tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC January 15, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
they will be nasty. i've seen carl rove come into my races and each time i've run, i know what he's up to. when i think about donald trump, i know that bullies are always cowards and we will be ready if it comes to that. >> all right, senator sherrod brown, thank you. >> that's "all in" for this evening. t"the rachel maddow show" start now. >> thanks to you at home for joining u. senator chuck schumer, the leader of the democrats in the u.s. senate will be joining us live here in just a moment. very happy to have him here on such a big day. a typical day in the news cycle, i tend to -- i think it's a kin to the weather on any given day, like a naturally occurring range of things that might happen on any given day at any given time of year, depending on where you live. all right? depending on the general constraints of the climate in which you're operating. so news days are sort of like that. some days the sunshines, some days it snows, some days there
is black ice and debilitating storms that bring everything to a halt. news days are like the weather. today was a stormy day in the news cycle, which is something we're getting used to in this political climate that surrounds this unsettling presidency. but today, today was not just like a normal stormy day in the news in the trump era. today was like a whole bunch of storms stacked up one after the other plus ten earthquakes. what we usually think of as the realm of things that can affect the news cycle in any one day. today was just nuts. it started very late last night, actually with the "new york times" reporting that president trump repeatedly within the last year has told administration officials that he wants to destroy nato, that he wants to pull the united states out of nato. the north american treaty alliance, north atlantic treaty
alliance, the most important western military alliance on earth and has been for 70 years and whether or not you think you care about nato, i think the times actually disserve credit for putting the importance of that decision really clearly in frame. let me quote from some of the times reporting. quote, there are few things vladimir putin desires more and the weakening of nato and soviet and russian aggression for 70 years. senior administration officials tell "the new york times" during the course of 2018, president trump suggested a move to amount to destroying nato. he suggested the withdraw of the united states from nato. michelle under secretary of defense, she's a widely respected security official and a top tier candidate to be
secretary of defense during any democratic administration and republican ones. michelle flournoy is quoted saying that a move to withdraw the u.s. from nato, quote, would be one of the most damaging things that any president could do to u.s. interests. she continues quote, it would destroy 70 plus years of pain steaking work across multiple administrations, republican and democratic to create perhaps the most powerful alliance in history. quote, it would be the wildest success that vladimir putin could dream of. the times continues and after russia and ex crimea, they have large rly focused on solidarity. the goal is to up end nato. russian actions toward achieving that goal have included quote, russia's meddling in america's elections and russia's efforts
to prevent former satellite states from joining the nato alliance with a weakened nato, american officials say putin would have more freedom to behave as he wishes, setting up russia as a counter weight to europe and the united states. senior trump administration officials discussing the president's behavior "the times." they tell the paper that an american withdraw from nato would accomplish all that putin has been trying to put in motion, quote, essentially doing the russian leader's hardest and most critical work for him. so that was like midnight last night from "the new york times." and we don't know who these senior administration officials are, who are talking to the "new york times" about what the president has been reportedly trying to do on this front. it is possible of course that these are senior trump administration officials who were concerned about these actions and these statements by the president last year, but
they didn't feel the need to go to the press about them then. maybe because defense secretary jim mattis was in place then. there is some noise that mattis was preventing trump from taking the worse and most reckless of his prorussia steps in national security and foreign policy and again, i do not mean to suggestion they know who the sources are but you can tell from the substance of the reporting and also from its tone these are very senior people somehow trying to pull a fire alarm here and the timing i think has to be part of our understanding for why these administration officials are now coming forward and anonymously giving this information to "the times." reporters are julian barns and cooper and put a flashing red aero on the timing in the report. they say quote, now, the president's repeatedly stated desire to withdraw from nato is
rising concerns about mr. trump's efforts to keep his meetings with mr. putin secret from even his own aides. it's one thing to be a senior official in the trump administration and to be worried or upset but the prospect the president wants to give away the store, that he wants to dismember nato and give russia every item on the most fantastical international wish list, even the ones that would previously have been dismissed as unthinkable in this country under any leadership. one thing to be opposed to that or worried about the president's inclinations, right? but maybe you think that somebody like jim mattis is stopping trump from doing that and maybe you don't it's apparently another thing to realize once jim mattis is gone, he's not a governor anymore.
