tv CNN Newsroom With Ana Cabrera CNN March 24, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
he was proposing full transparency. abby phillip at the white house tonight. the mueller report being released, at least the principle findings. coverage continues with my k colleague, anderson cooper. >> good evening. president trump calls it a complete sbuter exoneration. william barr released his summary of special counsel mueller's report. the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign considered or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activities. the special counsel reached no conclusion as to obstruction of justice. the attorney general saying in his own judgment looking at the facts presented there's insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against the president.
this passage from robert mueller, i'm quoting, while this report does not conclude that the president commit aid crime, it also does not exonerate him. as for the president, he had this to say on the way home from florida. >> it's a shame that our country had to go through this. to be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this for before i even got elected, it began. and it began illegally and hopefully, somebody will look at the other side. this was an illegal takedown that failed. and hopefully, somebody will be looking at the other side. >> well, unclear what that means for the future. what's very clear right now is that the president has been vindicated in a very big way on a key allegation against him. cnn's pamela brown has new reporting on what led up to it. i understand you have breaking news about discussions between mueller and the department of justice about a subpoena for the president for a sitdown
interview. >> that's right, anderson. we learned that special counsel, his team and doj officials, top officials raised the specter of issuing a subpoena for president trump for an interview and ultimately the decision was made not to move forward with such a significant investigative step of issuing a subpoena against a sitting president. we know for months, anderson, that robert mueller and his team have been asking for a sitdown interview with president trump and the legal team and the legal team said no. they gambled that robert mueller would not issue a subpoena. sure enough, that happened. we heard there are sensitive discussions about whether they should issue a subpoena when it became clear that the president's legal team would not allow a sitdown interview with the president. we're told that ultimately the decision was made that the merits and the evidence that they had didn't really justify issuing the subpoena beyond just doj protocol that you can't indict a sitting president, they
decided there wasn't enough there. but certainly it makes you question, as you read bill barr's memo today, whether robert mueller said in his report to barr that some of the president's behavior he could not be exonerated from, because he did not get that sitdown interview to talk to him and understand his intent. what is clear from reading the memo is that rod rosenstein, deputy attorney general, who mueller had consulted with on the subpoena among other doj officials, did not think there was enough there, did not think that the president's actions that were laid out showed intent and there was obstruction, anderson. >> we're already seeing pushback from the democrats in these findings. >> no surprise there. they're saying they need to see the full report and there are more questions than answers particularly as it relates to obstruction. mueller said there was behavior that was questionable even though bill barr essentially cleared him and chuck schumer and nancy pelosi released a
statement today saying mr. barr's public record of bias against the special counsel's inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report. they're looking at the fact that he was hand picked as president trump as his attorney general. as you'll remember, he wrote this memo before he was confirmed as attorney general, basically saying there shouldn't even be an obstruction probe, that it should have never happened in the first place. and we're also hearing from the head of the house judiciary committee, who is also not satisfied. here is what he had to say today. >> his conclusions raise more questions than they answer, given the fact that mueller uncovered evidence that, in his own words, does not exonerate the president. we sirchl cannot rely on what may be a hasty interpretation. >> that's what democrats are seizing on, anderson.
