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. hey, i'm brian stelter. welcome to "reliable sources" from our brand-new studio. chelsea may be back in jail in a few days and in the meantime, she's here to join me live for an exclusive interview and something known a lot about, leak hunts. another federal employee stands accused of slipping cloassified information to the intercept site and to fox or not to fox, that's the question for democrats. i'll speak with one of the people who was on capitol hill this week teaching lawmakers about how to appear on fox news.

what a job. but first, today, the fiacebook debate. everybody has an opinion about facebook. the company's actions and inactions have huge consequences for politics, business and news media and facebook co-founder chris hughes is coming out swinging with this op ed "the new york times" declaring the social network has become quote dangerous. he says mark zucker's buberzuck is unprecedented and the government must break up facebook and enforce regulations. hughes dropped this and has been on cnn and just appeared on fareed zakaria's "gps." nick, thanks for being here with me. i think maybe we're having a little trouble with nick. let see if we can get him on. all right. little bit of trouble.

what's that? all right. a little bit of trouble here with the new set. that the okay. we're making a big move. we're going to get to nick in a couple minutes. in the meantime, while we work on that, let me bring in our panel. we have an all-star panel wired up onset with us. kathryn, a little surprise here but if you don't mind, let me start with you. this debate what to do with facebook blared on the sunday review section this morning is complicated the idea breaking up facebook, making them divest instagram. elizabeth warren is on the campaign trail promoting the same thing. what does it say about our country and the world that facebook has so much power this is being debated? >> the issue is facebook has absolutely sinned against democracy, against its users. it done a lot of bad things and allowed russian trolls and

adversaries to run loose and manipulate it users, but it's not clear to me that this particular prescription is actually going to do a lot to solve that problem. i don't really understand how forcing facebook for example to d divest from what's app will help. facebook had years when they essentially advocated the responsibility they have deliberately or not developed in terms of shaping our discourse and it not clear that they really have a plan for protecting democracy or not letting democracy to get distorted for 2020. i think that's really the question for facebook. why are they waiting for regulators to step in and help them do their job or tell them how to do their job. whether or not that involves an anti trust solution is a separate issue. >> i think we worked out the case. let ask those questions and see if we can get him on from palo alto. nick, thanks for being here.

>> good to see you. sorry, it quite ironic, we had tech problems with the microphone but it working now. >> i'm grateful you're here. it your first television interview in your new role. obviously, you disagree with chris hughes, you don't want facebook broken up but why is he wrong? >> i don't think dismantling companies is the way to deal with complex issues he highlighted, data use, privacy, the attempt by folk to interfere in our elections. i don't want to in any way diminish the importance of those and heavy responsibility that facebook bares to play a prominent ropro prominent role in solving the problems but a success story chomped into bits isn't going to make those problems go away. they won't suddenly evaporate. >> what is going to be done instead? >> well, first, of course, facebook needs to do more.

we are confident we're going to be considerably better prepared for instance for the 2020 u.s. elections than we were for 2016, and actually just recently independent academics from princeton and elsewhere said that misinformation platforms has plummeted by 75%. the extent of it compared to 2016. and we need to do more. and of course, we need to do more on a whole range of other fronts, whether it is providing greater reassurance to people that data is kept securely and safe on facebook platforms to guarantee people's privacy where they rightly are entitled to expect that. of course, facebook is and continues and must continue to do more but equally, this is not something that any company can do on its own. we're dealing with some very profound ethical and political issues. we do also need regulators, politicians and legislatures to how can i put it, move beyond the phase of just throwing rocks at each other or where politicians throw rocks at tech

and tech throws rocks back. i'm trying to sit down and come up with new rules of the internet. the internet is a relatively recent phenomenon. companies like facebook are still young, only 15 years old. they have experienced explosive growth around the world. yes, they encountered a number of challenges, problems, issues, have made mistakes in the past which are self-inflicted but i don't think anyone could reasonably expect that any single company can come up with all the answers on it own. this is something we need to do in partnership with regulators and lawmakers, not just in d.c. but around the world. >> you're saying there are problems, you just disagree with chris hughes' problem how to solve them. in 2017 when you were a british lawmakers, you wrote about anti trust. as an old fashion liberal, i remain perplexed the way u.s. competition law is near monopoly market dominance by a number of

