tv Deadline White House MSNBC March 25, 2019 1:00pm-2:01pm PDT
now. is hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. where the nation's capital is still digesting the summary of the mueller report, drafted and released by attorney general bill barr. no one outside of the justice department or the special counsel's team has seen mueller's report, so we're relying on the barr summary for all of our information at this point. and here's what we know. on the question of conspireing with the russians to interfere in the 2016 election, the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activity. but on the question of obstruction of justice, the second pillar of the nearly 22-month-long mueller probe, the picture is far less clear and far more ominous for the president, with more questions today than answers. notably, robert mueller did not
exonerate donald trump, and that exact phrase is in the summary, which may prove an important one as time goes on. from the actual mueller report as quoted in barr's summary, quote, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. that's where robert mueller, former fbi director, tapped into mayhem after donald trump fired fbi head comey and left the federal investigation. what happened next sure to be scrutinized how by congress. "the new york times" is reporting, quote, then attorney general william barr, a political appointee who mr. trump installed less than a month ago and began reading mr. mueller's report on friday, stepped in. with the concurrence of his deputy, rod rosenstein, mr. barr seized the opportunity to render a judgment, pronouncing mr. trump clear of committing any criminal offense.
the propriety of that move by mr. barr, who had written an unsolicited memo last year, is certain to be a focus of political contention as congress grapples with what it now knows about the still-secret mueller report. and this afternoon that is precisely what has come to pass. congressman jerry nadler has contacted the department of justice to make a date with attorney general barr to testify on special counsel robert mueller's russia report. that's according to a senior aide involved in that process. here to break down the day's developments, some of our favorite reporters and friend, mike schmidt new york times reporter and msnbc contributor, frank figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi. with us on set, nbc news national political reporter heidi przybyla and paul butler, georgetown law professor and former fellow prosecutor. mike schmidt, take us through what you and your colleague
charlie savage are reporting about the decision or nondecision rendered on obstruction. >> well, prosecutors usually end up or almost always end up in one of who places, they think a crime has been committed or not. but in this highly unusual situation, mueller said i can't make the call on this. and we really don't know why that happened. but what that did do is took this process that mueller had protected as the special counsel, you know, you've been there, to be an independent investigator and exposed it to the politics of the justice department, the attorney general, someone put there by the president, had to make the final call on that. and at the least just creates this perception problem, where the democrats say well, hold on a second, mueller couldn't come to a determination and you guys had to come up with this and barr had to make this decision himself? so it's -- look, we still don't have insight into this, into really what happened and why
this happened but all we know at this point is it's very, very unusual. >> it's not just a perception problem. attorney general barr has a point of view on obstruction. let me read you if his june 8th memo on the topic of obstruction in the mueller investigation. barr writing, mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived. moreover in my view if credited by the department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the presidency and to the administration of law within the executive branch. how did a guy who saw the obstruction investigation into the president as being something that could have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and another guy who was so freaked out by donald trump that he wanted to wear a wire and count votes for the 25th amendment end up making a determination that robert mueller's probe, which was walled off from all interference for almost two years? >> that's the problem is that
question is now being asked. if mueller had made a determination and said look, i exonerate the president on obstruction of justice or i say there's no case to be made here, that would have put that argument to rest. it would have ended it. folks would say look, he made a decision on collusion. he said there's no collusion there. he said it on obstruction, no obstruction there. as a country we could move on and say look, it's been looked at for 22 months. they sent out 500 search warrants and seasons, did all of this work. but now there's a question what really happened? it gives the democrats this opening to say we need to see this report. we need to look at these things. we need to check barr's work here because he is a political appointee who the president knew had this perspective. the democrats would be in a far worse place in mueller had simply made a decision. >> mike, the president said to you in an interview he wanted his roy cohn running the justice department.
did he get it? >> i don't know. i'm not ready to go that far. look, there's no indication -- let's just assume bill barr made the right call here, and maybe that was the case, but he's now fighting the perception. he's now fighting the idea that there was some sort of political wind that blew on this because mueller himself couldn't come to a determination. >> frank figliuzzi, jump in on this question of the unresolved matter of the nearly two-year-long obstruction of justice investigation. >> so we have so many questions and so few answers, nicolle, this reminds me of really hard high school math tests where the teacher says i don't want to just see your answer, you have show your work. we need to see the answer on this by mueller and barr before we figure out what happened. but i'm going to tell you something, this is not the bob mueller that i worked with at the bureau, at the fbi.
