tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN May 29, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
difficult to read. anticipating death as part of a political calculus, i don't know, call me old fashioned but it seems like a habit of poor taste. the president may not view congress as a co-equal branch of government, but when it comes to hypocrisy about supreme court justices, the white house may have just met their match in washington and on the ridiculist tonight. let's go to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." mueller was seen and heard and now more democrats are wanting action against the president. mr. mueller said what he wrote. he was not allowed to charge the president and he would have cleared the president if the facts allowed but they didn't. so what is the way forward for democrats and when will they decide? we have a top dem, senator richard blumenthal is there and he's going to give us some insight on that. and wondering what the president was thinking as mr. mueller was speaking and what it meant to him? me too.
and we have someone who was in the room with the president right after mr. mueller's remarks, his longtime friend chris ruddy, the head of newsmax. he was with the president and now he's with us tonight. and for all the talk about what mueller couldn't do and wasn't allowed to do and what he didn't do but what he thought he might do, he had one clear statement of concern about the integrity of our democracy and it's being all but ignored. is anyone focussing on how to protect our next election? time to speak truth to power. what do you say? let's get after it. all right. once and for all, together as one there was no exoneration. it was clear in the report. and for those of you who didn't read or didn't believe what the attorney general was telling you and what the president was telling you was wrong. mr. mueller finally stepped forward and spelled it out plainly.
>> a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. >> now, mr. mueller said this is my first and hopefully last time speaking about the russia probe. not so sure about that. congress wants to hear from him. now, both speaker pelosi and house judiciary chairman jerry nadler, they say nothing is off the table, so what will happen next? let's bring in a top oversight warrior. senate judiciary committee member, richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut. senator, always a pleasure. >> thank you. good to be with you, as always. >> what did mr. mueller mean to you today? >> what he meant to me was,
number one, the president of the united states would be in handcuffs, criminally charged but for the fact he is the sitting president. that's what almost 1,000 former prosecutors, including myself, federal attorneys general and assistant attorney generals said in effect, that he would be criminally charged but for that memorandum which articulates department of justice policy, not a rule, that the constitution forbids charging him while he's in office. >> the doj put out a statement today, senator. let's get to the second point in a second. pushback on point one. the doj put out a statement in coordination with the press person from the special counsel's office saying there is no space between the doj and special counsel. that mr. mueller did not refuse to charge simply because of the policy against charging a president. do you buy that?
>> there's no way anyone fairly reading what bob mueller said today can buy that claim. and just read the report if you need any confirmation of it. but the point is that the american people need to hear from bob mueller himself on that point and others, and that's why he has to testify publicly, fully and fairly before the congress, not just so that we can hear it, but the american people can judge for themselves. >> he has he has no more information. so what's your second point? what was your second takeaway? >> well, the second point is the one that you have raised very powerfully just in introducing your show. his message to the american people is that the russians are continuing their malign activity, a hostile counterintelligence operation against this country that was welcomed, aptly accepted by the trump campaign in 2016, and what happened then may just be the dress rehearsal for the attack they are mounting now and every
american ought to pay attention to it. >> any chance that mitch mcconnell would let you in bipartisan fashion with one of our republican colleagues mount an effort in that direction and you could sell it as offsetting what the house is doing. as the house is figuring out what they want to do in terms of oversight, why don't we move on stopping the election. show we're doing something. addressing all americans' concerns. the poll numbers are sky high about concern about interference. do you think he'd let you do that? >> is that really is the question of the moment for me and many others in the senate. as much as there is a focus also on impeachment and remedies for obstruction of justice or other criminal wrongdoing that are so powerfully set forth in this report, right now i am working with republican colleagues precisely on that issue. i think there is more than a chance that mitch mcconnell would allow such legislation to go forward. just last week the chairman of the judiciary committee and i,