if the president is making these decisions and taking these actions specifically because russia's president has been telling him directly face-to-face and person to person this is what he needs to do because now we've learned that there is no record of the conversations between trump and putin because trump ensured there are no records of those conversations. i guess that maybe is the trip wire. all right? oh. we don't know whether or not putin has been telling him directly to do this stuff and he's saying, yes, sir, high how do you want me to jump? when you swallow your pride and decide you're going to talk to the "new york times", maybe it time to set off the alarm. it was just this weekend that greg miller at the washington post reported that trump had confiscated and destroyed his own interpreter's notes from his meeting with putin and gone to great lengths to prevent other people in his administration to
find any details what he and putin talked about in mutt 'tlt meetings. it may not be a coincidence two days later, "the new york times" gets trump senior officials coming to them telling them trump is trying to achieve putin's most important and most treasured goal. the destruction of nato, the most unimaginable thing in u.s. foreign policy. i mean, short of us dissolving ourselves, us dissolving nato, is the most fantastical dream russia might imagine for itself and trump is trying to do it? and putin, of course, is sitting pretty in a couple different ways at this point, right? i mean, first of all, and apparently after very careful and risky investment on his part, putin has a president of the united states who performs back flips on command. i mean, honestly, what else could they make him do? else could they conceivably want
other than shuttingdown t down u.s. government? trump appears to have adopted every top tear russian objective, but on top of that, the kremlin has to be further delighted this week, right now, this same u.s. president that does tricks on command keeps giving russia even more leverage over him all the time. i mean, think about it. think about that report from "the washington post", what the practical implications are from putin's perspective. trump may have taken, you know, confiscated and destroyed his own american interpreter's notes but there is no reason to think putin did the same thing, right? i mean, he took notes, too. there is a guy taking notes right there next to putin. i mean, whether or not it's the russian government's notes on these meetings between putin and
trump or whether they recorded those meetings as some former senior officials have suggested russia had a habit of doing, whether it's just notes or recordings or whatever, russia and vladimir putin know the truth about what happened in those one on one meetings between trump and putin and if they didn't know it before, now thanks to the washington post, russia knows that the truth of what happened in those one on one meetings between trump and putin, that's something the american president, that trump has desperately been trying to keep from public view and from the view of other officials in his own administration. russia now knows whatever happened in the meetings, trump is desperate to keep it secret. and they have a railroad of the truth of what happened in those meetings. that's like blackmail in a bottle. right? think about it. whatever happened between trump and putin in the meetings, russia knows. russia has a record of that and has that to weield against him
unless they need to give his leash another tug and on to have of th -- top of that today in case europe was not on their heels enough to be the capture of the u.s. president by a foreign adversary and him wiring nato e earth, today ton of of that, the british govrt and a free ball to take as much organized western europe with it. >> order. >> the is to the right, the noes 432. the is to the right 202.
the nos -- order! the is to the right 202, the nos to the left, 432. so the nos have it. the nos have it. point of order, the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the house has spoken and the government will listen. it is clear that the house does not support this deal but tonight's vote tells us nothing about what it does support. nothing about how -- >> the results of tonight's vote is the greatest defeat for a government since the 1920s in this house. this is a catastrophic defeat for this government. >> she cannot seriously believe that after two years of failure she's capable of negotiating a good deal for the people of this country. the most important issue facing us is that the government has
lost the confidence of this house and this country. i therefore, mr. speaker, inform you i have no tabled a motion of no confidence in this government and i'm pleased, i'm pleased that motion will be debated tomorrow. so this house can give its victim on the share incompetence of this government and pass that motion of no confidence in the government. >> the failure tonight in the british house's comments on th brexit vote, teresa may is not empowered and great britain is our closest overseas ally. this is not a normal disagreement within the government in great britain. there are politics in government right now appear to be in a mix of as i said, free fall and also
