Trump vs. Rule of Law: Barr skips hearing. TRANSCRIPT: 5/2/19, The Beat w/ Ari Melber.

Jamie Raskin, Amie Parnes, Michael Tomasky, Julian Epstein, Tim O`Brien, Robert Reich

YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN, MSNBC HOST:  I`m Yasmin Vossoughian, everybody, in for



We begin tonight with the escalating fight between the Trump administration

and Congress.  Attorney General Bill Barr, a no show today, at a House

Judiciary hearing with Democrats considering holding him in contempt and

Speaker Pelosi accusing him of a crime.




REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:  Well, he`s deadly serious

about it as the attorney general of the United States of America was not

telling the truth to the Congress of the United States.  That`s a crime.


He lied to Congress.  If anybody else did that, it would be considered a

crime.  Nobody is above the law.  Not the president of the United States

and not the attorney general.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  So that is huge.  The speaker of the House accusing the

attorney general of committing a crime for lying to Congress.  Today, an

empty chair where Barr was supposed to sit, refusing to come in because

Democrats wanted committee staffers to question him.


Democrats calling him too scared to even face them.  With one bringing in a

bucket of KFC chicken, that`s interesting, to make the point.


Chairman Nadler saying they`re going to work for a few more days to get

Barr to turn over the full unredacted Mueller report.  And if he does not,

they`re going to vote to hold him in contempt.  Listen to this.





no choice but to move quickly to hold the attorney general in contempt if

he stalls or fails to negotiate in good faith.   If he does not provide

this committee with the information it demands and respect it deserves, Mr.

Barr`s moment of accountability will come soon enough.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Also today, Trump`s White House counsel blasting Mueller in a

letter revealed today, complaining to Barr that the Mueller report was

“political”.  One person who has not responded to that yet or any of the

other news, Bob Mueller.  But Democrats say they want him to have – they

want to have him testify on May 15.


With me now, Maya Wiley, former counsel to the mayor of New York City and a

civil prosecutor for the Southern District of New York.  And Author

Jonathan Alter who`s now a columnist at “The Daily Beast” and MSNBC

political analyst.


I want to start with the moment that Nancy Pelosi is talking about, now

accusing the attorney general of a crime.  And that was the moment – let`s

go to that sound bite, you guys.  Let`s play that and then we`ll have Maya

first respond to it.




REP. CHARLIE CRIST (D-FL):  Reports have emerged recently, general, that

members of the special counsel`s team are frustrated at some level with the

limited information included in your March 24 letter that it does not

adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report`s findings.  Do you

know what they`re referencing with that?



question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing

frustration over the accuracy relating to findings.  I don`t know what that

refers to at all.  I talked directly to Bob Mueller, not members of his





VOSSOUGHIAN:  So you have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maya, saying that was

a crime, that he perjured himself right there in his testimony because he

said that he did not know of any sort of thing from Mueller`s team and how

they felt about his findings and his report that he put out there, the

Mueller memo, the four-page Mueller memo.


And then he was trying to explain himself and saying he spoke to Bob

Mueller himself, not Mueller`s team.  Let me point out.  Bob Mueller is the

head of his team.  The definition of a team is the leader along with the

people that are working underneath him.  So is this a crime?



potentially a crime.  And when I say potentially, what I mean is Nancy

Pelosi is completely within her rights in this instance to say, this is a

lie in my book and I believe it should be potentially prosecuted.


Whether it will win a jury is a different question.  That`s why I say

potential because what William Barr has done, he`s a very clever lawyer,

right, he is parsing here.


This is like remember the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky defense I wasn`t

lying and because it wasn`t intercourse, this is that kind of defense.  And

so he knew exactly what he was doing.


He understood the – it is hard to believe that he did not understand the

question and it is hard to believe that he did not understand William – I

mean Bob Mueller calling him the day after his summary saying, hey – send

him a letter saying, “Hey, wait a minute.”


And then call – and then having a conversation with him by phone saying,

“Hey, wait a minute.”  That he did not understand that to be related to the

concerns that were being voiced in the press from members of Mueller`s

team.  That`s what you have to believe, to believe that he was not lying.


But a jury technically might find that not a lie.  But I think what`s so

concerning is that a sitting U.S. attorney general should have been

forthcoming in answering that question saying I don`t know but I have had a

communication with Mueller suggesting that he had concerns.


That would have been the appropriate thing to do for a sitting U.S.

attorney general who is addressing congress which has oversight authority

over the agents.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So you have Maya Wiley saying this is a crime.  You have the

House speaker saying this is a crime, Jonathan.


So what is to be done about it?  How significant is it?


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on the record and called this a crime. 

She`s got to follow through with something on this.