big players if and when it increases prices paid by consumers. facebook is a pfree product but has the change and feel of monopo monopoly. >> i don't think facebook can be described by anyone as monopoly. it faces ferocious competition from youtube to i message, from snap chase to pinterest. i mean, there is a range of different apps and platforms that you can use if you want to share videos, photos, if you want to message each other. so i don't think -- >> the scale of facebook and instagram and what's app. almost no one with that scale and you buy up the companies that might have that scale. >> well, let remember when facebook brought up what's app and instagram, they were considerably smaller than they are now. >> true. >> i think it would be a rather odd message to send to american business when they grow a business and make them ever more successful, and allow millions,

indeed, billions of consumers to use for instance, what's app for tree that somehow it should be penalized for that success. i don't think it's none ameri-a, it's very american. that the not what anti trust law is used for. i don't believe facebook say monopoly. on the key engine room which facebook makes money on the digital advertising market, i think the latest estimate suggest we have about a 20% share of that market here in the quite. some of our competitors have a far, far larger share than that. it seems to be -- yeah, sure. not just google we compete with goggle and amazon and many companies by the way are considerably bigger than facebook. i don't think anyone would think it logical to say just because you don't particularly like i think in chris hughes' case, he doesn't like zuckerberg's management style, you'll take a

sledgehammer to say therefore we'll dismantle it all together. >> because of the poison, the amount of poison spread on facebook and what's app, not just the u.s. by around the world and elections in india and brazil and elsewhere. the problem is the poison we're all choking on and i know that facebook didn't invent it but it exists every day on facebook. >> sure. but does anyone seriously think that poison or that attempt to influence elections unpleasant hateful violent content is going to suddenly go away because facebook has been broken up in many ways, you can make the argument, i certainly would make the argument because we have considerably resources to apply to the problem, for instance, facebook's artificial intelligence tools used to increasingly block hateful material before anyone sees it, over 99% of isis and terrorist related material is blocked before any human being sees it. we're able to provide those tools to instagram. you wouldn't be able to do that

in the future. we spend this year, we will spend this year as a company more in making our platforms as safe and secure as we can and it's a constant battle. we're not going to pretend we're going to be able to find everything before folks see it and we need people to enus, to -- help us and report material. we'll be spending more this year alone on those kind of efforts than the total rev news of facebook when it was publicly floated earlier in a decade all of that would be harder if we were to instead i don't know spend a decade in the courts deciding about whether facebook should be broken up or not. >> it sometimes seems like reporters are the ones finding examples of misinformation and toxici toxicity. cnn wrote about instagram and how the hashtag vaccines kill was showing up whether you type in the word vac scecines. this is a situation where

journalist are doing heavy lifting for you. is that a fair assessment the way it should work? >> i certainly think we of course are under a duty and obligation not just journalist but members of the public and can do it on the apps themselves report material they don't think should be on the platforms. we then respond. yes, of course, we react but interestingly, what we're trying to do as a sort of general strategy is move from being reactive, which of course was certainly the origins in the way we tackle the lose of this unacceptable material and become more proactive. i gave you that example of a terrorist related isis related content earlier but we've just announced for instance that our latest and we produced these transparency reports every six months we tell the world how we'll we're doing or badly we're doing in blocking or identifying unacceptable content and on hate speech, which of course is much more complicated than terrorist related content because one person's hate speech is another

person's freedom of expression. and on hate speech, our proactive systems and our identifying close to 65% of hate speech material before anyone sees it, which is up from 24% about a year ago, so we're getting better, yes, we need of course the cooperation of other folk to be able to report material to us, there is so much volume, the volume of course we're dealing with is enormous. over 100 billion messages are communicated across our platforms. that the just messages every day. so i think we're getting better. i think we do of course need to cooperate with others. we need new rules of the road but i don't think it would be sensible for anyone, not for facebook's point of view and society's point of view as a whole if instead we were going to start dismantling the company all together and as chris hughes argued, folk in europe, mark zuckerberg was in pararais thury

and friday talking to regulators there and macron and american decision makers want to break up successful american come opinion kn -- companies. it a debate here and knot other jurisdictions. >> we need to reduce the costs of these platforms and race the benefits. you used to be a deputy prime minister of the u.k. why did you decide to join facebook now? >> because i think there is debate about the frontier, if i could put it like that between tech and society at large, democracy, privacy and so on is one of the most important, one of the most difficult and controversial debates around. so when i was asked by mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg if i wanted to join them not just on the communication side of things but run facebook's policies, you know, for me of course that is a fantastic opportunity to play.