bill barr said that mueller's team concluded there was not collusion between the trump campaign and the russians, but it's a little more complicated when it comes to obstruction. that's what democrats are honing in on. will they issue a subpoena to talk to robert mueller, for a full report? in covering the white house, lawyers there are bracing for a subpoena fight over the full report. >> what has attorney general barr said about releasing the report and the underlying evidence? certainly the underlying evidence is going a lot farther in terms of releasing stuff than just the full report. >> underlying evidence can be tricky, because you're dealing with grand jury testimony with potentially classified information. he basically is reiterating what he said previously, that he hopes to be as transparent as possible, release as much information as possible, being mindful of the law and policy. he did note that some of the materials do have grand jury
information and interviews and so forth that has to be taken into consideration, but he said he will consult with robert mueller and figure out how to release more information. in fact, anderson, we have learned from a doj official that the process is already under way, mueller's report is being scrubbed to see what could be released. what's clear here, anderson, that zrts will not be satisfied until they see a full report and underline documents and a federal swrunlg may be the only person who can ultimately decide and make that public, anderson. >> pamela brown, thank you very much. the president is back at the white house tonight. joining us is politico's andrew restuccia, who was on air force one. andr andrew, what was the mood like? >> pretty celebratory, to be honest. it was an interesting weekend at mar-a-lago. the president spent most of time playing golf, hanging out with friends and being assured by his
advisers and staff. even before the report came out they were pretty confident that he would be vindicated. in the end he was pretty thrilled. he went back to mar-a-lago the end of the day and was briefed by his lawyers and went line by line through barr's letter. he said this is pretty good, and that was a quote by him. >> did we know what the president was doing during the flight? >> interestingly, we landed -- went into the cockpit and landed with the pilot at the end of the flight, retiring colonel who he wanted to spend time with. during the flight he spent time with aides, mulvaney, social media director. he was making calls to his allies, watching cable news as he always does. it was certainly a celebration, at least as far as i could tell. >> the remarks president made in florida, do you know when that decision was made? >> it was pretty last minute.
like all of this, from him being briefed on report, all happened within a span of less than two hours. so they read through all of the report line by line and i think within 15 to 20 minutes, we sprinted from the motorcade to air force one and the president was waiting for the media to show up. >> all right. andrew restuccia, appreciate it. abby phillip is at the white house. what is the mood at the white house tonight? >> as you heard andrew say, it's a celebratory mood among trump aides. you had his counselor, kellyanne conway saying this is the day he won the 2016 election all over again. this is a presidents who been under a cloud of investigation for two years and that cloud has been lifted. and in many ways it's been lifted in a way that i don't even think he expected.
the conclusion particularly that there was no collusion is really important to a president who has been repeating that ad nauseum for two years and the white house is saying on obstruction they didn't expect the mueller investigators to exonerate the president but essentially by not finding enough evidence that there was obstruction, they believe that's an exoneration of president trump. a president who is extremely happy at this moment. you should pay some attention to what he was telling reporters just before he left the white house. he said that it is a terrible thing that this happened to him. it's a terrible thing that it happened to many of his associates who are going to prison as a result of some of the investigations that came about because of this mueller investigation. this is not a president who is happy that mueller is done. he is ready to kind of go back on the offense. he's saying this was a failed attempt to take his presidency down and he's not backing down from that. he is not talking about russian interference more broadly.
he's talking about how this was broadly unfair to him and unfair to all these people around him. they are also planning to use this asin 2020 against the democratic candidates, saying that they've lied to the country for the past two years about what the mueller investigation would ultimately find. >> and is this what he and his attorneys expected from these conclusions? >> reporter: well, we've been hearing from sources close to the investigation -- i'm sorry, close to the president, close to the president's legal team that they haven't been expecting more indictments coming out of the mueller probe. they actually believe if the mueller probe ended at this point, it would have ended without the president ever sitting down for an interview. and both of those things were viewed as very positive signs for president trump. the definitive nature of the letter on some of these points -- at least that's how they are presenting it -- is even better than they expected.
certainly the president's lawyers had hoped for the best. but they are coming out of this, feeling like all of the questions that had been raised as a result of this probe left the president essentially unscathed from a legal perspective. that being said, as i'm sure you will point out later in the show, there are a lot of things happening outside the mueller investigation that they may need to worry about. as far as the mueller probe is concerned, it seems this is better than they expected on a number of different fronts. >> you talk about the president using this, and it's no doubt something that he would do and makes sense from his standpoint. he is already alluding to an investigation into the russia investigation or into the other side. >> reporter: yeah. this is going to be a big question tomorrow and the days after. what is the president going to do now? he suggested that somebody ought to be looking into the other side. who exactly is the other side? for months he has been talking about the need for further
investigation into hillary clint clinton, but also the president's allies have been talking about the obama administration and the idea that the russia probe, beginning under president obama, was improper from the beginning. so is president trump going to go there? reporters traveling with the president did ask the president about that. they said they haven't discussed it just yet. i'm sure president trump will be hearing from his outside advisers, republican members on capitol hill who have been beating those drums for months and those drum beats are only getting louder. one more thing, anderson. there's a question about what does president trump do now with all those friends and advisers, who i mentioned earlier, who were charged and who are facing jail time? are pardons on the table? aides are saying it's too early to talk about that. but, again, tomorrow, the day after that, these are also big questions. what is president trump going to do now?
