tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC January 29, 2019 7:00am-8:00am PST
and waste time on twitter. forget that. please share that story. that wraps up this hour. how i hand you off to someone i only have great things to say about, my friend hallie jackson. >> we love that story so much. stephanie ruhle, thanks. i am hallie jackson in washington. the center of the political universe with a ton of stuff going on. this is some of it. a hand full of key hearings meant to keep an eye on what the administration is doing, and who they're doing it with. while a friend of the president's goes before a judge. roger stone in district court within the hour expected to plead not guilty to multiple federal charges. on capitol hill senators hearing from the nation's top spies and law enforcement officials about threats around the world. russia and china and venezuela and more. we'll fill you in on what we've heard so far. you'll find it chilling. the judiciary committee getting ready to clear the way for
william bar to . we start at the federal courthouse in washington where roger stone will go before a judge officially charged after last week's vooimt filed by the special counsel. stone faces seven criminal counts including obstruction, making false statements, witness tampering. prosecutors say stone lied about his communications with senior trump campaign officials in 2016. roger stone is now person number six inside the trump orbit to be charged by the special counsel. stone says he's innocent and so is the president. >> i'm not going to testify against him because i possess no negative information. there is no russian collusion. this is a witch hunt. i had no collaboration with wikileaks. i'm not charged with conspiracy.
believe me, if they could have made that case, they would have. but they want to silence me because i'll stand up for donald trump. that's what this is really about. >> julia ainsley is outside that courthouse. jeff bennett is at the white house. julia, what we expect to see today is quick. and prosecution and defense attorneys, what they're saying about this. >> reporter: yeah. we shouldn't expect to see a lot. roger stone has already said he doesn't plan on pleading guilty. that would be rare at this stage at an arraignment hearing, but roger stone is saying he's innocent. that the prosecution is overblowing this. the prosecution is saying that roger stone lied to congress about his communication with wikileaks, and the trump campaign. and they're going further and saying he witness tampered and obstructed justice by going to his business associate and saying prepare to die even threatening to take his dog away in order to keep him from telling the truth about this. of course, roger stone is
someone who does not shy away from the limelight. he's been out many times since his arrest on friday. we might expect to see him today. that's very unusual to see a defendant come before cameras themselves, but roger stone is not your usual defendant. >> that's for sure. i think if you're a betting person, you might take that bet. if he speaks after this thing, julia, thank you. let me get reaction from the white house. jeff bennett is on the north lawn. let's talk through what the white house is saying about stone and the charges. >> reporter: the white house says that stone's arrests and indictment has nothing to do with president trump and certainly nothing at all to do with the white house. the president's outside lawyer says that stone's indictment has nothing to do with russian collusion. rather, it has to do specifically with the false statements that stone made to congress. and jay is right when he says that. but it raises the question, what were the false statements? what was the lying about? it was about the contacts between the trump campaign and wikileaks over the release of this damaging information that
was hacked by the russians to hurt hillary clinton's chances and help donald trump's election chances. the other thing hanging out there in all of this is the possibility of a presidential pardon for roger stone, his long-time confidant. i was texting with roger stone yesterday. he told me he hasn't talked with donald trump about the potential of a pardon, but this is something that came up yesterday in the white house press briefing. you were sitting in the front low. let's look at how it went down. >> has the president ruled out a pardon for roger stone? >> i'm not aware of that. i haven't had any conversations regarding that matter. >> will you discuss it with him and let us know? zbl >> i'm not going to get into that at this point. >> does that mean he hasn't ruled out a pardon. >> i'm not aware of a conversation regarding that or a need for it. >> just to follow up, can you guarantee the president won't pardon roger stone? >> i'm not going to talk about hypotheticals that are ridiculous of things i haven't talked about. >> reporter: sarah huckabee sanders calls it ridiculous, the potential of a pardon, but she
didn't rule it out. stone's arrest is something that has raised a lot of concerns among president trump's inner circle about what else the special counsel might have uncovered. >> geoff, thank you. let me bring in joyce vance, anna palmer, and jeff mason. all friends of the show on what is a big 60 minutes here. joyce, the expectation from roger stone today, what do you think -- what are you looking for the most? >> so this is a relatively prefungt pr prefunctory appearance for roger stone. >> there was a program on this network last night, the beat. here is a little bit of an interaction that i want to get your take on, joyce.
