pages, accounts created to represent the banned individuals when it knows the individual is participating in the effort. to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. follow me on twitte twitter @wolfblitzer. erin burnett "out front" starts right now. "out front" next, taking on barr. nancy pelosi accusing the attorney general of committing a crime. does that mean prison time? president trump won't let don mcgahn testify before congress. at the center of the mueller report, what is trump afraid of? steven moore said he was all in. about an hour later the president announced later moore as his fed pick was out. let's go "out front." good evening. i'm erin burnett. "out front," war with barr. democrats firing on all fronts. the house democratic committee going forward without a witness.

an empty chair instead of the attorney general of the united states, william barr. this as nancy pelosi is accusing william barf breaking the law. >> it's deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the united states of america is not telling the truth to the congress of the united states, that's a crime. >> a crime. that's a serious accusation to level against anyone, and this isn't just anyone, it's the sitting attorney general of the united states. if barr committed perjury, that could mean prison and the president's justice department is fighting back. now releasing a statement that reads, the baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible and false. now congressman charlie christ is the entire reason of this. here's what christ told me yesterday. >> did he lie to you? >> yeah. i mean, i don't know what other conclusion you can come to. it was untruthful.

it was lying. and -- >> so is it perjury? i mean, is it perjury in the legal sense? >> well, it seems to me it would be. >> so perjury. i mean, okay, what did barr possibly lie about? so for that we go back to christ. he's the one who questioned barr in barr's hearing on april 9th. >> reports have emerged recen y recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th lett letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the findings. dubovitskiy wh do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> no, i don't. the problem is, it sure seems barr did know. the special counsel's team felt barr's memo did not adequately portray mueller's finding because he had received a letter which said barr's memo, quote,

did not fully capture the nature and substance of the conclusions. under oath barr was asked how could you say that when you already had the letter to congressman christ and here's how barr answered under oath yesterday. >> and when i talked to the special counsel about the let r letter, my understanding was his concern was not the accuracy of the statement of the findings in my letter but that he wanted more out there to provide additional context to explain his reasoning on why he didn't reach a decision on obstruction. >> so he says his understanding was mueller was not concerned about the accuracy of barr's letter. again, mueller's letter says that barr's summary, quote, did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the special counsel's work and conclusions. so when barr says he didn't think there was any issue of

accuracy in the findings, mueller says it didn't capture the conclusions. clearly the letter not fully accurate. pamela brown is "out front" tonight. how upset was the white house with barr not showing up? >> reporter: that was quite a spectacle, erin. a senior administration official telling me the white house left this decision not to testify today up to bill barr saying he didn't show up because of what he viewed is unreasonable conditions that the house was demanding. white house press secretary sarah sanders claiming house democrats are capable of questioning barr and that's why they wanted staff lawyers to do it, but it's clear that barr has the fullbacking of the white house, erin, particularly in the wake of his performance on capitol hill yesterday. one statement he made critical of the special counsel by saying the justice department is not in the business of exoneration was

he cechoed in a letter. we just obtained it today and flood slammed the special counsel claiming they were playing politics and went outside their latest prosecutors by not making a prosecutorial decision. they wrote one factor not making that decision so laying it out, the evidence, was a doj memo saying you can't indict a sitting president but that doesn't exclude an indictment after holding office. flood's work lays the groundwork with the ongoing battle making it clear that the president didn't assert privilege in the mueller report doesn't mean he won't in the future. barr raised eyebrows, erin, when he said we in regards to not waiving executive privilege for white house aide's testimony. even though the white house and doj will consult on such a matter, it drew scrutiny because of the perception by some that barr was acting as the president' protector. erin? >> thank you very much, pamela. "out front" now, democratic

congresswoman karen bask. getting down to the spectacle of today, the heart of the matter, congresswoman, do you agree with the house speaker, that the attorney general, bill barr, committed a crime? >> well, i don't know how you can interpret it any other way. yes, i do. i mean, he said that he had not received any contact and he absolutely had. that learned was dated, you know, several days before so i do agree with the speaker. >> so pelosi was asked how barr should be punished for committing the crime as she said. i wanted to play that for you. >> sure. >> should he go to jail for it? >> there's a process involved here and as i said, i'll say it again in however many questions you will ask, the committee will have to determine how we proceed. >> just in case you didn't hear

