instagram, snapchat and linked in. thank you for watching "deadline: white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington d.c. where open warfare between the trump administration and congress has democrats declaring that a constitutional crisis is upon us. in the house judiciary committee a vote on contempt charges for attorney general william barr just moments away. we'll bring that to you live once it begins. the historic clash on capitol hill follows days of negotiations between the justice department and the house judiciary committee for a document that donald trump said totally exonerates him. the white house today resorting to extreme measures to hide it. asserting executive privilege over the full mueller report. the "new york times" reporting on the high stakes of the stone walling. quote, president trump's wholesale refusal to provide information to congress threatens to up end the delicate

balance that is the separation of powers outlined in the constitution. mr. trump has declared an all-out war on efforts by house democrats to look into his official conduct and business dealings. and that has legal experts across the spectrum warning that the president's categorical opposition to what he sees as partisan meddling could create a constitutional crisis. an impasse that the interlocking powers and responsibilities by the framers cannot solve. democrats ratcheting up the language about the need to serve as a guardrail on conduct that may ultimately lay the foundation for trump's impeachment. >> i can only conclude that the president now seems to take a wrecking ball to the constitution of the united states. >> this collision course the president and attorney general set us on is not normal. this collision is the definition

of a constitutional crisis. and the breath of this obstruction is beyond anything in our nation's history. >> this isn't about executive privilege. it's about burying the evidence, mr. chairman. >> if you think there's no collusion and no obstruction, you haven't read the mueller report. >> if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. and if it looks like obstruction, sounds like obstruction, smells like obstruction, it's on instruction. obstruction. >> if allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. >> we are in danger, we need to respond and we need to act for the people of the united states of america. that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. elliott williams, former deputy assistant attorney general, here on set, washington post bureau chief phil rucker former chief

of staff at the cia and pentagon, jeremy bash is back. ca carol lee is a political reporter and former spokesperson at the department of justice matt miller is here. jeremy, let me start with you. it's a big and hefty thing to roll out the constitutional crisis. i don't think people do that lightly. we've been talking about a saturday night massacre. don mcghan turns out testified proo privately in his 30 hours of testimony that that's what it felt like on the inside. we have members of congress talking about a constitutional crisis. that is what it feels like. >> i don't think this is bill barr's decision. i don't think he's in the driver's seat. i think this is president trump's decision to basically say to the congress that we're not going to abide by the constitutional order that has governed our country. there's one simple reason, because he knows when his attorney general goes and sits

before committee, the republicans lose a lot of yardage, bill barr got benched he testified in front of the senate and had to admit he misled the people with his four page letter, misled congress that bob mueller had not expressed concerns with the way bill barr did the mueller report. and then hey, the president didn't try to fire the special counsel, he just tried to have him removed. the president saw that and said my guy is not going up there, we're not going to play ball with the congress because we'll lose a lot of yardage if we do. >> let me follow-up with you on what under pins your analysis. you think the white house counsel's office is calling the shots? >> i think the president is calling the shots. the president is saying my administration is not going to participate in congressional oversight.

it's not because he cares about the constitution or equity. he doesn't know what executive privilege is probably. he knows this is a losing political argument every moment his attorney general and witnesses are before congress. by the way, we should say as citizens and people who care about our constitutional order that is an abomination. that's not the way our system is supposed to work. >> phil rucker it seems we're in dangerous territory when we accept their premises or playing on their field when we accept their premises and bet which is one their base will tolerate anything and everything, there is nothing they can do to alienate them, there's no limit to what they can distort and cartoon, in this case the separation of power, the foundation of how this town is supposed to work. i was in the unenhave i can't believe position of having to defend this man from time to time, it's so bad that john yu,

who wrote during the bush years about enhanced interrogation measures and other things says, you know, basically what the democrats are saying, this is unprecedented, it's an extraordinary overreach to ignore subpoenas and really nobody thought john yu and the department of justice sort of functioned in a particularly generous way with congress during the bush years, he's sounding the alarms. that's how bad it is. >> yeah, we reached an extreme level and the president is testing things. this is in keeping with donald trump and his character throughout his life. he's always tried to bend the rules in his favor and work outside the institutions and systems. he's tried to create sort of his own realities, his own rules, structures when he needs to and he's not really paid a price for that.

