committee subpoenas full mueller report. transcript: 5/8/19, the last word w/ lawrence o’donnell.
Lawrence O\'Donnell, MSNBC host: Great Rachel McDonough, good evening.
I was just watching a tweet from historian Kevin cruise.
Actually, I forwarded this and I want to read it to you.
Rachel maddow, MSNBC host: Okay.
O\'Donnell: it says.
In the past 24 hours, we have learned that the president is capable.
The dollar loser, his biggest gospel supporter, has covered up an apparent sexual scandal in which his justice minister faces charges of contempt in the house, and his son has been summoned by the Senate for the past 24 hours.
Now, I have not been able to cover all of this.
But between us, we have. MADDOW: Yes.
O\'Donnell: You successfully finished Falwell\'s story last night and I have to tell you, Rachel, I\'m staring at it and I\'m trying to figure out how to get close to it and I\'m just-I can\'t.
I think, you know, I will wait for the next day of the story if there is one.
It turned out to be a mess with the summons and-MADDOW: though, I mean, because now the Washington Post has published the real audio of Cohen describing this horrible picture, so the next day.
I mean, it\'s like the way we live.
Like, instead of sitting down for dinner every day, we arrive at the 17-mile buffet table.
Like, what are you going to do?
Where do you start?
How do you prioritize?
I mean, I can do it for an hour tonight on Falwell\'s story, but the other things are the same.
O\'Donnell: But that\'s what I want you to do.
I look at storiessess sometimes and I say it is not appropriate.
It is not suitable for this place.
But somehow, it\'s in these two hours.
Right there. MADDOW: Yes.
O\'Donnell: Rachel, that\'s what I\'m counting on.
That\'s why I depend on you.
We need each other, Lawrence.
O\'Donnell: You know, on the phone, we\'ll fill in all the rest.
I will talk to you about this in the morning.
Thanks, Rachel.
She\'s the best.
We showed you footage of Lindsay Graham and other Republicans during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
We \'ve shown you some extraordinary videos that show you how much those Republicans have changed on the issue of the principles they claim, they were trying to impeach a Democratic president.
Every Republican now in the House and member of the House who voted to impeach or remove Bill Clinton are now using a completely different set of principles to defend President Trump.
But at the end of this hour tonight, you will meet someone who agrees with the president of the United States about obstructing justice and crime.
A prosecutor accused Bill Clinton of obstructing justice now thinks President Trump is guilty of obstructing justice.
The prosecutor will join us at the end of this hour.
But first on Capitol Hill
A summons was issued but refused.
The summons denied by Attorney General William Barr was the subject of the House Judiciary Committee\'s vote today against the attorney general\'s contempt of Congress.
But at the end of the day, two new subpoenas were issued with bipartisan support, one from the Senate Intelligence Committee and one from the House Intelligence Committee.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Richard Burr, summoned Donald Trump Jr.
Testify to the intelligence committee
Yesterday, the Republican leader of the Senate spoke in the Senate and declared the case closed.
Today, the Republican leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr.
This is the first time a member of the Trump family has been summoned in an investigation into the president.
Tonight, our first guest, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Shif, with the support of his committee Supreme Republican, devonnes, issued a summons to the attorney general, William P.
Barr requested documents and materials relating to the investigation of special counsel Robert Miller, including all counter-
Intelligence and foreign intelligence materials generated by the special adviser during the investigation, complete unedited reports and basic evidence.
The showdown on the summons is scheduled for a week from today.
Wednesday, May 15 is the deadline, and Congressman Shiv will meet with lawyer William Barr.
After the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of William Barr\'s contempt of Congress on a partisan line on 2016, the date for the whole House to vote in contempt of Congress\'s resolution was not fixed.
We will ask President Pelosi if he wants House Speaker Pelosi to postpone the vote on contempt of Congress until Democrats see the attorney general\'s response to the new intelligence committee summons.
Quoting President Schiff, in a statement announcing the summons, he described sincere efforts to reach a settlement with the Minister of Justice.
But, quoting this sentence, the department has repeatedly verbally praised the importance of a meaningful accommodation process, but it has only responded to our efforts with silence or blatant resistance.
Chairman Jerry Nadler tells a similar story about dealing with Justice Department William Barland. (
Start Video Editing)REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY)
: The Department of Public Information suddenly announced that if we make a motion today, it will require President Trump to invoke what it says as a protective assertion of the administrative privilege of all materials subject to our summons.
It took a dramatic step just a few minutes ago.
In addition to the principle of abuse of administrative privilege, since the White House gave up those privileges a long time ago, and the department seemed willing to share the material with us yesterday, the decision marks a clear escalation of the situation and a blatant revolt by the Trump administration over the duties of the Constitution of Congress.
I hope this department will think better at the end.
Minutes of outbreak, back to negotiations. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Republicans spent hours today in committee meetings, relying on chairman Jerry Nadler\'s summons to the unedited Miller report, a completely false point of conversation, will force the Minister of Justice to publish major legal information that has been edited and must be retained according to law.
The summons of president Nadler was very clear about this. (
Start Video Editing)
NADLER: what we are asking for is that the department, together with us, petitioned the court to determine whether we should have access to these materials (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: it doesn\'t stop every member of the community from leaning towards the same lie for a few hours. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified male: What we are doing here is forcing the attorney general to break the law.
Unidentified women: Democrats and chairman Nadler and this committee have asked the attorney general to break the law. Break the law!
To announce the grand jury to Congress.
Unidentified male: He must break the law in order to comply with the summons.
He must not obey the summons if he abides by the law. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: to prove that this is not true, Democrats accept the Republican amendment, which clarifies that the grand jury information will not be subject to a subpoena unless the federal court approves the release of this information.
Republicans on the committee don\'t seem to feel the importance of history as Democrats do. (
Start Video Editing)
Nadler: nothing is more important than trying to take the full power of the executive from Congress, and more importantly, away from the American people.
For a long time, we have been discussing how to solve the constitutional crisis.
We are inside now.
We are now in a constitutional crisis. REP.
Kelly Armstrong (R-ND)
If we use phrases, I use cart before the horse. (END VIDEO CLIP)
That\'s Kelly Armstrong.
He is the only member of the house in North Dakota, because although North Dakota is larger than the entire state of New York, the entire population of North Dakota will live in the Jerry Nadler district of west Manhattan.
Jerry Nadler and Kelly Armstrong represent the same number of people, but the way they treat their work is very different.
In American politics, there is no easier job than being a Republican member of the North Dakota House, and KellyArmstrong certainly makes it look easy.
Here, he is voting for the justice minister to defy Congress. (
Start Video Editing)
Woman: Sir.
Reschenthaler voted againstMr. Cline? REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): No.
Woman: Sir. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong? REP.
Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): No.
Woman: Sir.
Amsterdam voted no. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: It\'s hard to see who works harder, Kelly Armstrong or Donald Trump.
Today we are talking about Adam Shiff, a Democratic congressman from California.
He is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Congressman HIFF, your summons for tonight, seems to have bipartisan support in your committee with Devin Nunez.
How did you take a non-partisan approach to the summons when the judicial council could not? REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA)
: Well, this may be the last place you think this will happen, but, you see, you know, the top member has his own reasons to want to get potential behind the report
We have our reasons for the convergence of our interests in order to ensure that the Justice Department complies with the law.
As we all know, it is a statutory obligation to provide all foreign intelligence,intelligence.
This is not discretionary. we decide on the basis of information.
We may have to go the same path as the judicial committee in our committee if the Justice Department is against the blockade and makes this one pass by the broad line in support of the claim to enforce privilege.
O\'Donnell: Do you feel that Devin Nunes is looking to find all these things that he has suggested for a while, these things are all about the beginning of frussy\'s interference in the election, in this story, there may be something in the eller ueller report that can do a lot of damage to Democrats?
HIFF: Well, I believe his motivation is not to expose the president\'s evidence of obstruction of justice, nor to expose all the interactions and collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
I don\'t think he came from there.
But you see, I told him to talk.
I\'m just glad we have enough support to force the department to comply with the law.
At the end of the day, it\'s not just the president, it\'s not just the investigation.
The point is whether Congress can do its job, and if a government is corrupt, corrupt or incompetent, it can be exposed and corrective action taken.
If we can\'t do thata-
For Donald Trump, this means that every president who follows him will be equally above the law.
