MSNBC

MSNBC 30 Dec 2019

New Report Details Unrest Among Trump Officials As Trump Withheld Ukraine Aid

Description:

New reporting about the conduct of the president's closest aides in the Ukraine scandal shows what information they could provide as witnesses in an impeachment trial. Aired on 12/30/19.


From branding her questions as "nasty" to even calling her "untruthful," President Trump has repeatedly clashed with PBS NewsHour reporter Yamiche Alcindor. Here are five of their most contentious moments.
Rachel Maddow looks at how the SDNY investigation surrounding hush money payments to women who claimed to have had affairs with Donald Trump suddenly dissipated, and compares that timeline to new reporting on pressure Bill Barr has been exerting on U.S. attorneys, including SDNY.
Fox News' John Roberts gives a preview of President Trump's first Town Hall of the year in Scranton, Penn.
Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow react with skepticism to new reporting that suggests Barr is considering resigning over Trump's tweets about DOJ investigations, believing that this is more of a public relations campaign for Barr than an actual decision he's considering. Aired on 02/18/20.

… show captions ↓
BOTH OF YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD A LONG DAY, JONATHAN LEMIRE, AND
LONG DAY, JONATHAN LEMIRE, AND MIKE SCHMIDT.
MIKE SCHMIDT. MIKE, THE BOMBSHELL IN HERE
MIKE, THE BOMBSHELL IN HERE SEEMS TO BE NOT JUST KNITTING
SEEMS TO BE NOT JUST KNITTING TOGETHER THE CONGRESSIONAL
TOGETHER THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, WHICH WE ALL HEARD,
TESTIMONY, WHICH WE ALL HEARD, BUT THESE NEW EMAILS WHICH SEEM
BUT THESE NEW EMAILS WHICH SEEM PARTICULARLY INCRIMINATING IN
PARTICULARLY INCRIMINATING IN TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE OF REALLY
TERMS OF KNOWLEDGE OF REALLY SHAKY LEGAL GROUND FOR
SHAKY LEGAL GROUND FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID.
WITHHOLDING THE AID. >> THE STORY SHOWS JUST HOW MUCH
>> THE STORY SHOWS JUST HOW MUCH MORE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE
MORE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE THAT WAS NOT UNCOVERED BY THE
THAT WAS NOT UNCOVERED BY THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THERE IS A REASON WHY IN FEDERAL
THERE IS A REASON WHY IN FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS YOU DON’T PUT AN
INVESTIGATIONS YOU DON’T PUT AN END DATE ON AN INVESTIGATION,
END DATE ON AN INVESTIGATION, THAT YOU TAKE ALL THE TIME
THAT YOU TAKE ALL THE TIME POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP AS STRONG A
POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP AS STRONG A CASE AS YOU CAN HAVE TO GIVE TO
CASE AS YOU CAN HAVE TO GIVE TO THE JURY.
THE JURY. YOU TRY AND GET ALL THE
YOU TRY AND GET ALL THE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, YOU GO TO
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, YOU GO TO COURT TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT
COURT TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT TESTIMONY, IF THEY’RE NOT
TESTIMONY, IF THEY’RE NOT WILLING TO TALK TO GET
WILLING TO TALK TO GET DOCUMENTS.
DOCUMENTS. BUT HERE IT IS.
BUT HERE IT IS. THREE REPORTERS, THREE OF MY
THREE REPORTERS, THREE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO WENT OUT AND WERE
COLLEAGUES WHO WENT OUT AND WERE ABLE TO LEARN NEW THINGS ABOUT
ABLE TO LEARN NEW THINGS ABOUT NEW EVENTS THAT GIVE EVEN MORE
NEW EVENTS THAT GIVE EVEN MORE INSIGHT INTO WHAT WAS GOING ON
INSIGHT INTO WHAT WAS GOING ON AND ACTUALLY BRING YOU INSIDE
AND ACTUALLY BRING YOU INSIDE THE ROOM WITH THE PRESIDENT IN
THE ROOM WITH THE PRESIDENT IN WAYS THAT WE HAD NOT SEEN
WAYS THAT WE HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE.