>> so i don't know if this triggers you in any way since you're going to need some daddy water at the end of the show. we talk so much about the republicans not having a pulse, not having any muscle memory, a conscience, not viewing it as their job to uphold the rule of law. here's what john yu says, it would be extraordinary if the president were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues, that would be unprecedented if it were a complete ban. mr. barr -- this is more on barr, but the idea that someone who he himself at the time and even now is viewed to have strained the limits of executive power is alarm right now to me is more than a canary in a mine. >> yeah, i never thought i would say john was right, but he's right. if this were the only fight we were seeing it's one thing.

if they were withholding documents on one set, it would be unjustified, their argument is weak and will probably lose in the courts. but it's not. i believe the trump administration four months into the democrat house, has not turned over a single document for anything, not the process for granting security clearances to jared kushner or ivanka trump over the objeks of anything. the question i think is, are the courts going to let this play out the way they usually do where they take months if not years to deliberate or are they going to realize the president is upending the system here, and if there's any normal functioning of checks and balances, the courts have to act immediately to say no to the

administration. beloved figures like chuck rosenberg and joyce vance for lulling me into complacency about bill barr. because he's more like a fox news institutionalist. "new york times" writes barr appears to be trying to find a way to protect his professional integrity and not look like a lacky to trump -- in my hum pl opinion that ship has sailed. >> in a sense jerry is right, it doesn't look like barr is in control here in any sense. it's all president trump, and this is just the 2020 elections -- an appetizer to the 2020 elections. this is 2020 playing out with these two branchs of government. that's how the president sees it. they are digging in on all

fronts. no signs that they're going to give anything to the democrats. so, you know, we've seen them, they fought over barr, mcgahn, the mueller report and now they're going to probably fight over mueller himself. and you could absolutely envision the president saying -- trying to block mueller from testifying. >> he's already said that. that's the president's position. >> yes. but is he going to be successful in doing that? there's a question of whether mueller could, you know, eventually testify once he leaves government. would he be able to operate under different rules where he wouldn't be subject to whatever the president and attorney general wanted him to do. but this is just something we're going to see this president continue to do. and the courts, as a referee, it's a great question of how that plays out. because their calculation is whether -- not so much that they will win but they can drag it out into next year and they

managed to put democrats in a box and in a place where they have done things that maybe alienate voters. it's always a political calculation. >> a political calculation with some really grave legal questions in the balance. what are the consequences of sort of trampling on these fundamental values of separation of powers, and to -- again the john yoo quote isn't meant to trigger any of our viewers or anyone at the table but it's meant to underscore just how unprecedented this moment is. >> thank you for opening that door, i wasn't going to go there because he was your former colleague. >> come on through. >> it's when you're too hard core for the guy who said it's okay to torture people in secret around the world you have a problem. whether it was torture in 2004 or separation of powers now,

it's a big problem. it's sort of like you said, how significant is it and the consequences? it just shows the arrogance of the administration and the president with respect to its relationship with congress. they've not made a sincere legal assertion here vindicating their rights to executive privilege because as was said on the panel before, they have done this across their relationship with congress, when you're talking about the census and immigration and on down. they have just simply chosen not to see congress as an equal negotiating partner or as a co-equal branch of government. and look, people can disagree as to legal outcomes, who ought to win on a claim of privilege. you and i joked about this last time you were on because we were on opposite sides of the u.s. attorney investigation reviewing your emails. but at the core was a fundamental respect for the two branchs of government and president bush would never have

said it's partisan, it's a witch hunt, harassment, and so on. yes, we can disagree on who wins and loses but there has been to be a respect for tribunal investigating you. and if we don't have that, we don't have a rule of law. and the president has spent a large amount of capital at trying to convince people that one branch of government isn't legitimate anymore because democrats run it, and it's dangerous and undermining faith of government. >> always feel free to walk through the john yoo door. jeremy bash, let me ask you to pick up this thread. this idea that trump has debased the office of the presidency in an undeniable way now seeks to debase and redefine the way that branch of government functions with another. it seems like if not stopped, it

seems unlimited potential to change the presidency forever. >> two notes about the john yoo factor here -- >> i can't believe it -- >> i know. at least you can argue his opinions were -- came out of some notion of principle. >> correct. >> he believed that in the system, the uni tearian theory carried weight. but here i don't think we have an administration advancing a principle. they said bob mueller can't testify, bill barr said he he was fine with it. it was only after bill barr testified and did so poorly making the case in front of congress that they yanked him from the game. this isn't about principle. >> let's unpack that. the way he got caught was by going too far. he got caught because after he did that, two letters from

robert mueller became public, in which robert mueller had been sounding the alarms about the distortion of the mueller investigation. you're right, that's the damage foundation. >> let's be clear what's happening here. bob mueller wrote a report that said that the president obstructed justice. >> ten times. >> exactly. he said it in a double negative. he said the president did not not obstruct justice. most of us don't understand double negatives, including myself. so it took a while for people to pick up the report. and all the while, bill barr is saying i don't see any issues of law or fact, he didn't do anything wrong, case closed. that phrase, case closed, is the phrase mitch mcconnell has been using in front of the congress. when it was brought up that bill barr mislead the congress and the american people, the president said, oh my god, the mask has been ripped off.

