number of young folks told us, look, whoever the nominee ends up being, we're going to end up rallying around that person. they're willing to do anything that they can to beat donald trump, they tell us. >> they have a lot of power in determining who that nominee is and whether that person appeals to everyone else in the party. pretty incredible. thank you very much, jason. >> and thank you for joining us. anderson starts now. good evening. we begin with breaking news. new and potentially explosive reporting on what's in robert mueller's report that some of his investigators believe the attorney general failed to adequately portray in his summary. it just hit the homepage of "the new york times," the headline reads some on mueller's team see the findings as more damaging for trump than barr revealed. as mark shares the byline now. what exactly is about barr's mr memo they're taking issue with? >> as we say in the story this is about how the narrative is shaped in these early days after

this very consequential, and as he put out this bare bones letter about the summaries and what we heard is there is some frustration among members of the team that it didn't really capture the extent of the findings, that there is a lot more in there that is, you know, more damning for president trump and, you know, as we know, right after that came out there was the president trump and his allies saying clearly this is a full exoneration, and by the time that the report comes out and maybe in the next few days, maybe people's opinions have hardened or people have moved on. so it's really about shaping history at this point and thus far, the attorney general and the president have had the first say. >> do we have any idea how wide spread the sentiment is among people in from mueller's team? >> we don't really. as we say in the story there were some investigators who had

this view and we're still trying to capture the extent of it, but how wide spread it is we're still trying to determine. >> the investigators, they had actually written multiple summaries of the report, is that right? >> yes. we say in the story that there were at least two summaries that were put together of this report that we've reported and others have reported is some 400 pages. now we don't believe that the summaries were intended by the team to go out just wholesale right away and there may have been sensitive material and there may have been grand jury material in those summaries, but the point of making the summaries and digesting the information some believe could have led to the attorney general putting more of that material in his initial letter to give a fuller picture of the conclusions of the mueller investigation. >> and when it comes to the attorney general, his advisors, do they have any kind of issues with the way mueller and his team have handled this?

>> yes. we write that, you know, there's some grumbling on the other side that -- on one hand, they were worried that putting more information out might be derogatory towards people who don't get indicted and the prs dent here is what comey did in the hillary clinton investigation. there also seems to be some grumbling that the mueller team didn't come to a definitive conclusion on obstruction of justice. we know according to barr's letter they did not make a judgement and barr and his deputy rod rosenstein stepped in and made that decision and there seems to be some grumbling among the attorney general's team that it was sort of -- it fell on their lap and they're taking heat for that. >> interesting. >> mark, if you would stick around, we are joined by also former republican house intelligence committee mike rogers, former nixon white house john dean and dana bash. >> chairman rogers, i'm just

wondering what you make of this report. >> i don't think the 400-page report is going to be the summation of donald trump's summer camp experience. i mean, clearly there has been some problems and he's had people around him have some problems and i think the report is more likely to do that, but if the conclusion from the report was there was no conclusion definitively -- yes, collusion and on the obstruction of justice they couldn't make the determination. they might find all of the ancillary material that would support one way or another and that's just going to be political fodder for the next two years. i think they need to let barr go through his review and then press event the report and find out if it reflects what the body of the report reflects. >> dana, barr's review, there's a number of criteria that the department of justice says he will use in order to redact

things. his grand jury testimony is things that current investigations, obviously classified, but then there's another criteria and i don't want to get the wording wrong, but some things that may do harm to a third party or a tangential third party which seems kind of broad. it certainly does seem broad and that third party could be easily the president of the united states depending on what the issue is. so that is -- those are some of the reasons why you have seen and heard democrats demanding and today went so far as to not just say it, but to take action with a subpoena for this entire report. but i also think before we, you know, kind of scream from the rooftops that wait a second, we're not seeing it all, i agree with chairman rogers that, you know, it is entirely possible

that we could see more than the democrats are warning that we will. so, you know, what "the new york times" is reporting is a warning shot from people arne the mueller investigation and whether or not that is because these people think that or actually smell a rat and think that what they are wanting to get through to the american people with this report won't get through or because they are frustrated with what they saw in the barr summary which i should add the barr summary did make pretty clear that robert mueller has some not so nice things to say about people in and around trump world, vis-a-vis russia even if he didn't have anything that he could actually prosecute them on. >> john, democrats in congress, they're upset about getting a redacted version of the mueller