chaos. there will be a no confidence vote tomorrow at which point we will learn the fate of teresa may as prime minister. we'll also learn something more, something about how exactly great britain is going to be hacked out of the corner stone role that it has played in western europe forever and in unified europe since the early 1970s. so this is sort of bigger than the day's weather, right? just unimagebly important news about europe and about nato shooting themselves today and not firing blanks. these are the kinds of proverbial earthquakes i'm talking about in today's news, bigger than one new development or scandal or poll or personality. but it is against that big world changing royaling backdrop that the u.s. senate today tried to confirm a new u.s. attorney general and it is against that same royaling backdrop today that something sort of bright
and unexpected happened in the united states senate alongside the confirmation hearings for the man who would be the new attorney general. in terms of the attorney general hearings and william bar nomination, we'll be speaking live with amy klobuchar of minnesota in a few minutes. she's on the committee that grilled william bar today. if you caught the hearingr toda. if you caught the hearing orb news about the hearing, you know barr was questioned repeatedly and more frequently than any topic, whether or not he'll respect the independence of the special counsel's investigation into the interference in the 2016 election and the related question whether americans were confederates in the operation. william bar handled those questions about the mueller investigation today. for the most part, he handled them by saying nice sounding, non-continroversial sounding things but bottom line, he also
didn't answer any of the hard questions about it. watch him wiggle out of every single one of these. >> will you commit to make public all of the reports conclusions, the mueller report even if some of the evidence supporting those conclusions can't be made public? >> you know, that's certainly is my goal and intent. >> will you commit that you will explain to us any changes of de deletes you make in whatever you present to us? >> i will commit to providing as much information as i can consistent with the regulations. >> you said that a president deliberately impairing the evidence would be an obstruction. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. and so what if a president told a witness not to cooperate with the investigation or hinted at a
pardo pardon? >> i'd have to know the specific facts. >> would it be appropriate to go against advice of career ethics officials that recommended recusal and can you give an example of under what situation ors scenario you would go againt where you recuse yourself? >> there are different kinds of recusa recusal. some are machine dandated like judgment call. >> it's imagine it's a judgment call and the career ethics officials in the agency are that you recuse yourself, under what scenario would you not follow their recommendation? if i disagreed with it. >> what would that be? >> i came to a different judgment. >> on what basis? >> the facts. >> such as? >> such as whatever facts are relevant to the recusal. >> under what scenario would you imagine that you would not follow the recommendation of the career ethics officials in the
department of justice to recuse yourself from the mueller investigation? >> if i disagreed with them. >> okay. >> i think that william barr believes he has enough votes to be confirmed as attorney general no matter what he says in the confirmation hearings so i think that's why he feels confident rejecting the efforts by democratic senators to pin him down on exactly what his designs are for the mueller investigation and what he believes the president ought to be allowed to get away with when it comes to that investigation. again, we're talking about that with amy klobuchar in a few minutes but as i mentioned right at the top here, senator chuck schumer is going to be here tonight. the top democrat in the senate and i'm happy to have him here live on this big and important day and we'll talk to him about william barr and the on going shutdown on day 25 of the longest shutdown in u.s. history. but the other reason i specifically wanted to talk to
senator schumer tonight is because of something unexpected that he was able to pull off late this afternoon in the u.s. senate. let me show you something. today we got a new court filing from the special counsel's office from mueller's prosecutors laying out for a federal judge in washington d.c. the evidence basis of the claims from the special counsel that president trump's campaign chairman paul manafort lied to them during the course of his cooperation with prosecutors after he plead guilty to multiple felonies. this is that filing. which landed on my desk today. you can see the size of it. landed on my desk with a remarkable thud. turns out, happy days, it does not take long to read because the first part of it is this part. see, it's a little thinner. this is narrative from an fbi agent and it's a narrative so we should be able to read it but all the good parts of it are redacted. i mean, here is a typical page
from page 19 of the decoloration, of the fbi agent. it says manafort was asked in the grand jury, redacted. manafort explained he had not told -- redacted. manafort was asked what -- redacted. after a lunch break, ka mcomma, manafo manafort, redacted. this technically is a narrative decoloration, from an fbi agent explaining the things manafort has done wrong in terms of lying to prosecutors but the whole thing is like that and they attached to that decoloration, 406 factual exhibits laying out the evidence that manafort told them lies so that's the other big part. that's the decoloration, and these are the exhibits. i said how will i get through all these exhibits before show time given everything else going on in the world with the news either qui earthquakes. watch this magic trick.
