Latest Breaking News On - Patrick fallon - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Americas Newsroom 20200203

with the big solutions and get out there and fight for them. >> this is the campaign where the working class of america is going to say loud and clear enough is enough! >> i'm reluctant to give him any nicknames. he loves giving people nicknames usually derogatory. i have a nickname. former president donald trump. >> we're going to build a beautiful blue wall around these states and we'll make donald trump pay for it. >> as a moment like this history has taught us we can't take the risk of meeting a new challenge by falling back on the familiar. >> sandra: griff jenkins kicking off coverage here in des moines this morning. chilly morning. good morning. >> it is indeed. good morning sandra and ed. it's up to the iowa voters as they go to caucus sites, 1600 across the state. i can tell you one thing we certainly don't know who is going to win this one. remember a voter's first choice in candidate has to reach a 15% threshold or otherwise they will have to make a second choice. consider this, the last four democrat nominees have gone on to win in iowa that's very important with this open race we really don't know who will win it. a sense on the ground here, ed and sandra, this is sizing up to be a four-way race. sanders is surging and has had the largest crowds here. he is running neck-and-neck with biden in the recent polling. buttigieg and warren are crossing the state with a lot of energetic events. their crowds have been growing in final days. and buttigieg and warren have been the most frequent second choice when i've been man on the street interviewing all these voters from one side to the other into the state. then there is this. for the first time the democrat officials are going to tabulate the results three ways. there will be a first expression, a final expression, and a state delegate equivalencey. the last one has been traditionally how they determine the winner. but this new rule may allow multiple candidates to claim some sort of victory. only time will tell now. polls open up, caucus sites at 7:00 p.m. central tonight. hopefully we'll know late tonight or early tomorrow. >> sandra: we'll see. that's the big question. griff jenkins in des moines. we'll get new reaction from one of the candidates this morning. pete buttigieg joining us in a few moments to discuss his campaign and whether his strategy for courting democrats in rural counties will pay off. stay tuned for that. >> ed: a fox news alert back in washington house impeachment managers and president trump's defense team return to the senate floor in a short time to make closing arguments in the trial. that begins 11:00 a.m. eastern time as it heads for a final vote on wednesday. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is following the action since the beginning and back live on capitol hill this morning. good morning. >> good morning. the finish line for the senate impeachment trial is in sight. senators will hear the closing arguments ahead of the iowa caucuses. tomorrow senators will have an opportunity to speak 10 minutes each ahead of president trump's state of the union address. wednesday more speeches from senators ahead of a late afternoon final vote. it's expected the president will be acquitted the lead impeachment manager will still make his case. >> i'm not letting the senators off the hook. we're still going to go into the senate this week and make the case why this president needs to be removed. it will be up to the senators to make that final judgment and the senators will be held accountable for it. >> today a key republican expressed concern about the impact on future presidents. >> the democrats have set the bar so low for impeachment that it doesn't matter who the next president could be or depending on what party is in charge in congress. that we could see an ever-constant rotation of impeachment proceedings. >> exclusive interview with sean hannity president trump was asked if he will be able to work with speaker nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and the democrats. >> president trump: i would like to. it's hard when you think about it because it's been such i use the word witch hunt, hoax, i see the hatred. i see the -- they don't care about fairness or lying. you look at the lies. >> mandatory attendance on the senate floor for the senators on the final phase of this trial in about two hours. >> ed: we'll be watching. thank you. >> sandra: let's bring in byron york from "the washington examiner" and fox news contributor. it's nice to see you in person for a change. you will kick things off for us this morning. so many different scenarios in iowa. what's the most likely sen ario you see this morning >> the least likely is that there will be one clear-cut big winner in the caucus. i think more of a muddled result is more possible for the first time democrats are releasing the first vote totals to everybody's initial preference. so you'll get to see how support is really spread out. the republican caucuses they've always counted the votes and the one with the most votes wins. doesn't work that way in the democratic party. we'll see a number of people claiming to have done very well. >> sandra: what is the strategy on the part of the president? he sat down with our own sean hannity taking democrats on in a big way. here is the president. >> president trump: i don't think she wanted to do this. i think she knew what was going to happen and it's her worst nightmare has happened. i don't think she will be there too long. i think the radical left -- she is sort of radical left too, by the way. i think the radical left will take over. >> sandra: that was a president in a new interview talking about nancy pelosi saying the radical left is going to take over calling on her demise as far as leadership. >> that's consistent with the president saying a socialist will be elected if you choose a democrat you'll have a socialist in the white house. the president is messing with the democrats big time. in 1984 ronald reagan who had no renomination worries at all, came to des moines on caucus day and democrats were very upset having a big caucus. they said it was a presidential stunt and not worthy of a president. donald trump knows about that and darned if he didn't come here to des moines on thursday, held a much bigger rally than any other democrat has held. he also has an a-list of surrogates. family, cabinet members, members of congress spreading out in the republican caucuses tonight. stepped up social mead ya. he is running a big campaign in iowa. you think is it because he is afraid of those never-trump challengers? no. he is trying to win the general election now while democrats are struggling with their caucus. >> sandra: while impeachment continues on capitol hill as it will a couple hours from now, byron, you look at the situation there. you heard from adam schiff saying one way or another the truth will come out. what does that mean about what happens next with democrats, the president, and impeachment? >> specifically john bolton's book will come out next month. we can see what he says. i think it's more consistent with what adam schiff has been saying for two or three years. democrats have always suggested that whatever has been discovered in an investigation is only the tip of the iceberg. there is some really big, dark truth that is out there that will be uncovered. they went 2 1/2 years with the russia investigation. had a mueller report. that didn't happen. now they're saying it will happen with ukraine. >> sandra: and that will all continue this morning. there is a possibility, by the way, finally, byron, the house could decide to subpoena john bolton. will they go that route? >> absolutely. the big question will be why didn't do you that earlier? there is no doubt bolton has been running around waving his hand saying please subpoena me and nobody has done it. great to be here. >> sandra: ed. >> ed: we'll get voting tonight. interesting. when you have john kerry overheard allegedly saying maybe i'll get in here. sounds like democrats are nervous whether bernie sanders will get momentum. kerry running from that. >> sandra: caucusing begins today. the trial continues later this morning on capitol hill. >> ed: let's not forget officials confirming the first coronavirus death outside of china this morning. u.s. airports scramble to enforce new travel restrictions. the latest on the effort to contain the outbreak coming up. >> sandra: rival campaigns warning bernie sanders could claim victory tonight before the iowa caucuses are concluded. how could it shape the outcome? karl rove has a lot to say on that and will join us next as we come to you live from des moines, iowa, on this monday morning. >> if the turnout is high, we're going to win. [cheering and applause] our job together is to create the highest turnout in the history of the iowa caucuses. [cheering and applause] [ applause ] thank you. it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. and one gram of sugar. looking to repair dry, damaged hair without weighing it down? try pantene daily moisture renewal conditioner. its color-safe formula uses smart conditioners to micro-target damage helping to repair hair without weighing it down. try pantene. >> ed: the death toll on the -- meanwhile there are now 11 confirmed cases right here in america after three more were reported in the state of california. the department of homeland security is imposing new travel restrictions. rerouting flights if anyone on board has been in china over the last 14 days. we will have much more on this important story later in the show. >> sandra: the political world focused on iowa today. top democrats may be watching bernie sanders very closely. political reporting that rival campaigns are warning the sanders campaign not to claim victory after the first vote in the caucuses tonight. let's bring in karl rove, former deputy chief of staff to george w. bush. great to be in person with you here in des moines. a bug in the corner of our screen. iowa caucuses doors closed. countdown clock. the doors close promptly at 7:00. so tell us about the change in rules this year and why there may be multiple candidates declaring victory. >> in the past they've simply at the end of the evening announced one number, the state equivalent. the sde, which is how many people are going to go on from the caucuses to the state convention for each candidate. they've also had a percentage on that. for example, 49.8 for hillary or 48.6 for bernie in 2016. tonight, these titles make me think like science fiction movie doing time travel or something. we have the first realignment. everybody walks in the caucus and we have the first alignment, everybody says here is who i'm for. stand with the people you're for. then they find out if they've got how many people are in the room and whether or not your candidate has 15% or more of the people in the room. if not, if your candidate doesn't, you have to now decide will i go home or am i going to go to the second realignment? the second realignment and then report that number. so >> sandra: what does it mean for declaring victory? multiple major news organizations say they won't declare a winner, only declare a winner based on the final delegate count. >> a lot of change could happen. think about it. we have -- depending what poll you look at we have between 75 and 85% of the support is going to candidates at or above the 15% threshold level or near the 15% threshold level. but that means that you have anywhere from 15% to 25% who are either undecided or for a lesser candidate. therefore tom steyer or yang or tulsi gabbard. those people, representatives in those caulks need to make a decision who am i for. >> sandra: the strategy of bernie sanders and his campaign. rivals are warning he and his campaign may plan to gain the iowa results and claim victory before the caucuses are actually over? >> we don't know whether or not it's true. it might seem logical. if you look at the polling data. it -- we don't have a lot of this. but what is the second choice of the people in the caucuses? bernie has a smaller share of the second choice. that's typical of a frontrunner. the guy who has been leading here in the last couple of weeks. the last month or six weeks. it is typical that person would sort of be getting to their upper limit. when you say to people who is your second choice? biden, klobuchar, warren, buttigieg, they the end to perform better than he does. the idea would be he would say -- he will look the best on the first alignment. i'm not certain that they've necessarily done that. it is a smart move by all the not sanders people to say -- to point it out and jump on it. it makes bernie look weak and sets it up to focus people's attention more on the second number. the second realignment number, than the first number. >> sandra: if they weren't pointing this out as they are, we'll see if that's true or not, that could give bernie sanders a leg up to declare victory before the caucuses are actually over? >> you know what? it will take place during a limited number of hours and at the end of the day, they've got now a way to collect this data so that in the past it took a long while to do it. most of the precincts will report via an app. >> sandra: do you have a likely scenario? >> it will be a long night. it will be so close even while the vast amount of the votes come in by the app some people won't use the app and phone in their numbers. my gut tells me we're likely to have a crowded field. we'll have a surprise. we might have klobuchar getting delegates that border minnesota. buttigieg might do better than expected. we're likely to have a very close field. >> sandra: great to see you. we'll see. >> ed: we'll be watching. meanwhile, fox news alert from london. isis claiming responsibility for another stabbing attack in the british capital. what we're learning this morning about the suspect. >> sandra: plus pete buttigieg as karl mentioned making his final appeal to iowa voters. a look at his campaign and chances in the hawkeye state when he joins our show live next. >> it is difficult to believe how far we have come from a year ago when we first turned up in a coffee shop in ames thrilled because there were dozens of people there. although most of them were just there to get a cup of coffee. five years ago, i had psoriasis everywhere. my skin hurt, i felt gross. but then i started cosentyx and i haven't really had to think about it. real people with psoriasis... look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. ithat car is one of mine. and soon, it's going to be one of theirs. but they would have never even known it existed. if it weren't for the power of targeted tv advertising. it's smart. it grabs people's attention. it works. it's why comcast spotlight is changing its name to effectv. because being effective means getting results. >> ed: 2020 democrats making their final appeal to voters as the 2020 race kicks off in iowa tonight. here live is democratic presidential hopeful pete buttigieg. thank you for coming in. i don't know if you want the endorsement from karl rove. he said a moment ago he thinks you might exceed expectations tonight. >> i would hate to come on tv and set an expectation to come in ahead of expectations. we feel a lot of strength on the ground. we had a fantastic pair of events yesterday in the iowa city and des moines. we've been in a lot of the counties that famously switched from president obama to trump and we're seeing folks come out of the woodwork not just diehard democrats but some more independent-minded folks. disaffected republicans looking for a change. wanting to turn the page and looking for a campaign that welcomes them and demonstrate we have what it takes to defeat donald trump in the fall. >> your staff tells me your captains will be important to rally support for you. a lot of trump voters who went obama in 2012 and went trump in 2016 and looking for something new. what is your appeal to trump voters in rural areas? >> this is going to be a campaign that invites everybody in to be part of the solution. it is not saying we're going to agree on everything. farmers are getting killed as a result of the trade war, consumers are feeling the imfact of that. >> ed: are farmers being killed by the trade war when the president just signed usmca into law and basically that will mean jobs? >> it is helpful, the usmca after the democrats insisted on some improvements. i think it's a good package. the trade war never should have happened in the first place. my point is when you see tax policies favoring corporations over the middle class. refinery waivers at the expense of farmers in the midwest there is an opportunity to talk to voters who haven't connected with the democratic message in a long time. it's about what we're for. making sure we're dealing with climate change. we're delivering an economy where one job can be enough. that we're supporting rural communities as well as parts of our cities that have been left behind. >> ed: you said a moment ago bringing people together and reaching out to trump voters yet you were on cnn yesterday doubling down on the claim you've made that trump supporters are at best you say looking the other way on racism and then the president at the super bowl has an ad last night that quotes alice johnson an african-american wom who got a second chance because of the president. let's play the clip and you can react. >> i'm free to start over. this is the greatest day of my life. my heart is just bursting with gratitude. i want to thank president donald john trump. [cheering and applause] >> ed: how can you attack not just the president but 63 million people in america who voted for him when you have african-american women like alice johnson saying this is a president who gave me a second chance? >> i think that president trump's decision to sign the first step act when it came to his desk is one of the handful of things i could agree with him on. it doesn't change the incredibly cruel and divisive racial rhetoric that comes out of this white house that is one of the many reasons that i'm meeting not only democrats but republicans who tell me that they struggle to look their children in the eye and explain to them how this is the president. >> ed: are you the right messenger to question the president on race when as mayor black leaders were critical of what you did with police-involved shooting and other matters. why are you questioning the president? >> because the president is wrong. he is wrong to attack women of color. he is wrong to compare people to animals. he is wrong to assault entire cities in his tweets. again, you don't have to be a died in the wool democrat to know it's wrong just as a lot of republicans in congress and senate even if they provide cover for the president can't actually bring themselves to say that he is a good leader. it's revealing. look, this is an opportunity to turn the page, to turn the page on this president and frankly within my party to turn the page on some of the internal fights that we had in 2016. >> ed: are you the man to lead that effort? there is an op-ed that the "washington post" ran over your leadership. experience you bring to the table. it's a mayor from out in california christine shay who writes it takes a huge ego to think that mayoral experience alone would empower anyone to go to the west wing. from leading a town of a few hundred thousand to a country of 330 million. the chance of a rookie mistake is high and the stakes could not be higher. that's a mayor. >> i agree the stakes could not be higher but washington experience is maybe not the kind of establishment experience that we're seeing out there that's traditionally what people expect in a presidential candidate. it is not what americans are looking for. the experience of being on the ground, leading a city. we have a little bit of a different system in indiana. there is no such thing as a city manager in my city. you are the executive and there is no one else to call. it is not just that. we're talking about the situation room, maybe it's time to have somebody in that situation room who knows what it is to be sent into war on the orders of an american president. not only in terms of the experience i bring to the table and look, let's be honest. this is a job that should be daunting for any human being. and yet every person who has ever done it, good and bad presidents and in between one thing they have in common is they're mere mortals and human beings. >> ed: you mentioned your military experience. gallup ran a poll in terms of the president handling of the he con knee in the 80s. handling terror and some of those issues come up in the high 60s. how do you run against a president who has incredibly high approval numbers on issues like handling terror, handling his work in foreign policies and the situation room and handling the economy? >> part of the president's unpopularity has to do with his let's say mixed relationship with the military and on security matters. the fact that for anybody who is in the post 9/11 conflicts to hear the president of the united states say the traumatic brain injury is no big deal. when he took advantage of the fact that he was the son of a multi-millionaire to fake a disability to avoid serving when it was his turn. somebody needs to challenge him on that and i'm prepared to go toe-to-toe with him. >> ed: there are three tickets out of iowa. do you believe you'll have one? >> absolutely. we're seeing on the ground a tremendous amount of energy. volunteers are out in every precinct in the state. we think we'll have the organization to compete to win and to go on to new hampshire and beyond. >> ed: we wish you luck and appreciate you coming in today. thank you, sir. >> sandra: is john kerry really considering a run for the white house in 2020? the details on what the former secretary of state had to say about a brand-new report when former dnc chairwoman donna brazile talks. >> it was the difference in a lot of history as a result of falling short. i know something what it takes to win the presidency. >> sandra: as we all know the iowa caucuses are the first presidential nominating contest of the year. there are a few changes in 2020 compared to past campaigns. mark meredith is here in des moines with a look at that. >> good morning. iowa prides itself being the first in the country to help choose the next president. the way they do things here is different from some of the primaries and states we'll see over the next several weeks how they conduct their primaries. first is that the individual parties are the ones that run the caucus, not state government. we see the rules of the iowa caucus vary by party. democrats and republicans don't do things the same way. third, perhaps the most fascinating to watch in all of this is the caucus goers for the democrats show their support by standing in a section of a room devoted to their candidates. participants have to be in line by 7:00 p.m. central tonight to take part. first-round candidates need 15% support of those in attendance in the precinct to remain viable. once those candidates have that 15% support, those people that chose that candidate they're locked in and don't have a choice to choose somebody else. supporters of non-viable candidates. those who didn't have 15% get a second choice or they could form an uncommitted block meaning after the first round if someone voted for tulsi gabbard they didn't have enough support they could choose to support bernie sanders. at the end of the night the party doesn't just declare one winner overall. instead they will be announcing three results, tallies of the first rounds of the caucus, the final alignment numbers and how many state convention delegates candidates are getting. >> we've made a lot of changes to the process. these will be the most transparent caucuses and most accessible that we've ever held. by the nature of our process it is transparent. >> this year iowa is doing something known as satellite caucuses to allow people hawkeye residents that are working out of state to still take part in the process. when the results would will come in, that's anyone's guess. official efs -- officials are hoping it comes in quicker than it did four years ago. >> sandra: thank you. >> tomorrow night is the beginning. it is the beginning of the end for donald trump. [cheering and applause] >> ed: that is bernie sanders making his final pitch to voters. brand-new tonight and joining us now is donna brazile. former dnc interim chair and fox news contributor. good morning. >> i'm excited to be here. so it begins once again. another political cycle and it is remarkable state. >> ed: what will happen? >> i don't know. i do believe the voters, a large turnout tonight. i believe the voters have so many wonderful candidates to choose from. tonight we'll say to america we'll take this opportunity to select one or two people. there may be three tickets or four tickets depending if greyhound is still running. they are going to caucus tonight energetically, positively, to pick the next president of the united states. i do believe that will happen. >> ed: you say this is a great field. we've heard that from so many democrats. someone sent me a clip during the break. chris matthews this morning saying i'm not happy with this field. none of these folks on the stage, he says, can beat donald trump. >> you know, i recognize that the challenge of taking on an incumbent president is difficult even in good times. but we live in a country that i think many americans, those who voted for hillary clinton, many americans who did not vote, they want a different way. they want a leader who can unify us and bring us together and i hope tonight the iowans pick someone to unify the country. >> ed: is the leader john kerry maybe, the former nominee? this report yesterday from nbc news that john kerry is at a hotel in dee moin and overheard saying bernie will drive the party off a cliff and maybe he has to get in. >> i heard about it. and here is my recommendation to all leaders, all surrogates. leave your phone in your bedroom or put it in a vault. give it to sandra perhaps. don't talk in the hotel lobby to your friends about what is happening. because you will be overheard. >> ed: more importantly the content of what he said to be fair to senator kerry he tweets out as i told the reporter i am absolutely not running for president. i'm proud to campaign with joe biden who will win the nomination, beat trump and make an outstanding president. i have 30 seconds. john kerry has been on the ground with joe biden the last couple of days. if he is blabbing to people i think bernie is bringing us off a cliff, does that suggests joe biden is not a strong frontrunner? >> he knows joe biden. i want to tell democrats, stop this so-called bed wetting. we have a strong group of americans who are running. i'm confident that one of them will be able to take on the sitting president of the united states who will be a tough -- when i say tough, he will be tough to defeat. but we must go out there and positively and get ready to do it. >> ed: a tough message from donna brazile. >> stop the bed wetting. i'll give them some depends. stop it. >> sandra: thank you, donna. who will president trump prefer to take on in a general election? he weighed in on that yesterday in a brand-new exclusive interview with sean hannity. we'll have that for you and fresh reaction from the trump campaign coming up. mercedes schlapp is joining us. "america's newsroom" live from the river center in des moines, iowa as we continue. what does help for heart failure look like? ♪the beat goes on it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. >> we feel a lot of strengths on the ground. we've been in a lot of the counties that famously switched from president obama and trump and we're seeing folks come out of the woodwork. not diehard democrats but more independents, disaffected republicans looking for a change wanting to turn the page. >> sandra: that was pete buttigieg a few moments ago on "america's newsroom" hoping to make a big splash in the nation's first 2020 contest here in iowa. he is facing some heavy competition in the battle for delegates when the iowa caucuses kick off officially today. joining us now ari fleischer former white house press secretary and fox news contributor. good to have you here. first up you heard a bit from pete buttigieg. he is also making the case that those obama supporters that went over to trump in 2016 may be coming back. here he is making the case. okay. we don't have that sound right now. he very thoroughly laid out the case talking to ed. >> he has a good reason to believe that. not only the obama/trump voters. i think some people see pete buttigieg's candidacy as an attractive one compared to the other democrats. can he get base democrats out? i think it's bernie tonight. i think it's impossible to look at iowa and the makeup of the voter in iowa. the youth in iowa. liberal component in iowa, bernie's strength. and not see bernie winning. the other thing is the biden demise. i called him yesterday senator months ago. he is increasingly feeling like yesterday's presidential candidate. there is just something deflating watching joe biden's events. >> sandra: if it's bernie's night what does it do for momentum? >> huge. he lost iowa to hillary by 3/10 of 1% margin. this propels him in new hampshire where he is strong and the contest opens up when you get to south carolina and nevada and the other states. >> sandra: okay. joni ernst, i want to move on to the idea what happens next with the precedent that may have been set with the impeachment process and democrats. joni ernst is making the suggestion that the impeachment of president trump paves a way for impeaching joe biden should he win the presidency. she says i think the door of impeachment has been opened. joe biden should be careful what he is asking for. you know we can have a situation where if it should ever she continues, be president biden immediately people the day after he would be elected would be saying well, we're going to impeach him. >> i hope not for the same reason this is a waste of time and wrong procedure. you let the people decide these things, not congress. i hope this isn't a precedent. this should not have started against president trump. it doesn't mean republicans should do it to president trump successors. leave elections up to the voters. this is one of the pleasures being in iowa. you feel the energy and what we're doing is letting the people decide who the president is as opposed to being in washington where 535 people decide who the president is. this is how democracy should work. >> sandra: iowa caucuses, impeachment trial continuing later this morning. and the state of the union tomorrow night, ari, what a week it will be. what tone do you expect the president to take? >> rise above. i like to hear the message the white house put out about huge optimism is what the president will talk about and where he should be. the worst thing the president could do is talk about impeachment. impeachment is what politicians and washington press corps wants to talk about it. the public aren't talking about it. you see it everywhere you go. david axelrod from a democratic focus group. rise above. set yourself high. that's what the americans want to respond to. >> sandra: we were talking to byron york at the top of the hour making the case with what you're seeing with the president. the new interview with sean hannity last night. the attacks on democrats that he has already launched the presidential campaign. >> for years. the only thing i didn't like on the sean interview. bernie sanders is not a communist, a socialist. communism was an oppressive political system. we're america and never have a country or people like that. socialism is bad enough in and of itself. sit a terrible economic system that per pet waits injustice and poverty for all. stick to that. >> sandra: he made that comment a rapid fire on what he thinks of when sean would name off each individual candidate. final thoughts on the attacks on mike bloomberg. >> interesting. he has the money and they like his money. they might not like him but they like his money. >> sandra: great to see you. >> ed: thanks, sandra. a comeback 50 years in the making. the kansas city chiefs winning their second super bowl championship. a live report on that big game from miami coming up. >> nine minutes left in this game. i told her it will never happen in my lifetime. she said yes it is. >> i said they do this to it. >> unbelievable. s or total?... eh, not enough fiber- chocolate would be good- snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ >> ed: a comeback for the ages. kansas city chiefs defeating the san francisco 49ers in a thriller of a fourth quarter to win the super bowl 31-20. it is the chiefs first super bowl victory in 50 years. our man on the scene is phil keating live in miami. home of this year's super bowl on fox. we were watching in des moines, phil. we had a great time. the whole fox team. you got to see it in miami. what a game. >> it was great game. a super hot halftime show. everything the big game is supposed to be on a beautiful night in miami. when the countdown clock hit zero and the game was over hard rock stadium erupted into a confetti storm of red and gold for the kansas city chiefs. an electric fourth quarter come from behind win for the chiefs and quarterback patrick mahomes. game was fast paced and up for grabs in the first half. both teams scored. halftime the game was locked down tied at 10-10. second half the 49ers dominated taking a 20-10 lead all the way until about six minutes left in the game. that's when super bowl mvp mahomes turned it on and san francisco's defense and offense crumb el had. mahomes after his comeback. >> we executed. you play a defense like that you won't have success. i'm glad our guys kept fighting and we found a way to get it in the end. >> to the very entertaining halftime show. shakira and j. lo performing as dancing as medley of hits. very well produced. the dancing. the crowd loved it. fireworks on stage as well. records were set. mahomes is youngest quarterback to win the super bowl mvp at 24 years old. >> ed: what about the dancing? >> wonderful halftime show. i'm not sure what all i can say on tv. >> ed: let's keep it clean. >> sandra: what a game. all right. the u.s. announcing new travel restrictions from china as the coronavirus death toll increases by the day. the latest efforts to contain that outbreak next. americans come to lendingtree.com to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. >> ed: good morning. caucus day in iowa. the 2020 presidential election season officially kicking off. democratic candidates making their final push by iowans cast their first votes. we're live in des moines. i'm ed henry. good to be together. >> sandra: i'm sandra smith. much more on the caucuses in a moment. in the philippines, a teams at john hopkins tracks the worldwide spread of the deadly outbreak of coronavirus that began in wuhan, china. >> ed: there are 11 cases in the united states. >> most of these cases had exposure in wuhan, china. both of them were remaining in one residence since they came. that's why i don't think these two cases change the risk to the general public. >> sandra: rich edson has a latest from the state department as u.s. officials restrict travel. what more are we learning? >> good morning. officials say they're going to run more flights to evacuate american citizens from china from the area where this outbreak began. secretary of state mike pompeo is traveling in uzbekistan. the u.s. government is coordinating with china on the logistics of those flights. >> we anticipate they'll happen in the next handful of days and we'll return those american citizens. we may end up bringing citizens back from other countries as well. we're working through the details on that. we hope also to bring medical supplies in the context of those aircraft traveling into the region. >> china's foreign ministry says the u.s. government hasn't provided any suck stantive assistance to us. the first to evacuate personel its consulate and first to suggest partial withdrawal of staff and put a travel ban. it can create and spread fear, a very bad example. china says the virus has killed 361 people there. now more than the sars outbreak did 17 years ago. "the new york times" reports local chinese officials initially down played and sensored information about the virus. the state department has raised the travel advisory to china to its highest level, level 4. warning americans don't go there. the federal government is routing all americans who have traveled to china in the past 14 days to enhanced screening before entering the united states. and american officials say they'll prevent any non-american citizens who try to come into the u.s. and have been to china over the past couple of weeks, they mostly won't likely be able to enter the country. sandra and ed, back to you. >> sandra: rich edson at the state department. thank you. >> ed: meanwhile president trump back in the white house this morning as he goes over his remarks for the third state of the union address that he will deliver. that tomorrow night. just one day before the final phase of his impeachment trial. the republican majority senate expected to vote for acquittal. >> we'll turn the page on impeachment at 4:00 wednesday. all republicans will vote not guilty. i think we'll pick up a handful of democrats. i'm glad the trial is coming to an end. >> ed: gillian turner is live on the north lawn of the white house with the president's next move. >> good morning. that final senate impeachment vote is now just over two days away which means tomorrow when president trump delivers what is his third state of the union address he will be sandwiched right in between today's iowa caucus votes and wednesday's final impeachment vote. expected to be an acquittal as you mentioned. after 8:00 p.m. last night as the halftime show was getting underway during the super bowl president trump revealed his thinking on the address saying his administration has accomplished most of its goals. more than any other president in the first three years. he also said he wants to keep thinks message tomorrow night, quote, very positive. take a listen what he told fox news sean hannity over the weekend. >> president trump: we'll talk about the achievements that we've made. nobody has made achievements like we've made. so many different things. >> white house officials confirm to fox news they say the theme of tomorrow night's address is the great american comeback. they also say to look for the president to lean heavily on specifics when it comes to the economy. military posture and veterans, healthcare, immigration and of course national security. they say to look for special mention of the u.s. relationship with iran. the wild card for the speech is, of course, impeachment. so far senior officials have declined to comment whether the president will touch on it at all. it is totally up to him. over the weekend he did blast democrats handling of the trial so far. take a listen. >> president trump: they don't care about fairness or lying. you look at the lies, you look at the reports that were done that were so false. i think they just want to win and it doesn't matter how they win. >> ticking through a list of the top democratic contenders going into iowa president trump says he is not too concerned about any of them. he says his campaign believes they'll win the state of iowa in 2020 by a landslide. he is holding fast to his favorite line about the election today which is that this is really a competition between american freedom and socialism. ed and sandra. >> ed: gillian turner live from the north lawn. thank you. >> you bet. >> throw out a name. whatever comes to your mind. we'll start with joe biden. >> president trump: i just think of sleepy. i watch him. he is sleepy. >> bernie sanders. >> president trump: i think he is a communist. i think of communism when i think of bernie. you could say socialist. he is true to what he believes. elizabeth warren is not -- she can't tell the truth. bloomberg, very little. i think of little. i would love to run against bloomberg. i would love it. >> sandra: president trump weighing in on the 2020 democratic field in an exclusive super bowl interview with sean hannity. let's bring in mercedes schlapp trump 2020 campaign advisor. welcome. nice to see you. bernie sanders is certainly a target of the president. he is picking on multiple candidates. when it comes to bernie sanders he calls him a communist. sanders says the caucuses are the beginning of the end for president trump. how does the campaign respond? >> bernie has to be concerned with his own problems with the democrat national committee and democrat establishment trying to take him out. he has his own problems to deal with. when you look at bernie, he is that socialist candidate. he is attracting some of the youth. he has pulled together an interesting coalition when it comes to iowa. the question becomes is that you look at independent voters and look at those democrats who have turned over to trump and said i'll support trump on his policies and they are very concerned of how you would see a government takeover here in the united states. fundamentally change the way our country runs. i think you are talking about on healthcare, take away 180 million private insurance. it would impact individuals. i think that people are saying that's just too far for me. >> sandra: a specific strategy on the part of the trump campaign to drive this divide between bernie sanders and the democratic party. >> i think the democrats are creating their own divide. i think it is a chaotic process. the party is trying to figure out their identity. will they move far left? i think the candidates are attracted to those far left policies. and quite frankly what you see with the democrats in congress alone is that they have done not very much. they haven't been willing to work with the president on comprehensive immigration reform or took them to get usmca passed. there is a sense of just hatred towards the president and their unwillingness to work with them. the democrats will have a problem selling their so-called economic policies of tax increases to the american people. >> ed: you mentioned usmca. pete buttigieg was trying to say the trade war is hurting the american consumer. i noted the president signed usmca. a lot of jobs for america. pushback there. how to your broader point does the president get some movement on trade, on immigration reform? other big issues with the state of the union address. he will be acquitted we expect on wednesday. how do you push the reset button? what's the restart for the white house to try to work? >> the reset button. republicans need to win the house of representatives. there is no question that nancy pelosi is listening to the far left and it is i think one of the reasons why she moved towards impeachment. so it's that group, the squad and the far left members i think basically pushed nancy in that direction. it has put the party in jep ar daoe. our goal to get things done for the american people is making sure we win the house. >> sandra: how much of impeachment will get in the way of that and the democrats continued efforts to take down this president? as we know the trial continues on capitol hill this morning but adam schiff indicating i should say not ruling out subpoenaing john bolton in the house. where it goes next. here is adam schiff and i'll get your response. >> i'm not letting the senators off the hook. we're still going to go into the senate this week and make the case why this president needs to be removed. it will be up to the senators to make that final judgment and the senators will be held accountable for it. >> sandra: president has to run a campaign through that. >> no question. remember, the impeachment was a partisan scam. this was -- it was democrats' willingness and obsession with removing this president. it has failed. if they are going to continue down this pathway as we continue to see -- the president will attack voters. i have been spending time in iowa. every time i'm asked former democrats here or democrats voting for trump. raise their hands. at the rallies you talk many times one-third of the rally goers are democrats. we're developing a strong coalition with independents, democrats and strong approval. >> ed: when i landed here on thursday night i saw air force one. the president was here rallying your troops ahead of these caucuses tonight. we have a race board looking at the president versus hillary clinton in 2016. he won the state as i recall by about 150,000 votes. six electoral votes. talk about his strategy. you are here eric and lara trump will be here and 80, 85 surrogates for the president here on caucus night. what message are you trying to send to democrats? >> we won't take iowa for granted. we'll play in a number of states. we have the most sophisticated grassroots organization that we have seen. it is definitely very different from 2016. i tell you the enthusiasm is there. we're going to go to new mexico and minnesota and colorado, arizona. we're expanding our map and through the leadership of brad parscale and the president being the messenger he is we'll talk about what we've delivered and the president delivered for the american people. >> sandra: who poses the biggest threat today from iowa? >> the president will take on any contender. we have the results to show it. you talk about the economy, you talk about the trade deals where it was status quo for decades. this president took on china and he was able to establish a phase one trade deal, able to work with mexico and canada. it is results. when you look people will say do i have more money in my pocket? can my kids benefit? can my family have a better life? under president trump is what we've seen. economic prosperity through and through. the democrats can't compete. they don't have an agenda. their agenda is impeachment and socialism. radical policies that don't align with mainstream america. >> ed: mercedes i have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of you on "america's newsroom" between now and november. >> congratulations, great you are here, ed. >> sandra: thank you. as iowa prepares to caucus today the final poll had to be scrapped. what happened exactly? >> ed: little mystery there. bernie sanders remaining confident he will pull off the win tonight. rivals reportedly wearing his campaign is plotting to game the results. why are they raising alarm bells this morning as the high-stakes contest finally gets underway tonight? >> it is the beginning of the moment when we tell the billionaire class and the 1% this country belongs to all of us, not just a few. [cheering and applause] ommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. rakuten is free to sign up and it's in over 3,000 stores. i use it to buy makeup... travel... ...clothes, electronics. to me, rakuten is a great way to get cash back on anything you buy. sign up today and rack it up with rakuten. and let me tell you something, rodeo... i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better. >> sandra: fox news alert. we're getting reports of a deadly shooting on a greyhound bus in southern california. highway patrol saying one person has been killed. five injured and a suspect is now in custody. the bus was headed north from los angeles to the san francisco bay area at the time of the shooting. still no word on a possible motive. we're watching that. >> ed: we're live this morning in downtown des moines. only hours before the caucuses finally kick off all across the state of iowa. voters here in the hawkeye state preparing to cast their votes in the nation's first contest in the 2020 election. >> sandra: what they don't have available for reference is iowa's highly regarding cnn/des moines register poll. it was pulled saturday after questions how interviews were conducted. >> ed: we have a polster and fox news contributor. thank you for joining us. cnn had a special plan saturday night. let's roll out the poll. what went wrong and why don't we have sort of this final look, final snapshot of where the race is? >> good news is we have a final snapshot coming from other media sources and universities. there is tons of polling going on in iowa now. if you're a registered voter in the state of iowa and ever thought about voting democratic and have a telephone you are getting called by pollsters. in this case normally the polls being conducted there is something wrong with one interviewer. you can throw those interviews out and replace them with someone else. because of the tv special, because of the time frame that poll had to come out or had to not come out. there was no delaying it. we have a good sense of what's going on heading into the caucuses tonight. bernie sanders has momentum from other polls. it is disappointing being a poll sfer that you don't have a last data point. there are plenty of others out there. >> sandra: there is some concern. you saw the political headline. rivals are warning that bernie sanders may claim victory before everything is concluded. what impact would it have? >> somewhat significant impact in the sense winning in iowa is not about the delegate count. iowa doesn't have tons of delegates. it is the momentum and narrative coming out of it. if bernie sanders is able to take the first count and say look, i won, the state delegate equivalent that will come later on in the evening, while that determines who gets the delegates if the narrative has been set early it will be tough for anybody else to break through. >> ed: you talk about the first alignment with the caucus system where say bernie in one precinct could beat joe biden 30% to 28% and others don't make the 15% threshold and klobuchar and yang supporters go to alignment and biden is ahead you are saying bernie can look in the raw vote total i won. >> that's right. because it comes first it sets the tone for what everyone is talking about the rest of the night. you could have a case where if all of a sudden it gets reported bernie sanders won on the first vote. what if you have folks supporters of yang or dull see gabbard. a candidate who brought in a unique group of people for the democratic process but might not have an appetite for anyone else. if their candidate is not viable they have a option of going home. >> sandra: let's back up and look at the broader view as we sit in des moines historical importance of this state and how important iowa is in this particular election year. >> iowa is important. it is one of those states that voted for barack obama and then flipped and voted for donald trump. not just by a little but a lot. iowa is in some ways a state that is very good at predicting who gets elected president in the general election. you want as a democrat to have a strong showing here not just because you want to have the momentum going into new hampshire and the rest of the process but able to show you're able to win in the kind of state that also voted for donald trump in the general election. electability is key to so many voters. to show well that you can do well in a state that broke for donald trump is important. >> ed: the president had a big rally the other night. all over local tv and papers, big crowd waiting in hours for the cold speaks well for him. what about for the democrats what we keep hearing from democrat official s that the turnout will be record high? >> it shows among their base. i think certainly in this year where there is no other competing contest, no republican caucus on the other side. all the energy is focused around the democrats. because they have so many folks in their field they may not each democrat may not love everybody who is available. democrats are happy and satisfied with the choices that they have so i think you are seeing that reflected in the turnout? >> sandra: do you have a likely scenario? >> i know the polls are close enough i would be foolish to give a conclusion. bernie sanders has to be happy with the momentum he is seeing tonight. >> sandra: president trump taking aim as we saw in a new interview at mike bloomberg saying that he would love to face him this november. what does he think about the other candidates? >> ed: we'll get into that. plus could the president overshadow the entire field in iowa? his impact on the caucuses and beyond with our a-team live here in des moines straight ahead. >> sandra: bring them in. [ applause ] thank you. it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ va mortgage rates have dropped fto near 50 year lows.. call newday usa. one call can save you $2000 a year. with the newday va streamline refi there's no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket costs. and my team can close your loan in as little as 30 days. one call can save you $2000 every year. (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. >> sandra: it is a big day for 2020 democrats. a lot at stake as the candidates gear up for tonight's iowa caucuses. ellison barber is in downtown des moines where candidates will have watch parties later today. >> good morning, sandra and ed. as you guys know, this weekend was full of a whole lot of community events, town halls, super bowl parties, candidates had very little, if any, down time. their volunteers stayed very busy as well making phone calls and some last-minute door knocks. the candidates are trying to make their final pitch to voters. a lot of them, of course, we've seen campaign sort of in the final days try to narrow their focus on supporters. they are still talking to people not sold on their candidates and trying to convince them their person is the right one for the job. most campaigns seem to be zeroing in on likely iowa supporters. we spent time in different campaign field offices this week. as volunteers made calls, knocked on doors, again most of the campaigns most of the volunteers we saw working were focusing on reaching out to people they have identified as supporters. they want to make sure they know when and where to show up and that maybe they bring some of their like-minded friends. turnout is key. senator bernie sanders made that argument, that point directly to some of his volunteers. take a listen. >> if there is a low voter turnout, we'll lose. if there is a high voter turnout, we are going to win. [cheering and applause] our job -- i know you are doing that today -- our job is to bring out our family, our friends, our co-workers. bring out everybody you know. >> from the beginning one of the key ten either of former vice president's bidens campaign has been electability. he thinks he is the person most likely to bring back the obama coalition and convince independents and disaffected voters to vote for him in the general election and beat president trump. in the final days we've seen all of the top candidates zero in on making that exact same pitch. >> in a moment like this history has taught us we cannot take the risk of meeting a fundamentally any challenge by falling back on the familiar. >> can a woman win? across america in competitive races women are out performing men. our number one job is to beat donald trump, women win. >> senators klobuchar, sanders, warren are back in d.c. to get back to the closing arguments in the impeachment trial. we expect all of them to make it back here to iowa tonight. ed and sandra. >> sandra: ellison barber in des moines. thank you. >> tomorrow night is the beginning. it is the beginning of the end for donald trump. [cheering and applause] >> ed: bernie sanders trying to make it all about the president as he makes a final appeal for support ahead of tonight's iowa caucuses. >> sandra: he is a top contender in the hawkeye state but party leaders think he could be a liability for democrats if he runs. we have our a-team. fox news contributors. marie to you first. bernie sanders closing argument by joining our movement you are joining a fight for human solidarity. will that work? >> we'll see. he and joe biden are stuck at the top together. they're within the margin of error in the polls we've seen in iowa. what will be very interesting is where amy klobuchar supporters, where other candidates who don't make that threshold, where their supporters go. what i've heard from voters on the ground from democratic voters is watching the impeachment trial, watching donald trump in his interviews and rally this week in des moines has fired them up to nominate someone who can beat him in november. there is quite