tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC September 13, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
tonight. there's one story you should watch for developments in over the weekend. one of the things we've been talking about on this show is the potential that there might be a -- the opioids version of what was the multibillion dollar tobacco settlement, purdue pharma is trying to pursue that settlement. bomb she will story tonight in "the new york times" which says the subpoena has turned up more than a billion dollars to entities controlled by the sack ler family that owns purdue pharma. there are allegations now that that family may have essentially rated purdue pharma to take all the money all of that company, to leave no money for victims, less money for victims as they approach the settlement talks. those are red-hot allegations
advanced by this reporting in "the new york times," and i expect that will lead to more reporting and consequences over the weekend. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. tive justice department filing tonight. it's the breaking news of the night. them saying, the justice department, that house chairman of the judiciary committee jerry nadler has no right to see grand jury material related to the mueller investigation. and you know who has something to say about that? >> who? >> jerry nadler. >> you have nadler? >> you know where he is right now? he's over here. >> that was an excellent reveal. >> come by and say hi on your way out the door. >> bye. >> house judiciary committee jeremy snarlgds here to talk about the breaking news of the night with the trump justice department trying to block his subpoena for grand jury material from the mueller investigation. chairman nadler will be our first guest tonight with his reaction to that new legal filing by the justice
department. also tonight, donald trump lost a big round in court today on the emoluments case against him, which has now cleared legal hurdles to move forward. we'll take a look at last night's debate and show you why you can ignore everything in the policy details the candidates argued about last night. cal perry will join us with a new must-see investigation into the potential dangers of the practice of flaring, natural gas in texas. we begin tonight with the breaking news, the trump justice department headed by the trump attorney general, william barr, told a federal court in washington tonight that the house judiciary committee should be denied any access to grand jury material from the mueller investigation because impeachment is not a judicial proceeding according to the justice department. the justice department filing in court notes that grand jury material can be released in connection with a judicial proceeding. the justice department then
insists, quote, impeachment proceedings in congress, including hypothetical removal proceedings in the senate, are not judicial proceedings under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term. judicial proceedings are legal proceedings governed by law that take place in a judicial form before a judge or magistrate, proceedings outside the judicial setting are not judicial proceedings even if they are called a trial and include some of the procedures familiar from a courtroom such as sworn testimony or lawyer-led questioning of witnesses. the committee for its part offers no explanation for how rule reference to judicial proceedings authorizes administered by members of congress. yesterday the house judiciary committee on a party line vote voted for a resolution for
investigative procedures offered by chairman gerald nadler. that resolution describes in detail the procedures the committee will use in what it calls the committee's investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to president donald trump. leading our discussion tonight, the chairman of the judiciary committee, jerry nadler. chairman, the justice department seems to be making two cases here. first of all, that this is not a judicial proceeding in your committee, therefore, you do have a right to this. second, even if it was a judicial proceeding, interpreted that way, you still don't have a right to it, even if it went to trial, even if it went to a senate trial, you don't have have a right to any of this material. they're saying that you aren't even having an impeachment investigation, there isn't, they
insist, there is no impeachment investigation in the house. >> well, let me deal with that in reverse order. we've been very clear for the last several months in court filings, in public statements, and in proceedings in the committee that we are, in fact, conducting an investigation, preparing to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house. now, you can call that an impeachment investigation, impeachment inquiry, those terms have no legal meaning. but that's exactly what we're doing. we're involved in an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house. we will determine that at the conclusion of this investigation. now, i know the republicans and the justice department is acting as an arm of the republican party. most impeachments done since the
reorganization act of 1946 have begun in the judiciary committee have not had house authorizations at all. the nixon impeachment had a house of authorization six months after the investigation started in the judiciary committee, and that was done as was the clinton house authorization in order to give committee the right to do certain kinds of subpoenas and depositions. the house rules changed, we have that authority without specific resolution of the house. there's no question that we are doing an investigation toward determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment. the second argument they make is that that doesn't qualify as a judicial proceeding, therefore, we're not entitled to grand jury information. this is another instance of the trump administration trying to cover up and hide from congress and from the american people, in
this case from congress because the american people wouldn't stee grand jury information, all kinds of information. the president said he would defy all subpoenas, which they have done. that was article 3 of the nixon impeachment to find subpoenas. the law says that oop upon request by the chairman of the ways and means committee, the department, the irs shall give tax returns for any individual. they have refused to do so. they have said they haven't shown adequate purpose. that's none of their business. they're justifying all the law in order to hide everything from congress and the american people. now, their excuse here that this is not a judicial proceeding, there is judicial precedent for calling for considering impeachment proceeding either judicial proceeding or preparatory judicial proceeding but i'll let the details go to the legal -- to the reply brief that will be filed this week.
