>> thanks. >> quick reminder, don't miss full circle on facebook. get all the details, watch it weeknights on facebook.com/andersonfullcircle. i want to hand it over to chris for prime time. >> it's coming. will you ever get to see mueller's final conclusions? that's the question. we have a lawmaker in the thick of the fight to get those answers to you. he's here. and a russia inquiry. also, will the president's new attorney general forward the full findings to congress? bill barr hasn't made any promises. the regulations leave him a lot of latitude. one thing is for sure, this will be an ugly battle especially if you don't get that information. that is it.

>> and breaking news on jussie smollett. no time to waste. let's get after it. all right. so we have seen trump team members locked up, russians indicted. we have been reading parts of the mueller report in realtime for two years. but the final findings are coming as early as next week. and the attorney general is preparing to announce the completion. what will that mean? what will you get out of this? the only thing that is required is for mueller to give a confidential report to the ag. what happens from there? kind of a question mark. did you hear this last night? >> let's see if there is a report to even discuss. >> it's up to you guys. that's up to you guys. >> the american people want their elected official to focus on issues, and my boss is. >> that report should be made public. i hope you agree with that. >> that's up to director

mueller. that's up to mr. mueller. >> no, it's not. >> let's be very clear. what is in the report that is given to the ag by the special counsel, that's up to mueller. but what happens to that is up to the attorney general. it makes you wonder, what is this a sign of? is the white house going to push for disclosure or something less than that? how much is congress going to get? what happens when they do? judiciary member ted lu is here. good to have you. what do you expect about the findings from mueller? what do you get? what do we get? >> thank you, chris, for your question. taxpayers funded this investigation, and we have a right to see the entirety of the investigation minus any classified information. we have just a mere summary. it is not acceptable, especially if the department of justice takes a position that we can't

indict a sitting president. we need to know all the facts and information, so they can't just not give us the information. >> what if he gives you something but says only you guys get it? >> i think if it's classified, i can see why that should not be shared. but i don't see what the principal is that you give congress information that is potentially alarming and then we can't share that with the american people. i don't think that would be tenable. >> the regs are great. these were written by clinton folks in 1999 in reaction to what happened during the starr probe. once the statute ran, they didn't renew it. they wrote these instead. one of the motivations was to keep the special counsel from being able to put out yards and yards of information. so the only thing that's required is a confidential summary -- well not summary. a confidential report, is the word, of decisions to prosecute

and not to prosecute. >> and the way you read that regulation should be very problematic for the american people in congress because of the department of justice takes the position they can't prosecute the president because of a separate memo that said they can't indict a sitting president, then there is literally nothing we would give in that confidential summary because they can't talk about it because they can't indict a sitting president. there are things congress can do to fix this. we have subpoena power. democrats now control the house. we could try to subpoena their entire report. we could also subpoena witnesses to come in and testify before the judiciary committee, such as robert mueller or other prosecutors on his team. >> all right. let's see what happens next week. we'll take it one step at a time. no reason to get after it until we have to. nancy pel low just tweeted moments ago about news for next week. michael cohen is coming in, multiple days of testimony. she says in a tweet that you guys have an independent duty to

conduct oversight. any efforts to intimidate family members or witnesses will not be tolerated. what do you think she's talking about? >> donald trump had tweeted earlier, essentially threatening michael cohen's father-in-law. rudy giuliani said something similar. if you read the witness tampering statutes, that comes close to the line or crosses the line. i think that's what speaker pelosi is referring to. we will investigate all these issues of social injustice, witness tampering, abuse of power and see whether it exonerates the president or not. but the congress has a different oversight responsibility than the special counsel. they're just interested in did someone commit a crime. we have a broader mission. and to disclose that to the american people and make sure it doesn't happen again. >> what can you do about the president tweeting that cohen is a rat and his father-in-law may be dirty? >> we could hold hearings in the

