campaign were used and manipulated by the russians. >> i appreciate your time. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for cuomo. >> the president's attorney is right about one thing. it is time to rumble my friends. we now have the facts. except for some info like grand jury redactions and that will come eventually, you can test what the facts mean. please read the report. we know that russia interfered in the election. it's not speculative on any level for anyone except our president and our president and his campaign did not commit crimes connected to the interference. he is not a russian agent according to this report. but that is not the end of the story. there was a lot done that was wrong by him and his campaign and it was lied about. the president is far from off

the hook, especially on instruction. mr. mueller clearly left it to congress. the president's lawyers are going to be here. we have top experts to process what we know as fact. then you have the democratic side of the situation. will they take up mr. mueller's invitation on obstruction? we're going to ask a key democratic leader what comes next. this is the night we have been waiting for. what do you say? let's get after it. >> okay. i never said no collusion from anyone. just not from the president. do you remember that pivot from rudy giuliani on this program? it was a good choice. 100 plus pages of wrong doing. collusion, not crimes but it was done by this campaign and they were all laid out. over 100 pages. detailed contacts and meetings.

all lied about. unethical. wrong to do. mueller layed out ten points of potential obstruction. said the president did try to obstruct. he was saved by his people when they refused to carry out his orders and clearly left it to congress. one of the people around this president that likely saved him from himself is mr. rudy giuliani. he helped convince our president not to testify and to give answers that were lawyered and that would insulate him. that was a smart move. he joins us now. mr. mayor, can you hear us. >> yes. >> i'll make sure to give you space to answer. there's no need to argue. we know all the facts. first question for you, sir. do you guys have your rebutal

report. is that coming out any time soon? >> we do. it's basically done and the question is when do we put it out? you're flooded with so much material and frankly right now the discussion seems to be pretty clear. we'll put it out. we'll put it out maybe -- probably not until after the weekend. >> okay. >> it's about 30 pages and two sections. so probably more like 45. >> why weren't you ready to go? >> we were. >> why not put it out at the same time? >> we decided we would rather have it play out without our arguments being out there and see how it developed. >> very tactical. what about transparency and getting it all out. >> i'm a lawyer, right? right now we like the way the discussion is going. first of all, you have to get past to see whether he committed a crime and he didn't.

>> with respect to russian interference. >> that was -- that's one thing he didn't commit a crime but did he do other things that are wrong. >> right. >> but from my point of view as his lawyer i'd like to get past that hurdle. he didn't commit a crime. i believe he didn't do anything wrong. >> let's talk about it. you heard how i started the show. >> the president is not an agent of russia. there were no crimes. >> i appreciate that. >> i wanted to start by offering you an invitation. i want to know if you will apologize on the part of the president for denying russian interference all along, lying to the american people about it and will you apologize on his behalf because we now know there was russian interference and they wanted to help the president and his campaign tried to get the

benefit of that. >> the president to this day has no knowledge of russian interference in his campaign. and the whole issue of collusion with the russians, both for him, his campaign, anyone in his campaign, even collusion with releasing the information or conspiracy or cooperation. it's completely untrue. >> criminal. >> and this is the second time -- this is the second time -- nope. same determination was made in the counter intelligence investigation conducted by the fbi. >> i'm making a different point. >> with four electronic, at least four electronic surveillances. >> one, surveillance isn't spying. >> wait, wait, wait. >> mr. mayor, one point at a time. >> that surveillance is based on an extremely, extremely false

affidavit. >> we will know when we see it but for right now that's speculative. let's just stick with the pattern please mr. mayor. we know there was russian interference. the president i would argue has the most reason to know. he has the most access to intelligence. he's the closest to the actual sources that gathered the intelligence. we know from the mueller report and from our intel community the russians interfered but here is what the president said on the world stage. >> tell me when he said it. >> here it is. you can watch. >> all i can do is ask the question. people came to me and said they think it's russia. i have president putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. >> so he didn't believe dan coates intel. the mueller probe just showed the same thing that the intel community said it was russia. he embarrassed this country on

the world stage and did it to protect himself. will he apologize? >> first of all, i wouldn't tell him to apologize. i'd have to know what he knows. >> you know what he knows. >> i don't have access to that. i heard the president say he might have a different view. it's not unusual. >> it is if it's founded on nothing. >> i'm just going to speculate because i don't have any facts. i do a certain amount of work in the area of cyber security and these determinations are percentages. so i haven't seen the report on russia. i doubt it's 100%. probably a very high percentage i assume. >> it's not fruitful to discuss any other possibility. everybody that's in the business of knowing has come to the same conclusion. nobody has a reason to lie except the president of the united states. >> i didn't like. the president has a different opinion than you do. a different view. i've gone through a lot of

