tv Meet the Press NBC April 22, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT
this sunday, after mueller. president trump -- >> no collusion, no obstruction. >> and his allies -- >> really the best day since he got elected. >> claim total victory with the release of the mueller report. but the report paints an unflattering picture of the president and his campaign and lays out a pattern of obstruction, prompting him to bash the report with profanity, and democrats want to see the whole report and underlying evidence. >> we will subpoena that report. >> high guests, the chairman of the house committee, jerrold nadl nadler, and the president's lawyer, rudolph giuliani.
plugs, the impeachment debate. some democrats say the time is now. >> this isn't about politics, there is about principle. and that's why i've asked the house to start impeachment proceedings against donald trump. [ applause ] >> while others worry that the issue divides democrats and unites republicans. >> the avenue is not impeachment. the avenue is further disclosure to the american people. and look who's running -- joe biden ahead in the polls is launching his campaign this week. but previous front-runners often failed to win their party's nomination. how much does polling mean at this early stage of the race? joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news chief white house reporter hallie jackson. joshua johnson, host of 1a on npr, amy walter, and jonah goldberg senior editor of "national review." welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> for nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd.
>> good sunday morning. we're going to get to the mueller report in a moment. there was a terrible series of terror attacks in sri lanka. the coordinated attacks targeted christian worshippers celebrating easter in churches and high-end hotels that are frequented by foreign tourists. the death toll will number into the hundreds. the attacks broke a long period of peace in sri lanka which has endured decades of civil war which come to a supposed end. turning to the mueller report, in so many ways the rollout reflected the divisions in this country. it was a tale two of reporters -- to reports or, more accurately, two tales of one report, with the divided public choosing the version of truth. president trump and his supporters high fiving, celebrating with the help of the new attorney general before its release as an exoneration of a frustrated and angry president. on the other hand there was the report itself which had 448 pages, including many
redactions, a far cry from the president's favorite no collusion, hoe obstruction sound byte. it shows the eager to accept the help of russia and working to obstruct the investigation. mr. trump may have been save -- saved from a formal obstruction charge by aides who saved himself from himself. the mueller team writes, "the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." then there is this now-connick closing sentence -- "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." a line that gives ammunition to both sides of the trump divide, but one that is likely to cloud the president's reputation whether or not he is re-elected. >> we need the whole report, including the underlying documents unredacted. >> the 448-page report details an aggressive and ultimately successful attempt by vladimir
putin to interfere with the 2016 election and destabilize the united states. >> i have nothing to do with russia. >> i know from having been on the campaign that there was no contact with russians, no discussion with russians. >> reporter: the report lays out scores of links between the russian government and the trump campaign. among them, campaign chairman paul manafort regularly shared polling data with a russian intelligence agent and received a peace plan for ukraine that manafort acknowledged to the special counsel's office was a back door way of controlling the campaign. then there are the ties between the trump campaign and wikileaks. >> wikileaks, i love wikieaks. >> reporter: releases by members of the campaign including the president who is described as taking a phone call and telling deputy chair rick gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. there was the june, 2016, trump tower meeting when donald trump jr., jared kushner, and paul manafort met with russians to
get dirt on hillary clinton. and remember this -- >> to be clear, mr. trump has no financial relationships with any russian oligarchs? >> if that's what he said, i -- that's what -- that's obviously what our position is. >> reporter: in fact, there were many contacts. arranged at the highest levels including a meeting between the head of russia's sovereign wealth fund and trump ally eric prince. on obstruction, mueller lays out ten possible episodes including the firing of fbi director james comey. the president's attempt to get attorney general jeff sessions to unrecuse himself. >> he took the job, and then he said "i'm going to recuse myself." i said, "what kind of a man is this?" >> reporter: and telling white house counsel don mcghan to fire mueller. he threatened to resign. the day mueller was appointed, may 17th, 2017, president trump, quote, slumped back and said, "oh, my god.
