tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC October 11, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
news headquarters in new york. happy friday. wow. what a day. i mean, when the white house released the phone call that has led to these impeachment proceedings against president trump, when they released the call of president trump speaking with the ukrainian president about how president trump wanted that foreign government to do investigations for him, wanted to do him a favor and give him something he might be able to use against the democrats and joe biden in 2020, the most amazing thing about the release of that transcript, of course, was just the fact that the white house released that transcript. right? i mean, the whistleblower complaint, which we knew a little about at the time had suggested that the president had done this bombshell thing and gone to this foreign government and asked them for help against
the democrats. it was amazing that the white house then in response to the furor, the white house released this documents, the notes of that call proving that that's in fact what the president had done. the whistleblower was right. but the most chilling thing about it was what president trump said on that call about one particular u.s. government employee. while he was speaking with this foreign leader seeking help on his re-election effort, the president brought up a senior state department official who he had just fired, who he had just recalled as ambassador to that foreign country. according to the white house's own notes from the call, which they released, the president told that foreign leader, quote, the former ambassador to the united states, the woman, was bad news. he then told the ukrainian president, quote, well, she's
going to go through some things. that was chilling. in fact, that ambassador, that woman, as the president puts it, a 33-year veteran of the u.s. state department is now going through some things. we're starting to realize she may have been the wrong person to mess with, though, at least the way she comported herself. god forbid you or i ever find ourselves in this kind of circumstance with this kind of pressure on us, with this kind of incredible power, a raid against us and with stakes this high, right? but if it happens to any of us, really the most you could hope for from yourself is that you would have the stones and the dignity to be one-tenth as brave and sort of righteous at marie was in this circumstance today.
she still works for the u.s. state department, even though they fired her at the ambassador to ukraine. we learned only today that once again in the dead of night the state department apparently on orders from the white house phoned her up in the middle of the night and told her they wouldn't allow her to testify this morning. she was prohibited from showing up and talking to congress today. well, we also learned that in anticipation of that act from the white house and the state department, the impeachment committees planned ahead. they appeared to have a subpoena for her ready to go. she decided today to obey that subpoena. she showed up on capitol hill today. she didn't have like some car service with blacked out windows drop her off near one of the back entrances. she got dropped off right in front, walked all the way across the capital grounds, unafraid, walked into the impeachment committees and testified for
hours. and it was on the basis of her testimony today that you got these headlines across every major news organization in the country today. the washington post tells congress trump told state department to remove her. "the new york times," trump had ukraine envoy removed on false crimes, she says. and there were other headlines that emerged over the course of the day while she was testifying, that, for example, despite the state department under mike pompeo putting out this bogus statement that he was leaving her post in ukraine as planned, not only was her departure not as planned. it was abrupt. she was literally told to get on the next plane, according to her testimony today. she says the number two official under mike pompeo told her she was being recalled on orders of the president and also that she had done nothing wrong. you have also seen headlines from the testimony today concerning these guys. testifying apparently in detail today about how the people working in ukraine to spread false informs about her appeared to include these two guys who seemed to have been carrying out
this op along with the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani. these are the same two guys that have just been arrested and are facing criminal charges in the southern district of new york for an alleged scheme to funnel charge russian donations to various republican campaigns. but the other truly -- i don't know the word -- baller -- the other baller thing she did today was that although her testimony was behind closed doors at the request of the impeachment committees, she decided to release her opening statement publically. and i don't know if she will ever testify in public. i don't know if this is the only way we will hear from her as the american public. but if this statement we got to see from her is her legacy in
