tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC November 22, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
this one is hand-dyed with tea and coffee before she did the cross-stitch by hand. she wanted a more vintage look. thank you, tammy. but wait, there's more. look at this one. this one is from barbara in -- can i get the reflection off? there we go. barbara in garden city, new york. can't fight corruption without pussing off corrupt people true that, barbara, true that. we will cherish them forever and forever. we're planning to build a small museum for them in our office. if anyone else was inspired to make them in real life, if there's a basket of thread calling youra name on somethin like this, i hereby suggest you share the cross stitch you live with someone special in your life.st
we love the ones that we have. if you are making these, you have to gift them around and spread them around the country. give them to somebody that you like. perhaps give them to somebody you disagree with. could be a conversation starter. see you again on monday now it's time for "the last word." >> it would be appreciated if you-more of these and you showed them to us. a if you are building a museum, people have to share you more of them. do you know what it's going to bewh call snd >>to it rachel maddow show cros stitch museum of imepeachment art from 2018 maybe? we will put your name on the cornerstone, my friend. >> have an excellent weekend. ahead tonight john bolton is back and he's causing headaches. it-the former national security advisor is emerging after a hiatus and already fighting with the white house. could his next public appearance
be at an impeachment hearing and he went on his favorite network. it didn't go over with well. more on those stories later in the hour. we begin with the latest impeachment development. in a new interview with "the l.a.nt times" adam schiff says s committeesa has begun writing h reportg in the impeachment investigation against president trump. once written, it will be handed off to the judiciary committee which will draftud the actual articles of impeachment.wh but schiff hasn't ruled out hearing from more witnesses before he submitts the report.ar quote year not forclosing the possibility of additional depositions or hearings, but year also not willing to wait months andll months and let the play rope-a-dope with us in the courts. said it will work on both tracks of investigating while beginning to put our report together. democrats seem to think they've learn all they need to.
but the same cannotby said for the president, who continues to pushe the unsubstantiated clai that ukraine worked against him in the 2016 election. we should warn you what you are about to hear is not accurate. >> the fbi went in and they told him get out of here. we're not giving it to you. they egave the server to can crowd strike or s whatever it's called which is a company owned bide very wealthy ukrainian and i still want to see that server. you know the fbi has never gotten that server. that's a big part of this whole thing. why did they give it to a ukrainian o company? >> you sure they gave it to ukraine? >> that's what the word is. >> that's not actually what the word is. i feel for those guys on "fox and friends." allow me to fact check. quote they gave the suver to crowdstrike or whatever it's
called. wrong. which is a company owned by a very wealthy ukrainian. wrong. c the fbi has never gotten that server. yaung.ve wrong. trump can't even seem to get his own conspiracy theory right. quote ukraine hated me. they were after me in the election. they wanted hillary clinton to win. the intelligence community concluded that russia, russia interfered in the 2016 election. all of this is to say that president must not have been watching the impeachment hearings too closely this week because his comments came just a day after this woman, fiona hill, the former national security a counsel senior director forel europe and russi chastised republicans for pushing this quote fictional narrative.ic >> some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against this country and that perhaps
somehow, for some reason ukraine did.t this is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propigated by the russian security services themselves. >> fiona hill has no oother dog in this fight. when she says a fictional narrative, this comes from a lot of experience.a tonight the "new york times" reports that it aligned closely with recent intelligence briefings given to united states senators. american intelligence officials informed senators and their aids that russia-engaged in year's long campaign to essentially frame ukraine as responsible for moscow's own hacking of the 2016 election according to three american officials. the revelations demonstrate the persistence to try and sew discord among adversaries and show that the kremlin succeeded. as unfounded claims off
ukrainian interference creeped into republican talking points end quote. if that is not evidence enough that trump is pushing a conspiracy theory, try this. vladimir putin himself says he's pleased at the quote political battles in washington have put on the back burner accusations that russia interfered in u.s. elections.th according to the associated press, putin said thank god no one is accusing us of interfering in the u.s. elections anymore. now they're accusing ukraine. "daily beast" editor at large. and an msnbc political analyst who attended all three days of the impeachment hearings this week.ll we-a fairly robust conversation before the show started on the idea there are people.he you might even call them reasonable,th educated, smart people who copt to believe this
