House expected to vote tonight on border. TRANSCRIPT: 6/25/19, The Rachel Maddow Show.

Ben Ray Lujan, Adam Schiff

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST:  So, go and check it out. 


That is ALL IN for this evening. 


“THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now.  Good evening, Rachel. 


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Chris.  Thank you, my friend. 

Much appreciated.


HAYES:  You bet.


MADDOW:  Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. 


We are in Miami again tonight as debate prep reaches its furious joining us

this hour.  We are in Miami again tonight as debate prep reaches its

furious apex for the 20 Democratic presidential candidates who are

converging on this city for a two-night double header debate that starts

tomorrow night and continues into Thursday night. 


This is the first debate of the Democratic presidential primary.  As you

might imagine, the decision of the Democratic National Committee to site

this key first debate here in Miami, it is a strategic decision for the

party.  Not only is this state of Florida, of course, a key swing state

with a huge population and a huge number of electoral votes that seems like

every year end up being of crucial importance when it comes to picking the

next president of the United States. 


Florida, of course, is a state won twice by Barack Obama and then narrowly

won by Donald Trump in 2016.  But Florida and south Florida in particular

and Miami in particular, particular are home to a massively diverse field

of voters, and that is also, I think, a key part of the calculation here. 

Miami, of course, has a large African-American population.  African-

American voters have long been basically the key that unlocks general

election possibilities for Democratic contenders in general elections. 


But Miami is also a majority Latino city.  Seventy percent of the

population in Miami is Hispanic.  And that Spanish speaking and Latino

population in Miami is itself really diverse. 


And so, the Democratic Party choosing to site their first debate for the

2020 campaign here in Miami, it`s basically a de facto challenge to all

these candidates to make sure they are competing for all different kinds of

Latino votes, and to prioritize that at the start of the Democratic primary

and at the start of their campaigns. 


And so, that is why I think the coincidence of this first debate here in

Miami and the latest news of this administration`s attitude toward and

treatment of Latino immigrants and their families, and particularly little

kids, I think that is part of why this is a particularly potent mix right

now because the Democratic candidates competing for the opportunity to run

against Trump to try to end his administration, they would be criticizing

him for what he has done to immigrants anyway.  But to have that happening

in the light of these latest revelations, that criticism, that competition

for what the country should be like should it continue as it is under Trump

or should it continue under different leadership who would handle this

matter specifically quite differently – I mean, that resonates across the

country right now with an electorate that is getting increasingly stunned

by what they are learning about the Trump administration`s behavior in the

news this week, and specifically now today. 


As we`ve been reporting here on the show, over the last few days, we`ve

gotten these just absolutely horrifying accounts from U.S. Border Patrol

stations near the Mexican border about two things.  The way that kids

coming over the border are still being separated from their parents and

their adult family members, even though the Trump administration claims

they ended the policy of separating families a year ago.  That is still

happening.  They are still taking little kids systematically away from

their parents at the border.  So that`s one. 


Also, we are learning about the conditions in which those kids are being

held by the Trump administration after they are forcibly separated from

their families.  The gut-wrenching descriptions we have of conditions at

some Border Patrol facilities have been coming in in the most part from

lawyers who are able to access these facilities because they are monitoring

compliance with government rules about how kids are supposed to be treated

in Border Patrol custody.  These lawyers have done these monitoring trips

for years.  As a rule, they do not talk to the press about their visits. 

They`re used in ongoing litigation and legal matters. 


But despite the fact that a lot of these lawyers have been doing this for

years, if not decades, these experienced lawyers who have kind of seen it

all, this past week they have been so shocked and so disgusted by what they

found that they decided that they needed for the first time to go public

and to sound the alarm to let the country know what they were see.  One of

these lawyers told the “Associated Press,” quote, in my 22 years of doing

visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of



As we reported last night, the most recent egregious reports have come from

a Border Patrol station in Clint, Texas.  Where the lawyers who visited

reported kids as young as infants sleeping on concrete floors, not being

allowed to bathe or brush their teeth, not having access to soap or

toothbrushes or diapers.  Older kids made to take care of the toddlers and

babies on their own. 


Kids being fed terrible food and the same food day after day after day. 

Kids getting sick.  Kids coping on their own with spreading lice



The lawyers found that facility in Clint by chance.  It was not even

supposed to be housing children but they heard a rumor that kids were being

detained there. 


One lawyer said that one of the kids detained there told her that hundreds

more kids had been there but he didn`t know where they had gone, so the

lawyers decided to look around.  They drove around the facility until they

found out back a brand-new windowless warehouse that hadn`t been there

before.  It`s recently erected.  They were later told that, in fact, a

couple hundred more kids were being held in that windowless steel



And these descriptions of these conditions have shocked and horrified the

country for the last several days, along with the dawning revelation that

these kids do not need to be there at all. 


Quote: Officials at the border seem to be making no effort to release

children to caregivers.  Many have parents in the United States.  Rather,

they`re holding them for weeks in overcrowded cells at the border. 

Incommunicado from their desperate loved ones.


