Named president nixon as a coconspirator. Even though he personally was not included as a defendant in the indictment. He was the unindicted coconspirator. Now, the legal team working for president nixon at the time raised a challenge to that. They basically challenged whether the information in the case, the evidence seen by the grand jury that produced that indictment, produced those allegations against the president , the president s legal team questioned whether that evidence was actually sufficient to warrant something as radical as naming the serving president of the United States as part of a serious criminal conspiracy. And so when the president s legal team raised that objection, this kind of momentous thing happened, at the height of the summer in 1974. Because the Judiciary Committee in congress, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to the Watergate Special counsel, the prosecutor who had brought that indictment, and said basically hey, you obtained this indictment, you presented evidence to the grand jury sufficient to warrant this indictment. If, in fact, that evidence was also sufficient to warrant naming the president as a coconspirator in these crimes, well, lets hear it. What is that evidence . What is it that you found about president Richard Nixon that justified this allegation that he was in on all of these crimes, too . And the special counsel for watergate responded, basically said okay, here you go, dear mr. Chairman, happy to. You send us a subpoena, well happily send you over our summary of evidence pertaining to president nixons conduct in the watergate manner. And the prosecutor then produced page after page after page after page of detailed allegations that nixon had, in fact, committed tons of crimes, including lots of criminal obstruction of justice. Beginning no later than march 21st, 1973, the president joined an ongoing criminal conspiracy to obstruct a criminal investigation and to commit perjury, including making and causing to be made false statements and declarations, making offers of clemency and leniency, and obtaining information from the Justice Department to thwart its investigation. Theres evidence that the president conspired with others to defraud the United States, and to commit violations of certain federal criminal laws, to wit, obstruction of justice, including paying of funds and offs of clemency and other benefits to influence the testimony of witnesses. Making and facilitating, the making of false statements and declarations, obtaining information about the ongoing information from the Justice Department for the purpose of diverting or thwarting the investigation. Also perjury, including the president s direct and personal efforts to encourage and facilitate the giving of misleading and false testimony by aides. Also, bribery by directly and indirectly offering something of value, including clemency and or a pardon, with the intent to influence testimony before grand juries, courts, and congressional committees. Also obstruction of a criminal investigatio investigation. It goes on and on. Thats evidence to demonstrate that president nixon took direct action to further the conspiracy outlined above. These allegations against nixon from 1974, and the evidence that supported these allegations against nixon, theyve gotten a lot of attention this year, right . And thats in part because a whole bunch of this stuff about nixon has been unsealed, just made available to the public for the first time, so theres historical interest, but honestly, what is driving a lot of that historical interest, whats been driving the effort to get a bunch of this stuff unsealed now, is the almost uncannily parallel experience we are having right now in our lifetime when it comes to our current president. I mean, even just looking at this one exchange of information, between the Judiciary Committee and the watergate prosecutor in 74, just pull a couple of those bullet points, see if any of these things ring a bell, right . Making and facilitating the making of false statements and deck ha ratilarations about the investigation. Obtaining information about the Ongoing Investigation for the purpose of die verting or thwarting that investigation. These could be captions for a picture book tour for the nixon or Trump Administration, either way. When it came to nixon, it turned out at the time, and we can now see more clearly than ever, 45 years down the line, it turned out there were mountains of this stuff, this evidence of nixons criminal behavior, mountains of this stuff that was turned up by federal investigators. Now, in our lifetime, we know very little about what federal prosecutors and investigators have about our current president. But nevertheless, we have still got our own mountain of reporting and evidence, about a bigger number of alleged obstruction by the president. Just stuff turned up by investigative reporting and just admitted to by the president and other senior figures them southeast selves or just committed openly out loud, to the point where its been squirmingly awkward for those involved. Have you talked about this issue with admiral rogers . That is that is something that i, um, would like to withhold, that question at this particular point in time. That excruciatingly pregnant ninesecond long pause, brought to you by the director of National Intelligence, that was the day after nbc news reported that the president asked him, and also the head of the National Security agency, head of the nsa, admiral