you they decline to do so. and here is what flood said. i'm reading from the report, the special counsel instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity part truth commission report and part law school exam paper. essentially flood is accusing the special counsel of simply just transmitting evidence without making it clear that he wasn't going to charge the president with obstruction of justice. and then he goes on to say that the report is being seen now about congressional democrats, particularly house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler as a, quote, road map for continuing to investigate the president over obstruction. that, too, is something that flood is objecting to saying that is simply not the role of the special counsel at all. >> the letter also specifically addresses white house -- the white house allowing advisers to be interviewed by house democrats. what is the take on that? well this is the next step here. so now that congressional democrats are saying they want

people like don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, to testify, flood is basically laying out that the white house has not waived their right to exert executive privilege over any of the information. they're saying the president still has the ability to say that all of this is privileged, including future testimony by people who participated voluntarily in the special counsel probe. and essentially laying down the marker. they are not claiming privilege at this moment, but saying that they have the right to do so in the future. that could complicate efforts by these congressional committees in the house to force the people to testify. the argument from folks like jerry nadler is this information is already out in the public sphere and the white house can't exert privilege and flood is saying the exact opposite. when they volunteered to have the people participate in the special counsel investigation, they made it clear to the special counsel that they were not waiving the president's rights in that respect so i think this is really them just putting a marker down and saying

we're going to fight this in the future and they can't just call these people and subpoena them to testify. >> setting up the next round. abby phillip at the white house. thank you. cnn contributor john dean was former counsel for nixon and national political correspondent for real clear politics and so good to have you with us. john, as we look at the letter from emmet flood clearly unhappy with what he saw from robert mueller, specifically for not writing in the report that the president will not be indicted on obstruction of justice, full stop. where does that go? >> i think the letter is a diversion. i think it was released today because barr has got his own problems, it was addressed to barr and signed by emmet flood and -- and barr has some news problems today. he has been accused of lying by the speaker of the house and others and didn't show up at a hearing and this is a nice technical diversion that doesn't mean much.

you can't unwaive once you've waived, as they have done. and his criticism of the report is frankly un -- not well placed because the special counsel went out of his way to be fair to the president in the way he presented the evidence saying the president couldn't defend himself so he can't really reach a prosecutorial decision. so i think flood is -- is just being used in the news today. >> but is it effective? because in releasing this, couldn't this just prolong the discussion and investigation and, in fact, bring more attention? >> i think it is trump's plan to try to block everything the house does. he has indicated he's not going to cooperate and send any witnesses, he's not going to honor any subpoenas. and that is a constitutional crisis. the courts don't like to weigh in. the remedy for congress for supporting subpoenas are somewhat limited.

they could go the criminal route but the criminal route won't work because the department of justice won't pick it up. they could go the civil right, that is a very protracted and -- it takes about a year to a year and a half. congress has considered legislation to expedite it but never adopted it. and the other route that actually they're talking about is they have arrest powers and they could put somebody in the jail -- in jail, they could lease a jail somewhere and they could incarcerate somebody under their own inherent power. >> we'll see if we get to that point. susan, i want to get your take on this letter. because in looking at it, it was hand think delivered according to the letter on april 19th, the day after, if my dates are correct, the redacted version of the mueller report was released. what do you see as the point of this letter? is it about trying to please the audience of one, president trump?

>> i see we're having these flurry of letters or at least two. one was the snitty letter from bob mueller and now we're seeing the white house sort of try to reframe the argument and the narrative with that side saying they didn't think mueller's report was fair to begin with. i see a lot of politics. i'm shocked, shocked that politics is going on here. we see a lot of irony. if you look back to what ken starr did and if you look back to 1998 and 1999, they rescinded the entire independent statute for the independent counsel. they didn't believe that the starr report, democrats and especially jerry nadler didn't believe the starr report should be released to the public. he didn't believe that bill clinton obstructed justice. he didn't think that it would be fair to release the starr report because of people's privacy. we're seeing complete reversal right now. and i think we're -- what we

really know, every american knows arnt country, is that you see what you want in this entire debate. the democrats wanted to impeach president trump, they wanted to impeach him and now they did not get what they wanted from the mueller report so they are taking issue with these -- with this letter that he sent, the way that it was distributed and the media narrative now. but i see a lot of irony in all of this and certainly as a reporter i think it is my job to point that out. >> both of you stick with me for a moment because from the white house now to capitol hill. a lot happening obviously on this thursday. house speaker nancy pelosi not mincing words today when it comes to the attorney general talking about his words and actions in the aftermath of the mueller report. take a listen. >> what is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the united states of america was not telling the truth to the congress of the united states. that's a crime.