>> in the nixon case, it was ordered grand jury materials handed to your committee. that's one of the precedents you're reilying on. they use what in courtroom terms would be called extrajudicial comment, meaning they use statements that speaker pelosi has made when talking to reporters or trying to explain situation to the american public. they use that in these filings to say -- to try to say there isn't an official proceeding going on. they say the speaker of the house says it is not a true impeachment proceeding on the same day the house adopted the resolution that the committee claims authorized this suit, the speaker told a reporter the house democratic caucus was not even close to an impeachment inquiry. >> that was back in june. the house democratic caucus doesn't do an impeachment inquiry. second of all, the speaker has
been very supportive of every step we've taken in initiating this impeachment investigation. every correspondeurt filing, ev statement, official statement in the committee was okayed by her at the time. the house counsel who prepares, makes all the legal filings on behalf of the judiciary committee reports to the speaker, not to the chairman of the judiciary committee. she's been fully supportive of every statement we have made and of the initiation. even the procedures that the committee voted, which included in the preamble a history of how this investigation started, and of the resolution passed by the house back in june authorizing subpoenas and other things, and the accompanying report which
says, among other things, in order to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house, all of that was done with the speaker's approval and direct involvement. >> the justice department filing says that the committee does not know whether it's going to have articles of impeachment or vote on articles of impeachment of the president. the committee might end up with just a censure or not take action. >> that's like saying you shouldn't show evidence to the jury because the jury hasn't made up its mind at the beginning of the trial. of course we haven't determined yet whether to recommend articles of impeachment. that's why we're having this investigation to determine whether the evidence is sufficient and important enough to justify the rather extraordinary step of voting articles of impeachment. one can have one's personal
opinions as to the quality of that evidence, but you don't announce the conclusion at the beginning of the trial or proceeding. >> the judge ordered the grand jury material handed over to the committee before the judiciary committee decided that it was going to vote on articles of impeachment. and also the committee didn't necessarily know whether the vote on articles of impeachment would pass. >> of course not. a proper investigation, a proper proceeding to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment, whether by the judiciary committee in 1973 and 74 with respect to nixon or now, you don't start off with a conclusion. you may have personal opinions. but you don't start of with an official conclusion. you examine the evidence and you make a conclusion. now, i think personally the evidence is very strong, but that's my personal opinion at the moment. we are going to have a very aggressive series of hearings starting next tuesday to bring out the witnesses.
and we're going to go well beyond the parameters of the mueller report. it's not just the question of collusion with the russians in the election and the question of obstruction of justice, which i think is very clearly indicated in the mueller report. but the question of self-dealing and self-enrichment that american taxpayer money is going directly to the pocket of the president that apparently saudi money is going directly to the pockets of the president because all of this in direction violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution because of the very corrupt actions where you direct the air force to use the trump hotel or foreign governments seeking to influence united states government have their delegations stay at trump hotels, which he hasn't divested himself of an interested in, which means money directly into his pocket. we have to take a look at his failure to defend. i mean there's plenty of evidence that mueller testified
to this, senator coates, former director of national intelligence, that we're under attack now in terms of our election and they expect them to intervene next year. had the president done anything to carry out his oath to protect and defend the constitution, to see that the laws against election interference are protected? the fact that he has defied all congressional subpoenas is an obstruction of the work of aggression. the central purpose of impeachment is not to punish crimes. the central purpose as described by the federalist papers et cetera is to preventive aggrandizement of power by the president, to protect liberty, the separation of powers, to prevent the president from assuming power over the congress and over the judicial branch. his complete subversion of this
by refusing all information to congress and even this brief could be read as part of that, that was article 3 in the nixon impeachment, and nixon didn't go so far as to say he would oppose all subpoenas as this president has said he would do and has done. i think there's very, very serious reasons. some people say, by the way, why should we impeach the president, the senate would never convict anyway. i think it's very important that this kind of conduct, if you can prove it, be called out, that the constitution must be vindicated, and that a president -- and the next president and the one after him or her has to know you can't do this sort of thing. you have to protect the institutions of government so that powers aren't centralized so you don't get to a dictatorship. >> is stormy daniels going to be a witness in front of your committee? >> i don't know she will be, but
the misuse or the payments to the women, to stormy daniels and forget the name of the other woman, to prevent that information from coming out in order to influence election is something we're going to look at. >> chairman nadler, thank you very much. when we come back, president trump's big defeat in court today. the executive director of the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington which is suing donald trump for violating the emoluments clause will join us next. later, we'll get an important update on maria isabel buesos' situation from her representative in congress. on august 13th, she assessed letter that said she had 33 days to leave the country. today is day 32. ou have moderato severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness
are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.