i hope a helpful role in ensuring facebook plays a responsible role in this evolving debate. the way that the rules of the internet are drawn today in my view or rather not drawn will be quite different to the way they are drawn in ten years time and i think big tech companies have a choice. either they play ball and they try and play a responsible role in that debate or they try and duck it all together and the moment that i heard from mark zuckerberg that he wants facebook to play an active and responsible role in helping to forge partnerships with regulations and governments around the world to get the rules right for the future and future generations and for me that the a very interesting challenge. >> nick, thanks so much for coming on. please come back soon. maybe we'll do it over facebook live next time. >> thank you. >> when we come back, the panel is back with me in just a moment.

tsds

hey, welcome back to "reliable sources" more subpoenas that and more stone walling. democrats say we're in a constitutional crisis. and i just keep asking myself how are news consumers and citizens supposed to make sense of this? the panel is back with me now. kathryn, if i had to have you summarize this week in all of these dramatic developments in a headline, in a one-sentence headline, what would it be?

>> the frog is boiled. >> we're at that point now? >> yeah, i'm referring to if you put a progress in a pot of water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog won't jump out because they don't get they are about to be boiled. look, i think that the public is basic he become getting used to the idea that trump is going to break northerlies, break laws, violate the constitution, violate pret violate pretty clear statutes and that's trump being trump. it not a threat to democracy, that there is no constitutional crisis, it all outrage and blends together and it's drama playing out. >> the situation you're describing is scary, though. >> absolutely. >> you laughed at the idea of the frog. what would you headline be? >> trump is banking you can't keep up. i think the headline from this week is that there were too many headlines and he's, he is absolutely putting all of his faith in the fact that the american people do 234not have

time to follow the twists and turns of who he's trying to hide, the things he's stone walling on, the pieces of information he's refusing to give up after being legally compelled to do so. people are busy. they have jobs and lives and families and not able to follow a 24-hour -- i'm hardly able to follow a 24-hour news cycle. >> what do you want the press to do differently? >> what i really want is to put pressure on the republican party at this point:the only reason we're in a constitutional crisis, the framers saw the chance that we might have a president who refused to compile by the rule of law. what they didn't see was that the entire poll lit. >> caller: pa-- political party that got them there would help them undermine the democracy. at some point we have to ask republicans how much they are willing to sacrifice in the future principles to let this guy run away with sglefrg yoeve >> democrats are come polil com

complicit if they don't impeach trump. >> the headline -- >> we're not there yet. we can't depend on the public to sort through everything. that's why we have a house of representatives. i think the mueller report changed the dynamics in terms of putting a pretty troubling picture out there for the public and just as important, this blanket stone wall that we have seen since the release of the report is unprecedented. in terms of using presidential power. so now the republicans are, they are complicit in letting this go but house democrats have the authority to make a decision do we start an impeachment process and that's on the table. >> there is debate about the trade table. you wrote a column saying tru trump -- it's hot air and debt, over the years and decade. hot air and debt.

>> many of us said trump will run government like a business. there is no relevance between managing a major company and the federal government. in fact, he's used a lot of same business practices that succeeded in his business and applied them to the presidency which helped him and hurt the rest of us including the idea that, you know, he treats the tax code, the law, the constitution, as just an opening offer and then he uses the threat of unending litigation of exhausting litigation to basically get the other side, the side that has the law or the constitution or tax code or legally binding contract or what have you on its side to get them to seed ground and i think that the a lesson he took from his business. that the a lesson he's applying to the presidency. he's done it with other things from his business, as well. the headline refers to, you know, a lot of the debt he ran up within his company, but also the debt that he's run up within the quiunited states. he's engaged in the same pump

and dump policy style that the "new york times" reported he engaged in in his private business. that's what we're seeing. unsavory aspects of treickery that helped him do well in a private company he's using for ill. >> we need to see it for what it is. when it comes to the hot air and constant tweets, see it for what it is. let me turn to something you did this week on capitol hill. we broke this news fox trying to get more democrats on the air and democrats trying to get on fox. democrats and the house of representatives went to a training session called winning on fox news and you were one of the teachers. >> one of the media trainers, yes. >> what did you share? >> there is a necessary debate happening about wlornld hether it's appropriate to be on fox news. i stopped appearing on fox news a few months before. even before i joined cnn i made the decision that was not

something i wanted to participate in as a democratic strategist. i didn't want to help the propaganda arm of the republican party but whether you're an elected official, you have to represent people who might never vote for you and slhare you vies and one of the ways to get out of that is showing folks there are people there to do the right thing and are there to accomplish something for the people that sent them there. that the where the elected officials were coming from. they were excited to reach this market share. there are tons of fox viewers and not all reliable republican voters. some of them want to hear from democrats in a way that isn't tainted by the opinion folks over at fox. so i think those elected officials are excited about reaching those folks and let them know there is more to what democrats are doing on the hill than what they are going to hear from that particular media outlet. >> from prime time, especially. to the panel, thank you so much. quick break and two more

exclusive interviews. chief betsey reid is standing by here to talk about an arrest for people leaking secrets. >> clel s >> chelsea manning, her first interview since he was released from prison, coming up. e. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ this and even this.hark, i deep clean messes like this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair, while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself.