the impeachment committee, it would be hard to imagine a more stirring and cogent statement about the way government is supposed to work. on a nonpartisan basis, just the way good government works and the way american values are supposed to be conveyed overseas by our foreign service officers. this was her talking about government as it is supposed to be, as opposed to what has just happened under this administration, which has led to the president now being impeached. let me just read a little bit from her statement today. for the last 33 years, it has been my great honor to serve the american people as a foreign service officer. over six administrations. four republican and two democratic. i have served in seven different countries, five of them hardship posts and was appointed to serve as an ambassador three times, twice by a republican president and once by a democrat. throughout my career i have stayed true to the oath that
foreign officers take and support every day, that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and i will bear true faith and allegiance to the statement. i have understood that oath as a commitment to serve on a strictly nonpartisan basis, to advance the foreign policy determined by the incumbent president and to work at all times to strengthen our national security and promote our national interests. ukraine is a sovereign country whose borders are in violet and whose people have the right to determine their own destiny. these are the bedrock principal of our policy. because of ukraine's position bordering russia on the east, it's the warm waters of the oil rich black sea to its south and four nato allies to its west, it is critical to the security of the united states that ukraine remain free and democratic and that it continue to resist russian expansionism. russia's purported annexation of crimea, invasion of ukraine and it's de facto control over the sea make clear russia's malign
intentions toward ukraine. if we allow russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the united states will regret for decades to come. she then talks a little bit in her testimony about the threat of corruption and why corruption is bad, the kind of damage it does, why we should all fight against it, why it is in our nation's interest we fight against it. i know in this statement she is talking about ukraine. but it is hard not to hear america in the background given what we are going through right now and given the revelations surrounding this impeachment and this administration. she says, quote, the revolution of dignity and the ukrainian's people demand to end corruption forced the new government to take measures to fight the ramped corruption. why is this important? put simply, anti-corruption efforts serve ukraine's interests. they serve ours as well. corrupt leaders are inherently
less trustworthy. while an honest leadership makes them more reliable and valuable to the united states. a level playing field, one with a european land mass succeeded by russia and one of the largest populations in europe creates an environment in which u.s. business are more easily trade and invest and profit. corruption officials are vulnerable to moscow. in short, it is in our national security interest to help ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check. to be clear, she says, ukraine is filled with many citizens and officials who want the very things we have always said we want for our own country, a government that acts in the interest of its people, a government of the people by the people and for the people. she then goes on to describe the circumstances under which she was ousted and the campaign that was run against her by conservative media, frankly, and by rudy giuliani and by these
two guys who have now just been arrested. she says i want to state that i have never myself or through others directly or indirectly ever directed, suggested or in any other way asked for any government or government official in ukraine or elsewhere to refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. equally fictitious is the notion that i am disloyal to president trump. i have heard the allegation in the media that i supposedly told the embassy team to ignore president trump's orders, quote, since he was going to be impeached. that allegation is false. i have never said such a thing to my embassy colleagues or to anyone else. contrary to other similar reports, she says, quote, the obama administration did not ask me to help the clinton campaign or harm the trump campaign, nor would i have taken any such steps if they had. and then she talks about her firing. after being asked by the department in early march to
extend my tour until 2020, i was then abruptly told the following month in late april to come back to washington from ukraine, quote, on the next plane. you will understandably want to ask why my posting ended so suddenly. i wanted to learn that, too, and i tried to find out. i met with the deputy secretary of state, john sullivan, who informed me of the curtailment of my term. he said the president lost confidence in me and added there had been a concerted campaign against me and that the department had been under pressure from the president to remove me since the summer of 2018. he also said that i had done nothing wrong and this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause. she says, i deported ukraine for good this past may. and then this was the part that somebody somewhere is going to get tattooed on them. although i understand that i served at the pleasure of the president, i was nevertheless incredulous that the u.s. government told to remove an ambassador on unfounded claims
