country that all of us have sworn to uphold. so if we are going to do that, we have to do our jobs irrespective of what the other body may do once they get their chance to look at it. >> congressman clyburn, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you so much for having me. >> the news continues. want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> all right. thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time" on this mueller report eve. we are finally going to get to read this report for ourselves tomorrow. not all of it but maybe enough to start making some conclusions of our own. before attorney general no holds barr comes out to summarize it again and do exactly what the president put him there to do, protect him and spin. he's already given team trump a big heads up so they can prepare their rebuttal. we have the reporter who helped break that story tonight and some other breaking news just in

on what we're going to see and what we're not going to see. is barr the president's new fixer? the answer to that seems to be yes. democrats are furious, but what can they do? we have a key lawmaker here on what they plan to do to push back. and we have a potential 2020 contender. he's going to announce which way he's going to go on our watch. former virginia governor terry mcauliffe in or out? let's find out and let's get after it. all right. this news just came out. it's being reported by "the washington post," all right? we know that the attorney general plans to hold a press conference at 9:30 a.m. eastern tomorrow to talk about the report. that's very problematic. but let's just get to what the breaking news is, okay? they say that this report is going to be lightly redacted, all right? that is a new report from "the washington post." what will that mean? i don't know. look, the good spin on it is if

there is only what needs to be out of there for national security reasons and that congress gets to see even that, so that they can make judgements. remember, they're the ones that you elected to make these kinds of determinations, not the attorney general. they should be making the determinations about what you get to know about it or not, not the attorney general. that will be fine. but if lightly redacted is just spin and it turns out there is a lot of stuff in there that makes the story unclear from mueller's perspective then lightly redacted is still too heavy an exclusion for satisfaction. secondly, "the washington post" also just reported in the last few minutes that the reason the mueller team couldn't reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice is because it was hard to determine the president's intent. now, of course it was. remember this key fact. the president's team refused to have him answer any questions about conduct during his presidency.

so he wouldn't answer any questions about obstruction. how could they figure out his intent if they never got to interview the subject of that analysis? all right. what will we get? a blow by blow of the president's alleged conduct, the tweets, private threats, other episodes. what does that mean? i don't know. that's what they're calling it. in any event, the president's going to be ready. he knows this is coming because unlike you, unlike your chosen representative and your free media, his team got an advanced look, reportedly. remember, when our a.g. would not answer what he told the white house in front of congress. remember that? i don't want to talk about it. i don't want to talk about it. you know why? he didn't want to lie and say he hadn't talked to them. that's why. so he skirted it. now we have reporting on what this is all about. this is important new information. it just happened on our watch. let's discuss with people really deep in this story. mark mazzetti. he helped break the news for

"the new york times" about what we're about to see and why. him and garrett graff who know so much about mr. mueller and his press conference. here's one thing garrett graff knows and now we all do, mueller is not going to be at that press conference tomorrow. that's a significant exclusion. mazzetti, let's dovetail what we learned from "the washington post" what your reporting was. what did you learn? >> what we reported today was that there had been numerous discussions between justice department officials and white house lawyers in recent weeks about the substance of the report. we never said that there was a full briefing and we don't still know what of the mueller findings have been briefed to the white house, but there was -- there was clearly a discussion, and this discussion has helped the president's lawyers begin their rebuttal process. >> sure. >> or shape the rebuttal process. that we expect the rebuttal to

come out some time after the mueller report comes out tomorrow. so this has been an important thing. and as you pointed out, it was something that last week when barr testified to congress, he pointedly didn't talk about it. he didn't give an answer about the discussions when some time earlier the justice department said the white house hasn't been briefed on this. so that was a kind of a tell that something had changed. >> right. look, we expect the white house to do what it does most often, which is to shade away from what is actually true, but you saw it in what mr. barr wouldn't talk about. and garrett, look, it leads us to what is now a pretty sure conclusion, all right? he errs on the side of protecting the president. he could have said, yeah, i gave him some information. it's not really material. i thought it was more of a courtesy, and i did that because he's the one who is under direct examination, but he didn't. he uses the rules and the technicalities and the posture to his advantage, which has played to the president's advantage every step of the way so far, including not having mr. mueller at the press conference tomorrow.

