past, like some of his other favorites. >> they say it's medieval a wall, like a wheel. a wheel is medieval but it works. >> reporter: maybe the president has just had it with wind. all right. have a great weekend. see you monday. anderson starts now. we begin tonight keeping them honest with president trump retaining legal council and willing to fight to the supreme court so no one can see his turns which is not what -- tax returns which is not what he seemed to say he would do. >> will you release any of your tax returns? >> we're working on that right now. i have big returns, we'll be working on that over the next period of time, absolutely. >> that was in january 2016. we know what the president meant

how about never? is never good enough for you. except candidate trump said he was being audited and that somehow made it impossible to release his returns, which is not true. and we've seen no evidence of an audit. there's no law saying a candidate has to release his or her tax returns yet every presidential nominee since gerald ford released their forms in one way or another. it's a custom they followed to reassure voters that the president of the united states would be acting in the public interest not the private gain. now the democrats are in control of the house and decided they should see the president's returns. so the chairman of the ways and means committee sent the irs a request for the president's last six tax returns. today we learned the president hired legal counsel. he says, even when ways and means can identify some

legitimate committee purpose it cannot request tax returns and return information to punish taxpayers for their speech or politics. that's a part of a densely packed, multiprong legal argument. the president also weighed in about his taxes. >> nothing whatsoever. i've nothing to say about it. i got elected. they elected me. now they keep going. i'm under audit. when you're under audit, you don't do it. i'm under audit. other people are under audit and nobody would do it if you're going through an audit. i always go through audits, they audit me all the time. >> that's the president making a less coherent version of the excuse he'd been making three years ago, i'd love to do it but. >> as far as my return i'd love to file it, except many years i've been audited many years. 12 years or something like that. they audit me, audit me. i have friends that are wealthy

people, i get audited every year. i will give my return but i'm being audited for two or three years so i can't do it until the audit is finished. i think people understand that. >> he says nobody gets audited not even his wealthy friends but he gets audited every year for 12 years then he says it's two or three or something. he suggests by being audited that precludes your taxes being shown, it doesn't. president trump has never produced any official evidence he is being audited not to his attorney michael cohen. >> do you know whether president trump's tax returns were under audit by the irs in 2016? >> i don't know the answer. i asked for a copy of the audit so that i could use it in terms of my statements to the press. and i was never able to obtain

one. >> so possibility one, there is or was an audit or audits, but the president didn't want to show one of his closest advisers the evidence of it, or possibly two there's no audit and the president doesn't want to show anyone his taxes which is understandable for a host of possible reasons, they could show he's worth less than he claims or he doesn't give much to charities or he could be engaged in shady tax schemes. we don't know. that's exactly the reason candidates release their returns it's called transparency. more on the president's determination to fight this jim acosta joins us from the white house. talk about how the president is reacting to all of this. >> reporter: you heard the president say again that was a good audit on his answer of this question. he said again he's under audit and he has no plans of doing this, we talked to people at the white house, i talked to one

administration official earlier today who said they're prepared to take this to the supreme court. in the words of the official we'll see you in the year 2023. this official said this is a hill and the trump people are willing to die on it. that's how strongly they feel about this. they feel members of congress have zero right in the words of this official to see the president's tax returns and they don't want to set a precedence for future occupants of the oval office. but they're perhaps setting another precedent, you may never be able to dislodge a future candidate from his or her tax returns if they don't want to give them up. >> have his attorneys been preparing for this fight? it's not like it was hard to predict. >> reporter: right we were asking that at the news conference after the midterms. officials inside the white house have been seeing it coming from r for a long time now and have been preparing for this for

months according to the sources we're talking to. they hired a legal team that specializes in this. they're not looking at this as a tax issue, they're looking at it as a constitutional issue. they feel the president has a constitutional right to keep his tax returns secret from the american people and they're prepared to fight it to the supreme court. if president trump is not re-elected in 2020, there is the possibility if you listen to what this administration official said to me earlier today that this court battle could go on longer than president trump would be in office. thank you, jim. last night maggie haber broke the news the president wanted priority action on his pick for the irs council. maggie is back with us tonight. and with us is susan craig, one of three names on the by line of the trump tax story we mentioned

