tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC April 4, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
check out our podcast, why is this happening. you can find that and all of our oth episodes wherever you get your podcasts. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. one of the all-time great lines in congress, one of the all-time great lines in the modern history of washington is the fake humble brag, i'm just a country lawyer. it was senator sam irvin, the guy who led the investigative committee in the u.s. senate that looked into watergate. he was an experienced senator. he was a harvard trained lawyer. there was nothing simple about him at all, but he would do this thing. he would turn on this folksy, country lawyer humble thing as a prologue to his most devastating to the point questions. now, i'm just a country lawyer,
but, like, walk me through this. sam ervin that they're referencing. today it was connecticut senator richard bloomenthal's turn with the whole i'm just a country lawyer trip. >> now we have gotten from the attorney general of the united states. we have been so fortunate to receive a summary of the report. you know who's beginning to say that report is inaccurate and unfair? the mueller team is beginning to say you didn't do justice to our report. you didn't provide the findings and evidence. now, i'm just a country lawyer
from connecticut, but i can tell you the law is pretty clear, there is no executive privilege, congress deserves that full report, and so do the american people. you paid for it. you deserve it. the full mueller report. release the full mueller report. >> senator richard bloomenthal speaking in washington today at one of the several hundred protests that happened around the country today. this afternoon and this evening, protests calling for the release of the mueller report. 13 days now since it was completed by robert mueller and handed in to the office of trump's newly appointed attorney general, and it hasn't been seen since. there were protests today in washington, d.c. there were protests in new york city. good-sized protest in new york city. there were protests in chicago and philadelphia and raleigh, north carolina, and albuquerque, new mexico.
protests from denver to boston, to st. paul, minnesota, to langhorn, pennsylvania. and it's interesting these are not policy protests. this is not an interest group fighting for more attention to its cause, which is sometimes what you see in coordinated nationwide protests where people protest in hundred of different sites. what these protests were about today is a real live active fight right now that is under way and we really don't know how it's going to end. at the d.c. protest this afternoon, the one where bloomenthal spoke, jerry nadler spoke and he said although we're in the midst of this fight right now, and he's the one leading it for the democratic control congress, nadler really turned into a history professor today. nadler turned on professor nadler who was your favorite guy from history, junior year. he told this crowd outside the
white house today we as a country have had this kind of fight before, that presidents in trouble do this kind of thing. that president trump is trying right now with the mueller report. we should expect they will try to get away with the sort of stuff they're trying to get away with now, but ultimately history teaches us that presidents in the end when they try this stuff, they lose. >> to do our job we need the mueller report, not the attorney general's summary or a significantly redacted version of the report that the attorney general has offered to give us without the underlying evidence collected by the special counsel. you know, we've seen this before. in 1973 the nixon administration had an idea. they didn't want to give up the tapes. they didn't want the tapes to be public. they didn't want the special counsel to see the tapes or to
hear the tapes, so they decided or they proposed that we'll let the senator who is famously hard-of-hearing, by the way, we'll let the senator listen to the tapes and he'll tell us what he thinks is suitable for congress and the public to know. special counsel cox rejected that recommendation and was fired the next day because of that. special counsel cox knew that he needed an access to the oval office tapes and the evidence of significant abuses of power by the president. today the department of justice, the attorney general seeks to limit our access to the mueller report, as if we learned nothing from the proposal of the nixon administration. but we have ample reason to suspect the administration's motives. >> congressman calling for the
release of the report saying we have ample reason to suspect motives when it comes to keeper the mueller report out of wraps. the nixon administration really did try to offer that instead of releasing the white house tapes. they would have an intermediary, a mostly deaf, very friendly intermediary listen to the tapes himself, and he'd be the only one who'd get to listen to them. but then don't worry he would totally tell everybody what they said, and that's -- you know, that would be good enough. there's no reason why anybody would be dissatisfied with that. nixon really did try to get away with that as one of his strategies for not releasing the white house tapes. did not work, but nice try. today just since robert
mueller's report was submitted 13 days ago, we got the first, second, third -- no, the fourth statement -- a fourth statement today from attorney general william barr and the justice department attempting to describe some thing that he wants us to all know about the mueller report while still releasing absolutely none of the report itself. trust me, just i will describe to you what you need to know about it. why do you need to see the thing? aren't i nice? don't you like me? i will tell you about the thing, trust me. today the fourth statement from barr's office characterizing the mueller report. and this came in the wake of this really important new reporting from "the new york times," which quickly followed by "the washington post," quickly followed by nbc news, and then later into the day by cnn. all these news agencies now reporting that something apparently quite serious has