O\'Donnell: So, what does your summons mean for the time when the resolution we just saw from the Judicial Committee today was voted in the house?
Shiff: Well, the strength and strength of our summons depends on the legal basis that is different from the judicial summons.
So we have the National Security Act, the Patriot Act, and other provisions that require the department to give these materials to Congress.
We have the applicable grand jury exception.
We do not need to start the process of criticism, nor do we need to hold a plenary meeting of the impeachment process.
They need to provide this information.
So we have an independent case to do, which, if necessary, gives us an alternative argument in court as to why these materials need to be provided.
So, we move on.
I think it\'s harder for the chairman and rankingmember to complete this office and partisan activity when they ask for department-O\'Donnell: Do you know when the House will vote on the Justice Department\'s grown-up motion?
Shiff: You know, I think a lot of these issues have come to a peak in the various committees, and I think, if there are multiple resolutions, at least it makes sense to consolidate the dates on which we deal with these contempt resolutions, so they can rule once and we don\'t take the time to re-hear the issue every week.
But at the end of the day, we will use the necessary mechanisms to ensure that we can supervise.
We may have to look at whether the core process is too long in terms of using congressional inherent contempt for power.
We may be looking for funds for these institutions so that they can use them before they comply.
We will have to use any tool we can use.
O\'Donnell: On the day after Senate Majority Leader caseloz said, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was dissatisfied with the president\'s son, what do you have about what happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Hef: Well, look, I think in the Senate Intel Committee, they don\'t want to be messed up by these witnesses.
When they have someone-there is a question about authenticity there, if that is the problem, or there are more facts that have been exposed and they need to explore and they feel like they are running around, they will take action to get people in.
This should be the case.
You know, we have concerns about Xiao Tang.
Our testimony on the committee, we have concerns about others.
We can bring back some of our previous witnesses.
Others like Eric springs, we chose not to bring back, we chose to seek potential perjuryprosecution from the Justice Department, but we are doing these analyses now.
O\'Donnell: So in Eric Prince\'s case, you believe what you saw in the Miller report, and what you saw in his transcript, did you see the perjury?
You know, Prince\'s testimony is clearly false before our committee and we feel the need to submit to us what he told us and what was disclosed in the special counsel\'s report, and display side by side.
He told us that it was a coincidence that his meeting with the Russian state banker, demytriyev.
He happened to run half the way around the world, met the Seychelles, met the man in a bar, which the Crown Prince invited him to the meeting.
He said the number of meetings he had, he said his topic, did he inform the meeting in advance, all in contradiction with Miller\'s report, it was by witnesses and Prince himself who spoke with Miller.
Now, there may be some issues as to whether witnesses and testimony can be prosecuted because of their acceptability or availability, but nonetheless, testimony is so insignificant that we feel it is necessary to cite it.
O\'Donnell: Do you feel the need to hear from little Donald Trumpagain?
Will you call little Donald Trump? ? SCHIFF: We may.
We have not made this decision yet.
We are looking at which of the most important witnesses are brought back in the first place, and which witnesses can provide more clues?
We have had this dilemma with other witnesses as well, and we don\'t think they are very real.
Do we bring them back and give them a chance to clarify their story or do we recommend them or do we have any other purpose to bring them back?
O\'Donnell: What is your schedule for these decisions?
Shiv: You know, we are making them a constant basis, so we have reached out to the witnesses.
We start with what we think can reveal the problem.
We are now dealing with other resistance people and we are trying to reach an agreement for them to let them in to testify before we have to force them.
So all of this is in progress, and most of it is out of the public eye.
Donald Trump Jr.
There are a few things.
First, he told Congress that he rarely participated in the Bugle building in Moscow.
Michael Cohen said he was involved and that he had talked to him at least 10 times during the campaign.
It\'s a possible change, little Donald Trump\'s different's testimony.
The other is that in Miller\'s report, Michael Cohen said he heard the voice of Donald Trump Jr.
Before the meeting, he told his father about his meeting with Russians at Trump Tower.
This is also true of Mueller\'s report.
It\'s not about Donald Trump.
When he asked the committee, he said to any committee.
Do you want to clarify these areas with Donald Trump?
Shiff: You know, these are certainly some of these areas.
One of our questions with Don Jr.
He refused to answer all the questions.
This is not the case with Don Jr.
Steve Bannon did the same thing, Corey Levandowski, Hope Hicks, there are a lot of questions that these witnesses refuse to answer.
This again proves how false Bill Barr is to talk about the president\'s cooperation in the investigation.
These witnesses often tell us that they will not answer questions, as instructed by the White House.
We ask them, are you maintaining some kind of privilege?
They would say, no, we\'re just being asked to be basically uncooperative.
So we don\'t get any answers about these areas.
For others, the answer we get is that we have serious questions about their authenticity.
O\'Donnell: We should remind the audience that it\'s time for the Republican Party to control.
The rules for these interactions are basically set by the Republican majority in the committee, and no one is subpoenas.
They can all get up and walk out of the room if they want.
You know, yes.
The most vivid example is SteveBannon who came in-when he came in, he was no longer Breitbart, he was no longer in support of the White House, so when umbraj refused to answer the question, the Republicans accepted him.
They felt that they had no reaction to the investigation and it looked like they were serious.
He refused-they actually summoned him on the spot, but when we tried to get them to execute the summons, he was sentenced to contempt because herefused answered the question, which was a bit too
It shows how willing they are to go through its presentation, a presentation of a survey, but there is no reality when it comes to convincing answers to questions.
O\'Donnell: President Adam Shiff, thank you very much for joining ustonight.
Shifu: Thank you.
O\'Donnell: It\'s a very important night to have you here.
Really grateful.
They were approaching Trump\'s tax return when we came back.
The New York Times is coming soon.
The New York State Legislature is closing.
The chairman of the House fundraising committee is about to close taxes on Donald Trump. That's next. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: The New York Times revealed the day after Donald Trump had not paid taxes for several years, and he praised him for paying taxes in Florida tonight. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: invisible people, you know what you are, you are the smartest, you are the hardest, you pay taxes, these are what you do(END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Who can forget that Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of not paying taxes, saying it meant he was smart. (
Start Video Editing)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Former presidential candidate: maybe he doesn\'t want the American people to know that he doesn\'t do anything about federal taxes, because the only years anyone has seen are years, when he tries to get a casino license, he had to hand them over to state authorities and they showed that he did not pay any federal income taxes.
It made me smart. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Donald Trump didn\'t tell the truth tonight, he said that the person paying taxes is the smartest person, but the person who is smarter than Donald Trump is now approaching his tax.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neil has put forward legal requirements for Donald Trump\'s tax, which has unique authority in accordance with the law.
He either gets these tax returns at the end of the long court battle, or on the afternoon of the next inauguration day, when a unnamed President Trump is sworn in on January 20, 2020, about a year and a half from now on.
The New York Legislature is trying to help Congress bypass the abill, which reflects federal law passed today in The New York State Senate.
It states that New York state will provide any New York state tax return requested by the chairman of the house method Committee or the chairman of the Finance Committee or the chairman of the Joint Tax Commission.
This is a mirror of federal law that President Neil has been using to obtain Trump\'s tax returns.
The bill is expected to be passed by the State Council.
Governor Andrew cuomo said he would sign.
The New York state tax return reflects the federal tax return.
They contain a lot of the same information, so Neil May is now only a few weeks away from getting Donald Trump\'s New York state tax return, which is almost as notable as his federal tax return.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is another big step closer to Donald Trump\'s tax return, which they reported last night on the 10-year IRS record of Donald Trump\'s tax information, it shows that Donald Trump has a billion dollars in a decade, eight of which have not paid taxes.
The Times article cites the IRS director of research, analysis and statistics Mark Mazur\'s article on the accuracy of the IRS transcript.
Mark Mazur will join us in a moment.
House Speaker Pelosi commented today on the New York Times report. (
Start Video Editing)REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
: However, it does tell us that it is useful to see his tax return, as the law says.
The administrative department shall give it.
It does not say that, in some cases, must, should, can.
It will provide these tax returns to the chair.
It\'s all legal and precedent-
When we move forward, there are several options for doing the right thing.
One of them is direct court. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Oddennell: now we are joined by Congressman Lloyd Dogen, a senior member of the House approach committee.