it because i know the reporter question was a little softer. the reporter said, should he go to jail for this? she did not answer the question but she's saying he committed a crime, the crime is perjury, obviously jail, prison is part of that. >> i think what she is referring to is there is a process. you know we in the judiciary committee have asked the attorney general to give us the unredacted report with all the underlying evidence and we wanted him to come and testify before us today. part of the process will be to see whether or not he will comply with that, and if he doesn't, you know, we might have to go down the road of charging a contempt of congress so there is a process that would take place. i think she is referring to that. the question of what happens in the senate might be a different issue, but the process that we will follow in the house will be we've subpoenaed him. we've asked him to give us all

the information. >> right. >> if he doesn't, we will consider the contempt of congress. >> but in terms of if he did perjur himself, not whether he did or didn't, prison time would be part of that as it would be for any other american who committed perjury. >> well, exactly. i mean, on one of the things that we are seeing and unfortunately we have seen from day one with this administration is a sense of contempt for the rule of law. so as we go through this process, not just with barr but with other members of the administration, when subpoenas are issued, are they going to ignore it? if it goes through court and they have fines, are they going to follow them. so it's going to be interesting to see. it's not just this situation but i think it's going to be multiple. now the president is out saying he's not going to allow mcgahn to testify when he no longer works for the department of justice. so we will see how far this goes, but there is an actual

step-by-step process that we will follow. >> white house spokesman sarah sanders weighed in on the issue here, what you all said you wanted him to testify, he agrees, and then you said you wanted lawyers to be a part of it which, you know, look, could give you the chance to drill down on a specific issue in depth as opposed to switching person to person. he said, look, you asked me to come in front of your committee, not in front of lawyers, that was the deal so that was the deal. white house spokesman sarah sanders weighed in on all of it today, the big empty chair. here's what she said. >> if he and his committee aren't capable of actually asking the attorney general questions themselves and need to staff that out, it seems like a pretty pathetic moment for the chairman of that committee. >> well, i mean, truthfully i don't even think that's worth a response. let me just tell you we have had other people come before our committee. we did last year when the republicans were in control and

there were attorneys on both sides. what the chairman had proposed was 30 minutes on either side. they could bring attorneys if they wanted to and so could we. there's a lot of precedent for this and it allows consistent questioning where you're not subject to the five-minute rule. you know to engage with somebody more time is needed. >> thank you very much, congresswoman. i appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me on. next, breaking news the president saying moments ago, he will not allow don mcgahn, the former white house aide to talk to the house. barr and mueller have a long personal history. >> you know, the barrs and mullers were good friends and will be good friends when this is all over and so forth. and the fight for 2020. it's not just trump taking on joe biden. >> and joe biden is on the side

of the credit card companies. -keep it down there. i have a system.

-keith used to be great to road-trip with. but since he bought his house... are you going 45? -uh, yes. 55 is a suggestion. -...it's kind of like driving with his dad. -what a sign, huh? terry, can you take a selfie of me? -take a selfie of you? -yeah. can you make it look like i'm holding it? -he did show us how to bundle home and auto at progressive.com and save a bunch of money. -oh, a plaque. "he later navigated northward, leaving... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto

when you bundle with us. but we can protect your home and auto oh, sir. that was my grandma's. don't worry, ma'am. all of your stuff is in ok hands. just ok? they don't give two and a half stars to just anybody. here you go. what's this? it's your piano. hold this for a sec. we don't have a piano. no.. but the neighbors do. just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network according to america's biggest test. now with 5g evolution. the first step to 5g. more for your thing. that's our thing. and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin by over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. mom, what's for din-ner? just water. lots and lots of water. you wouldn't feed your kids just water, so why starve your plants? feed their hunger and get twice the results. new miracle-gro performance organics.

uh, well, this will be the kitchen. and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ breaking news. president trump says he will not let former white house counsel don mcgahn comply with a subpoena to testify before the house judiciary committee as part of its obstruction of justice investigation. >> i've had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> so is the answer no? >> so i don't think him and tell everybody else you can. >> so is it done? >> i would say it's done.

