l on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. a busy day, including a packed hour ahead. federal prosecutors in los angeles moments away from detailing 36 charges against the lawyer michael avenatti, the attorney, of course, who gained fame representing the adult film star stormy daniels and who not long ago flirted with running for president and also in minutes the south korean president hoping to keep north

korean diplomacy on track and an indictment long in the making here at home. the u.s. justice department unsealing charges against the wikileaks founder julian assange, charges that have been kept secret or close a secret for more than ten years. the details are very well known. assange and wikileaks publishing nearly a million classified documents about america's wars in iraq and afghanistan as well as secret state department cables. assange defenders say he's a journalist and his supporters say a big chill on a free press. >> this precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the united states for having published truthful information about the united states. >> this is journalism. it's called conspiracy. it's conspiracy to commit journalism. >> but in the indictment, u.s. prosecutors say that even if assange could be considered a journalist, he crossed the line

into law-break when he conspired with a u.s. army private to crack a government password to steal more classified document. u.s. officials unsealed the new charges just hours, you can see the pictures here, after london police stormed the emdorian embassy this morning and extradited the wikileaks founder, a bearded assange shouting before being stuffed inside a van saying "you must resist." >> let me come to the attorney first raised by the question on the assange legal team and the editor-in-chief saying he's a journalist. published secrets. he's allowed to do that. where is the law? >> julian assange is not being indicted for publishing classified information. that is the most important takeaway. he's not being charged with espionage, and he's not being charged with unauthorized disclosure of information which is what government people,

chelsea manning and others who leak classified information about charged with. he's charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud. there's specific facts that he tried to assist chelsea manning in the actual -- in the unatrized access to the department of defense systems and that's the crime. >> they are trying to stay away from the first amendment, journalism argument there. that's one charge. they have to prove the case for extradition. is there enough, or is there coming? >> we have new reporting saying that doj does intend to bring more charges. it's not clear what those charges are going to be or when they will be brought, and this is something that assange is -- the publisher of wikileaks standing beside his lawyer there had said when they were addressing the reporters. he said, you know, there's no assurance that the additional charges won't be added when he's

on u.s. soil and something they are concerned about. the u.s. is trying to get him extradited before they can raise the issues in the uk because the uk can block the charges. they are already raising this as a concern, but doj is continuing to investigate this, and, you know, the big question is will there be charges related to the hacking of the u.s. election of the right now what has been brought by special counsel robert mueller's team against the concord management and she is associates and actors who have tied to the russian government, don't indicate anyone else was involved in the hacking, and as far as we know right now it's that assange published those already hacked materials, but, you know, the -- the tone of this view from doj changed when they obtained these new communications which showed assange is more of an actor than just a publisher. >> to the point about the change in the sense that, look, this happened during the obama administration. it goes back to the george w. bush administration, the classified information about the iraq war, about afc and the state department cables. the obama administration was

reluctant to do it for the point you made, carrie. they didn't want to mess with the journalism. these the documents pre-date bill barr when jeff sessions was attorney general. the trump administration is fife is offically willing to take a tougher stance here. >> and we've seen secretary pompeo do so in his first year in the administration when he was director of the cia. he came out and stayed wikileaks is a non-state hostile intelligence service. he also want after julian assange pretty directly and personally saying that, you know, he was hiding behind a screen and all that he was a coward. so even though this doesn't necessarily have to do exactly with what wikileaks has put forward, the administration has conflated the two in going after assange in this personal way and drawing wikileaks directly into their attack. >> now you have a major international legal case and the whole thing, first, a, do you get extraditions, and will there

be additional charges? these charges go back in time. the justice department can consider if there's anything more recent than from 2016. the president of the united states, we could hear within from minutes, if reporters get into the office. he's praised julian assange, his allies have praised julian assange for the 2016 hacks and release but the president, clearly, this is his justice department going ahead with it. >> people are going to say what is this president going to say about this because he's on camera praising him on several occasions, even though his secretary of state motorcycle pompeo has referred to them as a hostile foreign actor. what's different is the allegation of the computer hacking because back in 2013 the reason they were so hesitant to bring charges against julian assange is then could they also bring charges against the "new york times" for publishing classified information that they received, so that was the big change here is that journalists do not help their sources crack codes to get into government

