Barr repeats vow to be transparent. TRANSCRIPT: 4/9/19. The Rachel Maddow Show.

Guests:
Lawrence Summers, Neal Katyal
Transcript:

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  That`s ALL IN for this evening. 

 

“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. 

 

Good evening, Rachel.

 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  You can`t spring that on me. 

 

HAYES:  It was a delightful surprise.  It was fantastic piece of work and I

was very happy to see it recognized. 

 

MADDOW:  It means the world coming from you.  We are totally flummoxed that

it happened.  It`s very nice.  And now, you have flummoxed me in the

immediate sense by saying it right at the start of the show.  Thanks a

lotm, my friend.

 

HAYES:  You bet.

 

MADDOW:  Thanks.  I wasn`t going to bring that up.  It`s very exciting. 

Let`s never speak of that again. 

 

All right.  The interview started at 10:00 a.m.  It ended at 2:00 p.m.  So,

it was a four-hour thing all in all.  They were pretty much almost done. 

They`re well into that final hour, when they took one last recess.  And

after that last recess, there was one last round of questions. 

 

And here`s how it started.  Quote: Back on the record.  It is 1:37 p.m.  I

am Susanne Grooms.  The witness, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker says

“yes.” 

 

Question, can you explain what the atmosphere was like at the FBI after the

president fired James Comey?  Answer, Jim Baker: I`m not sure that I can

reduce it to one or two words.  It doesn`t, I guess, horrible atmosphere. 

It was shock, dismay, confusion, at least initially that night, and then –

and then a sense of resolve that came pretty quickly as well to continue

the FBI`s mission.  And as I was saying earlier to the congressman, make

sure that we were all adhering to our oaths to the Constitution and

executing our responsibilities.

 

Question, was there a concern at the FBI the president had fired Director

Comey because he was trying to obstruct the FBI`s investigation into the

Russia matter?  Answer, Jim Baker, yes.  Question, was that a concern that

you had?  Answer, Jim Baker, yes. 

 

Question, was that concern shared by others?  Answer, I think so, yes. 

Question, who, who else?  Answer, the leadership of the FBI.  So the acting

director – I can`t remember if we appointed an acting deputy director

immediately.  The heads of the national security opera apparatus, national

security folks in the FBI.  The people who are aware of the underlying

investigation and who had been focused on it.

 

Question: was there a question of opening a case into the obstructions of

justice matter?  Answer, I am looking at the FBI – meaning I`m looking at

the FBI lawyer who was there in that room to see if you have any objection

to me answering this question in this format.  At which point Ms. Redacted,

the FBI lawyer says, could you restate your question, please?  The

investigator says, sure.  Was there discussion about opening a case to

investigate the matter?  Ms. Redacted, the FBI lawyer, says, OK.  So, that

would call for a yes or no response.  If we go further into that we may

have to stop the witness from answering. 

 

Answer from Jim Baker, former FBI general counsel.  He says “yes.”  So,

yes, there was concern by me, the FBI broadly, head of the FBI, by the

national security experts within the FBI, by everybody involved in the

underlying investigation that involved the president and his campaign at

that point.  Yes, he says, there were concerns that the president was

committing obstruction of justice to try to block the FBI`s investigation

into the Russia case, and, yes, yes, he says, a case was opened into the

president`s potential obstruction.  Yes. 

 

The man testifying there was Jim Baker, former general counsel in the FBI. 

Before he was general counsel, a top lawyer in the FBI, he was a top

official at the U.S. Justice Department.  During 9/11, he was the head of

the office of intelligence policy and review at the Justice Department

which means that in the aftermath of 9/11 he was the lead official at the

U.S. Justice Department for counterterrorism and counterintelligence in the

U.S. government.  He is a very senior, very experienced, very serious

national security official. 

 

Today, we learned that with that background, Jim Baker and all the other

senior national security officials at the FBI were very concerned that the

president appeared to be taking action including firing the FBI director

specifically to obstruct the FBI`s investigation into the Russia matter. 

Now, the reason we know that, the reason we have that, that Q&A, that

transcript, is because the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in

the House released this transcript today of Jim Baker testifying last year

to their committee behind closed doors.  And I`m not sure why they released

this now, why they think this helps their case.  That nobody should worry

about the Russia thing. 

 

I mean, among other things, this transcript they released today includes

this very, very, very experienced national security officer official

expressing just how worrying it was, what the FBI was investigating, and

what the FBI was finding out, about Donald Trump and his campaign.  The

questioner here in this part of the transcript is actually a member of

Congress.  It`s Jamie Raskin, Democratic congressman from Maryland. 

 

So here`s the question from Congressman Raskin.  Quote: When you first

learned about a tip that the Russian government could be coordinating with

the Trump campaign, what was your reaction to that, were you concerned or

alarmed by that?  Answer, Jim Baker, I was alarmed by that, yes.

