Skip to main content

tv   Tricky Dick  CNN  March 24, 2019 8:00pm-9:00pm PDT

8:00 pm
8:01 pm
want more from your entejust say teach me more. into your xfinice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome. this is "cnn tonight." i am don lemon. a feeling of relief at the white house. special counsel robert mueller his report to the attorney general saying his investigation found no evidence that president trump or his campaign conspired with russia on the 2016 election. but the attorney general william
8:02 pm
barr in his letter to congress about mueller's report quotes the special counsel as saying that, while he did not conclude that the president obstructed justice, the report does not exonerate president trump either. tonight democrats on capitol hill calling for mueller's full report to be released to the public. and the chairman of the house judiciary committee says he will soon call the attorney general to testify. so here we go. joining me now, simone prokopez. shimon, let's start with you. you've covered every twist and turn of this investigation for the last toward years. i know it seems like longer. what's your biggest question that remains tonight? >> i think it's what everyone is talking about. this exoneration line in the report, in what bill barr ultimately gave two members of congress. it's a big question as to why did he choose to go there? why did he explain it in such a way? he could have simply just said,
8:03 pm
we found -- we found no evidence of collusion, we found no evidence of obstruction, and therefore this investigation is now over. he went into a lot more detail than any of us certainly expected today when he filed this letter with members of congress. and the big question is, why did he leave this wiggle room here? it's very clear on the collusion side that there's no collusion and that they essentially cleared him there. but then they left the door open on possibly this obstruction issue, though the department of justice, when you think about it, did clear the president on that issue. they still left this wording in there concerning the done race. exoneration. >> john, former assistant prosecutor in watergate, why did mueller not come to this conclusion on obstruction himself? >> don, first i think we should celebrate that the special counsel found no collusion. because it's a very serious
8:04 pm
crime. and thank goodness it didn't happen. to get to your question, i'm puzzled as to why barr -- i'm sorry, why mueller used two different methodologies. why on the collusion issue did he come to a conclusion, and why did he then use a different methodology and not come to a conclusion on obstruction? we in watergate, we took the bull by the horns and the special prosecutor yejaworski recommended to the grand jury and the grand jury named the president as a coconspirator in obstruction. that's a major difference. what troubles me, there's so many questions are going to remain unanswered that the american people want answered. and i think they're not going to get those answers. i think there are a number of reasons why transparency is illusory and we're not going to find those answers. the difference between watergate, for example, attorney general barr's letter refers to rule 6-e, grand jury material.
8:05 pm
he's referring to mueller now to go back and sort that out. the law does not allow the release of grand jury material. in watergate we went to the court and we asked the grand jury material be released to the house judiciary committee. and strangely enough, the white house did not oppose it. and a court order permitted that transmission. here, apparently, the department of justice isn't going to do that, so we'll never see that. we're not going to see things pertaining to active investigations. then there's going to be executive privilege. for all those reasons, i regret to say, i doubt we're going to see very much. >> interesting. i want to get this weave i move on to the other panelists from you, john. because this is what barr wrote about obstruction. he says, in making the determination we know the special counsel recognized the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in any underlying crime related to russian election interference, and that while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president's intent with respect
8:06 pm
to obstruction. does that reasoning make sense to you? >> it does, totally. that although you need a corrupt intent, if you're going to look at the statute, you have to look at the fact that if there's no underlying crime, what are you obstructing? in watergate there was an underlying crime, burglary. here, what's the underlying crime? there was no evidence of collusion. but remember, you know what nobody's saying? the letter specifically says, rod rosenstein and i concluded. he's bringing rosenstein into it to show that rosenstein agreed there was no -- >> give a little cover. >> and this is -- but this is the man who was talking about wearing a wire against the president. if rosenstein agrees with it, it gives him a lot of cover. >> ryan, it's important to remember that barr, who made the case before he was nominated by trump, that if there's no collusion, and speaking of that, no obstruction, basically saying, if there's no underlying crime, there's no obstruction. do you think that's significant? >> it is. look, he clearly telegraphed his
8:07 pm
view on what is is a complicated legal issue, at mueller apparently said in the report, according to barr's characterization. it's no mystery that barr believes if there's no underlying crime, there can be no corrupt intent, and therefore no obstruction. he said that, he said that in a letter that he sent unprompted to rosenstein at the justice department, and he said that in his congressional testimony during his confirmation hearing. that was before he knew any of the facts of the case. but i think the interesting thing is, mueller, of course, knew he said that. so mueller in kicking it to barr kind of knew which way barr was going to come down on this question. so maybe not totally taking the bull by the horns but kicking it to barr to make that determination. i think an interesting question for mueller as to why he did
8:08 pm