we have no game here. get that guy away from the hill, away from the cameras. i don't want anything to do with congressional oversight ever again. >> where do we go again? >> the house has to force its will, they have to hold the attorney general in contempt, which is sad. but they have to have stand up for article one branch of our government, the congress. if they don't, the system of checks and balances collapses nicole. >> it may happen in our hour that for the second time in this country's history a sitting attorney general. there was a vote for a resolution to then take this step to the full -- to the floor of congress. we are -- and sometimes we overdo this language, not you, but i do, we are in uncharted territory. >> we are. if the attorney general were to be held in contempt of congress, which is likely this afternoon, that's an extraordinary moment but it's not clear what the consequences for the attorney general would be also. does he wake up -- bill barr

wake up tomorrow he's still the attorney general, he's still going to take his orders from president trump, he's still going to do the work he's been doing to try to block congress from seeing any of these materials and it'll go on and on and on, so it falls to the judiciary eventually, as we were talking about, to create some checks and balances here. but it's not clear that anything congress can do will deter this attorney general and this administration. >> i understood, before the full report was out, that the justice department had some understanding that they -- their hand could be forced in terms of turning over underlying evidence or making mueller available if impeachment proceedings were to commence. what are you and your colleagues reporting about those conversations on capitol hill? >> that could be. that's one of the reasons you increasingly see democratic lawmakers talking about impeachment. in fact, speaker pelosi was over at "the washington post" this morning and did an interview

there, and said look the president is self-impeaching. it's not clear what that means but that's stronger language than we've heard from pelosi before and that would create a process where the materials could come forward. let's remember what the department of justice is withholding here. the mueller report is out in public but there are reams of evidence, transcripts of the interviews that they did that have not been made public that would provide more information and road maps on these ten examples of obstruction of justice than what we have and read in the mueller report. >> so jim comey wrote about a week ago one of the consequences, one of the by-products of service to donald trump, is that he eats your soul or they eat your soul -- somebody eats your soul, i don't remember. >> jim comey said that the president eats the souls of rod

rosenstein and john kelly and everyone. i think bill barr's soul was eaten previously. i think he joined looking to end this investigation for president trump. he showed up, and he did that that. and he's continuing to do the job despite the clear precedent of the hillary clinton investigation when congress asks for materials about the closed investigation, the department of justice turns it over. he's going to be the second cabinet official in history held in contempt, i worked for the first one, eric holder. he's not going to be the only one. i suspect you'll see treasury secret and acting homeland security and others because it's across the administration they're refusing to cooperate at all. it is the result of an administration in which none of the traditional incentives work. you can't shame them into

acting. others would turn it over not because they wanted to cooperate with congress but they were afraid of political shamed. and they were concerned about the future in the courts. president trump doesn't care about that. he cares about up to the 2020 election. >> you can already see some of the precedent being set in certain things, the way the white house has handled this, and the question is how far does that go down the road and then when it comes to the politics of it, the thing we don't know is all of us pay attention to this very closely, we tune in to the hearings all day and the nitty-gritty of everything, it's a real unknown how this plays among the average voter in 2020. whose message actually sinks in is the president successful in the way he's cast things and the democrats move to impeachment, they haven't done a good job saying why they might do that,

not just because they don't want donald trump in the white house anymore but because it's an investigative tool. have they messaged well enough? it's a real question mark. >> let's listen in. they're voting right now on that vote to hold the attorney general in contempt. >> mr. johnson of georgia votes aye. mr. dutch. mr. dutch votes aye. ms. bass? ms. bass votes aye. mr. richmond? mr. jeffreys? >> aye. >> mr. jeffreys votes aye. mr. cicilline votes aye. mr. swalwell? >> aye. >> mr. lieu? mr. lu votes aye. ms. democrings votes aye.

ms. a ray ya? >> aye. >> ms. scan lop? >> aye. >> ms. garcia? >> aye. >> mr. ga goose votes aye? ms. mcbeth votes aye. mr. stanton? >> aye. >> mr. stanton votes aye. ms. dean? >> aye. >> ms. dean votes aye. >> ms. mccarsal-powell? >> aye. >> ms. escobar? >> aye. >> mr. collins? >> no. >> mr. collins votes no. mr. sensen parener? >> no. >> mr. shabot? >> no. >> mr. gomer. >> no. >> mr. jordan? >> no. >> mr. buck?

