Policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. Charging the president with a crime was not an option we were even allowed to consider. By the way, though, if we had concluded that he didnt commit a crime, we would definitely tell you that, and youll notice were not telling you that. It has been two years now since special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate russian interference in the last president ial election. Two years and 12 days ago is when he was first appointed. Today was the first day that we have heard from mueller himself in his own words, and honestly, the consequence of hearing from him today for the first time is i think what is now the widely held expectation that the Democratic Controlled Congress will have no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry into president trump. Not because they want to. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been blunt and consistent and insistent in making sure she would frankly rather stick a fork in her eye, but now we know that what congress didnt fully appreciate when they all initially cheered the appointment of Robert Mueller, when they praised him personally, when they praised the decision of the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to look into this matter, what i think congress didnt fully grasp at the time was that the regulations under which mueller was appointed meant that if this investigation turned up serious evidence of serious misconduct, if it turned up evidence of potentially criminal behavior by the president , the only and inevitable outcome of that determination by the special counsel would be that congress themselves would have to do something about it. I am quite sure that nobody in congress would have been nearly as excited about Robert Mueller taking on this job and about a special counsel being appointed at all had they realized from the outset that thats what would happen at the end of muellers investigation if he found the most serious and seriously negative thing in his investigation, it would go to congress for them to handle. But now we know from the horses mouth as of today, finally, more than two years into this thing that according to Justice Department policies, any evidence of a president s criminal behavior thats turned up by a special counsel, any evidence of that is to be given to congress to deal with. Thats what you do with that information, full stop. It doesnt go to anybody else. Congress, it is on you guys. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and Accurate Information from every person we questioned. When the subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their governments effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. Under Longstanding Department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. The departments written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points. The opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice System to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. So the Justice Department opinion that says you cant charge a president says, first, that a special counsel should nevertheless collect and preserve evidence of a president s potential criminal behavior. Why is that . Why collect and preserve that evidence if you cant charge that president as a result of that evidence . Well, among other things, if in fact there turns out to be evidence that shows a president may have committed crimes, well, you are going to need that evidence to indict the president for those crimes one way or the other, to bring charges. Its just that indictment cannot come from the Justice Department. The constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice System to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. The determination of a president s criminal culpability is a process that does not and cannot take place within the criminal Justice System. That is a determination to be made in congress. And, you know, to be clear and to stomp on a point that i think will make the first paragraph of William Barrs obituary some day, what Robert Mueller made clear today is the determination as to whether or not charge the president , the decision to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, that is not to be made within the whole criminal Justice System, which means its not to be made by the special counsels office within the Justice Department. Its not to be made by the Justice Department at all, which means presumably, that it is also not to be made by the top official at the Justice Department, the attorney general. Nevertheless, attorney general william barr took it upon himself to do that, to assess the president s potential criminal wrongdoing and to publicly proclaim no charges, no charges, everything the president looks fine, everybody the president did looks fine. So what im giving you here, this is not groundbreaking analysis, right, of muellers statement. Robert muellers Public Statement today really didnt leave much wiggle room for contrary analysis, and that is exactly the point of him personally making a succinct Public Statement about his own work and his own reasoning, so the American People could clearly understand it. I mean reading the 458page Mueller Report is awesome. I highly recommend it. You should do it. But as a person who read the report, i still find it helpful to have the dude that wrote it up there saying hey, you know, heres what it says, and heres the important bits you want to make sure you dont miss out on. That is finally what we got from mueller today. Thats a helpful thing for public understanding, on top of telling people to read the report themselves. And because it was a helpful thing to hear it from him today, to have him make that Public Statement, it is therefore not surprising and not a bad thing that the well informed press and members of congress and president ial candidates and the public have all been sort