tv MSNBC Live MSNBC June 2, 2018 2:00pm-3:00pm PDT
too. kevin de león is the only candidate for senate who passed laws protecting immigrants from trump... and helped dreamers stay in school. he led bold action against climate change. and only de león fought for universal, medicare for all. democrat kevin de león the only true progressive for senate. change california now is responsible for the content of this advertising. good day to you, i'm richard lui. we're going to continue to follow the breaking news. "new york times" releasing a bombshell report just within the last three hours or so revealing
a confidential memo from president trump's legal team, written to special counsel robert mueller. president trump's lawyers claiming in this 20-page document executive power can exempt the president from being subpoenaed. there's more to it. last hour, one of the co-authors spoke with me about that memo. >> this is a lengthy, top to bottom defense of the president against the obstruction of justice accusations that he has been facing. it is an argument for why he cannot be subpoenaed as a matter of law, and it is an argument for why he cannot be accused of breaking laws against obstruction of justice, no matter what, even if the evidence were to show he had corrupt intend when he fired james comey. >> nbc news white house correspondent geoff bennet joins us now. as you were poring through the
20 pages, and the report that went with it, it is quite extensive. what do you take away from it? >> i think this letter, which we know was hand delivered to the special council by the president's legal team this january. it offers a window into the intellectual underpinnings of the trump legal team's approach. also foreshadows the arguments that trump's lawyers are now making as they negotiate whether or how the special counsel team will be able to finally interview president trump. i think the team approach really boils down to this. when the president does it, that means it's no the illegal. we have part of the letter. it says he could, meaning the president, if he wished, terminate the inquiry or exercise his power to pardon if he so desires. they're arguing it would be impossible for him to obstruct justice because of the power granted to him by the constitution. this is a fairly broad interpretation of executive
authority that could end up being tested in the courts if robert mueller tries to force this interview. and the president's lawyers, i think, are gambling he may not want to risk broaching new legal ground. quickly a couple of eyebrow raising sections. first, you have the president's lawyers contending the interview he gave lester holt two days after, they say has been widely misreported and mischaracterized. nbc stands by that interview. a second section relates to his involvement in coming up with the white house's response after it was revealed that donald trump jr. had the meeting with the russia lawyer. in the immediate aftermath of that the white house offer the multiple accounts. but in this letter they concede president trump dictated it himself. the takeaway from this letter, i think, is that we know robert
mueller wants to speak with the president before he wraps up the investigation. but the lawyers, and there's part of that letter. president's lawyers fear if he answers questions, the president risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, which would be perjury, and that is a potential crime and frankly an impeachable offense. >> geoff, earlier in the day, the precursors to this, was the president alluding to the department of justice, could be leaking his lawyers' letters? >> that's right. we know the "new york times" reached out to rudy giuliani who is the president's newest attorney for comment, giuliani, we can assume tipped off of the president and that's what led to the tweet where he characterizes the witch hunt, which we should say the special counsel team has racked up multiple indictments. >> nbc's jegeoff bennet.