>> do you have evidence or observation that suggests roger stone sought wikileaks help in timing the release of the e-mails around the access hollywood tape? >> i can't prove that at all. i had one call from roger as i recall it. roger disputes this, on the day that wikileaks began in october dropping the final e-mails on john podesta. roger was saying we have a timing issue because the billy bush tape is going to be released. and we'd like to have them begin releasing now. >> what do you hear when you hear that? >> i think this is damaging. one of the perplexing pieces of the stone indictment for me was trying to understand why stone would have pressured randy so desperately including the threats to his dog to get him to con seem the interaction that stone had with jerome corsi. we may see the explanation here.
if stone was working with corsi to arrange for the release of wikileaks documents in an effort to blunt some of the impact of the access hollywood tape, that would explain why he tried to get him to put himself forward as the source of the interaction, and we could be in conspiracy territory if there were folks inside of the campaign involved in that. i think this was a damaging admission. it's the reason why criminal folks who are subjects in criminal cases shouldn't go out on national television. >> let me pull -- okay. i don't know that's going to happen, but let me talk more broadly about the russia investigation. we heard something overnight or late last night from the acting attorney general. here's what he said about the idea that robert mueller might be almost done. i want to play this and bring in somebody else to join the conversation. >> right now the investigation is i think close to being completed, and i hope we can get
the report from director mueller as soon as we -- as soon as possible. >> garrett haake is on capitol hill for us there in the bowls of the capitol as usual. talk through democrats and the reaction of that. that is creating a little bit of hand wringing. no? >> yeah, absolutely. democrats feel like this is not an appropriate comment to make. they don't like whitaker in the first place. he feels they're a trump loyalist. he's not been confirmed. they don't like he's talking about this issue at all. they don't like he seems to be putting a time cap on the mueller investigation. the general consensus, as you hear in a minute, is mueller should be speaking for himself. also in talking to republicans over here on the senate side, there is not necessarily widespread belief that whitaker really knew what he was talking about. listen to pelosi and graham dismissing what whitaker had to say. >> any reaction to whitaker
saying the mueller probe might be over soon? >> i think mr. mueller should speak for himself. >> i don't know why he knows that. mueller will be allowed to finish his job. that's the goal. that's going to happen. i don't know how you say that in light of the grand jury being extended six months, but i know this. mr. bar is going to be the new attorney general, hopefully in february we'll hold him over today and mark him up next week and get him to the floor. and i trust his judgment to make sure that mr. mueller can finish his job and time will tell what mr. mueller finds. >> reporter: the quick note from graham about the grand jury being extended here is important. the actual evidence that we have from mueller is not necessarily the same as what whitaker is saying. but it's certainly -- the comments have gotten the attention of a lot of folks on capitol hill from both parties who do want to see mueller finish but want to see him operate independently. this is something we'll be
watching closely. it will be interesting to see how this plays on the bill bar nomination. democrats may not love bar, but i think they like him much better than matt whitaker being in charge of the investigation. i'm interested to see as i continue to talk to more folks how that might impact their votes on getting bar into that job sooner rather than later. >> another question for you on bar. i want you to stand by. i want to get anna and jeff in on this conversation surrounding matt whitaker, the comments that the mueller investigation may be close to wrapping up. >> the first thing you can't rule out is he was speaking not to the public, not to reporters but to the president. and that's something that he and other members of the cabinet have done. i remember being in a cabinet meeting not long ago where they went around the table and everyone started to praise the president. it's sort of what he likes. and matt whitaker was one of those people. it reminded me of that when i heard him say that. >> of course the president want this is investigation wrapped up.
