p. in reality it was created by russian trolls. the man whose face is featured in the poster died back in 1987 with complications from black lung disease. tomorrow you're going to meet the man's son to whom the image and its inclusion in the report were a complete shock. i hope you watch. now i want to hand it over to chris for "cuomo primetime." chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "primetime." more democratic candidates are pushing for impeachment proceedings. we have some democrats who have helped shape some of the biggest political machines their party has had. did they see a winner on the stage last night? and did they see the same winner? we'll see about that. and jared kushner weighing in on mueller and what the real threat is to our democracy. this was a wow moment, and we'll take it up in a great debate. plus, president trump says no. no to his aides testifying to congress.

no to turning over his taxes, but what does the law say? what is his ability to say no? a brand new interview and we're going to test it with a very capable guest, a former attorney general who knows the law. who knows the current attorney general very well. what does he make of all of this? what do you say. let's get after it. to impeach or not to impeach, that is a question. why all the waffling? the handwringing. some democrats all in. other democrats all over the map. why? take a listen. >> accountability has to come from the congress and the tools that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. >> i believe congress should take the steps towards impeachment. >> if for the next year, year and a half going right into the heart of the election all the

congress is talking about is impeaching trump and trump, trump, trump, and mueller, mueller, i worry that works to trump's advantage. >> the impeachment proceedings are up to the house. they'll have to make the decision. >> i'll leave it to the house and senate to figure that out because my role in the process is trying to relegate trumpism to the dustbin of history. >> what do you see there? a range, right? what is the consideration? is impeachment, holding this president accountable, is that the winning issue? if so, why vacillate? if not, why vacillate? let's take what happened on that stage to three democratic powerhouses. simone sanders. she was with bernie sanders, no relation. dan pfeiffer, paul begala of clinton fame. great to have you here. thank you very much. let's start with a quick roll call, who do you think fared

best on the stage last night? >> kamala harris and elizabeth warren. >> one name, please. >> oh, you know, i liked a lot of folks last night. >> best means one. dan, do better than that. give me one name. who popped to you? >> i was going to give the same two names. but because you called her on it, i will say elizabeth warren. >> i thought that guy cuomo looked good. >> the creepy guy? the guy creeping around. >> i'm completely uncommitted. this is the beginning, not the end. >> simone, why? i'm not trying to simplify it. i'm trying to say you have to pick a winner and your party has had problems with this in the past. you have to fall in love with that candidate and in that romanticism you often miss pragmatism. so when you look on that stage, you didn't say bernie sanders.

but on the stage last night if you look at the polls he is right now your best chance to win. how large is that factor? >> senator sanders was my third choice. it's still very early, chris. i caution folks because the polls will change. and the majority of americans still haven't tuned in. this was a test before the debate stage and we saw a lot of folks that had policies but then you had folks like mayor pete that said policy is going to come later. and that's not going to fly. this is the pretrial run but come the debates in june, folks need to get ready to rumble. >> we get where he is. buttigieg is young. but he's also right. early on, you can establish who you are before you establish what you are, but it has a half-life. the reason they watched the town hall last night is because your people are desperate. they are worried this is an

exi existential crisis for them. they really want to replace this president. what does that mean in terms of the decisions your party needs to make and soon, dan? >> i don't think it means we need to make a decision soon. >> not about whom, but what? where you're going to focus? >> we have to let it play itself out. simone is right. it's early. we don't know what it's going to take to beat trump and also this guy no one thought was going to win won, so we're questioning everything we have. the best thing to do is let it play itself out. let's see who can do. from my perspective, we need a candidate that can simultaneously do two things. one, fire up the democratic base because there's no path to victory without that. but also persuade folks in the middle because the only way to construct a 270 electoral vote coalition is to do those things simultaneously. a number of candidates on the stage seemed like they could do that last night. >> that was just a slice. there's other people.

