Chris Hayes discusses the days top news. Legislation that this congress has been pushing forward. The biggest example of it was the corrupt gop tax scam where 83 of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 . This was not done for the people. Thats what we stand for as democrats. It was done for the lobbyist, the wealthiest, the billionaires. This is corruption happening in plain sight. I would not disagree that is corrupt. But that is every day corruption. That is a system that is shot through with corruption. I dont want to minimize that. We are talking about specific corruption in that this president has a whole host of corrupt relationships to his business and things like that. That my question would, what would they do if they got the majority they are lying, cheating, stealing and doing it with impunity. And the reason is this congress has refused to do constitutional oversight responsibilities. The House Of Representatives doesnt work for donald trump. We work for the American People. But these guys on the other side of the aisle have not gotten the memo. So acting as coconspirators. Refusing to do oversight and subpoena documents and expose these corrupt scandals to the American People. Democrats will do that. Every day i think to myself, there should be a hearing on that. One example the insane story of the three maralago lawyers. Should there be hearings on that . Absolutely. You know, the oversight and Government Reform Committee basically, for years wasted millions of dollars on Hillary Clintons emails which was a fake scandal designed to
undermine her presidency but refuses to do anything at the corrupt, at the corrupt instance that has arisen. It is shameful. And you are not going to get them to act as constitutional check and balance as devin nunes disclosed to his donors. I want to play one bit of tape. Before you guys went on recess, they filed articles of impeachment on Rod Rosenstein. Listen to what he had to say. Also, on things that came up in the house on Rosenstein Impeachment thing. Yeah, yeah, well, so its a bit complicated right and i say that because you have to, so we only have so many months left, right. So if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does is that triggers the senate that has to take it up. Well, you have to decide what you want right now, because the senate only has so much time. You want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice. You are i said publicly Rosenstein Needs to be impeached. The question is the timing of it right before the election. The senate has to start the senate would have to drop everything they are doing and start with impeachment on rosenstein and then take the risk of not getting kavanaugh confirmed. It is not a matter it is a matter of timing. That sounds like they support in impeaching Rod Rosenstein but not doing it now. The plot which is to go after Rod Rosenstein but allow the senate to jam the Supreme Court justice. Do that work and then return after the midterm elections to try to jam up Rod Rosenstein. Most people can remember that the Clinton Impeachment took place in the aftermath of the midterm election. It appears they want to go out and do the same thing. It was in 1998 midterms breaking with history. A stunning rebuke of republicans who lost seats in congress and continued in that lame duck session. Do you think that is what they would do . It wouldnt shock me. If they lose the house and well, a few months left, lets impeach rosenstein. Of course, that is what they do. The socalled chairman of the Intelligence Committee is a complete embarrassment. What is worse is that you have the number fourperson signing off on this and we cant believe what the leadership is saying. When we know what donald trump wants to do is get rid of Rod Rosenstein because he wants to get rid of the investigation. Nunes is a special case in terms of the extraordinary lengths he has gone to. That is basically most of the way the republicans feel about this. Significant members of House Republicans are what i call the cover up caucus. Their sole objective of life is to deny the fact that we have a criminal conspiracy that appears
to have taken place to sell out our democracy. They want to turn a blind eye to that and distract the American People in part by doing things like going after Rod Rosenstein. They are not spending a ton of time legislating. We want to lower Prescription Drug prices and raise pay. For more on the mounting Corruption Scandals joined by chris lew and former u. S. Attorney harry litman. Is it surprising to you that how little investigative work the oversight has done. It is about ferreting out
waste, fraud and abuse. Scott pruitt, only one of them being done by the House Oversight committee. Any one of those things would have tripped him up. There was no issue that was small enough that the republicans would not investigate an obama cabinet member for. I remember back in 2011, this thing about 16 muffins used at a Department Of Justice conference. That was an issue. That was a threeday story. I remember it. Now talking about 120 million with wilbur ross that likely would never be investigated. One of the things that comes
through with the tapes is the control of the house is everything in terms of what happens, what is exposed and what we could get to the bottom of independent of the mueller investigation. Totally right, as chris says a sea change and it is not simply that the shoe is on the other foot. Much stronger bipartisan tradition among both the house and the Senate Committees that Nunes In Particular has demolished. Remember, that fundraiser is for a member of the leadership of the house who is going along with the whole kind of program. It is clear that they placed themselves as vessels to the white house as protective for to them and one corollary is that it makes them important that one force in town going after truth without fear in favor robert