he has said as much publicly. chris christie is talking about his new book. he'll join us later this week. he's giving some -- here's his advice to president trump. watch. >> there's no way you can make this investigation shorter. there's lots of ways you can make it longer. and the way you could do that is to keep talking and tweeting about it. every time you do that prosecutors say great, more things for us to chase down. i must have said this to him two dozen time over the last two years. you need to stop. you're making this worse. >> well, clearly he didn't hire chris christie, and he hasn't taken his advice. >> right. clearly that is the advice that a lot of people would give this president. don't talk about it. keep your head down. do your job. let this pass by. and it will be over sooner rather than later. that's not the attack this administration has had and the number of people getting connected and indicted continues to grow. >> joyce, when you look at the
comments have from matt whitaker that mueller might be wrapping up. and a report that it was a possibility that he may be finishing as early as next month. is it an indication to you that there is no big conspiracy/collusion bomb shell dropping? >> i think it's just not possible to make that call. it could be that mueller decides that there was no conspiracy. he could believe that there was a conspiracy or come up short-handed with admissible evidence in court to prove it, or he may even decide it's a matter best left for politics and for a political resolution on capitol hill. but the reality is that the roger stone indictment leaves a lot of threads unpulled. it looks to me like there is more to come here. it's always a bad bet to predict that prosecutors are done, because, for instance, the search of roger stone's residences could produce evidence. there are still witnesses
litigating whether or not they have to testify in front of the grand jury. prosecutors can get leads right up to the last minute. it's too soon to say that it's over. >> garrett, let me come back to you on this bill bar vote that is set to happen. democrats are looking to delay this committee vote. can you walk us through what's going on with that? >> sure. this is a pretty standard procedural thing. today is the first day they could vote on bar. we expect they'll push it back a week. i talked to chris coons on the judiciary committee, probably -- >> i have to go over. roger stone is walking into court. we just want to see if he says anything. no comments from stone but plenty from the small group of protesters that showed up outside court holding signs. does that say dirty traitor?
chanting lock him up as well. so stone arriving into the courtroom here in d.c. thank you for that. joyce, a quick reaction? it's not a surprise there are protesters outside court. we saw it last week in florida after being arrested. >> yeah. so i'll tell you my prosecutor dna dislikes seeing any of the action happening outside of the courtroom. stone's proceeding should take place in the courtroom. he's entitled to the same portion of justice that any other defendant is entitled to. he's innocent until proven guilty. i think it's important that we stick to our fundamental bedrock values in this very difficult prosecution just like we would in any other case. >> that's a nice note to end on. joyce, thank you. garrett, you're rolling with it. i appreciate that. i'm going to ask anna and jeff to stick around as we keep an
eye on the roger stone hearing set to start in about 45 minutes. plus the democrat who might make or break the 2020 primary is getting closer to a decision while someone else defends his decision for jumping in and a third contender taxed to the left and her trip to iowa. and the other hearing on the hill. the nation's top spies talking russia, robert mueller, north korea, china. we're headed there live. riatic . as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain... ...swelling and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels.
don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.
let's get a check back on the federal courthouse in washington here. district court, roger stone, this was him a few minutes ago. you watched it live right here walking into the courtroom. he is set to be arraigned in a matter of, what, 42 minutes from now. you can see stone walking in not making comments over the last 72 hours or so. stone has commented plenty in front of television cameras. it's possible that after if as expected he pleads not guilty, he walks out of the courtroom, he may make more remarks to the reporters waiting outside and to the small group of protesters chanting phrases like -- lock him up --. >> frank, what's your sense of where all this goes as it relates to roger stone? likely that he may end up getting bail? >> a couple of thoughts. first, joyce vance had it right
before the break with regard to the fact that we need to allow this process to take place. the protesters, that great, but we need to let roger stone work through the process and not hand him a possible argument for a change of venue because of a hostile environment in the court where he's being tried. and by the way, it works both ways. nor will a judge allow stone to serve as kind of a ring leader at the circus with his big tent being the federal courthouse or courthouse steps. don't be surprised if you see a gag order requested by the prosecution at some point because he's going to be holding court on the steps. could we see bond tonight? i doubt it. this is very much a white collar situation. you'll see his passport taken likely so that the risk of flight is eliminated or mitigated. i think you'll see him back out today. >> let me go over to julia who remains outside the court for us in washington.
frank brings up an excellent point with the gag order. this judge has put that in place on others related to the special investigation and pulled in. >> that's right, this is the same judge as previous hearings in the mueller trial. she's known to put gag orders and try to keep things in her courtroom. she knows what a high profile case she has. she's dealt with defendants from the mueller prosecution before. and so it could be that roger stone's defense which is usually get as much publicity as possible. we know his rule is no publicity is worse than bad publicity. that could hurt him. and at least the way he decides to go about this as a strategy. also i want to point out that i have people shouting behind me. there are protesters shouting at each other. it's more apparent than ever at this particular hearing how much this investigation is dividing people. you have a lot of people who are here to support roger stone in a way i didn't say for the manafort or anyone hearings.