Quote: A second grader we interviewed entered the room silently but burst

into tears when we asked who she travelled with to the U.S., “My aunt,” she

said, with a keening cry.  A bracelet on her wrist had the words “U.S.

parent” and a phone number written in permanent marker.  We called the

number on the spot and found out no one had informed her desperate parents

of where she was being held. 


Quote: Some of our most emotional moments of our visit came witnessing

children speak for the first time with their parents for the first time on

an attorney`s phone. 


“The New York Times” reported that lawyers meet ranged from 17 years old to

5 months old.  Again, kids taken away from their families, 5 months old. 


The infants were either children of minor parents who are also detained or

they had been separated from adult family members with whom they had

crossed the border.  The separated children were now alone being cared for

by other young detainees.


One lawyer telling “The New Yorker” magazine, quote: There were children at

this facility who came across with parents and were separated from parents. 

There were other children at the facility that came across with adult

family members.  We met almost no children who came across unaccompanied.


Quote: The United States is taking children away from their family unit and

reclassifying them as unaccompanied children but they were not

unaccompanied children.


And the national uproar over these kids still now being taken away from

their families and being held indefinitely in these totally inappropriate

appalling conditions, amid that, amid that national uproar, yesterday we

found out that nearly 300 kids had been moved out of that one border patrol

facility in Clint, Texas. 


We talked to Texas Congresswoman Veronica Escobar about that last night. 

That facility in Flint is just outside her district in El Paso.  She said

as of last night she was not sure exactly where those 300 kids had been

moved out to, she just few they had been moved out of the facility in



That is how we left it last night.  Then today, just a remarkable series of

events.  First, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol quits.  That facility in

Clint, Texas, is a border patrol facility, as is the one in McAllen, Texas,

where similar discussions have been described for yet more hundreds of



Amid this outcry over what his agency is doing to these kids right now, the

head of the Border Patrol quit today, he resigned.  He was actually the

acting head of the Border Patrol.  He`d only been there for a couple of

months.  He`d never been confirmed in the position. 


But that is not uncommon, thanks to a string of firings and reassignments

that kicked off after President Trump told Homeland Security Secretary

Kirstjen Nielsen that she should illegally block all asylum applications to

the United States.  Given all of the resignation and firings and

reassignments that happened since then, we are now in a position where

every single border-related or immigration-related agency in the entire

U.S. government has only an acting leader who has not been vetted or

confirmed by the Senate. 


But the latest head of the Border Patrol, he quit today after less than two

months on the job.  Then we got word that the Border Patrol has now decided

to move kids back into that facility in Clint, Texas.  I mean, yesterday,

after all these reports about the horrible conditions and the national

outcry over that, they moved 300 kids out of there.  Today they reversed

course and said they`re going to move maybe 100 kids back in. 


Why is that?  A border patrol official who insisted on remaining anonymous

held a call with reporters to confirm this news, to confirm that border

patrol is in fact moving kids back into this facility that has given rise

to these horrifying reports and this national outrage over the past few

days.  I can tell you actually how that goes exactly because we got a

transcript of the call today. 


A reporter asks, quote: Are you not concerned that you`ve now moved 100

children back to the very same facility where these allegations have

surface from?  What the reaction would be from the public and Congress, who

you`re asking for money from? 


Anonymous border control official, quote: I`m not concerned because a full

investigation will be completed and, frankly, I personally don`t believe

these allegations.


So, it`s not a problem to put kids back in that facility, even though just

yesterday we spirited 300 of them out of there.  It`s not a problem because

everything you`ve heard about what`s going on in there is a lie.  I`m sure

those kids are doing just fine.  Who cares what anybody says?  I don`t

believe any of it. 


And now, at the end of this astonishing day, now we learn who is likely to

be installed to replace the border patrol chief who has just quit amid this

disaster, and it looks like the leading contender is this guy. 




MARK MORGAN, ACTING DIRECTOR OF ICE:  I`ve been to the detention facilities

where I`ve walked up to these individuals that are so-called minors, 17 or

under, and I`ve looked at them and I`ve looked at their eyes, Tucker, and I

said that is a soon to be MS-13 gang member. 


They`re renting kids – they`re paying to rent somebody`s kids and then

fake themselves as a family. 




MADDOW:  That is the Trump administration`s acting head of ICE, Immigration

and Customs Enforcement.  That is who reportedly President Trump is going

to choose to take over the border patrol today.  Since the other guy quit

in the midst of this national uproar over this humanitarian disaster of

what the Trump administration has been doing to these little kids. 


And in the midst of that uproar, apparently what the president wants is

someone at the top of border patrol who will tell him the so-called

families he`s separating are fake families.  Those little kids, they`re

just stunt kids.  He wants somebody who will go down to those border patrol

facilities and look those little kids in the eye and see that they`re all

actually future gang members.  That is who will now be running this show

with your tax dollars on behalf of the United States of America. 


