Rachel Maddow takes a look at the days top political news stories. Mentioned about him maybe offering a job running the u. S. Army to a Bank President who approved these loans for him. Thats the only other reference to the Trump Campaign in the trial thus far. But two days ago, Out Of The Blue on crossexamination, the manafort Defense Lawyer asks rick gates, hey, did muellers prosecutors talk to you about your time working on the Trump Campaign . Did you talk to them about that . Prosecutor from the Special Counsels office gets up and objects. The judge summons both lawyers to come to the bench. He flips on the White Noise Machine which is a real thing so the jury and spectators hear the sound of like crashing waves instead of the conversation. The jury, the reporters in the room, spectators none of them can hear whats being said at the bench. The lawyers on both side stay up there and they have this long prust communication. We know its long because we know it takes six pages to transcribe. But we cant see those pains because they are sealed. Now, we do know after that Bench Conference whatever happened there, the crossexamination picked back up again with the same lawyer questioning rick gates and rick gates after that Bench Conference whatever happened he no longer faced any more questions about the Trump Campaign or whens he told the Special Counsel about the campaign. Whatever happened talking to the judge there Paul ManafortsDefense Lawyer fet the need to change course. But that was one of the most intriguing moments in the whole trial thus far. A real mystery what that was. Today, fascinating development. Prosecutors today filed this. It is a formal request to keep that Sidebar Discussion at the bench thats just the judge and lawyers from both sides with the white house noise machine on, they filed a request to keep that discussion secret. Its sealed already. In the course of the trial under normal circumstances, that would eventually be unsealed but prosecutors filed this motion
saying that whole discussion has to be kept sealed and secret. On october 7th, 2018, so tuesday, the court held a Sidebar Conference 0 address a line of questioning pursued by the defense during their crossexamination of richard gates. During the conference, substantive evidence pertaining to an Ongoing Investigation was revealed. The following portions of the sidebar Conference Transcript identifies that evidence or reveals details about that evidence. And then they lay it out specifically. Page 1399, lines 14 through 19 is, page 1402 lines 1 and 2. Page 1403 lines 1215. That apparently is where the evidence was discussed, is the evidence was revealed pertaining to an Ongoing Investigation. So the prosecutors argue disclosing the identified Transcript Pourings would reveal substantive evidence pertaining to an Ongoing Investigation. The governments interest in
protecting the confidentiality of its Ongoing Investigations is compelling and justifies sealing the limited portion of the Sidebar Conference at issue here. Law enforcement agencies must be able to investigate crime without the details of the investigation being released to the public in a manner that compromises the investigation. The government has a paramount interest in preventing the release of information which may reveal the direction and progress of ongoing criminal investigations that is not otherwise known to the public. So something came up at that moment in court. And it was prompted by these questions about gates talking to the Special Counsel about his time on the Trump Campaign. We dont know exactly what happens. But something about this concerns rick gates. It concerns Ongoing Investigations that must be kept secret according to prosecutors. Fascinating when they filed that motion today. It was fascinating when it
republicans introduced articles of impeachment for Rod Rosenstein. You might also remember House Speaker paul ryan immediately distanced himself and the rest of House Republicans from that effort. Do i support impeachment of Rod Rosenstein . No, i do not. For a number of reasons. First, it takes i dont think we should be cavalier with this process or with this term. Number one. Number two, i dont think that this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Given what you just said, did you try to discourage your colleagues from taking this step and do you view this as a legitimate effort or as a stunt . Look, i think they know how i feel about this. So Congressional Republicans at least their leadership, they have tried to make it known that they think this idea of impeaching Rod Rosenstein is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. No way were pursuing that. Thats a fringe thing. Were not board with that at all. Thats the public line. Behind closed doors at this fundraiser though, house intelligence chairman devin nunes and the number four republican in house leadership Mcmorris Rodgers appeared to indicate that republicans in congress do support impeaching Rod Rosenstein but dont want to do it yet. Answering a question from an Audience Member at this fundraiser for rodgers answering a question from an Audience Member whether or not those Impeachment Articles against rosenstein actually had any support in congress, devin nunes explained that there is support for the impeachment of rosenstein. He said you wont get at argument about that from our colleagues but he said basically theyre not talking about it now before the election. They plan to pursue it a, once the election is over and b, crucially, after republicans have confirmed Trump NomineeBrett Cab Anyhow to the United StatesSupreme Court. Now, this is not a plan that
congressional Republican Leadership has talked about publicly. Quite the contrary. Apparently they are talking about it Behind Closed Doors. But also on things that came up in the house on Rosenstein Impeachment thing and it appears from an outsider that the republicans were not supporting. Yeah, well, its so its a bit complicated, right . I say that because you have to so we only have so many months left. So if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does, that triggers the senate then has to take it up. Well, you have to decide what you want right now because the senate only has so much time. Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice . So thats part of why i dont think you have youre not getting trump, like i said,
hopefully rosenstein deserves to be impeached. So i dont think youre going to get any argument from most of our colleagues. The question is, the timing of it right before the election. So the senate has to start. The senate would have to drop everything theyre doing and start to start with impeachment on rosenstein. Then you take the risk of not getting not getting kavanaugh confirmed. So its not a matter of its a matter of timing. Its a matter of timing. Dont think that were not against rosenstein. Dont think we might not impeach rosenstein. Its a platter of timing. The reason to impeach rosenstein is not because republicans dont like him or dont. Its because he oversees the Special Counsel investigation of the russia attack which is being run by former fbi director robert mueller. Forcing rosenstein out of office through impeachment is the one
