MSNBC

MSNBC 13 Feb 2020

Lawrence: Barr Will Have Trouble Explaining Himself Before Congress

Description:

In a new interview, Bill Barr seemed to give confusing and almost conflicting details about the Justice Department's involvement in the Roger Stone case. Lawrence O'Donnell argues that Barr will have a difficult time answering questions about that interview when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee. Aired on 02/13/20.


CNN's Anderson Cooper talks with House impeachment managers from President Trump's impeachment trial in an exclusive interview.
Jalen Rose, Jay Williams and Seth Greenberg break down Ja Morant's highlights from the Memphis Grizzlies' 121-110 win vs. the Houston Rockets, then debate whether Morant or Zion Williamson will have a better career in the NBA.
#GetUp #NBA
Adrian Wojnarowski says the New Orleans Pelicans are not engaging teams in trade talks as they want to see what the team looks like with Zion Williamson. Woj says the Spurs are getting ready for a rebuild as they have a young team with DeMar DeRozan eyeing free agency. Woj finishes explaining why the Los Angeles Lakers will have trouble trading Kyle Kuzma.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, "we did our job," when the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump and she prays that the senate will be able to "handle the truth" and call witnesses.

… show captions ↓
WILL HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WITNESS CHAIR NEXT MONTH.
WITNESS CHAIR NEXT MONTH. WILLIAM BARR GAVE US A PREVIEW
WILLIAM BARR GAVE US A PREVIEW OF HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
OF HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY NEXT MONTH ABOUT WHY HE CHANGED
NEXT MONTH ABOUT WHY HE CHANGED THE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
THE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION FOR DONALD TRUMP’S FRIEND,
FOR DONALD TRUMP’S FRIEND, LONGTIME FRIEND AND CAMPAIGN
LONGTIME FRIEND AND CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATE ROGER STONE WHO WAS
ASSOCIATE ROGER STONE WHO WAS CONVICTED OF MULTIPLE CRIMES
CONVICTED OF MULTIPLE CRIMES CONCERNING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH
CONCERNING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
THE TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ABC, THE
IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ABC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINED THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINED THAT THE PROSECUTOR WHO HE RECENTLY
THE PROSECUTOR WHO HE RECENTLY PUT IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISING THE
PUT IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISING THE PROSECUTION OF ROGER STONE
PROSECUTION OF ROGER STONE DISCUSSED THE SENTENCING WITH
DISCUSSED THE SENTENCING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON MONDAY.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON MONDAY. >> ON MONDAY, HE CAME BY TO
>> ON MONDAY, HE CAME BY TO BRIEFLY CHAT WITH ME AND SAY
BRIEFLY CHAT WITH ME AND SAY THAT THE TEAM VERY MUCH WANTED
THAT THE TEAM VERY MUCH WANTED TO RECOMMEND THE SEVEN TO NINE
TO RECOMMEND THE SEVEN TO NINE YEARS TO THE JUDGE.
YEARS TO THE JUDGE. BUT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A
BUT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A WAY OF SATISFYING EVERYBODY AND
WAY OF SATISFYING EVERYBODY AND PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND
PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND THERE WAS A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
THERE WAS A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THAT.
THAT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WAS
WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WAS VERY MUCH THAT I HAD SUGGESTED,
VERY MUCH THAT I HAD SUGGESTED, WHICH IS DEFERRING TO THE JUDGE
WHICH IS DEFERRING TO THE JUDGE AND THEN POINTING OUT VARIOUS
AND THEN POINTING OUT VARIOUS FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. ON MONDAY NIGHT, WHEN I FIRST
ON MONDAY NIGHT, WHEN I FIRST SAW THE NEWS REPORTS, I SAID,
SAW THE NEWS REPORTS, I SAID, THE NEWS IS SPINNING THIS.
