tv William Barr House Hearing CNN May 2, 2019 7:00am-8:01am PDT
>> democrats are dug in. they're going to fight this. he talked about just a few days now and when he'll issue a subpoena. laura jarrett is with us at the justice department. elie honig, jackie kucinich on the political site. elie, to you on where we go from here, what do you expect? do you expect bill barr will be held in contempt? as a journalist, one of the journalists in the crowd rightly asked, isn't that just going to get tied up in the courts and drag out the clock? >> not particularly optimistic that their last-ditch effort that representative nadler talked about to negotiate will succeed. assuming it does not succeed, next step would be contempt and then we're going into the courts. yes, it will take time and yes it will get sort of complex and difficult. things move through the court at a slower pace than people often imagine. it's hard to see this case getting litigated and it's not just a one-shot deal. they'll start in the district court and whoever loses will
almost certainly appeal to the court of appeals which is the intermediate and perhaps even seek to take it to the supreme court. one thing that does -- >> hold your thoughts. this is the ranking republican on the committee, doug collins. >> then we understand maybe it's the democrats who have something to be worried about. maybe they don't like what was in the mueller report and maybe they don't want to continue to ask questions about it. i'll take your questions. >> the white house has been fighting subpoenas, requests for information. do you have any concern they're eroding your colleagues' ability to investigate? >> i don't think so. they're going to do what they need to do, as past administrations have done, including president obama and others. they fight subpoenas when they feel like they have made accommodations or not. one concern i have and the chairman was out here talking about going straight to contempt. that's typically a two-week process. you typically goent go straight to contempt. you work with the agency, try to make accommodations and anyone held in contempt, it's been a long process.
this democratic majority seems to be impatient. they don't want to wait, they don't want to ask proper questions. what are they hiding? why are they so concerned? because they hate this president and they want to keep the circus going and make the american people believe they're doing impeachment. >> is there -- >> sorry, i couldn't hear. >> beyond the president, is there anything wrong with staff attorneys questioning witnesses? >> there is no precedent for this. after 206 years of this committee where we were able to do our job, and this is where it gets interesting. the only two areas even the chairman talks about is in impeachment. my chairman wants the american people to believe by citing impeachment, when in reality, they don't want to bring impeachment. if he would take the accommodations the attorney general has made, work with the attorney general to find better ways instead of rushing to have a press release, rushing to have
our committee, and trampling minority rights of this committee. that's been amazing to me. yesterday was a travesty in our committee and our chairman should be ashamed. >> what's wrong with having staff attorneys question? >> the staff questioning is irrelevant in the sense of what they're wanting to do, but why does the chairman think so little of his lawyers on his committee that he wouldn't take 30 minutes for himself or others to ask questions. he's got great attorneys. it's a slap in the face of this own people. >> will you fight efforts -- >> we're going to continue, if the chairman wants to continue down that path, my questions are going to be, what is your hurry, have you looked for acc accommodati accommodations, have you tried to work with the department of justice, or simply every time you didn't get what you want, which has been the pattern, this chairman runs to make a subpoena, a contempt charge. it's almost like they're daring to go to court instead of doing proper legislative oversight. that's a travesty for this country. thank you so much.
>> there was the ranking republican, doug collins, with a spirited defense of the attorney general's decision not to appear before that committee. jackie, i want to ask you a question here. we were talking about how strong the words and the criticisms coming from the democrats here, talking about a danger to american democracy, a danger to coequal branches of government. is there a political backing for that position? i just wonder. listen, they have a role here in congress. you can see the angle they're coming from, but i just wonder if that will strike some even in their own caucus as hyperbole here? do they have the backing for that view of what's going on here? >> in terms of in the public, or in terms of the congress? >> in the public. >> in the public, i think among the base, yes. i think this is more. if you listen to jerry nad rr, this is about the battle of the branches. this is about what congress is there for.
