be on since they are always on donald trump's side. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i mentioned that matt gurts' piece in media matters for america, watches this stuff closely. that is "all in" for this evening. good night. have a great weekend. i'll be back tomorrow and sunday at 10:00 a.m. here on "a.m. joy." "the rachel maddow show" starts right this second. go, rachel, go! >> i hereby will you some of the sleep that i will get over the next two days, because you've had none. you've had none at all and you're about to work through the weekend, my friend. >> i have a few more pages to read. i won't be sleeping. >> well done. good luck. >> thank you. >> thanks to you at home for joining us. happy friday. attorney general jeff sessions is not invited to camp david this weekend. the only reason that is weird is because the president is hosting at camp david, the vice president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, secretary

of homeland security, secretary of education, head of the cia, head of the office of management, the deputy head of the transportation department, also all of the congressional leadership on the republican side, and his chief of staff and his top legislation guy and the political director for the white house, and the top economic adviser and the guy who does the personnel for the white house and and that guy with the crazy wes welker guys, steven miller. everybody you heard of associated with the administration who has not been fired or indicted and a bunch of people you haven't heard of they are all going to spend a frigid weekend together in camp david but not jeff sessions. and this is not like some official event, not like a state of the union thing where they neez a designated survivor, that they need to keep somebody safe in case something happens at camp david. it's not that, he just isn't invited. at one level, who cares.

maybe you feel bad for jeff sessions. maybe you think he might be cold up there. it is going to be a really cold weekend and he is from alabama. maybe that would be hard for him. i don't know, if this is a big summit because something important is about to happen and if it is a deliberate decision that jeff sessions is conspicuously not there, well, i think there might be at least reason to brace yourself for this weekend, in terms of what might be happening here. last night "the new york times" reported in a bombshell piece from michael schmidt, that the president ordered them to go to the justice department to try to persuade jeff sessions to not recuse himself from the russia investigation. this is important for a couple reasons. one is the reported context. according to michael schmidt's reporting, the president explained why it was important jeff sessions not recuse himself based on his belief reportedly that the attorney general should protect him from the russia investigation.

another reason this is potentially important, under the strict rules that govern the way the white house and the department of justice are supposed to have contact with each other, the white house counsel don mccann is actually one of the officials who is allowed to have direct contact with the justice department, but the whole reason those rules exist is to prevent the white house, any white house, from having untoward influence on law enforcement decisions that are made at the justice department. there is a reason there is strict rules about not very many people from the white house being allowed to speak to justice department officials. don mccann is one of the people allowed to speak to the justice department under those very strict rules but if he was sent to the justice department by the president, specifically to interfere with the justice department on a law enforcement matter, specifically to interfere with jeff sessions' recusal decision, how they administer the rule of law, then that would be a pretty obvious

violation of those important rules that govern how the white house and justice department are supposed to communicate with each other, so as to avoid white house pressure on law enforcement decisions. so if mccann lobbied sessions, if mccann did, in fact, do what the "new york times" reports he did, there is a reasonable legal ethics case to be made that don mccann should resign as white house counsel for having done that. that said, this story today when they reported that the president didn't just send the white house counsel don mccann to the justice department to go lobby jeff sessions. according to nbc, the president sent multiple senior white house personnel to the justice department to lobby jeff sessions that he shouldn't recuse himself from the russia investigation. so both of those things, both the fact that the president reportedly said the reason sessions shouldn't recuse is so

the president can be protected from that fbi investigation, and the prospect that the white house counsel may have violated the rules about contact with the justice department that are supposed to protect these things from white house pressure. both of those may be a problem for the president and some of his senior advisers in terms of potential criminal liability on obstruction of justice. if he was trying to interfere with the recusal decision because he thought that could shield him from an fbi criminal inquiry, that is a problem. but that all happened this spring and now we have arrived at this weekend with now reams and reams and months of reporting how angry the president is that the lobbying didn't work and jeff sessions didn't recuse himself from the russia investigation. so the president this weekend will be hosting this big republican and cabinet summit conspicuously without sessions in attendance. if this is a prelude to the president firing jeff sessions as attorney general, that will