judiciary committee and establish a record that shows did the president cross a line? is this witness tampering? the fact that michael cohen will come and testify i think is a good sign. hopefully he won't be too intimidated by what the president says. but we can hold hearings, establish a record, have witnesses come in and testify and show the american people, look, the president of the united states tried to intimidate a witness. the president also did x, y and z bad things and then make a decision, what do you want congress to do from there? >> i don't know where that would go. but you have another idea for something you want to look into. you want the head of the nra to answer some questions about meetings of former heads and members with russia and russians and campaign finance. what dots are you thinking about there? >> so let's first take a step back and ask a general question. why is the nra even meeting and talking with russian operatives

such as butina who pleaded guilty to conspireing as a foreign agent. vladimir putin doesn't want his people to have guns. we also know that russians tried to infiltrate various organizations to influence elections. the nra looks like it was one of them. we want to know was any of this interference from russia, was it knowingly done with nra officials. and then there was a whole bunch of money that nra spent for the president, as well as members of congress and u.s. senators. and we want to know if any of that money came from the russians. >> do you have any proof that it did? >> we have proof that it looks like russian people gave money to nra. there is nothing wrong with that. it's legal for organizations such as the nra to get foreign donors. what would be illegal if it

ended up in a separate account that was used in campaigns. >> that's your concern and that's why you want to hold a hearing? >> correct. we also know that based on public reporting there has been internal e-mails that show the nra was more much involved that they stated. these e-mails show that the nra helped set that trip up. we want to know why there is that discrepancy as well. >> impeachable offenses. that's what this will come down to with the mueller probe. i don't anticipate any last-second huge prosecution moves from mueller, especially if the reporting is right and this will wrap up sooner than later. impeachable offenses would be the line of ultimate accountability. what do you -- what do you see as impeachable potential behavior based on what you have seen so far?

>> well, let me first say this. it was a question i was asked a few months ago about what would be the best result of the mueller probe. i had to think about that for a while. i concluded that the best result would be if robert mueller found donald trump completely innocent because i don't want our president to have engaged in collusion with a foreign power. i just don't want that. now, if the report comes out and exonerates donald trump, we move on. if it doesn't, if it says, we would have indicted donald trump for these offenses, then i think congress has to look at these issues and decide what to do with whatever offenses the robert mueller investigation reveals. separate from that, the house and other committees in congress will investigate other aspects of potential wrongdoing such as obstruction of justice, witness tampering, abuse of power. >> what about obstruction? >> well, it's pretty clear to me if you just read the obstruction

statute, it is pretty proud. you just have to endeavor to influence a federal investigation with corrupt intent. >> corrupt intent. >> correct. when donald trump fired james comey and went on national tv and said he did it because of the russia investigation, that looks like textbook obstruction of justice. >> except how can he obstruct by making a move on a legal proceeding that he has complete authority to make? >> because what he would be doing is trying to influence that federal investigation. and that investigation wasn't just against donald trump, as we have seen. that investigation has now insnared a lot of individuals, several of which are going to prison or pleaded guilty. clearly, it is not just obstruction of justice to him. it would have been to other investigations as well as other people. >> it would be interesting to see -- go ahead, congressman. >> regardless of what robert

mueller's report shows, there are state attorney general investigations. this will keep ongoing to make sure all the possible crimes that donald trump and associates may have engaged in will be investigated. >> and also, you know, it doesn't have to be crimes. the mandate to mueller was about contacts and coordination. you guys in oversight, it is not just criminal behavior. it was what was done. whether it rises to a crime or not is somewhat ancillary. thank you so much. important days ahead. >> thank you, chris. all right. now, we have learned a lot that mueller has found already, but there is still giant gaps that need to be filled. what we should be looking for. i have laid it out for you next. brought to you by t-mobile, america's most loved wireless brand. join the uncarrier today.

♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month. and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. got it? got it. nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper!

bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. remember when we all used to go to the cafeteria and just chow down midday? -you mean, like, lunch? -come on. voted "most likely to help people save $668 when they switch." -at this school? -didn't you get caught in the laminating machine? -ha. [ sighs ] -"box, have a great summer. danielle." ooh. danielle, control yourself. i'd like to slow it down here with a special discount for a special girl. danielle, this one's for you.

mueller must know a lot more than we know so far. how do we know that? common sense, right? but the profit from that is evident from all the black bars, redactions. they refer to people and proceedings that haven't been disclosed. we know there is still several ongoing investigations. it could be the case his report may not include all that he has going on. there is still at least one more unknown matter occurring before the grand jury. is that going to get wrapped up as well? we'll have to see. and what we had heard was credible and reliable information about core russia related issues from trump's former lawyer. what was that? we haven't heard about it yet. look, i know we show you a lot, but it is so important to remember what mueller's job is, namely, to look into any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president donald trump. why do i say it that way?

not just crimes. that's very important. think of the mueller report as filling a gap in a story. mueller has been outlining that story piece by piece. we know russia hacked the dnc. made a concerted effort to get donald trump elected. while the man in charge of these campaign, passed along inside information that could have helped hackers, russians, trolls, target places and faces trump needed to win. dozens of people on the campaign were open for business with people they shouldn't have been. so many people around the president lied about matters being investigated. but the message from the top has always been the same. >> it's a total witch hunt. i have been saying it for a long time. >> it's a witch hunt. >> witch hunt. >> witch hunt. >> so far this thing has been a total witch hunt.

>> thatif you keep saying, hopey that will make it true. the president is right. he has not been criminally implicated. but when it comes to the russia probe, as i have been saying, criminality is not my bar, and it shouldn't be yours. there is other ways that mueller's report could be instructive of wrongdoing. we need to know how high it goes. we know mueller says a senior campaign official pushed for the stolen e-mails. we know trump has shown up in court files as individual one. we have heard over and over potus was too busy. he couldn't keep an eye on what people like manafort and stone were doing. yet chris cristie told us there was never any doubt on the campaign who was in charge. donald was. s from the list of administration officials, it is clear mueller wants to know if

the lies cover for the potus attacking on the probe or realities. the third is the big card that mueller has yet to show the money. the lies that reached closest to the president are directly connected to his bottom line. his insistence on hiding his tax return, his bizarre affinity for vladimir putin make this central to our understanding. the mueller probe is not the full picture. that's what we need here. remember the two main questions. mueller can answer these perhaps better than anyone. why did so many lie about russia related matters? why does this president mess with a probe he says he doesn't fear? that's why i hope the ag puts out an extensive report. if he doesn't, the president will never be clear of this, and you will never have the clarity you deserve. so will the whole truth come out? will any be concealed by the trump administration? should it?

and what's going to has been to roger stone? is he going to go to jail? let's put it to cuomo's court next. and body. download the audible app and start listening today. ♪ (danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you. heyi'm craving somethingkin! we're missing. the ceramides in cerave. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture... and keep us protected. we've got to have each other's backs... and fronts. cerave. what your skin craves. ♪ wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. ♪

here's your order. applebee's to go. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. with advil liqui-gels, what stiff joints? what bad back? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil liqui-gels. what do you look for i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. everything you want. one low price. td ameritrade. ♪

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store.

it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. ask about mueller's report today, the president deferred to his newest cab pet member. take a listen. >> will the mueller report be released while you are abroad next week? >> that will be up to the new attorney general. he's a tremendous man, a tremendous person who really respects this country and respects the justice department. so that will be totally up to him, the new attorney general, yes. >> i guess from what i understand that will be totally

up to the attorney general. okay? >> now, he's not necessarily wrong. but it would have been unsurprising and really self-serving for this president to say, i hope it does. i'm going to tell him it should. disclosure matters. transparency matters. but he didn't say any of that. when he talks about the ag, what exactly is within his power? what can he withhold? c what do you think should be able to come out? >> so it is important to remember that there are two phases here. there is a report from the special counsel to the ag and then there is a report from the ag to congress. the special counsel -- and by the way, that buffer is there in order to reign in what was perceived as the excess of the kenneth starr investigation. they wanted to prevent that direct conduit from the special