>> jerry nadler said if they don't stand up to the white house, they'll relinquish the ability to stand up to white houses in the future. they're trying to make this a real constitutional question rather than get mired in the politics. now, reality, this is mired in politics. we have seen this between congresses and presidents over and over again. the bush administration, the obama administration. this is what happens when you have divided government and you have passions as high as they are right now. >> so the question, though, becomes on the political angle, when is it pressing it too far, jackie? because david chalian last hour mentioned our brand-new cnn polling. it does show something that should be a warning to democrats. 44% of americans say democrats are doing too much in terms of
investigating the president. and this is all wrapped up in that, right? too much. 28% say they're doing enough. 25% say they're doing too little. is that a sort of a blinking red light for democrats here? yes, the majority of americans in this poll do want them to get the full unredacted mueller report. they do want them to investigate if the president obstructed justice. but they think overall, dems are maybe doing too much here. >> there's a reezb we were talking about a $2 trillion infrastructure bill earlier this week. democrats know, particularly speaker nancy pelosi knows, that particularly democrats that were the majority makers, those from trump districts that elected trump, need something else to take home. they're not as entrenched in the mueller report, in the mueller investigation. so yeah, they need to be able to
walk and chew gum and, you know, get wins on the board for these members that were elected not to go after the president but to try to get things done in a divided washington. >> yeah. >> manu raju on the hill standing outside that committee hearing with one of the members from the hearing who had some of the most explosive comments, the representative ted lieu. manu. >> yeah, thanks, jim. ted lieu, congressman who is on the how judiciary committee. talk to me about what the justice department is saying just now, saying look, why can't you have -- you guys are attorneys, you can question a witness. why do you need to have staff attorneys insist on having staff attorneys question when it's something you can easily do yourselves? >> we definitely could do those ourselves and we will when barr comes in after we subpoena him, but we also want staff counsel. these are complicated issues. obstruction of justice is a complicated issue.
issues related to conspiracy are complicated and it's nothing extraordinary we're asking. when i was on the house judiciary committee last year under republican control, there were numerous witnesses from the department of justice questioned by staff counsel. >> are you worried, now you move down this process of contempt. it's going to take time. you may not get the answers you were hoping to get at today's hearing. >> it will take time, but i don't think it will take that much time. woe can control our contempt proceedings within congress, and once contempt passes off the house floor, not only can we litigate, but we also get inherent contempt powers that the courts upheld, including the ability to impose fines on the person without having to go to the courts. >> do you want fines levied against anyone who doesn't comply with the subpoenas? >> absolutely not, but we'll go there. >> is this something that is seriously considered? >> ultimately, we have to enforce what the framers wanted, which is co-equal branches of
government, checks and balances on the executive branch. if they continue to ignore congress, hide from the american people the truth, then we're going to use all the tools at our disposal. >> one tool is impeachment. democratic leadership has been hesitant in going this route. do you think they should have changed their approach and start to more seriously consider the prospects of impeachment. >> if the trump administration wants impeachment, they're doing a good job of pushing the democrats there because we want to first gather facts to decide if we should impeach. if we can't gather facts, then we're going to launch an article iii impeachment under what nixon happened to him, article iii was obstructed congress. if we can't gather facts, that may be the only tool we have left and we'll use it if we have no other tools left. >> you seem pretty confident you're going to go that right. have you gotten assurances from jerry nadler or nancy pelosi? >> that's my personal opinion, but it's unifying the caucus.
