hello, you're watching afternoon live. i'm simon mccoy. today at 2.00 — the long—awaited mueller report into alleged russian interference in the 2016 us election is published in the next two hours, but with redactions. facebook bans 12 far—right individuals and organisations in britain, saying they have no place on its platform. as climate change protests continue in the capital, three people appear in court charged with obstructing public transport. coming up on afternoon live — all the sport. alex mcleish has been sacked as scotla nd alex mcleish has been sacked as scotland head coach, his second speu scotland head coach, his second spell at last in just 1a months. we will have the latest. and tomasz has the weather. it is warming up, it will be the warmest spell since february.

thanks, tomasz. also coming up — he is not the messiah, he is a very naughty boy. we'll be marking a0 years since the monty python team turned their attention to the life of brian. hello, welcome to afternoon live. i'm simon mccoy. it's been two years in the making — and now, in the next few hours, the us special counsel robert mueller‘s report on alleged russian meddling in the 2016 election will finally be released. but it will have sections deemed too sensitive for public comsumption covered up. jane o'brien is at the white house in washington.

the report goes on for 22 months, and it has been completed. there will be a news conference at 2.30. jane o'brien is at the white house in washington. today we will finally be able to read to the robert mueller report for ourselves, at least the bits that have not been blacked out. while we wait, let's have a recap on what we actually know about the investigation so far. so, in may 2017, donald trump abruptly fired the fbi directorjames comey. days later, the department ofjustice appoints robert mueller to investigate russian interference in the 2016 election. and that included, of course, any possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia. so, who is robert mueller? well, he is a former marine, a prosecutor, and a former

director of the fbi, appointed in 2001, when he actually became the longest serving director in the history of the bureau. so far, he has charged six associates of donald trump, but not for collusion. four are accused of lying about their contact with russians during the campaign and the transition period. now, more than two dozen russians have also been charged, but they are unlikely to ever see the inside of a us courtroom. but, and it is important, the investigation has so far shown no evidence that the president himself colluded with russia to win the election. the question of whether he tried to obstruct the enquiry, however, remains open. so, trump of course is already claiming total exoneration in his wife's, but the white house is readying itself for any nasty surprises this redacted report may bring. —— in his words. 0ne

surprises this redacted report may bring. —— in his words. one man could not appear more confident about what the report will show. could not appear more confident about what the report will showlj won, no collusion, no obstruction, i1. i have not read the first match report, i haven't seen the mueller report, i haven't seen the mueller report, as far as i'm concerned, i don't care about the mueller report. he is so blase because what we have already heard about the headlines of what investigator robert mueller found. that russia did try to help donald trump win the election through social media and by hacking e—mails, but he did not find that members of the trump campaign conspired with russia to do that. on obstruction of justice, conspired with russia to do that. on obstruction ofjustice, he did not conclude the president committed a crime, but it didn't exonerate him either. but we have so far only had this from a summary of the report by us attorney general william barr, a trump political appointee, and not eve ryo ne trump political appointee, and not everyone trusts as interpretation.

rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the attorney general has taken unprecedented steps to spin mueller‘s nearly two year investigation. the central concern here is that the attorney general barr is not allowing the facts of the mueller report to speak for themselves, but is trying to bed in themselves, but is trying to bed in the narrative about the report to the narrative about the report to the benefit of the white house. donald trump may feel the spectre of robert mueller‘s investigation has been banished, but ourfirst look robert mueller‘s investigation has been banished, but our first look at the report itself may well contain damaging details of the president's behaviour, even if they are not enough to build a criminal case against them, as many of his opponents would have hoped. we are going to talk now to professor scott lucas, professor of american studies at birmingham university. thanks for joining

american studies at birmingham university. thanks forjoining me. fascinating to get a perspective thatis fascinating to get a perspective that is not in the hothouse environment of washington. what will you be looking for in this report? there are a couple of things i want to look at in the report itself. william barr, the attorney general, has said there is no conspiracy, or no charge of conspiracy, but he did not say, contrary to reports, that there has not been any evidence of collusion. collusion is not a criminal charge, but it would be that the trump campaign it knew of and even encouraged russian interference in the 2016 election. but i think the bulk of the report, from what we are starting to get from what we are starting to get from snippets or summaries, is that it will be about obstruction of justice. and specifically, whether donald trump tried to obstruct justice, for example by firing the fbi directorjames comey. and while the newer report is apparently not recommending prosecution of trump, because it cannot find that he intended to commit obstruction, it is apparently going to provide much evidence that trump did try to

obstruct justice, evidence that trump did try to obstructjustice, whether intentionally or unintentionally, through his actions. but the second thing to watch for, even before we get that, as the political spin on the report. and that is in less than half an hour, attorney general william barr will try to cover for trump by sort of prejudging and giving us the summary of what the report has found. he did that last month and has four page letter, and he did it also last week when he repeated donald trump's charge that there is no conspiracy here, but in fa ct there is no conspiracy here, but in fact the fbi was actually spying on the trump campaign. democrats not very happy about the fact that william barr is pre—empting the publication of the report to a certain extent. what do you think the strategy here is? what do you think the attorney general is going to be saying? i think the attorney general will probably explain his pi’ocess general will probably explain his process by which he carried out the redactions, in other words blacking out parts of the report, even of the

copies been given to congress. he will try to justify that and say he is not protecting donald trump, and this is for security interest. whether or not that is the case remains to be seen. but then we have to listen carefully to see if you then tries to go further and say there are no criminal charges being laid against donald trump, but whether he tries to go further and say there are no political consequences here. if he does that, he is overstepping his line as attorney general, but he was put in this position in february by donald trump, hopefully to give the president to cover that he wants from any findings. scott lucas, thank you very much forjoining me. that is the view from the uk. we will now speak to a congressional reporterfor will now speak to a congressional reporter for political. a 400 will now speak to a congressional reporterfor political. a 400 page report, you are presumably going to be speech reading, what are you going to be looking for? the first thing i will be looking for is how much of the reporters redacted,

specifically, how much in the obstruction ofjustice section is redacted? we are expecting very few redactions and that section in particular. i will be looking for new, previously unreported evidence of obstruction ofjustice on the pa rt of of obstruction ofjustice on the part of the president. we know from the attorney general's four page summary the attorney general's four page summary that he did uncover evidence of obstruction ofjustice, but what the attorney general said was that he did not believe that that evidence rose to the level of being a crime. so that's the first thing i will be looking for, because members of congress will want to use that evidence is part of their own obstruction ofjustice investigation. and that is the point, isn't it? because although this may lay to rest some of the legal issues with this investigation, the politics are not going to go away, are they? what are the democrats already setting themselves up to do? what are the democrats have been saying all along is they want not only the full report, but all of the underlying evidence and the grand jury information, so that they can use

all of that information for their owi'i all of that information for their own investigations. they are already launching a number of probes involving the president and his finances, his tax returns, every facet of his business empire, his presidency, a potential for foreign influence, and they want everything that bob mueller has uncovered so that bob mueller has uncovered so that they can use it as part of their investigations. the top one on my mind is again the issue of obstruction ofjustice, because the house judiciary committee has already begun looking into it, and it could be the precursor to an impeachment. andrew, thank you very much forjoining me. of course, we are waiting for two things now today. the attorney general william barr, who is scheduled to give a news conference, in just a short time from now. and then of course, the report itself, we are expecting that 400 page report with some redactions, we were hearing from andrew just there, like redactions, we were hearing from andrewjust there, like redactions, to be published in the next couple

of hours. —— light redactions. but william barr, the attorney general, will be expected to speak at the podium we can see now in the next few minutes to give his views on how he came by the decision to make some of those redactions. and of course, we will have full coverage of the report and william by‘s press conference, so do stay with us. jane 0'brien in washington at the white house, we will return to her later. facebook is banning a dozen far right campaigners and organisations, including the english defence league and britain first. the company says those who spread hate have no place on its platform. the ban also applies to instagram. 0ur media editor amol rajan is following this story. so it's the british national party, or bnp, and nick griffin, britain first and its leader paul golding, and former deputy leader jayda fra nsen, it's the english defence league and its founder paul ray, a militant christian group called the knights templar international, and a promoter of it, jim dowson, the national front and its leader

tony martin, and another hard right figure called jack renshaw. what they are being banned for, notjust on facebook but associated platforms like instagram, which facebook also owns, is specifically spreading hate on the basis of excluding people because of their ethnicity, or promoting violence or inciting people to violence, which of course is illegal. why is it happening now? well, i think the steady accumulation of pressure on facebook to stop the spread of poison on its platform has taken a toll. we are coming up to european elections, of course, and facebook want to be seen to be proactive about this stuff. they say, "you asked us to remove hate, "this is what we are now doing". but it is worth saying that this is taking facebook into very uncomfortable territory. these are all things in the hard right, and a few years ago, free speech, it is not in the business of telling us what is true or not, and it wasn't a media company. today, it seems to be exercising subjective judgment on what people can and cannot say. we used to have a name for that, and it was called journalism.

crossrail, the new underground railway line running east—west through central london, may not be finished until the spring of 2021, making it over two years behind schedule. the bbc has learned that none of the stations for the new line have been completed, and there are concerns about the signalling system. the project, which is the largest of its kind in europe, is also nearly £3 billion over budget. 0ur transport correspondent, tom burridge, reports. this is why a new rail line is needed. even during easter holidays, the east to west rush hour is a squeeze. but now another warning for commuters that crossrail might still be some way off. it doesn't surprise me to be honest because most things are delayed, aren't they? it's still good it's happening eventually, i guess, whenever that is. it sounds like a bit of a joke, doesn't it? if it's supposed to be done... december last year it was supposed to open? when it finally gets here, yes, it will be a massive help to everyone who lives on either side of london. it is one of the most impressive engineering

projects in modern times. a new high—tech, high capacity rail line underneath central london. but a senior source associated with crossrail has told bbc news that this railway may not be complete until the spring of 2021. with none of the new stations finished, a best case scenario, i'm told, is the spring of next year. the budget was £14.8 billion. after initial delays were announced, that rose to 17.6 billion. with another delay likely, that figure could rise again. there's so much uncertainty because software on the new trains, most of which sit idle, is still not fully compatible with signalling in the tunnel. we are told marrying them up is proving much harder than was originally envisaged. the real key problems are physically building the stations, installing the miles and miles of cabling and cameras, things like platform doors which we don't often use on railways in this country, that's been a bigger problem than they thought. and adding to that mix,

the delays in testing the trains. this is the first train that will run on the eastern overground branch of the new route... featured in a bbc documentary, the line will carry vast numbers of passengers from east to west. the initial delay was only made public last summer, just weeks before the line was supposed to open. crossrail says testing of the trains and signalling is progressing well. it's finalising a new plan to deliver the opening at the earliest opportunity, and will make an announcement later this month. but, even to the untrained eye, paddington station is far from finished, and with other rail sources telling me a two—year delay is on the cards, much will depend on how much progress is made in the coming months. you're watching afternoon live. these are our headlines — the long—awaited first match report into alleged russian interference in

the 2016 us election is published in the 2016 us election is published in the next few hours, but with redactions. facebook bans a dozen british far—right individuals and organisations, including the english defence league, britain first and the former president of the british national party, nick griffin. climate change protestors continue a fourth day of action in the capital. nearly 400 people have been arrested and three charged. the first people to be charged in connection with this week's climate change protests have appeared in court. three people have pleaded not guilty for obstructing trains at canary wharf station in east london. the protests, which have disrupted parts of central london and other cities during the week, have continued, with major intersections in the capital blocked. activists say they want the government to drastically speed up their targets for reducing carbon emissions. all three who appeared in court have been remanded in custody.

our correspondent sarah walton is at oxford circus. a very determined, noisy gi’oup a very determined, noisy group of protesters behind me, and this is day four. i have noticed that police are now going into this crowd, in groups, to remove the protesters one by one. sometimes they have to carry them away to police vans waiting just along the road. we know now that since these protests started on monday, there have been at least 420 arrests made. as you mentioned, three people appeared in court this morning, charged in relation to a protest at the docklands light railway station at canary wharf yesterday. protesters there managed to glue themselves to the roof anti window of a train. at highbury magistrates' court this morning, three people were charged with obstructing a train. they all

pleaded not guilty, and they were remanded in custody. they will appear at crown court on the 16th of may. meanwhile, these protests continue, not just here may. meanwhile, these protests continue, notjust here at oxford circus, but they continue to block roads at marble arch, parliament square, and also waterloo bridge. as i say, the police are now taking action to remove people from those sites. but the protesters say that they intend to stay here as long as they intend to stay here as long as they can, potentially another week. and that they will be arrested if that's what it takes, they will return here once they are the least. sarah, thank you very much. well, a number of bridges and routes in central london continue to be blocked by protesters. and some commuters are showing their frustration at the delays. let's take a look at this verbal confrontation on vauxhall bridge a little earlier. i'm glad of this opportunity. what, to obstruct half a million people doing theirjob? half a million londoners... it's not disruptive... carbon emissions are going up. this is doing nothing... what's your job?