He\'s a Democrat in Texas.
Mark Mazur joined us as well.
He was the head of research, analysis and statistics for the IRS, and he was the assistant minister of finance for tax policy.
He currently works at the Tax Policy Center.
Senator Dogan, I want to start with you.
It looks like the New York State Legislature might give you some help and the help you got from the New York Times last night. "REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX)
: Well, of course, the New York Times report shows how loser the president is, and he shows in business the same negotiating skills he recently demonstrated with North Koreans, it points out why we really need these rewards because there are a lot of lies here, and a lot about if the president doesn\'t do his part and does not do his part, how Americans have confidence in the tax system.
As far as the New York operation is concerned, I think it is important.
I\'m glad they\'re doing it, but there\'s other information, working papers, audits, questions about whether or not he\'s being audited, we need to accept directly the important requests made by President Neil under section 6,103rd or section 6,103rd.
Mark, actually, I want to call you Sir.
Because the last time we talked was when you were assistant secretary of tax policy a few years ago, you were in the Treasury\'s Office.
There are too many problems to deal.
First of all, I learned from the New York Times report that your reference to the IRS transcript.
I don\'t know, in fact, that the IRS has these documents.
Who took those documents?
In addition to the IRS, the New York Times can also obtain these documents from other sources, right?
Mark Mazur, former assistant secretary of tax policy at the Treasury: Yes.
The documents are available to taxpayers.
They can request these photos from the IRS.
Basically a summary of your tax return.
Some people may keep their tax returns and ask for transcripts.
Sometimes the lender asks for a transcript.
If you get a mortgage, the mortgage company wants to know what your income is.
They might ask you to get atranscript and hand it over to o\'o\'donnell: It\'s a simpler set of documents that can show tax information for more years than just one
Mazur: Well, the transcript shows once a year. O'DONNELL: Yes.
Mazur: you can get a bunch and put them together.
O\'Donnell: How accurate are those transcripts?
Mazur: So, if you think about the time period here, it\'s this id-1980s and mid-
1990, many people-most of them were submitted through paper documents in those days.
The IRS has a group of people in the service center who transcribe these returns and put them into the service center in a machine-readable form.
They are usually typed twice by the same person or two different people.
This helps to ensure their accuracy as they are used through electronic versions and all data on tax bases are used for various purposes.
O\'Donnell: The deadline for Congressman dojit, Chairman Neil, to decide which approach to take has come.
He has indicated that he will make a decision soon in the next day or two.
Chairman Neil, the most likely scenario is that simply suing the US Treasury Secretary has basically violated the law requiring Trump\'s tax return to be handed over?
It was his decision, but I believe it was the quickest way.
This is a road that Professor George Yin outlined in your project (ph)
Experts in this field, like Mark in his field, we will all seek advice from him.
This will enable us to leave directly and quickly without a subpoena.
At some point in the future, continuing to call them may or may not be inconsistent, and of course, as Adam Shiff has told you about the work of his committee, congress has an inherent problem of contempt for power.
If we just let them run out of time, I think we need to evoke the inherent contempt for power and use it on this issue.
O\'Donnell: Mark, you have a lot of experience with the Joint Tax Commission and the IRS assistant secretary for tax policy.
When you look at what the New York Times has reported from those transcripts over the past decade, including this sudden and mysterious mountain of $52 million in interest income, it\'s just a source of tax information, and it\'s gone from nowhere.
As a result, there are some unstable assets that will lose $50 million in interest if not previously available.
Not later?
What do you see when you read all this information?
So you look at this, basically, you expect real estate investors to lose once in a while.
O\'Donnell: especially in terms of depreciation.
Former director of IRS research analysis and statistics Mark Mazur is right. Right, exactly.
So they devalued their property.
This is the investment, then you will lose money, you sell the property, you will be able to get a profit.
The difference here is that all the losses are together.
When debt is released, it should be income, and then it will not appear anywhere in the decade.
Oh, this is very important.
So if I owe millions of dollars, at some point I just owe millions of dollars in payment, and whoever it is, the creditor or the bank will say, \"You know, forget it
It\'s actually a million dollars income for me.
Yes, the same is true if you have a student loan.
O\'Donnell: Yes, but it\'s all gone-so he seems to have forgiven him.
None of this was declared revenue.
Mazur: Yes, so I think there are really more stories here than we have an answer.
You point out the interest income, which is not an obvious question of where it came from and where it went.
But when debt is released, it is another mystery that all of these losses and no corresponding income.
O\'Donnell: You all know I can continue this discussion for the next few hours.
So we have to do it on another night.
Congressman Lloyd Dogen, Mark Mazur, thank you very much for joining us.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
O\'Donnell: when we come back today, there is more evidence that House Democrats should be closer to impeachment, whether they want to or not. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: Nancy Pelosi has been trying to manage the politics of impeachment for more than a year.
During last year\'s congressional campaign, she didn\'t want the Democratic candidate to talk about impeachment, but britreport has been asking questions about impeachment, which made Speaker Pelosi say, \"He\'s not worth it when asked about President Trump.
But, as Speaker Pelosi said today, Donald Trump has been watering the flames of impeachment. (
Start Video Editing)REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
: I said the president is guiding us-he wants us to impeach because he knows-it\'s not a good thing for the country, maybe he knows.
But he knows that\'s what I think.
He knows that\'s what I think.
The point is that every day, whether it\'s corruption, obstruction, or stopping people from coming to the table every day with the fact of ignoring the summons, the president is presenting the case.
He is becoming himself.
He can be impeached on some of his things. END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Speaker Pelosi did not try to control the rhetoric or position of the Democratic presidential candidate, many of whom are now very clear and strong about impeachment, especially Senator Elizabeth Warren, he became the first senator to support the impeachment of President Trump, and his speech in the Senate was actually recorded in congressional records.
That was yesterday.
When we came back from the break, Harry Reid and Jennifer Palmieri\'s former deputy chief of staff, Adam jantleeson, former Hillary Clinton communications director will be here to discuss the role of Impeachment politics in the Democratic presidential campaign. (
Business break)(
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Presidential candidate: there is no exception to political inconvenience in the US Constitution.
If the rest of the country did what they recorded in their report, they would be arrested and put in prison. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: our discussion has now turned to politics, and Jennifer pamrey has joined us in the discussion, she is the former White House communications director of President Obama and also the Hillary Clinton campaign.
We also have the former deputy chief of staff of Senator Harry Reid, Adam jantleeson.
He is now the director of public affairs for democratic progress.
Jennifer, for me, it\'s fascinating to see professional Democrats being cautious about the word impeachment over the past year, and it doesn\'t seem to be that cautious, and more of a more calm.
Jennifer pamrey, former White House communications director of President Obama: 2020 of course.
I think it\'s a very serious moment for Congress, and it\'s time for Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibility.
I agree with Senator Warren.
There is no excuse clause that is politically inconvenient to get you out of trouble.
I do think-I\'m still curious about Speaker Pelosi, and I\'m not sure if she is-I think she\'s playing chess.
I don\'t think she\'s playing checkers.
I think we discussed this before.
I think the presidential candidate is leaning towards her left on the impeachment issue.
It\'s good for her purpose, she can go on and say, you know, give him more and more ropes and say, you know, he\'s himself
Impeach yourself
He always does. he wants.
He wants the fight.
And then, if this fight really comes in, she\'s like doing something she should do, indicating that he\'s playing politics, not the house.
Yes, it\'s good because you taught me how to look at her. So I'm now re-
Look at her in my head and look at what she said today because I saw this today.
I think, \"Wait, Nancy Pelosi, there\'s no impeachment.
She does not want people to talk about impeachment.
\"Here she is constantly talking about the phrase, self for her endimpeachment.
I don\'t know what that means.
But you made me understand what she meant.
She means Donald Trump is doing this inevitably.
She tried to sound like a reasonable voice and she did sound like it. Palmeri: Yes. Right.
He believes it is in his political interest to do so.
So if the Democratic Party finally does that.
She has made up her mind to do what she can, which is not in the political interest of the Democratic Party, and they are forced to do so because they are the ones who uphold the Constitution.
O\'Donnell: If I call you around 7 every night, I will do better in this regard.
Adam-Adam, however, there is still a lot of discussion about smart politics in this regard and smart politics in impeachment.
There is also a lot of concern that this could be very bad for democratic politics.
