tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC July 21, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
time is up. but then donald trump is already basically implied that he's prepared to throw him under the bus. >> thanks for joining me. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening. >> good evening, joy. you're working seven day as week again aren't you. >> i am. >> i blame the white house. >> exactly. all of us are like surveying our failing health, you know what i mean? >> lots of eye drops happening around here. >> eventually our bosses are going to relent and start main lining us vitamins all day long while trump is president. >> hopefully. >> hope you get some sleep. thank you. thanks for joining us this hour. we have just had a remarkable communication from the president eats t 's top lawyer. his top lawyer had been marc kazowitz, a new york lawyer who has represented the president on
previous things like the trump university law case and keeping mr. trump's divorce records secret. one of the many things that happened in today's news is that marc kasowitz was either demoted from his leeld role or he's left the legal team all together. it's not entirely clear. but now apparently leading the president's representation on matters related to russia is john dowd, a washington, d.c. lawyer who is like mr. kasowitz, also known for having a hot temper. now, you might remember last night on this show we had bloomberg news reporter, investigative reporter greg ferrell here. greg ferrell and a colleague yesterday reported for bloomberg this seemingly very important story. you see the head line, mueller expands probe to trump business transactions. the reason i say this was a seemingly very important story is in part because of the freak
out it seems to have occasions in the white house. that bloomberg article came out yesterday, mid morning. updated a couple of times during the day but initially came out med morning yesterday. by the time we were on the air last night, these were the stories that were break in the washington post and in the "the new york times" about the president considering his pardon powers, having his legal team discuss who he's allowed to pardon, including considering the question of whether he's allowed to pardon himself. and the white house trying to cook up ways to discredit robert mueller, the special counsel's investigation, giving clear indication that the white house is now basically trying to find a way to fire the special counsel. and to that end, they're trying to cook up ways that they would be able to justify that firing if and when they do it. those stories broke last night while we were on the air. now what led to that incredible
turn in the news, what led the president to consider those radical options? in that news that was broken last night? what were the things that happened that drove the president to start considering these options that you would consider a president to do only as his very last resort? what pushed him to that point? well according to the reporting from the "washington post" quote, the president is irritated by the notion that bob mueller's probe could reach into his family's finances. quote, his primary frustration focuses on the prospect that the mueller information could spread into scrutinizing many years of trump deal making. the president told top aides that he was especially disturbed after learning that bob mueller would be ak able to access several years of his tax returns. a close adviser is quoted by the post saying that the president's tax returns are outside of mueller's investigation. one of the president's lawyers told the post that the president's real estate transactions are quote far outside the scope of a
legitimate investigation. all of that explanatory reporting and work down from the "washington post." simultaneously the "the new york times" reporting that bob mueller's inquiry evolving into an examination of trump's financial history quote has stoked fears among the president's aides. so i say that bloomberg story yesterday was really important in part because of what it seems to have occasioned, bloomberg reports that the president's finances and his financial transactions and his business transactions are now being investigated. also, the "the new york times" reporting within the last couple of days that deutsch bank is having his trump transactions reviewed by banking regulators and deutsch bank expects to be turning over their trump related records to bob mueller very
soon. you take all of that together, what happens over the course of the last couple of days, and particularly with that bloomberg story, it becomes clearing that this thing is taking a turn into finances. they are following the money. it's about finances. it's about business transactions. and the response from the white house, as of last night is that the white house is going nuclear. right. pardons. maybe the president pardoning himself. maybe firing the attorney general, right. prepping to fire the special counsel sell. just nuclear. like break glass in case of emergency. they were smashing the glass last night. so having sort of lived through that breaking news last night wondering what occasioned that incredible turn, we decided to try to chase it down in a granular sense to figure out all we could on how the white house was explaining the radicalism against the russia probe. and there was one piece of the white house reaction that would
be fairly easy to chase up. a specific quote from a named official and it stuck out as kind of strange. it was from that initial bloomberg news article which said the mueller investigation is shifting to look at trump's business transactions. in that article there is a quote from the man who is now apparently the president's top lawyer on russia issues. it's from john dowd. this is john dowd's quote to bloomberg. quote. those transactions are in my view well beyond the mandate of the special counsel. they're unrelated to the election of 2016 or any alleged collusion between the trump campaign and russia and most importantly, he says, they are well beyond any statute of limitations impoesed by the u.s code. who said anything about statute of limitations? why are you wringi ingbringing ? the statute of limitations for prosecuting what crimes exactly? what are we talking about here?