here's why i'm saying that, and i want to be clear here, i am confident that an exhausted, thorough investigation was conducted. there's little question in my mind that that's happened. but the way mueller chose to handle this, which is essentially not to make a call, and i want to emphasize, we've only seen a four-page summary and we're taking are b.a.arr's d for what mueller is saying to him, but this notion mueller would say, this is really hard but the facts and the law here are really hard, so i'm not going to make a call. you make the call. that is not the bob mueller that i know. and i'm wondering, and really racking my brain on what the strategy here is by mueller, because as has just been said, the perception is awful. if this was supposed to -- if the whole thing was designed to give us credibility and a comfort in the system, we're now left thinking my god, the decision to charge or not or move forward or not on
obstruction was made by a man who may have possibly, should have recused himself, the attorney general, because of previously stating his position on obstruction. so here we are. we spent two years exhaustively investigating this. by the way, the four-page summary does not even touch on what i see as an essential question, the counterintelligence question. do we have a president who is compromised or not? >> frank, on obstruction, we also learned in that summary, and you're right, that's why we made the point at the top of the show, the only person who has seen the report are the other individuals who work at the justice department. so we're reporting on the summary of the mueller report as drafted by attorney general barr and the deputy attorney general's staff. but we also learned just in those three pages that there's all of the obstruction of yu justice behavior and conduct reported in "the washington post" and other news
organizations but there's also more conduct that fell under the category of obstruction of justice. it seems like they were almost waving a red flag in front of congress to go and find out what was there, and instead of putting any of this to rest, they seemed to almost accelerate and augment the congressional process. >> you know, so if you buy into this theory mueller -- and i do -- that mueller had a strategy here. and we're just seeing it maybe play out in glimtpses of it, an the strategy may not have been i'm not going to make a call on the sitting president, by the way, i didn't even issue a grand jury subpoena or demand he come here in person, so congress, i'm giving you that opportunity. you need to seize it. but he hands it across the street to the department of justice and the attorney general said time-out, i'm making the call here. this didn't happen. we need to see that body of evidence that was nonpublic on obstruction, see what mueller has found and really get him on the hill and testify as to his
thought processes. ironically in all of this, if mueller was trying to avoid the severe criticism jim comey faced by making prosecutorial decisions, he found himself in the exact opposite, because he allowed it to become politicized by allowing barr to make the call. >> harry litman is joining the conversation, former attorney general. i argue he's in worse position jim comey found himself in. as least jim comey render an opinion, hillary clinton did not commit a crime. and mueller just said i have evidence on the side of the of of course instruction of justice and evidence on the other side. here you go. >> it is a mess. it's exactly what prosecutors don't -- i couldn't agree with frank more. you don't expect this is part of his charge. but, of course, it's so crucial to understand why. did he say i can't do it so you do it, ag bar? if he didn't say that, if he
said instead, we need to serve it up to congress and that step was preempted in the middle by an attorney general who had seen it for 48 hours or a little bit more, then that is a real curveball in the whole process. why mueller made that choice and why barr made the choice both to pretempt it and why he chose the legal path he did to say there was no obstruction are screaming out to be answered and without those answers, the entire episode after 22 months of painstaking and thorough investigation ends it with this terrible, huge question mark. >> the barr letter also gets to the question of an underlying crime. barr writing in making this determination of obstruction, we noted the special counsel recognized the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime
related to russian election interference. and that will not determine the absence of such evidence bears upon the president's intent with the respect to obstruction. there's no law saying that you can't charge obstruction or find criminal obstruction. scooter libby, my former colleague, was not found to have leaked valerie flameplaim's nam. he was found in obstruction of who leaked her name. >> just ask mrs martha stewart, was put in prison for lying about something that if she told the truth about, it would not have been a crime. if i'm under investigation for killing alexander hamilton, i know i didn't kill alexander hamilton but during the investigation if i'm asked where were you when he was kid and i say i'm was a party at thomas jefferson's house, that is a crime, it's still obstruction. the other thing to understand is there's a tension between mueller's finding there was no