he lied to congress. he lied to congress. and if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law, not the president of the united states and not the attorney general. >> those extraordinary comments hours after barr had defied democrats, refusing to appear before the house judiciary committee this morning. barr objected to the format which would have allowed staff attorneys to question him so in his place we saw an empty chair. phil mattingly is on capitol hill. fiery words from the speaker. she's not the only one. do we know, though -- talk to us more about what specifically speaker pelosi was referring to in what she says was, in fact, a crime? >> reporter: erica, it doesn't get much stronger than that from the speaker or any member of congress. here is the hint what she was referring to. in a closed door meeting of the democratic caucus before the press conference, the person in the room said she pointed to

congressman charlie crist and said he lied to you and this is a reference to a hearing back in early april where crist asked the attorney general about reports that were public that members of the mueller team were frustrated b -- about how the four-page summary if you will characterized the findings of the report and attorney general barr said he didn't know what they were referring to but he suspected they wanted more information out. there was also another hearing where senator van hollen from maryland asked a similar question, if he knew mule ear greed with his conclusions and the attorney general said he did not know that. this is a driving force behind the frustration. frustration from democrats related to that hearing and frustration to the lack of the attorney general barr presence during today's hearing and also frustration overall about subpoenas that haven't been complied with, a white house that has made very clear they will defy pretty much anything that house democrats ask related to the mueller report or broader investigations and you're starting to see that spill out. now i should note the justice

department did put out a statement saying the basic attack on the attorney general is irresponsible and false and to underscore everything going on, there is a fight between the democrat in the house, between the justice department and the white house and president trump. i think one of the big questions given the attorney general chose not to participate in the hearing today is what comes next. there are options, whether it is holding him in context or impeachment. the reality when you talk to democrats on the judiciary committee, what they are most focused on now is the special counsel. robert mueller is expected to testify at some point in the coming weeks. we don't have an exact date yet but that is what democrats want to see more than anything else and obviously they'll continue to express plenty of frustration with the attorney general erica. >> phil mattingly with the latest. thank you. and just hear for yourself the moments the democrats are now pouncing on. so last month of course as we hear from bill barr testified in the house and senate and asked

about the concerns reportedly coming from mueller's team and mueller himself. here are two of the key exchanges. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think -- i suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. but in my view i was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because i think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you

know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once so i was not interested in the summary of the report. and, in fact, at the time i put out my march 24th letter there was nothing from the special counsel that wasn't marked as potentially containing 6-e material and hi no material that had been sanitized of 6-e material. so i felt that i should state the bottom line conclusions and i tried to use special counsel mueller's own language in doing that. >> mr. attorney general, the thing is you put this out there. the president went out and tweeted the next day that he was exonerated. that wasn't based on anything in the mueller report with respect to obstruction of justice. that was based on your assessment. that is on march 24th. and now you won't elaborate at all as to how you reached that conclusion. because i'm not asked you what

is in the mueller report, i'm asking about your conclusion. let me ask you this. >> you said it was the conclusion of a number of people including me and i obviously am the attorney general. it was also inclusion of the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and i will discuss that decision after the report is -- >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> well that was april 9th and april 10th we know that robert mueller did inform barr about the issues that he had with barr's conclusion. that in a letter dated march 27th, john dean and susan crabtree are back with us. so john, we heard from nance making that very serious allegation that she believes that the attorney lied to congress based on what you just heard. he obviously has a different take on this. what is your take here? who is right here? is it the speaker or is boar tech tick -- technically correct because he said he spoke to

mueller directly and not members of his team and he is saying that is what i'm referring to. >> it is interesting, erica, that he was aware of this issue before he testified yesterday before the senate. that when the letter came out showing him at odds with his earlier testimony, he was careful yesterday to pars that and try to give further explanation of his position vis-a-vis what was said in the letter versus his testimony. and it is not entirely clear. i think at this moment he's obviously not being candid, he wasn't being open with the congress. he's now in a situation where he's doing very fine line parsing of what was said, how it was said, what he meant. this is not healthy. this is not being square with the congress. whether it's perjury or not is another big step.