you understand that you cannot have donald trump and the executive branch blowing off congress, ignoring congress. so if they
push us to go there, we are going to go there. >> congressman ted lieu saying it's unifying the caucus, the talk of impeachment in light of this noncompliance of the administration. guys. >> that's interesting. an example of the members perhaps overruling the leadership on that question. >> yeah. it's a great point. we, of course, manu gets the important interview right there. we appreciate it very much. >> we have laura jarrett, just before we go, because i want to get your reaction to what the members of the judiciary committee and the broader democratic caucus seem to be threatening. how does the justice department respond? >> if i heard nadler correctly, he said we're not afraid to use our inherent contempt authority. i take that to mean using a sergeant in arms to get the attorney general. we're a long way away from that. they haven't even subpoenaed him
to appear yet, but it's quite a threat to make, i think, at this stage, especially when it's really about form over
substance. it's really about the issue of just having the staff question him. that's where the stalemate it and it's kind of a constitutional stalemate. there's no provision in the constitution that says members of congress get to, you know, investigate in this way. so it's really going to be an interesting question to see whether the courts want to weigh in on this and how they come out. kind of untested ground. >> can i ask you to put a button on it? can they hold barr, are they on good strong legal ground to hold barr in contempt for not appearing at the hearing, the format of which they wanted with this lawyer? he would show up if they had changed it back to the regular format of the five minutes of questioning and not the 30 minutes additional for a staff attorney to question. can they still hold him in contempt by saying you have to appear at the form of hearing we want? >> well, they would have to
subpoena him first. they haven't even done that. they were having all sort of these background conversations. the first step would be the subpoena. if he flouts the subpoena and still doesn't show, then the contempt vote would come. even on that, i don't think they're on necessarily 100% firm ground there because as i mentioned, you know, there hasn't been a whole lot of precedent for having a senior cabinet official come and have to take staff questions outside of impeachment proceedings. so they're going to have to show why this is so necessary, given the fact that there are attorneys on that panel that can easily question, and this whole idea about five minutes, they get to set the rules on how long. the attorneys, they could pick the best attorney on the panel and have them go the whole time. so i think that's a hard argument to make. >> well, by the way, majorities have set the rules on a lot of consequential things, even for instance, the number of votes necessary to confirm justices, just a point of order there. thanks very much. still to come this hour, his
sacrifice saved lives. we know that. north carolina police are calling one student a hero after witnessing say he rushed a gunman who opened fire on a university class room. we'll honor the life of riley howell ahead. >> plus, were cruiseship passengers and moviegoers exposed to the measles? health officials raising concerns about the disease, new ones. >> and a new cnn poll drops and the president's approval rating on the economy jumps. good news for the president. is it bad news for his 2020 challengers? ♪ we know if you found one crappie
you may have found a thousand. we know the joy of getting your boots back in the mud. we know the journey can be more rewarding than the destination. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's. stop by today for huge savings on the gear you need and the brands you trust. plus free 2 day shipping at basspro.com and cabelas.com. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. ensure max protein...
is now one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c. >> you know, i just have to say as a former police chief that it was painful and disgraceful to see the nation's top cop abandon his responsibilities. >> chicken barr should have shown up today and answered questions. he was afraid of barry burke. he was afraid of norm eisen, an attorney general picked for his legal acumen and his abilities would not have been fearful of any other attorneys questions him for 30 minutes. he can run but he cannot hide. >> very strong words from the democratic members of the house judiciary committee talking about bill barr's no-show at a hearing today. joining me is zoe lofgren of california. thanks very much for taking the time this morning. >> sure. >> let me ask you, you heard
those words here. a danger to democracy. you heard the chairman jerry nadler talk about the need to respond to the possibility of the president acting like a dictator here. do you share those concerns today? or is that hyperbole? >> well, when attorney general barr refused to show up, it was improper, and i think it was arrogant. i think of graver concern, honestly, is the refusal to provide to the judiciary committee the full mueller report, which has been subpoenaed, along with the evidence underlying that report. we have a right to see that material. the attorney general, we subpoenaed it. the attorney general has said simply no. the other thing of grave concern is the president's comments that he's going to have the members of the administration refuse to comply with any subpoenas issued
by the house of representatives. that's not the way our system of government works. >> is that a danger to u.s. democracy in your view? >> actually, i think it is a very serious problem because the executive branch for the last more than 200 years going back to the days of george washington, has been subject to oversight by the congress. that's fundamental to our system of checks and balances. and so for the president to say he's going to break that and he's not going to allow subpoenas to be responded to is extraordinary and it's improper, and it does threaten our system of checks and balances. >> let me ask you this. the question now really is how far are you willing to go? when we heard the chairman jerry nadler talk about using all of the committee's powers here to compel bill barr to testify, among those powers is sending the sergeant in arms to arrest him and brng him before your committee.