THE NEWS IS SPINNING THIS. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE GOING
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO.
TO DO. >> YOU WERE SURPRISED?
>> YOU WERE SURPRISED? >> I WAS VERY SURPRISED.
>> I WAS VERY SURPRISED. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS
YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS SURPRISED, VERY SURPRISED THAT
SURPRISED, VERY SURPRISED THAT THE PROSECUTORS IN THE CASE
THE PROSECUTORS IN THE CASE FILED A RECOMMENDATION OF A
FILED A RECOMMENDATION OF A SEVEN TO NINE-YEAR SENTENCE, THE
SEVEN TO NINE-YEAR SENTENCE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS YOU TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE TOLD THE
BELIEVE THAT HE TOLD THE PROSECUTORS SUPERVISING THE TEAM
PROSECUTORS SUPERVISING THE TEAM ON THE CASE TO NOT DO THAT,
ON THE CASE TO NOT DO THAT, DON’T DO THAT.
DON’T DO THAT. BUT THE PROSECUTOR ALLOWED THAT
BUT THE PROSECUTOR ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN ANYWAY.
TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. THAT IS A STORY OF EVERYONE
THAT IS A STORY OF EVERYONE WORKING UNDER THE ATTORNEY
WORKING UNDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEFYING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEFYING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ORDER EARLIER IN THE
GENERAL’S ORDER EARLIER IN THE DAY ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THE
DAY ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION.
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION. POLICEMEN
POLICEMEN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT WHEN
HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT WHEN THEY QUESTION BARR MORE CLOSELY
THEY QUESTION BARR MORE CLOSELY ON THOSE POINTS HE GLIDED
ON THOSE POINTS HE GLIDED THROUGH.
THROUGH. AS THE REST OF THE STORY
AS THE REST OF THE STORY UNFOLDS, YOU CAN SEE WHY IT’S
UNFOLDS, YOU CAN SEE WHY IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT HE INSISTS
VERY IMPORTANT THAT HE INSISTS THAT SOMEHOW THE PROSECUTORS
THAT SOMEHOW THE PROSECUTORS WORKING ON THE CASE JUST DEFYIED
WORKING ON THE CASE JUST DEFYIED HIM AND THEN SURPRISED HIM BY
HIM AND THEN SURPRISED HIM BY DOING THEIR ORIGINAL
DOING THEIR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION OF SEVEN TO NINE
RECOMMENDATION OF SEVEN TO NINE YEARS IN THEIR SENTENCING
YEARS IN THEIR SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION.
RECOMMENDATION. >> ONCE I CONFIRMED THAT THAT’S
>> ONCE I CONFIRMED THAT THAT’S ACTUALLY WHAT WE FILED, I SAID
ACTUALLY WHAT WE FILED, I SAID THAT NIGHT TO MY STAFF THAT WE
THAT NIGHT TO MY STAFF THAT WE HAD TO GET READY, BECAUSE WE HAD
HAD TO GET READY, BECAUSE WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING IN THE MORNING
TO DO SOMETHING IN THE MORNING TO AMEND THAT AND CLARIFY WHAT
TO AMEND THAT AND CLARIFY WHAT OUR POSITION WAS.
OUR POSITION WAS. >> WILLIAM BARR’S STORY IS THAT
>> WILLIAM BARR’S STORY IS THAT HE DECIDED TO REQUEST A LOWER
HE DECIDED TO REQUEST A LOWER SENTENCE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF
SENTENCE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- IN THE
THE UNITED STATES -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT -- TWEETED
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT -- TWEETED THAT WHAT WAS BASICALLY AN ORDER
THAT WHAT WAS BASICALLY AN ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE
FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ASK FOR A
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ASK FOR A LOWER SENTENCE.
LOWER SENTENCE. >> AND ONCE THE TWEET OCCURRED,
>> AND ONCE THE TWEET OCCURRED, THE QUESTION IS, WELL, NOW WHAT
THE QUESTION IS, WELL, NOW WHAT DO I DO?
DO I DO? DO YOU GO FORWARD WITH WHAT YOU
DO YOU GO FORWARD WITH WHAT YOU THINK IS THE RIGHT DECISION?
THINK IS THE RIGHT DECISION? OR DO YOU PULL BACK BECAUSE OF
OR DO YOU PULL BACK BECAUSE OF THE TWEET?
THE TWEET? >> YOU FOLLOWING THIS?
>> YOU FOLLOWING THIS? WILLIAM BARR’S STORY NOW IS THAT
WILLIAM BARR’S STORY NOW IS THAT HE WAS GOING DO IT ANYWAY,
HE WAS GOING DO IT ANYWAY, RECOMMEND A LOWER SENTENCE,