by people with questionable motives. i have served this nation honorably for 30 years. throughout that time, i, like my colleagues at the state department, have always believed that we enjoyed a sacred trust with our government. we make a difference every day on issues that matter to the american people, whether it's war and peace, trade and investment or simply helping with a lost passport. we repeatedly uproot our lives and put ourselves in harm's way to serve this nation. we do that willingly because we believe in america and its special role in the world. we also believe that in return our government will have our backs and protect us if we come under attack from foreign interests. that basic understanding no longer holds true. today we see the state department attacked and hallowed out from within. state department leadership with congress needs to take action now to defend this great institution and its thousands of
loyal and effective employees. i fear that not doing so will harm our nation's interests perhaps irreparably. that harm will come not just through the inevitable and continuing resignation and loss of many of this nation's most loyal and talented public servants. it will come when private interests circumvent for their own gain. the harm will come when bad actors see how easy it is to use fiction to manipulate our system. the only interests that will be served are those of our strategic adversaries like russia that spread chaos and attack the institutions and norms that the u.s. helped create and which we have benefitted from for the last 75 years. i am proud of my work in ukraine. the u.s. embassy under if i leadership represented and advanced the policies of the
u.s. government. our efforts were intended and succeeded in forwarding corrupt interests in ukraine who fought back by selling baseless conspiracy theories to anyone who would listen. sadly, someone was listening. and our nation is the worse off for that. marie today denying the white house and the state department to give that testimony to the impeachment committees in the house after they subpoenaed her for that testimony. i mean, if there is still going to be a state department in this country, doesn't that make you want to be a foreign service officer? don't you want to grow up to be that nails whether or not you ever get to be an ambassador? but with this signal testimony today, this dramatic appearance today from the ambassador, let's be clear what's going on here. the impeachment inquiry against president trump is as district and simple as it ever was. the president is being impeached by the house of representatives because he tried to pull off this scheme in which he tried to get help against the democrats and against joe biden from a
foreign country. that is illegal. it is illegal to solicit a thing of value for a u.s. election from a foreign entity. the president has done that. the white house has proven it. the impeachment inquiry is about that. but what she shows us is not just how her story fits into this. but how that violation, both of american law and of the type of behavior that is expected of a president that will result in his impeachment for that behavior, how much that undercuts american interests at large. what her testimony shows us is this thing that is going to result in all of the evidence coming out, which is that the president couldn't pull this off alone. he did try to implement this through the u.s. government. as such we are seeing this dynamic in which people knew what was going on and people who
would not go along with it, people in the way, people who saw the illegality of the scheme, those people had to be removed. those people had to be pushed out and she put on this unbelievably display is exhibit a for that. we know more about that today than we knew yesterday. and it turns out after her there is a big, long alphabet out there and the rest of that came into focus today, too, including a real potential problem for a trump cabinet secretary who is not the one that just resigned within the last hour. it is a different one. lots to get to. that's next. stay with us. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything.
(vo) ♪ the subaru crosstrek. dog tested. dog approved. subaru establishes national make a dog's day. helping hard-to-adopt dogs find homes. aaddiction. how juuline hooked kids and ignited an public health crisis." other news outlets report- juul took $12.8 billion from big tobacco. markets e-cigarettes with kid friendly flavors and uses nicotine to addict them. 5 million kids use e-cigarettes. juul is "following big tobacco's playbook." and now, juul is pushing prop c to overturn e-cigarette protections. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c. beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network.
