Transcripts For MSNBCW Andrea Mitchell Reports 20190507 : vi

Two and a half year old election result and move forward for the American People. Coming up, Kamala Harris. Spy versus spy. The fbi director breaks with his boss, who said the fbi spied on the trump campaign. When fbi conduct investigations against alleged mobster, suspected terrorists, do you believe they are engaging in spying . Thats not the term i would use. The big leagues. Mayor pete talks to craig melvin on the today show about the challenges of being a relative unknown in this large president ial field. Theres also a lot of known quantities in this race. The exciting thing is that i think this race will create a fair Playing Field over the people who have been in the public sphere for longer than ive been alive. People like me get to compete on the basis of our ideas. Good day every one. The white house is blocking House Democrat subpoena of don mcgahn, a key figure who cooperated with special counsel Robert Muellers investigation. The deadline has come and gone this hour for mcgahn to turn over documents related to the investigation after the white house instructed him not to comply with the democratic request. The president s counsel writing in a letter. Because mr. Mcgahn does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third party, i would ask the committee to direct any requests for such records to the white house. The appropriate legal custodian. The department of justice is aware of and concurs with this legal position. Joining me now is Peter Alexander at the white house. Pete williams, former fbi assistant director for Counter Intelligence and National Security analyst and barbara mcquaid. The white house clearly drawing a line now. This is the first formal assertion of executive privilege. Reporter its not clear they are exerting executive privilege. N they may assert it. Moments ago the white house is instructing don mcgahn, the president s former white House Counsel, effectively to hold onto those documents subpoenaed by the house investigators because they said the president may want to assert executive privilege in this instance. The man who replaced don mcgahn as the white House Counsel said to jerry nadler who heads the House Judiciary Committee, if you have any questions come to us directly because were the ones who control these records. Were the ones who allowed mcgahn to use them for the sake of the investigation. If the future you have to come to us. For mcgahns purpose, his attorney within the last hour, William Burke said the House Judiciary Committee when there are contradictory statements between congress and the white house, were just going to stay back. You see there the documents. Were coequal branches of government are making contradictory demands, the appropriate response for mr. Mcgahn is to let the status quo exist. Hold on until the two sides can sort this out for the moment. Mcgahn was a key player in all of this. A key witness in the course of the Mueller Report. Specific for one of the items that he details to investigators. He said during the course of his time in the white house the president effectively instructed him to tell the Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein to have Robert Mueller removed and its for that episodes and many others that the House Democrat, the investigators want to have their opportunity to question mcgahn specifically as they wanted to do later in the month and also to see these records in a more detailed fashion. Let me follow up on separate letter to jerry nadler. I want to read a sentence where he writes today, the white house records remain legally protected under long standing constitutional principals because they implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege. I dont know if thats a formal assertion but it seemed to say they implicate executive privile privilege. Reporter ill leave it to your legal experts whether they are doing more than asserting it. They are noting it. Pete and barbara jump in here. Its not an assertion until they formally ask for them and the white house says no. Thats when you assert it. They are not asserting it but they are suggesting they believe this is under executive privilege. The beginning of a fight. The thing to keep in mind is executive privilege is a relatively recent thing. It doesnt go back much further than the eisenhower administration. White house conversations between the president and his advisers. This is a plausible, colorable laying down a marker here that this is something they may claim. Barbara, this is going to be a lengthy process but as this heads to the court, clearly, that these records may not be available to nadlers committee. This is another example of the white house strategy of heads i win. Tails you lose. President trump got credit for fully cooperating in the Mueller Investigation by william barr, at least in his letter about it knowing theres no way the president would be charged with a crime in that investigation. Now, when the stakes are higher, impeachment is a possibility by congress, now they are holding them back and exercising executive privilege. We could face a lengthy battle. The executive privilege is recognize but its not absolute. There are exceptions to it. It may be its to slow walk it. If they can delay past the election in 2020, they may consider that a victory. Theres been a lot of reporting that the executive privilege was waived, at least on don mcgahns testifying when he first spent 30 hours or more with Robert Mueller. Is that not actually the case . I dont know how its waived regarding the nadler committee. I think you can make an argument when he spoke to Robert Mueller. There is an argument that because Robert Mueller was himself part of the executive branch, that when you communicate with other member of the executive branch, that does not waive the privilege to those outside the executive branch. I would say anything thats included within the report thats been publicly disclosed and the white house had a chance and waived in the opportunity there to invoke executive privilege, anything in the report is waived. For other conversations or other documents that have not yet become part of the public conversation, i think they have an argument that those are protected by the privilege. Were still waiting on whether Robert Mueller will be able to testify. Thats still to be seen. Right now mueller, the committee wants him to testify. Peter alexander, is it clear why mueller is still an employee of the department of justice. Let me handle that one. He still is the special counsel. The answer is although they say when hes done with his work, thats the phrase they use, he hands his report to the attorney general. Theres still some clean up issues to be done. Theres some referral matters to be gone through. He still is the special counsel. How much longer hell be, i dont know. Im not sure anybody knows. I