and i don't think we're going to go there. >> so you're not going to go there. susan, i want to get your take, another moment that stood out to a lot of people on wednesday is a response that the attorney general had and specifically the way he said it and who he referred to which raised questions again about not only his view of executive power but where his loyalties lie. take a listen to this exchange. >> do you have any objections, can you think of an objection of why don mcgahn shouldn't come to testify before this kbh-- this committee about his experience? >> um, yes, i mean, i think he's a close adviser to the president. >> never exerted executive privilege? >> excuse me. >> may have already waived -- >> no, we haven't waived the executive privilege. >> we. it is the "we" there that stopped a few people. what is your take on that? >> right. well the attorney general needs to maintain his independence certainly here.

you -- but i do feel in that situation the underlying mueller report did not believe that constituted obstruction of justice that was criminal. and if he had ever opportunity to go ahead and make that conclusion, and he didn't, and he is actually -- barr said yesterday that was not because of the office of legal counsel's statement that you cannot indict a sitting president. so i honestly think the use of the "we" is problematic, we want an independent attorney general even though every attorney general is appointed by the president and we want a sense of fairness here and transparency. but in this case, i think the democrats, i will continue to say the democrats real beef is with the fact that mueller didn't go ahead and say there that there was enough obstruction of justice in his mind to bring criminal charges. and if you are mueller, you really can't have it both ways. he came out and had that letter because he didn't like the way

it was distributed but democrats -- it was the democrats who reined in the independent counsel statute after the starr report and he said he's going above and beyond by releasing it. he doesn't have to release the report. in fact democrats didn't want to release the starr report as we recall and he went above and beyond and releasing it now and providing and he'll go before congress and not before the house democratic judiciary committee members because they had changed the rules on him after the fact. and wanted him to submit to staff questioning. and there is a big debate about that. but in essence i think the democrats really want to keep this narrative going, want it -- they cannot impeach the president based on the mueller report. but they can hoist up and roast bill barr for and pars his statements on whether he received this letter or not. which i think is a value -- i think it is incredibly news worthy letter.

if i would have gotten it as a reporter, i would have definitely reported on it and it is certainly news worthy. whether it is something where we can say bill barr lied or not, i cannot get into his head or figure out exactly what was said during that meeting versus the first meeting versus what the letter said. i certainly wish he would have been more forthcoming. but all of this is, you know, definitely something that is news worthy and we should pursue as journalists and all aspects of this. what impact it has on the 2020 race and the democrats move to impeach, i think they might be -- because they have to be concerned they're overplaying their hand a little bit here. >> be interesting to see if we learn more, if and when we see the notes from the phone call between robert mueller and bill barr which as we heard bill barr doesn't want to give them up but of course there are other ways to obtain the notes and we'll see when they come out. we'll have to leave it there. susan craft and john dean, not the last time we'll talk about

these events. thank you. still ahead, $6.5 million, that is the price tag for one chinese family. they reportedly paid $6.5 million to get their daughter into stanford. details on this latest twist in the college admissions scandal. plus news just coming into cnn, president trump's pick for the federal reserve is out. the past comments that stephen moore just couldn't escape. and breaking news out of baltimore where the city's mayor is embroiled in a scandal over a book deal and moments away from an announcement by her attorney. those bonds were definitely tested. frog leg, for my baby brother don't frogs have like, two legs? so they should have two of these? since i'm active duty and she's family, i was able to set my sister up with a sweet membership from navy federal. if you hold it closer, it looks bigger. eat your food my big sis likes to make tiny food. and i'm okay with that. navy federal credit union.

our members, are the mission. ♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free.

breaking news, the man who plotted to blow up new york city subways a decade ago and a bit of a surprise from the

courtroom, i want to go straight to shimon prokupecz with more on this development. shimon? >> reporter: and the surprise here is that the government has said we're told from court that the judge just sentenced the man who plotted this, behind this blot, almost a decade ago, to blow up the new york city subway at the time, then attorney general called it one of the most serious threats that this country had faced, well, today after being gone for ten years we have not seen him for the last ten years or so, he's been cooperating with the government, providing them highly valuable information, they say. and as a result of that cooperation the judge today sentencing him to time served. that is he won't have to serve any additional jail time, any additional prison time since he's been cooperating with the government, has been in their custody since his arrest for the

