barr: mueller findings binary. transcript: 4/9/19. all in w/ chris hayes.
ChrisHayes\'s \"full input\" is now on. (
Start Video Editing)
Chris Hayes, MSNBC host: all in tonight. William bar, United States of AmericaS.
Attorney general: at this stage, I do not intend to submit a complete unedited report to the Commission.
Hayes: The president\'s attorney general is playing \"away \".
Bal: I\'m not interested in publishing a summary or trying to summarize.
As the Democrats promised. REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY)
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee: if we don\'t get everything, we will issue a subpoena and bring it to court.
Hayes: tonight, why did William Barr refuse to post a summary of Robert Miller, and why did he refuse to say if the White House saw Miller\'s report.
Now, Democrats plan to get unedited reports with Congressman Adam Shiff.
Then, tax returns from health care to the border.
US President Donald Trump: We have bad laws.
Hayes: The crisis is deepening for a lawless president.
We are fighting a court system that has never laid down rules for us.
Hayes: Why are the top two Republicans openly undermining an investigation into the soaring price of prescription drugs. REP.
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Chairman of the House Supervisory Committee: this is a matter of life and death.
Hayes: everything is starting now. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: Good evening. This is Chris Hayes.
The president\'s hand-
The elected attorney general continued to disrupt the waters surrounding the Muellerreport and postponed a full public account of what happened during the 2016 election to determine whether the president had committed misconduct.
Justice minister William Barr, who appeared before the Appropriations Committee in the House today, said he planned to release the edited version of the Miller report within a week.
The editors were entirely up to him, Mr. Barr said.
But the attorney general has provided many reasons for not trusting his discretion.
Like after he wrote a memo audition for the job, saying he decided to remove the president\'s judicial hurdles, he argued in the memo that apresident could not exercise any constitutional power
There were plenty of stories last week.
For the first time in 22 months, the first leak from the special counsel team warned that bar\'s page summary incorrectly described the reports that they worked so hard.
Today, Barr explains why he posted this summary, which is part of the loop logic and is not sincere. (
Start Video Editing)
Bal: It seems to me that when we do the necessary editing work to make the whole thing available, it is important that people understand the bottom line of the report.
The bottom line, from the prosecutor\'s point of view, is binary, that is, charges or no charges. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: charges or no charges unless the Minister of Justice is fully aware that the current rules of the Department of Justice state that you cannot charge the president who is in court, so this is not binary because it is not a standard criminal
According to current rules, the only way to hold the president accountable for criminal acts is to impeach in Congress.
Barr is now hiding the same body that Miller found completely.
Some Miller investigators said that one of the main issues they raised was that Barr did not release a summary that they had written and prepared for each part of the report.
According to a source, the report has been prepared so that the positive content of each section can be released immediately or very quickly.
The way to do this is, if necessary, minimal editing, and the work will benefit itself.
Now, the Justice Department disagrees with the claim, insisting that each of the pageport is marked as material that may be protected by the secrecy of the grand jury.
But this is the case.
This is not the main explanation given by the attorney general himself today. (
Start Video Editing)
Bal: In my opinion, I am not interested in publishing a summary or trying to summarize, because I think that any summary, whoever prepares it, will not only risk what you know, or not enough.
Inclusion, but you know, can lead to a lot of discussion and analysis that really should wait for everything to come up at the same time.
So I\'m not interested in asummary. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: Oh, my God, discuss and analyze everything before it comes out right away.
Paradise of Bessie
Barr didn\'t want to post the summary of the Miller team because he was worried that people would talk about it. OK.
This seems to be exactly what he posted his 4-pagesummary.
Of course, Bal\'s summary was received by the president who appointed him with open arms and celebration.
This is most likely impossible for the summary of the Mueller team, which seems to be more comprehensive and we haven\'t seen it yet.
When asked if he shared more information with the White House than he shared with the public Congress, the attorney general strangely refused to answer. (
Start Video Editing)REP. NITA LOWEY (D-NY)
: Did the White House see the report before you published your concluding letter?
Has the White House seen it since then?
In addition to your summary letter to the Judicial Committee, have they been informed of the content?
Bal: I have said what I have to say about today\'s report.
I won\'t say much about it until the report comes out and everyone has a chance to look at it. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: Now that Bal has publicly ruled out the possibility of submitting a full version of the Merle report to Congress, House Justice Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said he will continue to implement his commission\'s mandate last week
Andy Barr\'s performance today shows that he will fight Nadler all the way.
