tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC May 3, 2019 1:00am-2:01am PDT
michael lewis is one of the greatest nonfiction writers of our time. for his latest book he turned his sights on what happened when trump took office. you'll hear him listen to it on the podcast this week. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight, president trump declares the investigation into his campaign, his election and presidency is done. he says he won't let his former lawyer don mcgahn testify while his white house tries to be seen as taking a victory lap. the democrats on the other hand make an awkward show of the attorney general's no-show before their committee today. it featured a chicken theme and an empty chair while their speaker was all business, accusing bill barr of committing a crime, lying to congress. and tonight we've learned those house democrats may be dealing with robert mueller directly to schedule his testimony. all of it as "the 11th hour" gets under way on a thursday night.
and good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. day 833 of the trump administration and the president has just made the latest move in this standoff between the white house and the democrats in congress. trump now says he's inclined to just say no to his former white house counsel don mcgahn testifying before congress. the house judiciary committee has already subpoenaed mcgahn, who, of course, is a star witness in the mueller report, as he spelled out the president's efforts to undermine the russia investigation and get rid of mueller. here's what the president told fox news tonight when asked if he'd allow mcgahn to appear before congress. >> i've had him testifying already for 30 years. >> so is the answer no? >> so i don't think i can let him and then tell everybody else you can, especially him because he was a counsel. so they've testified for many hours, all of them. many, many, many people. >> as far as you're concerned, it's done. >> i can't say, well, one can and the others can't. >> so is it done?
>> i would say it's done. we've been through this. nobody has ever done what i've done. i've given total transparency. it's never happened before like this. >> so congress should be -- >> they shouldn't be looking anymore. this is all -- it's done. i assumed that for the $35 million they've gone through everything, my taxes, my financial statements, which are phenomenal. they've gone through everything and i'm still clean. think of it, after 2 1/2 years and all that money spent, nothing. very few people could have sustained that. >> democrats on the hill want robert mueller himself to appear. a source tells nbc news tonight the house judiciary committee has begun discussions directly with mueller's team about him coming to testify. nothing finalized. no data has been set. the committee had been in discussions with the justice department about mueller's appearance because mueller, after all, remains an employee of the justice department. on another front, democrats on that same committee weighing
their next move. attorney general bill barr stood them up today after spending hours yesterday testifying before the senate committee. house judiciary committee chair jerry nadler of new york dramatically gavelled the hearing into order this morning anyway and later blasted barr for not showing up and for with holing the full mueller report. >> the failure of attorney general barr to come to the hearing today is simply another step in the administration's growing attack on american democracy and its attack on the right of congress to be a coordinate branch of government. we will make one more good faith attempt to negotiate and to get the -- to get the access to the report that we need and then -- and then if we don't get that we will proceed to hold the
attorney general in contempt. >> and how long are you going to give the attorney general to answer your questions? and to negotiate in good faith before you hold him in contempt? >> a day or two. >> speaker pelosi appears to have had it with attorney general barr. the administration's defines of congressional requests for documents and witnesses as well. >> when the articles of impeachment for president nixon, article iii was that he ignored the subpoenas of congress, that he did not honor the subpoenas of congress. this is very, very serious. >> did the attorney general commit a crime? >> he lied to congress. he lied to congress. if anybody else did that it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law. not the president of the united states and not the attorney general. >> pelosi was preferring there to barr's assertion during two hearings last month that he was unaware of mueller's objections to characterizations of his report, even though we now know mueller had written him to complain and they had spoken by phone. meanwhile, the trump white house continues to attack the whole
