we're finished. winky. -- thank you. , the house is back at 9:00 a.m. eastern to continue work on climate change legislation. on c-span2, the senate votes on a measure to override the president's veto of legislation to end u.s. involvement in yemen's civil war. talks aboutshner efforts to achieve middle east peace. on c-span3 at 9:00, the house judiciary committee meets to review the findings of the mueller report into russian interference in the 2016 elections. attorney general william barr was scheduled to appear before the committee, but he has announced he will not testify due to disagreements over the questioning process. next your journal is reaction to attorney general william barr's testimony to the

senate judiciary committee on the mueller report and the attorney general's decision not to testify house judiciary committee. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [video clip] >> worked around the clock to address concerns attorney general barr has informed us he will not attend tomorrow's hearing. ♪ host: after hours of tense testimony in the senate yesterday, the attorney general as of now will not be testifying before house lawmakers. will democrats hold him in contempt? jerry nadler says the hearing will go on with or without mr. barr. our coverage begins on c-span 3 at 9:00 a.m. this morning. right now on the "washington journal," we want to get your thoughts on how the attorney general is handling this mueller report. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

and independents, 202-748-8002. you can also go to twitter at @cspanwj or facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your calls in a minute. let's begin with more from mr. nadler last night when it was confirmed the attorney general would not be showing up at today's hearing. [video clip] >> although we have worked around the clock to address his concerns, attorney general barr informed us he will not attend tomorrow's hearing. given his lack of candor describing the work of the special counsel, our members were right to insist staff counsel be permitted to question the attorney general. i understand why he wants to avoid that scrutiny, but the administration cannot dictate the terms of our hearing in our hearing room. the department of justice told us they will not comply with our subpoena for the full unredacted mueller report. i will continue to work with the

attorney general to reach accommodation and access to the full report and the underlying evidence, but not for much longer. come grind -- compliance with congressional subpoenas is not optional and if good faith negotiations do not result in a pledge of compliance, the next step is seeking a contempt citation against the attorney general. -- theerry nadler justice department in a letter to mr. nadler reply to the subpoena for a fuller redacted report. stephen boyd wrote this, allowing your committee to use justice department investigative files to reinvestigate the matter the apartment has investigated and second-guessed decisions made by the department would not only set a dangerous precedent, but also have immediate negative consequences. you can find that letter if you search for it today. it is the letter that has been

made public and was sent to the house judiciary committee. following hours of testimony on the senate side, senator lindsey graham came and had this to say about what is going to happen going forward. [video clip] >> here is what is going to happen next. write -- please, i am trying to do a -- i am going to write mr. mueller a letter and ask him if he has any dispute with what mr. barr said about the conversation described with senator blumenthal, giving him a chance to correct the record if he thought attorney general barr misrepresented the finding of his report and that will be it about the -- that will be it. i thought the attorney general did a good job. i am confident that this

the trumpion of campaign was thorough, complete, exhaustive. there was no collusion with the russian government by the trump campaign and the obstruction of justice charges in this case are, quite frankly, absurd. if you think the president did something wrong, impeachment would be the answer because he is not going to be indicted. if we based impeachment on the mueller report -- i will take one quick question. >> why not call on mueller to testify? i am not going to do anymore. enough, it is over. a dispute about the conversation, -- host: that is a the senate judiciary chairman saying it is over as far as he can -- he is concerned on the senate side. on the house side, controlled by

democrats, jerry nadler is saying he is contemplating what is -- what to do next with mr. barr. he wants him to testify and perhaps there will be testimony from mr. mueller on that side and don mcgahn as well as others. war with the picture of the attorney general and robert mueller. john in new mexico, independent, what do you think of the attorney general? caller: good morning. thanks to brian lamb and c-span for this great service. i am utterly disgusted. the voice of lindsey graham is like nails on a chalkboard at this point. i don't need to hear from them anymore. when the nra butane tina connections are involved -- revealed, -- filthy russian mob rubles, which is what comes out of their mouth any time they open their mouths.

i was really disappointed that multiple times you were misrepresenting that mueller gave the report to barr as if he expected barr to make the decisions he made. that is clear by the text he did not. he has specific language about practically compelling congress to take up the cause because of the office of legal counsel's bs memo. that memo that passes for a constitutional amendment, it doesn't. .t was a hastily scrawled memo essentially, it is meant to protect the president so he can do his job. so trump can be better at destroying nato, give more inflammatory speeches that inflame domestic terrorism. that is what we are protecting here?

page 2, paragraph 4 of the mueller report spells out barr's unconstitutional legal malpractice. if you look at paragraph 4, the one that distinguishes between collusion and conspiracy, it is so hackneyed and redundant and obviously in another person's voice. anyone in the democratic party listen right now -- listening right now, check out page 2, paragraph 4 and you will see, if you question mueller, because he will be before the house eventually. host: you said page 2, paragraph 4 of the letter -- caller: the mueller report. host: the mueller report. caller: the mueller report so-called. if you look at that paragraph, it is obvious to me -- i was a law school at some point, it is obvious to me. there is even a sentence

fragment at the end. does not speak in sentence fragment. him dance around yesterday, giving this guy prays for pretending like he doesn't understand the law. tot: i want to move on susan. what did you think of the attorney general handling this? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think what i saw yesterday was disgusting. he is nothing more than a lackey for donald trump. he is not sticking up to his oath of office he took. and why these other people who serve him do the same thing. does testifyueller because we now need to hear from

him more than ever. host: floyd in kansas, a republican, your turn. wanted to say i think barr is as good as you are going to get for an attorney general. host: why do you believe that, floyd? caller: i have seen what he has done. i think he handled the report he got in good shape. if trump was guilty, why didn't mueller say so? he did not say so. he said he wasn't guilty. i don't understand and then wase democrats that supposed to be asking him questions, to sit there and run him down like he was some kind of dog or something.

that is ridiculous. i don't believe it and i don't blame him for not going back. host: pedro echevarria with more on today's house judiciary hearing. host 2: three members reacting to the attorney general not showing up. doug collins putting this on his twitter feed, it is a shame members of the house judiciary committee will not get the opportunity to hear from attorney general barr because the chairman chose to torpedo our hearing. n of tennessee uses his twitter feed to put the #chickenbarr. the difference between dictatorship and democracy, checks and balances, -- refusing to comply with our subpoenas, trump is challenging the foundation of our constitution and democracy. host: frank, good morning. what do you think of the testimony yesterday, the

handling of this investigation by the attorney general? caller: i love it. barr is my hero. the democrats, whoever doesn't understand is if you look at the book of daniel, chapter 4, verse god said the basest of men, trump, to rule over other men in this world just like he did godobama. god decides who rules among men. men don't. it is very laughable. all these democrats dancing around like spit on a hot points.trying to make they are not after the rule of justr truth, they are demonstrating for their supposed -- especially the ones that

were really maligning and tearing barr down for the cameras. host: do you agree with his decision not to attend today's hearing in the house judiciary committee? caller: absolutely. he is well within his rights. school these to republicans and democrats on law. this man knows what he is doing. in oklahoma and that hearing will happen even without the attorney general in the rayburn house office building on capitol hill and that begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time with our coverage happening on c-span 3 this morning. can downloadr you the c-span radio app as well. , herbert.o georgia

good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i have watching -- been watching you all for 20 years. i love the way you host. to be honest with you, i see the laws of this land from constitutional laws to all the state laws that have been passed . being a black person or a jewish person, a -- it was white -- if you let this one man who violates lee's -- of youe laws, what message are sending in the future? it is about the respect of america -- the democracy of america, greta.