what's myjob? i've worked as a civil servant... where are you going right now? i'm going to a meeting. and i'm having to walk here, and it's taking me longer... you're taking a lot of time... because i pay my taxes, and i think it's outrageous that the police force, under sadiq khan and cressida dick... i pay my taxes, too, and i'm grateful... well, because you probably don't believe in law and order. you think that people should be able to disrupt and block a major bridge. this is not a legitimate protest. do you think this is a legitimate protest? i actually... so how can the police control this situation? what rights do protesters and others have? well, joining me now is professor clifford stott, who is a lecturer at keele university and specialises in police, hooliganism, and riots. that argument rather encapsulated the two issues here. so what do the police have to take into account when they discuss how they are going to police in protest like this? when they discuss how they are going to police in protest like thi57m is all about balancing of rights. essentially, the articulation that there was in terms of and the overarching legal framework here there was in terms of and the overarching legalframework here is

actually domestic uk law, the human rights act, which actually protects the rights of assembly and expression of consciousness. so therefore, the right to protest. there have been various legal tests of this law, and it is the case that using the roadway to protest is perfectly reasonable, so the police have to take that into account. it would be illegal for them have to take that into account. it would be illegalfor them to interfere with that right without due course. so that has to be a question of balancing the right to protest against the rights of other people to use that highway for different reasons, the police are essentially making decisions about how to balance those competing rights in every situation. but out there on the streets, there is clearly anger. millions of people are being affected by this, businesses are losing millions of people doubling pounds. at the moment, the police seem to be on the side of the protesters, if they are making this sort of balance. well,

one could argue that, but in fact, they are just applying the law of they are just applying the law of the uk, and it would be illegalfor them to simply interfere with the rights of freedom of assembly, and indeed, these are one of the fundamental issues that we need to ta ke fundamental issues that we need to take into account in any functional democracy. the extent to which the police become partisan with one interest taking precedence over another, is a very difficult and challenging situation for that democracy. so it may appear that they are taking sides, but i think thatis they are taking sides, but i think that is partly because they are not. i don't know if you've seen this video of a couple of police officers dancing along with the protesters in central london, but what message does that send out? that they are on the side of the public, and the legitimate rights of the public to protest about a climate emergency are perfectly lawful and valid, as

they should be in any democracy. are you suggesting that the police should not side of members of the public? i am just wondering from a policing point of view how easy it will be if you are building up a relationship of the people you're watching over, if a law is broken or if they have to act in some way, is there a compromise that has been made? well, what we know about policing of protests is that it is very important that the police begin communication and dialogue with those protesting. it is the case that these protesters are being deliberately difficult, it is part of their strategy to be arrested, and this is a civil disobedience, it is important we look at it in those terms and that we recognise that what might at face value in contemporary terms be seen as disruptive and confrontational, any historical sense, is seen as perfectly progressive and legitimate. 0ne perfectly progressive and legitimate. one might take for example the suffragettes, the reason that women have the vote in the uk

is precisely because the suffragettes took on the establishment through civil disobedience just like this, if not worse. so we need to be careful in what the police are doing in protecting our society in the context of climate emergency. even if laws are broken? well, they are not being broken, that is precisely the point. we have had three people in court today, some laws have been broken. yes. yes, and when they are, they are arrested. the point being that when the vast majority of people involved in this process, in these forms of protest, are behaving in ways that are perfectly lawful. if they are then subsequently arrested, then it is the case that they have broken the law, and that is why they have been arrested. so i don't understand what the point of contention is that people have here. what is being exercised are lawful rights to protest. where those lawful rights contravene the law,

police will act and they will detain people and arrest them for the offence they have committed. so there is not really a major issue here, other than the fact people are prevented from being driving their ca rs prevented from being driving their cars to a meeting. thank you for your time this afternoon, professor. don't forget — you can let us know what you think. tweet us using the hashtag #afternoonlive. all the ways to contact us are on screen right now. let's talk now to dr leslie vinjamuri, who's head of the us and the americas programme at the international think tank chatham house. we have got this rather bizarre moment where we will have a press conference talking about a reporter that no one has actually seen yet. yeah, ithink that no one has actually seen yet. yeah, i think bizarre is a very nice word. there is a lot of frustration right now that the attorney general is planning to come out and speak to the public about a report that nobody has actually seen, that has

not been released, that officials in the white house have been briefed. and of course, the attorney general several weeks ago already submitted his 4—page statement capturing how he evaluates the report, but i think the frustration that there is a perception that he is trying to control the narrative, control of the reactions to a report, rather than letting the report speak for itself. so prejudge it, there are plenty of people saying this is all pa rt plenty of people saying this is all part of the donald trump cover—up, because at the moment, what we know is that the only contentious point is that the only contentious point is that the only contentious point is that he has not been completely exonerated on the issue of obstruction. yeah, of course what we know from mueller‘s own language and from william by‘s statement, capturing that language, is that there was no determination made, that the independent counsel that mueller said was inconclusive on this question of obstruction of justice, which is really what people wa nt to justice, which is really what people want to know about. barr took that

and made a decision based on his own reading of the report not to pursue charges. this is william byjust leaving his home a little earlier today. —— william barr. he is a controversial figure, today. —— william barr. he is a controversialfigure, isn't he, to be delivering this particular press conference? but we have already heard from donald trump, who says basically, i am clear. we have been hearing from donald trump about this investigation for a very long time, side i don't like anybody will be surprised by that. the issue i think for the attorney general is that he was appointed by the president, so it makes it, the optics of that, they are very difficult, despite the fa ct they are very difficult, despite the fact that this investigation was obscene, and i think the leak had a very high level of independence, it was seen as very high level of independence, it was seen as being, mueller was seen asa was seen as being, mueller was seen as a man of integrity, and a very

serious investigation is that it risks being seen as very political in the uncovering and the public vetting of that report. the white house obviously will be going through this, line by line, and the issue may well be and what we cannot see, the issue of the redacted information, and then presumably there will be another battle to try and release that information. we are not at the end of this by any means, are we? no, there are legitimate reasons for redacted some of that information, that have to do with the secrecy that is necessarily attached to information that comes out of a grand jury. but that could of course still be revealed to the housejudiciary of course still be revealed to the house judiciary committee, to of course still be revealed to the housejudiciary committee, to the housejudiciary committee, to the house intelligence committee, and there is a question of how much will be withheld from them. and if it is seen to be more than is appropriate, then of course there will be a very significant battle and it could go to the courts. donald trump clearly

thinks he is in the clear here. and difficult to look objectively at what is going on and not perhaps disagree with him, because he has had everything thrown at him, and nothing seems to be sticking. again, it isa nothing seems to be sticking. again, it is a funny report, because we are all talking about it, washington is waiting, many people are waiting for a report that we simply have not read, we have not seen. and the man who conducted a 22 month investigation said was inconclusive on the question of obstruction of justice. that suggests that there will be a lot of detail in their that didn't reach the level required to make a charge, a criminal charge, but that none the less was significant enough for someone to say it is inconclusive. inconclusive to exonerate as well as inconclusive to exonerate as well as inconclusive to charge, which i is why i think it becomes so important that this report is released and given another way to congress but to the public. so he is not out of the woods yet.

absolutely not. ok, great to see you, thank you very much. a ukip mep candidate for the european elections has defended comments he made online to a female mp about rape. carl benjamin, who's standing for the south west of england, has been criticised for writing a tweet to a labour mp in 2016, in which he said, "i wouldn't even rape you. feminism is cancer." this morning, mr benjamin refused to apologise for "crimes against political correctness". some members of the party are calling for him to be deselected. 0ur political correspondent jonathan blake was at the ukip campaign launch this morning, and is at westminster now. what is the fallout to this been so far, jonathan? this happened at an eventin far, jonathan? this happened at an event in central london this morning, where ukip began their campaignfor morning, where ukip began their campaign for the forthcoming european parliamentary elections, where a dozen or so other candidates we re where a dozen or so other candidates were on the stage, and the leader made a speech saying, under the banner, you told them once, you told

them again, that the leave vote in them again, that the leave vote in the 2016 referendum had been cynically and deliberately betrayed by the political class. many of the med candidates there were the sort of people you would expect to be running for european elections, former councillors, long—standing members of the party, but then there we re members of the party, but then there were two who were brought on stage saying to the audience thought would like some controversy towards the end of the event. 0ne like some controversy towards the end of the event. one of those was carol benjamin, you mentioned there, he has faced criticism for that tweet he posted on 2016 aboutjess phillips, saying i wouldn't even rip you. —— carl benjamin. questions we re you. —— carl benjamin. questions were put to the ukip leader about his defence, having previously said it was satire, and mr benjamin himself. i don't condone it a joke or remark made by somebody three yea rs or remark made by somebody three years ago on twitter. if you held everybody to account for every remark they had ever made in their life which was stupid, and thought out, uncontrollable, there would not

be any journalists out, uncontrollable, there would not be anyjournalists in this room, would there? unlike the establishment, i do not think women should be treated differently from men. i think women should be treated the same as men. jess phillips herself has responded on twitter this afternoon, saying carl benjamin will forever have whatever career he has defined by me. you will hear my name wherever he goes. but as you saw there, and the candidate himself and the party leader did not want to row back from this, and in putting these people forward as candidates, ukip is clearly attempting to make some noise in this campaign, because of course it is facing a challenge from the one man most people associate with the party, nigel farage having associate with the party, nigel fa rage having launched associate with the party, nigel farage having launched his brexit party last week. ukip are attempting to paint themselves as the party that can deliver brexit, and as the

ukip leader put it today, a choice between a phony party or a real party. let us take you to washington. an expectant audience of journalists are awaiting the news conference with the us attorney general, bill barr, who is going to speak about the report that has not been released yet. we will take you to the conference... the nature of these things, as soon as i pull away from it, he will likely walk on! we will carry on for the moment, that is pretty imminent. let's have a look at the weather on the basis that we might have to come back. you are telling us about these pictures from india, stunning. yes, we had these pictures sent in. this is from yesterday. it is a bit shaky and the images will get more interesting,

more dramatic shortly. this massive winter storm will start to develop. what is happening in india right now is, the whole area of nasty weather has come in from the middle east, from the arabian sea and it has dumped a lot of rain and vicious thunderstorms have developed with terrible winds. not unusual in india, it does get to downforce but what is unusual about this stormy weather is the timing. it is too early for the monsoon, so it should be hot, dry and sunny, but instead they have had this. bank holiday weekend, unusually for us, looking promising. bank holiday weekend, unusually for us, looking promisinglj bank holiday weekend, unusually for us, looking promising. i know, the weather has got it right for a change. the outlook is looking very warm. iwant change. the outlook is looking very warm. i want to stress the temperatures we will be getting over the next few days, nothing terribly unusualfor the next few days, nothing terribly unusual for the the next few days, nothing terribly unusualfor the time the next few days, nothing terribly unusual for the time of the year. spring is the time it where we tend to have chilly days and really warm

days and then chilly days and warm days and then chilly days and warm days and then chilly days and warm days and it is like a seesaw. averages don't really mean anything. but what is happening into the weekend, there are warm currents of aircoming out of weekend, there are warm currents of air coming out of the continent. the jet stream is very far away. if i zoom jet stream is very far away. if i zoom out a little bit and this is one of my favourite graphics showing the jet streams, the one of my favourite graphics showing thejet streams, the big dip in the atla ntic thejet streams, the big dip in the atlantic here... sorry, we will have to go to washington. we will hear from the attorney general. good morning, everybody, and thanks for being here this morning. as you will know, on march the 22nd, special counsel, robert muller concluded his investigation into matters related to russian attempts to interfere in our 2016 presidential election and he

submitted his confidential report to me according to department regulations. as i said during my senate confirmation hearing in since, iam senate confirmation hearing in since, i am committed to ensuring the greatest degree possible of transparency concerning the special counsel's investigation, consistent with the low. at 11 this morning, i will transmit copies of the public version of the special counsel's report to the chairman and ranking members of the senate and house judiciary committees. the department ofjustice will also judiciary committees. the department of justice will also make judiciary committees. the department ofjustice will also make report available to the american people by posting it on the website of the department after it has been delivered to congress. i would like to make a few comments today on the report. before i do that, i want to thank deputy attorney general rob rosenstein forjoining me here today, and for his assistance in

counsel throughout this process. rod, as you know has served for nearly 30 years at the department with dedication and distinction and it has been a great privilege and pleasure for me to work with him since my confirmation. he had well—deserved plans to step back from public service that were interrupted by my asking of him to help in my transition. rod has been an invaluable partner and i am grateful that he is willing to help me and has been able to see the special counsel's investigation through to its conclusion. thanks, rod. i would also like to thank special counsel robert mueller for his service, and the thoroughness of his service, and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of russia's attem pts work exposing the nature of russia's atte m pts to work exposing the nature of russia's attempts to interfere in our electoral process. as you will know, one of the primary purposes of the

special counsel's investigation was to determine whether president trump's campaign orany to determine whether president trump's campaign or any individual associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. volume one of the special counsel's report describes the results of that investigation. as you will see, the special counsel's report states that it is, "investigation did not establish that members of the president trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities." i am sure that all americans share my concern about the efforts of the russian government to interfere in our presidential election. as the special counsel report makes clear, the russian government sought to interfere in our election process, but thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation, we now know

that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the have the cooperation of president trump orthe trump have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign, all the known assistance of any other american for that matter. that is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. the special counsel report outlines two main efforts by the russian government to influence the russian government to influence the 2016 election. first, the report details efforts by the internet research agency, a russian company with close ties to the russian government, to sow social discord among american voters through this information and social media operations. following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the special counsel brought charges in federal court against several russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in the scheme. those charges

we re roles in the scheme. those charges were named pending and the individual defendants remain at large. the special counsel found no evidence that any american, including anyone associated with the trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the russian government or the ira in this illegal scheme. indeed, as the report states, "the investigation did not identify evidence that any us person, knowingly or intentionally, coordinated with the ira's interference operation". put another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any americans in ira's illegal activities. second, the report details efforts by the russian military officials associated with the gru, the russian military intelligence organisation, to hack into computers and steal documents and e—mails from individuals associated with the

democratic party and hillary clinton's campaign for the purpose of eventually publicising these documents. 0btaining such unauthorised access... hacking into computers to steal documents and e—mails from individuals associated from the democratic party and hillary clinton's campaign for the purpose of eventual publicising these documents. the charges remain pending and the defendants remain at large. but again, the special counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these hacking operations. in other words, there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. the special counsel's investigation also examined russian efforts to publish

