Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, 1/19/22 – MSNBC

Summary

Senate vote to change filibuster rule fails. 48 Senate Democrats voted to change the rules of the Senate tonight in this one instance for this one piece of legislation on voting rights. There were 52 votes in favor of preserving the rules. President Biden today delivered the longest televised presidential press conference on record. He answered every question fully and directly.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. And you know --

(COMMERCIAL AD)

O`DONNELL: -- rumor. You didn`t have to deny the rumor that wasn`t there - -

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "TRMS": It`s just weird to have two people who look like they`re in the same weird place in split screen. Like it looked like it was a fake thing. It`s not a fake thing. It`s a real thing.

O`DONNELL: I believe you. We`ve got a live situation on the Senate floor now, Rachel, that we might be cutting to during our hour.

You know, I have one ear on the Senate floor during your hour, and you missed because you were working and I recommend it to you, the speech of Jeff Merkley`s lifetime. And he`s not, you know, stylistically the most compelling speaker on the Senate floor. But he delivered the single most thorough, historical analysis the 60-vote threshold rule, the cloture vote so-called, in the Senate that has ever been delivered on that floor.

And there were some great speeches today with a lot of important historical references including from Angus King pointing out that Hamilton and Madison warned us against any kind of supermajority voting. But, boy, Jeff Merkley, who is the authority on this, the Democrats have deferred to him on it all the way through, he was really -- it`s a masterful, I don`t know, 15 minutes or so that takes you through everything you`d ever want to know about it, and really compelling style.

MADDOW: You should just do late-night coverage. You can have my re-air hour and you should just play it. I hereby give you the baton. Go on.

O`DONNELL: So let me get this straight. So then I would have to come back to work at midnight to -- yeah.

Okay. I`m going to think about that. And I don`t want anyone to worry. The re-air`s going to be there. Don`t worry. The Rachel re-air --

MADDOW: When you address the rumors it`s just like you`re confirming them.

O`DONNELL: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Good point. Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Denied. That is the last word in the first sentence of today`s Supreme Court decision, and it is the last word on Donald Trump`s unprecedented -- the court called it unprecedented attempt to overrule the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, and block the national archives from handing over all of the records and documents of the Trump presidency that the January 6th committee has demanded.

Donald Trump and his lawyers did not have to read beyond the first sentence of the Supreme Court`s very short decision today to know that the Trump dream of a total cover-up has died. The unsigned order by the court notes that only Justice Clarence Thomas disagrees with the court`s decision. All three of the judges appointed to the court by Donald Trump joined in crushing the Trump cover-up dream today.

The first sentence says, quote: The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to the chief justice and by him referred to the court is denied. The Supreme Court said that Donald Trump`s assertion of executive privilege was unprecedented coming from a former president in a case like this, but the court said that Trump`s request would have been denied even if he were still president.

Quote: Because the court of appeals concluded that president Trump`s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court`s decision.

[22:05:03]

Harvard`s constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe offered his scholarly opinion of the court`s decision today saying, "This is huge."

Tonight, the January 6th committee released this statement. Quote: the Supreme Court`s action tonight is a victory for the rule of law and American democracy. The Select Committee has already begun to receive records that the former president had hoped to keep hidden, and we look forward to additional productions regarding this important information. Our work goes forward to uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes. We will not be deterred in our effort to get answers for the American people, make legislative recommendations to strengthen our democracy, and help ensure nothing like that day ever happens again.

And leading off our discussion tonight is Neal Katyal, law professor at Georgetown University and most importantly a former acting U.S. solicitor general who has practiced before the United States Supreme Court repeatedly. He is an MSNBC legal analyst.

Neal, I give you the floor in your reaction to the court.

NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Lawrence, I don`t think I`ve seen this much excitement about a late-night literary release since the final "Harry Potter" book came out.