computers. now that's an allegation here. of course, he's innocent until proven guilty, but they don't do that. they receive classified information at times and publish that but don't do that, the extra thing which is really making such a big difference. whether or not the president agrees with this will be pretty interesting. i'm not sure how he will react. >> here's what he did say back in 2016. the associated press asked him about this i'm not involved in that decision, when sessions, the attorney general was starting to look into this. i'm not involved in that decision. if jeff sessions want to do that, if they want to do it, it's okay with me. not saying much on the substance. kind of like, okay, if that's happening i'm all right with t.interesting to see what he says. i want to read the key piece of the interindictment. the obama administration steered away from this because they were worried about the journalism. an or about march 8, 2010 assange agreed to assist the army private bradley manning, now chelsea department, trying

to crack the code on the united states government computers. the united states government network used for government communications and document. that's where they are hanging the legal argument, not what you published but how you got it. >> they are not charging about the publishing because that would affect other media organizations. they are charging him with assisting in trying to crack that password falls under the computer crime statutes, and so that is the department's theory, and i would say though that there is just this one instance that is described in this current indictment relating to the manning case, so i am really curious as to whether or not there are additional charges related to other activities that wikileaks and assange were involved in related to other hackings, and i think that's such a huge question. >> that's what makes this such a sticky situation, because there are these press freedom advocates saying this is an assault on the first amendment and the computer hacking, whether or not that occurred because they said back in 2013,

you know, we can't implicate him because we'd have to implicate the "new york times" unless he's implicated in some kind of criminal activity like hacking a government computer. this will be a relief focused on whether or not he hacked the computer. if they do bring him back to the united states they bring other charges that fall under the espionage act. that's where the free press advocates are going to have a problem. >> and to the point where could this go? i'm right in that chelsea manning is still jailed. >> that's right. >> refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation which one would have to assume could very well have something to do with this. >> especially when you look that this indictment was brought last year, and chelsea manning was brought back before a grand jury just a few weeks ago and has been in jail for refusing to give testimony to that grand jury, so that indicates that this is an ongoing investigation and they are looking to bring new charges. >> we focused on this one charge. julian assange, wikileaks, holed

up into the ecuadorian embassy, become a schleppity -- become a celebrity, a villain to some. >> it will be interesting to see what the president does. does the president welcome the president of ecuador, not here specifically for meeting at the white house, but it's interesting to see how he's received and how he's received on the hill. we, have you know, more than a dozen candidates running for the presidency on the democratic side and they will have to speak to this, too, in an informed way which will be interesting. >> coming back around just to the comments that the president made throughout the campaign about wikileaks. he says i love wikileaks. over 50 different campaign events i think it was he invoked wikileaks and that was so bizarre to people in the national security when mike pomp yore said wikileaks is not a

normal journalistic source and that they are hostile. this is the president and his wife melania waiting for the greeting of the south korean president. to the comments you just made, carrie, the president is on the record saying great things about wikileaks. does that have any impact if you're julian assange's lawyers? is that something that you can bring in? this is a case that goes back pre-trump, a case about computer hacking. the president is not a witness. you see the south korean president and his wife arriving. >> his defense lawyers are going to make -- make this broad first amendment claim trying to make this about the first amendment when it's a statuary computer fraud case. they might try to bring in statements for the president though the president has such a conflicted history of truth-telling that i'm not sure that would be in their interest.

>> we know, of course, the spunl didn't establish any collusion between the trump campaign and russia and did not charge julian assange with anything, but if he does get brought back to the u.s. and is under questioning, he could be faced with questions about any contacts he had with roger stone because there were allegations about his contacts with wikileaks so we could learn a lot from this if he is brought back to the united states. >> your point is a good one in that this is a good example the cia director mike pompeo took a much tougher line than the president on this. he's survived and now secretary of state pompeo, fascinating day. you saw the two going into the white house and we'll see if we hear from them. what next did the attorney general mean when they told congress there was spying on the trump campaign? heading into retirement you want to follow your passions rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care. brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product.

it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare. brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠ wgreat tasting, heart-healthys the california walnuts.ever? so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. with no down payment and no helpclosing costs.homes your va home loan benefits are worth more at newday. why rent when you can buy? ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. (straining) i'll take that. (cheers) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

visionworks can do more than the right pair of glassesat. can make you look amazing, too. get two complete pairs of single vision glasses for $59 or two progressives for $99. and choose from over 500 frames. visionworks. we're here to help you. some attempted cleanup at the justice department today as democrats accuse the attorney general of unmark offing a bias that puts what the president