report or potentially getting a redacted version and do you see this latest news of increasing the chances of a court fight between the democrats and the justice department? >> i don't think it will give them any reason to back down. exactly the opposite. this looks like there are some real differences between what barr has framed the report as and what might actually be in the report. we know some generalities and we don't know specifics and those specifics could indeed shape our thinking. so i think there's going to be a push for detail and until that's out there there will be no satisfaction. >> everyone, if you can say there i want to bring in congressman swalwell from california. congressman, you reaction to this report from "the new york times". >> this is a call for us to see this report immediately. when we step back, this investigation was about a foreign adversary attacking our elections and questions whether

the candidate and his administration worked with the russians and we can't protect against future elections if we don't know what's in the report. the republicans should go with their gut instinct and they voted to release it fully to the public. 420 to 0 and they joined democrats and the president with all of these questions swirling around with potential leaks going around should just order the attorney general, if he believes he's 100% exonerated to give us 100% of the report. >> do you share the concern apparently of some of these investigators that mueller's conclusions may have been solidified even before the report comes out? >> no, i don't because the public polls that i've seen from cnn, and nbc wall street journal votes the public still believes that the president worked with the russians and has questions about it. i am just concerned, though that the bar letter and his actions demonstrate that he's going to continue to protect the president and it's going toence late him from us being able to

know who he drew it through the election and we may need to go through a pro tracted litigation process when we need the report now. >> the reality is we don't know how many on mueller's team may actually feel this way. >> that's right. again, to get rid of any doubt that may hang over this report just released the report now. that's the best we can do. we don't want to see further leaks and leaks are not good for anyone, but i think the motivation for these leaks may be a severe mischaracterization of what the mueller team found and how attorney general barr has described the investigation. >> in terms of barr reportedly limiting the details and the concerns that if they included information that made the president look bad while at the same time clearing him they would face the same thing comey did over the clinton investigation, putting out bad information about somebody who they're not actually indicting. >> here we have the president of

the united states and just because he's not been criminally charged does not mean that there's not wrongdoing or that he didn't rise to the level of conduct that we'd want from a presidential candidate or someone serving in the office. i think that public interest here in protecting future elections and understanding whether anyone in this administration is compromised by the russians is very high. >> how much time does attorney general barr have before subpoenas are issued from the full report and underlying evidence? is it a matter of days? is it a matter of weeks? >> we voted today to authorize subpoenas so they could be coming any minute now. i can't imagine this news story slows down when the subpoenas drop. the reason we didn't go right for subpoenas is because we believe in the rule of law and you follow a process of traditions and customs and we ask him for it voluntarily. if they don't give it to us, then we subpoena. we won't result in the rule of law that the president and his

team have resulted in doing, but we're not going to be patient about this, either, because too much is at stake. >> certainly, people from the trump administration and the department of justice and others will say, look, if this report is unredacted and sent to members of congress and the underlying, you know, documents are also sent even if it's not released to the public and even if it's sent to congress it will leak out. >> there are ways to protect against leaks and there isn't that much that should be redacted and we should redact any ongoing investigations as they relate to national security and any grand jury conduct that does not relate to those two the public should see. this this is not an ordinary citizen. this is the president of the united states and we should all know especially a public that paid for this investigation what the investigation produced. >> congressman swalwell, thank

you. >> mark, for those who are just joining, can you say how many or how wide spread this feeling is or was among people from the mueller team? >> in the story we don't characterize numbers. we say that the team numbered some 19 different lawyers and 40 different fbi agents. we know it is, you know, several members of this group and we haven't characterized it further and we're trying to report the extent of the frustration among the group. >> and i don't know if you can speak to motives of -- of the people who are talking about this. is it a warning shot? is it, you know, just the concern about what barr has said? >> well, we've heard this from a number of different quarters and we've heard it from and we

