vimarsana.com

President these days . As the the 11th hour gets under way on a friday night. Well, good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. Day 967 of the Trump Administration. And just tonight, theres a new problem with the way House Democrats are going after and trying to use what are normally secret grand jury materials from the mueller investigation. The democrats argue they need them for an impeachment inquiry. The Justice Department, though, is pushing back, saying the democrats havent made it at all clear that this is an impeachment inquiry. This question is now before a federal judge. And in court papers, trumps doj specifically mentions the messaging by the democrats has been all over the place. Specifically they say, quote, the speaker of the house has been emphatic that the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding. They add the committees own description of its investigation makes clear that it is too far removed from any potential judicial proceeding. The filing even cites news media reports on the democrats conflicting descriptions of just what they are doing here. It includes two stories from andrew dez dareio, who joins us in just a moment. In fact we, at this humble broadcast, have noted this same thing earlier this week, and we aired the following as proof that no two democrats are saying the same thing on impeachment. For anyone that was confused, we are in the midst of an investigation. We are Holding Hearings for the purpose of investigating the possibility of voting articles of impeachment against the president. I think chairman nadler has described the proceedings well. What were doing tomorrow is adopting procedures enabling us to do it more effectively. So its a bit technical inside baseball maybe. Essentially the impeachment inquiry has already begun. People can call this whatever they want to call it. I dont want to get caught in semantics. Do you support moving forward with articles of impeachment against the president . I think we should move forward on things leading up to that. The only vote that is ultimately going to matter is whether we vote to impeach him. Todays move by the Justice Department comes one day after the House Judiciary Committee voted to ramp up, as you heard chairman nadler allude to, its investigation of donald trump involving more hearings, more aggressive tactics when it comes to handling witnesses. Tonight, jerry nadler spoke out about the latest effort to thwart the investigation. Weve been very clear for the last several months in court filings, in public statements, and in proceedings in the committee that we are, in fact, conducting an investigation, preparing to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house. This is another in and if proceedings in the stance of the Trump Administration trying to cover up and hide from congress and from the American People in this case from congress because the American People wouldnt see the grand jury information all kinds of information. Meanwhile, the i word, impeachment, appears to be very much on the president s mind of late. Just this morning he asked, quote, how do you impeach a president who has helped create perhaps the greatest economy in the history of our country, done more than any president in first 2 1 2 years despite phony witch hunt led against him. You dont impeach president s for doing a good, great job. It came up last night when he spoke to a gathering of House Democrats at a gathering in baltimore. I told nancy pelosi, you have to do something other than try and impeach somebody that didnt do anything wrong. You have to. I said its hard to impeach somebody who didnt do anything wrong. The Mueller Report is out. Theres no collusion after 2 1 2 years. The president also got a big assist today from his loyal House Minority leader, kevin mccarthy, who criticized democrats for their handling of the investigation of this president. The leadership doesnt even know what the committees doing let alone the conference itself. They cant determine whether theyre working on impeachment or not. The democrats are making it an issue. And i think its the wrong issue for them to talk about. As all this unfolds, the Washington Post is saying the house exattorney Jeff Sessions to the hill to testify before them. The Mueller Report detailed how trump had pummeled sessions and tried to pressure him to reverse his recusal from the russia matter. According to the post, sessions lawyer says the only way his clients going to testify is under subpoena. The Judiciary Committee also scheduled to go to Court Next Month to try to force former White House Counsel Don Mcgahn to come before them at a hearing. And former Trump Campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to give public testimony before that same committee on september 17th to answer questions about possible obstruction of justice. All this leading us to our leadoff discussion on a friday night. For that, we welcome annie karni, White House Reporter with the new york times. Jonathan allen, Nbc News National Political reporter. And andrew dez dareio, congressional reporter for politico, returning