we have to teach our children and let them be an example. state court, federal court, you have got to honor the subpoena and you have to answer to the -- look at the specification of what it is. administration has to realize you don't work for trump, you work for us. we are the ones that are the back own in this country. there is a quote in the bible --t says you are letting one individual violate these laws. you are sending a message. host:you are heard your point. want to show you the standoff

between house democrats and the attorney general is partially based on the democrats demand for the committee that counsel be able to ask the attorney general questions. here is steve cohen on the format -- democrats proposed for today's hearing. [video clip] >> i don't know. my thought is he might not show. it will be a tougher audience. he certainly will not want to be cross-examined and questioned because they will tear him apart. host: can you explain for folks who do not know who they are? >> he is a counsel to our committee and norm is an outstanding lawyer. they had a crew, citizens for responsible ethics and government. minutes is a difference then

five minutes, five minutes they .an filibuster you or they can take up a lot of your time or give long-winded responses that aren't necessarily answers to the questions that you asked. senator lahey said to barr, you are a better filibusterer then the senators are. in five minutes, you can do that. you cannot do that in 30. a sequential pattern of questioning can be done in 30 minutes and it cannot be done in 5. this is one of the most important that we will have in this congress that you can ever have. we are talking about involvement with russia and influencing up truck --d obstruction by the president of the united states. host: democrats wanted each lawmaker to have five minutes of questioning and then have the

upcouncil -- inside and outside counsel questioned the attorney general for 30 minutes. pedro echevarria has more on the attorney general not showing this morning. host 2: that format garnered a response from carrie kubik saying chairman nadler's insistence on having staff questioned the attorney general is an appropriate further in thet of the fact the -- chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough ashton and by members themselves. also unnecessary adding the attorney general looks forward to continue working with the committee on their oversight request. host: luanne in vermont, a republican. what do you think of all of this? caller: i think it is really disgusting that the democrats

tried to sat there and tear mr. barr apart. the thing that really came out about the whole thing is that he answer the question. they never even went and looked there is only basically two republicans who have gone and looked at the redacted report. they just want to find whatever they are going to find. i basically looked at the whole there.nd i was basically attorney general barr has more thanorgotten most of those democrats are basically ever going to know because they are basically out for blood. i think they are going to have a comerough time when they under the whole deal. hilary went through the whole

thing, she should be in jail. she is the one and the democrats started all this garbage and they are just like little kids on the playground because they did not get their way. they are destroying our country, not the republicans. host: a couple of headlines to share with you. attorney general barr yesterday confirmed probe of russia-clinton links. the fbi relied on the dossier disinformation. that coming out of yesterday's hearing. luanne mentioned only two lawmakers have read a less redacted version. the attorney general says it is about 2% redacted that the justice department provided to 12 numbers of congress. two lawmakers were doug collins, the ranking republican, the top ranking republican on the house judiciary committee and lindsey

graham. those two have read this less redacted report. that is as of yesterday reporting that could have changed and more could have seen it since then. the attorney general yesterday in his opening statement noted that the public version of the mueller report is about 8% redacted and the less redacted version given to 12 members of congress is 2% redacted. linda, independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say this is national prayer day and you could have had a more positive program on. we are listening, linda. caller: president trump was

appointed, as was president obama. thank god or they would not have been in those sessions. for c-span and those people who have such vitriol in their hearts for jesus christ and those leading our country, thank you. host: susan in florida, democrat. house: i was watching the last night on tv and jerry nadler has to go. this guy has got such a grudge against the president, it is terrible. i have never seen that in my entire life, what went on in that house. i am a democrat, but republicans were trying to not let the people behind him vote and he did not care one way or another.

he passed that vote through whether it was talked about or not talked about. i was so disgusted with him. host: i think you are talking about the moment where they voted on the format for today's hearing. caller: absolutely. that is the one i am talking about. i am not going to vote democrat. if they keep this crap up, i am not voting democrat. host: i want to show our viewers for those who did not see this part. this was early in the day yesterday when the two sides got together and voted on the format for today. take a listen and watch what happens next. [video clip] >> the question is on the adoption of the motion, those in -- mr. chairman i seek

recognition. >> the motion is agreed to. >> you will not recognize members of the committee who want to speak on this motion? i have asked for recognition. not republicans -- >> we ought to be going by the rules and giving people a chance to debate. no wonder the -- ag does not want to come here and testify when you are running things without regard for debate. >> report the results and then

we will -- to call the ayes vote. >> i thought you recognize the gentleman from florida. >> mr. chairman, you said you were going to recognize -- for a minute. mr. chairman, move the table. >> i move to amend. >> i move to adjourn. >> we were in the middle of debate and you ended it without the question being called. regular order. privileged motion. >> motion to adjourn. host: that was yesterday's moment of the house before they knew whether or not the attorney general would come to testify. he is not going to be in the witness chair today.

joining us on the phone is a congressional reporter with politico to talk more. what happened after this vote took place? plate i think the perfectly encapsulates the -- the clip you played perfectly encapsulates the tension. the justice department came out and said the attorney general will not attend the hearing due .o his objection to the format the format, as adopted by the committee would have allowed committee lawyers and staffers to question the attorney general for one hour after lawmakers finished their own rounds of questioning. that is something the attorney general objected to and warned that he objected to it ahead of time and might pull out of the

hearing as a result and that is what happened last night. did they vote on these motions? is that normal procedure? is, and it was partly look fair.pt to host: why does it matter? this perfectly -- as i mentioned before, encapsulates these tensions between democrats and republicans on the committee. they often hold markups when it comes to subpoenas issued and other measures the committee wants to consider and they are usually partyline votes, but republicans try their best to interject and try to slow down the vote and basically derail at any point knowing that there efforts will fail because

democrats are in the majority on the committee. that is sort of the state of play right now and that seems to happen at all of these markups. host: is it possible the attorney general could still testify today or is that a foregone conclusion, he will not be there? guest: i guess it is theoretically still possible he shows up. the committee will be holding the hearing anyway this morning. what i have been told is essentially it will be like an empty chair hearing and democrats will try to prove the point with those images. i guess it is technically the case the attorney general could show up, but the justice department said he will not show up. host: will republicans show up? guest: we have every indication that they will. they obviously have questions they want to pose.