think the house people said they thought he would be off the payroll by the middle of the month. Thats why theres all this talk of him testifying tarn m ining middle of may. Frank, you jump in for a minute. What about Christopher Wrey testifying today. Lets play a bit of question and answer. Do you have any evidence that any illegal entrance into the can campaigns or individuals associated by the campaigns occurred . I dont think i have any evidence of that sort. He seems to be standing up against what the republicans in the senate are claiming in terms of their investigation and what william barr indicated is going to be investigated. This has been a rare, refreshing bright spot. Someone in washington in a high spot saying like it is and not falling into line. Chris wrey is between a rock and a hard place. He has a boss who is towing the trump line and he has the intelligence that shows him exactly what russia is doing and what the threat is to the next election. Today he chose to do the right thing. I hope he continues doing it. It also raises the question of how much longer they will allow wrey to do this and contradict the white house and if he will continue his term as director but so far so good. Peter alexander is he on thin ice with the white house . Reporter thats a good question. He is the trump appointee. He has said things that the white house has taken note of. I will note as we talk about this issue of Robert Mueller in the course of this conversation, i press the president s counselor on this issue earlier. We heard from the president in recent days saying that Robert Mueller should not testify. That was a reversal from what he said formally. Remember immediately after the report came out he said that mueller was honorable. That has changed in recent weeks. Kellyanne conway said to me the bottom line is they have made a decision if they will stop him from testifying. They do think he should not testify. The Mueller Report was the final conclusive and outright definitive report on the investigation and she called on democrats to move forward for the sake of the country. I pressed her about congresss oversight responsibilities. She said theres a difference between oversight and overreach and evidenced by the talking points and messaging from the white house. Trying to not say congress doesnt have a right to oversight and bbut they are goio far on this. Theres the letter. The letter posted on social media yesterday afternoon. Let me read a quote. These are former, 500 former prosecutors from all administrations, nonpartisan. It says to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not properly sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice, the standards set out in principal principles of prosecution runs counter to lodg logic. Tell me what you think the importance of it is. The purpose of the letter was to help the American Public to understand what the ultimate findings is in this investigation. Theres been a lot of clutter around whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime. Whether a president can commit a crime by exercising his executive power but when you strip all of that away and look at facts. If this were a prosecution memo, we would expect the concludesing be we recommend charges. Based on these facts, all the elements of obstruction are met with four episodes that were described by Robert Mueller. The public should not lose sight of that. Thank you so much. Peter alexander, Pete Williams thank you. Coming up, Mitch Mcconnell says its time the move on from the russia investigation. Well get reaction from 2020 democratic candidate senator Kamala Harris, next. Stay with us. Kalama harris, next. Stay with us we know sooner or later. Every chip will crack. This daughter was Home Visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. Mom honey is that a chip . Tech they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. Mom hi. Tech with our inshop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day. Guaranteed. Plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. Mom really . Drive safely. All right. Acoustic music singers safelite repair, safelite replace. Has been excellent. They really appreciate the military family and it really shows. With all that usaa offers why go with anybody else . We know their rates are good, we know that theyre always going to take care of us. It was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. It was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say oh we cant beat usaa were the webber family. Were the tenneys were the hayles, and were usaa members for life. Get your usaa Auto Insurance quote today. Heresshow me making it. Like. Oh i got one. The best of amy poehler. Amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that youre not in. Show me parks and rec. From netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the Emmy Awardwinning x1 voice remote. Show me the best of amy poehler, again. This time around. Now thats simple, easy, awesome. Experience the entertainment you love on x1. Access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. Click, call or visit a store today. President trumps political allies are trying to build a wall around the commander this chief. Shielding him from investigations and routine requests. In a relentless push to protect the president from a determined democratic caucus. This morning Mitch Mcconnell took to the senate floor. The democrats are angry. Angry that the facts disappointed them. Angry that our legal system will not magically undo the 2016 election for them. Theyve opted to channel all their partisan anger onto the attorney general. The left has swung all of these cannons around and fired them at the attorney general. Not for any legitimate reason. Just because hes a convenient target. California democratic senator and president ial candidate, Judicial Committee member Kamala Harris joins me now. Shes asking the Justice Department Inspector General to investigate whether the attorney general has acted on pressure from the white house to open investigations. Thank you very mump for being with us. Thank you. I want to get your reaction to what Mitch Mcconnell just said. Listen, i think that there is a need that the American People have for transparency in the process. The American People want to know whats going on. They want the truth. People can play political games as a means of obstructing from the truth and from justice but the reality is that i think the American Public is smart enough to know we had an attorney general who was biassed in his presentation of the information and that they have a need and a right to have the underlying information that supports muelle muellers invs. Gaestigation whs why im asking they not only do the investigation of whats going on with this attorney general but im asking that the special counsel testify before congress so that we can get the real information