>> quite a night. i want to hand it over to chris for cuomo primetime. >> i am chris cuomo and welcome to primetime. big news again on our watch. did the democrats just get a clean light from mr. mueller himself to take up obstruction for themselves? the words from the washington post and the new york times excerpted from a letter that mr. mueller wrote to the attorney general that his memo to congress did not capture the context, nature, and substance of the work done by mr. mueller and his team, especially with regard to obstruction. now that shows us that that is not exactly what the man that made the reports felt about his own findings. what does this disagreement mean? we have to get into it deeper? we have one of the reporters that broke the story and we have

experts to give us an understanding of the context but the words are going to matter. now mr. barr is going to have to answer for the nature of the relationship with mr. mueller. why weren't these misgivings back in march reported when he came forward now? why not? what does it mean? how much will the a.g. say? how much will the a.g. have to answer for having said in the past that doesn't square with this reporting. there is a lot to go through.

>> why is he not here? this is his report. >> what he did for me as the attorney general, he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. i'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision entirely discretionay to make it public. >> a lot of what this attorney general has done is subjective. it's not wrong. it's certainly not illegal. he hasn't been going by the book. he has been going by his own book and he's plagued by these

rules before. we saw him do this. we saw him stimey congress in an earlier administration and not wanting to give out reports that they had a right to get. him saying here there is no requirement. it's true. but the only other time we had a special counsel was during the clinton nation and then the ag did exactly what this ag didn't want to do. she had it go straight to the people with minimal redactions. why? because she could. now there's another chapter and another layer to this story. the answer he just gave about why mr. mueller wasn't there didn't suggest anything that went along with the letter that mr. mueller acceptabilileller s telephone call that he had with mr. muller some 15 minutes there after. why not? let's bring in the new york times reported that's been working this story tonight. good for you bringing this to light on the eve of this now all important testimony by the attorney general before the u.s.

senate tomorrow. tell us about the reporting. what is your major takeaway. >> thanks, chris. what we're reporting tonight is days after that four-page barr letter that came out on a sunday at the end of march, there was a letter from robert mueller in consultation with members of his team expressing concerns with how he characterized the findings. it's a big deal because it's the first time that we really know about what mueller thought about how he characterized the conclusions. >> it's significant and for a prosecutor like mueller, for him

to take this step to write to his boss because that's who barr is telling him that he had problems with this, it's a significant thing for him to do. >> and then in the washington post, i don't know if you had it as well but the reporting that they also had a phone conversation the next day that was seen as more cordial according to the justice department officials but it was about whether or not the public was getting the sense of what had been done with obstruction, especially. do you have that? >> that's right. we understand that barr said well let's talk about this and they discuss and air out what some of the issues were. we were still trying to learn exactly the substance of the call. we don't think it was heated or contentious but certainly mueller was making his case to back up what he had put in that letter. and it does indeed seem to be a discussion about or conclusions on obstruction of justice that

barr layed out were taken out of context and were sort of fully explained about how they reached their conclusion. >> now there's a finess point here that i want your help with that i think is really important. this is just getting out there. very often we hit the major points and then get to the more subtle and more nuisanced assets of this kind of reporting. it's a good time to deal with this. it seems that mr. mueller felt that the sense that it's the nature and context and substance was inaccurate but he didn't say that he felt what mr. barr had said was wrong or inaccurate. how do you reconcile those two.

and hasn't changed the conclusions or doctored them in anyway but the context does matter. you recall that in that four page letter for instance there was a sentence fragment saying that there had been no conclusion of conspiracy with the russians but if you now read the full report you see there's a whole other cause to that sentence which talks about how the trump campaign had welcomed this help or knew that the russian campaign was going to help electorally and that's not in the barr letter. so in that case the context does matter and the cherry picking to a degree did change in mueller's view a perception of the report. >> there's some interesting language in the reporting about how mueller was concerned about well, the media coverage of it is giving people a sense that he doesn't believe reflects the reporting. now we don't know if that's the department of justice, we don't know if that's from mueller's