host: -- work without the attorney general? of thin onre kind details when it comes to that. we expect both sides to be able to give opening statements with regard to the special counsel report and after that, anything could happen. motions, could offer they could offer different witnesses to ask question. -- questions. it will is -- it is anybody's guess how it will go with the attorney general. host: what will democrats do in response to the attorney general refusing to testify under these terms? guest: it is possible they could

issue a subpoena to compel his attendance. what they want to do is the fact the justice department yesterday kind of blew through the committee deadline for the subpoena they issued for the unredacted mueller report and underlying evidence contained within it. chairman jerry nadler last night suggested he could move to hold the attorney general in contempt for violating the subpoena and the justice department said it was essentially -- as i mentioned before, blowing off the subpoena deadline and saying they are not going to comply. they will last for a day or two of what they call good faith negotiations and then -- and then move toward a good-faith contempt citation. host: over not providing the fully redacted report? guest: that is exactly right and jerry nadler said after they deal with that issue, then they

will deal with the issue of barr not showing up to the hearing because nadler seemed to indicate his deadline was the subpoena hearing first. host: what will you be watching for this morning? guest: i will be watching for the opportunity for democrats to offer -- it is possible democrats could set into motion a contempt citation against the attorney general. they will use every means they can to spotlight the fact they did blow through that subpoena and -- subpoena deadline all of the underlying evidence and the grand jury information. i think that will be the most interesting thing to watch for and on the flipside of that, how republicans deal with it in response and possibly try to derail or slow down democrats'

attempts to do so. host: you can follow his reporting if you go to politico.com. thank you. guest: thank you. wisconsin, what is your take on all this? i amr: i would like to say very, very, very disappointed in both parties. i have been voting since the late 1940's. i am a world war ii veteran. i have never seen anything close to what is going on today in the political situation. it is a dirty shame on both parties and i wish it would stop . unfortunately, it will not. democrat, aslican, an independent, i don't know what to do anymore. i wish these people in congress would straighten their act out and get something done, for god

sakes. host: independent, hi. good morning. the gentleman said it right. the system of checks and balances differentiates us from a dictatorship. democratsticized, versus republicans. now the whole saga of conclusion -- changinguction the platform now rather than -- changing it to a different form so they can find -- we don't know,

it is very disturbing. the attorney general might not show up today, but he is going to show up because if he is not showing up, the next step is going to be contempt. let him show up whatever time, -- and let's learn something. if we keep on insisting this is a war between democrats and republicans, the american people will lose hope in our system. we are now abusing our democratic system, that is what i am worried about. host: do you think the attorney general should agree to answering questions for an hour from a lawyer or lawyers? between two heavyweight lawyers, they can do whatever they say.

for me, obstruction is -- a thin line between no and yes. we will find out the truth and the last thing americans want to do is -- impeaching the president, we will open up another chapter. host: linda in california, democrat caller. caller: hi. hisnted to thank edward for world war ii service, that was excellent. i am democrat, but i was really embarrassed by some democratic questioning today -- moving on trump and collusion, they

are attacking barr and i really feel he is under attack. some judges, lawyers, may not agree with what he concluded. mueller himself did not recommend obstruction charges, even if they had to be delayed. i don't see why this personal attack on barr is going on. -- they were embarrassing. i read most of the mueller report. i have not finished it yet, but i will. the feel that if my party, democratic party really wanted to get the whole picture out, we would be investigating the whole thing. the fbi, that is the most disturbing thing to me. that is an organization and if we don't have trust in them, it

is just like when the crime lab did stuff. it is like the same thing and been a few have people, but it was a few people. it is very clear that there was unusual happenings going on and i do feel it should been a few people, but it be investigated. host: linda referenced mazie hirono, the senator from hawaii's questioning of the attorney general. she started out her time yesterday saying he lied, that he lied to congress. graham, told her -- responded to that and defended the attorney general. what she was referencing was earlier testimony in april by the attorney general before the house and senate appropriations committee.

on april 9, the attorney general is being questioned by charlie crist of the florida and here is what he had to say about conversations with robert mueller related to his march 24th letter. [video clip] >> reports have emerged recently that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated with the limited information included in your march 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report costs -- report's findings. do you know what they are referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i suspect they probably wanted more put out. in my view, i was not interested in put it out summaries or trying to summarize because i think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of being underinclusive

or overinclusive, but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. i was not interested in a summary of the report. at the time i put out my march 24 letter, there was nothing from the special counsel that was not marked as potentially containing 6e material and i had no material that had not be -- had not been sanitized. i felt i should state bottom-line conclusions and i tried to use special counsel mueller's own language in doing that. , did you feels there was an obligation upon you, your office to prepare this

for a letter overview rather than summary, rather than having team do it counsel's themselves. why did that happen, i guess, is what i am trying to find out. >> the special counsel is -- i was making a decision about whether to make it public or any part of it public. in my judgment, it was important for people to know the bottom-line conclusions of the report while we were on necessary redactions to make the whole thing available. unfortunately, that is a matter of weeks and i don't think the public would have tolerated it. as you know from your own experience, from a prosecutor's standpoint, the bottom line is binary.

charges or no charges. >> indeed. did you contemplate having the special counsel's office help you with the preparation of your march 24 letter or did you? bob reviewed to have it before putting it out and he declined. thatat was the a -- host: was the attorney general earlier this month when asked about his letter and who was involved. the next day, he appeared before the senate appropriations committee and in the middle of a line of questioning by chris van hollen, the senator asks him memo.the drafting of this we know now based on yesterday's news that the letter goes out march 24 and two days later, robert mueller and his team send the attorney general a letter march 27. this hearing taking place april

10. >> did bob mueller's support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion? . host: the attorney general says he doesn't know if he did and we know there was a conversation between the two. this came up in the hearing before the senate judiciary committee. monica, republican. caller: yes, greta, good morning. disheartening that this dirty crowd in washington gullible so many people in america with this collusion hoax when they should be doing what they are put in office to do, work for the american people. there are people here on fixed incomes that cannot even afford hamburger for their hamburger

helper. they need to be working for us. stop trying to put trump out of office. at asvoters are looked white supremacist and members of the ku klux klan. what we want is we want them to help the american people, jobs, mental issues, schools, taxes. they are not doing it. wake up, people. caller: good morning, ms. greta. i support the attorney general's decision not to testify before the house judiciary committee today. yesterdayawesome job before the senate committee. host: why do you say that?

caller: i like the man. he is a strong man, a principled man, a seasoned attorney and knows exactly what he is doing. he refuses to be bullied by either the senate or the house of representatives. , frankly, asarade a democrat, it is disheartening to watch. we come to this country because we believe in the idea of america. we can see what this whole country is turning into. watch.addening to as far as the mueller investigation, the democracy of this country was undermined in 2016 when of few individuals at the top law enforcement agency of this country embarked on that

mission, insurance policy or whatever and this continuous coverage of this episode is to keep this matter in the news until the next election where the democrats hope they would seize power. it is not about doing the people's job anymore. host: pedro echevarria with more on today's hearing. host 2: you heard from the justice department about the number of lawyers serving on the house judiciary committee. 19 of those members have law degrees. 17 members of the committee -- not 15 of those with law degrees and if you look at their experience, 5 served as judges and that includes the former prosecutor, u.s. attorney, deputy attorney general, assistant attorney general and assistant commonwealth attorney. all of that composing the house

judiciary committee and forcing subpoenas. roll call takes a look at what happens if congress decides to do that. each chamber has the authority to exercise that power by adopting a resolution, authorizing the sergeant at arm's to exercise a -- an arrest warrant. in custody, the official will be brought before the hearing for a chamber or trial. direct them to be detained or imprisoned until day comply. force subpoenas or remove obstruction to the exercise. that is according to the congressional research service. host: we will go to walter. democratic caller, good morning to you. it does not surprise me

that william barr is not appearing before the house judiciary committee because he is tired of dodging and weaving questions and telling untruths as he did yesterday before the senate. he took and both before he testified yesterday and if any -- anybody should be telling the truth, it should be him. we are aware broken promises and dishonesty exist. it has for a long time. when the dishonesty would filter into the judiciary system, we are not doing well as a country. i think vladimir putin and his cohorts are getting exactly what they wanted. they wanted this man in office, ow discord.p, to s

he has and separating the country in that way and continues to do it and that is his mission. if we only knew, if we could, i guess we never will, what putin and trump talked about in helsinki in their meeting behind closed doors, that would be all robert mueller would need and all we would need to know about what is going on. host: before you go. when, in your opinion, did the attorney general not tell the truth in his testimony? caller: concerning -- saying he has not remember if he opened up any other investigations. the question was posed to him. i forget if it was kamala harris or cory booker. host: senator harris. caller: how he could not

and justsimple things saying he does not recall and he just wasn't truthful. host: walter's opinion in ohio. donna, you are next, republican. caller: yes, i wanted to say just one thing. i believe mueller was going after barr anyway. that is what that whole thing about the letter he wrote. took millions of to work but he got barr for him. he should have been the one in front of the committee yesterday. yesterday, richard blumenthal, senator from connecticut, asked the attorney sental about this letter by robert mueller and his team.

