Skip to main content

tv   Deadline White House  MSNBC  April 9, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
concerns about companies not being able to keep their earnings up. so we are seeing all three markets in the red today, 194 points right now for the dow. i'll see you right back here tomorrow at 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. you can always find me on social media. deadline white house starts right now. hi, everyone. it is 4:00 in new york. within one week, attorney general william barr expects to release a redacted version of the mueller report to congress and to the public. but behind that headline, plenty of reason for democrats to be suspicious of barr's testimony before the house appropriations committee today. first, his refusal to say whether he has offered the white house a sneak peek of the report. and second, a line in the sand drawn by barr over releasing an unredacted copy of the report or any of the underlying evidence to congress. that standoff shaping up to be
1:01 pm
the next front in the fight between the trump doj and congress over transparency. here is barr today. >> did the white house see the report before you released your summarizing letter, has the white house seen it since then, have they be briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the judiciary committee? >> i've said what i'm going to say about the report today. >> will we have the complete report or are you going to be selective as to what you give members of congress? >> you mean the unredacted report? >> uh-huh. >> no, the first pass at this is going produce a report that makes the redactions. >> jerry nad suggesting if barr does what he is promising and delivers a redacted report to congress in the coming days, he will face a subpoena and a court fight. >> congress has need of the
1:02 pm
entire report including the grand jury material, including all the -- including everything. and i presume we'll get the redacted report within a week. when we do so, if we don't get everything, we will issue the subpoena and go to court. >> and in light of some recent reporting about some of robert mueller's investigators being frustrated that their findings were not reflected in barr's selective summaries of the actual report, barr when offered a chance to weigh in on whether the president is correct when he claims total exoneration? barr refused to answer. >> it is very puzzling to me that the 400 pages could have been reviewed and the president states that this report is a complete and total exoneration. who is factually accurate? >> as i say, it is hard to have that discussion without the contents of the report, isn't
1:03 pm
it. and that is why i'm suggesting that we wait until the report is out and i'm glad to talk about it after then and i'm already scheduled to testify about that. >> and that is where we start today. julia ainsley outside the justice department, ashley parker white house reporter for the "washington post," frank figluci, and harry lippman, and here at the table, a former federal prosecutor in new york. julia, let's start with you. barr went in here with a perception problem. we don't know enough to know whether or not he has a substance problem. but pretty indisputable even inside that building behind you that he has a perception problem and a political problem. we played those three opportunities he had to try to bridge some of that distrust and he seemed to go 0 for 3 there.
1:04 pm
>> that's right, he did. i think that he is just someone who will keep digging in on the fact that he is not going to budge until this report is out. he did say that it would be within the coming weeks, that he would -- or within the week that he would release that report. and the timing is about as much as he is sharing right now. and again, he is just not budging on this. one thing he did make news on though is the fact that he is looking into the counterintelligence investigation opened in the summer of 2016. that is something that i think democrats will take less ease with than if he had said nothing about that at all because he wants to look into the motivations to open up the report and not just leave to the inspector general as we previously thought he would. but yes, what we saw from barr was really consistent i think with the message we've seen from this justice department, they put outoutleter, telling us wha categories will be blobbed out of the report, but nothing
1:05 pm
indicating that they are stepping over themselves to give more information than we otherwise might get. >> frank, a real gulf enning between where mueller landed and where barr landed. and it became clear to me today that when you see both men testify before congress, these yes or no questions, have you shared it with the white house, that is a yes or no question, that he refused to answer. seems to put more distance between barr and his detractors, that he refused to draw any shades of gray around donald trump's exen on raxooneration vr when the mueller's reports words were clear, we do not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction of justice. where did william barr land today? >> on the side of being the president's attorney. we did not see an attorney general who was advancing the ball toward disclosure answer are or helping to heal the polar
1:06 pm
saying of this country. but rather we saw somebody just sticking to his guns. two things jumped out at me. first, he stuck on this grand jury material never getting out. yet he has closed the door to saying we could seek a judge's authority, we could get some of this out and seek permission because i really want transparency here. that is out the window. and secondly, he is saying that he is going -- this caught my attention. he used the phrase you know this first pass of the report in first pass i'm going to give you. that sets us up and tells us he is ready for battle. he is ready for a back and forth on this and a fight over this. we didn't hear the attorney general say i'm going to give you everything i can in one shot, i'm going to do it now and get it out and then talk about how i did it. no, he's saying there will be a first pass implying there might
