a million people on two different occasions took to the streets to say enough of politics as usual. it is a revolution because they're asking and demanding for systemic change. they don't want to go back to the way things were. they're demanding systemic change from the government and how things happen in puerto rico. >> they ousted the government which is pretty incredible. there is a piece in usa today that talks about how he's in a
downturn, the poverty rate of 44% -- that's huge -- is at least twice as high as anyplace in the u.s. and the unemployment rate of 8.5% is more than double the national june figure of 3.8%. let's talk about who will likely take over his place as governor. her name is wanda vazquez. >> she is definitely in his camp so there are concerns about the kind of deal that will be struck or the conversation. the governor controls both houses in the legislature here in puerto rico. so there is a lot of jockeying and a lot of back and forth and
a lot of conversation, but again, she has had issues also. one of the major issues here that was exposed is the issue of the feminist collective, which is a women's organization on the island who has asked for a state of emergency to be called here on the island due to the incredible number of women and the violence that puerto rico is undergoing. she has sat silent on that isi e when she led the women on a variety of issues. also her position has not investigated thoroughly issues of corruption. there are a lot of issues but, again, this is symbolic of politics as usual of the th. then you alluded to the mission control board. we cannot have these mechanisms that lay bare that we are a colony of the united states and attempt to break the will of the puerto rican people. the people need to be able to decide their destiny and that is
a critical message that us are calling forward, and those who affect solidarity should continue to express. >> i think you said the right thing, puerto rico is still being treated as a colony. economically it's still being treated as a colony but it's pretty incredible. thank you very much. just for one moment, i asked elie mystal to sit with me for a moment. you made an important comment in the last block. this is an important call for democracy that we're not seeing with t since the women's march. we're not really seeing it in the health care uprisings. >> what you see are societies not dominated by white males. when you are not dominated by white males, you have the ability to have this uprising. the reason why we don't have this uprising here is because what trump is fundamentally offering is the continuation of
white male patriarchy and the white mail patriachs don't really want to do this. you don't see marches led by the white males who are benefiting from trump's system. and until the rest of us, which are a majority of this country, kind of come together, squash our differences and try to stop these people, we will not see what we need to see. >> it can be done. it was done in egypt, for christ's sake. it's remarkable we don't see people in the streets. there's babies in cages. the concigliere william barr takes it down a notch. get some coffee.
. many thanks to all of you who helped put my book on the new york time best seller list for the fourth week in a row. i'll be at uncle bob's coffee and books with mark lamont hill. it all starts at 3:30 p.m., so if you're in the philly area, please do stop by. coming up tonight, you can see me on "saturday night politics with johnny deutsch. here's a preview. >> i think democrats are going to look like tone-deaf idiots and where the other team are
talking like fascists, send him back to where he came from? >> maybe we have to keep our eye on donald trump. >> i think there will be a debate going after kamala harris and cory booker. she has no incentive to attack him. she did her thing already. she's shown she's strong. i agree with you that what they should do is sthhow me as a democrat, which one of you could take him down? >> you can see more tonight at 8:00 p.m. on saturday night politics. but up next, william barr sets the bar even lower. more on that next. barr sets the bar even lower more on that next. ew. right? that's why febreze created new small spaces. [clicking sound] press firmly and watch it get to work... [popping sounds] unlike the leading cone, small spaces continuously eliminates odors
the special counsel found no collusion by any americans. there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. after finding no underlying collusion with russia, there was, in fact, no collusion. >> and from that moment, the spin was in. william barr, ostensibly your attorney general, who acts more like donald trump's personal lawyer, kicked off the information campaign declaring no collusion, no obstruction. robert mueller's testimony this week laid waste to that information. mueller was crystal clear in saying that his report found that russia's interference was for trump and trump aides accepted it and his
investigators did not exonerate trump of obstruction. the end. so that's that, mr. barr. or not? barr, who is a very busy man, has already moved on to the next items on his agenda. his justice department is leading the lawsuit to take 30 million americans' health care away. he defied his own department's recommendations and let the police officer who killed eric garner off the hook. and this week the doj said they will bring back the death penalty after a near two-decade lapse. five inmates will be put to death starting this december. joining the conversation is joyce vance, msnbc contributor and journalist. they're going to start killing people again. william barr says that's a prior. what do you make of that? >> every attorney general has somewhat of a shift in priorities and nuance, and when he saw that when attorney general jeff sessions came on board and rolled back much of
the smart on crime practices that president obama and his attorney generals had been putting in place. but what's happening with barr, and it does seem, joy, like he feels almost emboldened by the end of the mueller report era. this is a sharp right turn back to policies that are very problematic and very difficult. you know, death penalty wherever you are on it idealogically is an enormous misuse of prosecutorial resources, lots of time, lots of resources involved. i had a law school professor who used to say there would be no need for the death penalty if you could ensure that the most violent criminals would only come out of prison in a pine locks, and federal sentencing makes that a reality. so this seems to be more of a political move than one that's conditioned on ensuring that criminals are deterred from crimes and other criminal justice priorities. >> yeah, i mean, elie, it does seem like william barr wants to take us back to the byzantine
era, not even the '50s like the president. capital punishment america is racist by the disproportionate share of black people on whom it is imposed. 34% of inmates put to death since 1976. on the drug protocol, which has been called cruel and unusual by many people, barr said he would use the three-drug procedure with a simple drug. figuri phenobarbit phenobarbitol, that is widely available. the drug cocktail had fallen out of favor because of botched executions that prompted a slew lawsuits. what do you think he's here to do? >> he's here to wipe off the president and put forth these policies. as i said in the last segment, the white supremacy is the point of the trump administration and barr is just another one of the executioners, pun very much