investigation, and today they released a letter from the president's current counsel emmet flood. this was originally delivered to the attorney general back on april 19th, that's one day after the release of mueller's findings. it's a five-page letter. it's highly critical of mueller's conclusions. flood writes in part, and we quote, "the special counsel's office produced a prosecutorial curiosity, part truth commission report and part law school exam paper. "he added that "mueller's refusal to -- exoneration statements can be understand only as political statements issuing from persons who are in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties." the letter reads as if they knew this day was coming. as flood goes on to say, trump's decision not to assert privilege in regards to the report "does not affect his ability as president to instruct his
advisers to decline to appear before congressional committees to answer questions on these same subjects. the president is determined to protect from congressional security economy not only the advice rendered by his own advisers but also advisers to future presidents." former solicitor general neal katyal, who wrote the regs under which mueller was appointed, notes this letter from flood is indeed a strategy from this white house. >> you're really seeing the collapse of -- really the chicken's coming home to roost and the collapse of any respect for law at the white house and the justice department is becoming evident to everyone. the letter from the white house lays out a pretty clear attack on the special counsel, on mueller and an attempt to try and stop him, i think, if i'm reading the tea leaves correctly, from testifying. >> here for our leadoff discussion on this thursday night, elizabeth, washington bureau chief for "the new york
times." jackie coms, white house editor do "the los angeles times." elliot williams, former federal prosecutor who was also deputy assistant attorney general and former counsel to the senate judiciary committee. good evening and welcome to you all. elizabeth, where do we stand tonight? the democrats really fumbled their moment today, as some had predicted. trump is making hay amid all the chicken imagery. where do you put this as of tonight? >> well, i think in the next due days as you heard from jerry glad her they will hold the president in contempt of congress. that doesn't do a whole lot for them because as -- in that case the justice department determines whether or not the attorney general is actually in contempt. we can imagine where that goes. at that point the -- jerry nadler, the house will have to sue in a federal court and if -- if -- if the attorney general
loses in court then he's held in contempt of court. however, the justice department is the ruler on that as well. nonetheless, a federal judge could go and appoint his own prosecutor to go after -- to go after the attorney general. the bottom line here is this will take many, many months, this kind of legal maneuvering, and like many things -- the president is stonewalling on many fronts. it looks like his strategy is just to run out the clock and go as far as he can. again, this could go through court for many, many months and we will not see any kind of testimony from people that the democrats want to hear from. >> jackie coms, it seems clear trump found his man for attorney general. what recourse do you view the democrats as having? >> well, we still need to figure out if they're going to be able to talk to robert mueller, the special counsel, and up until now we've heard nothing from him. and that's created this sort of paradox for him where he's got
the stature and the gravitas that's given the report he put out, this 448-page report, it's elevated it, you know, the hope was that people could take it -- that all people could take from it, you know, take it seriously, and yet he's been silent while donald trump and now bill barr have defined it for the public and they've defined it in a way -- and we now see in emmet flood's letter that is critical of robert mueller. and so it's imperative i think at this point -- and the congress will -- the democratic congress at least will believe they need to get robert mueller testifying in public about this so we finally hear what he thinks because we know from the letter he wrote on march 27th to bill barr that we weren't getting an accurate rendering of bob mueller's thinking from bill barr himself. i think the white house, the administration has to fear bob mueller's testimony because once
he begins to talk we will see a man who -- people forget, this is a former fbi director who served a dozen years after j. edgar hoover's abuses of office congress passed a law to limit fbi directors of ten years. a president of his opposite party, barack obama, passed a law through congress, signed it into law and robert mueller served an additional two years. so he's the only fbi director since j. edgar hoover to not only serve the full ten years but to get two more by a bipartisan act of congress. this is not a man who is, you know, they can easily slander if he's out there talking for himself. >> absolutely. elliot, we've yet to be able to speak to you since the testimony. two-part question for you. what did you find most egregious, given your employment history with doj, from yesterday's hearing and dmam a successful legal pathway forward for the democrats.