[video clip] in theest you can recall language that was used, who said what to whom? >> um. i said, bob, what is with the letter? why don't you pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue? he said that they were concerned about the way the media was felt it was and important to put out summaries that they felt would put their work in proper context and avoid some of the confusion emerging. i asked him if he felt that my letter was misleading or inaccurate and he said the press -- he felt the pressure -- press

coverage was and a more complete picture of his thoughts and the context and so forth would deal with that. i suggested that i would rather just get the whole report out then just putting out stuff in piecemeal. i said i would think about it some more and the next day i put out a letter that made it clear that no one should read the march 24 letter is a summary of the -- as a summary of the overall report and a full report of bob mueller's thinking was going to be in the report and everyone would have access to it. >> there is nothing in robert mueller's letter to you about the press. his complaint to you is about your characterization to the court, correct?

>> the letter speaks for itself. >> it does. in response to your question, why not just pick up the phone? this letter was an extraordinary act, a career prosecutor rebuking the attorney general of the united states, memorializing in writing, right? i know of no other instance of that happening, do you? at this't consider bob stage a career prosecutor. he has had a career as a prosecutor. >> he was the head of the fbi for 12 years. he is a law enforcement professional. >> right. >> i know of no other instance. >> he was also a political appointee and a political appointee with me at the department of justice. the letter is a bit snitty and i think it was probably written by one of his staff people. >> did you make a memorandum of your conversation?

>> huh? >> did you make a memorandum of your conversation? >> what? >> did you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with robert mueller? >> yes. >> who did that? >> there were notes taken of the call. >> may we have those notes? >> no. >> why should you have them? >> we have to end this, but i will write a letter to mr. mueller and i will ask him if there -- if there is anything you said -- he said about that conversation he disagrees with and he will come and tell us. the hearing is now over. senator blumenthal, i promise you, mr. mueller will have a chance to make sure the conversation relayed by attorney general barr is accurate. i will give him a chance to correct anything you said that he finds misleading or inaccurate and that will be it.

judiciary chairman lindsey graham saying he will give robert mueller a chance to correct the record if needed about this conversation the attorney general had with mr. mr.ler about the letter tor received after his memo congress. what do you think? that attorneyk general barr handled himself real well yesterday. --s whole russia fiasco first of all, i have not seen anything to show that russia actually interfered in the 2016 election. i did not vote for clinton, i did not vote for trump. it had nothing to do with russia.

i did not want to vote for clinton because she has a long history and i have never voted for a republican president. i have been a lifelong democrat. watching the democrats and some a these democrats go back long ways. most of african-americans are indoctrinated to vote for democrats anyway. i am ashamed of myself are not taking time to look at things and look at people because barr has been in attorney general before. this is not his first time at the rodeo. the other thing i have just really been confused about is the fbi and the justice department. after clinton lost the election. even before then, going back to comey. i know it wasn't just comey, but he really messed the fbi and the justice department and the

people obama put in there, they really left the fbi and the justice department in the hands of a lot of political people who have fought tooth and nail against trump. they have tried everything they could to bring down trump as president. i have never seen an acting attorney general acting -- whatever prosecutor like that lady, yates, when trump was trying to get his bill through and she came out and said i am not going to do it. i have never seen that before where someone from the justice department or the fbi, the justice department say to the president i am not going to follow your orders, period. he had to fire yates, he had to fire comey. host: you and others might be interested in comey's reaction to yesterday's hearing. pedro echevarria with more.

host 2: an op-ed in the new york co-ops leadersp like barr. sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. the proximity to an amoral leader reveal something --ressing, at least what accomplished people cannot resist the compromises needed to survive mr. trump. the editors of the wall street urinal right about mr. barr under the headline "a real attorney general." democrats are upset mr. barr concluded mr. trump did not obstruct estes -- justice. mr. barr was attorney -- behaving like an attorney general should. mr. barr stepped up and made the call, however unpopular with the democrats and the press. host: steve, st. petersburg,

florida. the attorney general is not going to be testifying before the house judiciary committee today after hours after the senators. what do you think? caller: i think he should definitely be testifying, that is what his job is to represent the american people. if he is truly going to do that, we should hear from him. more importantly, we should hear from mueller. the fact lindsey graham was going to get things in writing and then at the end, saying there was no chance of it happening, just shows you how badly this has affected our democracy. there is no working together, no talking together, there is so much division in this point in time that there is almost no way to move things forward. i truly think barr -- they should look at mpg and him. he has lied to them, lied to the

american people. it is like they just don't consider the fact that some of us actually see things and have cents. i would like to make a comment about our friend from alabama. there was russian interference found right here in florida -- they0,000 votes won't even tell the county. florida will not even let us know the county where that happened. the: on your remarks about senate judiciary chairman, lindsey graham, i want to show you and others what he had to say in his own words about what is going to happen going >> here's what's going to happen next. please, i'm trying to do a news conference. i will do mr. mueller -- i will ask mr. mueller if he had any dispute about what mr. barr said

, give him a chance to correct the record if he thought attorney general barr misrepresented the findings of this report. that will be it. the attorney general did a very good job. he asked many hard probing questions, and i'm confident that this investigation with the was thorough, complete, exhausted. there was no collusion with the russian government by the trump campaign, and the obstruction of justice charges in this case are quite absurd. if you think the president did something wrong, impeachment would be the answer, because he is not going to be indicted. i think, if we base impeachment on the molar report. it's over.

if there's any dispute about a conversation, then it will come. i'm not calling mccann -- mcgahn. host: stan in bridgeport, connecticut. independent. stan, what do you think of all that has happened in the last 24 hours? kind ofi think we are lost in a cult of personality. i think that pretty much describes the whole scene. exploitation, telling us one and one makes three. where truth is irrelevant and we are lost in a cult of personality. host: ok. the senate judiciary is set about this morning on jeffrey rosen to replace rod rosenstein who is resigning effective may