a bit of concern about bernie sanders hurting the top of the ticket for his race anddown ballot races. we'll see record turnout probably. a lot of talk about democratic infighting. we saw that in 2016 with the republicans. they came together. primaries are okay. i think democrats are so fired up to beat trump in november. >> ed: marie is talking about the idea of taking on the president. we had pete buttigieg on the show earlier. unity and winning over trump voters but trying to slash the president as well on the issue of race and other matters. let's hear him. >> the president is wrong. he is wrong to attack women of color. he is wrong to compare people to animals. he is wrong to assault entire cities in his tweets. again, you don't have to be a dyed in the wool democrat to think it's wrong. a lot of republicans in congress and senate providing cover for the president can't actually bring themselves to say that he is a good leader. >> ed: yet the president's campaign had the super bowl ad about the voice of alice johnson. a black woman saying this is the president who gave me a second chance. >> i thought it was really interesting. they had leaked one of their ads that we were all expecting. this national ad. unemployment at record lows and stronger than ever. the fighter plane and a good ad. then what they actually sneak in there early in the game is the criminal justice reform act. a concrete accomplishment talked about by a lot of politicians for many years. he perhaps got it done and caught a lot of people's attention. a savvy move by the campaign. i'm curious to see on the question of democratic unity. i think marie is right that at some point they will almost all come together and say we have to beat this incumbent. the bernie or bust people are a tough sell on that message if it is not bernie sanders. i don't think the dnc is doing itself any favors by already changing the rules midstream to help someone like mike bloomberg. that feeds the type of theorizing from people who already think the establishment are out to get bernie. you have to set rules and stick by them or else it looks like there is a thumb on the scale. >> sandra: kevin mccarthy made that point yesterday. >> bernie has not been able to campaign. biden has not been able to put it away. now they're changing the rules to let other people on stage to run against bernie. you watch what pelosi said yesterday warning people not to vote for bernie. they did it to him four years ago and try to do it to him again. >> i'm not sure kevin mccarthy needs to make that argument for democratic voters. the point is a good one. michael bloomberg is dangerous to president trump in a general election. a lot of money to spend. he appeals to more moderate an independent voters. how michael bloomberg comes into play on super tuesday will be interesting particularly if he is on the debate stage. coming out of iowa we'll look to how joe biden does. he needs to do strongly but he doesn't need to win. we'll be looking how pete buttigieg does who you spoke to this morning. new hampshire bernie is predicted to do pretty well in a week. of course we head into nevada and south carolina. joe biden strongholds. he is still at the top of democratic polling with black voters. other candidates are not anywhere close. talking about trump super bowl ad. democrats look at that ad and say if trump is making a play for those voters we should nominate joe biden because he has such strong support in that community. >> ed: incumbent not staying silent. he has the stage tomorrow night. state of the union. he sat down with sean hannity, super bowl interview basically. played a little word association when it came to michael bloomberg short. here is what he said about bernie sanders. >> president trump: i think he is a communist. he is far beyond a socialist. see true to what he believes. >> a genuine communist. that is a backhanded compliment from president trump. that answer first of all whether you want to use the term socialist. democratic socialist. comeist. bernie sanders elected in the middle of the cold war to honeymoon in the soviet union. commitment to the cause. i think there is a strange paradox about bernie sanders which is now twice has been a serious contender for the democratic nomination. and he still kind of feels a little bit unvetted. i saw a video of him the other day that i had never seen before as a younger man singing soviet songs in a bar in russia. i was like how have i never seen this? i think it's part of the angst you are seeing among the democratic establishment or the non-bernie large wing of the party saying if he becomes the nominee they aren't saying he is totally unelectable. i don't know if that word means anything anymore. so many unknowns about this guy and how voters react to him when he is no longer this person who is quasi-lovable in theory but might be president. the dnc has a file on him they're waiting to unleash. if not you better believe the republicans do. >> sandra: i want to finish with the criticism or observation from rahm emanuel. democrats may be blowing their chance. he says progressives seem to be forgetting donald trump. >> dnc or hillary clinton or anything else that comes up on the campaign trail. i agree with that. democratic voters believe that. right? most democratic primary voters are more moderate. they say overwhelmingly that above all else they want to beat donald trump. i think the hand wringing we see among some of us, media, pundits, people in washington is one thing. voters on the ground. people going to caucus sites tonight their number one priority is to beat donald trump. the reports we've seen this week the trump campaign is conflicted on bernie sanders. some say he has the socialist tag that will hurt him and others say he has support from trump supporters. maybe he is a bigger threat they're thinking. an interesting debate in the trump campaign. >> you might have to reach out to john kerry. he was on a cell phone yesterday saying maybe this field is not so great. >> i saw those stories and saw him at the biden rally last night and folks saying people have been saying this to john kerry for a long time. i would love to work for john kerry again. he is supportive of vice president biden. they're very good friends crisscrossing the state in support of him. he loves being in iowa. he had a magical run in 2004. he is not running. he is fully, fully supportive of joe biden. >> ed: the door is shut, guy. >> don't be on your cell phone in a hotel lobby. >> ed: what a great a-team. thank you for being here. we are just hours away from the first in the nation caucuses right here in iowa. up next we'll look at how local businesses across the state are cashing in on the political drama. >> sandra: it is the political show that takes center stage in iowa every four years. a big moneymaker for small businesses. con el mcshane is here to break down the numbers. a huge impact on the local economy. >> what's interesting about that, this time of year in a non-caucus year is usually very quiet. >> the first part of preparing for the caucuses is the physical material but getting mentally prepared for all the attention. >> mike draper is the man behind ray gun. a quirky t-shirt shop known for its creative catch phrases? the midwest and politics. >> bernie sanders, i wrote the damn bill. >> bernie came in to get his picture taken with us and this shirt. >> talk about 2020 a little bit. we had a bernie sanders look. tell me what else you have in terms of the candidates that's selling well. >> we carry all the candidates' books. >> we can reenact the debate. did you call me a liar, what? >> january normally a sleeper sales time gets a big boost during caucus years and des moines business owners must be prepared. >> normally we staff way down for january after december but you'll usually have about 10% more floor staff in january during the caucuses as you would. your sales over regular january will be up from 25 to 30%. >> draper is sharing the wealth. baker brittany owns one sweet kitchen. she teamed up with ray gun to sell cookies in draper's shop. >> we have iowa-shaped cookies. we reached out to them and they thought of slogans that they sell on shirts and we put them on cookies. >> tell me about this january versus last january. >> projecting 20% more revenue from cookies and caucuses this january. the cool thing about that and all the foot traffic is you don't know the trickle down effects who will call later for cookies. >> i think i'm sold. good cookie, very good cookie. >> sandra: didn't your mother ever teach you not to talk with your mouth full? >> i left half of it at the desk in the store. what i left. >> ed: did you get a refund? >> sandra: a great piece. >> it is interesting. we went around to a number of other businesses, restaurants and like, hotels, occupancy rates are up. i think something of the order of 15%. this stuff short term like we were saying in the piece normally this time of year is quiet around here. it will be interesting to see what it's like in a week or two. it's real. the businesses know it. every four years let's get extra people on and make as much money as we can off the journalists and everything. and the super bowl doesn't hurt, either. any time busy last night. there were a lot of chiefs fans in iowa. not that far from missouri. >> ed: i picked up a hat that references the quarterback for the chiefs says patrick is ma-home. >> the owner of the place gets the copyright on these catch phrases. everybody comes here and want to grab something that makes them laugh and remember their experience at the caucuses. >> sandra: what did you get ed and me while you were shopping? you came away empty-handed? >> you can have half a cookie. >> ed: i knew that was coming. check him out. big kansas city comeback as quarterback patrick mahomes rallies the chiefs to victory over the san francisco 49ers. that was on fox and we'll recap it next. near record lows,s i want to tell as many veterans as possible about newday's va streamline refi. it's the closest thing to automatic savings that we've ever offered. at newday, veterans can refinance their mortgage with no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket expenses. and we've extended our call center hours so that every veteran can take advantage of these near record low rates. ♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. >> ed: call him the comeback kid. 24 years old. patrick mahomes named the mvp after guiding the kansas city chiefs to a big come from behind win over the san francisco 49ers in super bowl liv. let's bring in gerad max on your sirius xm radio. one lucky man to be there for that game. i'm jealous. >> didn't think it would go that way. i was saying a few years ago when the falcons led the patriots 28-3 i had to keep changing the story i was writing and to tell after the game and then it happened again. there is a common factor here. back then the offensive coordinator of the falcons was kyle shanahan, the same head coach of the 49ers. last night san francisco went the final 22 1/2 minutes not scoring at all. the comeback kid as you talk about 24 years, 138 days exactly, ed. patrick mahomes is the youngest mvp winner in a super bowl and the poise that he showed when his team was down 20-10 and then battled back scoring three touchdowns in the span of 5 minutes and 1 second. i look at mahomes going forward. a passing of the torch from the tom brady nfl to patrick mahomes becoming a brady type. i think more like a peyton manning for dan moreno. for kyle shanahan, he will have to answer the question blowing the huge lead against the patriots and here against the kansas city chiefs. kansas city, think about it. this team 50 years in between super bowl victories. the longest stretch ever before. somebody turned to me last night got the late touchdown 24-20. 31-20. guy next to me says i just won my office super bowl boxes because of the final score. >> ed: you may suggest that tom brady is being replaced by mahomes as the big dog in the nfl. >> if the 49ers won maybe grap -- we're lucky we'll have great quarterbacks around the nfl for some time. the chiefs, what will they do for him? thrilled for andy reid. a great guy and great story. he has gone through a lot. >> sandra: a great game and fantastic coverage by fox. if you decided to go to bed after halftime you missed the comeback. >> ed: i got the hat i talked about patrick is ma homey. thanks for coming in. it has the chiefs colors and everything. >> sandra: moments away from closing arguments beginning at president trump's impeachment trial in washington we'll take you there live when that begins. and it's off to the races in iowa. we are covering the caucuses from every angle here from "america's newsroom" in des moines. we'll be back with a brand-new hour. >> 2020 is our moment in history. if you believe that this is our time, our chance, then i ask you commit today to caucus for me. e refinance than ever. the newday va streamline refi is the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now. >> ed: we start a any hour with a fox news alert live on capitol hill where the president's impeachment trial is resuming any moment now. closing arguments coming from both sides. they're supposed to last about four hours. evenly divided between the house impeachment managers and president trump's defense team. senators will also be able to speak about the articles of impeachment later today with their own speeches. tomorrow as well ahead of a final vote set for conviction or acquittal on wednesday. back to iowa now, though. back here in iowa where candidates are making their final pitch to voters ahead of the first contest in the presidential race tonight. welcome back to "america's newsroom." i'm ed henry. >> sandra: a lot to juggle this morning. i'm sandra smith. we're live in des moines, iowa this morning where after months of speeches and millions of dollars spent voters will finally weigh in on the 2020 race. you can see in the corner of your screen there we're less than nine hours now until the doors close tonight. there is a whole lot at stake for democrats. president trump has his eye on iowa as well with his rally there last week and campaign team out in full force today. all of this as he prepares for his state of the union address which will be happening tomorrow night as his impeachment trial winds down. mercedes schlapp joined us a short time ago on "america's newsroom," a trump 2020 advisor. >> i tell you the enthusiasm is there. we'll go to new mexico, minnesota, colorado, arizona. we're expanding our map through the leadership of brad parscale and the president being the messenger that he is we'll talk about the results and what we've delivered and what the president has delivered for the american people. >> sandra: chief white house correspondent john roberts is live with more kicking off our 11:00 local time hour. good morning, john. >> almost expecting a hee haw somewhere there n there. the president paying attention to iowa and focusing a lot of his attention on somebody who is not even playing in iowa. mike bloomberg. both the president and bloomberg had competing ads on the super bowl last night. the president accusing the dnc of rigging the election against bernie sanders tweeting, quote, many of the ads you were watching for paid for my mini mike bloomberg. he is going nowhere wasting his money and getting the dnc to rig the election against bernie. they're doing it to bernie again 2016. in the pre-super bowl interview with sean hannity the president had some choice words for bernie sanders going beyond the label of socialist. also taking aim at elizabeth warren. listen here. >> president trump: well, i think he is a communist. look, i think of communism when i think of bernie. you could say socialist. he got married in moscow. that's wonderful. elizabeth warren is not truthful. i call her fairytale. everything is a fairytale. this woman can't tell the truth. >> in addition to accusing the democrats of trying to orchestrate a campaign to use bloomberg to take out bernie the president also tweaking bloomberg himself asked by sean hannity what he thinks. >> very little. i think of little. now he wants a box for the debates to stand on. there is nothing wrong. you could be short. why should he get a box to stand on, okay? he wants a box for the debates. why should he be entitled to that? does that mean everyone else gets a box? >> the bloomberg campaign took a swing of president trump accusing him of being a liar who lies about everything including the block, face hair, obesity and spray on tan. >> sandra: thank you, john. >> ed: more on this with brit hume. good to see you. try to stay away from hair and short and all a rest of it. >> okay. presidential election race in the fall where the candidates are vying to see who has the better hairdo. give me a break. >> we'll leave that to voters. we'll ping-pong back and forth. i apologize in advance if we jump to capitol hill. your thoughts on where we are on impeachment. >> nobody has doubted the outcome from the start. if you assess where republicans are in the senate lamarr alexander in his explanation of his vote spoke for numbers, dozens probably of republicans. >> ed: how so? >> they don't believe what the president did on the phone call and pressuring ukraine by delaying aid was proper but not an impeachable offense. they say we don't need more witnesses. we'll assume he did it. it is not a big enough deal to be an impeachable offense. it would be different we can now recognize if the aid had not in the end flowed within the congressionally mandated deadline and if ukraine had started an investigation. the additional factor the meeting the ukrainian president was seeking was held. it was a presidential level at the u.n. in the end nothing came of it. >> ed: the additional factor of well there was never investigation of the bidens. ukrainians. >> they didn't do it or announce it. >> the impeachment managers barrel forward anyway. nancy pelosi who said, you know, this has to be bipartisan, never got that. i was talking to republicans this morning who say they may finally get bipartisanship on the acquittal. >> think about this. pelosi had it right when she didn't want to do this saying it had to be bipartisan. why would that be? you will need republican votes to convict. one reason. the other more important reason perhaps is you want -- you don't want to wield the impeachment punishment and result for something that is less than really egregious. so egregious that even members of a presidents' party will be prepared to vote to convict. >> ed: let's talk about what is happening on the ground in iowa. pete buttigieg is trying to exceed expectations tonight. he is talking about obama voters from 2012 that went trump in 2016 and what he and other democrats are doing to w*ip them over. >> we've been in a lot of the counties that famously switched from president obama to trump and we're seeing folks come out of the woodwork not just diehard democrats but more independent-minded folks and disaffected republicans wanting to turn the page and looking for a campaign that welcomes them and demonstrate to have what it takes to defeat donald trump. >> ed: you have democrats saying we'll be all about unity and beating president trump and john kerry the former democratic nominee alefjedly on a cell phone saying what will it take for me to get in here because bernie sanders is drying us off a cliff. >> the level of alarm about bernie sanders and his apparent success here. if he wins this and new hampshire. they have a serious frontrunner they think has no chance of winning the election. that's what the kerry call reflects. i saw buttigieg after your interview. you were tough with him. he said he thought it was fine. that's what it is all about. tough but fair. you didn't burn your bridges. he was going out for a run. >> ed: on your point pushing him about. he has been direct in saying the 63 million americans who supported president trump are looking the other way an racism. i pushed him on the fact the president's super bowl ad last night was all about helping people of all races with the second chance act basically. here he is buttigieg. >> president trump's decision to sign the first step act when it came to his desk is one of the handful of things i could actually agree with him on. it doesn't change the incredibly cruel and divisive racial rhetoric that comes out of this white house that is one of the many reasons that i'm meeting not only democrats but republicans who tell me that they struggle to look their children in the eye and explain to them how this is the president -- >> ed: so when you have this ad that's people of all races who get a second chance. alice johnson, a black woman who said it is donald trump who gave me a second chance. >> that's a powerful ad considering the source of it. a woman who was benefited from something trump did that was interesting and something you might not have expected from him which is why you have even pete buttigieg recognizing it. buttigieg reflects a view that i think is clear. anything this president does that can be seen as adverse to any minority, immigrants, blacks or whoever, is automatically seen as racist. now, i frankly don't think there is very much evidence that trump is much of a racist. but it's absolutely accepted and believed in the democratic party. i don't think the people who voted for trump in the past think he is a racist. >> ed: quick answer on the big picture. you'll be on all night tonight. your thoughts on the big picture for the democratic race and who might exceed expectations. >> i don't do predictions. at last we may have clarity in the race. polls have been see-sawing all over the place and tonight at last people will vote, yippee. the way they've set this system up, ed. there are a lot of ways to be seen to win. a raw vote total and delegates come in two ways. a lot of apparent victors tonight. >> ed: thank you for your thoughts. >> sandra: let's go to washington now where the impeachment trial has resumed at the top of the hour. you will hear closing arguments from both sides. the impeachment managers making their case now. the defense will then make their closing arguments and a reminder the senators after that can then debate the impeachment articles for up to 10 minutes apiece over the next three days. let's go back to washington as the impeachment trial is again underway sglao. for this reason will seldom fail with the passions of the whole community and to divided into parties more or less friendly to the accused in such cases there will also be a greatest danger the decision will be regulated more by the strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. daniel webster and alexander hamilton placed thaifr hopes new, the senate, to be the court of greatest impartiality. to be a neutral representative of the people in determining uninfluenced by party or pre-existing faction the innocence or guilt of the president of the united states. today you have a duty to perform. with fidelity not without a sense of surrounding dangers but not without hope. i submit to you on behalf of the house of representatives that your duty demands that you convict president trump. i don't pretend this is an easy process. it is not designed to be easy. it shouldn't be easy to impeach or convict a president. impeachment is an extraordinary remedy. a tool only to be used in rare instances of grave misconduct. but it is in the constitution for a reason. in america no one is above the law, even those elected president of the united states. i would say especially those elected president of the united states. you've heard arguments from the president's counsel that impeachment would overturn the results of the 2016 election. you have heard that in seeking the removal and disqualification of the president the house is seeking to interfere in the next election. senators, neither is true. these arguments demonstrate a deeply misguided or intentional effort to mislead about the role impeachment plays in our democracy. if you believe as we do and as we have proven, that the president's efforts to use his official powers to cheat in the 2020 election jeopardize our national security and our antithetical to our democratic tradition you must come to no other conclusion that the president threatens the fairness of the next election and risks putting foreign interference between the voters and their ballots. professor dershowitz and the other counselors to the president have argued that if the president thinks that something is in his interest then it is by definition in the interests of the american people. we have said throughout this process that we cannot and should not leave our common sense at the door. the logical conclusion this argument is that the president is the state, that his interests are the nation's interests, that his will is necessarily ours. you and i and the american people know otherwise. we do not have to be constitutional scholars to understand this is a position deeply at odds with our constitution and our democracy. that believing in this argument or allowing the president to get away with misconduct based on this extreme view would render him above the law. but we know this cannot be true. what you decide on these articles will have implications for the future of the presidency, not just this president but all future presidents. whether or not the office of the presidency of the united states of america is above the law. that is the question. as was written in an 1835 work democracy in america the greatness of america lies not in being made for enlightened than any other nation but rather in her ability to repair her faults. in may of 1974 barry goldwater and another republican congressional leaders went to the white house to tell president nixon that it was time for him to resign. and that they could no longer hold back the tide of impeachment over watergate. contrary to popular belief the republican party did not abandon nixon as the watergate scandal came to light. it took years of disclosures and crisis and court battles. the party stood with nixon through watergate because he was a popular conservative president and his base was with him. so they were, too. but ultimately as goldwater would tell nixon, quote, there are only so many lies you can take and now there have been one too many. the president would have us believe that he did not withhold aid toll force these sham investigations. that his july 25th call with the ukrainians was perfect. that his meeting with president zelensky on the sidelines of the u.n. was no different than a head of state meeting in the oval office. that his only interest in having ukraine announce investigations into the bidens was an altruistic concern over corruption. ukrainians interfered in our 2016 election, not russia. that putin knows better than our own intelligence agencies. how many falsehoods can we take? when will it be one too many? let us take a few minutes to remind you one last time of the facts of the president's misconduct as you consider how you'll vote on this important matter for our nation. those facts compel the president's conviction on the two articles of impeachment. >> mr. chief justice and senators, over the past two weeks the house has presented to you overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence that president trump has committed grave abuses of power that harmed our national security and were intended to defraud our elections. president trump abused the extraordinary powers he alone holds as president of the united states to force an ally to interfere in our upcoming presidential election for the benefit of his own reelection. he then used those unique powers to wage an unprecedented campaign to obstruct congress and cover up his wrongdoing. as the president's scheme to corrupt our election progressed over several months, it became as one witness described more insidious. the president and his agents wielded the powers of the presidency and the full weight of the u.s. government to increase pressure on ukraine's new president to coerce him to announce two sham investigations that would smear his potential election opponent and raise his political standing. by early september of last year, the president's pressure campaign appeared on the verge of succeeding until, that is, the president got caught. and the scheme was exposed. in response, president trump ordered a massive cover-up unprecedented in american history. he tried to conceal the fact from congress using every tool and legal window dressing he could to block evidence and muzzle witnesses. he tried to prevent the public from learning how he placed himself above country and yet even as president trump has orchestrated this cover-up and obstructed congress's impeachment inquiry, he remains unapologetic, unrestrained and intent on continuing his sham to defraud our elections. as i stand here today, delivering the house's closing arguments, president trump's constitutional crimes, his crimes against the american people and the nation remain in progress. as you make your final determination on the president's guilt, it is therefore worth revisiting the totality of the president's misconduct. doing so lays bear the ongoing threat president trump poses to our democratic system of government, both to our upcoming election that some suggest should be the arbiter of the president's misconduct and to the constitution itself that we all swore to support and defend. donald trump was the central player in the corrupt scheme by his private attorney rudy giuliani. early in 2019, giuliani conspired with two corrupt former ukrainian prosecutors to fabricate and promote only investigations of wrongdoing by former vice president joe biden, as well as the russian propaganda that it was ukraine, not russia, that hacked the dnc in 2016. in the course of their presentation to you, the president's counsel have made several remarkable admissions that affirm core elements of this scheme including specifically about giuliani's role and representation of the president. the president's counsel has conceded that giuliani thought that convince ukraine to investigate the bidens and allege ukraine election interference on behalf of his client, the president. and that the president's focus on these sham investigations was significantly informed by giuliani, whose views the president adopted. compounding this damning admission, the president's counsel has also conceded that giuliani was not conducting foreign policy on behalf of the president. they have confirmed that in pursuing these two investigations, giuliani was working solely in the president's private personal interest. and the president's personal interest is now clear, to cheat in the next election. as giuliani will later admit for the president's scheme to succeed, he first needed to remove the american ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, an anti-corruption champion. giuliani viewed her as an obstacle who, and i quote, was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody. working with now-indicted associates parnas and fruman, giuliani orchestrated a bogus month-long smear campaign against the ambassador that culminated in her removal in april. the president's sudden order to remove our ambassador came just three days after ukraine's presidential election in late april which saw a reformer zelensky swept into office on an anti-corruption platform. president trump called to congratulate zelensky right after his victory and invited president zelensky to the white house and agreed to send vice president pence to his inauguration. three weeks later, after rudy giuliani was denied a meeting with president zelensky, president trump abruptly ordered vice president pence to cancel his trip. instead, a lower-level delegation led by three of president trump's political appointees, secretary of energy rick perry, ambassador to the european union gordon sondland and special representative for ukraine negotiations kurt volker attended zelensky's inauguration the following week. these three returned from ukraine impressed with president zelensky. in a meeting shortly there after with president trump in the oval office they relayed their positive impression of the new ukrainian president and encouraged president trump to schedule the white house meeting he promised in his first call. but president trump reacted negatively. he railed that ukraine tried to take me down in 2016. and in order to schedule a white house visit for president zelensky, president trump told the delegation that they would have to, and i quote, talk to rudy. it is worth pausing here to consider the importance of this meeting in late may. this is the moment that president trump successfully hijacked the tools of our government to serve his corrupt personal interest. when the president's domestic political errand as one witness famously described it began to overtake and subordinate u.s. foreign policy and national security interests. by this point in the scheme, rudy giuliani was advocating very publicly for ukraine to pursue the two sham investigations. but his request to meet with president zelensky was rebuffed by the new ukrainian president. according to reports about ambassador bolton's account, soon to be available if not to this body, then to bookstores near you, the president also unsuccessfully tried to get bolton to call the new ukrainian president to insure he would meet with giuliani. the desire for ukraine to announce these phony investigations was for a clear and corrupt reason because president trump wanted to politically benefit, wanted the political benefit of a foreign country announce than it would investigate his rival. that is how we know without a doubt that the object of the president's scheme was to benefit his reelection campaign. in other words, to cheat in the next election. ukraine resisted announcing that investigations throughout june so the president and his agent rudy giuliani turned up the pressure. this time by yielding the power of the united states government. in mid-june the department of defense publicly announced it would be releasing $250 million of military assistance to ukraine. almost immediately after seeing this, the president quietly ordered a freeze on the assistance to ukraine. none of the 17 witnesses in our investigation were provided with a credible reason for the hold when it was implemented and all relevant agencies a posed the freeze. in giuliani -- if ukraine announced the sham investigations. according to a july 19 email the white house has tried to suppress this drug deal as ambassador bolton called it was well-known among the president's most senior officials including his chief of staff, mick mulvaney, and secretary of state mike pompeo. it was relayed directly to senior ukrainian officials by gordon sondland on july 10th at the white house. everyone was in the loop. although president zelensky explained he did not want to be a pawn in washington politics, president trump did not care. in fact, on july 25 before president trump spoke to president zelensky, president trump personally conveyed the terms of this quid pro quo to gordon sondland who then relayed the message to ukraine's president. later that morning, during the now-infamous phone call president trump explicitly requested that ukraine investigate the bidens and the 2016 election. zelensky responded as president trump instructed he assured president trump that he would undertake these investigations. after hearing this commitment, president trump reiterated his invitation to the white house at the end of the call. now no later than a few days after the call, the highest levels of the ukrainian government learned about the hold on military assistance. senior ukrainian officials decided to keep it quiet recognizing the harm it would cause to ukraine's defense. to the new government standing at home, and to its negotiating posture with russia. officials in ukraine and the united states hoped that the hold would be reversed before it became public. as we now know, that was not to be. as we have explained during the trial, the president's scheme did not begin with the july 25th call and it did not end there, either. as instructed, a top aide to president zelensky met with giuliani in early august and they began working on a press statement for zelensky to issue that would announce the two sham investigations and lead to a white house meeting. let's be very clear here. the documentary evidence alone, the text messages, the emails that we've showed you, confirm definitely the president's corrupt -- definitively the president's corrupt quid pro quo for the white house meeting. subsequent testimony further affirms that the president withheld this official act. this highly-coveted oval office meeting to apply pressure on ukraine to do his personal bidding. the evidence is unequivocal. despite this pressure by mid-august president zelensky resisted such an explicit announcement of the two politically-motivated investigations desired by president trump. as a result the white house meeting remained unscheduled. just as it remains unscheduled to this day. during this same time frame in august the president persisted in maintaining the hold on the aid despite warnings that he was breaking the law by doing so. as an independent watchdog recently confirmed that he did. according to the evidence presented to you the president's entire cabinet believed he should release the aid because it was in the national security interest of our country. during the entire month of august, there was no internal review of the aid. congress was not notified, nor was there any credible reason provided within the executive branch. with no explanation offered and with the explicit clear, yet unsuccessful quid pro quo for the white house meeting in the front of his mind, ambassador sondland testified that the only logical conclusion was that the president was also withholding military assistance to increase the pressure on ukraine to announce the investigations. as sondland and another witness testified, this conclusion was as simple as two plus two equals four. if the white house meeting wasn't sufficient leverage to extract the announcement he wanted trump would use the frozen aid as his hammer. secretary pompeo confirmed in an august 22 email it was also clear that vice president pence was aware of the quid pro quo over the aid and was directly informed of such in warsaw on september 1 after the freeze had become public and ukraine became desperate. sondland pulled aside a top aid in warsaw and told him that everything both the white house meeting and also the security assistance were conditioned on the announcement of the investigations that sondland, giuliani, and others had been negotiating with the same aide earlier in august. this is an important point. the president claims that ukraine did not know of the freeze in aid, though we know this to be false. as a former deputy foreign minister admitted publicly, they found out about it within days of the july 25th call and kept it quiet. but no one can dispute that even after the hold became public on july -- on august 28th, president trump's representatives continued their efforts to secure ukraine's announcement of the investigations. this is enough to prove extortion in court. and it is certainly enough to prove it here. if that wasn't enough, however, on september 7th more than a week after the aid freeze became public, president trump confirmed directly to sondland that he wanted president zelensky in a public box and that his release of the aid was conditioned on the announcement of the two sham investigations. having received direct confirmation from president trump, sondland relayed the president's message to president zelensky himself. president zelensky could resist no longer. america's military assistance makes up 10% of his country's defense budget. and president trump's visible lack of support for ukraine harmed his leverage in negotiations with russia. president zelensky affirmed to sondland on that same telephone call that he would announce the investigations in an interview on cnn. president trump's pressure campaign appeared to have succeeded. two days after president zelensky confirmed his intention to meet president trump's demands the house of representatives announced its investigation into these very issues. shortly there after the inspector general of the intelligence community notified the intelligence community that the whistleblower complaint was being improperly handled -- was improperly withheld from congress with the white house knowledge. in other words, the president got caught and two days later on september 11th, the president released the aid. to this day, however, ukraine still has not received all of the money congress has appropriated and the white house meeting has yet to be scheduled. the identity of the whistleblower moreover is irrelevant. the house did not rely on the whistleblower's complaint even as it turned out to be remarkably accurate. it does not matter who initially sounded the alarm when they saw smoke. what matters is that the firefighters, congress, were summoned and found the blaze. and we know that we did. the facts about the president's misconduct are not seriously in dispute as several republican senators have acknowledged publicly. we have proved that the president abused his power in precisely the manner charged in article 1. president trump withheld the white house meeting and military assistance from ukraine in order to pressure ukraine to interfere in the upcoming presidential election on his behalf. the sham investigation president trump wanted announced had no legitimate purpose and were not in the national interest. despite the president's counsel's troubling reliance on conspiracy theories to claim the president acted in the public interest. the president was not focused on fighting corruption. in fact, he was trying to pressure ukraine's president to act corruptly by announcing these baseless investigations. and the evidence makes clear that the president's decision to withhold ukraine's military aid is not connected in any way to purported concerns about corruption or burden sharing. rather, the evidence was presented -- that was presented to you is damning, chilling, and disgraceful. president weaponized our government and the vast powers entrusted to him by the american people and the constitution to target his political rival and corrupt our precious elections, subverted our national security, and our democracy in the process. he put his personal interests over those of the country. and he violated his oath of office in the process. but the president's grave abuse of power did not end there. in conduct unparalleled in american history, once he got caught, president trump engaged in categorical and indiscriminate obstruction of any investigation into his wrongdoing. he ordered every government agency and every official to defy the house's impeachment inquiry. and he did so for a simple reason, to conceal evidence of his wrongdoing from congress and the american people. the president's obstruction was unlawful and unprecedented but it also confirmed his guilt. innocent people don't try to hide every document and witness especially those that would clear them. that's what guilty people do. that's what guilty people do. innocent people do everything they can to clear their name and provide evidence that shows that they are innocent. but it would be a mistake to view the president's obstruction narrowly. as the president's counsel have tried to portray it. the president did not defy the house's impeachment inquiry as part of a routine interbranch dispute or because he wanted to protect the constitutional rights and privileges of his presidency. he did it consistent with his vow to fight all subpoenas. the second article of impeachment goes to the heart of our constitution and our democratic system of government. the framers of the constitution purposefully entrusted the power of the impeachment in the legislative branch so it may protect the american people from a corrupt president. the president was able to undertake such comprehensive obstruction only because of the exceptional powers entrusted to him by the american people. and he wielded that power to make sure congress would not receive a single record or a single document related to his conduct and to bar his closest aides from testifying about his scheme. throughout the house's inquiry just as they did during the trial, the president's counsel offered bad faith and meritless legal arguments as transparent legal window dressing intended to legitimize and justify the president's efforts to hide evidence of his misconduct. we've explained why all of these legal excuses hold no merit. why the house's subpoenas were valid. how the house appropriately exercised its impeachment authority. how the president's strategy was to stall and obstruct. we've explained how the president, after the fact, reliance on unfounded and in some cases brand-new legal privileges are shockingly transparent cover for a president dictate a blanket obstruction. we've underscored how the president's defiance of congress is unprecedented in the history of our republic. and we all know that an innocent person would eagerly provide testimony and documents to clear his name. as the president apparently thought he was doing mistakingly when he released the call records of his two telephone calls with president zelensky. and even as the president has claimed to be protecting the presidency, remember that the president never actually invoked executive privilege throughout this entire inquiry. a revealing fact given the law's prohibition of invoking executive privilege to shield wrongdoing. and yet according to the president's counsel, the president is justified in resisting the house's impeachment inquiry. they assert the house should have taken the president to court to defy the obstruction. the president's argument is as shameless as it is hypocritical. the president's counsel is arguing in this trial that the house should have gone to court to enforce its subpoenas while at the same time the president's own department of justice is arguing in court that the house could not enforce the subpoenas through the courts. and you know what remedy they say in court is available to the house? impeachment for obstruction of congress. this is not the first time this argument has been made. president nixon made it, too. but it was roundly rejected by the house judiciary committee 45 years ago. when the committee passed an article for obstruction of congress for far less serious obstruction than we have here. the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to enforce its subpoenas in court. and as the slide shows, the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas against the president. this conclusion is based on the constitutional provision vesting the power of impeachment solely in the house of representatives and the express denial by the framers of the constitution of any role for the courts in the impeachment process. again, the committee report on nixon's articles of impeachment. >> once we stripped the president's obstruction of this legal window dressing, the consequences are as clear as they are dire for our democracy. to condone the president's obstruction would strike a death blow to the impeachment clause in the constitution. and if congress cannot enforce this sole power vested in both chambers alone, the constitution's final line of defense against a corrupt presidency will be eviscerated. a president who can obstruct and thwart the impeachment power becomes unaccountable. he or she is effectively above the law. such a president is more likely to engage in corruption with impunity. this will become the new normal. with this president and for future generations. so where does this leave us? as many of new this chamber have publicly and in the past few days, the facts are not seriously in dispute. we have proved that the president committed grave offenses against the constitution. the question that remains is whether that conduct warrants conviction and removal from office. should the senate simply accept or even condone such corrupt conduct by a president? absent conviction and removal, how can we be assured that this president will not do it again? if we are to rely on the next election to judge the president's efforts to cheat in that election, how can we know that the election will be free and fair? how can we know that every vote will be free from foreign interference, solicited by the president himself? with president trump the past is prologue. this is neither the first time the president solicited foreign interference in his own election nor is it the first time the president tried to obstruct an investigation into his misconduct. what you will determine, you will determine, you will determine whether it will be his last. as we speak, the president continues his wrongdoing unchecked and unashamed. donald trump hasn't stopped trying to pressure ukraine to smear his opponent. nor has he stopped obstructing congress. his political agent, rudolph giuliani, recently returned to the scene of the crime in ukraine to manufacture more dirt for his client, the president of the united states. president trump remains a clear and present danger to our national security. and to our credibility around the world. he is decimating our global standing as a beacon of democracy while corrupting our free and fair elections here at home. what is a greater protection to our country than insuring that we, the american people alone, not some foreign power, choose our commander-in-chief. the american people alone should decide who represents us in any office without foreign interference, particularly the highest office in the land. and what could undermine our national security more than to withhold from a foreign ally fighting a hot war against our adversary? hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to buy sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, radar, and night vision goggles. so that they may fight the war over there, keeping us safe here. if we allow the president's misconduct to stand, what message do we send? what message do we send to russia, our adversary, intent on fracturing democracy around the world? what will we say to our european allies already concerned with this president about whether the united states will continue to support our nato commitments that have been a pillar of our foreign policy since world war ii? what message do we send to our allies in the free world? and if we allow the president's misconduct to stand, what will we say to the 68,000 men and women in uniform in europe right now who courageously and admirably wake up every day ready and willing to fight for america's security and prosperity? for democracy in europe and around the world. what message do we send them when we say america's national security is for sale? that cannot be the message we want to send to our ukrainian friends or european allies or to our children and our grandchildren who will inherit this precious republic. and i'm sure it is not the message that you wish to send to our adversaries. the late senator john mccain was an astounding man. a man of great principle, a great patriot. he fought admirably in vietnam and imprisoned as a p.o.w. for over five years. refusing an offer by the north vietnam east to be released early because his father was a prominent admiral. as you all are aware, senator mccain was a great supporter of ukraine. a great supporter of europe. a great supporter of our troops. senator mccain understood the importance of this body, this distinguished body, in serving the public once saying quote, glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you. ukrainians and the europeans and the americans around the world and here at home are watching what we do. they are watching to see what the senate will do. and they are relying on this distinguished body to be constant to the principles america was founded on and which we've tried to uphold for more than 240 years. doing the right thing and being constant to our principles requires a level of moral courage that is difficult but by no means impossible. it is that moral courage shown by public servants throughout this country and throughout the impeachment inquiry in the house. people like ambassador marie yovanovitch. her decades of nonpartisan service were turned against her in a vicious smear campaign. it reached all the way to the president. despite this effort she decided to honor a duly authorized congressional subpoena and to speak the truth to the american people. for this she was the subject of yet more smears against her career and her character, even as she testified in a public hearing before congress. her courage matters. people like ambassador bill taylor, a west point graduate who wears a bronze star and air medal for valor. his proudest honor a combat infantryman's badge. when his country called on him he answered again and again and again in battle, in foreign affairs, and in the face of a corrupt effort by the president to extort a foreign country into helping his reelection campaign. an effort that ambassador taylor rightly believed was crazy. his courage matters. people like lieutenant colonel alexander vindman who came to this country as a young child fleeing authoritarianism in europe. he could have done anything with his life but he chose public service, putting on a uniform and receiving a purple heart after being wounded in battle fighting courageously in iraq. when he heard that fateful july 25th call in which the president sold out our country for his own personal gain, lieutenant colonel vindman reported it and later came before congress to speak the truth about what happened. lieutenant colonel vindman's courage matters. to the other public servants who came forward and told the truth in the face of vicious smears, intimidation, and white house efforts to silence you, your courage mattered. you did the right thing. you did your duty. no matter what happens today, or from this day forward, that courage mattered. whatever the outcome in this trial, we will remain vigilant in the house. i know there are dedicated public servants who know the difference between right and wrong. but make no mistake, these are perilous times. if we determine that the remedy for a president who cheats in an election is to pronounce him vindicated and attack those who exposed his misconduct. >> senators, before we break, i want to take a moment to talk about the staff that works tirelessly on this inquiry for months now. there's a small army of public servants down the hall from this chamber and yes, in that windowless bunker in the capital, who have committed their lives to this effort because they, like the managers and the american people, believe that the president free of accountability is a danger to our democracy. i'm grateful to all of them but let me mention a few. daniel bultman, barbara tarr, patrick bolan, william evans, patrick fallon, john disco, nicholas mitchell, daniel noble, emily simons, suzanne grooms, krista boyd, norma eisen, barry work, joshua matz, doug letter, terry mcauliffe, wendy parker. some of those staff, including some singled out in this chamber, have made to endure the most vicious false attacks to the point where they feel their lives have been at risk. the attacks on them degrade our institution and all who serve it. you've asked me why i hired certain of my staff and i will tell you, because they are brilliant, hardworking, patriotic, and the best people for the job, and they deserve better than the attacks they have been forced to suffer. members of the senate, mr. chief justice, i want to close this by reading you the words of our dear friend and former colleague in the house, elijah cummings, who said this on the day the speaker announced the beginning of the impeachment inquiry. he said of the american people, we speak not only by those who are here with us now but for generations yet unborn. our voices today are messages to our future we may never see. when the history books are written about this tumultuous era, i want them to show that i was among those in the house of representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny. we the managers are not here representing ourselves alone are just the house, just as you are not here making the determination of the president's guilt or innocence for yourselves alone. and you and we represent the american people, the ones at home and at work who are hoping that their country will remain what it has always believed it to be. beacon of hope, of democracy,

