who's going to question the former special counsel is here. and second only to your interest in hearing from mueller what matters most about your government and democracy, the democrats really do shave the most on the line. what are the best and worst-case scenarios for them tomorrow. and what will decide the outcome of this entire situation? >> and can this president keep his taxes quiet as an exercise of his first amendment rights? congresswoman and law professor katie porter is here to test that notion. what do you say? we're on the eve of a big day. let's get after it. all right. we're just hours away from an historic hearing here in washington, d.c. the stakes are so high, they were actually practicing for this. both sides, mock hearings, using stand-ins for mueller and gopers like jim jordan from ohio. democrats worry that maybe he'll interrupt the hearing, trying to hijack it, so they're getting

ready. they want to present you with the best set of information. that's our hope. now, mr. mueller didn't want to be there, all right? he also wanted to bring a deputy to answer certain questions. he lost on both. he's going to be there and he will have a deputy by his side, but only mr. mueller will be the one answering questions. this day has been a long time coming and it is good that it will happen. one democrat you're going to see facing mueller tomorrow is david cicilline. congressman, welcome back. good to have you. >> great to be here. what's your big question? if you've only got one, what would it be? >> fortunately, i don't only have one. but i think i'm very interested to hear the special counsel discuss corey lewandowski and the directive that the president gave -- now, think about this. this is an outside person, not a member of the administration. the president directed corey lewandowski to tell the attorney general of the united states to direct the special counsel to limit his investigation to future presidential elections, not the investigation of the 2016 election. so, effectively, not investigate what the special counsel was directed to investigate.

and then when he had some difficulty meeting with mr. sessions, he told corey lewandowski, tell the attorney general if he doesn't meet with you, he's fired. so this is a clear obstruction of justice. the president attempting to interfere with the ongoing investigation. that's one of ten specific instances of the president attempting to impede or interfere or undermine the investigation. i'm especially interested in that area. >> how do you think -- i'm losing my breath listening to you. sorry, cicilline. tell me this. when you're looking at tomorrow, what is the most important thing you think mueller has to speak to, outside of the discreet issue about lewandowski? >> i think the special counsel has to make clear, first of all, the investigation did not exonerate the president of the united states. that, in fact, there are specific instances of obstruction of justice. and obstruction of justice is a serious offense that goes to the heart of our criminal justice system. >> do you think he says, no collusion, no obstruction, and then answers the opposite of that? >> i think he's going to make it clear that his report says, in fact, there is not sufficient

evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the trump campaign and the russians. that is different than saying no collusion. there's a lot of evidence that the trump campaign welcomed that assistance from the russians, benefited from that assistance. so i think he'll walk through that. i think he will also say that with respect to obstruction of justice, that he made no finding in large part because he was following the llc memorandum that says a sitting president cannot be fired. >> you think he will? hold on, let me have some more liquid truth here. liquid truth. all right, that's an important point. i have two big ones for tomorrow. and i think it's really interesting that you're taking a discreet angle on lewandowski. does that mean the committee divided things up. >> you will see the committee walk through -- >> but does each have a role it it? >> each person on the committee has a set of questions they're prepared to ask that will allow us to walk through -- >> different areas. >> that's good for people to know, it won't be random. now, no collusion, no

obstruction, that's going to be the mantra. so the obverse of that to ask, because i know that mr. mueller wants to stick to the report, but the idea of no collusion, no obstruction flies in the face of the report. so early on, how important is that to establish, that what the president is selling is not what the report -- >> i think it's important to establish that early on. that the report does not, in fact, say no collusion, no obstruction. i think, you know, the president with the assistance of the attorney general has mischaracterized the findings of the report. and don't forget, for most americans, this will be the first time they will have an opportunity to hear about the contents of this report, the results of this investigation. it's an over 400-page document. i have read it. most of my colleagues have on the committee, or i assume all of them have, but most americans haven't read it. >> they say like 3%. and we can't blame them. >> no, it's 400-some-odd pages. >> and look, let's be honest, everybody was looking for the headline. is there going to be a next step to this or not? they didn't get it from the ploour mueller report. i don't mean that as a

criticism. i could see you making faces, cicilline, when i said, this is a big day for the democrats. no question it's good for people to hear from mr. mueller. i have argued from the beginning that he had to be out there. i wanted him out there when the report came out and do this one and done, hearing from the american people from a voice that they trust. however, the reason they put it in the context of the democrats more than the president, you know his base isn't moving anywhere. your party and the people who voted in the midterms did so with a set of expectations about checking power. and yes, there were policy issues. but i believe more than ever that this election will be a mandate on who we are, what we accept, and what we reject. after tomorrow, does your party quickly have to decide, all right, we need to take the next step and own this and do our constitutional duty this way, or we need to go a very different way and move down a different path. >> well, i mean, i hope that -- and this may be fantasy, but i really hope that this hearing, by both democrats and