 

Question: as the evidence developed to the point where the FBI launched an

official investigation, did your thinking change, had you grown more

alarmed than concerned or less so?  Answer, Jim Baker, I guess I grew more

alarmed over time. 

 

Question, how often does the FBI investigate a potential coordination

between a presidential campaign in our country and a foreign adversary?  Is

that a common thing?  Answer, Jim Baker, I think this is the first instance

that I`m aware of. 

 

Question, and what was your estimate of the national security risk involved

in such potential coordination?  How important was the case?  Answer, Jim

Baker, I view the case as very important.

 

So, he`s saying this was a very important case in national security terms. 

Nothing like this had ever happened before, had ever even been investigated

before involving an American presidential campaign.  He said what the FBI

was investigating was concerning from the get-go, from the very beginning,

it only became more concerning over time as they pursued their

investigation. 

 

And when the FBI director was fired by the president in the midst of that

FBI investigation, there was serious concern among the most senior national

security officials in the country that the president was doing that to

obstruct.  To use his power as president to block that very serious FBI

investigation.  And we know that now because this transcript was just

released today. 

 

It is now – it was three Fridays ago that special counsel Robert Mueller

submitted his report on the findings of his investigation into the Russian

attack on our election, potential American complicity in that attack, and

the question of whether or not anybody tries to on instruct that

investigation.  On this issue of obstruction, Attorney General William Barr

so far hasn`t released anything from Mueller`s report, Mueller`s evidence,

Mueller`s findings, except this description. 

 

After making a thorough factual investigation into these matters, the

special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct over department

standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately

determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.  Special

counsel, therefore, did not draw a conclusion one way or another as to

whether the examined conduct constituted obstructed.  The special counsel

states that while this report does not conclude that the president

committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

That`s all the attorney general released on the obstruction issue.  We

don`t know what Robert Mueller found on obstruction.  We don`t know what

the facts were that he uncovered.  We don`t know why what Mueller found

doesn`t exonerate the president in Mueller`s words. 

 

Nor do we know why Mueller didn`t make a traditional prosecutorial judgment

about obstruction.  I mean, that`s – that`s all the more striking and

interesting in light of this news we just got today act how freaked out the

whole national security law enforcement apparatus in this country was about

the president potentially obstructing the Russia investigation, by among

other things canning the head of the FBI.  I mean, we do know that Barr 2

1/2 weeks ago jumped right in, himself, anyway, and proclaimed his own

instant finding that the president definitely shouldn`t be prosecuted for

obstruction, and we should take his word for it, even though he won`t let

us see what Mueller turned up.  That announcement was 2 1/2 weeks ago from

the attorney general. 

 

Today was Attorney General William Barr`s first public appearance since he

made that very, very public, very controversial, very puzzling,

declaration.  First time since then.  First time since he got the Mueller

report.  First time since he`s done all this stuff that he`s done with the

Mueller report. 

 

Finally, today, with him appearing in public, with him appearing in

congress, we knew we would get some explanation from him as to why he

declared that the president definitely didn`t commit a crime.  We`d finally

get some explanation from him as to what basis he used to – on what basis

he concluded that the president didn`t commit a crime.  Also, presumably

we`d get some explanation from him as to why he thought it was his job to

proclaim that the president didn`t commit any crime. 

 

At least you`d think we would have gotten that today in his first

appearance since the Mueller report was handed into him and he stuffed it

deep into a desk drawer somewhere.  You`d think we`d get answers to all of

those questions, but it turns out nobody asked him at his appearance today

in Congress.  Nobody asked him about his declaration that the president

didn`t commit a crime when it comes to obstruction.  At least nobody asked

him directly.  Nobody asked him directly in a way that made him feel any

need to answer. 

 

Senators will have another crack at William Barr tomorrow when he does one

more congressional appearance before part of the Senate Appropriations

Committee, but if you`re at all interested in the question of whether

Mueller`s findings were ever going to see the light of day, or whether the

Trump administration will be allowed to keep those findings secret, you

better hope that senators, at least the Democratic ones who appear to care

about this issue, you better hope that those senators are preparing for

tomorrow`s hearing with William Barr with some seriousness. 

 

Senators, it`s called a follow-up question.  Listen to what he says and

then follow up and press him a little more.  It`s called knowing what your

colleagues are planning on asking so you don`t all ask the same thing. 

It`s called taking your no doze pills with your OJs, Senators.  Come on,

chop, chop.  Because there does appear to be a lot to get out of this

attorney general and this attorney general does appear to be making it up

as he goes along. 

 

Even today under basically no inquisitive pressure whatsoever today from a

committee that appeared to be mostly asleep for the entire time he was

there, even with him facing basically no hard questions today, he still had

a lot to spill.  Imagine what would happen if he were actually pressed. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL:  I have already said that I think the

situation here requires me to exercise my discretion to get as much

information out as I can and I think these categories, I think most fair-

minded people would agree are things that have to be redacted. 