>> well, those are two very big questions. so, wait, a successful legal pathway forward. were we in normal times, they would negotiate terms for having the attorney general come out and testify before congress. unfortunately we are not in normal times and the executive branch, the president has made clear that he intends to thwart any attempt for congress to exercise its authority. remember, this is bigger than don mcgahn or william barr or any of these individuals. president has made it clear he's going to direct members of the executive branch to not comply with subpoenas. just this week the house oversight committee, there were subpoenas for the immigration census-related matter and the background check -- the security clearance matter and they just, you know, disregarded those subpoenas. the house judiciary committee saw its subpoena for the full mueller report disregarded. so this is a bigger reshaping and rethinking of the
relationship between the executive -- and the respect that the executive branch has -- has for congress. and it's really striking. you know, it's -- there's a lot of manufactured legal arguments here where the president has, you know, sort of having it both ways. he wants to claim executive -- claim that he's the most transparent president in history and so on and so on but then manufacture these legal arguments over executive privilege where it really, really doesn't exist. >> and what stood out to you from barr yesterday? >> i think just the wordsmithing. i think there was a lot of, you know, for instance, not being able to answer the question from kamala harris, which was the one kill shot of the day yesterday, sort of where she drew blood. not being able to answer the question has the president directed -- i don't want to get the wording precisely wrong -- has the president directed you to investigate anyone. whatever the wording was. he tried to parse it and wordsmith it. based what we know about this president and how he has treated his political adversaries, it seems undeniable that the president would have asked or at least intimated or suggested or
hinted these wordsmithing words that the attorney general go after his opponents. we've seen this with whitaker. not with barr, but with whitaker and attorney general sessions. it seems undeniable that the president would have asked that. i think barr trying to sort of slip into lawyer mode, you know, what did you mean by suggest, senator harris, was a little bit too cute by half i think. >> jackie, i want to back up to your portrait of mueller. here's the case. for democrats, don't blow your chance, be careful what you wish for. the visual democrats left the world with today was a bucket of chicken. at the end of the day, that's it. we're in a visual industry. that's it. are they about to blow out of proportion an appearance by robert mueller, who measures each word like a carpenter and put the turn in tass tern? >> well, you know, it's a good question. time will tell, but there was a lot of second guessing and handwringing after the report,
the mueller report came out that the democrats had been waiting for this and were hoping that robert mueller and his team would find chargeable offenses. and at the same time people were warning, you know, robert mueller is an employee of the justice department in this instance and justice department policy explicitly precludes indicting a sitting president. and we saw in the report that mueller hued to that line, and so democrats were disappointed. i think having been tempered in what came out of the report itself that democrats would go into hearings with mueller with, you know, less inflated hopes of -- i mean, nobody's going to expect robert mueller to sit at a witness table and start blasting the white house and the sitting president. this is a temperate man by any estimation, and so, you know, i also don't think they're going
to have buckets of chicken at their table when they have robert mueller behind -- before them. but who knows. >> there's always hope. yeah. hey, elizabeth, from our colleagues over at "time" magazine, i want to read you something. "mueller's recently released 448-page final report suggests the president has learned a different lesson from that of his predecessors. rather than defer to the constraints nixon's downfall imposed, trump has sought to dis3457b89 them. trump is using the mueller report to expand the power of the chief executive." i'm reminded by our mutual friend peter baker that this was infrastructure week and look what we're talking about. >> right. it's been infrastructure week for many weeks of this presidency so i think the, you know, i think that -- here's the interesting thing. we are talking about this in very intricate nuanced detail. what's interesting to me is it's just not a topic out on the campaign trail. people are talking about health
care. they're talking about, you know, jobs. and we're discussing, you know, i don't think it -- it hasn't really moved anybody one way or another out on the campaign. perhaps it's sent trump down a few points, but right now this is very much of a washington story. again, we'll see what mueller has to say. he's supposedly -- they're talking about may 15th as the date do mueller. i do think it would have been interesting to hear from don mcgahn. don mcgahn knows a great deal. he knows about what the president's intent in all of these actions. so he's a very dangerous man for the president. and i suspect that we will not hear him before trump -- before the end of this term. >> i want to thank your big three tonight. another consequential night. we really appreciate your conversation to our conversation. elizabeth, jackie, elliot, thank you. coming up, new reporting on the counterintelligence efforts in the earliest stages of the russia investigation before anybody knew anything. and later, as the president insists faith helped him get