would you support going to those lengths to get the attorney general to testify? >> i would be very surprised if that occurs. obviously, there is a process that needs to be engaged in. we have not subpoenaed the attorney general to appear. we merely asked him to come. obviously, we want to pursue that, and we issue a subpoena. if he still refuses to comply, we would engage in a mediation to see if we could come to an agreement. if he still refuses to respond, then you would have to gesee what further remedies are available. but as i say, the more serious problem today is the refusal to provide the documents that already have been subpoenaed. let me just say something about the attorney general. i didn't get to see all of the testimony in the senate because i was busy in hearings and work here in the house, but i did have a chance to look at some of it, and really, i think in many instances, he was not very candid, maybe not even honest, in his testimony. so i'm not so sure i'm very
interested in what he has to say since he doesn't necessarily tell the truth. >> are you saying the attorney general lied before the committee? >> well, i tell you what. he certainly needs to explain why he lied to charlie crist when he came before the house and said that he had no idea what mr. mueller thought when he already had mr. mueller's letter. i can't understand how that is anything other than false. you know, i would like to hear his explanation. >> let me ask you this, because ted lieu as well said that the only recourse may be impeachment proceedings. our colleague manu raju pressed him on this. >> against barr? >> that's a move that they had not been willing to make, but he said members of the caucus might support that move. would you support impeachment proceedings against this president? >> or against mr. barr? >> he was talking about against the president as a process. what you have been referencing there more broadly, this
administration refusal to provide documents, witnesses, et cetera. first, let's start with the president. i would ask you about barr as well, but would you support the beginning of impeachment proceedings. >> i don't think we're there yet. we have further discussions that need to occur between the house and the executive branch. but i'm sure you know that article iii of the nixon impeachment was nixon's refusal to provide information that the congress legitimately had a right to see. so i don't want to see our president marching down that road. >> and that's exactly the point that congressman lieu made. talking about article iii and cited the nixon impeachment articles. do you support the impeachment, the removal or resignation of bill barr as attorney general? >> based on his performance to date, i don't think he's doing an adequate job. i don't think he has been honest with the congress. and i think we could do a lot
better than him. i would like to see him go. but on the other hand, we have had a series of inadequate attorney generals, including mr. whitaker, whose improper temporary appointment was a disappointment. i'm not sure president trump is really interested in somebody who is interested in telling the truth and defending the rule of law. >> congresswoman zoe lofgren, thanks very much. always good to have you on. >> thank you. interesting. she said she thinks he lied to congress. >> straight up. but not willing to take the step, she said we're not there on impeachment for the president, but also even for the attorney general. >> yeah. all right, we'll keep asking those questions. ahead for us, an incredibly sad story. a student who was killed add a shooting this week at the university of north carolina at charlotte, is now praised as a hero. what police say he did that may have saved many lives. guys, i've got an idea!
oooh, what is it? so people love iphone xr, right? well, it does have an incredible camera. and it comes in all those amazing colors. uh huh. what if we give the people iphone xr, when they join t-mobile? iphone xr on us? yeah, iphone xr on us! what's not to love about that? for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us. we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico.
rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr.
19-year-old reed parlier and riley howell. howell is now being praised as a hero for tackling the shooter and stopping any more lives from being taken. dianne gallagher has been following the story. he could not run, could not hide, so he fought back. >> yeah, the chief of police in charlotte said in doing so, he saved other people in that classroom's lives. and his family told cnn that, you know, reed has -- excuse me, riley has always been our hero, and now we are sharing that with others. >> first and foremost hero, as far as i'm concerned, and his name is riley howell. >> 21-year-old riley howell, one of two students killed when a gunman opened fire on the unc charlotte campus. instead of focusing on how he
died, today, he's being called a hero by friends and family. >> he would say that he did what he did because it was the recognize thing and not to grieve for him because he has always wanted to serve. and it was a logical thing for him to go towards the shooter to take care of everybody else. and that is a hero. and that's the way he would have wanted to go. >> this was howell's first year at uncc. he grew up in waynesville, north carolina, just a few hours west of charlotte and had dreams of serving in had military and worked out with firefighters and police. >> he was a guy who came home with a stray dog and kept him in his room. he was a guy who took care of everybody all the time. when you're with him, you felt safe. >> his family says riley was a big teddy bear who loved family, his girlfriend, and the great outdoors. that he's always been the calm during times of chaos, and they say it is no surprise he stepped in to help. >> he's always been willing to
do the hard things, and he has always been everybody's protector. >> and now his family is doing the very difficult part of welcoming riley home. currently, his body is en route from charlotte to his hometown of waynesville, north carolina, a couple hours west of here in charlotte. again, look, poppy, jim, the entire community still trying to figure out what this means for them next, while also honoring the lives of riley and reed. and hoping that those other four who were injured are going to make full recoveries. one of those students plans to walk at graduation next week when she gets out of the hospital. >> wow. wow. that will be a sight. >> talk about it so many times. parents losing their children to gun violence. dianne gallagher, thanks very much. more than half of americans say president trump is doing a good job specifically on the economy. that's not the only good news for the president in this new cnn poll. we'll crunch all the numbers next. unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you?
