down two runs in the bottom of the ninth. because there's always another game on deck. with mlb extra innings on xfinity x1, you'll get up to 90 out of market games per week. and all of the body sacrificing catches, home plate heroics, and 6-4-3 double plays. plus, with x1 you can get every stat and every score all with the power of your voice. that's simple. easy. awesome. order mlb extra innings for a great low price. plus, access your favorite team on any device. go online today. good evening. president trump calls it committee and total exoneration. today attorney general releasing the summary of the special counsel robert mueller's report. the investigation didn't establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in the election

interference activity. in other words. the president insisted from the start there was no collusion. as for obstruction of justice. the special counsel reached no conclusion. the attorney general saying that in his own judgment looking at the facts presented there's unsufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against the president and the passage from mueller. this report is not conclude that the president committed a crime, it doesn't exonerate him. as for the president he had this to say on the way home from florida. >> it's a shame. that our country had to go through this. to be honest it's a shame that your president has had to go through this. for before i even got elected. it began. it began illegally. and hopefully somebody will look at the other side. this was an illegal take down. that failed. hopefully somebody will be looking at the other side.

>> unclear what that means for the future. the president has just been vindicated on a big way in a key allegation against him. new reports on what led to it. you have breaking news about discussions between mueller and the department of justice. about the subpoena from the president for a sit down interview. >> that's right. we have learned that special counsel his team and the doj officials raise the specter of issuing a subpoena for president trump for an interview. and the decision was made not to move forward with the significant investigative step of issuing a subpoena against a sitting president. we know for months that robert mueller and the team have been asking for a sit dun interview with president trump. the legal team simply wouldn't have it. said no. and shea gambled that robert mueller wouldn't issue a subpoena. sure enough that happened. we are told there were discussions. sensitive discussions about whether they should issue a subpoena when it became clear

that the president legal team wouldn't allow a sit down interview with the president. we're told that ultimately the decision was made that the merits and ed they had didn't really justify issuing this subpoena. beyond just doj protocol that you can't indict a sitting president. they decided there wasn't enough there. certainly it makes you question as you read bill bars memo. whether robert mueller said in the report to bar that some of the president's behavior couldn't be exonerated from. he never got that sit down interview to talk and understand the intent. what is clear from the memo is that rod rosenstein who mueller had consulted with on the subpoena among other officials. didn't think there was enough there. and didn't think the president's actions tla were laid out showed corrupt intent and that the conduct was obstructive. >> we're already seeing a substantial amount of push back from democrats over the findings.

>> no surprise. they're saying they need to see the full report. more questions than answers. particularly pertaining to obstruction. because the report cites that mueller said there was this behavior that was questionable. even though bill bar said essentially cleared him. and chuck schumer and nancy pelosi issued a statement. saying bias against the special counsel he isn't a neutral observer and not in the position to make objectivity determinations about the report. they are looking at fact that he was hand picked by president trump as attorney general. and as you'll remember he wrote this memo before he was confirmed saying there shouldn't be an obstruction probe. it should have never happened in the first place. and we're hearing from the head of the house judiciary committee. who is not satisfied. >> this conclusion raise more

questions than answers. given the fact that mueller uncovered evidence that in his own words doesn't exonerate the president. we cannot simply rely on a partisan interpretation of the facts. >> that is what democrats are seizing on. bill bar said today that mueller's team concluded there was not collusion. between the trump campaign and the russians. but it's a little more complicated when it comes to obstruction. that's what democrats are honing in on. we wait and see will stha issue a subpoena for the full report. from the white house lawyers there are bracing for a subpoena fight over the full report. >> what's attorney general said about releasing the full report? and the under lying evidence. that's two separate things. the under lying evidence is going further than the full report. >> right. the under lying evidence can be tricky. you're dealing with grand jury