you can pull off every one of these because every one of these pages is the black box or the word redacted. absolutely nothing. and the vast majority of the filing it's completely blacked out. the few remaining pages, the last thin remaining pages that remain in the stack, basically a hand full of bank records that are unreadable and big black boxes with nothing but a bank leader head and date, page after page that looked like that. there are a couple pages where manafort lays out or prosecutors layout what manafort offered in terms of his initial cooperation proposal but most is stuff that appeared in other court filings. so what's important about this big, fat, unreadable manafort court filing today, it's really big and fat and unreadable. and so the take away here from this criminal case involving the president's campaign chair is that boy, there is still a lot blacked out. there is still a lot we don't know about the criminal case against the president's campaign
chairman. boy, is this still a live issue in the courts. and one of the as yet unexplained threads in the case is the allegation from prosecutors that the president's campaign chairman was sharing internal polling data from the trump campaign with a guy who was associated with russian intelligence and who had also served as manafort's intermediary with deripaska was offered private briefings on the campaign by manafort during the time manafort was running the trump campaign. deripaska had a business and political relationship with manafort and had extensive financial dealings with him. at one point federal prosecutors said it appears manafort may have owed deripaska as much as 10 million dollars and while this case against manafort continues, as it does today with all these redacted unreadable filings, that deripaska thing is still dangling. we don't know how central
deripaska is or may have been to the russian interference effort that bought vladimir putin his very own pet u.s. president. chuck schumer today introduced a measure that would block the trump administration from dropping sanctions on companies associated with deripaska and i know, i know nobody thinks anything is possible in congress, nobody thinks anything is possible in the senate when it comes to constraining this president in terms of whatever has been going on between him and russia but sanctions on russia for interfering are a thing that the republicans have sometimes been willing to speak up on that republicans have sometimes been willing to defy president trump about. and i have been hitting this for the past few days and i know that nobody has believed me, but honest to goodness, today senator chuck schumer, the democratic leader in the senate put forward a bill to stop the
trump administration from dropping the sanctions on dara past k -- deripaska right now and he did it. he got 11 republican senators of all different ideological stripes to vote to keep the sanctions in place. this was a procedure vote today. we'll talk with chuck schumer but the vote was 57-42. it would have been 58-42 had she not been on the colbert report. she'll be back tomorrow and cast the vote with the rest of the democrats and those at least break away 11 republican senators.away 11 republican senators. last night we talked about the sanctions thing as a test vote for the country, a test vote for whether or not elected republicans might have some hidden depths. they might feel some compunction when it comes to this president
and the scariest things about his relationship with russia. today 11 republican senators broke ranks on this. i am telling you, do not lose faith. just because the ground is shaking, do not lose faith. anything is possible. chuck schumer joins us next. ise chuck huscmer joins us next. business unlimited card, i get unlimited 1.5% cash back. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel. i don't think about the ink card. i think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. i think about the details. fine, i obsess over the details. think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought. your ink card. chase ink business unlimited. chase ink business unlimited, with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours. come hok., babe. nasty nightime heartburn? try alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief,
plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. oh, what a relief it is! saved an average of $412," syou probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online. esurance, it's surprisingly painless. so lionel, what does 24/5 mean to you?rade well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long.
ooh, so close. yes, but also all... night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light. ♪ you're not gonna say it are you? but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna.