BEFORE. AND IT’S JUST REMARKABLE THAT
AND IT’S JUST REMARKABLE THAT HERE WE ARE, THE IMPEACHMENT
HERE WE ARE, THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IS APPARENTLY
INVESTIGATION IS APPARENTLY OVER, THEY’VE SENT IT TO THE
OVER, THEY’VE SENT IT TO THE SENATE, BUT THESE ARE FACTS THAT
SENATE, BUT THESE ARE FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN THAT.
ARE NOT IN THAT. >> IF YOU TALK TO SOURCES ON THE
>> IF YOU TALK TO SOURCES ON THE HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE’S SIDE,
HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE’S SIDE, THEY WOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY
THEY WOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY WERE IN A JAM, THAT NO LEGAL
WERE IN A JAM, THAT NO LEGAL EFFORT HAS SUCCEEDED YET, AND
EFFORT HAS SUCCEEDED YET, AND THAT IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE
THAT IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE DRAGGED ON.
DRAGGED ON. >> WELL, THEY DROPPED THE
>> WELL, THEY DROPPED THE SUBPOENA ON THE FORMER DEPUTY
SUBPOENA ON THE FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER KUPPERMAN.
KUPPERMAN. THEY ASKED BASICALLY FOR A JUDGE
THEY ASKED BASICALLY FOR A JUDGE TO THROW OUT THE LEGAL QUESTIONS
TO THROW OUT THE LEGAL QUESTIONS ON THAT.
ON THAT. AND THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS
AND THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS OR WHATEVER THEY’VE DONE SINCE
OR WHATEVER THEY’VE DONE SINCE SEPTEMBER, THAT’S NOT ENOUGH
SEPTEMBER, THAT’S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR THINGS TO PLAY
TIME FOR THINGS TO PLAY THEMSELVES OUT IN COURT TO LEARN
THEMSELVES OUT IN COURT TO LEARN AND TO TRY AND GET THESE FACTS.
AND TO TRY AND GET THESE FACTS. NOW, I THINK WHAT THE DEMOCRATS
NOW, I THINK WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD SAY IS THEY’D SAY, LOOK,
WOULD SAY IS THEY’D SAY, LOOK, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE IS
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE IS STRONG ENOUGH AS IT IS, AND
STRONG ENOUGH AS IT IS, AND THAT’S WHY WE SENT IT, IT WASN’T
THAT’S WHY WE SENT IT, IT WASN’T WORTH WAITING.
WORTH WAITING. BUT I THINK THAT ALL THINGS
BUT I THINK THAT ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, LOOKING AT THIS
BEING EQUAL, LOOKING AT THIS POLITICALLY, THEY KNOW THAT
POLITICALLY, THEY KNOW THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH VOTES
THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH VOTES IN THE SENATE BASED ON THIS
IN THE SENATE BASED ON THIS CASE.
CASE. >> YOU KNOW, BETSY, THAT IS THE
>> YOU KNOW, BETSY, THAT IS THE REALITY.
REALITY. I THINK WHAT MIKE’S SAYING IS
I THINK WHAT MIKE’S SAYING IS RIGHT, THEY HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE
RIGHT, THEY HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH HIM TO, IN THEIR
TO IMPEACH HIM TO, IN THEIR VIEW, PROVE THAT THE AID WAS
VIEW, PROVE THAT THE AID WAS WITHHELD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
WITHHELD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS INTO
WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AND INTO 2016, HE
THE BIDENS AND INTO 2016, HE ONLY RELEASED THE AID WHEN HE
ONLY RELEASED THE AID WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT.
GOT CAUGHT. IF ANYTHING, THIS REPORTING
IF ANYTHING, THIS REPORTING AFFIRMS THE CASE THEY PRESENTED
AFFIRMS THE CASE THEY PRESENTED TO THE FULL HOUSE.
