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 looking anymore. this is all -- it's done.

>> hasn't given total transparence circumstances but that's obvious. it's done, he said. the president all by saying he'll exert executive privilege to block the testimony, although it remains an open question if he can claim executive privilege at this point given that mcgahn has already testified. mazie hirono coming up as as well as her legal team. nancy pelosi and heated words directed at another man who did testify on capitol hill yesterday. >> 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. >> a crime, which is quite an accusation. a justice department spokeswoman called pelosi's comments reckless and false. her tough talk has barr refusing to show up before the same committee that wants to talk to barr again, the house judiciary committee. instead there was an empty chair. there were no questions, no answers and a chicken. that's right, chicken. one democrat on the panel called barr chicken for not showing up

and chowed down on some kfc. it has been that kind of a day and that kind of a night. what else did the president say, kayla? >> we saw the president tonight draw the clearest line between not letting mcgahn testify and not letting really anyone testify. in the last few weeks as he talked about the tactic of fighting all the subpoenas, he hasn't brought up his white house counsel specifically, but he did so tonight. one thing we didn't hear from the president is this criticism he has been saying privately about don mcgahn, especially after the mueller report came out and mcgahn was a central figure in it when he said essentially the president had told him to fire the special counsel, something that the president and the attorney general are both now disputing. >> do we know if the white house plans to block any other presidential adviser or executive branch officials from testifying? it sounds like they're going to block them all if they can. >> that's what the president seemed to be getting there. essentially, if he lets mcgahn testify, then other cabinet officials or west wing officials, he's going to have to let them testify too. now the president seemed to get out ahead a little bit of his legal team here, because they've

been discussing privately what they're going to do about the subpoena for don mcgahn, how they can block him from testifying at all or block certain parts of it, but the president seemed to go farther than they have, about not letting mcgahn testify at all. whether or not he can actually do that, it doesn't seem to be a conclusion that the white house has come to yet. >> kayla collins, thanks much. i want to get reaction from a member of the senate judiciary committee, democratic senator mazie hirono joins us now. senator hirono, good evening. >> good evening. >> you hear the president saying he doesn't plan or he doesn't think it likely to let don mcgahn testify before congress. he already let him testify for 30 hours before the special counsel. the whole thing is done. what do you say to that? >> what i say is we should always remember that there are two things that the president cares most about. one is protecting himself. the second is money. so he is in the process of protecting himself. you can explain a lot of what the president does by knowing that he will do anything to protect himself.

>> so is there -- what is the option? if he exerts executive privilege, what, it just goes to the courts? >> i think that's one of the modus operandi of trump when he was in business, that he would delay things. he would file lawsuits, or he will file for bankruptcy, leaving everybody holding the bag. he treats the presidency like he is still running a business in the kind of ways that he ran his business, which are very questionable tactics. so i think, yeah, i don't think it bothers him very much if he asserts executive privilege over somebody who has already testified and have them that go to the courts and hope that it gets strung up through the election. he does not care about that sort of thing. >> speaker pelosi said today that attorney general barr lied in his testimony and committed a crime in front of you and the rest of the senate judiciary committee. i'm wondering if you agree with her, and if so, is there anything to do about it? because senate democrats obviously don't have the majority to force any kind of

recourse. >> well, that's a sad thing. and if we had republicans in the senate who have cared about truth as much as i would hope they would, then we'd be able to get somewhere. but thankfully, the house is in democratic hands, and as speaker pelosi said, he -- barr lied regarding his answer to the question from charlie crist and also his response to senator van hollen. >> i want to play your answers you had in response to the attorney general yesterday. >> from the beginning, you were addressing an audience of one, that person being donald trump. but now we know more about your deep involvement in trying to cover up for donald trump. being attorney general of the united states is a sacred trust. you have betrayed that trust. america deserves better. you should resign. i think you know what i'm talking about. please, please, mr. attorney general. give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on around here with you. >> not really.