he certainly has the power to pardon but also potentially has the power to ask his justice department about these questions he alluded to before departing florida, anderson. >> a busy night for our political and legal team. former federal prs kurt shan wu is with us, who formally represented rick gates. chief political analyst gloria borgeer, and ken cucinelli and jeffrey toobin. >> collusion has been something that he has talked about incessantly. he has said no collusion and robert mueller, his great nemesis, has agreed with him about that. that is an enormous -- >> she said ad nauseum, incessantly. fair enough, if you are wrongly -- if you are being
accused of collusion and there was none and you say there was none, it's fair that he was talking -- >> absolutely. i think by one count he said 185 times. that was something that was at the heart of this investigation. and he won. i mean, there is just no toudou about that. on obstruction of justice, the story is more complicated and the result as described in this letter is frankly peculiar and not really something that was contemplated by the regulations. >> peculiar how? >> because robert mueller was appointed because the political appointees in the department of justice, attorney general, deputy attorney general, had a conflict of interest, because the target of this investigation was the president. so he was supposed to make the judgments about the president. instead of doing that, he seems to have punted the decision over to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. it is not precisely clear the
way the letter is written whether mueller reached any more conclusions about whether the president should be indicted or not. it seems like -- >> it said it did not exonerate him. >> it did not exonerate him but exactly what mueller concluded about obstruction of justice is not clear from the letter. however, what is very clear is that barr and rosenstein took the evidence that mueller had assembled over two years and in less than 48 hours said there's nothing to see here. there's no obstruction of justice. >> and democrats are sort of crying foul on that because it does align with something that the attorney general barr had written in a letter before he became attorney general, which some democrats say it was an audition letter for him to become attorney general, which was about obstruction of justice? >> they're crying foul because of the previous letter. they're crying foul because barr
has an inherent conflict of interest, because he is an appointee of the president and because it was such a cursory investigation after mueller spent two years on the issue. so that's a lingering problem. but i don't think it should -- we should over emphasize that over the conclusion that the president and his team did not work with the russians to win the -- >> the president was saying no collusion for years, certainly. he was right, according to the special counsel. >> absolutely. >> people are seeing this through the lens of their own politics. >> sure. >> democrats are disappointed and upset. in truth, as americans, this is a good thing. >> yeah. >> the fact, according to the evidence, that the president had no collusion with russians, who we know were involved in the election, that is a good thing. >> that is the clearest thing we see from barr's letter today. it states unequivocally that the special counsel did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it
conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these efforts. that is absolutely crystal clear. and it would be interesting to see why they took all those meetings and whether those things should be allowed to occur again in future presidential campaigns. i think that's a great result for the country, for the president. to what jeffrey is saying, the question of obstruction still remains out there. and my question is, did mueller kind of punt on it because he wasn't able to interview the president of the united states? and that goes to pamela's reporting about the fact that there were discussions about this with rosenstein. and they decided not to subpoena the president. did that mean at the time that they thought that rosenstein and maybe mueller felt that there wasn't the evidence there to even warrant a subpoena fight? this is something that the democrats are going to want to
get to the bottom of. they're going to want to see every single piece of paper about obstruction and i would say that in the end this was a huge, huge victory for the president's lawyers. >> if it was decided that mueller felt there wasn't enough evidence to support a subpoena fight to get the president to talk, democrats then can't really complain that much about the fact that the president wasn't interviewed for a sitdown interview. >> no, he can't. >> if there wasn't the evidence to support even' subpoena fight. >> right. i agree with you, anderson, 100%. frankly, for the democrats who want to say well, so what, we're going to press ahead, they are now in the eyes of average, ordinary americans -- not those of us who pay attention every day, but average americans going to look like sore losers in the political battle here. of course, the president will overplay that on twitter.