gone wrong between the special counsel's office and the attorney general between the time when mueller handed in his report two weeks ago tomorrow and the time when barr started telling people what he wanted them to know about what he says is in that report. this time last night on the show we were just absorbing the breaking news from the first story on the subject, from "the new york times." quote, some on mueller's team say report was more damaging than barr revealed. the lead of that piece, quote, some of mueller's investigators have told associates that attorney general william barr failed to adequately portray the findings of that inquiry and those findings were more troubling for president trump than indicated. and some team members believe that barr should have included more of their own material in the four-page letter he wrote on march 24th purportedly laying out their main conclusions. government officials familiar with the matter and others interviewed declined to flush
out why investigators viewed the findings as potentially more damaging for the president than barr explained. quote, it was unclear how much discussion mueller and his investigators had with senior justice department officialsabout how their findings would be made public. that's the story that broke just before we got on the air last night. it was like, you know, for the first time in 22 months we're getting reporting from mueller's team. hours later in the middle of the night "the washington post" broke not just their own version of the story but actually another story on the same subject that advanced the issue considerably and actually tried to clear up some of the stuff that didn't make sense in the initial report. specifically what was going on, that stuff didn't make much sense in the initial reporting. it makes more sense the way "the washington post" has reported it out. there is this question of what it means that william barr chose to ignore the summaries written
by mueller's team and instead produce his own. mueller's office apparently says that his representation of their findings is not an accurate representation of what they really found. here's how "the washington post" explains it. quote, members of special counsel robert mueller's team have told associates they're frustrated with the limited information attorney general william barr has provided of their nearly two year investigation. barr concluded the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove obstruction of justice. but members of mueller's team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant. one person telling "the post," quote, it was much more acute than barr suggested. some members were particularly disappointed barr didn't release summary information the team had prepared. there was displeasure from the team when they saw how the a.g. had characterized their work. theficial said the mueller team
had prepared its summaries with the view they could be made public. the official said the report was prepared, quote so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately or very quickly. it was done in a way minimum redactions if any would have been necessary and the work would have spoke for itself. mueller's team assumed that information would be made available to the public. and not in the attorney general's summary of their work as turned out to be the case. so this is big development in this whole scandal, right? and this is a brand new thing that is just being reported for the first time in the last 24 hours. it's a remarkable piece of news in this whole two year scandal and investigation in what appears to be this effort by the administration to submarine the report of the investigation while the investigators fight for it to become public. i mean, what we are learning here is that mueller's team
didn't just write a 400 page narrative report, they also specifically wrote short summaries for each section of their report which they according to "the post" specifically prepared for public consumption so you and i could read it. they wrote those summaries that way because they believed those summaries would be publicly consumed. that's why they wrote them and wrote them the way they did. now, we assume based on the attorney general's statements and based on every other big presidential investigation that's anything remotely like this we've ever seen before, we assume there must be some things that were important in mueller's investigation and maybe even described in his report on his findings, some things at least on the surface the public can't see in an unfiltered form. maybe stuff that would screw up
an investigation, right there's reason to expect there may be stuff in there that's not supposed to be presented to the public in an unfiltered form. there's also a long-standing sacred rule that information obtained by a grand jury is that it gets used in an indictment if an indictment is warranted and then it gets to prove a case against a defendant. other than that the stuff that comes up within a grand jury is supposed to stay within the grand jury proceedings, supposed to be kept secret. unless -- the one exception to that -- unless there's an order from a judge. a cort order from a federal judge that specifically allows grand jury information to be made public or provided to congress or provided to some other entity for some good reason that persuades the judge within the law, right? grand jury information is secret and can't be conveyed outside the grand jury unless a judge says so. well, if there is grand jury
information in mueller's report, and barr says there is, how is that being handled? if that information is key to understanding what the president did and its importance and what the country should do about it, how do you deal with that grand jury information? well, there's two ways it could be handled. one you could ask the judge to issue a court order. we'll come back to that option in just a moment. in the absence of a court order that clears that information to be released, well, according to attorney general william barr the entity that is going through mueller's report, combing through it, determining what counts as grand jury information in mueller's report and therefore has to be redacted in the absence of a court order saying it can be released attorney general william barr says there's an entity going through mueller's report cutting out grand jury information. and he says that entity is mueller. barr says it's the special
