eastern tonight, quote, white house plans to fight the house subpoena of former white house counsel don mcgahn for testimony on the mueller report. white house lawyers saying they're going to try to exert executive privilege so don mcgahn can't talk about the issues with the president. fascinating story by the white house because don mcgahn already testified about those things to the special counsel, so it's a little late for the white house to be saying those things are privileged and can't be discussed outside the white house. because of that scoop from "the washington post" tonight, we made plans to talk to one of the reporters who got that scoop. we made plans to talk to reporter robert costa. but then as we were racing towards show time, robert surprisingly let us know that, hello, he had just received a call from the president, from the president himself. quote, president trump says he is opposed to current and former white house aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration of

once it moved to the white house grounds, you could smell the white house easter egg roll before he can see it. >> if they did not find some of the eggs and hard-boiled eggs were left to rot, that really created a problem. jonathan: that was the problem. and it was something that even happened in the 20th century. there was one year in the nixon administration where they decided to use a lot more real eggs and a few got misplaced shall we say, for a wild, and that was the last time he did that. 1876 was rutherford b. hayes. why did president hayes and his family decide they wanted to take over this tradition? jonathan: the president was out on his daily walk and some schoolchildren covered him and said we have no place to roll our eggs now. he said that is odd. why don't you just come back with me and you can roll eggs on the white house grounds? a couple hundred children did that first year in 1878. , you tell goes by this in your story -- first of all, who did the illustrations? jonathan: john hutton. absolutely genius art history historian. towhat were you trying collaboratively achi

house can do what white houses have done and this white house i think will do a lot of, which is say no -- >> but they have to have the law. >> they have to have the law to ultimately win, but they don't have to have the law to protract and delay and do what politically they think is to their advantage to do, fight. >> so, carrie, a, how long a protracted fight could this be? and ultimately, would a court, do you think, rule on the side of congress? >> i think congress has a real strong argument here for the reasons that jeffrey described, which is that don mcgahn has already been interviewed by the special counsel's office and the white house waived the privilege in that circumstance as well as when the report came out. so, i think -- i agree with rick to the extent that this is a political strategy on the part of the white house, and i think it's a part of a broader strategy. it's not just about mcgahn's testimony. it's about the security official who the white house is not wanting to go before congress. it's about the challenge on the release of the president's taxes. this is just

let's talk about the white house correspondents dinner with the white house reporter from politico. good morning. >> good morning. >> as background for our viewers, tell us what the white house correspondents dinner is, how long has it been around, and why is it important? >> it has become this full weekend of parties, political intrigue, it has ballooned into a 4 day affair. >> normally, if i'm not mistaken, the president attends this dinner, but president trump is not attending, and has not since winning the white house? instead, he will be in green bay? why is president trump not going to this dinner? >> he says it is a very boring dinner that was mean to him last year and the previous years. he doesn't want to reward the press with attending their premier function every year. it has become a point of contention. his staff notld to attend the dinner and the events around it. they may relax that a little bit. president trump has such bad relations with the media. he craves our approval so much. he can't really decide whether he loves us, hates us, or both. attend thepresident dinn

experience in the white house, and what we know about how this white house operates. i mean, we have a president that, instead of wanting to be truthful to the american people about what exactly is going on, cannot be trusted with regards to the truth and not only cannot be trusted with regards to the truth, i'm afraid cannot be trusted with regards to upholding the rule of law. and that raises a lot of concerns about the future of this presidency. and what will happen, particularly if a crisis occurs. >> the sheer volume of lies, though, it's -- there's kind of a shamelessness to it all. i mean, you have sarah sanders today not even owning up to, you know, making up stuff about countless fbi agents calling her. she said the countless was a slip of the tongue. but it's not like she ever came out an hour later after saying it or two hours later or the next day and said, you know what, i was thinking back, i said this countless thing, it wasn't countless. that was a slip of the tongue. she didn't say that until today when it had just been revealed what she actually said

white house counsel from implying with a duly issued subpoena. >> if the white house objects, they will say his testimony is stoudge executive privilege and the president has asserted his executive privilege. that's tricky legal argument because don mcgahn already testified to bob mueller, and the white house agreed to allow his testimony to become public with the publication of the report. ultimately if the white house chooses to assert that privilege, this will be decided by a judge, and we could be looking at a fairly lengthy court battle. >> just to read from the report here that you coauthored, white house lawyers plan to say they will be asserting executive privilege. trump maintained that the white house counsel's office has not made any final decision whether it will block congressional testimony, but that he oppose cooperation with house democrats who he claimed were trying to score political points against him. do you know of any precedent for a president saying because he believes the opposing party to score political points that he can assert anyone who has worked for him in