we've been through this. nobody has ever done what i've done. i've given total transparency. it's never happened before like this. >> congress should be -- >> they shouldn't be looking anymore. this is all -- it's done. >> but mcgahn is a key person with direct knowledge about trump's efforts to undermine the mueller probe. remember, he did sit down with mueller's teams for interviews that lasted more than 30 hours and he testified that he personally rejected trump's pressure to fire mueller. can i just make that clear, he personally rejected the president of the united states trying to pressure him to fire robert mueller. "out front," ryan goodman. he studied bill barr's record at length. juliet kayam and harry sandex. let me start with you

mcgahn, he's central. blocking him is a major thing. >> absolutely. if congress is going to do a meaningful investigation to take a look at what is in the mueller report and then try to bring it to life through hearings, through oversight to consider whether legislation has to be passed, to consider whether impeachment or censure is an appropriate sanction in light of the findings in the mueller report, they need to hear from the witnesses themselves. they weren't allowed to sit in on those interviews and it's totally reasonable that they would think they should have the opportunity to call him. >> so, you know, just to make the point about mcgahn, he was involved with so many things. so, ryan, in the mueller report mueller is directly quoted, two of them specifically, when mcgahn said trump told him to fire mueller. on the first call he said, quote, you've got to do this. you've got to call rod, i.e., rosenstein. on the second call mcgahn says trump says call rod, tell him

mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. mueller has to go. >> when you look at potential obstruction, there's another one where the president supposedly instructs mcgahn to create a false record to actually say i never ordered you to do that and i want you to put that into the file which is a serious problem so i think we want to hear from mcgahn. >> do you think they'll win? >> they've already waived any privilege mcgahn would have. it sounds like their legal argument is there's a difference between an investigation in terms of having to go in front of congress and the waiver. i think we will hear from mcgahn. this is consistent with everything that has happened since we've learned that mueller sent the document, sent the volumes over to barr, which is you are just going to delay every little thing. it's exhausting, of course, but

you're going to delay everything. now they said oh, mcgahn, he can't testify. i think the most telling thing from yesterday is barr says i want to personally disapprove of mueller testifying. you're the attorney general. what does that mean? you don't have personal opinions. >> right. this isn't the forum for your personal opinion? >> does that mean professionally you might not have him testify? it's going to be like this for years. >> let me play the exchange yesterday between dick durbin and bill barr about mcgahn. here it is. >> yeah. >> can you think of an objection of why don mcgahn shouldn't come testify before this committee about his experience? >> yes. i mean, i think he's -- he -- he's a close advisor to the president and the president -- >> never asserted executive privilege. >> excuse me. >> may have waived -- >> no, we haven't waived the executive privilege. >> obviously they've been bragging left and right how they

didn't exert any executive privilege on the entire report. >> i'm not a lawyer. that would seem a little ridiculous for people who are cited you're going to claim it on. >> usually in the law of privilege if you disclose something to one person you can't assert the privilege later on because you saw the benefit. the reason why they allowed mcgahn to speak to mueller is they were hoping this would look good. as trump is saying now, we were transparent. okay. but now that you've allowed that in general the law of waiver says you've waived it and you can't pull it back and say we're going to let him testify in some places and not others. >> the other issue we were talking about was perjury when he said he didn't receive a letter from mueller when he did just that. democratic senator kamala harris said barr dodged another one of her questions so he wouldn't commit perjury. i want to play this and get your

reaction. >> has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked that you open an investigation of anyone? yes or no, please, sir. >> the president or anybody else. >> seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us. >> yeah, but i'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. there had been discussions of matters out there that -- they have not asked me to open an zblegs perhaps they suggested? >> i don't know, i wouldn't say suggest. >> hinted? >> i don't know. >> what do you say? >> so it's -- it looks fairly bad for him. why the long pause is the easiest question to be able to answer. he seems to be pausing because he doesn't want to give a truthful answer or he's trying to see if she'll reword the question a different way and he can work with the ambiguity. it seems to be a pattern. >> which i'm going play in a moment. first, juliet, the point ryan's

making is the pause and sort of hoping she'll rephrase it. she's very experienced. she'll rephrase it. yes or no? you either were or were not directed. then there's this i don't know synonym. >> i have a perfect memory for what comey did two years ago, right, but i can't remember whether in the last 30 or 60 days that i've been attorney general whether trump asked me to do an investigation. this is -- i mean, the dramatic pauses you were describing is a way for him to protect himself not just from perjury but from making trump mad because he does it later on in that same conversation where one of the senators asks would it be wrong, right, for kennedy to get -- or to get information from a foreign country? there was a dramatic pause because either he is worried that the trump campaign is doing it or he knows that they are doing it presently and he doesn't want to 3 erjure