collusion but there was evidence of obstruction which is why he cannot exonerate trump on that issue. so if the point of the obstruction would have been to impede the investigation about collusion. so trump is going around telling lies and intimidating witnesses, it may be that there's no evidence of collusion because he was a very good obstructer. >> there's also an underlying crime uncovered by robert mueller, ultimately sent off to the southern district of new york to prosecute, and that was the president's role as individual number one in an illegal hush money scam. this seems like a line that is easily taken apart by nonlawyers. >> yeah, i didn't understand that part of the letter, where he basically says that there was no underlying crime with russia so there can be no obstruction. well, special counsels, when they start in on someone, often are looking at one issue that leads to another. and the investigation goes elsewhere. donald trump knew that in may of 2017. i think that's one of the
reasons why he was so upset he had a special counsel. even that july in an oval office interview we did with him, he said look, if mueller's looking at my finances, that's crossing a red line. and in december of 2017 he gets upset when he find out there's subpoenas -- a report about subpoenas sent to deutsche bank and said mueller's got to go. later that day he finds out that had not happened, the court was wrong. but the president knew in 2017 about what happened in 2016, he knew he arranged forbe tho thos payments and look what happens, bill barr called donald trump an unindicted co-conspirator. i don't know how he can say there's no underlying issue there. i guess on the russia thing there isn't but the firing of comey -- i'm sorry, the firing of mueller trying to get rid of mueller and trying to control the justice department may not have been about russia. >> so, heidi, let's spend time on what congress does with it. it seems like the schiff
approach to russia and broadening that out to foreign influence, it turns out to be a sound approach. but they seem to have been handed -- and i talked to a democratic member of the house judiciary committee who said if mueller's position is we have evidence on both sides and that's in the report, well, let us try to come to a decision that you couldn't. they seem to have been put into a position of being an arbiter on the obstruction case that they would not have been if this report came down on one side or the other on obstruction. >> that's in fact what they believe their jurisdiction is and gets to the point where mueller's head was in this, if he was operating on the department of justice precedent that you can't indict a sitting president but congress and house of representatives should render that judgment, viewed through that lens it makes perfect sense mueller crafted this report the way that he did. and makes it even more important that we get that information. and i less believe there's a lot
of precedent for this. if you look back at the nixon case, for example n. 1974, leon jaworski gave them everything. he gave them all of the underlying documents, even the grand jury stuff he gave to them. so committee aides who i talked to believe they will get this information, they have the tools to get this information, and it's really a matter of time, nicolle, which is to my point today about the reporting on nadler's starting negotiations with the department of justice about when barr comes up. if you talk to other members on the committee, they believe we need to hear not only from barr because this really was written in his opinion here, but also eventually from mueller himself >> do you see them -- if they're going to try to reconstruct the obstruction probe, they don't have the kinds of concerns with classified information. it's not as complicated as reconstructing the counterintelligence investigation where you have intercepts and classified information. but it would seem like getting down and understanding how the investigators came to this
decision that they wrote, they could not exonerate him. that that survived, even the barr twist on whatever they found. it would seem like some granularity and understanding investigation and talking to investigators would be on the table. >> well, of course. they believe they already have a lot of members who they would want to interview cooperating but it would take a long time to reconstruct all of that, even so, nicolle, honestly, to get everything and put all of the pieces into place that mueller already has on a platter. yes, they have to go through this and decide active investigations and material that needs to be taken out but they also believe it shouldn't take too long necessarily to do that. and that because the president now is misconstruing and misstatementing what the contents of this report are, that time is also of the essence here before that narrative gets away from them, they need to reassert some control here and that's why you're seeing nadler
be very proabilityive by the timing in the discussion now, the time line about all of this. if are b.arr doesn't agree to come before them soon, guess what, he's scheduled to be in front of the house appropriations committee the first of april and they will ask him questions then. >> frank figliuzzi, can you try to pull these threads together? it seems to me on obstruction, that was the side of this we knew more about. so much of that conduct was in full view. but we know if the summary that there was more that mueller uncovered, mueller uncovered more. we know mueller didn't exonerate him. he was never persuaded there was not obstruction. they make a point for as little as we know, we know on obstruction it was neither here nor there for him. where does this do? >> first, let's examine why the white house seems to be celebrating. they apparently think celebration is appropriate when you're told that the special counsel looked at me for two years and couldn't decide whether you were a criminal or not.