mouth himself or just him being polite but there's two aspects here that i think are going to matter. this one that is when bar pressed him whether he thought the letter was inaccurate, mueller said he did not. people are going to say this is nothing. good for them in getting the reporting out there but it means nothing because mueller was ultimately okay with what barr did. is that a fair reading in your appraisal? >> well, no, he wasn't okay with what barr did in the sense that he took the active step to write a letter and saying he wasn't okay with it. >> there was enough anger and frustration among him and his team as we reported several weeks ago and i was on your show talking about it that lead them -- we didn't know at the time that they took this concrete step to write the letter. we now know they wrote the letter so it was more than just simmering anger that they kept

to themselves. they decided to write a letter because they thought that the context actually did to some degree distort the findings. >> now something else that is important that this is going to make more relevant than ever, you remember the summaries. you remember when word of the summaries came out, it was you and a couple of other people were saying why didn't we get the summaries? and barr said we didn't find them necessary. they needed additional classification work. according to the reporting now, that's what mueller wanted too was for the summaries to be put out as quickly as possible. and he wants to give his voice to people which is going to be more certain than ever. let's do this. let's unpack this more. please stick around. this deserves it tonight. push off your dinner plans.

i'll also bring in experts to help give context to what this means. what this kind of difference in opinion means for tomorrow and the way forward for our congress. stay with us. carl, i appreciate the invite here. as my broker, what am i paying you to manage my money? it's racquetball time. (thumps) ugh! carl, does your firm offer a satisfaction guarantee? like schwab does. guarantee? (splash) carl, can you remind me what you've invested my money in? it's complicated. are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is being managed? if not, talk to schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. if not, talk to schwab. my haircolor was less vibrant. i had to rescue it.

olia. haircolor powered by 60% oils, no ammonia. the color is really rich. it looks healthier than before i colored it. my hair's happy right now. olia. by garnier, naturally. [laughter] ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪ ♪

- i like to plan my activities before i take trip, so by the time i get there i can just enjoy the ride. with tripadvisor, it's easy to discover over 100,000 bookable things to do, from walking tours in rome to wine tastings in tuscany, and if you like what you see, you can book it with ease. just another way tripadvisor helps you make your trip a masterpiece. ♪ hoo - read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do. tripadvisor. ♪

you can look at this reporting as removing some ambiguity. how so? according to the new york times and the washington post with you kn now know all was not the perfect picture of symmetry. mr. mueller, he's not here. but it doesn't mean anything. he's fine with everything i'm doing. we now know mr. mueller after the barr memo came out wrote him a letter that said the ag summarizations did not quote fully capture the context, nature and substance of his investigation, especially with regard to obstruction of justice by the president of the united states. mark broke this reporting with his team at the new york times and is with us.

mark as we're having the discussion if there's something that your reporting highlights some insight to, just pipe up. thank you very much. let's start big and get smaller and smaller about what this means. >> from the outset, the idea that mr. mueller doesn't believe that what a.g.barr did did full service to his reporting. we never heard this until now even though the letter came out just a few days after that initial memo. significance? >> this is a wake up call. let me explain the psychology. you can get a wake up call in the morning when the sun touches your face or a baseball bat. this is a baseball bat. when i used to travel with him overseas and particularly to iraq and afghanistan he would often times get a question from fbi staff, director mueller what would you advise my son to do?

what would you advise my daughter to do as they chart a path forward and he would say the same thing every time. he would say the experience in his life was being a marine officer. duty, honor, country. duty is staying in your lane. doj department of justice does prosecutions, white house does politi politics, congress does the law, the media does news reporting. for him to step out of his lane and say we concluded his investigation and i disagree with the public characterization of what we did, i don't know how to explain this after having spent 4.5 years with that guy and maybe 2,000 meetings you cannot underestimate what he is saying. stepping out as a former marine from his lane and saying i cannot agree outside of my realm of investigation with how you're characterizing this publicly. it's stunning.