this is terrible, this is end of my presidency. i'm f'd." adding, "this is the worst thing that ever happened to me." though the term attorney general -- the attorney general claims -- >> the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation. >> reporter: in fact, the report details how individuals lied or deleted communications and the president refused to sit for an interview with the special counsel. president trump responded to written questions about some version of, "i do not recall" or "i do not remember" 37 times. now some democrats are pressing for impeachment proceedings. >> we have a constitution of the united states, and it says when a president engages in this kind of activity, then it's time for impeachment. >> reporter: house democratic leaders led by nancy pelosi are putting the brakes on saying one step at a time. >> the avenue is not impeachment. the avenue is further disclosure to the american people. >> and joining me now is the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. mr. mayor, welcome back to "meet
the press." >> thank you. thank you, chuck. >> let me start with some of the frontline conclusions from report itself. which is square one. the first is this -- "the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion." do you and the president accept that as a fact? in from this report? >> we do -- there's no reason not to accept it. >> the president accepts it, as well? >> i'm sure he does. >> the next fact is this, "the special counsel's investigation established that russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. principally through two operations -- first, a russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential campaign donald trump and disparaged hillary clinton." do you and the president accept the idea that the russian interference was designed to help president trump? >> i believe it was. i can't tell you for sure. i haven't examined all the evidence. no reason to dispute it. >> does the president accept that? >> i have no reason to dispute it. i think so does. obviously that wasn't part of defending him. >> no, but a lot of the report seems to indicate that he feared
that the idea the russians helped him was going to delegitimize his presidency. >> whether he did or didn't, there are a lot of factors that go into any election. the reality is he was elected president. there are a lot of good reasons that he was elected president and she wasn't elected that have nothing to do with this. it's hard to believe this was a decisive factor. they don't find that. >> let me say this -- >> did all that happen? i imagine it did. i can't dispute it. >> okay. let me put this up. "russian intelligence service conducted computer intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the clinton campaign and the release of the stolen documents." >> you agree and the president agrees that this operation was designed to hurt hillary clinton and in turn help donald trump? >> i haven't examined all the details, and i find in other parts of the report that there are substantial inadequacies, even in putting forth other testimony that makes it false or
other versions, assuming that that's a straight analysis, i can't object to it. >> let me go through again, this is on the first two pages of this report. this additional fact that they declare. "the investigation established that the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and work to secure that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through the russian efforts." it's this last part, the campaign wanted -- knew that the russians were helping and were waiting to -- >> i was on the campaign for four months. i probably -- probably as close to donald trump as anybody could be. i saw no evidence of that. so that one i'd have to examine much more critically. i saw no evidence of anybody talking about russia, involved with russia. one of the reasons why i volunteered to defend him, i knew personally it was a false allegation. >> why did the president trump say wikileaks so again times? >> they were putting out things that weren't true and very, very damaging to hillary clinton.
of course, of course you would want things that are -- >> but you at the time even sort of knew that these were stolen by foreign folks. >> i did not. it would be like the pentagon papers. pentagon papers were stolen. they were stolen from the department of difference. my god, that's horrible, during the -- >> this is a foreign adversary. a foreign adversary, someone who -- >> what's the difference between a spy and a foreign adversary? >> one works for the united states of america and one doesn't. doesn't one work for the united states of america and the other -- >> stealing classified documents is theft. now there are overriding reasons for it, but it's still theft. legally it's the same thing. moral it's the same thing. here's the thing that's interesting about it -- and i don't want to dispute this too much, but everything they put out on hillary clinton was true. they didn't make things up. they shouldn't have stolen it. but the american people were given more information about how deceptive, how manipulative her people and her campaign were.