 

REP. TOM GRAVES (R-GA):  Right.  And I guess, just thinking about the

chairman of the Judiciary, he – if he were to release or any member of

Congress were to release the full report of redacted version of report, are

they in compliance with the law or violation of the law and what –

 

BARR:  I don`t want to speculation about all the circumstances that would

be involved.  I don`t intend at this stage to send the full unredacted

report to the committee.  So, I`m not sure where he would get it.  If he

got it directly from the counsel, that would be unfortunate.  I doubt that

would happen. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Maybe he`d get it directly from the counsel.  That`d be

unfortunate.  Hmm. 

 

What?  That was the attorney general today under gentle almost soporific

questioning from a Republican member of Congress who was trying to get him

to say it would be terrible if someone in Congress got ahold of the whole

unredacted Mueller report and leaked it to the public or leaked the parts

that were supposed to be redacted by the attorney general.  In response,

the attorney general suggested, wait, how would a member of Congress, how

would the Judiciary Committee, say get an unredacted copy of Mueller`s

report? 

 

He then sort of fantasized it, sort of just thinks out loud, well, I

suppose he can get it directly from Robert Mueller.  He could get the whole

unredacted report directly from the special counsel.  I guess he could do

that.  That would be unfortunate. 

 

Say what now?  Whoop.  Raise your hand if you even knew that was a

possibility, unfortunately or not.  I mean, the attorney general sort of

accidentally suggesting today that, yes, Robert Mueller could give his

confidential report to the Justice Department. 

 

He could also just convey it to Congress.  Why not?  He could just give it

to Jerry Nadler.  That would be unfortunate if he gave him the whole full

unredacted report.  Wouldn`t that be just, you know, sad? 

 

Maybe somebody could follow up on that with additional questions for the

attorney general.  Is that possible? 

 

The attorney general today said his edited version of Mueller`s report,

with a whole bunch of redactions cut out of it, he said that will be

released within a week.  He said flatly that he has no intention of giving

the Congress the full report without the cuts. 

 

When it comes to what he wants to cut out of it, he said he will cut out

grand jury material, even though courts in the past have agreed to allow

the release of grand jury material to Congress.  He said today he`s not

going to ask any court to do that.  He just doesn`t want to ask. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

REP. ED CASE (D-HI):  Are you intending to go to court to ask for guidance

and/or direction and/or an order where you are uncertain whether you can,

in fact, release or should, in fact, release materials? 

 

BARR:  No, but, I mean, the chairman of the judiciary committee is free to

go to court if he feels one of those exceptions is applicable. 

 

CASE:  The right is yours to ask for these exceptions.

 

BARR:  Well – why do you say the right is mine? 

 

CASE:  Because you are the exercising authority under 6E. 

 

BARR:  Yes.  But I think if the chairman believes that he`s entitled to

receive it, he can move the court for it. 

 

CASE:  Well, I`ll come back to this.  It`s your right to ask, so I`m

asking, what is your intention? 

 

BARR:  My intention is not to ask for it at this stage. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  I`m not going to ask for it.  The attorney general says, no, he`s

not going to ask a court to allow him to release the grand jury material in

Mueller`s report to Congress.  Why would I do that? 

 

This is the first time he`s actually addressed that question.  He has left

that as an open question since the Judiciary Committee has been demanding

that he make that request of a court.  Today, he said, nah, why would I do

that? 

 

It earned this response from Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. 

 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

 

REPORTER:  The attorney general said in pretty much no uncertain terms he

had no intentions of releasing – going to the court to release the grand

jury information to Congress and punted to you on that front.  What do you

think about that stance? 

 

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY):  Well, I think it`s unfortunate.  We`ve been

doing everything we could for the last, I don`t know, weeks and weeks to

try to reach an accommodation to the attorney general in which we would see

the report and the underlying evidence.  He has been unresponsive to our

requests. 

 

And this is just more evidence that he`s – he`s not going to – we will

certainly – we will certainly – we get the report, I assume, the end of

this week, beginning of next week, yes, if it doesn`t have everything that

we required to do our work, which is to say the entire work and the

underlying evidence in it, we will issue the subpoenas forthwith and we

will go to court to ask for release of the 6E material. 

 

It`s unfortunate that he won`t, he won`t join us.  Previous attorney

generals have joined the Congress in in that request.  Every similar case. 

 

REPORTER:  What do you make of Barr`s specific contention that Congress is

not exempt from grant jury secrecy laws? 

 

NADLER:  Well, Congress is not exempt in the sense that we need a court

order, but Congress has certainly gotten that court order in every similar

situation in the past.  Congress has always gotten the grand jury

information in the Clinton situation, in the Nixon situation, and in many

others. 

 

REPORTER:  Barr seemed to put the ball in your court in terms of asking for

the grand jury information.  Is that something you would do? 

 

NADLER:  Oh, absolutely, we`re going to do that. 

 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Oh, absolutely, we`re going to do that, even though the attorney

general will not join us in trying to free that information up. 

