Skip to main content

tv   The Beat With Ari Melber  MSNBC  March 28, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT

3:00 pm
didn't want to be the guy way you know you should. because -- >> then it says on september -- let's put an end once and for all to this schmear campaign. >> there was a guy by the name of dr. paul. shelby holiday if you read her article about it really we'll be back tomorrow with more clarifies it. >> i'm giving you a chance to "mtp daily." "the beat with ari melber" clarify it. you then say on september 19th starts right now. that you're going to go ahead. >> i haven't tried it but i was you already passed the message intrigued by that type of to assange. slicing. >> oh, stop, really? what was going on there? >> there was no message that was don't say that. >> i saw it. passed to assange. haven't tried it. and it's one way to do it. i don't even know which text message -- there's hundreds and >> no, no, no, no. hundreds of text messages -- and also, like bagel chips, if >> slow down. this is important. >> i want you to -- >> i'm going to read it to you you'll do bagel chips, there's and give you time to respond. an argument they could potentially be sliced that way. we'll give you time to respond. >> just wait until you see the report and you can read all of bagel chips need to be sliced those. >> an indictment of roger stone horizontally as well. ari melber, no. that said he was obstructing >> katy tur, i'm glad we had justice based on his treatment of you. when you wrote to him, i did this chance to talk. >> me, too. see you later. pass your message to assange, we have a lot in "the beat." what did that mean? >> the message was something that i never pass anything on to a mueller witness breaking his silence here. person number 2 who bob mueller assange. the only thing i was able to identified as a victim of reach someone to get him on my alleged obstruction by longtime show. >> when is the last time you had trump adviser roger stone. now that the probe is over, he's contact with julian assange?
3:01 pm
breaking his silence. >> actually, a year ago today i he's going to speak with us for the first time since mueller had contact with him. named him as such in stone's and he knew i was doing your indictment. i also am thrilled to tell you show for the second time. that kirsten gillibrand will be >> let's end with a couple here live. bottom lines. her first time on "the beat" as bottom line number one, why did a candidate. she just released her tax returns and said president trump should do the same. mueller's investigators care so we begin with a new and key much about what roger stone lied piece of information about the about? >> listen, i really don't know. still secret mueller report. and it has new context for >> you don't know? >> i don't know why. attorney general barr's i'll be honest with you. selective quotes from the report >> i don't know is -- randy -- and his four-page letter. >> that's not all they talked to we now know this report runs me about. >> i don't know was a fine over 300 pages. and that's not counting the answer. bottom line number two. bottom line number two, based on appendix. so barr took four partial everything that's happened, do sentences from 300 pages. you believe stone is likely to now we know that for some people the letter has shaped an idea be convicted of obstruction and about what mueller may have will he get a pardon? found. but it never released what >> i don't want to talk about that. i'm not even thinking about mueller actually found. and the 300-page count does shed that. remember, i had a father that did ten years in prison before i some light on how unusual barr's was born, all right? that's something to be -- >> if you don't want to talk approach has been. consider as we reported as soon about it, that's a short answer. as sunday night that barr was do you think roger stone is sharing other numbers like the counting on a pardon? number of subpoenas, witnesses, >> he'll get a pardon.