let's bring in msnbc contributors. and former federal prosecute eras of about 24 hours at ag co. >> this is a story you've been following from the very start. what stood out in this reporting? >> the fact that the president's lawyers conceded that president trump himself played a role in drafting a misleading statement to the "new york times." this is a really important question. what we know is that there was a meeting at trump tower that involved russians linked to the criminal lin and involved jared kushner, paul manafort and donald trump jr. when the news of that meeting came out, it was a huge bombshell. it was one of the most important pieces of the criticism. they always point to that
meeting. it was really important. the official response from the white house, went that news of that meeting came out was to down-play it. say it was just about adoptions, that it wasn't about getting dirt on hillary clinton or about sanctions. what we now know from the president's own attorneys, is that the president himself was involved in drafting that misleading statement. that the president himself knew what the truth was. this is one of the things we've been looking at. your thought on the point betsy just made as well as will this argument and approach overall stick? >> well, when i was trying to digest this letter, it seems to break down into three categories. first, the president is too busy discharging his duties. and the supreme court has, in
other contexts, answered that question twice in both u.s. v nixon and clinton j jones and the supreme court has said the president is never too busy to be held accountable. two, they suggest that a lawful act can never be viewed as criminal, because he has a pardon power, because he can fire an fbi director. because he can put a stop to an investigation. those can't possibly be evidence of a crime. the reality is he does have those powers. however, if he exercises them for corrupt purpose, that can very well be a building block in a conspiracy case or in an obstruction of justice case. third, which is really my faith, they say, look, we've given you everything you could possibly want. and as a career prosecutor, if a defense attorney tells me they've given me everything i could possibly want, i'm pretty sure they haven't. >> would you agree with that
when you look at this? as well in the text they are basically in the full cooperation mode as you read. hoping potentially, that these, the team, the mueller investigation team will not look into the financial trails of this very case. well, it's hard to cooperate and obstruct at the same time. so i'm not in the cooperation camp. i don't think that's going on here. we still don't have an interview yet, and it's increasingly unlikely we may see an interview. i think every american needs to read the piece and the memo and understand what the president is asserting. he's asserting not that i did isn't break the law, or i disagree with your evidence, but rather, i can do whatever i want. i am teflon don. i have the power to obstruct because i am justice. i am the law. i can't break the law. i can't obstruct justice.
i am justice. and so, you either agree with that or you don't. i have to tell you if a first year law student submitted that argument in criminal procedure class it would come in at a d-plus, c-minus. it's shocking this is the best they can come up with. >> back to you in a second, but since frank just said that, i want to get your thought here, glen, on that. power of the legal minds behind this. it was at the time, grafted. you can see the by-lines. now, we have giuliani leading this effort here. will this get better than a d-plus as time goes buy? >> richard, i don't think so. bob mueller has assembled one of the most accomplished legal teams that i have ever seen. they have nation security experts, cyber crime experts. they have fraud and public integrity experts.
remarkable appellate attorneys. michael, the deputy solicitor general among them. it is really a remarkable cadre of either career lawyers and prosecutors or people who have moved in and out of the government. >> dream team. >> i would call it a dream team. having worked directly for bob mueller, he was my chief of homicide, i can attest to his skill, fairness. if there's no evidence of criminal conduct, bob mueller will shout it from the roof tops. it does feel like the mueller team is playing 3-d chess and the trump legal team headed by mr. giuliani is scratching out tic-tac-toe boards on butcher paper. >> one of the points i think was made by glen earlier was some the language used in this by the legal team that you probably saw
here. i'll read it quickly. page 3 for me. encumbrance has been compounded by the astounding public revelations, appears to have led to the alleged russian collusion investigation. i don't know what's legal-ease and what isn't. but astounding public relations seeps to be not in that space? >> i'll defer to the lawyers as to whether or not that's something that gets used in court. i'm pretty sure it's not. one thing that's interesting. this particular allegation they sort of float without any other evidence they command to support it. essentially it's his legal team suggesting the entire fbi are rotten with corruption. it's an interesting little aside for them to put in there. we do know one member, an fbi agent was removed because he sent anti-trump text messages.
