tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 22, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
elliott williams, glen kershner, harry lamb, carol, thank you-all. that does it for us here at "all in" this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starting with the one and only rachel maddow begins now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. how is your friday going? >> it's good. not quite as eventful as yours has been but it's been good. [ laughter ] >> thank you very much. giving it away, as always. thank you, my friend. i will tell you what chris is referring to is that a couple of hours ago, maybe even less than that, i was standing knee-deep in a trout stream in tennessee. [ laughter ] >> but now it's mueller time and so i'm in a studio in the great state of tennessee. the trout are basically just as safe as they were when i was flailing away at them this afternoon. but now it is -- listen, it's -- this is history.
this is a reason to stop fishing and go to work. our job tonight as a country sort of or what everybody in the country is going to be doing tonight is trying to figure out what it means that the report of special counsel robert mueller has finally been submitted. we've heard it said so many times that it was imminent, that it was done and maybe done and we didn't know about it. finally it's happened. in terms of what that means and what mueller found, we know only the smallest little bits. this is the start of something apparently, not the end of something. the logistics of today we know something about. at 4:30 p.m. eastern time the staff of the house judiciary committee got a call somebody would be bringing a letter from the attorney general. i'm sure they all immediately guessed what that letter was. a justice department staffer or messenger of some kind, all we know she was wearing a north face jacket, she brought, in
fact, two letters to the committee in two separate manila env envelopes because that was one letter for the democratic chairman and republican ranking member of the committee. the chairman of the judiciary committee was at his new york office, not in d.c. so the committee staff quickly made a digital copy and got the letter to him that way. we know those details thanks to a judiciary committee spokesperson laying out that process. we know that is how the house judiciary committee was notified special counsel robert mueller completed his investigation. we are assuming that a similar process or at least a process with the same effect also unfolded at the senate judiciary committee around the same time today but we don't have the same readout about that process. so we know the logistics of how we got the notification that it
ended and obviously, right now we have mostly a ton of questions as to what mueller's report says, how complete it is, who gets to see it, who gets to decide who gets to see it and when. but after two years of almost entirely just questions about what mueller is doing, some answers will start to emerge now. we get actually quite a bit from the letter that attorney general bill barr did send to the chair of those committees, to jerry nadler in the house and republican senator lindsey graham in the senate, those are the two judiciary chairs. the letter was addressed to the ranking members, to doug collins, the top republican and diane feinstein. it's addressed to those four people. the letter is one page and gives us kind of a lot. here is how it starts. dear chairman graham and nadler, i write to notify you pursuant to the special counsel regulations that special counsel robert s. mueller, iii concluded
the investigation of russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. under the special counsel regulations, the attorney general is required to notify the specific people, the regulations spell out that the attorney general has to notify the chair and ranking members of the judiciary committees in the house and the senate, and those are the people that need to be notified and need to be notified of three things. number one, the appointment of the special counsel. that happened back in 2017. the removal of the special counsel, that never happened. and number three, the conclusion of a special counsel's investigation. so this is bill barr telling congress as he is required to do, okay, here is the third thing. the investigation is complete. that's the part of this special counsel experience that happened on my watch. i am notifying you. he then says quote, in addition to this note tification they require i provide you with quote a description and explanation of instances if any in which the
attorney general or acting attorney general concluded that a proposed action by a special counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established department mental practices that it should not be pursued. there were no such instances during the special counsel's investigation. so this alone is really important. this is a big deal. this has been the subject of lots and lots of speculation and lots of fighting, honestly. this is the attorney general informing congress. the attorney general has to inform congress if there is anything the special counsel wanted to do that the attorney general blocked him from doing. there is worry and speculation the confirmation of bill barr as attorney general nominated and confirmed in the middle of the special counsel's investigation, he was nominated and confirmed after he had volunteered a big long sharply worded memorandum that criticized the special counsel because of the
circumstances under which bill barr was brought on. right? predecessor jeff sessions was fired as attorney general. the president said openly because sessions recused himself from overseeing the mueller investigation. well, here comes bill barr who volunteered to the white house in private practice, hey, i got tons of, you know, i got tons of criticism of the special counsel and i think he's doing tons of things wrong then bill barr gets nominated and confirmed as a.g. there is worries and speculation that the reason bill barr got that job, the reason he was seen by president trump as a suitable replacement for jeff sessions and therefore what might be expected of bill barr in that job is that once he got confirmed as attorney general, he'd stick his foot out and trip the special counsel, right? he'd use his power as attorney general to block mueller from something that mueller was otherwise going to do. something that mueller was otherwise going to pursue barr was going to block him. at least as far as this letter