the former vice president joe biden, we expect that on thursday. what that will mean, what it won't mean, that will have to play out. but let's let people into the alchemy here. i grew up at the knee of a beautiful man that's now gone, drew, an amazing pollster, you knew him. he's now gone. so i know that you know and all of you know that you guys have been polling like crazy for months. you have been looking at this president stuck in the middle of mediocrity with his numbers. but you have been trying to beat him for many months. what do you see? >> what they're getting at which is that you have to fire up the base and the base is more excited than it's ever been. it helped deliver the biggest landslide in a midterm for democrats since watergate.

second, reach out to the moderate suburbanites. they'll be alienated. and i want to peel off some trump voters and win them back and i think mayor pete makes a claim to that being from indianapolis. senator klobuchar, from the midwest. interestingly, bernie sanders seemed to be going right for a bunch of those former trump voters. democrats can win back some of the trump voters. he has lead his party into a box canyon. if he loses only 1% of the support from the white working class he's not going to make it up with women and people of color. so i want to do all three. motivate the base, reach out to the swing and also win back some of those trump voters who i think were conned and are getting tired of it. >> people of color he seems to focus on most are those red faced with rage about people they see as others in our society. but you made a good point. you and dan. you never know what's going to pop. let's look at last night. everybody is heavy on health care. they're talking about green

deal. they're talking about health care, but what resonates? what gets the most buzz? something nobody saw coming. this. >> i think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. yes, even for terrible people. >> this being like you're writing an opposition ad against you by saying you think the boston marathon bomber should vote not after he pays his debt to society, but while he's in jail. are you sure about that? >> well, chris, i think i have written many 30-second opposition ads throughout my life. this will be just another one. >> people convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote? >> we should have that conversation. >> while incarcerated? >> no, i don't think so. >> that was in realtime. bernie believes this, senator sanders. even while you're in prison, he doesn't believe there's an ability to take away someone's right as a citizen.

now, the law disagrees with him and the supreme court disagrees with him, but that popped last night. everybody got asked about it and they ran away one more than the next. closest he got was kamala saying we can talk about it. that's what i tell my kids when i'm going to tell them no. it's just about when i'm going to say no. what did that mean last night? >> i think it meant a couple of things. one, that senator sanders is staunchly rooted in what he believes and what he thinks is a good policy and a good proposal regardless of how it plays politically. that's something that people appreciate about senator sanders but as a strategist that's something that i know his aides are like, come on, bernie. but i think the way the question was posed is interesting. there is something to be said, and there's real criticism to go around for senator harris and her, we should have that conversation, because she said it a lot last night. but we should have the conversation about how we're treating incarcerated people in

this country. it disproportionately jails and locks up black and brown people in this country, drug felonies, for example. >> true. >> we have to acknowledge that that means black and brown people are disproportionately affected when their rights are taken away. so there's a nuisance here and folks were scared of the question. >> that's the point. simone sanders is beating me down because she has facts on her side but then i cover up and i come with this. she wants the worst felons in the world who attack your babies and try to blow us up to vote while they're in jail, before they have even served. these people are crazy. what do you do with that? >> first, i agree with bernie sanders. i think he's right and he gets credit for saying that. he's only going to win if he stays as bernie and that's what has gotten him this far. but there's a reason pete ran as

far away from that as he could which is there are political ramifications to it. we can't think about this in normal politics. donald trump will accuse every single democrat of bernie sanders' position, regardless of whether they ran away from it or toward it. we should just say what we believe, because donald trump is going to lie about our position no matter what. there's no fact checker that's going to change that position so say what you believe and you'll be a better candidate. >> there's another school of democratic thought and i need to end the segment and i end it on the man that's one of the masters of it. bill clinton knew how to move to the middle and find positions that offended the least number of people, giving him the best chance of being popular and pragmatic. he would have never said the worst of the felons can vote while they're still in prison because he knows the law. he knows the impact. how big of a deal is it moving to an extreme position? >> it's going to give voters the sense, those who are for this

