IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Judge rejects Trump's request. TRANSCRIPT: 5/22/19, The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell.

Guests: Jamie Raskin

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST:  Good evening, Rachel.

And I was so glad you had Senator Schumer on tonight, because I thought he was the person who really made the point of what was going on in that stunt at the White House today.  It was very simply that the president had no infrastructure plan on the day that he was supposed to have an infrastructure plan for that meeting. 

So, what was he going to do instead?  Oh, I know, I`ll go out and do this nutty press conference.  It wasn`t even just a press conference but just the announcement in the Rose Garden that the government will now be shut down.  President is shutting down.  He`s on strike because they`re investigating him. 

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "TRMS":  This is the equivalent of like, getting caught breaking curfew or like not making your bed or doing something else bad, so you walk into the kitchen, grab the silverware drawer and shake it over your head upside down.  I`m creating a new crisis. 

I mean, that today was absolutely nuts today.  I think senator -- I give Senator Schumer credit for just saying what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop trying to make us all not lose our sense of wonder about how weird this all is. 

O`DONNELL:  Yes, and the president I guess forgot that he has a very, very big legislative ask coming up of Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives.  And that is his renegotiated version of NAFTA which is really not even NAFTA 2.0, it`s like NAFTA 1.1.  And the House of Representatives is not friendly toward it already.  And so, I`m not sure what`s in it for Nancy Pelosi to fast-track the president`s new NAFTA agreement through the House of Representatives. 

MADDOW:  But also like -- think about this I mean, he`s the "Art of the Deal", right?  Think about the negotiating position he`s taking here, I`m not going to do anything with you people.  I`m not going to do any work as president.  We`re not going to do any legislation, nothing, unless you drop all your investigations into me. 

What does he think is going to happen in response to that?  Does he think even the Republicans will say, hey, Democrats you better drop your investigations?  The president says the country will get it if you don`t.  I mean, what does he expect to be the response to this?  I mean, the only thing he`s done is if there was ever any inclination by anyone to drop an investigation into him they now can`t because he told them they needed to and it would be giving into this weird threat to the country if they went along with it. 

I mean, I don`t -- I don`t know if this was the president doing this on his own.  I don`t know if there`s some mad genius behind this at the White House who thinks this will end well.  But this was -- this is something that he will lose and I can`t imagine this is going to help his temperament at all. 

O`DONNELL:  Rachel, I hate to break it to you.  There`s no mad genius.  Sorry.  Sorry.

MADDOW:  Oh.  I had this idea. 

O`DONNELL:  Uh-uh, nope, not even in the movie version.  Ain`t going to be a mad genius.  Uh-uh, no. 

MADDOW:  If we could write a mad genius, it might make for a better movie, Lawrence. 

O`DONNELL:  Thank you, Rachel. 

MADDOW:  Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL:  Thank you.

Well, the president was crushed today, just crushed by another federal judge in the president`s attempt to block House of Representative subpoenas for his financial records at Deutsche Bank that could reveal Donald Trump`s financial dependence on Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.  That happened on the same day that the treasury secretary gave false testimony to a House committee about his illegal participation in a scheme directed by the president to block the Internal Revenue Service from following the law and handing over the president`s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee chairman as the law clearly requires. 

Now, that alone that, moment alone would be the biggest and most shocking news item on most other news days of most other presidencies.  But we won`t get to that.  We won`t get to the treasury secretary not telling the truth in a House hearing until the end of this hour. 

And when we do, we will be joined by an expert on that subject who I feel very lucky to have with us tonight, an attorney who served over 20 years in the chief counsel`s office at the Internal Revenue Service, someone who knows much more about that subject than I do.  There is no doubt that the some day soon, a federal judge is going to order the treasury secretary and director of the IRS to hand over Donald Trump`s tax returns to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the judge who issues that order will no doubt, be echoing and possibly even specifically citing the order issued by a federal judge in New York City today who ordered Deutsche Bank to comply with a House subpoena for the Trump records. 

In his opinion today that, judge referred specifically to the judge`s opinion on Monday that was the first to order compliance with a House subpoena for Trump financial records from an accounting firm.  Federal judges are now Donald Trump`s worst enemies because they are following the law, and because they don`t play Trump games.  Federal courtrooms do not allow the kinds of silly statements that Donald Trump makes at his rallies or the silly stunts that he pulls in the White House like the stunts that he pulled today in the White House. 

President Trump actually scheduled a ridiculous stunt in the White House today so that he could use it as the basis for an even more ridiculous stunt minutes later in the White House Rose Garden.  And the only thing that will be remembered from his stunt upon a stunt is that the president of the United States actually said this. 




