tv CBS This Morning CBS May 1, 2019 7:00am-9:01am PDT
the mueller report. of course cbs news special report, that's straight ahead. everyone, have a great day. that's straight ahead. everyone, have a great day. ♪ this is a cbs news special report. i'm john dickerson with "face the nation" moderator margaret brennan in new york. we welcome those of you watching on cbsn. you are about to be looking at the committee room where president trump's attorney general -- there it is -- william barr is about to answer questions from congress for the first time since he released robert mueller's report on russian election interference. senate judiciary committee members are certain to ask about a letter from the special counsel claiming that barr's initial four-page summary to
congress and the reaction to it, quote, threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel, to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. >> mueller wrote that letter in late march. we just obtained it this morning. these details now becoming public and have led some democrats to call for the attorney general to resign. for nearly a month before the release of the report, the president used barr's summary to claim it found no collusion with russia and no obstruction of justice. we're covering this from all angles. our nancy cordes is outside the hearing room with what to expect. first, we're going to go to the white house and paula reed for a look at mueller's letter to barr. paula? >> reporter: margaret, what's so extraordinary about this letter from special counsel robert mueller to attorney general william barr is it lays out a timeline, the extensive communication between the
special counsel and the attorney jer general's office. it goes all the way back to march 5th, where the two parties met and the special counsel laid out exactly what the attorney general should expect. he revealed the fact that he would not be making a conclusion on obstruction of justice, and it shows that the morning after the attorney general released his four-page summary, the special counsel made it clear he did not believe that this four-page memo accurately portrayed the full context of the special counsel's work. now, in addition, we're also getting this letter, which we learned first about last night on march 27th, where he memorialized all of his concerns. again, urged the attorney general to release these executive summaries that the special counsel had created so that the public could get a full context, a full understanding of all of the work that they had done in this investigation. upon receiving this letter, we know the attorney general reached out to the special counsel, his long-time friend and colleague, in a phone call. the two men spoke, and again,
the special counsel urged the attorney general to release his summaries. but the attorney general objected. according to the justice department, the attorney general did not want to release information in a piecemeal fashion. so the 15-minute phone call concluded with the two men agreeing to release the redacted report as soon as possible. but arguably one of the first questions that he will get from democratic lawmakers is why he told them last time he was on the hill that he wasn't sure if the special counsel agreed with his conclusions when clearly there's a paper trail making it very clear how mueller felt about his conclusion. >> all right. paula reid, thank you very much. today's hearing is expected to be a tale of two parties, the senate judiciary committee is run by republicans. the chairman of the committee is expected to focus on the early days of the investigation, how it got started and why and not necessarily the 27 days between the end of the investigation and the release of the redacted mueller report. democrats, on the other hand, aren't expected to hold back about attorney general barr and
his discrepancies between what the report found and what he summarized its findings to be. nancy cordes is outside the hearing room, where senators will question the attorney general. nancy, what can we expect from today's hearings? >> reporter: well, john, democrats were already planning to come out swinging. they believe that the attorney general has put his thumb on the scale for the president of the united states every step along the way. but now this new mueller letter just gives them more grit for the mill. expect them to ask him questions about why they haven't seen the full unredacted report, why he so quickly decided not to seek obstruction of justice charges against the president of the united states, and one thing that's really notable about this committee, three of the ten democrats on the committee are running for president. so they're all going to be looking to make their mark in a very crowded field. one of them, minnesota's amy klobuchar, told me last night she's been reworking her questions in response to this latest news. >> all right. and thank you, nancy.
here we have south carolina's lindsey graham, chairman of the committee, speaking to start the hearing. >> -- and giving us an explanation as to the actions he took and why he took them regarding the mueller report. and here's the good news. here's the mueller report. you can read it for yourself. it's about 400 and something pages. can't say i've read it all, but i've read most of it. there's an unredacted version over in the classified section of the senate, a room where you can go look at the unredacted version, and i did that. i found it not to change anything in terms of an outcome. but a bit about the mueller report. who is mueller? for those who may not know, i don't know where you've been, but you may not know that bob mueller has a reputation in this town and throughout the country
as being an outstanding lawyer and a man of the law. he was the fbi director. he was the deputy attorney general. he was in charge of the criminal division at the department of justice. he was a united states marine. and he has served his country in a variety of circumstances long and well. for those who took time to read the report, i think it was well written, very thorough, and let me tell you what went into this report. there were 19 lawyers employed, approximately 40 fbi agents, intel analysts, forensic accountants, and other staff, 2800 subpoenas issued, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, more
than 230 orders for communication records so records could be obtained, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, over $25 million spent over two years. we may not agree on much, but i hope we can agree that he had ample resources, took a lot of time, and talked to a lot of people. and you can read for yourself what he found. the attorney general will tell us a bit about what his opinion of the report is. in terms of interacting with the white house, the white house turned over to mr. mueller 1.4 million documents and records, never asserted executive privilege one time. over 20 white house staffers, including eight from the white house counsel's office, were
interviewed voluntarily. don mcgahn, chief counsel for the white house, was interviewed for over 30 hours. everybody that they wanted to talk to from the trump campaign on the ground they were able to talk to. the president submitted himself to written sbrinterrogatories. so to the american people, mr. mueller was the right guy to do this job. i always believed that attorney general sessions was conflicted out because he was part of the campaign. he was the right guy with ample resources and the cooperation he needed to find out what happened was given, in my view. but there were two campaigns in 2016. and we'll talk about the second one in a minute. so what have we learned from
this report? after all this time and all this money, mr. mueller and his team concluded there was no collusion. i didn't know. like many of you here, on the republican side, we all agreed mr. mueller should be allowed to do his job without interference. i joined with some colleagues on the other side to introduce legislation to protect the special counsel, that he could only be removed for cause. he was never removed. he was allowed to do his job. so no collusion, no coordination, no conspiracy between the trump campaign and the russian government regarding the 2016 election. as to obstruction of justice, mr. mueller left it to mr. barr to decide after two years and all this time. he said, mr. barr, you decide.
mr. barr did. there are a bunch of lawyers on this committee, and i'll tell you the following. you have to have specific intent to obstruct justice. if there's no underlying crime, pretty hard to figure out what intent might be if there was never a crime to begin with. the president never did anything to stop mueller from doing his job. so i guess the theory goes now, okay, he didn't collude with the russians and he didn't specifically do anything to stop mueller, but attempted obstruction of justice of a crime that never occurred, i guess, is sort of the new standard around here. we'll see if that makes any sense. to me, it doesn't. there's another campaign. it was the clinton campaign. what have we learned from this report? the russians interfered in our election. so can some bipartisanship come out of this?
