Skip to main content

tv   Anderson Cooper 360  CNN  April 30, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT

9:00 pm
good evening. it is one thing to object to how the attorney general of the united states characterized the mueller report, which president trump seized on to declare himself exonerated in the russia investigation, it's another thing entirely when the person doing the objecting is robert mueller himself. it's the breaking news hitting the night before william barr is set to testify before the senate judiciary committee. for weeks all we had was the four-page summary from barr which looked to clear the president entirely. tonight we're learning the special counsel had serious
9:01 pm
concerns about that, serious enough to write his old friend the attorney general. cnn's pamela brown has the details. explain what we've learned about the letter. >> reporter: we are learning tonight, anderson, that special counsel robert mueller sent a secret letter to the attorney general in late march, in the wake of that four-page letter that the attorney general had sent to congress about the special counsel's investigation. as you pointed out, bill barr, the attorney general, provided the principal conclusion saying that the special counsel did not find collusion and that it couldn't reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice and then went on to say there wasn't sufficient evidence to show obstruction of justice. that conclusion reached by barr. now we're learning mueller sent this letter to the attorney general expressing dissatisfaction that that four-page letter from bill barr did not accurately capture the nuance in the more than 400-page mueller report that we have now
9:02 pm
seen in the redacted version. robert mueller, according to "the washington post," saying in this letter to the attorney general who was his boss, of course, is his boss and a longtime friend saying that the redaction process of the mueller report, quote, need not delay release of the enclosed materials. release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigations. so the principal concern was that bill barr's four-page letter to congress shaped public perception, public understanding of the special counsel's investigation when, in fact, as we know the picture that was laid out in the mueller report was far more damning to the president, particularly on obstruction, than what bill barr conveyed. even on the aspect of collusion, anderson. as you'll recall, bill barr said there was no finding of collusion but in mueller's
9:03 pm
report, it said they expected help from russia. he said he included as much of robert mueller's report as he could. that was clearly not the case as you look through the report. we're also learning there were misgivings on the other side in the justice department about how robert mueller dealt with obstruction of justice, that officials, according to my colleague laura jarrett, were puzzled that robert mueller and his team never reached a conclusion on obstruction of justice. there were misgivings on both sides. this is the first time we've learned about robert mueller himself sending this letter expressing his displeasure about how bill barr has handled the findings of his investigation and this is sure to only give ammunition to those who have been skeptical and critical of bill barr's handling. he's going to be appearing before congress tomorrow in a hearing. >> what's so fascinating about it is essentially mueller is
9:04 pm
saying to barr that he and his team wrote summaries that were ready for publication, wrote summaries that did not need to be redacted that they had thought out. redactions would have no impact on summaries they wrote. those could be released and would give a fuller sense of what was actually in the report. >> that's right. so that was conveyed and bill barr's point of view, according to what we have learned, is that he didn't want to just release information in piecemeal fashion. his perspective was he wanted to release the full report with the redactions. now we've also learned from a justice department official that robert mueller did not tell barr that anything he put in the letter was inaccurate but the concern was more it didn't provide a fuller picture, didn't provide the nuance and didn't provide the summaries that as you pointed out robert mueller's team wrote for public consumption, for congress' consumption and that was what robert mueller was trying to convey in this letter to barr in late march, that he could release the summaries to clear
9:05 pm
up the misunderstanding about the findings while the redaction process was ongoing, anderson. >> has the white house had any reaction to this? this story broke in "the washington post" a short time ago. >> the white house has not had a reaction. i reached out to the white house and they say they likely will not comment at this time. that doesn't mean that the president himself will be tweeting. we do know though that before the mueller report was released, anderson, that there were communications between the white house counsel's office and the department of justice and during the time of these communications bill barr would have already received that letter from mueller and so it remains to be seen whether this was ever conveyed to the white house as well, robert mueller's displeasure. >> pam brown, thank you very much. joining us, cnn senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and david gregory and maggie haberman and elliott williams. jeff, i mean, the mueller letter, it certainly indicates and echoes what you and others have been saying before the full
9:06 pm
report was released, that barr was clearly trying to shape the narrative and very obviously had alternatives and ignored them. >> and distorted the meaning of the report. i just don't think there is any doubt now that now that we have read the vast majority of it, that mueller was right. barr put out a misleading summary designed to spin it in a much more pro-trump direction, shape the public perception of the mueller report forever because for weeks there was no alternative view out there and what we didn't know until today, is mueller was pissed. he saw what was going on and was powerless to do anything about it. >> maggie, it's obvious the attorney general of the united states was trying to make things look better for the president of the united states. >> it's hard to come to any other conclusion than he was putting the best possible face on this for the president.
