tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 1, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
i would like to wish you all congratulations on your new home. because tonight you are the proud owner of some sort of nice but maybe not to your taste new york city real estate. tonight my friend you, yes you and me too, we are the new owners of a condo in trump tower. you and i and every american taxpayer as of tonight, we the people have taken possession of the trump tower apartment formerly owned by trump campaign chairman paul manafort who is
currently serving a lawn federal prison term for multiple felonies. the federal judge in manafort's case today entered an order granting the forfeiture of paul manafort's apartment in trump tower to the u.s. government, to basically make good on his ill-gotten gains and of the money he ripped off as part of his crimes. after manafort was initially convicted on aig felony counts he struck a plea deal with prosecutors in the special counsel's office to try to avoid a trial on several more counts. it was part of that deal that manafort would agree to forfeit his real estate and his other assets. altogether the value of manafort's forfeiture to the government was estimated to be as much at $46 million. which as many people have pointed out would mean that the special counsel's investigation has more than ended up paying for itself. despite the president's frequent complaints that it cost taxpayers too much money. taxpayers actually made money on the mueller investigation.
taxpayers made millions of dollars. and now, look, here we are tonight with a trump tower apartment of our very own. now, we don't yet have pictures of our new apartment. we have these external pictures of the building, of course. we don't have pictures from inside, from manafort's apartment specifically from our new apartment. we will have those pictures soon, though, because the u.s. marshals service will soon put that condo up for auction, so we expect there to be a proper real estate listing for it on the u.s. marshals auction website. and once that listing goes up, then, you know, we could look at the floor plan, we could all argue about who gets what room and where are you going put that ugly dresser your grandmother got you and whether we could be trusted to have a phycus
together and also we'll have brand new transporcripts we've never seen before. transcripts of those conversations of him talking to the russian government are going to be released tomorrow. these are conversations in which flynn and the russian ambassador definitely did talk about sanctions even though flynn told the fbi they did not definitely ucthat. that's what's going to be made available on the public docket by tomorrow per a court order from the judge in the flynn case. also, you know, keep the trunk open, there's more. also as of tomorrow you will also be taking possession of the redacted parts of the mueller report that pertain to mike flynn. the judge in mike flynn's case in addition to ordering the release of those transcripts of flynn talking to the russians he also ordered tomorrow the justice department has to release all the stuff currently blacked out in the mueller report that has anything to do with mike flynn. all of that stuff has to be
unredacted and released to the public tomorrow. despite the attorney general saying, no, no, no-no way, no how by tomorrow some of those redactions are going to be removed and we the public will get access to that part of the rorlt by order of a federal judge. and while we're at it also tomorrow at 9:30 a.m., robert mueller's grand jury is finally going to get testimony from a recalcitrant witness who's been fighting tooth and nail for like a year to try pleas to not testify, to not have to turn up and talk to the grand jury despite a subpoena from mueller's prosecutors order him to do just that. andrew miller is a young man who worked with roger stone. he's been fighting for almost a year now to not respond to a grand jury subpoena that orders him to testify to mueller's grand jury. mr. miller has lost at every step of the way in this legal fight that he has waged, but in
a process that i have to guess has created a matter horn of legal bills has been trying every way he can to get his case appealed and appealed hopefully all the way to supreme court. well, yesterday in washington that quest, that presumably really expensive quest, it finally came to an end when andrew miller and finally was ordered by the chief judge in d.c. district court that he must turn up to give grand jury testimony tomorrow morning at 9:30 or he should expect a warrant to be issued for his arrest. now, mr. miller does not expect to be arrested. as far as we understand from the court hearing on the issue this week he expects to testify tomorrow. and this is really interesting for a few different reasons. i mean, for one, this testimony from andrew miller is finally going to happen. after all this back and forth and every legal argument under the soon being deployed by his lawyers to try to block this grand jury subpoena, including every legal argument they could conceivably try to challenge the
legitimacy of the special counsel's investigation, all of that is finally over. that's just interesting in its own right. it's also interesting because we really don't know what this toims testimony is going to be about. we know andrew miller did work with roger stone for a while, so maybe it's connected to roger stone. roger stone's already indicted on charges of lying to congress and the fbi about his interactions with wikileaks as they were distributing stolen russian material during the 2016 campaign. stone has pled not guilty, his case is moving forward. there was a hearing in that case just today. but because that case is already rolling through the courts it's really not clear what mueller's grand jury might still be working on pertaining to roger stone at this point if that's what's they want this guy's testimony for. then there's also just the fact this andrew miller testimony tomorrow morning in d.c. means that robert mueller's grand jury is still operating in d.c. i mean, robert mueller himself yesterday gave his fair well speech. he officially announced he was