mike rogers, nbc reported that the president asked them both to make Public Statements saying that they and their agencies knew that President Trump and his captain pain h his campaign hadnt colluded with russia. The day before that ninesecond pause, nbc reported that not only had President Trump directed him as the director of National Intelligence and also the head of the nsa to make those Public Statements to undermine the russia investigation, but also the two of them, head of the nsa, head of the office of the director of National Intelligence, the two of them talked to each other about that request from the president. Sort of compared notes after the president approached them both. Ill ask both of you the same question, why are you not answering these questions . Is there an invocation by the president of the United States of executive privilege, is there or not . Not that im aware of. Why are you not i feel it is inappropriate, senator. What you feel isnt relevant, admiral. What you feel isnt the answer why are you not answering the questions . Is it an innovation of executive privilege . If there is, lets know about it. If there isnt, answer the questions. I stand by my comments, i dont mean that in a contentious way. I do mean it in a contentious way. I dont understand why youre not answering our questions. When you were confirmed before the Armed Services committee, you took an oath. Do you swear to give the committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god, and you answered yes to that. And i answered that those conversations are classified. And its not appropriate to discuss those conversations. What is classified whether or not you should intervene in the fbi investigation . I stand by my previous comments. Mr. Cotes, what is the basis for your refusal to answer these questions today . The basis is that what i have previously explained. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to whats the basis im not satisfied can, i do not believe its appropriate or i do not feel i should answer. I want to answer a legal basis, you swore that oath to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and today you are refusing to do so. What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this commit any im not sure i have a legal basis. So already this stuff is out there, right . Thats why these senators are able to ask these questions. In this case, senator king of maine, right . Those two Intelligence Agency chiefs are on the hotseat there because of public reports that these Senior Intelligence officials, director of National Intelligence, head of the nsa, the president asked them to make statements exonerating the president in the russia investigation. In fact, the day before that exchange with angus king, the Washington Post reported that the president asked for these exonerating statementis, but asked them to tell the fbi to stop its investigation on the russia matter. Including specifically their investigation into the National Security adviser, mike flynn. Some of the most powerful obstruction evidence against nixon from the 70s, some of the evidence that is still the most widely remembered stuff, all these decades later, some of the most widely remembered parts of his obstruction effort is when he tried to block the fbi investigation by using the Intelligence Agency, by using the cia, telling the fbi there is stuff they couldnt look into, because those were cia matters, trying to enlist the cia in an effort to cover up what he had done and to stop the fbi investigation that was going to expos him. When it comes to President Trump, apparently trying the same thing, not only did he reportedly ask the heads of two intelligence agencies to help him out when it came to Public Perceptions of the russia investigation, he specifically requested that they should intervene with the fbi, tell the fbi to back off. And according to the Washington Post, that request was made while another senior official was in the room and witnessed it. A man named mike pompeo, who at the time of this incident, was the head of the cia. Hes since gone on to become secretary of state. Heres how he answered questions the day he was in the room, in the white house, when he was the supposed witness to the president trying to enlist the director of National Intelligence to kibosh the investigation into his campaign as a Historical Mirror to what nixon got busted for. So director, this account strongly suggests that the president asked you and director cotes to interfere with then fbi director comeys investigations into the trump campaigns contacts with russia. What did President Trump say to you and director cotes in that meeting . Senator, im not going to talk about the conversation the president and i had. Did he ask you to do anything as it relates to that investigation . Senator, i dont recall what he asked me that day. I, i, mm, why would Something Like that stand out . The president in the oval office committing blatant obstruction of justice when its just you as the director of National Intelligence. The president asked everybody else to leave and makes this request, will you please shut off the investigation into me, will you make the fbi stop investigating me . Why would you remember that . Happens all the time, right . Why would you recall . You know, maybe it does happen all the time. I mean, just look at where we are now. Look at the height to which we have risen. With nixon, it was a revelation at the end, all the stuff we learned that we had done, all