position, for people incarcerated felons still voting, they're going to say, do these people not share my life and my values? i think formerly incarcerated people have got to get their rights back. they earned that by paying their debt but when you're incarcerated you lose a lot of rights. your first amendment free speech, your right to freedom and you are going to lose your right to vote i think if you're incarcerated. i think that's fine. the problem with this is not only that i think bernie is wrong. that's just my opinion. it's that he could be sending a message to the voters we need that rather than focusing on the things he usually talks about, health care, minimum wage, decent working conditions, clean water, fighting climate, homophobia, gay rights, equal rights, he's focusing on something pretty far removed from the real lives of real people and democrats always win with economic issues and that's why mayor pete said, i'm not going near this, because i think what voters want is for the democrats to make their lives

better. >> pete also had the advantage of not having to go first. he got to see how they dealt with it. >> and also not having any policy. i'm just saying. a woman, a person of color, even joe biden couldn't have stood up on that stage and said what mayor pete said last night. i think the media infatuation and people's infatuation is running out of time. >> which apple is the media going to polish? it was harris for a while, beto for a while. warren for a while. joe biden is coming. now it's mayor pete. there's a lot of things you can't predict. you're right about that. this conversation is to be continued. thank you very much to all three of you. all right. the administration, big news today, they had until the end of business to turn over the president's taxes. okay? they refused. but the law is clear. and what are they trying to hide? a man who got hold of one of the president's old returns is here next and he teaches the law on

situations like this. later, a former attorney general will weigh in on another human shield for the president in his cabinet, the current attorney general. all coming up. stay with us. did you eat all of your treats? ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. because when you're with fidelity, please sir. there must be something you can do... son.. my father is going. my brothers too. i'd rather die than stay... son, you can't. your heart's not strong enough. my heart is as strong as any. ♪ ...you have to let me go.

uncover the lost chapters of your family history with ancestry. get started for free at ancestry.com with every meal, there's a dish. but what happens to all that grease? it flows into your dishwasher, gumming up its performance. add finish dishwasher cleaner with your detergent to help dissolve this grease so you're ready for your next meal. finish dishwasher cleaner clean dishwasher. clean dishes. travel and dining now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. earn points with each restaurant reservation on opentable and redeem them for hotel discounts on kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. 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. at first slice pizza lovers everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone o, that's good!

(speaking in foreign language) i'm sorry i don't understand... ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone the treasury secretary said no potus taxes, we need more time. if asked, the irs shall turn over the taxes. that's the law. where's the discretion? my next guest knows more about the president's taxes and the law than many. david k. johnston, good to have you on "primetime" once again. >> good to be here. >> can you defend this? i'm the treasury secretary. i got a process and i have to think about it. it takes time. there's a procedure here. >> well, what they're doing right now, chris, is being very careful not to violate the law. the irs commissioner who is a tax lawyer sent a letter saying they referred this to the justice department.

of course, the irs has its own legal shop. it's called the chief council but all they're doing is trying to avoid directly violating the law, which would subject them to the risk of criminal prosecution and prison. >> how do you not violate the law if you don't do what the law says? >> well, they can play this game for a while, but not very long and charles would like to go back to his law practice. he doesn't want to risk his law license or jail. so, at some point he'll have to fish or cut bait. the trump administration is clearly saying on every front, we're not subject to oversight by congress. they said in a legal paper, the oversight function is only limited to writing new laws which is ridiculous. you're seeing a dictator in the making. >> what is their ground for saying, we talked about taxes.

no, you can't have don mcgahn, you can't have klein. can't have them. executive privilege. executive immunity. how far does that go? >> they haven't argued executive privilege yet. in mcgahn's case, they allowed him to testify to mueller so any notion that he has privilege is gone. this is just brazen. we're not going to comply and as tony schwartz wrote in "the art of the deal," donald doesn't know it's in the constitution. he is moving to turn this country into a trump dictatorship. he said just the other day when i'm president 14 years from now and some people take it as a joke. he is saying that because he's thinking about, how do i make it happen. >> well, look, i mean, maybe. but certainly, he's exposing people to liability here right

now. probably not him. >> yes. >> but as we saw during the mueller probe rationale, if you had done what he said you might have been indicted. he is going to say, well, i can't talk to you. he will be the one that will be availed of that subpoena penalty like klein eventually. >> we have two attorney generals go to prison from nixon and watergate. and we'll see. at some point they're going to have to make a choice, are they going to risk going to prison and losing their licenses, their living, or are they going to comp comply? how much are people willing to go to jail for an unindicted felon.