>> to this line of questioning. listen, you slandered this man -- >> what i sort of want to know is how do we get to this point -- >> i do not think i'm slandering anyone. >> all i would say -- >> mr. chairman, i am done. thank you very much. >> and you slandered this man from top to bottom. so if you want more of this, you're not going to get it. if you want to ask him questions, you can. >> certainly have your opinion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> were you surprised to hear senator graham saying you slandered the attorney general? >> well, truth is a defense of slander and opinion is not slander. so but we saw the chairman going off and he did that. but the only person who can sue me for that, not to mention as legislators we have some protections as to what we say, but the only person who can sue me is barr.

so there you go. it was very disheartening yesterday to watch and listen to the attorney general of the united states act like he is a defense attorney for the president. he did that very well. what he didn't do very well was be honest with the people of our country. and that is why he's not the only time he's very good at obfuscating and skirting questions. he couldn't even answer my questions whether it was okay for the white house counsel to be told to fire mueller and then to lie about it, whether it was okay to dangle pardons before witnesses and all of that. he wouldn't answer that. he kept going back to the criminality aspects of it. i call this -- there is a moral dead zone in the trump white house. >> the republicans will push back and say, well, look, you know, you and others have said the attorney general is acting like the president's lawyer, not the attorney general for the people of the united states and for the united states.

republicans pushed back and that and said look, bobby kennedy was the attorney general under jfk. he was clearly aligned with jfk. they say eric holder was close to president obama, was clearly in their opinion watching out for president obama. the idea being that what barr is doing, whatever you may think of it, is not that dissimilar from what past attorneys general have done. >> that's what they'd like everybody to think. but you have an attorney general who auditioned for the job by writing a totally unasked for 19 page document that said a sitting president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice. that's about half of the mueller report, part two, basically. and guess what? when the mueller report comes out and mueller says there are these indicators and factors relating to an obstruction of justice charge, he couldn't come to a decision on that, but leaving it as it was and barr

jumps in and says oh, well, there is no obstruction there. very much like his 19-pager. and then you have the attorney general who puts out a four-page -- first he called ate summary, then it's really not a sum risks and then we find out in a bombshell that just a few days that we find out that mueller had contacted and written to barr saying you have not characterized our work accurately. and then you have the attorney general before all this comes out regarding the mueller letter, you have the attorney general having a press conference. >> yeah. >> to make the president look good. what is that? let's talk about what we're confronted with in the here and now. we have an attorney general who is acting like the defense attorney for the president. he should have taken that job as defense attorney when the president offered it to him. >> justice department will allow mueller to testify? i mean obviously not to the senate, because lindsey graham has made it clear he won't ask mueller to testify, but at the house. >> i think when barr was asked

that, i think he said he doesn't see why not, but i think there will be why knots because maybe the president will put some pressure on his attorney general to say he doesn't want anybody testifying as far as the president and lindsey graham are concerned. it's all over. it is not all over because we need to get to the bottom of what's going on here. so, you know, the house thankfully is proceeding with their investigation, and i think the next step for jerry nadler is to issue a subpoena for barr to testify, and we all know that he's talking with mueller directly about mueller testifying and whether or not the president can force everyone not to testify, that lead to more lawsuits. this is what the president wants. >> yeah. senator mazie hirono, appreciate your time. thank you. >> sure. >> joining me now jeffrey toobin, robert wray and elliot williams, former deputy assistant attorney general during the obama administration and cnn political analyst kirsten powers. jeff, the president saying he doesn't think he'll allow former

white house don -- or that he can't allow mcgahn to testify before congress. can he exert executive privilege here? was that de facto waived when mcgahn testified to mueller? >> i don't think he can cite it anymore because he's twice had the opportunity to prevent the disclosure of mcgahn's testimony. first he allowed mcgahn to be interviewed by mueller, and then presented with the mueller report, chose not to object to the disclosures that mcgahn made. and that to me is a waiver of executive privilege. putting aside the issue of whether he could do it at all, but this seems to be an absolutely clear case of waiver. and once you allow a privilege to be violated, any privilege, whether it's a marital privilege or religious privilege or executive pilgrimage, you can't then say oh, by the way, now i want to protect the information that might be covered. so i think if it goes to court,

