tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBCW May 8, 2019 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm actually a safe driver. i'm just pretending to be a not safe driver. cool. bye dennis quaid! when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with the great lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. i was just reading a tweet from the historian kevin kruse. i would like to read it to you. in the last 24 hours, we learned the president is a
billion-dollar loseer, his biggest evangelical backer covered up by an -- you stared at it, and i tried to figure out how to approach it, and i thought i would wait until the second day of the story. it turns out it was wiped out by subpoena day. >> there is sort of a second day because the "washington post" published the actual audio of cohen describing the terrible photo. this is our lifestyle. like, we, instead of sitting down and having a meal every day, we asrrive at a buffet tabe that is 7 miles long. what are you going to do? how do you prioritize? i could do an hour just on the falwell story tonight, but all that other stuff, too. >> i look at stories sometimes
and i say it's not going to fit. it is not going to fit in this hour. but somehow it fits in these two hours somewhere. it's in there somewhere. and that's what i'm counting on, rachel. that's what i'm relying on you for. >> we need each other. sdp >> you know what, over the phone we'll fill in the rest of this. >> i'll talk to you about it in the morning. >> thanks, rachel. she really is the greatest. we've been showing you video of lindsey graham, and we've showed you extraordinary videos that show you just how much those republicans have changed on all of the issues they were declaring to be matters of principle to them. back then when they were trying to impeach a democratic president. an ever republican serving now in the house of representatives and the senate who voted to remove bill clinton from office is now using a completely
different set of principles today in defending president trump. but at the end of this hour tonight, you will meet someone who has remained consistent in his view of obstruction of justice and crimes by presidents of the united states. one of the prosecutors from the special prosecutor's team that accused bill clinton of obstruction of justice now believes president trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. and that prosecutor will join us at the end of this hour. but first, it was subpoena day on capitol hill. subpoenas issued and one subpoena denied. the subpoena denied by attorney general william barr was the subject of votes today in the house judiciary committee on holding the attorney general in contempt of congress. but two new subpoenas were issued at the end of the day today, both with bipartisan support, one from the senate intelligence committee and one from the house intelligence committee. the senate intelligence committee chaired by richard
burr had donald trump jr. testify in front of the committee. they went to the senate tloor a -- floor and said case closed. they issued a subpoena to donald trump jr. it is the first time a member of the trump family has been subpoenaed in the investigation of the president. our first guest tonight, house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff. he issued, quote, a subpoena to attorney general pete barr for documents and materials related to special counsel robert mueller's investigation, including all counter-intelligence and foreign intelligence materials produced during the special counsel's investigation. the full unredacted report and the underlying evidence. the showdown on that such is scheduled for one week from today. wednesday, may 15 is the deadline and congressman schiff
to alternate general william barr. after they voted along party lines in 2016 to hold william barr in contempt of congress, no date was set for when the full house vote on that contempt of congress resolution. we will ask chairman schiff if he expects speaker pelosi to delay the full house vote on contempt of congress until the democrats see what the attorney general's response is to the new intelligence committee subpoena. in a statement announcing that subpoena, chairman schiff described, quote, a good faith effort to reach an accommodation with the attorney general. but, quote, the department repeatedly pays lip service to the importance of a meaningful accommodation process but it has only responded to our efforts with silence or outright defiance. chairman jerry nadler told us a similar story about the justice department. >> the department abruptly announced if we moved forward today, it would ask president trump to invoke what it refers
to a protect sieve assertion of executive privilege. just minutes ago, it took that dramatic step. besides supplying the document of executive privilege, since the white house waived these privileges long ago, and the department seems open to sharing these materials with us since yesterday, this shows a clear explanation and the defiance of the constitution mandate of duties. i hope the department will think better of this last-minute outburst and return to negotiations. >> the public spent the first few hours relying on the talking point that jerry nadler's subpoena for the unredacted mueller report would force the attorney general to break the law by releasing grand jury information that has been redacted and must remain by law. chairman nadler was very clear about that point.