lindsey graham, a republican of south carolina, as you know, and a leading spokesman as well as activist for his cause and i collaborated on legislation to protect the election machinery against attack. there is other bipartisan legislation that i am writing and collaborating with colleagues on that would, for example, require reporting of any approach or other kind of malign activity by a foreign government vis-a-vis a campaign. i think the challenge for right now is to come together on that kind of bipartisan legislation that protects our democracy. >> good. i'll catch up with you on that. i'll reach out to senator graham and see if we can advance that cause as a public interest because it's exactly what it is. now, on the other side. impeachment proceedings or continue down the road of oversight hearings? which do you recommend for the house? >> there have to be hearings. there have to be public forum
where bob mueller and his team and others and the underlying evidence that is the backing for his report, the facts, the documents and other evidence are presented to the american people. think about watergate for the moment. at the beginning of those hearings which proceeded any articles of impeachment, about 18% of the american people favored that outcome. it doubled after the hearings. and so the american people need to see and hear robert mueller. the outcome today in terms of the focus i think reflects a fundamental fact. the face and voice matter so much and the power of television -- >> true. >> -- as you well know can have such an enormous impact -- >> no question. >> -- on the way people think. >> they're not going to read the report. they're not even going to read the reporting about the report. let's be honest, mr. mueller didn't say anything today that you didn't know. he didn't say anything that i hadn't read. seeing it and hearing it has
impact. we're living it in this moment discussing it. you say there have to be hearings. they can have hearings right now, senator, without starting impeachment proceedings. why should they then go that route? >> they should have hearings right now, and whatever they call it, it would be the same subject and it would be the face and voice of those witnesses, most prominently robert mueller, who has a real responsibility here. it's part of the job that he took when he agreed to be special counsel. that he would testify before the american people. and you're absolutely right. what he said today was virtually word for word what's in the report. he cut and pasted the report. he highlighted it in great big red letters and exclamation points, but it had such power coming from him because it could be played for people to see and hear. they won't read the book but they'll watch the movie.
>> so you don't think the house has to go down the road of impeachment right now? you believe there's time to try and do it just with oversight hearings? >> i think that these hearings can be characterized and can be seen in the eye of the beholder and they may well lead to impeachment. as in watergate, the facts need to be presented to the american people. they need to hear the case just as you have been presenting it, but until now without the voice and face -- >> true. >> -- of robert mueller. who is key here. >> if people will comply -- >> he is the most credible. >> it would be great for people to see and hear and judge for themselves. that gets you into legal avenues of resistance. maybe impeachment gets deference from the court. there is still a lot to work out. we saw today the power of the word and the face when put together on the screen. senator blumenthal, thank you for participating in this television show tonight. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> be well. look, we've been arguing this here for weeks, got to hear
from the special counsel, he's the only fair broker on this. look, the right is eating him for lunch because they don't like the impact he had today. that was to be expected. there are glaring points of create between mr. mueller, the a.g. and the president. and we have them for you now to digest as you like. next. last year, the department of veteran's affairs partnered with t-mobile for business. with va video connect, powered by t-mobile, vets can speak to their doctors from virtually anywhere, and get the care they deserve, without it counting against their data, so they can return to their most important post. soulmate, best friend, or just dad. the va provides the care, t-mobile provides the coverage.
and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels.
try all of my chicken creations! chicken! hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ bob mueller is not on the same page with the a.g. and potus. exhibit "a," the potus position on the probe. >> it's a total witch hunt. i've been saying it for a long time. >> witch hunt. >> witch hunt. >> witch hunt. >> this thing's been a total witch hunt. >> the special counsel -- >> the matters we investigated were of paramount importance.