last ten years. what is really interesting in this investigation is that it is very rare for the government to get this kind of cooperation from a terrorist essentially and they did. for the last ten years the government said he's met with them over 100 times, providing all sorts of information on lk, he trained at one of their training sites in pakistan and as a result they've been able to glean a lot of information about the terrorist group and because of that they did ask the judge for a downgrade in his sentence and as a result of that, the judge today sentenced him essentially to time served. >> shimon prokupecz with that development. thank you. turning now back to washington. democrats, there was no doubt when democrats just grilled bill barr when he testified before the senate judiciary committee but a question from chris coons of delaware was supposed to be a

softball for the attorney general but then this happened. >> going forward what, is a foreign adversary, say now north korea, offers the presidential candidate dirt on a competitor in 2020. do you agree with me the campaign should immediately contact the fbi? if a foreign intelligence service -- if they say we have dirt on your opponent and should they say i love it and we should meet or contact the fbi. >> if a foreign intelligence service does, yes. >> he later went on to say this about foreign adversaries. >> absolutely, i think the danger from countries like china, russia and so forth is far more insidious than it has been in the past because of nontraditional collectors that they have operating in the united states. and i think most people are unaware of how pervasive it is and how -- and what the risk

level is. and i think it actually should go far beyond even campaigns. more people involved in government have to be educated on this. >> analyst julia chyme was homeland security official under president obama. that first answer, there was a long pause and you could see the wheels turning in his head and then the clarification of a foreign intelligence service. remind us there. because he's making that distinction. >> right. >> what does the law say? >> this is the problem. is that as mueller made clear, volume one -- in volume one about the contacted between trump and the russians, the trump team and russians and why he could not build a criminal conspiracy case was because there is no direct law prohibiting it and so people throw out words like was there collusion or cooperation and so this is the problem so you start

to see legislators and others begin to talk about, well we need to draft clear rules about the capability of getting information from a foreign adversary, whether it is the government or an intelligence agency because most of the time you can't tell the difference. barr's pause was shocking and tarfying -- terrifying thing because you wonder does he already know about contacts that are or have been made between 2016 and 2020, between the trump campaign and some foreign adversary, russia, north korea, whoever else, russia probably. and didn't want to perjure himself. the whole point of what barr is doing there is i can't perjure myself so he's trying to come one an answer that he won't perjure himself. >> and i'm paraphrasing but there needs to be further education across government with officials so people better understand what the threat is out there. >> i heard him say that. like i mean you're not running for president. but if the russians came to you

and said we have intelligence against your adversary that we stole from wikileaks, i think your moral compass would say this does not sound right. so that we need to educate -- no, there is only one campaign in the history of running for president in the united states that has shown so many consistent outreaches and cooperation and information flow, meetings over the course of a campaign to get information against their adversary and then to not disclose it to the fbi ever and then add the third piece which barr got wrong yesterday, the trump campaign had been told by the fbi to be on the watchout for this kind of game from the russians and still did not disclose. barr either conveniently forgot or once again didn't want to perjure himself in the testimony about what the trump -- the trump family and campaign did which is sort of laid out in volume one, which we don't talk enough about and that is why i was glad that senator coons raised the issue.

>> good to see you in person. >> i know. nice to see you. >> thank you. and new today, president trump's pick for the federal reserve withdrawing his name for consideration. why stephen moore is now taking himself out of the running. plus sources telling cnn the family of a chinese student admitted to stanford university paid millions of dollars to the ringleader of that u.s. college admissions scandal. they haven't been charged. we'll tell you why. ♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

♪

breaking news out of baltimore. where the city's mayor has just resigned. she's of course been on medical leave in a swirl of controversy over sales of her children's books. currently under investigation for misconduct. we'll go straight to athena jones joining us from baltimore with more. so any more details on this resignation? >> reporter: well, hi, erica. i have a letter from catherine pugh, her resignation letter, were were just handed after this press conference that just wrapped up with her lawyer steve silverman. the letter said in best interest of the people and government of the mayor and city council of baltimore i'm writing to attest that effective immediately i hereby resign from the office of mayor to which i was duly elected in may and i'm confident i left the city in capable

hands. and now we have questions about an ongoing investigation by state and federal officials. her lawyer now former mayor's lawyer did not take any questions. he did read more from the mayor from a statement he said dear citizens of baltimore, the mayor is thanking the citizens of baltimore and submitting her written resignation and apologizing to the harm she's caused to the image of the city of baltimore and the office of mayor of baltimore and this city deserves a mayor who can move this city forward and she's also thanking jack young, the president of the city council acting mayor ever since she took a leave of absence starting at the beginning of april in the wake of the investigations. and we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that mayor pugh received from the university of maryland medical center -- medical system while she was on the hospital's board for copies of her healthy children's book "healthy holly" and they paid the mayor $500,000 and also got money from kaiser permanente which provides health