goes, from the attorney general bill barr tonight, barr says he never excised that power. he's notifying congress formally. there is never anything the special counsel sought to do that bill barr stopped mueller from doing. and that's fascinating. of course, everybody would like to hear that from robert mueller as well as from bill barr speaking on mueller's behalf and robert mueller is still at this point publicly silent. as he has been from the very beginning although we'll have more on that later. here is more from the letter, though. the special counsel has submitted to me today a quote confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decision. i'm reviewing the report that i may be in a position to advice you of the principle conclusions as soon as this weekend. so this is the attorney general
telling us he has mueller's report and he is not handing the report over to congress. right? this letter from bill bar is not a cover letter with mueller's findings attached. but he plans to give them i guess bullet points and advice ranking members of the special counsel of the principle conclusions. i should qualify it. i am presuming that when he says he can advice themed a soon as this weekend of the special counsel's principle conclusions, i'm presuming that means he's planning on advising the people to whom this letter is addressed. just the top democrats and top republicans on the judiciary committees in the house and senate. once they are advised by bill barr as soon as this weekend of the principle conclusions of robert mueller's report, will those chairs and ranking members of the judiciary commit is tell
the public what bill barr told them? and what counts as mueller's principle conclusions anyway? how much detail is that? how much is the attorney general going to tell those two house members and those two senators as soon as this weekend? we do not know. not yet. but then here is the last substantive part of the letter and i think it's probably the most important part of the letter while also being the most frustratingly vague. again, this is bill barr's letter. i intend to consult with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and robert mueller to determine what information from the report can be released to congress and the public consistent with the law including the special counsel regulations and the department's long-standing practices and policies. quote, i remain committed to as much transparency as possible and keep you informed to the status of my review. so couple of important things here. number one, obviously, barr is saying i did not block robert
mueller from doing anything that he wanted to do. there wasn't anything he was trying to pursue where i said no as attorney general i'm stepping in and blocking that. interesting. i would like to know more about that but that's the blunt assertion tonight from attorney general william barr. also, barr is going to maybe as soon as this weekend brief mueller's principle conclusions to the leadership of the judiciary committees. we don't know what principle conclusions are and don't know for sure it will be this weekend and don't know how constrained the leadership of those committees will be from sharing with other people including us the public. three separate and apart from that, barr is thinking about what beyond those principle conclusions can go to the congress and to the public and you get the sense from the way he wrote this that he thinks of that as one consideration, not two. right? you get the sense the way he wrote this that he thinks anything that goes to congress
will almost instantly end up given to the public because members of congress, at least one member of congress will decide to leak it or release it properly but he's thinking about that now. he's thinking whablt cabout wha congress can see and the public and he's consulting on that matter with mueller himself and with rod rosenstein who is still there. remember rod rosenstein appointed mueller and he's reportedly been the principle supervisor/overseer for the entire 22-month duration of the special counsel's time. the decision about releasing stuff to the congress and releasing stuff to the public, barr says that will be consistent with the law, consistent with the regulations governing the special counsel and long-standing practices and policies of the justice department. what does that mean? we've never had a special
counsel -- i mean, we've had special prosecutors in the past and other kinds of people convene to do this type of work but under the special counsel regulation, we never had this type of report at this type of stage. we don't know what long-standing practices and policies of the justice department are when it comes to sharing with congress and the public the findings of a special counsel. there isn't anything long-standing because they never dealt with this before. but when barr says he'll decide what can go to the rest of congress and what can go to the public consistent with the law, consistent with the special counsel regulations and justice department policies and practices, that is the part that is going to determine whether we figure this thing out as a country. whether we the country are ever fully told what robert mueller really figured out about russia messing with our election to elect donald trump president and whether trump and his campaign were in on that. there has never before been a
president -- i pamean, not sinc the 1700s has there been a high-ranking government official who was investigated for potentially being in the foreign power. it certainly never happened to a president. are we going to find out what robert mueller found out what he investigated that core issue? well, depends on what william barr thinks about long-standing practices and policies and how those can be applied to this question but i think it's also worth noting that bill barr says there is some other information in the mueller report. remember all that the special counsel regulations require is that mueller provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions. in theory that could mean mueller's final report would be as bare bones as i prosecuted this list of people. here are the indictments that i brought because there was enough
evidence to prosecute them and i did not prosecute anybody else because there was not enough evidence to prosecute anybody else. he could have just done that, you know. one sentence and a list of the indictments he filed. boom. done. a lot of people thought that is what mueller would do in terms of filing his final report. i mean, if he had done that, the bullet points briefing that bill barr says he'll provide as soon as this weekend would more or less be the whole report. he said he prosecuted these people. that's it. apparently, mueller didn't do something that bones, that bare bones. the report is apparently more comprehensive than just that sort of list. and now the attorney general is saying he's reviewing it. he needs to go through it to figure out what -- first of all to figure out how and when he can release the principle conclusions and then beyond that, what further can be released and what cannot. so i mean, just the fact that information exists to be decided