for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.
explore cost support options. hmm. exactly. and doug. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
new cnn polling is out, and president trump's favorability rating has hit its highest point yet. 45% of americans have a favorable opinion of the president. that's a five percentage point increase since december. and when it comes to the economy, that's higher. 56% of americans approve of how the president is handling the economy. the u.s. just posted, of course, its best first quarter growth in four years. here with us now to discuss, cnn
senior political analyst harry enten. go through the numbers here. a lot that looks good for the president. >> i mean, the economy does look really good, jim, but i think the question is why is it that the economy looks so good, why does the economy look so good but his overall approval rating and favorability rater even though it's up is still under water. we also asked a bunch of other questions whether it be on race relations and a slew of other things. what you see is the president is running underwater on those particular questions. what i think the real question going forward is we think, hey, it's the economy, stupid, but so far, it doesn't seem to be the case. yes, the president's economic approval rating is pulling him up, but everything else is holding him back. >> the question is what's going to matter most to voters in 2020 and what do strong economic numbers here, the best first quarter growth in three years, if that holds, if the strong economy holds, what does that mean? what does history mean for the democrats challenging the president? >> in good economic times, the
incumbent tends to win re-election. if you go back to 1976, and look at times where you line up the president's economic approval rating and his overall approval rating, the overall approval rating is much more telling. if you look back at the 2004 campaign and the 2012 campaign, we saw presidents obama and bush in those campaigns had economic approval ratings under water yet they were able to win. it helps but it's not everything. >> the other issues driving the judgment of the president but also the upcoming race? >> look, if you look at race relations, health care, you look at foreign affairs, you look at all those numbers. here's, for example, looking at health care. this has been a number one issue for voters. this is a number one issue for democrats. a monmouth poll in iowa. 57% said that was the most important. the president was underwater there. look at immigration. we have spoken about that over and over. last time around in 2018, the president made it the key issue.
he lost. how about race relations? a lot of democrats don't necessarily like the way the president handled charlottesville. joe biden made that a key part in his intro video. again, underwater. this is what we're seeing over and over again. if the president could just focus his energies on the economy, he would probably be doing pretty good. but because he can't do that, because he seems to go off on these different directions, that's what's pulling him down. >> okay, totally switching gears here, people are going to see on newsstands the new cover of "time" smag zi "time" magazine. there you have it, it asks the question. first family, the mayor of south bend, yibd, and his husband on the front, and it's asking the question, is america ready for a gay president? >> there was a quinnipiac university poll released earlier this week that showed about nearly 70% of americans who said they were in fact ready to elect a gay president. however, that same poll indicated a majority of americans didn't think their fellow americans were willing to nominate and then elect a gay
president. i think americans are ready but i'm not sure if voters think they're ready. that could be a play in a democratic primary. >> listen, a lot of folks said the same thing before barack obama. >> actually, a majority of voters say they believed the country was ready for a black president in 2008. perhaps not in 2000, but in 2008, they did. >> harry enten, thanks for your brain power. >> he knows the numbers. >> he does that, indeed. >> as you know by now, the attorney general bill barr, empty chair there, did not show up for the house hearing this morning. now house democrats are raising the stakes on their demands. the latest on their threat to hold the attorney general in contempt, next. ♪
♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage. for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz. we humans are strange creatures.