putin's russia continues to run ramped over international norms, meddle democratic elections and destabilize the world. russia has violated the sovereignty of ukraine, interfered in our elections, the brexit vote, propertied up the brutal assad regime and implicated nerve agent attacks on the soil of the closest ally and yet, the trump administration proposes reducing sanctions on putin and his crow knees, show me the behavior from vladimir putin that warrants such relief. i can't think of any. i'll bet 90% of all americans can't think of any, so let me be clear, a vote against this resoluti
resolution, a vote to not allow us to proceed is a vote to go easy on president putin and his oligarchs. >> we knew that senator chuck schumer of new york had a plan to try to block the trump administration from dropping sanctions against companies connected with this putin ally russian oligarch, oleg deripaska. we also knew that schumer could force a vote on this matter using a tiny provision that allows the minority leader, in this case the democratic leader to put something like this up for a vote even if the republican majority doesn't want to vote on it. what we didn't know today is how the vote would go once schumer forced it. the resolution only needed a simple majority to pass today, and it passed comfortable. 57-42. 11 republicans broke ranks with majority leader mitch mcconnell and voted with senator schumer and democrats. they voted to keep sanctions in place against the wishes of the
trump administration. it's not done yet. the next hurdle will be we think tomorrow and that will be a 60-vote hurdle, not a 50-vote hurdle this is definitely not done but this today is already a bipartisan review of the trump administration's decision to drop those russian sanctions. joining us now is senator chuck schumer. thank you for your time tonight. nice to have you here. >> always good to be on. >> let me first get your reactions to how this went on the sanctions vote. i was really interested to see a very genius group of 11 1 republicans, some moderate and hard-line to cross ranks to join you. >> we were pleasantly surprise sod many republicans joined us and now we're only two votes away from telling vladimir putin he can't run the show here in the united states, no matter what the trump administration does. you know, rachel, on the floor
today leader mcconnell said today putin is a thug. i believe that, if you believe that, if our republican friends believe that, they should be voting with us, not just the 111 but more, mcconnell himself. we cannot let putin go just free here after all the bad things he's done and one other thing that compounds this, this loosening of sanctions against putin, against deripaska's companies comes right on the heels of it being revealed the special prosecutor has new evidence of the relationship between manafort and putin, deripaska and manafort have a close relationship. deripaska and the fellow at the hotel meeting with jared and manafort and the others has a close relationship. the timing coincidental. to make a strong stand is really important. >> do you think you have another potential, another couple republican votes that might get you to the 60-vote threshold
tomorrow? >> i know there were a bunch of republicans that wanted to vote yes and mcconnell and leadership put a lot of pressure on them to vote no, but now that i think they have seen that 11 others have voted this way, yeah, i think we have a real shot. >> the timing on this is remarkable. as you say, in the context of the mueller investigation, we do have a lot of dangling threads when it comes to deripaska and involvement in the manafort case and whether he's part of core question whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russian government. we had a couple disturbing revelations in the open source press in the past couple days, "the new york times" reporting that the fbi opened a counter intelligence investigation into whether the president was working for the russian government as president. "the washington post" reporting this weekend that the president went so far to confiscate the notes from his own translator when speaking with vladimir putin, "the times" last night
reporting that the president told administration officials over the past year he wants to withdraw the u.s. from nato, which of course is putin's greatest dream. are those -- are those sort of creating a new climate in terms of the way both democrats and republicans are thinking about the urgency of this situation when it comes to the president in russia? >> well, i think it is creating a new climate. there is just so much and it all seems to be woven into a web related to putin's manipulation of our own government into trump's boot licking of whatever putin seems to want and in terms of the mueller investigation because of the ties between putin, deripaska, manafort and kaliminick. this is part of one piece and changing people's minds here in washington. that's right.
>> do you think the mueller investigation is being handled adequately when it comes to the tom nation of william barr to be the next attorney general? >> i have a lot of faith in mueller. i don't have much faith in barr. i've come out against him getting this job. why? when you have a president like donald trump who has so little respect for the rule of law and justice department as a rule of law body and seems to want to manipulate justice to help him and hurt his friends, you need an attorney general who unequivocally will state certain things and barr fudged them. he says he's for openness and he's for transparency. he didn't answer the question directly. will you allow the entire mueller report to be made public to the congress and to the american public? or when he says i believe
mueller should go forward, well, that's not enough with a trump presidency. you have to ask him and get a yes ounce, will you not sbe interfere in any way with the mueller investigation? so i'm worried about barr. i think trump didn't choose him just because he's a fine lawyer. i think he chose him because of his views on presidential power and i think that given who trump is, that barr, unless barr unequivocally with no loopholes answers the questions, he shouldn't be attorney general. i'll vote against him. >> senator schumer, i have one more question to ask you about the shutdown. can you stick with us a moment and we'll come back and talk about that? >> sure. >> the shutdown is about to enter day 26. he's intimately involved in this fight. stay with us. we'll be back with senator schumer after this. us we'll be back with senator schumer after this i switched to liberty mutual
because they let me customize my insurance, and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ wenit gave me a leafput in the names almost right away. first. within a few days, i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. i didn't know that using ancestry would be so easy.