1:07 pm
be a second pass. >> and did you intuit that there is brinksmanship going on? it is my understanding from sources close to the investigation that the pathway for democrats to see this underlying evidence could include the commencement at least of some sort of impeachment proceeding. >> yeah, and i'm not sure that he is thinking that strategy through because you're right, it may force the hand of congress to say okay, if the only way we're going to get to this is to begin articles of impeachment or proceedings, let's do it. the other thing that is being set up here for chairman nadler, he has to get ready to press send on subpoenas, to press send on a request of the judge to release grand jury material. and this is all going to point toward congress and then the other thing we're almost destined to see is we're destined to see a subpoena from mueller to come up and look for signs of great dysfunction
1:08 pm
revealing themselves between the special counsel's office and what they knewed as their mission and the attorney general and what he views as the special counsel's commission. we have as you say a widening gulf developing before us. >> harry, i heard a bit of a diss. when he talked about the binary process at the end of a criminal investigation into obstruction or whether there was a criminal conspiracy, a prosecutor recommends charging or not charging, in that i heard some sort of element of i finished the work robert mueller refused to finish. actually, let me play that. bottom line charges or no charges. here it is. >> in my judgment it was important for people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report while we worked on necessary redactions to make the whole thing available. unfortunately, that is a matter of weeks and i don't think that
1:09 pm
the public would have tolerated and congress would not have tolerated at least knowing the bottom line. and as you know from your own experience, from a prosecutor's standpoint, the bottom line is binary which is charges or no charges. >> that is not what robert mueller decided. a prosecutor's prosecutor left the decision unresolved. said i do not exonerate. why not just let that stand as the final result of the special counsel investigation into obstruction? >> and that is about the $64,000 question. you're completely right. and in the sort of leaks that have begun between the barr and mueller camps, you are hearing barr partisans basically suggest just that, that somehow mueller was required to do this under the regs. but that seems a tenuous reading of the regs it me and it is not clear why he would have had to do it. a really interesting point to me that came out in the testimony,
1:10 pm
he said that mueller -- they met march 5th a guy week before. he almost surely told him where he, barr, was going. he didn't go back to mueller and say, well, you make a decision, it is binary, that is what prosecutors do. and he gave mueller the chance to review the letter that he was send and mueller declined. could be mule lever just being ultra differential, but could be mueller saying nope, i don't want to have any part of this or have anyone say that i in some way endorsed what will happen in this letter where you bottom lined where i didn't want to. >> it seems like barr solidified his image as donald trump's roy kohn today. >> yeah, and i don't think that doesn't do much to help increase the public's confidence in is this entire process. here you have robert mueller who does the painstaking 22 month investigation, presents to the department this pristine report
1:11 pm
that has no politics as a part of it, that is really just his factual conclusions, and then every step along the way since then we've had barr just injecting politics into this. >> seemingly. i mean we haven't seen it. >> but we haven't seen, you know, this -- we heard him talk a lot about transparency and you how he is committed to be as transparent as responsible, also with the added wiggle room with the as much as the law allows. so it will be interesting to see what state this report actually looks like when it finally gets produced to congress. and i hope that the attorney general sort of does the right thing and takes a minimalist approach to these redactions and only dak redacts the bear i go o bare minimum. >> it is hard to think of what in the obstruction part of the
1:12 pm
final 400 page report really falls into any of them. that was an investigation into donald trump 's conduct as president. executive privilege has been left in barr's discretion for better and for worse. what are the expectations at the white house about what that might look like in the final form? >> the obstruction portion is sort of the most fascinating and biggest unknown. we now know that there is at least we believe one detail in there that mueller writes in that report that has not sort of been litigated in the court of public opinion yet, in the media. and that is something that the white house is worried about generally. the white house will sort of privately readily admit that they think on the obstruction side in those 300, 400 pages that there will be potentially deeply embarrassing details for the president, deeply unflattering details for the president. so their strategy of course is not to focus on them. their strategy is as of now -- again, it may change once we see the full redacted version of the
1:13 pm
report, but their strategy is to try to return to the top line and say again we told for you 22 months that there was no collusion, no conspiracy. and that is what this report found. and these other -- that embarrassing detail, these other pages aren't really relevant to what we believe to be the key question that we believe we were vindicated on. of course it is unlikely democrats will let that drop, but that is how the white house is viewing it for now. >> and two followup questions. barr refused to say whether or not he had briefed the white house on the actual report and, two, i remember rudy giuliani talking for months and months but you how he prepared a counter report. any reporting that suggests whether or not the giuliani/sekulow product is in the hands of any officials at the justice department? >> that is actually a fantastic question. and the reason why that counter report is sort of so intriguing is because that was something that giuliani did that the lawyers did, internally inside of the white house was not