closing the special counsel's office, he officially left the justice department. but his grand jury is treading along. mueller is going to be testifying to that grand jury tomorrow. and maybe his testimony pertains to a potential news superseding indictment against roger stone. maybe it pertains to a new potential indictment against an entirely new person. we really don't know, intriguing questions. but we do know prom the regz lose of part of this case the mueller grand jury is still ongoing and still hearing from witnesses. and as that grand jury hums along in the roger stone case and the mike flynn case and the paul manafort forfeitures continues, we of course are in day two of riding the shock wave from robert mueller's first and perhaps only public comments yesterday. i mean, i know it was less than ten minutes that he didn't go beyond the four corners of his report and there were no pyrotechnics from the podium. there's any reason you might think mueller's sort of monotone
serious no questions comments yesterday might not have the impact that they did. but they have had a remarkable impact. i mean, as i said last night on the show it is one thing to read his conclusions in black and white on paper. it is another thing to hear him deliver them in person. and in particular to hear him say what he thinks are the important points of his investigation and their findings that he wants to highlight. to hear him say in no uncertain terms we were not allowed to charge the president with a crime, but if he had determined he didn't commit a crime, we would tell you. that's in the report. but to hear mueller say it lands, i mean it sinks in. a lot of the energy from democrats in congress since mueller's appearance yesterday has been around the prospect of getting him to congress to testify there even though mueller himself clearly would very much prefer not to do that. but you can see why democrats want him to testify live in person on camera, even if he
does not go beyond the four corners of his report. it makes a difference. i mean, what we've learned over this past 36 hours is when people hear robert mueller describe his findings, describe what's in his report, describe his investigation, describe what he and the investigators found, when people hear him say it, they're shocked by the seriousness of what he's describing. i mean, this parallels what we've seen when people actually do read the report. turn out they get shaken up when they look at it themselves. congressman justin amosh recently became the only republican lawmaker to call for an impeachment inquiry. he said he came to that decision specifically because he read the whole mueller report. and he said you can't avoid the conclusion if you read the whole mueller report that an impeachment inquiry is called for. he says if you just open mind, open book read that stuff,
you're going to say an impeachment inquiry ought to be started. i mean, if you want to boil down the case for televised public hearings with robert mueller even if he stays totally within the four corners of his report, if you want to boil it down to one quote and one antidote, let me offer you this. after justin amash held a town hall in his district two nights ago to talk about his call for impeachment hearings and why he came to that conclusion after reading mueller's report, after he explained that point to his constituents at home, here's one told nbc news. quote, one of the republicans who supported amash and the president said she was upset but wanted to hear his reasoning. she said she'll definitely support trump in 2020 but tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the mueller report didn't completely exonerate the president. quote, i was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the mueller report at all about
president trump. i hadn't heard that before, she said. quote, i've mainly listened to conservative news and i hadn't heard anything negative about that report and president trump has been exonerated. the mueller report says what now? obstruction of -- are you telling me there's bad stuff about the president in there? i mean, that's not just this one constituent's take on this. right, i'm not saying this to poke fun of any of congressman amash's constituents. this is what happens in the country. when you have weeks and weeks and weeks of especially the conservative media telling these exculpatory lies. saying what the mueller reports conclusions are, no collusion, no obstruction. you've got this whole symphony from the write, from the republican paer
republican party, the white house, all telling these exculpatory lies on this dense document. and even now once we've got most of it, most people still have not read it. most members of congress still have not read it. in a clip released today in an interview attorney general william barr has taped with cbs, he says he thinks robert mueller could have and should have made a determination as to whether the president committed crimes even though mueller was prohibited by justice department policy of indicting the president. this is an unusual thing for barr to be saying now because since according to robert mueller under justice department policy he was not allowed to make any such determination. it sortd of seems like the kind of thing these guys ought to be on the same page about. justice department policy says i can't indict and i can't determine if the president committed crimes. william barr, head of the