>> mike let me ask you this. when you look at it mike, we're talking about what it could mean. what could it also not mean? in terms of looking at it for minimal exposure, what does that mean? >> if i were looking at the minimal side of this, the attorney general had a decision to make. they couldn't come or did not come probably more accurately to a conclusion or obstruction. he's going to have to account for this now and one was was there a conclusion.

would the impanelled grand jury have said indictment and candidly have said no on collusion and couldn't come to obstruction and at the end of the day that person walks free. that's on the minimal side. there's a lot more to be accounted for here and i also worked with bob mueller when i was chairman and i agree with phil in a sense that if he took the time to write this and the one word in there that struck me more than anything wasn't the context, it with was the substance. and that threw me. when he said you didn't get the substance of my report right, i sat back and said i want to make sure that i understand what he's talking about. >> just to be clear, the first part of the question is we hadn't heard any of this before. if the a.g. felt so confident

about what he was doing, if he was by the book bill instead of no holds barr in terms of trying to help out the president, why didn't he tell us about this? he had to know it's going to come out. what does that tell you? >> there's parts i can figure out and parts i can't. why would you simply reflect the words of the mueller report because you know it's going to become public. it said there's no collusion they couldn't determine as the congressman said the questions on obstruction so i made a decision. why not just reflect what mueller said because you know somebody is going to see the mueller report and then say here's my decision. i don't see that. the piece i do understand is why this is coming out in public. the attorney general is going to come in front of a hearing. he cannot afford to go in front of a hearing and have people discover a week or two later that there was an exchange with the special counsel about differences and their views of this without fronting that before the hearing. that would be devastating i think. >> and that's a great thing.

>> what do you have on that? >> i have to take some issue with what he said for a moment. we were reporting on the story for several days. the fact that the justice department put out a statement about it the eve of the testimony doesn't mean it came from them is all i'll say. >> i respect the context on your sourcing. shame on you phil. no, let's take a quick break and then let's talk about what this means tomorrow and going forward and what the a.g. is going to have to answer for and remember this is before congress. you tell the truth and pay a penalty, even if you're the a.g. mike and phil stay with us. stay with the show. drivers just wont put their phones down.

we need a solution. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance.

because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org ♪ (michelle) i know what it's like to be in a financially struggling family. we had a lot of leftovers...[chuckles] i couldn't have asked for better parents, but like most people they didn't have anyone to teach them the best financial habits. so we changed that. as a financial health coach, i help people every day. i try to put myself in their shoes from my own experience. i connect to them because i've been there. helping families like mine save a little money changes everything. this is personalized guidance. this is wells fargo.

back now with phil and mike rogers on tonight's breaking news. what could be a gift in democrat's eyes. what is it? proof that bob mueller himself went to attorney general bill barr and said, wihat you put ou in that memo does not capture the substance and context of what we did in the investigation

with respect to obstruction. he didn't think that you were getting a fair sense of what it was about. that's a big deal when people are trying to decide on the democratic side of congress whether or not to take up obstruction as their own set of accountability questions and hearings and who knows what else with this president. now the biggest piece of exposure because this changed tomorrow. we don't know if it changes anything else but it certainly changes tomorrow. i want to play you sound of bill barr being asked about bob mueller and his feelings. listen to this. >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> this is before congress. mike rogers. >> this was after he got the letter. this was after he had the phone call. was that an accurate answer? >> boy, it sure doesn't sound good but i'd have to know more about the context of the conversation. was it bob mueller saying hey

these are the things i didn't like, although, the one catch that may save him is the fact that when someone said did he say it was wrong or purposefully wrong he said no. so there's that little nuisance in there that maybe the only thing that he can hang his hat on. it just doesn't sound good and you know bill barr is a great attorney and he did great work before a attorney general. he's going to get tarnished in this thing if he doesn't fully cooperate in the roll out of this thing. they're going to get it all. they're going to get a redacted version and they'll get to read. they obviously have the report now. they'll have bob mueller before congress. what i don't understand is this slow roll and i'll get to the point where i'll tell you everything. >> sure you do. you get it. this is the same thing that bill barr has done well twice before. he protects the president and by the way i've said this about