stolen e—mails and documents on the internet. the special counsel found that after the gru disseminated some of the stolen documents to entities that it controlled, dc leaks and another one, the gru transferred some of the stolen materials to wikileaks for some of the stolen materials to wikilea ks for publication, some of the stolen materials to wikileaks for publication, wikileaks then made a series of document dumps. the special counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. under applicable low, publication of these types of material would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. here too the special counsel's report did not find that any day associated with

the trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials. finally, the special counsel investigated a number of links or contacts between the trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. after reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate us low involving russian linked persons and any persons associated with the trump campaign. so that is the bottom line. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. after finding no

underlining collusion with russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. as i addressed in my march 24 letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorjudgment regarding did not make a traditional prosecutor judgment regarding this allegation. instead, the reporter cou nts allegation. instead, the reporter counts ten episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offence. after carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories are outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and i concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction ofjustice offence. although the deputy

attorney general and i disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of low, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. instead, we accepted a special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions. in assessing the president's actions discuss report, it is important to bearin discuss report, it is important to bear in mind the context. president trump faced an unprecedented situation. as he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinising his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. at the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no

collusion, and as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fuelled by illegal leaks. nonetheless, political opponents and fuelled by illegal lea ks. nonetheless, the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and white house documents, directing senior aides to testify freely and asserting no privilege claims. and at the same time, the president took no act that in fact deprived of the special council of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete its investigation. apart from whether the acts were obstructed, this evidence of non—corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the

investigation. now, beforei corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. now, before i take questions, i would like to address a few aspects of the process for producing a public report that i am releasing today. as i have said several times, the report contains limited reductions related to four categories of information. to ensure as much transparency as possible, those reductions have been clearly labelled so that the readers can tell which corresponds to which category. as i recall, those categories are grand jury material, information that the ica believes would disclose sources and methods, information that would impair the investigation and prosecution of other cases that are under way and finally, information that implicates

the river and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. as you will see, most of the redactions where made to prevent onto ongoing matters and comply with court orders, prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing investigations and criminal cases. such as the ira case and the roger stone case these redactions we re roger stone case these redactions were applied by the department of justice attorney's working closely with attorneys from the special counsel's office, as well as the intelligence community, and prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases. the redactions are at words product. no redactions done by anybody outside this group. there we re anybody outside this group. there were no redactions done by anybody outside this group. no one outside this group proposed any redactions and no one outside the department

has seen the unredacted report, with the exception of certain sections that were made available to ic, the intelligence community, for their advice on protecting intelligence sources and methods. consistent with long—standing executive branch practice, the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the president of the united states. because the white house had voluntarily cooperated with the special counsel, significant portions of the report contained material over which the president could have asserted privilege. and he would have been well within his rights to do so. following my march 29 letter, the office of the white house council requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the president, consistent with long—standing practice.

following that review, the president confirmed that in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the american people, he would not assert privilege over the special counsel's report. accordingly, the public report i am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that i previously outlined and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege. in addition, earlierthis week the president's personal council requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. that request was consistent with the practice followed under the ethics in government act which permitted individuals named in the report prepared by an independent counsel, the opportunity to read the report before publication. the president's personal lawyers were not permitted to make and did not request any redactions. in addition to making

the redacted report public, we were also working with congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the special counsel's investigation. we have been consulting with chairman graham and his colleagues through this process and we will continue to do so. given the limited nature of the redactions, i believe that the publicly released report will allow every american to understand the results of the special counsel's investigation. nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available, subject to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from several congressional committees, a version of the report with all redactions removed, except those relating to grand jury information. thus, these members of congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared. i believe

that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the senate and the housejudiciary committees, will satisfy any need congress has for information regarding the special counsel's investigation. 0nce regarding the special counsel's investigation. once again, i would like to thank you for being here and i will now answer a few questions. mr attorney general, we do not have to report here, so could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice? does it have anything to do with the department's long—standing guidance of not indicting a sitting president? and what did you disagree with him on? i would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction of fence.

but i will tell you that when we met with him, the deputy attorney general and i met with him along with mr callaghan, the principal associate deputy, on the 5th of march, we specifically asked him about the 0 lcc opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime, but for the existence of the 0lc opinion, and he made it very clear that that that was not his position, he did that several times. he was not saying but for the 0lc opinion he would have found a crime, he made it clear that he had not made a determination that there was a crime. what did you disagree with him on? why did you and mr rosenstein feel you had to take it to the next step to conclude that there was no crime, especially given that the policy mentioned was

discussed? well, looking at the powers, including the power to convene grand jury is in the compulsory process involved, it is for one purpose and one purpose only, it is determined, yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal? that is our responsibility and that is why we have the tools that we have. and we do not go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. we collect this information, we use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. and because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to, and that was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. the special counsel indicated that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left to congress? and also, how do you respond to criticism you are receiving from

congressional democrats that you are acting more as an attorney for the president rather than your own position? special counsel robert mueller did not indicate that his decision was to leave it to congress, i hope that was not his view, since we do not convene grand jury view, since we do not convene grand jury is or conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. i did not talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but i am told that his reaction to that was my prerogative as an attorney general to make that decision. fox news, hello. is there anything you can share about your review of the genesis of the russian investigation, whether assets have been provided to investigate? today iam simply been provided to investigate? today i am simply focused on the process of releasing this report. robert

muller remains a justice department employee as of this moment, will you permit him to testify publicly in congress? —— ten tee. permit him to testify publicly in congress? -- ten tee. a republican appointed judge on tuesday said you have created an environment that is caused a significant reason for the american public to be concerned about these redactions. the present is fundraising over the comments of your spine and you have made remarks present —— that are pleasing to the president. what do you say to those who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president?” think his sincere beliefs are recognised in the report that there was substantial evidence for that. i am not sure what your basis is for suggesting i am being generous to the president. it just suggesting i am being generous to the president. itjust seems that you are going out of your way... is

there another precedent for it? so thatis there another precedent for it? so that is not an accurate description. there is a lot of public interest. was the special counsel invited to join you today and why is he not present? he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. i am here to discuss my response to that report and my decision, entirely discretionary to make it public, since these reports are not supposed to be made public. that is what i am here to discuss. does this appear to be spending the report before the public have a chance to read it my do you think that? —— appear to be spending the report. —— appear to be spinning the report.

we have just heard the process from william barr as to how he conducted the report and his decision to release this report in the first place. he said it also was in the interests of transparency and that is why he decided to release a likely redacted report to the public and members of congress, who will also be given the opportunity to read a report that has more detail in it, except for information that pertains to grand jury evidence, which he said, by law, he cannot release. i think we have got isaac still with us. isaac, what did you make of this and let us get straight to the point of obstruction of justice. again, he was explaining why he reached the determination that there was no legal offence committed. what he seemed to be saying, and i am nota committed. what he seemed to be saying, and i am not a lawyer, but what he seemed to be saying was that it was because the president felt

frustrated that he knew hadn't done anything, then that changes the standard of what obstruction of justice would be. that he wasn't covering up a crime because he knew that there wasn't a crime in a way that there wasn't a crime in a way that he was acting seems to be attributed in part of his emotional state that he felt that his presidency was being pummelled by the investigation and questioned by the investigation and questioned by the press. that is not being frustrated or being in an unprecedented situation as the attorney general called it. from what i understand, that is not a legal standard, but that is his explanation here of how he has gone through it. and i think it is important to point out, that as william barr did, it is up to the department ofjustice to make that decision. he made the point that mr robert mueller did not leave the decision to congress. can you explain that a little bit because there seems to be some confusion

over who decides when a criminal case is put? part of that explanation, i think we should wait to see what is actually in this report. again, as i said earlier, this is the attorney general trying to repackage and spin how we think about it. we will see what is in the report but in order for there to have been charges directly off the delivery of the report, that would have been up to the attorney general to make. of course, it is a long—standing legal precedent at the justice park —— justice department that a sitting president cannot be indicted. so we will have to leave it to the large to explain how he is coming to the explanation that he gave. but congress cannot indict anybody, but they could impeach the president or he could —— they could submit more of what is in the report to the congressional review. we will have to see what is in the report to

know exactly what we are talking about. yes, those lawyers are going to have a very busy time indeed. isaac, thank you for the moment. i wa nt to isaac, thank you for the moment. i want to turn to gary 0'donoghue, our washington consul —— corresponded in washington. gary, the headline again appears to be no collusion, donald trump will be pleased with this. yes, andi trump will be pleased with this. yes, and i think it is a pretty robust performance by the attorney general that the white house will welcome substantially, not just because, in a sense he is reiterating what he has already said in that four page summary that we heard from last month, but he goes further when he talks about obstruction of justice, further when he talks about obstruction ofjustice, he also talks about the pressures, the unprecedented situation that the president was facing at the beginning of his presidency. the sincere belief that his presidency was being undermined by people and by these untrue allegations about collusion with russia and so on. and

thatis collusion with russia and so on. and that is a very sympathetic reading of the president was my actions on any account at all. so, i think the democrats will, of course, see it for what it is. they have already classified william barr in some ways asa classified william barr in some ways as a stooge for the white house, as as a stooge for the white house, as a man put to do the bidding of the president, and this will confirm their view on that. and we will wait to see what exactly comes out when the report is published, jane, in an hour or so. but the amount of redactions will be key to what the democrats do next and bear in mind, the chair of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler, he has that subpoena in his pocket when she can launch any time he chooses for the unredacted report. and that could end up in the courts, of course. william barr did suggest that he would be releasing more details to a bipartisan members of congress, so that they would be able to see more

than we are going to get to see with the exception of grand jury evidence. william barr has been criticised for being sympathetic. a lot of critics think he has been sympathetic to the president. but what did you make of the point that he made that nobody at the white house got to see the unredacted report and that the president himself did not claim any executive privilege? how significant is that? i think the executive privilege is an interesting point, which in a sense removes one of the possible ways and methods of attack that the democrats might use. of course, we now know that president trump's lawyer got to see the redacted version of the report earlier this week, which has in a sense given the white house a head start at least on what the public will know before the public knows it, and we know that they have been working on probably

two documents, one to be released pretty much straightaway after the report itself comes out, eight to ten pages covering the key points. then another more substantial one tomorrow, covering the whole question of obstruction ofjustice, which is the area in which obviously robert mueller did not come to conclusion and quite extraordinarily that he could not exonerate the president from those accusations, either. those will be key things to come out after the report happens. we still have a number of questions, as you say, that remain unresolved, and a lot of answers will still be sought by members of congress, as we know. let's hear what william bart said the report did find, and the mainfinding was said the report did find, and the main finding was that russia did interfere in the 2016 election, but that there was no collusion, no conspiracy, no help given by any members of the trump campaign, the

president, or any other american. members of the trump campaign, the president, orany otheramerican. he said people should be grateful for that. let's just listen to what he said. i'm sure that all americans share my said. i'm sure that all americans sha re my concern said. i'm sure that all americans share my concern about the efforts of the russian government to interfere in our presidential election. as the special counsel report makes clear, the russian government sought to interview in our selection process. but thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation, we now know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign. 0r cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign. or the knowing assistance of any other american, for that matter. attorney general william barr speaking a few moments ago. gary, president trump has tweeted in the last few seconds, saying, game over. is it? he said that when the first page summary, the four page summary came out, he

said it was a complete and total exoneration. his opponents believe there are still questions to be a nswered there are still questions to be answered on the question of obstruction of justice. answered on the question of obstruction ofjustice. but on the main point, he will believe, with some justification, main point, he will believe, with somejustification, that main point, he will believe, with some justification, that is true, that this two—year enquiry, this $25 million, 30 odd people indicted, three organisations indicted, four people going to jail, seven people pleading guilty, none of it amounts to be trump campaign or president trump actively colluding or coordinating with russia. so he will feel absolutely vindicated on that point today, and the report itself, by the look of it, and we will have to see exactly what it says when we see the version we get to see, but on the look of it so far, he can claim that with some confidence, i would think. so vindication perhaps on the matter of collusion, but as we have been discussing, still a

level of ambiguity over whether or not there was obstruction of justice. let's remind viewers and ourselves of what the attorney general william barr had to say about that. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election. but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. after finding no underlying collusion with russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. as i addressed in my march 24 letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorialjudgment

did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the president, and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offence. so, gary, we are talking about the fact we are going to have to read the report to find out more on mr mueller‘s reasoning on that whole issue of obstruction. but in the last few minutes, the chairman of the house judiciary committee said that the committee will actually subpoena robert mueller himself to come and give evidence. mr barr was asked directly if you had any objection to that, and he said no. what do you think the committee will actually gain by hearing from mr mueller after they've read through the port? what more could he possibly add that is not in the report? it is a good point, because in a sense, robert

mueller has been involved in the redacted of this report, and we assume that he agrees with the reductions that took place in conjunction with the department of justice. so in many ways, he will only be able to say what is actually in plain text already. he is certainly not going into the things behind it. buti certainly not going into the things behind it. but i don't think that. the committee wanting to probe his a nswe rs , the committee wanting to probe his answers, to probe some of his reasoning, perhaps to probe his reading of the law. the big constraint on robert mueller, of course, will be that he is still an employee of the department of justice. he does not particularly enjoy independent status, he will still be subject to doj rules, i will not be sure about this, but he may even be subject to doj approval for what he can and cannot say. but there will certainly be constraint on what he can say. so i am not surprised they want to robert mueller, but it will be a question of how much they actually can get