but the reality is now what the democrats do will look like a witch hunt because the only neutral arbiter, or close to it, that anybody could identify, would be robert mueller and he said there was nothing to proceed with and, as you said, anderson, didn't even try to get the subpoena to interview the president. >> ken, to your point -- >> would have gotten if he wanted it. >> these are democrats who, for months, have been extolling the praises of robert mueller, his integrity. >> yes. >> against the president's attacks against robert mueller. it's a little hard now or hypocritical for democrats to suddenly say we need to look at not only his final report, which that i can understand, but the actual original documents, the investigative documents, the interviews by fbi -- we need to basically review his report because we no longer have confidence in him.
>> anderson, when you compare that to what we are asking yesterday, last friday night. well, gee, the president called this a wuch witch hunt forever. now does this hold up? okay so the president felt ill feelings toward this the whole time because he was innocent. and mueller said he was innocent. that's a lot more understandable than the democrats possibly flipping on their position and saying, no, mueller didn't get it right. now we're going to get it right, particularly when they've already -- they've done a ready, fire, aim approach out of congress. they didn't wait for mueller to finish. they just started their own and launched away and that's going to look really bad now. >> shan, go ahead. >> i have to say, it does not say he's innocent. what's remarkable about the report is that it's so few quotes from mueller and if you look at the quotes, it's an amazing thing that mueller of all people said, quote, it does not exonerate the president.
that's an equivalent, james comey kind of moment. the whole letter, the lack of quotes raises questions, what else is there on collusion? he says it does not establish. so what makes up the established? that's what really begs the question. what's really behind there? the quotes are so few. as you opponented out on the obstruction point of view, barr's previous views were tailor made for this. it's extraordinary how few quotes there are. >> kecarrie, on the obstruction issue, do we know how much barr's thinking is impacted by if there's no criminal intent, if there's no crime, then there can be no obstruction of justice? >> his letter does include a statement that refers to that, that it was not dispositive but certainly appears to have factored into his thinking. so i think that was one piece of
it. certainly his determination and the deputy attorney general's joint determination that there was not sufficient evidence to bring an obstruction case is based on their statutory interpretation. what is curious is that he does include the quote from the special counsel that although the special counsel's report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. i think that's the piece that congress is most likely to latch on to, because they're going to want to understand what is the other information that does not exonerate the president? what made the special counsel include that in his report and why did the special counsel at least not make a recommendation to the attorney general about prosecution? it would be appropriate for an attorney general to take a recommendation and perhaps decide differently. it is curious, and we don't know
the answer, as to why the special counsel decided not to make a recommendation. >> jeff, i seem to have had discussions with you that there can be obstruction of justice even without a crime. >> look at the martha stewart case. she was never charged with insider trading but was charged with obstruction of justice about insider trading. it is possible that obstruction of justice is added when someone is charged with a crime. but the idea that the president's lawyers said in an earlier interview on cnn and is certainly the implication of the attorney general's letter, that it's somehow impossible to be charged with obstruction of justice without being charged by the underlying crime, it's not the law, department of justice policy and it's just not true. >> one other point, anderson.
i don't believe for a second that the attorney general made this decision in 48 hours. we'll need more information as to how this played out. but to think that the attorney general received this report friday evening and made this substancy, weighty decision and wrote it on sunday, i think the more likely scenario is that he would have been briefed on what was going to be in the report over some period of days, if not weeks, and that this decision was formulated before the actual issuance of this letter. >> you're saying why, because it's such a complicated legal issue, he would need time to think about it? >> it's a substantial statutory issue. he would have had to take time to think about it. this investigation was going on for a period of two years.
it was one of the major pillars of the report that he is making and so you would want to get it right, at least from his perspective. i'll be curious as to how this plays out and if he's asked to explain more but sitting here it's hard to believe he made this decision in 48 hours. >> shan, is that neither here nor there, whether he got advanced notice from the attorney general? >> i think it's fine. >> i'm sorry. go ahead, shan. >> i agree that he wouldn't make such a weighty decision so quickly but he already made up his mind and he made that very clear in his letter to rosenstein. is it out of bounds for him to do that as attorney general? probably not. he is the attorney general. he can do that. but it certainly will open questions as to what underlies that decision. no question that he made up his mind already about that answer. >> bob mueller is kind of a black and white guy.