JONATHAN ALTER, COLUMNIST, THE DAILY BEAST:  No, I don`t think she actually

does on that.  Look, she`s laying down a marker that his testimony, not

just in this instance but it was a festival of lies.  At best, it was

ridiculous hair-splitting or you know, man-splaining, Barr-splaining to the

committee in ways that were very misleading.


But it is highly unlikely that they`re going to bring a perjury charge

against the attorney general.  What is much more likely is that they`re

going to hold him in contempt for not turning over the unredacted version

of the Mueller report and for not agreeing to testify.


The latter is especially outrageous.  The Congress has constitutional and

legal authority for oversight of the executive branch.  They can, and in

this case, they will compel him to appear on Capitol Hill.


They`re probably going to have to go to court to do it but he will end up

testifying.  Because the law is totally 100 percent on the side of



Now, in the past, what has happened is that witnesses have been able to

negotiate over the timing of their testimony.  They say, you know, I can`t

come in next Tuesday but I`ll come in a week from Wednesday.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  This is different it seems.


ALTER:  And that`s considered acceptable.  But there is no precedent for

saying, “Well, I`m not going to come in and testify if you have – because

I`m scared of you appointing the counsel like a Sam Dash or John Doar

character from Watergate who is not a member of Congress but a professional

to do the questioning.




ALTER:  That`s what he is afraid of because he knows he did badly in front

of the Senate.  He is on very thin ice and he doesn`t want a professional,

instead of a grandstanding politician, to be questioning him.  but that is

not grounds for him to refuse to testify.  So this eventually –

eventually, he will be compelled to testify.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So you have Chairman Nadler saying we want to negotiate over

the next few days before we decide what he`s going to do next.  Obviously,

that is not only about releasing the Mueller report in full without

redactions.  That is also about having the attorney general appear before

them in testimony and provide testimony there.


ALTER:  That`s the key issue, right.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  That is the key issue right now.  If the attorney general,

Maya, is found in contempt, that is an incredibly long process.  The

question is, is it worth it?


WILEY:  It can be a long process.  We`ve been referring to the Fast and

Furious when Eric Holder was held in contempt.  And that has –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  It went all the way until Trump was – became president.


WILEY:  Went all the way.  Although one of the things that`s important to

note there is the D.C. Courts actually said, no, you don`t have executive

privilege to the Obama administration in a case where I would argue, if

they didn`t have it in that case, there is no way the Trump administration

can assert it creditably.


But the point is, I think there`s the issue of the institutional

credibility and constitutional authority of the Congress.  And then there

is how to prioritize getting the story out to the American public.


Because one of the things that Barr is doing is obfuscating.  He is making

the picture opaque.  He`s misrepresenting things that are in the report. 

He`s misrepresenting the law in some instances –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  It seems as simply as this, he doesn`t care.


WILEY:  Well, I think he cares very much about spinning the narrative.  And

he`s been willing to do it in a way that is misrepresenting both Mueller`s

report and even his communications with Rob Mueller about Robert Mueller`s

belief that he is misrepresenting the report.


And I think what is critical here is then getting Robert Mueller to come

and say what is inconsistent.


ALTER:  Yes, that`s the most important.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  That`s correct.  That`s the most important thing.  We got to

hear from Bob Mueller.


ALTER:  This is the sideshow.  Barr is a sideshow.  Mueller is the main



And we`ve read the book or some people have read the book.  Now, we need to

see the movie.  We need to show the movie of Donald Trump`s crimes to the

American people.


And that is done through congressional testimony, getting Donald – Don –




ALTER:  – McGahn in there and the other key witnesses in this case.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  And Bob Mueller.  Yes.


ALTER:  And Mueller is very important.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So we`ve been speaking about contempt here.  Before I bring

in my next guest, I want to run through the options Congress has if they

hold someone in contempt.


So Congress could do one of three things after the vote.  Try to get House

security to arrest Barr but that has not happened since the 1930s.  They

could refer the case to a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. but every

federal prosecutor in the U.S. works for the attorney general so that`s

probably a non-starter as well.  Or they could ask a judge to issue a civil

citation and there`s precedent for that.


As we were just talking about, about the legal fights, they took years on

that one when Democrats held Bush White House Counsel Harriet Meyers in

contempt.   The fight lasted until Obama took office.


And then what we were just talking about when Republicans held Eric Holder

in contempt, the case was still going on into when Trump took office.  So

it takes a very long time.


I want to bring in Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin who serves on the

Judiciary Committee and was waiting for Attorney General Barr at the

hearing this morning.  Take me into the room this morning, Congressman,

first and foremost, as you were waiting Attorney General Barr and full well

knowing he was not going to show up.



disappointing thing because we had watched the exchanges in the Senate when

we could intermittently yesterday.  And it`s clear that Attorney General

Barr has been exposed as a propagandist and a self-appointed consigliere

for Donald Trump at this point.