and the real facts and on that basis make decisions about what actually happened. Let me play part of your questioning of the attorney general from that hearing. Has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . I wouldnt yes or no. Could you repeat that question. I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . Yes or no, please, sir. The president or anybody else . Seems youd remember Something Like that and be able to tell us. Yeah, im trying to grapple with the word suggest. There had been discussions of matters out there that thaieyv not asked me to open an investigati investigation. Suggested. Hinted . Inferred . You dont know, okay. Did you ever get an answer subsequently or tell me what your suspicions are about the context between the president and the attorney general of the Justice Department . Well, to be very candid with you, i think that the attorney general was parsing his words, obviously. Was hesitating and delaying a response to that very direct question because i suspect that the attorney general is well aware that if he answered yes, he would open up a can of worms and if he answered no, he might perjure himself. That is my candid assessment of what i think was going on, but i dont know which is why i am asking the Inspector General to investigate and find out whats going on over there. In addition to that, i will tell you that Sheldon Whitehouse and i are working on a bill to actually put into law a requirement that there be transparency in terms of communications between the white house and the attorney general when it comes to specific cases or investigations because clearly we are not aware that we cannot count on an attorney general of the the United States to follow the protocols and practice that has been traditional around transparency. We need to put something into law. How would that work . If you could bget it past the republican majority. How would you work . What we would require its about transparency. What we require is the white house and the attorney general log the communications that they have as it relates to spervegci investigations or cases. They would keep a log maintained around what was the subject and the purpose of the conversation and then that information and that log every six months would have to be submitted to the office of Inspector General and office of professional responsibility at the United States department of justice and also that it would be required that if Congress Subpoenas that information, that it would be made available to congress. Clearly question not count on the attorney general who is under oath before the United States congress and he is there because congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight but even in that situation, its clear we cannot count on the attorney general after the American People<\/a>. Coming up, Kamala Harris<\/a>. Spy versus spy. The fbi director breaks with his boss, who said the fbi spied on the trump campaign. When fbi conduct investigations against alleged mobster, suspected terrorists, do you believe they are engaging in spying . Thats not the term i would use. The big leagues. Mayor pete talks to craig melvin on the today show about the challenges of being a relative unknown in this large president ial field. Theres also a lot of known quantities in this race. The exciting thing is that i think this race will create a fair Playing Field<\/a> over the people who have been in the public sphere for longer than ive been alive. People like me get to compete on the basis of our ideas. Good day every one. The white house is blocking House Democrat<\/a> subpoena of don mcgahn, a key figure who cooperated with special counsel Robert Muellers<\/a> investigation. The deadline has come and gone this hour for mcgahn to turn over documents related to the investigation after the white house instructed him not to comply with the democratic request. The president s counsel writing in a letter. Because mr. Mcgahn does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third party, i would ask the committee to direct any requests for such records to the white house. The appropriate legal custodian. The department of justice is aware of and concurs with this legal position. Joining me now is Peter Alexander<\/a> at the white house. Pete williams, former fbi assistant director for Counter Intelligence<\/a> and National Security<\/a> analyst and barbara mcquaid. The white house clearly drawing a line now. This is the first formal assertion of executive privilege. Reporter its not clear they are exerting executive privilege. N they may assert it. Moments ago the white house is instructing don mcgahn, the president s former white House Counsel<\/a>, effectively to hold onto those documents subpoenaed by the house investigators because they said the president may want to assert executive privilege in this instance. The man who replaced don mcgahn as the white House Counsel<\/a> said to jerry nadler who heads the House Judiciary Committee<\/a>, if you have any questions come to us directly because were the ones who control these records. Were the ones who allowed mcgahn to use them for the sake of the investigation. If the future you have to come to us. For mcgahns purpose, his attorney within the last hour, William Burke<\/a> said the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> when there are contradictory statements between congress and the white house, were just going to stay back. You see there the documents. Were coequal branches of government are making contradictory demands, the appropriate response for mr. Mcgahn is to let the status quo exist. Hold on until the two sides can sort this out for the moment. Mcgahn was a key player in all of this. A key witness in the course of the Mueller Report<\/a>. Specific for one of the items that he details to investigators. He said during the course of his time in the white house the president effectively instructed him to tell the Deputy Attorney<\/a> general Rod Rosenstein<\/a> to have Robert Mueller<\/a> removed and its for that episodes and many others that the House Democrat<\/a>, the investigators want to have their opportunity to question mcgahn specifically as they wanted to do later in the month and also to see these records in a more detailed fashion. Let me follow up on separate letter to jerry nadler. I want to read a sentence where he writes today, the white house records remain legally protected under long standing constitutional principals because they implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege. I dont know if thats a formal assertion but it seemed to say they implicate executive privile privilege. Reporter ill leave it to your legal experts whether they are doing more than asserting it. They are noting it. Pete and barbara jump in here. Its not an assertion until they formally ask for them and the white house says no. Thats when you assert it. They are not