Latest Breaking News On - Walter dellinger - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
special counsel? eventually can he fire everyone? i mean, it's going to be fascinating tomorrow. >> we're going to hear every one of those questions. what we don't know is how many answers we're going to hear. >> yeah. >> that we're not sure of. >> yeah. this question of executive privilege and what they're going the call executive privilege and such a -- i mean that's a difficult legal theory anyway. that's not a cut and dried thing even in the best of circumstances, i think we're going to get into appeals court territory pretty quickly tomorrow. >> and i have a feeling that jeff sessions isn't going to rely on the feelings pleading that we heard last week from dan coats and the director of nsa. it is my feeling that i shouldn't talk about this. >> i have discomfort. yeah. >> yes. >> i have a gavel. >> we will seattle. thank you, rachel. >> thanks. >> when president nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating him, he did it on a friday night and shocked
headline writers who immediately called it the saturday night massacre. no one saw that coming, no one. everyone in the country was shocked. but because the trump white house is the leakiest white house in history, we know tonight that the president is thinking about firing special prosecutor robert mueller. and the first wave of commentary that you may have heard about this included many people repeating the phrase "can't imagine." as in can't imagine that the president would actually fire the special prosecutor. if you can't imagine that, you have not been paying attention. to president donald trump. >> trump and the people around him are not acting like people who have nothing to hide. >> it's jeff sessions' turn to answer questions from the senate intelligence committee about russia. >> the last time he was here, he testified and gave false testimony. >> i did not have communications with the russians.
>> we got a lot of questions we want to ask him. >> he violated his own recusal. >> if the president okay testifying in this setting tomorrow? >> i think he is going to testify. we're aware of it and go from there. >> i think what republicans ought to focus on is closing down the independent counsel. >> could the president fire bob mueller? >> firing special prosecutors tends not to work, as we all learned from watergate. >> you may be the first president in history to go down because you can't stop inappropriately talking about an investigation. >> what we're calling stupid watergate, something with all the potential national shame of watergate brought to you by people too stupid to grasp the concept of shame. >> mr. president, it's been an honor to serve. >> i can't thank you enough. >> it looked to me something out of north korea or the soviet politburo. >> we thank you for the blessing you have given us. >> april ryan, the white house
correspondent for american urban radio networks is reporting there is, quote, mass hysteria, that's her term, mass hysteria in the white house tonight because the president is considering firing special prosecutor robert mueller. tonight on the pbs news hour, chris ruddy, a confidante of the president said this to judy woodruff. >> i think he is considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. i think he is weighing that option. i think it's pretty clear what one of his lawyers said on television recently. i personally think it would be a very significant mistake, even though i don't think there is a justification, and even though -- i mean, here you have a situation -- >> chris ruddy had just come from the white house before doing that interview with judy woodruff. the report of mass hysteria in the white house tonight is based on the point that chris ruddy just made, even though he is a trump supporter who believe there's shouldn't be a special prosecutor, he believes it would be politically disastrous for
the president to fire the special prosecutor. when president nixon fired the special prosecutor that was closing in on him, the president then felt the resulting political pressure was so strong that it forced president nixon to then allow the appointment of a replacement special prosecutor. leon jaworski who carried the watergate investigation to its conclusion which force president nixon to resign. tomorrow afternoon when attorney general jeff sessions appears to testify to the senate intelligence committee, he will be asked about firing the special prosecutor, if the special prosecutor has already been fired by tomorrow afternoon, such is the suspense we live with, then jeff sessions will be asked about any conversations he had about firing the special prosecutor. he'll be asked why the special prosecutor was fired. but if special prosecutor robert mueller has not yet been fired
as of tomorrow afternoon, then jeff sessions will be asked if he will resign if the special prosecutor is fired. that is what attorney general elliot richardson did when president nixon ordered him to fire special prosecutor archibald cox. elliot richardson refused the president's order and resigned. and then the deputy attorney general williams ruckelhaus refused that same order, and then he refused. and then robert bourque obeyed the president's order. and that was remembered when robert bourque 14 years later was nominated by president reagan to fill a supreme court vacancy and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 58-42. what happens in the firing of robert mueller be remembered for the rest of the lives of anyone who participates in that firing. technically, the president does not have the direct power to fire the special prosecutor. only the attorney general has that power. but since attorney general jeff sessions has recused himself from matters involving the
special prosecutor's investigation of the trump administration's russian connections, the prosecutor to fire the special prosecutor now rests with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the man who appointed the special prosecutor. this evening we have been hearing many, many commentators say they just cannot imagine that president trump would have the special prosecutor fired. everyone who has said that is a very slow learner about the capacities of the trump administration. one senator has already imagined it. senator kamala harris of california last week asked rod rosenstein to guarantee in writing that the special prosecutor would not be fired. that exchange became memorable not so much for the assistance for the style of rod rosenstein's response in which he seemed to try to avoid giving senator harris an answer, and more importantly, it was remembered for senator harris' persistence in getting an answer.
>> would you agree, mr. rosenstein, to provide a letter to director mueller similarly providing that director mueller has the authority as special counsel, quote, independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department and ensure that director mueller has the authority that is plenary and not, quote, defined or limited by the special counsel regulations? >> senator, i'm very sensitive about time, and i'd like to have a very lengthy conversation and explain that all to you. >> can you give me a yes or no? >> it's not a short answer, senator. >> it is. either you are willing to do that or not, as we have precedent in that regard. >> chairman, they should be allowed to answer the question. >> i realize that theoretically anybody can be fired. and so there is a potential for undermining an investigation. i am confident, senator, that director mueller, mr. mccabe and i and anybody else who may film those positions in the future will protect the integrity of
that investigation. that's my commitment to you, and that's the guarantee that you and the american people have. >> so is that a no? >> she took that as a no. kind of the best line of that exchange was just cut off in our video. that now turns out to be possibly the most important question that was asked at that hearing. there were many other important questions asked of the other witnesses that got all the air time that day. but now, now that question. looms as the most important. that is the only time that rod rosenstein has been questioned about firing the special prosecutor. and his answer was theoretically anyone could be fired. he did give a guarantee, sounded like his personal guarantee that he would protect the integrity of the investigation. we will find out what that guarantee is worth. we'll find out what that means, if the president tries to fire a special prosecutor robert mueller. we will find out if rod rosenstein simply refuses to carry out that order.
and if he does refuse, then we will find out if he then immediately resigns following the elliot richardson model, or perhaps more interestingly, rod rosenstein refuses to carry out the order and he doesn't resign. and he tries to appoint another special prosecutor. then we'll see if the president then fires rod rosenstein. or might attorney general jeff sessions decide that he will carry out the president's order and fire robert mueller himself? even though he has recused himself from the russia investigation. then does rod rosenstein resign? with a president who is motived by the norms of political cost benefit analysis, we might be able to predict for you what might happen here. with any other attorney general, we might be able to predict what the attorney general would do. if the president wanted the special prosecutor fired. what we do know is that from the start, president trump has behaved not like a politician who is concerned with how things
look and how they will look in the next election, he has behaved as senator franken said like he has something to hide, something big. and we know a lot about jeff sessions, but not enough to predict what he will do if the president orders the firing of the special prosecutor. and so tonight the investigation of the president and his associates has hit another stunning suspense point. will the special prosecutor be fired? it was a question that rod rosenstein thought he could ignore last week. and most of the media thought it could be ignored last week when kamala harris asked about that. but tonight here we are. it's the question of the night. and we don't know what attorney general jeff sessions will do. we don't know if he will do the right thing and stand up to the president. this might be the night when jeff sessions looks into his soul and decides that the place he wants to occupy in history is
as an attorney general who did the right thing when the president tried to fire the special prosecutor. if this happens, if the president does try to fire the special prosecutor, jeff sessions should know that what he then does will define his place in history. it will overwhelm everything he has ever done in his past, good or bad. it will be the thing he is remembered for. no one remembers ellio richardson for being the attorney general of massachusetts. no one remembers anything else elliot richardson did as the attorney general of the united states. they remember only that elliot richardson did the right thing on one night of his life when president nixon wanted to fire the special prosecutor. and unfortunately, everything that we do know about jeff sessions tells us that jeff sessions is no elliot richardson. joining us now walter dallinger who served as head of the office
of legal counsel. he was acting solicitor general from 1996 to '97. john heilemann, national affairs analyst for msnbc news and msnbc. and david frum, senior editor at the atlantic. take us through the possibilities here. and one of the things i want to consider as we approach this, jeff sessions may already be a subject of the special prosecutor's investigation, possibly for perjury in testifying to the senate, or possibly involving his possible russian connections. it is -- is it possible that jeff sessions tonight has to worry that if he participates in the firing of the special prosecutor, that could add a obstruction of justice risk to him in what could become any investigation that follows that? investigation that follows that? >> well, as you know, attorney general sessions recused himself from anything having to do with
the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. for him to unrecuse himself and to participate in any decision to dismiss the special counsel i think would place him at extraordinary personal legal jeopardy. so i cannot imagine, no matter how loyal he may be to donald trump that he would be the one to step into that at his own personal legal peril. it's much more likely that in the unthinkable world in which we were to dismiss the special counsel that the president would direct the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein to do that, i knew rosenstein a bit. most people who have been in washington justice department law enforcement know him. i find it unthinkable that he would accept and carry out such an order. i believe that he would resign and that the president would have to go down the list. one of the problems is there are not many confirmed officials in
the department of justice who are in the hierarchy to become acting deputy attorney general and to take on that authority. i don't know how many people would have to resign before president trump would find someone who would carry out the order to discharge mr. mueller. you have to remember the extraordinary confidence that robert mueller has among federal judges all across the country, among fbi agents all across the country, among republicans and democrats who have been in law enforcement or justice or law firms who is a republican who served for two terms under president bush as director of the fbi. i mean, this is -- this would be such an extraordinarily shocking event that it would not simply call into question the integrity of this investigation, it would call into question whether we really were operating under the rule of law at all. >> let's listen to newt gingrich
making the case for firing the special prosecutor. >> i think that what republicans ought to focus on is closing down the independent counsel, because he is not independent. he apparently is very close to comey. we know comey hates trump. you have to assume that that has to leak over to mueller. and you have to assume that the people mueller is going to bring in are essentially justice department people who were 33-1 in favor of clinton over trump. >> david frum, your reaction to newt gingrich. >> first, he is calling him an independent counsel. that's an important mistake. the independent counsel law was allowed to lapse attend of the last century because there were doubts of constitution. that the special counsel is
under the president because people have argued the president can be trusted to investigate himself. if that turns out not to be true, you are into political recommend dolphins most dire kind. maybe newt gingrich would welcome that because it's kind of an apocalyptic scenario and he enjoys those. i don't want to sound like i have the limited imagination you condemn. but if president trump really does fire robert mueller, he might as well hire a sky writer to trace over the white house i am super guilty. >> john heilemann, newt gingrich seems to be laying out the kind of talking points if this goes forward, i would expect to hear from more republicans. >> right. i mean, look, there is one version of kind of conventional political analysis, lawrence, that says look, this is never going to happen. that newt gingrich and the other assorted trump allies throughout are effectively, i say this on the night of another game in the nba finals, working the refs,
are trying to muddy up robert mueller, are trying to launch a campaign against him to damage his credibility going forward. and importantly, to gin up some of the flagging enthusiasm of the trump base that we've been reading about in polling analysis over the course of the last few days that the white house is very concerned about the notion that they understand that he is never going to be a 50.1% president, that they need to keep his base whipped up. they need to keep it solid. and these kind of talking points are part of the way to do that. i think that that conventional political analysis is probably right as far as it goes, but like you, i don't think it's at all unthinkable, i don't think the supposedly unthinkable is at all unthinkable given what we have seen so far over the course this administration. it does feel to me tonight -- i'm not predicting this is going to happen. it could end up being that the conventional analysis is right. it could be possible that we're standing right now at the brink of a constitutional crisis.
>> let's go back to the nixon model. let's remember the most important thing about the nixon case. the president was guilty, and he knew that when he fired the special prosecutor. and so a lot of the analysis of president trump is of a politician who is trying to preserve his political future. what if what we have here is someone who is guilty, who knows he is guilty? firing the special prosecutor has a logic to it. >> it is like a confession. here is a difference. with president nixon in 1973, he faced a special -- he faced a congress that was politically and idealogically sympathetic to him because conservative democrats had the upper hand. but it was in the hands of the upper party in both houses. he couldn't count on their total come place sense. donald trump may be gambling that he can, or to follow what john says, at least if he revs up the core republican base enough in these safe republican
districts. the great calculation the republicans are all making is as they look with increasing dismay at donald trump, are they safer if they run away from him or are they safer if they cling to him. >> and walter dellinger, play out this drama a bit. if this does happen and let's say we see something like what we saw in the saturday night massacre with the attorney general not either quitting or not being involved in it at all through his recusal, rod rosenstein possibly resigning as you predict he might do, the next person in line, isn't that the old job you had, solicitor general? >> it is, lawrence. but the question is the solicitor general is not confirmed at this moment. and so is not eligible to become acting attorney general. neither is the next ranking person in the department, the head of olc is not yet confirmed. we're sort of entering into a black hole to try to find someone who would carry out this truly unthinkable deed.
>> and so john heilemann, that would leave the administration, leave the white house basically calling over there, having to wire this whole thing ahead of time. they can't stand to go through the surprise of nixon got of discovering what elliot richardson was going to do only when the moment came. >> this again, lawrence, this is the scenario where i do think we get quickly, for the reasons that walter just laid out, you can very quickly find yourself in a constitutional crisis. and i do think to tie up one of the things david said, did this calculation for republicans, who have always held the fate of trump in their hands, not democrats, but republicans, at what point it is more expensive to carry trump as opposed to then stick with him as opposed to run away from him? there is going to be a point where it's more expensive to stick with him. in the black hole constitutional crisis, the notion that the white house is effectively taking over the justice department, and the old standard walls that divided the two and gave some independence, measure of independence to the justice
department have come crumbling down entirely. that is where it becomes unthinkable for me to imagine, or becomes unthinkable that republicans eventually don't look at that and say enough, this is going to destroy us in 2018. we must put a stop to this. i don't know exactly where that point. but that point begins to become maybe, just maybe foreseeable. >> david frum, a quick last word before we go to a break. >> look, but you are hearing, and this is the most ominous thing saying the president has the right to fire him and fire him for any reason that is the new vision of the fbi director. maybe we're going to hear a new vision of the special counsel too. >> david frum, thank you very much for joining us tonight. coming up, the president's cabinet pledged their personal loyalty and devotion to the president today, and they did it publicly, except for a couple of them who held on to their dignity. and later, we'll be joined by a man who was threatened by donald trump with the possibility that he had tape recorded their conversations for use in court.
that college experience that i had. the classes, the friends, the independence. and since we planned for it, that student debt is the one experience, i'm glad she'll miss when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise it was love at first touch met and all you wanted to do was surround them in comfort and protection that's why only pampers swaddlers is the #1 choice of hospitals to wrap your baby in blanket-like softness and premium protection mom: "oh hi baby"
so all they feel is love wishing you love, sleep and play. pampers
so we know how to cover almost anything. even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
the day before it leaked from the house that the president is considering firing the special prosecutor, the president held his first cabinet meeting with his first order of business to have each member of the cabinet humiliate himself or herself by praising the dear leader. reince priebus won the competition hands down for the most fawning public worship of the president. >> on behalf of the entire senior staff around you, mr. president, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you have given us to serve your agenda and the american people. and we're continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals. >> one member of the cabinet refused to disgrace himself in a public display of the kind of personal loyalty that james comey has said the president demands. here is what defense secretary james mattis said. >> mr. president, it's an honor to represent the men and women of the department of defense,
and we're grateful for the sacrifices our people are making in order to strengthen our militaries for our diplomats always negotiate from a position of strength. thank you. >> not one word of praise for trump. there is no word tonight whether president trump is now considering firing secretary mattis for refusing to publicly display his personal loyalty to the president. joining us now, eli stokols, for "the wall street journal" and john heilemann is back with us. eli, the report earlier tonight of mass hysteria in the white house at the thought that the president is actually considering and may very well be very close to deciding to fire the special prosecutor. we think we've seen something close to hysteria inside the white house before. i guess this would be the peak. >> well, it's really hard to know for sure because hysteria, it's sort of chronic. it's almost become the norm inside the west wing. and it's difficult, really, and it's a challenge for journalists to ascertain just to what degree people -- this is sort of a
grade higher than normal when you have conversations, when you a president who is willing to engage pretty much anyone who comes in and out on any topic and who will discuss things that sound crazy when they get leaked to the press. it's difficult for us to know is he serious, is chris ruddy telling the truth? is he actually considering that? i think it was a pr problem this afternoon when it came out you. saw the white house eventually put out a statement. but this is a president that the bottom line is his own staff, his closest aides, they don't know what he is going to do at any given time. and i think that's why every day sort of feels like a four or five-alarm fire over there. >> let's listen to what congressman adam schiff said about this tonight on "hardball." >> what this would prompt if he were to fire bob mueller, congress would immediately take up legislation to reestablish the independent counsel and we would reappoint bob mueller.
>> john heilemann, your reaction to that? >> i'm not sure congressman schiff has the votes for that. that's my immediate reaction to that. it's a snappy line, and as i said before, i do think it's hard to -- i do think there is a chance that if trump were to take this unprecedented and shocking step, i do think that there would be some republicans, some that would say, okay, i'm done with this now. i wash my hands of this. let's take this matter into our own hands. that might not be enough republicans to have the votes to accomplish what adam schiff suggested there. >> but eli, we heard the talking points laid out by newt gingrich about how to describe the legitimacy of firing the special prosecutor. as it happens, the causes for firing the special prosecutor are specified in law, and they are misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or, and that is the vague wide open one, other good cause. and so eli, that's what they'd be working with in trying to justify it.
>> right. that last thing might give them a little leeway. but, you know, i don't think following the law is the most important thing for these folks. this is all about the politics. and we started to see it about 24 hours ago. a lot of republicans who support this white house starting to come out with tweets, with public statements in interviews on television, starting to sort of back the idea, to float the idea of maybe the president should fire the special counsel here. and it's just an indication that as john mentioned, we're sitting here with republicans supporting this president and congress for the most part. the president's base still not abandoning him. and i think what you see if this comes to fruition, we may still be a long way from that. it may not. but if it does, it is a double down on this shoot a person on fifth avenue idea that this president believes that his base will not abandon him, and if the base doesn't abandon him, then the rank and file republicans in congress are not going to abandon him.
so there may be more of a sense in this white house that no matter the optics and how bad it might look to some, how much it might look like he has something to hide, they might believe also that they can get away with this. >> john heilemann and eli stokols, thank you both for joining us. i appreciate it. coming up, when donald trump sued someone who wrote a book about him, he of course lost the case, just humiliated in the litigation. and he used the same lawyer that president trump is using now. and in that same case, donald trump lied about tape recording his own conversations. that's next. my business was built with passion... but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means
thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? i feel it every day. but at night, it's the last thing on my mind. for 10 years my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, relieving pressure points from head to toe. so i sleep deeply but feel light. and wake up ready to perform. even with the weight of history on my shoulders. find your exclusive retailr at tempur-pedic.com
before fibromyalgia, i was on the go. i kept on top of things. then the chronic, widespread pain slowed me down. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. he also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. woman: for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica.
don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica.
>> thanks to a freedom of information request by "the wall street journal", the united states secret service said today it has no records of any audio recorded in the trump white house. but as "the wall street journal" points out, this doesn't exclude the possibility that recordings could have been created by another entity other than the secret service. joining us now, tim o'brien, the executive editor of bloomberg view, and the author of "trump nation: the art of being the donald." and tim, you were of course sued for writing that book, and marc kasowitz was the lawyer, the lawyer he has defending him in that lawsuit. the issue of audiotapes came up. tell us how that happened. that at some point donald trump said something like i tape recorded our conversation? >> routinely, i was at "the new york times" at the time. and we spoke frequently, multiple times during the week. >> by phone? >> by phone. he doesn't e-mail. he would send letters or i'd see him at the office. but occasionally the end of phone calls he would say i've been taping this. you don't mind if i tape this, do you? that's fine, that's fine.
he would drop it in at the end. and i would be in his office and he would say i might have to start the tape recording system. >> let's go to the under oath deposition in your case. and i'm so glad that he sued you. >> i know you're jealous. >> i'm very jealous. i wanted him to sue me so i would have one of these depositions. here is donald trump under oath. i figured the only way i could make him write what i was saying was to have him at least think that he was being tape recorded. so you believe you may have told him? donald trump, i may have told him. i don't remember, but i may have told him. question, that you were tape recording him? >> donald trump -- that's right, i remember something very vaguely in my mind hoping he would write honestly what i said. question, and that was not true? you were not tape recording him? donald trump, i was not. i'm not equipped to tape record. so we have been here before. what was your reaction when you saw the first tweet from trump about hey, comey better hope
there are no tapes. >> i thought there were absolutely no tapes. and comey said during his testimony, lordy, he hopes there are tapes, famously. and i hate to disappoint him, but i don't think they exist. trump says this all the time to intimidate people. whether it's people prosecuting him or investigating him or reporting on him. it's sort of typical trump. >> now your reaction tonight, knowing donald trump as you do, your reaction tonight to the possibility that he may order the special prosecutor to be fired. >> oh, i think he would do that in a heart beat if it came to his survival. thing is two lenses for understanding everything donald trump does. self-aggrandizement, or self-preservation. he is firmfully the self-preservation mode here. i don't think he would hesitate for a second to fire mueller. >> the idea that well, he's got to make the political calculation, for you just how at risk does he feel. >> yes.
>> by the special prosecutor. and if he feels seriously at risk he'll fire them shirks not a strategically disciplined intellectually, emotionally disciplined person. he is a carnival barker. and he wants attention, and he wants to make sure that he survives. that's what motives everything he does. >> now kasowitz has absolutely no experience defending a president. he has virtually no experience with criminal law. he has always been in these lawsuits, defending the trump university lawsuit which he lost to the tune of $25 million. >> right. >> what is your reaction to the president having a lawyer with no experience in the arena that he finds himself now? >> well, when he sued me for libel, kasowitz had no experience in libel law either. >> and now he does. >> now he does. and i had great attorneys. i had mary jo white, andrew levine. >> former u.s. attorney mary jo white. >> correct. and former s.e.c. chair. and they were prepared. they were disciplined. they were wise. and they cleaned his clock.
>> and so kasowitz to you is a sign that actually trump could have more problems than he realizes? >> he doesn't understand what he is up against. >> doesn't know what he is doing. that was my impression. tim o'brien, thank you for joining us. and thank you for getting sued. >> you're welcome. >> coming up, president trump's personal lawyer marc kasowitz now wants to have his own office space in the white house, and big surprise, but possibly not to people who have seen him work before, he is now risking disbarment with the legal advice he is giving white house staff.
will your business be ready when growth presents itself? american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. ♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century.
visit your volvo dealer to take advantage of our midsommar sales event offer. visit your volvo dealer to take advantage with my moderate to severe crohn's disease,... ...i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay... then it hit me... ...managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor,... ...i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease... ...even after trying other medications. in clinical studies,... the majority of people on humira... saw significant symptom relief... ...and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability... ...to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened;... ...as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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.
just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. here is what "the new york times" reported today about president trump's personal defense lawyer marc kasowitz. quote, in recent day, mr. kasowitz has advised white house aides to discuss the inquiry into russia's interference in last year's election to as little as possible. he told aides gathered in one meeting who asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers
that it was not yet necessary. according to another person with direct knowledge. now that part about telling the white house staff that it's not necessary to hire lawyers could get him in serious trouble you. might recall that it's been some weeks since i first advised everyone in the white house to get their own lawyers. marc kasowitz is a member of the new york bar. the new york bar's rules of conduct say, quote, a lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person other than the advice to secure counsel if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client. everyone working in the white house has the reasonable possibility of being in legal conflict with this president. the president's lawyer never should have said that to those staffers. up next, i'll ask former assistant attorney general walter dellinger how much trouble marc kasowitz can get in for giving that kind of advice
around the white house. and david cay johnston who knows donald trump well will also join us. ♪ lights. camera. ♪ strike a pose. your eyes work as hard as you do. but do they need help making more of their own tears?
if you have chronic dry eye caused by reduced tear production due to inflammation, restasis multidose™ can help... with continued use twice a day, every day, one drop at a time. restasis multidose™ helps increase your eyes' natural ability to produce tears, which may be reduced by inflammation due to chronic dry eye. restasis multidose™ did not increase tear production in patients using anti-inflammatory eye drops or tear duct plugs. to help avoid eye injury and contamination, do not touch the bottle tip to your eye or other surfaces. wait 15 minutes after use before inserting contact lenses. the most common side effect is a temporary burning sensation. your eyes. your tears. ask your eye doctor about restasis multidose™. [ bell rings ] come close, come close. [ moans ] when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww.
try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve can stop pain for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. [ upbeat music playing ] you can't quit, neither should your pain reliever. stay all day strong with 12 hour aleve. check this sunday's paper for extra savings on products from aleve. surfing is a sport that takes a lot out of you ♪ physically. from the moment i wake up on my tempur-pedic mattress i feel like i'm ready to take on the day. i don't have aches and pains from the previous day's training. and i feel like myself. i wake up feeling stronger, a better surfer a better me. ♪ find your exclusive retailer at tempur-pedic.com time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork...
your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done. we don't know exactly what advice marc kasowitz is giving president trump, his client in the criminal investigation conducted by special prosecutor, but we do know he is giving terrible advice to the white
house staff. as i just reported according to the "new york times," he told aides gathered in one meeting who asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers it was not yet necessary. we're joined by the founder of d.c. report.org a non-profit that covers the trump administration. and walter dahlinger. walter, you have a lawyer, completely inexperienced in any case involving the white house, inexperienced in criminal law being asked by white house staffers do they need lawyers. and of course they do. and here he is telling them no, no, no, you don't need lawyers. that's clearly in violation of the new york bar's rule about his ability to advise people who might be involved in the case that his client is involved in. >> laurance, i -- i'm not going to opine on the new york bar rules but think how generally inappropriate this is. if this is an employment related question, their advice ought to come from the white house counsel. mr. kasowitz's only professional obligation is to donald trump. so he cap be giving advice to
anyone else. note h this is a piece of the standard process of failing to follow the standard legal procedures that keeps getting this white house into more and more trouble. brief examples that link all today's news. they didn't get an opinion from the department of justice about whether his dealings with foreign businesses violated the emolument's clause. he hired a private lawyer for that. that's not appropriate. when the travel ban got a death blow from the ninth circuit today what they focused on was how they didn't follow the proper procedures, they didn't consult with the right departments, didn't have a finding. again and again they don't follow the right procedures and again and again it gets this white house into trouble. >> david, marc kasowitz is
practicing law without a license in washington which the d.c. bar does not like. they have got rules against that. he is not admitted to the bar in d.c. because the major firms in washington refuse to represent the president because they consider him so unreliable as you will know both in paying and in listening to legal advice. once again, as walter says, the one thing that is happening here is that the addition of the president's defense lawyer has not helped anything. as far as i can see from where we are sitting now has only made things worse. >> that's right. in addition to the prospect that he might have problems with the board of professional responsibility in washington which is under the circuit court of appeals there, i think there is another elephant in the room, lawrence. we are talking about an investigation that deals with
counter-intelligence. does marc kasowitz have a security clearance? did the white house get a security clearance for him? what discussions is he having with staff people, and what facts has he been told by the president that deal with matters of national security? >> david, that's one of the things that you get in a washington law firm is that there are people there who have experience with either having had security clearances or have the ability and background to obtain one or what's necessary to get them through representations of clients like this. >> that's right. they are lawyers who are sophisticated in the ways of how government does this. they are not bullies. donald is a bully. his top lawyers bully people and threaten people. it's their style of operating that works in the private sector in some cases in tough throat businesses like new york real estate but that's not going to
work in washington. and that trump doesn't understand this goes to a very fundamental principle. unfortunately, nobody during the campaign simple will he asked donald trump this question, what exactly is the job description of the president of the united states. i assure you donald doesn't have a clue what it says in oral two. >> if you were white house counsel and staff came into your office in circumstances like this or any kind of investigation and said should i get a lawyer, what would you say? >> i think the answer depends on whether they had any rough connection to these issues. if they did, i think the answer undoubtedly should be -- should be yes, that they should. you know, there was mention of creating a war room to deal with the russian investigation within the white house. but there war room the people suggested for it were going to be people who ought not be talking to each other about some of these matters at some point. i don't each understand how that
works. he needs distinguished counsel. and he needs to segregate 24 from the work of the white house and not continue to mix public interests and private interests in a way that doesn't respect the appropriate boundaries. >> well, we go into tonight with the suspense of not knowing whether we will have a special prosecutor tomorrow. walter dellinger thank you for your unique experience and guidance. david k. johnston thank you. always appreciate it. >> thank you. we'll be right back with tonight's last word. [boy] cannonball!
[girl] don't... [man] not again! [burke] swan drive. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.
tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always working to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. the senate intelligence committee heard from nsa director mike rogers on the for two hours behind closed doors.
they were no doubt asking him about those conversations with the president that he refused to ♪ sorry about the holdup, folks. we have some congestion on the runway and i'm being told it'll be another 15, maybe 20 minutes, and we will have you on your way. ♪ runway models on the runway? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money evan saved by switching to geico. i would not wear that lace. hmm, i don't know?
fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah. i know you worry i can't keep up with our weekly tee times. dear son, but i've been taking osteo bi-flex ease. it's 80% smaller but just as effective. which means you're in big trouble, son. improved joint comfort in seven days. osteo bi-flex ease. made to move. the senate intelligence committee heard from nsa director mike rogers on the for two hours behind closed doors. they were no doubt asking him about those conversations with the president that he refused to testify about last week, including the possibility that the president asked him to intervene in the fbi investigation. when the senators emerged from that closed door hearing marco rubio was asked to comment on the report that the president is considering firing special prosecutor robert mueller. >> what do you think of trump apparently calling chris rudy that he thinks he may fire
CauseEveryoneQuestionsSpecial-counselOneQuestionThingExecutive-privilegeAppeals-courtACircumstancesBestclearance was a meeting that he took at trump tower during the transition where he hosted the head of another russian bank. jared kushner met with the head of a russian bank called veb bank. it's a bank but really just an entity of the russian government. the leadership of veb bank is hand picked by lad peer putin and veb bank's connections with russian intelligence are not subtle. sergei gorkov is a graduate of the fsb academy which means he went to kgb grad school. veb bank was coordination of a spy ring, that was the russian spying investigation where carter page was found by the fbi to have been essentially a willing target for those russian spies. at least he was a source of information for those russian spies who were looking for
americans to give them investigation to help them with their spying efforts against america from their home base in new york where they were ostensibly working for veb bank but really they were spies. so there was the alfa bank servers communicating with the trump organization for some reason. what's that russian bank got to do with anything. then in the transition there's jared kushner meeting with the head of veb bank for some reason. what's that russian bank got to do with it. then not long after trump got inaugurated along comes another inexplicable seemingly random intersection between trump world and another russian bank. the next one we learned about was i think the biggest russian bank of all, a bank called sberbank which announced in march they hired new counsel to represent them in a civil case that was filed in new york. sberbank was accused of rigging the granite mining industry in
rush. in march, sberbank in the middle of the case, they made a lot of eyebrows arch in the legal news when they announced they chosen their new counsel for that long comped expensive case and they said their new counsel was going to be donald trump's personal lawyer, marc kazowitz. ratin right? marc kasowitz heading follow-up trump's legal team on the russian investigation. if you're the lawyer coordinating defense for the u president of the united states facing a criminal investigation from the fib while he's serving as the president of the united states, you would think you are too busy to take on other clients. but if there are people wanting to know what's going on in the russian investigation, it may be
handy to have conversations undercov the cover of attorney-client privilege with the lead laush on twyer on the information. maybe the alfa bank thing was a coincidence. maybe the veb jared kushner meeting was a coincidence. maybe the sberbank thing was a coinciden coincidence. maybe it has nothing to do with donald trump and whether or not he has an illicit relationship financial or otherwises with russia which explains why russia tried to hack or election and rig it in his behalf. maybe none of those bank connections, alfa bank, veb bank, sberbank, maybe none of them have anything to do with the russian involvement to disrupt or election. y
if you want to talk about donald trump, until today the only so spirks banking relationship we've known about him recently isn't with any russian bank, it's with deutsche bank. deutsche bank is the bank that donald trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars to. deutsche bank is the bank that departme dealt with donald trump for years when no other banks would. deutsche bank continued to lend president trump hundreds of millions of dollars for deals even when he was unable to pay them walk on early loans, and he went so far as to file lawsuits against deutsche bank because she failed to pay them back. there are aspects of the donald trump-deutsche bank relationship that have seemed unexplained by the bounds of normal financial business dealings. deutsche bank on the surface appears to have been uncommonly
generous to him and forgiving of him. deutsche bank gave jared kushner several hundred millions of dollars in loans right before the election, loans that jared kushner personally guaranteed which made it all the more unusual that he failed to disclose those loans of dollars. deutsche bank has been plagued by its legal liability for a multimillion dollar russia money laundering scheme. but you know after today, the deutsche bank russian money laundering case will no longer be seen as the connection between donald trump and it comes to the russia investigation. there was alfa bank with the server thing, veb bank with the carter page connection and
sberbank hiring trump's russia lawyer. there's all of these russian banks getting strange new storing roles in american politics. there's another one, alfa bank, veb bank, sbe rrbank and anothe one called vtb bank, sanctioned by the u.s. government as punishment for crimea because this bank is seen as the russian government. it's an arm of the russian government and that's how the u.s. government views them. in fact if you go to vtb's website tonight, click on about vtb and they'll tell you in exact mathematical terms how they're controlled by the russian government. the russian government owns and controls 69% of the vtb bank, the majority shareholder of the vtb bank is the russian government. what that means in plain english
is that putin runs vtb. putin controls the bank and what it does and what it spends on. and today we learn that up until last year, up until the middle of the presidential campaign vtb bank was lined up and committed to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in financing to build trump tower moscow. the russian government was going to do that deal. actually even without the knowledge that the financing for this deal was going to come from the russian government, it's still a heck of a bombshell. this is not some old deal that happened back in the past that people may have forgotten about. this is not something that trump worked on in the '90s and it fell apart. this is what he was working on in the campaign after he announced he was running for president, months into his presidential campaign when hi was full on running for president he was trying do this deal with the russian government in moscow. quoting from carol's story in f
the washington post, trump posted numerous supportive comments about putin on the campaign trail setting himself apart from his republican rivals for the republican nomination. remember when trump warned that if robert mueller wanted to go looking into any of his business dealings that would be crossing a red line because clearly none of those personal financial interests or business dealings had anything to do with russia, that would be crossing a red line? well now we know that his business, the trump organization had everything to do with russia, even during the campaign. and we probably should have seen this coming. back in may we should have seen this coming when donald trump's lawyers started hiring their wnn lawyers. miken cohen has been donald trump's lawyer, his personal lawyer at times, a trump organization executive and lawyer. when trump started flirting with and running for president in the
last election cycle mike. cohen was his top and most of the time his only political adviser. michael cohen is close to trump, he is trump's lawyer and he did hire his own lawyer this spring. and he confirmed that the attorneys investigating the russia affair asked him to give testimony and hand over documents. michael cohen's response was no, i won't. the committee subpoenaed him to testify and hand over documents. he's due to testify next week but apparently today he handed over document to the house intelligence committee and some of those documents and a long statement about them found their way to certain reporters and publications upon the handover of these document to congress. and just to reads between the lines a little bit, it does not appear that what happened here is michael cohen handed stuff over to congress and congress leaked it. i'm speak in terms of reading between the lines.
the way that this is phrased and described in the reporting tonight is that michael cohen handed this stuff over to the house intelligence committee and in so doing gave some of it to reporters and a statement about it to reporters. to put the best possible spin on that information himself before investigators themselves consist start chewing on it and putting it u out in their own terms. and in this case the best possible spin is still pretty bad. the bottom line is that while trump was insisting publicly that he had no deals with russia and while he was questioned repeatedly about why he was being so bent over backwards positive about vladimir putin and russia throughout the campaign, he never thought to mention and apparently nobody in the trump organization or the trump campaign thought to mention that during the presidential campaign for five months of the presidential campaign the trump organization
was aggressively over seeing construction. an intent to proceed with the project october twoif. michael cohen spoke with trump three times directly about the project. michael cohen also wrote directory to the kremlin, to vladimir putin's spokesman to ask for direct kremlin help in restarting discussions about the building project which by then he said was stalled. the other trump organization figure involved in these negotiations is someone we've talked about before named felix seder. a russian bonn ex-con convicted of a $40 million mafia connected scheme. in 2015 trump in a sworn deposition professed to not be able to recognize felix seder if he had been sitting in that room that day. it's a little hard to believe
felix seder had been associated with the trump organization for years. carried a trump business card that described himself as senior adviser to donald trump even after trump said he wouldn't recognize him if he were in the room. by 2013 apparently felix seder was recognizable again because he was working with michael cohen to make the trump-moscow thing happen and trump was signing off on the letter of intent to move forward with it. michael cohen i think has to testify to house intel next week. he handed over document to house intel today. his strategy in so doing is to try to spin what he's handed over in the best possible way. it also appears to try to play down the importance of felix seder and his involvement in this project, especially seder's comments in the e-mails that have been handed over to congress now and to some reports in which felix seder brags that there's something about this real estate deal in moscow that in the end will result in donald
trump becoming president of the united states. quote, our boy can become president of the usa and we can engineer it. i will get all of putin's team to buy in on this. i will manage this process. felix seder wrote to in michael cohen. michael, arranged for ivanka to sit in vladimir putin's chair at the kremlin. i know how to play it. we will get this done. michael cohen's strategy in releasing these documents to the press involves him playing down whether or not felix seder really could have been sirius -- serious about that. over the course of my business dealings with fe lakes seder he has sometimes used colorful language and been prone to salesmanship. when the times today went to check out felix seder's both
that he was so connected he was able to arrange for ivanka trump to sit in putin's private chair at his desk in his office at the kremlin. the response from team ivanka was not exactly on brand. ivanka trump told the times she did in fact take a brief tour of red square and the kremlin when she was in moscow with felix seder but insists she was only there as a tourist. i have to say it does not seem that she had a totally typical tourist experience sbauz quote she said it is possible that she sat in mr. putin's chair. but maybe that's just a coincidence or don't all tourist visitor to the kremlin get to sit in putin's chair. alfa bank, veb bank, sberbank
and vtb bank the russian government agreeing to finance to the tune millions of dollars to a project that no one admitted to that was happening prior to the campaign. probably just a coincidence. a lot going on today. lots happening in the news. carol joins us next. stay with us. these days families want to be connected 24/7.
new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. trump-russia investigation is sort of built on stlee ideas, three questions. one is u.s. intelligence agencies saying the russian government interfered in the presidential election to try to help trump win. two, there are allegations about whether the trump campaign
colluded with or helped the russians conduct that meddling during the election. and three, there are questions about the absolute denials from our new president that he has anything to do with russia. beyond that one beauty pageant he held there. the reason while his dealings with russia and his statements are of investigative interest is because investigators need to figure out in which there's some way in which she's compromised when it comes to russia. what that means is investigators need to figure out if russia holds something over him. do they know something, do they have documentation of something that she's done that he would not like them to reveal to the public. right? that's the essence of being compromised. being in a position where for some secret reason you feel the
need to ingratiate yourself to a foreign power or at least not say no when they come calling. it boils down to this stuff. the trump campaign is alleged to have helped in that effort being investigated. and our now president says he's had nothing to do with russia, nothing. that's why this is a heck of a bombshell. top trump executive organization asked putin aide for help business deal. top exec from trump's real estate company e-mailed putin's personal spokesman during the campaign last year to ask for help. that is submitted today by a trump executive who has been trump's personal lawyer and who served as trump's political adviser for the start of his campaign while he was having trump sign a letter of intent to go forward with trump tower
moscow to be financed by a russia-government run bank. joining us now is carol lenning, reporter for the washington post. thank you for being here. congratulations on the scoop. you broke this story yesterday about the trump organization trying to build a tower in moscow early in the campaign. what you report in this story and what the president said about his dealings with russia seem to me to be very much at odds. do you feel like what you've been able to report really contradict the way the president has characterized his own dealings in russia? >> i don't think it catches him in a horrid absolute lie. what it shows is that he hasn't been forth right about how eager he was, while a presidential candidate, to let his trump organization and his executive vice president pursue a very
potentially lucrative deal in moscow. there are debates about how valuable it would be to him. but i think that there's something bigger behind what we've learned in the story that we broke on sunday night and the news story that we broke this afternoon. i think there's something much bigger in the fabric here and you kind of only learn it as each piece comes. but the bigger thing is while donald trump's sort of third son, michael cohen, a long time friend, ally, not his son by birth but while this person is working, negotiating a deal in moscow to develop and license moscow trump tower, a russi russian-born friend of his is saying, hey, if we make this deal the president can get elected. it's going to make him look like such a great incredible negotiator. and hey, i'm connected in russia and i can get vladimir putin to
start saying nice things about this, you know, kind of distant horse gop hopeful. when we learn in our more recent story that at the same time michael cohen, this long-time ally of donald trump's, is reaching out to extremely high ranking friend of vladimir putin's saying i'd like your help. we're stalled. we would like to get this deal done, nudge nudge wink wink we know how it works in russia. you need to go to putin. and said we'd like your help. so that's a pretty dramatically different thing than what the president has said which is i have zero interest in russia, zero deals, nothing going on there. >> when felix seder connects this deal to trump's chances at becoming president, is it clear why he sees those two things connected? he said, wow, this will make him
look like a great negotiator. i'm not sure i get his argument or the credibility of his argument in terms of why he thought these things were connected. 's very provocative to see somebody saying we're doing this deal and it will result in trump becoming president. we're doing a financial deal and it will result in his winning the election. but i don't get why he was connecting the two ideas. >> it could have been inkred wbl braggadocio commentary or somebody doing something a little different. but remember at this time vladimir putin is pretty angry with the u.s. he views himself on a bit of a revenge mission and he also wants to look like he has some da taunt. it appears that he thinks he can create a nonadversarial relationship with donald trump.
and fe lix seder again, this russian-born broker long connected with donald trump and has introduced him since 2013 to fairly significant russian money men, this guy is saying look, this is good for putin and this is good for you, donald. he's telling this to michael cohen. you will look like you have negotiated with one of america's toughest adversaries. it happens that that would also be beneficial to lod mere putvl. it would look like he had a good relationship with the u.s. >> it is a bizarre reading of how it would have been greeted had that deal gone through. just understanding how the news workings and how people were treating trump. this is such a puzzle but the fabric here is absolutely stunning. and i have a feeling there's a lot -- this feels like the start of a lot of reporting in terms of us getting to understand this part of the campaign.
carol from the washington post, really appreciate your time tonight. congratulations again on this scoop. >> thanks, rachel. the city of hugh stan today has been making hard choices on how to imagine the epic flooding that's innone dated the american city. we've got an expert to ask about this stuff. that story is ahead. plus the little bit of news we're going to break on the russia dossier. that's all ahead. stay with us. highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. jimmy's gotten used to his whole yup, he's gone noseblind. odors. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this...
luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy. but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. casper's truly changed our lives. ♪ a mattress of unparalleled value. love at first night. ♪ (grunts) i'm a softer, happier, friendlier version of myself. (surps drink) perfect sleep changes people.