he sees things very starkly. for him to say something on the one hand, he didn't -- there's no evidence -- we can't conclude he committed a crime but he's not exonerated, you have to ask yourself, what's the backstory here? maybe -- and shan, maybe you would know and carrie you would know more about this. maybe the back story was that mueller knew he wouldn't be able to get the subpoena that he wanted, that they had had these informal discussions, as pamela had been reporting, he knew he wasn't going to get it, and maybe he disagrees with barr on obstruction, but wasn't willing to put himself out there on it, because he knew the attorney general would disagree. >> ken, i want to get your thought on that. >> no. no. look, first of all, there's so many maybe there is. >> yeah. >> had they pressed for a subpoena to have face-to-face questions with the president, they would have prevailed legally. i don't think there's much doubt
about that. i really don't. to then bootstrap the idea that this means all these five different things, i think, is really reaching. >> ken, i -- it's funny. the president's lawyers spent months saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. >> exactly. >> that -- >> yes, but i am not one of the president's lawyers and as you know, jeffrey, i frequently disagreed with those lawyers. >> i understand that but all i'm saying is that it is not a sure thing that the courts would have granted mueller the right to question the president. i think you may be right. the united states versus nixon precedent is relevant, although it's not exactly the same. but the idea that, of course, mueller could have gotten to talk to donald trump if he wanted to and just filed the subpoena, that was a complicated, lengthy, legal
debate, legal fight. >> i'm not suggesting it was simple but i definitely think they would have prevail ed on that. and the speculation of the notion that they wouldn't so they didn't even try when they interviewed how many witnesses? >> i think they did try. >> of course, we don't know. we just don't know. >> we don't know. >> as gloria is pointing out, we don't know because there's nothing in there from mueller, just a couple of quotes. we don't know if he did make a decision to punt or what else he said to the attorney general because barr decided not to put anything in. >> in terms of the actual report being released, there's grand jury testimony, i guess, in there that would have to be looked at carefully. a number of issues would have to be looked at, right? >> correct. so i do take the attorney general at his word that they're going to start that work already and review the report for purposes of grand jury material
and purposes of whether or not -- there are ongoing investigations that were spun off from this major investigation. they'll have to look at whether anything in the report would affect ongoing investigations. although i don't think it's in the attorney general's weather, there is a question over whether some things may raise the issue of executive privilege. i did find it notable that i don't think he included that in the letter as a reason for delaying review of the report. >> and just -- am i being naive here, ken, in that, you know, i understand why democrats seem disappointed, why president supporters are elated. but just overall, the idea that if it is a fact that the president and people around him did not actually collude with russians in the election, that is a great thing for this country. >> yes. >> that the man who is president, maybe not just the next two years but the next four years after that, the fact that he did not collude is good.
>> it isn't just related to this president. >> go ahead, ken. >> sorry. i thought you were speaking to me. >> i was speaking to you, ken. >> okay. it isn't just related to this president, the reason that this is good. this is a national issue. forget republican and democrat. we need clean elections that aren't interfered with, that are run legally and aren't interfered with by foreign powers. russia has been very aggressive well before the 2016 election, though there are now technological tools available to them that give them other opgs that they exercise pretty effectively in 2016 that they hadn't before. i think that's important to every american. i don't know anybody of any stripe on either side of the aisle that doesn't think that's a big deal. in that sense tonight this letter and the friday report is a good outcome for this country. for the people who just want to take the president down and use this to do it, move to the
issue. jennifer granholm said on "state of the union" this morning that the 2020 candidates are not dealing too much with this. they're dealing with things that affect people's real lives and i think that's smart on their part. and i think the rest of the political world would be wise to get back to that, too. yes, there are things that answers -- but we need to get back to a place that's good for every american and that won't happen if most of the political world is focused on this. >> i completely agree with ken that we should be glad to know that the president and his campaign did not rise to the level of engaging in a criminal conspiracy. we can be happy about that. but i think there's a part of this that worries me for 2020 and beyond. that is that according to a "new york times" report in january 2019, the president and 17 different officials on the campaign had contacts with russian government or russian surrogate officials. the attorney general's letter
said that there were multiple offers from russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign. there is some level of activity that is below the standard of a criminal conspiracy but is meeting with foreign counterparts of a hostile foreign power and potentially accepting some assistance that our laws don't seem to cover. and i think there is more of a conversation to be had about wla wha level of foreign, hostile foreign power interaction we are willing to accept in our electoral process. >> that's fair enough. we need to take a break. everyone, thank you. much more ahead. we'll talk to someone who was interviewed by the mueller team and what happens next in the political arena. that's clearly where this will be discussed. a member of the oversight committee joins us ahead. ♪ 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?