that's an example of the team policing itself. conflict and scandal free. reality is that the president and his lawyers have been working overtime ever since mueller was named special council to find ways to dis credit this investigation just because of the fact they're deeply concerned about the ultimatum pact this could have on the presidency. >>. >> one of the things my father would always say was that's like water off the duck. when this 20 dash page memo hit the mueller team, was that like water off the duck? >> i would imagine they sat around, made copies, got the coffee out and started reading through it and heads started shaking. again, i'd assert they probably concluded this is the best they can come up with, we're okay. this may be well headed to the supreme court. this notion that you can't subpoena a sitting president, the sitting president can't commit a crime or can't obstruct justice, we may be headed to the supreme court, but i'm pretty
darn confident that mueller will win the day on this, because justice will win the day. >> yeah, in the last hour lawrence tribe was saying -- and stood in front of the supreme court three dozen times. he said this is not going to go anywhere. any of these issues of obstruction and executive privilege. >> and the supreme court has answered similar questions in the past. united states versus nixon when the administration, the president, through his lawyers asserted that he is not susceptible to a criminal subpoena to get his recordings. the supreme court rejected that and said pony up the recordings. clinton v jones, the sfrae administration, said he cannot be made a respondent. supreme court said yes you can. fall back was i can't be hauled into court as a spon dends in a
civil suit until after i leave office. what did the supreme court say? wrong. get yourself into court. every time the supreme court has decided an analogous, very closely related issue, they've struck the balance in favor of the justice and the court being able to fairly and fully in a timely manner administer the system of justice. >> betsy, what's next? what does it tell us about what the legal team might do next if this were sort of a play book? >> i think the next thing is mueller's team will have to decide whether or not he's going to subpoena him. i think he's extremely ininterest ininterest ininterested. they can't get in a represent -- if mueller's team does decide to insist on the right to interview the president, then they will have to issue a subpoena, it's likely based on this letter that that subpoena is something the
president's lawyers would fight tooth and nail. this is sort of the key dick cheney argument when he was vipe. he pushed hard for an expansive view of executive power. this isn't just going to be an issue of whether or not he sits down with an interview. what kind of power presidents. i think a pro tract the legal fight would be likely. >> always great to have you. appreciate your time. stick around. we'll see you later. coming up, dig deeper into the politics of this very memo that we're talking about and the president's public efforts to undermine the mueller investigation. clooer .
>> we have more now on the memo from president trump's attorneys offering revealing insights into the president's legal strategy against the russian investigation and hours before the new york times published the memo, there was this, the president tweeting is the special counsel leaking my lawyers' letters to the fake media? and so now we will bring in
strategic communiqcator of hillary for america, and we have rolling stone senior writer ja meal smith. ja meal, i want to start with you on this. as he intimates here the why in terms of this letter coming out? this 20 pages, but it might be those forces that are on his side? might bit that him from the white house saying, yeah, go ahead >> itt might have been his own legal team leaking it for all we know. the who of the leaking is a distraction from what is actually in the memo, and what is in the memo is devastating to their own cause. unless you are looking at it from the standpoint of politis.s now, if you are looking at it from the standpoint of politicians, maybe he is not trying to make a legal case, but a case with his own voter, and this is after all the president who once said that he could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone and not lose voters and that is since
the rich people don't worry about going to jail, he is more worried about voters than suppo support. and so right now, he is trying to make sure that whatever mueller finds out, and whatever comes out of this investigation, and whether he testifies or not is discredited immediately from the media, because it is coming out of the media. >> and one of the takeaways here is that the issue, at least the lawyers in the memo alluding to the president admitting that he dictated some text to his son don jr., and that is all regarding the trump tower meeting. >> yeah. no, there is a lot of oinformation that oinfocoming out on a saturday afternoon, and that is one of the pieces of information that he dictated the content of what came out in the statement that don jr. wrote. but, look, going back to the memo here, and what a brash interpretation of the law that tru trump's attorneys have put forward here insinuating that he should not be forced to testify because essentially he could terminate the investigation at any time, and therefore he
cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. we have taken this or rather his attorneys have taken this investigation into a whole new level, but i do have the confidence that justice will prevail in the case. >> and so, shermichael f there is linkage to the tweet that we brought up to the then subsequent release of the 20-page memo, and if there is some sort of linkage here is the white house worried a about this memo here? >> i mean, if i were at the white house, i would have arguably been worried about it. first of all, i would not have advised if i were someone adv e advising thet president to make this type of the argument to prevent him from testifying or being interviewed rather by the special counsekoucounsel or the jury, because there are other arguments to state the case. what they are saying is that the president is above the rule of law which is antithetical to a core premise of his which is law