asserting it but they are suggesting they believe this is under executive privilege. The beginning of a fight. The thing to keep in mind is executive privilege is a relatively recent thing. It doesnt go back much further than the eisenhower administration. White house conversations between the president and his advisers. This is a plausible, colorable laying down a marker here that this is something they may claim. Barbara, this is going to be a lengthy process but as this heads to the court, clearly, that these records may not be available to nadlers committee. This is another example of the white house strategy of heads i win. Tails you lose. President trump got credit for fully cooperating in the Mueller Investigation<\/a> by william barr, at least in his letter about it knowing theres no way the president would be charged with a crime in that investigation. Now, when the stakes are higher, impeachment is a possibility by congress, now they are holding them back and exercising executive privilege. We could face a lengthy battle. The executive privilege is recognize but its not absolute. There are exceptions to it. It may be its to slow walk it. If they can delay past the election in 2020, they may consider that a victory. Theres been a lot of reporting that the executive privilege was waived, at least on don mcgahns testifying when he first spent 30 hours or more with Robert Mueller<\/a>. Is that not actually the case . I dont know how its waived regarding the nadler committee. I think you can make an argument when he spoke to Robert Mueller<\/a>. There is an argument that because Robert Mueller<\/a> was himself part of the executive branch, that when you communicate with other member of the executive branch, that does not waive the privilege to those outside the executive branch. I would say anything thats included within the report thats been publicly disclosed and the white house had a chance and waived in the opportunity there to invoke executive privilege, anything in the report is waived. For other conversations or other documents that have not yet become part of the public conversation, i think they have an argument that those are protected by the privilege. Were still waiting on whether Robert Mueller<\/a> will be able to testify. Thats still to be seen. Right now mueller, the committee wants him to testify. Peter alexander, is it clear why mueller is still an employee of the department of justice. Let me handle that one. He still is the special counsel. The answer is although they say when hes done with his work, thats the phrase they use, he hands his report to the attorney general. Theres still some clean up issues to be done. Theres some referral matters to be gone through. He still is the special counsel. How much longer hell be, i dont know. Im not sure anybody knows. I think the house people said they thought he would be off the payroll by the middle of the month. Thats why theres all this talk of him testifying tarn m ining middle of may. Frank, you jump in for a minute. What about Christopher Wrey<\/a> testifying today. Lets play a bit of question and answer. Do you have any evidence that any illegal entrance into the can campaigns or individuals associated by the campaigns occurred . I dont think i have any evidence of that sort. He seems to be standing up against what the republicans in the senate are claiming in terms of their investigation and what william barr indicated is going to be investigated. This has been a rare, refreshing bright spot. Someone in washington in a high spot saying like it is and not falling into line. Chris wrey is between a rock and a hard place. He has a boss who is towing the trump line and he has the intelligence that shows him exactly what russia is doing and what the threat is to the next election. Today he chose to do the right thing. I hope he continues doing it. It also raises the question of how much longer they will allow wrey to do this and contradict the white house and if he will continue his term as director but so far so good. Peter alexander is he on thin ice with the white house . Reporter thats a good question. He is the trump appointee. He has said things that the white house has taken note of. I will note as we talk about this issue of Robert Mueller<\/a> in the course of this conversation, i press the president s counselor on this issue earlier. We heard from the president in recent days saying that Robert Mueller<\/a> should not testify. That was a reversal from what he said formally. Remember immediately after the report came out he said that mueller was honorable. That has changed in recent weeks. Kellyanne conway said to me the bottom line is they have made a decision if they will stop him from testifying. They do think he should not testify. The Mueller Report<\/a> was the final conclusive and outright definitive report on the investigation and she called on democrats to move forward for the sake of the country. I pressed her about congresss oversight responsibilities. She said theres a difference between oversight and overreach and evidenced by the talking points and messaging from the white house. Trying to not say congress doesnt have a right to oversight and bbut they are goio far on this. Theres the letter. The letter posted on social media yesterday afternoon. Let me read a quote. These are former, 500 former prosecutors from all administrations, nonpartisan. It says to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not properly sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice, the standards set out in principal principles of prosecution runs counter to lodg logic. Tell me what you think the importance of it is. The purpose of the letter was to help the American Public<\/a> to understand what the ultimate findings is in this investigation. Theres been a lot of clutter around whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime. Whether a president can commit a crime by exercising his executive power but when you strip all of that away and look at facts. If this were a prosecution memo, we would expect the concludesing be we recommend charges. Based on these facts, all the elements of obstruction are met with four episodes that were described by Robert Mueller<\/a>. The public should not lose sight of that. Thank you so much. Peter alexander, Pete Williams<\/a> thank you. Coming up, Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> says its time the move on from the russia investigation. Well get reaction from 2020 democratic candidate senator Kamala Harris<\/a>, next. Stay with us. Kalama harris, next. Stay with us we know sooner or later. Every chip will crack. This daughter was Home Visiting<\/a> when mom saw a chip in her windshield. Mom honey is that a chip . Tech they wanted it fixed fast so they brought it to us. Mom hi. Tech with our inshop chip repair service, we can fix it the same day. Guaranteed. Plus with most insurance a safelite chip repair