in other words, if the russians had stolen the information and it showed hillary clinton to be just a wonderful person and they were all terrific, would have helped her. if it hurt at all, it only hurt because the american people got information that was gotten in the wrong way. but it all was true. all that stuff that -- all that stuff that backfired on her -- >> but in 2016 -- i'm curious, in 2016 the intelligence services knew that wikileaks was not a journalistic enterprise anymore. it may have started that way. that it was serving as a front for essentially foreign adversary intelligence dumps. >> right. >> why did the president think it was ethical to essentially trumpet what wikileaks was dog? >> in law enforcement if i'm running an investigation and evidence is given to me about the criminality of the person i'm investigating, even if it comes from a questionable source, i'm going to use that information. there was nothing to suggest
that this was manufactured evidence. everything printed -- >> but does it bother you at all that a foreign adversary wanted to -- >> sure it does. absolutely. >> why participate in helping in their manipulation? >> nobody's participating in it -- >> trumpeting wikileaks is participating. >> that's not at all participating. that is like the guy who drops -- i tell you in the middle of this investigation, my co-counsel received four documents that indicated that the special counsel was using exceedingly unethical tactics in trying to get jerome corsi to testify. now i don't know where they came from. i went to the fbi. i gave them to the fbi, and then we used those documents. i didn't steal them, didn't take them. they came from a legitimate source. the reality is when you get information about your opponent and it's true -- >> even if it comes from a foreign entity? even if it comes from a foreign entity? why didn't donald trump jr. called the fbi when the russians
offered dirt on hillary clinton? >> i wonder if there isn't an argument that the people had the right to know that about hillary clinton. people had a right to know that hillary clinton and the people around her were as dishonest, deceptive as they are? >> why not run an honest campaign -- don't use a foreign campaign, don't use a foreign adversary -- >> but why -- you're not changing -- >> donald trump jr. accepted the wikileaks -- >> i let you read all that, but i notice you didn't read that there was no evidence of collusion by trump or anyone on the trump campaign. there was no involvement. >> but they wanted to. >> my goodness, if somebody on the campaign wanted to do something wrong -- a lot of people in hillary clinton's campaign wanted to do something wrong. the legal standard that makes it possible that we're not going to be prosecuted for our thoughts is every single line, we go right to the fact that did trump or anyone from the trump campaign participate in the dissemination of hacked material, and the answer is no.
it had already been disseminated. so he is free, clear of an allegation -- this investigation wasn't night news, international news for three years because the russians tried to invade our election. thrive done that before. we just caught them this time. and other countries do it, by the way. >> so -- >> the real news here -- wait, the real news here is donald trump conspired with the russians to do this. making him almost a traitor. that turns out after two fbi investigations. counter intelligence seven months, this one 13 months, not true. >> why isn't the president angrier at the russians? why is he so angry at bob mueller? don mcghan? why isn't he angry with the russians? the russians are the ones that have created the impression that his election was illegitimate. >> why wouldn't you be -- why aren't you as interested now -- we have time on this -- >> i'm not finished. >> why aren't you now interested
in -- how is it that two investigations proved the charges were false and nobody is investigating who started the investigation? isn't that a horrible thing? do you think they were manipulating the election also? do you think that papadopoulos getting that information from the maltese undercover guy, do you think that was accidental? come on. american intelligence, foreign intelligence -- >> you're painting -- you're painting generated this idea that the russians hacked and stole this material, the russians -- these are facts. >> i'm not saying they didn't. >> okay. but you are creating -- you're going off into another direction. >> no. i'm going to the following direction. any responsible direction other than the prosecutor would have followed. when you find out the information is untrue about the man you're investigating, you turn around and investigate how did it happen. i've had investigations like that. i had one during the commission where two police officers were falsely accused. when i found out they were falsely accused, i found out the reason why they were falsely
accused. mueller has no interest in that. he has no interest in the fact the people in the meeting in june 9, they met with the head of the gps, promoting the steele dossier, the day before, the day of, and the day after. >> and donald trump jr., said if it's what you say it is about hillary clinton, i'm happy -- >> who set up the meeting? an operative from gps. >> an objectrative from the russian government? >> who knows. will let me answer the question? vesnilskya met with the -- wait, please. it's complicated. ed had the of gps for three years -- wait. nobel peace prize. it's complicated. it's not just one fact. it's not just one fact. they met the day before the meeting with donald trump jr., spent hours together having dinner. they met the morning of the meeting with donald trump jr., and they met the day after.
they had set up the meeting on the grounds that it was about dirt on hillary. they never spoke about dirt on hillary. they spoke about russian adoptions and never followed up. to me in the justice department for 17 years, that's a clear a possible setup as you can get. >> why did donald trump jr. embrace the idea that russians could have dirt on hillary clinton? >> why did the special prosecutor come to the conclusion it wasn't obstruction? that particular one he clears them of completely. because he's very embarrassed. he knows that he didn't follow up on all the suggestions that it was a setup. that's why this was a one-sided investigation. the biggest takeaway of all is where's the interest in trying to figure out how could it be that the fbi investigated this in two separate investigations, used four wiretaps in order to do it, four -- four electronic surveillances, talked to 500 witnesses, spent $40 million, and the answer is there was no, not the slightest bit of evidence, of conspiracy between trump, anyone on the trump campaign, and the russians.