testimony. with potentially classified information. he's reiterating what he said previously. he hopes to be transparent and mindful of the law and policy. he did note that some of the materials do have grand jury information. and interview ands so forth. that has to be taken into consideration. he would consultant with robert mueller. and figure out how to release more information. we learned from a doj official that the process is under way. mueller's report is scrubbed and the material to see what can be released. no matter what what is clear, democrats are not going to be satisfied until they see the full report. and under lying documents and a federal judge maybe the only person to decide and make that public. >> thanks very much. the president is back in the white house. joins us is andrew. with the president on air force

one. the president and advisers. what was the mood like? it was celebratory. to be honest. his team was -- it was an interesting weekend at mar-a-lago. most of the time playing golf and hanging with friends. and assured by advisers and staff they were confident he would be vindicated. in the end he was thrilled. the speech by the lawyers and went through line by line letter. and were told it was very good. that's a quote from him. he was happy. >> do we know what the president was doing during flight? >> interestingly he went to the cockpit and landed with the pilot. at the end of the flight. retiring colonel. he spent time with mulvaney and

social mode ya director. and making calls to allies. and watching cable news. as always. and it was a celebration. >> the remarks that the president made nd florida, do you know when that decision was made? >> it was last minute. all of this from him being briefed on the report to getting on air force one happened within less than ftwo hours. they read through the report line by line. and there was a last minute within 15 to 20 minutes. to under the wing. and the president was waiting for the media. he walked out and gave a spooee. >> all right. at the white house. so, what's the mood at the white house tonight? >> as you heard, it's a celebratory mood. among trump aids. you have his counsellor kellyanne conway saying this is

the day that he won the 2016 election all over again. this is a president who has been under a cloud of investigation. for two years. and that cloud has been lifted. and in many ways it's lifted in a way i don't think he expected. the conclusion is particularly there was no collusion. it's really important to the president who has been repeating that for two years. and the white house is saying that on obstruction they didn't expect the mueller investigators as prosecutors to exonerate the president. essentially by not finding enough evidence that there was obstruction they believe that is an exoneration of president trump. so a president who is extremely happy at this moment. but you should pay some attention to what he was telling reporters just before he left the white house. he is said that it's a terrible thing that this happened to him. it's a terrible thing that it happened to associates who are going to prison as a result of

the investigations that came about. because of this mueller investigation. this is not a president who is happy mueller is done. he's ready to go back on the offense. saying it was a failed attempt to take his presidency down. and he's not backing down from that. he's not talking about russian interference broadly. he's talking about how this was a broadly unfair to him and all the people around him. they are also planning to use this as a 2020. against democratic candidates. saying the democratic party lied to the country for two years about what the mueller investigation would find. >> is this what he and his attorneys expected from this conclusion? >> we have been hearing from sources close to the investigation. close to the president. close legal team. they haven't been expecting more indictments coming out of the mueller probe. they actually believe that if the mueller probe ended at this point it would have been ended

without the president ever sitting down for an interview and both of those things were viewed as positive signs for president trump. the definitive nature of the letter on the points at least that's how they are presenting it, is even better than expected. certainly the president's lawyers had hoped for the best. but they are coming out of this feeling like all of the questions that had been raised as a result of this probe left the president essentially unscathed. from a legal sperktive. that being said, as i'm sure you will point out. later in the show. there are other things happening outside of the mueller investigation. they may need to worry about. as far as the mueller probe is concerned, this was better than they expected on a number of different fronts. >> the president you talk about him using the no doubt something he would do. and certainly make senses from that standpoint. he's already eluding it an investigation into the russia

investigation or into the other side. >> this is going to be a big question. tomorrow. and the days after. what is the president going to do now? he suggested that somebody ought to be looking into the other side. who exactly is the other side? for months he's talking about the need for a further investigation into hillary clinton. also the president's allies are talking about the obama administration and the idea the russia probe beginning under president obama was improper from the beginning. so is president trump going to go there? reporters who are traveling with the president did ask the deputy press secretary about that. he said they haven't discussed it yet. of course, i'm sure president trump is going to be hearing from his outside advisers from members and republican members on capitol hill beating those drums for months. the drum beats are getting louder. one more thing, there's a question about what does president trump do now?