is no cost to you. Mom really . Drive safely. All right. Acoustic music singers safelite repair, safelite replace. Has been excellent. They really appreciate the military family and it really shows. With all that usaa offers why go with anybody else . We know their rates are good, we know that theyre always going to take care of us. It was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. It was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say oh we cant beat usaa were the webber family. Were the tenneys were the hayles, and were usaa members for life. Get your usaa Auto Insurance<\/a> quote today. Heresshow me making it. Like. Oh i got one. The best of amy poehler. Amy, maybe we could use the voice remote to search for something that youre not in. Show me parks and rec. From netflix to prime video to live tv, xfinity lets you find your favorites with the Emmy Awardwinning<\/a> x1 voice remote. Show me the best of amy poehler, again. This time around. Now thats simple, easy, awesome. Experience the entertainment you love on x1. Access netflix, prime video, youtube and more, all with the sound of your voice. Click, call or visit a store today. President trumps political allies are trying to build a wall around the commander this chief. Shielding him from investigations and routine requests. In a relentless push to protect the president from a determined democratic caucus. This morning Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> took to the senate floor. The democrats are angry. Angry that the facts disappointed them. Angry that our legal system will not magically undo the 2016 election for them. Theyve opted to channel all their partisan anger onto the attorney general. The left has swung all of these cannons around and fired them at the attorney general. Not for any legitimate reason. Just because hes a convenient target. California democratic senator and president ial candidate, Judicial Committee<\/a> member Kamala Harris<\/a> joins me now. Shes asking the Justice Department<\/a> Inspector General<\/a> to investigate whether the attorney general has acted on pressure from the white house to open investigations. Thank you very mump for being with us. Thank you. I want to get your reaction to what Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> just said. Listen, i think that there is a need that the American People<\/a> have for transparency in the process. The American People<\/a> want to know whats going on. They want the truth. People can play political games as a means of obstructing from the truth and from justice but the reality is that i think the American Public<\/a> is smart enough to know we had an attorney general who was biassed in his presentation of the information and that they have a need and a right to have the underlying information that supports muelle muellers invs. Gaestigation whs why im asking they not only do the investigation of whats going on with this attorney general but im asking that the special counsel testify before congress so that we can get the real information and the real facts and on that basis make decisions about what actually happened. Let me play part of your questioning of the attorney general from that hearing. Has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . I wouldnt yes or no. Could you repeat that question. I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . Yes or no, please, sir. The president or anybody else . Seems youd remember Something Like<\/a> that and be able to tell us. Yeah, im trying to grapple with the word suggest. There had been discussions of matters out there that thaieyv not asked me to open an investigati investigation. Suggested. Hinted . Inferred . You dont know, okay. Did you ever get an answer subsequently or tell me what your suspicions are about the context between the president and the attorney general of the Justice Department<\/a> . Well, to be very candid with you, i think that the attorney general was parsing his words, obviously. Was hesitating and delaying a response to that very direct question because i suspect that the attorney general is well aware that if he answered yes, he would open up a can of worms and if he answered no, he might perjure himself. That is my candid assessment of what i think was going on, but i dont know which is why i am asking the Inspector General<\/a> to investigate and find out whats going on over there. In addition to that, i will tell you that Sheldon Whitehouse<\/a> and i are working on a bill to actually put into law a requirement that there be transparency in terms of communications between the white house and the attorney general when it comes to specific cases or investigations because clearly we are not aware that we cannot count on an attorney general of the the United States<\/a> to follow the protocols and practice that has been traditional around transparency. We need to put something into law. How would that work . If you could bget it past the republican majority. How would you work . What we would require its about transparency. What we require is the white house and the attorney general log the communications that they have as it relates to spervegci investigations or cases. They would keep a log maintained around what was the subject and the purpose of the conversation and then that information and that log every six months would have to be submitted to the office of Inspector General<\/a> and office of professional responsibility at the United States<\/a> department of justice and also that it would be required that if Congress Subpoenas<\/a> that information, that it would be made available to congress. Clearly question not count on the attorney general who is under oath before the United States<\/a> congress and he is there because congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight but even in that situation, its clear we cannot count on the attorney general after the United States<\/a> to be forthcoming with the United States<\/a> congress. We just need to make a law for it. Do you think you and senator whitehouse can get any republican to sign onto this and be a cosponsor . I would hope so. I feel so strongly that we all should have a moment to pause and recognize what all of this has done in terms of undermining the American Public<\/a>s confidences in our judicial system and our system of justice. Why would anyone be upset with the idea there needs to be transparency. Why would anyone be upset that congress should perform its responsibilitys of oversight . Thats what this would require. This is what the speaker said today. Dont tell anybody i told you this. Tru trump, trump is take us to impeachment. Thats what hes doing. It would be very divided in the country but he country really care. Just wants to solidify his base. Just to give you some more context. Our polling team says that the American Public<\/a> has reached a hung jury. Not innocent, not guilty. They havent reached a consensus. 