11, though the vote may be delayed one week under committee rules. in clayton,florence north carolina. hi, florence. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm quite disconcerted that politics in the united states has gone totally rogue. there is no respect. there is no honor. ande's a lot of lying misconception, and they are misleading the american public. that's because of their own personal agenda. becoming come into president on just his -- he has such a nasty approach in terms , inomen, people of color

terms of people who don't agree with him. it seems as though the republican party has snapped into place and don't have any or idea on how they will represent the districts and people of the american public. tired of them always saying the american public agrees. they don't know that. i don't see any polls being then to really go to grassroots community, to ascertain how they really feel. host: let's hear from nancy who is a republican in hamilton, ohio. your thoughts this morning, nancy? caller: thank you for taking my call. many of the democrat house judiciary members are lawyers. they come apparently, aren't

capable enough to ask intelligent questions of attorney general barr. you only have counsel ask questions when there is an ongoing investigation. the investigation into russia collusion by the trump campaign has ended, and no collusion was found. but, there appears to be evidence that the clinton campaign may -- colluded with russia. attorney general barr is going to look into that. thank you very much. host: last night, the ranking member of the house judiciary committee took the cbs news to ofticize democrats' idea having counsel spend an hour testifying william barr. in addition to giving the committee five minutes to do his own questioning, here is what we had to say. >> why would you sabotage the

hearing when you can talk to william barr? thatould you take additional step when you could've added extra time for both sides. it's so important to have a staff member so you can appear to be in an impeachment proceeding, it's so important to have that person answer questions that you would sabotage the attorney general. that's a disservice to the american people when bill barr sat for many hours voluntarily. this is simply a show. this is something to make the american people think it's not happening. host: jerry nadler talked to reporters and talked to -- and defended the format. >> the committee has the right to determine its own procedures. has a nerve general to dictate our procedures.

it is simple he part of the administration's complete stonewalling of congress. what the ranking member is saying is that, by determining how to proceed, we are stonewalling as it is our choice he should not come. he is trying to blackmail the committee into not following what we think is the most effective means of eliciting the information we need. congress cannot permit the executive branch, the administration to dictate to congress how we operate. host: the house judiciary committee will hold their hearing today without the attorney general. that gets underway at 9:00 a.m. eastern time in that room with what we learn, is from a political reporter this morning. we expect the members of the committee to be there and give opening statements, but you will not see the attorney general. our coverage of this begins at

9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3. you can also watch on c-span.org or download the c-span -- free c-span radio app. until 9:00 this morning, when the house gavels in the, we will continue to get your reaction to the handling of the molar report by the attorney general. dottie and griffin, georgia -- in griffin, georgia. caller: good morning. i was watching the hearing yesterday and it seems that one side of it, the only thing they wanted to talk about was hillary him how grateful they were that he came in. the other side was asking questions and he couldn't answer half of them. is it ok fork him, " a campaign to take information from a foreign country and use it?"

he couldn't even answer that question. he was stuttering. when she asked the question, the first thing that came to mind is no, it is never ok. then, he says, if you investigate the president and he is unlike in the investigation, he can end it and there is nothing wrong with that. if i'm going to court and prosecutors are asking questions i don't like and i say, "well, i'm not going to answer that question because i'm innocent." and then i get up and walk out of the courtroom. that is not how this is supposed to be run. i don't know what is wrong with these people who call in saying they are just picking on him. he's not supposed to be the president's lawyer. he is to boast to be representing everyone in the united states of america. -- is supposed to be representing everyone in the united states. i'm not stupid. times" haswashington

a headline on what you begin your comments on, the ag justiceng an expanded probe of clinton links. anna in bartlett, texas. emma craddick color. -- caller. is the next caller. caller: it's just one more man destroying the truth about this country and donald trump. donald trump, to me and my is a satanist that we have waited on. that we have satan waited on. he is here and i don't believe anymore than donald trump -- him

anymore than donald trump. this country has been demolished. as an individual in a small town, i have my country and my heart. i am an american. i never thought i would see the day when the law of the land that people share blood for, gave their lives for, gave their blood, sweat, and tears for would come to this. host: that is anna in texas. to talk about the hearing is one thing, but to talk about other activities of congress, even as this goes on with william barr, -- the senate will vote at 10:30 to confirm the next judge of the trump presidency. this afternoon, on whether to

override the president's veto of a joint resolution, and a joint military involvement in yemen, we have the preceding on this boat to the president vetoed it earlier this month. the resolution requires him to withdraw any troops in or affecting yemen within 30 days because they are fighting al qaeda. the senate passed the yen at resolution last month because -- passed the resolution last month. we will go to david in texas. republican. david, your thoughts on today posse ring -- today's hearing. caller: what congress needs to do is what they were elected to do, legislate. bill barr, let him do what he was appointed to do, investigate. that is what the democrats are going toout, that he's

uncover a lot of wrongdoing in his investigations. just let him do his job. host: david, would you want to hear from the special counsel? going to yes.er a lot ofcaller: if he's got questions, let him question and get it straight from him. host: david there. he wants to hold a hearing, he should have robert mueller before him this morning. the hearing with the attorney general that was supposed to happen at 9:00 a.m. will go on, but the attorney general will not be there, as far as we know now. there has not been a change. that's 9:00 a.m. eastern time. bob in california. an independent. hi, bob.

caller: i hope everyone is having a wonderful day. theexcited to see all ,udicial legislative, and executive things that are going to crash into all of the political spin machines and get spewed out over the next 48 hours as something is alwaystion, but it fun watching american politics. you have to smile. host: ok, bob. fred in riverview, florida. mcgrath. --democrat. fred, good morning. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts on the attorney general. caller: i think the attorney general is getting the same treatment judge kavanaugh gods. -- got. they flipped out when he put two

of his picks on the supreme court and bar said he wouldr get bottom of why this investigation even started. i will have bottom of why this investigation even nothing to dh this party ever again. in fayetteville, north carolina. democrat. caller: i would like to say i agree with the democrats. attorney barr is to represent the people, not the president. also, every time you ask them something, they always want to bring up barack obama and hillary clinton. they are not in office. trump is. i can't understand how anybody could believe anything he said. he is caught up in so many lies that he is a habitual liar. i hope they do stand up to the

republicans. when they were in charge, they didn't let stuff happen when the democrats wanted to investigate something or see the truth about something. they always stonewall. they are a republican. the republican party changed. wentgot mostly democrats over to the republican party and democrats, went over to the republican party, and took it over. i think the republican party is a disgrace. to an apple's,o maryland. patrick, republican. napolis,ple lists -- an maryland. patrick, republican. caller: as far as people frustrated with how long this investigating was going on.

i remember when clinton was adding investigated. i love clinton. people were bad mouthing him and i thought if someone is that high into the government, i want is.ind out what it obama is the only president in my lifetime that i actually loved like people love kennedy -- loved kennedy. something -- if he did something bad enough to be and ieached -- be impeached, would be sad but i would want him gone. host: yesterday, c-span caught up with members of the house judiciary committee, after they voted on the format for today posse ring. hearing. -- today's we talked with a florida republican and asked him what he would ask the attorney general if he got the chance. >> based on the pandemonium that

we just saw unfold where the chairman of the committee lost control of the rules, processes, and allowing members to ask questions and debate on the subject. based on what i saw, i have no expectation that the attorney general will show up for this. i think he's doing a great job in the senate. i think the attorney general has important work to do in investigating and explaining the origins of this trump-russia investigation that seem to be politically motivated and biased. especially relating to the fisa process where the whole truth was not told to secret courts and american citizens saw the rights deprived. >> how do you prepare for big hearing like this? >> i think it's important to look at the factual development that has occurred over the last several years where we see the highest levels of the department of justice and fbi with bias. mccabe had to go as a result of

leaking, homey was fired, and use all resignations from jim baker, lisa page, and so many others involved in what i believe is one of the greatest scandals in american history. host: we have more on the back and forth and the makeup of the house judiciary committee. >> we've talked to you about two leaders that you have heard from several times this morning. jerry nadler was the chair of the committee and doug collins out of georgia, the republican ranking member. a little more about their background. nadler is a representative of new york, and has been a member of congress since 1992. he served as a former new york state assembly man and got his agree from florida state university. the republican representative there, he has been a member of congress since 2014 and he has his law degree from john marshall law school. host: back to calls.