why wouldn't the man who wrote it be there to talk about it? >> i would actually bet that mueller would not want to be there himself. that he is someone who from the start of this investigation has preferred to let his work speak for himself. remember, rod rosenstein has been the one who has given the press conferences at every turn during the major indictments. what i do think is just highly weird and suspicious in this instance is the fact that they're not simultaneously releasing the report. that is the way that -- and that is the marker that rod rosenstein has set down in previous press conferences in this investigation. the indictments are posted. the indictments are filed. >> so you have something to read and ask questions based off of. >> at the same time the press conference is happening. exactly. >> they're having this press conference tomorrow. >> it is so weird. >> it will be the second time, fellas, and for all of you watching wherever you are watching this, that this a.g. has decided to tell us what to think about this report without

giving us the report itself. that's what he did with the summary letter. nowhere does it say in the regulations he has to do it this way. and they keep saying, well, it says, mazzetti, in the regs, it doesn't say he has to give it to the public. it doesn't say he can't either. it's up to him and what he chooses to do and not do. now tomorrow morning he's going to have a second bite at the apple to fell people what to think and even congress won't have it until 11:00, so there is no one to push back. >> right. it was surprising for us that this is -- this is how it actually came down. where there is going to be a press conference in advance of getting the report. i mean, stepping back for a second, i think we should -- this idea of the regs, what's in the regs or not, to a degree maybe a lot of that should just be thrown out at this point, right? mueller only had to produce a -- >> confidential report to the a.g. >> a confidential report about why they were declining further prosecutions. they felt it was necessary to produce a lengthier report. that's beyond the regulations. barr, to his credit, certainly

didn't have to put this out, but it appears based on reporting that most of it will come out. so we'll have to wait and see. but the way this has come down in the last few weeks since the time that mueller produced the report, barr produced his letter, and, remember, there's been the congressional testimony about spying, there has been these discussions between the white house and the justice department. it has been unusual and it has certainly raised questions about barr's behavior. remember, this was the person who was going to kind of restore order to the justice department -- >> says who? >> -- after, you know, jeff sessions and matt whitaker. >> says who? >> that was -- that was the expectation among a lot of people. >> yeah. why? >> well, it was this idea that this was an establishment person, an establishment lawyer who respected the justice department as opposed to the people who came before him. maybe that was a naive expectation among a lot of people, but that was -- >> maybe. >> -- this view that barr was an institutionalist.

>> right. >> so i guess we'll just have to see what happens tomorrow. >> i'll tell you, it looks to me -- garrett, what's your take on this. that the raskins, sekulow and rudy saved this president's bacon by getting the mueller team not to ask any questions about his time during the presidency, including the obstruction questions. because we both know even doctored answers might have given them enough to pull the trigger. because they were clearly divided. they were so close on it that they couldn't do what they were supposed to do, which is say, nah, i can't make a case. that's all the prosecutor's supposed to say. he's not supposed to say i couldn't exonerate. that's not his job. it's not his job to find you innocent. it's his job to figure out whether or not he can make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. if it's a 50/50 call you say no. not here. why? >> yeah, and that's exactly -- the president's legal strategy actually turns out to have been the smart one.

to sort of if you obstruct the investigation enough along the way into obstruction then it makes it very difficult for them to prove obstruction. and that that is what we have seen the president in the end is that these charges really hinge on this question of corrupt intent. you know, the president acting -- >> right. >> -- within his legal article ii authority as the president of the united states to do things like fire fbi director -- >> whatever he wants to do. >> jim comey. >> right. >> but if he did that with the intent to obstruct justice -- >> yes. >> -- then that's still an illegal act. >> right. but they could never get at that intent. when we knew he wasn't going to go in front of them, that's when i started on the show, i know people are telling you this could potentially end the presidency. i know they're telling you this could be crimes. i don't see how. because they can't get access to the person they'd have to analyze to make that case. and, you know, look, that's the way it turned out, but now it's

not about just the product of what comes out, it's the process. the word from "the washington post," mark, is lightly redacted. now, what does that have to mean to be satisfying, at least for the democrats tomorrow? >> oh, you know, i don't -- i don't know. it's not the percentage, certainly, it's which parts are actually -- >> right. >> you know, lightly redacted. it could be 2% redacted, but the critical, you know, conclusion could get redacted. i don't know what will satisfy them or the republicans or whatever. i mean, certainly as a -- as a journalist i want as little redaction as possible. >> of course. >> i want as much of the case as possible. you know, we are expecting that there would be more of this obstruction side of the report to be out in public. more of the potential russia side of it to be redacted because of classification issues, grand jury issues. >> right. >> but i do hope that, you know, there are answers on this russia

side about what got them to the conclusion about what we know is that there was no criminal conspiracy. what underlined -- what was the underlying evidence? are there more instances of contacts? i mean, that's what i'm, you know, particularly interested to know. >> right. i mean, look, i think in terms of what people see, the american men and women who read this, a lot of it is going to be filtered through a political prism. if you believe that as long as there is no felony whatever happened is fine, you're going to be satisfied with what comes out tomorrow. if you're somebody who believes that's not the bar for responsible presidential conduct then there is going to be something there for you as well. it's for the rest of us, those who are really trying to piece together the record, that the amount of disclosure matters and how it comes out matters. and that already has shaded my particular perspective on this. they didn't need to do this this way. if they had nothing to hide and the president wanted everything to come out, it wouldn't be unfolding like this. mark mazzetti, good for you and "the times" for filling us in on

