tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC March 27, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PDT
green new deal and how and if you can achieve the goals, what it takes to combat the crisis of climate change. don't miss it this friday right here at 8:00 p.m. eastern and that's "all in" for this evening. >> thank you, my friend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. i don't know if you ever look at the website for our show at the news blog we maintain here every day. i'm not pitching it or anything, i'm just saying if you've ever noticed it, you might know an excellent, excellent old pal of mine writes the maddow blog and he's a policy guru for the editorial staff and as such, every day, steve gives me and all the producers on the show a briefing of the landscape of the day's news and blog later in the day and stuff over the course of the news day. today at about 1:00 eastern time, steve sent a slightly
panicked note to me and the whole staff. he basically said as a heads up, you guys, on a typical day i'll start the day with ten to 15 credible ideas for maddowblog posts. this morning i had 29 and that was before new stuff started happening. i've never seen steve rattled like that. he's a very even keel guy. it has, in fact, been a very busy news day and big news stuff. in fact, has kept happening all day. it started actually in the middle of the night last night with the almost unbelievable news that the trump administration is going to ask the courts to take away health insurance from 1 million who have it today. 21 million americans. you or someone you know has health insurance today who didn't used to have it because of the affordable care act,
because of obamacare. republicans, of course, promised and promised that they would kill obamacare and get rid of it as soon as they were in power in washington. when republicans got into power and got complete control of government of the 2016 election, in fact, they did not kill obamacare. that's because a, people fought like heck to stop them from doing that and b, i think it's also because they scared themselves when they realized what they were actually going to do is take health insurance coverage away from 21 million americans. but for whatever combination of factors, despite their promises that that's the first thing they were going to do, republicans actually elected not to do that when they were in complete control in congress and in the white house and so we sort of thought that was over for now. but then late last night we got the news that the trump administration has declared and new court filings that they will not defend any single little bit of the affordable care act.
they want the whole law struck down by the courts, all of it and that means if trump now gets his way, 1 million americans will lose all the health insurance just like that and another 133 million americans, half the country under the age of 65 will get to take a spin on the old roulette wheel because half of all americans under the age of 65 have some kind of preexisting condition and now the trump administration says they want insurance companies to be able to go back to not insuring you if they don't want to on the basis of the fact you have a preexisting condition. we got rid of that roulette wheel nine years ago in this country with the affordable care act and now the trump administration wants us to go back. also, do you know anybody on medicare? everybody over 65 has access to medicare in this country. people of disabilities of all ages have access to medicare. if trump gets his way with what he's trying to do now, everybody on medicare will start paying
more for their prescription drugs and pay out-of-pocket for stuff like diabetes checks and wellness checks and physicals and all the other preventive care covered by the aca. the trump administration has decided to tell the federal courts to struck all of that down. to kill the health care law in its entirety. they couldn't do it through congress even when they had complete republican control. instead, they decided they would use the courts to do it. which is exactly the kind of thing for which they have been so excitedly stuffing conservative judges on the bench at a record pace throughout the time trump has been president. they hope they will finally be able to take away health care coverage from literally tens of millions of americans. they figured out how to do it. they must be so excited. according to exit polling from multiple sources, the last elections we had, the 2018 midterms, they were mostly a
referendum on the issue of health care for everything else we fight about and dominates the news, americans that voted in the congressional elections in 2018 in november say they were motivated more than anything else by the issue of health care and with that motivation they voted for a bigger democratic sweep in the house than at any time since the immediate aftermath of watergate. now in the wake of that, the trump administration has set their course for 2020 and to set that course, they are asking the courts to put literally half the country out of the running for health insurance if you've been so unlucky in life to have any one of a ga zillion preexisting conditions to make you uninsureble at any cost. just -- it's just amazing. walter former solicitor general of the united states widely respected legal mind, he weighed in on the trump administration's decision on this today and called it not just legally indefensible but politically insane.
that is what they are doing including lauren underwood who ran on the issue of health care and flipped from red to blue and what it will happen from here on out. with a vote that failed to over ride trump's first presidential veto, the trump administration also signalled they will pay for president trufr's wall between the u.s. and mexico and they denied a row quest for other purposes to instead spend those moneys on a wall.