counsel's office that's identifying grand jury material in its own report. so that material can be handled with the necessary sensitivities and legal restrictions. according to barr mueller is the one that's doing that. the special counsel's office is the entity that is charged with finding any grand jury information that exists in their report so in the absence of a cort order it can be redacted from anything that is handed over. well, if that's what's going on, tell me how it makes sense that mueller's own summaries which he and his team wrote specifically for public consumption, those summaries are now not being released for public consumption supposedly because they contain grand jury material? that makes no sense at all. if mueller is the one police what counts as grand jury material and mueller's the one who wrote the summaries specifically so they can go to the public, then how can those be withheld on that basis? i mean, that would be like me putting my dog in charge of what we're having for dinner, and then the dog gets really mad at
me because it turns out he's decided we should have like lettuce and escarole and kale for dinner. and my dog hates all leafy greens. it makes no sense. if you're deciding what happens here, why would you decide against yourself and then be mad about it? i mean nothing against lettuce, my dog doesn't like it. my dog wouldn't pick that for dinner. why would mueller write summaries for the public and then rule himself those summaries definitely can't go to the public? i mean, that makes absolutely no sense. and that reporting last night about the existence of these summaries and how the department of justice was trying to purvey this sort of nonsense anonymously sourced explanations for what happened to those summaries and why nobody's seen them, that nonsense is what led to this second, third, oh, fourth notification from the attorney general's office today. which i almost can't believe is my job but i have to try to do
it. rather than release the mueller report this latest fourth statement from the justice department about mueller's report gives us this new characterization of what's in it. quote, every page of the confidential report provided to attorney general barr on march 22nd was marked may contain material protected under the federal rules of criminal procedure rule 6 section e, a rule that protects confidential grand jury information. oh, every page says it may contain grand jury information like as a disclaimer. as of today that's the justice department's latest explanation for why they can't release the mueller report and nobody's seen anything on it. turns out every page has a legal disclaimer on it. and so that's why every page of mueller's report must be held back and not released even parts written specifically so there
won't be redactions. this latest assertion from the justice department literally states they can't release anything from the report because every page has the same legal disclaimer on it. this has led to a new letter from the judiciary chairman jerrod nadler telling them basically this is ridiculous. quote, dear attorney general barr i write to you according to press reports and to urge you to immediately release to the public any summaries contained in the report that may have been prepared by the special counsel. "the new york times" and "the washington post" both report some in the special counsel's office have raised concerns about your march 24th summary summarizing the investigation. these reports suggest that the special counsel prepared his own summaries intended for public consumption, which you chose to with hold in favor of your own. in your march 29th letter to the chairman of the senate and house judiciary committees you stated
that the special counsel is assist tg ayou in the process of making appropriate redactions. if these reports are accurate and the special counsel prepared summaries, then those summaries should be publicly released as soon as possible. this is the best part. that's right here. quote, it is notable that the department's press statement this morning does not deny the existence of these summaries. the department merely indicated that every page of the confidential report was marked "may contain material protected under rule 6e." if these were produced for consumption then a precautionary marking -- finally in our conversation march 27th you inldicated you'd inform me when the special counsel's office has completed its review of the report for materials covered by
rule 6e, meaning the grand jury information. i ask that you inform the committee whether that has occurred and if not to report when that review is complete. in other words, here's nadler reminding barr about what he told him on the phone and now telling all of us what barr told him on the phone, which is that mueller is the one that's supposedly scrubbing his own report for grand jury material. now barr is trying to cite grand jury material is the reason he can't be allowed to release any of the report, even the parts mueller specifically wrote to be made public, that were written specifically for that purpose. barr handling of this started off weird. it is now absurd. and he's obviously freelancing. he's obviously making this up as he goes along. i don't know where this is going. i mean, now that people involved in mueller's investigation are speaking to the press for the first time in 22 months or at least speaking to other people who are being allowed to speak
to the press about what they said, now that this is happening, i imagine it's going to be much harder to make stuff up about mueller's investigation or its findings or to continue to try to disappear mueller's work while pretending that mueller's okay with it. but as nadler said today at that protest, when he was in history professor mode, in some ways as unprecedented all this seems right now -- in some ways even though this feels like something we would have never been through and never imagined, in some ways we have been here before as a country. presidents have tried to get away with stuff like this in the past, and they've lost. and that's turning out to be the best help we've got from anywhere in terms of understanding what happens next year. stay with us. year stay with us fit a lot of life into our subaru forester. (dad) it's good to be back. (mom) it sure is. (mom vo) over the years, we trusted it to carry and protect the things that were most important to us.