9:07 pm
the argument is, well, he was frustrated mueller did not come to a conclusion and he had to handle this himself. the argument that mueller makes is that the letter from barr cherry-picked from the report and it basically, you know, plucked certain clauses out here, certain sentences there, all of which painted this medley of donald trump being more or less exonerated, even though the letter acknowledged that there was a sentence in the report saying it didn't exonerate him. mueller seems to have learned a lesson of a lot of people who have been around donald trump, mueller learned because they were witnesses from him, you have to put everything down on paper. this was not enough just to voice his concerns privately to barr. there had to be a letter documenting it. it's a stunning letter. >> david gregory, if mueller was upset by the four-page letter, you can only imagine the way it was characterized in the
9:08 pm
hours before the release. >> right. i think there's no question that bob mueller was upset about that. the fact that barr took it upon himself to execute on what was the original strategy of the white house, which is to get this report and pounce on it to create the narrative of what the response would be, what the reality of it would be such that they have their own counterargument, the rebuttal that they never released because they had bill barr to do that work for them. he did in that four-page letter say what i think is a crucial sentence, which is the president was not exonerated on the question of obstruction of justice. lacking the context which was so much more powerful when we were reading the report is what mueller was upset about. now here's the problem for barr. mueller is much more likely to testify now on the hill and they haven't been able to secure a date and i bet they secure one now. i talked to somebody who was a friend of mueller walking over here. suggesting what they ought to do is call him first.
9:09 pm
let him on capitol hill, mueller, set the phone for how he characterizes it. >> if the reporting is correct, they were taken aback by the tone of mueller's letter and it came as a surprise that he had such concerns. how could everyone not be on the same page? >> how could everyone not be on the same page? the interesting thing is mueller frames his concerns as looking out for public interests. he's looking out for sort of how the justice department comes out of this. i think a lot of guests who have come on talks about how barr seemed to be protecting the interests of the united states not the justice department. this whole exercise was a fool's errand to try to summarize a 440-some page document into a cliff's notes version. as jeffrey toobin knows, they will have paragraphs upon paragraphs and you can't do
9:10 pm
it without getting in trouble. it's not a function of inaccurately doing it, he went into it with a bias and an attempt to benefit the president of the united states and it completely backfired. so, you know, today we can thank robert mueller for looking out for the interests of the general public and the justice department because it looked that the leadership of the justice department wasn't quite there. >> jeff, what does this say about the attorney general? >> the reason this is such a big deal is that william barr will never do anything as attorney general remotely as important as that four-page letter. that was the defining moment of his service as attorney general, and the defining moment of the mueller report and he misled the public. >> wasn't that why he was hired? wasn't that his audition? >> depends how cynical you are. that's not what he's supposed to do. he's supposed to be an honest
9:11 pm
broker. he is supposed to be someone who is not the president's lawyer, who is not roy cohen, who is someone responsible for the entire department of justice of government and he misled the public and shaped the perception of this report forever in a way to benefit the president. >> can i just offer one contrary view though? i think there is a fair argument to be made that this is a special counsel that works for the attorney general. the special counsel concluded that he couldn't conclude. the boss gets to decide and he gets to conclude there was no obstruction of justice. time to move on. he's still releasing the report to congress. they still could begin impeachment proceedings. i think there's an argument in defense of barr that says he was doing what he was supposed to do and, yes, you can argue with how he characterized it publicly. >> he did characterize it, to your point, literally repeating
9:12 pm
the words of the president. >> right. >> it seemed as much of a love letter to the president as possible from an attorney general. >> he included the key line which is that he couldn't establish obstruction nor exonerate him. if you were doing the sound bite you would lift that line. >> he used the term collusion. mueller went out of his way in the report to say collusion isn't a legal term. it is a pr term that people are using and the president has used. he amplified a lot of the president's language about the report and about the investigation and the president's feeling that he was falsely accused. that went a lot farther than the letter. to your point when jeffrey is talking about what barr's intent was, it's hard to come away from that press conference thinking what he was trying to do is paint a just the facts picture of the report.