3:02 pm
he'll definitely get a pardon. warrants. he just didn't get around to sharing the number of pages. you know, he's been loyal to and that raises a question of this president for 37 years. i know the president is not whether that's celebriselective quotation and release was designed to shape outcomes to loyal, doesn't reciprocate make people think that barr's summary was the whole story. loyalty. but he doesn't want roger stone why didn't barr just say sunday yapping out there. >> randy kred co, person number night there were 500 warrants two. and also 300 pages. thanks for coming back on "the beat" and coming here. well, this is something that if >> taking the beat is what i did you watch some of our coverage you may have seen pointed out here. >> just "the beat." still ahead, jared kushner immediately because we rely on experts who know a lot about was back testifying in another this stuff. russia probe. john flannery was there sunday we'll explain. night as this news broke, and he and then i'm going to get into said one of the most telling why the most important thing you heard about the mueller report things barr was withholding at today is its length, 300 pages that hour was the number of pages of the mueller report. and why some say the delay in >> what do you take from the first facts before we get beyond releasing that information calls that? >> i wonder why we don't even bill barr's oversight into question. know the number of pages in the that's later tonight. report. >> if barr would have told us today that mueller wrote a report that was fuft pages or as well as all the things you want to do. 200 or 500, that alone would be because when you're ready for what comes next, a great piece of context for the only direction is forward. these four. >> as ari melber pointed out in
3:03 pm
his coverage of this last night on this network, the attorney and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin general didn't tell us something by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. as simple as how many pages like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. there are in the report. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. is it 50? is it 500? >> it's at least 300 and we're five days out of a lot of discussion, including some in the media that seem to play into barr's strategy there. now what does this page count mean in terms of comparisons to other reports? we can show you. the iran/contra and starr report were longer but in the ballpark. 445 pages from starr. a lot more than 4. now today democrats are seizing on this. they are saying that, number one, they don't like he's missing a deadline they tried to set to turn over the full report by next week. they're telling him to hurry and telling him his take is not good enough. >> no thank you, mr. attorney
3:04 pm
general. we do not need your interpretation. show us the report and we can draw our own conclusions. we don't need you interpreting for us. it was condescending, it was arrogant and it wasn't the right thing to do. >> i'm joined by jun kim who was acting attorney. he took over when preet bharara was fired by mr. trump. an important story in and of itself. we're also joined by mara gay from the new york times and gene rossi from the eastern district of virginia which is the district that prosecuted paul manafort. my thanks to each of you for being here. jun, thrilled to have you given your expertise and the fact your
3:05 pm
office was at least a subject of fact finding about potentiol obstruction by the president. we don't know the findings because we don't have them yet. what do you think of the way that mr. barr has released information about this thus far? >> so i found out just like you did today that it was about -- over 300 pages. that actually does sound about right if you were to guess. he did disclose, you know, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews. and if you just look at what's become public in the indictments that the special counsel's office has brought, there's a lot of material there. and so the way it was summarized in four pages, it's obviously difficult to summarize any document of that length and presumably the nuance with which the special counsel's office tried to be -- tried to describe what they did. so my guess, it's a little bit
3:06 pm
of a challenge to summarize anything like that. >> would you give him an "a"? >> it's hard to grade that. >> gene? >> we'll see how much of it gets released. >> gene? >> i give him a c-plus. and that's being generous. on sunday night you showed my handwriting to the american public. and i said this was a tainted letter, and it also needed hand sanitizer. i want to stand by that characterization of the letter, and here's why. can't you just tell us how many pages are in the letter? because the amount of pages could give us some information on whether your 3 1/2-page summary has some gravitas. and it doesn't. and i have to add this. i don't think it's 300 pages. i think it could be well over 1,000 if you add attachments and attachments to the attachments. this is the biggest con i've
3:07 pm
seen in a long time, and i'm very disappointed with the department of justice. >> what we just heard from viewers is the range of reaction from people who know about this stuff. prosecutor who even served briefly in the overlap with the trump administration. another prosecutor close to applectic and an anchor who struggles with words. not ideal for this job, but it happens. you as a journalist after days and days of people rushing to make conclusions beyond the available facts, what is your view? >> listen, "the new york times" editorial board, we have been creamily clear on this issue. the public's right to know here is paramount. and whatever of the report that can be released without putting sources at risk, confidential information at risk should be released to the public. the public has an overriding interest to know here to see the
3:08 pm
actual report. and the problem is that this is extremely sensitive and there's very little reason for the public at this point to feel that this process is unfolding without being politicized. and every time that, you know, you see questions about whether barr who is a trump appointee is withholding information from the public that he shouldn't be or is playing games with the information he's releasing, you know, this process becomes something that the american people have little -- less and less faith in. >> let's drill down on that because i think it goes to the gap between our two prosecutors' analysis tonight. but for you, mara, everyone understands how carefully and how reserved the handling of these findings were up until friday. so the care and the lack of out-of-court statements from mueller really persisted from may 2017 when it started until friday. >> right.