through the investigation he still calls a witch hunt, his allies are counting on him screwing up the next move as "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on a thursday night with a view of the west wing. if you have medicare, listen up. medicare alone only covers 80% of your cost, leaving you to pay the rest. changes to medicare are no laughing matter. if you don't know the plans available now, you might end up with a doctor you're not so comfortable with, or even worse, being forced to pay thousands in medical expenses due to coverage limitations. that'll be how much? understanding all the options, let's face it, it can be downright confusing. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they search thousands of plans from leading insurance companies to find a plan that's right for you. plans that have prescription drug coverage, dental and vision care, and that offer extra benefits you may not even
know were available. some plans may eliminate your out of pocket cost like copays and deductibles, and there's even plans with no monthly premium. they can find you a plan to let you keep your doctors. i know that's important for me. you may also qualify for special subsidies that lower your prescription drug costs. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company. they work to help you, and they do it all for free. hi, i'm dr. thomas stackhouse. it's a new medicare year and that means more changes and more confusion. many people may worry about the high cost of medical care and prescription drugs. the key to maintaining your health and saving money on your healthcare cost is finding the right plan for you. don't go it alone. make sure to explore all of your options to find the right plan for your needs. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a plus customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. you can enroll today. call healthmarkets now for free help. it's easy to find the medicare plan that saves you money, so you can enjoy more of the things you love.
you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome. new reporting from "the new york times" today reveals back in september 2016 the fbi sent an investigator posing as a research assistant to meet with then trump campaign aide george papadopoulos. "the fbi sent her to london as
part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the trump campaign's links to russia. the american government's affiliation with the woman, who said her name was azra turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point. the decision to use ms. turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the fbi during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of russia's attempts to disrupt the 2016 election but could also give ammunition to mr. trump and his allies for their spying claims." last month attorney general barr made headlines after saying this on capitol hill. >> i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. i'm not talking about the fbi necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly. >> so you're not -- you're not suggesting, though, that spying
occurred? >> i don't -- well, i guess you could -- i think there is -- spying did occur. yes, i think spying did occur. the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated, and i'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated but i'd need to explore that. >> at yesterday's hearing barr once again defended his use of the word spying. here with us tonight to talk about it, the aforementioned michael schmitt, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the new york times" and clint watts, former fbi special agent and former member of the joint terrorism task force. he a distinguished fellow at the foreign policy research institute. author of "messing with the enemy: you are surviving in a
world of hackers, terrorists, russians and fake news." we should add research assistant to the end of that list. michael, walk us through how this story played out. did it again with three people walked into a bar? >> well, what the story shows is just the extent that the fbi went to to try and lend what was going on between the russians and the campaign. they wanted to have a government investigator, someone who was trained, someone who could collect evidence, someone who could testify at a trial to be on the ground for this operation as one of their informants made these contacts. and it just shows the extent of it. now, people on the right will say, look, this is just the latest example of the spying that they would go so far as to put an investigator on the ground in this type of situation. from the bureau's perspective, the bureau would say, look, this gives us eyes and ears. this gives it some oversight. this means our informants are not just out there freelancing. there are folks who can keep a watch on this and make sure it doesn't go off the rails. but what it is is a picture into
what counterintelligence looks like, something that we don't see a lot but we have learned so much about since the 2016 campaign. >> clint watts, does this sound -- does this look familiar to you? >> yeah, this would be exactly what i would expect in a counterintelligence investigation. if you think about it from the bureau's perspective, they watch widespread hacking go on for pretty much a year at this point. they're pretty sure it's russia but they're not sure. they have a tip from the australia government that russia has emails and it's coming from someone inside the campaign. paul manafort, who they've interviewed before, surfaces strangely in the campaign as campaign manager. carter page, who they had interviewed before because he had been a target by the russian intelligence services, he shows up again inside the campaign. the other one is you see aggressive social media influence from russia and you see wikileaks dumping emails out there. i think another point that's really critical in this is you need to put an agent into this environment for a few reasons.