O`DONNELL:  No president who did not do cover-ups ever said "I don`t do cover-ups".  The closest Richard Nixon came to that was "I am not a crook," and Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency because he did cover- ups.  But he was never buffoonish enough to say "I don`t do cover-ups". 

And President Trump said that today because this morning, the speaker of the House said this. 


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA):  We do believe that it`s important for -- to follow the facts.  We believe that no one is above the law and clearly the president of the United States.  And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up, in a cover-up.  And that was the nature of the meeting. 


O`DONNELL:  Now, as everyone in politics knows, you should never adopt the language of the opposition, especially when it is an accusation against you and extra especially when it is a criminal accusation against you like cover-up.  Any half competent White House staff would have strongly advised the president not to use the word "cover-up" today or ever. 

The president was in the Rose Garden to explain to reporters why he was not in the cabinet room where he was scheduled to be at that moment in a meeting with the Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate to talk about possible infrastructure legislation.  But the president said he was incapable of doing his job once he heard that Nancy Pelosi had actually used the word cover-up. 


TRUMP:  Instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk into look at people that had just said that I was doing a cover-up.  I don`t do cover- ups.  You people know that probably better than anybody. 


O`DONNELL:  Oh, and that little tag is one of his pathological tells.  You people know that probably better than anybody.  He constantly says that to the White House press corps, knowing that they are all you locked into a tradition of politeness that prevents them from screaming back at him, no, we don`t know the that the better than anybody.  Most of us have written stories in which you are reported to be engaged in a cover-up. 

It is an important part of the Trump public technique when he throws in that line, you people probably know that better than anybody and it is met with silence.  That silence is important because Donald Trump knows that in the TV audience`s mind, he thinks anyway, that that silence affirms that those people really do know better than anybody that what he just said is true. 

Donald Trump uses the White House press corps as a prop as he did today and he used the Democratic congressional leadership as a prop once again today and is now telling America that no dangerous bridge will be repaired, not one penny of infrastructure improvement will occur in the United States of America as long as the president of the United States is being investigated. 


TRUMP:  I walked into the room, and I told Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure.  I want to do it more than you want to do it.  I`d be already good at that.  That`s what I do. 

But you know what?  You can`t do it under these circumstances.  So get these phony investigations over with. 


O`DONNELL:  That statement alone by any other president would be an impeachable offense.  To say "I will not perform my constitutional duty as long as I`m being investigated" would be in and of itself an article of impeachment against any other president, but this Congress has a Republican Senate which will abide any violation of Donald Trump`s oath of office and has already abided many of them and the Democratic House is now apparently lost on what impeachable offense actually means.  They all green even the speaker that the president has committed impeachable offenses but they do not agree that the president should be impeached for impeachable offenses. 

And they have yet to explain that.  This is the first time in history that a party in the House of Representatives has had such a tortured relationship to the issue of impeachment, but the courts are marching on against the president in ways that are possibly almost as devastating as impeachment. 

The funny thing about the word impeachment, compared to the word cover-up, is that President Trump has finally found a word that he thinks a president just should not say. 


TRUMP:  All of a sudden, I hear last night, they`re going to have a meeting right before this meeting to talk about the "I" word.  The "I" word.  Can you imagine? 


O`DONNELL:  What I could not imagine is that Donald Trump would find a word that he is afraid to say in public. 


TRUMP:  You know they say confidential sources.  Do you ever notice they never write the names of people anymore?  Everything is a source says.  There is no source. 

The person doesn`t exist.  The person`s not alive.  It`s bull shit, OK?  It`s bullshit. 


O`DONNELL:  From the start, the only possibility for infrastructure has been than Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump would build a road to nowhere because the Democrats and the Trump party will never agree on infrastructure legislation.  Some Democrats would be willing to pay for infrastructure spending with a gasoline tax or cuts to defense spending. 

And Republicans would not agree to pay for infrastructure spending at all, period, zero.  Republicans would not support infrastructure spending.  They would simply support giant tax breaks for companies engaged in very loosely defined infrastructure projects. 

So, there has never been even a 1 percent of a possibility, chance of an agreement on infrastructure legislation and Democrats knew that but they did not want to appear to be unwilling to negotiate with President Trump.  And so, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have repeatedly allowed for the possibility of negotiations.   In their last discussion with the president, they asked the president to present them with proposals for how to pay for infrastructure spending.  That was the point of today`s meeting. 

And in a normal White House, president would have walked into the room with the budget director, with perhaps the treasury secretary and perhaps the transportation secretary and they would lay out infrastructure options with different price tags and different ways of paying for those projects, and there would be a give and take at the table in the cabinet room, the kind of meeting I saw many times in that room when I was a Senate staffer. 