be important on its own terms, right? but it would also pretty directly give the president a way to finally end the russia investigation that has so animated him and vexed him from the very beginning of his administration. if jeff sessions were removed, and a new attorney general was installed, that new attorney general wouldn't be recused from overseeing the russia investigation. all right? so that new attorney general could take over responsibility for overseeing the russia investigation from rod rosenstein and in that oversight role, overseeing the russia investigation, a new attorney general appointed by the president could defund, dismantle, otherwise try to stymie the work of special counsel robert mueller. that is why everybody is on the edge of their seat about who got invited to camp david and who didn't. that was also the glaring exclamation point subtext to the headlines you undoubtedly saw today about how much scott pruitt, the head of the epa, would very much like to be the

next attorney general should an opening arise. that is either epa administrator scots pruitt thinking that jeff sessions is about to get fired as attorney general and he's saying pick me, boss, pick me, or it's a more considered effort by the administration which knows jeff sessions is about to get fired and they're floating scott pruitt's name as the new a.g. as a trial balloon. so i know it's cold. i know it's dark. it's january. you're looking forward to turning off the news and curling up with the latest slow burn podcast, i know you are. i know you are. that issue about jeff sessions and whether it means something more than it looks, that he's not invited to this big republican and cabinet summit with the president is just worth watching over the next couple days. you know, today, was pretty remarkable, pretty remarkable day of news itself. partisan unity has broken down on two gigantic policy changes

that the administration announced yesterday, on both the administration's decision to basically recriminalize pot all over the country, including in states that have legalized it. and in their decision to open up to off-shore drilling, the entire east coast and west coast, including florida and california and the carolinas and all the rest of it, not just democrats today, but lots of elected republicans, particularly in the affected states, today signalled their opposition to those big announcements from the trump administration yesterday and said they will fight the trump administration on both of those matters. there is not a lot of issues on which there is partisan disunion -- disunity anymore, but those two appear to be ones that can rile even republicans who otherwise like president trump. so that was big news today. and from congress, we actually got a big landmark moment today. after the intelligence community released its assessment a year ago tomorrow which said that russia had interfered in our presidential election to help trump and hurt clinton, after that came out, multiple congressional committee, even in the republican-led congress,

expressed alarm and started full-scale investigations into the russian attack, and into the crucial question of whether or not the russians had american confederates who knew what the russians were doing, or who might have been involved in what the russians were doing at the time. that started basically a year ago with the intelligence committee assessment. today after multiple committees in the house and senate spent a rancorous year investigating and talking to witnesses and subpoenaing documents and fighting about the scope of the investigations, all looking at the serious allegations about russia, today for the first time, 364 days since the intelligence committee's assessment, today for the first time, congress made a criminal referral to the justice department, deriving from its investigation into the russia matter. republican senator chuck grassley and republican senator lindsey graham have finally found someone who they think should face criminal charges in the russian attack on our

election. they said today they would like the justice department to consider bringing charges against -- the one person who actual called the fbi when he found out that russia was trying to play a role in our election to help donald trump. we count more than 19 different people associated with the russian government who made contact with people associated with the trump campaign or the trump organization while donald trump was running for president. several of these 19 different russians provided -- explicitly provided information that they were there, they were making contact to provide russian government help for the presidential election to the trump campaign. but no one associated with the trump campaign ever reacted to any one of those overtures by calling the fbi. even after the fbi warned the trump organization to be on the lookout for that sort of thing. there is only one person we know that actually called the cops when they saw this crime happen. there is one person that observed evidence of russia maybe trying to interfere in the

election to help trump. there is one person that saw the evidence and recognized it as a serious crime and 911, called the fbi. the one person who did that is the person who lindsey graham and chuck grassley today told the justice department to investigate for potentially maybe possibly having committed a crime. they released this cover letter but not a classified document. that they said was attached to it. they are apparently alleging former british intelligence christopher steele might have mixed up some dates when describing to investigators when exactly he had off-the-record conversations with reporters about his intelligence reports, the ones he had handed over to the fbi. you know, it is not unheard of for congressional investigators to make a criminal referral to the justice department. if in the course of their congressional investigation, they turn up information that law enforcement doesn't have, it's not unheard of for congress to notify the relevant law enforcement agent, hey, we turned up something that might