TO THE FULL HOUSE. BUT THE POLITICS ARE UNCHANGED.
BUT THE POLITICS ARE UNCHANGED. NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN HAS
NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN HAS EXPRESSED REALLY THAT MUCH
EXPRESSED REALLY THAT MUCH ENTHUSIASM FOR EVEN LISTENING TO
ENTHUSIASM FOR EVEN LISTENING TO THE FACTS AS PRESENTED IN A
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED IN A TRIAL.
TRIAL. >> IT’S REALLY SHOWED A
>> IT’S REALLY SHOWED A FORMIDABLE EFFORT BY THE WHITE
FORMIDABLE EFFORT BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO KEEP CONGRESSIONAL
HOUSE TO KEEP CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS IN LINE, EVEN IN THE
REPUBLICANS IN LINE, EVEN IN THE HOUSE IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE
HOUSE IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THERE WERE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THERE WERE SOME HILL REPUBLICANS WHO
SOME HILL REPUBLICANS WHO INDICATED THAT THEY FELT PRETTY
INDICATED THAT THEY FELT PRETTY DARN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY
DARN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY THE UKRAINE STORY HAD PLAYED
THE UKRAINE STORY HAD PLAYED OUT.
OUT. AND ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT
AND ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT ONES WAS A FORMER AMBASSADOR
ONES WAS A FORMER AMBASSADOR SIMPSON ROONEY WHO WAS ON ONE OF
SIMPSON ROONEY WHO WAS ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES WHO WAS LOOKING
THE COMMITTEES WHO WAS LOOKING INTO THIS WHOLE SITUATION.
INTO THIS WHOLE SITUATION. HE SAID PUBLICLY MULTIPLE TIMES
HE SAID PUBLICLY MULTIPLE TIMES THAT HE THOUGHT THERE WAS
THAT HE THOUGHT THERE WAS ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENED THAT DID
ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENED THAT DID NOT GO THE WAY IT SHOULD’VE GONE
NOT GO THE WAY IT SHOULD’VE GONE AND THAT HE VOICED CONCERNS THAT
AND THAT HE VOICED CONCERNS THAT MANY OTHER REPUBLICANS HELD
MANY OTHER REPUBLICANS HELD PRIVATELY.
PRIVATELY. BUT, ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, HE
BUT, ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, HE VOTED AGAINST THE IMPEACHMENT
VOTED AGAINST THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT, AND THE FACT THAT EVERY
EFFORT, AND THE FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE HOUSE REPUBLICAN VOTED
SINGLE HOUSE REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT
AGAINST IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT INDICATES PRETTY STRONGLY THAT
INDICATES PRETTY STRONGLY THAT IT’S QUITE UNLIKELY ANY SENATE
IT’S QUITE UNLIKELY ANY SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO PEEL
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO PEEL OFF.
OFF. AS MIKE HIGHLIGHTED WHICH IS
AS MIKE HIGHLIGHTED WHICH IS JUST THE TIMING, THEY HAVE BEEN
JUST THE TIMING, THEY HAVE BEEN UP AGAINST THE CLOCK, THEY HAVE
UP AGAINST THE CLOCK, THEY HAVE WANTED TO GET THIS DONE QUICKLY,
WANTED TO GET THIS DONE QUICKLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IN THE
BUT AT THE SAME TIME IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING FAST, THEY
INTEREST OF MOVING FAST, THEY HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO
HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO SOME OF THE WITNESSES LIKE JOHN
SOME OF THE WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY WHO
BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY WHO WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE
WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT.
THE MOST IMPORTANT. >> SO, MICK MULVANEY, LET’S
>> SO, MICK MULVANEY, LET’S WATCH AGAIN.
WATCH AGAIN. HE’S CONFESSED TO WHAT THE
HE’S CONFESSED TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED FOR.
PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED FOR. LET’S WATCH.