 

As soon as William Barr, the attorney general, hands over his cut-up,

edited, Jefferson bible version of the report, Chairman Nadler, the

Judiciary Committee, says he`s going to subpoena the whole thing.  The

whole unredacted version, including asking for a court order to release any

grand jury information that Barr has cut out of it, plus all the underlying

evidence that goes along with it. 

 

Now, there`s two new things we just learned about that.  Number one,

William Barr`s refusal to ask the court to release that material to

Congress, and Nadler saying, OK, then we`ll do it, it raises a brand-new

prospect we have not had to face before.  It raises the prospect that one

of the things that House Judiciary Committee might have to do is they might

have to open an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as a formal

matter, so the court would recognize them as being in the midst of a

judicial proceeding that could legally receive that grand jury stuff. 

 

They would not have to open this grand jury proceeding because they`re

intent on impeaching the president, right – excuse me, they would not have

to open this impeachment proceeding because they`re intent on impeaching

the president right now, they would have to open it up just so they could

receive that material from the court. 

 

Democrats, of course, have not wanted to open impeachment proceedings

against President Trump, basically for political reasons, but it`s possible

they might need to now if they want a court to give them Mueller`s

evidence.  Since the attorney general won`t help them get it.  That is, of

course, provided that Robert Mueller, himself, doesn`t just walk his report

over to Capitol Hill and hand it to Jerry Nadler, which the attorney

general suggested today is an unfortunate possibility, even if it`s one

that nobody knew of before he kind of smirked that out today casually. 

 

Provided that doesn`t happen, this new idea that House Democrats might have

to formally open an impeachment inquiry into Trump in order to get a

report, that`s a brand-new twist in this saga.  It has legal elements.  It

has political elements.  We`re going to get expert advice on that in just a

moment. 

 

But the other curveball that Barr threw today, and this is something we

just don`t have a way to check, and it doesn`t seem to make much sense on

its face the way he said it, but it is what he said.  The other curveball

Barr threw today has to do with the four categories of things that Barr

says he`s now cutting out of the Mueller report. 

 

Remember he said he`s cutting not just the grand jury information, which is

the thing they have to go to court to try to get an order to release that

information, he says he`s also cutting information that could impact

ongoing investigations.  He says he`s also cutting information that could

impact the privacy or the reparations of peripheral third parties.  And he

says he`s cutting information that the intelligence community wants cut out

for its own reasons. 

 

That list of four categories of information, that – that stuff that all

has to be cut out of Robert Mueller`s report before any of Mueller`s report

gets shown to Congress, that is something that appeared, like, fully formed

in the sky as if it were a rainbow ending in the attorney general`s head. 

You know? 

 

This list of stuff that has to be cut out of the report, it`s not from the

special counsel regulations.  This is, like, a miracle of spring.  This

isn`t even the initial list of things that Attorney General Barr said he`d

cut.  It`s just now what he says he is currently doing.  And we`re supposed

to assume there`s a quasi legal framework under which he`s made the

decisions that this is what he has to cut but we take his word for it. 

 

Today, though, check this out.  He said when it comes to making all of

these different categories of cuts, he said in the first three of those

four categories, it`s Robert Mueller.  It`s the special counsel`s office

that`s choosing what gets cut.  Really?  Choosing what gets cut out of

their own report.  Really? 

 

At least that is what the attorney general seemed to suggest today under

questioning from Hawaii Congressman Ed Case.  Questioning I should say that

seemed to unnerve the attorney general just a little bit. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BARR:  I`ve already explained the information that`s going to be redacted

from the report, the four categories.  That is what`s going to govern the

redactions, and in fact, the special counsel and his staff are helping us

select the information in the report that falls into those four categories. 

 

CASE:  We`re sitting here, from my perspective, with virtually unlimited

discretion for you to redact from that document.  And maybe if I trusted my

government more, I would be comfortable with that, but since I don`t, I`m

not comfortable with that, and I`m looking for some way in which your

judgment, which is going to be the arbiter, as I understand it, of what the

public sees, the arbiter, it`s you, ultimately, can be overseen. 

 

I`ve suggested to you that under 6E, there are procedures under which you

can go to court to ask the court to give you guidance, direction, or an

order.  I`m not sure whether you will do that or not. 

 

BARR:  I think I sort of addressed that.  I identified the four categories,

and the team that includes the special counsel office lawyers are

implementing that. 

 

CASE:  Can you –

 

BARR:  So they are the ones redacting what is 6E. 

 

CASE:  Is there –

 

BARR:  They`re the ones who conducted the investigation.  They know what is

6E and what is not 6E.  That`s why I`m dependent on the special counsel to

identify 6E.  And the intelligence community will identify the intelligence

stuff. 

 

CASE:  Do you –

 

BARR:  And the lawyers who are prosecuting the cases and the special

counsel`s office can identify whether there`s going to be a conflict

between releasing any information and a court order or ongoing prosecution. 