In the upcoming legal battle, I have two experienced litigation lawyers, Mimi Rocah, legal analyst at MSNBC, former federal prosecutor and Maya Wiley, legal analyst at MSNBC, who is currently the senior vice president of social justice at the new school.
Okay, MI, what do you think of barr\'s performance today?
Mimi rocah, legal analyst at MSNBC: I think you highlighted the part that made me particularly want to scream on TV because Barr used 6E as a shield.
6E is-Hayes: Explain to us what 6E is.
ROCAH: Well, 6E prohibits disclosure of the grand jury\'s material, so it\'s a tough rule, just like you actually broke the law.
This is correct if you violate the rules.
But it\'s not the black box.
It\'s not iron.
It is not indestructible.
It\'s not something that makes no sense, you just say you know, it has a mark.
You know, how the doctor looked at you before you had surgery.
They redo all the terrible things that could have happened to you, you said yes, you still signed it because you know-Hayes: I always say no, I don\'t understand, it\'s just me.
This is a different question.
But this is the case with 6E stamps. okay.
This does not mean that every word of the document has 6E on every page, because there are stamps on it, and there is the jury material on it, and he can absolutely not hand over the summaries because the stamps are there.
Hayes: this is a precaution.
This is a precaution.
There are exceptions in the rules.
I think one of them can apply here, that is, the transfer of the grand jury to Congress in terms of judicial proceedings.
I don\'t want to get the legal weeds here too deep, but there will be strong reasons here even if the impeachment process is not initiated.
But the problem is, I think in general, when you see what Barr is doing, post the first non-
Summary, follow-up to him
Today in his testimony he looks and I think it\'s a person who does everything he can to protect at least some of the information in the report from being leaked, and I don\'t think it\'s his job.
Maya wiley, legal analyst at MSNBC: I\'m holding Mimi\'s hand right now because of what she said-let\'s go back to the confirmation hearing at Bal and he said the most important thing for the American people is in--
Most of the reports that can be released publicly are published publicly.
We all went, right? HAYES: Right.
Willie: Now on Mimi\'s point of view on 6E, he also said today that he would not-would not seek the court\'s approval to provide the grand jury material that he absolutely has the right to go to the court to say, I think this should be made public.
So, if transparency-let\'s put aside what the report says and what it means, the most important thing for our democracies is to know what Miller knows, and voters and Congress make decisions.
Voters decided whether to back Trump again.
Congress must decide whether there is a critical criminal act.
The constitutional order requires transparency, as well as the transparency promised by Barr, which is not what he said today.
Hayes: Actually, today, he said he talked about these various edits under a variety of editors-he\'s going to do color coding.
I just had this picture because during the grand jury proceedings, you see, right, we\'re going to get the edit section of the Mueller detector and it\'s going to say something very interesting, cause something to turn black.
Like, why not-you know, why did Constantine kirlinick get the ballot door or whatever?
If we do this again, I will lose my mind.
I mean, I swear to God, if that\'s the case, I think, oh, open the box and then there\'s another locked box inside.
ROCAH: I mean, in the course of the investigation, more was edited.
Again, this does not mean that there is nothing that will fall under this exception right now, but it should be much less.
We know now-I mean, bar basically confirmed today that Miller\'s team, wrotesmmaries.
Like you said, he didn\'t say I didn\'t becausejury.
He\'s-Hayes: that\'s what one tells.
Isn\'t that a tell? ROCAH: Yes.
Hayes: I don\'t want people to discuss and analyze it. ROCAH: Right.
This is exactly what we have been doing.
Well, that\'s great.
You know, part of the question of the dialogue is that we \'ve been talking about elections in 2020, not about confirming what the rule of law needs and what our Constitution needs.
Hayes: Yes, I don\'t care. I really-I don\'t-it\'s not about anything.
I don\'t care what\'s going on-Hayes: I just want to know what\'s going on-what\'s going on.
Willie: If you have this person-I will continue to come back to this, because the people sitting in front of Congress say that transparency is the most important thing so that the country can move forward, however, we know that you have received a summary written by the Miller Team-by the way, you did not refute this in your testimony today, and you cannot issue a summary in a short period of time, but there is no dispute about the choice not to release. HAYES: Correct.
Where is transparency?
Where are the things that you say are crucial to what we need to do as a nation to move forward?
Hayes: mi Rocca and Maya Willie, it\'s nice to have both of you involved.
Thank you very much.
For more information on the political stakes in the battle of Bal, please see the Miller report. MSNBC contributor Betsy Woodruff, Political Correspondent For The Daily Beast and political analyst for MSNBC
Signal enhancement host on Sirius XM.