3:09 pm
>> and since friday, if people are feeling like things have changed a little bit, that's the end of the mueller phase and we're now in the trump doj/barr phase and the question is whether the mueller phase will reignite when he speaks through the report and not what barr was doing, which was a press release. he has every lawful right to do it. he's the attorney general of the united states, the boss of the counsel and that was his choice. everyone has the right to react. look at speaker pelosi today basically saying there's still evidence that we know that tells us that we should be skeptical of this barr phase. take a look. >> i'm deadly serious. if a foreign government comes to you and says they have information on your opponent, i say to any member of congress or person running for office, you take that right to the fbi. so for this report to say that there was no taccid cooperation, well, yeah, if they didn't bring
3:10 pm
the information to the fbi, they were delinquent. >> the speaker is absolutely right, but here's the problem. the central issue is, if you are barr or mueller or anyone in -- who works in any government in the united states of america from the white house to local government, you can follow every technical rule. you can meet every technical requirement. but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are fulfilling the role to which you have been named or appointed. and your purpose is actually to give the american people the information that they need and deserve. and congress has a right to review this information and decide what to do with it. the american people have a right to see as much as they can. and that's, you know, that's maybe not a legal right, but that's something that we need if democracy is to continue the way we want it to. >> well, as the old saying goes, if it's not a legal right, then i can be wrong. how does it go? i don't know.
3:11 pm
obstruction without an underlying crime. possible? >> yes. and the letter notes that. there have been a number of cases of obstruction charges without an underlying crime. in fact, the special counsel mueller has charged that. there have been obstruction charges in this very investigation. >> roger stone. >> yeah. >> martha stewart. >> but even mueller. roger stone and i suppose flynn is more complicated because there's talk of other potential ones. but in the case of the stone case, it was only related to obstruction and he awaits trial. >> it's harder to make an obstruction case if you don't have the proof of the underlying offense because that goes to motive. state of mind of someone obstructing. >> it's harder to move. >> in your view as a prrks not speaking about specific people but in general, do you think that the law and prosecutors find it worse if obstruction is committed by people in law
3:12 pm
enforcement? by prosecutors or police or the president of the united states than just a random citizen? >> yeah, it's in many ways worse because, number one, they should know better. and number two, you want to make sure that the law applies equally to everyone and that there's a perception that no one is above the law. the southern district of new york, there were a number of public corruption cases, and we felt just as strongly and sometimes more strongly if there was a police officer who was violating the law or corrections officers, people who have been entrusted with the public's power. they should be held at least to an equal standard as everyone else. >> and i don't know if you want to speak to this or not. before i go to gene for a final thought. as you watch this play out and know mueller is detailed, potential obstruction by donald trump, we know from barr that's in evidence for whatever review, do you have reason to believe any of that includes anything in
3:13 pm
new york? >> i don't have -- i don't know what's included in there or not. there's clearly parts of that investigation that have been referred to the southern district of new york and a number of active investigations and cases in the southern district of new york but i don't know what part of the obstruction investigation that they did. >> it was fascinating hearing your old boss as we know you came in for, mr. bharara describing a kind of fixation that the newly elected president-elect and then president had, donald trump, in engaging with him at sdny. nowhere, just sdny. i appreciate your care and rigor with what you're willing to speak to. gene rossi, i give you the final word. your view of mr. kim's point that obstruction by people in government and law enforcement is -- can actually be worse. and what would it mean if a president had obstruction evidence against him without an underlying crime? if that was swept under the rug,
3:14 pm
does that send the wrong message to the president and to the country at large? >> absolutely. and i'm italian so i'm always measured. i want to correct the record. but on a serious note, there is an underlying crime here, and i want to tell the viewers what i think is the underlying crime. there could be aiding and abetting of a conspiracy. helping the russians conspire among themselves to interfere. >> but special counsel mueller didn't charge that. >> well, the letter says, and this is important, that no one joined the conspiracy. you can aid and abet a conspiracy. that's why we need to see the report. to answer your question, though, i indicted a state prosecutor in virginia for obstruction of justice. i indicted a special agent with the state department. it is a big deal when someone in law enforcement obstructs an investigation even if there is
3:15 pm
no underlying crime. so to answer your question, when the president of the united states obstructs an investigation, even argue there's a no crime, that's a huge deal. >> well put. put clearly. gene, joon and mara, thanks to each of you. appreciate it. we have a lot more including a live interview with kirsten gillibrand. the first contender to release her tax returns this year and says donald trump ought to do the same. later my exclusive interview with mueller's person number 2, speaking of obstruction. he was one of the people who is alleged to be the rationale for roger stone's obstruction and we're going to get into that. his first interview with that indictment. later, why jared kushner was actually back giving secret testimony today in a russia probe. i'm ari melber. you're watching "the beat" on msnbc. ns, tax-efficient investing strategies,
3:16 pm
and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12
3:17 pm
and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. [zara larsson - "wow"] ♪ ♪ baby i'm not even 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 ♪
3:18 pm
♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪ tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability.