upon, that is something we now know about the mueller report tonight that we didn't know before he turned it in. attorney general barr saying he's committed to as much transparency as possible. again, that is a subjective thing but he says he'll try. on that point for what it's worth, i'll note that bill barr has made his first decision on transparency with the mueller report with this letter tonight. the special counsel regulations require that the attorney general make this notification, this notification to the judiciary committee, to the chairs and ranking members of the judiciary committees and attorney general was not required to release this letter publicly. that's a choice left up to him by the regulations but he writes in this letter to the judiciary committee chairs and ranking members, the special counsel regulations provide that the attorney general will determine public release of the notification would be in the public interest i have so determined. he says i will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you. so that was bill barr's first
judgment call on whether to make something public, he decided yes, he would make it public. but it's early days yet, early hours even i should tell you that multiple news outlets including nbc news reporting tonight that according to senior justice department officials there will be no further mueller indictments. we don't know if there are any sealed indictments in other jurisdictions. there is no indication there are or one way or the other about whether other justice department prosecutors for instance, u.s. attorney's offices like the southern district of new york or the eastern district of virginia or anybody else, we don't know if any u.s. attorney's offices or prosecutors in justice might bring further indictments based on material the special counsel's office passed on to them but nbc reports that no new indictments will come from mueller's team itself that makes sense we seen the team disband and prosecutors take other gigs
elsewhere in the government or outside of government. i'll also tell you that although this notification means the special counsel investigation, the special counsel's office is closing its part of the investigation, according to the justice department, robert mueller for now remains the special counsel. he's not gone. he and a small staff are remaining in place to close up the office and handle any dangling threads and they have been there almost two years. somebody has to tighty that place up, right? one watchdog group announced already that they have already filed freedom of information aboact requests to obtain the full version of mueller's report. the chairman of the intelligence committee adam schiff says tonight and this is an interesting curveball tonight. he's saying separate and apart from any mindinfindings from th special counsel, he's saying if there are counter intelligence findings from mueller's investigation, counter
intelligence findings about, say, foreign intelligence operations, targeting or compromising u.s. persons in politics and government, those counter intelligence findings by law according to adam schiff must be briefed in the house even if barr doesn't want to release the rest of the stuff to the rest of the congress. here is the statement tonight from adam schiff. quote, today the attorney general informed the congress and public that the special counsel concluded the investigation and submitted a report of findings. that report needs to be released to the public. quote, pursuant to the special counsel regulation, mueller's report is likely to focus on the prosecution decisions and may not shed necessarily light on counter intelligence findings of profound significance to the committee and nation whether the president or others around him have been compromised by a foreign power. the mueller investigation like our probe began as an inquiry into whether individuals associated with the trump campaign were compromised by a hostile foreign nation. by law, the evidence mueller has
uncovered on all counter intelligence matters must be shared with the house intelligence committee whether it resulted in indictment or not.is him saying barr you do not have the leeway. any intelligence matters must be disclosed to us. we will insist they meet statutory obligations and be transparent with the committee. anythingless your negligent. that's the intelligence committee chairman saying i hear you mr. attorney general when you say you're deciding what information in the report can be released to congress but any counter intelligence investigation into the report must by law be released to the intelligence committee, which is again not at all the way attorney general william barr is talking about he'll do with the information but the intelligence committee chairman may have a point in terms of them having
the law for being able to access this information sort of despite attorney general william barr's discretion and now tonight, there is this statement from chairman jerry nadler, the democratic chairman of judiciary in the house. >> the important thing to say is the mueller report must be made public in the entirety. the american people deserve to know what was going on and the evidence against people or lack of evidence against people and we are going to insist that the attorney general make public the entire report and give to the relevant committees the under lying evidence. the precedence to do this, 880,000 pages of evidence of internal evidence from the fbi given by the justice department just last year to the judiciary committee when the judiciary committee was run by
republicans. they set the president. if the justice department doesn't release the whole report or keeps part secret, we will certainly subpoena the parts of the report and reserve the right to call mueller or to testify before the committee or subpoena him as several other committees might do but we'll only do that if necessary. the important thing is that the entire report be made public and evidence behind it be given to the relevant committee so the american people can be informed. >> tonight is a landmark moment. i would still be fishing otherwise. but we still have no idea as to what robert mueller has found. you heard the chairman of the judiciary committee there talking about the need to disclose this information and plans to get it. we don't know what robert mueller found out in the investigation and honestly, we don't know how his investigation proceeded and whether it was impeded by any sort of pressure or interference by anyone at any time.