bunk that fiona hill told congress and she is as senior ands learned as you get, that this is a fiction perpetrated by russia to somehow have peep 8 believe ukraine, which is in a war with russia, was the one involved in t hacking or interfering in the u.s. election. what more, michael can you say toou people who continue to believee this or purp trait th? >> there are several different strands.hi the most kind of credible one then ukrainian ambassador to the united states castating donald trump for comments he made. number one donald trump, then candidate trump said that most criemeens want to be part of russia, this legitimizing the invasion of soil the first time since world war ii.f
and i believe said weirdly if i'm president russia will never invade crimea. charley's op-ed i think was published in the hill was ill advised as dr. hill mentioned to congress. however, it was done publicly. it is based on my own reporting inleastpo incendiary rhetoric ud about then candidate trump given some of the comments he made not just about ukraine but nato e. i remember meeting with a foreign minister of nato member state in which then candidate trump came on television and that man said if that man is elected it's-the end of the west.ha >> someone criticized donald trump who is a candidate which donald trumphi and others have accused. >> and he did it openly.
the russian attack, as bob mueller characterized it involved illegal activity releasing them and taking over parts -- >> so on a op-ed. >> and this is an op-ed. we have just now, all three of us, fallen into the trap. year discussing and trying to explain what's there and isn't there and get nothing to dedetails. and i sat through this all week. devyn nunes on the republicans on the panel and others, all they do is try to string together in a nefarious way, terms and names. steel, ukraine, meddling, tweets and they try create an impression. >> unfortunately it's something you can't yet get away from bec it's in the it mainstream. >> and they're trying to create an alternative reality people
who want to believe in donald trump and they need something teels hang on tod and that's wt they're giving them. >> in the lead up to the brexit referendum, brock obama wrote an op-ed in the telegraph basically saying, guys, don't do this. arguably ill-advised as the american president -- >> to get the volved in internal politics.re >> however, is that same thing as conducting cyber espeenaugs against a political party in a foreign country.ns then leaking the correspondence to a russian asset, in this case wikileaks frrks the purpose of bolsteringe one candidate and that tantamount to having a investigation the form of disinformation -- >> let's assume we take it at face value that these are different things.
what this diplomat did is not the same as interference in the election. you wisely we naul to a trap when we discuss this. as journalists sometimes we veto go down some of roads. >> right now russia's security services andty their proxies ha geared up to repeat their interference. we're running out of time to stop them. in the course of this investigation i would ask that you please not denote false narratives. >> therein lies the rub. as long as everybody is discussing this, vladimir putin has said this is fantastic. t >> and trump has never fully acknowledged that the russian attacks andha if the russians attacked to help him and that the russianlp attack-an impact the campaign.th he can't live without it. it's a taint on his presidency. and because of that, he has not
been able, in the last three years as president to deal with the prospects of another russian attack. in fact the "washington post" reported that when he met in may of 2017, he told them he was not concerned. and so what he's been try doing for the last three years is to remove this stain, create alternative narratives. and it leaves the united states wide open to another attack because he can't accept the first one. a we go fast forward to the ukraine scandal which is again trying to rig the 2020 election. >> in his favor. >> the other line of defense republicans are using, michael, is that nobody who's testified was really in the room or on the call.ho which is not true because there are fact witness withes and people who have context and are facts with witnesses. the bottom line are the people who could probably tell us the
most about this did not appear to testify. he said we've made it abundantly clear to the president that their failure to can permit witnesses to testify and failure to c respond to subpoenas has oy built the case against them for obstruction of congress. mulvaney, giuliani, bolton. these people can tell you whether the president told them to do something. the president and others have made it clear he's willing to throw them under the bus. guarden sondland responded to being t threatened by throwing somebody else back.be >> this is assuming mr. giuliani and bolton would tell the truth before congress, which is in the case of mr. giuliani -- however, the case that this is a coup or witch hunt, this is the most preposterous statement of it all. the people who are going to impeach this president are
republicans, gordon sondland, not exactly anybody's idea of the diplomat's diplomat. a partisan hack. somebody who gave a lot of money that rnc. comes before congress and says there's a quid pro quo. curt volker a neoconservative arguably tried to finesse and manage a situation. has also delivered a verdict that yes, there was something dodgy. john bolton on the -- quoted in the press. i don't want any part of this drug deal. nobody's idea of a progressive liberal operative. republicans are the ones coming forward and providing the news for which this president is going to hang himself.ic the whole thing this is a party conspiracy is nonsense.