3:19 pm
then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. now turning to a leading lawmaker pressing for donald trump to finally come clean on his tax returns and saying she will lead on transparency. democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york is a 2020 concontinuer and became the first presidential candidate this week to release her tax returns and calling on everyone to do the same. here's her first msnbc interview since, of course, launching her official presidential bid this
3:20 pm
weekend. thanks for joining me. >> i'm delighted to be on your show. >> tell us why you're leading on this issue and specifically, can you get president trump somehow to do what others have tried and failed at which is have basic transparency about his taxes? >> i've been leading on the issue of transparns and accountability in government since i was a member of congress in 2006. i was the first member of congress to post my schedule, earmark requests and my financial disclosure online. it was my sunlight report. i posted my taxes for the last 12 years. i started posting them in 2012. and i think anyone running for president should be posting taxes. i think this president should have post taxes because the truth is, the american people deserve to know whether you are working for them or whether you have a self-interest. and one of the best ways to do that is have transparency. it's also why i led and past the stock act to make sure members of congress weren't engaging in insider trading if you can
3:21 pm
believe that actually wasn't illegal. we passed the stock act in 2012 to make sure we have accountability and transparency for people who serve in government. >> as you know, a big story this week is the position taken by the trump administration to try to actually get all of obamacare wiped out. i think i know why you disagree with that on policy grounds and preserving health care. what do you think of their argument on the actual underlying tax authority that somehow because that's changing the courts, maybe the law itself no longer has the basis from the origin aa aal supreme court dec? >> i disagree with their legal analysis. president trump is undermining all of the tenets of obamacare that actually help people. saying that you don't have to cover people who have pre-existing conditions. you can discriminate based on price. we used to have gender discrimination in insurance. he doesn't want you to have a mandate where everyone should buy in.
3:22 pm
and this has already gone to the supreme court. and so for this administration now to unwind every aspect of the affordable care act is an outrage but it's one of the reasons why i'm fighting so hard to establish that health care should be a right and not a privilege. i hear about this no matter where i go in the country, whether i'm in michigan or iowa or new hampshire or new york state. number one issue out of people's minds is health care. imagine if you have a child who is sick and you worry because president trump doesn't believe in covering people with pre-existing conditions that your child won't get medicine or won't get the medical care they need. one thing i've been working on in our medicare for all, i worked on the transition part. i helped to write it. if you can help create one not for profit public option, letting people buy into medicare at a price they can afford, 4% or 5% of income. it's affordable.