And the president and the vice president and Republican members of Congress

and the anonymous border patrol official who spoke to reporters today, they

all say that what border patrol really needs is more money, and

specifically that Democrats, if they really want to help these kids who, by

the way, are being treated just fine – well, they need to send more money

to the border patrol that has been running these facilities this way.  And,

in fact, right now at this hour, Democrats in the House are actually

passing a bill that would send billions of dollars to the border, including

to the facilities caring for migrants at the border. 


But Democrats in Congress are also being very clear that what is happening

at the border right now, what`s happening, for example, at that facility in

Clint, Texas, is not something that`s happening because the Trump

administration doesn`t have money to do better. 




REP. KAREN BASS (D-CA):  You cannot tell me that the federal government

does not have money for toothpaste and soap.  This is inflicted on these

children as punishment to try to bring Democrats to the table to compromise

on the border wall.  I think that is absolutely important. 


The other thing that I think is critical is that we need to stop saying

that the policy for family separation has ended.  It has not.  Since when

is a grandmother, an aunt or a sibling not considered family?  Only at the

U.S. border. 


You can`t tell me that this problem cannot be solved.  You remember that

President Trump just a few days ago said, well, he was going to cancel

education, cancel recreation, cancel the hygiene needs. 


This was deliberate.  How dare you torture children to try to get a

compromise out of Democrats?  And I am sorry, but looking – but hearing

about children walking around in soiled diapers, hearing about children

taking care of toddlers, you are talking about straight up child abuse, and

I think that this needs to be condemned internationally, frankly. 




MADDOW:  This is the story that has sort of electrified the country a

little bit.  It has resulted, for example, in Americans being moved to

bring boxes of diapers and toothbrushes and soap to these facilities. 

People have literally been showing up in the parking lot and asking for

this stuff to be given to the kids who are being held there. 


One man who grew up in Clint, Texas, and tried to bring supplies to the

facility there told “The Texas Tribune” today, quote: It makes me feel

powerless knowing there are children taking care of toddlers and little

kids knowing what`s happening in your community and can`t give these kids

supplies to clean or clothe themselves.  It`s heartbreaking.  For God`s

sake, they`re kids, man.


Border Patrol has been turning those donations away and won`t accept them. 

When reporters asked that “I won`t give you my name”, anonymous Border

Patrol official who was asked to brief the press about this today, he or

she said in response, quote: We`re not running low on those things.  Those

things are available now and they have been continuously.  Those items are

available now.  We`ve used our own funding to buy those things.


Plenty of soap.  Plenty of toothbrushes.  Plenty of food. 


But, really, apparently, it`s not about money.  I mean, Trump`s Border

Patrol is happy to say, is happy to tell reporters today that they have all

the money to buy those basic supplies.  Hygiene items, food, clean clothes,

all of it.  That`s all been taken care of. 


So, then, why are these kids allegedly living right now under their care in

these horrific conditions with none of those things? 


The other explanation from the Trump administration as to why this is

happening is that they just don`t have the capacity to hold these kids in

conditions that are any way more decent.  They just have to hold them in

conditions like this because there`s too many of them and there`s no space,

there`s nowhere to move them to.  What has never made sense about that from

the very beginning is there`s no reason they have to be holding these kids

at all, of course. 


I mean, remember, the lawyers visiting these facilities say plenty of these

kids, they`re interviewing these kids, what they find immediately is that

these kids have family members in the U.S. or they cross the border with

family members from whom they do not need to be separated, but apparently,

the Trump administration has decided they will separate these kids anyway

and then they will make little to no effort to contact these kids`



I mean, remember the little girl who had been separated from her aunt, was

with her aunt, right?  She got a permanent marker and a bracelet on her

wrist with a U.S. parent`s phone number, right?  The lawyers do what you

would do in the situation like that as a human. 


They called the parent who was in fact in the United States.  The parent

had no idea where that little girl was.  Nobody had ever called.  It took

that happenstance interaction with a lawyer who thought to do that because

the Trump administration is not bothering.  They are just taking the kids

away from adult family members and then they`ll figure it out. 


Remember, the lawyers who say they found almost no kids who had come across

the border unaccompanied.  These kids are being separated from family

members and the Trump administration keeps saying, you know, we have

nothing we can do with these kids.  One of the things you could do is call

their freaking relatives in the United States because they have freaking

relatives in the United States. 


If these kids were released to their family members in the United States

which used to be the policy for how these things were handled – well, then

those kids could be released to their U.S. relatives and the care and

housing and feeding of these kids would come at zero cost to the United

States, but instead the Trump administration has decided they`re going to

keep these kids instead, and that is what this boils down to. 


And honestly, that`s happening right now in particular because that is what

President Trump wants to run for re-election.  It`s not like this is an

accidental policy.  It`s not like this is an unintended outcome.  This is

his platform for the re-elect. 


Joining us now is Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico. 


Congressman, thank you very much for being with us.  I know it`s a busy

night with lots of votes tonight. 


REP. BEN RAJ LUJAN (D-NM):  Rachel, thanks for having me tonight. 