>> no. >> mr. radcliffe? >> no. >> ms. robi? >> no. >> mr. gates? mr. johnson of louisiana? >> no. >> mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs. mr. biggs votescclintok? no. >> mr. cline? >> no. >> mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. >> mr. stubbe? mr. stubbe votes no. >> has everyone who wishes to be recorded been recorded? has the gentleman from tennessee been recorded?

does the gentleman from -- how does the gentleman from tennessee wish to be recorded? >> votes aye. >> gentleman from georgia? >> after the speeches today, i forgot -- am i recorded? in. >> mr. collins, you're recorded as no. >> thank you. >> madame clerk, how am i recorded? >> mr. nadler, you're recorded as aye. >> i wish to be recorded as aye. the gentle lady from texas. >> how am i recorded. >> ms. jackson-lee you are recorded as aye. >> i think that's correct. thank you. >> gentleman from ohio. how is the gentleman from ohio recorded? >> you're recorded as no. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from rhode

island? >> is it appropriate for us to enter into a colloquy in the middle of a vote or no? >> we're in the middle of the vote. >> how am i recorded. >> as aye. >> thank you, that's correct. >> the gentleman from louisiana? >> aye. >> mr. richmond votes aye. >> mr. chairman? >> who? the gentleman from maryland. >> can the clerk please tell me how i'm recorded? >> you're recorded as aye. >> thank you very much. >> who seeks recognition? how is mr. johnson of louisiana recorded? >> we're going to keep an eye on this. it seems like they're going around a second time. give me an idea what's going on

here. >> this is called the stall. people aren't there and some people may actually be -- may have actually voted to hold the attorney general in contempt, which is a very significant thing. it happens extremely rarely in our history. and it is a major moment, a milestone of congressional oversight over the trump administration. what chairman nadler is doing, he's asking everybody for their vote. the democrats all voted aye, the republicans all voted no. it seems a couple democrats haven't made their way to the hearing room they're asking everyone to restate their vote while they keep the vote open for everyone to show up. >> if you can jump in about the human side of this story, the stall. some of them making their way from other places in the capitol with the historic moment we just witnessed, second time in

history a sitting attorney general will be held in contempt of congress. >> at the time that holder, my former boss too. matt and i didn't quite overlap. when it made it to the floor of the house, 21 democrats voted for it because the nra had decided to score the vote. you're not going to find that here, i think, is a pretty safe bet. i think what's going to happen is you're going to see all the republicans in the house right now listening to the intoxicating siren song of president trump and being blinded to the misconduct and disrespect for their very body that he is sort of ushering in in our era of politics. the question i have, and all of us should have, will this outlive president trump? will this disregard of congress as an investigative party go on past president trump, or is it a blip that for four years or

eight years, whatever it is, decided to throw rule of law out the door. my hope is this ends with donald trump and the 230 year balance we've had between the various branchs of government will remain and we will make it through this. i hope we're not ushering in something unfortunate and dark about how the house -- the branchs of government interact with each other. that's what it seems to be like is happening here. >> matt miller a lot of pressure on the democrats because -- the democrats in congress, sort of the last men and women standing. the republicans have abdicated any responsibility for defending their branch of government as elliott said. they made their branch and they're going to lie with it until the end of time as trump zombies. but democrats get a lot of pressure from activists in the party, democrats today certainly on their way to doing something. >> they're caught in this vice where in this process they are

finding out they don't have a lot of power. if you faced an administration that doesn't play by the fra discussion traditional rules that you respond to subpoenas. but if they don't you have to go to the courts. so they're stuck with the best way to establish a court record is to go slow, build a case, try to negotiate with an administration but they're negotiating with an administration that only wants to drag things out. on the other side they can hold every official in contempt, go to court over everything, sue over everything, it probably makes your case weaker but when you're not playing against an administration playing by the rules i don't see how they don't take that approach. the checks and balances that have worked for 230 years is failing because one side is not playing by the rules you established. we need you to tell this administration in the