which means in addition to the entities suing trump over him declaring this emergency to allow him to build that wall, it now looks like congress will push this into the courts, too. for every dollar that trump tries to take from some other purpose, to instead spend it on his wall. so you take those two things together and i mean, it has been a day with lots of news in it but also been a day when a lot of news that broke is big news. i mean, among other things, we learned today that the trump administration's legal firepower from here on out from here at least until the next election in 2020 is going to be devoted in the courts to trying to take health insurance away from tens of millions of americans to take them all uninsured and fighting to take money away from u.s. troops to instead build trump a wall that most americans do not want. which is a nice double barrelled strategy.
i'm sure they think that is. but on top of all of that, we now know to expect at least some version of the special counsel's report from robert mueller within weeks. weeks, not months. i know that's vague. nbc news reports according to a doj spokesperson, it will be a matter of weeks not months before attorney general william barr turns over to congress however much of mueller's report he will allow to be seen. as we reported, democratic committee chairs say that's not enough. they want a fully unredacted copy of mueller's report and want it not in a matter of weeks, they want it in a week. they want it one week from today on april 2nd. even beyond that, they are also demanding access to the underlying evidence that mueller used to produce his report. so we shall see.
i mean, depending on how slowly barr decides to go with this and how much of mueller's report he tries to with hold from congress and the public, this one may end up in court, too, alongside the wall and alongside the trump administration trying to take away health insurance from americans. the role of the attorney general william barr in releasing his own summery and making his own announcement about his own prosecutor decision based on what he says is in mueller's findings, that decision by william barr is attracting more and more scrutiny and more and more criticism with each passing hour since barr put out his statement about mueller's findings on sunday. one of barr's predecessors eric holder provided the answer only a former attorney general would provide with major mysteries and how barr handled mueller's findings and how barr inserted himself into the special counsel's investigation.
this is holder's statement. on obstruction, the department of justice seems to be substituting its judgment for the special counsels. the department of justice did not have to weigh in, not consistent with president, not a best practice. trump's department of justice now appears to have cleared him. mueller's report must be made available. again, that's former attorney general eric holder today describing it as improper to judge into the special counsel investigation to announce his own view of whether president trump could be prosecuted for obstruction after mueller himself reportedly made no recommendation on that one way or the other. the a 1 lead in today's "new york times" on the same subject puts i think perhaps even a finer point on the matter. quote, william p.barr was a lawyer and private practice in june when he wrote an unsolicited memo that was sharply skeptical of the special counsel's inquiry whether
president trump obstructed justice and nine months later, mr. trump is cleared of that offense and has mr. barr, his new attorney general to thank. barr's decision to declare evidence fell short of proving president trump was an extraordinary outcome to a narrative unspooled over two years. robert s. mueller was appointed as special counsel to remove political interference from an investigation involving the president but mueller reached no conclusion on the key question whether trump committed an obstruction of justice defense. barr stepped in to make the determination himself bringing the spector of politics back in the case and they seized on the move portraying it as a hasty intervention by the man pledging to defend independence but ended up clearing the president last month. quote, it is not clear from barr's letter whether mueller wanted the attorney general to
make the final decision on the obstruction issue or whether mueller intended for congress to observe the evidence without a prejudgment by law enforcement. but a prejudgment by one specific guy in law enforcement is in fact what attorney general william barr has provided. and so as we await the mueller report as we await our access to the mueller report and apparently going to get somewhere between a week and some weeks worth of waiting where all we have to go by are the actions and the statements of the attorney general about mueller without seeing any of mueller's work itself, we're left with incredibly provocative set of unexplained behaviors where according to trump's attorney general, robert mueller decided and declared there should be no prosecutions of trump or anyone in his campaign
specifically for colluding with the russians in their election interference effort but at the same time, robert mueller somewhat inexplicably decided he would with hold judgment whether anybody should be charged with any form of obstruction of justice. with mueller reportedly declining to make that pronouncement about whether anybody should be charged with obstruction of justice, we then subsequently have absolutely zero understanding of why the attorney general would then himself jump in on that question and say, well, mueller may not know the answer here but i know, i know. mueller may have worked on this for 22 months and decided that he shouldn't be prejudging whether or not this is a crime but i've looked as his evidence for two days and i'm quite sure i know what the answer is and trump is fine. as eric holder says, that is not consistent with president. that is not a justice department best practice and not something the justice department needed to do. but we may yet get an explanation of what happened presumably if mueller did decide he was supposed to make a charging announcement on half of his and not supposed to make a