that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. get up to 45% off on select computers. ♪ (burke) at so we know how to cover we'almost anything.verything (bert) even a "not-so-handy monster." (johnson) what is going on in here! i can't hear myself think! (grover) what does it look like, sir? i am here to help you with your water heater.
. today president trump lost a big round in one of the emoluments cases filed against him in federal court and appeals court in new york ruled that a lawsuit against the president brought under the emoluments clause of the constitution can proceed. a federal trial court had dismissed that case with the federal judge there saying the case appeared to be politically motivated. today the appeals court said while it is certainly possible that these lawsuits are fueled in part by political motivations, we do not understand the significance of that fact. whether a lawsuit has political motivations is irrelevant to these determinative issues.
while the existence of a political motivation for a lawsuit does not supply standing, nor does it defeat standing. joining us now is noah bookbinder from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, which is suing president trump for violating the emoluments clause. noah, this is one of your cases. your reaction to how the court ruled today? >> we're thrilled with how the court ruled today. we're obviously not happy that two and a half years on, we're in a place where this lawsuit is not only as important as it was the day we brought it, the president's first day in the oval office, but so much more important. we were worried when we brought this lawsuit that the president in holding onto ownership of his businesses would be using the presidency, not just to enrich himself but to create conflicts of interest where those who were seeking to influence him could
patronize his businesses and then you wouldn't know whether he was acting in the interest of the country or in his own business and financial interests. and that has come true in spades. we've seen that more and more brazen brazenly lately, so it's important they go forward in the courts and we're glad that the secretary circuit court of appeals said that could happen today. >> it should be noted you're working in novel legal territory. it's not like we have a bumbling of case law on presidents violating the emoluments clause. >> that's absolutely right. there are three cases currently pending against the president for this, the one that c.r.e.w., joined by business owners who compete with the president's hotels but obviously can't offer access and influence over the president, there's the ones that -- there's that case that
was decided today. there's a case that the district of columbia and the state of maryland brought and the case that members of congress brought. but prior to that, you didn't have any federal courts considering this issue of the emoluments clause. this is really new territory, and it's really important that the abuses stop. >> we had 44 presidents with none of them running businesses trying to make money off the federal government. >> that's right. the emoluments clause to the constitution were not household names. it was not something most people knew about because presidents just followed them. presidents didn't try to keep global businesses going while they were serving. they didn't take money from the federal government and the states and foreign governments while in office. they just followed the law. president obama went through a
lot of deliberations to figure out whether or not he could accept the nobel prize and whether that would violate the emoluments clause. president trump just blew through that. we at c.r.e.w. put out a report just weeks ago finding that there have been now been 2,300 conflicts of interest between the president's businesses, the presidency and those trying to influence it. this is something that's happening every day and that he has no qualms about violating but seems intent to use the presidency to advance his businesses on a daily basis. >> a big win for noah bookbinder today. thank you so much for joining us today. we appreciate. >> it thank you so much for having me. when we come back, the trump administration told maria isabel buesos that she has to leave the country by tomorrow or face deportations. the man who represents her congressional district where she lives in california will join
us. he has been fighting to save isabel. he will join us next. that i can get. the bres at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ bueso bueso bases o bueso base ♪ ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers
now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood now starting at $7.99. ♪ ♪ around here, the only predictable thing about the weather is it's unpredictable. so we make the most of it when the sun does shine. that's why bp is partnering with lightsource, europe's largest solar company. and should the weather change, yet again, our natural gas can step in. to keep the power flowing and the lights shining. no matter the forecast. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell.
fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. big dreams start with small steps... ...but dedication can get you there. easily set, track and control your goals right from the chase mobile® app. chase. make more of what's yours®.
with time, comes change that's for sure... and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash, tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love. it's a viable effective way to support your other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now!