white house. look, if the attorney general said he consulted with the white house, do you and i really believe that they kept it secret from the president of the united states? i don't believe that. >> what do you make of this special gift to the white house of a couple days of briefing to help them put together their trashing of the report, basically. >> it's pretty outragious and brings to mind two things. they have been paying a lot of attention to the college admissions scandal and your kids do better when they get the test results in advance. much more importantly, this is an incredible violation of our checks and balances and incredible insult to congress. we should all be offended that this white house is coordinating with the justice department and what seems like another act of obstruction to impede whether and how the russians affected our 2016 election and what they are planning for the next election. >> you have somebody tell you what you ought to know from the newspaper. their way. th

we'll get to that. >>> first, to our chief white house correspondent jim acosta at the white house. the president is taking some sharp exceptions to a critical finding by the special counsel robert mueller. >> he certainly is. president trump angrily denied one of the key findings in the mueller report that he ordered don mcgahn to fire the special counsel robert mueller. the problem for the president, mueller's report is drawn from comments by people who swore to tell the truth. if the white house isn't worried about what mcgahn has to say, why is the west wing blocking his testimony? swat away a key finding in the mueller report, president trump denied he attempted to shut down the russia investigation. a denial that came in his favorite social media echo chamber as he tweeted i never told don mcgahn to fire robert mueller, even though i had the legal right to do so. if i wanted to fire mueller, i didn't need mcgahn to do it. i could have done it myself. but that's not true according to the mueller report based on interviews with those who swore to tell the truth or face perjury c

he is still at the white house. again, president trump heading to atlanta, georgia, leaving behind what may be a new challenge to congressional oversight of the white house. last night the president telling "the washington post" he may keep his aides from testifying before congress since he's already cooperated with special counsel robert mueller's probe. quote, there's no reason to go any further and especially in congress where it's very partisan. obviously very partisan. i don't want people testifying to a party, because that is what they're doing if they do this. peter alexander on his post at white house. jeff bennett there for us at little. mr. alexander, i will start with you. did the president have anything to add to what he might do when congress does call administration officials to testify? >> reporter: well, we may hear from him in his own words just moments from now he'll be boarding marine one. reporters are staking him out there. if he says anything we'll turn that around for you right away. of course

how does the white house function like that? >> i worked on the clinton white house, it wasn't perfect but it sure didn't function that way. there you had a president -- and we've had presidents of both parties, frankly until now, who when they are told by legal counsel, sir, this is a line that we should not cross, the presidents understand that. they might find ways to work around it, they might find ways to change the law, but i've never seen one who just blatantly seems to do as this president does. i don't care. do it any way. that is extraordinary to me. >> kim, you wrote yesterday that the president's actions seem a lot like obstruction. as you have time to focus on and reflect, do you still believe that? and if that is the case, was it just the fact that mueller's operating under the department of justice guidelines and not only exception to the -- accepts the guidelines and it would be unfair if he can't be indicted and go to court to defend himself. >> absolutely. the obstruction of justice statute is very broad. mr. b

contention between house democrats and the white house. the house judiciary committee voting on rules today for thursday's hearing with attorney general bill barr. there is this dispute over whether the panel's lawyers should be allowed to ask questions of barr in a separate round. do you see any room for compromise here, congressman? should there be? >> bill barr should come and testify and it's hypocrisy for him to assist that jerry nadler can have an expert witness or expert counsel interview him. the republicans did that with kavanaugh. they had an expert counsel interview betsy ford. >> how can that be okay and not this? >> should barr be subpoenaed if this comes to a head before thursday and he does not show up? is that something you would support? >> absolutely. he will support. he has to show up. you can't have the attorney general not show up to the judiciary committee. that would be unprecedented. he is reluctant to show up because he understands the serious issues of perjury that may be there. and his misrepresentations. >> cong

abby phillip is at the white house. at this point, where do things stand in this growing battle between congressional democrats and the white house. >> the white house is taking steps to deny democrats their requests on multiple fronts. yesterday, the trump organization took legal action in federal court here in washington to prevent the house oversight committee from getting records relatedo