of greeting his Statement Today with some exclamation points, right . With some shock and surprise, even though, yes, its true, this stuff really was in his report. Yes, mueller and his team really did find that they could not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice. They were looking to see if they could clear him. They could not. Yes, the obstruction efforts they documented were really serious, and they did impede the ability of mueller and his investigators to get to the bottom of russian interference in the election and the trump campaigns involvement in it. Yes. And, yes, mueller and his team said in their report that the special counsels office didnt have the option of charging trump, even if they wanted to, or of even saying that they believed trump committed crimes. They didnt have that option because of the Justice Department policy that precludes charges against a sitting president. Yes, that was in the report. But when mueller said it today, nevertheless, it was greeted as huge news. Mueller had explained in his report that because of Justice Department policy, its only congress that can and must he basically says in the report and must determine the president s criminal culpability for committing obstruction of justice here. That was my favorite part from the whole written report, right . That congress, he says, that congress may apply obstruction laws to the president s corrupt exercise to the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. Congress has the authority to prohibit a corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. Unless you want to uphold our constitutional system of constitutional balances and no person is above the law. If you want to do that, you want to apply the obstruction institutes here. And congress, you know, its no big deal whether or not you want to pursue the president for corruptly using his authority to obstruct justice. Its no big deal unless you want to protect the administration of justice in the United States of america. Its already made that case that congress can and must act based on this kind of evidence. And it was stunning to see it there in the report in black and white in the first place. But honestly, it is something all together different to see him say it out loud, in person, unfiltered. Making a public presentation of your findings matters. Which makes it all the more remarkable and significant that instead of just letting mueller do that from the outset, we the people have muddled through more than nine weeks of the attorney general making up porky pies about what mueller did and didnt do. And claiming that mueller was leading a spy ring and telling congress that mueller should have never been allowed to investigate this stuff in the first place, and no collusion, no collusion. What are you going to do, lock me up, nancy . Thats been the past nine weeks. Imagine if mueller had just been allowed at the outset to release the introductions that he and his team wrote, summarizing the two volumes of their report. Imagine if at the outset mueller had just said publicly what he finally was allowed to say publicly today about his investigation and about his report. Imagine that had been from the outset how we learned about what mueller found and what mueller did and what the country and specifically the congress is expected to do with the evidence that mueller turned up that he couldnt use to bring charges but somebody could. And so now the Congress Really is in a different place than they were before 11 00 a. M. Eastern time this morning. Because mueller has now for the first time in more than two years, he has been allowed to speak on his own terms, and he has made clear in no Uncertain Terms that the next move is not going to come from him. It is going to have to come from congress. So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we would would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the offices final position. Now i hope and expect to be the only time i will speak to you in this manner. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Sir, if youre subpoenaed no questions. No questions. I said no questions. The work speaks for itself. Here it is. We in the special counsels office cant charge him. Heres the evidence we found, though. Wed tell you if he clearly didnt commit obstruction, and boy howdy are we not saying that. We tried to clear him. Couldnt. And by the way, obstruction is a really serious crime, and to the extent that there was criminal obstruction here, and we lay that out over more than 100 pages, that was obstruction of a really, really important investigation into something very, very bad for our whole country that every american should really care about. And did i mention thats it from me. I mean i think that congress will still get testimony from Robert Mueller probably by hook or by crook. Im still interested in the question of his team, the prosecutors and agents and analysts that worked with him will also testify. A house intelligence chairman already said today thank you, sir. Were looking forward to your testimony. Thats a good hint that he is still going to be asked to testify. But there is a reason that there was unanimity today from president ial candidates, even from the ones who have been more reticent on this issue in the past. Today in response to muellers statement, none of them are being reticent today. There is a reason that all today said impeachment must be observe. Judiciary chairman jerry nadler, where he said this, he said given that special counsel mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president , it falls to congress to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of the president , and we will do so. There is a reason that after jerry nadler made that Statement Today, there was some bewilderment that nadler then gave a life press statement to reporters in which he still wouldnt just say that he is opening an impeachment