out of him. don't forget also, that william barr has got two days of capitol hill testimony ahead of him at the beginning of may. you know that he is a consummate performer in front of those committees. we saw him last week, one day when he was pretty straight, and then the second day, launched this huge hand grenade into the middle of the debate by describing what had happened to the trump campaign as political spying, announced that he had set up a task force to look into the way certain fbi agent had acted head of the election, and the granting of those secret warrants from the courts etc, so he knows how to handle those committees as well. i think, if you look at this today, the mueller report, when it lands in an hour, 400 pages of it, it's the end of something, but it is also the beginning of something, too, and democrats on the hill will ensure

that this carries on in some form or other for that this carries on in some form or otherfor some time to that this carries on in some form or other for some time to come yet. we certainly can expect that. but where does the conclusion of this two—year investigation and leave their own enquiries? well, there are a number of enquiries, don't forget. the other thing to bear in mind is that robert mueller was operating under a fairly limited mandate, a fairly limited set of guidelines, of terms of operation, etc. there are still other legal enquiries, legal investigations going on, for example in the southern district of new york. that is of course part of the department ofjustice, which is managed by the department of justice, but it has this sort of independent reputation, and of course, it does not have to do all those regular checks with the direction, the nature of its

investigations, that robert mueller had to do. he had to ask about indictments, he had to ask about certain prosecutorial steps and investigative steps, and had to go back and check that he could broaden his enquiry. the southern district of new york is not under those kind of new york is not under those kind of restraints, certainly at this point in time, and they are looking into all sorts of other areas of president trump's inaugural committees, some of his charities, his organisations, his finances. and thatis his organisations, his finances. and that is the sort of thing we know can really get under the president's skin. 0nce can really get under the president's skin. once you start delving into those sorts of materials. so the mueller aspect will continue in congressional terms, mueller aspect will continue in congressionalterms, i'm mueller aspect will continue in congressional terms, i'm sure, and there are also legal aspects that will carry on. and we still have the small matter of people like michael flynn, who has not yet been sentenced. indeed. gary o'donoghue, thank you very much indeed. we have

just heard from the attorney general william barr, who has given his reasons for deciding which parts of the report to redact, and he said they came into four categories, grandjury they came into four categories, grand jury evidence, which by law he is not able to divulge, reductions made by the intelligence community to protect their sources, and any information that would impede ongoing prosecutions, the enquiries and investigations that gary was just talking about. he also said that the report concluded that russia did interfere in the 2016 election campaign. but that no member of the trump campaign, the president himself, or any other american conspired, assisted or couuded american conspired, assisted or colluded with those efforts to interfere. neither did they conspire with any efforts to hack democratic party e—mails, information, or

disseminated to sources or websites and social media. so the top headline is, as mr trump persists tweeting, no collusion. however, on theissue tweeting, no collusion. however, on the issue of obstruction ofjustice, it is less clear. we will get the chance to read what mr mueller himself said about that when the report is released injust himself said about that when the report is released in just a few moments. back to you. the president did notjust moments. back to you. the president did not just tweet moments. back to you. the president did notjust tweet game over, he did what he has done before, he used game of thrones as the backdrop for that tweet, there it is, no collusion, no obstruction for the haters and the radical left democrats, game over. a predictably understated reaction to that report. now, i havejust sat understated reaction to that report. now, i have just sat through that, i am not sure i am any the wiser. what did you learn from it?”

am not sure i am any the wiser. what did you learn from it? i watched to see how the american public will read that, it was very carefully controlled, very cleverly scripted. people are going to want to read every word that they can, but for much of the public, it will seem like it is the case closed that there was no obstruction, but if you really listen carefully, the analysis of how barr came out deciding there was no obstruction when in fact, 22 months and mueller couldn't decide, said it was inconclusive. but barr's very clear legal language made it seem like it was case closed, but it clearly is not. he said, the special counsel report recounts ten episodes involving trump and evaluates whether they qualify as obstruction of justice. we whether they qualify as obstruction ofjustice. we do not know what those ten episodes are. no, we don't. he does so we did not agree

with the legal theory, but then he links it to that finding of no collusion. and there is a jumpy, that because there was no collusion, how could there be obstruction? and thatis how could there be obstruction? and that is a very significantjump, and again, if you are a member of the public, not a lawyer, you do not ca ptu re public, not a lawyer, you do not capture that nuance until people actually read the report. he said, evidence of non—corrupt motives ways against allegations that the presidents obstructed justice. —— weighs against. yes, it comes back to the conclusion that mueller did make, that there was no evidence of collusion, is what he is using to make as own determination about whether or not that was obstruction. in other words, if you fire your fbi director, does not actually obstruction because there was nothing that you are trying to hide because you want colluding. that is a very bigjump,

because you want colluding. that is a very big jump, and not one that actually... not one that mueller appears to have made himself. president trump said the whole russia thing was weighing on his mind when he did sack the fbi director. yes, and the other thing we saw barr say in this press conference is, of course this is a president who was under pressure even before he was inaugurated. he was angry, and there is a sense that barr is trying to compensate, to account for and explain why the president was perhaps less presidential than one might expect. the issue of redaction will come down to this, and i am assuming that the president and those who support and will say, the announcement that we are going to present an unredacted version of this to a bipartisan group should be enough. yes, there is a couple of things there. completely unredacted, there is still some clarity, some might be

redacted due to secrecy laws surrounding the grand jury, but committees can push back on that. it is also interesting that the president was allowed to see this before the public. we still haven't seen this report, but we had a news conference on it. it is bizarre. yes, which is a very effective way of controlling the narrative of andy report, which barr had already done several weeks ago when he released at four page statement. he walked out at the end when people push them and why robert mueller wasn't there. he did walk out, it was very carefully scripted. but he comes across as very carefully scripted. but he comes across as very reasonable, and it really does, if you're just following those headlines, it does look like that is nothing there. and i think the risk now is that, as congress takes it and pushes back,

and a member we also have a trump report coming from trump, responding to the question of obstruction, but as congress pushes back, as those democrats really push back, the risk that the american public will react badly to that, they will see the democrats is going down a rabbit hole unnecessarily and getting on the way of moving forward with their agenda, which is significant, i think. finally, what we do know is that before it is released in 45 minutes' time, there are two groups of people who will be really analysing it. one is the reporters on every us network, every newspaper, they will go through it word by word. as is the white house, who will presumably already be working on it is because they have seen it. but if by the end of today, there is nothing, the president is clear, isn't he? there is not going to be nothing, because this is a 400 page report in which an independent counsel, after 22 months, couldn't

make a determination that there was not obstruction, so there is clearly enough by way of detail that is going to be upsetting for the president, we are told that former members of his staff have said things he is unlikely to be happy about, that will not reflect well on him. the question is whether it is significant. and people will be looking at that very carefully. but whatever it is, it would be difficult to imagine 400 pages of absolutely nothing. if that had been the case, then mueller would have said there was absolutely no obstruction, and he has not said that. i know what you are doing for the next few hours! come back and talk to us when you have read the 400 page report. thank you very much. you are watching afternoon live. facebook is banning a dozen far right campaigners and organisations including the english defence league and britain first.

the company says those who spread hate have no place on its platform. the ban also applies to instagram. 0ur media editor amol rajan is following this story. so it's the british national party, or bnp, and nick griffin, britain first and its leader paul golding, and former deputy leader jayda fra nsen, it's the english defence league and its founder paul ray, a militant christian group called the knights templar international, and a promoter of it, jim dowson, the national front and its leader tony martin, and another hard right figure called jack renshaw. what they are being banned for, notjust on facebook but associated platforms like instagram, which facebook also owns, is specifically spreading hate on the basis of excluding people because of their ethnicity, or promoting violence or inciting people to violence, which of course is illegal. why is it happening now? well, i think the steady accumulation of pressure on facebook to stop the spread of poison on its platform has taken a toll. we are coming up to european elections, of course, and facebook want to be seen to be proactive about this stuff. they say, "you asked us to remove hate, "this is what we are now doing". but it is worth saying that this is taking facebook into very

uncomfortable territory. these are all things in the hard right, and a few years ago, facebook said it is not in the business of preventing free speech, it is not in the business of telling us what is true or not, and it wasn't a media company. today, it seems to be exercising subjective judgment on what people can and cannot say. we used to have a name for that, and it was called journalism. crossrail, the new underground railway line running east—west through central london, may not be finished until the spring of 2021, making it over two years behind schedule. the bbc has learned that none of the stations for the new line have been completed — and there are concerns about the signalling system. the project, which is the largest of its kind in europe, is also nearly £3 billion pounds over budget. 0ur transport correspondent, tom burridge, reports. this is why a new rail line is needed. even during easter holidays, the east to west rush hour is a squeeze. but now another warning for commuters that crossrail might still be some way off.

it doesn't surprise me, to be honest, because most things are delayed, aren't they? it's still good it's happening eventually, i guess, whenever that is. it sounds like a bit of a joke, doesn't it? if it's supposed to be done... december last year, it was supposed to open? when it finally gets here, yes, it will be a massive help to everyone who lives on either side of london. it is one of the most impressive engineering projects in modern times. a new high—tech, high capacity rail line underneath central london. but a senior source associated with crossrail has told bbc news that this railway may not be complete until the spring of 2021. with none of the new stations finished, a best case scenario, i'm told, is the spring of next year. the budget was £14.8 billion. after initial delays were announced, that rose to 17.6 billion. with another delay likely, that figure could rise again. there's so much uncertainty because software on the new trains, most of which sit idle, is still not fully compatible with signalling in the tunnel.

we are told marrying them up is proving much harder than was originally envisaged. the real key problems are physically building the stations, installing the miles and miles of cabling and cameras, things like platform doors which we don't often use on railways in this country, that's been a bigger problem than they thought. and adding to that mix, the delays in testing the trains. this is the first train that will run on the eastern overground branch of the new route... featured in a bbc documentary, the line will carry vast numbers of passengers from east to west. the initial delay was only made public last summer, just weeks before the line was supposed to open. crossrail says testing of the trains and signalling is progressing well. it's finalising a new plan to deliver the opening at the earliest opportunity, and will make an announcement later this month. but, even to the untrained eye, paddington station is far from finished, and with other rail sources telling me a two—year

delay is on the cards, much will depend on how much progress is made in the coming months. the first people to be charged in connection with this week's climate change protests have appeared in court. three people have pleaded not guilty for obstructing trains at canary wharf station in east london. the protests, which have disrupted parts of central london and other cities during the week, have continued, with major intersections in the capital blocked. activists say they want the government to drastically speed up their targets for reducing carbon emissions. all three have been remanded in custody. well, a number of bridges and routes in central london continue to be blocked by protesters. and some commuters are showing their frustration at the delays. let's take a look at one confrontation on vauxhall bridge a little earlier. i'm glad of this opportunity. what, to obstruct half a million

people doing their job? half a million londoners... it's not disruptive... carbon emissions are going up. this is doing nothing... what yourjob? what's myjob? i've worked as a civil servant... where are you going right now? i'm going to a meeting. and i'm having to walk here, and it's taking me longer... you're taking a lot of time... because i pay my taxes, and i think it's outrageous that the police force, under sadiq khan and cressida dick... i pay my taxes, too, and i'm grateful... well, because you probably don't believe in law and order. you think that people should be able to disrupt and block a major bridge. this is not a legitimate protest. do you think this is a legitimate protest? i actually... don't forget — you can let us know what you think tweet us using the hashtag #afternoonlive. time for a look at the weather. here's tomasz. warming up, clearly. warmest day of the year so far, one of them back in february. slain the

high teens, at heathrow. just north of brighton, 23 celsius. but back in february, 21.2. now, that was extraordinary. that really was out of this world, it's the first time we had a temperature on record above 20 celsius in the winter months. so that was completely and utterly out of this world. however, what we have got right now is... it's not that unusual, we get temperatures into the 20s this time of the year, and the 20s this time of the year, and the good news is that it is time a womanjust in the good news is that it is time a woman just in time for easter, and the good news is that it is time a womanjust in time for easter, and i think by saturday, we could get temperatures of around the mid 20s. compare that with some of our destinations in the mediterranean. i mean, that is miserable, 10 celsius in istanbul! even malaga in the south of spain is nowhere near. nowhere near as warm as we are. i

don't know what to say to all those people who have gone away on holiday. they don't know, they are not watching! warm currents of air, usual story, the warm air comes from the south rather than anyone else. it is coming from two directions, the azores just down off the edge of the azores just down off the edge of the screen, warm air coming out of the screen, warm air coming out of the continent. and i will show you what is rightly happening in the mediterranean, because it is quite a bit colder there. this is the jet stream, going round scandinavia, and if you squint, it is very fit, but you can just pick out the bit of the jet stream is coming in from the north across the balkans, so you could come some of these cool blue two year. and the jet stream across the middle east. itjust shows, it is all down to the jet stream, as we a lwa ys is all down to the jet stream, as we always say. 0ver is all down to the jet stream, as we always say. over the coming few days, important for people, they do not have to go to work, so they

might appreciate the weather more. fine evening, fine out there, lots of clear whether. this time of the evening, or are really warm during the afternoon, the nights can still be pretty chilly, quite still long, and we could get temperatures down to low single figures, three or four celsius in some parts of the country. tomorrow morning starting on sunday, and the sun is very powerful, as powerful as the end of the summer. and the temperatures will rapidly rise, shooting up from five, six, seven celsius early in the morning to around 20 to celsius just a few hours later, so you will really notice those temperatures rise. saturday, will be beautiful, temperatures getting up to around 24, mid—even 25 celsius. the record

for the uk as a whole, this time of year, 29 celsius. we are not expecting that, but it does get warmer this time of year. but not impossible that we could break some local records in the uk this weekend. in wales, chapters up to around 23 or 24 celsius, the local record in wales 26th for this time of year. into monday, easter monday, temperatures and just slightly lower, i don't think you will notice a difference, bubbly down into the lows rather than mid 20s. a prolonged spell of warm weather, a good few days of this fine weather. let's enjoy it while we can, if this is the kind of thing you like.