veterans all. Andrew, because your name was invoked, id like to begin with you. What does this filing what does this dustup with justice mean for those House Democrats . Right. So this is exactly what House Democrats have told me all week that they feared, the idea that essentially the inconsistent impeachment messaging could undermine their central claim to the grand jury information that was gathered as part of the mueller investigation. What the white house and the Justice Department have been able to do as a result of this filing is to take advantage of the fact that House Democrats have not, you know, identified a unified front on this issue, saying, no, they arent engaged in a formal impeachment inquiry. Therefore, they do not have a right to this mueller grand jury information. Earlier this the week it was more of a political misfire. Now it has the potential to become a tactical misfire in that it could actually hurt them in court. Annie, loved reading your contributions by the way on the live blog last night during the debate. Really enjoyed it around here. On tonights topic, the president seems to think that impeachment is a clear and present danger. He does, and just to be clear, in his speech in baltimore last night, he touched on impeachment. He touched on about everything he ever talks about. He gave a 68minute rambling speech that was sort of supposed to be counterprogramming to the democratic debate that was going on at the exact same time. So i dont think it stood out in the vast array of topics he likes to touch on. It was almost a laugh line for him. But we saw the tweets this morning saying you cant impeach a president whos doing a great job. One thing that struck me is impeachment didnt come up once at the debate last night among the president ial candidates. When being out front on impeachment used to be a real way to stand out in that field. There was no discussion of it in the debate where a lot of people tried to target trump instead of targeting each other. That stood out. But, again, this confusion on what the House Democrats are actually doing, are they conducting an impeachment inquiry, or are they conducting a probe to figure out whether they will impeach him does seem to be standing exactly in their way. And what surprises me is they know the Justice Department is going to take every chance they can to block handing them over any grand jury information anything. Thats what this administrations position has been on everything. Did anyone there not foresee that they would use this messaging issue to block this . And, john, what andrews reporting gets to, of course, is that impeachment is a term of art. It is a legal trigger. In other words, yes, we will break the seal on this confidential grand jury material if you are speaking with the authority of the house of representatives and youre going to impeach this guy. John, what has been behind the muddled messaging on this topic . Jerry nadler again tonight, as he did in midsummer, appeared on cnn, then came to this building to appear on this broadcast, on this network tonight to say, in effect, oh, were so impeachy, you wouldnt believe it. Yeah, impeachy as though it were a flavor that you could draw from. If jerry nadler were doing that, it would be the impeachiest. I think whats behind it is Nancy Pelosis desire to keep control of the house of representatives in the next congress. Theres an electoral push there, an electoral desire. She wants to make sure shes not losing house members. She doesnt want to force tough votes on her members. For many of them, it would be difficult to have a vote on impeachment. It would basically pit the liberal base in their districts against more moderate swing voters that they need to win. So i think thats what weve been seeing for months and months and months. Now, as a practical matter, you know, this question of impeachment and the courts and whether or not democrats are moving forward, the courts have ruled on this in the past in terms of grand jury testimony. Going back to the nixon period and watergate, the houses power to impeach and its power to investigate toward impeachment is something that is absolutely recognized by the courts as a reason to go and unseal that grand jury for the congress to go look at it. If that was to be overturned, that would be a reversal of what the Court Precedent has been before. Ive talked to a number of lawyers about this, folks who have gone back in the Justice Department as far as the johnson administration, so predating that nixon era. That doesnt mean the court wouldnt change its mind based on what its seeing today, but its no wonder, as annie said, that the Justice Department under trump is making this argument. And who knows how far along it goes in the court . Maybe some of the justices the president has appointed to the Supreme Court would end up having a different view than the court has in the past. But that impeachment power and the ability to investigate is one that is recognized, and the idea that you would have to impeach the president before you could investigate whether to impeach him or have the tools to investigate is