400 pages and of course, probably they will make a big stink about the obstruction charges, since mueller said he did not exonerate the president. we will be here covering this press conference live at 9:30. first let's send it to stuart varney and "varney & company" beginning now. stuart: thank you, maria. good morning to you. good morning, everyone. yeah, here it comes, the mueller report. half an hour from now, attorney general barr, his deputy rosenstein, they hold a press conference. they are going to go through it. it will be likely redacted. in other words, as little as possible will be blacked out. at 11:00 eastern, the report goes online for all to see. congress gets it at that time, too. the democrats are not happy about that. in fact, they are furious. speaker pelosi says that by holding this press conference, barr is protecting the president. leader schumer says the process is poisoned before the report is even released. hakim jeffries, chair of the

house democrat caucus, tells barr release the report and keep your mouth shut. you have zero credibility. hell hath no fury except perhaps at cnn, trailing even the food channel in the ratings, they have already charged coverup. here it comes, the mueller report, and you are going to see it. that's not all that's going on today. two big tech companies go public. pinterest, an online picture searching company, they are going out for $19 a share, valued at $10.6 billion. then zoom, a video conferencing company, going out at $36 a share, valuing it at $9 billion. now, it is zoom that's generating the most buzz. of course, we will be following the market, looking for any reaction to the barr press conference. by the way, the firing rate has come down to the lowest level since 1969, employers hanging on to their workers. so we are looking at a modest gain for stocks at the opening

bell. here's my opinion. the market reacts to barr if the mueller report makes trump's chances of re-election unlikely. one last point. the president himself may hold his own news conference this morning. you wouldn't want to miss that. look at this new tweet just coming in from the president. here it is. the greatest political hoax of all time. crimes were committed by crooked dirty cops and dnc/the democrats. so sit back and watch history unfold. "varney & company" is about to begin. you'll see a lot of very strong things come out tomorrow. attorney general barr's going to be giving a press conference. maybe i'll do one after that, we'll see. stuart: all right. president trump there. the house judiciary committee

chair, jerry nadler, he had this to say. roll tape. >> the central concern here is that the attorney general barr is not allowing the facts of the mueller report to speak for themselves, but is trying to bake in the narrative about the report to the benefit of the white house. and of course, he's doing this just before the holiday weekend so it's extraordinarily difficult for anybody to react. this is wrong, it is not the proper role of the attorney general. stuart: well, chairman nadler had something very different to say 20 years ago when it was the starr report on president clinton. all right. you're looking at the five committee chairs, all of whom are calling on attorney general barr to cancel this morning's press conference. he's not going to. the press conference stands. come on in, former white house attorney, jamil jaffer. the democrats are making a lot of noise. is there anything wrong with

attorney general barr holding this press conference? >> absolutely not. i mean, it is very normal for the attorney general to describe what the justice department is about to release. remember, this report is not from an independent counsel. this report is from a special counsel. that means that that person reports to the attorney general and the attorney general reports to the president. there's nothing wrong with the attorney general holding a press conference talking about what's in this report. in fact, i bet he would be criticized if he didn't come out and talk about this report. you can't have it both ways. at the end of the day, both sides have their talking points written. we all know what will be said about the report. the only question is what does the report itself say. stuart: okay, but is it possible that william barr will talk about today, talk about how this whole investigation got started in the first place? is that possible? >> well, he certainly will get questions about it, as he did when he testified before congress last week, he will be back to testify before congress in the coming weeks. there's no doubt that that question will be asked, as will questions about the redactions, questions about the report itself, and why the report was released the way it was.

so he will get questions all the way across the board but certainly this question of why the report came out the way it did, and the investigation ongoing by the inspector general's office at the department of justice into the steele report are all still to come in the next few weeks and months. stuart: speaker pelosi wants robert mueller himself to testify before congress. should he do that? is it possible that he will? >> i think it's certainly possible. i mean, i think that it is going to be very hard for the administration to say no to mueller testifying. i think just like it will be very hard for the administration to retain its line on the redactions. i think the democrats are going to request, going to demand that more be unredacted. nothing the a.g. could have done will be enough for them. they will want mueller to testify. they will probably want witnesses who talked to mueller to testify. it's clear they intend to conduct their own investigation which of course is their right. we will see how it all plays out. stuart: i think they are going to retry it. they are going to retry it after

the fact. i think that's what's going to happen. i'm sorry, i'm out of time. you know this is a huge day. thanks very much for being with us this morning. much appreciate it, sir. i will switch gears and focus now on pinterest. they are going public today. now, the company has lowered its value, $12 billion a couple months ago, down to $10.6 billion today. joining us, john mayer with transpire ventures. is that lowering of the value because of what's happened to lyft which is just about fallen out of bed? >> yeah, you are definitely right. great to see you again. it's been awhile. i think the thing with pinterest is that they are seeing the results of the lyft ipo being a bit lackluster. one of the key indicators of why it's been so lackluster has been the fact that these businesses many times such as lyft and pinterest are extremely still very unprofitable and in the case with lyft, at least, there's a very long road and there's a high chance of it

being impossible to ever hit profitability. same with uber. i know also today we are seeing zoom go in ipo this week -- stuart: that's where the buzz is. it seems to me as kind of an outside observer, seems like the buzz is about zoom, not pinterest, but zoom. why the buzz on zoom? >> sure. the reason zoom is getting a bit more buzz here is interesting. so inside a lot of the silicon valley communities that i'm part of, one of the biggest areas of conversation is around that zoom is a company that first of all, is profitable, so that alone is a bit of a unique aspect with the current ipos as of late. second, is zoom represents a cloud business which from -- the reason this is interesting is that over the last decade, we have obviously seen this immense mobile and cloud revolution really since the iphone came out

in 2007, and over the last decade we have also seen some confusion in wall street with what even is cloud, what is a cloud business. wall street is finally understanding not only what a cloud business is, but also the power of these companies like amazon's awf and staff businesses like zoom which enable very seamless video conferencing with startups and corporations all across america. again, they are profitable which is a big deal for ipos right now. stuart: thanks very much for joining us. i'm sorry it's short. but you know, this is a big day elsewhere. thanks very much for joining us. see you again later. quickly, take a look at futures. now we will be up maybe 50 points on the dow industrials. we've got a very good report on the firing rate, that's initial jobless claims, down to the lowest level since 1969. that's a factor in the market today. two dow components have already reported. american express, higher

profits. the stock, though, is down about a half percentage point. travelers, that's unchanged at the moment, despite making more money. so not much movement in those two dow components. now, will we see any impact on the market from the mueller drama and the barr, what do you call it, news conference coming on today? ash and liz both with me. here's my opinion. i think you have heard this already. the market responds only if it looks like president trump will not be re-elected because of what's in the mueller report. you with me? liz: yeah. the thing is, what they're looking for is material differences between the barr report and what the report that's coming out with today. if it looks like it will hurt the president, it will hurt the market. ashley: they are looking for one line they can latch on to. they lost the collusion. now they will go after obstruction. they will try and create an appearance of a coverup, as you mentioned earlier, cnn, coverup. that's what they're going to try to do. all of this is noise to the market unless, to your point,

there is something in there that suggests that maybe this could be a problem for the president. liz: if mr. mueller has to testify. because they are calling for mueller to testify. so the story is not over. stuart: forgive me for getting another dig in at cnn. ashley: food network? stuart: it was the clinton news network and still is. lou dobbs and i were the founders primarily of their business department, and now more people watch the food channel than watch cnn. that's what's happened. they have fallen out of bed, these people. anyway, i digress. what are we going to next? show me, please. we are going to look at the futures. we are going to be up this morning, not much. remember, the market's closed tomorrow, it's good friday, but we will be here live and on the air. in 19 minutes, attorney general barr holds that news conference ahead of the release of the mueller report. you're going to see it as well as bring you, that's what we'll do, bring you reaction throughout the morning. president trump holding an event for wounded warriors in the next hour. you can bet he will say

something about mueller. we will have that for you as well, that's a promise. herman cain says he will not withdraw from consideration for the federal reserve board. he's going to join us next. big day on "varney & company" just getting started. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

stuart: we are gearing up, getting ready. that's a shot of the podium where attorney general barr speaks in approximately 15 minutes. today we will open higher to the tune of about 50 points on the dow industrials. next case. herman cain says he will not withdraw from consideration for the federal reserve position. the man himself joins us now. herman, welcome back to the program. start out by telling us why you're not going to withdraw. >> first, i never said that i was even considering withdrawing. that was a conclusion that some of the reports came to because four senators expressed