the stuff that prosecutors and investigators collected evidence of in terms of his criminal behavior. With President Trump, its been a mountain thats been built up in public, stone by stone, from the very beginning, from the very start of this presidency. I mean, President Trump has not credibly denied any of this. He asked fbi director james comey to lay off the fbi investigation into Michael Flynn as it pertained to russia. He fired james comey as the head of the fbi after comey refused to do that and make exonerating statements about the president. The president also told attorney general Jeff Sessions, directed him that he shouldnt follow the professional ethics advice of the Justice Department, should. Follow Justice Department rules, he should defy that advice and rules and not recuse himself from overseeing the russia investigation, because the president believed that caused him to lose control of the russia investigation. The president told then attorney general Jeff Sessions out loud and in public in writing that he needed to stop the russia investigation right now. One of the president s lawyers quickly tried to explain that away by saying its not a call to action. To be clear the exact quote of the president out loud, in public, was this, attorney general Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt right now. Thats not a call to action. It was like a Fortune Cookie thing, we dont know what he meant. Its ambiguous. Just today, out loud, online, the president posted an image suggesting that the Deputy Attorney general, who until recently oversaw the russia investigation, he should be jailed and tried for treason. The president was asked just tonight why did you think Rod Rosenstein belongs behind bars . The president responded, he should have never picked a special counsel. So the president saying a top Justice Department official should be jailed and charged with a crime, which is capital punishment, for having appointed a special counsel in the russia investigation. In that Ongoing Investigation. The president , in june of last year, told his white House Counsel to fire the special counsel leading the russia investigation. The president in december did the same thing again. The president , on august 9th of last year placed a phone call from his golf club in new jersey to the majority leader in the senate, Mitch Mcconnell, and excoriating mcconnell for refusing to protect him, the president , from investigations of russia interference in the 2016 election. Multiple republicans were briefed on that conversation, in which the president called the Senate Majority leader. Their accounts then made their way into the New York Times. It was never even half heartedly denied by the president. Even more specifically than that, the president repeatedly directed not only Mitch Mcconnell but also another republican and senate leadership, senator roy blount and senator richard burr, that they should stop the Intelligence Committee investigation into russian interference. Again, this isnt contested by anybody involved. The senator confirmed that yeah, the president did contact him and tell him to end the russia investigation in the senate. The president has also personally participated in concocting false Public Statements about key issues that are part of the investigation, including the false statement he drafted in the name of his eldest son, claiming a meeting with russians to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton was a meeting about russian adoptions. Youre like, oh, thats cute. The news flash that the president lied about a thing isnt news anymore. I know, i know,ky hear you through the tv. That may be so, the president lies, is like, you know, dog bites man. It may be so thats no longer news. God rest our souls for that. But in the context of a key matter that is actively under criminal investigation, concocting a false Public Statement to mislead investigators about the nature of that incident, that isnt just your run of the mill president ial lie, legally that could be a problem. Go back to 74. Go back to the summer of 74 for what nixon got in trouble with, right . The president joined an ongoing criminal conspiracy to on sfrbs a criminal investigation, including making false statements and declarations. And what we have already seen out in public, open source reporting that the president s russia lawyers went privately to two crucial figures in the Ongoing Investigation, mike nine and paul manafort, and talked with their lawyers about potentially receiving pardons from the president. This at a time when both men were already cooperating with or considering cooperating with federal prosecutors in their investigation of the president. Just today, in an interview, the president publicly floated the idea of a pardon for his Campaign Chairman paul manafort. Why would i take this off the table . With the president s lawyers now bragging to the New York Times as of last night that while manafort was supposedly cooperating with them, they in fact were actually using him as a source of intel to find out on behalf of the president what was going on inside the special counsels office, what muellers prosecutors were asking about and what they were focusing on. And weve heard some other elements of the president s behavior that sound like this before, it was reported in march by the New York Times that the president asked a couple of other key witnesses who spent a lot of time with muellers prosecutors, don mcghan and reince priebus, former