republicans, that they will approach it with the seriousness that it deserves. we should never forget, this investigation began because the russians, in a systemic and sweeping way attacked our democracy. that ought to be a concern to everyone, republican and democrat alike, independent. so i hope this hearing will give the american people an understanding of the seriousness of this attack and the serious effort that the president made to stop the investigation. >> they'll get it, but that's going to create reaction formation. because people are going to say, i kind of knew this was already big, now i know even more. but where the hell aren't republicans and democrats do anything about it? i their from republicans and democrats, interference mattered, except you haven't done anything about it. >> we passed legislation to respond to this, to prevent it from happening in the future. >> in the house. >> we didn't get any help from the republicans on that bill, but we have to, of course, do everything that we can. we just passed additional legislation last week to secure our elections. that has to be our first priority. to make sure that the american people decide who will be our president, without any interference from any foreign

adversary. we have to do that first and foremost and we have done that in the house and the senate used to take it up. but we have to hold the president accountable. nobody is above the law in this country. >> when is the drop dead date on that? let's say it happens tomorrow and the polls state net neutral. let's say at best, it's 60/40, which is not as good as it is right now. 60%, "yes," it's impeachable, 40%, "no." what are you going to do? >> i don't think decisions such as the impeachment of the president or whether or not we should begin an impeachment inquiry should be governed by public opinion. >> i agree. >> you don't put your finger to the wind and say, is this good for us or not. you have to do what's right for the country to uphold the rule of law, to honor our constitution, and to not only hold this president accountable, but make clear to future presidents that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated. so we need to make judgments based on what the evidence requires and tell the american people that this is our constitutional duty. and if the evidence supports the opening of an impeachment inquiry, as i believe it does, we must move forward. >> but everybody says -- not everybody, but 92% out of what

everybody says what you just said. but you're not going to learn anything you don't know already. >> but our job is to make sure the american people understand. this is their democracy that was attacked. they have a right to know that this investigation was conducted on their behalf. it's important that the person who led the investigation report to the american people about his findings, about the evidence that he uncovered. and then it will be incumbent on congress to hold him accountable. in fact, mr. mueller in the very final paragraphs of the report says, this is congress' responsibility to demonstrate that no one is above the law. >> i look forward to seeing how you guys decide to do that, ultimately. congressman cicilline, always a pleasure. tomorrow is a big day. thank you for previewing it with us. i'm sorry about my voice. ing i get choked up about these matters. as long as mr. mueller gets to explain what was found and why, i really do believe it's a win for the american people. information is power. and we paid for the findings. but after us, the democrats have to have the most at stake. this matters to them, because

they're in the position of checking power. so let's do this. let's map up the best and worst-case scenarios. i've got a team formed just for this. the best of law, intelligence, and political prowess on tap, next. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? for all-day, all-night protection. you only talk about your insurancet, when you complain about it. (garbled)....it's so painful. good point! that's why esurance is making the whole experience surprisingly painless. so, you never have to talk about it. unless you're their spokesperson. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. when you start with a better that's no way to treat a dog...

...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs. iand grew it toy i$36 billion dollars. 6 in 2010, i signed the giving pledge to fund good causes. then i left my business to combat climate change, fix our democracy, and hold president trump accountable. last year, we ran the largest youth voter mobilization in history - helping double turnout and win back the house. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. let's make change happen!

and is the fastest growing place to buy a car in the nation. carvana is six years old this year it's because we have thousands of people working hard to make our customers' experiences the best. it's because we have tens of thousands of cars ready to be delivered to your doorstep. and it's why hundreds of thousands of happy customers have ditched the dealership and bought their car online, earning us an average 4.7 stars in the process. so if you didn't know about us before, you do now. we're carvana, and we want to give you the car buying experience you deserve.

you need some tlc on your eyelashes! meet lash serum solution. conditions and cares for your lashes with lash caring complex. see a denser, thicker-looking lash fringe in just 4 weeks. i would highly recommend it to anyone. with lash serum solution, 7 out of 10 women saw fewer lashes lost during makeup removal. my husband has noticed a difference. i really love lash serum. over 10,000 women have tried it and love it. try new lash serum solution. from l'oreal paris.

all right. it is almost mueller time. most of you, let's be honest, you didn't read the report, and i'm not judging that. it's really dense and this is supposed to be something that government was supposed to look out for. but tomorrow, you'll almost certainly hear things differently, if not things that are different altogether than you have before. for democrats, this has to be make or break. they've been talking the talk for too long about how to hold power to account. so what are they going to do? if they all think that the president abused his power and obstructed justice, when will they act on that and how? so tomorrow has a best-case scenario and a worst-case scenario. i've got a team of all-stars for you. and we're going to look at best case first. let me bring in the team. this is going to be great. we have wajahat ali, we have mike rogers, we have laura coates and michael isikoff, okay? you know these faces, but this is as good a team we could get tonight for this because there are so many dimensions. best case first, okay? laura -- and i'm saying for the

democrats, only because they have the standard of, what are they going to do to account. if everything goes as well as it could tomorrow, what does that look like and what does that mean? >> if everything goes the way they want it to, you're going to have a vivacious mueller bringing to life the actual book. that's not going to happen. what could happen instead is he answers the question, which is, but for that office of legal council opinion, would you have indicted the ordinary person? >> now, hold on. if laura coates is sitting next to bob mueller as the trusted deputy, you don't immediately go, oh, we don't have to talk about that, we don't have to talk about that. >> if it's "the godfather," you do, but it's not "the godfath godfather." this doesn't tell you whether or not you think that you had some right outside the opinion. it doesn't change the calculus to say that this president will, in fact, be a sitting president that was indicted. it simply says, if it's the

average guy, this is how it's included. this high crimes and misdemeanor is very nebulous to people. what does it mean? it's never been defined in the constitution or otherwise. if you tell me it's nebulous, and someone who's a former fbi director says, yeah, i would have indicted the average person more criminal charges. >> that's, boy, we didn't expect to hear that. mike, in terms of the realities of what could happen, what could be a satisfying day in terms of disclosure? >> well, i'm not sure you're going to get a satisfying day of disclosure. what i thought was very interesting that mueller asked to be subpoenaed as the former special counsel. i think he puts -- that puts limits on why he's there. he's not there as a private citizen. he was subpoenaed as the special counsel in that role. i think there's a reason he did that. and i also think there's a reason he wanted his chief of staff to be able to testify, not because he was playing games, he wants to be as accurate as he can. >> this is really dense stuff. it took a long time. he didn't do most of the work. he was overseeing that, waj, to

pick up on that point, i think to the extent that we get the emotion that laura is referring to and the satisfaction that mike thinks is unlikely, it's going to become, but your team was dirty, your team was compromised, you put a lot of clinton people on the team. i think that is something where it's not about the four corners of the report anymore, it's going after the one thing that mr. mueller cares about, his integrity and his reputation. >> they're going to talk about the deep state conspiracy theory, about peter strzok, all of these republican fbi agents appointed by republicans are somehow part of this conspiracy to derail donald trump. that's a given. they're playing to trump and playing to the base. but the democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight and this time they have a bfg, a big gun. they have ten instances of obstruction of justice. over 800 prosecutors, both republicans and democrats have said that if he was a private citizen, based on the report, they would have indicted him.

and also, people always forget this. that report shows that russia interfered in our elections, in a systemic way, sweeping way, breaking u.s. laws. donald trump has said what? i don't believe my own intelligence, i don't believe the mueller report, i don't even believe barr's cliff note summary of the mueller report saying that russia interfered, i actually believe vladimir putin. it's a great way to go after trump and the more you get mueller -- literally, i said this backstage. he's not going to be effusive or improv or riff. if you literally have him say the most damning aspects of the report on tape, play that over and over and over again, watch those numbers for impeachment go up. >> the reason i bring up character impugning as a good -- because i think it needs to come out. because i think a lot of people, as we've discussed many times, are looking through the lens of, i don't know if i can believe this team, i think they were out to get the president, i think it was a witch hunt, what is satisfying tomorrow? >> i think you're right. the one way to get mueller

energy-sized is to attack his integrity and the integrity of the investigation. that's something he will resist. that's where he'll, you know, push back and that's probably the -- you know, the most electric moment we'll find in the hearing. as for the report itself, it is going to be -- look, he is the last guy in the world who can give life to this report, because he's, you know, he's bob mueller. he's stilted, he's legalistic, he's not an electric speaker at all. so, you know, i think the democrats made a big mistake putting all of their eggs in the mueller testimony basket, because it's unlikely to produce the kind of, you know, moments for tv that you're looking for, that you can play tomorrow night. i think the one area where i think the democrats might be able to get -- make a little headway is when they ask mueller about his comments about, you

know, we didn't make a decision about charging the president for obstruction, there are other mechanisms, constitutional processes. what constitutional process did you have in mind, mr. mueller? and there's only one? and that's the word "impeachment." so if they can get mueller to say "impeachment," they'll have a sound bite that you can play tomorrow night. >> all right. let's leave the best part there. i actually agree with that final assessment, because my test is pretty simple for you, which is, if i had a hard time figuring out what they were saying in this report, it needs to be clarified. that is the most important point in the entire report in terms of what's supposed to happen next, it came at the end of the report, the discussion about congress having a role, and i don't really understand what they were saying. so that would be the best case if he clarifies that. what would be the worst case? let's keep the team around, because i believe there is something tomorrow that could happen that would be unforgivab unforgivable, it would be a truce worst-case scenario. we'll get that next. beep goes off ] now that you have new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles

with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move.

and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting.

so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. will it help me keep up with him? yup. so, i'll wake up ready for anything? oh, we've got your back. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, save up to $800 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends saturday.

all right. this is the upside of a live show. we just got new information and an understanding of it. so aaron zebley is going to be there tomorrow. he is the deputy to mueller.

this was a little bit of a controversy. he will be sworn in. however, remember, there are two hearings tomorrow. judiciary and then the intel committee. he will not be sworn in in the judiciary committee. he will be sworn in in the intel committee. what's the difference? that means he can sit next to mr. mueller in the first hearing and talking to him, but he can't answer questions. he can in the second one. and mike rogers just made a great point that i would haven't known if you're not here. thank you very much, brother, which is, in the intel committee, you can talk about obstruction all you want if the chairman is okay with it. that chairman is adam schiff. understandably, he would probably be okay with it. so he could answer questions that he's not allowed to answer in the first hearing, in the second one. >> any member of the intelligence committee can ask any question they want when it comes up. if the chairman has already gotten agreement from both sides that they'll only talk intelligence issues and russian interference, then they wouldn't be able to do that -- >> they wouldn't, but he could. >> there's nothing stopping them

from doing it, other than the decorum of the chairman deciding that they could or could not do it. and my guess would be that there is some deal, only because they're allowing the chief of staff to testify at the second hearing. and remember, again, mueller's doing that because there's no way he's going to remember every fact. and he wants to be exactly right. so he will be very measured. as a matter of fact, i would look at both opening statements, will tell you exactly how the rest of the day is going to go. >> what is likely to happen tomorrow that if it were this disappointing to you, i get that mike rogers text of, oh, this is exactly what i was hoping wouldn't happen. what's worst-case scenario. that congress looks like, you know, they're attacking people's integrity, they're attacking the fbi's integrity, they're attacking the investigative integrity. and by the way, that's where mueller will stand up. it's not the department of justice. i do believe he'll draw a circle around the fbi. he will be protective of the agency of which he passionately believes in. and i do think if they start

going, making these personal -- and by the way, he fired the guy and he'll probably have that explanation, the strzok, who was involved in the affair, once he found out about the texts, he released them off of the investigation, which is what he should have done. >> they'll hit him with, why'd you delete all of those texts between those two that we wanted. what is the head slapper for you tomorrow if it goes a certain way, and you're like, i can't believe this happened. >> well, sorry to disappoint mike, but that's what's going to happen tomorrow. it's going to be wwf, they're going to do what they're going to do and attack the fbi. >> only the republicans? >> maybe. if nadler really believes, according to the report, if mueller has shown that donald trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors with those ten instances of obstruction of justice, then you go on the offensive tomorrow. you get him on the record and say, do you agree with donald trump that he's total exonerated by your report? do you agree with donald trump that there's no obstruction of justice?

get him on the impeachment question. impugn barr's report, right? because three days after that report came out the summary of the report. there was a private letter by mueller saying, you mischaracterized my conclusions. how did he mischaracterize those conclusions? if you miss this offensive moment, that's the worst. >> that's putting a high bar for the democrats, but it's a fair bar. and it's one of the reasons i love having waj on. the people who voted in the midterms, the people on the progressive side of the party had a set of expectations, laura, for what they suspected to see from congress. they have not seen it yet. because this whack a mole with the different hearings and stuff, that's not what they thought they were signing up for. what would be the worst-case scenario tomorrow? >> if they refuse to interview mueller. if you waste the time spinning your wheels so everyone can hear from you as opposed to mueller, what was the point of a delay from a week later in the first place. and number two, if you mistake his ability to only speak about what's in the report for his

inability to talk about his rationale and logic about it. to talk about the actual report, he can talk about a whole lot of decisions. he can talk about his declinations about who he interviewed, who he did not interview, who he pursued, whether he pursued subpoenas on some people, whether it was from his actual testimony. did he testify? that's all in the confines. if they say, we're only limited to what you can talk about the report, that still means it's fair game to say your rationale, your logic, your reasoning, why you did and did not act. >> strong. >> i agree, there are some tough questions that mueller should be asked and has to answer. the whole, you know, his refusal to make a decision about whether or not the president's conduct amounted to a criminal conduct or not. you know, why didn't he make a decision? he was a prosecutor. a prosecutor makes a binary choice. either you indict or you don't. that's the only thing a

prosecutor is appointed to do. mueller punted. he's given an explanation for why he said -- you know, he says the olc opinions, but not just the olc opinions. he says, in his conclusion on the whole obstruction, he says, these are difficult issues that both the facts and the law. so if the facts were muddy, he had to make a call and he didn't. why didn't he subpoena the president? why did he just accept the written answers? why didn't he subpoena donald junior and require him to testify? he would have taken the fifth, granted, but still, you know, that was the process that mueller had available to him. so there are a lot of tough questions that mueller should be asked, whether the democrats who would want to build up mueller will go that route, that's going to be something interesting. >> i'm out of time on this. this is a really good taste of how it can go right and how it can go wrong. we'll all see it in realtime. history will be made tomorrow on our watch. thank you very much to the team. i couldn't ask for better.

thank you very much. all right? now, for some, democrats calling for an impeachment is a serious political risk. why? well, what if you're in a purple state? what if you're in a seat that's vulnerable? katie porter, new congressman from california, we're going to talk to her about what she's hearing back home. but also, i want to ask her about the president's theory that he can withhold his taxes as a first amendment right. what does the law professor think of that? next. you don't really talk about your insurance unless you're complaining about it.

you go on about how... ...it's so confusing it hurts my brain. ya i hear ya... or say you can't believe... ...how much of a hassle it is! and tell anyone who'll listen... (garbled)....it's so expensive! she said it's so expensive. tell me about it. yes.. well i'm telling the people at home. that's why esurance is making the whole experience surprisingly painless. so, you never have to talk about it, unless you're their spokesperson. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. ♪ (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream.

with the creamy taste [laughter]ly, ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪ ♪ we all use our phones differently. i can manage the time they spend on their phone, who they're texting with, all of that. it's a win for all of us. (vo) the network more people rely on, gives you more. like plans families can mix and match, including the new just kids plan. that's verizon.

listen to a world leader say he can do whatever he wants. >> then i have an article ii where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. but i don't even talk about that. >> just did! now, that was the languae of a dictator, and that's why he shouldn't even talk like that. but it's not a fact. the united states constitution does not grant the power to the president to do whatever he wants. that's why we have a system of checks and balances. president trump's comments come on the cusp of a make it or break it moment for house democrats, in my opinion. i believe that mr. mueller being on the stand is something that should have happened a long time ago, it's good for all of us, but it will be a big moment for the democrats. california congresswoman katie porter is here to talk strategy, law, and more. good to have you here in person. first of all, am i wrong,

professor, that tomorrow matters for the democrats. you can't keep saying, well, we think he did all of these things wrong and abused his power, but we're not going to do what the constitution tells us to do. we're going to do it this other way. >> i would reframe it and say that tomorrow really matters for americans. i think if we start framing this in terms of party ideology, we're really missing the issue of what we're grappling with here. what we're talking about is what are the strictures, the rules that our founders of our country put in place to ensure that we stay a vibrant democracy and we never became a dictatorship. this is not just a big day for democrats, but it's a big day for independents and our country to understand what's going on. >> no question. no question. most people didn't read it and i totally get why. not only is it dense -- >> well, it was boring. >> a lot of it's boring. i found it pretty fascinating, but this is what we do. especially the first part. second part was obstruction -- >> yeah, volume ii was better. >> i get why they didn't read

it. for mr. mueller to give them the information, they didn't read the book, but they'll get to see the movie. but just like you did in your own personal case, you weren't sure. ed up to talk to the people at home and examine the evidence as a lawyer and a professor. but then you made a call. the party has to do the same thing. there are too many democrats who say, i think the president abused his power, committed impeachable offenses, then do what the constitution tells you to do or don't, but make a decision? >> i think that's an important point. and my own thinking was, once i had studied the issue and had had a chance to read the mueller report, and once i had realized that very clearly mr. mueller states there is substantial evidence of at least four counts of obstruction of justice. and he lays out what those four counts are. and tomorrow, i hope american tunes in and understands that obstruction of justice, there is substantial evidence there. and that is a federal crime. each one of those four counts is a federal crime. and the mueller report further says there's some evidence of an additional ten counts of obstruction of justice. what i wanted to say is in

response to your earlier comment about the president saying that, you know, he has unlimited power. >> he doesn't? >> he does not. and i would say this to you as someone who has graded a lot of law students in my life. that is an "f" answer. an absolute "f." i teach boy scouts and one of the things i drive home to the scouts, and these are 12 and 13 and 14-year-old boys who understand this concept that the president doesn't, is that the power, the largest sets of power in our constitution reside with the legislature. they reside with congress. why? because congress is the closest to the people, right? and so this idea that article ii is how some limitless residual pot of power is simply a fiction and it's something that he's simply saying and trying to make it true by repeating it. >> and that often works for well for him with a certain portion of the country. if you were there tomorrow asking questions, what do you think is absolutely vital that needs to come from mr. mueller? >> i think i would ask whether

he -- whether after his doing his report and spending the time and using the resources he did, whether he can exonerate the president, yes or no. >> what do you think he says? >> he's going to have to say "no," he cannot exonerate the president, because that is what the report says. so he's said he's going to stick to his report, that his report is his testimony, and the report says very can clearly, this is verbatim, essentially, it says, if we could clearly state, we would. and we cannot clearly state. >> there's a lot of double speak in there, though. there's double speak about -- >> i would ask it in a yes or no format. i would simply say, can you exonerate, after having done your report, are you able to exonerate the president? and he's going to have to say "no" if he's consistent with his report. >> so you have to go yes or no answers, because if you ask for an opinion or something or a rationale that goes to an opinion, you're going to wind up having a short day. >> and i think you just asked, did you find evidence of obstruction of justice, acts of obstruction of justice? yes or no? >> the other side is going to say, but enough to be a crime?

>> but, listen, obstruction of justice is a crime. let's be clear. it's not a -- this is not a sliding scale. you know, there's not like kind of half-murdered. you either obstructed justice or you did not obstruct justice. >> you could have been endeavoring to obstruct, but wouldn't the other side push on the point of, but was it enough to charge? was it a little bit of proof or a lot of proof. >> this is something i kind of reinforce to people when i'm talking to them in my district. what is the role of the house of representatives versus the role of the senate? and this was really carefully thought about by our founders. the role of the house is to conclude, is there enough evidence that there needs to be an evidentiary trial held by the senate? it's not our job in the house of representatives to ultimately remove the president from office. it's our job to make a decision about whether or not there's enough evidence to impeach. impeach does not mean to remove from office. >> 100%. that's why i don't -- >> send it to the senate. >> now, you and i had this discussion once before when you were figuring out what to do. and i had a lot of respect for

your deliberative process on it. you were like, i've got to make a decision on this. if that is the role, and that is the role. it's in the constitution. that's what an impeach inquiry is. not this scramble of overnight hearings that are going in eight different directions at once. it doesn't mean that you're impeaching the president, it means that you're doing the fact-finding mission the way the constitution tells you. one other thing. i'm not giving you my taxes because it's a violation of my first amendment right. >> no, not correct. >> but i was a private citizen when i was paying those taxes. >> too bad. you chose to run for president. when you ran for president, there was an existing law on the books, a law that dates back, by the way, to 1924, that said that the ways and means committee could request the taxes of the president and they would have to be provided. so, president trump knew this law existed when he ran -- >> hold on a second. you think the president knew that that law existed when he ran? >> ignorance is no defense. >> the man who just said, article ii lets me do whatever i want to do under the constitution. >> ignorance of the law is no

defense. i would not want to speculate as to what the president does and does not understand about the rule of law, because i think it would be hard to know where to stop. >> but there is no law that says as president, i must give over my taxes. it's a custom -- >> no, no, incorrect. there is a law that says, upon request from the chairperson of the ways and means committee, the irs shall furnish the president's taxes. and this is a law enacted in 1924. it's an old law. it was enacted in the wake of the teapot dome scandal. and it was enacted to make sure that congress had the ability to do overnight. because at the time, and still today, the president has the ability to get any of our taxes. he controls the irs. >> so you say that case goes nowhere? >> he's going to lose this case on the federal tax returns, absolutely. >> professor, thank you very much. >> thank you so much. >> appreciate you being with us, congresswoman. we look forward to seeing what happens tomorrow. we'll have you back on the show. >> thank you so much. so, big topic change, but an important one. being a police officer is a very hard job, we all know that. imagine trying to do your job

and dealing with this. >> oh! >> out in the middle of some like water balloon fight, they're getting just pounded with water and buckets while they're trying to do their job. now, what happened thouo these people who are doing this in this picture? have any been charged? what about the outcry about this situation and why this is happening? this is a big deal. it should not be ignored. let's bring in d. lemon and get a after it, next. og... ...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs. the business of road trips... ...adventure... ...and reconnecting. modernized comfort inn's and suites have been refreshed because our business is you. get the lowest price guaranteed on all choice hotels when you book direct at choicehotels.com.

i switched to geico and saved hundreds. that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. geico's a company i can trust, with over 75 years of great savings and service. ♪ now that's a win-win. switch to geico. it's a win-win. switch to geico. ♪ "shaving has been difficult for me i have very sensitive skin, and i get ingrowing hairs" "oh i love it. it's a great razor.

it has that 'fence' in the middle. it gives a nice smooth shave. just stopping that irritation.... that burn that i get. i wouldn't use anything else" ♪

i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies

and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ all right. the new york police department has one person in custody tonight. why? because of this. take a look at this video. these are these guys dumping water on officers. as far as we know, it was all guys. they're making a legit arrest on somebody who had an outstanding warrant. they start getting sprayed with water, a bucket is going to fly in and hit this cop in the back of the head. and the officers do nothing. okay? i cannot believe the restraint that they had. i know that's the job. i know they're supposed to be the better than the rest of us, but amazing. then it got worse, in my opinion. a top-ranking member of the nypd says the officers should be

reprimanded for their inaction. take a listen. >> any cop who thinks that that's all right, that they can walk away from something like that maybe should reconsider whether or not this is the profession for them. we don't take that. >> i don't know what to do with that statement. and that's why i want to bring in d. lemon. when i saw this, you're appalled by the obvious, right? i can't believe that people are doing that to police officers. it's not like the police were in the act of doing something horrible that everybody would be outraged at, so that's what they did, even though it's wrong, in context. it's different. but then, what were they supposed to do? >> well, i -- [ applauds ] >> right,. >> because they're better men than you and i. they're supposed to be. but in that situation. here's what i have to say. by the way, this is close to where i live, the 2-8. i live very close to the 2-8. and i know the officers up

there, they're really good police officers, really nice, really friendly, they do a great job and face some tough circumstances, so i have nothing but respect for those officers. i think, as i've talked to people today, you know what they said to me? they said, i'll be honest, they said, white officers? i said, yeah. black guys? i said, yeah, they said, damn, makes us look bad. and i agree with them 100%. >> i think one of the officers was asian. >> wbut you know what i mean. there are issues when it comes to african-americans and policing and you don't need to add to that by acting ignorant. >> you don't need to be what you oppose, either. you don't like bad behavior, don't be bad behavior. >> you're walking down the street, someone throws a bucket of liquid on you, your mom, your niece, your nephew, who are you going to call? >> the police. after i beat that guy's ass. that's what i'm so impressed about -- i may lose, but i'm

going to try. i think it shows tremendous restraint. because behind the human being -- uniform is a human being. then the police chief says, that's -- we don't walk away from that. we don't take that. what were they supposed to do? if they had done the kinds of things that he's suggesting, who knows what it turns into. >> then they end up on video, then they end. in trouble. and then someone may end up getting hurt or shot. who knows? they -- instead of escalating the situation, they took it down. i don't like what happened to them. i don't like that someone threw water on them or any kind of liquid or threw anything at a police officer. i think police officers should be respected. i think authorities should be respected. yes, you can question a police officer, why are you pulling me over? >> 100%. >> you have the right to do that, but you don't have the right to throw something on a police officer. >> and i know that one's in custody. i hope they find out -- >> they're all -- my fiancee called and said, the cops are

all at their house. >> good. and i hope that people in the community say, i know who one of those kids are in the video -- >> they're going to get them. it's on video. it's on video. >> they should. the same way we want the police held to account when they do something wrong, people do something wrong to >> questioning mueller tomorrow and james clapper. >> huge day. i'll do the closing and come back to you. let's switch seats. we'll have an argument for you coming up here. this election will be a battle of definition. us vs. them. what is closer to reality. we saw a massive shift. i'll expose it to you and make a case you should remember what you're about to learn. next. conditions and cares for your lashes with lash caring complex. see a denser, thicker-looking lash fringe in just 4 weeks.

i would highly recommend it to anyone. with lash serum solution, 7 out of 10 women saw fewer lashes lost during makeup removal. my husband has noticed a difference. i really love lash serum. over 10,000 women have tried it and love it. try new lash serum solution. from l'oreal paris. but it's not really something yoyou want to buy.. it's not sexy... oh delicious. or delicious... or fun. ♪ but since you need both car and home insurance, why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%. which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like ah well i don't know what you'd wanna buy cause i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. [ text notification now that you have] new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before.

dr. scholl's. born to move. and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. will it help me keep up with him? yup. so, i'll wake up ready for anything? oh, we've got your back. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, save up to $800 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends saturday.

book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a $50 gift card. because when your business is rewarding yourself... ...our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com

as we get ready for what i

hope will be a fact feast with mueller. let's no over look our government cut a deal on spending to avoid a shut down. that's a good thing. can you criticize the deal? of course. it's better that both sides made a deal on something that matters to us. deal is really kwirky. $320 billion. you'll hear this was about nancy pelosi and wielding her power and threatening to shut down the government. making the deal with mnuchin. fine. the real tell is how much quiet there is on the deal from the right. for a generation, the call to arms against democrats was stop the spendsing. republicans were ready to die on the hill of fiscal os terty. less government. pay down the debt. reduce the deficit. they shut down the government for far less than this bill. what happened? well, as is the case with many

norms in the age of trump the conservative mantra has been mangled. why? the answer i argue political expedience and securing a seat on the trump train. proof of the shift. during obama here was the righteous right. >> at some point here, this president needs to become the adult. because the speaker and i have been the adults in the room. arguing we ought to do something about the most serious long term problem. >> we're broke. >> we're broke. america is broke. all yearlong the friends across the aisle have been on a massive spending spree that the nation can't afford. >> if we don't fix the debt crisis we'll shred the social safety net. >> he wasn't having it as speaker either. he was for the tax cut. even then private citizen donald

trump who was not exactly a wiz at managing debt. sounded the deficit alarm. >> we owe $15 trillion in a very short period of time. 15 trillion. nobody heard of the world trillion three years ago. now we owe $15 trillion. going to $22 trillion. and they didn't cut enough. >> you know when they hit 22? under his watch. up from 19. we have to wonder. were these republicans against the policy or the party? eight years later now president trump endorsed a massive budget deal that will raise spending limits by $320 billion. while suspending the debt ceiling until after the 2020 election. it means the spendsing is protected. how convicted. federal discretion nar spending is growing faster than it was under obama administration. combine huge spending and

reduced tax revenue thanks to the tax cut. a fat deficit approaching $1 trillion up from 779 billion last year. the national debt to mr. trumps citizen trumps point. 22 trillion earlier this year up from 19 trillion. when he took office. the tax cut will spark business. and if you just give it time the numbers will come back down. that's what they told you that was fiction. fiscal year 2018 individual tax revenue fell 2%. corporations down 22%. the corporate shortfall is more money than all taxes collected from the rest of us. no, the tax cut didn't raise revenue and no, companies are not raising wages or lowering prices in a way that balances out the gift to them. i know this is thousand works. roll your eyes. don't do that. for the the talk about plan and

policy debate by the democrats. the election will be a an identity battle. who are we. who do we want to be. who is us who is them. see what the power did when it was in power. that's the right right now. not what it says it woud do. you know democrats want spending. they didn't want the corporate tax cut. we know that. now all the definitions are up for definition. i don't refer to the parties this much these days. just the left and right. democrats used to be for the working class. republicans the cigar chomping fat cats. the left it trying to reclaim them. the right cannot claim to be about safeguarding spending not after this administration and a tax cut that wasn't paid for in all this spending put on top. i know this isn't getting wattage because of mueller. this deal and shift matters. it matters nor than all the angry talk about which side is

worse. people will be selling you on what they're about. remember what they actually did. and also remember cnn live coverage of mueller begins tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m. eastern. "cnn tonight" with don lemon sitting right next to me. >> spending, spending. did you see how young paul ryan looked. >> he just swallowed that big tax cut. and all the bogus rational he would have never accepted under obama. >> well, it happens. you get to see the hypocrisy on display. >> every once in a while you get a pocket effect. you got it here. seeing the numbers. on a big one today. you'll talk about it. christopher wray. >> sometimes facts are stubborn things. they come out and people will talk about it.