intelligence reports and it's not like, you know, the score of a baseball game, 6-2. it's some of this, some of that. basically you figure out, you figure out where you've been hacked because some common group of intermediaries and other countries use those intermediaries. >> everybody that's looked at it from the united states has come to the same conclusion. >> i've only seen one or two situations where you can determine beyond any doubt that you caught the person that did it. >> everybody in the business of doing that says that except the president. >> maybe you have to know more about the material. >> the idea of did he commit a crime, i think we're good when it comes to was our president or his campaign part of russian interference? i think the american people have reason to accept as fact what mr. mueller found very thorough, no, i cannot make a case beyond a reasonable doubt that they coordinated or conspired. okay. >> i'm glad that's over. after all that was the genesis

of the whole thing. >> well, the genesis was in looking for these questions about what happened with interference when the president fired comey it spooked rosenstein and he picked the special counsel. there's a list of things the president lied to people about that were material to our understanding. things that he said were a hoax. here they are. were you having a business deal in russia. he said no. the answer is yes. were you looking for clinton's e-mails. he lied about all of these. >> he didn't lie about the first one. >> sure he did. >> he did not. he didn't have a business deal in russia. >> he did most certainly. i saw his signed letter of intent. >> do you know what you're doing now? >> what am i doing? >> exactly what the special counsel did. you're relying on the word of michael cohen. he did not have a business deal in russia. >> i saw the signed letter of intent. >> let me finish. >> go ahead. >> these are complicated

thoughts. that is completely false that he had a business deal in russia. he had a letter of intent. no money, not binding. a proposal. not even a prosel. >> it was a proposal. >> a letter of intent is a nonbinding letter of intent. >> but it shows intent to do a deal. >> it's not a deal. it was the beginning. do you know how far away they were from a deal? there were ten other things going on in the trump organization. >> let me give you an example. i run a security business and i make proposals all over the world. i have four of them. one of them got signed. i'm doing business there and i'm not doing business in the other countries. if i'm not doing business until i sign a contract. >> i think we know that the records show that. he said he had nothing going on

and he doesn't. >> no. >> the records show a lot of lying by a serial liar that just did it in front of the united states congress, in front of congressman cummings and he lied right to his face. you know he lied because you possess what proves he's lying. >> i'm saying that the president lied. another one that is material, he went to mr. mcgahn. >> well the first one is false. >> i disagree. >> well you can disagree but tell me how a nonbinding letter of intent is a business deal. >> everybody that tells me they read this report cover to cover they will get cuomo merchandise because they'll see who is telling the struth atruth and s an argument. >> there's no assessment of credibility. >> there's at least examples. >> they deliberately leave out the numerous lies that he told.

the lies that he told after he co-op rate. >> i don't need cohen. >> well, you're relying on his word for that business deal thing. >> we have a signed letter of intent. >> a letter of intent is not a business deal. >> the letter of intent says he doesn't mean he's doing business. >> of course i'm doing business when i have a contract. >> fine, fine. mr. mcgahn. >> don't give me fine, fine, fine, like i'm lying. >> you're being his lawyer and that's fine. i have never accused you of lying. that's not how i am and you know it. the president met with mr. mcgahn in the oval office with only the chief of staff present and tried to get him to say the president never ordered him to fire the special counsel. that is a lie. >> that is not a lie. no it isn't a lie. >> if you're asking me to change my story for your benefit it's a lie. >> this is why it was so unethical what the special

counsel did in dumping all of this material out on people with no evaluation or credibility. if we were having a trial i could demonstrate through cross examination there was no business deal in russia. a contract is a business deal and i can demonstrate to you that the use of that word fire is the thing that created that conversation and if you look carefully at the report you'll see that. even the special counsel grant that there was a great deal of confusion in that particular situation because when it was first described the word fire was used. mcgahn then acknowledges the word fire wasn't used. he also acknowledges that he was mistaken, that he didn't tell the president he was going to quit. he told someone else that which doesn't mean it ever got to the president. these things are much more confusing than when a prosecutor gets to lay it out.

