tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 2, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
>> and that is our broadcast for friday night. good night from new york. we look for you monday night. >> rachel is still under the weather but we have big news breaking tonight. so big that we will be hearing from rachel herself in a few moments. it is friday night and the a.p. is reporting the russia appropriate is widening. special counsel robert mueller including a separate criminal probe into paul man fort. it could include his justice department if necessary. more on that in a moment. as for manfort his blil work has been widely reported. nbc confirming the prosecutors have reviewed his advocacy for forces in ukraine. the a.p. now reporting that
mueller will include that review of manfort into this wider russia probe. that's not great news for the trump white house. but it does not automatically undercut their argument that trump has eliminated his ties to manfort and that this review might have little to do with the core of the 2016 campaign for. . the other report does check current trump officials, however, including the man who just picked mueller for this job. take a look at this tonight. the a.p. reporting that mueller may expand his inquiry to include the top two d.o. j. officials, jeff sessions and rod rosens and they sent that now discredited letter recommended that comey be fired for one reason, which president trump later said was not the
real or only reason he fired comey. they discussed that firing with trump, despite recusing himself from the russia probe, he suggested that letter caused the firing but trump of course admitted that was not true in an interview with nbc's lester holt. >> did you ask for a recommendation? >> what i did is i was going to fire comey. my decision. it was not -- >> you had made the decision before they came to dinner. >> i was going to fire comey. there's no good time to do it, by the way. >> it's in your letter. you said they accepted their recommendation. >> yeah. >> so you already made the decision. >> i was going to fire him regardless of recommendation. he's a smart guy, the democrats like hill, the republicans like him. he made a recommendation. regardless of recommendation i was going to fire comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. and in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia
thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. >> now, that interview, when you listen to it, it did more than just throw the justice department under the bus. it made the justice department vulnerable at least to an allegation that it was part of an effort to mis3-d whole nation about the first firing of an fbi director without cause in american history. that's a big deal. a lot of that is still reverberating. as you know, within days senstein responded to that by appointing mueller as the special counsel. then he gave a very unusual private briefing to that bipartisan gathering of the senate and then he went quiet. no press releases, no speeches, definitely no media interviews until tonight. rod rosenstein spoke with to the media for the first time since this all blew up. he spoke about russia and he
spoke about whether the man he picked to run this inquiry has the authority to potentially investigate him, rod rosenstein. here's what rosenstein says tonight "if anything i did winds up being relevant to his investigation then, if there's a need for me to recuse, i will." a spokeswoman for mr. mueller in the article declined to comment. even if this is, to be clear, a hypothetical point. mueller has independence but rosenstein over sees him. he was managing the roll out of a law enforcement firing that some people think should be investigated as potential obstruction of justice but if mueller goes down that road, can rosenstein limit his authority? if he doesn't, how do you investigate your own boss? tonight, the news here on the record for the first time in an
interview is rosenstein saying he will get out of the way. he will recuse himself if need be. maybe the russia probe will die down and none of this stuff they're putting out will be relevant. maybe rosenstein wants a public reason not to talk about this again and by calling up the a.p. on a friday night, maybe he thinks that will allow him to say later this is a matter under potential investigation and he can't discuss it. we've heard those kind of defenses before. or maybe this is the first in the round of shadow boxing over this sticky probe. rosenstein is saying apparently the right thing before what? before what we know is coming. the big days of testimony on capitol hill. from jim comey next week and soon after from sessions and rosenstein. or maybe, i don't know. maybe it's a combination of all
those dynamics. after weeks of letters about espionage, anonymous leaks and complaints about those underlying leaks, what we have are at least one major player speaking out in his own name under light of day. joining us is eric tucker, the justice department for the a.p. who broke this story. thanks for joining. >> thank you for having me, ari. >> you broke this story. can you tell us more about how it came together and how it was that rod rosenstein gave you this first on the record interview by this topic? >> actually rod spoke with a colleague of mineandy gorman and it was a conversation about some ofis priorities as deputy general. he was asked about t the scope and the purview of special counsel mueller's mandate and he acknowledged very honestly that