it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. >> the need for, quote, full and accurate information is of paramount importance. now, on that point it would seem our a.g. arguably misrepresented the reason president trump was not charged with obstruction. in fact, he did so at least six times, including this. >> he -- he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found a crime. he made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime. >> now we know why those two guys behind him were looking like that the whole press conference. it doesn't match up. why does mr. mueller keep saying the opinion is what kept him from pursuing? and that congress has a role in moving it forward. and why didn't mr. sessions or mr. rosenstein tell us a year ago that there would be no charges possible against the president? why have people thinking
something was possible when it wasn't? suspicious. however, what is not suspicious is mr. mueller's mindset. he put it in writing back in march when he complained about mr. barr's four-page memo, that it did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of mr. mueller's work. he said his hands were tied as his first point in that part of the report and the man described as a sphinx for the last two years doubled down today. >> under longstanding department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. >> if it wasn't a fundamental part of his inaction why does he keep mentioning it? here's why. because of what came out from the white house just hours later. >> mueller spent two years, did an exhaustive investigation and came back to say that there was no wrongdoing by the trump
campaign or any american. >> that's just not true. just like he said in his report, this lifelong republican, mr. mueller, says if he could clear the president he would so state. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. >> instead, mr. mueller laid out five instances in his report that all met his own high bar for obstruction of justice. look, we've been arguing for a long time that we needed to hear from mr. mueller. this is why. you can say the president was exonerated but he wasn't. you can say this was a hoax but it never was. the attack on our election happened. it may well be worst the next time. and while the president continues to tell you it wasn't the russians, mr. mueller says it was and it was bad and it should be a major concern for every american. that's what he said. and that's the truth.
and it is now clear that the power of the presidency was abused to try and hide the truth. the only question that remains is what happens next. so let's take that question up. options and realities from a top prosecutor and a political and intel pro. they look like the new cast of a major motion picture, but they're with us tonight. each day justin chooses to walk. at work... and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move. you have 4.3 minutes this time,to yourself.rn. this calls for a taste of cheesecake. philadelphia cheesecake cups. rich, creamy cheesecake with real strawberries. find them with the refrigerated desserts.
was he referring to impeachment? he definitely was talking about congress. cuomo's court is in session tonight with laura coates and mike rogers. good to have you both. first, this twisted statement that came out of the doj and special counsel afterwards saying there is no space between us. mr. mueller did not predicate his inaction with obstruction on anything to do with the counsel's guidance. do either of you believe that? >> no. >> you answering for both? how about you, mike, is she your proxy? >> you know, on this one it's a head-scratcher for sure. >> i mean, look, mike, you've been there, okay? you were at the highest echelons of intel work while you were in the house and before. you know what it's like with the doj. why continue not to lie but why continue to shade everything in deference to the president when the facts are clearly not that way? >> well, i mean, i think the
answer to that is politics, of course, and so there are people on the left who say this is the worst thing ever and we're going to beat him until he don't move no more and there are people on the right that are saying nothing ever happened ever and we should move along. and as always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. so it's interesting to me -- i think barr was trying to put the happy face on what he saw. i don't know if it was -- i can't say that he would be doing this maliciously, but what i think would be really important is to have mueller actually testify at congress because you can get a lot of these questions answered. now he's a free citizen. i think i would be surprised if congress doesn't subpoena him to come up and have a conversation where they can ask him those questions on the obstruction piece. i think the russian collusion piece, i hope they get busy about how we defend ourselves going forward. that would be a really important thing. >> it was good to hear blumenthal say he's working with graham on getting something done. i know it will get no pick up. even the media won't give a damn
about that. my closing argument tonight is why the president should care about it more than anybody else. i'll argue that later. so, laura, mike, i'll give him the middle road here. it's not a hedge. because you've got left, right then reasonable in politics, but not in terms of avenues forward. there is no third way for the democrats here. they either go heavy on impeachment and hope for deference from the court so they can get things done faster but there is a political cost or they continue going this way. how do you see it? >> well, mueller essentially told them that they're limited in their choices and their idea of perhaps trying to stall and kick that can down the road to answer that very question, cuomo, does not lay with mueller. remember, i think the plan for democrats often times was we'll wait and see when he testifies. we'll be able to kick the can down the road. mueller said, actually, i'm going to go and speak right now and i'm telling you that you always had the answers in front of you. this process of which i speak you already knew was available. so it makes them expedite the entire process. i think the only reasonable
thing to do at this point not because an outcome is certain or a conviction is certain, mueller said, listen, here is all the information you have. i can lead you to water but a cannot make you drink for you can open an inquiry and figure out whether the report is substantively informed enough for you to conclude a high crime or misdemeanor crime can be raised. it's not really a constitutional crisis, chris, it's a political one. >> yeah, listen, there is never any reason for hyperbole here. except, you know, that's the president's game. not ours on this show. they should keep marching forward. here's the risk. coates is right, as always, the legal acumen is there. but there is a risk involved. 67% or so of democrats say impeach, but we know what that mean, they mean remove. you're not going to get removal. people keep comparing it to nixon. this ain't nixon. there was no mueller probe. there was a felony there. and they found he was integral in there.