>> this is much more confusing than when the prosecutor gets to lay it out his way. >> you can't have it both ways mr. giuliani. >> if you want in a courtroom. you can't indict him. >> don't just make the blanket statement that he lied. >> we know that they were lies. you may not like it but that doesn't change it. >> it's what they have been doing to the president for the last two and a half years turned out to be a phony story. >> what's phony about the story? russia didn't interfere. they colluded. >> to effect the election? untrue. you should be much more interested in who made that up? who circulated that? >> there's nothing to make up. there is nothing to make up. >> the fact that the russian government was conspiring with donald trump. haven't you read the report? >> i have read the report. that's not fair. i'm about three quarters of the way through the report.

i haven't read all of it. >> unfortunately i had to read all of it. >> i've read enough to know what is true and what isn't true. >> no, you're assuming what is true. >> mueller is the only person -- >> have you cross examined michael cohen? have you looked at the different memoranda that exist for the meeting that you're talking about. what you're doing is terribly unfair. >> how so? >> this is why we have trials and this is why what the special counsel did is so unfair. he put out one prejudice version and by the way, he used a burden of proof such as this, can't conclusively determine he did not commit obstruction. >> right. >> the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime. it does not exonerate him. when does anybody get exonerated? >> i didn't understand when mr. barr put out his letter for two reasons. one that's unusual language for a prosecutor. >> it's not unusual language for

a prosecutor that wants to set up a standard that allows him to dump all of this garbage on you so that you get confused. >> i have no reason to believe it. >> chris, you have no way -- what you're saying to me now you have no way to evaluate the truth of. it's considerably more complex. there's maybe two or three different recollections of a particular situation in terms of the second one you're talking about. they would all have to be examined and you would have to decide how did it happen. >> we're not going to have that opportunity. we're not going to go through a trial. >> and the first one -- >> 400 pages of hell, all right? and when we look at what was going on when we talk about collusion and i know it's nuisanced and that makes it tricky for people and i am saying repeatedly no conspiracy. >> what are the other ones? >> i'll highlight them for you but when you look at things they did that were certainly wrong and i understand why you pivoted

saying i didn't say there was no collusion period but i said the president didn't collude. >> i can collude over whether i'm going to go to dinner. >> that's fine. but it's usually something you want to hide. >> we use that word too loosely. we're talking about conspiring with the russians. >> that's the criminal standard. that's the criminal standard but they did a lot of sneaky stuff they knew was wrong and that's why they lied about it. >> so far you haven't shown me any of that. >> the trump tower meeting he lied about it. >> tell me how he lied about the trump tower meeting. >> he said it was about adoption. >> it was set up to give them dirt on clinton. >> it was about adoption. >> that's what it became about. >> you're missing the forest for the trees here. that meeting was set up on a pretense. that meeting was set up on the pretense that they had dirt on hillary clinton. >> that's why he went. >> are you supposed to say that

when somebody offers you dirt from russia? >> read carefully. you don't misrepresent. you haven't read it carefully enough. >> how so. >> even the special counsel says that offering information can't be determined to be a campaign contribution. >> i'm not saying it was a crime. i'm saying it was wrong and it was bone headed to do it and wrong and that's why they lied about it. >> was it the best exercise in judgment, i don't know. >> best exercise in judgment? this is bone headed. >> i know a lot of campaigns that -- >> let me finish my sentence. they have no idea if the person on this case they did. it doesn't matter. nothing happened. the woman did come in and then talked about adoption. >> why did they lie about it? >> they wanted to set donald trump jr. up for a meeting. >> no, why did the president about lie it? >> the president didn't lie about it. the president didn't know about

it. would you please stop using the word lie when you don't know what you're talking about. >> misrepresentation of fact done to deceive that's a lie. >> the president didn't lie about it. he didn't know about it. >> he set up the testimony about how to respond to it. >> that's the uniform testimony of everyone including mr. manafort who has basically almost been tortured to say the opposite and continues to say he didn't know about the meeting beforehand. >> not beforehand. then he heard about it and tried to spin a response to it and cover up what it was about. >> michael cohen said i whispered, i heard donald trump jr. whisper in his ear. he doesn't know what he heard. >> he knew what the meeting was about. >> would you read the testimony. you are misrepresenting it. >> it's in the report. >> the report says that cohen heard donald trump jr. whisper in his daughterfather's ear two

before the meeting. it could have been about something else. he assumed -- >> no, that's not an argument. you have to be on another show. i want to ask you one more thing. >> i can sit here as long as you want to. we have three misrepresentation about that report. >> you may differ with it but i'm not misrepresenting what mueller found. >> by the way, the special counsel indicated that on the basis of the evidence available, nothing criminal, nothing -- >> that's a standard you make meetings from people you know to try to get dirt on somebody in a campaign is wrong. >> they digit try to get dirt. you don't think the clinton campaign didn't do the same thing? >> it doesn't work like that. this is about your team and what you did wrong. >> i didn't do anything wrong. >> what did i do? are you accusing me of doing something wrong? >> i'm accusing you of not letting me ask my question.