reservation. well, their reservations do not cause me to run away. no. three of the four, stuart, have never met me. i haven't met them. and i doubt if they know anything about my background. so i don't run away from criticism. stuart: well, questions will be raised about your past behavior with women, similar to what happened when you ran for the presidency. are you ready for those? >> i'm ready for that, stuart. because there is no there, there with my past behavior with women. they were all accusations that were unfounded and not true. so they are going to raise it because the democrats will want to try to embarrass me but they're not going to embarrass me because i'm not going to allow them to turn my confirmation, if i get there, into a circus. i'm simply not going to allow it. stuart: was there a settlement with one -- with a woman? >> if there were, i didn't know about it. the first one, that was a severance package, after i left the restaurant association. if they used the word

settlement, i didn't even know about it so i can't answer that question. it may have been, it may have been not. stuart: you are geared up for the hearings, i take it, and you're ready? >> i'm geared up for the hearings. and one of the reasons i'm geared up for the hearings, stuart, is quite simply this noise chamber causes a lot of people, including senators, to get wishy-washy but it doesn't cause me to want to withdraw. i'm not withdrawing. that's not my nature. stuart: got it. now, i'm sure you are aware of this. we got a survey of the chief financial officers of big corporations and two-thirds of them predict a recession by the summer of next year, right before the election. is that why you would like to lower interest rates? >> not necessarily. and i question that number of three-fourths by the middle of next summer. the reason, stuart, is because some people have been promoting the idea of a recession for a long time, so i really can't

comment on whether they're right or whether they're wrong. i have a lot of confidence in this economy. i have a lot of confidence that it is going -- the strength of it is going to continue into next year. so i really can't join that chorus in the chamber of saying we are going to have a recession. i don't think we are. stuart: okay. the democrats, as you know, apoplectic about the barr press conference on the mueller report this morning. just want to show you this tweet from new york congressman hakim jeffries, chair of the house democrat caucus, by the way. here it is. so-called attorney general presiding over a dog and pony show. here's a thought. release the mueller report tomorrow morning and keep your mouth shut. you have zero credibility. now, you have taken your fair share of scorn from the democrats. your reaction to that tweet? >> the dog and pony show is being perpetuated by the democrats, not william barr. that's where he's absolutely wrong. they have gone from -- the democrats have gone from collusion, collusion, collusion,

corroboration, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, and now they are talking about trying to pull another narrative out there about coverup. this is what they do. but stuart, the markets, business people, and the american people are smarter than that. they are not swallowing this language and they're not swallowing this narrative that they want to put out there to keep the lie alive. that's what they are trying to do. stuart: i have to get back to this, herman. when you were running for the presidency, there were reports that you were involved in a settlement. this morning you have told us that you were not. have you changed your story? >> no, i have not. stuart, i left the restaurant association in 1999. reports may have said the word settlement but i know of the three that i know about that accused me, there was no settlement. it was a severance agreement. one of the individuals tried to get a large sum of money from

the restaurant association and i directed my attorney to fight it. we went from a very large sum of money that she wanted all the way down to her normal severance. she didn't make this accusation until after she found out that she was losing her job because of non-performance. stuart: herman cain, thank you very much for joining us. glad to see you again. hope to see you again soon. >> thanks, stuart. stuart: big day for the market. all kind of reasons. we have two big tech ipos happening today, pinterest and zoom. we expect the first trades to happen during this program. don't miss it, please, because these are big name tech companies going public. your chance for the first time to buy shares in them. look at this. futures moving up even more. now we are looking at about a 60-point gain for the dow and a very modest gain for the nasdaq. we are moments away from william barr's press conference. you are going to see it and that's a promise. ten minutes away. moving is hard.

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

it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. stuart: we are just minutes away from the barr press conference and the release of the mueller report. come on in, edward lawrence. edward, tell me, start at 9:30 and tell me what we're going to see. reporter: that news conference coming before the release of the official report. now, attorney general william barr is going to explain his

actions related to that report in the news conference. his comments are expected to last about 30 minutes. the attorney general will address four areas concerning the 400-page report. within those areas, he will address redaction, why they were made, also, outline his interactions with the white house about the report over the past few weeks, and executive privilege. the timeline looks like this. the release of this report will come at 11:00 a.m. to congress, eastern time. that report will be delivered officially to congress. at some point after that, the attorney general will release to the public and they will get their chance to see the report. it will be posted online. the democrats are very critical of barr holding this news conference before the release. they are upset that the white house has also had communication with the attorney general over the past few days about what's in the report. but we will all be able to judge for ourselves later on this afternoon. stuart: will there be questions to william barr? reporter: in 30 minutes of comments, probably will not be taking many questions. we are told the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein will be

there, he will not make comments related to this. with such a short window of comment, 30 minutes, it's likely the attorney general probably will not take any questions. that's something we will be looking for in this. you know, there are three versions of this report coming out, the unredacted version that went to the attorney general from the special counsel, also the second report is the redacted version to congress, then a lesser redacted version which will be given to some members of congress, so they can review. stuart: thank you very much, edward. come on in, ken starr, former white house special counsel. welcome back to the program. good to see you again. >> good to see you. stuart: here's my question. is it possible that during mr. barr's statement, we will find out more about how this whole investigation got started in the first place, involving maybe hillary clinton and president obama? will we get into that today? >> it's possible, but i think it's a bit unlikely. watch me be proven wrong yet

again, stuart. but i think the reason i'm saying that is bill barr says he has concerns about exactly this issue, how did all this get started, and he's a very judicious, cautious, really good lawyer. i mean that all as compliments. he goes by the book and so he's going to find out the information. i don't think he has that information yet. i think he has some leads but i think he will likely refrain from comment lest he go into a place that has proven maybe that wasn't right after all. i think he's going to play it straight by the book and just say hey, here is the process that we've gone through, bob mueller went through, and here's the process we have gone through leading up to today. stuart: speaker pelosi and senate leader -- senate minority leader charles schumer, they want robert mueller himself to testify before congress. is that likely, and should he testify? >> yes, and yes. i think it's inevitable.

as i discovered 20 years ago, stuart, the person who leads the investigation is going to ultimately be held accountable to the people's house, in particular, but possibly also the senate as well, depending obviously on what lindsey graham wants to do and so forth. i think it's entirely appropriate but we do it step by step. we get the report, everyone has the opportunity to analyze the report, look at the redactions or what was redacted and so forth. this is part of accountability. we want our public officials, including bob mueller, to be accountable. stuart: let me ask you about this, the possibility of obstruction of justice. it is possible that this report will show various officials being shouted at by the president about firing mueller or in some way influencing mueller, do you think that rises to the level of obstruction of justice? >> absolutely not.

sticks and stones may break my bones, but listen, what is obstruction. we are talking about was a crime committed. so was there intimidation of witnesses, was there hiding evidence, that kind of corrupt action. none whatsoever. the president has been so transparent, he's been yelling to the world that he doesn't like this investigation, dislikes the way it began, doesn't like the way it's been conducted, but he never stood in the door and said you know, you're not going to come into these offices, bob mueller, you and your staff, go away. he did none of that. so yes, he fumed, understandably, presidents don't like to be investigated, they are human beings, and especially when they have serious questions about the way it all got started. but that is not obstruction of justice. stuart: ken starr, thank you very much for joining us on such an important day. just 90 seconds to go before we get mr. barr and the mueller report. ken starr, thank you.

we appreciate it. want to bring in market watcher michelle mckinnon now, because the market opens in 90 seconds. do you think there will be any reaction to the mueller report and the barr press conference? >> quite a big day. we also have the two ipos. i absolutely do not think you will get much type of market move. even if you do get some type of headline that pushes the markets lower, i say it's actually a buying opportunity because markets are moving higher. stuart: what i'm looking at -- >> futures. futures have been climbing. stuart: yeah, 90 points. >> you had strong retail sales numbers. you have historic low unemployment claims. this is good news. stuart: i want to make more of that unemployment claim. i know this might be a dry subject. >> 49-year low. stuart: yeah. 1969. liz: it shows the power of the economy and in the last five elections, the swing voter focused on the economy. that matters for this 2020 race. it's about the economy and the swing voter uniformly said it's about the economy. that's what we're caring about,

to the point where obama's campaign manager said bernie sanders ain't going to win if the economy is still going strong. stuart: here we go. we have seven seconds to the opening of this market. we have all kinds of stuff we're watching for you today. left-hand side of your screen, the podium where attorney general barr will shortly appear and handle a press conference about the mueller report. right-hand side of the screen, we started trading on wall street and we are up right from the get-go. not as much as futures implied at this moment. of course, we are 15 seconds in. we are up 13, 17 points on the dow industrials. futures suggested a much better, stronger opening but what we've got is a modest, very modest gain. i should tell you that the ipo parade continues later on this morning. going public today for the first time, pinterest and zoom. i think most of the -- forgive me, not the action, the buzz, is about zoom. ashley: no doubt. stuart: video conferencing,

right? ashley: it makes a profit, what a concept, which is huge. it's well-respected, widely used. i think people would like to get in on the action on this one. as we saw with lyft, be careful. stuart: lyft is down about 20%. ashley: from its initial $72. stuart: i think lyft this morning is about $60, $59 or $60. that's where it is. we are still waiting for mr. barr. as soon as he appears, you will hear him. liz: this is when you earn your money. stuart: now we are up 52. okay. 26,500 is where we are. just as the mueller report is about to be revealed, by mr. barr. i want to go back to zoom. that high quality video conferencing. liz: it's a quality product. we use it at our firm. skype missed the boat. zoom is so much better. stuart: just the quality? the audio? >> it's easy to use, you send a link, everyone can download it. great product. stuart: nice gain to start with.