what was going to happen and what happened with the white house. it's a really important piece of information. garrett graff, thank you so much for helping us process this new information from "the post" about lightly redacted and what it was from mueller's team that had him in such a fit of frustration. perfect guests. thank you. now you just saw the presser from congressman nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee. this is going to get ugly early. this news that just came on our watch that it might be lightly redacted, that could help because if the redactions are such that congress can get all of it and then make their own determinations then it should be okay in terms of the amount of disclosure. remember, though, this process is what i'm going after. not the product. we don't know what it's going to be, but it never had to be like this. the president said he wanted it all out. now that seems like another lie on the pile. let's bring in a key house intelligence member. what does he think of this news about light redactions, what

matters and doesn't and what are they ready to do on the democratic side of the ball if it's insufficient? next. 12450i6789 ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. did you know the exact same hotel room...whoooo. ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! ♪ 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. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma

♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ democratic congressman jim himes sits on the house intelligence committee. congressman himes, always a pleasure. thank you for being here. >> good to be here, chris. >> help us understand the context of the moment we're living through right here. "the washington post" says light redactions. let's deal with that first. what does that mean to you? >> that would be a good thing. i was worried we were going to spend the next two months arguing over redactions not even knowing why they're redacted. there needs to be redactions to protect national security, classified information, sources and methods and all that stuff. there is an easy answer to that, though, because people on the intelligence committee, on judiciary can look and validate if those reactions are, in fact, no national security purposes. >> you're the ones who are supposed to do it, the committees. >> right. >> not the a.g. you're supposed to be the filter between the american people and that information. >> that's exactly right. and in fact, you know, at this

point since the doj under no circumstances is the doj rule. since the doj will not indict a sitting president, all that really matters from the standpoint of constitutional order is how congress reacts to the fact pattern in this report. which is why lightly redacted is good. we need to know what that fact pattern is. there is a whole other conversation here about whether there is anything conceivable in this report that would cause congress to act -- to demand accountability of this president. that's a whole other political question. >> the impeachment question, nancy pelosi sidestepped that for a long time since during the midterms. we understand why. he's over 90% in the party. that's a popularity contest. it's about votes, impeachment. as president ford said, a high crime or misdemeanor is what you guys say it is. >> that's exactly right. all this very technical legal question about whether it was obstruction. it doesn't matter. if the doj won't indict a sitting president, which they will not under current procedures, all that matters is whether congress decides in the house and in the senate that it's an impeachable offense. again, i hate to say this about my country but we're in a place

in particular where the republican party, i don't think there is anything the president could do that would cause the republicans to turn on him. i think the fine points of whether there was obstruction or not doesn't matter. >> unless the president switches parties. maybe then. let me ask you this. the other big piece of information that just came out on our watch. why could mueller and his team not come to a conclusion? why did they put out this very unusual presentation of the disposition of the case. we're going to make a case or not. or declination, to decline to do it, but this unusual language of don't know whether to make a case but can't exonerate. not the job of a prosecutor. now we hear from "the washington post" reporting, if it is to be believed, that they couldn't because they couldn't assess the intent of the president. how could they? they never had access to him. he wouldn't even answer written questions that were lawyered about his time in office, including any obstruction. how could they make the case?

>> that's a good question. two things to say about that. number one, we will ask bob mueller that question because we will at some point have him in front of congress to ask him precisely that question. i'll be as interested in the answer as anybody else. maybe, again, maybe this is partly about what we were just talking about, which is how precise do you need to be around a criminal standard of obstruction if you know that there is never a chance of an indictment? so i don't know, but we will ask bob mueller that question and it will be interesting to get his response. why did he choose not to push it? because, remember, bill clinton testified. >> they hit him with a subpoena and then he testified before they fought out the subpoena. >> and bob mueller apparently never felt like he wanted to elevate it. you can bet that the president's lawyers would have fought that subpoena. it would have been an ugly court fight, but bob mueller chose not to engage that. look, unlike the attorney general, who has just been an unbelievable disappointment to me, i guy i thought who had some stature, i still put an awful lot of faith in bob mueller.

so let's hope and give him the benefit of the doubt that he had good reason for doing what he did. >> i think you need him sooner or later. i'm surprised they're not trotting him out for the press conference tomorrow to give it some legitimacy. the a.g. has to know he's gotten beaten up in this process. >> my guess is tomorrow is an ugly day for the president and the white house. 400 pages. the white house claimed unconditional and total exoneration. if that were true, one page would suffice. there's 399 pages with grim stuff for the white house. my guess is, and, look, this pre-press conference where nobody has the information where he gets to spin things the way he spun things in that four-page memo, i'll tell you what really offended me and i think he lost all credibility with the department of justice when he said this, much less with people like me. when he called the department of justice surveillance in as much as it occurred of the -- of the campaign, spying, that's accusing the doj of a crime. in that moment he lost all credibility. so to be on a stage with bob mueller that might say something that contradicts your spin, that's a tough place for this attorney general to be.