justice department is saying that's not justice department policy. no, no, you've misunderstood that. i'm the head of the justice department. justice department policy is you're supposed to say if you think the president committed crimes. here's barr saying it is justice department policy, that mueller should determine if the president committed crimes. and if barr is now saying that as the head of the justice department a department, as the attorney general, why can't mueller and his team make that determination now? if the head of the justice department is saying here's how you follow justice department policy, why can't mueller do that? why can't he tell us if the head of the justice department says that's what justice department policy requires? so, yes, i think mueller will end up testifying before congress, and i'm sure he will want to stay within the four corners of his report. among other things his boss from the justice department is making
that quite difficult. in the meantime what mueller delivered yesterday, what he clearly hoped would be his final word on the matter was a fairly simple and direct message. we were investigating an incredibly serious attack on our country, obstruction is a gravely serious matter. we gathered all thiseds of obstrulkz but we can't charge the president. we can't say whether not what he did constituted a crime. we'd tell you for sure if it didn't. now a process outside the criminal justice system must be employed in order to make that determination, congress, right? that's what mueller said, yesterday. and i think that is why over the last 36 hours or so you started to see this perceptible movement with democrats towards opening an impeachment inquiry. last night two house committee chairmen came out in support. betty thompson in mississippi cares the homeland security
committee, also jim mcgovern of massachusetts chairs am powerful rules committee. those two chairmen both came out last time for the first time. they joined chairwoman maxene waters to publicly support an impeachment inquiry despite the rezestitance against that from house speaker nancy pelosi. seniority matters very much both with respect to the chairs but also in respect to the speaker. greg stantp became the latest democratic on the judiciary committee to come out in favor of one. also this is interesting. this afternoon senator bernie sanders announced for the first time that he thinks an impeachment inquiry should begin. as recently as yesterday senator sanders would not go that far. but now he says, yeah, such an inquiry should be opened. and that's a big deal because senator sanders is jbs a high
profile senator and also a leading to20 presidential candidate. i should say the democratic presidential candidates are approaching unionimity on the issue now. sanders changing his mind on this matters. and i think there's one other factor at work here that is worth recognizing and paying attention to. which is going to get a boost from the front page of "the new york times." we're seeing this trend of more and more people actually, you know, reading and digesting the content of mueller's report. now people are hearing the special counsel speak for the first time. hearing him make clear himself how serious the evidence and allegations in his report are. as this stuff is starting to sink in, we are seeing people organically coming to the conclusion that impeachment proceedings are the logical next step and the necessary next step. now, the political prframing
around that trend has tended to be so far okay i get the argument, but is going down that road worth the political cost? is it worth the political costs to the democrats given how we know how the republicans will react to it? it seems like today in the wake of mueller's remarks yesterday democrats are starting to realize there's a political question on the other side of that coin, too. "the new york times" just published this piece today with what i think should count as a very helpful clarifying headline. quote, black voters challenge house members. why is trump still in office? here's the lead. quote, moments after the special counsel robert mueller wrapped up his appearance at the justice department on wednesday representative dwight evans stepped out of his office to visit with local business owners. quote, they had one question on their minds. why is president trump still in office? mr. evans a democrat who began calling for mr. trump to be
impeached long before mueller issued his support was not surprised. the issue i hear constant he here is we sent you for one reason only, to get rid of the president, right? why haven't you gotten rid of him yet? evans and others are hearing much the same from their african-american constituents. quote, it's time for congress to do something, it's time for them to stop being afraid to do what has to be done for the country. and, you know, it is worth remembering that there was already a vote in the house on impeaching the president. it was a vote in december 2017 that was forced to the floor by a member of the congressional black caucus, al green of texas. he said at the time, quote, i'm sure history will vindicate me. he got 58 votes for that impeachment resolution back in
2017. african-americans are nearly a quarter of the democratic electorate. a surge in black turn out was responsible for a significant portion of the democratic gains in the house last year. it almost goes without saying but if the democratic party gives african-american voters reasons to be bored or demoralized or turned off it doesn't really matter who the democrats are going to run for president in 2020. and right now i think the democratic party are waking up to the fact they not only have to view how they're would be voters would view them if they don't. how democratic voters and would be democratic voters would view them on this continuism of strength and action. what will mobilize democratic voters? what will makes democrats in congress and the democratic party look not weak? can they go to their voters with positions that are indefensible? there's a shift happening in the democratic party right now on