eric holder and about politics in general, this ain't unusual. it's just an unusual context that we're leaving through right now. ags are not in the habit of going against the president of the united states. yes in watergate we saw what happened but that guy wound up going to jail for his role in what happened in watergate. so fairness to mr. barr he's not that unusual but phil, he covered for bush. he covered and made it hard for people to get the things that might be bad for a president. that's what he did now. the only thing that changed is when he said i'm going to go by the book and the guidelines people decided to believe him. >> yeah but it's going to get worse. the significance of this and the spotlight is not on the barr testimony, it's on the mueller testimony. let me give you an example or two. barr shows up in the next day or two. as soon as mueller shows up somebody is going to look at the gap between whatever barr says and mueller wrote and say

director mueller can you interrupt for us the letter you wrote to bar and if there is any difference between barr's testimony and what mueller said, barr is in trouble. >> i don't know why everything has to end in a prosecution these days. sometimes it's just good to know the truth and there doesn't have to be a penalty of perjury attached to it but it's in their call where mr. barr and mr. mueller discussed whether or not mueller thought barr's letter was inaccurate and mueller said he did not think it was inaccurate. that's from the call. we don't have a record of that. in the letter and what is excerpted from the letter it doesn't make him look complete, accurate and honest in his answer before congress. >> number one, can you characterize precisely the differences between what you wrote and what mr. barr wrote

that became public knowledge? let me give you the question i would ask, director mueller, a former marine, do not ask him political questions. i want precise yes or no questions for a career prosecutor. here's the one i would have. director mueller, former u.s. attorney in san francisco if you saw this kind of obstruction in a case that did not involve the oval office would you have brought charges? yes or no? that's the kind of precision i want to see from the congress. i don't know if they'll do it. >> he can handle that pretty easily. it's on page one of part two of the report. i don't know why the ag and the people in the white house have been spinning this. all people have to do is read it. they just don't have enough confidence that the american people will do their homework. he says we follow the guidance of this in exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. not discretion. jurisdiction. meaning i can't indict a sitting

president. and then he applied a second reason which wasn't it's too hard of a case to call. he never said anything like that in the report. what he did say though was if i did indict it wouldn't be fair because the president wouldn't get his day in court. he wouldn't be able to deal with it because of the restrictions on him. don't we know that already? >> yeah but i mean, this is bob mueller being bob mueller in this particular case. he's going to be fair and follow the law and the fact that he wrote this letter tells me that he was not amused that the context of those four page letter that barr did. at the same time he'd follow it. i'm not sure if i were him i wouldn't take the bait about saying listen these circumstances and any other circumstances obstruction of justice are two very different things and i'm not going to be speculative.

that's the answer i would give if i were him because he's in a bad spot. it's not necessarily a hot mess but it's certainly a spicy disaster. you're going to ask him to come in and you know he has differences with barr. he's going to try to fan those flames. >> remember he already had it. >> he's going to try to maintain his character in this whole process. >> remember he had the reporting that the reporter from the new york times on the show earlier had it already that mueller's team wasn't happy about this. >> that had leaked out and we heard it. investigators were not pleased. >> this has been bubbling up but where do you think it all winds up? where does this wind up in the path forward? >> this is painful. >> that question was inprecise.

i think a question that you might ask is did you look at the facts of the case and based on your judgment about the facts were you impeded from deciding on obstruction because of the office of the president? that's a more precise, nonspeculative. >> he's going to have to say yes. your questions are soft. i'm just telling you. >> chris, i'll crush you and drink you for breakfast. >> that's threatening. >> i think where this enlds up is where we started which is in report initially he got half a step from telling congress you're going to pick up the ball. the senate will never support us in an impeachment conversation. you might say this is a useful conversation. in terms of thousand they're positioned in the senate this is going nowhere now. >> fair point.

you may drink me on the basis of that answer. when we return, i played that piece of sound for a reason and by the way, i just think these days we all have to be straight about our intentions. i think it matters what he said before congress. i think he's going to have to answer for it tomorrow in the context of what mueller put in his letter. that's why it's out there. not everything has to be a crime in order to count these days in politics but what he said underoath before congress, now has questions attached to it. so we're going to bring in cuomo's court into session. two very capable legal minds to figure out what this reporting means going forward and not.