that's cause for celebration apparently now in our new norm. let's talk about the public evidence of obstruction and the fact there's even more that we don't know about behind the scenes. we've got mueller deciding not to demand an in-person interview of the president and not to call for a grand jury subpoena. we need to peel that back. because what's being reported in this centesecretary secretary es the white house or trump attorney actually said to mueller, if you demand an in-person interview, we're going to plead the fifth, and our rights dependence self-incrimination. if you take us to grand jury for subpoena, we're going to fight all the way to the supreme court. that needs to be exposed to the public so we can decide as voters whether or not we want a president who said i'm going to invoke the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination if you demand to speak to me in person. we don't know that. we have a four-page summary. it's argument for getting this
all out before come. i'm sure mueller has a version already that is sufficiently redacted. if he could indict 12 dpgru intelligence officers by name and understanding the sensitive, top-secret techniques needed to do that, and he could disclose all of that to the public, certainly we can see what he's got on obstruction. >> mike, you and your colleagues did a lot of reporting on mueller's efforts to get an interview with the president. he urlt mittly had to settle for written responses. why didn't mueller push for a meeting? >> that's one of the stranger things, what was mueller's i tent? why did he take the actions he did? the president, his lawyers thought if he went under oath he would lie, he didn't have to do that. i just don't know how you get to the end of an investigation like that and not try and question that person about this. maybe mueller thought it would be a waste of time and simply just delay the end of the
investigation and maybe it wouldn't give him that much. ultimately the president of the united states has not had to answer any of these questions and there were a lot of them that mueller wanted ask him. >> questions would be, explain every single contact that you have had with the russians when you're on the campaign trail, mr. president. mr. president, why did you lie about the meeting with the russian lawyer? why did you have that false narrative on air force one? why did you lie about how long you were talking to folks in russia about building trump tower moscow? mr. president, why did you lie if everything you were doing was legitimate? i don't understand why mr. mueller did not sit down with donald trump and require him to answer those questions. >> hearty litman, you want to get a last word in on this top snik. >> yeah, first of all, i agree with paul, mueller is god and we are mortals but that's what
decision i have not understood. look, just do the thought experience where are b.arr doesn't make the decision and passes it along. now it's cleanly in his lap but the hand they inherited, it's quite difficult. time is against them. barr already said there would be a grand jury analysis within the doj. some weeks will pass. it's inest annuvitable the air leak out of the tires. they've been dealt a tough hand because the fait accompli is the president is clean. >> thank you for spending time with us. when we come back, the fbi will conduct a classified briefing for the gang of eight on that counterintelligence investigation frank figliuzzi talked about into the president, who was suspected by the fbi at one point of possibly being a russian agent, a member of the house intel judiciary committee joins us next.
