tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC July 6, 2019 8:00pm-9:00pm PDT
thank you very much for joining us tonight. i am not among those who are surprised that you are here now. it makes perfect sense to me. >> thank you so much. >> the honorable lucy mcbath gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. on our post july 4th broadcast, the findings and warnings contained within the mueller report including what's been largely ignored. we'll look back at the advanced spin from the attorney general and the words of the special counsel himself, robert mueller iii, and had an all this means for donald trump and his presidency. the threat russia still poses to our democracy and our next presidential election, and the independence of the american system of justice. all of it as this special edition of "the 11th hour" begins now. greetings once again from our nbc news headquarters here
in new york. as we approach day 900 of this trump administration, we are taking a closer look at the mueller report and what we've learned so far. in just a little bit we'll break down what the report tells us and warns us about russian interference in our elections. the origins of the russia investigation. and what exactly robert mueller has to say on the topic of obstruction of justice. but first, we learned back on march 22nd that robert mueller had wrapped up his investigation. you may recall that sunday, attorney general bill barr released his own summary that said mueller did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it had conspired or coordinated with russia to interfere in our 2016 election. he also said mueller did not draw a conclusion about whether trump obstructed justice, and that the report also did not exonerate the president of obstruction. that same afternoon, trump
claimed complete and total exoneration. >> there was no collusion with russia. there was no obstruction and none whatsoever and it was a complete and total exoneration. it's a shame that our country had to go through this. to be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this. >> this next part will become crucial in our history. for the next 26 days, robert mueller said nothing while barr's version and the president's version just hung out there in public because we hadn't yet seen the mueller report. barr's summary version was the only version we had to go on. so fast forward to april 18th, the day a redacted version of the mueller report was released. and on that day, the attorney general did it again. he again gave his boss, the
president, the air cover he wanted and needed when he pre-spun the mueller report right before it came out. >> after carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and i concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. although the deputy attorney general and i disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. >> that same morning, a short time later, the redacted version of the report was released to the public. volume 1 of the report laid out in striking detail russian interference in our 2016
election. volume 2 spelled out a dozen incidents of obstruction by the president. robert mueller appeared in the auditorium in the justice department. he repeatedly stressed the need to address russian election interference during his remarks. >> the indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. they needed to be investigated and understood. and i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple system atic efforts to interfere in our election. and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. >> indeed it does. the special counsel also talked about his decisionmaking process where obstruction of justice was concerned. >> if we had had confidence that
the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. the introduction to the volume 2 of our report explains that decision. it explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. and beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. it would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. so that was justice department
policy. those were the principles under which we operated. and from them we concluded that we would -- would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. >> following mueller's remarks, peter baker of "the new york times" summed things up this way. quote, in his dry, lawyerly, scripted statement, mr. mueller gave voice for the first time to the damning details he uncovered about russia's efforts to disrupt american democracy and mr. trump's efforts to impede the investigation. he chose in the end to speak out just this once if he has his way, to plead for a deliberate assessment of the facts from a deeply divided political system that shows no willingness to look at his findings through his dispassionate eyes. he did not accuse the president of a crime. but mr. mueller seemed to hint that he might have if he thought he could, and he pointedly
refused to exonerate mr. trump. likewise he implied that congress could pursue impeachment without directly recommending it. late last month we learned member of the house intelligence committee and judiciary committee will have a chance to question robert mueller directly, in public, on july 17th. the chairman of the two panels said the agreement campaign after they issued a subpoena compelling the former special counsel's testimony. on that note, let's bring in our guests for our lead-off discussion. julia ainsley, nbc news national justice and national security reporter. frank figliuzzi, former fbi director for counterterrorism who worked for robert mueller during his career in law enforcement. we welcome you both. frank, i would like to start with you. has time given you any more, any further perspective on what our friends, the historians, will take on, the degree to which this attorney general gave the