because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. today veteran public service officer, former ambassador to ukraine, testified to the impeachment committees despite orders from the white house and the state department that she should not. she testified about president trump ordering her removal as ambassador because her request for investigations or any other
thing having to do with law enforcement, those should be handled under proper channels. there is a proper and legal way for governments to work together on law enforcement issues. that is reportedly what marie insisted on when it came to ukraine. that would not do for the president with the help of his lawyer rudy giuliani and a couple of guys arrested the other night trying to flee the country. when she resisted the idea what they were requesting should be handled off the books and unofficially, she was taken out of her job. we learned today that was on the president's orders. of course, we now know that within days of her get out on the next plane departure from ukraine, which was demanded by president trump and apparently carried out by mike pompeo, within days of her departure from ukraine, you may recall rudy giuliani within days was on television bragging about how he personally was now headed off to
ukraine to go get some investigations started, which he hoped would be, quote, helpful to my client. giuliani made that announcement on tv, that he was heading off to get some investigations cooking that would help trump. that was within days of her being told to get out of ukraine by trump and mike pompeo. we know giuliani moved in on the embassy to enact this scheme in ukraine alongside the guys arrested this week. and alongside a different u.s. ambassador who was sort of detailed to this project alongside giuliani. the ambassador had no diplomatic experience whatsoever before his current job as ambassador to the eu which he got after he gave a million dollars to the trump inauguration. he funneled it through a few different llcs, but he did give the administration a million bucks. he apparently blurted out at a white house meeting that ukraine was going to need to cough up
some important investigations. he is the one who was pressing that ukraine needed to not just open investigations into joe biden, it needed to publically announce that it was doing so because that obviously would have a better political impact, right, if the public knew that those investigations were underway. he's also the trump administration official who, according to republican senator ron johnson, told him directly that president trump had a quid pro quo going with ukraine here in which their military aid would be contingent on them launching those political salient investigations that the president was demanding. so, yeah, they needed to get rid of yovanovitch who wanted to stand up on the rule of law for private or partisan political gain. she would not be the one you would want there while carrying
out that scheme. this is what "the wall street journal" was first able to report last night. it's now been matched by the washington post. they both are now reporting that career officials inside the white house who worked on budget issues reportedly raised the alarm that trump withholding this military aid to ukraine, we now know as part of this deal for trump to get help with his re-election from ukraine in exchange for that military aid. career officials inside the white house reportedly raised the alarm that withholding that military aid was illegal. we now know from "the wall street journal" and the washington post that in response to those expressed concerns by career white house officials, the white house took responsibility for the handling
of those military funds away from those career officials and they instead brought in a guy who was a trump guy, who had been the executive director of the wisconsin republican party. and they put him in charge instead of arguably illegally withholding those military funds. yahoo! news advances this story further today with a report that the pent gone, quote, went so far as to conduct its own legal analysis of the military aid being withhold. quote, determining that the holds were illegal. quote, a government official confirmed that such an analysis took place. so did several capitol hill staffers. they all described the conclusion of that analysis in similar terms, which is that it
was illegal for president trump to be withholding that money. of course you want your own guy in there to be put in charge of that illegal thing you are trying to do. so the career folks, the public servants, would no longer be in the way. we see that happen with the ambassador to ukraine, with yovanovitch being pushed out, recalled abruptly, and they put in the guys from trump world who will play ball. we see that happening in the white house, right, with the military aid illegally being withhold while the people that know that's illegal, they got to go. let's put in our own guy. even on the corrupt side deal alongside the effort to illegally enlist a foreign government in helping trump get re-elected, these guys who have now been arrested who were reportedly running this side
hustle in which they were trying to get the leadership change at the biggest natural gas company in ukraine, even in that instance on the side hustle they still wanted to install their own guys who would hook them up with contracts from the biggest natural gas company in ukraine. i mean, from the federal indictment of these guys, we know when they made than $300,000 illegal donation to the biggest pro-trump super pac, they made it look like it was from a natural gas company they invented. why would they invent a fake natural gas company to make this donation rather than doing it in their own names? well, the fake natural gas company may be connected to the fact they were also run ago side hustle where they were trying to take over and put their own people in charge of the biggest natural gas company in ukraine. again, in that side hustle, the same pattern holds, right, whatever purpose these guys had in mind for whatever they wanted to do with that company, right, you would want to get the real people out of the way, right? you want to get the people who might be doing the work, who