1:14 pm
actually that popular. there was a sense inside of the white house that maybe this was the sense before we knew anything about the mueller report and the barr summary and certainly the sense after that barr summary came out and it looked on its face fairly positive from a pr point of view for the president that you should let sleeping dogs lie. and if you have the president's legal team responding to every point and counter point, it leaves a lot of room for them maybe to get something wrong, to create a new set of headaches especially coming from someone who like giuliani who often says one thing only to have to go on tv or call up a reporter and walk it back the next second. and that is not what you want in a counter report to the department of justice. >> frank, how about this idea that so much spin has now been injected into what is a very walled off investigation, the four corners of that mueller probe. it's now got all of barr's
1:15 pm
obstruction partisanship, not right/left, but just strong views on obstruction. and an open question about whether or not the white house spin, the white house counter report is in the hands of anybody at the justice department. >> yeah, so if this were your ordinary garden variety white collar crime case in any community across america, you could make an argument that the jury pool is now tainted. right? you've had all of this perception and shaping and spinning and messaging going on. nothing really from the other side of the case. and so in the court of public opinion, if this was ever headed toward impeachment, it is all about the people's perception and the people's reaction to their members of congress and what they are asking them to do as constituents. and now we've had all this time for the president to spin this in his direction, nothing on the other side, and that is why it is essential and critical that congress prepare to call mueller to the hill and present as much as he can about this.
1:16 pm
but he will be between a rock and a hard place because we'll get the so-called first pass redacted version. and then mueller will likely have to stay within the constraints of the redacted version and not go beyond it. so now i begin to question the degree to which mueller will be able to shed any new light. it is quite a mess. and whether this was all strategically and deliberately done or not, it has put the president in the driver's seat along with his attorney general. >> some news about color coding. i love anything color coded. shear barr on a spinoff investigations and how they will be coded. >> you will recall that the special counsel did spinoff a number of cases that are still being pursued and we want to make sure that none of the information in the report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to-to-prosecute the cases or the fairness to the defendants. if a redaction is made because of a court order in a pending
1:17 pm
prosecution, we'll state that and we will distinguish between the various categories. >> i love a good color coding too. maybe there will be tabs. the categories that barr has identified, the four categories of potential redactions, they are legitimate categories. i don't think that we should brush those aside. it is important that they not disclose classified information. it is important not to disclose information about ongoing investigations. i don't think that anyone would quibble with the idea that these are solid categories that deserve scrutiny and that shouldn't necessarily be opened up to the public. however, the devil is in the details. so i think having these things separated out is great, but the problem is, you know, you have to have trust in the referee. and i'm just not sure that the public has the confidence in the referee here, that these are going to be fair redactions made in a manner that gives the most
1:18 pm
transparency possible. >> i want to ask you one last question, harry lippman. it seems like we have been here before where the justice department takes on a high profile, high stakes investigation and i'm thinking of the hillary clinton email investigation and at the end there is such an appetite for the underlying investigation that even though the result is to not recommend any criminal charges, comey comes out and tells the story about what they found and describes the conduct. they seem to be failing even that uncelebrated standard. at least there there was a decision that was communicated to the public defended by the fbi director and the underlying material was made available almost immediately. not immediately, but was made available in short order. they seem to be coming up well short of a standard that news reports suggest haunted them an hung over them as they deliberated this nonconclusion on obstruction from mueller. >> maybe. but look, let's wait a week. the thing about obstruction which is what matters most is
1:19 pm
that mueller may have investigated it largely by interviews and not by grand juries. and i think that it is certain we'll find his thinking about it, i don't know if we'll find barr's thinking which really matters the most. so whether or not it is sort of sinister or clandestine or all kind of slanted i think we'll need to evaluate expose factfac when we see the report. >> all right. thank you. after the break, was it mission accomplished? does the president finally have his roy kohn doj. and steven mnuchin testified that there have been contacts between his agency and the white house about donald trump's taxes. and immigration policy is a
1:20 pm
window into donald trump's governing philosophy. the more chaos, the better. and the fewer confirmed cabinet secretaries, the more room to run. those stories coming up. those s, i felt i couldn't be at my best for my family. in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free...
