i've enjoyed it, and today i have -- >> there you go, minus one for soul cycle. >> my chip against chick-fil-a is more perm to me. >> thanks for joining us. that is all this evening. rachel maddow show starts right now. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. today's news brings us yet further support for the contention that you can get a heck of a lot more information about our federal government now by watching what they do rather than by listening to what they say. it is always, always, always true every single day this administration is in place but never more so than today. in today's news a new example. regardless of anything the president said or says from here on out we now know from watching what they do that what will go down in history books about this time in american history is that four days after the worst terrorist attack ever against

latinos in the united states and on the actual day the president was in el paso, the cite site o massacre supposedly comforting that city that had 22 innocent people gunned down in cold blood because the gunman said he wanted to stop a hispanic invasion of immigrants and save the white race from a hispanic immigration invasion. on the day the president did make his trip to el paso, he did say words. and the trump white house said more words about what that visit meant and why the president went there and how it should make us think or feel about the president's reaction to that crime. yes, there were plenty of words. if you ignore them, though, which i strongly suggest you make a habit of doing, if you look instead at what they did, we now know what they did in response to that massacre is that the president's campaign affirmed that in fact they're still going to leave out their millions of dollars worth of

facebook ads that rail about an invasion of immigrants at the border just like the el paso shooter's dia tribe said. that's one thing they did in response. yeah, we're going to leave up those ads, that rhetoric that the campaign shooter quoted as his justification for killing those 22 people. and in addition to that we now know that regardless of whatever they've said, whatever the administration wanted us to think about what they did in the wake of that massacre, what they actually did in the wake of that massacre, what we can see now that they did is that they chose the moment when the president would be visiting el paso in response to this anti-hispanic, anti-immigrant terrorist attack there. the trump administration chose that moment to do something. to not just say something, to do something. they chose that moment to launch the biggest anti-immigrant raid in u.s. history, descending in force on meat processing plants

in mississippi and arresting nearly 700 men and women without warning. leaving among other things the kids of those people who they arrested in school or at day care or at home or wandering in the streets with no idea of what to do or where to go with their parents suddenly taken away. little kids our put up in a community center in forest, mississippi, when that town realized what had happened and they turned their community center into a makeshift emergency shelter for these kids from their town who suddenly had no parents. a local 24-hour gym turned itself into a shelter as well. when nobody knew what else to do. and people in that community came forward to the gym to donate food for the kids so that at least while they were holed up in the 24-hour gym in town they could have dinner. the only reason they have that

place to go is because the owner of the gym decided he would let them stay there for a while. >> immigration and customs enforcement handcuffed hundreds of immigrant workers and loaded them onto buses as coworkers and family members watched in disbelief. >> reporter: kids left not knowing where their parents were being taken. this 11-year-old says her father was among those detained. jordan barns opened up his gym to children with nowhere to go. >> the kids should be the main priority. if we all put the kids first and do what we can to help them to make this less painful as possible for them. >> reporter: tonight this woman tells us her husband is among those still detained. she says she's been in the u.s. for 24 years. this church now a sanctuary for those in limbo like this 1-year-old girl. the priest tells us her mother

is in custody. he's taking care of the baby as the father tries to find his wife. >> that's gabe gutierrez reporting tonight for nbc nightly news. after these mass raids that were launched yesterday while the president was in el paso, these mass arrests, the trump administration eventually released a few hundred of the people they had arrested and taken away. which of course raises the question as to whether they had any idea who they were arresting in the first place, why they swooped in and arrested those particular people in the first place, particularly when it's evident they had zero plan for what would happen to those peoples families, their homes, even their babies and their little kids. but, again, regardless of whatever they say and whatever comes out of the president's mouth, this is the story of how our government responded to an anti-immigrant massacre committed by someone who quoted the words of the president's re-election campaign about