>> we only asked the department to petition the court to determine if it is proper for us to have access to this material. >> that didn't stop every single member of the community leaning on the same falsehood for hours. >> what we're doing here is forcing the attorney general to break the law. >> the democrats and chairman nadler and this committee are asking the attorney general to break the law. break the law! by releasing grand jury information to congress. >> to comply with the subpoena, he must break the law. if he obeys the law, he must disobey the subpoena. >> to prove that wasn't true, the democrats accepted by unanimous voice vote a republican amendment that clarified that grand jury information won't be subject to the subpoena unless a federal court approves the release of that information. the republicans on the committee did not seem to feel the historical weight of the moment in the same way that democrats did. >> there can be no higher stakes
than this attempt to irrigate all power to the executive branch away from congress, a an more important, away from the american people. we've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. we are now in it. we are now in a constitutional crisis. >> if we're using phrases, i'll just use cart before the horse. >> that is kelly armstrong. he is north dakota's only house of representatives because while the land mass of south dakota is bigger than the entire state of new york, the entire population of north dakota would fit in jerry nadler's district on the west side of manhattan. jerry nadler and kelly armstrong represent the same number of people but they approach their work very differently. there is no easier job in american politics than being the republican member of the house of representatives from north dakota, and kelly armstrong sure makes it look easy. here he is casting his historic
vote on holding the attorney general in contempt of congress. >> mr. rosenthaler votes no. mr. klein? >> no. >> mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. >> hard to see who works harder, kelly ample strong or donald trump. leading our discussion today is adam schiff. he is chair of the house intelligence committee. how are you achieving a bipartisan approach to a subpoena where the judiciary committee can't? >> this is probably the last venue you thought that would happen, but the ranking member has his own reasons for wanting to get the underlying evidence behind the report. we have our reasons and there is that confluence of interests to make sure that the justice department follows the law. we both understand there is a statutory obligation to provide
all foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence. it's not discretionary, and we're insisting on the information. we may have to go down the same road in our committee that the judiciary committee did if the justice department again stonewalls and makes this overbroad and in support aalaba supportable claims. >> is it possible that there could be things in the mueller report that would be very damaging somehow to the democrats in this story? >> well, i'm sure his motivation is not to expose the evidence of the president's obstruction of justice or all of the interactions between the trump campaign and the russians and the issue of collusion. i don't think that's where he's coming from. but look, i'll let him speak for himself. i'm just glad that we've had the
support to press the department to comply with the law. and at the end of the day, this is about more than just this president, more than just this investigation. what's at stake is whether congress can do its job, whether, if an administration is corrupt or malfeasanced or just incompetent, that can be exposed and corrective action can be taken. if we can't do it vis-a-vis donald trump, it means that every president who follows him will be equally above the law. >> so what does your subpoena mean to the timing of the vote in the full house on the resolution that we just saw today come out of the judiciary committee? >> well, the advantage and the strength of our subpoenas relies on different legal grounds than the judiciary subpoena. we have the national security act, the patriot act and other provisions that require the department to turn these materials over to congress. we have a separate grand jury exception that applies. we don't have to initiate an
impeachment proceeding, they're required to provide this information. so we have an independent case to make, and that gives us, if necessary, an alternate argument to make in court why this material needs to be provided. so we'll go forward. it's more difficult, i think, for them to write this office and partisan exercise when both the chairranking member have demanded -- >> do you have a feeling of when the office will vote on the attorney general? >> i think it would make sense to at least consolidate the date when we take up these contempt resolutions, if there are multiple resolutions, so they can be adjudicated at one time and we don't take up time every week to relitigate this. but at the end of the day, we're going to use the mechanism necessary to make sure we can do our oversight. we may have to look if the core
process takes too long in using congress' inherent contempt power. we may look at fencing money for these agencies so they can use it until they comply. we're going to have to use whatever tools we can. >> what is your sense of what's happening in the senate intelligence committee the day after the senate majority leader says case closed, the republican chairman of the senate intelligence committee subpoenas the president's son? >> well, look, i think in the senate intel committee, they don't want to be messed with by these witnesses. and when they have someone who is -- where there are questions about truthfulness if that's the issue, or there's additional facts that have come to light that they need to explore and they feel they're getting the runaround, they're going to use compulsion to bring people in. that's as it should be. we have concerns about don jr.'s testimony before our committee, and we've had concerns about