that. i also think mueller is kicking this to congress. at the end of the day, it's congress' job to decide whether a -- the president did something that was so bad that there should be consequences. impeachment being one of them, right? and that's where this is now headed. congress, i think if you look at most of the congressional statements, they're basically accepting the determination on russia and collusion, but they have a lot of questions about obstruction of justice. >> okay. julia, so many questions. you're last for a reason. last but not least. in my open, i said his investigation found no evidence of president trump or his campaign conspired. in the full report, that may show that. but that is not exactly what barr said. so i just want to correct myself in realtime and have you explain that. the report actually says the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or
8:09 pm
coordinated with russian government in its election interference activities. is that parsing of words or is that important? we should be very specific with exactly what barr, his interpretation of this. >> i think the "does not establish" is just clear, that basically you had the trump campaign not stopping the russians, and maybe even supporting it vocally as we saw publicly. you had the russians doing their counterintelligence and anti-democratic campaign. and those were aligned in goal, but not aligned in process. that's the way to think about it. or at least mueller couldn't prove it. i think this idea that who won, who lost today, i'll let political people debate that. i think what we're forgetting is that barr said in the memo of the mueller report that the russians worked actively to elect donald trump. that's a narrative donald trump has never wanted.
8:10 pm
and i think when you say, what are the unanswered questions that i have now, accepting that there wasn't collusion, how do i explain donald trump's behavior towards putin since he's been president? that's a political question, i get it, no the a legal one. we should not forget as a legal matter, the attorney general of the united states has now said the extent to which the russians took active measures, not to quote the movie, to elect donald trump. and that's bad. let's just put it -- that's bad. i am glad that we could get bipartisan support to get out of this collusion or bust debate, which no one's going to ever settle, and get to the question of, what the heck are we going to do in 2020, and why isn't our president caring about it? that is the key takeaway for me right now. >> let me ask you another question. so the special counsel states that while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. and people are wondering, well,
8:11 pm
what on earth does that mean? the president is saying it's complete -- he's completely exonerated. alice stewart, a supporter of the president, saying completely exonerated. this is in quotation marks. that means that mueller, according to barr, said this in his report. why would the president say that? >> i mean, i think the president would have -- look, the president would have said that if collusion were found, right? in other words, his narrative is going to always be, i'm completely exonerated, until we're all dead, right? but i think the important thing here is, you know, on this exoneration question, and i think the thing that's sort of shocking to people like me in terms of- who believe in the rule of law and support mueller's findings, to the extent we're going to see them, is really the extent to which behavior can be disruptive toward democracy. lies, supporting a foreign power, whatever.
8:12 pm
and not rise to the level of criminal capabulpability, but n exonerate you from your duties as president of the united states. but as i've been saying all along, that's a political question. and it was really interesting to see mcconnell, of all people, i was praising him on twitter today, really come out forcefully on this finding by barr about russia's continuing and dangerous aggression against our democracy. people don't like -- i get it, the left does not like him, does not like him being complimented. did that can be the narrative what was we know, i think maybe we actually can protect ourselves in 2020. >> interesting. john, i've got to ask you. in barr's four-page letter, there's just one sentence, when i read it, and a couple of words, that actually quote from mueller's report. what does that say to you? >> well, it says that -- i don't think it's intentional by the attorney general, but it shows where -- selectively quoting, it
8:13 pm
shows all the more reason why we want to see the underlying report. i think that's going to be the frustration. i hope i'm wrong. but as i said earlier, i don't think we're going to see very much of it. >> i wonder, john, what robert mueller thinks about the the attorney general's letter. is he thinking, yes, that reflects exactly what i said in my report, or not? or he'll likely be called to testify in congress. maybe we'll find out then. what do you think? >> when he, with all due respect, passed the buck on obstruction to the attorney general, he has to live with it. and we're sort of saying, well, the mueller report, mueller didn't find collusion. okay, we accept that. but here, what about obstruction? the attorney general of the united states is mueller's boss. and if the attorney general said, under the law and the facts there's no obstruction, rod rosenstein agrees, that's the final word. we can disagree but that's the final word. >> it won't be the final word, right? i mean, just look at the hillary clinton -- >> the final word on this. it doesn't mean that it doesn't
8:14 pm
continue. the final word on this report. but go on. >> we can't keep prosecuting our political enemies, we're not a third world country. >> well, what i mean by that is that congress will have to weigh in, right in the proper forum for presidential bad behavior, right? high crimes and misdemeanors, is congress. house of representatives needs to look at this report comprehensively and see if they come to a different conclusion. they might come to a conlose there are facts in the russia portion of the report that don't rise to a crime, but they decide are impeachable offenses. i'm not saying that's going to happen but that's a possibility. they may decide that on obstruction of justice, it does rise to an impeachable offense. barr in his letter said that mueller found evidence both for and against obstruction of justice. so when we're dealing with the president, correct me if i'm wrong, john, but it's an inherently political process.