this. one by one, like i said every few hours we're seeing a few members of congress say actually i was against this before but i'm for it now. the only question to me it seems to be how big and how fast this shift is. joining nous is a member of the intelligence committee in the house. great to have you here tonight. thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> tell me where you have been previously on the issue of impeachment and whether or not that inquiry should be opened and how you're feeling about it now. >> sure. i mean for me it was never a question of whether the president was fit for office. he is not. it was never a question whether he has abused his powers, he has. whether he's obstructed, he certainly has. and i believe he and his cohorts conspired with the rugs. to me it was an effective way to move forward in this investigation. what was the best strategy? and i attempted for all these three years that i've been watching this, sadly, because it's been three years since my
intel committee started to get briefed into russian meddling in the democratic process. i tried to be the reasonable voice that talked about getting to the truth so the american public can help us make that decision. and that we couldn't get ahead of them. but the events in the last couple of weeks just made it impossible for me to stay where i was. the fact that there is obstruction after the fact, that's how i describe the fact that clearly the president in detailed analysis by the special counsel obstructed prior to his release of that report. what's maddening is he and his office and the attorney general have obstructed after the fact. that made getting subpoenas answered, getting the unredacted report available to congress impossible. so how are we reasonably going to make a kiz as to whether other crimes and misdemeanors were conducted without getting this information? so at this point we have nothing to lose, and i think opening an
impeachment inquiry will help us get that information. and to your point, i think it will help educate the american public who obviously most have not read the mueller report. and their first blush of the mueller report was a lie by the attorney general that the president was exonerated. and we're still overcoming that. and i think if anything the special counsel gave us that window to present the alternative to it. and that's an inquiry. so for whatever it's worth in your program i'm announcing that i notified the speakers office today that i'm now asking we open an inquiry. >> is it your sense that the speaker is keeping a tally or keeping track as her conference, as democrats in the house seem to start to be shifting on this? as i mentioned we've been seeing a lot of people who were previously opposed to opening an inquiry now saying like yourself
it should happen. is there dialogue happening with the speakers office here? >> oh, certainly. and i think speaker pelosi may be one of the great undererated politicians of our time. she understands how to work a caucus. it is tough to be a speaker in this day and age, democrat or republican. i mean, the republicans had more members in congress that at any time since the hoover administration and they shut the government down and they chased out speaker boehner and speaker ryan. to answer your question, absolutely. i have never seen the speaker at better form than she is now under extraordinary circumstances. so i think we're going to move forward. i think it's a process that we're going through right now, and cleatly she's in touch with all members. >> when you say that part of your calculus on this, part of your thinking on this now is you feel like you have nothing to lose, that opening an inquiry may help obtain documents, obtain testimony, obtain
witnesses that you otherwise are getting stone walled for. one of the objections that has been raised by the speaker's office, and i think it's an interesting one is that if an impeachment inquiry is opened in the judiciary committee it might potentially head off the kind of investigation gnat you're doing on your committee, the intelligence committee or that congressman comings is heading up in the oversight committee. there are these robust inquiries that are happening in other committees that would i guess have to interact with the impeachment inquiry or somehow be melded with that. do you worry at all about the about your committee, the intelligence commit to continue its work if the impeachment process is started? >> let's just remember chairman nunes co-opted my committee, the intelligence kmat intelligence committee's investigation and they shut it down obviously prematurity. so it's not easy working together through complicated matters like this, but i think those chairman all get it,
right, nadler, comings and schiff. they understand there's more than one task involved here. this investigation began as a counter intelligence investigation. the american public needs to know we are still on that. the house select committee on intelligence continues that work through the subpoena process. the justice department just released some of the documentation to us, but we are ready to proceed if at any point they stop cooperating. it is extraordinarily important for folks to know that mueller thought that most of that was outside the scope of his investigation. but it's fair for us to ask whether the president of the united states was compromised. and frankly, i believe he was. so i believe to answer your question, we can do more than one thing at a time. it won't be easy but it's additional information that tells us what kind of president we have. >> congressman mike quigley, member of the house intelligence committee says he now favors
starting an impeachment inquiry. really appreciate your time tonight and thank you for making the announcement here. >> any time. thank you. >> more ahead to come. stay with us. thank you. >> more ahead to come. stay with us and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.
applethis is a commercialitas. and i know you're thinking. i don't want to hear about insurance. 'cause let's be honest... nobody likes dealing with insurance. right? see, esurance knows it's expensive. i feel like i'm giving my money away. so they're making it affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome, guy in kitchen. i named my character walter. that's great. i'd tell you more but i only have thirty seconds so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.
hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass. russian intelligence
officers who were part of the russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. the releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. >> the russians really did attack our election. they did so with the explicit purpose of damaging one candidate -- hillary clinton -- and benefitting donald trump. that warning was the whole first volume of robert mueller's report. but we just heard it yesterday out loud for the first time from robert mueller as he started and ended his first public remarks on his investigation with a description of the seriousness
of what russia did. russia's intervention in our presidential election to help install their chosen candidate in the white house. the section of the mueller report that is titled russian government links to and contacts with the trump campaign is a section of the report that's over 100 pages long. it lists 140-plus contacts between the trump campaign and various russians to the point where it takes up three whole pages just in the table of contents. that seems like something worth looking into. the former deputy director at the fbi who was part of launching the russia investigation, andrew mccabe, has publicly expressed his concern about what he calls the remarkable number of contacts between the trump campaign and russian-linked individuals. former deputy director mccabe told propublica and wnyc in the wake of the mueller report, quote, i have questions about the president and his associates' connections with russia.
why are there so many people with official connections to sanctioned entities or banks in russia who are interacting with the president, his associates, his family members? have we ever seen that before by any president or any high level government official? i haven't in all the years i have been doing this. those are questions that i think were outside the scope of what director mueller was doing, to some extent. but certainly questions i would love to see answered. outside the scope of what mueller did, tell me more. joining us is andrew mccabe, former acting director and former deputy director of the fbi. it's an honor to have you here tonight. >> thank you, rachel. good to be here. >> congressman quigley of the intelligence committee told me live a moment ago that from his work on the intelligence
committee over the past three years he said he believes that president trump is compromised by a foreign power. he also said that it seems to him that the question was outside the scope of what robert mueller looked at. part of the reason i wanted to talk to you tonight even before i heard that from mike quigley is i think maybe you have been raising those same concerns, particularly the part about understanding the scope of what mueller looked into. am i reading that right from you? >> well, you are, rachel. i think director mueller was very careful about staying within the guide rails he had been given by the department of justice, by the acting attorney general rosenstein particularly. i think that was a particular way to conduct the special counsel's business. that does not completely eliminate every possible suspicion, curiosity, concern that counter-intelligence investigators would have about a high level government executive, someone -- not even the president of the united states but anybody with access to the sort of material the president has access to who also has a history of interactions and dealings with russians of
questionable background, with individuals who have -- surrounds himself with people who have contacts to sanctioned entities or to russian -- people with backgrounds in russian intelligence. those are flags you look for to determine is this person the principal -- in this case the president of the united states -- somebody who would be subject to influence from a foreign power or is it someone who actually may have some relationship with a foreign power. >> when you were acting director after the firing of james comey, as far as i understand it you were the one who signed off on the counter-intelligence investigation into the president specifically. given the simplicity of that question as you just laid it out, could the president be compromised by a foreign power? could he be acting on behalf of
a foreign entity rather than on behalf of the united states of america? do you have a sense of what happened to that investigation? we all either somewhere between assumed and believed that had been folded in to the work of mr. mueller and the special counsel's office and that therefore we would see some sort of attestation as to the resolution of the question. we have this detailing of the contacts but no statement at all as to what the conclusion might be as to potential compromise. >> right. i think, rachel, to understand that completely you have to go back to the fact that is we knew at the time and how we were thinking about the question. we already had a viable, thriving investigation as to whether or not people associated with the campaign were coordinating with the russian government. that was focused on the four individuals that we have talked
about a lot -- carter page, paul manafort, george papadopoulos and, of course, michael flynn. it was only after the president's own actions, his statements to jim comey, his clear, clear indications that he was not happy about the fact that we were investigating russia, his disparagement of the case publicly, his repeated requests to jim comey that we publicly acknowledge that he was not under investigation and then, of course, his direct request that we drop the investigation of mike flynn. after we failed to follow through with any of those requests with any of the pressure by the white house on may 9th, of course, president trump fired the director. he fired the director and told the deputy attorney general as he was assigning him the task of writing the memo justifying the firing to include russia in the memo. he told lester holt the next day in a widely reported interview that he was thinking about russia when he fired the director. then, of course, he told the russians in the oval office he fired the director and that relieved a lot of pressure on the investigation. with those facts, we applied
those to our authorization to open a case which is, of course, a factual basis to believe that a threat to national security exists. it was absolutely clear to us we had reached the threshold and therefore it was time to step up to our obligation and begin an investigation. the question as to whether or not all of the questions and issues surrounding that investigation were resolved by the mueller report, i think is fairly obvious. they were not. director mueller in the end of the day determined that his jurisdiction as it were was fairly narrow to the specific question about coordination between the campaign and the russian government. will we ever see a resolution to those questions? i don't know. we'll have to see. we'll have to wait and see what investigative actions the fbi takes. if, in fact, any of the actions are shared with the public. >> and aside from the public,
based on your understanding of the responsibilities of the fbi to congressional oversight, if the intelligence committee in the house or the intelligence committee in the senate wants a full briefing on the status of that investigation in particular, whether it's resolved or whether it's open are they entitled to that? >> in my experience, rachel, we were very careful to keep the intelligence committees in the house and senate up to speed on the most significant investigations we were pursuing. this is certainly one that would fall within that realm. i was very careful even in just opening the case on the president to notify the gang of eight in congress as to the steps we had taken and why we had taken the steps immediately after we had. >> andrew mccabe, former acting and deputy director of the fbi. it's an honor to have you here. lots more to get to tonight. stay with us. u emu & doug ♪ what do all these people have in common, limu? [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual.