man who hired him, the president, the air cover he needed during those first crucial days before we had seen the report? >> brian, as the calendar collection by it becomes more and more apparent that this attorney general is essentially aiding and abetting concealment of what the special counsel actually found. and he is in conspiracy with this white house to disguise the findings of the special counsel. we have a special counsel who played by the rules because that's what we expect special counsels to do. and we have an attorney general who pulled those rules like a rug out from under bob mueller. it felt like a sucker punch to the american people. but now we're a nation wrestling with that question, what to do with substantial evidence of wrongdoing against this president and what to do with an attorney general who has no interest in pursuing what special counsel mueller found. >> frank, is it fair to assign at least a little blame in the
way the report was written and made public, the kind of tonnage and density of another era, of the trade of law that we're not all in, released as it is in the age we're living in in 2019? >> yeah, i think hindsight is 20/20, and having worked for bob mueller, i can tell you he's a man that adheres to strong principles but also to precedent and protocol. so the way he wrote this report, the way he shaped it and whatever draft he received on his desk from his team, the final product was mueller. and it had mueller's imprint all over it in the sense that it was lawyerly, it was gentlemanly, and it was civil to the point of almost being from another era. and the question we have to wrestle with is, did that serve us well, in a nation that finds its news on twitter, that finds it in a clip on a digital live
streaming event, and catches a bit of the news after work on the evening news, is that 400-page report serving us well? and it turns out, brian, it's not doing a very good job for us. >> julia, it seems like just yesterday you were running out of the department of justice, going live from the sidewalk. i think the metrobus stop outside doj. reading as you were handing them the raw material of the mueller report. as you look back on that day, on the document, as we learn the members of congress who haven't read it, the millions of american citizens who haven't read it, what do you think has been missed and what do you think has been diminished? >> that's a great question, brian. i will always remember that day, i ran straight out to the cameras and your questions. it was dense. we went through it as quickly as we could. there's no way you could read
400 pages before you can digest it for the american public. but i actually think some of the gut reaction from that day, from msnbc, in nbc, from across my colleague, still remain the fact and still actually ring true, what we were looking for that day, i remember the first volume i picked up was volume 2 because it was obstruction, because that had been called into question, because we were so confused after the march statement from the attorney general about this decision on obstruction. so we read through it. it's incredibly dense. but one thing reads true, and that is that this special counsel and his office did not view the question of whether or not you can charmingge a sittin president the same as the attorney general. because they saw you could not charge a sitting president, they leaned on that in the decision not to charge with obstruction. they never even opened the door toward charging or not charging because you couldn't even do that, because this opinion was sitting in front of them. that is different from what the
attorney general said when he said that he asked robert mueller point blank would you charge the president but for this opinion, and he said no. so i think that day we very quickly had a dichotomy between what the special counsel's office was saying and what robert mueller was saying. and since then, brian, i think there have been a series of different developments that have pointed to that discrepancy, as much as the justice department says there's no daylight. one of the biggest vets develop is when people from the special counsel's office started going to the justice department before the mueller report was released and they said, you aren't characterizing this correctly, that's not what we said. i think that has stood. of course congress wants robert mueller to answer more questions. but i think now we can understand that he did not want to charge a man who could not defend himself because he would not go to court. and then i think what robert mueller brought home that day, what we all still need to focus
on, because it hasn't gone away, is the overt actions of a foreign government to interfere in our election. i think he really called us to arms that day to ask our federal government whether or not they're doing enough to protect us now. >> frank figliuzzi, if we can agree for the purposes of this conversation, something you touched on, that robert mueller is an as taciturn individual o another era, is demanding his testimony on the part of house democrats potentially a case of, be careful what you wish for? >> yeah, i think we've got a solid glimpse of mueller publicly, and i can tell from you having worked with him that what you saw is what you're going to get. you're going to get a man who sticks to the four corners of his report, who tells you it's in there, and answers basically with one-word responses to questions. >> julia, in your answer, you indicated something i have reflected on so many times since