When he received the report from the Special Counsel Mueller who was pretty

much ready to go, he could have got it ready and given it to us in 24 hours

or 48 hours, which is pretty much the historical standard with prior

special counsels and independent counsels.


Instead, he began this three-week, three-and-a-half-week period of

propaganda in which he tried to create an impression about what was in

there, a false impression about what was in the report, and then to cement

it in the public mind.


And we are still trying to lift this thick fog of propaganda by bringing in

witnesses.  And they`re trying to resist us and obstruct us on that.  And

we are trying the get the unredacted report as well as all of the

underlying materials that go with it.


And we expect that.  And if not, we definitely plan to find the attorney

general in contempt.  And understand we don`t have to go to court to start

this off and we don`t have to get him arrested to start it off.  We can

find him in contempt in committee.


If you act with contempt for Congress in our lawful powers, we will find

you in contempt of Congress and the rule of law.  From the Judiciary

Committee, it then goes to the House floor in which case the House would

vote as to whether or not he`s in contempt.  Everything that you mentioned

was the question –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So here`s the big question for you, Congressman.  Here`s the

big question for you.  What is that going to accomplish, finding the

attorney general in contempt?  What are you looking to accomplish there

with that?


RASKIN:  Well, look, what we have is an administration that is now engulfed

in lawlessness and corruption.  And we have to begin to check them at

important points.


The attorney general theoretically should be on our side but he`s not.  He

obviously has gone over to the side of the president and he is cooperating

in promoting the president`s position now which is that he will not

cooperate with any subpoenas.  He will not respond to any lawful orders or

requests from the House of Representatives.


That`s obviously constitutionally intolerable and Congress can`t put up

with it.  So we have to make it clear to the public and make clear to the

whole system of government that the attorney general is acting outside of

the law.


Then we have to proceed to get to the guts of the Mueller report, to bring

those witnesses forward –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Yes, and you`re bringing up –


RASKIN:  – so America can hear what happened.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Absolutely.  And you`re bringing up a really good point here. 

Because one of the, I think, directives here and the big questions here is,

do we pursue the attorney general until he provides testimony for the

House?  Or do we pursue the unredacted Mueller report along with testimony

from Bob Mueller?  Is that where we put our energy?


RASKIN:  Yes.  Well, I think that`s where the focus is going to be.  That`s

what we were going after.


We`re trying to determine whether or not the president committed

obstruction of justice.  There were 10 episodes of presidential obstruction

or attempted obstruction which were recounted by Special Counsel Mueller in

the report.


Obviously, the attorney general did everything he could to pull the wool

over everyone`s eyes and to obscure that fact and he pronounced himself

basically the judge, the jury, the executioner, the Congress and said there

was no obstruction of justice.  Obviously, we`re disregarding that

propaganda ploy by the A.G.


Instead, we`re going after what is actually in the report.  We want

critical witnesses to come forward and testify to our committee including

Don McGahn, the White House counsel who was ordered by the president to

fire Special Counsel Mueller through Rod Rosenstein.


We want to hear from him exactly what happened.  We want the American

people to hear what happened so we can get some semblance of reality. 

Really, what we`re after is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth here.  And then we`re going to decide what to do.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  All right.  Congressman Jamie Raskin.  Jonathan Alter.  You

have the final word, Jonathan.


ALTER:  Well, I was going just to say that Congressman–


VOSSOUGHIAN:  I`m getting yelled at right now so be quick.


ALTER:  –Raskin said we want him on our side.  He did not mean on the side

of the Democrats.  What he meant is on the side of the law.  Barr is the

chief law enforcement officer of the United States.  Oversight is in a

book.  It`s the law and he needs to –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Not the president`s defense attorney.


ALTER:  Right.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Congressman Jamie Raskin, Jonathan Alter, thank you.


ALTER:  Thanks, Yasmin.


RASKIN:  Thanks for having me.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Maya Wiley, stay with me.


All right.  Coming up, everybody, the Democrats` tough new line on Trump,

Barr, and impeachment.  Will they follow through?





the proceedings to remove the attorney general.  The person is obstructing

real-time from holding the president accountable is William Barr.  And I`m

calling on my colleagues to join me.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Also, the Kamala Harris moment that raised the key question,

did Trump order Barr to investigate his political opponents?  Hillary

Clinton has some thoughts.




HILLARY CLINTON:  I mean I`m living rent-free inside of Donald Trump`s

brain and that is not a very nice place to be.  It is one of their tools to

fire up their hardcore base.  When in doubt, go after me.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Oh, what a place to be.


And what the Mueller report reveals about Trump`s desire to get an attorney

general like Bill Barr.


I`m Yasmin Vossoughian, in for Ari Melber.  And you`re watching THE BEAT on







TRUMP:  I`ve had him testifying already for 30 hours.



answer no?