house officials, all ratcheting up of sorts between the white house and house democrats. the question ultimately is how do the -- does the administration respond, but i can tell you here democrats are preparing for a court fight if necessary if they are not able to get this information. john? >> contentious start to spring here in the new washington. manu raju live on the hill. keep us updated that is hearing continues. with me in the studio is cnn's kaitlan collins and olivia knox and let's start on the here and now. legitimate questions democrats say about the security clearances and how it happens. happens to include, why it gets dicy for the white house, jared kushner and ivanka trump, and, again, the democrats say we want to call up at least one official and maybe more. who did this? career experts say don't do it. they have conflicts. they don't qualify. the president said not him but the reporting says he did. >> especially about jared and ivanka, and that's why there's so many questions about this, and the white house doesn't feel like they have a lot of footing h

as you say, and it bears repeating, the objection of the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel who by the way allowed trump to do a lot of things that i think more reasonable people might not have let him do. they drew the line at that. at the same time saying other people should have security clearance taken away because of political reasons makes the whole thing sound corrupt. >> last word phil rucker, any indication they will subpoena or request john dolly, former white house chief of staff concerned enough about the process to write a memo and former white house counsel don mcgahn also concerned enough about the process to write a memo to the file will be asked to testify about the committee about so alarmed them about the process. >> nicolle, i don't know if that decision has been made. you can imagine as the investigation goes forward, those are two of several people who would be most likely to be brought before the committee to share what they know. clearly they were intimately involved in this process. remember, back in february of 2018 after the rob porter scan

it's not -- this is not just pitting the white house against the press corps that covers the white house. that's a taxpayer funded press secretary so when she makes a comment from the podium, she says it's a slip of the tongue. she actually made it multiple times and i was there that day. a reporter gave her the chance to walk it back. they said really, sarah, countless people have called you from the fbi? yes, she had received e-mails and texts from a large number of people at the fbi, even though she gave the caveat she didn't know many people who worked at the fbi. >> mueller, the former fbi director i think made it a point to put that in the report even though mueller not -- not a giant fan of james comey if you read the entire report. >> the press secretary is sort of unique among people in the white house. the entire credibility of the her job is based on the idea that people who were asking her questions in the press room or these days the press gaggle or -- maybe they are getting spin on it or maybe certain information left out but they are at least getting some kind of truth. he

the white house correspondents dinner first. good morning. guest: good morning. host: as background for our viewers, tell us what the white house correspondents dinner is, how long it has been around, and why it is important. house the white correspondents association has been around for about 100 years. they have an annual dinner. promote goodly to journalism and to give scholarships to needy student journalists and to promote the cause of good reporting. it has become this huge weekend of parties and political intrigue with lots of different shindigs around it. it has ballooned into a four-day affair. normally, if i'm not mistaken, the president attends this dinner. president trump is not attending and has not attended since winning the white house. why is president trump not going to this dinner? it is a verys boring dinner that was mean to him. last year and in previous years. he does not want to reward the press with attending their premier function every year. it has become a real point of has warnedwhere he his entire staff not to attend the dinner. they m

abby, in terms of the white house, today, how is the white house defending its defiance? >> well, erica, the answer from the white house is all about stonewalling and stopping democrats from moving forward with these investigations. which they believe are just an extension of their efforts to undermine president trump's presidency and potentially lead toward impeachment. we heard this morning from the white house that they don't know why these committee chairman are seeking all of this information. one white house official who i spoke to a few minutes ago said that he's not sure what chairman neal wants, for example, from don mcgahn. that there's nothing in their view that democrats can learn from bringing someone like don mcgahn in to testify before congress after he's already spoken with the special counsel and his answers are relaid in that report that we all saw last week. and on the taxes, the white house is digging in its heels on that as well. they're saying this is not even information that congress needs at all, and furthermore, in their view, the american people

let's go live now to the white house and nbc's hans nichols. what did mnuchin say and where do we go from here? >> reporter: mnuchin says that april 23 deadline is entirely arbitrary. what you're starting to see is a concerted effort across the government on how they're going to push back against this challenge. let me read you a little bit of what mnuchin is saying, an indication really they want to take their time. he's saying, look, the implications of this is way beyond, in my mind, a congressional oversight issue and a precedent issue. the issue is i feel a responsibility that we get this right and that the irs doesn't become undermined like the nixon administration. he's saying the process needs to run its course. the democrats have refuted that argument in the past. they sent out a separate letter yesterday demanding those tax returns. that's a hard deadline, april 23rd. >> before i let you go, any idea how the white house is preparing for the release of the mueller report, which is likely tuesday? >> reporter: officially they're saying