this is bbc news —

our latest headlines. the us attorney general says the long—awaited mueller report has found no collusion by the trump campaign in russian illegal activities. but he says it has highlighted 10 incidents of potential obstructions ofjustice. the report will be published shortly. the report recounts ten episodes involving the president and looks at the legal theories regarding those activities in relation to any obstruction offence. facebook bans 12 far—right individuals and organisations in britain, saying they have no place on its platform. as climate change protests continue in the capital, three people appear in court charged with obstructing public transport. now, you listen here. he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy! now, go away!

we will be marking the anniversary of monty python's life of brian. sport now on afternoon live, with will. alex mcleish's second spell as scotland head coach lasted jus 14 months. he came under increasing pressure after a poor start to the euro 2020 qualifiers. mcleish oversaw 12 matches, winning five and losing seven and his departure comes a month after scotland were humiliated 3—0 by kazakhstan and then recorded an pretty unconvincing 2—0 win over san marino, the world's lowest—ranked side. alastair lamont has more. a humiliation for the scotland national side, beaten three nothing by the side ranked 117th in the world. "3-0. kazakhstan, alex mcleish's waterloo. that crushing, demoralising defeat ended scotland's chances

of a successful qualification campaign before it had begun. some people would say that this kind of result is a sacking offence. i willjust continue to do myjob, and suffice to say, i'm not going to get drawn into that question. the question a little over a year ago, was whether the scottish fa had the right man. i can understand that opinion can be divided but it is up to me to try and get those guys on side. i am hoping the tartan army can come, i don't want to say forgive me, but i hope they can come around and say mcleish is right, he is the man for the job. but he got off to an inauspicious start, losing a friendly to scotland's old adversary, costa rica. five defeats followed in the next seven, the low point being a defeat in israel. and then of course, came the calamity in kazakhstan.

i think the knives were out after that kazakhstan result, which was a disgraceful performance. i think he has been dealt a difficult hand in terms of friendlies that he had initially. he wasn't my first choice, second choice manager, but eventually he was given the job. but now the same people that have offered it have taken it away from him. there has to be accountability from the sfa. maybe it is time they were on two—year contracts and we will see how their performance is. the sfa president, alan mcrae, was pivotal to mcleish's appointment. now he and the board must decide on how to replace him. i'm trying to find the odds forjose mourinho to become the next scotland manager. i am onlyjoking, of course, but gordon strachan, believe it or not, the former manager he is the favourite to replace him. david moyes is also being considered. steve clarke also joins that list.

so that is david moyes, steve clarke and gordon strachan. so good, worth naming twice! and english teams involved in the champions league tonight? yes, that is correct. arsenal first. they would have to go some to match last night at the etihad. arsenal head to napoli for their quarterfinal 2nd leg with a 2—0 advantage from the emirites. arsenal boss unai emery says they'll press for an away goal that would leave napoli needing to score four times and they will fancy reaching the last 4 given napoli's recent form. carlo ancelotti's side are stil 2nd in serie a but they've lost 4 of their last 10 in all competitions. and now chelsea... chelsea hold a 1—0 lead from last week's first leg at slavia prague who are are five points clear at the top of the czech republic's top flight with two games to play. chelsea are currently outside the premier league's top 4 spots and may have to win the europa league to qualify for next season's champions league.

this league, this year, a lot of times i have heard people talking that it has been a bad season but if we can reach the final and win the europa league top and finish any top fourin europa league top and finish any top four in the premier league, it could bea four in the premier league, it could be a remarkable season. that is where the must be. the ireland captain, rory best, has confirmed that he will retire from rugby union after this year's world cup. the ulster skipper has won 116 caps so far after making his debut in 2005. since succeeding paul 0'connell as captain 6 years ago, best led ireland to three six nations titles, including the grand slam last year. he says "this feels like the right time for me to go out on my terms". and finally, what about this for one of the shortest ever substitute appearances? of the shortest ever substitute

mattias 0zgun was instantly injured of the shortest ever substitute after being poked in the eye by his departing team mate in a swedish second tier game on tuesday. he was caught by the gloved thumb of the man he was replacing as they exchanged a pair of high fives. it isa it is a bit like a morecambe and wise sketch or the interactions that me and you have on this show! he genuinely had to come straightaway and they made third substitution. that was with nine minutes to go. i thought you would like that one. and idid thought you would like that one. and i did well, great to see you, thank you very much. let's get more now on the publication of the mueller enquiry into russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 us presidential elections. it'll be released in the next half an hour. but not long ago, the us attorney general william barr gave more details of robert mueller‘s findings into alleged collusion between russia and the trump campaign. here's what he had to say. as the special counsel report makes clear, the russian government sought to interfere in our election process, but thanks to the special

counsel's thorough investigation, we now know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign, or the known assistance of any other american for that matter. that is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. the special counsel report outlines two main efforts by the russian government to influence the 2016 election. first, the report details efforts by the internet research agency, a russian company with close ties to the russian government, to sow social discord among american voters through diinformation voters through disinformation and social media operations. following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the special counsel brought charges in federal court against several russian nationals and entities

for their respective roles in this scheme. those charges remain pending and the individual defendants remain at large. the special counsel found no evidence that any american, including anyone associated with the trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the russian government or the ira in this illegal scheme. indeed, as the report states, "the investigation did not identify evidence that any us person, knowingly or intentionally, coordinated with the ira's interference operation". put another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any americans in ira's illegal activities. mr barr said that even though the mueller report could not rule whether or not president trump obstructed justice, there were 10 episodes involving president trump that were scrutinised after nearly two years of

investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans concluded —— couudedin other americans concluded —— colluded in those efforts. after finding no underlying collusion with russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. as i addressed the end of my march 24 letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecuting judgment regarding this allegation. instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offence. after carefully reviewing

the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel, and other department lawyers, they deputy attorney general and i concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction ofjustice offence. and we will have much more on that and that report is supposed to be released in the next 20 minutes or so. for which we will return to washington. and now for something completely different! in honour of its 40th birthday, monty python's life of brian anniversary is getting a re—release, or should that be "we—welease" at cinemas? when it first came out, the comedy — which tells the story of one ofjesus's less holy contemporaries, brian — was highly controversial and banned in several countries. it's now widely considered to be one of the greatest comedy films of all time. we are nowjoined by monty python super fans john woods and gemma harris.

what do you love so much about it, john? well, it takes the seriousness out of life and makes you laugh. and, for me, when i see situations like that happening in real life, i think of a monty python sketch and it just makes me think of a monty python sketch and itjust makes me laugh. it makes life more fun. is that the thing, gemma, poking gentle fun at things? yes, you cannot take life too seriously sometimes and monty python does that. they take really tough situations and philosophies and they spin it and make it very light—hearted and humorous, so we try to think that we as well. at the

time, the idea of taking on monty python's life of brian, it was very controversial and seen as taking the mickey out of christ. yes, but that is untrue, they treated jesus very respectfully and they in parts of the film, especially the beginning, did not ridicule him at all. people who get upset about this mess understand christianity. that is one of the things. let us remind ours all of one of the funniest bits of this. crowd: show us the messiah! now, you listen here. he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy! now, go away! who are you? i'm his mother, that's who. behold his mother! hail to thee, mother of brian! blessed art thou, hosanna! all praise to thee, now and always! well, now, don't think you can get

around me like that. he's not coming out, and that's my final word. now, shove off! gemma, you are smiling broadly, how many times have you seen that film and that part? well, i have lost count, it still remains funny even now. and you, john? maybe four. and you met each other because of monty python, is that right? yes, it was a huge influence in my life. i met my first wife because of monty python because i was friends at school with a- because i was friends at school with a —fan, because i was friends at school with a — fan, that was how we met, i married his ex—wife. and then i got divorced and i decided that i wanted my next wife and girlfriend to be a fan of monty python so i set up a dating website set up to fans of monty python and that is how i found gemma. that was on facebook. the

first eight went quite well then? yes, john invited me to see spam a lot. he has seen that 19 times and then we went to the live shows at then we went to the live shows at the 02 and it has grown from there —— spamalot. right up to the moment i am about to show you right now. 0h! will you marry me? yeah. yay! congratulations! well done. that was a fabulous moment for both of you and that also included michael paling, one of the main people in monty python. and he was not the only one! —— palin.

people in monty python. and he was not the only one! -- palin. well, the most important thing is that she said yes. has the film dated, do you think? we were still belly laughing la st think? we were still belly laughing last night, we were still seeing things in it that we had not seen before. it is timeless, that is why it is so wonderful. the remarkable thing about this particular film is that it would not have been made without the backing of another big fan and that is george harrison. yes, he just wanted to see the film and he mortgaged his house.” yes, he just wanted to see the film and he mortgaged his house. i think that was described as the most expensive ticket you would ever get? and he is in it for a split second. gemma, iwant and he is in it for a split second. gemma, i want to show one more clip. if you are asked to bring a line from the life of brian, what do you think would be the moment? well, he is not the messiah, he is a very naughty boy is the most famous one, but i always likely, always look on the bright side of life, the last

song, that is quoted often. yes, thatis song, that is quoted often. yes, that is how to end a film. but what about this but, the romans! they've bled us white, the... they've ta ken everything we had, and notjust from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers! and from our fathers' fathers' fathers. yeah. and from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. yeah. all right, stan. don't labour the point. and what have they ever given us in return?! the aqueduct? what? the aqueduct. 0h. yeah, yeah. they did give us that. uh, that's true. yeah. and the sanitation. oh, yeah, the sanitation, reg. remember what the city used to be like? yeah. all right. i'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the romans have done. and the roads. well, yeah. obviously the roads. i mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? but apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads... irrigation. medicine. huh? heh? education.

all right. fairenough. and the wine. oh, yes. yeah, that's something we'd really miss, reg, if the romans left. public baths. and it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, reg. yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. let's face it. they're the only ones who could in a place like this. laughter. all right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the romans ever done for us? yes, this is timeless, that is why i love it so much. we are going to get married. when is it? it is the 5th of october which coincides with the first episode from 50 years ago. the 50 fine adversary of — it sell. we are getting married in a fairy tale location down in sussex. it will be heavily themed, by the way.”

location down in sussex. it will be heavily themed, by the way. i am not surprised. thank you, lovely to meet you both. we all need a bit of laughter, don't we? around 55,000 children in england have been moved between schools without explanation, suggesting difficult pupils are being deliberately removed, according to an education think—tank. the education policy institute looked at cases where pupils changed school without moving home. almost a quarter of the moves took place in 330 secondary schools. the government says it's illegal to exclude or remove children for academic reasons. here's our education correspondent sean coughlan. the education policy institute has been examining the numbers of children moving between secondary schools. it says over five years there have been 55,000 moves which are unexplained. almost a quarter of these cases were concentrated in 230 schools. these are cases where pupils have moved to a different school without an explanation, such as their families moving to another part of the country. emma parker's sonjames has autism

and she believes his school tried to remove him because they could not accommodate his condition. due to james' complex needs he had several exclusions between the october and the december, based around his ability to communicate. in january the school called a meeting and decided they would prefer me to manage, move him to a different school. the researchers at the education policy institute said part of the shuffling of pupils around is caused by schools wanting to take pupils off their rolls and the report says it often affects the children needing the most help. it really matters because it's affecting the most vulnerable pupils in our schools today and it is happening in a relatively small number of schools where this kind of behaviour is taking place, and we need to really understand what's driving that behaviour. is it accountability from government? is it funding pressures or are schools generally struggling to meet the needs of our most vulnerable pupils?

head teachers leaders say there is an uncomfortable reality, that some schools could be trying to off—roll pupils they say there are also many legitimate reasons why parents might move children to a different school. the department for education said schools are not allowed to remove pupils on the basis of academic results and that any school which did was breaking the law. sean coughlan, bbc news. rebecca is here — she will have the latest business news. first a look at the headlines on afternoon live. the us attorney general says the long awaited mueller report has found no collusion by the trump campaign in russian illegal activities. but he says it has highlighted 10 incidents of potential obstructions ofjustice. facebook bans 12 far—right individuals and organisations in britain, saying they have no place on its platform. as climate change protests continue in the capital, three people appear in court charged

with obstructing public transport. here's your business headlines on afternoon live... the shops were unexpectedly busy last month. latest figures from the country's official office for national statistics showed retail sales' takings rose in march — that wasn't what was expected. sales were 6.7% higher than a year ago — the biggest rise in two and a half years. it's all about the weather though — last year was the beast from the east and this march was rather nice weather—wise. the competition watchdog says the uk's "big four" accounting firms must ringfence auditing from their consultancy work. it reviewed the industry after accountants failed to spot business failures at the likes of carillion and bhs. regulators found pwc‘s lead auditor of bhs spent two hours on its 2014 audit and 31 hours on better paid non—audit work. lobby group, the city uk, said the plan made a good headline, but wouldn't improve things much.