RECOMMEND A LOWER SENTENCE, BEFORE THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO IT ON TWITTER.
DO IT ON TWITTER. THAT LED TO WILLIAM BARR HAVING
THAT LED TO WILLIAM BARR HAVING TO SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP’S
TO SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP’S TWEETING ARE MAKING IT KIND OF
TWEETING ARE MAKING IT KIND OF DIFFICULT, IN FACT HE USED THE
DIFFICULT, IN FACT HE USED THE WORD IMPOSSIBLE, DONALD TRUMP’S
WORD IMPOSSIBLE, DONALD TRUMP’S TWEETS ARE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE
TWEETS ARE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO HIS JOB.
FOR HIM TO DO HIS JOB. >> PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND TWEETS
>> PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND TWEETS MADE ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT, ABOUT
MADE ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT, ABOUT OUR PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT,
OUR PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT, OUR MEN AND WOMEN HERE, ABOUT
OUR MEN AND WOMEN HERE, ABOUT CASES PENDING IN THE DEPARTMENT
CASES PENDING IN THE DEPARTMENT AND ABOUT JUDGES BEFORE WHOM WE
AND ABOUT JUDGES BEFORE WHOM WE HAVE CASES MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE
HAVE CASES MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO MY JOB AND TO
FOR ME TO DO MY JOB AND TO ASSURE THE COURTS AND THE
ASSURE THE COURTS AND THE PROSECUTORS IN THE DEPARTMENT,
PROSECUTORS IN THE DEPARTMENT, THAT WE’RE DOING OUR WORK WITH
THAT WE’RE DOING OUR WORK WITH INTEGRITY.
INTEGRITY. >> WILLIAM BARR IS RIGHT, THAT
>> WILLIAM BARR IS RIGHT, THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HONESTLY DO
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HONESTLY DO THE JOB OF ATTORNEY GENERAL THE
THE JOB OF ATTORNEY GENERAL THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IF
WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IF YOU ARE APPOINTED TO THAT JOB BY
YOU ARE APPOINTED TO THAT JOB BY DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP. HE IS ALSO CORRECT THAT NO ONE
HE IS ALSO CORRECT THAT NO ONE SHOULD THINK THAT AS HE PUT IT
SHOULD THINK THAT AS HE PUT IT HE IS DOING HIS JOB WITH
HE IS DOING HIS JOB WITH INTEGRITY.
INTEGRITY. HE SAID, DONALD TRUMP IS
HE SAID, DONALD TRUMP IS UNDERMINED THAT.
UNDERMINED THAT. WE SHOULDN’T EVEN THINK THAT HE
WE SHOULDN’T EVEN THINK THAT HE IS DOING HIS JOB WITH INTEGRITY
IS DOING HIS JOB WITH INTEGRITY BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP MADE IT
BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO THINK THAT.
IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO THINK THAT. NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE WILLIAM
NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE WILLIAM BARR WHEN HE EXPLAINED IN THAT
BARR WHEN HE EXPLAINED IN THAT INTERVIEW WITH ABC WHEN IT IS
INTERVIEW WITH ABC WHEN IT IS RIGHT AND WHEN IT IS WRONG FOR
RIGHT AND WHEN IT IS WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TELL THE
THE PRESIDENT TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHAT TO DO.
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHAT TO DO. WILLIAM BARR SAID THAT IT’S,
WILLIAM BARR SAID THAT IT’S, QUOTE, PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR
QUOTE, PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TELL HIM TO
THE PRESIDENT TO TELL HIM TO CONCENTRATE MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT
CONCENTRATE MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ON, SAY, TERRORISM BUT
RESOURCES ON, SAY, TERRORISM BUT THEN WILLIAM BARR GAVE AN
THEN WILLIAM BARR GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE WOULD NOT DO,
EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE WOULD NOT DO, WHAT HE WOULD NEVER DO, EVEN IF
WHAT HE WOULD NEVER DO, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO IT.
THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO DO IT. >> IF HE WERE TO SAY, GO
>> IF HE WERE TO SAY, GO INVESTIGATE SOMEBODY BECAUSE --
INVESTIGATE SOMEBODY BECAUSE -- YOU SENSE IT’S BECAUSE THEY ARE
YOU SENSE IT’S BECAUSE THEY ARE A POLITICAL OPPONENT, THEN AN