>> a man who says he's all about going by the book and following the regs. where is it in the regs you give a conclusion to an ongoing investigation? they never talk to us about an ongoing investigation. there was spying. i have no proof. the investigation is just starting. totally not by the book. here is the last question for you and i think it's probably the biggest one. let's say what is lightly redacted is wholly inefficient to you and other democrats in the key positions. what can you do? how do you win in this situation? because you've got a delicate balance of oversight versus overreach, where you keep pushing and pushing and every time something comes out that is not completely damning optically there is a loss in that in political perception for your side. what do you do here? >> yeah, i think it puts a burden on congress' shoulders because if the redactions are what i hope the redactions are, which are there to protect our intelligence sources and methods, that one thing. we will respect that. but if they are clearly there and somebody like me on the intelligence committee sees it

and they are clearly there to prevent embarrassment of this president, we're going to be in quite a fix. look, we're a co-equal branch of government. i can only speak for myself, but if i look at a redaction and see there is absolutely nothing at stake with respect to national security and that is there to dupe the american people, you know, you'll see other members of congress will feel the way that i do, which is that we have an obligation to share the truth with the american people. >> time is of the essence. we know why this was released. when break is starting. passover is about to happen. this is holy week. they're doing this on purpose. the longer it can go, the more it will fade from people's immediacy. that's why i think it's an urgent matter. congressman, thank you so much for the candor, as always. we all look forward to what happens tomorrow. hopefully it's as much of a non-story as possible, in terms of what's made, disclosed to the american people. >> that would be a great thing. it would be terrific to move on to something else. >> get some clarity and closure. congressman, thank you very much. >> thank you, chris. all right. breaking news just on our watch on the barr news conference tomorrow.

there is a new demand from house democrats. we have the details and our great debate next. this time, it's his turn. you have 4.3 minutes to yourself. this calls for a taste of cheesecake. philadelphia cheesecake cups. rich, creamy cheesecake with real strawberries. find them with the refrigerated desserts. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. 12 hours? 20 dogs? where's your belly rubs? after a day of chasing dogs

you shouldn't have to chase down payments. (vo) send invoices and accept payments to get paid twice as fast. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you.

more breaking news on our watch. the chairs of five house committees are calling on the attorney general to cancel his press conference tomorrow because no one in the public or congress will have seen the redacted mueller report yet. that means he would get now a second bite at the apple of shaping people's perception without giving them the real information. the press conference is right now scheduled for 9:30 a.m. eastern. congress is slated to get the redacted report in the 11:00 a.m. hour. look, my analysis tonight is not about the nature of the product, what's going to come out. lightly redacted, great. let's see what they put out. hopefully it's enough to allow us to satisfy our curiosity, but this process, that's what takes

us tonight in the great debate. van jones and scott jennings. nadler, schiff, cummings, waters, engel all want the presser cancelled. van jones, right move? >> absolutely. because otherwise it's just a total farce. you know, i don't understand why they think this is a good idea. the only thing that fair news coverage is going to say when barr comes out and starts doing at a press conference what he refused to do at a hearing. at the hearing, listen, i'm not going to talk about this until we put the report out. now he's going to do exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do while he's under oath. now he's going to do it. what can anybody ask him about the report that no one's seen? i mean, if this were a script for a hollywood movie, nobody would do this. it's just dumb. all you're going to do is create hours and hours of people -- reporters justifiably saying we can't ask you an intelligent question about a document you haven't given us. will you give us the document, sir? it's a stunt.

it's weird. it's bizarre. it's wrongs. and i think part of the thing that bothers me about the whole situation, it used to be that people had some pretense. they may have some deal on the side. they may already have their thumb on the scales, but they try to pretend they're neutral. there is no pretense. >> yeah. >> this is just an absolute outright, you know, kind of a stunt to support a narrative before there are any facts. >> scott, i mean, it reminds me of the president yesterday tweeting we when he was talking about fox news. you've been on here. pretty much everybody from the right i've had on said let it all come out. keep the process lean. if there is nothing to hide, let the people process, let's see what congress wants to do with it. let's move on. now this process. why do it this way? >> well, look, i don't know what he's going to say. i don't think people should be freaking out tonight until we find out what he has to say. and what questions people have for him. so i don't know why we would freak out before we actually hear the words that come out of

