UNITED STATES. LISA PAGE SAYS QUOTE IT’S
SICKENING AND SHE SAID IT’S LIKE
BEING PUNCHED IN THE GUT.
WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH THE
STEADILY PROGRESSING IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
PRESIDENT’S STUNNING DECISION TO
REFUSE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
A DECISION NO OTHER PRESIDENT
UNDER INVESTIGATION HAS EVER
MADE.
MADE. THE DECISION TO SIMPLY NOT
DEFEND HIMSELF.
DEFEND HIMSELF. NOW IF YOU WERE UNDER
INVESTIGATION AND YOU HAD
INFORMATION TO PROVE YOUR
INNOCENCE, WOULD YOU WITHHOLD
THAT INFORMATION?
THAT INFORMATION? WOULD YOU NOT ALLOW WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY WHO COULD HELP PROVE
YOUR INNOCENCE?
YOUR INNOCENCE? THAT’S WHAT DONALD TRUMP WANTS
YOU TO BELIEVE.
HE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE
IS INNOCENT AND THAT HE IS
WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE AND
BLOCKING WITNESSES WHO COULD
PROVE THAT HE IS INNOCENT.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY THAT
OUT LOUD TO HEAR HOW RIDICULOUS
THAT IDEA IS.
BUT IT MEANS THAT SO FAR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS REFUSING TO HAVE HIS LAWYERS
PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRST
OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT HEARING IN
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
THIS WEEK.
THIS WEEK. THAT STRATEGY COULD EASILY
CHANGE AT ANY TIME.
THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS WILL
ALWAYS BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE’S
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. THE RULES OF THE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION ALLOW FOR THE FULL
PARTICIPATION BY THE PRESIDENT’S
LAWYERS IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. AND SO FAR THE PRESIDENT’S
LAWYERS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.
THEY HAVE NO DEFENSE.
THE FIRST HEARING IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY
WILL BE A LARGELY ACADEMIC ONE
WITH FOUR LAW PROFESSORS,
INCLUDING ONE SELECTED BY THE
REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE,
OFFERING THEIR VIEWS ON THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AS DESCRIBED
IN THE CONSTITUTION AND AS
ESTABLISHED BY CENTURIES OF
CONGRESSIONAL PRECEDENT.
CONGRESSIONAL PRECEDENT. AS CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF
DESCRIBED TO RACHEL MADDOW IN
THE LAST HOUR, THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAD
ACCESS TONIGHT TO REVIEW
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS CONCERNING
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REQUEST TO THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO
INVITE -- TO INVESTIGATE JOE
BIDEN.
BIDEN. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TOLD RACHEL THAT
THE REPORT WILL BECOME PUBLIC
SOMETIME TOMORROW AND THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL MEET
AT THE END OF THE DAY TOMORROW
AT 6:00 P.M. TO VOTE ON
APPROVING THE REPORT AND THEN
SENDING IT TO THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHERE IT CAN
THEN BE CONSIDERED AS THE BASIS
FOR POSSIBLE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP ANNOUNCED
TONIGHT THAT THEY WOULD KEEP THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN
SESSION AN ADDITIONAL WEEK IN
DECEMBER.
DECEMBER. THAT MEANS THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WILL NOT RECESS
FOR THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY UNTIL
AS LATE AS DECEMBER 20th.
AND THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL
USE THE FIRST THREE WEEKS OF
DECEMBER TO BRING ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO A VOTE IN THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION, JILL
WINE-BANKS, FORMER WATERGATE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, MSNBC LEGAL
ANALYST.
ANALYST. JOHN HOLLOWMAN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
OF "THE RECOUNT."
WE JUST HEARD FROM CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF IN THE LAST HOUR SAYING
THE REPORT IS READY, IT IS
WRITTEN, IT’S READY TO GO, IT
WILL BE RELEASED TOMORROW, WE’LL
ALL HAVE IT BY THIS HOUR
TOMORROW NIGHT.
TOMORROW NIGHT. EXACTLY AS NANCY PELOSI SAID
THEY WOULD AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS PROCESS.
THIS PROCESS. >> LET’S BE CLEAR.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED
OVER THE LAST YEAR, BUT
SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAST TWO
MONTHS, IS THAT THE TWO CRUCIAL
PLAYERS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON THIS MATTER
ARE NANCY PELOSI AND ADAM
SCHIFF, BOTH OF WHOM MADE A
POLITICAL JUDGMENT FOR A LONG
TIME THEY DID NOT WANT TO
PROCEED WITH IMPEACHMENT UNTIL
IT BECAME ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
FOR MATTERS RELATED TO QUESTIONS
OF PRECEDENT, FOR QUESTIONS WHAT
WAS THEY WOULD ALLOW TO STAND,
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE
POLITICS WERE TOLERABLE TO GO
FORWARD.