another wireless ad. great. so many of them are full of this complicated, tricky language about their network and offers and blah blah blah. look. sprint's going to do things differently. and let you decide for yourself. they're offering a new 100% total satisfaction guarantee. try it out and see the savings. if you don't love it, get your money back. see? simple. now sprint's unlimited plan comes with one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. s

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. . >> welcome back. this week we got word daniel hail has been hit with charges for releasing classified documents to a reporter in 2014. he's been arrested and facing charges. the indictment doesn't name the reporter but the recipients were jeremy and the intercept website.

the website came out with drone papers in 2015. this was a real limb poly impor investigation. hail is the fifth federal employee to be charged with leaking sensitive information during the trump administration's years. this is an on going escalation of what the obama administration was doing for the eight years obama was in office. let me bring in the editor and chief betsey reid. thanks for coming over. happy mother's day. i wish this was under better circumstances. i know of three cases where there are people accused of leaking it seems to the intercept. what do you see going on within the department of justice as they prosecute these alleged leakers? >> like all journalism organizations, we do not speak about our anonymous sources, so i can't comment any specifically about any of these cases, but what i can say is that this is part of an escalation of the war on whistle-blowers that was launched really in earnest during the obama administration

that prosecuted eight journal sources. that's a 1919 statute that was designed for traders and spays and applied against people who were really stepping up to publicized information they thought was important for americans to know, and who steve seen under trump is an escalation of this very practice. >> you call them whistle blower, others would say traders. what do you think viewers should know about the information these government officials are allegedly providing to reporters. >> it frankly preposterous to use the concept of trader brought into the public domain information how the government is spying on it own citizens, how the government is carrying on wars around the world in secret and not allowing the public to engage in substantive debate about the fact that there are unconstitutional processes going on that result in the killing of american citizens

abroad. >> the idea that we deserve mor america's wars is something we should agree on but the issue of sources deciding to commit a crime about releasing documentd. what do you say to people who worry about source protection given it seems like three of these investigations involve people that leaked to your website. are you all doing enough to protect them? >> well, we, like other journalism organizations are dog our best to deploy, you know, strategies like using encryption and other technologies that digital security specialists help with. it's a risky business inherently doing national security reporting. everybody on the beat knows that. and knowing it increasingly now because one of the things that we've reported a lot on is surveillance. that the way that the government surveils ordinary citizens but in fact, when it comes to their

own employees and contractors, that surveillance is, you know, more powerful. and so they know everything their employees and contractors do. they know what websites they are reading. they know who has printed which document. it is risky and we try to be quite up front with potential sources about what risks are entailed. the fact is that deciding to become a whistle blower is a really momentous decision that takes a lot of courage and does entail risk that can be mitigated but can't be completely e rad kited. >> that's a challenge. there seems like there is more of a chill in the air, a challenge for newsrooms and others. >> the committee to proeprotect journalist, did a story with interviews of journalist from "the new york times" and other institutions and said there a chill among their sources, that people are increasingly afraid of coming forward with important information and information

like, you know, we learn from the pentagon papers, from the pro documents in the 1970s that provoked really important debates about the vietnam war and about the fbi's unconstitutional spying. these stories do not want americans to know about and they will do everything in their pow tore stop it from coming out. that the the work they do is critically important and why every journalist should be concerned about prosecutions of journalist sources. >> thank you for being here. a related story coming up next about someone arrested for leaking almost a decade ago. now chelsea manning is facing jail time for a different reason. she'll join me live after this.