And it might take months, but in that room, using those puzzle parts, an agreement would eventually emerge.  That is the adult job of the presidency.  That is the job Donald Trump has never done and will never do.  And said today he will not do. 

And so, it became another stunt day at the White House with the president who is now on record as being the first president in history to go on strike -- the president who is going to stay on strike as long as he`s being investigated. 


TRUMP:  So I`ve said from the beginning, right from the beginning, that you probably can`t go down two tracks.  You can go down did the investigation track and you can go down the investment track or the track of let`s get things done for the American people. 


O`DONNELL:  We have my two favorite people to discuss stunt day at the White House tonight.  Leading off our discussion, Eugene Robinson, associate editor and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the "Washington Post".  He`s an MSNBC political analyst.

And Joy Reid, MSNBC national correspondent and host of "A.M. JOY".  She`s the author of the forthcoming book which I have read and loved, "The Man Who Sold America."

Joy, I say this because this is one of those subjects, stunt day, that requires a mix of alertness and sensitivity to the policy and to the workings of the White House the way government is supposed to work. 


O`DONNELL:  And I think you better bring a sense of humor.  I think you had to get through it.  You have to bring a sense of humor to it. 

So he piles the stunt on top of the stunt and he goes on strike. 

REID:  You know, Lawrence, thank you so much for doing that.  I apologize for cackling in the background as you were doing it.  I couldn`t stop myself from laughing. 

I mean, it`s hilarious.  But the reality is this guy, his entire public career is predicated on tricking bank B into believing he had money even though he had built bank A and getting them to fund casino C even though casinos A and B had gone bankrupt.  And then having the show "The Apprentice" after he was already a business failure, right?

And so, now, the Democrats` entire response is predicated on the idea that he`s got some master strategy that he`s trying to trick them into impeaching him, right?  He`s trying to trick them into doing the "I" word, which he can`t even say as you say.  And then he`ll fool them and he`s got a strategy that will ignite a wave of Trump affection that`s going to come from nowhere because 52 percent of Americans say they will never vote for him, but he`s going to ignite this incredible wave and he`s going to be Bill Clinton and everyone is going to love him. 

Where is the evidence that any of that is true?  Donald Trump is terrified of impeachment.  Donald Trump is terrified of humiliation.  Donald Trump is terrified of being exposed.  That`s why he`s so freaked out about his business records. 

If he was goading them to impeach him, if he wanted it, he wouldn`t mind the Mueller report coming out because he wouldn`t be afraid.  He`s terrified.  And so, the Democrats are more afraid of Trump and more afraid of this magical base that`s going to come out of Brigadoon, that`s going to fall in love with him when he`s impeached than they are of their own base turning on them if they do nothing. 

O`DONNELL:  Gene, the Democrats have already passed about 100 bills in is this House of representatives large and small, which takes us back -- while investigating this president, to go back to 1974 to the investigation of President Nixon as I know you recall, I just asked today, give me a rough outline after legislation that year that Congress was able to do.  Things like -- while they`re basically removing the president. 

EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Removing the president, right. 

O`DONNELL:  Federal -- the Federal Aid to Highway Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Endangered Species Act while they`re driving Richard Nixon out of office investigating.  The Budget Act of 1974, Nixon signs it on July 12th -- 


O`DONNELL:  -- and he`s --  


O`DONNELL:  He`s on a helicopter a month later. 

ROBINSON:  Exactly. 

O`DONNELL:  That was a giant piece of legislation.  That created the budget committees.  It created the Congressional Budget Office. 

Everything about federal budgeting is defined in that very complex law that the Nixon administration tracked, responsibly.  They did their jobs.  And the president frankly did his job while he was being driven out of office. 

ROBINSON:  Look, the Nixon administration for its many flaws was a presidency.  This has always been a "presidency", right?


ROBINSON:  It never did a real presidency from day one.  It`s never been fully staffed.  It`s never been staffed with competent people, let alone, you know, the brilliant people that we usually see in administrations, people who really know the ins and outs of the federal budget, really know infrastructure, who are committed to the idea of government and not the idea of grifting you know themselves into a bigger house and a better pool, which is kind of what we have now. 

So, it shouldn`t be a surprise that they had no infrastructure plan.  They never were going to have one and they don`t have one.  They have flow idea how to fund it. 

And so, they came up with a stunt.  Or two stunts, right?  The first stunt and then the second stunt that built on that. 

You know, the only thing I can say for what Democrats did today and how they come out looking is you`re right.  They are wrong if they think there`s some -- you know, some very subtle sort of Machiavellian, long- range four-dimensional chess strategy that Donald Trump is playing because he don`t do that. 

