doj gets brought in again. then rudy's under criminal investigation. the head at doj says, i didn't know that. i never would have met with rudy. doj and barr are all over this. >> this is a question for chuck rosenberg. what is the recourse when you have an attorney general behaving in this way, flouting all the whistleblower protection laws that are there for a reason so people do feel comfortable coming forward when they need to report wrong doing. and i agree with you though, that attorney general barr has got an pretty good pass, not totally because he has been under scrutiny, but he hasn't been under as much scrutiny because he isn't as sloppy. that interview last night did make me wonder. so what's going to be next for bill barr? >> your name has been invoked. >> i think there are a couple of avenue physical you don't trust the attorney general. mr. barr does not need anybody's help undermining anybody's reputation. there are institutions outside of the executive branch that can hold an attorney general accountable, the congress and the media. an

and let's not forget, he's wasting taxpayer money, not just doj time and it's insane, crazy. it's incorrodabredibly out of c. it's just going to continue. but like you said it works for his base. it gets them riled up. it's that red meat he throws out there to deflect. >> how does it land in the fbi to continue to investigate and reinvestigate after their predecessors come up with nothing? >> the power of prosecution inside of our system of government. the reason it's different from everything else government does is because at the end of the day someone can grow to jail, someone can have their liberty taken away. they all take this power very seriously. that's why in so many cases the public is frustrated when the fbi decides there is not a case or doj declines to prosecute. and that's because of the respect for people with individual lives and liberty. the fbi will feel vindicated by what john huber has done here. doing what they do best. standing up to a president who's tried to interfere in doj's work and needs to be told no, it's not tool for this president or any other

the staffers combed through more than 3.6 million internal doj records for five years. they document in excruciating detail the various torture, its effectiveness and the ways in which the cia misled the public about the use of what it called enhanced interrogation techniques. despite obstruction and opposition a detailed executive summary of the report was released back in 2014. the full report remains classified to this day. secretary pompeo took issue with the new film dramatizing all this which includes disturbing scenes of torture perpetrated by the cia. pompeo watched i watched "the report," fiction. almost immediately a number of people disputed pompeo. claim the film is, quote, fiction. quote, i agree with secretary pompeo that terrorists are bad guy as are the people that conducted barbaric acts of torture and then misled congress and the american people. i'm joined now by the man adam driver portrays in the film, daniel j. jones. the thank you for being with me. first, let me get you to respond to secretary pompeo since you were there for the real life events

after two years, a doj inquiry has not found a reason to lock her up. one more thing is next. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ whatever happens out there you have the hilton app. will the hilton app help us pick the starters? great question, no. but it can help you pick your room from the floor plan. can the hilton app help us score? you know, it's not that kind of thing, but you can score free wi-fi. can it help us win? hey, hey! we're all winners with the hilton price match guarantee, alright? man, you guys are adorable! alright, let's go lose this soccer game, come on! book with the hilton app. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 8

what did you make of him saying he's afraid of the doj? >> over the two parts of the interview his comments about william barr were among the things that kind of have stuck with me and kept me up. not only was he describing william barr as being fully apprised of what was going on in ukraine and mr. parnas said it was not at all surprising that the president on the phone with president zelensky said yeah, you need to do these investigation, parnas thought that was absolutely to be expected given the degree that -- given the degree of involvement that barr had of the scheme describing him as part of the team but then also once he arrested and charged federally in a department of justice federal indictment mr. parnas came to believe and came to worry that mr. barr was maybe the greatest threat to him not just because he was facing federal charges but because he believed and he thinks that other people in the president's immediate circle believe that president -- that turn general bill barr is essentially a weapon, is using the justice depart

we've seen the doj and attorney general role crumble before our eyes. i hope we're not seeing the intelligence community falling right in the president's trap of just enabling the demise our of democracy. >> if that doom's day ske nair yedescribe bide frank he's harassed the intelligence community privately and publicly. and famously on iran, on north korea. a "politico" report that intelligence agency officials don't want to testify in public on global security threats, asking the session be held in priechb private instead. might that be so it's not on cable news, heidi? >> another way to -- and it has been three years now, bullying campaign against our intelligence agencies, which only suddenly changed after the iranian hostilities situation. and this is just part of yes, a is a complete blockage of things congress isn't able to obtain. i know from my own sources, who were in kiev with ambassador taylor and with the ukrainian officials desperately trying to figure out what it was going to take to appease donald trump and get the release of those funds