might be alarmed by your scheme, you want to get them out of your way. nbc news has a fascinating report in which they note that these guys who were working with giuliani, trying to take over this natural gas company, what they were trying to do was push out the existing ceo of that natural gas company in favor of somebody else who they wanted to install. the guy they were trying to push out was someone who, quote, had won high praise from u.s. and european officials for his anti-corruption efforts. right. we are starting to see how this goes. it's like a master class. if you are running a very big corruption scheme, you have to get the anti-corruption people out of the way. you have to get the not corrupt people out of the way. you have to get the people with integrity who know what is illegal out of the way. you have to get the ambassador fired, the white house employees pushed out. you got to get the ceo of the company who is there to make sure it is not corrupt. right? you have to get all of those folks out so you can install your own people and operate this scheme. the problem with all of this from tip to tail is that those
human beings you have to push out, they are people of integrity. the executives and officials and the anti-corruption folks, the people there to do a legitimate above board job, those people when you push them out, they turn into witnesses for what you did. they're alive. they can talk. they might even deny your orders not to talk. in behavior we saw modelled by marie yovanovitch today, they will deny orders by the white house not to speak and respond to a congressional subpoena to turn over what they know. now, one of the people for whom this is very bad news is the secretary of energy, rick perry. he appears to have connections to that effort to replace the leadership at that ukrainian natural gas company, to replace the people that were there, including the anti-corruption guy who was ceo, to replace that guy and others who were more to the likings of rudy giuliani's now jailed hench men. he also has said his department will cooperate fully with the impeachment investigation.
we shall see now that he has a subpoena on his own desk. it is also terrible news for mike pompeo, who was up to his neck in this before today, but now he is in a terrible position. he has decided his legacy here will be his efforts to try to block allstate® department personnel from testifying to the impeachment committees. as of today, that is not working. secretary mike pompeo, you can order them all you want not to testify. in response to duty issues subpoenas, though, they could still turn off. it was marie yovanovitch today. it will be fiona hill on monday. it will be george kent on tuesday. on thursday, it's going to be that trump donor guy that got sent in to replace yovanovitch and deliver the quid pro quo to the ukrainian government. he appears to have issued that
directive to the ukrainian government. after him, there will be more state department officials who are expected to speak, both in terms of depositions that are already scheduled and depositions we know are coming. mike pompeo's own role in this scheme for which the president is being impeached appears to be kind of a marquee thing now. i mean, it is -- it is not hard to imagine secretary of state mike pompeo being impeached for exactly what the president is being impeached for here. he is the one that carried out the president's orders to recall that ambassador, which is apparently part of this scheme, to clear the way for what trump was trying to do with ukraine. the state department apparently up to the level of the number two guy in the department was aware that yovanovitch had done nothing wrong. the state department put out this false statement that she was returning from ukraine as planned when, in fact, as they knew, she was being recalled
early because the president demanded it. for two weeks, mike pompeo tried to pretend publically he had no idea what had gone on between president trump and the ukrainian president on the call for which the president is being impeached. in fact, mike pompeo was on that call listening in to the entire thing, even though for two weeks he made it seem like he had no idea what might have happened there. i mean, mike pompeo today seeing this brave ambassador walk across the capital grounds, check herself in through and sit down for nine hours of testimony, seeing that ambassador deny his orders not to show up today, seeing her show up to say her piece, including releasing a blistering public version of her opening statement, i can imagine how today felt for mike pompeo. he might have thought he found a safe haven in his public schedule today. it was a religious freedom event in tennessee. that at least should be safe. he clearly did not expect to run
into local reporters who knew exactly what they were talking about who were absolutely red in on this subject, who knew what to ask, who wouldn't back down and were ready to -- ready to advance this story even when he would not answer. watch this from nashville. >> the announcement yesterday, one of your most trusted senior advisers resigned. he is adding his voice to a number of career diplomats who expressed frustration over what they see as your failure to stand up for government service and for servants like ambassador yovanovitch caught up in the ukraine controversy. did you do enough to defend the ambassador privately and publically against the smear campaign being waged against her? and will you speak to that now? >> maybe you have some of your facts wrong, so you should be careful about things you assert as facts before you state them. >> can you speak to michael mckinley's resignation? >> i don't talk about personnel
matters. >> did you support ambassador -- the ambassador being recalled months before her tenure was up? >> i supported every mission that the state department has been engaged in. >> in mid-february you were in warsaw. during your time there, did you meet with giuliani? >> you know, i don't talk about who i meet with. i went to warsaw for a particular purpose. >> so you're not going to say whether you met with him? >> so when i was in warsaw, i had a singular focus. my focus was on the work we have done. >> it sounds like you are not going to say. >> when i was in warsaw, we were working diligently to accomplish the mission. >> text messages show that diplomats under your authority told the ukrainians that the good relationship with president trump was only possible if they investigated his political opponents and theories about what happened in 2016. were you aware that this was happening?