But there are a lot of people in the country who are frustrated that stuff doesn`t get done.  And it is useful I think from that standpoint for Democrats to be saying let`s get stuff done and for the president to say, I won`t do anything, I refuse to do my job.  I will hold my breath until I turn blue and they stop investigating. 

O`DONNELL:  Can you imagine if that was Bill Clinton`s choice when he was being investigated?  What Bill Clinton`s choice was the only thing you could possibly do. 

REID:  Right.

O`DONNELL:  He wanted to appear to be studiously doing his job every single day.  And there was no real public evidence that he wasn`t studiously doing his job every single day.

REID:  Right.

O`DONNELL:  And as a result, his -- Bill Clinton`s job approval rating went up when he appeared to be seriously doing his job --

REID:  Right. 

O`DONNELL:  -- while being investigated. 

Donald Trump would never consider that possibility. 

REID:  I think that the Democrats also even though some of them lived through it, misremember everything about what happened with the Clinton impeachment.  Clinton was already popular.  And the public saw him doing great things on the economy.  They saw him actually doing a job they thought was competent and then they see him being impeached over a sexual affair. 

Most of the public thought that was ridiculous.  Of course, his popularity went up.  He said I`m going to get back to the business of the country.  I think he literally said that. 

O`DONNELL:  Yes, that was his phrase. 

REID:  Donald Trump -- the idea that Donald Trump was ever going to do the business of the country, that`s what I question with the Democratic leadership.  Why play along with the ruse?  He wasn`t going to have a infrastructure plan.  You think he was going to show up and he was going to have it? 

You said the budget director has worked that.  He didn`t have one.  And so, the way to deal with the fact of his inadequacy as a president is just to, you know, throw a temper tantrum. 

The thing about the Democratic leadership that is confounding to a lot of people who ask me to explain it is that they are both saying he has committed essentially a crime or high crime.  They said he`s committing a cover-up. 


REID:  But no, no, it doesn`t rise to the level of impeachment.  I don`t understand it. 

O`DONNELL:  Gene -- 


ROBINSON:  Just one other thing I think is being misremembered about the Clinton impeachment is that the Republican Party did fine in the 2000 election. 

O`DONNELL:  They won. 

ROBINSON:  After the Clinton impeachment, they won.

REID:  Because the scar of impeachment was on him.  Once you stamp that scarlet "I" on a president, he didn`t too useful --

O`DONNELL:  Gene, quick thought experiment before we go to break here, imagine the president walked into that room today with an infrastructure plan, with an infrastructure plan that was compromisable in ways that Democrats would have trouble turning down.  And at least and began what could have been weeks of Donald Trump appearing to do his job. 

What if he made that choice? 

ROBINSON:  That would have been incredible.  And I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would have been gobsmacked and wouldn`t know what to say or what to do.  He would confound everybody if he actually seriously did his job. 

O`DONNNELL:  All right.  We`re going to have to take a break here. 

Joy Reid`s book is "The Man Who Sold America." 

Joy and Eugene, thank you both very much for starting us off tonight.

REID:  Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL:  Really appreciate it. 

And when we come back, Congressman Jamie Raskin is with us.  He`s a member of the House Judiciary Committee.  He`s going to join us on this important week when the House subpoenas are finally being enforced in court. 

And later, it was the secretary of the treasury`s turn today to not tell the truth in a congressional hearing.  We will show you that video.  We`ll be joined by an expert on the laws that Secretary Mnuchin was misstating today. 


O`DONNELL:  Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee has announced an agreement with Attorney General Barr and the Justice Department to hand over to the committee the redacted portions of the Mueller report that were redacted for national security reasons.  Chairman Schiff has been insisting that his committee is legally authorized to examine information that involves sensitive national security issues and has routinely done so throughout the history of the committee. 


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA):  As part of the negotiations, we said, look, here are 12 sets of documents that we want.  They`re identified in the report.  None of these are even arguably privileged in any way.  All of these involved counterintelligence or foreign intelligence information. 

Start by providing these or we`re going to go to an enforcement action.  This was a test of whether they were acting in good faith or without any faith.  And close to midnight last night, they finally agreed. 


O`DONNELL:  That does not move the House Judiciary Committee any closer to obtaining the full unredacted Mueller report, but the success that other committees have had in court this week enforcing their subpoenas is now a very strong indicator of the strength of the Judiciary Committee`s case when it comes to court to enforce their subpoenas. 

After her three-minute infrastructure meeting at the White House today with the president, the speaker of the House said this. 


PELOSI:  The fact is in plain sight, in the public domain, this is president is obstructing justice and he`s engaged in a cover-up.  And that could be an impeachable offense. 


Ignoring this -- ignoring the -- ignoring the subpoenas of Congress was Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment. 


O`DONNELL:  Joining our discussion now, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat from Maryland and member of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee. 