we always knew we had a lot of life ahead of us. (mom) remember this? (mom vo) that's why we chose a car that we knew would be there for us through it all. (male vo) welcome to the all-new 2019 subaru forester. the longest-lasting, most trusted forester ever. if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible.
tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. it's way day! yes. it's wayfair's biggest sale of the year, and you're invited! starting april 10, score our lowest prices since black friday on best-selling furniture, decor, and way more. plus, everything ships free on way day. everything? everything. and flash deals launch all day long. hey guys, check out the flash deal i just scored! our biggest sale of the year only lasts 36 hours so shop way day starting april 10 at wayfair.com. whose huh?these? these are the ladies nuts. you gotta get the other one. nut-rition believes nobody wants to get less. and we set out to prove it. her pack is 20% more than his pack. right. so, i want more! exact same price and i get 20% less.
well...i mean! i'm not allowed to actually buy that one?! right. because you're a man. i feel taken advantage of! i feel discriminated. do you think men and women should get the same thing all the time? yes! ♪ the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store.
a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. we are taking the position that the grand jury's determination is conclusive on the court on two issues. a, that a conspiracy existed, and b, that president nixon was a member of the conspiracy.
>> watergate special prosecutors office argued before the supreme court in 1974 that nixon had no good excuse not to hand over the oval office tapes from the white house recording systems. those tapes had to be released. they won big. they got a unanimous verdict at the supreme court in their favor, and the tapes were released. that case, the oral arguments in that case were argued by the special prosecutor himself along with a young lawyer on his team, a republican who described himself as a nixon loyalist, in fact. a man named philip lacovera. presidents try to keep evidence against them under wraps. presidents try to keep stuff secret. when people and investigators find out stuff about pre-s that presidents don't want people to know, they do whatever they can to try and make that stuff go away, to make sure it doesn't see the light of day to make sure it can't be used against them. part of the lesson of watergate
and nixon administration is presidents who try this stuff, it shouldn't surprise us that they're trying it but we should also expect them to lose these fights. i should mention, though, that that young lawyer who argued u.s. v. nixon alongside the supreme court, that lawyer who got those white house tapes released which was such an important moment in watergate, that lawyer is actually right in the center of the exact historical precedent that we've got for this moment that we're in right now when it comes to president trump. besides the white house case, besides the white house tapes case, besides u.s. v. nixon, this thing that the justice department is trying to pull right now about how there's a notation on every page of the mueller report which says as generic disclaimer it might contain grand jury material and that disclaimer in the header of every page of the mueller report means they've not been able to
release any page of the report, this thing with attorney general barr's office has made a mess. despite barr's earlier statements to the contrary it is not at all clear whether the special counsel's office itself is in fact in charge of identifying grand jury material in their report or whether barr is doing that himself and somehow culling all the stuff mueller himself cleared for release. we don't know what's going on there as to how they're handling grand jury material or alleged grand jury material in that report. and grand jury material is apparently the bulk of what we're talking about in terms of what the trump administration is trying to cut out of the report before they allow to be handed to congress or to the public. there is a very clear way to resolve this, though, regardless of whatever has been going on in barr's office or the justice department. as a matter of course grand jury material doesn't get released outside the confines of the grand jury. but a federal judge can rule grand jury information should be
released. watergate wasn't just a fight over whether the white house tapes would be release. there was also a fight, a big cort fight over whether congress would get to see the grand jury information that implicated nixon in potential crimes, specifically obstruction of justice. and it's interesting, it was that same lawyer in the supreme court case over the tapes, that same lawyer who was in court arguing for the special prosecutor's office that a court should give the go ahead and hand the grand jury material over to congress. >> the united states court of appeals in washington is still hearing arguments on a secret grand jury report that the judge ordered turned over to the house judiciary committee. the committee wants the secret report which focuses on president nixon. >> a historic argument among six judges unexpectedly shed new light on what is inside the secret grand jury report.