it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. so you can come out swinging, maintain your inner focus, and wake up rested and ready for anything. sleep number is ranked #1 in customer satisfaction
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.
as you heard earlier in the program jerry nadler said that attorney general barr's letter raises more questions than answers. jerry connelly joins us. is there anything ne way to characterize this report as anything other than a complete win for the president? >> i don't agree with that at all, anderson. why would you conclude that? let's start with obstruction of justice. this report says, and he quotes from mueller, one of the few times he does. while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. to finish that sentence, from committing a crime. if that's exoneration, i don't know what victory would be. and then there's collusion. >> collusion.
>> let's talk about collusion. all it says is we didn't conclude that anybody on the campaign rose to the level of criminal activity. your last panelist, i think, put the correct point on this. are we going to now accept that it is normal in presidential campaigns for a whole campaign team to have 100 contacts with a foreign adversary, whom they knew was trying to disrupt our election and tilt it? that's just business as usual. are we going to accept that norm? and oh, by the way, what else did mueller find short of criminal collusion? >> but a lot of democrats have been saying publicly, you know, there is direct evidence of collusion. there is direct evidence of it and of criminal activity. there's not, according to mueller, on the collusion front. >> i think that's a function of language. was there collusion? well, if you're meeting with russian operatives who have told you in advance the purpose of the meeting is to give you dirt
on your political opponent and you respond, i love it, and you show up at that meeting to hear the details of that, or you encourage the russians to release even more wikileaks e-mails, i think to a layman's ear that looks like collusion. may not rise to criminal -- >> there's a difference between being sleazy and doing things which are objectionable and wrong. >> that's right. >> and not criminal. >> that's right. but that's why i took issue with how you premised this question. is this total exoneration or vindication or can democrats be anything but disbarren of this report? >> it makes seps for the american people to see the full report. i'm not sure you're going to get the underlying documents as many
democrats want. that seems like that may be more difficult. wouldn't you think? >> it may be difficult but i think it's going to be necessary if we're going to put a period on this examination. >> it could be said that's hypocritical of democrats who have been protecting robert mueller, who have been saying he's a buddy of comey's and isn't a straight shooter. for democrats to say we have complete confidence in mueller but now we're disappointed with the results and essentially reinvestigate his investigation? >> i don't think that's hypocritical. we have a summary from a not disinterested party who already in a preview, sort of an interview for his job wrote this memo criticizing the mueller report -- or mueller investigation, is now making decisions for us, including what's in the mueller report. i don't theveng it's hypocritical at all to say i do
stand by the integrity of robert mueller, but i also want to see the full report and what led him to those conclusions or findings in terms of the documentary evidence. >> but rod rosenstein was also involved, according to barr, in the decision of not moving forward on any criminal charge related to obstruction of justice. so it's not just attorney general barr who made that decision. does that give you any more confidence? >> what it does is make me want to know a lot more. if the words they quote say neither did he exonerate him from obstruction of justice, what led you, nonetheless, to include, either mr. barr or mr. rosenstein, that you were going to go one way not the other, when mueller didn't say that? >> congressman connolly, appreciate it. >> my pleasure. the president said nothing about robert mueller himself today, certainly a break from
the past when he has had had plenty to say. >> the problem with the mueller investigation is everybody has massive conflicts. mr. mueller is highly conflicted. in fact, comey is like his best friend. >> these people have the biggest conflicts of interest i've ever seen. >> i call them the 13 angry democrats. >> i could go into conflict after conflict. but sadly, mr. mueller is conflict conflicted. muller was not senate confirmed because of all the conflicts, they didn't want to bring him before the senate because he's very conflicted. he's conflicted. and i know that his best friend is comey, who is a bad cop. he put 13 highly conflicted and very angry -- i call them angry democrats in. >> the last bit the president said a few days ago. here with me now "usa today" columnist kierstin roberts.