robert in greenville, texas. independent. what do you think of the attorney general not testifying this morning? caller: i think what we are witnessing right now is a self-destruction of the rule of law in the united states. these people are just shameful. down one way come or the other, republican or democrat. i come down -- this constitution, we elect officials that should be pillars of our society to represent us. the thing that makes this country as unique and great as it is and that has sustained us for 250 years is the rule of all. power giveions of certain rights to different branches of government on how they execute themselves and how they conduct themselves, and

part of congress's duty is oversight. when people refuse to come before congress to testify on issues as important and as divisive as this has been in the last few years, our country is spiraling into chaos. these people need to put politics aside, come before the congress, answer the questions so that we can resolve this issue, and get back to some kind of normalcy in this country where we are governing and making improvements, fixing infrastructure, and handling the immigration problems, and all of the other things we have entrusted these people to go to congress and do. right now, we are spiraling into chaos. feeling about what is going on right now with him refusing, congress should be fast tracking all of these. it shouldn't be two or three

weeks out that we will bring mueller in and maybe next month we will talk to don again -- don mcgann. this slow drip drip drip. congress ought to step up to the plate and say we will get to the bottom of this and we will expedite and bring forth these people. if the evidence is there, move it to the courts. expedite the process and get this resolved so we can get back to being a great country again. respondbert, how do you to the justice department saying that members of congress can ask the attorney general questions. he's happy to answer those questions. foroes not think lawyers, an hour, should be asking him questions. no, i kind of gets where he is coming from there. that is somewhat overstepping -- their duties

as congressmen. most all congressmen there are lawyers to begin with. they should be capable of asking these questions. yes, i get an hour duration of being grilled by one or two is kind of outside the bounds of normal behavior, but it is not unprecedented. it has happened numerous times in the past when important issues have come forth where they need a more intense level. the same thing happens -- people are called before and they say they will do it behind closed doors, or we will reveal information to the gang of eight. there's all kinds of little twists and turns that have been built in over the years on this stuff, and i think that if that be the case, do it with just the lawyers or just the congresspeople. we can bypass that, but let's

move this thing along because we need to get past it. host: robert mentioned this has been done in the past, having a lawyer ask the questions of a witness. on mondayngton post" pointed to the 1987 concert hearings when a lawyer with the committee, it was two joint committees, the senate and house committee that did the you can findand that if you go to our website at c-span.org. with jamiewe talked raskin on why democrats wanted this type of questioning from lawyers. here's what he had to say. is that,e've noted under the five minute question rule, which has traditionally worked, the administration witnesses have been coming in and have been coached to draw

out the five minutes as long as possible, to spend 45 seconds thanking the committee, praising the merits of the question, and then going into a long, historical disposition, asking the members to repeat themselves, so that five minutes is devoured quickly. we have real issues that we want to get to the bottom of, so we said, let the lawyers question directly in a 30 minute block. 30 minutes on the republican side, 30 minutes on the democrat side. >> if and when you get your five minutes, what will you ask the attorney general? >> i haven't settled on mike line of questioning but -- on my line of questioning, but i know what i want to learn. we just got one of the most explosive documents in the history of the department of justice, a letter sent by robert mueller contradicting our tinny general bar -- attorney general barr's accounts to everything

relating to molars report -- mueller's report. euler said this was ready to go. i made the redaction's related to the material. i've made -- i made the s related to the material. he was so mad the attorney general misrepresented the content of the report and misrepresented the timing of everything that he wrote back two days later and said, this is taking too long. these two sentences is fine for them to go to the public. now, there's nothing left to be decided, released this report to congress immediately. i think it's fine to be released to the public. it still took another 22 days, by my count, for the attorney general to release it to the american people. it is a manipulation of the process by barr. it may be futile to ask the

question, why did he do it, but it seems obvious that he is acting as a criminal defense lawyer for the president of the united states rather than the attorney general. is not acting as the attorney general of the united states. that was jamie raskin, a democrat from maryland talking about today's hearing. the attorney general will not be there. he disagrees and refuses the format the democrats have set up where lawmakers ask for five minutes and then there would be an hour of question by lawyers. we are giving you -- getting your reaction to that and how the attorney general handled the questioning yesterday. we go to william in northampton, massachusetts. a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? typical,he hearing was

and this country has gone into a place of working on manipulation and divisiveness. people not what wins the , and that is not what serves the people, especially senator blumenthal. he is the top of his class, gulatilottey -- magnum -- magna cum laude . this creates a split down party lines. it will never prevent russia or any other hostile nation state from carrying out their active measures that they have a whole

because to master nothing ever changes in those states and countries. they don't elect a new executive every four years. have ast do as they long-term plan and we cannot see the long term. these are smart people. these are people that are supersmart and they are just wasting it, using it for nothing. host: william's thoughts in massachusetts. joe seven georgia, republican. -- joseph in georgia, republican.-- caller: i watched yesterday and i think he could have been treated as well as he could. the democrats get up there and it is a sideshow. kamala harris is asking questions that, being her job, she should already know. if rob -- like if rob robe and

rosenstein did what he supposed to do. host: senator harris is one of the democrats running for 2020. you also had amy klobuchar running, and she was asking questions as well. pedro has more on the road to the white house. racenew entrant into the for 2020, michael bennet of colorado. a tweet from him saying not only is he cancer free but he is running for president. taking a look at his candidacy, he says he will not be the first candidate to make -- and his promise to fix washington comes as no surprise as the freedom caucus, a group of members who grew out of opposition to obama and united a blocked number of efforts, and donald trump's early stops in new hampshire, more on that in

the denver post this morning. caller: my question is, what are these politicians doing for the country? it seems, for the last two years, the democrats got an attitude because trump won and he's not a politician. really myat is opinion and other people's opinion, that it is just a joke. they are making this country a joke. that's all i have to say. people are just sick of what is going on. host: gil in jamestown north carolina -- jamestown, north carolina. how is the attorney general handling all of this? caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment before i get to mr. barr. rod rosenstein just tendered his resignation so, in terms of

getting to the truth and cooperating -- corroborating conversations between rosenstein now that mr. rosenstein has tendered his , i believe congressman nadler should ask rosenstein to come in and testify. keep in mind that robert mueller had to report to rosenstein for 22 months. whereas mr. barr has only been the attorney general for less than three months. the attorney general has said the mueller report is his baby. if i can make an analogy, mr. rosenstein was the ob/gyn who monitored the just station of this investigation -- just -- gestation.

mr. robert mueller and rosenstein need to both testify so that we can got to the truth -- get to the truth. host: there's news on that front. c-span's capitol hill producer is tweeting out that the senate judiciary is set to vote on jeffrey rosen to replace rod rosenstein who is resigning effective may 11. the vote may be delayed one week under committee rules. hazel in virginia, republican. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i watched the whole thing yesterday and they don't ask questions, they make this long statement, accusing him of all kinds of stuff and he does not get to reply. that is not what the hearing is supposed to be.

host: can you give me an example of watching it where you felt that way, what line of questioning? caller: the lady of hawaii accused him saying you have lied, we know you have lied, and she continued to berate him. he just has to sit there and listen to that. i don't blame him at all for not coming today. host: she's referring to the questioning from the senator from hawaii. if you missed that, we have it all on our website at c-span.org . stacy in chicago heights, illinois. she's an independent. caller: good morning, ma'am. how are you? my concerns are that we the people should not be paying our government workers if they are not going to abide by the judicial system. i feel like our country has been destroyed, taken over. we no longer have american. -- america. as i speak, my heart is aching. we are so divided. i would like to ask republicans,

when did mr. mueller become a no one? why did this start happening when so-called trump came the chief and commander? he is the leader of all the people. it's breaking my heart. my dad was a vietnam fighter. he is gone now. it's so sad our country has become authoritarian here because of the lazy mr. mitch mcconnell. lindsey graham, i'm so disappointed in him. my heart wants to go out to the family -- mccabe family. that has failed us. we have no one to comfort us, no one to talk with us. we have a division in our country. we need our country to have a president who represents us. if trump would go out there and

do the right thing and represents we the people and abide by that rule, they should go to court. we the taxpayer are paying for their bills. we should not be paying bills. their checks should be stopped immediately. host: we will go on to linda in st. louis, missouri. a democrat. caller: good morning. and queue for taking my call. i'm so tired of everyone -- thank you for taking my call. i'm so tired of everyone. when they get on the line, the first thing they want to say is that the democrats did this or that. donald trump is destroying all of us. i've never seen so much division in my adult life. i think it's crazy. barr ought to be ashamed of himself. when they had him up there, questioning him, i had great hopes thinking we would have someone there seeking to fight and seek what is going on. he's up there acting like this man is above the law

and if any other citizen did it, we would be locked up. we have seen this on play for the whole time he has been in there. i've never seen a president, for every day he's in office that they are some kind of drama. this has made our presidential office a joke. an office that you thought was so high and mighty has now been brought down to a joke. thank you. host: jeff in indiana. jeff, good morning to you. what do you think of the attorney general? caller: good morning. i've watched this thing in its entirety twice. i want to bring up two points. a lot of your viewers, i don't believe they saw the beginning of this program where lindsey graham says it has been two years, $26 million, 400 fbi agents, and you come up with an inconclusive report.

i don't know how much longer we want this to go on, but it seems to me that we have gone as far down this road as we can. the second point, if you think there will not be any sort of outside influence on the elections, to campaign on that stage it takes a lot of people to be on your team. they are not vetted. they have outside interests. it's a possibility. you are talking about hundreds of people campaigning for you. you don't even know half of them. to say there will not be any inside influence in the election, that seems a little naive to me. host: before you go, jeff. are you still there? caller: yes. host: i was wondering about, as you are talking, we can see that the house judiciary committee have put up the placard for the attorney general who will not be there. i'm wondering from you, should he be there to answer questions

from these house democrats and republicans? caller: i don't have a problem with it either way. i would like to see him show up and do that, what if he's just going to that grilled for an ofr at a time, 19 out of 20 them are already lawyers. i don't understand how they gain anything by that. i don't think they will be asking any questions he wasn't asked before. host: the next caller is in boston massachusetts. hi, bill. caller: thank you for taking my call. i totally agree with the previous caller. why thesederstand elected senators and congressmen need to have some of the else ask the questions. they are all lawyers. ,hat can these underlings do what kind of questions can they ask that the congressmen cannot ask?

maybe we should've elected these underlings to congress instead of these professional politicians. that was bill in massachusetts. an independent. he was noting the amount of people on the judiciary committee. there are 17 republicans and 15 of them have law degrees. we have international news this morning. >> the new york post and others are reporting julian assange is currently fighting against extradition to the u.s. you can read more of that on twitter. if you go to the pages of the "new york times" it takes a look at what joe biden and his son did in ukraine. the pressure campaign worked.

international leaders was soon voted out by the ukrainian parliament. upon those who had a stake in was hunter biden. mr. biden's son, who at that time was on the board of an energy company owned by a ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sites of the fired prosecutor general. host: our next caller. caller: it's disheartening to see what is happening right now. it's obvious that barr is protecting the president. for this guy to be hired and be on the job less than 90 days, and as soon as he is hired, shortly after, the investigation comes to a conclusion. he gives this crazy thing that there is no obstruction of theice, and he goes to senate, gets grilled, and it answer any questions. he's not gonna show up.

it's obvious. he's protecting the president and the president is going to get away with it. he's going to get away with everything he's doing right now. host: i want to show you and others that one of these changes yesterday in the senate hearing between the chair and attorney general where mr. graham is asking him about the questions of obstruction of justice. >> the conclusions in your four page summary you think accurately reflect his bottom line on collusion, is that correct? caller: yes. >> you can read it -- >> yes. >> you can read it for yourself if you have any doubt. as for obstruction of justice, are you surprised he would let you decide? >> yes, i was surprised. i think the function he was carrying out, the investigative and prosecutor function, is performed -- >> how many people did he actually indict? >> i can't remember off of the

top of my head. >> he has the ability to indict if he wants to. he has used that power during the investigation, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the other thing confusing to me is that the investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were looked into, episodes involving the president. wherestion was, why those investigated if you weren't going to reach a decision on them? rosensteinconsult about the obstruction matter? >> constantly. >> was he in agreement with your decision not to proceed forward? >> yes. , what?sorry >> the agreement to not move forward. >> right. host: there is the chair for him on the house side this morning. he will not be attending today's

session. he's refusing to go with the format that the house democrats have put in place, and that his five-minute question by the lawmakers and including an hour by two lawyers. right now, the attorney general will not be there this morning. the hearing will go on, and our coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, in 20 minutes, on , or you canpan.org get the free c-span radio app. let's hear from axel, a republican. what do you think of the attorney general? caller: what you just played is perfect. listen, in a jury trial, you cannot come back and say, we don't know one way or another what happened. it shouldn't of been in mueller's ability to do that if that is what he was assigned to

do. you can't come back and say, we don't know one way or the other. then, if barr is going to make the decision, that is the way it goes. i don't know what the democrats are up in arms about. the process has taken its course. they had mueller do his investigation, it came to barr -- isn't that the process? why are they upset that barr was in the position to make the decision. the whole process should be changed but it is too late -- decision? the whole process should be changed, but it is too late. i would have been so much more abstinent if i was barr yesterday. i would've said, look, stick it because i did what i did and i do,what i was supposed to and i just don't understand what these democrats are up in arms about. the whole crux is what you played, mueller did not come up with a decision so they latched onto it, the democrats, and they

said it is possible it was one way or the other, but you can't do that in a jury trial. you can't say, look, we didn't have enough information or did not come up with a decision and we will just punt. i don't understand. this is the way the process went and barr had every right to do what he did. host: what do you think about robert mueller reaching out to the attorney general after he sends his summary, saying we don't feel the special counsel team, that you described it in an accurate way. we feel the public is confused now. do you think members of congress should dig to the bottom of that? we feel the public is confused now. do you think members of congress should dig to the bottom of

that? you have the march 24 memo sent out and three days later, mueller team responds in their own letter. then, the ag calls robert mueller and has the conversation with him on speakerphone. , with people in the room. notes are taken. -- speakerphone, with people in the room. notes are taken. do you think congress should get to the bottom of this, what looks to be discrepancies? caller: i don't see how it could look that way. barr would be stupid to set himself up to just say i'm going to put out a summary or whatever he wants to call it. and, knowing the whole report was going to come out, they can himself to look like a fool and say i didn't cover everything. it doesn't make any sense. he hit the highlighted points. it was like they said yesterday, if you come to a conclusion on a verdict, you come to a verdict, and then you don't go back and say, what about the questions that the prosecutor asked? what about these particular little questions? that is all details. he came out with the verdict and that is all there is to it.