intended. my question is this. joy, you and i were on right after he was nominated, right as he was dealing with the barr report, and you and i had to deal way lot of people who told us that william barr was an institutionalist, told us that william barr was going to do the right thing. so now all those people were wrong and we are right. what do we win from that? when are we going to understand that the people who work for trump, every person who works for trump, is complicit in the atrocities and human rights violations that the trump administration creates. when are we going to understand that, when are we going to start reacting to that, when are we going to start treating them that way? when are we going to stop giving them fellowships at harvard university? yes, they're in office now. yes, they're in power now. good job. eventually william barr is not going to be the attorney general anymore, and what's going to happen to him then? i'm willing to vote for the democratic candidate who is going to do something about these people once they are no longer clothed in power.
>> joyce, the thing is you have this guy who is refusing to recuse from the epstein case, whose father worked at the school where he was hired and was, you know, essentially had him teaching in a high school with no college degree, and he's not going to walk away from that. he doesn't seem to have even a sense of history of where he will land in it. none of them do. that's, i think, the thing that's most shocking about the trump administration is that the corruption is open because none of them fear the consequences. they know they'll do what they're doing and land a fellowship at harvard and it's all good. >> some of the these calls that are easy calls, for instance, the recusal call, and barr himself during confirmation hearings even intimated that he would recuse and now that's off the table. the doj folks that thought that barr's institutionalism would carry the day, they were wrong.
i was wondering at the time where that institutionalist line was coming from, because all you had to do was read the 19-page letter that barr had written to recognize that this was someone who did not belong at the helm of the justice department. where he is now is even a step further of that expansive view of executive power. now he really is out in ethos in space where no other attorney general has gone. we're having to deal with the reality of the policy changes he's making, the abrupt about-faces he's making in supreme court litigation in the here and now. and nothing will change that. >> or the institutionalists could have just looked at his history. he was called the cover-up general by william sapphire, who is as far right as you could get. the cruelty is not only the point. it seems to be the policy. elie, we now have essentially no civil rights division in the
justice department for all intents and purposes. no hope that we will be protected from voter interference in the states. no hopewell be protected about russian interference. and william barr has essentially all but said that this president -- because it's not for all presidents -- for republican presidents, that they have absolute power andp them a nothing they are not able to do. he has essentially said this president is a king. >> yes. yes. >> what do we do about that? >> that's why i keep saying, at some point you've got to take to the streets. we were just mentioning the supreme court that authorizes trump to steal money from the pentagon to build his wall. how do you stop that? if you have a wall, give me a sledgehammer. that's at point where we have to be with these people where we have to be willing to take to the streets, to lay down in front of the tanks, to literally break down the walls because --
i used the english revolution so i'll use the french revolution now. let's remember everything ropes pierre did was illegal until he capitalized -- deckacapitated t states that institutionalized him. now trump is doing everything illegal. my choice is now no longer, should i follow the legal laws or not? the choice is simply, what am i going to do legally, illegally, fair or unfair to try to oppose and stop these people? that's the only choice i have left to make. >> it's scary, joyce, because it means that we are outside the law at this point. essentially it is whatever donald trump wants to do is the law, at least as far as william barr has shown himself to believe. on the wall case that elie just mentioned, you now have the conservative
conservative, republican -- i just called them the republican majority on the court -- saying that money cannot be spent on an executive in the meantime while they're deciding -- basically they said the people who sued the sierra club, i guess, are not the right litigants? they're saying there is a question whether a private entity can administer the congress' allocation of money, but they're saying in the meantime, donald trump can take money he was not given by the house of representatives and spend it. how far outside of reality are we if that's the case? >> well, look, this decision is just wrong-headed. it's interesting to contemplate how this decision might play if a future democratic president decides to take the money for climate change policy, to promote good policy, and will this party continue to believe that a representative can continue to use money that
congress puts out. it's more of a political win for trump who can now, during the next election, say, look at me, i successfully built my wall over opposition. and that, i think, is a sad abuse of the supreme court's rule. >> the institutionalists believe the polls and thought that hillary clinton would win and they would fix russia collusion later. the institutionalists believed william barr would be a good attorney general because he's an institutionalist fellow. they keep on believing the system is going to work and now the same institutions are telling us, we can fix this with another election where 50 states have already been accessed by russian intelligence. this is all fine. elie mystal, joyce vance, it's all fine. >> what could possibly go wrong? >> we have new reaction from elijah cummings responding tie se -- to a series of tweets by president trump about baltimore, the city that he represents. he was on the fox morning show
when they talked about elijah cummings and "the squad." right away donald trump attacked cummings and his district. he responded, mr. president, i go home to my district daily. each morning i wake up and i go and fight for my neighbors. it is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the exec tifr branch. but it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents. more elijah cummings in the world, please. coming up, a reaction to attacks on elijah cummings. but up next, more "am joy." nex. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.