Is there a way to solve this problem?
I don\'t know what smart politics it is.
Adam Zhan Sloan, deputy chief of staff of former Senator Harry Reid: Yes, I mean, I think it\'s hard to say.
I think at some point, you have to do the right thing, with the power that you have, you know, I mean, we have impeached the president twice in recent decades, A party that has done a good job of politically resolving the issue for impeachment, one that has not been resolved.
You can learn from the lesson that when the public thinks the president should be impeached, they think it is a good thing to impeach.
Don\'t do it when they think the president doesn\'t.
In this case, the crime involved is so significant that I think the public will think he deserves it.
But you also have to start putting 1 feet in front of others and use the power you have to do the right thing.
O\'Donnell: Yes, I mean, there\'s an old saying, you know, to follow the principles of things when there\'s no doubt.
This is probably one of them.
However, I have to say that what we have never seen before-the dynamic that we have never seen here in our lifetime is that it is about the impeachment conversation of the first president.
Nixon\'s second term, Bill Clinton\'s second.
There were no elections it ran.
If you are just waiting for the election, the president can be canceled for almost the same time of impeachment. PALMIERI: Yes.
I did think a lot.
But I think this is the time when our democracy is put to the test, and they all really need-the president violates norms every day, and so I think it\'s up to Congress to be particularly vigilant and to uphold its role, you know, it seems to me that these-things that have been set up there are very serious and they should go ahead at the hearing.
If they find out that if this leads to the impeachment process, they should do it without considering politics, because what happens next time, right, when the president is considered to be above the law, democracy dies, and when you have a man of authority on the stage, he violates the norm, and the other is trying to beat that.
O\'Donnell: and Adam, what about the Senate?
I mean, we watched Nancy Pelosi\'s successful battle for control of the house.
Control of the Senate is a very different game in the next election.
JENTLESON: That\'s right.
But I think you know, people, one of the people who has made rapid progress in impeachment politics says, well, even if the House does impeach him, the Senate won\'t vote, and that\'s probably true.
But those who ran for re-election in the Senate in 2020, people like Corey Gardner, people like Susan Collins, it\'s not easy for them to vote against impeachment or removal of public office.
So if the Democrats count on the opposition
Trump feels like letting them win in 2020, leaving the House to impeach, handing it over to the Senate, forcing them to vote hard, and that\'s getting the counter
Trump energy also thanked the Senate.
O\'Donnell: In this case, you can imagine that it will eventually vote against the president to a large extent.
You need to vote so he won\'t be taken away.
But in the end it could be 51 or 52, which would be a historic statement.
PALMIERI: Yes, you know, in the water gate incident, Nixon has long been the subject of public opinion.
Republicans were there for a long time with nixon.
It was not until the summer of 74 that it began to collapse and he resigned in August.
So, I don\'t think you should play-people shouldn\'t.
If they think it is reasonable, they should continue to impeach and then have the Senate run a trial.
You know, we might be surprised by what happened.
O\'Donnell: We\'re going to have a little rest here.
I will call tomorrow night to find out what I should think.
Jennifer Palmieri, AdamJentleson, thank you for joining us tonight.
Really grateful.
When we come back, every Republican who is now in Congress or the Senate, when they vote to impeach Bill Clinton, who is actually there, now they use a different set of principles in their defense of President Trump.
One of the prosecutors of Kenneth Starr, who was working in the special prosecutor\'s office at the time, is now calling on them to be hypocritical. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: it turns out that Lindsay Graham doesn\'t make any sense to what you\'re about to hear him say. (
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
: So one thing I want to say is that you don\'t even have to be found guilty in order to lose your job in this constitutional republic.
However, the agency has decided that your actions as an apublic officer are clearly beyond the scope of your role.
Thank God you did this.
Because impeachment is not a punishment.
Impeachment was done to clean up the office.
Impeachment was done to restore the honor and integrity of the office. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: that was Lindsay Graham, who was a member of the House Judiciary Committee and served as one of the prosecutors at President Clinton\'s Senate impeachment trial.
Lindsay Graham no longer believed in any of the principles he had said at the time regarding the implications of such preaching.
But some in Graham\'s case against Bill Clinton remain consistent.
One of them is Paul Rosenzweig, one of the prosecutors who worked under special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
Paul Rosen Zweig is now one of the 800 former federal prosecutors who signed a letter saying they believe Miller\'s report reveals actionable obstruction of justice cases against President Trump
Paul Rosenzweig will join us next. (
Business break)(
Start Video Editing)
Our country is indeed at a crossroads.
Are we pursuing truth, or are we escaping and innovating the truth?
I am certainly referring to the investigation into the serious allegations of the illegal conduct of the president of the United States, that the president has been obstructing justice. (END VIDEO CLIP)
It\'s Paul Rosen Zweig who is joining us now.
He is a former senior adviser to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr\'s team to sue President Bill Clinton.
He recently wrote that there is good reason to start an impeachment investigation into President Trump.
He is currently a senior researcher at the R Street Institute.
Paul, when you see people like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham in yesterday\'s video, what does this look like when you\'re on the same side?
Do you look at the impeachment and the investigation of the president in the same way?
See today that they have nothing but defensive comments, or are more likely to have nothing to say about what President Trump has done?
Paul rosenzweig, ken starr, a former senior legal adviser, investigated cognitive disorders.
I mean, it\'s just-it\'s hard for me to understand how you held that view 20 years ago, but today is not willing to follow the logic of your past history.
It\'s just-you know, it\'s disappointing in many ways.
I think politics is more about principles than on the surface.
O\'Donnell: in the article you wrote, I reviewed your comments on the evidence of obstruction against Bill Clinton, this is-some of it was just a conversation he had with a staff member outside the office door and he would say to her, \"Well, Monica Lewinsky and I didn\'t do anything right?
He also said that he had just recovered his memory with her.
He\'s not trying to tell her what to say.
The evidence of Donald Trump\'s obstruction is clearer and more conclusive than that, isn\'t it?
Yes, in my opinion.
I mean, if you accept what White House lawyer Don McGahn said, he was actually directed to fire Mueller in the first place, which in itself could be a hindrance, but when he was asked to make a wrong record of the previous conversation and falsely denied that it had happened, it was undoubtedly a hindrance.
This is a typical example of tampering with witness memory.
This delicate effort by President Clinton, if you wish, is much more direct.
O\'Donnell: You know, I stopped working in the Senate during the impeachment of Clinton, but I have a lot of contacts with Democratic senators.
I remember when they started the process, we were going to be jurors when they knew \"Oh, kid, this case about preaching is coming to the Senate.
\"A group of them expect to encounter this passage somewhere one day, explaining to them exactly what high crime rates and misdemeanor are.
In fact, I remember Senator Moynihan, who was academically trying to find out one day, and he just said to me, it turns out, that\'s what we\'re saying, that means there\'s no judicial review, so it depends entirely on them.
His position with many Democrats is that they have not challenged the evidence at all.
They did not object to any evidence you provided.
They just said simply that we heard your voice and we heard your case and we don\'t believe it will go up to a level worth removing.
So that\'s not what we got from Republicans.
Republicans say there\'s nothing here.
Lindsey Graham says there\'s nothing here.
I think that\'s right.
I mean, it would be wiser and perhaps more consistent to say what I heard from you.
The evidence is fair.
But this did not reach the point of impeachment.
We shouldn\'t let this country go through this.
With your last group of guests saying it will really determine the issue, the election is coming soon.
So let\'s leave it to them.
These are plausible arguments.
But denying that, as Justice Minister Barr did, in fact, it was said that when 20 years ago, in a series of weaker facts, it did not constitute an obstacle, \"Oh, this is definitely an obstacle to justice. \"
O\'Donnell: So there is no doubt in your heart that the obstruction of Bill Clinton-which you sued-is weaker than the obstruction of Donald Trump?
Rosenzweig: I think both are strong, but if you can measure their abilities, the universality of the presidential activities, and, as we say, the candor he made, in my judgment, the nature of this directive makes it easier to prove, of course, and I will say so.
Thank you very much for joining us, Paul Rosen Zweig.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for inviting me.
Paul Rosenzweig got \"the last word of the night \".
Brian Williams\'s 11 hours begins now.
Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.
All materials here are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.
I was just watching a tweet from historian Kevin cruise.