earlier. and shan with yu is with us as . maggie, how did president trump going from making the release of his taxes to a campaign promise to a vow to fight it to the supreme court? >> i think the same way he handles everything, anderson that he changes his mind about when it doesn't sound as good for him from one moment to the next. i think it's no surprise that he's not releasing his tax returns despite having said he wants to, he has claimed they're under audit, we have no independent verification of that. and what we have seen repeatedly is his legal team invoke his idea he doesn't lose his rights as a private citizen because he's president. in the case of the obstruction of justice into the president suggested he was voicing his opinions on twitter when he did things that could touch on the investigation. they're making the same point now, as a citizen he's being penalized their argument is for speaking his mind politically and this is a political attack.

i think this fight could go on for a long time and indeed could go to the supreme court. >> you were part of this incredible reporting by the "new york times," broad investigation of the president's tax history. in terms of what you learned, does it give you any indication why he would be reluctant to release his returns. >> i think bottom line, there's something he wants to hide. there's something he doesn't want us to see. you can think about if we were to get his schedules you would find thing like where are the origins of his money, which businesses and also which countries they're coming from. there's a lot that could be in there that he doesn't want us to see and he's a public official with a business and the hidden hand is in there somewhere. >> you made the point that tax returns are often kind of the person making their best case to the u.s. government. it's not as if there's a line that says this is where we're committing fraud. >> there's not. i think there's a starting point

but i think there's a lot packed into tax returns that you can see. we did an investigation in 2018 we learned a lot. we had a lot of fred trump's, his father's, tax returns and you could see where his money was coming from in that case. he was a steady eddie guy in queens and doing a lot of building. it was fairly predictable. but that was just -- that was also, you know, i think an important data point and with donald trump we don't know where that income is coming from. is it foreign? he's had a lot of iterations in his career, failed casino guy, tv personalty, now he's involved in golf courses and other resort stuff. also is there foreign income in there? i think a lot we'll see see from the schedules and the back documents that we haven't so far seen, there's been pages here and there that have come out, it's going to be where exactly is the revenue coming from? >> the ways and means committee

wants the tax returns, the president says they're going to fight it? >> they should provide the return according to the code. >> no question about it? >> no question about it. the statue says they shall turn them over. there is no aspect that the ways and means committee needs to bring forward to show any proof that they have a right to them. i think there's good case that the committee does have a right to them, given the reporting done that you just discussed regarding the "new york times." but also the concerns regarding russia. so i think there's plenty of good reason for them to get it. but there is nothing on the face of the statue that requires any showing. >> in the letter from the president's attorneys they're arguing the ways and means has no legitimate purpose for requesting the returns and said this is an attack on the president to punish him for his speech and politics. >> it's a weak letter, anderson.

it's like a grab bag of legal arguments in there. they start with saying there's no legitimate purpose and say even if it's legitimate, it's pretextural. if you don't buy that we also think they're punishing him for his unpopular views. and then at the end they throw in the idea this is an attack on the constitution because it's a violation of the separation of powers. when you have lawyers making grab bag worth of arguments like that, they have a sense they don't have a single penetrating strong legal argument so they're throwing everything out there in a shotgun style, it looks week. >> in terms of how long this could go on for, if it does go to the supreme court, is one talking years? >> theoretically possible, although i would look at it more optimistically in terms of speed, because these are purely legal arguments and can probably be disposed of in like legal

posture, summary judgment, et cetera. you wouldn't have to go to trial on this, and realistically, one of the problems is how would you show that? you'd have to try to get evidence that maybe there'd be talk or e-mails that this is really fake, this is not a real reason. it's not a factual case, it's a legal issue. and i think it'll be quickly disposed of legally. >> maggie, again the idea he's under audit, there's no evidence and even if you are under audit, you can have people look at your tax returns? >> of course. look, we have no way of knowing he's under audit. maybe he is, maybe he isn't. there's no way to independently verify that. if you want to show your tax returns, yes, you show them. this is another norm you have seen this president shatter. when you think of senator mitt romney in 2012 as a presidential candidate he had a complicated business filing and it took a long time to get around to being