that changed the numbers. you're not going to get that here. what is the political plus-minus? >> i think it hurts democrats if they try to go into impeachment -- think about it, the election is in the next 17 months. it's going to take that long to get the first subpoena served, i think, on their current schedule. i mean, i do think that they -- if they wanted to do this the -- in their terms, the correct way, they could continue down the investigative path, have public hearings, try to make the case, and if it rose to the level where people on both sides of the aisle said, hey, this is an impeachable offense, we've got to do something, then i could take that up. i just think now from the public's perspective, as you said earlier, no one's read the report. they look at this and it looks like a big squabble when they've got real life problems at home and, oh, by the way, the russians are trying to steal our elections. so i think it would be a mistake for them to go down this road. i think there are so many other important things that they should be doing and i think it hurts them. i don't care if it says 67%.
those hearings will get tiresome in a hurry. if it looks like a courtroom, laura can certainly expound on this, that's just not good tv. that stuff can be really, really tedious. >> let's flip it, though. laura, mr. mueller didn't say anything you didn't know today, and yet because he said it and people heard it and watched it, it resonated. >> the power of television. when you have the ideas of privacy and recency, the first thing you heard, the last thing you heard. you were actually able to look at it like a jury says, oh, do i believe this person. was it poignant enough? was there gravitas. here's why i disagree with mike on impeachment being so politically untenable. what congress has been saying the whole time is that no one is above the law. if they treat it as an exercise in futility and say, you know what, as opposed to running out the clock, this is not a sports game where the american people are watching and run out the clock until you have a choice of a rock and a hard place for
elections. the power of the congress is reliant. showing that they're actually co-equal branches of government. if they choose to instead weaken themselves and say we're not going to endeavor then they have placed the president above the law. again, i'm not assuming there is an actual conviction or removal at the end of whatever rainbow we're speaking of, but certainly not to even try because you want to run out the clock and the presumption is that the american people would rather talk about kitchen table issues than the fact that there congress is not as powerful as they promised to be in an election, that's a huge issue. talk about interference in a election. congress risks their own election if they don't act. >> i got to jump in here. laura and i don't normally disagree, but this one i do. congress has a very important role. when they fire the number of subpoenas they are that are not getting serviced, i completely agree with you, congress looks feckless. it's because it's this shotgun approach. if you're going to do this, you
need to set it up through a investigative prerogative of congress and you need to be focused and be quiet. not every one of these things should be a 20-minute run to the tv microphones event and that's exactly how they've handle it. what it does to the american public is it completely turns them off to the process. they don't believe either side. you have good americans on both sides of this saying i don't know what's going on back there but it looks awful. that's i think more of a risk for the united states congress. they -- just to say that they have to because it's only 17 months they should start the process, i just think it's premature. even though mueller said -- he never has really said congress needs to do it. he's hinted around it. well, bring him up. have him have a conversation. to me that would be a really important start, but focus it not on the youtube moment for every member to get on tv but a thorough investigation. you're talking about impeaching a president of the united states. if you like him or don't like
him, irrelevant, this is major and the world looks at us. i'm worried we do this kind of in a willy-nilly way that is all about political base, that we hear mentioned about every 30 seconds, and not about the institutions of both the senate and the house and the executive branch. that's what i worry about. >> all right. let's see how it plays out. let's leave it there. guys, well argued on both sides. look, we're going to know soon. they're going to have to make a decision at some point. laura coates, mike rogers, thank you very much. you know what would be a great idea if you want to play to advantage? who is going to be the first one to reach across the aisle and say, hey, will you work with me so we can get something done on how to protect the elections? i heard they're doing it in the senate, graham and blumenthal, they couldn't be on more opposite sides than the president, but they're working together. why don't we show the people that we give a damn about the democracy. who will do that? next, i want to bring in someone with valuable insight to how the president is handling this news. mr. christopher ruddy was with him in the oval office earlier today. they were friends. what is the president's state of
mind? he's firing off more tweets tonight. you know what that means. the head of newsmax, next. -♪ just like any other family ♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪ -maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why -♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid! -♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid?