now the fight to find out all of that stuff starts in earnest and this is truly uncharted territory. we never had a special counsel reporting to congress in the way that -- reporting to the again general reporting to congress in the way that started tonight with this report from robert mueller. we don't have president as a country to see how this will go and a long way toward the way this will be figured out will be based on the integrity of the leaders involved here and on the clamber and pressure from the public that this stuff should become known. joining us is senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, she's in the running to be the democratic nominee as president of the united states and serves on the judiciary committee. i know this is a very busy time for you. thanks for taking the time to get to a studio. >> i want to know if you got a trout before you found out the report had come in? >> well, you know, i've learned two things in life, never ever
ask a woman if she's pregnant and never ever -- [ laughter ] never ever ask a person who has just completed a day of fishing if they caught a fish. >> okay. never again. [ laughter ] >> anyway. i'm glad you're back. >> in other words, the answer is no. thank you very much. let me ask you. >> you're welcome. >> you got the same information we got but this letter tonight is directed to the chair and ranking member of a committee on which you serve. can you tell us what you are expecting to happen in erm thes of next steps here? >> this report must be released. this isn't just about politics. it's about our democracy, rachel. while he has offered to brief the leaders of the committee, i think even the leaders of the committees would tell you what the most important thing is that we get this report out there publicly. 90% of americans say they want to see this report.
420 members of the house of representatives voted to make it public. when you look at those special counsel rules as you pointed out, they say that it should be released if it's not public interest. you look at the scope of the investigation which from the beginning was very specific. i mean, it said any links or coordination between russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald trump. so that is a broad mission and to me, the public as we head into the 2020 elections, they have a right to know what's public. so briefings, fine. i would prefer to have it after it's public so we can ask followup questions and want to see the underlying data and we must be able to see this report. it's not -- can't just be behind closed door marked up thing that no one gets to see. it's got to be time for a full disclosure and not mincing words and not hiding pages. >> if attorney general william
barr decides he doesn't want to do that and decides in his judgement for whatever reason or however he reads the law, the regulations or thinks is relevant justice department president for some unprecedented thing like this, if he decides no i'll brief the principal conclusions which is who got indicted and beyond that none of this should be shared with congress and you have to trust us that's this -- that this is fine, if he decides that people calling for it to be released doesn't persuade him, are there any levers of pow there could be used here in order to pry this thing into the public if barr doesn't want it to be? >> sure and you've heard this from speaker pelosi and adam schiff. the house, i don't think you'll see it happening with the republican-led senate but the house has an ability to try to subpoena this information. if he doesn't release the underlying documents to try to get those documents with the argument that this was an invasion of our country's democracy and then of course, unrelated to this special
counsel, you have on going prosecutions in the southern and eastern districts of new york as well as the new york attorney general's office. >> senator klobuchar, i know you have been obviously still carrying out the duties of being a senator in minnesota but also you've been out campaigning all around the country talking to voters. i wonder if people are interested in the mueller investigation, if people are -- have been anxious about the i'm pe -- impending report. what you're hearing from people in terms of how important this is of mueller's findings but the treatment of mueller's information going forward? >> i don't think i've been anywhere if it's chicago or california or iowa, south carolina, georgia where people haven't asked about this especially in states where you've seen suppression of the vote or you've seen votes that haven't been counted. they see this as really part of our democracy that we need to know what happened here.
how else will we prepare ourselves? i will say here in new hampshire today the senators led an effort to say and this is something you should follow up on, the list of projects that could be affected by the president wanting the wall and one was a shipyard in ports smith. i'll talk about that tomorrow. you can just see that people are still focused on these bread and butter issues that affect their jobs and livelihood but people can step back and say none of this will work if we don't have a, workitw working democracy. that's why we keep getting asked about it and people will be just -- i cannot imagine what will happen if he doesn't release this report and of course, there is bad signs based on his19-page memo before he had the hearing to the white house in which he showed this broad view of executive
privilege. all of these things make me concerned. i'm glad he released the letter today and we hope there is more to come because the american people have a right to know. >> senator amy klobuchar of the great state of minnesota, 2020 presidential contender and member of the judiciary committee. thanks for jumping off the trail and taking time to join us tonight. >> it's great and looking forward to hearing the next fish story. [ laughter ] >> hopefully it will have a happier ending. thank you, senator. bringing into the conversation josh who helped us through every step of this process from the beginning. josh, thanks for your time tonight. >> hey, rachel, great to be back with you. >> attorney general barr says he's going to -- he may be able to advice lawmakers on the judiciary committees of mueller's principle conclusions as soon as this weekend. he says he's reviewing the material that mueller has given him and maybe he'll be able to do that.