LET’S WATCH. >> THAT HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME
>> THAT HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION
IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER,
RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT
ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
THAT. BUT THAT’S IT, AND THAT’S WHY WE
BUT THAT’S IT, AND THAT’S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY --
HELD UP THE MONEY -- >> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN
>> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS
INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE
WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE WANTED TO WITHHOLD FUNDING TO
WANTED TO WITHHOLD FUNDING TO UKRAINE?
UKRAINE? >> THE LOOK-BACK TO WHAT
>> THE LOOK-BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 CERTAINLY WAS
HAPPENED IN 2016 CERTAINLY WAS PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS
PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH
WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION.
THAT NATION. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE. >> WITHHOLDING THE FUNDING?
>> WITHHOLDING THE FUNDING? >> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> YOU JUST DESCRIBED AS A QUID
>> YOU JUST DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO.
PRO QUO. IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW
IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO
UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED
THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL?
AS WELL? >> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH
>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY.
FOREIGN POLICY. AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.
AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY. GET OVER IT.
GET OVER IT. >> THAT’LL NEVER NOT SHOCK ME.
>> THAT’LL NEVER NOT SHOCK ME. BUT HERE’S THE THING.
BUT HERE’S THE THING. I THINK NOW THAT STANDING THERE
I THINK NOW THAT STANDING THERE HE MUST’VE KNOWN THAT HE HAD
HE MUST’VE KNOWN THAT HE HAD EMAILS THAT WERE RESPONDED TO BY
EMAILS THAT WERE RESPONDED TO BY PENTAGON OFFICIALS WHO SIMPLY
PENTAGON OFFICIALS WHO SIMPLY WROTE BACK I AM SPEECHLESS.
WROTE BACK I AM SPEECHLESS. HE WAS THE PRESIDENT’S SORT OF
HE WAS THE PRESIDENT’S SORT OF IN-HOUSE AGENT.
IN-HOUSE AGENT. IF RUDY WAS HIS OUTSIDE CHANNEL,
IF RUDY WAS HIS OUTSIDE CHANNEL, MICK MULVANEY WAS HIS INSIDE
MICK MULVANEY WAS HIS INSIDE CHANNEL.
CHANNEL. >> HERE’S WHAT I THINK IS
>> HERE’S WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER ABOUT MICK
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER ABOUT MICK MULVANEY.
MULVANEY. IN HIS HEART HE IS A DEFICIT
IN HIS HEART HE IS A DEFICIT HALL.
HALL. THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN IN
THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE DURING HIS TIME IN THE
PRACTICE DURING HIS TIME IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. BUT HE LIKES THE IDEA OF ENDING
BUT HE LIKES THE IDEA OF ENDING FOREIGN AID THAT HE THINKS IS
FOREIGN AID THAT HE THINKS IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. HE LIKES CUTTING FUNDING.
HE LIKES CUTTING FUNDING. SO IN THEORY HE LIKED THIS IDEA.
SO IN THEORY HE LIKED THIS IDEA. IN PRACTICE IT WAS GOING AGAINST
IN PRACTICE IT WAS GOING AGAINST CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED FUNDING
CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED FUNDING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED AND EXECUTED.
AND EXECUTED. AND HE ADMITTED IT.
AND HE ADMITTED IT. >> BUT HIS CONDUCT, AND IT’S
>> BUT HIS CONDUCT, AND IT’S TRUE, WE HAVEN’T SEEN HIM, HE’S
TRUE, WE HAVEN’T SEEN HIM, HE’S NOT A WITNESS, HE DOESN’T HAVE
NOT A WITNESS, HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO APPEAR BEFORE
ANY INTENTION TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. BUT HE WAS CAREFUL.
BUT HE WAS CAREFUL. HE WAS WATCHING OUT FOR
HE WAS WATCHING OUT FOR SOMEONE’S LEGAL EQUITIES.
SOMEONE’S LEGAL EQUITIES. HE LEFT -- "THIS TIME’S REPORT.