he's a anymore in republican politics for decades. a lot of people support him, and we're seeing those sides clash here today. >> that's an excellent point. stick around. we'll come back to you as we tee up to the hearing at the top of the hour. a lot of eyeballs on that courtroom. something more important is happening over on capitol hill. that is where we are hearing from the fbi director, the cia director, the direct of national intelligence, other key law enforcement leaders talking about threats from around the world. you see chris ray. let me get to kim delaney. frank is back with us as well. ken, there have been already direct contradictions between what we're hearing from leaders of the intelligence community and what we've heard from president trump. >> that's right. we were going to talk about the three big questions at this hearing. but we already have three big headlines. the first is the intelligence community assesses russia and china and iran intend to
interfere in the 2020 election and will have learned lessons from russia. importantly, also as you mentioned, on two particular crucial issues, dan coats, the director of national intelligence as directly contradicted president trump. president trump said that isis, the terrorist group has been defeated. well, coats said directly in his opening statement, that's not true. he didn't mention what trump said, but he said isis is on its way to military defeat in iraq but is going back to guerilla war fafare roots and is plannin terrorist attacks. a contradiction with president trump. and north korea, recall that president trump in june tweeted there was no longer a nuclear threat from north korea. as we've been reporting all along, dan coats says the intelligence says that's not true. north korea is unlikely in his crew, to give up their nuclear weapons because they consider them crucial to regime survival
and he mention they detected behavior inconsistent with denuclearization. >> let me play what we've heard so far from dan coats. it speaks to your point, and frank, i want to bring you in. here's coats talking about some of the threats. >> we assess that foreign actors will view the 2020 u.s. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. we expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other's experiences and efforts in previous elections. >> so frank, in other words, the threat of election interference from bad actors is not over. >> not only is it not over, but when you hear the dni say something like this and also put it in writing in his report, you know they've got intel. this isn't conjecture. this isn't a guessing game. and they cite additional countries including iran that may be focussed on messing with
our electoral process. no matter what side of the aisle you're on, if you're in the congress or senate, you need to stand up and pay attention to the dni and what he's saying about the possibility that your party could be impacted in electoral meddling through fiber. a couple huge take aways on this written report. and i urge every american to read it. it's not bedtime reading because you could literally get a nightmare from it. it is that stark, there are no punches pulled here. as ken said, it directly contradicts the president on north korea. not only does it say they're unlikely to denuclearize. the intel community is seeing activity indicative that they're doing anything but denuclearizing. the other thing is for the first time, and i've read the reports for years during my career. this is the first time that i've seen in a report that russia and china are collaborating together against us.
perhaps for the first time in 50 years. that is daunting. they are each in their own right the number one and number two threats we face, and now to see in writing they're collaborating against us is huge. number two, it notes our allies, u.s. partners, are speaking ways to rely less on u.s. and find their own bilateral relationships. there's the featuring of cyber throughout this report. and we're going to see more and more from more and more bad actors and even independent nonstate actors read that as wikileaks and other groups who are going to try to harm us. >> let me pull out two of the points you made and address those separately. if you are talking about when it relates to china and russia is something that caught our attention, obviously, as well. the director of national intelligence saying that china and russia are more aligned at any point since the mid 50s and the relationship is likely to strengthen in the coming year.