it's complicated for congress and the doj to put that together. the democrats didn't want to spend a year working on impeachment. i don't think that's going to happen. >> betsy woodruff swan, great to see you. >> thanks for watching this live hour of msnbc. right now more news with my friend and colleague ayman mohyeldin. >>> a 46 million fund-raising haul in 2019 for president trump. as he kicks off a new year, he is facing some big challenges. in iraq, iran-backed militia members withdrew from the grounds of the u.s. embassy in bagdad. the defense secretary says he's not ruling out any further attacks from some of those involved. in north korea, president trump's diplomatic efforts appear to be falling apart. kim jong-un now suggests he will continue testing nuclear and long-range missiles and warns the world will soon see his new strategic weapon. on the domestic front, the impeachment fight looms with congress set to return tomorrow. it's still unclear when house speaker nancy pelosi will deliver the two articles of impeachment to the senate t

doj is arguing in court that the affordable care act is unconstitutional. a key element of the affordable care act is coverage for pre-existing conditions. today the president claimed on twitter he is responsible for saving coverage for pre-existing conditions. which is rich even for this president who does not have a strong tether to the truth. joining me now is policy editor and the executive vice president of the kaiser family foundation. benji, we were talking about this this morning. the president coming out and saying that he's saving pre-existing conditions when his doj is planning to throw the entire thing out and kill the coverage for pre-existing conditions. what's happening? >> so let's start with the obvious here. play tantly untrue. they have specifically argued pre-existing conditions and they were only arguing those should be thrown out, those protections. they backed legislation that would undermine or weaken pre-existing conditions protections depending on which version passed. now it's no mystery why the president would be talking like thi

this is kind of doj that he wanted at that point in time. it is hard to say. the other side of this, the vast hypocrisy, we have reached the event horizon of hypocrisy. there is no way to even catalogue, these demands for justice are being made by a person who was rebuked by new york state for the running of a charity. they can't run a clarity in new york state. the president's charity has been shuttered for financial malfeasance. >> you stay event horizon of hypocrisy. that is really something. we know from history that you do not need to actually win a conviction or imprison someone. war protesters, black civil rights leaders and over them for years was seen itself as not only a constitutional abuse but effective. >> i'm glad you brought the church committee. we talked about mccarthy, some other things. but the church committee is an important pivotal point. it is the intelligence committee being rein in the in the first time, since it got carte blanche. martin luther king, under the name national security, able to do anything. the excesses of j. edgar hoove

is okay if it hasn't fallen to the classic definition of a campaign contribution, and the whitewash doj investigation somehow makes anything and everything the president has done in terms of soliciting foreign interference legitimate. the president's counsel tonight in a sense gave a green light for that kind of behavior to continue. i hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail, but i think there was a dramatic step backwards in terms of protecting the integrity of our election. >> there were audible gasps on the democratic side when the president's counsel tried to claim that it's proper for anyone running for office in the united states to take information from a foreign country. >> then there was impeachment defense attorney alan dershowitz arguing yesterday that there was no fault until the president's interest in hunter biden because of joe biden's candidacy for president saying that there would be no issue if the president had called foreign investigation of burisma while in his second term. take a listen to this. >> the argument has been made that the president of the united st

bill barr right now is deciding whether bill barr should be investigated by the doj. i mean, that's how ludicrous this is. his name was come up repeatedly. we cannot sit here and say that he's committed a crime or not, but the fact is his name, his involvement, his participation has come up incredible ways including by the president enough times that he, bill barr, cannot be in charge of deciding whether any investigation going on in the department of justice should include him, bill barr. that is the most straightforward conflict of interest that there is. this may sound a little quaint, but, you know, we need justice to have the appearance of justice. so how is the american public ever going to trust any investigation now that comes out of the department of justice involving any of these people surrounding the whole ukraine matter? they can't because with bill barr at the helm and not recuse k himself and not even explaining why it is that he's not recusing himself. he puts out these little 100% false statements. that is completely inadequate and down the road i ass

we couldn't get the doj or ukraine to do it. we want the senate to do it. you're now saying that the senate should do crew yan's job and go ahead and interrogate the bidens? so now it's a branch on a foreign government? so you're saying the senate should now investigate the bidens. what's the purpose of investigating the bidens? to help trump get elected. all of this comes back to the threat of the next election and if they themselves do the things that threatens the next election they've proven donald trump to be removed because he's their associates for the next presidency. >> and both points are legal and logical. the logic being that viewers, americans who see this today as the president's lawyers are ready to come out for the first time and monday, they know that we didn't hear a a lot about ukranian corruption five years ago or three years ago or when this was all happening. you would understand the history unfolding here, they know that this all came up in the context of joe biden emerging. speak to us about the legal realm of what it means when you'