8:15 pm
and this report now has to go through the democrats in the house, and they'll render a judgment on whether this rises to something more serious than what mueller and barr decided. >> i don't think that's third world -- >> under the constitution -- i'm sorry. under the constitution, of course the congress has is obligation to determine impeachment. but the speaker has taken that off the table. so i think the president's conduct is going to be judged by people in the election -- >> no, the speaker -- not trying to be -- >> listen, the republican control of the senate means there's not going to be any impeachment. there's not going to be conviction. >> nancy pelosi did take impeachment off the table before the report came out, but her statement tonight raised a lot of questions about the obstruction of justice. and they're obviously going to take a hard look at that. >> but what caused richard nixon to resign was that the republicans decided they weren't going to support him. as long as donald trump has
8:16 pm
republican support in in the senate, he has job security. >> let's talk about what everyone agrees on besides the president, and that's in the letter that the attorney general also describes these multiple offers from russian-affiliated individuals to assist the trump campaign. what do you think he's referring to there, julia? >> i think we know a lot of what we're talking about. and this is why getting some substance of the report is absolutely necessary. i read the barr letter to say that we probably already know a lot of this. this would be the meetings, what we've at least heard of in some of these other cases of phone calls or interactions between people aligned with the trump campaign, and then of course the indictments against various russian entities that were trying to get access to data or the campaign. once again i think if you define collusion as essentially a partnership, an llc, to get to the -- with a common goal, right, then they didn't find it.
8:17 pm
and i think that might be -- i mean, i accept that, right? i have to read mueller's report but i accept that mueller said that. but if you think, and as i said, this is the worst of it, there's all sorts of activity that had been done that was not -- i don't know, i guess the words i want to use are befitting our democracy. sort of that the trump people never, after having been warned by the fbi, never told the fbi that they've lied consistently since then that trump has tried to undermine the mueller campaign, that the helsinki moment which i as a national security person still to this day, you know, it's just -- still scary, sort of odd. you know, all of those things are going to be relevant for the political process. and i bet you a lot of those are mentioned in the mueller -- once we get to read the mueller report. >> thank you. i've got to go. but shimon, just quickly if you can, do you think all of this is going to be a justification for pardons? is that what we're going to hear next? >> i think we're heading in that
8:18 pm
direction. quickly what the president said today, you know, just paraphrasing, the bad things that have been done to people as a result. so i do think we're going to head in that direction at some point. i think that could happen, you know. at some point -- he was waiting for mueller to be done. everyone around him was waiting for mueller to be done. but certainly for paul manafort, i think, people close to paul manafort think he's been treated unfairly here. the president thinks he's been treated unfairly here. so he's setting it up. >> thank you, everyone. i really appreciate it. fascinating conversation, thanks again. joining me, congressman jamie raskin, maryland democrat, member of the house judiciary committee. i appreciate you joining us. >> delighted to be with you. >> are you willing to accept the findings of the special counsel, that there was no coordination or conspiracy, what's become known as collusion, between the trump campaign and russia? >> as soon as i get to read them. what we need is the complete report turned over to congress so we can read exactly what the
8:19 pm
special counsel is saying. and then we want to see the underlying evidence. but you know, i'm willing to accept them exactly for what they are. as soon as we get to see them. all we've gotten now is a few paragraphs of characterization which seem more and more opaque and inscrutable and vehicling when you really look into them. >> do you think if they were that far off on their summary of what mueller found, that he would be responding to it now? >> well, look at the question of obstruction of justice, for example. where according to attorney general barr, mueller said that there was apparently substantial evidence, enough evidence where there could have been an indictment, on the other hand, he felt there was also evidence weighing in the other direction. but that evidence, as far as we know, may have just been the special counsel saying, we know that the department of justice takes the position that the president of the united states should not be indicted. or maybe he's simply mirroring back to attorney general barr, barr's position that he spelled out in the lengthy memo before
8:20 pm
he got appointed attorney general, that the president by definition could not be guilty of obstruction of justice when it comes to federal prosecutors because he's their boss and he's got the unitary executive right to tell them to do whatever he wants them to do. >> let me read something, okay? when he talked about applying the principles of -- we've concluded the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. our determination was made without regard to and is not based on the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. it seems like they took that into account and said -- >> what they took into account was one legal argument. they said, what we're going to set aside for the second hour doubts about whether or not the department of justice should indict the president. but it doesn't deal at all with the completely separate legal theory advanced by attorney
8:21 pm