i know nobody as far as i can tell nobody can tell the volume of material to barr and how much of an investment of time and energy it might take to review it. do you have sense of educated guesses as to what barr is looking at and what might count as a principle conclusion? >> rachel, i came over directly from the justice department and what we were told over there is it's a comprehensive report. i'm taking that it's substantial. there were a lot of individuals involved and a lot of allegations involved and i do think that barr will be sending this initial report in a written form to capitol hill maybe as soon as tomorrow afternoon. as you say, it may just be bullet points but one of the things i'll be looking for there is it's easy to say we'll send up the key findings from mueller's investigation on the
matters that were assigned to him but as you know, rachel, we don't know what was assigned to robert mueller. we know trump russia broadly and an issue related to paul manafort but remember from a few months ago, there say blacked out portion of the memo that designated the scope of mueller's investigation and the public really has never seen that blacked out information about what mueller was assigned at least at one point to investigate nor do we know definitively the matters cast off to various u.s. attorneys' offices. it's difficult to say at this point who is or isn't out of the woods in terms of the matters that have come across mueller's desk over the past two years. >> and that's a really good point, josh. in terms of the scoping memo and what mueller was actually tasked to work on, would you anticipate that that ultimately is something that would become, that would become publicly available or at least briefed to
congress in someway, presumably any on going criminal investigation that was referred to in those large redactions in that scoping memo and those criminal cases get finished and those things get done. if it's an intelligence matter and not a krcriminal matter and this prosecution and we on the intelligence committee get to know everything that has consequences and that's a requirement by law. >> i think he does and there is president, there is a d.c. k circuit president and more than the intelligence committee that says if they send a subpoena or ask for the information, they should be able to get it. even grand jury information, intelligence information. there are channels that can flow through. i do think members of congress will see that eventually.
whether the public sees every bit of that i'm not totally sure if there were bit players here that maybe came across mueller's scope at one point. they might have a privacy argument but if you're a senior white house official, certainly as we saw in hillary clinton's case with her aids, those privacy concerns were deemed to not be sufficient to with hold that kind of information from congress and i assume that the justice department would have to make the same judgements. i think that barr looks at that 420-0 vote on releasing the report that we got from the house of representatives the other day and he may not be the most political guy around but he does know when a freight train is coming and when to step out of the way and i suspect he's going to lean in are pretty hard in terms of getting information up to the hill. >> josh, thank you for your time this evening. it's an exciting night and still super frustrating because we don't know but thanks for
helping us understand the extent of the reporting thus far. much appreciated. >> sure, rachel. take care. >> joining us now is mr. barrett. nice to have you back with us again tonight on what is a very exciting evening. first want to ask just we've been on the air for about half an hour talking about what we think we know. let me ask if anything we've discussed thus far or i've discussed thus far doesn't comport. if you can add anything in terms of what we know about what has been handed out. >> what i would add is when you talk about the principle conclusions, look, we know what the big questions are here. did they conspire with the kremlin to interfere. is there enough evidence to prove the president attempted to obstruct justice. i can't imagine mueller drafted principle conclusions that don't answer the questions. i think those principle
conclusions if they are bullet points will be substantive or meaningful to public understanding of what is happening. what i would point out is so much of what barr is doing is informed by how the clinton e-mail case went down and how people in the justice department are trying not to repeat some of what they view as bad practices that happened in that case so i think a lot of what they are trying to do is bulletproof themselves against similar accusations this time around. >> in terms of obviously the big implication there and everybody who was rooting for hillary clinton to win the election has this still on the tip of their tongue, the big problem there was the derogatory information about somebody who was not being charged that was spread by fbi director james comey at the time. are there other implications besides that key question of whether or not you say bad things about people who aren't charged that is also guiding what they are doing now? >> i think the other dynamic and josh got to this a bit is that
if you have a government official who has come up in the course of this investigation, who has been looked at in some fashion in the course of the investigation, we're more likely to see abnswers from mueller an bar on those individuals than we will on private citizens who end up not being charged with anything. so i think what i'm geared towards and thinking about is to the degree that mueller looked at people who worked for the government, we will probably know more about what mueller found or didn't find regarding those people. then we will end up knowing at least in the first take about folks who sort of moved in trump's world let's say but never went into the government. >> one last question for you, i was struck by the references to robert mueller in the letter from a.g.barr tonight specifically when he said i am now reviewing this material and considering what can be disclosed to congress and the public and consulting with deputy attorney general rod
rosenstein on that and robert mueller on that. it's interesting the special counsel himself would be consulted about what of his fin findings can be given to congress and the public. i wonder if that was expected as far as you're concerned or if that struck you the way it struck me? >> it is striking but striking because throughout this process, mueller and his reputation are the 800-pound gorilla inside the justice department. one thing we laernlearned in th letter is nobody objected to the move mueller wanted to make and barr as best we can tell so far continued the tradition of as much as possible, deferring to mueller's judgment on a lot of things and the letter is another example of that because at the end of the day, everyone knows that mueller could be called up to the hill at some point and he'll be asked did anyone stand in the way and mess with you? a lot of people understand if he answers yes to that question, there could be hell to pay.