. >> i'm asking congress to come together and right the wrong of this changing policy. this is not a partisan issue. this is a humanitarian issue. and our lives depend on it. thank you so much. >> that was maria isabel bueso testifying for her life on wednesday. the trump administration sent her and other patients suffering with deadly illnesses letters telling them they had to leave the country by tomorrow or be deported. this was an unannounced policy by the trump administration for people who are in this country to receive life-saving medical care. after isabel's story went public, the trump administration sent letters to isabel and other patients telling them that their cases were being reopened, but the letters did not explain what reopened means and the letters didn't explain what would happen
next. joining us now by phone is democratic congressman mark desaulnier who represents the california congressional district where she lives with her family and where she's been participating in medical studies that have helped save and extend the lives of americans who suffer from the rare disease that isabel has been struggling with all of her 24 years. congressman, we are certain that isabel is not going to be deported tomorrow, but do we know anything else about what happens next? >> not really. we have a six-hour hearing, lawrence, as you know. that ask you for inviting me and all your reporting on this. the administration -- >> we're having trouble with the congressman's telephone connection to us. i'm not sure if we have him. i just want to read a memo that's been discovered by politico regulator on it today.
people have been wondering where did this policy come from, who started this policy. and there is a memo that was used in a meeting last week about this policy that politico published today. it is from the policy and strategy chief kathy new bell covery rick on the citizenship and immigration services. and she wrote in that memo that her department and she strongly believes that the exercise of deferred actions in subject to abuse and she said if we continue to accept such requests even with narrow medical criteria, we will be creating a defacto program of criteria which are not enumerated in the statute of regulations and that runs counter to the president's agenda to enforce our existing laws. so there is the memo. the smoking gun so far in the investigation of who's responsible for this.
and that's kathy new bell covaric saying this enforces the president's immigration agenda to enforce our existing laws against people like easy bell, who you're seeing on this screen right now. she was not the only medical beneficiary of this program to testify on wednesday. let's listen to jonathan sanchez if in wednesday's hearing. >> the day our lawyers told us that the medical deferred action program was canceled, i started crying and told my mom i don't want to die, i don't want to die. if i go back to honduras, i will die. >> according to kathy's memo, jonathan sanchez is one of the people who, in her view, might be abusing this program. she is claiming that because of
abuse, people like jonathan sanchez cannot be allowed to stay in this country and have to be sent to their deaths in his case, back to honduras. congressman desaulnier is back with us on the phone. congressman, this memo from politico that's been reported on today, i was just reading that for the audience. i know you've seen it. and this makes it pretty clear that it was part of kathy's department and she strongly believe that this program was subject to abuse and had to be stopped. >> so we'd like them to demonstrate that. we have asked for all the documents the oversight committee assured me today that we will get those. looks like we're going to have to issue subpoenas because as usual, the administration is not forthcoming. >> i think we're losing the congressman's telephone connection again.
driving out there in the district somewhere. there's a lot of hills and valleys there. congressman desaulnier, thank you very much for joining us tonight. we appreciate your attempt to connect with us. we're going to be right back with more. when we come back, the most intense part of last night's presidential debate was also the ugliest part of last night's presidential debate. it was the part of the debate that provoked pete buttigieg to say this is why presidential debates are becoming unwatchable. that was his word, unwatchable. it was also the least important part of that debate, what pete buttigieg called the unwatchable part. i'll show you why next. lost wei" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off.
♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers now starting at $7.99 now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. now starting at $7.99 ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was-- ♪ born to walk alone! ...barb! you left me hangin' on the high harmony there.