i hope so. i intend to work with my colleagues on the other side to introduce the deter act and to introduce legislation to defend the integrity of the voting system. senator durbin and i have legislation that would deny anyone admittance in the united states a visa through the immigration system if they were involved in interfering in an american election. working with senator whitehouse and blumenthal to make sure if you hack into a state election system, even though it's not tied to their internet, that's a crime. i would like to do more to harden our infrastructure because the russians did it. it wasn't some 400-pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere. it was the russians. and they're still doing it. it would could be the chinese. it could be somebody next. my takeaway from this report is we've got a lot of work to do to defend democracy against the russians and other bad actors. i promise the committee we will
get on with that work, hopefully in a bipartisan fashion. the other campaign, the other campaign was investigated not by mr. mueller, by people within the department of justice. the accusation against secretary clinton was that she set a private server up somewhere in her house, and classified information was on it to avoid the disclosure requirements and the transparency requirements required of being secretary of state. so that was investigated. what do we know? we know that the person in charge of investigating hated trump's guts. i don't know how mr. mueller felt about trump, but i don't think anybody on our side believes that he had a personal animosity toward the president
to the point he couldn't do his job. this is what he said in february of 2016. he's in charge of the email investigation. trump is abysmal. i keep hoping the charade will end and people will just dump him. february the 12th, 2016. page, the department of justice lawyer assigned to this case. march 13rd, 2016. god, trump is a loathsome human being. strzok, oh, my god, trump is an idiot. hillary should win 100 million to nothing. compare those two people to mueller. march 16th, 2016. i cannot believe trump is likely to be an actual serious candidate for president. july it tthe 21st, 2016. trump is a disaster.
i have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be. three days before strzok was made deputy in charge of the counterintelligence division of the fbi. he's never going to become president, right? page to strzok, no, no, he won't, we'll stop him. these are the people investigating the clinton email situation and start the counterintelligence investigation of the trump campaign. compare them to mueller. august the 15th, 2016. strzok, i want to believe the path he threw out for consideration in andy's office that there's no way he gets elected, but i'm afraid we can't take that risk. it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. august 26th, 2016. just went to the southern
virginia walmart. i could smell the trump support. october the 19th, 2016. trump is a -- idiot. he's unable to provide a coherent answer. sorry to the kids out there. these are the people that made a decision that clinton didn't do anything wrong and the counterintelligence investigation of the trump campaign was warranted. when the mueller report is put to bed, and it soon will be, this kmeetd committee is going long and hard at how this all started. we're going to look at the fisa warrant process. did russia provide christopher steele the information about trump that turned out to be garbage that was used to get a warrant on an american citizen? and if so, how did the system
fail? or was there a real effort between papadopoulos and anybody in russia to use the clinton emails stolen by the russians, or is that thought planted in his mind? i don't know, but we're going to look. i can tell you this, if you change the names, y'all would want to look too. everything i just said, just substitute clinton for trump. see what all these people, these cameras, would be saying about this. as to cooperation in the clinton investigation, i told you what the trump people did. tell you a little bit about what the clinton people did. there was a protective order for the server issued by the house, and there was a request by the state department to preserve all the information on the server.
paul cambetta, after having the protective order, used a software program called bleach bit to wipe this email server clean. has anybody ever heard of paul cambetta? no. under protective order from the house to preserve the information, under requests from the state department to preserve the information on the server, he used a bleach bit program to wipe it clean. what happened to him? nothing. 18 devices possessed by secretary clinton she used to do business as secretary. how many of them were turned over to the fbi? none. two of them couldn't be turned over because judith casper took a hammer and destroyed two of
them. what happened to her? nothing. so the bottom line is we're about to hear from mr. barr the results of a two-year investigation into the trump campaign, all things russia, the actions the president took before and after the campaign, $25 million, 40 p fbi agents. i appreciate very much what mr. mueller did for the country. i have read most of the report. for me, it is over. senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, attorney general.
on march 24th, you sent a letter to chairman graham and the ranking member of this committee providing your summary of the principle collusions set out in special counsel mueller's report. this letter was widely reported as a win for the president and was characterized as confirming there was no conclusion. following this letter, the white house put out a statement declaring the special counsel, and i quote, the special counsel did not find any collusion and did not find any obstruction, end quote, and that the report, quote, was a total and complete exoneration, end quote, of the president. however, last night "the washington post" reported that special counsel mueller sent you a letter in late march where he said your letter to congress failed to, quote, fully capture the context, nature, and
substance of his office's work and conclusions, end quote. and that he spoke with you about the concern that the letter threatened to undermine the public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. that's in quotes as well. then on april 18th, you held a press conference where you announced repeatedly that the mueller report found no collusion and no evidence of a crime. an hour later, a redacted copy of the mueller report was provided to the publicpr and th congress. and we saw why mueller was concerned. contrary to the declarations of the total and complete exoneration, the special counsel's report contained substantial evidence of misconduct. first, special counsel mueller's report confirms that the russian government implemented a social media campaign to mislead
millions of americans. and that russian intelligence services hacked into the dnc and the dccc computers, stole emails and memos, and systemically released them to impact the presidential election. your march letter stated that there was no evidence that the trump campaign, quote, conspired or coordinated with russia, end quote. however, the report outlined substantial evidence that the trump campaign welcomed, encouraged, and expected to benefit electorally from russia's interference in the election. the mueller report also details how time and time again the trump campaign took steps to gain advantage from russia's unlawful interference. for example, president trump's campaign manager, paul manafort,
passed internal campaign polling data, messaging, and strategy updates to konstantin kilimnik, a russian intelligence agent. he was briefed on, quote, the state of the trump campaign and manafort's plan to win the election, end quote. including the campaign's focus on the battleground states of michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota. next, the mueller report documents the trump campaign's communications regarding secretary clinton's and the dnc's stolen emails. specifically, the report states, and i quote, within approximately five hours of
president trump calling on russia to find secretary clinton's emails, russian intelligence agency gru officers, quote, targeted for the first time clinton's personal office, end quote. the mueller report also reveals that president trump repeatedly asked individuals affiliated with his campaign, including michael flynn, quote, to find the deleted clinton emails, end quote. these efforts included suggestions to contact foreign intelligence services, russian hackers, and individuals on the dark web. the report confirms that trump knew of wikileaks releases of the stolen emails and received status about -- status updates about upcoming releases while his campaign promoted coverage of the leaks.
donald trump jr. communicated directly with wikileaks and at its request publicly tweeted a link to emails stolen from clinton's campaign manager. second, in your march letter to congress, you concluded, and i quote, that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense, end quote. however, special counsel mueller methodically outlines ten episodes, some continuing multiple actions, by the president to mislead the american people and interfere with the investigations into russian interference and obstruction. in one example, the president repeatedly called white house counsel don mcgahn at home and directed him to fire mueller,
saying, quote, mueller has to go. call me back when you do it. then later, the president repeatedly ordered mcgahn to release a press statement and write a letter saying the president did not order mueller fired. the mueller report also outlines efforts by president trump to influence witness testimony and deter cooperation with law enforcement. for example, the president's team communicated to witnesses that pardons would be available if they, quote, stayed on message, end quote, and remained, quote, on the team, end quote. in one case, the president sent messages through his personal lawyers to paul manafort, that he would be taken care of and just, quote, sit tight, end quote. the president then publicly
affirmed this communication by stating that manafort was, quote, a brave man, end quote, for refusing to break. similarly, the mueller report stated the president used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get michael cohen not to cooperate and then turn to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine cohen's credibility. finally, while the march letter to congress and the april press conference left the impression there were no remaining questions to examine, this report notes several limitations mueller faced while gathering the facts that congress needed to examine. more than once the report documents that legal conclusions were not drawn because witnesses
refused to answer questions or failed to recall the events. in addition, numerous witnesses, including but not limited to, jared kushner, sarah sanders, rudolph giuliani, michael flynn, steve bannon, and john kelly all stated they could not recall events. the president himself said more than 30 times that he could not recall or remember enough to be able to answer written questions from the special counsel. the special counsel also recounted that, quote, some associated with the trump campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that featured encryption or do not provide for long-term retention of data, end
quote. based on these gaps, the mueller report concluded, and i quote again, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would have shed additional light on or cast a new light on events described in the report, end quote. and contrary to the conclusion that the special counsel's report did not find evidence of communication or coordination between the trump campaign and russia, the mueller report explicitly states, and i quote, a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts, volume two, page two. let me conclude with this. congress has both the constitutional duty and the authority to investigate the serious findings contained in the mueller report.