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Impeachment Trial Of Donald Trump 20200203

and good monday morning. happy caucus day. chuck todd in des moines, iowa. thank you to all of the folks joining us here at java joe's and everyone at home as well. today is all about closing arguments, here on the campaign trail in iowa and in the president's impeachment trial in washington. while much of the intrigue is gone from the impeachment trial with the senate poised to acquit the president, it is the exact opposite in iowa where this race still feels wide open to a point, and the buzz is pretty incredible. saw multiple candidates draw huge crowds in the last few days. top six candidates had 43 separate events saturday and sunday, making their closing arguments to iowa caucus goers. here's some of what the candidates have had to say. >> tomorrow night is the beginning. it is the beginning of the end for donald trump. >> it is no longer talking about how to win, it's proving that we can do it, and that starts with you. >> you let only a certain bunch of us out of the gate, we don't all get through the gate, don't all get to move beyond where we've been, and you know, it really matters, it really matters what you do. >> there were certain pundits that predicted when i started that speech in the middle of the mississippi river in a blizzard i would never make it to the end of the speech. now, here i am nearly a year later. >> people take queues from other people, that's how the campaign has grown from grass roots from day one. that's why we're going to grow and grow and shock the world tomorrow. >> right now in competitive races, women are outperforming men. here is how i see this. our number one job is to beat donald trump, women win. >> so yesterday may have been the super bowl, today is akin to opening day of campaign 2020. that's what's happening tonight. all of the candidates, senators warren, sanders, klobuchar had to go back to washington because the impeachment trial does stretch into a third week, but they'll be back in iowa tonight as the results start to come in. later this morning, the democratic house managers and the president's legal team take turns delivering closing arguments. but this is tying up loose ends on a trial for all intents and purposes was decided last week when senators voted against hearing from new witnesses. it's as if you've got to run out the clock, even though the game is over. all this hour, we're going to hear from campaigns, reporters covering the race, one of the presidential candidates stuck in the impeachment trial and in iowa. i have a great panel to start off. "the washington post" political reporter eugene scott who has been here for a good week, katy tur, art colin, and nat paul. veteran of iowa politics, part of the state party, thankfully said this year not involved with the campaign. hallelujah. first, let me go to the other closing arguments of the day. garrett haake on capitol hill with this impeachment trial. garrett, this is a strange day because literally it's over, but the clock is still running. >> reporter: that's right, chuck. the impeachment now is mostly for the history books. we have an opportunity for house managers and white house defense team to present closing arguments today. i would be surprised if the white house lawyers use all of the time allotted today. in a break from historical precedent, two days of deliberations, senate speech for making speeches. the senators have an opportunity to defend and explain the votes they'll make tuesday afternoon and wednesday before the final vote wraps up wednesday. to the degree there's any drama left, will any senators break from parties and vote to acquit or convict the president against what their party said they want them to do. could you see a mitt romney or susan collins vote for conviction of the president. seems unlikely lacking information that they asked for in the witness vote, or could any democrats cross the line to acquit him. that's what i'll be watching the next couple days up here. >> garrett, more likely it is the obstruction article that's probably going to get the democratic acquittal votes, probably not abuse of power one, if there is one that gets more than the other. >> reporter: well, we saw one house member split their vote when this was on the house side. for democrats, particularly doug jones, running for re-election in alabama, you can't be half pregnant on an impeachment vote. you think if you're taking political risk to vote for conviction, you'll get dinged either way. you probably want to vote for both, whichever way you decide to go. >> garrett haake starting us off on closing arguments that washington is hearing. let's go back to iowa, where there's another set of closing arguments we're trying to deal with. we bring in the panel. matt, you're doing some work with the state party, you're not affiliated. last time you were doing hillary clinton. four years ago how did you feel in this moment? >> tired. exhausted but excited. i think these campaigns feel the same this time. >> this is a weird ending to the caucuses. we've had this abrupt, you had to pull people from the trail, it is not that there's not energy, it just feels like a different energy. i don't know how to describe it, but it is not what i am used to. >> there are a ton of distractions, to have the super bowl, the caucus, followed by state of the union, and impeachment thrown in in the last closing weeks, just as people are starting to dial in, pay attention. a big challenge for the campaigns. some have done well in handling that. >> art, you have been through a number of caucuses. is this '04, '08, what's it feel like to you? what's the vibe this is most akin to? >> it is not akin to anything, but closest to '04 when howard dean had a lead, john kerry shot through at the end, and everybody was anxious about electability, and that's been the theme this year. we are so afraid of screwing this up in iowa. >> does that anxiety lead to lower turnout? >> no. >> i wonder if some of the folks all tied in knots go oh, i'm not going to go, i don't want to make the wrong choice. are you worried about that, matt? >> no. i think -- i have seen a race before where iowans talked about groups of candidates. i narrowed it to a couple, or three or four, and we are three or four days out, unbelievable. i think what they walk into in the room will matter. they'll look to see where friends and neighbors are. the caucusers stand up, show support. this will matter this year. >> eugene, you have been crisscrossing five days. if you just judge by energy at events, what would you feel? >> well, one of the things i think you would feel is anxiety honestly, quite a few voters are still trying to determine what they're going to do. at this point in the race, in past years, rallies are primarily like moments of encouragement where you're cheering on your candidate. it is very clear people are still listening to answers, trying to make up their mind. >> polite clapping, still getting that polite clapping, i like that sound, but i'm not sure i'm all in. >> absolutely, asking questions i think a lot of candidates feel they already answered, voters still need more clarity on. it will be interesting to see what happens. >> you have been here, and you were here a lot four years ago. give me your distinction. >> i think people want to see their candidates in person here more than other places. i kept hearing folks that were interested in amy klobuchar, wanted to see her pitch face to face. she lost out, not having been here. >> if somebody got hurt the most by impeachment -- >> she ended up drawing reasonably sized crowds the past couple days as she heads back to washington on her last pitch before the caucuses. i noticed the most excited crowds i have seen have been at warren, sanders, and buttigieg events. and it is not always. sometimes there's lower energy crowds than others, but people at those events seem to be most interested in the candidate they're seeing in that moment. warren voters are ready to canvass and caucus, sanders, buttigieg voters are still kind of on the fence, found more excitement there than at the biden rallies. >> art, am i being too simplistic, feels like there are two peels of caucus goers, the folks determined to vote with sanders, he has a chunk of voters that locks him in, high floor, we can discuss the ceiling, seems locked in for first or second. then there's this what does everybody else do. sanders feels like he has the most identified ones as they like to say here? >> he certainly has the committed people, you know, he had what, half the caucus crowd four years ago. >> 80,000 people to pick from on 175,000 turnout. >> now down to 20, 25%. i am not sure he ends up on top. anybody that's sure is too full of themselves. so i think that the enthusiasm i have seen is at the sanders rallies, warren hasn't been out in rural areas as much. pete buttigieg has really been working hard in rural areas. i think as always in iowa, the last phone calls come in from western iowa, that will decide who actually maybe comes out by a hair in first. >> explain this. it was barack obama was able to overperform out west, john edwards in '04, one of the things kay henderson said, elizabeth warren has more iowans as precinct captains than bernie does. i think that matters. tell me why that matters. >> they know the room, they know who to expect, who is not there, that muscle memory matters in a race like this. there's been added attention this year to the rural parts of the state which is what a caucus is designed for. this is one place, not just in the early window but in this election where candidates can't go from tv market to tv market. you have to slow down, run the organization deep, get to smaller places. >> talk about the elephant in the room which to me is joe biden. you have a whole bunch of people in iowa looking for the perfect candidate to put up against donald trump. you have joe biden who says i'm the perfect candidate to put up against donald trump. message, voters that want to hear that message, it strikes me if you can't marry it now, when is he going to -- >> he is trying hard, that's the focus of stump speech talking to iowans and his ads, if you watched the super bowl, you saw his ad promoting him as such. >> the bernie ad. >> i saw his ads. maybe i wasn't watching as closely. seems to be a disconnect what voters will see and what biden is delivering. a number of voters wanted to see him punch back at donald trump, fight against the republicans, former colleagues, and didn't walk away feeling he did that. >> eugene? >> i was attending a biden event my first day here, that was one of the main questions he was asked. how are you going to fight against trump. biden has repeatedly made the case he thinks he's the best person to defeat trump, and seems like voters still weren't as convinced as he is, wanted to see more from him. >> we shall see. i feel like it is as big a test for him as anybody. he has been here, his third time. three times a charm for joe biden. you're all back with me later. coming up, new court documents, two dozen emails relating to president trump's decision making on aid to ukraine, with the impeachment trial marking time until trump's acquittal, does new information matter at all? up next, two frontrunners in the democratic race with momentum heading opposite directions? maybe, maybe not. biden and sanders, the campaign reps are here when special coverage live from des moines, iowa continues. as a caricature artist,es i appreciate what makes each person unique. that's why i like liberty mutual. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. almost done. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ yes. yes. yeah sure. yes. yes. yeah, yeah no problem. ♪ yes. yes, yes a thousand times yes! discover. accepted at over 95% of places in the u.s. discover. how you watch it does too. tv just keeps getting better. this is xfinity x1. featuring the emmy award-winning voice remote. streaming services without changing passwords and input. live sports - with real-time stats and scores. access to the most 4k content. and your movies and shows to go. the best tv experience is the best tv value. xfinity x1. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity. the future of awesome. the old saying is that talk is cheap. well, in politics, talk is sometimes very expensive. especially when you don't tell people how you're going to pay for what you tell them you're going to do. >> we are taking on wall street and the insurance companies and the drug companies and the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. and the whole damn 1%. >> welcome back to msnbc special coverage, live from java joe's. joe biden and bernie sanders are basically tied at the top of national polls. a lot of polling here has them potentially one, two, little more middling with biden and other candidates, the sharp ideological divide does mirror division in the democratic party. one campaigning on shaking things up, the other campaigning on stead eying the ship. the results could determine where it is headed. i want to start with simone, senior adviser for the biden campaign. a sanders working for the bidens. happy caucus day. this is opening day of the campaign season. >> opening day of campaign season. we like to say, chuck, it is the beginning, not the end. >> fair enough. keep shaking things up or needing more confidence. we know what the joe biden message is. in our poll, more people tell us they want to keep shaking things up. it is close, but more tell us that. are you concerned that his message at the end is too much of a return to normalcy? >> no, i think our message is we have a bold, progressive vision to put forward. there's something radical in this climate to talk about b bipartisanship and getting things done. you look to 2018, democrats took back the house, nancy pelosi is speaker pelosi again. folks across the country where trump won, they wanted folks to put a check on president trump but people that are willing to get things done. that's what folks are looking for. >> are you concerned about if you watch the television advertising, your campaign is about joe biden. feels like there's a lot of joe biden in your ads, less specific issues. you look at a sanders ad, it is less about him, more about his economic agenda. >> chuck, when we're out there on the stump, vice president was in cedar rapids, he has been all over, iowa city, sioux city, we were in des moines last night, we're talking about the issues, health care, the economy, talking about reasserting myself on the world stage. vice president is talking about being a commander in chief, last debate, six candidates were on stage, one commander in chief, one person ready to walk into the oval office and put things back together, take things to the next level. that's what voters are concerned about. also, they're telling us on the campaign trail and telling folks in the polls, concerned about someone that can beat donald trump. joe biden we believe is that candidate. that's the message we take to people. >> let me ask you this. donald trump made it pretty clear, he doesn't want to run against joe biden. >> he is scared, chuck. >> you can look at it a million different ways, pretty clear he wants to sully up. why isn't it turning into a gush of money for the campaign? >> january was the best fundraising month. i think it has translated. the reality is that i think and joanie ernst, she said she's concerned about joe biden coming out victorious. i think that iowans need to take joni ernst at face value. i encourage caucus goeers wrong. >> what makes you happy tonight? >> what makes me happy, seeing people go out in the caucus, look. >> what's a good night for joe? >> when we get on the plane, chuck, celebrate how many folks came out, got the job done for joe biden. we think we're going to have a good night, but think it will be close. >> a good night has to be first or second? >> a good night? >> no such thing as third place good night. >> we think we can do well, frankly, chuck, we know it will be close. whatever happens, this is the beginning, not the end. this is the beginning of the season, we think this will go all the way through super tuesday and beyond. we're ready for a long haul and fight. we fought hard in iowa. we have been all over the state. >> you're all in. >> we're all in. he launched his bus tour, we came back in january with soul of the nation bus tour. we are speaking directly to caucus goers, we have been. we think our message is a message that resonates. >> simone sanders, be safe today on the trail. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> another perspective. senior adviser to the bernie sanders campaign, jeff weaver. welcome. >> how are you, chuck. >> should second place be seen as a failure for you guys? i say it because you come in, 80,000 people, you have a head start, you had 80,000 caucus for you last time. >> 80, 85, yeah. >> if you got half them out, you would win caucuses if you look at turnout. to a lot of us, burden is on you guys to win. is that fair? >> look, it is fair you have expectations for us you didn't have last time, put it that way. when we started last time, we were 3% at the beginning. we started near the top this time. i think the energy around the state, 3,000 in cedar rapids, largest event of the season demonstrates a lot of support out there for bernie. >> what would a night be like for you if you win with space, what does that tell you if you win with space that that makes you the national frontrunner, that suddenly you are hard to stop going to the convention? >> look, bernie sanders always runs from behind. been with him 35 years. i have been with him where he is ahead 20, and he runs like he is 20 hie 20 behind. he wants to layout the agenda, people are responding. no matter how well he does, he will act like he is behind. >> how does he reach out to the other side of the party. part of me thinks the tent isn't big enough for michael bloomberg and bernie sanders and you look at how people feel about socialism versus capitalism, and yes, bernie supporters are positive on socialism. biden supporters are positive on captainism. socialism is a net negative. how do you reach out to the other half of the democratic electorate that's skeptical of democratic socialism. >> look, biden has the same problem the other way around. what we want to see is a fair process. last time, speaking of mu lashing ee, a lot went on last time in the democratic process. we're seeing some of that malarkey this time. changing rules on the debates to benefit michael bloomberg, people were kept off the stage for not reaching the criteria. >> you wanted to see bloomberg, if he spends all the money -- >> he should have to live by the same rules. cory booker couldn't meet one of the prongs, he was kept off the stage, julian castro, tulsi gabbard. mike bloomberg can't meet the criteria for grass roots, and suddenly the rules, we only need a one prong test, that's wrong. democratic rank and file and independents who choose the nominee, some rich billionaire shouldn't be able to buy his way on the stage or into the white house. >> is this harder to win if you don't win iowa and new hampshire? history says one thing, you don't win them both, it is harder. >> it will be a longer, more drawn out primary. no doubt about that. >> when it comes to negative ads, you talked about ones run against you guys, are you never running a negative ad? >> bernie sanders has never run a negative ad in his life. we have no intention of running a negative ad. it is not negative to contrast your record with someone else's record. donald trump's record is bad, can be exposed by bernie sanders who is authentic messenger of progressive vision aligned with working class people and who has their trust. that's a lot of the problem for democratic candidates, don't have the trust of working class people. >> you have a weird problem when it comes to trump. he likes to prop you up, he feeds the message that it is rigged against you, let me ask you this, how come you don't push back when he says that? >> we do push back. >> he says it is rigged against you. do you believe it is? is he right when he says it is rigged against you? >> it is not currently rigged. last time it was rigged. >> when he says he is helping you but you don't want that -- >> he is not helping. he is trying to get people that support bernie to support him against establishment democrats. we're not playing that game. the danger for trump is people that support trump, working class people in pennsylvania that voted for barack obama twice, then voted for trump, people in iowa, same way, those people could be brought back by a bernie sanders. >> some folks wonder if you don't hit trump hard enough, you won't win that suburban voter. >> we'll hit him hard, that's not going to be a problem. >> jeff, what's a bad night for you guys? >> look, expectations are quite high. media has raised them quite high. >> if you're below first or second, that's a bad night. >> of course. >> jeff weaver, thank you for coming on. be safe out there. >> thank you, you too. >> we talked about him, he is not in iowa, his presence is clearly felt. presidential candidate, former mayor michael bloomberg's campaign manager joins me next. live from des moines, iowa continues. continues. break out the butter lobsterfest is on at red lobster if you've been dreaming about tender wild-caught lobster, dig in to butter-poached, fire-roasted and shrimp & lobster linguini. see? dreams do come true. or if you like a taste of new england without leaving home, try lobster, sautéed with crab, jumbo shrimp and more, or maybe you'd like to experience the ultimate surf and the ultimate turf... with so many lobster dishes, there's something for every lobster fan so hurry in and let's lobsterfest. or get pick up or delivery at redlobster.com when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis... ...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. 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. humira is proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage,... ...and clear skin in psa. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex. find our coupon in sunday's paper. with our moving and storage solutions. pack what you want, we store it for as long as you want. then, we deliver it where you want, so whether you need to move or store your things, pods is here to help you with flexible moving and storage solutions. welcome back to msnbc special coverage. we're live at java joe's in des moines. former mayor of new york city michael bloomberg is not here. bloomberg is waiting in the wings if it doesn't go well for the former vice president tonight. latest national poll has him in fourth place among democratic primary voters. obviously tv ads are helping a bit. bloomberg chose not to compete in iowa, focusing on super tuesday, going after president trump. his campaign is telling nbc news, they're on a wartime footing with president trump. joining us, the campaign manager for bloomberg 2020. welcome to the show, sir. >> hello to java joe's. >> let me ask you this, why, what message are you sending to swing voters of iowa, new hampshire, and nevada, three of the first four states that you need electoral votes to win the presidency. you're not here. you have all the money in the world, don't need here for some sort of momentum, but are you concerned you're insulting democratic voters here, swing voters, by not coming to three of the first four states? >> you know, i certainly hope not. had matt paul on earlier, one of the smartest political analysts and there are great people in iowa. problem is i think the people agree with democrats across the country, most important thing we can do as democrats is beat the president. i think the process is a problem. we raised money two years, invested in a state donald trump will win in. truth is, if we're going to win it, we need to win it in battleground states, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, florida. >> you are writing off iowa that voted with the winning candidate five of the last six times if memory serves. >> we had a process since 1976, iowa and new hampshire have chosen the nominees. it produced some great presidents. it may contribute this cycle to helping elect the president, unless we get into those states where we have to win in november. listen, it is a hard truth if you're in one of those states. frankly, every democrat in java joe's or across the state agrees the most important thing in novice remove donald trump from the white house. >> one of the biggest problems i feel you have in the campaign is among fellow democrats. when we asked this issue, are you comfortable with reservations, uncomfortable as you know, we have this scale. michael bloomberg is the democrat that democrats are most uncomfortable with right now. how do you fix that? >> listen, mike is running all around the country. he's in california today, he was in arizona yesterday, he will be in michigan tomorrow. you run around this country and you build support and you build support in states that ultimately we have to win in november. michael bloomberg was challenging the president during the super bowl. he is committed to the idea he will not ahllow the president t go unchallenged. he got into the race because we need a candidate that can win in november. he thinks he is that candidate. >> do you think the democratic party needs to be big enough for both bernie sanders and michael bloomberg. >> i think the democratic party is big enough for michael bloomberg and bernie sanders. michael bloomberg has been clear, if he is not the nominee, he will support bernie sanders. i think everyone in this country should get behind the fact that donald trump needs to be removed from office, regardless who the nominee is. >> given the issue of your candidate's wealth is something that bothers some democrats. with the debate process, while the dnc changed its rules, why weren't you making an effort to show that you could -- tom steyer spent the money to get the donor requirement. he is a self funder. why couldn't you invest in meeting the donor requirement, showing you shouldn't get special treatment to get into the debates. >> i have been involved in politics a long time. i'm not sure when the process became something about how much money can you raise. for as long as i can remember my mom was legislative director of common cause, trying to get special interest money out of the system. not everyone can self fund. michael bloomberg said i can afford it, why would i compromise to special interest taking money. why tom steyer who is a billionaire has to raise money from hard working americans makes no sense. talk party building. raising money is important to the party. listen, it is great for the party to raise money. the sanders folks criticized us for raising money for the party. no one criticized when michael bloomberg went out individually, decided i'm going to elect 21 democrats around the country, in republican seats, to flip the house, so we can install nancy pelosi as speaker, so we can impeach the president. listen, i don't understand why candidate viability is about money. it shouldn't be and traditionally it hasn't. >> is your candidacy hurt tonight if joe biden wins? >> listen, i think at the end of the day, gets back to who is going to be the strongest candidate to defeat the president, and if as we have done since 1976, we have a winner of who can win both of the early states and we as a party can consolidate behind them, a lot of candidates will do that. history shows if you can't win one or both primaries, you can't go on to win the nomination and ultimately in this case defeat a very formidable president. that's why mike got into this race. >> kevin sheeky, thank you so much. we have full coverage of tonight's caucuses across all americas of nbc news wherever flavor of news you would like. i will be here at 5:00 p.m. eastern, just hours before the caucuses begin. brian williams, rachel maddow pick up special coverage at 6:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. i'll be anchoring nbc news special coverage on nbc news now. find it on your roku, amazon fire, apple tv, or nbcnews.com. more special coverage from des moines, iowa next. t. he wanted a man cave in our new home. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i learned about myuse grandfather's life. on ancestry and it was a remarkable twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. go to coolsculpting.com for a chance to win $25,000. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules. set yourself free with fleet. gentle constipation relief in minutes. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. so it's like getting free money. go to rakuten.com and sign up today for a $10 bonus. whatever happens out there you have the hilton app. will the hilton app help us pick the starters? great question, no. but it can help you pick your room from the floor plan. can the hilton app help us score? you know, it's not that kind of thing, but you can score free wi-fi. can it help us win? hey, hey! we're all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? man, you guys are adorable! alright, let's go lose this soccer game, come on! book with the hilton app. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. we are back. msnbc special arguments day here in iowa and in washington. it is closing arguments in washington today we're trying to figure out what will they mean. obviously it means a lot for history, but will it mean something else. before those begin, we know there are at least two dozen emails that reflect president trump's thinking on freezing aid to ukraine according to federal court documents. omb made the filing friday after the senate closed the case against the president by voting for no witnesses. michael bennet, presidential candidate, had to fly back from new hampshire to attend today's events in the senate chamber. senator, welcome back. let me ask you this. what do you want to see accomplished today? we seem to be in a situation where the shouting is over but you have to finish the trial. >> i think, chuck, we have to find a way to end this trial and in days after this trial try to reestablish for the american people a standard of what our expectation is of elected leadership in washington. we are in a moment in our country's history when we are in a constitutional crisis. the president has completely stone walled the house of representatives, and mitch mcconnell is covering up what the president has done. they're going to get out of this trial because they're having a trial with no witnesses and with no evidence, no other court in america could get away with such a thing, and it is unfortunate, but in days ahead, we have to keep this issue in front of the american people so they really understand what's at stake. and the more stuff comes out, the easier that's going to be to do. >> i think i'm up to about a half dozen republicans who have said what the president did in some form was wrong, in some form they believe the entire case the democrats made, whether jerry moran in kansas, lamar alexander explained his vote the most, in tennessee, marco rubio in florida, mitt romney and susan collins have voted a certain way. my point is this. there's a majority of the united states senate uncomfortable with the president's actions in some form or another. is that something you should formally essentially put on the record via censure? >> i think if we can, we should. again, these folks who are saying now what the president did was wrong should have voted for witnesses, should have voted for evidence. you know, it is not just what the president did, by the way, it is what the president's advisers did. mulvaney and other folks who haven't had to answer to the american people because donald trump has not allowed a single witness to testify, not a shred of evidence in front of the american people. no president, including richard nixon stonewalled like that. we can't let these folks behind behind their phony constitutional claims. that's what the senators unfortunately have enabled. i hope in the days ahead, we think of a way to put this on the record. what's really most important is in the end, the facts have to come out. they should have come out during the senate trial. we have to make sure they come out after the trial. >> you were very thoughtful about the current situation in this country, the sort of cold civil war at times that we feel like. do you at all sort of empathize with the comments of lamar alexander and marco rubio who both really grounded their decisions in the fear of pouring gasoline on a culture war fire. >> i don't think showing the american people the evidence and facts is pouring gasoline on anything, it is doing our job, fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, and i think it is up to the american people to decide what they're going to do with the facts, it is not up to senators to patronize the american people and say somehow they can't handle the facts. the vote last week was not a vote to acquit donald trump, although that's obviously the effect of it. the vote was on whether or not the american people were going to have the benefit of this evidence from bolton and others, and the senators said no. i think they're going to regret the decision they made. >> what's the impact on the party if the democratic socialist becomes the frontrunner? >> i think it makes it harder for us, chuck. i mean, we have got to come together as a party. we didn't in 2016 and we lost to donald trump. when i travel iowa and new hampshire what i hear people say, their number one objective is to beat donald trump. to do that, i think we need somebody that can win not just in deep blue states but purple states across the country. i have an agenda because i am from colorado that reflects the smaen sentiments of a state that's a third a third a third. >> do you think bernie sanders can carry colorado? >> i think it is a challenge. but i will do everything i can to do it if he is the nominee. >> senator michael bennet, what do you need to do in new hampshire next week to make you feel like you're going to keep going? >> yeah, i have to be in the top three, chuck. we're working hard up there. i wish i were in iowa with you today, we didn't have resources to compete in that wonderful state, so i'm in the middle of 50 town halls across the state of new hampshire. i think i have four left or something like that. that's what we have to do. i think that is what we'll do. >> town hall candidates have been rewarded in the past in new hampshire. we shall see. michael bennet, democrat from colorado, stuck on jury duty again today. thanks for joining us. >> appreciate it, chuck, thank you. coming up, special coverage live from java joe's in des moines continues. nues if your gums bleed when you brush, you may have gingivitis. nues and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. ♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. and i recently had a heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. welcome back. msnbc special coverage live from java joe's in des moines. back with me here, katy tur and eugene scott. eugene, let me start with you. let me ask it this way. what were you looking for when you got here and now what are you looking for and did it change? >> well, i was looking for certainty. looking to see who was definitely polling better, based on what you could gather from a crowd and from talking to voters and i did not find that. but what -- >> more uncertainty. >> very much so. but what i'm looking for is just seeing which groups, which demographic groups had a bigger impacts in decisions than we thought. iowa is more diverse than people realize. there are more black americans than people realize and there are more millennials and they could have a huge impact tonight. >> i was curious about the latino vote. i had someone say something -- an iowa reporter say, uh-eugene that she was concerned that some of the latino iowans might be uncomfortable coming out with their neighbors talking politics. >> especially in the more rural parts of the state. >> yes. >> we know this is a very divisive in the small towns that you run into each other in different spaces. you worry about that. >> i heard because of the public nature, this is -- so it could lead to some strange results out west where there's a trump -- do you want your neighbors to know you don't like trump. there is that -- that is a real sentiment that -- >> it's not just that. i think people generally are not a wanting to talk about politics across this state. i sat outside the john deere factory and i asked them how they feel about donald trump. it go a mix. i said, well what are the guys saying on the floor? they said we don't talk about politics. we do not talk about politics. >> you hear this more and more in a lot of workplaces. >> totally. >> it's too -- they see what's an social media. it's too divisive. >> you don't talk to your neighbors about. >> i which makes the caucuses -- it used to be that was part of the charm. now there's less of a charm to that. >> well, i think when you're go to caucus for the democrats you can feel like you're in a safer space because nobody is supporting donald trump. but the peer pressure aspect of it can have a real influence why is why the polls are not so certain. >> do you think the democratic party's ready for bernie? i mean, if he comes out of here with a little bit of momentum i feel like the stop bernie movement is going to intensify like we have never seen before. >> i think there are certain people in the democratic party who will express great frustration if that is what happens. by i have talked to more people especially outside of bernie's base of support. if this is the direction that things go, that's what we need to do. >> i think the establishment doesn't realize how comfortable more rank and file democrats are with bernie. very interesting. katy tur, eugene scott, thank you. thank you to our friends at java joe's. thank you, guys. we'll be back here for our special coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern, 4:00 p.m. local. ari melber picks up the special coverage next. over an hour until the impeachment trial of donald john trump continues. impeachment trial of donald john trump continues. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ nothing is everything wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. good morning, everyone. we are all here. i'm ari melber joining you for the special coverage right now as we report on two major stories. the united states senate reconvening in one hour for president trump's impeachment trial and the iowa caucuses today which of course kick off this year's presidential primaries. the trial reconvenes under rules that the senate passed friday evening. requiring the senators to attend four hours of the closing arguments. this is simply the chance for both sides to make the final pitch to the senate jurors knowing that there will be no more witnesses, no further evidence. this is it. unlike past impeachments and really every traditional trial in america, the senate will not even hold formal deliberations on the guilt or innocence. instead there's general time for speeches tomorrow and then on wednesday, there will be a vote on whether the president will be impeached or removed. we know more than we did before about the intended outcome because many senators acknowledge that friday's 51-4 9 vote to shut down witnesses was basically a test vote for the wider verdict. many explained they have made up their mind on the whole thing. the fact pattern. take this key figure in clearing the way for acquittal. tennessee republican lamar alexander. who has gone out of his way to note that he thinks trump did it and he thinks it was wrong. but he doesn't think it's at the level meriting senate removal as he explained to my colleague, chuck todd. >> i think he shouldn't have done it. i think it was wrong. inappropriate was the way i'd say improper, crossing the line. and then the only question left is, who decides what to do about that? >> well, who decides what to do about that? >> the people, the people is my conclusion. >> now, it is unusual for congress to declare its work done without even getting to all of the evidence. and that is of course something that's on a lot of people's minds here. hours after that witness vote friday the doj revealing it has another two dozen internal emails about the ukraine scandal that it's still trying to keep secret citing privilege which only came out because it was compelled to respond to the court deadline. we begin today riding two waves that can determine the future of the u.s. presidency. one looking more certain for the reasons just stated that senate republicans are lining up to acquit a president they once publicly condemned as unfit for office. and then the other line here is totally obviously completely uncertain as democrats battle in iowa with nothing looking like any hint of a front-runner. joining me now for this increasingly interesting day is an all-star panel. maya wiley. former federal prosecutor. andrea mitchell, senior washington correspondent. and jelani cobb, and andrew weissmann, a former federal prosecutor and fbi official. out on the hill we have geoff bennett with a look ahead to everything today. but i want to begin with andrea mitchell. not everyone is in every hour of this. some people are watching super bowls. some people are enjoying their weekends. if you didn't catch up with everything friday night, we are reconvening monday with a very different senate. a very different situation. what's important to understand heading into these closing arguments? >> heading into the closing arguments i think what's important to understand is we have got a split screen moment of course with iowa on one hand and impeachment on the other. to say nothing of the super bowl results, yay, kansas city. but what we see today is closing arguments without evidence. and the fact that those 24 emails are being withheld among the 100 or so emails that were finally going to be released at midnight, midnight, that would be the equivalent of the smoking gun tape from the oval office never being heard in the nixon era. i mean, it's clear that these 24 have information, they have acknowledged that relates to the president's state of mind on ukraine, on withholding the military aid from ukraine. they are most likely dispositive but we won't see them at least not until there's a lengthy court battle over privilege which will be long after the expected acquittal on wednesday. so in the closing arguments, you know, you'll have two different realities. you'll have the victimization of donald trump from his attorneys as he has been tweeting, as he has been talking about during his interview during the super bowl as you all expect to hear if he speaks at all about impeachment in the state of the union. and you're going to hear from obviously from adam schiff and the others on the house side that the witnesses have not appeared that the evidence has not presented. that they're voting without having, you know, seen the real facts of the case. i think what really -- what we have to see and maybe iowa's too soon to see the results what is the political impact of this kind of a trial? what is the impact on joni ernst eventually when she faces the voters. how will people react to this or brush it off and move it on? >> we're watching the arrivals on capitol hill. this began with the defendant saying it's all a sham and then getting the jurors to engineer the outcome he wanted on both process and apparently substance, although we have to wait for the verdict. now it is that prosecutors, the democrats, saying this has become a sham. >> yeah. so, i mean, we have to wait technically for the outcome on the other side of this. but if someone is going to vote for conviction, then i guarantee you that's a bet that i would take pretty easily because we can be fairly certain that the president's going to be acquitted in this. this is a bigger concern, you know, you know me, i like to put things in context historically. what we might be witnessing is a template for how one defends against or really neutralizes the possibility of impeachment. but if you stonewall on providing evidence and if you have a majority or close enough to a majority in the senate, that you can engineer your way through what the founders had set up to be a mechanism to prevent the office from being used for personal gain of the person occupying it. if you go back to the framers and their conversations around this, there was actually a debate about whether the responsibility for adjudicating impeachment should be in the hands of the senate or it should be in the hands of the supreme court. and people who said that it should be in the supreme court said it's a contradiction on the one hand we're saying this is a legislative branch and now you want them to do judicial things. it doesn't make sense. then you know it was kind -- the argument was one by saying if we give this responsibility to the supreme court you can wind up with a situation of double jeopardy. that the president can be impeached, removed from office and then charged for a criminal offense and go before ultimately -- the case goes before the same people who removed him from office. so that's how we wound up with this system. which has a very obvious flaw. even at the time they're saying it could be a way in which factions of what they called -- what parties were then called at that time factions could align themselves and create an outcome that really was a measure more of the president's power and influence than it was of the president's innocence or guilt. the worst case scenario is we have just witnessed that exact same thing. >> well, you're speaking about whether the senate as an institution or this senate in 2020 can credibly be a tribunal and play that role. i don't know, jelani, if you have into the establishments, roadside or the mall, where they say they're a pizza hut and a dunkin' donuts. have you seen that? >> i have seen that. >> it makes you question is the pizza or the doughnut going to be at the caliber. i think you know what we're talking about. this senate isn't so great at legislating in the current form is it going to be a fair tribunal, andrew? i want to play for you as a prosecute's prosecutor what lamar alexander said is his interpretation of the effect of a verdict that as he put it -- he's one out of a hundred, but his verdict is guilty, no punishment. but the fact that you were even investigated, that you didn't cooperate will somehow be a deterrent. take a listen. >> but hopefully he'll look at this and say, okay, that was a mistake. i shouldn't have done that. i shouldn't have done it that way. and he'll focus on the strengths of his administration which are considerable. >> do you find that credible as a law enforcement professional, that if somebody gets off, they then say i won't do that again? >> well, normally when a judge sentences somebody if they don't impose any sentence, if they just say this was very bad, don't do it again, that does not create a huge deterrent. so it's hard to see that lamar alexander's reasoning is going to really fly. but i think the challenge for the republicans to make not pull back as far as you do, does this work as a system anymore, but just what i think the republican senators have to do is they have to inoculate themselves from the drip drip drip that andrea talked about. which is we're going to see additional evidence coming out. they need to explain now and i think that's what you're going to see today and tomorrow when they can start speaking, how will they say something that inoculates themselves from the fact that there's going to be additional evidence that comes out against the president and the president's men. so i think that is a real challenge. i think the democrats have to be saying people like alexander who are saying i think he may have done something wrong. that's not good enough. what is it that you actually say he did wrong? where is the line on where you think that somebody has not only committed some sort of high crime and misdemeanor but what did the president did here so they can really put it to the democrats. i think that's the tension you're going to be seeing today and tomorrow. >> let me go out to the hill as promised. geoff bennett, we have seen some arrivals, closing arguments are today. in many trials people feel by the time you get to closing arguments you may know a lot more than you did at the start. so for those of us in the news, maybe that's less -- a little less exciting than the beginning and yet this is still a very important and rare process. what can you tell us about today? >> well, when the closing arguments kick off at 11:00 a.m. eastern, what you'll hear from the house managers is a recitation of all the facts in evidence from the trump lawyers they'll make the case that the articles of impeachment were based on the thinnest possible evidence. and really what that does it gives cover to those senators who might want to endorse the lamar alexander position which seems to be this reduced version -- this reductive version of so what if he did it alan dershowitz defense. so they have four hours, evenly split. we don't expect the white house team to use the full two hours but when the closing arguments, the senate hits pause on the trial. it will pick up on wednesday at 4:00 p.m. for that vote on what the senators call the final judgment. the big vote on the two articles of impeachment. in the interim what you have are public deliberations that technically aren't part of the trial. so all 100 senators won't have to be at their desk. you won't see the chief justice presiding at the floor of the senate. but any senator who chooses will have ten minutes to state his or her case. so we'll be paying close attention to mitt romney, susan collins to hear them talk in great detail about where thai stand. on the democratic side -- >> that's the party line they pass. it sort of speaks to your point, speaks to how much the die has been cast. it's hey, everyone gets to go out and speak to what's already been decided. kind of the opposite of a real jury deliberation. >> right. oh, make no mistake, president trump is on a glide path to an acquittal and that was choreogra choreographed. you did have the self-professed moderate republicans who said they wanted to sort of meet the clinton standard. the clinton trial had 3 1/2 days of deliberations that were actually part of the trial. the big difference here is that these deliberations as you rightly point out aren't -- are not. so this will give a chance for the american public to hear from the senators if they choose. so we have the republicans who are paying close -- we're paying close attention to. you have joe manchin from west virginia, a state that president trump won by 40 points in 2016. you have doug jones, the lone democrat representing the deep south here in the senate. when they left on friday, they told our team that they had not made up their minds where they'll fall on conviction or acquittal most likely for political reasons. it all culminates on wednesday at 4:00. >> geoff bennett we'll be indebted to you. let me tell everyone what's coming up. we have maya wiley joining us for first time. chris matthews, steve kornacki. as mentioned less than an hour away from house managers and the defense team for the president making the closing arguments and we have a preview on iowa coming up. record voter turnout expected. this is a big one for democrats when we come back. ♪ limu emu & doug and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ no. uh uh, no way. ♪ come on. no. no. n... ni ni, no no! only discover has no annual fee on any card. n... ni ni, no no! sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. when does the 2020 presidential race really begin? today. the first crucial contest in this democratic primary goes down tonight in iowa after a busy weekend, making the final pitches to caucusgoers. and iowa residents are waiting to make up their mind until the end and the top poll which usually comes out now was scuttled over concerns of an error. it won't provide any buzz or momentum to a late breaking contender. that happened to barack obama in 2008 and joe biden is making the closing pitch in an exclusive interview with nbc's savannah guthrie where he reached for the same obama pedigree when he was asked about his case for the job. >> what is your argument to young voters who think, well, joe biden represents a different kind of politics that's been done before. pete buttigieg says it represents an old playbook, so nominating you is a risky choice. >> well, you think -- is this a third term for barack obama is that a risky choice. >> is that how you see it? >> look, i'm running because of my experience. >> my team of reporters has this covered. ali vitali and mike memory and shaq brewster. ali, a lot of folks saw j.lo in the halftime show. i don't know if you were working or you saw her. did you saw her? >> i saw her. >> isn't it j.lo said, waiting for tonight i've dreamed of this day so long. isn't that how a lot of campaigns feel? what's going to happen? >> it's funny, that's the song i woke up singing this morning. so i'm glad we're on the same page here. a lot of the candidates have been waiting for tonight. they have been campaigning for the last year and i think for someone like elizabeth warren and the other two senators who are playing here, this is probably not the way they would have scripted spending their caucus day because they're in washington, d.c. elizabeth warren as we're talking a here right now is doing a teletown hall and making the last minute pitch, saying she can unite the party. of course all being united in the fight against donald trump that's so important to voters and there's the strategy for the warren team. that they have identified people who want to caucus for her this time and when they look at how those people caucused in 2016, they found it was a 50-50 split. half voted for bernie, half voted for hillary. they don't want to alienate anybody. her ground game here is formidable. a lot of respect among the people in this state who know how to win in iowa says that warren has a very strong ground game here and that's definitely churning in the wake of her not being here. she's coming back here tonight. she'll be rallying with the supporters. one of the things that you point out in your lead, a lot of voters say they're undecided at this point. i'm sure mike and shaq will agree with this, people are racked with indecision. they want to beat trump in november. >> mike? >> well, it's interesting, you know, the joe biden closing argument out here in iowa has a lot to do with what you're covering back there which is the impeachment proceedings. the biggest applause line for joe biden over the last couple of days is about the comments from joni ernst when she raised the impeachment proceedings and the presentations from the legal team and questioned whether that would affect the iowa caucus goers. and biden has been saying, you can get a twofer. you can ruin donald trump's night and ruin joni ernst's night. that the president is amaid of him as the general election nominee for the democratic party. what is joe biden up to today? he's calling in and he's being doing a lot of local interviews. we expect to see him head out to some satellite caucuses. some field offices to try to rally his ground game ahead of tonight. then the real question is, you know, how does he approach what could be either a strong night for him, which would set him on to the nomination potentially. a strong finish here or a disappointing finish which could be the beginning of the end for him. there's a real sense of urgency around his campaign. real pressure that we have sensed building that with michael bloomberg looming out there with his millions on super tuesday, he needs to establish himself as the front-runner now. >> shaquille? >> well, ari, i'll tell you that senator sanders is walking into this caucus day with a lead. if you look in -- if you look at the average of polls at least, so this campaign is feeling good. they're walking with confidence right now. as jeff weaver told our chuck todd if senator sanders doesn't finish in first or second place it's a bad night for him. but they acknowledge this is a fragile lead. this is a caucus, not a primary. there's some shifting that's going to take place tonight and that's just unpredictable right now. where they feel confident is where they have -- if you look at the people behind me in this field office in des moines, it's the ground game. volunteers are knocking on doors all day, making the calls, getting their coalition out to the polls. they believe their coalition here in iowa, it includes young voters. progressive voters and latino voters. they believe if turnout is high they will do well, but senator sanders said it yesterday when making the rounds if turnout is low then it won't be a good night for him. >> thanks to all of our road warriors. let's get up to it, steve kornacki at the big board. you're looking at that tonight. if you watch our caucus coverage. what have you got? >> well, here we go, ari. we have been tracking this for months now. it feels like years. the day is here when we get some results. this is what the polling average looks like coming in to tonight. the poll didn't come on saturday night, but sanders in the average of polls we have gotten over the last week or so, couple points ahead of biden. buttigieg, warren, klobuchar at 9%. that's the average. one of the things to keep in mind, i'll be repeating this a bunch of times tonight is thigh are doing something in iowa with the results tonight that they have never done before. let me show you what that is and how it can affect what you see tonight. these are the 2016 results. you see 0.3% separating them. 701, 697, the statewide numbers what were they? those aren't votes but called state delegate equivalents. this for nearly half a century is how the results in iowa is tabulated. you have precincts, line 1,700 of them. and there's a fraction of a state delegate equivalent and a complicated mathematical formula. tonight, we'll get this number, but we're going to get what they call the raw vote. everyone shows up at their caucus site at the local precinct. they take a tally, how many with sanders, how many with buttigieg. whoever. and they give you a statewide raw vote. why that could be key is we'll have two different totals coming in to tonight. they could be at odds with each other. just to quickly show you why that might be. look at the 2016 results. sanders versus clinton. these are sanders' counties -- excuse me, the wrong ones. these are college heavy counties where sanders did very well. there's des moines where clinton won, but five out of the six counties were won by bernie sanders. they accounted for 41% the five or six counties did. 41% of the turnout in 2016. but only 32% of the delegates. so that's where you get into this potential for an imbalance between the two results. somebody to run up the score where you can get a lot of votes but it doesn't necessarily translate into the same number of delegates. >> steve, here's the thing. it's people like you that are going to be telling america which numbers to focus on. in a way the iowa democratic party has kicked this back out to the narrators because unlike the electoral college where it's interesting, for example, more people voted for hillary clinton. that's interesting. certainly tells you that america was quote ready for a woman president, but we all know under the rules it's the electoral college. here the rules give it to the delegates but not like iowa has enough delegates unlike the electoral college to say the end. as a narrator i ask you, let me start your day off with a hard question. what are you going to do, what are you going to tell us tonight if there's a real disparity, here's the real winner in your view? >> nbc news has made a decision on this. that the check mark you see when they declare the winner of the race, the check mark will go to the winner of the state delegate equivalents and the reason for that decision as you just said is that ultimately this process is about securing 1,091 national delegates. this is the formula that is is used to determine iowa's national convention delegates. to have an official check mark it will go to that. but we'll be tracking both of those results. we are going to show you what the winner is in the popular vote, raw vote. you will see the official winner here. i'm going to punt it to everybody out there. because the people will get to decide. which one of these matters more? if they are at odds with each other and you can see what people make of it. >> you have a challenging job especially on the big nights and with the math. we don't know how to do math, but your job got more complex with this angle. we'll be watching you closely tonight. thank you, steve. right now on capitol hill the other story, senators making their arrivals for the impeachment trial that resumes within half an hour. we have much more coverage and chris matthews up ahead. e much d chris matthews up ahead. the number of uninsured americans, rising. the cost of prescription drugs, rising. the threat to people with pre-existing conditions, rising. the good news, so is support for the one candidate who'll do something about it. as mayor, mike bloomberg helped expand coverage for seven hundred thousand people, including hundreds of thousands of kids. including hundreds of thousands of kids. as president, he'll lower drug costs and ensure everyone without coverage can get it. that's a promise. and unlike him, mike actually keeps his. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. welcome back to our special coverage. you're looking at a live shot on capitol hill where the senate trial of president donald trump will reconvene after all that jockeying, the hard line republican vote to come up with a schedule for the end of the trial. that was party line friday night and that delivers in 28 minutes from now this senate trial. so that's a huge story no matter hue how you cut it. and if you think you have an idea of where it ends it's not on the story affecting the white house and the presidency because amidst all of this today the democratic primary for who would run against the president trump begins in iowa where our own chris matthews, host of "hardball" is right now. great to see you, chris. my first question is always the question on a caucus day, who do you see out there gaining right now? >> well, i think bernie sanders has continued to gain. through the last three or four weeks i think he's gaining. i think a couple of things that worked for him. one, there was a focus for a while on iran. and i think that brought back his advantage at having voted against the iraq war and being against the vietnam war. i think he picked up on that. i think he gaped because he's really competing with elizabeth warren. she was hurt because of the media scrutiny after she was the front-runner in the fall. she was asked about the financing for her proposals and she went back and said i'll do it in the third year, not the first year. medicare for all. i think that hurt her with the left because she had been working to get to the left of bernie. i think bernie is out there with the left out front. i look at it this way. just like the playoffs, just like the super bowl. there's the nfc and the democratic party call that the liberals and the very liberal people. that's about two-thirds of the party here in iowa. bernie has been beating elizabeth warren for that two-thirds of the vote which means he gets 30 some percent tonight. that's what i think. he gets 30% tonight. biden's problem is that he's competing for the lion's share of the work. i think it will be 32 to 22 tonight. 30 to 22 with warren getting hurt and bernie benefiting in his lion's share of the left. that's my prediction. >> how do you think the impeachment trial of president trump which has come to such this dramatic crescendo, how has that impacted things if at all? >> i think again in football terms as i watched like everybody else last night, i think we're going into the fourth quarter. the fourth year of the trump presidency. and the score is tied. after all of the acrimony, all the hating, the back and forth, the bad names, the impeachment, what looks like an acquittal, add the whole pile up together and we're tied again. look at the numbers. moving into the high 40s. the economy is zooming. i see him as a very, very daunting opponent for whoever the democratic nominee is. i think if it's bernie look out for the democrats because i think he's -- he's certainly to me reminiscent of the 1972 campaign where mcgovern a man of the left got nominated with a lot of excitement. gave a speech at 2:48 in the morning got blown away, 49 states. it's probably not going to be that bad because the country is truly divided 50-50. i think we'll see a really exciting super bowl march 3rd in california. bernie where he should do well with the left wing party out there and michael bloomberg who has the money to pay up in l.a. advertising. if he can put enough much on the television, it will be mike versus bernie. i have to wait and see who that wins that one. i can't predict. i think it will be tight as a drum. whoever wins that will be the nominee, i think. >> are you saying, chris matthews here, live from iowa, national political expert. are you saying today you see michael bloomberg now in the first tier in the democratic primary? >> as i said, there's two parts to the democratic party. what they call the progressive wing, the left or whatever you want to call it and then the moderates, old liberal vote and i think mike will buy his way into the second group. the afc. bernie has the nfc locked up. he's goingto win tonight. he's going to win in new hampshire next week, do very well in nevada with the union people out there. he's on a roll. i think that's probably helpful. it is going to be helpful to michael bloomberg. michael bloomberg will say i'm a little too republican, i was wrong on stop and frisk, may have been wrong on other things but i'm a hell of a lot better than the guy on the left who is going to lose to trump and you have to get rid of trump. i think that's a very practical argument. you have to get rid of trump. the other guy can't do it, i can. i think that's where it's headed. i believe we'll spend march and april -- neither of whom are democrats. it's the terrible irony, to nine democrats competing, which shows that something has gone wrong in the democratic party in the last ten years. except for obama, it's not a healthy party right there. there is something wrong in the core of the democratic party. it hasn't settled its fish, it hasn't settled on a candidate who can appeal to both sides. obama could. they don't have a replacement for him right now. >> it's always fascinating to fete your views especially on big nights like this. you just laid out a lot for people to think about. we'll be seeing a lot of you today and tonight. chris matthews, have fun out in des moines. >> thanks, ari, you're great. >> thank you, great to have you on a big day, big night. i want to turn to maya wiley who we haven't heard from yet and i have been sitting with you here. we have been passing some notes. >> pizza or coffee? >> i guess when you look at the back drop of impeachment against iowa which is something, you know, a lot of viewers know you as a former civil prosecutor, but you dealt with this in advising a mayor who had legal problems, faced a clearing of them, mayor -- the new york mayor de blasio ultimately. he wasn't charged with everything. everyone can distinguish the fact pattern from president trump, i think de blasio and president trump would say they're different. >> i would agree. >> walk us how you see that hanging over what a lot of democrats are frustrated with. i have started to hear some democrats say, maybe speaker pelosi was right, this took up time and energy and we didn't move the ball. walk us through it. >> what's key here in a democratic primary is that there is not any question for democrats about whether donald trump should be impeached. we know that from all of the data. the divide on whether or not he should have been impeached was really almost every democrat and then the slice of independents and a too small slice of republicans. the issue is not -- there's a lot of anger on the democratic side about donald trump not being held accountable. and the fact that every day people in this country overaccountable in some instances. i don't think it hurts the democrats, in fact, it helps them because it gets more energy to get rid of trump. >> you talk about that energy, andrea, this is something that hangs over all of this. you have covered so many of the races. you were out there in 2016 covering the clinton race and -- >> clinton versus bernie. >> seeing that primary battle and it's reminder of how useless the expectations, whether you call them beltway or media or otherwise, six months ago people did not think that some of these name brand senators like booker and harris would be gone. >> absolutely. >> but people like yang and klobuchar who may have been underestimated that's what chris matthews is saying would be in. and that mayor pete would be outraising joe biden. all of that seems to dovetail, whether people agree or disagree with chris' projections he's tapping in that butte or bloomberg are tapping into the uncertainty over whether the other people are up for the job. >> absolutely. one measure of just who is donald trump afraid of? let's look at first he slimes biden completely and tries to make that a big deal. and then last night in his interview during the super bowl and again today don jr. are calling bernie sanders a communist. so we have gone from socialism to communism. which is obviously a huge leap. so they're clearly beginning to take bernie -- very seriously because of his victories in michigan before, the fact that he's viable in wisconsin, pennsylvania. bernie could be a threat. so bernie's electability becomes more of a threat to biden now as the two of them are the real front-runners there in iowa. and you could come out with a result which is so, you know, fragmented where there is certain amount of strength for buttigieg and for klobuchar and klobuchar has had a really good rise in and these polls as warren has come down. and she's been taking something from biden as well. if they come out without clear obvious winners here going in to new hampshire and if biden is fatally wounded then you get the bloomberg magic. >> to your point, andrea, this iowa system where you have to meet a threshold, you walk into this gymnasium, i worked the iowa caucus a long time ago. you walk into the gymnasium, you don't know if you're in the biggest group or the smallest. if you're in the smallest group, you're not viable -- >> 13%. >> let's say yang or in some neighborhoods klobuchar then you can join -- everyone says you can go to second choice, right? could be someone you think is famous and you look up to. some people are saying biden is certain people's second choice or you team up. that the yang and the klobuchar people have something in common that might not be obvious which is they want something different, they want something new. that is different than the other states, right? it's not clear how that's going to play out tonight. >> that's why this is so unpredictable. that's why we need steve kornacki and chuck todd and chris meyers. you sense that, you know, 99 different counties for them to go to. that is where you really get the feel, rural versus more urban in des moines that's where you get the feel of how it's actually evolving and there are late deciders. we don't -- we don't have the gold standard poll. >> which i think is kind of great. we all use the polls, we all try to learn from the mistakes. there were some mistakes in '16. but the absence of that poll means instead of everyone today in iowa and beyond saying well it looks like a front-runner the way that obama looks, everyone is going, we have to see. >> polls in iowa are really very difficult. >> i know we're losing you, so thank you for being part of the coverage. >> thank you. >> the panel stays. we have closing arguments that begin on the senate floor. on the eve of the state of the union we'll have a look ahead at how that will play out. ♪ i thought i had my moderate to severe ulcerative colitis under control. turns out, it was controlling me. seemed like my symptoms were taking over our time together. i knew i needed to talk to my doctor. think he'll make it? that's when i learned humira can help get and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. the president's defense team arriving at the senate right now. closing arguments begin today. nbc news white house correspondent hallie jackson is there and jelani cobb is here. you're looking at the footage of the arrivals. hallie, what are we going to see in the closing arguments as he himself has struck quite optimistic tones? >> >> yeah. for sure, i'm told that the legal team is up likely to take their allotted couple of hours now. starting at about 15 or 20 minutes the trial will begin and then four hours for the house managers and the defense teams for closing arguments. that is consistent with what pat cipollone and jay sekulow have done so far. coming in under the time they have been given to help in their view bolster the argument is so clean and concise, they don't need to drag it out. you will see multiple attorneys not just cipollone and sekulow who are the two leads. the hill team reports and i can't tell on the video if you can see ken starr but he's on the hill as well. >> we can pull it back up. >> but i think it's interesting and notable as he's there as we haven't heard a ton from him. if he's on the hill you may hear from him. as far as what the president is up to, he has a low key day. nothing on the public schedule other than a closed lunch whiz vice president as he does during the week. i would watch twitter because he's got a lot on his mind. i'm told by sources that he's been talking about impeach -- the state of the union coming up tomorrow night and iowa the other big story of the morning. as far as the state of the union our team is being told that impeachment won't be a huge focus here. expect a passing reference or two, but the president really wants to sort of look past what's happening this week, talk about his vision for the country. that seems to be the strategy that is starting to emerge for that really keynote speech. i would remind you, ari, not that you need reminding about anything, but bill clinton did not directly reference impeachment as he was going through his trial then during his impeachment. there is precedent. notable at the time it happened then. >> great points, all, hallie. the fact presidents like to use big speeches as big moments to rise above, make it look like i'm busy being president and thinking about big things, although this is a president unlike the past who has a twitter stream about small things. a contrast. stay with me. jelani cobb, we're about to lose, bringing into this conversation with hallie. one of the things emerged from the senate republicans who have spoken out. showed you lamar alexander earlier, ben sasse, who said "speaks for most of us," is this idea that the president's lawyers denying the ukraine plot lost. they lost that attempt. and the lawyers particularly dershowitz and starr who arg guargued facts don't matter, they won. as we think this through getting ready for closing arguments what do you think about the fact according to moderate republicans, it was not the traditional lawyers, the white house counsel's office, that did the best job or gave the best argument, the more yooutlandish ones? >> it's strange. on one hand the initial question whether or not you had to have a violation of law in order to impeach. and then we find the government accountability office actually said they had a violation of law. now we've backed into a kind of fallback position of saying, well, he did this, but it doesn't rise to the level of being removed from office. if you listen to what lamar alexander said on sunday, he seemed to be saying that, well, you know, the people should decide this. this is an election year issue. it falls in line with this kind of odd set of election year constitutional waivers. we've seen this before. it happened with merritt garland, the constitution says nothing about judicial appointments in election years but that was the basis for mitch mcconnell refusing to give merritt garland a yea or a nay vote. that's not what hamilton said, signers of the constitution, in fairness, didn't think it was impeachable but trump did it. clear out the white house counsel defense, didn't really happen. a delay. no. you did it. that seems to be a fissure from the lawyers, we'll hear from the lawyers, hallie, still with us. >> reporter: yeah. >> your thoughts? >> reporter: you make the broader point you've heard from people that are critical of the president and the way his defense team put out this argument. i can tell you, you won't see a wholesale change i don't think, on what the argument has been in these closings today. that would be surprising if you did, because the president's team does feel like they are on solid footing, they feel, even more than that, ari, there is, i don't want to say the phrase glide path, right? you never know what happened. i don't have a reasonable expectation the president on wednesday does not end up acquitted. right? bottom line is, look at the scoreboard. you're an attorney. you know. it's about whether you win or lose the case. looks as if the president's team is on the path to get their client acquitted in the way this works. tell you one political piece of intrigue to this. talked to allies of the president this morning talking about what they describe as a bipartisan acquittal. you might wonder how do you get to a bipartisan acquittal? looking at a couple democrats in particular and on that second impeachment article, obstruction one and possibility maybe a joe manchin or kirsten sinema might vote with republicans and give the president's allying to say a bipartisan acquittal for president trump. leave it to you to determine the numbers, one or two people is enough to make it bir partisan, whatever. that's the thinking inside and behind the scenes. >> a great point. goes to why this all still matters, watching bernie sanders arrive here on the capitol. it's not just about whether the final vote will or will not have 67 to remove the president as more senators appear to make that unlikely, but, yes. the contents of it and whether it's a clean sweep and where the democrats are and where the obstruction vote is is all significant. we've reported on-air legally certainly about why the evidence offered to support the obstruction article has been weaker. >> reporter: rinchts thght. >> than the other article. the evidence for the first article of the ukraine plot has, to quote senator alexander, "proved." we have to fit in a break. when we come back we'll be on the senate floor for closing arguments. hallie jackson, thank you. right back with closing arguments going right into the trial. he trial. a sommelier searches for the perfect wine. but i hear a different calling. the call of a schmear of cream cheese. for i, am a schmelier. i practice my craft at philadelphia. here, we use only the freshest milk... that one! go! go! and the finest ingredients... what is this? until perfection is achieved. she's ready. schmears! philadelphia. schmear perfection. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? sure! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, i'm good. reminder for what? oh. ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. we are moments away from the senate trial of president donald trump resuming. looking at a live shot here of klim and back with me for our special coverage. milia wiley, elise and david jolly. good to see you all. david, closing arguments in a trial where a lot of people feel they know where it's headed. two party-line votes, those who didn't follow it or more focused on super bowl stuff. friday night, much-anticipated witness vote. two republicans breaking. then a full part line vote setting up what i pointed out to viewers today is not jury deliberations, is not the normal end to an impeachment trial but a wrap-up including these closing arguments. what do we see today in the closing arguments? >> i'll look for the question is, are house managers reaching for history? making closing argument to a jury they know has largely made up their minds, the facts of the case there, house managers made a very strong case throughout the last two weeks. i think you'll see adam schiff kind of shine. he'll have that moment where he records for history how to frame the wrongdoing of donald trump and perhaps even frame some of the, the analytical failings, if you will, of the republican senators who came out and said, yes, wrong but not impeachable. the question for the president's attorneys, do they take on an heir of exoneration and stay with the case this is not a fact pattern resulting in the president's impeachment or begin a victory lap as almost a preamble to the state of the union tomorrow night? >> looking at viewers have come to understand the overhead shot inside the united states senate they control telling us we are moments away, obviously. as we do, go henceforth into the senate, maya, when it begins. david says, will they, senators, be alienated if anybody is too cocky, too overconfident? you don't want to spike the football before you're in the end zone. the other big question for the house managers, maya, they're now armed with something they didn't have on the record last week, which is validation from their senate jurors from republicans that they proved the factual case. if you were arguing this, don't predict, but if you argued this, something you would introduce into your closing arguments? >> you know, i would, and i would for one main reason. not because it's going to affect the outcome per se but because for the american public, right? the next layer of defense for the constitution are the elections in 2020. that means if 75% of americans wanted witnesses and evidence, if republicans acknowledging, acknowledging, that the case was proved, but are now measuring what the punishment is, based on quote/unquote lack of evidence, that they could have heard, i would make that point very strongly. that they are not deliberating on one of the most important constitutional questions that they will ever face, and that the country will live with, and at most, what we, what everyone should expect is that there is a full and fair way for voters to decide whether their elected officials have done them good or done them dirty. >> hmm. elise? >> focus on the fairness of process and witnesses and denial of any witnesses by senate republicans. i'm wondering, though, if the focus is a little bit misplaced politically, because there's just a lingering question, why did the house not call witnesses? and it's very difficult to explain that to voters, when they see democrats who they feel did not necessarily go at this as hard as they possibly could, and i wonder if there's an electoral -- >> which do you mean? they called many witnesses, earn saw the hearings. you mean not exhausting the process trying to get the rest? >> yes. exhausting the process. there was, how many days? i think 23 days that nancy pelosi held off, which i thought it was brilliant in terms of getting into donald trump's head, but why not take the time to actually exhaust all options? and so then you're leaving, i feel, the possibility with voters who haven't really followed this as closely as everyone at this table on a day-to-day basis wondering what was that all really about? >> rick? >> you know, history offers some evidence and precedent for both sides. on the republican side, in the constitutional convention they actually talked in the beginning about, do we need an impeachment clause at all? we have elections. remember, elections were a radical idea. four years didn't seem like a long time with a king serving a lifetime. at the same time, that's why lamar said, look, we have an election coming up. at the same time also you had hamilton arguing one of the absolute reason us need impeachment to turn a president out of office is if he was elected illegally and used the same devices for re-election that would then make that election not valued. that, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to turn him out of office. the two kind of historical presidents on both sides and i think you'll hear recourse to both. i agree the president's lawyers should spike the football but say lamar alexander did the case for us. have the election decide. what the framers meant and get out of here. >> one quick point. elise is right to raise a question of confused voters for not following it day to day on process. i think the thing that it comes back to over and over again is don mcgahn. corey lewandowski. going back and showing the extreme measures of obstruction, because if the democrats had done exactly what you're saying, elise, we know what the talking points would be. democrats can't go through with impeachment, because they haven't yet gotten the court rulings which would have meant then too close to elections and republicans say, but there's an election. either way the democrats were go to face hard talking points from republicans and focused on the evidence at hand and had admissions from the president. >> we see the chief justice taking his place. getting ready for the prayer. let's listen in. >> let us pray. >> arise, o, lord, as we enter the final arguments phase of this impeachment trial. mighty god, we continue to keep our eyes on you, on whom our faith depends from start to finish. may our senators embrace your promise to do for them immeasurably, abundantly above all that they can ask or imagine. lord, help our lawmakers to store your promises in their hearts and permit you to keep them from stumbling. grant that they will leave a legacy of honor as they seek your will in all they do. we pray in your amazing name. amen. >> amen. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> no objection. the general proceedings of the trial approved to date. the deputy sargent at armless make the proclamation. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trials of the articles of impeachment xzibexhibite eed by house of repetitives against donald j. trump president of the united states. >> hearing up to four hours of closing statements by the two sides, take a 30-minute lunch break after the house made its initial presentation and come back and finish this afternoon. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 488, the senate has provided for up to four hours of closing arguments equally divided between the managers on the part of the house's representatives and counsel and the counsel for the president. pursuant to rule 22 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the arguments shall be open and closed on the part of the house's representatives. the presiding officer recognizes mr. manager schiff to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. >> mr. chief justice, members of the u.s. senate counsel for the president, almost 170 years ago senator daniel webster of massachusetts took to the well of the old senate chamber, not far from where i'm standing. he delivered what would become, perhaps, his most famous address. the 7th of march speech. webster sought to rally his colleagues to adopt the compromise of 1850. a package of legislation he and others hoped would forestall a civil war brewing over the question of slavery. he said -- it is fortunate that that is a senate of the united states, a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks with confidence for wise, moderate, patriotic and healing counsels. it is not to be denied we live in the midst of strong agitations and surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions of government. the imprisoned winds are let loose, but i have a duty to perform and i mean to perform it with fidelity. not without a sense of surrounding dangers but not without hope. webster was wrong to believe that the compromise of 1850 could prevent succession of the south but i hope he was not trong put his faith in the senate. because the design of the constitution and intention of the framers was that the senate would be a chamber removed from the sway of temporary political winds. and federalist 65, hamilton wrote, where else than in the senate cot have been found a tribunal dignified or sufficiently independent? what other body likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced impartial arty between accuse at accusers? in the same essay hamilton explained this about impeachment. the subjects of its jurisdiction of those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust and of a nature with peculiar propriety be dominated political relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. prosecution of them for this reason will seldom fail to agitate passions of the whole community and divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to accused, in such cases always the greatest danger the decision regulated more by comparative strength of parties than real demonstration of innocence or guilt. daniel webster and alexander hamilton placed their hopes in you, the senate, to be the court of greatest impartiality. a nuell craneutral representati ununsed by party or precysting sakz, the innocence or guilt of the president of the united states. today you have a duty to perform. with fidelity, not without a sense of surrounding dangers, but also not without hope. i submit to you on behalf of the house of representatives that your duty demands you convict president trump. now, i don't pretend this is an easy process. it's not designed to be easy. it shouldn't be easy to impeach or convict a president. impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, a tool only to be used in rare instances of grave misconduct. but it is in the constitution for a reason. in america, no one is above the law. even though he is elected president of the united states. and i would say especially those elected president of the united states. you've heard arguments from the president's counsel impeachment would overturn results of 20916 election. heard that in seeking removal and disqualification of the president the house is speaking to interfere in the next election. senators, neither is true. these arguments demonstrated deeply misguided or i think intention effort to mislead about the role impeachment plays in our democracy. if you believe as we do and as we have proven that the president's efforts to use his official powers to cheat in the 2020 election, jeopardize our national security and are antithetical to our democratic history you must come to the con clues the president threatens fairness of the next election and risks putting foreign interference between the voters and their ballots. professor dershowitz and the other counselors to the president have argued if the president thinks something is in his interest, then it is by definition in the interests of the american people. we have said throughout this process that we cannot and should not leave our common sense at the door. the logical conclusion this argument is, that the president is the state that his interests are the nation's interests. that his will is necessarily ours. you and i and the american people know otherwise. and we do not have to be constitutional scaler e scholar understanding this is deeply at odds with our constitution and our democracy. believing in this argument or allowing the president to get away with misconduct based on this extreme view would render him above the law. but we know that this cannot be true. what you decide on these articles will have lasting implications for the future of the presidency. not only this president but all future presidents. whether or not the office of the presidency of the united states of america is above the law. that is the question. as alexis due toke gwil wrote, "democracy in america," "the greatness of america lies not in being made more enthe lined than any other nation but rather in her ability to the repair her faults." in may of 1974 barry goldwater and other republican congressional leaders went to the white house to tell president nixon it was time for him to resign and they could no longer hold back the tide of impeachment over watergate. now, contrary to popular belief, the republican party did not abandon nixon as the watergate scandal came to light. it took years of disclosures and crisis and court battles. the party stood with nixon through watergate because he was a popular conservative president and his base was with him. so they were, too. but ultimately as goldwater would tell nixon, "there are only so many lies you can take, and now there have been one too many." the president would have us believe he did not withhold aid, of course, these sham investigations. that his july 25th call with the ukrainians was perfect. that his meeting with president zelensky on the sidelines of the u.n. is not different than a head of state meeting in the oval office. that his only interest in having ukraine announce investigations into the bidens was an altruistic over corruption. ukrainians interfered in our elections, not russia. that putin knows better than our own intelligence agencies. how many falsehoods can we take? when will it be one too many? let us take a few minutes to remind you one last time of the facts of the president's misconduct as you consider how you'll vote on this important matter for our nation. those facts compel the president's conviction on the two articles of impeachment. >> mr. chief justice and senators over the past two weeks the house has presented to you overwhelming and unconverted evidence that president trump has committed grave abuses of power. that harmed our national security, and were intended to defraud our elections. president trump abused the extraordinary powers he alone holds as president of the united states to coerce an ally to interfere in our upcoming presidential election for the benefit of his own re-election. he then used those unique powers to wage an unprecedented campaign to obstruct congress and cover up his wrongdoing. as the president schemed to corrupt our election progressed over several months, it became as one witness described, more insidious. the president and his agents wielded the powers of the presidency and the full weight of the u.s. government to increase pressure on ukraine's new president to coerce him to announce two sham investigations that would smear his potential election opponent and raise his political standing. by early september of last year, the president's pressure campaign appeared on the verge of succeeding, until, that is, the president got caught. and the scheme was exposed. in response, president trump ordered a massive cover-up, unprecedented in american history. he tried to conceal the facts from congress using every tool and legal window dressing he could to block evidence and muzzle witnesses. he tried to prevent the public from learning how he placed himself above country, and yet even as president trump has orchestrated this cover-up and obstructed congress' impeachment inquiry, he remains unapologetic, unrestrained and intent on continuing his sham to defraud our elections. as i stand here today, delivering the house's closing argument, president trump's constitutional crimes, his crimes against the american people and the nation remain in progress. as you make your final determination on the president's guilt, it is, therefore, worth revisiting the totality of the president's misconduct. doing so lays bear the ongoing threat president trump poses to our democratic system of government. both to our upcoming election, that some suggest should be the ar arbiter of the president's misconductened to the constitution itself that we all swore to support and defend. donald trump was the central player in the corrupt scheme assisted principally by his private attorney rudy giuliani. early in 2019, giuliani conspired with two corrupt former ukrainian prosecutors to fabricate and promote phony investigations of wrongdoing by former vice president joe biden and as well as the russian propaganda that it was ukraine, not russia, that hacked the dnc in 2016. in the course of their presentation to you, the president's counsel have made several remarkable admissions that affirm core elements of this scheme, including specifically about giuliani's role and representation of the president. the president's counsel has conceded that giuliani sought to convince ukraine to investigate the bidens and allege ukraine election interference on behalf of his client, the president, and that the president's focus on the sham investigations was significantly informed by giuliani, whose views the president adopted. compounding this damning admission, the president's counsel has also conceded that giuliani was not conducting foreign policy on behalf of the president. they have confirmed that in pursuing these two investigations, giuliani was working solely in the president's private, personal interests, and the president's personal interest is now clear. to cheat in the next election. as giuliani will later admit for the president's scheme to succeed, he first needed to remove the american ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, an anti-corruption champion. giuliani viewed as an obstacle who, and i quote, "was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody." working with now indicted associates, lev parnas and igor fruman, giuliani orchestrated a bogus months' long smear campaign against the ambassador that culminated in her removal in april. the president's sudden order to remove our ambassador came just three days after ukraine's presidential election in late april, which saw a reformer, volodymyr zelensky swept into office on an anti-corruption plat for. president trump called to congratulate zelensky right after his victory. he invited president zelensky to the white house and agreed to send vice president pence to his inauguration. but three weeks later, after rudy giuliani was denied a meeting with president zelensky, president trump abruptly ordered vice president pence to cancel his trip. instead, a lower-level delegation led by three of president trump's political appointees, secretary of state of energy rick perry, ambassador to the european union gordon sondland and special represent ish for ukraine negotiations kurt volker attended the zelensky inauguration the next week. these three returned from ukraine impressed with president zelensky. 's in a meeting shortly thereamp with president trump in the oval office they relayed a positive impression of the new ukrainian president and encouraged president trump to schedule the white house meeting he promised in his first call. but president trump reacting negatively. he railed that ukraine tried to take me down in 2016. and in order to schedule a white house visit for president zelensky, president trump told the delegation that they would have to, and i quote "talk to rudy." it is worth pausing here to consider the importance of this meeting in late may. this is the moment that president trump successfully hijacked the tools of our government to serve his corrupt, personal interests. when the president's domestic political airing, as one described it began to overtake and subordinate u.s. foreign policy and national security interests, by this point in the scheme rudy giuliani was advocating very publicly for ukraine to pursue the two sham investigations, but his request to meet with president zelensky was oui rebuffed by the new ukrainian president. according to reports about ambassador bolton's account, soon to be available if not to this body, then to book stores near you, the president also unsuccessfully tried to get bolton to call the new ukrainian president to ensure he would meet with giuliani. the desire for ukraine to announce these phony investigations was for a clear and corrupt reason, because president trump wanted to politically benefit, wanted the political benefit of a foreign country announcing that it would investigate his rival. that is how we know without a doubt that the object of the president's scheme was to benefit his re-election campaign. in other words, to cheat in the next election. ukraine resisted announcing the investigations throughout june. so the president and his agent, rudy giuliani, turned up the pressure. this time by yielding the power of the united states government. in mid-june the department of defense publicly announced it would be releasing $250 million of military assistance to ukraine, almost immediately after seeing this, the president quietly ordered a freeze on the assistance to ukraine. none of the 17 witnesses in our investigation were provided with a credible reason for the hole when it was implemented and all relevant agencies opposed the freeze's in july giuliani and the president's opponents, appointees made clear to ukraine that a meeting at the white house would only be scheduled if ukraine announced the sham investigations. according to a july 19 email, the white house has tried to suppress this drug deal as ambassador bolton called it, was well known among the president's most senior officials including his chief of staff mick mulvaney, and secretary of state mike pompeo. and it was relayed directly to senior ukrainian officials by gordon sondland on july 10 at the white house. everyone was in the loop. lo president zelensky explained he did not want to be a pawn in washington politics, president trump did not care. in fact, on july 25, before president trump spoke to president zelensky, president trump personally conveyed the terms of this quid pro quo to gordon sondland, who then relayed the message to ukraine's president. later that morning, during the now infamous phone call, president trump explicitly requested that ukraine investigate the bidens and the 2016 election. zelensky responded as president trump instructed, he assured president trump that he would undertake these investigations. after hearing this commitment, president trump reiterated his invitation to the white house at the end of the call. now, no later than a few days after the call, the highest levels of the ukrainian government learned about the hold on military assistance. senior ukrainian officials decided to keep it quiet, recognizing the harm it would cause to ukraine's defense, to the new government standing at home, and to his negotiating posture with russia. officials in ukraine and the united states hoped that the hold would be reversed before it became public. as we now know, that was not to be. as we have explained during the trial, the president's scheme did not begin with the july 25th call, and it did not end there either. as instructed, a top aide to president zelensky met with giuliani in early august and they began working on a press statement for zelensky to issue that would announce the two sham investigations and lead to a white house meeting. now, let's be very clear here. the documentary evidence alone, the text messages, the emails that we've showed you, confirms definitely the president's corrupt, definitively, the president's corrupt quid pro quo for the white house meeting. subsequent testimony further affirms that the president withheld this official act. this highly coveted oval office meeting to apply pressure on ukraine to do his personal bidding. the evidence is unequivocal. despite this pressure by mid-august president zelensky resisted such an explicit announcement of the two politically motivated investigations desired by president trump. as a result, the white house meeting remained unscheduled. just as it remains unscheduled to this day. during this same time frame in august, the president persisted in maintaining the hold on the aid, despite warnings that he was breaking the law by doing so. as an independent watchdog recently confirmed that he did. according to the evidence presented to you, the president's entire cabinet believed he should release the aid, because it was in the national security interests of our country. during the entire month of august, there was no internal review of the aid. congress was not notified, nor was there any credible reason provided within the executive branch. with no explanation offered, and with the explicit, clear, yet unsuccessful, quid pro quo for the white house meeting, in the front of his mind, ambassador sondland testified that the only logical conclusion was that the president was also withholding military assistance to increase the pressure on ukraine to announce the investigations. as sondland and another witness testified, this conclusion was as simple as two plus two equals four. if the white house meeting wasn't sufficient leverage to extract the announcements he wanted, trump would use the frozen aid as his hammer. secretary pompeo confirmed sondland's conclusion in an august 22 email. it was also clear that vice president pence was aware of the quid pro quo over the aid and was directly informed of such in warsaw on september 1, after the freeze had become public and ukraine became desperate. sondland pulled i side a top aide in warsaw and told him that everything, both the white house meeting and also the security assistance, were conditioned on the announcement of the investigations that sondland, giuliani and others had been negotiating with the same aid earlier in august. this is an important point. the president claims that ukraine did not know of the freeze in aid, though we know this to be false. as a former deputy foreign minister has admitted publicly they found out about it within days of the july 25th call and kept it quiet. but no one can dispute that even after the hold became public on july, on august 28, president trump's representatives continued their efforts to secure ukraine's announcement of the investigations. this is enough to prove extortion in court. and it is certainly enough to prove it here. if that wasn't enough, however, on september 7, more than a week after the aid freeze became public, president trump confirmed directly to sondland that he wanted president zelensky in a public box, and that his release of the aid was conditioned on the announcement of the two sham investigations. having received direct confirmation from president trump, sondland relayed the president's message to president zelensky himself. president zelensky could resist no longer. america's military assistance makes up 10% of his country's defense budget, and president trump's visible lack of support for ukraine harmed his leverage in negotiations with russia. president zelensky affirmed to sondland on that same telephone call that he would announce the investigations in an interview on cnn. president trump's pressure campaign appeared to have succeeded. two days after president zelensky confirmed his intention to meet president trump's demands, the house of representatives announced its investigation into these very issues. shortly thereafter, the inspector general of the intelligence community notified the intelligence communities that the whistle-blower complaint was being improperly handled, or improperly withheld from congress, with the white house knowledge. in other words, the president got caught. and two days later on september 11, the president released the aid. to this day, however, ukraine still has not received all of the money congress has appropriated and the white house meeting has yet to be scheduled. the identity of the whistle-blower, moreover, is irrelevant. the house did not rely on the whistle-blower's complaint, even as it turned out to be remarkably accurate. it does not matter who initially sounded the alarm when they saw smoke. what matters is that the firefighters, congress, were summoned and found the blaze, and we know that we did. the facts about the president's misconduct are not seriously in dispute. as several republican senators have acknowledged pubpublicly, have proved that the president abused his power in precisely the manner charged in article i. president trump withheld a white house meeting and congressionally appropriated military assistance from ukraine in order to pressure ukraine to interfere in the upcoming presidential election on his behalf. the sham investigations president trump wanted announced had no legitimate purpose, and were not in the national interest. despite the president's counsel, troubling reliance on conspiracy theories to claim the president acted in the public interests. the president was not focused on fighting corruption. in fact, he was trying to pressure ukraine's president to act corruptly by announcing these baseless investigations. and the evidence makes clear that the president's decision to withhold ukraine's military aid is not connected in anyway to purport eed concerns about corruption or burden-sharing. rather the evidence that was presented to you is damning, chilling, disturbing and disgraceful. president trump weaponized our government, and the vast powers entrusted to him by the american people, and the constitution, to target his political rival and corrupt our precious elections. subverted or national security and our democracy in the process. he put his personal interests over those of the country. and he violated his oath of office in the process. but the president's grave abuse of power did not end there. in conduct unparalleled in american history, once he got caught, president trump engaged in categorical and indiscriminate obstruction of any investigation into his wrongdoing. he ordered every government agency and every official to defy the house's impeachment inquiry. and he did so for a simple reason. to conceal evidence of his wrongdoing from congress, and the american people. the president's obstruction was unlawful and unprecedented, but it also confirmed his guilt. innocent people don't try to hide every document and witness, especially those that would clear them. that's what guilty people do. that's what guilty people do. innocent people do everything they can to clear their name, and provide evidence that shows that they are innocent. but it would be a mistake to view the president's obstruction narrowly. as the president's counsel have tried to portray it. the president did not defy the house's impeachment inquiry as part of a routine, inner-branch dispute or because he wanted to protect the constitutional rights and privilegeses of his presidency. he did it consistent with his vow to fight all subpoenas. the second article of impeachment goes to the heart of our constitution and our democratic system of government. the framers of the constitution purposefully entrusted the power of impeachment in the legislative branch so that it may protect the american people from a corrupt president. the president was able to undertake such comprehensive obstruction only because of the exceptional powers entrusted to him by the american people. and he wielded that power to make sure congress would not receive a single record or a single document related to his conduct and to bar his closest aides from testifying about his scheme. throughout the house's inquiry, just as