-- that looks like you might want to prosecute it. that's happened in serious ethics cases for members of congress. ethics committee is doing intense investigation of a member of congress accused of some ethics violation, in the course of the investigation they turn up serious evidence of potential wrongdoing by that member of congress, that was not otherwise known to or being pursued by the relevant law enforcement agency. in cases like that, the ethics committee would finish their report on the member's behavior, and they might also make a criminal referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency. if they turned up something very serious that law enforcement wasn't otherwise onto. that's not what happened here. in this case, senator chuck grassley and senator lindsey graham do not appear to have turned up any new information concerning former mi6 spy christopher steele. the reason their so-called criminal referral to the justice department today is, in part

classified, because what these two just sent to the justice department about christopher steele is information they got from the justice department about christopher steele. they didn't turn up anything in their congressional investigation that the justice department didn't already know about. what they did today is gave the justice department back their own information that they had obtained from the justice department about christopher steele saying hey, have you seen this? no seriously, this stuff you gave us, have you seen it? we're sending it back to you. that is not the way these things usually go. for obvious reasons, that is not the way these things usually go. but they did put out a very strongly worded press release about it and got lots and lots of headlines about how they want this guy criminally prosecuted, the dossier guy. you know, it's incredible. once upon a time, it is incredible. once upon a time, this white house was actually concerned that the republican-led congress

and it's congressional investigations into the russia matter might be something the white house had to worry about, that the white house should try to shut down. we know from "new york times" reporting this fall that the president directly contacted senator richard burr on the intelligence committee and senator roy blunt on the intelligence committee and mitch mcconnell, the top republican in the senate. the president directly contacting those members of the senate, pressuring them to drop the congressional russia investigations. we sure we needed to bother? -- are we sure he needed to bother? i mean, what's received more attention are the president's efforts to stop not the congressional investigations but fbi investigation. the president lobbying jeff sessions. -- lobby jeff sessions to not recuse himself. the president telling the director dan coats to press the fbi, to stop the russia investigation. the president telling the fbi director james comey that he needed to remove the cloud of the russia investigation over the trump presidency. he needed to lay off the investigation into mike flynn. he needed to be loyal to the president. the president firing james comey

when comey didn't agree to any of that. once robert mueller was appointed special counsel, we know the president also pressured republican senator thom tillis to drop his legislative efforts. so that stuff received a lot more attention, the president trying to shut down the fbi investigation but if the president had once upon a time been worried that the investigations in congress also might pose a real threat to him in terms of exposing what really happened with russia, those worries, it's safe to say have probably been resolved. because one year on, basically what these republican-led committees in congress have turned their investigations into, are full-time battering ram efforts to protect the president from the fbi. to protect the president from the ongoing criminal investigation, to discredit robert mueller, the special counsel, to discredit the whole fbi as best they can. when james comey documented the fact that the president pressured him to drop the russia investigation before he was

fired, republicans and congress went after the memos that comey wrote up to document the president's behavior, saying those memos might have been classified. or they should have been classified. and when comey talked about them, he leaked classified information, or at least, he leaked government property. when the fbi and the justice department brought it to the white house's attention that the trump national security adviser had been secretly talking to the russian government and lying about it, republicans in congress joined the white house to try to make the scandal there the fact that the fbi knew about what mike flynn had done. they wiretapped us! there's been unmasking! republicans in congress have tried to say that the real scandal is not what russia did in our elections, or the question of whether or not they had help. the real scandal is uranium one, or the clinton foundation. republicans supposedly investigating the russia scandal have decided the scandal they

want to look into is that some people in the fbi, or who have worked on the special counsel's team are people who have expressed wide ranging opinions during the campaign. which is something that fbi agents are absolutely allowed to do. it has been republicans in congress who is pursued the story line that christopher steele's reports and russian intervention in the election, those intelligence reports themselves are somehow terrible. it's bad that they exist. and when christopher steele handed them over to the fbi because he's concerned he stumbled upon evidence of a monstrous ongoing crime, well, then that somehow tainted the fbi as well. and so a year ago tomorrow when the intelligence community put out its assessment about what russia did, there really was a moment of bipartisan near unanimity that this was very bad news about what russia had done. and maybe we as a country should