with all of those friends and advisers who were charged and facing jail time. are pardons on the table. aids are saying it's too early to talk about that. again, tomorrow the day after that, these are also big questions. what is president trump going to do now? he certainly has the power to pardon. also potentially the power to ask his justice department to look into some of the things that he eluded to in the conversation with reporters before leaving florida. >> thanks. a big night for the president. and the country. and a busy night for the political and legal team. former federal prosecutor is with us. who briefly represented rick gates. who pleaded guilty to charges in the mueller probe. a legal analyst. and chief political analyst. so is former virginia attorney general. and chief legal analyst jeff toobin. a huge win for the president. >> there's no other way to describe it.

collusion has been something that he has talked about. he said no collusion. and robert mueller his great nemesis agreed with him. that's a enormous -- >> we always say the ad nauseam. fairly enough if you are accused of collusion and there was none and say there was none. it's fair he was talking -- >> absolutely. 185 times he said that is something that was at the heart of this investigation. and he won. there's just no doubt about that. on obstruction of justice the story is more complicated. and the result as described in the letter is frankly peculiar and not something contemplated by the regulation. >> how? >> robert mueller was appointed because the political appointee in the department of justice the attorney general, had a conflict

of interest. because the target of the investigation was the president. so he was supposed to make the judgment. about the president. instead of doing that, he seems to have punted the decision over to the attorney general. and the deputy attorney general. it is not precisely clear the way the letter is written whether mueller reached any more conclusions about the president should be indicted or not. it seems like -- >> it did not exonerate. >> but exactly what mueller concluded about the obstruction of justice is not clear. from the letter. however, what's clear is that bar and rosenstein took the evidence that mueller had, assembled over two years, and in less than 48 hours said there's nothing to see here. there's no obstruction of justice. that i think -- >> democrats are crying foul on that. because it does align with something that the attorney

general bar had written in a letter before he became attorney general. which some say was an audition letter to become attorney general. about obstruction of justice. >> they're crying foul because of the previous letter. and bar has an inherent conflict of interest. because he is an appointee of the president. and crying foul because it was such a cursory investigation. after mueller spent two years on the issue. that is a lipgering problem. lingering problem. but i don't think it should over -- over emphasize that over the conclusion that the president and his team didn't work with the russians to win the election. >> the president was saying no collusion for yores. and he was right. according to the special counsel. i know people see this through the lens of politics. democrats are dispinted and sup set. this truth as americans this is a good thing.

the fact according to the evidence the president had no collusion with russians who we know were involved in the election. that is a good thing. >> that is the clearest thing. we see from bar's letter. it states that the special counsel did not find the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government. in these efforts. that is crystal clear. and it will be interesting to see why they took the meetings and whether those should be allowed to occur again. in future presidential campaigns. and i think that's a great result. for the country, for the president. to what jeffrey is saying the question of obstruction. still remains out there. and my question is, did mueller kind of punt on it because he wasn't able to interview the president of the united states? and that goes to the reporting about the fact that there were

discussions about this with rosenstein and decided not to subpoena the president. did that mean at the time they thought rosenstein and maybe mueller thought there wasn't the evidence there to even warrant a subpoena fight? this is something that the democrats are going to want to get to the bottom of and see every single piece of paper. about obstruction. and i would say that in the end this was a huge huge victory. for the president's lawyers. >> ken, if it was decided that mueller felt there wasn't enough evidence to support a subpoena fight to get the president to talk, democrats then can't really complain about the fact the president wasn't interviewed for a sit down if there wasn't evidence to support a subpoena fight. >> right. i agree 100%. and frankly, for the democrats who want to say well so what we'll press ahead, they are now