i protect your home and auto. i'm so hungry. (photographers) look here!hers) candace! charlie! candace, starkist creations come in over 20 flavors-- right: chicken, salmon, or tuna like my favorite! just tear, eat... mmm-- and go! starkist tuna, chicken, and salmon creations. bravo! wow. we did it. we built the fastest network for the latest iphones. and the iphone xr, with a retina display that makes everything look incredible... it's like the perfect couple - you know, the ones who look great in every picture. like the ones who always make me feel like a before photo. zoey and chris. hey guys! hey... zoey and chris! ...how fun is that? at&t has the fastestnetwork for the latest iphones. get the mind blowing iphone xr on us
when you buy the latest iphone. at&t. more for your thing. that's our thing. introducing miracle-gro's next big thing. performance organics. finally organics that work. tested and refined by plant scientists... for twice the results, guaranteed. don't grow a snack, grow a feast. don't grow a flower, grow a million dollar view. this new organic collection of soil and plant food is what you always wanted. no compromise, just results, guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics.
innocent. that is how the president described himself today despite the special counsel clearly saying that he and his team did not make a determination as to whether mr. trump did or did not commit a crime. so is this president purposely ignoring mr. mueller or is this just more of the same? let's bring in someone who was with president trump in the oval office shortly after mr. mueller's remarks, the president's friend, newsmax ceo mr. christopher ruddy. welcome back to "prime time." >> chris, thanks for inviting me on. >> it's good to have you. give us a general sense. how was mr. mueller received by our president? >> well, let me say, the president just got back from japan. he was swearing in kimberly reid, the great new chairwoman of the export/import bank. he was in a really good mood. he's talking about this is probably going to create another million jobs. this is a president that's already created 6 million jobs.
he's on pace, chris, to be the biggest job creator if he serves two terms as president in the history of the united states. everybody thinks he's sitting around worrying about twitter or mueller or -- i think the thing that gets him most excited is the things he's doing. he's the results president, and what we were talking about, interestingly enough, at the end of the swearing in, he and i, is that his poll numbers are so good because the media, like yourself, missed the story. it's not about mueller, it's not about russia, which was an empty story, it's about the results that he's delivering. >> well, but hold on, chris. >> that is not lost on the american people. >> hold on a second. i -- i am fine with you arguing -- >> i'm not going anywhere. >> no, i'm saying i'm fine with you arguing that the american people have other interests than just this, but let's be very clear. one, russian interference wasn't an empty story. you don't have heard from every echelon put in place by this president it's a major threat to our democracy and going forward. mr. mueller ended his comments with that today. it certainly isn't empty.
