tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC April 18, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
has left office for congress now to pursue those in court and through impeachment proceedings? >> that's the way i read what robert mueller wrote it would be unfair to charge somebody now. it's not appropriate to charge a sitting president. i don't think he anticipated that william barr would jump in and say that leaves it to me the attorney general to decide there will be no obstruction of justice charges. there's nothing to stop congress or a subsequent department of justice from charging in 2020. >> barbara, thank you for being here. you've been a clarian voice throughout this entire process. stay with us forever. >> my pleasure to do so. >> that does it for this second. we'll see you again really soon. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. you sure you don't want to host this hour also? there's just so much in this report, rachel. it's been overwhelming to try to pick what can we squeeze in to these segments. >> the only thing i want to do
that would still give me pleasure even though it may result in me having to stop reading it for awhile, the only thing is take a little break to go to a casting office somewhere to pick the people who i would like to play to act out all of the scenes involving kt mcfarland. >> yes. >> it's like the new efforts at obstruction we didn't know about, the kt mcfarland, erik prince stuff, steve bannon stuff, lune do you quoukowski stuff, especially stuff never reported at all i feel like we ought to start acting that stuff out so we can envision how it went down. >> i guess one of the things we should do since we can't cram it all into either one of these shows and we'll be still talking about this next weeking is this time urge the audience more than usual to actually get this report and read it because among other things as you just suggested, it's really dramatic. there are some really dramatic
cinematic scenes in this report. the legalese is minimal. you can skip it. if you read one sentence you don't understand, keep going. you'll understand the next one. this is one of the most powerful government documents of its kind i've ever held in my hands. >> and there's summaries at the beginning and there's long narrative conclusions at the end. you can read those if you want the short version of the report or you can skip those and just jump right into the evidence and read anecdote after anecdote including all of the supporting information. you're still frustrated when you get to redactions. but this thing is written for tv. i mean, it is very cinematic. >> and speaking of the summaries, now that we've seen them, how strange does it make what william barr has been doing? those summaries were clearly ready for immediate consumption. labeled executive summary which is what every washington report has at the beginning of every
major section of a washington report. executive summary. they were right there. if barr was going to hand out anything, say anything about this report, it should have been the two executive summaries. >> and for william barr to get up there and say, you know on the obstruction stuff the decision about not charging the president has nothing whatsoever to do with their justice department policy that says a sitting president can't be charged, set that aside. that's totally -- given now that we know what's in that summary for him to have tried for 26 days to get away with that claim as if that explains why the president isn't facing criminal charges right now or isn't facing some sort off substitute for prosecution if he can't be prosecuted that's remarkable to me. he was blunt as could be on that point and he is 180 degrees bluntly contradicted by the plain nonlegalese language of what mueller explained about his own decision there.
barr senior caught out lying. > here's what's so fascinating about. he knew you were going to say that. he knew the day was going to come that what he had been sayinging about this report would be proven false and he was still doing it when he knew it was going to be proven false two hours late area, he was standing up there this morning saying the president cooperated completely. >> yes. >> with this. the guy who refused to submit to an interview. >> the guy who -- cooperated completely and here's 180 plus pages of all the things he did to try to block the investigation. which i'll summarize as complete cooperation. it's just, i mean, the thing that is -- the thing that's hard here is you're exactly right. william barr knows exactly what kind of criticism he's going to get. he knew he would get that criticism. that's what he's here for. he's sitting here' tonight going yeah, impeach me. all this stuff indicates there will be an impeachment inquiry about the president given what's
in the report. william barr is hoping to be the heat shield, the guy who absorbs the criticism so as to distract fromming what this says about donald trump. >> i never thought i'd say it when i was watching jeff sessions confirmation hearing and not so long after that when we started to find out that not everything jeff sessions said in his hearing was necessarily true. it was inconceivable to me that there would be an attorney general who we could say was not as is honorable as jeff sessions when it comes to the matter of investigating the president. >> jeff sessions who we've just learned was actively investigated by the fbi for perjury. >> uh-huh. >> ta-da. >> among other things. among the many gems that each of which deserve a full hour of attention. >> exactly. honestly, we should do it alphabetical by character. i'm going to get actors i swear. >> that's the next step. >> thank you. >> gualuk attorney general barr took as long as he possibly
could to hand over his redacted version of the mueller report to congress. congress has it now. which means the republican-controlled senate will try to ignore it but the democratically controlled house of representatives must take on the responsibility of dealing with the you mule are report which robert mueller clearly anticipates in the report. he expects congressional action. it's very clear in the report he expects congress to be the next center of the action in the investigation of the president including the possibility of impeachment which is specifically mentioned by mueller. in the report. actualrences to impeachment. so we are important tonight ob-to-have two members of the house judiciary committee joining us including one member who is a presidential candidate, eric swalwell. they have the responsibility of deciding whether the report presented them with impeachable offenses by the president. they will join us later in in hour and we gee begin our