i've known fiona hill for several years. this is one of the most professional, scholar russia expert. and very cleverly, almost a post modern analysis. she takes different arc types and studies them and takes them in isolation and create a composite. the capitalist, the statest and so on. this is not somebody who gets ahead of her speed with allegation. >> unfortunately we're out of time for this discussion.te thanks for being with us. coming up. they have made it to the impeachment investigations. and now says lev has evidence relevant to the investigation about devyn nunes. that is next. nu that is next cologuard:
colon cancer screening for people 50 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective. i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0.
the indicted ukrainian associate of rudy giuliani says he has quote hard evidence of donald trump's misconduct in the in ukraine. quote he has material first-hand evidence that is in our national interest to hear. part of that evidence we're learning pertains to the top republican on the house intelligence committee. this man, devin nunes.
another of parna srksz's lawyers, told the "daily beast" that parnas quote helped arrange meetings in europe for representative devin nunes in 2018. the lawyer said which were arranged to help nunes' investigative work. he didn't specify what those entail. this was entered the to the congressional record during the public impeachment hearing. she's still work ogon the story. she's a politics reporter for "the daily beast." also with us and we've got comp ljted legal messes is barbara mcquaid from the eastern district of michigan and an msnbc legal contributor. let's start with you. what is this new information
about lev parnas? >> i can tell you i spoke with bondy, the lawyer you referred to, earlier this evening. the first thing he said is that an aid to congressman nunes told parnas that nunes and his team were investigating the biden family and ukrainian energy company called burisma where hunter biden was a board member. those topics were of paramount importance to president trump and giuliani. they pressured the ukrainian government to pressure the specific topics. in hopes that an announcement of such an investigation would benefit trump. the second thing he told me is that taformer ukrainian prosecutor, an important character, told parnas that he-a meeting with congressman nunes in vienna. he's a vital character in this story.
he was a prosecutor in ukraine, widely accused of corruption. who biden and other western leaders basically pushed out. biden and other european leaders told the ukrainian government they wouldn't get financial aid package unless shoeken was ousted. he has now claimed the reason he was ousted is because he was scrutinizing burisma and he forced him out as part of a quid pro quo. the evidence mulies those allegations. but that's something president trump appears to have bought hook, line, and sinker. and it's part of what he was pressuring the zelensky administration to announce they were scrutinizing on the july 25th phone call. >> as you know we study these things as journalists and people like betsy report on them. but what we know about the law leads one to think that nunes was front and center in all of
the hearings. behind-closed-door hearings that they accused democrats of not letting republicans in into. he's the ranking member and he has been there all week. americans have watched this man all week. eric swalwell, who is on the intelligence committee, entered betsy's reporting and said this. >> mr. chairman, you have been falsely accused throughout these proceedings as being a quote unquote fact witness. now, if this story is correct, the ranking member may have actually been projecting and in fact he may be the fact witness if he's with working with indicted individuals around our investigation. >> now, barbara, we-this conversation about a few people over the last several months including the attorney general bill barr. if devin nunes went to ukraine and is mixed up in this
conversation one way or another, even if he was simply investigating by holding meetings with people that there principals in this discussion, how does that play into the fact that he's the ranking 34e78ber, the lead republican in the impeachment hearings? >> there's lot of layers to unpack here. one level is just as a fact finder who is supposed to be in kind of a position of serving as a check and balance on the executive banch. if he, himself, is involved in investigating this on his own free lancing, it seems like he has a conflict of intersh. i don't know how the rules work. but it seems like he's intertwining a bit of involvement along with his role in oversight. so that seems strange. it also could be the case and that it depends on the fact, if he is involved directly of obtaining a thing of vallee in connection with an election. he, himself, could be committing crimes.