Congressman, I want your reaction to two successive federal judges ordering complete compliance with House subpoenas and today`s federal judge actually quoting Monday`s federal judge twice in his opinion. 

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):  Well, I think we`re going to win all of these cases, Lawrence, because Congress has the power of fact-finding.  The Supreme Court has said that`s a central function to the legislative branch we`re allowed to assemble the facts that we need.  And as one judge put it this week, if we`ve got the power to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors, certainly, we have the power to investigate the power for high crimes and misdemeanors.  That`s how we would find out what he`s up to. 

O`DONNELL:  And there are reports of discussions some reports of dissension within the Democrats in the House of Representatives about the question of impeachment.  You`ve been reportedly favoring it in some of the leadership discussions against other members of the leadership who are as opposed to it. 

Where do you think impeachment stands now in the House of Representatives? 

RASKIN:  Let me just say that the reports of division in the Democratic Caucus are vastly exaggerated.  In fact, I would say I`ve never seen us more unified to stand strong and tall against the lawlessness and the corruption of the executive branch. 

So here`s where we are.  As you quoted in the intro here, Speaker Pelosi said the president is engaged in a full-blown cover-up and I would add a shutdown of the executive branch.  They`re involved in any governance.  The president saying we`re not going to do anything with you until you drop the investigations, and shutout of the legislative branch. 

So, he`s basically plunged the country into constitutional chaos.  We are trying to come forward with a $2 trillion infrastructure plan and he said not until you stop exercising your lawful function. 

So the speaker said that this would be an impeachable offense, a full blown cover-up.  That`s pretty much what Richard Nixon was facing with impeachment against him, a full blown cover-up, and we have dozens of members of the House, including a clear majority in the Judiciary Committee who think that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed based on the evidence in the Mueller report, as well as the daily evidence we get of the presidential obstruction and defiance and contempt of Congress. 

So I think the cat is out of the bag.  Everybody or the vast majority of us in the Democratic Caucus think impeachable offenses have been committed and the real question is a strategic one, of exactly what path do we get on.  The speaker who is a political genius, as you know, thinks that we`re better off working in each of these committees to try to obtain the evidence we`re going after. 

And I think those people, especially in the Judiciary Committee who have been facing all of the evidence of impeachable offenses from the Mueller report are happy to say, hey, if you can get more evidence about tax evasion, if there`s more evidence about Emoluments Clause violations, if there`s more evidence about money laundering which seems to be the thing that gets the president the most terrified, remember when he said that if Mueller investigated his finances, that was a red line. 

And it does seem as if Mueller carefully gerrymandered the report to exclude anything about the president`s finances.  That`s what we`re going after.  We`re going to get to the bottom of this.  This president has turned the executive branch of government and the presidency into a money making operation for himself and his friends and his business. 

And we`re going to get to the bottom of that.  And that`s totally unlawful, too.  But we are not afraid of using every tool available to us in the Constitution, including impeachment, the inherent of contempt.  We`ve got contempt citations we`re bringing against Barr, that we`re going to bring against McGahn.  We`re going after anybody who defies the lawful authority of Congress. 

And, by the way, throw the 25th Amendment in there too because there are two interpretations of what happened today.  One is the president is just acting unconstitutionally in defying our power.  The other is that he`s lost touch with reality and it`s not within his senses.  So, we`ve got look carefully at the 25th Amendment, as well. 

O`DONNELL:  So, when does the impeachment process begin?

RASKIN:  Well, in a certain sense, you could say it`s begun because the fact-finding process has begun in pretty much all of the major investigative committees in Congress, in the Oversight Committee in, the Judiciary Committee, in Ways and Means.  Everybody`s out there trying to obtain evidence about the criminality and the wrongdoing of the president.

We have not initiated a formal impeachment inquiry.  But I think we also had a very important epiphany this week when people began to distinguish for the first time impeachment from an impeachment inquiry.

To say that we`re going to launch an impeachment inquiry just means we`re going to formalize the process of trying to determine whether there were high crimes and misdemeanors committed.  That`s very different from articles of impeachment where you have the actual indictment and then we go to vote on it.  That`s the end of the process of an impeachment inquiry.

And the reason you have so many dozens of Democrats coming out and saying, yes, I`m for an impeachment inquiry this week is people are finally distinguishing between the impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment.  There have been a lot of impeachment inquiries over American history that have not led to articles of impeachment.  So it`s not a false distinction.  It`s a real distinction in terms of the process that we follow.

O`DONNELL:  So only your committee can have an impeachment inquiry.  When does that begin?

RASKIN:  Well, actually the Congress could decide to set up a special -- a select committee on impeachment.  But I hope and I think that we probably would do one within the Judiciary Committee and events are moving very quickly as you can tell from what happened today and the kind of conversations that are going on.