Actually, I forwarded this and I want to read it to you.
Rachel maddow, MSNBC host: Okay.
O\'Donnell: it says.
In the past 24 hours, we have learned that the president is capable.
The dollar loser, his biggest gospel supporter, has covered up an apparent sexual scandal in which his justice minister faces charges of contempt in the house, and his son has been summoned by the Senate for the past 24 hours.
Now, I have not been able to cover all of this.
But between us, we have. MADDOW: Yes.
O\'Donnell: You successfully finished Falwell\'s story last night and I have to tell you, Rachel, I\'m staring at it and I\'m trying to figure out how to get close to it and I\'m just-I can\'t.
I think, you know, I will wait for the next day of the story if there is one.
It turned out to be a mess with the summons and-MADDOW: though, I mean, because now the Washington Post has published the real audio of Cohen describing this horrible picture, so the next day.
I mean, it\'s like the way we live.
Like, instead of sitting down for dinner every day, we arrive at the 17-mile buffet table.
Like, what are you going to do?
Where do you start?
How do you prioritize?
I mean, I can do it for an hour tonight on Falwell\'s story, but the other things are the same.
O\'Donnell: But that\'s what I want you to do.
I look at storiessess sometimes and I say it is not appropriate.
It is not suitable for this place.
But somehow, it\'s in these two hours.
Right there. MADDOW: Yes.
O\'Donnell: Rachel, that\'s what I\'m counting on.
That\'s why I depend on you.
We need each other, Lawrence.
O\'Donnell: You know, on the phone, we\'ll fill in all the rest.
I will talk to you about this in the morning.
Thanks, Rachel.
She\'s the best.
We showed you footage of Lindsay Graham and other Republicans during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
We \'ve shown you some extraordinary videos that show you how much those Republicans have changed on the issue of the principles they claim, they were trying to impeach a Democratic president.
Every Republican now in the House and member of the House who voted to impeach or remove Bill Clinton are now using a completely different set of principles to defend President Trump.
But at the end of this hour tonight, you will meet someone who agrees with the president of the United States about obstructing justice and crime.
A prosecutor accused Bill Clinton of obstructing justice now thinks President Trump is guilty of obstructing justice.
The prosecutor will join us at the end of this hour.
But first on Capitol Hill
A summons was issued but refused.
The summons denied by Attorney General William Barr was the subject of the House Judiciary Committee\'s vote today against the attorney general\'s contempt of Congress.
But at the end of the day, two new subpoenas were issued with bipartisan support, one from the Senate Intelligence Committee and one from the House Intelligence Committee.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Richard Burr, summoned Donald Trump Jr.
Testify to the intelligence committee
Yesterday, the Republican leader of the Senate spoke in the Senate and declared the case closed.
Today, the Republican leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr.
This is the first time a member of the Trump family has been summoned in an investigation into the president.
Tonight, our first guest, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Shif, with the support of his committee Supreme Republican, devonnes, issued a summons to the attorney general, William P.
Barr requested documents and materials relating to the investigation of special counsel Robert Miller, including all counter-
Intelligence and foreign intelligence materials generated by the special adviser during the investigation, complete unedited reports and basic evidence.
The showdown on the summons is scheduled for a week from today.
Wednesday, May 15 is the deadline, and Congressman Shiv will meet with lawyer William Barr.
After the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of William Barr\'s contempt of Congress on a partisan line on 2016, the date for the whole House to vote in contempt of Congress\'s resolution was not fixed.
We will ask President Pelosi if he wants House Speaker Pelosi to postpone the vote on contempt of Congress until Democrats see the attorney general\'s response to the new intelligence committee summons.
Quoting President Schiff, in a statement announcing the summons, he described sincere efforts to reach a settlement with the Minister of Justice.
But, quoting this sentence, the department has repeatedly verbally praised the importance of a meaningful accommodation process, but it has only responded to our efforts with silence or blatant resistance.
Chairman Jerry Nadler tells a similar story about dealing with Justice Department William Barland. (
Start Video Editing)REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY)
: The Department of Public Information suddenly announced that if we make a motion today, it will require President Trump to invoke what it says as a protective assertion of the administrative privilege of all materials subject to our summons.
It took a dramatic step just a few minutes ago.
In addition to the principle of abuse of administrative privilege, since the White House gave up those privileges a long time ago, and the department seemed willing to share the material with us yesterday, the decision marks a clear escalation of the situation and a blatant revolt by the Trump administration over the duties of the Constitution of Congress.
I hope this department will think better at the end.
Minutes of outbreak, back to negotiations. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Republicans spent hours today in committee meetings, relying on chairman Jerry Nadler\'s summons to the unedited Miller report, a completely false point of conversation, will force the Minister of Justice to publish major legal information that has been edited and must be retained according to law.
The summons of president Nadler was very clear about this. (
Start Video Editing)
NADLER: what we are asking for is that the department, together with us, petitioned the court to determine whether we should have access to these materials (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: it doesn\'t stop every member of the community from leaning towards the same lie for a few hours. (
Start Video Editing)
Unidentified male: What we are doing here is forcing the attorney general to break the law.
Unidentified women: Democrats and chairman Nadler and this committee have asked the attorney general to break the law. Break the law!
To announce the grand jury to Congress.
Unidentified male: He must break the law in order to comply with the summons.
He must not obey the summons if he abides by the law. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: to prove that this is not true, Democrats accept the Republican amendment, which clarifies that the grand jury information will not be subject to a subpoena unless the federal court approves the release of this information.
Republicans on the committee don\'t seem to feel the importance of history as Democrats do. (
Start Video Editing)
Nadler: nothing is more important than trying to take the full power of the executive from Congress, and more importantly, away from the American people.
For a long time, we have been discussing how to solve the constitutional crisis.
We are inside now.
We are now in a constitutional crisis. REP.
Kelly Armstrong (R-ND)
If we use phrases, I use cart before the horse. (END VIDEO CLIP)
That\'s Kelly Armstrong.
He is the only member of the house in North Dakota, because although North Dakota is larger than the entire state of New York, the entire population of North Dakota will live in the Jerry Nadler district of west Manhattan.
Jerry Nadler and Kelly Armstrong represent the same number of people, but the way they treat their work is very different.
In American politics, there is no easier job than being a Republican member of the North Dakota House, and KellyArmstrong certainly makes it look easy.
Here, he is voting for the justice minister to defy Congress. (
Start Video Editing)
Woman: Sir.
Reschenthaler voted againstMr. Cline? REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): No.
Woman: Sir. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong? REP.
Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): No.
Woman: Sir.
Amsterdam voted no. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: It\'s hard to see who works harder, Kelly Armstrong or Donald Trump.
Today we are talking about Adam Shiff, a Democratic congressman from California.
He is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Congressman HIFF, your summons for tonight, seems to have bipartisan support in your committee with Devin Nunez.
How did you take a non-partisan approach to the summons when the judicial council could not? REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA)
: Well, this may be the last place you think this will happen, but, you see, you know, the top member has his own reasons to want to get potential behind the report
We have our reasons for the convergence of our interests in order to ensure that the Justice Department complies with the law.
As we all know, it is a statutory obligation to provide all foreign intelligence,intelligence.
This is not discretionary. we decide on the basis of information.
We may have to go the same path as the judicial committee in our committee if the Justice Department is against the blockade and makes this one pass by the broad line in support of the claim to enforce privilege.
O\'Donnell: Do you feel that Devin Nunes is looking to find all these things that he has suggested for a while, these things are all about the beginning of frussy\'s interference in the election, in this story, there may be something in the eller ueller report that can do a lot of damage to Democrats?
HIFF: Well, I believe his motivation is not to expose the president\'s evidence of obstruction of justice, nor to expose all the interactions and collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
I don\'t think he came from there.
But you see, I told him to talk.
I\'m just glad we have enough support to force the department to comply with the law.
At the end of the day, it\'s not just the president, it\'s not just the investigation.
The point is whether Congress can do its job, and if a government is corrupt, corrupt or incompetent, it can be exposed and corrective action taken.
If we can\'t do thata-
For Donald Trump, this means that every president who follows him will be equally above the law.
O\'Donnell: So, what does your summons mean for the time when the resolution we just saw from the Judicial Committee today was voted in the house?
Shiff: Well, the strength and strength of our summons depends on the legal basis that is different from the judicial summons.