white house chief of staff. The New York Times reported that the president asked both of them detailed questions about their interactions with the special counsel to try to glean information from them about the status of the investigation. Talking to witnesses about their testimony to the special prosecutor. But now, with this new development with manafort, now the president is doing that with a convicted felon, to whom hes openly dangling a pardon. I mean, if you had been sealed in a vault for the last two years, and you came out today and somebody handed you that litany of basically uncontested detailed reporting and evidence about the president s efforts to obstruct this serious ongoing criminal investigation into himself and his administration and this campaign, you would think you were reading a bombshell indictment, right . That signaled the end of a presidency, or at least the middle of impeachment proceedings, right . But instead thats just the public record. Just piled up piece by piece, week after week, month after month into what has ended up into a really big mountain of evidence just on the issue of obstruction of justice. You dont realize how big the mountain is until you realize how far down the ground is, but were way up here now. On the day after the Midterm Election when the president fired attorney general Jeff Sessions and installed Matt Whitaker in his place, he admitted almost instantly in an interview with the daily caller he put Matt Whitaker there because of the russia investigation. There aroseme immediate concern that he would shut down the mueller investigation, just question of when and how and how much we would know about it. Shortly thereafter, somebody really interesting ran a really interesting flag up the proverbial flagpole. James baker published a piece which drew attention to a really specific part of the legal precedent of president ial criminal misbehavior here. Specifically about what nixon did. Part of nixons criminal history is he did use contact with the Justice Department to spy on the investigation. Part of the way nixon did that was his frequent contact with a man who was then the head of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department. His meetings with henry peterson, his repeated calls with peterson, he extracted Key Information about what was going on in watergate, what was going on with key witnesses before the grand jury, and nixon did that, so he and his legal team could strategize around it. Right now there are concerns whether Matt Whitaker is playing that role for President Trump. It was provocative for james baker, enough to publish that piece, right after Matt Whitaker was named. This is baker pointing out that, you know, when nixon used the Justice Department official as a back channel of information and intel that targeted him, that was treated as an Impeachable Offense for that president. And this is a very live issue. Whether Matt Whitaker right now is back channeling information about the investigation to President Trump. How well find out about it, if thats happening, who will collect evidence of that, who will prosecute it, if it is proven, which is made all the more complicated, all the more urgent by the prospect that Matt Whitaker may not just be providing intelligence to the white house, he may be throttling the investigation secretly right now from inside the Justice Department, and how would we know about that . On top of that, within the last 24 hours we have evidence that the president , this is confirmed, uncontested, that he has another ongoing source of information from inside the mueller investigation, namely his normer Campaign Chairman, paul manafort. This revelation that his former Campaign Chairman, who is supposedly cooperating, has been effectively functioning as a spy for trumps defense. Inside the prosecution. That is obviously blowing up the criminal case that involves paul manafort, but it also means the president and his legal team are now admitting out loud, in public, that they are colluding with a convicted felon to gain intelligence on the prosecution, basically in order to discredit and outmaneuver those prosecutors who are investigating the president. They are openly admitting it. Which would be a massive expose if it were unveiled as an expose. But right now its just one more rock on top of the mountain. It does mean for once, we might be in truly unprecedented legal territory, right . I mean, nixon got a back channel into the Justice Department, we know a little bit about what nixon did. Nixon didnt use a convicted felon in the middle of his criminal case, thats his back channel. We have now, between what we learned in the 70s about nixon, we have all the evidence about what nixon did and its staggering. But even nixon never did anything like this. And so if this is all happening in plain sight right now, how does it get fixed . And by whom . And what are the biggest risks for all of us now in terms of whether or not people will be held accountable for what theyve done in power play sight. Thats next. Hold on. Why did i walk away . Well, not because it was easy. I mean, the game is all i know. You think back to your draft. It felt like a fantasy. But the second you know you cant compete anymore, you owe it to yourself, to your team, to find a fresh start. So, yeah, thats why i did it. Thats why i walked away. From my fantasy league. announcer redeem your season on fanduel. Play free until you win. Fanduel. More ways to win. This is moving day with