>> again, you have got your facts wrong. sounds like you are working at least in part for the democratic national committee when you phrase that predicate of a question in that way. it is unfortunate. >> the reporter asking those questions was nancy amens, which is a local nbc affiliate in nashville. wow did she do a good job there. secretary of state mike pompeo, listen, can't answer questions from local reporters, not when everybody can follow this very straightforward story. secretary of state mike pompeo may find himself getting impeached here for how he has tried to cover it up since. mike pompeo tried to hide the fact he was on the call. he appears clearly now in an interview with nbc's affiliate in nashville tennessee, he appears clearly now to be trying to hide something about when and where he was meeting with rudy giuliani when the scheme was being hatched. did you in fact meet with rudy
giuliani in warsaw earlier this year before we all knew this scheme was underway? and everybody is trying to get as far away as they can from this, right? but with the first arrests, with not just one but multiple photos of the president and the vice president with these men who were just arrested and the president's eldest son with these men who were just arrested, with news about the white house dinner that president trump invited these men who were just arrested to just last year. that's him inviting them to the white house for a meeting, for a dinner meeting, right? i mean, this is a downward spiral at this point. the homeland security secondary resigned tonight. the energy secretary reck perry is facing a subpoena for his involvement in this. the secretary of state appears to be at risk of impeachment himself as he is multiply
implicated in the president's scheme that now appears to have turned roundly against him, including the resignation in protest of his number two last night. buckle up. i tell you, here we go. and this is going to be another weekend when the news does not stop. stay with us. ♪ ♪ head in now for applebee's new pasta & grill combos starting at $9.99.
diplomat and deserved better than the shabby treatment she received from this president and from the secretary of state. >> i just sat through eight hours that went like a new york second. it was that amazing, that powerful, that impactful and i just feel very fortunate to have been there. >> i think she is a courageous example for others, and i think all the members who are extraordinarily impressed with her testimony today. >> members of congress reacting to the testimony today from the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. if nothing else, her testimony today appears from the outside to have been thorough. she emerged from that closed door deposition after nine plus hours. she didn't get out until 7:40 eastern time. joining us now is tom melinowski. he was assistant secretary of state in both the state department and national security
council. thank you for making time tonight. i know it's been a long day. >> thank you so much. >> i was struck by the congressman said there about how it was eight hours that went like a new york second that he seemed -- he seemed moved by the testimony. how would you describe the testimony today? >> i agree. you know, we spent nine hours with a diplomat, a patriot of tremendous courage and integrity who answered questions honestly, thoroughly and who set an example today that not only should you obey a legally binding subpoena, but you can. you can be a career civil servant or foreign service officer and despite the president's efforts to deny you the opportunity to compel you to not testify to congress, you can. >> do you believe that she is at risk of retaliation or firing within the state department