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. ♪ 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. somcan make you feel likeder you have no limits. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar 1 disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms, and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity;

and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar 1. ask about vraylar. i do. check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here.

rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com. there are three dates you have to keep in mind here in the analysis of what the new information means between mueller and barr and what mueller thought should be explained about the report and what barr decided to explain. first, march 27th, that's the day mueller wrote a letter to bill barr objecting to his summary of the mueller investigation. second date, march 28th, barr calls mueller to talk about the

letter. supposedly cordial. not fighting. this isn't about animous and hatred and betrayal. the third date, april 10th, two weeks later, that's when the a.g. says this under oath. >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> was that accurate? was it complete? this is what congressman nadler says and this is a man with power. i note with interest ag barr's 4/10 senate testimony. question did mueller support your conclusion? a, i don't know whether mueller supported my conclusion. now it appears that mueller objected in his 3/27 efforlette. i know this can frustrate people but in the law words matter. is this going to be in court? no but it kind of does in the deals before congress. on the face of it, we can talk

about what all of this means, i am very interested in what you both have to say but one discreet issue first, do you believe the ag has trouble about what he said before and about what he may have known at the time? >> absolutely and i want to emphasize here a big picture that goes beyond whether he broke the law as you have been mentioning which is the purpose of appointing a special counsel when there may be an internal conflict or some appearance of impropriety within the department of justice is to have an independent prosecutor come in so that it will restore the public's confidence in the outcome of the department of justice investigation. that's the whole point. so when barr comes out and starts pulling these shenanigans and mischaracterizing he has actually undermined the entire purpose of the special counsel and really the purpose of the department of justice.

>> okay. let me just get him on this discreet issue and then we'll talk about what this means and what it doesn't. ken, this discreet issue, did he disagree? >> absolutely not. >> okay. because? >> i'm sorry. >> i'm saying the question to barr just to remind you is did mueller disagree with the conclusion? you said i don't know how he felt about it. how do you feel he is exposed on that in terms of the truthfulness of the testimony? >> i don't think he's exposed at all. let me read one line from the post reporting. when barr pressed him, meaning mueller, whether he thought barr's letter was accurate, mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation officials said. that is where the heart of mueller's complaint was and if you go back to barr's answer that you played for us, that put -- in that context it doesn't sound wrong at all. he's not in any trouble at all.

>> because? >> i disagree. >> okay but i want his reasoning. you don't think he's in trouble because if pressed at some point it would come out from mr. mueller that i didn't disagree. i didn't think it was inaccurate. see that's the problem, it's all words. he says it wasn't inaccurate. now this is somebody's reckoning of a phone call. the letter is going to be words that we can read. >> of course you're not getting all the context and if mueller wanted the second part of his report that didn't read like a prosecutor wrote it where he did not have enough to go forward on

obstruction. >> prosecutors don't usually say can't exonerate you either. that's not what they're in the business of. on a page of the report i'm taking my guidance from the olc and executing prosecutorial jurisdiction and i'm saying he went into this saying i can't indict a sitting president and he added to that it wouldn't be fair to the president because he wouldn't get his day in court. i never said that he wanted to do it. but this is what he said. >> look, chris -- >> chris, can i -- >> you're imlying that suggests he would otherwise -- wait a minute -- you're suggesting that he would have otherwise and if one reads the whole portion of the report you get the distinctly opposite conclusion. >> go ahead. in terms of the