points to the fact that in any normal administration with a normal attorney general and a functional doj tier of leadership which we know be a s counsel investigating this sort of a situation. and impeachment only reaches the president right now. and to the extent that criminal allegations are raised by much of the evidence that is now public, prosecutors should be investigating this information. so maybe they did things that are criminal violations, maybe not, but there should be a full blown investigation. >> and i want to ask you about your favorite people, defense attorneys. the president named a bunch of them including alan dershowitz. he had an interesting take on the constitutionality. take a listen. >> abuse of power even if proved is november an impeachable defense. le tframers didn't want to give congress the authority to remove president if he abused power. they have to prove treason, bribery. >> and you are a student of mr. dershowi dershowitz. what is your take on this constitutional argument here about abuse of power as an impeachable removable offense? >> alan dershowitz w

now, that didn't seem right to me because i didn't think that was with what doj would be sayi. i don't have a transcript of the hearing. they don't have a transcript ready as far as i know. but doj said, this is a quote from the statement, "the point we made in court is simply that congress has numerous political tools it can use in battles with the executive branch. appropriations, legislation, nominations, and potentially in some circumstances even impeachment. for example, it can hold up funding for the president's preferred programs, pass legislation he opposes, or refuse to confirm his nominees." this is continuing their statement, "but it is absurd for chairman schiff to portray our mere description of the constitution as somehow endorsing his rushed impeachment process --" >> counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice. >> senator from connecticut. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk for the house managers. >> thank you. the question from senator blumenthal to the house managers, on april 24th, 2019, 1 day after the media rep

later, a household name from the russia scandal admits to giving the order that put the heat on two doj employees and their personal lives. laid it all bare in public as "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on this monday night. ♪ (sensei) beautiful. but support the leg! when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. but now i practice a different philosophy. quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. hey! more mercy. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. >>> senator mcconnell repeatedly promised the senators, the public, the press that his rules for the trial would be the same as the rules in the clinton impeachment. nothing could be further from the truth. a trial where there's no evidence, no existing record, and no new evidence, no witnesses, no documents -- that isn't a trial at all. it's a cover-up. >> john bolton sits atop the wish list for witnesses that the democrats and maybe, just maybe, a few brave republicans

later, a household name from the russia scandal admits to giving the order that put the heat on two doj employees and their personal lives. laid it all bare in public as "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on this monday night. >>> senator mcconnell repeatedly promised the senators, the public, the press that his rules for the trial would be the same as the rules in the clinton impeachment. nothing could be further from the truth. a trial where there's no evidence, no existing record, and no new evidence, no witnesses, no documents -- that isn't a trial at all. it's a cover-up. >> john bolton sits atop the wish list for witnesses that the democrats and maybe, just maybe, a few brave republicans want to hear from. but tonight "the washington post" is reporting, quote, trump's lawyers and gop allies in the senate are working to ensure bolton does not testify publicly. according to "the post," one option being discussed would be to move bolton's testimony to a classified setting. that proposal discussed among some senate republicans in recent days is seen as a final tool against bolt

the public perception of the mueller investigation, and we in turn will get your case dropped at the doj. >> that's how it began. >>> they were going to become lawyers to effectuate this trade? >> correct. >>> you were supposed to broker this? >> correct. >>> what's this $100,000 a month? >> that was expenses for them. >> you were suppose to do negotiate what they were getting paid? >> mine is not this there. mine was $200,000. >> what's that next line? is that the founder of burisma? >> yes. >>> what are you supposed to be getting from lanny davis and mr. firtash? >> supposedly john solomon said there was something in the case about that. >> so that's why this was all one conversation with mr. rudy giuliani. >> correct. >> announcing the biden investigation and talking about getting firtash off from this department of justice prosecution, these were connected? >> it was all connected. at the end of the day, the agenda was to make sure that the ukrainians announced the biden advance. >>> so a conservative journalist, john sol man, and two fox news lawyers, and rudy giuliani and lev parna

