congress and beyond. this was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape has clearly signed. here is no monolith eck media. youtube stars are a thing but c-span's big ideas are more relevant today. its nonpartisan coverage is a service by your cable satellite provider, by television and online. you can make up your own mind. >> today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. then politico editor at a conference of the american bar association and a discussion about ongoing afghanistan peace talks from the u.s. institute of peace in washington, d.c.. in about an hour, we'll discuss attorney general william barr's

congressional testimony with nelson cunningham and former accident director of the f.b.i.'s office of congressional affairs and later an update on the unrest in venezuela with americas vice pr, eric farnsworth. [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] ♪ host: good morning on this friday, may third. --the mueller the president and republican say the mueller investigation is over. it's up to you, move on or keep investigating? democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. to join us on twitter at @cspanwj and you can faust -- post comments on

facebook.com/cspan. north carolina senator thom tillis yesterday made the argument on the senate floor that now it is time for congress to start focusing on other priorities. [video clip] >> what this really boils down to is theater. some of it almost to the level of comedy. there was a house hearing today and i am about to put up a picture that actually was on c-span that actually occurred in the house hearing. you tell me whether or not the chair of the committee is serious about the subject when you have got a guy eating fried chicken in place of where they wanted attorney general barr bank to be. they have got the chair and others letting him have that kind of theater in a house committee room. really? can you honestly say you are serious about this or is this a politicals and

tool because you lost? you wanted the president to be guilty. he wanted to prove he obstructed . i get that. the bottom line is after 675 days, almost $30 million when it is all totaled up, 34 people indicted, 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, 200 30 orders for communication records, and 14 requests for foreign companies -- countries to find -- provide information, really? wantnk the american people my colleagues on the others out of the aisle to focus on what americans are really worried about. they are worried about economic security, health care security, they are worried about keeping a job, worried about sending their kids to college and putting them through school. if you want to win an election

next year, stop playing games and stop the theater. the president is not guilty of a crime. the president is not guilty of obstruction of justice. it went through one of the most rigorous investigations in modern history. prove what policies and priorities you have for the american people and win on the basis of your ideas, on your commitments. stop the theater and get back to work. host: according to reports on capitol hill yesterday, house democrats are moving forward. -- source familiar with conversations previously, they were dealing with doj. hearing, butic nothing has been finalized yet. jerrold nadler on april 22 put out this tweet saying he had

officially subpoenaed don mcgahn to testify before his committee. he writes in the letter following the schedule testimony of attorney general william barr may 2 and the expected testimony of robert mueller, the committee has asked for documents from mr. mcgahn on may 7 and to hear from .im on may 21st and other misconduct described in the mueller report. his testimony will shed further light on the president's attacks on the rule of law and attempts to cover up those actions by lying to the american people and requesting others to do the same . president trump last night in an interview with fox news had this to say about allowing his former white house counsel to testify. [video clip] >> just want to be clear on don mcgahn. under what circumstances would you allow him to testify to congress?

had himt trump: i have testifying already for 30 hours. i don't think i should let him and tell everyone else you can. they testified mayor -- for many hours, all of them. president trump: i would say it is done. we have gone through this. nobody has ever done what i have done, i have given total transparency. it has never happened like this before. they should not be looking anymore. it is done. host: it is your turn to tell congress in washington what you think. time to move on or continue investigating. hi, wanda. caller: i think keep investigating. i have a comment to make. i think all the republicans have the same speech writer because they repeat the same thing and if they have a person that asked them a question not on their

list, they start stuttering and they sound ignorant. host: why do you say keep investigating? he needs to be impeached. trump needs to be impeached and the other guy needs to be held in contempt. it is obvious they are lying. we are not ignorant, we can see, we can hear. they are lying through their teeth and they need to get out of office. this man is ruining our country. housewhether or not democrats on the judiciary committee will hold him in contempt for missing a subpoena deadline to provide them the fully unredacted mueller report along with unredacted evidence. the justice department missed that deadline on wednesday and the committee is saying they will keep negotiating over the next few days and gave the attorney general until monday to

comply. if he doesn't, they will move forward with contempt charge. also, they will issue a subpoena. they did not yesterday, but talked about issuing a subpoena for the attorney general to testify. bill in florida, independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i just heard mr. trump say it is done. the only thing that is done is esther trump and mr. barr and this administration, which has perpetrated a fraud on the american people and upon the criminal justice system. this is what he has been doing his entire life and it is time that mr. trump be brought to terms with his lawbreaking. he has constantly avoided anding over his tax returns

he just thinks the law was made for him and that he doesn't have to keep it and he can keep perpetrating fraud upon the american people and it goes on and on and on as it has been going on his entire life. host: who would you like to see congress call to testify? caller: mr. mueller. totaleller's investigation has been ignored by mr. barr. mr. barr did not even attempt to read mr. mueller's evaluations of what transpired in this administration. a prime example would be how could mr. barr overlook mr. c ohen's testimony concerning the checks turned over to these women? that is a point that has been

overlooked completely by the news media. host: how is that related to mueller investigation? he was investigating russian possiblence and connections, conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. caller: i would think that type of behavior would set a mode of operand i -- mo. host: helen, brooklyn, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, greta? host: i am fine. caller: i am calling in this morning because i have been watching you guys for the last everything that we have always believed in, i am 64 years old.

i have been through a few administrations. what really troubles me is the fact -- i am here in new york and our attorney general is able to obtain the records under subpoena from deutsche bank. tryis the president able to to stop congress from receiving those same documentations from deutsche bank? butays he is transparent, he is doing things that don't make sense. for us thinking people, as the young lady said before, we are not stupid. he should notink continue the investigation? no one is saying president trump is guilty. all we are saying is it is right to continue the investigation, let the people know what the information is and then we can decide whether we want to vote for him again in 2020.

he is making it so when the democrats finally pick their nominee, that person could just rip him apart and all the independent's that believe in him, they are going to dump him. host: gary, good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i would like to say i beg, plead, beseech, and implore mr. mueller to find the leakers of the manchester city bombing. that was really egregious and the other thing i would like to admiraldo is find the who ordered that combat ship we had off the coast of libya numeral eight days before the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to send that combat ship back to home port instead of keeping it.

that shows a lack of situational awareness. that was terrible. we needed that when they killed christopher that night. why did they send that back? i would like to see them find those two things. the manchester city bombing lead himwill main -- to the swamp. host: another gary in ohio, independent. caller: hi, greta. host: what do you think of the mueller investigation? is it over? move on? caller: when i see a congressman tv in chicken on national a congressional investigation, i am so embarrassed. i am a shamed to be an american. this is unbelievable. host: you are saying move on? caller: move on, yes. that is ridiculous. host: dorothy in north carolina.

democratic caller. caller: give me enough time to talk as you did the other one. you let them talk about things not even pertaining to the mueller report. number one, they keep talking about no crimes committed. hacking somebody's material off of their computer is a crime. donald trump knew about it at even told them to do it and then he tried to block the investigation into russian hacking. we all heard him say hack hillary z mail. i can't think of his name now, he has been in touch with assan ge. put a to the nixon thing. host: roger stone. caller: roger stone, that is right. put it to the nixon thing. nixon did not physically break -- newe dnc, but he no

who did. trump knew about the hacking, asked for the hacking, and tried to obstruct it. that is a criminal act he participated in as far as conspiring with him. he tried to cover it up and keep it from being investigated and hacking is definitely a crime. host: pedro echevarria with us to talk more about this question. move on or keep investigating. host 2: especially when it comes to nancy pelosi, you heard hair -- her accuse william barr of lying. there is a report looking at the federal law that deals with lying to congress. it is section 1621 and reads whoever having taken an oath, they will testify, declare, or true, woefully and

mattery to the described he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury. not more than five years or both . it is technical, we will send out the report on our twitter feed. aharvard professor takes look at the question of whether bill barr lied before congress. he writes this yesterday saying pelosi was saying barr lied when i presented of crist asked him about a hearing about news reports members of special counsel mueller's teamwork dissatisfied with the summary. prosecuted for his answer? the short answer is probably not . we heard his defense, he split hairs saying mueller's letters did not actually say the summary was inaccurate, just that it

created public misconception. you can read more of that at bloomberg. host: if you go to the timeline of events leading up to the hearings this week, on march 24, the attorney general releases a four page letter summarizing the mueller report. march 27 we learned robert mueller sends a letter to barr expressing concern. he sends a second letter as well . april 9 and 10th, the attorney general testifies before congress that he does not know about any discontent with mueller or his team. april 18, barr holds that news conference ahead of releasing the redacted report. april 30, mueller sends a letter dated march 27. --is released to the public that was this week. then we have the testimony before the senate judiciary

committee and yesterday, he did not testify before the house judiciary committee. that moment that nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house is referring to, came april 9 when the attorney general testified before a house appropriations committee and here is the exchange. [video clip] >> reports have emerged recently that embers 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 necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they are referencing with that? >> no, i don't. wantedct they probably 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 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. in fact, at the time i put out my march 24 letter, there was nothing from the special counsel that was not marked as potentially pertaining -- containing 6e material and i had no material that had been sanitized of 6e material. i felt i should state bottom-line conclusions and tried to use special counsel mueller's own language in doing that. >> i am curious. did you feel that there was an obligation upon you and your letterto prepare this

overview, if you will, rather than summary -- rather than having the special counsel's team do it themselves? why did that happen, i guess is what i am trying to find out? >> it happened because the special counsel is providing the report to the attorney general and i was making the decision as make iter -- as to public or any part of it public and in my judgment, it was important for people to know the bottom-line conclusions of the report while we worked on necessary redactions to make the whole thing available. that is a matter of weeks and i don't think the public would have tolerated and congress would not have tolerated at least knowing the bottom-line. as you know from your own experience, from a prosecutor's

standpoint, the bottom line is binary, charges or no charges. >> indeed. dated you contemplate having the special counsel's office help you with the preparation of your march 24 letter or did you? reviewffered to have bob it before putting it out and he declined. host: that was the attorney general's testimony april 29. april 10, he went -- chris van hollen, the senator from maryland and a line of questioning asks him about whether or not the special with thead any issues way the report was summarized in those four pages may 24 and he says i don't know. if you miss to that or wanted to see it for yourself, go to our website. at the top of our website in the search bar, that is where you put in a keyword and you can find those hearings and watch

them. sean in delaware, republican. we are asking you to let washington know, do you think it is time to move on or continue investigating after the mueller report? caller: absolutely we need to continue to investigate. where there is smoke, there is fire. you cannot see through the woods and see something is definitely going on. we should continue to investigate and get to the bottom of this. host: sam in massachusetts, what do you think? caller: thank you, greta, for taking my call. i have been watching c-span for lots of years and i believe this is the only place you can get the truth. everybody from across the country, around the world can call in and say what you know. right? host: right. mother let me first say

