Complying with the law. The attorney general elected to follow the law. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. For what purpose is the gentleman from california seek recognition . To speak out of order for five minutes. Strike the last word. The last word is duly struck. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i want to remind every one why we are here. We are here because a report chronicled an attack on america. We were attacked good day. Im Andrea Mitchell where President Trump is asserting executive privilege refusing to turn over the unredacted report to congress as the House Judiciary Committee is preparing to Vote Along Party Lines for the full house to hold the attorney general in contempt. They are still debating that. This has been going on for two hours with each side in their corners. This as a new bombshell report reveals mr. Trump lost more than a billion dollar, that is billion from 1985 to 1994. Joining me now is the lifesupporter wreporter who broke that story. Explain to us without getting a hold of his tax returns how you got records and other data from other official sources and other sources as well to validate the art of the deal maker lost more than a billion dollars from 1985 to 94. We dont have the tax returns but what we do have is a copy of official irs transcripts of his tax numbers. These are all of the main numbers that go on in whats known as the 1040, the main tax form. Thats what we have and were able to confirm the numbers once we got it and it took us a long time. We were able to confirm them from various other sources. He paid very little income tax during eight of those ten years because of these declared losses. Its incredible. Only two of the ten years did he pay income tax. Thats because his losses were so massive. The one year he did pay it was because he had a large pay out. It was salary pay out from a deal he did. For the most part he paid no income tax and had massive losses in each year. He tweeted today that there was depreciation and its the real estate business. I believe you have evidence there was no depreciation involved in this. There was definitely some. Youre talking a billion plus in losses. Even in the art of the deal the described how much depreciation he could get on a building. Were talking ten million over years. To get a billion plus dollars in losses is staggering. Those are real losses. This is not depreciation. To give it Just Perspective on this, we compared him to other businessmen like him who structure their businesses the same way, high income earners and he was in america lost more money than pretty much anybody in a lot of the years that we looked at. Hes an outlier. He just lost a lot of money because hes not a great businessman. This goes completely against his brand and how he has described himself. I believe you have a comparison with fred trump, his father, who was funding a lot of his operations and who had given him the inheritance that started his businesses. One of the interesting things is it came on the heels of an investigation in New York Times did in late 2018 where we got a ahold of years of fred trumps tax returns. Donald trump has said in 1990 was like the worst year for all real estate people. We know in that year fred trump did well and did quite well throughout the period that donald trump lost money. The other really important thing about this story is, donald trump was losing money starting in 1985, 86. This is when we thought he was doing well. 1987 is the year he wrote art of the deal. His master of the universe biography about deal making. His core businesses that year lost 42. 2 million. Like its incredible when you go back and you think, wow, is there a period in his life he would have been doing well. A couple of these years i would have picked them without now i know its not true but i would have said, 86, 85, 87, possibly really good years for donald trump. Not so. Its another indication of why this tax battle between secretary mnuchin denying the tax returns to congress is really important. Great reporting. Thank you. I know youre very busy today. Thanks for taking the time for us. Thanks for having me. You bet. Nbc news chief White House Correspondent joins me with the exertion for executive privilege. Big day. The president in a Cabinet Meeting. There was, we thought going to be a photo op. They cancelled that. They are pushing back against congress in this battle thats now drawn. Executive privilege on one side. Contempt of congress about to be declared as this continuing house meeting goes on. Reporter were looking at that on the left side of our screens. Its an aggressive push back. Not just in the letters that have been exchanged between the white house, the department of justice and House Democrats but in person as well with sarah sanders, the press secretary briefly talking with reporters just blasting jerry nadler. Saying he is trying to get bill barr to break the law. That does encapsulate the argument coming not just from the white house but republicans as well. Legally, bill barr should not have to hand over the unredacted information to House Democrats demanding it. The democrats have been making a very different argument that it is their legal right to be able to conduct oversight. As you heard, the chair put it, what good is him getting the report if the rest of the committee cant see it. If he cant talk about b it to assess how and where and in what way to move forward. You had that statement put out just about two hours ago from the press secretary indicating the president would assert this protective executive privilege as its called. That was followed up with by letters from the department of justice. What does it mean to assert this executive privilege in a protective manner . It means i think people have this question. People will say the mueller is