Zerina, there\'s also a strange thing-this gas lady thing happened here.
Selena Maxwell, political analyst at MSNBC: Yes, that\'s what\'s going on.
Hayes: I think it\'s actually a little different from the tax return struggle, and they\'re pretty clear in that case.
They\'re like, you don\'t get taxes. We don`tcare.
Bar things like you will get it and you will get it.
You will get it. Just calm down.
Like-so where is it? MAXWELL: Right.
Well, I think-gas lighting is the exact term because he basically said I don\'t want to summarize.
I don\'t want to post a summary because, as Maya says, the summary has an inverse effect on transparency.
But that\'s what he did.
We have been through four times in the past few weeks.
Page memo, we \'ve been doing all of this analysis, and I really don\'t understand why, because there\'s noreport. HAYES: Right.
Maxwell: You know, I thought it was a while.
I\'m glad that basically we got confirmation that the report on the summary there was correct.
Yes, this is very important. I agree.
Because it\'s important.
To understand that Mueller\'s team and we all live in the same political environment, they work in a vacuum, but they clearly know that this is happening outside, so, they have prepared summaries that can be released in this particular climate, knowing all the flags that may be outside.
I think the reason why he stopped it all was because he was put there to lock it in.
I think so too, Bessie.
So I have some people who think that God, just make things as clear as possible, because you know, at this point, that\'s what it is.
Even if it is literally-even if it is very derogatory for the president, he is still politically likely to be the last.
I don\'t think anything will change a person\'s mind.
But what I feel about the White House and all the people there is that it is just a fighting mentality for everything.
Do you think that\'s right?
Like they don\'t know-they just have to fight everything.
Betsy Woodruff, MSNBC contributor: I think that\'s basically right.
One strange thing Trump likes to do is that he will publicly say that he is ready to work with investigators like the Mueller team. HAYES: Exactly.
And then his lawyer will pop in, you know, clean.
On Channel 9, in fact, the president is not allowed to tell you what he plans to do. a-vis Mueller.
We \'ve seen this in a very dramatic way in the last year or so, when Mueller\'s team tried to make sure
Interview with the president.
Trump himself said he wanted to do it and he would be happy.
You know, in about 30 seconds, his lawyer spoke to me on the phone and said, actually, no, it wouldn\'t happen.
We are the decision makers here.
And that\'s what we \'ve seen in the Miller report, and Trump himself, of course, will say that it could be open and totally exempt.
I\'m not worried at all.
But actually we had Bill Barr, who was installed by Trump at the Justice Department, edit the report very slowly, and also, there was no release of part of Miller\'s own investigators, barr himself is not in dispute today, and he reportedly wants to make it public right away.
These things are not consistent because Trump is president and Trump and his lawyers are basically inconsistent.
Hayes: But there are some very clever places for Barr to know what he\'s doing.
He\'s not an idiot.
He has been in Washington for 30 years.
Just like he knew what he did when he posted the summary.
They put him in this position and knew what they were doing. HAYES: Yes.
They know what they did with him there.
Like people, these are adults. ups here.
But it says, you know, the president won.
Oh, I have been acquitted.
Then we\'ll get something-some edited versions, which will make more-you know, who knows what\'s in there, but there\'s going to be an edit fight next.
You have somewhat weakened the intensity of desire to see the whole thing. MAXWELL: Right.
I think their purpose is to make it look like a loser to everyone who needs information.
Hayes: That\'s right. Yes.
I mean, we saw this from the beginning.
When Democrats say they wait, the summary is very rough.
You use selected words, some sentences.
I mean, what happens before you say that the president is not guilty but that he is not exempt from responsibility.
I want to know what will happen before this idea.
So I think this country is waiting for these two results.
Year of investigation, black box.
We can\'t see the inside. we can\'t see it. they won\'t let us see it.
But as voters, I think we need to ask us to put pressure on all the people in Congress so that they can use their power levers to get that information, because why do we do this even if we give Congress an edit?
Congress, especially Intel people, need to see everything.
Hayes: We\'re going to talk to Adam Shiv for a moment, to be exact.
Bessie, I also think there\'s a degree here-I always imagine the Privilege Review that the White House will have.
I think Barr also told me a bit today when herefused said they didn\'t see the report he had said before, but in my opinion he even said, yes, the White House has.
What do you think?
I think it\'s interesting, too.
I don\'t think any of the White House speakers have a record, and of course I don\'t say if they have a chance to follow the Muellerreport.