others. we may bring back some of the witnesses we had in before. others like eric prince we chose not to bring back, we chose to refer to the justice department for potential perjury prosecution, but we're going through those analyses now. >> so in the case of prince, you see perjury? >> prince's testimony was so demonstratively false before our committee that we felt compelled to make the referral and show side by side what he told us and what was revealed in the special counsel's report. how he told us that his meeting with dmetriov, the russian state banker, was pure coincidence. that he happened to go halfway around the world and run into the seychelles and bumped into this guy in a bar, invited to
meet him by the crown prince. the number of topics he said he had, whether he had advance notice of the meeting, all that stuff, is contradicted by the mueller report by witnesses who spoke to mueller and often by prince himself. there may be issues about whether they can prosecute that because of the admissibility or the availability of witnesses and testimony, but nonetheless, the testimony was so palpably false, we felt the need to refer it. >> do you feel the need to hear from donald trump jr. again? will you subpoena donald trump jr.? >> we may. we haven't made that decision yet. we're looking through what are the most important witnesses to bring back first, which witnesses can shed additional light? and we've had that dilemma with other witnesses as well where we thought themp less than truthful. do we bring them back in and give them an opportunity to try to get their story straight, or do we make a referral, or are there other purposes for bringing them back? >> what's your timetable on those kinds of decisions? >> we're making them an ongoing
basis, so we have made outreach to witnesses. we're starting with those that we believe may be cooperative that can shed light on issues. we're dealing with others privately right now who are resisting and we're trying to work out an agreement for them to come in and testify before we have to compel them. so all of that is ongoing and all that for the most part is outside the public eye. >> on donald trump jr., there are a couple things. one is he had said to congress that he had very little involvement in the moscow trump tower. michael cohen said he was heavily involved and he talked to him at least 10 times and during the campaign. that's one possible change, difference in donald trump jr.'s testimony. the other is, in the mueller report, michael cohen said he heard donald trump jr. telling his father about the meeting with russians in trump tower before the meeting occurred. that's also in the mueller report. that's not something that donald trump jr. said to either
committee when he spoke to the committees. are those the areas that you'd like to clarify with donald trump? >> those are certainly some of the areas. one of the issues we had with don jr. was his simple refusal to answer whole categories of questions. and this was not the case alone with don jr. steve bannon did the same thing, corwin lewandowski, hope hicks, there were whole sets of questions that these witnesses refused to answer. and this, again, proves just what a falsehood it is when bill barr talks about how cooperative the president has been with the investigations. these witnesses often told us that they would not answer the questions under instructions from the white house. we would ask them, are you asserting some sort of privilege? they would say, no, we've just been asked basically not to cooperate. so with respect to a number of these areas, we simply got no answers. with respect to others, we got answers that we have serious questions about their veracity. >> we should remind viewers that that was when the committee was under republican control.
and the rules of these interactions were being set by the republican majority on the committee, basically, and that no one was under subpoena. they could all get up and walk out of the room if they wanted to. >> yes. and the most graphic example was actually steve ban no onon who in. when he came in, he was no longer breitbart and so the republicans took umbrage when he refused to answer questions. they thought there were no repercussions to look like they were serious about the investigation. they actually subpoenaed him on the spot, but when we tried to get him to answer the subpoena, hold him in contempt because he refused to answer the questions, that was a bridge too far. it showed just how willing they were to go through the show of it, the show of an investigation, but not the reality of it when it came to compelling answers to questions. >> chairman adam schiff, thank you very much for joining us tonight. really important night to have you here. really appreciate it. when we come back, they are closing in on trump's tax
returns. the "new york times" is closing in. the new york state legislature is closing in, and the chairman of the house ways and means committee is closing in on donald trump's taxes. that's next. taxes that's next. woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage,
and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action.
woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com here'sshow me making it. like. oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. show me the best of amy poehler, again. this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. experience the entertainment you love on x1. access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today. the day after the "new york times" revealed that donald trump has paid sfwlezero in taxr several years, he complimented his rally tonight in florida for paying their taxes.