mischaracterizing, says this movie will never win an oscar and the movie poster says will win an oscar. it's not inaccurate in the sense that he's actually quoted the words but he has mischaracterized it and taken it out of context to have it mean something completely different. that's what barr did. he didn't site words from the report. he put them in particular phrases to give a different conclusion than what he reached and ken you are absolutely wrong and chris is correct -- >> i like this part. go ahead. >> what mueller did -- mueller went through ten potential counts of obstruction of justice and three elements in each of the ten counts. he had substantial evidence of obstruction and what he said as chris just noted is because of due process principles because

there's not a forum for the president to clear his name, he could not formally accuse the president but he took pains to note if i could exonerate the president i would do that but %-pm a prosecutor. >> he also included that language about congress. he didn't have to put in there that congress -- >> or a future prosecutor. or a future prosecutor after he leaves office. >> it's all legal analysis, ken. >> let's just cut to the chase, chris -- no it was not. no it was not. that was -- >> it's legal analysis. >> the first half of his report reads -- i didn't interrupt you -- >> go ahead. >> the first half of his report volume one read like a prosecutor wrote it.

volume 2 read like someone interested in politics. >> someone that's not allowed to prosecute, ken. >> an extremely broad view. >> but that was true on the first part with respect to the president. you're not applying the same standard. >> he wasn't asked to do the same thing. if you look at the mandate, do me a favor, pull the original letter of jurisdiction to mueller from rosenstein. it's as extension of the counter intelligence investigation that he inherited. he was also then asked to look for crimes. he did both. the first section was here's the story of the counter intelligence. here's what we think about the coordination and the contacts and what it means and what it doesn't. we don't see a criminal conspiracy. part two was now as of obstruction, and he prefaces by saying i can't indict him. that was only about the president obstruction. the first part was like a dozen

people, ken, you have to see the distinction. >> and chris, chris, what i want to say -- >> the president is the one that is relevant here. >> and certainly in the second part. that's why he said i'm not allowed to indict him. go ahead. >> yeah, so ken, i would say pick your poison. first of all you said that volume two completely exonerates the president and when we point out holes in your argument you say that it's just political and, you know, so you're talking out of both sides of your mouth but i don't know if you have just not read the report but you just have to look at it to see that there are factual conclusions and a god chunk, by the way, of volume two is mueller dismantling the statutory constitution of the president and that's not even required by the regulations. he put it in there both to fight back against the president and also bill barr who is the one that made this argument that the

president can't obstruct justice ichlts a legal analysis, ken. it's not political and you're lying when you say to the american public -- >> whoa, you have dramatically overstated this. bill barr's legal position was that in exercising his article two powers the president can't obstruct justice. >> that's addressed in the report. >> not what you just said. >> that's addressed in the report. >> and interestingly enough in volume two of the report the one relevant precedent was not even menti mentioned. >> because he can't indict a sitting president and he -- >> you're missing that point of that. >> how so. >> you're missing the point of that reference. >> how so. >> in the walsh instance bush pardon donned him prior to trial and i want to say five others. an exercise of the article 2

authority of the president. walsh threw a temper tantrum over it, i don't literally mean that, but he was upset by it and did not proceed as that was an obstruction because it was an exercise -- >> but that was his discretion at the time and we don't have one. we don't have spot on precedence on this. >> then why did he mention the closest precedence. >> he can't prosecute the man. >> it wasn't applicable. >> i have to leave it there. >> and lawrence was in the same position. >> you're offering it up as food for thought and that's fine but if you want to say it didn't read like a prosecutor's report. it wasn't a law review article either. i appreciate the argument.

>> >> he was being brief and left out the most important case. >> thank you to both of you. >> anyway this is going to continue especially now. when you don't play it straight and now you have the guy that created the report saying essentially you didn't really get it right for the american people and now you'll have problems and you'll see that tomorrow. something else that is getting scrutiny. we're going to play it for you, next. from l'oreal paris. you're worth it.

omar, check this out. uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog.