22,900 is where we are. okay. what about pinterest? >> yeah, i actually like pinterest here, too. obviously it's not profitable right now but it's going to be profitable over the next few years. pinterest has a great demographic, has about two-thirds women. it should be good here. stuart: we are off and running. 60 points up on the dow. right-hand side of your screen. the biggest winners amongst the dow 30 stocks, look at them go, travelers, they reported this morning. the market likes their report. they are up. j & j, they are up, procter & gamble, they are up. caterpillar is up, cokeca-cola up. quite a few of the other dow stocks are up. the dow has reached 26,500. i distinctly remember saying yesterday we would start that press conference at 9:30 sharp. ashley: i just saw a reporter put two fingers up, this way round, not the old british two fingers. i think it means two-minute warning. stuart: i have about 90 seconds and i'm going to tell you, this market has opened on the upside. two big ipos are coming, we have

a 50-year low, just about a 50-year low for firings. the firing rate, initial jobless claims. ashley: retail sales, strong. >> extremely strong. best numbers since 2015. stuart: look at microsoft, $122 a share, ladies and gentlemen. apple is at $203. alphabet is up a little bit. amazon down, 25 cents on $1,854. ashley: the nasdaq is negative right now. stuart: facebook at $177, not bad at all. retail sales up this morning, 1.6% i believe in the latest month. that was not expected. that was a pretty good report. >> this economy keeps beating expectations. stuart: speaking of retail sales, look at the retailers. walmart is up a fraction. kohl's, macy's, jcpenney down. nordstrom virtually unchanged, up all of one cent. how about that.

liz: what a day, different day versus united health taking a lot of hits because their top executive says bernie's single payer will hurt the economy. that was a drag on the dow. health insurers have been taking shots because single payer. stuart: there you go. zooming in on the podium. there you go. there is william barr, taking the podium. we will listen. >> good morning, everybody, and thanks for being here this morning. as you know, on march 22nd, the special counsel robert mueller concluded his investigation into matters related to russian attempts to interfere in our 2016 presidential election, and he submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to department regulations.

as i said during my senate confirmation hearing and since, i'm committed to ensuring the greatest degree possible of transparency concerning the special counsel's investigation consistent with the law. at 11:00 this morning, i'm going to transmit copies of the public version of the special counsel's report to the chairmen and ranking members of the senate and house judiciary committees. the department of justice will also make the report available to the american people by posting it on the department's website after it has been delivered to congress. i'd like to make a few comments today on the report. before i do that, i want to thank deputy attorney general rod rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. rod, as you know, has served at the department for nearly 30

years with dedication and distinction, and it's been a great privilege and pleasure for me to work with him since my confirmation. he had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that were interrupted by my asking him to help in my transition. rod has been an invaluable partner and i am grateful that he's willing to help me, and has been able to see the special counsel's investigation through to its conclusion. thanks, rod. >> thank you. >> i would also like to thank special counsel robert mueller for his service, and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of russia's attempts to interfere in our electoral process. as you know, one of the primary purposes of the special counsel's investigation was to determine whether president trump's campaign or any

individual associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. volume one of the special counsel's report describes the results of that investigation. as you will see, the special counsel's report states that his quote, investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. i am sure that all americans share my concern about the efforts of the russian government to interfere in our presidential election. as the special counsel report makes clear, the russian government sought to interfere in our election process but thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation, we now know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of

president trump or the trump campaign or the knowing assistance of any other american, for that matter. that is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. the special counsel report outlines two main efforts by the russian government to influence the 2016 election. first, the report details efforts by the internet research agency, a russian company with close ties to the russian government, to sow social discord among american voters through disinformation and social media operations. following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the special counsel brought charges in federal court against several russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

but the special counsel found no evidence that any american, including anyone associated with the trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the russian government or the i.r.a. in this illegal scheme. indeed, as the report states, quote, the investigation did not identify evidence that any u.s. person knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the i.r.a.'s interference operation, end quote. put another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any americans in i.r.a.'s illegal activities. second, the report details efforts by the russian military officials associated with the gru, the russian military intelligence organization, to hack into computers and steal documents and e-mails from individuals associated with democratic party and hillary clinton's campaign for the purpose of eventually

publicizing these documents. obtaining such unauthorized -- the special counsel brought charges against russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking operations. those charges are still pending, and the defendants remain at large. but again, the special counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these hacking operations. in other words, there was no evidence of the trump campaign collusion with the russian government's hacking. the special counsel's investigation also examined russian efforts to publish stolen e-mails and documents on the internet.

the special counsel found that after the gru disseminated some of the stolen documents to entities that it controlled, d.c. leaks and gucifer 2, the gru transferred some of the stolen materials to wikileaks for publication. wikileaks then made a series of document dumps. the special counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. under applicable law, publication of these types of material would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. hereto, the special counsel's report did not find that any person associated with the trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials. finally, the special counsel

investigated a number of links or contacts between the trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. after reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate u.s. law involving russian-linked persons and any persons associated with the trump campaign. so that's the bottom line. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. after finding no underlying collusion with russia, the special counsel's report goes on

to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. as i addressed in my march 24th letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense. after carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and i concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. although the deputy attorney general and i disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined

did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions. in assessing the president's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. president trump faced an unprecedented situation. as he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. at the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. yet as he said from the beginning, there was, in ct, no collusion and as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to

show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. nonetheless, the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, providing unfetterred access to campaign and white house documents, directing senior aides to testify freely and asserting no privilege claims and at the same time, the president took no act that, in fact, deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. before i take questions, i want to address a few aspects of the

process for producing the public report that i am releasing today. as i said several times, the report contains limited redactions related to four categories of information. to ensure as much transparency as possible, those redactions have been clearly labeled so that the leaders can tell -- the readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories. now, as i -- to recall, those categories are 6e material, grand jury material, information that the ic believes would disclose sources and methods, information that would impair the investigation and prosecution of other cases that are under way, and finally, information that implicates the privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.

as you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing investigations and criminal cases such as the i.r.a. case and the roger stone case. these redactions were applied by department of justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the special counsel's office, as well as the intelligence community, and prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases. the redactions are their work product. no redactions done by anybody outside this group, there were no redactions done by anybody outside this group. no one outside this group proposed any redactions, and no one outside the department has seen the unredacted report, with

the exception of certain sections that were made available to ic, the intelligence community, for their advice on protecting intelligence sources and methods. consistent with long-standing executive branch practice, the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the president of the united states. because the white house had voluntarily cooperated with the special counsel, significant portions of the report contained material over which the president could have asserted privilege and he would have been well within his rights to do so. following my march 29th letter, the office of the white house counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the president on a potential invocation of privilege which is consistent with long-standing practice. following that review, the president confirmed that in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the american

people, he would not assert privilege over the special counsel's report. accordingly, the public report i'm releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that i previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege. in addition, earlier this week, the president's personal counsel requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. that request was consistent with the practice followed under the ethics in government act which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. the president's personal lawyers were not permitted to make and did not request any redactions. in addition to making the redacted report public, we are also working with congress to accommodate their legitimate

oversight interests with respect to the special counsel's investigation. we have been consulting with chairman graham and chairman nadler through this process, and we will continue to do so. given the limited nature of the redactions, i believe that the publicly released report will allow every american to understand the results of the special counsel's investigation. nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available, subject to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from several congressional committees, a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand jury information. thus, these members of congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves with a limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared. i believe that this accommodation together with my upcoming testimony before the senate and house judiciary