talked to a lot of different sources in a lot of different places to put a report together that we're pretty confident in, and so, you know, it's -- we are certain that, you know, people's motives might be different in different cases and we said they've told associates about this. so people's motives in some cases might be one thing and others might be another and we are, you know, still trying to get to the bottom of, you know, how the rest of the team might be feeling about this. >> chairman rogers, do you think the notion that we're hearing from democrats in congress is, you know, we want basically the unredacted chairman nadler was talking about an unredacted version going to members of congress as well as underlying documents. it's been done in the star report. that i say that was obviously a different situation and it wasn't a special counsel. it was an independent counsel. and that was the unredacted to

congress, isn't it part of their oversight role because this is part of the natural oversight role. >> i've been on pretty big investigations and you're talking nearly 20 lawyers and 40 fbi investigators and that means you will get 120 different opinions on what this looked like on the way out the door, and so you have to be careful. stampede justice is dangerous. it's really dangerous. that's why there is a process. as a matter of fact, jerry nadler supported that process 20 years ago or maybe 30 years ago now and i would argue support the process today. if you don't like the outcome and by the way, i think we should see as much of this report as possible, but remember upon, it was a c.i. report, a counterintelligence investigation and that means there will be a high degree of information that's sensitive that does not help the national security to become known or public and i do think it's right

to protect the third parties and someone in the investigation could have said oh, yeah, i talked to anderson cooper five times about this and he told me what to do. that goes down in a 302 and the fbi agent puts it as part of the file and the investigation determines that was bunk. he never had a conversation with anderson cooper. when it goes public that person gets dragged in the mud and has the opportunity to get their character assassinated. that's why we have a process. let the process take hold. let barr go through the review, give it to congress and then if they're want happy let the fights begin and now they're saying i'll give you a quick trial and awe fair hanging and it's all about the fair hanging that i'm interested in. i don't think that's good for america if you like trump or don't like trump. >> later tonight, it's an eye-opening number, whatever you might think of the president, 22 false or misleading stachlss per

day. we'll talk about what that can mean. keeping them honest tonight. 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. now you can, with shipsticks.com! no more lugging your clubs through the airport or risk having your clubs lost or damaged by the airlines. sending your own clubs ahead with shipsticks.com makes it fast & easy to get to your golf destination. with just a few clicks or a phone call, we'll pick up and deliver your clubs on-time, guaranteed, for as low as $39.99. shipsticks.com saves you time and money. make it simple. make it ship sticks. shipsticks.com saves you time and money.

dad! dad!! can you drive me to jessica's house? ♪ at northwestern mutual, this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but so is making the most of the house before they're out of the house. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com.

(video games have evolved.addle) why hasn't the way you bank? virtual wallet from pnc bank helps make it easier to see what you're spending,

stash more into savings and stay on top of your finances in a digital world. just one way pnc is modernizing banking to help make things easier. pnc bank. make today the day. that rocking chair would look grahh, new house, eh?e. well, you should definitely see how geico could help you save on homeowners insurance. nice tip. i'll give you two bucks for the chair. two?! that's a victorian antique! all right, how much for the recliner, then? wait wait... how did that get out here? that is definitely not for sale! is this a yard sale? if it's in the yard then it's... for sale. oh, here we go. geico. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance. ♪

pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free! >> we're talking tonight about new reporting in "the new york times" that for the first time opens a window directly into the mueller investigation and it documents grumbling in the mueller team about how attorney general barr has summed up their work. according to the times, the source says the findings are more troubling than the four-page summary. federal prosecutor shen wu. what do you make of the reporting by mark other ands from "the new york times"? >> what struck me, anderson is the idea that -- two thing, first, it's remarkable that there's anything resembling a leak. so that really means there's something really troubling to the mueller team. i mean, even though it's not

coming directly from them, but to associates that's something that's never happened during the whole two years. second of all, what struck me was the fact that the team supposedly has written summaries which would have been very carefully prepared and they are concerned that those summaries are used and that troubles me, as well because if the attorney general was doing this high-level summary and he already had summaries at his disposal that were written it seems all the more troubling that he didn't use more quotes from the report. >> mark, is it known what part of barr's memo, obstruction or collusion that the investigators are taking issue with? >> not specifically. i think there's actually probably some of both in that is to shan's point about the summary, yes, was there concern that there was not more taken