michael cohen is going to jail for crimes he did at the direction of individual one and the justice department concluded that donald trump committed crimes and they won't indict a sitting president. >> they can indict other people. thank you for laying out what the law is and what the stakes are to be continued. appreciate it. so, the president will not give his tax returns. and there's a report that this is not a one-off. the president is opposed to any white house aides past or present testifying before congress on the mueller report. does he have that right? we heard what david says. what is this going to mean for the democrats demanding answers? great debate, next. we're oscar mayer deli fresh and you may know us from... your very first sandwich, your mammoth masterpiece. and...whatever this was. because we make our meat with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. make every sandwich count with oscar mayer deli fresh. 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. lash sensational full-fan mascara from maybelline new york. fanning bristles reveal sensational layers of lashes. lash sensational full-fan mascara. only from maybelline new york.

new tonight, the president says he does not want his current and former aides testifying to congress. he said he thought that was unnecessary after the mueller report. that's the start of tonight's great debate. angela and steve, let's wear multiple hats here. this is a little bit about the law and a little bit about politics. we're going to play to both. so we'll start with the prosecution here. angela rye, the assertion will be executive privilege.

that's why. the president may say he doesn't like it but that will be the legal reason. does it stand up? >> it doesn't stand up. specifically about don mcgahn, who you just referenced. he technically waived executive privilege when he testified and talked to or spoke with and cooperated with the investigation of robert mueller so that makes it very, very difficult. the other challenge that we have is despite donald trump's inability to understand how government works, there's three branches of government. there's the executive branch and judicial branch and the legislative branch and the legislative branch has responsibilities. he wants them to be satisfied with the mueller investigation but that's not their obligation. their obligation is to engage in their own investigations and fact-finding. there's house rules that govern that committee's jurisdiction and that's what they're trying to do. >> unlike the tax thing.

tax is a little bit of uncharted waters. that law on the books hasn't been tested, certainly not in this situation so we'll see what happens there. the argument would be shouldn't use the treasury secretary as your personal proxy. take it up in court the way they are with the accountant's side. executive privilege, different. we saw during the clinton impeachment hearings they had a lot of people exert executive privilege and lost. in almost all of those challenges. do you believe this is going to be on firm legal ground or is this going to be about politics? >> i think it will more be about politics but i'm glad you mentioned the clinton administration because i think it's important for critics of the president, every time that there's a move by this white house or by the president they don't like, they act like it's totally unprecedented, as if this has never happened before. well the legislative and executive branch have tussled over oversight since the days of george washington. i'd remind you the last administration, the first cabinet member ever, eric holder, was held in contempt of

congress over exactly these kinds of issues of oversight. so this is a very natural tension between the two branches of government. if it gets to be bad enough, the courts decide. i think the trump administration personally has good grounds here but the courts will decide if it comes to that. >> the political optic is this, why do you have something to hide? why do you have something to hide? >> right. >> if there's nothing there, let them speak. same with the taxes. same with all of it. you say there's nothing there. why do you keep hiding? >> right. well, they're hardly hiding. they complied completely with the mueller investigation when they did not have to. >> no, they didn't. >> yes, they did. >> potus in the chair would have been the true dare. someone put it as a rhyme, that makes me remember. >> you and i have been over this ground many times. there were very valid reasons to not have the president be interrogated by his own inferior of his own justice department. >> clinton did it. >> clinton did it under duress.