bob mueller has a broad mandate that could include anything he potentially did. it could include anything the attorney general did and as you indicated a few moments ago he indicated if there is anything that rod rosenstein himself did that is considered to be relevant to the investigation he said he'll go ahead and recuse himself. >> that is different than the view of some people inside the trump white house who opposed any public counsel and have taken the position that whatever the russia probe gives, it should not be -- >> you look at the mandate issued by the justice department. it clearly gives a fairly sweeping mandate to bob mueller. everyone who knows bob mueller answer that he'll pull all the relevant strings that he wants to clearly at the focal point of this investigation is potential
collusion between moscow and the trump campaign. that also includes a look at any potential associates of president trump which would include his campaign chairman paul manfort and it could certainly include allegations of perjury, obstruction of justice or anything of that sort. >> in this a.p. interview, did you get into jim comey's coming testimony? >> no. >>nd let me ask you about the manfort pie of it. what do you see as significant about that? for our viewers, a lot of folks have tracked different people connected to trump at different times under review. what does it say to you based on your reporting and wider knowledge that this is now under mueller's purview? >> it's something. as you noted, the manfort investigation predates the campaign. it predates did collusion accusation. clearly, as they're building up
their team and developing steam as part of this investigation, 24er looking at all these different sort of outstanding threads and trying to figure out what are the potential ties or connections that will unite all of them under a single person and a single leadership, so in a hot of ways, it's not that surprising. >> when you look forward to james comey's testimony this thursday, what would you want to hear from him on? >> i think we're going to hear about encounters he had with president trump in the weeks and months that predated his firing. one thing that's interesting about jim comey is he's known to have kept actually formal written memos that he would write up after exchanges or encounters that made him uncomfortable. we kno fringes,hat he did this inebruary after an oval office meeting in which he said that president trump asked him if he would consider end the investigation into michael flynn, president trump's first
national security advisor. i think the senate is going to be very interested in that and i think former director comey will have recounting that from start to finish. >> thank you. >> thank you. le. >> we turn to nick ackerman, a former watergate special prosecutor with quite a bit of experience in these kind of cases which are not the normal kind of case. what jumps out to you about this reporting? i think it's not surprising. i would have expected that the manfort piece would have been part of this. i would have expected that rod rosenstein would at least be a witness in this case. he was a part of the whole process that created that pretext for trump to fire comey in the first instance. they used his memo as an excuse as to why they were firing comey although trump indicated it was the russian investigation that he wanted to get rid of. in a way they were using
rosenstein and his memo as a pretekt in order to fire comey and keep it away from the russian investigation. just on that basis alone, rod rosenstein is a key wrngs in this case. >> when you say rod rosenstein is a witness in mueller's russia investigation you're saying he's a witness to how president trump fired jim comey and why? >> and because it all resulted in obstruction of juflt. if you look at the pattern that occurred here from the time the trump white house was warned about michael flynn and the fact that he was subject to bribery and blackmail by the russians, the fact that trump sat on that for 18 days until the press finally put the heat on him and then he fires him. the following day he meets with comey, asked him to back off the investigation. when comey asks for more
resources to put into the investigation and announces that there's an investigation before the u.s. senate, what does trump do? he fires him. >> you're a prosecutor. you know if you're going to make a case you need a statue the statute and a target. when you say there's an obstruction case here who's your target? >> the target would be 2 president of the united states and anybody else who was involved in that decision to fire jim comey. it could be jared kushner. the statute is section 1503 of title 18 an endeavor to obstruct justice which includes fbi investigations. clearly, the only issue here is what was the president's intent in firing comey? he's basically admitted on national television to lester holt that he wanted to get rid of the russian investigation. so all of this comes back to the russian investigation, what did the trp campaign have to do