i understand that they're seemingly despondent because this not what they expected and the president and his team are thrilled. if, in fact, there was no collusion and that's what robert mueller has said, no criminally chargeable collusion by the president or anyone around him, again, that seems to be great news for the country. >> yeah. >> whether there was sleazy activity, bad things go iing on poor choices made, inappropriate things. that's good that the president of the united states did not collude. >> i agree. it's very good. i think the president has a lot of reason to have been upset this entire time, that he was being accused of this. and that you had many democrats coming out and saying as much, that he was basically guilty of collusion when that hadn't been pro proven. i think there's no question on that front that this is a very
good day for donald trump and his administration and the people around him. i think on the obstruction of justice issue, i think democrats are right to be asking questions and particularly because they haven't seen the actual report from mueller. instead what they've seen is basically a determination made by the department of justice, political appointees, appointed by donald trump. i think it's fair to ask about that, but i also think it's true that's today really good day for him on the collusion front. >> michael, i understand democrats want iing to see the actual mueller report and certainly the american people get a better understanding of what they've been doing and what happened to the country. getting the actual document, the investigative documents, interviews by the fbi, things like that, that seems like a whole other step and seems to be an investigation of the mueller investigation by democrats who said they completely had faith
in the mueller investigation. >> that's true. every attorney i've talked to -- i've got a few myself. i work with a lot of attorneys, former u.s. attorneys. not a one of them in the last couple of days have told me they expect the underlying documents to be revealed. in fact, a lot of those attorneys believe that it would be surprising if we see the entire report. i think we should see the entire report. right now, i want to read it, see it, all of america does. i would like to see as much unredacted transparency as possible. as we sit here and watch the democrats and the kind of resistance media out there, twitter feeds kind of sifting through the rubble of the russia investigation spin that was out there and has collapsed all around them, there's a lot of hand wringing going on. and the idea that the house democrats want to go forward with this investigation, try to prove what mueller could never
prove with all his star prosecutors and fbi agents, i think it's time for republicans to buy popcorn more than anything else. >> on a personal level, michael, you were interviewed by mueller and that comes with it. tens of thousands if not more than $100,000 in legal fees and time of your life spent just personally -- we talked about this, i guess, when the word came out that there would be be no new indictments. now that this has come out, how do you feel? >> i've learned a lot, anderson. i used to work in congress. i represented the broadcast media interests of seven different standing committees at the house of representatives. i know what it's like to go through a house and senate committee inquiry. testifying before those bodies. but going through a mueller type of -- an office of special counsel investigation interview is a totally different thing.
have you the political side of congress and the criminal side at the department of justice. it's a very intimidating thing. even though i was a witness for two years among 50 other friends of mine who were witnesses through these two years, we all felt in peril this entire time because this team of prosecutor koss flip us from witness to target in the bliveng of an eye. >> yeah. >> so you're always in peril with the office open. and now it's closed it's a relief in a lot of ways and it's great for the president, in my perspective. he can move forward in many different paths from here. >> kirsten, should this have impact on other investigations? certainly there's investigations in the southern district of new york but in terms of political investigations by democrats, do you think this should have an impact? >> yes but i also always thought they need to be careful about
this anyway. i think we've talked about it before. there have been times when we have had conversations about are they getting too far out on a limb, pinning everything on this idea there was collusion? now what it looks like, because you did have elected members of congress basically saying that they knew there had been collusion when they didn't really have the evidence. there was a lot more evidence, you know, of obstruction of justice, if there was ever anything. but collusion, that wasn't something that they could know. now it becomes the boy who cried wolf. if you have been saying this over and over and have someone like bob mueller, who should be trusted, who democrats said they trusted, say no, it didn't happen, they have to be very careful about the kinds of investigations. because then it can start looking like an actual witch hunt. >> right. >> what donald trump was saying it was. >> thank you, kirsten powers and
michael caputo as well. we'll have more on this and look at the state of play. his parents shared videos of highlights, dance moves, and jimmy carlyle stealing third... almost. they sent seven texts when a new friend invited nick for a play date. but in the end, they put their phones down, and watched as nick finally felt part of the team. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, every day can begin with flakes. it's a reminder of your struggles with psoriasis.