that day, that some of our contemporaneous analysis and comments about the report you were reading to us live, i think we last heard on that day. they kind of went away in the morass of information. and i don't want to drag you into the area of opinion, but can it be said clinically that congress is still perhaps finding its sea legs, in some quarters realizing the power it has and trying to decide if it's worth exerting that power? >> there were a number of allegations, particularly on the issues of object strustructiono robert mueller clearly laid out. he had a lot of cooperation from the president's former white house counsel don mcgahn on efforts the president made to try to fire robert mueller and then to cover up his efforts to fire robert mueller. and there are a number of trump
campaign associates who were involved, who met with russians, even if they didn't take anything of value, but especially on the obstruction case. robert mueller laid out so much evidence, almost as a roadmap, and then he clearly said that that was an avenue best suited not for the criminal justice system, hint, hint, congress, when he made that one public appearance. so i think that the special counsel's office really left that open to congress. and at this point, i think it's a matter of whether congress decides they've had enough to start down that road, because if it doesn't end in impeachment, they could of course be accused of beating a dead horse, going over something that robert mueller didn't find, if they aren't able to actually explain the narrative that no, they actually have tools that robert mueller did not have. >> two of our consensus, most valuable players around here, julia ainsley and frank figliuzzi, our thanks to both of you for joining us on this broadcast. when we continue, the president continues to insist he
never trying to get rid of robert mueller. coming up, the specifics of that effort uncovered in the special counsel's report for all to see. and later we'll hear from two people who know about the continued threat the russians pose as we grow closer each day to our 2020 presidential election. this special edition of "the 11th hour" back after this. we d? using my old spice moisturize with shea butter body wash... all i wanted was to use your body wash and all i wanted was to have a body wash. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands?
the special counsel. in the report, mcgahn testified the president called him twice mid-june of 2017. mcgahn said both times trump directed him to call rod rosenstein and tell him mueller was conflicted and could not serve as special counsel. and here now is how the report explains it. and we quote. when the president called mcgahn a second time to follow up on the order to call the department of justice, mcgahn recalled that the president was more direct, saying something like call rod, tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. mcgahn recalled the president telling him, mueller has to go, and call me back when you do it. mcgahn understood the president to be saying that the special counsel had to be removed by rosenstein. mcgahn of course never followed through on that. and in fact the report says he wanted to resign but ended up staying on the job. well, fast forward, january 25th
of 2018, that's the day "the nonew york times" reported that trump had ordered mcgahn to fire mueller. quote, mcgahn recalled the president said, everyone said to fire mueller, i never said fire. this story doesn't look good. you need to correct this. you're the white house counsel. in response, mcgahn acknowledged that he had not told the president directly that he planned to resign, but that the story was otherwise accurate. the president asked mcgahn, did i say the word fire? mcgahn responded, what you said is, call rod rosenstein, tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. the president responded, i never said that. the president said he merely wanted mcgahn to raise the conflicts issue with rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. mcgahn told the president he did not understand the conversation
that way and instead had heard, call rod, there are conflicts, mueller has to go. the president asked mcgahn whether he would do a correction and mcgahn said no. mcgahn thought the president was testing his mettle to see how committed mcgahn was to what happened. we should further point out a critical single sentence in this mueller report. it says the following. it says, mcgahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the white house. coming up, as we continue, the mueller report offers new insight into one of the more memorable and unique figures from the russia investigation. more on what we've now learned about george pap acap owe will you say, when this special edition of "the 11th hour" continues. "the 11th hour" continues. ♪ limu emu & doug
welcome back. reporting from "the new york times" reveals back in september 2016, the fbi sent an investigator posing as a research assistant to meet with george papadopoulos in the uk. they wrote, quote, 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 flashpoint. the decision to use ms. turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm in 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 trump and his allies for their spying claims. you may recall in april, 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 spying did occur, yes. i think spying did occur. the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated. and i'm not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. but i need to explore that. >> later at a senate hearing on may 1st barr once again defended his use of that term, "spying." here with us to talk about it, the aforementioned michael schmidt from "the new york times" and clint watts who is these days a distinguished research fellow at the foreign policy research institute, happens to be author of "messing with the enemy: surviving that social media world of hackers, terrorists, russians, and fake news." we should add research assistance to the end of that list. walk us through how this story played out, michael. does it begin with "three people walked into a bar"? >> i mean, what this story shows is just the extent that the fbi went to in order to try and