they did during the trial, the president's counsel offered bad faith and meritless legal arguments as transparent legal window dressing intended to legitimize and justify the president's efforts to hide evidence of his misconduct. we've explained why all of these legal excuses hold no merit. why the house's subpoenas were valid. how the house appropriately exercised its impeachment authority. how the president's strategy was to stall and obstruct. we've explained how the president, after the fact, reliance on unfounded and in some cases brand, new legal privileges, are shockingly transparent cover for a president dictate a blanket obstruction. we've underscored how the president's defiance of congress is unprecedented in the history of our republic, and we all know that an innocent person would eagerly provide testimony and documents to clear his name. as the president apparently thought he was doing mistakenly when he released the call records of his two telephone calls with president zelensky. and even as the president has claimed to be protecting the presidency, remember that the president never actually invoked executive privilege throughout this entire inquiry. a revealing fact given the laws prohibition on invoking executive privilege to shield wrongdoing. and yet according to the president's counsel, the president is justified in resisting the house's impeachment inquiry. they say the house should have taken the president to court to define the obstruction. the president's argument is a shameless, it's as shameless as it is hypocritical. the president's counsel is arguing in this trial that the house should have gone to court to enforce its subpoenas while at the same time the president's own department of justice is arguing in court that the house could not enforce the subpoenas through the courts. and you know what remedy they say in course is available to the house? impeachment for obstruction of congress. this is not the first time this argument has been made. president nixon made it, too. but it was roundly rejected by the house judiciary committee 45 years ago. which the committee passed and article of obstruction for a congress for a far less serious obstruction than we have here. the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to enforce its subpoenas in court and as the slide shows, the committee concluded that it was inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas against the president. this conclusion is based on the constitutional provision vesting the power of impeachment solely in the house of representatives, and the express denial by the framers of the constitution of any role for the courts in the impeachment process. again, the committee report on nixon's articles of impeachment. >> once we strip the president's obstruction of this legal window dressing, the consequences are as clear as they are dire for our democracy. to condone the president's obstruction would strike a death blow to the impeachment clause in the constitution. and if congress cannot enforce this sole power vested in both chambers alone, the constitution's final line of the defense against a corrupt presidency will be eviscerated. a president who can obstruct and thwart the impeachment power becomes unaccountable. he or she is effectively above the law. and such a president is more likely to engage in corruption with impunity. this will become the new normal. with this president, and for future generations. so where does this leave us? as many of you in this chamber have publicly acknowledged in the past few days, the facts are not seriously in dispute. we have proved that the president committed grave offenses against the constitution. the question that remains is whether that conduct warrants conviction and removal from office. should the senate simply accept or even condone such corrupt conduct? by a president? absent conviction and removal. how can we be assured that this president will not do it again? if we are to rely on the next election to judge the president's efforts to cheat in that election, how can we know that the election will be free and fair? how can we know that every vote will be free from foreign interference, solicited by the president himself? with president trump, the past is prologue. this is neither the first time the president solicited foreign interference in his own election, nor is it the first time that the president tried to obstruct an investigation into his misconduct. but you will determine, you will determine, you will determine whether it will be his last. as we speak, the president continues his wrongdoing unchecked and unashamed. donald trump hasn't stopped trying to pressure ukraine to smear his opponent. nor has he stopped obstructing congress. his political agent rudolph giuliani recently returned to the scene of the crime in ukraine to manufacturer more dirt for his client, the president of the united states. president trump remains a clear and present danger to our national security. and to our credibility around the world, he is decimating our global standing as beacon of democracy while corrupting a fr -- our free and fair elections here at hole. what is a greater protection to our country than ensuring that we, the american people, alone, not some foreign power, choose our commander in chief. the american people alone should decide who represents us in any office without foreign interference, particularly the highest office in the land. and what could undermine our national security more that to withhold from a foreign ally fighting a hot war against our adversary, hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to buy sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, adversary? hundreds of millions of of sniper aid, radar and night vision goggles so they may fight the war over there, keeping us safe here. if we allow the president's misconduct to stand, what message do we send? what message do we send to russia, our adversary, intent on fracturing democracy around the world? what will we say to your european allies, already concerned with this president, about whether the united states will continue to sport our nato commitments that have been a pillar of our foreign policy since world war ii. what message do we sent to our allies in the free world? if we allow the president's misconduct to stand, what will we say to the 68,000 men and women in uniform in europe, right now, who courageously and admirably wake up everyday ready and willing to fight for america's security and prosperity, for democracy in europe and around the world? what message do we send them, when we say america's national security is for sale? that cannot be the message we want to send to our ukrainian friends or our european allies, or to our children and our grandchildren, who will inherit this precious republic. and i'm sure it is not the message you wish to send to our adversaries. the late senator, john mccain, was an astounding man, man of great principle, great patriot. he fought admirably in vietnam and was imprisoned as a p.o.w. for over five years, refusing an offer by the north vietnamese early because his father was a prominent admiral. as you all are aware, senator mccain was a great supporter of ukraine, a great supporter of europe. a great supporter of our troops. senator mccain understood the importance of this body, this distinguished body in serving the public, once saying, quote, glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself. to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you. the europeans and europeans and americans -- the ukranians and europeans and americans around the world at home are watching what we do. they are watching to see what the senate will do. they are relying on this distinguished body to be constant to the principles america was founded on and which we tried to uphold for more than 240 years. doing the right thing. and being constant to our principles requires a level of moral courage that is difficult, but by no means impossible. it is that moral courage, shown to public servants throughout this country and throughout the impeachment inquiry in the house. people like ambassador marie yovanovitch, her decades of nonpartisan service were turned against her in a vicious smear campaign that reached all the way to the president. despite this effort she decided to honor a duly authorized congressional subpoena and speak the truth to the american people. for this, she was the subject of yet more smears against her career and her character, even as she testified in a public hearing before congress. her courage mattered. people like ambassador bill taylor, a westpoint graduate, who wears a bronze star, and an air medal for valor, and his proudest honor, a combat infantryman badge. when his country called on him, he answered again and again and again, in battle, in foreign affairs, and in the face of a corrupt effort by the president to extort a foreign country into helping his reelection campaign. an effort that ambassador taylor rightly believed was crazy. his courage mattered. people like lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, who came to this country as a young child, fleei fleeing authoritarianism in europe. he could have done anything with hus young life but he, too, chose public service, putting on a uniform and earning a purple heart after fighting in battle courageously in iraq. when he heard that fateful july 25th call in which the president sold out our country for his own personal gain, lieutenant colonel vindman reported it and later came before congress to speak the truth about what happened. lieutenant colonel vindman's courage mattered. to the other public servants who came forward and told the truth, in the face of vicious smears, intimidation, and white house efforts to silence you, your courage mattered. you did the right thing. you did your duty. no matter what happens today or from this day forward, that courage mattered. whatever the outcome in this trial, we will remain vigilant in the house. i know there are dedicated public servants who know the difference between right and wrong. but make no mistake, these are perilous times. if we determine that the remedy for a president who cheats in an election is to pronounce him vindicated and attack those who exposed his misconduct. senators, before we break, i want to take a moment to say something about the staff who have worked tirelessly on the impeachment inquiry and this trial for months now. there is a small army of public servants down the hall from this chamber in offices throughout the house, and, yes, in that windowless bunker in the capital who committed their lives to this effort because they like the managers believe presidential accountability is a danger to our beating heart of democracy. i am grateful to all of them but let me mention a few. daniel goldman. batar. workla. patrick bolland. evans, patrick fallon, sean nisco. niklas mitchell. daniel noble, pilatinko. simons, christa boyd, issan. jo joshua. terry mccullough, dick meltzer and parker. some of those staff and some singled out in this chamber have been made to endure the most vicious false attacks to the point they feel their lives are at risk. attacks like that degrade our institution and all who serve in it. you ask me why i hired certain of my staff and i will tell you. because they're brilliant, hard working, patriotic and the best for the job. they deserve more than the attacks they have been forced to suffer. members of the senate and mr. chief justice i want to close this portion by reading you our dear friend and member of the house, the late elijah cummings, who said this on the day the speaker announced the impeachment inquiry. as a membelected representative the american people and generations yet unborn our message today is for a future we may never see. when the history books are written about this tumultuous era, i want them to show i was among those in the house of representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tierney. we the managers are not here representing ourselves alone or just the house. just as you are not making a determination as to the president's guilt or innocence for yourselves alone. you and we represent the american people, the ones at home and at work who are hoping that their country will remain what it has always believed it to be, a beacon of hope, democracy and inspiration to those striving around the world to create their own more perfect unions. for those standing up to lawlessness and to tierney. donald trump has betrayed his oath to protect and defend the constitution. but it is not too late for us to honor ours, to yield our power to defend our democracy. as president abraham lincoln said, at the closes of his cooper union address on february 27, 1860, neither let us be slandered by -- from our duty by false accusations against us nor frightenned from it by menaces of destruction to the government nor of dungeons to ourselves, let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it. today, we urge you in the face of overwhelming evidence of the president's guilt, and knowing if left in office he will continue to seek foreign interference in the next election, devote to convict on both articles of impeachment and to remove from office, donald j. trump, the 45th president of the united states. mr. chief justice, we reserve the balance of our time. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, colleagues will take a 30 minute break for lunch. >> without objection, so ordered. or dered. >> without objection, so ordered. with those words, the senate now stands in recess until 12:30 p.m. eastern or maybe later, the way these recesses have gone. this is the first day of the closing arguments in the senate trial of president donald trump. we have it covered as well as the other big story, the countdown to tonight's iowa caucus. we have it in our special coverage now. i am ari melber anchoring from our headquarters with former assistant attorney myra wiley and the others. and david jolly, who has left the party. good to see all of you. when you left those closing arguments with the background of how much has changed since friday night. what do you think? >> i think they did a good job recounting the facts. something i used to tell junior prosecutors i didn't see was anticipating the defense. i was expecting a little bit more argument about what you are going to now hear. they did reserve time, so they have an opportunity to do that later. usually, you like to see that in their opening summation, to hear a little bit more why what you've heard so far and what you're about to hear is wrong. >> itles looked very rote. our viewers to be forgiven they entered into middle of last week when the narrative was said about the ukrainian plot. >> that's true. you and i have to remember you and i and those around this table followed this -- >> i've mostly been home. i don't know what you mean. >> i think for a lot of people, they may be just be hearing this. some of it is repetitious. that may be useful to go over what the key facts are. i would have expected certainly congressman schiff to do a little bit more why is this wrong and not just inappropriate. he knows you have some people like lamar alexander saying this is inappropriate. inappropriate is the kind of thing you wear a striped tie with a checked shirt. that's not what we're dealing with here. i would have expected a little bit more about why is this wrong and why is it criminal. >> the other thing, andrew, with regard to your trial experience and move onto the rest of the panel. i'm sure you have been in cases you felt by the time you got to closing arguments, the jury wasn't where you wanted them to be. in a traditional trial there are other indicators. there are public indicators like the senate announcement they will not convict. how does that affect the way you close? >> i think this case, there is a really big difference here. it is wrong to think of this as a trial where there's either guilt or not guilt, because there is one, another audience, not just the senate jurors, there is the american public and there is what their verdict is going to be in november. i actually think of one of the in this you can look at in terms of when the verdict will come in is november. everyone knew going in it was very unlikely, certainly if you're going to keep from the senate witnesses and documents, it is very unlikely there would be a verdict of removing the president as a result of the impeachment. i still think there's this other audience they need to focus on. frankly a statement from lamar alexander saying the president was wrong, not just inappropriate but did something wrong is going to be very difficult for the president and for senators who have to run down the road on this track record. >> maya? >> i agree with andrew, particularly with this point of the audience, they felt a little beat down. they did a great job recounting the facts. they felt we've lost and done and we will make our last ditch appeal to history. i thought they made very powerful points about public servants and their bravery and adam schiff's about the importance of the moment and where he will stand in history were powerful. you have to come back to the question isn't whether he did it, the question is whether there are consequences. i think reminding the american public of what those consequences should be, and that they denied themselves as a chamber the facts and evidence that would create a meaningful debate on whether or not this president should be removed. it doesn't matter what you think the outcome should be, american public, they have closed their eyes to an honest assessment about whether the wrong they acknowledge is the wrong that should provide for a removal, and what the consequences are to the country, and you, the american public, should demand we continue to do our job, even when the senate won't. >> let me tell viewers a little bit where we're at. you're looking at one of these hallway shots we show you when the senate floor turns its cameras off. those are controlled by the government. in the hallway you're seeing folks walking back and forth. we saw senator mcconnell exit. it is a quieter hallway than other days in the trial. everyone off to lunch. democrats reserving the balance of their time in the closing arguments the president's defense team having telegraphed, they may not use all their time. it is in many ways a slower or quieter trial as we have seen in the past after dramatic clashes on friday and the senate vote to make this, bears repeating, this the first ever impeachment trial in the history of the united states senate to not call a single witness that hangs over the last few days, as they wrap up the trial. i want to bring in msnbc's garrett. how does it feel today? >> reporter: i was just in the chamber. it does feel significantly flatter than the last week or so. there's less energy in the room. the galleries are mostly empty. senators are there but fewer taking notes. i saw some people working on editing, probably the floor speeches they plan to start giving as soon as tonight. the temperature and energy that was present up until that vote friday is gone from that room. this is speeches that feel like they are more directed towards the history books than towards the audience in that chamber, almost all of whom we think have made up their minds. there are also a handful of senators telling our team, they will not make a decision until they walk onto the floor wednesday. whether you believe that or not i will leave to the viewers. >> what do you see the democrats doing with the balance of their time here? >> reporter: i think we will hear more contextization, placing it in history. the argument lamar alexander came out and made when he said he would not support witnesses, he thinks what the president did was bad and removal is not the right option. election is the right option to counter that. we may see democratic pushback to maybe convince republican senators on the fence or perhaps some of their own democrats perhaps and election is not enough of a check on a president like this. if the president is willing to cheat and if he gets away with it here, what's to stop him from doing it any number of additional times between now and november. a more forward-looking closing argument when the democrat impeachment managers resume with the balance of their time later this afternoon. >> garrett, we will be come back to you. hope you enjoy the brief lunch break. i want to talk to those with experience in american politics, maybe a different republican era. part of what hangs over this is the publicly stated antipathy and lack of confidence these senators have in donald trump. they were on the record, they were in public. they were warning against exactly this kind of stuff. now, they're stuck saying, he did the stuff we warned against but we don't want to be anywhere near anything that seems a vote of no confidence in him. >> it's a small victory for democrats that they at least got a few republican senators to admit, you know, it's not okay for the president to leverage almost $400 million of foreign aid for his own personal election coffers. that's not okay. that was a slight shift from the very beginning of this process, when you saw so many republicans being absolutely petrified to descent, even slightly. the fact that that space has even slightly opened i think would be maybe the democrats only win from this entire process. >> let's pause on that. even if you don't go as far as to say it's a win, because according to the votes friday, they're losing the trial, it is an important thing, for those who still care about substance and facts in american government, that when you pose the question, what would it take for a supposedly moderate swing or independent-minded senator to acknowledge the fact that donald trump did this ukraine problem? what would it take? the answer is a constitutional trial of the president, that these words that are so basic, seem so minimal, acknowledging the facts the democrats had proved their case, the president did this, this is quote wrong and inappropriate, maybe worse, that's debatable, just that, we didn't get until friday. >> small victories. but you look at where we've been over this journey with donald trump and the republican party, go from senators like lindsey graham and marco rubio opposing donald trump to now, they're there bolstering him and backing up foreign policy views they are diametrically opposed to. you really see how the grip is so strong it's not going to be broken. but i do think it was somewhat of a public shaming over the past couple of weeks, just day in and day out republican senators having to deny what reason and logic tell you from listening to the evidence at hand. >> i think it's interesting to look at how republicans have handle this, in light of the three arguments we just heard. though it was a little more subdued than i think people expected. perhaps they expected schiff and others to take command of the chamber. they had three clear strategies. jason from colorado made almost a constitutional case. he said to the senators, the founders put their hope in you, referred to their duty to be the arbiter of the president's wrongdoing. val demings made the case the president was factually guilty and said he only changed his behavior when he got caught but laid out the elements of the facts for each of the articles. hakeem jeffries made the case america's integrity on the world stage is on the line and the election is on the line. republicans ignored jason's sense of duty and call of history. they ignored hakeem's notion the election integrity is on the line. they accepted val demings argument of fact, that the president did wrong. what is missing in the republican posture on that, and i think the american people see it, if it is wrong, then what? because they're simply saying it's wrong but not impeachment. that can't be the whole case. you can't simply say it goes to the american people. is it what senator angus cain said the statute is required because of this. and republicans have refused to do so. >> we are in a lunch recess during the continuous senate trial of the president of the united states. while that action plays out, you have other excitement building across iowa. we will have live reports there from the big big start of the republican primary when we come back. an primary when we come back yes. yeah, yeah no problem. ♪ yes. yes, yes a thousand times yes! discover. accepted at over 95% of places in the u.s. discover. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from managing inventory... to detecting and preventing threats... to scaling up your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today. we are currently in a brief recess in the trial of president trump and hours way from the iowa caucuses, the first chance democratic voters have to say anything about who they want to run against donald trump. the energy in iowa has been electric and for those part of it i want to bring in these two. good to see both of you. with the biden campaign and sanders. savannah guthrie, our colleague, was speaking with joe biden. he has not done a ton of national interviews or sunday shows or anything like that. here he was speaking out in the national setting. let's take a look. >> it feels good. i think it will be very close, though. the iowan voters are probably more energized this time than any time i've seen. >> what is your argument to voters that joe biden represents a different kind of politics than has been done before. pete buttigieg says it is the same playbook. >> if this was a third term for barack obama, would you say it's a risky choice? >> is that how you see it? >> no. it's moving on from where we started, because of my experience. >> that answer was jumping around a little bit, answering a question, citing obama, the one obvious contrast, if you want to invoke obama in iowa, he had huge crowds of enthusiasm. we are seeing and hearing the biden crowds are smaller. the ultimate crowd that matters is the one that assembles tonight. what are you seeing? >> reporter: so interesting that answer to savannah guthrie is a newsworthy answer. so much of the biden campaign is reminding voters in an implicit way about his connection with the former president and relationship in the service of the obama administration for eight years but not quite explicitly said the words, obama third term. that's criticism of his rivals, he's not running on his own merits but obama's third term. you say the crowds are smaller and he's relying on his personal connection. he said on the bus the other day, of course, i would love an outright win, don't get me wrong but what you're hearing is expectations management. they feel it's a lot of candidates bunched closely together and move on, taking the long view. in order to be the democratic nominee, you have to demonstrate you have a breadth of support across multiple constituencies not just in iowa. he told me on the bus iowa is his firewall and said the same thing about super tuesday. there's a lot of people that will write off his campaign with a poor showing here. his campaign is well aware of that. they're doing their best with a marathon and not a sprint and shouldn't expect too much tonight. >> reporter: that's management if i've ever heard of it. we are going to hear some for the first time. what have you got? >> reporter: the one thing you get a sense of how much this can change. this is a caucus. people will not go into a private voting booth and make their decision and walk out. there will be shifting and listening to others and arguing. what the candidates are watching, whether or not that changes the polls we've been seeing. >> we have a little bit of time delay. i'm only jumping in because we have a 2020 candidate who jumped on the line. i will pause both of you. senator amy klobuchar is on a brief recess from the impeachment trial and 2020 candidate. thank you for making time for us. >> reporter: thank you. i love how you call my job my recess. >> recess from the trial. >> that is correct. that is correct. very good. let's make it clear i am not here during the trial. i am wearing many hats today and excited to go back to iowa. we have a huge event. >> senator, let's start with iowa. we're just getting ground reports from some of your competitors there and get your views on the business of the senate trial. in iowa, there are reports you are doing increasingly better. so, that's always great news, any candidate likes to hear that. what do you see as a reason for that? what have been the issues, policies you have been discussing and campaign has been putting out at a time when nationally, everyone has been focused on impeachment? >> i have been able to do two things at once. i'm a mom and can do that and doing my constitutional duty and any moment i can, i'm back there and in new hampshire. we visited all 99 counties. i have the most endorsements of any legislators, of all the legislators of anyone else in the race and even former republican legislators. we have a ground swell out there. one of the things you will see about me i'm punching above my weight, given we have less name id than some of the other candidates and expanding on that everyday and less resources. but i've been able to put this together. a lot of people didn't think i would make it through my announcement in the snow to the end in that blizzard. not only i did that, i am one of five candidates standing now as we look at the top tier. >> you're one of five. i mentioned this earlier in our coverage, it's a reminder to everyone, those aren't the five all the beltway pundits might have picked six months ago. it makes a lot more sense to keep an eye on the voters and indicators an not the rest of it. early on that might have applied to people like yang and buttigieg also still standing. take a look at mayor pete buttigieg's argument what the party needs right now. >> without exception 100% of the time my party has won the white house in the last half century, it's been with a candidate looking to the future, a candidate opening the door to a new generation and somebody looking at how to bring new people into the process and unite at the end of the day. i just don't believe you have to choose between a revolution an status quo. i don't believe we have to fall back on the familiar at a time like this. >> when he and others talk about the status quo, as you know, not breaking news, they're often referring to people who are elected democrats in washington to senators, people with senate experience, not strictly throwing it to you but to biden and others. what would your response be? >> i agree with some of what he said. i think we want to have a fresh face. i say at 59, my age, is the new 38 to mayor pete, in this race. i also say i'm the one with bold new ideas and a way to get them done and it matters, as the one who passed over bills as a democrat. >> and the fact if he were any younger he wouldn't constitutionally be able to run? at 38 are you saying he's too young and untested to be the party's nominee against president trump? >> i am getting at the fact, i always said i think he deserves to be on that stage and i respect his experience very much. i think the experience i have and the key thing, the one thing that unites our parties we want to win. i am the one candidates that has the receipts. i have won in rural and suburban areas and independents and won michele bachmann's congressional district three times and won it bringing people with me. i always said if you're tired of the noise and nonsense, you have a home with me. slowly and surely, we are growing and that is resonating throughout the country. >> let's pivot back to the senate trial, reconvening under very different turf. friday, all these votes about witnesses, no, about the proceedings now and the vote was on a republican party line vote, to do it without jury deliberations or much else. what does it feel like in the room now, given all of that. what is your view, if you could share with us, your reaction to colleagues like senators sasse and others, who have taken the position the democrats proved their case trump did it but there should be no punishment, no sanction? >> i just don't understand why they would do this. they're acknowledging this happened, and it does go back to witnesses, because don't they want to know everything? they are clearly saying he did something really bad. he basically withheld foreign aid to a fledgling democracy that had been invaded by russia in order to try to get dirt on a political opponent. so, they've acknowledged he's done something bad. that is what's bad. i would think you would want to hear by the president's men, bolton and mulvaney and you'd want to hear from a few others that have knowledge. from there, i think you would get a broader sense of the case, and then you make the decision. you don't make your decision and close your eyes because you don't want to hear what they're going to say. that's what i'm afraid has happened here. >> when will you make it back to the campaign trail? >> i'm going to make it back this afternoon, when the closing arguments are done. i will go back to iowa and be with our fantastic team. sometime in the middle of the night, fly to new hampshire, where we will have a big rally tomorrow and we start there. we have not only a -- some town halls and forums but we also have a debate friday night. i have the endorsements of every major paper in new hampshire so far, which is the union leader team and the seacoast. i will be starting hitting the ground running when i get to new hampshire. >> all interesting stuff. thank you very much for making time. thank you, senator klobuchar. >> thank you. i will go back, dive into iowa. shaq brewster was talking about his reporting there. welcome back, shaq. >> thank you, ari. for the sanders campaign they feel strong where they are. he is in a lead you look at the average of polls. in my conversations with voters, i want to play for you a little bit of that now. you get a sense for not only the passion for senator sanders but the opportunity this caucus provides for him. listen to that now. >> i think he has really moved young people in a way other presidents and candidates haven't been able to. >> the mainstream democrats seem to have turned their back on 13 million voters that supported bernie. this is a great opportunity dom together if they will just reach out to these voters. >> doesn't hit that 15% viability threshold, who would you throw your support behind? >> probably bernie. i think he's sincere in his beliefs what he talks about. >> reporter: senator sanders was here yesterday making his rounds, going through field offices like this, trying to get his volunteers riled up. they're the ones going out knocking on doors and making phone calls. i don't know. you see them behind me. one of his surrogates, senator sanders is not here but one of his surrogates will be going out, making phone calls, trying to get the coalition. they believe that coalition is young voters, progressives and latino oppose. >> the people behind you are attendees at a forthcoming event? >> reporter: that's right. we have been here all morning, people have been coming out going with different caucus shifts. this is the start of a noon caucus shift and rohan will be coming to rile them up a bit. senator sanders was in a rapids city and newton, iowa. they've been making the rounds. because he is in washington d.c., he is getting his surrogates to do it. >> are they pumped up? they look like they're waiting. are they excited? >> reporter: they're kind of waiting for us. >> keep an eye on all the campaigns. shaq, thank you and our thanks to senator klobuchar joining us this hour. we will be right back with everything you need to know about where we're headed, what happens next in the impeachment trial that will be reconvening and how we have you covered tonight for the iowa caucus. d tonight for the iowa caucus. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. activate your va streamline benefit now. a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa welcome back to special coverage. i'm ari melber, live in our headquarters. we were just talking about in iowa, who could replace president trump and in the middle of a recess in washington still technically and formally whether to remove president trump, not by the ballot box and democrats were quite strong, val demings saying the president is in a criminal conspiracy still ongoing. this is brand new on the senate floor before the panel rejoins us. >> in america, no one is above the law, even those elected president of the united states. i would say especially those elected president of the united states. >> as i stand here today, delivering the house's closing argument, president trump trump's constitutional crimes, his crimes against the american people and the nation remain in progress. the president's counsel offered bad faith and meritless legal arguments as transparent legal window dressing intended to legitimize and justify the president's efforts to hide evidence of his misconduct. >> our entire panel is back with us in our special coverage. as mentioned, we will go right back to the senate floor when they reconvene. andrew, what did you think of those highlights from the democrats's counsel? >> i think they were great and will put the republicans in a difficult spot, as you saw with lamar alexander. they have to deal with the katherine facts current facts in the record and deal with their own base why they didn't ask for additional facts and have to deal with e-mail or john bolton's book and seeing he did something wrong but not sure if we should go ahead and convict. the problem is if the republicans go down that route and there's a significant number of them, two issues, one is that is taking the democrats' views what happened here. the other is, remember the white house said nothing happened here. i actually view this as not just a small win for the democrats, they knew they weren't going to get removal. you could end up with a situation with republicans saying, guess what, when the white house told you nothing happened here, this was a perfect call, we disagree. >> you almost think it would be more clarifying if there were just a vote on the facts before a vote on the verdict. >> that's in fact how trials work, the jury doesn't do the sentencing, they actually say guilt or no guilt. >> tell me about trials. >> you think of trials. >> when i was talking about special coverage, i was walking in the building, looks like the trial is almost over. they said, what trial? even the words collapsed under the reality, it's not real jury deliberations from friday night from mitch mcconnell and had fewer witnesses than every other impeachment trial in history of any other official. to your point, the way it's structured, not only republicans, to be clear, you don't get the typical facts in a jury trial. we don't go to the normal punishment there would normally be. >> i think they need to get the republicans pinned down, do you agree these facts happened as opposed to get a clear statement, because i think that's something they have to be playing for, how will this allow them to either flip the senate in november, defeat donald trump or i assume, both. >> back when you were a working elected official, i'm sure you would prepare for big interviews, sunday shows and the like, right? >> sure. >> lamar alexander goes into the sunday show, one of the biggest appearances of his life. here's the answer he has asked straightforward to the most glaring questions and anyone who says he did it, let him go, wait a minute, doesn't that mean you believe he would do it again. take a look. >> are you at all concerned, when you seek foreign interference, he does not believe he's done anything wrong, what has happened here might encourage him he can continue to do this? >> i don't think so. i hope not. enduring and impeachment is something nobody should like. even the president said he doesn't want that on his resume, i don't blame him. if a call like that gets you an impeachment i would think you would think twice before he did it again. >> is that a good answer? >> no. that's a fundamental failing of the republican argument, even the small minority that came out to say the president did wrong. senator alexander in his vote against witnesses said if eight people convinced me somebody robbed a bank, i don't need to hear from the ninth witness. i think he was pushing away chuck todd and hakeem jeffries' argument in the close, our november election is on the line if you do nothing. that is where i think history will judge republicans pretty harshly for looking the other way in this. this is an abuse of office charge. it is unique among impeachable charges. it's not the watergate break-in, not lying under oath about personal behavior. this is about a president who used the tools of his office to cheat the american people. lamar alexander suggests, well, maybe he learned his lesson when we know he didn't learn his lesson. it was they day after the testimony that he made the call to the ukraine president. republicans are unwilling to see the facts as they are because they count against them and too many are making money ignoring the facts. the facts condemn donald trump. i think you will not see his defense team wrestle with the facts, as andrew was talking about. you will see the narrative, since democrats took office, they have been trying to impeach this president. the republican lawyers will probably play to that strain of the facts and won't touch the facts because they know even lamar alexander is wrong in what he said. >> there is a defense that something is simply not bad enough to warrant this extreme remedy, and you can walk through that explanation. you have to then know logically roar inviting future offenses, precisely because you're not removing and you're not punishing. lamar alexander is taking the position basically if you agree to mow somebody's lawn for 20 bucks and they stiff you, the way to get back is to go mow their lawn again next weekend. that doesn't work very well logically. >> there's an old christian joke, satan is on one side of the fence and jesus is on the other. you walk off with your leader, dp depending on which side of the fence you're on. satan comes back tor the person on the fence. he says, why? i didn't pick a side. he says, but it's my fence. that's what alexander is saying, i will be the fence-sitter. you sent out a tweet over the weekend that was really important. >> when i was congratulating kansas city on the -- >> the other. >> the other one. the state of kansas. >> the woman who has advanced cancer and stole $100 of food to feed her family, and she is going to serve 10 months in jail. >> yes. >> 10 months in jail. you tell the american public, lamar alexander, which is worse, and who should suffer the consequences of our justice system. don't sit on the fence. >> right. >> why is law and order so selective. we are watching more footage here. we will then to into the trial when they turn on the cameras. you mentioned it was a christian joke? and jesus was jewish. >> yes. >> and i won't try to resolve those intricacies now. but i will tell andrew weissman, not to make him uncomfortable, a jewish joke, how do you like the restaurant? the food is terrible but the portions were too small. i wonder whether some democrats are starting to feel that way about this trial? it's frustrating, a sham, no one was participating honorably, impartially but still arguing the portions are too small and wanted it to be longer and bigger. at what point do you think not only the narrow legal frame but wider frame did that have to give way to, this has ended, people have been exposed and we move forward. how do we do that? >> i think it is wrong to think of the trial ending this week. i think the trial will end in november. one of the things democrats have going for them with republicans saying we don't want to hear witnesses and documents, as sure as we are sitting here there will be more documents and evidence that comes out between now and november. that, i think, will hurt democrats. it will be death by a thousand cuts for the people. >> pursuing what? more democrats, more bolton manuscripts, to what end when the case has been quote-unquote proved? >> there will be republicans who say -- you pointed out -- say it was not proved. there may be some say it didn't. the most important people who say it wasn't proved is the white house. remember, unlike the clinton impeachment, clinton said, i am sorry. i just shouldn't suffer he's consequences. you don't have that with the president, like the lamar alexander route, i told you, i agreed but the white house isn't saying that. >> i want to tell viewers we're watching senators make their way back into the well of the senate to continue the trial of president trump. we saw senator paul and senator joni ernst peeking recently to a few reporters. the other part of this is what happens if there are future appeals publicly or privately, by the trump administration to get help in the reelection to other countries or other sources, in this environment, what are the national security implications of that? what happens if lamar alexander's home does not carry the day and does not deter the president or staff that work in the national security administration think twice about i don't want to be gordon sondland and think twice about this. >> it might stop them from being involved in a scheme. i think we've seen that and we've heard from pretty much every top national security official, whether the director of national intelligence, whether at the cia, we heard the predictions that election interference is happening. it might not even be russia. there are other actors. we should expect there will be election interference. this is a great victory for vladamir putin, in that he has sewn so much distrust in the fairness of the playing ground. if you go back and you read the indictment of the russian internet research agency, there's no -- you can't read that without having your jaw drop a bit at how egregious the interference was and how it went to the very heart of our democracy, and with the intention of suppressing votes. it is absolutely shameful that every trump administration official who knows this threat is possible isn't doing more to combat it. >> we are watching senators make their way in. we have enough time to fit in a very short -- our shortest type of break, two minutes, when we come back, the senate trial of president trump continues in two minutes. don't go anywhere. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. hey frank, our worker's comp insurance is expiring, should we just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. wow, that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, no no, i'm good. uh, yes please. oh. ho ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. welcome back to msnbc's coverage of the senate trial of president donald trump. you're looking at the footage we have outside the room. they have not turned back on the camera for the trial. we are a little bit past the time for the ves. democrats still have reserved the balance of their time and we would expect them to continue their closing arguments and the president's team will speak as well. and that has many people around the country interested in the looming iowa caucus. a lot going on. our entire panel is still here. maya -- look. there's lamar alexander himself. >> sitting on that fence. >> as you put it or nudging himself off the fence going back to the senate floor. i want to give everyone a preview in the world of news and politics what this week looks like. it wasn't planned this way. i don't think you could have predicted it months ago, tonight, iowa caucuses, tomorrow, state of the union, while the president has not yet gotten his verdict. wednesday, the final impeachment vote, the verdict. thursday is, i don't know if you heard about this nationally, officially time to catch a breath. but then, friday, democrats will gather for the first debate they will ever have after some votes have occurred. we always know that is a significant sorting time heading into new hampshire. in many ways, maya, for a constellation of factors i don't think are routine and predictable, this is one of, i hate to sound like this, media hyperbolic, one of the biggest weeks in american politics we have seen stacked together in this trump era, exhausting to begin with. >> it's absolutely exhausting. to your point, there are real questions about will donald trump the discipline not to -- i think we will hear probably something about the impeachment, but how much and will he utilize it in ways that are completely inappropriate and would not play well to independents or republicans who are uncomfortable with what he did? that's one set of questions. and then the extent to which democrats want to touch it in the next debate. because i think one question that is a really important and legitimate one for democratic candidates is if you win, how will you fix the institutions that are -- of democracy? that are so radically weakened right now, and will you call for forms of legislative change that tightens up a fair process, for example, in impeachment or makes more clear what a president can and cannot do? is it three dresses in the closet makes it impeachable or is it five dresses in the closet that makes it impeachable? because donald trump has russia, ukraine and china. that's three dresses. i don't know. >> as we look at the calendar, maya is speaking about the obvious clash, calendar-wise, what you see between the iowa caucuses tonight and this impeachment schedule and then new hampshire and, david, this isn't the first time the democratic party has tried to pick its nominee while squaring up against a highly unpopular republican president, no offense, alise, who did things that many in the party felt was wrong and bush in iraq. we're watching chief justice roberts. i believe he's seated, and let's listen in to white house counsel cipollone. >> thank you very much on behalf of all of us for your continue d attention. today we are going to complete our argument and finish our closing argument. we will complete that in a very efficient period of time. you understand the arguments that we've been making. and at the end of the day, the key conclusion, we believe the only conclusion based on the evidence and based on the articles of impeachment themselves and the constitution is that you must vote to acquit the president. at the end of the day, this is an effort to overturn the results of and election and to try to interfere in the coming election that begins today in iowa. we believe the only proper result if we're applying the golden rule of impeachment, if we're applying the rules of impeachment that were eloquently stated by members of the democratic party the last time we were here, the only appropriate result here is to acquit the president and to leave it to the voters to choose their president. with that, i'll turn it over to judge ken starr and we'll move through a series of short presentations. thank you. >> chief justice, members of the senate, majority leader mcconnell, minority leader schumer, because impeachment managers and their able staff. as world war i, the war to end all wars was drawing to a close, an american soldier sat down at a piano and composed a song. it was designed to be part of a musical review for his army count. suffolk county. the song was "god bless america". the composuer came here at the age of five, the son of immigrants who came here for freedom. as composers want to do, berlin worked carefully with the lyrics. the song needed to be pure. it needed to be above politics, above partisanship. it needed to be a song for all america. but he intended it to be more than just a song. it was to be a prayer for the country. as your distinguished chaplain, admiral barry black has done in his prayers on these long days you've spent on the high judges of judges of impeachment. we've been reminded what our country is about, and that it stands for one nation, under god. the nation is about freedom. and we hear the voice of martin luther king junior and his dream filled speech about freedom. echoing the great passages inscribed on america's temple of justice, the lincoln memorial which stood behind dr. king as he spoke on that historic day. dr. king is gone. felled by an assassin's bullets, but his words remain with us. during his magnificent life, dr. king spoke not only about freedom. freedom standing alone. he spoke frequently about freedom and justice. and in his speeches, he summed it up regularly. the words of a unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, theodore parker, who referred to the moral arc of the universe, the long immoral arc of the universe points toward justice. freedom and justice. freedom whose contours have been shaped over the centuries in the english-speaking world by what justice benjamin cordozo called the authentic forms of justice through which the community expresses itself in law. authentic. authenticity. and at the foundation of those authentic forms of justice is fundamental fairness. it's playing by the rules. it's why we don't allow deflated footballs or stealing signs from the field. rules are rules. they are to be followed. and so i submit that a key question to be asked as you begin your deliberations, were the rules here faithfully followed? if not, if that is your judgment, then with all due respect, the prosecutors should not be rewarded. just as federal prosecutors are not rewarded. you didn't follow the rules. you should have. as a yuoung lawyer i was blesse to work with one of the great trial lawyers of this time. i asked him dick, what's your secret? he had just defended successfully a former united states senator who was charged with a serious offense, perjury before a federal grand jury. his response was simple and forthright. his words could have come from pr prairie lawyer abe lincoln. i let the judge and the jury know that they can believe and trust every word that comes out of my mouth. i will not be proven wrong. here's a question as you begin your deliberations. have the facts as presented to you as a court, as the high court of impeachment, proven trustworthy? has there been full and fair disclosure in the course of the these proceedings? fundamental fairness. i would call these words from the podium last week. a point would be made by one of the president's lawyers and then this would follow, the house managers at no time te managers didn't tell you that. why not? and again, the house managers didn't tell you that, why not? at the justice department on the fifth floor is this inscription. the united states wins its point when justice is done its citizens in the court. not did we win? did we convict? rather, the moral question was justice done? of course, as it's been said frequently, the house of representatives does under our constitution enjoy the sole power of impeachment. no one has disputed that fact. they've got the power, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. it doesn't mean that the house cannot be called to account in the high court of impeachment for its actions exercising that power. a question to be asked. are we to count the violations of the rules and traditional procedures that have been followed in prior impeachment proceedings? and the judiciary committee, the venerable judicial committee of the house of representatives, compare and contrast the thoroughness of that committee in the age of nixon. the thoroughness in the age of clinton with all of it divisiveness within the committee in this proceeding. a question to be asked. did the house judiciary committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? did it carefully gather