if you say the president doesn't care why is he tweeting so much about it? >> the president is the type of guy that likes to respond. he doesn't like to take things sitting down. >> you always say that. he's a counterpuncher. if he didn't care, he wouldn't say anything at all. >> chris? >> yes, sir. >> this investigation cost the public $40 million, 500 witnesses, two years, the president cooperated fully. >> he didn't -- >> he didn't exert executive privilege. >> he didn't sit for an interview. >> he did written responses. >> they were found inadequate. >> at the end of the day what does the report say? that there was no evidence. the purpose of the investigation was not to find if russia interfered in the election. we know they did. we knew that before the election started. >> not the president. the president says -- >> the jurisdiction for robert mueller -- >> says it didn't happen. >> let me finish. let me finish. the jurisdiction for robert mueller was was there collusion between the trump campaign and the russians? after $40 million and 500
witnesses, look, i said to the president today they knew within three or four months there was nothing to the collusion story. >> not collusion. >> he agreed with me. >> criminal conspiracy. there was collusion. >> what was then -- there was no evidence of conspiracy. no evidence of collusion. >> there was evidence of collusion. >> mueller said that today -- >> he did not say that. he didn't say there was no evidence of collusion. >> he said we found no evidence -- chris, did you watch the same thing i did? >> every second. >> he said we found no evidence that the trump campaign worked with the russians. >> true. that there was a criminal conspiracy. >> this was a strange press conference. first of all, he says there is a department of justice policy that says i can't indict a sitting president. >> yes. >> okay. so he's abiding by that policy. but then he says i've decided, i've made up a new policy. i'm not going to say whether he committed a crime or not because we can't indict him, therefore i'm not going to say or conclude. i think he knows what i know, which is that there is no evidence that the president or
someone close to him on his campaign staff committed any crimes, so now they're putting this into a very political gray area by not doing a conclusion. what prosecutor have you ever heard in the history of prosecution says i'm not going to say you committed a crime, i'm not going to say you didn't commit a crime? >> none. this is the first time i've seen with his hands tied. >> it's bizarre. >> his hands were tied. >> chris, tell me what you think is the most pressing evidence of obstruction. this is the only issue they've got for impeachment. what's the issue? the president and i chatted about this today. there is no evidence. >> i don't know what their arguments are for impeachment. i think they had several arguments for impeachment. i'm not going to judge them because they have to make them. there was a pattern by this president of behavior that was calculated to stymie and frustrate the efforts of getting to the truth in this investigation. you can argue it's an abuse of power. >> tell me what is the evidence. i'll sit here for an hour. tell me, what is the one piece
of evidence the president engaged in obstruction which would be an impeachable crime. give me one piece of evidence he did that. >> he consistent efforts to work on comey and people around him to get to people involved with this investigation and to get to people who would be witnesses and to try to control testimony and try to control the process, even though he oversaw it -- >> he never did any of that. >> it could be seen as an abuse of power. >> i've read those reports. i've read those reports. there's not one piece of evidence he ever tried to manipulate a witness. >> on five counts on the screen, mr. mueller and his team found significant evidence that these things happened and i could see politicians arguing we don't want this in our presidency. i could see it. >> i'm looking at the screen here, but i -- >> ask him try to fire mueller. attempting to limit mueller's scope. messing with manafort's cooperation deal. >> none of those things happened, okay?