time has been kind to you and move on. with donald trump, if there is a way you can get him to put his hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth, do you think he will pass out? i don't think he is capable of telling the truth. his family lies, everyone around him lies, they talk to the russians. shouldn't they have gone to the fbi as soon they got contacted by the russians? shouldn't they have said, we have something going on here, we are trying to win the election, we don't need the russians. how is that possible? host: do you think that means he is guilty of a crime? caller: i am not saying anything about guilty. what i am saying is he cannot tell the truth and the republicans and the people that back him do not seem to see it or they do see it and they give him a pass. the religious people that back

trump should think about this. he is a father and any father that would say if his daughter was not his daughter -- host: let's stick to the question. let's stick to the question. given what you just said, do you move on or continue investigating? caller: he definitely is dirty. he is dirty as a bad sock. if the american people would take a chance and look at what he is doing, why didn't he release his taxes? what does he have to hide? why don't the republicans push him? host: john in california, democrat. it is your turn. caller: good morning. i think they need to continue the investigation with mr. barr they are not just investigating his unbiased

opinion as to the report. he is taking a defensive position many time during -- many times during questioning and kamala harris had an interesting line of questioning when she was asking him whether he had done any work in seeing whether the report was legitimate and whether he had done any other sort of -- i would like to see rod rosenstein subpoenaed. it seemed out of character for him to resign the way he did, suddenly. there has not much been said about that. host: did you know that he was theg to resign earlier but attorney general, william barr, when he came on, asked him to stay until after the mueller report was concluded? so. he agreed to do

he thanked rod rosenstein for staying on longer than he intended to. caller: a strategic move. when donald trump was campaigning, he said we are going to win. the places that he has won the greatest is by his maneuvering and positioning and the republican side has power to lose if they lose the election in 2020. they have that leverage and they are using that in a defensive position for something that should not be defensive. congress is trying to find the truth and i agree with the other caller, where there is smoke, there is fire. there is still smoke. there is still smoke. i don't know how they will get to the bottom of this thing except if mueller did come

forward and he were to elaborate. how likely is that? how is he going to put himself in that position? i don't understand how the law protects him or his responsibilities. -- hey, donald trump is is blocking the investigation further into the investigation of the investigation, which is congress' right as a coequal branch of government. host: the trump administration and congress are in a constitutional collision all -- collision course. democrats have likened trump to a king or dictator for refusing to comply with congressional oversight. democrats were furious william barr refused to testify before the house judiciary committee or hand over an unredacted version of the mueller report due this past wednesday. now the committee chair says

they will give william barr a few more days before they hold refusing tompt for hand over the unredacted version and the underlying documents. ted lieu from california laid out how contempt would work. [video clip] >> let's walk through the process of how contempt proceedings work. attorney general bill barr has violated a lawful subpoena to provide the full mother report --mueller report. if we vote it out, it goes to the house floor. when the house floor votes, it triggers a number of things. house counsel can litigate in courts. we also have inherit contempt powers courts have upheld for us to take immediate action irrespective of the courts. we can start imposing fines on that person. in the past, they had a house in jail.

courts have upheld that as well. congress' power will not be abdicated. we will enforce it and the delay refine -- confine us. we will go there if he does not cooperate. host: bob in texas. a republican. pastr: i think it is well time to move on. you are talking to a republican, but i called you a year ago. i spoke to you or pedro and i has evidenceueller of collusion with the trump campaign, he needs to put it out. it has been well over a year he investigated. it has been past time, he put it out, he gave his conclusion to the attorney general and the attorney general explained it to

the american public and now has issued the final report. everybody has what they need. the person that should end this -- lindsey graham said last night it is over unless there is one person that still needs to be heard from and that is bob mueller himself. once bob mueller says either mr. barr did or did not faithfully represent what our report said and here is why he did not and according to mr. barr, he does not believe mr. mueller will say that. he has gotten the word from mr. mueller that he did not misrepresent anything and the last thing i would like to say is charlie crist, his statements, and chris van hollen's statements, i think if people listen as a lawyer would listen to their statements, it is very clear mr. barr answered them, does not answer them the to democrats wanted him

answer it, but he did qualify afterwards. he did not just say no, alllutely, mr. mueller' and his people agreed with what i said. he did not say that. c-span has to do what you are doing, but the general media continues to roll this out because democrats do not want to give it up. it is their main thing. host: what we understand right now is the house judiciary committee is in contact with robert mueller himself to get him to testify may 15. sounds like you agree with that. let's hear from robert mueller. should it be a public testimony? caller: yes. host: ok. pedro echevarria with more this morning. host 2: you saw an empty chair at the hearing that was supposed to feature william barr. usa today takes a look at the history of empty chair hearings taking a look at watergate.

it was before nixon's election that right patman was trying to get four nixon aides to answer questions about the break-in. clark mcgregor, who replaced mitchell on the campaign. white house cancel john dean -- the four men did not show up when the chairman of the house banking committee asked them to appear. he knew the men were not coming, but he set up four empty chairs anyway and questioned them for an hour. more to that story and other empty chair hearings. if you go to the associated press, a story about the mueller report in printed form and how it is doing when it comes to bookselling saying the published e has sold 40,000 copies last week. jointly edited by editors of the washington post, it sold more than any nonfiction book on the list -- 85% of the print market.

a radio network had an interview with the u.s. ambassador to russia, jon huntsman, and talked about the release of the report and what it means going forward with relations between the united states and russia. [video clip] >> it may create a little more mean membersmay of congress are more willing to engage where they have been uniformly angry and concerned about the events of 2016. i can imagine this will allow us to take positive steps, may be less on the russia side, but more on the u.s. side in terms of gaining a little more connectivity, which is a good thing because nations need to talk. the estrangement we have experienced has gone on too long and it can lead to bad conclusions. always assuming the worst in the other, which is long-term potentially extremely dangerous. opening up new channels that may

be this kind of slightly improved environment will allow us to do i think would actually be a good thing. host: let's go to joe in florida, independent. what do you say? move on or keep investigating after this week? the testimony by the attorney general and the mueller report? caller: i say move on. they beat this thing to death. they have been investigating this and if mueller had anything, believe me, it would have come out. i think the attorney general is going to go another way and investigate where this fisa report, who was behind that? i think they have done all they can do. democrats keep moving the goal post.

they asked barr to speak and now toy want the attorneys question him for an hour each. too. people are attorneys, not all of them, but i am are able to they ask the right questions. aren't they good enough to ask the right questions? heard for two years now is russia, russia, russia and collusion, that is not what they are after now, they are after something else. they continue to move the goalpost. we will find out what it is all about and i think barr is going to come down -- he will find out what is going on. they just have to hold on and this is why they are so anxious to impeach him or get rid of him or have him quit.

he is going to do a good job and he is a reputable person and they are trying to besmirch him. that is all they have, pointing fingers and postmerger people. people.ch preemptive sneer on the attorney general. the reason for her slander is what mr. barr said last time in congress, spying on a political campaign was a big deal and he thought the fbi did spy on the trump campaign and he intends to find out what happened and why. that is the op-ed piece in the wall street journal this morning. darrell in new jersey. caller: how are you doing, greta? host: morning. caller: i believe they should continue to investigate and i say that because i have read the

mueller report. if anybody would take the time to read it, it took me about a week and a half and i want to but some parts of it again, there are some parts of it that are really interesting. host: can you tell us a couple you found work very interesting and back up your argument that congress needs to continue investigating? so-calledt's look collusion. actually, it is conspiracy. when you look at it and you look at the first part, it details in exactly the deal between comey and the trump tower deal with russia. they stood to make quite a lot of money if this deal went through.

if you read the breakdown of the amount of money they would have made if this deal had gone through, it was like $1 billion, flat out. then there were other offers made to them like land in crimea so they could build more stuff. when you also read in the first part, it talks about the ukrainian plan the russians wanted to give to the trump administration and it was declared -- when you read it, it was declared as a backdoor mechanism so that russia could actually have more influence in ukraine. when you read how they wanted it course,ssed around, of you are not going to get byebody that says i was told

this russian person to hand it to this guy who hands it to bannon who hands it to who will hand it to rex tillerson. it is amazing. it is amazing how many russians and how many of their people were involved once they found out trump sounded the alarm that they wanted information regarding hillary clinton. it did not just stop with trying to hack emails and if you read about what the deal was, they actually were looking to get help from russia. host: darrell read the entire mueller report and says you can as well if you haven't already. you can read it at the top of our website. you can find it and read it for yourself. hi, joe.shington,

caller: i am glad darrell spent a whole week reading the fake hoax report because that is what it was. he just wasted a whole week. everybody knew two years ago it was a hoax set up by the obama administration and i wish you guys, this is what i wish. i wish c-span would stop prolonging this investigation. you guys are almost near the fake news agenda. every day i turn on at 4:00 and go to c-span from all the other news what -- news networks and it is a continued drumbeat. what you guys should do is get ahead of the fake news media and start addressing how this started. host: the debate on capitol hill

yesterday seemed to be moving on. we had lindsey graham say that and the president say it to house -- fox news. up mueller report sets it for us to take over. we are asking all of you to let washington know what you think about all of that. dan in new york. independent. question is what is the problem in releasing the unredacted version of the report to congress and why does the president all of a sudden exert executive privilege when he is one of the targets being investigated? it seems like a conflict of interest. host: executive privilege to not let -- caller: allowing his white house counsel to testify before congress. host: don mcgahn testifying

before congress. caller: yes, right. why can't the american people hear what he had to say? host: you want to hear from don mcgahn and you want to hear from robert mueller? caller: right. i think there is no problem. the man should at least be able to stand on the report he provided to congress. i know the attorney general got it first ended his little version of it. why can't the american people and congress hear what it is, either it is something that is criminal or it doesn't. then we can move on. host: this is part of the questioning by senator diane feinstein wednesday before the senate judiciary committee book -- to the attorney general. she is asking him about the part

in the mueller report where the president has this interaction with don mcgahn over the president's dislike of robert mueller and his directives to or conversations with don mcgahn. it is in the mueller report, you can read this part yourself. here is the exchange this senator of california has with the attorney general. [video clip] you still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer's account in order to prevent further criticism of himself. >> that is not a crime. so you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie? >> to be obstruction of justice, to lie has to be tied impairing the evidence in a

proceeding. hn had already given his evidence and i think it would be plausible that the purpose of mcgahn memorializing what the president was asking was to make the record the president never directed him to fire. there is a distinction between sayng go fire mueller and have him removed based on conflict. >> what would that conflict be? >> the difference between them is if you were to remove someone for a conflict of interest, there would be another person appointed. this kind of situation, you have to have an identifiable conflict that made sense or doesn't it become a fabrication? >> now we are going to shift from the issue of writing the

memo or somehow putting out a release later ron and the issue of the actual direction to mcgah n. the question on the direction to mcgahn has a number of different levels to it. first, as a matter of law, i think the department's position would be the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel. as a matter of law, the obstruction statute does not reach that conduct. putting that aside, the next question would be even if it reached the conduct, could you establish corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt? what makes this case very interesting is when you take away the fact that there were no underlying criminal conduct and take away the fact that there was no inherently maligned