from those summary, but i do want to be careful to point out as we do in the story that we've not heard that there was an expectation that the summaries would kind of be put out in lieu of our letter that it would be put out in prime time and we don't assert that in the story and possibly something more than what barr put out and as we know, he only, i think, quoted two partial sentences from the actual report? yeah. dana, you know the president's pushback. he'll say this is just mueller's angry democrats. how likely do you think it is that the reporting from the times might complicate the release of the report or do you think it would? the release of the full report. >> i don't know that it would complicate the full release of the report because yes, you're right. the president has talked about angry democrats, but it's still rich to hear a discussion and an argument about angry democrats and then in the same breath talk about the fact that he was

completely vindicated by those same angry democrats so we'll see how they play that one, but look, the key is and even mark has been saying there is a lot we still don't know about what the frustrations are, where they're coming from and about what parts of the barr -- the barr summary that was either in the barr summary or more importantly, as mark was saying left out of the barr summary, and we'll know more about the answers to that when we actually, you know, get as much of the report as we're going to get. it is hard to imagine that the people who are not just associated with are associates of these prosecutor, but the actual prosecutors themselves are not going to make what they think and what they feel and what they learned more clear. >> john, do you think this is going to end up with mueller being asked to testify?

>> i have no doubt that at some point he will testify. exactly when is another question. if barr somehow seems to overredact the report when it comes up or the whole process may come into question and i think a lot of people are curious as to why he didn't reach a decision on the obstruction. apparently, according to the reporting of the times there was some displeasure at justice that that decision wasn't made. there's also nothing in the regs that entitled them to jump in and make it. so i've -- i don't know how this will all get sorted out less somebody like mr. mueller testified. >> you say there's nothing in the regulations that allows them to make it, meaning the mueller team to make it? >> no. the mueller team can make it. it's the barr people that are -- there's nothing in the regs that

authorizes them to the contrary. those regs are set up so political people are not making these kinds of decisions and it's why we have the special counsel and given the fact he couldn't make a decision it appears he was out to congress and not to barr. >> chairman rogers, is that what should have happened? that it's not barr who should make that decision about it. it should have been punted over to congress? >> well, i would -- i might disagree with the term that they punted it over to congress. i would think the special counsel made a determination based on their ability to find facts to reach that probable cause to take to court to reach a conviction. that happens all across america and sometimes they don't have enough facts to make it and what i think we will see now and i think mueller should get the opportunity to testify before congress, but what we -- it would be great if we can actually have a thoughtful, substantive conversation in congress about the details of

this report. i'm not sure we're ever going to get there. their hair is on fire and people are so irrational. so when he does that, i think what the special counsel was trying to avoid was what happened with comey when he was trying to play the game of she wasn't guilty and she did bad things and that was not helpful and it was not his place. i don't think it was mueller's place to say i couldn't find collusion and i didn't have enough, and i just didn't feel comfortable to move forward on an indictment for obstruction, and i think we have to back up and take a deep breath. congress is going to get their bite of this apple. i don't think he put it there. i think he said here's what i found. have a nice day. >> i have to get a break in. the other big breaking story. the chairman of the house, ways and means committee requesting copies of president trump's tax returns. what do you look for when you trade? i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform.

yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ omar, check this out. uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog. [ rhythmic tapping ]

hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there. ifor another 150 years. tasthe fire goinguth! ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

more breaking news that cnn was first to report. house democrats are opening their new front in the investigation of the president. they want his taxes citing a little-known irs provision, congressman richard neil of the house, ways and means committee formally requested six years covering 2013 to 2018 and he asked for the tax returns of eight trump business entities. the chairman stressed that the committee stressed was about policy, not politics. republicans will certainly disagree. the chairman set next wednesday as the deadline. as for the president he'd love to release his taxes, but can't because he's under audit. >> when the audit is complete i'll release my returns. i have no problem with it. >> i'm releasing when we're finished with the audit. >> by the way, just so you understand. i've released my papers 104 pages of documents. >> i will release my tax returns against my lawyer's wishes.