>> the invisible people, and you know what you are, you're the smartest, you're the hardest working, you pay your taxes, you do all of this stuff. >> and who can forget when hillary clinton accused donald trump of not paying taxes and he said that means he's smart. >> maybe he doesn't want the american people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody has ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax. so -- >> that makes me smart. >> donald trump was not telling the truth tonight when he said that the people who pay their taxes are the smartest people, but the people much smarter than donald trump now are closing in on his taxes. house ways and means committee chairman richard neal has issued a legal demand for donald trump's taxes which the ways and
means committee is legally empowered to do by law. he will either get those tax returns at the end of a long court battle or the end of a long afternoon when president trump is sworn in in 2020, just about a year and a half from now. the new york legislature is trying to help congress bypa by passing a bill today that mirrors the law. it says, he will pay his taxes by the chairman of the joint tax committee. that is the exact mirror of the federal law that chairman neal has been using to get his tax returns. so new york state tax returns
mirror federal tax returns. they contain much of the same information, so chairman neal may now be just weeks away from obtaining donald trump's new york state tax returns, which will be almost as revealing as his federal tax returns. in the meantime, the "new york times" has taken a giant step closer to donald trump's tax returns with their blockbuster reporting last night on 10 years of irs transcripts of donald trump's tax information showing that donald trump lost over a billion dollars in those 10 years and did not pay taxes in eight of those years. the "times" article quotes the former director of research, analysis and statistics of the irs on the accuracy of irs transcripts, he will join us in just a moment. house speaker nancy pelosi commented on the "new york times" story today. >> that does tell us, though, that it would be useful to see his tax returns as the law says.
the administration shall give -- shall. it doesn't say must, should, could, it says shall give those tax returns to the ways and means committee. again, all of this is so law and precedent based to do the right thing as we go forward, and there's several options. one of them is to go directly to court. >> joining us now is congressman lloyd doggett, a senior member of the house ways and means committee. he's a democrat tr tecfrom texa. also joining us is mark major. he's a former assistant of the treasury for tax policy. he's currently with the tax policy center. and congressman doggett, i want to start with you. it looks like the new york state legislature may be giving you some help as well as the help you got last night from the "new
york times." >> well, of course, the report in the "new york times" shows what a loser this president is, that he demonstrated in business about the same negotiating skill he's shown recently with the north koreans, and it points up why we really need these returns, because there's so many lies that are here and so many questions about how americans can have confidence in the tax system if the president is not doing his part and has not done his part. as far as the new york action, i think it's important. i'm pleased they're proceeding, but there is other information, the working papers, the auditing, the questions about whether he was even under audit that we need to get directly with chairman neal's important request under article 6103 or section 6103. >> mark, actually, i want to call you mr. secretary because the last time we talked, it was in your office at the treasury years ago when you were the assistant secretary for tax policy. so many issues to deal with.
first of all, i learned from you in the "new york times" reporting that your quotes about what irs transcripts are. i actually didn't know about these documents that the irs has. what are -- who gets those documents? the "new york times" could have obtained those documents from sources other than just the irs, correct? >> yep. those documents are available at the taxpayer's. they can request the summary from the irs. some people may keep the tax returns and request a transcript. sometimes lenders will request a transcript. if you get a mortgage, the mortgage company wants to see what your earnings are. they may ask you to get a transcript and give it to them. >> it can show many years of tax returns rather than just a single stack of paper. >> you can get a bunch of them and put them all together. >> the accuracy of those transcripts? >> when you think about the time period in question here, it's
the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. most places filed by paper in those days. they would transcribe those returns and put them in readable form. they were typically keypunched twice, either by the same person or two different people keypunching it. it was all the data on tax base so it was used for every person. >> congressman doggett, the deadline has come for chairman neal to decide which way to proceed. he has indicated he will decide soon, within the next day or two. is it most likely going to be, chairman neal, simply suing the treasury secretary for basically violating the law that requires the handing over of the trump tax returns? >> well, it's his decision, but i believe that is the most expeditious path. it's a path that you outlined on your program by professor george
yin, an expert in that area, just as mark is on his, someone we would all turn to for advice on this. that would allow us to move directly, expeditiously without a subpoena. at a later time it may be, and it's not inconsistent, to go ahead and subpoena them also, and of course just as adam schiff told you about the work of his committee, there is the matter of inherent contempt power with congress. if we just have them running out the clock, i think we need to invoke that inherent contempt of power and use it with regard to this issue. >> and, mark, you have so much experience in the joint tax committee and as the assistant secretary for tax policy at the irs. when you look at what the "new york times" was reporting from those transcripts over those ten years, including this very sudden and mysterious mountain of interest income of $52 million that just kind of -- in tax information terms comes from out of nowhere and disappears.