with the wikileaks that related to the break-in with the computers at the clinton campaign and, two, to what extent did the campaign, the trump campaign collude with the russian government with respect to the data mining and the micro targeting of voters in order to suppress the vote on hillary clinton arched nd to increase te for donald trump. >> when you were a nixon watergate special prosecutor, when you worked on that team, the view of the justice department then as now is you can't indict a sitting president for this type of crime. so if mueller issing looing for criminal liability in this case does he have to find, in your view, someone other than the president? >> well, i think his investigation has to do include everybody. certainly donald trump was part of the trump campaign. he hashtags to find out what the facts are. it may be that he may come up and conclude at the end, which
appears likely will happen, that donald trump was engaged in obstruction of justice. i don't believe at this point in time he could ask the grand jury to return an indictment on a sitting president. >> legally. >> legally. but that doesn't mean that there weren't other co-conspirators, for the same reason, to ditch that fbi investigation. if that's so, those people can be indicted and they can be brought to justice and the same way that it was done with the watergate investigation, there's no reason why all of these facts relating to the president of the united states can't be turned over to the house and then be part of any kind of impeachment proceeding if in fact that's where the evidence leads. look, we have not at this point seen the memos that jim comey has written, we don't know what his testimony is going to be. everything we've heard has been secondhand. >> right. >> if you take all that and take into account what the president himself has admitted, it doesn't
paint a pretty picture at this point. >> right. and that's why the a.p. were very careful about speaking about what may do and may include. i think it's fair to say from your experience, if it may include the attorney general, that is a significant deal. as we know we all have to wait for the evidence to come in. mr. ackerman, appreciate its. >> thank you. >> former u.s. assistant attorney in new york. when all these developments come together at the end of a week like this, it makes me wonder what rachel maddow would make of this. she joins us next and i'll ask her. -san francisco. -when? -friday. >> rumor confirmed. we gotta go. [ tires screech ] any airline. any hotel. any time. go where you want, when you want with no blackout dates. [ muffled music coming from club. "blue monday" by new order. cheers. ] [ music and cheers get louder ]
the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. it's travel, better connected. the travel rewards credit card from bank of america. the opioid my doctor prescribed for my chronic back pain backed me up-big time. before movantik, i tried to treat it mysel spent time, money. no go. but i didn't back down. i talked to my doctor. she said: one, movantik was specifically designed for opioid-induced constipation-oic- and can help you go more often. number two? with my savings card, i can get movantik for about the same price as the other things i tried. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects. don't back down from oic. talk to your doctor about movantik. remember mo-van-tik.
if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. you didn't know we had over 26,000 local activities listed on our app. or that you could book them right from your phone. a few weeks ago, you still didn't know if you were gonna go. now the only thing you don't know, is why it took you so long to come here. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better.
. >> welcome back to another friday night of what seems like extraordinary news from the trump russia inquiry beginning with reuters reporting that special counsel robert mueller is taking over the grand jury investigation into michael flynn and the lobbying michael flynn did for turkey. the a.p. with that report that the mueller could expand the probe to include attorney general jeff sessions and rod rosenstein for their roles in the firing of the fbi director, the a.g. says mueller has room to run. the a.p. reporting mueller taking over the probe concerning paul manfort. that probe predates the whole trump campaign. goes back to 2014 with the downfall of a pro putin of the
ukraine. going back years before the trump campaign has been rolled up into robert mueller's widening, perhaps bottomless portfolio. we're joined by a journalist who has been conducting that investigation into manfort and payments to the trump russia probe for a while now. as you know, she's also the host of this show. the dot connector rachel maddow. how are you? >> you can tell my my voice i'm not mylf i'm still recovering from this thing, but i am super happy that i'm able to be with you guys tonight. and this is -- talk about dot connecting. this is a -- i feel like this is one of those moments where we've been bush whacking through the forest for a long time and all of a sudden we came out under a clearing and we can see where we are. it's sort of a landmark moment
in terms of this investigation, i think. >> when you see this special counsel overseeing the manfort inquiry, what do you think that means? >> you covered it very well in the a. block in terms of what we want about why this came about and what it might mean, whether it's expected or not. i mean, i -- for me, it raises a few different things. first of all, i think it raises some factual questions which are knowable things that where will get answered. it's practical stuff but i think it could be consequence shall. ok, does this mean, then, that the resources of that fbi inquiry, which we've been talking about on the show back to the second week in may as being potentially related to the trump-russia collusion. if that sort of thing in the ukraine has been going on for