willing to show his taxes. even he did it, it hurt him. there was a political cost to it, but it's what presidents and presidential candidates have done for decades. donald trump decided he was not going to do that and he has resisted it consistently. i agree with sue it's not a surprise. i do agree if he wanted us to see what was in there, e had'd show us. it might be nothing nefarious, it might be embarrassing. but there's a reason they've shown them, so voting people know what conflicts are. >> embarrassing like he's not as rich as -- >> why doesn't he release the note from the irs, the letter from the irs saying he's under audit. the irs is also -- that's one way through this. but there's also now subpoenas out to deutsch bank and his accounting firm. >> explain the importance of the accounting firm. >> it's significant because

there's an accounting firm that he deals with on long island -- >> they've been doing his taxes from the beginning? >> from the beginning. and they were dealing with a firm they bought, they were doing fred trump's returns. this is a firm that's been dealing with donald trump since he was born. the amount of information they have about him is huge. it's important to understand that tax returns are one piece of the puzzle. you've also got -- you know, there's potential to get bank records and other general ledgers to piece together what's going on with trump and his finances. if you can't get it through the irs, there's other avenues, including deutsch, his main bank. it's like air around a balloon and i think the irs -- >> has the accounting firm said what they're going to do? >> it's been represented that they'll respond to the subpoena. i think thehere's probably goin

to be potential lawyers involved in potential litigation on that. but they've -- or they've been told that they're going to be getting a subpoena. that's the one i'm watching to see exactly how that goes. >> phil, just in terms of from the irs's standpoint, they have the counsel now that the president picked. what sort of influence does that person have in deciding whether or not the irs turns this over and how significant do you think these returns are? is this just something democrats are grabbing at that you don't think will show something of significance? or is this really critical? >> sure. so first question, i've heard a lot of folks talking about michael desmond and chuck ring. i happen to know them and respect them both as attorneys. i don't see them as simply trump's men. i think they will be thinking through this question as

carefully as they can. but is this significant? yes. i think it is. i think it's important to the ways and means committees exercising proper oversight over the executive branch, both the irs in terms of how it operates and the president. so i think it's a significant issue. not just in terms of the information that is there, but in terms of the operation of our government. when a statute says shall, it's important that the executive branch operate in the way to enforce that law. if it does not, i think we have a real problem. >> shan, i'm wondering what you make of the reporting by the times, yesterday maggie and others, that as far as the president's push to have the chief council confirmed prioritized. does that concern you? >> it concerns me. it's certainly unseemly, wanting to prioritize that nomination over the attorney general seems like there's a reason and tells

us what the president is more concerned over. i also think it opens him up potentially to more of the suspicions about his obstructist tactics. now he's put that forward that's his priority. i think he and his legal team have to be careful about what he's doing about that. if he makes public tweets about the right thing to do -- all paths lead back to the mueller report but we don't know the details that did not exonerate him in the obstruction action. i think his legal team would do well to say be quiet about this, we don't know what they're looking at. you don't want to do the same things again. >> he actually did say, i have nothing to say about this, and then talked about an audit. he wasn't adding new things to the mix. >> he was not. i think this is not a topic he's eager to spend much time talking about, although who knows how he tends to be quiet and then

talk about these things later. but i think his lawyers have said he'd do more harm than good. his lawyers have told him that in the past and he has not abided by it. for those of us who covered him for a long time, part of the reason we thought he wasn't going to want to run for president is he wasn't going to want to do financial disclosures, e had did that. and he didn't want to do his taxes and he didn't. >> great to have you all, thank you. coming up joe biden jokes about touching. we'll look at the latest of what he said. later the president's border visit. reaction from the mayor of the town he visited today ahead on "360." woo! yeah! it's good! it's refreshing. ♪

at northwestern mutual, this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but she's only seven once. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. try areds 2 + multivitamin. cancer, epilepsy, mental health, hiv. patients with serious diseases are being targeted for cuts to their medicare drug coverage. new government restrictions would allow insurance companies

to come between doctor and patient. and deny access to individualized therapies millions depend on. call the white house today. help stop cuts to part d drug coverage that put medicare patients at risk. help stop cuts to part d drug coverage leave no man behind. or child. or other child. or their new friend. or your giant nephews and their giant dad. or a horse. or a horse's brother, for that matter. the room for eight, 9,000 lb towing ford expedition.