proceedings here and between the other committees tell them to make witnesses available, hand documents over. the house is going to have to be aggressive in litigating every one of these requests to get some sort of enforcement. >> it's stunning that the position of -- you want to listen to chairman nadler here? >> the gentle lady from washington? >> aye. >> the two of you are welcome to cast your votes. has anyone else who wishes to vote not voted yet? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 24 ayes and 16 no. >> the ayes have it and the

committee reported is reported favorably to the house. i recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from georgia. >> pursuant to clause 2 i give notice of intent to file decenting views for the inclusion into the report. >> it's duly noted. members have two days to submit views. the report will be submitted as a single amendment incorporating all objections. the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. this includes all of our business today. thanks to all for attending. we're adjourned. >> there you have it, the house judiciary committee voting just now to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress. carol lee, more history made on donald trump's watch. >> i think the question now is how far does all of this go? what do they do now? what else to what we were

talking about earlier, how much do the democrats decide that the way to fight this is to try to go toe-to-toe with the president. and, you know, they haven't really -- they seem to have been caught a little offguard by the way the white house has decided to play this. and so it's not clear they would have a strategy that's going to be effective when, as you were saying, we were trying to go up against somebody not playing by the rules because congress, as an institution, is its rules and procedures and those are their weapons. and, you know, this is a president that's shown that he can be effective in tearing those down. >> let's remind our viewers what this was about. this is about congressman nadler. you talked about the court fight, it's important to remind our viewers before our viewers remind me, congressman nadler has taken steps -- one of the legal standards, this is all about chairman nadler's request for an unredacted copy of the

mueller report, this is all about transparency, this is all about that cover story that was told which made the justice department's hill higher, the one they had to climb in terms of recapturing some of their credibility by hiding that, distorting that, in robert mueller's view, from the public. i think the imperative for democrats grew. today the house judiciary committee voting to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress for refusing to turn over an unredacted copy of the mueller report. >> for refusing to turn over the document and also for not showing up. he was asked to come testify, he said he would come testify. he testified before republican lindsey graham's committee and when it came time for the democrats to question him on the house side he said i'm not showing up. i think it's about the documents, it's also about testimony, where is this going? this is going to a full vote on the house floor where you'll see a party line vote where the house will hold bill barr in contempt. but this is a warmup for the

larger issue, a broader constitutional inquiry into the president's conduct, whether there were high crimes and misdemeanors, abused his oath of office, abused his power, which is the prelude to impeachment. if there are hearings, will the executive branch play ball? right now the trump administration's position is we're a banana republic. unless you can drag someone into the chair, handcuff behind their backs they're not going to answer your questions. there's no respect for the rule of law doctrine. the president has said we're a banana republic, not participating. and i think the democrats have to think long and hard, is this a moment where that in itself is an obstruction, an abuse of power that requires a constitutional reaction? >> i understand this -- who are the architects of the legal strategy. we talked about emmet flood this week because he's a member of

the white house counsel office who wrote a letter trashing robert mueller's conclusion of his investigation where he refused to exonerate and refused to recommend charges. is it possible that the white house had demanded more from mueller. that they wanted him to go so far as to offer that declination letter that came from rod rosenstein and william barr? >> i'm not sure the white house wanted that, but there are two arguments that you see the administration making one is emmet flood who's been working in the white house quietly for months creating a legal framework for this moment -- >> why is he there? who brought him there? >> he was brought in to help take control of the russia investigation and get things more orderly after the president's previous legal team -- >> by orderly you mean hide

things, button-down the hatches. >> exactly. that's why he was appealing to president trump and don mcghan because the president's other attorneys were wanting to cooperate with mueller and, in fact, waved executive privilege, including don mcghan to testify with mueller. emmet flood is a key comcompone. the other is pat sipiloni, signing these letters and doing a lot of interaction with congress. they've been preparing for this for many months and right now they're just executing their strategy. >> who would have thought those two men have as their legacy looking more hard core than john yoo. to explain the point of john yoo's analysis, he was so extreme, one of the most indefensible actors of the bush years not just for the substance of what he argued was legal but the aggressiveness he saw

executive power. you have two gentlemen way on the other side of the ledge from john yoo. >> by the end you'll see two more, william barr and steven engel in the office that john yoo worked in who will be offering aggressive olc memos and what the president can assert. i think the four of them, by the end of this, are going to succeed greatly in changing the balance of power forever or they're going to fail and it's going to be up to the courts to decide because the aggressive stances that they're taking, if they are blessed by the courts will forever change congressional oversight. could end congressional oversight. if if it stands you can blow off a congressional subpoena -- remember what they did today, they didn't assert executive privilege over a narrow scope of documents they said it applies