inquiry. When he says we will do so, what does he mean . We will do what . I mean democrats wanted to follow Robert Muellers lead on this investigation as far as they could. Understandable, cautious, restrained, and in many ways admirable. But today thats over because today we found out from the horses mouth, we found out from mueller himself exactly how far mueller could go. And so now upon muellers resignation from the Justice Department, upon finally hearing from him about his own work, now the i believe widely held expectation is that the house will open an impeachment inquiry into the president. Presented with this evidence and with the clarifying out loud unquestionable assertion from mueller himself that it is now their job to do something about it, congress will have to do something about it. I mean the question now is i think no longer whether the democrats will decide to open an impeachment inquiry. Joining me is congresswoman mary gay scanlon. She is vice chair of the Judiciary Committee. Representative scanlon, its really good to have you here with us. Thanks for coming in and being with us in person. Thank you. Let me just get your reaction to what mueller said today. It was great to hear him say it out loud. Its been really frustrating to those of us who have read the report to see its conclusions misrepresented, glossed over, completely mischaracterized by the white house and by attorney general barr. So having it come straight from the horses mouth was valuable. In terms of his clear assertions today that it is not for the criminal justice process, it is not for the criminal Justice System to determine whether or not there is criminal culpability on the part of the president , that has to be something outside the criminal Justice System. Clearly he doesnt mean some sort of, you know, game show review. He doesnt mean some sort of luck of the draw. He Means Congress pursuing impeachment proceedings. With him clarifying that today, obviously, i mean, i explained the way i see this, i feel like hes sort of called the question for the congress in terms of whether or not an impeachment inquiry will be opened. I know that you have called for that recently yourself. Do you think that this changed today the calculus as to whether or not democrats will do it . I think weve seen an escalation of people as theyve gotten through the report, as theyve read it, republicans and democrats, they come to this conclusion themselves. The question is whether the American People will come to that conclusion, because what were seeing is that the Republican Party and the Senate Majority is either not reading the report or they dont care whats in the report because we heard from Senate Leadership over the weekend that if the house is to start impeachment proceedings, theyre just going to shut it down. It doesnt seem to matter to them what evidence is brought forward. I think when people do read the report, when they hear from Robert Mueller, they understand that these are serious crimes against our country, and they have to be dealt with. Let me unpack that a little bit, though. As i understand it constitutionally, if the house were to open an impeachment inquiry, decide that the evidence was sufficient to vote on articles of impeachment and did vote to impeach the president , it would go to the senate and it would not be Mitch Mcconnells choice as to whether or not a trial was held in the senate on those articles. The chief justice as i understand it would have to conduct that trial. Certainly mcconnell and the republicans could do everything they wanted to try to undercut it, but they wouldnt be running it. And i wonder if therefore it could still have some sort of additional value in terms of explaining to the American People what happened and why is so serious. I think thats why so many of us have started calling for an inquiry. Because its important that the American People understand whats in there. And its a really dense document, and you cant tweet it. Weve tried. You organized an out loud reading of the report. Yes, we did. We did. Because we couldnt get because the administration was stonewalling, wasnt letting us bring in the witnesses who could say the president told me to lie. The president told me to make up documentary evidence. The president called me. His lawyer called me. They said oh, we love you. Please dont cooperate. We havent been able to bring those witnesses in yet, but we will. But its important that the American People hear from them, because right now we do have this block of the public that hasnt focused on the report, and ultimately, we need them to. This is a serious proceeding, and we need to have the public understand what the consequences are and what is the conduct were talking about. Congressman jerry nadler talking with me here in that seat just the other night seemed to be basically agnostic on the issue of impeachment, seeing the value of it, also seeing the arguments against it, but not crusading one way or the other in public there has been reports he has tried to talk speaker of the house nancy pelosi into doing it. She has been very overt and insistent that we ought not to as a country, this is something that would not be of value. How does this get decided . Ultimately its the chairmans decision. Youre the vice chair of the committee. Its your call whether this is opened. I think what he is not agnostic about that we need to expose the evidence to the public. We need to have hearings. Whether you call them impeachment hearings or whether you call them oversight hearings. Why not call them impeachment hearings . Well, i think there is concern about how thats going to be played by the white house. They played everything else. Theyre going to tell you that youre trying to impeach the president , whether or not you are. Thats baked into the 2020 calculus at this point. Im sure they have already cooked up the ads that say it. The political calculation on here seems