house and the white house correspondents. i think we need to create an environment for a serious reflection, and we also need to create an environment where we can still have political sat tire that doesn't slip into crude insult. and we have to do that without being worried about certain folks who are kind of snowflaky. >> i think rons chernow put it pretty well. barack obama was very good at it. ronald reagan, george w. bush, they all -- look, every president has their tough moments. every president has to go or has gone into that dinner at tough moments. bill clinton in the middle of the monica lewinsky scandal had an awful lot of funny things to say. i do think that oliveier, he's said we need to dial it back. and i guess in some ways the comic is a part of that, right? most of the comics have been sort of headline making names, people that folks know. he said, you know, chernow was a scholar who sat at an intersection of history and popular culture. and i think to that extent he's right. that different point and again i'

call the white house today. help stop cuts to part d drug coverage that put medicare patients at risk. >>> if you're keeping count there are already 18 presidential candidates in the race for the democratic nomination including former colorado governor john hickenlooper. what will separate the governor from the pack? joining us now, governor john hickenlooper. good to see you. former governor, just got out in 2019. we discussed before we came on you have a unique background. you were a businessman. in colorado's history in a pivotal time of the need to rethink how denver would be and one of the most ambitious things we have seen in terms of social programming in this country which is what to do with legalizing marijuana. what do you bring to the table nobody else does? >> i am an entrepreneur who built a business from scratch. i also had eight years as a successful mayor and governor. the one thing i bring is i have been able to bring people together to get things done. i have a long record of progressive accomp

nixon's white house chief of staff, h.r. haldeman who was indicted by that same grand jury, haldeman did appeal sirica's decision. haldeman tried to get a higher court, tried to get the d.c. appeals court to block sirica's decision, to block the conveying of that grand jury information to congress, but haldeman lost that appeal quickly. and ultimately that same week as those reports, the grand jury information about potential criminal conduct by the president, it did get conveyed to the house judiciary committee. it became the road map for the impeachment articles that were ultimately drawn up against nixon. but there is two interesting/amazing things about the way that all landed that i think now we need to figure out what they mean for us. in what really feels like an allegorical time where mueller's report is in. we're told by the attorney general that mueller's report contains some amount of grand jury information. the attorney general says he won't let anybody see mueller's report, not yet. one of the things he says he

at the trump white house. the oversight committee demanding answers after a whistleblower warns senior officials overruled concerns about 25 people whose clearances were initially denied for disqualifying issues, including fierce about foreign influence and potential conflicts of interest. we're told jared kushner and ivanka trump were on the list. this as the house judiciary committee chairman is set to authorize a subpoena in the democrats' battle to obtain the full unredacted report from special counsel robert mueller. this hour, i'll talk with a top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee, bob menendez. and our correspondents and analysts are also standing by. first, let's go to our national security correspondent, alex marquardt. what are you learning? >> this wheistleblower we're talking about from the white house, her name is tricia newbold. she's someone i've been speaking with for several months now as she's been sounding the alarm about security clearances that have been forced through. no

>> i think the white house press office as a whole has lost the confidence of the white house press corps far before yesterday. we have been dealing with a situation where you have people who come out and speak on behalf of the president, on behalf of this administration, who say things that are factually inaccurate. we have been dealing with that literally since the first day of the administration. i think it's really important to point out that the problem here isn't that sarah sanders or other people who speak for this administration are lying to journalists. it's that they're lying to the american people. that's the real problem here. i would hope that no matter what your political persuasion is, the fact that an administration is lying to the public would really bother you. >> that clip we just played from 2017, that's not the only time that sarah sanders made that bogus claim, is it? >> no, wolf. she said it several times. even when reporters gave her the chance to follow up on it because they didn't think what she said was accurate, even one reporter saying really, to her during a

. >> the white house moved to block cooperation with house committees several times telling a white house official not to comply with the subpoena to testify about security clearances. the trump organization has filed suit to block a house subpoena for financial records and the treasury department missed deadlines to hand over the president's tax returns. steve mnuchin says he will make a final decision on the returns by may 6th. >>> the white house plans to fight a subpoena for don mcgahn, the former white house council who refused the president's orders to fire robert mueller. here is cnn's caitlin collins at the white house. >> reporter: michelle and dave, the white house is ramping up the fight to push back on the congressional subpoenas. they are trying to conduct oversight. the white house is saying they have overreached. cnn learned the white house may seek to prevent don mcgahn from complying with the subpoena he got from house democrats to come testify in their probe into potential obstruction of justice. now, behind the scenes, no final decision on what is going to happen. as th