needing to stop an immigrant invasion. our government's response to that, the trump administration's response to that mass killing was to leave up the president's re-election campaign ads that decried immigrant invasion and the administration mounted their biggest show of force yet against immigrants including literally leaving kids crying in parking lots looking for their parents because the trump administration just wanted to make a big show of taking their parents away, whether or not they even wanted to keep them. so that is how this will look in history. i don't know that anything said by this administration or spoken by this president will ultimately make it into this generation's alma nack of what happened in our country in our time. but the government and the president's campaign responding like this to this terrorist attack against latinos and immigrants, this will make the history books. the administration responding with the biggest ever anti-immigrant raid to the first

ever anti-latino, anti-immigrant gun massacre in this country, this will be history. this will go down in history as what our government did. and of course whatever we are all doing right now as citizens in our own lives will also be our own personal history of what it was we were doing at this time in our country's life, when our country was doing this. absolutely astonishing. it was 45 years ago today that president richard nixon resigned as president of the united states. it was something no president had ever done before, and of course it is something that no president has done since. >> therefore i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. the vice president will be sworn in as president at that hour in this os. >> it was 45 years ago today

president nixon resigning. and of course he resigned because he had lost in the courts in his effort to keep secret both from congress and from the public the evidence that would ultimately show him obstructing justice in the watergate scandal. not only his complicity in the watergate and related crimes, but more importantly his key role in orchestrating the cover-up of those crimes and his efforts to stymie or -- or elude or divert the investigation into those crimes. the courts breaking the seal on that evidence against nixon. that in turn broke the seal on what had been a fairly impenetrable defense around president nixon in the congress formed by members of his own republican party. when the courts let the evidence against nixon be heard, the congress heard it just like the public did. the republican wall in congress that had been defending and protecting nixon for so long, that finally started to crumble, and at that point nixon knew that he wasn't going to have a

future as president. and so he left on his own terms, resigning 45 years ago exactly. now, today coincidently on that 45-year anniversary the prospects of impeachment proceedings against our current president, president trump have just taken a great leap forward. over the past week you may have heard the news when we crossed the numerical threshold that meant the majority of democrats in congress at least support opening impeachment proceedings on president trump. there's now 120 democrats who say they support an impeachment inquiry. some other accounts have it at 118 or 120 or 121. but it's where we're at. but more than this numerical majority of democrats saying they're interested in pursuing impeachment proceedings, the

actual wheels of the process, of potentially impeaching donald trump, that -- those wheels are now rolling. that process has now started. and there's a few different things going on here. we're going to go through them tonight one by one. tonight i have to tell you as well we've got two key interviews stacked up ahead with two absolutely central figures in this fight and in this story. so tonight's going to be sort of an important show on this important thing that is happening right now. i hope you can stay with us for the whole hour tonight in large part because i really want you to see both of these interviews. you know i don't say things like that often. so when i do say it, you know i mean it. so we are going to get to those two very key interviews. but you should know all these things that have suddenly stacked up and including a couple of very important things that have happened today. the first thing to know about in terms of what's going on here, the dam seems to have broken a bit when it comes to a central investigative issue, maybe the

central investigative issue that the president appears to be most concerned about and something he's been trying to hold back, that he's been trying to keep secret, that he's been trying to keep private. but he is now losing that fight. one of the surprise revelations from the mueller report and from mueller's testimony to congress was that mueller and his team didn't do a financial investigation pertaining to the president, his business, his family. although robert mueller repeatedly asserted unequivocally that financial entang lts particularly secret financial entanglements are a primary means of foreign governments compromising u.s. persons, gaining leverage over americans including people in u.s. politics. mueller asserted any such investigation into the president, into whether president trump might have had those kind of compromising financial ties, that was viewed in the special counsel's office they saw that as a counter intelligence matter and not what they were doing, and so they didn't do it. if there were illegal or illicit