probably at least a legally tenuous one. So, andrew, the democrats have to hope that same holding applies to them. Thats exactly right. I think what this reflects is the competing political priorities within the House Democratic caucus right now. Speaker pelosi has weve talked about before, brian, she really has to balance two sides of her caucus, one, the more progressive flank that wants to have a more aggressive posture toward the president and wants to make it seem like they are on a path to impeachment. The second flank is the more moderate flank of the democratic party, the more vulnerable members in 2020 whom nancy pelosi needs to ensure that they win their reelections because many of their victories in 2018 were key to democrats winning back control of the house. So this is super important to her, and those moderate members do not want to embrace impeachment for many reasons, number one being its probably not popular their districts, and, b, they have republicanleaning districts. John, youre just back from houston. You were there to cover last nights debate. Consensus was the biggest moment kind of backfired a bit on former secretary castro, who went after joe biden, it appeared to all of us, on memory. It appeared to all of us it was something he had in his back pocket and ready to go. Before we talk about it, heres both men reacting to that today. Your campaign has called what secretary castro said to you last night as a low blow, a cheap shot. He said it wasnt personal. How do you view what he said to you in your exchange . I dont view it as anything. I think hes got his facts wrong. Were up there to debate, and thats what i was doing. I pointed out that Vice President bidens plan to leave out 10 million people. I think thats significant, and, you know, so i would point that out again. John allen, question to you. Was real damage done last night and or is this just something for us, for the chattering classes to chatter about . It will be interesting to see, brian. I think most voters probably arent into the weeds of the policy, and certainly dont probably dont care a whole lot about the personality pieces of this. But there are important dynamics going on here about the differences between these Health Care Plans, and i think there are some things that the voters care about in terms of, you know, which candidates are attacking, which ones might be trying to get in cheap shots, and also whether the Vice President , you know, is having some of the difficulties that some of his rivals are suggesting. You know, i watched it happen live. I went back over the transcripts. It looked like these two were talking past each other a little bit. The point that castro makes about the Vice President S Health Care plan, that it would require some people to buy in, and therefore there would be fewer people insured under his plan is an accurate distinction between the biden plan and the castro plan, and the biden plan and many of the other plans. And bidens point that some of the other Health Care Plans would be extremely costly because they would cover everybody is also a salient point. I think we ought to wait and see what voters reactions are to this before we judge whos going to be hurt by it and who might be helped. If youre Julian Castro and polling around 2 , 3 , the likelihood this is going to be devastating to you behind sucking away a little of what you have seems pretty small compared to the possibility you might bring in some attention, bring in some money and attract people to your campaign. Annie karni, you mentioned the president s 68minute speech in baltimore last night. At the end of this broadcast, we have as best we could a compilation of the greatest hits contained therein. We heard the usual attacks on the usual suspects among the democrats. But, annie, when you talk to people in that west wing, anyone connected to the campaign, when theyre being honest, hes got to have an opponent at some point. Is there one they fear more . I mean it hasnt changed along with his status. Biden is still among the people i talk to that are connected to the campaign, seen as the most difficult challenge for them to take on. It would be the candidate who is the hardest to make the socialist argument against, and they think that is a good and winning message for them. Its a candidate who could eat at trumps numbers with white, workingclass voters in the midwest and rust belt, in states that he has to win and that he won in 2016. That being said, they still feel pretty confident about him. If theyre being honest looking at the field, they think Elizabeth Warren is the strongest natural talent on that stage, but they think that she that biden, because he can appeal to some of trumps voters, would be the toughest matchup head to head. Thank you to the three of you for helping along our conversation at the end of another long week. To annie karni, john allen, andrew desiderio, we greatly appreciate it. Coming up for us as we continue on this friday night, the mystery surrounding the case of Andrew Mccabe, former number two the at the fbi. Will he or wont he be indicted . And later, the president s search