ves investigators. i want to get right to the it the with former federal prosecutor jan flannery are, matt miller, former chief spokesman at the justice department under eric holder and natasha ber brand, politico s national security correspondent. i m going to go down the line like this. natasha, what s the very latest and what is this really about? we don t really know what s going on to be honest with you. the members don t seem to know what s going on either. we ve heard that members have been told by their staff that the deputy s closed door testimony before lawmakers has been postponed or canceled. it s not really clear. but they haven t confirmeded definitively it s not happening. we re hearing perhaps the rumor is that it s put off for now. we don t know what s happening with that closed door. as for mueller testifying, that s still up in the air too because as you mentioned a
have to figure out. before i turn to my panel tonight, let s reflect on this. we do know the trump administration is under a very serious criminal investigation for obstruction of justice. and now we know that during that very probe, take it all together, donald trump has tried to fire the lead prosecutor, bob mueller. he s talked about firing mueller boss, rod rosenstein. he did fire the fbi director. he pushed for the ousting of the deputy fbi director. he s raged publicly against his own attorney general for not taking more control of this obstruction probe. and tonight, add to all that, we learn the trump justice department may try to jail that same deputy fbi director. this is not normal. i m joined by maya wiley, former counsel of new york city mayor and a practicing attorney, as well as matt miller who has worked at the justice department under eric holder. and former federal prosecutor
they re voluntary. there is no mechanism in this accord that would actually enforce any of these rules on any of the participating countries, unlike the previous kyoto protocol. there was no real reason for trump to withdraw from this treaty. world leaders will know this. the only reason was a gesture. it was a way to say, we are not going to be bound, even by rules that were voluntarily imposed on us, by ourselves. this is turning their backs trump is turning his back not just on these other world leaders and the environment but, as i mentioned before, on this entire international global order. it goes way beyond just questions of the environment to questions of diplomacy and how the united states will handle itself moving forward under president trump s direction. craig? matt bradley for us this morning in london. thank you. supreme decision. the trump administration appealing to the nation s highest court to allow it to start enforcing its block travel ban. our man at the just
campaign. the justice department says those statements shouldn t count. that puts the courts in trying to psychoanalyze what a candidate was saying. all that should matter is what happened after he became president and signed the executive order. finally, they say that basically this is in the national security interests. that the courts should not second guess the president when he says this is necessary for national security. on that argument, they may well prevail in the supreme court, craig. the supreme court traditionally tends to be more deferential to a president. these e the six countries that are underhe proposed travel restrictions. the government has been claiming that you just can t count on the kind of information you get from these countries when you re trying to do background investigations on people who want visas to come to the u.s. the current term ends, if i m not mistaken, later this month. do they take this up before the end of the term, or is this something that
department filed two emergency motions, asking the high court to allow the revised ban affecting six muslim majority countries to be immediately enforced. nbc s justice correspondent pete williams is standing by for us. pete, what were the arguments that the justice department made last night? three, basically, craig. first of all, they say that you shouldn t have a nationwide ban based on only a claim by what they now say is a single person in maryland. a man who wanted to bring his wife from iran to the u.s. that you can t have a nationwide ban based on one person s complaint. at the very most, the ban should apply just to the one person. secondly, they say the the justice department says the lower courts are wrong to rely on statements made by candidate trump. that s been the crux of the lower court decisions here, that this is a muslim ban. it s based on religious discrimination. you just have to look at what the president said during the