one, they may have to go testify later on as part of this investigation if something surfaces because it's not just a counter-intel investigation, it's also an investigation into the hacking. this is someone who said russia has emails. >> right. >> so they were also investigating this entire email hacking case that had been going on it seems like well into the spring. this person may actually have to testify. and you want to have an agent in there because they can also answer -- they know the context of the questions. so if they get a lead or a follow-up you're not relying through your informant, you actually have someone there who knows the case. >> why then would george papadopoulos say this on twitter? i agree with everything in this suburb article except azra turk clearly was not fbi. she was cia affiliated with turkish intel. she could hardly speak english and was tasked to meet with me my work in the energy sector offshore, cyprus, which turkey was competing with. do you buy it? do you have any reason to believe it or doubt it? >> i have a little more
confidence in "the new york times" story than i do for george papadopoulos. let's see what plays out in terms of who actually is in the source who comes in there. but i think the important thing is there was a placement put in there. they were trying to figure out in terms of this counterintelligence investigation, it's a defensive counterintelligence investigation, they're trying to find out did the russian government actually penetrate into a presidential campaign? they need to make sure that is not happening, so you're going to take this maneuver for sure. >> michael, people want to know what the trump campaign was like. we read from the mueller report. papadopoulos contacted trump campaign manager corey lewandowski via linkedin, as one does and emailed campaign official michael glassener about his interest in joining the trump campaign. on march 2 of 2016 papadopoulos sent another message to glassener speaking of his interest. notified papadopoulos by email that she had been told by glassener to introduce papadopoulos to sam clovis of iowa, the trump campaign's
national co-chair and chief policy adviser. now here's the magic of a campaign. listen to what the president says to "the washington post" editorial board 19 days after that. >> george papadopoulos, he's an oil and energy consultant, excellent guy. >> excellent guy, michael. is this kind of freelancing, the name salad we just read aloud, common. >> no, i don't think it's common. i don't think it's as common as other campaigns would function, but i think what you're talking about gets at the question sort of in the mueller report about the trump campaign. was the trump campaign disorganized that allowed people like george papadopoulos, who had had sort of weird connections to different foreigners, particularly these russians, you know, people talking about russian emails into the inner circle of the campaign.
you know, was it because it was so atypical that they were able to be on foreign policy advisers to the president? or were they just really well-coordinated and could coordinate with the russians? as mueller found there was none of that coordination. they couldn't prove that. so this sort of plays into the notion that this thing was a mess and that maybe when trump campaign officials will say things like we didn't even know where our campaign office was in iowa, so how could we collude with the russians? maybe there is some truth to that. >> clint, i have to say, this also plays into the notion that there was -- that the "s" word was operative, that this was spying. >> yeah, it's interesting how this sort of plays out. from my perspective, spying on the campaign would mean we're gathering widespread intelligence on the campaign and their activities. i don't see that as such. these were leads that the fbi absolutely had to follow up on. you could not leave a tip about emails you're already
investigating out on the table whenever it's come in through a foreign intelligence partner like this. you would have to follow it up and determine valid, invalid, is this a penetration or is this a consequence? were the russians trying to throw bait? did anybody go for it? you'd have to run that to ground. i don't know how you wouldn't run it to ground and the fbi would be deeply irresponsible if they did not close that out. >> as we saw tonight, there were only two guys we wanted to talk to about this story. michael schmitt, clint, thank you very much. we're going to hold them here, take a break, come back and continue our discussion. coming up, the comission that trump says he assumes mueller has and he declares to be just fine. and if house democrats have their way, they could soon be asking mueller about it. we'll run that to ground when we come back.