But you know, we have a lot of confidence in the chair of our committee, Jerry Nadler who has actually been through some of this and Zoe Lofgren was a staff member during the Nixon impeachment and Nancy Pelosi has also been in Congress during some of these.  So there are people who have a lot of experience with it.

And I think if we`re going to move forward, they will know when the time is right.  But I know that the membership is very hungry to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.  And we think that democracy is really in peril with this president.

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you very much for joining us tonight.  Appreciate it.

RASKIN:  Thank you so much, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL:  And when we come back, another crushing defeat for President Trump and a ruling in federal court.  We`re going to go into that ruling in depth.


O`DONNELL:  Today, we saw another huge victory for the House of Representatives in a crushing defeat for President Trump in a ruling by a federal court in New York City.  Judge Edgardo Ramos rejected a request by President Trump to block the House of Representative`s subpoenas for his financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

The judge ruled the subpoenas from the House Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee serve "legitimate legislative purpose and while undeniably broad is clearly pertinent."  The 25-page opinion by Judge Ramos agrees with an opinion issued by a Washington, D.C. federal judge on Monday enforcing House subpoenas for Trump banking records from the accounting firm Mazars USA.

Judge Ramos twice cited Judge Amit Mehta`s opinion that was delivered Monday and said that it actually helped him deliver a speedy opinion today.  Judge Ramos noted that he was able to issue his decision immediately after the arguments were heard in court today because the case was filed three weeks ago, "So the court had the benefit of the time necessary to thoroughly consider the merits of plaintiff`s motion, as well I should note the thorough opinion of Judge Mehta of the D.C. District Court."

So the next judge hearing the next Trump subpoena blocking lawsuit should be able to act with similar speed by reading the previous judge`s opinions.  The Deutsche Bank records could be a treasure trove that explains everything about Donald Trump`s relationship to Russia and every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about Vladimir Putin if the documents show that Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin have been in effect cosigners of Trump loans at Deutsche Bank or otherwise financially supporting Donald Trump.

Earlier this week, "The New York Times" reported that anti-money laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank found multiple suspicious transactions involving accounts tied to Donald Trump during the presidential campaign and during the president`s first year in office.

When we come back from a break, we`ll be joined by Adam Klasfeld who was in the courtroom today as this is drama unfolded and we`ll also be joined by Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi who`s a member of the House Committee on Intelligence whose subpoena for the Trump banking records won the day in federal court today.  That`s next.


O`DONNELL:  Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff won a big victory in court today when a federal judge ordered that his subpoena of Trump bank records must be enforced.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE:  Another day, another very important ruling.  Different judge, same opinion.  The Trump legal arguments are without merit.  Raise no serious legal questions, and speed is of the essence.  So another I think resounding victory in the district court that bodes well.


O`DONNELL:  Joining us now a member of Chairman Schiff`s committee, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois.  He`s a member of the House Intelligence Committee which issued the subpoena for the Trump financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.  That subpoena was ordered, enforced today.  He`s also a member of the House Oversight Committee.

And also with us Adam Klasfeld, a reporter for courthouse news who was actually inside that courtroom today as the drama and I do mean drama unfolded.

Congressman Krishnamoorthi, I want to start with you.  I`m sure you had confidence that your subpoenas would be enforced this way since historically they always have been but it has to be a giant relief that, not only were they enforced but at very high speed.

You rarely see a court act this quickly.  The judge literally listened to the arguments, took a 20-minute break, came back in and said OK, here`s the deal.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:  Yes, that`s correct.  I think that as you know, with the Mazars` ruling earlier this week and now this particular ruling in New York, it`s clear the courts are unanimous in their sentiment that Congress has the authority to conduct oversight and investigations and issue subpoenas and those subpoenas need to be complied with.

And so I think there are cracks forming in the Trump obstruction strategy and the strategy to try to delay the production of documents and important testimony that we should have.  And hopefully, they come to their senses and start cooperating and producing documents and other testimony in other matters, as well.

O`DONNELL:  Adam, today`s judge echoed Monday`s judge saying there was no serious question, that`s the phrase they used.  No serious question was raised by the Trump side.


O`DONNELL:  And what that meant to him since he had the case for three weeks and able to study it is he was ready to issue an opinion unless he heard something from the Trump lawyers that he didn`t know about, which is why he questioned them very closely --

KLASFELD:  Absolutely.

O`DONNELL:  -- and questioned the House of Representatives` lawyers very, very closely.  But he was ready to go as soon as that argument ended.