in the eyes of average ordinary americans. not those of us who pay attention every day. going to look like sore losers. in the political battle here. and of course the president will over play that on twitter. but the reality is now what the democrats do will look like a witch hunt. because the only neutral close to it that anybody can identify would be robert mueller. and he said there was nothing to proceed with. and didn't even try to get the subpoena to interview the president. >> the law is clear. >> he would have gotten if he wanted. >> to your point. these are the democrats who for months now have been extolling the praises of robert mueller. and his independence and integrity. against the president attacks on mueller. it's hard now or hypocritical

for the democrats to say now we need to look at not only his final report. which i can understand. but the actual original documents the investigative documents, the interviews by fbi. we need to review the report. we no longer have confidence. >> when you compare that to what we were asking say yesterday last friday night, the president called this a witch hunt forever now does this hold up? okay, so the president felt ill feelings toward this the whole time because he was innocent. mueller said he was innocent. that's more understandable than the democrats possibly flipping on their position. and saying mueller didn't get it right. we're going to get it right. pla particularly when they have done a ready, fire, aim approach out of congress. they didn't wait for mueller to

finish. they started their own and launched away. that will look bad now. >> it doesn't say he's innocent. what's remarkable is so few quotes from mueller. if you look at the quotes it's amazing mueller of all people says quote it doesn't exonerate the president. for him that's a james comey moment. there's no need to have said that. the whole letter the lack of quotes raises questions. what else is there on collusion. he says doesn't establish. so what makes up the establish? that's what really begs the question. what's really behind there. the quotes are so few and of course as has been pointed out on the obstruction point of view, bar's previous views were tailor made for this. it's really quite extraordinary how few quotes there are. >> on the obstruction issue, do we know how much of bars thinking is impacted by the idea of if there's no criminal

intent, if there's no crime, then there's can be no obstruction of justice. >> his letter does include a statement that refers to that. that it was not dispositive. but appears to have factored into the thinking. so i think that was one piece of it. certainly his determination. and the deputy attorney general joint determination. that there was not sufficient evidence to bring an obstruction case is based on statutory interpretation. what is curious is that he does include the quote from the special counsel. that although the special counsel report doesn't conclude the president committed a crime. it doesn't exonerate him. so that's the piece that i think congress is most likely to latch onto. they'll want to understand what is the other information that does not exonerate the president. what made the special counsel include that in the report.

and then also why did the special counsel not make at least a recommendation to the attorney general about prosecution. it would be appropriate for an attorney general to take a recommendation and perhaps decide differently. it is curious and we don't know the answer for why the special counsel decided not to make a recommendation. >> i remember conversations about obstruction of justice and that people can obstruct justice without under lying crime. >> the law is completely clear. remember the martha stewart case. she was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice. about insider trading flt she was never charged with insider trading. it is often the case that an obstruction of justice charge will be added when someone is charged with an under lying crime. it can be evidence in an obstruction of justice case. but the idea that the president's lawyers said in the earlier interview and certainly

the implication of the attorney general letter, that somehow it's impossible to be charged with obstruction of justice without being charged with the under lying crime. that's not the law it's not department of justice policy. and it's not true. >> one other point. i don't believe for a second the attorney general made the decision in 48 hours. so i know we have to do more investigation as to how this played out. but to think that the attorney general received this report on friday evening. and then made this statutory interpretation on saturday and wrote a letter on sun. it doesn't ring true to department of justice practice. i think the more likely scenario is that he would have been briefed on the what was going to be in the report. over some period of days if not weeks. and this decision was formlated before the actual issue.

>> you're saying that why? it's a comp will kated issue so he needs time to think about it? >> it's a substantial statutory issue. and take time to think about it. this is major investigation that was going on for two years. this was one of the two major pillars of the report that he's providing publicly and the congress. you want to get it right at least from his perspective. i just -- i'll be curious how this plays out and whether he's asked to explain about the discussion making process. when he's called before congress. sitting here tonight i find it hard to believe he would have made the decision in 48 hours. >> that doesn't -- neither here nor there? whether or not he got advance notice. he's attorney general. >> it's fine. >> go ahead. >> i agree normally it wouldn't make a decision quickly. he already made up his mind. he knew what he thought about the obstruction and made that