(kisses baby) transform your life at casper.com try their mattress for 100 nights with free shipping and returns. casper. haven't you ever wanted sowatch your step.ry? a pilot like you should be serving your country. you're c.i.a.? shh... based on a true story... we need you to deliver stuff for us. of the c.i.a.'s biggest secret. is this all legal? you trust me? no. on september 29. c.i.a., d.e.a... pablo escobar. i made a fortune working for them boys. there are bills blowin' around everywhere. i'll rake it up in the mornin.' tom cruise. stop now if you want. shoot the gringo! it gets crazy from here. american made. rated r.
houston, texas is basically flat. it's america's fourth largest city with an elevation of 50 feet. houston is in a flat and watery part of the world with the gulf of mexico on one side and bayous running all through the city. since 1960 houston has suffered more deaths an property loss from flooding than any other locality in the country. and the people of houston has developed ways of trying to keep the water from winning. today with this huge, huge storm they tried one of their more desperate measures. there are two big dams on the west side of houston that hold by reservoirs, designed to keep water upstream from houston proper, to keep the water from rushing into the flooded bayous in downtown houston. this is how the reservoirs looked before the storm. after the storm the water had begun rising high enough and
fast enough that officials feared the dams themselves would be overcome. to save the dams to keep holding back the gigantic quantities of water held in those reservoirs, they opened the billways enough to let some of the water out of the reservoirs. in so doing they flooded the neighborhoods in the path of that water that they had to let out then they don't do it gratuitously. they did it in a way to save the dams, save more people. it's a difficult choice that no mayor, no engineer ever wants to have to make. might have been the best choice they had today in houston, though. how do you imagine a ka tas tro fie like this while not only is it under way it is nod ending anytime soon. what is houston's options right now in responding to the continuing flooding. we're going to be joined next by somebody whose job it is to grapple with these exact questions. stay with us. ♪
(con artists...) they'll try anything to get your medicare card number. so they can steal your identity, commit medicare fraud. what can you do? guard your card? guard your card? just like your credit card. nobody gets my number, unless i know they should have it. to protect your identity, new medicare cards without social security numbers will be mailed next year. visit medicare.gov/fraud stay sharp people! you don't let anything lkeep you sidelined. come on! that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein, and 26 vitamins and minerals... for the strength and energy, to get back to doing what you love. ensure, always be you.
and right now save 50% on the labor day limited edition bed. explore your treatment options with specialists who treat only cancer. every stage... every day.... at cancer treatment centers of america. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts rosita's family was rescued by boat this afternoon. >> it's rising way too fast. >> they live west of houston where in an unprecedented move the army corps of engineers is doing controlled releases from two reservoirs before the storm moves away. it's and efforts to reduce the risk of destructive flooding and lessen the chance of the dams busting. >> everything started happening really fast this morning. >> you weren't flooded before
then? >> not yet, no. the waters were rising but we weren't flooded. i understand they have to do what they have to do to save houston but that accelerated the process. >> they have to do what they have to do to save houston. this is reporting about a family directed affected by the controlled release. even on day four of this disaster in houston, people who are not flooded yet may yet find they're flooded tomorrow or the next day as the effects of the storm continue to crescendo and as officials make hard decisions. joining us is jim black burn, codirector of the speed center. it was established ten years ago to address severe storms and their impact on the gulf coast area. thank you for joining us toni t tonight. >> thank you. >> today the army corps of
engineers decided to ep up the reservoirs. as far as i understand it's basically a way to save the dam to preserve the integrity of the reservoirs, to save a greater amount of people. the short term result is that some neighborhoods face new or worsened flooding. you've studied these things. what do you make of that decision they made today? >> that decision is based on these dams being evaluated as two of the six most dangerous in the united states by the corps. that's both in terms of risk of failure and the population affected downsteam. we've never seen this much rain before and they made i think the prudent decision, although very difficult decision to go ahead and begin to release water while also filling up the reservoir. but i don't think the reservoirs are intended to be used at full capacity which is a tragedy because we need every ounce of flood control that we've got? >> in terms of the flood control options, what kind of tools do they have at their disposal?
what kind of decisions are they going to be making today, tonight, tomorrow as the storm continues to play out? >> i think we've got some of the most difficult decisions -- i would say these are decisions that frankly we will be facing every coastal city in the future. we've never seen a rain like this. on the other hand, there's a lot of options that houston has never really seriously considered before. we've always approached flooding from the standpoint of quote unquote controlling it. primarily with engineer solutions. and there are aare the of nonstructural alternatives. we're going to have to pull out a whole new bag of approaches that require creativity and that require you know really trying to come up with new and different ways of solving these problems. we cannot solve these problems by thinking the way that we've been thinking. we've got to come up with better, new ideas. >> given not only the size of houston but its critical location, things like the
houston ship channel and the oil refineries there and all of the infrastructure there, some of which can be dangerous to human beings and other forms of life when it is put in danger. given what houston is and what's at risk here, what's been in the way of houston coming up with better decision to deal with flooding? it is striking that a city with that much chemical and oil infrom strauk chur is also the most flooded locality in the united states. >> well i think first of all, it's sometimes difficult to get the officials to really envision the magnitude of storms that we actually are foreseeing. we've foreseen, for example, something that didn't happen in this storm, which would be a hurricane with a large surge, perhaps 20 to 25 feet come in and hitting the houston ship channel. i've had several people tell me that's unrealistic. if we had modelled and presented the scenario that is unfolding, we would have been accused of
coming up with unrealistic future scenarios. one thing is trying to get people to really be open minded about what the risks are. because i think we're really at a time of unprecedented risk with the heat, the gulf of mexico is extremely warm, among the warmest if not the warmest of the oceans of the world and it is a virtual heat pump into a hurricane. and that is a huge source of power for these storms. >> professor blackburn, i read that since 1989 what they call a hundred-year storm, a storm that's only supposed to happen in 100 years, since 1989 that's happened six times in houston. are you saying this isn't just a houston issue, this is a climate change issue in terms of how we anticipate the magnitude of storms and flooding? >> it's the type of things that they've been predingt in the sense that our normal distribution of storms is
changing and will be skewing to more severe events. that's what we're seeing. we've seen two 500-year storms in the last ten years in certain parts of town. and i have no idea what this storm is going to evaluate as but certainly way beyond a hundred-year storm. i think the year hundred-year rainfall is virtually meaningless today. and the faederal emergency management are the ones who come up with this. and i think this affecting everybody in the united states. i think houston has a chance to be a trendsetter if are the country in figuring out how to cope and deal with these kind of new unprecedented storm events. but it's going to take every bit of creativity that we have. >> jim black busch codirector of the speed center at rice university in houston. thank you for helping us understand this. this is very sobering coming from you. >> really appreciate your taking
the time, rachel. all right. we've got more ahead tonight. stay with us.
a each year sarah climbs 58,007 steps.
that's the height of mount everest. because each day she chooses to take the stairs. at work, at home... even on the escalator. that can be hard on her lower body, so now she does it with dr. scholl's orthotics. clinically proven to relieve and prevent foot, knee or lower back pain, by reducing the shock and stress that travel up her body with every step she takes. so keep on climbing, sarah. you're killing it. dr. scholl's. born to move.
months before sheriff arpaio's case even went to trial, the president looked into quashing the arpaio prosecution altogether. quote, asked attorney general jeff sessions whether it would be possible for the government to drop the criminal case against arpaio, but the president was advisesd that woud be inappropriate. a short time later, "the new york times" published its version, reporting that the president brought up the possibility of quashing the arpaio prosecution not just with attorney general jeff sessions but also with the white house counsel. okay. here's my question. if the president asked the a.g. and the white house counsel if they could maybe drop the arpaio prosecution somehow, is that potentially a legal problem for the president? where's the line between, hey, i'm just asking for a friend and obstructing justice? we got some expert advice on that today. former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade. you've seen her here on our show numerous times. tonight she tells us that this
could be a separate count of obstruction of justice against the president if the president tried to interfere with the prosecution that's being investigated in terms of the comey firing. conceivably that could be investigated or pursued in this case. she also told us this, quote, if sessions or anybody else explained to trump that it is inappropriate to interfere with a criminal investigation before trump attempted to do so with former fbi director james comey, that could help establish that trump understood that what he was doing in firing james comey was illegal. ah, so in other words, this might get rid of his ignorance defense. if the president was told explicitly that he's really not allowed to interfere in a criminal investigation of joe arpaio, then he was in a position to know explicitly that he shouldn't interfere in the fbi investigation of michael flynn by pressuring james comey about that. so that's what we heard from former federal prosecutor barbara mcquade. we also asked bob bauer today,
he cited the unusual nature of the arpaio pardon coming before sheriff arpaio was even sentences. he told us, quote, should thement ever face paempt on obstruction related grounds, this will color the case against him because it's a pardon that does not meet the standards for granting one in the normal course of events. so, again, asking about the arpaio pardon could be trouble for the president. we also heard from a former top official in the justice department, walter dellinger, who led the office of legal counsel under president clinton. walter dellinger told us, quote, no president should be interfering in a criminal prosecution on behalf of friends or supporters. it fundamentally violates equal justice under law. blunt from walter dellinger. so obviously a pardon is a presidential prerogative, but can a president try to quash a prosecution? is that legal? it turns out it's a good question. so stay tuned on that.
we also have some exclusive new reporting tonight on the dossier of alleged russian dirt on president trump and the ten hours of testimony by a key player in the production of that dossier. we've got that story next. stay with us. my dad's.
grandma's. aunt stacy's. what are the reasons you care for your heart? qunol coq10 with 3x better absorption has the #1 cardiologist recommended form of coq10 to support heart health. qunol, the better coq10. and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna. the uncertainties of hep c. wondering, what if? i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more
than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni. last week, the head of the senate judiciary committee, chuck grassley, got asked by a very persistent, very bright constituent at an iowa town hall. the question that he faced was about the controversial dossier that first detailed collusion between the trump campaign and
russia. the head of the company that commissioned that dossier, the co-founder of fusion gps, glen simpson, he spent ten hours giving a transcribed interview to judiciary committee staffers recently, all about the dossier. ten hours of testimony. afterward, glen simpson said he stands by the dossier. he also said, quote, the committee can release the transcript if it so chooses. the transcript of ten hours of his testimony on the dossier. at that town hall in iowa, senator grassley told his persistent constituent that he was open to releasing that transcript of those ten hours of testimony if his committee voted to do that. here's what we can report tonight. judiciary has 11 republicans and nine democrats. we think all nine democrats would likely vote to release that transcript. we reached out to all of them as well as the republicans on the committee. one of the republicans who isn't the chairman, senator orrin hatch of utah, tells us now that he would vote to release that transcript. quoting from a statement that his office gave us, quote, the
Bveb-bankRussiaTransitionHeadMeetingJared-kushnerTrump-towerGovernmentAlfa-bankVlad-peerIntelligenceConnectionsoffice of president of united states and will preserve, protect and defense the constitution of the u.s. except where nobody gets killed or robbed. his point is basically that a crime is a crime is a crime, correct? >> exactly. i think you see through george's tweet a commonality, again, between he and i. even though we come from very different sides of the aisle, but a common belief, a core belief in the rule of law in america. and that's a belief that rudy giuliani himself shared as a prosecutor. i don't think he was only putting murderers behind bars. there are whole statute books being enforced every day. and it would turn our nation upside down to adopt giuliani's new position. >> thank you very much. i now hand it over to chris cuomo. >> thank you, i am chris cuomo.
welcome to "primetime." we have new information tonight. the special counsel wants more answers from the president of the united states, and he wants them in person. the president's legal team said it was open to more questioning, but they have been clearly afraid to put the president in a chair across from mueller. you know what that means. there is a showdown coming. and, does this new request by mueller have anything to do with this mystery proceeding that happened today? an entire courtroom put on lockdown. the press was cleared out. coat closets were inspected, even an elevator sealed off. a great debate on what could be coming. mueller dropped another eye-popping memo about general flynn today that gives us our best look yet at how the special counsel deals with liars. a load to break down in cuomo's court. it is friday, so let's get after it. this was always the concern with the written responses from the president, state of mind. the special counsel has said, i
need to understand his state of mind during certain actions and episodes for the obstruction probe. if that's what the special counsel wants, it is the kind of questioning that really needs to be in person. you have to look at the person who is giving the answers. you have to assess them. you have to see if it works together. you want to test patterns. very tough to do in writing. this news comes as the special counsel fired back at general flynn today, showing our best example yet of how mueller will deal with lying. even though the special counsel has requested minimal punishment for the general, the special counsel went out of his way to say the man lied and that no one set him up. one of the quotes was his decision to make false statements was voluntarily and intentional. and he went out of his way to say as a former head of an intelligence agency, he should have known better.
again, even though the man is working for mueller, lying will not be tolerated. very foretelling. let's bring in former acting solicitor general, walter dellinger. great to have you. welcome to "primetime." >> thank you. >> the idea of state of mind and what i'm laying out there, this was always my concern when i heard about the written interrogatories originally, that if they want to know why the president did what he did, it's tough to glean, as we say in the law, from just written answers. fair point? >> fair point. and what's more dramatic, i think, about this latest development, chris, is that if you need to probe individual 1, that is, the president's state of mind, that means your focus is on the -- the criminal focus is on that individual, that is the president. you don't need to know his state of mind if you are merely seeking information about the actions of others. >> good point. i want to know what you did. i want to know why you did it,
not just what you knew about other people. that's an important distinction. now, the question becomes, so now what? we know that the president's lawyers don't want to put him in the chair. where does this go? >> well, i think, you know, that the special counsel could very well try to get very quickly to the supreme court on the question of whether the president is allowed to refuse to submit to questioning. and i think the precedents on that do not bode well for the president. i argued and lost in clinton versus jones that a lawsuit against the president -- a civil lawsuit ought to be postponed while he's in office. the supreme court rejected that 9-0, and said that even having to go through a civil trial did not meet the standard of sufficient interference with the president. that and the nixon tape case would indicate that the supreme court would say the president has no choice but to answer questions. and my guess is that whether he would have to do it through a
redacted version or not, special counsel mueller could lay before the supreme court how serious are the issues that he needs to review with the president to understand the president's state of mind. >> now, if there is pushback, the ultimate kind of conflict goes right to what you have been writing about and what you have been practicing in this regard for so many years. if the president's argument winds up being, look, you can't indict me. you can't get me for any of this stuff criminally anyway, so let's stop this game. write your report. say whatever you want, say i wouldn't comply, but you can't indict me so don't treat me like everybody else. i'm not. i'm the president. where does that go? >> i think, and i've said before, it is not as well settled as people think that a president cannot be indicted, at least as long as other proceedings are postponed during his term in office. but more to the point is the
fact that this president's term ends in 25 months and the statute of limitations would not have run on these crimes. if he's not re-elected, no one doubts that he can be indicted and prosecuted when his term is over. that step ought to be taken reluctantly. but if the facts warrant it, that's what the president is facing when his term is over without any doubt. and that means that a president would have every incentive if a president really did engage in provable felonies of a serious order, a president would negotiate in a sense to resign from office in exchange for extreme leniency in the sentencing process. >> this man gives no suggestion that he would ever do anything like that. you know, president trump has shown at every turn in his life he will take the fight. i don't mean that in some false sense of bravado.
i'm saying he will push the situation. it takes us to what he might be facing. michael cohen, is it a big deal or not? i'm not going to get into that. i want to measure the veracity. i want to play sound from both of them, and i want to ask you who you believe, but more importantly why. >> i never directed him to do anything wrong. whatever he did, he did on his own. he's a lawyer. >> he was trying to hide what you were doing, correct? >> correct. >> and he knew it was wrong? >> of course. >> whom do you believe? >> well, i have my own opinions. i think it's really hard to say. i mean, the president has certainly had incentives and he's changed his story several times. but i think more to the point is i think the special counsel -- we have every indication that the campaign finance violations are every bit as serious as neal was saying in the last hour.
that may really be almost a side performance. the big issue here is what may rank as one of the greatest crimes in american history, which is the russian federation's attempt to interfere in the presidential election. and on that, i think the filing today you referenced in the flynn sentencing raises a question of why did general flynn lie when he could have told the truth about his conversation with kislyak? it's as if he was hiding something much deeper, much more expansive than that. so, i think at the end of the day we'll know what we know when we know it. but even these campaign finance matters may be relatively small. we have to ask about the lying, chris. why are people lying? >> yes. if they have nothing to hide, why lie? that's actually two different decisions. again, i am not getting -- i'm not getting sideways with walter. the guy is a better lawyer than
i have ever been on my best day. but just how people understand at home, you have two different avenues of thought. i know you are coming after me. i lied just to protect myself, not because i have anything to hide, but i know you are coming after me. i know you are trying to frame me and make me part of something that i'm not, so i lied to protect myself. the other one goes to your suggestion, which is, there is something else there. what is more likely at this point? >> i think what's likely is that there is something else there. take the lie that general flynn was talking about. he actually, we now know for a fact, spoke to the russian kislyak about the sanctions issue that obama had imposed. now, technically, that might be a violation, but he was facing no jeopardy. >> right. >> but as a former head of a defense intelligence agency and a general, he knew he was under severe risk of a five-year felony to lie before the fbi
recordings, as they did, of his conversations with the russian ambassador. so why would he take that enormous risk? he may know and may have told the special counsel's office about the degree of complicity with russian involvement or some similar issue that made him think at that time, at the very beginning of the administration that he did not dare tell the truth about a relatively inconsequential matter. >> you do have a metaphor effect here. with the federal violations with cohen and the president, the president says, i didn't direct anybody. some lawyer told him that's a meaningful distinction. it's not the best advice. he didn't have to direct the action to be exposed to the responsibility for the action. but it is instructive of when the president says, well, i didn't direct it, so therefore i'm okay. does the same apply to flynn? does the same apply to manafort in his meetings with russians? does the same apply to the trump tower meeting where he says i didn't make any of this happen but i happened to have lied about what i knew.
and we'll see. as we get more meat on the bones, you are one of the men i'll have to call back for more of your take on this situation. >> well, you're quite welcome, chris. thank you. >> i encourage everybody to read your piece, out this weekend. we'll give directions on the site and i will link it up as well. thank you very much. so, general flynn is sentenced to be -- is due to be sentenced on tuesday, all right? we know that -- this is weird today, what happened. that's why i'm trying to spell it out for you. mueller says he's been great. he helped before others did. he helped in every way we wanted. that's why i'm asking for the low end of the range of sentencing. but then he hammered him today. and it was such an interesting window into what mr. dellinger was just suggesting, which is if you lie here, it is a problem. and they hammered flynn for lying and they went out of their way to architect exactly how tied to the lie flynn was. what does that mean for the future of other people that
mueller thinks is lying? cuomo's court is in session, next. we can't do it! i'm telling you, it can't be done! we are doing it! it's the holidays! t-mobile is offering the awesome iphone xr, with unlimited, for just 40 bucks a month. wooooo! unlimited, with the new iphone xr included? no one else is doing that! so they get unlimited, with iphone xr included, for just 40 bucks? the new iphone xr, that's bananas! at t-mobile get unlimited with iphone xr included for just 40 dollars. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, claire could only imagine enjoying chocolate cake. now she can have her cake and eat it too. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?
so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free. and fearlessly devours piles. so lionel, what does 24/5 mean to you?rade well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. yes, but also all... night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light. ♪ you're not gonna say it are you?
i am all about living joyfully. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. the late development tonight is that mueller still wants to speak with the president, even after those written responses. at the same time, the special counsel is going back at general
flynn. even if both sides agree, the former national security adviser shouldn't do much, if any, time. it's interesting. mueller said flynn was committed to his false story. he's saying to the court, don't buy this. that he was set up. don't buy he meant to lie. he meant to lie. he lied a lot. we caught him. that's the real deal. why is this important? because it shows how mueller and his team view lying. all right? nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements. that's another quote from the filing. mueller's own filing shows the fbi tactics didn't sit well at the time. we know sally yates wasn't happy and some people whose names were redacted argued about the decision to interview flynn. and the fbi said he didn't feel he was being deceptive. the special counsel says they may have thought that, but it didn't change the fact that flynn was lying and admitted to it. it's all fodder for cuomo's court.
thank you for being here on a friday. here's where i find it so interesting. this is the first window that we've had where we see how mueller thinks about lying. now, i took the time to go back and read his report on the nfl and how they dealt with ray rice because i wanted to see the same thing and i saw parallels that it is all straight line reasoning. nope, you lied. i can show you lied. i don't care why you think you did it, i don't care how you think you can get around it. i may think you deserve leniency, but if you lie, i'm going to call it out. he did it in the nfl report. he's doing it with flynn. combine that mueller's new request to get more out of the president about his state of mind, which almost has to be done in person, and what does that tell you? >> well, chris, with the flynn filing, i mean, i see more than mueller just saying that i'm not going to tolerate lying. we know that from the fact that he charged him with it. i think it's the absurdity of the claims that flynn was making that he was lured into this
interview and he didn't know he needed a lawyer and, you know, all of this nonsense. you know, this is somebody who was appointed to be the national security adviser. >> right, savvy guy. >> somebody who is supposed to see every threat far and wide, you know, to the united states, and he can't know -- he doesn't know to tell the truth to the fbi. i mean, my 9-year-old had a visit from officer friendly to her class and knows she doesn't lie to the police. this is not rocket science. and i think it is more that he thinks this is an absurd claim to be made. >> but it's interesting about the disposition. jims jim, i want to layer on top of it what the president's response in a tweet. he kind of poked the bear with a tweet to the president. they gave general flynn a great deal because they were embarrassed by the way he was treated. the fbi said he didn't lie and they overrode the fbi.
they want to scare everybody into making up stories that are not true by catching them in the smallest of misstatements. don't you take his device and snap it in front of him and say, didn't you just hear that mueller wants to talk to you, man? don't you understand what's happening here? stop antagonizing the man with all the power! >> i want to say i agree 100% with asha on, why would flynn make that argument? >> because he wanted more leniency. >> right, but he already had leniency. he already had a deal. he is poking the bear. that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. but also, in that memo they typically don't comment on credibility in those types of memos, and they did here. likely because the issue was raised. but i think that's important, and i find it more important on the issue of what are we going to see down the road and what is mueller looking at. down the road, he's going to see the president -- >> state of mind, as you guys both know, jim, i want to talk to you about why you did things and what was going through your
head. we know two things, one, you are not a sidebar. i am not just asking you for information. i'm looking at you. two, i can't get it in writing. you have to sit down with me. do you agree or not? >> the forecast is he's going to see the president and his legal team is going to attack this one. we saw the tweet today. they're going to attack the credibility of strzok and the problems he had associated with this investigation. he's no longer on the legal team. they will try to use that to their advantage once the report hits. this memo today was forecasting that mueller is going to say i supported the fbi. this guy was a liar. we charged him. i mean, all the things you said, chris, that are in line with the rice investigation are there, and i think that's the purpose of this memo, to say we're here, the mueller team is here to support the fbi and the work that was done here and that any attack from the other side on the integrity of the
investigation is just nonsense. that's the argument that the mueller team is preparing to make and forecasting with this memo today. >> but i'm just saying, we need more, and we need state of mind. they're saying they want an interview. they're saying it's got to be sat down. we took your answers. it is not enough. what are the options? you can't put the president in a chair across from mueller and his guys. you can't do it, not if you are his lawyer. >> not if you are his lawyer. not if you are his lawyer. if you are the fbi -- you know, look, i think the former solicitor general that, you know, was just speaking to you said that this could ultimately get litigated in court because i think for obstruction of justice what this gets to, the heart of that crime, is whether the president acted with corrupt intent. and i have said from the beginning that written answers are not going to cut it. you need to hear from the horse's mouth what was happening in your heart, what was going on in your head. you want to hear those off the cuff answers. you want to read somebody's body
language. you want to see what they're -- it is harder for people to get away with things when they are talking with you in person than when they have a team of lawyers crafting a very legalese statement. >> yes. >> so, i'm not surprised at all, and i think he'll challenge it and the courts will decide. >> i'll tell you what, if we play this michael cohen sound, this is what my concern would be for the president, that i see a pattern that he's going to have to confront. let's listen to michael cohen quickly about the reality of how the trump organization worked. >> nothing at the trump organization was ever done unless it was run through mr. trump. he directed me, as i said in my allocution, and i said as well in the plea. he directed me to make the payments. he directed me to become involved in these matters. >> now, what i would be concerned about, if i were jay sekulow and rudy giuliani and the rest of that legal team, what would have me waking up at
night is the idea that you have michael cohen saying everything that happened at the trump org went through mr. trump, including the payments for the women. he knew about them. he's lying about that. alan says that, too. it's also true with the foundation stuff they're looking at with the other investigation. and so says david pecker, his longtime friend. it's true. he said all this stuff. he knew about it. so you sit down and ask the president about it and he says i never directed it. i never knew anything about it. and they say is that what you knew about michael flynn and the ambassador. meanwhile, michael flynn says yeah, he knew. doesn't expose him to criminality in terms of acts. there could be a chain of six or seven of those, jim, that all stem from this, the president not acknowledging what mueller can prove as true. >> regardless of what cohen said today in that interview, if i were representing the president,
there is no way i would agree for the president to sit down and interview. there is no way his lawyers will allow him to do that. maybe they can limit the scope. but now that they have had this agreement of written questions and maybe there are going to be more written questions, there is still no way i would allow the president to sit down. there is no incentive to, because it is a political process at the end of the day, which is what i was getting at earlier. mueller is forecasting that fight, that he's going to support the fbi. the president is clearly forecasting that he's going to attack it and based upon the members of that team, and this is going to be a fight before congress if congress decides to take it up, and that's what's all being teed up here. there is no incentive for the president to sit down in that interview and there is no way he should do it. now, as far as the cohen interview goes, you know, you heard the president's interview where he says, i did nothing wrong and you heard michael cohen said the president knew what he was doing was wrong. so, chris, you talked about it the other night. wrong is not a technical legal term. >> nope.
>> i would have loved to have you ask the questions in that interview, chris, because you would have asked the question, but did you advise him? did you advise the president about the legalities associated with the campaign finance laws? and you saw lanny davis' interview. he was unable to answer that question as well. you know, we got to get more facts and we will see more facts i'm sure from the southern district as well. >> asha, give me a quick comment. >> yeah. you know, there is video footage of president trump from the john edwards case commenting at the time about the case. and very knowledgeably about what edwards was being charged with and what his opinions were about it. so i don't think that he has any legitimate claim that he did not know what the law was when he is actually opining on somebody who was in, you know, the same crosshairs that he is in now. >> this is one of those days where it's a window into the future. and i do believe this isn't going to come down to criminal prosecution. it will come into a political question and a political debate,
and i foresee many people who criticize the president by saying he didn't even have the guts to sit down and tell the truth. he wouldn't sit down because he knows he's a liar. it's going to haunt him, but maybe less than sitting down and exposing himself to a violation of law, which would then dog him on top of it. jim, asha, you're great for being here on a friday night. thank you for making us better. have a great weekend. all right. let's take a step back. i believe in this big picture analysis, because that's what it's about. i can't say that this is going to wind up in a single trial or prosecution, but look at all the different probes. the trump campaign, they're looking at where they're using shell organizations and proxies. the transition team is being looked at in terms of what they were doing and why. the trump administration is being looked at on several different levels. you have cabinet members that get in sideways on how to conduct themselves and also how people are doing business in the white house, the family business is being looked at certainly on the state level.
then you have the emoluments issue, about whether or not the trump organization is benefitting from his presidency. you have the personal charity about whether or not they were commingling funds. and now the inauguration committee. these explosive new allegations with ivanka trump right in the middle. what are those? what do they mean? i have a reporter who has been breaking the news, next. ...i just got my ancestrydna results: 74% italian. ...and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com [[clap, clap]] ♪ hey, jen, which tie says, "trustworthy but also fun"? gold down, oil up. oil down, gold up. this is too busy. we need to make sure people can actually use this stuff. which one says, "hours of free live streaming coverage without
cable or subscription fees"? aluminum, aluminum? you ready, zack? oh, we're ready. welcome to the show. let's make finance make sense. ♪ for everything that i give, i get so much in return. join our family of home instead caregivers and help make a world of difference. home instead senior care. apply today. home instead senior care. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®
as i just showed you before the break, there are a lot of investigations surrounding the president. six trump-related entities are now under current investigation. but the latest one focuses on the president's inaugural committee. federal prosecutors are looking at how more than $100 million was raised for the inauguration and more importantly how it was spent. we're learning how a lot of that money went right into the pockets of trump family business. here's what we know starting from the top. investigative reporters revealed ivanka trump played a role in how hotels were booked for the inauguration and possibly inflated the price charged to the inaugural committee. all right? e-mails, what do they show? ivanka, a senior executive in the trump organization, was involved in setting the price for a presidential ballroom and
other spaces at $175,000 per day. i wanted to follow up on our conversation. express my concern, stake -- take into consideration when this is audited it will become public knowledge. what does that mean? does that mean they wanted to make sure they did it the right way or they were trying to get around doing it the right way? that's why i want to investigate. she suggested a price of $85,000. that's less than half of the trump hotel's initial offer. why? now, we don't know what price the committee ultimately paid, but if the trump hotel was overcharging for profit, that's not just problematic in itself, but it could be violation of a tax law. all right. now, propublica also reports that rick gates, the former trump campaign aide now cooperating with mueller in connection to the manafort situation asked vendors to take payments directly from donors
rather than through the committee. he wanted to reduce the publically reported sum ultimately raised, and that raised red flags. why would he do that? to erase where committee spending was going? that's also problematic. what we know for sure, the trump inaugural committee received roughly $107 million from donors, but we don't know who most of them they are. $103 million was spent. only $61 million has been publicly accounted for. that leaves us wondering where the other $42 million go. all right. president trump netted far more money than his predecessors, more than double the amount obama raised in 2009, which was a record at the time. and yet trump had far fewer events. he had just three inaugural balls versus the ten held by obama and a third of the staff and a quarter of at the events held by bush in his second inauguration.
how do all these pieces connect? what do they wind up indicating about how they did the business of politics? does it lead to the president directly? remember michael cohen. nothing happens at the trump org unless mr. trump knows about it. i will talk to one of the investigators who uncovered all of this, next. you ok there, kurt? we're about to move. karate helps... relieve some of the house-buying... stress.
at least you don't have to worry about homeowners insurance. call geico. geico... helps with... homeowners insurance? been doing it for years. i'm calling geico right now. good idea! get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be.
♪ ♪ i'm gonna let it shine.e, ♪ it's energy saving time, ♪ i'm gonna reduce mine. ♪ californians all align ♪ to let our great state shine. ♪ let it shine, ♪ the power's ours to let it shine! ♪ unplug chargers - go, ♪ devices go off-line. turn thermostats down low, ♪ led's shine mighty fine. ♪ small actions quickly grow, ♪ to let our great state shine. energy upgrade california, will let us shine. ♪ $107 million, we know that's how much trump's inaugural committee raised, and we know where a lot of the money was spent, but not all of it. and to whom it was given, we don't know that, either.
propublica reports that a good chunk of it went to the chunk org. is that bad? not necessarily, but it raises questions. why do i care? everybody spends a lot of money. they get it from a lot of different places. they throw their parties. what makes this different? >> sure, absolutely. every presidential inauguration is potentially an occasion where rich people can try to buy influence with the new incoming administration. and what previous inaugural planners have told me is they placed limits on who can give or how much they can give, maybe restricting corporate gifts or the size of gifts. this inauguration did it differently. they said we're not going to have those restrictions. we're going to raise as much money as we can and throw the best party that we can. instead, they raised certainly the most money of any inauguration. the party was actually somewhat smaller than some of the other parties. we can discuss the reasons why.
but ultimately what we learned and this was actually kind of hanging out in plain sight, but until we had these e-mails we didn't know it definitively. this nonprofit, tax excempt committee founded to support and celebrate the power of the new president was in fact lining the pockets of the president. that's a stunning fact pattern. >> so, two ways to look at it. one is, they should have picked all hotels and venues that weren't his just to dismiss any semblance of impropriety. which is an ethical standard. the other is, he's in the hotel business. of course they would use their venues. that's not illegal. is it the right thing to do? >> it illustrates what's problematic about this whole pattern. not only do we have a president
who owns a hotel. trump doesn't own the building. it is the u.s. government that owns the building. this is just an object lesson in the unresolved conflicts of interest. >> which is why you have the emoluments suits. do you see this as an extension of this? >> nonprofit tax experts tell us there is a potential violation of tax law here. if the hotel was paid above market rate and it might be debatable what is market rate during a presidential inauguration -- >> we made calls here. i didn't use the reporting because several hotels didn't get back to my team, and it was a pretty broad range. it is hard to know. so, how do you gauge what's right and what's market? >> so if a related party charged above market rate per irs determination -- i don't know how they determine that -- that could be a violation of tax law. and that's just another dimension to this that we had not thought of when we started reporting this story. >> concern with ivanka trump or no?