chelsea manning was facing up to 28 more years in prison

when her sentence was commuted in 2017. two months ago, she was back behind bars for refusing to testify to a grand jury of virginia. prosecutors apparently wanted her to tell all about her contacts. she refused and the judge held her in contempt. three days ago she was released because that particular grand jury was finished but now she's facing another subpoena in a few day s and possibly more jail time what is going on. >> no single person has been specifically identified. what they asked me questions about specifically is my conduct and how i did things which i methodically laid out in hours of testimony and a 40-page

statement. they are trying to go through the same 3procedure. >> the government wants to charge him with more counts and want information from you for that. is that your impression? >> i think that's certainly my impression but i think that what's interesting here is that the process of a grand jury is to obtain indictments. we have an indictment so why are we going through this process? the kinds of questions i've been asked are about disclosures and how the things are disclosed and why they are disclosed as opposed to like how it was obtained. they don't seem to be interested in how the information -- there is an e nor 340normous amount o

computer forensics. they have that. what they are interested is in my ing intentions were, what my impressions of what that would look like would be and how much of that would be published. >> this was nine years ago you were provide thing information to julian assange. some of it was sited as evidence of war crimes by the american military. this is still going on for you now nine years later. do you have any regrets? >> first off, i want to point out i don't actually know who i'm communicating with. i certainly have suspicions and laid out like, you know, i've laid out the -- in my testimony i said there is percentage ranges who it could be. but i actually know who is on the other end of the communications. so the chat logs that you see, the indictment, which were in

the court marshall record, we've already gone over this. you know, i've said as much as i can say about that. to whether or not i have any regrets, you know, i don't relitigate things. i did what i did with the information that i had, the knowledge that i had and the tools and resources that i had at the time. the simple fact of the matter is that in 2010, in 2010 when all this happened was very different landscape, you know. even just trying to -- i reached out to the new york times and "the washington post", i reached out to the washington post first because i seen it and so it's just this technology barrier, the lack of encryption tools and reporters how to protect and communicate and verify this i o informati information. >> wikileaks did know how. did you view the prosecution of assange as a threat to press freedom? >> i think that the eastern

district of virginia is now turning into a rubber stamp for all these different prosecutions that really are going after, you know, i think that ultimately what they really want is they want to go after journalists. like this administration clearly wants to go after journalist. if the administration gets it way as laid out in repeated statements kind of thing, you know, then i think that we're going to see the national security journalist and disruptive for this administration press, we'll see indielt indielctments and charges indirectly related and the average american commits three felonies a day. whenever a journalist makes a misstep, i think that they are put on notice now that the fbi and the department of justice are going to go after them on administration's behalf. >> what about you? you're due back on thursday.

another subpoena for another grand jury. what will happen? >> they stipulated they want to ask the same questions. so this is not about -- this is not about anything new. they aren't even asking anything new. i laid this out. >> so you're going to refuse again? >> i'm going to refuse. i think that this grand jury is -- i mean, i think all grand juries are improper. i don't like the secrecy of it. one of the reasons we had so much secrecy and speculation and so much over the mueller report is because of the secrecy. we would know far more if we would have public hearings, brick the stuff out there. i did. i testified. before an open court with these journalist there. i have nothing new to provide. >> they want to hear from you again. that the the law. will you be back in jail next weekend? >> it's going to depend on we certainly have a motion to quash. we'll raise every legal challenge. we have a very strong case and

now we have additional evidence of what our case is. >> it up in the air. we don't know if you'll be sent to jail again or not? >> we don't but i think we have a much stronger case in terms of the legal objections, which the previous judge refused to even hear. he refused to even hear or act on the motions. he just simply placed me in contempt and ignored our motions. >> we talk all the time about unprinciple politicians and what you're doing is an act of principle, whether you agree or not, i can see that. thanks for being here. quick break and when we come back, carl bernstein talking about the week's news trying to put it together. we'll get to that in a moment. (music throughout)

i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free...

...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

so many trump-related story lines but many pointing in the

same direction, presidential abuses of power. members of the media living up to the challenge. let's ask carl bernstein here in new york. that's the question. are we living up to this moment in history? >> by we, the press, yes, our institutions so far the answer is not hardly. >> you mean the congress? >> well, the congress to the united states particularly because there has been no real by for t bipartisan investigation of the most authoritarian president in the history. let go back to basics here. we find ourselves in this situation, right now, because there is an on going coverup by the president of the united states. whether that constitutes a violation of law, whether he is a criminal or not, that the for down the road but right now it's obvious to anyone that watches, anyone who looks at the facts, reads the mueller report, the

obstruction part particularly, we are in the midst of a continued coverup by the president and aided and abedded -- abetted by the attorney general of the united states. he got them now by the attorney general and where this is taking us is to an unprecedented place. it not about a constitutional crisis. this is a systemic crisis challenging whether our institutions are able to function in this country to deal with the president of the united states who is unique in our history who has nothing but contempt for democratic tradition and the rule of law. so really where the rubber is going to meet the road is going to be the supreme court of the united states and chief justice roberts has got his table being set for him in a way that may have an awful lot to do with the future of american democracy.