that was the story, not this stuff underneath it. >> it is now okay for political campaigns to work with material stolen by foreign adversaries? >> it depends on the stolen material. first of all, was it all right for "the new york times" and the "washington post" to print against the objection of the president -- >> you're putting the pentagon papers and vladimir putin on the same level of morality? >> no. the theft. the theft. how often have newspapers and you covered stolen classified material? >> i hope not often. i hope not often to be honest. >> you do, you do, you justify it. i don't know if nbc was part of it, but the media went to court to defend doing that because it's part of the public's right to know. i guess the public didn't have the right to know how sneaky and dishonest and hillary was -- >> you said something interesting about hillary clinton and the fbi interview that she was a part of. you said, "she claims 37 times she can't remember things.
this has to be a lie. otherwise she has such a bad memory she should be going somewhere for memory lessons than running for the president of the united states." the questions you helped the president answer, the answers you helped with the president of not recalling or not remembering i think the number was 37 times. >> i think it was 22 times. in any event, jim comey about 101 times. it wasn't i don't remember -- it's to my best recollection. i will never let a witness answer a question that he -- >> he wasn't as forthcoming as he could be. >> of course he was. >> as he could have been? >> he was as forthcoming as the question demanded. i don't allow any witness to get trapped into perjury. i'll give you an example. the president says that the events described by michael cohen, the
the first not, up the second. the guy lied on television, the guy lied in the last hearing before the congressman when he said i didn't -- >> do you represent the most truthful client you've ever had in donald trump? >> i represent probably the most important client i've had with regard to their future in the united states, yes. he's been a great president. >> do you feel like he's truthful? >> i believe he's truthful as much as you can be in a world in which every single word you say is pinged apart. if you say four and it's five they claim you're lying. >> i want you to spend, "if we had confidence that the president didn't commit obstruction of justice we would so state. based on the facts we were unable to make that judgment." this is not an exoneration by mueller. >> why would you read that when 80% is helpful in obstruction. he was an innocent man -- >> don mcghan saved him. why is the president angry? >> don mcghan didn't save -- >> he didn't carry out an obstruction.
firing mueller -- >> he had the perfect right to fire mueller. mueller, at that time, he had several good reasons to fire mueller. mueller had substantial conflicts of interest, he had hired a staff so prejudiced it shocked any prosecutor who was there. he hired the chief counsel to the clinton foundation to investigate donald trump. my god. if i were investigating hillary clinton and hired the person who ran the trump foundation, i think the media'd go nuts on me. that would a legitimate reason to fire mueller for very, very bad judgment. he's the president of the united states. mueller is not an independent counsel. he works for the justice department. he could have been fired at any moment. unless you could show he wasn't going to replace him with somebody to take over like comey, you had no obstruction. he could have fired him. >> you don't believe that mcghan saved president? that saved him from an obstruction of justice charge -- >> no. in one circumstance, down month -- in one circumstance, don
mcghan gives three versions of the truth, and the pounds uses another version. sloppy -- that entire report and the way you presented it is all from the point of view of let's see if we can hang donald trump. and also the standards of proof, go to page two. the president's got to prove he's innocent. they have to be convinced that he didn't do it. when is that the standard ever in america? how can you prove a negative? if that -- that has to be pointed out and never used again because innocent people will get tarred and feathered with this. the question for anybody who wants justice should be how did this happen, who started it. i think you may find that the clinton campaign may have interfered in this election even more than the russians did. >> i can't get into it now. you said -- >> barack obama, it says or at least it raises the specter with two texts between struck and his -- between strzok and his girlfriend, they said the obama people are keeping in close
touch with this. those -- that's the execution of the steele dossier. >> could also be that the russian government is infiltr e infiltrating -- >> why do you laugher that way? >> because you're making an assumption that it's some nefarious thing. >> no. i was in the government for 17 years -- >> why wouldn't the government be concerned about russian interference into the presidential -- >> why wouldn't the government be concerned about an investigation opened up right after you clear hillary clinton on donald trump based on seven words that were said to papadopoulos that don't even suggest a possible crime? it says russians have dirt on hillary clinton. it didn't say stolen, taken, and nothing connects it to donald trump. why didn't they tell him this was a problem like they did with feinstein which she had a chinese communist spy influence her? >> i want to -- >> let me finish. they told her, they told her she had a spy working for her. trump didn't have a spy working for him. trump turns out to be totally innocent.