wants they say above the facts or the law. sources close to the a.g. bill barr now insisting this is just a big misunderstanding. when he used the term spying at yesterday's senate hearing he didn't mean it, quote, in the classic cent. all he meant to say, these barr allies says, he wants to double check to make sure all the rules were followed back when the fbi began surveillance of specific russia-related activity in the 2016 trump campaign. at the hearing the attorney general believes spying, his word, did occur. top democrats say barr is teams appearanced to not know how the use of that word spying would be interpreted, and they say it's more proof to them he cannot be trusted to be an honest broker when it comes to the mueller report. >> let me say how very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails. >> the idea that the fbi with the evidence that they had

wouldn't have launched a counterintelligence investigation would have been irresponsible so i don't understand the attorney general's comments. i don't understand what basis he's making them on. >> joining the conversation cnn's phil mattingly and julie hirschfeld davis with the "new york times." the speaker especially there, politicians ramp it up and know the cameras are in the room, but she seemed pretty p.o.'d to borrow a term. >> the democrats started out with a pretty low level of trust and a lot of suspicion of barr and whether he was going to sort of be an apologist for the president, the defender of the president, and the fact is he may not have meant spying in the way that it's classically understood and the thing to my ear and a lot of the democrats' ear he's echoing what the president has said. this is a theory that president trump has pushed repeatedly over and over again. remember when he was talking about spygate several months ago

and that it a this was a conspiracy to infiltrate his campaign, that he was the victim rather than a potential suspect in what went on here with regard to russia, whether he meant to or not, bill barr was echoing the president's rhetoric there and that gives democrats another reason to really mistrust what he's going to do here for. >> and whether he meant it or not, the democrats especially, a lot of other people who have been around town long enough saying this guy was attorney general b.shooer sur general, sure, but he's a high-powered attorney and when he said the word spying, he should have stopped himself, that if it came out by accident, as soon as he said it, he should have said let me be clear and he didn't. >> he was given the opportunity to amend a couple of times by democrats who understood it was a load statement. anyone who has been conscious over the course of the last two years understands that that's a load statement. that's kind of what brushed democrats back a little bit. you add in the technical details of a number of democrats or the

democrats on the gang of eight, kind of like the elite individuals who have the most highly classified clearance who were given a briefing by justice department officials last year i believe about how the process worked into the surveillance of individuals involved in the trump campaign, came away from that, republicans and democrats works did speak pubically saying nothing untoward happened so they are frustrated so there's another piece to pay for. this is leverage for democrats. democrats want as little of the report redacted as possible. the idea that bill barr is not a good actor and is doing things and making redactions because he's in line with the president is something that they might say is helpful in their cause to continue to push for a more fuller release or more sulsome release of the reports. that's why you've seen them seize on both days of bill barr's testimony though when you talk to democrats in a candid manner they say he's pretty good when it came to his testimony. they tried to play on anything

that indicates he's not an honest broker. >> he said let's all just hold our powder when the report is released, see what the inspector general has said and i'll come back and clarify more then. listen to russia limbaugh saying he said spying, amen. >> he knows there was spying. he knows who the spies were. he knows the informants that were implanted into the trump campaign. we finally got the guy who is going to dig into this. he understands exactly what happened here as we all do. this is just the first time it has been officially said. >> go ahead. that is not what bill barr said, just to make that clear for anyone who wasn't watching the testimony yesterday, but when he was asked does he have evidence that spying occurred, because he said i do think spying did occur. he said he didn't have any evidence he could cite right

now. he's going to look into this and later backpedaled some saying he wanted to make sure there was no improper surveillance, wasn't launching an investigation of the entire fbi, but it is interesting because the inspector general is looking into this. we know congressional republicans are looking into this, so the question here is the doj shifting its tendencies to meet the president's demands because this is what the president has said similar to what bill barr said yesterday, though the president says it in less measured tones when he talks about being spied on. that's the question. the one thing to keep in mind on. one of the allegations of spying is about carter page and that warrant to surveil him. that was signed by rod rosenstein, still the deputy attorney general and still works at doj. >> we'll see where bill barr goes. we'll see if the climate changes whenever we get what we do see of the mueller report. donald trump jr. feeling his oats. look at the tweet making an ispy photo joke, full. you've got to look closely at that. but there's barack obama with a young kid and a nagfying -- and

a magnifying glass and i spy. this is candy for the president. >> the and you see cable news and social media saying this is the evidence we've been talking about now for the course of the last two years. this is kind of the alternative view of what was going on over the course of the last two year, the genesis of the investigation which they believe is very untoward. i would note the report is going to come out, and it might be redacted, but the -- but you can pick up bread krufrcrumbs from attorney general's efforts that they are working to get as much information out as they can, individuals who with are well-known public citizens, the president also, not have their information redacted, more private citizens with peripheral third parties. once this report comes out it might not satisfy everybody but i do think that's worth saying let's wait for the report to come out. >> a concept often missed. yesterday was a big day, an