-- that is the president was carrying out his constitutional duties. the question is what is the impact of taking away the underlying crime? not -- the report suggests one impact is we have to find some other reason why the president would obstruct the .nvestigation there is another impact which is, if the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence suggests the accusations were false and he feltthey were false and he that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel. host: renee in indianapolis, democratic caller. we are talking with all of you about whether it is time to move

on or continue investigating. your thoughts? caller: my thought is we should move on. i have not read all of the mueller report, not having the money to buy it. i have been watching your channel. i watched the hearing the other day, i watched previous hearings . i have to say this is not about democrats or republicans. this is about the united states of america. .his is about our constitution do we have a constitutional monarchy going on? probably, yeah. there are three branches of government, 3, not 1. the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch.

what congress is doing -- make followe people in power the rules of the constitution and don't serve themselves, they serve the people. that is why there are elections held to vote them in office or vote them out of office. host: rene, your point? caller: yes. host: your point, then. caller: my point is this, we should continue because i feel if we hired a special counsel to look at allegations that a person that is running for the highest office in america

invited an adversary like russia to come into our system and rig the election so that person can win. that is wrong. president, all through his campaign, which i watched, when he said russia, if you are listening, find emails from hillary. from let me get in lamar california. republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. heardk we have really over and over and over and i to get goingneed and do some other decisions about other things because we kind of get stuck in a rut and

it holds and there is nothing being accomplished because it is a sign of the time of people that need to be making decisions about these other problems we have and it has been that way ever since the lady took a walk in the woods because she lost. i think the democrats are holding things up and our country needs to move forward. we need to move on. we need to get some other things done. saying let's move on. pedro echevarria. host 2: reuters sending out a tweet on its twitter feed saying the russian is holding rare talks with u.s. counterpoints -- counterparts next week. if you go to new york times, a story taking you back to 2016. the conversation at a london bar in september 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting

across from george papadopoulos asked a direct question, was the trump campaign working in russia? the woman set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues, but she was a government investigator posing as a .esource -- research assistant the fbi sent her to london to better understand the trump campaign's links to russia. the woman said her name was azra turk. more of that available at the new york times if you want to read it. if you go to the wall street journal, you heard the president moore's nameteve out of a nomination for a fed position. in was not my academic ideas, but we got her campaign tactics and personal assaults. i have been called an adulterer,

andadbeat dad, anti-gay, mentally unfit. a columnist said i could cause global financial calamity. investigative reporters searched far and wide, digging through my 2000 articles, 500 speeches, and radio appearances -- they found it. i have said and written things that were politically incorrect, sometimes hurtful. i meant it to be humorous, but it was insulting and i apologized for it. the wall street journal's website is where you can read more of that. host: calls, clarksburg, maryland. what do you think? move? on or continue investigating? -- move on or continue investigating? caller: i think we need to continue because we need to find out who perpetrated this mueller

investigation. it astonishes me that people don't realize mueller is a democrat and all the people conducting the investigation were democrats and i said it for 2.5 years. if mueller had anything on trump, he would have been out with it in a hot second. instead, two point five years, he goes beyond the scope of the investigation and you get stones and other people, nothing on trump. now what is going on with this investigation of barr and having him testify, the legal terminology is fruit from the poisonous tree. if the evidence was obtained illegally or the evidence is tainted, anything gained from it is tainted as well. people need to realize the democratic party has been hijacked by communists, marxists , and socialists.

they are using this as a tactic to distract from the real issue that the democrats are not doing anything. anyplace they are in rule, those towns and cities are going down the tube. in my 58 years of being on this planet, this is the first president i have seen that his actually -- has kept his campaign promises to the american people and it is disingenuous for democrats to be attacking this president when obama and eric holder, everything they did illegally, they turned a blind eye and deaf ear to. host: michigan, democratic caller. caller: hello? host: hello, go ahead. caller: i want to make a little statement here. what i would like to see is a bit more -- in our government. i listened to the lawyers dance with semantics. i am not impressed. i fear for the democracy of our

republic. we are the same city on the hill, let's maintain that light. i don't want to leave our children alone in the dark. host: i am not following. move on or continue investigating? caller: yes, continue investigating. that is what i said. a little bit more openness in our government. host: previous caller mentioned the attorney general, eric holder. from 2012ember jason -- in 2012, the republicans were holding -- had a debate on the floor to hold eric holder in contempt of congress and they were in charge, republicans were and wanted to hold him in contempt over the fast and furious investigation. take a look at that debate. [video clip] >> this is not about eric holder, this is about the department of justice and

justice in the united states of america and i would harken back to the june 3, 2011 letter that 31 brave democrats sent to the white house. thats equally troubling the department of justice has delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries. while the department of justice can and should continue the investigation, those activities should not curtail the ability of congress to fulfill oversight duty. provide complete answers to all congressional -- nothing has changed in over a year. brian terry does not have answers. you don't have answers, i don't have answers, i want all the facts. that is what we are asking for. the facts, all of them." host: tim, good morning. what do you think?

caller: i think we could move on. we should move on from it. i think we need to find out how the original origin of this led to this investigation started. i find it ironic and a little bit humorous when you get some of these collars, especially people that call from california and wanted to talk about kamala harris and how she had a great line of questioning. i find it kind of ironic she is supposed to be an attorney, or she was an attorney, attorney general for the city of san francisco or los angeles, wherever, but she did not know rod rosenstein had already been cleared by the department of ethics to go ahead and proceed once the democrats wanted jeff sessions to recuse himself and how would william barr? that happened way before he came in?

i find it very disconcerting that you have these politicians on both sides, i don't care. they want to play political games. they are not doing the business of the people. they are not looking out for us. they are spending our money. i think they need to do a better job. i feel sorry for the people in tennessee for the little stunt there representative pulled. that is not the first time he has done that when they had strzok and he talks about they should give him a medal of honor , purple heart. we need to find out and the thing that really strikes me is if the obama administration knew russians were interfering with our elections, which the russians have been doing for the why didn't50 years,

they step in and do something? host: tim's thoughts. pedro echevarria with news. host 2: cnbc highlights portions of the letter the white house lawyer sent to william barr over the mueller report. mueller's 202-748-8002 report suffers from --mueller's report quite deliberately fails to comply with requirements of governing law. zero didn't on a specific excerpt in which mueller's team says the evidence they obtained prevents them from "conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. they are supposed to complete their investigation and ask a grand jury to decide whether or not to lodge charges. our country would be a very different and dangerous place if prosecutors apply the special counsel's standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively that no criminal

conduct occurred." missouri, tell washington what you think. move on or continue investigating? caller: first of all, thank you, greta. always a pleasure to talk to you. over yet. to all these republicans calling in, the reason why the investigating started is because there are russians all around trump, they are all in trump tower. he is getting money from them. we don't need the russians to interfere with our elections, we have fox news. fox news is dividing this country and they have been doing it for 40 years. the bottom line is you heard that old saying, follow the money. it's all about money, but it is the biggest scam in the history of our country. called the tax cut. when weion for 10 years

could be fixing our roads. host: all right. anne in virginia, democrat. what do you think about the mueller investigation? is it over?? caller: i think he needs to continue investigating. one of the things that bothered me was graham's handling of it. he said at one point he read most of the report. i think everyone on that judiciary committee, republican or democrat, needs to have read every single bit of that report. i guess i need to start reading it myself because i guess i cannot trust our representatives to read it. everyone on that committee should have read the report in its entirety. graham said he only read most of it. need to have read themselves, not their assistance.

-- assistants. read the he has not underlying evidence. i think that might be troublesome. the whole witchhunt thing is from basically fox news and the president himself. people keep forgetting we had 30 some indictments come out of this. unlike the search into benghazi and clinton, this produced 30 indictments. that is not a witch hunt. host: if you and others want to read the report them you can find it at the top of our website. we have a rotating box at the very top with other information to it rotates around -- information. it rotates around and gets to the mueller report. you can find it there if you want to read of your nancy in pennsylvania, -- read it there. nancy in pennsylvania,

republican. .aller: i am for trump i want him to continue being present and follow through his term.' i believe in lindsey graham. i believe he is a truthful man and that he would not just let it go if he did not believe in trump and his honesty and everything. . have a problem with democrats i am glad i am a republican because i think the democrats -- well, they are kind of on the crazy side. they won't give anything up. i don't think they will give up on trump. they will just run this into the grounded meanwhile, they will all be running for president -- into the ground. meanwhile, they will all be running for president. i am glad i made republican. host: we will leave it there. we will dig deeper into what

huffington post called this constitutional collision course between the white house and congress. we will talk with nelson cunningham and gregory brower. magazines profiled two of the democratic candidates for president. cory booker on his thoughts on legalizing marijuana. he writes, how can we talk about legalization and not talk about expanding the records of people who still cannot get jobs, still cannot vote, still cannot get business licenses? we have got to expunge records. we have got to get people a pathway out of prison and take the resources, the incredible tax revenue that will come from the legal trade of cannabis and invest it in the

communities targeted by the war on drugs. the time magazine cover story takes a look at south indiana mayor pete buttigieg. the magazine says this, in interviews with local residents, nearly all said the mayor had done a generally good job, although some said he had blind spots on issues affecting black and hispanic residents. early in his tenure, he fired a black police chief who is under investigation for wiretapping using racials for language. rate is almostty twice the national average according to a 2017 prosperity now report.

the person who did that report said that the mayor was the first mayor in any city to ask them to do this. he did not solve any racial economic inequality, but what city has? if you want to read more from that profile, a lot of aspects covered. if you go to instagram, gabby giffords, former arizona representative, a victim of gun violence and advocate on get issues, her instagram feed shows her meeting with four of the presidential candidates, kamala harris, elizabeth warren, cory booker, and amy klobuchar. host: at our table this point, nelson cunningham, former white house general counsel during the clinton administration and general counsel for the senate judiciary committee. , formerbrower with us

fbi office of congressional affairs assistant director. thank you both for being here. i want to begin with your reactions to the attorney general's testimony on wednesday. go ahead, mr. cunningham. people whoink many come out of law enforcement, i spent six years as an assistant u.s. attorney in new york before coming to washington. i think many of us who have come out of law enforcement have been surprised by the attorney general's handling of this matter and his testimony on wednesday is part of that. some positions during that testimony that i question. he has drawn some conclusions

about the mueller report that seem to fly in the face of what is written in the mueller report now that we have had the chance to see it. mr. barr, this is the second time he took this job. he took the job 25 years ago under george h.w. bush. i was one of those that said he would not take that job a second time to ruin his reputation, and yet i wonder about the way the is handling it. it is bringing a lot of things into question. that what do you point to flies in the face of the mueller report? guest: he seems not to clearly grasp what i think is evident most lawyers reading the report, which is that mueller's conclusion not to charge obstruction of justice was because of the office of legal counsel, because of the doj opinion that says you cannot indict a sitting president.