because of her decision today to obey this subpoena? i know that the state department reportedly on orders from the white house told her not to come. when she got the subpoena, she did. are you worried for her career, for her future. >> she better not be at risk. what she did was to follow the rule of law, and she set an example for everybody else in doing so. and, you know, secretary mike pompeo has a decision to make. right now he is showing that he either will not or perhaps cannot defend his employees, his institution. and if he can't defend his employees and institution, he has no business being where he is. >> after your career at the state department, sir, including serving as assistant secondary of state, i wanted to talk to you tonight, if i could get to, in part for reaction to the news that that mr. mckinley at the state department has resigned essentially in protest of secretary mike pompeo's inability to stand up for career foreign service officers and other people caught up in there,
including ambassador yovanovitch. that struck me as an important resignation, the kind of thing we have not seen often during this administration for all of its controversies. what was your reaction to that? >> well, he is someone i know and worked with when he was ambassador to afghanistan. he is a model career public servant. i haven't spoken to him, but this is a widespread concern in the state department that the secretary either will not or cannot defend them. you know, it is not just about defending our employees. it is about defending our interests. every single person at the state department, up to and including secretary mike pompeo is living under the tweet of damocles. they can't do anything. they can't say anything for fear that the next morning there will be something from the president that undercuts them. so they are frozen. they are paralyzed. and, you know, we're seeing it play out in the turkey/syria situation. we're seeing it play out when perhaps even the secretary
wanted to defend ambassador yovanovitch but felt that the next day trump could tweet something out throwing her under the bus and him under the bus. you cannot run our diplomacy in this way. >> do you believe that secretary of state mike pompeo is himself at risk of impeachment because of the way that he has been involved in this scheme that the president is being impeached for now and because of his behavior since? >> look, i think his behavior is shameful. i don't think we are out to impeach the trump administration. we are looking at the conduct of the president of the united states. he is responsible for everything that we are talking about today, and it is our highest constitutional duty to hold him responsible because there is no other institution that can do. >> a veteran of state department and the national security council. sir, thanks for making time. >> thank you. >> all right. much more to come. stay with us.
when d'onald trump filed his first financial disclosure report as president in 2017, it turns out he left a little thing off. the president left off that disclosure form any mention of his own role in the illegal campaign finance scheme that sent his former personal attorney to federal prison, a scheme for which the president was designated individual one by federal prosecutors who said explicitly that he directed the commission of that felony. he was financially involved in that crime. federal prosecutors say he directed its commission, but he left off his financial disclosure form any reference to his financial connection to that. just sure it was an oversight. him leaving off that reference to his involvement in that felony and later correcting it to add reference, that led the oversight committee in congress to want to have a look at more of the information underlying the president's financial disclosures. you tend to get a closer look
when you are shown to have left a little bit out that might have been politically inconvenient for yourself. the committee wanted to look into whether the financial disclosure process itself should maybe be more rigorous now that we have presidents who have shown a propensity to not include the stuff related to their involvement in felonies. okay? that initial financial disclosure debacle, that is actually the simple history behind what was a body blow legal ruling against president trump in washington d.c. today. what "the new york times" calls, quote, the first test at the appeals court level of the trump legal team sweeping challenges to the constitutional authority of congress to conduct oversight of his activities. that first test at the appeals court today the president lost badly.