committees will satisfy any need congress has for information regarding the special counsel's investigation. once again, i would like to thank you for being here and i will now have a few questions. reporter: mr. attorney general, we don't have the report in hand. so could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president, and you say you disagree with some of thighs leghis legal the. what did you disagree with him on? >> i would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense. but i will say that when we met with him, deputy attorney general rosenstein and i met

with him along with ed o'callaghan, the principal associate deputy, on march 5th, we specifically asked him about the olc opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime, but for the existence of the olc opinion, and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. he was not saying that but for the olc opinion, he would have found a crime. he made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime. reporter: what did you disagree with him on? reporter: given that, why did you, mr. rosenstein, feel the need you had to take it to the next step to conclude that there was no crime, especially given that doj policy? >> well, the very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and

compulsory process that's involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only. it's determine yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. that is our responsibility and that's why we have the tools we have, and we don't go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. we collect this information, we use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision, and because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to, and that was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. reporter: the special counsel indicate thae wat he wanted you make the decision or he wanted it left to congress, and how do you respond to criticism you are receiving from congressional democrats that you are acting more as an attorney for the president rather than as the

chief law enforcement officer? >> special counsel mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to congress. i hope that was not his view since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. he did not -- i didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but i am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. reporter: is there anything you can share today about your review of the genesis of the russia investigation, whether assets have been provided to investigators? >> no, today i'm really focused just on the process of releasing this report. reporter: democrats in congress have asked for robert mueller himself to testify. robert mueller remains a justice department employee as of this moment. will you permit him to testify publicly in congress?

>> i have no objection to bob mueller personally testifying. reporter: mr. attorney general, as far as the democrats who have questioned some of the process here, a republican appointed judge on tuesday said you have quote, created an environment that has caused a significant part of the american public to be concerned about these redactions. you cleared the president on obstruction, the president is fund-raising off of your comments about spying, and here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his emotion. what do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned you are trying to protect the president? >> actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs are recognized in the report, that there was substantial evidence for that. so i'm not sure what your basis is for saying that i'm being generous to the president. reporter: it seems like [ inaudible ] -- >> is there another precedent for it? reporter: no, but -- >> okay. so unprecedented is an accurate description, isn't it?

reporter: what do you say to those who say you are trying to protect the president? reporter: why is he not here? obviously it's his report you are talking about today. >> the report he did for me as the attorney general, he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. i'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision, entirely discretionary to make it public, since these reports are not supposed to be made public. that's what i'm here to discuss. reporter: is it an impropriety for you to come out and sort of spin the report before the public has a chance to read it? stuart: okay. it's over. 26 minutes in total and now let me recap what was said, because this is big stuff. the attorney general stated on seven occasions in the last 26 minutes that there had been no

collusion, no conspiracy, no cooperation, no coordination by anyone in the trump campaign or any american with russia's attempts to interfere with america's presidential election. he said that seven times. the disinformation campaign, the russian hacking campaign, the personal contact campaign, in all these now look at the second quarter area of this, that is the possibility of obstruction of justice. mr. barr said 10 episodes involving the president in possible on instruction were looked at. the evidence does not support obstruction as a matter of law. that is what the attorney general said. he said there had been relentless, he used that word, relentless media campaign of culpability. that had angered the president but he also said that at no time did the president fail to cooperate in full with the

mueller investigation. i have to conclude that was, that, if i use the word generous towards the president that is a mistake because the report itself was generous towards the president and mr. barr's synopsys towards it was generous towards the president. ashley: seven times, said no cooperation, no collusion at all on the main russia interference issue and on obstruction thing, the president did not exert executive privilege over the redactions as well which he could have done but didn't. all the comments made by bill barr were complimentary or the president which led to the final question, are you spinning this report? stuart: right. this question of redactions is very important. ashley: yes, very. stuart: edward lawrence, come on in, please, you have more on the redactions. go right at it. reporter: four areas, four reasons the report will be

redacted, grand jury evidence. stuff going in front of the grand jury. information about ongoing investigations. there are several investigations ongoing in the southern district of new york, that are spawned. that is the second redaction area. the third classified materials in here from u.s. intelligence agencies but also from our allies. they don't want to give up methods how they got some of this information. the final one is a little bit vague but details that could affect their parties who have not been name in this but could reveal those third parties. those four areas is the reason that this report will be redacted. again unredacted report is with the attorney general himself. a redacted report will be released to the public, a slightly less redacted report for the "gang of eight" and basically and some members of congress. stuart: edward, that is a good point. i want to reiterate no time did president trump inno one outside

of the justice department took any role in any of redactions. 10:00. big news what happened today on all fronts. first off, seven occasions seven different times in william barr's press conference he said there had been no evidence anyone in the trump campaign or any american conspired or coordinated with russian activity, trying to interfere with our elections. the attorney general said that on seven occasions. quickly about these redactions, rather about the possibility of obstruction of justice mr. barr said that, he looked at 10 episodes, mueller looked at 10 episode involving the president and possible obstruction but the evidence did not support obstruction as a matter of law. very importantly, mr. barr said there had been a relentless media claim of culpability on the part of president trump that angered the president but at no time did the president, every

occasion the president cooperated fully with mr. mueller. liz: that is what the special counsel found, unprecedented situation the president faced. how he conducted the campaign and his own behavior, relentless speculation in the media. that is what the special counsel found about the his culpability. the president's culpability. the special counsel found there was attempt to undermine his presidency fueled by leaks. stuart: this is big day in the world of money as well. we got two big technology ipos coming to the market. they have not traded yet. we've got pinterest and we've got zoom. both of them are on the table today. the range for pinterest is between 22 and 23 right now. pinterest was supposed to to out at what was it? 19. so we're looking at a trade, the first trade. haven't got there yet but we're looking at a first trade, a few bucks higher than the 19-dollar going out price.

news on politics big time and you've to the news on the market which by the way is now up about 50 points on the dow industrials. i want to bring in chris bedford, editor-in-chief of "the daily caller." chris, go right at it, please, you tell me your reaction to what mr. barr just had to say. >> as it you said it was fairly generous and we haven't seen the report, my reporters and i cannot wait to start reading through it. i'm positive there will be lines in there that are less generous toward the president. the whole reason politicians want to get their hand on this, they can cherry-pick out of 400 or so pages decide how they want to present it. i was amazed on my way over, how many elected democrats were coming out saying the process is rigged. why? because barr was presenting findings at a press conference beforehand that sin sane. nadler came out against this. schiff came out against this. the goal post moved once again. i think it will continue to be

moved. stuart: frankly the questions mr. barr just went right at it. he didn't dismiss the questions but he had a very solid answer for everything asked of him, am i right? >> why did you make a decision on whether or not to say the president was guilty? that's your job. why didn't you leave this could congress? that's not their job. it was an interesting way to see him kind of educate some of the reporters in the room on where the, where the power lies here and where the decision-making processes are. he was very, very clear in his words. you couldn't really get around it. no one outside of these groups of people had any decisions on redactions, et cetera. he was as clear as he could be. but there will still try to muddy the waters i believe. stuart: i think right at the top of the press on friends, i keep saying this on seven occasions seven different times the man said, this is william barr, attorney general of united states of america, he said there was no evidence anyone in the trump campaign or any american

conspired with or coordinated with russia in the attempts to get into and affect our election. right, very strong stuff, right from the top. did you read it that way? >> yes i did, it wasn't just people in the trump campaign like you said. he said any american knowingly, willfully colluded with the russians to try to change this election. to anyone that does not come as massive relief too, they ought to take a new gauge where their loyalties lie because you should be very pleased that the sitting president or other americans, fellow citizens did not work with a foreign government to try to subvert american democracy. those people who are angered at this, they have gotten too wrapped up in the political moment to see what is actually, what is actually good. >> what do you think the democrats are going to say now? >> that it is unfair, absolutely unfair. the fact that the president got this first and attorney general barr is clear on why he is the person named in the report, was

allowed to look at it, not allowed to make redactions. attorney general barr make as press conference talks to the media before they delivered the report, they already tipped their hands,er this morning this is unfair, this is unfair, this is a rigged game. once they get the report i expect them to start getting through it immediately. the news will start to change this evening as they get their talking points out. it will be he said/she said but i look forward to reading it. stuart: mr. barr said there was relen h leptless, relentless was his word, culpability on part of president trump which is not true. i don't think the media is ever going to get its credibility back. last word to you. >> it is absolutely obscene. the media has gone above i can recall or i've seen. they have been partisan, called him guilty over and over again. they decided he was guilty. when he pushed back they called that obstruction.