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.
a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.
so then you have to look at why is russia doing this? what else is going on? well, what else is going on is you have a special counsel who is investigating russia, stealing cloint emails or dnc emails. and then, i mean, it's not rocket science before you add it up and you go, oh, if seth is the leaker to wikileaks, it sdents have anything to do with the russians. so of course russia's interest in doing this is incredibly
transparent. let's blame it on seth rich. he's a very convenient target. >> that was one of the many fascinating clips from a new podcast called "conspiracy land." it explores the origins of the conspiracy theorize about dnc employee seth rich shortly after his murder during a botched robbery in washington, d.c. on march 10, 2016. prosecutors like the one you heard in that clip found that russia -- surprise, surprise -- began spreading these conspiracy theories three days after rich's death using tv and sites like sputnik. we have michael isikoff, author of "russian roulette."
michael, good to have you. >> good to be here. >> the fever swamps of right wing online, et cetera, where did it originally come from? >> this was one of the nastiest conspiracy theories to arise out of the 2016 election. the idea that seth rich was somehow the target of a political assassination because he was going to -- because he leaked the dnc emails to wikileaks or was going to reveal corruption about the clintons, nothing to substantiate that. but what we found, as you heard from deborha srines, what was concluded to be a botched robbery, there was a fake
bulletin suggesting he was gunned down by a squad of assassins working for hillary clinton. and this conspiracy theory about seth rich, you can watch it migrate through social media to alt right web sites. roger stone picks it up and promotes it on twitter on august 9th, just a few weeks later. julian assange offers a reward on the murder of seth rich, suggesting the same day that roger stone was tweeting that seth rich was his source for the dnc emails. and then ultimately it finds its way to the trump white house. we have steve bannon quietly promoting this conspiracy theory and ultimately fox news, which goes crazy on it in may of 2017. incidentally, the very week that robert mueller is appointed as special counsel. >> and the thing about it, let's put a pin in assange for a moment.
he knows where he got those emails. but he tries -- and it's in the mueller report as well -- this sort of shading that it might be seth rich. >> what's so cynical about what assange is doing, he obviously fanned the flames quite a bit when he gives that august 9 interview to a dutch tv reporter which you can hear on conspiracy land. we know from the mueller report exactly when and how assange got the dnc emails. it was july 14th in an encrypted file from goosifer 2.0, the online persona from the russian gru. seth rich was killed july 10th, four days before wikileaks got the dnc emails, so there is no way he could have been the source for those emails. but assange, seeking to deflect from where he really got them, throws that out there and adds
fuel to the seth rich conspiracy fire. >> very quickly, if you could talk about this, this is one of the craziest things, and i don't know if you'll do a conspiracy land episode, but the reticence, even people on the left, the willingness to believe that the clintons are murdering people, this is not new. >> no. this goes back to the 1990s. vince foster, the clinton body count. you actually saw it revived this week on twitter in the wake of jeffrey epstein's injuries in jail. but this has been a steady conspiracy theory on the far right, the fringe right, for quite some time. but what you had here with seth rich was the interjection of the russians to promote it. by the way, the media agency that was doing all that interception played a key major role in fanning this conspiracy theory. it's all laid out in this
six-part podcast. >> the podcast is called "conspiracy land." you can get it wherever you get your podcasts. definitely check it out. i will be checking it out. michael, thank you for being here. >> thank you, joy. more "am joy" after the break. "am joy" after the break. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
xfinity mobile is a designed to save you money. whether you use your phone to get fit or to find the perfect gift, you'll use less data with a network that automatically connects to millions of wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. so you save hundreds of dollars a year on your wireless bill. xfinity mobile has the best network.