interesting day and we'll see next week and for the most part the attorney general was trying to say can we just wait a week on this conversation, but he raised his own controversy by using that term. the remark by the attorney general about spying on the trump campaign one of the truly extraordinary moments here on capitol hill this week and i think it's only thursday. we get. ♪ valerie: but we worry if we have enough to last. ♪ cal: ellen, our certified financial planner™ professional, helps us manage our cash flow and plan for the unexpected. valerie: her experience and training gave us the courage to go for it. it's our "confident forever plan"... cal: ...and it's all possible with a cfp® professional. find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. >> we'll take you straight out to los angeles as the u.s. attorney is announcing charges against michael avenatti. >> has returned a 36-count

indictment against attorney michael avenatti. this indictment is now the operative charging document in the case. the indictment substantially broadens the criminal conduct that was charged in the criminal complaint that was unsealed on march 25th. the charges now being alleged against mr. avenatti can be broken down into four general categories. first, wire fraud, related to the theft of millions of dollars from five clients, including a paraplegic man who agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement but has received only a fraction of the money despite the fact that mr. avenatti received the full settlement amount over four years ago. second, tax fraud, including failing to file income tax returns for himself and his law firm. as you will hear in a few minutes from special agent in charge corner, mr. of a nalty

also took steps designed to obstruct an irs collection, hide his coffee company's income and prevent the irs from collecting on a series of tax liens and levies filed since 2017. third, bank fraud, including the allegations in the original complaint that mr. avenatti received three loans from a mississippi bank based on applications supported by phony tax returns. and fourth, bankruptcy fraud. the indictment alleges that after his law firm was forced into bankruptcy over two years ago, mr. of a nalty has repeatedly lied to the bankruptcy court, to the bankruptcy trustee and to his creditors by failing to report income his brumt firm was receiving. these four areas of criminal conduct alleged in the indictment are all linked to one another because money generated from one set of crimes was used

to further other crimes. typically in the form of payments designed to string along victims so as to prevent mr. avenatti's financial house of cards from collapsing. i will now discuss the various areas of criminal conduct in a bit more detail. the first area of criminal conduct discussed in the indictment alleges mr. avenatti committed wire fraud in relation to funds more than $12 million in total, that he received and held in trust on behalf of his clients. while mr. avenatti was entitled to attorneys' fees for the settlements that he negotiated, the indictment alleges he nevertheless stole millions of dollars that rightfully belonged to his clients. there are five separate client victims in four cases in which money was stolen. the indictment outlines how mr. of a nalty's embezzlement

scheme typically operated. in each of the four cases of embezzlement alleged in the indictment, mr. avenatti received money on behalf of clients into client trust accounts, misappropriated the money and then lied to the clients about receiving the money or in one case claimed that the money had already been sent to the client. the first client victim detailed in the indictment filed a lawsuit alleging that the county of los angeles violated his constitutional rights and that he suffered severe emotional distress and severe physical injuries, including becoming a paraplegic. the victim who is identified as client one in the indictment obtained a $4 million settlement which the county of los angeles paid in january 2015 to a trust account controlled by mr. avenatti. but more than four years later

client one is still waiting to receive his portion of the settlement. as it turns out, within months after receiving the settlement proceeds in early 2015, mr. avenatti had drained the entire $4 million payment from his trust account using significant portions of these funds to finance his coffee business, his auto racing enterprise and his own personal lifestyle. from july 2015 through last month, mr. avenatti made periodic payments of no more than $1,900 to client one and paid his rent at various assisted living facilities, calling these expenditures, quote, unquote, advanced on the settlement. according to the indictment mr. avenatti also undermined client one's efforts to buy a house for himself. mr. avenatti assured client one that he could use the money from the settlement to buy the property, but mr. avenatti later

falsely told client one that the settlement was not available because the county had not yet approved a trust for the disabled client. the house client one wanted to buy fell out of escrow because the money already paid by the county had been piflerred by mr. avenatti, and to further complicate matters for client one, mr. of a net works promised to respond to a social security administration inquiry related to client one's disability failed to do so, and two months ago client one lost his social security benefits. the other three client matters outlined in the indictment regarding mr. avenatti's theft of millions of dollars are similar. mr. avenatti received the money on behalf of clients and simply took the money to finance his businesses and personal expenses. in one case after receiving $2.75 million for a client, mr. avenatti allegedly took

nearly all that money and used it to pay for his portion of a private jet, a jet incidentally that we seized yesterday. with respect to the tax matters, special agent corner will provide you with the details of the new offenses alleged in the tax indictment, but i want to note that some of the money withheld from the paychecks of employees of his coffee company, money that was being held in trust and was supposed to be used to pay payroll taxes was instead used by mr. avenatti in relation to other crimes alleged in the indictment, including making lulling payments for clients from whom he had stolen settlement money. following mr. avenatti's arrest on march 25th, i discussed the facts related to an alleged bank fraud set forth in the criminal complaint. the indictment restates these offenses which began in 2014 which when whether avenatti

allegedly defrauded the people's bank, a federally insured financial institution in mississippi, by make false representations about his income. very simple police these false claims about his income were made by submitted fictitious income tax firms for both himself and law firm. these personal tax returns submitted to the bank were clearly fake because as reflected in the indictment mr. avenatti failed to file any personal income tax returns since 2010. moreover, the law firm tax return was fraudulent because it claimed millions of dollars in gross income, more than what was actually reported to the irs. in the fourth area of criminal conduct alleged in the indictment, mr. avenatti allegedly filed under penalty of perjury a sires of documents in the united states bankruptcy court that fraudulently understated the amount of money

that was coming into his bankrupt law firm. the indictment also alleges that mr. avenatti lied during under oath testimony that he had not received any fees in relation to a particular case when he in fact had received those fees. the bankruptcy cases related to the theft of client funds because mr. avenatti allegedly used money stolen from one client to pay his creditors, including to pay off an irs tax lean at issue in the bankruptcy. if cone verdicted of the 36 crimes alleged in the indictment, mr. avenatti would face a statutory maximum sentence of 333 years in federal prison, plus a mandatory two-year consecutive term for an identify theft count. of course, the ultimate sentence would be up to a judge following a conviction. at this point i want to stress that mr. of a net is presumed

innocent unless and until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court. the indictment also contains two forfeiture allegations. in the event of his conviction seek to have proceeds of mr. avenatti's fraudulent conduct forfeited to the government. in relation to this as i mentioned, authorities seized a $5 million jet that mr. avenatti co-owned, a purchase he made from money allegedly stolen from a client. i want to express my appreciation to the irs criminal investigators who have done excellent work on this case. this matter is the result of over two and a half years of tax collection. >> you're listening to the united states attorney in los angeles detailing stunning charges against michael avenatti, the attorney who gained national fame, of course, representation stormy daniels, the adult film start who alleged she had a relationship with then

businessman businessman donald trump. >> he could get 33 years in prison, wire fraud, bank fraud, getting settlements for clients including a paraplegic and keeping the money and spending it on himself and lying and cheating. it sounds like they are essentially accusing michael legal business of being a ponzi scheme. >> he's a con man, no other way to describe it. they just listed a panoply of charges. defrauded lots of clients. he was filing fraudulent tax documents, lying to banks. i mean it, there's a financial fraud case in here, and now they have gone back and detailed it, and -- and either he'll take it to trial or he'll more likely plead guilty because he's facing significant jail time. >> knowing all of this under investigation for years, they talk about the tax liens and coming back to him, so as all of this is playing out he takes on

this national case. he takes on the president of the united states. he starts showing up at big difference. he starts going to democratic dinners around the country saying i might run for president and shows up at every hearing at the michael cohen trial. what's the word for that? >> look. like i said are, it's a con. he came out in public and portrayed himself thinking he's a lawyer and he had credibility. he had all of this going on behind scenes and a lot of reputable organizations had him on and gave him a public forum and he in many of his appearances with respect to the stormy daniels case it was very apparent i think to myself and other lawyers that over time he was doing things that were obviously in his interests and in not in his client's interests so he'll be disbarred. he is facing significant criminal exposure here, and his public moment is up. >> and to her credit she finally figured that out and dumped him before this happened. we'll take a quick break. when we come back, it's been an

interesting week on capitol hill, including some tough questions and some interesting answers. the game doesn't end after a walk-off, down two runs in the bottom of the ninth. because there's always another game on deck. with mlb extra innings on xfinity x1, you'll get up to 90 out of market games per week with mlb.tv included.

get all the body sacrificing catches, home plate heroics, and 6-4-3 double plays. plus, with x1 you can get every stat and every score all with the power of your voice. that's simple. easy. awesome. order mlb extra innings for a great low price and get mlb.tv included with your subscription. go online to learn more. not to worry about changing their minds in retirement. you may have always imagined your dream car as something fast. then one day you decide it just needs to be safe enough to get her to college and back. principal. we can help you plan for that. ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was-- ♪ born to walk alone! keep goin' man! you got it!