years. it's a big investigation. they've got fbiing agents stationed in kiev. it's a large scale international fraud investigation. practical question, does that mean that the resources of that investigation and the agents assigned to it now get moved over into mueller's inquiry? do they get folded in to mueller's inquiry. it's the same with the mike flynn foreign payments from turkey investigation, which has been headed up out of the eastern district of virginia. that may also be taken over by mueller. does that mean that the investigators and the prosecutors who have been working on that, including that specialist espionage prosecutor who's been leading that investigation into flynn in virginia, do all those people get folded into what mueller is doing? how big a investigation, how well resourced investigation and what people -- practical consequences as to those other
prosecutions and investigations are going to uncover. to -- the kiev one is a big investigation. i think one way or another we'll find out if the espionage thing answer toss mueller. that will be interesting. i think there's also factual questions that it raises that we may be won't get answers to. i mean, the agreement from mueller says he can investigate trump-russia collusion and things that arise from that investigation. well, if he's taking over the flynn foreign payments investigation and he's taking over the ukrainian investigation, does that imreply that he believes those things are related to the trump campaign and the 2016 election? >> that they're linked. >> yeah. >> part political, part legal. h there's this refrain that nothing seems to matter in this
trump area or government lies don't matter but with all this coming out, i wonder whether you think there is some potential accountability for false statements about russia or jim comey's firing that could haunt this white house? >> yeah. i mean, we'll find out. it's now being described sort of matter of factually that mueller is not just looking into, you know, trump campaigaesh collusion. he's also looking into obstruction of justice, perjury, intimidating witnesses. that's being stated as a meter of fact by observers here who are fam with this stuff. we don't have any confirmation of that from mueller. i sort of want to waits on that until i hear it from the horse's mouth. i think there's one really important and overlooked consequence, which is that we were first to report that jeff sessions as attorney general was refusing to state whether or not he considered himself to be
recused from any matters involving paul manfort. if this, in fact, is true -- and all manfort matters are now being handled by mueller, that takes away the worry that any trump justice department might get in the way of that manfort investigation and -- >> that's a good point. i happen to know you are resting up and coming back soon. are you going bonkers not covering all this news this week? >> yes, ari, i am. i am watching nbc -- watching msnbc instead of helping make msnbc coverage. you have been doing an amazing job as has all the producing staff but i'm desperate to get back into this. i keep thinking it's going to die down and we keep getting lands mark moments. >> i'm fam with the amazing job they do. >> yeah. >> i hope you get well soon and
that you're back in this chair and at this desk whereou are, of course, missed. >> il be back soon, ari. you're doing a great job. >> thank you. the white house says it's looking into something to prevent jim comey from doing that big testimony next week. stay with us. we're so glad to have you here. ♪ what if we treated great female scientists like they were stars? ♪ yasss queen! what if millie dresselhaus, the first woman to win the national medal of science in engineering, were as famous as any celebrity? [millie dresselhaus was seen having lunch today...] ♪ [...rumors of the new discovery...]
working on my feet all day gave me pain here. in my knees. so i stepped on this machine and got my number, which matched my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts. so i get immediate relief from my foot pain. my knee pain. find a machine at drscholls.com. nobody does underwater stunts, sylvia. except me, of course. this is my stop. adios! ♪ if you're a stuntman, you cheat death. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. número uno!
sirica. the president's lawyers ask that all or parts of three of the tapes be with held from the grand jury on the grounds of executive privilege. here's more from carl stern. >> after four months of legal squabbling, the presidential tape recordings were delivered to chief judge john sirica. >> exclusive privilege. it is what nixon stride to use in 1973 to stop those tapes from getting out. it didn't work. we know how the rest of that story went. executive privilege is established to allow presidents about things that reach too far into the president's purview but it is not absolute. you can't use the coverage to cover up a crime like the nixon tapes and a limited executive privilege are obviously back in the news because of this countdown to thursday when jim comey is supposed to testify. he no longer works for this administration.