. >> all of our viewers have learned over the past few years, that the president as the doj memo lays out, cannot be indicted. so there is that factor as well. rick, thanks for coming in. jake sherman, good to see you. >>> thousands protest against gun control at virginia's state house. what is it like on ground there? we're going to go live. >>> plus two weeks until the iowa caucuses, and several about to be forced off the trail for a trial. the national press secretary for the sanders campaign will join me on how they plan to keep their candidate in the voters' minds. >>> joe biden's talk about the impeachment trial. the impeachment trial. good morning! oh no, here comes the neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass. >>> in its most forceful p

the documents being held by the doj, stuff we're not privy to. he's not showing us his full deck of cards. he's hoping the republicans will agree to this, and then say, we did exactly to the letter of the law knowing that's not true. i think that's part of the challenge. >> the precedent is that we have witnesses. >> that's exactly right. >> no matter how it happens. >> the president is -- when it's a trial, you have witnesses, here's the concern that democrats have, now that it's kicked over to mitch mcconnell, he can take in his three most vulnerable republicans and say, you guys, go ahead, vote for the witnesses, everybody else no. and then these guys can say, politically i voted for the witnesses but they're blocked in the end. >> you have seven in ten americans according to national polling. you can't find 7 out of 10 americans to agree on what day it is? how should democrats keep up this pressure play on republicans to get the so called fair trial to get what they want. >> sadly, because we had the break, and we had the bombing in iran, all

. >> and doj has denied -- >> they've all denied it. 100%. and it would be good to ask him how he knows, what exactly did he overhear in terms of phone conversations, what conversations did he have a rudy giuliani about the knowledge of these other people? because right now it's not clear but what is clear is that he is completely turned and he's painting a picture. they didn't try to hide this very well, of a conspiracy to sort of use the mechanisms of government to do donald trump a political favor. rudy giuliani, parnas and other and is we see the texts to prove it. >> thank you very much. >>> you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. thenot actors, people, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin with dupixent.

it was signed off by administrative lawyers and doj and otherwise. so we feel very good about the legal basis for this military operation. >> we have an array of experienced reporters in the region covering the latest for us. we're watching this morning as the funeral procession continues for iranian general soleimani. reporting live from iran, ali, describe the scene on the ground. i've never seen pictures like this of iranians out in the streets. >> reporter: hi, guys. yeah, emotions are runnings extremely high here in iran in the cities where quassam solemani's funeral procession is going on. hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have poured out into the streets to support us and soleimani, to support the government. they are all trying to get a glimpse of his coffin carried through various places on a truck. he was taken to the city. he was involved in. his body was then taken again hundreds of thousands poured out to pay their respects. an atmosphere here is being filled by shock, anger, fear and a sense of retribution. a very strong sens

ordinarily you'd say, well, the fcc, the fbi, the doj. it's time for local citizens to say, we don't want this station here. we don't want to listen to it. we don't want russian propaganda here. we want you out. >> and one more you weren't expecting on your dance card tonight. just around dinnertime tonight we learned 50 traumatic brain injuries suffered by american men and women in uniform during the rocket attack, the back and forth volley with iran. this is a whole new big number. this is the signature wound of our last two wars. >> well, we just finished talking about russian propaganda. the question we have to ask ourselves is, is this white house giving us propaganda about injured u.s. service members? why did it take so long? i understand fog of war. i understand they need to quantify the injuries. this has taken way too long for the truth to come out, and the credibility of our entire system is at stake. >> i hate what we have to discuss, but you're the best at it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> frank figliuzzi here with us

and i know as a doj loyalist, it pains you to have to criticize a sitting attorney general, i imagine. >> you know, when i joined the department of justice and was doing public corruption cases, i had friends who are cynical. they said, paul, you know it's going to be political. you know whatever administration is in power, they're going to go after the folks on the other side. that's not how it worked. i was there for the bush administration, for the clinton administration. in terms of our priorities, the way that we brought cases, it didn't matter the party. that's not true anymore. the attorney general now does not appear to represent the interests of the united states. he represents donald trump. so donald trump has the attorney general of his fantasies, but unfortunately that's not in the best interest of the united states. >> counselor, thank you for coming. it's always a pleasure. paul butler here with us in our new york studios. >>> coming up, new details about a very tense moment for our national security. we'll talk about it when we come back. dimitri's on it. eating right a