someone's mouth. regarding these congressmen, chris, that you were saying are demanding that a person who works for the u.s. taxpayers not communicate with the american public, i don't understand that. they're worried about a guy shaping a narrative literally an hour and a half before we're all going to get to read the report. >> yeah. >> when those very people have been out shaping the narrative on this for the last two years. can we build a time machine and go back and cancel the last two years of narrative shaping if that's what we're worried about today? i think nobody should really be -- >> well, look -- >> out of control tonight until we actually read this document. >> i think freaking out and out of control, that is a gratuitous way of describing what we're doing. the process doesn't make sense when it's supposed to be about putting out the report. this is now the second time he's taken the opportunity to not tell us anything except what he wants us to know. van, your rebuttal. >> i mean, here's the thing. there are politicians who are out there being political. that's kind of their job. that's not who we're talking about. we're talking about the head of

the department of justice. he has a completely different standard to meet than random pundits, random politicians and other people who are going to be squawking no matter what. this is the top guy. this is the top cop for the country. listen, if you had -- if a crime were committed in your neighborhood by somebody you think might be in a gang, you're not sure, and the cop shows up and within three or four minutes the cop is throwing up gang signs and acting like he's a part of what's going on you get very worried because you want the cop, you want the doj to be separate from the white house, separate from the democrats, separate from the republicans and stand above the process and be unimpeachable. that's not what we're seeing and that's why people are freaking out. >> scott, i think that's the part you're ignoring in this. go ahead. >> look, i think that to make this better they need to put mueller out there at some point. i don't know if it's tomorrow, but mueller -- >> i agree. >> -- needs to speak and we need to hear from him. >> should be at the process. >> about how he views the process.

i don't know why he wouldn't be. i heard garrett graff earlier on the show say maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. >> no, no, no, he said that he wouldn't want to do it. he'd like his work to speak for him, but they're not putting the work out. >> i did not agree do two years with donald trump savaging the character and the intentions of robert mueller. i thought it was wrong. i think mueller's an honorable person. he was trying to shape that. i didn't agree with that. at the same time tonight, i don't agree with democrats savaging barr before we hear what he has to say either. they're doing the exact same thing they hated about trump -- >> no way. >> when he was doing it to mueller. >> no way. >> 24 hours from now, we're all going to have read this and this process -- >> no, it won't. it's 400 pages. you're not going to have read the whole thing. this is going to take time. van, is this the same thing the president did to the process? >> i don't think so. honestly, it just seems to me that the reason that you want to come out -- we've already heard from barr many times. he was under oath. he said he wasn't going to talk

about the report until it comes out. so i think people are confused -- at best confused. why would you come out and talk about a document and share your perspective on a document that nobody has been able to see? what has changed in a week? nothing's changed in a week except that now we're going to, you know, do this new round of spin. if, to your point, why aren't you calling do him to wait? to just pump the brakes. to your point, if we're all going to be talking about this in 24 hours, pump the brakes and let us see the document. i don't think democrats and normal people are too far wrong here to say i want to have a press conference about a document you haven't read is just weird. why not let us see the document and then we can ask you questions. >> i mean, look, scott, you would have the same problems if you flipped the script on this. the president says i want it all out. that was his initial intention, right? all right. so then you get a summary that clearly is not at all out and the prosecutors come out and say that wasn't a fair reckoning. okay. then he hides it for weeks when

her there was no reason to do that. he could have had it redacted and figured out to go on day one. he going to redact certain things, he's going to put it out, but there's a press conference. then they decide to put it out right before passover on holy week when spring break starts. i mean, come on, scott, how would you feel if this was something that you wanted to know? >> well, regarding the timing of it, barr under oath promised the congress he would have this out by mid-april. it is mid-april and he is meeting that obligation. >> he could have done that two weeks before this. he didn't process this report. he didn't do any of the work on it. zero. that's not his job. >> well, they couldn't -- but they couldn't produce the report until i guess mueller and the officials at doj went through it to make the redactions they feel like they need to redact. >> you don't think that could have been going on all along? you don't think that could have been part of what the mueller team did when they handed it over to him? come on. >> i don't know.

i'm not in the room. that's a good question for mueller and that's why he should appear to answer those questions. here's what i think. tomorrow morning, if he goes out there -- i agree with you on this point, if he goes out there and -- read a few passages, that wouldn't be fair. i agree with you. if he takes process questions, fine. and sends it up to the hill. fine. can you not pass judgements on his character -- and intentions. >> i'm talking about the process. the a.g. gets full deference for his position and the expectation of the product, but the process has been stinky. that's why i'm talking about it. i hope that all fears are allayed and that whatever is redacted tomorrow is insignificant and people can get what they deserve, which is clarity and that the president then and only then will get the closure that he wants. scott, van, thank you for the case. we will see tomorrow. a democrat who is one of the best fund-raisers in the business, by the way, has been

toying with the idea of running for president. sure hasn't been toying at all. this is an agonizing decision. but he's ready to make it and he's here next and he is sporting those uva colors with no shame. next. travel and dining now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma♪ ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance?