you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? who's already won three cars, two motorcycles, a boat, and an r.v. i would not want to pay that insurance bill. [ ding ] -oh, i have progressive, so i just bundled everything with my home insurance. saved me a ton of money. -love you, gary! -you don't have to buzz in. it's not a question, gary.

on march 1, 1810 -- [ ding ] -frédéric chopin. -collapsing in 226 -- [ ding ] -the colossus of rhodes. -[ sighs ] louise dustmann -- [ ding ] -brahms' "lullaby," or "wiegenlied." -when will it end? [ ding ] -not today, ron. -when will it end? [ ding ] dso should the way you bank.. virtual wallet from pnc bank. just one way pnc is modernizing banking to help make things easier. pnc bank. make today the day. discover elvive protein recharge leave-in conditioner. our heat protecting formula, leaves hair 15-times stronger. ♪ in just 1 use elvive revives damaged hair. in most cases if you're a public figure accused of women of inappropriate touching the last thing you want to do is make a joke about inappropriate touching. joe biden made two, first when

he was introduced at a union gathering in washington. the second time a little later at the same event. >> you guys can sit at the edge. you don't have to stand -- by the way, he gave me permission to touch him. >> speaking to reporters a short time after that, here's what he said unprompted on the subject. >> wasn't my intent to make light of anyone's discomfort. i realize my responsibility is to not invade the space of anyone that's uncomfortable in that regard. and i -- i hope it wasn't taken that way. but there was a you know, i literally think it's incumbent on me and i think everybody else to make sure that if you embrace someone, if you touch someone, it's with their consent regardless of your intentions.

even if you're trying to bring solace, trying to welcome them. it's my responsibility to do that. joining us is kiersten powers. gloria borger and david axelrod. david, the vice president said -- he made two jokes on the stage and then clearly walked outside to the press and unprompted started saying he wasn't trying to make light of anybody's discomfort, obviously somebody had said something to him or he was aware it seemed to play well in the room, it might not be perceived that way widespread. >> and the odd thing about it is that it took a while for them to get there. but i thought the video he put out was actually pretty impactful, it was genuine and believable. that's what most people that know joe biden belief he's an exuberant guy. it's behavior we've seen.

but having put that video out, you'd think he'd want that to be the last word. and he got in his own way again today. one of the questions here is the lack of agility which he and the operation have handled the issue. the video is fine, let it be the last word, you've spoken. instead he made a joke. >> gloria, if you want a controversial to go away, i don't know if it's stumbled a couple days, figured out what to say, made a video, he's not making it go away. >> no. he's not. he's only reminding people of the gaffe prone joe biden. he shouldn't have done it. i'm sure his aides were cringing, which is why they sent him out to talk to the press. this is joe biden they tried to end it with the video, they did

a good job on that, biden did a good job on that. now he needs to get his campaign together and start talking about issues. he didn't do that today. >> you said earlier this week you wanted a more fullsome apology. i thought of that today. what did you make of what happened today? >> originally when he had said before he did the video, i didn't think it was a fullsome apology. i thought the video was great. i might have tweaked it a bit here and there, but overall it seemed sincere and genuine, and he got this was a problem and he wanted to change. what more can you ask of people, right? that's what you want. you want people to hear you and want to be able to change. and watching this today, you say, did he get it? i don't know. because this is -- there is an issue that for so long in our culture we didn't talk about. now we finally have had these

conversations. we talk a lot about me too but there's also been a parallel conversation around the massive, you know, pedophilia crisis in the catholic church about touching children. so seeing him making a joke with a little boy is just like, are you paying attention to what's happening in our culture? to me, i've never felt that he was too old in the sense that he's not capable. i think he's obviously very capable and i'm not anyogeist ai don't think he's too old in that sense. but it seems he's missing out on these major cultural changes we're having and not understanding them. we hear how he's from another era and maybe that's the problem, i don't know, but this isn't -- this isn't okay. >> david, is this a question of being from another era? there's plenty of people from another era who can read and be abreast of things that are happening now.