stuart: thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. very important day. you rose to the occasion. "daily caller," good stuff. i want to bring in stuart werner, commerce street capital. what was the market impact from the barr news conference we just saw? i saw the dow was up 100 points. now we're up 50. is that a reaction to barr's press conference? >> i think that the market negativity remains and people are looking for reasons to sell the market rather than buy the market. i have somewhat contrary point of view. stuart: so you don't think that was friendly to president trump? >> i do think it was friendly to president trump but the market was up 120 points. then it sold back down to 50 because there is still that view out there, we have inverted yield curve. the consumer spending slowed in the first quarter. stuart: okay. so, basically there was no response on the market to barr's press conference.

you're saying the market has come off its highs because of purely financial reasons, not political reasons? have i got that right? >> correct. that's correct. stuart: so what are your reasons? slowing consumer spending, is that it? we're almost at all-time high for the dow industrials. what's going on here? >> i think the consumer comes back strong in the second quarter and second half. i think there is a number of issues including rising wages. there's consumer confidence is at an all-time high. we're at 50-year low in unemployment. and there is job opportunities and wages that continue to develop. i think that is giving the consumer the confidence to go out and spend. i think that will be driving the economic bus as we move into the second quarter and the second half. stuart: i'm confused. that would seem to me be reasons market should go up? >> it is. i think the market is going up another eight or 10% but there is a lot of negativity out there from the market --

stuart: stuart, let me explain something to you. in television you go with the headline, and your headline should have been i think this market is going up another eight to 10%. don't bury the lead, lad. don't bury it, get right out there, tell me to me again, eight to 10% higher from this market from here, say it! >> eight to 10% higher on this market going forward. stuart: i'm sorry, i didn't mean to harangue you, stuart. i really didn't mean to harangue you. i apologize. i have to break away, stuart i have a presidential trump tweet coming in after the barr news conference. i have to read this one. no collusion, no obstruction. all the haters and radical left democrats, gail over. who will explain that one to me? liz: "game of thrones." ashley: writing from "game of thrones." liz: typeface. stuart: i did not understand that. game over. ashley: end of story. stuart: what a day this is becoming. stuart werner, do you have any

absolutely any comment on the presidential tweet? >> no. but i think trump has been for the most part right about his prognostications on the economy and on the market and on the political winds as they unfold. stuart: stuart, look, thanks very much for joining us. i'm sorry i haranged you like that. i'm very interested in eight to 10% stuff from here. good you stuff. >> thanks for having me. stuart: stuart. stuart: i had a go at him. i'm very sorry. listen to this. from attorney general barr. here it is. >> that's the bottom line. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenases, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in

those efforts. stuart: you heard it right from the attorney general. judge napolitano joins us now. what do you say? you obviously, you watched this press conference, judge. your reaction please? >> i can't wait until i get the 400 pages in my hands, stuart. i think the press conference which will please the president very much will continue to whet the appetite of the democrats who of course will not only be satisfied with 400 page report unredacted, but will want to see the documents on which the report is based. so as happy as i am for the president this monkey is off his back i do believe the politically, this is just turning another page and the battle moves to congress. remember the house of representatives voted unanimously, 420-0 to subpoena the entire unredacted report and thereby make it public. stuart: judge, that sets up an opportunity to go after

underlying evidence and basically retry the entire investigation. you know that is what is going to happen. i don't think america stands for that. judge, i don't think america stands for it? >> i think the country will be sick and tired of that, what the democrats want to do, this may very well explode in their faces politically, stuart, is second-guess bill barr and bob mueller. barr told us there were 10 instances of alleged obstruction of justice. whatever the bottom line is, they decided there is not enough to prove the case. the democrats will take the 10 instances parade some lawyers out there, ex-prosecutors say there is enough to prove the case. why i said this just turns the page. the serious legal jeopardy for the president is gone. the political jeopardy, he knows how to deal with. stuart: mr. barr went out of his way to say there had been a relentless media claim of culpability on the part of the president which absolutely was not there.

>> yes. stuart: that angered the president. >> yes. stuart: and the democrats are going to interpret that anger as interfering and obstructing justice but mr. barr went out of his way to say at no time did the president interfere in any redactions rand nobody outside the justice department redacted anything. >> to you, to you and me, and our colleagues in the studio, and to people watching, what you just said makes eminent sense but to the democrats and the trump haters it's fuel for them to continue digging more deeply into it. i make a miss -- i think they are making a mistake to do it but i think that is what their base wants. stuart: if you want to impeach a president he has to be guilty after high crime or misdemeanor. i take it this barr press conference and the mueller report absolve him of any chance of impeachment, that accurate? >> in the minds of reason ab persons, yes.

in the mind of unreasonable persons who want to impeach him, no matter what, no. and the reason for the harping on the obstruction of justice is because in the nixon impeachment, which never came to pass, and in the clinton impeachment, which did come to pass, both of them were charged with obstruction of justice, meaning there is precedent for arguing that obstruction of justice, though not articulated in the specifically in the constitution nevertheless is basis for impeachment. this is what i'm sure we're going to start to hear this afternoon from congressman nadler and his colleagues. stuart: our colleague, catherine herridge she asked a question of william barr about the origins of the investigation in the first place. how did it get started. he would not answer that question, quickly moved on. however, i suspect in the very near future we are going to be looking at how this thing got started and that will open up

another pandora's box for conservatives, for republicans, am i right? >> yes. i mean there is reason to believe that the origins of this investigation were acts of corruption. i don't mean corruption where somebody put money in someone's pocket. gross misuse of power, misleading fisa judges, starting what was really a criminal investigation because of a hatred of a political candidate, claiming it was a national security investigation. there is a tremendous amount to be investigated there. the attorney general, as great as catherine's was wise not to answer it. that is a quote, ongoing investigation, close quote, which is the type of matter they don't talk about until the investigation is completed. stuart: i think the political tide turned from russia, russia, russia, no collusion, no obstruction of justice. all we've got is democrats temper tantrum. what do you say?

>> i wish i could believe you. in my heart of hearts i do agree with you but i am convinced, and we haven't seen it, the attorney general said there is 10 instances of alleged obstruction. the democrats will find each up with of those there is enough to bring a charge against him, even though the same minds at the justice department concluded if you pile them all up today it is not enough to go establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt. stuart, what those 10 instances were i could probably guess but we'll have that in our laps in about an hour 1/2. stuart: got it. judge napolitano, thanks for joining us as always. see you again soon. >> anytime. stuart: politics, mueller, got that. now this. zoom, the videoconferencing company is going public today on the nasdaq and susan li is there. what's the latest, please, susan. susan: opening price $50 a piece. much higher than the ipo offer price of $36.

don't forget this ipo was heavily oversubscribed of the 30 times amount of shares on offer. half of the shares offered will be early investors, ccs unloaded 11 million. other nine million will be cash raise. zoom is probably a very good test of the tech ipo space. zoom has 100% revenue growth. this is rare uncorn making a profit. 7 million last year. so we do have the ceo, executive team surrounding me right now. we're expecting the first trade at around 11:00 a.m. given the interest we talked about with the price range and ipo being raised twice. settle on $36, indicating open up $50 a piece, you can expect there will be celebration here. send it pack to you. stuart: susan, before you go, this is a videoconferencing company. susan: yep. stuart: it has big operations in the cloud. i'm not sure i understand that that's what i'm told.