they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. get to know geico and did you know the exact same hotel room...whoooo. ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! as my broker --what am i paying you to manage my money? it's racquetball time. ahhh! carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee? like schwab does. guarantee? carl, can you remind me what you've invested my money in. it's complicated. are you asking enough questions about how your wealth is being managed? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at theexplorercard.com. democrat, former governor of virginia, terry mcauliffe, has

been considering a presidential run. tonight he has a decision. governor, always a pleasure. >> chris, honored to be with you. before we get going, can i just say one thing? >> what? >> this is the first time i've been on national television since the university of virginia won the ncaa basketball championship. >> congratulations. a great run. >> it was a great one. what a great tournament. >> great run. it's great to see the little guy win. they'd never done it before. epic fashion. >> it was great to behold. games out there in minneapolis, unbelievable. i went out for the championship. you've just never seen anything like. >> it says something that a former governor who is considering running to president would want to talk about the ncaa tournament before their own decision. give it to us, gov.. then we'll get into the state of play. >> i've thought long and hard about this. been to over 20 states since thanksgiving. i have been reaching to folks over the country. i know i could beat bush like -- trump like a runted mule, but we've got issues in virginia and

i'm concerned about virginia. and since february we've had a lot of problems there. we have the opportunity, chris, to pick up our house and senate. so to pick up both chambers with the governorship, be the first time in 26 years. as governor, you know i had a record number of vetoes, 120. there are bills i pushed through that just couldn't get through the republican legislature. background checks. virginia joining the regional greenhouse gas initiative. something i did through executive order. >> you're saying you don't want to run for president. you're going to run for governor? >> why are you in politics? to help people. where can you have the biggest impact on people? the leadership of virginia has been reaching out to me the last 2 1/2 months. i spent until 4:00 in the morning on saturday morning with the state party chair all night talking. i invested a lot in that state and i love that state. we've got to win the house and senate because we can change it, we can take it to the next level. so i've listened to the virginians and i'm going to help virginians for the next six months. i could spend eight months

traveling around the country running for president or the next six months really making a difference. where you can help people most and change people's lives, as you know, happens at the state level. i don't want anybody in virginia to feel that i abandoned them. i would loved to have run for president. i think being a southern governor who had a record amount of jobs and investment and education and the most felon right enfranchisement in any governor in history. it's all, you know, getting in with a field of 20 today and trying to get your message to break through, where tomorrow i can make a real difference in the commonwealth of virginia. >> how are you going to do that? are you going to run? >> so beginning tomorrow, my focus is going to be to win the house and senate in virginia. >> in what capacity? are you going to run for governor? are you going to run for one of those positions? >> that's two years away. i told the state party. i told the leader of the house. i had one of the leaders of the black caucus over the phone with me over the week, we need you back here, terry. i'm going home. >> they're all saying, terry,

what do you want? do you want to be governor again. run for the house? >> i'm going to coordinate the campaigns. >> you don't want to run for office? >> i'm going to work the next six months for every day to make sure we win the house and the senate. next year i'm going to work like a dog to make sure we are blue. we are the only southern state that went for hillary in 2016. very proud of that. we need to do it again in '20. we got to make sure we re-elect our great senator in mark warner. we got to keep jennifer wexton and our great female members of congress. i'm going back to virginia. it was a red state when i started. when i left, it was a blue state. it's about helping people. that's what i love to do. you can do it at the state level. we are really the incubators of democracy. i would loved to have do it as president. i'm still a young man. we'll see what happens. this is a real opportunity. i started it. i need to finish it. >> who is your best bet in your party for 2020? >> i think we've got a great

group, a lot of great candidates running. >> who beats trump? >> i think most of them beat trump. >> most of them beat trump? >> i love joe biden. i'll be honest, joe biden and barack obama came to virginia to campaign for me. joe biden and barack obama when they were in the white house and i was governor, they did everything i asked to better virginia. but, listen, we're going to have a good healthy process, and that's a good thing. the more the merrier. >> you think any of people in the race right now can beat the president of the united states? >> i will tell you, first of all, donald trump is not going to be easy to beat. and no democrat -- >> that's what i'm saying. >> sure. but, listen, there are 92 million people who did not vote, chris, in the 2016 election. they're going to come out. look at things that he has done and the folks that he has alienated. we need to go through this party process, but i would say this, and i want to thank all the supporters -- i mean, literally i had so many people across the country who were really fired up. it would have been a fun campaign. you know that. i love campaigning. i love fighting. i would love to have been on