care to city employees and from a foundation associated black charities that also does work with the city. these things are being investigated. and remember a week ago we saw a series of raids by the fbi and criminal investigators from the irs carrying out search warrants in multiple location as associated with the mayor, including two of her homes, the home of a former aide and also her lawyer's office was searched. so this is something that is ongoing. but this is been an issue now for over a month that she has been battling pneumonia and dealing with the city in a moment of real instability and this now provides some answers for baltimore as it moves forward here. >> athena jones with the latest from baltimore. again the mayor just resigning there. catherine pugh. athena, thank you. and another of the president's fed picks withdrawing after cnn uncovered sexist remarks stephen moore has made in the past.

new details on white house reaction. 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. ♪ guys, i've got an idea! oooh, what is it? so people love iphone xr, right? well, it does have an incredible camera. and it comes in all those amazing colors. uh huh. what if we give the people iphone xr,

when they join t-mobile? iphone xr on us? yeah, iphone xr on us! what's not to love about that? for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us.

president trump's pick to serve on the board of federal reserve out. stephen moore with drew his name from consideration after he said it was all about the attacks on him that were getting to be too much? >> more like the facts on him were getting to be too much.

our own k-file unearth writings that stephen moore had done about ten years ago that were clearly sexist. he said that women shouldn't referee men's basketball games, there fact he suggested women shouldn't even be present at those games. it just became too much for republicans, members of his own party in the senate, to back his nomination. but the concerns about stephen moore go well beyond his sexist comments. if you go to the root cause of the controversy, remember when he was potentially -- his name was potentially floated, conservative economists were questioning his credentials and the fact of whether or not he would be truly independent and not just a political sycophant for the president. so that was the main problem. now democrats are having a lot of fun with this today. chuck schumer coming out and said first cane and that was the first nominee that dropped out because of allegations of sexual harassment that came back to haunt him, first cane and now

moore. thank goodness each were not nominated and the only thing less funny than some of the tasteless, offensive, sexist jokes the president consider him for a seat in the federal reserve. and now who will trump nominate after two nom-in is lost in the faith of his party and will he go forth and pick someone who is confirmable, for lack of a better term, from the senate. and hopefully that means a more independent nominee. >> interesting to see who that person is. christina, good to see you, thank you. >> absolutely. >> a new twist in the massive college admissions scandal. why one family paid more than $6 million to the alleged mastermind. book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more.

norwegian cruise line. feel free.

hmm. exactly. and doug. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

we are learning about another wealthy family now entangled in the college admission scandal. a source telling cnn the parents of a chinese student who was admitted to stanford university allegedly paid $6.5 million to rick singer. just let that number sink in for a minute. $6.5 million. paid to the man whose been called the mastermind of this scam. now it hasn't been determined if the student's parents were seeking an advantage with the payment. this is the largest reported so far. in a statement stanford university said, quote, it is important to clarify. stanford did not receive $6.5 million from singer or from a student's family working with singer. stanford was not aware of this reported $6.5 million payment from the family to singer until

today's news reports. frank brunny is a "new york times" columnist and author of "where you go is not who you will be", this is remarkable. so i just want to point out. these parents are not among the dozens of parents who were initially charged a couple of months ago when all of this broke. we're just learning more about it. there wasn't sufficient evidence. the investigators knew about them but didn't charge them. but the number alone, the fact that someone paid $6.5 million to get their kid admitted to college, it leaves you speechless. >> it is a breath-taking number. but it is a vivid illustration of just how much power we accord these colleges. oernl other parents aren't paying that kind of money but they are paying for any advantage of magic of stanford and the glory of harvard. we have so venerated and fetishized these schools you end