general barr, which is that the president cannot be guilty of obstructing justice when he interferes in an ongoing law enforcement investigation, including one related to him, because he's their boss. that's a completely different legal theory. we shouldn't be confused by that little sleight of hand there in the memo. >> so not being able to -- the special counsel not being able to come up with some sort of conclusion about obstruction of justice, wasn't that part of their job? >> well, part of whose job? >> part of the special counsel's job. >> yeah. and we don't know what the special counsel said. i mean, the memo might say, we think there's enough evidence to go forward with a prosecution, but we're going to leave it up to the department of justice to decide what to do because we know that there are a lot of legal questions around this. one of those legal questions is the one that's been injected by attorney general barr himself in what turns out to be a kind of job application, this memo where he said the president never can
8:22 pm
be held for obstruction of justice when he interferes in an ongoing law enforcement investigation because of the unitary executive theory, which just means the president is always the boss and he's in charge of the department of justice and all of the lawyers and prosecutors in it. so look, here's the thing. the president is already running around saying these received a complete and total exoneration from special counsel mueller and the department of justice. if that estrue, nobody should be afraid of following what the congress in an overwhelming 420-0 vote asked for, which is for the whole report to be made public so we can see what it says. and then everybody can have their victory parades and take their laps. it should not be based on a couple of paragraphs of recitation of what the attorney general thinks the conclusions are of this two-year investigation. >> i know it says that -- the special counsel states that while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. it goes on to say they're leaving that decision up to the
8:23 pm
attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. >> yes. >> so isn't that -- is that part of congress' -- is he leaving it up to congress to decide if that rises to the level of impeachment or what? >> well in a final analysis, it is congress that's got to decide about presidential misconduct. there's another sleight of hand which is taking place in that memo which is, i think that the attorney general is confusing an apparent statement, although we haven't read it, but an apparent statement by the special counsel that there was not sufficient evidence found to determine that there was conspiracy, he's confusing that with a statement that the special counsel found there was no conspiracy, or there was enough evidence to find there was not a conspiracy. these very different from finding there wasn't enough evidence, a sufficient quantum of evidence to show it. prosecutors are looking for a lot of evidence, enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody committed a crime. and if they're being scrupulous
8:24 pm
about that, there might be a lot of evidence, including enough evidence to convince the ordinary person that something took place, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. that's not the standard, of course, that congress is using. so the bottom line is, we shouldn't have to be squinting at this document and trying to read between the lines. all we need is the report that the special counsel produced. it's what congress unanimously asked for. it's what the president said he wanted, at least before all of this started. so before everybody starts running 500 victory laps about how everything's fine, let's turn over the report so we can treat this as a serious matter of law enforcement. we'll take it for what it is. we've got to weigh it in context of everything that the special counsel's doing and everything we're doing. >> do you want barr to testify? are you going to call on him to testify? >> i think that barr has interjected himself in this
8:25 pm
investigation by making the final call about whether there's obstruction of justice. that was a very opaque and inscrutable statement. >> what are you going to ask him? >> yes, i would like to see him explain exactly how he arrived at that conclusion. >> do you want mueller to testi testify? >> well, we want to see the mueller report. obviously we may have questions. but i think we read the mueller report and then we see whether we need mueller to testify. >> rosenstein? >> rosenstein to the extent that he's been implicated in the decision-making process by the attorney general maybe should come back. >> okay. so your committee launched a massive investigation into the trump administration requesting documents from 81 individuals and entities. in light of mueller's findings, with the scope of your investigation change now? >> remember some of those investigations or most of those investigations have already taken place. at other levels of government and other federal investigations or state investigations. so those documents are easily
8:26 pm
available. i think tens of thousands of them have already come in. so we're hoping that the mueller report, once we read it, helps us to focus our investigations into things like abuse of the security clearance process. what exactly did take place in terms of the president trying to negotiate a deal with the russians during the course of the campaign? was the white house involved in michael cohen's false statements to congress? did they influence him to make those false statements? so on. we want to get very specific about all of the corruption and lawlessness that has been taking place. remember, for two years in the last congress, none of this stuff was investigated by the house and that's why there was this backlog of requests that the committee chair have sent in. >> congressman raskin, thank you for your time, i appreciate it. >> my pleasure to be with you. >> not that we need to explain ourselves but in the interests of transparency we asked well over a dozen republican
8:27 pm
lawmakers, over a dozen, to join us to react to mueller's findings. none of them said yes. you would think they'd want to talk about this. next what the president said tonight about mueller's findings, what he got right and what he didn't. so capital one ig something completely new. capital one cafes. inviting places with people here to help you, not sell you. and savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. because that's how it should be. you can open one from right here or anywhere in 5 minutes. seriously, 5 minutes... this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too.