if you ride, you get it. ♪ here i go again geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

♪ pardon the interruption but this is big! now at t-mobile buy any samsung galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free! woman 1: this is my body of proof. man 1: proof of less joint pain and clearer skin. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2: ...with humira. woman 3: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. announcer: 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. man 3: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. it's been a really remarkable week on capitol hill, interesting moments on issues ranging from the mueller report and the president's taxes to go big divides over climate change and diversity. sometimes when we i had it for time we can lose some of the drama and context. let's take a few of the moments and let them breathe and begin with the attorney general's surprising use of the term spiesing. >> we want to make sure that --

i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal, a big deal. i'm not talking about the fbi necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly. >> so you're not suggesting though that spying occurred? >> i don't -- well, i guess you could -- i think spying did occur. yes, i think spying did occur. >> el with, let me -- >> but the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated, and i'm not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. mr. chairman, could i add one point of clarification. >> please. >> i want to make sure looking back at all the different colloquies heres i'm not saying that improper surveillance occurred. i'm saying that i am concerned about it and looking into it. >> so he dug a hole. he tried to dig a hole out. used the word spying several

times, and this is a very experienced veteran attorney. we talked a little bit earlier in the program about the substance of that and the democrats are now saying it means he's distrustful. fascinating to see what happened in that room, the senators, both democrats and republicans said whoa, he just said surprising. the senator schaaf from hawaii said i'm offering you a chance to get out of this because you know what it will do in cable television. >> you know the second time when he said it and when he saw the reaction from senator shaheen and others on the committee he thought maybe i better kind of at least put this at an arm's length so can i later go back and explain what i meant or might have meant, but clearly -- he used the word surveillance the second time. clearly by use the word spying and continuing to use it, he was basically refusing to back down from it all to go. i mean, he was trying to moderate what he said, but it was -- it was interesting to watch that unfold in that room and for him -- for it to dawn on the sore like who they are dealing with here in this

position and what he's willing to say. >> yeah. look, clearly a rhett ran for using colloquy in the middle of a congressional hearing. he's been around and watching senator jeanne shaheen's face who was asking the question when he said that before he came in afterwards saying if it was proper or predicated kind of underscored the entire moment and frank lit entire two-plus hours of the hearing where you saw senators who immediately knew that this is a very loaded term and seeing the last two years flash before their eyes and recognizing as senator schatz did that this is going to be a big deal no matter how it turns out. >> october president liked if. >> here's another woman, chairwoman maxine waters of the house financial services commit, sun who has been a target of the president, called congresswoman low iq by the president and the secretary in the chair has good relations with the democrats.

he's worked hard to have relations with the democrats but this moment went to foul. >> is it possible that you could give us another 15 minutes to get to these? >> i have a foreign leader waiting in my office at 5:30, okay. i agreed to stay longer. it will be embarrassing if i keep this person waiting for long period of time. i respect the committee and we want to have a good working relationship with you so i hope you'll understand. i'm already going to be late to my 5:30 meeting. >> i do understand. we're late all the time, unfortunately. we're all pressed for time. >> if you wish to keep me here so that i don't have my important meeting and continue to grill me, then we can do that, i will cancel my meeting and i will not be back here. if that's the way you would like to have this relationship. >> thank you. >> the gentleman, the secretary has agreed to stay to hear all of the rest of the members. >> let's be clear to the press. >> and let's respect our time. >> who is next on the list. >> you're instructing me to stay here, and i should cancel.

>> no, you just made me an offer. >> you made me an offer that i accepted. >> i did not make an offer, let's be clear. you're instructing -- you're ordering me to stay here. >> no, i'm not ordering you. i said you may leave any time you want. you may go any time you want. >> please dismiss everybody. i believe you're supposed to take the gravel and bang it. >> please do not instruct me as to how i'm to conduct this committee. >> well, welcome to divided government. again, there's going to be contention from time to time. you have a democratic house and a republican administration. secretary mnuchin works hard actual throw keep pretty good tone channels with the democrats. how much of that as he knows again the boss has a history with maxine waters? what was that? >> you're never supposed to lose your cool in a moment like that, and he certainly did. when he was just being pressed not even on something like bill barr was being peppered with questions yesterday, did not lose his cool. that just over timing and when he could leave that they got

into such a heated debate. whether or not it's wise is a question that people inside the white house are debating because, of course, she eats chairwoman who conducts oversight of the department that he leads, so it's probably best not to get into a fight with her over timing. >> the flip side is he had a foreign leader in the office. i'm sure he said the secretary will be up and has to be out by timex and the chairwoman said sorry, too bad. >> to your point, there is one person who loved watching that exchange and did great in that moment and that's donald trump. donald trump does not mind if his treasury secretary goes capitol hill and basically says to the chairwoman of the financial services committee, particularly somebody he has made clear he didn't like and doesn't think is qualified, i have to go. it was an amazing passive aggressive-off. if you want to leave you can leave. you offered me to stay and neither one of them was willing to back down and if you're maxine waters in that moment, that's what you do.