discussion with a mix of legal and political analysis. it is not possibleing to pick a most important line in the redacted version of the mueller report because there are so many important lines about the proof that "the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping fashion." there are so many lines that prove conclusively "the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." there are so many crucially important lines in the hundreds of pages of evidence that the president of the united states committed obstruction of justice. those are the lines that the democratically crowed investigative committees in the house of representatives will use as the basis of their continuing investigations of the president while the republican-controlled committees in the united states senate will to the extent that they can just ignore the mueller report. but the line in the mueller
report that tells it you the most about donald trump, the person, and donald trump the president and donald trump the obstruction of justice suspect is the line that donald trump himself speaks. when he is told that a special prosecutor has just been appointed to investigate russian interference in the election and possible russian interaction with the trump campaign, one of the people in the oval office at the time was taking notes. and robert mueller obtained those notes. robert mueller also obtained under oath testimony from the person who wrote those notes. and everyone else who was in the room. except donald trump, of course, who refused to speak to the special prosecutor. it was one of the many dramatic scenes described in the mueller report. days earlier, the president had fired fbi director james comey and believed that that would be the end of the russia investigation and that the fbi was already conducting.
the president was in the oval office with attorney general jeff sessions who had recused himself from supervising at investigation. white house council don mcgahn was in the room along with jody hunt who was taking the notes that robert mueller used to reconstruct the scene. they were there to conduct interviews for a new fbi director. and they didn't know that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein who was supervising the russia investigation now had just appointed robert mueller as special counsel. page 78, volume 2 of the mueller report. sessions stepped out to take a call from rosenstein who told him about the special counsel appointment and sessions then returned to inform the president of the news. according to notes written by hunt, when sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said, oh, my god, this
is terrible. this is the end of my presidency. i'm effed." and that is who donald trump really is. he is the terrified man hob has feared from are the day robert mueller was appointed that it meant the end of his presidency. there was nos tough guy in him when he heard about the special prosecutor. just fear. and hopelessness. i'm effed. he obviously felt powerless. there was no confidence no, trumpian bravado. the mueller report notes that's "early the next morning, the president tweeted, this is the single greatest witch hunt of a politicians in american history! ." that's the public trump, the witch hunt trump. the private trump, the real trump? this is the end of my presidency. i'm effed. there are many lessons in that important line. first of all, the president is not as crazy as he publicly
appears to be. that was a perfectly reasonable assessment of his situation by donald trump. oh, my god, this is terrible. this is the end of my presidency. i'm effed. that is a normal reaction from a person hon realizes that a special prosecutor could ruin his life. he was right. donald trump is an unindicted co-conspirator tonight in a federal case in new york city begun by robert mueller, a cases in which michael cohen is going to prison for campaign crimes that he committed with donald trump and at the dreskz donald trump according to federal prosecutors in new york city. donald trump was right to think that thing like the crimes that he committed with michael cohen would be the end of his presidency. donald trump knew what he was guilty of when he said this is the end of my presidency. donald trump knew all the things that he was hoping robert mueller would not find out about him or would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt about him.
from a legal standpoint, donald trump's statement also shows what the law calls consciousness of guilt. that consciousness of guilt as expressed by the president, the second he found out a special prosecutor was on his case is all the motivation he would need for what occupies half of the mueller report. donald trump's obstruction of justice as described in the evidence gathered by robert mueller. so any that one line, you have three big things. you have the real donald trump. you have consciousness of guilt. you have motivation for obstruction of justice. it is certainly the most dramatic line any character speaks in the entire mueller report. when the mini series is made, that line will be the end of an episode. the mueller report senior something entirely different everyone what attorney general william barr has been trying to portray it to be, including his highly misleading comments about
it just this morning before anyone had read it. knowing that it would be disproved hours later, the attorney general tried to suggest this morning that donald trump was fully cooperative with robert mueller's investigation when in fact he refused to be interviewed by the special prosecutor and tried to fire the special prosecutor and delivered messages through his lawyer that people should not cooperate with the special prosecutor. the mueller report makes clear that the only reason robert mueller did not charge the president with obstruction of justice is the justice department policy against indicting a president. and even though attorney general barr absurdly echoed donald trump's no collusion chant this morning, hours later, we read on page 1 of the mueller report that the investigation "identified numerous links between the russian government and the trump campaign. the mueller report spends hundreds of pages describing the links between russians and donald trump, the trump campaign, and the trump family.