So we have the National Security Act, the Patriot Act, and other provisions that require the department to give these materials to Congress.
We have the applicable grand jury exception.
We do not need to start the process of criticism, nor do we need to hold a plenary meeting of the impeachment process.
They need to provide this information.
So we have an independent case to do, which, if necessary, gives us an alternative argument in court as to why these materials need to be provided.
So, we move on.
I think it\'s harder for the chairman and rankingmember to complete this office and partisan activity when they ask for department-O\'Donnell: Do you know when the House will vote on the Justice Department\'s grown-up motion?
Shiff: You know, I think a lot of these issues have come to a peak in the various committees, and I think, if there are multiple resolutions, at least it makes sense to consolidate the dates on which we deal with these contempt resolutions, so they can rule once and we don\'t take the time to re-hear the issue every week.
But at the end of the day, we will use the necessary mechanisms to ensure that we can supervise.
We may have to look at whether the core process is too long in terms of using congressional inherent contempt for power.
We may be looking for funds for these institutions so that they can use them before they comply.
We will have to use any tool we can use.
O\'Donnell: On the day after Senate Majority Leader caseloz said, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was dissatisfied with the president\'s son, what do you have about what happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Hef: Well, look, I think in the Senate Intel Committee, they don\'t want to be messed up by these witnesses.
When they have someone-there is a question about authenticity there, if that is the problem, or there are more facts that have been exposed and they need to explore and they feel like they are running around, they will take action to get people in.
This should be the case.
You know, we have concerns about Xiao Tang.
Our testimony on the committee, we have concerns about others.
We can bring back some of our previous witnesses.
Others like Eric springs, we chose not to bring back, we chose to seek potential perjuryprosecution from the Justice Department, but we are doing these analyses now.
O\'Donnell: So in Eric Prince\'s case, you believe what you saw in the Miller report, and what you saw in his transcript, did you see the perjury?
You know, Prince\'s testimony is clearly false before our committee and we feel the need to submit to us what he told us and what was disclosed in the special counsel\'s report, and display side by side.
He told us that it was a coincidence that his meeting with the Russian state banker, demytriyev.
He happened to run half the way around the world, met the Seychelles, met the man in a bar, which the Crown Prince invited him to the meeting.
He said the number of meetings he had, he said his topic, did he inform the meeting in advance, all in contradiction with Miller\'s report, it was by witnesses and Prince himself who spoke with Miller.
Now, there may be some issues as to whether witnesses and testimony can be prosecuted because of their acceptability or availability, but nonetheless, testimony is so insignificant that we feel it is necessary to cite it.
O\'Donnell: Do you feel the need to hear from little Donald Trumpagain?
Will you call little Donald Trump? ? SCHIFF: We may.
We have not made this decision yet.
We are looking at which of the most important witnesses are brought back in the first place, and which witnesses can provide more clues?
We have had this dilemma with other witnesses as well, and we don\'t think they are very real.
Do we bring them back and give them a chance to clarify their story or do we recommend them or do we have any other purpose to bring them back?
O\'Donnell: What is your schedule for these decisions?
Shiv: You know, we are making them a constant basis, so we have reached out to the witnesses.
We start with what we think can reveal the problem.
We are now dealing with other resistance people and we are trying to reach an agreement for them to let them in to testify before we have to force them.
So all of this is in progress, and most of it is out of the public eye.
Donald Trump Jr.
There are a few things.
First, he told Congress that he rarely participated in the Bugle building in Moscow.
Michael Cohen said he was involved and that he had talked to him at least 10 times during the campaign.
It\'s a possible change, little Donald Trump\'s different's testimony.
The other is that in Miller\'s report, Michael Cohen said he heard the voice of Donald Trump Jr.
Before the meeting, he told his father about his meeting with Russians at Trump Tower.
This is also true of Mueller\'s report.
It\'s not about Donald Trump.
When he asked the committee, he said to any committee.
Do you want to clarify these areas with Donald Trump?
Shiff: You know, these are certainly some of these areas.
One of our questions with Don Jr.
He refused to answer all the questions.
This is not the case with Don Jr.
Steve Bannon did the same thing, Corey Levandowski, Hope Hicks, there are a lot of questions that these witnesses refuse to answer.
This again proves how false Bill Barr is to talk about the president\'s cooperation in the investigation.
These witnesses often tell us that they will not answer questions, as instructed by the White House.
We ask them, are you maintaining some kind of privilege?
They would say, no, we\'re just being asked to be basically uncooperative.
So we don\'t get any answers about these areas.
For others, the answer we get is that we have serious questions about their authenticity.
O\'Donnell: We should remind the audience that it\'s time for the Republican Party to control.
The rules for these interactions are basically set by the Republican majority in the committee, and no one is subpoenas.
They can all get up and walk out of the room if they want.
You know, yes.
The most vivid example is SteveBannon who came in-when he came in, he was no longer Breitbart, he was no longer in support of the White House, so when umbraj refused to answer the question, the Republicans accepted him.
They felt that they had no reaction to the investigation and it looked like they were serious.
He refused-they actually summoned him on the spot, but when we tried to get them to execute the summons, he was sentenced to contempt because herefused answered the question, which was a bit too
It shows how willing they are to go through its presentation, a presentation of a survey, but there is no reality when it comes to convincing answers to questions.
O\'Donnell: President Adam Shiff, thank you very much for joining ustonight.
Shifu: Thank you.
O\'Donnell: It\'s a very important night to have you here.
Really grateful.
They were approaching Trump\'s tax return when we came back.
The New York Times is coming soon.
The New York State Legislature is closing.
The chairman of the House fundraising committee is about to close taxes on Donald Trump. That's next. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: The New York Times revealed the day after Donald Trump had not paid taxes for several years, and he praised him for paying taxes in Florida tonight. (
Start Video Editing)
US President Donald Trump: invisible people, you know what you are, you are the smartest, you are the hardest, you pay taxes, these are what you do(END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Who can forget that Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of not paying taxes, saying it meant he was smart. (
Start Video Editing)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Former presidential candidate: maybe he doesn\'t want the American people to know that he doesn\'t do anything about federal taxes, because the only years anyone has seen are years, when he tries to get a casino license, he had to hand them over to state authorities and they showed that he did not pay any federal income taxes.
It made me smart. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Donald Trump didn\'t tell the truth tonight, he said that the person paying taxes is the smartest person, but the person who is smarter than Donald Trump is now approaching his tax.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neil has put forward legal requirements for Donald Trump\'s tax, which has unique authority in accordance with the law.
He either gets these tax returns at the end of the long court battle, or on the afternoon of the next inauguration day, when a unnamed President Trump is sworn in on January 20, 2020, about a year and a half from now on.
The New York Legislature is trying to help Congress bypass the abill, which reflects federal law passed today in The New York State Senate.
It states that New York state will provide any New York state tax return requested by the chairman of the house method Committee or the chairman of the Finance Committee or the chairman of the Joint Tax Commission.
This is a mirror of federal law that President Neil has been using to obtain Trump\'s tax returns.
The bill is expected to be passed by the State Council.
Governor Andrew cuomo said he would sign.
The New York state tax return reflects the federal tax return.
They contain a lot of the same information, so Neil May is now only a few weeks away from getting Donald Trump\'s New York state tax return, which is almost as notable as his federal tax return.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is another big step closer to Donald Trump\'s tax return, which they reported last night on the 10-year IRS record of Donald Trump\'s tax information, it shows that Donald Trump has a billion dollars in a decade, eight of which have not paid taxes.
The Times article cites the IRS director of research, analysis and statistics Mark Mazur\'s article on the accuracy of the IRS transcript.
Mark Mazur will join us in a moment.
House Speaker Pelosi commented today on the New York Times report. (
Start Video Editing)REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
: However, it does tell us that it is useful to see his tax return, as the law says.
The administrative department shall give it.
It does not say that, in some cases, must, should, can.
It will provide these tax returns to the chair.
It\'s all legal and precedent-
When we move forward, there are several options for doing the right thing.
One of them is direct court. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Oddennell: now we are joined by Congressman Lloyd Dogen, a senior member of the House approach committee.
He\'s a Democrat in Texas.
Mark Mazur joined us as well.
He was the head of research, analysis and statistics for the IRS, and he was the assistant minister of finance for tax policy.