and pinterest, the online picture scrap—book, hasjoined the us stock market today — and it is valued at over 12 billion dollars, and it's another one of those that has never made a profit. so another tech giant makes its debut on the stock market — how has it gone? yes, we are talking about pinterest, but i think a lot of people will not know much about it. do you? not really. it is described as an online scrapbook, i wanted some inspiration for some pots i was putting on my front doorstep and i looked at people more creative than i and since then i have been hunted from e—mails from pinterest suggesting more photos for front doorstep yard pots and so on. where do we go from

there? i think we should talk to michelle fleury who has been watching what is happening in new york. interesting that the shares have not listed yet, is that correct? well, what happens when you float on the new york stock exchange is that yesterday evening they priced, so in other words we learnt how much the company has raised and in actual fact, the shares are sold to professional investors for $19 apiece, given that the company was selling 75 million shares, that means it is on track to raise more than $1.4 billion, so about £1 billion. all of this, of course, now this morning, we are waiting to see where the shares start trading, even though the market is open here in the us. it usually takes a bit of time to kind of line up all the right amount of buyers and sellers, and that is why use tend to get the slight delay. it looks like the shares will begin trading at 23

dollars a share. that is a massive mark—up on the guidance we saw earlier, 20% or more than that? yes, what earlier, 2096 or more than that? yes, what is interesting here as there was a question about companies like pinterest do not actually make a profit. left was another what you would call a unicorn, a company that does not make money. since it went public in its shares have not done so public in its shares have not done so well, so far pinterest seems to be getting off to a strong start. people have said that the argument for this is that it is in the early stage of monetisation, that is really like to bandy around silicon valley, a fancy way of saying how they make money. it is from advertising and the company has said we have gone further to develop money from this. thank you very much for talking to us, michelle. we will keep you up—to—date with pinterest as it does indeed steady its feet. thank you very much. let us look ahead to the weekend. the easter weekend is almost here. it is set to

be one of the busiest weekends. shall i talk to simon or would you like to? i would like to catch up with him. so, simon, the airports, just how busy do we expect them to be? they are going to have record easter spells, that goes for gatwick, manchester, stansted, luton and edinburgh. as you have mentioned, the possibility of extinction rebellion protests at heathrow airport tomorrow, which could add to the stress. and it is going to be one of those days where if you get away on time, it is going to be terrific. however, once you get to europe, your problems may onlyjust be beginning, because a numberof onlyjust be beginning, because a number of bits of disruption in various places, such as, for example, strikes in spain, affecting aviation. at madrid you have got the

security were chris' strike, which has resulted security of up to 90 minutes, and that affects you more coming back. for anyone travelling on easter sunday or next wednesday the 24th of april, there is going to bea the 24th of april, there is going to be a ground staff strike involving 60,000 people. and that could have a serious effect. —— workers' strike. the spanish government has suggested that 45% of flights must operate, but that means that more than half possibly want. this is all sounding very torturous, simon. where are people actually trying to get to this easter, the popular destinations? there has been a really unusual easter in progress so far because so many people were worried about brexit and the various complications that a no—deal brexit would imply. there was definitely people not booking until the very la st people not booking until the very last minute, people had been booking outside of the eu to the likes of

egypt, tunisia and turkey, because they believe they will get certainty there and also, they hope, better value for money. but it is the usual suspects, spain particularly, portugal, malta, cyprus, greece and italy as well. and not forgetting lovely croatia, very nice at this time of year. the croats will be dou btlessly time of year. the croats will be doubtlessly very grateful for that. thank you very much for that, simon calder, the travel editor. time for the weather with tomasz schafernaker. it really is warming up. temperatures will climb into the 20s widely over the coming days. you can see just how widely over the coming days. you can seejust how quiet widely over the coming days. you can see just how quiet the weather is across see just how quiet the weather is a cross m ost see just how quiet the weather is across most of central and north—western europe. the uk has clear skies. sunshine in places and it will be on the hazy side. not exactly clear blue skies. in the afternoon, temperatures are hovering around the low 20s on the far south of the country, high teens for most of the country, high teens for most of usa of the country, high teens for most of us a little bit further north. and then a beautiful evening on the

way. this evening we have clear skies, the winds will continue to come in from the south, so that is a one direction. this time of the year of the temperatures do tend to drop, and that means by early on friday morning we could see temperatures around three, 4 degrees. this is good friday and the weather is looking smashing across the uk. a lot of fine weather around, little in the way of cloud at those temperatures could be that little bit higher, highs of 21 degrees in central scotland as well. goodbye.

i'mjane i'm jane o'brien live from the white house. in the next few minutes the mueller report into russian meddling and possible collusion will be released. the two—year investigation has found no collusion by members of the trump campaign or the president. the us attorney general william barr has already spoken. this was his conclusion. there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. we will bring you the key points from the report live from washington.

hello and welcome. in the next few minutes we will get to read the mueller report for ourselves. however, donald trump already has his headline, tweeting several times, no collusion, and in the last half an hour, game over. the game may not be over for democrats who have already said they want to hear from mr mueller himself and also criticised attorney general william barr who in the last few minutes was giving his assessment of the report and his reasons for saying that he didn't think donald trump was guilty of obstructing the investigation. let's cross live to gary o'donoghue in the washington bureau. this was significant but do you think democrats will be satisfied with william barr's conclusions on obstruction? of course not. they will absolutely hate it. they

believe that the attorney general in a sense is doing the president's work here, but he's not operating as an independent law officer in that sense, independent within the executive. they believe that's why he was brought in. some of the things he's done have only reinforced their view of him in that light, particularly, of course, sending out that 4—page summary and drawing the conclusion that robert mueller didn't draw, that the president hadn't obstructed justice. that's one leap they are not happy with. they are also not happy with the fact that there is going to be redactions in the report. they believe it should be published in full and they may try and do that, or get hold of that at least for some congressional members via a subpoena. and they also believe that william barr having this press conference this morning is, in a sense, an attempt to help the white house shape the narrative before the

document drops in the next few minutes, as we expected. during that press co nfe re nce minutes, as we expected. during that press conference he gave a pretty sympathetic reading of these ten insta nces sympathetic reading of these ten instances that robert mueller looked at that were connected with allegations of obstruction of justice, and effectively says, "look, the president was frustrated, he was angry, he thought people were trying to undermine his presidency, and there was no collusion," and in effect saying that's why it may have looked a bit like obstruction of justice. he did paint an extraordinary picture of a president under extraordinary stress, an unprecedented situation. let's listen to what william barr had to say on that issue of whether or not the president attempted to obstruct the president attempted to obstruct the investigation. i am sure that all americans share my concern about the efforts of the russian government to interfere in our presidential election. as the special counsel report makes clear

the russian government sought to interfere in our election process but thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation we now know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the have the cooperation of president trump orthe trump have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign. or the knowing assistance of any other american for that matter. 0k, knowing assistance of any other american for that matter. ok, that was william barr talking about collusion and the fact that the robert mueller investigation found that there was no collusion by the trump campaign orthe that there was no collusion by the trump campaign or the president. gary, this is of course what the president has been saying all along. is there anything that the white house might be worried about when this report finally is released in full? well, if you are talking about the collusion coordination issue, of course, as we understand it, he's been cleared of that. there are still some questions that hang

around the edges of that, of course. namely, things like the trump tower meeting in june 2016. namely, things like the trump tower meeting injune 2016. we know because it's on the record that that was dangled as a way of russia, or people in russia, passing information to the trump campaign. dirt was the word used. dirt on hillary clinton. and we know, for example, that donald trump hillary clinton. and we know, for example, that donald trumer said that if it is what you say it is i love it. people will be asking questions about, how did that not result in any investigations? as far as we know donald trump result in any investigations? as far as we know donald trumer wasn't questioned by the special counsel. there is certainly no public indictment of him for that. people will be saying, what was that all about? conspiracy, coordination, whatever you want to call it, doesn't have to be successfully achieved in order to be charged. so, what was the reasoning in the mueller investigation for that not

becoming a big deal? things like that people will ask, they will ask about the passing of polling data, the internal polling data from the campaign chairman paul manafort who of course is going to prison to that former military intelligence officer. what was that all about? why wasn't that regarded as sufficiently serious to take further by the mueller report, despite the fa ct by the mueller report, despite the fact that i think he himself is under indictment by the special counsel, but why weren't members of the trump campaign indicted on those issues because paul manafort wasn't. so there are issues to clear up around that. and on the obstruction issue itself, these ten instances, we were told we know about some of these publicly and of course we do. you will remember lester holt interviewing donald trump and him saying he fired james comey because of the russia thing. that wasn't the public explanation forjames comey‘s

firing at the time at all, it was about his handling of the hillary clinton investigation during 2016. we know about those. but there will be others we don't know about, several instances, at least, that we think we don't know about, that looked like, or potentially looks like obstruction ofjustice. william barr has done a good job of closing this down. let me read you a line from his statement which says there is substantial evidence to show... before you do that, gary, we have just heard that the report has been delivered to congress, so a lot of lawmakers are going to be able to read right now what robert mueller has actually said without william barr's interpretation. as you say there are lots of interpretations and they will not be able to read the whole thing because there are redactions. let's listen to what william barr said about the reasons he decided to omit some of the

information. given the limited nature of the redactions, i believe the publicly released report will allow every american to understand the results of the special counsel's investigation. nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available subject to appropriate safeguards to a bipartisan group of leaders from several congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to the grand jury information. thus, these members of congress will be able to see all of the redacted materialfor congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared. so, gary, the attorney general they are saying that by law he is not allowed to include some of the information that could be pertinent to ongoing investigations or grand jury information. are democrats likely to get any more of that information?

well, you heard the two exceptions. the other categories they will be able to see is the stuff that relates to intelligence matters, and also this rather general phrase he had about damaging people's reputations. in other words, had about damaging people's reputations. in otherwords, people who were looked at but not indicted, or cleared, and there is a risk of damaging high—profile reputations, they won't get to see that. don't forget thatjerry nadler, the chair of thejudiciary forget thatjerry nadler, the chair of the judiciary committee forget thatjerry nadler, the chair of thejudiciary committee in the house, a democrat, he has a subpoena in his pocket already authorised by his committee to ask the doj for the full unredacted report, without even those extra bits redacted that the attorney general was talking about there. he could fire that off at any moment. then there is a whole legal process that could end up in the courts. and also if you look forward from here we have these set piece... gary, we are going to go over to mr

trump now. he is at the white house. let's hear what he has to say. there never was, by the way, and there never was, by the way, and there never will be. and we do have to get to the bottom of these things, i will say, and this should never happen. i say this in front of my friends, wounded warriors, and i just call them warriors, because we just call them warriors, because we just shook hands and they look so good, so beautiful, but i say it in front of my friends, they should never happen to another president again. this hoax. this should never happen to another president again. thank you. with us on stage today are the wounded warriors from the air force, the army, navy, the coast guard, national guard and the marine corps. each of you is a living testa m e nt corps. each of you is a living testament the outstanding determination, persistence and patriotism that made this the greatest nation ever to exist on the face of the earth. and as you know,

we are spending... president trump they are taking the first opportunities had to address this report following the attorney general william barr's conclusion that we heard about an hour ago, saying that this should never happen to another president again and calling the mueller enquiry once againa calling the mueller enquiry once again a hoax. that has been his recurring refrain throughout this entire two year investigation and also called it a witchhunt. gary, would you like to expand on that a bit because as i said, mr trump has been very clear from the beginning that he disapproved of this and that's one of the questions the mueller report looked into, whether or not he did try to shut down this investigation because he believed it wasn't warranted. yes, it was one of the things that robert mueller asked for his remit to be expanded in order to look at, if you remember, at the time. this question of abstraction. we learned this morning

there are these ten instances that there are these ten instances that the mueller report will look at, people will go over those in detail. some of them we already know about. asi some of them we already know about. as i mentioned before, the interview with lester holt where he said he fired james comey because of the russia thing when that wasn't the actual official reason. some of them we don't know about, and people will wa nt to we don't know about, and people will want to know what happened there. in his defence, if you like, this morning the attorney general said there was substantial evidence to show the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency. in a sense, trying to explain why, perhaps, some of the things he did looked like an attempt at obstructing justice. that is something the white house will be pleased about. we are getting some other comments that are being reported from what he said at the time, which if you will bear with us we will come back to those a bit later when we have looked at them in

more detail. there is some fairly colourful language, let me put it that way, describing the president's reaction at the time of the appointment of the special counsel. which would, in a sense, back up this whole idea that he believed this whole idea that he believed this was a serious threat, a very serious threat to his presidency before it had even got going. gary o'donoghue, thank you forjoining me. i want to cross to david who has been following this. david, have you managed to read the report in its entirety, it is 400 pages single you haven't, surely. no, i'mjust reading the highlights as i have been listening to your coverage right now, i think it's going to be a long read. i think so. right now, i think it's going to be a long read. ithink so. iwas right now, i think it's going to be a long read. i think so. i was going to say, what have you gleaned so far. what are the highlights for you? i'm looking at the obstruction piece of this, because, we know that

from the beginning there was no conspiracy, at least, found. but the question has been obstruction of justice because even in that initial finding, the summary from william barr, it was revealed that mueller did not want to rule on obstruction of justice and did not want to rule on obstruction ofjustice and now we know there are ten areas he looked at and if there are disagreements between attorney general william barr and robert mueller to the extent of potential obstruction. but reading from the report, this is from the actual mueller report that has just been filed, it says evidence indicates the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. that's why he fired comey but the evidence does not establish a determination if he was determined to cover up a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. to me that's a very key line that i think the president and his tea m that i think the president and his team is going to hold onto and point to why obstruction ofjustice was

not brought against him. that really is interesting, and it's also worth mentioning that the decision to bring any criminal charges does rest with the attorney general, doesn't it? it is his discretion. he decides whether any of this meets the bar for a criminal prosecution and whether it would indeed be successful. however, as we both know, the political situation is somewhat different, even though it might settle the legal question, is this going to settle the politics? i know you are going to say no. right, but i would also point out that mueller could have made a recommendation to the attorney general regarding obstruction of justice. he decided just to not make a recommendation, not to say the president obstructed justice but not exonerate him either. so basically, yes, he's kicking the ball to congress who is now reading this report, i'm sure, just as the world is, and you are going to have a political fight now on whether the