when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been delete period. >> we are under audit despite what people said and we're working that out. i'm always under audit, it seems. >> that last sound bite was from late today. we should point out that the president has never produced any official evidence that he's under audit and it doesn't mean you can't show your tax returns to anyone you wish. joining us now is democratic congresswoman linda sanchez. thanks for being with us, congresswoman. how much of a say does he have in the matter? >> actually, he didn't have any say because the request was not made to the president. the request for the statute was made to the irs commissioner, and we expect the irs commissioner to comply with the law. the section that grants authority to the chairman of the ways and means committee to request individual tax returns has been made, interestingly, but chairmen of both parties and

in every case when the request has been made it's been fulfilled and there's no precedence for not providing them. >> the president has said today that he continues to be under audit. do you expect to verify if that's actually true or not? >> absolutely. we will find out if it's the truth or another lie that the president has been telling us. that's part of the request that chairman neil submitted. >> i mean, that would certainly be fascinating to find out one way or the other, but to those who might look at this and say, look, this is a politically motivated phishing expedition and to that you say what? >> the president said that he would release them so i don't understand what the big deal is. he's said that on several occasions as seve raft of the clips that you've just shown has proved. if he has nothing to hide, release the tax returns. i think programly the american people have a right to know whether he's benefiting from the very policies he's pushing and

whether or not he's cheated on his taxes and whether he's paying his fair share and all of those can be determined, i think, if we can get the tax returns. >> the president seems surprised that the committee is asking for six years and not ten. why are you focusing on six years? >> that's a question better put to chairman neil and he's been methodically laying the groundwork and made sure he made the request in the right way possible. it's better to get it done correctly than to rush and hastily make the request. >> do you have a sense of how soon? i know you have set a deadline for this, but do you know what the process for this is? >> well, again, the request has gone to the irs commissioner and in the past every request to that has been made of the irs commissioner subject to the statute which grants the chairman the authority to make the request has been fulfilled so there is no precedent for

denying the request of the house, ways and means committee. >> i appreciate it. author of the truth about trump and most recently, and back with us is mike rogers, former nixon white house counsel john dean and cnn chief political correspondent dana bash. how significant could this be? i mean, six years of tax returns. the whole notion of an audit, we don't know if that's actually true or not and we judon't knowf there is an audit. >> that's the statute of limitation for fraud committed on your taxes. so i think this is a very well-targeted request. the president faces peril in multiple areas here. he faces the prospect of being shown to not have made charitable contribution, to not be worth what he says he's worth, to not have the income

he's claimed to have. he could be found to have been involved in money laundering and say he sold a property for three times its real worth and why did he accept so much money knowing it could be money laundering from ill-gotten gains abroad. there are so many areas where he could have committed fraud. he's claimed one value for properties for tax purposes and others for the purpose of seeking loans. so bank fraud is a much more serious crime than tax fraud and he's in trouble here. >> dana, you've been speaking with the presidenti's allies. what are they telling you? >> first of all, nobody has seen president's tax returns and on the substance of it what they're telling me is their suspicion is either one or both of the

following. a, if anybody does end up seeing his tax returns it will show he didn't pay as much as other people in his tax bracket should, but he has good accountants so that's why or b, he's not as rich as he says he is and to that they shrug their shoulders as a political ramification of that. >> certainly, what we just heard about potential bank broad and all that, that's not something that we could know at all right now. >> right. quickly, in terms of the politics of this, what i was looking at to ask people about this, because the president is in 2020 mode and whether or not this will have an impact on the swing voter if they still exist and the answer is to people who are candid about this in terms of the president's politics, probably not and they're actually hoping, these are trump allies that democrats will make

the president a sympathetic person in an area that nobody would see and find any sympathy for him. >> it is an interesting idea, john, in this hearing from people that by launching investigation after investigation and democrat dechls say this is our overheight, and this is what we should be doing, but it's going to create -- yo, and it will create sympathy for the president, in that scrutiny. i must tell you,and son, nixon did not draw sympathy particularly when they got around the tax return and the finance committee and the ways and means and joint tax are the statute that's involved here and nixon said go ahead and audit and they did, and he was a half