3:23 pm
can be matched by your employer and can be self-sustaining. it can get you to single payer and get you an earned benefit so you'd buy in just the same way as you buy into social security. and you own it. it would be yours forever. >> the idea there should be a much more robust approach to health care. you are talking about medicare for all which is government options for all. it's something that a lot of the candidates are agreeing on. i'm not sure there's a ton of contrast. i'm curious what you think. and i want to play for you one of your competitors and colleagues, senator sanders, who, if i'm reading him right, i'll give you a chance to respond, he seems to be saying that you are copying him. take a look. >> in 2016, many of the ideas that i talked about, medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, making public colleges and universities tuition free, spending at least a trillion and rebuilding our
3:24 pm
crumbling infrastructure. criminal justice reform. all of those ideas people were saying they're so radical. over three years, all of those ideas and many more are now part of the political mainstream. >> did he make those ideas mainstream or impact your thinking? >> well, i ran on medicare for all in 2006. and i actually got elected in a 2 to 1 republican house district running on medicare for all with a public option letting people buy in at a price they can afford. i ran for re-election in that congressional district, 2 to 1 republican registration and won it. i've been talking about it since 2005. i don't know when senator sanders started talking about it but i got to help write the bill we introduced together and the part i got to work on was this transition. having a four-year transition where people could buy in at a price they could afford which creates competition. it allows people to choose whether or not they want that public option, whether they want
3:25 pm
access to medicare at an affordable price. if it is at 4% of income, that's affordable. if you make $100,000 and have to pay $4,000 to have access, that's affordable and probably less than you're paying today and it would be self-sustaining if you let americans buy in over time and ultimately make it singer payer and an earned benefit. >> one of the things we don't hear as much within the democratic primary but we hear a lot from the president's allies is that two-plus years into the trump administration, the economy is doing reasonably well. that unemployment is down within overall in a lot of groups. what is your rebuttal to that let's say you become the nominee and you're debating trump on that point. what's your rebuttal and your jobs plan. >> i've talked to a lot of voters across my state and these early primary states and i can tell you people feel deeply left behind. unemployment number might be low but real unemployment is much higher, and the under employment rate is even higher.
3:26 pm
if you look at new hampshire and iowa, they have low unemployment rates, but i asked voters across those states, do you feel underemployed and overwhelmingly people say yes. so i'm running on a platform of how we start rewarding work again. that means supporting our unions, making sure people can organize and collective lie bargain. making sure that we support car check, we oppose right to work. making sure we have better workforce training. i think our national ambition should be full employment because if you are one of the people under employed or unemployed, you need to be earning more to make ends meet. and the way i would do it is fund the job training at community colleges, state schools, apprenticeship programs and not-for-profits. we're doing that across my state, across the country. in rural america, we have a manufacturer called lombardier and they needed advanced welders. they couldn't find any. they went to the local community college and said will you offer this course work? if you, do we'll hire your
3:27 pm
graduates as a $70,000 a year job. win-win. you took a lower wage worker who had basic welding skills. made him an advanced welder and he's supporting his family and earning more. that's the model that's been done all across the country, all across the states i visited, and i can lift up these community colleges that are the already doing it and actually giving people better skills to get a higher wage so they can provide for their families. if our ambition is full employment we'll be able to award work. that means simple things like raising the minimum wage. equal pay for equal work. affordable day care and having a national paid leave plan. >> we've talked about some of the policies you are pushing. we talked about domestic policy issues writ large. the other big story has been the reaction to mueller finishing his probe on friday. so i want to ask you two questions before i let you go on that. number one, your response to the fact that mueller did not find a chargeable election conspiracy. and number two, your assessment of how bill barr is handling and
3:28 pm
overseeing the conclusion of this probe thus far from friday to today. >> well, i am very concerned because i think what the attorney general did is undermine the purpose of the special counsel's job by summarizing this report and putting his impromader on it. he's taking away the ability of someone nonpartisan, not appointed by the president of making the decision. the four-page letter he quotes the special counsel saying that he was not going to opine on whether obstruction of justice actually took place. and that was a meaningful quote, and i think that's why the committees in the house are going to do significant investigations to get to the bottom of it. and i think speaker ploesley e correct when she says it was not only arrogant but disrespectful for the congress and senate to not receive the actual report.