you said you'd let me ask it. when flynn's counsel reiterated that flynn could no longer share information the president's personal counsel stated the decision would be determined as reflected hostility toward the president. that's bad behavior. that's unethical. >> you said to me the president's personal counsel called him and said something to him. >> yes. >> you're going to assume now that the president ordered that or knew about it? >> no, i'm asking you was that you? >> no, it was not me. >> do you know who it with was? >> do you think it was me? >> i asked you, do you know who it was? >> i'm not going to tell you who it was? >> why not? >> i'm not going to tell you who it was. >> since when is asking a question like something like this an assertion. is that how low we have gotten. >> the president of the united states did not know about that.

you cannot attribute that to him. >> i didn't. i asked if it were you. >> it was not me. >> do you know who it was? >> i do know who it was? >> do you think it was the right thing to do? >> i'd have to know more about all the facts. do you want me to make a moral judgment about it? >> yes. >> chris, if we're going to start making moral judgments about everybody in public office we'll have nobody in public office. >> come on. >> if we get impeached based on moral judgment. >> we have to hear about integrity. >> lying and lying and lying. >> we have to care about lying and integrity. >> i got specific information about collusion? no he was lying, lying, lying. >> he admitted he lied. he's going to jail for lying on behalf of this president. i'm asking you questions of fact. i'm not even going into obstruction because i want to see what congress does with

that. >> you want me to evaluate the conduct of another attorney that happens to be an honorable and decent guy. >> so it's a man? >> okay. i probably shouldn't have said that. he could have been a man that day but by now who knows. >> come on, you got enough on your plate. you don't have to add that type of issue. i'm not going to disrespect my competitor. this conversation is going to keep going. >> you got to do better than you did tonight. >> i'm going on the report. >> who developed the connection. >> use it for political purposes and then you want to do exactly that. you're the only people i've never seen do that. >> what? >> instant hypocracy. we don't like these institutions being used for political

purposes. we'll investigate the investigators. >> you're right. particularly when they are circulating a phony charge. particularly when we have a guy on tape saying i'm going to prevent him from being president. >> mr. mueller said no criminal coordination, no conspiracy and he left it to congress. we'll see what they do and we'll continue the conversation. >> what they'll do is completely political. >> sure. >> not on fairness, decency or law or honesty. >> since when do you believe politics isn't supposed to be infused with integrity. that we're supposed to dismiss that people can -- >> when i watch cummings tell cohen i'm going to throw the book at you if i lie and cohen lies six times. >> and you have a president that stands on the world stage and takes vladimir putin's word over his own intelligence group. >> you have no idea what intelligence he has or he doesn't have or what the

strategies are in negotiating for our country. the president making a statement in a diplomatic situation and a man committing blatant perjury. >> i'll take perjury over saving your own skin -- >> he's lying about what he did with his own lawyer that's ready, willing and able to testify against him and lying in contradiction of a individual row reporting. >> he was on the right side. it is replete with lies throughout the campaign. that's going to be a matter of concern. >> there's a very big difference. i'm not saying that the president lied at all. >> how can you investigate people for political misstatements or lies, we won't have enough time -- >> i'd neff say prosecute. rudy giuliani you have to go. >> it's not a moral he kwif leq between a man that commits

perjury over and over again and someone that gives a statement in a situation -- >> this president lied over and over again. >> even the report says making press statements. >> the only reason we're not saying the same thing about the president is you were smart enough to keep him out of the chair. one out of every three written answers was nonresponsive. you did your job. >> maybe i don't remember. maybe i don't know the answer or maybe i know you're trying to trap me. >> i'm not trying to trap you. >> by saying two and it's three you're going to try to put me in jail like they did with flynn when they had the information hidden in their drawer. >> i read them today. >> flynn had no lawyer. >> i'm not talking about flynn. i'm talking about the president. i read through his answers today. you did a good job putting him together. one out of three was seen as inadequate and unresponsive. if he had sat in the chair we

would have been having a different conversations now. >> maybe the questions, did you see the questions? they were a page long and had about 8 sub parts. they were a law school exam rather than questions. >> you handled it well. >> and they were seeking information that a person would not remember and not know specificity. >> one out of every three. >> in the middle of a presidential campaign where this is not a focus. trying to remember did i have one meeting or two meetings or three meetings or was it in march or was it in february? you know these people want to nail you on anything they can nail you on because you have a record. >> for what it's worth -- >> they try to trap you in person. >> i can't believe you're going to say it about someone that you know is a respectable person and someone that lies we know is contagious. bob mueller is a respectful man and you know it.