MADDOW:  Let me ask about, a lot has happened.  Just in the past 24 hours,

a lot has happened with regard to the Border Patrol and the Trump

administration and attempts at accountability for the way these kids are

being treated on the border. 


Can you give us any up-to-date understanding in terms of what Congress is

trying to do to stop this behavior by the administration or to hold anybody

accountable for it? 


LUJAN:  Well, first, Rachel, there should be no question that the Trump

administration, as has been reported, appears to be intentionally

mistreating these kids, separating them and putting them in the most

inhumane conditions.  And what Congress is doing right now under Democratic

leadership with Speaker Pelosi at the helm is making sure that we`re

passing an initiative to direct more funding with guardrails so that we`re

able to get food, supplies, sanitary items, blankets, making sure that

there`s health care provided for these kids and for these families as well

and ensuring that there`s going to be humane treatment of these children. 


But make no mistake.  I travelled personally with other members of Congress

to some of these facilities.  These kids were in cages, sleeping on floors,

foil blankets, overcrowded cells where they were sharing one open latrine,

one open toilet.  For families making coverings however they could with

their bodies shielding so people could use the restroom with no dignity. 


It`s an absolute shame.  Shame on the Trump administration for doing this. 


MADDOW:  We`ve learned that as the Democratic candidates are convening in

Miami, a number of them have been making an issue while they`re taking this

trip here, making an issue of the conditions in one facility that`s not far

from Miami.  It`s in Homestead, Florida.  Beto O`Rourke, Jay Inslee have

gone or going. 


Elizabeth Warren said tonight that she is going to Homestead migrant

detention facility tomorrow, ahead of tomorrow night`s debate in which she

will appearing.  She told a crowd in Miami tonight they should come with

her on that trip. 


Do you think it makes a difference for you to do these congressional visits

like the one you just described for these presidential candidates to show

up, to bring people with them?  I feel like the more this stuff gets

exposed, the more dug in the Trump administration gets on the idea that

they actually think this is the way this ought to be done. 


LUJAN:  Rachel, I would say it`s absolutely imperative that more members of

Congress visit these facilities.  As a matter of fact, the legislation that

we`re voting on in just a few minutes has language that allows members of

Congress to do spot visits at these facilities without having to be prior



Look at just Clint, Texas.  A member of Congress tried showing up to that

facility where they took 300 kids out and they wouldn`t let her in.  And

then she went back the next day, there were no children.  Now, we`re

finding out those children are being sent back there. 


So it`s absolutely imperative that members of Congress continue to show up

and that`s why we need to pass this language that cannot prevent members of

Congress from being able to go into those facilities to inspect them



MADDOW:  Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, thank you so much for joining us

tonight from Washington.  Much appreciate your time, sir.  Thank you. 


LUJAN:  Thanks for having me. 


MADDOW:  As I mentioned and as the congressman mentioned, there are votes

happening right now in the House that includes Democrat essentially trying

to constrain the Trump administration in terms of the way they are able to

treat kids in border patrol custody and in other migrant custody. 


House Democrats are going to put those conditions in the funding bill that

they are passing tonight.  Obviously the Republican-controlled Senate will

not agree, but a fight will then be on as to whether or not the money for

those agencies will come with those kinds of strings.  That`s part of what

is going on in Washington tonight. 


Another thing going on in Washington has broken actually sin we started the

show in the past few minutes.  It is about Robert Mueller and late breaking

news right now that he is being subpoenaed to testify before Congress. 


This is something that we thought might be coming.  We thought it might be

coming from before Mueller turned in his report.  We have thought that that

might be where it ended up once we saw his redacted report and the way it`s

been handled by the Justice Department.  Once we saw comments from Mueller

himself about whether or not he intended to speak to Congress. 


We are getting word tonight that Mueller is being subpoenaed.  We have just

arranged for Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence

Committee, to join us live next to tell us what exactly is happening with

that big development.  But that story is just breaking and Congressman

Schiff will be here with us when we come back after this break. 


Stay with us. 




MADDOW:  We have some breaking news tonight.  Special counsel Robert

Mueller has agreed to testify to Congress in an open session on Wednesday,

July 17th.  This is big news. 


Word broke just a few minutes ago in a joint statement from the chairman of

the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees, Congressman Adam

Schiff of California and Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York.  This is

their statement which they`ve just released, and I`ll tell you just been

handed to me so I am reading this as you are. 


Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and House

Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced special counsel Robert Mueller has

agreed to testify per opportunity to a subpoena before the House Judiciary

Committee and House Intelligence Committee in open session on Wednesday,

July 17th. 


In announcing the testimony, Nadler and Schiff hereby release this joint

statement: Pursuant to subpoenas issued by the Judiciary and Intelligence

Committees today, the special counsel has agreed to testify before both

committees in open session on July 17th.


Quote: Americans have demanded to hear directly from the special counsel so

they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered and determined

about Russia`s attack on our democracy.  The Trump campaign`s acceptance

and use of that help and President Trump and his associates obstruction

into that attack.  We look forward to hearing his testimony, as do all



They`ve attached a letter to Robert Mueller which accompanies the actual

subpoena, which we also have now.  The subpoena commands Robert Mueller to

appear on July – excuse me, July 17th to testify. 