FORWARD. BUT THEY ARE STILL CALLING THE
TUNE.
TUNE. THIS BIG QUESTION THAT HAS
HOVERED OVER ONCE WE GET THROUGH
THANKSGIVING, WHICH WAS, AND I
DON’T THINK THERE WAS EVER MUCH
OF A QUESTION, BECAUSE NANCY
PELOSI AND ADAM SCHIFF WERE
CLEAR ON IT, WAS, WOULD THEY LET
THIS THING DRAG?
WOULD THEY GIVE IT ALL
DELIBERATE SPEED?
DELIBERATE SPEED? WOULD THEY TRY TO PURSUE THROUGH
THE COURTS, GETTING JOHN BOLTON
AND OTHER WITNESSES TO COME IN?
I THINK FOR WEEKS IT’S BEEN
CLEAR THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT,
THAT THEY WILL HAVE THIS VOTE
DONE BY CHRISTMAS, AND THEY ARE
STILL STICKING TO THAT
THROUGHOUT.
THROUGHOUT. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT’S GOING
TO HAPPEN OVER THE COURSE OF
THESE NEXT FEW WEEKS, WATCH
THOSE TWO.
THOSE TWO. >> WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IN THE LAST
HOUR.
HOUR. I THINK THE CONTROL ROOM HAS IT
READY.
READY. ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE IN THIS
INVESTIGATION AND WHY THEY ARE
NOT GOING TO WAIT AROUND AT THIS
POINT TO GATHER MORE EVIDENCE.
LET’S SEE IF WE HAVE THAT.
>> YOU GET TO A POINT IN AN
INVESTIGATION WHERE YOU CAN TELL
IT IS GOING TO BE A LONG TIME
BEFORE YOU GET THE NEXT VALUABLE
INCREMENT OF INFORMATION.
>> JILL WINE-BANKS, I ASSUME
YOU’VE BEEN THERE AS A
PROSECUTOR WHERE YOU HAVE A
CASE, YOU KNOW THERE’S MORE
EVIDENCE TO BE GATHERED, BUT
YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR,
YOU’RE LOOKING AT HOW LONG IT
WILL TAKE.
WILL TAKE. >> I STARTED AS AN ORGANIZED
CRIME PROSECUTOR.
CRIME PROSECUTOR. I COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED FOR
THE REST OF MY LIFE ANY ONE OF
THE CRIME FAMILIES, AND I WOULD
HAVE KEPT GETTING BAD
INFORMATION EVERY SINGLE DAY.
BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU SAY
ENOUGH, IT’S SUFFICIENT, I HAVE
ENOUGH TO MAKE A CASE.
IT’S IMPORTANT THAT I TAKE THESE
PEOPLE OUT OF CIRCULATION, AND I
HAVE TO ACT NOW.
AND I THINK THAT WAS A VERY WISE
CHOICE ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT
ALTHOUGH THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A
LOT MORE THAT COULD BE GAINED BY
THE WITNESSES WHO HAVE REFUSED
TO TESTIFY, AND I BELIEVE THE
COURTS WILL SAY THEY HAVE TO
TESTIFY, IN THE MEANTIME, IT IS
PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE, PEOPLE IN
THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES DO THIS AND
COURTS ALLOW IT, YOU CAN SAY YOU
CAN DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE
FROM THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE
FAILED TO COME FORWARD.
AND THAT’S ENOUGH.
BETWEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WE
HAVE AND THE ADVERSE INFERENCE
FROM THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT
BROUGHT FORWARD ANYONE, IF THE
PRESIDENT HAD SOMETHING THAT
WOULD EXCULPATE HIM, HE WOULD
HAVE PRESENTED THAT EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NONE.
THAT’S THE PROBLEM.
>> LET’S LISTEN TO WHAT
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN TOM McCLINTOCK SAID
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT NOT
PARTICIPATING IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HEARING.
COMMITTEE HEARING. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE TO THE
PRESIDENT’S ADVANTAGE TO HAVE
HIS ATTORNEYS THERE.
THAT IS HIS RIGHT.
BUT I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW HE
IS UPSET AT THE ILLEGITIMATE
PROCESS THAT WE SAW UNFOLD IN
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
>> SO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD
BRING IN LAWYERS?
>> I THINK IT’S TO HIS
ADVANTAGE, YES.
ADVANTAGE, YES. >> THE REASON I SHOWED THAT IS
TOM McCLINTOCK IS ONE OF THOSE
FORMERLY REASONABLE CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
YOU CAN GET TO A POINT IN THIS
DISCUSSION WITH HIM WHERE HE HAS
TO ADMIT, YES, THERE’S SOMETHING
A LITTLE STRANGE ABOUT NOT
DEFENDING YOURSELF.