And why is everyone so excited? Because it`s a dark time in our country. People are worried about voting being under assault and rules and laws more generally, and here we`ve got at least for this moment, the rule of law coming back and in a really profound way.

You know, I was on your show last night. I told you to predict this result, that the Supreme Court wasn`t going to hear this executive privilege case. And lo and behold, that`s exactly what happened. They denied Donald Trump`s claim 8-1.

So what`s the case about? Executive privilege is this idea -- it`s a good idea. It`s the idea that presidents need a zone of secrecy around their decision-making like foreign affairs or things like that. You don`t want treaty negotiations to spill out into open court.

What it`s not about is plotting a coup and overthrow of American democracy. Trump tried to invoke it for that reason, and his claim was a loser from the start. The trial court rejected it right away. The circuit court, our nation`s second highest court, took nine days to write a 68-page opinion blowing it out of the water.

And now, today, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a quite conservative Supreme Court to put it mildly, but totally threw out Trump`s claims.

O`DONNELL: Certainly, the judiciary at the Supreme Court level has become overpoliticized in many people`s minds, but one thing worth noting here is that the Appeals Court opinion that the Supreme Court accepted today in full was written by three judges who were appointed by Democratic presidents. Two were appointed by President Obama, one was appointed by President Biden.

And this Supreme Court with three Trump appointees on it, six appointees from Republican presidents, they accepted with only the exception of Clarence Thomas, they accepted all of the reasoning of those three judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

KATYAL: Exactly, Lawrence. And that`s the rule of law. It`s not supposed to be the way Donald Trump thought about it, Trump judges and Obama judges. They`re just federal judges. And I want to commend here judges but also the lawyers involved in this for the January 6th committee because everyone in this case understood that Donald Trump has one signature move, which is delay.

And they litigated this thing and decided this thing in the opposite of the way all the other Trump stuff has been done. I mean, this case was actually filed on my mom`s birthday, October 18th, three months and one day ago. And they went through all three layers of our court system. And the judges all ruled really quickly because they understand there`s a need to finally get at the truth and Trump`s been evading that for so, so long.

O`DONNELL: What does it mean for Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, and everyone else in the Trump team who are trying to evade the committee`s subpoenas?

KATYAL: I think the technical legal term is deep doo-doo, Lawrence. It`s a real problem for them.

So, remember that Steve Bannon has been indicted already for contempt for not giving these answers to Congress. So he`s facing criminal charges. Mark Meadows is on his way for the same thing. Both of their defenses to contempt is executive privilege. And the Supreme Court today blew that out of the water.

So that means that these two individuals really do have to talk to the investigators in Congress. But also it more significantly means that Trump`s signature move, which is not just to hide these documents but all these people from testifying on live televised hearings in Congress, he was going to invoke executive privilege for all that. That`s now decimated by the Supreme Court`s ruling.

[22:10:04]

So it`s going to be very hard for all these folks, not just Bannon and Meadows but Giuliani and Eastman and the whole cast of characters to avoid having to testify. They can try other arguments like Fifth Amendment and so on. But today is a real nail in the coffin for that.

O`DONNELL: And so we also now know for a fact with the committee staff already tonight in possession of some of these documents, more of them coming tomorrow, and they will be coming by the barrelful constantly now from the archives, that when these hearings do go public on television, when the committee goes public on television with hearings, we will be hearing readings from these documents, from memos, from e-mails, from possible texts from government phones, all sorts of information that that committee does not yet know but will be discovering over the next several days and weeks.

KATYAL: Yes, Lawrence. I agree with you. But there`s one asterisk.

So remember, Trump`s move is delay. And what I think he and his minions will do is file further lawsuits invoking executive privilege once again saying, well, these documents are different, this testimony is different and the like. All of that`s going to fail because the Supreme Court today was resounding.

And just to give our viewers some sense of this -- I mean, if you`re a former president, to have your case not heard by the Supreme Court on an executive power issue, it`s virtually unthinkable. It`s almost automatic the Supreme Court`s going to hear your case and likely rule for you.