I can tell you that I spoke to Jay sekuro yesterday, who is one of the lawyers for the president\'s external legal team, and he said that the lawyers outside did not have the opportunity to see the report, but administrative privileges may be handled by White House lawyers themselves, not by any outside person.
So it is strange that Barr himself will not mention this today, and if you give an example, you will know that it may improve his credibility as the person handling this report.
If he doesn\'t let the White House know, he should let people know.
Hayes: everything is rough.
I mean, as usual, everything is rough, even if they don\'t cover something up.
This is the case.
If he knew, he would say no. HAYES: Right.
But it also means that you can\'t think that everyone is covering up the facts because they are so instinctively sketchy about everything that you don\'t even know.
Bettsey Woodruff and Zerlina Maxwell, you two.
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
Hayes: Next, Democrats have made a lot of effort to get an unedited Miller report.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Shiff announced his new plan in two minutes. (
Start Video Editing)
Lovey: Did the White House see the report before you published your concluding letter?
Has the White House seen it since then?
In addition to your summary letter to the Judicial Committee, have they been informed of the content?
Bal: I have said what I have to say about today\'s report.
I \'ve listed a process that will be releasing these reports in a shopping manner in a week, and I won\'t say more about it until the report is released, and everyone has a chance to look at it. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: among the interested parties watching today\'s hearing, there is the head of the House Intelligence Committee, member of Congress Adam Shiff, and we can say that his letter to the Attorney General William Barr is not
Hef noted on Twitter that Barr will still not submit a complete unedited Miller report to Congress.
They won\'t ask the court to approve the material that was given to our grand jury, and Barr won\'t even say if the White House has seen or been told about the report, leaving Shiv to conclude that Trump got his Roy ·
To explain what he meant, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Congressman adamshif from California, is with me now.
What do you mean when you say the president found his royal family? REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA)
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: Well, let\'s see what happened in President Trump\'s two years in office.
There is basically no problem with the reform of the water gate incident.
Now the president is, if you are the president under investigation, you can fire the director of the FBI who is conducting the investigation.
If you are the Minister of Justice, don\'t ignore the advice of a moral lawyer and intervene on your behalf, you can dismiss the Minister of Justice.
You can hire a new Minister of Justice, who wrote to you to tell you that the reasons he thought were false against you, and then the person can get confirmation from your client, even if not yourself.
Then the minister of justice can do what he should do to make cases that prevent justice disappear and also prevent the female minister from seeing the results, the full results of the investigation
That\'s what I mean.
That\'s what Roy Cohen did.
Sadly, we have only been president for two years.
Hayes: What is your understanding-so here\'s a fundamental dispute, and it\'s a conflict, and Barr has acted as a filter for what Congress can see and not see.
My understanding is that, as your position and Jerry Nadler\'s, he does-he does not have that role in law and in the Constitution.
Why does the law stipulate that Congress can see all the material, and what is your reason?
Shiff: First of all, it is important for people to realize what Barrdid did today, that is, he made the choice.
Answering the question and saying that he would not seek the support of the court to release the material, he decided not to share the material of the grand jury with Congress.
It is not inevitable, in fact, it is a betrayal of what I believe he made during his confirmation, that is, transparency as permitted by law and policy, because law and policy allow him to appear in court, and materials.
But this is the case.
We will stick to it.
We have the right to see this information.
We can call if needed.
President Nadler has made it clear that he will do so if the attorney general does not come.
At the end of the day, there is a provision in the grand jury rules to provide this to Congress.
We have seen this device used in the past.
Just last year, we saw the same Justice Department decide that the benefits of transparency are greater than those of third parties that have not been prosecuted.
They gave us 880,000 pages of information about people who were not indicted in the Clinton email.
They provided GOPCongress with information about the pending investigation. E.
They provided confidential information to Congress.
They decrypted the information.
So they made it clear last year that all of this has interest in transparency.
We will therefore stick to this and we have full rights and we will do everything necessary to achieve it.
Hayes: There are also some questions about the provisions of the Patriot Act, which will allow you to get some basic information in your capacity as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee if Bal tries to lock you in.
This is from Intel, a former Senate general counsel. This federal law requires the attorney general to provide the director of national intelligence with any foreign intelligence information collected during the criminal investigation, then, if the congressional intelligence committee is there, the director must send the certification by law or take action in response to the request of the Commission.
Do you think this is a way to pursue it?
Shiff: Well, we \'ve considered that and made a request at some point in the past-in the recent past.