>> well, we didn't know that ivanka trump was in the middle of this until this e-mail surfaced. i think what's quite interesting about these e-mails is the planner who is also on these e-mails, earlier this year, she became -- she got a lot of scrutiny for the role she played in the inauguration. she was the largest contractor. what we see here is the opposite story. we see her saying, you are charging too much. this rate should be half of that or maybe less and please keep in mind we are throwing a party to celebrate your father's becoming the president of the united states. it's going to come out at some point. >> what's the next step? >> i want to know about the other investigations. we already have one example of foreign money coming to the inauguration through a straw donor. the ukrainian member of
parliament. he pleaded guilty earlier this year to facilitating that gift. that was just $50,000. per the "times" reporting, it seems like prosecutors believe there could be more. i want to know about it. >> you say ukraine, that brings you to manafort and why was he still meeting with the administration. there is a lot of questions. so, let's do this. i'm not one and done on this. >> all right, great. >> so, let me know. we'll stay in contact in terms of what calls we can make, what calls you are making. let's see what truth we can get out. ilya, thank you very much. they are on this. we will be as well. so, the president is battling a ton of investigations. frankly, we have never seen anything like it. and all while this is going, he has to figure out how to do the business of government. still searching for a chief of staff, kind of, kind of. somebody got the job today, but is called acting. but the reporting it, it is his to lose. why didn't you give it to him? what's going on? what's going on? we will take you a step deeper into this, next.
touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz. ♪
the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. and a complimentary first month's payment. new listerine® ready! tabs™ aren't gum, mints, or marbles. seriously, what is this? if you guessed they're tabs that turn into liquid as you chew, so you can swish and clean your whole mouth instantly, then you were correct. and that was a really good guess. nice job. our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how.
all right. mick mulvaney has accepted washington's most unwanted job, white house chief of staff. but only on a temporary basis. odd. president trump tweeted after this, making the announcement, for the record, there were many people who wanted to be the white house chief of staff. mick m. will do a great job. so why is he only acting? and isn't it sad that every time the president of the united states says something, you have to think, is this true? isn't that sad? but that's why we are where we are. it's because we have to because he's proven because he's telling things that aren't true so often. let's debate. mick mulvaney, i know him. i've interviewed him, i've worked around him in terms of getting a sense of who he is.
smart, competent. why acting and not just go in and give it to him. he's wanted this job for some time. >> you let that one adjective, he's very tough. he knows the budget. he knows the budget like the back of his hand. >> tough, smart, fair. >> absolutely. and i think that mick is an outstanding choice. he's young and energetic. the president is sending a signal he's bringing in a wartime consigliere. >> why only acting? >> i think that's how the president rolls. >> he just said he would don't acting. he was loath to acting just a week ago. >> the president has the prerogative of changing his mind when he wants to. i think he wants to make sure that the chemistry is good and that things work out. i think it's mick's job if he wants it. i think he will get it permanently. and i think the signal is, he's picking a war-time guy because the president knows that most of
these investigations as you talked about in the previous segment, not necessarily all of them, but most of these numerous investigations, be it private, be it the new york state government, be it the federal government, most of them are partisan in nature. they are focussed on doing one thing and one thing only, which is undermining the political strength of this president. >> that is speculation and your opinion, but you are welcome to it on the show. it is yours to counter. >> listen, i know mick mulvaney very well. in fact, we both got elected together in 2006. and his rise, as you said, he's very educated and talented. he went to georgetown. university of north carolina. he was in the house for two years, then the state senate for two years. then did something no one thought he could do, go to the united states congress in 2010. he's very capable. one of the other adjectives i would use probably to describe
mick is draconian, especially when it comes to medicaid. >> fair point. his politics are under scrutiny. i was describing him more from a personal side. >> i agree with it. my democratic friends will get mad at me. but he's a great husband, a great father. he's a decent human being, and i think we need more of that in this white house and around the president. however, decency, common sense, good nature, draconian policies, we could talk about his politics all we want, i don't think it matters. you can say that he is bringing in this wartime whatever you want to call him. it don't matter. all three of us up here know that donald trump is donald trump's chief of staff. so, no one is going to manage the unmanageable. this is a job that nobody wanted. but if the choices are dennis rodman and roy moore, let's have mick mulvaney. nobody wanted this job. this is the most important staff job in the entire world and you couldn't find anybody to want it.
so, mick mulvaney will do it for donald trump, but he ain't going to change nothing. >> if i were really going into the shazaam, i think i might want dennis rodman with me. that guy is all-in and he will go for broke. now, look, that's what the president is going to need. there is no secret as to why guys didn't want this. you can get exposed and embarrassed in this job because we just saw with general john kelly. they thought he would give structure. this man is going to say what he wants. he will tweet what he wants when he wants. not just because he is the president, because he's petulent. and you will be expected to own his mistakes. that's a tough task. >> look, i think general kelly did a fantastic job. i do believe that he brought a sense of order in making the trains run on time, if you will. there is no doubt that president trump is a hands-on president. i agree with my colleague here
that i'm debating, that he is a hands-on guy that is his own chief of staff. i think that is why it is given temporarily because he wants to make sure the chemistry works well. the difference between him and kelly, though, where kelly was somewhat ambiguous politically, i think he might have been a registered democrat at one time, mick mulvaney is a conservative republican. you could say he comes from the freedom caucus wing. my friend says that he's draconian. some of us say he is a fiscal hawk. and it is the type of battle -- look, what we saw recently -- >> he is going to get sideways with the president. the president knows he's put his head out there saying he was going to stay away from entitlements. mulvaney has never liked that idea. he did all he could to make it a reality to take. he worked in congress to take and now he's got problems. he's going to have problems. >> at the end of the day, the president is going to be the one that makes the choice, but it
will be good to have mick on his shoulder. to make sure he doesn't let entitlements get out of control. >> let's back up a little bit. let's back this train up. mick mulvaney was not the president's first choice. that was nick ayres. he wasn't the president's first or second choice. but what mick mulvaney does have over those other individuals is he will be relatively unassuming in this white house. can you imagine a donald trump presidency with a chris christie chief of staff? you know, when you had these two alpha males, these bulls in china shops, for lack of a better term, that would have been absolutely amazing television. i'm not afraid of mulvaney being able to push through his policies. i think mick is the one that wanted the acting title because right, now to be completely honest, it seems as if every job in washington, d.c., belongs to either mick mulvaney or jared kushner.
they have these vast, wide-ranging portfolios. you will not read about him in the newspapers. he's very, very smart and very, very dangerous. so, i think that nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have an admirable foe on the other side because he understands the politics and fiscal concerns and constraints. i feel bad for mick mulvaney because i feel like he's going to be back in south carolina extremely quickly because i don't think anybody can succeed as donald trump's chief of staff. you either go to jail, or you get burned out. >> it hasn't gone well for people in this white house. the idea of saying, well, he's got his own management style, that's a very, very pleasant spin of chaos. we've never seen attrition like this. we've never seen the poor choices that we've seen in staffing, that we've seen for this. and we've never seen the lack of discipline that's happening here. >> and we've never seen the
partisan unprecedented investigations that lead nowhere thus far -- i mean, look, we'll wait to see what's -- >> but that's not true. that's not true. >> mr. adam schiff -- >> that's not true. that's not true, though. >> -- which is russian collusion on the part of president trump, okay? >> but you have to -- >> not on the part of some staffer years ago, but on the part of president trump, nothing is there. where's the boca burger. >> i hear your point. >> if you scream, it doesn't make it correct. but the point is you had -- >> i just didn't want to be interrupted, bakari. >> you were wrong. >> all right. all right. button it up. >> you had the national security adviser, who has been indicted and pled guilty. you have his personal lawyer. you have the chairman of the campaign, the deputy chairman of the campaign. so to say these investigations are not worth anything is flat-out false. i will tell you this. mick mulvaney is ethically sound. i disagree with all his politics, but he's ethically
sound. that's something you can not necessarily say in this white house. what chris was saying on his show is important. this is the same white house that hired omarosa. so, yes, mick mulvaney is definitely a step up. >> bakari, niger, well argued and appreciated. have a good weekend. i'll have you back. you know that. >> you too. i want to turn to a tragedy at the border. you know, tragedy is not even the right word. finding out about the death of this little girl is just as sickening as sickening gets because it's a reflection of a situation that those in power, they're all ignoring it. they're fighting battles to make you pretend they care, and this little girl's death is proof they don't. i have new information about what happened and didn't happen, and more importantly, the truth about what it means, next. - [narrator] the typical vacuum head has its limitations,
so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free. and fearlessly devours piles. hey uh, quick question. do you like paying for things you don't need? no. and do you want to get things you love for free? who wouldn't? exactly! right. dad, apple music. he gets it. this guy gets it. (vo) get six months free apple music, on the network you deserve.
you don't need to go anywhere dad, this is your home. the best home to be in is your own. home instead offers personalized in-home services for your loved ones. home instead senior care. to us, it's personal.
a 7-year-old girl named jakelin came with her father from guatemala, crossed illegally over the southern border, and she's now dead. i can tell you the following from sources close to the situation. jakelin and her father were not abused, at least not by the men and women working for the u.s. the people who organize these new massive caravans, often on false pretenses, they need to be called out and investigated. they're making false promises of an ease of entry that leads people with misconceptions into bad situations. here's what i learned. this little girl and her father were part of 163 who crossed at night, about 9:15 p.m. local time, in one of the most remote parts of the border hours from anywhere. when they were contacted, the father did not say his daughter was in distress, and by the accounts of my sources, she was not at that time. they were given food and water. i know there are reports out there that they were not. i'm told that's not true.
now, cbp, customs and border protection, has one 50-passenger bus for that entire area. they filled it with unaccompanied minors. jakelin and her father were on the second trip of that bus. one bus. why? because the system is over capacity. and these new larger caravans are exposing and exploiting that. on the road to processing, the father noticed she was having trouble breathing. they called for emt support. the girl was rushed to the hospital. it took time because they were still far. cbp let the father go with the daughter to the hospital. that's not what the law would suggest, right? he was under arrest. but it was the right thing to do. it is illegal to cross. we know that. but humanity is part of the job on the border. we know that, and he needed to be there, and he was. she didn't make it. she was revived more than once, and her father was with her. this is terrible. it's just terrible. it hurts. it hurts because we're allowing it to happen. don't demonize people working on the border with false
allegations. don't demonize those desperate enough to do something like this father did for his daughter from guatemala. walls matter. but this stare-down between the presidents and the democrats is a deadly distraction. it's not a single-issue problem. we're not a wall away from safety. this system is killing people. the rules allow a flow that the agencies cannot handle. there is desperation on both sides of this. change is a must. we will see more of this. i hate to say that. i am not an alarmist. god forbid i'm right, but there's no other reasonable conclusion. if you can't accommodate the flow and people are desperate enough to come any way they can, you're going to have more extreme situations. we can do better. you don't have to let in more people to treat those who apply with humanity and to have a system that has rules that correspond to the resources needed.
judges, case workers, accommodations. if you build the wall but you don't build out the other areas, you're not going to be fixing, not really. this little girl is gone, and there is no fixing that. and you can blame it away if you want, but that's not addressing the true need. we can do things to make sure it doesn't happen this way again, and the answer isn't demonizing desperation, demonizing the cbp. they're not stormtroopers. we know the facts of the situation. and it is outrageous, but there's no reason to manufacture wrongdoing. the reality is troubling enough, and nothing's being done. shut down for a wall? that's posing. the problems are known. the crisis of large groups is only growing. our leaders won't address it. that oval office show was just that. it all rings hollow. if they don't address the need,
OfficeMurderersBarsStatute-booksNationChris-cuomoGiulianiPositionPresidentSpecial-counsel-muellerTeamSpecial-counsel at the justice department and how democrats hope to get answers from an attorney general executing the presidents wishes. >> democratic frontrunner bernie sanders on his win in new hampshire. >> this victory here is the beginning of the end for donald trump. >> senator elizabeth warren on her call to end trump corruption. >> yes roger stone, i am looking at you. >> and can anyone predict who is the most electable candidate. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i am chris hayes. president donald trump clearly has learned his lesson from the impeachment acquittal granted him one week ago from today by everyone republican senator less one that he can abuse his power of office and get away with it and he doubled his efforts to do just that. special counselle robert mueller testified on capitol hill last year seeming to signify the end of the russian investigation. the next day is when donald trump made his fateful call to the ukrainian president to manufacture dirt on his political opponent and now within the week of trump's acquittal for that abuse of power here is what happened. president trump fired a premilitary civil servant who testified about the president's ukraine scheme and fired his identical twin brother who did not testify with no explanation. first the white house tried to pretend it wasn't a vendetta and then don jr. tweeted thanks for unearthing who all needed to be fire and then fired the ambassador to the european union. a guy who paid a million dollar bribe to the president to get the job. he is the person closest to the president who gave oath about the president's ukraine scheme and now the president is bill bf the president's power. something that has been a red line from the watergate nixon area. the abuse of the department of justice was at the core of watergate and has become clear that president trump and his team are corrupting the justice department in much the same way they approached the ukraine scheme. both started with a sketchy disassembling until trump came out and gave the game away. last week prosecutors without explanation walked back a previous recommendation that former trump national security advisor michael flynn serve prison time. and the prosecutor said they wouldn't oppose probation after first saying they wanted him to go to prison. that came the same day the united states attorney who investigated andrew mccabe was removed and replaced by a former prosecutor hand-picked by bill barr and this week they recommended roger stone serve time in prison. both to the benefit of president trump in obscurining the conspiracy that appeared happen in the 2016 campaign. reasonable people can see why that is excessive or not. i happen to think that it is excessive. when the president tweets about it in the middle of the night and hours later the justice department intervenes, that is not good. that led to all four prosecutors withdrawing from the case and one of them, a career prosecutor resigned from the department all together. last night nbc news reported attorney general barr personally has taken over the sensitive cases directly related to the president in violation of long-standing practice and precedent meant to keep the department of justice from being wielded as a sword and shield by the president for his friends and against his enemies, something trump wanted since the day he got into office. then the president came out and announced it. congratulationing attorney general barr for taking charge of the stone case. nice work barr. satisfied customer. the whole episode reminded me of what bill barr said in his confirmation hearing over a year ago. >> president trump has sought no assurances, promises or commitments from me of any kind either express or implied, and i have not given him any other than that i would run the department with professionalism and integrity. as attorney general my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the constitution and the american people. this is how it should be. this is how it must be. and if you confirm me this is how it will be. >> oh, if we confirm you that is how it will be? really? it is clear that, as much as so much else coming from the attorney general is a lie. joining me now vald demmings wh presented the case against the president. on a scale of 1 to 10, the attorney general personally intervening in cases of people personally connected to the president. how bad is that? >> chris, it is really as bad as you can get. look, revisiting william barr's words during his confirmation hearing, what he should do as the top cop or the peoples' lawyer to hear those words and look at what he is actually do, is very disappointing and very scary. the attorney general has taken the department of justice and he is using it as a tool to basically free the presidents' friends who are engaged in wrongdoing and to basically investigate and basically even prosecutor the presidents' political rivals. when we think about the sacred position he is in, how important the department of justice is to the rule of law and to see this attorney general who quite frankly has acted more like the president's attorney more than the peoples' attorney. the thought of where it goes from here is frightening. >> do we still have the united states congress. you are in the house of representatives, the committee that has oversight of bill barr. he hasn't testified, ever, since confirmation before your committee. >> correct. he was supposed to testify. if you remember, i am sure the empty chair there bearing his name. he is willing to come in now. and look, we are glad that the attorney general is coming in. we need answers. we look at the president's state of affairs. i think when we think of abuse of power, the gop-led senate allowed this president who clearly abused the authority of his office, obstructed congress, i think this president has been emboldened and now he feels free to come in and say whatever he wants because he believes with this president he can do whatever he wants. to senator collins, i hope that she knows as we all do that the president has absolutely learned absolutely nothing from this ordeal. >> the attorney general is now scheduled to festiftestify in a committee march 31st. is that way too far away? the crisis is happening now. he defied your committee. now he has agreed to come in two months? >> let me say this, chris, in terms of scheduling that deal was worked out with our leadership of the committee. that is the date we have settled upon. let me just say this. we will be ready when the attorney general comes in. we have a host of questions for him and what he has engaged in, doing or not doing. when he comes in march, the end of march, we will be ready. we will continue to do our job and try to get as much information as we possibly can. >> just as a factual matter, jonathan kravitz who resigned over this from the department of justice, a career lawyer there. presumably he could be called to testify before the house judiciary committee to tell us what happened? >> he absolutely could, and that is another part i hope every american is paying attention to. we have career prosecutors. people that have not spent their lives in the spotlight or the limelight. they have been there reviewing the case. making appropriate charges. seeing the cases through. for these career people to step away from a case because of the unjustice interference or to actually resign, what a loss that is to america. i think it really sounds the alarm sending a strong message to the american people about what is happening in the department of justice. >> all right congresswoman, thank you so much. now joining me walter dellinger. and a former u.s. attorney general. i read from some of your tweets and a piece that you wrote last night where you were talking about just how grave this threat is. you said it was the biggest challenge to the department of justice since john mitchell in watergate. why is it so great? >> there are really several levels of outrage. first the bulldozing and the kicking the teeth that the career prosecutors got which you would never get in any case. that is for starters. adding to that now that it is in favor of a presidential lackey who does not deserve it. add to that stone has been exactly the guy who tried to vilify and make a joke of the whole proceedings, put himself firmly on the side of exactly what the department of justice opposes, the complete disrespect for the rule of law. that is who the political forces, a day after forced the department of justice to take a stand in favor of. there is a crescendo on all sides, whatever party whenever they served career prosecutors and former u.s. attorneys saying we have not seen the likes of this. we are really gone a whole different level. one thing for trump to do this but for the department to cast its lot firmly in this way is abysmal. >> from a lot of people close to the justice department talking to people who basically left, saying the same thing that harry said. i am bias because i think people should always talk to reporters. seems to me that it is important people talk. it is important to know what is happening in the building. i wonder if you agree that people need to actually start speaking out about what is happening behind the scenes there. >> i think that is right. i think whatever protocol or professional decorum normally applies does not in this crisis situation. i agree with everything that harry said. some day, someone is go to write a book about this period called seven days in february. i think we obliterated the idea of equal justice under law where the president is threatening those he opposes who have done nothing wrong but testify truthfully and seeks to exonerate those that have done serious criminality. i do not agree with you that the sentence is out of line. you could argue with the margins. but what you have is not a good faith disagreement among prosecutors. you often get that. harry will recall that. that is not a good faith disagreement. this is a 26-page thoughtful memorandum going through the five categories of lies, the multiyear campaign to get false testimony and impede the information. this three-page piece of nonsense that was filed in its place is not a good faith disagreement. you look at the two documents, you know, yes. sometimes prosecutors get overruled by higher officials. this is not a good faith disagreement. >> i completely agree with you on that score. >> can i add on quickly. the time for that would have been before they filed it. those discussions can occur when everyone is in the room. remember, this was literally by the book. you could argue about it. they might have before. once they came down for the head of the department, the political head of the department to take it away from them and bulldoze them in this way and to get those resignations, walter is right. there will be books about this. this is the biggest crisis since at least the saturday night massacre. >> to follow up on that. >> there is one example of how they have got nothing in this three-page memorandum to call in to question, the previous sentencing memo that was submitted. they say one of the enhancements is for threatening physical injury. and sure enough part of this relentless campaign to refuse to testify. at one point when he appears to testify he gets an e-mail from roger stone saying prepare to die blank-blank sucker. the department does not quote that. tries to excuse the notion that there was a threat of physical injury. >> the other thing that is so astonishi astonishing, this is not just that the person in question being prosecutored by the department is connected to the president. say it was his cousin. say it was a friend's nephew caught up in a drug deal. it would be entirely corrupt for the president to reach down to respect out a friend or associate. the thing he is going to be sentenced for is the behavior he undertook on the president's behalf in furtherance of his campaign. >> that is exactly right. this is not billy carter or whatever. this is part in parcel of the whole fight the president has been carrying on that is exactly in derogation of the rule of law. so for him to be on that side we know that from him now. he is unhinged. for the department to weigh in, not just the specific dispute but the general contempt for the rule of law, oyvey. >> ahead the president is turning the department of justice into his personal revenge operation. l revenge operation. >> remember back in october 2016 the donald trump access hollywood tape surfaced. the exact same day wikileaks dropped the first batch of e-mails stolen from the clinton campaign. those e-mails distracted from the catastrophic tape of trump bragging about sexual assault. an aide to steve bannon sent an e-mail to roger stone saying well done. well done. what do you think he meant by that. roger stone was telling the campaign he was coordinating through back channels with wikileaks but he lied about that to investigators. he was tried for lying and witness tampering and convicted. prosecutors recommended he be sent to prison for up to nine years. yesterday trump tweeted the sentence was horrible and very unfair. later the justice department said they would change the sentencing recommendations. now the trump department is recommending far less than the original recommendation. now it is in the hands of a u.s. district judge who the president is now attacking on twitter and denied roger stone's new request for a new trial. carroll lee reported william barr has taken control of legal matters of interest related to the president. were you surprised to the president completely confirm it after reporting it? >> it is one or the other, right. he will confirm it or call it fake news. it is a toss up every time. >> what do we know about how involved barr and his associates and deputies are in the stone case and when that came about? >> what we know is that there was a lot of back and forth behind the scenes where the prosecutors in the stone case wanted to have a tougher sentence than senior officials at the justice department did. senior justice department officials say they were blindsided by this and that there was a breakdown of communication between the u.s. attorneys' office in d.c. and department of justice. the prosecutors filed what they said they wanted with the sentencing guidelines that they backed and almost immediately the justice department said, you know, furious. attorney general barr was furious saying we are going to reverse this. they moved in to take over. it all happened in the last few days. >> what do we know about the earlier iteration of this. one thing that is so key is that it happened weeks ago with the flynn sentencing memo and everybody scratched their heads. the justice department wasn't on the level about it. it all happened. we were seeing it from outside the box. >> right. nobody resigned. there was not a public spectacle about it. this is the story that we did last night. officials outlined to us what they see as a pattern of barr moving in to exert more control over these cases that president trump is very interested in. it happened in the flynn case, things were contentious between flynn and the prosecutors. he accused them of setting him up. on january 7th, the prosecutors came back with a new sentencing recommendation which is tougher than the original one when they were all getting along with flynn saying maybe he should serve jail time, up to six months. well, two weeks later two weeks ago, the government came back and said actually never mind. we think he should just serve probation. i am told what happened in the two weeks between the first memo and the second is that there was a lot of pressure from senior officials at the justice department to basically pull back on the flynn sentencing recommendation. that is what happened. similar. just played out in less of a public way and over a longer time frame than we saw with the stone case. >> i can't help but to note that yesterday attorney general barr gave a speech for undercharging crimes on the same day we found out about this. carol lee, thank you very much. coming up two interviews with bernie sanders on his win in new hampshire and senator elizabeth warren on what is next for her campaign. warren on what is next for her campaign these folks don't have time to go to the post office they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. get a 4-week trial plus hi with the world'se a difirst invisible trailer. invisible trailer? and it's not the trailer right next to us? this guy? you don't believe me? hop in. good lookin' pickup, i will say that. oh wow. silverado offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different views - including one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible. wow. - that's pretty sweet. - that's cool. oooohh! that's awesome. where'd the trailer go? i love it. it's magic. >> that was the refrain of a lot of republican senators. why would you want to impeach the president during an election year when voters can decide in november. democrats were impeaching the president because he was soliciting foreign interference in this election, and there is every reason to believe he is actively welcoming it now. he said so on camera and also that republicans are fine with that. there is clear evidence they are fine with it. look what happened on the senate floor. democrats tried to advance three security bills that would require campaigns to notify the fbi and sec about any offers of foreign assistance and sure enough the republican majority blocked all three of them. the fourth time senate republicans rejected democrats attempts to pass new security measures. this election will be the most intensely fought with the highest turn out in history. two contests down and 5 5 to go on the road to who will take on donald trump. the winner of the new hampshire primary will join me next. of t primary will join me next. can my side be firm? and my side super soft? yes. with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. can it help me fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time. what i can tell you with absolute certainty, and i know i speak for every one of the democratic candidates is that no matter who wins, and we certainly hope that it is going to be us, we are going to unite together. we are going to unite together and defeat the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country. bernie sanders won the new hampshire primary last night by a fairly narrow margin amid a record-setting turnout. he picked up nine delegates but is still behind in the delegate count behind pete buttigieg. congratulations on your win last night. i want to ask about some of the exit polling we have. it is clear in new hampshire that you are lapping the field among young voters in preference and turnout. this is a huge area of strength and focus. i wonder about the flip side. you have shown relative weakness among voters 65 and over. given that is a reliable voting block, does that concern you? do you have a theory for why that is? >> it does concern me. i think we are going to do better and i think that we are going to do better. i think the new hampshire results are better than we were before. here is the main thing. it is one thing to talk about how senior, older democrats are voting in the democratic primary but poll after poll shows that when i am up against trump, the senior democrats will come with me. i think that as i mentioned last night at the end of the day while there were divisions within the democratic primary process, a lot of competition going on, at the end of the day 98 or 99% of all democrats are go to come together to defeat donald trump. what i am saying is that the way that you beat trump is to expand the voter universe. that means to bring in works class people who have given up on the political process. maybe in some cases see through trump's fraudulent behavior. bring in young people in a way we have never done before. that is the kind of coalition that we are putting together. >> in the terms of the first two contests, what grade do you give your campaign in terms of doing that? obviously you put effort into it and i think the data is mixed frankly about how big that turn out boost has been. >> well, say it in two ways. you know, the elections just occurred. we don't have all of the results. this is what exit polls told us about iowa. the turnout there was not particularly high, similar to what it was in 2016. but according to exit polls for younger people 29 years or younger there was a 33% increase and it was the highest turn out the youngest people in the history of iowa caucuses, higher than obama in 2008. yesterday there was a record breaking turn out i believe in new hampshire. i heard the turn out among younger people according to some exit polls was not that high but i heard among college campuses, i am told it was very high. i can't give you a definitive answer. >> you are headed to nevada next. you have been working on that state. there has been an interesting debate. the culinary union, the most powerful union there in nevada putting out a flyer that seemed to sort of attack your medicare for all position and talk about union members fought hard for their health care and it shouldn't be taken away from them and pete buttigieg piggybacking on the attack saying this is why labor unions are skeptical or opposed to your what is your response to that? >> i have a lot more union support than pete buttigieg has or i think ever will have. many, many unions throughout the country including some here in the culinary union as part of unite here understand we have to move to medicare for all. if you talk to union negotiators, they will tell you that they spend half of their time arguing against cutbacks for the health care they have and are losing wage increases because the cost of health care is soaring. when everybody has comprehensive health care and join the rest of the industrialized world by guaranteeing health care to all people unions can negotiate for higher wages, better working conditions and pensions. i think the future for unions is through medicare for all. >> i had a campaign manager for barack obama on the program and he said whoever has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, the party as a political and moral matter has to give the nomination to the person with the plurality of delegates. i am curious if you agree now as a principle would you agree with that. whoever goes in with a plurality of delegates that should be the nominee? >> i think in general what he said is right, but i think you need to look at the nature of the campaign and a whole lot of factors in the campaign that we do not know yet. but in general i think it is a fair statement to say that it would be very deviivisive. they would have to explain that candidate x got the most votes and won the most delegates but we are not going to give him or her the nomination. i think that would be a divisive moment. >> on capitol hill today, i noticed the budget chairman of the senate said he would not have a hearing in the senate on the president's budget. his own senate committee chair not having a hearing because it would turn into an anti-trump fest. what do you make of that? >> isn't it terrible that opponents of donald trump can criticize him? what kind of world do we live in in? republicans understand we all have to bow down to our supreme leader who is the president of the united states and not criticize him. trump is a fraud. his budget is a fraud. he promised the american people among many other things he would not cut medicaid or social security. of course in the budget there are massive cuts to those programs as well as environmental programs and you name it. i understand why the chairman, i am the ranking member of the committee does not want a hearing. we would expose trump for the fraud he is and the tool of the billionaire class he is. >> senator sanders, thank you for making time today. >> thank you. >> don't go anywhere we have presidential candidate and massachusetts senator elizabeth warren standing by. she will join us next. warren standing by she will join us next. (sensei) a live bookkeeper is helping customize quickbooks for me. (live bookkeeper) okay, you're all set up. (sensei) thanks! that was my business gi, this one's casual. (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. hi, i'm jonathan, help. a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company. and with coverage options starting at just $9.95 a month, you can get a whole life insurance plan to help close that gap with a benefit check paid directly to your beneficiary. it's cash they can use right away, and generally, it's free from federal income tax. if you're between age 50 and 85, coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. and the rate is locked in, so it can never go up. there are no medical questions. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. and it comes with two lifetime guarantees. one, your coverage can never be cancelled, and two, your rate can never go up. this is our #1 most popular whole life insurance plan. take the first step now. call for free information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner free just for calling. use it to record important information and helpful direction for your loved ones. so don't wait, call now. (announcer) and when you call right now, you'll also get this free prescription savings card that can help you save up to 80% on prescription drugs at over 35,000 pharmacies locally and nationwide. it's timcan it helpltimate sleep nukeep me asleep?he sleep number 360 smart bed. absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time >> americans of all political stripes are gravely concerned about the corruption of a trump justice department that abandons the rule of law to give sweetheart deals to criminals who commit their crimes on behalf of donald trump. yes, roger stone, i am looking at you. >> elizabeth warren zeroing in on the corruption of the justice department. she finished fourth in the new hampshire primary and unable to net any delegates but still in third place in the overall delegate tally. senator, a bunch of your republican colleagues on capitol hill were asked about barr's involvement in the case of roger stone and said it is in the judges' hands anyway. i don't think it is a big deal. >> this is a huge deal. this is about the president and then his attorney general. interfering with the operation of justice, making it about something personal. you know, this had is about the rule of law in the united states. we have an independent justice department that goes through and it makes decisions about who is guilty and who is not, what recommendations, what they are go to prosecutor. what they are going to make suggestions for on sentencing. they don't do it based on hey, this is somebody that knows somebody. for the president to interfere and for the attorney general to evidently carry out his wishes was so outside the way that the justice department operates that three career justice officials resigned on the spot. think about what that means. we are watching in front of us a president that now feels like he can do anything. and that means we are watching a descent into authoritarianism. that is where we are headed. >> you have proposed a task force to look retro actively at the possible criminal -- this would essentially be using the justice department to pursue political vendettas. >> no. it is an independent task force. has nothing to do with the presidency. the president cannot interfere in any way that checks to see. look at what the alternative is, especially with donald trump right now. the alternative is that donald trump is saying by his actions, look, do whatever it is that donald trump tells you to do including breaking the law. donald trump will then bail out the person. make sure that there is no punishment or that the punishment is light. we have to reestablish rule of law. part of that will be independent investigation. so, everyone understands when you switch from republican to democrat or democrat to republican, everyone is supposed to have been following the law. but the second is that we can't let this moment go unremarked. what the attorney general has done, we should be calling for the resignation of the attorney general. if he won't resign, the attorney general can be impeached. also we should be using the other tools of congress. that is to put budget constraints so that donald trump is not able to have funding to be able to interfere into actions that affect trump, the trump family, trump buddies, trump campaign workers. we can't just sit on our hands. this president will be in control through the november elections. he has indicated that he feels no constraint. we have to get out there and fight back. if we don't have as many toolsas we want, we have to pick up what we want and use them. we can't just sit on our hands. >> i want to ask you about last night which you may or may not engage in. here is my question. we know among democratic voters that there is a high import put on the ability to beat donald trump. we know that various candidacies have made their cases about why they have the ability to beat donald trump and would be the best suited to go against him. do you think that is a knowable thing. in your head do you think there is a one among you that is the dragon slayer and only that one can defeat donald trump or do you think that multiple people in the field are capable of beating him? >> so, it may be that there are multiple people, but it still does not mean you don't want to look to see who has got the best chance to do it. and that is the argument that i was making. i think i have the best chance. what it takes is a united party. we can't have a repeat of 2016 when we roll into the general election with democrats mad at democrats, democrats angry. some democrats staying home. we need to have a party that is united. we also need to have a party that is fighting clearly for america's working families, for america's middle class. that is why something like my two cent wealth tax that lets us give universal child care to every baby in this country 0 to 5 and universal pre-k for every 3 and 4-year-old and cancel student loan debt for 43 million americans and raise social security by $200 a month by just asking those at the very top to pay a little more. i have clear plans for that which let people see this is how it would affect my life. that is something all democrats can run on. up and down the ticket. something that pulls in republican support we need to be the party out there fighting for working people and not helping the rich get richer. if we make that fight and argument, we pull that party together. that is how i am going to beat donald trump. that is his why i have the best chance. >> elizabeth warren, thank you for making time tonight. >> you bet. you bet good morning! oh no, here comes the neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass. so i got a chance to talk to a bunch of voters in new hampshire including those that came to the show, i bunch of undecided, late deciders and a few things struck me. people have strong and positive feelings about multiple democratic candidates. that came up time and time again. the thing that people are obsessed with is beating president donald trump. they are obsessed with the idea that there is a single correct answer. who is the best to take on trump. a lot of voters feel like it is their job to figure out the answer to those questions. 63% of new hampshire democratic primary holders is the nominee could beat trump. the evidence when it comes to who is the best to beat trump is just, and i am telling you this having poured over this very muddled and not really clear. is this electability focus driving democratic voters insane. joining me is a national investigative reporter from the "new york times" and associate professor of political science with a new piece focused on lectibility at the daily beast. you had this piece that showed bloomberg surging with black voters. you said i am picking it up among people i am talking to. what is your understanding of the calculation of certain black voters leaning towards bloomberg? >> i felt like in a multiclass series of conversations, there are a lot of people that are saying, you know, bloomberg vs. buttigieg, i choose bloomberg. bloomberg vs. klobuchar, i choose bloomberg. it was black folks in 2020 voting for bloomberg reminded me of white folks in 2016, quietly supporting trump but not feeling like they could say it in mixed company because it wasn't the polite thing to say. >> because of calculations about his formidibility against donald trump. >> we know black voters are not single issue voters. but the single issue emerging is to beat donald trump. michael bloomberg picks off mayors left or right who understands local politics and the electorate and galvanizing pastors and you can define that however you need to financially or as far as policy is concerned. seems like he is building a grassroots effort. as joe biden appears to be declining before our eyes, klobuchar and buttigieg are unknown, it seems like it is creating a window for bloomberg to make in roads with the black community. >> to me the joe biden experience is an illustration of the perils of the conversation around electability. this is not to say that joe biden is very much in the race. we have only done 2 of 55 contests. i am not saying or writing anything here. but there is an idea that joe biden is the best to take on trump and voters that saw him up close came to a different conclusion it is fair to say.te wrong. who knows. you are not shooting at a fixed target. >> if your brand is i can win and you keep losing. i think they are chasing their own tails. they say well, he is best in head-to-head matchups, you know. >> he was for a while. bad debate performance. still leading and then people see him take a beating and they are like i guess someone can beat him. what now. >> this is part of what is driving bloomberg. there is an electability sense because a, the hype scrutiny decline that happens to every candidate. they get hyped. scrutinized. they come down a bit. we have seen multiple cycles for some candidates but the money that he is spending is a message. not just he is on the air with $350 million. he is saying wouldn't it be nice to have a billionaire on your side. wouldn't it be nice for a guy to roll in here and spend a few billion to beat donald trump. that is a message about his own electability. >> that is part of the message, but he has been in so many of the states since thanksgiving or before and it is the power of suggestion. if i hear your message time and time again. if i see your face. the only thing i am hearing are the positives and the policy perspectives that have been detailed just for me. he has been targeting specific voters. >> very specifically. >> so, for those of us who are in new york from 2001 to 2013. we saw all of the bloomberg ads when our lobbies were littered with bloomberg literature that was just for us specifically, that power of suggestion is really strong. >> i think there are people that say a billionaire shouldn't buy the election. mostly sanders and warren voters. he said he can buy the election for you tomorrow, they would say please buy the election. >> i think there is more conflict than you are giving credit for. >> the people are so focused on beating him the idea that the principle with the money being spent on their behalf. >> this gets to the mental blocks people have. the top two performers are the polar opposites in the field. bernie sanders and michael bloomberg. how do you make sense of that data. down at the bottom, pete buttigieg who a lot of people and for defensible reasons thinks is electable, a fresh face and coming from the midwest. there are arguments to be made on behalf of his electability. nobody has a model that rigorously explains that. asking everyone to do political science in their own head. >> we have not seen south carolina. bloomberg is not in south carolina. now we have to wait until super tuesday to see if this bloomberg influx actually works. i think also when you said that people are like please, buy the election today. i think people are of two minds. long-term and short-term. buy it today to get this maniac out of the white house but we are setting a bad precedent to say billionaires buy the election. >> if a billionaire builds a shadow party it sticks around and they will do things with it later. >> if you came from another planet or country to study america as a society and saw donald trump's presidency followed by michael bloomberg presidency your conclusions about the strength and the vibrancy of the american democracy. >> maybe a barack obama presidency and a donald trump presidency. >> thank you presidency, you might have those questions. >> thank you for being with me. that is "all in." "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts right now. tonight, donald trump and the power of his presidency. today he thanked his attorney general for intervening to reduce the recommended federal prison sentence for trump's friend of 30 years, roger stone. it was enough to make four federal prosecutors walk away. and remember, it's only been a week since the senate voted not guilty. plus, bernie and pete get to slug it out for the future direction of the democrats, at least near term. the race only further confused when klobuchar came up so big and biden finished way out