9:13 pm
>> maggie's exactly right. remember at that press conference he said the president was sincere in his upset about being thought guilty. i mean, how does he know? i mean, that wasn't part of the report. that just -- it was entirely distorted. now at least the press conference was followed immediately by the release of the actual report, you know, by a matter of hours so we could see how misleading it was but the problem with the letter was that it was a month of the only thing any of us could see. >> i want to push back on david's point a little bit. it's not just a question of deciding or not deciding on the obstruction question. it was literally misrepresenting the findings of the report. again, you cannot reduce -- you can't reduce a legal finding to one sentence or a sound bite. that's why the whole thing is 400 pages long. it's not 400 pages of fluff. it's legal analysis that lays out the arguments and defenses.
9:14 pm
the arguments as to here's where we could reach the elements but our views of indicting a sitting president, here's where they weren't met, or other charges. it's far more complex. i think we should be a little more cautious of giving barr a bit of a free pass. he was summarizing the findings. the facts have borne out. it's clear that the letter didn't just define the report. moreover, now we know the person who drafted the report disagreed with the, quote, unquote, summary of it. for those reasons we should be very cautious in the amount of latitude now we're extending to barr as to how he crafted what he crafted. >> maggie, what does this do? barr is set to testify tomorrow in front of the senate. he was supposed to speak in front of the house tomorrow on the next day. what does a lindsey graham do? it's sure to make this a lot
9:15 pm
more contentious. >> people are rewriting their questions. this was always going to be an interesting dynamic. barr has made clear he feels safer testifying in the senate than he does the house. there's been all of this haggling about the house. i think this letter gives additional context as to why. i think it was clear jerry nadler was going to be more contentious with barr, shall we say? but there's going to be a lot of pressure on folks like lindsey graham, a lot of republicans aligned with the white house, to be tougher. it's also, you know, complicated for them because the white house has embraced this report as the gold standard. saying it cleared him and so when the person who authors this report is saying that there was a misrepresentation, you can't
9:16 pm
keep cherry-picking. there are enough people. >> i don't think lindsey graham is changing his questions. he said over the weekend this is done for him and i don't think bob mueller's misgivings are going to change that for him. there's going to be more pressure from democrats but you want to put it squarely in the political range, i don't think anything has changed. >> julian castro has said barr should resign or be impeached. i don't think that's going to happen. but that's indicative of what you're going to see in the house if he shows up on thursday. but even tomorrow in the senate. >> i want to thank everybody. next, new details just emerging. we'll be joined by one of the senators who will be questioning the attorney general. richard blumenthal is here. we'll also dig deeper on this with carl bernstein and john dean. allergies with sinus congestion and pressure? you won't find relief here. go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d.
9:17 pm
while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more.
9:18 pm
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 with peak season berries, uniqcreamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.
9:19 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ etsthe belongings to finwe hold on to.s. etsy knows that moments, big and small, deserve things that really matter. sold by real people and filled with things that last beyond the latest trends.