TRUMP:  And it`s really – so I don`t think I can let him and then tell

everybody else you can`t, because – especially him because he was a

counsel.  So they`ve testified for many hours, all of them.  There were

many, many –


HERRIDGE:  So as far as you`re concerned, it`s really kind of done?  It`s



TRUMP:  You can`t say that one can and the others can`t.


HERRIDGE:  So is it done?


TRUMP:  I would say it`s done.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Wow.  So breaking news.  That was President Trump moments ago

saying that he won`t let Don McGahn testify about the Mueller report.  And

we just got breaking news as well on Mueller himself possibly testifying.


The House Judiciary Committee has now started discussions directly with

Mueller`s team about coming to testify before the committee.  Nothing has

been finalized but this is big news right now.


The committee is now in talks with Mueller`s team directly.  Not just the

Department of Justice.


Joining me now to discuss this breaking news, Senior political

correspondent for “The Hill”, Amie Parnes.  And “The Daily Beast” Michael

Tomasky.  His latest column is head of “The GOP`s Just a Racket Now, and

Trump Is Its Godfather, Barr Its Wartime Consigliere.”


Amie, I`m going to start with you on this one.  And this is some pretty

huge news.  Not surprising necessarily because we have heard sort of some

whisperings of this from the White House that he did not want Don McGahn to





VOSSOUGHIAN:  Although we do know where Don McGahn stands on everything

because he has issued some statements after the Mueller report.


PARNES:  Right.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  What do you make of this?


PARNES:  That this gives fuel to the fire to Democrats.  This is exactly

the reason why Democrats are saying we have to pursue this because he is

obstructing people from coming and testifying.


And that is the reason why you`re seeing people saying, OK, we`re going to

hold him in contempt of the Congress if he doesn`t do this.  And this is

why this is kind of giving Democrats the energy they need right now to

pursue Barr and to pursue other leads down the road.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So what happens now here, do you think, Michael if he`s

resisting Don McGahn testifying.



Judiciary Committee does everything it can to compel him to testify.  And

they take every step they can in that direction.


McGahn is a big fish here.  He`s a very big deal because as we know he was

very central to the Mueller report, to the allegations in the Mueller

report, not exactly allegations but to the descriptions in the Mueller

report that got toward obstruction of justice.


Trump telling McGahn to do this, to not do that in Volume II of the report

where the obstruction sections are laid out.  So McGahn would be a very key

witness for the House to get.


I don`t know how they get him but they`re going to push very hard to do so

because he would make for some pretty dramatic television.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  And – but here`s the question, Michael.  McGahn has already

spoken to Bob Mueller.  We know what took place with Don McGahn.


And not only has he spoken to him, he released a statement saying

everything in the Mueller report that was laid out with regards to him and

his interactions with the president was accurate.  So why is the president

resisting this Q&A with Don McGahn?


TOMASKY:  Because he knows what John Alter just said in your last segment,

there is nothing quite like seeing it.  It is not the same as seeing it.


It`s not the same as seeing Don McGahn sit there under questioning from

Democrats and admitting this and this and that is true and watching those

film clips be played on this network and the others for four days.  That

will have impact that mere words on paper do not.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Amie, let`s talk about Bob Mueller now that we`re hearing

that he`s actually directly negotiating with Jerry Nadler, the chairman. 

What do you make of that?


That`s pretty unprecedented.  We thought that he was negotiating his time

in the House with the DOJ but he, in fact, is not doing that.


PARNES:  Well, it speaks volumes about where he is, where his team is in

terms of how they see this whole thing.  Their story has essentially been

told for them.  They are upset about that.  They are now saying, OK, we`re

taking this out of your hands and we`re essentially going to cut the middle

man and come straight to you.


And I think this is why we`re seeing this drumbeat of essentially

protesting the last few days.  This letter was the first thing.  You`re

hearing rumblings from behind the scenes saying it was a

mischaracterization.  This is why he needs to come forward.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Yes.  No, go ahead.


PARNES:  So I think that that`s – this is essentially why they`re doing

that because they want their story told.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So Michael, you can`t help but think, is this a reflection of

the fact that Bob Mueller does not trust the A.G.?


TOMASKY:  It`s hard to see that it could be anything other than that.  And

I think Mueller is itching to tell his story.  There is a risk there for



I should just add.  Democrats will ask him questions.  Expecting him to say

things like, yes, I would have brought an indictment against Donald Trump

if he were not the president of the United States.  Things like that would

be the money quotes they`ll be looking for.


Mueller worded things much more cautiously in the report than that.  So he

may not be willing to go much farther in person than he went in print in

the report.  The Democrats I think need to be mindful of that when they get

him up there.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Yes, it is an incredibly good point, Amie, because we know

Bob Mueller to be a company man.  He does not stray outside of the lines.


He knows what to say and not to say and he hasn`t said a lot over the last

couple of years.  We haven`t heard much from him.