48 said congress should not hold impeachment. 49 saying congress should begin impeachment hearings. Isnt this a political liability going into 2020 who want to investigate, want to get answers, want to follow up on mueller but as pelosi says, this could help reelect donald trump. I couldnt quite hear what Speaker Pelosi<\/a> was saying but ill comment on the points you raise. I do believe shes saying that president is goading democratics to go ahead with impeachment because he knows it will help him. I think theres two valid points at play here. One is the point about what is strategically smart and then theres the other point which is about our need to get to the truth and to investigate and expose wrong doing. Sometimes and perhaps, maybe, even it will turn out that the latter will not be strategically smart. The dilemma and the question for all of us is, is it the right thing to do. I do believe we should begin taking steps to find out what happened. Were talking about such a fundamental issue which is whether or not the president of the United States<\/a> obstructed justice. I think its something that we need to figure out and congress has a responsibility to look into it and i support the effort to actually begin the steps toward figuring out what happened. As you look at the campaign and the way initial polls which are not terribly meaningful. They are a snapshot right now very early on. You have the most diverse field, the most women ever before in this field yet a couple of older white men are leading the pack. Do you have an explanation for why its still so difficult for women to run for president . I have to tell you, i think its really early in the process. Im not going to judge the entire Campaign Based<\/a> on these first early months. I think there is still a lot of work that each candidate has to do to make their case to the American Public<\/a>, to introduce themselves to the American Public<\/a>. I will say this because im acutely aware of the conversation thats taking place. Every office ive run for, running for District Attorney<\/a> and attorney general, no one like me had ever done the job based on gender, based on race. The pundits said it was impossible. Its not possible. People arent ready for it and i won. If i answer your question based on personal experience, ill say i think the voters are smarter than perhaps pundits give them credit for. I think voters are able to distinguish who can best do the job at this moment and they are able to overlook who has traditionally done the job in favor of who should do the job. And i was just referring to a piece by Claire Potter<\/a> in the New York Times<\/a> that said that joe biden. Although he fumbled two bids, were told he has crossover appeal. Hes been amired by this newspaper as a new intimidation and Pete Buttigieg<\/a> is considered very authentic. Miss harris is hard to define. Miss klobuchar is mean. Its not likable enough. Is this some intangible that the media seem to be imposing on how we rank candidates . Ill tell you that people im focused on are the people showing up at our town halls and they have been showing up by the thousands. Weve had sold out crowds in iowa, New Hampshire<\/a> and by that i mean literally the fire marshal has sent people away because we reached capacity. In New Hampshire<\/a> we had an event where we hoped there would be 800 people. 1500 people showed up in a snowstorm. If i based on real people and the people in the states and who are voters and invested in the out come of this election, i would say we dont have a problem. I wanted to ask you a couple of quick questions on foreign policy. Secretary pompeo today left the arctic summit in finland. There was no formal declaration because the United States<\/a> was the only objector to it. Your take on this. Well, i will tell you that when elected president of the United States<\/a>, i will immediately make sure that we are back in the paris agreement. Climate change and i think we should think of it and talk of it as the Climate Crisis<\/a> represents a threat to who we are and the fact we have supposed leaders who are pushing Science Fiction<\/a> instead of fact is to our collective peril. Were seeing a failure of leadership. Thank you. Good luck out there. Thank you. Take care. Coming up, national stage. Pete buttigieg opening up about his challenges on the campaign trail and a critical voting block hes struggling to connect with. Stay with us on msnbc. Strugglit with stay with us on msnbc. With an underdog campaign for the democratic nomination already shaking up the 2020 race, Pete Buttigieg<\/a> buttigieg is opening up about some of the new challenges hes facing on a National Political<\/a> stage. In an interview with craig melvin, he spoke out about dealing with hecklers and homopohom homophobia on the trail. You see the good, the bad and the ugly. I think it happens to any candidate. It doesnt bother you . Its not like i enjoy it but i have a responsibility to keep the focus on what we need to do. Welcome. Let me go to San Francisco<\/a> first. Jim, how does Pete Buttigieg<\/a> play across the country . Hes from south bend, indiana. Hes one of the smartest people in the campaign but how does he do as a National Candidate<\/a> in general election against donald trump . Right now hes struck a chord with democrats in way thats surprising. Six months ago you wouldnt have thought he would be at the top tier and he has risen to that. Theres polls of him close to the lead in a couple of early states and thats very surprising. In part because voters was very authentic. He speaks his mind. Hes really deep in substantive on the issues. Thats important to democrats. The question Going Forward<\/a> is can he appeal to some really crucial pieces of the Democratic Coalition<\/a> that really matter. The Democratic Party<\/a> is now bedrock part of africanamerican women voters and he and bernie are really struggling with these voters in a way that could stop them from winning the nomination if they cant fix those problems. He went to South Carolina<\/a> to try to address that problem. He sat down with craig melvin and talked about that as well. A number of your rallies are fairly homogoneous. How do you plan to speak to africanamerican voters . Part of it is by laying out an agenda on the issues that black voters are asking female about. A lot of it is about a relationship. It takes a lot of work to make sure people get to know you. Jonathan, its challenge. It is challenge but its not insurmountable. I talk about my mother all the time. Not enough. She no, maminally following race. Beto orourke sent a text and shes like who is this beto orourke and what has he done to become a star in the party . On easter sunday, my mom said who i like. I say who. She said mayor Pete Buttigieg<\/a>. Theres two reasons why you struck me. If your name isnt harris, smith or jones, she has trouble pronouncing your