the best inhome wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. And this is moving day with Reliable Service appointments in a twohour window so youre up and running in no time. Show me decorating shows. This is staying connected with xfinity to make moving. Simple. Easy. Awesome. Stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and twohour appointment windows. Click, call or visit a store today. Just before thanksgiving break, we covered on this show a remarkable dive into a very relevant part of history, and it looked at what happened in watergate when president nixon was having improper contacts with a high ranking Justice Department official. Just as watergate was playing out. The piece looked at how it is a criminal matter, treated as an Impeachable Offense for the president to be using inside information about a Justice Department investigation to plan his own defense. It was a provocative thing for law fair to publish that piece because of what it says about the current president now, now that hes picked somebody to oversee the Justice Department as a whole, and specifically the special counsel investigation into this president and his campaign. But it was also a really provocative piece because of who wrote it. That analysis is not directly about President Trump, never mentions the current president by name, but explores watergate history in a way that people can see it for themselves, and it was coauthored by the former cocounsel of the fbi, james baker, one of the people who james comey confided in about his interactions with President Trump, when it came to President Trump pressuring him about this investigation. Since we had that question so implicitly, provocatively raised about what happens when a president gets information about an investigation into himself improperly, since then, we have gotten information that the president has also a different source of information from inside the investigation, namely his convicted felon campaign chair, the president s attorney Rudy Giuliani has confirmed the arrangement, and its interesting enough now to focus on what that might mean for the criminal case against paul manafort. But what does it mean for the president . This feels like a momentous thing, putting our finger on what this means legally and in terms of the size of this scandal i think involves some historical and legal reckoning. Join us now is ben wittis. Thank you for being here. Happy to be here. You pthis piece did raise a provocative allegory, even though he didnt explicitly spell that out, these thats how i talked about it on tv and how i saw it. Is that how you saw it when you decided to publish it in look, i think nobody reasonable can read that article with an awareness of somewhats going on in the current world, and not see some serious parallels. So lets tick through a couple. I wrote some down. Number one, the article details repeated white house doj communications, Justice Department communications on a matter at which the white house, the president himself had an active personal interest. Number two, the article details using the Justice Department to gather intelligence using these contacts to gather intelligence by the president about the state of the investigation. Number three, describes a senior doj official going to the white house and warning the president that one of his senior aides has a serious problem and is compromised. Sound familiar . Number four, the president protests to a senior Justice Department official. These are good guys, you know he doesnt fire them. And hes really upset about that. Number five, it describes the attorney general recusing. By the way, nixon took that relatively well compared to trump. Number six, he describes holding the fbi directorship over a senior Justice Department official as a sort of inducement to handle the investigation the way the president wants. You know, that kind of sounds familiar, too. And number seven, it describes the president looking and seeking from senior Justice Department officials to know whether they have developed adverse information about the president himself. And i think the reason this is a powerful article is that all seven of those items are have direct parallels in the news of today. And of the last 18 months. And so i dont like the article is an article about history. Its an article about how congress experienced that set of things. And by the way, they didnt look at it and say, you know, we dont were not going to Pay Attention to what the president says, were going to focus on what he does, even though we dont read the tweets, not that nixon tweeted. They said, this is an unacceptable way for the president , who has taken an oath to preserve and protect the constitution and has a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, this is an unacceptable fashion for the president to engage with an investigation of, among other things, his white house and himself. And that is one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. And i want to be specific about that bottom line, because what happens with nixon is that it does end up being part of the articles of impeachment against him. But we know in part because of documents that were unsealed because of litigation that you were part of to get this unsealed, we know this was not a matter that congress became interested in, these are all things that prosecutors, special prosecutors office, gathered information about, put together as criminal evidence, evidence of criminal behavior by the