I can`t tell you how many times I`ve re-watched when Mike Viqueira chased

him down outside church one day and tried to get a statement from him but

we certainly didn`t hear anything from him at that point either.  He just

said no comment.


PARNES:  Right.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So what do we actually expect to hear from Bob Mueller?  What

are you going to be looking for?


PARNES:  This is going to be a historic event either way.  I mean this is

what everyone has been waiting for, for two years.  To hear it straight

from the horse`s mouth exactly what happened, exactly where.


If Democrats do have a case going forward, they can actually say this is

going to make for compelling television and they can point to his exact

words, his exact testimony and say this is why we`re going to proceed going



This is the case that we are building and this is exactly what they need

right now.  And that is why I think Trump will be a little bit nervous

about what happens.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Yes.  OK.  Amie Parnes and Michael Tomasky, thank you guys



Ahead, everybody, Senator Harris rattles Barr on White House contacts.


Today, new questions about Trump`s possible abuse of power.  We`re back in

30 seconds.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Welcome back.  The image of the day, witness chair at this

morning`s House Judiciary hearing empty because Bill Barr, he never showed

up.  One impact, Democrats didn`t get a chance to follow up on the

startling moment, Kamala Harris asking Barr whether Trump secretly leaned

on him to open new probes.




HARRIS:  Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or

suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?  Yes or no, please,



BARR:  The president or anybody else?


HARRIS:  It seems you`d remember something like that and be able to tell



BARR:  Yes.  But I`m trying to grapple with the word suggest.  I mean there

have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to

open an investigation but –


HARRIS:  Perhaps they`ve suggested?


BARR:  I don`t know.  I wouldn`t say suggest.


HARRIS:  Hinted?


BARR: I don`t know.


HARRIS:  Inferred?  You don`t know?  OK.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  So Barr appearing to squirm, unable to answer direct

questions about Trump`s conduct or question touching on potential abuse of

power that has come up before.  Back in 2018, “The New York Times” reported

that Trump told White House Counsel Don McGahn that he wanted to ask the

DOJ to prosecute James Comey and Hillary Clinton.  McGahn resisted, warning

it could lead to impeachment.


And the Mueller report shows Trump pushing Then-Attorney General Jeff

Sessions to investigate Clinton.  Clinton addressing both of those reports

during an interview with Rachel Maddow last night.




CLINTON:  I mean I`m living rent-free inside of Donald Trump`s brain and

it`s not a very nice place to be.  I`ve been investigated repeatedly by the

other side.  And much to their dismay but to my satisfaction, it has been

for naught.


This is a diversion attack.  It is one of their tools to fire up their

hardcore base.  When in doubt, go after me.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  All right.  Joining me now is Julian Epstein, former chief

Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.  The same type of

staff lawyer who would have been questioning Barr if he showed up today. 

And Natasha Bertrand, political reporter for – who has covered the Russia

probe from the start.


Julian, I`m going to start with you on this one.  What type of questions

would you have been asking Bill Barr in this morning?


JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Well, I would have specifically

gone after the four obstruction areas.  I think Mueller was rather specific

that the elements of obstruction were met in at least four areas.  Barr`s

explanation yesterday was that Trump was merely trying to clear up a “New

York Times” story.  I think that`s demonstrably false.


So I think that I would certainly start there and I would certainly start

with the evasions about the character – the mischaracterization about the

Mueller report.  I don`t even think – I think Bob Barr has misserved the

president I think a couple of weeks ago.


Democrats were very divided and the public was starting to turn its

attention elsewhere.  I think the mischaracterization of the Barr report,

together with the attacks on Mueller today and the stonewalling of

subpoenas is exactly the lessons that we learned not to do in 1998 in terms

of effective pushback.


What they`re doing is they`re keeping this issue in the media for a much

longer period of time.  They`ve reignited this debate.  They`ve unified the

Democrats.  They`ve done all the things wrong in the last two weeks, even

though the storyline was kind of headed in their direction, was headed in

their favor.


They`ve done everything possible to reverse it.  And I think the White

House counsel and Bill Barr, the real story is here, it`s that they are

dramatically misserving the president who wants to get this story to its

completion.  And they`ve extended this thing into the foreseeable future.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Julian, one of the reasons that the attorney general cited

that he wouldn`t show up this morning was because staff lawyers were going

to be – that was the reason, was because staff lawyers were going to be

questioning him in addition to Congress people. What is the advantage of



EPSTEIN:  Well the advantage is you have 30 minutes and you have skilled

attorneys that can get in and get to the crux of the legal matter. 

Members, I love them all, no disrespect to them, love to make big speeches

and get on T.V. for their constituents at night and not – often are not

the most effective questioners.


It is true that it is not common for staff to question a cabinet official. 