counsel to congress. that's why that intermediary is there. you know, i think the special counsel is going to lay out, as you just pointed out earlier, the criminal charges that he has decided to pursue or has declined to pursue. and i think the big gap there, chris, is that this is an unusual situation in that it is largely a counter intelligence investigation and that many of those findings may not have crossed over. >> that's where i want to bring in you, ken, because in the language here, the statute i have in front of me, there is discretion. there is discretion. and what happens here in terms of what you release, there is something that we have to figure out how it is going to be interpreted. what she should about counter intelligence could be a key distinction. >> oh, absolutely. here is the language, ken. and i want your -- i want your take on it. it is so small. i'm so old. i could barely read it.

so it says that what they put out from the special counsel ultimately shall be governed by the generally applicable departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation on relevant law. now, the fbi usually won't talk, period, and when they do talk, they won't talk about people and matters that they decided not to prosecute. and bill barr said we don't like to put out derogatory information about people we don't indict. well, should that apply here? >> well, that's going to be the balancing act, chris. i mean, let's step aside from this case and just talk about the department history. the department on a bipartisan basis has been very conservative. i don't mean that in a political sense. i mean it more culturally to the organization. very conservative in what they have ever put out. they read their guidelines to limit that.

so when you combine that with the fact that this begins as a counter intelligence investigation where they are even more restrictive than in the criminal context, this is going to be a difficult one for bill barr to satisfy congress and satisfy the media while still -- while still doing the job as he views it. remember, he's been attorney general before. he loves this department. he respects the department of justice. i actually thought -- you took a negative cast on the president's comments. i was very glad to hear him say this is going to be up to the attorney general. >> no, i'm happy with that. i just feel like with all the things this president had decided to elbow through and muscle up on, it would have been nice to hear him say, you know, i hope he airs on the side of disclosure. the american people should get as much information as they can. >> and i have said on your show before, as you will recall, that i think transparency is

beneficial. i mean, the more people know -- let me put it in reverse. anything not released -- >> right. >> -- everyone who wants to, will take the worst possible implication from it. >> yeah. it's bad for the president. it's bad for everybody. >> one comment, you talked to the congressman, there will be a middle ground of information that will go to congress, but won't be released publically because there will be some classification trust with congress that won't exist with the general public. >> imagine what happens -- >> can i -- i just want to -- i mean, i do agree with ken that in normal circumstances, you know, i agree that doj is going to be conservative in how they approach these things. one of the issues with james comey in the months leading up to the election is that he released this information about hillary clinton even though they were not charging her and how that kind of violated departmental guidelines. however, i think here is the

difference in this case. you know, this is not like, say, previous independent counsel investigations. this isn't about private sexual conduct of the president that, you know, that will satisfy some interest of the public. this goes to the public's ability to exercise their right to vote in presidential election, whether it was distorted or influenced in any way, whether there was interference, whether through money or any kind of exchanges of promises or inducements, you know. and i think that this is the classic case of a national -- a case in the public and national interest. so i think that in order to make sure that the public has not only an understanding of what took place but confidence in future elections. >> that's the key. that's the key. the key is i get the concerns. but we also heard a bunch of congressmen saying how all the

fisa seclets should be thrown out. but care about it across the board. if it doesn't come out to your own point, this isn't good for the president. it will haunt him. it will haunt him. >> well, certainly i don't expect 100% disclosure, but every bit that isn't disclosed will be lobbed at him as negatively as it could possibly be interpreted. the thing about it is for the american public, is it the case that people who already hate the president read it as negatively as possible and people who already strongly support the president read it as strongly as possible. and the other people just think, you know, this was counter intelligence. i expect some stuff not to come out.