the president's lawyer brought up the prospect that the president's business activities are crimes and they're beyond the statute of limitations. he brought that up apparently unprompted. which is unusual. so it wasn't a blind quote, had a name attached to it. so we contacted john dowd today, we contacted the president's lawyer today, actually tonight, to see what that meant, to see whether or not there was some in particular about the president's past business transactions that made him look up the statute of limitations for certain crimes. and mr. dowd took our call and he told us, quote, we have no evidence that any of these entities, meaning trump business entities, we have no evidence that any of these entities are under investigation. he then told us, quote, i'm beginning to think it's not true. i'm beginning to wonder where the hell it came from. he then told her producer that
he would never speak to him again, quoting, he told our producer quote, this is the last call we'll ever have. i'm beginning to think it's not true. i'm beginning to wonder where the hell it came from. this is the last call we'll ever have. some days are weirder than others in this job. but you never really expect them to get that weird in conversation with the lead attorney for the president of the united states. but we have had -- it's been a weird day. and because it's fridays we've had a bunch of breaking news tonight. a flurry of news break just in the last couple of hours. if the president is going nuclear, to try to stop the russia investigation, to try to stop robert mueller's investigation, as you know he has two paths to do that. the first path goes through the
person overseeing the mueller investigation, deputy general rod rosenstein. if the president can't persuade rod rosenstein to fire mueller, which he probably can't, he can order rod rosenstein to fire him and if he doesn't, then he can fire rosenstein. then he would have to keep firing someone from the top down until he found someone at a high rank to fire bob mueller. that is a long path. what became clear this week is there is an easier and shorter path for the president. quicker way to do it would be for him to put someone new, instead of rod rosenstein in charge of oversighing the mueller investigation. and the way you do that is just to kill jeff sessions, to proverbably kill off jeff sessions. he may love jeff sessions, but if jeff sessions gets fired or
gets as attorney general, trump could appoint a new ag who would not be recused from the russia investigation or overseeing mueller. and that that new attorney again could fire bob mueller and the white house would retroactivity explain it with all of the stuff they're trying to cook up to undermine mueller's credibility. that is what is looming over the question of the future of the russia investigation, the prospects of what the president might do to try to stop it. and that, that coming into focus this week with the president turning on jeff sessions the way he did, and everybody expecting jeff sessions to resign. that put this bombshell in the "washington post" tonight in a whole new light. washington post breaking the news that on u.s. intelligence intercepts, the outgoing russian ambassador to the united states, sergey kislyak, was heard
telling moscows quote, that he discussed campaign related matters, including policy issues important to moscow with jeff sessions during the 2016 presidential race. now initially jeff sessions denied ever having any contacts with russian officials during the campaign. he then later had to admit that yes he did have contacts with russian officials during the campaign. that admission immediately preceded jeff sessions having to recuse himself from all campaign investigations, including the russian one. but even when jeff sessions was admitted, was finally admitting that yeah, okay, he had talked to russians. even when he was admitting that, he was explicit in still denying what the post has just reported. >> let me be clear. i never had meetings with russian operatives or russian
intermediaries about the trump campaign. >> that was attorney general jeff sessions in march but the "washington post" reports tonight that ambassador sergey kislyak's accounts of conversations with jeff sessions one in april and one in july were intercepted by spy agencies. the post says that the intelligence indicates that sessions and kislyak in fact has substantive discussions on matters including trump's position on russian related issues and prospects of russian relations in a trump administration. now it is entirely possible that the russian ambassador was lying to his bosses at the kremlin was really he and jech sessiff sesse talking about candy crush and gardening and other stuff it's so weird that they both love. but with jeff sessions all but being pushed out of the administration right now, senior adds telling the "the new york times" they were stunned when jeff sessions didn't quit as attorney general yesterday morning after the president threw him under the bus on