3:29 pm
>> right. and for him to try to supplant it. before i let you go, no chargeable conspiracy. your reaction? >> i think this is something that we need to have the actual report to assess ourselves. i don't think we have to take the word of the attorney general in a four-page brief that is a 300-page actual report summarized to four pages. why do we have to accept his summary of the facts? >> so your point being although we do know as of friday there's the absence of mueller charging anyone on the election conspiracy, you want to see what led to his conclusion on that in the report? >> absolutely. and why he wasn't willing to opine on obstruction because the law is vague there. he didn't necessarily want to put his judgment, but i want to know why he wasn't even certain. i want to know what he found. >> senator gillibrand, i appreciate you coming on "the beat" as a candidate. i hope we can have you back. >> you can. >> thank you. appreciate your time. looks like a 2020 night
3:30 pm
because don't go anywhere. 20 elizabeth warren coming up next on "hardball" and senator amy klobuchar after that on "all in." coming up, we turn to something you won't see anywhere else. an exclusive interview on a victim of something you've heard a lot about, obstruction alleged by mueller against a trump adviser. randy credico breaking his silence when we're back in 30 seconds. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. i swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
3:31 pm
there's a lot of talk right now about obstruction of justice. and i'm thrilled to tell you we're about to do something informative because i have an exclusive interview with the witness, according to bob mueller, of alleged obstruction by a top trump adviser. randy credico. he's cited as the person number 2, and he has not ever spoken out publicly since named as such in that mueller indictment. tonight, that changes. mueller accusing stone of trying to obstruct investigations into russian interference by congress and the fbi and alleging that roger stone was effectively trying to illegally bully credico into silence, threatening him and his dog, all part of an effort to stop credico from truthfully cooperating with these probes. randy credico joins me on "the beat" right now.
3:32 pm
thank you for coming to this show with your first remarks since the indictment. >> thank you. >> a lot of people are interested in the role you played. let's start with this. >> okay. >> mueller investigated whether there was a conspiracy with russia and whether roger stone lied about all of this in invoking you as his link to wikileaks. and mueller found no chargeable conspiracy but also found that stone was lying and obstructing. what was going to? why lie if there was no conspiracy? >> well, i really don't want to tamper with that case right now. i mean if you ask me specific questions, was i the back channel? no, i was not the back channel. >> here's a specific question. >> okay. >> was mr. stone lying to protect himself or donald trump? >> i really don't know his motivation. i'm serious. it's really up in the air. it's probably in that report. that report, by the way, would have been out six muths ago if trump hadn't been lying, if trump hadn't interfered. if trump hadn't obstructed
3:33 pm
justice. >> you make an interesting point which is that the lies in public and some of the allegedly illegal lies and obstruction have made this all take longer which would seem to go against these people's interests. let me play, though, some of what has been attributed as a lie. mueller says you were the victim of obstruction, not involved in it. here was roger stone talking about his link to wikileaks. >> i said that i had communicated with mr. assange. we have a mutual acquaintance who is a fine gentlemen. i've communicated with assange. i believe the next tranche refers to -- >> we committed through an intermeediary, someone who is a mutual friend. >> was he referring to you, and was that true? >> at that point, i don't know if it was me or jerome corsi. all i know, i was named by him
3:34 pm
when he went before the house intel committee. he named me. >> he named you and then you're bringing up person 1 who we've also spoken to. now hear from the mueller indictment of roger stone. it says roger stone directed corsi, not credico, to contact the head of wikileaks. now that the probe is over, do you have any idea why it was important to roger to blame you for something that mueller found involved corsi? >> you know, it's a conundrum inside a riddle inside a rubik's cube. i really do not know why he had to do that. if he had just told the truth, he wouldn't be -- i wouldn't be here today. none of us. i don't know why he went before the house intel committee. he could have invoked the fifth. no reason to do it. >> you were in touch with him during the 2016 campaign. did you get the impression from your discussions with roger stone that he had inside info on what wikileaks was going to do? >> absolutely not.