he'll lose. he'll be able to delay it. but i think he'll lose. >> robert, do you agree he would lose in court? >> not so sure about that. i know -- i respect jeffrey's view. i know that jerry nadler is of a similar view. in fact, we raised it, anderson, you and i when he was on set me i guess several weeks ago. i think it's one thing to say that, you know, within the executive branch was sort of the first round of this, i don't think there can be a waiver. the only place where a waiver arguably occurs is the point at which the white house and in this instance the attorney general decide to release the redacted mueller report containing that information to the congress and thereby ultimately to the american people. however, while jeffrey's right that generally speaking, this issue is one where, you know, waiver does apply, it gets a little more complicated when you're talking about separation

of powers issues, and specifically, on the question of how far does that waiver extend. in other words, there is a general principle about subject matter waiver, and i would agree that with regard to those portions of mcgahn's prior statements that are made during the course of the investigation, but courts because of separation of powers principles, at least in my experience, take a very narrow view of that waiver when it involves the two branches of government in a dispute. so it's not quite the same as looking at, you know, marital privilege or attorney-client privilege. there is another complicating feature here. >> let me bring kirsten. the president can say over and over again that this investigation is done. democrats are certainly going to continue to issue subpoenas, continue to push for more answers. the administration will continue to fight them. where does this go, do you think? >> well, it's pretty clear the administration is just trying to drag their feet on this, right? they want to drag things out for as listening as they possibly can.

that's not an unusual response from administrations that are being investigated by congress, but i think that a lot of the fury about this and democrats really wanting an investigation above and beyond what you would normally see is because of how this has been handled. i think that it's been handled so dishonestly by the attorney general by putting out this summary, and now pretending to be completely confused by the fact that people are upset when you actually get the report that it says something quite different than in fact mueller had expressed that he didn't feel this was an accurate reflection, and he under oath didn't disclose that, and in fact misled people in another direction. and so i think it's just -- it's just going to cause democrats to get more and more fired up about this because they feel like they haven't gotten any answers. >> can the president exert executive privilege over a private citizen, don mcgahn? couldn't don mcgahn just say i'm going to go and testify?

>> see, the complication here, and this is similar to what robert was getting at is he is a private citizen, but you're talking about things that happened when he was white house counsel. but here is the thing. we're getting -- we're getting into this question of executive privilege that will be sorted out in the courts. and the much bigger issue is this is all indicative -- this is what kirsten had said -- all indicative of an intent to frustrate the will of congress and the frustrate congressional oversight. the president has said from the beginning i'm going to instruct people not to testify and not to comply with the subpoenas. just in the last week, the house oversight committee saw witnesses not comply with subpoenas related to i believe the census and white house security clearance, and on and on and on. this extends across the administration. so while don mcgahn is sort of the executive privilege du jour, what this really is an attempt to just not comply with what congress -- and it's a different investigative body. it's not the special counsel. >> everyone stay with us.

i have to take a break. i want to get the group's take on the speaker of the house accusing the nation's top cop of breaking the law. democrat nancy pelosi went there. the question is where does that political fight go next. i'll also get reaction from capitol hill from a member of the house judiciary committee, the same committee president trump is likely blocking his white house counsel from testifying before. lots to discuss with democratic congressman ted lieu tonight. 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

it's nice. ♪ you got this! ♪ woo! ♪ ♪ ♪

forget about vacuuming for weeks. the (new) roomba i7+ with clean base automatic dirt disposal empties the roomba bin for you. so dirt is off your hands. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba. ♪ corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer

as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. ♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪

-maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why -♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid! -♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid? our breaking news. brump says he will likely block don mcgahn from answering questions in front of a obstruction of justice probe. this hours after nancy pelosi went on attack against america's top law enforcement official, saying this. >> he lied to congress. he lied to congress. 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. >> as we mentioned earlier, as you might imagine, the justice department is pushing back and

calls her comment false and reckless. at issue is barr's previous sworn testimony last month when he didn't know robert mueller's team supported the summary of the russia probe. despite the fact that mueller did know what mueller thought because mueller sent a letter two weeks earlier expressing concern about how the attorney general handled that four-page memo. in testimony yesterday barr was largely seen as evading when trying to explain that issue. back now with our guests. it is pretty incredible that the house speaker is accusing the chief law enforcement officer in the nation of a crime. >> it is unusual, but i think barr's statement is very hard to defend. you know, both congressman crist and senator van hollen asked him in pretty direct ways that were you aware that mueller and his team were upset about how you characterized the mueller report, and he said no, he