million dollars shy on paying taxes and a half million dollars was more than it is today. >> mike, treasury secretary mnuchin was asked last month if a tax like this came in like that. >> based upon the request we will examine it and follow the law. i would expect -- i'm want aware that there's ever been an elected official's tax return and we will follow the law and we would protect the president as we would protect any individual taxpayer under their rights. >> should the administration comply with this request? >> i think so. i'm not sure they're going have a choice. it's going to the irs commissioner. i think there are certain and it's very boxed off and very few people can actually see it, but i don't know -- to fight this one i think they might be facing some peril and they may try to delay it and i agree with dana on this. the one problem is they're so overboard and 80-some subpoenas

and now they're making a big deal with the tax returns and i think what happens is he does become a victim and i disagree with mr. dean in the sense that this is a little bit different and they're coming at him every way that they possible deand at some point it's overwhelming and people think, gee, my healthcare is kind of screwed up and i hit 18 potholes on the way to work this morning. i'm not sure what they're doing in washington. that said, i think he may comply and he shoots himself on the foot upon. >> comply, keep it compartmentalize and nancy pelosi, i think she spoke to him two or three weeks ago. the times is truncated now. the democrats should not be focusing on the investigations and talking about health care, infrastructure and the economy and all of the things that did

well for them in 2018. >> that's exactly right, and they are trying to do that. when you look at the legislative calendar what the house democrats are talking about and working on, there are things like health care and other issues. the problem is the oxygen as it always has since donald trump has entered the political scene goes to all things donald trump, and the fact is she has a series of committee chairmen who are now armed with a gavel who are doing their oversight job and they have requested a lot of information, just the latest today was a biggie which is the tax returns and it is just impossible to, you know, get -- to get, you know, sort of headlines for things that just aren't, frankly, as politically sexy although very important and incredibly important and a lot more important to the american people. >> michael, again, the claim by

the president of the audit which is something that's never really been proven. there is no reason why he can't even if being audited, i feel like we covered this ad infinite up. there has to be a reason -- i mean, it could be something as simple as he's exaggerated h his -- >> he's a fantasist. these are important to him. he holds on to them and these are elements of his identity and it was an element of his appeal. he was the great businessman who was going to go down and drain the swamp. well, he hasn't drained the swamp and it's looked to me and it's looked to reporters for decades that the president is not the great businessman he's claim claimed to be. >> john, the president will fight this, it does seem there is a process for this and it is

from the irs. what tools does he have at his disposal to block this? >> does he have any? >> well, he has a few because the request is to the irs. anderson, as the chairman mentioned, the rules of secrecy about the disclosure of these returns once they go to the ways and means committee are very tight. this will be, without the taxpayers' consent they can't release that information and it's almost as tightly held as it would be with irs so i don't think the president has immediate problems with this becoming public knowledge and the ways and means committee is very much of an establishmentarian committee. they play by the rules there and so i don't think it's an immediate danger for the president if he loses and it goes right up to the committee. >> yeah. everyone, thanks very much and to michael's description of the president's approach to the truth, we'll keep him honest on that next. [happy birthday music]

♪ ♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade.

>> if the house, ways and means committee prevails president trump will have to turn over six years worth of tax returns and as we showed you in the last

segment he's promised to make his taxes public just as soon as what he alleges is an irs audit is completed and he said the same today. it bears repeating he has not been are produced evidence he was audited and each if he was it would not preclude him from putting out the returns. during the campaign his audit claim was one of many unfund ou and shaking and misleading statement on his part. for those who knew him before politics it wasn't surprising as his ghost writer tony schwartz wrote for him in "the art of the deal," some people want to believe it's spectacular and it's an innocent form of exaggeration and a very effective form of promotion. when you're pinching gold leaf condos with sub-zero appliances and it's another thing when you are president. we've all gotten jaded whether you like him or dislike him or even care is a habitual liar and

in the time it became normal something else happened and it seemed to have accelerated. the president of the united states made an average of 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in the first year in office which is staggering. however, in the last 200 days or so he's been averaging 22 false or misleading statements per day. as of april 1st it adds up according to the post, 9,451 false or misleading claims over 801 days. here is a sample from just the last 24 hours. >> so what they've done over the years is they release them into the united states and they say come back in four years for a trial and nobody comes back. i guess 1%, 1% to 2% don't come back. they arrange these caravans and they don't put their best people in those caravans. >> in the meantime we're releasing you into our country. now only 2% come back for the trial. >> did mitch mcconnell ask you -- >> no, i wanted to delay it myself. my father is german, right?