indict said if i cannot a sitting president, and because i'm an officer of the department ,f justice, i have to obey that then under doj policy, in closing the file, i don't feel him i can, in effect, dirty up. by saying he is guilty of something that i think he is guilty of, that i cannot charge him with, i am left with laying out the evidence for you for other factfinders to deal with. images specifically future prosecutors at a time when the president might not be sitting in the congress of the united states. -- and the congress of the united states. it was designed to be a compendium of evidence for use by the congress in determining how to judge the president's conduct in obstruction of

justice. aroundr has twisted that to appear that somehow mueller could not do his job, was not strong enough to do his job, equivocated on his job of determining whether mr. trump had engaged in obstruction of justice. i don't think we will know until we get mr. mueller testifying before one of the committee's and hear directly from him. host: what is the question you would pose to mr. mueller if he was testifying before you? what do you ask him? barred byyou were not department of justice policy from indicting a sitting president, based on your decades of prospect tutorial -- prosecutorial experiment, would you have brought an indictment against the president? guest: that is the question we have been waiting for mr.

mueller to answer. he will have to testify. to say the least, it would be compelling testimony on a variety of fronts, including the answer to that question. the attorney general, in my estimation, is trying to navigate a very challenging, very unprecedented situation in the aftermath of the mueller investigation. i have said all along that the worst thing he could do is say something about the findings of the investigation that would be later contradicted by the report itself for the special counsel's testimony when he does testify. unfortunately for the attorney general and department of justice as an institution, half of washington thinks he did just that, that he mischaracterized the findings of the report

before the report was actually produced. he is going to have to get out from under that. the reality if he is going to restore credibility for himself and the department. he has been on the hill once since the report was issued good that did not go so well for him in terms of that narrative that i described. he may have another chance. i think the key is bob mueller's testimony. host: when you say he has to navigate a difficult situation, why? what is it? guest: it is such a partisan atmosphere here in washington. the investigation, the mueller investigation has been so politicized by the president and others that it is a very difficult position for any attorney general find himself or herself in now.

in my view, he did not help himself by march 24 letter that virtually everyone found to be confusing. he certainly did not help himself with the press conference that many people in washington and beyond found not just confusing, but found to sound partisan or as though he was defending or excusing the president's conduct. that has not helped him. host: beyond the question you just posed, what other questions would you ask of him? guest: that is the key question that nelson articulated. working back from that, there is a lot of nuance in the report that is going to have to be fleshed out, a lot. it is a long report with a lot

russianl, both on the collusion issue, and also the obstruction issue. include tostions what extent was the thwartedation by various witnesses refusing to cooperate? i get back to the key, absent the presidents status as president, did the special counsel find enough evidence to indict obstruction or something else? host: mr. cunningham. guest: i will answer that question. i would like to make one comment on mr. barr and his testimony. robbers inside, i don't know either of these gentlemen. i don't know him or mr.

rosenstein. rosenstein for two years as deputy attorney general supervising the mueller investigation, i was publicly very supportive of everything i saw rosenstein do. he stood up in a way that made law enforcement professionals proud. years underfor two pressure from the white house, the hill, and other places. in the last two months, we have a number ofr take steps that have caused many people like me to question whether he is handling this in the straight up fashion that we saw mr. rosenstein handle it. i put the behavior of those two and drawide-by-side conclusions unfavorably for mr. barr.

if i were a member of the committee, i would ask mr. mueller, why didn't you subpoena president trump to come before your grand jury? the answer given was it would have taken too much time. he had two years. he would have known right away that the president's testimony could be critical. he would have known it would take a long time to get that testimony. why not start earlier in the process? when the watergate special prosecutor subpoenaed the takes, hes special took a matter of two months in the maybe three from subpoena to supreme court decision ordering the president to turn those over. was998, when ken starr investigating the monocle linsky investigatingan in january or february, and by august he had president clinton

testifying before his grand jury. if you move, you move with alacrity. you can get that testimony. i believe the courts would have supported a subpoena under those circumstances. host: no lawyer would let their client testified with bob mueller because it is too easy to perjure yourself just like bill clinton did. guest: there is a difference between sitting down, which often there is no option. if there is a subpoena, there is a subpoena. fifth, no president wants to be compelled to sit down to give testimony and then refused answer on the grounds that he might incriminate himself. that is the situation the president might have found himself in.

often times, that is the right thing to do legally, but for a president, that would have been dicey. host: go ahead. guest: one other thing i would ask is why didn't you subpoena the president's tax returns and financial records? if you are investigating the question of collusion, on which you found no conspiracy, but if you are investigating that, would you not have wanted to look for the money flows? where did the money come from? where did it go? what impact did it have on people's conduct? i assumed that one of his first acts would have been to obtain the president's tax returns from the irs. i expect he had that information, and that would give some window into whether the one russians did have some ability

to influence donald trump, either wittingly or unwittingly. at this point we don't know because robert mueller did not ask for those records. yesterday are that the house judiciary committee are in talks with robert mueller, no longer going to the justice department. they want him on capitol hill to testify. can the president or justice department stopped him from testifying? day,: at the end of the there is no practical way politically or legally that can happen. , atcially if robert mueller some point he is no longer going to be a department of justice employee. at that point, it seems to be impossible for him to be perfected, for the white house to prevent him -- to be prevented, for the white house to prevent him from testifying.

i think it is a bad look for the department if they try to prevent him from testifying. clearly, there is a need for clarity in terms of exactly what he found in did not find it the american people need to hear it -- find. the american people need to hear it straight from him. guest: for two years, we heard absolutely nothing from bob mueller. his special counsel investigation was one of the hermetic we have seen in washington. typically, there are leaks that make their way into the public eye. that cannot happen with mueller's investigation -- did not happen with mueller's investigation for two years. this week, we learned of this startling letter that robert mueller wrote to barr.

on friday, march 22, robert mueller turned over the report to the attorney general. the attorney general issued a letter saying i got the report, i hope to write a letter to congress as soon as this weekend. that sunday, march 24, he issued a letter saying i'm going to take my time redacting this document. summarizing the conclusions of the report in a way some people have questioned. two days later, we now know, robert mueller wrote him a you have notid fully captured my conclusions. i have prepared for you redacted versions of the key parts of the report, which you may release today, and i ask you to release it today. if that letter had come out on march 27, when it was written, just two or three days after

barr had put his first letter out, it would have completely changed the debate, the understanding of what the public might expect from the mueller report. even then, even in the face of decision to ignore what mueller recommended, he kept his mouth shut. he did not leak the letter. i honor him for that. it means that the discussion was then set by mr. barr and not by mr. mueller. in his testimony this week, mr. barr called mr. mueller's letter'letter snitty. at a certain point, as a former marine, you decide you have had enough. i wonder if his testimony won't give him some measure of ability

to explain his side of things when he was keeping his mouth shut even in the face of what he thought was unfair treatment? host: let's go to the colors. callers. woody, democrat, michigan. caller: when paul manafort gave up information to the russians so they could focus their social media campaign, isn't that conspiracy? he was campaign manager for donald trump. when all the people into the special counsel and lied to impede the investigation, isn't that obstruction? if i lie to a prosecutor, they call that obstruction of justice. the reason that mueller did not accuse donald trump of the campaign is because it would -- is because it would

violate his constitutional rights. since he cannot take him to court, he could not face his accusers. that's why he did not do it. host: ok. take that one. guest: i think the operative problem for the special counsel investigation with respect to the president was the prevailing office of legal counsel opinion we have referenced, which over the past 30 years has included that it would be unconstitutional for a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime. the exact extent to which that played into mr. mueller's , i think that is the constitutional problem. connecticut, republican. caller: you have got a couple of

slick talkers this morning. the american people don't all have college degrees in fancy suits, but they have common sense. donald trump was not guilty, or his campaign, of colluding with russia, which is what the whole thing was based on. ,ustice and fairness tells you why would you be obstructing something that you are not even guilty of to begin with? it does not even make common sense. i think the american people see that more than all the fancy talking. host: let's take your point, mr. cunningham. let's try out some historical girls. richard nixon, when he was being investigated by the department of justice, they demanded his tapes. he directed the head of the investigation be fired. at thatrney general time declined to fire the special prosecutor.

the president fired him. the deputy attorney general declined to fire the special prosecutor. the president fired him. he went to the third official in the department who agreed to fire the special prosecutor. that was one of the key elements of the entire watergate scandal, the fact that the president sou prosecutor whohe was investigating him. the president tried twice to do the same thing. first, he fired james comey, and he said it was because of this russia thing that he fired comey. .t could not be clearer it was a most a confession on videotape. i fired him because he was investigating me. later, it was clear, he tried several times to fire bob mueller just the way richard nixon fired the special

prosecutor that was going after him. he was supported in that only because -- thwarted in that only because his white house counsel refused to carry out his instructions. succeed inave to obstruction of justice. if you asked someone to do something that would obstruct justice, you have already committed the crime. the crime is committed when you try to set in motion the thing that would obstruct. believe -- firing the special prosecutor would be the ultimate obstruction of justice in my view. barr let's listen to mr. in his exchange with dianne feinstein over the white house counsel. [video clip] >> if the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests the accusations were false, and he

knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and hampering his ability to govern, that is not a correct motive for replacing an independent counsel. that is another reason that the government would have difficulty proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. host: mr. brower. guest: i would have to take issue with the attorney general's characterization about falsely accused. there was what appears to be a properly predicated investigation. there was enough evidence to believe that perhaps crimes were committed to have a serious investigation into that evidence. as it turns out, the special counsel decided there was not enough evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy.

oft often happens at the end an investigation. that does not mean that the original predication or evidence that led to the investigation can be characterized as false accusations. it was interesting and strange to hear that from the attorney general. going back to the original point, the special counsel clearly defined an awful lot of contact -- did find an awful lot of contact between trump world and russians, or those acting on behalf of the russian government and things that would be characterized as attempts of potential coordination. at the end of the day, he found there was not enough evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy. that does not mean the investigation was not worth doing. with respect to the obstruction

issue, on the contrary, there does appear to be an awful lot of evidence of obstruction, but because of the prevailing doj opinion, it could not be charged against the president. this is a false narrative with respect to improper predication or false accusations or witchhunt, whatever you want to call it. if nothing else, the mueller report debunks all that. host: i want to go back to that moment in that hearing. guest: i found mr. barr's statements to be quite surprising and far from where i believe the law should be on a structure justice. in my six years as a prosecutor. rudy giuliani hired me. years, i spent a good deal of time investigating

matters that we ultimately never charged. dea, copsat the fbi, spend their time investigating things, trying to decide if there is enough evidence. often they include there is not enough evidence, and they don't bring a charge. it is essential to our system of justice that we be able to have fair investigations that are not impeded by the witnesses and the people who are going investigated. says i know i'm innocent, therefore i can take whatever steps i need to take to thwart this investigation, that is an outrageous result. we need to be able to have the fbi and others investigate matters freely, fairly without intimidation, without obstruction and to come to conclusions. that did not happen here because

the president believed he was innocent. for mr. barr to say that is ok, highly surprising. host: randall, texas, your question or comment. caller: i have three items i would like to deal with regarding the investigation. thing, let the investigation proceed. the continental army did not back down from george the third. 13 years later, they direct the constitution. -- drew up the constitution. i want to know about the cell tower pickup of the cell phone, the attorney for bush. mr. brower, during your time, free, he satfbi powell: power -- colin

and knowingly knew that he was going to lie about those canisters. that was the lie that got us into the war. will you address that for me? host: what is your point bringing that up? how is it related? caller: if we are going to investigate the fbi, let's go back to the cia, reagan, bush, war crimes, drug cartels in central america, which bush did in nicaragua. guest: thank you for the question. i just don't know anything about the situation you referenced. host: democratic caller. caller: i would like to thank you for your service. anybody that commits themselves to service, i thank them.