this week the white house counsel's office directed carl klein, the former director of white house personnel security not to comply with a subpoena to a deposition yesterday. it is possible that the issue of the mcgahn subpoena could end up in court. jerry nadler said our request covers the subjects described by mr. mcgahn to the special counsel and described by special counsel mueller to the american public in his report. as such the moment for the white house to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed. there is legal precedent for mcgahn to testify. back in 2008 a federal judge ruled that president bush's white house counsel harriet meyers and his chief of staff josh bolton were not immune from subpoenas. but the president's position is look, mcgahn told everything he knows to mueller. mueller put that in his report. there is nothing more for congress to find out about. i think what we're worried about here, bill, is any time you get an official in front of a congressional hearing there is the matter at hand and then there is everything else o

bill barr had orally briefed the white house counsel, and i do think it was after that suddenly the white house went back into attack mode. so i think there's some pretty damaging information in that report. >> phil rucker, are they hoping for the cover and the distraction starting with holy thursday, good friday, easter sunday, passover, all the while that this holiday weekend will bring? >> yeah, well, brian, it certainly is helpful timing for the president for this report to be falling on a holiday weekend. and we shouldn't put it past him to create other distractions. we've seen this before when a damaging news story will occur, president trump will often try to shift the spotlight to the left or to the right or follow down some rabbit holes to distract and pull attention away. but clearly there's anxiety in the trump orbit. and clearly there's a calculation that this report cannot possibly be better than that barr letter because you can't get any better than that barr letter. so inevitably there's going to be something here more nuanced if not truly derogatory and damaging for the pr

on c-span, white house economic adviser larry kudlow talks about the state of the u.s. economy and recent trends in the stock market. that is from the national press club at 12:30 p.m. eastern. at 7 p.m. eastern, douglas brinkley and richard norton smith talk about c-span's new presidents," where historians rank the best and worst chief executives. c-span2, the road to the warehouse -- white house coverage includes governor larry hean in new hampshire as considers a challenge to president trump in the 2020 presidential election. u.s. institute of peace looks at efforts to combat extremism in different parts of the world. on c-span3, afl-cio president richard trumka talks about trade policy and issues with david rubenstein from the economic club of washington dc that is at 8:40 a.m. eastern. >> president trump is skipping the annual white house correspondents dinner again this year. he will hold a campaign rally in green bay, wisconsin. watch live coverage saturday, on c-span, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and following the rally, watch live coverage of the white house correspon

in coordination with the white house. i think rudolph giuliani is a very smart guy but he is not a speed reader. there is no chance that he is already preparing a counter response to this mueller report if important sections haven't been linked to. this he can't read it any faster than anyone else. >> i've spoken to members of the trump legal team. what they envision is an attack on the investigation. it was partisan, bias. the many ways they think it was illegitimate. >> so let's do a little live analysis. if that's what they've landed on. that would suggest in conjunction with the new report out of the "new york times." they must think the rest is pretty bad. if they thought it was in line with mr. barr's depiction, hey, there's not a lot here. not really crimes committed. if that was what their heads up told them, they would go supporting the credibility. >> a shorter way is to say why do you need to rebut a report that exonerates you? when barr issued his letter, i was hearing talk from the white house, hey, we may no

and an open question about whether or not the white house spin, the white house counter report is in the hands of anybody at the justice department. >> yeah, so if this were your ordinary garden variety white collar crime case in any community across america, you could make an argument that the jury pool is now tainted. right? you've had all of this perception and shaping and spinning and messaging going on. nothing really from the other side of the case. and so in the court of public opinion, if this was ever headed toward impeachment, it is all about the people's perception and the people's reaction to their members of congress and what they are asking them to do as constituents. and now we've had all this time for the president to spin this in his direction, nothing on the other side, and that is why it is essential and critical that congress prepare to call mueller to the hill and present as much as he can about this. but he will be between a rock and a hard place because we'll get the so-called first pass redacted version. and then mueller will likely have to stay within the con

that is a very hard word for this white house. the chairs of the house judiciary, intelligence, oversight, financial services, and foreign affairs committees issuing a joint statement just moments ago. here's what it says, and i quote. the attorney general should cancel the press conference and provide the full report to congress, as we have requested, with the special counsel's fact gathering work concluded, it is congress's responsibility to assess the findings and evidence and proceed accordingly. but as things stand right now, congress won't even get the report on disks -- on disks until sometime after 11:00. press conference is 9:30. they'll get it sometime after 11:00. it will be posted on the special counsel website after that. and let's not forget, the timing of all of this, okay. chriss talked about it just a little while ago. attorney general barr released his first letter, first one, announcing the end of the mueller investigation. that was late on a friday. you know fridays are news dump days, things you don't want to