i strongly believe that this committee needs to hear directly from special counsel mueller about his views on the report and his march letter. i also believe senators should have the opportunity to ask him about these subjects in questions directly. i have requested this to our chairman, though authorio authog with special counsel mueller, and i hope that will happen soon. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. before we receive your testimony, mr. barr, we have the letter that mr. mueller sent to you on march 27th, 2019. i'll put that in the record now. the floor is yours. oh, got to swear you in. sorry. do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give
this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> yes. >> sorry about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. during my confirmation process, there were two concerns that dominated, as i think you'll all agree. the first was whether i would in any way impede or curtail special counsel mueller's investigation. the second, whether i would make public his final report. as you see, bob mueller was allowed to complete his work as he saw fit. as to the report, even though the applicable regulations require that the report is to be made to the a.g. and is to remain confidential and not be made public, i told this committee that i intended to exercise whatever discretion i had to make as much of the
report available to the public and to congressional leaders as i could consistent with the law. this has been done. i arrived at the department on february 14th, and shortly thereafter, i asked it to be communicated to bob mueller's team that in preparing the report, we requested that they make it so we could readily identify 6e material. so we could quickly process the report -- >> did you tell the public what 6e is? >> 6e is grand jury material that cannot be made public. it's prohibited by statute. and i wanted that identified so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could. when i arrived at the department, i found and was eventually briefed in on the investigation. i found that the deputy attorney general and his principal
associate deputy were in regular discussions with the counsel's office, had been, and they communicated this request and had discussions about both the timing of the report and the nature of the report. on march 5th, i met with bob at the suggestion of the deputy and the principal associate deputy. i met with bob mueller to get a readout on what his conclusions would be. on march 25th -- and at that meeting, i reiterated to special counsel mueller that in order to have the shortest possible time before i was in a position to release the report, i asked that they identify 6e material.
when i received the report on march 22nd, and we were hoping to have that easily identified, the 6e material, unfortunately it did not come in that form. it quickly became apparent it would take about three or four weeks to identify that material and other material that had to be redacted. so there was necessarily going to be a gap between the receipt of the report and getting the full report out publicly. the deputy and i identified four categories of information that we believe required redaction. i think you will know of them, but they were the grand jury material, the 6e material, information that the intelligence community advised would reveal sensitive sources and methods, information that if revealed at this stage would impinge on the investigation or prosecution of related cases, and information that would unfairly affect the privacy and
reputational interests of peripheral third parties. we went about redacting this material in concert with the special counsel's office. we needed their assistance to identify the 6e material in particular. the redactions were all carried out by doj lawyers with special counsel lawyers in consultation with intelligence community. the report contained a substantial amount of material over which the president could have asserted executive privilege, but the president made the decision not to assert executive privilege and to make public as much of the report as we could, subject to the redactions that we thought required. now, as you see, the report has been lightly redacted. the public version has been estimated to have only 10% redactions. almost -- the vast bulk of those
redactions relate to -- are in volume one, which is the volume that deals with collusion and relates to existing ongoing cases. volume two has only about 2% redactions for the public version. so 98% of volume two dealing with obstruction is available to the public. we have made a version of the report available to congressional leaders that only contains redactions of grand jury material. for this version, overall redactions are less than 2% for the whole report, and for volume two dealing with obstruction, they're less than one-tenth of 1%. so given the limited nature of the redactions, i believe the publicly released reported will allow every american to understand the special counsel's work. by now, everyone is familiar with the special counsel's
bottom line conclusions about the russian attempts to interfere in the election. in volume one, the special counsel found that the russians engaged in two distinct schemes. first, the internet research agency, a russian entity with close ties to the russian government, conducted a disinformation and social media operation to sow discord among americans. second, the gru, russian military intelligence, hacked into computers and stole emails from individuals affiliated with the democratic party and hillary clinton's campaign. the special counsel investigated whether anyone affiliated with president trump's campaign conspired or coordinated with these criminal schemes. they concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that there had been any conspiracy or coordination with the russian government or the i.r.a.
as you know, volume two of his report dealt with obstruction, and the special counsel considered whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction. he decided not to reach a conclusion. instead, the report recounts ten episodes and discusses potential legal theories for connecting the president's actions to elements of obstruction offenses. now, we first heard that the special counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue at the march 5th meeting when he came over to the department, and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. special counsel mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he them femphay was not saying but for the olc opinion, he would have found
obstruction. he said that in the future, the facts of a case against the president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoned the olc opinion, but this is not such a case. we did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. and when we pressed him on it, he said his team was still formulating the explanation. once we heard the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and i discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. we had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. i say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the department of justice. the powers he was using, including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory
process, exist for that purpose, the function of the department of justice in this arena, which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct. it's a binary decision. is there enough evidence to show a crime? and do we believe a crime has been committed? we don't conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. we do so to make a decision. and here we thought there was an additional reason, which is this was a very public investigation, and we had made clear that the results of the investigation were going to be made public. the deputy and i felt the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department's conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct. sop the deputy attorney general and i conducted a careful review
of the report with our staffs and legal advisers. while we disagreed with some of the legal theories and felt that many of the episodes discussed in the report would not constitute obstruction as a matter of law, we didn't rest our decision on that. we took each of the ten episodes, and we assessed them against the analytical framework that had been set forth by the special counsel and we concluded the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation was not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. let me just talk a little bit about this march 24th letter and bob mueller's letter, i think, which i received on the 28th. when the report came in on the 22nd and we saw it was going to take a great deal of time to get it out to the public, i made the
determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line. the body politic was in a high state of agitation. there was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of bob mueller's investigation was, particularly as to collusion. former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. there were people suggesting that if it took any time to turn around the report and get it out, it would mean that the president was in legal jeopardy. so i didn't feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks without saying anything. so i decided to simply state what the bottom line conclusions were, which is what the department normally does, make a binary determination. is there a crime or isn't there a crime? we prepared the letter for that
purpose to state the bottom line conclusions. we use the language from the report to state those bottom line conclusions. i analogize it to announcing after an extended trial what the verdict of the trial is. pending release of the full transcript. that's what we were trying to do, notify the people as to the bottom line conclusion. we were not trying to summarize the 410-page report. so we release that -- i offered bob mueller the opportunity to review that letter before it went out, and he declined. on thursday morning, i received -- it probably was received at the department wednesday night or evening, but on thursday morning i received a letter from bob, the letter that's just been put into the