for a Fourth National security adviser as the job is vacant again. Where does that leave us in terms of north korea, china, russia, iran, the taliban for starters as the 11th hour is just Getting Started on this friday night. Hey. You must be stevens phone. Now you can know whos on your network and control who shouldnt be, only with xfinity xfi. Simple. Easy. Awesome. Former fbi Deputy Director Andrew Mccabe wants to know if hes going to be indicted. And he wants the Justice Department in turn to show its cards. We learned yesterday it seemed the government would pursue criminal charges. Mccabe is accused to lying to internal investigators. Its the kind of thing that would typically be handled administratively, but in this case a grand jury was reconvened, leading most to believe an indictment was coming. But that didnt happen. In a letter to the doj, mccabes own attorneys write, quote, we heard rumors from reporters starting this morning that the grand jury considering charges against mr. Mccabe had declined to vote an indictment. We believe that if the grand jury has, in fact, voted and here they use a legal term well explain in a minute not a true bill, the justice manual compels you not to resubmit the case to the same or a different grand jury. As the wall street journal headline puts it tonight, its a sign that the case may be in jeopardy. Former u. S. Attorney harry litman, a frequent guest of ours, offers this context, quote, a grand jurys refusal to return an indictment is something that happens maybe once every five years in a given office. If it occurred here, given the magnitude, visibility of the mccabe case, it is a stunning and humiliating rebuke for overreaching and playing politics. Well, joining us tonight, katie benner, Justice Department reporter for the new york times, and cynthia oxney, a former federal prosecutor her self. Cynthia, please start us off with the definition of not a true bill. Not a true bill would be if you went into the grand jury room and you asked the members of the grand jury for an indictment, and they said, no, were not going to do it. I mean it just doesnt happen that you get a not a true bill. I probably have indicted 1,000 cases, maybe 2,000. I dont know. Its something you do so routinely, and ive never had that happen to me. And heres why. Because the grand jury room let me just bring it to life for you for a minute. Its like a sixth grade classroom, and you have the members of the grand jury in there, 23, and when you have a long investigation like this one thats 18 months long, youre in and out in front of this grand jury. You basically get to know them. They know your witnesses. You know what theyre thinking. They ask questions. You understand whats happening. And at the end of the grand jury, what you do is you say to them, okay. Im going to really quickly summarize the evidence for you, and then im going to explain the law to you. And you do that, and then you say, does anybody have any questions . And if the question is, what happens if we dont believe, you know, witnesses a, b, and c, and what happens if we dont think youve met the standard . Then you know you should not submit the indictment. I mean you dont get a no true bill if youre paying attention and youre doing your job because you understand whats happening in the grand jury room with the most simple of people skills. So i would final it shocking if they got a no true bill. It would be horrifyingly embarrassing for the prosecutors. Okay. Katie, given that terrific and vivid example of what its like inside the grand jury room, remind all the good folks watching tonight what this case is about and why mccabe might have gone public in such a public way. Of course. So you have to go back in time to the russia investigation. Andrew mccabe was the number two fbi official. He was overseeing that investigation, and certainly thats something that made President Trump extremely unhappy. During the course of the investigation, during the course of the Hillary Clinton investigation as well, which mccabe was deeply involved in, Andrew Mccabe authorized people to speak to the press. In interviews with the fbi when that was investigated, he was found to have lacked candor about that. He did not immediately say, yes, i did that. He wasnt forthcoming. Keep in mind as the number two fbi official, he is more than able to authorize people to speak to the press. But that lack of candor was something that he was criticized for by the inspector general. In an unusual twist, he was then that was kicked over and turned into a criminal prosecution. As you mentioned at the top of the show, that very rarely happens. Usually its dealt with administratively. Different people have shown all sorts of examples where an fbi or doj employee has been found to have committed sexual assault, sexual harassment, and lied about it, and they were not criminally prosecuted. This is something, Andrew Mccabe doing something hes allowed to do. Katie, you have applied your byline to another very newsy peace just tonight in the new york times. Theres the headline. Justice department to honor team that worked on kavanaugh