as note -- as nielsen fell out of favor with the white house, the white house started to keep a closer hold on so many of those decisions. host: what was secretary nielsen's relationship like with stephen miller? vivian: quite contentious. not only with stephen miller but with john bolton. john bolton and john kelly had a falling out -- falling out over nielsen several months ago. it was reported there was a shouting match at the white house. andas over immigration specifically secretary nielsen's handling of the crisis. that never really went away after john kelly left his position. miller,ton and stephen now very much controlling and calling the shots on the immigration portfolio and they are right next to the president. it will be interesting to see moving forward how much influence that will have. host: greg is a democrat from virginia. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i am trying to stay a democrat because of environmental concerns but i have to say as i watch to see what democrats are doing. i used to live in south texas. of 20 years ago and it is a crisis now. there is not

they have skwaubld with the white house behind the scenes for several days and the white house said don't comply. don't show up and as a result he could be held in contempt by congress by the democrats here >> trisha newbold said it would be unusual for that many to be interfered with and thought that her boss carl klein hadn't gone through the proper channels to mitigate the risk or explain why he had changed the decisions. manu raju, thanks. speaking of defiance, today is deadline day for president trump's taxes but don't expect to see the irs or the treasury department give into the democrats' dead bands and turn over the president's personal returns or anything else for that matter. we talked about the defiance in the security clearance investigation and then there's yesterday lawsuit brought by president trump and the trump organization against the house oversight committee chairman elijah cummings who had subpoenaed a financial services company that worked for the trumps. joseph moreno is a former prosecutor and the democrats argued this, the democratic party with its new-found cont

trump made a phone call to the white house counsel. mueller writes the president called don mcgahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say he had conflicts of interest. mcgahn did not carry out the direction, deciding that he would rather resign. mcgahn eventually left the white house last fall. >> let's discuss further with former u.s. attorney harry litman, the host of talking feds, a podcast, and cnn reporter, marshall cohen joining us again. good morning to both of you. harry, thank you so much for joining us, i would like to start with you, and if we could pull up the full screen of all the times that president trump attempted to hinder this investigation to obstruction justice. you have the unstaninstance whe asked james comey to end the investigation into the michael flynn, when he tried to fire james comey, when he asked jeff sessions to un-recuse himself. i wanted to point out this graphic, a portion of a mueller report page 370 where people refused to carry out the president's orders. it says quot

now, on top of this, kate, she claims that the white house retaliated against her, white house officials have, and she said that she was forced to come forward before this committee. now, elijah cummings says that he does plan to subpoena an individual, carl klein, who served as the personal security director at the white house, he plans to do that this week. we have not heard back from klein or the white house or any of those individuals, but we did hear just back from the top republican on this committee, jim jordan, who calls this a reckless use of whistleblower information, says that cummings is mischaracterizing ms. newbold what she told the committee sand said these 25 individuals one was a gsa official on the custodial staff. clearly the democrats are in the majority, they plan to pursue this in the days ahead. >> regardless, i think especially when you see that dispute between cummings and jordan on there, more information coming out would be better to clear up exactly what's going on here. great to see you, manu, thank you so much. >>> to be clear, the president has the unique p

in the white house. although i want to be specific, that relates to me and not everybody at treasury. >> okay. so to your knowledge, has anybody in the administration communicated with anybody in your office about this decision? >> our legal department has had conversations prior to receiving the letter with the white house general counsel. >> and did they brief you as to the contents of that communication? >> they have not briefed me to the contents of that communication. i believe that was purely informational. >> you believe what was purely informational? >> i believe the communication between our legal department and the white house general counsel was informational, that we had read in the press, that we were expecting this. >> so they communicated just to say expect this, or did they talk about their views in any way, shape, or form? >> i want to be clear. i personally wasn't involved in those conversations. again, i want to be very clear and not be misleading. i acknowledge there were conversation