charging announcement on the other half of the remit presumably a decision that strange if that's something he came to on his own terms presumably that is something he will have explained in his report. and as far as i can tell, if there is that explanation from mueller in his report, there would be no good reason, no legal reason to refact any of that when the report is hand oefrd to congress and ultimately shown to us. but we will get some expert advice in that in just a moment. and meanwhile, although you might not expect it from the headlines and white house pronouncement that this thing is over and time to move on, meanwhile, this thing does appear to still be plugging along in the courts. i mean, the special counsel is technically wrapping up the special counsel's spokesman says that mueller will be wrapping up his work in coming days. we have seen paperwork filed in federal court showing lawyers for the special counsel's office withdrawing and lawyers for the d.c. u.s. attorney's office stepping up to take over, the on going criminal cases involving
the convicted campaign chairman paul manafort and the president's deputy chairman rick gates awaiting sentencing and konstantin kilimnik linked to russian intelligence. those have been formally handed over to the d.c. u.s. attorney's office. did the sound play? i don't have an ear piece so i don't know today. that's the mystery case. that's the sound for the mystery case. the mystery case is apparently still on going. it involves an unnamed mystery company owned by an unknown mystery foreign country. that company was issued a subpoena to provide some sort of evidence or information to the grand jury that mueller had convened in washington to take evidence in his investigation.
the mystery company owned by the mystery country doesn't want to compile with that subpoena from mueller's grand jury. they have been fighting tooth and nail in every conceivable way in the federal courts. that company and country have actually lost every single step of the way. they have lost in every court they could conceivably lose in up to and including the supreme court of the united states which just a couple days ago decided they wouldn't take up the appeal from the mystery company and mystery country which means the lower court ruling requiring compliance with the mueller subpoena is still in effect. even more than that, a lower court order that the mystery company has to pay $50,000 a day for every day they don't compile with the subpoena, that's still in effect, too. formally and completely and there is no appealing it. went to the supreme court and the supreme court said no. technically the special counsel's office said this mystery case is another one of their cases that they are
handing off to the d.c. u.s. attorney's office. but this is as i said a little fuzzy because this is the mystery case. everything about it is mysterious because it's under seal and we can see court filings from the manafort case or gates case and kilimnik case. we can't see any of the court filings in this mystery case. we can't verify it with our own eyes but also tomorrow it turns out there will be a hearing in the mystery case. and even if the special counsel's office is in the process right now of handing this one over, we're not sure which prosecutors are going to turn up in court at this hearing. it's been special counsel prosecutors who have been arguing this all along and this case is fascinating to watch from the very, very beginning because it is shielded in so much mystery and has been litigated to the supreme court and we don't know how it fits into the larger investigation. at this point in the process,
i'm dying to know, right? we're awaiting the imminent publication of mueller's report. and as we are awaiting that and mueller wrapped up his investigation, he's handing everything over. we're awaiting his report. turns out this case is still live. they are still trying to get this mystery company from this mystery country to testify to the grand jury for something that mueller subpoenaed them over. it's turned out to be fascinating at this particular moment. all we know from william barr about mueller's counter intes -- intelligence findings is no charges should be brought against trump and specifically for aiding the russian government in their effort to influence the 2016 election. we don't know about any broader conclusions or findings from mueller about other types of foreign influence or improper foreign involvement in american politics or government and beyond russia, we don't know if mueller looked at improper
involvement or foreign influence from other countries including gulf states. there is a lot of speculation in the mystery case that the mystery country here might be qatar and might be a qatarry wealth fund of some kind. well, now that that company and that country have run out of appeals, they have all the way to the supreme court and been rejected, now that they have come to the end of the legal rope in fighting the subpoena, it's now going to be super interesting to see what the courts do if they try to up the stakes and force this company and country to compile. i mean, the courts are already fining this company $50,000 a day. the courts could presumably raise that further and make it a daily financial penalty. conceivably, the courts could move to arrest any executives of the firm if any of them are in the united states or transiting through the united states. conceivably the courts could try