or even just secret dealings involving foreign entities that could be traced through the president's personal and business finances, that obviously would be of serious national security interests, serious counter intelligence interests. it would be a very important thing to know particularly if it involves any foreign entity, whether or not the president had secret financial ties to that entity which might explain why they were so interested ipputtiin putting him in the white house. a serious potential compromise involving the president of the united states and a hostile foreign power that inexplicably tried to elect him, that would be important to know about. but we now know mueller and his team didn't go there, didn't look at it. having had that clarification from mueller about what his team didn't do, democrats in congress promptly said that, oh, well, if mueller didn't do this, they will do it. and now they are doing it. and the president of course has been pulling out all the stops to do anything and everything

that he can to block that, to try to stop his financial records and his banking records and his tax records from being handed over and examined. i mean, the president literally hired a whole new legal team just to fight to keep his finances secret, just to keep his taxes and his banking records and his financial records under wrap. and that team, that's all they're working on for the president. they have been really racking up the billable hours. i'm not even sure this is complete list, but off the top of my head we know the president has sued new york state to try to keep his tax returns and financial records secret. just this past week the president has sued the state of california to try to keep his tax returns secret. the president has sued the ways and means committee in the house to try to keep his tax returns secret. the president has sued the chairman of the oversight committee to try to keep his tax returns and financial records secret. he's even sued his own accounting firm and his own bank

and a second bank all to try to keep his tax returns and financial records secret. he's sparing no expense here, right? that is lot of lawsuits. there might be others i'm forgetting. but whether or not he's going to win every single one of those cases and statistically speaking that might be difficult, it's possible we now know that none of those lawsuits in the end may matter the way the president wants them to matter. because today "the wall street journal" reports even if the president won every single one of those myriad lawsuits he filed trying to keep secret his taxes and financial records, those materials he's trying to keep secret might have already flown the coop, they might already be out there. quote, major wall street banks have given congressional committees investigating president trump thousands of pages of documents related to russians who may have had dealings with mr. trump's family or business. the banks are also giving documents related to mr. trump's business to new york state

investigators. quote, wall street firms including bank of america, citi group have all provided documents to investigators. deutsche bank has turned over e-mails, documents remt today the trump business, the trump organization. quote, although president trump has filed several lawsuits seeking to block lawmakers and states from getting access to his bank, accounting and tax records the documents being provided by the banks could give investigators some of the same information mr. trump is trying to block. and again what this wall street journal report is saying today is not just that congressional committees and some states are seeking these materials about the president's finances from major banks. what this report from "the wall street journal" today says is that they sought them and they're now getting them. and this includes information on loans and mortgages and

applications for financing and also reportedly specifically includes information on russian business people potentially connected to the president and his businesses. so as i said there's a number of things going on here. that is one important thing that is going on here. whatever is happening within the president's financial history, whatever is happening that is evident in his banking and financial and tax records that he seems to be so freaked out about, that he seems to be willing to go to any lengths and any expense to try to keep secret, it appears those records by and large are not staying secret. that stuff is underway. that horse is on its way out of the barn and mostly out. so that's one thing going on. second, we have also just had a big leap forward in terms of testimony and evidence about the president potentially being unblocked by the courts. as we reported here on this show last night, the judiciary committee has now filed a really important lawsuit to compel the testimony of the most cited key

witness in mueller's investigation. former white house counsel don mcgahn. the committee chairman, jerry nadler is going to be here live in just a couple of minutes. he's one of those two interviews we've lined up for the show tonight. mr. nadler and his committee clearly see this lawsuit they have just filed concerning don mcgahn's testimony, they clearly see this as kind of their big cuhoona. they believe this effort to force mcgahn to testify will not only succeed but if it does it'll essentially be the key that unlocks all the other witnesses they want to talk to. and that will thereby setup all the hearings they want to hold about the president's behavior. so those things are both happening sort of now all of a sudden. but one of the other things you should know about, what they've just done with this lawsuit is that for all the huffing and puffing and barrels of ink