clear in the letter to rosenstein. is it out of bound? probably not. he's the attorney general he can choose that. it will open questions as to what under lies the decision. there's no question he made up his mind about it. >> i have to ask the question. bob mueller is a black and white guy. he sees things very starkly. and for him to say something on the one hand there's no evidence we can't conclude a crime but not exonerated. you have to ask yourself what's the back story here? maybe, maybe, and you would know more about this. maybe the back story is that mueller knew he wasn't going to be able to get a subpoena that he wanted. that they had informal discussions and knew he wasn't going to get it. maybe he disagrees with bar on obstruction. but wasn't willing to put himself out there on it because he knew the attorney general would disagree.

>> first of all. there's so many maybes there. had they pressed for a subpoena to have face to face questioning of the president. they would have prevailed legally. they would have won that battle. i don't think there's much doubt about that. i really don't. so to then boot strap the idea that this means all the five different things i think is really reaching. >> it's funny. the president's lawyers spent months saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. that there's. >> i'm not a president lawyer. i have frequently disagreed with the lawyers. >> i understand that. it's not a sure thing that the courts would have granted mueller the right to question the president. i think you maybe right. the united states nixon vs.

president precedent. is relevant. it's not exactly the same. but the idea that of course mueller could have gotten to talk to donald trump. if he wanted to. and just filed a subpoena. that's a very -- that's not really. it was a complicated legal debate. legal fight. >> i'm not suggesting it was simple. but i think they would have prevailed on that. and the speculation on the notion they wouldn't have. so they didn't even try. when they interviewed how many witnesses? >> they did try. >> of course we don't know. we just don't know. >> we don't know because there's nothing in there from mueller. it's a couple of quotes. so we don't know if he did make a decision to punt. or what else he said. we don't know. >> just in terms of the actual report being released. there's grand jury testimony i

guess in there. that would have to be looked at carefully. a number of issues looked at. >> right. so i think i do take the attorney general at his word that they'll start the work. and review the report for purposes of grand jury material. for purposes of whether or not. thereto are ongoing investigations that were spun off from this major investigation. they'll look at to whether anything in the report would effect ongoing investigations. then although i don't think it's in the attorney general letter. there is a question over whether some things might be raise the issue of executive privilege. i found it notable i don't think he included that in the letter as a reason for delaying review of the report. >> just -- am i being naive in that i understand why democrats are seem disappointed. i understand why president sporters are elated. but over all, the idea, if it

was a fact the president and the people around him didn't collude with russians involved in the election. that's a great thing for this country. the man -- maybe the president for the next four years. he didn't collude, that's good. >> it isn't just related to this president. >> i was speaking to ken. >> okay. it isn't just related to this president. the reason this is good. this is a national issue. forget republican and democrat. we need clean elections that aren't interfered with. that are run legally and aren't interfered with by foreign powers. russia has been aggressive well before 2016 election. though they are technology available to them that give them other options that they exercised in 2016. i think that's important to

every american. i don't know anybody of any stripe on either side of the aisle that doesn't think it's a big deal. in that sense tonight or this letter and the friday report, is a good out come for this country. for the people who just want to take the president down and use this to do it, move to the issues. jennifer granholm said this morning, the 2020 candidates for the democrats really are not dealing too much with this. they're dealing with things that affect real lives. that's very smart on their part. the rest of the political world would be wise to get to that too. there are things to answer coming out of this. we need to get back to making america a better place. for every american. that isn't going to happen if the political world is focussed on this. >> there's one part of that. i kploetly agree we should be glad to know the president and his campaign didn't rise to the level of engaging in a criminal