So it`s kind of like you`ve got to try really hard. It`s kind of like if you`re a Democratic candidate in Chicago running for mayor and you lose to a Republican. It`s possible to lose, but you`ve really got to work at it.

Here Donald Trump worked at it. He made such bogus claims about executive privilege it led the Supreme Court to do what it did. And that`s going to make it virtually impossible for Donald Trump and his team of insurrectionists to try and block the testimony and documents from coming out in live televised hearings.

O`DONNELL: Neal Katyal, thank you very much for joining us on this historic night in this case. Thank you very much.

And coming up, more defendant Trump news. The New York attorney general in a court filing says that Donald Trump has engaged in fraudulent or misleading practices.

Tim O`Brien and Daniel Goldman will be joining us next, and we`re keeping an eye on the Senate floor for you on what`s happening there tonight on voting rights.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:16:43]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The most fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important than a rule in this chamber. Let me --

O`DONNELL: That is a live shot of the Senate floor. Majority leader Chuck Schumer is going to move any moment now for a vote on changing the rules in the Senate to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for holding a vote on voting rights legislation. This would be a one-time change of the Senate rules just for this one piece of legislation. We`re going to monitor that situation on the Senate floor as it develops, especially when it gets to that dramatic moment of calling for that vote. We will be keeping an eye on the Senate floor.

Also today, in a 115-page legal brief filed in court in response to Donald Trump`s attempt to evade a subpoena, a civil subpoena for his testimony in a civil fraud investigation, New York State Attorney General Letitia James said that the Trump company has engaged in "fraudulent or misleading," those were her words, practices in their business.

The attorney general`s filing says, quote, "in light of the pervasive and repeated nature of the misstatements and omissions, it appears that the valuations in the statements were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump`s net worth was higher than it would otherwise -- would have appeared." The attorney general is seeking to enforce subpoenas against Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. And Ivanka Trump for their testimony. Eric Trump has already given an under oath deposition in the case in which he refused to answer questions, citing his fifth amendment rights, over 500 times.

In the filing released close to midnight last night the attorney general says, quote: Since 2017, Donald Trump Jr. has had authority over numerous financial statements containing misleading asset valuations. Donald Trump Jr. should be compelled to testify before the office of the attorney general.

Until January 2017, Ms. Ivanka Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization`s largest lender, Deutsche Bank. In connection with this work, Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government. Ivanka Trump should be compelled to testify before the Office of the Attorney General.

In a press release, the attorney general`s office noted that they have, quote, not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action. The Trump organization, which is currently under indictment in New York City because of its practices, released a statement in response to the attorney general`s filing saying, in part, her allegations are baseless and will be vigorously defended.

Joining us now, Daniel Goldman, former House majority counsel during the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. He`s also a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern district of New York and an MSNBC legal contributor.

Also with us, Tim O`Brien, senior columnist for "Bloomberg Opinion". He is the author of the book "Trump Nation."

Daniel Goldman, let me begin with you and what you read in this -- the attorney general`s filing.

[22:20:01]

DANIEL GOLDMAN, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it`s quite a filing, Lawrence. Somewhat unexpected I think at this stage of the civil investigation in particular because of the parallel criminal investigation that is going on. Incredible details about all the various ways that the attorney investigation that is going on. Incredible details about all the various ways that the attorney general`s office has uncovered that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and then his children after he took over as president misstated, overinflated values of their properties in order to get financial benefits in the way of loans, insurance and tax deductions.

It is quite an extraordinary recitation of those facts, some of which are pretty alarming, some of which are somewhat humorous, including the fact that Donald Trump represented that his apartment in New York is worth $327 million, which I believe would be the most expensive residence in the world. Allen Weisselberg of course said that is an overstatement by about $200 million.