didn't know that they were upset. and we now know that there were two letters and a phone call which are extremely dramatic events. event barr didn't claim that he forgot about these incidents. he claimed that the questions were not phrased in such a way to call for a answer of "of course i'm aware." but boy, i think he is not going to be prosecuted because the justice department is not going to move against the attorney general, but the question of whether barr told the truth, i think he's got a tough argument there. >> eliot, what is interesting is barr was saying while the question was imprecise and i didn't know what his staff felt, i had a conversation directly with mueller, but the letter, which from all intents and purposes was written by mueller, barr then went on to say well, his staff -- somebody on his staff probably wrote the letter. so by that logic, he did hear from the staff if that in fact

was his confusion. >> this is why lawyers put things in writing, so there is no ambiguity as to what was said. the special counsel, and i say the special counsel, not his staff, but the special counsel put out a letter expressing concerns. now you can pin it on junior staff because you want to disagree with it, but the simple fact is it's in writing. i agree wholeheartedly with jeffrey's point. either -- the attorney general has at minimum given inconsistent statements, and obviously at maximum lied under oath to congress. this all invites the question or the fact that he needs to get up there and clarify it with congress. you know, and work out some accommodation to his testimony there has been this bickering over staff questioning which is actually a quite minor point in congressional oversight matters. get up there and testify, clarify the statements and then we can all move on. we could avoid a lot of this if the justice department -- but again, this gets back to what we were talking about in the last segment. it's all part of an attempt to frustrate congress and not

comply with these congressional oversight requests, and we're seeing it playing out here. >> kirsten, do you think speaker pelosi and congressional democrats are actually going to act on this? >> you know, i don't know what they're going to end up doing, but i think they have a very solid case here, and i think that, you know, any way you slice it, he was intentionally trying to mislead. he knew the question that was being asked. and even as you pointed out, even if you take it precisely as it was asked, he lied in response to it because he himself says he believes that the investigators wrote the letter and not mueller. so any way you slice it, he wasn't honest. and i think that that should be a bigger problem, frankly, than it is. i hear republicans defending him, making up this ridiculous story about how he didn't know what they were talking about or he was confused, and it's just not plausible. >> robert, do you think he lied? do you think he wasn't honest? >> i'd like to be fair, civil and clear here, but i think the

argument that he lied is overwrought. i don't know why we've reached a point in this country that when someone doesn't like the answer to a question, the first place we run is to perjury and false statements. you know, look, on this one, would it have been better to have disclosed this? i'm sure with the benefit of hindsight, sure. but i will say on the question of whether it's false statements, lying to congress or perjury, i really don't think that's the case. i think one question to me was remember, if the question is did you know whether or not bob mueller objected to your summary of the conclusion, remember, a good part of the conclusion is the determination by the attorney general not to bring or to find that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction of justice. i think to this point -- i believe with regard to that question. i think the attorney general still doesn't know whether or not bob mueller agrees with that conclusion. >> do you think he was being

completely truthful? >> well, look, i think you also -- jeffrey selectively edited his response and left out the part, of course, where the attorney general, as he stated in his testimony yesterday, added that he suspected that what the objection was from mueller's team was about the fact that they wanted a more fulsome disclosure, which is the only material fact that would be an issue here that would form the basis of lying to congress because it would have to be material and also any argument that it was perjury. i understand -- i understand -- >> but would you characterize his testimony as fully clear, fully transparent? >> well, that isn't what y'all started with. you started with nancy pelosi, the speaker of the announce of the house of representatives -- >> i'm asking you now, though. >> saying that the attorney general of the united states was lying to congress. the answer is no. >> but i've asked three times, do you think he was fully transparent? you haven't said yes. >> i would say that your oath is to tell the truth, the whole