record. and i called bob and said, you know, what's the issue here? are you -- and i asked him if he was suggesting that the march 24th letter was inaccurate. he said no, but that the press reporting had been inaccurate. and the press was reading too much into it. i asked him, you know, specifically what his concern was. and he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. and he wanted more put out on that issue. he wanted -- he argued for putting out summaries of each volume, the executive summaries that had been written by his office. and if not that, then other material that focused on the issue of why he didn't reach the obstruction question. but he was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that
we had misrepresented his report. i told bob i wasn't putting out summaries, and i wasn't going to put out the report piecemeal. i wanted to get the whole report out. i thought summaries, by very definition, regardless of who prepared them, would be underinclusive and we'd have a series of different debates and public discord over each piece of information that came out. i wanted to get everything out at once. so the following day i put out a letter explaining the process we were following and stressing that the march 24th letter was not a summary of the report but a statement of the principal conclusions and that people would be able to see bob
mueller's entire report was made public. so i'll end my statement there, mr. chairman, and glad to take any questions. >> thank you very much. as to the actual report itself, was there ever on occasion where you wanted to -- something was redacted from the report that mr. mueller objected to? >> i wouldn't say objected to. my understanding is the categories were defined by me and the deputy. i don't think -- i have no -- >> did you work with him to redact the report? >> right. those categories were executed by doj lawyers working with his lawyers. i think there were maybe a few judgment calls, very few, as to whether or not something as a
prudential matter should be treated as a reputational interest. so there may have been occasions of that. >> as i understand it, you did not want to hurt somebody's reputation unless it really affected the outcome, is that correct? >> right. >> so was there any disagreement about 6e aware of. >> any disagreement about classified information? >> not that i'm aware of. >> so the conclusions in your four-page summary, you think, accurately reflect his bottom line on collusion, is that correct? >> yes. >> and you can read it for yourself if you got any doubt. as to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was going to let you decide? >> yes, i was surprised. i think the very -- the function he was carrying out, the investigative and prosecutive function is performed -- >> how many people did he actually indict, do you know? >> i can't remember off the top
of my head. >> it was a lot. >> yeah. >> so he actually has the ability to indict if he wants to. he's used that power during the investigation, is that correct? >> that's correct. and the other thing that was confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were looked into, episodes involving the president. so my question is, or was, why were those investigated at the end of the day if you weren't going to reach a decision on them. >> did you consult deputy attorney general rosenstein about the obstruction matter? >> constantly. >> was he in agreement with your decision not to proceed forward? >> yes. i'm sorry, the agreement what? >> not to proceed forward. >> right, right. >> okay. so very quickly, give us your reasoning why you think it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction of justice in this case.
>> well, generally speaking, an obstruction case typically has two aspects to it. one, there's usually an underlying criminality -- >> let's stop right there. was there an underlying crime here? >> no. >> usually there is. >> usually. but it's not necessary. there's an underlying crime and then the person implicated or people implicated or concerned about that criminality being discovered take an inherently malignant act, as the supreme court has said, to obstruct that investigation, such as destroying documents. >> so people were worried he fired comey to stop the russia investigation. that's one of the concerns people had. let me tell you a little bit about comey. i do not have confidence in him,
comey, any longer. that was chuck schumer, november the 2nd, 2016. i think he, comey, should take a hard look at what he has done, and i think it would not be a bad thing for the american people if he did step down. bernie sanders, january the 15th, 2017. the president ought to fire comey immediately, and he ought to initiate an investigation. that is congressman nadler, november the 14th, 2016. did you have a problem with the way comey handled the clinton email investigation? >> yes, i said so at the time. >> okay. so given the fact that a lot of people think comey should be fired, did you find that to be a persuasive act of obstructing justice? >> no. i think even the report at the end of the day came to the conclusion, if you read the
analysis, that a reason that loomed large there for his termination was his refusal to tell the public what he was privately telling the president, which was that the president was not under investigation. >> as to where we go forward, as to how we go forward, would you recommend that this committee and every other committee of congress do our best to harden our infrastructure against future russian attacks? >> absolutely, yes. >> do you think russia is still up to it? >> yes. >> you think other countries may get involved in our elections in 2020? >> yes. >> so you would support an effort by congress working with the administration to harden our electoral infrastructure? >> yes. >> is that one of the takeaways of the mueller report? >> yes. >> do you share my concerns about the fisa warrant process? >> yes. >> do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation, how it was opened and why it was opened? >> yes. >> do you share my concerns that
the professional -- lack of professionalism in the clinton email investigation is something we should all look at? >> yes. >> do you expect to change your mind about the bottom line conclusions of the mueller report? >> no. >> do you know bob mueller? >> yes. >> do you trust him? >> yes. >> how long have you known him? >> 30 years roughly. >> do you think he had the time he needed? >> yes. >> think he had the money he needed? >> yes. >> you think he had the resources he needed? >> yes. >> you think he did a thorough job? >> yes, and i think he feels he did a thorough job and had adequate evidence to make the calls. >> do you think the president's campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the russians? >> yes. >> and the answer is no, according to bob mueller. >> that's right. >> he couldn't decide about obstruction. you did. is that correct? >> that's right.
>> you feel good about your decision? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> chairman. mr. attorney general, the special counsel's report describes how the president directed white house counsel don mcgahn to fire special counsel mueller and later told mcgahn to write a letter, quote, for our records, end quote, stating that the president had not ordered him to fire mueller. the report also recounts how the president made repeated efforts to get mcgahn to change his story. knowing that mcgahn believes the president's version of events was false, the special counsel found, and i quoted, substantial evidence, end quote, that the president tried to change mcgahn's account in order to prevent further scrutiny of the president towards the investigation.
special counsel also found that mcgahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the white house. here's the question. does existing law prohibit efforts to get a witness to lie, to say something the witness believes is false? >> yes. lie to the government, yes. >> and what law is that? >> obstruction statutes. >> the obstruction statute. and you don't have it, i guess, before you. >> i'm not sure which one they were referring to here. it was probably 1512-c2. >> so these things, in effect, constitute obstruction. >> you're talking in general terms. >> i'm talking about specifically -- yes, you're correct in a sense.
the special counsel in his report found substantial evidence that the president tried to change mcgahn's account in order to prevent, and this is a quote, further scrutiny of the president toward the investigation, end quote. special counsel also found mcgahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate. so what i'm asking you, then, is that a credible charge? under the obstruction statute. government would not be able to establish obstruction. the -- if you go back and look at the episode where the president gave mcgahn an instruction, mcgahn's version of that is quite clear in each time he gave it, which is that the
instruction said go to rosenstein, raise the issue of conflict of interest, and mueller has to go because of this conflict of interest. so there's no question that whatever instruction was given mcgahn had to do with mueller's conflict of interest. now, the president later said that what he meant was that the conflict of interest should be raised with rosenstein, but the decision should be left with rosenstein. on the other end of the spectrum, it appears that mcgahn felt it was more directive and that the president was essentially saying push rosenstein to invoke a conflict of interest to push mueller out. wherever it fell on that spectrum of interest, "the new york times" story was very different.