DEFENDING YOURSELF. >> OF COURSE.
SOMETHING MORE THAN A LITTLE
STRANGE.
STRANGE. THERE’S SOMETHING COMPLETELY
UNPRECEDENTED AS YOU POINTED OUT
EARLIER.
EARLIER. AND IN SOME SENSE STRANGE AND
NOT STRANGE.
NOT STRANGE. NOT STRANGE IN THE SENSE THAT,
IF THERE WAS A CASE TO BE MADE
ON THE FACTS, NOT ONLY WOULD THE
LAWYERS BE PRESENT BUT THESE
OTHER WITNESSES WE WERE JUST
DISCUSSING, THE BOLTONS,
MULVANEYS, POMPEOS OF WORLD WILL
BE COMING FORWARD, THE PRESIDENT
WOULD FREE ALL THE FACT
WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD IF
THEY HAD FACTS THAT WOULD HELP
EXCULPATE HIM, HE DOES NOT.
ON SOME SENSE IT’S STRANGE, ON
ANOTHER LEVEL IT’S THE MOST
RATIONAL THING THE PRESIDENT’S
DOING.
DOING. >> THIS REMINDS ME OF WHAT I
USED TO HEAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS SAYING WHEN I WAS
HANGING AROUND COURTHOUSES, WHEN
THEY HAD SOMEBODY, LET’S JUST
SAY A DIFFICULT DEFENDANT TO
REPRESENT.
REPRESENT. THE QUESTION THEY’D ASK EACH
OTHER IS, CAN YOU PUT YOUR GUY
ON THE STAND?
WHEN THEY COULDN’T PUT THEIR
DEFENDANT ON THE STAND, IT MEANT
THAT REALLY THERE WASN’T A VERY
STRONG DEFENSE TO BE MADE FROM
THE WITNESS STAND.
AND THIS KIND OF FEELS LIKE
THAT.
THAT. THIS FEELS LIKE ONE OF THOSE
CASES WHERE IT’S LIKE, WELL,
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT US TO
PRESENT?
PRESENT? WE DON’T REALLY HAVE A DEFENSE.
THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING A LOT OF
NOISE ABOUT THE PROCESS,
ATTACKING THE PROCESS, CLAIMING
THERE’S NO POINT OF MAKING A
DEFENSE IN THIS PROCESS.
BUT WHAT DEFENSE WOULD THERE BE
TO OFFER?
TO OFFER? >> THERE IS NO DEFENSE.
WHAT THEY HAVE SAID IN THE
MINORITY REPORT, WHICH IS
COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS, IS THEY
SIMPLY SAY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS.
BUT THEY DON’T PRESENT ANY
EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THERE IS A
DEFENSE TO THOSE.
AND IT’S SORT OF LIKE, IF I WENT
INTO A BANK AND I WROTE A CHECK
ON MY OWN BANK ACCOUNT AND
CASHED THE CHECK AND THEN I
PULLED OUT A 21 AND SAID TO THE
TELLER, NOW GIVE ME ALL THE
MONEY IN THE VAULT.
THE FACT THAT I DID A LEGAL
TRANSACTION BY WITHDRAWING FROM
MY OWN ACCOUNT DOES NOT LEGALIZE
THE FACT THAT I PULLED OUT A GUN
AND ROBBED THE BANK.
AND THE SAME THING IS TRUE RIGHT
NOW IN TERMS OF THIS.
THEY’RE SAYING, WELL, THE
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
UKRAINE’S CORRUPTION.
UKRAINE’S CORRUPTION. WELL, IF HE WAS, HE NEVER LET
ANYBODY KNOW.
ANYBODY KNOW. BUT EVEN IF HE WAS, IT WOULDN’T
EXCUSE THE FACT THAT HE WITHHELD
THE MONEY AND PUT IN DANGER OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT OF
UKRAINE, AN ALLY, BY DOING THAT.
AND HE HELPED ONLY ONE PERSON,
HIMSELF, AND PUTIN.
SO I GUESS HE HELPED TWO PEOPLE,
NOT JUST ONE.
AND THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL.
IT MAKES IT CRIMINAL.
AND PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
THE DANGER THAT THIS POSES TO
OUR DEMOCRACY AND TO THE 2020
ELECTION.
ELECTION. AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE
ELECTION IS LESS THAN A YEAR
AWAY, WE CAN’T WAIT THAT LONG.
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR ELECTION.
AND I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, HE
HAS PUSHED INTO THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY TO THE POINT WHERE THEY
HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO BRING