>> yeah. i think part of what's at play here, as he said in his video, his intentions were not -- were not impure. that, you know, he's -- this is the way he's always been. it's the way he's expressed himself. and i don't think he wants to associate himself with the notion that there was something wrong with it. so i mean -- wrong in the sense that his intentions were not there. so he keeps trying to split that hair and it's not coming out right. say i'm sorry people were not comfortable, i learned my lesson and move on. that's what he should do. generally part of his strength is he's well known, well liked, a guy that's authentic. the gaffes are part of that authenticity. but he's been around a while and there are things dragged back from other eras of politics that won't seem as comfortable to people in this era. that's just the flip side of what he brings to the table. i think we all ought to

recognize, though, we judge these things in the moment and they often pass. i think this probably will as well. he's not going to prance to the nomination here, he has to fight for it, but he brings considerable assets to it, that shouldn't be forgotten. >> there has been remarks about gaffes he has made and it does make one replay that stuff from the past and fits that narrative, which is a concern of people all along. >> it is. and it reminds people about joe biden, the gaffe-prone joe biden remembering him as vice president and the things he said off mic that he shouldn't have said. but there's also an authenticity about joe biden that people like. i don't understand why he couldn't say i'm sorry if i offended you to these women. i didn't mean to, as he kept saying today, it wasn't my

intention. we know it wasn't his intention. remember he's not accused like donald trump of sexual harassment. he's not paying off mistresses here. he made mistakes because he's a tactile politician. it's a very different game here for him, but why he couldn't have said i'm sorry i offended you, i'll try to do better in the future, it's a new world, i get it, i'll move on. instead, as david said, he keeps trying to split this hair. >> does this tell you anything about his ability to sort of compete face-to-face head-to-head with president trump if it ever got to that time? what seems so critical for any democratic candidate is to know how to actually run against president trump, who is a formidable, obviously, candidate who destroyed a field of very capable republican candidates? >> i think that obviously --

there's a lot to like about joe biden, and i think that he would probably do well against donald trump just, you know, through having the experience that he's had. but because he is so prone to saying, you know, these -- what we're calling gaffes, i guess, i think it makes it more difficult to even get out of the primary. i think that he -- he's entitled. he's a former vice president. he's been around washington since he was 29 years old, right. so this is somebody who i think is out of place in his career, where he feels like i've been here serving my country, i've done all these things and it seems like there's a part of him that doesn't necessarily want to say i'm sorry. you know, i think the video was good, but as we've discussed there's other things he needs to apologize for, like anita hill. and i think he's going to have a problem that. >> thanks very much.

before he went to the southern border today, he upended his own nominee for head of immigration and customs enforcement. then when he got there he had a message for all immigrants. details on that ahead. don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade. who see things others can't. they're the ones who see a city that make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. at dell technologies, we see it too. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. a little anxious sometimes. these days we all feel so i'm partnering with cigna, to remind you that how you're doing emotionally

affects you physically. go for your annual check-up and be open with your doctor about anything you're feeling. physically, and emotionally. body and mind. the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. ♪

pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free!