i was a marine. toas a marine from 1967 1971. we were in a little spat if people can remember. fbi comeago, i had the to my office. they came and got my records. not once did i feel what he did was political. i do not have any shame, and if i was guilty, people have a sense of service then. this is my problem now. we are tagged out everything we've got to save one person. we took 250 years to build this democracy, and we've got these people that don't care. they are tearing down the justice system. brower, how did peter page play a role in the fbi being perceived as

political? you bringingeciate that up because that is one of the most disappointing false narratives of this entire thing in my opinion. there is no doubt that agents truck acted inappropriately with regard to using their departmental cell phones for personal communication. struck was fired as a result of that. the office of the inspector did a review of the clinton investigation and whether or not his political views, whatever they were, played a role in the decision-making of that investigation and the ultimate recommendation by jim comey that secretary clinton not be

prosecuted. the ultimate finding was that it was not. that has been brought out as a distraction from the real issue, the mueller investigation. i have to say is nothing but a distraction. i think we need to get past that. host: the white house complained in a letter to the attorney general after the mueller report flood to from and a the doj, complaining that the investigation and report was to political. guest: i found that letter and statement to be frankly astonishing. almost suggesting that bob mueller had engaged in some kind of week need malpractice. was there objection of justice are not?

mueller made it clear that he did not feel he could reach a conclusion because his hands were tied by department of justice policy. lood to suggest that was a political decision flies in the face of what i as a lawyer believe is the case. host: don mcgann, former white house counsel. privilege andive the use of it. the president told foxnews less night -- last night that he would not let don mcgann testify. guest: executive privilege is something that exists more in love review articles and it doesr articles than in the law. there are very few court cases that address the issue of executive privilege. one of the first was the nixon

case in 1974 when they said there is executive privilege. it is designed to the president's discussions with his , but itimate advisors did not do a very good job of drawing that up. it did not do a very good job of explaining what that meant. the years since have not given a lot of clarity. what has to happen for true executive privilege to be exerted, the president himself must exert it. as to the specific areas of information he does not want addressed. it is not something a witness or department may invoke on their own. the president would need to don mcgann'sy that testimony would impede the ability of the president to get good advice, but also that he had not already waived the

privilege. he already allowed mcgann to speak to mueller. in most legal circles, that constitutes a waiver. you cannot come after the fact and assert a right to have allowed the right to go. guest: i would agree. there are two basic problems with this theory. if the privilege is asserted, it is the waiver issue and the enforceability problems. i don't see any way that don gann can bee -- mc legally precluded from going to the hill and testifying. guest: if for some reason he does not testify, if i am mr. nadler, i take all of the notes and deposition testimony by mr. mcgann and publish that on the record. host: the attorney general

yesterday did not testify in front of the house judiciary committee. he did not comply with a subpoena from that committee to give an unredacted version of this report. held inhould he be contempt of congress? guest: that is a difficult question and difficult process. i would answer this way. i think both of those issues are potentially sideshows and distractions from the main goal. with respect to yesterday's hearing, i have to support the departments decision to not light of a a.g. in decision by the house committee to subject him to staff questioning. there is no real precedent for that outside of the investigative hearing process. i think the department was

right. i think what should have happened is the house committee should have relented on their insistence that staff asked questions of the a.g. the house committee is full of good lawyers who are capable of asking good questions. >> many of them are lawyers. guest: some are more a depth than others. side could push that. it is within the chairman's purview to adjust the format to perhaps giving of the five-minute rule and allow more time. the better option would have been to say we will let members only ask questions, but we want the testimony. i think that was probably a miscalculation on their part. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. brower, mr. cunningham. let me thank both of you for the integrity of your commentary.

brower, who mr. served in the bush white house. it shows the integrity of both attorneys. c-span40 year watcher of and wanted to quickly share the kind of loyalty that fans like myself have. i tried three hours one day to try to get in on c-span, to enjoy your program. i have two or three issues i really want to discuss with the attorneys. whofirst one, the lady called in from maryland who indicated mr. mueller was a democrat. mr. mueller has always been a republican ever since he has been in public life. the question i have for both the attorneys is i could not understand why he could not find some element of collusion when donald trump junior and mr.

manafort and mr. kushner went to trump tower to meet with the russian delegation to get dirt on senator clinton? thes laypeople, even though intent was there, factual information that came on donald trump seamount about this -- donald trump's email about this meeting. evidencea, they have that the russians did get involved in a county in florida. no one has identified that county. host: i want to take your second point. he is saying collusion. the difference between collusion and conspiracy? guest: the lawyers question.

collusion is not a legal term. there is no crime of collusion. it is not typically used in indictments or legal filings. collusion describes two people informally or formally working with each other. that is not what the law deals with. the law deals with agreements, tacit or overt, and conspiracies to commit crimes. mueller goes over this in some depth, including that ultimately there was a lot of evidence of coordination. there was a lot of evidence of what you might call parallel play between the trunk administration and russians. it was welcomed by the trump administration. mind, not come in his rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. to the point of the trump tower meeting. mueller getsery --

very specific. he concluded there was a specific exchange. we are here to give dirt, and the meeting was held. mueller did not feel he could statuteheir because the says it is improper to receive a thing of value from a foreign government of $25,000 more. matter,said as a legal i don't know that i can determine whether or not dirt on hillary clinton is a thing of value worth more than $25,000. some might say yes, some might say no. to be prudent, i am not going to charge that the he was specific -- charge that. he was specific as to why. host: for conspiracy, do you have to have a smoking gun? what sort of evidence do you have to have? evidenceu have to have of an agreement and some overt

act of following up on that agreement and taking action. the reason conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime is because we would not want to have a murder conspiracy have to have a murder before you could be charged and convicted. there was a lot that suggested contacts and discussions and attempts to coordinate, the nothing that was followed through on to the point where he felt, taking a conservative view, which we would all expect the special counsel to take, and generally prosecutors in general take a conservative view, he did not feel there was enough to charge. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: hello?

host: question or comment please. caller: first of all, i thought the investigation was over when report, and his it was concluded. show me where there was a crime from what he concluded. if you show me where there was a criminal crime, that i am all for justice, however i did not see any crime. i think mueller kind of messed up and did not do what he should have done and continue to and came to a conclusion of whether there was a crime or not a crime. not leave it for congress to decide. this is crazy. as far as attorney general barr goes, he is not going to put up with this ridiculousness. he is going to get up and leave. he has already started this

investigation, which has been yearson two-and-a-half into why did this start. guest: let me address that second part first. that is what i find to be a very confusing situation concerning the attorney general's lack of understanding of how this investigation started. he is uniquely positioned as the attorney general of the united states to know everything that the department is doing and has done. he could, on his first day as attorney general, have asked his deputy attorney general to convene a briefing and bring all the relevant people in, and he could have learned every detail, including every classified of everything about the underlying predication of this investigation. the fact that he has not received that briefing and as a result has speculated that

hearings isll confusing to me. i don't know why he doesn't know the answer to those questions. yes, mr. mueller has found he did not have enough evidence to charge conspiracy of a crime. it appears he had enough evidence to charge obstruction. when we're talking the president of the united states, there is a whole separate issue of potential impeachment that would not apply to any of us if we were exonerated or not charged with a crime. that is what we are moving into now. we are moving away from the criminal investigation and into the potential for the house of representatives to commence impeachment proceedings. that is something that does not have to be based upon an actual finding of criminal wrongdoing. it is something the house itself can decide whether there are grounds for.

i think what we're seeing is the get thetempting to information it needs to inform that decision. host: if robert mueller testifies, and one of the lawmakers asks should congress move forward with impeachment, how do you think he answers? effect alreadyin answered that question in the report. he said i don't feel i can make a traditional prosecutorial decision for the reasons we have discussed. he said, but others, future prosecutors or the congress, may wish to take action. therefore, my job is to bring together all of the evidence while it is still fresh, fairly contemporaneous, for other decision-makers to look at. he was clearly foreshadowing that congress might take his evidence and move forward with

1974 the special congressr felt the should consider the evidence. we need the evidence to come forward, and congress then needs to make a determination. is not subverting mueller's process, it is not subverting the constitution. it is what the constitution expects. this becomes a political decision for the congress. guest: to the extent that the special counsel is asked should he wouldh, i would bet say that is not for me to decide. i am giving you the facts. here is what i found. you will need to decide if this is sufficient grounds for impeachment. host: we will go on to massachusetts, fred, republican. caller: i want to get down to

brass tacks as far as what this whole thing is about with the russians actually, i think they theyed, some wikileaks, went on tv or the internet and put up some advertising against hillary. that is how they were trying to effect our elections. i find it funny that we are up in arms about what they are doing on the internet when years ago we actually killed the ,ietnamese president in 1961 1962. babycakes, try to take over -- to take overtried cuba. we have a lot of nerve today. actually, look at g

isafi, i'm not saying he not a bad guy. host: i'm going to get kelly in west virginia. caller: just a couple of quick points. first of all, the thing with the presidents tax returns. if the irs would have found anything, i'm sure they would have turned it over. let's get beyond that. if one of you that was sitting there was accused of robbing a bank, and at the end the judge said, you are innocent, and the prosecutor says, wait a minute, you said he was innocent, but we want to talk to suzy or jane and bring them in, you are going to say, the trial is over. , what he was saying, the senate judiciary questioned him.

the democrats questioned him. he said i am not going to summarize. that is what users is responsible for doing, presenting the bottom line. host: is the attorney general the judge? guest: he has made himself the judge on this matter. this is different from the questioner's scenario. there was no trial. nobody was found innocent. bringr said i cannot a criminal charge. here is the evidence for other people to consider. that is not a decision of innocence, consolidation. he specifically says i am not in a position to exonerate the president, although i am not in a position to charge him criminally. it is a very different scenario. guest: i agree.