to seize or freeze assets associated with the firm or with that foreign government to the extent that the u.s. has access to them. i mean, how important is the information the special counsel was subpoenaing them for? now that the special counsel is wrapping up the investigation. and honestly, bottom line, can we just please figure out who this is? one thing to watch at this hearing tomorrow when they have this hearing in the mystery case is and i think this has been lost on a lot of people watching this case as it proceeded in the shadows and under seal, one thing to watch when we get this hearing tomorrow is that the company in question and the foreign country in question, they are not the ones who want their identity sealed. according to court ctly happy to everyone know they are the country and company fighting the subpoena. they don't care if their identity is exposed. it's et special counsel's office
and robert mueller's office fighting all this time in court to keep the identity of the company and country secret while they have also been trying to force them to compile with the grand jury subpoena. well, now, that company and country, their appeals are over. they relay are going to have to compile with the subpoena at least as far as the u.s. court system can try to force them to do so. but also at the same time, robert mueller is going home and this case presumably is being handed off. so what is going to happen tomorrow? i don't -- i don't know. but maybe this will be the last time we ever get to play this sound on tv. in addition to all those cases that the special counsel's office handed over, though, i think it's also worth noting there is, there is a bunch of cases that at least formally they haven't yet handed over. for example, we have seen no
court filings in the michael flynn case. we have seen no court filings in the case pending against the russian military intelligence officers, the jru case and no court filings in the roger stone case or concord management case, which would indicate prosecutors for the special counsel's office with drawing from those proceedings to be fully taken over by other u.s. attorney's offices or other entities in the justice department. that would appear to include the case of andrew miller, the guy that used to work for or volunteer for roger stone. he, too, has been fighting his subpoena from mueller's office and mueller's grand jury. natasha reports just like in the mystery case, it appears that the effort in the courts to compel andrew miller to compile with the subpoena and provide testimony to mueller's grand jury, that appears to still be live despite the fact that the special counsel's office is closing its doors. so we still don't know what that is about but they are apparently still seeking that guy's testimony.
and on that concord management case, remember, this is the entity charged with financing and organizing the russian government's social media efforts to interfere in 2016 election to benefit donald trump, in that case, not only has the special counsel's office apparently not designated some other prosecutor, some other u.s. attorney or part of the justice department to take over that case, as of right now, attorneys in the special counsel's office are filing new motions in the case. concord management is owned by a powerful billionaire oligarch who is close to putin and the kremlin. last we checked in on this concord management case, they were advising the court the materials they handed over to the higher defense counsel as part of discovery in the case, somehow those materials had mysteriously ended up in russia being used in an online campaign targeting u.s. journalists to undermine the mueller
investigation in the american press. i mean, throughout the whole concord management case, the special counsel's office is essentially warning that this russian oligarch close to putin is trying to use the rights of that criminal defendant's get in the american judicial system to pry loose from the u.s. government as much sensitive u.s. national security information as he can for the purpose of delivering it to russia and ultimately to the kremlin. special counsel's office has been resisting that actively including this week and giving that on going dynamic in this case, it is fascinating that so far we're not seeing the special counsel giving up this concord management case to any other prosecutor. we're still seeing special counsel's office prosecutors filing motions in the case as recently as yesterday. so all of this stuff is still live and all the more
interesting that it's still live given that the special counsel's office is shutting down in the middle of this and that report is filed and we're waiting to see it. you know, the next status conference in the butina case is the day after tomorrow. all of these proceedings now proceed in this new environment we're living in where the attorney general appears to be waiting into the middle of this investigation now and appears to be wading into the middle of things and deciding how they will turn out and that really is new. that's a new dynamic we've never seen in any of these investigations before and i think we're about to find out more about how that happened and why and how sustainable it is but we're going to get expert advice on that next. stay with us. (vo) for a nasty cold, take dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. (acapella) whoa! (vo) and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors.