before he left for california today, president trump pulled the nomination of his own pick to lead immigration and customs enforcement. it was striking because that nominee had been the acting director since last summer. the president told reporters he wanted to go in, quote, a tougher directions. two white house officials said it was because stephen miller said the nominee wasn't in favor of closing the southern border

as the president suggested. the president's action came as a surprise to homeland security secretary kierstjen nielsen. now by the time mr. trump arrived at a round table discussion in california, he had a blunt message on immigration into the united states. essentially hanging a no vacancy sign on the country's door. >> the system is full. can't take you anymore. whether it's asylum, whether it's anything you want, illegal immigration, can't take you anymore. we can't take you. our country is full. our area's full. the sector is full. can't take you anymore, i'm sorry. >> joining me the former mayor of calexico. you lived in calexico for years. when there's talk of new wall being built, i'm wondering what you think of that? >> first of all, thank you anderson for coming to calexico

and joining us in this very important visit for the city. the first thing we thought about was why us. a community of immigrants, good people, friendly people, where visitors here come and cross through into mexico and enjoy the border life, we don't understand why we have to be in the rhetoric of today's news and we decided to take action today. a grass roots effort here in calexico we called it border voices, just a few of us, a grass roots effort, sunday we got the call to action, we found out he was coming and decided to organize. we had the support of our city, our businesses, and we came out here and brought quite a bit of people, really happy. really happy. >> when the president said that the country is full, i assume you do not agree with that? >> well, as an immigration consultant, that's my day job now, i've owned a business for

services of immigration here in the city for 30 years. i think there has to be a very, very comprehensive conversation about the true, true reasons of why we're in the position we're in now. i think that's what we tried to do today is let him know that he needs to listen. he needs to listen to these communities of the true effects of what it is to live on a border like this. we have other issues, the new river right behind me that is the most polluted river in all the united states. it carries so many different causes of cancer and other illnesses. we have the sea that causes so much asthma in this area, and he's not looking at that. so we wanted to make sure to send him that message, number one we're united with our neighbors in one voice with our neighbors in mexico. and we wanted him to look at the issues we care about. the issues that are important to us. >> the notion of the border closing, which means ports of

entry shut down, the president said we'll look at that in a year depending on how mexico acts. if it was to shut down what impact would that have on calexico? >> i can tell you ever since this started, our community has been in panic, our schools, our businesses. the agricultural industry. so when the -- the hearts and minds of the people of our community are being -- it feels it's being played with, we don't take that lightly. this is our lives. we haven't heard anyone. we're law abiding citizens, as a friendly city we feel we need to have a discussion and if you want to start with calexico, start now. as the pressure seems to build for the full release of the mueller investigation, what's ahead on capitol hill and how likely is it the whole report will actually become public?

romo mode. (beep) (bang) good luck with that one. yes! that's why i wear skechers slip-ons. they're effortless. just slip them right on and off. skechers slip-ons, with air-cooled memory foam.

thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn their unsold seats into amazing deals, family reunion attendance is up. we're all related! yeah, i see it. and because priceline offers great deals by comparing thousands of prices in real time, sports fans are seeing more away games. various: yeah-h-h! is that safe? oh, y... ahh! not at all. no, ma'am. nope. and more people than ever are enjoying romantic getaways. (romantic music) that's gross priceline. every trip is a big deal.

william barr's stunt backfired, that's the headline of an op-ed in "the washington post" tonight. it's the fact that the mueller findings have reemerged as something that has gripped capitol hill if not throughout the country, it's an extraordinary case of whiplash, it was two weeks ago that

attorney general barr wrote his summary that said the president was clear of collusion. the white house took a victory lap, praised the investigators and democrats were treated. that's now changed with reporting that members of the mueller team were unhappy with the way attorney general barr summarized their conclusions. so the white house has gone back to the attacking the investigation, the democrats are clamoring for the full report which they're expected to get next week. whether or not they get the full report, it's not going away any time soon. i want to talk about it with robert ray and garrett graph. robert, at this point the attorney general has essentially sort of said there's four criteria for redacting things. do those four criteria make sense to you, one that raised concerns is the idea of redacting things that relate to any third party who is portrayed in a bad light, but -- and since nobody is charged with a crime?