we affirm, contrary to the president's arguments, the committee possesses rules against the constitution to issue the subpoena and he must comply. that was a 2-1 ruling against president trump and his legal team at the federal appeals court level. today was a for ribl day for president trump in court on everything. his wall got blocked in court today. here is how pete williams described that ruling. a federal judge ruled friday that president donald trump violated federal law when he used his declaration of a national emergency. trump also today lost in three other federal courts in three different states where judges blocked his attempt to overhaul immigration policy so only immigrants with lots of money would be let in. trump lost his wall today. he also lost on that immigration change today, too, three times over. and none of those rulings i just
described today are about impeachment directly. but on the taxes one, the president has a couple of really big problems now here. separate and apart from getting one step closer to having to hand over his taxes, which he seems desperate to not do. he's lost all of the federal cases. he's lost all of those at the district level so far. now he's lost his first one at the appeals level as well. he will try the supreme court eventually, but this has not gone well for him. and even today it was two judges that voted essentially against the president and one trump appointed judge who voted in his favor today. she lost. but even her dissent today was terrible for the president. in her dissent today she said the subpoena should be quashed, the oversight committee is not within his rights. but it is because the proper way to get them would be through impeachment proceedings. quote, impeachment provides the
exclusive method for congress to investigate accusations of illegal conduct by impeachable officials, particularly with the aid of compulsory progress. they have recognized the brevity and accountability that follow impeachment. presidents have declined demands to produce documents for legislative purposes while acknowledges that the impeachment power might be treated differently. so this is the judge, the trump appointed judge, who voted trump's way today in that 2-1 ruling against him. even in dissent, she's making clear, hey, listen, though, if you are in impeachment proceedings, they could compel documents and testimony and witnesses. if you want to do that, you should try impeaching this guy. that's the dissent that went trump's way today. i mean, even when things go badly for this president in court, the closer you look at
it, the worse it is. we have just the person to talk to about the president's very bad day in court today joining us next. neil serveds a acting solicitor general in the obama administration. it is great to see you. thanks for joining us tonight. >> great to see you. >> so lawyers for the president have been trying to shield him from investigation by congress, trying to say that congress has no right to do that, trying to block access to his financial records. it is my sense he is losing all of these cases but today's loss might be a bigger deal. >> absolutely, rachel. you called it a bod by blow. and it is a bod by blow. there were several others as you mentioned today in the courts. the immigration loss and the other losses that he faced today. and i think basically you have got that and you have got congress really investigating the ukraine thing hard. altogether you have got a lot of phenomenon all against the president. i think it suggests really, you
know, what that great legal scholar twisted sister said, we're not going to take it anymore. you have congress and the courts say, uhn-uhn, mr. president. we have checks and balances in this country and you can't do all these shee thallegations. >> d. snyder is rocking out to that allegation you just made there. if my observation about what might be damage for president trump even in the dissent today, even in the single trump appointed justice who voted his way today, the importance of the impeachment process and its potency, i felt like that was no sap harbor for him and that might potentially auguster poorly for him as this goes up to either en banc or supreme court review. >> you are 100% on it, rachel. there is two problems trump has with the dissent. >> number one is this is not
really worth the paper it is printed on. it is unconvincing. to the extent he had hoped for some sort of rational that would buy him traction in the u.s. supreme court, i don't think he got it today. that's problem number one. problem number two is to the extent she identified a problem it was just a paper problem that congress hadn't used the magic word impeachment. but congress is heading toward using exactly that magic word. so you are exactly right in saying that even the dissent gives the democrats basically everything they want. and that's how it should be in our constitutional system. the president is asserting preposterous arguments that he can't be indicted or investigating because he is sitting president. now he is saying in this letter this week that he can't even be impeached. the only person in our history that's ever been like that is king george the third and that's what our revolution was against. even the dissent acknowledges
that. >> to have watched those arguments be made by the president and his legal teams has been sort of stunning to see. as you said, the court saying we're not going to take it anymore and pushing back did feel a big change. former acting solicitor general, sir, thank you for making time for us tonight. all right. we will be back. i am told we will be back with some breaking news. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. let's be honest, you need insurance.
but it's not really something you want to buy. it's not sexy... oh delicious. or delicious... or fun. ♪ but since you need both car and home insurance, why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%. which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like ah well i don't know what you'd wanna buy cause i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.
didn't i just tell you the news will keep breaking this weekend? in the last couple of minutes since we have been on the air, we got a new report from the new york times. one way, this is our fourth report, i think, that the cnn was first to report it. and they had similar reports. all of those have tied reported investigation into giuliani to the arrest and indictments yesterday of these two people he's been working on. been working with. they were arresting on campaign finance related charges. the "times" adds a new wrinkle. the headline is giuliani is said to be under investigation for ukraine work. then the description is specific. prosecutors are investigating whether the president's lawyer broke laws meant to prevent covert foreign influence on the government. that would imply that giuliani jue is under investigation. not necessarily or in addition to campaign finance related charges but also