some say the white house is in for a rude awakening. jeff, does the white house have reason to fear that this report could or will reveal something damaging, or at the very least, embarrassing for the president? >> i think, number one, the white house thinks they've seen the most important conclusions and those were the ones that were in attorney general barr's letter a couple weeks ago, which is that he says that the special counsel did not establish collusion, and then the attorney general determined that there was not evidence to show, or not enough evidence to show obstruction of justice. yeah, there could be other things in that report. certainly the democrats will pounce on, that others will pounce on, but the white house has been showing quite a bit of confidence that whatever it is, it's not going to overshadow the two main headlines that they got, and they were the two main headlines that they wanted. >> but with regard to those conclusions, jeff, isn't there so much pushback that that four-page report was a summary of bill bar

democrats and the white house. so this sort of war of words and petty name calling, it just kind of is that, right? like they're not smart enough to do that. that said, it will be interesting if the administration is able to block congress on this. david k. johnson wrote for the daily beast over the weekend that the law here is pretty cut and dry. and there really isn't a lot of wiggle room on that mnuchin has to not hand over these tax returns. so it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks on what he tells congress since he said he's not going to necessarily meet their april deadlines, but he said yesterday that there were -- or today, it all blends. that there will be -- that there will be a response of some sort to congress soon. >> brian, i want to give final word to you. what's your reaction? >> our colleague eric levenson has a great piece that points out there are ten accountants in congress. three are certified public accountants so i would guarantee they'd beg to differ with sarah sande

she covers the white house for american urban radio networks and our white house reporter kate bennett is joining us as well. so cain would not be the first of the president's nominees to really fall by the wayside. let's look at this partial list, tom marino for the post known as drug czar. you'll remember labor secretary amy puzder, the guy from hardee's and sam clovis for agriculture, david clark for homeland security. dr. ronny jackson for the v.a. this is a pattern, nominating someone who certainly according to the court of public opinion and coming from the hill, coming from capitol hill, is not wholly qualified for the job. >> at this moment in time it's significant. this president is looking for victories. he just came out of what he considers a victory with this mueller report issue where he says he's vindicated but he's not fully vindicated. for republicans to say they are not going to go for herman cain as he has accusations or allegations from women saying that he did some things sexually to them that were not appropriate. this is not the time for that particularly as women

has anyone in the white house seen any of the report? >> i'm not going to, you know, as i say, i'm landing the plane right now. you know, i've been willing to discuss my -- my letters and the process going forward. but the report's going to be out next week. i'm just could not going to get into the details of the process till the praen's on the ground. >> did the white house see the report before you released your summarizing letter? has if the white house seen it since then, have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the judiciary committee? >> i've said what i'm going to say about the report today. i -- i issued three letters about it, and, i was willing to discuss the historic information of how the report came to me and my decision on sunday. but i've already laid out the process that is going forward to release these reports, hopefully within a week. and i'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it. >> and so the attorney general

has the white house seen it since then? have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the judiciary committee? >> i have said what i'm going to say about the report today. i'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it. >> house democrats say they will quickly seek the full mueller report as soon as they receive attorney general barr's redacted version. >> congress has need of the entire report, including the grand jury material, including everything. i presume we are going to get the redacted report within a week. when we do so, if we don't get everything, we will issue the subpoena and go to court. >> attorney general also supporting the trump administration's decision not to defend obamacare. barr was questioned about the justice department taking a position that could leave tens of millions of americans uninsured. here is how he responded. >> do you think it's likely we are going to prevail? >> if you prevail, well, you a

that's the message the white house is telegraphing. great work from my colleagues at the ap for this story. not a done deal, but it shows you the renewed emphasis on this issue of immigration from this white house. coming off what they perceive as a victory in the mueller report, they want to shift back to their core agenda, enforcing that southern border. the wall has not been built. although the president is going on friday to the border in california to inspect a piece of it under construction. so we expect to hear a lot about this then. and now this new plan, first of all that we're cutting off -- the u.s. has cut off aid to three central american nations, those the president feels are responsible for crete creating these caravans, experts feel that will make things worse. if you want people to stay in the country, you should give that country money to improve conditions there. and this threat to shut down border. no one thinks it can be done. people aren't sure it will happen at all. he's threatened twice before and hasn't followe

campaign and white house documents, directing senior aides to testify freely. asserting no privilege. at the same time, the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete this investigation. >> except himself. >> except we know, so it's written in a very clever way, which is he didn't do anything to prevent the special counsel from finishing his report. which is factually accurate, but we also do know he refused to sit for an interview, which certainly couldn't have helped the report be as thorough as possible. >> we know from our reporting and other news organizations that he called in his white house counsel and his chief of staff at one point and asked how can i fire the special counsel? let's see how that's addressed. the attorney general didn't mention that either. to your other point about the president's emotions, the attorney general, look, a lot of democrats even the democrats who voted against bill barr, thought he's an adult, a bush republican. this will be different. he proved tod