He currently works at the Tax Policy Center.
Senator Dogan, I want to start with you.
It looks like the New York State Legislature might give you some help and the help you got from the New York Times last night. "REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX)
: Well, of course, the New York Times report shows how loser the president is, and he shows in business the same negotiating skills he recently demonstrated with North Koreans, it points out why we really need these rewards because there are a lot of lies here, and a lot about if the president doesn\'t do his part and does not do his part, how Americans have confidence in the tax system.
As far as the New York operation is concerned, I think it is important.
I\'m glad they\'re doing it, but there\'s other information, working papers, audits, questions about whether or not he\'s being audited, we need to accept directly the important requests made by President Neil under section 6,103rd or section 6,103rd.
Mark, actually, I want to call you Sir.
Because the last time we talked was when you were assistant secretary of tax policy a few years ago, you were in the Treasury\'s Office.
There are too many problems to deal.
First of all, I learned from the New York Times report that your reference to the IRS transcript.
I don\'t know, in fact, that the IRS has these documents.
Who took those documents?
In addition to the IRS, the New York Times can also obtain these documents from other sources, right?
Mark Mazur, former assistant secretary of tax policy at the Treasury: Yes.
The documents are available to taxpayers.
They can request these photos from the IRS.
Basically a summary of your tax return.
Some people may keep their tax returns and ask for transcripts.
Sometimes the lender asks for a transcript.
If you get a mortgage, the mortgage company wants to know what your income is.
They might ask you to get atranscript and hand it over to o\'o\'donnell: It\'s a simpler set of documents that can show tax information for more years than just one
Mazur: Well, the transcript shows once a year. O'DONNELL: Yes.
Mazur: you can get a bunch and put them together.
O\'Donnell: How accurate are those transcripts?
Mazur: So, if you think about the time period here, it\'s this id-1980s and mid-
1990, many people-most of them were submitted through paper documents in those days.
The IRS has a group of people in the service center who transcribe these returns and put them into the service center in a machine-readable form.
They are usually typed twice by the same person or two different people.
This helps to ensure their accuracy as they are used through electronic versions and all data on tax bases are used for various purposes.
O\'Donnell: The deadline for Congressman dojit, Chairman Neil, to decide which approach to take has come.
He has indicated that he will make a decision soon in the next day or two.
Chairman Neil, the most likely scenario is that simply suing the US Treasury Secretary has basically violated the law requiring Trump\'s tax return to be handed over?
It was his decision, but I believe it was the quickest way.
This is a road that Professor George Yin outlined in your project (ph)
Experts in this field, like Mark in his field, we will all seek advice from him.
This will enable us to leave directly and quickly without a subpoena.
At some point in the future, continuing to call them may or may not be inconsistent, and of course, as Adam Shiff has told you about the work of his committee, congress has an inherent problem of contempt for power.
If we just let them run out of time, I think we need to evoke the inherent contempt for power and use it on this issue.
O\'Donnell: Mark, you have a lot of experience with the Joint Tax Commission and the IRS assistant secretary for tax policy.
When you look at what the New York Times has reported from those transcripts over the past decade, including this sudden and mysterious mountain of $52 million in interest income, it\'s just a source of tax information, and it\'s gone from nowhere.
As a result, there are some unstable assets that will lose $50 million in interest if not previously available.
Not later?
What do you see when you read all this information?
So you look at this, basically, you expect real estate investors to lose once in a while.
O\'Donnell: especially in terms of depreciation.
Former director of IRS research analysis and statistics Mark Mazur is right. Right, exactly.
So they devalued their property.
This is the investment, then you will lose money, you sell the property, you will be able to get a profit.
The difference here is that all the losses are together.
When debt is released, it should be income, and then it will not appear anywhere in the decade.
Oh, this is very important.
So if I owe millions of dollars, at some point I just owe millions of dollars in payment, and whoever it is, the creditor or the bank will say, \"You know, forget it
It\'s actually a million dollars income for me.
Yes, the same is true if you have a student loan.
O\'Donnell: Yes, but it\'s all gone-so he seems to have forgiven him.
None of this was declared revenue.
Mazur: Yes, so I think there are really more stories here than we have an answer.
You point out the interest income, which is not an obvious question of where it came from and where it went.
But when debt is released, it is another mystery that all of these losses and no corresponding income.
O\'Donnell: You all know I can continue this discussion for the next few hours.
So we have to do it on another night.
Congressman Lloyd Dogen, Mark Mazur, thank you very much for joining us.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
O\'Donnell: when we come back today, there is more evidence that House Democrats should be closer to impeachment, whether they want to or not. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: Nancy Pelosi has been trying to manage the politics of impeachment for more than a year.
During last year\'s congressional campaign, she didn\'t want the Democratic candidate to talk about impeachment, but britreport has been asking questions about impeachment, which made Speaker Pelosi say, \"He\'s not worth it when asked about President Trump.
But, as Speaker Pelosi said today, Donald Trump has been watering the flames of impeachment. (
Start Video Editing)REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
: I said the president is guiding us-he wants us to impeach because he knows-it\'s not a good thing for the country, maybe he knows.
But he knows that\'s what I think.
He knows that\'s what I think.
The point is that every day, whether it\'s corruption, obstruction, or stopping people from coming to the table every day with the fact of ignoring the summons, the president is presenting the case.
He is becoming himself.
He can be impeached on some of his things. END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: Speaker Pelosi did not try to control the rhetoric or position of the Democratic presidential candidate, many of whom are now very clear and strong about impeachment, especially Senator Elizabeth Warren, he became the first senator to support the impeachment of President Trump, and his speech in the Senate was actually recorded in congressional records.
That was yesterday.
When we came back from the break, Harry Reid and Jennifer Palmieri\'s former deputy chief of staff, Adam jantleeson, former Hillary Clinton communications director will be here to discuss the role of Impeachment politics in the Democratic presidential campaign. (
Business break)(
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Presidential candidate: there is no exception to political inconvenience in the US Constitution.
If the rest of the country did what they recorded in their report, they would be arrested and put in prison. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: our discussion has now turned to politics, and Jennifer pamrey has joined us in the discussion, she is the former White House communications director of President Obama and also the Hillary Clinton campaign.
We also have the former deputy chief of staff of Senator Harry Reid, Adam jantleeson.
He is now the director of public affairs for democratic progress.
Jennifer, for me, it\'s fascinating to see professional Democrats being cautious about the word impeachment over the past year, and it doesn\'t seem to be that cautious, and more of a more calm.
Jennifer pamrey, former White House communications director of President Obama: 2020 of course.
I think it\'s a very serious moment for Congress, and it\'s time for Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibility.
I agree with Senator Warren.
There is no excuse clause that is politically inconvenient to get you out of trouble.
I do think-I\'m still curious about Speaker Pelosi, and I\'m not sure if she is-I think she\'s playing chess.
I don\'t think she\'s playing checkers.
I think we discussed this before.
I think the presidential candidate is leaning towards her left on the impeachment issue.
It\'s good for her purpose, she can go on and say, you know, give him more and more ropes and say, you know, he\'s himself
Impeach yourself
He always does. he wants.
He wants the fight.
And then, if this fight really comes in, she\'s like doing something she should do, indicating that he\'s playing politics, not the house.
Yes, it\'s good because you taught me how to look at her. So I'm now re-
Look at her in my head and look at what she said today because I saw this today.
I think, \"Wait, Nancy Pelosi, there\'s no impeachment.
She does not want people to talk about impeachment.
\"Here she is constantly talking about the phrase, self for her endimpeachment.
I don\'t know what that means.
But you made me understand what she meant.
She means Donald Trump is doing this inevitably.
She tried to sound like a reasonable voice and she did sound like it. Palmeri: Yes. Right.
He believes it is in his political interest to do so.
So if the Democratic Party finally does that.
She has made up her mind to do what she can, which is not in the political interest of the Democratic Party, and they are forced to do so because they are the ones who uphold the Constitution.
O\'Donnell: If I call you around 7 every night, I will do better in this regard.
Adam-Adam, however, there is still a lot of discussion about smart politics in this regard and smart politics in impeachment.
There is also a lot of concern that this could be very bad for democratic politics.
Is there a way to solve this problem?
I don\'t know what smart politics it is.
Adam Zhan Sloan, deputy chief of staff of former Senator Harry Reid: Yes, I mean, I think it\'s hard to say.