that's one reason he's testifying. washington has been obsessed with whether trump might follow other presidents and try to take a broad reading of this. today, the white house has indicated it is reviewing the option, according to bloomberg, and in fairness to this white house it's the job of any desent white house lawyer to review if claims are possible for such testimony and then consider whether they are in the public interest. here's the thing about presidents. they love their executive powers and they push them way passed the breaking point. the privilege for secrets only works for secrets, not for essentially public matters or, you know, things you've been tweeting all about. president obama learned the limits of executive privilege the hard way when a court rejected his attempt to use it for justice department. he said too much of that stuff had been publicized to now claim it was secret. that was a case where obama
officials disclosed materials in we could say a measured way, a contrast to the loud, even chaotic presentation by president trump. blabing about it on twitter, talking it up in tv interviews, even allegedly to the russians in the oval office, according to sources in trump's own administration who spoke to the new york times. joining us now to give us a deeper tutorial is a former u.s. attorney. glad to have you here. >> glad to be here. how much does donald trump's tile of public rhetoric affect his potential claims of executive privilege? >> he may have doomed any claim of executive privilege on this matter with his public comments. you can't assert privilege if you've already talked about it in the public sphere. we've seen tweets where he said jim comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversation. he told lester holt he was thinking about the russia thing
when he fired jim comey. in the very letter he wrote to jim comey for firing him thank you for telling me on three separate occasions i'm not the p subject of an investigation. i think those comments may have waived the privilege. >> if the white house asserted it, how would that go down? >> it's interesting. this scenario is a little different. using the obama example it's the white house that wants to prevent documents or a member of its administration from testifying. here we have i presume a willing witness in jim comey who would like to come forward and tell his story. so if the trump white house asserts the privilege, it's not clear whether they have the power to do so with a willing witness. this is an area of the law that's not well developed. >> right. >> usually when these matters occur, some compromise is worked out. it will be interesting to see if they can assert it with a willing witness like jim comey. >> here's a new letter out
tonight just this hour from some democrats in congress saying "we write to the white house to remind you any such assertion of privilege is almost certainly baseless. we urge you in the strongest possible terms to counsel the presidents accordingly." if you're sitting in the white house counsel's office is there room for what you mentioned as compromise for some effort to go at things that the president maybe hasn't already exposed some narrower version of conversations? >> it might be an effective strategy in this case. another reason that the privilege might not be effective, as you mentioned earlier, it's not absolute. there could be a finding that it's in the best interest of justice to have jim comey testify. if i were the president i would try to narrow the areas of testimony. you can talk about these things but not these other things, perhaps. >> finally, our viewers are fam with watching jim comey bob and weave. he takes some questions and
doesn't take others. what are the actual d.o.j. rules on him when he comes forward? >> i don't think he can talk about the sub1257bs of the russia investigation. that is ongoing pending investigation and he could not talk about that. his conversatio with the president, whethere s asked to give his pledge, his loyalty to the president, whether he was asked to drop the investigation, i think those matters are all fair game. >> we were just discussing earlier in the show, something that may not come up in the underlying inquiry, which is a big deal. thanks for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> still head we'll hear from michael beschloss on the importance and the wider question about where this investigation could go as well as meetings between jared curb her noer and a prominent russian banker.
finally. hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
(i wanted him to eat healthy., so i feed jake purina cat chow naturals indoor, a nutritious formula with no artificial flavors. made specifically for indoor cats. purina cat chow. nutrition to build better lives. when a fire destroyedwith us everything in our living room. we replaced it all without touching our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that. no. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. ♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design.