truth and nothing but the truth. i think it would have been visible and better had he disclosed the fact that he had a communication with the special counsel. >> anderson, if i may? >> but anderson, that's not the same thing as saying -- >> i understand, i understand. >> -- that he was lying to congress or he was misleading under the false statement statutes or that it was perjury. we've got stop that. >> jeff, i want you to be able to respond, and then we've got to go. >> i'm not sure. i didn't say it was a crime. you know, that's sort of an irrelevant issue. there is not going to be a prosecution here. what i'm just saying is this was not honest testimony. if he had told the truth, it would have been a huge bombshell. it would have been enormous news that mueller had objected. that's why the only reason it seems to me he didn't tell the truth, because he wanted to avoid that disclosure, and that's why i think it's so unfortunate, and really bad that

he didn't tell the truth in answer to those two questions earlier. >> okay. i got to -- >> i just don't happen to agree. >> i hear you. thanks to everybody. tell that guy behind you who just teed off he should have used a 5 iron instead of a 3 iron. i don't know what a 5 iron or a 3 iron is. i don't play golf. i just decided to say that. more on our breaking news ahead, and maybe tell me one day what that actually means. plus, we'll talk to a congressman on the judiciary committee who says barr is one of the most dangerous men in washington, next. i've got an idea! oooh, what is it? what if we give the people iphone xr, when they join t-mobile? for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us.

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. with licensed agents available 24/7. it's not just easy. it's having-a-walrus-in-goal easy! roooaaaar! it's a walrus! ridiculous! yes! nice save, big guy! good job duncan! way to go! [chanting] it's not just easy. it's geico easy. oh, duncan. stay up. no sleepies.

and relief from symptoms caused feel the clarity of non-drowsy claritin it's geico easy. 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. - there but what are wes to get our messactually saying?ys. any message is a story. and all stories tell the tale of the times we live in right now. how do you want to be remembered? how do you want your story to play out?

our own experiences make the best stories, and your words carry a lot of weight. think about what you want to say before you say it. or send it. following breaking news tonight. president trump is saying he likely can't let former white

house counsel don mcgahn testify before the house judiciary committee as part of its obstruction of justice investigation. also house speaker, as we mentioned nancy pelosi said attorney general barr committed a crime. she says he lied to congress. the justice department calls that false. congressman ted lieu a member of the house judiciary committee has his own opinion on that matter. i spoke to him earlier. congressman lieu, first of all speaker pelosi saying attorney general barr lied to congress and that's a crime. do you agree with her? >> i do. i'm a former prosecutor, and it looks just like perjury. basically, barr was asked if special counsel mueller's team had any concerns about his summary of the mueller report, and he said no. and we know that that's a lie, because he got a letter from bob mueller saying essentially that he mischaracterized the mueller report. >> so to the justice department's argument about why barr wouldn't show up today, why couldn't judiciary committee members who are attorneys like yourself question barr today instead of insisting on staff

attorneys? what the rationale for what because that the thing he used as a reason not to come. >> i think if we didn't have that reason, he would have picked another reason not to come. he actually didn't tell the judiciary committee until after his senate hearing yesterday, which tells me me he realized it did not go well. and terrible, we could have just members ask questions, or we could ask staff counsel, but it's up to congress to decide how we run our hearing, and this is nothing unusual. last term i was in numerous judiciary committee meetings where staff counsel questioned members of the administration. >> what do you think of the likelihood of getting barr to testify in front of the committee is at this point? >> so congress has the power to issue subpoenas, and if he is simply not going to show up in the judiciary committee, we will at some point issue a subpoena, and then we can enforce it. he has right now violated a current subpoena for the unredacted mueller report.

that we're going to enforce next week with a contempt proceeding if he does not provide the full mueller report in the next couple days. >> and a contempt proceeding, so if he is held in contempt of congress, what -- does that really result in anything? >> yes, it does. so here's the process. the house judiciary committee will vote in a contempt proceeding. if we hold him in contempt, it goes to the house floor. if the house floor votes in contempt, then it triggers two things. first, it allows your house counsel to litigate in courts to try to enforce it. second, the courts have already upheld congress' inherent power to start taking actions against that individual without the courts. so we have procedures where we could in fact start levying fines on that person. in the past, they've even had a house jail. i don't think we're going go there, but at least we do have that power and the courts have upheld it. >> you call the attorney general