clinton didn't volunteer to do it. he did it because he was going to be forced to do it. >> angela, go ahead. >> what's so fascinating about this is we would love to know if all of the answers were satisfied in the mueller investigation's conclusion and their report but the problem is we can't see it. we don't know what's all there because so much of it has been redacted. >> mueller said many of the answers were inadequate. one out of every three was nonresponsive. >> so to the point, again, like it's fascinating to me that people, including steve, would continue to act like some of the things this president does, many of the things this president does aren't unprecedented. they absolutely are. and the fact is that he is willing to hedge his bets on going to court because now the supreme court as we all know is very much so conservatively stacked so he's hedging his bets on that and not having to comply. >> i want to pivot to something else that makes the same point, but it's a more obvious demonstration of the politics involved here.

there is law here, we'll see. it's not unusual for executive and legislative. what is unusual is for the executive branch or administration here to ignore the obvious. we saw that today with jared kushner. listen to this. >> russia buying some facebook ads to sow dissent and do it and it's a terrible thing but all the speculation has happened for the last two years and had a much harsher impact than a couple of facebook ads. >> if discretion were part of the calculus in getting security clearance we understand why kushner had a hard time with klein and these other guys that look into whether or not you're worthy of what they want to give you. you would never argue what he just did. you would never argue that. never. not on this show. >> i would argue that jared kushner is exactly correct. >> i'm sorry. i thought he was going to say something different.

>> they spent a total of $100,000 on facebook ads. >> wow. >> and look, by the way, at the amount of time that the media and democrats have spent on this over the last two years. do you know how much the campaign spent? $81 million on facebook ads in a presidential campaign with billions of dollars in total spending. what this is really about is to try to create a scapegoat and i have not heard sore losers blame a scapegoat this badly since steve bartman was blamed for the 2003 cubs meltdown in the playoffs. voters in wisconsin did not have their minds changed by the russians. >> if that's how you feel, why grossly underplay russian efforts spelled out in great and unredacted detail largely in the mueller report?

anyone who looks at that will say that's poppycock. they did tons of stuff. they had a reach that was extraordinarily facebook's own reckoning. angela, get in. >> i was just about to say, tag me in. bottom line, when we get to a point where we say, i'm not going to engage in this conversation about whether the impact was indeed felt. the bottom line is, russia interfered with the election full stop. it doesn't matter the size of -- yeah, it doesn't matter the size of the contribution. it doesn't matter the cost of the campaign. the fact that you don't even understand that they literally bought off low-level activists that were targeted in my community is a problem. so we can't just calculate this by the amount they spent on facebook ads. it's far bigger than that and i think once we get to the point where we can justify this type of cyber warfare by saying it wasn't that significant.

donald trump or hillary clinton spent way more money, whoa, you're just wrong. you're wrong. >> i'm not justifying any foreign interference and by the way -- >> i missed that. sounded like it. >> how come everybody in the intelligence community and mueller mentions russia. >> i could have swore. we should run that back. i could have swore you said that. >> including ukraine trying to intervene on hillary clinton's behalf. so we know there's foreign interference. it's always completely unwelcome and inappropriate. my point is jared kushner is exactly right. the reaction to the interference was far, far worse than the actual initial crime of russian interference in our election. >> listen, to have a white house official, let alone a president that believes that our government looking for the truth in a situation is a bigger problem than what they're investigating says everything. but i've got to leave it there.

angela, steve, thank you for making the arguments. the audience can suss it out. rebirth and renewal. all right. looming behind this president's potential legal exposure on russian interference is the attorney general. we have a very special guest tonight. worked with this a.g. knows him well. a former attorney general himself. can he make the case that this is by the book bill and not really no holds barr? we'll get after it. let's see, aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain.