robert mueller correctly points out that the word collusion has no lee meaning and what he was charged with investigating was the possibility of provable criminal conspiracy between russians and the trump campaign. the report says we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion. robert mueller says within than legal framework, the prosecutors could not problem a trump campaign conspiracy with russians "the vision did not establish that the trump campaign coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activity," a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." this is now a legal story that has also today become a political story with the mueller report now in the hands of congress. we are leading off our discussion tonight with experts on both aspects of this story, the legal and the political. ari melber has crossover jurisdiction in both of those
territories. the legal and the political. he's msnbc's chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat" weeknights. john heilemann almost consider the politics of the mueller report as it lands in congress. in the middle lest we forget of a presidential campaign. he is a national affairs analyst for nbc news and msnbc, coheft and executive producer of showtime's "the circus twoixt justice veterans will give us their reading of the report. joyce vance a professor at the university of alabama. william yeoman was former chief counsel on the senate judiciary committee and now serves as a senior fellow at the alliance for justice. ari, let me start with you. this is i think is your ninth hour of television today. i've lost track. i've been following you all day for quite awhile, most of what i knew about this i learned from you on television. i've caught up with my reading. given everything that's been
analyzed today, what do you think the focus should be now? >> well, as you say, and the day is long but not nearly as long as the mueller report. you just laid out something that was so vital and you did it as we've come to expect in a narrative fashion. it has great legal significance because when the president says, oh there's going to be a fact-finding query into me and what i've done as president or in my life, so my presidency is over, i'm effed. bob mueller doesn't include that in a report this serious for headlines. if bob mueller wanted headlines, he would have sought headlines over the last 23 months. did he the opposite. tight-lipped, no leaks during the probe. and certainly nor exciting little tidbits. i submit to you that while that is exciting and makes for great propose as you just read, it's in there because of the legal significance because it tells us about the potentially alled corrupt intent in the president's mind. and that be goes to the mystery that animates all of in that
we've learned more about thanks to this report today. i would put it like this. if there there was no chargeable election conspiracy, why would the president do so many things that amounts to obstruction. mueller says look, if we found someone hon didn't obstruct at all, we would tell you that. we're not telling you that. so why? one of the answers that is basically gestured at in that amazing quote is that the president was knowledgeable of his own criminal liability and exposure, but maybe not for the election conspiracy. maybe other election crimes that he knew about that were covered up in new york, maybe for one of the other referrals that remains under investigation. maybe because the trump tower meeting or wikileaks contact is the beginning and not the ends. he knew of other things in his experience gave him knowledge of his own criminal liability. it was not the private announcement or saying of a
person who thought i'm clear, this will be a headache. give it time. it was the statement raw, uncut, unvarnished off twitter of a man who seed have an quainted with his criminal liability. >> and john heilemann, trump is the one person who knows everything. he knows what he did with michael cohen in the closing weeks of the campaign now judged criminal. he might not have known that crossed legal lines but he did know i don't want that public and he also knew once the prosecutor starts looking at you, they can look at anything. >> yes, and look, i mean, we all have had conversations whether donald trump is in full possession of his facts. there may be some things he has done he doesn't remember. i can't speak to his state of mind. there's no doubt that ari's point is right. it is a dramatic moment, it is a moment in which to your point earlier, trump recognizes the profound political peril that he's in. and everything that happens i think from that moment forward
so much of the obstruction part of this report that details owes from that. he thinks really for the first time he is in existential peril. he's right. he may still be right not only that his presidency has been ham strung by it, that he's been beaten about the head and insureds by bob mueller, by democrats by all the critics that attacked him. it's still to me as a political matter if it's right, that we all directly read in the report and surmise from the tone of the report that mueller's intention was to say i understand that i can't indict a sitting president according to justice department policy. i'm an institutional conservative. i'm not going to challenge that or go to the supreme court and see if we can set new precedent. i'm going to push this in the political realm, the proper realm for their is congress where we don't talk about crimes in the purely criminal court sense. we talk about crimes high crimes and misdemeanors. here is in the way that leon