KLASFELD:  Absolutely.  Now, one thing that I came out of that hearing thinking is don`t sit next to this judge -- across from the judge at a poker table because he didn`t let anything on.  He went through the entire hearing basically peppering both sides, giving incisive questions.

And then he called for that brief recess and he had that opinion ready.  He knew when he was -- he had carefully considered both sides of it and it was reflected in his questions.  He hit all the points and he raised all of the issues that both of the sides had said.

But his opinion was withering and it echoed a lot of the language that Judge Meta did in the D.C. case, basically saying there was no serious argument, that it may be a serious thing that Congress is investigating the president.  That`s a colloquially understanding of it but there was no serious legal argument raised.

O`DONNELL:  Congressman, the Monday`s case is already going to an expedited appeal.  And so what we`re seeing in the federal judges who are handling this at the district court level, at the lowest level, and then in the appeals level is there seems to be a recognition that this has to be done at the highest speed possible.

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  That`s exactly right.  I think that they understand that what`s being tested is our oversight power.  Lawrence, let`s not make any mistake about what`s going on here.

The Trump administration, if it were to succeed in this strategy of obstructing oversight in this particular instance, may employ the same strategy in any number of instances throughout our oversight duties in the legislative process, whether it`s immigration or health care or any other matter.

And so this is very serious.  I`m very glad to see what happened and I think the last time a court did not side with Congress was in the time of the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes.

And so let`s get on with this.  We`re going to keep winning in court here.  We`re going to get these documents eventually.

I hope the message is loud and clear to the Trump administration, it`s time to cooperate with our oversight powers and start producing documents but also having witnesses come and testify too.

O`DONNELL:  Adam, it was quite striking that in the judge`s opinion, he twice cited the Washington case earlier this week, cited the judge by name in that case, specifically in effect said, you know, thanks for the help in doing some of the legal -- the same legal scholarship.

KLASFELD:  Absolutely.  It was very clear that as soon as the Washington opinion came down, the counsel for the House of Representatives alerted him to it.  So he knew.

O`DONNELL:  So the court -- the decision comes out in D.C. and the lawyers for the House in that case immediately alert the New York judge you might want to take a look at this.

KLASFELD:  Within moments, it hit the docket.

O`DONNELL:  Of course we alerted him, too.  There`s news everywhere.

KLASFELD:  Everyone watches MSNBC.  Come on.  There was no missing that giant historic news.  But he was considering it from the get-go and that was very apparent.  It was -- a shadow of the Washington opinion just hovered over today`s proceedings.  You couldn`t ignore that sweeping a ruling which created another sweeping ruling.

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  And Lawrence, can I jump in for one second?

O`DONNELL:  Please go ahead.

KRISHNAMOORTHI:  You know the Trump administration kept throwing up the argument that there`s no valid legislative purpose behind these subpoenas.  And as you can see from Judge Mehta`s and now Judge Ramos`s rulings, they cited so many legislative potential purposes for seeking these records that it`s amply clear that that particular argument is not going to win the day for the Trump administration.

For instance, between the Mehta and the Ramos ruling, they said we need these records for purposes of strengthening our ethics and disclosure laws, that we need to make sure that the U.S. financial system isn`t subject to money laundering and the illicit use of the financial system, that we should be able to know whether there`s ongoing wrongdoing in the executive branch.

And finally, you know, whether from a counterintelligence standpoint, payments were made by the Russians to President Trump or family members and therefore, that could be the basis for kompromat or manipulation of Trump officials today, to the endangerment of our national security.

So, so many purposes were set forth by the judges.  That`s precedent that would be used in future cases.

O`DONNELL:  Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi gets the last word on today`s subpoena case.  And Adam Klasfeld, thank you also very much for joining us.  Really appreciate you both being here.

And when we come back, the Treasury secretary did not tell the truth to a House hearing today.  We will show you that video and we will be joined by an expert with 20 years` experience in the IRS who knows the truth.


O`DONNELL:  The day will come when a federal judge tells the secretary of the Treasury that he has violated the law.  But today, it was Congresswoman Alma Adams` turn to tell Secretary Mnuchin that he violated the law by preventing the IRS from handing over Donald Trump`s tax returns in compliance with the legal demand by the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who is the only person in the House of Representatives who is legally empowered to examine tax returns and demand tax returns.  Congresswoman Adams began with this.


REP. ALMA ADAMS:  Do you know how many times that President Trump has publicly offered to release his tax returns?


ADAMS:  Well, we should have something on the screen.  He has personally offered to give us a glimpse of his tax returns at least 24 times.  It was scrolling on the screen.  It will probably be back up.

It was April 19, 2011, in an interview when he first said that.  He said that if President Obama would release his birth certificate and then he would release his tax forms.  But, of course, President Obama did do what he said he would do and the president did not do what he said he would do.  So do you think the American people have a right to know what is in those tax reforms -- tax forms?