what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. the barr report characterizing robert mueller's findings and says president trump shouldn't be charged for obstruction. that raised a question for
former u.s. attorney bbarb mcquaid, odd number one mueller would reach no conclusion on obstruction and two, that the attorney general would decide the issue for him. this defeats the purpose of a special counsel which is to avoid conflicts of interest by those in the executive branch of those in command. joining us is barb mcquaid. first of all, i think it's the barr report and people shouldn't confuse it with the mueller report we haven't seen but also because what barr did here does appear to be sort of being greeted with more, you know, scratching of heads, more raised eyebrows, more of a puzzled reaction as time goes on. i think it was surprising to people on the outset but as these last couple days have gone on, people seem to have found it
more puzzling and not less. >> i agree with you. i think the first take away from reading the barr letter was the finding that the evidence did not establish a conspiracy with russia. that was big news. but i think as people have devilled a little more deeply on the obstruction of justice issue, they find it incredibly curious that one, robert mueller did not make a decision and two, william barr did as if you're the new england patriots and tom brady is your quarterback all season and throughout the super bowl and for the very last drive of the game, coach bill belichick puts himself in at quarterback instead. what on earth is that? i thought we had a game plan and to change it up at the last minute like that is not only strange, i think it is contrary to the purpose of the special counsel rule which is to bring in someone who is independent outside the chain of command in the executive branch so that the public can have confidence in the decision that it was free from political considerations but stepping in, i think barr
defeat that purpose. >> you have me imaging william barr with cap sleeves and a frown on his face. he kind of does look like bill belichick which is maybe why you came up with that analogy. given the weirdness of that decision, both parts of it, the decision by barr to jump in and also the decision by mueller to not make a prosecution decoloration, of any kind when it comes to the obstruction issue. would you expect mueller to have laid out in his report why he was demurring on the issue of obstruction? why he was not saying one way or the other why he -- whether he thought criminal charges should be brought? >> i do think it's likely to be in that report. i'm not certain. it's a process kind of question as opposed to a substantive question. one theory may be he intended this to be a road map as we saw in the watergate investigation
that because doj policy says we cannot indict a sitting president, it is not for us to decide. so i am handing to you congress the evidence, here is what we found on both sides of the equation and it is for congress to make that decision whether to i'm peach the president because that's the only remedy available. the reason for that may bin colluded in that report, i don't know. and i don't know whether he anticipate that william barr would take the ball and run with it or barr snatched it from him so he could to continue the football analogy if congress wants to look at this for possible impeachment, he prejudged the evidence and put it out there this is the decision so as in football for instant replay to change the call on the field requires clear and convincing evidence. a much higher standard because now the presumption is that he's been cleared and so for congress to come up with a contrary opinion would appear to be have a very politically motivated unfair overturning of the original call. >> and the same logic would
apply to any grand jury that was convened by any prosecutor after trump left office if there was a prevailing theory at the justice department that the president couldn't be prosecuted for crimes that he committed while he was a sitting president but he could potentially be prosecuted after he left office as a private citizen any grand jury considering any indictment would be prejudice by this decoloration, by the attorney general. >> i think any decision maker would be. as a matter of law, they wouldn't be barred from looking at it again and different circumstances and i think that the potential jury pool so to speak will be tainted and finding by the attorney general. >> barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney from michigan. i enjoyed talking about this. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you, rachel. >> much more ahead here tonight and wait until you get to the part you find out who gronk is now that he's retiring. stay with us.
audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free.
enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen5 to 500500 today. ♪ the flip-flop, it's an uncomfortable shoe worn in the summer i never got the hang off and a term of art when politicians change their issue. this happened outside senator lindsey graham's senate office today. that is 200 flip-flops arranged in lindsey graham's parking lot so they would spell out visibly from the windows of his office
release mueller report. the local chapter of the group indivisible is responsible for this art instillation. they say the flip-flops are all from and they each have the name of a lindsey graham constituent on them. a lindsey graham constituent that wants them to stop flip-flopping. lindsey graham personally blocked a resolution on the senate floor that would have called for the release of mueller's report. along with the flip-flops that local indisvisible chapter delivered a petition with 1200 signatures and letters from south carolina voters calling for lindsey graham to make up his mind and commit to releasing mueller's report. the conservative group republicans for the rule of law released an ad today reminding prominent members of the republican party that they all happen to be on the record and on tape supporting the full and complete release of mueller's report.