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Rachel Maddow Show 20190501

we go to that reporter, this is another one of those days where we had, you know, a whole show planned. and everything has gone out the window, as we have followed stuff that came up that we didn't expect. we are now, tonight, following two very dramatic and still-developing stories that we really had no idea that we should be expecting. in one case, 24 hours ago, and in the other case, as recently as two hours ago. it's just another one of those days. but i'll tell you, the first story we are keeping an eye on tonight broke open with a shock at dawn this morning, when venezuelan opposition leader juan guaido appeared in this video message at a venezuelan air force base just outside venezuela's capital city of caracas. in this video this morning, juan guaido announced that the venezuelan military was now siding with him and the time had come for the venezuelan people to come out sand oust nicolas maduro from venezuela's presidential palace. and of course this standoff in venezuela, whether or not you've been following it closely, you are at least aware in am ambient sense that this standoff have been brewing for months and the venezuelan people have been in extremis for months. but part of the shock of what happened today is that guaido appeared alongside his mentor, a longtime charismatic opposition leader in venezuela, a harvard and princeton-trained economist named leopoldo lopez, who has been imprisoned as a flat-out political prisoner since 2014. today, guaido and lopez explained that lopez was out today, no longer in prison, that he was able to stand there alongside juan guaido because he was freed today by venezuelan soldiers who had switched sides and who were now aligning themselves with guaido, with the opposition, and supporti ining effort to oust maduro. so it was this shock announcement at dawn. and it set off demonstrations and violent clashes all day long today. and we have been following this all day today, trying to figure out the fate of this country, right? there have been, importantly, conflicting and contested reports about the split allegiances of the country's powerful military. everybody sees that as the key, at least, a key dynamic as to how this is ultimately going to resolve and when. and when you're trying to track the divided loyalties of the military, yes, that is as scary as it sounds and as dangerous as it sounds for the civilians who are caught up in all of this. internationally, maduro is supported by very powerful allies, including china and russia, plus also bolivia and cuba. on the other side, it's the government of the united states and canada and many other latin american and european countries who don't just oppose maduro, they formally recognized guaido, the opposition leader, as the legitimate leader of that country. it's that split in world opinion as to who is the official president of venezuela, that is why there's been all of this energy exerted today over whether or not you should call what happened in venezuela today a coup. i mean, et m logically speaking, you can't be overthrowing a government if technically you are the person who is already in charge of that government. that's why people are fighting over whether or not to call this a coup. honestly, it's a semantic distinction that's not worth the breath at this point given the risk and the drama on the ground in venezuela as this actual fight for the control of the government and the military and the country at large unfolds in a way that is just happening on the street. and is totally unpredictable and scary. particularly for a country that has been through so much pain in recent months. so, the news out of vnenezuela, the officials out of venezuela have been frightening and surreal all day. a lot of news organizations today played footage of what appeared to be national guard vehicles running down protesters in the street. i am not going to show that video. but it has been hard to watch and dramatic and scary and fascinating to watch all day. i will also tell you that that news took a dramatic and odd turn quite late in the day, early evening, when u.s. secretary of state mike pompeo weighed in in a very specific way. he cryptically announced in a couple of interviews that the u.s. government has learned that maduro was about to flee his country in the face of this uprising and these demonstrations by guaido and the supporters of the opposition with some unquantified amount of support from the military. pompeo announced that the u.s. government had learned that maduro was going to go to the airport, get in a plane, and flee the country. he was going to fly to cuba. but according to secretary of state mike pompeo, the russians intervened and told him to stay put and not leave. mike pompeo then even more cryptically threatened that maduro knew what the united states would do if he, in fact, got on that plane and flew to cuba. pompeo told cnn, quote, mr. maduro understands what will happen if he gets on that airplane. he knows our expectations. he would not say what that is that will happen. he would not explain what those expectations are. i mean, if the u.s. is supporting the opposition leader who is leading the uprising and maduro is trying to flee, presumably the u.s. would want that, right? would want him to leave? so now the u.s. is threatening him, if he leaves? and if he leaves, something might happen? and you know what it is! what are you threatening with? you're going to give him 50 bucks because he's left and that's what he wanted? i mean, i don't mean to point out the obvious here, but while we are watching this absolutely history-making eventuality today in that country, it really felt like the u.s. government had no idea what it was talking about. and had no plan for what was going on here, which is maybe something they should have cooked up when they decided to clear that this opposition leader would be the new president of that country. i mean, in any previous administration, good ones, bad ones, hawkish ones, dovish ones, any previous u.s. administration, a u.s. secretary of state making an announcement like that, the russians blocked him from leaving, and he knows what will happen when it comes to us, if he does leave. i mean, that would be a momentous and shocking moment, right? a u.s. secretary of state saying that? that would signal some sort of serious potential international conflict involving potentially some of the world's great nuclear-armed powers. in this administration, though, yeah, it was mike pompeo and who really knows what any of it meant. it has just been a chaotic response from the u.s. government all day today, including lots of statements released by various u.s. government officials today, supposedly intended directly for the venezuelan people, but apparently it never occurred to anyone in the trump administration that any of those statements should be in spanish. let alone they should be delivered by any means of communication that the venezuelan people should actually have any access to after the maduro regime has cut everything off. so i know there's a lot going on, but this is a very serious, very fluid, very much still-developing situation in venezuela today. we'll have more on that ahead later on this hour and we're watching this as developments proceed. because, as i say, this is international history in the making. whether or not you have been paying any attention to the drama and tragedy in venezuela over the past year, this, tonight, as we speak, in some ways, it really feels like it may be the pivotal moment when either the maduro regime is going to end, somehow, or the maduro regime is going to survive, in which case, the opposition is going to be in the most perilous, literally, the most physically perilous place they have yet been in. and that involves untold numbers of civilians and who knows what split of the military. so the whole world really is watching this, and for us americans watching at home, one of the side shows we are watching here is our own government's inexplicable, self-defeating, bungling hash of a response. and, you know, it doesn't matter if you like this particular u.s. government or not, whether you like this particular presidential administration or not, every american in -- every american has an interesting in seeing our own government at least handle something like this responsibly, right? at least handle it with basic competence. with a basic ability to speak in ways that make sense, to be understood and to act rationally. instead, we've got these guys. just -- it's just been a remarkable spectacle. but as we are keeping an eye on that tonight, "the washington post" just broke a shocking -- i guess it's shocking. a shocking new story about robert mueller and the mueller report and what apparently robert mueller believes was the botched handling of his findings and his report on his investigation by trump administration attorney general william barr. now, i say this is shocking. that said, we had seen some rumblings along these lines soon after mueller turned in his report at the end of march, right? newly appointed trump attorney general william barr then started serially releasing multiple statements of his own, that he characterized as summaries of mueller's findings, peppered with his own fulsome musings on the fundamental innocence and good character of president trump, right? but on april 3rd, you might remember that there was some inklings that something like this might be going on behind the scenes. on april 3rd, "the washington post" and "the new york times" both reported that some personnel from the special counsel's office were known to be, were expressing shock and anger at the way barr was presenting mueller's findings. and the way he was substituting his own assertions about mueller's investigation for the actual findings and the actual language produced by mueller's team. i mean, you'll remember those stories from that first week in april, right? members of special counsel robert mueller's team have told associates they're frustrated with the limited information attorney general barr has provided about their nearly two-year investigation. members of mueller's team have complained t eed to close assoc that the evidence that they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant. quote, it was much more acute than barr suggested. at one time, one u.s. official briefed on the matter told reporters for "the washington post," quote, there was immediate displeasure from mueller's team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work, instead of him just releasing mueller's own written summaries, which he had prepared about his own findings, which were prepared for public release. since that reporting in the first week of april, we have been able to see the redacted version of mueller's report that barr allowed to be released. one of the striking things that a lot of people noticed immediately upon receiving that life-support was that there was a narrative, detailed, easy-to-read, thoroughly damning executive summary at the start of each section of the report. and despite the fact that there were myriad redactions throughout the rest of mueller's report, those executive summaries had almost nothing redacted. even under whatever redaction scheme barr insisted on, those executive summaries, they were like 99% cleared to go to the public with nothing redacted at all. so why did attorney general william barr give his, you know, speeches and hold his press conferences and make his no collusion, no collusion announcements and write his own summaries that he said shouldn't be called summaries. why did he make all of these different efforts to characterize the mueller report when we quickly learned they were mischaracterizations, right? the things that he said about mueller's report were very quickly exposed as, i mean, the charitable word would be misleading characterizations of what mueller actually found. well, now, there is this new report, pretty stunning report from "the washington post" tonight. "the new york times" has a version of this story, as well. the nbc news has also followed up on some of this reporting since "the post's" initial story. but "the post" was first. and they've actually got a lot more detail about what they're reporting here tonight. which is that mueller himself has apparently gone on the record in writing, mad as heck, about what william barr did with his findings, about what william barr did with the results and the written report prepared by mueller and his team about their investigation. "the washington post" reporting tonight that they have obtained the letter sent by mueller to attorney general william barr on march 27th. so in terms of the timeline here, that's, obviously, after mueller submitted his report and it's after, just after, barr publicly released his four-page letter, explaining that mueller's report totally exonerated the president, but we couldn't see the report yet, he'd be working on redacting frit here on out. obviously, this letter from mueller was in response to how barr had characterized mueller's findings. it was before mueller's redacted report was released to the public. "the washington post" says it has obtained this letter. they haven't published the letter itself. but they do describe it here and they quote from it pretty extensively. quote, at the time the letter was sent, on march 27th, barr had announced that mueller had not found a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. barr also said mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether trump had tried to obstruct justice, but barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge. days after that announcement from barr, robert mueller himself wrote a previously unknown private letter to the justice department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of mueller's work. a degree of public -- a degree of dissatisfaction that shocked senior justice department officials. and then "the washington post" quotes from that letter that robert mueller sent. quote, the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. quote, there is now public confusion about criminal aspects of the results of our investigation. this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed a special counsel, which is to assure the sure -- excuse me, which is to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. mueller's letter then made a key request, that barr release the report's introductions and executive summaries. mueller's letter also made some initial suggested redactions for doing so. in his letter, mueller wrote that the redaction process, which was then underway, quote, need not delay release of the enclosed materials. release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and the outcome of our investigation. right? and, so, i mean, mueller is saying there, to barr -- and that's a quote from mueller's letter, according to the "washington post." saying there that congress and the public have been misled as to what his investigation found. and the summary materials that were included in part of his report were intended for release for the purposes of informing the public and the congress what the special counsel's investigation found. according to the way this letter is phrased, according to these quotes from "the washington post," it appears that mueller prepared minor redactions to those summaries, such that they could be released immediately. i mean, we know, of course, by the way this unfolded that barr, you know, sent out his "the president is exonerated letter" on march 24th. march 27th, mueller sends this letter, hair on fire, saying, what are you doing, that's not what our findings say at all. here, i've done the redaction in the executive summaries. here, you can release these. the public and congress should see these. these are our real findings, not what you're saying. we know from what happened then in real life that barr did no such thing. the justice department gave "the washington post" a statement in response to this reporting tonight saying, attorney general barr ultimately determined it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion. so barr refuses to release the introductions in the executive summaries, which mueller has requested that he has done, which mueller has prepared specially redacted versions of, so they can be released to the public and to congress. barr says, no, i'm not going to release those, and instead lets his own introductions and executive summaries and feelings about the report, which completely misrepresented mueller's findings linger out there for weeks. and again, this first reported tonight by "the washington post." reporters devlin barrett and matt zaptopski. matt williams was able to confirm the story that barr's description of what he called the report's principle conclusions didn't actually capture the substance of what mueller found. barr, of course, is scheduled to testify tomorrow in the republican-led senate judiciary committee, where chairman lindsey graham has already said he considers the mueller report to be over, done, he's never going to touch it again. barr, right now, is still fighting an effort to appear the following day on thursday, before the judiciary committee, in the house, where the democratic-led committee there intends to have some of the questioning of barr led by staff counsel, by professional attorneys, who work for the question, rather than only having him questioned by members of congress. william barr apparently does not want to subject himself to that. starting to get a sense of why that might seem like an unfun way to spend a thursday if you're william barr. i will say this news tonight from "the washington post" also puts a much hotter spotlight on the request by a dozen democratic senators today that the inspector general at the justice department should investigate william barr and the way he handled mueller's findings, including whether his letter purporting to summarize mueller's findings and his ridiculous press conference ahead of releasing mueller's report were, quote, misleading. and whether they were consistent with justice department policies and practices. those dozen senators are also asking the justice department inspector general to look at whether barr's handling of the mueller report has been so improper that barr should no longer be allowed to oversee any prosecutions that spring from that report. they want the ig to look at whether barr has, quote, demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue overseeing the ongoing matters related to the special counsel's investigation, that were referenced in appendix "d" of the special counsel's report. you remember appendix "d," right? that's where we got those 14 matters that are ongoing criminal cases, that have derived from mueller's findings, 12 of which are still redacted from public view. if mueller, as "the washington post" is reporting tonight, has told william barr that barr has misrepresented his findings, mishandled the findings of this investigation, given congress and the public an inaccurate summary, an inaccurate characterization of what it is that mueller found and the results of that inquiry, should barr really be overseeing all of the prosecutions that derive from that inquiry, that are still open criminal matters? and if this is, in fact, what happened, if mueller called barr and wrote barr a letter right after barr put out his supposed summary of what mueller found and said, hey, you are getting it wrong, that is not what we found at all. if we can't trust you to accurately summarize our materials, then put out our own materials. here's the summary. they're redacted for public view. send these out. if that conversation happened, both in writing and then on the phone between mueller and barr, on or about the 27th of march, why is it that a few weeks later, april 10th, barr testified under oath in the u.s. senate that he had no idea whether or not mueller had any problem whatsoever, whether he had any objections whatsoever with without barr had handled his findings? joining us now is devlin barrett from "the washington post." he was first to report tonight on this confrontation by special counsel mueller, directed at the attorney general over how barr handled this. devlin, congratulations on this scoop. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> let me ask if i summarized your -- i didn't summarize every aspect of what you found tonight, but let me ask if i was accurate in the nature of how i described this communication from mueller towards barr. >> i think that's right. there was a letter that was obviously fairly harshly worded and caught senior justice department officials by surprise. and there was a follow-up phone call, which has been described to me as not quite as confrontational, but still an area where these two guys really significantly disagreed. >> i know that you have reported that you have seen this letter from mueller to barr. and obviously, you quote from it extensively tonight in your piece in "the post." are you going to publish the full letter? is it your understanding that it could be published? >> yeah, that's the one thing i would correct in what you said. i don't have a copy of the letter. i have read the letter and obviously i quote extensively from it. so i'll publish it as soon as i have a hard copy, but i don't have a hard copy yet. and frankly, look, i think given the context in which this comes out, that there's a hearing tomorrow, i think we'll see this letter tomorrow. >> okay. i know that we're going to hear from barr tomorrow in the senate. one of the other things that immediately becomes much more pressing, given your reporting tonight the the question of whether or not congress is also going to hear from robert mueller. we know that the judiciary committee in the house that has explicitly recommended or of explicitly requested that mueller himself come testify, and come testify before a deadline of may 23rd. we haven't had any further clarity as to whether or not that's actually going to happen. barr is on record saying that he would not object to such testimony. do you have any reporting or any further understanding as to whether or not mueller will be ever speaking for himself on this matter? >> i don't have a definitive answer. i will say my sense before all of this was that there's almost no way in which mueller does not get called to testify at some point. i would say after this letter, there's no way that mueller does not get called to testify. i just don't think the politics of it are remotely practical for mueller to try not to testify or for doj to try to prevent from testifying, even if they wanted to do that, which they say they don't. >> we have known from previous reporting from "the post," among others, that there were people in the special counsel's office, people on the special counsel's team who were upset with the way attorney general barr was handling that report. we had these descriptions about members of the special counsel's team speaking to associates or known to be upset about the way he was handling it. at the time those reports came out in the first week of april, that would have been after this report went from mueller to barr. and after barr had been informed directly in writing by mueller and in a phone call from mueller about how upset he was about how barr was handling it. what changed so that this letter from mueller, which wasn't previously reported, the now in some circulation. you were able to describe it and quote from it tonight. what changed? >> honestly, i think the pressure of, you know, a congressional hearing, in which these questions are going to come up. you know, part of how this all happens is because, as a reporter heading toward this hearing, we're asking all of these questions. and we're trying to figure out, you know, what are you going to say when they ask, was there a disagreement about this? because obviously, we've reported, there was something of a disagreement here. so i think the writing was on the wall in some sense, as far as the hearing goes. and hearings have a way of, you know, shaking things out. >> one last question for you, devlin. is one of the quotes that you have from the letter tonight landed kind of with a lot of weight for me. you quote from robert mueller's letter, there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department of justice appointed the special counsel, which is to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. that's worded in a very specific and sort of legalistic way. sort of tight wording there. but the implication of that is heavy. the implication of that, as i read it, is that the public shouldn't have full public -- shouldn't have full confidence in the outcome of the investigations. that barr had so mishandled this matter, that the public shouldn't trust the way the government was coping with the findings of this investigation. i mean, i don't want to put more weight on it than you think was intended by the way that mueller put that, so i just wanted to let you know my impression there and see how that strikes you. >> so i think there's some truth to that. but i think one of the things you have to keep in mind, when he talks about the full public confidence, that's always ban central impasse point for bob mueller, as he goes through this. he's always felt that this work only matters if the public believes the work was done well. and i think that's why he writes the letter. and i think as i read the letter, what he's saying is, i am worried that this public discussion of the obstruction of justice issue, because this is really about the obstruction part, this public discussion, he thinks, is getting off the rails and he wants barr to help him in his mind to get it back on the rails. obviously, barr and he disagree about a lot of key issues here, so it's a tension point that doesn't really ultimately get resolved. but i think what mueller is trying to say here is, we don't want to let this things get out of our control and leave the public with an understanding of this that ultimately doesn't ring true to what we did. >> i said that was my last question, i lied. i also have to ask you, there's a rmpeference to the redaction process in here. are you getting a sense there was conflict between the special counsel and the attorney general's office over the redactions and what was cut out of the report? >> yeah, i think there was, but maybe not in the sense you mean. so, what i have been told is that justice department officials, when they were waiting for the report, they expected they would get, if not like suggested redactions, then some sort of, you know, trail map that would help them work on the redaction process. they say they didn't get anything like that. and that was frustrating and it meant that they had 448 pages to suddenly, you know, cycle through with every page marked, you know, this could require redactions. however. as the process goes forward, what you see in the mueller letter is mueller sends with the letter, and i think this is a really important part, mueller sends with the letter the executive summaries and the introductions, with some proposed redactions. and mueller is, i think, very clearly trying to like egg this process forward. saying, look, you can put out these parts now and here are some of the things you should keep out. now, from the doj senior leadership point of view, they had a little bit of concern about that, because to them, these aren't -- those suggested redactions, while slight, weren't every category of redaction. and they felt they still had significant more work to do if they were going to release those. obviously, again, another significant issue of disagreement and it matters a great deal, obviously, in terms of the consequences. >> and it matters in terms of what we, the public, are ultimately going towns about this, particularly because special counsel staff were involved in the redaction process, at least according to the way that barr described it. so if justice department officials, either anonymously or not, are trying to characterize that process in a way that people from the special counsel's office are going to contest, it's starting to feel more and more like we'll ultimately learn their side of the story, too. at least if the kind of reporting that you did tonight is any prologue. devlin barrett, congratulations on this scoop. devlin is a national security reporter at "the washington post." he and matte zapatopski, first to report on this angry confrontation between robert mueller and william barr over the way how hep handled the mueller report. a letter being sent from robert mueller to attorney general barr basically saying, release these parts of my report rather than to continue to mischaracterize my findings. i should note, one of the things that we can add to this reporting tonight is that as of today, as of tonight, robert mueller is still an employee of the department of justice, which is an interesting thing. peter karr, the spokesman for the special counsel told us tonight, we called him after this -- or we contacted him after this reporting broke tonight. we called him to find out whether or not mueller is still a doj employee. he told us tonight that mueller remains a justice department employee for now, but that mueller, quote, will be concluding his service within the coming days. that's something that they told us right around the time that the report came out. they said that advice is still operative, but to the extent it matters who's actually robert mueller's employer at this point, if this confrontation is getting this heated and this direct, he still belongs to doj. stay with us. (avo) take prilosec otc and take control of heartburn. so you don't have to stash antacids here.... here... or here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. (indistthat was awful.tering) why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo! you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade. trust us. us kids are ready to take things into our own hands. don't think so? hold my pouch. title x for affordable natbirth control and reproductive health care. the trump administration just issued a nationwide gag rule. this would dismantle the title x ("ten") program. it means that physicians cannot tell a patient about their reproductive health choices. we have to be able to use our medical knowledge to give our patients the information that they need. the number one rule is do no harm, and this is harm. we must act now. learn more. text titlex to 22422 you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome. here's something worth pondering. on april 10th, 20 days ago, attorney general billiam. billiam? william barr testified before the senate and he was asked if special counsel robert mueller agreed with his conclusion summarizing the results of robert mueller's investigation. here is what william barr said when he was asked that question before the senate, under oath. >> it was the conclusion of a number of people, including me, and i, obviously, am the attorney general. it was also the inclusion of the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. >> i understand. ive i've read your letters >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. that is what attorney general bill barr testified to on april 10th. we now know that just two weeks earlier, on march 27th, robert mueller had sent a letter to bill barr, expressing serious frustration and concern with the way barr was mischaracterizing his report. that discussion happened both in a letter and in a follow-up phone call. so when the attorney general said he doesn't know how mueller felt about his conclusion and he says that under oath, is that a problem? joining us now is chuck rosenberg. he's a former senior official at the fbi, former u.s. attorney. i have never been more glad for the chance to talk to you here in person tonight, chuck. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> let me just ask your reaction, first of all, your response to this reporting from "the washington post" tonight, that the special counsel expressed both in writing and by phone to william barr that the attorney general was mischaracterizing the mueller findings. >> bob mueller must have been pretty upset. you know, what's so interesting to me, we always disagree about stuff at the department of justice, but we don't always write letters about it. we have a phrase called going to paper. you don't go to paper lightly, because you don't want to box them in or show them up. you go to paper when you want to make a record for the history books. if turns thing out really bad, if things don't work out the way you wanted them to, you go to paper to make that record, to paper the trail. so for bob to do this, he must have been quite upset. the other reaction i have is that the letter that devlin barrett read is probably the second letter. because you write the first one when you're really angry, put it in your desk drawer, you sleep on it and come back the next day and take out some adjectives and then you send the second one. and i've done that myself. >> yeah, see, i'm the one who always sends the first letter. >> you send the first -- >> this is why i don't even the even keel reputation that you have. >> the other thing that barrett and his colleagues at "the post" are reporting is that in addition to that letter, there was an enclosure. mueller had prepared a suggested redactions for the executive summaries and introductions for each volume of the report that he wanted barr to release right away, basically to correct the record against what barr had previously asserted were the bottom line conclusions of mueller's findings. we now know barr rejected that and didn't do it. i know that barr was probably under no obligation to do that, but that strikes me as quite an acute confrontation. >> you're absolutely right, he was under no obligation, other than perhaps moral, to make sure that the public's understanding of the report roughly coincided with the report. and it didn't, because the first version has dictated how we talk about it and how we think about it. you actually have to read the darned thing to understand what mueller really did. and it takes a lot of time to do that and it's complicated. it's also fascinating, by the way. but that's what's so disappointing. there was a window for people to understand what mueller found and it closed when bill barr rendered his principle conclusions. and no letter -- no phone call would undo that damage. >> in terms of what happens next here, you described papering the trail. >> yeah. >> creating a written record when there's a serious concern, and that -- you sort of have to cross a threshold of seriousness or anger before you do that. the judiciary chairman, jerry nadler, still doesn't know whether or not he'll have william barr before his committee on thursday. it seems like that's still in dispute. but he is demanding a copy of that letter by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. would you expect that the justice department would hand it over? >> i think it's hard for them not to hand it over. i don't blame him for wanting it. i would like to see it, too, and i think it's really hard to withhold that document now given the fact that it's really mostly out. it's been shown to a reporter. it's not really a leap to provide it to congress in my view. now, that said, this administration seems to fight everything. the time of day, the month of the year. there doesn't seem to be a battle that they won't join. so, not clear, but it should be provided. >> somebody has shown it to reporters, tonight. so somebody has access to it that wants it to be known. so that would suggest that there's at least an implicit threat that if the justice department tries to block it, it will see the light of day anyway. big pieces of it are already in public. >> i think that's right. it's definitely better for the department to just produce it, to say, we've made it available, than for it to get out anyway, which as you point out, it inevitably will. >> one of the other things that's going on right now, is that investigative committees in congress and the house, in the democratically controlled house are stepping up the different types of oversight they're trying to do when it comes to the administration and the president in particular. led by adam schiff on the intelligence committee and maxine waters on financial services, those two committee chairs have asserted that they don't believe robert mueller did a long money trail investigation here. that he didn't look in depth at the president's finances. as part of his investigation for whatever reason. and they have stepped up their efforts to obtain financial information about the president that they think may have important implications on counterintelligence and other matters. we've seen it from oversight, from intel, from financial services. the president is fighting those requests. the president has filed lawsuits to try to block those subpoenas. we got some very interesting news today from betsey woodruff at the daily beast who reports that the intelligence committee has now hired the former head of the financial crimes division at fbi, who is somebody who you -- patrick fallon, somebody you coincided with during your time as fbi chief of staff. >> actually, i go back further with pat. i knew him when i was an assistant u.s. attorney in virginia and when i was u.s. attorney in virginia. he's a terrific agent. he's also a wonderful human being. he's a great hire. >> would you expect the democrats, the house intelligence committee taking him on as a staffer, will meaningfully affect the ability for them to make sense of any financial documents they're able to get from the president? >> he's a great financial crimes investigator. but i disagree with one premise, slightly. i'm confident, reasonably confident, that the mueller team looked at financial records. i mean, we saw the man feation of that, right, in the manafort trial. tax records and bank records and all sorts of financial documents. so there's a difference between investigating financial crimes and charging financial crimes. you would investigate financial crimes, i think, to inform your counter intelligence investigation. but because it wasn't within mueller's remit, which was relatively narrow, you might not charge it. >> and we haven't seen anything in terms of the counterintelligence remit. we haven't seen his findings on that, at all. >> but for instance, on your tax return, it asked whether or not you had control over a foreign bank account. a counterintelligence investigator would want to know how you answered that question. but they may not charge you with tax evasion for lying in response. >> chuck rosenberg, former senior official at the fbi, former u.s. attorney and the host of the newest msnbc podcast, "the oath with chuck rosenberg" which debuted tonight, interviews with a couple of guys you might have heard with, james comey and preet bharara. i have not yet listened, i read every word of the transcript of your james comey discussion and i am floored. congratulations on qu"the oath with chuck rosenberg." >> i'm really humbled that you would mention it. thank you. >> thanks. stay with us. it thank you. >> thanks. stay with us just listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her. we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. ninety eight percent are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go! and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. >> tech: you think this chip is well sooner or later... every chip will crack. >> mom: hi. >> tech: so bring it to safelite. we can repair it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance, it's no cost to you. >> mom: really? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace. introducing miracle-gro's next big thing. performance organics. finally organics that work. tested and refined by plant scientists... for twice the results, guaranteed. don't grow a snack, grow a feast. don't grow a flower, grow a million dollar view. this new organic collection of soil and plant food is what you always wanted. no compromise, just results, guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics. monitor their blood glucose every day. which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at theexplorercard.com. as we continue to cover this breaking news tonight, first led by "the washington post" that robert mueller, the special counsel has contacted attorney general william barr, both in writing and by phone, to complain that barr was misrepresenting the findings of mueller's investigation and his report, mueller going so far as to submit to barr redacted versions of his executive summaries and introductions to both volumes of his report, so barr could release those publicly rather than allowing his own assertions about mueller's findings to stand on their own. since that was reported tonight, again, first by "the washington post," we've been watching things fall into place thereafter. judiciary chairman jerry nadler has put out a statement demanding that he receive a copy of this letter from mueller to barr by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. he's also reiterating his demand that robert mueller himself be allowed to testify. that mueller himself, not barr, mueller come to congress and talk about his findings, rather than continually having this mediating influence of william barr and his office. well, at the daily beast tonight, erin banco and sam stein are reporting that house democrats have been told that special counsel robert mueller is willing to testify, but the justice department has been unwilling to set a date for him to testify. according to multiple sources, doj hasn't agreed to a date, citing mueller's continued status as a justice department employee. two sources say the judiciary committee has been in regular contact with the justice department about trying to set a date for mueller's testimony, but justice department will not do it. well, that won't last! stay with us. we'll be right back. won't last! ay with us we'll be right back. after walking six miles at an amusement park... bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. stop fearing your alarm clock... with zzzquil pure zzzs. a drug-free blend of botanicals with melatonin that supports your natural sleep cycle so you can seize the morning. zzzquil pure zzzs. -keith used to be great to road-trip with. but since he bought his house... are you going 45? -uh, yes. 55 is a suggestion. -...it's kind of like driving with his dad. -what a sign, huh? terry, can you take a selfie of me? -take a selfie of you? -yeah. can you make it look like i'm holding it? -he did show us how to bundle home and auto at progressive.com and save a bunch of money. -oh, a plaque. "he later navigated northward, leaving... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. leave no man behind. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition. not much going on around here. super sleepy news night around these parts. nothing doing, really. in addition to the breaking news we have been covering tonight that special counsel robert mueller gave attorney general bill barr a piece of his mind for publicly misrepresenting mueller's findings in his report, just in the past 24 hours, the president and his three adult children and the trump family business all sued two banks that they've done business with, including deutsche bank, to try to block these banks from handing over trump-related financial information in response to congressional subpoenas. this follows a week after trump also sued his own accounting firm trying to stop them from replying to congressional subpoenas and handing over information about trump's financial dealings and taxes. here's one question that arises out of that fight. if mr. trump and his family and his business are concerned to the point of hyperventilating in a paper bag at the prospect of anybody getting a look at their finances and taxes, why are they not also suing the new york state attorney general? new york attorney general latisha james is chasing a lot of this same stuff or at least along these same lines. it has been reported she has subpoenaed deutsche bank about its relation with donald trump. cnn is reporting she's already received some of that material. "the washington post" reports the attorney general's office is investigating serious labor violations. she's also launched an investigation into the nra, which apparently led the flar to fire its lead lawyer and led to the nra's lead outside counsel warning that organization's entire board of directors that he believes laticia james may dissolve the nra, dissolve them. she also brought a suit against the trump administration over her efforts to put a citizenship question on the next census, which will lead to an undercount of hispanics and immigrants. she fought them aggressively on the gag rule on abortion rights. i can understand why the president has begun to tweet angrily about the new york attorney general leticia james. so far i'm interested to see how this fight evolves from both sides. joining us now for the interview tonight is leticia james, attorney general of the great state of new york. madam attorney general, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you for having me. i really appreciate it. >> i know some of the stuff i've talked about here, ongoing investigations, you're not necessarily at liberty to talk about them. i hope you will forgive me asking anyway. >> mmm-hmm. >> i wanted to get your reaction tonight just as a law enforcement official in relation to this breaking news that we're covering about the special counsel's report and this reporting that the special counsel himself has expressed anger to the attorney general about the mischaracterization of his findings. >> it truly was a mischaracterization. he misled the public and he misled congress, and it's really critically important that unfortunately he stepped outside of his boundary. and he should not have interpreted the mueller report. he should have just issued it to the congress and its executive summaries and that was it. instead, he went a bit further and he basically attempted to exonerate president trump, and as a result of that, he should be held responsible and he should go before congress. i hope not only tomorrow but also on thursday. and present himself and answer those questions . in addition to that, i would hope that mr. mueller also testify before congress as well. it's really critically important that we hear from him. i understand that he's very angry and this letter obviously really speaks to the fact that mr. barr was serving as the president's counsel and not the people's counsel. >> you are in a unique position as the top law enforcement official in new york state, given the jurisdiction of your office and the powers of your office. we have seen congressional committees pursue things related to the president's finances and taxes in the wake of mueller's report and the revelation that it does not seem that mueller made that a central element of his investigation. you have been reported to also have pursued some of these lines of inquiry, particularly after michael cohen, the president's longtime lawyer, suggested in sworn testimony that the president had inflated his assets for the purpose of obtaining bank loans or trying to obtain bank loans. can you tell us anything about your office and its investigation along those lines? >> so what i can tell you, rachel, and obviously we do not want to jeopardize any investigation. i can tell you we have commenced an investigation into the trumps' finances and it's based on the testimony of mr. michael cohen. and as a result of that, we have issued subpoenas to certain banks and we are in the process of discovery. and that is about all that i can tell you without jeopardizing that investigation. >> i will -- i understand if you can't answer this, but can you tell me if michael cohen has cooperated with your office or with other new york state law enforcement? and can you tell me if the banks are cooperating with the subpoenas? >> so i can tell you this. the media has reported that mr. cohen has been to our office and i can also report to you that we have received some information from some of the entities that have been previously mentioned. >> okay. the president is suing deutsche bank and his accounting firm as well as other entities to try to stop them from obtaining -- from replying to congressional subpoenas. have you had those same kinds of fights in terms of your investigation? >> unfortunately as of right now they are not seeking to squash our subpoenas. >> okay. the nra investigation, which you have publicly confirmed, on friday you announced that that -- your office is investigating the nra in terms of its incorporation under new york law and alleged financial mismanagement of that -- of that organization, its assets and its donations. the nra appears to be quite afraid of what you are capable of doing as new york's top law enforcement official. as i mentioned, they fired their lead lawyer. their outside counsel is reported to have warned the board that you have the power to dissolve them as an organization if your investigation merits that. is he right to believe that's within your powers? >> so let me just say -- i can't speak to the remedies we are seeking. at this point in time, as you know, we have commenced an investigation into the nra. we have issued letters basically requiring certain entities to retain documents and communication. and some of those entities have received subpoenas. it's really critically important that the nra follow the law just like any other charitable organization in the state of new york. and until such time as we review the information that we received, we cannot lay out our case and we cannot speak to the remedies that we are seeking. >> this would be -- this is being pursued as a civil matter or as a criminal matter? >> it's a civil matter. >> it's a civil matter. at this point, we've -- again, public reporting that the department of financial services in new york, another law enforcement entity in new york, has also pursued the president's insurance broker. again, in response to michael cohen's testimony saying that there may have been -- he alleged that there may have been asset inflation in order to basically affect insurance rates, which would be insurance fraud. is that also being pursued as a civil matter? is that something that could potentially be referred to you as a criminal matter if the department of financial services finds evidence of wrongdoing there? >> yes, we've not received a referral as of yet, but our investigations for the most part are civil in nature. >> okay. leticia james, attorney general of new york. you have a lot on your plate. >> i do. >> i hope you'll come back again and keep us apprised. i know a lot of these things as they're ongoing you can't give us details, i think it's important the country know the implications of what you're working on. >> i also think it's important for you to remain in our homes every night. it's critically important we have a free press, an independent press and it's really critically important that i as the attorney general of the state of new york stand up for your right and oppose any effort to suppress your first amendment right. >> madam attorney general, thank you very much for being here. >> thank you. >> hope you'll come back soon. we'll be right back. stay with us. ht back. stay with us you'll never have , "should i scooch up?" it's big that looks at a sunroof and wonders why it can't just be most of the roof. it's big that's better because we built it that way. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space ford expedition. >> this has been one of those days and the news is continuing to develop over the course of this hour, and i have a feeling it's going to continue to develop into the late night tonight. i will just tell you before we go that you shouldn't forget, tomorrow night right here, hillary clinton is going to be here live in studio, in person for the interview. tomorrow, 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. i'm not going to sleep between now and then because i'm already working on it. i'll see you then. now it's time for twrld with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> rachel, you weren't going to sleep anyway. >> i know. >> you've got that big hearing coming up tomorrow. come on. come on. >> and with the news today -- >> yeah. >> i mean, even if you're only talking international news, i probably wouldn't have slept today, but with the number of things that have broken over the course of the day and the drama behind them and the promise that more details are going to be coming out within the next 12 hours, which means the overnight, it's just -- >> here's -- here's what i could spend an hour talking about that