joining us once again is senator check schumer. thank you for being with us. >> sure. >> i wanted to ask you where things stand for the shutdown. we're heading into day 26, this is by far the longest government shutdown in history. the pain is real for federal government workers and having a ripple effect against different sectors of the country and our economy. do you have any sense of how this is going to end, if you bet
how this would end, how would you bet? >> the harm that's being done to people is just awful. in so many different ways. people can't get their medicines who are sick because of fda and even dea restrictions. i met a fire dispatcher kicked out of his own home he rented because he was going to move into a house where he signed up for a mortgage but can't get approval for the mortgage. story after story after story. it's mounting. we're finding our republican colleagues are feeling the heat. we made it clear this is a trump shutdown. the american people by a 2-3-1 margin blame trump and the no the democrats. what is interesting here is even some republicans who are for the wall don't want the government shutdo down over the wall. 39% of republicans, that's high said trump shouldn't shut down the government over the wall. republicans are feeling the heat. trump some but seems impervious
to people's pain, which is disgusting but our republican colleagues in the senate, more and more of them are beginning to scramble. if enough of them do and put pressure on mcconnell to bring the six bills the house pasted to the floor, we can get the government open. i think trump thought we democrats would crack. we've been united and even those moderate democrats invited title white house justifily correctly said no because they don't want to be window dressing. we seen trump stomp out of meetings because he's not getting what he wants, and the public is so strongly on our side our view is that republicans are soon going to be putting enough pressure on trump to either go around him or force him to change. we have to stay strong. so far, so good. >> in terms of going around him, you mean passing spending bills by a veto proof majority. >> certainly sending them to him and challenging him to veto and
proof majority. you may remember the bill to reopen government for 30 days passed the senate unanimously when mcconnell put it on the floor. ryan who was then speaker wouldn't put it on the floor because trump said no, but all the republicans supported that. yes, i think there is a chance that we could get a veto proof majority on a simple resolution to reopen the government. and our argument is simple, open the government, three words to trump, mcconnell and the republicans. open the government and we can debate border security. they have a different view. we're all for border security but don't hold millions of americans feeling real pain hostage. >> chuck schumer, the democratic leader in the united states senate. sir, i know you are very busy on days like this. thanks for making time for us. >> thanks, rachel. much more to get to including amy klobuchar who joins us next. coming up next. y klobuchar who joins us next. coming up next
hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪
thisyeah.ice. yeah, this is nice. mmmm how did you make the dip so rich and creamy? oh, it's a philadelphia- -family recipe. can i see it? no. new philadelphia dips. so good, you'll take all the credit. they work together doing important stuff. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum® micronutrients. restoring your awesome... daily. feed your cells with centrum® micronutrients today. discover.o! feed your cells with i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them.
oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪
so what if a president told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon? >> i'd have to know the specifics. i'd have to know the specific facts. >> and you wrote on page one if a president knowingly destroyed or alters evidence, that would be obstruction. >> yes. >> okay. >> so what if a president drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting? would that be obstruction? >> i'd have to know the specifics. >> how about if i asked you a question? would that be a question? i don't know, i'd have to know the specifics of whether or not you asked me a question if that would be a question. fresh off her questioning of william barr today we're joined by amy klobuchar of minnesota. great to see you. >> thanks, rachel. i wish you could have been on the panel. that would have been good. >> i'd offer good snark. were you satisfied with the
answers he gave you? i was reading into your body language and tone and felt like you were under whelmed but i realize i shouldn't assume that. >> i was not satisfied. first of all, the major thing is when a number of us, i asked him , senator harris asked whether or not he would abide by the decision of career ethics attorneys in the department of justice when they make a decision about whether or not the attorney general should recuse himself or herself from a case, in this case, of course, this investigation because of his earlier 19-page memo he wrote. he said today he would not do that. that he might refer to them but he would not abide by that and make his own decision and it was so ironic because he actually commended attorney general sessions for agreeing to follow those ethics attorneys recommendations and recuse himself. so that was troubling.