confirmation process. Heres the quote. The Justice Department will present one of its most prestigious awards to the lawyers who worked on the highly contentious Supreme Court nomination process of judge brett m. Kavanaugh. Next month, attorney general william barr will present the attorney generals award for distinguished service to those who worked, quote, to support the nomination of the judge according to an email reviewed by the new york times. Katie, who normally gets these awards at doj . So normally a prosecutor would get these awards, an fbi agent, somebody who has really helped with a case that has been a landmark case for the Justice Department. And these awards are extremely revered. I think whats interesting here and a way too tie whats happening with this Award Ceremony next month and what were seeing with the Andrew Mccabe case is people have been worrying that the Justice Department has become skpleemly politicized. That the Justice Department is working in order to please President Trump. Whether or not thats true, neither of these things do a very good job of dissuading people from that notion. Cynthia, as a doj veteran, is this just another norm to fall . You know what . It just makes you sick to your stomach. I dont know what to say. I love the Justice Department, and its just not the Justice Department that i love anymore. And katie is so much nicer than i am. People are worried it becoming politicized. It is completely politicized. This Andrew Mccabe prosecution is completely politicized. The response on the grand jury evidence that should be with the house is completely politicized. Barr going to trumps you know, spending 30,000 is completely politicized. Theres nothing normal about this Justice Department, and i dont know if we can get it back. I get so depressed when i think about whats happened to the Justice Department and ponder how i used to love to just look at that statue of Robert Kennedy and be so proud to be there. And now its its a disgrace. Both katie and cynthia have agreed to stay with us over this break. Coming up when our conversation continues, a lawsuit against the president resurrected, given new life today. Its about something cynthia just referenced. More on that when we come back. I have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. Because i can still make my own insulin. And trulicity activates my body to release it like its supposed to. Trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. Its not insulin. I take it once a week. It starts acting in my body from the first dose. Trulicity isnt for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Dont take trulicity if youre allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. I have it within me to lower my a1c. Ask your doctor about trulicity. Are you guys benefiting financially from the president . Its ridiculous. I mean first of all, hes not involved at all. They talk about, someone bought a cheeseburger at the trump hotel. Its asinine. Youve seen that. Youve seen where the emoluments suits have gong. Theyre just trying. The amount of incoming hes taken, but really the family and the business, anything, in a desperate attempt to stop him. The president s favorite morning program, those comments from the president s eldest son came at the same time a federal Appeals Court revived a lawsuit involving the president and his aforementioned properties. The suit filed by the group called crew, the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, claims that trump is illegally profiting from foreign officials who do business at his d. C. Hotel. Second circuit of the federal Government Court today says the complaint is valid and rejected a Previous Court ruling to dismiss the case. Secretary of state mike pompeo was at trumps d. C. Hotel today, couldnt resist taking a shot at the media. I look around. This is such a beautiful hotel. The guy who owns it must going to be successful somewhere along the way. That was for the Washington Post in case theyre in the back. Okay. All of this also comes as we learn more details about those military stopovers at trumps hotel in scotland. Politico reporting today, the u. S. Air force has lodged crews at president Donald Trumps scotland resort up to 40 times since 2015, a figure that is far higher than previously known. All of this is also the subject of an ongoing congressional investigation. Katie benner, Cynthia Alksne remain with us. Before we resume our conversation, lets listen to the executive director of c. R. E. W. , on this topic of emoluments. The emoluments clauses of the constitution were not household names. It was not something most people knew about because president s just followed them. President s didnt try to keep global businesses going while they were serving. They didnt take money from the federal government and the states and foreign governments while in office. They just followed the law. Okay, cynthia. So we have all learned a lesson in this. Emoluments are not an ingredient in hand cream. They are in fact aspects of very basic constitutional law. The question to you becomes, why are these cases proving so hard to prove . Well, they arent they arent being hard to prove. We arent even getting to that point. The cases are all being hung up on the question of standing, on who really gets to do the challenge. So the Second Circuit case was dismissed, and now one of two things will happen to it. Either it will go back to begin the discovery process, which i have to say will be fascinating. I would do anything to get to help in that, where theyll find out whos spending what money in Different Hotels and restaurants, and that discovery process would be fascinating. Or the white house could stall and take it up to the full Second Circuit, which seems on brand for them as my children would say. Thats on brand. They stall everything. So those are the two options for the Second Circuit case. But theres two more cases out there also on the standing issue about who gets to sue. They have conflicting results, and so whats likely to happen at some point is the Supreme Court will decide who really gets to sue when the president is taking all this money from foreign people through his businesses. Katie, as youve pointed out time and time again, completely uncharted territory as mr. Bookbinder just said. The department you cover, the attorney general has already booked the trump hotel hor tfor annual Holiday Party for doj. Youve compared this to kind of the legal version of russia, if youre listening, because this is happening in plain sight, correct . Yes, absolutely. So the process that cynthia just described is the process that we believe in, right . Its our court process, and hopefully with this amount of deliberation, this much careful effort, this much back and forth, well come to a final decision that we can work with as a standard going forward, that we can agree upon, and that we think is fair. The problem here too is that President Trump and his family move much more quickly than the courts do. They move much more quickly than Law Enforcement does. So what were seeing is were seeing them set a norm. Were seeing them set what is acceptable. They are changing what the public will bear and what the public will accept. With see that in pompeos joke. So by the time the courts do finally rule, no matter how that ruling comes out, of course it will be impactful and very important, but its hard to deny that we as a public and we as a country will not have changed in a way that significantly could impact how much we care about that ruling. Cynthia, what an important point katie just made. The first family moves faster than Law Enforcement. Right. Well, thats the problem is they have figured out that the name of the game is stall, and its working for them. I mean its working in these cases. Its working in not turning over tax returns. Its working in improperly, you know, claiming executive privilege. Its working in not turning over the documents from the department of defense about the stays over in scotland. It works for them because our system of justice moves slowly. And at some point its all going to come, but it may be long after hes president by the time we get all this information. So whats going to have to happen is once we get it and we realize hes broken all the norms, congress is going to have to do their job and pass some laws that say that frame exactly what the president can and cant do because the emoluments clauses, there are two emoluments clauses in the constitution, and theyre a little bsh its not that theyre vague, but they dont spell it out in a way that can be quickly enforced, you know, on the trumps of the world. So were going to need actual, you know, very specific language in statutes that tells us exactly what the president can and cannot do in terms of a business while he or she i hope soon is the president of the United States. Okay. Of course when i hear congress im legally bound to invoke the phrase what could go wrong. Our thanks to these two guests tonight for both the journalism and the law of what were watching before us. To katie benner, to Cynthia Alksne, thank you both for joining us on a friday night. And coming up for our broadcast tonight, from a canceled meeting with the taliban to the ousting of another National Security adviser, a recap of trumps chaotic week on the world stage from a guy who covers the world stage. Mr. President , are you considering secretary pompeo to also be the National Security adviser . No, i wouldnt. I think hes fantastic, but i actually spoke to mike pompeo about that. He likes the idea of having somebody in there with him, and i do too. We have 15 candidates. Everybody wants it badly as you can imagine, and well probably next week sometime make that decision. Its a great job. Its great because its a lot of fun to work with donald trump, and its very easy actually to work with me. You know why its easy . Because i make all the decisions. All righty. The president now needs to find a Fourth National security adviser. The third person to hold that job, john bolton, who the president once called mike bolton, as trump prepares to meet World Leaders at the u. N. General assembly next week, the u. S. Is facing several Foreign Policy challenges. For example, taliban