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.

all right. two big stories are upon us and we have the perfect guest for both. the former attorney general. it's good to have you back on "primetime." two things, one, can you imagine when you were working for the president, being told to do something where you had to make the decision of saying this is so crazy what i'm being asked to do that i have to find a way not to do it to save my own skin, let alone his. >> i think i was asked that during my confirmation process. i said, you don't do it. you say why you won't do it. and if you want follow through, you resign. >> what do you think about what we've been learning here, the president would say, do this. and he would have to come up with an ultimatum in his case. and he would say, i'll resign,

or whatever he put it. >> they found ways to avoid it and the president doesn't press it and i think what we find is spasmodic and ineffectual attempts by him to affect the course of the investigation but it doesn't happen. >> mcgahn he called twice. >> okay. well, twice. but he held his job. >> but what do you see in that? what does it speak to in terms of intent? >> it's hard for me to read his mind. >> i love it when you guys say that. you only say that when you don't like what you're asked. >> if i did read minds i don't think i'd start with his but consider this, he's being investigated for a crime that didn't happen and that he certainly didn't commit. >> who says it didn't happen? russian interference did. >> russian interference happened

for sure. and there's an investigation going on not for a month or six months but close to two years and his administration is laboring under the shadow of that investigation and people alleging that it happened. there were going to be indictments and so forth. did he break under that pressure? apparently. >> mr. mueller outlines, let's say, five of the ten of the instances of potential obstruction seem to have an evidentiary basis behind them that mueller found to be effective. five i'd dismiss out of hand. but when you say no crime, mueller couldn't decide on it, gave it to your friend, the attorney general, and he decided it. >> it is his job. >> whose job? >> the attorney general's job. it was mueller's job initially

and he punted. >> i said that, too. i said mueller punted. this was his job. he was supposed to make a decision. prosecute or not? but he knows what his job is. he sees this as difficult and he can't indict the president, and he's leaving it to congress, and not the a.g. >> that's not the only reason he saw it as difficult. >> it does seem to be dominant in his thinking. >> they don't conduct criminal investigations for congress. either you charge or you don't charge. we don't need robert mueller or whoever wrote that section of the report to tell us that congress has the power to conduct impeachment hearings. we all learned that in eighth grade civics and we know that congress has that power. >> but this is a special

counsel, put together by rosenstein, because he wanted it separate from the doj. >> it's not separate from the doj. it's within the doj. >> as a mechanism, separate. i understand why they were written. >> we have three branches of the government. this is within the executive. we don't sprout a new branch of government. >> but what your friend did was not just by the book. he took it on himself to decide this rule. he didn't have to do that. >> of course he had to do it. who was going to decide if we were going to indict or not? >> congress. as a political matter, leave it to them. >> they decide whether to impeach or not. >> you're skipping the big point. which you taught me about very early on. they can't indict him. that is the opinion from the olc so there's nothing to decide on that level. it's purely political. >> congress doesn't indict. congress can impeach. >> i'm using it as a metaphor here. >> but you're misleading a lot of people.

you have a big audience. >> we know the olc says -- >> getting smaller by the minute now, but -- >> you can indict. we know they say that. mueller knows it. he lays it out. so the only type of action would be congressional. >> he can file a sealed indictment. he could say there should be an indictment. he didn't say that. >> he didn't say that about a sealed indictment but he said i want to be fair to the president too. so he i would suggest referred it to congress. people should read and decide for yourself. but mr. barr decided to end this. he didn't have to. that's not in the book. he could have left it alone. you can't indict a sitting president. he didn't need to tell us that. >> he needed to say whether an indictment was warranted or not. >> you can't have one. why did he need to tell us that? >> mueller left it dangling out there and when you have evidence

going one way and evidence going another way you don't indict. >> except you can't indict. i don't know why you're ignoring that. it's on page one of the second part of the report. we take our guidance from the olc, the department of justice guideline on our jurisdiction with respect to indicting a sitting president, they can't do it. a.g. barr needed to do it to protect the president. that's why he did it. >> protect the president from what? when he couldn't be indicted. >> from criticism in the open question and giving congress that kind of momentum. that's why he did it. >> come on. >> that's why he wrote the letter the way he did. that's why he gave the press conference the way he did. that's why he misled us to what the report would look like the way he did. >> are you done? >> yes, sir, respond, please. >> let's start with the letter because that's what came first. that letter came at a time when, no criticism of you, but your network were devoting days of people sitting around and talking about a report that they