you're right they haven't been charged because it is unclear that they knew or thought the money was going to untoward things. i find it hard to believe that they spent $6.5 million just thinking the essays would look prettier and be polished a little bit. >> and that that is what it would take. >> right. if you're paying that kind of money, we'll see what happens, but i don't think that it was innocent. >> it has really pulled back -- we're seeing so much about we know that wealth and privilege and being well connected open a lot of doors, right? i mean you can't i go no are that. and it used to be -- and we heard it so much that you could have done it the old fashioned way, just donate a building. but it is remarkable everything that we're seeing in terms of disparity. how are schools responding? are you noticing a significant change in terms of the admissions process or even with the pledging? >> yes, i'm noticing a change in what schools are pledging that they will do. the reason this has captured

outrage, it is an example of wealth being used to perpetuate wealth and to make sure that you have an advantage over everyone who doesn't have that wealth. what schools are pledging to do is look much more carefully at the applications and say what is this person's accomplishment vis-a-vis his or her background and the swraadvantages that he she did or didn't have. because it is not just in the inability to donate a building or pay $6.5 million. it is not having the sort of background where you know which sports are the most heavily recruited. it is not having tutors for t s.a.ts, the money to hire people from the very beginning to guide your child's every step, every decision, every course, every essay so that at that moment when the people at stanford or principal son lo

princip princeton look, they are like wow. >> i remember getting to school and thinking how did your parents have the money? we couldn't afford an s.a.t. guide course. i just got here on my own. and that is completely legal to help your children that way. but it certainly brings up a real moral question about how are you setting your family up and what lesson are you teaching. >> and if you are one of those admissions officers when you are looking at this accomplishment, you have to put that accomplishment in the context of how much money was poured into that. >> frank, always good to see you. thank you. up next, fast moving developments out of venezuela. what the trump administration is now considering to help the country's opposition leader. ♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

♪ i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding

or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

how janssen can help, listen to your mom, knuckleheads. hand em over. hand what over? video games, whatever you got. let's go. you can watch videos of people playing video games in the morning. is that everything? i can see who's online. i'm gonna sweep the sofa fort. well, look what i found. take control of your wifi with xfinity xfi. let's roll! now that's simple, easy, awesome. xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today.

turning now to breaking developments in the crisis in venezuela. we are learning the uprising there this week has taken at least four lives. and now the u.s. is weighing new steps to get an influx of cash to juan guaido, he of course the opposition leader backed by the u.s. who admits his intended takeover did not go as planned. guaido is also president of the national assembly and said he could not declare victory because not defected to his side. nicolas maduro marched with his military on the streets of the capital today stressing his army is, quote, united. kylie atwood is joining us with more including this latest move which the u.s. is considering. what more do we know? >> reporter: well, the trump administration is very seriously looking at how they can further financially bolster guaido right now. and that could potentially come

in the frm orm of cash sources telling cnn. it is unclear where that money would be coming from, but what the trump administration could do would be to unleash, to free up, some of the venezuelan assets that had been previously frozen and sanctioned by the u.s. government and feed that to guaido and his supporters. now, the trump administration has talked about how to economically revitalize venezuela in the past. we've heard it from larry kudlow who said that there is an economic plan for venezuela. but what is key here is the timing. this comes at a moment when guaido is facing some opposition as he is trying to fight against maduro. and it would be important if he were able to provide paychecks to members of the venezuelan government or the venezuelan military who are supporting him. and of course we have seen that members of the military are particularly key here because they have not supported guaido

as forcefully in as high numbers as he had hoped. and he just pointed that out yesterday. >> and that is the -- as you points out, that is the key there because without that support, obviously it calls into question how much further he could go. kylie atwood with the latest for us. thank you. we'll continue to stay on that developing situation out of venezuela. meantime a programming note for you, cnn's anderson cooper set to host a town hall with james comey, that will happen right here on cnn on may 9th, two years after president trump fired him. again, next thursday, 8:00 eastern right here on cnn. you may recall not too long ago he wrote an op-ed calling out trump officials just in the last couple days, we've been hearing mo more. so you will want to so r. tune in into see that conversation. that will be again happening only right here on cnn.

more to get to not just the fallout from bill barr, but a new letter from emmet flood, reporting on that is just ahead. "the lead" start right now. speaker of the house just accused the nation's top cop of committing a crime. "the lead" starts right now. an empty chair, zero answers, and a bucket of fried chicken? attorney general barr a no-show at his house hearing today. all of the details of a truly kentucky fried day on capitol hill that was even absurd by today's standards. head to head, brand new polls show how president trump might fair against the top 2020 democrats how many have a bona fide chance to beat him if you believe the polls. plus measles at the movies and measles at sea, hundreds more people possibly exposed to a disease that had once b