that debate stage with donald trump, but, you know, we've got to move forward and we've got to bring our party together. so we'll have this primary process. we'll all come together. but it's actually about helping people. and that's what matters. what he has done on health care to this country, premiums are up, co-pays are up, deductibles are up. people are worried about health care. they're worried about how expensive it is. they're worried how complex it is. and that's what the democratic party should focus on, dealing with the cost issues. prescription drugs, we got to deal with that issue. the costs of prescription drugs. the pharmaceutical industry spent $30 billion last year advertising drugs. and guess what? they got to deduct that from their taxes. that's just not right. you look what happened with purdue pharmacy and what happened with the opiate crisis. >> listen, we all are aware what's going on. you would think the best place to do it is at the president level because you have the most power and the most influence. you're choosing to do it by the state, but you're going to help the party figure out, you know,

what its goal has to be in 2020, to beat the president. that's always the out party's -- >> i want to be back after the november election. >> done. >> the first time in 26 years. then we can move forward. i can promise you right off the bat next january, background checks in virginia, they need to be done. things that we can do to help the environment. we can do that. then we come back in 2020 and have the governor's race -- >> no chance you make a decision later on to run and jump in if the field doesn't do as well as you think they'll do? >> well, listen, i've committed to helping me. i don't know if it's been a concerted effort. they all got together. it pulled at my heart strings. i love that state. i worked like a dog. i went on 35 trade missions. brought $20 billion of new capital. virginia was a different state when i went in. the trap laws to shut down the women's clinics and all that awful stuff, that's all gone. where virginia is a national leader, we can take it to be a global leader. don't tell your brother, make it the best state in the united

states of america. >> luckily for you he doesn't watch this show governor -- >> the folks we elect this year, chris, they will be around in 2021 when they review all the maps. >> right. >> in fairness, this election will determine the next ten years in virginia. that's why i'm saying home and doing what i need to do to help the virginians. >> governor, i appreciate you making the case on our show. >> thank you. >> congrats to the university of virginia. >> y'all did pretty good with lsu. they had a good run. >> i don't have a blue shirt on, though, for a reason. >> that's why. >> be well, governor. there is only one number one, and it's you guys right now. we hear tonight that some white house aides, past and present, are nervously anticipating what could be coming out tomorrow in the mueller report. why? what are they really worried about? what's the exposure? we'll tell you, next. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corne of your growing business. from managing inventory...

to detecting and preventing threats.... to scalingup your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

interesting headline. paranoia hanging over the white house tonight. soon we may learn who is and how many of president trump's aides cooperated with mueller and whether any of it will be damaging to him. "the new york times" reports some of trump's aides fear his backlash more than the findings themselves. let's bring in d lemon. do you buy this? >> yeah. of course. we reported on it last night. i absolutely do buy it because until -- until now, many people who left the white house have spoken out, but a lot of it has been sources, right? >> mmm-hmm. >> sources said this. sources said this. this is an official record for people who were testifying under

the consequence of perjury, right? with the fear of perjury. so they will -- they were probably in these interviews that they gave. they will talk about -- or talked about the inner workings of the administration and they will describe some of the they will describe some of the turmoil and chaos in the white house. they're afraid of retribution because the president knows who they are. probably does now. >> if they don't fall to the category of peripheral -- >> what does that mean, though? >> i hear you on it, i don't know what it means. it's a good indication. could just be spin. we'll know tomorrow. i don't buy it. here's why i don't buy it. they were pushed to cooperate. they were all but made to cooperate. the idea they don't know what these people said, i think it's giving a false expectation of anxiety. i'm not saying the times got it wrong. i'm just saying people are saying this as spin and they're not worried about that. they're not worried about anything because they've been

told what to expect that's coming out tomorrow, and they already know what the big hits are going to be. this process has been a sham from the beginning. >> well, listen, it's good reporting that came out. and if they are, indeed, worried, as they say, the president, quote yesterday was the president is going bonkers, okay -- >> i don't buy it. >> they were concerned they would be upset and retaliate for people telling the truth? that is interesting -- >> i buy that. i don't think it's going to be a surprise to them. we'll know soon enough. >> so, listen, transparencies, hypocrisy, there is a big lesson in hypocrisy that's going to be on my broadcast, okay. and the people who are carrying the water for this administration, a particular network that we are going to drill in on, and you do not want to miss this. you don't want to miss it. and one more question, chriss. >> uh-huh. >> do you have any questions about what was in my broadcast tonight, what aired on my broadcast tonight? >> it hasn't happened yet.