spilled and pointless panel conversations about whether or not president trump will be the next president to face impeachment, right, all the breath expended on whether or not the democrats will try to impeach trump, that question has now pretty much been answered. it's like we spent so much time asking the question no one noticed when the answer finally came. but that question is now answered in the plain language of this lawsuit about don mcgahn's testimony. even more so than the language we saw from the judiciary committee when nadler and committee asked a judge to release to them the rest of the mueller report for the purposes of their potential impeachment investigation. i mean that was a pretty good sign. but even more explicitly than that, chairman nadler and his committee now say they are looking at potential articles of impeachment against the president. they have started impeachment proceedings against the president. it's happening. it's on. quoting from the lawsuit, the judiciary committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president based on the

obstructive conduct described by the special counsel. it cannot fulfill this most solemn constitutional responsibility without hearing testimony from namely former white house counsel donald f. mcgahn. they put an even finer point on it. here, quote, the judiciary committee is conducting an investigation to understand the scope and extent of misconduct by president trump. and that investigation includes consideration of whether the committee should exercise its article i powers to recommend articles of impeachment. in asking the court explicitly to intervene, to compel don mcgahn to testify the committee puts an even finer oint on it. quote, each day mcgahn refuses to testify the judiciary committee is deprived of its ability to carry out the significant article i task to recommend whether the president be impeached and potentially

removed from office. so we've got them getting the financial records despite everything trump is doing to help them not get the financial record. we've got them going to court to compel the testimony of all the witnesses they want to hear from about the president's potentially impeachable behavior. and, you know, we've had all of these months of all this blah, blah, blah, do you support impeaching president trump or not, should the democrats try it, is it risky if mitch mcconnell is not -- after all the blah, blah, blah for what is it a year? it's happening now, it's under way. there is an impeachment investigation of president donald j. trump under way right now based on large part on the findings of robert mueller's report. and you might have expected this was coming given a majority of democrats in the house supported such an inquiry and the chairman has said all along he's happy to follow the facts wherever they lead. but stick a pin in it, it is now

happening. it is now under way. and in addition to lof that coming together this week there now today is one final piece of this which is totally unexpected but pulls in exactly the same direction. and that story is next. exactly direction. and that story is next ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ of course he's got plans. with labor day deals starting from 20% off, bookers are leaving summer with no regrets. it's labor day! book a place to stay and be a booker at booking.com.

book a place to stay and be a booker staining be done... behr presents: outdone yourself. and stay done through every season. behr semi-transparent stain. find it exclusively at the home depot. let's cowboy up! exhilarating speed. woo! precision control. woo! maximum reliability. access denied. [ repeats ] access denied.

if it's not xfinity xfi, it's not good enough. for wifi with super powers, get xfinity xfi. and go see, fast & furious presents, hobbs & shaw. now playing. everyone uses their phone differently and in different places. that's why xfinity mobile created a wireless network that auto connects you to millions of secure wifi hot spots. and the best lte everywhere else. xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money.

click, call or visit a store today. the house of representatives is now moving forward with an impeachment investigation of president trump. that fact confirmed in court filings yesterday and now confirmed explicitly by judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler tonight. we're going to be speaking live about that in just a moment. second and apart from those proceedings, though, there's a set of separate potent allegations that have just been made against the president that could open up a whole new can of worms for this administration. this lawsuits come by two new lawsuits that have been just brought by two senior fbi figures who were key to that investigation, who were subsequently vilified and hounded and publicly attacked by the president until they were ultimately fired by the fbi by

the president both demanded it and cheered for it. those two officials have now brought lawsuits against the administration in part to get their job back, to establish what ought to be obvious which you shouldn't be able to be fired like that for those reasons in that way. but also they're making serious allegations about the president's behavior in each of their cases. andrew mccabe's former acting director of the fbi, he became acting director after the president fired james comey. peter struck was the senior counter intelligence agent at the fbi. now within two days of one another this week they have both brought lawsuits saying they want re-dress, they want reinstatement. in peter struck's case he wants a jury trial to air out what happened to him and when and why and what he thinks it means. what mccabe and struck are each alleging in these lawsuits is a similarly described pattern of