8:28 pm
i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. let's blow out the candles together! ok, let's huff and puff. like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better- starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms.
8:29 pm
symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! ask your doctor if symbicort is right for you. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
8:30 pm
robert mule der not establish that donald trump or his campaign conspired with the russian government, but while the president is touting that, he simultaneously and falsely is slamming the investigation as illegal, not to mention family
8:31 pm
claiming the report totally exonerated him on obstruction. i want to bring in ellie honig, "the truth about trump." good evening. >> as we get started let me play the president's statements, the president's statement, bit by bit. >> it was just announced there was no collusion with russia. the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. there was no collusion with russia. >> for all intents and purposes, the president is right about that finding. >> he is. and it's a very good day for the president. i think it's a good day for the united states, since we now know that one of our major party candidates did not conspire with the russians to swing the election. so it's a good day for everybody. >> jennifer, let me ask you about this. we know manafort gave an associate with ties to russian intelligence campaign polling data. we know stone reached out to
8:32 pm
wikileaks through an intermedia intermediary. don jr. said he'd love any information from the russian lawyer claiming to have dirt on hillary clinton. the campaign did not alert the fbi when approached by russians offering help. presumably the mueller report addresses all of those, but we don't know, right? we don't know the context of any of it. >> we don't know the contents of the mueller report yet and that's obviously going to be something congress is going to want to see and the american people want to see. >> context, we don't know what inn what context, we don't know the contents of the mueller report. >> no, we don't know, and there's more too. why did all these people lie about their contacts and communication with russia if there was no conspiracy? there are a lot of unanswered questions. it's definitely good for the president that no one is going to be charges with conspiracy, but there's still a lot to get to. >> jennifer, one more time, let's listen to the president. >> there was no obstruction and
8:33 pm
none whatsoever. and it was a complete and total exoneration. >> okay, jennifer. so, to be clear -- >> and everyone is laughing. >> the section on obstruction in barr's letter reads, while the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. that is the opposite of what the president is claiming. >> yeah, listen, it's still on balance good for the president. the report it sounds like does not say he committed obstruction, should be charged with obstruction, or he should be but we can't charge him, nothing like that. it's at least a wash, according to the mueller report, if you believe barr's letter. what's strange to me is why mueller punted on this in the first place. i don't quite understand why he wouldn't make that decision. that was really the whole reason that he was appointed. >> right. >> because he has the independence and no one knew the facts of the mueller investigation better than robert mueller. why he didn't make that call as
8:34 pm
to whether the facts constituted legal obstruction here is something that i don't understand. and i hope that someone will ask robert muler that question. >> i agree. i was really surprised to see mueller punt that. first of all, he's the special counsel. the whole point of special counsel is to take the crucial decision-making out of the line of command that goes up to the president. and he threw it right back into that line of command, number one. number two, this is what prosecutors do every day. we sit in rooms, jennifer and i have been in rooms together, looking at evidence, and it's a really tough call. but you make the call. robert mueller is not an indecisive person by any stretch. so i'm very surprised that he punted this. once he punted it to barr, game over. william barr has already made his views very well known. he wrote that unsolicited memo in 2018 before he was a.g. to the department of justice slamming what he believed was mueller's obstruction theory. he said it was fatally flawed, he said in a separate interview it was as 99. that was what he said to "the hill." what barr said to "the hill." once mueller punted to barr, he
8:35 pm
had to know what the outcome would be. >> is there method to why he did -- maybe he knows something that we don't? >> the only thing i can think of is the way the regs work is if mueller wanted to take a certain action then he was overruled by the a.g. that has to come out, that has to get reported to congress. perhaps some sort of softer, compromise -- that would have been calamitous for a lot of people. perhaps this was some way of softly avoiding that scenario. that's all i can think of. >> barr said he had not been denied anything he had asked for. that's what mueller says. >> right. and doing it this way may have allowed barr to say, i didn't have to overrule on anything. versus, can you imagine if mueller had recommended obstruction and then barr had overruled him and had to report that to congress? this would have been a completely different story. >> i agree, but at the same time that's not the mueller that we've all kind of been led to believe was running this investigation. the mueller that we've got ton know through people who have said things about the him, who have worked closely with him,
8:36 pm
calls it like it is, right? if he thought it was obstruction, i would have expected his report to identify it as such. >> that seems to be the question, why he didn't make some sort of judgment on obstruction. even from people who had been supportive of the president, at least people in the legal profession don't understand that because they believe that is exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do. okay. the president one more time. >> 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. >> not surprising, vintage trump. >> vintage trump. we went through this because he had fired james comey and told everybody it was because of russia. so, you know, this was brought on by the president himself. it was brought on by his denial that there had been russian interference in the election in the first place.