this is a completely unprecedented situation because we are dealing with the president of the united states. investigatedwere and not charged, that would be the end of the matter. there would be nothing but the nothing could do == -- that the congress can do. the president cannot have it both ways. he cannot take advantage of his inability to be charged with a federal crime according to doj policy, and thwart congress from obtaining the evidence he needs to reach an impeachment decision. he should be confident in allowing congress to get all the information to inform its decision, confident in congres'' ultimate decision being he should not be impeached. it is the apparent efforts to

obstruct the mueller investigation and not interfere with congress' ability to get all the facts about the mueller investigation that is causing people to have caused about the president's conduct. host: the accusation by the speaker of the house yesterday that the attorney general lied to congress. you gave the timeline earlier. the mueller report is released to the attorney general. letters a four-page summarizing it. mueller expresses concern about it. people are pointing to is this exchange between charlie crist and the attorney general. [video clip] >> reports have emerged>> recently that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated with the limited information included in

your letter, that it does not sccurately portray the report' findings. you know what they are referencing? >> no, i don't. host: did he lie? 27st: if he read the march letter, which i assume he did, it is hard to square it with an answer that says i don't know. host: what is the answer to that? guest: i think it is going to get increasingly difficult for mr. barr to be testifying in front of congress on any matter. congress expects integrity from the officials it has confirmed to assist the president. once officials get in a position is underir integrity question, their ability to carry out their job diminishes rapidly.

when that is the attorney general of the united states, even more so. he explained in his testimony on wednesday, he addressed this concern. did he do so adequately? guest: that may be the answer. perhaps not adequately. i think it is much more nuanced than him lying to congress. i think it is more complicated than that. he clearly needs to do a better job in explaining these matters to congress' satisfaction. half of washington thinks he is lying to congress. that is a problem for the department of justice. whether the attorney general is going to get another chance and can get the benefit of the doubt back from many members of congress remains to be seen. i think the department needs to do a better job of convincing congress that the attorney

general can be trusted and is not lying to them. right now there is too much of a cloud over that issue. democrat, north carolina. caller: hi. i am so tired of this attorney general. is -- somebody cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime, and hillary clinton gave a perfect example when she did her interview with rachel maddow a couple days ago. recall what exactly was. that is absolutely not true. question is, clearly this attorney general is incompetent and biased. how can he be the attorney general of the people? why not impeach him?

what is involved in impeaching this guy? guest: it is not a simple process. it is the same political process in the house of representatives we have been talking about with respect to the present. the problem we have is we do have some daylight between the attorney general and special counsel. something that i thought would be the worst case area, and here we are. i think it is incumbent upon the attorney general to work with the special counsel to try to repair that if it is possible to get back on the same page and to be able to present to the congress and american people the details of this investigation in a way that does not appear that they are pointing at each other. that is just very bad for doj. guest: we are moving into increasingly perilous constitutional grounds. the president said this week he withnot want to comply

any subpoena from congress relating to these matters. there are a lot of reasons why subpoenas may be blocked individually. a presidential presidential discussion and determination that no subpoenas will be responded to from the congress on this creates a clear constitutional crisis and the supreme court going back to the earliest days that congress has the right to investigate executives, there is oversight, investigative authority, they can issue subpoenas and have them responded to responsibly. 1974, of the in articles impeachment that were voted in the house of representatives against richard nixon was his refusal to turn over documents requested by congress. a number of subpoenas. if william barr supports the

president in refusing to turn over any information to the congress relating to these matters, he may find himself on the line for impeachment because he is flouting the law as it is written and upheld by the supreme court. florida,bara, miami, republican. caller: notwithstanding the hysterics of the chicken leg, these gentlemen are biased and are not speaking in a neutral fashion. the comment of mr. cunningham that robert mueller was acting honorably by not releasing the letter when it was written, it is clearly political that the day before the attorney general was to testify, the letter was released. it is a political move on their part and i wonder what robert mueller's office is doing to prevent the leaks, reportedly

there are no leaks but on the day before the testimony, something is released. host: i will have mr. cunningham responded. guest: it is clear, they do not identify who leaked it but it is clear with the justice department itself that leaked the letter, but why the day before william barr testified? it was clear that during his testimony he would be asked what have you heard from robert mueller. what was mr. mueller's reaction? wednesday morning he said he got this letter and he had not produced the letter, they would be an outcry, that would've been a true television moment. like alexander butterfield in the 1970's saying we have to check the white house tapes. leaked thisiam barr letter because they wanted to be

on record. have one did not just publication but the wall street journal, new york times, washington post with the story. guest: the hallmark of the official government leak. guest: there is no doubt about that. host: final thoughts. i am watching for robert mueller to testify on the hell. -- hill. there is a lot of confusion and some doubt about what happened. and how the attorney general and special counsel are working to or not working together, that has to be clarified and hopefully mended with robert mueller coming to testify publicly about what he found and what he did not find, how he interacted with the attorney general. guest: absolutely, robert

mueller's testimony will be riveting television. even for those who are not law nerds. constitutional confrontation i see coming, over production of evidence regarding these matters. if the president takes eight no evidence, no witnesses, nothing standpoint, that could escalate quickly into this constitutional crisis that could completely obsess both ends of pennsylvania avenue. and not for the benefit of the american people. host: thank you both for the conversation. host: we will take a break at when we come back, council of the americas vice president eric farnsworth will talk about what is going on in venezuela and what is going on -- and what is next. >> before we moved to the supreme court, the 10 topics are

what you need to know. write them down. foundations, federalism, public opinion, participation, political parties, interest groups, campaigns, congress, president, courts. the entire test covers those 10 topics. >> are you a student preparing for the event placement united states government and policy exam, do not miss your chance to become of washington journal's annual cram for the exam program on saturday annan :00 eastern for a live discussion with high school government teachers. question is about logrolling and its significance. concept of vote trading. trying to get a big bill passed, it helps to have quid pro quo.

project, ifhis pork you add that earmark, you will get more votes. examtch the cram for the on saturday at 9:00 eastern on c-span. here is a look at future programs this weekend on booktv. saturday 6:50 eastern, a latest book, "big business." >> you look at our man in the white house, what he is doing on , what he isapprove doing with predictability and the rule of law. >> sunday at noon eastern, in-depth live with university of pennsylvania professor and author for an interactive discussion on her latest book,

packaging the presidency and how russian trolls helped elect the president. tweets,r phone calls, facebook questions. 9:00, stanford university professor jennifer everhart with racial bias in her book where she is interviewed by a florida democratic congresswoman. >> people talk about it as old-fashioned racism but this implicit bias is something that you may not know you have. something you do not know is affecting how you are thinking, even if we know the stereotypes about various groups, we do not know those stereotypes are in flowing -- influencing what we are doing and how we about someone that's how we evaluate someone. bus is stopping at

middle and high schools across the country to meet and award the winners of our studentcam video competition. we were in providence, rhode island and met with the second prize winners. from trinity academy for the performing arts. >> this was our first time entering. a lot of editing and contacting. we are excited and happy and look forward to it. >> we could not believe it. next year we are coming for the win. >> to think it is our first year entering and we did not think of it, to see how far we could go and to think we got second place on our first try blows my mind. >> to watch the winning entries go to studentcam.org.

host: this is eric farnsworth, vice president of council of the americas about the unrest in venezuela. a lot of unrest, how did we get here? guest: step-by-step. we are now at a place that seems to be violent and probably getting worse by the day but the immediate circumstances, one year ago, the reelection of nicolas maduro, the election not recognized by the international community or the united states and according to the venezuela constitution, the head of the national assembly is the interim president, juan guaido, he is recognized by the united states and the international community and there is a political tussle to see whether juan guaido will be able to take office according to the venezuela constitution. host:j put out a --juan guaido

put out a video. what is his strategy? guest: to put pressure on nicolas maduro to cause the military, which maintains the balance of power, to switch sides. nicolas maduro is in office because he has the loyalty, whether by fear or ideology, he maintains the loyalty of much of the military and he controls the guns and weapons and can remain in opposite. if you can get a quorum, nicolas maduro may see it in his best interest to leave the country. guest: what is the likelihood? guest: a good quest -- host: what is the likelihood? guest: the likelihood is uncertain. we saw the activities of april 30 and may 1, which was intended to create certain circumstances. -- the u.s.ro

secretary of state -- he is still in venezuela and juan guaido is calling for protests to continue while the humanitarian crisis in venezuela shows no signs of abating. the situation seems to be at a stalemate. neither can land a knockout blow. host: those are asking why should the u.s. care about the situation. guest: it is a good question and there are fundamental reasons, the worst humanitarian crisis in the western hemisphere in modern era and it is man-made and caused by the regime in venezuela. it is affecting brazil and colombia and latin america, the caribbean, and the united states. there is an imperative to help. and this is clearly an effort to

restore the constitutional order in venezuela. venezuelan government, as did all government of the hemisphere except for cuba, signed a charter in 2001, we were occupied with something else that day but this what the hemisphere was doing in peru. remained- colin powell in peru to side and that but the countries on a democratic path, that has been disrupted in venezuela. host: eric farnsworth here to talk about what is going on in venezuela. republicans call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. post your thoughts at our twitter feed @cspanwj. aside from the words policy makers and those in the administration say, can we go further in assisting? guest: it is a good question and

how far can we go? yes, there are additional tools. more on the humanitarian side. populationvenezuela are outside the country. are additional steps that can be taken, whether sanctions, visa restrictions, financial restrictions. the one thing people have to be careful about is continuing be very reality that this is a venezuela issue that needs to be solved by venezuela. the united states and the international community can be supportive of that. host: the president took to fox news to talk about this and let's listen to the statements he made. president trump: it is a terrible thing, people are starving, people are dying, there is no food, no water, it

is a terrible situation. you see what is going on and we are doing everything we can do short of the ultimate, there are people that would like us to have us do the ultimate but we are -- we have a lot of options open. when you look at what is going on there, an incredible mess. before, allthis options are on the table. there is a meeting today with people going to various scenarios trying to figure out what to do next. what are our options, mr. president? president trump: some i do not like to mention because they are tough. you see what is happening with respect to the hunger. you do not see things like this anymore and they do not want food, nicolas maduro will not accept food, i think he should,

it would be better for him because people are starving and they become desperate and you see what is happening on the streets. the streets are very dangerous and it is dangerous for everybody. everybody. we have not seen a scene like this in many years. when you think about how wealthy this country was, one of the wealthy countries, not just their but one of the wealthy countries in the world and now they do not even have food. they cannot get water. the water is filthy dirty. people are getting sick. it is terrible. host: did he offer anything as far as what the future policy or actions of the united states may be? guest: he continues to say all options are on the table. that has been used by him and other senior advisers. that is a statement of fact but all -- are all appropriate?

there is a long way to go before we get to the use of force. protectonsibility to the doctrine does not apply at this point to venezuela. one can have an argument about that. there is no mandate for the united nations for this sort of thing. you will continue to see sanctions being increased and more pressure on the regime, hopefully coordinated with the international community. as he said, the situation is dire, the water supplies are intermittent and there are days long blackouts and in a modern society you cannot operate without electricity. no internet connection. when there is something the government does not want the people to see, they shut down the internet and leave the airwaves for only state-mandated media. medicine is increasingly unavailable. this society is in collapse.