out. How can you put the toothpaste back in the tube . In is executive impressiprivile the unredacted and the underlying documents that was used to create the report. This is really important to this process to understand because that is what the white house is asserting privilege on. This has been in discussions for at least aday, couple of days as it got closer and closer to this hearing. You know that talks fell apart. Whether they could avoid this hearing, this Committee Hearing to hold bill barr in contempt of congress. It may not ultimately have much teeth. We have seen that when past attorneys general, im thinking of eric holder have been held in contempt of congress before from a legal perspective or perspective where you might get penalized but its a significant moment. You heard some members of Congress Talk about in this really explosive and escalating battle between this end of pennsylvania battle and the one just up the street. You have quite a story on your hands there. Thank you so much. We are still going to wait for the president in the Cabinet Meeting and whatever is produced by that. The attorney general is in Cabinet Meeting. Reporter it means the next chance will be his departure from the White House South Lawn later on this afternoon. That will be an interesting moment if the weather holds given the president will head to a rally down in florida. Thank you very much. Joining us now, Elliot Williams and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary committee. Elliot, first well go to the law. Speaking of moral life and attorneys general and contempt. First of all, the contempt citation. We know it would have to be if its criminal contempt, it would go to the Justice Department. Is there a way civil contempt where they can go right to a judge . They can go right to a judge and spend months and months and years spending whether to fine or arrest. The election will be over. Thats a long, complicated process. We were chatting about this a little bit before hand. The concern i have is it doesnt appear to be a sincere attempt to vindicate a legal right. The president started talking about harassment from the democrats and were going to block every subpoena and not provide documents and not send people to testify. It seems this, whats couched as this attempt to exert a legal right is really a continuation of that. I was there in the Justice Department during in the administration during fast and furious. It doesnt look like they will win for a good number of reasons partly because it seems like they have waived. You were working for eric holder who was being held in contempt. Sitting behind him at the hearing. We can disagree about legal findings but i think we reasonable minds cant disagree as to what are the parameters and is there a separation of powers and does one branch respect the other. It seems clear this president does not respect congresss authority as a coequal branch of justice. A red line was so concerned that bob mueller would get the tax returns and now even though there is a 1924 law and other precedent for tax returns being available from the irs commissioner to the ways and Means Committee automatically. Not going through the treasury secretary. Mnuchin is refusing and saying theres no legislative justification. Im not a lawyer but its not up to the treasury secretary to say theres no legislative justification. He can assert it but its up to a court to decide. What i was struck by in his letter this enforcement is lasting consequences for all taxpayers. That seems to be nonsense. The word it shall in the statute, its not specific to a president of the united states. Its a little bit, i think they are being a bit cute here and stretching. The executive privilege thing is a little more discretionary. This is law thats not being come plplied with by the treasu department. Ruth marcus, i thiyoure a l. As a lawyer, also, the whole issue of what is an appropriate legislative intent. One of the questions is where did donald trump get his money to bail him out . We now know that he was a billion dollars in the whole for a period of ten years. Somehow money just started flowing in. Presumably it wasnt from a trust fund. Was there russian money . Was there other money . Theres enough suspicions to try to track back the sources. One thing that susan craig said last night on msnbc is they do not know the sources because they do not have the tax returns. They dont know where the money came in from. They just know where it went. I think its important to remember, i dont even think the request for the president s tax return goes back to the incredible returns that the New York Times uncovered. Its just the past six years. I think its extremely important to focus on the Bigger Picture of the contemptous attitude this administration is showing toward the role of congress. Not just with the tax return, the redacted report, not just in muellers testimony, not just in mcgahns testimony, but overall they think congress has no business doing a redo. I think was the word the other day. Legitimate legislative purpose is not up to the executive branch to determine. Whether we should be getting every single word of the report or every Single Person should have access, i think thats a different question. The overall contemptous attitude of this administration towards a coequal branch is something really important not to let stand. Pause for a moment. Adam schiff has come to the camera. We want to ask him about not only this issue but related issues in his jurisdiction. Thank you very much. One of the things that was said, i believe, by chairman nadler is this will go to full house if the other committee chairs, you, Maxine Waters and others agree. Assuming they will vote to recommend that the full house vote contempt, do you think the full house should proceed . I do. If the