1:21 pm
...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.
1:22 pm
1:23 pm
how did this start in how did it start? you had dirty cops, you had people that are bad fbi folks. so many are incredible people, but at the top they were not clean to put it mildly. and what they did to our country was a terrible, tear i believe thing. sick, sick. these are sick people.i believe thing. sick, sick. these are sick people. there has to be accountability because it is all lies.
1:24 pm
and they know it is lies. they know it. i hope they now go and take a look at the oranges, the oranges of the investigation. the beginnings of that investigation. >> another word for beginnings isn't oranges, it is origins. we think that is what he meant. all he's ever wanted was an a.g. to protect him and he may have found one. after crying out for many months about the investigation and the new investigation into the origins of this one, attorney general barr suggested that he is doing just that. >> is the justice department investigating how it came to be that your agency used a salacious and unverified dossier as a presentdicate for a fisa o on a u.s. citizen? >> the office of the inspector general has a pending investigation of the fisa process in the russian
1:25 pm
investigation. and i expect that that will be complete in probably in may or june. more generally, i am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016. >> scary stuff. joining our conversation, senior adviser to moveon.org and also mark leibovich, both of course lucky for us msnbc contributors. julia, frank and harry are still here. i mean if donald trump sleeps, then donald trump dreams. and if he dreams, that is the scene he sees over and over and over again. >> potentially. i sort of see it a tiny bit differently. i thought attorney general barr was somewhat noncommittal there. i think he might have been -- i mean, i can't pretend to know what he was thinking. but i think that he was trying
1:26 pm
to sort of placate this. i think we knew that there was an inspector general's report to begin with. i just think that he -- across the board today he was kind of consistent in giving out very little sort of satisfaction. i don't think that he was sending a signal to the white house that he hasn't already signaled to them privately. >> what about this idea of investigating the investigators? i mean the president has ordered the december decimation essentially of the fbi. the entire former rank and file of that department is all gone and now he wants to investigate them? >> i also want to get some clarity around this. i was talking to justice department officials here today after that comment where he says he wants to get his arms around it. i pressed is this an investigation separate from what the inspector general is doing, is the a.g. investigating this
1:27 pm
probe and its origins in 2016. and they said that they wouldn't go far enough to say investigation yet. right now it is something that he is reviewing and they are saying in that safe place because they know the fireworks that it set off. i think it caught a lot of people by surprise when he gave that news. as far as what that means here at the justice department with the rank and file, people for years now have wanted to get out from under the news that they were under with the -- when comey went forward about the hillary clinton emails, that put them in the political light. and they have been back in a political light with the other people, mccabe, peter strzok, they want to go back to business as usual and not be questioned about their politics when they are going as a witness in the courtroom. that matters to these people. so it is not clear whether or not this would actually help them to air that laundry or whether it is again the justice department getting involved in a
1:28 pm
political fight. >> frank, i want your thoughts but i also think that it is important to remind our viewers that we know from news are reports that donald trump very much wanted to prosecute jim comey, he wanted to prosecute hillary clinton and jim comey and it was his white house counsel reportedly don mcgahn who stopped him from doing that. so the impulse, the instinct, the desire to do this is there from the commander in chief. we know that. >> so let me say this because i think that it is important. i spent a portion of my fbi career leading internal inquiries, ethics inquiries being a unit chief in the office of professional responsibility, being the chief inspector. fbi. there is nothing more important to me than ensuring that our top law enforcement agency is policing itself and has accountability beyond itself. so having said that, i'm all for a review that says this could have been done better, this was
1:29 pm
done wrong, and/or corruptly, we need that kind of transparency. but here is the problem. i have grave doubts now about this attorney general and his objectivity and neutrality. and so if we're going to have an inquiry in that context, where he may have his own agenda or may be trying to appeal to one party over another, then we'll have issues with this. and so he needs to leave this to the inspector general to the extent that we can understand the credibility of that process. he needs to understand that we've already heard the ig speak with regard to comey's actions, with regard to mccabe's actions and others. and so we need to at some point to say enough is enough, here is what has happened, here is what is wrong, let's move on. >> harry. >> and yeah, i agree with frank. but i think that it will get left that way. i don't see barr on some kind of free floating a.g. assignment to really undertake it.