At the heart of the issue is that, in accordance with the National Security Act, the intelligence community, the law requires the Ministry of Justice to conduct a comprehensive review of any major intelligence or counter-intelligence activities and findings.
I don\'t think there is any more meaningful counter-intelligence investigation in my lifetime.
So they have to report to us.
They haven\'t done so yet.
We write to them and ask them to do so and we will stick to it.
In addition, there is an exception to the grand jury secrecy rule, in addition to everything else, and if it involves counter-intelligence information, which I think can be shared with you as well.
We will press this, too.
But our priority is to get a complete unedited report because the results of the counter-intelligence investigation may not even be covered by that report, and I think the most important thing for the public is to see Bob Miller
Hayes: Do you have a timeline for the process?
Shiff: Well, you know, after we see if it is necessary for the Judicial Council to call this report in advance, when we ourselves ask them to comply with the law, we will soon think of it.
We will therefore wait for the conclusions of the Judicial Committee and the results of the revision process.
But we are moving along a parallel track.
We want to make sure that we are informed of the full scope of the national intelligence investigations, which, as I said, may not even be discussed in the Miller report.
But the top priority for our two committees now is to provide this report to the public.
Hayes: soon, within one to ten, how much trust do you have in William Barr when he is nominated, and how much trust do you have in him now?
Shiff: Well, look, you can\'t believe a person who applied for the job, he said he thought the case against the president was fake because there was such a clear bias when he came in.
One of the questions I would like to ask is, have you sought advice from European lawyers and have you followed them?
Because it\'s hard for me to imagine that for exactly the same reason, the suggestion would be any different than the one given to MattWhittaker.
So you know, it doesn\'t give trust to people who are unwilling to follow ethical advice and have such a clear bias towards the investigation.
Hayes: OK, Congressman Adam Shiff, thank you very much for your time tonight.
Thank you, Chris.
Next, the president said he wanted to lower the price of drugs.
So why did the two Republican delegates undermine the congressional investigation into soaring costs?
Right after this story. (
Hayes: The shocking cost of drugs in this country is especially necessary, and health-saving drugs like insulin are an urgent political issue that has become the worst so far, obviously, the two parties agree that too high a drug price is a rare problem.
Everyone said it.
The president ran away.
That\'s what he said.
He always talks about some amazing solutions that are always around the corner but never shown.
Republicans in Congress have said they will cut prices for medicines.
Even Alex Azar, Secretary of HHS, said the price of the drug was too high and needed to drop. During his tenure at Eli Lily, the price of insulin also rose sharply.
So, you would think that when the House Democrats on the Oversight Committee send a letter asking for a message to the pharmaceutical company, that\'s not going to be a controversial proposal, but you\'re wrong.
On the contrary, two Republican members of the committee tried to interfere with the spokesman for the investigation by writing to the pharmaceutical company alone, telling them not to trust the chairman of the committee, Elijah camings.
Now join me, a member of the House Oversight Committee, Jackie Spyer, a California Democrat.
What happened here? REP.
Jackie Chan SPEIER ,(D)
Good question, Chris.
I mean, let\'s make it clear that the American people should have lower prices for medicines.
The president even said so.
So my two Republican colleagues, instead of standing by their constituents and trying to lower the price of drugs, I\'m writing a Kiss letter to the pharmaceutical company telling them to know Mr. chairman
Cards are trying to lower the price of medicines.
It really shows you where the parties are in terms of drug pricing.
Hayes: well, but my problem is that m always has some tension, especially in the house, especially during the period of polarization between the minority and most committees.
But at the same time, all of you must work together to a certain extent, especially the ranking members and the ranking members.
Does this look like a normal level of hijaime, or does it seem to me that we \'ve seen some sort of rebellion and tactical escalation in a few of your particular committees in the last few months?
Spyer: You know, Chairman camings has gone out of his way to show that he wants to work together and bring subpoenas to the committee so they can get involved, something Republicans have never done before.
But when we talk about climate change today, what we see, when we talk about the increased cost of insulin, what we will see tomorrow, is that they are going to the neck.
They did not intend to cooperate with the chairman.
Hayes: So there are three -- three in the United States. S.
I think tomorrow, the manufacturer of Surin will testify in Congress that your Commission or its energy and commerce is a bit clear to me. Which is it?
I believe this is our committee. HAYES: OK.
So, they will be in front of your committee.
Do you think you have the ability to handle what is happening?
We have seen these anecdotal and empirical reports about the soaring prices of insulin, Sinoe and other insurance companies.
What\'s going on with this?
SPEIER: Well, what\'s going on with most drugs.