the democrats are being liners and crybabies about this whole thing -- winers and crybabies about this whole thing. host: sherman in oklahoma, an independent. what do you think? caller: i think it is a waste of time and money. what are they going to learn that's not learned by asking -- by having them ask questions? then, the debacle they had yesterday in the house judiciary , they can't get along on how to run it. they got time to have that, to extra time and have extra people come in, but they don't issues thate to fix are wrong with the country. host: sherman in oklahoma. there is viewer reaction from

william barr yesterday and today . central scrutinize or say the democrats plan is clear, vilify mr. barr. in doing so, the ongoing investigation into who was behind the witchhunt can also be that. atert saying barr testifying the house committee would be like going to the fun house in an amusement park. he's on twitter saying he had not read the underlying evidence in the report -- robert on twitter saying he had not read the underlying evidence in the report. ofr push for pages propaganda to keep loyalists loyal and bury it. host: charlie in indiana. a democratic color. what do you think? -- caller. what do you think? caller: i think it was explained fairly clearly, why they want to have lawyers ask questions for

30 minutes. when members of the committee asked questions, they have five minutes, and when three quarters of that is eaten up by barr saying, could european that or i am struggling with this word, then -- could you repeat that or i am struggling with this word, then there is no time for follow-up questions. in the kavanaugh hearings, they had lawyers come and republicans asked the questions. i don't see what the big deal is. they've explained this, and it makes sense to me, ok? host: alan in california. a republican. your reaction to the attorney general? caller: i think democrats are having a problem. they judged trump guilty to end a half years ago and are not able to prove it so they won't let it go. host: jerry in ohio, independent. jerry? caller: good morning.

hard to get through to you -- it is hard to get through to you. let's back up a second. remember they said washington didn't know how to do the health care? they still don't. yesterday, where was the questions that? -- at? heard questions that had nothing to do with the mueller report. i'm a disabled vietnam veteran. anybody that believes a word blumenthal says is crazy. sorry. that's the way that goes. host: kathy in indiana. a democratic color. -- caller. caller: this should not have been barr's job to do this. it should have gone to congress,

like it was supposed to. [indiscernible] he's not god. trump is not god. they should have gone to get more opinions on this and more questions. he's the one refusing to answer questions. i don't blame the lady from ohio . [laughter] host: are you talking about the senator from hawaii? caller: yes. he doesn't answer the questions when you ask him. he says there like a toad frog, looking like a toad frog and it --sn't answer the questions and doesn't answer the questions. host: she's referring to the hawaiian senators questioning. saidshe had her time, she

he lied to congress when he testified in april. he was before and appropriations committee the next day -- one day, and the next day he was before the senate appropriations committee. he was asked before the house appropriators, by a republican of florida, about what went into his march 20 fourth memo that he sent to congress -- marched when he fourth memo that he sent to 4th memo -- march 2 that he sent to congress. with the limited information included, it does not adequately portray the report's findings. do you know what they are referencing with that? >> no, i do not. suspect they probably wanted

view, i out, but, in my was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because i think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive, but also it would trigger a lot of discussion and should outweigh everything coming in at once. my marchme i put out 24 letter, there was nothing from the special counsel marked 6epotentially containing material. i felt i should state the bottom line conclusions, and i tried to use special counsel molar's --

mueller's own language in doing that. did you feel there was an obligation upon you or your office to prepare this letter overview, if you will, rather than summary, rather than having the special counsel team -- special counsel's team do with them self how did that happen i guess is what i'm trying to find team. how did that happen i guess is what i'm trying to find out? >> in my judgment, it was important for people to know the bottom-line conclusions of the report while we worked on necessary reductions to make the whole thing available.

unfortunately, that is a matter of weeks. i don't think the public would have tolerated and congressman would not have tolerated knowing the bottom-line. and, as you know, from your own experience, from a prosecutor standpoint, the bottom-line is binary, charges or no charges. >> indeed. did you contemplate having the special counsel's office help you with the preparation of your march 24 letter? have bob review it before putting it out and he declined. host: that is from april 9 when the attorney general testified. also, senators were pointing yesterday to his april 10 testimony. here, he is asked by senator van hollen about the question of obstruction of justice, and the senator asked him quickly about the memo. here's what he had to say.

[no audio] host: we will try to get that for you. we are missing audio, but in the meantime, let's hear from george in pennsylvania. a republican. hi, george. caller: the only comments i have today, this discussion that is still going on about this witchhunt, it is over. it is a done deal. what we should be talking about today is the current investigation that barr is under, that he mentioned three times in the hearing yesterday. we haven't heard a thing about that. the witchhunt is over. is for thegation ones who started this witchhunt. it will show how they abused our worldf the land and the to to go after trump, to bring down our president.

that should be the current discussion. host: rufus in orlando, florida, independent. caller: good morning. that i was really disappointed in what appeared to be lack of preparation on behalf of the attorney general. , and former police officer whether you agree or disagree, that chiefct judicial officer of the law could answer questio a questione objective.and lack ofhear that a this in answering the

question is disappointing. as we move forward, i hear comments, "well, you know, we move on, or whatever." i think we are setting a dangerous precedent. host: rufus there in florida. you can see the members of the house judiciary committee making their way into the hearing room. democrats making their way into some of the seats. a democrat from florida, a former police chief, she will be doing some of the questioning today. you also have jamie raskin of maryland. he took his seat. , and is steve of tennessee others waiting for this hearing to get started. in a few minutes -- started in a few minutes. the attorney general will not be there. we will see what they will do and how long it will last. you can watch it on c-span3,

c-span.org, or you can get the free c-span radio app. from that moment on april 10, when senator van hollen asks the attorney general, this is what senators were pointing to yesterday, about the memo and robert mueller's involvement. >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know if bob mueller supported conclusion. >> that was april 10. the attorney general sent his memo on march 24. inn, a letter was sent response to his memo and the two had a phone conversation as well. we will get a couple more calls first -- >> house democrats are signaling a short and sweet meeting given the attorney general is not expected to show. int indicates no plans going

or debate before any votes. host: let's hear from stephen in cicero, illinois. what do you think? caller: what i think is that everybody is jumping the gun. mueller was supposed to do the investigation. barr is now making the determination. when it is congress's investigation that follows up and makes the decision whether or not there is grounds for impeachment, and the grounds -- the evidence they are looking at now is about obstruction, and barr is doing nothing but causing more obstruction, it is obvious. do you wantn, what lawmakers to do about it? caller: what i want them to do about it is, ok, follow up like they are and people have to stop complaining about why people are worried about how questioner asked