conspiracy. we can happy about that. i think there's a part of this that worries me for 2020 and beyond. that is that according to a "new york times" report in january of 2019, the president and 17 different officials on the campaign had contact with russian government or surrogate officials. the attorney general letter said there were multiple offers from russian individuals to assist the campaign. there is some level of activity that is below the standard of a criminal conspiracy, but is leaning with foreign counter parts of a hostile foreign power and accepting assistance. that laws don't cover. there's a conversation to be had about what level of hostile foreign power interaction we're willing to accept in the electoral process. >> fair enough. we have to take a break. everyone, thank you. much more ahead. we'll speak to someone

interviewed by the mueller team and talk about what happens next in the political arena. much to discuss. a member of the house oversight committee joins us. after months of wearing only a tiger costume, we're finally going on the trip i've been promising. because with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. ♪ so even when she outgrows her costume, we'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure together.

unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only when you book with expedia.

as you heard earlier in the program jerry nadler said that attorney general barr's letter raises more questions than answers. joining me now is jerry conly. thanks for being with us. is there anything ne way to characterize this report as anything other than a complete win for the president? >> i don't agree with that at all, anderson. why would you conclude that? let's start with obstruction of justice. this report says, and he quotes from mueller, one of the few times he does. while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

to finish that sentence, from committing a crime. if that's exoneration, i don't know what victory would be. and then there's collusion. >> collusion. >> let's talk about collusion. all it says is we didn't conclude that anybody on the campaign rose to the level of criminal activity. your last panelist, i think, put the correct point on this. are we going to now accept that it is normal in presidential campaigns for a whole campaign team to have 100 contacts with a foreign adversary, whom they knew was trying to disrupt our election and tilt it? that's just business as usual. are we going to accept that norm? and oh, by the way, what else did mueller find short of criminal collusion? >> but a lot of democrats have been saying publicly, you know, there is direct evidence of collusion. there is direct evidence of it

and of criminal activity. there's not, according to mueller, on the collusion front. >> i think that's a function of language. was there collusion? well, if you're meeting with russian operatives who have told you in advance the purpose of the meeting is to give you dirt on your political opponent and you respond, i love it, and you show up at that meeting to hear the details of that, or you encourage the russians to release even more wikileaks e-mails, i think to a layman's ear that looks like collusion. may not rise to criminal -- >> there's a difference between being sleazy and doing things which are objectionable and wrong. >> that's right. >> and not criminal. >> that's right. but that's why i took issue with how you premised this question. is this total exoneration or vindication or can democrats be anything but disbarren of this report?

that's much more rich. >> i understand it makes sense for the american people to see the full report. i'm not sure you're going to get the underlying documents as many democrats want. that seems like that may be more difficult. wouldn't you think? >> it may be difficult but i think it's going to be necessary if we're going to put a period on this examination. >> it could be said that's hypocritical of democrats who have been supportive of mueller. protecting him against the president. he's a buddy of comey's and isn't a straight shooter. for democrats to say we have complete confidence in mueller but now we're disappointed with the results and essentially reinvestigate his investigation? and see all the documents. >> i don't think that's hypocritical. we have a summary from a not disinterested party who already in a preview, sort of an

interview for his job wrote this memo criticizing the mueller report -- or mueller investigation, is now making decisions for us, including what's in the mueller report. i don't think it's hypocritical at all. to say i do stand by the integrity of robert mueller, but i also want to see the full report and what led him to those conclusions or findings in terms of the documentary evidence. >> but rod rosenstein was also involved, according to barr, in the decision of not moving forward on any criminal charge related to obstruction of justice. so it's not just attorney general barr who made that decision. does that give you any more confidence? >> what it does is make me want to know a lot more. if the words they quote say neither did he exonerate him from obstruction of justice, what led you, nonetheless, to include, either mr. barr or mr.

rosenstein, that you were going to go one way not the other, when mueller didn't say that? >> congressman connolly, appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> the president maybe pleased on the conclusion. especially on conclusion. the president said nothing about robert mueller himself today, certainly a break from the past when he has had had plenty to say. >> the problem with the mueller investigation is everybody has massive conflicts. mr. mueller is highly conflicted. in fact, comey is like his best friend. >> these people have the biggest conflicts of interest i've ever seen. >> i call them the 13 angry democrats. >> i could go into conflict after conflict. but sadly, mr. mueller is conflicted. muller was not senate confirmed because of all the conflicts, they didn't want to bring him before the senate because he's very conflicted. he's conflicted. and i know that his best friend is comey, who is a bad cop. he put 13 highly conflicted and very angry -- i call them angry democrats in.