and justice and he is arguing the importance of following the law and the importance of justice here in society, and yet, you have the president's attorneys saying that the law is applicable to everyone else except for the president. that is in my view extremely problematic and troubling, because it is not in sync with the values and the norps of the socie -- the norms of the society, because we are a society of laws. and that means that every single individual including the president of the united states has to adhere to the principles. >> and the principles are being evaluated with the legal team and those who have signed this 20-page memo no tto the mueller team. and how dowd and succello have said is that they are the most brightest legal mind, and so that is what others have said. and so, now, say that he does not have the best legal mind, and this 20-page memo
articulates that he does not have the best legal team, and he appears to be doing okay. and this is just june 2nd, 2018. >> it is troubling that the president cannot find adequate legal representation, and that is trouble ing thing that the p of the the united states is making arguments within the scope of the law, and what they are making is a political argument, and saying that this person, because he is who he is exempt from these rules of law while at the same time he goes off and makes arguments that, you know, essentially that people look like me and shermichael are more subjected to the rule of olaw than he is, and that spoirnlt to note the context oft who this is person is and the policy that he is advocates is important to understand in terms of the arguments that he is making to save himself. >> and when you are look at how he is trying to save himself, adrienne, he says that my lawyers don't actually want me
to sit down with bob mueller, and they don't want me to, but i want to. so what we are seeing here again n this 20-page letter is that i think that dot no want him to, and they are making a lot of arguments against it. does the president really want to sit down? >> well, it is fascinating, right? because his attorneys are rightfully so don't want him to sit down, because he has a propensity to lie constantly and lying in front of the grand jury can get you in a lot of trouble. so trump is looking back at, you nknow, when he was head of the trump enterprises and he was deposed quite a few times, and he thinks that he does a good job when he is deposed, so i think that he wants to go back to the mentality, but again, if you are an attorney, and you are the attorney for the president of the united states, of course, you don't want your client the president to testify in front of a grand jury, but in this case, you certainly don't want to, because again, this president a has a propensity to not tell the truth. >> and shermichael, this is going to be the playbook, this plays to his base, does it not
in terms of the arguments that he has made since he has been in office? >> no, it does and richard, you could play to the base by saying, that, look, this investigation is a sham, et cetera, while still adhering to the rule of law. i don't think that the two are mutually exclusively and a great majority of people who are supporting the president they believe it is going on far too long, and whether it is true or not, that is something they maintain, and the president can cater to feelings of those individuals while also saying that though i disagree with this investigation, i am going to actively participate and give them whatever documents that they want, because the rule of law is important. as a republican, which is something that we always try to the argue how important justice s we want to make sure that we set the proper example that we are a party that respects law, that respects law enforcement, and respects the special counsel and all of the things tied to that.
and the president is not doing that. he is knocking every single norm that i would argue that every other president before him would have adhered to, which is fundamentally problematic. >> and last word, ja meal, is this an old playbook, because this is a january memo, and things change so quickly here, but it is right in line of what we have heard in the last week? >> right. and speaking with what shermichael is saying, viewing it as political document and not a legal memo, a lot of the voters wanted this. they wanted this kind of authoritarianism, and they wanted this kind of the power grab on the presidency from this particular person. there was a study from abc news that stated that two scholars one from clemson and one from texas a&m said that white resentment is not unassociated with the demand for authoritarianism, and when in fact, those serve the needs of particular communities, so we have to understand this within the political context to assess
it. >> thank you, all three, on this breaking news day. >> thank you, richard. >> thank you. >> thank you. and with the summit in north korea appears to have been saved, but now president trump is lowering the expectations on the outcome. >> it is going to be a beginning, and i will say, and i have never said it happens in one meeting, because it is years of hostile tis and years of problems. my gums are irritated. i don't have to worry about that, do i? actually, you do. harmful bacteria lurk just below the gum line, and if you're not taking care of your gums, you're not taking care of your mouth. so now i use this. crest gum detoxify. introducing new crest gum detoxify... it works below the gum line and is clinically proven to neutralize harmful plaque bacteria and help reverse early gum damage.