wednesday night. this being the new front page story in the washington post tonight, newly raising the question of session' own contacts with the russian, whether he further lied with his contacts with the russians during the campaign. this is either the best timing for sessions or the worst timing for sessions. because what the president is publicly complaining about when it comes to jeff sessions is that sessions recused himself from overseeing the russian investigation, which he shouldn't have done. the president didn't want him to do that. but this is exactly the reason why jeff sessions so truly really did have to recuse himself from the russian investigation. so on the one hand if you're attorney general resignation watch, this looks like bad new damning information. on the other hand, if the reason he was going to resign is because the president was complaining about his recusal, this bad news about his contacts with the russians, further
bolsters the fact that jeff sessions recused himself from the russian probe, as he should have. so attorney general jeff sessions has so far given no sign that he would resign. if he does resign it would not be terribly surprising and it could be a sign that the president is starting to move to shut down the russian investigation under robert mueller which would precipitate a mayor bipartisan crisis in this country. we do not know exactly what sparked the president's newfound sense of urgency on wanting the russia investigation shut down. white house staffers and lawyers as the washington post reported have been indicating really it's the turn toward the president's finances and his business transactions and his taxes that have ratcheted this thing up to deaf con one for him. that's a no go area for him. shut this thing down now. other long term observers of the president have said even before
this started happening that the thing to watch for him him, the sort of -- i don't know if it's the right metaphor, his kryptonite, achilles heel, long term advisers of this president have said for a long time that the other thing that might send him into panic mode in fe kind of crisis or confrontation would be if anything from his life, from his political life starts to affect his adult children in a negative way. there have been serious issues raised as to whether or not jared kushner has problems with his security clearance application. whether himself not disclosing his meeting on his application might open him to criminal prosecution. one of the prosecutors who have brought on recently secured a high profile conviction for a dea agent who left things off of their security application.
mueller's team is experienced in prosecuting people for leaving stuff off of that form. if there are problems with jared kushner's form with his repeated nondisclosures, on his repeated refiling of that security clearance application form, any resulting liability that he faces because of that might also accrue to his wife, the president's daughter, ivanka. because the form, the sf 86 skurt clearance application form, the way it asks its questions, its asks about you or your family having contact with foreign nationals. it doesn't just ask about your own. it asks you or members of your family. and so unless ivanka disclosed jared's russian meeting while jared didn't disclose his russian meetings, ivanka may be in a pickle and potentially be open to prosecution on these matters. and if that really is just personality wise and in terms of
his values and in terms of what emotionally gets him, in that really is the kind of thing that would send the president into panic mode, that may be part of this as well. well now tonight "the wall street journal" was the first to report they have had to refile and amend their financial filings because they left millions of dollars in dozens of assets off of their initial filings. two days ago on this show we spoke with walter shab who resigned in frustration. walter shab warned us two nights ago that the president might try to do an in-run around his office, around the person from that office who is next in line under walter shab and who would be expected to take a lead ethics job in an acting capacity of walter shap left. he warned us two weeks ago instead of installing the person
next in line that ought to have the job, he warned us that the president might instead go around that person next in line in instead pick somebody else out of the office. he warned us that the president might try to install a lower ranking ethics person from that office, a known person who is expected to be more lenient. expected to be softer on the trumps. shab warned about that two days ago and today the president did in fact elevate that reputably more lenient ethics official to be acting head of that office and that is the person who signed off on jared's revised financial disclosure that got released today. and we've got one more piece of news about that that we're going to be breaking in a few minutes which i think is important. jared kushner has been scheduled for interviews with the senate intelligence committee on monday and this is new, with the house intenlligene