8:37 pm
remember when he said, well, some 400-pound guy on a sofa in new jersey? this is all on him, it's not on the democrats, it's not on hillary clinton. this all emerged because jeff sessions recognized that he had a conflict, he stepped back from it, and we got the special counsel. and the country went through this nightmare solely because of donald trump. >> okay, and speaking of the country, what's interesting, the first thing when i read the report, i was actually in a diner. >> you spit your coffee out? >> no, no. that's pretty american, right? sitting in a diner eating a very late breakfast, steak and eggs. i'm sitting there reading it. texting with my producer. we're like, what is -- okay, so no collusion, but obstruction? but no -- but he's not completely exonerated? what does that mean? it's almost like when hillary clinton, when comey came out and said, we're not going to
8:38 pm
prosecute her, it's nothing illegal, but they act recklessly. what does that mean? >> well, it certainly means that no one's going to be charged with this. not now and not ever. he's not going be charged -- it gives -- so you're saying there's a chance? to democrats, right? then to republicans. well, we can't say completely that he's exonerated. we can say it but we know -- they know they're not telling the truth. i feel like we're back to where we were before this. >> sort of. criminal law has very high standards, right? you have to meet beyond a reasonable doubt to go to trial. yes, you only need probable cause to indict, but we all know -- >> didn't meet the legal bar? >> didn't meet the legal bar. that is not the same bar for congress. they get to choose themselveses whether ob juction -- obstruction -- >> beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard known to our legal system.
8:39 pm
you can get pretty darn sure without getting to beyond a reasonable doubt, an experience every prosecutor has had. i wonder if the hidden message is, congress, your turn. >> then there's this from the president. the president couldn't help but attack the mueller investigation even though he celebrated its findings. >> and hopefully somebody's going to look at the other side. this was an illegal takedown that failed. and hopefully somebody's going to be looking at the other side. so it's complete exoneration. no collusion. no obstruction. >> illegal takedown that failed. >> yeah, that's a little frightening that kind of language. it's consistent with what we've seen from donald trump from day one. attack the department of justice. attack the independents. this idea that now that we've had an investigation that's not yielded criminal charges there needs to be retribution and the other side -- i don't know who he means by the other side.