could he finance vieilations on getting dirt on joe biden knowing there's no mare that to information in the investigations. so problematic at a couple of levels there. from your reporting you say congressional recrsds show nunes travelled from november 30th to december 30, 2018. three of his aids travelled with him per the records. u.s. government funds paid for the trip which cost just over $63,000. you got this from public records. i don't know that i've heard devin nunes speak about this directly. it seems like it would be irrelevant to bring up in the proceedings. that said, you're getting information from the lawyer of lev parnasa guy being charged with election offenses. how do we feel about the information you're get flumg lawyer of lev parnas or information that oridgeinates with him? >> look, people are at their
most credible when they are speaking under oath. i have no reason to believe that the information that bondy has told me on the record is incorrect. but it goes without saying, without question that the statement said that he has made would carry significantly more weight with were parnas to say on the record and under teeth congress. so a big question that's open right now is whether parnas wilt end up going before congress, taking an ooath and sharing what his lawyer has shared with me. now for parks arnas to do something like that, it would with be the credibly risky and for course because he's been indicted in the sulgtern district of new york. one possible avenue his lawyers could potentially pursue and which lawyers sometimes pursue when they have a client who both faces criminal exposure before the justice department and has information interesting to congress.
one avenue they could look at is getting a specific type of immunity where pa are, nas will make a deal that he wouldn't face criminal liability for the particular matters that he discussed before the house intelligence committee. it's unclear whether such a deal will be cut. whether the house intelligence committee would think important eto bring in parnas to make that kind of agreement. it's clear parnas, at the very least has clear visibility. >> so put your prosecutor hat on now. if such a deal is needed to be made, i'm sure congress could make it if it is as important to have him there. is there some danger, given the testimony from remarkably credible people, fiona hill and the like that america heard all week and we know millions and millions of americans were glued
to the testimony this week. there some risk getting parnas involved? >> it may very well be that what he has to say is true and the reporting is true. a couple of problems. one is if congress or the southern district of new york were interested in this information, his lawyer wouldn't need to be tweeting about it and having public discussion cans about this. so it seems they're trying to create public pressure to get them to bite on this information. and it seems they're reluctant to bite because they believe it not not to be credible or they don't want to go down this road, not at this moment. it may be focusing on devin nunes at this moment is a distraction. we've heard two week withes of very compelling witness testimony and to now go down another rabbit hole talking about devin nunes is too far afield from the relevant
impeachment inquiry focusing on the conduct of president trump. it could be they don't want to go down that road. the other thing is if you offer immunity to testify before congress, because it could preclude charges later on the southern district of new york and they may want that to get leverage on rudy giuliani, president trump or others. there may be very good reasons they're reluctant to deal with him. >> it did need a little unpacking. we thank you for your reporting and anal associate. thanks to both of you. coming up john bolton is back tweeting a back story. but democrats say.