committee on tuesday. and then on wednesday we have just learned tonight -- i told you it was a busy night. on wednesday, remember how we're supposed to get live televised testimony on wednesday from donald trump jr. and paul manafort ♪ not anymore. chuck grassley in the senate now says that's not going to happen. he now says trump jr. and paul manafort will hand over documents and they'll speak with staff and will talk to the committee at some point in the future. but not now. in the meantime, though, chuck grassley is going to hold an entirely different hearing on wednesday and he's filed a subpoena to compel testimony from the head of the research firm that paid for the christopher steele dossier of alleged russian dirt on donald trump, that dossier that caused such a stir when it was published by buzzfeed in january, it has a lot of lurid stuff in it but honestly it has a lot of stuff in it that has
been borne out by subsequent sirius investigation. this thing that's going to happen on wednesday, this is the thing i have been saying is coming. this is the thing i have been saying is coming from congressional republicans and from republicans who want to defend donald trump. senator grassley set the subpoena tonight. he's canceled the testimony from don jr. and paul manafort and instead of hearing from them next week on the collusion issue, the nate instead will play host at an open televised hearing to the big republican pushback theory they have been gearing up for on conservative media for a couple of weeks now. this is the big pushback in which they will claim that there is a russian scandal but it's not a trump-russia scandal. it's the democrats. and the dossier on trump, that's the real russia scandal. that's from russia and the scandal is about hillary clinton and the democrats.
it's -- we have known this was coming. now as of tonight we know it is arriving wednesday morning in the senate. and the first subpoena has just gone out for that. so that's all happened tonight. that's all been reported tonight and also the white house spokesman, sean spicer resigned today and anthony scaramucci was hired as white house communications director and there are many rumors that reince priebus is going to be next to go. the spokes minnesota for trump's legal team resigned. and the guy who replaced him and is the new top lawyer on the new russia legal team just told us he doesn't believe trump's business dealings and financial transactions are being nervo investigated then he told us this was the last call we will ever have and it was super weird. so happy friday. things are weird and a lot is
happening. and mostly i have question. and tonight we have structured the rest of this hour, the rest of the show to try to get me and get us some answers to those questions. stay with us tonight. it's a lot, i know, but this is important stuff. this is an important time. stay right there. that's cool. feeling good in slim fit? that's cool. looking fabulous in my little black dress? that's cool. getting the body you want without surgery, needles, or downtime? that's coolsculpting. coolsculpting is the only fda-cleared non-invasive treatment that targets and freezes away stubborn fat cells. visit coolsculpting.com today and register for a chance to win a free treatment. and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna.
he's so fluffy i'm gonna die! your voice is awesome. the x1 voice remote. xfinity. the future of awesome. so we're still absorbing breaking news from the washington post which reports that according to u.s. intelligence intercepts that have been described by current and former u.s. officials, russia's ambassador to washington told his superiors in moscow that he discussed trump campaign matters, including russia-related policies with
jeff sessions during last year's presidential race. that's a big deal because even one jeff sessions admitted that he did have contacts with russian officials during the campaign, despite the fact that he previously denied it, even once he admitted to it, he explicitly said, as attorney general, he explicitly said when he had those contacts with russians he did not discuss the trump campaign with russian operatives or intermediarieinte. now the post says the intelligence indicates that sessions and kislyak has substantive conversations. it could be that kislyak was lying to the kremlin and really he didn't talk about anything of consequence with jeff sessions. but this story comes after the president told the "the new york times" he wishes he had never chosen jeff sessions to be his attorney general. after senior trump aides told
the times they were stunned when jeff sessions didn't quit following the criticism from the president. he told the tooims, he essentially hinted that jeff sessions had lied to the senate during his sworn testimony during his confirmation hearings. if jeff sessions does resign or the president fires him, if president trump gets to nominate a new attorney general, then it would seem like getting rid of attorney general jeff sessions would put president trump one giant step closer to being able to end the russian investigation by firing robert mueller. is that the way to look at it? people who understand how government lawyers work, is that correct? if that is correct, what would happen to the russia investigation once trump went after mueller. joining us now is somebody who knows these things. bob bower was former white house counsel to president obama.