it's her committee. she's in charge and she wanted to make it clear if he was going to leave, but it was going to be clear that he'd be getting up and going and the hearing was going to continue without him and that would be seen as disrespectful of the committee so she was sort of daring him to do that. he was daring her to instruct him. >> like that time. a passive/aggressive-i have. >> understands that this is a whole new world dealing with committee chairs and people they may not got around with. maxine waters has been around for a long time. she knows what she's doing. you've seen her make fire-breathing speeches towards the base. she understands how the committee works and knew that the secretary of the commit he agreed on a hard out and decided to push it anyway. >> in an odd way politically. there's substance and policy that gets discussed. politically secretary mnuchin did well and maxine waters did

well for her constituents and next there's katie porter who flipped a republican county. she worked as a watchdog in california as a big banks, someone like elizabeth warren. she's made a quick name for herself of going after the big guys. if you're a corporate executive, banking executive across from her and you're in that committee you better be prepared. yesterday it was the jpmorgan ceo jamie dimon saying, hey, an entry level worker at your firm, sir, is having a hard time making ends meet. >> my question for you, mr. dimon, is how should she manage this budget shortfall while she's work full time at your bank? >> i -- i don't that all your numbers are accurate that. number is a start -- is generally a starter job. >> she is a starting employ and has a 6-year-old employee. doesn't have the ability to

spend your $31 million. >> i'm wholly sympathetic. >> she's short 567. what would you suggest she do? >> i'd have to think about that. >> would you recommend she take out jpmorgan credit card? >> i'd have to think about it. >> i'd advice that you allow families to make ends meet. >> katie porter is on the lowest end of the dias because she's a new member and sheep's not as high profile because she's not on social media and here's the thing to remember about katie porter. she knows this stuff. she has worked in this stuff. she's worked on mortgage fraud investigations. she's a close acolyte of elizabeth warren, and when she came into congress, i remember talking to people who work in the banking industry pointing her out and the saying watch her

because what she's going to do because she knows what she's talking about. i'm not going to besmirch everybody in congress and that's not always the case. >> very diplomatic. >> you saw that with her and the equifax ceo and now with the former wells fargo ceo who she lit up in a hearing. >> let me stop you actually because we want to show you this. this is the point of having a conversation, stepping you back to show you the moments. the equifax ceo. here's another one of katie porter's moments. >> my question for you is whether you would be willing to share today your social security and your birthdate and your address at this public hearing. >> i would be a bit uncomfortable doing that, congresswoman. if you would so oblige me i would prefer not to. >> if you agree that exposing this kind of information, information like that, that you have in your credit reports creates harm, therefore you're unwilling to share it, why are

your lawyers arguing in federal court that there was no injury and no harm created by your data breach? >> congresswoman, it's really hard for me to comment on what our lawyers are doing. >> respectfully, circumstances you do employ those lawyers and they do operate at your direction. >> good for her. he does. whatever your position on the issues, he's the ceo and he does employ those lawyers. they are representing him. you're right. you were being kind. some members go into the hearing not prepared. she's in the on that list. >> well, i mean, what's interesting, you're right in that she doesn't have the social media following like an alexandria ocasio-cortez has and that sort of thing, but it's fascinating to watch these new members really kind of take the reins at these hearings and basically go in preparing for moments like this, you know. basically to take their opportunity of, you know, they have five minutes for questions and to actually, you know, have a list of somebody's personal finances and to have a concrete example of how you can't make

ends meet on a budget like that with a job like that. these are ways, you know, that moment has actually gone somewhat viral. that got around as did the equifax moment and it's a way of them trying to elevate their issues and make their mark in a way we haven't necessarily seen from more junior members past and i think there make a difference. >> even senior members who use the five minutes to make a political statement, use the first four minutes to make a statement and then request a question. it puts these powerful people on the spot. >> we're about a minute and a half away from the president of the united states. some members of congress do come prepared. this is al green yesterday. >> as i look at the panel and i'm grateful for your attendance, the eye would perceive that the seven of you have something in common. you appear to be white men. i may be mistaken. if one among you happens to be