>> i think the operative word there, and it was one that i picked up on from the attorney general's letter was peripheral. i don't think that applies to the president. >> you don't? >> i don't. that's with regard to other people. i guess the other thing -- yes, i agree with generally speaking the four criteria, and i think the executive privilege issue has been taken off the table because the president has said in effect that he would let that go to the attorney general to decide. and the attorney general i think is probably going toerr on the side of not exerting executive privilege. that still leaves a fair amount of material to be redacted, from what i understand, which would be principally grand jury material and any material that would relate to an ongoing criminal investigation that might be conducted or would be conducted right now in a u.s. attorney's office. and then the big one, which is

national security issue, which everybody on both sides of the partisan divide understand that will not be in the report, that will bee will be redacted. >> garrett, you say we're seeing the divide between the political and the criminal. explain what you mean by that. >>. >> this is a case where barr's letter appears to have been answering the criminal question, which he appears to have done accurately. robert mueller did not find criminal collusion, he did not find criminal obstruction. although he did decline to make a traditional prosecutorial decision as barr said in that first letter. now what mueller's team appears to be trying to say is, look, criminal isn't the only thing we were looking at. this is the president of the united states and he should be held to a higher standard, potentially, than just could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an active asset of a

foreign adversary. and that there's plenty of material, plenty of evidence, plenty of activity that we, in our political system, in our democratic process, would consider troubling and potentially impeachable even that falls short of a criminal charge. and that -- that could be part of why mueller declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision on obstruction. that he saw himself as an independent fact finder, who was going to be turning over this evidence to congress, which is the body that it's constitutionally delineated to deal with presidential malfeasance. >> if that's the case, did mueller make the right decision of there being both the criminal and political? >> that's not his job, though. he's a prosecutor and prosecutors make prosecutorial judgments with regard to something as mow men us the as this it's not surprising that it might be landed in the lap of the attorney general to make

that call. i think we'll find out more about that i think when bill barr testifies. >> the congressman said it's not the attorney general's call, it's congress's. >> that's the question, the job of the department of justice whether you talk about it from the job of the attorney general, the special counsel or both is to render a prosecutorial judgment about whether or not a crime has been committed and whether or not it's appropriate to bring charges against the accused. that's it. that's not a political judgment. that's a prosecutorial judgment. >> but it's not clear that mueller -- sorry. it's not clear that mueller actually asked barr to weigh in. that it seems potentially from the letter that mueller -- >> he doesn't have to ask him to weigh in. he's the attorney general. >> there's no reason for barr to have weighed in if mueller was making clear he wasn't bringing a traditional prosecutorial decision -- >> that's his job. it reminds me of the supreme court's decision in bush v. gore

and that asked after it was all over criticizing why the supreme court stepped in, look somebody had to decide the election, it was in our lap we decided get over it. it's the same thing here, somebody had to decide. the attorney general decided it. get over it. the fact that there are people saying we're unhappy with that, who are apparently talking to associates, the newspapers, it's interesting. i've been through this drill before. with regard to matters like this, this is not a democracy, one prosecutor is the one who decides whether or not you bring charges or don't bring charges. >> that's why it's so important -- >> let him finish. >> you can debate about whether you wanted bob mueller to make the decision or the attorney general, but the decision nonetheless had to be made and it's been made. yes, acknowledged it is different than the political argument about whether or not impeachment proceedings may be warranted. and yes, there is wiggle room with regard to the disclosure of

the information in the report that might otherwise constitute grand jury material that would be withheld that congress might have an interest in seeing, but that would require the department of justice to apply to a court to get a court order and basically for the department of justice to be on board with the congress in i don't foresee that will happen. >> i want to get your final thought and then we have to go. >> it's just not clear. this is why it so important. we see how mueller framed this question himself. it is not necessarily clear that he intended for barr to weigh in before this information made to it congress. >> my answer would be, it doesn't matter that's what he thought. >> thank you very much. we'll check in with chris and see what he's working on for prime time. >> robert ray, clever fellow. the idea taking it from mueller, if he's just following guidelines, that's not in there. if you're going to call an

audible, not illegal, it shows he has discretion and that's the issue here. is he sticking to the book or judgment calls? if he's making judgment calls, that will be subjective. people will want transparency. tonight we'll take that on. the president says talk to my lawyers. says who? we'll talk on a prosecutor about who has the say on that. we'll talk to javier becerra. they're going after the emergency declaration. will they win? >> all right. we'll see you in a couple minutes. the president vowed to hire the best people. critics say he's trying to pack the federal reserve board down. some say they're not fit for the job. we'll dig into that next plans? yes! i just wanted to show you something i've been wor... ♪ james r. and associates. anna speaking... ♪ james r. and associates. anna. ♪