audible members know listening has the power to change us make us better parents, better leaders, better people. and there's no better place to listen than audible. with audible you get a credit good for any audiobook and exclusive fitness and wellness programs. and now, you'll also get two audible originals: titles exclusively produced for audible. automatically roll your credits over to the next month if you don't use them, and if you don't like a book just swap it for free. enjoy 100% ad free listening in the car, on your phone or any connected device. and when you switch a device
pick up right where you left off. with our commitment free guarantee, there's never been a better time to start listening to audible. the most inspiring minds, the most compelling stories, the best place to listen. to start your free 30-day trial, text listen5 to 500500 today. ♪ even my finances, it must have been looked at. for $35 million, i assume they looked at my taxes. i assume mueller looked at my financial statements. for $35 million and having 20 people plus 49 fbi agents and all of the staff and all of the money that was spent, i assume they looked at my taxes, which are fine, and i assume -- except they are under audit, by the way. >> members of congress could be soon asking robert mueller in person if he has looked at the president's financial statements.
as we reported, house judiciary has started direct discussions with mueller's team coming in to testify. nothing finalized. as we said, a big complication here, he remains, mr. mueller does, an employee of the justice department, a hard pass holder. so his boss is one bill barr until the day of mueller's next retirement. our guests remain with us, michael schmitt and clint watts. clint, i'd like to begin with you. i assume that as witnesses go, even as adept as the democrats have proved themselves at catering, mueller cannot be shaken, cannot be stirred. what would you ask him? >> there's only really two questions. i think he probably wouldn't answer either. he's going to get asked a ton of questions and go back to his report and say this is what i found in my report, you can read it on page whatever. >> there you go. >> the question that will inevitability come up, is the president exonerated in your opinion? he's going to say it's not my role to decide exonerated or not, it's to gather the evidence.
i think the one question that could come up is, if there is not a doj policy that says you cannot sit or indict a sitting president, would you have done that? meaning were there barriers that were keeping you from doing things that you normally would do in other cases? i think that is a involved question and might be one avenue to actually challenge him on to see if there were no barriers, if this isn't the president, if this is someone else, would you have pursued those investigative steps? >> michael schmitt, let me amend the question to you a little bit. coming out of barr's testimony, can you name some questions you are anxious to put -- eager to put before mr. mueller? >> well, was barr's account of his conversations and back and forth with mueller after barr sent his conclusions, his baseline conclusions to congress, after the report was finished, are barr's characterizations of his interactions with mueller accurate?
he says that he had a phone conversation which mueller complained about the media coverage. now folks that know bob mueller know that he's not really someone to complain about the media coverage. so was mueller complaining directly about how barr had characterized his findings and not included them in his first letter to congress or was he really just complaining about the media coverage? because that was the way that barr tried to portray it yesterday. and there's been, you know, obviously conflicting accounts that, you know, have, you know, come out about these sort of interactions and how upset the mueller team was about how barr portrayed their work and it would be very interesting to hear directly from mueller about that and about what their feelings were about how the justice department has characterized their work. and that i think will be
something that folks on the hill will really want to push on because they're trying to figure out whether barr is giving them accurate information. there are already questions about something that barr has said in a previous hearing just a few weeks ago. >> to our audience, again, these are the two guys we wanted to talk to this story about. michael schmitt, clint watts, we always appreciate the time you spend with us. thank you very much. and coming up, bill barr's absence wasn't the only thing unusual about that hearing in the house today. a veteran journalist and veteran of congress both weigh in on this weird day, this unprecedented week.
the scene featured a democratic congressman from tennessee with a fake chicken and a bucket of kfc and a hearing room with any chair, lest anyone miss the point about the chicken. we are guessing speaker pelosi might have wished that the committee under chairman nadler would have presented a different face to the world. returning to our broadcast tonight, eugene robinson, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post" and david jolly, a former republican member of congress from the state of florida who has since left the gop. eugene, honestly, it does somewhat erode your moral outrage at the bank of microphones in the hallway when you're talking about being stood up by the attorney general when it appears the biggest decision your committee made thus far today was extra crispy or original recipe. is -- as a parent would say, is this how they're going to handle responsibility?