i believe that's why you got this buzz about zoom. explain it to me. go ahead. susan: very well-run company. they have really high growth rates. valuing themselves at $10 billion. back in 2017 in private rounds of valuation they were just at one billion dollars. tell you about extreme triple digit growth rates and profitability and use by the way of videoconferencing especially with mobile teams around the world, you don't need to talk face-to-face. that will be direction of corporations going forward. hence the demand we're seeing right now. stuart: i'm told, occasionally tried to use skype. ashley: well-done. stuart: tried and failed. but i'm told that zoom is crystal clear, you can hear, you can see, it is in real time. is it that good? susan: very good from what i understand. customer experience is better than skype, so five years ago. better than face time which is probably more up to date. i'm told user experience is

pretty good. stuart: now, pinterest, i can hear something going on in the background. let me break away for a second. pinterest will make the trading debut on the new york stock exchange. they are going out at $19 a trade. have not seen opening trade. ashley: 22.50, to 23.50. that is the pricing. so we'll see. zoom is interesting. liz: zoom is really interesting. stuart: they have a huge pop. they went out 36, now 50, that is a bigger pop than pinterest going out 19, looking at 22.50 to 23. liz: that is interesting. these are the bellwethers for the ipo market. lyft did not have a good lift off. pinterest is internet scrapbook. people like it. it is not profitable. it is about the market appetite for not profitable ipos right now and the momentum forward. stuart: here is a chance if you want to you can get in on brand new technologies, american technology companies which

further our global technology leadership. i find that absolutely fascinating. ashley: yes. stuart: this is what a stock market is all about. this is what it's for. if you and i feel zoom is a good deal or pinterest or uber -- ashley: grab a stake. stuart: all you have to do, call your broker, buy the stock and you are in. you have an ownership stake in a piece of america that's growing. i love it. it has been a hell of a day. excuse my language. it is not like me to get excited about ipos but i'm excited about this stuff. i'm extremely excited what is going on in washington with the bill barr press conference. it is being, that conference is now being digested, listen to this, democrat congressman jerrold nadler. he is tweeting about this, the barr press conference. here it is. it is clear congress and the american people must hear from special counsel robert mueller in person to better understand his findings. we're now requesting mueller to appear before house judiciary committee.

ashley: bill barr said he has absolutely no problem with that. stuart: precisely. ashley: bring it on. stuart: you really did steal democrats thunder. liz: context of president being frustrated the drumbeat of media looks, look at quickly two sentences on this. jason chaffetz makes this point too. read the ig report on hillary clinton email probe. you will see this, it wasn't free from bias. it was extremely poor judgment at the fbi leadership there. gross lack of professionalism, relentless leaks. also journalists getting sporting event tickets, golfing with the media, drinks and meals, anti-trump texting throughout the hillary clinton email probe. this is, to get the context of what the president's frustrations were about, context of obstruction of justice, every time he went out and said there was no collusion the media took that oh, he is obstructing justice bit sheer fact of him

saying that. stuart: you are right. absolutely right. liz: aspects counsel is now saying he was saying there was no collusion. the special counsel found no collusion. stuart: i don't know what chairman nadler has. what has he got here? ashley: he has nothing. he can suggest coverup. he knew this would be favorable to the president. bob mueller go in front of congress. let him talk about what he found. stuart: i look forward to it. ashley: bring it on. don't we want to know about hillary clinton and the dossier? how did they get the fisa warrant on carter page, all of that? you want to talk about skull -- skulduggery. liz: james comey is trying to get out in front. he said quote, i did not think unauthorized electronic surveillance was spying. talk about hair splitting heard 'round the world. stuart: parsing words. that's what they got. jared nadler, by the way back in

191990s back at time of ken starr report, bill clinton, what he was up to in the oval office, at that time jerrold nadler moved heavy enand earth to stop any details coming out. now we turn full circle. jerold nadler is chair of the house judiciary committee. he is going up against a republican president. he wants it all out there sew can make hay. i think his legs have been cut off, chopped off. >> liz: what nadler was saying in 1998 bill clinton's perjury in sexual misconduct case did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor. jerry nadler wants the full report if obstruction of justice allegations rise to high crimes. ashley: hypocrisy. stuart: thank you. let me show you the stock market. we had an initial pop when

william barr came out at 9:30 and said on seven different occasions, seven occasions no collusion, no cooperation by anybody in the trump campaign or any american with russian attempts to subvert our election, when he said that seven times the dow popped with a gain of about 115 points as i recall. now we have come all the way back down to almost break even. the dow at this moment is 20, up 20. that's what we've got. left-hand side of your screen you're looking at the new york stock exchange where pinterest goes public today. first trade expected soon. pinterest priced to go out at $19 a share. the expect -- the indication is it will be 22.50, 23, 23.50 something like that. on nasdaq, different exchange, zoom goes public today and there you have a real pop. going out at 36. initial trade likely to be

around $50 per share. ashley: wow. stuart: that is zoom. videoconferencing. hold on. i have an update on this. now we've got an indication on zoom at $54 per share. going out at 36. initial trade likely to be around $54 per share. that is a pop. by the way, you can put in a bid, you can, you can ask to buy shares and these shares in zoom have been oversubscribed substantially. ashley: right. stuart: so there is heavy demand for zoom. that's where the buzz is this morning. a big pop for zoom. a very small increase in the offering price there for pinterest. that is the state of play this morning. i really need to catch my breath. it has been quite a day, ladies and gentlemens. okay. let's go to -- hold on a second. show me the white house, please. we're going to hear from the president in the next five or ten minutes. he is, the president himself is at a wounded warrior event in

the white house. he's there. if he says anything, odds are he will, he says anything, you'll hear it pronto right here. take a break. back in a moment.

stuart: all right. sports fans get straight into the action. left-hand side of your screen the white house. right now the president is attending a wounded warrior event in the white house. we're waiting to see if he says anything about william barr's press conference earlier this morning. he might and if he does you will hear it. he has already tweeted something. let me show you that if i can. it was a tweet which had a "game of thrones" kind of motif, if you like, there it is. no collusion, no obstruction, game over. i have never seen the

"game of thrones" but i'm told that is reference -- ashley: the writing is in the style of "game of thrones," game over. stuart: haters, radical left democrats, game over. there is another big story here it is, about your money. zoom is, that is the videoconferencing company about to go public, about to make its first trade. susan li, right there in the middle of it. what's the latest, susan? susan: trying to match up the sell and the buy orders. from what we just heard looks like the opening price is in the mid 50s. first trade from what i understand will take place from 11 to 11:30. they have a lot of trades to sort through. other updated range should come our way in a few minutes. if it is mid 50s, and we're $55, that is a 52% jump from the ipo offer price which has been raised twice during the offering because of 30 times oversubscription. there is a lot of buzz. there is a lot of book building

money pouring in from the zoom ipo. stuart: susan, i call that a pop. let's look at pinterest. they're making a trading debut at the new york stock exchange. gerri willis is there. the latest on pinterest? >> mr. varney, we're looking at range of 23 to 23.50. that is what pinterest is looking at. original range priced at 19. we're watching it closely. you can see there is a huge crowd here. there are literally hundreds of pinterest employers who have come from san francisco to be here. if you want to know the difference between the two companies, zoom and pinterest, zoom has profits, pinter ares has not. the losses are narrowing in the last quarter pro-forma basis down eight to 14%. they're managing to get it under role. they're managing to reduce the loss. a lot of people watch that particularly down here on the

floor of the new york stock exchange. they have been bragging a lot who their customers are. eight in 10 moms are what they call pinners. they have 250 million active users. this is an online bulletin board but it appeal to advertisers because advertisers, they don't get really slabbed on pinterest, right? platform allows advertisers to connect with potential buyers pretty easily. we're looking 23 to 230.50. bottom line we probably willmott open until like 11:30. could be as late as noon. this deal being done by goldman sachs. typically goes pretty long. back to you. stuart: gerri, thank you very much indeed. a pop for pinterest. listen to this, a real pop for zoom. the latest indication it will be $55 a share. okay. no, 56. ashley: going up as we speak. stuart: by the way it goes out at 36. first trade may be about $56 per

share. i call that a pop. let's get back to the blockbuster press conference held by attorney general william barr earlier this morning. just listen to this exchange, kind of lengthy, listen between this exchange between mr. barr and reporter. roll tape. reporter: mr. attorney general, democrats who have questioned some of the process here. republican appointed judge on tuesday said you have quote, created an environment that caused a significant part of the american public to be concerned about these redactions. you cleared the president on obstruction. the president is fund-raising off of your comments about spying. here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president including acknowledging his feelings and emotions. what do you say to people on both sides of aisle that you are trying to protect the president? >> the statements about his sincere beliefs are recognized in the report. there was substantial evidence of that i'm not sure what your basis is say i'm being generous to the president. reporter: unprecedented situation. seems like there is opportunity

to go out of your way to acknowledge -- >> is there another precedent for it? >> reporter: no. >> so unprecedented is an accurate description, isn't it. reporter: what do you say to people you are trying to protect the president. eric? stuart: attorney general dealt with that swiftly, moved on. bring in bruce fine, former associate deputy attorney general under president reagan. do you think william barr was trying to be generous to the president or protect the president? what do you think? >> i think the argument is preposterous. mr. barr and the president made no effort to interfear in any respect with mr. mueller's investigation. spent $25 million and there is nothing wrong when the investigation as described by mr. mueller came up with no evidence of collusion, nothing that would be indictable offense even though the department's policy which was established 16

years before president trump took office was, you can't indict or prosecute a sitting president, made clear that mr. trump was not vulnerable to criminal prosecution. these are things and decisions made totally outside of mr. barr's ambit. he didn't make any attempt what so every to intercede with mr. mueller. the ig trying to cover up is ridiculous. mr. mueller will have chance to go before the house judiciary committee and be very convincing t will totally destroy the democrats idea that this is concocted report. nobody interfered with him. nobody did. he came up with no evidence that would justify any kind of prosecution against mr. trump or his campaign. stuart: bruce, in my studio right here i've got some monitors. i'm watching msnbc, and cnn. i got to tell you, they're looking really grim. very unhappy. all grim faces oh.