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Rachel Maddow Show 20190503

presidential field. we will be speaking live with senator bennett later on this hour. this will be his first interview since making his presidential announcement today. very excited to have him on set. he'll be joining us in just a moment. we have just confirmed that senator kamala harris, one of the leading contenders for the nomination has just confirmed with our office tonight that she will be our guest on this show here tomorrow. so, i know tomorrow's friday. if you were planning on taking friday off, the answer is no. i'm not either. i'm going to be here with kamala harris, so you should be here too. today show, some of the big news that happened today is that today we got word, i guess, that robert mueller, hence forth, shall speak for himself. at least we sort of got that word. now, this is only a single source report thus far and you should consider that. but nbc news is reporting according to one source familiar with the matter that the judiciary committee in the house led by kongman jerry nadler, that committee has begun discussions directly with robert mueller's team about mueller himself coming to testify to congress. according to nbc's reporting previously, the committee had been trying to arrange mueller's testimony and they had been discussing that matter with the justice department assuming that the justice department could speak for robert mueller and would facilitate his testimony. there have been multiple reports and some scathing allegations from democratic members of congress recently that the justice department has been blocking that, that they've been refusing to set a date for mueller's testimony, they've been slow walking the requests for mueller's testimony from multiple congressal committees. there's been allegations from democratic members that the justice department hasn't been acting in good faith despite attorney general barr's public assertions that he has no objections to mueller coming before congress. this new nbc reporting tonight as yet just a single source, not yet confirmed by other news organization, but this reporting from nbc tonight is that mueller's team is now communicating directly with the house judiciary committee about mueller coming up to testify. now, we got word of that tonight right after we got word of this from senator amy klobuchar. and i'll tell you what this is. i will give you -- here's the spoiler. this starts off kind of normal. it's really interesting. i think it's really important. it starts off kind of normal. it gets very funny right at the end which is why you should hear it. okay. here it is. here's the date. yowl see there, may 2nd, 2019. that's today. it's addressed to robert s. mueller iii office of special counsel. dear special counsel mueller -- right off the bat this is interesting. this is not something you see every day. this is on the letter head of a u.s. senator, amy klobuchar, who is also running for president. she's writing one on one as a senator to the special counsel directly. hey bob. hey bob, i've got a thing i need from you. dear special counsel mueller, i write to request information related to the report on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election which was recently completed by your office. on may 1st, attorney general barr appeared before the senate committee to testify about the evidence collected during your investigation and the findings described in your or the are. on numerous occasions, attorney general barr was unable to speak to certain sections of the report or to the underlying evidence evaluated by your office. the shade there is that a lot of people notice that attorney general barr didn't seem to know how to answer basic factual answers about the report which gave rise to suspicions that maybe he never bothered to read it. back to the letter. i asked attorney general barr whether your office requested ask approximate reviewed any of president trump's personal tax documents or the trump organization's financial documents. attorney general barr stated he did not know and suggested i ask you directly. unfortunately chairman lindsey graham has made clear he does not intend to call you, special counsel mueller. he does not intend to call you to testify before the committee. accordingly i respectfully request you provide answers to the follow. number one, did your office review president trump's tax returns? if not, did you attempt to obtain the documents? if so, what years did you retain? number two, did your office review financial statements from the trump organization? the if not, did you attempt to obtain them? if you did obtain them, what years of statements did you retain and were the documents complete. were redactions made to the documents. this is how it ends. in addition, i respectfully request you provide the committee with any of president trump's tax returns and financial statements that were obtained by your office to aide in our evaluation of the report and its conclusions. sincerely, amy klobuchar, united states senator. so, that's obviously the funny part at the end. oh, and by the way, in addition if by any chance you did get trump's tax returns and financial statements, i would like those. thank you. sincerely, senator klobuchar. i enclosed a self addressed stamped c-130 cargo plane. just send those my way. where this comes from is a little notice but a sharp and potentially important little exchange that happened at yesterday's hearing between senator klobuchar and attorney general bill barr. it was at the very, very end of his testimony, been there for hours. klobuchar had had a long first round of questions with him. they've gone through the roster of senators on the committee and just came back for one quick final round where people just had a couple minutes to ask final answers. and klobuchar just bing bing bing bing, peppered him with a bunch of quick questions. and i'm not sure this is how he wishes he would have responded. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, on april 27th, president trump stated mueller, i assume, for $35 million, he checked my taxes and he checked my financials. is that accurate? did the special counsel review the president's taxes and the trump organization's financial statements? >> i don't know. >> can you find out if i ask later in a written question? >> i -- yes, or you could ask bob mueller when he comes here. >> okay. i'll do that too. but i think i'll also ask you and then obviously we would want to see them as underlying information. during my earlier questions, we went through a number of actions by the president that the special counsel looked into. >> so, she just moves on. she just moves on. great. i'm going to ask you and yeah, at your suggestion, i will ask robert mueller directly. i will absolutely do that. if the answer is yes, he got tax returns and financial statements we'll expect to see those as underlying information. right? let's move on. next question. barr's just like say what? hm? so, i think it was a good use of the second round of questions. so, get him on the record suggesting that the senator should go directly to robert mueller on this question and get him on the record. i mean, get mueller on the record. she should go to mueller directly on this matter to find out what the underlying evidence was that mueller looked at, and she should be asked him to obtain it. okay. and to the extent it matters, she gets him on the record. she gets barr on the record not objecting when she notifies him that if mueller did look at trump's taxes she and the committee would be furnished with those since that is underlying investigation. william barr stug areals to keep up and swallows his tongue and says nothing. that's a quick exchange. that's kind of what you need to move these things forward sometimes and in this case, that moved it forward. that gave senator klobuchar an opening, in fact an invitation, by the attorney general for her to start communicating directly with robert mueller rather than going through him or going through the justice department. amy klobuchar has written to mueller and opened up that line of communication with the office. we shall see. i think now that we know a little bit more about what has been going on in robert mueller's life recently, now that we have seen his letter which was made public yesterday which is him me mothmorializing print and laying out the battle he's been in with william barr or barr ris representing his findings to the public. one of the things that does is puts mueller himself back at the center of this drama. after what we have now seen and heard about the behavior of attorney general william barr when it comes to mueller and mueller's report, it should be no surprise that committee chairman and members of the judiciary committees aring go to open up communication with mueller directly rather than routing anything through will yar barr. it's clear that attorney general william barr is the last person you should talking to. we've got mueller on the record saying barr has been mischaracterizing his work and mishandling hiss work, right? so, the whole idea that barr is the one you go to if you want to know anything about this investigation or about mueller himself, that's over now. barr himself elected not to turn up in front of the house judiciary committee. that will take some time to resolve as a conflict. barr had volunteered today. he backed out. now they will likely subpoena him to testify. if he refuses to testify in response to the subpoena, they'll have to fight that. ultimately they may decide to hold him in contempt of congress. that will be a lengthy process. by the time barr agrees to sit down in front of the house judiciary committee, we will be some distance further down the road in this ongoing scandal. one side benefit of that delay is that by that point, william barr will hopefully no longer be seen as the guy you're supposed to ask questions of about robert mueller. by that point whenever he does sit down with house judiciary and decides he's ready to face democrat question, he'll no longer be thought of as the guy who is supposed to explain robert mueller. at this point, by the time that's going to happen -- by the time he sits down and does that, the reason they're going to want to talk to him is no longer going to be that barr isn't the one who's explaining mueller. at that point, the reason they'll want to talk to william barr is because of barr's own behavior, is because of what mueller himself says is barr's mishandling of his investigation, his misrepresentation of mueller's finding, his creation about what mueller did and mueller found. and to that point, to that point of william barr's behavior and what he has done here and how it may be affecting what we know about the investigation and what impact its having on the presidency, to that point after his testimony yesterday, we are still trying to get to the bottom of this. >> was it special counsel mueller's responsibility to make a charging recommendation? >> i think the deputy attorney general and i thought it was. but -- but not just charging, but to determine whether or not conduct was criminal. the president would be charged -- could not be charged as long as he was in office. >> do you agree with the reasons that he offered for not making a decision in volume two of his report? and why or why not? >> i'm not really sure of his reasoning. i think that if he felt that he shouldn't go down the path of making a traditional prosecution decision then he shouldn't have investigated. that was the time to pull up. >> that was the time to pull up. i'm going to land this plane. i guess they're saying pull it up. i mean, the justice department and attorney general william barr has confirmed that robert mueller told barr that he didn't believe he was allowed to make a declaration as to whether or not president trump committed crimes because of the justice department policy that says you cannot charge a sitting president. if you can't charge someone, it's not fair to accuse them of a crime. and the whole point of charging someone is that you then give them their day in court so they can defeat the charges, they can beat the charges if they didn't acomplete the crime, so they can clear their name. you don't give an accused criminal that right if you never give them a day in court if you don't put them on trial and let them prove they didn't do it. that was mueller's reasoning whether or not you agree with reasoning. that is what mueller explained in his report about why he felt constrained by justice department policy that he couldn't say one way or the other. william barr and the justice department say that they learned that that was mueller's position at a meeting between barr and mueller on march 5th. march 5th of this year. that's the first time the two of these guys met after william barr was sworn in as attorney general, after he was cleared by the ethics office to take over oversight of mueller's work. how did william barr respond to that news flash when mueller told barr he believed he couldn't make a traditional prosecution decision about the president. how did he take that? how did he respond? now we know in his own words. >> i think that if he felt that he shouldn't go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision, they shouldn't have investigated. that was the time to pull up. >> so, that was the time to pull up. if you're not making a charging decision and you say you're not, then the way william barr thinks about it means you can't be investigating. you can't be using grand juries. you can't be using subpoenas. you can't be using all the tools that prosecutors use to investigate toward the ultimate aim of assembling a criminal case. you can't do that. you can't use any of those tools not if you're not going to assemble a criminal case. not if you're not going to file charges you can't be investigating if you're not going to charge says the brand-new attorney general, newly installed to oversee robert mueller's work. and less than three weeks after that first meeting, we get word that robert mueller's investigation is over and his report is in. two and a half weeks after barr was allowed to take over oversight of the mueller investigation, the mueller investigation was ended. did barr end it basically as soon as he got into the justice department. what he has explained since then is his own belief that mueller had no right to look at potential obstruction of justice, to investigate the president's conduct at all not if mueller at the end of the day wasn't going to declare the president could be charged with a crime. so, we're still trying to figure that out. i will note for the record just as an aside that there are two volumes of the mueller report, right? volume one is about russia. volume two is about obstruction. the obstruction starts and ends with robert mueller justifying and defending the fact that his office had been conducting this investigation about the president's behavior in the first place, justifying and defending that they were investigating the president for obstruction of justice even though they weren't considering charging him. the way he described it at the very end, very final section of volume two of the report, that was mueller's defense of the fact that his office was working to, quote, ascertain whether the president violated obstruction statutes. the defense of the fact they were even trying to ascertain that by the president's behavior is the end, is the closing argument of the obstruction section. that's page 178. it's the last thing they argue. that same defense, the fact they were investigating the president at all is literally on page one of the obstruction section as well. page one of the obstruction says, while the ooc concluding a sitting president cannot be prosecuted it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. so, why is it that mueller and the special counsel aels office thought it was necessary to open and close the whole obstruction section of their report with a defense of the fact that they had been investigating the president at all? who was asking them to justify that? i mean, is that at all related to the fact that the attorney general has now articulated multiple times in public that he believes that mueller wasn't going to say at the end of the day that president trump committed crimes that mueller shouldn't have been investigating trump at all, at that point the investigation is inappropriate. did barr shut mueller down when mueller told him he wasn't going to say whether or not he was going to be charged. if so, does barr think that precludes you from even investigating? i don't know. and neither do you. but robert mueller knows. and now according to this new reporting from nbc news tonight, the judiciary committee and the house is negotiating with mueller directly to arrange his testimony whereupon he can presumably tell us that and everything else he knows. here's the flip side though which i think is the worrying part here for attorney general william barr and for the white house. over the last 24 hours or so you've seen headlines like this one, right? republicans turn against mueller. you have seen the attorney general himself calling mueller snitty saying the investigation was based on a false investigation and it was illegitimate. we saw this from the president's russia mueller saying what mueller turned in was some sort of law school exam paper saying that all the investigation produced was a bunch of political statements in that report. emmett flood nearing at mueller's report and findings by calling the report from mueller a, quote, prosecutorial curiosity. we're watching republicans in congress and the white house and the president's legal defenders all starting to round on robert mueller. forget all the stuff that mueller's an honorable guy. mueller's exonerated the president. now it's mueller is deranged. mueller is terrible at his job. mull's a disaster. and the problem for them as they make that turn is that mueller is alive and mueller is starting to communicate with the outside world in his own terms that we now know includes at least some lines of communication from the judiciary committees to him. ask approximate that puts william barr and the trump white house in a bit of a corner here because in order to cast dispersions on what was wrong with mueller's investigation and what's deficient about mueller himself and shutting down his investigation in the first place, they've had to make this aggressive argument about what it is that mueller did wrong, right? what was so wrong about mueller saying that he felt constrained by justice department policy, such that he did not believe he was allowed to say whether or not the president committed crimes. they have hung their hat on that being the disaster of what mueller did. right? here's how barr himself put it in his opening statement for the senate yesterday. the role of the federal prosecutor and purpose of a criminal investigation are well defined. prosecutors work with evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. once the case the apointment of a special counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the president do not had change these rules. at the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no. the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no. ryan goodman singled out this part of barr's opening statement yesterday at justice security noting that this might make for great rhetoric for barr claiming that mueller didn't do his job but also creates a really big problem for what happens next as long as mueller is alive and can speak for himself on his own terms. quote, in his report, mueller took the view that he didn't have authority under the justice department's legal opinions to make a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president. barr's statement to the senate now resets that framework. indeed, barr's clarification of the rules appears to state that mueller has a duty to make exactly that call about the president. whether or not barr articulated this legal framework to justify his decision in the mueller investigation, what it means is that special counsel robert mueller may now be able or in fact required to say on the record whether he believes president donald trump committed the crime of obstruction. mueller should have the opportunity to do so in congressal testimony soon. in other words, all these guys, barr and the rest of them are roundly defending mueller when he refused to state that president trump committed crimes. it ma be possible that barr told mueller the investigation must end if he was going to continue to refuse. mueller is about to come to congress to testify as far as we can tell. and the report on the findings and what might be the effort to shut down mueller was all based on it being a huge problem that mueller wouldn't say whether or not trump should be charged. if barr is demanding now athat what the justice department department rules say that mueller must declare if donald trump committed crimes, it no longer matters whether the report says that. we're in the new phase. in the future, this means robert mueller will be sworn in before a congressional committee and will be asked by jerry nadler or amy klobuchar or kamala harris or these folks and he may be obligated under justice department rules as newly explained by attorney general william barr. he may be obligated to say, to declare if the president is a criminal and if that is what his investigation found. that is the box that attorney general william barr has created for himself and for the white house the way he has attacked robert mueller. and now it is robert mueller's time to speak. more ahead. stay with us. stay with us mhm aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. (son loudly clears throat) (mom and dad laugh) bounty, the quicker picker upper. on a budget? try bounty essentials. and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. with roundup sure shot wand you don't need to stoop to their level. draw the line. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to pinpoint those pesky bedfellows. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while comfortably guarding the good. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. this is a commercial and i know you're thinking. i don't want to hear about insurance. 'cause let's be honest... nobody likes dealing with insurance. right? see, esurance knows it's expensive. i feel like i'm giving my money away. so they're making it affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome, guy in kitchen. i named my character walter. that's great. i'd tell you more but i only have thirty seconds so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. title x for affordable natbirth control and reproductive health care. the trump administration just issued a nationwide gag rule. this would dismantle the title x ("ten") program. it means that physicians cannot tell a patient about their reproductive health choices. we have to be able to use our medical knowledge to give our patients the information that they need. the number one rule is do no harm, and this is harm. we must act now. learn more. text titlex to 22422 you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome. a lot of the still photos we use on the show come to us by a photo bank run by the associated press. if you search for colorado senator in that photo bank, you get a ton of photos of the nhl team playing the colorado avalanche. but you also get this oddly titled album, "colorado's mystery senator." you see how that's the title there? in that album, you get this photo of the mystery senator getting out of a car, then this one of him wearing protective eye wear. there's one of him wearing slightly larger protective eye wear. this time he's got a hard hat. all those photos ran with this ap story titled colorado is still sizing up its new senator. that was in 2009 because michael bennet was still relatively unknown not just in washington as a new senator but even to people in his own state. 2009 is the year that michael bennet was appoint today the u.s. senate seat vacated by ken salazar when ken salazar was brought to washington. when salazar got that nod, every well-known democrat holding office in the state of colorado wanted to be in the running for that appointment to the u.s. senate. the surprise pick though was this guy who had no statewide profile at all, the superintendent of the denver public school system. school superintendent to u.s. senator, not necessarily dots you would think ever connect. they don't usually connect to each other without anything else in between. but that is what happened to michael bennet. bennett was a yale educated lawyer, at the justice department under president clinton, became managing director at an investment firm run by a conservative politically active billionaire. bennett was not conservative, not a republican, but he did thrive there. did end up becoming managing director. but the public service bug bit him. when his friend became the mayor, john hickenlooper. bennett said yes to becoming the mayor's chief of staff. he went on to run denver's public schools despite no background in public education. if you need a barometer for how he did for that job, he was the runner up to be education secretary for the whole country. so, yes, michael bennet may have been a mystery senator when he was appointed in 2009, but he was an impressive senator. he was only appointed in 2009 with zero name recognition and having never run a campaign in his life. but after getting appointed in 2009, he had to get reelected to hold the seat the very next year in 2010. and remember 2010 was a huge backlash year against the democratic party, a huge red wave that year. in that ap article, the one with the mystery senator photos, they talked to republicans in colorado saying michael bennet is an untested newby they can pick off next year. but bennett has shown to have serious political chops. they thought they had him on the ropes when he came out in favor of obamacare and put it this way. >> as a new senator on the ballot next year, if you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform and every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose the job, would you cast the vote and lose your job? >> yes. >> that tape will be held. >> that tape was held. bennett did vote for obamacare. he got reelected in colorado in 2010 in that red, red tea party year, this brand-new senator who nobody had heard of a year before, in the primary he had to beat a democratic challenger that had the backing of bill clinton. he had to go on to the general, eked out a win against a strong but slightly insane republican in a year when a lot of slightly insane republicans actually did great. democrats lost six senate seats that year, but not michael bennets. in a purple state, michael bennet held on in the worst possible environment. by the time he was up for re-election he was no longer a mystery and won by over 150,000 votes. he's gotten the reputation as, god forbid, a man who reads. i know. he is known to be a senator who is pragmatic. he's still pretty low profile and soft spoken except when he's not. like this signal moment where he blew his stack at texas senator ted cruz on what was then day 34 of the government shutdown. >> so, the only thing that is necessary to pass a clean bill paying the salaries of every man and woman in the coast guard is for the democratic senators to withdraw their objection, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> madame president. >> senator from colorado. >> madame president, i seldom as you know rise on this floor to contradict somebody on the other side. i worked very hard over the years to work in a bipartisan way the presiding officer with my republican colleagues. but these crocodile tears that senator from texas is crying for first responders are too hard for me to take. they're too hard for me to take because when you -- when the senator from texas shut this government down in 2013, my state was flooded. it was under water. people were killed. peoples' houses were destroyed. their small businesses were ruined forever. this government is shut down over a promise the president of the united states couldn't keep. and then america is not interested in having him keep. this idea that he was going to build a medieval wall across the southern border of texas, take it from the farmers and ranchers that were there, and have the mexicans pay for it isn't true! >> senator michael bennet is no longer a mystery, but he is occasionally still surprising. he is also, as of today, the latest entrant in a field of democratic candidates for president that has 21 people running as of today and counting. senator michael bennet joins us next. ng senator michael bennet joins us next ouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist. you can barely feel. what do you look for i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ trust us. us kids are ready to take things into our own hands. don't think so? hold my pouch. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory... and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com. joining us now for the interview is michael bennet. he's the senior senator from the great state of colorado. as of today, he's the newest entrant in the presidential democratic field. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> how has day one been? >> it's been good. i told my mom i was going to be 22nd or somebody had to be 22. i think i'm 21. >> you're moving up in the polls. >> i'm up from where i thought i was so it's been a good day. >> i will say i've been looking forward to you in particular to saying this year's democrats contain bernie, buttigieg, bennett, and booker. the point is there's a lot of b's but also there's so many democrats running but even alphabetical sorting doesn't help. how did this effect your decision about getting in? >> i think in some ways it made it possible to be honest with you because there were two people in the field and if people said who's this guy who's the superintendent from denver, it might make it hard for me to run and compete. i think that the field is as big as it is creates real opportunity for all of us in the race and there's some great people in the race. overall, i'm really happy that we've got a large diverse field in part because i think the american people don't know what the national democratic party stands for and we're going to use this process, i hope, to figure out what it does stand for so we can beat donald trump. >> because president trump is a different kind of president and because people, i think, particularly in the democratic side of the ledger believe that he may be a uniquely bad president or uniquely threatening president in term of american traditions, i think even more so than usual a lot of the discussion is electability, who can win, and how can the giant primary be constructed the in a way that puts the best nominee forward. do you have concrete ideas about that or do you think it will work itself out? >> i think it will work itself out. i know a lot of these people. i think they're good people. we should have a competition of ideas. we should see what democratic voters want and want to support. i agree with you that the essential question is going to be who can beat donald trump. that should be our number one question. but we also go into the point of the fate or the state of our republic. we have got -- it's shambles. and we have got to figure out how to govern this country again. one of the reasons i got in was i came to believe if you look at the last ten years of our political system which was mostly a case of tyranny by the freedom caucus, we got almost nothing done. and if we have another ten years like that, my generation's going to be the first generation of americans to leave less opportunities, not more, for people coming after us. in other words, i don't accept that we can continue to accept the degraded political conversation we're having in this con tricuntry and degradat institutions and expect self-government is going to work. and that is not just a trump problem. he is a huge manifestation of that problem, but that existed long before he was there. it existed because of the tea party. it existed because of mitch mcconnell's strategic cravenness or craven strategicness. and i think democrats need to own up to the fact that we haven't won every one of those battles and what are we going to do different to stop losing on judges and on climate and to be able to actually create universal health care in this country rather than just have a debate where they ignore us and ignore us and ignore us and we don't really make progress, i don't think, with the american people. that is a big task for us. >> do you think that -- i mean one of the things, you wrote this manifesto today, and one of the things you described there was that the solution to that can't be that democrats have to win everywhere, that you have to have democrats have union party rule because as long as the republicans are there nothing will happen and once you're in power all you have to do is roll back everything the other party did. you're talking about an idea where there has to be, again, a sense that both parties have a role in pluralistic governing. if i had a magic wand, i would that to be true too. i think better ideas come from competition among pliable and viable ideas from both sides. because of what you're describing there whether it's mitch mcconnell or the freedom caucus or anything else from the republican party, i don't think there's any hope at all for republicans and democrats to work anything out. >> i want to profoundly thank you for reading. >> i read the whole thing. i even have a part i'm bothered by. >> good. i hope you'll raise the part you're bothered by. i hope it's provocative. i was trying to be provocative. there are a lot of people who feel like you do. i do not believe the freedom caucus can be negotiated with. i do not believe they can be compromised with. i do not believe mitch mcconnell will ever do that unless -- i mean, when i think about mitch mcconnell, i think of a guy who's completely immune to give and take unless he's taking everything which he often does and he often has over the ten years that i've been in the senate. but i represent a state that's a third republican, a third democratic, and a third independent. and i don't think those republicans and independents are represented by the freedom caucus in washington. i think the freedom caucus in washington is supported by a few billionaires in this country and by fox news. and so is donald trump, by the way. and at a certain point, we've got to find a way to beat them. we have to find a way to close over them. and i think the way to do that is by isolating them and then by pursuing a set of policies that are popular to the broad swath of the american people. so, we're not just talking to the coast. we're not just talking to people who already agree with us or are convinced by us. but we're actually macing an effort to reach out because i do any we need to build a constituency for change in this country. it's really easy to have a constituency to keep stuff the same that we've seen that for ten years. what have we accomplished? we were able to pass the affordable care act, some of it through reconciliation, and that's a good thing. they were able to pass their tax bill. that's a bad thing. and i suppose we could say dodd frank. other than that, we've really done nothing. so, we have to find, i think, a way in this country to reconstruct that pleuralist politics and one of the arguments i make in my piece is that everywhere in america that goes on every single day except in congress. and the whole system is based on the idea not that we will agree with each other but we will disagree with each other. rachel maddow will have his bills mo views, michael bennet will have his views, kamala harris will have hers. we expect division and disagreements. how do we fashion those disagreements into imaginative and durable solutions is the work of a democracy. and we have completely lost it in our time. >> michael bennet is the senior senator from colorado. stay there, i promise i'll tell you about what bugged me in your piece. >> i want you to too. >> i'm going to break my rule about never talking to people about their families. we'll be right back. we'll be ri. - choosing to foster a child is choosing to nurture and emotionally support children in urgent need. it's not just about opening up your home; it is also about opening up your heart. consider fostering. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? this is the durabed of the all-new chevy silverado. the bed is huge. it offers a built-in 120 volt outlet. man: wow. plug that in for me. various: whoa! holy smokes! and the all-new silverado has more trim levels than any other pickup. whoa! (laughter) oh wow! woman : there's something for all of us. man 2: it's time to upgrade. get 0% financing for 72 months on this all-new silverado. or get a total value of over $9,000 when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. senator michael bennett of colorado. he announced today he is running to be the democratic nominee for president. i want to ask you about your dad. >> this is just like being at home without a tv between the two of us. >> sort of. you can't turn me off quite as easily. the mute button doesn't work in person. i'm asking you about your dad which is an awkward thing. you are a special case. you were born in india. i learned today because your dad was working for the embassy there at the time ump born. your father was an safetient to vice president hubert humphrey, he was staff direct r director of the senate budget committee. he was anivitient secretary of state it under president clinton, the president of npr and the president of wesleyan university where you ultimately got your undergrad. i think that my dad is awesome, obviously but that's like the combined resume of ten men. how has that affected you? >> that's insane. >> somebody today said to me they found a resume that put our two resumes together it was somebody i worked with before at the justice department. >> like an encyclopedia of jobs. >> look, my family, when i was in the second grade, my brother remembers this, when i was in the second grade, we were asking in my classroom to line up byes who family, the most recent whose family was here the longest. i was the answer to both questions. my mom and her parents were polish jews who survived the holocaust. they went to stockholm, went to mexico city, came back. came to new york, the only country in the world they thought they could rebuild their shattered lives and they had a business in new york and paid for my education and my kids' education because of them, i had every benefit that anybody in america could be conferred. my dad because he had all this public interest jobs couldn't actually support us the same way that my immigrant grandparents did, but and his family actually went all the way back to the may flower. people we don't remember were leaving religious persecution. it's an odd thing that i a family that i was raised in but the commitment to our country and to opportunity and the idea that we are a plurist society society and if you come here you are an american no matter where you came from, somebody, the idea we all have a responsibility to make it better, not take it for granted, understand how meaningful the symbol is to people in the rest of the world who don't have benefit of free press, benefit of the rule of law, an independent judiciary. those where is all things that my grandparents intuitively understood. my dad's believe was that public service was noble and i was raised believing it was noble. i still believe it's noble. you know, when i see what's going on in the justice department today, a place where you said i worked and i did work, by and large the people in that agency are unbelievable patriots. committed to the rule of law, committed to this country. we have got to restore that, restore decency in the federal government. restore integrity in the federal government. the tea party has done an unbelievable job of separating the american government, the federal government from the people in america. and i worry a lot about that. that's the stuff that when they're saying you know, when they shut the government down, when they do all that stuff and then they go ted cruz is my favorite on this they say see how terrible those guys are? they deserve their 9% approval rating. the reality is, that is the way we make decisions in america. it's now how they're made in china or iran or russia. that is how they're made here. the federal government in many ways is corrupt. it's bankrupt. it's controlled by big donors. we have all kinds of problems we've got to solve. but we can't turn away from it. we have to fix it. we have to solve it. and that's how my dad would have felt about it, and that's how my grandparents would have felt about it and that's how i feel about it. >> senator michael bennett of colorado, i have a million things to ask you about. it means you have to come back. >> i want to hear the critique of what i wrote. >> just wait. appreciate you being here. today is was day one of senator michael bennett's run for the presidency. i love it's an honor to have all these conversations with these candidates particularly early on. this has become the most fun thing about my job. we'll be right back. e the most n thing about my job we'll be right back. clean, i don't just clean, i deep clean carpets and floors, so i got this. yep, this too, and this, please. even long hair and pet hair are no problem, but the one thing i won't have to clean is this because the shark's self-cleaning brush roll removes the hair wrap while i clean. ♪ - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. driven each day to pursue bioplife-changing cures...ers. in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. we humans are strange creatures. other species avoid pain and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. one final story for you tonight before we go. i want to close out the show with a little bit of new reporting tonight. it's about the house intelligence committee and the team of staffers and investigators that that committee's chairman adam schiff has been building to investigate mopping other things the president's conduct both before and during his time in office with a particular eye toward the president's business dealings and finances. congress man schiff has explained over a period of months he believed that mueller was not looking an the president's taxes and finances. and he believed that meant the intelligence committee needed to do so in order to find out if that path led toward any evidence of the president potentially being compromised by a foreign power. he has haired the former chief of the crimes division at at fbi, patrick fallon. we can add a little bit of new reporting on that tonight. an intelligence committee staffer tells us tonight that forrer fbi financial crimes chief fallon is one of six full-time staffers on schiff's team investigating the president now, one of six. in addition to that fbi financial crimes schiff's team includes three former assistant u.s. attorneys and a russian speaking investigator. that core team will be supplemented by several other committee staffers who will devote significant portions of their time to the ongoing investigation. six staffers working full-time on the presidential investigation in the house and the intelligence committee into the president's business and finances and conduct. while, of course, the president does everything he can to slow them down. full speed ahead. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." >> i'v

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell 20190503

questions for eric swalwell, a member of the intelligence committee who join us tonight both as a member of the committee and later in the hour as a presidential candidate. we will separate those two things out. >> excellent. the new staffer, new staffing at the committee, i think we are the first people able to report that. i don't know if he knows that's public knowledge. we will just made it so. >> we'll get into it with him. thank you, rachel. we're going to get straight to the news of the day but i want to alert you no you that we're going to end the hour with a very important footnote to the story that begins the hour. we're going to show you video of bobby kennedy asking questions in a congressional hearing when he was a committee staff lawyer which the attorney general is now pretending is unprecedented. the news day began with the attorney general refusing to show up to testify to the house judiciary committee. it's not just the attorney general now who is refusing to testify to the house judiciary committee. now president trump tonight is saying he won't allow anyone who has worked in his administration to testify. even if they're no longer working in his administration. that might include robert mueller. nbc news is reporting tonight that the house judiciary committee has now begun discussions directory with robert mueller's team about coming to testify to the committee but nothing has been finalized at this point and no date has been set. the judiciary committee has been seeking robert mueller's testimony through the normal justice department process which requires the permission of the attorney general but that permission might never come now. the president told fox news tonight that he will try to block former white house counsel don mcgahn's testimony to the house judiciary committee. the president said i don't think i can let him, especially him because he was a counsel. the president falsely claimed that he has given investigators total transparency and then he said "it's done." >> so is it done? >> i would say it's done. we've been through this. mobe has ever done what i've done. i've given total transparency. it's never happened before like this. >> congress should be. >> they shouldn't be looking anymore. this is all -- it's done. >> the attorney general refused to testify to the house judiciary committee today because of what he called "chairman nadler's insistence on having staff question the attorney general. the attorney general called that unprecedented. as i said later in this hour, we'll show you a video history of committee staff asking questions in hearings including president trump's favorite lawyer roy cohn who actually became a famous lawyer who donald trump wanted to hire because roy cohn was allowed to ask questions in high profile hearings as a staff attorney. there were more calls for attorney general's resignation today and our first guest tonight, congressman eric swalwell has called for his impeachment. he is not the first member of the house to call for the attorney general barr to be impeached. it the house banking chairman, henry gonzales, called for the impeachment of attorney general william barr 27 years ago. and william barr's first tour of duty as attorney general for republican president george h.w. bush. william barr has been through all of this before accusations of dishonesty, accusations of being part of a cover-up, calls for his impeachment. the people who ushled i have trump to choose barr knew would know how to handle it once again. democrats controlled the house and senate in 1992 and were outraged as barr's handling after investigation of the administration which included an investigation of the conduct of the fbi and the justice department. so william barr was actually supervising then an investigation of himself. as i reported on this program recently, "new york times" columnist william sapphire on october 19th, 1992, called attorney general william barr the cover-up general because of the way he handled that investigation. william sapphire was a conservative republican columnist in the "new york times" in those days. he had worked as a speechwriter for richard nixon. even william sapphire was astonished by barr's conduct as attorney general. but if bill sapphire was still with us tonight, ed not be surprised to hear what the speaker of the house said today about attorney general william barr. >> it's deadly serious about it. as the attorney general of the united states of america was not telling the truth to the congress of the united states. that's a crime. >> remarkably after the speaker of the house said that's a crime, the next reporter's question changed can the subject but msnbc's kasie hunt knew a history-making comment by a speaker of the house when she heard one and two minutes later kasie hunt went back to the crime. >> madam speaker, did the attorney general commit a crime? >> elied to congress. elied to congress. and anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law, not the president of the united states, and not the attorney general. being the attorney general does not give you a bath to go say whatever you want. and it is the that because you are the attorney general. >> should he go to jail for it. >> there's a process involved here, and as i said, i'll say it again, and the committee will act upon how we will proceed. >> politico reported today in a closed-door session with the democratic members of the house of representatives this morning, speaker pelosi told florida congressman charlie crist we saw barr commit a crime when he answered your question. here is the moment the speaker was talking about. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> no one knew it then but we now know that william barr was in possession of a letter of complaint signed by special counsel robert mueller and according to william barr's guessing yesterday in the senate judiciary committee, that letter was written by the special counsel's team. >> you know, the letter's a bit snitty and i think it was probably written by one of his staff people. >> that was a major blunder in his under oath testimony yesterday. because william barr has been claiming that because congressman crist used the phrase the special counsel's team, that didn't mean the special counsel himself. and so he did not have to reveal then that he was in position of possession i've letter of complaint from the special counsel's team as he put it. but you just heard the attorney general say that he believed that that letter wane even written by robert mueller, just signed by robert mueller which means it was the product in the attorney general's mind at that time of the special counsel's team. the white house released a letter to william brarl from a white house counsel who is designated to defend the president in investigations. the letter was written the day after the redacted mueller report was publicly released and among other things, the letter stresses that although the president waived executive privilege and allowed white house counsel don mccuban and other members of his administration to voluntarily testify to the special counsel, that waiver of executive privilege does not extend to any other investigation. the president's lawyers letter says his decision not to the assert privilege is not a waiver of executive privilege for any other material or for any other purpose. his decision to permit disclosure of executive portions of the report does not wave any protections for the special counsel's office underlying investigative materials such as fbi form 302 witness interview summaries and presumptively printed documents made available to the special counsel's office by the white house. his decision does not affect his ability as president to instruct his advisers to decline to appear before a congressional committees to answer questions on these same subjects. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic congressman eric swalwell of california, a member of the judiciary committee and the house intelligence committee and he is also a candidate for president. congressman swalwell, i first of all want to get your reaction to the attorney general's refusal to testify today. >> good evening, lawrence. i believe it's clear why he didn't want to come in. he has a lot to hide. this attorney general has had the shovels out finishing off the burial of evidence to protect this president. he was allowed to play a home game yesterday essentially in front of a friendly senate with chairman graham, but today he was facing the new majority that the american people had put in place to put this balance of power on these abuses of power. he wasn't willing to come in. he'll stand on process objections but the american people will judge him by whether he showed up or he didn't. when he was supposed to come and talk about what the russians did in our election and who they worked with on the trump team, the trump campaign, the trump businesses he was unwilling to do that. and he's going to be held responsible and accountable for that. >> and so what is next? how is he going to be held responsible? >> well, i'm urging my colleagues to move forward with impeachment proceedings. lawrence, yos take that lightly. i called on him to resign a couple weeks ago. i've long been concerned about his conduct. first, he prejudged the investigation before he even got the job with the letter that he sent to the deputy attorney general. second, when he took the job, he accused falsely the prior administration of spying on the trump campaign. third, the way that he mischaracterized at the press conference the mueller findings that there was no collusion when there was evidence of collusion and also stated that mueller was unable to find obstruction because of different things that mueller laid out but didn't know the that the mueller noted that it was the office of legal counsel finding that you can't indict a president which also stood in the way. finally, lawrence, just in the last two weeks, finding out that he lied to congressman crist and yesterday, he missed the deadline when we asked him what the lawful subpoena to deliver account documents of the mueller report. time after time, he's protected the president, aced as his lawyer. only way to stop that is move to impeach and ultimate little remove him. >> isn't congress taking the eye off the ball since the mueller report is about the president? wouldn't it be a sidetrack to go after william barr? >> we have to do all of that. we have to continue to understand what the russians are doing, hold accountable the person who won't give us the information we need. an eighth of the mueller report is redacted. if we're going to hold the president accountable and put reforms in place so the russians can't do this, we need to see the full report. if he's going to be a live realtime ob struktder, we have to move to get him out of the way essentially so we can get what we need. again, people talking about well, are you going to impeach the president? is that on table? yes, of course, that's on the table. we're looking at his conduct right now. if he has someone withstanding guard and is not following the law and turning over the documents we need, then we're not going to be able to get that. he's effectively allowing the president to get off scot-free. he needs to be held account credible. >> a point rachel raised at the end of her hour. i don't know if you heard that about the new staffing on the intelligence committee that you're a part of it and the way the chairman schiff is adding to the staff of the committee. what can you tell us about that and what does it mean in. >> this is a staff we needed two years ago, lawrence. the republicans in the thick of this investigation right after we found out about the attack would not allow us to add staff or investigators that would look at the money and so we were in a hole for two years. but our committee and you're staff staff worked hard to elevate the issue and the public awareness. now we have these experts on the beat so to speak. we are looking at the financial aspect of this. chairman schiff and i and others suspected that mueller was not able to look at the financial compromise of the president which again calls into question whether you can really charge somebody or not with the conspiracy if you don't understand the financial entanglements. we are can league at those effective tanglements and taking an mri to the financial records of the trump family, businesses, and campaign. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you very much for starting us off tonight. later in the hour we'll do the presidential campaign interview. we're joined by chuck rosenburg, a former senior official at the fbi and former u.s. attorney. he was counsel to robert mueller at the fbi, an msnbc legal analyst. when i read this letter today from the white house counsel to the attorney general, i just wanted you on the phone immediately. so they're saying that even though there was a waiver of executive privilege to allow all these white house staff people to freely discuss whatever the special prosecutor asked about, that waiver doesn't extend to any congressional committee, doesn't extend anywhere else at all? >> mr. flood emmet flood, counsel to the president who wrote the letter, makes a pretty nuanced and difficult argument. he said the president decided not to assert the privilege but that failure to assert or the decision not to assert the privilege is not the same as waiving the privilege. so it's not a crazy argument. it's not frivolous, but i don't think it prevails. the better argument i think you'll hear it from the other side is that if you waive as to one, you waive as to all. but here's the problem. in order to get to that answer, it's going to have to be lit guyed and you know better. >> what's the timetableable? obviously what happens is, they subpoena don mcgahn and the president says no executive privilege. and then that goes to court. that subpoena in effect goes to court. how long does that take to work it out. >> it goes to a federal district court. and whoever loses there will inevitably appeal to the court of appeals. and someone will lose therein an methey might take the appeal to the supreme court which may or may not hear it. >> three months between each stage or possibly more? >> possibly more. it could be 12 plus months. that's part of the strategy, right? so you don't have to advance a winning argument. you just have to advance an argument credible enough to prolong the process. >> and litigation is something donald trump has always used as a tactic without necessarily believing he could even win. >> 100% right. we saw that time and time again when it was business man donald trump in manhattan. and there often you had somebody on the other side who couldn't afford to wage that legal battle. that won't happen here. both sides will be able to mount their arguments in court. but nevertheless, if you're just trying to run out the clock, this is a way to do it. >> your reaction to the attorney general refusing to show up at the house judiciary committee today. >> we need toe hear from our attorney general. we also need to hear the truth from our attorney general and that appears to be two different things. but i was disappointed. the department of justice has a critical role in this society. the attorney general whether you like him or not at its helm and he should be there to answer questions in the people's house. that's part of his job. i imagine he will get there one way or the other. they may not like one another but he has to sit in that chair and answer questions. >> he has to by tradition. >> correct. >> but the tradition does not seem to hold with president trump or with this attorney general now. >> right, the congress has a few cards to play, for instance, purse strings. they are the appropriators. there are things that a department of justice needs from a congress and so one way or another, he's going to have to go there and answer their questions eventually. >> but they are two different economies. we already saw him testify to the appropriations committee and that's a very different experience than testifying to the judiciary committee. >> that's right. i still predict he will show up there eventually. i'm just sorry he wasn't there today because these are important questions just like the litigation which would delay the questions to which we need answers, you want answers now. and you need the attorney general there now. these are too important to put off. >> and quickly robert mueller's testimony, are we -- are they going to be able to block that? >> so an interesting question. if it's bob mueller private citizen, of course he can go testify. however, there are still limitations on it. he can't talk about grand jury information, he can't talk about classified information. he can't talking about ongoing matters. so once he's a private citizen, he's welcome to go but he's still not welcome to talk about things that are otherwise restricted. >> chuck rosenburg, thank you very much for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> when we come back, president trump might be just as worried about losing re-election as he is about losing legal bats because if he loses, he has a lot of free time to deal with things like, oh, you know, indictments. things like, oh, yo, indictments. you know that look? that life of the party look. walk it off look. one more mile look. reply all look. own your look with fewer lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. it's the only one fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. so, give that just saw a puppy look and whatever that look is. look like you with fewer lines. own your look with the one and only botox® cosmetic. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? woi felt completely helpless. trashed online, for all-day, all-night protection. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705. here'sshow me making it. like. oh! i got one. the best of amy poehler. amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that you're not in. show me parks and rec. from netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the emmy award-winning x1 voice remote. show me the best of amy poehler, again. this time around... now that's simple, easy, awesome. experience the entertainment you love on x1. access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. click, call or visit a store today. the polls get worse for president trump every day. he has the most consistently strong disapproval rating in the history of presidential polling and a new poll today shows most of the top tier democratic candidates significant leads over donald trump in one-on-one polls against him. and so there is a very strong chance that he will not be president of the united states on the afternoon of the next inauguration day according to what we know from the polls now. and if that happens, donald trump will have a lot of free time to deal with things like being indicted. three weeks ago at this hour, i reminded you that donald trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the southern district of new york with michael koern who pleaded guilty to federal election crimes that he said he committed with donald trump and at donald trump's direction. and that they committed those crimes together to win the presidential campaign and what the prosecutors called a conspiracy against the united states of america. and that all of that is still sitting in the southern district of new york waiting for donald trump after the next inauguration day. that's the point i made then. and now a former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york is saying the same thing in a smarter way. in an interview with the daily beast, preet bharara said my former office clearly endorses and believes the fact as michael cohen admitted in open court that he engaged in the conduct he pleaded guilty to at the direction of individual one, individual one is the president depending on what the other circumstances are, i believe there's a reasonable likelihood that they would follow through on that. the man who thinks he's the smartest staff person in the trump white house proved once again today that there is no good way of defending donald trump. emmet flood, the white house counsel who is assigned to defending the president and every investigation is the author of a letter that was released by the white house today presumably because emmet flood and the white house think it is very helpful to the president. it is a letter as we mentioned to attorney general william barr written the day after the redacted mueller report was released. it is a letter of complaint about robert mueller and the mueller report. it's biggest complaint, biggest complaint is that robert mueller in the report says that the special counsel could not exonerate the president in its investigation of obstruction of justice by the president. and the president's lawyer does not insist that the special counsel could exonerate the president. you would think that's what his complaint is, why didn't he exonerate the president. the president's lawyer actually says that it is impossible to exonerate the president, emmet flood's letter says the special counsel's office concluded that the evidence prevented from conclusively that no criminal conduct occurred but that was not the special counsel's office assigned task. because making conclusive determinations of innocence is it never the task of the federal prosecutor. prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. and so the president's own lawyer took the position in that letter that the mueller report did not establish the president's innocence on anything. so when donald trump stands up in the presidential campaign and says he was exonerated the democrats can wave the president's lawyer's letter saying that he wasn't. joining our discuss, neera tanden, president of the is center for american progress and jason johnson, politics editor at the root.com. and morgan state university. neera, begin where you want to because there's so much going on here. >> i mean, my take on the letter is that emmet flood probably presumed because there's so many big words in the letter donald trump was never going to read it. >> of course he did. he doesn't know that. >> he thought maybe he would get by on that. you've seen, this is the latest example of the ways in which the administration has essentially argued themselves into a bag. you saw throughout the attorney general's testimony yesterday how he couldn't even articulate clearly without some prompting that if. the russians come and or another country comes and tries to sway the election, actually as a candidate, you might want to let the fbi know. the attorney general confident united states has to go through mental gym mastics on an issue like that, which tells you how you know, kafkaesque this debate is. and we should recognize that we have a president who is continually working to obstruct any investigation, and generally speaking when you're trying to obstruct investigations it shows that you're guilty, no the that you're innocent. that's the bottom line for most americans. >> jason, what what i was struck by it's a legal letter. the legal point it wants to make is we are not extending the waiver of executive privilege beyond the mueller investigation. that's the legal point. it's a political letter. this was written to help the president politically, help the president's re-election campaign and in the part where he's trying to help the most by attacking the mueller report, he is actually saying you could never problem donald trump donald trump innocent of anything. >> yeah, it's funny. it's like he an used him of being a liar and a thief and a murderer, he is not a liar is essentially what they're saying. it's hard to keep track of all these lies. these are individuals who worked in dc, worked as lobbyists for years and may be used to sort of fudging the truth but the level of mendacity you have to engage in to work this guy is yod them. i'm impressed they're still incapable of lying the way they want to lie. they'll get better but this letter is an example of even someone using the spicest of word salads can't justify his boss keeping his job. >> you have kamala harris finding the attorney general didn't look at the underlying evidence. as americans we expect prosecutors to look at the basic evidence behind a case. the fact he's unable to do that because his job was not to find what to do here, his job was to protect the president. the president basically put his own lawyer in charge of this investigation. >> jason, these one-on-one polls are interesting. they're early, we grant that. there's a consistent pattern you see in the polls and they will line up and they make intuitive sense with a president who has always had significant majority disapproval that he would be running behind nel reasonable sounding candidates. >> so that's the issue. reasonable. right? they all sound reasonable now. will they sound reasonable at this point next year? i was looking at polls around may of 2011. right? right before obama was up for re-election. trump was ahead even though he hadn't announced in some polls at that point. we can't always trust what these polls are saying now. trump has the weakest fundamentals of any president in history for re-election. it you lost a popular vote by 3 million, you approval always blows 50% and every swing state you won swung back blue hard during your first midterm. he's starting from a deficit. he doesn't just have a headwind. he's climbing over rocks and mountains to get there. i don't know if that means that the dra democrat can pull it off. but donald trump is not in a very strong position. i objectively think any of the top four or five democrats running right now, if they're smart, if they pick the right kind of vp could probably pull off victory assuming trump and this administration don't cheat. >> i think the one way he is planning to win, i would agree that the fundamentals are definitely against him and that he is -- he's as many have said, he's a president of his base, not the president of the country. he's done nothing to reach out to the middle or the 51% of the country so far. it's consistently has 50% or 55 or 5 against him. it's a little unusual politics. i think his plan is to destroy the democratic nominee. he will play psychological warfare in the primaries. democrats have to be mindful of who the candidate he wants is, who can he go after. that's the only thing i would add to that. >> here's the thing about that. first off, this guy's got terrible political instincts. i don't think trust anything he has to say. he lost the popular vote before. this idea we have to be careful how he destroys people, donald trump this sort of high school game he plays of coming up with nicknames only works for his base. i don't think if necessarily has much of a pervasive impact. i wouldn't trust -- it's liking if you ask an athlete which team do you want to face, they're never going to tell you the truth. do you really want to face the lakers or gold be state? i don't think trump knows. he knows who he's paying attention to right now. the people he dismisses like beto o'rourke, he is could be very dangerous. >> does very well in this poll. >> nearra, you worked in presidential campaigns. here's the way i've been watching the trump re-election campaign and presidential re-election campaigns are supposed to begin on election night when you win. your victory speech is supposed to be at least partially directed at the people who didn't vote for you. >> that is usually the case. >> in my watching of the trump re-election campaign i have never once seen him try to reach a voter who did not already vote for him and so the wayity look at the trump campaign is what did he do to convince a voter to change their mind and veet for donald trump today and i've never seen that day lap. >> that day has never happened. i do think he tries to use fear to scare people. i think the caravan was trying to scare people. maybe women in the suburbs, who knows. it didn't work. that's the issue. he lost historically in the midterms. 9 million more people voted for democrats than for him. what is he doing day to day to get some of those people back? nothing. i mean very little. his whole strategy is to just bring more people out from the base. and i think that's a shaky an category because here's the thing. he's no longer the change agent. he's the incumbent. he can't promise new change in washington. he has to go on what he's done. so far he's only passed one major bill and it was a tax cut that basically no one in america feels except for the top 1%. not his base. >> and now he's fighting in court to take health care away from 21 million people. >> which is not going to be popular. >> i don't see that helping the campaign. >> no, no. here's a particularly scary part. all of these bad poll numbers losing in the midterms that's with a good economy. what happens if this slows down? if there's a snowball's chance in jamaica he can pull this off if the economy slows down. one other thing, we've talked about this before. who would be the most effective at beating him in the most effective person for the democrats to beat donald trump is the person who gets the most people enthusiastic. you can't line this up one-on-one. there's no measure. it's got to be the candidate that gets the most people enthusiastic. the greatest danger in trump getting re-elected is not because people fail to turn out to vote but they fail to believe the challenger is going to change and undo the things he's done. >> neera tanden, jason johnson, really appreciate it. coming up later in the hour, new video of congresswoman alexandria okays yoes cortes preparing for her televised debate in her successful congressional campaign last year. and her preparation at that point was not about memory rising talking points. point was not about memory rising talking points. 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 xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor back then, we checked our zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed! but ocuvite has vital nutrients to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today. your control. like bedhead. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro. today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com. learn more you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome. segment, new polling today shows that president trump is losing in one-on-one match-ups with several of the leading democratic presidential candidates. a new cnn poll shows beto o'rourke with the largest lead over the president with o'rourke at 52% and trump at 42%. joe biden leads the president in the one-on-one polling with 51% to 45%. senator bernie sanders polled at 50% to trump's 44%. senator kamala harris polled ahead of donald trump at 49 to 45%. pete buttigieg polled at 47% and elizabeth warren pulled within with one point which is a steak cal tie within the margin of error. at this point in 2007 in the campaign for the democratic presidential nomination, joe biden was polling at only 3%. against hillary clinton, barack obama and john edwards and in the end, joe biden came in second. there is a second place in presidential campaigns. it's called vice president of the united states. and almost all of the candidates running are solid possibilities for the vice presidential nomination. it's never too early to start thinking about who you would like to see on the ticket with your favorite candidate. that might start to become much clearer next month when we have the first democratic presidential debates on this network. you can start looking at what your ideal ticket might look like then. democratic congressman earthquake swalwell severe weather one of the candidates who has qualified to participate in that debate. and he will join us next for tonight's interview as one of the contenders. for tonight's interview as one of the contenders this is the durabed of the all-new chevy silverado. the bed is huge. it offers a built-in 120 volt outlet. man: wow. plug that in for me. various: whoa! holy smokes! and the all-new silverado has more trim levels than any other pickup. whoa! (laughter) oh wow! woman : there's something for all of us. man 2: it's time to upgrade. get 0% financing for 72 months on this all-new silverado. or get a total value of over $9,000 when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. driven each day to pursue bioplife-changing cures...ers. in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ joining us now one of the 21 candidates for the democratic presidential nomination, congressman eric swalwell. thank you very much for staying with us for this campaign discussion. i want to start with a question that some of the candidates, some of the men running have been asked and it's that question of would you choose a woman as your vice presidential running mate. i'm going to can you a different question, would you happily accept the nomination to run in the vice presidential slot with a woman at the top of the ticket? >> of course. i'll do anything to serve my country, lawrence. >> and i want to go to issues that aren't being discussed very much these days and using your experience on the intelligence committee. what do you see as the biggest threat in the world that the united states faces now? >> lawrence, see the biggest threat being on intelligence committee meeting with foreign leaders taking the classified briefings and going to the war zones is that we have lost our friends in the world and that's costing us more here at home. you know, i'm a parent of two kids under 20. i look at everything in a parental metaphor. if you look at our foreign policy the way a parent would look at their kid on the playground, in the last couple of years your child has gone from hanging out with the honor roll kids the british and french and australians to now we roll with the detention crew. it's not just bad company in the russians and north koreans. it's going to cost cuss more when you pull out of nuclear treaties, when you can't count on nato and the south koreans and japanese and threatening to charge them for more our presence. that is the biggest threat. we're not able to count on friends. the cost will be fewer tablets in the hands of our kids in their classrooms and more expensive prescription drugs for seniors because we'll have to spend more on defense. >> you began the announcement of your campaign focusing on the threat of gun violence. what do you think you can realisticallily achieve legislatively on that if you're in the presidency? >> i'm offering boldness on this issue. in the first 100 days, i will ask the congress to pass not only background checks because 90% of americans and 72% of nra members want that, but also to ban and buy back the 15 million assault weapons just like the one used in poway last weekend and used in other church shootings and other school shootings. i've come to see this issue is actually not as divisive as we're told it's supposed to be. we're always told it's a hat stove. that's a tactic the nra uses so we do nothing. i'm motivated by moms, and students and parents and beat 17nra endorsed members of congress. we're just getting started. >> medicare for all? >> medicare for anyone who wants it. my plan is coverage for all which would include a public option, but also would invest in cures in our lifetime. i want to challenge the country to seek and find cures through investments in genome mick research targeted therapies as well as data sharing so we can look at als and parkinson's and cancer patients and an sewer them we're putting it the next generation of scientists to bring down the cost, extends the quality of life and have a massive jobs program. >> let me explore in. medicare for anyone who wants it meaning they can buy into it? >> public option. if you like your union plan, you can keep your union plan but the government will have a greater responsibility by bringing back the inheritance tax, reforming the capital gains tax, making sure the wealthy pay their fair share. those dollars will go into an afford many government plan. >> what about the green new deal? >> i support it. we have 1 years to address the devastating effects of climate change. the first thing i'll do is host in the united states a new climate accord, show leadership there, get us back into that agreement. but also assure that union worker who is a pipefitter or laborer that you don't have the false choice of deciding between your job and clean air and clean water because we will make sure we employ carbon recapture and reuse technologies to your job site. you can keep working because we'll bring them to carbon neutral and have a skills bridge in wind, solar and alternate fuel cells. i want to bring boldness where we've seen gridlock. >> how important do you think the issue of experience is for a candidate for president, you're running against possibly the most experienced candidate for president ever in vice president biden with a very long senate career and then eight years in the vice presidency, bernie sanders, very long congressional and senate career. how do you compare your experience to theirs? >> i've been on the intelligence committee and defended threats from abroad and the russian interference attacks. people have seen where i stood in the ring and defending the rule of law here at home on the judiciary committee and sen years as a prosecutor in my hometown city councilman. i have some of the highest national security policy experience aside from joe biden in this field. i also believe that not being in congress for a lifetime, not being in washington fur a lifetime also brings a perspective that will bring new energy and ideas and a sunny optimism we can still solve these big problems. >> presidential candidate eric swalwell, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> there are a lot more issues to talk about. thank you for joining us toot. >> thank you. when we come back, how the most famous freshman member of congress in history prepared for her campaign debate back when nobody really knew her outside of her congressional district. that's next. outside of her congressional district. that's next. the right gear... matters. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. nueven if you try to eat well,. you might fall short in key nutrients. get more by adding one a day. it's the #1 multivitamin uniquely designed for men and women. one serving, once a day. one a day. and done. i've always been i'm still going for my best... even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. ♪ mmm, exactly!ug 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. ♪ title x for affordable natbirth control and reproductive health care. the trump administration just issued a nationwide gag rule. this would dismantle the title x ("ten") program. it means that physicians cannot tell a patient about their reproductive health choices. we have to be able to use our medical knowledge to give our patients the information that they need. the number one rule is do no harm, and this is harm. we must act now. learn more. text titlex to 22422 i receive travel rewards. going new places! going out for a bite! going anytime. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com. last year the then virtually unknown 28-year-old congressional candidate alexandria ocasio-cortez seemed to be doing everything right in her congressional campaign, including the televised debate on local tv in new york city. >> for over 20 years the interests of working families have been sold off to luxury real estate developers, wall street banks and for-profit health care corporations, and for 20 years our rents have been going up, health care's been getting more expensive and our incomes are staying the same. not all democrats are the same. in a district that is overwhelmingly working class, we deserve a middle class champion. >> that was the scene from the new netflix documentary "knock down the house" that became available on netflix yesterday and is on my list for viewing this weekend. here is a scene of the candidate at home preparing for that debate which involved more than just studying talking points. >> i can do this. >> i know you can. >> i am experienced enough to do this. i am knowledgeable enough to do this. i am prepared enough to do this. i am mature enough to do this. i am brave enough to do this. and this whole thing, this whole time he's going to tell me i can't do this. he's going to tell me i'm small, that i'll little, that i'm young, that i'm inexperienced. >> she really did push all of that away. after this final commercial break we will take you on a quick video tour through the history of congressional hearings starring staff lawyers asking the questions in those hearings, something that the attorney general is now pretending is unprecedented. that's next. d. that's next. lobster: oh, you guys. there's a jet! oh...i needed this. no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on our car insurance with geico. we could have been doing this a long time ago. so, you guys staying at the hotel? yeah, we just got married. oh ho-ho! congratulations! thank you. yeah, i'm afraid of commitment... and being boiled alive. oh, shoot. believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. that guy's the worst. i had nomine...ms of hepatitis c. ...caused liver damage. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. i had the common type. mine was rare. epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i just found out about my hepatitis c. i knew for years. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b other liver or kidney problems, hiv or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ ♪ ♪ as we reported earlier, the attorney general of the united states refused to appear at a house judiciary committee hearing this morning because he objected to "chairman nadler's insistence on having staff question the attorney general." the attorney general said that is "unprecedented." in fact, there is a long history of committee staff, especially committee counsel doing most of the questioning in both senate hearings and house hearings, and that is one of the very few pieces of congressional history that donald trump actually knows because donald trump's first lawyer was roy cohn who became famous in congressional hearings. roy cohn was never elected to anything, roy cohn was a counsel to a committee and he got to ask questions in early days of televised hearings in the 1950s. that is how donald trump knew who roy cohn was. that is why donald trump and everyone else who hired roy cohn wanted roy cohn, they saw him on tv in those hearings. here is a brief video history of some of the people who became big congressional hearing room tv stars by doing what the attorney general of the united states now says is unprecedented. beginning with bobby kennedy in the 1950s, back when he was a committee staff lawyer. >> during the period of the operation of this committee, we've had some testimony regarding an individual by the name of mr. glenn smith. >> you were employed on january 21st, 1969, and continue to be employed until march 14 of this year, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the president? >> i was aware of listening devices. yes, sir. >> as soon as the president used his telephone, lifted up his telephone and engaged in a conversation or received a conversation on the president's phone, the recording device began to record the telephone conversation. >> that's my understanding, mr. dash. >> i can think of no one better equipped to question the witnesses than rachel mitchell. >> i know this is stressful, and so i would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will alleviate that a little bit. >> i understand that a professional prosecutor has been hired to ask me questions, and i'm committed to doing my very best to answer them. i have never been questioned by a prosecutor and i will do my best. >> senator chuck grassley and the rest of the republicans in the senate and the house don't remember any of that. that's tonight's "last word." "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight, president trump declares the investigation into his campaign, his election and presidency is done. he says he won't let his former lawyer don mcgahn testify while his white house tries to be seen as taking a victory lap. the democrats on the other hand make an awkward show of the attorney general's no-show before their committee today. it featured a chicken theme and an empty chair while their speaker was all business, accusing bill barr of committing a crime, lying to congress. and tonight we've learned those house democrats may be dealing with robert mueller directly to schedule his testimony. all of