if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. this reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about washington, scoring points against each other, poking each other and telling each other my plan, your plan. look -- >> that's called a democratic primary. >> the immutable law of presidential campaign debates is the more you know about government and policy, the less satisfying the debate is. many of the lines that get the biggest reaction in presidential debates are declarations of hope on matters that are completely under the control of congress. the most stirring line in last night's debate was one of those. >> in odessa, i met the mother
of a 15-year-old who was shot by an ar15. that mother watched her bleed to death because so many people were shot by that ar15, there weren't enough ambulances to get to them in time hell yes, we're going to take your ar15, your ak-47. they're not going to be allowed to be used against fellow americans anymore. >> the health care section of the debate was the longest and most contentious part of the debate as it veered out of control with confusing policy points and interruptions and insults. senator kamala harris said the most important thing, that voters have to know about health care policy right now in america. >> everybody on this stage i do believe is well intending and wants that all americans have coverage and recognizes that right now 30 million americans don't have coverage but at least five people have talked some repeatedly on this subject, and not once have we talked about
donald trump. so let's talk about the fact that donald trump came into office and spent almost the entire first year of his term trying to get rid of the affordable care act. we all fought against it, and then the late great john mccain at that moment at 2:00 in the morning killed his attempt to take health care from millions of people in this country. fast forward to today and what is happening? donald trump's department of justice is trying to get rid of the affordable care act. donald trump's administration is trying to get rid of the ban that we placed on denying people who have pre-existing conditions covered. our kids up to the age of 26 can no longer be on our plans. and, frankly, i think this discussion is giving the american public a headache. what they want to know is
they're going to have health care and costs will not be a barrier to getting it. let's focus on the end goal. if we do not get donald trump out of office, he's going to get rid of all of it. >> 15 seconds. and yes, a republican senator john mccain, got applause right there in the middle of the democrats' health care debate. you can ignore everything else that the candidates say about health care policy in the debates because everything else they say is entirely under the control of congress. as president, each one of them will sign whatever democrats in congress manage to pass. in 2008, hillary clinton and barack obama argued endlessly about health care policy, the chief difference that hillary clinton was in favor of an individual mandate and barack obama was opposed. in the end president obama signed the affordable care act with an individual mandate, proving that barack obama and
hillary clinton's disagreements were completely ignorable. each of them was going to sign whatever version congress managed to pass. no one on that stage last night knows what congress is capable of passing on health care. and the moderators didn't ask. the only power the president has in relation is to sign or veto it. so the relevant question, that could shorten that section of the debate, you could ask for a show of hands on the question of will you sign whatever health care bill a democratic house and democratic senate manages to pass? and the real answer is, every one of them will sign whatever a democratic congress can pass. if that's medicare for all, joe biden's going to sign it. if it's strengthening the
affordable care act, president bernie sanders is going to sign it. here is the right way, the right way to ask a presidential candidate a question. >> there's been the debate around reparations for descents of african slaves. if you are elected president, sheila jackson, member of congress, has a bill calling for a commission to study reparations. if that bill were to pass and come to your desk, would you sign it? >> if the house and senate passed it, of course i would sign. >> it if the house and senate passed that bill, of course i would sign it. what other answer is there? al sharpton's question forced a candidate admitting that legislating is really up to the house and senate. here's a sample of the candidates remembering who they are really running against.
>> you know, when i first got into this race, i remember president trump scoffed and said he'd like to see me making a deal with xi jinping. i'd like to see him making a deal with xi jinping. >> we have a guy there that is literally running our country like a game show. >> we have a white supremacist in the white house, and he poses a mortal threat to people of color all across this country. >> we must and will defeat trump, the most dangerous president in the history of this country. >> there's enormous, enormous opportunities once we get rid of donald trump. >> and now president trump, you can go back to watching fox news. [ cheers and applause ] >> joining our debate about the debate now is marie kumar, president andkey of voto latino. she was at the debate in houston last night. and ej deyoung from "the washington post," visiting professor at harvard university. he is the coauthor of "one nation after trump." maria theresa, you were there,
so -- >> i wish you had been too, lawrence. >> what were the parts of the debate that you focused on the most? >> when they started talking about gun control and gun safety, and how every single presidential candidate gave a hat tip to beto o'rourke and recognized his leadership and recognized that he was able to step up and how he took it graciously. and i think at first he was quite surprised but he started owning its and started talking that famous line that i'm going to confiscate all your guns, and the room went bananas, he understands the game, and he needs to ensure that white suburban moms stay with the democratic party. they don't want to go back to school and buy bullet proof backpacks. they want their kids to be safe, and he needs to grow the electoral base. we were at a historically black college. they understand what gun
violence means intimately. here in texas where you have 2.5 mammal unregistered latinos, he really understood it. what i also found a lot of affection was for amy klobuchar. she was able to stand her ground and talk about i'm the person in the middle. if you want someone from the midwest. lawrence, when we start looking at the electoral map, the democrats need to look at seven states to win, and the sensibilities that will touch the southwest, whether it's texas, georgia, arizona, and when you're talking about wisconsin, minnesota, those are the individuals that we need to move. and she did a strong job. something that's been a little bit under the radar was the fact that when andrew yang was asking for folks saying, hey, if you put in your name and collect names, i'll give you $1,000, what folks didn't realize is it must be because he's losing money. that was one of the easiest ways on a national stage to collect names and transfer that to donations. we may not see him on stage next
time. >> i'm imagining you as a little boy in fall river, massachusetts, watching the very first televised presidential debate in 1960. i'm assuming you've seen every one of them in the history of televised debates. what did you make of last night? >> first of all, i would like you to be a debate questioner and ask that. >> me too. >> because that's exactly right. and i was struck, in fact, by the contentiousness yet again over single payer versus expanding obamacare. and the democrats are going to the waste a lot of time with this argument, when, in fact, something will get to the president's desk that will, if they're lucky, that will be a combination of these thingsar a little short of these things. i think that's important. the second thing that really struck me was that tableau you had just before we went on the air.