something other than a white male, would you kindly extend a hand into the air. if you believe that your likely successor will be a woman or a person of color you can would you kindly extend a hand into the air. all white men and none of you, not one, appears to believe that your successor will be a female or a person of color. issur bank likely to have a female or a person of color within the next decade? kindly extend the hand into the air. two, three, four, five. five. without giving the commentary

that i would dearly like to give i'll move on. >> didn't have to give commentary. the preside he made his point. the president. united states at the white house. >> yes, please. >> mr. president, on the economic projects for south korea and north korea, are you willing to allow some leeway in relaxing sanctions so that south korea can pursue some more economic projects with north korea? >> well, we are discussing certain humanitarian things right now, and i'm okay with that to be honest, and i think you have to be okay with that. and south korea's doing certain things to help out with food and various other things for north korea, and we'll discussing different things inside. again, the relationship is a much different relationship than it was two years ago. you'll remember what that was all with, and certainly during the obama administration where nuclear weapons were being tested often, where rockets and missiles were being sent up in

many cases over japan, we are in a much different situation right now so we'll be discussing that very much actually. >> mr. president. mr. president. >> do you still love wikileaks? >> i know nothing about wikileaks. it's not my thing, and -- and i know there is something having to do withing julian assange. i've been seeing what has happened with assange, and that will be a determination i would imagine mostly by the attorney general who is doing an excellent job so he'll be making a determination. i know nothing really about him. it's not my deal in life. >> what would you like to see happen? what kind of punishment? >> i don't really have any opinion. i know the attorney general will be involved in that and he'll make a decision. >> are you pleased with the use of the use of the word spying? >> i think it's absolutely try.

thereto was absolutely spying in my campaign. i'll go a step further saying it was illegal spying and unprecedented spying and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again, and i think his answer was actually a very accurate one and a lot of people saw that -- a lot of people understand, many, many people understand the situation and want to be open to that situation. hard to believe it could have happened, but it did. there was spying in my campaign, and his answer was a very accurate one. >> mr. president, in the third summit with north korea's chairman in mind? >> a third summit could happen. it's step by step. it's not at fast process. i never said it be would. it's step by step. i enjoy the summits and i enjoy being with the chairman. i think it's been very productive. it's really step by step. it's not going to go fast. i've been telling you that for a long time. if it goes fast it won't be the proper deal. >> is a three-way summit between

the tleerds -- >> that could happen also. that's largely dependant on chairman kim because president moon will do what's necessary. i know president moon has been fighting this battle a long time. he's done an excellent job. i consider him a great ally, and -- and a lot of good things are happening. a lot of good things are happening in the world. our economy is the best it's ever been. our employment numbers, unemployment and employment are the best they have ever been, and they have more people working right now in the united states than ever before, almost 160 million people and likewise south korea is doing very well. their economy is doing very well and i think our trade deal a has helped that process, so we're sitting on two great countries right now, and we're leading two great country, and we think that -- i can speak for myself and i think can i speak for president moon. we think north korea has tremendous potential and really potential under the leadership of kim jong-un.

let's see how it all works out. >> mr. president, have you spoken to kim jong-un in the last two weeks? >> i don't want to comment on that, but we have a very god relationship. >> back to the mueller report, are you concerned -- >> i'm not concerned about anything. frankly there was no collusion and no obstruction. we never did anything wrong. the people that did something wrong was the other side, the dirty cops and a lot of the problems that were caused. it's a disgrace what happened and, again, it should never happen to a president again. you are just lucky i happen to be the president because a lot of other presidents would have reacted much differently than i reacted. you're very lick i was the president during this scam. during the russian hoax as i call it, so, no, i'm not concerned at all. the bottom line, the result is no collusion. no obstruction, and that's the way it is, and i know a lot of people were very disappointed, but they knew the real answer.

you know, when the democrats go behind the scenes and they go into a room backstage and they sit and they talk and they laugh because they know it's all a big scam, a big hoax, and -- and it's called politics, but this is dirty politics, and this is actually treason. it's a very bad thing that people have done, and i just hope that law enforcement takes it up because if they don't take it up, they are a doing a great disservice to our country. go ahead, please. >> [inaudible question ]. >> no. we're talking about long term. we always talk about long term. we want to have long term. our relationship with south korea is extraordinary, and we only think in terms of long term with south korea, okay? >> mr. president. >> yes, sir, go ahead. >> [ inaudible question ]. >>