Since 2011, four of the top ten drugs in the United States have risen.
Insulin for type 1 diabetes increased by 300, 400, 500%-EpiPens increased by 500%.
As a result, drug manufacturers are taking advantage of the opportunity to raise prices because they are concerned that the prices of drugs may be controlled. It`s obscene.
We need Putian.
I call on the president to do what he says he will do throughout the campaign, which will reduce the cost of prescription drugs.
Stop building a wall and reduce the cost of prescription drugs.
Hayes: Is there a channel for implementation action on this issue, or do you need to pass legislation that essentially reforms the drug pricing structure?
Spyer: As the president has done on many other issues, he can do a lot through executive orders.
I don\'t know exactly what he can do, but I\'m sure he can take advantage of the opportunity of executive orders, and hecan will certainly work with Democrats who are now in control of the House and pass a bill, put pressure on the Senate.
I can assure you that in this country, all millions of elderly citizens see their prices rise-I mean, digoxin, who has been rising since 19 years and 30 years, prices are rising due to the decline in the number of manufacturers.
This is a provocation against the American people.
Hayes: You know, I think it\'s a rare political victory.
In our time, if the president and Nancy Pelosi pass a bill together to limit or reduce the price of drugs, it\'s actually good for people and good for both the president and the Democrats, almost never happened.
But in my opinion, this is the picture of rareVin.
This may be the problem.
In fact, the president did speak to Speaker Pelosi over the last two weeks on prescription drugs.
She made it very clear to him that we wanted to work with you and we would be happy to sit down with the president and come up with a plan that he could help us get through the Senate because we could get it through the house
Hayes: I won\'t hold my breath.
But, member Jackie Spier, thank you very much.
Thank you, Chris.
Hayes: from ACA to border security to his own tax returns, there will be a national crisis for a lawless president in the future.
Also, Maxine Waters recaptured her time again on the first and second. (
Hayes: The first thing tonight, whether you believe it or not, since the legendary exchange between female congressman Macchine waters and US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin,(
Start Video Editing)
Hayes: Is there any reason why I did not receive a response to this letter on May 23?
Treasury Secretary Steve MNUCHIN: So, first of all, let me thank you for your service to California.
As a resident of California, I appreciate everything here. Thank you very much . . . . . . MNUCHIN :. . . . . . The community there.
Waters: I want to get my time back.
MNUCHIN: I\'m also glad to have the opportunity to meet you several times.
Waters: take my time back, take my time back.
Take my time back.
Unidentified male: time belongs to a gentleman from California. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: aunt Maxine and Secretary Mnuchin met again today, but this time she has a mallet.
It\'s the second one in 60 seconds. (
Hayes: Today is a busy day on Capitol Hill.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified at many hearings held by the House Financial Services Committee.
The performance was presided over by the congresswoman markssing watersnow, whose comeback was worth waiting. (
Start Video Editing)
Waters: you can leave if you want.
I don\'t understand what you\'re talking about.
You\'re wasting your time.
Remember, there is a foreign VIP in your office.
MNUCHIN: I just want to say that the last administration-when the Republicans didn\'t treat the finance minister that way, so if that\'s the way you want to treat me, then I\'ll reconsider if I\'m willing to come back here and testify, this is what I offered. WATERES: Mr.
Secretary, I want you to know that no other secretary told us the day before that they would limit their time in your way.
So, if you want to use them as examples, your behavior is different from their behavior.
I will help you too if you want to leave.
MNUCHIN: If you want me to stay here so that I don\'t have an important meeting and continue to cross-examine me, then we can do that.
I will cancel my meeting and stop coming back here.
I will make it clear.
If this is the way you want this relationship.
Waters: Thank you.
This gentleman, the Secretary has agreed to stay and listen to all the other members.
Please cancel the meeting and respect our time.
Who\'s next on the list?
Foreign meeting, you instructed me to stay here and I should cancel it.
Waters: No, you gave me a quote . . . . . . MNUCHIN: I did not quote you.
Waters: I accepted your offer.
MNUCHIN: I didn\'t make this proposal, let\'s be clear.
You\'re guiding me.
You ordered me to stay here.
No, I\'m not ordering you. I`m responding.
I said you can leave at any time.
You said OK, I will cancel my appointment if this is what you want to do, I will stay here, so I will respond to your request if this is what you want to do.
That\'s not what I want to do. I told you.
Waters: What do you want to do?
MNUCHIN: What I\'m telling you is that you let me leave at 5: 15 and I think it\'s a kind of respect.