and is bob mueller really going to run down there eager to testify before a committee despite knowing at least he'll eat well? >> well, brian, i don't think it was a good look, okay? i don't think it was a good look to, you know, when it occurs to you to bring the props to the hearing room, just leave the props at home. it didn't -- i don't think it worked. congressman steve cohen is a character. maybe should have stayed out of character today. the point was made. certainly if you wanted to make the point, the empty chair was enough to make the point. that doesn't solve the problem. that doesn't solve the problem the committee faces which is they wanted to hear from bill barr. he refused to come. they have serious questions to ask him, including about the misrepresentations, to say the least, he has made to congress
in the past about his interactions with mueller. so that doesn't get him any closer to barr or the truth. >> david jolly, same question. >> yeah, listen, i have offered some constructive criticism, if you will, of speaker pelosi, that she needs to express more urgency. and what i mean by that is this really should be the speaker's moment. you know, to the conversation you were having with eugene, the props of the bucket of chicken would have worked in some environments but not others. it certainly doesn't command the gravity of the moment. this is where the leader of the house of representatives as speaker i think needs to take not a deferential approach to her committee chairperson but a leadership role. this is a tough position for her to be in. if they do not move to impeach an attorney general who she said today committed a crime then the natural question is why is she allowing a crime to be committed on her watch? similarly, if they do not move to impeach the president based on the obstruction charges in the mueller report she
essentially is accepting the declination decision of attorney general barr. but on the other hand she knows privately, and this hasn't really been discussed often, her first turn at speakership, while it was historic, it also ended in the greatest historic losses of a majority since world war ii. her speakership ended with her losing 63 democratic seats in the house of representatives, and i believe part of speaker pelosi's acknowledgement, if you will, to the reality of the politics and the polling on this is a reflection of her past experience in the speakership. >> eugene, the congressman makes a great point. what's it going to be for the democrats? this window is narrow because your president is saying this whole matter is done. >> mmm-hmm. right. and clearly it's not done, but the question is how to proceed. along what roads and how quickly.
i think david is right. i think nancy pelosi, look, the speaker of the house, she has to have in mind the next house election. she has to have in mind her majority, maintaining it, expanding it, certainly not losing it, and so her eye is not strictly toward the presidential election. so she could -- she has to calculate that politically. at the same time she has to do her duty as speaker of the house and she -- this problem of what to do about the president's obstruction of justice was indeed dumped in her lap so she can't just let it sit there. she does have to -- she has to let the committees have hearings and she has to move forward. the question i think for her is at what speed. >> eugene and david have agreed to stay with us through the break. and just ahead, democrats now have 21 choices for 2020. the president says there's still not a winner in that bunch.
i think the fact that the field is as big as it is has coalesced as little as it has creates a real opportunity for all of us that are in the race, and there's some great people in the race. overall i'm really happy that we've got a large diverse field, in part because i think the american people don't know what the national democratic party stands for. >> colorado senator michael bennet becomes the 21st, 21 democrats now in the 2020 race. president trump has largely ignored the growing field of candidates, choosing to focus instead on one particular candidate. witness yesterday's twitter obsession with one joe biden. and again tonight he was back on the topic on fox news. >> is joe biden -- >> i think biden seems to have a lead. i'd be very happy if it were biden. >> happy why?