learn 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 and gives us some oversight. this means our informants aren't just out there freelancing, there are folks that 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? >> yes, this would be exactly what i would expect in the counterintelligence investigation. if you think about it from the bureau's perspective, they watched widespread hacking go on for pretty much a year at this point. they think it's russia but they're not sure. they have a tip from the australian government that they're emailing with people inside the campaign. they had interviewed carter page before, 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. the other point that's critical 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 counterintel investigation. this is an investigation into hacking. someone has said russia has emails so they're 'vette 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 followup, you're not relaying through your informant. you actually have someone there that knows the case. >> why then would george papdz s papadopoulos say on twitter, i agree with everything in this superb letter except azara was not fbi. she was cia and affiliated with turkish intel. she could hardly speak english and was tasked to meet me about my work. 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 mr. papadopoulos. let's see what plays out in
terms of who actually is the source that comes in there. i think the important point is there was a person put in there because 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 glassner about his interest in joining the trump campaign. on march 2 of 2016, papadopoulos sent glassner another message reiterating his interest. glassner passed on word of papadopoulos's interest to another campaign official who notified papadopoulos by email that she had been told by glassner to introduce papadopoulos to sam clovis of iowa, the trump campaign's national co-chair and chief
policy adviser. now here is 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 common as other campaigns would function. but i think what you're talking about gets at the question in the mueller report about the trump campaign. was the trump comparison disorganized, it allowed people like george papadopoulos who had had sort of weird connections to different foreigners, particularly these russians, people talking about russian emails, into the inner circle of the campaign? 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. >> 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 from 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 coincidence, were the russians trying to throw bait, did anybody go for it. you would have to run it to ground. i don't know how you wouldn't run it to ground. the fbi would be deeply irresponsible if they did not close that out. >> michael schmidt and clint watts, thank you. coming up, there are exactly 488 days between the fourth of july and election day 2020. as we continue, why national security experts are still so concerned about what russia could accomplish in that time period to interfere with our democracy. we're back with that after this. .
going to the shawn mendes verizon up concert was like an out of body experience. we were right in front of him. dead center. front row. 'cause actually, zarmina, you touched shawn mendes. yeah, i touched him! she touched shawn mendes! he like held my hand for a while. and then we got to meet him after, which was like... another surprise. yeah. we love verizon even more now. i'll never forget that day. ever. (vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like thousands of tickets to concerts, festivals and private shows. and big savings on our best phones when you switch. that's verizon.
if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage.
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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. and that allegation deserves the attention of every american.
>> as we indicated earlier, for some folks robert mueller's closing message there has not gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves. our nbc news political team highlighted some of the consequences of russian interference, writing, quote, it produced hillary versus bernie chaos entering the democratic convention in philadelphia. it helped launch scores of stories looking into clinton communications and it aided donald trump's closing message, mentioning the word "wikileaks" some 140 times. the lack of urgency and attention to that interference remains in many ways the real scandal. well, before departing the white house, the morning after mueller spoke, the president was asked what's being done to stop future election interference. he said, of course, that obama
did nothing to combat interference in 2016, and he added this. >> we are doing a lot and we're trying to do paper bolallots as backup system as much as possible because going to good old fashioned paper in this modern age is the best way to do it. >> so there you have it. and here with us to talk about it tonight, michael mcfaul, former u.s. ambassador to russia. his recent book is entitled "from cold war to hot peace: an american ambassador in putin's russia." and malcolm nance, 35 years working in the security field. he's also the author of "the plot to destroy democracy: how putin and his specialiies are dismantling the west." mr. ambassador, you heard robert mueller yesterday. what ran through your mind as you did? >> just the way you set it up,