get to the bottom of it, make sure we understand what happened. make sure if there were americans in on that attack, who need to be brought to justice. just one year ago, people pretty much agreed on that, even some republicans, enough to start all these republican-led congressional investigations, at least. but now at the one-year mark, it's remarkable to see how far most republicans in congress have swung toward aggressively trying to stop the criminal counterintelligence investigation into what happened. not only are they not using their own investigations to figure this out but their power in congress to try to stop the external investigation that's happening at the special counsel's office. if we are being honest, though, and clear-eyed about this, i think it is also worth recognizing how successful their efforts have been to stop this investigation. not just to stop their own investigations in congress, which they have largely done, but to use their power in congress to stop the criminal investigations into these

matters happening first at the fbi and then in the special counsel's office. it's one thing to see the republicans in the white house push, it's another thing to see it work, to see the justice department and the fbi roll over and give them what they want. so just take stock of this with this weird gambit today where they're referring to christopher steele for criminal charges, you know, whether or not that ever results in there being criminal charges about him, you can pretty much guarantee he will not be coming to the united states of america to give any public testimony about what he found. republicans would block the release with hours and hours of sworn closed door testimony about christopher steele's findings from fusion gps who hired him to do the work. they also succeeded in harassing fusion gps potentially to their existential limit. today they forced fusion's bank to hand over financial records relating to the firm. all financial records relating

to the firm which may very well destroy them as a firm. after paul ryan intervened on his behalf, crusading trump partisan, devin nunes, succeeded today in forcing the fbi to hand over, quote, fbi investigative documents that are considered law enforcement sensitive and are rarely released or shared outside the bureau. the fbi resisted handing over those documents because they are relevant to the ongoing investigation, they're law enforcement sensitive, but now the justice department doesn't feel that strongly about it anymore. they've caved. they are handing them over in the middle of the investigation. they are also handing over high-ranking fbi officials who will be questioned but nunes and the committee even though the same officials said for them to testify about what they know would interfere with the fbi's on going criminal investigation. those officials include one of the five top leaders briefed by james comey about the president reportedly telling him to shut down the fbi's russia investigation. one of those guys the

republicans are getting to testify now, even though he says his testimony will interfere with the ongoing investigation. another one of those guys who comey had as a contemporaneous witness, another one of the five is fbi deputy director andrew mccabe. who has been under sustained republican attack for most of the last year, over the holiday break, it was announced that he will be retiring from the fbi. he's 49 years old. another one of the five corroborating witnesses for james comey in terms of interactions with the president is fbi counsel james baker. it was recently announced he'll be reassigned at the bureau from that high-ranking position. that's three of the five. plus the way they have gone after comey. republicans in congress are about to obtain hundreds if not thousands of personal, hundreds if not thousands more personal texts from fbi and doj officials between two fbi and doj

officials who were in a relationship, having an affair. once those texts are released to republicans in congress, they will no doubt leak them to the press for maximum partisan and humiliating effect. they are getting personal texts because the fbi is handing them over to the republicans in congress, having already given several hundred of them to reporters. this is the fbi's own agents handing over their personal texts. and to cap it all off, the fbi and the justice department have confirmed that whatever else they're giving up in response to this republican pressure on the russia investigation, the fbi and the justice department has just confirmed they're looking into yur ann uniuranium one andn foundation and hillary clinton's e-mails again. republicans turn from wanting to it's been one year in that year republicans turn from wanting to get to the bottom of what russia did to now doing everything they can to stop that investigation. but if we're being clear-eyed

about this, it's also worth noting that the fbi and the justice department are now in a very different position than they used to be in. they have gone from resisting that republican pressure and white house pressure to handing over their agents and officials, handing over sensitive documents and agreeing that yeah, maybe they should be looking into whether somebody ought to lock her up. we shouldn't be surprised by the pushback that evolved over the course of this past year. we maybe should be surprised it's working. you not only want a clean feeling every day, you want your denture to be stain free. did you know there's a specialty cleanser that's gentle enough for everyday use and cleans better than regular toothpaste? try polident cleanser. it has a four in one cleaning system that kills ten times more odor causing bacteria than regular toothpaste, deep cleans where brushing may miss, helps remove tough stains, and maintains the original color of your dentures when used daily. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture, use polident every day.