so there is some mountainous asset that's throwing off $50 million in interest that wasn't there before, wasn't there later -- what do you see when you read all that information? >> you look at this and basically you expect real estate investors to occasionally have losses. >> especially on depreciation losses. >> yes. you sell a property, you get a loss, you hope to gaa gain. when debt is forgiven, there is supposed to be income taken into account then. that doesn't show up anywhere in this decade. >> that's a really important point. if i owe a million dollars and at some point i simply default on the paying of the million dollars, and the creditor, the bank, whoever that is, says you know what, forget it. that's actually a million dollars of income to me. >> and if you had a student
loan, same thing. >> he seems to be having debts forgiven and none of that is being declared as income. >> i think the story here is there is a lot more questions than we have answers to. you pointed to the interest income which is a question. not obvious where it comes from or where it went. but also having all these losses and debt to income is also a mystery. >> you know i could ask questions for another couple hours. thank you both for joining us. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. sto when we come back, more evidence today that house democrats could be moving closer to impeachment whether they want to or not. impeachment whether t to or not. let's see, aleve is proven better on pain
than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. i swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away.
taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. i do. check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com.
nancy pelosi has been trying to manage the politics of impeachment for over a year. during last year's congressional campaign, she didn't want democratic candidates talking about impeachment but reporters kept asking questions about impeachment which left speaker pelosi saying things like, he's just not worth it, when asked about impeaching president trump. but as speaker pelosi said today, donald trump has kept adding fuel to the impeachment fire. >> and i have said the president is goading into -- wants to goad us into impeachment because he knows, as do i, that's not a good thing for the country. maybe he know thas that, but he knows that i think that, let's put it that way. the point is that every single day, whether it's obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction of having people
come to the table with facts, ignoring subpoenas, every single day the president is making a case -- he's becoming self-impeachable in terms of some of the things he's doing. >> speaker pelosi has not been trying to control the rhetoric or the positions of the democratic presidential candidates, and many of them are now speaking very clearly and forcefully about impeachment, especially senator elizabeth warren who became the first senator to support the impeachment of president trump in a speech on the senate floor. actually recorded in the congressional record. that was yesterday. when we come back from this break, arnold jamison and hillary clinton's communications director will be here to discuss the role of impeachment politics in the democratic presidential campaign. democratic presidentil campaign i can't believe it.
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 essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief.
ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". [kno♪king] ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. thanks for coming.eel. no problem. -you're welcome. this is the durabed of the all new chevy silverado. it looks real sturdy. -the bed is huge. it has available led cargo area lighting.
lights up the entire bed. it even offers a built in 120 volt outlet. wow. plug that in for me. whoa! -holy smokes! -oh wow! and the all new silverado has more trim levels than any other pickup. whoa! oh wow! -very cool. there's something for all of us. absolutely. it's time to upgrade. (laughter) there is no political inconvenience exception to the united states constitution. if any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail. >> our discussion turns to politics now as we're joined by jennifer palmeri, a former white house communications director for president obama and former communications director for hillary clinton's campaign. also with us, al jepson.