he never fired mueller. >> they say they having significant proof of all of those things. >> but he never fired mueller. why would he fully cooperate? i personally think he cooperated well beyond what any reasonable person should have done. >> why didn't he testify? >> well, i think after 500 witnesses -- >> he's the only one that mattered. he was the one they're looking at for obstruction. >> after that press conference today, i'm glad he didn't testify. >> i'm sure you are. i think he made a great move personally not testifying. i think he would have been in a jam had he. >> i think this is a highly political investigation -- i was somebody in the past who said very nice things about robert mueller. i did not think he was a partisan person. >> now you do? you think he's a lefty. >> i was shocked by his press conference. well, for him it sounded very political. basically saying i'm not going to say he committed a crime. >> you know what i heard? they say i'm not allowed to say this, so i'm going to bend over
backwards to be fair and say not only am i going to say i wasn't allowed to charge him -- >> and you're capable of it. i have to admit. >> look, here's what i wanted to hear him say just for a point of clarity because it seems so obvious. if he were not president, i would have charged him. that's what i wanted to hear him say just so he could be straight without all the double negatives or triple negatives. instead, he said i'm not allowed to charge and then he went down this tortured road of fairness. if there were proof he didn't commit a crime i would tell you and i didn't. if i could exonerate him, i would but i can't. i thought that was all tortured fairness because prosecutors aren't in the business of exoneration. >> okay. you and i are on the same page. i think it was a disservice to the public after $40 million and 500 witnesses. and the president coop cooperating as much. it was highly political. we're now entering the political campaign season. the democrats would like nothing
more than to have an impeachment process. not that there was any underlying crime. which we already know there wasn't. we all agree there is no evidence of russian collusion between the trump campaign -- >> there were collusive acts by people around him and his campaign but there was no criminal conspiracy according to mueller. let me ask you one thing before i let you go. do you think the president will now acknowledge the next time he is asked, yes, russia interfered and we have to stop it from happening again? >> well, i think if you look back carefully he has said things that he thought russia did play a role. i believe -- >> what? >> that if you look at this, the biggest damage to our system was director comey holding that press conference about hillary clinton, clearing her and then re-opening an investigation to -- into her emails a week before the election. >> yeah, he wasn't helpful. >> that was a far bigger danger to our democracy, to have the fbi director so blatantly political. i think russia, if you look at the actual amount of money that they purportedly spent -- >> look at the reach they had.
>> is relatively small -- >> who cares about the money. you keep mentions $40 million for this probe. that's less than half we spent getting the president back and forth to his golf outings. money is relevant. the president keeps denying interference happened. how are we going to stop it? >> there are a few other presidents who like to play golf as well. >> sure. this one promised not to play at all and he's played more than any. >> there are so many issues the american public, really, the infrastructure thing. there is pressing needs on education. >> i agree. i think he should be doing it. why does he have to hold them hostage like that and say if you investigate me i won't do infrastructure? he should do both. >> the truth is, the president -- i don't think we've had a president more willing to deal make and create compromise -- >> he just backed out of the a keel. deal. >> and the democrats are moving into a really highly political investigation, highly charged. after we spent went through two years and $40 million and 500
witnesses. i'm going to keep repeating that because it's so silly for him to give a press conference and say i don't know he committed a crime and i won't say he didn't. what? i mean, why do we have to go through this? now we're going to have to go through a year-long impeachment process in the middle of an election. again the public's going to see through it. >> we'll see. >> and all over these pressing things that the country is behind him in -- >> listen, i see no reason not to have it done. i think this president should talk to mitch mcconnell. get things put on the floor. get things going. >> you on the left and me on the right, we should push -- >> should do both. i'm always pushing for progress. i just said i'd have lindsey graham and blumenthal on the show for their efforts to help secure the length going forward. i got to jump. you're always welcome. >> i think you're fair on this. so i appreciate if. >> chris ruddy, you're always welcome here. >> thank you, chris. >> even when i'm unfair, you're welcome here. be well and thank you. all right. so a man who has accurately predicted the last nine
elections says the democrats should go for impeachment. why? d. lemon says he'll tell me next. what! she's zip lining with little jon? it's lil jon. even he knows that. thanks, captain obvious. don't hate-like their trip, book yours with hotels.com and get rewarded basically everywhere. hotels.com. be there. do that. get rewarded. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise.
it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here. a little change can make a big difference. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma,
have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. here's to you. ano.you an ocean? are you edible? no. ♪ ♪ can't sleep. me neither. woo! number one! ♪ ahhhh! [laughter] ahhhh!
vehic victory in 2019. now he's saying this. if democrats want a chance at 2020, they'll have so impeach trump. i don't i don't get it. d. lemon says he does. how? >> i do get it. he was on the show last week, may 10, seems like two years ago, and he says impeaching the president is counter-intuitive, and he lays out a list of reasons why incumbents have an advantage, and if democrats want to chip into that, one way is to impeach him because it takes away some of his credibility when it comes to not having a scandal in his column. he's going to join us. that's a quick tease. he will be here as well as the fascinating and always candid sheila jackson lee, congresswoman -- >> what? >> -- on the judiciary committee. >> she told me she was sick, she couldn't do tv tonight.