9:20 pm
belongings don't just show what we care about. they show who we are. shop etsy.com we're just now learning some late details about our breaking story. robert mueller's objections. laura jarrett joins us. what have you learned? >> reporter: anderson, we're getting more color and details on what exactly transpired in that week after barr released his four-page summary. i'm told by a source of knowledge that here's what happened. on wednesday, march 27th, the attorney general received a letter from the special counsel's office essentially laying out his misgivings with that four-page summary that had come out the previous sunday. upon receiving that at the deputy attorney general's office, it was a page in length, they then transmitted to attorney general bill barr.
9:21 pm
he sees it and he immediately calls mueller and he essentially says words to the effect of, bob, we've been friends a long time. let's hash this out on the phone. the call was described as polite and cordial but there was clear disagreement between the two men on what should be done next. mueller and his team clearly wanted more context to come out, more analysis to come out but barr really didn't think that should be done piecemeal. he wanted the report to come out in full and was not interested in just putting out the summaries as we have previously reported. there's a part of that letter, that short letter that had come out just a day before that wednesday mueller's team had actually provided redacted copies of the introduction and the summaries that we ultimately saw in the full report. the problem was those hadn't yet been deconflicted with the intelligence community. again, barr and other justice officials surrounding him didn't think they could put it out. it does show once again that there were some clear miscommunication and significant
9:22 pm
disagreement between old friends and justice department veterans about how the significant report should be handled. >> laura jarrett, thank you. all the breaking news tonight means that tomorrow's scheduled testimony will have at the very least some extra resonance. joining us is democratic senator richard blumenthal and jeffrey toobin, who has some questions for the senator. senator blumenthal, what is your reaction to the reporting about the letter from mueller to barr and the phone call from mueller to barr? >> this letter is unquestionably an unprecedented, stunning rebuke of the attorney general of the united states. very significantly undermining, devastating his credibility and likely tomorrow in our hearing. there is going to be some tough questioning of him tomorrow about not only his four-page summary, which then mueller said
9:23 pm
in effect mischaracterized his report, but then why he doubled down three weeks later in a press conference and in effect lied again to the american people. i realize that characterization sounds harsh. we said it at the time. now we have bob mueller himself saying in effect that william barr's characterization was deceptive and misleading, in effect a lie to the american people. that's going to be reframing and adding a new dimension entirely to the questioning tomorrow. >> it certainly only raises the interest, i'm sure, by democrats at the very least to hear directly from robert mueller in hearings and also i assume as part of that to get hold of this letter that he wrote. >> no question that we need to hear from bob mueller who, as you know, is the penultimate in discretion. he conducted this investigation without any public disclosure
9:24 pm
and now really strikingly puts in the file, writes to the attorney general, memorializes his objections and rebuke to his superior. i can think of no prior instance of this kind of very severe rebuke to the attorney general of the united states from a career prosecutor with this kind of respect within the department of justice. >> it's one thing for him to put out the summary and then to have mueller respond with the criticism that he does and then to choose not to put out the summaries that the -- the explanations that mueller and his team have already sent, which according to mueller don't need to be redacted and are free from that pressure. for him to then go on television again the day the report is released and to shade the truth even more seems even now particularly more egregious. >> shading the truth is a very, very kind and charitable way to put it. he in effect lied to the
9:25 pm
american people saying that bob mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence of obstruction. the fact of the matter is bob mueller said nothing of the kind. in effect he said that this report is an indictment in all but name. if donald trump were any other official, if there were no office of legal counsel memorandum saying a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would be under indictment right now. and, in fact, he is an unindicted co-conspirator in the southern district of new york prosecution. you're absolutely right, anderson, that three weeks after this rebuke from bob mueller, william barr went again before the american people and distorted, deceived, misled them. >> senator, julian castro, who's one of the democrats running for president, said in light of this, barr should resign or be impeached. do you agree? >> i voted against william barr. i said then he was unfit to be
9:26 pm
attorney general. i believe he is unfit even more so today. there's more evidence of it, and what the remedy should be i'm going to be talking to my colleagues tomorrow about his explanation or attempted explanation of this kind of misconduct. in effect he harbored obstruction of justice and he is continuing to do so. he is also belittling and demeaning the real threat from the russians. he is downplaying the kind of continuing attack that we're seeing from the russians. playing into the hands of donald trump and jared kushner, who have adopted a similar tactic. >> but what accountability is there? what you're seeing from the white house is they're not producing witnesses. no documents. they're suing to stop a bank. from turning over documents. what can you do about that? i mean, is there anything that you can do?