leaders were due to arrive as house guests at camp david before the president nixed that idea. The president continues to send conflicting messages on tariffs with china, now says hes open to an interim trade deal of some sort. He also seems open to another meeting with kim jongun of north korea even as the Treasury Department imposes new sanctions to punish north korean computer hackers. So to sort it all out, with us tonight, christopher dickey, a veteran foreign correspondent, journalist, author. He is the parisbased editor for the daily beast. Just in case people dont recognize you, i have something prepared for people as we normally see you. There is the champselysees, christopher dickey. Tonight were getting the new york christopher dickey. What a treat to have you here. Its my pleasure. I have to start on the darkest note. Tell the good people at home what you said to me about democracy on the break. I think in the United States, i think in Great Britain and across europe to some extent, were seeing the death of democracy. Were seeing the rise of what is calling itself populism, claims to speak in the name of the people, but in fact is destroying the basic institutions of republican small r republican government. When the history books are written, a, that is one of the more chilling things said at this table. B, when the history books are written, how much blame or credit will mr. Putin get . Well, either hes very lucky or very skilled in manipulating the situation or both. I think both. I think hes benefited from characters like boris johnson. I dont think Boris Johnsons necessarily working for putin. I think hes definitely benefited from the election of donald trump. Hes benefited from the crisis of migration and other issues that have created a sense of really great misgivings in europe. And hes basically taking revenge because you have to remember about putin that he feels and has always felt that the western Intelligence Services were undermining his authority and interfering with his efforts to rebuild the russian empire. And so this is his revenge. He saw the weakness in the western systems, and he went after them. And the first and biggest target well, not the first, but the biggest target was the United States. He used on us techniques that hed used in the baltic republics and other places, and they were very successful. The uk right now is a mess. If its not a mess, it will do till the mess gets here. Will we look back on brexit as the first probing of the russians to see if they could not affect a democracy and the Atlantic Alliance . Yeah, i think they didnt have to do that much work on brexit. They did try to influence the brexit situation, but i dont think that they had really prepared for it that much because nobody really had seen it coming. I mean when David Cameron called for this referendum, although he had said he would do it, it was one of those things people think, oh, no, hes not really going to do it. Then he does it, and he was sure everybody would vote lets stay in europe, at least most people would. But no. The result comes out, and its based on all kinds of things, the resentment of rural populations, fears of migration, this kind of thing. And the russians the russians tried to feed that. But where they really went to work was on the United States. That we see very clearly from the Mueller Report. Theres this whole idea now that somehow the Mueller Report was some fabrication, that it was irrelevant. Its very clear. Its very detailed. Its very unequivocal. The russians set out to have a profound effect on the elections in 2016. I dont think they thought that trump would win, but they thought they could undermine the authority and the credibility, the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by the kinds of games that they played. Then when they saw that trump could win, of course they put as much effort as they could into supporting him. Before we send you back to the champselysees, at the conclusion of your brief trip home, if i begged you to end on a hopeful note, maybe in a postmerkel germany, maybe in europe, where would it be . Where do you find hope . Well, i think there are frustrations in every one of the countries. I think that emmanuel macron, the president of france where i live, i think that he is trying to do the right things. I think he is a democrat although his authority is very powerful. But i think that he understands the kinds of things that were discussing. Merkel also, although shes on her way out, shes a lame duck, shes still a powerful influence for democracy. Yeah. We saw in spain people have been hanging on to democratic institutions, a country that still remembers fascism for what it really was. And i think there are signs of resistance, many signs of resistance. A lot of people thought that the european parliamentary elections a few months ago would be swept by these farright parties, and that didnt happen. In fact, the parties that are on the rise are the green parties in europe because in europe, unlike in the United States, the environment, climate change, those are huge and vital issues for voters at many levels, but particularly for the young people of europe. And they just basely dont want to inherit a world where theyll be burned alive. Thank you for always getting up insanely early to talk to us along the champs e lelyseecham. Thank you. Coming up, as the president promises hundreds of miles of new border wall, new warnings about National Security risks, real risks created by using military money to pay for it when we come back. That wall is being built, and its being built rapidly. And we hope to have as much as 500 miles of wall built by the end of next year. 500 miles. Thats a lot. Thats about what we want. The president boasting about his yet to be built wall. Of course building it brings with it heavy consequences. As you may remember, the administration is taking 3. 