award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage of our midsommar sales event offer. . welcome back. you have the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein basically speaking outs on the record for the first time since jim comey was fire. on top of that he confirmed basically in conjunction with mueller's investigation, the guy he appointed that the choiry "could expand." there have been many a question about how wide this scope of this inquiry is, how much rope
would mueller be given in whether the deputy a.g. or congress at some point reel him in. rosenstein made it clear that mueller is on his own and if that means the deputy attorney general has to step aside and recuse, he'l do it. this is important historically abuse there's always been a distinction between investigating one item of government misconduct versus the actual mgts of an entire presidential administration. think about investigating the watergate burglary versus the wider investigation of that coverup. the investigations of the iran contra foreign policy deal versus wider investigations over whether there were deliberate efforts to mislead congress or lie to the american people. so we're no longer tonight talking about the speculations and what-ifs. we're reporting really on what's being said right out of the d.o.j. and this investigation basically saying we are looking at certain
people and history shows that when a special counsel or an independent prosecutor looks at people, it means something. it doesn't tell us the end, but it does tell us we are an important part, perhaps, an early chaps of this history. we might be able to benefit from a history lesson. i'm happy to say tonight we have just the guy, nbc presidential historian michael beschloss. as always great to see you. >> thanks. great to see you. >> thank you. without prejudging anything beyond what we know tonight, i wonder where a historical lens while you're here, what does history say about what has happened when there are wider kwishies into the running of an administration? >> well, what has happened is if there was an offense that's going to be likely found out, that's one reason richard nixon went after archibald cox because archibald cox expanded his investigation into various abuses of power which in the end
included the obstruction of justice for which nixon was driven out of office. so for donald trump to find out, if he's finding out tonight, that this investigation is going to go beyond the original focus of it, that's not great news for him. >> it's interesting you say that. because you're refusing to in the watergate timeline which many have oebds took so much longer, it appears that publicly, but as you said, within government the understanding of how wide this scope was came later. so do you infer anything as a matt of breast practices or abundance of caution, all the legal mumbo jumbo that comes out there. >> right. >> that will mueller is learning some lessons from that history? >> i think that's right. this has really spread up because as you said, the watergate process took longer. we've got at least shadows on the wall of investigations of collusion with the russians and perhaps financial crimes, perhaps obstruction of justice
and perhaps some connection between all of those things and, you know, to leap from chapter one to chapter 16, you know, if -- and we're a long way from that -- but if mueller finds there's a connection for instance between collusion and taking money in some way and obstruction, you know, that could lead the way richard nixon led because -- and again we're a long way from having evidence of any of this but the constitution says that the grounds for impeach. are treason and bribery and other high crimes and misdee meanors. >> historically why did so mp presidents -- when they were obviously upset about investigations? >> they have shrunk from using the pardon power because it looks terrible and also it's essentially a confession of guilt. when richard nixon was pardoned by gerald ford, you know, some people said why didn't ford make nixon issue a greater statement
of contrition and nixon said i think this was not enough but nixon said by accepting a pardon, i was accepting guilt. >> hmm. wow. nbc presidential historian michael beschloss. appreciate your time. >> i hope we don't come to seeing a pardon. >> well, i think -- i mean, that's one of the questions is a lot of these things involve llowing rms and i think one of the questions is what stamina do norms have right now? we don't know. >> that's why we all have to hold those in power accountable. >> thank you as always. >> thank you. >> up next, new questions about jared kushner and the russian banker. stay with us. are (burke) at farmers, we've seen almost everything,
so we know how to cover almost anything. even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
itbut one i think with quesa simple answer. we have this need to peek over our neighbor's fence. and once we do, we see wonder waiting. every step you take, narrows the influence of narrow minds. bridges continents and brings this world one step closer. so, the question you asked me. what is the key?