It happens very, very rarely.  But in 1998, we questioned Ken Starr who was

standing in for the Attorney General as the Independent Counsel at that

point.  During Iran-Contra, they questioned cabinet-level officials.  And

there`s precedent for it for the kind of like time stands still earth-

shattering investigations into administration corruption.  There`s plenty

of precedents even if it`s not common.


And again, I think Barr is not a very important witness.  I think Mueller

is much, much, much more important at this point.  But I think Barr`s

conduct has again really miss-served this president by fueling the fire,

unifying Democrats, and extending this issue in the – in the public – in

the public square now for a good another six months at least.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Natasha, I want to replay the exchange between the Attorney

General and Kamala Harris when she asked him about whether or not he was

ever asked to open up an investigation, and then I`m going to follow that

up with the first time we heard the Attorney General used the word spying.





anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an

investigation of anyone?



the word suggests.  They have not asked me to open an investigation but –


HARRIS:  Perhaps they suggested.


BARR:  I don`t know, I wouldn`t say suggested.


HARRIS:  Hinted.


BARR:  I don`t know.


HARRIS:  Inferred.   You don`t know, OK.






BARR:  I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  So you`re not – you`re not suggesting though that

spying occurred.


BARR:  I don`t – well, I guess you could – I think there`s – a spying

did occur.  Yes, I think spying did occur.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Natasha, you can`t help but think when you listen to the

exchange between the Attorney General and Kamala Harris, and Senator

Harris, and then here the Attorney General talking about spying and wanting

to look into that during the Obama administration.  You also can`t help but

remember how many times the president has used the terminology spying and

talks about how he believed his campaign was being unlawfully spied upon.


What do you make of that connection there?



would also add the big New York Times piece from this morning outlining how

Rudy Giuliani, the president`s personal attorney, has been really pushing

the Justice Department to go hard on Hunter Biden`s ties to Ukraine and you

know, certain issues having to do with Ukrainian interference in the 2016

election.  This is – a report that said that Giuliani was actually talking

to the President about pressuring the Justice Department to look into these



So the idea that the President who has in the past pressured people in the

Justice Department, his Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General to go

down certain investigative avenues whether it`s Clinton, or Comey, or the

investigators in 2016 and beyond who investigated the Russia Russian

interference.  It just seems virtually implausible and impossible that he

wouldn`t have had these kinds of conversations with Bill Barr. 


And I think that is why Barr hesitated at the hearing yesterday.  He knows

that he could not say no, I have never had a conversation with anyone in

the White House about certain avenues of inquiry that they want me to go

down because that would have been a lie.  So there are many, many things I

think that the President would like to see investigated.  Of course,

Clinton is one – the Clinton Foundation is one that they toss out there

every now and then.


And then of course, people like Comey and Andy McCabe who you know pursued

the investigation in 2016, and then the Ukrainians which of course was the

counter to the Mueller report.  They were saying well, it wasn`t the – it

wasn`t Republicans that were colluding with the Russians, it was a

Democrats that were including with the Ukrainians.  So there`s a ton out

there that I think he would have a lot of – lot to say to the Attorney



VOSSOUGHIAN:  You also feel like the Attorney General definitely pause

there when he was obviously trying to answer and figure out what exactly

Kamala Harris was asking him, the senator was asking him.  And you can`t

help but think about the fact that he has a President who tweets a lot and

could feasibly have tweeted, I did ask the Attorney General to look into

something and I`m allowed to do that because the president has a history of

doing such things as that.  And then the Attorney General could have very

well found himself in hot water.


Julian Epstein, Natasha Bertrand thank you guys both very much.  I

appreciate it.  Ahead, a former Clinton cabinet member says Congress should

be ready to arrest Attorney General Barr.  He joins us live.  And more on

the breaking news, everybody.  Mueller`s team talking directly with

Democrats about testimony.  We`ll be right back.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Welcome back.  A possible sign that Mueller might not fully

trust Attorney General Barr.  The breaking news, Chairman Nadler`s House

Judiciary Committee is talking directly with Mueller`s team about coming to

testify before the committee.  Nothing has been finalized but Mueller now

in discussions with the Democrats not just the Department of Justice.


This news coming as Hillary Clinton says Bill Barr is acting like Trump`s

personal defense lawyer.



on the committee did a good job today in exposing that, that he is the

President`s defense lawyer.  He is not the Attorney General of the United

States in the way that he has conducted himself.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  And today, Barr is ducking the hard questions from lawyers

but is this surprising?  Before Trump tap Barr, he sends an unsolicited

memo to Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein saying Mueller`s obstruction probe was

“fatally misconceived because Trump`s actions were under his presidential

authority.”  A point Barr repeated in his testimony yesterday.




BARR:  If in fact, a proceeding was not well-founded, if it was based on

false allegations, the President does not have to sit there

constitutionally and allow it to run its course.  The president could

terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent because he

was being falsely accused.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  With me now is Tim O`Brien, Executive Editor of Bloomberg

View and Author of Trump Nation, and Maya Wiley is back with us.  They`ve

both been shaking their heads when we were listening to the Attorney

General.  So I`m just going to let you guys go on this one because it seems

like you have an opinion.