>> devlin, excellent. thanks for being with us. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. we'll have much more to come including a question that has been, yeah, there is all this reporting all the time no matter who the president is. the president left the south -- by the south lawn and arrived at such and such dinner. we could just like minute by minute step by step reporting where the president is. i never pay attention to that. why do i need to know where the president is having lunch? today i've been obsessed with where donald trump has been all day. the president for the record went to mar-a-lago today but don't you want to know what the regulations say, what past policies and practice say, what maybe the law even says and certainly what's right and wrong about whether or not the white house can see the mueller report at this point. i mean, bill barr has it at the justice department. he's reviewing it to decide what
he'll pass on to members of congress. what if the white house says hey, we'd like to see the whole thing? happens then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.wappens the? hold that thought. we'll be right back.hppens then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.at ns then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.hns then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.ans then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.pns then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.pns then? hold that thought. we'll be right back.ens then? hold that thought. we'll be right back. too long. ♪ ♪ now i'm wondering if your loves still strong. ♪ ♪ ooo baby, here i am, signed, sealed, delivered, i'm yours ♪ applebee's 3 course meal now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. if your adventure keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips
you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh... enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more.
of non-drowsy claritin... and relief from symptoms caused by over... 200 outdoor and indoor allergens. like those from pollen, pets and dust. because new memories start with dusting off old ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. neighbors...loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients?
call and tell congress, stop cuts to part d drug coverage medicare patients depend on. stthis isn't just d this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving simple. easy. awesome. stay connected with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.
tonight we got a joint statement with equities in the fight from intelligence, judiciary oversight, finance, foreign affairs and weighs and means. the justice department must now release to the public the entire report submitted by special counsel mueller to the attorney general to ensure congress can discharge the constitutional responsibilities, we expect the underlying evidence uncovered during the special investigation will be turned over to the relevant committees upon request. underlying evidence. to be clear if the special counsel has reason to believe that the president has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct, then the justice department has an obligation not to conceal such information. because the justice department maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted to then with hold evidence of wrongdoing from congress because a sitting president cannot be
charged is to convert justice department policy into the means for a coverup. anything less than full transparency would raise serious questions about whether the department of justice policy is being used as a pretext for a coverup of misconduct. strong words from those six democratic chairs tonight demanding not only the report itself but underlying evidence to be handed over to the relevant committees. joining us is adam schiff. great to have you with us. thank you for being here. i have to ask you top line what you make of this development today. attorney general barr's letter and what ill suggestions to you about the process. >> what i make of it is this is the logical conclusion of the special counsel's work. that other aspects of the investigation will be farmed out to main justice or southern district or eloqueements of the department. he finished his core
responsibility and made a full some report and that report needs to be made public. he committed to making as much public as was consistent with law orntire thing. perhaps even greater eer impor, congress needs the underlying evidence because some of that may go to the compromise of the president or people around him that posts a real threat to our national security and we need to know it if that's the case. >> as the chairman of the intelligence committee, you in particular as chair, you-all deal with very sensitive information all the time and there are protocols for those for that committee not for any other part of congress because of the sensitivity of material with which you're entrusted. given that, given your training in that matter and experience with that, given how seriously you take that, i wonder if there
is anything you can imagine might be in this report that can't go especially to the public if there is anything with intelligence matters that relates to intelligence matters that you would be sympathetic to keeping under wraps, either just being briefed to your committee or just being held within the justice department. >> there may very well be things in the report that were acquired minor redactions that might go to a source of information gathered by an intel agency. i wouldn't be surprised if bob mueller left those specific source references out of the report that wouldn't be necessary to the report but those redactions could be made. it's also fair to point out that the justice department has declassified information when it felt it was in the public interest and declassified fisa application material in the current mueller investigation even while that investigation was on going. so yes, there could be very small things but i think the most important point is this
investigation began as a counter intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. it went to look at the question of whether people were acting as agents of a foreign power. that information needs to be made public and if we need to d declassified information in the interest of transparency and not sacrifice methods, we should do that, too. >> what are you going to do if barr says no? if william barr says this report has been submitted to me, i have the one copy of this report. i believe that the principle conclusion should be briefed and as far as i'm concerned, the principle conclusions are these are the people intitldicted and there is no justice department responsibility to pass anything else on. i don't care about public clamber or statements about what i must do from anybody, i'm just going to sit on all of the rest of it. i mean, presumably subpoenaing