>> there was one element of that and i don't mean to get too weedy and specific but one of the things i was wondering an it is pating he mig i was wonderin going to be asked whether he would at least commit to making that advice public. so commit to asking for an ethics opinion if he would recuse. he did commit to that. would he commit to make the ethics advice public? so if he decides not to take advice, we know what he's objecting to or ask him about that. i felt like today that was fuzzy. i'm not sure he committed one way or the other on that. >> i agree. i'll follow up with more written questions and asked him if he agreed with the fact whitaker wouldn't recuse himself, right? that was -- that guy is like a walking, talking conflict with his past work and what he's done and he didn't really answer that, either. he said he hadn't looked at it and the other major part of this
in addition to the ethics news that we had today was the report. and i do appreciate that he said he wants to allow the investigation to run its course and that he says he's going to try to make the report public but there was a lot of equivocating in my private meeting with him and today in terms of well, i'll have to look at the rules and regulations. what i'm concerned about, i loved how you showed earlier in the show the redacted manafort filing with the multiple pages of just redfacting with nothing on them. that's nothing we want to see when the report gets filed and the american public should have a right to see what happened when a foreign country tried to interfere in our election and after 33 indictments, i think we know how serious this is. >> my impression watching that interaction between you and him and you and a few other season -- senators on the topic, if
there is a report written by mueller, that will be a report to him and he as attorney general will issue a report to congress that will, what summ e summarize what mueller told him? that was a new idea to me. i felt like he was framing that in a way i haven't seen before. >> mueller is to submit the report to the attorney general, to the department of justice, whoever is overseeing it and then they make that decision. but what we wanted to hear was this full throated i know how important this s i'm going to put that report out there. you know, barring some kind of legal problem that you don't want to reveal sop evidence or something and we didn't hear it like that. it was much more vague, as you said, about what he might put out there. that's the most concerning thing as we see more and more times tumbling our way, more things leaking out. we want to know exactly what happened. the other thing i'd add i was troubled by some of the answers
on immigration, i'd say his answers on criminal justice reform given his past views when he was attorney general, that was a good discussion with senator booker but ied a asked question, as a daughter of a reporter, i asked senator sessions would you put reporters in jail for doing their jobs? that's all. that was it. simple. there was the longest pause i can remember in a long time and then he kind of said well, i'd have to -- well, there might be some cases. that was also concerning because of the things the president has been saying about journalists, as you know and going after media organizations and individual reporters. >> that long pause that you elicited from him there drained the color out of every face in the newsroom in my office when ha p that happened today. amy gloklobuchar, thank you for being here. what you're ready to talk about
whether or not you're going to declare you're forming an exploe committee for president, you have to do it here. >> i'll try to remember that. >> diplomatic. i like that. i like that. is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ] -please. -okay. come hok., babe. nasty nightime heartburn? try alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief, plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. oh, what a relief it is! starts with looking buiat something old,nk and saying, "really?" so capital one is building something completely new.
capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? fresh-baked, and hand-crafted, with 100% clean ingredients.
hey, batter, batter, [ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. last week the president tried to give out candy when they met to discuss the shutdown. today he invited a group of democratic lawmakers for lunch offering up a full meal.
the only democrats invited were all relatively new to congress and all relatively speaking moderates. i think the idea was that if you flattered these democrats enough, if you fed them right, they might bank ranks with nancy pelosi and decide to make their own deal with president trump for his mexican border wall. nice plan. plan, meet pelosi. here is the associated press today on that lunch meeting. quote, the white house ran quickly into the limits of trying to by pass speaker nancy pelosi in shutdown negotiations when rank and file house democrats all declined an invitation to lunch on tuesday with president donald trump. every single one of those democrats invited to the meeting at the white house today refused to go there to meet with the president. turns out it takes more than free sandwiches for democrats to break from nancy pelosi's leadership in the house. with democrats holding the line and the refusal to buy the
president the wall mexico said they would pay for, the president does appear to be running out of options to get himself out of this. there is always ice cream. there is always beer. but i think it's not going to work on his terms. watch this space. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.
>> democratic senator kirsten announced her run for president. she'll be our guest tomorrow. now formally running for president. very exciting that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again then. now it's time for "the last word". >> i have something on my show tonight that you haven't had in a long time. it's a senator not running for president. >> oh, where did you find one? >> actually, you did have chuck schumer earlier tonight. he's the leader, that doesn't count.