>> why so angry at the russians? >> because the russians didn't try to frame him. he's angry at the russians for interfering in the election. he's angrier at the people who tried to take away his presidency based on a plan done by strzok, prevent and remove. and you avoid it. the slightest evidence about trump, boom, this is real evidence. it's real evidence that the steele dossier is phony. that it was a fraud on the court. >> all right. steele dossier barely mentioned in the mueller report for what it's worth. i think this has been -- >> yeah, for good reason. you make my point. for good reason. it makes him innocent. anything that makes him innocent is ignored by the report. and something like the steele affidavit in which four people signed under oath and never gave the court the information about it. >> you have two other interviews to get you to. >> i do. >> i have to let you go. >> and a big investigation to come. i hope you cover it. >> you want bill barr to start a new investigation? >> do i want him to? i've the it for a year.
justice requires it -- i've wanted it for a year. justice fires it. they tried to frame the president of the united states -- >> you think bob mueller tried to frame him? >> no, i think the people who made the allegations and started it. i think mueller was derelict in not investigating it. the prosecutor is supposed to maintain the hypothesis that this man was innocent. she was incapable of entertaining it, otherwise he would have looked at the other side -- how did it happen? no collusions. how did it happen? happy easter. >> happy easter, mr. mayor. well, when we come back, i'll be joined by the chair of the house judiciary committee, this is decision tech. it's screening technology that helps you find a stock based on what's trending or an investing goal. it's real-time insights and information, in your own customized view of the market.
it's smarter trading technology, for smarter trading decisions. and it's only from fidelity. open an account with no minimums today. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands? ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it starts acting in my body from the first dose and continues to work when i need it, 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis.
don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
to russian election. the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the president's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. they go on to state that whether -- whether you think it's distasteful or not, a political motivation, meaning the president concerned about his political standing might not be an illegal reasoning behind sort of having concern about this case. >> no. the mueller report goes on to state that there may be other considerations that are not crimes that, nonetheless, prosecute predicates from the obstruction of justice. that happens all the time, to save your reputation, other reasons. what mueller says, and this is where barr deliberately -- or one of the places barr deliberately misled the american people. what mueller says although a thorough fbi investigation might very well show the evidence of obstruction of justice by the president, we're not going to do that because of the department
of justice legal opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. it would be unfair to lay out the facts without an indictment without giving the president in a trial to clear his name. because of that legal doctrine we're not going to charge him with obstructions of justice. barr misinterrupted that to say they intnt find obstruction of justice. they say in so many words, if we per pursue this, we would have to charge the. the with a crime which the justice department won't permit us to do. >> do you assume that the reason bob mueller did not charge anybody with conspiracy with the russians is because he has found no conspiracy took place or that he didn't have enough evidence to sustain a conviction? and is there a distinction, in your mind? >> well, obviously, there's a distinction. but he -- he pretty much states in most cases, first of all,
here's again where barr misled the american people. he said there was no collusion. collusion is a term that is not a legal term. the special prosecutor found, mueller found, as you put on tv a little while ago, that there was plenty of evidence that the russians intervened in the election to help trump. plenty of cases the russians knew about that, wanted it and knew about some of the wikileaks dumps of stolen information supplied by the russians in advance. what he couldn't prove is that there was beyond a reasonable doubt, is that there was a criminal conspiracy. although in the one case i do not understand why he did not charge don junior and others in that meeting with criminal conspiracy. he said he didn't charge them because you couldn't prove that they willfully intended to commit a crime. you don't have to prove that. all you have to prove for conspiracy is that they entered into a meeting of the minds to do something wrong and had one overt act. they entered into a meeting of