>> i was talking about the lawyers on the other side. >> i'm talking about bob muel r mueller. >> i'm talking about andrew weismann that's been three times been founded to have acted -- by the justice department that put arthur anderson out of business and everyone was found to be not guilty and it wasn't a crime. >> nobody put the president in the position he's in instead of him. >> i'm talking about flynn and not the president but what they did to flynn was entrapment. it was sneaky and they should be ashamed of themselves. they knew the answer to the question. they asked him the question. he hid the evidence. >> flynn made his own choice and now he has made his own situation. >> they're trying to figure out how to get out of the embarrassme embarrassment. >> this is what happens when you get involved with somebody asking you to do bad things and you wind up lying to cover them. this is what happens. cohen, manafort, flynn, you get

involved with a guy who wants you to lie. >> oh my god, chris, you're so way off. >> i have to leave it there. >> okay. i really think -- i really think what you did tonight is not right. those three statements are not in a simplistic way. >> the mueller probe lays them out, this is the way they happen. >> no they didn't. you left out the whole background. there's four different versions of this conversation when you're accepting just one version. that's the way things happen in real life. >> i understand that. you had your chance to make your argument. and my apologies to hannity. i don't want to disrespect anybody else's time. so thank you. >> you're a good man. >> be well. >> take care. >> i really do think he is

supposed to go somewhere else. you have to have some decency in this world left. even if it's your competitors that calls you a bum and enemy of the state in some cases. we are going to have another lawyer here. he only leaves two possibilities and mueller now passed the torch to congress on obstruction. that's why he didn't take it up with mr. giuliani. we had the head of the democratic caucus. does he think that's the move? we're going to take it all on, next. a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens.

and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.

you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. witha color change is easy.des, nutrisse has 77. from our darkest blacks, to our lightest blondes. it nourishes while it colors. plus avocado, olive and shea. change a little, or a lot. nutrisse. nourished hair. better color. by garnier, naturally! but i'm more than a number. when i'm not sharing ideas with my colleagues i'm defending my kingdom. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens:

the essilor ultimate lens package. so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor look at all those wet dishes to dry... ...if only there was a way to skip this. skip drying with finish jet dry. it dries 100% better versus detergent alone. finish jet dry. for cabinet-ready dishes, right out of your dishwasher.

>> the best the president's legal team could do in the court of public opinion is that everything that mueller team said isn't true and we need to test it in court, this is going to be a long process. the special counsel layed out a clear case and explicitly mentioned congress and not the attorney general as the next step. what does that mean for the democrats? oversite? impeachment? let's get some information from hakeem jefferies. welcome to primetime. >> good to see you. >> i wasn't expecting the president's legal team which is to say no crime we accept mueller's finding. those things about him lying that's not true. we'd have to try that in a court of law for it to be found true or not. what do you do with that? >> it's not surprising because they're taking direction from donald trump who is selective with his fact. this is a president that regularly lies to the american

people. the president is out of control. the president is reckless and irresponsib irresponsible. this is not new information. we have seen this over the last two years. >> it doesn't change your mind in anyway. >> here's what is new, that bob mueller after completing a 22 month investigation writing a 400 page plus report has concluded and identified at least ten different instances where it's likely that the president of the united states attempted to engage in obstruction of justice. now his constitutional responsibility is to faithfully discharge the laws of the united states of america as you know. it appears that he has not upheld that constitutional responsibility. in the united states of america, no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states of america which is why hopefully reasonable americans across the political spectrum take these concerns that were layed out seriously and congress is now going to have to act

responsib responsibly. >> but the avenue for that is impeachment. pelosi stepped away from it. >> the avenue is not impeachment. it's further disclosure to the american people. three things we need to do. first congress needs to review the entirety of the report because we can't necessarily trust the redactions that were put into place. >> that's obviously one in this particular interest. >> you want all of that. what is two? >> underline documentation. that's something that chairman naddler indicated so we can ultimately present that to the american people and three, perhaps most importantly, once we have the unredacted report and once we have the underlying documentation, bob mueller needs to testify and tell his story to the american people. >> to what end? >> at that point we can make a

determination as to what measures of accountability are merited. i support speaker pelosi's articulation of the standard relative to impeachment. the case must be compelling and the evidence must be overwhelming and most importantly the sentiment around impeachment must be bipartisan in nature. it remains to be seen what is the conclusion that the mosaic of the american people draw from the information. >> what if the poll numbers show that minds aren't that different. people that don't believe in the integrity of this president now have more reason to believe that and those that don't care about the sbintegrity of the presiden don't care. they made up their decision and made up their mind. is it worth your time and the political risk to keep beating that same drum? >> listen, our primary focus has and will continue to be on executing our for the people agenda. we're going to keep the focus on lowering health care costs with