let me just ask you first about what i was saying there about the removal of attorney general jeff sessions. if he quits or resigns and the president does get to name a new acting attorney general and then appoint somebody new for that job, is that potentially a path for him to end the mueller investigation? >> he might think of it that way. he or his lawyers might also think of it as a way the make sure they exercise a little more control or feel they can customer size a little more control over mueller. they may believe rod rosenstein is no longer able to do that. as you know they've expressed a concern that mueller is expanding his mandate to include the president's finances, that he's if you will veering out of control. sessions can't do anything about it and they may feel that rosenstein can't do anything about it. their bet might be to have a new attorney general who is not recused. >> either through the rosenstein
path or getting rid of jeff sessions case, they're able to figure out a way to fire bob mueller, in that instance, is there any other part of the law enforcement -- any other part of the justice system in this country that could take up the investigation in mueller's wake? >> as a practical matter, i mean eventually while it might be difficult for them, there are road blocks along the way to firing mueller. president trump could get there if that's what he was determined to do. at that point it become as question for the congress. i think at that point the attention is going to shift from an incapacitated department of justice to a congress who would have to consider articles of impeachment. >> i believe that in the abstract. i believe that as a student of political science. i'm also looking ahead to what is going to happen in the senate next week. i think in the you zish yar committee that senator grassley
is issuing the so pooh that ubp, the congressional republicans who more or less support president trump are about to start a political counter offensive to try to make the russian shan scandal a democratic scannedment because it feels to me that that's about to happen, it's hard for me to believe that anything that the president is going to do about this russia investigation would result in republicans newly looking at these as potentially impeachable acts. >> i'm not certain. i think if president trump does something that members of congress on both sides of the aisle have publicly warned him not to do and he fires mueller, having the investigation expand to cover his taxes, it might trigger a powerful reaction from the congress. obviously that's hard to predict. this is going to sound too much
to people like watergate, too much like a president interfe interfering with a process for his own interest. i think that's going to resonate across party lines. >> i have two additional questions for you on very specific matters. the you stick around for a bit to make me smarter? >> certainly. >> all right. we'll be back with bob bower right after this. ♪ me to the moon (elegant music) ♪ and let me play (bell rings) ♪ i love you, basement guest bathroom. your privacy makes you my number 1 place... ...to go number 2. i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪
[ intense music playing ] ] it's here, but it's going by fast. the opportunity of the year is back: the mercedes-benz summer event. get to your dealer today for incredible once-a-season offers, and start firing up those grilles. lease the gle350 for $579 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. to keep our community safe. before you do any project big or small, pg&e will come out and mark your gas and electric lines so you don't hit them when you dig. call 811 before you dig, and make sure that you and your neighbors are safe.