>> sleepy joe. i think he does a -- i think he did a bad job. i'd be running against -- >> so you think he's beatable? >> i wish him well. i'd like him to get it. i'd be happy with bernie. i personally think it's those two. >> new reporting from politico indicates trump's aides including his son-in-law just down the law don't like the biden obsession. they've been ordered not to feed into it. "trump campaign officials received a directive from the president's son-in-law and adviser jared kushner, don't meddle in primary politics. according to one aide, i've personally asked him to stop us. it's not helping us. it's helping biden. we don't think biden can make it out of the woke democratic party, but he will if the president gives him oxygen." eugene robinson and david jolly back for our double jeopardy round. since we've been on the air, three minutes ago the president tweeted this sentence, the mueller report strongly stated there was no collusion with russia. those are the stakes.
and tick-tock with thanks to kesha, who is out there, who is going do beat that? first primary eight months from now. >> well, that's a good question. we don't know yet, right? we don't know -- we haven't even seen the democratic candidates on a stage together in a debate. it will take two nights for the first debate because there are so many of them. it will be harder, i think, for somebody to break through in that setting. but it's going to take a little time. you know, joe biden, i think, had a pretty spectacular launch to his -- to his campaign and he has been aided greatly by president trump, who has reinforced biden's narrative of a one-on-one between biden and trump. that's been good for biden. >> david jolly, you've been -- your name has been on a ballot. you've been in the business. for people who don't understand the motivator that politics is, let's take senator bennet.
he is in the middle of a battle against prostate cancer, which he assures everybody he's fine and he's winning. to become democrat number 21 in this race to get up, look in the mirror and say the nation needs you, what you are serving, what does that and what will propel him? because it's crowded. >> you know, look, he's been a successful senator from colorado, and so i'm sure he believes his brand of democratic politics are right for the moment. so do the other 20 democrats in the race. i think the takeaway from the one week i guess that joe biden's been in this race that i see is his numbers are very strong and they're real. they're deep. they seem to have some staying power. i mean, you're looking at point spreads of 15 to 20 points of a lead, which suggests people -- though the party continues to wrestle with ideology that is traditionally more progressive, perhaps, than joe biden, there is still a strong constituency there saying we want to go against donald trump with the nominee being joe biden.
donald trump's playing a dangerous game by making this a one-on-one with joe biden right now. i expect the race to get very vicious. i believe donald trump may weaponize the department of justice to go after biden and his son over this ukraine matter. and i think in the democratic primary you're going to see biden get attacked saying he's not progressive enough. and the question is, will that work? is biden's constituency actually that constituency that's okay with him not being progressive enough or not? we don't know that yet. we'll see. >> eugene robinson and david jolly, gentlemen, it is always a pleasure. thank you so much for coming on this thursday night. and coming up for us, a powerful thing happened today across a whole country. something impossible to imagine happening here.
did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? using multiple cleaners on grease can be expensive, and sometimes ineffective. for better value, tackle grease with dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. it provides 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, which cuts through tough kitchen messes,
soil" translated from the original german. perhaps because of the anti-semitism we've seen obviously and ominously on the march here and in europe of late, it's important to point out that today was holocaust remembrance day, and on this day for two minutes each year something incredible happens. israel stops. with few exceptions, they try to stop everything, traffic, walking, talking, all business transactions. the air raid sirens, which are a regular fixture in israel sound at midday for two minutes and people are asked to be silent and remain where they are, remember the deaths of 6 million jews. more importantly, never forget. the entire nation of about 9 million people, the jewish state that record to life with the hard work of arriving refugees and holocaust survivors stops to remember every year.
and a journalist reminded us today that the global jewish population of approximately 15 million is still lower than it was in 1939. in other words, as put today, so many jews were murdered that we still haven't recovered dem graphically after 80 years. sit with that for a moment. and so we will as we leave you tonight with that powerful thought. we'll dedicate it to our friend rita and her late husband izzy, both survivors, their children, grandchildren and, god willing, their great grandchildren. that is our broadcast do this thursday night. thank you for being with us and good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york.
. attorney general william barr may not have appeared on capitol hill yesterday but the house judiciary committee is moving on and setting its sights on special counsel bob mueller. at the same time nancy pelosi is excusing barr of committing a crime by lying to congress. the man set to bomb the new york city subway prison is set to be released after cooperating with authorities after nearly a decade. good morning, everybody. it is friday, may 3rd. i'm yasmin vossoughian. we're starting