The letter that`s attached to that subpoena says: Dear special counsel

Mueller, attached please find subpoenas from the Judiciary Committee and

the Intelligence Committee to compel your testimony on July 17th.  Over the

course of discussions about your appearance before Congress, we`ve

consistently communicated our committee`s intention to issue these

subpoenas if necessary and we now understand it is necessary to do so.  


I wonder what that means. 


Quote: We further understand that there are certain sensitivities

associated with our open testimony, and particularly the special counsel`s

office referred several criminal investigations to other offices at the

Justice Department and certain matters are ongoing.  Your office, moreover,

admirably limited public comment while the special counsel`s office work

was ongoing.  You also explained you prefer for the special counsel`s

office`s written work to speak for himself.


Nevertheless, they conclude: the American public deserves to hear directly

from you about your investigation and conclusions.  We will work with you

to address legitimate concerns about preserving the integrity of your work,

but we expect you will join before our committees as scheduled.


Joining us now is Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House

Intelligence Committee. 


Sir, I really appreciate you taking time to join us in the wake of this big



REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA):  You bet.  Good to be with you. 


MADDOW:  So let me ask first about this phrasing and the letter that you

have sent tonight to special counsel Mueller. 


We consistently communicated our committees` intentions to issue these

subpoenas if necessary and we now understand it is necessary to do so. 


Should we see this as a friendly subpoena that Robert Mueller believed had

to be issued before he could accept an invitation to testify? 


SCHIFF:  I don`t think the special counsel`s office would characterize it

as a friendly subpoena.  He did not want to testify.  He made that very



And nonetheless, they will respect the subpoena.  He will appear.  He`ll be

testifying before our committee in open session. 


Each of our members will have an opportunity to ask questions of the

special counsel.  And the American people get a chance to hear directly

from him and have their questions answered.  So I think it`s a good result. 


July 17th is the date we expect him to appear.  There will be also a closed

session in our committee following his testimony in which we`ll be able to

ask questions of his staff that may not be suitable for open session. 


MADDOW:  So the open session testimony you said will be for both

committees.  Will the members of the Judiciary Committee and the

Intelligence Committee sit concurrently for that testimony or will those be

sequential hearings with each committee in turn? 


SCHIFF:  They`ll be sequential hearings on the same day. 




SCHIFF:  Followed by private discussions or private testimony in executive

session with his staff, but the open portions of the hearing will be back

to back in the two committees. 


MADDOW:  The closed session that will happen with your committee following

those of sessions, you mentioned that will be Mueller`s staff.  Will that

be Mueller as well in addition to his staff and can you tell us who from

his staff is expected to testify at that session? 


SCHIFF:  His testimony will be purely in open session.  So all the

questions we have for him, we expect to ask in open session.  In terms of

which of his staff, I can`t go into those particulars at this point, but

there are any number of areas that may involve redacted material or may

involve a pending case where it`s appropriate to ask those questions in

closed session. 


But our predominant interest is being able to shed light on this

investigation for the American people in open session with Bob Mueller

himself.  And that`s going to be the predominant focus of our time with his



MADDOW:  You mentioned that Mueller`s office would not see this as a

friendly subpoena, that he did not want to testify.  Is that also true of

his staff and will they be testifying under subpoena or are those

appearances voluntary? 


SCHIFF:  I don`t think either he or he staff are eager to come before the

Congress.  I think they are doing so because they`re going to honor the

subpoena that we`ve issued.  In terms of whether there is a separate

required subpoena, I can`t comment on that in terms of his staff, but, you

know, clearly this is something I think from his perspective as a

prosecutor, he`s reluctant to come, as a prosecutor ordinarily would be. 


But as Bob Mueller was the first to point out in his own report, he did not

make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.  He did refer this matter to

Congress.  We have taken it up in our referral and it`s fully appropriate

in our view that we have an opportunity to flesh out what the Russians did,

how they did it, what the role of the Trump campaign personnel campaign

were, what were the counterintelligence issues, what was the process used

to handle the counterintelligence concerns, where are the findings – all

of these questions and a great many more the American people should have

the opportunity to pose through their representatives to Mueller himself. 


We never felt it was sufficient to rely simply on a written report or a 10-

minute statement without the ability to follow up with questions. 


MADDOW:  Because we the public have had so little visibility into the way

that Mueller works and how he and his team have approached their duties,

and obviously there`s been a lot of controversy over the way they chose to

approach their investigation to present their finds.  I think it`s always

been a little bit fuzzy for us outside this process to understand why it is

that Mr. Mueller does not want to testify, why he is resistant to speaking

at all, as he put it, beyond the four corners of the report that he and his

staff put out in writing.  Can you shed any light on that for us and tell

us what these negotiations have been like?


I`ve seen you express dissatisfaction or impatience or frustration that

it`s taken this long to arrange his testimony. 