if you're sitting in the national security counsel right now over at the white house campus, that presumably is something you already know. is the white house doing enough to combat that threat? >> well, here's the question. let's assume the national security counsel is getting these briefings, of course. the question is so what. what are they doing about it? is the president of the united states reading these briefings regularly? and are we in a situation where the president is conflicted and cannot make a true brokered decision with national interests at heart because he's got some kind of unexplained relationship with russia so when his advisers tell him russia and china are partnering against us, is he capable of independent objective action? and we don't know the answer to that. >> frank, ken, thank you much. we're keeping an eye on all of this. we've also learned shanahan would neither confirm or deny
whether the u.s. is considering sending more troops to colombia. lots to follow there. and plots lots to follow when is to the 2020 field. schultz is jumping in. the reaction not what he was expected. he's responding. also this morning what a former white house insider is saying about his time in the trump administration. cliff sims making the rounds this morning. >> off hair she would basically say i need to take a shower because she felt dirty working for donald trump. i'm watching as i'm supposed to be crafting a statement defending her against exactly what she's doing in this moment which is telling reporters, trashing her colleagues to reporters, talking about how the president -- she has to babysit the guy and whatever. >> she was writing that in that moment? >> in that moment as i'm supposed to be writing -- >> cleaning up her mess --
>> simms is out with a new book. we are going to have a lot to talk about when he joins us here at this table tomorrow. 10:00 eastern, 7:00 pacific here on msnbc. with venus, you're in charge of your skin. so, write your own rules. because no one gets an opinion on why you shave - or how you show your skin.
their medicare options... before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now or visit aarpmedicaresupplement.com for your free decision guide about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp.
selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. to learn more about the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates, call or go online today to request your free decision guide.
this morning the starbucks ceo is responding to calls to pack it up, pack it in. don't even let him begin. that's the message from democrats who want him to scrap plans to run as an independent before he gets in the race. schultz got a taste of how ticked off dems are at a new york city bookstore overnight. >> i wanted to clarify the world independent which i view merely as a designation on the ballot. >> don't help elect trump. you egotistical billionaire [ bleep ]. >> oh. on that note our political team is asking today is howard schultz a real threat to hurt democrats in 2020 or are they overreacting? while that was happening kamala harris staked
out major policy positions on the border wall, environmental policy, getting rid of private health insurance. we're also hearing from joe biden on when he might make an announcement. joining me now to break it down, former rnc chair michael steele, zurlina maxwell, anna and jeff are back with me as well. durlina, let me start with you on howard schultz. he was talking about the incredible pushback he's getting from democrats. here he is. >> i must be doing something right to garner this much attention and this much interest. >> let me ask you this. somebody says he's gotten a tough reception. the guy next to him says or woman next to him says this is his big idea. what? >> big idea is simple. to unite the country.
>> is that a big enough idea for you? >> no, but he's uniting the country for sure against his candidacy for president. >> not republicans. wait a second. donald trump according to new york times told attendees at a fundraiser last night, he's down with schultz getting into this race. he thinks it will help his chances. >> yes. there's precedence for independent candidacies throwing a wrench into the two-party challenge. we had stain in 2016 and nader in 2000. there are enough examples. the democrats know this isn't to their benefit. to the point of billionaires deciding they want to run for president. i would say maybe try the michael bloomberg model of running for mayor. get experience in public life and then you can run for president. but if your big idea is to unite the country, that's not policy specifics if you ask me. >> let me ask you the question are dems overreacting? >> donald trump is the president
of the united states right now and every single day when we watch this train wreck, we are horrified. no, we're not overreacting. we're trying to stay focussed on picking the best democrat in a field of diverse candidates and we're going to try to challenge donald trump in 2020. we're not overreacting. we're looking at the evidence of previous election cycles where a third party candidate was the spoiler. we don't want a repeat of 2016. >> michael steel, do you want to see it? >> i don't care. i don't. >> thanks for being with us. very good. >> stop it. i mean, this is -- we are in january of 2019. this is a campaign that is just launching. he's getting advice. democrats are overreacting. they don't know what this campaign is ultimately going to do. it could fizzle out in six weeks. it could fizzle out in six months. you don't know. you have hype around a kamala harris who may not even be in the race this time next year. you don't know how this political landscape plays itself out. give it, first, time.