1:30 pm
there are reasons to worry about barr's objectivity, but so much of them go to the point that he reached out in the letter to clear trump. if that weren't on the table, things would look very different including here where we would be thinking for political reasons he needs to show that he at least took them seriously. so i agree with mark, it is not real news that it is going forward. >> i think at the end of the day donald trump got his man. he wanted somebody who would be loyal, he wanted a protector, a fixer. and barr is that. and i think the thing that i got from the hearing is that barr will do trump's dirty work and protect him. and that is kind of the bottom line, democrats will have to keep pushing. >> julia, how is that reputation and perception sit there at doj? >> well, i think a lot of people are behind him here at doj. they want someone like barr with his experience. he is involved in this. having an attorney general who is recused from the most high
1:31 pm
profile investigation in the country for over a year was problematic here and they like to have someone at the leadership who is involved. and so far i'm hearing support for his testimony today. >> all right. frank figure lieu zi, harry litman, thanks for spending time with us. after the break, brand new reporting on donald trump's harsher immigration policies. rss attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics. yeah, and now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com.
1:32 pm
so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. or crohn's symptoms... are holding you back... and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough... it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection,
1:33 pm
experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach.
1:34 pm
i never said i'm cleaning house. i don't know who came up with that expression. people are coming in to our country with criminal records. we have murderers coming in, drug lords, gangs coming in. and would he have stoppie're st. and if we don't, i.c.e. is throwing them out. but our job could be so much easier. i think kevin will do a fantastic job. he is acting but i think he'll do a fantastic job. what we need, homeland security, that's what we want. no better term, no better name. we want homeland security.
1:35 pm
>> i didn't say anything about cleaning. i don't clean. that was donald trump taking issue with calling the purge under way at dhs right now cleaning house. he also specifically denied what current and former administration officials suggested in today's "new york times," that family separation at the border could be back on the table. that denial though truthful or otherwise didn't address the rest of their reporting that, quote being several of the president's closest immigration confidants have been pushing him to consider even harsher measures. those include further limits on who can seek asylum, stronger action to close ports of entry along the mexican border, an executive order to end birth date citizenship, more aggressive construction of a border wall and more robust embrace of active duty troops to secure the border against i w l illegal immigration. and julia ainsley reported that the administration wants to m i
1:36 pm
asylum harder. joining the conversation, former correspondent from cnn and author of savage news, jessica yellen. and julia, let me start with you and your great reporting. >> so basically what cara lee and kristin walker and i put out is another strategy that would crack down on asylum seekers. you've heard for months that they are trying to make it harder for people to come here, cutting off aid, making them wait in mexico. a lot of this stuff is enjoined in courts. and now they want to try to make it so the asylum seekers will have to prove themselves through a harder interview process and they want to have border agents to those initial interviews rather than asylum officers. this is a push from stephen miller because he thinks border
1:37 pm
agents will have a law enforcement perspective and will be tougher on people passing that first interview. that is called a credible fear interview. supposed to be a very low bar before they see a judge. this is to keep them from entering the united states and having their day in court. >> can you imagine what this administration's immigration policies will look like if they take a turn to the harsher? >> i can't. hopefully we're not about to find out. i think this is a situation where the courts are likely to step in as they continue to do with donald trump. but i do think it is an inflection point for us to really look at the dichotomy between who is actually coming, who we know is trying to come which are refugees who are fleeing violence and families, you know. there is really disturbing story in the "times" magazine over the weekend about the violence committed against women for example in honduras. that is who is coming. and so this is a humanitarian
1:38 pm
crisis. it is not a national security crisis. and there is no way that the facts fit that theme, but that is what the president is trying to go with, he is trying to stoke fear and it is really a sad moment. >> you both cover the white house in which i worked. very unpopular at the time for a lot of reasons. the wars in iraq and afghanistan, i mean contentious relationships with the press, plenty of battles with all of you. but never ever ever ever ever did george w. bush weaponize people coming to this country for a better life or as asylum seekers do for safety. i mean how unrecognizable is this immigration debate? >> well, it is deeply unamerican in a sense. and the record shows that your president bush actually deported fewer people than president obama. so he had in a sense the most compassionate policy toward
1:39 pm
immigrants. and i think when we look at what has happened over the last two year, we have to consider the timing of this ratcheting up of the policy. it is just about as the mueller report is starting to come out. and which got more noise other than the kids being separated. and he has a difficult case to make to his base that wanted to see him deport more people. he's actually having an increase in immigration. and so i think that he is trying to show a hard line for the politics. but it is the humanitarian crisis he is ignoring. >> i also think that it sort of suits the president to say is this harsher than before. we'll do an even harsher one. it is about effective versus ineffective. it is about chaos versus not chaos. if you look at the metrics, does he have a wall, no. are numbers down as far as deportations? ja yeah. everything sort of works again him and he basically admitted