I think at some point, you have to do the right thing, with the power that you have, you know, I mean, we have impeached the president twice in recent decades, A party that has done a good job of politically resolving the issue for impeachment, one that has not been resolved.
You can learn from the lesson that when the public thinks the president should be impeached, they think it is a good thing to impeach.
Don\'t do it when they think the president doesn\'t.
In this case, the crime involved is so significant that I think the public will think he deserves it.
But you also have to start putting 1 feet in front of others and use the power you have to do the right thing.
O\'Donnell: Yes, I mean, there\'s an old saying, you know, to follow the principles of things when there\'s no doubt.
This is probably one of them.
However, I have to say that what we have never seen before-the dynamic that we have never seen here in our lifetime is that it is about the impeachment conversation of the first president.
Nixon\'s second term, Bill Clinton\'s second.
There were no elections it ran.
If you are just waiting for the election, the president can be canceled for almost the same time of impeachment. PALMIERI: Yes.
I did think a lot.
But I think this is the time when our democracy is put to the test, and they all really need-the president violates norms every day, and so I think it\'s up to Congress to be particularly vigilant and to uphold its role, you know, it seems to me that these-things that have been set up there are very serious and they should go ahead at the hearing.
If they find out that if this leads to the impeachment process, they should do it without considering politics, because what happens next time, right, when the president is considered to be above the law, democracy dies, and when you have a man of authority on the stage, he violates the norm, and the other is trying to beat that.
O\'Donnell: and Adam, what about the Senate?
I mean, we watched Nancy Pelosi\'s successful battle for control of the house.
Control of the Senate is a very different game in the next election.
JENTLESON: That\'s right.
But I think you know, people, one of the people who has made rapid progress in impeachment politics says, well, even if the House does impeach him, the Senate won\'t vote, and that\'s probably true.
But those who ran for re-election in the Senate in 2020, people like Corey Gardner, people like Susan Collins, it\'s not easy for them to vote against impeachment or removal of public office.
So if the Democrats count on the opposition
Trump feels like letting them win in 2020, leaving the House to impeach, handing it over to the Senate, forcing them to vote hard, and that\'s getting the counter
Trump energy also thanked the Senate.
O\'Donnell: In this case, you can imagine that it will eventually vote against the president to a large extent.
You need to vote so he won\'t be taken away.
But in the end it could be 51 or 52, which would be a historic statement.
PALMIERI: Yes, you know, in the water gate incident, Nixon has long been the subject of public opinion.
Republicans were there for a long time with nixon.
It was not until the summer of 74 that it began to collapse and he resigned in August.
So, I don\'t think you should play-people shouldn\'t.
If they think it is reasonable, they should continue to impeach and then have the Senate run a trial.
You know, we might be surprised by what happened.
O\'Donnell: We\'re going to have a little rest here.
I will call tomorrow night to find out what I should think.
Jennifer Palmieri, AdamJentleson, thank you for joining us tonight.
Really grateful.
When we come back, every Republican who is now in Congress or the Senate, when they vote to impeach Bill Clinton, who is actually there, now they use a different set of principles in their defense of President Trump.
One of the prosecutors of Kenneth Starr, who was working in the special prosecutor\'s office at the time, is now calling on them to be hypocritical. (
Business break)
O\'Donnell: it turns out that Lindsay Graham doesn\'t make any sense to what you\'re about to hear him say. (
Start Video Editing)SEN.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
: So one thing I want to say is that you don\'t even have to be found guilty in order to lose your job in this constitutional republic.
However, the agency has decided that your actions as an apublic officer are clearly beyond the scope of your role.
Thank God you did this.
Because impeachment is not a punishment.
Impeachment was done to clean up the office.
Impeachment was done to restore the honor and integrity of the office. (END VIDEO CLIP)
O\'Donnell: that was Lindsay Graham, who was a member of the House Judiciary Committee and served as one of the prosecutors at President Clinton\'s Senate impeachment trial.
Lindsay Graham no longer believed in any of the principles he had said at the time regarding the implications of such preaching.
But some in Graham\'s case against Bill Clinton remain consistent.
One of them is Paul Rosenzweig, one of the prosecutors who worked under special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
Paul Rosen Zweig is now one of the 800 former federal prosecutors who signed a letter saying they believe Miller\'s report reveals actionable obstruction of justice cases against President Trump
Paul Rosenzweig will join us next. (
Business break)(
Start Video Editing)
Our country is indeed at a crossroads.
Are we pursuing truth, or are we escaping and innovating the truth?
I am certainly referring to the investigation into the serious allegations of the illegal conduct of the president of the United States, that the president has been obstructing justice. (END VIDEO CLIP)
It\'s Paul Rosen Zweig who is joining us now.
He is a former senior adviser to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr\'s team to sue President Bill Clinton.
He recently wrote that there is good reason to start an impeachment investigation into President Trump.
He is currently a senior researcher at the R Street Institute.
Paul, when you see people like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham in yesterday\'s video, what does this look like when you\'re on the same side?
Do you look at the impeachment and the investigation of the president in the same way?
See today that they have nothing but defensive comments, or are more likely to have nothing to say about what President Trump has done?
Paul rosenzweig, ken starr, a former senior legal adviser, investigated cognitive disorders.
I mean, it\'s just-it\'s hard for me to understand how you held that view 20 years ago, but today is not willing to follow the logic of your past history.
It\'s just-you know, it\'s disappointing in many ways.
I think politics is more about principles than on the surface.
O\'Donnell: in the article you wrote, I reviewed your comments on the evidence of obstruction against Bill Clinton, this is-some of it was just a conversation he had with a staff member outside the office door and he would say to her, \"Well, Monica Lewinsky and I didn\'t do anything right?
He also said that he had just recovered his memory with her.
He\'s not trying to tell her what to say.
The evidence of Donald Trump\'s obstruction is clearer and more conclusive than that, isn\'t it?
Yes, in my opinion.
I mean, if you accept what White House lawyer Don McGahn said, he was actually directed to fire Mueller in the first place, which in itself could be a hindrance, but when he was asked to make a wrong record of the previous conversation and falsely denied that it had happened, it was undoubtedly a hindrance.
This is a typical example of tampering with witness memory.
This delicate effort by President Clinton, if you wish, is much more direct.
O\'Donnell: You know, I stopped working in the Senate during the impeachment of Clinton, but I have a lot of contacts with Democratic senators.
I remember when they started the process, we were going to be jurors when they knew \"Oh, kid, this case about preaching is coming to the Senate.
\"A group of them expect to encounter this passage somewhere one day, explaining to them exactly what high crime rates and misdemeanor are.
In fact, I remember Senator Moynihan, who was academically trying to find out one day, and he just said to me, it turns out, that\'s what we\'re saying, that means there\'s no judicial review, so it depends entirely on them.
His position with many Democrats is that they have not challenged the evidence at all.
They did not object to any evidence you provided.
They just said simply that we heard your voice and we heard your case and we don\'t believe it will go up to a level worth removing.
So that\'s not what we got from Republicans.
Republicans say there\'s nothing here.
Lindsey Graham says there\'s nothing here.
I think that\'s right.
I mean, it would be wiser and perhaps more consistent to say what I heard from you.
The evidence is fair.
But this did not reach the point of impeachment.
We shouldn\'t let this country go through this.
With your last group of guests saying it will really determine the issue, the election is coming soon.
So let\'s leave it to them.
These are plausible arguments.
But denying that, as Justice Minister Barr did, in fact, it was said that when 20 years ago, in a series of weaker facts, it did not constitute an obstacle, \"Oh, this is definitely an obstacle to justice. \"
O\'Donnell: So there is no doubt in your heart that the obstruction of Bill Clinton-which you sued-is weaker than the obstruction of Donald Trump?
Rosenzweig: I think both are strong, but if you can measure their abilities, the universality of the presidential activities, and, as we say, the candor he made, in my judgment, the nature of this directive makes it easier to prove, of course, and I will say so.
Thank you very much for joining us, Paul Rosen Zweig.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for inviting me.
Paul Rosenzweig got \"the last word of the night \".
Brian Williams\'s 11 hours begins now.
Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.
All materials here are protected by US copyright law and may not be copied, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC.
You may not change or delete any trademark, copyright or other notice in a copy of the content.
Comments
Post a Comment