and conveyor belt, that's how one national committee member describes robert mueller's effort to transfer other cases involving the president to over federal prosecutors. we will bring you the latest on those investigations. and did donald trump's tack on the investigation even after it cleared him on the conspiracy investigation suggest he's going to pardon his former agent and advisers? those stories coming up. lieve i. that we just hit the motherlode of soft-serve ice cream? i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed! we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies,
and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce 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. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr you know reliable support when you have it,
and that dependability is what we want to give our customers. at comcast, it's my job to constantly monitor our network. prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work in the network operations center for comcast. we are working to make things simple, easy and awesome. the basic theory, of course, is the russians know you're lying to your boss, which is the case of mike flynn, that's something the russians can potentially hold over your head
to influence you to do their bidding essentially. is there that same possibility of compromise with donald trump? i think you have to answer that question in the affirmative. a possibility. can i tell you for sure that's happened? no. can i tell you for sure that's what director mueller has found or will conclude? absolutely not. but like all americans, i anxiously await the results of that work. >> and we are still anxiously awaiting the results of that critical case of the mueller investigation. the probe into whether the president of the united states could be compromised by russia. though robert mueller's report concludes trump and his team didn't knowingly collude with russia to influence the 2016 election, nothing in attorney general's bill barr's summary of mueller's findings clears up the question that sparked the entire investigation, whether donald trump or members of his inner circle, are in any way
compromised by russia, which means the question of whether the president could be an agent witting or unwitting of russia, remains open at this hour. nbc news has just learned a bipartisan group of top lawmakers will be briefed on what mueller uncovered in the sensitive investigation possibly in the coming weeks. joining us now is democratic congressman eric swalwell, member of the house judiciary committee. congressman, first, your thoughts on that open question, the question of central intelligence and national security questions, do you believe robert mueller cleared that up and answered that in the parts of his report that we have not seen yet? >> no, it's not clear, nicolle. we need to see the full mueller report, not the barr letter. when you read the barr letter, he quoted maybe four words from the investigation that took almost two years and 500 search warrants and 2,800 subpoenas. i think we can all conclude maybe there was a lot more to it
that we need to know. even if there was noncriminal conclusion that can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in the law. if there was evidence of collusion we have not seen publicly, we would want to know that from counterintelligence and national security standpoint. >> congressman, we still don't have answers to what was one of the most vexing questions, why did mike flynn, who had the authority to change u.s. sanctions policy, lie about his conversations with the russian ambassador? why did paul manafort when confronted by federal investigators lie about his contacts with putin operative konstantin kilimnik? why did michael cohen offer false testimony before congress about the conversations about trump tower moscow? why when confronted by federal law enforcement officials did george popolopodus lie? and why did jeff sessions lie before congress? do you think mr. mueller answered those questions? >> no. and we have yet to see, nicolle,
again, if there are such innocent explanations, why didn't we hear those explanations first from all of the individuals whom you just ran through? again, there's a difference in chairman schiff and i were always clear that we have seen evidence of collusion. what mr. mueller can prove beyond a rm doubt, looks like there's certainly a difference between the evidence we saw in plain sight and evidence we saw in a classified space. but if the president truly believes he's exonerated, then he should be the first person to roll out and give to the public the full mueller report. if he has nothing to hide, if there's nothing to be concerned about, that report would have been made available yesterday. >> let me drill down a little bit on what you just said. i don't know if this is news to you but there's a hit piece out from the trump campaign and your name is included as someone you said you had seen evidence of
collusion. let's skpan for oexplain for ou what mueller had to do. he had to find evidence of criminal conspiracy that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a different standard than a counterintelligence vgs where t where the mission is protect the united states of america. >> yes, nicolle. i have seen the campaign for myself and others and i would say the only person who raid false statements about russia is donald trump. i stand by what i said about seeing evidence of collusion and if he has a problem with that, he can sue me. i promise, you i would win in court. as to the counterintelligence mission that we have, any u.s. person, whether it's on a campaign, transition or administration has been compromised or did seek to work with or did work with the russians, and that's separate from a criminal investigation. i think he combed out in his
testify back in march 2017 to congress where he described that there were two investigations going on, a counterintelligence investigation and criminal convenience. oftentimes counterintelligence investigations do not result in convictions or indictments. the goal is to stop the actor from working with the foreign advocacy. our job now is to understand what evidence, if any, existed in that realm. >> before we let you go, your thoughts on the nonjudgment, judgment around the obstruction of justice investigation. robert mueller making it a point to write in his report, which was quoted in the barr summary, that he did not exonerate this president from obstruction of justice. >> well, it's interesting because the whole point of having a special counsel was to prevent administration appointees from making decisions where they would have a conflict of interest because the