an emphasis on driving down the cost of lifesaving drugs. we're going to enact a real infrastructure plan. we're going to fix our bridges, tunnels, mass transportation system. we were elected on issues related to lowering health care costs and infrastructure and improving the lives of middle class americans and those that aspire to be apart of it. so nothing changes that approach. but we do recognize that we have a constitutional responsibility to be a check and balance on the executive branch. this president is out of control. we're going to do it in a deliberate passion. we're not going to overreach and overpoliticize or overinvestigate but we're not going to move from our constitutional responsibility either. >> it's going to be an interesting balance. this is not the end. we'll see where it goes next. always a pleasure and thank you. so we heard from rudy giuliani

about why the president isn't a liar and why they didn't do anything wrong at all. what about obstruction? he's going to join us to see whether or not he agrees with anything that mueller found. we'll do it now. how are you doing? >> doing great. >> thank you. >> hey, chris. >> so on obstruction do you agree that mr. mueller said look there's a lot here, i can't make a determination but that's okay because congress can. my hands are some what tied and it's a little complicated for us and easier for congress. >> first of all as the attorney general said today, the decision by bob mueller to not bring or recommend an obstruction case was not based on the guideline. in fact it was not but for that we would have recommended something. >> true. >> so here's the thing, if there was an obstruction case to be made they would have made it.

they did not. >> then why did he say what he said? >> well, you know what it said. do you think if there was an obstruction case under obstruction laws they would have brought it? >> after a thorough investigation of the case that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. we don't so state. >> wait a minute, you're a lawyer, what is the standard when you look at a case? what does a prosecutor do? first they have to determine if they have probable cause and then they have to determine whether they have the ability to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. >> agreed. >> that's the legal standard. >> agreed. >> so here's what you have happen. they have a, i will call it novel for the sake of being kind, theory of obstruction that you see them developing. i call it obstruction by tweet. but the reality is -- >> that's not what they say. >> well, but chris, for every issue they raise and you read the report, for every issue --

for every issue they raise, they also raise the counter point. do you know why they said this is difficult questions of law and fact? because when you have a case that's difficult issues of law and fact, do you know what you do? >> you don't prosecute. >> right. >> but then you have to ask yourself if a man like mueller who is a man of high integrity by all accounts felt the need to parse it this way and package it for congress to look at it further, the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful but that's largely because of persons that surrounded the president declined to carry out orders. he sees as though he is teeing this up. it was wrong. it may not be a crime but could be an abuse of power if the constitutional mandate goes to congress to officiate. >> first of all, you and i both know as it was said today and as adam schiff just said, this is not an impeachment case. that's adam schiff saying that.

there's an election in 18 months. the people will decide. >> here's the reality. you look at the case and how did it begin? what was the nexus of this case? it was reportedly to be an investigation about the potential of russian interference with the election and then the question of whether there were individuals from the trump campaign or the president himself involved. the answer, the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign coordinated with the government in election interference activities. this is how it started. it morphs into an obstruction inquiry. first they say the president fired james comey. now you and i both know that under article 2 of the constitution the president has the authority to fire a subordinate. that's within the constitution. >> but it's not a blanket. >> but here's what bob mueller's report says, that in executing this the evidence does not establish -- i'm reading from page 76 for those that are

reading it. the evidence does not establish the determination of comey was designed to cover up conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. there you go. so you can cherry pick different points but go to the conclusion and chris, you and i have had this discussion a lot. i enjoy having it with you. but the reality is if there was an obstruction case to be made he would have made it. >> but here's what i'm suggesting and i hear you about this. if it's not to the criminal standard, then you don't bring a criminal case. i would argue the same suggestion you do that mueller should have just said i can't prosecute, but he didn't. >> under the regulations, that's a whole other story. that's what it's supposed to be. >> it's political. well under the regulations it doesn't say that the ag takes the decision from him when he can't make one and tees it up from congress. >> the attorney general quoted the special counsel today twice. he said the special counsel bob mueller did not decide to not

bring the case because of this olc. that's office of legal counsel. >> they mention what makes it complicated but they didn't lean on it exclusively. >> but that's what is so critical here. it wasn't because you can't indict a sitting president which is the standard. >> i think that was part of it. >> but it wasn't the basis upon which they denied it. >> it was too hard to make a case. a criminal case. but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit into a political crime. >> look, what was this? this was a -- ended up becoming a criminal inquiry. >> i know but it's not anymore. that's what i'm saying. >> you're right. >> congress picks it up. >> i get that your job is over and by the way, bravo. >> i heard your silent golf clap today. i appreciated it and so do my colleagues. >> keep the president out of the chair and to architect the answers that were written may have saved the president. >> first of all, if i was representing you -- you're a smart guy too. i wouldn't let you go in that chair either. >> i believe the president of the united states has a higher