very nebulous, where as the constitutional imperative has never seemed more clear than it does today. Well, there is the constitutional imperative. And i think that is what is drawing more and more members of the house, as i said both republican and now democrat to say we have a duty to protect the constitution, and thats whats at stake here. Congresswoman mary gay scanlon, vice chair of the house Judiciary Committee, an incredibly important gig right now. Thank you so much for coming in person. Thank you. Appreciate. All right. Well be right back. Stay with us. Applebees new loaded fajitas. Now thats eatin good in the neighborhood. Applethis is a commercialitas. And i know youre thinking. I dont want to hear about insurance. cause lets be honest. Nobody likes dealing with insurance. Right . See, esurance knows its expensive. I feel like im giving my money away. So theyre making it affordable. Thank you, dennis quaid. Youre welcome, guy in kitchen. I named my character walter. Thats great. Id tell you more but i only have thirty seconds so heres a dramatic shot of their tagline so youll remember it. When insurance is affordable, its surprisingly painless. They feel like they have to drink a lot of water. Patients that i see that complain about dry mouth, medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. Dry mouth can cause increased cavities, bad breath, oral irritation. I like to recommend biotene. Biotene has a full array of products that replenishes the moisture in your mouth. Biotene definitely works. It makes patients so much happier. [ slurps ] gwhos a good boy . Its me. Me, me, me. Hey guys youre gonna want to get in on this. I know how to those guys in here. Lets pause the internet on their devices. Wohhh . Huhhhh . [ grumbling ] all sausages mmm, mmmm. Bon appetite. Make time for what matters. Pause your wifi with xfinity xfi and see the secret life of pets 2 in theaters. Good for bob mueller yet again doing his duty of making sure that the American Public fully understands whats going on here. He told us a lot, and i would suggest that he told us enough to interpret what he said as a referral for impeachment proceedings. Yeah, the message really is over to you, congress. If the Justice Department cant charge a sitting president with an actual crime, then it guess over to congress to decide whether to charge the president with a high crime. This is as close to an impeachment referral as you could get under the circumstances. The only ones who can hold the president of the United States accountable right now is congress. These are impeachable offenses. It is our constitutional responsibility as members of congress to bring a judgment of impeachment against this president. I think Robert Mueller made it as clear as day for all of us. Hes telling us if we want to prevent this from happening again to our democracy, we have to hold those responsible accountable, and the only method that we can do that is for our representatives in congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Thats just some of the 2020 Democratic Candidates today reacting to muellers Statement Today, which he announced the conclusion of his tenure as special counsel and his resignation from the Justice Department. Roughly summarized, the 2020 democrats response was pretty uniform. This is the biggest impeachment referral you will ever get. I didnt actually see any of them departing from that line. So what happens with that . According to current nbc news tally, people have been sort of trying to track this through Public Statements, of the 435 members of the house, there are 46 democrats and 1 republican, michigan dock man justin amash who have openly called for opening an impeachment inquiry. Nearly four dozen members of congress, including the vice chair of the Judiciary Committee who was just our guest here moments ago. You know, after the saturday night massacre in the fall of 1973 when nixon fired his way through the Justice Department to try to get rid of the special prosecutor who was investigating him for watergate, after that there was a stampede toward impeachment proceedings against nixon among democrats in the house. It almost went without saying that impeachment proceedings would open. Similarly, following the release of the ken starr report in 1998, republican members of the house instantly and uniformly backed impeachment proceedings against bill clinton. Isnt this current restraint among House Democrats in the wake of what mueller has publicly presented, isnt it a little unusual just historically speaking . Joining us now is michael beschloss, nbc president ial historian. See the author most recently of president s of war. Mr. Beschloss, its great to see you. Thanks for being here tonight. Thank you. Me too, rachel. Is this restraint that were seeing from the democratic leadership in the house, do you think it is unusual given the historical circumstances here . Yeah, i do. I think it really defies history. Just as you said in the case of Richard Nixon after the saturday night massacre, a lot of members of the house wanted impeachment, and also leon jaworski, the prosecutor sent this secret over to the house that was called the watergate road map. You and have i talked about that before. 1st of march, 1974 with supporting evidence, and that allowed the house to essentially good ahead. And that was considered to be so hot it wasnt released until about seven months ago. And then in the case of the starr report, that was released to the public in september of 1998, and starr sent that immediately to the house, along with 18 boxes of evidence. And once again, the members of the house which was republican at this point said lets impeach, and they began the investigation. There was not this feeling that we have to hold back because maybe well look too political. Mueller indicated clearly today that his preference is not to have to say another word about the investigation, not to have to testify. Is there any help from history on that point . Is there precedent in terms of special counsels or other high profile public investigators like this having to testify or electing to testify after making some form of their findings public. Do you think that mueller be forced to testify . I think he will be. I think he will not get his wish, if it really is his wish. He may feel if he has to testify, it is better for him to do that after having today made a point that he is doing it extremely reluctantly, and maybe more in sorrow than in anger. But it would be crazy if we were not called to testify. And i dont know about you, rachel, but Robert Mueller does not look to me like the kind of person who is going to defy a congressional subpoena that is to testify beyond what hes just said in that report. Kenneth starr testified before the house in the impeachment investigation against bill clinton november of 1998. Thats a precedent. Michael, i also wanted to ask you about your reaction as a historian to the arguments that democrats are making. You often hear them making these arguments sort of by proxy. Like mary gay scanlon who is just here, vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, she thinks they should open an inquiry. She has been very articulate about it. When i asked her here why isnt that happening, she is sort of arguing by proxy, saying what other people are saying is that democrats worry about the political consequences of that. And the way that usually gets shorthanded when people draw a historical analogy is to the clinton situation, that when clinton was impeached in the house in 1998, it obviously failed in the senate, and politically it was seen as something that boomeranged on the republicans, ending Newt Gingrichs career among other things. Right. What do you make of that argument, whether its implicit or explicit . Do you think there are appropriate historical parallels to draw between this situation and that one . Not much. Ive never been impressed by the clinton situation as a precedent for this, showing us what might happen. Clinton was in the high 60s in approval, very much different from donald trump. The offenses he was accused of were in retrospect a lot more modest than the possible crimes that were reading about in the Mueller Report. So if youre looking at the clinton case and saying does this show us that if the democrats begin a house impeachment investigation, they have to worry about losing the election next year, i think thats a really false parallel. And the other thing, i think you said it a little earlier in the program, you know, all very nice, the more important thing, those members of the house, they all took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. And if they do not do anything about these possible crimes that Robert Mueller has described very vividly in this report, theyre essentially saying were not going to we dont care about the rule of law. And obstructing justice, if thats what donald trump has done, that will become the new normal. And later president s will feel very free to do it too because theyll just say the house will not do it if they think it will get them into political trouble. What should always prevail is a feeling by members of the house that theyre going to protect the constitution. And if they do not do that, were going to be in a lawless society, and we will lose our democracy. Michael beschloss, nbc president ial historian. Thank you for that very sobering perspective, sir. Its always great to have you here. Thank you, rachel. Thank you so much. Lots more to get here tonight. In fact, our next 2020 candidate interview is just ahead. Somebody who we have not had before on this show, and boy is he here on a good night. Thats next. Well be right back. We humans are strange creatures. Other species avoid pain and struggle. We actually. Seek it out. Other species do difficult things because they have to. We do difficult things. Because we like to. We think its. Fun. Introducing the allnew 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. With moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans. Crohns, can change in minutes. Your head wants to do one thing. But your gut says not today. If your Current Treatment isnt working. Ask your doctor about entyvio®. Entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. Entyvio® has helped many patients achieve longterm relief and remission. Infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. Entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. Pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. Tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flulike symptoms, or sores. Liver problems can occur with entyvio®. Ask your doctor about the only gifocused biologic just for Ulcerative Colitis and crohns. Entyvio®. Relief and remission within reach. I was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. And i just didnt listen. Until i almost lost my life. My doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. Be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. Listen to the doctor. Take it seriously. Whos already won three cars, two motorcycles, a boat, and an r. V. I would not want to pay that insurance bill. [ ding ] oh, i have progressive, so i just bundled everything with my home insurance. Saved me a ton of money. Love you, gary you dont have to buzz in. Its not a question, gary. On march 1, 1810 [ ding ] frederic chopin. Collapsing in 226 [ ding ] the colossus of rhodes. [ sighs ] Louise Dustmann [ ding ] brahms lullaby, or wiegenlied. When will it end . [ ding ] not today, ron. This week we are looking at the prospect that for the First Time Since roe v. Wade, an american state will have zero legal access to abortion. Zero legal abortion providers. Missouris republicancontrolled government has made it their business to try to put out of business every clinic that provides abortion in that state, and theyve done great at it. Over the past ten years theyve winnowed it down from at least five clinics providing abortions in the state to now just one last clinic for the entire population of missouri. And as of last night, that clinic says its been informed by the States Government that the state is going to refuse to renew their license to operate immediately this week, which means by the day after tomorrow, the state of missouri may become the first state in the country to go dark in terms of abortion rights since roe v. Wade supposedly enshrined that right into law across the land. Now, there was a Court Hearing on this missouri issue today that was called off at the last minute, sort of an unusual development. Nobody seems to know exactly why the Court Hearing on this today got called off or now how this is going to resolve in such a short timeframe. But that missouri situation, it comes at a time when people in republicancontrolled states across the country are seeing those states ban abortion. And it comes a at time when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court seems as eager and capable as theyve ever been of striking down the laws that otherwise have kept clinics open. So, you know, thats one way to do it. Thats what republicancontrolled states are making their priority in 2019, banning abortion in print, and banning abortion in practice, and seeing how far and how fast they can push the Supreme Court to make it go away nationwide. Thats one way. Here is an opposite way. If you were driving down the highway in colorado in 2012, you might have seen billboards like these. I want her to know im ready to be a dad. Pregnancy. Just talk about it. They had billboards in spanish too. This one says we are ready for a relationship, not a baby. This is part of a state Public Health campaign in colorado that year to try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in that state, which of course down the line naturally reduces the number of abortions in the state as well. This Public Policy program this Public Health program in colorado, it was built around a specific technology, longacting, reversible contraception, specifically, these little guys. This is an iud. Its a longacting reversible contraception. Thats a method of preventing pregnancy. Its more reliable than the pill. With the iud, you put the device in and you dont have to do anything to keep it going. You dont have to remember to take a pill at the same time every day. It just works consistently until years down the road you may eventually need a new one, or years down the road you decide you may want to get pregnant so you have it removed. But iuds are expensive. They cost hundreds of dollars. A lot of clinics cant afford to give women a free iud or subsidize one. So colorado saw that, saw the Public Health need there and decided there was a way to fix that. And starting in 2009, they did this unique program. Colorado got millions of dollars in private grant money to buy tens of thousands of iuds for Public Health clinics all over that state so those clinics could then offer iuds for those patients for free or at reduced costs as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the state, particularly among teenaged girls. And boy howdy did it work. Colorado officials cite that iud program as the primary factor for the den birth rate dropping by 54 . The teen abortion rate in colorado dropped by even more, by 64 . What began with a private grant became a line item in the state budget to keep funding iuds for colorado women who wanted them. It was signed into the budget in 2016 by the states governor at the time, Democrat John hickenlooper. People talk about hickenlooper has an unconventional politician who has a record of results. That is one of the conventions that undergirds that reputation. A phenomenally successful radically new idea in Public Health that absolutely worked. John hickenlooper started off as a geologist. Didnt work out. Decided to open a brew pub in denver. Sure, that makes out. Turns out that took off. Hickenlooper went on to become the mayor of denver. Then he served eight year as the mayor of colorado, one of the most popular governors in the unto can, and one of them with the most practical track record among all of his peers. Hickenlooper left the governorship in january. Now he is running for president. And of course its not the centerpiece of his campaign, but its a memorable and unique part of it that he has earned the right to propose and pursue because he did it already in his state as part of his president ial campaign. Governor hickenlooper is now proposing a National Version of that Public Health problem Public Health program, that iud program he helped oversee in colorado. Policy paper from his campaign says, quote, in light of the systemic attack on womens reproductive rights in states across the country, a federal program which expands access to affordable, effective contraception is even more necessary than when colorados Program Began ten years ago. As president , hickenlooper would subsidize the cost of longacting reversible contraception for women who cant afford it and dramatically expand access for all american women. Joining us women now for the interview is John Hickenlooper. He is the former colorado governor. He is a current candidate in the democratic president ial primary. Governor, thanks for being here. Thanks, rachel. A lot of people are talking about the size of the democratic field and what it takes to stand out, what it takes to get donors attention. This is something we covered on the show years ago when you were in the midst of this, in the midst of fighting political battles in colorado. At the time you were overtly saying you would never run for president. But this is one of the things that you pursued as governor that i think kind of sets you apart and tells a story about you that i think both people will remember, but also as a kind of window into your practicality. Do