the minds to get a meeting to get stolen material on hillary. that's conspiracy right there. >> they have another issue, and i wonder if this is a flaw in the code or the way our intended law is made, our campaign finance laws. one of the other reasons he declined is because they couldn't figure out how to value cyber material when looking at it through stolen property, the legal code that has to do with physical merchandise. it seems to me that mueller was all but saying to congress, hey, guys, your law -- the way you wrote the campaign finance laws stink. >> well, that may be. i think it's a very conservative reading of the law. because certainly people are willing to pay a lot of money for opposition research. just look at that so-called dossier that started out as opposition research against trump, financed by -- some big republican donor, and then when
trump became the nominee, they shifted the financing over to hillary. so, campaigns are willing to pay a lot of money for opposition research. the key is here that barr clearly misled the american people on obstruction of justice. there was plenty of evidence laid out in the report. again, he didn't say there was no obstruction. he said, we can't prove -- we can't prove the negative because there's too much evidence for that. and we can't charge him because the justice department won't let him charge us so we're not going to look for that evidence. >> but -- >> let me just say, we have to get -- some of this, we have to -- is why we have to hear from barr, we have to hear from mueller, we have to hear from other people like don mcgahn, who we're going to call, we have to get the entire report, including the redacted material so we can evaluate it so the american people can know what was going on to make judgments. >> you have all of this case of obstruction presented in the mueller report, as you just
stated. some might ask, why haven't you opened an impeachment query, or in fairness, is that what you're doing right now? >> i don't think we're dooling that. we may get to that, we may not. it is our job to go through all the evidence, to -- all the information -- >> do politics impact this? how much do politics matter. >> and to go where the evidence leads us. >> how much do politics impact this? a as you know, impeachment gets political sized so you have a legal case, but the politics dictate something else, how much is that going to influence this decision? >> i don't know. that will come down the road when we see -- >> is this in nancy pelosi's hands? >> among others. she's not the only person. she's certainly the leader of the democratic caucus, speaker of the house. it's partly her and partly at lot of -- >> do you think this is itch peopleable? -- impeachable? >> yeah, i do.
if proven -- if proven, which hasn't been proven yet. some of this -- if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes. obstruction of justice would be impeachable. >> you're going to go about to see if you can prove it? >> we're going to see where the facts lead us. >> congressman nadler from new york, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you. one item worth noting before we go to break, the mueller report validates most, not all, but most of the reporting done by major news organizations throughout this investigation. many, many of the stories we were told that were fake news show up as reported in the mueller report and confirmed by firsthand accounts. it's something worth considering the next time you hear someone use the phrase, fake news, so loosely. did we dear tech, let's talk. you blaze trails... but you have the power to do so much more. let's not just develop apps,
let's develop apps that help save lives. let's make open source software the standard. let's create new plastics that are highly recyclable. it's going to take input from everyone. so let's do it all, together. ♪ ♪ let's expect more from technology. let's put smart to work. ♪ ♪ (burke) at fso we know how ton almost evercover almost anything. even rooftop parking. strange forces at work? only if you're referring to gravity-and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪
welcome back. panelists, joshua johnson, amy editor, hallie jackson, and jonah goldberg. hallie, let me start with you. one thing we will never get is a counter report from rudy giuliani or the lawyers. they don't want to put it out. >> for weeks we've heard they probably would not do that or we're going wait to wait until the report was out to decide. interesting now, they want to turn the page, close the case in their view, and muddy the waters. and i think the last 12 minutes that we saw with rudy giuliani and you did -- did just that. >> let's talk about the two big things that i think came out of both interviews. first on the rudy giuliani interview, jonah goldberg, which is the defense says anybody would have done it, so what with foreign interference. >> yeah. i think it's nonsense.
but rudy giuliani is playing the spin cycle. i think hallie's right that, look, i mean, the notre dame fire was less than a week ago, that feels it was in the kcrut o o eous era, they want to move on and i think he's opening a huge can of worms going forward that we're now legitimizing hacking in and of itself. >> so that if a campaign in 2020, 2024 gets information from a foreign adversary, that accord to giuliani was true, as long as what was hacked by a foreign government and given to you was true it's usable. >> everyone's going to have their own superwallenpaupapac s interference? >> iteration just signal the russians, rey, help us find.