A POLITICAL OPPONENT, THEN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULDN’T CARRY
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULDN’T CARRY THAT OUT.
THAT OUT. >> WILLIAM BARR HAS INDEED
>> WILLIAM BARR HAS INDEED CARRIED THAT OUT.
CARRIED THAT OUT. WILLIAM BARR FLEW TO EUROPE,
WILLIAM BARR FLEW TO EUROPE, MAKING STOPS INVESTIGATING JOE
MAKING STOPS INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN HIMSELF AND JOE BIDEN’S
BIDEN HIMSELF AND JOE BIDEN’S SON BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED
SON BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED HIM TO.
HIM TO. WILLIAM BARR ASSIGNED A U.S.
WILLIAM BARR ASSIGNED A U.S. ATTORNEY THE EXTRA DUTY OF
ATTORNEY THE EXTRA DUTY OF INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN AND JOE
INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN’S SON AND HILLARY CLINTON
BIDEN’S SON AND HILLARY CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE
AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP WANTED HIM TO DO
DONALD TRUMP WANTED HIM TO DO THAT.
THAT. WILLIAM BARR JUST SAID THAT HE
WILLIAM BARR JUST SAID THAT HE WOULDN’T DO AN INVESTIGATION
WOULDN’T DO AN INVESTIGATION LIKE THAT IF, QUOTE, YOU SENSE
LIKE THAT IF, QUOTE, YOU SENSE IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE A POLITICAL
IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE A POLITICAL OPPONENT.
OPPONENT. YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO SENSE.
YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO SENSE. THAT JOE BIDEN WAS A POLITICAL
THAT JOE BIDEN WAS A POLITICAL OWE
OWE OPPONENT.
OPPONENT. HE WAS DECLARED CANDIDATE FOR
HE WAS DECLARED CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
STATES. WILLIAM BARR WILL BE CHALLENGED
WILLIAM BARR WILL BE CHALLENGED WITH HIS OWN WORDS, THESE WORDS.
WITH HIS OWN WORDS, THESE WORDS. HE WILL BE CHALLENGED WITH THOSE
HE WILL BE CHALLENGED WITH THOSE WORDS WHEN HE TESTIFIES TO THE
WORDS WHEN HE TESTIFIES TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ABOUT
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS NEXT MONTH.
THIS NEXT MONTH. WILLIAM BARR HAS A LOT OF WORK
WILLIAM BARR HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO ON HIS ANSWERS TO THE
TO DO ON HIS ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT HE WILL BE
QUESTIONS THAT HE WILL BE FACING, INCLUDING THE QUESTION,
FACING, INCLUDING THE QUESTION, IF DONALD TRUMP HAS MADE IT
IF DONALD TRUMP HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR
IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB, WHY HAVEN’T YOU RESIGNED
JOB, WHY HAVEN’T YOU RESIGNED LIKE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR JONATHAN
LIKE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR JONATHAN CRAVIS WHO HAD THE DIGNITY AND
CRAVIS WHO HAD THE DIGNITY AND SENSE OF DUTY TO RESIGN WHEN
SENSE OF DUTY TO RESIGN WHEN YOU, WILLIAM BARR, MADE IT
YOU, WILLIAM BARR, MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO HIS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO HIS JOB?
JOB? WHEN WILLIAM BARR CHANGED THE
WHEN WILLIAM BARR CHANGED THE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION IN THE
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION IN THE ROGER STONE CASE ALL FOUR
ROGER STONE CASE ALL FOUR PROSECUTORS WITHDREW
PROSECUTORS WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY.
IMMEDIATELY. ONE OF THEM RESIGNED FROM HIS
ONE OF THEM RESIGNED FROM HIS JOB AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
JOB AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WILLIAM BARR MADE IT
BECAUSE WILLIAM BARR MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO HIS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO HIS JOB.
JOB. HE WILL TAKE HIS PLACE IN THE
HE WILL TAKE HIS PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PERIOD AS A
HISTORY OF THIS PERIOD AS A PERSON WITH PRINCIPAL, A PERSON
PERSON WITH PRINCIPAL, A PERSON WHO LIVED HIS OATH AS A MEMBER
WHO LIVED HIS OATH AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR AND A PERSON WHO
OF THE BAR AND A PERSON WHO LIVED HIS OATH TO SUPPORT AND
LIVED HIS OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Share Video:

Embed Video: