historically large field of 2020 democrats? according to the latest cnn des moines register poll, 79% want some to drop out and 18% relish the chance to see all of them vying for the nomination. jerry nadler is striking a deal with the justice department to get documents from the mueller report. documents related to obstruction of justice by the president. that puts off a subpoena to william barr. it s not clear which documents will be provided to the committee and it means all judiciary members will see the most important files on obstruction. chairman nadler gavelled in a hearing featuring richard nixon s white house counsel. john dean. the hearing was called to discuss how it was handled and
wouldn t register with them. they want to hear more about agenda. at one point, some of pelosi s allies started scolding the members, about trying to push for an impeachment inquiry. the judiciary members were like, listen, we have been trying to investigate the president. we can t get anywhere right now because the white house is stonel withston stonejanuary waston stonewalling. pelosi summoned nadler to a private meeting in her office around 9:00 or 10:00 at night. during the meeting, it sounds like, from my reporting and my understanding, nadler pressed pelosi on beginning an impeachment inquiry, and made the case to her, why this could be helpful to house democrats. pelosi and her top leadership team we re responded that the caucus was not there. nadler left the meeting. he wouldn t talk about it with me or other reporters. wouldn t comment on it. he appeared to side with pelosi rather than criticize her after this meeting. he later called his committee
to insulate the report. he got to grand jury to go ahead and release a lot of this information to congress. presumably it could happen now as well. one thing we should be looking at is what the house judiciary committee intends do here. the house judiciary members asked for the department of justice to refer to them any everyday it is to say assert their own constitutional per ogtives and say look, you had to decide whether or not there was prosecutable crimes here. based on what you know about barr and the justice department how do you see this unfolding? it sounds easy but it will make everybody unhappy. barr is seen in this town as a pro. he is not a spring chicken. he is coming at this before the
public forcing a restart in the senate judiciary members in 1991 world white. today the gop majority remain so but four of the ten democrats are women including its ranking member. thomas s fate was decided as a partisan political matter, a he said she said that brett kavanaugh is facing. along with millions of other women i watched in horror as an all-male judiciary committee interrogated, be rated and maligned we don t want this to be a 3 ring circus. we want this to be an orderly and dignified presentation. reporter: there are major differences, the claims against brett kavanaugh involved teenagers, no, the complaint filed by the victim. the democrats took a go slow approach pushing to have hill and thomas testify separately in person. the current gop majority the cover to resolve the matter sooner rather than later.
into any of that democrats obviously questions about senator feinstein bringing it you up before this woman came forward and why is that acceptable? and then the democrats, there was a hearing today that brett kavanaugh was going to meet with judiciary members or top staff. top democrats said they didn t want to go. why not? white house i thought responded very well today in the president. very smart to have open hearings. three hours ago we thought the senate majority leader was resisting this idea and that would have been a huge mistake. that said, there is still time for the republicans, on that committee or in leadership to mess this up. and if they do not handle i m going to echo what chris said, if they do not handle this well and give this woman her due, they will face a stampede on november 6th and possibly a democratic senate. it s a mistake they don t want to make. bret: brit? it looks to me from what we know now as if somebody is going to have to corroborate their own