you think thats fair . And was this harder to get done than it seems from the outside . Well, i think that its a fundamental inalienable right that women should have control of their own bodies. And i think thats whats going on, this constant assault on womens reproductive rights, you see it in alabama, indiana, even missouri now, so many states that its horrific. And what we did was we went the other direction, right. We went out and expanded womens access to iuds and norplants, long acting reversible contraception, as you described it, and reduced teenaged abortion by 64 , abortion by 54 and in the process saved 70 million out of colorado tax money. So the notion that the people that are so opposed to abortion dont recognize in many ways by eliminating womens access to reproductive health, theyre actually going to increase the number of abortions. Its unconscionable. Do you feel like part of the reason this was interesting to me at the time we initially covered it is because when you were running for reelection as governor of colorado, your republican opponent tried to make an issue on this a real straight forward cultural war way, that you were a bad person for pursuing this, and this wasnt respectful of family values. He was pretty critical on the issue. And i feel like you, rather than just directly rebutting him on that, you sort of threaded this third way. You found another way to say look at one of the things we did here is greatly reduce the number of abortions. You know, i got elected in 2010. When i got elected, i was the first denver mayor in 120 years to get elected as governor of colorado. And as you know, 2010 was one of the worst years for democrats in history followed closely by 2014 when i won reelection. And a big part of that success was the result of really going all over the state and making sure that when we talked about Womens Health care, that we had the clinics and the Community Health centers and, you know, a network that really as much as possible, even in those difficulty to reach smaller towns, that we gave women choices, and allowed them to control their own bodies. I have a lot to ask you about your time as governor and as your campaign for the democratic president ial nomination this year. Stay right where you are. Governor John Hickenlooper of colorado is our guest. Well be right back. If you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. Dont stoop to their level. Draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. It extends with a protective shield and targets weeds more precisely. It lets you kill whats bad right down to the root while guarding the good. Roundup sure shot wand. Got bugs too . Roundup for lawns bug destroyer kills and prevents them, even grubs. Roundup brand. Trusted for over 40 years. Who used expedia to book the Vacation Rental that led to the ride which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. Flights, hotels, cars, activities, Vacation Rentals. Expedia. Everything you need to go. Back with news the studio and for the interview is John Hickenlooper, who is now running in the president ial. Thanks for joining us. You bet. You were considered a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Is that true . Yes. I was down to one of the last three or four that went through all the vetting. Well, do you wish you had been her running mate . What do you think about how 2016 went . Why do you think donald trump was able to beat her . You know, thats a whole long story, and i dont want to relitigate the past. I certainly admire secretary clinton, and she has been a great adviser at various points in my career, and even in this president ial youve talked about this . Oh, yeah. She and bill, we had a long dinner, and they gave a lot of advice. It helped me focus, right. The reason im running is because i think donald trump is fueling a National Crisis of division. And trump is the symptom, not the disease. Im not saying its essential to beat donald trump, but im running because, you know, this crisis of division is taking the country backwards, but i dont think socialism is the answer, right. I think weve in colorado we got business and nonprofits and republicans and democrats to get to near universal health care, to, you know, get to a point where we really address Climate Change issues, and we beat the nra with some tough new gun laws, right. As an enpra pa neuroand governor, as such ive been able to bring people together and get big progressive things done. The republicans have tried to define the Democratic Party as a socialist party or are you saying Bernie Sanders would be a bad nominee . No, i think many of my colleagues are promoting large expansions of government. I dont think well succeed in addressi addressing Climate Change within that legislation were guaranteeing federal jobs for everyone. I dont think well get to universal health care if it is taking 160 Million People off private insurance which many dont want to lose. We have to get focused if were going to address the issues and be surgical. I think im the one person thats done when everyone else is talking about. If we win in ohio and michigan, and north carolina, we need someone who is a progressive but prag prague mat tick and a dreamer and doer and gotten stuff done. If youre the democratic president ial nominee this year, with your prague experience, th party will run against you to be a socialist. Youve used that determine to d dismarriapa disparage your candidates. Im not playing into it. What im laying out is Real Solutions and i dont think those Solutions Include large expansions in government. I think that we as if were not careful, if we dont distance ourselves from socialism, i thinkallow, were attorney the victory over to the worst president you think thats the key to beating donald trump is not seeing socialist. I think its part of defeating donald trump in the swing states to be sure were seen as real prague mat timati s solutions. We