>> she got well for me. we sent a doctor over to take care of her and get it all done. so allen lictman will explain that and sheila jackson lee as well. democrats are fundamentally wrong about impeachment and the prosprotects if the in 2020. an impeachment trial would cost the president a crucial four key, which is one of the keys i talked about, the scandal key. just as it cost democrats the key in 2000. that's all i'll give you. meaning bill clinton. >> he's nine for nine, so that's a tough one. i'll be listening to what he says. see you in a bit. >> see you. >> all right, so what do we have here? what should democrats do when they pursue it in oversight?
for all the intrigue for what should happen going forward, and let's be fair. mr. mueller was living on the russian side today, and he created some confusion. but he made one thing very clear. he said, one thing should concern us all, and ironically it's the one thing that none of the lawmakers are harping on. the argument, next. chicken?! chicken.
chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.
we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not. page 1 of the mueller report. what does it say? the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. the last thing mr. mueller said today was this. >> 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. >> but it ain't getting it. hacking capabilities only getting better. social media propaganda. bad guys are clearly ahead of the platform's ability and willingness to stop them. election infrastructure, still vulnerable. it happened in 2016 and the experts say it will happen in 2020. more sophisticated, even. russia learned what worked, what didn't. potus refuses to recognize this reality with denials like this. >> i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be. i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. >> he's strong and powerful, all right, over a sense of
perspective on this. man, was that embarrassing. fact, former secretary kirstjen nielsen tried to make hardening the election a priority and she was shown the door. she was told not to even bring it up in front of potus. dni dan coats, director of intelligence, he released a worldwide threat assessment. before the weapons of mass destruction, cyber threats. and now mr. mueller centers it for you today. look, it matters what congress decides to do about the president's arguable abuses of power. of course, it does. but they're missing a bigger concern and ignoring something that is a certainty. no allegations, no maybes, no proof, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. this is 100%. russia came for us, russia did. and they're coming again. and we ain't ready. and unlike the president's son-in-law who says the investigation hurt american democracy more than russia did, no one who knows a damn thing about anything to do with
securing our country or our elections thinks that russian interference is a small deal. mueller knew what you wanted to hear, but he ended by mentioning this problem. remember that. now, as for the president, as you just saw or how i reminded you, he would rather embarrass this country on a world stage and all but congratulate mr. putin for his efforts, but he's making a mistake, not just on the facts but his feelings. he thinks denying russian interference is good for him, but he's not seeing it right. if they do it again and get better and get at the votes this time, god forbid, and they help him win again and he wins, well, how can that result be accepted? if people know it was interference that played with the votes? the president ignored interference and thinks the russians helped him, he's wrong. if we know that it is happening
and there's any proof of actual interference with votes, which is clearly their goal, the concern should not be this president refusing to leave office if he loses. it should be a country that refuses to recognize his right to stay if he wins. think about it. a president who is focused on his self-interests should be worried about what the russians do next. and he isn't. any way you look at it, on a day filled with confusing, conflicting thoughts and double and triple negatives about what mueller was not allowed to do and what he didn't say about what he would do if he didn't have to, this was positively clear. russia interfered. they're going to do it again. and seeing how effectively their efforts put us at each other's throats, they have every incentive to go bigger than ever. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon right now. >> are you more interested in the welfare of the country? are you more interested in truth and facts, or are you more interested in protecting the president?