president , and referred it to congress who then put it forward in articles of impeachment. But they saw this as criminal behavior by the president , that aside from the question of whether or not the president could be indicted, this was a matter not just of congressional interest, it was a matter of the president being a felon. Right. So this is, i think, a really important point, and it has immediate implications for the present day. We off throw around questions like oh, did the president just obstruct justice . We talk in this language that refers to specific criminal statutes or categories of criminal statutes. Lets distinguish between impeding an investigation and the crime of obstruction of justice. And what if you look at those documents that you were just talking about, jaworski is interested in the question did the president commit a crime . He eventually decides hes going to name them as an unindicted coconspirator, not going to indict him while hes still in office. But his focus is on criminal acts. He describes him as committing crimes. Committing crimes. And he treats it entirely in a criminal context. When that information goes to congress, their job is not to decide did he commit crimes. Their job is to say, did he commit an offense that is unacceptable in a president who has taken an oath to preserve and protect the constitution, and who has a duty under the constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is a different question. And part of my point here is that the impeachment question is a different question than the criminal question. It is possible that youve done both. The criminal investigation can produce the grounds for impeachment. The question congress should be asking is not did the president commit a crime in these interactions say with paul manafort, because add to all this crazy stuff that has parallels with watergate, what the president appears to have done, which was we might say collude with a felon, a convicted felon to gather intelligence on federal prosecutors who work for the United States department of justice, which is to say for him, his administration, and, you know, he we can ask the question how does that interact with the criminal law . But the first and most important question to ask about that, is that an acceptable thing for the president to do . Is it acceptable for the president to screw up his own investigation, his Justice Departments investigation by doing that and then dangling a pardon in front of that persons face . Ben wittes is the editor in chief of law fair. Thank you for being here. I feel like this is an important time. I appreciate you helping us. Good to see you. Ive never missed a hand shake before. Lets do it again. Well be right back. vo gopis found a way to keep her receipts tidy, even when nothing else is. brand vo snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, 4,628 in tax savings. Quickbooks. Backing you. Its proven quality sleep. The new sleep number 360 smart bed, from 999, intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts. So you can get a running start on the holidays. And now, save up to 500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. Limited time only. To me, hes,s phil mickelson, well, dad. So when his joint pain from Psoriatic Arthritis got really bad, it scared me. And what could that pain mean . Joint pain could mean joint damage. Enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage and helps skin get clearer. Enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. Serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and Blood Disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. Tell your doctor if youve been some place where fungal infections are common, or if youre prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. Dont start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. Since enbrel, dads back to being dad. Visit enbrel. Com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. Ask about enbrel. Enbrel. Fda approved for over 16 years. Hebreakfast makers, takers, step counters, outdoor explorers, faith restorers, appointment keepers, fantastic creatures. Farmers market goers, cholesterol lowerers cell phone silencers. The new lease on lifers, and the positive thinkers. Heres to you all that see every day as an opportunity to thrive your way. Sfx stair creak sfx clink sfx deep breath sfx grunt sfx tinny headphone music sfx feet shuffling sfx slice sfx gasp sfx inhale. Exhale. Sfx lights scraping on roof sfx metallic scrape sfx grunt covered california. Its more than just health care. Its life care. Over the past few weeks, theres been a tempest in the teapot in the news about politics whether or not nancy pelosi would be the next speaker of the house. Theres been reporting every day how much trouble shes in, how much trouble her party is in. The reason im being a little snarky is because all this comes as nancy pelosi led her party to an electoral victory that will return them to power in the house. No party ever in the history of the country has won a Midterm Election by larger margin than the democrats just did in the house. And so now obviously nancy pelosi has to go, shes in big trouble. Its been a little strange, the timing of this particular beltway today, despite that beltway reporting, nancy pelosi received the nomination to be the speaker of the house from the Democratic Caucus today. Still, though, the somewhat inexplicable spin wont stop. Check this out. David neir pointed this out today, and he was right