but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

eight hundred dollars whenlmost we switched our auto and home insurance. liberty did what? yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. wish our insurance did that. then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey, welcome back. this guy... right? yes. ellen. that's my robe. you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

one of the first people who took a really aggressive tack at trying to get to the bottom of

the watergate scandal was this man. his name is wright patman, a democratic congressman from texas. wh he had been serving in the house of representatives for more than four decades. he was chair of the house banking committee. he decided the way he would approach the watergate burglary mystery would be to -- say it with me now -- follow the money. why did the burglars have so much money on them when they got caught? and even more, why did they have such large amounts of seemingly political money in their bank accounts? well, turned out that the money had come from president richard nixon's re-election campaign. so patman asked his banking committee to approve subpoenas for several nixon officials and campaign aides. makes sense. but the white house flummoxed him. the white house successfully pressured enough members of that committee, that even with a democratic majority on that committee, they could not get a

majority vote for those subpoenas. and with the country yawning about this snooze fest side show watergate break-in thing, richard nixon went on to win a second term by one of the most lopsided margins in the country's history. patman had failed. the watergate investigation came to a promising place, but then politically it got stomped. but you know what, the scandal came roaring back, in the president's second term, and the truth did come out. within two years, nixon's attempt to interfere with pat man's investigation by pressuring those congressmen on the subpoena vote, that ended up being included in the articles of impeachment against nixon. that story, the story of patman's early failed attempt to investigation richard nixon, that's one of the stories told on the slate.com podcast called slow burn, which tries to give listeners a sense of what happened in the watergate scandal, what it was like to live through that scandal in the moment, when nobody knew what

would happen next, when it wasn't clear that nixon would ever be busted for what he did. when nobody knew how it would end, how did it feel like at the time? if you're not listening to slow burn, you should be. but as we hit the one-year mark since the intelligence community assessment that russia attacked in 2016, i've been wondering if watergate can give us a good perspective what it's like to be in a sprawling investigation when the push back trying to thwart the investigation seems like it might be winning the day. joining us is the host of slow burn. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> congratulations on the success of this effort and on its ambition. i think you have set out to do something really hard and you're doing a great job. >> thank you. >> the idea of the investigation being successfully thwarted by skillful political players. >> uh-huh. >> you used the story of patman to tell that effectively because

it's very much lost to history. are there other examples of that from the watergate era? >> well, i mean, of course, the big effort to stymie the federal -- special prosecutor was when nixon fired him. but that didn't work out either. in the end it didn't work out. initially it seemed possible that the office would be closed when nixon fired cox, there was confusion as to whether the investigators who worked for cox would continue the work or not. there were fbi agents who swarmed the federal prosecutors office and sealed it off and looked on tv like this was the end. the evidence would be taken away, who knows what would happen to it. but the public pressure was so intense that nixon had to capitulate and say okay, we'll install a new federal prosecutor and i'll give you the tapes you want and of course, that was the beginning of the end. >> one of the things i find about a lot of news stories, not just gigantic like watergate, the further you get down the road in time the harder to

-- it is to remember what people's partisan affiliation was. so patman, he was a democrat, so it matters that there was a democratic majority on that committee. nixon, yes, i remember that he was a republican, but you start to lose track of affiliations over time. in the moment when watergate was wending its way through the first term for nixon and the start of the second term, how strong were the partisan affiliations in terms of people standing by him, or in terms of people who were suspicious about what happened? >> not like a straightforward answer. there were partisans that stood with nixon because he was the political ally, but there were also moderate republicans who didn't feel that obligation. so, for instance, after the saturday massacre, there were plenty of republicans who said, this is unacceptable. there were a few who said it was. there was one that spoke to the house of representatives, a congressman from tennessee said don't let this become a legislative lynch mob and took out a noose that he brought with him and held it up. >> wow.