go found the pete buttigieg emails. >> are we financing this -- none of us are, rudy giuliani is trying to. that's why it is incumbent on lawmakers on, presidential candidates, people in the political sphere to make sure that does not become acceptable to amy's point. >> and buttigieg's emails will be in norwegian so it's not a problem. >> jerrold nadler said he does think the offenses are impeachable. then heap said the caveat -- assuming that we prove obvious obstruction true. what part of the 448-page document did not not read? >> there was a deep pregnant pause where he went, yeah, i do. 448 pages, redacted that have laid out a great deal about the president -- >> in fairness, it was light redaction. >> it was fairly light. >> and they seemed to be legitimate redactions in the moment. there's a lot of cases out there. >> the reality is, i mean, you
know, we talk with politicizing the impeachment process. impeachment is an inherently political process. all the people who are involved in the process are political appointees, members of congress. there's kinds of -- kind of no way to separate. that the idea that congress would walk away, to your point about nancy pelosi, that they would walk away as a matter of course from even considering impeachment, i think that's one of those things as we get closer to the election a lot of democratic voters are like, way, wait. the constitution says, this is your job. aren't you supposed to do this part of your job? >> we have a two-track view of bizarre world views which i felt at one time was like hannity talking points in one place, then the reality of where we live here. but jerry nadler's going to have one investigation, and lindsey graham, jonah goldberg, will have one on peter strzok. it's obviously peter strzok's going to be a star for the republicans regardless of whether the dossier, all those things -- they're not even relevant points in the actual
investigation. >> also there's this investigation of the i.g. and to defend the republicans slightly this one, do -- use have a big chunk of the country who thinks this was launched for fraudulent reasons. it is worth informing the american people about the truth of that, periods. i'm one of these guys who i think the mueller report basically confirms all of my positions, a common thing in washington these days. i never felt that the hard case about trump being a putin puppet and that you wiall that stuff w. we know this reflects his character and that he was willing to collude and just didn't. >> you know, the most amazing thing -- i want to put up the list of people that saved the president from obstructing. look at the pictures of these people. hallie, they all have one thing in common, whether it's you, don mcghan, k. it -- k.t. mcfarland, reince
priebus, john mccain, what priebus, john kelly, what's the commonality? >> they don't. i think it says a lot about theonstration athe administration and the west wing. the president has been mounting this "i am living my best life" p.r. strategy. that's not the case. talking to sources last night and yesterday morning say he is furious. he's been watching the coverage. he's really mad at one of the guys in the picture, don mcghan in particular -- >> saved him. saved him from an impeachment proceeding and probable abduction charge. >> there is second-guessing about why mcghan was allowed to sit for 30 hours with the special counsel in the first place -- >> talk john dowd and -- >> who said open the door. if there's nothing to hide, talk about it. there's relief in the west wing that the ire from the president is not being directed at the people that are still there. >> the president's legal strategy of letting everybody participate got him out of a jam, and yet he still didn't like what it did. >> the central theme and really when you read the second volume of this report, it reads like a
character novel. like it just -- it lays out -- a character study. i'm sorry. it -- it is -- >> written by bob mueller. >> it is. for people thinking i shouldn't read this, there's too much in it, actually road i-- actually read it. it comes down to who this is, and one word, legitimacy. what he is always worried about and anything that questions his legitimacy is worth fighting back against. >> kudos who wrote the actual narrative. it is well written for a legal document. >> like a lawyer with an english minor. >> easy to read for the lay person. joe biden is launching his campaign this week and leading in the polls. but how significant are early comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world.
optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. kevin, meet yourkeviner. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren)
because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card. welcome back. "data download" time. former vice president joe biden is expected to announce his presidential bid this week. he's ahead in the polls and has
been for weeks. history isn't always kind to early front-runners. at this point in the cycle, in april of 2007, hillary clinton was ten points ahead of her party's eventual nominee and president barack obama. and in may of 2015, jeb bush was on top, and donald trump was all the way at the back of the field. of course, democrats are still a long way away from choosing a nominee. if you're joe biden, you have to hope at least this history does not repeat itself. when we come back, end game and when we come back, end game and the democratic party's debate as my broker --what am i paying you to manage my money? it's racquetball time. ahhh! carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee? like schwab does. guarantee? carl, can you remind me what you've invested my money in. it's complicated. are you asking enough questions about how your wealth is being managed? if not, talk to schwab.
a modern approach to wealth management. dad, it's fine. we have allstate. and with claimrateguard they won't raise your rates just because of a claim. that's why you're my favorite... i know. are you in good hands? essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. 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. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".