"the new york times" story said flat out that the president directed the firing of mueller. he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now, there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then, as the report says and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and he wanted mczban gahn to correct i. so we believed it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing mcgahn to say something false because it wasn't necessarily false. moreover, mcgahn had weeks before already given testimony
to the special counsel, and the president was aware of that. as the report indicates, it could also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear that he never outright directed the firing of mueller. so in terms of the request to ask mcgahn to memorialize that fact, we do not think in this case that the government could show corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt. >> just to finish this, you still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer's account in order to prevent further criticism of himself. >> that's not a crime.
>> so you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie? >> no, it has to be -- well, to be obstruction of justice, the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding. mcgahn had already given his evidence, and i think it would be plausible that the purpose of mcgahn memorializing what the president was asking was to make the record that the president never directed him to fire. and there is a distinction between saying to someone, go fire mueller, and saying have him removed based on conflict. they have different results. >> what would that conflict be? >> well, the difference between them is if you remove someone from a conflict of interest, then there would be -- presume my another person appointed. >> yeah, but wouldn't you have
to have, in this kind of situation, an identifiable conflict that made sense or else doesn't it just become a fabrication? >> well, now we're going to shift from the issue of writing the memo or somehow putting out a release later on and the issue of the actual direction to mcgahn. so the question on the direction to mcgahn has a number of different levels to it. first, as a matter of law, i think the department's position would be that the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel. as a matter of law, the obstruction statute does not reach that conduct. putting that aside, the next question would be, even if it reached the conduct, could you
hear established corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt? what makes this case very interesting is that when you take away the fact that there are no underlying criminal conduct and you take away the fact that there is no inherently malign obstructive act, that is the president was the question is what is the impact of taking away the underlying crime. the report suggests one impact is, well, we have to find some other reason why the president would obstruct the investigation. there's another impact which is, if the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false and he knew they were false and he felt this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political
opponents and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel. so that's another reason that we would say that the government would have difficulty proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. >> senator grassley. >> senate ton johnson and i wrote you about text messages between peter strzok and lisa page that appeared to show the fbi may have tried to use counterintelligence briefings for the trump transition team as intelligence gathering operations. i hope you'll commit to answering the letter in writing, but also providing committees the requested briefing. that's my question. >> yes, senator. >> have you already tasked any
staff to look into whether spying by the fbi or other agencies on the trump campaign cuz properly predicated and can congress expect a formal report on your findings? >> yes, i do have people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 20 2016. >> i suppose it depends on what conclusions you come to. is there any reason why congress wouldn't be briefed on your conclusions? >> it's a little early for me to commit completely, but i envision some kind of reporting at the end of this. t >> the clinton campaign and democratic national committee hired fusion gps to do opposition research against candidate trump. fusion gps then hired
christopher steele, former british intelligence officer to kpeel what we all know as the steel dossier that reportedly used russian government sources for information. the steel dossier as central to the now debun ngt conclusionaryive. here is the irony. the mueller report found no collusion between the train and russia. but the democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national with reported gorn government sources, not trump, but the democrats. that's the definition of conclusion. despite the central status of the steel dossier to the collusion narrative, the mueller report failed to realize whether the dossier was filled with disinformation to mislead u.s. intelligence agencies and the
fbi. my question, mueller spent over two years, $30 million investigating russian interference in the election. in order for a full accounting of russian interference attempts, shouldn't the special counsel have considered on whether the steele dossier was part of a russian disinformation and interference campaign? >> i don't -- special counsel mueller put out his report. i have not yet had anyone go through the full scope of his investigation to determine whether he did address or look at all into those issues one of the things i'm doing in my review is to try to assemble all the existing information out there about it, not only from hill investigations and the oig, but also to see what the special counsel looked into. i really couldn't say what he
actually looked into. >> in other words, if youed has looked at all that information right now, you're telling me you could have said yes or no to my question? >> if i had looked at it. >> you're going to attempt to find some of this information if it's available? >> yes. >> similarly, shouldn't the special counsel have looked into the origins of the fbi's investigation into alleged collusion between the trump campaign and russia? >> the origins of that narrative? >> yes. >> i don't know that he viewed his charter that broadly, and i don't know whether he did or not. that's something that i am reviewing and again will look at whatever the special counsel has developed on that. >> in volume two of the report, the special counsel declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision.
instead the special counsel laid out 200 or so pages relating to a potential obstruction analysis and then dumped that on your desk. in your press conference, you said you asked the special counsel whether he would have made a charging decision or recommended charges on obstruction, but for the office of legal counsel's opinion on charging sitting presidents and that the special counsel made clear that was not the case. so mr. barr, is that an accurate description of your conversation with the special counsel? >> yes. he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that, but for the olc opinion he would have found obstruction. >> if the special counsel found facts sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice, would he have stated that finding? >> if he had found that, i think
he would state it, yes. >> was it special counsel mueller's responsibility to make a charging recommendation? >> i think the deputy attorney general thought it was, but not just charging, but to determine whether or not conduct was crimin criminal. the president would be charged -- could not be charged as long as he was in office. >> do you agree with the reasons that he offered for not making a decision in volume two of his report and why or why not? >> i'm not really sure of his reasoning. i really could not reka pcapitu his analysis which is why i stated he did not reach a conclusion, didn't try to put words in his mouth.
>> i think if he felt he shouldn't go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision, then he shouldn't have investigated. that was the time to pull up. >> okay. there have been a number of leaks coming out of the justice department and fbi during high-profile investigations. the inspector general found during the department's investigation of hillary clinton for mishandling highly classified information there was a culture of unauthorized media contacts. during the russian investigation the leaks continued. leaks undermine the ability of investigators to investigate. further leaks to the papers while congress's questions do the department go unanswered is unacceptable. why -- what are you doing to investigate unauthorized media contacts by the department and fbi officials during the russian
investigation? >> we have multiple criminal leak investigations under way. >> thank you. >> senator lee. >> thank you, attorney general. i'm somewhat troubled by your testimony here and in the other body. you appeared before the house appropriations on april 9th. you were asked about media reports and the special counsel's team frustrated that your march 24th letter didn't adequately portray the report's findings. i believe it was congressman crist asked if you knew what the members were concerned about. you testified in response, no, i don't. you then said you merely suspected you'd prefer more information was released with the letter. now we know contrary to what you
said april 9th, that on march 27th robert mueller wrote to you expressing very specific concerns that your march 24th letter -- remember your testimony on april 9th -- that your march 24th letter failed to capture, to quote mr. mueller, the context, nature and substance of his report. what really struck me, mr. muleer wrote that your letter could undermined the central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel, to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. why did you testify on april 9th you didn't know the concerns being expressed by mueller's team when, in fact, you heard those concerns from mr. mueller two weeks before? >> well, as i said, i talked directly to bob mueller about
his letter to me and specifically asked him what exactly are your concerns. are you saying the march 24th letter was misleading or inaccurate or what? he indicated it was not. he was not saying that and what he was concerned about -- >> that wasn't my question. >> i'm getting to the question. the question from crist was reports have emerged recently, press reports that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter in that they don't adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. i don't know what members he's talking about and i certainly am not aware of any challenge of the accuracy of the findings.