philip lacovara who did the arguing says the report contains an index of arguments that might be important. the judge asked if the special prosecutors were aware of the risks of indictments against many of the watergate might have to be dismissed. he replied the grand jury which has much interest as anyone in this country has considered the priorities and decided the report should go to the house. >> arguing for the watergate special prosecutor in 1974 that any grand jury material relevant to nixon's potential criminal acts should be handed over to congress, the court should order that stuff should be handed over to congress. arguing that the risks to prejudicing future trials could be mitigated and this was one of those exceptions.
it was of the utmost importance that congress be allow today see the information that had turned up in that investigation about the president's potentially illegal behavior. philip l philip got that case. and the tapes being released led to nixon's resignation. and how nixon's attempted cover-up of the evidence was defeated 45 years ago in 1974. and that part of the fight is exactly what is about to happen in this scandal with this administration with this president. and philip lacavara is our guest next. lacavara is our guest next each day justin chooses to walk.
now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. earn points with each restaurant reservation on opentable and redeem them for hotel discounts on kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. ♪ add fullness to lips with juvéderm ultra xc. tell your doctor if you have a history of scarring or are taking medicines that decrease the body's immune response or that can prolong bleeding. common side effects include injection-site redness,
the decision to pardon richard nixon has helped another departure from government, philip lacovara announced his departure today said recent developments have made it appropriate for him to leave. >> that was philip lacovara's plight official reason for dwiting the government. the reason he resigned is because ford pard oned nixon fo all his crimes.
he'd argued before the u.s. supreme court that the oval office tapes had to be handed over and it isn't a privileged conversation, mr. president, if what you're conversing about is the criminal conspiracy you're part of. >> this president is not in a position to claim this public privilege for the reason that a primaphasia showing can be made that these conversations were not in pursuance of legitimate governmental processes. these conversations as we showed in our 49-page appendix and as the grand jury alleged were in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the united states and obstruct justice. >> basically four months or so before those supreme court arguments over the oval office tapes that same lawyer had
argued in d.c. appeals court that congress should see what the grand jury had found about the president's participation in that criminal conduct. the grand jury itself had asked the judge to release the material they had collected to congress. philip lacovara argued that side of the case. the court agreed with lacovara, congress was given that grand jury material by court order and of course ultimately not long thereafter nixon ended up giving up the presidency. that courtroom work formed every pivot point in that crucial time in american history. looking back at it, looking back at the decisions by those courts and that evidence it feels inevitable in the distance. in the moment it was not at all sure how it was going to work out. the way it worked out in those courtrooms is the way our history was determined as a country. and that experience, what philip lacovara was involved in, that looks a lot like the fight i think we're about to have in this scandal next.