1:40 pm
that by firing the top rungs of the dhs. >> and it is the best political argument that on the one thing that he promised his base he would do, build a wall and deal with illegal immigration, he has failed. >> absolutely. and look, he can say that, well, i declared a national emergency and then the senate did what they did, it is going to be tied up in the courts. it won't happen. and it is not happening. >> so will he did it? >> look, this is scary to think that it is going to be harsher because the original zero-tolerance policy didn't deter them, people just too more dangerous paths to get here. and we have two young people under the age of ten who died. and so the idea that it is unamerican because the idea that america is now turning their backs on asylum seenkkers whichs
1:41 pm
their legal right, it is very depressing in it time that we're into be doing that. >> a wall is meant to keep out people who are trying to cross lilly. the irony here is that asylum seerk seekers are asking for help which is a legal -- they have a legal right to do so under american and international law. and so that is really what kind of, you know, be lies the lie that donald trump is telling here. and also it tells us a lot i think about the real reason for his obsession with the wall which is really about stoking racism and fear that has existed long before donald trump but it is not about providing real solutions to real problems. and our immigration system is broken. he is not interested in fixing it. >> he is violating the law. he is violating the law. >> to sum it up, brutal immigration policies incompetencely executed. all right.
1:42 pm
julia, thank you for spending the hour with us. after the break, keeping donald trump's taxes hidden. now on the to do list for the u.s. treasury department as well. that story next. as well that story next. after my dvt blood clot...
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
...i wondered, is another one around the corner. or could it be different than i thought? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk
1:45 pm
if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis. i've had no direct conversations with the president or anybody else in the white house about this. as i volunteered this morning, i did make clear our legal department has consulted with the white house as they would and as i believe would be normal. that is not taking direction from the white house. i don't view that as interference. >> that was treasury secretary steve mnuchin working to clean up some of his testimony when he revealed that the white house lawyers consulted people in the treasury department before they received the official congressional request for trump's tax returns. despite a law meant to limit political involvement. that revelation perhaps underscoring just how crucial donald trump thinks this fight
1:46 pm
might be. and time is running short. the irs has until tomorrow to satisfy richard neal's request for six years of trump's tax returns. i guess we date ourselves began for the third time this hour, like i'm old enough to remember when that would lead a newscast, the president going to extraordina extraordinary measures politicizing the irs to protect his taxes. >> the stuff that used to lead a newscast. probably wouldn't even make the newscast today. look, the bottom line here is what is in there. obviously people are curious, but as long as the story keeps going, you just have to wonder why is he trying so hard. it is not that he is just so dig. just gets more and more suspicious. >> but the other norm busting, sgrus by tjust by the hair on h ch ch
1:47 pm
chinny chin chin just barely survived and now traipsing over another evide ethical line. >> just to avoid the appearance of impropriety, they would say they have no involvement. but now they hide in plain sight. it is you've got to wonder what is in there and you got to wonder if he is really worried about this becoming even more of a problem after mueller comes out. >> and what do you think it is? we know the size of his hands and the size of -- but is it about his wealth not being as big as he thinks it is or is it about corrupt conduct and criminal activity? >> i think it is all of it. we have to remember every president since president nixon has released their personal taxes. and they did it clearly on their own. and this president has refused to do it. and he's lied about it. oh, i'm under audit and once i'm done, i'll let it out. and we have no proof. but this is a different type of president who we don't know, is he doing business interests with
1:48 pm
russia or saudi arabia. we need to get to the bottom of it. and more 60% of americans want to see his taxes. >> there are members of the new york city council who i write about who release their tax returns. and they are extremely boring. but the point is that they do it because they are public servants and they hold themselves to a higher standard. and they have decided that the public has a right to know who they are being paid by, where they get their -- what their finances look like. because that is part of good government. and this president thinks that he is above the law and that doesn't matter whether we're talking about the smallest issue or the biggest issue, that is the theme. >> and he keeps getting away with it would appear until some republican says oh, yeah, i want to see them too. >> well, but it is interesting because you ask some of these republicans, aren't you curious what is in here now that he's taken so many pains to hide it? and they will say not at all. mulvaney said no, no. >> because they know he is
1:49 pm
dirty. >> and do you ever wonder what he and putin talk about? because there is no record of this. and they go well, yeah, but i mean the president -- and then they go into their spin. but obviously their answer is in line with what most people will think. but it just becomes about politics. >> all right. after the break, another democrat is joining the race for president. in the meantime, we're keeping our eyes on a high stakes evening in israel. election day there nearly over. and as we speak, it is officially too close to call. polarizing right wing incumbent benjamin netanyahu is claiming victory, but so is his results. results when we get them. ts results when we get them is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.