so it's not only bad for the president, it's bad for doj and looks like a cover-up, and that increases the pressure on mcconnell to do something for witnesses, which we need if we're going to have a real trial. >> the politics of this, look it's the cliche at this point. this is not a swing state senator, not an up for grabs senator but it is a window into the republican politics playing out here? >> i hate to be the guy who spits in the punch bowl, but what i think is going on here is this is all an internal democratic psycho drama. pelosi holds the impeachment documents from the senate to make a hold, schumer says we need to have a trial. mcconnell p mcconnell's just saying no and unless four or five republican senators, not two, not just collins and murkowski, but five go over to the other side and vote for witness and vote to change the rules to make it possible for democrats to get their way, none of this will happen. and i see absolutely no reason why whether or not it's a constitutional obligation, whether or not it makes the president look bad, the just security memos make him

to the public perception of the mueller investigation and we in turn will get your case dropped at doj so you won't get extradited to the united states anymore. >> yeah. >> mr. digenova and miss toensing were going to become his lawyers to effectuate this trade? >> correct. >> and you were supposed to broker this? >> correct. >> and what's this $100,000 a month? >> that was expenses for them. >> that's what you were supposed to negotiate that this is what you'd get paid? >> correct. >> were you getting paid in this interaction too? >> mine is not in there. they were getting a million dollars plus $100,000 a month on expenses. and mine was 200,000. >> and what is this here? what's that next line? is that the founder of burisma? >> zluceski and -- the ukraine ledger. yeah. >> what are you supposed to be getting about burisma and the ukraine ledger from lanny davis and mr. firtash? >> supposedly john solomon said there was stuff in mr. firtash's case about that. >> that's why this was all in conversation with mr. giuliani. >> correct. >> announcing the biden investigation. and talking abo

later, a household name from the russia scandal admits to giving the order that put the heat on two doj employees and their personal lives. laid it all bare in public as "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on this monday night. t for $14.99. choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure

this is the second time the doj has investigated comey-related leaks, and he's not the only trump critic under the investigation by the department. compensati ex cia chief john brennan is under secret any as part of john durham's investigation into origins of the russia inquiry. john brennan joins me now. [ applause ] >> i want to start on the reports, public reporting that the inquiry into the origins of the russia counterintelligence investigation being under sustain by john brennan inside the justice department has looked at you and been in contact with you and i'm curious what your reaction is. >> i think you meant john durham inside the justice department. i'm not inside this justice department. >> no, you are not. >> i don't know what to make of this. it is clear that this administration and this attorney general is trying to investigate individuals who may have annoyed mr. trump in the past. i have spoken to congressional committees in open and closed sessions. i have agreed to be interviewed by anybody in the department of justice. i have nothing to be afraid of and i will share

and the former doj prosecutor and mueller expert on constitutional law. later i mentioned a special report on rudy giuliani and why he has just been publicly snubbed by his all-star client donald trump. plus honoring the legacy of dr. martin luther king jr. we have that as well. i'm ari melber. you're watching "the beat" on msnbc. aisle in stores everywher. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours. {tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping] (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. [sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu. o

to the public perception of the mueller investigation and we in turn will get your case dropped at doj so you won't get extradited to the united states anymore. >> yeah. >> mr. digenova and miss toepsing were going to become his lawyers to effectuate this trade? >> correct. >> and you were supposed to broker this? >> correct. >> and what's this $100,000 a month? >> that was expenses for them. >> that's what you were supposed to negotiate that this is what you'd get paid? >> correct. >> were you getting paid in this interaction too? >> mine is not in there. they were getting a million dollars plus $100,000 a month on expenses. and mine was 200,000. >> and what is this? what's that next line? is that the founder of burisma? >> zluceski and -- the ukraine ledger. yeah. >> what are you supposed to be getting about burisma and the uk raip ledger from lanny davis and mr. firtash? >> supposedly john solomon said there was a case about that. >> that's why this was all in conversation with mr. giuliani. >> correct. >> announcing the biden investigation. and talking about getting fir fash off in

if i could just ask you what role doj has in the redactions, this is not privileged information. as you said, it was just embarrassing and part of the messaging. what would the case be for those redactions, legally speaking? >> so the department of justice releases the redacted versions, heavily redacted, some entire pages are blanked out on december 20th under a court order because they have been litigated by an outside group that wanted to see them for the public to be able to get some transparency. and the best argument on behalf of the department of justice is, well, some of the text that we blanked out is because it's internal deliberative processes. and not that it's otherwise national security or classified. the problem with the justice department's position would then be it was highly selective. they also then released some text in those emails and that text which they did not redact paints a very different picture, and the public would be entirely misled if they relied on just the un-redacted portions. there is no legal issue, all of that is the part that's behind the re