administration continues this across the board refusal to comply with any Legal Process from the congress, any oversight by the congress then we have no choice that were going to have to prosecute this through contempt. Theres a lot at stake here that goes well beyond our ability to look into the serious allegations that bob mueller levelled against the president of the united states. This affected the balance of powers in perpetuity. If donald trump is successful in saying if house is controlled by the other party, they are the enemy. I dont have to comply. I cant do their oversight. It means that any president , any corrupt president cannot be held to account. Any fraud, any waste that congress is powerless to look into this. That cannot be maintained. If administration continues this stone walling, were going to have to prosecute and that includes contempt. Were moving forward in our own committee because we have a separate basis for getting all the Counter Intelligence information in the report. They are equally stone walling us. You have a bipartisan request for those documents for the Counter Intelligence documents with devin nunes who has been your adversary rather than your partner in the past. Why is devin nunes going along with you in this . Is it because you as the Intelligence Committee have oversight over counselter intelligence issues . I think the law is require. It requires the Intelligence Community and the department of justice to keep us fully and currently informed of any significant Counter Intelligence activity. Its hard to imagine a more significant Counter Intelligence investigation in our history. This began not as a criminal investigation but as a Counter Intelligence investigation to determine whether individuals were acting as w witting or unwitting agents of a foreign power and that includes the president. I think we both recognize they must comply. Its going to be a lot more difficult in respect to our request for the administration to say this just a democratic partisan thing. When you do have both members who are otherwise in strong disagreement about the russia investigation uniting around this demand for information. Just to nail this down, so for they have refused you and devin nunes request . They have. We have got nothing in terms of documentation, no in terms of a briefing. We were getting briefed up until the point comey was fired. Thats when the briefings came to an end and went into a black hole. We know from the Mueller Report there were Counter Intelligence agents that were sending their findings back to headquarters. What those findings are though, we still dont know and that means we cant take steps necessary to protect the country. What are your next steps for your committee . Our next steps will be the issue of a subpoena and if necessary to move forward with contempt also. It now appears even more likely given that the president is making this a blanket assertion of executive privilege that if they will do it to one committee, we have to anticipate they will do that to our committee as well. Do you know if devin nunes will back down when it comes to a contempt citation . I think that he is pretty determined to get the underlying information as well. He thinks the underlying information will show one thing. I think it will show something very different. We are united in the belief that congress ought to have that both parties ought to have that to do their oversight. I would hope we can maintain this unity. Chairman nadler mentioned a recent precedent of the 302s, the fbi binterviews be shared. Theres precedent of this administration sharing information. And the Intelligence Committee. This is a point ive been making now for over two years. As the reasons in the last congress were demanding thousands of pages of documents in the clinton email investigation and thousands of pages of documents in the Mueller Investigation including classified information like fisa applications and private information about people not indicted. Like the private Text Messages of peter strzk and lisa page. They ended up producing a million pages of discovery and so the letter from bill barr is so hypocrite and saying were prohibited from giving Congress Information thats classified or information that pertains to an ongoing investigation. They gave a million pages of that information to a gop congress in answer to subpoenas. They are adopting a double standard which is all of this we can give to a gop congress about a democratic cant but we cant give you 450 pages of a report when it pertains to a republican president. That is what they will have to defend in court. I dont think any court will look favorably on that. Finally, you all along, along with the Speaker Pelosi wanted to take your time and see what the evidence showed and were not eager to go to impeachment. Do you believe now given this assertion of executive privilege and the opposition of sharing the underlying data that you are going to theyll take so long and slow walk this that you should go ahead and call these impeachment hearings and then you have a new legal mandate to get the information youre looking for. I do think the degree to which the administration is now obstructing congress after what may be criminal acts of obstruction of justice adds weight to the argument of those who are urging impeachment. Now, i think that the legal basis we have for getting this information is very strong, even the absence of a formal impeachment proceedings. By any definition these efforts to be considered preliminary. The department of justice cannot maintain that you cant indict a sitting president but were not going to give you the evidence that you would need to consider whether to initiate impeachment until you initiated impeachment. Thats a nonsensical standard that amounts so some form of immunity. That would add weigh