Waters: you can leave at any time. You may go.
MNUCHIN: Well, please disband.
I\'m sure you wanted to smash the gravel.
Waters: Please don\'t tell me how to lead this committee.
It\'s a new way, it\'s a new chair and it\'s a new one, and at this point I have a mallet.
You can leave if you want. (END VIDEO CLIP)(
Business break)HAYES: The U. S.
The constitution accuses the president of the responsibility to ensure that the law is faithfully enforced.
The current president is basically a man without a law and he laughs at the charge in his office every day.
Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, speaking of the president after leaving the government, said that the president often says this is what I want to do, this is what I want to do, and I have to say to him
I know what you want to do, Mr. President, but you can\'t do that, which is against the law.
The president at his best, and most beneficial, is that on legal matters, he doesn\'t care, and at his worst, frankly, he is more often contemptuous of the law.
Just last week, Richard Neil, chairman of the House Methods Committee, asked the president to file a tax return because, under the black letter law, those requirements should be taken seriously.
But today, he and the White House are basically trying to escape the law. (
Start Video Editing)REP.
Caroline Maloney. D)
New York: does your team ask the White House to allow the release of the president\'s tax return?
Did the White House ask your team not to publish tax returns?
MNUCHIN: At this point we will never ask for permission from the White House and they will not give us permission.
We consulted, as I said, and I think our legal department is appropriate.
Maloney: Well, I think any communication with the White House on this matter is deeply disturbing, and if it is not the words of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: in terms of health care, as you may know, the president has reportedly overturned his own advisers and his own Minister of Justice, the lawyers who force your lawyers and the people of our lawyers to take a ridiculous and illegal position and give up the ACA, which is the law of this land, and called for the complete destruction of it in such a ridiculous, so stupid legal theory, criticized for saying that it was embarrassing and that its reasoning needed to be in trouble to come to a particular conclusion.
On immigration, the president has often urged, both publicly and privately, almost everyone who can hear to violate the law.
In fact, he cleared his security department yesterday with a clear intention to find pleading willing to break the law in pursuit of the greatest cruelty.
He told a group of Border Patrol personnel that it was simply illegal. a reporter said that if the judge caused you trouble, he said, quote, sorry, judge, I can\'t do it.
We have no room.
Let the Border Patrol leaders step in and explicitly instruct agents to ignore the president.
So, this is.
The person in charge of faithful enforcement of the law is the enemy of the law and front-line civil servants are forced to direct their charges to ignore the gibberish of the commanderin-chief.
Of course, in almost the whole elite world, people who are considered conservative lawyers are more or less satisfied with all of this, even though they like to offer the holy treatment of the wind in the law and its sense, and those big bad liberals and active judges who want to ignore it because they and their friends are appointed to the court and
The interests of customers are limited and the agency is free to control.
I think the only glimmer of hope is that most of them, George Conway and some other exceptions, have shown that all their careers with the law and its simple meaning are just a huge one
That said, no one should have any illusions about the real serious damage to the rule of law now.
We will discuss this issue next. (
Start Video Editing)
Trump: We have bad laws.
One of our judges made an incredible ruling that he did not want people to stay in Mexico.
Figure that out.
No one can trust the decisions we got from the ninth round. It`s adisgrace.
We are very strong on the border, but we are fighting a court system that has never set rules for us. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Hayes: If the court system never rules for you, there could be a reason.
President Trump, self
Today, the president who declared the rule of law, the president of law and order again complained that the judge enforced the rule of law when the result did not suit him.
More information on what can be fairly described as the president\'s breach of law comes from former acting attorney general and former assistant Walter Delinger. S.
Jonathan Adler is a professor at the catherwest Reserve University Law School.
Jonathan, let me start with you.
I think you are a servicer.
You belong to a conservative legal circle.
Clearly, all presidents are in conflict with the law.
They break the line, there are arguments and conflicts about what they can and can\'t do.
I do feel that it is different if the president has a different orientation towards the law.
Do you think so?
Jonathan Adler of the law school at Case Westbank Reserve University: Oh, no doubt.
I mean, as you said, I think for most presidents there are times when people have sincere differences.
Sometimes, the administration feels that it needs to work a bit for agenda items that are particularly important or something that is particularly important to the country.
But as I think you have noticed, in this government, people are concerned about what is needed legally, what are the traditional norms within the Justice Department, or what the government should do in terms of law enforcement or administrative procedures is secondary, which is very disturbing.