>> mr. barr, you seem to have learned the filibuster rules even better than the senators do. my question was, why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony, mr. mueller had expressed concerns to you? that's a fairly simple -- >> i answered the question. the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob mueller, not members of his team. and even though i did not know what was being referred to and mueller had never told me that the expression of the findings was inaccurate, but i did then volunteer that i thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out, but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information. >> mr. barr, i feel your answer
was purposely misleading, and i think others do, too. let me ask you another one. you said the president is fully cooperating with the investigation, but his attorney told said he -- is there a con zblikt can you repeat that. >> both mr. manafort awere told by the president's attorney they would be taken care of the they did not cooperate. you said the president was fully cooperating. is there a conflict there? yes or no. >> no. >> you think it's fully cooperative to instruct a former aide to tell the attorney general to unrecuse himself, shut down the investigation and declare the president did nothing wrong? >> i don't think -- well,
obviously since i didn't find it was obstruction i felt the evidence could not support -- >> i'm asking if that's fully cooperating. i'm not asking whether that's obstruction. is that fully cooperating? >> he fully cooperated. >> by instructing a former aide to tell the attorney general to unrecuse himself, shut down the investigation and declare the president did nothing wrong, that's fully cooperating? >> where is that in the report? >> that's on volume two, page five, june 19, 2017. the president dictated a message for lewandowski -- recusal from the russian investigation, investigation is very unfair to the president and the president did nothing wrong. that's fully cooperating? >> firstly, asking sessions to unrecuse himself we don't think is obstruction. >> i'm not asking if it's
obstruction. is it fully cooperating? >> i don't know if that declares the president did nothing wrong although the president in terms of collusion did nothing wrong. isn't that correct? >> collusion is not a crime. it's the obstructing. is that fully cooperating to say that? >> well, i don't see any conflict between that and fully cooperating with the investigati investigation. >> the ppt declared many times at tweets and campaign rallies and all that he would testify. he never did testify, correct? >> as far as i know. >> i think you know whether he testified or not. >> as far as i know he didn't testify. >> mr. mueller found the written answers to be inadequate. is that correct? >> i think he wanted additional, but he never sought it. >> and the president never testified -- >> he never pushed it.
>> the president never testified. >> does the fact that mr. mueller found the trump campaign was receptive, some of the offers of assistance from russia or the fact that the trump campaign never reported any of this to the fbi, does that trouble you? >> what would they report to the fbi? >> that they were receptive to offers of assistance from russia. >> what do you mean by receptive? i think the report says -- obviously they were expecting to benefit from whatever the russians -- >> volume 1 report says in some of the investigations, multiple links between trump campaign officials and individuals tied to the russian government. those links included russian operative assistance in the campaign. in some instances the campaign was receptive to the offer, whereas others they were not.
>> have to understand what communications that referred to. >> you have the report. i just gave you the page of the repofrmt i know my time is up. i'm making the chairman nervous. >> no. very well done. senator cornyn. >> all right. nancy cordes is outside the committee room here as we switch to nancy. nancy, it feels like a tale of two hearings, the republicans focusing on how the mueller report started and the democrats bearing down not only the report but the attorney general's conclusions and how he framed them in his summaries. >> reporter: sure. it's still early on in this hearing, a long way to go, but already the attorney general has been forced to explain a couple of assertions that he's made in the past few weeks that now appear to have some factual inaccuracies. for starters, he was just grilled by patrick leahy, democratic of vermont, about his
claim that the president had fully cooperated with the mueller investigation. leahy bringing up example of example in the mueller report that showed the president was not fully cooperative. he was also questioned by dianne feinstein of california, about this letter we now know robert mueller, the special counsel sent to attorney general barr after barr released his four-page member, sort of summarizing the report's findings, mueller very concerned about the fact that he thought the public was being misled in a way about what the special counsel's report had concluded. barr walked through a conversation he had on the phone with robert mueller where he says mueller didn't take issue with any of the factual information in his memo. he just thought that summaries should be put out there that had been compiled by the special counsel. barr said again today, he had no
plan to put those summaries out. >> nancy, thank you. i want to turn now to two legal experts who are joining us now from washington. one of them, cbs legal analyst jonathan turley, a constitutional law professor at george washington university. he's known attorney general bill barr for a long time and testified on his behalf at his own confirmation hearing. also joining us kim waley, former assistant u.s. attorney, professor at the university of baltimore school of law. essentially this hearing seems to be focused on the veracity of the chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general himself and how he explained to the public what the special counsel concluded or at least found with this report himself. mr. turley, what do you think needs to be understood here? >> as far as the value-added testimony, the standouts involve
the new information brought to the table. first of all, he said the delay in releasing the report was due to the fact that mueller did not carry out his request to identify rule 60 information. that's quite surprising. he says quite clearly he told him to identify information that was rule 60 or grand jury information and he didn't and that led to a delay. second, he said that mueller did not question the accuracy of the four-page letter, that he was more concerned about the failure to explain the context of his decision not to reach a conclusion. finally, he strongly disagrees with mueller not reaching a conclusion. >> kim waley, we have 45 seconds. your reaction to what you've seen so far? >> i think it's unfortunate that we're now in basically a situation where mr. mueller and mr. barr are being pitted against each other. optimally when he wappointed, i would be a mutually respected person and the public could
accept the conclusions. the debate has to do with the summaries. in the big picture i think mr. barr is being transparent. he's being very, very clear to the american public, and at the end of the day people need to read at least the summaries for themselves and draw their own conclusions as to what the next political step is. the legal questions are very, very complicated. >> they are. they will be delved into on our 24-hour streaming network, cbsn. all of you can watch the rest of this hearing at cbsnews.com or our cbs news app. more to come on your local news on this cbs station and tonight on the cbs news with jeff glor. many of you now will return to "cbs this morning." this has been a cbs news special report. i'm john dickerson with margaret brennan, cbs news, new york. orn
nondrowsy 24-hour claritin. live claritin clear. like those from buddy. live claritin clear. for one week only, save up to $31 on select claritin products. check this sunday's newspaper for details. and with a great deal on a new toyota, you can do all the things that make the season so much fun. like go biking... ...mother's day... ...glamping... ...graduations... ...music festivals... ...motocross... ...ziplining... what makes an amazing deal even better? how about that every new toyota comes with toyotacare, a two-year or 25,000 mile no-cost maintenance plan and roadside assistance? your summer starts here. toyota. let's go places. do you want ready to wear clothing without all the hassle? you can, with bounce dryer sheets. we dried one shirt without bounce, and an identical shirt using bounce. the bounce shirt has fewer wrinkles, less static, and more softness and freshness. bounce out wrinkles, bounce out static.
pharrell williams delivered and all-star lineup for a new music this is a kpix5 news morning update. good morning, everyone. it's 8:25. i'm michelle griego. today may day protests will be underway around the bay area. right now one is already underway in alameda county. hundreds of workers are out in oakland demanding to be paid higher wages. today attorneys for the master tenant at the ghost ship warehouse in oakland will deliver their opening statements to the jury. testimony won't begin until monday. and today hillsborough couple is expected to plead guilty in the college admissions scandal. bruce and davina isackson are accused of paying more than $600,000 in bribes to get their daughters into ucla and usc.