does it all get digested based on where every american starts with respect to the president? i think a lot of it does. it is a unique situation because of the counter intelligence element and the effect on the elections. let's face it. a lot of us on both sides of the aisle complained that the obama administration wasn't more forthcoming during the 2016 election. >> right. mitch mcconnell wasn't helpful. so you saw both sides dragging their feet. >> yeah. i was going to say the only other argument in favor of more disclosure of what's in the report is as it concerns the president specifically. you can't have it both ways. you can't say the department of justice will not indict a sitting president and then sit on information and not provide it to the body that has the ability to potentially take action. >> strong point. >> that would shield the president for any accountability for his conduct. even derogatory information on

the president, all of those findings need to be not only public but passed on to congress. it is up to congress to decide what to do with it. >> congress has an easier route on the basis of your speculation. real quick, do either of you think roger stone winds up in jail for what happens with the picture of the judge? >> no. >> not for that, no. >> we'll all in agreement. thank you very much. look, mueller isn't the only probe hanging over the president's head. he's clearly bothered by this digging into his business here in new york. what should worry him most and least? it's pick it up for a new york prosecutor. look at this guy. robert ray is back. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis,

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? - want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over 100,000 tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world like new york, from bus tours to breathtaking adventures. tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do.

and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip monumental. read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor. frstill, we never stoppedss wmaking it stronger.e. faster. smarter. because to be the best,

is to never ever stop making it better. introducing the new c-class. lease the c 300 sedan for $429 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. so they tell us the end of the mueller probe is near. this is according to sources that say that bill barr is preparing to announce its completion as early as next week. that's the good news. the bad news, take a listen to this. >> will you commit that you will explain to us any changes or deletions that you make to the special counsel report that's

submitted to you in whatever you present to us? >> i will commit to providing as much information as i can consistent with the regulations. >> as much information as he can consistent with the regulations, which means -- could mean anything, right? so let's talk about how this may play out. who better to ask than former whitewater. >> nice to be with you. >> always appreciate having you here. now, just so people understand. you were with whitewater. it ended in 1999. ironically, the clinton folks drew up these new regulations because they didn't like what happened with starr. one of the things that changed is there is a very curtailed discussion of what the special counsel has to hand over. one of their beeves was starr put out this huge volume of information. >> i guess you could read it that way. i will say one thing that is

clear that i don't think has been mentioned enough is that this is really the first time that we have ever been through this. >> since then. >> since then with these regulations. so the short answer is we're all ri writing on a new slate to figure out what should happen. i will say this. i expect that bob mueller in brief summary fashion will explain what is most relevant for a report to explain for somebody in this position, and that is facts sufficient to explain the decision either to prosecute or not to prosecute. >> what about the part of his mandate that is actually the first line, that he's supposed to look for information about contact or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign. that's not about prosecute or decline to prosecute. that's just information.

>> that's just his job. i understand, you know, congress's mission is simple. but the prosecutorial mission is very simple. it takes, in this case, 21 months to get there. but it is to explain why you either chose to prosecute or not prosecute, period. >> what about all the information? >> you're not a fact gatherer. you're a fact gatherer for the purposes of making prosecutorial decisions. >> so that first part of the language is what? >> this is one of the lessons learned because of the starr report. it is not the purpose of the special counsel regulations when it comes to what does rob mueller report back to the department of justice. >> but a big part of what he's looking at is counter intelligence, so it is not a typical criminal investigation. wouldn't that open a door to giving more information? >> you act as if it were a typical investigation. that's how i acted in connection

with the resolution of matters that included the travel office, fbi files, white water, liewin lewinski, all those things. all those things go into ultimately only one question. do i have sufficient evidence to prosecute? and i explain if i did and brought cases, and i also explained why i made the decision not to prosecute. >> so -- >> period. >> here's why i would or why i wouldn't. >> correct. >> that's very unsas fotisfying >> it may be. but i think people are going to be sorely disappointed to think that this report is going to be a long expo siabout all the this found. the purpose of his mandate is to decide whether or not crimes had been committed and to prosecute them if they have within his