i think the barr press conference was, made president trump look good. not culpable for all of the charges that have been thrown at him. what say you? >> this is what, what i believe the real winners here are the american people. no other country in the world would spend $25 million investigating the most powerful man in the entire country. totally unimpeded by the president himself. he didn't invoke executive privilege. didn't block anything. we came up with a decision that has not only the substance but the appearance of impartiality. mr. mueller was not a agent. he wasn't any sympathizer with mr. trump. most of his team probably voted against mr. trump. here have the report totally unempead. no other country in the world can claim that. the process worked. that is a tribute to the american constitution. we all ought to be proud as americans this system of justice

worked. stuart: now the democrats want and demand that robert mueller himself testify and i believe that probably going to go after and look for the underlying documents, the underlying evidence, there is millions of documents. that is a political move. do you think it backfires on the democrats for doing that? >> yes. it will definitely backfire on the democrats. that is why i think unlike mr. napolitano i don't believe the democrats are so stupid to commit suicide and this is the reason why. mr. mueller has far greater credibility, has served as fbi director, carried on longer than required under the 10-year limitation because of his integrity. he refused to fbi to participate in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques untaken by the cia. he said no, i'm not going to have the fbi implicated in any kind of wrongdoing. his credibility with the democrats is off the charts. they praised him.

enact statutes to protect him from removal. turn around and say, you got it wrong? this man has been at it for year-and-a-half. all these documents, $25 million and the democrats are going to say, no, we're smarter evaluating evidence than he is? the whole idea is preposterous, i think this will sink faster than the titanic if this is what the democrats do. stuart: bruce fine, strong stuff for you this morning. i have one more for you. happens, i suspect real political danger to the democrats come a little later when we find out the origins of the mueller report in the first place. i think that is their danger area, what do you say? >> it will be, remember on the house side the democrats control the investigation. if that is going to be forthcoming, it will require republicans on the senate side, which they have the same investigatory power of the house to initiate and undertake a serious inquiry. whether the republicans and lindsey graham have the strength to do that, we don't know.

it has been unfortunate in my judgment that for too long congress has been craven, they sit and watch. the executive branch do whatever it does. here you have an instance where the democrats are complaining mr. barr got a jump, he gave a press conference before the report is released. congress has been holding hearings adjacent with the mueller investigation for years. they talked to roger stone and numerous others. they don't ask the executive branch give them advance warning you can comment on mr. stone's testimony before we do. they have been doing the same thing operating under their aegis. executive branch does the same thing. they're not an arm of congress. stuart: bruce fine, thank you very much for being with us on a very important day. much appreciated. >> thank you. stuart: let's bring in a real big hitter in the media business. bob cusack, editor-in-chief of "the hill." seemed to me like this is a very good day for the president. where am i going wrong?

>> no, it is. the democrats really face a dilemma here because they have praised mueller. he is a respected investigator. he has come to the conclusion of this. so there are going to be some democrats say let's pick up where mueller left off. that is really a dead end for them. we know what the conclusions are. everyone should read the report. there will be new information. then i think you will see a divide in the democratic party what to do next. you are really playing into trump's narrative of democrats are just interested in investigations. that is where speaker pelosi will have to step in, let's talk about an agenda, not investigations. stuart: bob barr said there had been a relentless and he used that word, relentless media claim of culpability thrown at the president. >> yeah. stuart: what do you say? do you think the media will do some soul-searching now? will they ever get their reputation back after this? >> there is definitely some in

the media stuart, went really too far. many, many said this is watergate. this is not waster gate. i think was worthy of investigation. there was a lot of speculation that trump would get rid of mueller. he never did that. mueller has reached conclusion. the obstruction of justice he couldn't make a call on. that will be what we're looking at, what is in there. at the same time i'm sure barr is summarizing mueller's conclusions at least generally true. we've heard some complaints from the mueller team on background about well, okay, he didn't characterize it perfectly but bill barr's been around and he would be run out of this town if he mischaracterized mueller. i do think we need to hear from mueller. that is when i think this, this hysteria will stop. but we have to hear from mueller. a lot of unanswered questions. i don't think mueller will criticize barr. they have known each other. they're friends but i want to hear what he has to say to

congress when he probably testifies next month. stuart: real fast, bob, in my opinion the greatest danger, the greatest political threat to the democrats is when we find out how this whole thing got started. what do you say? >> i think that is a real concern. that's where lindsey graham is a key player. what is he going to investigate? you will have two very different investigations from the house and senate looking into the same thing but different things. stuart: okay. bob cusack. thank you very much indeed, sir. much obliged to you. okay, let's get back to your money. susan li at nasdaq with the latest on zoom. what is the latest? susan: the shares are being priced at 59.93. we're still looking at 1 1/2 million shares being traded right now. they're looking to get up to two, 2 1/2 million shares to move in this offering. that price could jump from here. we're up close to 70% from the 36-dollar offer price. there is a lot of demand. the nasdaq told us they are taking their time with this

opening which should take place sometime 11, 11:30. they want to take their time, that it is steady and moving the right amount of shares for buying and selling at this point. 59.93. latest we have. 1 1/2 million shares looking to get 2 1/2 million. expect the price to jump from here. stuart: that is a pop 1/2, susan if it goes out at 36. now we're just seeing 60. that's where we are now, 60 is the likely opening. susan: could go higher from there in the 60s range, in earls it of demand and volume they're trying to move the shares at. so stay tuned. stuart: somebody will be real happy and real rich. good for them. susan, we'll be back to you. that is a promise. thank you very much indeed. want to go back to the mueller report. come on in victoria toensing former justice department official. well-known to the program. >> good to see you, stuart.

stuart: wrap it up please, your response to the barr press conference, go. >> he is spectacular. he was pawing with them like a cat does with mice. well, don't you think congress should have done this? you know that is not exactly congress's job to decide whether to prosecute. he was having fun. you can tell he was quite relaxed. you know what, stuart? i hope this report comes out and shows the president was saying i want to fire that so-and-so. i want to get rid -- this guy is incompetent. isn't that who we elected, a fighter? think about it, if you were being investigated for two years for robbing a bank and then you find out that the bank had never been robbed, wouldn't you be furious and vent and vent? stuart: but fury and anger is not obstruction of justice because he never did fire mueller. he never did get involved in all these retractions. never interfered at all? >> yeah.

thinking about sinning, i was raised catholic. that is the last place where you have to go congress, bless me father, i have had certain kinds of thoughts. stuart: that is quite an admission, victoria. you want to make that on live tv but you did. >> yeah, i did. stuart: i keep going back to this. the russia, russia, russia thing, the mueller report, they will never let it go. they will keep going at it to their political detriment the democrats that is. the danger is find out how this whole thing started barack obama, hillary clinton, james comey, andrew mccabe and strzok all the rest of them, that is the danger, political danger to democrats. i think. what say you? >> i say what did barack obama know and when did know it? look at the ukraine connection. it all started in ukraine where nellie ohr already admitted

people from ukraine helped make up things for the dossier. stay tuned, there is a lot to come about ukraine. stuart: you're a lawyer, a very good one. you looked at the barr press conference. does the president at this point have any legal liability in your opinion? >> none, none, none whatsoever. he's there is no evidence to establish that there was any collusion which by the way, stuart is brand new legal term for me because we always used the term conspiracy. this shows you how good the democrats are at messaging. we're talking about collusion. it is not a crime. let's accept it okay, it has become a new crime but there isn't any evidence of it. obstruction, bill barr and rod rosenstein, ah-ha, bill barr got him on board, both say they didn't rise to any criminal conduct. listen, here's what they're talking about, well, legally that perhaps there isn't any basis for collusion.