but what if your psoriasis symptoms didn't follow you around? that's why there's ilumya. with just 2 doses, a majority of people were clear or almost clear. and over time, even more people were clear or almost clear. all with dosing 4 times a year... after 2 initial doses. plus, ilumya was shown to have similar risks of infections compared to placebo. don't use if you are allergic to ilumya or any of its ingredients. before starting treatment, your doctor should check for tuberculosis and infections. after checking there is no need for routine lab monitoring unless your doctor advises it. ilumya may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. this could be your chance to leave your psoriasis symptoms behind. ask your doctor for ilumya today, for a clearer tomorrow. you need insurance. but it's not really something you want to buy. it's not sexy. or delicious.
president trump and his supporters are happy about today's news and the the end of the russia investigation. more probes aren going by a variety of from the, state and congressional investigators. you can see some of those here. among them the trump organization and the ongoing look by federal prosecutors in the southern district of new york and the hush money payments made to women by michael cohen during the 2016 presidential election. it's a state investigation and
defungt trump organization that violated state laws. there was special access to the administration for donors. and with me now is evan perez. so the president scored a big victory and the country did in learning the president did not collude with russia. local woes for the president certainly are not over. >> that's right. this is one of those cases where the end isn't quite the end. certainly for the president, there's still a lot of legal issues that he and his lawyers are going to be having to deal with. you mentioned the southern district of new york, who are the only ones that in the end landed a punch on the president throughout this last two years
of investigations. they are the wasn'ts essentially who were able to declare in court and a judge made it a finding a fact that the president was essentially an unindicted co-conspirator of the crimes, which was campaign finance violation and the cover up of those payments to those women. so again, that is probably the most serious investigation for the president. we know that one of the things that the prosecutor is locking at is whether or not anyone else was involved in the cover up in masking those payments and whether or not they committed a campaign finance violation. obviously, this is an investigation that was going to continue. and i think if you're the president, you have to worry about whether your company, any members of your family could be impacted by orfected by that investigation. >> in terms of the investigation, do you agree it's the southern district's that has been the most fruitful so far? >> yeah, they have.
we have seen activity there. we have seen quite aggressive activity. it was the search warrants of michael cohen. we have seen subpoenas issued to the inauguration committee. so we don't have a great idea of what they are look at, but we have a general idea in terms of the inauguration what they are locking at. one of those things is foreign money, whether or not foreign money went into the inauguration. and the southern district of new york is the hush money payments. they just relowsed documents from the search warrant and everything that had to do with the hush money payments, the search warrant related to that was all redacted kalt indicating that is still under investigation. you have the trump organization that's still under investigation there. and then we could see other people from the organization who could be charged in connection with that. >> it will be interesting to see how the politics of all of this impacts if it does at all these
other ongoing investigations, the results that we learned today. thank you both. stay with us on this historic sunday night. much more ahead. the complete and total exoneration and what lies ahead. plus what 2020 candidates are saying about the mueller findings, which we continue. sta. she can stay with you to finish her senior year. things will be tight but, we can make this work. ♪ now... grandpa, what about your dream car? this is my dream now. principal we can help you plan for that .
about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine
or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
the president says no collusion and robin meade agrees. that's what the attorney general no conspireing with russians during the election by the president or people around him. major vindication on that front. and a decision by the attorney general not to pursue charges against the president. return iing to the white house e president was understandably elate d. >> i just want to tell you that america is the greatest place on earth. the greatest place on earth. thank you very much.