811 is available to any business our or homeownerfe. to make sure that you identify where your utilities are if you are gonna do any kind of excavation no matter how small or large before you dig, call 811. keep yourself safe. . i have a tree falls in the forest question for you. if the president issues a pardon, do we have to know about
it? would he have to tell us? is it possible he's already pardoned somebody? is it possible the prosecutors or investigators might just find that out when it comes time to file an indictment against that person but it's never been publicly announced? i think this is an answerable question but i have no idea what the answer is. back with us once again is bob bower. mr. power thank you again for sticking with us. >> certainly. >> i know that when presidential pardons are issued for all previous presidents, we have always known about it. there's always been a public statement about it. is that legally required or could a president do this in a way that we didn't necessarily know about it, at least if are the time being? >> i think it's highly unlikely for a couple of reasons. and of course this depends on the degree to which the white house is careful about looking at the exercise of the pardon power. eventually it has to become public or it's useless. you have to have the pardon out
there so whoever benefits from it can use it to their advantage. secondly it's clear from the pardon power that it was meant to be an act of full public accountability. it was extraordinary power balanced out by the president's requirement of answering for it. for example, to the congress, to the american public. and there's never been a pardon that has been sort of issued ser rip tishsly and then revealed weeks later. i think the answer to the question it is absolutely needs to be public. then there's a third strategic consideration. in issuing the pardon, a president is going to want to be able to say he issued it for appropriate reasons, in the general welfare. not for any that various purpose. that's another reason why it would be a public act. a public defense of the exercise of the pardon power. i think in this case we can imagine why this president would be advised to do that. >> the grounds that makes me -- i said i only have two questions
for you but you've sparked another one. it's a follow-up so we won't count it against my numbers. the president has the legal authority, the power to issue pardons. but presumably the president could not issue a pardon in exchange for a bribe. he could not issue a pardon for an improper reason. is it possible that if he pardons -- either he tried to par on the himself or pardons members of his family or other people from the administration specifically to obstruct the investigation into the russia matter that the pardon itself while a legal act could be seen as an illegal obstruction of justi justice? >> yes. there's some disagreement among legal scholars about this. if a pardon is issued in the president's self interest, to f protect himself or his family or aides, that would expose him to obstruction of justice.
>> last question for you, i mean it. we learned today that president trump apparently met in person with specific u.s. attorney nominee, nominated to be the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. she disclosed the meeting to the senate judiciary committee and some people skpreszed krnt about the president putting himself personally in a meeting like that of a nominee, especially for the crucial district. how do you view that in. >> i don't know the details of this. i have not reviewed any detailed in the press. but i'm frankly troubled by it. i'm trying to be fair but i'm troubled about it. you have this president having private meetings with various officials in law enforcement and they're not just random meetings. he didn't meet with the u.s. attorney for some distant state for what he didn't have any
direct interest in at the moment. there's a question of whether or not in fact we're going to have a department of justice and white house relationship which is run among traditional lines with accountability on policy which is perfectly appropriate but careful controls to make sure that it is not being, if you will, dictated to in its law makes decision. not being controlled by the executive in law enforcement. >> so the bottom line on that, it is a red flag but it is a red flag that points in the direction of a broader concern that we're seeing -- that we have other red flags about. >> yes, i would put it that way. it's one of a piece with another similar behaviors. >> got it. bob bower, white house counsel in the obama administration, thank you for your time tonight. >> pleasure. thank you. i still have a lot of questions. and i have somebody else lined up here tonight for our next interview who is perfectly positioned to answer my next
if you've got a life, you gotta swiffer so how old do you want uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change.
investment management services from td ameritrade. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible.
tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. we're continuing to night with sort of a list of questions that have been raised at least in my mind by the avalanche of news we've had in the last 48 to 72 hours. i talked at the top of the show about an intriguing, i would call it a provocative question raised by the president's lead lawyer on russian matters with
john dowd. he told blockburg news that donald trump's business transactions are not only something that shouldn't be investigated bid the special counsel he said they are quote well beyond any statute of limitation imposed be i the united states code. i don't know what he was talking about. we called up john dowd to ask what transactions he was talking about, what crimes might be associated with those crimes, he told us in response that he doesn't think the special counsel is looking into trump's business transactions. he then told our producer who was on the phone with him that he would never speak to him again and then he hung up on him. but aside from that sort of weird behavior, that is a serious question. what is john dowd talking about? what is the president's lead lawyer talking about? i mean if there are trump business transactions that happened long enough ago that they would fall outside the statute of limitations for prosecution as criminal matters,
does that mean those things are out of bounds? sort of not useful for the special counsel's investigation. the white house seems to be unfa way go. should that be that upset about it? should those matters be out of bounds? join us now is walter dillinger, a former acting solicitor general under president clinton. thank you for being here with us tonight. nice to have you here. >> you're welcome. >> let me start with that first issue that the president's top lawyer raised. he's responding to news which he contests that the special counsel investigation has turned toward the president's business transactions and financial transactions. he described any such transactions as being beyond the statute of limitations. pi would love to hear your
interpretation of what that means and its potential relevance. >> well, of course the federal criminal code has limitations period within which you have to bring criminal charges or you know they're done with. it could be two years, could be four years. in some cases it could be ten years for the more serious charges. you would have to know precisely what crimes the president's counsel has in mind are beyond the statute of limitations. but that is one of the defenses at a criminal proceeding that the president could raise. two points about that, rachel. first of all, that wouldn't keep congress from investigating it as grounds for impeachment, that kind of littleations period would not be a limitation on congress because the nature of impeachment would have to be very serious matters but not necessarily technically within the criminal code. being criminal is not even necessary or sufficient. moreover, i they're making a
larger point that -- they're setting up an excuse for attempting to discharge the special counsel by arguing that his mandate is up to investigate the russian campaign involvement. but the mandate does have matters directly related to that. but matters directly related to any links, quote unquote, any links between the russian government and individuals in the trump campaign. and certainly financial relationships are part of those links. and a serious prosecutor wants to look at a whole series of financial connections over a period of time. so i think the notion that -- and the special counsel would be moving outside his mandate by looking at financial ties between the president, his family and his top people and russian related interest close to vladimir putin. that clearly is within his
mandate and would not -- would be utterly pretextural to try to fire him for those reasons. >> is there anything that the president or the white house or his lawyers have raised in terms of objections to this investigation? they've talked about political donations made by lawyers involved in the investigation, they've talked about bob mueller having been a trump golf club member at some point. they've talked about obviously this complaints about looking into financial matters and trump business matters. are any of the things that they've raised, to your mind, legitimate concerns or legitimate grounds for trying to undermine the investigation? >> not only do i not see them as legitimate, it's clear from the reporting that they are looking for a pretext for discharging him. first of all with regard to mueller personally. this is someone who is a lifelong republican who was head of the criminal division in republican administrations who
for 12 years was made of the fbi in both republican and democratic administrations. respected by law enforcement across the country. they raised the fact that he had worked with james comey. but comey may be not necessarily a central figure in this. but in any event, comey and mueller have never been to each other's houses. one was fbi and one does deposit any attorney general and they overlapped. that's absurd. of course there with people on his staff who have participated in supporting political candidates. it must be mr. trump's position that only trump supporters are allowed to investigate him. people were either for trump or for clinton. and mueller would not have given that any consideration whatsoever in assembling his staff. i don't think see they have anything. the idea that robert mueller would risk his reputation that he's spent a lifetime gathering to try to go after someone just because of a 6-year-old fee dispute at a golf club is beyond
absurd. >> walter dillinger, former acting solicitor general under president clinton. thank you for being here tonight. i we've got much more ahead tonight. that's like the maddow show goes to law school but with a tutor who doesn't know anything about this. the stuff that's happening in the news right now is really fast. staying grounded in terms of what's possible within the law is getting increasingly difficult, but we have no choice but to do it. stay with us. pain can really be a distraction.
pain is sometimes in my hands, right before a performance especially. only aleve has the strength to stop minor arthritis pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. this is my pain. but i am stronger. aleve. all day strong. you give us comfort. and we give you bare feet... i love you, couch. ...backsweat and gordo's everything. i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪ new febreze fabric refresher with odorclear technology... ...cleans away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and plug in febreze to keep your whole room fresh for up... ...to 45 days. breathe happy with new febreze.