to all the documents in the mueller report -- >> and witnesses. >> yeah, and witnesses, witnesses that can come up and testify. if that stands those four individuals i think will be the architect of a change in the constitution of this country. >> let me ask you one thing, so the courts rule on this, and they order the executive branch to comply with the subpoena or produce documents or testimony, what if the white house says no? is this not a banana republic. >> that's where you have your constitutional c constitutional crisis. the andrew jackson quote, now let them enforce it? >> isn't that why taking impeachment off the table is like asking democrats to go to battle in a banana republic with their hands tied their bank? the only thing donald trump is afraid of is the television of impeachment, not impeachment. i was told 18 months ago he was

aware of bill clinton's numbers in the middle of the impeachment, he was at 67%. meanwhile, donald trump has never or will ever seen 67%. he watched christine blasey ford and was so moved by her performance, never mind it was the telling of the most horrific moment of her life that he was almost swayed on brett kavanaugh. i don't know that this is about what it should be about for donald trump, it's always about the show. >> unless congress is able to conduct oversight, perform its constitutional responsibilities, unless court orders are respected, temporary retrainistg orders are respected by the executive branch, we don't live in a democracy. maybe that's donald trump's america, an extreme way of putting it. but that's what's at stake here?

>> if those are stakes, why is impeachment such a hard question for democrats. >> i don't think it's off the table forever for democrats. i think the question is how far will the executive branch push congress? if there are contempt votes after contempt votes if the executive branch doesn't comply with any process, then congress has no choice but to investigate to abuse of power, abuse of oath of office and that leads to impeachment hearings. >> phil, do you have any faith they're going to wake up tomorrow and say, what's this for? this is for children in jail we'll do this. what makes them turn the boat around? >> i don't know that they're going to. keep in mind the democrats are doing this because of the midterm elections in november. the american people had a popular mandate to have a check on this administration's power. there's a legislative branch and executive branch and the

american people wanted z somebody else in charge of the legislative branch, that's why jerry nadler has the gavel and that's why he's empowered to -- >> while they ran on sort of their capacity to do both, to protect people's health care, voters are very smart. you were talking about how much seeps through. i get whacked on the head with a 2 by 4 when i say voters won't read the mueller report. they know what's going on. they want to decide what's going on for themselves, they don't want us to tell them. but they're paying close attention t attention to all of this, but they also want policies like health care and increased minimum wage and those things to happen at the same time. >> none of that is happening. and it's not going to happen. meanwhile, while all of this is going on and it's very important, you know, they're not doing any of those things.

this is a president who ran on -- he wants infrastructure, that's not going to happen. he got this great deal with mexico and canada, that has to go through congress, that's not going to happen. so what he can go and sell to voters and looming a big fight with china, how does that pay out? what's the economy look like by the time they get around. it's not just the president but republicans pay a price. >> for doing nothing. >>ing for doing nothing -- >> this was a very -- >> they may not pay the price now, but in the next election. >> to move a contempt citation against the attorney general of the united states. we did not relish doing this, but we have no choice. attorney general barr, having proved himself to be the personal attorney to president trump rather than the attorney general of the united states, by misleading the public as to the

contents of the mueller report twice, by not being truthful with congress, has shown himself to be the personal attorney of the united states rather than the attorney general. now he has taken a much greater step farther in turning the entire department of justice into an instrument of -- of trump personally rather than an instrument of justice and a representative of the united states. by seeking to evade, to bar all subpoenas, and the president said it, that they will resist all subpoenas, not just with reference to the mueller report or to the russian attack on our democracy, but with reference to anything. with reference to the department of justice's turn around on their position in court on the affordable care act. to references of investigations

of security clearances. to references to the -- the decisions to tear babies away from their mothers at the borders, to everything. they are uniformly rejecting subpoenas from congress. this means that they have decided to oppose the role of congress as a coordinate branch of government representing the american people. they are stone walling the american people from information. this cannot be. we cannot have a government where all the information is in the executive branch. where america and congress are stone walled from information they need to make decisions and know what they need. while this is stone walling information with respect to the russian attack on our democracy of 2016, with respect to the president's campaign,

cooperation with that attack. to the president's obstruction of justice in seeking to stop the investigation of that attack, it goes far broader than that. it's an attack on the ability of the american people to know what the executive branch is doing and to have responsible government. it is an attack on the essence of our democracy, and we must oppose this with every fiber of our being. that's why we today referred a contempt citation to the house floor. the house will have to vote that contempt citation to begin the court battle. there can be no higher stakes than this attempt to -- to arrogate all power to the executive branch, away from congress and more important away from the american people. we've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis, we are now in it.