>> okay, that's what reporters will be dealing with tomorrow at 9:30. >> well done, don. >> they go with barr. how are we going to ask anything if they haven't seen the report? >> that's good. you don't have to embarrass me like that. good point. >> i'll see you. >> this process deserves criticism, period. i reserve judgment on the product, we all should. we have to see what they release in the report. but you need to see where we are and why we're there because it's going to be a prediction of where we are headed. a closing argument of caution next. whoooo.

did you know the exact same hotel room... ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller transitions™ light under control™ if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. don't stoop to their level. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. it extends with a protective shield and targets weeds more precisely. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while guarding the good. roundup sure shot wand. got weeds in your grass too? try roundup for lawns. kills weeds, not the lawn. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years.

xfinity watchathon week has sadly come to an end. what, what, what! no! but don't let that stop you from watching the best shows and movies from showtime, hbo, epix...

jesus, what happened? ...and more. it's just the tip of the iceberg. upgrade now to get more into what you're into. thanks! just say "watchathon" into your x1 voice remote to upgrade and keep getting more of what you love. first word of caution. tomorrow is not about simply getting a verdict. there is not going to be an immediate headline and if there is, beware of it. it's long. even with the redactions, no matter how light they are. so beware of immediate assessments. the key is look for how mueller argued and why, especially on

obstruction. we know going into this his team saw so much potential truth they were torn about whether to make a case. so why did they not feel the easy ability to say yes or no? you will see that if it's not redacted. i hope. the problem is we shouldn't have to hope. barr is not doing us a favor. he's supposed to be doing his job. we keep hearing, the regulations don't say, for instance, that he has to show the public. well, they don't say that he can't show the public either. every step so far has been this a.g. making a choice to do right by the president and wrong by you. like what? four-page letter instead of showing you 400 right away. he didn't have to do that. it was shaping the narrative. such a theater of the absurd that the one thing he allowed was that mueller said, he couldn't exonerate. very odd language. then what does the president start shouting? i was exonerated. >> there was no collusion with

russia. there was no obstruction and none whatsoever. and it was a complete and total exoneration. >> it wasn't. what's proof? point number two, then what happens? nothing. the report is gone for like a month. why? well, they have to work through the redactions. they could have had mueller do that. he was the one working with the agencies. it could have been delivered with all the things everybody was worried about. it didn't have to be left to the a.g. then, number three, the a.g. refuses to answer to congress about giving a head start to the white house. do you know why? because he didn't want to lie, that's why. he knew they were giving them a look. and now the reporting confirms the same. no, mr. barr is not mr. by the book. he is no holds barr. he does what he can to help the president he serves and that's what we're seeing, so expect it

to continue. another example, parroting this president's poppycock about being spied on. listen. >> i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. i think there is a spying did occur. >> ease using that word. anyone in the justice business let alone an attorney general knows spying is a dirty word to intel folks. mr. by the book, are you supposed to give a conclusion on an ongoing investigation? never heard them do that before. he did it there. why? it's not in the regs. even the redactions, light, as reported tonight. what does that mean? it's all about what they don't put in there, and what choices are made by mr. barr. when they really should be made by your members of congress, frankly. they should see all of it and let them figure it out. they are your elected representatives, not him. the point is he doesn't have to do any of this this way. he's choosing to, just like he did it as attorney general for president bush during iraq gate. just as he did it for legal counsel as legal counsel before that. and congress can likely fight in

court and win if they want, but you know what that will be? a delay. and this is all about the delight of the dilatory, going slow on purpose because the longer this takes, the less impact it makes. barr knows this. he knows this president wants it this way. mr. i want it all out, where is the president on that now? it's been anything but that. mr. barr having a press conference unless he bows to the demps and stops having it. it's planned for 9:30 tomorrow before anyone has seen the report. how do you ask good questions when you don't know what he's talking about is this that's what he's banking on. big hint. mr. mueller isn't going to be there. should tell you a lot. you do a presser about the report you didn't write and the guy who wrote it isn't there. you don't provide it to folks who are there to have questions asked of you? congress won't get it until 11:00 a.m. what does that mean? they won't be able to push back. you know who's ready, white house counsel, reportedly got a heads up. where is that in the regs?

when is this being released? right before the holy days. jews and christians are going to be distracted, right when spring break starts for so many in this country. it is all as ugly as it is obvious. if you have nothing to hide, why do it this way? thank you very much for watching us tonight. cnn tonight with don lemon starts right now. >> very good. >> golf clap from my man d. lemon. >> i can't see you, though. >> i look good. guess what i'm wearing? >> i can't see you, you see me. i guess i'm on the air. >> it's just us, don. speak freely. >> i'm so glad you said that because there is no other way of describing this man's behavior other than being a political operative. >> no holds barr. >> no holds barr. if you look at everything that's gone on, what he wrote about as special counsel before he even became attorney general, what he said in his hearings, and a lot of people who gave him the benefit of the doubt, i sat here and watched