Tim, I`ll let you go because Maya was with me in the last half.  Go ahead.



there the Barr makes that the president, if he believes that the

accusations are false can then stick his fingers in the middle of a federal

investigation I think is a completely bogus philosophic approach to this

from either legal or an institutional perspective, because Trump didn`t

know what all the underlying evidence was necessarily.  We still don`t.


Kamala Harris made it very clear during the hearing that Bill Barr himself

didn`t look at the underlying evidence.  So I don`t think the President

gets to sit on essentially on a throne above the process and say I know

better than everyone else involved in this if.  And I feel it`s going the

wrong direction, I can derail it.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  It seems very basic to me to put it in basic terms, that if

there`s an investigation that I don`t like that was started about me, that

I can go ahead and fire the person that is looking into me.  OK, I`m going

to let them investigate and find out that I`m completely guilt – not

guilty, right.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  So if the President felt like this investigation was

unjustified, then where is the evidence to back that claim up?


WILEY:  Well, that – yes, exactly.  It`s like we didn`t have a two-year

investigation with 30 some-odd indictments and a whole bunch of guilty

pleas, and several people close to the president winding up in prison

because there was just false accusation.  That`s – and even Robert

Mueller`s report says we didn`t have sufficient evidence to establish, to

establish conspiracy with the Russian government, and then named three

separate reasons why it was difficult to get sufficient evidence to

determine whether or not there was, right, which is folks took the Fifth

Amendment, people lied, witnesses were overseas and they couldn`t get

access to witnesses.


That – all that says is so we can`t exonerate them either.  But – so when

you have an attorney general of the United States simply make the

suggestion that a sitting president can remove any – the reason we have a

special counsel is exactly for this reason.  And what you`re really saying

is we don`t have a legal process that can be trusted.


The President of the United States would essentially be saying, I as

president United States do not trust the United States law enforcement. 

That`s – that in and of itself is a statement.


O`BRIEN:  And Mueller went out of his way in his report to point exactly at

this, that no one in the United States is above the law, that we had these

processes in place for a reason, and that in his view I think was pretty

clear in that report he thought that the Congress should be the final

arbiter of what occurred here, not the Attorney General.




WILEY:  This is – that`s exactly the next point I was going to make as

well because Tim, your brilliant.  Which is that –


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Just the lovefest here, everybody.


WILEY:  Which is that part of the job is to amass the evidence for Congress

to determine whether or not there`s been an abuse of authority.  Because

part of what the obfuscation was of this – of that hearing yesterday was

Barr suggesting, unless you meet a criminal standard, a criminal standard

that Congress can`t act.  But that is not the way the Constitution is

structured and that`s not what congressional authority for impeachment.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  So a lot of people are asking today and over the last couple

of weeks they`ve been asking this, what happened the Bill Barr we thought

we knew.  Because not to call you out Maya, but I know a lot of people who

were up here in the legal community, I didn`t know necessarily Bill Barr.


O`BRIEN:  I was not of that opinion.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  That said we can trust him.  He – this is a guy who knows

what he`s doing.  He has been here before.  He`s going to do the right

thing, and so on and so forth.  But there was a Jim Comey New York Times

op-ed and he tried to answer the question as to what happens to people that

work in the Trump administration.  And the title of this op-ed was James

Comey: How Trump co-op`s leaders like Bill Barr.


And here`s a quote from it.  Trump eats your soul in small bites.  Go



O`BRIEN:  This behavior from Bill Barr didn`t begin with his advisory role

to Donald Trump.  Bill Barr during the Iran-Contra investigation when he

was George H.W. Bush`s Attorney General advised him how he could use

pardons to prevent that investigation from rolling into the Oval Office.


Bill Barr has a long history of using legal methods, maneuvers decisions,

philosophically I think because he leaves any strong imperial presidency to

derail congressional scrutiny and specifically to derails special council



So this didn`t happen because Donald Trump ate Bill Barr`s soul.  This is a

meeting of the minds.  This is a meeting of the minds.  He is not Jim

Mattis.  Jim Mattis left.  He is not Sarah Saunders who subsumes herself to

Trump every day.  This is an individual who came in intending to do this,

and I think they discussed it when he was auditioning for the job.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  Maya, I got to let you have your ten seconds to –


WILEY:  My ten seconds is we – everyone knew that Trump was only going to

hire someone he believed would protect them and that that was going to be

the conversation.  But I think many of us thought he was going to try to

protect him within the bounds of the law.  Lying to Congress, keeping

information from Congress, and blocking Congress from doing its

constitutional duty is not – it`s a kind of boundary crossing we didn`t

think that one needed to do even if you thought your job was to create the

best legal path for the president.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  All right, Tim O`Brien, Maya Wiley, thank you guys both.  I

appreciate it.