>> i would like for as much as possible of the mueller report to be open. >> so we want to learn as much as we possibly can. >> i told the house if you want, let them see it. >> call your congressman and tell them to urge the justice department to release the mueller report. >> lots of people want to see the mueller report. we've seen everybody from republicans to democrats to editorial boards from both ends of the political spectrum to the president himself to indivisible groups calling for its release. a huge majority of americans want the report released. when it comes to indivisible though, their great claim to fame in terms of stuff they pushed on was their key home district role to stop the repeal of the affordable care act when trump and republicans pushed for that in 2017, indivisible town halls they protested in their home districts and wrote protests, they wrote postcards. they showed up in the senate and in the rain and their pressure on home state senators and members of congress worked to
help squash the republicans' effort in 2017 to kill the affordable care act, to kill obamacare. now apparently that is back on indivisibles to do list with the trump administration given the trump administration's new effort in court to stop defending the affordable care act to try to eliminate the wall all together. this new initiative from the trump administration, which was revealed late last night would result in tens of millions of americans losing their health insurance. they are setting this up as the fight they want to have between now and the president's reelection in 2020. we got more on that story coming up. stay with us.
in the middle of everything else going on, the white house announced they want to talk away health care from tens of millions of americans. they will no longer defend any part of obamacare in the courts. they want to kill the whole thing. ending that wall will throw 21 million americans off their health insurance.
ending that law will mean 133 million americans can be thrown off their coverage or denied coverage because they have a preexisting condition of some kind ending that law means that young americans will no longer be able to stay on their parents' health plan until 26. this stuff is popular. right? are you on medicare? do you know somebody on medicare? getting your diabetes checks for free? this will get rid of that. getting rid of this law will come with very big human and political costs. you can tell that partly from the way democrats campaigned more on saving health care than on anything else and there by control of congress and the trump administration trying to haul the affordable care acre out back of the barn while trump and republicans were figuring out an approach to try to kill it, house democrats were simultaneously offering their plan to make the coverage better
and more affordable for more people. democrats ran on this last year more than they ran on anything else. they won on this and now they are working on this and the trump administration has got more aggressive against the affordable care act, against health insurance coverage that people have been enjoying for years than they have ever been before. joining us now is congresswoman lauren underwood, a registered nurse and newly-elected member of congress and ran strongly on support for the affordable care act. congresswoman underwood, real pleasure to have you here. thank you for making time for us tonight. >> thank you so much. >> you're a member of congress that ran on saving and strengthening obamacare. last year before you were sworn in there was this federal judge in texas that struck down the affordable care act and that ruling was appealed and the justice department is agreeing with the texas judge. what is your reaction to this move by the trump administration
and how serious do you think it is? >> i think that the trump administration just can't take a hint. you are absolutely correct, rachel, that the american people clearly spoke in the november elections when they sent me and my colleagues here to protect our health care coverage and make it more affordable. their actions last night were uncalled for and they are really alarming because we know this touches the lives of so many americans around the country counting on this really important health care coverage to live healthy, well lives. >> you congresswoman are not from a super blue state. you're not from a place that democrats really don't have to compete. you're from a purple district. you flipped your seat from red to blue. i wonder when you were campaigning on this issue, when you were doing the shoe leather work it took to win this seat, how much this was something that your potential constituents raised with you, whether worries about healthcare reform or
concerns about health care and health care costs were something that your district wanted to put front and center. >> the people across northern illinois know we fought to save our health care coverage in the summer of 2017. it was because of our activism and out reach and continued advocacy that we have the affordable care act that remains the law of the land today. as i was campaigning, i heard from families their drug prices were too high. premium prices were too high and sacrificing to pay their premium and couldn't afford to use their coverage and see a provider. i had dental hygienests tell me she had to decide between heat and health care this winter and her teenage son was struggling with that type of decision because he knew how important health care was for his mom's health and his own. with preexisting conditions. these are vital protections that the american people count on every day. and the idea that it could just be unilaterally taken away by a