welcome back. this morning, bipartisan bickering playing out before the cameras on capitol hill. lawmakers lashing out after attorney general bill barr did not show up for a house judiciary committee hearing. house democrats now threatening to hold him in contempt. with me is democratic senator chris van hollen. thank you for your patience. you were going to join us last hour, but a lot has happened in the last hour. thank you for sticking around. first, i would just like you to listen to this from democratic lawmaker congressman ted lieu of california. here's what he just said. >> attorney general bill barr is now one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c. >> wow. one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c. do you agree with representative lieu? >> well, poppy, if you're talking about a danger to our constitutional architecture, of
separation of powers, and our notion of the attorney general's office as being a place where you have impartial justice, not somebody acting as the chief propagandist for the president, then in that sense, i understand exactly what congressman lieu is talking about. because we are at a moment of crisis here. and the reality is, you have an attorney general who is acting on behalf of the president, not on behalf of the interest of justice and the rule of law. >> so i think the broader question here, senator, becomes to what end, right? chairman nadler knew that the attorney general was not going to show up this morning. he decided to have a hearing anyways, to have that empty chair on television across the networks. and i'm wondering if you think that that is a good use or the best use of congress' time and effort and resources. >> poppy, i think the question
is what recourse do they have? what happened was the chairman of the committee, chairman nadler, wanted to have a hearing. you know, the committee has the power and the prerogative to set some of the standards for that hearing. and you can't just turn the keys over to the executive branch. we have a system of separation of powers. and right now, you have an administration that is openly thumbing its nose at the article i branch, the people's branch, and so what the folks in the house are struggling with, the democrats in the house, are how do you hold an administration accountable? and i would hope republicans across the country would ask themselves the question, what happens if a future democratic administration acts this way? >> i hear you, right, and they have power. the chairman nadler has subpoena power. he can hold attorney general bill barr in contempt if he defies that subpoena. but he could have done those without holding a hearing with
an empty chair today. i guess the reason i ask this, senator, is because of some of the new numbers. cnn has a new poll out and it shows among american voters, 44% now think that democrats are doing too much to investigate the president. that's up significantly since march. so the question becomes, are you concerned about the optics here for your party? >> well, poppy, i agree that the challenge for house democrats is to prioritize the ways in which they're going to hold this administration accountable. i mean, they have a constitutional obligation to make sure that we hold the executive branch accountable. and their big challenge is how do you do that given all the different things that are going on and the fact that you have a president who has instructed his entire cabinet and all of the agencies not to cooperate when it comes to a lot of the subpoenas and other information requests that have been made. so look, i think that is a
challenge for the house. and they have to prioritize and figure that out. i would like to point out that the house, while they have been doing these investigations, have been passing a lot of legislation that is broadly supported by the american people. gun safety legislation, strengthening our democracy, ending secret money in politics. all of those bills have passed the house. they're here in the united states senate. this is where we become a graveyard for a lot of important pieces of legislation that are broadly supported by the public. i think it's important to keep that in mind as the focus has been so much on these other issues. >> all right. fair enough. let's dig in on whether or not you think you were lied to, senator. and this matters a lot. one of the central questions this morning is whether the attorney general lied under oath when he testified before your committee back on april 10th. so here is your exchange with him there, along with his exchange with senator krist. >> dit bob mueller support your
conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> reports have emerged, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, that it does not adkwtdly or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> we now know those answers were after he received that march 27th letter from mueller about his concerns about barr's four-page letter/summary of the conclusions of the mueller report. so do you believe, senator, that the attorney general lied under oath on april 10th? >> well, poppy, at the very least, this was deliberately misleading and deliberately deceptive. because when i -- >> what is different between that and a lie? >> well, let me put it this way. >> sure. >> what i asked him was whether
or not mueller, bob mueller, supported the positions that the attorney general outlined in that four-page memo. and what he said was he did not know. what we know from that letter, which was at that time in the possession of the attorney general, was that bob mueller had already expressed concerns with the conclusions that he had reached. right? and honest answer, a fully honest answer, poppy, would be not i don't know. the honest answer would be that bob mueller had expressed concerns. at the very least, he expressed concerns about the conclusions in the four-page memo. barr can split hairs on this, but by -- certainly by omission, he deceived the committee and the american people. so the question now is, what is our recourse? i do believe he should resign
for the good of the country. he clearly isn't intending to do this currently. so one of the questions in the house is should they move to impeach the attorney general. >> should they? >> well, here's the challenge. it goes back to what you were just asking me, right? the house has so many things on its plate right now. they are going to have to decide how to prioritize this in a meaningful way. >> would you move to impeach barr at this point? >> you know, i think the house, again, if i were in the house, i would have to really review all the things that are going on and keep in mind, the concerns you just expressed about how all of this is perceived by the public. and with the goal of trying to get things done. so i would certainly, it certainly needs a healthy conversation in the house, the best way to proceed on that issue as well as the other matters. >> senator chris van hollen, we appreciate your time. thanks for joining us. we'll be right back.