and then second see what he puts on the table. this iceberg, this political iceberg that we've been living with since the 1980s about third party candidates is going to get broken and cracked at some point. i've always thought it should be cracked at the local level. governor and state rep, et cetera. but maybe this the guy, maybe this is the time. trump is so changing the political dynamics in this country. anything with the voters, particularly with independent voters as has been well documented who are a significant portion of the voting population, more than democrats and more than republicans, could make a difference if his campaign catches fire. that's what democrats are afraid of. republicans should be concerned about it too. he could be pulling republican votes as well. >> there's the point about schultz being asked about policy and seeming to sidestep the questions. somebody who is not is kamala harris. she was at a town hall and had
specific policy views including one that's making i would say waves this morning. here she is. >> let me be very clear. i'm not going to vote for a wall under any circumstances and i do support border security. if we want to talk about that, let's do that. i support a green new deal, andly tell you why. climate change is an existential threat to us and we have got to deal with the reality of it. who of us have not had a situation where you have to wait for approval and they have to wait for the insurance company to approve it. let's eliminate this. let's move on. >> she was asked about her support for medicare for all. she was asked about private insurance. can people stay on insurance? >> she said let's eliminate that and move on. >> i think she's had a very seamless up until that point rollout of her presidential campaign. >> huge crowds in oakland. >> she's gotten more and had a sustained build where you saw
others have kind of a press conference and then they've gone back to doing the work. certainly there's a lot of focus on what she's doing. i think it's going to be issues like that, medicare for all is clearly where the enthusiasm for the base is of democrats right now. >> i think i heard you both chuckle when we played that sound bite. let me just start with michael. why? >> well, you're going to get rid to the private health care market? really? you're going to force me now as someone who may be able to afford to pay for the private health care for my family, and myself into a public market? why not be a little bit more creative than that? and i think this idea, and this is going to be one of the interesting tactical questions for a lot of the candidates is how far to the left are you going to tack to be relevant within a primary that you're going to have to come out of and convince the rest of the country that you're not going to be as dangerous to their health care, economic welfare, their education of the kids as you sounded in your primary?
>> well, i'm currently going through my own personal health care situation, and so i am open to ideas that are a change and a complete and total upheaval of the current system. and i think we should be having this conversation. i'm looking forward to democrats laying out policy specifics. i think that kamala is able to get this specific this early because the senior policy adviser to hillary clinton is her sister, and i think that she's going to come out with a lot of specifics, and i hope democrats follow suit, because i do want to hear more details. i think michael is right. we can't just say get rid of the private system without what we're going to replace it with, but the specifics are important. we need a change. you shouldn't die because you can't afford to be better and get the help you need. >> i want to get to joe biden. jeff mason, he says a 2020 decision will come soon. i'm a lot closer he says than i was before christmas, and we'll make that decision soon on whether or not he will run for
president. >> lots of people want to know the answer to that question, particularly i think on the democratic side. you've seen these people come out in the last month or so running, saying they're going to run for the nomination. but he automatically becomes a front runner if he throws his hat into the ring. >> thank you all for a lively and interesting and illuminating conversation. thank you. i want to bring back ken and frank. we've been keeping an eye on the worldwide threats hearing happening right now. and ken, there is some interesting conversation now related to the president's son-in-law, jared kushner and this issue of security clearances. i think we have that sound ready to go. i want to play it if we do. >> i do support providing all the information necessary for not only the white house but for all of our branches, relative to providing security clearance. they have the authority to do that. we issue guidelines in terms of
what -- >> i understand you have the authority. i want to know do you think that the white house should take seriously the recommendations of the fbi e perxperts in. >> to my knowledge they do. it's their decision based on a number of factors. we've seen every administration issue clearances based on how they assess what is provided. our job is to provide them the best information we have relative to security clearance processes, so they have the full picture in front of them when they make that decision. >> speaking of the full picture -- >> that was that sound from the hearing that just happened moments ago. can you explain the back story of why this came up and why it's significant? >> i sure can. senator martin heinrich was asking about her exclusive reporting at nbc use about jared kushner's security clearance.