they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ mom, what's for din-ner? just water. lots and lots of water. you wouldn't feed your kids just water, so why starve your plants? feed their hunger and get twice the results. new miracle-gro performance organics.
went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com
he have been impeached and how long do you think it would have taken? >> about a nano-second. >> about a nano-second is how long it would have taken for president obama to be impeached if he did or said half the things that president trump said just today. that was president obama's senior adviser valerie jarrett today. this has become an interesting norms check in this era of our politics. that little game. imagine if it had been obama who -- take your pick -- saluted a north korean general. imagine if that was obama. imagine obama skipped going to arlington on veterans' day or imagine if it had been obama who skipped going to a war memorial for the u.s. dead on the 100th anniversary of world war i because it was raining and for some reason he can't go out in the rain. imagine if it was obama who gave an inaugural address that described the united states as a horror show, literally captioned
with the phrase american carnage. imagine if it was obama who said he was exchanging love letters with kim jong-un or if obama kept taking solo meetings with putin and claiming he believed putin more than the u.s. government. imagine if obama tried to do any of this stuff. this exercise is supposed to be a norms reset to remind us of when things were less insane in american politics. supposed to remind us that there used to be normal incentives for rational behavior and predictable punishments for bad behavior and that was the obama era. you know what? that admittedly satisfying line of reasoning does have an antidote. we got it from the news gods this week. >> if a supreme court justice were to die next year, what would you do? >> we'd fill it.
>> imagine if obama had a supreme court vacancy in his time in office and the other party decided they would not consider any obama nominee to fill that seat on the court. instead they would hold it open as long as it took and they happened hope for a republican president. they would invent a new principle that presidents are no longer allowed to nominate supreme court justices in the last year before an election. imagine the outrage if they tried that. imagine the outrage. they would never get away with that. if they did get away with that -- which they did -- at least they'd have to live by that standard from here on out, right? even if they got a republican president they now had this new rule, right? >> if a supreme court justice were to die next year, what would you do? >> i would fill it. >> president trump is a president like we have never had before. lots of different levels.
granted, you know what i mean. where did we get this idea that this particular republican president is facing no limits from his party? this idea that it's okay if you're a republican no matter what it is. that it's better for a republican to vote against his or her own legislation if, god forbid, any democrat signs on as well. where did we get the shameless idea that only republican presidents are allowed to put nominees on the supreme court now? these are all republican party rules now. they all precede trump. those are all republican rules that came to their zenith, in fact, in the obama era when obama who is the opposite of donald trump tried over and over again to try to work with republicans, to try to find common ground, to meet halfway. the modern iteration of the republican party revealed themselves during the obama era and especially since as really, really, really not interested in
any normal rules of governance like that. >> one of my proudest moments is when i looked at barack obama in the eye and said, mr. president, you will not fill this supreme court vacancy. >> as democrats compete now to try to earn the right to run against trump next year and as democrats in washington now try to figure out how to respond to criminal allegations against this president, does the obama era of dealing with this republican party offer any tips or tricks for what not to do here? or even what to still try. we've got an excellent guest next who is just the person to ask. stay with us. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.