joining us now is philip lacovara also the former president of the d.c. bar. i'm sorry i've said your name so many times on tv. i imagine this is an uncomfortable making experience. >> all of the clips you showed brought back a lot of memories, so i'm happy to discuss those events and thou they relate to the trump administration, the mueller report and bill barr handling of it. >> well, let me ask you about how you perceive things thus far. writ large it'll be two weeks tomorrow since robert mueller has submitted his report. barr has released none of it. barr in my estimation appears to be free lantsing a little bit, feeling his way in terms of how he's handling the material in the report. overall, what's your take on how this is being handled thus far? >> i'd say the primary characterization is that it's being handled in a very clumsy way. i think the attorney general's office has not distinguished
itself in the way they've immediately served up what seem tuesday me to be a highly contentious version or summary of a 400-page report. and now i think they're simply complicating matters by the way they're trying to back and fill in describing the reasons why they've reached conclusions as they did and why they're not yet in a position to release any of the details of the report. and i think one of the most significant pieces of information that's come to light in the last day or so is that mueller's staff, not surprisingly had done their own summaries of the major chapters of the report and that these summaries were done with an eye toward release to the public without delay. so it's just puzzling to me why the attorney general could not have released those mump more promptly than he's apparently prepared to release any portion
of the report itself. >> according to the judiciary committee chairman jerrold nadler he said when he spoke to barr about the handling of the report, barr suggested to him that the redactions barr was planning on making to the report that pertain to grand jury information, those redactions would be substantial. he was planning on taking a lot out of the report on the grounds that it was grand jury information. when you were fighting in the d.c. district court and the d.c. circuit court in 1974 to get the grand jury information from the watergate grand jury released to the judiciary committee, it's sort of hard to tell looking back on it now, but was that sort of pushing on an open door? was the court very recept chb to that, or was that a fight to get the information released by court order that was harder than it looks now from this distance? >> well, the judge was open to helping us cooperate with the house impeachment committee,
jerrold nadler now house. the court of appeals was a bit more skeptical because as you have said a number of times during the show, there is a policy of keeping grand jury material secret. the argument that we made on behalf of the grand jury was that the grand jury itself recognized that the overriding public interest was in having the house of representatives given full access to the information we have developed, much of it, through the grand jury process in order to determine whether the house should exercise its primary constitutional responsibility to decide whether a president should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors that might warrant his removal from office. we ultimately kwinlsconvinced ee court of appeals that this is the dominant constitutional interest and that it overrode
interests, the normal interests of grand jury secrecy. but i do want to make one more point that's suggested by your comment about barr's assertion that he's going to reduce a lot of -- redact a lot of material. exactly how much should be excluded or redacted as grand jury material is up to the discretion of the person who's wielding the scalpel. because the rule only prohibits disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. that could be viewed properly as limited just to quotations of testimony, for example. it doesn't necessarily require redacting characterizations of evidence that happen to be derived from the information that was developed during grand jury proceedings. so i think it's a troublesome development that attorney general barr says that he's planning to use the most
comprehensive view of grand jury material in deciding what he's going to excise. >> one last question for you, which is probably obvious to lawyers but has always been a puzzle to me. in that fight that you were a part of about releasing the grand jury information to congress so that they could review it when it came to president nixon, the quest to the judge when i go back and look at it, looks like it came from the grand jury themself, that the foreman of the grand jury is the person who sipgned o request to the judge, so they were the origin of that request. it wasn't you making the request on behalf of the special prosecutor, although you joined and made arguments on their behalf. i know the congress, the committee wrote a letter to the judge expressing their support with the idea they should get the information, but it was the grand jury themself. could the grand jury that's been hearing mueller's evidence thus far now act on their own to do
something similar? >> yes, theoretically they could. although it's fair to say we the united states through the special prosecutor was representing the grand jury. we worked with the grand jury and drafted the report after consultations with the grand jurors who decided rather than indict president nixon at that time, and they preferred to submit the evidence that had been developed before the grand jury to the house, and they authorized the special prosecutor's office to present their application and their report, which we helped them draft to judge suricka with the request it be submitted to the house judiciary committee. and that could be done today. >> philip lacovara, i have been reading about you and thinking about you for a very long time. it is honestly a real honor to
have you here. much more to get to tonight. stay with us. e to get to tonigh. stay with us something...strange. oh, could you, uh, make me a burger? -poof -- you're a burger. [ laughter ] -everyone acts like their parents. -you have a tattoo. -yes. -fun. do you not work? -so, what kind of mower you got, seth? -i don't know. some kid comes over. we pay him to do it. -but it's not all bad. someone even showed us how we can save money by bundling home and auto with progressive. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto. but prevagen helps your brain frwith an ingredientarents. originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. for 22 months we fought crickets from special counsel robert mueller's team. no updates, no documents, no leaks, no comment, never, nothing. that phase has apparently ended. a few hours after "the new york times" reported last night on mueller's investigators being frustrated with attorney general barr's summary of their findings saying their report is actually more damaging that the attorney