presidential administration that is choosing not to defend an existing law in the books that benefits, as you said, millions of americans, 21 million americans have coverage thanks to the aca but consumer protections extend to the whole country. hundreds of millions of americans take advantage of these preexisting condition protections, keeping their kids on their health insurance plans and having the benefit of preventive care, free screenings and vaccinations, contraceptive coverage. all these aspects incredibly popular that now are under threat because the justice department is not defending the law. however, house democrats from the very first day that we were sworn in in january, we voted to protect and defend this law. >> i know congresswoman, one of the reasons i wanted to talk to you tonight is i know part of that house democratic effort to not just save obamacare but also to i know it's part of that
house democratic effort to not just save obamacare but to actually expand on it while the trump administration is coming great guns the other direction. i know you actually have a bill that's part of that, and i know a lot of freshman members of congress don't get anywhere near legislation that has a chance of passing, you have been right up there with stuff the democrats have made a priority. can you just tell us what that's about? >> today we unveiled a package that will improve the affordable care act. my bill, hr-1868, would allow for americans who need access to the advanced premium tax credits to be able to qualify for those so that they can have more affordable health care coverage. no american under this bill would pay more than 8.5% of their total income on premium prices. that would lower premium prices for 10 million americans and would allow an additional 9 million folks to be able to get access to coverage. we're talking nearly 20 million people who are impacted by this change in our bill.
botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 mins. in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. with the botox® savings program, most people with commercial insurance pay nothing out of pocket. talk to your doctor and visit botoxchronicmigraine.com to enroll. see if you can spot the pattern. the president's eldest son, donald trump jr., claimed during
the presidential campaign that the trump tower meeting that he took during the campaign was a meeting about adoption policy when, of course, it wasn't a meeting about the adoption policy. the president's long-time lawyer and fixer, michael cohen, he lied to congress about trump's efforts to secure a trump tower moscow deal during the 2016 campaign. the president's national security adviser, mike flynn, pled guilty to lying to investigators about his contacts with the russian government and his discussions with them about sanctions. the president's campaign chairman, paul manafort, lied about the extent of his contacts with prosecutor limnik. he specifically said he gave ko limnik information about the trump campaign. one of the biggest open questions that's still swirling around the mueller investigation is why president trump's associates lied about their
contacts with the russians during the campaign, especially if everything was on the up and up and up and up and up. why lie? then there's this. what should we read into the fact that the president was lying about his effort to build a trump tower moscow during the campaign? one of the chief negotiators for that deal, a man named felix sater, was supposed to testify publicly tomorrow before the house intelligence committee. that testimony has since been postponed apparently pending the release of the mueller report, which the justice department says will happen within weeks. simultaneous to that announcement about the delay of sater's testimony, we also learned that felix sater is being sued by a bank in a former soviet state that accuses him of trying to launder hundreds of millions of stolen dollars through trump properties. so there's that. sater's lawyers are calling the lawsuit a cheap and desperate
wherein we put the vision back in television. barbara quaid's analogy where there wouldn't be a prosecution for obstruction of justice, that would be like if the patriots used tom brady for every other play in the game, but when it came down to the buzzer and the attempted winning play, bill bellichek took brady out and came in and put himself in as quarterback to finish out the game. barb made that analogy on tv, and i'm saying i would have agreed with barb on that, anyway, but look. didn't i tell you? i mean, they're like -- they're not even like brothers from different mothers, they're like
brothers from the same mother. they're like brothers. attorney general, coach. coach, attorney general. switch the glasses. could you tell? do your job. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. [ music playing ] this morning, questions over when the public will get to see mueller's final report. the justice department now saying it will be weeks not months. this as we learn it was obstruction, not collusion. >> that worried trump's legal team the most. plus the battle over healthcare is back on. president trump is renewing the fight to end obamacare. even though the issue ended in 2018. a twist in the case with jussie smollett. prosecutors dropped all charges against the actor. some officials in chicago are not happy about it.