jaworski did in watergate, here's a road map to congress for things that could be considered high crimes and misdemeanors. guys have at it. tonight where we are in the political realm is a democratic house of representatives that faces a giant choice of how to proceed. impeachment is now fully on table. the answer maybe the democrats decide threw want to go partway down the path and decide later on don't want to go down that path at all. that is the salient political issue. are we going down that road or not. that is a matter fully in the hands of democrats who now control the house. >> there's a couple of elements to it and the most elementary part, forget the politics, good for the democrats or bad. one of the things i find so strange coming from the democratic side is the fear that it's bad for the democrats because why? because the impeachment of bill clinton was bad for the republicans? who really thinks that? the republicans then won the how was representatives they then won the senate and the
presidency. how did it hurt them? someone explain that to me. but the calendar. the calendar, the political calendar. we're a year and a half away from a change of administrations. if president trump loses re-election to mount an impeachment process you might not get to an impeachment vote in the house of representatives till say that everything at the earliest of this year. you then move to a trial in the senate and now you've got the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary and impeachment trial in the senate going on and people are thinking wait a minute, isn't the election close enough to solve this problem. so the calendar is a practical problem that crashes up against the issue of impeachment. >> it is and it's also we don't have what we had in 1974. we don't have the smoking gun. we don't have a set of tapes that happens have caused what would make this an easy political choice a sudden crumbling of republican support for the president, the country turning against the president with his approval ratings
cratering. i don't think we're going to see that on the basis of this report. the president's base is likely to hold. it's a much trickier political calculation. putting aside the things you laid out, is there a way it could work for democrats or not? there's an urgency to it because in some world you might want to say let's kick the can down the road and tie the president up in investigations, make his life miserable and we'll figure out the impeachment thing in due course. unfortunately, in due course, the first democratic debates are six weeks away. we're starting to hear people even fierce opponents of the president's saying the right thing to do right noupt is settle this at the voting booth. >> joyce vance, withing there calendar on the impeachment question, doesn't that strike you as something, to me, it's the invisible factor in the mueller report. and mueller says at a certain point that he's not going to subpoena the president because it's so late in the investigation. well, investigations don't have calendars normally in they have
unlimited calendars. it strikes me that the calendar robert mueller had in mind was in fact a presidential election and he did not want to infect a presidential election by letting his work and his investigation run that you know far down the calendar. and that's one of the reasons why he skipped the subpoena process of the president which would have taken several months. >> it's hard to know for sure, but there's a long-standing doj policy that says that we shouldn't have investigationsing that impact elections. this case is the poster child for that. there is i think no practical way that that decision about the president's testimonial status could have been decided by the supreme court without bumping heads with the timing on the election. and mueller may have felt something else here. it's not something that prosecutors often feel but there's some indication that he felt urgency to bring the facts in front of the american people. he knew all long he would not be indicting a sitting president
because of doj policy. and so rather than kicking the can down the road in this regard, i think he was simply trying to get evidence into the hands of the people hope constitutionally were the folks charged with making a decision about what to do with it. >> williamio manz that evidence is in their hands now. what does congress do next with your experience working on the hill and your experience in the justice department, what do you see happening next? >> i think the house judiciary committee has to start a series of very aggressive hearings. as you point out, there isn't a lot of time. and the administration is going to try to run out the clock. and i think they've already announced they resist every request for information every subpoena that they get from congress. they are denying the constitutional role of congresses in oversight and investigations. so their goal clearly is to get this beyond the election and to get it to what i think joyce was just referring to which is a period before the election when
it's going to be difficult for anybody to be do much of anything. so i think it's imperative for the judiciary committee to start right away with a series of have an aggressive hearings. they do have the road map here. they have a wonderful start. they know who to get in there. they need to do it now. >> and ari, aggressive hearings to my mind, especially based on what we saw today with the attorney general would mean skipping the attorney general hearing. that's just a formal procedure because there's the judiciary committee, committee of jurisdictions over the justice department. they always like to talk to the head guy. that seems like a tradition to dispense with here, like a wasted day and a wasted amount of time in getting to mueller. they will get to mueller weeks after barr. why not just skip barr and get to mueller as soon as you can. >> i suppose the reason to get to barr is what you and rachel were talking about, the notion that sessions was on the hook for perjury was because he had been held to account in that sort of setting.