. former national security advisor, john bolton, has returned to twitter after a two-month absence. he claims the white house is responsible for block his access to twitter. tweeting quote since resigning as national security advisor the white house refused to return access to my personal twitter account out of fear of what i
might say to those that speculate and i wentb the to hiding, i hate to disappoint. in an interview president trump denied the white house blocked bolton in any way from twitter. >> john bolton was back on twitter. his account was frozon for two months. did you freeze his account? >> no, of course not. i actually-a gohad a good relationship with john. >> bolton did not show up to his scheduled deposition with the impeachment investigators earlier this month despite being a key witness surrounding trump's interactions with ukraine. an opinion writer with the "washington post" and msnbc contributor and tim miller, the former communications director for jeb bush's 2016 campaign and spokesman for the republican national committee. welcome to both of you. thank you for being here.
jennifer, john bolton is doct runair in his conservative thinking. it was puzzling to some that he got mixed up with donald trump but it suited him because he's got hawkish views on things that donald trump was willing to indulge. he seems to be signaling to everyone that he's got something to say. what do you make of it this? >> the most interesting thing is he repeated one of his disputes with donald trump and that is he resigned. remember trump claimed to have fired him. and that reminds us that he has no love lost for dop don. very interesting he put that in there. i think john bolton has book and apparently a book deal. he is giving speeches to investment banking groups and making a lot of money. so he's making money off of his story and if he tells that's story for free under oath to
congress, it's not worth that much. i think part of this was greed, financial greed. the notion he has to get permission from court is nonsense. gordon sondland didn't get permission. all of these people knew that any order from the white house was based on a bogus absolutes immunity edefense and they did their patriotic duty. part of it is money and part of it is because he lives within this right-wing atmosphere. these are his supporters, the people who donate to his super pack. so ei think he's trying to have it both ways, be cute and stay in the public eye and maintain his credibility. that same time he is not helping get to the bottom of it this and in that way he's enabling donald trump and indirectly vladimir putin. >> his lawyer appears to be helping him as well.
john bolton's lawyer said bolton w was personally invaevled in many of the the events, meetings and conversations about which you have already received testimony. he does seem to constantly be baiting somebody into saying you need to talk to me. do you think there's material he has that could help? because mulvaney, bolton and giuliani actually know what happened. >> of course there's material information he has. i think he's got really good book agents and he definitely has material information on ukraine. as reported by you gries. at one of the investment banks he implied that the president
made decisions in turkey, allowed our allies to get slaughtered because of personal and business interests that he has. he made that as a throw-away line in a private speech. somebody was acting in good faith. this is somebody that wanted to participate with the process. he had information that led him to believe he's doing something to advance political interests, he would have gone through the proper legal channels. not at private dinner with investment bankers. i thought that one anecdote showed where his motivation is. he wants a future. and so he understands if he does a full face turn against donald trump, that that's not there. and so unlike some of the other people leading the administration, bolton -- >> that's interesting because
john bolton has been a conservative for a very, very, very long time. he could have a future in a party that doesn't involve donald trump. one day republicans f you often think about, fantasize about, if republicans can take a party back that doesn't involve donald trump, a guy like john bolton can have a role in it. he's not a dumb guy. can be a bit dug in but he knows his stuff. he's got real information that was testified to by fiona hill and others where he called it a drug deal. this thing that giuliani and donald trump were doing was a drug deal. i don't think he literally thought they were dealing drugs. he's now the guy who can decide the outcome of this. >> i think he's betting in the short term he attacks from the present and if this washes out,
if donald trump gets impeached or removed, no one will hold john bolton responsible for having been quiet during this. so he's hoping this all washes through and there he is, stand proud and firm without adirt on his hands regarding ukraine and he's there to pick up the pieces. i think the problem is two fold. one is he will be wlam blamed for this. he was in an administration that was doing putin's dirty work. and the idea he-no idea what was going on and could not stop is preposterous. i think for his own good he needs clear up the record and clean up the records. what step did he tyke dis suede the president from going down this rabbit hole of conspiracy theories? i think for his own credibility he needs to step away and say this is what i was doing. i was being the good soldier i was stopping this.