9:27 pm
>> there are legal remedies, enforcement of the lawful subpoenas. the ones that have been issued and the ones that will be issued by the oversight committees in the house. we should have in the senate robert mueller and others testify here. i might just add in terms of accountability, the court ruled literally this afternoon in the emoluments lawsuit that i brought with jerry nadler as a co-plaintiff, that we were right on the law. the president can be held accountable for his acceptance of payments and benefits from a foreign government and we're going to be pursuing discovery as the next step, disclosure of all of the information relevant to this. and there are ongoing investigations, as you well know, 14 of them that may also expose the president to legal accountability, including one in new york where he was as an
9:28 pm
unindicted co-conspirator. >> can the white house claim executive privilege to stop robert mueller from testifying? he was working for the department of justice in his capacity as special counsel. >> absolutely not. because the executive privilege applies to white house employ s employees. bob mueller is as far from that status as could be. there's no executive privilege for mueller, or for that matter, barr. >> but these legal remedies you talk about, trying and even if you win it will be months and months from now? >> the timing is going to depend on the courts. remember, you well know, the watergate issue came to the supreme court on a very fast track. if the courts decide they want to hold the president accountable, if they really
9:29 pm
believe the president is not above the law, they can fast track these subpoenas as well. you're absolutely right, courts determine their own timing. i think a court ought to be absolutely outraged by this defiance of constitutional rules and norms that have prevailed for centuries and that also demean the importance and status of the other branches of government. the president is effectively saying he has ultimate power. >> thank you very much. up next, i'm going to get reaction from two key figures from the watergate era. john bernstein and john dean. are planked-to-perfection. feast on new cedar-plank lobster & shrimp. or new colossal shrimp & salmon with a citrusy drizzle. tender, smoky, and together on one plank... ...but not for long- so hurry in!
9:30 pm
9:31 pm
we've been talking about robert mueller's objections to the characterization of the mueller report, namely that barr mischaracterized the report. the attorney general was asked, quote, did bob mueller support your conclusion? his answer, i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. so we now know that wasn't true.
9:32 pm
he did know. joining me now is legendary watergate reporter, carl bernstein and john dean. john, first of all, your reaction to this reporting. how big of a deal is this? >> i think it's a pretty big deal. it certainly shows a rift between the men if not their staff, and it shows that mr. barr is going to have some serious questions to have to answer that he may not have anticipated when he appeared before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow and possibly the house judiciary committee on thursday. >> carl, "a," what do you make of this? and the timing of it coming on the eve of that testimony? >> the timing is extraordinary as is the substance of the letter. the letter could not be more definitive in saying that mr. barr misrepresented not just the letter of what is -- of the
9:33 pm
mueller investigation was but the context, the nature, and the conclusions, is the language that mueller uses in his letter to mr. barr. there clearly is an attempt by the special prosecutor, who says very clearly this action by the attorney general has undermined public confidence in the special prosecutor's investigation and in fact notes, mueller does, that was the purpose of the investigation was to have public confidence and he accuses even though the language may be polite later on in the letter, he seems to accuse mr. barf undermining that public confidence. so this is an extraordinary and stunning development, and the other aspect of it is that like those who saw the report when it was released in the press and said, wait a minute.