mandate and then anything ancillary to that which includes false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. that's it. >> what do you think about those counts? do you think the president has anything to worry about? >> i don't. i don't think personnel decisions, including the firing of the fbi director can constitute obstruction of justice. >> do you know why you do it? >> i don't think you can separate that out from the fact that that's the president's prerogative any more than what "the new york times" reports today that the president was trying to install a perceived loyalist on top of the southern district of new york investigation. that's an executive function. >> three others. >> just because other people in the article see evidence of corrupt intent my virtue of these things doesn't make it so and make it a case that could be

proven in court. that's the standard. >> how is the president not above the law if he is able to stop investigations into him or that he does not like? >> the president is not above the law, but the president is a unique feature of our constitutional system, and he has the authority to make kpktive decisions, which include who are those who are loyal to him who feel executive branch functions. and to try to then in every instance equate motivation to make an executive determination is somehow constituting obstruction of justice i think is on thin constitutional ice. i think it's on very thin statutory ice for reasons that bill barr explained. and frankly, if you are going to make that the basis of an impeachment referral, you will have to have more of a tie to a common law violation of a criminal statute in order to really have an impeachment

article that is going to be sustained from the house of representatives, if not the united states senate. >> well, the criminal law doesn't allow you to charge the president with obstruction, one because you can't charge a sitting president. >> that's not just the office of legal counsel saying that. i understand you want to say, well, the department of justice can't have it both ways. you know, there is a long constitutional history of authority about how exactly you treat the president of the united states. there is a significant question about whether or not morrison versus holson was correctly decided. justice scalia may very well have been right. and not only that, it goes all the way back to joseph story and the underpinnings of constitution to deal with questions about whether you are indict a president regarding the southern district of new york. all that stuff, that's complicated stuff. >> right. but it doesn't have to be. let's say that's the rule, you don't indict him.

the only resource you have is impeachment. >> right. which is what the founders intended. and if you want to pursue a criminal investigation of him, that may be the place to do it. >> why couldn't you impeach him for removing people from investigations to help himself? it's an abuse of power. >> i am suggesting that that's a pretty high bar. you are right that the focus on impeachment should be only one thing, that the president violated the public trust. if congress finds that in articles of impeachment that i think could be tied to the common law, false statements, perjury, those sorts of things, you know, that's an argument. but all this nonsense in "the new york times" about suggesting that because the president is attempting to install loyalists in positions of power government that have the incidental impact and that constitutes obstruction of justice, i think that's a big reach. >> let's say he's completely competent and rightfully

installed and there. if the president called up the ag and says, look, i need him there. you got to help me. >> chris, that's not what he said. >> we don't know what he said. he doesn't have to order it. >> i think the article even concedes the fact that that didn't. >> the doj said no promises or commitments were made. >> okay. so he talked to them about it. so what? so what? is the president not entitled to ask i want to know or i would like to inquire about the basis of recusal? who is running the investigation as it relates to a matter -- >> yeah. if it's in the report that he said, which is i want that guy back in. i want protection. >> he didn't say that apparently. the article suggested that whitaker took in action. >> but it doesn't mean the president didn't say it. >> say what? >> what i just said. >> he simply asked a question. >> we don't know that. >> we don't know a lot of

things. all right. >> if he's doing that, it may not be a crime. i agree with you on your analysis. but i think he'd have a hard time selling that politically to the people of america. >> that's what we have elections for. that doesn't constitute a basis for impeachment. >> and where are we going to go from here? after the results of a report that goes to the attorney general, there is going to be a delay of a period of time before it makes its way to congress, congress is going to proceed. are we not already in the re-election cycle? are we going to go through this process of impeachment proceedings leading up to the 2020 election? >> that's why the more he hputs out the better. >> your comfort in this should be that was the message that the attorney general during the confirmations seemed to be sending. and i do agree that airing on the side of transparency is a good idea. i don't think you should be in the business, certainly, of altering the mueller report. i think you have to be very careful even about redakting.