mueller be allowed to do his job. Particularly bad not only trying to protect the president but demonize mueller. Weird broken government. Working in concert with the white house against a part of the executive. I want to get your response to giuliani talking about this back and forth with the mueller which again, take it with a grain of salt. I have no idea what is going on and this is his concern about why he doesnt want his client to testify about a perjury trap. He knows the answer to every question that he wants to ask. He is going it ask him did you tell comey to go easy on flynn. The president is going to say no i didnt. Hey, bob, you know it. Why do you want to get him under oath . Do you think we are fools . You want to trap him into
perjury. We are not going to let you do that. How great is this . And the other one, chris, is even better. The other question that giuliani says is a paradigm of a perjury trap is why did you fire comey. As to that, we have heard eight different answers from the president of the united states. They have shifting and inconsistent and seven of them are lies. The Gotcha Strategy by the prosecution to want to hear the truth on this question on which criminal liability and the sort of integrity of the government rests is ludicrous this is exactly the opposite of a perjury trap. This is mr. President , what were you doing and why. What was your State Of Mind which by the way we do not know Contra Giuliani and dont know what he is going to say. He said so many different things
so far. This is down the center of what a legitimate prosecutor wants to find out. Not just for criminal conduct but for the country and history. Can you imagine pressure on the president from congress for him to actually talk to mueller . No. Not under this current environment and that will be the issue coming down the road as to having the Democratic Congress that conducts oversight and doesnt impede a lawful investigation. I find the giuliani statement is amazing. And one of the favorite tweets today, tweeting it is only a perjury trap if you are a liar. There is no perjury trap if you tell the truth. I find giuliani slightly hard to follow and i will confess, and maybe that is me. The president is going to lie, the premise of that thing is the president is going to lie. And lie about important material things not about was it a tuesday or wednesday which is what a perjury trap would be about. Thank you both. Thank you, chris. The manafort trial, day eight why the judge had to apologize to the mueller team. And how desperate Paul Manafort was when he entered the trump team. Are you ready to take your wifi to the next level . Then you need xfinity xfi. A more powerful way to stay connected. It gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most Wifi Coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. Its the ultimate wifi experience. Xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. Day eight of the Paul Manafort trial began with judge t. S. Ellis admitting a mistake sort of. Addressed the jury after filing in the courtroom today he said the following youll recall yesterday i was critical of counsel for counsels allowing a witness mr. Welch to remain in the courtroom. I was probably wrong in that. Thats big of him. The judge had in fact been wrong. Told the prosecution at the beginning of the trial, an Expert Witness could attend a trial unlike most witnesses allowed in the trial and yesterday lambasted the prosecution for doing that. I dont care what the transcript says, maybe i made a mistake. I am joined by National Security and justice reporter julie ainsley. And judge nancy gertner. Nancy let me start with you. You have run trials and lots of people reacting to judge elliss disposition. What is your read on this . This particular one is interesting. The trial begins with a Government Saying can we have
this expert in the courtroom. The judge says yes, and puts him on the stand. The judge goes on and essentially criticizing the government in front of the judge for having welch in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. The government did Something Interesting which they havent done about other comments. Literally filed a motion in front of him overnight showing him a transcript of what he had said and the motion he had approved. When the judge gave this curative instruction, it wasnt ambiguous, he was flat out wrong, wrong to admonish the government. Never clear what impact that has on the jury. Ordinarily, the judge looks to the judge as their representative in a way. He is the one who is the neutral in the case and so when the judge leans on one side in a critical way, that could wind up hurting that side. Sometimes it has the opposite effect. Sometimes it could be that the jurors would look at the judge and saying you are going to hard on one side. Cant really tell. But from what i understand from the reporting, this Wasnt The First example of his. No. Of his criticizing the government. Julie, you were in the courtroom today, what was it like . That is exactly right. There were times when there were Light Heartedness from the prosecution. She had to read an emoji, the jury laugh and the judge stayed stone face and any time the defense wasnt ready, a lot of times when they were shuffling pages and he would say go ahead take all the time you need. So there is clearly a heavy handedness here in one direction