the report and subpoenaing mr. mueller himself, subpoenaing other people involved in the investigation, ultimately those get enforced through the justice department. if william bar decided he would dig in his heels and let none of this out, it's hard to figure out what leverage could be used against him. >> well, the congress has considerable leverage and certainly we would begin by rewer requesting information and move to subpoenas that and court enforcement and think about other means of pressuring the department to be transparent but it will be unsustainable for the justice department to take that position. in the last congress, rachel, the justice department provided over 880,000 pages of discovery of evidence to the republican congress in the answer to subpoenas that in an investigation that the clinton e-mail investigation in which no one was indicted. information about hillary
clinton, about bruce orr and andy mccabe and lisa page and peter strzok. for the department to maintain they never provide information in cases that doesn't result in an indictment is simply not true and 880,000 pages demonstrate that. they did so because there was an intense public interest and need to know and because congress insisted and the case for public disclosure here with allegations that are far more serious is much more compelling. in the case of hillary clinton who did not win the election, she was not in a position to cover up through the justice department any evidence of wrongdoing. this president is and this president there is i think all too much evidence has tried to interfere, has tried to obstruct and for that reason it is all the more income want transparent. if they fight this they damage
the department's reputation and i think the same way that the supreme court when it decided bush and gore and threw out decades of president caused the public to view them as an institution. should barr adopt the double standard, i would damage the reputation of the department and ultimately be unsuccessful. >> intelligence committee chairman adam schiff, sir, i know this is an incredibly busy time with the different things to consider in terms of how you're moving forward. thank you for taking time to walk us forward. appreciate you being here. good luck. >> thank you. i want to bring in chuck rosenburg, a former u.s. attorney from the eastern district of virginia and former senior fbi and justice department official. chuck, thank you so much for being here. i haven't had a chance to be in touch with you about this at all since we got this letter from the attorney general since we got this characterization about
how the mueller probe is coming to an end. i want to hear your top line reaction how this has gone down tonight so far. >> top line reaction. by the way, rachel, thanks for having me day. top line reaction is that now you can see why the relationship historically between the white house and the justice department has been so carefully guarded, why we don't normally communicate the results of investigations to the white house, particularly where it involves senior white house officials. there's this tension of course because mueller and rosenstein and bill barr, the attorney general, are all parts of the executive branch and the president of course is the head of the executive branch. so if the president demanded the report, it's entirely plausible that bill barr would give it to him. perhaps after telling him what a bad idea it would be to receive it. but barr ultimately works for the president. and so this is a fraught
relationship. and that is specifically why we've been so careful in the past about passing information between the white house and the justice department. >> and chuck, in terms of the news we got from nbc tonight that the special counsel's office will not make any more indictments, that i think is being greeted in some quarters as a sign that there will be no more indictments, period, that anybody who hasn't been -- who hasn't been charged yet in any relation to this investigation or anything that has derived from it is now home free. we've seen actually at least one person tonight who had been offered a plea agreement at some point, who -- jerome corsi who seemed to potentially have an indictment on its way. somebody saying this shows he's been vind katicated, it's won, all over. i wonder if you think more indictments aren't coming from the special counsel's office necessarily means that other indictments might not be coming from other u.s. attorneys or
main justice. >> you i think it's way too early for mr. corsi and others to be dance in the end zone, rachel. here's why. it seems to me that a lot of these cases, whether it's corsi or carter page, right? or randy credico or the trump kids or folks associated with the inaugural committee or the trump organization can be charged and prosecuted elsewhere. they don't have to be charged and prosecuted by bob mueller. so mueller may not be indicting anyone else, but i fully expect other indictments in what i am broadly calling this case. mueller's remit was always rather narrow. i disagree with the congressman in one respect. he was asked to look -- he mueller was asked to look at russian interference in the 2016 election. nobody asked mueller to rummage through trump's attic. and so we know the southern district of new york investigation continues. we know that the president, for instance, was identified in public court filings as having
directed illegal campaign finance payments. we know other people were involved in that. we know that cohen and flynn and gates and others continue to cooperate. we see large amounts of redacted portions in recent public court filings. stuff is still happening. even if the mueller team doesn't indict and prosecute anyone else, i'm still quite certain, like i said earlier, that others should not be celebrating just yet. >> chuck, let me ask you about something that was raised earlier this hour. josh gerstein raised a really good point, which is when we're talking about what exactly mueller was asked to look into, i mean, we know what was in the order creating this special counsel. we know -- or appointing the special counsel. we know some of what was in a subsequent sort of scoping memo that laid out what he was authorized to investigate. but big portions of that were redacted. what would have to transpire,