i agree with your premise. that's not the fireworks. getting mueller and perhaps his deputies or going through every single one of his prosecutors to digging intoing this stuff can be very important. the cohen testimony was important for the american public. the nothing matters arguments that we heard throughout this probe and now that mueller's done the fair job which means what does fairness sometimes mean? there are something some people like and some things people don't like. that's why he's a fair prosecutor. the nothing matters argument, that is the argument of the depraved. of the people who want to get away with everything. so while i understand it's part of our job to cover, what would a calendar of impeachment look like, there's also the let's not get ahead of the fact finding that congress does was this now as you put it, as the road map to have mule earn other people in and go through it all. the other point that's very important whether or not congress takes the maximum approach or not is, the president of the united states is the one person our system of
government who has the constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithply executed. that's what it says in the constitution. we've had so much talk about the fact that for other reasons we don't indict sitting presidents typically i think sometimes folks lose a little bit of the headline here which is if there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction by the president, that is worse than if it was by a regular citizen even though we have a system that doesn't indict the sitting president. that is what is on the table here that the congress has to deal with, a president who stands accused of doing that over and over putting himself above the country. >> joyce vance, we all you had some things we wondered about the in mueller report especially after the barr letters started to come out, things that didn't -- we struggled to make sense of like why didn't mueller reach a conclusion. having read it today, do you feel like it answers all of those questions that we had
about what was really happening here? >> something that surprised me when i starred reading was actually how well some of the analysis based on the barr letter held up. and that might sound surprising but what i mean by that is that when we read between the lines of the barr's initial letter, we saw he wasn't saying that the campaign had not engaged in any sort of conspiracy with russians. instead it seemed he had been very narrow and said that there was not evidence that established that. we saw that repeated in the mueller report today where mueller says there was not sufficient evidence. and in fact, talks becomes some ways where evidence was hard to come by, people took the fifth. witnesses lied. some of the evidence was unavailable because it was in the possession of people who were out of the country. and there's even therein reference where mueller says, you know, this is the judgment that we make here. but because we couldn't get all of the evidence, because there were gaps in the evidence, it's possible that some of what we've
concluded here could be different if we had had access to the evidence. so the president doesn't get indicted, people around him in the campaign don't get indicted. but it's pretty slender hope. it's not really a strong bill of health. and then we have something similar that happens on obstruction where it was very clear from barr's initial letter that there was no intent for barr to make the ultimate decision. you know, barr characterized it as binary. you're a prosecutor, you have to say yes or no. reading the report though it's clear what we summarized all along that mueller declined to make a decision because of doj policy against indicting a sitting president, that that was in fact the case, and mueller writes a beautiful road map for congress to pick up and investigate with. >> and bill yeomans, the attorney general seems to be extremely careful in what he writes. including his written statement this morning. you look back on it and you see oh, i see how he threaded the needle. but then when it's verbal and
he's just in exchanges in hearings or today with reporters, today the reporters, he said no collusion. this report does not say no collusion. this report says if you're going to use the word collusion in effect what it says is there could be. and there were a bunch of things that sure looked like collusion. we couldn't get the proof of this up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a courtroom. >> yeah, it was stunning that the attorney general stayed with the term collusion. obviously, he was playing to his audience in the white house in the oval office. but the report could not be more clear that the investigation was not addressing collusion. it was addressing the issue of a criminal conspiracy or coordination which it defined as something close to a conspiracy. so and there is a lot in the report that are certainly satisfies my definition of collusion, for instance, where we have paul manafort and gates sitting down with konstantin
kilimnik to give you know, to do an inside strategy discussion on the trump campaign and to talk about the battleground states and to share internal polling. that seems to me to be collusion. so i think there are a number of examples in the report that satisfy the collusion standard to the extent collusion is relevant. >> john heilemann in, terms of the if you're watching the movie of this, the character you want to track probably more than any other is don mcgahn. he is the one who is in the scenes with the president where the president is saying, you know, fire the special prosecutor. fire mueller. this is days after mueller has been chosen. he comes back more than once. he calls him at home pep says call me back when you've done it, all these things. mcgahn at a certain point decides not to tell other, not only does he not do it, and mule fer by the way judges him to be a credible witness, offers that judgment in writing. not only does he not do it, but he doesn't even tell other
people about it. he doesn't want them to be caught in the webb where they will sometime have to answer for this. and so mcgahn is the one who the basically rents from to priebus and others by saying the president is asking him to do crazy crap and i cleaned that up. and the crazy crap he's talking about would be crimes in any reading. > look, do i think what we learn been don mcgahn in this is that he's a very -- anybody who had questions about his understanding of the intersection of law and politics. >> and crime. >> and time, that's what i meant by law, the criminal risk and the political, the nexus of political risk and criminal risk, is he doing things that are quite extraordinarily careful to make sure he keeps other people out of trouble. you can make various judgments about what his moral standing was and what you would do in a more heroic version of the morning. it's extraordinary the number of
scenes he's involved where the question of obstruction in any lehman's understanding that looks a lot like obstruction to me. >> the criminal code as you know, lawrence, is all about -- i'm being told we're out of time. >> no, finish. >> it's what you intend to do. i try to follow you -- in my meaning, if you accidentally leave the oven on and the house goes up in flames and god forbid people burn to death, that is very different than arson. it's all about what you're trying to do. both sections of this report show the president and his team trying to get foreign help. but not always succeeding. and then the president trying to shut down the probe in ways his own lawyer thought could would be illegal quote saturday night massacre and stops him. so the criminal intent there and the negative attempt to do things that might be criminal is through you the report even though there's good news for some of trump's folks because people stopped him. that is something america needs to consider. >> page after page of donald
trump trying to break the law basically. >> ari melber gets the last word in our opening extended round here. thank you for your service all day today. john heilemann, ari melber, joyce vance, billio mavs, thank you all. and when we come back, the mueller report has now been handed to the hughes ju hand hand handed to the house judiciary committee. the chairman of that committee said tonight it could be a road map. he's staying away from the word impeachment as much as he can. we'll have two members of that committee join us next. congressman eric swalwell and jamie raskin. congressman eric swalwell and jamie raskin ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. into your own little world.k especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sister) where are we going?
(mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sister) woah... (big sister) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. love is now bigger than ever. that we're playing "four on four" with a barbershop quartet? [quartet singing] bum bum bum bum... pass the ball... pass the rock.. ...we're open just pass the ball! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. yea. [quartet singing] shoot the j! shoot, shoot, shoot the jaaaaaay... believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent straight from the world's best plant scientists, comes miracle-gro performance organics. organic plant food and soil that finally work... for twice the bounty. guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics. (speaking in foreign language) i'm sorry i don't understand... ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store.
a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. >> the mueller report anticipates the possibility of impeachment for the president based on its findings on obstruction of justice and in that section of the report, it specifies that impeachment would not necessarily be the end of the story. for this president. "a possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office.
impeachment would remove a president from office but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law." indeed the impeachment judgment clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent roleing in addressing an official's conduct zing from the political remedy of impeachment." jerry nadler, chairman of the house judiciary committee which has jurisdiction over impeachment was asked about impeachment today. >> when you say that this congress is responsible to hold the president accountable, does that mean impeachment? >> that's one possibility. there are others. we obviously have to get to the bottom of what happened and take whatever action seems necessary at that time. it's too early to reach those on collusions. that's one reason we wanted the mueller report. we still want it in its entirety and we'll want other evidence, too. >> chairman nadler said he will issue a subpoena for the full unredacted report and underlying
material. chairman nadler and white house committee intelligence chairman schiff said this. >> whether these acts are criminal or not, whether the obstruction of justice was criminal or not, or whether these contacts were sufficiently illicit or not to rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy, they are unquestionably dishonest, unethical, immoral and unpatriotic and should be condemned by every mirren. that is not the subject of vindication. that is the subject of condemnation. and that is house i think we should view the mueller report. >> tonight, house speaker nancy pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues about the mueller report saying
as we continue to review this document, we have more to report and will be update you on the next steps that must be taken. the caucus is scheduling a conference call for monday to discuss this grave matter.
congress will not be silent. joining our discussion now, congressman eric swalwell, member of the judiciary committee and current candidate for president and congressman jamie raskin, democrat from maryland on the judiciary committee, the oversight committee and hughes ridiculous committee. congressman swalwell, let me start with you with your reaction generally to the report, what you've been able to read of it today, and to the question that will be faced in your judiciary committee, the question of impeachment. >> good evening, lawrence. hey, jamie. how is it going? also, lawrence, first, i think foremost this has to be about the future of election security. we now know that the russians interfered. we need a president toes condemn that and just because a prior congress never imagined that someone would conduct themselves the way that the president and his campaign did doesn't mean that we should welcome this type of behavior in upcoming elections. there's a duty to put in place
laws to prohibit so much of the conduct that we saw. also, i don't think attorney general barr can remain as attorney general. he can either be the president's lawyer or america's lawyer. he has chosen to work for the president. i believe he should resign immediately. as it relates to our duty in congress, yes, a road map has been laid out for the president to be held accountable. i think the first pay point is to bring bob mueller before our committee which we're going to do very soon and hear from him. >> congressman raskin is, there there really any point to hearing from attorney general barr in a hearing? chairman nadler has wants to schedule that hearing before the mueller hearing. >> that's an interesting question. he certainly has a lot to account for in terms of the last three weeks of propaganda rollout of the report which completely stripped him of any credibility as attorney general of the united states. and my friend eric swalwell was calling for his resignation. it seems like he's already
resigned in some sense and no longer acting at the chief law enforcement for the country and acting as more of a con significantly significantly -- >> let's hear from the senate for a second. this is senator kamala harris earlier tonight on this network. >>. >> i think it's -- i think that there's definitely a conversation to be had on that subject. but first i want to hear from bob mueller and really understand what exactly is the evidence that supports the summary that we have been given today. >> congressman schwall we, she was talking about impeachment there. definitely a conversation to be had. that conversation apparently will be had in the presidential campaign. she's one of your rishls for the democratic nomination. do you expect it become a campaign issue for dras? >> well, it's an issue for our