[crash] at redfin, we charge you a 1% listing fee. and because redfin.com is america's #1 brokerage site our agents get more eyes on your home so you sell for thousands more than the one next door. don't get stuck in the past. sell with a redfin agent. back with "end game." check out the different responses you get from presidential candidates on the "i" word. take a listen. >> so i've been really careful about talking about what we would do if an impeachment came before us. >> first i'd want to hear from
bob mueller. >> i'm focused on replacing him the old-fashioned way. >> we should open proceedings in the house and then the house can take a vote. >> joshua, it's interesting there, kamala harris says i want to hear from bob mueller like -- first it was the report. what more do you need from bob sflurm. >> you've got a -- mueller? >> you've got a ream of paper from mueller. redacted, i know, redacted. here's the thing -- we've heard enough. like enough. can we just do the "tv guide" version of this? if they can summarize an episode of "game of thrones" before every show, we can do the report. the report says the president of the united states engaged in behavior that, per one commentator, you could say it's lawful but awful. that prosecutors didn't have enough legal basis to press charges for constitutional and legal reasons, the president is not kpoexonerated and the peopl
have to do something. that is the "tv guide" summary of what happened. if you need more information to know whether you're in or out, what game are you playing? now, i'm not saying what the outcome should be. but at a certain point, you know, the light's green. are you going to go or pull over? >> mueller's grandkids still haven't testified yet. >> exactly. and i think part of the -- >> there is going to be -- there is this desire to have the aha moment, to have that jack nicholson i ordered the code red. that's never going to happen. it's never going to happen. bob mueller's not going tots -- >> that's the value of the interview she gave. i think it's the power of it because it allows the president leading into 2020 to still have a foil. remember what rudy giuliani said, wouldn't you be jeb bush set, too, if someone who tried to frame you, and that i think is part of the political power of donald trump. is having -- >> you have to accept the premise. >> yeah. but having a foil in d.c. gives
the president something to talk about in the 2020. >> i'm old-fashioned about this. i find all of the talk about this -- about impeachment being a legalistic criminal matter to be flawed. basically impeachment is about breach of trust with the public. you and you can impeach anybody for anything. it's the political eequivalent lent of an indictment. the recall -- >> right. >> i mean the senate will never remove. to me this is purely a political question. do the democrats think they could get enough votes? is it worth -- is it in their political interests to do it? will any republicans go along? will it appear a voiictory if i goes to the senate and is not taken up. they're talking about the smoking gun but it taking legalistic -- >> mind meld. he loves a foil. i'm told he's been telling friends and allies the phrase, hey, look at what happened to republicans during the clinton impeachment era and look at what happened to bill clinton. he is ready for a fight.
he thinks it could help with the people who support him. >> can i tell you what's sitting out there that we haven't talked about -- i apologize for the control room because i'm going to ask for something, the 12 cases that none of us know. >> yeah. >> 12 -- yes, we know. but these are unknown cases. these were stuff that fell outside the parameters of russia. here it is. 12 unknown cases. we know michael cohen, greg craig, where mueller to ship it off to another entity. that's -- these are little land mines that we don't know what they will explode when they explode. we know israel and uae and saudi arabia, they're all these other foreign entities that were involved in stories with the seychelles islands. there's more land mines for the president. >> do we think either of those will change, the political or the legal calculations for president or those we know immediately in his circle? >> no. >> the question for democrats, too, is about the same issue they have is what the president is worried about, too. legitimacy. that has framed this entire issue of russia for him.
that -- whatever his been done to him has been done to undermine the credibility of his whim. for democrats i think the legitimacy question is this -- if we go down an impeachment path, are we then building this narrative for him with a better legitimacy to beat him in an election. >> vladimir putin. the most successful campaign he could ever have imagined. look what we're doing. >> through the russian military. it issit from new england. the im-- it is frightening. the import of this. you're right the 12 matters are consequential. could i step back from the beltway quickly. it's easter. it's passover. it's a gorgeous day. i got a brand-new harley i'm eager to ride as soon as the show is over. i think for people watching this, take a breath. the system is designed ed ted through this. >> we're all hoping the system works the way it's supposed to work. that's all for today. thank you for watching here. we're wishing everybody a happy easter. happy passover, happy articly ride. we'll be back -- happeny harley
an easter day massacre. bombs ripping across churches killing 300 people. questions whether the government knew an attack was coming. >> the mueller report is still weighing on the white house. the controversial new defense from the president's attorney as lawmakers prepare to get a better look at the findings. >> a zookeeper fighting for her after a terrifying tiger attack at the topeka zoo. the changes under way to make sure it does not happen again. >> new depth to an easter egg hunt. we will dive