Advanced by this reporting in the new york times, and i expect that will lead to more reporting and consequences over the weekend. Now its time for the last word with lawrence odonnell. Good evening, rachel. Tive Justice Department filing tonight. Its the breaking news of the night. Them saying, the Justice Department, that house chairman of the Judiciary Committee jerry nadler has no right to see grand jury material related to the Mueller Investigation. And you know who has something to say about that . Who . Jerry nadler. You have nadler . You know where he is right now . Hes over here. That was an excellent reveal. Come by and say hi on your way out the door. Bye. House Judiciary Committee jeremy snarlgds here to talk about the breaking news of the night with the trump Justice Department trying to block his subpoena for grand jury material from the Mueller Investigation. Chairman nadler will be our first guest tonight with his reaction to that new legal filing by the Justice Department. Also tonight, donald trump lost a big round in court today on the emoluments case against him, which has now cleared legal hurdles to move forward. Well take a look at last nights debate and show you why you can ignore everything in the policy details the candidates argued about last night. Cal perry will join us with a new mustsee investigation into the potential dangers of the practice of flaring, natural gas in texas. We begin tonight with the breaking news, the trump Justice Department headed by the trump attorney general, william barr, told a federal court in washington tonight that the house Judiciary Committee should be denied any access to grand jury material from the Mueller Investigation because impeachment is not a judicial proceeding according to the Justice Department. The Justice Department filing in court notes that grand jury material can be released in connection with a judicial proceeding. The Justice Department then insists, quote, impeachment proceedings in congress, including hypothetical removal proceedings in the senate, are not judicial proceedings under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term. Judicial proceedings are Legal Proceedings governed by law that take place in a judicial form before a judge or magistrate, proceedings outside the judicial setting are not judicial proceedings even if they are called a trial and include some of the procedures familiar from a courtroom such as sworn testimony or lawyerled questioning of witnesses. The committee for its part offers no explanation for how rule reference to judicial proceedings authorizes administered by members of congress. Yesterday the house Judiciary Committee on a Party Line Vote voted for a resolution for investigative procedures offered by chairman gerald nadler. That resolution describes in detail the procedures the committee will use in what it calls the committees investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to president donald trump. Leading our discussion tonight, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, jerry nadler. Chairman, the Justice Department seems to be making two cases here. First of all, that this is not a judicial proceeding in your committee, therefore, you do have a right to this. Second, even if it was a judicial proceeding, interpreted that way, you still dont have a right to it, even if it went to trial, even if it went to a senate trial, you dont have have a right to any of this material. Theyre saying that you arent even having an impeachment investigation, there isnt, they insist, there is no impeachment investigation in the house. Well, let me deal with that in reverse order. Weve been very clear for the last several months in court filings, in public statements, and in proceedings in the committee that we are, in fact, conducting an investigation, preparing to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house. Now, you can call that an impeachment investigation, impeachment inquiry, those terms have no legal meaning. But thats exactly what were doing. Were involved in an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house. We will determine that at the conclusion of this investigation. Now, i know the republicans and the Justice Department is acting as an arm of the republican party. Most impeachments done since the reorganization act of 1946 have begun in the Judiciary Committee have not had house authorizations at all. The nixon impeachment had a house of authorization six months after the investigation started in the Judiciary Committee, and that was done as was the Clinton House authorization in order to give committee the right to do certain kinds of subpoenas and depositions. The house rules changed, we have that Authority Without specific resolution of the house. Theres no question that we are doing an investigation toward determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment. The second argument they make is that that doesnt qualify as a judicial proceeding, therefore, were not entitled to grand jury information. This is another instance of the Trump Administration trying to cover up and hide from congress and from the American People, in this case from congress because the American People wouldnt stee grand jury information, all kinds of information. The president said he would defy all subpoenas, which they have done. That was article 3 of the nixon impeachment to find subpoenas. The law says that oop upon request by the chairman of the ways and means committee, the department, the irs shall give tax returns for any individual. They have refused to do so. They have said they havent shown adequate purpose. Thats none of their business. Theyre justifying all the law in order to hide everything from congress and the American People. Now, their excuse here that this is not a judicial proceeding, there is judicial precedent for calling for considering impeachment proceeding either judicial proceeding or preparatory judicial proceeding but ill let the details go to the legal to the reply brief that will be filed this week. In the nixon case, it was ordered grand jury materials handed to your committee. Thats one of the precedents youre reilying on. They use what in courtroom terms would be called extrajudicial comment, meaning they use statements that Speaker Pelosi has made when talking to reporters or trying to explain situation to the American Public. They use that in these filings to say to try to say there isnt an official proceeding going on. They say the speaker of the house says it is not a true impeachment proceeding on the same day the house adopted the resolution that the committee claims authorized this suit, the speaker told a reporter the House Democratic caucus was not even close to an impeachment inquiry. That was back in june. The House Democratic caucus doesnt do an impeachment inquiry. Second of all, the speaker has been very supportive of every step weve taken in initiating this impeachment investigation. Every correspondeurt filing, ev statement, official statement in the committee was okayed by her at the time. The House Counsel who prepares, makes all the legal filings on behalf of the Judiciary Committee reports to the speaker, not to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Shes been fully supportive of every statement we have made and of the initiation. Even the procedures that the committee voted, which included in the preamble a history of how this investigation started, and of the resolution passed by the house back in june authorizing subpoenas and other things, and the accompanying report which says, among other things, in order to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the house, all of that was done with the speakers approval and direct involvement. The Justice Department filing says that the committee does not know whether its going to have articles of impeachment or vote on articles of impeachment of the president. The committee might end up with just a censure or not take action. Thats like saying you shouldnt show evidence to the jury because the jury hasnt made up its mind at the beginning of the trial. Of course we havent determined yet whether to recommend articles of impeachment. Thats why were having this investigation to determine whether