And the special counsel`s office knows who the peripheral players are that

they`ve said shouldn`t be charged.  So those are the categories. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Does this mean we`re getting 6E back?  I mean, when he – when he

says those – put that list back up again.  Put the list back – OK. 

 

6E is the grand jury information.  So he`s redacting 6E stuff.  That`s the

grand jury material.  And he`s redacting information that impacts ongoing

investigation.  And he`s redacting information about peripheral third

parties.  And stuff that the intelligence community wants out. 

 

He said in Congress today that the first three categories of those

redactions are all being decided by Robert Mueller, by the special

counsel`s office.  He says he`s dependent on them to determine what`s grand

jury, what`s 6E, what relates to ongoing matters and what relates to

peripheral third parties.  Well, if so, if this is Mueller clearing his own

report for release to Congress, and ultimately for release to the public,

then why would Mueller`s team be so mad about what`s getting cut out of

their report if they, in fact, are the ones in charge of doing the cutting? 

 

I mean, something there just doesn`t make sense.  Something maybe the

senators questioning William Barr tomorrow might want to nail down and

quick because this is all apparently happening now and there`s another

piece of it that just unexpectedly broke wide o open tonight, and we`ve got

that coming up.  Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Today as the attorney general appeared in public in Congress for

the first time since he received and then promptly, poof, disappeared the

Robert Mueller report, there are new questions about the categories of

information he says he`s cutting out of Mueller`s report before he shows it

even to Congress.  The attorney general asserted today, sort of oddly, that

it`s not him who`s making the redactions from Mueller`s report before the

report gets shown to anyone. 

 

He suggested today that actually it`s Mueller, and Mueller`s own staff that

are doing the redactions on the first three of these four categories. 

Grand jury information, stuff that relates to ongoing investigations, and

stuff that relates to peripheral third parties.  The attorney general

saying today it`s the lawyers from the special counsel`s office who are

making all those redactions.  Essentially questioning why would anybody be

concerned about what they`d be cutting out of their own report?  It`s not

me, it`s them. 

 

If that`s true, that would make a lot of difference in terms of whether or

not the report has integrity.  Whether or not the report is being

submarined or whether it is actually what the special counsel intended for

the country and the Congress to see.  If the attorney general was right

about that, and he talked about it in a kind of elliptical way, that would

be a really big deal.  Hopefully, senators will sort that out with some

follow-up questions with the attorney general when he`s back on Capitol

Hill tomorrow. 

 

When it comes to that fourth category of information up there, stuff being

cut out of Mueller`s report at the request of the intelligence community,

on that one, we got big news today as well because late this afternoon, the

head of the intelligence committee announced that actually, no, on that

one, he`s planning on getting those redactions undone, himself.  He`s

planning on getting all of the intelligence information that`s being cut

out of the report given to him as well. 

 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

 

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA):  We do expect the department and the agencies to

follow the law, and so we`ll be insisting on all the evidence as it

pertains to counterintelligence. 

 

REPORTER:  Did they give you any kind of response? 

 

SCHIFF:  We have not gotten a response yet.  Our priority has been to

support the Judiciary Committee`s effort to make the report public. 

 

REPORTER:  But in theory, isn`t this information that they should just,

that you shouldn`t need to request?

 

REPORTER:  That you should already have, right?

 

SCHIFF:  That`s correct.  That`s correct. 

 

REPORTER:  So the fact that you even have to go about asking for it, what

does that say to you? 

 

SHCIFF:  Well, you know, the reality is that we don`t know the status of

the counterintelligence investigation.  And, but we are, like I mentioned,

right now, in getting the report, getting it in its entirety, being able to

make the report public, but we are going to insist on full information on

the counterintelligence investigation. 

 

What we will insist on being fully informed of the – any of the findings

of the counterintelligence investigation and any of its scope. 

 

REPORTER:  And who did you make the request to specifically? 

 

SCHIFF:  I don`t want to bet into the particulars, but I can tell you we

have – we did make the request and we`ll be staying after it. 

 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  We have made this request.  We`re getting the intelligence

information.

 

And that`s a totally different line of attack in terms of getting

information that the attorney general might want to cut out of the report. 

That`s a totally different line of attack, line of approach than the

Judiciary Committee or any other part of Congress might be taking to get

anything else that Barr is cutting. 

 

So, today was the first time the attorney general has appeared in public

since he got Mueller`s report 2 1/2 weeks ago.  And subsequently started

releasing statements about it and announcing things, he`s going to cut out

of it.  I mean, we still don`t know why the attorney general announced that

the president shouldn`t be prosecuted for obstruction even though Robert

Mueller concluded no such thing.  Nobody asked William Barr about that

today at today`s hearing.

 

But Congress is saying they`re getting all of Mueller`s report without

redactions.  The intelligence committee chair saying as of tonight that

even the intelligence stuff needs to go to him intact.  And now this fight

is fully on, including a basic fight we didn`t even know to expect about

the facts to try to figure out whether Mueller`s team, itself, is involved

in this part of the process, or whether they are, as a lot of people fear,

whether they are bystanders while William Barr is overseeing all this stuff

being cut out of their report and their findings and their evidence against

their will. 

