the biggest week in television is almost here. xfinity watchathon week. starting april 8th, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! whether it's more jaw droppers, standing o's upon standing o's or tv's biggest show stoppers.

get more into what you're into. get ready to watch with xfinity x1 or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week. free starting april 8th. boop! 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 he seemed to say he would do. >> will you release any of your tax returns? for the public to scrutinize? >> we're working on that right now.

i have very big returns, as you you know. 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. some like ford only gave a summary. some put out more years than others. 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 wednesday the chairman of the house ways and kmeens committee sent the irs a request for the president's last six tax returns. today we learned the president hired legal counsel.

his attorney in a letter to the treasury department calling it "a transparent effort by one political party to harass an official from the other party because they dislike his politics and speech." he goes on to say 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. which we'll talk about more in a minute. 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 explanation he first began using more than three years ago, namely 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. every year they audit me, audit me, audit me. i have friends that are very wealthy people, they never get audited. 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. obviously. i think people understand that. >> he says nobody gets audited not even his wealthy friends but he also says he always 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. richard nixon disclosed his taxes during an audit. president trump has never produced any official evidence he is being audited not to his attorney michael cohen. who was asked about it during his congressional testimony. >> mr. cohen, do you know whether president trump's tax returns were really 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 as his actions with the now defunct foundation suggests or he could be engaged in shady tax schemes. a massive report last october. 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 of his recent record on this answer to 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. that was a reference to just how long this court fight could take. 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. by fighting it this hard they're of course 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 a legal fight? it's not like it was hard to predict. >> reporter: right we were

asking at the news conference after the midterms. officials inside the white house have been seeing it coming from 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 haberman broke the news the president wanted priority action on his pick for the irs council. he wanted to give it higher priority than even the

confirmation of the attorney general nominee william war. 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. former federal prosecutor and cnn legal analyst shan wu is with us as well. 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. we may not know that for quite some time. 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. or he wouldch there's a lot of things you can think about. you can think about if we were to get his schedules you would find thing like where are the origins of his income, where are they coming from. 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 and we learned a lot from -- we had in that case 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 pretty steady eddie guy in queens and doing a lot of building and had -- 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 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's attorneys say, no, they're going to fight it. >> according to the coat they should provide the returns. >> no question about it? >> yeah, no question about it. the statute 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 statute 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 pretextual. 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 weak. >> 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 emails 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. but yes, if you want to show your tax returns, 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, and 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, he'd show us. it might be nothing nefarious, it might be embarrassing. but there's a reason they've shown them, so voting people that votes people into office know what conflicts are. >> embarrassing like he's not as rich as -- >> can we just say -- why doesn't he release the note from the irs, the letter from the irs saying he's under audit. these things are simple. 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 that has a subpoena, he deals with the office out in long island. >> and 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 really important in all of this to understand that tax returns are one piece of this puzzle. you've also got -- you know, there's potential to get bank records and general ledgers and other things 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. significant bank on wall street he's doing business with. and the accounting firm.

and potentially other areas. but 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 there's probably going 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 think they were good picks, both of them. 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 obstructionist 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. it was interesting. 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 long that will last. 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 in this case. they've said that before to him too. he's not always abided by it. i think this is something that's caused him a lot of anxiety for a long time. part of why we didn't think he would ultimately run for president is that he was not going to want to do financial disclosures. he did do those. and that he wasn't going to want to release his taxes and he didn't do that. >> great to have you all, thank you. coming up joe biden jokes about touching. we'll look at the latest of what he said. we'll show you that. later the president's border visit. his claim the country is full. reaction from the mayor of the town he visited today ahead on "360."

aritin... 0 outdoor and indoor allergens. like those from pollen, pets and dust. because new memories start with dusting off old ones. feel the clarity and live claritin clear. i was tired of having my calls dropped, and then i'd heard that i could get apple music if i switched over and i said, "boom!" (vo) the best network is even better with apple music on us. plus save big when you switch. only on verizon. (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.

neighbors... loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? president trump promised to protect medicare... we need him to keep his word. but draper saw a way yoto fight disease.ellite... ♪ so they're using dell technologies with the power of vmware to bring their idea to life. together, we're powering ai

that analyzes satellite imagery to follow the spread of pathogens like malaria so we can stop them in their tracks. and that kind of technology... can make the world a healthier place. vmware, a part of dell technologies. miller lite has more taste, to do is read the signs. fewer calories, and half the carbs of bud light. what are you holding? miller lite. hold true.

four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ 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 kirsten 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 believe that he's an exuberant guy. it's behavior we've all seen. it isn't lascivious in any way. 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. move on, you've spoken. instead he made a joke. >> gloria, if you want a controversy 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. this was a gaffe today. 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. and started talking about it immediately. this is joe biden. they had ended it. 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. and get off of this. 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 very fulsome 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 ageist and i 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 have just said 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, and move on. instead, as david said, he keeps trying to split this hair. it's not what i meant. i don't understand that. i can't get that. >> kirsten, 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 with that. >> thanks very much. before he went to the southern border today president trump 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. ♪ it is such a good time to kiss ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪

♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there.

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. even more unusual, perhaps shouldn't be unusual anymore the president's action came as a surprise to homeland security secretary kierstjen nielsen. who wasn't informed after the nomination had been scrubbed. 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. mayor, thanks were being with us. 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. why this community, a community of immigrants, a community of 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 in one voice with our neighbors in mexico. as one region. 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.

this is our lives. we haven't hurt 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. it's time to pay attention to us. 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? we can go down this what do you think? ♪ 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.

woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened,

as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

william barr's stunt backfired, that's the headline of an op-ed in "the washington post" tonight. whether or not you'd call it a stunt or whornt it's backfired isn't entirely the point. 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, after all it was less than two weeks ago that attorney general barr wrote his summary that said the president was clear of obstruction. excuse me, cleared 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 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 graff. 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 think that applies to the president? >> >> 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 to err on the side of not asserting 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 then 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. you can certainly foresee that. 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 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 momentous as this it's not surprising that it might have 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. >> congressman nadler makes the point it's not the attorney general's job to make the call, it's congress's job. >> 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 clea mueller asked -- 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 they 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. you can have a debate about whether or not that should have been mueller or should have been -- >> 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 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 anticipation of potential impeachment proceedings in order to do that. 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. in the context of taxes. 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.

the ag of california. 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. with political allies. some say they're not fit for the job. we'll dig into that next . for brokerage accounts.cins and zero minimums to open an account. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪

i got this mountain bike for only $11. dealdash.com, the fair and honest bidding site. an ipad worth $505, was sold for less than $24; a playstation 4 for less than $16; and a schultz 4k

television for less than $2. i won these bluetooth headphones for $20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. president trump is stepping up his criticism of the federal reserve.

traditionally presidents rarely to this. at least not if public. 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. herman cane. and ceo of god fathers pizza. 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. women of 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 disqualifying 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. hyper inflation bask basket cases throughout history. 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. for "prime time". >> 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