O`BRIEN:  Thank you.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  All right, coming up, I`m going to talk to a former Clinton

cabinet member who says Congress should be ready to arrest Bill Barr. 

Robert Reich, next.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  Welcome back.  The question how to handle an Attorney General

who you believe committed a crime.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Should he go to jail?  Should he go to jail for it?


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  There`s a process involved here and as I said,

I`ll say it again, and how many your questions you had, the committee will

act upon how we will proceed.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  That was Pelosi today saying Barr lied to Congress, but

avoiding the question about actual jail time.  And then there`s the

provocative take from my next guest, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert

Reich who wrote before Barr`s testimony that one remedy, if Barr does not

cooperate with Democrats in Congress, could indeed be arresting him and

putting him in jail.


Robert Reich is joining me now.  And thank you so much for being here,

Robert.  I very much appreciate it.  You wrote that before Barr testified

obviously yesterday.  Has your view changed at all?



refuses to testify before the House.  Now, there is some negotiation going

on.  Maybe he will testify before the House.  but there is an old precedent

in this country under the Constitution of the United States, affirmed by

the Supreme Court that says that the House and the Senate, each chamber has

an inherent power to compel a witness to testify if that witness just

refuses and that includes arrest and it even includes jail.


And we forget that because it`s been such a long time.  It`s been 1935 –

34 since that happened, but it`s there and the Supreme Court has affirmed

that authority.  And I`m just – the reason I put that out there – and

that was even before Nancy Pelosi said what she said today – because we

really have to think of this in terms of a constitutional crisis.


If the president and the administration are stonewalling and say there will

be absolutely no information, no testimony, no report, no Mueller Report

that goes to the House, then the House is powerless unless the House takes

some action.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  It seems though, I have to say with the people I have been

speaking to incredibly unrealistic to imagine the attorney general being

put in handcuffs and behind bars.  Here`s what you – here`s what you

wrote.  The House can order its own sergeant at arms to arrest the

offender, subject him to a trial before the full House.  And if judged to

be in contempt, jail that person until he actually appears.  Do you think

this is a realistic scenario or just a threat?


REICH:  This is a realistic threat.  But let me say – let me say why this

is an important threat.  Otherwise, the Trump administration can run out

the clock.  In other words, Congress could decide, the House could decide

to hold the witness in contempt which is criminal and then it would just

languish through the courts.


And because the Justice Department really runs the show, it could take

another year and a half, and then the clock runs out.  The way it expedites

this issue up to the Supreme Court and not let the Trump administration run

the clock is to actually act on the constitutional authority that the House



And that constitutional authority as I said enshrined in a Supreme Court

case.  I think it was called Jurney versus MacCracken, 1935.  You go look

back at it.  It`s clear that the House could do that, but in so threatening

it would.  And even if you had a sergeant of arms go to the Justice

Department, I mean, I doubt that there would actually be such a clash, but

you have to get what – it would force the Trump administration to get an

injunction in court and that would be expedited I expect up to the Supreme



VOSSOUGHIAN:  You actually serve in the Clinton administration.  I want to

take a listen to Lindsey Graham back in actually 1998 talking about

presidents who defy subpoenas.




SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC):  It`s your job to tell us what we need.  It is

your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. 

The day Richard Nixon failed to answer to that subpoena is the day that he

was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  I`m going to bet Lindsey Graham has changed his tune today

which I think we all know he has.  But could the same actions apply now?


REICH:  Of course.  Even Sam Ervin.  You remember Senator Sam Ervin, the

Watergate – Chairman of the Watergate committee.  He threatened and very,

very explicitly anybody from the administration, including the president

that did not show up for a subpoena that they would be arrested.  He was

threatening arrest at that time back in the early 70s under Watergate.


So this is not completely out of the question.  And although Republicans

like Lindsey Graham you know, will talk about it when their person is not

actually – their administration is not under the gun, this is something

that is necessary to threaten because otherwise – and this is the

important point, otherwise there is no power in Congress, in the House or

Senate, each chamber separately to oversee what the administration is



The Constitution makes these branches of government co-equal branches.  And

it`s not co-equal if the President can just say, well, forget it.  I`m

going to order everybody to basically reject any subpoena, any request for

information.  And it doesn`t matter if you hold anybody in contempt.


VOSSOUGHIAN:  All right, Robert Reich, thank you so much.  His latest book

is The Common Good.  We`ll be right back.




VOSSOUGHIAN:  That does it for me, everybody.  I`m going to see you back

here tomorrow morning on “FIRST LOOK” at 5:00 a.m. Eastern.  “HARDBALL”

with Chris Matthews starts right now.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST:  Flanking the bar exam.  Let`s play HARDBALL.













Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the