now one of the most dangerous men in washington, which is an extraordinary statement about any federal official, let alone the chief law enforcement officer in this country. >> two reasons i said that. one is not only did he mislead the american people, he was then given a letter from robert mueller saying he misled the american people, and he doubles down and lies to congress and the american people after that. and second, right now he is suing to eliminate preexisting conditions to health care coverage for millions of americans. he is a dangerous man. >> it does seem hard to believe when the attorney general yesterday said that the note was a little snippy and that it was probably just written by a staff member, the idea -- it's an extraordinary step for mueller to have written this letter and sent it to barr, and now it's public. the idea that he would have pawned that off on a staff member and not even looked at it or agreed with everything in it seems ludicrous on its face. >> absolutely. it was definitely a iwas a snity

thing for bill barr to say. i'm sure robert mueller wrote that letter, and we hope robert mueller is going to come. we expect him to come later this month to testify before the house judiciary committee. >> congressman ted lieu, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. there is a lot going on tonight. more breaking news. "the new york times" is reporting the name of an government investigator who posed as a trump committee to better understand the campaign's links to russia, in particular george papadopoulos. that's who the focus of this investigator was. we'll have details on that next. , but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better.

maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. one-of-a-kind women weg call "mom."e with an engaging new experience... ...ancestrydna can help her uncover her history... ...to tell a story as unique as she is. order a kit for mom (or dad) at ancestry.com the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough.

introducing miracle-gro's next big thing. performance organics. finally organics that work. tested and refined by plant scientists... for twice the results, guaranteed. don't grow a snack, grow a feast. don't grow a flower, grow a million dollar view. this new organic collection of soil and plant food is what you always wanted. no compromise, just results, guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics.

"the new york times" is reporting previously unknown details about the fbi's counterintelligence probe into the trump campaign and its links to russia. specifically, information about a woman who posed as research assistant in order to meet with campaign adviser george papadopoulos. sharing the byline is "new york times" reporter adam goldman. adam, if you can, just walk us through the new details about what steps the fbi took to investigate george papadopoulos. >> well, what we've learned is after mr. papadopoulos got this offer of cooperation from the russians, in a sense, the fbi set about trying to figure out what he knew, and they wanted to do it secretly. so they arranged a meeting in

london with an informant, a professor named stefan helper, and woman named ezra turk, who was a government investigator that the fbi had sent to london to work with the informant. and together they worked george to figure out what he might know or might not know. and they met with him separately and together and ultimately the operation in london was not a success. >> is it clear why the fbi made this decision to send this particular investigator to london? >> this person would play the role of stefan helper's research assistant. and i thought the fbi believed she would -- she would make a good fit. i think -- i think part of the rationale was also to have an american investigator there who could provide some oversight and make sure this operation stayed on the rails. >> was she an fbi agent?

>> i'm just going to leave it right now as a government investigator. i use that wording for a reason, and i'm going to leave it at that. >> okay. and is it clear if any actual information was learned from that meeting? i mean, you say it was basically a failure. >> basically it wasn't fruitful, but what it showed was this some might say panic, others might say heightened sense of alarm about what was going on, and they needed to get to the bottom of it. i mean, this was pretty extraordinary for the fbi to move this fast on something overseas, to run this type of operation. and it really goes to the seriousness of the threat, at least the threat they received. >> and yesterday attorney general barr defended -- he's used the term spying. how does that square with the fact that the fbi russia investigation is now under investigation by the justice department? >> you know, attorney general barr thinks this is a good

english word. obviously there was some in the law enforcement community who would object to the term "spying." they would prefer to say lawful surveillance. either way, the fbi was running an informant and using another investigator to covertly or clandestinely acquire information. >> and the president's reelection campaign, as you know, is already arguing that this proves they were the victims of some corrupt probe. that's really not what you're reporting is? >> no, no. that's not the point we were trying to make. look, we as an organization, "the new york times," we've done some seminole rolling on the origins of the investigation, how it started. and this is just a continuation of that reporting. i think, you know, right now the only thing we know is this was a lawful law enforcement operation that took place in london with the knowledge of british intelligence. unless that changes, you know, we're still working from the premise that this was lawful,

and the fbi didn't, in fact -- it wasn't nefarious. we've got see where this takes us. barr might come to a different conclusion down the road, but at this moment, nobody is providing any evidence that the fbi actually committed wrongdoing. they were -- they were simply being aggressive when it came to what they say is a lawful and predicated investigation, though an extraordinary one. >> adam goldman, thank you so much. great reporting. i appreciate it. >> thanks. >> attorney barr's personal and professional relationship with robert mueller stretches back at least three decades, but has the letter from mueller that barr calls snitty changed the equation? that's next. is supporting military families. that's how i stay connected with them. (vo) the best network is the one that gives you more. like a special price for military families and $100 when you switch. that's verizon.