>> you say systemic crisis. >> he's very different from past presidents. >> i feel like fox news viewers are fed this narrative about obama and other democrats -- >> he can't do anything about fox news and what they feed their audience any more -- what we need to do in the press is to continue our reporting. there is wide open area for reporting. look what the "wall street journal" owned by the same person who owns fox news rupert murdoch reported last week about mccann stiffing the president of the united states, and saying he would not go and tell the congress of the united states and others that the president had not obstructed justice. refused to do it. who produced that story? >> the murdoch -- >> the murdochs. >> that's a great point. >> let's continue to do what we do best. look at the tax story "the new

york times" did showing us we have a grifter president of the united states, a tax someone who is a fraud in business, which is dem saying the same thing and now we're seeing we need to be looking at the relationship of the trump business organization with russia and russians andeth know-russians. there's plenty of room for original reporting. incidentally, if this story were to go in some direction that by some miracle exonerated president trump, so be it. >> that would be a good thing for the country. >> particularly the mueller report is so overwhelming and also this is no exoneration about his conduct in terms of russia and russian contacts. that's not what the mueller report says. >> let's talk more about that mueller report in a moment. we'll be right back.

more with carl in a moment here on reliable sources.

carl bernstein is back. the mueller report has staying power. number one and two on the best seller list. pretty impressive for a free pdf. all this talk about robert mueller has defined when will it happen, how important is it we hear from mueller on television? >> i think it's essential, whether he testifies before the committee or whether he chooses another venue if the president claims executive privilege before that body, perhaps there's another venue that mueller might choose, such as going on television himself or members of his staff in such a way that they don't reveal perhaps information that shouldn't be revealed for reasons of grand jury secrecy at the moment. at the same time, tell the story about what this investigation was about and what it really found. we need to hear from that investigation, those who conducted the investigation and we also need the full report.

it is essential that the american people have the full report through their representatives in congress. every word of it. there's one other thing we can't forget. there is an ongoing national security counterintelligence investigation that was not part of the mueller report that is ongoing. there is much more that is going to be learned. i think we can say with some absolute foreknowledge about what happened with russians and wha what happened with the trump campaign. this idea of the president exoneration, i think it's necessary perhaps on some of our times on the air, maybe we ought to read out loud and put up exactly what the report said about that. it did not say we exonerate the president. >> when mitch mcconnell says case closed, we should show that the case is open. carl, thanks for being here. >> thanks. happy mother's day to all

the moms watching, especially my wife, my mom, my mother-in-law. let us know what you thought of today's show. send us your feedback, via facebook, twitter, whatever you'd like to do. every week, your feedback and your ideas for who you want to see on the program to help improve this program. listen up on facebook, or @brian stelter on twitter. join us for episodes of the redemption project at 9:00 eastern team at 10:00, you shades of america. while i have you, sign up for our nightly newsletter as well, reliable sources.com. you can sign up right now for free. it comes out every evening between 10:00 and midnight eastern time. all the day's news. see you this time next week. this is loma linda,

a place with one of the highest life expectancies in the country. you see so many people walking around here in their hundreds. so how do you stay financially well for all those extra years? well, you have to start planning as early as possible. we all need to plan, for 18 years or more, of retirement. i don't have a whole lot saved up, but i'm working on it now. i will do whatever i need to do. plan your financial life with prudential. bring your challenges.

hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪

another wireless ad. great. so many of them are full of this complicated, tricky language about their network and offers and blah blah blah. look. sprint's going to do things differently. and let you decide for yourself. they're offering a new 100% total satisfaction guarantee. try it out and see the savings. if you don't love it, get your money back. see? simple. now sprint's unlimited plan comes with one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. so switch now. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m. coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar

or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org on the brink. defying president trump, north korea test fires more missiles. >> we'll see what happens. >> iran signals it will return to nuclear production and the president follows through on a threat to escalate a trade war. >> i want to get along with china. because i'm smart. >> is the trump doctrine helping or hurting the u.s. and prosecutor power. the president expects to face joe biden on the 2020 debate stage, but another top candidate says she'll be the one debating president trump and she'll use her courtroom skills to make her case against him. >> i know how to fight and i know hown.