he's now the reader of public affairs. jennifer, it's been fascinating for me to watch the caution that democrats have used with the word impeach in the last year, and there seems to be less and less caution and more and more passion. >> certainly with the 2020 class. we've talked about this before. i think that the congress -- this is a very serious moment and the congress has to follow constitutional responsibilities. i agree with senator warren. there is not a politically inconvenient excuse clause to get you out of that. i do think -- i do still wonder about speaker pelosi. i'm not sure that she's -- i think she's playing chess. i don't think she's playing checkers. we've discussed this before. i think that the presidential candidates being to the left of her, as it were, on impeachment is fine for her purposes. she can continue to say, you know, give him more and more
rope than say, he's self-impeaching himself. he wants this, he wants this fight, and if the fight does get joined, she's done what she could to show that. it's in playing politics and not the house. >> this is so good because you teach me how to watch her. i'm now rewatching her in my head, what she said today. i looked at that today and said, wait, nancy pelosi has not wanted impeachment, she hasn't wanted people talking about impeachment. and here she is going kind of on and on about it for her, ending with that phrase self-impeachment, and i don't know what it means, but you're making me understand what she means. she means donald trump is making this inevitable, and she's trying to sound like the reasonable one, which she does sound like. >> right, and he thinks it's in his political interest to do that so if the democrats do end up doing this, she's laid down a predicate to the degree with which she can that this is not in the democrats' interest.
they're the ones upholding the constitution. >> i would be so much better at this if i just called you up every night at 7:00. there are smart politics of impeachment and there are a lot of fears that it could be bad for the democrats politically. is there a way of sorting that out? i haven't been able to figure out what is the smart politics of this. >> i think it's hard to tell. i think at some point you just have to do the right thing with the power that you have. we've had two recent impeachm t impeachments of presidents in recent decades. one worked out well politically for the party that impeached and one didn't, and you might draw from that that the public thinks impeachment is a good thing when they think the president deserves it and don't when they think the president doesn't. in this case, the crimes at stake are so major that i think there is a good bet the public will think that he does deserve it. but you also just have to start putting one foot in front of the other and using the power that you have to do the right thing. >> this is all saying when in
doubt, go with the principal of offend, and this could be one of those. the dynamic we've never seen here before in our lifetimes is this impeachment talk about a first term president. nixon was in his second term, bill clinton was in his second term. there was no election that it was bumping up against. this president can be gotten rid of within almost the same time frame of impeachment if you just wait it out till the election. >> i do think about that a lot, but i think that this is a time where our democratic institutions are being tested, and they all really need to -- and the president breaks norms every day, and so i think it's incumbent on congress to be particularly vigilant in upholding its role. it looks to me as if what's in the mueller report is very serious, and they should pursue with their hearings, and if they find that leads them to impeachment proceedings, they should undertake that without regard to politics, because what happens the next time, right,
when the president is literally considered above the law and democracies die when you have somebody who is an authoritarian position, comes to power, who breaks norms and the other party in an effort to defeat that person does the same thing. >> and, adam, what about the senate? we watch a lot this battle for control of the house which nancy pelosi successfully won. control of the senate is a very different game in this next election. >> that's right, but i think -- and people -- one of the reasons people sort of fast-guard forwa the politics of impeachment, even if the senate doesn't vote to impeach him, he probably won't be removed. but people are up for reelection in 2020, people like cory booker, people like senator collins. so if they're planning on a feeling carrying them to 2020,
the senate forcing them to make a tough vote is a good way to bring anti-trump energy to the vote as well. >> you may end up with a majority vote against the president. you need two-thirds for him to be removed, but you could end up with nothing. >> the republicans held on with nixon for a time until he resigned in august. people shouldn't game it out, they should proceed. people think that's what's warranted and let the senate do their trial and we might be surprised with what happens. >> i'd like to squeeze in a break here. i'll be calling tomorrow night to find out what you think. when we come back, every republican serving in congress now in the house or the senate who actually was there when they voted to impeach bill clinton is now using a different set of
your job in this constitution republic. if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, thank god you did that. because impeachment is not about punishme punishment. impeachment is about cleansing the office. impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. >> that was lindsey graham serving as one of the prosecutors in the senate impeachment trial of president bill clinton. lindsey graham no longer believes anything he said about the principles involved in that impeachment but some of the people on that side of remaine.
paul rosenwig is one of the one of 800 prosecutors that signed a letter saying they believe the mueller report reveals prosecutable case of obstruction of justice against president trump. paul rosenwig will join us next. . hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, 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 ♪
is that for me? mhm aaaah! nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. [son loudly clears throat] [mom and dad laugh] bounty, the quicker picker upper. now with new prints featuring characters from disney/pixar's toy story 4 in theaters june 21.
it's the idea that if our mothers were diagnosed with cancer, how would we want them to be treated? that's exactly how we care for you. with answers and actions. to hear your concerns, quiet your fears, lift your spirits. that's the mother standard of care. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. ifor another 150 years. centethe fire going ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature.
♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪ our nation is indeed at a cross roads. will we pursue
the search of truth or dodge, weave and evade the truth? i'm referring to the serious allegations of illegal conduct by the president of the united states. that the president has engaged in a persistent pattern of obstruction of justice. >> joining us is paul rosenzweig, the former counsel on the special prosecutor kenneth star's team that prosecuted bill clinton and said there is ample reason to begin an impeachment inquiry against president trump. he's currently a senior fellow
at the institute. paul, what is it like when you see people like mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham and the video when you're on the same side, you've viewed the impeachment of a president the same way and the investigation of a president the same way, and to see them today with no -- nothing but defensive comments or more likely nothing to say about what president trump has done? >> cognitive disdance. it's very difficult for me to understand how you could have held that view 20 years ago and yet, today be unwilling to follow the logic of your past history. it just -- it's disappointing, you know, in many ways. i thought politics was more about principle than apparently it is. >> in the piece you wrote, i reviewed that your review of
what the obstruction evidence was against bill clinton and it was -- some of it was just a conversation he had with one of the staff members right outside of his office door where he would say to her, well, i didn't do anything with monica lewinsky, right? he claimed that he was just refreshing his memory with her, he wasn't trying to tell her what to say. the donald trump obstruction evidence is much clearer and solid than that, isn't it? >> in my judgment, yes. if you accept what don mcgahn the white house counsel has reported to have said, he was actually directed first to fire mueller. it's possibly an obstructive act but certainly obstructive when he was asked to create a false record of the earlier conversation and falsely deny that it had happened. that the a classic instance of tampering with a witness's memory and it was much blunter if you will, much more direct
than the somewhat subtle efforts of president clinton. >> i wasn't any longer working with the impeachment and i remember when they started the process and knew oh, boy, this impeachment case is coming to the senate, we'll be jurors. a bunch of them expected to some day come across the passage that would explain to them what high crime and misdemeanor was. i can remember senator scholarly way trying to find that one day just saying to me, it turns out it's whatever we say it is, meaning there is no judicial review about it. it up to them. what his position is, they weren't contesting the evidence at all. they didn't contest any of the evidence you presented. they said we hear you, we hear your case, we don't believe this rises to the level that deserves remov
removal. so that's not what we get from republicans. lindsey graham is saying there is nothing here. >> that's right. it would be more sensible and perhaps consistent to say i hear you, the evidence is fair, but it doesn't rise to a level of impeachment. we shouldn't put the country through that. there is an election coming up as the last set of guests said that will decide the issue so let's leave it to them. those are all plausible arguments but to deny as attorney general barr did the actual import of the facts and to say this does not constitute obstruction when on a weaker set of facts 20 years ago people said oh, that's definitely obstruction of justice is to blink reality. >> so there is no question in your mind the obstruction case against bill clinton was, which you prosecuted was weaker than the obstruction case against donald trump. >> i thought both were strong but if you're kind of measuring
it, the pervasiveness of the president's activities today and as we said, the bluntness with which he proceeded, the directive nature of it makes this in my judgment certainly an easier case to prove, i'll put it that way. >> paul rosenzweig, thank you for joining us. he gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts right now. tonight, the president asserts executive privilege. house judiciary votes to hold the attorney general in contempt and chairman jerry nadler warns ominously we are now in a constitutional crisis. plus, senate intel led by a republican subpoenas that donald trump junior over testimony he gave back in 2017 but will he show up? and all the president tries to stay on script in florida tonight at a campaign rally. "the 11th hour" on a wednesday night starts