at where instead of payinging a befor middlemen,em. we work directly with family farms to deliver higher quality ingredients for less than you pay at the store. get $30 off at blueapron.com/cook ...is not just something you can see or touch. home...is a feeling. it's the place where you feel safe to have those little moments that mean everything. at adt, we believe that feeling should always be there. whether it's at your house, or your business, we help keep you safe. so you can have those moments that make you feel at home. ♪you are loved wherever you are. (singsong) budget meeting. sweet. if you compare last quarter... it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with no artificial preservatives,
flavours or dyes. made with no artificial preservatives, anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com. so it only made sense to create a network that keeps up. introducing xfinity mobile. it combines america's largest, most reliable 4g lte with the most wifi hotspots nationwide. saving you money wherever you check your phone. yeah, even there. see how much you can save when you choose by the gig or unlimited. call, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. three days ago the top ethics official in the u.s. government left his job, basically in frustration. he left, making the case that the ethics laws in the u.s. government didn't anticipate -- they weren't written to constrain the kind of flagrant, willful violations of ethics norms that the new administration is demonstrating. basically he argued that the old rules were premised on the idea that if your conflicts of interest were exposed, you'd be ashamed, and that would stop you from doing them. when shame no longer applies, the ethics rules turned out to have a pretty flimsy foundation when pushed sort of to the limit. he's now left government service to try to push for stronger rules. but while he was here, the day after he left government office,
and all your favorites. only while crabfest lasts. red lobster. now this is seafood. you...smells fine, but yourin your passengers smell this bell dinging new febreze car with odorclear technology cleans away odors... ...for up to 30 days smells nice... breathe happy, with new febreze. when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
the white house reaches down and plucks somebody else out of the office to put them in the acting role rather than the person it should default to, everyone should be asking why would they do that? what advantage do they think they're going to gain? do they think they will find an individual who will give them a
better deal than ms. finlayson who is tough as nails and as experienced as they come. >> we got that heads up two nights ago from walter shaub who just resigned. he told us to watch for how the white house filled his role with an acting director. he said to watch for the white house potentially skipping the next person in line to lead that agency, shelley finlayson, and instead installing somebody else. he told us, does the white house think they'll find an individual in that office who might give them a better deal than the woman who's next in line? that was the warning two nights ago. now we've got the news that the president has made his choice. and as walter shaub warned us, the president in fact skipped over shelley finlayson, who would be the person next in line, and instead tapped an official in the office who shaub says, quote, tends to lean toward the permissive end the spectrum. he says, quote, i'm concerned that the white house may be trying to ensure looser oversight. and who knows? but we got that announcement
today about the new acting director for the ethics office. and then lo and behold, well after the close of business on this summer friday night, we got another big piece of news from the ethics office concerning the president's family. jared kushner has amended his financial disclosure forms he is required to file. turns out he more than 75 different assets that his lawyer says he plum forgot to declare before. we got that news tonight from the ethics office at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. kushner updating his financial disclosure form, revealing more than 75 new assets and millions of dollars he didn't previously disclose. and just look at this. if you look at jared kushner's new form -- can we put that up? you will see that the ethics official who certified this form is the new and more lenient acting director of the office. his form was signed off on by the person the white house plucked out of line for that job, and he signed off on that form not today when we got it well after close of business on a summer friday night. he actually signed off on it
yesterday, thursday. but then that form, for some reason, doesn't hit the news until friday night after the close of business. apparently that timing is unusual for that office. we spoke again tonight to walter shaub, the former ethics director. he told us it's been the agency's policy for years to release financial disclosures on the same day they are certified. if a report seemed likely to garner extra attention, he said the office made an extra effort to make sure the forms got released to the public the same day they were signed. that is how they used to do it when he was in charge. now that the white house has hand-picked someone to take over that job, apparently we get the kushner forms 7:00 on a friday night. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again on monday. now it's time for "the last word." ari melber sitting in for lawrence tonight. good evening, ari. >> good evening, rachel. sometimes the news breaks late and people ask why, and there's no reason. and then sometimes it feels like maybe there's a reason. >> that's