the evidence is sufficient and important enough to justify the rather extraordinary step of voting articles of impeachment. One can have ones personal opinions as to the quality of that evidence, but you dont announce the conclusion at the beginning of the trial or proceeding. The judge ordered the grand jury material handed over to the committee before the Judiciary Committee decided that it was going to vote on articles of impeachment. And also the committee didnt necessarily know whether the vote on articles of impeachment would pass. Of course not. A proper investigation, a proper proceeding to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment, whether by the Judiciary Committee in 1973 and 74 with respect to nixon or now, you dont start off with a conclusion. You may have personal opinions. But you dont start of with an official conclusion. You examine the evidence and you make a conclusion. Now, i think personally the evidence is very strong, but thats my personal opinion at the moment. We are going to have a very aggressive series of hearings starting next tuesday to bring out the witnesses. And were going to go well beyond the parameters of the mueller report. Its not just the question of collusion with the russians in the election and the question of obstruction of justice, which i think is very clearly indicated in the mueller report. But the question of selfdealing and selfenrichment that american taxpayer money is going directly to the pocket of the president that apparently saudi money is going directly to the pockets of the president because all of this in direction violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution because of the very corrupt actions where you direct the air force to use the trump hotel or foreign governments seeking to influence United States government have their delegations stay at trump hotels, which he hasnt divested himself of an interested in, which means money directly into his pocket. We have to take a look at his failure to defend. I mean theres plenty of evidence that mueller testified to this, senator coates, former director of national intelligence, that were under attack now in terms of our election and they expect them to intervene next year. Had the president done anything to carry out his oath to protect and defend the constitution, to see that the laws against election interference are protected . The fact that he has defied all congressional subpoenas is an obstruction of the work of aggression. The central purpose of impeachment is not to punish crimes. The central purpose as described by the federalist papers et cetera is to preventive aggrandizement of power by the president , to protect liberty, the separation of powers, to prevent the president from assuming power over the congress and over the judicial branch. His complete subversion of this by refusing all information to congress and even this brief could be read as part of that, that was article 3 in the nixon impeachment, and nixon didnt go so far as to say he would oppose all subpoenas as this president has said he would do and has done. I think theres very, very serious reasons. Some people say, by the way, why should we impeach the president , the senate would never convict anyway. I think its very important that this kind of conduct, if you can prove it, be called out, that the constitution must be vindicated, and that a president and the next president and the one after him or her has to know you cant do this sort of thing. You have to protect the institutions of government so that powers arent centralized so you dont get to a dictatorship. Is Stormy Daniels going to be a witness in front of your committee . I dont know she will be, but the misuse or the payments to the women, to Stormy Daniels and forget the name of the other woman, to prevent that information from coming out in order to influence election is something were going to look at. Chairman nadler, thank you very much. When we come back, President Trumps big defeat in court today. The executive director of the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington which is suing donald trump for violating the emoluments clause will join us next. Later, well get an important update on Maria Isabel Buesos situation from her representative in congress. On august 13th, she assessed letter that said she had 33 days to leave the country. Today is day 32. Ou have moderato severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. Ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. Humira can help stop the clock. Prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. Humira can lower your ability to fight infections. Serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. Tell your doctor if youve been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if youve had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flulike symptoms or sores. Dont start humira if you have an infection. Help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. Talk to your rheumatologist. Right here. Right now. Humira. Thats why with dell Small Business technology advisors. Youll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and oneonone partnership. Call an advisor today at 877buydell. Get up to 45 off on select computers. burke at so we know how to cover wealmost anything. Verything bert even a notsohandy monster. johnson what is going on in here i cant hear myself think grover what does it look like, sir . I am here to help you with your water heater. johnson oh [sighs defeatedly] grover do not worry sir. I also fix cars [johnson groans] bert grover is a monster of many talents burke and we covered it. At farmers, we know a thing or two because weve seen a thing or two. bert mmm. We are farmers. Bumpadum, bumbumbumbum. Today President Trump lost a big round in one of the emoluments cases filed against him in federal court and Appeals Court in new york ruled that a lawsuit against the president brought under the emoluments clause of the constitution can proceed. A federal trial court had dismissed that case with the federal judge there saying the case appeared to be politically motivated. Today the Appeals Court said while it is certainly possible that these lawsuits are fueled in part by political motivations, we do not understand the significance of that fact. Whether a lawsuit has political motivations is irrelevant to these determinative issues. While the existence of a political motivation for a lawsuit does not supply standing, nor does it defeat standing. Joining us now is Noah Bookbinder from citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, which is suing President Trump for violating the emoluments clause. Noah, this is one of your cases. Your reaction to how the court ruled today . Were thrilled with how the court ruled today. Were obviously not happy that two and a half years on, were in a place where this lawsuit is not only as important as it was the day we brought it, the president s first day in the oval office, but so much more important. We were worried when we brought this lawsuit that the president in holding onto ownership of his businesses would be using the presidency, not just to enrich himself but to create conflicts of interest where those who were seeking to influence him could patronize his businesses and then you wouldnt know whether he was acting in the interest of the country or in his own business and financial interests. And that has come true in spades. Weve seen that more and more brazen brazenly lately, so its important they go forward in the courts and were glad that the secretary Circuit Court of appeals said that could happen today. It should be noted youre working in novel legal territory. Its not like we have a bumbling of case law on president s violating the emoluments clause. Thats absolutely right. There are three cases currently pending against the president for this, the one that c. R. E. W. , joined by Business Owners who compete with the president s hotels but obviously cant offer access and influence over the president , theres the ones that theres that case that was decided today. Theres a case that the District Of Columbia and the state of maryland brought and the case that members of congress brought. But prior to t