9:34 pm
this report has nothing to do that's consistent with the way barr characterized it four weeks earlier. mueller seems to be saying the same thing. >> how unprecedented is it that mueller took this step and wrote on the record objecting to the conclusions, and leaks the night before he's supposed to get the testify? >> they have a little different nuance pointing out that barr and the justice department people were very unhappy with the fact that mueller did not end his investigation with a clear finding of guilt or innocence, rather, he offered this nuanced position that since
9:35 pm
a sitting president can't be indicted it's unfair to come down one side or the other, there's no way he can respond to it. well, according to the special prosecutor, they knew exactly what they were doing and seems that the barr people and mr. barr himself do not like nuance. they wanted black and white and now they have a muddy pile they've collected here. >> it's clearly problematic for barr. he'll face tough questions from democrats on the hill when he talks to the senate. isn't the public's perception of the report though already kind of baked in at this point? wasn't that the whole point in barr releasing the information in the way that he released the information, which was to shape the way most people will see this? most people who haven't read the 448 pages. >> i can't be inside mr. barr's head, but there certainly are appearances that that might have been his purpose.
9:36 pm
and there were the four weeks where a certain perception was allowed to form, with the president claiming total exoneration, both on obstruction and collusion. the report goes out of its way to talk about the fact that collusion is not a legal term, et cetera, et cetera. what we have here is we need to hear from mr. mueller. and i can't predict what the american people are going to do and how they're going to process this information. we have a polarized country and so far everything having to do with the mueller report has fit into that pattern of polarization, whether this is going to figure in the same way who knows, but what is clear is that in terms of what the facts are, that the special prosecutor
9:37 pm
has taken the unprecedented, extraordinary step saying that the attorney general has misrepresented the nature and context of the most important investigation, federal investigation of the last 40, 45 years. and that is going to stick as part of the national record and presumably americans are going to debate it in a serious way. >> john, the judiciary committee chairman in the house, jerry nadler, obviously democrat, tweeted in light of this reporting mueller must be allowed to testify. do you think that's actually going to happen? do you think congress will get to see the letter? can mueller be stopped from testifying? >> i don't think you can stop him from testifying. i think if the senate, that nadler will invite him. i think mueller found the high ground on this one. it needs to be clarified.
9:38 pm
>> john dean, bernstein, thank you very much. next, more on this and a look at william barr himself. the man at the center of a political firestorm. -here comes the rain. [ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay.
9:39 pm
but i'm more than a number. when i'm not teaching, i'm taking steep grades and tight corners. 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 when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter]
9:40 pm
(vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? the united explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com.
9:41 pm
again, breaking news. special counsel robert mueller wrote a letter to attorney general william barr expressing concerns about his four-page summary about the russia probe findings.
9:42 pm
turns out americans are already divided over the handling of it. a new cnn poll conducted before the blockbuster report shows 44% approve of what barr did, 43% disapprove, and 13% are unsure. now, a look at the path to the center of a political controversy. here's cnn's political analyst gloria borger. >> i want to wish our new attorney general great luck, and speed, enjoy your life. bill, good luck. tremendous reputation. >> reporter: bill barr came to the trump administration with a long resume dating back to the george h.w. bush administration. >> he was deputy attorney general and he was attorney general. he's had quite a government career in addition to being a partner at a substantial law firm. >> reporter: and now a political lightning rod, largely because of the way he handled the release of the mueller report in a way that pleased the president and angered democrats. was he putting his thumb on the scale for the american public? >> he was putting his fist on the scale.
9:43 pm
it was a lot more than a thumb. >> reporter: when he said this. >> i think spying did occur. >> reporter: he made the president very happy. >> i think what he said was absolutely true. there was absolutely spying into my campaign. >> reporter: now barr, a republican with establishment credentials, faces congress at the center of a political firestorm. it started with his decision to summarize the special counsel's 488-page report into a four-page letter some thought downplayed or mischaraterized them. >> he wrote up a spin letter and he went before congress and spun the spin letter. he did a press conference where he used it as many times as he
9:44 pm
could. >> there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion, no collusion. no collusion. >> reporter: barr also cleared the president of obstruction even though the special counsel maybe no decision. >> i don't think he should have participated in the decision. to have substituted his legal judgment for bob mueller about the appropriate legal theory i believe was a significant misjudgment and i don't think it reflected well. >> reporter: did you get that sense from barr, he wished mueller had made a decision? >> sure. and so the only person left to make a decision was barr and he did. >> reporter: what if barr decided not to do anything? >> just leave it out there? >> reporter: impossible? >> not impossible, irresponsible. >> the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency. >> reporter: could that be interpreted as excusing the president's bad behavior? >> i don't -- i don't think it
9:45 pm
should be interpreted that way because i don't think he was -- he was trying to excuse the president's behavior, bad or otherwise, i think he was trying to explain the basis for a decision he as a prosecutor was reaching. >> he didn't explain it, he was justifying. he wasn't serving as the president's attorney general, he was a guidance counselor. >> reporter: but the decision not to prosecute was not a complete surprise. he had already made his views of his own in an unsolicited 19-page memo sent to the justice department in june of 2018 saying among other things that the theory of the obstruction investigation against the president was fatally misconceived. is this something people do all the time? >> you mean former government officials who produce long, legal memoranda on pending issues?