>> the last bit the president said a few days ago. here with me now "usa today" columnist kierstin roberts. -- powers and michael caputo. i want to ask you something. i understand that they're seemingly despondent because this not what they expected and republicans who support the the president and his team are thrilled. if, in fact, there was no collusion and that's what robert mueller has said, no criminally chargeable collusion by the president or anyone around him, again, that seems to be great news for the country. >> yeah. >> whether there was sleazy activity, bad things going on, poor choices made, inappropriate things. that's good that the president of the united states did not collude. >> i agree. it's very good. i think the president has a lot of reason to have been upset this entire time, that he was being accused of this.

and that you had many democrats coming out and saying as much, that he was basically guilty of collusion when that hadn't been proven. i think there's no question on that front that this is a very good day for donald trump and his administration and the people around him. i think on the obstruction of justice issue, i think democrats are right to be asking questions and particularly because they haven't seen the actual report from mueller. instead what they've seen is basically a determination made by the department of justice, political appointees, appointed by donald trump. i think it's fair to ask about that, but i also think it's true that's today really good day for him on the collusion front. >> michael, i understand democrats wanting to see the actual mueller report and certainly the american people get a better understanding of what they've been doing and what happened to the country.

getting the actual document, the investigative documents, interviews by the fbi, things like that, that seems like a whole other step and seems to be an investigation of the mueller investigation by democrats who said they completely had faith in the mueller investigation. >> that's true. every attorney i've talked to -- i've got a few myself. i work with a lot of attorneys, former u.s. attorneys. not a one of them in the last couple of days have told me they expect the underlying documents to be revealed. in fact, a lot of those attorneys believe that it would be surprising if we see the entire report. i think we should see the entire report. right now, i want to read it, see it, all of america does. i would like to see as much unredacted transparency as possible. as we sit here and watch the democrats and the kind of resistance media out there, twitter feeds kind of sifting

through the rubble of the russia investigation spin that was out there and has collapsed all around them, there's a lot of hand wringing going on. and the idea that the house democrats want to go forward with this investigation, try to prove what mueller could never prove with all his star prosecutors and fbi agents, i think it's time for republicans to buy popcorn more than anything else. >> on a personal level, michael, you were interviewed by mueller and that comes with it. tens of thousands if not more than $100,000 in legal fees and time of your life spent just personally -- we talked about this, i guess, when the word came out that there would be be no new indictments. now that this has come out, how do you feel? >> i've learned a lot, anderson. i used to work in congress. i represented the broadcast media interests of seven different standing committees at the house of representatives.

i know what it's like to go through a house and senate committee inquiry. testifying before those bodies. but going through a mueller type of -- an office of special counsel investigation interview is a totally different thing. have you the political side of congress and the criminal side at the department of justice. it's a very intimidating thing. even though i was a witness for two years among 50 other friends of mine who were witnesses through these two years, we all felt in peril this entire time because this team of prosecutor koss flip us from witness to target in the blink of an eye. >> yeah. >> so you're always in peril with the office open. and now it's closed it's a relief in a lot of ways and it's great for the president, in my perspective. he can move forward in many different paths from here. >> kirsten, should this have impact on other investigations?