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. ♪ ♪ if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels.

don't stoop to their level. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. it extends with a protective shield and targets weeds more precisely. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while guarding the good. roundup sure shot wand. got weeds in your grass too? try roundup for lawns. kills weeds, not the lawn. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. is your floor's best friend. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes to grab and remove pet hair. and the roomba filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba.

the house judiciary committee says it would like mueller to testify on may 15th about his nearly two-year-long investigation. now as monumental as that might be, there is no indication to date whether that testimony will in fact happen on that date, or at all. for his part, attorney general barr made it clear yesterday he wasn't the least bit happy about the letter his long-time friend sent him about the framing of the mueller report. >> the letter was a bit snitty and i think it was probably one of the staff team. >> it has come under wither attack by members of congress and should mueller one day publicly refute what barr has said under oath, there would be questions about what that might

mean for certainly at the very least the old friendship between them. eric grapp, author of the threat matrix. garrett, you've red i think the other night everything mueller has written or ever said. the idea that barr is throwing out that this was probably written by some staffer, that -- does that seem possible at all to you? >> well, i mean, it certainly probably technically true in that this was a document that was likely drafted by the staff, debated among the staff, but the idea that mueller didn't carefully go over every line of it that the staff probably debated with mueller the exact wording, the exact phrasing, and i would guess the staff pushed for harsher wording than mueller was actually comfortable with. >> the tension that appears to be playing out between these two people, between barr and mueller, it surprising? you know, in his testimony, in

his confirmation testimony, barr said they'd been friends. they'll be friends after this. do you think that's true? >> it's possible. the friendship to my understanding has always been strongest actually on the >> the wives spent time together in a bible study among other settings. but, you know, you have to remember -- and it has been part of what has been hard for the american people to understand in a lot of this, these elite circles of the department of justice are just incredibly small. i mean when you look back over the last 25 years, you've had this same relatively small set of people. robert mueller, jim comey, bill barr, eric holder, you know, rotate through these top jobs. christopher wray. so these are very tight professional circles with the people who do have a deep professional respect for one another. >> what is their disagreement over the way the findings of the mueller report were characterized say about how they

see their roles as prosecutors and how they interpret the law? >> yes, i think this is where we are beginning to see a real split between bob mueller's personality and bill barr's personality. mueller first and foremost is a justice department institutionalist. you know, he is not a political figure. he is not a partisan person. whereas, bill barr has been a lawyer in the department of justice certainly for -- you know, repeatedly, but has always been more of a partisan fashion than mueller ever has. you know, when you go back and you look at the manuel noriega prosecution, when you look at iran-contra, when you look at barr going out of his way to write the 19-page unsolicited memo about the obstruction of justice case that mueller was building, you know, these are just actions that you could never imagine mueller himself actually doing. barr has proven that he is a partisan figure more than he is a justice department figure. >> do you think mueller would want to testify? >> i think that mueller has

never enjoyed congressional testimony in any job that he has ever had, but he will certainly -- he will certainly comply with any lawful order that he receives to testify. >> and opposite the house judiciary committee, they fully intend to call him. it remains to be seen if and when that happens if the doj tries to prevent him from speaking. would it be feasible -- i mean mueller is still under -- he still works at the department of justice, doesn't he? >> he does until he decides that he doesn't, and presumably at some point in the forthcoming days mueller will decide his work as special counsel is wrapped up and he'll turn in his resignation and he'll go back to his golf game. >> garrett graff, appreciate it. thanks very much. i want to check in with chris and see what he is working on. >> i wonder what it means that he hasn't done that yet? >> yes. >> i wonder why he's there, what he wants, what he thinks is important. that's going to be a big step. now, paralleling, shadowing what he does is going to be what the democrats do, right?