specifically that he got a top security clearance through a white house process after two tried to deny him the clearance and were overruled. they did it based on negative information and fbi background checks regarding his foreign business contacts. we don't know the exact details. it's a common thing that excludes people from security clearance. martin heinrich was asking, and they both answered that look, all they can do is provide the white house the information. the fbi conducts the background check. it's up to the white house to decide whether to grant someone a clearance. in this case the white house process was unusual if not unprecedented, we're told by sources. a person overruled the career people, and then one thing that didn't happen, and i wish happened, was the cia was also involved. they also took a look at kush kushner's file and decided he
didn't merit the highest security clearance. >> what do you make of what you heard related to jared kushner and his security clearance? >> yeah. i've been an advocate of changing the way this works, and by that i mean this notion of the intelligence community treating the white house as a client, a client relationship in terms of clearances and those decisions. the person the white house puts in charge of pulling the trigger on a yes or no decision should not be a politically motivated person. it should be a professional from within the intelligence community, and the decision should be based on the totality of all the circumstances in the inquiry that's been completed by professionals. so the notion that the fbi, the rest of the intelligence community can only say here's what we found, here are the problems we have, have a nice day doesn't work for me. it's actually akin to the
kavanaugh hearing where the white house dictated as a client of the fbi, here's the parameters of how you can investigate kavanaugh. that doesn't work. we need hearings to fix the way that client relationship works. and it appears to have not served us well in this case. >> frank and ken, i want to thank you as we keep our eye on the threats hearing on capitol hill right now. there's plenty going down on capitol hill not just today but all week long. it is up to a small group of lawmakers to avoid another shutdown. they have three weeks to come up with a plan. get the entire congress or at least most of them to go along with it and get president trump on board. a member of the conference committee and chairwoman of the house appropriations committee joins us live after the break. you should be mad at forced camaraderie. and you should be mad at tech that makes things worse.
there are appropriate places where border guards have convinced me that some additional barriers could be useful. >> in some places we need to improve, repair fencing or perhaps put in new fences. >> we have to give in order to get to yes. >> so that's a bit of an interesting nugget this morning. some democratic lawmakers signaling they would be down with some kind of money for some kind of barrier along the border
with negotiations on that officially starting tomorrow on capitol hill. that bipartisan group of 17 lawmakers you see them here, will meet for the first time tasked with what seems like the impossible. hashing out a deal both democrats and can get behind. and they have less than three weeks to do it. keep in mind, president trump has said the chances they will actually give him something he'll sign is, he thinks, less than 50/50. if they can't get to a deal, the white house says democrats will end up with nothing except for a presidential declaration of a national emergency. >> the president has laid out things in the past that he's willing to do. we'll see what they come back with. but what i do know is that if they don't come back with a deal, that means democrats get virtually nothing that will make the president and force him to have to take executive action. >> joining me now, one of the democrats leading this effort. thank you very much for coming on the show, congresswoman. i want to lay out the facts of
the case as it relates to negotiations tomorrow. are democrats going to put $5.7 billion for a wall on the table tomorrow. >> i think we should start at the beginning. first of all, the 35 day shutdown of the government was a disaster for hardworking people, whether they were tsa people or average people who had to pay their bills. so that kind of action should never be considered and never be applauded. secondly, i feel very strongly as an appropriator, i've worked together with senator shelby, lahl leahy, we've worked together in a bipartisan way. i feel confident without any threats from outside we can look at the facts, come up with an important solution that i feel confident that any person can accept if they are rational and they look at it very carefully. we understand that the wall and
insisting on a wall is not the way to move. we have to look at what really makes sense at our ports of entry. this is where the majority of drugs are coming in, somewhere between 80% and 90% are coming in. a wall isn't going to affect that. we need censors, we need radars, more boats in the harbor. not this wall that doesn't make any sense. >> so let me be very, very clear here. are you -- are democrats starting tomorrow willing to put forward any money for a wall or fencing along the border? >> i want to be very clear with you. as an appropriator and as chair of this committee, i don't give any clues, any threats. i'm going to meet with the senators, bipartisan, democrat and republican and we're going to work out sensible solutions.