the question is, what can be venezuelans do about that. host: our first call is in minnesota, independent line, jack, you are up with eric farnsworth. caller: good morning. you had a quote by our lovely president trump on venezuela, the usual b.s. like the b.s. we hear from our guest. here is a quote from a book, donald trump says, why aren't we at war with venezuela? they have all that oil and they are on our back door. that is andrew mccabe. here is a quote by another person, -- host: what is your question for our guest? caller: to you and our guest, why can't we have some different voices other than people from

the propaganda factories? host: we believe that there. oil isi do not believe an issue, it is their top immunity. the regime has shut down the private sector and ruin the energy sector by lack of investment, and over globalization. the oil is sent to cuba, china. asked thethe -- he question or made the statement because, the united states does not need to invade venezuela to get their oil, we can buy as much as they want and we have four years. the gulf coast refineries of the united states are fully integrated into the venezuela petroleum sector because we can get there crude on the open market. other countries are desperate for venezuela crude, like you but with free deliveries

everyday of 50,000 barrels. this is more significant than whether or not the united states gets crude from venezuela or buys it from somewhere else. host: twitter, you start venezuela -- starve venezuela through sanctions. guest: sanctions are against individuals and the recent sections, because of electoral fraud, have been of the energy sector. there is misinformation or misunderstanding about u.s. sanctions, which have been come including back to the obama administration, i guess individuals and those individuals have been sanctioned because of drug trafficking and human rights abuses in gross corruption. the new york times had an expoée on drug trafficking, very top levels of the venezuela government. say,uela regime, i should that means those individuals are under u.s. sanctions but that

does not do anything in terms of the economy in venezuela. host: republican line, pennsylvania, bill. caller: you are from the council of the americas? vice president? what is that organization and who pays your salary? guest: the organization pays my salary. go to the website and you will have as much information as you care to have. on world tv, you could tell me but you don't want to do that. my real question is, what has the un -- what does the united nations charter say about nations invading another nation without the security council's approval, because the security council of the united nations, if i am not mistaken, has said

we do not have the right to go into venezuela, but we keep saying these things like all options are on the table. what we really mean is, the united states of america invading venezuela, a free country. am i correct? guest: i wonder if you heard my earlier comments where i referred to that and says there is a united nations mandate for action. i am not calling for that. host: could the u.s. support a military action like by providing arms or financial support or training troops? guest: all of these things are possible but i am not calling for these things. there are allt, kinds of tools for the united states or any country, but in terms of the legality and authorization, they are not there. host: the president would need congressional approval? guest: presumably and the war

powers act would come into play. host: john, independent line, illinois. caller: hopefully you can give me a few minutes. i am so upset by this issue. i was trying to call in with the previous guest to piggyback a guy who mentioned we are having these hearings. we have gone about this kind of thing, this regime change many times in our past. a few things about what eric farnsworth has said, for one thing, we have egypt in the white house the other day, and he got 90% of the vote they said , i do not know about the latest nicolas maduro election, but we were not up in arms about it a year ago. with this oil thing, it seems like the fix is in. out of our main media, they were

down there a couple of months ago when they thought this would go down. nbc was there talking about the salvation -- starvation. they thought revolution what happened then and everybody left. they had the blackouts in the meantime. can you tell us there is nothing we are doing? point, abrams running our own convicted war criminal. host: thank you. guest: these are important points. we have to stake -- take a step back. this is the worst humanitarian crisis caused by a regime in the modern history of the western hemisphere. i do not know how we can turn our backs on that appeared that does not mean people are launching the marines into caracas. you cannot go from here to there

in that logic. i am suggesting this is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be addressed by the international community. it will be done so effectively through democratic processes, if that process remains viable in venezuela. there are a lot of things being done behind the scenes but the idea that the united states is responsible for taking down venezuela's power grid is not accurate. it is a lack of investment, a lack of serious attention to governance in venezuela over the last 20 years. that has nothing to do with the united states but with the leadership that has been in venezuela during that time. host: if the nicolas maduro has the military, what tools does juan guaido cap? guest: good question, he does not have the military, secretive forces, weapons. he has the backing of much of the international community that

not all of the international community, the authoritarian countries support nicolas maduro . juan guaido has the venezuelan constitution on his side and the rule of law. you have to put that in context. this is the reality of international politics, one with the authority but no power behind him and one with the power but no legitimate authority at this point which is why you have the discussions and the conflicts ongoing now in venezuela. host: countries backing nicolas maduro? guest: cuba, china, russia, iran, turkey. those are the country supportive of nicolas maduro. host: democrat, florida, paul. caller: i wanted to ask mr. farnsworth, what are the withtives or motivations the percentage of population that supports nicolas maduro? and what percentage of the

, best intelligence, not referring to the military. guest: according to all holes nicolas maduro's support is lower than it was. among a certain percentage of the population, unclear what that might be. most polls would average around 25% or so. some have it higher and some a lot lower. that is a point of departure. why are people still supporting him? a fair question. a number of people in venezuela depend on the state for their livelihoods. whether their state jobs, whether they're food supplies they receive from the state, whether health care they received from the state. there is an ideological component. everybody has their own reasons but broadly speaking those who

support nicolas maduro do so because they see in him somebody that is providing certain needs for them and their families. he does maintain some support. this is not uniform. the vast majority of people are looking for change. host: russia is a supporter. somebody says the trump administration is having a proxy war between venezuela -- russia over venezuela with the latest international standoff threatens a return to cold war. is there truth? guest: i hope not, the russians have been active in venezuela but i do not think it will get to cold war levels. i do not think the russians wanted to get to that level and we don't. the russians have their own interest in venezuela, among them international sanctions against russia. they have access to the oil sector in venezuela and have sold weapons. there are hard currency deals a

have achieved. russia can project power and able to be on the authority and side the united states in the western hemisphere. russiaat together, what be there in the end -- would russia be there in the end? it would raise the cost for increased sanctions and activities in venezuela. cooleram hoping that heads will prevail before we get to that stage. host: yourself and viewers know of the munro doctrine, how does it apply? does, i am not sure it 200 years ago first promulgated by the united states as a warning to european powers to allow the latin american independence movements of the moment to take root and to flourish and not reassert their authorities in the western hemisphere. the world has changed fundamentally in 200 years. there are different tools

available. china was not a power in the western hemisphere 200 years ago. this is something probably we can lay aside. we have to deal with the venezuela issue on its merits. host: eric farnsworth with the council of the americas, vice president, talking about issues in venezuela. albert, florida. why could the united states not help venezuela when we need to help them to get rid of the communists in south america? there are communists in all countries but we are looking the , looking theon other direction did not help to be free. communism does not work anywhere he goes. behindi think that is

the u.s. approach, under president obama and now president trump, a worsening crisis in venezuela needs the attention of the international community but what tools are most appropriate in those circumstances? , it iscrisis gets worse on the mind of people to increase pressure on nicolas maduro in hopes he will either change course or see fit to leave and venezuela can return to a democratic path. host: republican, new jersey, pat. caller: is getting rid of nicolas maduro the biggest step, giving his level of support in the country, what are the prospects for a civil war? guest: a good question. he is the head of the regime but he does have a regime behind him. there are a number of people who are fully invested in the continuation of his rule.

if it is not him, somebody else with a similar approach because the senior levels of the regime, including the military, are fully invested in corruption activities, drug trafficking, the new york times had a report yesterday, and other activities that would cause them to want to see the continuation of the regime. if nicolas maduro went somewhere today, that would not be the full folks behind him. the caller is making an important point. this is a complicated situation. the fact -- the practicalities of a kinetic response in venezuela or the use of force. i am not calling for that but one of the reasons why people are reluctant to do that, including myself, is because to do so, you could take away the regime in some way, the capitated it in some way but pacifying the country would

become obligated. for the long-term, not the right approach. host: how did juan guaido rise to the influence he had? guest: he was the leader of the national assembly, a rotating , hision, his name came up time came up as the leader. according to their constitution, the changeover in the presidency , if there is no president, the leader of the national assembly take several and the end ofn nicolas maduro --'s -- there was no president in place and the leader of the national assembly, who was juan guaido, became the interim president of venezuela according to the constitution. he is a 35-year-old, relatively untested politician and he is not from the traditional background of venezuela. a very interesting character.

host: a viewer asks juan guaido how he has law on this side? it sounds traitorous. guest: the constitution of venezuela is the law of the land and according to it, juan guaido he is the interim president. he is recognized by the united states and the international community. coup was on january 10. it occurred when nicolas maduro declared himself president for a second term, which he did not win in a free election a year ago. that is somebody who is declaring themselves president in a way not according to venezuelan law. the efforts to try to bring pressure to restore a democratic path in venezuela are according to been is where the law. host: plano, texas, democrat line. states has united

done nothing but try to overthrow governments. we have done it before in south america. the congress just passed a law, i think debbie wasserman schultz bill, that we would overthrow venezuela. if need be. everybody voted for that bill. we do that the best. we do not like somebody, we overthrow, we get the cia or intelligence committees for the last 10 years and try to overthrow this government. anybody who wants to say we have not is crazy. host: thank you, caller. guest: the venezuelan people are working to try to bring democratic change in venezuela. the united states is supportive and 50 countries in the international community are being supportive. if you look at the protests happening regularly in venezuela

, not just caracas but outside of it, in other cities, and itself,ate, the country millions of venezuelans are on the streets and millions of others are outside of the country because they cannot find life bearable. scarce.food security is medical attention is scarce. there have been multiple exposés about the state of venezuela's medical system which is in full-scale collapse and you cannot get basis -- basic military supplies -- medical supplies. host: tanks hitting people in the streets. guest: people have been murdered on the streets by the regime officials just shooting them. it has been in hundreds of people who have been peacefully protesting and the nicolas maduro regime has been shooting them down.