>> so there was a little bit on both sides. one thing that's interesting is cox, unlike mueller, has not faced any of these -- had not faced any of these attacks on the grounds that he was a democrat or that he was a kennedy guy. even though his whole biography was working for kennedy. and he was a harvard law professor and this total cartoon of an east coast elite guy. and yet nixon's white house didn't really go after him on that basis. >> they were so attuned to that as a source of political attack. >> you would think. >> nixon's culture of politics was about decrying the elites and liberals. >> it's shocking. i've been asking people why do you think they didn't? the answer i have gotten is partisanship was different back then. republicans respected archibald cox. he had been the solicitor general. who cares if he had worked for kennedy? this was someone with a pristine reputation and that was enough

to win him the credibility he needed. >> the other thing that i feel like is very striking to me at this one-year mark since the intelligence community assessment came out is the attacks on the fbi as an institution and efforts by republicans almost large within congress to say the fbi is a bad institution and corrupt and should be purged along partisan lines. how do you compare that in terms of the fbi's role with watergate? >> there were no such attacks on the fbi by nixon. in so far as there was anger from the nixon white house towards cox, sure, there was plenty of them. even though it didn't blow up publicly very much. if you listen to the nixon tapes, he said all sorts of things about archibald cox privately. but, no, the fbi, as far as i know, did not sustain any kind of attacks like this. >> leon is the host of the podcast about watergate called slow burn. i'm obviously a fan and i'm appreciative of you taking the

time to be here. >> thanks for having me. >> will you come back? >> please. >> yes. much more, stay with us. 1,200 workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get.

we reported on a story this week that got a ton of response from our viewers, lots of people contacted us about this story including a heads up about a possible a monkey wrench in the story itself, which i will get to in a second. one of the first and basically still unexplained legal controversies of the trump administration started back in march when the president fired all the u.s. attorneys with no

warning, with no successors lined up, no time to plan for the handoff of work in the prosecutors' offices. we don't know what that was about last march but then this week was the next big surprise move on these crucial and powerful federal prosecutor positions. thursday marked 300 days since they initially fired them all with no warning, no explanation but on the eve of that 300-day milestone on wednesday of this week, they suddenly appointed 17 new ones at once. and there are a few intriguing things about the timing and whether they had to make the appointments by yesterday as a specific deadline, and why they again made awe huge decision about tons of federal prosecutors as a gigantic surprise with no warning and no time to plan. but there are also questions about who they are putting in these important jobs and why. back in october, we learned that president trump had been personally interviewing candidates for federal prosecutor jobs in jurisdictions

where his family and business and campaign have key interests. two of those key districts are places where they suddenly announced new appointees on wednesday. the southern and eastern districts of new york, manhattan, the home base for the trump organization and jared kushner's family real estate empire. well, this week, home state senator kirsten through a penalty flag on one of those appointments in the southern district of new york, which is home to trump tower and the trump organization and not incidentally basically every bank and financial institution trump has ever done business through. the previous prosecutor in the southern district of new york was preet bharara. he had been assured by trump he could keep that job but he too was suddenly fired in march along with all the rest of them. on wednesday, trump installed a new u.s. attorney in that jurisdiction to replace bharara. him and 16 other people and 16 other jurisdictions. the guy he put into the southern district of new york is someone who was a member of the trump

transition team, someone who was a law partner of trump's close friend giuliani. kirsten released a statement in opposition to that appointment of rudy giuliani's law partner. home state senators traditionally get a say in appointments in their state for judges and prosecutors. if kirsten gillibrand doesn't want that u.s. attorney in the southern district in manhattan, that would usually mean that that appointment doesn't happen. in the eastern district of new york, that's the prosecutor's office that has recently reportedly been subpoenaing bank records related to presidential son-in-law jared kushner. new york senator chuck schumer said he supports the new trump appointee to run that office. so far, senator gillibrand hasn't weighed in on that one. so this is potentially an issue are if the trump administration with crucial districts that may really affect interests that are near and dear to the president personally. the home state senator is not

backing a nominee for u.s. attorney in their stacte, supposed to be a big deal. in addition to those concerns, we also, as i mentioned, got a heads up about another potential monkey wrench in the story or explanation of what they did here. it was spotted by somebody whose in a position to see it when nobody else could and understand it when nobody else would. this is an important thing. and our eagle-eyed guest who saw it and can explain it joins us next. stay with us. jimmy's gotten used to his whole room smelling like sweaty odors.