9:46 pm
and ask officials then in power to look at them? >> reporter: yes. that's what i mean. >> no. i think it's a reflection again. >> reporter: do you think it was an audition for a job? >> definitely not. >> reporter: how do you know? >> definitely not. the idea of being attorney general or taking any job with the administration was the farthest thing from his mind. >> reporter: really? >> yes. >> he didn't get this job by accident. he got this job because he promised in advance essentially that he wouldn't find the president guilty of obstruction and so he did exactly what he said he was going to do. >> reporter: back in a 1998 interview unearthed by cnn's kfile, barr was more sympathetic to the independent counsel's plight.
9:47 pm
saying reno wasn't doing enough to connect ken star and yet he has remained silent as the president continues to lob grenades almost daily at the mueller team. >> we just went through the mueller witch hunt where you had really 18 angry democrats that hate president trump. >> reporter: barr's loyalties are bound to be questioned once again. as the president says he will not comply with house democratic subpoenas. >> fighting all the subpoenas. look, these aren't like impartial people. >> reporter: and he could well have barr on his side. in 1989 in another memo barr worked against what he called congressional incursion. >> i think bill's view is a constitutional one. it's grounded in the separation of powers and if one of the branches oversteps its bounds, he will call that branch on it. >> it would be really disappointing if he enabled the president to pursue a theory like the one that has been articulated, which is that
9:48 pm
because the house is asking for this information, he is not going to permit anybody to testify. that is a lawless position. >> reporter: lawless? >> lawless. utterly lawless. >> reporter: and a matter ultimately that another branch of government, the courts, could decide. >> that was cnn's gloria borger. returning to the latest chapter in this, and joining us by phone, senator amy klobuchar. member of the senate judicial committee. i'm wondering what your reaction to this letter is. >> i've been asked about this, because it's just one more example of how this four-page letter he sent out was political. this is not about politics. it's about protecting our democracy. this is someone who has just pointed out, tried out for this
9:49 pm
job with a 19-page memo that was an executive summary of what he thought should be about a broad, broad interpretation of executive power. he gets into the job and no surprise he is political. what really bothered me about this is that this is about protecting our country. this is about russia's intrusion. when you look at the 448-page report, it's literally a roadmap to how a foreign country invaded our election. they might not have done it with missiles, tanks, or ships. they did it all the same. they tried to hack into election equipment, and they certainly hacked into hillary clinton's campaign, got all the emails out, slowed down her momentum. that happened in the united states of america. no one should be playing politics with this, and that's why tomorrow i'm going to be asking the attorney general of course about russia and about what they're doing about it.
9:50 pm
why they squelched my secure election act, which is a bipartisan bill and you had a question? >> another presidential candidate, junian castro, that barr should resign. >> it's clear i don't want him there. i want to have a justice department that is just and represents the american people. >> how critical is it now? given that we know he wrote to barr and said to barr in conversations that mueller himself testify and how possible will it be? i've had legal people say the white house can't claim executive privilege in relation to mueller. >> exactly. we can push mueller to testify and allow these other investigations to keep going. the house has subpoena power.