was german, and born in a very wonderful place in germany. so i have a great feeling for germany. >> the largest tax cuts in the history of our country. >> if you have a wind mill anywhere near your house, congratulations. your house just went down 75% in value. america now has the hottest economy anywhere in the world. and they say the noise causes cancer. you tell me that one, okay? >> just quickly to run down those statements the no show immigration case is substantial is far from 98%. there's no evidence central american governments are arranging the caravans and putting their not best people in them. mitch mcconnell himself said he asked him to delay obama care and the president's father was born in new york and not germany. the trump tax cuts were a third the size of president reagan's. wind mills do decrease property

values and it is growing far faster in other countries and no evidence that the noise from wind turbines cause cancer. none. not even truthful hyperbole. to be charitable to the president, some of those statements do have a small kernel of truth and content, but out of that seed usually grows a big, honking falsehood. some of it is ridiculous in a funny, shake your head type of way. not all of it is. some of it is weirder. what does it is a when you tell someone your dad was born some place other than where he was actually born? why say that? it wasn't the slip of the tongue and it's the third time he said that. he seems to do it when he's talking to someone from europe or talking about european issues and why, if you're the president of the united states, would you try to have a fact-free assertion of wind mill noise causing cancer? it's possible a throwback for him losing a battle in scotland to keep wind mills away from his golf course, but cancer? don't get us started on the some

say, or the get out of jail free card when called out on they say. using a lie to lay groundwork for conspiracy, his belief that any election that he or his allies should happen to lose should come under suspicion for being rigged. >> you better watch those vote tallies. i keep hearing about the election and the various counting measures that they have. there were a lot of close elections that were -- they seemed to every single one of them went democrat. if it was close, they say the democrat, where there's something going on, and -- hey, you've got to be a little bit more paranoid than you are, okay? look all these people, these beautiful republican congressmen and women, but we have to be a little bit careful because i don't like the way the votes are being tallied. i don't like it and you don't

like it either, and you don't want to say it because you're afraid of the press. you're afraid of the press, but we have to be careful. >> okay. so he said similar things in the run-up to the election in 2016 as well as in the wake of him suggesting with no evidence that millions of people voted illegally and that's when he was the winner. who knows what perspective now from two point office view. joining us, former republican chief of staff mike shields and "new york times" columnist charles blow. mike, what is in it for the president to just lie about something like windmills causing cancer or my dad was born in germany? i mean, i get policy issues and maybe, you know, making a mistake on something, but the germany thing he's repeated three times. always when talking about european stuff or in front of europeans. does it make any sense to you? >> well, i think there's a couple of things here. on the windmill one, you know, the president sees himself as an entertainer, and i think you can have a whole conversation about

is that appropriate or should the president do that? that's a way to cover that, i think differently than how this gets covered because now we have articles coming out about whether or not windmill turbines cause cancer and that sort of thing. >> right. by the way, it was the sound of the windmill. >> right. but you can hear the crowd laughing. there's a lot of things that came out of the speech last night. he talked for i think 2 1/2 hours to a huge audience, and he's entertaining them and saying stuff off the of that he's not thinking, oh, this is a policy position the white house is going to put out. >> right. >> so then the press runs to cover it and doesn't cover other things and in some ways does what he wants, i'm going to say some outrageous things, you guys are going to cover it and now i'm sort of in control of the narrative. >> is it weird, though, that he feels the need to entertain? he's the president of the united states. he is not an entertainer. is it weird that he, i mean, that he feels the need to entertain so he, i assume, can get some, you know, laughs and

love back and it makes him feel good to get that response. isn't that sort of a weakness? >> no, look, this is a president who, you know, when cnn's doing the 2010s in 30 years, the documentary, the image of that will be with him and kim kardashian in the oval office. this is a guy who had a number one show on nbc on sunday nights. he is an entertainer. he sees himself that way. he sees his communication style that way. i don't think it's just what's going on in the moment, i think he tries to tap into america by being an entertainer and he doesn't care what the facts and figures are along the way. the public are in on the joke and they know that about him. we keep covering him to do fact check and i don't think it has a huge impact. >> i mean, charles, i agree it may not have a huge impact at all. i just think it happens to matter whether he's saying this in an entertaining manner that