behavior by the president that they're not saying this, but it is my analysis that that sort of behavior by the president could very well find its way into its own article or articles of impeachment if in fact the house draws up such articles and if these are substantiated by the lawsuits brought by mccabe and struck. listen to this in peter struck's complaint. quote, the decision to fire special agent struck was the result of unrelenting pressure from president trump and his political allies in congress and the media. the campaign to fire struck included constant tweets and other disparaging tweets by the president as well as direct appeals from the president to then attorney general jeff sessions and fbi director chris wray to fire struck. the concerted public amcampaign to disparage and ultimate elafire special agent struck was enabled by the defendant's deliberate and unlawful disclosure to the media of texts intended to be private in violation of the privacy act.

the fbi fired agent struck because of his protected political speech and violation of rights under the constitution. the trump administration consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees as long as this speech praises president trump and attacks his political adversaries. for example, president trump rejected the recommendation of the office of special counsel that advisor kellyanne conway be removed from her job for repeatedly violating the hatch act, for attacking vice president biden and publicly advocating for and against various senate candidates. although mrs. conway may be the highest profile trump administration employee to violate the hatch act with impunity she is far from the only one. while special agent struck and others who express negative opinions of president trump have been subject to administrative punishments of various degrees of vuverity no actions have been taken against fbi agents who

expressed harsh criticism of secretary of state hillary clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign or those in the field office of the fbi who leaked negative information about secretary clinton to the trump campaign in the weeks before the election. this viewpoint discrimination is part of a broader campaign against the very principle of free speech underlying the first amendment initiated and led by a president who has repeatedly attacked the press as the enemy of the people, urged censorship of opinions which he deems insufficient wantly flatter [withdrawal of security critics of clinics, including special agent struck who present no risk to national security. that's the lawsuit just brought against the trump administration by peter struck who you may remember was the go-to counter russian intelligence agent at the top of the fbi who played a key role in the russia fbi investigation. he run out on a rail and had his career destroyed by the trump administration. it remains one of the largest scandals of the whole trump

presidency, the scandal hiding in plain sight that the president reached down into law enforcement and intelligence agencies and one by one by one singled out and peeled off and destroyed basically all the leaders and key agents who played key roles in recognizing what russia was doing to try to get trump elected and who tried to investigate trump's own knowledge of or role in that plot. in addition to peter struck who suffered that fate at the fbi, so did andrew mccabe who was deputy director and acting director of the agency. today he filed his own lawsuit. his suit if anything is even more pointed about the president. plaintiff mccabe is the former deputy director of the fbi and career civil servant. he believes the u.s. government remains a government of laws and not of men. and he's brought this case to remedy defendant's unlawful retaliation of his refusal to pledge allegiance to a single man. impeachment proceedings for all intents and purposes have begun. the evidence about the president's conduct is being

freed up and made available despite the president's best efforts to keep that stuff secret. and now separate and apart from that in a totally separate sphere, the acting fbi director and the top counter russian intelligence officer who played a role in the russia investigation within two days of each other, they have both gone to court signaling that they are going to get the story told of what happened to them, of how the president came after them and why. it's all happening all at once. all systems go. joining us now is goldman who's an attorney for peter struck throughout this ordeal and in this new case. mr. goldman, i know you're not super eager to do media at any time. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> your client mr. struck served in the fbi for more than 20 years. can you talk about the decision process and when he decided he'd sue that institution he called home for so many years? >> it wasn't easy for him. he's devoted his entire adult

life to protecting this country from its foreign enemies and he has an incredible amount of affection for the institution. so this runs counter to some of his instincts, but he's doing this for the other men and women who serve this country faithfully for the fbi and should not have their constitutional rightso b overwritten by someone determined to turn the entire executive branch into his personal weapon to use against his political adversaries. >> does the president have the right to reach down into law enforcement agencies including the fbi and pluck out individual officials or agents who he believes are biased, who he believes have political views that will affect their work? >> well, there's an act passed by congress that governs what kind of political speech federal employees can and cannot