himself. >> when you talked about suggested, i thought that was smart. we all know from what others have said and anybody who knows trump, even reporters myself, he speaks about himself in the third person. he always is suggesting things. there's a really bad guy, but not asking you, harry, do you think that? >> right. >> kind of saying it. so is the attorney general playing around with words? there's a lot of ways the president could be telling him to do something. i want you to investigate ryan. >> will no one rid me of this terrible problem we have so, no, he's not telling him. you can see barr, you can see the wheels turning. i have to say in light of some of the other things we've seen with the attorney general it does make me think is he trying to think of an answer that is literally true but perhaps misleading to the listener. he could say no to something but leave a door open for some larger truth. >> on this point, it didn't just

happen with kamala harris. that was a particularly painful pause. there were many moments like that, pausing and waiting to redirect. >> attorney general barr has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? >> i wouldn't -- i wouldn't -- >> yes or no. >> could you -- could you repeat that? >> exonerated him in your press conference and in your four page summary. >> excuse me. >> how did that start? i didn't hear the beginning of the question. >> you said the president has fully cooperated with the investigation. but his attorney had told a defendant he'd be taken care of if he didn't cooperate with the investigation. is there a conflict in that? >> i'm sorry, could you just repeat that? >> what was the -- >> is that just buying time? is that legitimate? what's your interpretation? >> i think he's buying time and

he also is trying to figure out a way to wiggle around it so that if the senator goes off script and reform mu lats it, it's a move and he plays it time and again. he did it in ach with members of the house and the senate. seems like a signature move on his part. thank you all very much. the big question, of course, is why? it's not like he's known about him for a whim. the special counsel could be testifying very soon. will he get the last word. steven moore is out. no longer a pick and it was the republicans who turned on him. after walking six miles at an amusement park...

bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. you see clear skin. cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms

develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. 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. you can barely feel. wouldn't it be great to get a when yophone too?reless plan, switch to sprint and get an unlimited plan with the samsung galaxy s10e included for just $35 a month. it's a big deal. 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

tonight mueller's turn for the special counsel could be testifying before congress is as early as may 15th. there's no shortage for mueller. the whole country wants to hear from him and attorney general bill barr is taking jabs at him. jessica snider is "out front." >> reporter: the special counsel seeming to shield his face from the intensifying media glare thursday morning as he arrived to work. the scrutiny stepped up after the attorney general belittled mueller's complaints about the way barr characterized the special counsel's report to congress at the end of march. >> you know, the letter's a bit knitty a y snitty and i think it was written by one of his staff people. the relationship appears to be fraying. bill barr touted their friendship at his confirmation

hearing. >> the barrs and muellers were good friends and will be friends when this is all over. >> reporter: they go back decades and they've known each other since the 1980s. barr was deputy attorney general, mueller was in charge of the department's criminal division. >> i have known bob mueller 30 years. we worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the department of justice. we've been friends sings and i have the utmost respect for bob and his distinguished public service. >> reporter: the barrs and muellers have attended the children's weddings. the president complained to aides that he was unaware just how close the special counsel and his attorney general pick were. in january bill barr even rebuffed the president's favorite phrase to defend mueller's nearly two-year investigation. >> i don't believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch

hunt. >> reporter: but lately barr's tone has seemed to shift. >> do you believe that the investigation that director mueller undertook was a witch hunt or illegal as the has been asserted by the president? >> it depends on where you're sitting. >> the other thing that was confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while so my question is or was why were those investigated if you weren't going to reach a decision on them? >> reporter: now on full display. mueller wrote two letters in late march saying his four-page summary did not capture the nature and substance of the conclusions. >> i said, bob, what's with the letter? you know, why don't you just pick up the phone and call me if there's an issue? >> reporter: robert mueller has

remained notoriously silent and his press team rarely commented on stories swirling in the media. house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is promising to put mueller on the hot seat. crucially there has been no confirmation from mueller himself. erin? >> that is crucial. david prees who spent a lot of time with then fbi director muell mueller. you all know the players here more than anyone. david prees, let me ask you. we're still awaiting confirmation from mueller. she was definitive it was the

15th. will it or won't it? what's mueller going to do if he does appear? >> we have lots of evidence from the past that will suggest what mueller will do. he'll answer any questions truthfully, answer them as forthright as he did. he's not going to play games. we have hundreds of thousands of hours of punishment. you're not going to find scandal, diatribes, political gamesmanship. bob mueller plays it straight. >> david ripken, you know bill barr well. as he pointed out their wives know each other well. they're friendly. why do you think he got so personal yesterday when it came to talking about mueller? there were several moments but i think that moment when he used the word snitty showed some emotion. it showed what he thought and it was a sort of nasty thing to say about somebody.