you can't believe -- i mean, normally you would sort of want to believe what the president says in just casual conversation like, oh, yeah, my dad was born in germany. you would think, okay, yeah. no, actually, it turns out that's not the case. >> i actually agree with mike on the entertainment part of it. and i take it more from the supporting part more than from his part. yes, he may think of himself adds an entertainer, but never underestimate the degree to which americans and people in general want to be entertained. that at a certain point he becomes folk hero, and the only betrayal that a folk hero can submit is to betray the people, the folk. and he is doing the exact opposite. he just cuddles them and plays to them and reaches out to no one else, so to them he's folk hero. i think we've seen this character before, just not as

the president. you can look at criminal, went to jail. you knew -- i was in louisiana. you knew he wasn't telling the truth. you knew he wasn't above board. you knew he was a womanizer and people loved him because he became folk hero and that transcends the general rules about whether or not they're always telling the truth or not or whatever. you can look at lepage, the mayor of toronto, you can look at berry in d.c. he goes to jail, comes back, gets re-elected. people say i like this person. they're generally oriented in the direction i like. they are fighting for me against the establishment and whatever. and that means that they don't have to play by the same rules. i look at the people in the -- in those audiences, people who have responded to these polls and i'm thinking, in their personal lives they know exactly what the truth is and it matters a lot. they would be upset or in

trouble if they cheated on their wife or husband. they don't do it. they go to work and they can't lie to their boss like the president lies to them. they know the difference between right and wrong, but in their life the rules matter, but in this entertainment forum with this folk hero, they suspend that because they like him in general. >> that's interesting. mike, i mean, do you think if -- is this something that it's only -- i mean, if this was president obama and president obama had, you know, 9,451 false or misleading claims over 801 days, would you be making the same argument or would republicans be making the same argument that, like, look, this is people like him and this doesn't -- it's not really having an effect and, you know, you're missing out on other things? >> i think part of the effect there is that president obama did say things that weren't true and a lot of people who are the president's supporters, "a," they think every politician says

things that aren't true, so they just kind of write it off. politicians are not the place they go to get the source of fact because they know politicians are saying things for their agenda and bending the truth and they all do it. secondly, the hardcore republicans don't feel like the press held obama nearly as accountable as they should, and so they kind of -- they get into sort of their tribal sort of partisan ways of looking at that and just write it off. >> mike shields? >> there is no parity between obama and trump on the truth. we have to just say that. >> the numbers. >> come on. >> charles blow, thank you. mike shields as well. i want to check in with chris and see what he's working on with "cuomo prime time." >> big night. we knew we were going to get here. the longer the mueller report doesn't come out, the more there is going to be a crisis of confidence. now you have "the new york times" reporting that some of mueller's team says the a.g. didn't appropriately characterize their findings. there is more stuff in there that's bad for the president. look, this is what's going to happen. there's going to be pushback. it's going to be ugly. the more that comes out, the better. so in looking at that, what do

the democrats do? they subpoena the report and now we have a member of the house ways and means committee, they're asking for the taxes. years of personal and professional taxes. why? we have a member of the committee. i'll talk about it. i was joking about the chinese lady going to mar-a-lago. i thought it was just a funny story. now the intel community is like, no, this isn't funny, this is a problem. we'll find out from somebody who knows the job tonight. >> chris, thanks very much. we'll be right back.

president trump's downplaying what appears to be a security breach at mar-a-lago. he told reporters this evening he wasn't concerned, described it as a fluke situation. this as a u.s. official says the

fbi has entered the investigation and looking into whether or not it was an espionage effort. authorities with two chinese passports got past an initial security check at the club. chris is going to have more on this. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." total exoneration. that's what the president declared about the mueller probe thinking he was nailing the coffin shut. instead, it seems he's opened up pandora's box. mueller's team is pushing back. they say no complete exoneration. even the attorney general's account of the special counsel's findings, they say, isn't right. this is breaking at the same time democrats authorize a subpoena for the full un-redacted report. they've also opened up a new front in their new season of oversight. years of this president's taxes, personal and professional. they asked for them. will they get them? the other question is, will they be sorry if they