yup, he's gone noseblind. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this... luckily there's febreze fabric refresher for all the things you can't wash. it finds odors trapped in fabrics and washes them away as it dries. and try pluggable febreze to continuously eliminate odors for up to 45 days of freshness. pluggable febreze and fabric refresher. two more ways to breathe happy. are made with smarttrack®igners material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. see how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile up to 50% faster today at invisalign.com

check this out, wednesday, justice department announced the appointment of 17 interim u.s. attorneys. 17 new federal prosecutors in districts all over the country including some big, important, powerful ones. this is the next big surprise move that the trump administration made since they surprise fired just about all of them in march, 46 of them. so out of the blue, no warning, all on one day this week here comes 17 replacements. now the justice department explained that all those appointments all had to happen on wednesday, all at once for a very specific reason. this is from their press release, quote, some of those acting united states attorneys will have served the maximum amount of time permitted under the vacancies reform act, which is 300 days. that explains the sudden rush of 17 new prosecutors that deadline arrived. they announced the 17 new people were in under the wire at day 299 on wednesday. quote, the appointments announced by the attorney

general today filled these vacancies. we and everybody else in creation noted that 300-day deadline and figured, okay, that's the rush. that's why this happened. maybe not. a veteran justice department official looking at this story that everybody reported the same way, suggested that this is actually worth a closer look. joining us now for the interview is matthew axelrod, a senior official. thank you very much for the heads up you gave us about this story and thanks for being here to help us understand. >> thank you. >> it makes sense to me, the way the justice department has explained this. they fired the u.s. attorneys all at once. 300 days ago. the federal vacancy reform act says that you can put the first deputy in those offices, in charge of the office for 300 days, but then you need to appoint somebody new. seems like they hit the deadline and it was time to rush a bunch of new nominees in there.

what's wrong with that understanding? >> what's wrong with that, rachel, is you got the first part right, which is that under the vacancies reform act when they fired the u.s. attorneys, the existing number two officials ascended and became the acting u.s. attorneys in those districts. and there's a fixed time period after which the vacancies reform act doesn't work anymore and their authority ends. but what normally happens is then the attorney general uses a separate authority to appoint those same people to continue serving just under a separate statutory authority. here, what happened instead is that with some of the people, the attorney general did that, which is the normal course and for some of the people in i think ten of districts, the attorney general did something different, which was to bring in new people to serve under the second statute to use as interim u.s. attorneys. >> so what's the advantage to the justice department to doing it the way that you just described?

>> yeah, and look, i should say there is nothing improper or illegal or unethical. the attorney general has the authority to do it this way. the thing unusual is how it was messaged by the department of justice. i think to answer your question, rachel, the vacancies reform act, the only person under the vacancies reform act that can become the boss and u.s. attorney is the person who is currently serving as the number two in the office. under the separate statutory authority, the attorney general has the ability to bring in people from outside the justice department and that's what happened in at least some of the examples here and in the districts you mentioned in the southern and eastern districts, the attorney general has appointed people who were not presently working at the department of justice to come in and be the united states attorney. >> okay. that is why i'm particularly interested in this because me and everybody else in the country who doesn't know what we're talking about on these issues, we've been focused on

the southern and eastern districts of new york in particular because of the particular interests of the president and his family and ongoing investigations, et cetera. we don't need to go into it in detail. but in the southern district in new york, senator kirsten gillibrand is calling foul basically on the appointee and specifically the fact that the president personally met with that appointee before making this nomination. i mean, these 17 people who were just announced, they are still going to need senate confirmation. is doing it this way or the way you're describing, is this going to help them end run around objections from senators, is it going to make their confirmation tougher or easier in the long run? >> that's a good question and we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. that's one of the risks of doing it this way is that home state senators might be upset, and it turns out at least in new york one of them appears to be upset because i think it sounds like