[ rhythmic tapping ] hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there. (male announcer) for the love of mud, gravel, and trail dust. for the love of farm roads, dirt roads, and no roads. for the love of hunting, fishing, and working the land. for the love of conservation, preservation, and restoration. introducing tracker off-road vehicles. designed and built on american soil for kicking up american soil. tracker off road. built for love of country. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

all right, just before the mueller report was released, attorney general barr said the president did not obstruct justice. do you remember that? he also portrayed the president as a victim. reminder. >> there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. nonetheless, the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation. this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. >> now, let me be very clear about something. to ken cuccinelli's point, who is a very smart lawyer, does

that sound like what a prosecutor would say about somebody? no. it sounds like what a defendant's lawyer would say about them. and that's been the problem from the beginning. let's bring in dee lemon. that's what this reporting will mean, i believe, certainly for the democrats. is it something dirty? no, not necessarily. but it shows this a.g. has been here for the president rather than the american people. >> or a political hack, if you want to be just that blunt about it. a kinder word would be a mers na -- mercenary for the president. that sounded more to me like a guidance counselor or maybe an excuse your parent would make for you, well, chris was so upset by all of this, we can understand all of his actions even if they were wrong. he had a reason to do it. that's what it sounds like to

me. >> i tell you something, the law is a funny thing, and this law is a funny thing. obstruction is a funny thing because it requires an odd sort of intent, corrupt intent. there are all these different words for it in the law, but this has specific language for the statute, and you do have to prove that somebody had that bribery feel, that quid pro quo feel going into it. but for the a.g. to make the case for the president of the united states was not his role here. and that's the problem. the question is what does it mean tomorrow and going forward? >> and what does it mean for the hearing center, coming up. listen, i respect that you're a lawyer, i respect ken, his knowledge of the law. you are don't have to you don't have to be a lawyer to see that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. you don't have to be a lawyer to see how william barr got this job, how he conducted himself at the hearings, and how he conducted himself at the press conference with the letter and the second press conference. he tried to shape the narrative.

everything we have been reporting about this letter and this a.g. trying to shape the narrative has turned out to be true. you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. john pistol, who was a deputy to robert mueller when he was fbi director, will join me in moments to discuss, why would robert mueller write this letter? why would he put it pen to paper or type it in? because he wants it memorialized. >> and ask him why the a.g. wouldn't have the sense to mention it before he knew it was going to get out. >> or during the hearing when he was asked. >> why didn't he tell us? >> robert mueller was asked specifically, does robert mueller agree with your letter? i don't know. >> you're going to hear that tomorrow and tonight. i'll be watching your show. i'll see you in a second. a few more thoughts of what this is going to mean going forward. i do believe this is one of those moments where you're going

to look at this and you can see it an accurate way. it doesn't have to be just viewed through a partisan lens like everything else seems to be. there are things we just know now, next. not this john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪ no mattbe right back.ame is. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications.

and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

title x for affordable natbirth control and reproductive health care. the trump administration just issued a nationwide gag rule. this would dismantle the title x ("ten") program. it means that physicians cannot tell a patient about their reproductive health choices. we have to be able to use our medical knowledge to give our patients the information that they need. the number one rule is do no harm, and this is harm. we must act now. learn more. text titlex to 22422

we're going to have continuing coverage on "cnn tonight" with this breaking news, but tomorrow is a really big day. the a.g. goes before the senate, and he told the congress before that he didn't know if mr. mueller agreed with his conclusions. he did have reason to know. this letter from mueller proves that the a.g. has been playing to the advantage of this president. he's been doing it from the beginning, and that is not his

job. now the question is, will republican senators tomorrow do their job, or will the favoritism continue? this doesn't have to be about criminality, it has to be about what is right, what is wrong and what is reasonable. and a big day for that to be held forth. we'll all be watching tomorrow. let's get right to "cnn tonight" with don lemon. >> those are all good closing arguments, and as you know, we have a busy evening this evening. the first words that came to my mind, chris, were, of all the unmitigating gall. someone who works for the american people is working on behalf of this president. talk about no collusion in russia, there appears to be collusion between the president of the united states and the attorney general. >> listen, remember the famous quote, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. we've seen this