president's firing of james political fight now on whether the president's firing ofjames comey and any of these other instances were, in their eyes, obstruction of justice, so then it gets kicked to congress. i think we will have different opinions between the democratic leadership who is already asking mueller to testify in the republican leadership, who is going to say, let's move on, we've got to move on to issues and put this to bed. but are they going to put it to bed? because, bed. but are they going to put it to bed ? because, they bed. but are they going to put it to bed? because, they do have a lot of pressure from the progressive wing of their party and their own base that really want to see impeachment. how difficult is it going to be to move on from this? i think in the initial instance it's going to be difficult to move on because nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have already called on bob mueller to testify on capitol hill and that's going to prolong this. that is going to mean he is likely going to be on capitol hill in the coming weeks testifying about this report. so i don't think it's going away. we have lived with this thing for two years andi lived with this thing for two years and i think we are going to live

with it for at least another few months and into the 2020 presidential campaign. i would say, though, there is a political risk for democrats to kick this ball too far down the road. there has been polling that showed americans want to move on and say that congress should be dealing with issues rather than the mueller report, but i do think in fairness there needs to be a vetting. remember, we have only had this for a few minutes, it is fairto had this for a few minutes, it is fair to say that congress is going to ta ke fair to say that congress is going to take some time on this, dive into the report, especially democrats who have oversight authority. they are going to dive into this, they are going to dive into this, they are going to dive into this, they are going to want to dig into these ten insta nces going to want to dig into these ten instances that were looked at regarding obstruction ofjustice, and then i think you will see bob mueller on the hill and then there has to be a point in time that democrats will have to choose whether to move on or not. i don't think they will move on in the immediate future. where does this

leave their own investigations? although the mueller report and investigation may be concluded, of course, there are still many investigations still being done by congress and others in other courts, spin offs from this investigation. right. | spin offs from this investigation. right. i think this could provide supplemental material to those other investigations. remember, this focused on... it does not seem like a narrow piece but this only focused on potential conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. we have so many other investigations that are happening by the southern district of new york looking into the president's finances, looking into the president's tax returns. we can see a court battle that's going to be coming on that, democrats setting a deadline, and when they wa nt to setting a deadline, and when they want to see the president's taxes. there is a continuous investigation into the trump inauguration, how money was raised and spent during the president's inauguration. so, all of those investigations are

going to continue, although we know this is the investigation that consumed most of america's time and mindset on whether the president conspired, or "colluded" with russia. so even if that question is laid to rest, that doesn't mean those other investigations are going away, and there could be information in these 400 pages which we do not know yet that could supplement investigations that are already taking place by democrats, and could open up more questions but wejust don't know yet. david catanese, thank you for now. gary, i want to bring you back in. what has been the reaction from democrats so far? let me bring you a couple of incredible lines from the report, if i made first, jane. we are learning firstly, for example, on the question of michael calvin and whether or not trump asked him to lie to congress, the special counsel said there is no evidence that he did that. --

said there is no evidence that he did that. —— michael cohen. that was in relation to the trump tower project in moscow where michael cohen said to congress that the contact ended in january cohen said to congress that the contact ended injanuary of the election year and in fact it went intojune. election year and in fact it went into june. but listen election year and in fact it went intojune. but listen to this, this is from page 78 of the report talking about the moment that president trump was told that they would be a special counsel investigation, told by his attorney generaljeff sessions. it says this. "the president slumped back into his chairand said, "oh, "the president slumped back into his chair and said, "oh, my god, "the president slumped back into his chairand said, "oh, my god, this "the president slumped back into his chair and said, "oh, my god, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency. i'm, and some strong language, i'm in some strong language," the president became angry and lambasted the attorney generalfor angry and lambasted the attorney general for accusing angry and lambasted the attorney generalfor accusing himself from the investigation stating, "how can you let this happen?"" extraordinary scene if you can imagine that at the moment. in may of 2017 he isjust three months into his presidency and has had to fire his fbi director,

his attorney general, who he believes is loyal, has recused himself and appointed this special counsel, or has been appointed, and he sees his presidency is mortally wounded at that stage, which in a sense backs up what we heard from william barr this morning about the way the president behaved in those early months. that's gary o'donoghue there in washington. i want to pick up there in washington. i want to pick up on what we have been hearing. listening to what gary said it is a stark contrast from the mood of the news co nfe re nce stark contrast from the mood of the news conference a short time ago. suddenly there does seem to be something that the public mightjust think is not right here. you know, i'm surprised. this report came out

a couple of minutes ago, in fact, while i was here with you guys. so i'm onlyjust going through it. however, there is more information than i expected. we did know that they were going to be like to reactions, that's what the washington post reported, but so far skimming this report it goes far beyond what i thought. for instance, simon, we knew the attorney general was going to redact information regarding uncharged individuals, however, giving this report a quick look we are seeing information about those individuals, people like jared kushner, people like george nader, names that have previously surfaced but people as far as we know were not charged in this investigation. i happen to think that at least volume one of the report which deals more with the russian measures happens to look a lot like the house intelligence committee report that came out about a year ago, and so outlining the different measures that the russians took. and then of course, as your colleague said a

moment ago, the information about present trump and his response to the special counsel launching its probe, very detailed, giving those really restrictive quotes that your colleague cited, it is really a lot more detail than i was expecting.” wa nt to more detail than i was expecting.” want to pick up on the conversation with jeff sessions, want to pick up on the conversation withjeff sessions, then the attorney general, who gary was talking about. uniformed trump that a special counsel had been appointed. he slumped back in his chairand said, my appointed. he slumped back in his chair and said, my god, this is terrible, the end of my presidency. he knew something was up. terrible, the end of my presidency. he knew something was upm terrible, the end of my presidency. he knew something was up. it such an amazing scene. know that mueller interview to the fbi director of the previous day, obviously special counsel was then named the next day and we know that trump then... really this was a defining moment of the trump presidency, that's what i've always thought, and now we have confirmation of that, trump a's relationship with thejustice department would never be the same and trump ‘s relationship withjeff

sessions, the attorney general, certainly would never be the same, he would go on to really lambast the attorney general for months for months and months, at one point he would say i have no attorney general, so it was really a pivotal moment and i'm surprised that such detail is in the report. how much trouble, having gone on twitter, as he normally does, used the game of thrones slogan and said game over. it is not yet, by the look of this. that's the sort of messaging that trump and his surrogates in the white house and in his campaign for 2020 are going to be pushing today. i spoke with a trump surrogate who goes on tv often and he said the message he is going to have today is it doesn't matter if there were the sort of embarrassing details of the one that we just spoke about, all that matters is the overall conclusion, and that's no coordination, no obstruction, and i think there is some truth to that. however, the democrats and

congressional investigators are going to be going through these 400 pages with a fine tooth comb and they are going to be looking for whatever they can to help their own investigations, and there are several of them. mueller had a very specific mandate with regard to russia, but the democrats in congress are looking way beyond that. just looking at the news conference with william barr earlier, bizarre having a news conference about a report nobody has yet seen. he walks out of it because they are going where is mr mueller, he is not here, and that's a question many people are asking. i've spoken with the attorney general‘s family members, i have spoken with people who worked under him when he was previously attorney general. everyone tells me the same thing they tend to say about people like rod rosenstein and mueller and evenjames like rod rosenstein and mueller and even james comey, that these like rod rosenstein and mueller and evenjames comey, that these people are straight shooters, they are long—time prosecutors. even if they are political appointees, that doesn't necessarily mean that they

loyalties lie too close to the president. all that said, i was surprised he was holding this presser, democrats were surprised and criticised him for it and try to get it cancelled. with former fbi directorjames comey who is known to have these kinds of press conferences and got in trouble for them, he was known to be this kind of transparent figure, and that was how he ran the fbi. bill barr isn't necessarily known for that, so the fa ct necessarily known for that, so the fact he had it was surprising but now it is over and done with and now it is on to the report. max, as far as the american public are concerned, they are not as obsessed with the detail that you and the journalists going through this report are, and the gamble that the president is taking is that because they are not obsessed with the detail, the overall message is the one that matters and for him at the moment that is a favourable one. he is right in that, isn't he? yes, democrats are not going to like

that. i saw one big trump critic last night still tweeting the hashtag trump colluded, so they will continue with that, and they know the democratic lawmakers in congress wa nt to the democratic lawmakers in congress want to see not only the unredacted report but also want to see the underlying evidence. they also want william barr to testify, they want mueller to testify. moments ago the housejudiciary mueller to testify. moments ago the house judiciary committee formally requested that mueller testify by late may, so they are not going to be satisfied for a while. but i think i can objectively say that trump in 2020 is going to have a lot of ammunition. he is going to say, look, i told you so, i said it was a witch hunt, it was a hoax, no collusion, no obstruction, and the general conclusion of this report, even with those embarrassing details, is that he is correct. max, really good to talk to you. max kutner joining really good to talk to you. max kutnerjoining us from new york, thanks very much.

so to recap on our breaking story coming out of the states this afternoon. the report into possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia has finally been released. some of the main points: it found the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the russian government, and individuals associated with trump's campaign, but there was not sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. the mueller investigation did not find enough evidence to charge any trump campaign official as an unregistered agent of the russian government. 0n the question of obstruction, it found that when james comey disclosed the investigation to congress, trump repeatedly asked the white house counsel to intervene with the justice department. and it found evidence that trump intended paul manafort to believe he could get a pardon after he was jailed. we have been joined by bruce ackerman, a professor of law and political science at yale university. ijust wonder what i just wonder what you make of what seems to be coming out at the moment and whether it seems to exonerate the president in the way he seems to think it does. the thing that concerns me most is the precedent

being established and how we will look upon this 20 years from now. both the united states and the united kingdom are in moments of extraordinary constitutional crisis. 20 years from now, how are british people going to look back at what's going on in the uk? will they conclude that referenda are the worst thing in the world? or will they conclude that on important matters of fundamental significance we always ought to have a referendum? similarly, in the united states, obstruction ofjustice is at the core of impeachable offences. it was at the core of richard nixon's impeachment and he would have been impeached for obstruction ofjustice had he not resigned. it was at the

co re had he not resigned. it was at the core of bill clinton's impeachment. the question is not... we are going to see many things happening over the next months and years. but if at the next months and years. but if at the end of the day obstruction of justice after we look at the record and carefully examine it, and see whether there really is substance to it, and! whether there really is substance to it, and i am not in any position to comment upon that now. it would take me several days to go over the record, not several hours. but we have heard... forgive me, professor, but we have heard from bill barr the attorney general who says there were ten episodes they looked at in terms of obstruction, and there was no motive, he said, for obstruction and therefore there was no obstruction. are you convinced by that?

of data i have not the slightest idea. we have to be carefully going through the record page by page, sentence by sentence, examining evidence. that is what you are supposed to do. it is a matter of the greatest importance. if this president is established then the president is established then the president after president trump, when he engages in activities that put himself above the law he will point to the outcome of this process. we are right in the middle of it. the question is not whether president trump or patricia may get a victory over the next two days are two weeks. the question is after all is said and done and with people

acting seriously and responsibly should the president be understood to have done really a fundamental role downright wrong and a fundamental abuse of power or not. that is different from whether he should be impeached and out of office. i think that would be unwise. but the judgment of the american people will be rendered in the election of 2020 on the basis of this being a crucial issue. but not before, this is the point. that is correct, not before, and that is as it should be. it is the american people, just as in the case of the british people, who will have to decide what to make of this crisis.

and that it is a crisis of the first order. there have been examples in the past of our 200 year history in the past of our 200 year history in the uk. the parliament act of 1911 was a the uk. the parliament act of 1911 wasa similar the uk. the parliament act of 1911 was a similar response to a fundamental crisis like the one you are confronting today in the uk. it should be resolved by the next election or two. this will be a central issue, as it should be, and president trump is entirely within his rights to try to defend his conduct as under all the circumstances are appropriate or at least not so grievously inappropriate as to warrant general condemnation and of course his critics will say the reverse, based upon evidence as well as passion.

there will be much passion that is already being displayed. but it is up already being displayed. but it is up to in particular the house of representatives both sides, democrats and republicans, to seriously have hearings, make findings, consider the record in a deliberate fashion. the deliberation and thoughtfulness is particularly required at moments of constitutional crisis. easier said bya constitutional crisis. easier said by a professor sitting at yale university to be sure. at the american people will respond to that as well as passion. there is talk about polarisation is overstatement. americans are genuinely concerned about the constitutional future of their country. it is great to have you on the programme. thank you for

your time. thank you. what does the president think? he has been tweeting. the first tweet was with a game of thrones feel. game over, no collusion, no obstruction. but is it? people are still going through that report line by line and as we were hearing earlier some rather remarkable moments being described, the moment when he heard there was a special council being appointed when he said in words i cannot repeat here but along the lines of my presidency is over, his shock at that announcement. we will have much more injust a moment. this is bbc news. our latest headlines: the long awaited mueller report

into russian interference in the us 2016 election has been published in the last half hour. the us attorney general says the inquiry found no collusion by the trump campaign in russian illegal activities. but he says it has highlighted ten incidents of potential obstructions ofjustice. the report recounts ten episodes involving the president and looks at the legal theories regarding those activities in relation to an obstruction offence. president trump responded to the publication in a ceremony at the white house. iam i am having a good day. no collusion, no obstruction. facebook bans 12 far—right individuals and organisations in britain, saying they have no place on its platform. as climate change protests continue in the capital, three people appear in court charged with obstructing public transport.

so, to recap on our breaking story coming out of the states this afternoon. the report into possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia has finally been released. some of the main points: it found the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the russian government, and individuals associated with trump's campaign, but there was not sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. the mueller investigation did not find enough evidence to charge any trump campaign officials as an unregistered agent of the russian government. 0n the question of obstruction, it found that when james comey disclosed the investigation to congress, trump repeatedly asked the white house counsel to intervene with the justice department. and it found evidence that trump intended paul manafort to believe he could get a pardon after he was jailed. let's speak now to christine pelosi, an elected member of the democratic national committee, and daughter of speaker of the house of representatives nancy pelosi.