president of the united states was a subject of the investigation. so as to the question of obstruction, mr. barr goes to great lengths, gymnastics, if you will, to find there was not chargeable obstruction offense but that does not explain why this was a decision he was able to make but not special counsel. i think the only way to truly understand that is to hear from mueller himself rather than barr. >> will you subpoena special counsel mueller and his investigators on the obstruction probe? >> i will leave that decision to chairman nadler and schiff. i think both have said that is possible. speaking for myself, i don't believe we will truly understand the decisions that went in to the report, charge or not charge, and conduct that was observed unless we hear it from special counsel mueller, who i thank for his two years of service to our country. i hone we can hear from him if he lays out kind of what he saw. >> congressman swalwell, thank
you for spending time with us. we're grateful. paul butler, congress still in the dark on what was the central national security question that mueller set out to answer, whether or not wittingly or unwittingly the trump campaign was co-opted by the russians. >> yes, so it's a different standard whether you bring a criminal case or whether something happened. the criminal standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. mueller himself only brought cases that were slam dunks. so what no collusion means is that there wasn't a slam dunk case against the president for conspiracy to defraud the united states. it does not mean that it did not happen. famously we've said throughout this investigation mueller knows a lot that we don't. that remains true about obstruction. it remains true about collusion. and now the congress must fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee this administration, its separations of powers, to make sure our democracy one that
is not led by a person who has been compromised by the russians. >> frank, this was your beat, your thoughts. >> yeah, imagine the scenario that we talked about mob family where -- and even michael cohen in his testimony talked about how the president kind of winks, nods and says things and looks you in the eye and you understand what the message is. imagine that same strategy being played out geopolitically with the russians, where the russians are making multiple overtures, and we've seen that in the summary the attorney general provided congress. there's a reference despite multiple attempts at reaching out from the russians, okay, imagine the reach-outs occur and imagine that his people, trump's people, are saying okay, got it and they're passing it on to the president and the president is then coming out publicly and saying things like russia, if you have the e-mails, i hope you release them. or the republican party position on ukraine is being altered in
response perhaps to russia's outreach. so that kind of grayness doesn't reach a criminal standard where i've got you but imagine mueller having a very sensitive interception of other sources showing multiple attempts by the russians to reach out to the campaign and president and imagine all these got on the other end of that conversation is these public statements by the president. we need to see all of that and that's why the report needs to become public. >> real quick. >> even just basically when the public said 87% of the people want to see this report, they want an explanation for this behavior, for everything that frank just outlined because the facts of the case are the president called for the hack, he was given the hack in the form of wikileaks, he used it to great effect, he weaponized it. it was the number one talking point. one of the first things he does as president is seeks to try to lift those sanctions. we still don't have an explanation, was it the trump tower moscow and he was hoping for a payday? or was there more that happened after that trump tower meeting we don't know? >> harry litman and paul butler,
thank you so much for being with us today, talking us through this. after the break, donald trump still feeles threatened. we'll explain next. ed we'll explain next en in a gown ♪ ♪ and the only thing u have to say is wow ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop drop say oh my drop drop drop ♪ ♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪ ♪ and you never felt this type of emotion ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop drop say oh my drop drop drop ♪ ♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪ whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours,
attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor our grandparents checked zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.
to use a march madness basketball analogy, the court on which the southern district of new york is playing is longer and wider, and we don't know everything that's there. they have much more freedom, much more room to roam than mueller did. that, if i were president trump or one of his kids or somebody who worked in the trump organization or writing checks so they could be sort of cashed by stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, i would be worried right now. >> that was the brilliant chuck rosenburg before the mueller report ended, before its summary was known, articulating the ongoing legal jeopardy for the president and his family. a close trump adviser today telling me the president's mood
right now is both emboldened by the mueller result and threatened by the other cases. those ongoing investigations spun off and the special counsel are so significant, bill barr even cited them to his letter to congress with regards to making mueller's report public. he writes, quote, i also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the special counsel has referred to their offices. just how many other offices and investigations there are is hard to say. "the new york times" writing, quote, the precise number of federal investigations around the country that have grown out of special counsel's work remains unknown because such inquiries are conducted in secret. but of the ones we do know, "the times" adds, they're being conducted by officials from los angeles to brooklyn, with about half being run by the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan. the u.s. investigation shows the prosecutorial center of gravity has shifted from mr. mueller's office in washington to new york. joining our panel, former
federal prosecutor glen hirsch ner, jason johnson, politics editor of root and charlie sykes from the bull wart, all msnbc contributors. your thoughts on the other cases. >> the other cases, some of them i suggest are going to be like shooting fish in a barrel on the evidence if we can get them to trial. think for a moment about the campaign finance violation. what an overwhelming case of guilt on the evidence. we have an undercover recording made by michael cohen catching the president in the act. we've got a pass through sham corporation to hide the payments. we've got it being -- >> from the check. >> we've got the check. we got it being made virtually on the eve of the election. you can't say this was a fa meeal thing. you have the reimbursement checks being delivered out of the white house. >> through the white house mail room. >> a first year law graduate, a baby prosecutor could walk in the case and prove this in his or her sleep.