more than the other two debates, democrats were finally saying, hey, wait a minute, our opponent is donald trump. they remembered that the opponent was donald trump in a way they didn't in the earlier debates. i thought that actually sent a much more powerful message. i don't think any 8-year-old kid would stay up and watch that whole thing last night, a three-hour debate was a terrible ordeal for everybody. but the last thing is, it's going to this debate did not really move the presidential race at all. i think biden did well enough. he was strong at the beginning, got a little weaker at the end. he had that appeal to hipsters by talking about record players. aren't they into vinyl these days? people aren't giving him credit for what he had in mind there. but, you know, and i think elizabeth warren almost played as a front-runner. she knows she is really within reach of iowa and new hampshire.
but it may have changed on issues. i think you're probably going to see people pulling back from health care like you suggest and beto really pushed the gun issue to a different place, and i think that's important. >> let's to listen something elizabeth warren said and ej, it's one of those moments where she brought up president obama. president obama made quite a comeback in this debate last night. but she also added a point, which is similar to what senator harris said, indicating that they basically all agree on health care and on the need to improve access, coverage and try to get to universal coverage. let's listen to that. >> we all owe a huge debt to president obama who fundamentally transformed health care in america and committed this country to health care for every human being. now the question is, how best
can we improve on it? and i believe the best way we can do that is we make sure that everybody gets covered by health care at the lowest possible cost. >> maria teresa, that's the basic argument, the generic position. everybody gets covered at the lowest possible cost. once they get beyond that, into the details, it's not up to them,st up for the senate finance committee. if the last republican chairman of the senate finance committee, zero is going to happen. >> that's exactly right. they have to stick to that. i think what a lot of americans are looking for is that not only is it important to defeat donald trump, but what is your vision for unifying america? where are we going to go? this idea of having lofty ideas for the american public moving forward, people want to hear that, but fundamentally you're absolutely right, who decides what legislation gets passed, that is congress. what's important in the debate is having this conversation of if you're going to run for office, are you going to make sure that you will not only hold
on to the house, but is there a chance at the senate or white house. the more they can talk about a vision is very important. one of the things that also resonated was julian castro when he started talking about el paso and the el paso shooting. he brought it home saying, look, he was trying to kill someone like me who was inspired by the words of the president. and he spoke specifically about how this president is talking about racism and doesn't want to take responsibility. and this is a very real issue in the latino community. for the first time he gave a voice and he gave it structure. my hope is that as the candidates talk about the issues, they start talking about the latino experience here in america, not just around immigration, but what it is to be an american latino under this presidency where just in the month of august after this terrible shooting and the largest raids in our country's history that also brought in a
lot of u.s. citizens unfortunately, he has looked directly at dismantling 13 different programs that disproportionately impact the latino community. >> we're going to squeeze in a break here and we'll be right back. ck. (mom) it sure is. (mom vo) over the years, we trusted it to carry and protect the things that were most important to us. we always knew we had a lot of life ahead of us. (mom) remember this? (mom vo) that's why we chose a car that we knew would be there for us through it all. (male vo) welcome to the all-new 2019 subaru forester. the longest-lasting, most trusted forester ever. you should be mad that this is your daily commute. you should be mad at people who forget they're in public. and you should be mad at simple things that are unnecessarily complicated. but you're not mad, because you're trading with e*trade, which isn't complicated.