1:50 pm
if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class.
1:51 pm
myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more. you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87?
1:52 pm
don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today.
1:53 pm
i talk to kids who sit in their classroom afraid they will be the next victim of gun violence and see they washington doing nothing about it after the moments of silence, and none of that is going to change until we get a leader who's willing to go big on the issues we take on, be bold in the solutions we offer and do good in the way we govern. i'm ready to solve these problems. i'm running for president of the united states. >> the fourth-time congressman from california eric swalwell officially throwing his hat into the ring of 2020 democratic hopefuls. swalwell said gun safety will be his number one issue on the campaign trail. good issue? >> good for him. we have a gun endemic in this country. we have people being shot in schools, churches, temples and concerts. if he's ready to turn his
1:54 pm
presidency run into a movement and make that an awareness in this movement and talk about how we get to gun reform, good for him. that's a lane he clearly said this is what i'm going to take on and he just has to be authentic about it. >> i couldn't agree more. i think let's take on the heart issues, guns, one issue and people want to hear about inequality and infrastructure. people's lives go on and they face a lot of problems that are not talked about in the midst of all of the discussion about the mueller probe, and the trump scandals. i think it's great to hear the real issues, getting some play. >> and it's also a way sort of straight to the heart of any parent. my son since he was 3 has done active shooter drills in school. >> i know, it's the new reality. i would hope every candidate in this race would talk about gun violence. >> they don't. >> they don't. right now it's been sort of -- i
1:55 pm
mean there have not been many debates yet. it's early. but it's caught up in larger abstract concepts, green new deal, not abstract but bigger debates. and i think it's smart for him to pick an issue that's dreamily visceral. as much as a guy like that can get a lane, why not grab on to it. >> let me put up the fund-raising figures. amy klobuchar coming in at $5.2 million, exceeding expectations. bernie sanders whopping $18.2 million. kamala harris, we don't talk about her enough, $12 million. beto, $9.4 million. we talked about mayor pete posting $7 million. cory booker $5 million. these are a lot of enthusiasm for anyone in the democratic field really posting impressive numbers. >> it's astonishing. the worry was the field would
1:56 pm
cannibalize each other but this is far more other candidates raised by this time. we have to remember how early it is, 18, 19 months until the election. the idea this much money coming in is astounding. >> kamala harris, she's focused on the ground game, focused on building a old-fashioned, nuts and bolts campaign. >> we don't talk about the bs, the kboboys in the crew, and sh doing what we want a candidate to be doing, she has a grass roots movement. she has built her list over the years and she's out there talking about issue and she's a diverse, very interesting candidate as well. that's the thing about this whole entire focus of people, people in this race, it's diverse and it's big and you can tell just by the numbers people are open. they haven't decided truly,
1:57 pm
truly on one person. it's still early. >> looks like america. we are going to sneak in a last break. when we come back, i'll tell you about the best book of the year. u about the best book of the year. alright, i brought in
1:58 pm
ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. (straining) i'll take that. (cheers) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. in two great flavors. we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ what do all these people have in common, limu?oug [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu.
1:59 pm
only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
2:00 pm
a few months back when it was just in a little galley form, i read this book. it's so amazing. congratulations. give us a quick summary what it's about and why you wrote it. >> it has a missing first lady, reality tv star, sex, workplace drama, palace, intrigue and it's not a trump administration tell-all. >> but it's written with your bright authenticity. go buy it! we can have a book club. tell us what you think. thank you so much for watching. i'm grateful. "mpt daily" starts right now >> hi, that q

33 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on