[phone ringing] baker architects. this is anna baker. at northwestern mutual, this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but you're ready to bet on yourself today. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com. dso should the way you bank.. virtual wallet from pnc bank. just one way pnc is modernizing banking to help make things easier. pnc bank. make today the day. breast cancer. we thought that we would travel to cancer treatment centers of america. we left on day one feeling like we're gonna beat this and that feeling is priceless... visit cancercenter.com.

gonna beat this aand relief from is pricesymptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear.

. president trump is stepping up his criticism of the federal reserve. here's what he said this morning about interest rates. >> the feds should drop rates. i think they really slowed us down. there is no inflation. >> he's upset that the fed has raised interest rates four time since last year.

critics phase another move could threaten feds' independence. they worry about his two political allies appointed to the board of governors. steven moore, a former campaign adviser, conservative economist has been a cnn analyst. he's been on this program. joining me, an op sedan list who is not a fan of either. the headline says a lot of steven moore could inflict more long term damage than any of trump's nominations. and herman cain can't understand basic policy issues. ouch! what is your main objection to both of them? they're just not qualified? >> there are a number of objections. i would put them into two different camps. there is personal baggage that both have had dredged up recently. for herman cain, he had been

accused by four. we sexual harassment. stephen moore, with his taxes and divorce. >> which he blames on an accountant. >> those are not my main concerns. the sexual harassment should be if it is true. they are that the both of them do not seem to understand fundamental principles of economics. they are both for example, usually espousing the gold standard which has been roundly rejected by experts. every economist surveyed by the university of chicago's igm panel of economic experts said not a good idea. herman cain, if you look the a his 999 plan, not only did it not include round numbers. it used lots of magic math and invisible numbers and things that did not make sense. stephen moore has been running on this lie, the. at a pairs pay for themselves. despite that there is no evidence that is factually true.

so how tethered to reality are they, but more so, that the direction in which both of them have manipulated the truth is a direction designed to make republicans look good and democrats look bad. for example, if you look at the fed recommendations. under obama, they were both inflation hawks. meaning they want higher interest rates, tighter monetary policy despite that we were dealing with a potentially another great depression. >> there is the fed is sort of obscure to a lot of people. what is the danger of somebody with a very politicized view of economics being on the fed? >> pits the fed needs to be politically independent to function. just bar none. that's what it needs to be. the reason for that is that you don't want the printing press either in the hands of politicians or perceived to be in the hands of politicians. we have plenty of counter examples for when that is the case. when people don't believe it is

independent. places like venezuela argentina. if the public does not believe the fed is willing to make unpopular choices including raising interest rates when inflation might be near, then that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. and they start raising prices in anticipation of that. that's why you want to make sure that central banks are perceived to not be within, being controlled by the president or by any political party. and to be clear, trump has already put four of the five sitting fed governors in place right now. they are all republicans. i don't have an objection to putting republicans on the fed. but they are all qualified, competent people who have behaved professionally and a-politically. however, the fact that they believed a-politically means they've done things trump doesn't like including raise interest rates. which is why he is now trying to put people here thinks are more

pliant on the fed. >> thank you for being with us. to be continued. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris. >> thank you, and welcome to prime time. we have several big stories for you tonight. what is going on with the president's taxes? did he really say he doesn't want to turn them over? his lawyer says that. we have a great legal mind to take you through it. the president we believe to the border today. instead of seeking to help people, he accused asylum seekers of perpetrating a hoax on manager. now, his fence fund finding emergency declaration is being challenged in california. its attorney general is here to explain. we'll take on those two situations. and we're also going to double down on what will really happen when the democrats look to get the president's taxes. preet bharara who i referred to has a new book out.