so we have senator amy klobuchar on tonight. obviously she is running for president. a senator who got to question bill barr yesterday. what does she think the democrats should do next? speaker pelosi, obviously that's in the house, but heavy hit at a.g. barr saying that he committed perjury. what are they going to do about it? >> yeah. >> that little stunt at the house today, what are they going to actually do? so we're going to go through that, and we will start looking at what was done to surveilled the campaign. will any of it wind up being called spying? >> yes, definitely the campaign is saying it is. chris, i will see you in about seven minutes from now. president trump said he would hire all of the best people. remember that? well, another one of those best people implodes or in washington speak removes himself from consideration. t the ridiculist is next. for a limited time, join t-mobile and get the awesome iphone xr on us.

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. the matters.ar... introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was--

♪ born to walk alone! keep goin' man! you got it! if you ride, you get it. ♪ here i go again geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

time now for "the ridiculist". it is a bleak moment in the white house office of the best and brightest. president trump's intended nominee for the federal reserve board, stephen moore withdrew his name from consideration, which is a washington euphemism which is as likely for his senate confirmation as likely as passing sarah sanders on a lie detector class. today sent the president a letter that reads in part, quote, the unrelenting attacks

on my character have become untenable for me and my family and three more months of this would be too hard on us, end quote. in hindsight, probably wasn't a good sign that senator lindsey graham, white house ally who probably would be willing to drive the get away golf cart after president trump shot someone on fifth avenue. consider what moore claims are attacks on his character are examples of reporters reading his past writings. cnn's kay file uncovered articles moore wrote as an adult littered with sexism and degrading references to women. he said he was joking but they weren't high school mistakes, they weren't college year bock idiocy. he was a full-grown adult writing in major magazines. go to cnn.com and hold your nose if you want to read the details. for his part, the president tweeted in part, steve moore, a pro-growth economist and truly fine person has decided to withdraw from the fed process.

truly fine person. doesn't it ring a bell? yes, he is a member of a very elite club, one of the best the president promised he would hire. >> we're going to make america great again. we will use our best people. >> i will get the best people. >> we're going to deliver. we're going to get the best people in the world. >> we don't want people that are b level, c level, d level. we have to get our absolute best. >> we are going to use our smartest and our best. we're not using political hacks anymore. >> it is a sophisticated chess match, but i have the best people lined up. >> you need people that are truly, truly capable. >> we have to get the best people. >> that's true. yeah, the best people. sophisticated chess match. it seems like the president was missing a rook or two when he held the job fair because it is not just stephen moore. there's the other fed favorite, ex pizza king people herman cain whose past sexual allegations condemned his chances from the get go. tom price, loved private jets as

much as he liked taxpayers funding them. then interior secretary ryan zinke who thought he was queen elizabeth because he ordered a special flag to be raised whenever he entered the building. yes, smooth-skinned epa administrators got pruitt. he used his government detail to seek out his preferred brand of lotion from the ritz carlton. the list goes on. can you image being on that detail. mr. pruitt wants some lotion from the concierge desk. that would be demoralizing, i would think. rob porter, accused of abuse. michael flynn, lied to the fbi but he was a good guy. sean spicer, cartoonish disaster and a liar verified in the mueller report. scaramucci, how much time have we got because we could go on? the irony is as thick as swamp water. people who have dedicated entire careers working behind the scenes, not talking about it on tv, not being pundits, people that become experts in their

perhaps sometimes obscure but important field working for the government, those people are hacks. according to the president and alex jones they're deep state, which is why it is a good thing so many jobs in various agencies have gone unfilled. don't worry about it. sleep well at night knowing only the best and brightest are at work in the white house and on "the ridiculist". the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris for ""cuomo prime time"." >> a serious show but i have to do it. name the movie. it puts the lotion in the basket. >> come on. "silence of the lambs." >> there it is. my man. anderson, thank you very much. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. speaker pelosi accuses this attorney general of perjury. the head of the house judiciary threatens to hold him in con tell. will the democrats follow through on their threats? if so, how? or are they going to be like the empty chair a.g. bill barr was supposed to sit in today at the hearing? we will ask a prominent senator calling for barr's resignation, presal