the people power, venezuela is trying to change. is it having an impact? it is not lead to the removal of mr. maduro. it is putting pressure on him and there are breaks showing in the regime. understand could lead to change in the future. host: nancy, north carolina, democrat. caller: thank you so much for this program. it is wonderful to hear that so many people are becoming more intelligent about a lot of issues, especially when it comes to our country wanting to overthrow the governments. i have been watching things for many years, including iran-contra, and a legal action withnonlegal action president bush senior, oliver north, in which arms for iran was being traded to the contras and in turn we let drugs come into the united states on an airplane. host: your question on

venezuela? caller: the question is, why do people like this man keep the nine oil is the issue -- the ninth oil is the issue -- d9? oil is the issue caller: a lot of countries suffering from dirty water and donald trump calls them shithole countries. guest: the united states can purchase a marcus rates as much as oil from venezuela as we want. the united states is the only countries that buys venezuelan crude at market rates. cuba and china, other countries are receiving discounted oil. the united states in some ways has paid billions of dollars in continuation of the nicolas maduro regime, when the regime has been giving away the national oil to other authoritarian countries. that is what is really happening, not the united states

issued, or an oil issue, gross mismanagement and historic corruption of a regime that is not in power legally in venezuela. a separate question about what should be done but my point has been that we have to focus on what is really happening in venezuela. this is the worst humanitarian crisis in modern history of the western hemisphere, thanking brazil, colombia, ecuador, peru, caribbean, through masses of people flow. people simply find life and circumstances too difficult under the nicolas maduro regime. a humanitarian crisis that results in some sort of compassion and response from the international community. host: what would you say is a sea change happening that could indicate changes in leadership or otherwise? guest: if nicolas maduro got on the airplane and went somewhere. many people are looking for

elements of the security forces to say, we need to restore the democratic cap in venezuela -- democratic path in venezuela, we do not know if and when it will occur. i think the change will come from within venezuela. i think it will come from venezuelans themselves but the current situation is not sustainable. state andsecretary of the national security advisor have met with the acting defense secretary in a conference room known as the tank and talking about military options in venezuela. guest: it is possible, i do not know and that is not what i am advocating. i believe this administration is working at all options for venezuela. the question is, which options may be appropriate in current circumstances. that is a different question but

the believe is circumstances on the ground or -- are not tenable. host: eric farnsworth, council of the americas, vice president. thank you. guest: thank you and congratulations of 40 years of success. host: we will finish this program as we started, asking about the mueller report, should congress move on and go to other things or keep investigating the findings associated with the mueller report? democrats call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those calls as "washington journal" continues. ,> on american history tv saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral history, an interview of world war ii navajo code talker. cheruiyot,e, turkey,

that is all it said in plain english. , it is really meant is secure. >> on lectures and history, baylor university professor on the american military during the revolutionary war. >> this is a handcrafted work of gunsmith whoy a may lock stock and barrel, every piece of this by hand, each one will be individually different. six: 30 p.m. eastern, an astronaut on the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. >> people may want to see and touch and smell and understand wherever that may be, on the surface of the planet, a little

bit above it, way above it, to the moon, beyond the moon toward mars. need in us to have this and this will and desire to explore. presidency,n the the sense of humor of abraham lincoln. >> riding through the woods he made -- met a lady on horseback and waited for her to pass but instead she stopped and scrutinized him before saying, for land sake, you are the homeless man i ever saw. it, hedam, i cannot help replied. i suppose not, said the lady. you may stay at home. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. with the conclusion of the hearing with william barr with many republicans and democrats

wanting to talk to robert mueller about his report. we are asking you when it comes to the investigation, should congress move on or keep investigating the findings found in a report? democrats.0 for 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. yesterday at a press conference talked about how he thinks congress should proceed. said that itaham is over. do you want anything from the special counsel? do you want him to testify? >> i do not need to, we have all the information. think of the volume and all of the questions wanting to make sure what the democrats are asking, could we see the report? 90% of volume one is all open to the public and 98% of the second

boy am -- second volume. if you listen to the american public, go to those running for president, go to the democrats, the democrats in congress with town halls, they are not getting questions about mueller. getting questions about health care, medicare for all, infrastructure, shouldn't they focus on what the american people expects and wants? host: that is the perspective from kevin mccarthy yesterday on capitol hill. another perspective, ted lieu talked about what should be done in the house. >> let's walk through a process of how proceedings work. william barr has violated a lawful subpoena to provide is the full robert mueller report. , the house contempt judiciary committee will vote, if we voted out, go to the house floor and once we vote it out,

the house counsel can litigate in court. but, we have inherent contempt powers that courts have upheld for us to take immediate action irrespective of the courts. we can start imposing fines on that person. in the past, there was a house jail, i do not think we will go that far but courts have upheld that appeared congress's power one of the abrogated. -- advocated. we can start imposing fines and we will go there if you does not cooperate. host: two perspectives on the idea of what happens now that the william barr hearing is over and the release of the mueller report appeared should congress move on? at 202-748-8000 for democrats.

republicans, 202-748-8001. independent, 202-748-8002. ted lieu mentioned the house jail which no longer exist and in its place is the u.s. supreme court. find out more about that on a story on time magazine a few days ago. florida, democrats line, soanya. move on or keep going? caller: thank you, c-span, bless you all. i am against the moving on. barr wants no separation of power but entire power in the executive branch. it is known from donald trump's own mouth he would prefer to stay in office for as long as the chinese leader does. i am offering the republicans a pledge of allegiance to this new -- no moving on, i pledge

allegiance to donald trump, who thinks he owns the united states of america, and to his comrades, who make it stand, for his country, under putin. with liberty and justice for them. host: let's hear from california republican line, dave. caller: good morning and thank you to c-span. for more than two years the democrats in congress and the media have been obsessed with the mueller investigation. in the hopes he would turn up something to justify him peeking donald trump. -- impeaching donald trump. now that mueller has issued his report, which anybody can read online, the democrats and the media cannot let go of this. thatthough the polls show

this issue is not on the radar screen when it comes to the issues that the american people care about. it is not in the top 10. there obsession with this reminds me of the japanese soldiers who were stranded on south pacific islands when world war ii ended and refused to stop fighting because they could not be convinced the war was over. the only reason this is happening is because there is a pathological hatred for trump. trumpws collett arrangement syndrome -- call it trump derangement syndrome. host: you say move on? caller: yes. time to move on. how long will they beat a dead horse? host: trevor, new york, democrat line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. the investigation needs

isgo on because donald trump blocking congress following up on the situations. that we are trying to get congress of venezuela to overthrow is president but in this country we are attacking the congress for trying to hold our president in account of what he has done. it tooku are saying more than the senate hearing with william barr? we need more? if that is the case, why? caller: because he parsed words, and he's growing out answers to questions so that -- he strung out answers to questions so the time would run out. he needs to be held accountable

in the house by having someone give him follow-up questions and he cannot just run out five asking thetime by congressperson to repeat the question over and over. host: that is trevor in new york. barrld nadler said william was supposed to appear before the committee yesterday, he did not and jerry nadler says they will wait a couple of days before how to proceed. he serves as judiciary chairman. the chairman of the judiciary committee on the house side. doug collins is the ranking member of the republicans and that hearing on the senate is still available on c-span.org. you can listen to the entire hearing with william barr, and read the mueller reports at c-span.org. butill continue with calls

when it comes to the economy, new york times reporting new statistics from the labor department showing the united states adding 263,000 jobs in april, the unemployed and the rate now at 3.6%. -- unemployment rate now at 3.6%. more on washington journal tomorrow with guests working through the numbers and why that happened. back to your calls on the mueller report. independent line from michigan, walter. caller: good morning, c-span. i say keep investigating. we are ready have a standing u.s. code of laws. if congress finds reason to keep investigating, and they are enforcing come we need to question people who do not want the investigation.

john f. kennedy spoke about secret societies. and keeping things classified. host: what is the top question still need answered with the mueller report? i would like to see my congress do what they say they need to do based on their schooling of the law. i am a layman. host: ok, those walter. simon in lake city, florida, republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am calling to let you know that i believe that they should take what has been handed down from the investigation and move on. we are paying these people to perform and produce.

and congress spending this time and all of this getting paid to sit there and that take -- and net take -- nitpick and do things contrary to what they are voted on to do. host: are there more questions in your mind on the findings of the mueller report? caller: i am satisfied, i do not believe from the beginning that there was anything with our president or his staff. it is time to go forward and get down to the people's business. host: deborah in pennsylvania, democrat line. hello. i think they should investigate. host: why is that? caller: because he is a monster.

host: what about the mueller report do you want investigated? host: all of it -- caller: all of it. host: give me an aspect of it? ivanka and eric trump, and donald junior. host: a couple more stories to share with you in light of the events yesterday. president trump has formally nominated someone to replace -- or go to the united nations as ambassador, kelly kraft, currently ambassador to canada. more on that on upi.com. the it comes to yemen, senate yesterday voted to uphold the president's veto of yemen of the resolution.

more on rollcall. go to c-span.org if you want to see the actions of the senate yesterday on this. type in yemen in the search box. cheryl in maryland, independent line. hi. caller: hi. i just wanted to say i am for the investigation to continue hasuse i feel like trump been controlling with the people around him, his staff, all of these firings and putting other puttingn control of -- other people in place of those people that he has fired. he is controlling them, i feel. theuse of that, i feel like investigation is being floated

down becaused of the control. host: that is cheryl in maryland. the former attorney general under the bush administration asked about william barr's testimony and his thoughts of what is happening regarding him. here is some portion of that. >> the attorney general has made some statements i question. but i do not have all the information that the attorney general does. none of us do. we must keep that in mind when giving a report card to someone like the attorney general as he has more information than i do and if i have that information, i may have done the same thing. i have some questions and i think many people in america, democrats in congress, have questions about some of the things and statements the attorney general has said and

made. fori do give him an a making a decision, robert mueller's job was to present recommendations and views to the attorney general. after that, he is done and it is up to the attorney general to decide what to do with the report. and up to the attorney general whether a crime has been committed that can be prosecuted. william barr did that. we may disagree based on what we withbut he did the job respect to that responsibility as the attorney general of the united states. host: more of that available at c-span.org. the department of defense putting out this press release looking at a new study saying elizabeth ann winkle of the dod saying the prevalence of sexual assault in the military rosen 2018 with 4500 servicemembers and 13,000 women and 7500 men reporting a sexual assault, up

from 14,900 in 2016. max in south carolina, republican line. caller: yes, sir. i am ready to move on because prosecutors job is to prosecute and bring charges, no charges have been brought. we are going to keep playing the same game over and over again. it is time to move on. host: democrats line, minnesota, sharon. you are next. caller: good morning, pedro, thanks for my call. i want to see this investigation keep going. we can see why sessions was fired. it makes me want to throw up because the top cop in this country cannot give us a straight answer. poop in a goldu

toilet, it does not make you better than anybody else and he is not above the law. host: what questions does the report not answer and needs further investigation? give me specifics. caller: the fact he did not answer the question, he lied to congress when he said he is not heard from robert mueller but he did hear from all her and knew what he was talking about -- did hear from mueller and knew what he was talking about and has lied to us. programrlier on in this we saw a research service report was talked about the federal statute when it comes to lying. to read that and other pieces on different opinions on his testimony before congress this week, there is the report, find it on our twitter feed. independent line, florida, ronald. caller: i think it is time we move on. all these congressman have been slandering people rather than

getting to it. president trump is serving the people. he is doing it as the constitution calls for. it is a hate crime. we need to prosecute hillary. host: sorry to leave it there. this is charlotte from mississippi, independent line. we are just about out of time, so jump in. charlotte, go ahead. guest: yes, i think we should continue it because -- host: you are going to have to keep talking and stop listening to the television. guest: i think that we should continue the investigation. we spent tons of money on benghazi, so it is only fair we do the same with the republicans, with the democrats, just keep it going. this investigation is going to uncover -- i'm not listening --

host: i apologize for that. just a reminder, turned on the television. it stops the delay. another addition comes your way at 7:00 read we will take you to an event in washington, d.c., sponsored by politico. doffe editor, carrie bu brown takes a look at the state of politics. this is hosted by the american bar association. we will take that event. it is just about to start.

>> good morning, everyone. we are going to go ahead and get started with the program. i have the honor of being the national chair of the aba young lawyers association. fortunate to have a cool opportunity today. as young lawyers, we are here in d.c. this week for our national

spring conference with the aba young lawyers