 

We don`t even know the facts of that process now given these remarks from

the attorney general, let alone what Mueller`s actual findings were.  I got

to say, one of the most unexpected and remarkable things about this entire

part of this saga is that this newly appointed attorney general who is not

a babe in the woods, he was attorney general before.  He`s an experienced

guy, he`s a seasoned D.C. pro. 

 

What has been one of the most remarkable things to see in this whole saga

is that he is making it up as he goes.  He changes the story and his

explanation and even what he describes as the facts of what he, himself, is

doing.  He changes it a little bit every single time he talks about this

issue. 

 

Well, tomorrow he`s going to have to talk about it again, and based on all

the dangling threads he left today, I`m guessing tomorrow is going to go

worse than today did, but watch this space.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Neal Katyal is the former acting solicitor general in the Obama

administration.  He`s also the author of the Justice Department regulations

that defined the office of special counsel. 

 

Neal Katyal joins us live tonight.

 

Neal, thanks very much for being here.  I really appreciate your time.

 

NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION:  Thank

you. 

 

MADDOW:  Let me ask you about something that startled a lot of people today

at the remarks from Attorney General Barr at this congressional oversight

hearing.  For the first time, he refused to answer when he was asked if he

has shown the White House Mueller`s report or if he has briefed them on its

contents.  Previously, the Justice Department and the attorney general`s

office have said they haven`t provided that information to the White House. 

Previously, the White House has affirmed that they hadn`t seen it.

 

But today, both the Justice Department and White House refused to reaffirm

those previous statements and Barr wouldn`t answer questions about it in

Congress.  That raises the prospect that he has now briefed the contents of

Mueller`s report to the White House before Congress has seen it. 

 

Is that something you anticipated at all in the special counsel

regulations?  How does that fit within his remit? 

 

KATYAL:  Heck, no.  I mean, I was really quite startled, to use your word,

I mean, it felt really a little Kremliny today, really hiding information

from the American people.  And the attorney general today was acting really

not like the attorney general of the people of the United States but the

attorney general of the Republican Party.  This is, remember, a guy

confirmed by a four-vote margin, with 44 Democrats who voted against him. 

He only got three Democratic votes.  He got 51 Republican votes. 

 

But he`s acting that way.  He`s acting that way by not telling the Congress

whether or not he gave the report or information about the report to the

White House.  He`s acted that way throughout.  He cleared the president in

48 hours of the obstruction of justice charges that Mueller didn`t resolve

in two years. 

 

He`s done all kinds of things.  I mean, startlingly today he said, I`m not

going to even go and bother the court on releasing the grand jury

information.  Something that Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski, the two prior

special prosecutors did.  So, he`s not even willing to play by Ken Starr`s

rules.  So, yes, I think I`m very, very troubled, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  In terms of that possibility about the – the possibility of a

court giving permission to release that grand jury material, one of the

things that was discussed today sort of implicitly in Barr`s hearing,

explicitly later in the day by Jerry Nadler responding to the attorney

general`s testimony.  It`s now starting to be discussed more broadly around

this whole issue is the prospect that if Nadler without Barr`s help, if

Nadler, alone, as the judiciary committee chairman is going to go to the

court and request to see this information, and knowing that this kind of

information has been handed over to Congress in previous investigations of

previous presidents, he might have to open up an impeachment inquiry into

President Trump in order for the court to feel comfortable conveying that

grand jury information to him. 

 

What`s your perspective on that? 

 

KATYAL:  Yes, I don`t think that`s necessary.  After all, Ken Starr went to

the court when there was no formal impeachment inquiry and got it granted

but I do think there`s a really important tell in your question because it

really does go to is Barr being up and up with the American people? 

 

I mean, when I was at the Justice Department, there were these people who I

called legal Houdinis who they would find any law, they would find a

loophole and a way around it and often very tendentious and not true and,

you know, these are people who didn`t respect the rule of law.  But, you

know, those people were there. 

 

But I never found someone at the Justice Department quite like Barr, which

is a 99 percent legal Houdini but 1 percent of the time a Dr. No, someone

who reads these legal restrictions, like grand jury 6E, or what he claims

about the special counsel regulations say, oh, I couldn`t possibly do that,

that would violate 6E, you`d need a formal impeachment inquiry, you need

this, you need that.  You know, that combination of 99 percent legal

Houdini, 1 percent Dr. No is a really troubling one.  It`s not up and up. 

It`s someone who`s willing to read the rules broadly to protect the

president, like his obstruction of justice memos, 19-page memo. 

 

His whole career has been built on being a legal Houdini.  When it comes to

keeping information from the Congress and the American people, oh, no, all

of a sudden everything`s got to be read so tightly.  It`s not the real

spirit. 