and here is the quicker, nicolle, the president may have to run for re-election just to avoid being hauled into court for this. what does that tell us about his fitness to be our president for another four years? >> what does it tell us? >> it tells us a lot of americans will be making a decision next year. but i have always been on record to think he will probably get re-elected. i don't think the barr report, because we don't know the mueller report, the barr report told us anything yet. i will say something about the case that is really key, the president can't just fire everybody this time either. he couldn't use that. if he fires his attorney -- it was firing comey that triggered the special prosecutor and everything like that. he has to sit and wait for every single one of these cases to play out. he can't use his terrorist in any of the ways he's used it in the past. whether or not they go to trial soon or hit him the moment he leaves office, they will leave
over into 2020 and continue to be the kinds of things that drives his presidency down. >> we know he tried to obstruct the new york case, he tried the nonrecusal move, unrecused. the he's endeavoring to obstruct those cases. >> he broke with precedent with a u.s. attorney, that's unusual for a u.s. president. what does one dovetail you have heard little from, maxine water, finance services. it has been reported they're working on the intelligence committee to get the deutsche bank statement as well. you've got that bucket. you have hush money payments being investigated by cummings. he's already made an overture to the white house attorneys who are responsible for filling out those ethics forms and if they want to know who individual number one is the one who told him not to report it. and then nadler, he's got such a broader portfolio than just obstruction.
he's going to be looking at emoluments, abuse of power, the inaugural committee donations. >> we can put them up. these are all of the congressional investigations. we've got two. there are so many. federal and state investigations, campaign finance violations we've been talking about, pro-trump super pac, private business. if you're in your car,ly read them to you, trump foundation, emoluments, insurance practices and to heidi's point here are the congressional investigations, how intel looking at trump and russia. how judiciary looking athe abuse of power. house oversight and house financial services, you're talking about, foreign ways and means looking for his taxes, foreign affairs, foreign intel. >> it will be a broad pan aplea but what we're seeing is the white house is stonewalling. they're saying we will not give you anything, come and get us and that will take years.
i think the democrats have to be very strategic here in what they decide to pursue and strategic subpoenas they're going to issue. ly tell you speaking with them, they believe if it becomes clear this white house is not going to give up anything, there actually may be a lot of leaks coming out. if you have seen, there have been really an amazing amount of documents coming out of the white house. like the president's schedules that you just don't see normally because these things have to come to people who are very close to this president. that may just be a hope but that's what they say. >> he obviously threatened he's emboldened. >> i heard both. >> and we need to acknowledge in a way he's going to weaponize this no collusion. this no collusion, no exoneration, this is a president being vindicated, he is still sending out memos from his campaign asking network to have
a black list on certain people he doesn't like on network. so his campaign will now be to cast doubt and de la jit his all of these other investigations. it will not only be be a blowback against the media but this gives him fodder to be able to do that. he's going to run, again, in 2020 he's politically saying, look, they came for me. this was the high-profile one. they didn't get it all. all of the rest of this is basically of the same cloth. that's not true but that will be his message and his supporters and republicans will pound away at it. >> let me get you, frank figliuzzi, for the last word. >> perhaps the most disturbing fallout that would come from this is the people ignore and president continues to ignore the findings of mueller we had a foreign adversary attacking us during our electoral process and he seems to do nothing about it. if he wash that's out with the bath water, we really miss an opportunity to bolster our defenses against an adversary. >> frank figliuzzi, great point, chilling one.