last anytime. She knew him. She knew his last name. Thats why i say mayor pete might be struggling to appeal to africanamerican voters, its not that theyre not open to him. If any born again christian mother can pronounce his name, theres hope for him. Whatever challenges mayor pete has as being an openly gay candidate are not as seriously as the challenges he faces with africanamerican voters. The biggest strength Hillary Clinton<\/a> has is Bernie Sanders<\/a> didnt have a history to black voters and wasnt appealing to black voters. It was africanamerican voters and especially women who guaranteed that Hillary Clinton<\/a> would be the nominee. Now mayor pete comes into be situation not having a history with africanamerican voters and facing contender who have a deep history. Joe biden, for one. You have two africanamerican candidates. This is a big challenge for him. Bernie sanders defeated was defeated by Hillary Clinton<\/a> because of South Carolina<\/a> and the africanamerican vote. That was the critical moment in the primaries. Yeah. Buttigieg is clearly well aware of history here and hes aware of his own shortcomings in appealing to africanamerican voters. Hes doing the right thing by going to South Carolina<\/a> early. Confronting it and doing interviews like he did with craig melvin where he talks about it in quite frank and stark terms. Its still disappointing for him. He held an event in North Charleston<\/a> the other night and it was well attended by white people. There were like less than two dozen africanamericans that attended and it was held there for the reason he was attempting to reach out to africanamericans. How is the change in the primary schedule moving up . How will that affect which of these diverse candidates can rise to the top . Its going to do two things. Number one its going to make money even more important. Early voting ballots are mailed in california the same day as the iowa caucus. You have to spend money in california, in New Hampshire<\/a>, iowa and probably texas as well as South Carolina<\/a>. Money will matter. Two, relationships are going to matter. The thing i really agree with that someone said earlier is buttigieg has two real problems. One, hes got to figure out how to build a long lasting relationship with these voters that are going to decide the primary and two hes got three very appealing candidates for africanamerican voters in biden, harris and cory. Hes got two real challenges that could, like Bernie Sanders<\/a> in 2016 stop him from winning the nomination if he cant figure it out. Jonathan, is the field just too big for anyone to break out especially with debate stage when we get together in june . Spread over two nights. Youll see every one play off of each other. Maybe it is too big. Everybody jump in. Everybody run and then they go through the hoops of the debates and then the money primary and then the polls and everything. I think that the democratic electorate as we know and have been talking about is very angry, very fired up. They are chomping at the bit to have their say in this contest. Of all the people were talking about, harris, booker, mayor pete, biden, i would suspect that well still be talking about them in six months but with 21, 22, ive lost count, people in the race, who knows. Two from colorado alone. Thank you very much. Turning to foreign policy. Tensions escalating between u. S. And iran as the white house orders a bomber strike force into the middle east. Iranian backed malitias were plotting attacks on u. S. Forces in multiple locations. That includes iraq and syria. These new tensions come as irans leaders consider breaking out of the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a> as early as this week by beginning to process highly enriched uranium. A year after the u. S. With drew from the agreement. Some people suspected this was wag the dog. The Carrier Group<\/a> is heading to that region. There are other political implications but they are insisting theres Real Intelligence<\/a> that the hezbollah, pompeo could have been doing something to target our forces in the region. Can you give us any context here . I can. I find credible the reports from the administration and from other sources that there was a plot afoot to go after u. S. Forces. What this stems from is youll recall about a month ago the United States<\/a> designated the Iranian Revolutionary<\/a> guard core as terrorists. Thats 120,000 Iranian Military<\/a> folks. They have since designated all of our forces terrorists. Thats when this plot became more evident. I think it was a prudent move to accelerate the deployment of uss lincoln and her escorts into the arabian gulf. I think it makes sense. Theres divisions within tehran very powerful as well in the economic sector and this is always been a push pull. We dont know. Is this leading to pushing them into something where we end up in regime change and military action by the u. S. . Certainly National Security<\/a> adviser bolton, secretary of state pompeo are both very aggressive. They are what i would call iran hawks. They talk about regime change. Theyd like to see a combination of political activity, military pressure as well as demographics within iran. Very Young Society<\/a> overthrowing. I think thats a realistic term strategy. Ill use a technical term of diplomacy. We need another war in the middle east like we need a hole in the head. We have to find a way to do this without launching strikes, without getting into combat. Thats not the way forward with iran. We need our allies with us. The biggest concern we ought to have is the way we split with our european allies over the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a>. We need to get that ban back together again if were not going see this escalate into something much more dangerous. Just in the last 24 hours the secretary of state in finland stood up against the world and our european allies. Many of our european allies in objecting to the word of a joint declaration which incorporated the paris climate change. Akin to the fact we have pulled out of the paris climate accord, we ought to be leading in all of these efforts. Ive sailed these waters. The ice is melting. The fact that the United States<\/a> cant bring itself to be part of that set of statements undermines our global position. I was disappointed in that outcome at the Arctic Council<\/a> which is very important global organization. Are you disturbed by the way the president communicated with Vladimir Putin<\/a> on friday but the secretary of state saying that didnt happen. He gave putin a pass on russian interference despite the conclusion of the Mueller Report<\/a> about russia being the single big actor in propaganda and chris wrey said that again today, the fbi director. Were putting justifiably a lot of domestic, political focus on outcomes from the Mueller Report<\/a>. Im much concerned about interNational Security<\/a> concerns. We have not done a good enough job to deter russia from doing this again. We should be putting more pressure on putin, not less. Thank you so much. Thanks for being with us today. Thanks. Coming up, dr. Jill biden answering questions about her husbands treatment of anita hill. Husbands treatment of anita hill dr. Jill biden is making the rounds today, promoting her new memoir out now, speaking about her husbands campaign, for the first time answering questions about his handling of anita hill during the Clarence Thomas<\/a> hearings, telling npr its time to move on and that he had apologized to anita hill, and sitting down with Savannah Guthrie<\/a> today on the today show. She told the New York Times<\/a> she wasnt satisfied. She said, its not enough for him to say im sorry for what happened to you. If shes saying that, does that demonstrate in and of itself that he needs to somehow go further in his apology or his statements to her . You know, they had the phone call, he was really grateful that she took his call. He apologized to her. And the one good thing that has come out of this is that he made sure that there were now women senators on that committee. He has written the violence against women act, so, you have to look at the good that came out of that. Back with me now, susan page and anne gearan. And one question that occurs is why he didnt call anita hill for all these years until he was running for president or weeks until he was running for president , susan. That is something that is a stumbling block. But in the new Morning Consult<\/a> poll today, hes way up. Hes up another 4 points. He has a 40 share here. This is an online poll we could point out, so less reliable than the other new polls, but at least it is a thermometer of the way hes been received. Hes had a good start. Theres no doubt about it. Hes shown a very muscular fundraising. Hes been pretty disciplined in his Campaign Events<\/a> in a way that he wasnt always in his previous two campaigns. But he continues to, i think, have some issues that hell have to deal with. And this is one of them. And i think the idea that democratic voters prepared to just move on from those hearings, the anita hill hearings, i think that is not accurate. I think voters will want to hear more about what happened and what his views are of it and make sure that he took the lesson they hope he takes from it and took it seriously. This is a sticky issue for joe biden and its not over yet. And he you know, he did, as his wife said, in 1992, i know when Dianne Feinstein<\/a> was elected, he said, you have to come on the judiciary committee. It was the year after, of course, the anita hill hearings and a lot of those women were elected that year because of anger at the way those hearings had been conducted by an allmale Senate Judiciary<\/a> committee. Right. And clearly, biden recognized that problem and it was a problem, and sought to rectify it. And thats a good talking point for him and his wife is smart to raise it. But it also, you know, there are a couple of other questions here. One is why wasnt his handling of the anita hill hearings a bigger issue when he ran for president before . And the conversation has changed and hes now responding to something that hes never actually had to respond to in this level of detail. I find that interesting. And the other is that it goes, in a lot of peoples minds, its of a piece with his somewhat odd or disturbing physical presence with women. Those are distinct issues. But they get conflated and jill biden is being asked to address both of those. And shes doing a good job of explaining the Campaign Position<\/a> on that, but they recognize, those are liabilities for him. Its interesting, never even came up when he was considered for Vice President<\/a> by the obama team in vetting him. It was not something that was front and center. In the face of the me too movement, in just the last two years, its changed the landscape for any number of people. Its raised a whole new set of expectations for how political leaders are going to behave, how theyre going to explain their past behavior, for the willingness to consider these multiple female candidates, for president , that is a remarkable thing. And in a way, also a reflection of some of the changes that the me too movement has brought. Just since the 2016 election. Yeah, yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the other joe biden is going out saying, im not going to attack my other you know, the other democrats. Im going after donald trump. Thats his whole strategy. That has not stopped Bernie Sanders<\/a> from going after him. Right. And he came b biden came in ad immediately knocked sanders off the pedestal, so that stands to reason. So that makes the two of them, two 70yearold white guys together have by far the largest share of the democratic support at this point. Well see how that goes. Susan page, ann gearan, thank you so much for being with me. Coming up, president trumps trade war with china and how its hurting american semestcon, stay with us. Consumers, stay with us im just a normal person who got an awful skin condition. With uncontrolled moderatetosevere eczema, or atopic dermatitis, you feel like youre itching all the time. And you never know how your skin will look. Because deep within your skin an overly sensitive immune system could be the cause. So help heal your skin from within, with dupixent. Dupixent is not a steroid, and it continuously treats your eczema even when you cant see it. At 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it, and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. Do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. Serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. If you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. Help heal your skin from within. Ask your eczema specialist about dupixent. Thanks for being with us. Physical follow the show online, on twitter. Heres alley velshi and stephanie ruhle. It is tuesday, may 7th. Lets get smarter. The idea that you have a delegation that includes chinese vice premiere, lee yao hu, the top trade negotiator on chinas side. So all of a sudden you have secretary mnuchin, trade rep robert lighthawouser. The house moves closer to holding the attorney general in contempt, as the Senate Majority<\/a> leader is expected to declare case closed on the Mueller Report<\/a>. Today, members of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> are set to meet with Justice Department<\/a> officials who have refused to turn over the full redacted Mueller Report<\/a> if they cannot reach an agre","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803000.us.archive.org\/34\/items\/MSNBCW_20190507_160000_Andrea_Mitchell_Reports\/MSNBCW_20190507_160000_Andrea_Mitchell_Reports.thumbs\/MSNBCW_20190507_160000_Andrea_Mitchell_Reports_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}