8:40 pm
doj? hillary clinton? somebody else? it's so dangerous to doj's independence. it's also not good for donald trump. wouldn't it have been much more effective if he said, i'm going to respect doj, let them do their job, we'll see what they come up with, that will be that. then today happens, he looks even better. >> it's tough to do that, someone you've been saying, this is all illegal takedown, mueller's trying to get -- he can't praise mueller and say good things about him after he's been demonizing -- >> that's what i'm saying, from day one. >> when you talk about illegal takedown, i said this earlier in the show. his appointment authorizes actions, mueller's appointment, authorizations and actions upheld by seven court decisions. rulings made by judges appointed by both political parties, even one appointed by the president. >> yeah, he's lost at every turn. i mean, there is no single victory he can point to when he talks about this being an illegal investigation, illegal
8:41 pm
takedown, there's nothing there. but that has never stopped him before. he's been saying no collusion, witch hunt, all of these things the entire time. and he's not really tethered to the facts here. >> what does this say about the president even on a day that brings him some political victory? what does that say about the president, that he has to -- insists on investigating his political opponents, investigating investigators and his political opponents? >> a couple of things to say. one is they had that whole plane ride from florida to washington and all they could come up with was that? he couldn't walk out and actually become the president of all the american people and say -- >> come on, mike. >> -- thanks for the good work? >> he's going to gloat for another five years. >> the certain thing that has happened through all of this is the stress has revealed donald trump's character. we may not all agree on the legal issues. we may not understand barr's memo entirely until we see the mueller report. but the stress of this, under
8:42 pm
stress, people's character emerges. and this stress has shown donald trump to be the person who he is. he's solely interested in himself. he lies s reflexively. he lied today when he said, i am fully exonerated. he's not been. but he's going back to who he is. >> it feels a lot like what we were before this reporting came out. the mueller investigation is over. but then there are still so many other investigations left as the sdny is looking into campaign finance crimes involving the trump organization, as well as looking into the trump inaugural committee. those investigations still pose serious legal trouble for this president. >> yeah, they absolutely do. i mean, this was the biggest one. this was the thing that, if it were proven, this was the worst conduct that he's been accused of committing. p but that doesn't mean he's out of the woods. they're going to be digging into trump organization activities, including some things dealing
8:43 pm
with his kids. so it's certainly not over for him. i think we have a long way to go. we even have a long way to go with the mueller report idatsel. there are going to be a lot of details and facts in there that are bad for him, even though the conclusions ultimately were not. >> i was saying -- they said the report is out, i'm like, oh, this is over. then i read it, oh, it's not over! >> it's not over. >> it's not over. thank you, guys. i really appreciate it. a trump adviser telling cnn that there are concerns that the president could quote overreach and say something that could get him in trouble after the release of william barr's letter. we're going to discuss what robert mueller's report means for the rest of the trump presidency. that's next. the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle
8:44 pm
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.
8:45 pm
8:46 pm
8:47 pm
robert mueller's investigation found no evidence the trump campaign conspired with russia, has the president claiming vindication even though on the subject of ob strugs mueller said quote while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. let's bring in douglas brinkley, author of "american moonshot: john f. kennedy and the great space right." and the or of "impeachment in more than history." thank you for joining us. doug, here we go. the cloud over russia that hung over the white house since the president took office, has that cloud lifted tonight, tudo you
8:48 pm
think? >> it's lifted considerably. i don't think it's time for donald trump to spike the football and declare grand victory quite yet. but this has to be the first time that he feels like he has a future that may not have dark clouds over it. it's been a rough two years for donald trump. the through the threat of mueller has been there. now it's basically lifted. trump is able to reset his agenda and put the democrats on the defense. he's going to be blaming this as being a witch hunt and a hoax. he's going to beat up on the media more. and most importantly, don, it allows him to consolidate the republican party. there have been maybe eight, ten major republican leaders that have been starting to drift from some of trump's egd agenda. now it's clear that he is the maverick head of the gop and won't probably have a serious challenger to get renominated in the 2020 campaign. >> so basically when it comes to
8:49 pm
this president's response, it's business as usual. everything you were saying, he's already been doing. considering that, tim, considering that donald trump is claiming full exoneration, do you think he and republicans, do you think they'll support the full release of mueller's report? >> well, i don't see the interest that they have in a full release, because we know that there are sections of the report, just from reading barr's summary, that will be critical of the president's conduct. what we know is that mueller's team, mueller and his team, decided not to suggest an indictment of the president for obstruction of justice. we know that they left that decision to barr and the deputy attorney general. rosenstein. so there must be something in the report about questionable conduct on the part of the president regarding the investigation. >> but douglas, you have said that this report gives trump some inoculation for the next time there's a major charge
8:50 pm
against him. but say his separation has still been marked with significant scandal. like what? >> well, you know, right now -- nothing's changed. donald trump is a president that's just besieged by scandal all around he's going to be able to say the next time democrats charge him with something it's another mueller. another russia gate. it just allows him to say that this has been a political take down attempt. on him. and it's going to be harder for the public to wave on the next criticism of trump if it's not one that can be immediately provable. i think there's plenty of room for democrats to focus on beating up trump on u.s. mexico border. ignoring climate change. on not really bringing back the jobs to the midwest that he
8:51 pm
promised. to possibly wanting to do away with aspects of medicaid and medicare. >> already been indicted. it's not a complete -- >> democrats are still running against donald trump. he's scandal plagued. not much changed in that regard. it's harder for stuff to trick to trump after this. the effect. it seemed to be sticking to trump now suddenly he's a escaped the noose again. he's a professional magician. >> that is interesting. listen, trump called the new probe that investigators all for a new probe. that investigates mueller. the mueller investigation. here's what you tweeted. president goes to war against system that exonerates his campaign of collusion with russia. would it be prudent for him to move on? >> talk about prudence.