duty than just being a citizen. >> first of all -- >> i do. i know that's not the law. >> let me tell you what they did say. i found this interesting because when they attached the president's questions and answers, they left off the letter that we put with it describing what can be constitutionally covered and what cannot be. and so they left it out. earlier today and i think they put some of that up earlier but what i think is really important here and to remember on this whole issue is the determination that was made by the special counsel was not that there was a violation of the law. so you're saying now that goes to congress. >> they couldn't decide on obstruction. >> yes they did. they decided to not recommend that there was a violation. >> they wouldn't say that -- they said there was no crime committed either. it's tricky stuff. i hear you on it and i get why it's frustrating. >> it's tricky stuff because they had a theory of obstruction that frankly to be honest with you was absurd.

>> i think you're strong on this. and the way that you and the raskins and mr. giuliana worked with his client was effective here. the ag came out today -- you're not here to answer for the process. he said the president did everything. he complied with everything. he turned over everything. he denied the special counsel nothing and that's why they digit subpoena h didn't subpoena him because they know you would have to have information you couldn't get any other way. >> that's the law. you can call it bologna. >> the law is what the law is. i'm saying what the ag said was bologna. 30 times out of 90 something questions, independent recollection of information called for by the questions incomplete or inprecise. >> do you know how many times james comey said he does not recall? >> was he the president? >> no the director of the federal bureau of investigation.

so the standards aren't different, number one. and number two -- >> maybe they were both being -- >> you talk about sculpted answers as if the president of the united states wasn't involved in the process of determining -- >> doesn't sound like him. >> excuse me. >> doesn't sound like him. >> i read those answers today. they're good. they're strategic. they're good. >> he's pretty strategic. this president of the united states, very strategic. very smart. so these answers were honest answers. the fact of the matter is when you're in a situation like this you respond appropriately. this whole issue about what we put in our letter which was not included in the report. they had the answer but didn't have our letter. we can talk about that another time. >> i want to ask you one other thing and then you can smack me around the way rudy did. >> i didn't think i was going to have anything left to say. >> i didn't touch obstruction with him. i wanted to leave it for us. he just wants to say that i'm not telling the truth about what

mueller says. >> you both love each other and you know it. >> i do. he's always been good to me. you guys did a good job. are you the guy that called flynn's counsel and said hey, tell flynn the president loves him when they say we can't cooperate, did you say to him that's hostile toward the president. >> i would never disclose what conversations any lawyer had or did not have -- >> joint defense. >> joint defense, if there was a joint defense. >> rudy said it wasn't him, by the way. >> this is not a big deal. >> no, i'm not. i just want to know. >> do you want me to say it wasn't me. it wasn't me. does that help you? but whatever lawyer did it, it's not a violation of the law. these are seasoned lawyered involved in this. >> okay. >> and this is a -- i'm not going to disclose conversations

which you would not ask me to do, i know. >> i know. >> the fact of the matter is at the end of the day, we had a job to do here. >> you did it. >> which was to represent -- >> you did a good job. >> i appreciate that. >> you did. let's leave the interview there. i'm not here to be a hatchet man. your job was to keep the president safe. you did it. i think he had a different duty to the american people. we'll write that off as a matter of opinion. you were his lawyer and there to protect him. you did it. this part of it is over. now it's all politics. >> thank you, chris. >> i appreciate you being responsive to calls for information and for taking opportunities on this show. i'm sure we'll have more. >> my pleasure. >> fair to say, mueller's report is different than it was characterized by the ag and the suggestion is the ag, is he acting as the president's proxy or yours? the no holds barr backlash is next.