brian. the parts of what's legal or not, you've talked about. he began and ended with the fact that russia attacked us in 2016. they violated our sovereignty in a multiple prong attack designed to influence the course of that presidential election. so far, despite what the president just said now, we've done next to nothing to prevent that in 2020. and i think moving forward, we have to continue to remind your viewers and the american people to put pressure on the trump administration and the u.s. congress to enact the legislation that would protect that vote. >> and malcolm, when most people hear that, i think they throw up their hands, they don't know what to do, though they're justifiably scared about the intrusion into our lives and the tinkering with our election process. what is the danger, to you, and add to that, is it that the president doesn't only share the
urgency, he doesn't share the problem? >> well, he certainly doesn't share the problem, because he fundamentally does not believe that anything happened in 2016, because he has tied russian interference to his own legitimacy. and that's valid for him, because there are some questions which do crop up. robert mueller made it eminently clear that this attack on the united states, which we saw three years ago, is most likely going to happen again. so that being said, the forces in the united states who could do something about it, department of homeland security, national security agency, state and local law enforcement organizations, with some cyber capability, they're left on their own, because there is no force of leadership from the president. >> mr. ambassador, we have been led to believe through reporting, especially a piece in
"the new york times," that the last secretary of homeland security, secretary nielsen, was waved away, was told not to mention russian interference to the president of the united states. you know more about the potential than the rest of us. but we've certainly been led to believe that on top of social media, on top of our elections, they also have a thorough reach into things like our power grids and wheels of our american life that they can turn and control almost by whim. >> they have tremendous cyber capabilities, that's right. and you just widened the aperture of other things we need to be worried about in addition to our campaigns and our elections. but i think we have to stop waiting for the administration to do it. in fact, brian, there's four things, very concrete acts that the u.s. congress could pass. the deter act, which ties new sanctions if there's
interference. the payback, which provides for those paper ballots the president just talked about. the fire act, introduced a couple of weeks ago, not just allows but makes all campaigns have to report on foreign activity that they have. and then the honest ads act. there are four acts. fire, pay, deter, honest ads act. they're all drafted. those acts need to be passed now before the 2020 election. >> malcolm, give us a consumer's guide. at the end of this broadcast, you and i go home, we're just a guy with a phone, scrolling through whatever we scroll through, social media, whatever our favorites are. tell us how folks with their phone at home at night are affected by the russian reach into -- just take social media. is it visible to us? is it invisible to us? what would we notice, what would we not know we're being hit with
russian interference? >> it's extremely visible, and the mueller report itself made clear that russia's reach into the mindset, really, of the united states public, they reached 129 million voters through their disinformation warfare campaign which was then amplified by the platform that it was on, which is facebook, twitter, instagram, and others. so you don't initially know whether you're reading something that's true or false. for example, hillary clinton stumbles and has a brain disorder. that was a piece of propaganda fashioned by an american citizen but then was amplified through this enormous cyber megaphone that the russians had put in place, team trump had put in place, and it became a real story. the biggest problem is to a certain extent us. the news media. we are the medium in which false
stories grow. and so once the media starts learning to police itself and not jump after every rabbit that pops up out of a hole and chases it, and we clear that with, you know, third party organizations or through our own research and we realize when we are being taken for a ride with real information, that may just have a false basis and may be just a vehicle for the news media to be a megaphone for more distraction. >> and mike mcfaul, if you're watching on a flatscreen tv in the basement of the kremlin, are you interested when donald trump comes out on the south lawn prior to boarding marine one and goes after the chief prosecutor in this case, the special counsel, robert mueller? >> you're loving it. this is what they wanted. they wanted to sow division in america. they wanted this polarization, this weakness that we see now
abro abroad. and, you know, they think that this has been a very good thing in terms of us fighting against each other. that means we're not talking about the russian threat. that's exactly what they had anticipated and that's what they have received so far. we've got to start pushing back on that. >> gentlemen, we knew by inviting you on, this would be the sobering segment of the evening. thank you both for coming on our broadcast tonight. coming up for us, it's been the president's mantra ever since the release of the mueller report. the only problem with it is, it's not true. with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks.