New-yorkUnited-statesNew-hampshireIowaTogoRussiaHampshireUkraineRussianAmericaUkrainianAmerican be able to buy their way into a nomination. senator brian schatz on why he says the trump administration is woefully unprepared to deal with coronavirus. >> we're in great shape in our country. "all in" starts now. ♪ good evening from washington, d.c. i'm joy reed in for chris hayes. today donald trump continued his full-on assault on the rule of law, pardoning and commuting the sentences of several high-profile criminals. he notably included former illinois governor rod blagojevich who was convicted of trying to sell barack obama's senate seat in exchange for campaign contributions. he served eight years of a 14-year prison sentence. you may remember the governor from "the apprentice" where you messed up the harry potter challenge and was fired by donald trump. technically by "the apprentice" producers. today the president commuted his sentence. members of the illinois house republican delegation released a statement saying, we are disappointed by the president's commutation of rod blagojevich's federal sentence. blagojevich is the face of public corruption in illinois, and not once has he shown any remorse for his clear and documented record of egregious crime that undermined the trust placed in him by the voters. nbc news correspondent tom winter reminds us, quote, a jury found him guilty of trying to extort the ceo of children's memorial hospital for a donation in exchange for increasing the payments to doctors who took care of specialty care kids. oh, but donald trump was not done there. he also pardoned former new york police department commissioner bernard kerik who pled guilty to eight charges including tax fraud and lying to white house officials. he was nominated by george w. bush to be the secretary of homeland security before withdrawing that nomination a week later. the judge gave kerik a longer sentence than agreed to in the plea deal saying, quote, i think the damage caused by mr. kerik is in some ways immeasurable. he pardoned bond trader michael millikin, the guy considered to be the face of insider trading in 1980s. he was original charged with 98 federal counts including racketeering. he pled guilty to six felony charges of securities fraud and conspiracy. he was sentenced to ten years in prison. he also paid $600 million in fines and restitution. at his sentencing the judge said, quote, when a man of your power in the financial world repeatedly conspires to violate and violate securities and tax laws in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself and his wealthy clients, a significant prison term is required in order to deter others. others who received clemency from trump today include former san francisco 49ers owner edward debartolo jr. who pled guilty in 1998 to concealing an extortion attempt involving the governor of louisiana. david safavian, a former official sentenced to a year in prison. and another who was serving a 35-year prison sentence for running a $205 million medicare fraud scheme. to be clear, it is the president who spent the last six months arguing he is so opposed to corruption. he had to make sure the ukrainian president was, too, by withholding congressionally approved military aid unless ukraine launched a fake investigation into the bidens and rooted around in a criminal extortion theory. somehow this is the group of people trump felt deserved clemency. maybe it is a coincidence trump is pardons these felons as sentence of one of his criminal pal looms. earlier today he tweeted about the judge of his long-time friend and adviser roger stone, suggesting stone deserved a new trial. not long after the judge ruled stone's sentencing hearing will go on as planned by thursday but he did say that his sentence will not begin until she rules on the request for a new trial. the federal judge's association has called an emergency meeting tomorrow to discuss this. the acting solicitor engine age mr. dellinger. what do these pardons say to you as somebody who sort of worked in high levels in justice in the united states? >> well, i think they show that we really are at the end of being a country that believes in equal justice under law. there was no process to see how these crimes and these sentences compared with others who remain in prison. it is the president's own whim. when a president acts by whim and says, as he did of blagojevich, i watched his wife on television, this is an assault on the rule of law. but it goes much deeper than that. this is part of a three-pronged assault on law as we know it. it involves threats of criminal prosecution of political opponents and those who investigate you. it involves promises that the president will intervene on behalf of those who commit crimes on his behalf, and the third leg of this assault is his attack on judges and jurors in cases in which he is involved. >> you know, there is a banana republic aspect to it, as you said, that if you are friends with the president or on his tv show you get a pardon, no matter what you have done. and if you cross him in any way you might end up prosecuted, and we know that william barr doesn't seem opposed to doing that. there also seems to be a kind of raw statement of power, that donald trump is saying if you commit these particular kind of crimes against the public trust, that are financial in nature, that are about corruption, when he himself was just impeached for corruption, it almost is sort of -- i don't know, it almost feels like a message about that, too. about the fact he is saying, no, no, i'm going to sort of dive into corruption and revel in it. >> well, you know, that's a good point, joy. he treats -- he treats very high status people as if they'ir hig status is a mitigation of their crimes when, in fact, it is an exacerbation that makes them so much worse when you are a privileged person. take for example the fact that he has intervened on behalf of someone who has got to be the national security adviser and lied about an investigation -- not just any investigation, an investigation into a foreign military power's intervention in our election. he intervened on behalf of someone who has been a prominent associate of presidents, that is roger stone, who committed five categories of lies and engaged in what the first department memo said was a relentless, multi-year attempt to, again, obstruct justice in terms of an investigation into the corruption in the election. finally, the sympathy for someone who had the honor of being governor of one of our largest states and who was thoroughly corrupt and who sold a position in the united states senate. now, he treats those as because they're high-status people, as if it is a mitigation of their crimes. >> yes. would it surprise you if -- you know, there's a certain theatrics with the things he is doing. there's been a lot of question whether he might try to pardon himself if he is found to have committed some crime and that he would certainly make himself the biggest pardon of them all. >> i think he would undoubtedly attempt to pardon himself. he would certainly pardon everyone around him. he certainly let it be known if he's re-elected or even in the period after he was defeated he is going to take care of -- of everyone he knows including himself. i think the courts would reject his self-pardon. you know, no president has ever tried that before, so we can't be sure. the way in which he seems to revel in the fact that he could take someone like sheriff joe ar pay o arpaio, a law enforcement officer using the power of the police deliberately against a minority group and he pardoned him of the criminal contempt of court, that -- the way in which he plays with this, i think dolly olithwick who has sometimes been on the show referred to the constitutionization of conservatism is what we face in this country. >> donald trump wants credit for stepbacks of criminal justice reform. do you sense in the pardon, especially what he did today, the message is his own power? he essentially is saying if you are my friend, that's how you get justice, not somebody who was falsely accused or got too long of a sentence for having marijuana or something like that? >> i think that's right. there's the absolute absence of any sense of the people pardoned with how they compared with the culpability of the sentences of tens of thousands who remain in federal prison. the idea that he can act on mere whim i think is something we have never seen in a president before. you know, some people are going to raise bill clinton's pardon of financier and fugitive mark rich, and they're right. that was the worst thing bill clinton did in eight years in office, is that unjustified pardon. but donald trump is taking it to a very different level where he's using the levers of the power of his office in order to corrupt law. threatening opponents, rewarding those who would commit crimes on his behalf, going after judges and jurors. i don't know where we go from here. i think we need 2,000 former prosecutors not just to sign a letter but perhaps to think about blocking -- willing to be arrested blocking the entrances of the justice department. >> yeah, i mean you have to sort of use your lurid imagination to think where we could go from here. walter dellinger, thank you very much. appreciate your time. >> thank you, joy. joining me for more on the president's pardoning, matthew miller, former chief spokesperson for the department of justice, now an msnbc justice analyst, and betsy woodres swann, "t"the daily beast" and contributor. let's talk about where he could go from here and what it means. i will start with where he could go from here, belt situate. is there any reporting on how much more of this? it appears there's a pattern, someone was his friend or on the apprentice, he immediately respond to friends and gives them a pardon. who might be next on the list? >> i spent the afternoon talking to people who identify or describe themselves as allies of roger stone, and they said that they saw the spate of clemencies that came down today as very comforting to them because they believe it is a signal the president is sending that roger stone may be next in line for this type of executive action. i thought your use of the phrase banana republic was interesting because a federal judge used that exact same phrase in a transcript recently released from a closed door hearing regarding the investigation that's now closed into andrew mccabe. the judge literally said that the fact that trump was tweeting about mccabe so often, the fact that he appeared to be interfering in that process created the appearance of a banana republic. so the thing to keep an eye on is both the president, of course, granting clemency to people who he views as his political allies in part because he sees them on "fox news" and the inverse of that, which is the president encouraging doj to weaponize itself against people who he sees as his foes. >> i'm glad also that mr. dellinger, you know, talked about joe arpaio, because there are symbolic pardons of people hurting the people donald trump's base wants to see hurt, so someone like arpaio is good for them. but there's a baby dockism because it is creating a special class of americans who are elite, who is donald trump's friends, and even if they're blatantly criminals, sentenced to long criminal terms they get off simply because they're in the trump class. >> i think the pardon is the way donald trump views the justice system. he doesn't have to count on meddle is career prosecutors who made decline to carry out inappropriate orders they get, he can act completely unfettered. he uses the power the way he would like the entire criminal justice system to work. he uses it to reward white collar criminals, people who look like him, people who commit the kind of crimes he has been accused of committing, people who commuted fraud, who committed obstruction of justice. there's an argument to make that sentences are often too long. blagojevich got 14 years, you can make an argument it is too long. but he only sees that when it is applied to wealthy or connected individuals. there are over 13,000 applications spending at the justice kept for pardon. many never will get an answer whether it has been granted, let alone clemency. the numbers sitting in jail deserving clemency versus the number of people he rewards who are wealthy, connected offenders shows you who he thinks deserve justice and who he doesn't. >> even in the case of an unknown person, a person of color, kim kardashian had to ask. >> yes, you have to have a celebrity intercede on your behalf. >> this feels like a preview for pardon for everyone. donald trump is obsessed in undoing what robert mueller found, undoing the fact of russia helping him get elected. apparently the shame of impeachment are so painful he must undo it. it feels like we could see giuliani, you know, prepardoned in advance, so he can't be charged. you are manafort out there. is in any word, any sort of reporting that he might be looking to try to erase the record on the people who have been sent to prison in crimes related to the mueller report? >> it is a speculation i have heard from people close to the president, is that if trump were to pardon or commute manafort's sentence that it is likely it would come after the 2020 election. i think it is unlikely to see him make any movement, particularly on that guy who formerly was a lobbyist for -- >> why would he? it is not like republicans would do anything about it if he did. >> republicans wouldn't, but i think manafort -- first, he wasn't as close to him as he was to roger stone. second, he is really politically electric and the president had advisers close to him for quite sometime now telling him that were he to grant that clemency it would be a mistake. one thing to note to matt's point is that the president commuted the sentences of two nonviolent drug offenders today but when he talked to reporters that's not what he was talking about. >> did kim kardashian ask for those? >> i have no knowledge of that. i'm not sure. >> the other question is william barr, who in a lot of ways is the most dangerous man in washington right now because he doesn't seem to have any sense of resistance to the idea of having the department of justice act as the sword of the president of the united states to go after his enemies. is there any reporting about the idea that maybe people inside doj might start to rebel? >> there have been a lot of rumors. there were a lot of rumors last week after the four federal prosecutors removed themselves from the case there were other people in the justice department that were deeply troubled by what william barr had done and were willing to take action. in fact i think that's why barr did the interview he did where he tried to distance himself from the president. it wasn't because he was concerned about what the president was doing, it was because he was trying to quell a rebellion inside the department. i think the reason you see the internal concern at doj and the federal judges who are holding a meeting tomorrow, the reason you see this judge that betsy referred to who referred to the department's actions as something out of a banana republic, you see them speaking out because you realize the rule of law is fragile. the norm where the department of justice is independent from the white house is not in law, statute or the constitution, it only exists because presidents and attorney generals have respe respected it. if you don't have an attorney general that respects it is only going to work if you have people inside the department who are willing to take themselves off cases or judges to step up, and you have seen both of those checks pop up in the last few weeks. the only question is barr going to steamroll them and if so is he able to. >> is there single republican in washington that will say a word about it? matthew miller, betsy woodress swann, thank you for being here. up next, congresswoman maxine waters says the president is out of control after his acquittal in the senate. i will ask what democrats intend to do about it in two minutes. [ fast-paced drumming ] [ fast-paced drumming ] ♪ it has been almost two full weeks since the senate acquitted donald trump on two impeachment charges, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. since then he has been on a revenge tour, going after all of the people that he blames for the humiliation of impeachment. instead of learning his lesson, susan collins, he is redoubling his efforts to abuse his power. out in the open. he is testing the limits just to see how much he can get away with, and right now with republicans taking the knee and attorney general william barr behaving and the hand of the king, the house which voted to impeach the president seems to be the only check on the presidential wrong doing. what can they do to make sure he does not continue to abusing his power? to help answer that i am joined by someone calling for his impeachment since 2017, congresswoman maxine waters who chairs the general services committee. great to talk to you. >> thank you. delighted to be with you this evening. >> thank you. let's talk about donald trump post-impeachment. impeachment, as we have talked about a lot, it is not a punishment, it is a sanction, right? even if a president is not removed, it is meant to be a sanction and send a message that this is the limit beyond which you cannot go. donald trump seems to be blowing directly through that limit, ignoring the sanction and behaving even worse than he did before. is there anything the congress can do about that, having already pulled the lever of impeachment? >> no, you know, joy, you are absolutely correct. we've gone through the trial. the house voted to impeach him, but the senate did not act responsibly and they basically exonerated him. so we have a president that's out of control. remember, the president said he could stand on 5th avenue and shoot somebody and nothing would happen to him? he's always believed that. so now that he's gone through the impeachment, which he never thought that he was going to go through, he is going to get revenge. he is going to show you that there are no limits to the presidential power and, you know, while everybody is talking about the commutations and the pardons and the clemency and all of that, he's going to be even worse. he is going to wreak revenge on some people. i don't know in all of the ways that he's going to do it. then he is going to put putin right in our face. he is going to bring him to the white house and he is going to say, be -- the congress of the united states, i'm going to do whatever i want to do. so we've got to turn out those people who understand that he's dangerous, that he doesn't care about the constitution. we've got to organize and we've got to turn out the vote. we have to vote him out of office. >> do you believe that if donald trump is re-elected that he will drop all sanctions on russia and, as you said, bring vladimir putin to the white house? >> oh, absolutely. absolutely. he will pardon manafort. he will lift all of the sanctions from russia. he will be even more involved with the oligarchs of russia, and he will bring putin to the white house, i believe that, if he is re-elected. but we have to make sure, those of us who really respect and care about the constitution and know that russia has hacked into our democratic national committee, into our state election system, and we are knowing very well that they're going to do it again in this election, we have got to work hard to make sure that they don't get away with it, that we don't have this president who will carry out that kind of agenda if he is re-elected. we've got to make sure this man is not elected again. >> part of the risk of donald trump is not just that his own sort of sense of, you know, monarch nature and his desire to be an autocrat, it is that he is surrounded by psycho fanthose w he should be a king. here he is talking about his own law enforcement powers. >> just so you understand, i chose not to be involved. i'm allowed to be totally involved. i'm actually, i guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country, but i've chosen not to be involved. >> and he is talking about the roger stone case, but he is enabled by that by the attorney jen. here is william barr. he has insinuated before that presidents are the chief law enforcement officer, that they have absolute power. this is in a speech he gave in 2001, talking about what he said to george h.w. bush. i remember right before we indicted the pan am 103 people, the investigation was going on, and the president, george h.w. bush, said to me, would it be okay for you to brief us in the national security council on where things stand? would it be okay? well, i work for you, you're the top law enforcement officer. the fact that he has this attorney general who believes he should be king, is that more dangerous in the sense of donald trump's own proclivities. >> the american people should be focused on barr and we should be joining with the attorneys that have decided he should step down, that he should resign. we should be supporting them and backing them up. i'm anxious to see what the federal judges who have decided they can't wait until the yearly association meeting, that they should pay attention to what is going on now and review what has happened. i'm anxious to see what they're going to come out with. but the american public should get behind this if they care anything about our democracy. you know, for all of those people who say that they, you know, honor the flag and that they are in support of, you know, our democracy being strengthened, for all of those people who say that, where are you? can't they see what is happening? we're in a constitutional crisis in this country, with a president who is running amok. he is out of control. we have got to make sure that he's not reall-elected. we have to speak up, we have to resist. i don't hear enough voices. it is the average american who gets up every day, who is taking care of their families, who is thinking somebody else will see to it that this president is not re-elected. but, no, it has to be all of us out there working and working very hard. we have a constitutional crisis and we've got to deal with it. this is what democracy is all about, when you see a president out of control, when you see those who have been elected to office, who are not acting responsibly and they're endangering our democracy, you have to speak out against them. you have to work against them. you have got to make sure that they're not re-elected ever again. >> well said, congresswoman maxine waters. thank you so much for being here tonight. really appreciate you. >> you're so welcome. thank you. >> thank you. ahead, lots of new movement in the latest nbc news polling. michelle oba michael bloomberg makes the debate stage. we will talk about it next. ♪ hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right. on a flexible wealth plan. and with new brokerage accounts, your cash is automatically invested at a rate that's at least 20 times more than other advisory firms. personalized advice. unmatched value. at fidelity, you can have both. unmatched value. >> 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. ♪ 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. in 24 hours democrats will hold their next presidential primary debate in las vegas, nevada. the debate will air here on msnbc. coverage begins at 8:p.m. eastern anchored by my pal and colleague rachel maddow. tomorrow night there will be a new candidate on the stage. as of this morning former new york city mayor michael bloomberg qualified for the debate by getting 10 or more percent in at least four national polls. today two new national polls show him jumping into the teens. our ole nbc news/"wall street journal" has bernie sanders with a double digit lead by 27%, by next biden at 15%, down from last month, followed by bloomberg and warren at 14%. buttigieg is at 13% and klobuchar at 7%. the npr marist page shows bernie sanders at 31%, bloomberg at 19%, biden at 15%, warren at 12%. they get the shot to take on bloomberg face-to-face and we'll talk about that next. and now, introducing new boost women... with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new, boost women. designed just for you. new, boost women. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ all we needed somebody to lean on ♪ the new xc90 plug-in hybrid electric. xc90. recharged. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can become your big moment. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated... ...with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪ ♪ you work hard for your money. stretched days for it. ♪ ♪ juggled life for it. ♪ ♪ took charge for it. ♪ ♪ so care for it. look after it. invest with the expertise of j.p. morgan, either with an advisor or online, through chase. after all, it's yours. chase. make more of what's yours. how we worship, or who we love. and the 2020 census is how that great promise is kept. because this is the count that informs where hundreds of billions in funding will go each year for things like education, healthcare, and programs that touch us all. shape your future. start here. learn more at 2020census.gov 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 othroughout the country for the past twelve years, mr. michael bloomberg is here. vo: leadership in action. mayor bloomberg and president obama worked together in the fight for gun safety laws, to improve education, and to develop innovative ways to help teens gain the skills needed to find good jobs. obama: at a time when washington is divided in old ideological battles he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. bloomberg: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. r there will be six democratic candidates on the stage tomorrow night. like last debate there will be one billionaire, though not this time stire. michael bloomberg. elizabeth warren is up for a fight, tweeting out, it is a shame michael bloomberg can buy his way into the debate, but at least now primary voters curious how each candidate will take on donald trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on the ego maniac billionaire. i'm joined by chief public affairs for move on.org. thank you both for being here. i'm going ladies first because i like the fact that -- i tweeted out about that comment by elizabeth warren as well because i do feel like the zeitgeist including in our business in the media is to try to make las vegas a bernie/bloomberg face-off. i worry that is short sighted in the sense that we know what bernie sanders is going to say. we know what -- he's been saying the same thing consistently since he ran the first time, really for 30 years according to his supporters. we don't really know what warren is going to say, but we know she has been a student of bankruptcy. this is her thing. this is like her vibe. i actually expect that to be the hottest matchup on the stage. >> i agree. can i add one more thing about what we will see on the debate stage tomorrow? not one person of color. >> none. >> not one person of color on that stage after starting at -- >> happy black history month. >> happy black history month, yes. so, you know, it is the media we are talking about, how the media is trying to make this into -- and the two candidates as well, bernie versus bloomberg. here is the thing. we've only had two other contests. >> right. >> that's it, two small contests. one was 90% white, you know, new hampshire was 93% white, and now we're finally getting into a more diverse state. we have south carolina, and then we have super tuesday states. those first four states, only 4% of the delegate number. >> that's right. >> that's it. we still have a long way to go. >> yes. >> but here is the problem. because of that messaging and because of what's out there, there are people who have been voting already. >> yes. >> california, north carolina, other states are voting already, and they're watching this narrative that's coming out. they're watching what is in the media. so that is the unfortunate thing for someone like warren, for someone even like biden, because people are voting in there and the narrative has not been on their side. >> yes. >> that's what makes it dangerous when you control the narrative in that way. >> and so you do have these two halves of the democratic party. you have the part that says, you know, after obama, that proves that, you know, big change is possible in terms of a black president, for god's sake, in a country that had slavery. now we will push it further. then we have voters that go, we're not doing that. trump came along, we need safety. those two parts are intergenerationally, even within the black community, you know, between those two sides. is there a candidate you have seen that is able to bring them together because a lot of people are saying it is bloomberg but it is not clear why it is bloomberg. it is just because he has a lot of money. >> i think the short answer is no, i don't see that. for a simple reason, and to some extent it is a little bit bernie. the reason i say that is because as much as i wish things were slow and steady and these first four states were put into context over many months, historically we run up against a problem at these first four, particularly these two, you know, white as white bread states, iowa and new hampshire, coming first. they really do impact the race. >> what about when they're -- because i feel like there was a null result out of the two of them. buttigieg and bernie sort of split the two states. >> they did. >> neither had a strong victory, and buttigieg has not gotten much of a boue in the polls. >> they did, but no one in either party has become their nominee without winning iowa or new hampshire since 1992. the good news is for those who didn't win iowa or new hampshire is that it was bill clinton and he went the whole way. he lost the first four. >> right. >> there is history against people and, you know, bloomberg -- it might be -- people might look back and say he shouldn't have waited to jump in, that skipping the first four -- skipping the first two maybe, but south carolina and nevada, because there's supply and demand problem. people are excited about him, even if it is just because they're getting so nervous and anxious about beating donald trump and they're not seeing who that is, so they're projecting on to him. they can't do anything about it. >> about it, right. >> they can't vote for him. >> they can't vote for him, but the thing that it does put pressure on is biden. biden must do well, even though as you said this is a tiny, tiny slice of the delegate. i think 14 is the most delegates the winner of iowa got. but if biden doesn't do well, will there be a rush to bloomberg among his supporters? >> absolutely. like we said, the supporters are watching this. voters -- i said this the other day on your show. they're playing pundit right now. they're very, very nervous and they're thinking, who can beat donald trump. that is -- and we have to remember biden's whole theory of the case for him was he was electable, he was electable. he needs to come in second in nevada and he needs to win south carolina. >> yes. >> without that, what's his theory of the case? >> yes. >> what is he going to offer voters? so it is -- he is in a tight, tight space right now, and he has to perform. >> let's talk about bernie for a second. god bless my mentions, i'm going to pray for this as i bring it up. >> please, just a look at twitter. >> i'm going to stop looking after i say this. the challenge for sander is he does a small majority but he has a solid 25% that he takes to every poll. his people are not going anywhere. if he is the nominee, he needs the clinton people, he will need obama people. >> yes. >> has his campaign become so feisty in its -- you know, sort of to hell with everybody kind of attitude that he will be difficult for him if he is nominee to bring everyone around? >> it is the latter. they've become obstinate to some extent. if bernie becomes the nominee, he can win. he will not win by saying, to hell with all of you. to all of you being the democratic party, to the bad guys, the establishments. >> he is saying he wants everyone, but a lot around him there's that feel. >> the fish, you know, puts people off from the top. he needs to say, look, what happened happened, for my own benefit. the man wants to be president. he needs to do what it takes to become president, which is just suck it up and say, hillary, i need your people, i need everybody. otherwise it is whack-a-mole. yes, bernie might appeal to some voters who went for trump or didn't vote at all because they like the outsider/insider dynamic. but if you get those and you lose huge swaths of the democratic party you have a problem. remember, right now -- and this goes for all of them, pete, bernie, warren. the most popular person in the democratic field is not the favor of 75% of the rest of the party. someone's got a lot of work of unifying to do, and that is not bernie sanders and team sanders and sanders' base strong suit. >> yes, it will be very understanding. care careen jeanpiere. vegas. do we all feel good about donald trump managing the response to the coronavirus? that's the gamble. senator brian todd is raising flags on what the administration is or isn't doing. scary is scary. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. [ disthave you ever wondered [ distant band playing ] what the motorcade driver drives when they're not in a motorcade? [ upbeat music starts ] [ engine revving ] ♪ this one drives a volkswagen passat. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ -excuse me. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. ♪ donald trump whereas still a private citizen the last time the world faced a global health crisis. the ebola outbreak that began in 2014 which would lead to the deaths of more than 11,000 people in west africa. people in this country were far more focused on the fear ebola would come to america, which led some -- led to some over zealous responses, including new jersey governor chris christie to quarantine nurse casey hick objection after she returned from treating patients in see air -- sierra leon even though she tested negative. no one was more panic au than donald trump who didn't want people like her to return home at all. >> they are great people, they are tremendous people, but they have to suffer the consequences. they go and they try to help other people but, you know, things like this happen. our country has enough problems. send the doctors to liberia, send the doctors to west africa to take care of our people. that's one thing, but don't let them in. we should end flights coming in from west africa and liberia. we should certainly do that. >> trump insisted he understood ebola better than the experts. tweeting, it is much easier to transmit than the cdc and government representatives are admitting. and not content to simply show off his medical degree from -- check this. nowhere! he went full conspiracy theorist encouraging people not to trust their government to deal with the outbreak. >> i think very few people trust our government as being competent. let's not kid ourselves. we have virtually incompetent leadership, so why would anybody trust our government to handle this crisis? >> well, now trump is the head of our government. he's the one we're supposed to trust to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus, and yet here is what he had to say last month at davos. >> have you been briefed by the cdc? >> i have. >> are you worried about a pandemic at this point? >> no, we're not at all and we have it totally under control. it is one person coming in from china, and we have it under control. it is going to be just fine. >> now the situation in the united states is still relatively good, but since trump said things were totally under control, the death toll in china has risen from 17 people to 1,900, and infections have risen from 540 to over 72,000, and at least 15 cases have now been reported here in the united states. speaking of trump's claim, harvard school of public health professor michael mena said even a middle cooler wouldn't have said that. everyone is using caution is how we're framing what the risk is, primarily because we don't understand what the risk is at the moment. the last thing anyone would say is we are not concerned. not co. everyone is concerned. there are other reasons to be concerned here, too, like the fact that senator brian shots of hawaii is describing the administration's handling of the virus as, quote, keystone cops. and he'll join me live right after this. (whistling) (whistling) before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. today when donald trump took to the airport tarmac to tout his latest batch of pardons, he was asked about the coronavirus and how china is handling it. >> some people don't seem to trust the data coming out of china. are you worried about that? >> i know president xi loves the people of china, he loves the country and he's doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation. >> if the president seems muted in his response, it may be because of his relationship with china and their president xi jinping. washington post reports, quote, worries about rattled financial markets and their effect on the economy as well as delicate negotiations with china over a trade deal have played a large role in influencing the president's friendly posture towards china. we also know trump's new budget comes for cutting u.s. funding to the world health organization in half and the top global health position on the national security council has been vacant for almost two years. with cases of the coronavirus topping 72,000, including 15 cases here in the united states, nearly 2000 people dead, that response from the president is just not enough, is it? especially for people on the front lines. hawaii is one of the states with ports of entry screening for the coronavirus trying could coordinate with the trump administration. senator brian schotz joins me. how is it going with the anti-science administration with no one in the nsc health division? >> i think you have it exactly right. you have an administration that doesn't much care about science, but also they don't care about governing. all this stuff is kind of boring to them which is why they've e de-funded the programs designed to help prevent a global pandemic. that's why they left the position open at the national security council and there is no one literally, no one in charge of this from the national security council side. and not only do they leave it vacant, but they eventually decided that they were going to eliminate the position altogether. they cut the cdc by 9%, so you're kind of dealing with a government that doesn't care about government and then overly your sort of normally bumbling incompetence onto the possibility of a global pandemic and you've got exactly what you got a couple weeks ago. the good news is that on the ground things are safe in hawaii and elsewhere across the country, but not because of anything that the trump administration has done. it's been in spite of it. let me just give you one example of the kind of how nuts it was at the very beginning. there was an order to quarantine individuals and the president i think issued an executive order on a friday. it was in effect -- it was super bowl sunday. for about half an hour. and our state officials were on a conference call with officials from the federal government. they didn't know when planes were going to be landing, how many people were coming from the relevant province, and whether or not they were -- they had the capability to assess them, intake them and quarantine them, and then if so, where they were to be quarantined. so this conference call we had while planes were in the air was sorting all of this out. now, we've got robust capabilities in the state of hawaii so we sort of fixed this. but again, not thanks to the white house. >> and who do you talk to? who do hawaii officials talk to in the white house? who is there that has any competency at all? are there career people left to speak to? who do you call? >> there are a few career people who are really trying to get this right. and, listen, i have tremendous respect for the heads of both national institutes of health and centers for disease control. but what lacks here is coordination and effort because cdc does what it does. n.i.h. does what it does. you really need someone to make sure the agencies work together. so there was a good example of the lack of agencies working together. they literally didn't know where people were going to be quarantined. we were being told two different things while planes were in the air. some people said within the civilian population, our attorney general said, no way. and then we were told it was going to be fine if the individuals who needed quarantine were going to be at the joint bases pearl harbor secure facility. but then d.o.d. told us, no, that's a no-go. we were left sending texts and sorting out where these individuals were going to go and how they were going to be safely transported while planes were wheels up on their way to honolulu. it was pretty bananas. we have settled it. i just want to reassure everybody we have settled it. >> yeah. >> but to the extent we've been fortunate with this disease it's because of the epidemiology of the disease, not was of some sort of coordinated response from the federal government. >> are you concerned, you know, having seen a lot of the interesting stuff go through the senate, the trump administration might try to use this coronavirus outbreak as just a way to do more ethnonationalist policy? >> there will be scaring people in the united states about people from other countries. one of the things that worries me about a global pandemic and a stance, which we've been good at, the funding depends whether the particular disease captures the public imagination. because there was a movie about ebola and it was terrifying, they got $6 billion. zika was a little harder to explain and lester identifying. they got $500 million and much later. there is a better way to do this, just like the federal emergency management agency, fema, they get a tranche of money and then they determine how the money ought to be spent based on the severity of the disaster, and that's what i think needs to happen with cdc and n.i.h., so they don't have to come to the congress and have, you know, have it depend on whether or not we're getting along with ourselves or whether we want a demagogue something. we should be funding a global health response. and in this day and age, it's important to separate this all out from politics. >> very quickly, we don't have a lot of time, any of your colleagues have second thoughts about letting this guy off the hook dealing with him publicly? >> senate? >> republicans. >> yeah. i think it's not so much if they had to do it over again they would have voted to convict. i just don't think that would be factually correct. >> yeah. >> i do think they're struggling with what their role is any more and i think that they are sort of walking around hang dog, ashamed of their vote because they know -- everybody talks about us being the article 1 branch. >> not now. i'm sorry, i'm out of time. >> they gave up their authority. >> brian schatz, thank you for your time. that is it for me. rachel maddow show starts now. >> thanks, my friend. happy to have you with us. i want to say right off the bat, tomorrow night i will not be here at my usual time, not because i'm taking the day off. you know me better than that. tomorrow night i will be here an hour earlier than usual because tomorrow night at this time we will all be watching the democratic presidential candidates debate. the debate kicks off at 9:00 p.m. eastern time tomorrow night. you can watch it right here. i am not one of the moderators in that debate. all the moderators are the people you see on the screen now. i will be watching the debate alongside all
LouisianaUnited-statesNevadaNew-hampshireNorth-carolinaWashingtonChinaIllinoisCaliforniaLiberiaRussiaMemorial-hospital be able to buy their way into a nomination. senator brian schatz on why he says the trump administration is woefully unprepared to deal with coronavirus. >> we're in great shape in our country. "all in" starts now. good evening from washington, d.c. i'm joy reed in for chris hayes. today donald trump continued his full-on assault on the rule of law, pardoning and commuting the sentences of several high-profile criminals. he notably included former illinois governor rod blagojevich who was convicted of trying to sell barack obama's senate seat which he vacated because he was elected president in exchange for campaign contributions. he served eight years of a 14-year prison sentence. you may remember the governor from "the apprentice" where you messed up the harry potter challenge and got fired by donald trump. technically by "the apprentice" producers. today the president commuted his sentence. members of the illinois house republican delegation released a statement saying, we are disappointed by the president's commutation of rod blagojevich's federal sentence. blagojevich is the face of public corruption in illinois, and not once has he shown any remorse for his clear and documented record of egregious crimes that undermined the trust placed in him by the voters. nbc news correspondent tom winter reminds us, quote, a jury found him guilty of trying to extort the ceo of children's memorial hospital for a donation in exchange for increasing the payments to doctors who took care of specialty care kids. oh, but donald trump was not done there. he also pardoned former new york police department commissioner bernard kerik who pled guilty to eight felony charges including tax fraud and lying to white house officials. he was nominated by george w. bush to be the secretary of homeland security before withdrawing that nomination a week later. the judge gave kerik a longer sentence than agreed to in the plea deal saying, quote, i think the damage caused by mr. kerik is in some ways immeasurable. trump also pardoned bond trader michael millikin, the guy considered to be the face of insider trading in the 1980s. he was original charged with 98 federal counts including racketeering. he pled guilty to six felony charges of securities fraud and conspiracy. he was sentenced to ten years in prison. he also paid $600 million in fines and restitution. at his sentencing the judge said, quote, when a man of your power in the financial world repeatedly conspires to violate and violate securities and tax laws in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself and his wealthy clients, a significant prison term is required in order to deter others. others who received clemency from trump today include former san francisco 49ers owner edward debartolo jr. who pled guilty in 1998 to concealing an extortion attempt involving the governor of louisiana. david safavian, a former bush administration official who was sentenced to a year in prison for lying with his association with jack abramoff. and another who was serving a 35-year prison sentence for running a $205 million medicare fraud scheme. to be clear, it is the president who spent the last six months arguing he is so opposed to corruption. he had to make sure the ukrainian president was, too, by withholding congressionally approved military aid unless ukraine launched a fake investigation into the bidens and rooted around in a criminal theory to distract from the mueller findings. somehow this is the group of people trump felt deserved clemency. maybe it is a coincidence trump is pardons these felons as sentence of one of his criminal pals looms. earlier today he tweeted about the judge of his long-time friend and adviser roger stone, suggesting stone deserved a new trial. not long after the judge ruled stone's sentencing hearing will go on as planned on thursday but he did say that his sentence will not begin until she rules on the request for a new trial. trump's interference with the stone case has troubled the federal judges association so much they called an emergency meeting tomorrow to address it. joining me is arthur dellinger. the acting solicitor general, under president bill clinton. per dellinger, what do these pardons say to you as somebody who sort of worked in the high levels of justice in the united states? >> well, i think they show that we really are at the end of being a country that believes in equal justice under law. there was no process to see how these crimes and these sentences compared with others who remain in prison. it is the president's own whim. when a president acts by whim and says, as he did of blagojevich, i watched his wife on television, that is an assault on the rule of law. but it goes much deeper than that. this is part of a three-pronged assault on law as we know it. it involves threats of criminal prosecution of political opponents and those who investigate you. it involves promises that the president will intervene on behalf of those who commit crimes on his behalf, and the third leg of this assault is his attack on judges and jurors in cases in which he is involved. >> you know, there is a banana republic aspect to it, as you said, that if you are friends with the president or on his tv show you get a pardon, no matter what you've done. and if you cross him in any way you might end up prosecuted, and we know that william barr doesn't seem to be opposed to doing that. there also seems to be a kind of raw statement of power, that donald trump is saying if you commit these particular kind of crimes that are against the public trust, that are financial in nature, that are about corruption, when himself, was just impeached for corruption, it almost is sort of -- i don't know, it almost feels like a message about that, too. about the fact he is saying, no, no, i'm going to sort of dive into corruption and revel in it. >> well, you know, that's a good point, joy. he treats -- he treats very high status people as if their high status is a mitigation of their crimes when, in fact, it is an exacerbation that makes them so much worse when you are a privileged person. take for example the fact that he has intervened on behalf of someone who has got to be the national security adviser and lied about an investigation -- not just any investigation, an investigation into a foreign military power's intervention in our election. he intervened on behalf of someone who has been a prominent associate of presidents, that is roger stone, who committed five categories of lies and engaged in what the first department memo said was a relentless, multi-year attempt to, again, obstruct justice in terms of an investigation into the corruption in the election. and then finally, the sympathy for someone who had the honor of being governor of one of our largest states and who was thoroughly corrupt and who sold a position in the united states senate. now, he treats those as because they're high-status people, as if it is a mitigation of their crimes. >> yes. would it surprise you if -- you know, there's a certain thee at theatricality to the things that donald trump does. there's been a lot of question whether he might try to pardon himself if he is found to have committed some crime and that he would certainly make himself the biggest pardon of them all. >> i think he would undoubtedly attempt to pardon himself. he would certainly pardon everyone around him. he certainly let it be known if he's re-elected or even in the period after he was defeated he is going to take care of -- of everyone he knows including himself. i think the courts would reject his self-pardon. you know, no president has ever tried that before, so we can't be sure. the way in which he seems to revel in the fact that he could take someone like sheriff joe arpaio, a law enforcement officer who was targeting latinos for harassment and using the power of the police deliberately against a minority group and he pardoned him of criminal contempt of court. that -- the way in which he plays with this, i think -- dahlia lithwick, who has sometimes been on this show referred to the constitutionization of conservatism is what we face in this country. >> donald trump wants credit for step backs of criminal justice reform. do you sense in the pardon, especially what he did today, the real message is his own power, right? he essentially is saying if you are my friend, that's how you get justice, not somebody who was falsely accused or got too long of a sentence for having marijuana or something like that? >> i think that's right. there is absolutely -- there's the absolute absence of any sense of the people pardoned with how they compared with the culpability of the sentences of tens of thousands who remain in federal prison. the idea that he can act on mere whim i think is something we have never seen in a president before. you know, some people are going to raise bill clinton's pardon of financier and fugitive mark rich, and they're right. that was the worst thing bill clinton did in eight years in office, is that unjustified pardon. but donald trump is taking it to a very different level where he's using the levers of the power of his office in order to corrupt law. threatening opponents, rewarding those who would commit crimes on his behalf, going after judges and jurors. i don't know where we go from here. i think we need 2,000 former prosecutors not just to sign a letter but perhaps to think about blocking -- willing to be arrested blocking the entrances to the justice department. >> yeah, i mean you have to sort of use your lurid imagination to think where we could go from here. walter dellinger, thank you very much. appreciate your time. >> thank you, joy. joining me for more on the president@parting spree, matthew miller, former chief spokesperson for the department of justice, now an msnbc justice analyst, and betsy woodruff swann. "the daily beast" and an msnbc contributor. let's talk about where he could go from here and what it means. i will start with where he could go from here, betsy. is there any reporting on how much more of this? it appears there's a pattern, someone was his friend or on the apprentice, he immediately respond to friends and gives them a pardon. who might be next on