what would have to be sort of cleared up for us to ever be able to see behind those redactions? now that the special counsel's investigation is done, would you expect that we'll get to know the full terms of exactly what he was scoped to look into? >> i imagine we will one day. i'm not sure it's going to happen as quickly as we all might like. there's a bunch of things that i can imagine are in the scoping memo or even in the mueller report, which i presume will be quite thorough and quite voluminous, that we really can't see yet. congressman schiff spoke about classified information. sure, it can be redacted. sure, it can be declassified. but there's also good reasons in some cases not to do that, or at least not to do that yet. the other types of information, rachel, that we may not see, at least not immediately, are information related to ongoing investigations. again, all of those redactions and public filings speak to the fact that other stuff is going on and that prosecutors and agents are continuing their
work. we eventually get to see almost everything. it took 40 years to see some of mr. jaworski's work in the watergate investigation. i don't think we'll have to wait that long. but again, i don't think it's going to be as quickly as we might like because of, a, the sensitive classified nature of some of the stuff and, b, the fact that we clearly have ongoing investigations in other districts including in manhattan. >> chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia, former senior fbi and justice department official. chuck, as always, it's great to have you here, particularly tonight. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> i want to bring into the conversation now neal katyal, who wrote the department of justice regulations defining the office of special counsel, which is the document that allowed for mueller to be appointed last year. mr. katyal served as acting solicitor general in the obama administration, and as of tonight i should tell you he is an msnbc and nbc news contributor, which makes us all
even more proud than we usually are to come to work. neal, thank you for joining us tonight. it's great to have you here. and congratulations on joining us in this formal way. >> thanks. >> i want to ask you a couple of technical things and a couple of big picture things. big picture i'd like to ask you first if this is the way you thought this part of the process would unfold, if william barr submitting this letter to congress tonight, describing the way he's going to proceed, is the way it was envisioned when the special counsel's regulations were envisioned in the first place. >> the answer to that is yes. i think barr did exactly the right thing today in transmitting the document and so on. and so so far the process has worked. i think basically as we anticipated, the one thing i think we didn't anticipate is the president if he were the target of a special counsel or subject of a special counsel investigation being on a relentless attack, calling it witch hunt a bazillion times and all the things that the president has done. but in terms of the process today, it played out as we
thought. >> on the issue of the president and the way the president has pressured this investigation and the way he's behaved toward it from the beginning, if the president tonight is on the phone from mar-a-lago to william barr saying i want that report right now, i want all of it, send it over, what are mr. barr's options and what would you expect him to do? >> well, i think that under the constitution, and this is why the special counsel regulations were written, the president has full power over prosecution. everything. so he could demand to see the mueller report. he could demahave demanded to s the draft of the mueller report last week. and maybe the one act of restraint donald trump has had is not doing that yet. if he does that now, i think everyone will know what's up and i think barr's choice will be to resign at that point because if it's done for nefarious reasons, if he wants to sneak peek at the report in order to, you know, try and discredit it in some way, that's a real problem. it also would be a problem if
barr on his own decided not to release the full mueller report. i mean, we're dealing with, as your guests have shown tonight, some of the most sensitive questions american democracy faces, you know, is our leader under an influence of a foreign power, things like that. and if the president or the barr says the mueller report shouldn't be provided to the american people, that is a declaration of war on the america -- on american democracy and i think all of us should fight it, republican and democrat alike have just as much to lose if the public doesn't have this information in front of it. >> it was striking in the first paragraph of the attorney general's letter tonight that he said explicitly there were no instances in which the special counsel was blocked from pursuing something because the attorney general decided that it was too out of line. that was sort of -- it felt good to see that in terms of the process being respected. >> right.
>> it did make me think, though, and maybe i just have a suspicious mind, that as the speshs counsel's wrapping up, as nbc news and other outlets have reported, that there will be no more special counsel indictments, there are a lot of criminal cases that are being pursued by u.s. attorney's offices. there may yet be further indictments related to this investigation from other u.s. attorney's offices. if william barr wanted to block any of those prosecutions, he wouldn't have to say anything about it to congress or anyone, would he? >> right. those aren't governed by the special counsel regulations. mueller had one mandate, which was russia. and he closed at least part of that today. but you know, you could imagine taking that baton and then passing it it to a bunch of different people because he's always tried to stay in his line. so there's now a new lane about campaign finance. that's the southern district investigation. there's stuff about the trump organization. and that's handling via state prosecutors. and there's all these different investigations going on in congress. barr has the ability to stop at least the southern district investigation. but he cannot stop the state and
he cannot stop a coordinate branch of government, congress. and so those investigations will continue and indeed must continue because mueller's mandate was so limited. just focusing on russia, not on the broader set of questions. >> neal katyal, former acting solicitor general of the united states. neal, it's an honor to have you in the nbc and msnbc family and a real pleasure to have you here tonight. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. i want to thank everybody for being with us tonight. we will see you again the next time something like this happens, which could be any minute. i will say, this is a historic -- this is a historic landmark moment in the mueller investigation. at this point what now will happen is a whole new fight and a whole new waiting game in terms figuring out what exactly mueller determined. but to have the investigation come to a close, to have there be a document produced that says what happened now puts us on a totally different front in terms of what we are as citizens able to know about what we've just