exercise. and pete's political speech in this case falls primarily against the permissible kind. there's a process for that in each agency. the fbi has its own process. in this case pete struck actually engaged in that process and we went through it, and there's a woman who is the assistant director who's known throughout the bureau actually as kind of a hard ass. and she made the decision pete shouldn't be fired. he should be demoted from the senior executive service, they should have a two-month suspension. and that's something pete accepted and was willing to take that to motion. and then after we'd already had a decision from the assistant director, after we already had a signed agreement, then the deputy director stepped in last minute and overruled that decision and reversed it and said pete had to be fired. something i don't know of ever happening before. and certainly not unrelated to

the, you know, dozens of hate tweets that president trump directed pete's way. >> one of the other serious allegations in your lawsuit is that the texts which mr. struck expressed his political opinions about president trump but also criticizing people like bernie sanders and eric holder and other people in politics, those texts were improperly and perhaps illegally made public. do you know who in the justice department or who in the fbi chose to release those materials to the press either unofficially or with what was ultimately essentially an overt publication of those materials? >> we don't know, but we intend to find out. it's clear that those texts were unlawfully leaked, violated the privacy act. the media got them before even the jurisdictional committees of congress got them, and there's no exception under the privacy act allowing for that kind of

record to be leaked to the media. >> one brief last question for you. is there any connection between your client's lawsuit, peter struck's lawsuit and the lawsuit that makes some parallel claims, it has the same defendants listed from former deputy director mccabe. it was filed within a couple of days, and i think myself and a lot of people are reading a lot of similarities in terms of what's alleged by misbehavior by the administration in the two cases. >> there are definitely similarities but there's definitely no connection until today. i didn't know andy mccabe was filing this lawsuit. >> thank you for joining us tonight. we'll be watching routinely. much more ahead tonight. stay with us. g routinely. much more ahead tonight. stay with us usic playing ] mm, uh, what do you do for fun? -not this. ♪ -oh, what am i into? mostly progressive's name your price tool. helps people find coverage options based on their budget. flo has it, i want it, it's a whole thing,

and she's right there. -yeah, she's my ride. this date's lame. he has pics of you on his phone. -they're very tasteful.

dprevagen is the number onemild. memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

it is one of the tastier euphemisms in politics i think just because it's so shameless. they call it the district work period, which is hailarious. in august you must go do lots of work in your district. really, that's your work period? what the district work period really is the gone fishing sign for congress. they hung out that sign and left town on july 29th expecting to be gone for the end of july, the entire month of august and a good chunk of september. nice if you can get it, right? congress does get lots of breaks throughout the year. but this district work period, their summer vacation is their longest break.

that said, though, congress might be coming back sooner than expected. in part to address potential gun reform after this week's mass shootings. and it seems like that same committee that could soon be handling gun reform may also be talking about something equally dramatic in the very near term and the chairman of that committee joins us next. rm and the chairman of that committee joins us next. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer.

plus no payments for up to 90 days. doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu. you're saying this is exactly the same as what we all call formal impeachment proceedings by a another name? >> this is formal impeachment proceedings. we are investigating all the evidence. we gather the evidence and we will at the conclusion of this hopefully by the end of the year vote to -- vote articles of impeachment to the house floor or we won't. that's a decision we'll have to make. but that -- >> this is formal impeachment proceedings, according to the man who gets to say whether or not that is so. the chairman of the judiciary

committee congressman jerry nadler of new york who joins us here now live on set. it's nice to see you. >> good tattoo see you. >> you said earlier this evening this should be seen as what we colloquial colloquially describe as impeachment proceedings. why has this been fuzzy as whether or not they're under way? >> i don't think we should get hung up on semantics. we've made it clear the committee is holding an investigation. we're looking into the various charges of malfeasance, obstruction of justice, abuse of power by the president. and we are considering what to do about it including possible voting of articles of impeachment. >> when you said that you expect there will be a vote before the end of the year on whether or not to approve articles of impeachment. >> well, if we decide to do articles of impeachment we'll have a vote.