3:35 pm
and, listen, he didn't communicate with julian assange and neither did corsi. not a snowball's chance in hell they'd communicate with those two guys. >> if that's true and i'll remind anyone listening that mueller has been crediting your side of the case. if that's true, is roger stone the saddam hussein of the mueller probe, bluffing about political weapons he didn't have? >> i don't know what his motivation was, i'll be honest. maybe that will come out, why he had to say that it was me or why he had to say he had a back channel. >> let me ask you something else. >> i don't want to be hauled before judge jackson. >> who would? >> me, by -- >> i'm saying nobody would want to be in this position. i think people can understand that. here's the big question i've been dying to ask you. >> where did i get this tie? >> no, no, close, but, no. mueller in roger stone's indictment reveals that a senior trump campaign person was,
3:36 pm
quote, directed to contact stone about additional releases and damaging information. did you have the impression that stone was talking to donald trump or senior aides about this kind of thing during the campaign? >> i think he was probably bluffing trump and trump didn't really look into it. that he was having communications. that was his way of getting himself in, in good favor with trump and trump probably said it. i believe what michael cohen said that he called up and trump said, all right, let's keep on top of this. i believe that. >> so they tied themselves in knots bluffing over something they maybe didn't have from wikileaks? >> right. >> okay. during the campaign, how early on did you talk to roger stone about wikileaks? >> you know, it really didn't come up until, let's say, i h had -- i told him and about five other people that assange was going to be on my show in september. september 9th he got gary
3:37 pm
johnson on my show. on my radio show. so the quid pro quo was i would get him assange but i didn't even ask because i wanted assange for myself. >> did you communicate with stone in august about that? >> it was september 9th. i know exactly the date. i did send him a text message saying assange was going to be on my show. you know, because he had said -- >> but this is important, randy. you also texted roger on august 26th saying assange has crypt night on hillary. >> i did say that. >> were you referring to inside information on upcoming documents? >> no. first of all, i had no idea the podesta e-mails were coming out. what i heard was he had gone on television and had said, i think it was on fox, that he had information on hillary clinton that he was going to come out. talking about julian assange. >> your claim is you were just talking it up. >> i said that to a lot of
3:38 pm
people. i said it to him and a lot of people. >> i have to ask you -- then in october -- >> i thought i was doing impressions tonight. >> later. then on october 1st. >> you're not going to have randy credico. >> on october 1st, mueller says that you wrote to stone, hillary's campaign will die this week. six days later, stolen e-mail comes out from podesta. were you predicting that? >> first of all, i was in london. i went there on the 27th through the 30th. i was in london to see a friend of mine. >> you know i'm going to question you like anyone else. why don't you give me -- >> you're tougher than aaron za lynnsky. >> were you predicting the dump? >> no, i was at heathrow airport. they have a duty-free shop there that you can drink for nothing as you are going around. and i got whacked, and i just was having this communication. i was predicting because i heard from somebody that went public that something was coming out that week.
3:39 pm
he already telegraphed it or ba basically went public -- >> this is your answer here. your answer is, no, you were not trying to predict -- >> no, no. >> -- what assange was going to do. >> i was outside the embassy and took a picture. there was a guy standing -- >> i'm not asking about the picture. >> i think it's important that i get some in. this is like a tough trip for me. it's like going to california. >> i'm not trying to give you a hard time. i mentioned that you are, according to mueller, a victim of obstruction but a lot as you know, randy, a lot has gone down here. i have another thing to ask you. i want you to give us a straight answer. mueller quotes you as telling stone in september, i'm -- when you get the request to contact assange, you say to stone, justr connection to assange. you had one before you referred to. >> right. he talked about having a, toene
3:40 pm
3:41 pm
3:42 pm
3:43 pm
3:44 pm
with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.
3:45 pm
a full five days after trump's attorney general began releasing his views on the mueller report we've now learned for the first time tonight just how long it is. over 300al barr now under pressure to explain why he withheld that information and continues to withhold parts of the report. we're seeing the battle lines take shape on a story that is one of the most important of the
3:46 pm
year. speaker pelosi dialing up the pressure. she says barr is arrogant for the way he's doing this and refusing to commit to how he'd release grand jury information so that congress can benefit from the whole report. also refusing to give chairman nadler an unredacted copy of the report and then here it is. a subpoena threat. a democratic staffer now telling nbc tonight we'll have more to say on april 3rd. that's the day after the expected blown deadline. gene rossi is back with me. we have been in a, what lawyers would call, a colloquy and what normal people who use normal words and aren't as annoying as us would call a conversation since sunday about this. you have been out there very far. i've stipulated the attorney general is within his lawful authority. he can release press releases. he can release letters and say what he thinks. the problem according to democrats seems to be anyone taking what he thinks and treating it as anything other than what he thinks.