HE LEFT -- "THIS TIME’S REPORT. MICK MULVANEY HAS SAID BY
MICK MULVANEY HAS SAID BY ASSOCIATES TO HAVE STEPPED OUT
ASSOCIATES TO HAVE STEPPED OUT OF THE ROOM WHENEVER TRUMP WOULD
OF THE ROOM WHENEVER TRUMP WOULD TALK TO MR. GIULIANI TO PRESERVE
TALK TO MR. GIULIANI TO PRESERVE MR. TRUMP’S ATTORNEY/CLIENT
MR. TRUMP’S ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE LEAVING HIM WITH
PRIVILEGE LEAVING HIM WITH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR EFFORTS REGARDING.
EFFORTS REGARDING. AND IN WHAT CAPACITY WAS RUDY
AND IN WHAT CAPACITY WAS RUDY ACTING AS HIS PRIVATE LAWYER?
ACTING AS HIS PRIVATE LAWYER? >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. YOU DON’T STEP OUT OF THE ROOM
YOU DON’T STEP OUT OF THE ROOM IF YOU DON’T THINK THERE’S
IF YOU DON’T THINK THERE’S SOMETHING YOU DON’T WANT TO
SOMETHING YOU DON’T WANT TO HEAR.
HEAR. AND IF HE’S COGNISANT OF THE
AND IF HE’S COGNISANT OF THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, HE
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, HE CERTAINLY HAD AT LEAST SOME
CERTAINLY HAD AT LEAST SOME AWARENESS OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AWARENESS OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. CERTAINLY WITH ESPER AND POMPEO
CERTAINLY WITH ESPER AND POMPEO AND BOLTON TRYING TO GET IN
AND BOLTON TRYING TO GET IN THERE AND URGE THE PRESIDENT TO
THERE AND URGE THE PRESIDENT TO RECONSIDER.
RECONSIDER. I MEAN, WE TALK OFTEN HOW THIS
I MEAN, WE TALK OFTEN HOW THIS PRESIDENT REALLY DOESN’T HAVE
PRESIDENT REALLY DOESN’T HAVE ANY GUARDRAILS AROUND HIM.
ANY GUARDRAILS AROUND HIM. I THINK FOR THE MOST PART THAT
I THINK FOR THE MOST PART THAT IS TRUE.
IS TRUE. THERE WAS SOME EFFORT IN THE
THERE WAS SOME EFFORT IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO GET HIM BACK
ADMINISTRATION TO GET HIM BACK ON TRACK.
ON TRACK. IT WAS HIS STAFF REFUSING TO
IT WAS HIS STAFF REFUSING TO CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS THAT
CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS THAT BASICALLY PROBABLY LED TO HIM
BASICALLY PROBABLY LED TO HIM FOR NOT FIRST BEING IMPEACHED
FOR NOT FIRST BEING IMPEACHED THAT TIME AROUND.
THAT TIME AROUND. BUT IT’S ALSO -- LET’S REMEMBER
BUT IT’S ALSO -- LET’S REMEMBER THIS WAS THE PRESIDENT, AS THE
THIS WAS THE PRESIDENT, AS THE STORY POINTS OUT, WHO IS URGING
STORY POINTS OUT, WHO IS URGING EXECUTIVE BRANCH LAWYERS TO
EXECUTIVE BRANCH LAWYERS TO WORK -- YOU KNOW, TO OVERRIDE
WORK -- YOU KNOW, TO OVERRIDE THE CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING
THE CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING MECHANISM, TO SORT OF DISREGARD
MECHANISM, TO SORT OF DISREGARD THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER OF
THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER OF THE PURSE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS
THE PURSE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT, AND THEREFORE HE
THE PRESIDENT, AND THEREFORE HE COULD DECIDE WHAT IS DONE WITH
COULD DECIDE WHAT IS DONE WITH THE AID, FLIES IN THE FACE OF

Share Video:

Embed Video: