key witness to come before congress and they don't have the answers to that yet. they want to check that box before they decide to go forward. >> dana bash, thank you very much. and thanks so much to all of you for joining us for our breaking news coverage on this historic testimony day. our coverage continues here on cnn with anderson. and good evening from washington. robert mueller spoke today and millions listened. the question is what did they hear. the russian special counsel's testimony before the house judiciary committee and intelligence was in many ways a war shack test. different assumptions on each side going in and lines of questioning and different take aways from the two sides afterward. republicans large recalling it a failed offense of what in their view was an illegitimate investigation. democrats hanging on every instance mueller confirmed what was in his report and so doing conif i recafirmed the democrat that a felon sits in the white house. what neither side got was a

robert mueller hypotheticals. mueller testified many times over his long career but it is certainly a while and today he was often halting, hesitant obviously reluctant to be there. talk about all that and the rest tonight because all of it is significant, we begin, though, tonight keeping him honest with something else that also matters a lot, namely direct attacks by the president on the legitimacy of the investigation and the man in charge of it. today mueller contradicted many of those allegations which the president was making after the hearings late today. >> there was no defense to this ridiculous hoax. this witch hunt that's been going on for a long time, pretty much from the time i came down on the escalator with our first lady and it's a disgrace what p -- happened but today proved a lot to everybody. the answer is very simple. nothing was done wrong. this was a big hoax and if you look at it today, nothing was

done wrong. >> he says no wrongdoing and all it takes is a look at the court docket to see that that's pulse and mr. mueller said the opposite just hours before. he and others pointing to the convictions or guilty pleas from paul manafort deputy rick gates, president's first national security advisor michael flynn, dozens of indictments. for the hoax and witch hunt allegations, he addressed that, as well. >> when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not? >> i'd like to think so, yes. >> well your investigation is not a witch hunt -- >> it is not a witch hunt. >> when the president said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? >> true. >> when he said it publicly, it was false? >> he did say publicly that it was false, yes. >> so not a witch hunt, not a hoax, either. as for the president's claim repeated twice this afternoon that nothing was done wrong, definitely not what mueller found.

watch. >> director mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it? >> correct, that is not what the report said. >> the president has also climbed the special counsel nominated to be fbi director has conflicts of interest in a judge against the president because he was turned down for the directorship a third time. >> he's got big conflicts with me, as you know, he wanted the job of the fbi director. he didn't get it, and we had a business relationship where i said no, and i would say that he wasn't happy then all of a sudden, he gets this position. >> well, for the record, the so-called business relationship corp ever conce concerned a refund mueller was seeking at one of trump's country clubs. steve bannon told president trump was ridiculous and petty. for the president's claim that

mueller wanted his old job back, mueller was asked about that today. >> so you don't recall on may 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the fbi director job? >> i interviewed with the president -- >> about the fbi director job? >> about the job and not me applying for the job. >> so your statement here today is that you didn't interview to apply for the fbi director job? >> that's correct. >> the president called attention to a moment early on that had democrats buzzing because it went to the heart of the case they were trying to make the special counsel would indict the president on obstruction of justice charges or not for the obstruction of justice charges barred the president from being indicted. that happened with ted lu. >> it's a recap of what we heard. we heard the president ordered former white house counsel don mcgahn to fire you. the president ordered don mcgahn to cover that up and create a false paper trail and now we've

heard the president ordered corey lewandowski to tell jeff sessions to limit your investigation so that he, you stop investigating the president. i believe the person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and i'd like to ask you, the reason again that you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? >> that is correct. >> well, as you might imagine, that made news, unwelcome news to mueller that walked back his remarks a short time later. >> i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lu who said and i quote you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion. that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed

a crime. >> which is consistent with language from his report but still leaves open the question what would mueller have done if not for the olc opinion. i spoke with congressman lu earlier tonight. congressman, your exchange with mueller produced clearly one of the more surprising responses from him of the day. were you surprised by his first answer this morning and then by his walk back later in the day? >> i was not surprised by his first answer because special counsel mueller himself who always brings up the olc opinion saying that he was instructed he could not indict a sitting president, and i simply walked special counsel mueller through the three elements of obstruction of justice. i showed that they were all met and then i asked him basically is the reason he didn't indict donald trump because of that opinion and he said yes. it was perfectly logical and made perfect sense. >> when he walked it back, he seemed to lay the blame on you for the way you frame the question rather than the way he answered it. do you think he didn't

understand what you said or do you think he actually did understand it and his original answer was what he really thought but he just didn't want to say that publicly? >> i believe he fully understood my question. it was a logical extension of me getting him to establish the three elements of obstruction of justice were met and i think it's what he actually believes. i think he may have walked it back because he understood that what that means is we got a felon in the white house and that's what the hearing showed today, that donald trump committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice. those are felonies. what the american people and congress choose to do with that information we'll see in the next few days and weeks. >> so when he later says that, you know, they reached no conclusion and they reached no c conclusion because of the olc guidelines guidelines operating from the beginning, you think in his mind he did reach a conclusion and he did reveal that? >> absolutely. he lays out the three elements of obstruction of justice.

he said yes to the first two, and then the third element with intent, i simply read him when he wrote in his report. he said there was substantial evidence of corrupt intent. that meets all three elements so you can call it whatever you want but every person who looks at it including over 1,400 prosecutors calls it obstruction of justice. >> there has been a lot of surprise and discussion of how mueller performed today. it was clearly very different than he had done, you know, in years past. i think this is the first time in six years he was testifying. did it surprise you and do you think it muted what democrats hoped the impact of this would be? >> i would have liked to have special counsel robert mueller but he answered yes and true to a number of devastating facts and if the american people are watching this, the only conclusion they conclude is that the russians systematically and sweepingly interfered in our 2016 elections, the trump

campaign embraced that interference and then the president committed mobile acts of obstruction of justice to stop the investigation into that sbeer fe sbe ent interference. >> the reason he said the president was not exonerated is tip his hand in the belief. he could have said there is not a basis to charge him but he didn't say that, which is what he said on the conspiracy/collusion. he said, you know, that clearly he was not exonerated. >> that's a great point. so robert mueller himself brings up the fact that he did not exonerate the president and then he says the olc opinion prevents me from indicting a sitting president. that's like saying two plus two and that we're here going okay, that means four, right? that's essentially where i got him to commit to today and if the american people watch these hearings, that's the only conclusion they could come up with that the president of the united states committed multiple felonies. >> does this change anything? do you believe long term?

does this move others in congress or you toward supporting impeachment, should it move the democrats in the house toward moving toward impeachment? >> we know that additional democratic members of congress today said that they support opening and impeachment inquiry will see how the american public feels and know in the next few days and weeks how the american public assimilates this information that donald trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice which are felonies. >> is that what it's going to boil down to for democrats if the public wants an impeachment or if it's not politically popular, is that something you should take into account? >> i believe public sentiment is ablu absolutely a big factor and so are other factors including what the constitution says evidence shows. if anyone watching these two hearings who had not read the mueller report or learned about

the issues, they would have been surprised today because special counsel robert mueller directly contradicts donald trump and attorney general bill barr. >> appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> a lot to talk about, i'll only do this one, former top obama advisor david axelrod and nia mallika henderson and gloria boringer and jeffrey toobin and corey cordero and kirsten powers and former trump campaign strategists and cnn political commentator david urban. if democrats were looking for, you know, we heard nothing from democrats other than if all he does is read from the report, that will be great. >> of course, he did read from the report. listen, i think what ted lu said was interesting. we'll have to wait a few days and see what the american people say. the reality is the last poll i saw was the "wall street journal" nbc poll last weekend that said 21% of americans

favored impeachment and that was down from 27% in june. the question is did what we see today move the needle? there is no doubt there was damaging blows landed in this, but was it enough to actually move the needle in a way that would create a climate where impeachment makes sense? if i'm nancy pelosi thinking, you know, 21% is a bad number, i got 31 people in districts that donald trump won and sitting on the other side of the road, a senate that will throw out anything we do anyway. so i make people walk the plank. i think she is going to slow walk this and continue to investigate. >> i mean, if there were damaging blows today, it was a long, drawn out messy and at times hard to understand fight. >> a lot of hype going into this. you had adam schiff saying he wanted and expected that robert mueller would bring this to life and i don't think he did. you had jeffrey sort of say well we didn't really expect it to be

robert redford. we expected it to be robert mueller. i think they expected robert mueller to be much more engaged. >> this is not the robert mueller that testified. >> that's right. he seemed at times he was very engaged and had a real command of the facts with this sort of yes and no question that was probably the most effective parts but they were able to trip him up with facts in the report that he didn't have a full command on. i think i don't know that democrats expected that. i think they expected, you know, sort of moments that could be replayed in a sound byte and he clearly didn't want to do that. >> he was more comfortable in the afternoon talking about russian interference and he got very animated about that. he sort of said to the american public, you know, this is a living message here. you have to pay attention to this because it's going on as i sit here and he did throw a bunch of shade at donald trump and administration by saying that their investigation was

impeded by all of the lies and that the president is talking about wikileaks and saying, you know, i love you wikileaks was problematic would be an understatement. he called it disturbing subjek -- subject to investigation. he did go on a little bit about that -- >> if that's the most exciting -- [ laughter ] >> second half is it was like, you know, getting water from a stone. you couldn't do it. he didn't want to be there. and he wasn't honestly fully in command of everything that was in front of him. s he seemed halting at times. >> one of the reasons he did better in the afternoon is the republicans realized in the break that they were beating up on this guy who seemed a little uncertain of himself and they weren't very simple threatympat came back aggressive and questioning with a lot of crazy conspiracy theories but weren't really aggressive in the way they were in the morning. >> so a couple things, couple

observations for the past week or two we've heard americans haven't watched this. watch the movie. it will be great. americans saw the movie and it got a 12 on rotten tomatoes. >> somebody else said the book was better than the movie. >> the book was way better than the movie. my take away from this was just how -- it seemed to me, this is a patriot guy who served his country with great distinction. i had occasion in the past to come across his path fbi director and very strong guy and kind of out of touch with his own report when he was asked one of the members asked him so how many interviews did you participate in? and he kind of looked like he had never heard or thought of that before. he said not many. i would have drilled down and asked him. out of 500, how many? 20? 10? he didn't seem to have a command of the mueller report that has his name on it. >> i think it's possible to over state the -- i mean, the stage

craft was lousy. this wasn't mueller report the movie. this was mueller report the book on tape but it was -- >> by the way, someone recorded a book on tape -- [ laughter ] >> implication. exempt for yours. [ laughter ] >> but, you know, if you listened to what he actually said, i mean, the fact is, you know, don mcgahn the story of don mcgahn is one of the most obvious and egregious obstructions of justice you can imagine taking place in the white house he tells mcgahn first to fire mueller for no good reason and eloquent thes mcgahn to lie about whether he was told to fire mueller. now, it would be better if don mcgahn were telling that story. that's how -- >> but that's the book, jeff. we read that. that's been out there for months. >> months. >> you have. >> david loves the book. everybody should read it. >> "new york times" best seller. >> tried to walk him through that if it didn't have the

impact, i mean, whose fault is that? >> i don't know whose fault it is. the fact is it is an extraordinary story, there is lots of evidence of obstruction of justice and the fact that the show was not so great -- >> the other thing for both two lawyers here, i play one on tv but the fact that the president was being exonerated, prosecutors don't exonerate. they prosecute. name another instance in the history of prosecution -- >> david, but there is only one -- >> the same talking points. >> it's not the talking point, kerry. it's the fact of the legal system. >> let her -- >> it is the same talking point the republicans in the hearing were using today. on the point -- >> what's your answer to it? >> on the issue of what he communicated during the hearing, if anyone was expecting him to come in and tell the story which is how some of the members were previewing this, they were wrong. he didn't want to be there. he didn't want to tell an entire narrative. >> back to the question. >> what he was effective in

doing was countering the president's main talking point, which is that this entire investigation was bogus and that the entire investigation had no purpose. >> but i do -- but -- >> deserves an answer. >> you deserve an answer to your question which is why did he do the exoneration? under the regulation under which he was appointed, he was required to explain why he did and didn't prosecute in each individual. that's his job. >> he's not required to say not exonerated. >> but by saying not exonerated, was he essentially tipping his hand to congress? >> well, he was doing the job he was assigned to do. >> couldn't he have said we didn't, you know, we didn't find the evidence or we didn't -- the same thing he said -- >> he said a lot of things. >> we didn't find enough evidence of. >> he could have said a lot of different things. what he seemed to me to be doing was fulfilling the obligation

that he was -- >> okay. >> isn't it also true that he isn't like every other american, no other american is immune from prosecution because of the department of justice rules that say even if you're guilty, you can't be prosecuted. >> you can be prosecuted when he leaves office. i remember during the last trial of impeachment i participated in, bill clinton, my former boss wrote an op ed november 11th that said if you don't want to prosecute clinton, prosecute him when he's gone. you can do it. >> it's important to remember when this initially -- when barr put out his statement and the argument over republicans was basically the fact that he wasn't being prosecuted was proof that he was innocent. that really was the -- that was the argument -- >> i'm saying -- >> i think it does matter for him to -- for it to be very clear it's not an exoneration because he didn't prosecute. >> i want to play some of what the republicans seemed to be

focussing on, fusion gps and the idea there is something in the organi origins of this that doesn't smell right. i want to play their few focus on fusion gps. >> fusion gps. >> steel's information. >> fusion gps. >> christopher steele's reporting. >> fusion gps. >> the steele dossier. >> christopher steele. >> the steele dossier. >> fusion gps. >> fusion gps. >> the steel dossier. >> fusion gps. >> steele dossier. >> steele reporting. >> gps. >> the name of the firm was fusion gps, is that correct? >> so mueller -- [ laughter ] >> -- when he first started out said i won't be addressing any of this. obviously, they ignored that and, you know, for understandable reasons. i wonder what you make of their focus? >> i think this is the right wing conspiracy theory is this

was all -- this all started from a phony dossier that was, you know, funded by the democrats even though it wasn't originally, the investigation wasn't even initially paid for by the democrats and so this is like the conspiracy theory i think that the republicans have been pushing. i don't think it helped that mueller said he didn't even know. >> right, right. >> what we're talking about because that was jarring because that is something that i think everybody is aware of fusion gps if you just pick up the newspaper, you would be aware of it. >> again, not being in touch with his own report. that's the narrative. >> we're going to take a quick break and pick up the conversation. coming up next, the president's reaction today and victory lap on the south lawn. we're joined by maggie haberman and graph and we spoke about pelosi and we'll look how the democratic leadership seized the hearings or what they are saying publicly. we'll be right back. can my side be firm? 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. ♪ ahhhh! ♪ we're here. ♪ ♪

this is the averys trying the hottest new bistro. this is the averys. wait...and the hottest taqueria? and the hottest...what are those? oh, pierogis? and this is the averys wondering if eating out is eating into saving for their first home. this is jc... (team member) welcome to wells fargo, how may i help? (vo) who's here to help with a free financial health conversation, no strings attached. this is the averys with the support they needed to get back on track. well done guys. (team member) this is wells fargo. ♪ ♪

♪ bar-r-b! barb! i can taste my beer. samuel adams sam '76 -- finally a refreshing lager that you can taste. woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis,

and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com become a golden opportunity? when the power of 472-horses and an inspired race car design come together at the perfect moment. ♪ don't miss your perfect moment to experience thrilling performance with our most exceptional offers. now, at the lexus golden opportunity sales event. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

he might watch a bit of hearings yesterday that might have been an understatement judging by the head of steam. as we played at the top he vented on the south lawn celebrating on his way to west virginia. here is another sample. >> we have done a great job under this terrible phony cloud of phony cloud that's all it was and they should be ashamed of themselves, absolutely ashamed and everyone knew it was a hoax especially the democrats. wikileaks is a hoax like everything else and the problems having to do with crime were the biggest hoax of all. it was a witch hunt, a total witch hunt. >> he also said i'm quoting now it was a fake set of facts that the democrats used to do really an illegal over throw investigation. joining us with more, kaitlan collins. clearly, the president, you

know, feels very good about today and wants to give that impression certainly. is that the opinion of the white house? >> yeah, they think it worked out in the president's favor because you have to keep in mind none of the facts of the mueller report changed today. it's the optics they think work here and that's why you see the president coming out on the south lawn declaring himself vindicated as he's criticizing robert mueller's performance and saying he's walking away from this day believing democrats will be devastated by this that is certainly not the attitude the president had going into today. >> his move clearly lifted or changed he was, you know, it was clearly different before the hearing if you're judging by his tweets. >> yeah, it changed big time. this morning he was up early calling people agitated that this guy who loomed over his presidency for so long was going to be appearing back in front of the cameras bringing all of this back up but you notice a very obvious shift in the president's attitude is that first hearing getting underway and the

president was essentially hanging on every word watching it closely and that's when the president started to shift from this mood of irritation to a sense of almost being triumph. >> the president did seem confused today when asked about mueller's clarification. do you know -- is it clear to you what he thought mueller was trying to correct? >> yeah, he became combative with reporters leaving the white house and asking about that part of the hearing where mueller said yes, thoueoretically the president could be charged after he leaves office and the president pushed back saying no, mueller corrected that at the beginning of the second hearing but as you noted that was mueller coming out and correcting what he seemed to agree to, yes, the only reason they didn't indict the president is because of the olc opinion and mueller said that's not something we decided to make an assessment on. the president said repeatedly two or three times to reporters no, that was something he corrected. the president referencing what mueller said about trump being able to be indicted out of

office when mueller was issuing the correction, he's talking about a decision he made in this investigation but that seemed to be a misconception the president had from watch thing hearing. >> kaitlan collins, appreciate it. more prospeerspective on presid trump and robert mueller, the looming robert mueller. joining us is garrett graph, inside mueller's fbi and cnn political analyst and white house correspondent maggie haberman. i want to read something you read on twitter about the president's reaction on the white house lawn. you wrote generally people express relief and joy by being cherry or saying nothing. trump often expresses delight by seeming angry. >> he was all wound up. i don't think i'm not saying anything that was clear to everybody watching the press conference. he was incredibly combative and feeling triumph and i expect we'll see more of that in the coming days. look, his folks are feeling very

good. >> understandably. >> yeah, this was not -- democrats didn't do a great job of setting expectations going into this. mueller appeared certainly throughout the morning halting in his answers unfamiliar with what was in the report about election interference and the institutions of democracy and there he was willing to stray away from the report. when it came to the president's conduct specifically and that was the first several hours of the day, mueller was much less willing to engage with the congress members and the president felt as if that was in his favor. >> garrett, over the last couple nights, we looked at past mueller testimony and there is a lot of it. it is radically different than what he gave today. >> in a way yes but also, this is someone who is very clear that he didn't want to say anything today. and, you know, i think a lot -- >> even when he was trying to say something sometimes he was unable to say it. >> i don't actually know that that's true. i've been going back i sort of

started there this morning and as the day went on, open congress open congressional hearing and the second half of the day as he was talking about russia, he was much more engaged and willing. it's clear actually that he cares a lot more about the second half about the question of the russia attack on the election. its damage to institutions and politics. in someways, you know, i think his sort of message to congress in the first half of the hearing today was guys, i went out and did the work. you do whatever you want with this. this is a question for you. >> to the congressman ted lieu said he believes when mueller gave that answer in the affirmative to ted lieu's question about the report being

not for the olc report, he would have indicted the president, ted lieu thinks mueller was giving an honest answer and the walk back was not really what he kind of -- that he basically tipped his inner thinking. >> i think that's likely accurate especially layered on some of the other answers he was giving this morning. one of the ones that stood out to me is the way he corrected at one point it's not that he declined to prosecute but declined to make a decision about whether to prosecute. which seems consistent with that. yeah, there were very few honest personal opinions of robert mueller. the one that stood out to me was his exchange about the president and wikileaks where he said problematic is an under statement. i think that might have been the only true personal opinion we saw out of robert mueller today. >> it's interesting, the president said wikileaks is a hoax. i'm not sure julian assange is going to interpret that given he's facing charges.

>> i had the same thought. the president was pretty reliant on wikileaks in the final month. >> right. >> i love wikileaks and wikileaks is many things but not a hoax. look -- >> i don't know if he was meaning -- >> i don't know what he meant. involvement with the wikileaks. >> it was a hoax. donald trump is very good at turning things into a referendum on himself and speaks in these absolute terms and i think that's what he was doing there. look, again, his folks feel pretty good about today. i think garrett is right what robert mueller cares more about is preserving the institutions of democracy. that's what he said in his only other public statement on this. he was very clear that, you know, there was interference here. it is going to p haen aga g tin he was clear it's not just russians but he's clearly concerned americans are not as alert to that as they should be and frankly that congress is not sounding the alarm the way they could. >> the president is not personally engaged. >> the president is -- has said almost nothing about this throughout his presidency.

he has at times conceded it was russia at times appeared to minimize it was russia if acknowledging it at all. >> you were reacting i think during a live blog on "the new york times" page to a moment in the hearings and i want to play that moment and have you talk about why you think it's significant. let's watch. >> why didn't you subpoena the president? >> at the outset, after we took over the investigation and began it and pursued it, quite obviously one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish that is having the interview of the president but finally, we were almost towards the end of our investigation and we had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president. we decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the

investigation. >> was that -- excuse me -- >> i was going to say, the expectation was if we did subpoena the president he would fight the subpoena and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time. >> you cited that as an important moment? >> it stood out to me because one of the major questions today, why didn't mueller ever subpoena the president? there were a couple other subpoenas that people wondered about not issuing but that was a big one and there was a length thigh back and forth about negotiation for his testimony and they accepted written answers. >> written douns answwn answers collusion. >> right. and we had not really heard mueller address this before why they didn't go further. hearing him say it, he said despite the president's complaints about mueller, he said he didn't want to be unfair to the president. they felt like they. wanted to wrap this up as closely as possible so it wasn't hanging there. whether it has significance

going forward or not, that's a different question. wrapping up that issue of why he didn't subpoena testimony from the president was important. >> garrett, megan, thanks very much. still to come. house speaker nancy pelosi's reaction to today's testimony and what he says this means for impeachment talk by democrats. what do you look for when you trade? i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ at visionworks, we guaranteand look great.eat "guarantee". we say that too. you gotta use "these" because we don't mean it. if you don't love your glasses, we'll make it right. guaranteed.

visionworks. see the difference. 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. ♪ i felt completely helpless. trashed online. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you are under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. vo: there's more negativity online than ever. reputation defender ensures that when people check you out, they'll find more of the truth, not trash. if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555.

prpharmacist recommendedne memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker. ♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer.

plus no payments for umno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

shortly after today's hearings ended, democratic leaders led to discuss what is next, where did their investigations go now that robert mueller testify snd manu was at that event and got to ask speaker eer pelosi whether the investigations will lead to impeachme impeachment. >> it's said there is no point in moving forward because republicans control the senate. it's going to die in the senate. is that in longer your chief concern? >> i have never long said that. if we have a case for impeachment, that's the place we'll have to go. the fact i would like it to be a strong case is because it's based on the facts. the facts and the law. that's what matters, not

politics, not partisanship, just patriotism. the stronger our case is, the worse the senate will look for just letting the president off the hook. >> and manu joins us from capitol hill. speak to us about what pelosi and the committee chairmen had to say. >> they engaged in a robust debate with many eembers that pd the speaker in the mueller testimony. we were told that she and jerry nadler, the chairman welcomed a more detailed discussion. nadler according to our sources even flow to the notion of actually drafting articles of impeachment, one that would be drafted by six committees investigating the president. i'm told h this is not somethin that will be done but floated as an idea and gnat ler was anadle

about the process. he said it would not have to go for a full house vote and one source told our colleague dana bash they took that to mean once lawsuits are exhausted in court, then that's going to be a very potential next step launching, going forward with an impeachment inquiry. pelosi in this meeting clearly did not take off the idea of moving forward with an impeachment inquiry as she says she wants to move forward with the strongest possible case and move forward in court and i'm told she told her members if you need to support impeachment inquiry because it's best for your district, go for it. that's something you should be willing to do if it's best for you. she did not try to dissuade anyone from voicing support. expect more people to voice support and perhaps the speaker herself could ultimately shift her position but at the moment, she wants to stay the course and keep the fight in the courts, anderson. >> speaker pelosi in the press conference said look, this should be done based on the law and the merits of the case, not on public opinion and politics.

it's hard to believe that the congressman lieu when he was on with me said that, you know, the public perception should play a role and, you know, in a few days they will know more. do you feel, i mean, in talking to people there and staff members, is there any kind of rise in interest in impeachment or is there kind of deflation of it. >> i think there is slowly a rise among the democratic members in the caucus calling for it and that's what was interesting about this closed door meeting tonight because there were a number of members that wanted to pursue this route, expect more to announce that publicly and anderson, it was -- some people are interpreting pelosi's comments to me when i asked her about her past concerns about the senate republicans not moving forward on convicting the president if the house were to impeach and that being a reason they shouldn't move for an impeachment. she pushed back on that. a lot of people view that as a potential shift because she's talking about the courts as

their main issue now. see how the court fight plays out saying the senate republicans are not really the issue here. that's not exactly what she's been saying a few weeks ago so we'll see if she shifts further in the weeks ahead. >> thanks very much. back with our political and legal team. >> i would say look, there is one thing that everyone should remember, there are 34 democrats in trump districts that wanted trump districts that enable nancy pelosi to be speaker and she's very caware of that fact. >> i think the big question is how can you have some form of impeachment inquiry without getting the whole house to vote on it because she doesn't want to force those members for example to take a vote that could hurt them in their district and according to reporting from manu and dana there was discussion today in this meeting of whether the judiciary committee and other committees could sort of

informally begin some kind of impeachment inquiries in their own committees without having an official vote. >> you know what might be -- sorry -- >> i just -- it seems kind of silly to me but that's the kind of thing they are talking about because they understand the political difference. >> you know what might be a good idea for democrats in the house of representatives is to find out something. you know, remember -- >> don mcgahn. >> remember they won control of the house of representatives and would do investigations. name one thing that any of these investigations have uncovered now we're almost at the summer recess. >> like what are they doing? i mean the fact -- >> go, jeff. >> they have been stymied by the president. they have had run into unprecedented, you know, interference from the president but i mean, let's not kid ourselves. this has been a wall to wall failure in all these committees.

>> this is a wall to wall failure? >> yeah, definitely. yeah. i agree with everything that you're saying and i think it's -- the process is being driven by obviously political interest by wanting to please the base that are very animated understandably about donald trump and really want to see him go and really want to see him be held accountable but i think that they haven't -- they don't -- nancy pelosi if she thought that this was going to work, she would support it. there is no question this is not a person who is a fan of donald trump and i think she feels the same way. but jeffrey is right. i mean, they need to do better than what they are doing and i think this whole hearing that we watched today was pretty close to a disaster for them, as well. i just don't think that they didn't advance the ball in any way for themselves and then also had a situation where robert mueller was looking kind of out of his depth, you know, you can make your excuses for him if you want but i think he wasn't helping their case.

>> how -- i mean, what do they do now? some of those folks in that meeting with the leader in nadler were saying what is our strategy? it's not clear other than sort of slow walking, waiting on course cases when i imagine could take time so it's unclear. it's also i think clear that they have been consistent on here. shed a one point said that the president actually wanted impeachment because he thought -- she thinks it would be politically good for the president. she seems disinclined to impeach but she also seems to have to make the motion -- >> so you think that's what they are doing, slow walking? >> yeah. >> that same poll that said that 21% supported impeachment also said that 50% believe that democrats should continue investigating. i think that is the safe middle path and in terms of what he did next with minute laundering and

elements of this. this is the intersection of politics and law. i thought it was interesting the exchange that mike from chicago had with mueller in which he pointed out that if a president were to be elected to two terms and the statute runs on on instruction, isn't that essentially make him unaccountable? in my interpretation is that is quig gly that endorsed impeachment made the argument we have to move forward because otherwise the president could be unaccountable. >> what they will do is go to court. >> is quickly throwing in the towel and trump getting elected already? >> no, no, but it was an interesting -- >> it is interesting. >> it does give the president added incentive. >> mueller didn't know the answer to it. what will they do to get don mcgahn up? he's the star witness. mueller was anything but the star witness. how do they get don mcgahn there? they are going to court and jerry nadler talked about that

today at their closed door meeting. and they have to get mcgahn because having mueller who wrote the report is not like having john dean white house counsel testifying before the watergate committee. >> don't they keep moving the goalpost on this? it was all about the mueller report and that i'm came out, t was going to be it. that's the bible and they have all these investigative powers and it's confusing with 448 pagers when he testifies and talks and now it's don mcgahn. >> nancy pelosi isn't inclined to impeach this president. that is what she's >> would it hurt democrats in 2020? >> i think it could. it was interesting to see what happened in 2018 and why democrats did so well, because they steered around those issues and talked about issues on people's minds that touched their own lives, and part of the commitment they made was they weren't going to play bumper

cars on this issue. they were going to actually try and solve problems. i think pelosi's calculation is let's keep investigating. if smoking guns arise through these investigations, if we get mcgahn and other things happen, we can adjust accordingly, but for now let's keep playing. >> you're right. the intersection of the politics and the legal is really having an impact. because not just on the one issue that you mentioned, but all of these different cases that the house is trying to bring, whether it is cases for subpoenas, for documents that they're trying to obtain or whether it's subpoenas for witnesses maybe they're going to try to bring to get key witnesses in. all these are connected to whether they've taken other steps. for example, whether or not they've opened an impeachment inquiry. whether they can demonstrate to courts they are seriously -- they've taken every step they possibly can. they have to negotiate with the white house.

now they've brought in mueller. they've taken that step. if they open an impeachment inquiry, that's another step they can demonstrate that they are conducting an investigation and they need the witnesses or documents for a particular reason. and what's happening is they don't know which one comes first. the litigation strategy is failing a little bit because they're taking political concerns and the politics is suffering because they're not taking the -- being effective in the legal side. >> would it be easier to get the witnesses? they have a disagreement about? >> that's an interesting legal question. >> are you glad i asked? >> i am. the question is will you have better luck in the courts in an impeachment proceeding versus an oversight proceeding? i don't think that's the case. i think oversight you'll -- i think basically it's the same legal question. and i think by and large the democrats should win those. but the courts move slowly. and every time you go to the district court, you have to wait for district court decision.

does it automatically appeal to the court of appeals and certainly there's petitions at the supreme court. there are only -- there's less than a year and a half until the election. >> and the ninth circuit is jammed. i mean, i am critical of the democrats' failure to accomplish much of anything in terms of oversight, but they have had substantial obstacles, and there is not an obvious path to a speedier success. >> i would say in the 2018 midterms, people want to see legislators legislate. they want to see things happen. i think the path to success, you just saw debt ceiling raised. every side got half a loaf. republicans took it on the chin in terms of incredible run away spending. it's very interesting -- >> it is extraordinary for the republicans. >> it is. usmca is coming up on the table. there's going to be a move whether the house is going to do something. i think the path of success for

democrats is pass things. look like the body. we're functional. we're not just somebody who keeps throwing bricks through the window. >> they say they passed a ton of things and they've died in the senate. >> my point is pass things that get signed into law. >> time for a break. it's been an eventful day. chris cuomo is coming up at the top of the hour. chris, you're obviously covering this. what did you make of today? >> you are correct. we'll be looking at this differently. now people have been able to process what was said, but what does it mean? we have two main questions. what are we going to do to protect our next election? you can no longer unless you want to protect this president's political interests argue that russian interference wasn't real and isn't just as real if not a more real threat in the next election. we'll start pushing for answers about what's going to be done. the only answer is an ugly political reason. it's just to protect this president. that's unacceptable. it should be unacceptable to

this president. second, the democrats have to make a decision. as you see with your great minds on the panel, there's a lot of dancing because they don't know how it turns out for them. that's too bad. the job is to take an oath and then live up to it to the best of your conscious. if you can't do that, get out and let somebody else do the job. it's time for the democrats to make a decision. nancy pelosi is in the middle of the road. there's only two lanes. >> yeah. well, she seems to be getting to the slow lane. thanks very much. we'll see you in a couple witnesses. robert mueller had several questions about the next election and if we're ready for it. what he had to say just ahead. this summer,

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 it's true, the big wireless companies have great coverage.

great coverage... that's because of all these cell towers. glorious, isn't it?! but guess what? straight talk wireless runs on the same 4g lte networks... ...for up to half the cost. the unlimited plan is just 45 bucks a month. no contract. why haven't we switched? you really should, it's a really good deal. plus, get a samsung galaxy s10e. straight talk wireless. only at walmart.

we close tonight's show with the irony the spire reason we had a special counsel investigation in the first place -- the entire reason was because of what rod rosenstein wrote when he appointed in 2017 to investigate the russian. to investigate what they did and who if anyone aided them. that discussion was largely absent from today's political theater. in fairness one republican focussed almost solely on that, will hurd of texas used him time to discuss russian election interference and whether there will be a next time.

>> in your investigation did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do it this again? >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> mueller also said it's not just russia either. many more countries are developing the same capability. the assessment was echoed by the man who currently holds the position who said yesterday russians are absolutely intent in trying to influence our elections. all of this sounds obvious to many, but president trump has defended vladimir putin and questioned the interference. they said getting the white house to pay attention to the threat is like pulling threat. another ominous warning today. they agreed the trump campaign may have established a new normal in 2016 that campaigns

may no longer feel obligated to report when a hostile foreign government is trying to influence the election. in fact, it seems as if the campaign is ready to do so again. in april president trump was asked if it happened again if russia or china oured help on an opponent should you accept it and fall the fbi? the response, there's nothing wrong with listening. there is. >> thank you. strong point and yes, the most ignored point. not here. not now. i'm chris cuomo. we should all be on the same page. we now know that mr. mueller found real interference and real wrong doing and lying around the president and by the president. even speaker pelosi said today, marked the crossing of a threshold. what threshold? what do we do about protecting our elections and what will the democrats do about this president if anything? one thing for sure. it is past time to answer both