the list? >> i spent the afternoon talking to people who identify or describe themselves as allies of roger stone, and they said that they saw the spate of clemencies that came down today as very comforting to them because they believe it's a signal that the president is sending that roger stone may be next in line for this type of executive action. i thought your use of the phrase banana republic was interesting because a federal judge used that exact same phrase in a transcript that was recently released from a closed-door hearing regarding an investigation that is now closed into andrew mccabe. the judge literally said that the fact that trump was tweeting about mccabe so often, the fact that he appeared to be interfering in that process created the appearance of a banana republic. so the thing to keep an eye on is both the president, of course, granting clemency to people who he views as his political allies in part because he sees them on fox news, and the inverse of that, which is the president encouraging doj to weaponize itself against people who he sees as his foes. >> i'm glad also that mr. dellinger, you know, talked about joe arpaio, because there are symbolic pardons of people hurting the people donald trump's base wants to see hurt, and so somebody like arpaio -- there is a sort of -- but there's a baby dockism because it is creating a special class of americans who are elite, who is donald trump's friends, and even if they're blatantly criminals, sentenced to long criminal terms they get off simply because they're in the trump class. >> i think the pardon is the way donald trump views the justice system. it is one area of the criminal justice system he can basically act unfetterred. he doesn't have to count on meddle is career prosecutors who made decline to carry out inappropriate orders they get, he can act completely unfettered. he uses the power the way he would like the entire criminal justice system to work. he uses it to reward white collar criminals, people who look like him, people who commit the kind of crimes he has been accused of committing, people who committed fraud, people who committ committ committ committ committed obstruction of justice. there's an argument to make that sentences are often too long. blagojevich got 14 years, you can make an argument it is too long. but he only sees that when it is applied to wealthy or connected individuals. there are over 13,000 applications spending at the justice department right now. many never will get an answer whether it has been granted, let alone clemency. the president has shown no interest no those at all. every once in a while he'll give a pardon top nonviolent drug offenders, but the numbers sitting in jail right now deserving clemency versus the number of people he rewards who are wealthy, connected offenders shows you who he thinks deserve justice and who he doesn't. >> even in the case of an unknown person, a person of color, kim kardashian had to ask. >> yes, you have to have a celebrity intercede on your behalf. paon for everyone. donald trump is obsessed in undoing what robert mueller found, undoing the fact of russia helping him get elected. the shame of that and the shame of impeachment apparently are so painful he must undo it. it feels like we could see giuliani, you know, prepardoned in advance, so he can't be charged. you are manafort out there. is in any word, any sort of reporting that he might be looking to try to erase the record on the people who have been sent to prison in crimes related to the mueller report? >> it is a speculation i have heard from people close to the president, is that if trump were to pardon or commute manafort's sentence that it is likely it would come after the 2020 election. i think it is unlikely to see him make any movement, particularly on that guy who formerly was a lobbyist for -- >> why would he? it is not like republicans would do anything about it if he did. >> republicans certainly wouldn't, buts he is to roger stone. second, he is really politically electric and the president had advisers close to him for quite sometime now telling him that were he to grant that clemency it would be a mistake. one thing that i think is important to note, to matt's point, is that the president commuted the sentences of two nonviolent drug offenders today but when he talked to reporters that's not what he was talking about. >> did kim kardashian ask for those? >> i have no knowledge of that. i'm not sure. >> the other question is william barr, who in a lot of ways is the most dangerous man in washington right now because he doesn't seem to have any sense of resistance to the idea of having the department of justice act as the sword of the president of the united states to go after his enemies. is there any reporting about the idea that maybe people inside doj might start to rebel? >> there have been a lot of rumors. there were a lot of rumors last week after the four federal prosecutors removed themselves from the case there were other people in the justice department that were deeply troubled by what william barr had done and were willing to take action. in fact, i think that's why barr did the interview he did where he tried to distance himself from the president. it wasn't because he was actually concerned about what the president was doing, it was because he was trying to quell a rebellion inside the department. i think the reason you see the internal concern at doj and the federal judges who are holding a meeting tomorrow, the reason you see this judge that betsy referred to who referred to the department's actions as something out of a banana republic, you see them speaking out because you realize the rule of law is fragile. this norm where the department of justice is independent from the white house is not something that is in law or statute or the constitution. it only exists because presidents and attorneys general have respected it. if you don't have an attorney general that respects it is only going to work if you have people inside the department who are willing to take themselves off cases or judges to step up, and you have seen both of those checks pop up in the last few weeks. and the question is, is barr going to try to keep steamrolling them, and if so, is he going to be able to? >> is there single republican in washington that will say a word about it? matthew miller, betsy woodruff swann, thank you for being here. up next, congresswoman maxine waters says the president is out of control after his acquittal in the senate. i will ask what democrats intend to do about it in two minutes. hi! we're glad you came in, what's on your mind? can you help keep these guys 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. it has been almost two full weeks since the senate acquitted donald trump on two impeachment charges, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. since then he has been on a revenge tour, going after all of the people that he blames for the humiliation of impeachment. instead of learning his lesson, susan collins, he is redoubling his efforts to abuse his power. out in the open. he is testing the limits just to see how much he can get away with, and right now with republicans taking the knee and attorney general william barr behaving and the hand of the king, the house which voted to impeach donald trump last year seems to be the only check on his presidential wrongdoing. what can they do to make sure he does not continue to abusing his power? to help answer that i am joined by someone calling for his impeachment since 2017, congresswoman maxine waters who chairs the financial serves committee. always great to talk with you, congresswoman. >> thank you. delighted to be with you this evening. >> thank you. let's talk about donald trump post-impeachment. impeachment, as we have talked about a lot, it is not a punishment, it is a sanction, right? even if a president is not removed, it is meant to be a sanction and send a message that this is the limit beyond which you cannot go. donald trump seems to be blowing directly through that limit, ignoring the sanction and behaving even worse than he did before. is there anything the congress can do about that, having already pulled the lever of impeachment? >> no, you know, joy, you are absolutely correct. we've gone through the trial. the house voted to impeach him, but the senate did not act responsibly and they basically exonerated him. so we have a president that's out of control. remember, the president said he could stand on fifth avenue and shoot somebody and nothing would happen to him? he's always believed that. so now that he's gone through the impeachment, which he never thought that he was going to go through, he is going to get revenge. he is going to show you that there are no limits to the presidential power and, you know, while everybody is talking about the commutations and the pardons and the clemency and all of that, he's going to be even worse. he is going to wreak revenge on some people. i don't know in all of the ways that he's going to do it. then he is going to put putin right in our face. he is going to bring him to the white house and he is going to say, be damned the congress of the united states, i'm going to do whatever i want to do. so we've got to turn out those people who understand that he's dangerous, that he doesn't care about the constitution. we've got to organize and we've got to turn out the vote. we have to vote him out of office. >> do you believe that if donald trump is re-elected that he will drop all sanctions on russia and, as you said, bring vladimir putin to the white house? >> oh, absolutely. absolutely. he will pardon manafort. he will lift all of the sanctions from russia. he will be even more involved with the oligarchs of russia, and he will bring putin to the white house, i believe that, if he is re-elected. but we have to make sure, those of us who really respect and care about the constitution and know that russia has hacked into our democratic national committee, into our state election system, and we are knowing very well that they're going to do it again in this election, we have got to work hard to make sure that they don't get away with it, that we don't have this president who will carry out that kind of agenda if he is re-elected. we've got to make sure this man is not elected again. >> part of the risk of donald trump is not just that his own sort of sense of, you know, monarchical nature and his desire to be an autocrat, it is that he is surrounded by sycophants and those that believe he should be able to behave like he is a king. here he is talking about his own law enforcement powers. >> just so you understand, i chose not to be involved. i'm allowed to be totally involved. i'm actually, i guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country, but i've chosen not to be involved. >> and he is talking about the roger stone case, but he is being enabled by that by the attorney general. here is william barr. he has insinuated before that presidents are the chief law enforcement officer, that they essentially have absolute power. this is a quote from a speech he gave all the way back in 2001, talking about what he said to george h.w. bush. i remember right before we indicted the pan am 103 people, the investigation was going on, and the president, george h.w. bush, said to me, would it be okay for you to brief us in the national security council on where things stand? would it be okay? well, i work for you, you're the top law enforcement officer. as long as it's okay. the fact that he has this attorney general who believes he should be king, is that more dangerous in the sense of donald trump's own proclivities. >> well, the american people should be focused on barr and we should all be joining with all of those federal prosecutoring attorneys who have decided that he should step down, that he should resign. we should be supporting them, we should be backing them up. i'm anxious to see what the federal judges who have decided they can't wait until the yearly association meeting, that they should pay attention to what is going on now and review what has happened. i'm anxious to see what they're going to come out with. but the american public should get behind this if they care anything about our democracy. you know, for all of those people who say that they, you know, honor the flag and that they are in support of, you know, our democracy being strengthened, for all of those people who say that, where are you? can't they see what is happening? we're in a constitutional crisis in this country with a president who is running amok. he is out of control. we have got to make sure that he's not re-elected. we have to speak up, we have to resist. i don't hear enough voices. it is not only the sycophants around him, it's the average american who gets up every day who is going to work, who is taking care of their families, who is thinking somebody else is going to see to it that this president is not re-elected, but, no, it's got to be all of us out there working and working very hard. we have a constitutional crisis and we've got to deal with it. this is what democracy is all about. when you see a president out of control, when you see those who have been elected to office who are not acting responsibly and they're endangering our democracy, you've got to speak out against them, you've got to work against them, and you've got to make sure that they're not re-elected ever again. >> well said, congresswoman maxine waters. thank you so much for being here tonight. really appreciate you. >> you're so welcome. thank you. >> thank you. ahead, lots of new movement in the latest nbc news polling. michael bloomberg makes the debate stage. which could have big implications for the big debate. we'll talk about it next. hi guys. this is the chevy silverado with the world's first invisible trailer. invisible trailer? and it's not the trailer right next to us? this guy? you don't believe me? hop in. good lookin' pickup, i will say that. oh wow. silverado offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different views - including one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible. wow. - that's pretty sweet. - that's cool. oooohh! that's awesome. where'd the trailer go? i love it. it's magic. in 24 hours democrats will hold their next presidential primary debate in las vegas, nevada. the debate will air right here on msnbc. coverage begins at 8:p.m. eastern anchored by my pal and colleague rachel maddow. tomorrow night there will be a new candidate on the stage. as of this morning former new york city mayor michael bloomberg qualified for the debate by getting 10 or more percent in at least four national polls. today two new national polls show bloomberg jumping up into the teens. our own nbc news/"wall street journal" has bernie sanders with a double-digit lead at 27%, by next is biden at 15%, down from last month, followed by bloomberg and warren at 14%. buttigieg is at 13% and klobuchar at 7%. that tracks with an nrp/pbs "newshour"/marist poll released today that shows bernie sanders at 31%, bloomberg at 19%, biden at 15%, warren at 12%, klobuchar and buttigieg at single digits. they get the shot to take on bloomberg face-to-face and we'll talk about that next. y schizoph. i also felt my tongue darting and pushing against my cheeks. i was worried what others would think. td can affect different parts of the body, and it may also affect people who take medications for depression and bipolar disorder. i know i shouldn't change or stop my medication so i was relieved there are treatment options for td. - if this sounds like you or someone you know, visit talkabouttd.com to sign up to receive a personalized doctor discussion guide to help start a conversation with you doctor about td. you'll also be able to access videos and a free brochure that show the different movements of td. visit talkabouttd.com or call to learn more. - i was glad to learn there are treatments for td. learn more at talkabouttd.com. there will be six democratic candidates on the debate stage tomorrow night. like last debate there will be one billionaire, though not this time steyer. michael bloomberg. finally facing his democratic candidates for the nomination for the first time. elizabeth warren is up for a fight, tweeting out, it is a shame michael bloomberg can buy his way into the debate, but at least now primary voters curious how each candidate will take on donald trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire. i'm joined bid karine jean -- pierre. chief public affairs for move on.org. thank you both for being here. i'm going ladies first because i like the fact that -- i tweeted out about that comment by elizabeth warren as well because i do feel like the zeitgeist including in our business in the media is to try to make las vegas a bernie/bloomberg face-off. >> right. >> and i worry that that is shortsighted in the sense that we know what bernie sanders is going to say. we know what -- he's been saying the same thing consistently since he ran the first time, really for 30 years according to his supporters. we don't really know what warren is going to say, but we know she has been a student of bankruptcy. this is her thing. this is like her vibe. i actually expect that to be the hottest matchup on the stage. >> i agree. can i add one more thing about what we will see on the debate stage tomorrow? not one person of color. >> none. >> not one person of color on that stage after starting as the most -- >> happy black history month. >> happy black history month, yes. so, you know, it is the media we are talking about how the media is trying to make this into -- and the two candidates as well, bernie versus bloomberg. and here's the think. thing. we've only had two other contests. >> right. >> that's it, two small contests. one was 90% white, you know, new hampshire was 93% white, and now we're finally getting into a more diverse state. we have south carolina, and then we have super tuesday states. those first four states, only 4% of the delegate number. >> that's right. >> that's it. we still have a long way to go. >> yep. >> but here is the problem. because of that messaging and because of what's out there, there are people who have been voting already. >> yes. >> california, north carolina, other states are voting already, and they're watching this narrative that's coming out. they're watching what is in the media. so that is the unfortunate thing for someone like warren, for someone even like biden, because people are voting in there and the narrative has not been on their side. >> yes. >> that's what makes it dangerous when you control the narrative in that way. >> and so you do have these two halves of the democratic party. you have the part that says, you know, after obama, that proves that, you know, big change is possible in terms of a black president, for god's sake, in a country that had enslavement. now we will push it further. then we have voters that go, we're not doing that. trump came along, we need safety. those two parts are intergenerationally, even within the black community, you know, between those two sides. is there a candidate you have seen that is able to bring them together because a lot of people are saying it is bloomberg but it is not clear why it is bloomberg. it is just because he has a lot of money. >> i think the short answer is no, i don't see that. for a simple reason, and to some extent it is a little bit bernie. the reason i say that is because as much as i wish things were slow and steady and these first four states were put into context over many months, historically we run up against a problem at these first four, particularly these two, you know, white as white bread states, iowa and new hampshire, coming first. they really do impact the race. >> what about when they're -- because i feel like there was a null result out of the two of them. buttigieg and bernie sort of split the two states. >> they did. >> neither had a strong victory, and buttigieg has not gotten much of a bounce in the polls. >> they did, but no one in either party has become their nominee without winning iowa or new hampshire since 1992. now, good news is, for those who didn't win iowa or new hampshire, is that it was bill clinton. he went the whole way. he even lost the first four. >> right. >> there is history against people and, you know, bloomberg -- it might be -- people might look back and say he shouldn't have waited to jump in, that skipping the first four -- skipping the first two maybe, but south carolina and nevada, because there's supply and demand problem. people are excited about him, even if it is just because they're getting so nervous and anxious about beating donald trump and they're not seeing who that is, so they're projecting on to him. they can't do anything about it. >> about it, right. >> they can't vote for him. >> they can't vote for him, but the thing that it does put pressure on is biden. biden must do well, even though as you said this is a tiny, tiny slice of the delegate. i think 14 is the most delegates the winner of iowa got. but if biden doesn't do well, is there going to be a rush to bloomberg among his supporters? >> absolutely. like we said, the supporters are watching this. voters -- i said this the other day on your show. they're playing pundit right now. they're very, very nervous and they're thinking, who can beat donald trump? that is -- and we have to remember biden's whole theory of the case for him was he was electable, he was electable. he needs to come in second in nevada and he needs to win south carolina. >> yes. >> without that, what's his theory of the case? >> yeah. >> what is he going to offer voters? so it is -- he is in a tight, tight space right now, and he has to perform. >> let's talk about bernie for a second. god bless my mentions, i'm going to pray for this as i bring it up. >> oh, please. just don't look at twitter for two days. >> i'm going to stop looking after i say this. the challenge for sander is he does a small majority but he has a solid 25%, 26%, 27%, that he takes with him to every poll. his people are not going anywhere. if he is the nominee, he needs the clinton people, he will need obama people. >> yes. >> has his campaign become so feisty in its -- you know, sort of to hell with everybody kind of attitude that he will be difficult for him if he is nominee to bring everyone around? >> it is the latter. they've become obstinate to some extent. if bernie becomes the nominee, he can win. he will not win by saying, to hell with all of you. to all of you being the democratic party, to the bad guys, the establishments. >> he is saying he wants everyone, but a lot around him there's that feel. >> the fish, you know, puts people off from the top. he needs to say, look, what happened happened, for my own benefit. the man wants to be president. he needs to do what it takes to become president, which is just suck it up and say, hillary, i need your people, i need everybody. otherwise it is whack-a-mole. yes, bernie might appeal to some voters who went for trump or didn't vote at all because they like the outsider/insider dynamic. but if you get those and you lose huge swaths of the democratic party you have a problem. remember, right now -- and this goes for all of them, pete, bernie, warren. the most popular person in the democratic field is not the favor of 75% of the rest of the party. someone's got a lot of work of unifying to do, and that is not bernie sanders and team sanders and sanders' base's strong suit. >> yes, it will be very understanding. karine jean-pierre. felipe ryan. vegas. do we all feel good about donald trump managing the response to the coronavirus? do you feel good about that? that's the gamble. senator brian schatz is raising flags about what the administration is and isn't doing. scaring is caring. coming up. - when i noticed my sister moving differently, i didn't know what was happening. she said it was like someone else was controlling her mouth. her doctor said she has tardive dyskinesia, which may be related to important medication she takes for her depression. her ankles would also roll and her toes would stretch out. i noticed she was avoiding her friends and family. td can affect different parts of the body. it may also affect people who take medications for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. she knows she shouldn't stop or change her medication, so we were relieved to learn there are treatment options for td. - if this sounds like you or someone you know, visit talkabouttd.com to sign up to receive a personalized doctor discussion guide to help start a conversation with your doctor about td. you'll also be able to access videos and a free brochure that show the different movements of td. visit talkabouttd.com or call to learn more. - we were so relieved to learn there are treatments for td. - learn more at talkabouttd.com. hi, i'm jonathan, help. a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company. and with coverage options starting at just $9.95 a month, you can get a whole life insurance plan to help close that gap with a benefit check paid directly to your beneficiary. it's cash they can use right away, and generally, it's free from federal income tax. if you're between age 50 and 85, coverage options start at just $9.95 a month. and the rate is locked in, so it can never go up. there are no medical questions. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. and it comes with two lifetime guarantees. one, your coverage can never be cancelled, and two, your rate can never go up. this is our #1 most popular whole life insurance plan. take the first step now. call for free information and you'll also get this beneficiary planner free just for calling. use it to record important information and helpful direction for your loved ones. so don't wait, call now. (announcer) and when you call right now, you'll also get this free prescription savings card that can help you save up to 80% on prescription drugs at over 35,000 pharmacies locally and nationwide. (sensei) a live bookkeeper quickbooks for me.tomize (live bookkeeper) okay, you're all set up. (sensei) thanks! that was my business gi, this one's casual. (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. donald trump was still a private citizen the last time the world faced a global health crisis. the ebola outbreak in 2014 which would lead to the deaths of more than 11,000 people in west africa, people in this country were far more focused on the fear that ebola would come to america, which led to some overzealous responses which led to chris christie to quarantine the nurse kasie hickox even though she tested negative for ebola. no one was more panicky than citizen trump who didn't want her to return home at all. >> they are great people. they're tremendous people. but they have to suffer the consequence. they go and they try and help other people, but things like this happen. our country has enough problems. send the doctors to liberia. send the doctors to west africa to take care of our people. that's one thing, but don't let them in. we should end flights coming in from west africa and liberia, we should certainly do that. >> trump insisted he understood ebola better than the experts tweeting, it is much easier to transmit than the cdc and government and representatives are admitting and not simply show off his medical degree from -- nowhere. he went full conspiracy theorist encouraging people not to trust the government to deal with the outbreak. >> i think very few people trust our government as being competent. let's not kid ourselves. i mean, we have virtually incompetent leadership so why would anybody trust our government to handle this crisis? >> well, now trump is the head of our government. he's the one we're supposed to trust to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus, and yet here's what he had to say last month at davos. >> have you been briefed by the cdc -- >> i have. >> are there worries about a pandemic? >> no, not at all. we have it totally under control. it's one person coming in from china and we have it under control. it's going to be just fine. >> now the situation in the united states is still relatively good, but since trump said things were totally under control, the death toll in china 1,900 and infections have risen from 540 to over 72,000. and at least 15 cases have now been reported here in the united states. speaking of trump's claim, harvard school of public health professor michael mina said even a middle schooler wouldn't have said that. everyone is using caution in how we're framing what the risk is primarily because we don't understand what the risk is at the moment. the last thing anyone would say is, we are not concerned. everyone is concerned. there are other reasons to be concerned here, too, like the fact that senator brian schatz of hawaii is describing the administration's handling of the virus as, quote, keystone cops. and he'll join me live right after this. today when donald trump took to the airport tarmac to tout his latest batch of pardons, he was asked about the coronavirus and how china is handling it. >> some people don't seem to trust the data coming out of china. are you worried about that? >> look, i know this. president xi loves the people of china, he loves his country, and he's doing a very good job with a very, very tough situation. >> if the president seems muted in his response, it may be because of his relationship with china and their president xi jinping. "the washington post" reports that, quote, worries about rattled financial markets and their effect on the economy as well as delicate negotiations with china over a trade deal have played a large role in influencing the president's friendly posture towards china. we also know trump's new budget comes for cutting u.s. funding to the world health organization in half and the top global health position on the national security council has been vacant for almost two years. with cases of the coronavirus topping 72,000, including 15 cases here in the united states, nearly 2,000 people dead, well wbl that response from the president is just not enough, is it? especially for people on the front lines. hawaii is one of the states with ports of entry screening for the coronavirus trying could coordinate with the trump administration. senator brian schatz joins me. how is it going with the anti-science administration with no one in the nsc health division? >> well, i think you've got it exactly right. you've got an administration that doesn't care much about science, but also they don't really care about governing. all this stuff is kind of boring to them which is why they've de-funded the programs designed to help prevent a global pandemic. it's why they left the position open at the national security council and there is literally no one in charge of this from the national security council side. and not only do they leave it vacant, but they eventually decided that they were going to eliminate the position altogether. they cut the cdc by 9%, so you're kind of dealing with a government that doesn't care about government and then overly your sort of normally bumbling incompetence onto the possibility of a global pandemic and you've got exactly what you got a couple weeks ago. the good news is that on the ground things are safe in hawaii and elsewhere across the country, but it's not because of anything that the trump administration has done. it's been in spite of it. let me just give you one example of the kind of how nuts it was at the very beginning. there was an order to quarantine individuals and the president i think issued an executive order on a friday. it was in effect -- it was super bowl sunday. for about half an hour. and our state officials were on a conference call with officials from the federal government. they didn't know when planes were going to be landing, how many people were coming from the relevant province, and whether or not they were -- they had the capability to assess them, intake them and quarantine them, and then if so, where they were to be quarantined. so this conference call we had while planes were in the air was sorting all of this out. now, we've got robust capabilities in the state of hawaii so we sort of fixed this. but, again, not thanks to the white house. >> and who do you talk to? who do hawaii officials talk to in the white house? who is there that has any competency at all? are there career people left to speak to? like, who do you call? >> there are a few career people who are really trying to get this right. and, listen, i have tremendous respect for the heads of both national institutes of health ied and the centers for disease control. coordination and effort because cdc does what it does. nih does what it does. you really need someone to make sure the agencies work together. so there was a good example of the lack of agencies working together. they literally didn't know where people were going to be quarantined and we were being told two different things while planes were in the air. some people said within the civilian population, our attorney general said, no way. and then we were told it was going to be fine if the individuals who needed quarantine were going to be at the joint bases pearl harbor hi hickam in a security facility. but then dod told us, no, that's a no-go. we were left sending texts and sorting out where these individuals were going to go and how they were going to be safely transported while planes were wheels up on their way to honolulu. it was pretty bananas. we have settled it. i just want to reassure everybody we have settled it. >> yeah. >> but to the extent we've been fortunate with this disease it's because of the epidemiology of the disease, not was of some sort of coordinated response from the federal government. >> are you concerned, you know, having seen a lot of the interesting stuff go through the senate, the trump administration might try to use this coronavirus outbreak as just a way to do more ethnonationalist immigration policy? >> i think you can always assume there will be an angle to this that includes scaring people in the united states about people from other countries, and one of the things that worries me about preventing global pandemics and having a global response from the united states' standpoint, which we have been good at, the funding depends whether the particular disease captures the public imagination. because there was a movie about ebola and it was terrifying, they got $6 billion. zika was a little harder to explain and less terrifying. they got $500 million and much later. there is a better way to do this, just like the federal emergency management agency, fema, they get a tranche of money and then they determine how the money ought to be spent based on the severity of the disaster, and that's what i think needs to happen with cdc and nih, so they don't have to come to the congress and have, you know, have it depend on whether or not we're getting along with ourselves or whether we want to demagogue something. we should be funding a global health response. and in this day and age, it's important to separate this all out from politics. >> very quickly, we don't have a lot of time, any of your colleagues have second thoughts about letting this guy off the hook dealing with him privately? >> oh, you mean my republican colleagues? >> senate. yeah, republican. >> yeah. i think it's not so much if they had to do it over again they would have voted to convict. i just don't think that would be factually correct. >> yeah. >> i do think they're struggling with what their role is any more and i think that they are sort of walking around hang dog, ashamed of their vote because they know -- everybody talks about us being the article i branch. >> not now. i'm sorry, i'm out of time. >> they gave up their authority. >> brian schatz, thank you for your time. thank you so much for your time. "the 11th hour" with brian williams start now. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. president trump has today declared he is the nation's chief law enforcement officer. that title normally goes to the attorney general, but as we've noted, these are not normal times. in fact, if you believe the story just out tonight, that same attorney general is mulling over quitting if the president keeps tweeting. plus as another trump friend and ally faces some serious federal prison time in a celebrated case, the president flexes one of the more awesome powers of his office by stepping into pardon criminals involved in some notorious corruption cases. we'll also look at what is motivating the youthful surge in support of bernie sanders. and we have a preview of tomorrow night. it won't look like a o
LouisianaUnited-statesNevadaNew-hampshireNorth-carolinaWashingtonChinaIllinoisWhitehouseDistrict-of-columbiaCaliforniaLiberia for those kind words. we go way back. i'm always worried when doug introduces me. he knows an awful lot of stuff he could say. but he always kind of -- he is on his way to the supreme court to i guess a woman we know, great lawyers, going to argue the dna case, and it's something we probably ought to win 9-0. don't you think? so don't blow it. [laughter] >> nine-zip, you know. now, as some of you know, as doug said, we worked noth the u.s. attorney's office, but the notion i was his boss is a complete joke. but it's always a privilege to be with him today, and it's a privilege actually to be included in this important annual meeting. i'd particularly like to welcome this organization's newest members. 11 state attorneys general who are participating for the first time and i'd like to recognize and thank all the good friends and colleagues here today. thank you for lending your time, you diverse perspectives and your talent to this association's critical work. over the past four years i've been fortunate to work with many of the leaders in the room to confront range of criminal justice, law enforcement, and national security challenges. alongside my colleagues and court parts in the obama administration, including vice president biden, director cordray, and associate attorney general tony west, all of whom you're hearing from this week. we have accomplished, i think, a great deal working together with you across state boundaries and i think across party lines. the justice department has benefited and more importantly, american people have benefited from your tireless work, your expert guidance, and your steadfast commitment to doing what is best for those we are privileged to serve. and the results speak for themselves. by helping to strengthen the state, federal criminal justice systems, fighting to expand access to legal services and consumer protections, you have addressed persistent challenges and emproved countless lives. you have made victims whole again and brought assistance and healing to troubled areas. in close partnership with the presidents president's fraud task force you have helped approach, identify, and combat fraud. it has never been more systematic. last january many of you joined with the justice department and other partners to bring about the largest mortgage settle independent our history. since 2009 a lot of you have provided invaluable assistance in the federal investigation into misconduct. behavior that goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, and no less than 13 of you are moving forward with parallel actions complimenting the department's civil lawsuit. so, protecting our national security to preventing domestic, eradicating human trafficking, crack down on intellectual property crimes and combating youth violence my colleagues and i have been proud and fortunate to stand shoulder to shoulder with each and every one of you. we have streamlined key investigative and enforcement activities across multiple agencies and offices, enabling lead leaders at every levels of government to make the most of precious taxpayer resources and there's no question we're making a measurable difference in the live ourselves fellow citizens each and every day. yet i recognize, as do all of you, that for all that we have accomplished, our work is really far from over. when it comes to the sacred rights of the american people, much work remains to be done in too many places serious and seemingly intractable public safety challenges per -- persist, and nowhere is this clearer than the evers to eradicate gun violence. gun violence touches every jurisdiction represented here, and steals too many promising futures every year. last december as horrific events in newtown, connecticut, are a shocking reminder of the epidemic that affliction communities close to country, from inner cities to rural areas to tribal lands. on a daily basis this unspeakable is compounded by individual tragedies that tapes on our street and decimate the lives of our children. every loss is shattering, and inexplicable. each one is an outrage and this is why, as concerned citizens, heartbroken parents and public servants empowered to make a difference on behalf of those we are swore to appropriation it's time for each of to us steel our revolve and renew or commitment to this end of senseless violence. at every level of this administration, and particularly at our nation's department of justice, my colleagues and i are determined to work with organizations like this one to build a bipartisan consensus for taking decisive action to end gun violence. and we will not rest until we've done everything in our power to prevent future tragedies like the one that took place at sandy hook elementary school. of course there will never be a simple, one size fits all solution for addressing any challenge of this magnitude. and confronting its underlying causes. but we must not allow the size of complexity of the problem to deter us from taking action. earlier this year, under the leadership of vice president biden, i had the privilege of working with my fellow cabinet members. we assembled a series of common sense recommendations for keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands, keeping our young people safe, and keeping our neighborhoods and schools more secure. this comprehensive plan, which president obama announced last month, is founded on a consensus that emerged from the discussions we convened with representatives more than 200 groups of policymakers, antiviolence advocates, gun owners and retailers, private organizations, police chiefs, and victims of gun crimes. at every step forward is predicated on the principle that president obama laid out in the weeks after the newtown tragedy, that, and i quote here, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, we have an obligation to try. this obligation has driven the administration to call on congress to adopt legislation to require universal background checks so a full background check is performed everytime someone attempts to buy a gun. to impose tough penalties of gun traffickers who help funnel deadly weapons to dangerous criminals to pass a ban on high-capacity magazines. and to pass a ban on military-style assault weapons. updated and stronger than the legislation that was passed in 1994. beyond these proposals, agencies across the administration are currently working to implement the 23 executive actions that president obama announced in order to provide federal officials and state leaders like you with the tools and with the information that we need to keep our citizens safe. for instance, we have been encouraging private sellers to work with licensed gun dealers, to run their transsalks through the next background check system, something that many already do on a regular basis, and more can begin to do starting immediately. we're moving to strengthen this tool by addressing gaps, making certain that information included in the system is complete, and that it is accurate, and examining all laws to make sure they're effective when it comes to identifying those who should not have access to firearms. we welcome your support for this important work. in ensugar that the next ground change database is as complete as possible, state record are the life blood of the system, and i urge each you've to encourage law enforcement nags your state to make the most of the national crime information center by both supplying and then accessing pertinent crime data. ncic helps local law enforcement perform their work more safely because it enables every officer on patrol to have at his or her fingertips a database of over a million record that can be tapped into 24 hours day, 365 days a year. in addition the president has taken action to end what has essentially been a freeze on rigorous nonpartisan research into gun violence, and an effective strategy for its prevention by the centers for disease control. he has instructed relevant agencies to issue guidance making clear under current law doctors are not prohibited from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement. direct agencies to finalize regular luigss under the affordable care act that will increase access mental health services f for all who need them, and he has asked officials to work together to develop plans to make schools, institutions of higher learning, and houses of worship safer. contrary to what a few have said, all of these actions are consistent with the historical use of executive power. not one will infringe upon constitutional rights of law abide citizens and gun owners, and all are essential part moves serious, comprehensive effort to combat gun violence and prevent dangerous people from acquiring and wreaking havoc with deadly weapons. just as important as translating these proposals into reality and advancing our robust national discussion about fix violence prevention, is in the niece to strengthen antiviolence legislation to protect those who risk their lives to keep us safe. to this end the justice department is committed and i remain determined to do everything possible to reinforce the thin blue that stands between the people and the criminal element that menaces our communities. since 2009, this commitment has led the department to award more than $3.5 billion to our state and local partners under a grand program that helps agencies and departments across the country close budgetary gaps gaps and gn hack s success to resources. additional funding streams have been made available through the cops hiring program, which has awarded more than $1.5 billion to create or to protect over 8,000 jobs in local law enforcement. and as we look toward the future, we are determined to continue making the investments our state and local partners need to build on the progress we established in recent years, and stem the tide of violence against our brave men and women in uniform. that's why the president's plan to reduce gun violence calls for $4 billion in cop-hiring grant funding to support over 15,000 law enforcement officers. through the department's office of safety working group, we're helping to develop key training and information sharing platforms to allow officers in the field to better anticipate and more effectively confront specific threats in real time. we are exploring evidence-based strategies for preventing violent encounters and helping to make such encounters survivable when the occur, through programs we have distributed officer safety tool kits and provided officers with tactical training and cutting edge tools to responsible up to predictable threats, including ambush style assaults. and thanks to the initiative the bulletproof vests partnership program, which awarded $20 million to help 4,000 jurisdictions purchase protection it equipment, we are helping to save lives, including the lives of at least 13 officers who were saved by vests purchased in part by federal funds last year. now, there's no question we can all be encouraged by this work. i'm proud of the results we have obtained by working in close partnership with one another. but the reality is that our ability to continue building on this progress will be contingent on congress adopting a balanced deficit reduction plan, and preventing the untenable reduction that will cut over $1.6 billion from the justice department's budget starting this friday. if this so-called sequester goes into effect, it will not only curtail the department's able to support our state and local partners, it will have a negative impact on the safety of americans across this great country. our capacity to respond to crimes, to investigate wrong-doing, to hold criminals accountable, will be reduced, and despite our best efforts to limit the impact of sequestration, there's no question that the effect of these cuts on our state and local partners, on our entire justice system, and on the the american people, will be profound. today i'd like to join many of the leaders in this room in urging congressional leaders to act southwestly in ensuring that the department will continue to have the funding we need to fulfill our critical missions, support essential allies like you, and keep our citizens safe. despite the breadth and scope of the challenge and the other obstacles and disagreements we faced in recent yearsed, it's clear our resolve to stand together in reducing gun violence and preventing mass shootings and protecting the american people, and in combating threats to law enforcement is stronger than ever. but recent achievements must not be stopping points, and this week, as you move through the ambitious agenda before you and pledge yourselves once more to the difficult work that lies ahead, i want you to know the national association of attorneys general has, and can always expect, my strongest support. it's an honor to join you today in pledging my personal and professional commitment to continuing to work with you on our shared purpose and our common cause. i am fortunate to count you as partners and colleagues in fulfilling the sacred public trust that has been afforded to each one of us and i look forward to our efforts that can and must lead us in the months and years ahead. thanks very much. [applause] >> as many of you do, general holder is defying his staff and taking one or two questions. do any of the attorneys general have a question for general hold center general storms from colorado. >> i'm not from michigan. when are washington and colorado going to hear on the federal government's position on marijuana legalization. >> we're still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed, and i would say -- i mean this -- you'll hear soon. we are, i think insuring the last stages of that review, and we're trying to make the determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are, a whole variety of things that go into this determination but the people of michigan and washington deserve an answer and we'll have one relatively soon. >> thank you. >> just a comment, really a thank you. i want to thank you for the extraordinary cooperation your department gave us on the bank mortgage settlement and now on standard and poors. what tom and tony and brian and jeff did in work with us has just total partners, has been spectacular. i've been an attorney general for a long time and i've never seen this kind of cooperation, this kind of working relationship with the department of justice. thank you. >> that's go to hear but it's an indication how, when we work together, we can accomplish great things, the residential mortgage backed security initiative, the standard and fors matter that is ongoing, think it -- those are two indications of what, if we work together, if we talk to one another, if we put party considerations aside, shows the power we all have working together as a group, and in furtherance of the goals we all have pledged, and that is to serve the american people. i think that, as long as i'm attorney general, that will be the way in which the justice department will conduct itself. i want to thank you all for the great assistance and support you have given us over the years. >> general mills from maine. >> thank you, general holder, over here. can you please comment on the prospects of continued funding for drug enforcement prosecution and other criminal justice measures? >> we actually -- it's interesting. i'm going to see what onb has sent back to us this afternoon about our budget for next year. so i will be in a better position to answer that question at that point. but i think one of the things we have to look at is the whole question of sequestration. i hope dish think we're going to have a healthy burn jag component in our budget, but under this sequestration issue, we're not going to have the capacity to do all we want to do with burn jag, and one of the things hit in the justice department is our grant-making ability. when we look at where cuts have to come -- these cuts are not ones where i'm given any flexibility. these are cuts that are just kind of mandated by statute. they're using a meat cleaver to say you can't do this, and as we look at the legislation ability to share funds with our partners to support things we have supported for years, is going to be impacted. that's why this sequestration thing has to be work out. it's going to have an impact on law enforcement. we're going to be looking at fbi agents and dea agents and dtf agents who are going to get furloughs and will not be on the street. federal prosecutors will not be working with you all in task forces and bringing case. there are whole variety of things that will happen as a result of sequestration and that's why i called on in my prepared remarks before congress to resolve this as quickly as possible. >> america's day begins in guam, and this is guam's attorney general,. >> half a day. >> half a day. >> the staff of the museum is still talking about your visit the war museum there. they still remember how long you slade and appreciated your visit, and -- >> not to have a