3:47 pm
he's been on the job a month. doesn't think presidents can easily commit obstruction and he wants the world to know what he thinks. walk us through what you think matters about this since you, i would say, were hammering the selective disclosures as soon as we learned about them sunday night. >> i was very passionate, how is that? ari, here's what troubles me the most about the attorney general. and i was very complimentary about him when he was nominated. he already put his thumb on the scale in june of last year. he got that report after he wrote his report that there's no obstruction. and now he's deciding no obstruction and we're to believe that he's going to be objective in determining what is not released and what is released to the congress? i got to tell you, the whole purpose of the special counsel referral is defeated by the attorney general of the united states to keep his fingers in
3:48 pm
this pot. >> you've made that point elkwene eloque eloquently. some may be wondering if you have been hammering that since sunday, why did it seem like some of the folks in the building behind you, congressional democrats, took several days to sort of hit this point? >> because they didn't watch your show on sunday night. that's why. >> or watch you on the show. but, really, explain that to people because if all the democrats stood up in unison sunday night and said this is no different than whitaker, sessions or anyone else doing this, what was the delay, in your view? >> well, there's not going to be much of a delay. i just got a chance to talk with senator gillibrand after her segment on your show. and we had a nice little chat about aiding and abetting and conspiracy. so i predict this. i think members of the house and the senate, no pun intended, they're going to start listening to the talking heads, and they're going to realize that
3:49 pm
this report is too important a document for the attorney general of the united states to decide what is redacted and what's turned over. and i predict that there will be a handoff, if you will, to someone else in the u.s. department of justice, not rod rosenstein, not the attorney general. it will be someone that, and i've said this many times, is purer than caesar's wife. >> and talking heads, no pun intended like a david burn type pun? >> you are the master of puns. i'm not as good as you. >> but was it a talking heads reference coming? i was waiting for it. >> i don't know lyrics either. >> how did i get here? is this my beautiful house? is this my beautiful house of representatives? gene rossi, a secret talking heads fan. we'll be relying on you more in the weeks ahead. thank you, sir. >> thank you.
3:50 pm
3:51 pm
3:52 pm
3:53 pm
3:54 pm
in other news tonight jared kushner interviewed in a secret closed door hearing or private, classified i should say. the son in law was spotted by these cameras and wouldn't talk about a surprise appearance on the hill on major import.
3:55 pm
and the chairman declined to give us comment on today's session. and we'll update as we learn more. l update as we learn more ce, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. [zara larsson - "wow"] ♪ ♪ baby i'm not even 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 ♪ you know that look? that life of the party look. walk it off look.
3:56 pm
one more mile look. reply all look. own your look with fewer lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. it's the only one fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic 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 may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. so, give that just saw a puppy look and whatever that look is. look like you with fewer lines. own your look with the one and only botox® cosmetic.
3:57 pm
they're the ones who see a city that can make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see cars that can talk to each other and share their best shortcuts. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. ♪ why? because they can see the infinite possibilities of the power of data flowing through our world. at dell technologies we see it too.
3:58 pm
and we can help make your digital future real so you can move the world forward in beautiful, unimaginable ways. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and together we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies,
3:59 pm
and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. we have a special show tomorrow. bob mueller's former chief of staff will talk about that his former boss did 300 pages and he does this type off thing. and they'll be joined by carter page and michael caputo.
4:00 pm
but don't go anywhere right now. "hardball" is up next. the trump/putin game. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. today's opening day of the major league baseball season. and i'm struck. did donald trump or didn't he play ball with vladimir putin? it's a simple question. was trump responding again and again to putin's push to bring down hillary clinton? and the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on