their app makes trading quick and simple so you can strike when the time is right. don't get mad, get e*trade and start trading today. yesss, i'm doing it all. the water. the exercise. the fiber. month after month, and i still have belly pain and recurring constipation. so i asked my doctor what else i could do, and i said yesss to linzess. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. linzess is not a laxative, it works differently. it helps relieve belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. do not give linzess to children less than 6, and it should not be given to children 6 to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. i'm still doing it all.
the water. the exercise. the fiber. and i said yesss to linzess for help with belly pain and recurring constipation. ask your doctor. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? now, there's skyrizi. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. 3 out of 4 people achieved... ...90% clearer skin at 4 months... ...after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections... ...and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection... ...or symptoms such as fevers,...
i want to commend beto for how well he's spoken to the passion and frustration and the assistance of what happened of his hometown of el paso. he's gone don a great job with that. >> by the way the way beto, excuse me. >> that's all right. that's good. >> the way he handled what happened in his hometown is meaningful. to look in the eyes of those people, to see those kids, to understand those parents, to understand the heart ache. we are ready to do this. >> mr. president, thank you. >> we're back with maria tiste kumar. what did it feel like in texas? you were down there for that moment because that was clearly a moment where everyone was not just reaching out to beto o'rourke, but to texas and what
texas has suffered in these mass murders. >> there was a delegation from el paso of individuals who had been part of the shooting. i had a chance to talk to them and they were just -- they were grateful to be there, be but more importantly the support they were receiving from the country. and there's real conversations in texas for the first time of making sure we're talking about stand your ground, gun reform in a substantive way. when elizabeth warren was talking about gun reform, in a state that is historically a red state, that is opening its ideas of making sure that they have more gun safety, really should speak to the democrats. there's an incredible opportunity make sure that that state turns blue. but that means meeting people where they are, making sure they're recognizing that texas is more on the conservative, moderate side of the democratic party, and being there for them. the fact that you have so many texans right now that are so
aware that the gun issue, whether it's el paso or odessa, that it's a real problem, that today stop. it was uplifting to have had the debate there because people felt they were being heard, they were being recognized. and texans really tuned in. >> ej, the thing i said earlier about how these things are up to congress, i'm not suggesting in these debates that the candidates should not say aspirational things that aren't currently possible within the congressional dynamics that we live with now. and this is a clear example of it. what's also fattening about it is it's very unlikely that there's anyone else on that stage who actually agrees with beto o'rourke or would be willing to publicly agree with beto o'rourke about a buyback of these assault weapons to just take all these assault weapons out of private hands. and yet, none of them felt compelled to rush into an argument about it and disagree on the very specific policy
details that could have been brought up on that. >> first of all, at their heart of hearts, i think they do agree with beto o'rourke, and they just worry still about the politics. but joe biden made an important point when he went back to the gun reform bill that was fairly narrow that got 54 votes in the senate, which was a majority, but lost in the filibuster. he noted how much this issue has changed over time. voters who voted on the gun issue in the 2018 election voted 70% democratic in the house races. he referenced the students after the stoneman douglas high school shooting. there has been a real sea change on the gun issue that you saw reflected in that debate last night. related to that, the other point made that was very important, elizabeth warren was the one
person who stood up and said we have to end the filibuster in the senate because if the democrats do win the senate, which is still going to be tough, they're not going to have a big majority. if there is a brief period where the democratic president, senate, and house, they're going to want to get a lot done. if there is a filibuster, a lot of what they want to get done will not get done. >> once again, that's something that isn't up to the president. they don't all agree on that. i mean, bernie sanders is pretty reluctant. and the truth is, most senators are pretty reluctant about getting rid of the filibuster because they've lived on the beneficiary side of the filibuster. quick last word, maria teresa. >> the fact that the -- yesterday it was the debate yesterday in texas. it was incredibly meaningful for the people there. and it was a relief to see people talking on stage that flecked america.
we had three women, an asian, an african-american, we had what america really is, and that is what refund most. you could see young people and children tuning in and saying this is an " country i can ideny it. >> maria teresa kumar gets the last word tonight. e.j. dionne, thank you for joining us. "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. tonight, the justice department claiming house democrats shouldn't get access to secret mueller grand jury materials in part because they can't say whether what they're now doing is actual impeachment or not. andrew mccabe asking his former employer if indeed a grand jury failed to indict him. and so far the doj is not talking about that. and in his search for a fourth national security adviser, how is the business of national security, and how does the world view the american president th