>> right. >> you may want to send an executive summary under cover of the attorney general with a copy of the report to congress. how congress receives that report and whether it is done on a confidential basis or eyes only basis i don't know because i'm now speculating. i don't know what's in the report. does it contain national security information? i don't know. does it contain privilege information? don't know. >> no, you're right. >> and does it contain grand jury material? >> which you can't release. >> which cannot be released unless the attorney general goes to a court and gets an order to release it under the precedent. >> as long as he finds a way to get the information out, they should be able to find. >> i think the people of the country should feel good about the fact that the person who is now ok yccupying the chair of attorney general is someone who has been there before and who, i think, most people on a

bipartisan basis will try to get this right. i think the public should have confidence. i think we should withhold judgment until you see what the decisions are. >> and that's why i say let's see what happens next week. we'll bring you back to understand what's going on and why. all right. hate crime or hoax. that's been a question for nearly a month since jussie smollett claims to be attacked in chicago. we'll let you know what police think. it's breaking news, and it's next. it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. when you switch out you an old car part. but you do when you switch to jackson hewitt. at jackson hewitt we help lots of people like you. that's why you get $200 when you leave your old tax service for us. so switch to jackson hewitt today and get $200.

another stunning turn in the just case. the actor charged tonight, disorderly conduct, a felony, for allegedly filing a false police report.

chicago police believe jussie smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him. two brothers appeared before a grand jury today buying the very same supplies used in the incident. bought with cash just a day before jussie smollett reported he was the victim of a hate crime. investigators say the two men are no longer suspects and sources say they are cooperating with law enforcement. jussie smollett's attorneys issued this statement. jussie smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence. we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense. this is all kinds of bad. >> it is bad all the way around. as we say, innocent until proven guilty. but it's bad all the way around. if he -- if it turns out that he did do it and orchestrate it, it's terrible. if it turns out that he didn't, it's also terrible. i'm not sure if you saw the correction that came across the

wires. he wasn't indicted by a grand jury, but there was a prosecutor. right. but still, it's been -- you know, it's been interesting trying to report on this particular but still, it's been -- you know, it's been interesting trying to report on this particular story. we've done several reports on this show, just the facts straight. here's what we know. here's what we don't know because you don't want to get into a place where you are -- you're just sort of speculating about things. >> right. >> and we don't know what happened. >> and a lot in the media did that and in politics too. >> a lot in the media. if you look at every single report on this show, it will show you it was just straight things. i also did a talk where i talked about having empathy for victims and having -- you know, i spoke to jussie. nothing about the veracity of his story because that's not my concern. that's something that he has to deal with. but as human beings, and if someone says that they are a victim, then you can have some

sort of empathy for them. it doesn't mean that you know what the outcome of the investigation is going to be. >> right. but the real problem is that the next time somebody says this, will they be believed less. >> yeah. >> and we already have a problem with victims not wanting to come forward, especially when you get into sensitive communities like lgbtq where people are worried about coming forward. you know, does this have a chilling effect? that's the concern. >> here's someone that we both know who you would be surprised of how you would think that they would think the exact opposite of what you're saying. i'm not going to say who they are. i'll share just a little bit. i said that same thing to them, and the person says, it does, but in a weird way, it won't. there is something extremely you know what upped in our society for him to feel compelled to do that if he did. so there's some sort of pathos. he says, we need to have the conversation in the way that only you can have it on your show, and we need to work onto

those things. we need to have the conversation more openly like you did in that interview. i feel bad for him even though if he is wrong, he hurt a lot of people. maybe it's an opportunity to talk about these issues. i don't think it undercuts that there are real victims out there of homophobia, real victims of racism. but you didn't have to embellish because things are already bad. do you understand what i'm saying? >> understood. look, there's always a lesson in every one of these for all of us. there can be a temptation to go fast. it's almost always better to go slow. >> we've got a whole lot of people. we have some folks who know him. we've got some legal minds who are going to talk to us about what's in his future. then i'm going to give my take on it at the top of the show. >> i look forward to that. >> i'm sorry. how are you feeling? how are you doing? >> i need this show to end. >> did you tell people you're not feeling well? >> no. but thanks. now i will. i think i ate something, and

it's going downhill fast. i was actually going to hand the show off to don now, but talk about making somebody sick. i'm talking about the audience. you are a friend through and through. >> feel better. >> thank you, pal. appreciate it. i really was. i was going to give him the show. but, you know, this stuff matters that we're talking about right now. so the mueller report's coming. that's what they tell us. the president seemed all good today in the oval office. but, listen, this is going to get ugly. the more i learn about what won't be released and why, it's going to get ugly. and i'm not saying that there's something sinister going on, but you've got to be ready for what's coming, and you have to remember what the focus should be. that's the argument next.