senator gillibrand perceives this as an end run around her traditional authority to have input into the selection. none of these people have been nominated yet, but i think you none of the people have been nominated yet but i think you can expect that particularly in the southern and eastern districts and the district of new jersey where people left law firm partnerships to take the jobs that they're expecting that they will eventually be the nominee. >> and everybody, again, outside this system when's been watching the jurisdictions in particular i think has reason to watch the process by which this was -- these folks got the jobs but also the way that it was explained by the justice department. and i think you've done at least me a great service helping me to understand the subtleties here and i hope for the viewers, as well. thank you for being here. >> thank you, rachel. >> former senior justice department official. we'll be right back. irst got ony i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree.

i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com.

for my constipation, i switch to miralax. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax is different. it works with the water in your body. unblocking your system naturally. save up to $5 on miralax. see sunday's paper.

don't we have the blob? we have the blob? have you ever seen the movie "the blob"? we have it? [ screaming ] thank you. i was like, i was expecting a blob! friday night sometimes the blob comes slow. the blob was a 1958 sci-fi horror film.

an alien life form crashes to earth consumes everything in its path. run, don't walk from the blob. the blob has become kind of the way to kind of understand personnel policy at the trump administration. and i don't mean in the sense they're like gelatinous or terrifying. i just mean that they cause people to flee. one of the unusual things about this life we're living through now we have a brand new administration in washington and haven't hit the one-year mark yet but they shed people like a shaking dog sheds rain. i mean,just at an unprecedented pace. administration officials flee, they run don't walk from the administration. they joined not that long ago and we have tried to keep track. it is hard. today, a senior position at the treasury that was filled by shannon mcgahn, wife of white house counsel don mcgahn, vacant when she left her position at the treasury. today's her last day. vice president mike pence also

today lost the domestic policy director and also lost his chief lawyer, lost two senior staffers in a day. white house chief of staff john kelly's senior adviser is also out. the white house says they found some other job for him at a foreign aid agency and out of the white house. and now the head of the nsa an cyber command said he is out, as well. as of this spring. and literally those are just the people we learned about today. i mean, if you are trying to keep track of the departures list from the trump administration, it's an auctioneer's challenge. chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, a communications director for the office of public lee yeah i don't know, press secretary, two communications directors, a rapid response director, two deputy national security adviser a. director of intelligence programs at the national security council, the national security, a director of planning at the national security council, a chief white house strategist, remember him?

a deputy assistant to the president and strategist. an acting u.s. attorney general, a fbi director, dozens of u.s. attorneys and national economic council deputy director, the chief of staff to the vice president, the press secretary to the vice president, the director of office of government ethics and carl. special adviser to the president of regulatory reform. and then today -- you can add counselor, chief of staff and the director of nsa. they're not at a year yet. it's the blob! run, don't walk. [ screaming ] you ever feel like... cliché foil characters scheming against a top insurer for no reason? nah.

so, why don't we like flo? she has the name your price tool, and we want it. but why? why don't we actually do any work? why do you only own one suit? it's just the way it is, underdeveloped office character. you're right. thanks, bill. no, you're bill. i'm tom. you know what? no one cares. it's time for sleep number's 'lowest prices of the season' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? it's the lowest prices of the season on the queen c4 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides. now only $1199, save $400.

ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. but when we broughting. our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how. started off the show tonight by talking about the conspicuous fact that attorney general jeff

sessions is not going to camp david along with most of the rest of the cabinet and congressional leadership and the president and the vice president this weekend. that's interesting both for jeff sessions' feelings and the prospect the president is looking to get rid of him and how consequential that would be for the russia investigation. two republican members of congress called for jeff sessions to resign. well, tonight, we have just got a third. chris stewart, congressman from utah, is now the third republican member of congress calling for jeff sessions to resign. and the attorney general not invited to the sleepover at camp david this weekend. now growing calls for resignation of congressmen. watch this space. that does it for us tonight. see you monday. now, it's time for the last word with katy tur in for lawrence this evening. >> in the words of donald trump that is not nice. he came out and endorsed him. a big deal. >> here's one thing this might be nice about it.