direct way that republicans in congress could end the Mueller Investigation because removing rosenstein would allow him to be replaced with somebody who would shut mueller down. Its a matter of timing. Again, this is what theyre saying Behind Closed Doors, not in public. If this is the way theyre planning to sequence their actions this raises the possibility that Congressional Republicans know that are moving to end the Mueller Investigation by impeaching Rod Rosenstein, that could precipitate some kind of constitutional confrontation if not a constitutional crisis if their plan is to make sure that Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court when that happens for just such an occasion, well, that changes meaning of the kavanaugh confirmation. That raises the stakes even further and sort of changes them as to when and whether kavanaugh will be confirmed. I want to tell you we reached out to paul ryan about this news particularly because he has said that republicans in congress
wont pursue anything like there. Right . Since kathy Mcmorris Rodgers is on his Leadership Team and apparently talking about this plan privately at a fundraiser in her state, it raises the question whether or not republicans have one plan theyre telling voters and reporters about before the election but once the elections over, they are planning some sort of surprise u turn. Weve had no response yet from speaker ryans office in response to our questions but well let you know if we do hear from him. You should also know that there is a big news Storm Brewing when it comes to kavanaughs Supreme Court nomination and whether republicans are trying to block access to specific documents from his past because democrats say those documents might prove that kavanaugh actually lied under oath to the senate the last time he had a con firmation hearing. In 2006, a much younger Brett Kavanaugh appeared before the
senate Judiciary Committee, the same committee that will consider his nomination for the premium court. Some of the members of that committee are still there. And were there in 2006, theyre still there now. Brett kavanaugh was white house Staff Secretary at the time of that nomination before that, he worked for the White House Councils office during the george w. Bush administration. Senators at the time had a lot of questions about his proximity to various Bush Administration scandals specifically to the Bush Administrations policies on torture and treatment of detainees. Senators wanted to know what role Brett Kavanaugh, what role Brett Kavanaugh might have played in forming those policies if any. But each time they asked him about it, the response from him was nope, not me. Had nothing to do with me. I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of
combatants or and so i do not have any involvement with that. What about the documents relating to the administrations policies and practice on torture . Did you see anything about that or had you did you first hear about that when you read it in the paper . I think with respect to the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees, i was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memos that subsequently came out in the summer sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. This was not part of my docket either in the counsels office or as Staff Secretary. I was not aware of any issues on that. This was not part of my docket. That actually that answer got its own National Headline at the time. Because cab anyhows nomination was so controversial. Kavanaugh denies role in detainee policies. Well, it turns out that denial may not have been true. About a year after that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to a federal Appeals Court to, the Dc Circuit Court, is the Washington Post and npr reported Brett Kavanaugh had actually been personally involved in one very significant white house discussion on that very issue. It was part of what he dealt with when he worked in the george w. Bush white house. Now, this has a whoa bunch of consequences. Number one, had Brett Cab Anyhow admitted in his Confirmation Hearings he had in fact taken part in white house Policy Discussions about Enemy Combatants and other socalled detainee issues after 9 11, its quite possible had he admitted that, that he would have been expected once he was on the Dc Circuit Court to recuse himself from being a judge in any case that touched on those issues. Thats not a the hypothetical. The d. C. Circuit court is the court that handles those issues in the federal system. Thats the court that has exclusive jurisdiction for cases under the Detainee Treatment Act and military commissions act. And in fact, once he was confirmed and he landed on that court, the very first case tried before Brett Kavanaugh as a d. C. Circuit court judge was a case about detainees at guantanamo. The lawyer who represented those Guys At Guantanamo told npr had he known that in fact kavanaugh had been part of white house discussion about detainees, he might well have demanded at that trial that kavanaugh had to recuse himself from hearing that case. So cab anyhow denying under oath before the u. S. Senate that he had had anything to do with any Policy Discussions about detainees when he in fact was part of those discussions, that had real world troubling legal consequences. For his time already as Appeals Court judge. As an even simpler consequence, theres also the question of whether or not Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath to the senate in order to get that last judgeship. After these news reports emerged
in 2007 about his participation in those white house discussions, despite his denials to the contrary and his confirmation hearing, illinois senator dick durbin wrote to then newly minted judge kavanaugh requesting an explanation for his contradictory statements during his confirmation the year before. We collected in with dick durbins office. Theyre still waiting for a response from judge kavanaugh now 11 years later. The mail is slow but geez. Senator pat leahy was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He even referred Brett Cab Anyhow to the Public Integrity section of the Justice Department for possible prosecution for lying to senators under oath. The bush Justice Department did not take up that request and prosecute coo judge kavanaugh but sort of still hanging out there. Its kind of amazing this is the guy who is now nominated for the u. S. Supreme court with this particular loosened just hanging out there still from the last time he was confirmed for
something which caused such controversy. This really never was settled. And the fact that the senate these senators get old in the senate and the guys there 11 years ago and so mad about potentially being lied to, some of those are still there. Thats how the senate works. So now the aforementioned new Storm Brewing because republicans are now blocking democratic requests to receive and review documents from Brett Cab Anyhows time working in the Bush White House including the specific records that might settle the issue once and for all as to whether or not judge cab anyhow did lie to the senate the last time he was up for confirmation when he got his current seat on the Appeals Court. Democrats are now trying out an un