we are now in a constitutional crisis. benjamin franklin in 1787 was asked, what type of government have you given us, sir, by a woman who asked him the question, he said a republic ma'am, if you can keep it. now is the time of testing whether we can keep a republic or whether this republic is destined to change into a more ta rant cal form of government as others have over the centuries. we must resist this, this is broader than republican or democratic or the rights of congress, this is whether we can put limits on the president, any president, and hold the president, any president, accountab accountable. that's what's at stake here we cannot flinch. >> if you're in a constitutional crisis why are you resisting moving forward with impeachment? >> well, i'm not going to talk

about impeachment but the short answer is, that may not be the best answer in this constitutional crisis. there are a lot of considerations for that and that may not be the best answer for this constitutional crisis. >> what would be the best answer? >> if you're not talking about impeachment right now, this goes to the floor next week -- >> this will go to the floor rapidly, i don't know if it's next week but it'll be on the floor soon. >> how does that work with possibly don mcghan, how do you balance that? >> we'll see what happens. we're still planning to have mr. mcgahn appear before us, have mr. mueller appear before us. the president has made that more difficult by ordering mueller not to appear and by ordering mcgahn not to submit documents we've subpoenaed. the white house makes a

nonsensical claim this morning, they say they're executive privilege. most of them are not executive privilege. and remember something about executive privilege. it's not -- it's not a blanket bar. nixon -- in the nixon case, the tapes, you all remember or have read about the tapes, these were the most sensitive to executive privilege. they were private conversations between the president and his advisers and the supreme court ruled 8 to nothing that the interest to the public and justice and accountability outweighed the interest of the president and privacy and ordered those tapes revealed. of course, when the tapes were revealed it heads led to nixon' resignation. number two, executive privilege is designed to get candor to the president once his advisers advise him.

once the president said it's okay to share that information with the mueller investigation, with your private attorney, with whoever, once it's been published, there is no more privilege because it's done already. everything we have requested, the unredacted part -- all the material in the redacted parts of the mueller report, all the material we requested in the various subpoenas, none of it is privileged because all of it they waived the privilege by enabling it to go public to mueller or whoever. so it's a nonsense claim. we will win these court fights because the law is one sided. and when the president or attorney general barr or anybody else cites executive privilege in these cases, they are not being honest. they're not being honest because there's no real claim at all. >> are we to perceive this as a -- is there going to be a court fight you'll be fighting as a civil contempt them?

is there any criminal part of this? >> it'll probably be a civil contempt. >> why not go with -- some of your colleagues have suggested -- >> well, i don't want -- i don' >> well, i don't want to answer that question, because i'm not sure we won't. >> reporter: you are not sure you will go ahead? >> that's right. >> reporter: you said the president recorded mueller to not require, you said last week mueller should not testify? >> yes. >> reporter: how would that meet that if mueller -- [ inaudible ] no. >> it's ongoing. >> reporter: are you going to court and ask the judge to unseal the grand jury? >> yes, we will. >> now in every prior case, the attorney general has joined the judiciary committee or i think sometimes other committees, joint congress in asking for a

grand jury material, in every case, or the all the major cases that it's been granted, the attorney general, this attorney general, barr, simply said he won't do that. he's not given a reason why he won't do it, why it's breaking precedent and refusing to support what will be our application for that, for the grand jury information. he has not said he'll oppose it. he said either they will oppose it or take no position. but every, in every previous case, the attorney general has joined the committee in requesting the release of that grand jury information. and it's always been granted to the committee and the committee handled it responsibly, it hasn't been leaked and it's been used properly. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> reporter: will you issue subpoenas to the other four former white house officials? >> when it seems most advisable to do so. >> reporter: this rule of

invoking executive privilege is a chilling factor? >> of course. we're concerned. we're concerned that the president's declaration and the apparent, up, up, intention to deny all information is going to be a chilling effect or more. remember, in every case that people have talked about, whether it be former attorney general holzer or last year, when this committee under a republican controlled demand, all sorts of grand jury information and fbi interviews and all sorts of things that were given 880,000 pages, in every situation, there has been an accommodation and there has been more or less information given. this year, we have gotten not one page of information in respect, in reference, in response, rather, to any subpoena, nor have any other committees in the house. there have been absolutely not

one single page has been given, total stonewalling of congress, a total stonewalling of the american people. and that is an assertion of tyrannical power by the president and it cannot be allowed to stand. the american people have to have a government responsive to them. and that means the president and the congress. >> reporter: the facts gathering towards impeachment -- nauk. [ inaudible ] ? >> i see this as a fact gathering which may or may not lead to that. as i said many times, we need the facts. all the information and decisions like that or other things will be made down the road when we have the facts. >> if you can't get the facts, how are you going to -- >> we are going to have to insist on getting the fact. thank you very much. >> that was chairman nadler declaring that we are in a constitutional crisis.