didn't -- whose content they didn't know that they hadn't seen, in essence panels of people sitting around a table inhaling their own exhaust and getting high on it. >> why didn't the a.g. respond to that? >> wait a second. the country was in a state of hysteria. you had a countdown clock in the corner of not one but several networks about the release of the report. the release of the report. he did the responsible thing. >> a misleading letter. >> it wasn't misleading at all. it summarized the bottom line of that report which was that there was no collusion and that the special counsel found he could not indict but could not vindicate the president. he put that language right in the letter. >> he put it about exoneration in there. >> could not exonerate. i'm sorry. not vindicate. could not exonerate when it is in fact not the job of any counsel or anybody else to exonerate. god does that.

even juries that return acquittals don't say innocent. they say not guilty. the special counsel said he couldn't exonerate and barr put that in the letter. >> that's a fair point. >> he then went through the report with bob muller to decide on what had to be redacted and what didn't and that report runs for 400 pages. that's not child's play. not only did he do that, he put in the reason for each of the redactions. >> i'm not talking about just the speed of the process. i think it could have been done earlier. i'm just talking about the disposition of the process. but this story isn't over. we'll see how it's carried forward. i want to end on good news. >> it's not over in part because there's stuff in there that is how it got started, that should be followed. >> it's investigate the

investigators. >> there are -- this report begins with a misstatement suggesting that the investigation started in july of 2016 when the fbi opened its file. that's the kind of half-truth that's designed to irritate whoever knows the other half. and we're going to find out the other half. >> what do you believe the other half truth is? >> they say this started in july of 2016. >> right. >> it didn't. >> when do you think it started? >> when do i think it started? february or march. >> why? >> because there was a meeting of the national security council at which carter page was discussed and when i went for a fisa warrant, they went for a warrant on carter page. >> that wasn't the first time they looked at page. >> who was never charged with a crime. >> carter page. >> thank you very much. >> we don't want them charging people if there's no criminal activity.

>> correct, but in order to get a warrant they had to suggest he had committed or was committing a crime. >> well, they got more than one. they got several. >> on carter page? >> they got it reissued. two or three different times. >> suggesting each time he was up to criminal activity and concealing the source of the information. >> we have to see that document and then make those judgments. it's good to have you back to do that. >> good to be with you. >> always a pleasure. we talked earlier in the show. we need to go back to it. you never know what's going to pop in politics. they never knew what would touch a nerve most. until it did. we have it, and then we take it to d. lemon, next. ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪ -maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why

-♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid! -♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid? i protect your home and auto. 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. ♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free.

to save 30% on all the medications we carry. so go directly to petmeds.com now. top 2020 democratic hopefuls have been following bernie sanders' lead on many progressive policy stances. last night bernie sanders says

that even the boston bomber has the right to vote in prison. d. lemon, what's your take? >> stunned, as you could see. you could see on our faces and the responses. it's interesting. i think you were right that it's going to be a campaign for those who said either yes, they should be able to vote even the most awful people among us or we should have a conversation about it. i think it's going to be an issue. >> senator kamala harris said she's now revised her opinion in saying those who are in prison, no, they don't get to vote. >> no, well, last night that's not what she said, but, listen, she can revise her position and change her mind or maybe she just didn't get it out last night. but i think that is going to be an issue. and i think it's a real -- it's an interesting subject of

question to debate. but i think most people in america feel once you've paid your debt to society maybe you should have the opportunity to go out and vote and at least exercise your constitutional rights. but if you're in prison, if you've committed a crime like the boston marathon bombings or you've assaulted or abused a child, i don't think most americans would like people like that to vote. >> it frames proposition for voters as these people are way out there in the democratic party. and this is after an entire evening of here's how i can do it, here's how i can pay for it. >> very big issues. issues on immigration, issues on race, issues on criminal justice reform. and this is the one thing that really got the headline. and also the mueller report and what democrats should do about impeaching or not impeaching this president. i've got to tell you, i have a guest coming on everyone should