there was no doj investigation or special counsel investigation. it wasn't as if someone like ken starr handed us a package, said here's the evidence, now, you can take up a resolution, impeachment resolution because we have done the investigative work. we had to do that work ourselves. and they would have you believe that any subpoena you issue as part of oversight responsibility, that down the road reveals evidence that leads you to embark on an impeachment inquiry must be disregarded. that cannot and is not the law. it would render the oversight function meaningless. court after court that looked at the congress' power to issue subpoenas reached the same conclusion, and that is if you have the power to legislate, you have the power to oversee. here we have violation of impoundment control act, congress passes military spending, the president doesn't spend it, gives no reason, keeps it a secret, we're investigating that, that can't be more squarely within the oversight power of congress, to find out why aid we appropriated was not going out the d

but this former doj official said to me that there are no prior restraint issues. what does that mean exactly? >> this is an important discussion. i agree with david wholeheartedly. the prior restraint issue means the first amendment says you get to say -- you get to speak out in public and in this context, john bolton is also a private citizen. for the government to tell him what he can and cannot say goes directly to the first amendment of the constitution. now, does that mean there aren't legal consequences sometimes for saying some things as a government official, yes. he's a private citizen. this goes back to whether or not the government can tell him in advance you can't say things. executive privilege is a very weak one as we've talked about. it's not like national security secrets. as we talked about before on this very panel, if anyone knows what not to divulge, it's john bolton. i would reframe it a little bit from the way david framed it, not because i don't agree, but because i hope the way john bolton would think about this is i'm not the person decidi

they had all the evidence presented by doj by ken star. and they didn't have to fight battle for battle. they didn't have to fight for evidence from emails. from the state department. from the other cabinet agencies from the national security adviser. none of that obtained at the time. so you had the chief of staff and the former chief of staff as witnesses before the grand jury, ken star had all that material the first lady, hillary clinton testified before the grand jury. nobody was held back under any claim of executive privilege or other kinds of privilege. now, of course, the witness bet, the big bet on john bolton. i think that the bet that the democrats are making could turn out to be -- it does expose them to counterarguments that hunter or joe biden have to testify for republicans. but that could blow up in the republican's face as well. it could be embarrassing. it could be deemed nonmaterial by some of these republican moderate senators. and that could become a problem for the republicans. it's too early to see how that's going

is okay if it doesn't fall into the classic definition of a campaign contribution, and the whitewash doj investigation somehow makes anything and everything the president's done in terms of soliciting foreign interference legitimate. the president's counsel in a sense gave a green light for that kind of behavior to continue. i hope and flpray cooler heads will prevail but a dramatic step backwards in terms of protecting the integrity of our election. >> audible gasps when the president's counsel tried to claim that it's proper for anyone running for office in the united states to take information from a foreign country. >> this idea that you would take information from a foreign government seeking to impact an election and then weaponize that or use that because it may be credible is -- i've just never heard anything like that. i think it's absolutely unconscionable and i think we're in new territory. >> ah. jeremy bash, ukrainians died in the middle of this so-called drug deal that was going down at aid was being held up. i have to say that at this point, what the republican defense was

zelensky's chief aide, was basically saying, you want an investigation, please send us a formal request from doj, show us you're willing to stand behind the legitimacy of what you're asking, but ambassador volker was unable to provide that information. and that's why even though the white house meeting was so critical to ukraine, even though ukraine needed it so, so desperately, they still wouldn't make the statement with key additions. president trump's political investigations, which were solely to keep -- help his re-election and had nothing to do with foreign policy. president zelensky tried different ways to resist the pressure of becoming a pawn in u.s. politics, even though the oval office meeting was important, zelensky repeatedly tried to find a way around committing to the investigations that president trump demanded. or at the very least schedule it before taking any official action. this is what you saw in the negotiation over this statement in august, and this is why even president trump's second official act, withholding the white house meeting, was not enough to make ukraine do hi

if there was anything there, that's where you go to and you notice there is no doj investigation of them. for very good reason. there's not a scintilla of evidence. >> it's the only place you go, for an american president to go and ask for a credible thorough, thoughtful investigation is an american law enforcement agency. we would never ask another country to investigate u.s. corruption. they may assist because there's witnesses or documents overseas. that would be coordinated through the department of justice and the lead investigationive agency would be the fbi or the cia. >> that's the tip of the story line for john bolton. >> the question, though, do we -- do we put too much on that particular plate because everyone is making i think some assumptions about the book and what's going to be revealed in the book. we don't know how much he really gets into the narrative. everyone gets ramped up about the fact that he raises his hands we don't know fully how he's going to relate this narrative to us. and i think from one perspective, republicans don't want to take that risk, which is why