and that is against the prosecution. I think it would be hard for the jury not to pick up on that and have that opposite reaction that we just laid out here. It seems to be definitely onesided. Let me ask you about the testify was today. Focused on the bank fraud stuff, financial documents, property owned in soho. Early 2016, is that right . This was right when Paul Manafort was in his biggest financial crunch and starting to lie on loan applications, trying to refinance his mortgages and take out another loan for 5 million out of a bank in california with his soninlaw at the time. That was eventually written down to 1 million when it was find they couldnt use a house in Bridge Hampton because it was in his wifes name. Took investigation on account of the bank to figure it out. To figure out that Paul Manafort wasnt being forth coming. In some cases they couldnt figure it out because Paul Manafort had people lying for him and that was one person, cindy laporta. She has immunity. It was one of the dryer days being in the court because the prosecution really did go over a lot of the same evidence they have done before particularly on this Howard Street residence in new york. You could see the jury yawning and stretching in their chairs the psychology of a District Trial Judge in a case that you know was a huge deal. The nation is watching this and also from an appeals perspective, you know there is going to be appeals. How does that affect how you run a courtroom when you are dealing with high stakes, high profile trial. It is hard to say in general,
but what you would do, if you were concerned if one side was going too slowly or concerned about the scope of the evidence, what you would do is wait until the jury leaves the room and then admonish one side or the other. What you dont do is do this in front of the jury. But let me put the shoe on the other foot. I have no doubt and this is for after my years as a lawyer and my years as a judge. That if the defense was the focus of these kinds of comments they would be moved for a mistrial in a nano second. You avoid that by making comments if you have to and have to control the proceeding out of the presence of the jury. I understand today that he also said he thought attempted bank fraud wasnt very important. And that is a direct comment on the evidence which you are not allowed to do. Yeah. You are just not allowed to do that. That is a point that i would love to go back to. A part where the prosecution just finished questioning a witness and the defense just got up for cross examination, and he says i hope you focus on a loan that was actually approve. In other words, why did we just waste our time listening to that witness and whole 25, 30 questions that the prosecution laid out. Essentially discrediting the case they made. Yes . It is not just a question of doing whatever you are going to do, dont do it in front of the jury, number one. And what you do has to do with legal issues and not comments on the evidence. And this sounded like comments on the evidence. He should get anonymous twitter. Still, 2018, and women, nativeamericans, gay people, still, 2018, and women,
nativeamericans, gay people, the unemployed and under employed have to fight like hell just to survive. And it is clear that trump and others in washington dont give a damn like anyone like me. She will be my guest next. Dont go anywhere. The nature of a virus is to change. Move. Mutate. Everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. I live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. Once i moved here i didnt want to live anywhere else. I love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other peoples lives. Together, were building a better california. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report ranks 27 house seats this year as toss up. 25 of those held by republicans. Including the Third District of kansas which was ranked leaning republicans until yesterday. And that race pits yoder against
davids. Yoder missed no time in attacking her. They have been battling out to see who is most out of touch with this district, lived here the shortest amount of times. It is amazing. They dont know kansas. They dont know our values and neither of them should be our voice in washington d. C. Here with me now is sharice davids. Yoder continued with a spiel on this front. Moved her a few months ago to try and help nancy pelosi win back the house majority. She doesnt share our values. What do you say . Well, i definitely would say that you know, having really seen so much opportunity in my life because of the shird shird district, i started out at Johnson College community college, going from there to cornell for law school. To say that i dont know the Third District or kansas is laughable. You have an interesting bio. You were in mma for a while, is that right . Yeah, i have been a martial artist for a number of years since i was 19 and i did compete in mixed martial arts. It has been a big part of my life. And then you went to cornell, you were in the obama administration. What prompted you to run for congress . It was about that i dont feel like the Third District has been represented well in d. C. And i want to see someone represent our voice and have a Decision Maker who wants to listen to people in the Third District and not just the special interests that he is making sure he stays in office. If you win, what are you going to do when you get there. You get to work on three things your first day if congress, lets say