stay tuned to watch. he is a staunch republican, a professor, was on the trump transition team. he says the mueller report laid it out to him, and he's signed onto a letter with the advisor to the president cellanne conway's husband saying the mueller report shows high crimes and misdemeanors and now it's time for congress to do their job. the president took to twitter in a big way today. not something new. he wound up attacking everybody that he thinks threatens him in one way or another including me. i'm not taking on the president. i don't believe in that. but there are a couple of good points that he raised, but they raised an even better question that he can't seem to answer. the argument next. ♪ ♪ ♪

[music playing] jerry has a ♪ membership to this gym, but he's not using it. and he has subscriptions to a music service he doesn't listen to and five streaming video services he doesn't watch. this is jerry learning that he's still paying for this stuff he's not using. he's seeing his recurring payments in control tower in the wells fargo mobile app. this is jerry canceling a few things. booyah. this is jerry appreciating the people who made this possible. oh look, there they are. (team member) this is wells fargo. 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.

billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. ♪ ♪

all right. first, thank you. so many of you let me know that this president mentioned me in a tweet attacking me today as part of his media attack. and thank you for what you said supporting what we're trying to build here. appreciate it deeply. second. whether to respond. in general, no. why add to the noise? there can be power in restraint and virtue in not feeding pointless invektive.

however there are two arguments i believe are instructive what we saw from the president and they're keeping or in keeping with the reason for in season. rebirth and renewal. i'm big on that. trying anyway and cheerily we need it in government. first argument. i accept the criticism about my show. leveled by the president. i would suggest he not mention me by name if his intention is to show i'm not relevant. but he has a point. the struggle is real. we see the need to grow and do even better and we bust out bottoms to do just that. again, we see what does and does not work. we address it. and we try to grow as a result to be as useful as we can to as many people as we can. why do i repeat the point? for my critics' deaf ears, and he does seem deaf to this rationale. i argue that the president should consider his own criticism. why? he is mired in the mud of minority approval. and he has a tailwind economy from the past president, obama, a market juicing tax cut, record

unemployment. thank god no one has succeeded in hurting us horribly. he has a media that is totally attentive. he had both houses of congress to start with, and he still isn't at 50%. look at it. i don't think any other modern president could boast more good fortune if they were all in the same range. more impressive, almost all had spikes over 50%. not this president. look at the numbers. why? his mouth and his moral judgments. days like today attacking everyone, flouting law, not leading, not making anything great let alone again. he was sent to washington to drain the swamp. we now have 400 plus pages of the dirtiest most foul if not felonious political waters we've ever seen, certainly in recent history. how can he win this way? look at the mid-terms. democrats are working where they

were weak and their party and those in the middle are almost certain to come out in the next election. what is our president doing to expanld his base? the vision will never multiply support. he can't even keep staff. the big challenge evidently, the true achilles' heel for this president is whether he can get past his mouth, see his flaws and find ways to do better. most administrations obsess on this. his seems completely blind, deaf and dumb to it. can he keep middling below 50%? if so, this line may wind up as flat as his eventual political heartbeat because in politics numbers don't lie. not for me, not for him. so while he can very easily tell other people what is wrong with them and it's so obvious to

them, he's thus shown an inability to do it for himself. even worse he consistently, remember the graph. with all the good fortune he's had, middling, can't win that way. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight" with don lemon starts right now. >> i could have used you the other night at dinner when i was trying to convince people this wasn't all about the economy or economic disenfranchisement because if it was then his approval rating would be much higher. this is about something else, and that's another story and another show. >> he's his own worst enemy. >> everything he projects onto other people is really about him, so i am glad that you are taking the high road and you are not going on twitter and responding to him. i wish you would do that, you know, about some of the people who are eggs on twitter. you know how we talk about that, but it's always good to