non-gmo, made with naturally sourced colors and flavors and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time. hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
you don't let a cold ruin your day. you take dayquil severe liquicaps and crush it. dayquil severe. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, power through your day, medicine. mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb;
don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪
. we have breaking news. moments ago the state department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to american oversight's lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the trump administration's dealings with ukraine. you might have heard rachel talking about this on her show. those documents have just been released and joining us by phone is the executive director of ethics watch dog group american oversight. thank dwrou joining me. i'm just looking at your press release about these documents. you're saying they einclude emails that include multiple contacts in march between secretary of state mike pompeo and rudy giuliani. at least one of which was facilitated by thepresident's
assistant. i imagine you just received these documents so you havant fully had a chance to go through them. >> yes, we are still reviewing them. we want get them out that public because transparency is so important -- >> you've made them avail snbl. >> they're available on our website, american oversight.org. we will be pulling out the snippets all night long. but you summarized it well. the documents show a clear paper trail connecting not just rudy giuliani but being connected by the oval office. president trump's personal assistant westerhouse serving as a conduit when rudy jewgiuliani can't get through to pompeo through quote regular channels. based on the timing, around maech of this year, it looks apparent that it this was a
connection to insure rudy giuliani's smear campaign against a sitting u.s. ambassador made to mike pompeo's desk. a major message i want people to understand is that while the administration has refused to turn these documents over to congress, the stone wall is cracking and we're going to get regular document productions to make sure the truth comes out. >> these are documents that congressional investigation has been asking the state department to produce. they've asked mike pompeo to do this. they've refused to hand over the information. you then sued over a freedom of information application. >> that's correct. you can understand why he wouldn't want congress to have 24e78 and why they've complaining theyvent received i
believe the quote is a single scrap of paper from mike pompeo. here are his phone conversations with rudy giuliani at what looks like the beginning of the scheme to smear the ambassador. we have lawsuits pending and soon more to come from the omb with holding aid to contacts later in time with mike pompeo and other senior officials. these are the first disclosures for a first round to connect the scandal directly to the oval office is pretty significant. >> when you say the first round, have you got active other applications in right now? >> we do. i don't want to give you an exact count but it's in the dozens. i'll tell you what we've been doing. we listen to all the testimony and if a witness it describes a
document, the freedom of information act means we ecan get it. we can sue for it and year going to force it out in the open. >> let me ask you this though. the state department obviously has some reasoning. the executive branch offers reasoning as to why they won't provide this to congress. you think they must have thought this through. somebody must have explained to somebody why they can't release it. you're obviously under freedom ofini information getting someo to release this. that's a simple statement but it's kind of remarkable. if you can get them, why can our electsed officials not get these? >> the reason is obstruction. the only reason a document that a citizen like me and the
members of my team can get can't go to adam schiff or devin nunes is because of obstruction. it shows the power of the courts coming ti coming in to it tell the president and his allies they have to follow law. even if they don't want to turn things ovto congress. i don't know what to say about whether they should have anticipate this. they praur probably should have looked at fom articles to include obstruction charges. and the white house should ask itself should it be pursuing a total obstruction strategy if that's not going to be effective? >> and to be clear american oversight has no special standing. >> we're pretty good litigators. but that's true. >> you are doing this as an american citizen. as a group of american citizens.