here at 8:27 we want to get you out the door and let you know about a traffic alert in place this morning. it is slowing things down. it has several lanes blocked. this is at southbound 880 at dixon landing. it's a motorcycle accident. there are injuries reported there and look at how far back that backup goes all the way past fremont. headed into the southbound direction into san jose this morning you are going to need to give yourself extra time. or if you can hop over to 680 to head into san jose this morning. up on highway 4 we have an
accident westbound at san marcos boulevard, at least one lane blocked. your drive time to get to the east shore freeway is closer to an hour, about 56 minutes. over to the peninsula, down to 19 miles an hour southbound on 101, that's due to an accident on 380 and 101, that's been moved to the right shoulder but it is slow and go. in the meantime the richmond san rafael bridge, construction still 2:00 p.m. >> thank you. it's a chilly start to the day, temperatures running several degrees cooler compared to yesterday at this time. we will see plenty of sunshine with temps warming up. so grab a jacket first thing this morning and we are looking at -- you will be able to take off that jacket as we head through the day. a live look with our salesforce camera looking east with low clouds. daytime highs running anywhere from one to 3 degrees above average this time of year so warmer compared to yesterday. mid-60s in san francisco, upper 60s in oakland, mid-70s in san jose, concord, livermore, low 70s from santa rosa to napa. there we go with the warmup as we head through the rest of the
♪ welcome back to "cbs this morning." right now it's time to show you some of this morning's headlines. "usa today" reports a wealthy california couple is expected to plead guilty today in a boston court in the college admissions scandal. bruce and davina jacks isakson would become the first parents in the skandsal to plead guilty in court. they allegedly paid more than $600,000 in bribes to get their daughters accepted into ucla and usc. the couple faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on fraud charges.
rolling stone says barack and michelle obama unveiled their upcoming netflix projects. the former president and first lady signed a multiyear deal with the streaming service last year. the seven productions include scripted and unscripted docu-series, full length movies and documentaries that will touch on issues of race and class, democracy and civil rights. the first release is a documentary "american factory" about a chinese billionaire who opens a factory in an abandoned gm plant in the midwest. bloomberg reports on a study that says eating more rice could help fight obesity. even a modest quarter cup could reduce the number obese adults -- may increase feelings of fullness and prevent overeating. >> i'm a potato girl. maybe i should rethink that. an authority pushed the
issue of payments to slaves with "the case for reparations." that conversation continues in institutions across the country. georgetown students recently voted to pay money to the slaves sold by the university. in january 50 representatives co-sponsored a built to study reparations and democratic president candidates are also raising the issue. tan hasi coats is here to discuss. i remember that masterpiece article in "the atlantic" magazine. seven pages, 16,000 rolls. at the time there were a lot of eye rolls, what is he talking about. that was then. this is now. now five years later that conversation continues. did you think this story would have legs? what do you make of all the discussion? >> first of all, absolutely not. i did quite a few interviews around the time. i viewed this and still view it
as a generational struggle. when you're a writer, you're fortunate if anybody pays attention to anything you do. you have to write out of some deep seeded belief. >> in the beginning even you weren't in favor of reparations because people think now we're supposed to pay every black person money because of what happened in slavery. what does it mean exactly? >> it's possible that you should do that. we haven't gotten clear on what the process is. >> that's not what you're saying. >> my basic argument is the relationship between african-americans in this country and the broader country for most of our history has been one of extraction, taking resources out of the community torques profit other people. period of slavery for 250 years, the period of jim crow where you had a system of surf ddom in th south. no ability to determine what was done with that. the pure yod of the new deal and
fha loans where we built or modern middle class that black people were cut out of even as they contributed to the system. that explains to a large extent, as far as i was concerned when i wrote the article, the 20-1 wealth gap that divides black and white america. so i basically became convinced there was no other policy beyond reparations that could handle that. >> your argument is it comes right to the front door today. this is not in the past, the legacy is alive and part of our culture now. >> very much so. i was aware of what people say about reparations, slavery was a long time ago. these people are dead, not affecting anything today. it's important that i start with somebody who is alive and in the present and part of a phenomenon that you can see throughout many american cities. let me ask you about the question, the pace of change. you say this is a generational question. give me a sense of how fast the conversation needs to take place. it obviously needs pushing and
pressure for immediate action. on the other hand, as you say, you can move too fast. >> yeah. as i said in the piece, and this is still, i think the proper step is hr 40 which is the bill to convene a study on exactly what happened, studying the period of white supremacy and slavery in this country and the possible means by which reparations can happen. i think that's extremely important. a, i think we need to hear from african-american communities about how they feel any sort of reparations should be met. i think this country has not gone through a process of educating itself. >> really understanding the atrocities. >> yes. we're not talking about a bribery payment. >> because of what you're talking about, it's become a live wire issue on the campaign trail with some of the presidential candidate you pressed president obama at this time and he was very
skeptical. >> quite skeptical. >> not politically possible. >> i was shocked he gave credence to the theoretical portion of it. >> is it politically possible now? has the pace of change been actually that quick? >> who knows what's politically possible until it happened? i was one of the people who didn't think a black president was possible. there were a lot of swath of americans who didn't believe donald trump was possible. who knows? >> at the very least, you've opened up a conversation that people are talking about and taking seriously today. i encourage everyone to go back and read that article. it's a long read. >> it's a long read. not short. >> you learn a lot. >> and hope for writers who toil. >> yes indeed. >> very well done. >> always good to see you. hear that music? that's pharrell williams. he faced tough times growing up before he became a music icon. >> you were actually fired from mcdonald's. >> absolutely. >> i didn't know that was
possible. >> why were you fired? >> because i was a lazy worker. >> nobody is firing him now. we visited him in his hometown of virginia beach to find out why it was so important for him to hold a music festival there. fired from m good wednesday morning. heading through our afternoon, looking at plenty of sunshine with temperatures warming up. today the start of a warming trend to us, about one to 3 degrees warmer than average through the day. and check out that warmup thursday and especially for friday, with that strong ridge of high pressure building in, especially for friday, cooler saturday, shower chances possible on sunday. saturday, shower chances possible on sunday. ♪ (vo) i know what you're thinking. electric, it's not for you. and, you're probably right. electric just doesn't have enough range.