country, lawrence, because what we do now will set the standard for future presidents. so that could be miss harris, that could be myself, so many of us. and that's really what we have to weigh. do we want to tolerate what donald trump has done or are we willing to say that no president should conduct themselves this way. and then there's also just national security implications here. that's why the intelligence committee should also see is the full unredacted report because russia did interfere. they worked with the trump campaign. we need to know the methods they used to make sure as all of us go into this 2020 election, even in the primary that russia is not savaging the field and again, taking away our freedom to choose at the ballot box. >> congressman raskin, what do you think the judiciary committee's most important focus should be in studying? the mueller report? >> well, i think first of all, we want to give the special counsel mueller the opportunity to state what i think is
completely pervasive in his report which is that the ball is in congress's court. it's up to congress to decide. he didn't kick it upstairs to the attorney general to declare there was no obstruction. on the contrary, he laid out ten episodes of attempted obstruction or obstruction by the president and basically said the congress, you go and do your job right now. so we'd like to hear him say that. i think. look, the global backdrop here is important. there is rising authoritarianism around the world, lots of efforts to interfere where people's democratic elections and human rights and russia interfered in our election and we can't have countries interfering in each other's elections. we need some kind of international treaty on that and also need to fortify our own state electoral systems. we have a very vulnerable and decentralized system with 51 different election processes on boards, thousands across the country. we've got to make sure we have a
fair election and we defend people's voting rights against voter punches and all of the tricks we saw in 2018 in georgia, in kansas, in texas, and north carolina. all over the country. but we also have to strengthen our cyber defenses against attacking from abroad and from bad actors at home, too. >> congressman swalwell, the report is almost like two reports. one to the intelligence committee that you be on, and one to the judiciary committee that you serve on. judiciary that seems to me will be concentrating on the obstruction of justice whereas the intelligence committee concentrating almost entirely on part one which is what the russians actually did during the campaign. what they hoped to do, what they achieved, how they did it, including the way they infiltrated campaign activities on the ground in the united states specific examples of such things happening in florida and elsewhere. which of those can you say which of those is more important?
>> well, to me, the security of upcoming elections is the most important thing. we can go back to the past only if it's informing us about what we're going to do in the future. i don't think anyone wants to relitigate the 2016 election. but we need to know who they worked with, how they did it. we need republicans to join us and acknowledge that they did it. it's time for the president to lead and do that. but lawrence, we also need to make new laws that will make sure if any campaign is approached by a foreign adversary, there's a duty on them to tell the fbi. i wrote legislation called duty to report. it would put that burden on a federal candidate. i don't think any of us want to see this conduct carry out again. >> yeah, i think congressman raskin, there's so much in the report. there are a number of spots in the report where it is in effect recommending new laws so that they would have had different legal frameworks they were looking at for this activity.
>> yes, and you know, one of the things we'd need to do is to get foreign money out of our elections. citizens united opened up the floodgates to foreign money to come pouring in through corporations. we've got legislation called get foreign money out which attempts to close that loophole. but we also need to strengthen generally the right to vote in the country. we need to strengthen the defenses of the state electoral systems which got hacked in the 2016 election. and there was actually some tantalizing evidence offered in the report that had not been public before about intrusions into state computer election systems. so that's a very serious problem. you know, look, the democrats are taking this on. we haven't been waiting around. we obviously have a very strong positive program that we're fighting for which is reauthorize the violence against women act. we've passed the toughest gun
safety legislationing in more than a decade. which we're waiting on the republicans to take up. we passed hr-1 which is all democracy reform, vote strengthening package where we eliminate gerrymandering and move to the independent voting boards in every state in the union so we can have some fairy districting and real democratic opportunities. so these are things we've got to do on the positive side, even while we're defending the constitution and the rule of law against the most lawless white house of our lifetime. so that's the challenge for us as a party as a caucus is to stay on the positive high road at the same time that we're defend diagnose the rule of law. >> congressman jamie raskin, eric swalwell, thank you both for joining us on this important night. thank you. when we come back, we will consider where we are. on this be historic night. we'll be joirned by presidential historian jon meacham who will help pinpoint for us where we are in this story.
what is to come. he was the managing editor of "newsweek" during the last impeachment process in the congress. and he's written biographies of four presidents. he has enough to say in terms of guiding us about what comes next. ay in terms of guidg inus about what comes next how do you gauge the greatness of an suv? is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the mercedes-benz suv family.