but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1 2 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment . ♪trelegy. ♪the power of 1-2-3. ♪trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy. with trelegy and the power of 1 2 3, i'm breathing better.
trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1 2 3. ♪trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com
i'm very pleased to say that joining us in studio is valerie jarrett former seener adviser to president obama. author the of the book finding my voice. journey to the west wing and path forward. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me on set. >> how is your post white house life. >> pretty good. pretty good. weigh up every day doing what i love to do. pretty good to me. >> do you feel like your political life is behind our just electoral politics life is behind you? you are still a an engaged person. >> i think my life is committed to service and the issues i care about from gender equity to getting people to vote, focusing on criminal justice reform, ending gun violence those issues i can work on whether in the white house or ordinary citizen. that's what i'm devoting myself to. >> what do you make about the storm in washington right now
about the mueller report? obviously it's been 70 days or something since mueller completed his investigation. we got a long time waiting for the report. then a piece of the report. then mueller the first time spoke out yesterday. we've been talking the rest of the hour about how it's driven increasing interest among democrats and opening an impeachment inquiry. it has to feel like politics from another planet compared to what you went through with the scandal free two terms of the obama white house. >> night and day that's for sure. >> what do you think of what's happening right now on the democrats decisions. >> my take away is first of all there is chlorevidence the russians meddled in the election with the intended outcome that president trump be elected. two there is evidence according to the report that there was an attempt to interfere with an investigation. that is troubling. and also as he said yesterday, that if he had confidence that president trump had not committed a crime he would have said so. so when you add those up those are all troubling. as for russia meddling what are we doing right now today with an
rowe an upcome election to make smur no foreign government maryland meddles in the election why is that not the topic of conversation in the would you say zwloo if it's brought up in the white house we're told the president doesn't want to hear it. the only thing we can see about potential efforts to shut it down are things are happening sadovoece because it's upsetting the protective placement. >> this is about protecting the integrity of our democracy. there is a lot at stake rafrm as you well know. it's incumbent on all of us to lift our voices. what i've been hearing traveling around the country is an increased concern coupled with increased activism and that gives me reason to be hopeful. i was in minnesota yesterday and met with a group called women winning. and they are women who support women who run for office who are pro choice. but we need that right now. given what's going on around the country with state after state passing laws that are infringing on our constitutional rights. and so what i am interested in is not so much what the democrats in the house do.
because i have confidence in speaker pelosi and she knows her caucus well and scheel determine if and when it's time to pursue impeachment. but what are we going to do as citizens to try to take back our country and ensure that we get back on the right track where we are focusing on what we have in common and not divisiveness and polarization and throeing ideas against the wall -- literally the wall that don't make sense. >> do you think that the sort of motivation and activism and enthusiasm that got democrats control of the house? 2018 is continuing. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> do you feel like the didactics are well situated for 2020. >> let's a little bit too far down the path. i think there is building momentum. i was in texas earlier last week. and the democratic party there is mobilized. you saw the african-american women who won judgeships. i do think there is an appetite around the country for change and engagement and activism. and the question is on election day do people actually turn out to the pole sns activism is one
thing voting is another. and i am deeply troubled that the last presidential election 43% of eligible voters didn't vote. we have to change that. you can't complaint about what is if you didn't participate in trying to make it better. >> valerie jarrett's new book finding my voice my journey to the west wing and the path forward. which is really good. >> thank you. >> a lot of people write these memoirs about my time in the white house and everything. a you have an unusually interesting life story. but b you are a good writer. >> thank you i appreciate flew. >> thanks very much for coming in. >> thanks for having me on. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. on. >> we'll be right back stay with us ♪ limu emu & doug look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money
pnc bank has technology to help a pnc business line of credit, because sometimes inner peace requires a little external soundproofing. or pnc total auto. a place online to easily find and finance the right car for you. and your passengers. or pnc home insight, to search for a new house within your budget. hopefully with a grass yard. pnc - make today the day.
mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
that does it for us tonight. tonight donald trump on the defensive getting still more cover from his attorney general as his justice department defies a court order concerning contact with the russians. plus as democrats debate their next move, a look at the ways congress could move forward in building their case. ahead for us tonight, some perspective on an eventful week that saw robert mueller break his vens with decidedly mixed results. and it saw the president attack a modern day american war hero. also an update today on the latest mass shooting in america, the staggering death toll this evening in virginia beach. all of it as the 11th hour gets under way on this friday night. well geng once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york day 862 of the