SCHIFF:  Well, you know, I will let the special counsel speak for himself

and their office speak for themselves, but I think that what they have

represented to us is that they view themselves as prosecutors, and

prosecutors don`t normally talk outside of the trial or outside of the



But let`s face it, this is not a traditional prosecutorial case.  And

what`s more, Bill Barr has felt more than free as the attorney general to

speak well beyond the Mueller report, and if he is able to speak beyond the

four corners of the Mueller report, then so too should Bob Mueller feel

free so to do so. 


So we have never concurred with that judgment, but I think that`s where

they`re coming from.  Yes, it was frustrating that it took so long because

it seemed like such an obvious step from my own point of view.  If you`re

going to accept the role of special counsel in one of the most significant

investigations in modern history, you`re going to have to expect that

you`re going to be asked to come and testify before Congress. 


So the only surprise to me is that it`s taken so long, but nonetheless,

we`re grateful we have finally reached a resolution and the American people

will have an opportunity to hear directly from the man who led this team

for almost two years. 


MADDOW:  Congressman, I know that you have to go vote, and I have to let

you go.  I want to ask you one question before I let you go. 


SCHIFF:  Sure. 


MADDOW:  I`m sorry.  Cut me off if you need to. 


But can you let us know in terms of the questioning and the preparation for

having Robert Mueller before you.  I`m thinking particularly of that open

session.  Do you expect that all of the questioning will be done by you and

your members on the Intelligence Committee or will this be something where

professional staff from the committee are involved in the questioning? 


We`ve obviously seen in every big controversial congressional investigation

all the way back to Watergate, some of the most effective questioning is

sometimes done not by elected members but by professional staff.  Will that

be part of the way that you approach this with Mueller? 


SCHIFF:  You know, we`re going to sit down as a committee and have this

discussion.  We have in our discussions with the special counsel arranged

so that we`ll have sufficient time that if we go through the traditional

format, every member will be able to ask questions.  We may choose to

allocate the time among the members differently than that. 


And it`s true that when we have interviewed fact witnesses, and we just

conducted the interviews within the last week with a fact witness, we have

often staff-led interviews that go on for a period of time where we will

ask questions for an hour then the other side will ask questions for an

hour.  We`ll have to determine whether – because this is not a fact

witness, per se, whether we will use the traditional approach or we`ll use

the approach where we concentrate time among fewer members. 


I think that given the profile of this testimony, it`s more likely to be

member questions than staff, but we`re going to be convening among

ourselves to determine the best method to approach this hearing. 


MADDOW:  Just going to be an incredibly important moment for the country. 

I don`t envy you, the job of prepping for it, sir, but I hope you`ll keep

us apprised as we get closer to the date.  Thank you for helping us

understand tonight.


SCHIFF:  You bet.


MADDOW:  Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee. 

Really appreciate it, sir. 


He`s got to leave because he`s got to go vote and I think I held him long. 

Sorry.  But he`s on his way to make that vote and I hope that he does. 


But, again, this is – this is an important step.  This is what the

American people have been waiting for since the Mueller report was released

to us in the form that we got, which is sort of an explanation of what`s in

that report, and I think in particular, of why the special counsel and his

staff approached the Russia investigation the way that they did. 


It has not been long.  It`s been since mid-April since we got the – we got

the mostly unredacted version of the Mueller report released to the public. 

But, again, the breaking news tonight is that between the Judiciary

Committee and the Intelligence Committee in the House, they have now

subpoenaed Robert Mueller`s testimony and he has agreed to testify. 


As Congressman Schiff just told us, the special counsel`s office would not

look upon this as a friendly subpoena.  This is not one of those things

where you sometimes hear in these congressional negotiations a witness or

an entity that`s been called to testify or hand over documents said, I`m

super happy to do it, but just for my own, you know, CYA purposes or just

because of my own professional responsibilities or just so I can explain

this to some other people for some other way, please give me a subpoena but

I`ll be fine, I`ll definitely show up. 


This does not appear to be that type of negotiation.  He said this has not

been – this will not be viewed as a friendly subpoena by the special

counsel`s office but they do expect it to be honored. 


Now, of course, the White House has blocked lots of fact witnesses, lots of

Trump administration witnesses who play key roles in Mueller`s report from

being allowed to testify to congress.  Whether or not the White House will

try to block Mueller from testifying in response to this subpoena remains

to be seen, but as of now, it appears they do have a date – 9:00 a.m.,

Wednesday, July 17th. 


Cancel your plans. 


We`ll be right back.




MADDOW:  Breaking news just within the last few minutes. 


Quote: Pursuant to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary and House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, tonight, special counsel Robert

S. Mueller III has agreed to testify before both committees on July 17th in

open session.


We knew this – well, for awhile we knew this day would come then we

wondered if this day would come.  Now at least we`ve got a schedule for

whether or not this day is going to come. 


Joining us by phone is the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of

Michigan, the great Barb McQuade.


Barb, thanks for joining us on short notice.  I really appreciate you`re

getting on the phone with us. 


BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY (via telephone):  Oh, thanks, Rachel. 