 

MADDOW:  Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general in the Obama

administration – Neal, I appreciate you being here tonight.  Thanks.

 

KATYAL:  Thank you.

 

MADDOW:  All right.  We`ve got much more to come tonight.  Stay with us. 

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  The chairman of the Ways & Means Committee in the House has set a

deadline of April 10th for the commissioner of the IRS to hand over to

Congress, to hand over to him, specifically, the president`s tax returns,

his personal returns and a bunch of returns from the president`s business. 

He set an April 10th deadline.  April 10th is, of course, tomorrow.

 

But as of this afternoon, the IRS commissioner appeared to have absolutely

no idea whatsoever as to how he planned to respond by tomorrow`s deadline

or whether or not Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin might try to step in to

stop the release of those returns under the law. 

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

CHARLES RETTIG, IRS COMMISSIONER:  We did receive the letter.  We`re

looking into it and expect to respond. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And so I`ll ask you, how will you respond? 

 

RETTIG:  We`re working on it. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Has Treasury talked to you about this decision? 

 

RETTIG:  They`ve talked to me about the –

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Communicated with you is, perhaps, the better way to

ask. 

 

RETTIG:  They`re aware of the fact that we`ve received the letter.  That`s

correct. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Has anyone at Treasury communicated with anyone at the

IRS about that decision? 

 

RETTIG:  Counsel for the IRS has been interactive and I had a brief

discussion with the secretary that we received the letter. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That conversation was just that you received the

letter?  Was there something beyond the fact that the letter was received? 

 

RETTIG:  No. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He didn`t request you to act in a certain way? 

 

RETTIG:  No. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  He didn`t suggest that he was going to make the

decision to you? 

 

RETTIG:  There was a discussion about – and that`s what I`m saying about

we`re working on it, there was a discussion about who`s going to handle the

response. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And what was – and what did the treasury secretary

say? 

 

RETTIG:  There`s no conclusion on that. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Is it your understanding that you have discretion under

this sort of a request under the law that you can decide whether or not to

comply with a re quest under 6103 of the tax code? 

 

RETTIG:  I think it would be inappropriate for me to identify what the

understanding is with respect to that. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  What have your legal experts told you?  It`s hart to

imagine, sir, they`re going to say five minutes until midnight, what are we

going to do?  Did they talk to you at all, did you ask whether you have

discretion to respond or to comply? 

 

RETTIG:  I have not asked and I think it`d be premature for me to speculate

with you now. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Would it be premature to ask them if you have

discretion? 

 

RETTIG:  I have not asked. 

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

MADDOW:  Now that you mention it, I haven`t asked if this is my job, if I

have discretion over whether or not to release the tax returns of the

president.  Also, I think it would be inappropriate for me to identify my

understanding of the issue. 

 

Also, there was no conclusion on what the treasury secretary plans to do,

but don`t worry, we did receive the letter.  We`ll come up with an answer. 

I know the deadline is tomorrow.  Is it time for lunch? 

 

The current Treasury Department may not know how to handle this issue.  But

former Clinton treasury secretary Larry summers says it`s actually quite

simple.  In a coldly blistering op-ed in the “Washington Post” today, Larry

Summers writes what he would do were he in Secretary Mnuchin`s position. 

As a former treasury secretary, how would he have approach this?

 

For the secretary to seek to decide whether to pass on the president`s tax

return to Congress would surely be inappropriate and probably illegal, I

would surely not have done it.  Rather, I would have indicated to the IRS

commissioner that I expected the IRS to comply with the law as always.

 

Joining us now, very pleased to say, is Lawrence Summers.  He`s the former

treasury secretary under President Clinton.  He`s former director of the

National Economic Council under President Obama.  He currently serves as

economics professor at Harvard University.  He also authored this opinion

piece in the “Washington Post” making the case the current treasury

secretary shouldn`t stop the IRS commissioner from releasing President

Trump`s tax returns. 

 

Secretary Summers, thank you for joining us.  It`s a real honor to have you

here tonight. 

 

LAWRENCE SUMMERS, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY:  Good to be with you, Rachel. 

 

MADDOW:  One of the things I found striking in your op-ed, today, although

it is carefully worded, it`s also very unequivocal that this is black

letter law, that the IRS commissioner does not have leeway to ignore this

request and the treasury secretary does not have leeway to direct his IRS

commissioner that he should ignore this request.  Are you staking out a

claim for the purposes of argument or are you stating something that`s

essentially consensus among everybody who`s looked at these matters before? 

 

SUMMERS:  I can`t speak for everyone, but I have spoken with a substantial

number of legal authorities including those who are in the treasury during

my time in office.  I think there is no question at all but that 6103,

which has been around since 1924, is unambiguous on the Ways & Means

Committee`s right for taxpayer information.  It is not qualified in any

way.  It is the obligation to turn those documents over. 