what do you make of this messaging from the white house? >> clearly, the president is trying to build out a messaging narrative around the findings in this report that he can use as he launches into the 2020 campaign. we are not really seeing a major difference in what he was saying before the report was made public last week and what he was saying over the course of the investigation. he's continued to remind americans that this investigation was led by ha he believes were people with biases against him. he continues to say this was a waste of taxpayer money, this went on too long. i mean, he's returning to a lot of the same talking points he used, tweeted during the course of this to your investigation and, you know, what we are hearing from white house sources and people on the trump campaign is they are going to focus on bringing the president into a lot of states that he won in 2016, but where there are freshman democrats who are in districts that are walking a fine line in how they respond to the report. they are going to bring him in

house counsel's office in the past, it would not be improper to send the report to the white house counsel's office for a privileged review. they get a shot at looking for the review. barr insisted they didn't do that and he got squirrely about whether the white house had seen it. now they are briefing them in preparation to rebut it? is that proper? >> i don't know if it's proper, but it's un-orthodox and the idea that the department of justice is part of the executive branch and he is the executive branch. he is essentially reviewing this material on himself by himself. this is his department of justice. i don't know if that's what the american public thinks, but that's the theory being issued here. i think it's inconsistent with what we expected from the department of justice and the insulation of the department of justice from partisan politics. >> barr has a history here that just came out recently. ryan goodman has shown that barr issues a summary about a legal opinion and told congress what he thought was going to be the important things. that turned out to be deceptive. he left out t

house for senior white house officials. for something like 25 different persons for security clearances. this is really unacceptable. this is about endangers the security in the united states, the national security of the united states, and having people in control of that information who could be compromised, who could be subject to blackmail, who have things in their background, whether it's financial interests that make them a risk. i think it's important for congress to look at this, and if need be do what chairman cummings is doing and issuing a subpoena to get the records and the information, and to bring people forward who can testify about what it is that happened in that process. this is about the security of the country, the national security interests, and the white house stepping on the toes of civil servants whose he job it is to make sure the united states remains secure. >> tina, whether we're talking about releasing the mueller report or this information on security clearance, we're at a standoff. we're at a

house, when did you talk to the white house, who did you talk to at the white house, what did you say, what did they say? and i think his point is, look, i'm doing my work here, i'm trying to get it gun. i'm trying to get it done fast and i'm trying to get information out to the public. >> those are logical follow-up kbegzs. what's wrong with answering those question snz. >> i think his point was, look, i'm doing all the work. i'm going to get the information out. i'm going to get it out to the public. then we can talk about it, then we'll have at it and i'll answer questions about it. >> that was one of the most suspicious things that i heard. as you said just say yes. no i didn't show it to them in the beginning but since the report came out and i've released the letter i've spoken to such and such about it. >> look, i've shared this concern and voiced this concern about william barr's impartiality. he prejumgdged this case. he said before he was attorney general that the obstruction theory of robert mueller in this case was fatally misconceived. and also told "the new york times" h

at the white house. these details are coming in from the white house oversight committee which just revealed her details in the memo. this whistle blower is tricia w tricia new bold. conflicts of interest, financial problems even drug use and criminal conduct were some of the issues. newbold told the committee she was talking as a final resort. quote, she says i would not be doing a service to myself or my country if i sat back knowing the issues we have could impact national security, and i feel that right now this is my last hope to really bring the integrity back into our office. a source says ivanka and jared kushner were among these. has the white house responded to this woman's claims at all? >> nothing so far. brooke, this letter was sent to the white house counsel. we've heard from him before on this. he's argued he believes the power to grant and deny these security clearances rests exclusively with the executive branch. he doesn't think that congress or the democrats here have the authority to

that lived in the white house. i think it is mind boggling that it still exists and is in such great condition. that room i really love. i also really like the state dining room. not because of necessarily how it is now, although it is lovely, but that corner of the room is where jefferson's private study was and where he had his cabinet meetings. i think my next book will be looking at adams and jefferson's cabinets. that space really holds a special spot in my heart because it does not exist really anymore like it did look at the time. trying to imagine what it was is a special thing. host: both of you have only working with a trump administration. hard to compare with press presidents. but you said each administration brings their own different sense of history. administration. what about the level of interest that the trump's have and the history of the mansion? how have they express that in working with you and others? matthew: the first lady has worked with us in terms of the egg roll coming up. that is somet