there are many of them that i think we can all support. >> so is the door open to that, then? am i understanding you correctly? >> no, you're not. i said i'mdyi not. democrats and herepublicans, hoe and senate i'm not going to give clues in advance. i want to talk to my colleague and make sure we have a real solution. i talked about censors, radars, technology, i talked about boats. let's get to the conference and not give press clues in advance. >> do you believe that it is better for these negotiations if speaker nancy pelosi and president trump stay out of them? >> first of all, the speaker is our leader. president trump is the president. we were assigned as appropriators to work together. i'm not inviting them in there's
a process here and that's the process we're going to follow. >> as you know quite well, speaker nancy pelosi has called the wall immoral. let me ask you this broadly. do you believe that there are democrats in this conference committee who are willing to break with democratic leadership? >> i am going into this conference committee as the chair, as an appropriator. i've worked with senator shelby, senator leahy and i'm not giving any advance information. we have the facts. the chair of the homeland security committee has pages and pages of information which she's sharing with every member of the house and senate. we have a responsibility to evaluate, look at the facts and try to reach some agreement. so i'm not saying what i would do, what i wouldn't do. we're going to look at the facts and have a really good,
hopefully conclusion that is supported by democrats and republicans. >> congresswoman, i respect you in keeping your cards close to the vest. thank you. >> thank you very much. you saw roger stone arrive in federal court here in washington. he is set to be arraigned in just about five minutes. top of the hour on the seven count indictment in the special counsel's investigation. remember, stone has been a long time pal of donald trump. he has said he will plead not guilty. let me bring in now our legal an analyst, senior vice president for news justice. so there's a couple of pieces to this roger stone conversation we haven't talked about yet. maya, how do you see her handling the roger stone case?
do you think she'll put a gag order on some of stone's conversations with the media he's been having over the past couple of days? >> i think there's a possibility of that. this is a judge that's not afraid to use the word oligarch. when paul manafort had his trial in virginia, they cracked down hard on the prosecution. she's been fair and balanced. i think she'll be very concerned about any kind of manipulation of the court of public opinion. because she'll want a clear, just process that will be credible to the american public because that's what our court system does. it's about the facts, it's about evidence. it's about going through the criminal procedure. we very may well see that. judges don't often like to do it so they don't do it unless they feel forced to.
because there is, of course, the right to free speech. but i think if roger stone crosses a line, i think we could expect to see that. >> what would crossing the line look like? >> i think crossing the line would be potentially making a mockery of the process in a way that undermines its credibility. right now, the kinds of statements that stone has made goes directly to his own evidence. what he will say. right? he said he didn't lie. he said that he is going to plead not guilty. all those things are perfectly fair statements. they don't interrupt the process necessarily. but i think if you see -- if you remember michael avenatti when he was showing up in front of the cameras during michael cohen's process in new york, that's the kind of behavior that makes judges very concerned. >> joyce, i hear we need to put you on our payroll because you're working your sources. what are you hearing? >> a few minutes ago i was told
that roger stone hadn't yet entered the courtroom, but mueller's lawyers and other prosecutors were already in the courtroom milling around, getting ready for what we would expect to be a fairly brief process. i say brief because arraignment is simply a time for a defendant to be served with the charges against him and to enter a plea of not guilty. but this one could be a little bit longer if, for instance, there is some sort of a renewed detention motion or as maya says a gag order. >> what does that mean? >> at this point stone has been released on a signature bond, a recognizance bond. he won't remain in custody pending trial. to keep someone in custody, the government has to prove they're a flight risk or a danger to the community. i don't think that we'll see a motion like that taking place today. but the government could renew a request to detain stone if at some point the facts change. >> final thoughts to you as we
get ready for this court hearing, which joyce has said looks like it's beginning to begin. roger stone will need to get into the courtroom before it does. when you look at what we'll be talking about tomorrow, what will the headline be? >> whatever roger stone says when he walks out of the courtroom? >> you think he'll speak? >> i think it's very hard for him not to. he himself has said publicly he enjoyed the spotlight. he likes the attention. i think it will be hard for him not to. remember, he also -- he is a spin doctor. his career is built on shaping the narrative on shaping the public perception. he has now personal investment in shaping that public perception. i bet he will try to use it unless his lawyers have been successful in convincing him not to. if i were his attorney, i'd be saying, you smile, walk straight out of the courtroom and get in the car and go. >> i appreciate you both joining us to talk through that. we'll find out soon if maya is
right, whether roger stone speaks to the cameras as we keep it rolling. kasie hunt is picking up for craig melvin. thank you so much. good morning from washington, d.c. i'm kasie hunt in for craig melvin. a busy day on the russia investigation front. right now, trump associate roger stone is about to be arraigned at a federal courthouse in d.c. a seven count indictment. one big question, will the judge put a muzzle on the camera hungry confidant? also happening right now, the senate judiciary committee is hashing out the qualifications of a man who may one day receive the mueller probe. attorney general nominee willimn barr. however, republican chairman lindseyha