sni( get lucky is as a producer, rapper, songwriter, there's not much he has not done, now adding a music festival. we visited him to virginia beach to see his first "something in the water festival" and find out why he wanted to create something unique for his hmetown. ls it and find out why he wanted to create something unique for his hometown. >> artists architects, athletes, academics, when they read about all the interesting talented people who come from here, they always say man, there must be something this the water. difference. >> that saying would inspire music mogul pharrell williams to create this. ♪ a massive three-day festival,
unlike anything his hometown has ever seen. >> see this energy right here? people are excited. okay, we got this in virginia, you know. >> reporter: stretching miles across the virginia beach coastline the festival featured everything from local businesses. >> i'm definitely coming to get one of those fish sandwiches later today. >> reporter: to big name sponsors. and even a pop-up church service open to the community. as we walked around the festival grounds it was clear that pharrell is the ultimate hometown hero. >> you are the most important person in the city of vb. >> reporter: for him this festival is so much more than entertainment. >> i feel like there has been so much divisiveness in the air. >> in the community or in the country? >> in our country. the spirit of division. we have to come together. and not only celebrate our differences but recognize that
through celebrating each other, we can do great things. >> what is your vision for this festival? >> for people could be inspired and also for those corporations to come here, and because we have a lot of ceos flying down here to look around, to see what's going on and see the incredible opportunity here. we have wanted as an area, the ncaa championship to come here. and we have not gotten that opportunity yet. but who wins the ncaa this year? uva. for us, it's like, this is what we are doing this for. we want to raise the awareness that virginia is here and we are open for business. we are like a cul-de-sac in the middle of the east coast of america. and we have had our people, but we have never really congregated in a way where you just see us as a unit. so we had the ambition to do things differently. you know, timberland, as he makes music, he makes it very differently.
i mean look and listen to missy elliot. ♪ she's very different. we are just different people. and we celebrate our differences. >> reporter: when it came to music -- >> do you want to party with us? >> reporter: pharrell delivered an all-star line up. many of whom were long-time collaborators over the course of his career. ♪ >> the one and only! >> reporter: rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer, record executive, fashion designer, entrepreneur, a and r representative -- which one comes first for you? >> musician. music has been the skeleton key to open the door for me. as a musician, that word comes from one who listens the or is informed by the muses.
we were interpreters. having that gift and being able to share that gift with people, complete strangers, regardless to what they think politically, regardless to how they feel religiously, it's the one thing -- it's like music is a unifier. >> you once told me, i have never forgotten this, when you do music you see music in color. >> yes, ma'am. >> i have never heard anybody say that. >> it is much more common than you think. >> i love that. >> i think most musicians have it. musicians and artists call it a gift. it is what helps us to identify with what it is we are feeling. they call the blues the blues for an are. that's -- it's kind of always been, you know, part of like the musicians vernacular to associate colors with music. >> my favorite color is yellow. >> okay. mine too. >> your favorite color is yellow? >> absolutely. >> mine is yellow. >> that's crazy. you have on yellow. i have on yellow. >> i wear yellow for special occasions. mine is yellow because it makes
me happy. i think of sunshine. yellow is the color pharrell says he saw when he created what some call music's happiest song ♪ >> where does it sit with you? are you over it? there are some artists who say that was then, this is now. and others who say it will always be with me. >> there were a couple years where little kids who run up to me and say "happy". but i was not happy at the moment. but the universe has handed me a gift that reached so many people. i wrote that song thinking see low was going to do it but as it happens it was me. so i am super grateful. it's only when you think it is you with the juice is when you get started.
beyonce is the juice. i am an antenna. >> you say this, pinch yourself often because it is the only way to assure yourself that you are awake. >> yes. >> when was the last time you had to pinch yourself? >> i do it every day. >> do you? >> every do i wake up. god is the greatest. >> every day? >> every day. i was raised in atlanticis apartments not a mile here on section 8. now we are on this section of the beach and i am super gateful. still to this day, my first verses come from my shower or when i am swimming or when i am next to water. here we are looking at the beautiful ocean which represents life, and, yeah, i pinch myself all the time. i never forget where i come from. and that's part the reason why we are here. we are virginia! you know? it's because this is where i'm from. this is a pinch, being here. love you guys. this is for you. thank you so much. my heart is so full. thank you.
>> i will say his heart is so full. the first day of the three-day festival it was rained out. people were freaked out. what is going to happen? the skies opened up the next day. people were so excited about what he was doing the artists that he brought there and the love he has for the area. nobody cared about the rain, nobody was saying we want our money because he delivered bigtime. he is already making plans for next year. he is a special guy with a big heart who wants to do the right thing and bring attention to his hometown community. >> that comes through in -- his warmth comes through in your conversation. >> it does. >> he this talk about if roots of music. >> right. >> he is going back to the roots and creating this new thing out of it. it is fantastic. >> i know beyonce has juice, jay-z, too. i think pharrell has a little bit of juice. i think he is more than a straw. i applaud what he is doing. hear more of our conversation with pharrell williams on today
when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org
this is a kpix5 morning update. 8:55. i'm michelle griego. today may day protests underway around the bay area. right now one already underway in alameda county. hundreds of workers are out in oakland demanding to be paid higher wages. today attorneys for the master tenant at the ghost ship warehouse in oakland will deliver their opening statements to the jury. testimony won't begin until monday. and today a hillsborough couple is expected to plead guilty in the college admissions scandal. bruce and davina isackson are accused of paying more than $600,000 in bribes to get their daughters into ucla and usc.
news and weather updates on all of our platforms as well as kpix.com. as well as kpix.com. ♪ and it feels good to feel good. ♪ start your day with sunsweet amazin! prune juice. and feel good. - hi,- hey! [beeping] [♪] - hmm! yummy! - pretzelrami is back, with our famous pastrami and a bigger soft pretzel roll. and try the new turkey bistro with warm turkey and smokehouse bacon. or the new hot club chicken dijon with black forest ham. the new hot pretzels, only at togos. how far would you go for a togo? - i own you, doug.
here at 8:57, we want to get right out to the trouble spots this morning. there are several of them in play. one of them is in a commute direction on the east shore freeway. take a look at this, it is westbound 80 at hilltop. lanes blocked, at least two and the backup starting to build behind it coming into the east shore freeway from highway 4. from highway 4 to get to the maze take you at least 46 minutes. average drive speed is about 20 miles an hour, that's a slow
crawl. looking at the richmond san rafael bridge your drive time slow coming across that because of emergency construction. that's going to be blocking at least the far right lane or the shoulder in the westbound direction until 2:00 p.m. and here taking a live look at the toll plaza, you can see that backup. the bay bridge is a backup there to the foot of the maze as well but once you get through that, it is moving, at least there's that. >> thank you. well, we are looking at a beautiful day across the bay area. today the start of a warming trend for us. here is a live look for the salesforce tower camera, blue skies and shallow marine layer out there. daytime highs running a few degrees above average in the 60s in san francisco, upper 60s in oakland, low 70s redwood city, fremont, san rafael, vallejo, santa rosa, napa, mid- 70s for you in san jose, concord, livermore as well as for fairfield. going to continue to warm up as we head through the rest of the workweek, little bit warmer thursday, especially for friday, the warmest day out of the week.
wayne: season ten! hit it! - i'm taking the money! jonathan: it's a trip to sweden. big deal of the day! wayne: what's in the box? jonathan: what? tiffany: selfie. - oh, my god! wayne: smash for cash. $20,000. let's go. "let's make a deal" season ten, baby. jonathan: it's time for "let's make a deal." now here's tv's big dealer, wayne brady! wayne: hey, america, welcome to "let's make a deal." wayne brady here. thank you for tuning in. who wants to make a deal? (cheers and applause) valerie, come on over here, miss valerie. everyone else, have a seat for me. hello. hello. now where are you from, miss valerie?