that congress wants -- certainly there's investigations in the southern district of new york but in terms of political investigations by democrats, do you think this should have an impact? >> yes but i also always thought they need to be careful about this anyway. i think we've talked about it before. there have been times when we have had conversations about are they getting too far out on a limb, pinning everything on this idea there was collusion? now what it looks like, because you did have elected members of congress basically saying that they knew there had been collusion when they didn't really have the evidence. there was a lot more evidence, you know, of obstruction of justice, if there was ever anything. but collusion, that wasn't something that they could know. now it becomes the boy who cried wolf. if you have been saying this over and over and have someone like bob mueller, who should be trusted, who democrats said they trusted, say no, it didn't

happen, they have to be very careful about the kinds of investigations. because then it can start looking like an actual witch hunt. >> right. >> what donald trump was saying it was. >> thank you, kirsten powers and michael caputo as well. >> president trump and allies celebrate the news. there are ongoing investigations. looking into the president and his associates. more on that and the state of play. was signed by a record lab. a record deal? unbelievable. whenever we're about to get on a stage for a huge audience, i always give my dad like a facetime kinda moment. you see the crowd, you see the emotion. you know, he has that experience for the first time with me, and that's really important to me. i created a rockstar. (both laughing) (vo) there for you when it matters most. get iphone xr on us when you buy the latest iphone. and apple music on us with unlimited. only on verizon.

whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand 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

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.

more probes are on going by a variety of federal investigators. you can see some of those investigations here. among them the trump organization. the ongoing look into the hush money payments to women by former trump attorney michael cohen during the 2016 presidential election campaign. also new york state investigation and accusations that it violated state law. they're also investigating whether they accept donations or

misused funds so understand the president scored a big victory in terms of learning that the president did not collude with russia according to the special counsel. legal woes though for the president are certainly not over. >> that's right. this is a case where the end is not quite the end. for the president there's a lot of legal issues that he and his lawyers are going to have to deal with. you mentioned the southern district of new york, prosecutors there in manhattan that are frankly the only ones that in the end landing a punch on the president throughout the last two years, nearly two years of investigations. they're the ones essentially that were able to declare in court and a judge made it a finding of fact that the president was an unindicted

co-conspirator in the crimes of michael cohen. so again, that is probably the most serious investigation for the president. we know that one of the things that the prosecutors are still looking at is whether or not anybody else was involved in masking the payments and whether or not they committed a campaign finance violation. this is an investigation that's going to continue and i think if you're the president you have to worry about where your company, whether any members of your family could be impacted or effected by that investigation. >> in terms of the investigation do you agree that it's the southern district, ones that have been the most fruitful so far. >> they have. we have seen quite aggressive

activity. we have seen subpoenas issued to the inauguration committee. we don't have a good or i should say a great idea of what they're looking at but we have a general idea in terms of the inauguration what they're looking at and one of those things is foreign money, whether or not foreign money went into the inauguration and the southern district of new york, the other investigation is the hush money payments. they just put out the court order to release documents. it was all redacted. indicated that very much is still under investigation. we could see other people charged in connection with that. >> stay with us on this historic

sunday night. complete and total exoneration. see what lies ahead. plus what 2020 presidential candidates are saying about the mueller findings when we continue. to hear those words from a doctor... stage 2 breast cancer. i have three little kids. my baby's seven years old. i can't have cancer. we really wanted a cancer team. so we thought that we would travel to cancer treatment centers of america and see what they had to offer. one of the things that we loved about ctca was that there is no one option, they give you a series of options, and you do what's best for you. every patient that walks through the door is being discussed by this team in various forms. dr. fernandez was wonderful. he said it was up to me to do what's best. it's about giving her options, where amy has all the information to make a decision that's best for her. we left the hospital on day one feeling like this is go be okay. we're gonna beat this and this is the place that's gonna help us do it ...

that feeling is priceless. learn more at cancercenter.com. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

well, the president says no collusion and robert mueller agrees. that is the bottom line of william barr's summary of the special report. no conspiring by the president and people around him. major vindication on that front and decision not to pursue obstruction of justice charges against the president. returning to the white house tonight, the president was understandably elated. >> i just want to tell you that america is the greatest place on earth. the greatest place on earth. thank you very much. thank you. >> the president tonight just a few hours before on the tarmac in florida. he also had more to say. >> it's a shame that our country had to