to do so. This is the New York Times headline from 2015, when paul ryan received his nomination to be speaker of the house, republicans nominate paul ryan as house speaker. This is how the same newspaper covered pelosis nomination. Democrats nominate pelosi to be speaker, but with significant defections. When paul ryan got that headline, he had 200 votes in favor, 43 against. Nancy pelosi received more votes in favor, she had 203 yes votes and 33 no votes. Yet she gets the big asterisks, the significant defections headline. After this was pointed out on twitter, the New York Times saw fit to change its headline. The twitter account editing the gray lady, which monitors changes at the New York Times website, they caught the change here. It goes from democrats nominate pelosi but with significant defections to this, democrats resoundingly nominate pelosi has speaker, but defections signal fight ahead. Okay, okay. You do you. The final vote for speaker on the full house floor wont happen until january. Even as the antipelosi effort has gotten so much attention from the Beltway Press and sputtered and failed today, it looks like were probably going to keep hearing about it until its over and probably even after then. I would tell you to buckle up, but dont bother. Its not dangerous. Tech at safelite autoglass, we really pride ourselves on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. Teacher lets turn in your science papers. Tech vo this teacher always puts her students first. Student i did mine on volcanoes. Teacher you did . oh, i cant wait to read it. Tech vo so when she had auto glass damage. She chose safelite. With safelite, she could see exactly when wed be there. Teacher you must be pascal. Tech yes maam. Tech vo saving her time. [honk, honk] kids bye tech vo . So she can save the science project. Kids whoa kids vo safelite repair, safelite replace the biggest federal prison in the country is one of our littlest states. The federal Correction Institution in ft. Dix, new jersey holds more than 4,000 prisoners. But this facility, this one here, is relatively new, and its starting to rival the one in new jersey at ft. Dix. This new one was opened in texas by the federal government in june of this year and it is gigantic, as well. 2300 people are being held at this brand new facility in texas. That makes it bigger than every single federal prison in the United States except for that one old mega prison in new jersey. But this big new facility in texas, it is not a federal prison, not technically. What it is, is a giant de facto jail for kids who havent been found to have committed any crimes. This is the shelter built by the Trump Administration to detain kids who cross the southern border. It was build in texas during the height of the family separation crisis when the white house realized they didnt have anywhere to put all the kids. This was supposed to be a temporary facility. Thats how the white house sold it to the public. They promised they were opening it in june and would be closed by july 13th. Now the press has a new report about how the Trump Administration turned that temporary shelter into a fullblown prisonsized, gigantic Detention Center for kids who havent committed crimes. 2324, largely Central American boys and girls, are sleeping inside the guarded facility in rows of bunk beds in tents. Teams with identical haircuts and government issued shirts and pants could be seen walking from tent to tent, flanked by staff. They walked the detainees to their meals, showers, and recreation, guarded by multiple levels of security. At night, the area around the camp, thats grown from a few dozen to more than 150 tents, it is secured and it will up by flood lights. More people are detained in the tent city in all but one of the nations 204 federal prisons. And yet construction continues. Still getting bigger, construction continues. The reason this tent city is bigger than almost every federal prison is not just because of the Family Administration pol y policy, but the white house has dialed up the requirements that need to be met before these kids are released to anyone. That means those deliberate policy changes with the white house have not only required the creation of these new but ensured theyre going to keep getter bigger and bigger and bigger since theyre not giving these kids a way to get out. More on this in a moment. Stay with us. Cancer is relentl, but im relentless too. Mbc doesnt take a day off, and neither will i. And i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. In fact, verzenio is a cdk4 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr , her2 Metastatic Breast Cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. Verzenio an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. Diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. Before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. Verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. Serious liver problems can occur. Symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. Blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. Talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. Tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. Common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. Im relentless. And my doctor and i choose to treat my Metastatic Breast Cancer with verzenio. Be relentless. Ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. The greatest wish of all. Is one that brings us together. The lincoln wish list event is here. Sign and drive off in a new lincoln with 0 down, 0 due at signing, and a complimentary first months payment. Only at your lincoln dealer. This just a bit of new reporting from the ap about the massive and growing tent city where our government is currently holding more than 2,000 kids in what is basically a prison camp, holding them there indefinitely. A 17yearold from honduras told the ap, quote, the few times they would let me call my mom i would tell her one day i would be free, but really i felt like i would be there for the rest of my life. But i felt so bad for the kids whoo still there, they need a hug and nobody is allowed to hug there. Congratulations on breaking this devastating story. Thanks for being with us tonight. Thank you, rachel. So this was supposed to be a temporary facility to address a temporary shortage in facilities for kids. How did it become so big and why is it still open . Well, it was intended to be open for just about a month, for shortterm stays, for migrant teens about to be reunited with their families. Then as more teens kept coming and as the Trump Administration ratcheted up the background checks required for their families, kids started lingering there for much longer. In fact, we found some kids have been there since june. With a shortterm facility ad hoc converted into what continues to be a longterm facility one of the things you worry about there arent adequate services for people who are held there on a longer term basis. You describe some pretty disturbing developments in terms of the way the Trump Administration is running this place is they basically waived some security checks for some of the staff for these kids. Earlier this year the director personally waived the requirement for the more than 2,000 staffers working out there to go through the really rigorous fbi fingerprint background checks. Now, fbi Officials Say those are much better than say just running somebodys name through a criminal history database. Because you cant lie about your fingerprints. Although you can make up somebody elses name. What we also found which was surprising to us was that there are really very few Mental Health staffers out there for these kids and these are teens who have been on a really dangerous journey often from central america, theyre currently detained and so have experienced trauma. So what the Inspector General ended up finding in a memo yesterday is that the combination of these two issues is really putting the kids safety at risk. One of the things that struck me also in your reporting was a brief mention there are no classes for these kids. Theres no formal classroom setting for them. This is more than 2,000 kids, theyre teenagers. The u. S. Government is holding them indefinitely and sometimes for long periods. They dont go to class . Well, yeah. I should say this is not a prison camp per se, this is detention facility, but you certainly cant leave. And according to some lawyers i spoke with, its also very hard to get a textbook. There are some Educational Services that are offered. There are lessons that the private contractor provides to the kids, but those are really big affairs. You know, 50 kids with one teacher for only an hour, a couple hours a day. So its nothing like the formal schooling most teens would be having at that age. Investigative reporter with the associated press, just critical reporting here. Thanks very much for making the time to talk to us about it tonight. Benny thompson the incoming chair of the committee that overseas this part of the government is already making some very large noises about the democrats going after this issue very aggressively when they take over at the end of the year. Stay with us. This morning. Hey dad. If hed taken tylenol, hed be stopping for more pills right now. Only aleve has the strength stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. Tylenol cant do that. Aleve. All day strong. All day long. Now introducing aleve back and muscle pain, for up to 12 hours of pain relief with just one pill. With the chase ink business unlimited card, i get unlimited 1. 5 cash back. Its so simple, i dont even have to think about it. So i think about mouthfeel. I dont think about the ink card. I think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. I think about the details. Fine, i obsess over the details. Think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought. Your ink card. Chase ink business unlimited. Chase ink business unlimited, with unlimited 1. 5 cash back on every purchase. Chase for business. Make more of whats yours. The senate part of the 2018 elections is now over. Mike espy did not become the next u. S. Senator for mississippi but the democrat did pretty well considering he was a democratic running in mississippi. Mike espy last night flipped four counties that had gone for trump in 2016. He outperformed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and barack obama in 2012 in key suburban counties. In a state trump won by 18 points Democrat Mike Espy got within 8 poenlints of winning l night. No, democrats did not win that senate race last night, but they got to feel like they did all right with espy. That does it for us tonight. Now now its time for the last word with lawrence odonnell. Im so glad you made that point about mississippi. I am sadly old enough to remember when mississippi had democratic centers and plenty of other states that now have republican senators have
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.