8:52 pm
if the president trump knew that he was going to be exonerated for collusion, how does one explain his behavior with regard to the mueller investigation? of course it would be prudent to say the system works. the institution works. for some reason the president insists on never tacking and never shifting. he continues to attack mueller even though mueller has said there's no reason to believe there was collusion between the campaign and russian government. that's a psychological issue for the president. it's not a legal one anymore. i want to make a point shs it's important. mueller did establish that russia did intervene and did try to big foot our 2016 election. that means that we don't want that to happen in 2020. let's no forget that the investigation found witches. >> douglas, earlier today the president l.amented so many people being badly hurt by this.
8:53 pm
will he use the report findings as a valid way to pardon the people? or some of them. >> he very well might. some of the -- he's not going to do anything like that before 2020. but if he got reelected, he might try to paint a broad brush that this was all phony political tick dawn and hence they became victims and give them a shorter prison term. i'll speculate on that. the bottom line is out of all of this the person that amazes me is bob mueller. we're in a age of celebrity. everything is known. washington is filled with leaks. mueller didn't have leaks. he's doing no tv shows no press conference. he's disappearing into the history pages leaving this report behind. and we'll have to see when we read it what's written between the lines. the devil maybe in the detail.
8:54 pm
there maybe loose wires in the report that cause trouble for donald trump down the line. but this is certainly the best day of the last 48 hours are the best time he's had in his presidency thus far. >> he's linked to trump. when you think of trump and mueller. i don't think we'll hear from mueller maybe he'll do interviews. i doubt it. if she's subpoenaed and asked to testify we'll hear what he thinks about the summary of the report. from rosenstein. and specifically bar. >> exactly. we'll have to see if that moment hams or not. mueller won't rush the book down. or give his autograph to people. he's not looking to be on facebook. for the democrats that started the year with the collusion and the impeachment. and trump is about to go away. that's over now. for people like tom steyer.
8:55 pm
with the impeachment crusade. the balloon is losing its helium. the democrats have to refashion themselves as representing the american people. and jobs. about the economy. about rebuilding of america. i think if it will be a mistake if all the democrats do for the next three months is continue hitting the russia bell. the country is fatigued. exhausted after two years. >> nancy pelosi said long before the report contents were known she didn't support impeachment. and we talked about the parallels the differences between president trump and nixon. the question of the impeachment. how do you see this? >> well, i i gree with doug. i felt it was going to be hard. depending on what mueller found. to have a bipartisan consensus for impeachment. one thing we learned from nixon.
8:56 pm
successful impeachment is only possible if you have a bipartisan consensus that it should go forward. that was going to be hard to happen anyway. now it's virtually impossible. because republicans can point to the mueller report and say look, there's no under lying crime here. no collusion. so why would you have an obstruction of justice with no crime to obstruct the investigation of. i know you can have obstruction of justice. the politics are so muddy and helpful to the president defenders. i can't see how impeachment could happen. >> the legal term is conspiracy or conspireing. not collusion. it's been something that has been sort of immediate and in the term the president has been using. thank you, i appreciate it. i want to remind you i will be hosting a town hall with democratic presidential candidate and senator cory
8:57 pm
booker. our coverage continues. when it comes to so,type 2 diabetes,.. are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. right. actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. even if i'm taking heart medicine, like statins or blood thinners? yep! that's why i asked my doctor what else i could do... she told me about jardiance. that's right. jardiance significantly reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease. that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? yeah- with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal.
8:58 pm
symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the genital area could also occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. ask your doctor about jardiance today.
8:59 pm
9:00 pm
down two runs in the bottom of the ninth. because there's always another game on deck. with mlb extra innings on xfinity x1, you'll get up to 90 out of market games per week. and all of the body sacrificing catches, home plate heroics, and 6-4-3 double plays. plus, with x1 you can get every stat and every score all with the power of your voice. that's simple. easy. awesome. order mlb extra innings for a great low price. plus, access your favorite team on any device. go online today. good evening. president trump calls it committee and total exoneration. today attorney general releasing the summary of the special counsel robert mueller's report. the investigation didn't establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on