i support thaffordable care act, and voted against all trump's attempts to repeal it. but we need to do more. i believe in universal health care. in a public health option to compete with private insurance companies. and expanding medicare to everyone over 55. and i believe medicare must be empowered to negotiate the price of drugs. california values senator dianne feinstein
we are covering two big stories today. also, north korea, and president trump's historic summit with kim jong-un is on again and that is announced friday shortly after he held talks with kim's number two kim jong choi, and you remember these pictures. and he downplayed the summit as president trump said that it will be a long time to come to an agreement for denuclearization. and we are now going to be joined by our panel. ambassad ambassador, thank you for being here. we have good conversation here, and it is, you know, always different factors and today, the
factor is and we are getting this in from the white house correspondent kelly o'donnell, and i want to read it to you and kevin as well w. are hearing that one of issues related to all of this has been resolved, and that is the accommodations for kim jong-un there at the fullerton hotel in singapore. evidently, the rooms are associate and the cost was about $6,000 a night some have reported, and they have resolved that and unidentified party has taken care of this hotel bill, and not the united states. is this the level of detail that we are at as kelly o'donnell tells us on the floor there at singapore trying to work out the details, and these are the type of details that could keep this from happening? >> i don't think. so i must say in all of my dealings with the north koreans, we never paid their hotel bills, and so it is a little probl problematic. it is amazing how far this has
come. in the bush administration, which is also a republican administration, and so much skepticism of any talk with the north koreans, and i mean, i had to beg, borrow and steal to pay for the cooling reactor to be deconstructed. and so, let alone pay the hotel bill. and so when he hosted kim jong chul, he made it as warm of an event going out to the south lawn on the white house, and i haven never seen with a love-n and i don't know what happened with john bolten if he was locked in the basement of the white house, but he made sure that everybody there was in favor of this thing, and sos as the president says, let's see what is going to happen here. >> kevin, where was john bolton and the read out of him, because he has been out of the cameras for the most part of this visit
and the gargantuan letter. >> well, for the ambassador, i am not sure if it was john bolton or secretary pompeo who threw him in the basement, because that is the differences of the secretary of state and john bolton and quite candidly i speak with several source s s i the intelligence committee, and they say that they have brought over members of the team for mike pompeo to negotiate this summit in singapore. this is notable, because from the policy standpoint, it is secretary pompeo in lock step with the admin adminstrati mima president trump and nickki hale, and that is the palace intrigue there with the policy, but all trend lines are pointing to the the u.s. to a advocate for a long term denuclearization deal with kim jong-un, and whether or not kim jong-un is prepared to
do that or whether or not he is prepared to make some small concessions, we don't know. both the democrats and the republicans are suggesting to me that talking is good, provided it is done with the great skepticism and great caution. >> and the readout, mr. ambassador, is that the president is open to assisting north korea financially, and the north koreans in response do not want to have an outward extension of financial assistance, and yet, we were talking about how they were going to pay for the hotel bill. that is a real need for north korea, and how does that get done? >> right. well, i mean, you have to be careful and taking things at face value. the north koreans say this is terrible to think that we need money from the u.s., but they have clearly trouble with things like hotel bills, and what is interesting is with the president's comments yesterday confirmed this is that the north koreans are not there with
denuclearization, and i would be okay if they at least got the north koreans to say, that we are in favor of it, and it is going to take aus little time, but i don't even get that sense, and what i am getting instead is that we will get to know them a little, and this is going to continue in a process which is okay, but how can the president just be riding down president obama, president bush, president clinton when it sounds like the process that had to be done in the past. it is not easy, and the president needs to acknowledge it is not easy, but it is coming against the backdrop, and extraordinary to see that event at the same time that we are causing huge problems with all of the allies and neighbors. so i think that the president in this week may have really bitten off a lot more than he can chew when you looking at the trade side, and the issue that you are looking at the mueller investigation, and the sense that the white house is really, really overdone it right now,
and i'm not sure how they will handle these various issues. >> it has certainly been a speck tackle for the north korean watchers and those watching the white house, as you are reflecting here, mr. ambassador, and kevin, you too, reporting on this. it is not only that we see one, if you want to call it the top bad guys from north korea with the policy geeks. and kevin, what was in that letter, and it was quite large, as i said, physically. >> right. and we were at the white house, and president trump comes out to talk to the reporters, and it is unclear whether or not he has read the sentence, and in one sentence he said that he had read it and then another he said that he didn't and so we don't know what was in the letter, and if he has read that letter. and we are spect to the north korea's economy and in terms of how president trump and the public comments in the last 48 hours are suggesting that, look,
if they will not be playing ball, they have a additional sanction there on the north koreans, but it is to the ambassador o's point, we can have a ideological debate if financial institutions wants to invest in iran, but no big bank in their mind wants to do b business with north korea and the only place that is with the 90% of the imports and the exports directly tied is china. that is where the trade issue that the ambassador brought up really starts to matter, because president trump in trying to have a bilateral talks with can a da and china, and he is facing a multi lateral response whether or not he wants it. that is where this is interes g interesting, because quite frankly, whaen that meeting was delayed, richard, it was potentially according to the president, because he did not like what the chinese were doing on the back end. >> and looking at the economy and export and import is a big
part of it, and technologies are related to nuclear capabilities, and if you take it away and fill it in, what do you need? ambassador hill, and kevin s ser -- cerilli. thank you. and can the president obstruct justice? the lawyers do not think so. it is a 20-page letter that was sent to counsel robert mueller, and so is the president above the law. the panel discusses that. signature toughness... and one more thing... the world comes with it. the new, reimagined 2019 jeep cherokee.