carol, we cut you off right before we went to the chairman. there you have it. we have been talking about it all hour. >> he was quite sober in his remarks. he not only said we are in a constitutional crisis. he said democrats, it's not a time to back down. he laid down the stakes of what he sees is at risk. >> that is what we have all been talking about, that congress can be iend of a neutered bran -- kind of a neutered branch of government. he was defiant. obviously, he said this will move to the house and we will pass a full house quickly. where do they go next? he seems to at least in the way he was speaking, he seemed to think they need to come up, have in mind something methodical and calculated in that it was a time when democrats needed to really stand their ground. >> the twin breaking news headlines of our hour, we thank the news desk for them, chairman nadler declaring we are now in a constitutional crisis and the

republican-led intel committee subpoenaing donald trump, jr. >> a very interesting move. remember, donald trump, jr., did not speak with mueller, he might have gone with the grand jury and taken the fifth. he didn't take the testimony by the end of the information. i think he has been suspended where he voluntarily came in, means they voluntarily asked him to come in and they sent a subpoena. i think he testified in his own interview he was peripherally aware of the trump tower deal in moscow. it turns out he was briefed a number of times about michael cohen to turn over the definition of peripheral is. i suspect they want him to come back and explain his true involvement in that trump tower moscow deal. it could be something else that they think he testified falsely to them that they want him to come in and testify about. now we want to see if he will defy the subpoena as the trump

administration at large is willing to. >> did he lie in. >> i think on this definition of peripherally. he gave a generous definition of his involvement that probably misled them. it's a long way from misleading them and proving perjury, which is a very, very high bar. >> i ask why they all lie. he said because bad people lie. it would appear there is beyond debate that people all lie to everybody. >> they lie because the president lies and the president expects the people for him to lie. this is just the culture of defection he claimed for anybody reading the mueller report to gather. we will probably see it continuing. one thing to underscore on that don, jr. subpoena, that was the republican committee and senate chairman, richard burr, a republican of north carolina. it's not a presidential move, the president's own party. >> chairman nadler announcing we are in a constitutional crisis. the president's son, donald trump, jr. suspended, as the

record adequately points out by a republican-led senate committee. >> we are looking at days, weeks, months, of congressional squabbles in this administration. i think if the administration is able to stand its ground in its mind and not par the is pa it in any congressional oversight, we will remain in a constitutional crisis all the way up to the next election. >> ali, you get the last word. >> well, thank you so much. so here's the thing. on this question of constitutional crisis. i don't want to whip up alarm here about the president or anything like that. i'm not convinced once this goes to the court that the president actually adheres to a court order. the president like i said have spent so much energy beating up congress' right to be an investigative body and attacking courts that have ruled against them and so on. what is to stop the president, if there is a court order, mr. barr, you need to go testify, or mr. mcgahn, you are ordered to provide the documents. the administration says we're

not going to comply. i think that's the crisis. we now have just an executive branch that doesn't respect the other branches of government. period. >> we're going to take our break on that period. don't go anywhere, breaking news coverage right after this. don'ts coverage right after this. you know, maybe you'd worry less if you got geico to help with your homeowners insurance. i didn't know geico could helps with homeowners insurance. yep, they've been doing it for years. what are you doing? big steve? thanks, man. there he is. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and renters insurance. trust us. us kids are ready to take things into our own hands. don't think so? hold my pouch. ♪

corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance.

the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. thank you so much to all of our guests, just roll with the punches when news breaks like that. thank you for watching with us. you are in for a treat, mtp daily with my colleague chuck todd picks up all that breaking news. >> i don't think we will have room for advertisers these days. good evening, i'm chuck todd, as nicole said we are breaking two news stories, somewhat related, somewhat different. moments ago the house judiciary committee voted to keep bill barr in contempt for redacting the full mueller report and the underlying every day. >> that means this will go to the full house for a