>> go ahead. >> special mueller kefs, i agree he testifies truthfully and fully. they're not going to find any daylight between what he is going to say and what the attorney general will say. as to the snitty remark, there can be some nuanced differences between mr. mueller and mr. barr. mr. barf course is the attorney general and how do you summarize in four pages a nearly 500 page report. a couple of points. at the time the summarization taking place bill barr, we know that, from reporting and hits testimony, gave him an opportunity to read the letter. mueller declined. >> that's true. mr. mueller had ordered him four versions written by his own time which barr refused to use. >> this is the report of the attorney general to decide what summary to provide.

the executive summaries mr. mueller put forward are going to all be released. this is what infewer i don't remember rates me. morality aside, law inside, to release a misleading summary knowing full one they can't release a full report. >> can i get your point? >> why are we obsessing over 24. >> you have a point. >> he took weeks. >> 3% of the american public have read it. maybe you would put it out because you knew no one would ever read t. if you put out something. >> you sell american public short. >> yes, you sure would but how can't you say that's not exactly what he did? >> that's absurd, with respect, supposition.

you have those debates passionately in private. it is highly unusual and in my opinion worse to be snitty in the space of several days. several days after the summary was released. >> david prees, answer david ripken. why would mueller do that. >> break that down. >> he chooses to put into a ler but barr's substance. it's not a minor agreement. why would he put that in a letter? >> because he's doing what your other group did. he did not invite reporters in to tell them what he thought of the attorney general's nonsummary to his boss

privately. that is exactly what you do. if one of my subordinates thought i was doing something wrong, would i ignore it? no. here's what i think you're doing wrong and i would want that person to do so in private. that is exactly what bob mueller did by giving the attorney general a chance to revisit his summary when he prepared and he said i don't think this accurately characterizes the nature of what we did. here's a chance to revisit it. >> david ripken, why would barr put out a report the way he did. >> the reason he's smiling is because no serious person can believe that the purpose of those two letters, i frankly hope it's -- the purpose of those two letters was not to leak them on the eve of mr.

barr's testimony. let's be real. >> he didn't write those letters, he signed something -- >> i'm trying to be charitable to him, quite frankly. i believe he was pressured into doing it by your staff. i said at the highest level, whenever you get a chance for 400 pages -- >> he shouldn't have done it. i'm sorry, it comes back to a certain point that he just shouldn't have done it. you don't put something out that may not be accurate when you know no one is going to be able to read the real thing. i cannot get my arms around that. >> for sure, if he waited for weeks to release the full report, you and others in the media would be screaming. >> let us do it and we would have had the whole report instead of having it color the public's perception. >> he did his best to release a short summary as he understood the report and then very

quickly, faster in ever in our history, he released the whole report. what more can a reasonable person do. get the partisanship off the table and stop pointing fingers at people. >> i got to know bob mueller very well. if you think this is a man who is going to be bullied by his subordinates into signing a letter that he didn't agree with, you don't know bob mueller. >> then i'm sorry. >> are you really saying, david ripken, that you think bob mueller was pressured? that's out there. >> we are psycho analyzing things. i thought they were pressuring him. let's see who is right. why don't you call us back after he testifies. the bottom line, it was not unlawful. i'm not accusing him of illegality but it was improper for him to send those two letters versus picking up the phone. look, he was given a choice to read the letter. he said no. >> wouldn't you write a letter because you want it memorialized

exactly like the president of the united states told don mcgahn. you want it on paper. you don't want somebody's memory of a telephone conversation. >> do you not want first to read the darn draft letter and then have a dialogue versus saying, no, and then waiting several days to see which way it gets spun in the media. >> david prees, can you answer why you think bob mueller refused to read barr's summary and waited several days. >> we can't get into the mind of either bob barr or bob mueller or into their heart. what we have the actual evidence, the text of the letter which is far from snitty. i would describe it as a good-faith effort to say, hey, boss, you're putting something out there publicly which has not characterized the full context i gave you. that's my duty.

that's my responsibility. it's exactly the thing we should expect government offices to do when they're not getting something quite right. that's good government. >> i'll give you the final word. >> especially on government regulations and the constitutional principle. once mr. mueller needs work, it was his job to summarize and report. mr. mueller in good faith, i'm not questioning that, may disagree with it. doesn't mean somebody was unethical. let's stop this silliness. i can belt you 100 people would summarize in four pages, all the he is accepts of it. >> i completely agree with you. which is why you shouldn't -- >> he should have waited several weeks and be slammed by everybody including -- >> absolutely. you hold your head high. you put it out.

these guys are tough. next, steve moore this morning confident the nomination to the federal reserve would be safe. >> this is going to be probably a three-month process. i'm not too concerned about this. then trump tweeted. and the long running feud between joe biden and elizabeth warren. are we about to see those two go at it again? and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.