the (new) roomba i7+ with clean base automatic dirt disposal empties the roomba bin for you. so dirt is off your hands. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba. with licensed agents available 24/7. it's not just easy. it's having-a-walrus-in-goal easy! roooaaaar! it's a walrus! ridiculous! yes! nice save, big guy! good job duncan! way to go! [chanting] it's not just easy. it's geico easy. oh, duncan. stay up. no sleepies. it's geico easy. onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these.
nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history
of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. there's the house speaker nancy pelosi commenting on bill barr. >> and then it just began to connect the dots. we have mitch mcconnell, who in his fund-raising pitches has described himself as the grim reaper. the grim reaper for any legislation that comes over from the house that will go to a
senate graveyard. calls himself the grim reaper. mitch mcconnell, donald trump, attorney general barr. there's a connection. there isn't -- there is an idealogical antigovernment, antiscience, anti-meeting the needs of the american people. so when he was testifying and being so cavalier about special counsel mueller, the mueller report, and so disrespectful with congress, i thought, this isn't about president trump only. it's about a right-wing idealogical hand maiden to the special interests in our country. it's important to connect the dots, but the american people have to know what this means to them. if you're a young person, you care about the climate crisis. we're passing that bill right
now on the floor, and i have to leave momentarily to vote for it. it is -- and that's going to be dead on arrival in the senate. if you are a young person, you care about net neutrality, freedom on the internet. the grim reaper is going to kill it in the senate. if you're a woman, violence against women act, equal pay for equal work that we sent over to the senate, the grim reaper, mitch mcconnell, will kill it. if you care about reducing the role of money in politics, as hr-1 legislation, stopping the voter suppression and expanding the voice of the people in our political process, mitch mcconnell will kill it because he has said the problem is not too much money in politics. he says there's not enough money in politics. our hr-1 is about expanding the voice of the people. their hr-1 was giving 83% of the
tax benefit to the top 1%. so this is about policy. it's also about gun safety. gun safety. we sent over hr-8 and hr-1112 for responsible background checks. han maidens to the national rifle association and the special interests, connect the dots. when you see barr sitting there, what's his motivation? his motivation, his loyalty is not to his oath of office. and it is to donald trump. but all of it and the republicans in congress, is to the special interests. so whether it's hr-1 or the gun safety, paycheck fairness, violence against women, save the internet, climate action now, the list goes on. we'll be sending more legislation. but apparently, i have news for mitch mcconnell. he may consider them dead on
arrival and the grim reaper for all of these actions taken by the house of representatives. but they're alive and well among the american people. and there's a direct connection and really the saddest of all is while the attorney general was sitting there withholding the truth from congress, misrepresenting, being inconsistent in his statements, the shame, how could he do such a thing, but again, having the support of the republicans in congress and the senators behaving in a way that is said to them we don't care about the branch of government in which we serve. we're not even loyal to strengthening the institution of which we are a part. sitting there once again, his justice department was intensifying its assault on the affordable care act.