if not, we won't have a vote. >> why the end of the year your time frame? >> it's an assumption to how long these court fights will take and hearings with witnesses. we'll spend i assume september and october on hearings with witnesses we don't have to get through compulsory process in court. hopefully the court proceedings will get us the witnesses like mcgahn and others after the end of october. and if that is correct, then that's an approximate time frame. >> and this lawsuit that you filed this week to try to compel don mcgahn's testimony, to try to make him respect your subpoena, i been describing this -- and i realize i'm describing this on the basis of other people like me describing this and i should check it out with you -- but the way i look at this is this is about getting mcgahn's testimony but it seems to me through this lawsuit you were essentially trying to unlock what has been blocking other witnesses from testifying. >> that's exactly right. the legal issues in mcgahn are exactly the same legal issues

for hope hicks and all the other witnesses. so when hopefully we win the mcgahn lawsuit all the others will follow. the white house is asserting absolute immunity for presidential appointees which is an absurd claim and that's essentially what they're asserting. if the courts, god forbid, were to up hold such a claim than never mind the impeachment, there'd be no congressional oversight of the executive at all because you could simply say anyone who deals with the president, anyone in the administration doesn't have to testify at all. and that would destroy the separation of powers. it would essentially make the president unaccountable to congress and therefore to the people and make him a king, which is exactly what the framers of the constitution did not want to do. >> do you know what you're hoping for in terms of the time frame on a resolution of this mcgahn case? if his testimony is key to your inquiry and on its own terms but

also in terms of unlocking other witnesses so you could hear -- >> we don't know the time frame. we've ask that be expedited and we've asked an impeach lt proceeding and is in our legal papers you're entitled to the highest degree that aren't present ipnormal oversight. hopefully we get a decision from the lower court i don't know a number of weeks, and from the court of appeals in a couple of months and hopefully it doesn't go beyond that. >> within a couple of months, it's already august, so it'd be september, october, if you're looking at hopefully voting wii the end of the year, if you decide to proceed with articles, that's a quick time frame. >> yep, it's a quick time frame. i'm not saying the end of the year, could be sooner, could be later. we have to do what we have to do. by the way, we're not limited nor will we be limited by mcgahn and the other people i mentioned

are very key to consideration of an impeachment for obstruction of justice and abuse of power, all of the things in the mueller report. but we have other grounds we have to look into, too, and violations of the emoluments clause of the constitution. and just the fact of withholding or opposing congressional subpoenas, that was article iii of the nixon impeachment. and here he's gone way further even to the extent of saying we'll oppose all subpoenas which is another way of saying we don't recognize the separation of powers and we are going to aggrandize power to the executive branch which is core impeachable, and there are others, too. so we'll be looking at all of these things. >> have you made decisions in your committee or have you as chairman made decisions as to what those grounds are? you just described several. has that been the process? >> people are obviously suggesting various different

grounds and we'll have to prioritize and investigate and make decisions as the next few months go on. >> and how does that process work in your community? >> well, the members of the committee and staff will talk to each other. >> in terms of this being a point of discussion and consternation on having a lot of political impact, apart from the substance of these potential articles of impeachment that you may be looking at, there's been so much discussion as to whether or not this is politically wise for democrats and whether there's political appetite for it. house speaker nancy pelosi has been broadly described as being against this as a step, and she's described herself that way. broadly speaking. can you tell us about your discussions with the speaker on this and whether -- >> all i think i should say is that every court filing we're making, every assertion that we need this information for impeachment consideration, et cetera were signed off on by the speaker. the house counsel is bringing these lawsuits. the house counsel reports to the