Wouldn`t want to miss this news. 


MADDOW:  Well, yes, it is – I mean, to me, this feels like big news.  Let

me just ask your top line reaction hearing this for the first time. 


MCQUADE:  Well, I`m not being sarcastic.  I think it`s really big news. 


I think that – sort of accepted that maybe the committee had moved on,

that Robert Mueller gave his statement where he made it clear that he

didn`t want to speak and that he wouldn`t have anything to say beyond

what`s in his report and that people were going to let that lie, and so I

do think it`s big news that he`s going to speak because I think that his

testimony will put a spotlight on what`s in his report in a way that the

mere words has not permeated, you know, the public consciousness. 


MADDOW:  You know, and I want to ask you what you think about what Mueller

should be asked.  I`m going to ask you that in just a minute. 


But to that point about how long it took to get here and how important it

is that we got here, striking that the Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam

Schiff just told me that we shouldn`t understand this as a friendly

subpoena to Mueller.  Make no mistake about it.  He did not want to



This letter from Nadler and Schiff makes clear that there were definitely

difficult negotiations here.  Over the course of discussions about your

appearance before Congress, we`ve communicated our intention to issue she`s

subpoenas if necessary.  We now understand it`s necessary to do so.  We

further understand there are certain sensitivities associated with your

open testimony, in particular several criminal investigations in certain

matters that are ongoing. 


Does it strike you as important that Mueller was so resistant to this and

that ultimately this subpoena was what it took to compel him to do this

rather than him agreeing to it voluntarily? 


MCQUADE:  Yes, you know, I can`t really get into his head.  He`s obviously

an experienced person with testifying on Capitol Hill, so I don`t think he

is in any way intimidated by it.  But, you know, as a prosecutor, I

sometimes participated in press conferences to announce charges.  You

sometimes will get questions and there`s a lot of challenge in making sure

that you are saying only what`s in the four corners of the charging

document, not disclosing things that are classified or, you know, that

relates to ongoing investigations. 


There is also in this case the additional political football aspect of it

all, and I think Robert Mueller is very resistant to being a political

pawn, and I`m sure to some extent he will be made one.  So for all of those

reasons I can understand his reluctance. 


MADDOW:  When it comes to matters that are ongoing criminal investigations,

obviously, Chairman Schiff took pains to point out that there is going to

be open session testimony but it`s going to be followed by testimony in

closed session that will involve Mueller`s staff.  Even at that closed

session where members are used to hearing classified information and all

sorts of sensitive stuff, those Justice Department staffers, those special

counsel`s office staffers, even in closed session they won`t be able to

talk to members of Congress about ongoing open criminal matters, will they? 


MCQUADE:  I don`t think so.  Typically not.  Some of the things for which

the Department of Justice will typically invoke privilege, you know, or

narrowly they`re supposed to disclose and be transparent but there are a

few areas of sensitivity.  Grand jury material is one and another is

ongoing criminal matters.  They wouldn`t want to say anything that might

jeopardize the success of those investigations. 


MADDOW:  All right.  Even behind closed doors.  Yes. 


MCQUADE:  There is always the chance that someone will disclose something

that happened that can harm –


MADDOW:  Let me just ask you bluntly.  I know you`ve read the whole Mueller

report, as have I, and we`ve all been sort of marinating in it since it

first came out.  What springs to your mind immediately what Mueller should

be asked in this setting that was mandated by the subpoena and described to

us by the chairman. 


MCQUADE:  Well, first I would want to know, did you really intend to leave

it to Attorney General William Barr to make a decision when you declined to

make a prosecutorial decision?  William Barr says, well, that leaves it to

me and I decide no obstruction.  Was that your intention?  I would ask

that, number one. 


Number two, I would ask him about you didn`t make a decision with regard to

obstruction but you treated it very differently than conspiracy.  You said

the evidence does not establish conspiracy.  With obstruction you said

something very different, you said, we do not charge the president but we

also do not exonerate him.  What do you mean by that?  Is that because

there was evidence of crime here and you didn`t feel it was fair to say it

out loud? 


And the last thing I would say, with regard to conspiracy, at one point in

the report he identifies gaps in the evidence from witnesses who lied,

witnesses who gave incomplete information, witnesses who deleted

communications and used encrypted apps.  What were some of the – you`re

unable to answer for yourself because of that obstructive activity.  I`d

want to know that because that could be avenues for Congress to follow up

on in its own investigation. 


MADDOW:  Right.  Exactly, because part of what you`re going to want to know

here is what Mueller wasn`t able to find if there is an opportunity for

anybody to find it. 


Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney in the great state of Michigan, Barb,

thanks again for joining us on short notice tonight, as we handle this

breaking news.  I really appreciate it. 


MCQUADE:  You bet, Rachel.  My pleasure.  Thanks. 


MADDOW:  All right.  Again, the bottom line here is that Robert Mueller has

agreed to testify after receiving a subpoena from the House Judiciary

Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.  That testimony due to

start in open session 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 17th.  That will be a

sequential set of testimony in one committee and then the and other then

his staff in closed session with the intel committee members.  Fascinating. 