general has made it sound. on the heels of that news "the washington post" had a significant advance in the story. among their revelations, quote mueller's team has complained the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant. joining us now is carol, pulitzer prizewinning investigator at "the post." carol, it's great to have you here. thank you so much for making time. >> of course. it's great to be here on your graduate seminar on how to handle special prosecutions and what to do with evidence that is gathered about a president. >> do you believe we got philip lacovara to come on tv and talk about it? >> nerd alert, i was right there with you watch ing with rapt attention. >> let me ask you a big picture question here. i have been asserting that it's unusual that we're now having reporting that is attributing
comments and feelings to members of mueller's team, which it's been so long that we've all been reporting on what mueller's doing and investigating and who mueller's talking and what we think he's up to. it seems to me this is something new, to actually have reporting that ascribes feelings and statements to people who were actually involved in that investigation. does it feel that way to you, too? >> absolutely. it is not a shock to me at the moment, but it is absolutely a major development. i want to be clear that very soon after attorney general barr's summary was released we began to hear that there were concerns among allies that weren't necessarily speaking for the team, but there were significant concerns about barr's summary, specifically the element that had to do with concluding there was not sufficient evidence to accuse the president of obstruction. and there were people, even comey came out publicly, former fbi director jim comey came out
and said he had some serious questions. then we heard more rumblings and then "the times," and then we broke stories about those concerns. team members have bee leaving the team. and once you leave a team you're not going to release grand jury material. you're never going to violate that oath. i think there's a little bit more of two things going on. one, how in the world could the summary that barr gave be so different from what we believe happened in our investigation and second, we're done here now. and we're no longer under a gag order. so to speak. and we don't want this shaped in a way that we think is misleading. >> carol, nbc news followed your reporting, as well and cited one source saying that some on mueller's team in addition to the concerns about how the obstruction evidence was described, also had concerns about how the russia part of the results were described according to nbc, mueller's team say their
findings painted a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated russian intelligence operation. nbc reporting there was some frustration among mueller's team that wasn't reflected in anything barr said about the report. i wonder if your reporting touched on that part of mueller's report and anything from his team in terms of how they feel that was represented? >> i won't be surprised. i can't independently confirm that tonight for you. i won't be shocked if that's the case. however, the part that i know the most about is the concern about the obstruction and how barr couched that. i will also add that one of the biggest concerns i've heard is that this conclusion that barr reached so quickly barr is now feeling a little heat about whether or not he really offered a summary but one of the biggest concerns is, did he reject evidence that they view, that the team views as very sufficient because of barr's
expansive view of a president's powers. and the near certainty that he could not be accused of obstruction. >> carol leonnig, investigative reporter with the "washington post." congratulations on this scoop. keep as you prized. thank you. >> will do. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. ill do. >> we'll be right back stay with us of your control. like bedhead. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro. and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back.
i swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels.
bigger and sprawlyer. you need more tasks and yarn. in december, "the wall street journal" was first to report that federal prosecutors in the southern district of new york were investigating trump's inaugural committee. that investigation into the inaugural was "in its early stages reported in mid-december. by early he february, they had served the committee with subpoenas. then in short order in addition to that news that the inaugural was being investigated by sdny we learned the trump inaugural was also under investigation by the new jersey attorney general's office. and also the d.c. attorney general's office. and then also the u.s. attorney's office in brooklyn, not sdny but edny. also the u.s. attorney's office in los angeles? really? oh, and then congress, the judiciary committee requesting documents from the inaugural committee and its top leaders. and now we have a new one. "wall street journal" reporting the intelligence committee is seeking interviews with and documents from a former adviser
to the first lady who served as a producer and vendor for the inauguration. by our count, that makes seven open separate investigations into the inaugural committee all of whom seem to think there is something to see in the trump inauguration. seven investigations all of one thing? watch this space. we'll be right back. inthg? watch this space we'll be right back. see that's funny, i thought you traded options. i'm not really a wall street guy. what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know?
well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st. hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade
look for in tomorrow's news early in the day. i just mentioned a moment ago we think there are seven different open law enforcement investigations right now into the trump inaugural. seven different ones. we don't know what all of are about. we don't know what any of them are about. there's a man named sam patton who pled guilty to something having to do with the trump inauguration, using straw man purchasers as a way of donating illegal foreign money to the inaugural. he pled guilty and has been cooperating with prosecutors ever since. one thing to watch for tomorrow is tomorrow prosecutors are due to tell a federal court how good a cooperator he's been and what he has been helping them with all of these months that he has been trying to reduce his sentence and get favor from the court in favor of him being a good guy to the prosecutors who are working on other open investigations. we may get some sun light into those investigations tomorrow with that sam patton filing. we shall see. now it's time