commercial, but if you are in guam, or in the south pacific, it is something to see this world war ii museum. it's something that is -- it's technically done very well but also an extremely moving movingd informanttive place. it's really something to see. >> and kind of a follow on to maine's question, how the department of justice allocates the cuts should they happen to be very important so we would obviously make a push to not allocate -- just have a smaller allocation of all the cuts, those grants. >> there's very -- limited flexibility in -- under sequestration. we'll do the best we took minimize the harm that occurs as a result of the sequestration, but the reality is this. there's going to be harm. there's going to be pain and he american people are going to be less safe. that's a fundamental reality that people have to get their heads around. it's not going to be something that's going to happen suddenly. as the president was saying yesterday, but over time, and a relatively small amount of time. we're talk can over the course of weeks, the capacity we have in the justice department is going to be significantly weak 'ed. >> thank you again. we'll reconvene at 11:15. please thank the attorney general for his time. [applause] >> now two supreme court attorneys discuss landmark cases before the supreme court. this is just over an hour. >> it is a tremendous honor to be here -- mic on? let me try that again. it's a tremendous honor to be here once again with walter dellinger and ted olson, two of the leading light office the supreme court bar. once they become good friends of us and i think they only need very brief intro introductions before we getting into into what the supreme court has been up to. walter dellinger is a partner where he works in their supreme court practice. he is a former acting solicitor general of the united states and head of the office of legal counsel, has argued many cases in the supreme court. ted olson chairs the supreme court appellate practice, also the former solicitor general of the united states and head of the office of legal counsel. ted, how many arguments are you up to now? >> 60 as of the end of next month. >> with that, let's start diving in. it's another sleepy year here at the supreme court. [laughter] >> well, before we get into the -- what's more boring than domestic relations. i hear ted has some domestic relation cases in court. that's got to be a snoozer. before we turn to those unimportant issues, same-sex marriage, voting rights act, affirm action, let's briefly look at the last term. it's been eight manages since the court issued its decision in the health care case. perhaps a little too soon for history but long enough to have gotten a little perspective of what the court has done so, ted, and walter, any thoughts eight months removed? >> i'll talking about the obamacare or affordable care case. obama's decided now it's okay to call it the obamacare case. now that it's constitutional. i want to thank you, although it's a new venue, it's an equally precarious perch you put is on, on these little rickety stools. i thought the obama care decision was really interesting, and with dan and walter's permission i wrote down a few notes about some of the irony of the decision i thought i'd share with you. it was 187 page decision. and i found several ironies in the decision, legal and political ironies in the decision. we'll see if walter agrees. >> i don't, but go ahead. [laughter] >> i took these from what you said last year. no. but you've changed your mind. foremost among the ironies is the majority's conclusion that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is a legitimate exercise of congress' power to tax. during the legislative debate, think we all remember this -- the president and his allies were adamant the mandate was anything but absolutely not a tax. had they marketed this provision as a tax the bill would surely not have passed. the word no votes to spare. so the supreme court saved the signature legislative achievement of the obama administration, precisely because it was what the administration said it was not, and it was not what the administration said that it was. early in the litigation in the case, the administration invoked the federal antiinjunction act which bars suits to restrain the collection of any tax. the government then argued that it was a tax. but the supreme court held the mandate was just what congress called it, a penalty, and not a tax. the choice of labels the court said cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional but does control as to whether the antiinjunction statute applause. this reminded me of of lewis carroll when i use a word like humpty dumpty it means what i that's mean. neither more nor less. the magic of this dueling, i call it toxonmy, means that because it is a penalty, the court could go forward and consider its legality but because it was a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of the taxing power, not an unlawful exercise of congress. and the related irony five justices concluded congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing no, that is to say, not buying health insurance. but five justices only chief justice in both camps, held that congress has the power to impose a tax for doing the very same nothing. not buying health insurance. so the constitutional law professor, president, who insisted that obamacare was constitutional, was right all along. but he was right because he was wrong. he was right that it was discussional because he was wrong that it was not a tax. now, walter is getting warmed up. i can see. this -- i know he'll have an answer for all this, but just a little bit more. the rejoicing by president obama's supporters over this decision may be another irony and may be short-lived. their version of the vastness of federal power was vindicated but only if they want to propose politically unpopular taxes. on the other hand the majority's decision imposed a limit on the federal power to regulate commerce and in another part of the decision, to exercise power under the spending clause. these authorities under the commerce clause and under the spending clause, are much easier and politically easier to exercise in congress. unfunded mandate are the preferred way of taxing in sheep0s clothing. so the court's decision, while affirming authority that is hard to use, restricted authority that is easy to use, which looks an awful lot like a trojan horse. now, the government barely argued it was a tax. the solicitor general consumed only eight pages to address the subject and only at the end of his argue; when prompted by justice sotomayor, who said, general, can you please turn to the tax clause? justice ginsburg's containers -- and the four-justice descents eadvice rates the chief justices analysis it was a tax. so in 14 page office the chief justice's opinion, full five of which is devoted to maining why, if it is a tacoma doesn't violate other direct tax provisions under the constitution. in short, for the far reaching and largely unlitigated conclusion, it pronounces that chief justice opinion has very little reasoning to back it up. i'll just skip ahead to what i thought was really summed this all up, because this decision came down about the same time a bunch of physicists in switzerland discovered something called the iggs bolton, and it occurred to me that the decision of the chief justice about whether this was nonnable as a tax is like the migs bolton. it's not clear what it is. you can't see it. it disappears as soon as it occurs. and it is called the god particle because it's the answer to everything. [applause] >> ted in the spirit of collegiality i'll begin with the the one point you made that is accurate, and it's an important one, and a sobering one for those who supported the affordable care act, and who see the possibility of congressional powers to ameliorate any quality in america as an important -- and the court actually did invalidate the individual mandate. five justices held that the subsection a, which provides that every covered person shall have minimum health insurance coverage, but that is an exercise of the commerce power, which is invalid -- join the other four conservatives on the point. in addition to the curbs on spending power, are two major points. now, for the rest of it, ted's facts could be better if you watch more than one news channel. >> msnbc is the only one we get in my home. >> the point is a trivial one but i'll respond. on abc this week with george stephanopoulos while the bill wag pending, isn't this a middle class tax increase the president said no. that is the sum total of the notion that obama went around denying this was a tax. i said the day before the decision came down, after hearing the argument on the tax injunction act, the chief justice roberts fully understood there was nothing remarkable about this law constitutionally. nothing remarkable at all. and i think you've done a wonderful job of covering over the fact that it's sort of embarrassing this was seen as the end of liberty in the western world, when that was provided if you don't have adequate health insurance coverage you have to pay an additional 2-1/2% penalty with your federal income tax. this was an amendment to the internal revenue code. it provides if you don't have minimum health insurance coverage, you add 2 1/2%. you have to pay 7 1/2 percent for social security. you have to pay another percentage for medicare tax, to tear care for your health care after your 65, and if you don't have the alternative of private health insurance, that is adequate, you have to pay an additional 2-1/2%. knock in the world is going to say the it's the end of liberty in the western world. that's all it ever was, and the one thing that was made clear to my great satisfaction, in the government filed brief, was that you're not in violation of the law if you do not comply, if you do not comply with the provisions that you have minimum insurance coverage. gloater in violation of the law. they said that in the brief. they said it in oral argument. as long as you choose the alternative of paying the 2-1/2% penalty. what is the big deal? we managed to extend health insurance coverage to an extraordinary number of americans who are without it and the imposition on the system was difference functional. the idea of a regulation of one/seventh of the national economy, hate it or loathe it, that's not went the scope of the national got of government's regulations, regulatory -- a lot of things the federal does to encentavos behavior. incentivizes people for providing college education by giving you a tax break for funds set aside for a college education. it disinnocent vices having yellow ol'ow -- margarine -- >> you're running into problems in wisconsin. >> i know. so i think this is constitutionally completely unremarkable. and that you would strike down a legislative action of this magnitude, because of technical arguments. i think technically the chief justice did not give the better of the argument in the sense that subsection a says you have to maintain minimum coverage, subsection b says if you don't comply you have to pay 2-1/2%. thought that was fully valid as a tax power, in it's nothing to tax, provision a, is -- >> you really got into this. >> i did. so i think stepping back from it, nobody descending in black helicopters and forcing people into their aetna insurance agency and forcing them to sign up for anything, it's an interesting question whether the government can force you. the court answers it in the negative. but can it provide a modest tax incentive? you don't have to buy health insurance if you don't want to. you justifies have to pay an additional 2-1/2%. they've may be a good idea or bad idea. it was always a republican idea, don't have single payer system. incentivize people to use the private market. that's what happens. it's a modest tax. to me it's unremarkable it was upheld and people were historical about it being upheld, five counting ted. >> walter takes this a lot more seriously than i do. but you have 2-1/2 temperature -- what are the odds that will ever go up? >> well, -- i rest my case. >> that is a sign to which there are many people who are having the court -- this court is being more and more enmeshed in what are essentially decision office political policy and that's a policy choice. at some point, if you said, if it became so onerous that no one would pay the penalty and you were forced to buy insurance, then you would you have an argue. you're being coerced into something horrible, which is maintaining adequate insurance coverage and you would have a constitutional argument. as long as it's a choice, in fact it's perfectly racks until could pay the 2-1/2% baas health insurance is mostly -- >> i'm paying a lot more than 2-1/2 percent. >> i thought you were on medicare. >> now that we have reached agreement on that, we'll turn to some of the cases this term and we'll start with the same-sex marriage cases. i guess we should begin with a case that ted filed four years ago. i think when you first filed that case you knew it was likely toned up in the u.s. supreme court. what you may not have expected was that when it -- by the time it was at the court the state of california would no longer be defending the statute and wouldn't barret in the case and you might not have expected the defense of marriage act case would be argued the next day. now, how do those two developments affect? >> the supreme court, when it granted review in these two cases, made the point of saying that it wanted to consider arguments and have briefing on the question of standing, articles standing, in both cases. in the proposition 8 case, which we're calling hop lingsworth burrs perry, which this case we brought -- you're right, four years other, may of 2009 -- the attorney general, the then-attorney general, and the governor of california, agreed with us that the challenge to proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, which added to the california constitution a provision that said, only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in california. that was to overturn a california supreme court decision that had stricken down something called proposition 22 before that, which was a statute that basically said the same thing. the california supreme court struck down proposition 22, and the family code provision that went with it; on the drownses that under california constitution, under the due process cause and equal protection clause of the california constitution, that was an invasion of right oses california citizens. that was in may of 2008. then proposition 8 was already in the works and was put on the ballot and enacted by the citizens of california, on november 5 of that year, which then changed the california constitution to eliminate that california supreme court decision in the interim, 18,000 same-sex couples got married in california. the first challenge was to whether or not proposition 8 was really a revision of the california constitution and had to do through the legislature-that california supreme court said, no, no it's an amendment the constitution. so challenge -- a challenge to proposition 8 under the california constitution is not going to work bus it's an teamed the constitution -- an amendment to the constitution. so my clients, four individuals, two gay men and a lesbian couple, brought suit to challenge proposition 8 under the federal constitution, equal protection, due process clause, and filed suit in federal district court in san francisco. i could go on a long time about this but to get to the nuts of it right away. the governor and attorney general of california determined that in their view, proposition 8 was unconstitutional and they were going to enforce it as they were required to do under the law, they felt, but they were not going to defend it in court. so the proponents of proposition 8, who had put it on the ballot and had raised $40 million tote it passed in california -- intervened in the case. now, at that point the attorney general and the governor were still parties to the case so it was a clear case of controversy. and the intervenors could biggy back on the standings of the actual parties. when the decision came do you -- we had a 12-day trial with evidence from experts and other individuals. the district judge found proposition 8 up constitutional on the grounds we had specified. at that point, neither the attorney general nor the governor decided to appeal to the nine circuit. so, they were no longer parties in the case as far as an appeal was corned'm the proponents did pez to the ninth circuit and claimed they had standing. we argued they didn't have standing they nor more than any other citizen who wanted to see this measure upheld in the courts. the ninth circuit lateraled it to the california supreme court and said, what is the law in california? do proponents of a ballot proposition have standing to defend it on appeal where the state itself is not defending it? the california supreme court said, yes. they discovered something in the california constitution. i had not seen before. that under these ballot propositions, if the state does not defend them in court, then the proponents of the initiative have standing to maintain that case. so that is one of the issues in the proposition 8 case that we'll be arguing on march 26th walter will talk about the standing issue in the delmon case which is even more fascinating and will be argued the next day. i think most of you have heard the arguments about due process and equal protection. we filed our briefs on the merits last thursday, the 21st amicus briefs or our side will be filed in february. the big mystery is whether the obama administration, which is not defending the domier case, which races a standing question, whether they will file an amicus brief, and if they do, what kind of arguments will they make. we'll find out on thursday inch the meantime there were 40 some amicus briefs filed on the side of our proopinion anyones in the proposition case, the perry case, and at least that men filed this thursday supporting our position in the case, including a "new york times" story this morning on the front page, former and president -- mostly former -- republican party office holders who signed up in supporting our nation the case, which is a bit of a man bites dog kind of a thing. and at least some people think that. and we all have a brief that so far has over 60 major -- constituents from every state, corporations saying that proposition 8 should be struck down as unconstitutional, damaging to their employees, damaging to the work place, and that sort of thing. a lot of vary interesting amicus briefs filed. i hope that summary was short enough on the staning and merits of the proposition 8 case. >> at this event three years ago, i had something which is unfortunately rare for me and that is my mind was changed on an argument made by ted, at least my position was moved. it was the first time we had met before the attorneys general since ted and david had brought the california litigation. and i challenged ted by reading to him from justice david souter's final opinion as a justice, and in a case that had to do with re-opening criminal convictions with new dna evidence, and inappropriate to that pope was a caution by suiter about when you should ask people to change their traditional ways of thinking. and the need to go slow, and the need to give people institutions, citizens, courts, time to adjust to a change. that a person is not a stick in the mud, he said, just because it takes someone time to get adjusted to new ways of thinking. i had fir identified this as a clear message in a bottle from justice david souter, a message that i read to be about gay marriage to go slow. some i read that to ted, and ted then began to tell me why he would not accept that admonition. and he talked about his clients, and the fact that one of his couples, two women, had children who are in school and ted says the children told him they want their parents to be married by the time they graduate from high school. and ted said, i could not look them in the eye and say, you need to wait. and i thought in that moment that it was so powerful, and watching the reaction here, no matter what people's political persuasions were, they saw the power of that, and i think that moment at this event changed my thinking on it. one of the things that is quite dramatic about the movement in this -- some of you may have done the count -- there are 40 odd states that do not allow same-sex marriages. but in the brief supporting the proposition 8 side of the case, only 20 states joined that brief, compared with the -- all the states that joined in the maryland vs. king, and it was noted there were some of the states that it did not join that brief when usually if a state law is at stake, they will. i still think it's worth making -- ted has, i think -- whatever the outcome of the case, think ted's advocacy has played major role in shaping views on this issue. whatever happens. in perry vs. hollingsworth and united states vs. winsor, i'm filing a brief on thursday on standing that takes the position that i have advocated in print, that the california marriage case was over, and that ted and gay marriage and his couples won when the state attorney general and governor declined to appeal and the time to appeal ran. you may want to take a look at that because it dot have some implications for your role as attorneys general. the question whether the attorney general makes the decision to settle a case, not that it's -- applied challenge down the road, whether people have been proponented of a referendum have standing in court to raise constitutional issues. when they are not subject to control that -- you know, we can see -- concede that the state of california is a proper party, or would be if they chose to appeal. the issue is whether these four individualed, four of the five who were the proopinion anyones of prop 8 -- whether they actually can come in as the state of california. now, the california supreme court said they do represent california but i still believe strongly that that does not end the matter. there's the million article 3 -- a state can't simply say, that on in particular statute, some states have said something like thing -- any citizen or person doing business in the state, represent the state's interests in court to enforce a particular statute. if a state did that across the board, two of the courts are not going to say we don't aloe museum to come in with generalized grievances who are not harmed by the provision in question. and that what california supreme court never said is that these people are agents. there's enough of the indicia of agents. there's no fiduciary responsibility to the state. they serve for life. they can't be removed. unlike said legislators who have been sometimes given standings to represent the state. they can be voted out of office and in one case they were. new jersey case. but if one -- if this case at any time resolve the issue -- and seven years from now someone brings a challenge, married inned and irrational to prevent them from being married in california. you don't cut down the remaining proponents at some retirement home and give them the right to litigate on behalf of the state of california. the dead giveaway which will real estate nail with you attorneys general, at the end of the opinion they said there some issues we don't need to resolve. the question is, who will pay the attorney feees. if california loses and prop 8 is invalidate. i'm telling you, when you talk about david boies and ted olson, you're not talking small change. and off course if we don't have to resolve that. that makes no sense. if these proponents are there as the agents of the state of california, of course the state o california would be responsible for the attorneys fees, which i think approves the fact they're not agent office the state. and i don't think it's a hard question they dope have an interest. they did have an interest in defending the package of prop 8, which they did successfully in the california supreme court against state constitutional challenges. this was a valid amendment in the state constitution and they accomplished that. this is an issue of federal constitutional law, where there -- i said, it's not that -- i don't think this is technical in this case. the reason why it's hard to find someone who has standing is it's hard to find someone who is injured. if there were finite number of marriage licenses available, so that gay couples meant that a married couple had to turn ours in -- [laughter] >> let's not speculate about how many will be turned in. >> for the cause, you know. in that case -- the simple matter is no one is injured by someone else's happiness, and that's why i think it's hard to find someone standing -- ted has a lot of momentum going but the standing argument its one of first impression. in many respects. so i think its on whether the court wants to take a deep breath and wait for a more concrete case. let me say a word about the government case. the defense of marriage case is up and i think this is interesting to state attorneys general as well. this is, i think majors breach of federalism and the rights of the states. we have eight states -- nine, including d.c. >> nine of our jurisdictions have chosen to recognize marriage, and the federal government, which has more or less, with minor and separate exception, always recognized the state's central role in deciding who is married -- the federal government said we're not going to accept your marriage as valid for national purposes. and this is serious because as long as this is the law, no one is truly married in their state if they're not eligible for 1,000 federal benefits, and you have a very dramatic case where you have edith winsor, she and her partner were a couple for 40 years. they got married in canada, moved to new york. when this fire dies she left her estate to edith winsor, to whom she had been married since 2007 in new york. and the federal government says, the state does -- estate does not pass the spouse because you cannot be a spouse in the law. so there's a huge tax bill that edith has to pay. the government is not going to pay that unless there's ordered to in a final jurisdiction so there really is article 3 case controversy here. the president decided that the united states would not argue that doma is constitutional, and here's why i think that the is a legitimate decision for a president to make. ted and i have argued cases as solicitor general on behalf of the united states. we didn't work entirely enthusiastic about the argument. >> i remember one of two of those. >> but in this case, when it matter of first impression, whether to use heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation discrimination, that involved two questions that are not narrow questions of logic. they are not logic but experience. those questions are, has there been discrimination based on sexual orientation that continues to have an effect? and secondly, is this a criteria which is normally related to ability to contribute? and where you have discrimination and where the treatment for aids like mental capacity is not relate teed the able to contribute, there's reason for heightened focus on the court. >> be careful before the age part. >> we're up here. we may northeast this. but that -- those are determinations where the president can say i believe there's continuing discrimination the i think the courts taught to take a hard look. there's something very -- that resonates with the other cases before the course. fisher, aaffirmative action case in fisher, the court is giving heightened scrutiny to claims brought by white students who want to be in the university of texas. so they ought to make the court feel comfortable that abigail fisher gets heightened scrutiny in her case, and properly so, but secondly, think.this. right now, think about what doma does in those nine jurisdictions that recognize the -- that do not reincluded same-sex couples from being marriage that no longer ask in the those jurisdictions about gender. you show up, getture marriage license you name may be porter-jones, actual ashley johnson, your issued a marriage license, and normally if you apply for federal benefits, you show you have a marriage certificate. it opportunity say in the any of those state what is the jennifer is in either party. so under doman the federal government has to make some determination of who is what gender that is going accept the state's determination who is married. >> johnny cash had a song like that, boy named sue. >> i think the court is heading in the direction of saying that they're going to -- if not invalidate -- very harsh scrutiny on any system of admissions that like requires the state to make a determination of race. everything about a person- -- who their grandparents were texas the navy, one was african, mother was a teacher, and think that enriches your class. if you how of the say we get five points if we officially determine your race. a court is going to say that's one thing we dent allow. and what d missouri a is going to require the federal government to do is to make an official determination about gender in order to invalidate a decision that has been made by a state to confer marriage status, which has been an area of central state for a couple hundred years. >> one more point about the windsor case, there's a challenge the standing. it is being defended by an organization called blag, which you could have thought they could have called themselves something better than that, but -- like chilean sea bass or something like -- [laughter] >> it's a -- >> blag is a flakey white fish. >> it's a bipartisan committee of the house of representatives that are defending this, and there's a question about their standing, fashion the supreme court pointed a harvard professor to argue that, in... think about standing there. >> we i would bet a lot of money they're not going hold. it three members of the house outvoting two members of the house have standing to litigate on behalf of the united. one of the points being made representing the bipartisan legal advisory group said if the justice department doesn't have standing because they agree with the standing below. my response is of course the justice probably doesn't have standing. the united states does. and the attorney general that represents the united and they have an interest. they say we have an interest in personal to $3 26,000. we have an interest in applying any statute that turns out to be constitutional. we have to give the court our honest opinion about whether high end scrutiny should apply. we're going facility and urge the court to give full argument time not the usual amicus amount. the court will hear a full thirty minute argument. i will tell you if the affordable care act come before the the court and the romney administration i think it would have been appropriate for the solicitor general for taking the appeal, tell the court that in the government's view it's beyond the power of congress, that you're letting the democratic leadership have an amicus -- to argue for it. i adopt think it would have been anything wrong with the government and the rare case where you have a major policy decision and where i think the president is involved, i think when you don't defend a law at that level, the president needs to be involved as he was here. if the president says, i make a major -- constitutional policy judgment we don't want to defend it or do, i think that's . >> in the -- the campaign finance case in 1976 a lot of campaign finance stuff going, the government filed three briefs. the federal election commission filed a brief, just the government why the justice department filed a brief, and there was a solicitor general's brief. and i always thought as solicitor general that was a crazy thing do. i promised the justices in the supreme court as long as i'm solicitor general you're on going to get one brief on behalf of the government. it gets to that sort of thing when there's a dispute within the government whether or not some law is constitutional or not. i guess we are standing a lot of time on standing. for geeks like this it will be fascinating. it will be interesting to the justices. >> let me add one point. i think it's critical to the role of the court. in my view berry v. madison stands for the proposition that the the court has the authority out of all the institution and the the court have the -- law of the institution. for one reason only. they have a job to do. that job is resolving disputes between litigants who come in to court with a real lawsuit. and in carrying out that responsibility, they have to apply the law and the constitution is law. that was the key part. it's really law. in order do the job. because we have to declare the law of the institution we have to make up a case. i think that distorts what the proper role of the court is in resolving dispute which is why it's important to decide whether there are litigants with the stake in the outcome. and today the supreme court decided five to four hotly contested decision that media groups and other groups challenging the surveillance under the foreign surveillance act of non-u.s. citizens abroad saying we communicate with the people and some of our communications are going to be picked up on the warrants, and they want a decoration that the provision that allowed the program to go forward unconstitutional and the supreme court decided 5-4 it was not standing. it was too speculative to grant standing. very interesting. it's very current on their schedule. >> okay. let's tush to the other incredibly important case the court will hear on the constitutionality -- they first passed the voting rights act. 47 years ago. a lot has changed for the better. is it still necessary? why do you think it's still necessary for 16 states that are fully or partially covered jurisdictions under section v have to go for the federal government before they can make a voting change? >> it is an enormous question, it's understandable that times have changed since 1965. i mean, in 1965 voting rights act may be the single most important act of the national congress. perhaps ever. and was strong medicine required in the setting aside all existing task they had in hand to washington, d.c., to before the laws can go in to effect. it is extraordinary. it was actually the proposal that james madison made and fought for across the board. he thought all state laws should be submitted first to congress. she was truly a nationalist. this is a partial instannation of that. i think doubtful in that kind of very dramatic encouragement in what the court thinks of the sovereignty and the dignity of the states should be. it's become more routine for the jurisdictions do this. this is pretty good evidence that the government puts in the record of a continuing problem of legislation that or local acts ordinances, whatever the cancellation or waiting periods of early voting, et. cetera, that have in effect on voting that is disproportionate and racial impact. >> in all of those jurisdictions? >> here's the question. it's two question qbs you justify the burden for anyone these days? and that is sort of revisiting the 1965 decision. i think probably the more serious question the one more hotly debated is what about the fact they didn't debate the coverage formula from 1974. they use the same coverage formula which was based upon voting statistic, registration, et. cetera from that period of time. and the attacks in the defense of the, quote out of decade formula, would be a graduate seminar in political science. it can well be that the better political science or methodology grade would go to those critique the formulas being too far off. the congress of the united states is not a graduate seminar in statistical methodology. the reason that there was a very strong enormously practical political reason why congress didn't reopen and redo the coverage. it's easier for juries dirkses to accept the fact because you're covered because there was a history. everybody knows about the history. i live in one of the counties covered in north carolina. everybody knows about the history, it's not a present accusation that to use to the historic formula. and reopen it and decide today who are the worst discriminators of would have crarned the whole project. history has the claim. we in the south now have civil rights tours, the idea that you're coffered because that's part of your history and to redo it to make it better and refine it so that one or more justices -- seems to me awfully school marmish of the the court in the relationship to the congress of the united states who is made it a political judgment that you set up -- i think the way to defend it is to say, rook, the default is we're going use the historic formula we always used because, you know, we have an acceptance pattern. we have a bail in for jurisdictions that can be added because they are found to be discriminating and we have an opt-out which they were easier it would be -- if but if you start with a default with the opt and opt out it was the best political solution. to me the best defense is that doubter shouldn't be getting any to the business of micromanaging what is really a large basic fundamental decision of the best political way to resolve the problem going forward. >> well, no, this is going to be argued tomorrow. right? >> that's correct. 10:00 a.m. >> the last time before the court was a couple of years ago in the northwest austin case. do i have it right? >> yes. >> and the supreme court sounded from the argument, i think was there like they were going toss out section v and then at the last minute, the last day of the term, they rendered this decision or posted the last day in which they ducked the issue, about chief justice wrote the opinion ducking this very question, and found a way around it by screwing the statute in a way that was a bit of a stretch. he ducked the question. the question is why was it ducked then when it sounded like they were going to face up to it as a result what you heard during the oral argument. maybe there was one vote that slipped away or something like that. you never know about them. in the chief justice's opinion, he taunts the -- talks about the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. nay -- that may or may not be something that comets back with respect to this. it's the underlying question. of course states get treated differently under the commerce clause. there are floods here and dry here, and there are all sorts of reasons. from a political standpoint to pick out certain states and propose a continuing badge of wrongness, discrimination other and forever because it's not politically easy to change it or it's not political my easy for the court to get in to that. it raises the question of equal sovereignty. i came up with the same principle in connection with with the case i'm handling involving something congressional statute that prohibits states from prohibiting sports gambling. you probably know about this. what that statute does, not only does it put the burden on the state to regulate something that the federal government has chuten not to regulate by putting the burden on the state raises a tenth amendment issue. it has an exception for couple of states. has an exception for nevada. and the question, is should michigan be the only place where cars are made? should nevada be the only place where you can bet on the outcome of a super bowl? and is that discrimination against the state? i'm not trying to answer this, although i'm an advocate on one side of the issue or not. it's an important issue here to agree to which congress can pick up certain states for more favorable or less favorable treatment not connected with actual geographic facts on the ground that justify the discrimination. >> okay. why don't we take a quick detour to criminal law. earlier this morning probably the most criminal law issue of the term was argued by maryland chief deputy kay winfrey. the case is maryland c v. king. when a state takes a dna sample a cheek swab from people arrested but not yet convicted. ted i know you've been involved a little bit. >> a little bit. i filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of individuals in the field and feel that maryland is right that maryland have this and states have the ability. if you arrest someone, none of you have been arrested ever. but you probably heard about people having been arrested and having to submit to their fingerprints and things like that. well, the argument in the defense of the dna statute is that this is a way of identification. it records what happened when you were arrested much more elaborately than anything in the fingerprints do, but it's not connected with the -- the personal was arrested for assault, and the dna was taken not because the need to connect the dna or his identity with the assault, i think it was clear that he did the act, whenever he was charged with. it was used to identify him in connection with with a sexual assault or a sexual crime of some sort that had taken place some years before. he was arrested and convicted of that. he was saying it was a violation of the 4th amendment. you don't have a reasonable basis without a warrant to take that afghanistan from me. it's infry'sive. and -- intrusive and it requires a swab. i think there are other ways of doing it. it was argued today and dan, you were getting a report, matt cain you'll report on it. i don't know how it's going come out. i thought the state had the better of the argument. where it's interesting, it seems to me, we talked about it last year or at least in another forum, we talked about the gps device that was attached to the drug dealer's car here in washington, d.c., and there was a warrant at first. but the warrant expired and the tracking of the alleged drug dealer, which the alleged drug dealer on trial for the third time last month. >> i know. >> this guy . >> i represent him. [laughter] >> so far they help -- walter helped keep him out of jail. [laughter] the interesting thing about this and the supreme court decided 9-0 to overturn the search in that the search in that case, but justice saw it as a tremendous pass. they attached the device to the guy's car. and justice scalia said that doesn't work. you can't imagine the different ways in which the science is keeping up. so you to a reasonable expectations of privacy. that's going work. and it brings to bear the all of the technology that we have now, and none of which was even imagined in the wildest dreams not even by jewelses or anyone a long time ago when the fourth amendment was put in to place. we have the heat sensing devices that can tell whether you're growing something that you shouldn't be growing in a house. you have going through the toll boothe that tracks every move you make on the highway. you have a cell phone thing that tells where you are. you have cameras in the state to record red light violaters and speeding. we have all of these technologies now that is challenging the conventional wisdom with respect to the fourth amendment. and it's creating some fascinating law. and the justices are struggling with it. it's town talk about it. >> in the gps case, i was involve in from last term, the maryland case and the two cases from florida the canine state known as. looking at the two florida cases, in this context is quite revealing. the first case -- the first in the florida cases involved the dog that, you know, in a traffic stop the police were entitled to make. the dog signals and alerts to the car twice and it's wrong both times. there's no contraband of the kind the dog is trained aldo is trained to. >> maibt guy was rolling in it. they found other things the dog is not trained to alert in. >> tennis balls. [laughter] >> but of course, that doesn't mean you don't have probably cause just because you may well have probable cause to search for a gun and nongambling paraphernalia. what is interesting the florida supreme court because of the two faults and the fact that no record was kept by all aldo's handlers of aldo's false positives and negatives. know will be rate record was kept it run it automatically throughout the search. the the court rejected the 90 that said the opinion for the florida supreme court --. >> had the dog had a great name. >> aldo. a-l-d-o. aldo wins. >> frankie is in more trouble. if the florida supreme court didn't reply point search and procedure -- i think the states have been lucky that the state supreme courts that have the split and approach with u.s. supreme court don't rely upon the own state institution. florida has something that has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be cointreaud in conformity with the fourth amendment of the united states constitution as interpreted by the united states supreme court. let me with the answer in the supreme court. i wouldn't be surprised if at some point states decided to ens late the supreme court review. i'm surprised, you know, that -- now what is really interesting is the oral argument in the other florida case. right. greg did a terrific job arguing for the state of florida. the the court was hosting unlike the 9-0 approval of the police activities in aldo's case, it came down. l oral argument showed extraordinary hostility that the police officer goes up to the door of the house with a dog. no reasonable suspicious or probable cause or anything. goes up to the house and the dog is trained to sniff and the dog alerts to drugs inside the house. and the court is really angry about this. >> what was the dog's name? >> franky. >> franky. >> and -- the first or something. >> frankie -- and what is interesting about it is -- it's hard for the justices across the board, it's brier, scalia, they don't have a good theory for this. there's no no trespassing sign. anybody can walk to the door if you're selling cookies or going door to door for the canvas. you're free to walk up to the door. you're probably free to have a dog with you. there's a sign with no dogs allowed. if it did this would say this is a grow's house. it's understandable the one house on the block said no drug sniffing dogs allowed. [laughter] they were searching for a doctrine, i think that's because as in jones the court can perceive the own interest they can imagine being in a position. a reporter showed up at chief justice's warn's house to ask breaking question and berger came down in the bathrobe and the shotgun. they can see coming to the front door of the house. it's like in jones, because the trial counsel was arguing for jones, we had done the briefing with steve l.a. car. i felt more argument doing preargument interviews. i ended the interview by saying, the position is upheld any law enforcement officers on the greater scenario can put a detection twice on the underside of the car of any justice of the supreme court for any reason whatsoever. or no reason at paul. -- at all. or they want to know where they go. i knew they would use the clip. she did. michael gets up to argue for the united states and say may it please and they said, wait, before you go. is it your position that any officers placed a -- of the justices and michael, we learned two things. the chief justice listens to npr on the way to work. we learned that the excellent advocate does not. [laughter] he said justices of this court. and he said, yes, justices of this court. and he said, well, there's no expectations of privacy. so the answer is yes. the answer is yes. case was over. [laughter] that the point i turned to my counsel and said, be cautious when in your argument. we are hope free on this one. [laughter] i think there's something in the cases about whether the justices can perceive themselves or almost have em pa everyone think with the situation. drug dealing on the street corner or inspect the alley where they are unlikely to be. he found a new way to use a amicus brief. length of time. >> that's why these cases are interesting at this juncture. my impression they heard quickly about the argument ties with something that has been said which is cases are becoming harder for the government. and justice scalia hasn't been a regular friend for the government and the fourth amendment cases. as shown in the jones case he was with the majority in a recent case with the government lost 6-3 in a fourth amendment case. i gather he was giving maryland a hard time today. it's going to be a close case. it could be that the state and government prevails. it could pick up justice ginsburg. and i think may by getting it roughly right. and we'll see. i think it connects both to concern about -- well, i don't think think expect to be arrested. but i think in connection with to the high-tech concern they are well in concern of what is going to be done with the dna information or bringing the high-tech devices. >> the state of maryland did an excellent job in the case, but also i looked amicus brief. it was an brief. when you read the briefing in this, the case for having a larger dna data bank is so powerful. we put it -- we have -- within our power to eliminate rape. at least the largest category of rape. we eliminate it. we're not going to choose to do that. it's our choice. had f you had relatively universal dna you would in 24 hours be able to amp end anyone who engaged in rape or see seaman can be tested. we are making a choice about how effective we want to be able to respond they realize a choice and the fact in the case and i think the briefing you did for the forensic people that use it to counter rape makes the case very powerfully for how what an important law enforcement tool it is. i was persuaded by the briefings. that was the way to answer. >> don't other side, of course made the argument, sure. you can have really effective law enforcement devices if you have cameras everywhere. they are on all the time and blay, blay, blay. so that's they're concerned about, and there might be demographic involved in that. it's a younger court than it was six or seven years ago. it's still not really young people on the court or more familiar with all of the electronic device and all of the things that all of our grander children know about. it's computer cases, patent cases and stuff like that, they have a little bit of time struggling with that. it's a different era. >> from florida -- and frankie it's just a dog. he's using the smelling capacity of the dog. there's nothing new here. >> the technology cases it's very familiar. >> you have to be able to treat teach police officers to smell as good as dogs. [laughter] , i mean, to sniff as good as dogs. [laughter] there are many more cases that i would want to discuss with walter and ted. unfortunately we are at the end of our time. please welcome -- you have to understand that all of the founders, the primary concern number one, was with national security. so what would they say, for example, about a company such as lockheed? i'm of the opinion that based on how they acted in other instances, they would have grudgingly faired a bailout of lockheed because it supplied the united states at the time with the top fighter jets and the top reconnaissance. i think you can make an argument they would have supported, for example, the bailout of chrysler back in the 1980s but not the bailout of chrysler today. what was the difference? chrysler back then made tanks. they made the m1a1, frank. they were our only tank manufacturer and it's interesting when chrysler comes out -- [inaudible] and repace the government loan and comes back to help, the main way they do so by silling off the tank division and piling that money back in to the company. >> author and university of dayton will take your calms, e-mails, facebook posts and tweets on the founding fathers. live sunday at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. glmpleght the president was at the shipbuilding facility in new port virginia to talk about the automatic budget cuts set to go in to effect on friday. here is part of the remarks. i've got to give scott credit, you know, he's one of your republican congressman who is with us here today. that's not always healthy for a republican being with me. but the reason he's doing it because he knows it's important to you. and he's asked the colleagues in the house to consider closing tax loopholes instead of letting these automatic cut goes through. he's concerned about the deficit and he's more than prepared to make some tough cuts. he wants to do it in a smart way. bobby scott, some of the same thing. some of the cuts we proposed bobby might not think they are perfect. he knows we have to make tough decisions. he wants to make sure you're not the ones adverse i are impacted. and we're sharing the sacrifice in bringing down the deficit. we're not dumping it on a few people or in a dumb way. senators like john mccain had similar statements. you're a republican governor along with governors around the country said they want congress to stop the sequesters to stop the cuts. but i just have to be honest. there are too many republicans in congress right now who comprise an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes especially the tax breaks. that's what is holding things up right now. keep in mind nobody is asking them to raise income tax rates. we are asking them to consider closing tax law school hope and -- loophole and deductions that the speaker was willing to do. he said there was a bunch of loophole and deduction you can close. you can raise $800 billion by closing loopholes. we're not even asking for that much. all we're asking is that they close loopholes for the well off and the well -- for hedge fund managers for oil companies or corporate jet owners. who are doing very well and don't need the tax loophole so we can avoid laying off workers or kicking the can downtown road or reducing financial aid for college students. i don't think it's too too much to ask. i don't think it's partisan, the majority of the american people agree with me. the majority of the new port agrees with me. we need to get it done. [applause] but the choice is up to congress. only congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging cuts and replaces them with smart savings and tax reform. and the second i get that bill on my desk, i will sign it in to law. i have got get congress to pass it. none of us will get 100% of what we want. democrats, they have got, you know, make tough choices too. democrats like me, we said we're prepared to make tough cuts and reforms including the programs like medicare. but if we're willing to compromise then republicans in the house have to comprise as well. that's what democracy is about. that's what the country needs right now. house speaker john boehner commented on the sequester calling on the senate and the president to act. the president has known for 16 months that this sequester was looming out there. when the super committee failed to come to an agreement. so for sixteen months the travel has been traveling all over the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with senate leaders in order forge an agreement over there in order to move the bill. we have moved the bill twice. we should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off the arizona and begins to do something. >> pentagon spokesman george little talked about how sequestration would affect the defense budget. glmpleght first, as you know, the sequestration goes in to effect for the remain of the year. it will require that the department of defense to cut roughly $46 billion from the level of funding provided on the 2013 continuing resolution. all of the last seven months of the fiscal year. by law, sequester would apply to all of the dod budget. including wartime spending. the only exception is that the president has indicated his intend to -- personnel funding from sequestration. dod leaders support the decision, it does not mean that other budget accounts will be cut by larger amounts to offset the exemption. accounted by account item by item. cuts to the operating portion of the dod budget must be equal in percentage at the let of appropriations accounts. for example, army active operation maintenance, navy reserve operation and maintenance, and air force guard. for the investment the dollars cut must be allocated. that means more than 2500 programs or projects that separately identified need to be reduced by the same percentage. with -- could decide how best to allocate the reduction for the department leaders to be deprived. by protecting high priertdty investment programs in favor of others. the fact we are operating under a continuing resolution is adding to the fiscal difficulties facing this department and the current fiscal year. while the cr provides a right level of overall funding for dod the dollars are in the wrong appropriations accounts. and sequester hits the department the result will be a huge shortfall in operations and maintenance accounts for active forces. across dod, we will be 20% of total requirements for operating funds the percentage closer to ho% for the united states army. it means that the army will have to cut training leaving most of the nonemployed below acceptable readiness standards. the same is true for air force combat units. the navy and marine corps. will have to slash readiness. as you know the navy recently elected to reduce a number of carriers deploy to the gulf in order to avoid the risk of being short that it cannot deploy any carriers during the future period. the perspective of the cuts lead the chairman, the vice chairman, and all of the joint chiefs to recently sign a 28-star letter stating, and i quote, the readiness of our armed forces at the tipping point. we are on a bring of creating a hallow force. the department leaders are working every day to avoid the worse effect of the situation. and we will continue to do so. but the solution to this self-made crisis can't be found in this building. this solution is congress passing a balanced deficit reduction package and appropriations bills -- [inaudible] and detrigger sequestration. our department's leaders have responsibility to continue to make that case to congressional leadership and to the american people. now a house hearing on how sequestration will affect the defense budget. how appropriations committee chairman harrold rogers spoke in favor of a spending bill that would fund the defense department for the reminder of the fiscal year. military leaders also testify about the effects of the sequester set to take place friday that cuts $46 billion from the pentagon fiscal 2013 budget. it's just under three hours. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. i want to say first -- dealing with national security, i continue to be tremendously impressed with the leadership of america's military. and you represent that leadership and i can tell you it's exciting to be in the room with all of you. you have in your predecessors and have built a tremendous national security program. we're trying to keep it like that. we're trying to make sure that our readiness stays high and our troops are well taken care of. that that have whatever equipment they need. whatever training they need to do the mission that they're called on to perform. so this is really great to be with you today. i intended insure the hearing when we first invited you to come to go a different direction where are we going to be five years from now, ten years from now? a modern equipment, i think time has overtaken our issues today because we find ourselves with the sequestration that is upon us. it's either going happen or it's not. there's not much time left to fix it. one thing that appropriators must do has to do with a continuing resolution should be extended for a balance of fiscal year could cause a lot of damage to the readiness, the training, preparation to our troops. and so i think that is going the direction of our hearing today. and i want to -- for the audience, introduce from the army and general raymond odierno. admiral jonathan greener. marine cam daunt james. air force chief marc welsh. and the national guard bureau who sit with the chiefs -- general frank grass. so thank you for being here. and before i yield -- i want for any opening statement. >> thank you i appreciate your mentioning the continuing resolution. unfortunately people are very focused today on sequestration. which is a fundamental problem. but the fact is that we are today governing this country by looking backwards. i joined the chairman in welcoming the five gentlemen before us. i deeply appreciate your time, your commitment, and your service. we look forward to also hearing of your expertise. mr. chairman, i have a longer opening statement, but will simply cob collude by -- conclude by saying that i'm appalled that alls of us are meeting here today and not having hearing on the 2014 budget and the incredible amount of time. that you have had to waste dealing dealing with these issues that the chairman, the members of the committee, the staff has had to waste dealing with this issue. it's a complete abdication of congregational responsibility to be a check and balance and make financial discussions -- decision. i regret congress no longer legislatives but a-- again, i deeply appreciate you bringing us together today to resolve the issues before us and would yield back my time. >> thank you very much. i'm going ask you to hold. he has a meeting with the speaker and the leadership to understand the importance of not carrying forward on another six months. if that's okay with you, roberts has been working hard on putting this together. it's a way to solve some of the problems. mr. rogers. >> thank you very much for holding the hearing, mr. chairman. and also for the recognition to allow me to go before the witnesses speak. so first of all, good morning, and welcome to the committee. this hearing is critically important. this week our national defense will face serious and dangerous sequestration cuts as well as potentially damaging constraints if the currents dod funding structure is simply extended for the remain of the fiscal year. twin threats, first the cr, which will hit on the 27th of next month, and then, of course, sequestration. but today i want focus your attention, if you will, on the cr, and what you need for their balance of this year whether it's a day change only cr, or whether it's incorporating the bill, the defense bill, and the v. 8 bill that passed the house overwhelmingly. and was agreed to by the senate bipartisan agreement. and we want to try to substitute those two bills in to the cr for the balance of the year, which would give you a lot more flexibility than you now have. it's not within this committee's power to solve sequestration at this time. it is within our jurisdiction to try and help loosen the change and allow the department to some funding flexibility in order to dot best with what it has. to this end, two weeks ago as the chairman said, i proposed a plan to craft a continuing resolution for the entire government that would include a full year of defense appropriations bill. these two individual bills, as i said, has bipartisan support. they were conferenced with our democrat and republican counter parts in the senate, they have been completed in laying there since last december. if enacted, this package will avoid a government shut down while prioritizing dod and veterans and ensuring some much needed funding flexibility in what you do. being able to move monies around from different accounts whether it's absolutely imperative that you do that, and also saving a lot of money, i believe. i know, that the chairman young shares this goal, i applaud his leadership on this subcommittee, and unwavering support for the people in missions of support of our military. it's crucial that the committee receive the best information possible regarding dod's funding challenges under both sequestration and the cr. and we want to hear that directly from you. and i want to welcome each of you to this room. for several of you, this is your first time testifying before this subcommittee. we look forward to hearing directly from you. hopefully, now unshackled from omb's gag hold. i don't have to tell you that the mens of the subcommittee know you come representing thousand of our refined service men and women and their families. we must begin by acknowledging their service, dedication, and sacrifice to the country that we live in and we reaffirm our commitment to providing twhem a tools, training and support necessary to carry out vital and support missions throughout the world. it's understood that yilg of responsibility that our nation and government face unprecedented fiscal challenges particularly for the department of defense. like many of my colleagues, i believe sequestration is both terrible politics and terrible policy. it will have a -- devastating affect on porn praments and -- programses and services. and defense capability. the president's sequestration approach represents a haphazard negligent approach to governing. leadership is about making choices tough choices. sequestration is about not making choices. i had hoped our commander in chief would have put forward an acceptable alternative to the near-term disaster but we're still awaiting it. last year the house voted twice to resist these across the board cuts only to have the white house criticize and disparage. these cuts will gravely impair the defense department's mission capabilities, troop training, equipment and supply lines, research and development efforts, and our overall readiness. today it's my hope that we can have ab honest and open dialogue to discuss the very real impacts of the pending sequestration exactly where cuts will occurring with and the forced steps the military is taking to mitigate these effects. no question cuts can't be made to nearly each and every department. but this approach will certainly lead to more costs, not less, and less 21st century security not more. secondly, the department of defense is wrestling with the possibility of a year-long continuing resolution. as i said before, final decisions have not been made. i'm proposing to include both the completed defense and veterans and conference reports in a cr agreement for the balance of the government for the balance of the year. in order to protect critical functions of our defense and help ensure our country's safety in the uncertain times. this proposal would also have the benefit of saving billions of taxpayer dollars. under a change cr extension, without these bills attached billions in potential savings would be lost or unnecessarily wasted. for example, savings from closing out programs that have exceeded their usefulness will not be realized, new multiyear procurement which save both time and money would not be permitted, and program delays or disruptions for hundreds of programs will result in price increases. i think it's clear that this nation is facing some hard choices. it's up to congress to pave the way for our financial future. it's up to the committee to do what we can in the short term to make the most of a difficult situation. that's one reason why it's essential we hear what you have to say today. and i want to encourage you to be as frank as you can. these are frank times. the deadline is upon us. decisions will be made in hours on the future of the country. and so i urge you member of expertise and leadership, people who are used to making decisions to let us know the basic facts so we can make the right decision with you. so mr. chairman, on to the business at hand, i know this is slightly unorthodox, but i do have to leave shortly. i can stay for some time. but i want to be sure that we get the answer to the following question from each of you: yes or no? would you say that it's critical that congress pass a full year defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013? so when it comes time for the answer, purchase, i would hope that we can hear -- could i even ask for a, you know, hand right now? >> that's find. it's your time. [laughter] >> let me ask the question then. generals? >> yes chairman? >> yes, chairman. >>. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> you're saying to me it's critical to the nation's defense that we pass the cr with a house and senate passed appropriations bill for dod mill con veterans is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. i'll be able to carry this conversation we have just had in to the meeting with leadership in a few minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for the effort that you have made to put this package together because, you know, we have been trying to get the defense bill on the floor for finally consideration for a long time. and the distinguished ranking member on the full committee has joined with us. and i'm glad to yield to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say to chairman rogers, who i know believes in regular order. if we can sit down, just a couple of us, we can work something out and come up with a fair solution. and i'm glad to see you shake your head on that one. i wish we could do it that way. and it's an honor for me to be here today. i would like to thank chairman young and ranking members and the member of the subcommittee for holding the hearing today. the topic is certainly timely, and we're just three days left until sequestration occurs. congress needs to work together to avoid across the board cuts, which risk our economic recovery and national security! if it would help, i would say it again. i think it's essential that we avoid this disastrous proposal. excluding sequestration in the last two years, congress has reduced discretionary spending by more than $1.5 trillion. and now even after we have made such deep reductions, that discretionary spending is on a path to be at the lowest percentage of dgp in the -- gdp in the last forty five years. we face additional cuts through sequestration. the priorities of the appropriation committee from national defense to education to biomedical research cannot absorb a below. i don't believe anybody on the committee wants across the board cuts. we are approaching the march 1st deadline, congress could prevent $85 billion in cuts from occurring by passing a balanced approach, a balanced approach, this week that closes tax loopholes, trim entitlements and minimizes growth in future spending. as we listen to the testimony from our distinguished witnesses on the grave impact on each service, we should also keep in mind the overall economic impact. cbo projections sequestration will cut economic growth in 2013 by one-third. cut economic growth by one-third! a study from george mason university projects a loss of $2.14 million jobs. our economy is recovering. now it not the time to absorb an additional $85 billion in cuts for the department of defense and all other departments and agencies, the effect of sequestration could compounded by the effect of a continuing resolution that does not update budget priorities. our soldiers sold, sailors, airmen, and marines can be called on any time any day to call on our nation. we have a responsibility together to set aside our differences and provide them with the resources they need. i would also like to take a moment to commend general on the response of the guard during super storm sandy. we're appreciative. the new york national guard deployed approximately 4,000 soldiers to assist first responders with the equipment, supplies, search and rescue, and cleanup efforts. due to sequestration, new york alone is looking at a furlough of 12,000 defense employees and a reduction of $108 million to army-based operations. this could certainly impact the guard's ability to maintain a top-notch force. again, i look forward to the testimony from our witnesses, and i don't think we should lose sight of our shared goal working together in a bipartisan way for the future of our country, for the strength of our economy. we must prevent sequestration. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you very much for your statement. thank you very much for being here. and i think you know very well that this subcommittee has always approached the responsibilities in a very, very nonpolitical way. and so we appreciate your statement on. we're going go to the regular order now. and i would invite to make any opening statements you would like to make. respond to chairman rogers. we are here to hear from you. because it's certainly that you and your forces have what is needed to keep this nation strong. >> thank you, mr. chairman young, chairman rogers, ranking members with the rest of the committee. thank you for allowing us to be here for the important discussion. nearly 18 months ago, i was asked and charged to be the chief of staff for the army to run the army. and asked to provide my best military advice. ly do that today as we discuss this complex issue. i've had the opportunity over the last several years to command at every level in combat, division corp. and theater level. i know, what it takes to ensure that our sons and repair for war. i know, what it takes to do you leaders in the army. i know, what is required to send soldiers to combat. i have seen firsthand the consequences when they sent unprepared. i began my career in the '70s. i am determined i will not end my career in a hollow army like i started. every day events across the globe remind us that we live in a unpredictable security landscape i have experienced in my career. unlike post conflict drawdown in the past, we conot see any peace and stability and dividend in our future. .. we owe it to dan and the american people to ensure that our soldiers are ready and when we asked them to respond to the next crisis, the next natural disaster, that is her church to ensure they are ready to respond. in my opinion, the greatest threat is a fiscal uncertainty resulting from the lack of predict ability and our budget cycle over the last several years. in addition to the 170 billion cuts to the army that the data budget control act of 2011, the combination of the continuing resolution, a contingency operation funds for afghanistan and sequestered in fiscal year 13 has resulted in an $18 billion shortfall to the army's operation accounts as well as an additional $6 billion cut to all the programs. all of this will come in the last seven events at this year. our top priority is to ensure forces and afghan tin and korea have resources required to execute their missions. these cuts will have grave consequences on the readiness of the remaining forces. we will curtail training for 80% of ground forces. this will impact the basic war fighting skills and the shortfalls of cross critical specialties including aviation, intelligence, engineering to recruit new soldiers into the army. sequestration will impact the ability to trained soldiers in afghanistan in 2014 and will have significant long-term impacts on u.s. special operations command and ability to support special operations. we have directed a hiring freeze and terminated employees. we will further up to 251,000 civilians for 22 days. the army provides 40% of all dod surveilling military medical services of our valued employees representing as much as 60% of the army's work for a set of medical treatment facilities, three tennis at its sister services plus they will have degraded access to medical care. they were an estimated 5000 employees and significant delay equipment readiness for six divisions an estimated 3.36 billion packed for communities surrounding outposts. implemented over 10,000 employees could be affect next year. on our installation in civilian furloughs come a 70% reduction as a statement fun in an elimination of contracts will strain our ability to protect your army family programs. he sequestration is implemented, we'll be forced to reduce spending for schools, day care centers, family assistance and community service programs, family and substance abuse counselors and assistance for soldiers. for fiscal year 14 and beyond from a sequestration will result in the last of an additional 100,000 personnel soldiers for act to bar may come in the army national guard and u.s. army reserve. combined with previous cuts already approved a missile result in a total reduction of 189,000 personnel from the army but will probably end up being higher than that, closer to 200,000. a reduction of 14% will equate to almost 40% reduction in our brigade combat teams and access u.s.-based installation infrastructure. sequestration will result in delays to everyone apart 10 major modernization programs. since 2008 the total army budget will have them reduced by over 45%. the sequestration enacted will be greater than 50%. that is the number following any war we've been involved with since world war ii. in my opinion from a sequestration is not in the best interest of our national security on the placement rates will burden on the shoulders of soldiers and civilians. we will not execute and are compromising future readiness of the short course, army and ability to provide security of our nation today. i understand the seriousness of our countries fiscal situation. we will continue to do our part but we cannot take the readiness of our force for granted. if we do not have resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers are the ones who will pay the price potentially with their lives. it is the responsibility, department of defense and congress to ensure we never send soldiers into harm say that are not trained, equipped and ready for any contingencies to include war. what a mess up with a better solution. i will just add over the last week was done detailed analysis of how we would implement the $18 billion shortfall in 13 from which includes $6 billion in continuing resolution, about five to $7 billion in shortfalls for afghanistan and 6 billion for sequestration. all those things i just mentioned are still 4-dollar short. so there will be more at things who have to do that we are still trying to figure out. so this is very serious i may ask your assistance to include flexibility that would help us eliminate the $6 billion shortfall in the continuing resolution signet and for the army to solve one third of the problem we have today. thank you for allowing me to testify, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, thank you for a powerful statement. i want you to know we are pushing hard to break through some of the walls we have to break through because we agree in me understand what you're telling us. one of the purposes of this hearing is made a point as often as we can for those in higher appointees that can pay attention to what you're telling us. thank you very much, sir. admiral greenert, with a two-year your view on this navy operations. >> good morning chairman rogers commemorates a member lauri and ranking member viclosky, distinguished members, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and have a discussion with you today. when i last appeared before you, i declare there were two important qualities of our naval forces that we will operate forward at the maritime press service the world where it matters and will be ready when it matters. your navy and marine corps are uniquely qualified to respond immediately to crises to assure allies and build partnerships and deter aggression. these qualities and values are at risk of the fiscal uncertainty we now face. our near-term concern is degraded current readiness caused by a combination of sequestration and the lack of appropriations bill in fiscal year 2013. this is not just a 2013 phenomenon. without congressional action is going to have an irreversible and debilitating impact on our navy, your navy's readiness for the rest of the decade as he spoke to earlier, chairman. will not respond the way the nation answers acted and depended on us to make that decision consciously and deliberately. pre-symbolic but not all-inclusive examples of this impact are the delays of the deployment of the carrier strike group harry truman, delay in the over fall and the delay in the initial construction of the carrier john f. kennedy. these are just carriers, but impacts ops, neatness and construction off the bat. these represent decisions over the coming weeks i will not come without significant consequences to our people, the defense industry and the local economies. b. $.6 billion shortfall that confronts us interop rations and made this account has compelled us to cancel ship and aircraft maintenance, reduced operations, it will soon deploy and notify a possible furlough. forces are currently deployed, but we will have inadequate search capacity at the appropriate readiness level where it matters and when it matters. we need an appropriate bill that will allow the department to distribute in a deliberate manner. if a year-long continuing resolution is inevitable or the result, we got to meet means to reallocate to provide funding for the most critical operations. delayed reallocation of resources results in a reversible actions such as ship and aircraft maintenance and such as training cancellations. we thought $600 million in february because of irreversible lost opportunities and through the month of march if we don't have that opportunity to reallocate funds, it will be another 1.2 billion that continues to grow and cascade is to go through the summer. mr. chairman, this committee is dedicated to the men and women of military and families, but our folks are stressed by the uncertainty about jobs, operational schedules and more importantly their future. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and have a discussion on their behalf and as chairman rogers said, i'm proud to represent these dedicated people and their sacrifice. thank you for your efforts and not of this body to avert this readiness crisis. >> admiral, thank you for the very important statement and we have met with the law phenomenon that very issue of having these assets that all the other services really need. so thank you very much. general amos, very anxious to hear from marine corps, sir. >> charming young, ranking member viclosky, chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, thank you for the opportunity to appear to discuss impacts of continuing resolution and sequestration on your marine corps. i'm struck a safe day care who represent over 180 years of service to our nation in defense of our nation. we take that responsibility seriously as you do in yourutraa magnitude, timing and methodology by the devastating impact on our nation's readiness both short-term and long-term. combined with the effects of the existing continuing resolution, sequestration creates unacceptable levels of risk in four main areas. first come the risk to our national strategy. second, risk to our forces. third, restore people and lastly, risk to the united states of america. maintaining a sound international economic system and a just international order of our nation's defensive strategic guidance. the effects of disruption to order can be seen in volatile energy prices fluctuating global markets unacceptable sovereign behavior and economic decline. failing to provide leadership in the collective security of this global order will have significant economic consequences for the people of america. worse a fiscally driven laps in american leadership and engagement will create a void in which both this will be left unaddressed and new security challenges will no doubt find room to grow. there should be no misunderstanding. the combined effects of continuing resolution and sequestration will have a deleterious effect on stability of global order. perceptions of enemies and confidence of our allies you sequestration be solely as a budget issue would be a grave mistake. in fact, it would order a responsibility. while collective actions will be scrutinized on a global stage for even the perception of the nation's willingness to protect its global interests can and will have strategic consequences regarding risk to forces the linkage between resources and readiness is immediate and visible. the scale and agnostic implementation of sequestration will have devastating impacts on readiness. sequestration while the ships in port, aircraft grounded for necessary maintenance and flying hours. modernization programs canceled and units only partially trained and reset after 12 long years of combat will be left unattended. because of our special role as america's cray sisters on force, race pace a high premium on readiness. i've done everything within my authorities to preserve a leading marine corps. i will continue to do so. under a continuing resolution only by strip and omega foundation of the long-term readiness of the forest. i'll short-term adaptations are possible, enduring effects is the future health and readiness of the force at risk. by the beginning of next year by the 50% will be below acceptable levels for readiness for deployment for combat. any real sense we are eating our seed corn to feed current demands, living master plan for the long-term capabilities of the force. this pattern leads to a hollow words and syntax or other db installed under in the continuing resolution. the most troubling and immediate risks are those that sequestration imposes on her people. sequestration does not hurt things. it hurts people. a qualitative edge to the battlefield is the fundamental them teach that differentiates our forces have enemies. this qualitative combat it should be severely eroded by impacts of sequestration, leaving america's men and women with training, degraded equipment and reduced survivability. the quality of life for the all volunteer force and their families will inevitably suffer as we reduce family programs and installation maintenance. our civilian marines will likewise be impacted. 95% of civilian workforce is employed outside of the national capital region. they are the guards at our gates, financial experts who help build and manage budgets, acquisition specialists, therapist teacher blinded, experts or repair equipment and teachers who teach our children. the economic impact in local communities are put at risk by short-term furlough and long-term termination. protecting our ability to keep faith with families and wounded warriors is a top priority in my marine corps. but even then it's, the most sacred responsibility will be increasingly placed at risk under sequestration. in closing, allow me to articulate former risk, the risk to our nations. in the final analysis, sequestration asks the most from those who appoint the greatest sacrifice. the effects of sequestration over the next 10 years will threaten the foundations of the all volunteer force, putting the nation's security on a vector potentially dangerous. it will dramatically shape perceptions of government as an employer and customer thereby reducing confidence throughout our institutions. these are strategic matters that demand immediate attention and i urge this committee to consider the full range of risk by this legislation and continuing resolution. i guess persistence and mitigating to the extent possible. thank you. >> general, thank you very much. your emphasis on the word risk is something you and i've talked about for quite some time. we've got to get rid of the risk in the insurgency as it relates to our national defense and i can tell you having worked on this committee for a long, long time, we want to eliminate those risks. as i said earlier, we are trying to get our message through to what you are telling us today is helping with the effort to break the wall. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. member viclosky, all of us considered an honor should be here. chairman rogers for you, make a member lowey, thank you for the additional privilege of appearing before you. i like to add my thanks to this subcommittee and greater committee for the tremendous work be done in supporting military forces. you understand the context of the discussion, which is why we are happy to be here today. i agree everything you've heard already and won't belabor points that have been made. sequestration will have an abrupt and alarming impact on people, readiness, infrastructure and modernization air force. person represents a $12.4 billion reduction in fiscal year 20 team. if it occurs it will significantly undermine your air force readiness and response today and significantly impact civilian workforce in the coming and its impact on modernization will affect her future capability. the arbitrary causal force an involuntary furlough for up to 180,000 darfur civilians and what that means to me is 31.5 million man-hours of lost work especially skills and expertise for the remainder of this fiscal year, not to mention the personal impact on individuals and families. it will result in loss of 200,000 flying hours. that doesn't mean a lot to people. let me explain what it means in operational terms. who will protect afghanistan a contingency area for nuclear deterrence and flight training for roughly two thirds of our active-duty combat air force is will begin scaling down in march and will drop below acceptable readiness levels by mid-may and most will be completely non-mission capable as a unit by july. requiring six months to return to present training levels began not tober, assuming funny to do so. it will cut 30% of our weapon systems the same time, which means we'll postpone 150 aircraft and 85 engines from deco inductions creating a backlog that can take years to recover as you well know. strategic agility in response to require a high state of readiness from the air force, sacrificing jeopardizes strategic advantages of air power the nation enjoys. our ability to respond to multiple on current operations around the world, something we've been asked to do many times in the past. longer-term, sequestration programs will impact everyone of them. distractions will cost the taxpayer dollars to rectify contract restructures, programming efficiencies, delayed delivery capabilities and more fighters in the field. the air force is long overdue following two decades of wars. in the terry includes aircraft in the 1980s and forces the smallest of ever been since becoming a separate service him enough at ourselves in the trade space between readiness and modern nation. i urge you to do all the arbitrary cuts the sequestration measures for the current fiscal year by sequestration is inevitable i heartily applaud efforts we've heard about this morning to grab whatever flexibility as possible in relief for measures like the death of 50/50, 8021 other restrictions that limit flexibility to mitigate impacts of sequestration in a year-long revolution. this is initial budget and i believe unusual mashers are worth considering this year. thank you for allowing us to be here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your statement. we appreciate what you had to tell us and will pay strict attention. a day to introduce without the army national guard america the national reserves, a lot of the things we were doing and could not do a the importance of the organization you need and would be happy to hear from you at this point. >> thank you, chairman young, ranking member viclosky, chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, thank you for the opportunity. it's a privilege and honor to be here representing the army national guardsman. in may 43 years serving in military uniform with the national guard i've witnessed her transformation from a strategic reserve into a premier operational force. the armenian national guard capabilities compatibility, experience and operational relationships with all of our military services has been incredibly valuable to our nation, tourist states and territories and the district of columbia. marked by the promise of a year-long resolution with the threat of sequestration puts the readiness of this operational for severus. the budget uncertainty is already degrading ability to provide forces to meet our domestic and overseas missions. i provided the 54 adjutants general with a summary of near-term measures to assist them to medicaid budget risk and drive to readiness. examining and reducing overhead, curtailing conferences, not renewing temporary civilian personnel combat veteran hiring freezes and aircraft flying hours. the national guard rapidly expands capability and capacity of the active component when called to federal service as well as civil authorities in the 51st date territories and the district of columbia. we provide organized discipline and properly equipped military unit on a very short time is to support first responders. as typified in last week's snowstorm response in the midwest, most notably in 2012 and response to hurricane sandy, governors were able to put thousands of guardsmen on the ground within hours to come to the aid of citizens. we were able to do this because of the institutional procurement, training and educational and upper level maintenance programs the army and air force provide us with. reductions in critical areas will have an immediate impact on national guard readiness. in a matter of months, our readiness is a force for the nation's defense and an immediate home and response capability will be eroded. for example, dear national guard is delaying the 27th of march at aircraft dimensions into the type of maintenance program. because of our lack of flexibility to manage a $1 currently under the continuing resolution. this delay will return these assets to their unit. custody facility sustainment, restoration and modernization will degrade an already aging infrastructure. the continuing resolution prohibits new start to military construction, further threatening army modernization program. the quality of facilities located in 3000 communities across the states directly affects readiness and ability to quickly respond to disasters across the country. further because of the real responsibility -- a real possibility of sequestration, thousands of americans who support the national guard on a full-time basis are likely to face furlough of up to 22 days. this would equate losing 9 million man-hours especially in our maintenance in areas of training. our military technicians who work alongside her civilian personnel would sacrifice as well as all dod, almost 870 of the the employees would lose up to 20% of their pay for five to six months. potential furloughs and shortfalls in operations and maintenance, funding impact on aviation would be the first to fall. we anticipate a reduced level of readiness by our pilots because the production and instruct their pilot training as zealous ability to get pilot at the time i go through major structure changes in the army or the air national guard, but the aviation be affected as well. aviation is one of the essential 10 our governors are planned during disasters. this will be degraded as resources are prioritized to this deployment site. additionally, preparations and trained up to 13,000 soldiers and airmen assigned to unit given the mission to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear terrorist attacks or industrial accidents in the home and will suffer his exercises and training events are delayed or canceled by reductions in operations and maintenance funding. the fiscal situation today and after the first of march will have a measurable and dramatic effect on critical national guard capabilities and our ability to rapidly respond to both domestic and federal requirements. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all very much. this has been a powerful hearing so far. i just wish that everyone in our country could hear the real story as you've told us you this morning. didn't ask for that. i will do my very best to get everyone up for questions. i will first yield to mr. viclosky. >> i appreciate the yield. i would feel to this lowey at this time. >> i think the chair. unfortunate to have to leave, so thank you for giving me the opportunity. under normal circumstances, dod hires 2000 personnel per week, 44% of whom are veterans. sequestration of the significant fact, the army allowed had 250,000, many whom are veterans. general odierno, colliers request rations plans affect the hiring of veterans by dod about other areas do you anticipate veterans will be impacted and how will transition assistance programs the effect did either the general or unnecessary distinguished panel? >> thank you very much, congresswoman. the couple things. one is first we are doing our best to continue veterans with higher priority. as we have hiring freezes in place now, that limits us to hire anybody to include veterans, so will have an impact on hiring veterans. the more important for your sem is downsizing, we expect every year for the next five to seven years will transition 200,000 soldiers a year from the act is component, national guard and army reserve out of the army. so we pay a lot of attention into appropriate employment. we stood up coordinating with many community partners around the country to do this. our ability to continue to help them implement the programs to ensure we a proper transition in these that search. >> i notice he said in a letter january for team, he talked about how you begin your career in a hollow force. hollow army were the correct words. i do not want to end my career in a hollow army. during her 36 year distinguished career come you commanded the army at all levels. can you describe for us what it was like to begin your career in a hollow force, provide a comparison to a hollow force of the click today in areas that didn't exist post-vietnam like women in combat and what do you see as the long-term consequences of a hollow force? >> thank you very much. what i saw was a force under resource so they were unable to do the training to meet readiness levels necessary. they were undisciplined. we did not have the abilities to man the force appropriately, so we had a nice balance between and strength in numbers, readiness levels of the work modernized. with no significant modernization programs at this time. as i got in the army in the 80s and early 90s, we went to modernization and they started to increase our ability. we got the end strike matched up with readiness and modernization programs that we became an army that was trained, ready, which is then executed on several occasions since then very successful. what i worry about is weak and the mismatch between an strength and readiness and modernization of a fight to keep it in balance. a couple things we have to do. one is we have to make sure we have flexibility to ensure we sustain balance within the force, which gets to comment some flexibility necessary. there's a certain level of capacity to deter in that capacity has to be ready at all times and that's what i worry about us to move forward or budget cuts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll submit the other questions to the record. >> thank you, this lowey. mr. frelinghuysen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for what you do and for looking for the men and women who served so proudly and we still have well over 60,000 serving proudly in really another parts of the world. i'd like each of you, i think general odierno commented to reflect on the size of services of the budget control act to push down the sides we have a continuous solution that affects the site of each of your forces and certainly the sequester was going to be damaging in that regard. which you can you some further reflections and make one additional comment. i like taking a page under general amos' comments. other nations are watching us and of course some of those nations are depending on us. so they are looking at how we are rightsizing our forces given all of these challenges. thank you. >> congressman frelinghuysen, leicester he testified we move the army and reduction of 80,000 that i'm comfortable with that because of the fact our army had crowed based on our conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. although we still had risk and i would say at the edge of risk, i was okay with reducing forces. it was sequestration, we now have to reduce the army somewhere around 100,000 people and that will break down somewhere between 40,000 to 60,000 in the active component, some of the truth when it does introduce those men the guard and 15 and 25,000 in the u.s. reserve. that necessitated our ability to respond to contingencies and ability to meet what i believe is an uncertain future ahead of us. >> deployments obviously. >> admiral, thank you. >> congressmen, people like to count ships in the navy. before the budget control act, that's her benchmark here. before the contract we have about 315 ships in 2020. after the budget control act today we will have 295. but sequestration in a continuing resolution to reconcile all that goes with that, we are looking at 2020 about 30 to 40 the ships. 265, 260 something like that. you can see the set production. >> general. >> congressmen, were in her way down to 182,000. i testified before that is considering the environment at about the right amount they could face the four sides while manned inside each unit not having that view is that his and ill-equipped and also accounts for lessons at the last 11 years of war. when airplanes hit the building where 173,600 marines. so we are on our way and you might say was the matter with 173? since airplanes hit the building with added 3600 marines are operations command and another 2500 for cybercolumn of them at is on its way to 3500. we've added capabilities like human intelligence and all these capabilities that have become lessons of war for the last 11 years. we are on our way down to 182. if sequestration has beyond this, i'm not sure this ground floor of the elevator. cannot see how we maintain 182. >> server, i came into an air force for 700,000 people. we're now going under 326,000 during the fight. we've been downsizing for quite some time. to produce about 500 aircraft. if our current force structure posted 326, we believe matches at an ironman casillas defense strategy aligned with it. if sequestration introduces a very grim reality and causes us to relook everything. and maybe what we have to do is figure out what the reliable string of numbers are for the tenure sissy frustration. we have to look at what kind of capability and core missionaries will the united states air force need to provide 10 years from now unrealistically within toplines you may provide that and then we have to back up to figure how to go from here to there. it would different from the air force we have today. >> congressmen, the army national guard today is headed for a number of 350,000 at the end of the current drawdown. we are comfortable, but realizing that was where we were previous to 9/11 and the threats have grown. we us who are faced in the late 70s and 80s before that, we were protected by oceans and geography. the demands in the homeland anytime we have to get ready to go to war, both guardsman, arun army on every contingency plan for the federal site to provide capability to respond to disasters in the homeland are planning closely right now with fema and complex catastrophes, whether man-made or terres, sequestration will put numbers at risk. the aircraft was set at 105,000. it would take that further, lafayette to the federal mission and stay mission. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. moran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. vitreous impact of sequestration because there's no question it's going to affect on friday and there's a good chance will be incorporated through much of the fiscal year is not the entire fiscal year. you've got situations that have to be addressed whatever the vehicle is. for example, your overseas contingency account is subject to sequestration, but uniformed personnel are not. i don't know how you handle that. i'll throw these things out. i think some of you to give some guidance. the continuing resolution itself poses several problems. the cr is currently structured in place for the balance of the year they would be substantially shorter race budget operations and maintenance funds. we are told there would be an imbalance of the military services short of no less than $14.5 billion. i know you have more flexibility there, but there's a real shortfall right now and if we don't know if a lot of programs into that, i'd like to know how you're going to deal with it. and then in the overseas contingency account, the army estimates of shortfall in excess of 6 billion. the navy has a shortfall of almost half a billion because of additional carrier presence in the persian gulf in the air force estimates a shortfall of $2 billion. from an appropriations standpoint, i do what you have to be too much in the weeds, but we need some guidance. the balances have that you two so the current rate. that may be how you're going to do with it, but i would like to hear how you're going to deal with these imbalances are currently facing, particularly the osm account. maybe we should start from general odierno because you have the most at stake in terms of the account. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is about $18 billion toward a new outline clearly. i don't want to get into too much detail, but i see what further 12 to 13 match it, we moved a lot as a lamb to the base. because of that, the $12 has shorted a significantly soviet authorities to move it around. as you so adequately fed, 14.5 million is what our problem is, so it really causes us problems. with the overseas accounts coming at us reducing personnel, but as you take people out of afghanistan, as you close bases and redeploy equipment, the amount of money necessary is underestimated and closing of pakistan did not hope. that increase the cost. the set list as a significant shortfall. and then we have about 6,000,000,005.5 and sequestration. so we have to take it out of our army accounts to pay these bills and that leaves us frankly after we take that out, only billion dollars in element taking care of family programs suicide to stop training for 80% of the forceful continuing to train us in afghanistan. we reduce the maintenance of our facilities on malvern solutions which will cost us more money down the road if we didn't maintain them and will cut some of our programs. for us we have no choice. we have to pay those bills, so it's going to cost us significantly, which would then create another readiness problem because we moved a lot of the things we should have done in 13 to 14 and one have enough money to make up for what they couldn't do in 13 to continue stability or >> thank you, sir. we are looking at 15 billion. that's 4.5 billion due to continuing revolution. that's only operations account. so for operations to go with the money as an insurance solution is general odierno mention they bring that down to what we believe is feasible and responsible. we are slowing the burn rate as you say. there's a temporal aspect as time goes on and you say we've got to do this now or not, you've got to fish or cut day. sherman's deployment got press because we said we need to present an option to our bosses and say we deploy it or we don't. if we deploy it, we're concerned because the money we use will not be training. so we have to let down the road is general odierno said. those guys won't be trained to deploy, so we'll send the truman and not have somebody ready down the road. so the decision was made to will determine and now we retain our presence in the central command. a lot of that will be next. shapes do for shapes two from eight mins. to the sender and or do we hold the money? we have to hold the money lost opportunity. we've lost $600 million in opportunity that is real readiness because of decisions in february 2 so the burn rate. another 1.2 in march if we don't have a relief of sequestration or ability to move money. because of the continuing resolution, and our investment accounts, we have more investment than we planned and 13. if we could get access, that would certainly help critical shortages. >> this seems to be in the continuing resolution. >> congressmen, we are sitting to billion dollar shorted out one bad for the marine corps, for operations this year. i said revalue reading as and you know that as aforesaid as to maintain a high state of readiness to respond to today's crisis with today's force today. so we have no dinner on account into operational readiness. end of about $400 million from facility statement modernization restoration come equipment readiness come ability to reset equipment out of afghanistan. i've still got a $3.2 billion bill. i've taken money out of those accounts and put it to my operational forces currently deployed to maintain readiness and also those forces next to deploy, the once getting ready to increase readiness. so close her billion dollars bill i pay in, but that will eventually come to roost next year or the year after that is readiness in equipment and facilities, the ability to train back home is reduced as i first readiness into the next two to four units. >> i hate to see a $1.8 billion shortfall of because this is serious money, but compared to the navy and army problems is clearly not as large. aren't takamori ferdy got approval to reprogram one point to come which drives other impacts are mentioned in my opening statement. if we have the ability to transfer appropriations, we would take that, that's where we have to go in our vector readiness versus modernization. >> congressmen, or a local account we would lay heavily on the air force and army judah forces overseas. but also returning equipment at home, the reset program and is program unassertive backlog will further delay equipment to armories to be utilized in the home and to respond to domestic disasters. additionally, the current cr is working closely with mark welsh to get back into death of maintenance and i will have to be parked on the rant this year because abilities transferring this money to the air force and air guard. probably the more immediate impact will see as the backlog in schools basic training, pilot training the services need money to keep school slots open. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. granger. >> mr. chairman, topic of today's hearing as deities fiscal challenges that we agree is the reason is to provide resources not only for equipment, but for people needed to defend this great nation. today we discussed burger challenges and i were to focus on veterans to more fighters because they should be our top priority and how we fund for critical services for soldiers when they return from the battlefield. we must not balance needs to sacrifice our military. at her directly that the health service we provide for wounded warriors has at times been inadequate. when i hear soldiers had rather go back to iraq any day, it causes me great concern. general odierno, many come from army soldiers and the pastor record from 30 soldiers and make a straight blade instead of receiving a day to assist you ptsd or tbi, they were diagnosed with medical conditions unrelated to service that allowed the army to discharge them. soldiers tell me their command disciplinary action if the soldiers questioned diagnosis. and what to make sure the subcommittee alan hill after suffering a brain injury in combat. the command staff inaccurately insisted none calm that related her problem instead. they allow the army to discharge about providing treatment after sergeant housewife contacted my office concerned her husband was not getting the treatment needed from a sergeant who was physically attacked by two of search on the wounded warrior transition in the stacks of all those substantiated. december 2012 army published a report of an investigation conducted by the western regional medical command of the wounded warrior transition team. the report ranking officers who make fun of soldiers in wheelchairs were met with a toxic environment. due to the elevation of cases, the army decided to conduct an outside investigation and promised improvements are underway. this is progress, that the army conducted a report last year and will get you the results. this is to import and our soldiers helped us too important to have been even one time. general odierno master of form and ranking member thought problems. you're aware that problems at fort bliss. do you believe this is a systemic problem related to budgetary concerns were limited to a few negligent boards? >> we take a series years later. we did an investigation and just finished the second outlook at fort lewis completed within the last couple weeks to some of the concerns he raised. i truly believe these are what i call anecdotal individual events to make sharia the right people with our wounded warriors. i do not think us the resources we have involved. i believe it's about getting the right people doing the right thing to recommend oversight command oversight and we take every one of these allegations very serious and continue to look very carefully. i believe overall our system is good, but we do have outliers and people that are not doing the right thing and it has spread to her attention so they can investigate and make sure soldiers get the best care. we want to take care of our young men and women. they deserve it almost do everything we can to ensure that. >> they just listen to distinguish man and the wonderful job you do an impossible situation of being put into some of the coyote, but we have to do our very best for those who served and their treatment and certainly when i looked at the assembly lifted over 30 cases, 64 over september september 2010 and saw similar stories and statements made over and over and we couldn't get the information we needed more information that fit their information. we can't think this cuts in the health care of our soldiers that we hear now from other services also. so please take this seriously. i know you got the results, the review last year in the practice of evaluating psychiatric orders. you know when that report will be released quakes >> were about ready to attribute very shortly. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mitch mcconnell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with a quote from president john kennedy who said our problems are man-made, therefore can be solved by man. it's shameful, a man-made mess completely and wholly irreversible. gentlemen, i believe your dire predictions for the consequences sequestration on military readiness, capabilities and overall national security. we are shooting ourselves in the foot. responsible leaders for spending, revenues come in tax expenditures the table and come up with a compromise that protects the american people because the government provides services and protections for every american. i voted against because they strongly oppose the idea of passing bad cause that they never take effect. when i came to congress in 2001, the pentagon budget was $310 billion in the federal government is projected to have a 10 year budget surplus of over $5 trillion. since then, the pentagon budget has doubled trillions of dollars on wars, tax cuts in programs that have all been put on a credit card. for much of the past decade, the brave americans in uniform have been serving up fighting in afghanistan and iraq. over a trillion dollar spent wars and not 1 penny of revenue mysteries by congress to pay for those fours. to fight the wars, absolute and total sacrifice was demanded and given for military leaders here today, minute by minute command, all of your families of all delivered for us upon her in a thank you. the arrest of the american people have been asked to sacrifice nothing. to contribute nothing extra. this congress right now is doing nothing but watching as education, public health, infrastructure investment for military readiness are guided. again, revenues off the table. even if it results in our nation less secure than must protect it. we have an obligation to act. as americans, we need to pay for the government we want and pay for a strong military. for the privilege of living in a free democratic nation means paying higher taxes you can tell by viacom vincennes willing to pay for that. instead will be looking at kicking kids out of head start. such element, the focus of my question will be a little different. for military personnel aquinas protected from sequestration, would appear an important service supporting military families are not protected. so my question is what will be the effect of sequestration and military families? the spouses and children, quality-of-life of those loved ones who support our war fighter? for example, is it accurate to no cuts to the child development centers and impact each military schools will directly hit children of servicemen and women? so finally, what will be the impact on retaining our best and brightest members of the military when this fiscal mess means their jobs are more difficult and undermines the well-being of families, especially children. how do we keep our best and brightest, gentlemen? >> congresswoman, with a little over 19,000 civilian marines whose salaries come from appropriated funds. a large percentage of those if not all of our folks that deal with child development center trainer children on mental health providers, the ones that work with not only our
New-yorkUnited-statesCanadaNevadaNorth-carolinaMissouriArmeniaTexasAfghanistanFloridaCaliforniaVirginia with russian officials and a couple of days after the trump security adviser retroactively registered himself as a foreign agent. what happened? what happened? tomorrow jeff sessions under oath, the first time we will have any chance of learning the answer to that question, if they ask it of him. watch this space that does it for us tonight. i'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell" to whom i owe 1:07. i'm sorry. >> but you were just being so help to feel the senate staff that are preparing questions for tomorrow, that i'm sure they're all scribbling furiously. we thought we knew, had a pretty good idea what the questions would be to jeff sessions. but now we know that one of the very first questions tomorrow is going to be what will you do if the president orders you to fire special prosecutor robert mueller? >> what was your role in the firing of the fbi director? what was your role in the firing of the u.s. attorneys? what will you do, what will your role be if he tries to fire the special counsel? eventually can he fire everyone? i mean, it's going to be fascinating tomorrow. >> we're going to hear every one of those questions. what we don't know is how many answers we're going to hear. >> yeah. >> that we're not sure of. >> yeah. this question of executive privilege and what they're going the call executive privilege and such a -- i mean that's a difficult legal theory anyway. that's not a cut and dried thing even in the best of circumstances, i think we're going to get into appeals court territory pretty quickly tomorrow. >> and i have a feeling that jeff sessions isn't going to rely on the feelings pleading that we heard last week from dan coats and the director of nsa. it is my feeling that i shouldn't talk about this. >> i have discomfort. yeah. >> yes. >> i have a gavel. >> we will seattle. thank you, rachel. >> thanks. >> when president nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating him, he did it on a friday night and shocked headline writers who immediately called it the saturday night massacre. no one saw that coming, no one. everyone in the country was shocked. but because the trump white house is the leakiest white house in history, we know tonight that the president is thinking about firing special prosecutor robert mueller. and the first wave of commentary that you may have heard about this included many people repeating the phrase "can't imagine." as in can't imagine that the president would actually fire the special prosecutor. if you can't imagine that, you have not been paying attention. to president donald trump. >> trump and the people around him are not acting like people who have nothing to hide. >> it's jeff sessions' turn to answer questions from the senate intelligence committee about russia. >> the last time he was here, he testified and gave false testimony. >> i did not have communications with the russians. >> we got a lot of questions we want to ask him. >> he violated his own recusal. >> if the president okay testifying in this setting tomorrow? >> i think he is going to testify. we're aware of it and go from there. >> i think what republicans ought to focus on is closing down the independent counsel. >> could the president fire bob mueller? >> firing special prosecutors tends not to work, as we all learned from watergate. >> you may be the first president in history to go down because you can't stop inappropriately talking about an investigation. >> what we're calling stupid watergate, something with all the potential national shame of watergate brought to you by people too stupid to grasp the concept of shame. >> mr. president, it's been an honor to serve. >> i can't thank you enough. >> it looked to me something out of north korea or the soviet pole it wil politburo. >> we thank you for the blessing you have given us. >> april ryan, the white house correspondent for american urban radio networks is reporting there is, quote, mass hysteria, that's her term, mass hysteria in the white house tonight because the president is considering firing special prosecutor robert mueller. tonight on the pbs news hour, chris ruddy, a confidante of the president said this to judy woodruff. >> i think he is considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. i think he is weighing that option. i think it's pretty clear what one of his lawyers said on television recently. i personally think it would be a very significant mistake, even though i don't think there is a justification, and even though -- i mean, here you have a situation -- >> chris ruddy had just come from the white house before doing that interview with judy woodru woodruff. the report of mass hysteria in the white house tonight is based on the point that chris ruddy just made, even though he is a trump supporter who believe there's shouldn't be a special prosecutor, he believes it would be politically disastrous for the president to fire the special prosecutor. when president nixon fired the special prosecutor that was closing in on him, the president then felt the resulting political pressure was so strong that it forced president nixon to then allow the appointment of a replacement special prosecutor. leon jaworski who carried the watergate investigation to its conclusion which force president nixon to resign. tomorrow afternoon when attorney general jeff sessions appears to testify to the senate intelligence committee, he will be asked about firing the special prosecutor, if the special prosecutor has already been fired by tomorrow afternoon, such is the suspense we live with, then jeff sessions will be asked about any conversations he had about firing the special prosecutor. he'll be asked why the special prosecutor was fired. but if special prosecutor robert mueller has not yet been fired as of tomorrow afternoon, then jeff sessions will be asked if he will resign if the special prosecutor is fired. that is what attorney general elliot richardson did when president nixon ordered him to fire special prosecutor archibald cox. elliot richardson refused the president's order and resigned. and then the deputy attorney general williams ruckelhaus refused that same order, and then he refused. and then robert bourque obeyed the president's order. and that was remembered when robert bourque 14 years later was nominated by president reagan to fill a supreme court vacancy and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 58-42. what happens in the firing of robert mueller be remembered for the rest of the lives of anyone who participates in that firing. technically, the president does not have the direct power to fire the special prosecutor. only the attorney general has that power. but since attorney general jeff sessions has recused himself from matters involving the special prosecutor's investigation of the trump administration's russian connections, the prosecutor to fire the special prosecutor now rests with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the man who appointed the special prosecutor. this evening we have been hearing many, many commentators say they just cannot imagine that president trump would have the special prosecutor fired. everyone who has said that is a very slow learner about the capacities of the trump administration. one senator has already imagined it. senator kamala harris of california last week asked rod rosenstein to guarantee in writing that the special prosecutor would not be fired. that exchange became memorable not so much for the assistance for the style of rod rosenstein's response in which he seemed to try to avoid giving senator harris an answer, and more importantly, it was remembered for senator harris' persistence in getting an answer. >> would you agree, mr. rosenstein, to provide a letter to director mueller similarly providing that director mueller has the authority as special counsel, quote, independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department and ensure that director mueller has the authority that is plenary and not, quote, defined or limited by the special counsel regulations? >> senator, i'm very sensitive about time, and i'd like to have a very lengthy conversation and explain that all to you. >> can you give me a yes or no? >> it's not a short answer, senator. >> it is. either you are willing to do that or not, as we have precedent in that regard. >> chairman, they should be allowed to answer the question. >> i realize that theoretically anybody can be fired. and so there is a potential for undermining an investigation. i am confident, senator, that director mueller, mr. mccabe and i and anybody else who may film those positions in the future will protect the integrity of that investigation. that's my commitment to you, and that's the guarantee that you and the american people have. >> so is that a no? >> she took that as a no. kind of the best line of that exchange was just cut off in our video. that now turns out to be possibly the most important question that was asked at that hearing. there were many other important questions asked of the other witnesses that got all the air time that day. but now, now that question. looms as the most important. that is the only time that rod rosenstein has been questioned about firing the special prosecutor. and his answer was theoretically anyone could be fired. he did give a guarantee, sounded like his personal guarantee that he would protect the integrity of the investigation. we will find out what that guarantee is worth. we'll find out what that means, if the president tries to fire a special prosecutor robert mueller. we will find out if rod rosenstein simply refuses to carry out that order. and if he does refuse, then we will find out if he then immediately resigns following the elliot richardson model, or perhaps more interestingly, rod rosenstein refuses to carry out the order and he doesn't resign. and he tries to appoint another special prosecutor. then we'll see if the president then fires rod rosenstein. or might attorney general jeff sessions decide that he will carry out the president's order and fire robert mueller himself? even though he has recused himself from the russia investigation. then does rod rosenstein resign? with a president who is motived by the norms of political cost benefit analysis, we might be able to predict for you what might happen here. with any other attorney general, we might be able to predict what the attorney general would do. if the president wanted the special prosecutor fired. what we do know is that from the start, president trump has behaved not like a politician who is concerned with how things look and how they will look in the next election, he has behaved as senator franken said like he has something to hide, something big. and we know a lot about jeff sessions, but not enough to predict what he will do if the president orders the firing of the special prosecutor. and so tonight the investigation of the president and his associates has hit another stunning suspense point. will the special prosecutor be fired? it was a question that rod rosenstein thought he could ignore last week. and most of the media thought it could be ignored last week when kamala harris asked about that. but tonight here we are. it's the question of the night. and we don't know what attorney general jeff sessions will do. we don't know if he will do the right thing and stand up to the president. this might be the night when jeff sessions looks into his soul and decides that the place he wants to occupy in history is as an attorney general who did the right thing when the president tried to fire the special prosecutor. if this happens, if the president does try to fire the special prosecutor, jeff sessions should know that what he then does will define his place in history. it will overwhelm everything he has ever done in his past, good or bad. it will be the thing he is remembered for. no one remembers elliot richardson for being the attorney general of massachusetts. no one remembers anything else elliot richardson did as the attorney general of the united states. they remember only that elliot richardson did the right thing on one night of his life when president nixon wanted to fire the special prosecutor. and unfortunately, everything that we do know about jeff sessions tells us that jeff sessions is no elliot richardson. joining us now walter dallinger who served as head of the office of legal counsel. he was acting solicitor general from 1996 to '97. john heilemann, national affairs analyst for msnbc news and msnbc. and david frum, senior editor at the atlantic. take us through the possibilities here. and one of the things i want to consider as we approach this, jeff sessions may already be a subject of the special prosecutor's investigation, possibly for perjury in testifying to the senate, or possibly involving his possible russian connections. it is -- is it possible that jeff sessions tonight has to worry that if he participates in the firing of the special prosecutor, that could add a obstruction of justice risk to him in what could become any investigation that follows that? >> well, as you know, attorney general sessions recused himself from anything having to do with the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. for him to unrecuse himself and to participate in any decision to dismiss the special counsel i think would place him at extraordinary personal legal jeopardy. so i cannot imagine, no matter how loyal he may be to donald trump that he would be the one to step into that at his own personal legal peril. it's much more likely that in the unthinkable world in which we were to dismiss the special counsel that the president would direct the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein to do that, i knew rosenstein a bit. most people who have been in washington justice department law enforcement know him. i find it unthinkable that he would accept and carry out such an order. i believe that he would resign and that the president would have to go down the list. one of the problems is there are not many confirmed officials in the department of justice who are in the hierarchy to become acting deputy attorney general and to take on that authority. i don't know how many people would have to resign before president trump would find someone who would carry out the order to discharge mr. mueller. you have to remember the extraordinary confidence that robert mueller has among federal judges all across the country, among fbi agents all across the country, among republicans and democrats who have been in law enforcement or justice or law firms who is a republican who served for two terms under president bush as director of the fbi. i mean, this is -- this would be such an extraordinarily shocking event that it would not simply call into question the integrity of this investigation, it would call into question whether we really were operating under the rule of law at all. >> let's listen to newt gingrich making the case for firing the special prosecutor. >> i think that what republicans ought to focus on is closing down the independent counsel, because he is not independent. he apparently is very close to comey. we know comey hates trump. you have to assume that that has to leak over to mueller. and you have to assume that the people mueller is going to bring in are essentially justice department people who were 33-1 in favor of clinton over trump. >> david frum, your reaction to newt gingrich. >> first, he is calling him an independent counsel. that's an important mistake. the independent counsel law was allowed to la ed ted to lapse a last century because there were doubts of constitution. that the special counsel is under the president because people have argued the president can be trusted to investigate himself. if that turns out not to be true, you are into political recommend dolphins most dire kind. maybe newt gingrich would welcome that because it's kind of an apocalyptic scenario and he enjoys those. i don't want to sound like i have the limited imagination you condemn. but if president trump really does fire robert mueller, he might as well hire a sky writer to trace over the white house i am super guilty. >> john heilemann, newt gingrich seems to be laying out the kind of talking points if this goes forward, i would expect to hear from more republicans. >> right. i mean, look, there is one version of kind of conventional political analysis, lawrence, that says look, this is never going to happen. that newt gingrich and the other assorted trump allies throughout are effectively, i say this on the night of another game in the nba finals, working the refs, are trying to muddy up robert mueller, are trying to launch a campaign against him to damage his credibility going forward. and importantly, to gin up some of the flagging enthusiasm of the trump base that we've been reading about in polling analysis over the course of the last few days that the white house is very concerned about the notion that they understand that he is never going to be a 50.1% president, that they need to keep his base whipped up. they need to keep it solid. and these kind of talking points are part of the way to do that. i think that that conventional political analysis is probably right as far as it goes, but like you, i don't think it's at all unthinkable, i don't think the supposedly unthinkable is at all unthinkable given what we have seen so far over the course this administration. it does feel to me tonight -- i'm not predicting this is going to happen. it could end up being that the conventional analysis is right. it could be possible that we're standing right now at the brink of a constitutional crisis. >> let's go back to the nixon model. let's remember the most important thing about the nixon case. the president was guilty, and he knew that when he fired the special prosecutor. and so a lot of the analysis of president trump is of a politician who is trying to preserve his political future. what if what we have here is someone who is guilty, who knows he is guilty? firing the special prosecutor has a logic to it. >> it is like a confession. here is a difference. with president nixon in 1973, he faced a special -- he faced a congress that was politically and idealogically sympathetic to him because conservative democrats had the upper hand. but it was in the hands of the upper party in both houses. he couldn't count on their total come place sense. donald trump may be gambling that he can, or to follow what john says, at least if he revs up the core republican base enough in these safe republican districts. the great calculation the republicans are all making is as they look with increasing dismay at donald trump, are they safer if they run away from him or are they safer if they cling to him. >> and walter dellinger, play out this drama a bit. if this does happen and let's say we see something like what we saw in the saturday night massacre with the attorney general not either quitting or not being involved in it at all through his recusal, rod rosenstein possibly resigning as you predict he might do, the next person in line, isn't that the old job you had, solicitor general? >> it is, lawrence. but the question is the solicitor general is not confirmed at this moment. and so is not eligible to become acting attorney general. neither is the next ranking person in the department, the head of olc is not yet confirmed. we're sort of entering into a black hole to try to find someone who would carry out this truly unthinkable deed. >> and so john heilemann, that would leave the administration, leave the white house basically calling over there, having to wire this whole thing ahead of time. they can't stand to go through the surprise of nixon got of discovering what elliot richardson was going to do only when the moment came. >> this again, lawrence, this is the scenario where i do think we get quickly, for the reasons that walter just laid out, you can very quickly find yourself in a constitutional crisis. and i do think to tie up one of the things david said, did this calculation for republicans, who have always held the fate of trump in their hands, not democrats, but republicans, at what point it is more expensive to carry trump as opposed to then stick with him as opposed to run away from him? there is going to be a point where it's more expensive to stick with him. in the black hole constitutional crisis, the notion that the white house is effectively taking over the justice department, and the old standard walls that divided the two and gave some independence, measure of independence to the justice department have come crumbling down entirely. that is where it becomes unthinkable for me to imagine, or becomes unthinkable that republicans eventually don't look at that and say enough, this is going to destroy us in 2018. we must put a stop to this. i don't know exactly where that point. but that point begins to become maybe, just maybe foreseeable. >> david frum, a quick last word before we go to a break. >> look, but you are hearing, and this is the most ominous thing saying the president has the right to fire him and fire him for any reason that is the new vision of the fbi director. maybe we're going to hear a new vision of the special counsel too. >> david frum, thank you very much for joining us tonight. coming up, the president's cabinet pledged their personal loyalty and devotion to the president today, and they did it publicly, except for a couple of them who held on to their dignity. and later, we'll be joined by a man who was threatened by donald trump with the possibility that he had tape recorded their conversations for use in court. n almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ but with my back pain i couldn't sleep or get up in time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. and now. i'm back! aleve pm for a better am. hey you've gotta see this. cno.n. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. the republican-controlled congress has wholly failed to fulfill its responsibility of serving as a check and balance on the president, and has thus far given the president a total pass on his business entanglements. state attorneys general answer to the people of their jurisdictions, and we have a duty to enforce the law. and that's why we're taking action today. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and geykeep you sidelined.ngway. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah. the day before it leaked from the house that the president is considering firing the special prosecutor, the president held his first cabinet meeting with his first order of business to have each member of the cabinet humiliate himself or herself by praising the dear leader. reince priebus won the competition hands down for the most fawning public worship of the president. >> on behalf of the entire senior staff around you, mr. president, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you have given us to serve your agenda and the american people. and we're continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals. >> one member of the cabinet refused to disgrace himself in a public display of the kind of personal loyalty that james comey has said the president demands. here is what defense secretary james mattis said. >> mr. president, it's an honor to represent the men and women of the department of defense, and we're grateful for the sacrifices our people are making in order to strengthen our militaries for our diplomats always negotiate from a position of strength. thank you. >> not one word of praise for trump. there is no word tonight whether president trump is now considering firing secretary mattis for refusing to publicly display his personal loyalty to the president. joining us now, eli stokols, for "the wall street journal" and john heilemann is back with us. eli, the report earlier tonight of mass hysteria in the white house at the thought that the president is actually considering and may very well be very close to deciding to fire the special prosecutor. we think we've seen something close to hysteria inside the white house before. i guess this would be the peak. >> well, it's really hard to know for sure because hysteria, it's sort of chronic. it's almost become the norm inside the west wing. and it's difficult, really, and it's a challenge for journalists to ascertain just to what degree people -- this is sort of a grade higher than normal when you have conversations, when you a president who is willing to engage pretty much anyone who comes in and out on any topic and who will discuss things that sound crazy when they get leaked to the press. it's difficult for us to know is he serious, is chris ruddy telling the truth? is he actually considering that? i think it was a pr problem this afternoon when it came out you. saw the white house eventually put out a statement. but this is a president that the bottom line is his own staff, his closest aides, they don't know what he is going to do at any given time. and i think that's why every day sort of feels like a four or five-alarm fire over there. >> let's listen to what congressman adam schiff said about this tonight on "hardball." >> what this would prompt if he were to fire bob mueller, congress would immediately take up legislation to reestablish the independent counsel and we would reappoint bob mueller. >> john heilemann, your reaction to that? >> i'm not sure congressman schiff has the votes for that. that's my immediate reaction to that. it's a snappy line, and as i said before, i do think it's hard to -- i do think there is a chance that if trump were to take this unprecedented and shocking step, i do think that there would be some republicans, some that would say, okay, i'm done with this now. i wash my hands of this. let's take this matter into our own hands. that might not be enough republicans to have the votes to accomplish what adam schiff suggested there. >> but eli, we heard the talking points laid out by newt gingrich about how to describe the legitimacy of firing the special prosecutor. as it happens, the causes for firing the special prosecutor are specified in law, and they are misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or, and that is the vague wide open one, other good cause. and so eli, that's what they'd be working with in trying to justify it. >> right. that last thing might give them a little leeway. but, you know, i don't think following the law is the most important thing for these folks. this is all about the politics. and we started to see it about 24 hours ago. a lot of republicans who support this white house starting to come out with tweets, with public statements in interviews on television, starting to sort of back the idea, to float the idea of maybe the president should fire the special counsel here. and it's just an indication that as john mentioned, we're sitting here with republicans supporting this president and congress for the most part. the president's base still not abandoning him. and i think what you see if this comes to fruition, we may still be a long way from that. it may not. but if it does, it is a doubl down on this shoot a person on fifth avenue idea that this president believes that his base will not abandon him, and if the base doesn't abandon him, then the rank and file republicans in congress are not going to abandon him. so there may be more of a sense in this white house that no matter the optics and how bad it might look to some, how much it might look like he has something to hide, they might believe also that they can get away with this. >> john heilemann and eli stoko stokols, thank you both for joining us. i appreciate it. coming up, when donald trump sued someone who wrote a book about him, he of course lost the case, just humiliated in the litigation. and he used the same lawyer that president trump is using now. and in that same case, donald trump lied about tape recording his own conversations. that's next. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis like me, and you're talking to your rheumatologist about a medication... ...this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain... ...and protect my joints from further damage. humira has been clinically studied for over 18 years. humira works by targeting and helping to... ...block a specific source... ...of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain and... ...stop further joint damage in many adults. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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 flulike symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com this is humira at work. i can't keep up with our dearweekly tee times.worry but i've been taking osteo bi flex ease. it's 80% smaller, but just as effective at supporting range of motion and shows improved joint comfort in seven days. which means you're in big trouble, son. you will bow to my exquisite short game. cower at my majestic drives. i will make you question everything, son. so don't worry about dad's joints. worry about your dignity. love, dad. 80% smaller, just as effective. osteo bi-flex ease. made to move. here is sean spicer following the directions of president trump's personal lawyer by refusing to answer any questions about the investigation of the white house. >> does president trump have audio recordings of his conversations and meetings with the former fbi director james comey? >> the president made clear in the rose garden last week that he would have an announcement shortly. >> so what is he waiting for? what is the delay? >> he is not waiting for anything. when he is ready to discuss it, he will. i think he laid out his position very clearly, very concisely on friday. >> and here is the president today following the advice of his defense lawyer. >> are there tapes of you and james comey. >> thank you very much. >> thanks to a freedom of information request by "the wall street journal", the united states secret service said today it has no records of any audio recorded in the trump white house. but as "the wall street journal" points out, this doesn't exclude the possibility that recordings could have been created by another entity other than the secret service. joining us now, tim o'brien, the executive editor of bloomberg view, and the author of "trump nation: the art of being the donald." and tim, you were of course sued for writing that book, and marc kasowitz was the lawyer, the lawyer he has defending him in that lawsuit. the issue of audiotapes came up. tell us how that happened. that at some point donald trump said something like i tape recorded our conversation? >> routinely, i was at "the new york times" at the time. and we spoke frequently, multiple times during the week. >> by phone? >> by phone. he doesn't e-mail. he would send letters or i'd see him at the office. but occasionally the end of phone calls he would say i've been taping this. you don't mind if i tape this, do you? that's fine, that's fine. he would drop it in at the end. and i would be in his office and he would say i might have to start the tape recording system. >> let's go to the under oath deposition in your case. and i'm so glad that he sued you. >> i know you're jealous. >> i'm very jealous. i wanted him to sue me so i would have one of these depositions. here is donald trump under oath. i figured the only way i could make him write what i was saying was to have him at least think that he was being tape recorded. so you believe you may have told him? donald trump, i may have told him. i don't remember, but i may have told him. question, that you were tape recording him? >> donald trump -- that's right, i remember something very vaguely in my mind hoping he would write honestly what i said. question, and that was not true? you were not tape recording him? donald trump, i was not. i'm not equipped to tape record. so we have been here before. what was your reaction when you saw the first tweet from trump about hey, comey better hope there are no tapes. >> i thought there were absolutely no tapes. and comey said during his testimony, lordy, he hopes there are tapes, famously. and i hate to disappoint him, but i don't think they exist. trump says this all the time to intimidate people. whether it's people prosecuting him or investigating him or reporting on him. it's sort of typical trump. >> now your reaction tonight, knowing donald trump as you do, your reaction tonight to the possibility that he may order the special prosecutor to be fired. >> oh, i think he would do that in a heart beat if it came to his survival. thing is two lenses for understanding everything donald trump does. self-aggrandizement, or self-preservation. he is firmfully the self-preservation mode here. i don't think he would hesitate for a second to fire mueller. >> the idea that well, he's got to make the political calculation, for you just how at risk does he feel. >> yes. >> by the special prosecutor. and if he feels seriously at risk he'll fire them shirks not a strategically disciplined intellectually, emotionally disciplined person. he is a carnival barker. and he wants attention, and he wants to make sure that he survives. that's what motives everything he does. >> now kasowitz has absolutely no experience defending a president. he has virtually no experience with criminal law. he has always been in these lawsuits, defending the trump university lawsuit which he lost to the tune of $25 million. >> right. >> what is your reaction to the president having a lawyer with no experience in the arena that he finds himself now? >> well, when he sued me for libel, kasowitz had no experience in libel law either. >> and now he does. >> now he does. and i had great attorneys. i had mary jo white, andrew levine. >> former u.s. attorney mary jo white. >> correct. and former s.e.c. chair. and they were prepared. they were disciplined. they were wise. and they cleaned his clock. >> and so kasowitz to you is a sign that actually trump could have more problems than he realizes? >> he doesn't understand what he is up against. >> doesn't know what he is doing. that was my impression. tim o'brien, thank you for joining us. and thank you for getting sued. >> you're welcome. >> coming up, president trump's personal lawyer marc kasowitz now wants to have his own office space in the white house, and big surprise, but possibly not to people who have seen him work before, he is now risking disbarment with the legal advice he is giving white house staff. will your business be ready when growth presents itself? american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. here is what "the new york times" reported today about president trump's personal defense lawyer marc kasowitz. quote, in recent day, mr. kasowitz has advised white house aides to discuss the inquiry into russia's interference in last year's election to as little as possible. . he told aides gathered in one meeting who asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers that it was not yet necessary. according to another person with direct knowledge. now that part about telling the white house staff that it's not necessary to hire lawyers could get him in serious trouble you. might recall that it's been some weeks since i first advised everyone in the white house to get their own lawyers. marc kasowitz is a member of the new york bar. the new york bar's rules of conduct say, quote, a lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person other than the advice to secure counsel if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client. everyone working in the white house has the reasonable possibility of being in legal conflict with this president. the president's lawyer never should have said that to those staffers. up next, i'll ask former assistant attorney general walter dellinger how much trouble marc kasowitz can get in for giving that kind of advice around the white house. and david cay johnston who knows donald trump well will also join us. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? and you're about in to hit 'send all' on some embarrassing gas. hey, you bought gas-x®! unlike antacids, gas-x ® relieves pressure and bloating fast. huh, crisis averted. and my brother ray and i started searching for answers. (vo) when it's time to navigate in-home care, follow that bright star. because brightstar care earns the same accreditation as the best hospitals. and brightstar care means an rn will customize a plan that evolves with mom's changing needs. (woman) because dad made us promise we'd keep mom at home. (vo) call 844-4-brightstar for your free home care planning guide. you on a perfect car,rch then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates... maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance. we don't know exactly what advice marc kasowitz is giving president trump, his client in the criminal investigation conducted by special prosecutor, but we do know he is giving terrible advice to the white house staff. as i just reported according to the "new york times," he told aides gathered in one meeting who asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers it was not yet necessary. we're joined by the founder of d.c. report.org a non-profit that covers the trump administration. and walter dahlinger. walter, you have a lawyer, completely inexperienced in any case involving the white house, inexperienced in criminal law being asked by white house staffers do they need lawyers. and of course they do. and here he is telling them no, no, no, you don't need lawyers. that's clearly in violation of the new york bar's rule about his ability to advise people who might be involved in the case that his client is involved in. >> laurance, i -- i'm not going to opine on the new york bar rules but think how generally inappropriate this is. if this is an employment related question, their advice ought to come from the white house counsel. mr. kasowitz's only professional obligation is to donald trump. so he cap be giving advice to anyone else. note how this is a piece of the standard process of failing to follow the standard legal procedures that keeps getting this white house into more and more trouble. brief examples that link all today's news. they didn't get an opinion from the department of justice about whether his dealings with foreign businesses violated the emolument's clause. he hired a private lawyer for that. that's not appropriate. when the travel ban got a death blow from the ninth circuit today what they focused on was how they didn't follow the proper procedures, they didn't consult with the right departments, didn't have a finding. again and again they don't follow the right procedures and again and again it gets this white house into trouble. >> david, marc kasowitz is practicing law without a license in washington which the d.c. bar does not like. they have got rules against that. he is not admitted to the bar in d.c. because the major firms in washington refuse to represent the president because they consider him so unreliable as you will know both in paying and in listening to legal advice. once again, as walter says, the one thing that is happening here is that the addition of the president's defense lawyer has not helped anything. as far as i can see from where we are sitting now has only made things worse. >> that's right. in addition to the prospect that he might have problems with the board of professional responsibility in washington which is under the circuit court of appeals there, i think there is another elephant in the room, lawrence. we are talking about an investigation that deals with counter-intelligence. does marc kasowitz have a security clearance? did the white house get a security clearance for him? what discussions is he having with staff people, and what facts has he been told by the president that deal with matters of national security? >> david, that's one of the things that you get in a washington law firm is that there are people there who have experience with either having had security clearances or have the ability and background to obtain one or what's necessary to get them through representations of clients like this. >> that's right. they are lawyers who are sophisticated in the ways of how government does this. they are not bullies. donald is a bully. his top lawyers bully people and threaten people. it's their style of operating that works in the private sector in some cases in tough throat businesses like new york real estate but that's not going to work in washington. and that trump doesn't understand this goes to a very fundamental principle. unfortunate unfortunately, nobody during the campaign simple will he asked donald trump this question, what exactly is the job description of the president of the united states. i assure you donald doesn't have a clue what it says in oral two. >> if you were white house counsel and staff came into your office in circumstances like this or any kind of investigation and said should i get a lawyer, what would you say? >> i think the answer depends on whether they had any rough connection to these issues. if they did, think the answer undoubtedly should be -- should be yes, that they should. you know, there was mention of creating a war room to deal with the russian investigation within the white house. but there war room the people suggested for it were going to be people who ought not be talking to each other about some of these matters at some point. i don't each understand how that works. he needs distinguished counsel. and he needs to segregate 24 from the work of the white house and not continue to mix public interests and private interests in a way that doesn't respect the appropriate boundaries. >> well, we go into tonight with the suspense of not knowing whether we will have a special prosecutor tomorrow. walter dellinger thank you for your unique experience and guidance. david k. johnston thank you. always appreciate it. >> thank you. we'll be right back with tonight's last word. so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. now i can start relaxing even before the vacation begins. your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah! hey, bud. you need some help? no, i'm good. come on, moe. i have to go. (vo) we always trusted our subaru impreza would be there for him someday. ok. that's it. (vo) we just didn't think someday would come so fast. see ya later, moe. (vo) introducing the subaru impreza. the longest-lasting vehicle in its class. more than a car, it's a subaru. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. nit's softer than ever. new charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin [boy] cannonball! [girl] don't... [man] not again! [burke] swan drive. seen it. covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the senate intelligence committee heard from nsa director mike rogers on the for two hours behind closed doors. they were no doubt asking him about those conversations with the president that he refused to testify about last week, including the possibility that the president asked him to intervene in the fbi investigation. when the senators emerged from that closed door hearing marco rubio was asked to comment on the report that the president is considering firing special prosecutor robert mueller. >> what do you think of trump apparently calling chris rudy that he thinks he may fire mueller. >> i don't know that really happened. >> would that be -- >> it would be a bad idea. i don't know that that's true. i don't have any reason to believe that it is. i wasn't -- i didn't hear that. >> it would be a bad idea. senator marco rubio gets tonight's last word. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts right now. the breaking news tonight -- is donald trump debating whether or not to fire the special counsel. a friends of his says the president is considering terminating robert mueller. plus the next man up in front of the senate intelligence
United-statesNew-yorkNew-york-barWashingtonWhitehouseDistrict-of-columbiaNorth-koreaRussiaSeattleRussianRussiansAmerican