if ywhen you brush or floss, you don't have to choose between healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax

has 8 designed benefits for healthy gums and strong teeth. complete protection from parodontax.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. . welcome, you can spin. that's the job of a good lawyer and the president's lawyers kept him out of trouble here. that sems pretty clear. you can't change the record. and for the most part it's right

there in the mueller report. still have to get through some grand jury stuff. we're closer. let's bring in the big guns. jennifer gran home, mike rogers. interesting, mike rogers, rudy's strategy is just because mueller says it doesn't mean it's true. is that going -- his job may not be over, okay, the raskins, sekulow, their job is largely over, they were there for actual law work, rudy's a hybrid, the idea of mueller doesn't have it right, does that work politically? >> no, i don't think it works politically. secondly i'm not sure it's over. there are some dozen other investigations that were referenced in the report that are still ongoing that i would suspect include either members of the campaign or even closer to the president. but i would say this whole thing had the good, the bad and the ugly. the good, this is great for america. there was no collusion. i think that's really important. we -- i don't care what party you are, that's important. >> not no collusion. there was no criminal conspiracy to help the russians interfere

in the election. >> okay. but the bad part of this, the russians did try to sow social discontent in the united states. this impacts the way we live in america, it was a concerted effort. they weren't successful, they had people who were naive and not well suited for the positions they had in the campaign to understand the risks of this kind of thing. but as americans we ought to be pretty concerned about this russian piece. the bad part, i think it showed clearly that there's some behavior inside the organization of the white house that, i mean, some people in there have some voracity problems that we should be concerned about and i would hope the administration can fix that, or at least want to fix it. >> jennifer? >> yeah, can i just jump on this? >> please. >> i agree with mike so much about this, and i hope that congressman jeffries and the other democrats really take this up. we do not know that russia is done intervening in our election

systems. the fact that they were able to get into software and malware at state board of elections, at the state and local level, the fact that -- i mean, it just -- the trump campaign provided information to the russians about which states to target. and you just look at our michigan, mike and i are both from michigan. and in detroit the suppression of the vote via social media was 75,000. 75,000 fewer detroiters alone voted in the 2016 election. and hillary clinton lost the state by 10,700 votes. >> we've got to start with getting the president to acknowledge it happened. >> yeah, but at least bill barr did. that was the one thing, and of course mueller didn't. >> the only person who doesn't. >> but congress should do something about this. congress should take action on it. and of course the fbi's investigating it. >> that might be a nice end run for the democrats. is to focus on fixing that

problem and get away from the potential for overreach here because you're never going to get consensus, you're not going to get republicans to go against the president. mike isikoff, jay sekulow had an interesting take on obstruction. if he had a case he would have made a case. i don't accept that argument because it seems mr. mueller ba acknowledged that and then took two more steps articulating a suggestion to congress. how did you take it? >> jay sekulow was cherry picking the report. what leapt out at me, he quoted that sentence on page 76 about the firing of comey and that it was not for the evidence did not establish that it was for the purpose of concealing a collusive relationship between the trump campaign and russia. he left out the next sentence on that -- in that same paragraph. but the evidence does indicate, and this is mueller's report, that a thorough fbi

investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally, that the president could have understood to be crimes or that it would give rise to personal and political concerns. so clearly the president had a motive for firing comey. he had a motive for trying to fire mueller. he had a motive for trying to impede the russia investigation, all of which is detailed in mueller's report. and the thing that actually leapt out at me most, what saved trump in the end that his subordinates refuse to follow his orders. >> two things. people that mueller says if they had done what the president asked him to do, may have been charged. the other thing that saved him, he didn't give them answers. one of every three answers was seen as inadequate. his lawyers were smart enough to keep him out of the chair despite his prideful boasts how

he wanted to get it on. >> don mcgahn, refuses to follow the president's order to have mueller fired because he's concerned that it would lead to another saturday night massacre. corey lewandowski of all people refuses the president's directive to go to sessions to have him curtail the investigation so it doesn't look at the 2016 campaign at all. rick dearborn refuses to do the same thing. i mean, time and again the president is trying to get his aides to obstruct justice, but they know what he's asking them to do is wrong, potentially illegal, and they refuse to do it. >> well, look, you guys made a lot of good points. there's still a lot to digest. and, you know, as mike pointed out, people, as you learn about what's happened in the report, mueller kicked off a dozen cases to other district attorneys, to other attorneys from the doj, we'll find out what those cases are about. he didn't tell us in this report. jennifer, mike, mike, thanks to

all three of you. >> thanks. >> to be continued for sure. thank you for watching. that's our part of the coverage tonight. "cnn tonight" with don lemon starts right now. >> when you -- this has been a lot of reading today. you got it too. >> oh, yeah. >> when you start raetdieading f this, you realize why the attorney general wanted to come out and get ahead of this. >> sure. >> because it is not as glowing as the president of the united states, as he has said, thest not a complete exoneration. and as that -- the initial letter from barr has said, all you have to do is read it. >> that's right. now here's the sad thing though. i sound like you for a second here. rudy did an effective thing tonight that plays to our political reality. you can read that report and say, wow, they were lying, they did a lot of wrong things. it's good to know they weren't russian agents, no criminal conspiracy, they did a lot of wrong things and lied about. or you can look