want to bring people together and get, you know, big Challenging Solutions to our problems. Speaking of pragmitism, i opened up the discussions talking about the innovative successful Health Program you championed in colorado and faced down critics and one support and made it permanent and all the things you did there. If you youre now proposing Something Like that should be done nationally. If youre elected president , John Hickenlooper sworn in january 2021. Youre never getting that program through. Mitch mcconnell will say like with barack obama im not letting anything through i dont care if republicans like the idea. If you ran for senate in colorado and you are the candidate who could most easily take a Republican Senate seat in colorado, you would have a more you would have a better chance of flipping the senate to democratic control, you would propose that legislation, it would sail through and new democratic president would be signed into law. Pragmatically, i wish you were running for senate. You have been talking to chuck schumer. No, i can do this math myself. Of course. I spend my whole life as an entrepreneur and mayor and governor putting teams of people together and republicans and democrats, people from business and nonprofits creating amazing teams that have taken on in unimaginable changes and that excites me and motivates me and what im good at. I think im that person that can bring people together and really get done the big progressive things that people say cant get done and at a certain point, we got to challenge this fund mental nonsense in washington and replace it with common sense. John hickenlooper until january was the governor of colorado and one of the most accomplished governors in the country. Good to have you here. I hope you come back. I will. More news ahead, stay with us. I will. More news ahead, stay with us our mothers were diagnosed with cancer, how would we want them to be treated . Thats exactly how we care for you. With answers and actions. To hear your concerns, quiet your fears, lift your spirits. Thats the mother standard of care. This is how we inspire hope. This is how we heal. Cancer Treatment Centers of america. Appointments available now. Cancer Treatment Centers of america. Each day justin at work. Walk. And after work. He does it all with dr. Scholls. Only dr. Scholls has massaging gel insoles that provide allday comfort. To keep him feeling more energized. Dr. Scholls. Born to move. One more thing about this dramatic statement we got from Robert Mueller today in washington, his announcement he hoped today would be his last word on his investigation. You should know as mueller was wrapping up those remarks at the Justice Department in dc today, two blocks down pennsylvania avenue, the chief federal judge in d. C. District court was hearing a sort of roll licking set of arguments in one of the ongoing cases that muellers investigation has spawned. Mueller may want to be done but his work is not. For almost a year now, a young man who worked with roger stone named Andrew Miller has been fighting tooth and nail to try to avoid responding to a subpoena from mueller that directs him to testify to a grand jury. Now, millers lawyers have tried everything to keep him from having to testify, everything from challenging the legality of muellers appointment in the first place to saying this grand jury testimony must be about the roger stone case and since roger stone has already been charged prosecutors cant possibly need this kid to testify anymore. Theyve tried everything. Today after months and months of legal wrangeling over this and what must be huge legal bills for this guy, today the chief judge in d. C. District Court Finally just shut the whole thing down and Andrew Miller will testify now the day after tomorrow or hes going to jail. We got this transcript late tonight from this proceeding. The judge says, to millers lawyer understand if mr. Miller does not appear go the grand jury on friday, he will be in contempt and there will be a warrant issued for him. The lawyer says yes, urn. The judge says do you understand that. Yes, your honor. And the judge says does your client understand that. Andrew miller who is on speakerphone says on speakerphone, yes, your honor. And so the judge says all right, i will expect i will hear from the government should mr. Miller fail to appear at what time mr. Zielinski . He says 9 30 a. M. , your honor. The judge says 9 30 a. M. , friday, mr. Millers presence is required. So again, this has been going on for like a year that theyve been trying to get grand jury testimony from this guy Andrew Miller. They have issued a subpoena, as you know, subpoenas are not an invitation. They are mandatory. You do not have a choice whether or not you can obey a subpoena, take note. Mill heres been fighting this for a very long time. As of today, that case is finally settled and he is finally pab expected to give his testimony to mueller as grand jury on friday morning at 9 30. Muellers grand jury is continuing to meet. Mueller may have just pronounced his work done but a whole bunch of this stuff is ongoing. Stay tuned. Well see you again tomorrow. Its time for the last worded well see you again tomorrow. Its time for the last worded with lawrence odonnell. We have a great lineup tonight to analyze what Robert Mueller to say today. Were starting off with adam schiff. Were going to be joined by senator blumenthal and senator hirono. Neal katyal will be here with his analysis. But theres something coming up right at the end of this hour which i think we really need because im going to be using what Robert Mueller said today very similarly to the way you did, the stashed way we use in these kinds of shows. We take a piece of it, run it, get a reaction to that piece, we talk about that piece. Brian williams at 181 00 p. M. Is going to do us all a service at the end of this mueller surprise day and one the whole 9 1 2 minutes uncut