speaker not to the chairman of the judiciary committee. we asked the house counsel what to do. i can't tell them what to do. so the speaker is going -- the speaker wants to vindicate the constitution and she's been very direct in and the constitution and so do we. po this is probably one of the worst crisis we face in the constitutional loss since after the civil war in terms of the power to the executive and in terms of denial of congressional power and separation of powers in terms of the president asserting powers he doesn't have and using them. we have to have limited government. we have to have constitutional government and only congress can do this so we have to do this and the speaker understands that, and we will have to pursue it regardless of the political consequences, but obviously, we have to take politics into account. >> the analysis that the president getting impeached would be good for the president.

>> i don't think so. i don't think so. if -- again, you -- if we do our job properly, if we get the evidence, if we have very convincing evidence and convincing hearings and people understand what's at stake, i don't think there will be negative consequences for protecting the constitution. >> if you can stay with us, mr. chairman, i was just making fun of you for your colleagues for the long summer vacation. there is a possibility that will end. we'll be back with jerry nadler. stay with us.

we're back now live with jerry nadler who at this point is the man of the hour, sir, thank you for sticking with us. in addition to this impeachment discussion that we've been having, we have heard some reports that your committee may cut short the plansned recess you're in to talk about potential gun reform legislation. can you tell us anything about that? >> our committee voted in february and the house passed in february or march very substantial universal background check legislation for guns and the charleston loophole, plugging up loopholes in the background check laws and it's been over 160 days that it's been sitting in the senate and mitch mcconnell hasn't committed it. we took what we thought were the very easy bills, and we sent

them over to the senate. we ought to add now bills we always thought we would do such as we wanted to give them the easy stuff first, but we're very actively considering calling the committee back into session before -- during the district work there to consider bills c and banning assault rifles, certain provisions to make sure people convicted of hate crimes and domestic violence can't get guns and various suggestions have been made by members and others. more likely than not we'll have a committee meeting to vote some of these bills before the end -- before labor day. >> gun policy is stuck -- >> before the end of district work. >> has been stuck for so long in the republicans not wanting to do anything about it in this current moment of crisis in the country republicans particularly in the senate suggested they want l

really want white house buy in. are there any bipartisan discussions within your committee with some of these lower hanging fruit measures related to guns? >> well, there has been remember the republicans, the president and mitch mcconnell i think, the president certainly said after pa parkland he was for universal background checks and the nra said you're not. now i think we're doing the same thing again but the pressure is really building up. for years, people were afraid of gun control legislation. if you went against the nra in very solid democratic districts you were toast. we had a couple people -- we had a number of people elected last year by campaigning specifically for gun control in our committee, various other people campaigned for gun control and strong legislation, for bans on high capacity magazines and so forth and if you poll these

things, back ground checks poll at 90% and so i think that is breaking. there is a limit, you know, the president talks about mental health and other things. the fact of the matter is, no other industrial country in the world has gun deaths more than two, 300 a year. we have 39,000 a year. you can't tell me we're several thousand times more mentally ill than great britain or france or germany or japan. that's a slander on the american people. there is one difference and that's easy availability of guns without checking and i think people are finally with mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting, people are finally beginning to say enough already and i think even republicans at some point have to cave in. >> house judiciary committee jerry nadler, thank you for your time tonight. this is an unexpectedly busy time. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back stay with us ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ dprevagen is the number onemild memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. it's been a long time since andrew dusted off his dancing shoes. luckily denture breath will be the least of his worries. because he uses polident 4 in 1 cleaning system to kill 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. polident. clean. fresh. and confident. of odor causing bacteria. my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and this is me now!

any physical changes to this man's appearance are purely coincidental. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. oops, that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. sorry, i'm in your real estate. >> oh, it's been 18 seconds. it's been fascinating to watch the evolution of jerry nadler on the subject of impeachment as you were discussing. i talked to him about it right before the election in november where he was going to be elevated to chairman of the judiciary committee and right here in the studio with me and i said a