setting up the controversial secret back channel even possibly using russian d diplomatic facilities to do it. pun li-- public explanations saying it was a diplomatic meeting. it was because of his role of his family's real estate empire. either brings up its own problems. a diplomatic meeting days after kushner was reported to be seeking what but know as a back channel or if it because business meeting under u.s. sanctions at a time when he was looking for investors to help pay off baooningdebts. over a billion dollars that kushner's company has offered to buy in the heart of midtown manhattan. it must be pay back over the next two years. a journalist says they must look
at kushner's real estate troubles as a reason for why kushner was taking these apparently risky meetings. joining me now is tim o'brien. he is the author of trump nation, the art of being donald which lead him to be sued unsuccessfully at the time by donald trump. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> how do you view this? >> i think it's hanging over the white house like a speck to spe. i think it's added a new element to this. it's moved beyond simply a political collusion investigation. did the kremlin collude with the trump campaign to tip the
campaign into trump's favor. >> and so you have reported on that. this is interesting because when i was out in the primaries many of his supports said they loved that he wouldn't owe anyone that he would be different than politicians. >> and drain the swamp. >> they were more saying his ledger and people he would bring in, they wouldn't owe anyone. your rorgt seems to suggest the opposite. >> it is built on the soldiers of a lot of great reporters. but when you connect these dots you have a property to a skyscraper that's a jewel that is staggering under unmanageable debt. they begin having talks in the summer of 2016. those progressed through the end of 2016 and early 2017 until
reporting came out that he may get a favorable deal from the chinese. during the same time period he is also meeting with the russians. he meets with a russian banker during the same period. we don't know what they discussed but for some reason the russian ambassador decided to broker a meeting between the head of a major russian bank. >> would it be the kind of institution that would put money into the fifth avenue property? >> it is very close and ford of ov overseers. it includes the former president of russia. he trained at an espionage school in russia. it is very closely embedded in the russian government itself. >> you're saying it might perform for policy reasons, not for business reasons? >> i think you're seeing the possibility that the russians said we can put some money to
beneful grain free is so healthy... oh! farm-raised chicken! that's good chicken. hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) new beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful.
you can't let trump and his allies. they have been effective up until now. so twitter is a perfect example. you're going t drive up the numbers. you have more people chasing rabbits down rabbit holes. you have all kinds of stuff happening. why? to divert attention. it's the circus, right? it's what a classic authoritarian does. it's not about your institutions and your values. they want to influence your reality. >> that was hillary clinton this week criticizing overreactions to donald trump's tweets. they did feature and climate change policy, the trump campaign is now pitching a new chance to hold a political rally about it outside the white house. some are calling that a distraction. why did you need a weekend rally for something the president already did? the administration also did another significant thing that many have overlooked.
it involves your rights and your health care. the context came from the executive order from last month originally with president trump signing what he called the religious liberty executive order telling them to work out a new rule to address conscience based objectives. it is help the little sisters of the poor who recovered to cover contraception for their employee's health care. the administration is about to finish that rule. right now behind the sales it has been pitching it as a way to exemption the gups from -- to respect employers right ts to relious freedom even when the decisions involve their employees. a draft of that rule has leaked and this new rule gives away the game. because it gives away the fact that this rule isn't about employers rights, whatever you think of that argument. it's act actually much broader.
it is about preventing health care at large and health care for women. trump administration writing they plan to expand exemptions for religious believes and moral convictions. moral convictions. that's new broad language that can suggest any employer can opt out of the requirement to cover contraceptiv contraceptives. one says it is a very very very broad exception for everybody. if you don't want to provide it you don't have to provide it. any company or organization could argue that they have a quote moral problem with contraception or someone in your family not getting pregnant and trump administration could let them off the hook from a mandate currently to cover your
contracepti contraceptive. it could deny contraception to hundreds of thousands of people in this country of women in this country. quote these interim final rules will result in plans of exempt entities not receiving coverage or payments for contraception. the rule will take effect as soon as it is pub lired which could happen literally any day. in this case it's not about what they say on twitter or in the rose garden. that does it for tonight. i hope you'll join me for a special edition of the point". i have an exclusive with a whom ho wlo said kushner never had a realistic view on his capabilities and we have a look at the special agent's association. now it's time for the last word. joy, as we say around the building, rachel says hi. >> rachel says hi. it was good to hear from her.
i know a lot of people in my twit ir titer timeline that wery to hear from here. we'll be there on sunday night. >> as they say, we hear you ton twitter. >> yes. >> have a good weekend. >> all right. see you. thank you. neither one of them want to blame russia for interfering in the u.s. election. and there is breaking news about the russia investigation that is more bad news for the white house. the probe is expanding. and new tonight, democrats are warning the president do not try to obstruct. >> hackers can be anywhere. >> somebody sitting in a bed some place. >> very skillfully and professionally shifted the blame as we say on to russia. >> they seem strikingly on message with president trump. >> this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. it's an excuse by the democrats. >> could you imagine something