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Rachel Maddow Show 20190501

in one case, 24 hours ago, and in the other case, as recently as two hours ago. it's just another one of those days. but i'll tell you, the first story we are keeping an eye on tonight broke open with a shock at dawn this morning, when venezuelan opposition leader juan guaido appeared in this video message at a venezuelan air force base just outside venezuela's capital city of caracas. in this video this morning, juan guaido announced that the venezuelan military was now siding with him and the time had come for the venezuelan people to rise up and oust nicolas maduro from venezuela's presidential palace. and of course this standoff in venezuela, whether or not you've been following it closely, you are at least aware in am ambient sense that this standoff has been brewing for months and the venezuelan people have been in extremis for months. but part of the shock of what happened today is that guaido appeared alongside his mentor, a longtime charismatic opposition leader in venezuela, a harvard and princeton-trained economist named leopoldo lopez, who has been imprisoned as a flat-out political prisoner in venezuela since 2014. today, guaido and lopez explained that lopez was out today, no longer in prison, that he was able to stand there alongside juan guaido because he was freed today by venezuelan soldiers who had switched sides and who were now aligning themselves with guaido, with the opposition, and supporting this effort to oust maduro. so it was this shock announcement at dawn. and it set off demonstrations and violent clashes all day long today. and we have been following this all day today, trying to figure out the fate of this country, right? there have been, importantly, conflicting and contested reports about the split allegiances of the country's powerful military. everybody sees that as the key, at least, a key dynamic as to how this is ultimately going to resolve and when. and when you're trying to track the divided loyalties of the military, yes, that is as scary as it sounds and as dangerous as it sounds for the civilians who are caught up in all of this. internationally, maduro is supported by very powerful allies, including china and russia, plus also bolivia and cuba. on the other side, it's the government of the united states and canada and many other latin american and european countries who don't just oppose maduro, they formally recognized guaido, the opposition leader, as the legitimate leader of that country. it's that split in world opinion as to who is the official president of venezuela, that is why there's been all of this energy exerted today over whether or not you should call what happened in venezuela today a coup. i mean, etmilogically speaking, you can't be overthrowing a government if technically you are the person who is already in charge of that government. that's why people are fighting over whether or not to call this a coup. honestly, it's a semantic distinction that's not worth the breath at this point given the risk and the drama on the ground in venezuela as this actual fight for the control of the government and the military and the country at large unfolds in a way that is just happening on the street. and is totally unpredictable and scary. particularly for a country that has been through so much pain in recent months. so, the news out of venezuela, the officials out of venezuela have been frightening and surreal all day. a lot of news organizations today played footage of what appeared to be national guard vehicles running down protesters in the street. i am not going to show that video. but it has been hard to watch and dramatic and scary and fascinating to watch all day. i will also tell you that that news took a dramatic and odd turn quite late in the day, early evening, when u.s. secretary of state mike pompeo weighed in in a very specific way. he cryptically announced in a couple of interviews that the u.s. government has learned that maduro was about to flee his country in the face of this uprising and these demonstrations by guaido and the supporters of the opposition with some unquantified amount of support from the military. pompeo announced that the u.s. government had learned that maduro was going to go to the airport, get in a plane, and flee the country. he was going to fly to cuba. but according to secretary of state mike pompeo, the russians intervened and told him to stay put and not leave. mike pompeo then even more cryptically threatened that maduro knew what the united states would do if he, in fact, got on that plane and flew to cuba. pompeo told cnn, quote, mr. maduro understands what will happen if he gets on that airplane. he knows our expectations. he would not say what that is that will happen. he would not explain what those expectations are. i mean, if the u.s. is supporting the opposition leader who is leading the uprising and maduro is trying to flee, presumably the u.s. would want that, right? would want him to leave? so now the u.s. is threatening him, if he leaves? and if he leaves, something might happen? and you know what it is! what are you threatening with? you're going to give him 50 bucks because he's left and that's what he wanted? i mean, i don't mean to point out the obvious here, but while we are watching this absolutely history-making eventuality today in that country, it really felt like the u.s. government had no idea what it was talking about. and had no plan for what was going on here, which is maybe something they should have cooked up when they decided to clear that this opposition leader would be the new president of that country. i mean, in any previous administration, good ones, bad ones, hawkish ones, dovish ones, any previous u.s. administration, a u.s. secretary of state making an announcement like that, the russians blocked him from leaving, and he knows what will happen when it comes to us, if he does leave. i mean, that would be a momentous and shocking moment, right? a u.s. secretary of state saying that? that would signal some sort of serious potential international conflict involving potentially some of the world's great nuclear-armed powers. in this administration, though, yeah, it was mike pompeo and who really knows what any of it meant. it has just been a chaotic response from the u.s. government all day today, including lots of statements released by various u.s. government officials today, supposedly intended directly for the venezuelan people, but apparently it never occurred to anyone in the trump administration that any of those statements should be in spanish. let alone they should be delivered by any means of communication that the venezuelan people should actually have any access to after the maduro regime has cut everything off. so i know there's a lot going on, but this is a very serious, very fluid, very much still-developing situation in venezuela today. we'll have more on that ahead later on this hour and we're watching this as developments proceed. because, as i say, this is international history in the making. whether or not you have been paying any attention to the drama and tragedy in venezuela over the past year, this, tonight, as we speak, in some ways, it really feels like it may be the pivotal moment when either the maduro regime is going to end, somehow, or the maduro regime is going to survive, in which case, the opposition is going to be in the most perilous, literally, the most physically perilous place they have yet been in. and that involves untold numbers of civilians and who knows what split of the military. so the whole world really is watching this, and for us americans watching at home, one of the side shows we are watching here is our own government's inexplicable, self-defeating, bungling hash of a response. and, you know, it doesn't matter if you like this particular u.s. government or not, whether you like this particular presidential administration or not, every american in -- every american has an interesting in seeing our own government at least handle something like this responsibly, right? at least handle it with basic competence. with a basic ability to speak in ways that make sense, to be understood and to act rationally. instead, we've got these guys. just -- it's just been a remarkable spectacle. but as we are keeping an eye on that tonight, "the washington post" just broke a shocking -- i guess it's shocking. a shocking new story about robert mueller and the mueller report and what apparently robert mueller believes was the botched handling of his findings and his report on his investigation by trump administration attorney general william barr. now, i say this is shocking. that said, we had seen some rumblings along these lines soon after mueller turned in his report at the end of march, right? newly appointed trump attorney general william barr then started serially releasing multiple statements of his own, that he characterized as summaries of mueller's findings, peppered with his own fulsome musings on the fundamental innocence and good character of president trump, right? but on april 3rd, you might remember that there was some inklings that something like this might be going on behind the scenes. on april 3rd, "the washington post" and "the new york times" both reported that some personnel from the special counsel's office were known to be, were expressing shock and anger at the way barr was presenting mueller's findings. and the way he was substituting his own assertions about mueller's investigation for the actual findings and the actual language produced by mueller's team. i mean, you'll remember those stories from that first week in april, right? members of special counsel robert mueller's team have told associates they're frustrated with the limited information attorney general barr has provided about their nearly two-year investigation. members of mueller's team have complained to close associates that the evidence that they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant. quote, it was much more acute than barr suggested. at one time, one u.s. official briefed on the matter told reporters for "the washington post," quote, there was immediate displeasure from mueller's team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work, instead of him just releasing mueller's own written summaries, which he had prepared about his own findings, which were prepared for public release. since that reporting in the first week of april, we have been able to see the redacted version of mueller's report that barr allowed to be released. one of the striking things that a lot of people noticed immediately upon receiving that life-support was that there was a narrative, detailed, easy-to-read, thoroughly damning executive summary at the start of each section of the report. and despite the fact that there were myriad redactions throughout the rest of mueller's report, those executive summaries had almost nothing redacted. even under whatever redaction scheme barr insisted on, those executive summaries, they were like 99% cleared to go to the public with nothing redacted at all. so why did attorney general william barr give his, you know, speeches and hold his press conferences and make his no collusion, no collusion announcements and write his own summaries that he said shouldn't be called summaries. why did he make all of these different efforts to characterize the mueller report when we quickly learned they were mischaracterizations, right? the things that he said about mueller's report were very quickly exposed as, i mean, the charitable word would be misleading characterizations of what mueller actually found. well, now, there is this new report, pretty stunning report from "the washington post" tonight. "the new york times" has a version of this story, as well. the nbc news has also followed up on some of this reporting since "the post's" initial story. but "the post" was first. and they've actually got a lot more detail about what they're reporting here tonight. which is that mueller himself has apparently gone on the record in writing, mad as heck, about what william barr did with his findings, about what william barr did with the results and the written report prepared by mueller and his team about their investigation. "the washington post" reporting tonight that they have obtained the letter sent by mueller to attorney general william barr on march 27th. so in terms of the timeline here, that's, obviously, after mueller submitted his report and it's after, just after, barr publicly released his four-page letter, explaining that mueller's report totally exonerated the president, but we couldn't see the report yet, he'd be working on redacting frit here on out. obviously, this letter from mueller was in response to how barr had characterized mueller's findings. it was before mueller's redacted report was released to the public. "the washington post" says it has obtained this letter. they haven't published the letter itself. but they do describe it here and they quote from it pretty extensively. quote, at the time the letter was sent, on march 27th, barr had announced that mueller had not found a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. barr also said mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether trump had tried to obstruct justice, but barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge. days after that announcement from barr, robert mueller himself wrote a previously unknown private letter to the justice department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of mueller's work. a degree of public -- a degree of dissatisfaction that shocked senior justice department officials. and then "the washington post" quotes from that letter that robert mueller sent. quote, the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. quote, there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed a special counsel, which is to assure the sure -- excuse me, which is to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. mueller's letter then made a key request, that barr release the report's introductions and executive summaries. mueller's letter also made some initial suggested redactions for doing so. in his letter, mueller wrote that the redaction process, which was then underway, quote, need not delay release of the enclosed materials. release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and the outcome of our investigation. right? and, so, i mean, mueller is saying there, to barr -- and that's a quote from mueller's letter, according to the "washington post." saying there that congress and the public have been misled as to what his investigation found. and the summary materials that were included in part of his report were intended for release for the purposes of informing the public and the congress what the special counsel's investigation found. according to the way this letter is phrased, according to these quotes from "the washington post," it appears that mueller prepared minor redactions to those summaries, such that they could be released immediately. i mean, we know, of course, by the way this unfolded that barr, you know, sent out his "the president is exonerated letter" on march 24th. march 27th, mueller sends this letter, hair on fire, saying, what are you doing, that's not what our findings say at all. here, i've done the redaction in the executive summaries. here, you can release these. the public and congress should see these. these are our real findings, not what you're saying. we know from what happened then in real life that barr did no such thing. the justice department gave "the washington post" a statement in response to this reporting tonight saying, attorney general barr ultimately determined it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion. so barr refuses to release the introductions in the executive summaries, which mueller has requested that he has done, which mueller has prepared specially redacted versions of, so they can be released to the public and to congress. barr says, no, i'm not going to release those, and instead lets his own introductions and executive summaries and feelings about the report, which completely misrepresented mueller's findings linger out there for weeks. and again, this first reported tonight by "the washington post." reporters devlin barrett and matt zaptopski. nbc's pete williams was subsequently able to confirm the story that barr's description of what he called the report's principle conclusions didn't actually capture the substance of what mueller found. barr, of course, is scheduled to testify tomorrow in the republican-led senate judiciary committee, where chairman lindsey graham has already said he considers the mueller report to be over, done, he's never going to touch it again. barr, right now, is still fighting an effort to appear the following day on thursday, before the judiciary committee, in the house, where the democratic-led committee there intends to have some of the questioning of barr led by staff counsel, by professional attorneys, who work for the question, rather than only having him questioned by members of congress. william barr apparently does not want to subject himself to that. starting to get a sense of why that might seem like an unfun way to spend a thursday if you're william barr. i will say this news tonight from "the washington post" also puts a much hotter spotlight on the request by a dozen democratic senators today that the inspector general at the justice department should investigate william barr and the way he handled mueller's findings, including whether his letter purporting to summarize mueller's findings and his ridiculous press conference ahead of releasing mueller's report were, quote, misleading. and whether they were consistent with justice department policies and practices. those dozen senators are also asking the justice department inspector general to look at whether barr's handling of the mueller report has been so improper that barr should no longer be allowed to oversee any prosecutions that spring from that report. they want the ig to look at whether barr has, quote, demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue overseeing the ongoing matters related to the special counsel's investigation, that were referenced in appendix "d" of the special counsel's report. you remember appendix "d," right? that's where we got those 14 matters that are ongoing criminal cases, that have derived from mueller's findings, 12 of which are still redacted from public view. if mueller, as "the washington post" is reporting tonight, has told william barr that barr has misrepresented his findings, mishandled the findings of this investigation, given congress and the public an inaccurate summary, an inaccurate characterization of what it is that mueller found and the results of that inquiry, should barr really be overseeing all of the prosecutions that derive from that inquiry, that are still open criminal matters? and if this is, in fact, what happened, if mueller called barr and wrote barr a letter right after barr put out his supposed summary of what mueller found and said, hey, you are getting it wrong, that is not what we found at all. if we can't trust you to accurately summarize our materials, then put out our own materials. here's the summary. they're redacted for public view. send these out. if that conversation happened, both in writing and then on the phone between mueller and barr, on or about the 27th of march, why is it that a few weeks later, april 10th, barr testified under oath in the u.s. senate that he had no idea whether or not mueller had any problem whatsoever, whether he had any objections whatsoever with without barr had handled his findings? joining us now is devlin barrett from "the washington post." he was first to report tonight on this confrontation by special counsel mueller, directed at the attorney general over how barr handled this. devlin, congratulations on this scoop. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> let me ask if i summarized your -- i didn't summarize every aspect of what you found tonight, but let me ask if i was accurate in the nature of how i described this communication from mueller towards barr. >> i think that's right. there was a letter that was obviously fairly harshly worded and caught senior justice department officials by surprise. and there was a follow-up phone call, which has been described to me as not quite as confrontational, but still an area where these two guys really significantly disagreed. >> i know that you have reported that you have seen this letter from mueller to barr. and obviously, you quote from it extensively tonight in your piece in "the post." are you going to publish the full letter? is it your understanding that it could be published? >> yeah, that's the one thing i would correct in what you said. i don't have a copy of the letter. i have read the letter and obviously i quote extensively from it. so i'll publish it as soon as i have a hard copy, but i don't have a hard copy yet. and frankly, look, i think given the context in which this comes out, that there's a hearing tomorrow, i think we'll see this letter tomorrow. >> okay. i know that we're going to hear from barr tomorrow in the senate. one of the other things that immediately becomes much more pressing, given your reporting tonight the the question of whether or not congress is also going to hear from robert mueller. we know that the judiciary committee in the house that has explicitly recommended or of explicitly requested that mueller himself come testify, and come testify before a deadline of may 23rd. we haven't had any further clarity as to whether or not that's actually going to happen. barr is on record saying that he would not object to such testimony. do you have any reporting or any further understanding as to whether or not mueller will be ever speaking for himself on this matter? >> i don't have a definitive answer. i will say my sense before all of this was that there's almost no way in which mueller does not get called to testify at some point. i would say after this letter, there's no way that mueller does not get called to testify. i just don't think the politics of it are remotely practical for mueller to try not to testify or for doj to try to prevent from testifying, even if they wanted to do that, which they say they don't. >> we have known from previous reporting from "the post," among others, that there were people in the special counsel's office, people on the special counsel's team who were upset with the way attorney general barr was handling that report. we had these descriptions about members of the special counsel's team speaking to associates or known to be upset about the way he was handling it. at the time those reports came out in the first week of april, that would have been after this report went from mueller to barr. and after barr had been informed directly in writing by mueller and in a phone call from mueller about how upset he was about how barr was handling it. what changed so that this letter from mueller, which wasn't previously reported, the now in some circulation. you were able to describe it and quote from it tonight. what changed? >> honestly, i think the pressure of, you know, a congressional hearing, in which these questions are going to come up. you know, part of how this all happens is because, as a reporter heading toward this hearing, we're asking all of these questions. and we're trying to figure out, you know, what are you going to say when they ask, was there a disagreement about this? because obviously, we've reported, there was something of a disagreement here. so i think the writing was on the wall in some sense, as far as the hearing goes. and hearings have a way of, you know, shaking things out. >> one last question for you, devlin. is one of the quotes that you have from the letter tonight landed kind of with a lot of weight for me. you quote from robert mueller's letter, there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department of justice appointed the special counsel, which is to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. that's worded in a very specific and sort of legalistic way. sort of tight wording there. but the implication of that is heavy. the implication of that, as i read it, is that the public shouldn't have full public -- shouldn't have full confidence in the outcome of the investigations. that barr had so mishandled this matter, that the public shouldn't trust the way the government was coping with the findings of this investigation. i mean, i don't want to put more weight on it than you think was intended by the way that mueller put that, so i just wanted to let you know my impression there and see how that strikes you. >> so i think there's some truth to that. but i think one of the things you have to keep in mind, when he talks about the full public confidence, that's always ban central impasse point for bob mueller, as he goes through this. he's always felt that this work only matters if the public believes the work was done well. and i think that's why he writes the letter. and i think as i read the letter, what he's saying is, i am worried that this public discussion of the obstruction of justice issue, because this is really about the obstruction part, this public discussion, he thinks, is getting off the rails and he wants barr to help him in his mind to get it back on the rails. obviously, barr and he disagree about a lot of key issues here, so it's a tension point that doesn't really ultimately get resolved. but i think what mueller is trying to say here is, we don't want to let this things get out of our control and leave the public with an understanding of this that ultimately doesn't ring true to what we did. >> i said that was my last question, i lied. i also have to ask you, there's a reference to the redaction process in here. are you getting a sense there was conflict between the special counsel and the attorney general's office over the redactions and what was cut out of the report? >> yeah, i think there was, but maybe not in the sense you mean. so, what i have been told is that justice department officials, when they were waiting for the report, they expected they would get, if not like suggested redactions, then some sort of, you know, trail map that would help them work on the redaction process. they say they didn't get anything like that. and that was frustrating and it meant that they had 448 pages to suddenly, you know, cycle through with every page marked, you know, this could require redactions. however. as the process goes forward, what you see in the mueller letter is mueller sends with the letter, and i think this is a really important part, mueller sends with the letter the executive summaries and the introductions, with some proposed redactions. and mueller is, i think, very clearly trying to like egg this process forward. saying, look, you can put out these parts now and here are some of the things you should keep out. now, from the doj senior leadership point of view, they had a little bit of concern about that, because to them, these aren't -- those suggested redactions, while slight, weren't every category of redaction. and they felt they still had significant more work to do if they were going to release those. obviously, again, another significant issue of disagreement and it matters a great deal, obviously, in terms of the consequences. >> and it matters in terms of what we, the public, are ultimately going towns about this, particularly because special counsel staff were involved in the redaction process, at least according to the way that barr described it. so if justice department officials, either anonymously or not, are trying to characterize that process in a way that people from the special counsel's office are going to contest, it's starting to feel more and more like we'll ultimately learn their side of the story, too. at least if the kind of reporting that you did tonight is any prologue. devlin barrett, congratulations on this scoop. devlin is a national security reporter at "the washington post." he and matte zapatopski, first to report on this angry confrontation between robert mueller and william barr over the way he handled the mueller report. again a letter being sent from mueller to attorney general barr telling him basely release these parts of my report rather than continuing to mischaracterize my findings. i should note, one of the things that we can add to this reporting tonight is that as of today, as of tonight, robert mueller is still an employee of the department of justice, which is an interesting thing. peter karr, the spokesman for the special counsel told us tonight, we called him after this -- or we contacted him after this reporting broke tonight. we called him to find out whether or not mueller is still a doj employee. he told us tonight that mueller remains a justice department employee for now, but that mueller, quote, will be concluding his service within the coming days. that's something that they told us right around the time that the report came out. they said that advice is still operative, but to the extent it matters who's actually robert mueller's employer at this point, if this confrontation is getting this heated and this direct, he still belongs to doj. stay with us. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition. each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. driven each day to pursue bioplife-changing cures...ers. in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. title x for affordable natbirth control and reproductive health care. the trump administration just issued a nationwide gag rule. this would dismantle the title x ("ten") program. it means that physicians cannot tell a patient about their reproductive health choices. we have to be able to use our medical knowledge to give our patients the information that they need. the number one rule is do no harm, and this is harm. we must act now. learn more. text titlex to 22422 listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online. i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found. take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today. you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome. here's something worth pondering. on april 10th, 20 days ago, attorney general billiam. billiam? william barr testified before the senate and he was asked if special counsel robert mueller agreed with his conclusion summarizing the results of robert mueller's investigation. here is what william barr said when he was asked that question before the senate, under oath. >> it was the conclusion of a number of people, including me, and i, obviously, am the attorney general. it was also the conclusion of the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. >> i understand. i've read your letters. did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. that is what attorney general bill barr testified to on april 10th. we now know that just two weeks earlier, on march 27th, robert mueller had sent a letter to bill barr, expressing serious frustration and concern with the way barr was mischaracterizing his report. that discussion happened both in a letter and in a follow-up phone call. so when the attorney general said he doesn't know how mueller felt about his conclusion and he says that under oath, is that a problem? joining us now is chuck rosenberg. he's a former senior official at the fbi, former u.s. attorney. i have never been more glad for the chance to talk to you here in person tonight, chuck. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> let me just ask your reaction, first of all, your response to this reporting from "the washington post" tonight, that the special counsel expressed both in writing and by phone to william barr that the attorney general was mischaracterizing the mueller findings. >> bob mueller must have been pretty upset. you know, what's so interesting to me, we always disagree about stuff at the department of justice, but we don't always write letters about it. we have a phrase called going to paper. you don't go to paper lightly, because you don't want to box them in or show them up. you go to paper when you want to make a record for the history books. if turns thing out really bad, if things don't work out the way you wanted them to, you go to paper to make that record, to paper the trail. so for bob to do this, he must have been quite upset. the other reaction i have is that the letter that devlin barrett read is probably the second letter. because you write the first one when you're really angry, put it in your desk drawer, you sleep on it and come back the next day and take out some adjectives and then you send the second one. and i've done that myself. >> yeah, see, i'm the one who always sends the first letter. >> you send the first -- >> this is why i don't even the even keel reputation that you have. >> the other thing that barrett and his colleagues at "the post" are reporting is that in addition to that letter, there was an enclosure. mueller had prepared a suggested redactions for the executive summaries and introductions for each volume of the report that he wanted barr to release right away, basically to correct the record against what barr had previously asserted were the bottom line conclusions of mueller's findings. we now know barr rejected that and didn't do it. i know that barr was probably under no obligation to do that, but that strikes me as quite an acute confrontation. >> you're absolutely right, he was under no obligation, other than perhaps moral, to make sure that the public's understanding of the report roughly coincided with the report. and it didn't, because the first version has dictated how we talk about it and how we think about it. you actually have to read the darned thing to understand what mueller really did. and it takes a lot of time to do that and it's complicated. it's also fascinating, by the way. but that's what's so disappointing. there was a window for people to understand what mueller found and it closed when bill barr rendered his principle conclusions. and no letter -- no phone call would undo that damage. >> in terms of what happens next here, you described papering the trail. >> yeah. >> creating a written record when there's a serious concern, and that -- you sort of have to cross a threshold of seriousness or anger before you do that. the judiciary chairman, jerry nadler, still doesn't know whether or not he'll have william barr before his committee on thursday. it seems like that's still in dispute. but he is demanding a copy of that letter by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. would you expect that the justice department would hand it over? >> i think it's hard for them not to hand it over. i don't blame him for wanting it. i would like to see it, too, and i think it's really hard to withhold that document now given the fact that it's really mostly out. it's been shown to a reporter. it's not really a leap to provide it to congress in my view. now, that said, this administration seems to fight everything. the time of day, the month of the year. there doesn't seem to be a battle that they won't join. so, not clear, but it should be provided. >> somebody has shown it to reporters, tonight. so somebody has access to it that wants it to be known. so that would suggest that there's at least an implicit threat that if the justice department tries to block it, it will see the light of day anyway. big pieces of it are already in public. >> i think that's right. it's definitely better for the department to just produce it, to say, we've made it available, than for it to get out anyway, which as you point out, it inevitably will. >> one of the other things that's going on right now, is that investigative committees in congress and the house, in the democratically controlled house are stepping up the different types of oversight they're trying to do when it comes to the administration and the president in particular. led by adam schiff on the intelligence committee and maxine waters on financial services, those two committee chairs have asserted that they don't believe robert mueller did a long money trail investigation here. that he didn't look in depth at the president's finances. as part of his investigation for whatever reason. and they have stepped up their efforts to obtain financial information about the president that they think may have important implications on counterintelligence and other matters. we've seen it from oversight, from intel, from financial services. the president is fighting those requests. the president has filed lawsuits to try to block those subpoenas. we got some very interesting news today from betsey woodruff at the daily beast who reports that the intelligence committee has now hired the former head of the financial crimes division at fbi, who is somebody who you -- patrick fallon, somebody you coincided with during your time as fbi chief of staff. >> actually, i go back further with pat. i knew him when i was an assistant u.s. attorney in virginia and when i was u.s. attorney in virginia. he's a terrific agent. he's also a wonderful human being. he's a great hire. >> would you expect the democrats, the house intelligence committee taking him on as a staffer, will meaningfully affect the ability for them to make sense of any financial documents they're able to get from the president? >> he's a great financial crimes investigator. but i disagree with one premise, slightly. i'm confident, reasonably confident, that the mueller team looked at financial records. i mean, we saw the man feation of that, right, in the manafort trial. tax records and bank records and all sorts of financial documents. so there's a difference between investigating financial crimes and charging financial crimes. you would investigate financial crimes, i think, to inform your counter intelligence investigation. but because it wasn't within mueller's remit, which was relatively narrow, you might not charge it. >> and we haven't seen anything in terms of the counterintelligence remit. we haven't seen his findings on that, at all. >> but for instance, on your tax return, it asked whether or not you had control over a foreign bank account. a counterintelligence investigator would want to know how you answered that question. but they may not charge you with tax evasion for lying in response. >> chuck rosenberg, former senior official at the fbi, former u.s. attorney and the host of the newest msnbc podcast, "the oath with chuck rosenberg" which debuted tonight, interviews with a couple of guys you might have heard with, james comey and preet bharara. i have not yet listened, i read every word of the transcript of your james comey discussion and i am floored. congratulations on "the oath with chuck rosenberg." >> i'm really humbled that you would mention it. thank you. >> thanks. stay with us. >> tech: you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well sooner or later... every chip will crack. >> mom: hi. >> tech: so bring it to safelite. we can repair it the same day... guaranteed. plus with most insurance, it's no cost to you. >> mom: really? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, ♪ safelite replace. i can choose from all their different hotel brands... like a doubletree for my cousins. a homewood suites for my uncle. a hampton for my sister and her kids. and the waldorf astoria beverly hills for me. can i get a..? thank you. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. as we continue to cover this breaking news tonight, first led by "the washington post" that robert mueller, the special counsel has contacted attorney general william barr, both in writing and by phone, to complain that barr was misrepresenting the findings of mueller's investigation and his report, mueller going so far as to submit to barr redacted versions of his executive summaries and introductions to both volumes of his report, so barr could release those publicly rather than allowing his own assertions about mueller's findings to stand on their own. since that was reported tonight, again, first by "the washington post," we've been watching things fall into place thereafter. judiciary chairman jerry nadler has put out a statement demanding that he receive a copy of this letter from mueller to barr by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. he's also reiterating his demand that robert mueller himself be allowed to testify. that mueller himself, not barr, mueller come to congress and talk about his findings, rather than continually having this mediating influence of william barr and his office. well, at the daily beast tonight, erin banco and sam stein are reporting that house democrats have been told that special counsel robert mueller is willing to testify, but the justice department has been unwilling to set a date for him to testify. according to multiple sources, doj hasn't agreed to a date, citing mueller's continued status as a justice department employee. two sources say the judiciary committee has been in regular contact with the justice department about trying to set a date for mueller's testimony, but justice department will not do it. well, that won't last! stay with us. we'll be right back. whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. not much going on around here. super sleepy news night around these parts. nothing doing really. in addition to breaking news we have been covering tonight that special counsel mueller gave attorney general bill barr a piece of his mind for publicly misrepresenting mueller's findings and his report just within the past 24 hours his family sued two businesses to try to block these banks from handing over in response to congressional subpoenas. this comes a week after trump also sued his own accounting firm trying to stop them from replying to congressional subpoenas. here's one question that arises out of that fight. if mr. trump and his family and business are concerned to the point of hyperventilating in a paper bag with the prospect of anyone getting a look at their taxes, why are they not also suing the new york attorney general? it has been reported she subpoenaed deutsche bank about itsrenti relationship with dona trump. and "the washington post" reports tonight the new york attorney office -- and she's also launched an investigation into the nra, which reportedly led the nra to fire its lead lawyer and warning that he believ believes latisha james may dissolve the nra, dissolve them. she's also fought them aggressively in the courts on the doemestic gag rule on abortion rights. i can understand why the pre-has began to tweet angrily about the new york attorney general latisha james. so far i'm interested to see how this fight evolves on both sides. joining us for an interview tonight is latisha james. >> thank you for having me here. >> i know some of the stuff i talked about here, ongoing investigations you're not necessarily at liberty to talk about them. i hope you will forgive for asking anyway. but i do want to get your reaction tonight just as a law enforcement official in relation to this breaking news we're covering about the special counsel's report and this reporting that the special counsel himself has expressed anger to the attorney general about the mischaracterization of his findings. >> he misled the public and he misled congress, and it's really critically important that unfortunately he stepped outside his boundary, and he should not tormented the mueller report. he should have just issued it to the grz and its executive summaries and that was it. instead he went a bit firth r and he basically attempted to exonerate president trump. and a result of that he should be held responsible and he should go before congress. i hope not only tomorrow but also on thursday and present himself and answer those questions. in addition to that i would hope that mr. mueller also testify before congress as well. it's really critically important that we hear from him. i understand that he's very angry, and this letter obviously really speaks to the fact that mr. barr was serving as the president's counsel and not the people's counsel. >> you are in a unique position as the top law enforcement official in new york state given the jurisdiction of your office and the powers of your office. we have seen congressional committees pursue things related to the president's finances and taxes in the wake of mueller's report and the revelation that it does not seem mueller made that a central element of his investigation. you have been reported to also have pursued some of these lines of inquiry particularly after michael cohen, the president's long time lawyer suggested in sworn testimony the president has inflated his assets for the purpose of obtaining bank loans or trying to obtain bank loans. can you tell us anything about your office and the investigation on those lines? >> obviously we do not want to jeopardize any investigation. i can tell you we have commenced an investigation into trump's finances. and it's based on the testimony of mr. michael cohen. and as a result of that we have issued subpoenas to certain banks, and we are in the process of discovery, and that is about all i can tell you without jeopardizing that investigation. >> i understand if you can't answer this, but can you tell me if michael cohen has cooperated with your office or other new york state law enforcement and can you tell me if the banks are cooperating with the subpoenas? >> the media has reported mr. cohen has been to our office and we have receive said some information about some of the entities previously mentioned. >> okay. the president is suing deutsche bank and his accounting firm as well as other entities to try to stop them from replying to congressional subpoenas. have you had those same kind of fights in terms of your investigation? >> unfortunately, as of right now they are not seeking to squash our subpoenas. >> the nra investigation which you have publicly confirmed, on friday you announced your office is investigating the nra in terms of its incorporation under new york law and alleged financial mismanagement of that -- of that organization, its assets and its donations. the nra appears to be quite afraid of what you are capable of doing as new york's top law enforcement official. as i mentioned, they fired their lead lawyer, their outside counsel is reported to have warned the board you have the power to dissolve them as an organization if your investigation warrants that. >> at this point in time as you know we have commenced an investigation into the nra. we have issued letters basically requiring certain entities to retain documents and communication. and some of those entities have received subpoenas. it's really critically important that the nra follow the law just like any other charitable organization in the state of new york. and until such time as we review the information that we receive, we cannot lay out our case, and we cannot speak to the remedies that we are seeking. >> this is being pursued as a civil matter or a criminal matter? >> it's a civil matter. >> it's a civil matter. at this point again public reporting that financial services at new york and other entity in new york has also pursued the president's insurance broker again in response to michael cohen's testimony saying he alleged there might have been asset inflation in order to basically affect insurance rates, which would be insurance fraud. is that also being pursued as a civil matter? could that also be referred to you as a criminal matter if the department finds evidence there? >> our investigations for the most part are civil in nature. >> lutitia james, attorney general of new york, you have a lot on your plate. >> i do. >> and i hope you'll come back again and keep us surprised. i think it's important that the country understand the national implications of what you're working on. >> but i also think it's important you continue to remain in our homes every night. it's really critically important we have a free press and independent press and really critically important that i as the new york state attorney general stand up for your right. >> thank you very much for being here. we'll be right back. stay with us. being here we'll be right back. stay with us we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. scotts turf builder triple action. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass and feeds so grass can thrive, guaranteed. our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard. this has been it's going to continue to develop into the late night tonight. i will just tell you before we go that you shouldn't forget, tomorrow night right here, hillary clinton is going to be here live in studio, in person for the interview. tomorrow, 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. i'm not going to sleep between now and then because i'm already working on it. i'll see you then. now it's time for twrld with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> rachel, you weren't going to sleep anyway. >> i know. >> you've got that big hearing coming up tomorrow. come on. come on. >> and with the news today -- >> yeah. >> i mean, even if you're only talking international news, i probably wouldn't have slept today, but with the number of things that have broken over the course of the day and the drama behind them and the promise that

Intolerant Left Deserves Penalty Flag for Tackling Catholic NFL Star

Takeaways from the Democrats' trove of Big Oil documents

House and Senate Democrats will air their allegations against the industry at a hearing Wednesday morning.

Two teenagers appear in court charged with murder of Josip Strok in Clondalkin Dublin attack

Two Clondalkin teenagers have appeared in court charged with the murder of a Croatian national in west Dublin.

Washington Supreme Court Blocks Judge's Ruling That High-Capacity Mag Ban Is Unconstitutional