MNUCHIN:  No, I don`t.  Presidents are not required to.  And the American public knew that he didn`t release them before they voted for him so that`s --

ADAMS:  All right.  I`m reclaiming my time now.


O`DONNELL:  Congresswoman Adams had to constantly reclaim her time in order to stop the secretary from filling up that time with empty answers.  Then she zeroed in the on Mnuchin illegally blocking the IRS from handing over the Trump tax returns to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.


ADAMS:  Are you aware then that by denying this, that you are in direct violation of the law?

MNUCHIN:  No, absolutely not.  I have been advised I am not violating the law.  I never would have done anything that violated the law.  And quite the contrary, I`ve been advised that have I turned them over, I would be violating the law --

ADAMS:  All right.  Let me move on, sir.


O`DONNELL:  And today, secretary of the Treasury in that hearing refused to answer a very, very simple yes or no question.


ADAMS:  Have you told the IRS not to respond to Chairman Neal`s request?

MNUCHIN:  The IRS independently -- the chairman independently wrote a letter concurring with --

ADAMS:  Yes.  Can you give me a yes or no?  Have you?

MNUCHIN:  Can you repeat the question?

ADAMS:  Have you told the IRS not to respond to the request?

MNUCHIN:  Again, I just said the IRS independently wrote a letter concurring --

ADAMS:  Sir, OK, let me reclaim my time.  Can you give me a yes or no?

MNUCHIN:  I don`t understand the question.

ADAMS:  All right.  OK, you will not -- you won`t give me a yes or no.


O`DONNELL:  It was a very simple question.  Did you tell the IRS commissioner not to respond to Chairman Neal`s request for the Trump tax returns?

When Trump cabinet members are afraid of the truth in a yes or no question, they ask to repeat the question.  I`ve shown you them doing that before.  And then they just keep running away from the answer.  I`ve shown that you before.

We`ve seen it with Attorney General William Barr.  We`ve seen him do that.  Now, we`ve seen Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin doing that.

Secretary Mnuchin did not say no.  And that leaves only one logical possibility.  Yes.  Yes, he did tell the IRS commissioner not to respond to Chairman Neal`s demand.  And that is another instance of the Treasury secretary violating the law.

Joining us now is William Lowrance, a tax attorney in private practice who was the trial attorney in the office of the chief counsel of the Internal Revenue Service for 29 years.  Thank you very much for joining us tonight.  It is really valuable for us to have your experience on these issues tonight.

What did you make of that final point where the Treasury secretary refused the simple yes or no question of did you direct the IRS commissioner to not release those tax returns?

WILLIAM LOWRANCE, FORMER TRIAL ATTORNEY, IRS:  Well, I think it is fairly clear he said probably yes as an answer.  The commissioner -- IRS commissioner is required under the code section dealing with the disclosure to the tax-writing committees, shall return -- shall turn over return information when requested by the committee, the Tax Writing Committee`s chairman.

It says shall turn it over.  It doesn`t say may turn it over or take your time in turning it over or anything of that nature.  It is very direct.  It`s very pointed in saying you will turn over the information.

Now, the commissioner should have turned it over and it is done all the time.  In the IRS, they often time request returns and it gets turned over.

Obviously, the commissioner, in this case, must have been communicated not to turn it over.  And I would suspect maybe the secretary is one that did that or one of his assistants or underlings.

O`DONNELL:  In your experience when these requests came to the IRS commissioner as they have in the past, was this ever any pause over it?  Did the commissioner ever turn to the council and say should I obey this law?

LOWRANCE:  I`m not aware of anything like that.  As a matter of fact, I received oftentimes letters from the secretary`s office requesting some legal information or something of that nature which is passed on to me as the attorney to write an answer and send it back up to the managerial and to the council and then back to the secretary.  And returns, most often -- and I`ve never known any not to be turned over because they`ve abided by that particular code section.

O`DONNELL:  And there`s a leaked memo this week, a draft memo, from the IRS from someone in there, possibly in the council`s office, saying basically exactly what you`re saying that this is very simple, black and white law.  There is no choice.

LOWRANCE:  Well, that`s true.  Of course, they`re going to take the position that there has to be some underlying legislative purpose or it`s executive privilege or there is a private policy involved.  Well, all of those particular grounds I guess would have I think a very -- not a very good chance in court.  If those sorts of defenses are put forth in a trial.

O`DONNELL:  William Lowrance, thank you very much for joining us tonight.  Really appreciate it.

LOWRANCE:  Well, thank you.  You`re welcome.

O`DONNELL:  And that is "Tonight`s Last Word."  "The 11th Hour" with Brian Williams starts now.