♪

new tonight, another trump pick out. steven moore out for consideration on the federal reserve over public outrage over some of his sexist comments. out my biggest ally is the president. he's full speed ahead. i'm all in. well, his biggest all in ally tweeted an hour later, quote, moore has decided to, quote, withdraw. it's unclear who decided obviously but moore submitted the letter withdrawing. "out front" now member of president trump's 2020 advisory council, joan walsh. take two on this topic. okay. it couldn't be more clear that moore was not going to drop out. in fact, his biggest ally is the president, he's full speed ahead, i'm all in. hue in the world could he say that and an hour later the president tweets out he's going out. how did he go out?

>> so i think it was the humane thing to do because moore was going to go through the meat grinder and he was not going to survive. however, white house -- >> they shouldn't have let him make those comments, right? >> second step is to nominate and not backwards. they've stumbled on some unforced errors that they really should never have. i think that was fine. i think he was falsely accused. actually, they never went through the process. but some of the picks that the president makes which are outside the book, i have no problem with him going outside the box, however, please -- >> do it right. >> google first. >> make a process. you have to have respect for a process in this system in trying to be you and breaking the rules, norms, they break norms they shouldn't break. >> there's a reason why they're norms. >> yes. >> i think what the white house should do and whoever is the

most -- the biggest confidante for the president, they have to have a relationship where they say, hey, look, this is what i'm thinking of. do you have any problem with it? >> yes, i see a problem. how does it mow that steve more goes out and there is a humane way to do it. >> they embarrass themselves overall because they're not listening to page and it's embarrassing to him. >> i don't know if that's how he got the issue. i'm all in. that's what we usually say. >> i thought with joan pushing for the nomination supporting steve moore. here's the thing about this because this was -- there was reporting, right? there was google searches on things moore had said, however,

this did not get killed. >> i'm not supportive and i think there are many of my colleagues that are not supportive either. >> comments like that sure don't make me happy. >> do you have any concerns? >> well, certainly there are some comments that he has made in the past that he's apologized for. >> he didn't have the votes and it was republicans i said -- it wasn't rutkowski, it was pretty hard core questions. >> she's been bluntly honest about this personal history. the country has changed. the reason that we're here is

what and this record is here. the president says, i've asked steve to work with me towards economic future in our country. in other words, i'm going to nauk my nate that. >> the male needs to be the bread winner of the family and one of the reasons you've seen the decline of the family, not just in the black community but also it's happening in the white community as well because women are more economically self-sufficient. >> i and most americans love a woman who stands by her man. that's what a wife should do and stand by her husband. >> okay.

but is the president basically saying i'm sorry, steve moore, i'm cool with all of that. he's saying he's going to work with him. >> no, he's not going forward with the official nomination, however, you still have ideas that i can use. you are still helpful and an expert on things that i could use your expertise on. >> you might find them on the campaign. >> that's true. >> he doesn't need to be confirmed. >> rob porter. >> there would be nobody left to talk to in washington if every little thing somebody has done in the past. >> you have a point that this is a consistency. >> one or two things. >> why you should have someone over 25 years. >> i'm saying, account president quietly talk to steven moore about some economic issues. >> the fight for 2020. they've been at each other's throats for years. >> senator, if you're not going to fix that problem, you can't

take away the last sh rudd of protection because there's families. there was no grilling on capitol hill but something was certainly fried. if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells.

fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it.

so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ "outfront" tonight, the fight for 2020. the republican party is all against joe biden. launching its second ad hitting biden today as the president continues his twitter war against the former vice president. an rnc spokesperson writing an op said for fox news. quote, biden is no working class warrior. but the republicans aren't the only ones taking on biden, because, you know, why not have a crowd rung after the ball. mj lee is "outfront." >> reporter: two presidential candidates poised to clash on the campaign trail over a decades old feud. 2005. joe biden, a member of the senate judiciary committee pushing a law to make it harder for americans to file for bankruptcy.