Stay with us.  More ahead tonight. 




MADDOW:  One of those nights I had a whole other show planned.  But these

things – these things happen.  Again, we`re covering the breaking news

tonight that a subpoena – actually I believe it may be two subpoenas. 

Have been sent to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. 


The reason I think it`s multiple subpoenas is because of the way that a

press release is phrased from Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. 


Their joint statement tonight says, pursuant to subpoenas issued by house

judiciary and house intelligence, special counsel Mueller has agreed to

testify before both committees.  We have only seen one of the subpoenas

before.  We`ve seen a subpoena in which Mueller appears to be, Mueller is

commanded to appear before the committee.  Now, we know from talking to

Congressman Schiff that Mueller`s agreement is that he will testify at each

committee, at judiciary and at intelligence. 


And interestingly after open session testimony from Mueller himself before

the intelligence committee, Chairman Schiff says there will then be a

closed session, but as far as I understand what he told me and, again, we

just got this information live from here on the air.  I`m prepared to be

wrong if I misunderstood him, but what I believe he explained is that

Mueller himself will not be the witness, will not be continuing to give

testimony once they go into that closed-door session.  Mueller will only

speak in the open session.  So that closed-door session will be members of

the intelligence committee along with members of the Mueller`s staff. 


Now, I pressed Schiff to find out whether or not he would give us the names

of the specific staff members from Mueller`s team who might be participated

in that closed-door session with the Intelligence Committee members. 

Obviously that`s of interest because we don`t know, for one, if there have

been divisions among Mueller`s team.  Also because it would be interesting

to know which of those members of his team is going to be there, in part

because we`ve come to learn a little bit over the weeks and I guess months

now about what each of the members of his team focused on, both in terms of

the expertise that they brought to the investigation and what they actually

worked on in there. 


What remains I think for the American public is probably the biggest

question about Mueller`s investigation, is what happened to the

counterintelligence part of it?  We know that the Federal Bureau of

Investigation launched an investigation specifically into the

counterintelligence implications, the counterintelligence equities at risk

from potential improper contact between the president-elect`s campaign, the

– the president`s campaign, his time as president-elect and his time in

the White House. 


Obviously, that`s, you know, that`s the big kahuna.  That`s the big

question at the heart of the all of this.  Obstruction of justice ends up

becoming a very important potentially criminal part of it once the

investigation is under way, but what the investigation started as was this

base level question of whether or not the president of the United States

might be acting on behalf of a foreign power, wittingly or perhaps

unwittingly if he was being manipulated by that foreign power, by some sort

of contact between him and the Russian government that we didn`t



The resolution of that counterintelligence investigation is never addressed

in Mueller`s report.  We believe that that – that that intelligence

investigation was taken over by Mueller`s team.  We think.  Once he started

the special counsel`s investigation.  But there is really – you can find

hide more hair of it in his written port. 


So we know that Mueller has said publicly that he will not comment publicly

on anything that is outside the bound of that report.  Well, outside the

bounds of what`s in that report is the central smoking counterintelligence

question that gave rise to this entire scandal and the national concern

over it. 


If other members of his team behind closed doors will be able to speak to

those parts of the investigation, even if they weren`t in the report,

that`s a matter of significant, I think, public interest and a really key

part of the question of accountability for this administration and for the

investigators who launched that and then publicly announced that that`s

what they had done. 


So, again, we are absorbing this information.  The testimony is planned for

Wednesday, July 17th, 9:00 a.m.  Two open sessions followed by a close

session with Mueller`s staff. 


We`ll have more right after this.  Stay with us. 




MADDOW:  All right.  Here`s the skinny.  Mueller`s subpoena to testify or

no Mueller subpoena to testify, over the next two nights, over the next 48

hours, NBC and MSNBC and Telemundo are going to host the first debate of

the 2020 presidential race.  It is on. 


Twenty Democratic candidates will be taking the stage here in Miami.  As

you know, it`s 10 candidates the first night, then 10 different candidates

the second night.  The lineup from night to night was chosen randomly. 

We`ve got 10 on night one, 10 on night two. 


You need to start watching debate coverage at 7:00 p.m. Eastern at the

latest, OK? 


Our MSNBC special coverage starts tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. Eastern with

Brian Williams and Nicolle Wallace.  Because MSNBC is one of the hosts of

this debate, they`re going to have the kind of access and information and

footage that nobody else is going to have, so you need to start with Brian

and Nicolle here at 7:00 Eastern at the latest. 


And then at 9:00 sharp, from 9:00 to 10:00 Eastern, the candidates will

square off in the first hour with Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie and Jose

Diaz-Balart moderating.  And then from 10:00 to 11:00, for the second hour

of the debate, Savannah and Jose are going to tag out and Chuck Todd and I

will tag in to moderate the second hour of the debate. 


It`s going to be a very big deal.  I am absolutely terrified.  You will not

want to miss it.  I will see you there. 


That does it for us tonight. 




Good evening, Lawrence. 







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