 

Further, the IRS Restructuring Act which was passed by the Republican

Congress in the 1990s makes clear that longstanding delegation order under

which the IRS commissioner is responsible for enforcing the tax law and the

Internal Revenue Code, not the secretary of the treasury, that that`s

delegated by the treasury secretary.  That the treasury secretary is not

permitted to casually alter that delegation order, but can only alter it

with 30 days` notice to the congressional committee, which has not been

given. 

 

So I think it`s also clear that this is a matter under law that sits with

the IRS commissioner.  I don`t see either of those as matters with

ambiguity associated with them, and, frankly, the only thing that seems to

me clearer than the two propositions I just stated is that it`s

inappropriate for the White House to be involved in making dictates about

how the president`s tax return is going to be handled. 

 

MADDOW:  One of the things that emerged today, to that last point, is when

Secretary Mnuchin was answering questions in congress, he conceded that

members of his staff at treasury have already consulted with the White

House about how they are to respond to this demand from the Ways and Means

chairman.  They`ve already started talking to the White House about this. 

There seemed to be some lack of clarity in Congress, even during that

questioning, as to whether or not that was improper or even potentially a

violation of the law for Mnuchin`s office to already be talking to the

White House about a matter that ought to be handled independently inside

IRS. 

 

SUMMERS:  I mean, there is pretty much clarity here about talking about

legal matters affecting individual entities, whether it`s the controversies

surrounding Whitewater during the Clinton administration, whether it`s the

controversies surrounding the treatment of S&Ls and dialogues with

legislators, the Keating Five and all of that, during the first Bush

administration.  There is really not any question that when legal judgments

are being made affecting particular entities, there is not supposed to be

political consultation with the White House.

 

This is about as well established as anything.  It goes back, you know,

many, many years.  Most famously and most egregiously during the Nixon

administration, but this has played out during other administrations as

well.  When I worked on the White House staff, you know, the first thing we

were told was under no circumstances were we involved in any kind of

enforcement action being done by any kind of government agency, and

certainly not an agency that was supposed to be separate and not political

in its activities. 

 

MADDOW:  Lawrence Summers, former treasury secretary under President

Clinton, former director of the National Economic Council under President

Obama – sir, thank you for coming on tonight.  It`s a really pleasure to

have you here.  Please come back. 

 

SUMMERS:  Thank you. 

 

MADDOW:  All right.  I will say what the secretary is saying there about

the clarity of the responsibilities for the IRS commissioner and for the

treasury secretary here in terms of what one of them is supposed to do and

the way the other one is not supposed to get involved here and the way the

White House is not supposed to get involved here, it does seem to be, if

not consensus, it does seem to be pretty crystal clear what`s supposed to

happen.  What`s not clear is what`s going to happen when they inevitability

violate those clear strictures, when the IRS commissioner gives some

response that defies the law, when the treasury secretary weighs in and

says, no, I`m making this my decision.  When the White House concedes, yes,

we told them what to do on this. 

 

What`s going to be the comeuppance for that?  You know, how is that going

to be fixed when they break that norm and potentially that law?  That`s the

part of it where we don`t know where this is going. 

 

Stay with us.  

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  Late last week, the president fired the head of ICE.  Sunday, he

fired the homeland security secretary.  Monday, he fired the head of the

Secret Service. 

 

Now, he just fired this woman, Claire Grady, the number three official at

homeland security.  She`s a career government official.  She spent decades

in public service.  Tonight she is out, but it does not appear that the

White House targeted her for firing.  It seems like they may have had to

fire her to cover up their own previous mistake. 

 

When the president announced the homeland security secretary was out on

Sunday, he apparently didn`t bother to ask anybody if there was any issue

with him just sticking in one of his own new guys to take Kirstjen

Nielsen`s place.  He just announced on Twitter that he was putting in this

guy as acting secretary and I`m sure that felt very tidy to the president,

but legally, Homeland Security has a line of succession. 

 

When they realized that and that Claire Grady was next in line of

succession as acting secretary in the event that the secretary was fired or

resigned, they realized oh, I guess we`ve got to fire Claire Grady, too. 

And so, now, they fired Claire Grady.  Oops. 

 

And the responsibility for announcing she is leaving fell on Kirstjen

Nielsen.  That`s who had to announce tonight that Grady is out.  That`s the

last thing they`re having Kirstjen Nielsen do before tomorrow, she departs

as her last day on the job. 

 

Then presumably, they`ll have Claire Grady clean up somebody else`s

departure on their way out, too.  Last one out, turn out the lights. 

 

We`ll be right back.

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

MADDOW:  That does it for us tonight.  You should know, though, that

tomorrow morning, Attorney General William Barr is going to be back in

Congress testifying in open session in a Senate committee tomorrow.  It

starts at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.  I will be the one watching and tweeting

about it while eating my Wheaties. 

 

I`ll see you again tomorrow night. 

 

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”. 

 

Good evening, Lawrence. 

 

                                                                                               

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY

BE UPDATED.

END   

 

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

content.>