6 billion, with a b dollars from the pentagon to pay for the barriers. These funds have been earmarked for nearly 220 different projects on u. S. Military bases here and around the world. Nbc news obtained a report compiled by the u. S. Air force that lays out numerous ways this move of money impacts National Security. One example that stood out to us, Incirlik Air Base in turkey, the entrycontrol point at the main gate degrading, not properly configured to provide proper protection for pedestrian and vehicle passage. Quote, if not funded, the main gate remains vulnerable to hostile penetration in the midst of Contingency Operations and an increased terrorist threat. Then theres this. At Eielsen Air Force base in alaska, a boiler failure at a facility that provides all electrical power and steam heat for the base is imminent with temperatures as low as 65 degrees below zero, a failure would be devastating to facilities and the missions housed by them within hours. Congressional officials warn many of these projects could be set back a year or more. Its also clear the u. S. Military, in its own way, is trying to protect its own funding and facilities, especially where it affects readiness, which of course is job one for the pentagon. Another break for us, and coming up, an event that got drowned out by ten democrats last night. When we come back, what a prominent republican had to say last evening that you may not have heard. Last thing before we go here tonight is about last night. While we were here watching and covering the reaction to the democratic debate in houston, the president slipped into the city he associates with vermen, baltimore, maryland. He spoke at a gathering of House Republicans in a Marriott Ballroom for 68 minutes, and he covered it all, light bulbs, paper straws, cows, stairs, and again last night he was literally tilting at windmills. Hillary wanted windmills. They make noise. They kill all the birds. The energy is intermittent. You happen to be watching the democrat debate, and the wind isnt blowing, youre not going to see the debate. Charlie, what the hell happened to this debate . Pocahontas, sleepy joe. Buttigieg. They said think of it as boot and then edge edge because nobody can pronounce this guys name. Buttigi buttigieg. Buttigieg. Ive had him up to here. And president xi of china. He is tough. Oh, boy, hes a furious kind of a guy. I had a big meeting today and Chuck Grassley was there and joni ernst and john thune and mike pounds. Mike pounds. Hillary would make two stops and say ive got to rest for a couple of weeks. Let me rest for a couple of weeks. No, she didnt like stairs. Green new deal. Thats a beauty. No more cows, no more planes. I guess no more people, right . Because kevin is just like a cow. Hes just smaller. Hi i had to pick somebody for that one, kevin, and i looked at that face of yours. Then they talk about plastic straws. I said what about the plate . What about the wrapper . People said whats with the light bulb. I said heres the story. The bulb were being forced to use, number one to me most importantly, the lights no good. I always look orange and so do you. A guy in texas is wearing this beautiful hat. I wish we would wear them. Nobody would ever look at my hair and criticize me. Id wear that hat. I would never take it off. I are a terrific group, and i know almost all of you. I like most of you. And kevin is just like a cow, hes just smaller. Everybody, i want to thank you. This was an incredible evening. Our president of the United States condensed from last night in baltimore to play us off the air for this last broadcast of the week. Hoping your weekend is a good one. That is our friday night broadcast. Thank you so much for being here with us. Good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. She was family, just a giant hole was in our hearts. The first thing you want is, well, the police are going to get the bad guys, right . I was not prepared for what happened. Professor, artist, mom murdered. A primal scream came out of me. She immediately broke down, started crying pretty hard. Police quick to question the ex, maybe too quick. They focused in right from the very beginning. Husband always does it, right . What if the husband didnt . You dont find any dna fingerprints, blood, anything that hes in the house

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.