if you've never seen yourself in a mercedes, you've never seen these offers. lease the gla 250 for just $379 a month at the mercedes-benz spring event. hurry in before april 30th. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, 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... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. over... hey, want to try it? ok here you go... over... under... hey whoa, pop, pop... your shoe's untied. ♪ ensure he's well taken care of, even as you build your own plans for retirement. see how lincoln can help protect your savings from the impact of long-term care expenses at lincolnfinancial.com.
i had nomine...ms of hepatitis c. ...caused liver damage. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. i had the common type. mine was rare. epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i just found out about my hepatitis c. i knew for years. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b other liver or kidney problems, hiv or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements.
taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. . jon meacham's beautifully written best selling book "franklin and winston" the story of the friendship between franklin roosevelt and winston churchill as they worked together during world war ii included this quote from winston churchill after a crucial victory in a british battle. "now is not the end," churchill said, "it is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." that is the quote i used last night at this time to describe where i expected us to be, the end of the beginning. so tonight the prosecutor's investigation has been handed to
congress with much for congress to pursue, including impeachment hearings. jon meacham has seen this once before. he was the managing editor of "newsweek" when president bill clinton was impeached by the house of representatives. since then he's written biographies of four presidents from tom jefferson to the first president bush. jon meacham joins us now to combine his journalism experience with his historian's eye to give us his reaction to the mueller report and where we are tonight in the investigation of donald trump. jon, thank you very much for joining us tonight. on this historic night, which it is, and when we have historic nights, of course, i want the historical perspective. your reaction to what you saw today, both in the report and in the country's reaction to it. >> well, another churchill came to mind, one that's attributed to him, which is you can always count on the americans to do the right thing once they've exhausted every other possibility. which we're in the process of
exhausting all these possibilities. my sense of the report was it was something that remarkable in its level of detail, and i hate to say it, not especially surprising. i think if you've followed donald trump in his national political career from the false conspiracies about barack obama's birth unto this very day, you would probably not be surprised that you had a president who did all he could to fight for his self-preservation above all else, and i think that what we now will face is a question of whether the congress will confront what is clearly their constitutional responsibility. they may choose for political reasons not to do it, but george mason said at the constitutional convention, talking -- debating the impeachment clause that actually ended up in the document, that he asked rhetorically, can any man be above justice?
who can be above justice? particularly not he who has the power to do the most expensive injustice. and to my mind, what gave me more of a sinking feeling than anything else and seeing the details in the report was if this is what we know he's done, lord knows what he's done that we don't know or that he might do. >> and let's take a look at the last impeachment case that the -- that washington dealt with where lindsey graham, then a congressman, was one of the house prosecutors of president clinton in the impeachment trial in the senate. and let's listen to the standard that lindsey graham thought applied then. >> he doesn't have to say go lie for me to be a crime. you don't have to say let's obstruct justice for it to be a crime. you judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases. >> jon meacham, does that sound like lindsey graham got it a little closer to correct in
those days than he does now? >> it's funny how that happens, isn't it? videotape is an amazing thing. you know, the politics of hypocrisy, the punditry of hypocrisy is something that we all practice because it's so rich. what worries me most and, again, historically speaking right now is the last time we impeached one time back, president nixon, he was impeached largely for what we now have evidence of what donald trump did. there wasn't much debate about it. there is virtually no historical debate about it. nixon was caught -- the wall began to crumble, as you know, in the summer of 1974 when the june 22nd tape came out in which he had said that he wanted to get the cia to stop the fbi from investigating watergate. the cia didn't do it. which is, again, an eerie echo
we have here, but that was the last straw, and what worries me most about where the political culture is right now is what the last straw was in 1974 is barely a straw at the moment, at least for the 48, 49% of the country that has decided that whatever he has done with russia they don't seem to particularly care. you asked me about the country's reaction to it. my great hope in all of this has been that somehow or another we would be able to let reason into the arena with passion. it's a passionate era. it's like -- it's a lot like 1968, which you've written about, where people have chosen a tribe and that's the tribe they're going to stay in. but if we don't absorb the facts. if we don't let our preconceptions be shifted by changing data, we're not being true to the original intent of the american revolution, which
is that reason has to take a stand here, and i hope the people will read it, i hope they'll do that and i hope the congress will confront their responsibility. >> jon meacham gets tonight's last word. jon, thank you very much for joining us. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. the breaking news tonight is that the mueller report is out. the investigation paints a portrait of a president convinced at one point his presidency was over. a campaign swimming in russians who were wishing to help get trump elected and the campaign hoping to benefit. the report outlines ten instances of potential obstruction by the president, singles out several aides who refused to carry out his orders, and we learned today the president now clearly has his man at the justice department as the attorney general publicly takes one for the team. and for mueller's part, he's leaving it to congress to proceed from here as "the 11th hour" gets under way on this important thursday night.