(v...especially when your easily distracted teenager has the car. the worst... at subaru, we're taking on distracted driving [ping] with sensors that alert you when your eyes are off the road. the all-new subaru forester. the safest forester ever. we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome.
there was no obstruction and none whatsoever. and it was a complete and total exoneration. >> that was our president. that's what led mueller to write about the public confusion that was being let loose. effective that moment. as we've been reporting, the report did not declare total exoneration. you submit to tyranny when you renounce the difference between what you want to hear and what is actually the case. we welcome back to the broadcast timothy snyder. professor snyder was educated in the ivy league and at oxford specializing on europe and the holocaust. he happens to be the author of two books. on tyranny, 20 lessons from the 20th century. the second, the road to unfreedom.
russia, europe, america." professor from the distance of austria, you've been listening to our broadcast tonight, just the news we're covering tonight. how do you believe it fits into the thesis? >> well, it's unfortunately it fits extremely well. the foundation of russian foreign policy towards us and towards everyone is to try to get rid of factuality as such to turn everyone into people who have opinions to turn politics into a matter of spectacle. we are now in the middle of that. we have a president and an attorney general who are lying they carried out a comprehensive campaign as showed elsewhere to get mr. trump elected. that's the underlying factual reality. what we are seeing is an attempt to turn underlying facts, not
just into spin but into fiction. this isn't just a problem because the facts are so important. it is a problem because facts themselves are the basis for a rule of law state. so your coverage tonight about a crisis in the department of justice is about a crisis in the rule of law. about the kind of country that the united states will be. >> i first saw you in an interview with bill mahr that stopped me in my tracks. and that very night you talked about, as one of your points, the importance of listening for dangerous words. with that in mind, listen to this from our president. we'll discuss on the other side. >> they tried for a coup. >> that started long before mueller. this was a coup. an attempted overthrow of the united states government. this was a coup. this wasn't stealing information from an office in the watergate
apartments. this was an attempted coup. >> professor, no one needs remind that you that word, while powerful, is also a term of art in geo politics. how does that fit in your list of rules? >> by using the word coup, by suggesting the other side has already carried out a coup or tried to carry out a coup, what he is doing is saying, i would be within my rights if i also did something extraordinary he's trying to move it into where a coup would be unthinkable. and he's already blamed the other sight. in fact what has happened is that he himself, as the mueller report says, has been the beneficiary of a very strange intervention in american politics by a foreign power. >> normalization comes through repetition. does it not?
is that what we're seeing with no obstruction, no collusion, total vindication? >> it's everything we know from george or well and all the commentators of totality tareanism. you repeat something simple and you know is wrong over and over again. as if he had a machete, you could clear out the underbrush of the facts. it indicates there was a campaign in 2016 to elect mr. trump. it came from russia. that mr. trump and his campaign knew about it. that they supported it. that they expected to it help him. throws the facts. it should make us highly uncomfortable. >> the need to speak to you was urgent and we appreciate that
you are with us at 5:54 in the morning in vienna, austria. come back any time. a pleasure to have you as always. as always, his latest book is the road to unfreedom. our thanks. coming up, our special independence day edition of the 11th hour continues after this. 11th hour continues after this liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
>> and that does it for our special edition of the 11th hour. one more reminder to our loyal viewers and customers. you can watch our broadcast any time by downloading the msnbc app on your phone if you're on the move. you can listen live each night on sirius xm satellite. we are channel 118. we're also available as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. we hope there's never any reason
to miss a single episode of the 11th hour. so that is our holiday weekend edition of the broadcast. thank you so much for being here with us. and we'll see you again on monday night from nbc news headquarters in new york. >> good evening. welcome to a special edition of "the beat" on this july 4th holiday weekend. tonight, the 2020 race heating up. candidates making all kinds of cases to voters around the nation. we have interviews with top contenders about the issues. on tonight's show, a special report on donald trump's obstruction, the evidence democrats say will be key as bob mueller prepares to speak publicly about it for the very first time in this upcoming