[ drum roll ] ...emily lapier from ames, iowa. this is emily's third nomination and first win. um...so, just...wow! um, first of all, to my fellow nominees, it is an honor sharing the road with you. and of course, to the progressive snapshot app for giving good drivers the discounts -- no, i have to say it -- for giving good drivers the discounts they deserve. safe driving!
- anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
we are going to get back to the breaking news this hour on msnbc that we are following which is an explosive 20-page report from "the new york times" that is centered around a letter that donald trump's lawyers delivered to robert mueller. and we have extensive measures of what they are thinking of the defense that the president cannot be subpoenaed and he cannot obstruct justice. more on that after a short break. (burke) vengeful vermin.
seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ yes. it's a targeted medicine proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, and lower oral steroid use. about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs.
fasenra™ is designed to work with the body to target and remove eosinophils. fasenra™ is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ for sudden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenra™ may cause headache, sore throat, and allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™.
>> still following the breaking news this hour on the russian investigation. and on saturday a short time ago about three hours ago, the new york times publishing the contents of a confidential memo of the president's attorneys to special counsel robert mueller. it is containing allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice defense. and they are taking the stance that the president cannot be forced to answer mueller's questions. and joining us we have our political analysts.
let's start with you, if we can, and let's look at the discussion of what stands out to you, and this is something that i look at it, jure is all kinds of things that are familiar to us in the 20-page memo, but there are a couple of things that are new. what is standing out to you? >> well, first ott of all, the president has now admitted that he on air force one dictated the let her about his son's involvement, and what the rea n reasons were for having that infamous meeting with the russians in trump tower during the election, and that is an admission of the president that he was in fact doing something that some people may consider an obstruction of justice r, and do not forget that both richard nixon and bill clinton went down for the obstruction of justice, and bill clinton survived, but he was i impeached on that basis. so that is something that the president needs to be weary of, and also, that his attorneys have an expansive view of the presidential powers and louie the xviiith that he is the law.
and so that is the problem -- >> i have heard that today as well as president can do virtually anything and get away with it. >> glen, back to the legal team admitting it appears in this 20-page memo that the president dictated to his son don jr., what does this do in terms of expezzure to the president and don jr.? >> it seams like a problem. i have every reason to expect he will say i was misinformed because i wasn't at the meeting. i was relyingan on information provided by others when i was crafting this or helping craft it. i suspect there is going to be some wiggle room there. now it's going to be one of the many building blocks that show conspiracy, collusion, obstruction of justice. i don't think this standing alone is necessarily a blockbuster. >> okay. not alone. but certainly part of the witch's brew, shall we say?