and my heart broke, because i watched not one but two doj lawyers, one in the mcgahn litigation and one in the unredacted mueller report and grand jury litigation, and they both argued for positions that were designed to continue to cover up trump's crimes. these are department of justice lawyers. when i went in there to argue, everything i said and did was with a view toward law and order and representing the interests of the american people. that's my job as a prosecutor. that's their job. and yet, in the mcgahn litigation, they argued, no, no, no, congress should never hear from don mcgahn. why? because don mcgahn can prove obstruction of justice by the president when he said, "fire the special counsel." oh, you won't? create a false document saying i never told you to fire special counsel. they also opposed the unredacted mueller report and supporting grand jury materials which will show further obstruction of justice by the president and our department of justice lawyers are arguing in favor of a continued cover-up. >> yep. >> that breaks my heart. it makes me angry. >> it's their

though the assignment has not formally ended, no official notice has been sent to the doj and lawmakers, current and former officials told "the washington post" the investigation was largely over with and investigators found nothing worth pursuing. former federal prosecutor glen ke kir issuener. it's been going on for two plus years now. i gather from reading these reports focused on the clinton foundation and other things as always seems to be the case when the clintons are concerned. your reaction to this, the fact that it has ended and not formally. what does that mean? >> so david, you know, john huber, the u.s. attorney out in utah had the unenviable task of looking into all things hillary clinton. the clinton foundation, uranium one, her e-mails. and this is an investigation, if i can call it that, that has been run by a republican department of justice starting under then attorney jeff sessions and continuing under attorney general bill barr's tenure, and after about three years of nfginvestigating, u.s. attorney john huber apparently came up with exactly bub kis, no misconduct,

a doj statement reads this way overnight "the "new york times" account of this conversation grossly mischaracterizes what attorney general barr and mr. bolton discussed in respect was no discussion of personal favors or undue influence on investigations nor did barr state that the president's conversations with foreignimpro" the book as drips and drabs come out points to a former national security advisers in john bolton willing to open it up, willing to glow theo there and reveal everything he knows? >> right. i think the bolton book raised the cost to senate republicans considerably, blocking witnesses and testimony. it was already rising, but this is now a fight over the fate of the senate in november. i think everyone understands what will happen with the president, in impeachment and conviction. what we're fighting about now, what record is left behind for voters to evaluate what kind of job the senate did on impeachment. and it's going to get harder and harder for senators to walk through congress and give these various excuses to reporters, it was immaterial. how come the house didn't get it?

the doj said, no, no, no. they're not true, but you know, where lev parnas gets corroboration from president trumps himself. told us to read the transcript. it says president zelensky follow-up with bill barr. if this continues that the senate and the house they want to do to bill barr what they did to president trump. that is impeach him. >> hey, wanted to follow-up on the trial in the senate especially notion of executive privilege. we know john bolton has signaled he would be willing to testify if witnesses were allowed and honor his subpoena. is that something the president and the white house could try to block and then as a part two of that, say lev parnas is involved, executive privilege would not apply there. correct? >> correct. he was not part of the administration. also, all of this stuff waived. it's limited what is left over for executive privilege. john bolton can testify and give us the goods. after all he's going to release it in his book. this whole thing about executive privilege is a stall t

specifically he could have asked the doj to make an official request for assistance through the mutual assistance treaty. it is worth noting the president only cares about hunter biden to the extent that he is the vice president's son. therefore a means to which to smear a political opponent. president trump specifically mentioned vice president biden in asking for the removal of the former prosecutor on that july 25 call. that is what he wanted. not an investigation into hunter biden. this is yet another reason that you know there is no basis for investigating vice president biden. can we get slide 52 up? the timing shows clearly that despite the fact that the conduct occurred in 2015 it wasn't until vice president biden began consistently beating trump in national polls in the spring of 2019 by significant margins that the president targeted biden. he was scared of losing. the president wanted to cast a cloud over a formal political opponent. this was not about any genuine concern of wrongdoing. the evidence proves that. this was solely about the president wanting to make sure that h