i want to get your reaction to what you have heard so far from this report. i think the most striking thing we have heard is the definite conclusion that the government of russia attempted to hike the united states elections with the knowledge of the trump campaign. when we get the actual unredacted report on the testimony from robert miller down my mueller we will find out about that. what we will find that today is that we have very important votes coming up we have very important votes coming up in the fall of 2019 and we need to have a bipartisan plan to protect our votes so that they do not do that again. so the president might be taking a victory lap, members of congress are saying let's wait and see what mueller has to say but we do know today and what people over

the world should know is that russia wa nted the world should know is that russia wanted to influence the outcome of the 2016 united states presidential election in order to get sanctions lifted against putin and his business partners and that is very shocking and something which we all have to have a response to protect our election is going forward. with respect, we know around the world that russia is trying to influence many countries. we are aware of that here in the uk. what we are looking at here is whether there was collusion and then obstruction by a us president to try to cover that up. we know that that happened. the question was whether it rises to a criminal charge or crime or misdemeanour. we will have to look at the full report and hear from mr mueller himself. be clear, but we need,it mueller himself. be clear, but we need, it is one thing to know that

it isa need, it is one thing to know that it is a possibility that your elections can be hacked, it is another thing to say therefore we are going to act, therefore we are going to make sure we are protecting our software against hacking, protecting our communities against this manipulation, and most important, what did they do? step back for a minute. they said we have some dirt on hillary clinton that we can give donald trump that he can use in order to manipulate the outcome of the election and president 0bama said letters tell everybody to be of this manipulation injuly of 2016 and people said no and donald trump refused, in fact he was doing his infamous, russia, if you are listening, taunting. sanctity of an american system is

based on the sanctity of our elections. in december 2016 when i was a member of the electoral college, we called ourselves the hamilton electors after alexander hamilton electors after alexander hamilton who said we should be able to, we still need the evidence. news reports, redacted report is one thing, the full report is another, so we are not going to give up until we find that and until we change the laws to prevent that kind of activity happening again. criminal or not, it is immoral and undemocratic and un—american. or not, it is immoral and undemocratic and un-american. as far as president trump is concerned it is game over, he is in the clear. he is game over, he is in the clear. he is not quite in the clear because he has a number of people associated with his campaign who are still under active investigation. his chief financial officer is cooperating. a number of cases still pending. part of why the report was redacted was because they said there

was grand jury testimony that was going to be used against a number of trump associates. we still have not seen his tax returns to see what other motivations he could have. based on additional information the high ceilings and the senate hearings could lead to other charges for him. he is not in the clear. what he is is bragging about the fa ct what he is is bragging about the fact that he was able to manipulate once again the media and to reporting that he was in the clear and it is on the democrats and particularly candidates for president not to fall into that trap. each of them running, i do not have a favourite, but every american candidate running for president ought to be saying i reject foreign influence. if someone tries to offer my campaign stolen information about one of my opponents, donald trump or

another democrat, i am not going to use it. we have to make sure the behaviour of 2016 is not repeated because people deserve to know that their voices are going to count and their voices are going to count and their votes are going to be counted as cast and their personal private information will not be stolen and recognised and used against that. thank you. with me now is us political commentator and economist laurie laird. what do you make of what you have seen so far? donald trump says this is game over. you have to go with what he says. he says i have been exonerated. that is not mueller‘s words but i think the american people think this is game over. we can go on about the report. a lot of people are going through all 400 pages but what does this mean for 2020? will pages but what does this mean for 2020 ? will he pages but what does this mean for 2020? will he be re—elected?m means he gets to 2020. absolutely.

an investigation is pending, some of those will conclude after 2020 but there 14 investigations that mueller referred to could become important, ido referred to could become important, i do not think any of them will be resolved before 2020 but the question is whether it will turn off donald trump is whether it will turn off donald trump as my base? the opposite, it allows him to continue his narrative of a left—wing media trying to trap him. trying to change the american way. it plays into his hands. he says he is having a good day. no collusion, no obstruction, there never was and there never will be. we do have to get to the bottom of these things. that should never happen to another president again. william barr when he gave his press conference in to sympathiser fattened that surprised me a little bit. did he? he said this president has never undergone, no one has

undergone this kind of scrutiny, the trump campaign was very cooperative, the administration was cooperative, not quite, he dug like the president did not set down with william barr. i think the republicans are very concerned that people become complacent. the economy is in pretty good shape. will people come out and vote in the way they did in 2016? this will keep that narrative alive. the democrats need to do the same thing. they need to coalesce around the candidate and make sure their base grows as well. clearly from what the questions bill barr was facing, people are not totally clear about what it is that is actually being alleged in the first place. in terms of obstruction, which seems to be the process. back is leading us

towards abstraction, he ruled out collusion. he has leading us towards obstruction of justice collusion. he has leading us towards obstruction ofjustice and he said he did not have enough time to prove those things. congress may be able to do that. congress has to be very careful that they do as much legislation as they do investigation. it is important to remember we are very investigation. it is important to remember we are very into the story. we are following every turn of the story. most american voters are not. this is a washington story, new york story may be california. is that true? if americans believe, we select with nixon, once you lose the public support you have lost the presidency. donald trump has not lost public support yet. linking to things that seem obscure it comes down to the economy. people feel well today. they tend to attribute that to the president. if the economy turns down they will blame the president. right now they feel

pretty good. they are happy to say that trump has done this for me. if the economy turns down people stay away. 0n the democrat side had minorities voted in the same proportion in 2016 as in 2008 and 2012 we might be looking at a different person in the white house. it is who gets out and vote, no one changes their mind. as mueller wasted two years of his time? absolutely not. when we have a foreign actor meddling in an election we have two investigated. it doesn't have to be blamed on an administration member but knowing how russia operated is very important information. we had to know what happened. thank you. you're watching afternoon live, these are our headlines. the long—awaited mueller report into russian meddling in the 2016 us presidential election is published. the attorney general says it shows no evidence of collusion

from the trump campaign. facebook bans 12 far—right individuals and organisations in britain, saying they have no place on its platform. as climate change protests continue in the capital, three people appear in court charged with obstructing public transport. facebook is banning a dozen far right campaigners and organisations including the english defence league and britain first. the company says those who spread hate have no place on its platform. the ban also applies to instagram. 0ur media editor amol rajan is following this story. so it's the british national party, bnp, and nick griffin, britain first and its leader paul golding and former deputy leaderjayda fransen. it's the english defence league and its founding member paul ray, a militant christian group called the knights templar international and jim dowson who is a promoter of it.

the national front and its leader tony martin, and another hard right figure called jack renshaw. what they're being banned for, notjust on facebook but associated platforms like instagram, which facebook also owns, is specifically spreading hate on the basis of excluding people because of their ethnicity, or promoting violence or inciting people to violence, which is of course illegal. why is it happening now? well, i think the steady accumulation of pressure on facebook to stop the spread of poison on its platform has taken a toll. we are coming up to european elections, of course, and facebook want to be seen to be proactive about this. they say, you know, you asked us to remove hate, this is what we are now doing. it is worth saying this is taking facebook into very, very uncomfortable territory. these are all figures on the hard right and a few years ago facebook said it's not in the business of preventing free speech, it's not in the business of telling us what's true or not and it wasn't a media company. today, it seems to be exercising subjectivejudgement on what people can and can't say, and we used to have a name for that, and it was called journalism. crossrail, the new underground railway line running east—west through central london, may not be finished until the spring of 2021, making it over two

years behind schedule. the bbc has learned that none of the stations for the new line have been completed and there are concerns about the signalling system. the project, which is the largest of its kind in europe, is also nearly three billion pounds over budget. 0ur transport correspondent, tom burridge, reports. this is why a new rail line is needed. even during easter holidays, the east to west rush hour is a squeeze. but now another warning for commuters that crossrail might still be some way off. it doesn't surprise me, to be honest, because most things are delayed, aren't they? it's still good it's happening eventually, i guess, whenever that is. it sounds like a bit of a joke, doesn't it? if it's supposed to be done... december last year, it was supposed to open? when it finally gets here, yes, it will be a massive help to everyone who lives on either side of london. it is one of the most impressive engineering projects in modern times. a new high—tech, high capacity rail line underneath central london. but a senior source associated with crossrail has told bbc news

that this railway may not be complete until the spring of 2021. with none of the new stations finished, a best case scenario, i'm told, is the spring of next year. the budget was £14.8 billion. after initial delays were announced, that rose to 17.6 billion. with another delay likely, that figure could rise again. there's so much uncertainty because software on the new trains, most of which sit idle, is still not fully compatible with signalling in the tunnel. we are told marrying them up is proving much harder than was originally envisaged. the real key problems are physically building the stations, installing the miles and miles of cabling and cameras, things like platform doors which we don't often use on railways in this country, that's been a bigger problem than they thought. and adding to that mix, the delays in testing the trains. this is the first train that will run on the eastern overground branch of the new route... featured in a bbc documentary,

the line will carry vast numbers of passengers from east to west. the initial delay was only made public last summer, just weeks before the line was supposed to open. crossrail says testing of the trains and signalling is progressing well. it's finalising a new plan to deliver the opening at the earliest opportunity, and will make an announcement later this month. but, even to the untrained eye, paddington station is far from finished, and with other rail sources telling me a two—year delay is on the cards, much will depend on how much progress is made in the coming months. the home secretary sajid javid has condemned the actions of those protesting climate change in an unlawful manner. demonstrators have taken to the streets of central london — and other cities this week — with a list of demands for the government to drastically speed up their targets for reducing carbon emissions. major intersections in the capital have been blocked and three people have appeared

in court today charged with obstructing trains at canary wharf station in east london. mrjavid has took to twitter to say the demonstrations had put pressure on police. he said he contends, condemns protesters stepping outside the law. well, sir david attenborough has described the threat of climate change as a man—made disaster on a global scale. in a documentary, to be broadcast on bbc one tonight, the broadcaster has called for drastic and urgent action in his starkest warning yet. 0ur science correspondent rebecca morelle reports. a rapidly changing landscape. in ourwarming world, trillions of tonnes of ice have vanished from the poles. these images are from sir david attenborough's new documentary, who warns that climate change

is the biggest threat we face. it may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world, and the collapse of our societies. oh, my god... heading into an inferno in montana. the dry conditions that made last yea r‘s forest fire so deadly are increasing, as the planet heats up. the people in this car narrowly escaped with their lives. scientists say the impacts of climate change are becoming clear. the last four years have been the warmest on record, and the un says major changes are needed to stop dangerous temperature rise. this is gaining more attention. in a week of bringing cities to a standstill, extinction rebellion are calling for carbon emissions to be cut to zero in the next six years. this target would be incredibly difficult. instead, the government

is considering doing this by 2050. here in the uk, we have been doing the right things. we just need to do them a bit faster, and with a bit more emphasis, and we are within sniffing distance, actually, of achieving the thing we need to do, which is to cut emissions to the point where we are not warming the planet any more, or at least, the uk is not contributing to that. in his documentary, david attenborough calls for urgent action. along the louisiana coastline, in the us, land is vanishing at one of the fastest rates in the world. an area the size of a football pitch is disappearing on average every 45 minutes. with entire communities having to relocate, scientists say the time to act is running out fast. rebecca morelle, bbc news. it is going to take a couple of hours before people have analysed that report. jeff sessions the

former attorney general when he told the council that special counsel had been appointed, the president said... president became angry. he said the attorney general was his most important appointment and he had been let down. the president said you were supposed to protect me. the president said everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it burns your presidency. he says it takes years, this is the worst thing that could ever happen to me. the report says the team

considered issuing a subpoena for the president but decided against it. plenty more coming from washington at 5pm. the temperatures are rising and we are headed for a warmer spell of weather we have had since february. back in february temperatures got up to 21.2 degrees. the outlook is looking even warmer this time. temperatures could hit the mid 20s in the next few days. over the weekend we will start to see warm air coming out of europe and it is heading all the way to the arctic. much of north—western europe will be feeling the effects of the warm weather. the afternoon will end something like this. temperatures widely into the high teens and low 20s across the midlands and the south. even touching 20 degrees in scotland. basically this evening it is quiet on the weather front with clear skies but this time of the year temperatures still tend

to dip away quite low so that means the morning will once again be quite chilly. chilly mornings and then really warm afternoons, typical for the time of year. how unusual are temperatures in the low 20s this time of the year? actually not that unusual. the record for april is around 29 degrees celsius and that is a very long time ago, many decades ago. this is what it looks like tomorrow, widely into the 20s across the southern half of the uk. even touching 21 degrees there in central parts of scotland. saturday we could see highs peaking at 25 degrees in the south—east of the country. warmer than it will be in the mediterranean because barcelona on saturday will be around 18. malaga 19 degrees and in athens temperatures only around 17 celsius, so we will be considerably warmer than some of the major centres in the mediterranean. for the rest of us it is not going to be quite the mid 20s. having said that, still touching 20 degrees in aberdeen, 17 in belfast, which is pleasant enough, around merseyside it should get up to 23 degrees as well. the weather on sunday is looking

beautiful as well across england and wales but notice in the north—west of the country starting to see cloud moving in off the atlantic so perhaps a shade cooler in the western isles but still warm across the rest of the uk. easter monday looks like the sunny spells will continue. temperatures probably dipping just a little bit, not that many of us will notice. next week currents are still coming in from the south, that is the warm direction, and we are under the influence of high pressure.

this is bbc news. i'm jane o'brien in washington where the long—awaited mueller report into russia and possible collusion with the trump campaign has been published. we are scouring 400 pages and new details are emerging. donald trump thought this investigation was the end of his presidency. but the attorney general william barr said before the report's really is the investigation found no evidence of collusion. there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. democrats now want robert mueller to testify before congress.