susan del%io, the resonance from the letter really is not only the idea of operating as a royal, number one, but number two, some drilldowns on that would be he could kill this case at any time, right? that's one of the assertions being made. >> one of the assertions. >> a second assertion is i can fire anybody involved in this process at any time. >> let's not forget why they have to make those assertions. it is a because they do not want donald trump testifying in any shape or form to robert mueller or in front of a grand jury. they don't trust the client because donald trump probably doesn't even remember which lies he told when. and they know that. we just saw it yesterday, with something as simple as reading a letter. oh, it was very interesting, he said. and then 20 minutes later he said yoerks i didn't read it. that's what his lawyers are exactly afraid of. so, yes, i think it is a very broad definition. i'm not an attorney but it appears to be a very broad
definition of the authority of the president. but it's the only thing they have to hang their hat on to try to avoid testimony. >> frank, if he were to sit in front of potentially robert mueller or a member of his team and if he is caught not saying the truth, which he has done certainly to the press and in the public, what does he face? >> well, this comes down to the question of whether or not -- that we are talking about here, whether or not you could actually charge the sitting president or in the. i think we are headed to a trip to the supreme court on that if mueller indeed tends to go that route. i think the supreme court needs to get ready for a number of issues here. as your guests have said, we are seeing a bold assertion here with deeply flawed legal arguments in this 20-page memo to include the flawed argument that he can indeed stop an investigation at any time. you know, way back, several months ago, we heard the
attorney general of the united states slip and introduce the president as the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. he's not. that's the attorney general of the united states. so we even have the amount .g flawed promise of his powers. >> building on what frank said there, what does he face? is it five years? two years? what is it? >> if he sits down with robert mueller and his investigators, fbi agents, every time he makes a materially false or fraudulent statement, he's facing five years under 18 united states code 1001. do you think his legal team is really going to want to expose him to that? >> it will be like, potentially, it will be like those jackpot machines, turning very, very
quickly. at least for those who are critical of him at the moment right now. july, as i was reading through it, the thing that stood out was the language that was being used. i have come back to that several times. in that that letter -- this memo -- this legal memo may not have been aimed towards all of these big brains in mueller's team but really aimed at potentially one day those who might read it in the public. just because of the language that was used. >> there is no question that they are attempting to first and foremost discredit this investigation. secondly let's pause for a second and think about where we are in 2018 in the united states of america. the president of the united states we are told by his own lawyers cannot steph in front of a grand jury or speak to fbi agents because their afraid of him perjuring himself. that is, the president of this nation cannot give an honest answer according to his own legal team. that is something all of us regardless of party affiliation need to be cognizant and
frightened of. because there is no reason the president of the united states should fear giving truthful testimony in front of a grand jury if he is ultimately subpoenaed. the fact he refuses to do that is very dangerous for this country. >> they say they are being open and key operative in the to. the footnote that the "new york times" puts in is that hoping they will be able to avoid the investigation into the financial intertwinings of this president. aren't we past that? >> we are. let's not forget the memo was written in january. i'm curious here on a saturday evening, what is rudy giuliani going to say to your colleague chuck todd tomorrow on meet the press that's going to blow this thing up. >> what is he going to say. >> i don't know. but we will talk it at great length and it will almost put this story as a back burner to whatever he says tomorrow. >> you will be watching in earnest tomorrow, won't you susan. >> watch meet the press. >> that's a great plug. do not miss that on your nbc station locally, check your
local listings. 15 seconds to you though. wrap it up for us. >> let's remember, this was written in january. we don't know where the president's newest lawyer, emmitt flood, comes down on all of this. are we watching old news? are we watching a trial balloon being floated to the public? where is emmitt flood on all of this? we have got to stay tuned for all of that. >> i appreciate all four of you. frank, glen, retired just yesterday. now he knows what it's like, he has been on air since 7:00 a.m. this morning. julie, susan del percio, newly minted msnbc contributor but old friend. thank you to all four. that wraps it up for us on msnbc this hour. i'm research louie. follow me on facebook, instagram, and twitter. all in with chris hayes is up next. stick around for that. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail
they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor,
since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
tonight on "all in." >> a letter was given to me by kim jong-un. it was a very interesting letter. >> president trump agrees to meet an adversary without precondition. >> i haven't seen the letter yet. i purposely didn't open the letter >> while spurning america's allies. >> they are our allies, but they take advantage of us economically. >> tonight how donald trump is turning america's relationship with the world upside down. then -- >> it's important that were serving in this capacity that everyone is a good steward of taxpayer money. >> the new propaganda push to