on the other side, law professor elizabeth warren, fighting back from the witness chair. >> they have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never pay do you know the principle. >> maybe that's what we should talk about, not bankruptcy. >> senator, i'll be the first. invite me. >> i know you will. but let's call a spade a spade. >> reporter: it was hardly warren's first time going after biden. she had called him out in numerous op-eds and essays like this article in 2002 writing biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women, and calling him a zealous advocate on one of his biggest financial contributor, the financial services industry. now some two decades later biden and warren are facing off again. and their feud appears far from over. in an unusual move, warren openly criticizing biden last week on the same day he launched his campaign. >> at a time when the biggest financial institutions in this country were trying to put the squeeze on millions of

hardworking families, joe biden was on the side of the credit card companies. >> reporter: the ideological differences are sharp. warren, a leader of the progressive movement with a campaign built around tackling corruption and taking on the rich and the powerful. >> we're going to fight for working people. we're going to build a grassroots movement. >> reporter: biden casting himself as the experienced statesman, comfortably embracing bipartisanship, the candidate with the moral clarity to take on trump. >> he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and i cannot stand by and watch that happen. >> reporter: come the summer, the two could face off again on a debate stage where warren may be more pointed than she was at this cnn town hall. >> i got in that fight, and i fought it for ten years. and by the end of that fight, i fully understood that every single republican stood there for the banks and half of the democrats did. >> reporter: and biden may be

less willing to offer up any compliments, as he did in this moment in 2005. >> senator, if you're not going to fix that problem, you can't take away the last shred of protection for these families. >> i got it. okay. you're very good, professor. >> warren is back in iowa tomorrow for a two-day swing. very interesting that both warren and bernie sanders have been taking these early jabs at joe biden on policy issues. we'll see if warren continues that over the weekend when she is back out on the trail. erin? >> all right. thank you very much, mj. it's going to be fascinating to watch. all these personal interactions. up next, bill barr's congressional hearing was for the birds, the fried kind. the latest innovation from xfinity

isn't just a store. it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store.

it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. tonight an empty chair and

chicken two ways. here is jeanne. >> reporter: attorney general william barr was supposed to be on the menu for a grilling in the house judiciary committee. instead they settled for chicken, a ceramic chicken and a bucket of kfc. it was only 9:00 in the morning when tennessee congressman steve cohn chowed down on chicken purchased the night before. a better breakfast choice would have been -- >> kentucky fried chicken and waffles are back. >> reporter: but the tennessee democrat was making a show of the no show attorney general, placing the statue atop the chicken bucket and proclaiming. >> chicken barr should have shown up today and answered questions. >> we're normally at the point i would introduce the witness. >> reporter: instead there was split screen shots of his empty seat. the hearing was gavelled to a close despite republican protests. >> mr. chairman, i -- >> reporter: the mic was cut off. >> the procedures -- >> reporter: and congressman

cohen transported the chicken to the witness table and placed it in front of the honorable william p. barr's placard as photographers rushed in to capture the 1950s vintage statue made by a staffer's uncle. cohen even tweeted this image of a feathered attorney general. wait a minute, is that a chicken impersonator i hear squawking outside the committee room, interrupting chairman nadler live on at least three networks. [ chicken ] >> reporter: the administration, but not everyone was amused. leave the childish name-calling to trump, please. don't stoop to his level. the congressman kept his statue handy for interviews. >> the message is that bill barr is a chicken. >> reporter: #chickenbarr inspired jokes. why did the chicken cross the road? because he was afraid to testify. but representative cohen treated his chicken tender.

jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> you're watching jerrold nadler there. it actually was pretty funny. okay. thank you for joining us. anderson starts right now with "ac 360." good evening. we begin tonight with breaking news. president trump has just said for the first time that he will likely not let former white house counsel don mcgahn comply with the subpoena to testify before a house judiciary committee as part of its obstruction of justice investigation. >> well, i've had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> so is the answer now? >> it's really -- i don't think i could let him and then tell everybody else you can't but especially him because he was a counsel. so they testified for many hours, all of them. many, many many people. >> as far as you're concerned it's done? >> and the others can't. >> is it done? >> i would say it's done. we've been through this. nobody has ever done what i've done. i've given total transparence it is. it's never happened before like this. >> so congress should be -- >> they shouldn't be