But putting aside some of the humor in some of these overstatements, it`s serious allegations of misstatements. There are a number of questions here, and, you know, they run the gamut, including whether this was wise to do in light of a criminal investigation that is ongoing. Whether it actually responds to Donald Trump`s allegations of sort of political motivations by the attorney general. Whether these depositions should go forward in light of the ongoing criminal investigation.

And then also, what impact that will have on the criminal investigation when they are in front of an active grand jury for much of the same conduct and whether this will allow witnesses to sort of -- to better prepare themselves because they know a lot of the facts.

So, there`s some inside baseball here, Lawrence, but I think the top line is that Donald Trump and the Trump Organization grossly misstated the valuations of numerous properties for their financial benefit.

O`DONNELL: And, Tim O`Brien, you have been studying and writing about Trump businesses for years. You wrote the book that Donald Trump sued you for, where you basically said a version of what the attorney general is now saying, that Donald Trump was wildly overstating his wealth. You, of course, won that lawsuit against Donald Trump.

This reading for you of the attorney general`s 115 pages today had to be quite an experience after the book pages you`ve produced on the same subject.

TIM O`BRIEN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG OPINION: It was Groundhog Day, Lawrence, as it always is with Donald Trump. It`s just a new version of the same old grift.

His children are doing what he did. He was doing what his father did. This kind of behavior is almost in the Trump family genes.

The issue is whether or not the New York attorney general can prove intent to commit a fraud here and that they knew what they were doing was wrong and they went ahead and did it anyway. That`s a high bar.

There`s no doubt I think that there was a grift going on here. There is no doubt that the Trumps routinely inflated and deflated the value of their assets to court the media, to appease Trump`s own ego, to get bank loans and to run circles around tax collectors. I think there`s ample basis in the evidence they`ve already collected in the New York attorney general`s office to proceed with this.

I think as Dan has pointed out I think there`s a number of strategic issues that get raised by why they`ve handled it this way. Undoubtedly, I think Letitia James, the New York state attorney general, is frustrated with the Trumps thumbing their nose at her subpoenas and requests for depositions. There`s a lot of bad blood among all the parties in here.

But the fact is she has started to line her ducks up. I think some of the things in this case or in this filing that were overlooked or got less scrutiny was the fact that Trump himself, there`s evidence in that filing of Trump himself signing off on some of the paperwork that involved assets with inflated valuations.

In other words, Trump was a participant. And he signed off on some of the things they`re investigating. So he has direct -- he`s got a direct connection here. In theory, this can go directly to Donald Trump.

But they`ve got a lot more evidence to collect and a lot more proof they have to put on the table. Another thing that`s in this document that I think are important is they seem to believe the Trump Organization has not been forthcoming with all the evidentiary requests they`ve made about records pertaining to Trump himself and they want more.

[22:25:07]

So I think it`s a robust, damning document, but we still have to see whether or not it rises to the level of fraud charges that they can prosecute successfully in a courtroom.

O`DONNELL: Tim O`Brien and Daniel Goldman, thank you for joining us on these important developments tonight. Really appreciate it.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

O`BRIEN: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: And when we come back, we`ll be covering the breaking news on the Senate floor tonight in the voting rights crusade there and the upcoming vote on changing the Senate rule. That vote might occur within this hour.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:30:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: -- that for this message from the House with respect to HR 5746, the only debate in order during consideration of the message beyond the question of adoption of the motion to concur in the amendment of the House. Further, that no amendments, motions or points of order be in order and that any appeals be determined without debate.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), U.S. SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Following the rules of the Senate, the point of order is not sustained as it is a compound motion that would require consent.

SCHUMER: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

LEAHY: The question is, so the ruling on the chair stands, is the decision of the Senate.

SCHUMER: I ask for the yeas and nays.

LEAHY: Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. And there is. Clerk will call the roll.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Baldwin.

SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Yea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Barrasso.

SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Bennett.

More:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/19/22 - MSNBC