i got it! what? what? l.a. bookers book apartments and vacation homes as easy as hotels. ridin' scooter! l.a. baby! l.a. baby! be a booker you're welcome. at booking.com - [woman] with shark's duo clean, i don't just clean, you♪ e welcome. i deep clean carpets and floors, so i got this. yep, this too, and this, please. even long hair and pet hair are no problem,
but the one thing i won't have to clean is this because the shark's self-cleaning brush roll removes the hair wrap while i clean. ♪ - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. there are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, bad things, i would say treasonous things against our country. and hopefully people that have done such harm to our country, we have gone through a period of really bad things happening, those people will certain i will be looked at. >> this was an investigation ordered by a trump appointee sparked by the firing of a republican, james comey, and headed by robert mueller.
reviewed and evaluated by william barr. this was the gop legal accomplishment investigating a republican president but none of that is stopping trump from branding this as a political attack on him. rather than appeal for junety and healing, they are hammering their accusers in the media suggesting that mueller's probe was an extra political effort to topple him. there are reports that advisors worry that trump may overreach. some of that worry may have to do with his executive use of checktive power. congressional democrats are fareful that they could feel emboldened to pardon allies indicted in this investigation. i'm told the president will be disinclined to make pardons.
>> my reporting is lined up with that as well. that means that trump would not think to consider pardons until the mueller probe is wrapped up. what you saw in his oval office remarks there are telling. you can set aside the facts that this was mostly a republican fuelled investigation, that is not how the president is going to portray it and they see it as a real opportunity, with the barr sum mary. in the meantime, they are going to label this as a failed coupe. they're going to say this was your best shot at me and it didn't work. this is not being graduation in
victory here according to the people they have talked to. they're going to vilify democrats, career justice officials, james comby on the list, and they will come after the media. he has not been shy of his media criticism. according to our new reporting out today, there will be concerted efforts to go after individual reporters they feel fuelled the fire of the mueller probe. now those that control congress, and suggest that they had their chance, and it is time to move on and painting them as obstructionist. >> jonathan is absolutely right. i don't think you can overstate that. the vindictiveness was on full display. pleading leading chants at his rallies of
lock her up, but it is interesting to highway about the presumption of innocence and here you have a president that lead one attack after another on applicant and the whole implication that they're going to go after and investigate some of their critics, their political opponents. this is a president that feels he got away with it, he dodged a bullet, and now he has powered to go after his enemies and you can see he is winding himself up to do so. >> and one of the things in the investigation was that don mcgann stopped him from his desire to investigate hillary clinton. >> i don't think it is over because the mueller report singing. i think we're moving past it, i know rob mueller was meticulous,
and when he says i cotts clear the president, i can't reach a conclusion that he did not obstruct justice, there is a lot of information in the report to back that up. so i don't think we should quickly move past the mueller report still being devastating to the president. >> how many different times has trump said i have been exonerated? he says it every other week. comey exonerated me, and cohen chon rates me, he always says she not guilty. none of this is new, when did he stop harassing the media? i don't think and again it is not just until the mueller report comes out, i don't think this changes anything, he will
harass the media and the press, it is a typical monday. press, it is a typical monday whenever we're about to get on a stage for a huge audience, i always give my dad like a facetime kinda moment. you see the crowd, you see the emotion. you know, he has that experience for the first time with me, and that's really important to me. i created a rockstar. (both laughing) (vo) there for you when it matters most. get iphone xr on us when you buy the latest iphone. and apple music on us with unlimited. only on verizon.
yeah. run with us. named 'park' in the u.s. ninety-six hundred roads it's america's most popular street name. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? hi, ted danson, i'm here for my appointment no matter who you are, it's important to go for an annual check-up, and when you do remember to be open and honest with your doctor about how you're feeling. because how you're doing emotionally, affects your physical health - and vice versa mr. danson, would you mind? i love doing this thanks, but i just need you to fill out the medical history. that's embarrassing go in for your annual check-up, and check in physically and emotionally cigna. together all the way. do i have to do the age part? okay
our thanks today to our guests, and two you for watching, that does it for our hour, i'm nicolle wallace, "mtp dal daily" starts now. if it is monday, a new cloud is hanging over washington. >> good evening him here, we're going to get to the congressional battle over releasing the mueller report and holding hearings about the mueller report in just a moment. we begin with the barr report on the mueller report. the entire special council process was redesired in an attempt to take politics out of the investigations and yet we're left with a political appointee