y you don't have unique standing? sh >> that's correct. >> we have extracted these documents. anyone can read them and they belong to you. >> you receive the documents from the office manager to the secretary of state. that's actually one of the emails. where do you get these? who says it's osdma who adjudicates you're entitled to the documents? >> when it work withes well a career civil servient determine if it can be made public and they apply redactions and they release them. sfr we've seen civil servants defy orde orders not to testify and there are unnamed heroes in agencies across the government that there going to insure the freedom of information act is not forward would by the white house's
efforts to obstruct and frankly american oversight and really the public at large owes them a debt of gratitude for work they do every day. >> i think we need completely illustrate what year talking about here. documents that members of congress, congressional committees investigating the president asked the state department for that were not turned over, you made freedom of information applications for and have receiveded now the first trunch of these documents. about 100 pages of documents that illustrate a connection between secretary of state pompeo to jewgiuliani involving ukraine. so you have got information that until now the state department and executive have been stonewalling congress. >> i should underscore that's not boss congress isn't try
doing its job. it's because white house and the administration have can decided to obstruct the impeachment. they don't have a plan to obstructthal can courts. >> we look forward to looking through these documents and more. they have been listening to everything austin miller said. we're going to talk more. we're going to talk more it is nice. his haircut is "nice." this is the most-awarded minivan three years in a row. the van just talked. sales guy, give 'em the employee price, then gimme your foot. hands-free sliding doors, stow 'n go seats. can your car do this? man, y'all getting a hook up and y'all don't even work here. don't act like i'm not doing y'all a favor. y'all should be singing my praises. pacificaaaaa! with employee pricing, get $4,107 below msrp plus $1,000 bonus cash
plus 0% financing for 60 months on the 2020 pacifica limited like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain.
ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? the unitedllaxin'. explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. the holidays are easier... when you can do this.. post this... and be there like this. so we give you that.
we are breaking news now. american oversight has sued for freedom of information, releases of documents that state department has now turned over. more than 100 documents have been turned over. they can be found on american oversight.org. that website appear ooze to be edown. probably because so many people are trying to find these 100 documents that include emails including contact in march 2019 between secretary of state mike pompeo and donald trump's lawyer, rude agiuliani as related to ukraine. one was facilitated by president trump's assistant, madeleine wester how.
they have released these pages to american oversight that immediately put it on its website so everybody in the world can download it and appear many in the world are trying to download it right now. american oversight has released a statement saying we can now see why mike pompeo has refused to reveal this to congress. it show as clear paper trail from the oval auflgs to facilitate giuliani's smear campaign against a u.s. ambassador. if you were watching rachel's show earlier, you would know a judge did give the state department until midnight to turn the documents over. they have. american oversight saying they could obtain these documents establishes there is no legal basis for the administration to with hold them from congress. jennifer reuben and tim miller are back with us. we were in the middle of a discussion when this all happened. jennifer, this feel likes a fairly substantial it development.
because the state department denied congressional efforts to turn over these documents. and a group of american citizens got it with the freedom of information application. >> and and my ears perked up is when he said we have dozens of these out there. so they may turn over more documents. once you start pealing back the curt cannen, all sorts of things come out and congress is going to be very interested in all of this. i think they're going to want to see eall these documents and have hearings and they may lead to new witness withes. whults rr so significant is remember what is going on in march. rudy and his henchman are trying to cook up all sorts of rumors to get rid of our anticorruption fighting ambassador muary yovanovitch in the -- in
ukraine. mike pompeo doing nothing to prevent that. mike pompeo refuses to put out a statement in support of that. >> his ambassador work withes for the state department and he's the boss of the state department and he won't protect his people. and is he fuasillitating, hurting or helping? he certainly knows it's going on. and remember that was the step. that was the predicate for then launching on this effort to extort ukraine. they heto get her out of the way. this puts him right in the middle of it this. i think he has extreme liability. and remember he has not even recused himself from deciding whether to turn over these documents. so that is completely unacceptable. and he has a lawyer and he eshould know his legal obligations.
i think this is huge. >> i think it's huge too. tim. >> and this gets lost in the back and forth and the muck and the mire, trying to figure out all the details. but the biggest take away is none of this was a secret. they were all -- they were all in on it. pompeo knew it was happening. mulvaney did, the president did. and the only reason the administratied a min not just fallen back on the original answer, which is get over it, is because the president won't allow it because of his ego. so we have to go through this b.s., this misinformation and they try to pretend like maybe it's not as bad as it looks and event that he will more information that comes out, we will continue to see more details and the question is did that actually turn anyone? >> that is a big question. but these are actually documents and to jennifer's point,