9:51 pm
and i think it's pretty apparent when you have witnesses like don mcgahn, interviewed for things that were not redacted for security reasons, then we should be able to have those people come in and testify. that's the fight that's going on in the house. meanwhile, in the senate because we know that the house will pass these bills is to do work to protect our election in 2020 and get these republicans on board because you just listen to the words of the fbi director. he said 2018 was a dress rehearsal. the president's own intelligence adviser said russia is getting bolder. why would you not take action? you can't let the president's ego get in the way. >> appreciate your time. thank you. coming up next, exclusive new polling on the democratic presidential primary now that joe biden is in the race. we'll show you how big of a difference his presence has already made when "360" continues.
9:52 pm
freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?
9:53 pm
9:54 pm
with the former vice president on his first campaign swing through iowa, the first cnn polling since he entered shows him outpacing not just his nearest democratic rival but nearest four opponents combined. biden is at 40%. bernie sanders at 15% with the rest in single digits. now, the normal caveats apply. it's a long way until the iowa caucuses and a lot can change between now and then. joining us is 2004 democratic
9:55 pm
presidential candidate, former vermont governor howard dean. just on this breaking news about robert mueller's dissatisfaction with the way bill barr characterized his report. you ran for president. you must have considered cabinet officials. what do you make of how attorney general barr is conducting himself? >> well, you know, trump does not pick cabinet officials based on their merits. he picks them based on whether they are willing to be his flunky. and barr is a flunky. he was a flunky with reagan and bush sr., and now he's doing it, and he should have never been confirmed. >> there is certainly just in terms of the democrats there's certainly very strong numbers for vice president biden right out of the gate. as we said it is a long, long race and a lot can happen between now and then. this is not going to be -- you see those numbers and people
9:56 pm
think, oh, this is going to be a cakewalk for the former vice president. >> no, it's not going to be a cakewalk. of course there's a lot of talk about that in washington but what you have to remember is you're exactly right. it's a long, long way to iowa, first of all. have joe biden's numbers today than go in the other direction. i didn't think he was going to go higher but he certainly has. >> vice president biden said on "good morning america" today, he said make america moral again, make america return to the essence of who we are, treating our people with dignity. and he focused and mentioned obviously the president. is that the right message? i mean, he is -- you were saying on the program earlier and others have said that, you know, he is kind of elevating it to make this a direct challenge to president trump but democrats
9:57 pm
also, there's plenty of them who believe the candidates need to be talking about health care, the economy, tabletop issues. >> at this point it's a good broad brush opening stroke. there's nothing wrong with what joe biden said today. it does cast him in the light of somebody that does believe in morals and a lot of trump's voters are voting for him because he's frank and blunt but he did hit the 10,000 lie mark today, which is pretty extraordinary after 2 1/2 years in office. we'll see. as you said at the top, we're far from getting in to the nitty-gritty here. we'll find out what's going on with two weeks to go before the iowa caucus votes and the nevada votes and then we'll find out what people's messages are and they cannot be about trump. trump will remind us that we don't like him every day. we have to remind people why they want to vote for democrats.
9:58 pm
we're going to get them health care, we'll get them jobs again, and stop screwing up our trade relations so that we lose dairy farms in wisconsin and factory jobs in missouri. >> it is interesting because once he starts focusing on the nitty-gritty issues, that's when poll numbers start to decline. once you're in the trenches it's very easy to get dirty and get compared to other people's programs. >> that will happen. but it's going to happen to everybody. everybody has to show they can be president of the united states. they have to be successful in good times and bad times in the campaign trail. as awful as this process is, it's the right process. you know, if you can't get through this process, what are you going to do when putin asks for alaska back? trump of course would say here you go, sir, but nobody else is going to do that and you have to be tough. and the toughest person is going to have a big advantage.
9:59 pm
>> governor howard dean, i always appreciate it, thank you. >> anderson, thanks. >> we'll be right back with more. quite a night.
10:00 pm
we ran out of time for a story we planned. the news continues, so 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 green 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 language suggests that that is not exactly what the man that made the report 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