Hayes: You know, Walter, I think there is an argument that the court did a good job of binding the president, they overthrew the two repetitions of the Muslim ban and they kept it-you know, they have been freezing legal theories of different types of cockamie.
Three district courts have charged the government on the issue.
So, you know, the thing is-the system is holding.
Even if the court checks, will the executive cause damage in the Commission when dealing with such claims without legal basis?
Walter Delinger, former Attorney General: of course.
I mean, I think we are weakening our basic awareness of the rules of law.
When the president asked his chief of staff to go out and say that in the face of clear regulations requiring him to pay taxes, his chief of staff said the issue had been sued during the election.
We have not changed the law yet.
You must not obey the law.
In addition, if a lawsuit is filed, he lost the game by 3 million votes.
I mean, he has a legitimate right to be president, but you can\'t-one of the merits of the electoral college is that the president is not the voice of the people, like some referendum dictator in a third world country.
But he did not-he has shown respect to the colleague.
The equal government department, not just the disagreement with them, but the truth, you know, is not willing to provide the information that it is entitled to, what it needs is-the name of his attack judge, and he attacked the independence of his Justice Department in criminal matters.
You know, I think Chris, I\'m also interested in Jonathan viyu, who is willing to call for an investigation into his father --in-law ofMr.
Cohen will be a witness to one of the things the president is personally involved in, and in my opinion he is just-I think that\'s the end of things.
What you do want to point out is that there are some conservative scholars who have made progress on this ridiculous attack on the affordabare act.
I believe Jonathan may be one of them.
I know Elia Soman (ph). HAYES: Yes.
Michael McCully Stanford (ph)
The others will be Jonathan. you\'re up there, right?
Hayes: Yes, I would say-what does the legal sobamacare ruling mean, Jonathan wrote, not based on solid legal arguments or the exercise of the original judicial power.
Two things happened here, Jonathan.
I mean, the Justice Department usually defends the law and there are some deviations, the most famous of which is the marriage equality and the Obama Justice Department, which is a very controversial issue, but the process is very complicated.
I think it\'s a defense, and in the end I think history will make a good judgment on them.
Why is the justice department treating this very crazy statement differently?
I mean, I think its cheeky is obvious.
I mean, as you pointed out, many of us have criticized the Obama administration for refusing to defend the Marriage Protection Act.
Here you let the Justice Department say that certain arguments really cannot be brought forward.
In defending federal regulations, the Department of Justice always makes arguments such as challenging the status of the proceedings to find other ways to exclude cases from the courts.
The Justice Department did not even put the issue on the table.
I mean, this is very irregular and sets a very bad precedent, and the potential legal arguments that the Justice Department has accepted in this case are far beyond the scope of normal disagreement.
I mean, in the defense case of the marriage law, we can disagree with whether the Obama administration should defend it in court, but the position under the constitution accepted by the Justice Department is a defense in fact, and that is one that I agree.
But here, the basic argument of the law is that, so far, the people who work on these issues think it is reasonable.
Hayes: And-Walter, there\'s some sort of pressing constitutional issue now, and the role of Congress in providing advice and consent to the executive nominee has been suggested and agreed, this is the president who is just doing an overall end-of-scale run.
I mean, the third in the Department of Homeland Security has submitted their resignation today so he can look at the depth map and find the person he wants there.
You have activities in all these different agencies.
To some extent, it does appear to be a blatant violation of this fundamental constitutional principle. Yes.
There should be a constitution-
Based on the remedy of the United States Senate.
It is shocking that the main leader of the Senate will see its key role simply weakened by the president, who frankly said he would rather run the government without the participation of the Senate.
I think the role of government lawyers-you know, conservatives like Jonathan have been standing up for the rule of law, but their government lawyers have signed the briefing and I\'m not sure what they look like in the mirror in the morning.
Walter Delinger and Jonathan Adler, thank you, gentlemen.
Adler: Thank you.
If it\'s Tuesday, it means we have a new episode of our podcast this week.
We are talking about getting out of prison.
You heard me wrong.
You need to hear from guests MiriamCoba (ph)
Do this case for this idea.
Wherever you receive a podcast, you can find that episode.
Speaking of podcasts, some exciting news about my friends in the lobby, on the other side of the hour, today Rachel Mado\'s singarelimited series bags are nominated
It was an extraordinary job and a warm congratulation to the whole team.
Needless to say, you should do yourself a favor and have a look if you don\'t listen.
It\'s here tonight.
The Rachel Mado show starts right away.
Good evening, Rachel.
This is a report card in a hurry.
This copy may not have the final form and may be updated.
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.