in justifying its view, that a president can't be held criminally liable while in office, doj relies on congress' ability to impeach and remove a president. but the justice department's rational it falls apart if the constitutionally specified impeachment process can't function because the president himself has obstructed it. the supreme court correctly noted in nixon versus fitzgerald and that's not richard nixon, it's judge nixon, that vigilant oversight by congress is necessary to, quote, make credible the threat of impeachment. the president should not be treated as immune for criminal liability because he's subject to impeachment but then be allowed to sabotage the impeachment process itself. that's what this president did. that places him dangerously above the law and beyond the separation of powers. presidents can't be above the law. presidents like everyone else must obey subpoenas served in an impeachment inquiry. in 1880, the supreme court explained, quote, where the question of such impeachment is before either house of congress acting in its appropriate sphere on that sub

peggy noonan, andrew weissman senior fbi official and former head of the fraud section at the doj, now an msnbc legal analyst. andrew, if this were a courtroom, it seems to me if you knew somebody had submitted a manuscript, wasn't there a policeman out in los angeles during the o.j. trial where everything was about what he did on a transcript of some sort of pitch for a movie script? >> you would get two subpoenas. you'd get a subpoena for the author, and you'd get a subpoena for the manuscript and you'd get both. they would both come into evidence in this case. >> there's no executive privilege piece here if you went to the publisher, is there? >> you could go to the publisher. i think the president could still make an argument to the extent executive privilege applied. i think the issue would be i don't see how executive privilege is going to apply in this context. >> they wouldn't enjoin the publication, in other words, they would allow the publication but they might assert executive privilege on testimony. >> it would be extremely hard to prevent publication. the first amendment w

any questions about whether or not he committed a crime has been answered that the doj hasn't opened on him. >> let's introduce our guests from this hour, claire mccaskill, former assistant u.s. attorney maya wiley and former member of congress carlos carbello. let's check in with garrett haake. >> reporter: there's so much uncertainty up here today. it's interesting, when the senators left on saturday, it seemed like this trial was on a glide path to concluding sometime earlier this week. the white house lawyers had given republican senators just enough to hang their hat on. they felt like they were going to be able to get through this with a couple of defections on witnesses and every moment since the first john bolton book manuscript revelation has come out has injected more and more uncertainty in this process. in the last 24 hours we've heard all of these ideas start to spring up out of the republican caucus for how to deal with this, perhaps they could subpoena a copy of the manuscript, they could do this in a closed session, perhaps we could trade witnesses, one for one, all o

there was no criminal investigation at doj. no special counsel, they were forced to act without fbi agents or without resources to do an investigation and you never have to call all of your witnesses in front of the grand jury. that's what happens in trial. and the senate has successfully done this narrative that doesn't conform to how our justice department works. >> it's a bigger challenge for democrats is deciding how to use the guy night oversight -- finite oversight that they have. if they work on this over the next few months, they invest the capital and the time that staffers have into that there's a whole host of other topics that ire not looking at. remember the iran situation, what else is going on in the intelligence community that may have nothing to do with eastern europe like the trump administration is shaping. it comes with a cost working on this project and they have to decide how are they going to use their finite resources. >> and the elizabeth warren question that put chief justice roberts on the spot in whi

doj looked at it, looked at the statute, analyzed it, termed there -- determined there was no violation and closed it. announced that months ago. when something is sent to department of justice to examine, you can't call that a cover up. everything here was done correctly. the lawyers analyzed the law. the complaint was sent to the appropriate person for review. it was not within the statute that required transmission to congress, and everything was handled entirely properly. so again, actually extraneous to matters before you, there's nothing about this, these two points in the articles of impeachment, but it merits a response when reckless allegations are made against those at the white house and department of justice. and with that, mr. chief justice, i'll yield back time to mr. sekulow. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, house managers, members of the senate, what we're involved in here as we conclude is perhaps the most solemn of duties under our constitutional framework. the trial of the leader of the free world and duly elected

in the executive branch gets a subpoena, it's open season for creative orders in the white house and doj to start inventing theories about house rules and parliamentary precedent. this is not how the separation of powers works. and to accept that argument would wholly undermine the house and senate's ability to provide oversight of the executive branch. it would also make impeachment a novelty. the president argues that there was no resolution fully authorizing the impeachment inquiry. but again, there is no requirement for the full house to take a vote before conducting an impeachment inquiry. president trump and his lawyers invented this theory. as chief judge howell of the u.s. district court in d.c. has stated, and this is a direct quote, this claim has no textual support in the u.s. constitution or governing rules in the house. the constitution itself says nothing about how the house may exercise its sole power of impeachment. but instead confirms the house shall have the role -- the sole power to determine the rules of its own proceedings. this conclusion is also confirmed by prece