when a nasty cold won't let you sleep, try new nyquil severe with vicks vapocool and vaporize it. ahhhhh! shhhhh! new nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing, nightime coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. s. so next week could be the end of the mueller probe, or at least the end of the beginning. why do i say that? well, there are unknowns. what is and is not end it? what else might mueller still be pursuing? what might congress do after it learns of mueller's decisions? but here's what we know for sure. this is going to be an especially chaotic time. this president will be under

pressure in all likelihood like he's never been before, not because he's going to be removed in cuffs but because almost certainly he's not going to like things in the report. and we know when he's under pressure, he lashes out. if past behavior is any indicator, the president has a number of go-to tactics to obfuscate the facts or down play. here's one tactic. mislead. >> everybody tells me i'm not under investigation. maybe hillary is. i don't know, but i'm not. >> you hear that? change the subject. make it about something else. tactic two, move the goal posts. remember what trump was saying just two years ago. >> can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with russia during the course of the election? >> well, i told you general flynn obviously was dealing, so that's one person. but he was dealing, as he should have been -- >> during the election? >> no, nobody that i know of. >> so you're not aware of any contacts during the course of the election? >> look, how many times do i have to answer this question? >> can you just say yes or no on it. >> russia is a ruse. >> and here's what the

president's lawyer, rudy giuliani, said just last month. >> i never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign. >> yes, you have. >> i have no idea if -- i have not. i said the president of the united states. >> all right. distraction, tactic number three. attack the investigators and political rivals. >> it's a total witch hunt. it's a democrat hoax. they have this witch hunt. that was a democrat hoax. it's a witch hunt. phony witch hunts. it was a hoax. it's like a witch hunt. this is a hoax. the witch hunt continues. >> then there's the signature trait, which is to abuse the truth and any who are trying to get it, namely the media. >> it's fake news. it's fake -- i'm telling you it's just fake news. i read it this morning. it's a lot of fake news. that's total fake news. >> do you want to fire robert mueller? >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> so if the probe does end next week, if there's a surprisingly comprehensive report that the

doj releases to the public, that's good. but get ready. a storm is coming. expect the president and his allies to throw everything they have at you to make as much noise as possible, to distract and obfuscate and expect those who seek advantage in any negative information to spin it fast and hard as well. you're going to have to be on guard for left and right and remain reasonable. all right? many involved have a desired outcome, so keep your focus on facts. if you get a feel for what did and did not happen and why -- and i promise you we will do our best to help you get any information that we can. in that case, any conclusions will be your own. thank you for watching tonight. "cnn tonight" with d. lemon starts right now. >> still not feeling good, right? >> nope. >> nope. so i shall let you go. >> thank you, brother. appreciate it. >> i hope you feel better. see you tomorrow. take care. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. listen, i just want to talk before these stunning developments tonight in the

jussie smollett story, the story that everyone is talking about. and i know people have been wondering what i had to say about it, but here it is. so everybody gather around the television set. the "empire" star, that's who he is, jussie smollett, who claimed that he was the victim of a racist, homophobic attack in chicago on january 29th. he is now being charged with disorderly conduct. specifically they say the filing is for filing a false police report. that's a class-four felony. that is according to the state attorney's office. detectives are working on negotiating what they call a reasonable surrender for his arrest. here's what we know. when they do that, what that means is they're trying to get him back to chicago so that they can arrest him, which will no doubt happen and probably tomorrow. okay? if not to