say, for example the firing of comey, that's an article 2 authority. you can't go looking into when a president fires the head of the fbi. that is what he entitled to do. if there were a crime, any criminal conduct at all, why didn't rod rosenstein put that in the document where he authorized mueller to start investigating? he didn't do that. he put in a counterintelligence investigation instead. so these are the kinds of things that bill barr was saying hey, legally there is really debate with the special counsel whether there was even an issue here of obstruction of justice. forget the facts. stuart: last one, real fast. bruce fine, deputy, associate attorney general under ronald reagan, he just told us that when mueller testifies and he is likely to testify, that will be the end of it. he will explain in full what is

going on. you think? >> no. no, that is not going to be the end of it, the house democrats are going to continue to pound and pound and pound. now they will be after the tax records and financial records. no they will not give up. they want to undo the duly-elected president. that is what this is all about. stuart: victor, pleasure to have you on the show again. do not be a stranger please. >> thanks. stuart: see you soon. got to get back to pinterest. gerri willis on the floor of the new york stock exchange i do believe, the latest please, gerri. reporter: stuart, we're looking at five 1/2 million shares match 23 1/2, 23 1/2 is what we're looking at. i also want to show you the pinterest doughnut. nyse has gone all out here welcoming this company. they're doing all kinds of food to appeal to pinners. let me tell you what is going on

here in the background. a lot of company executives here, hundreds literally of pinterest employees coming for this. trying to get a opening price for the stock. it was original priced 15 to 17. last night the pricing was 19. it climbed from there. nothing like what is going on from zoom right now but we have seen an increase. what is going on here? pinterest is one of those unicorns with no profits. pro-forma earnings, loss is narrowing down pretty dramatically, 8 to 14%. a lot of people talking about which these tech unicorns have profits? that is one of the issues. we saw the ceo, founders of the company ringing the bell. that was very exciting. a lot of their employees standing around right here. the company claims to have eight of 10 moms in this country who pin on interrest. it is an online bulletin board.

that is what they're talking about. the way they monetize this, advertisers come into the environment where people collect all kinds of things to home furniture to menus to recipes. they're able to sell into that environment without a lot of criticism that is the excitement about this stock. it's growing, growing quickly. we're waiting i think probably ten minutes, 15, 20, could be longer as we wait for goldman sachs to wrap this thing up. back to you, stuart. stuart: gerri, we're go back to the first trade when you got it. susan li is covering zoom on the nasdaq. last time we saw you, expected opening price was 60. any advance on 60? susan: it dropped back a little bit. we're looking 59.15 a share. 1.6 million paired shares they matched up with the buyers and sellers. it is pretty earlier who. they're looking to move 10% of the book.

2 1/2 million is what nasdaq is looking for. that is when we have the first opening trade. you can expect that to take place 11:15, 11:30. zoom is one of the rarest of unicorns that is actually profitable. they valued themselves at ipo $36 a piece, around nine to $10 billion. up from one billion dollars in 2017. look at shares if we go above $60 pretty likely at this point given the amount of interest in the ipo, 30 times over subscribed we're trying to match up shares with the pricing, you can imagine the value in the company probably jumped 60, 70% in its opening day. stuart? stuart: susan, thanks very much. we'll get back to you shortly. that's a promise. it is 10:50 eastern time. oh what a day it has been. let me bring you up to speed with all the developments both in d.c. and wall street. point number one, 9:30 eastern time i believe the attorney general was a couple minutes

late, say 9:33 but he appeared, gave his press conference and what a performance. on seven different occasions the attorney general of the united states says there is no evidence that anyone conspired with the, or coordinate the with russia's attempts to interfere with our elections. goes for the trump campaign, trump campaign officials or any american. no collusion. he said it seven different times. the other major story from the president, from the attorney general's press conference is about the possibility of obstruction of justice. let me take you through that one. there were 10 episodes according to mr. barr involving the president in what could be viewed as obstruction of justice. the president was angry. he had been subject to relentless, he used that word, relentless media claims of culpability. the media constantly said you did this, you did this. they called him names. you did this.

the president was angry. and it was those 10 separate occasions where the president was angry, said something to his officials about firing mueller. well he didn't fire mueller. in fact, the president cooperated fully. this is what barr said. the president cooperated fully with the investigation. then you get to the issue of redactions, what was left out of this report. what was blacked out. at no time did the president exert, filling in my sentences for me, no time did he exert executive privilege to redact anything. didn't get involved at all. furthermore nobody outside the justice department had any input on what would be redacted, blacked out from the report. bottom line, this was from the president's point of view a very good day. let me quickly go to wall street because we got those two big technology ipos coming up there. zoom, that's a videoconferencing

company, is going to make its first trade today and there is a real pop going on there. the offering price is $36 a share. a likely first trade is around 59, $60 per share. now that's a pop 1/2. zoom makes a profit. pinterest is the other big technology company going out today. that's i guess you would call that a video, sort -- ashley: videoconferencing. stuart: no, no. pinterest. ashley: pinterest. stuart: that is the bulletin board, online picture bulletin board. 250 million active monthly use years 2/3 women. stuart: 2/3 women. ashley: advertisers like that. stuart: thank thank you for filn my sentences, sir. the expected first trade is around expected $23 a share. wall street, big picture here. dow jones industrial average is on the upside. we had positive economic news out this morning.

43 points up for the dow. around 26,500. you're about 300, 400 points away from the all time closing high for the dow industrials. that's where we are. what's next? tell me? ashley: what would you like? stuart: a break. liz: there is now, democrat leadership is piling on william barr. stuart: what do they say. >> nancy pelosi saying ag barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by trump administration. you have chuck schumer saying campaign conference is over. let's read the report. chuck schumer and nancy pelosi. stuart: speaker pelosi says it is what -- liz: basically, do you have it, ash? stuart: what's the word? >> liz: ag barr confirmed staggering partisan effort by the trump administration effort to spin the public view of mueller report, complete with acknowledgement that the trump team received a sneak preview. more urgent than ever that

mueller testify before congress. stuart: staggering partisan effort is key words. ashley: that all they have got. stuart: anything from senator schumer. liz: senator chuck schumer the trump campaign conference is over. let's read the report. liz: mocking the barr report, conference. stuart: that is mockery indeed. let me put that on the air we have senator schumer's tweet. i will read it for you. now that president trump's campaign press conference is over, that is the mockery part, liz, you're right there, it is time for congress and the american public to see the mueller report. ashley: yeah. stuart: well you're going to. and you're going to have mueller testify as well. liz: should be noted deputy attorney general rod rosenstein the president didn't like him. in fact really was undercutting rod rosenstein. the president did not like robert mueller. there was reports that the president wanted to even fire robert mueller. people from mueller's team

worked on the redactions with rod rosenstein. two people not in the president's let's say wheelhouse or favor. so. stuart: okay. by the way, i'm sitting here in the studio in new york. i've got monitor screens all over the place. i've got one there on msnbc. and i have yet to see a smile. you can tell it's a good day for the president, they're not smiling victoria is still with us, heard me say that, and laughed. thank you, victoria. there she is. thank you very much indeed. >> i'm smiling. stuart: well, look, i'm pleased -- victoria, i'm happy for america. we have been dragged through the dirt for two years with all kinds of insinuations made against our duly elected president, and now he's being cleared and i think all americans should rejoice in this. what say you, victoria? >> well, unless you want to overturn an election, then you aren't very happy. unless you have been lying to people for two years, and then

you're not very happy. they are acting like a whole bunch of 2-year-olds who need a nap. i want a cookie, oh, no, not that cookie. they keep moving the goalposts every single time something happens. now it's the bill barr report, it's not the mueller report. excuse me, it's the mueller report. we will all enjoy reading it today. stuart: keep that smile going, victoria. left-hand side of your screen, everyone, that's vice president pence arriving at the white house for the event for wounded warriors. you have just seen him walk down the line of wounded warriors and their representatives. the president will be there shortly. he's making an award or speaking to the wounded warriors organization. now, when he appears, i don't know about you, but i've got no doubt in my mind he will say something about william barr's press conference this morning. it's too good an opportunity to miss. and this president never, ever misses an opportunity. ashley: as he should. stuart: well said. ashley: he should. stuart: as he should. ashley: after all of this, he has every right to fight back.

stuart: after being accused of being a russian agent for the last two years. liz: still accused. stuart: by democrats. and now that's completely false. that's absolutely untrue and proven to be so. he did not obstruct justice. he did not collude with the russians. now it's been shown. the man has every right to come back and start firing. why not? come on, everybody. come on. what's next? 10:58 eastern time. where are we going with this? i'm having fun. i don't want to get off the air. ashley: keep going. stuart: show me the big board. why not? the barr press conference started, the dow went up over 100 points, came back down again. ashley: we have been in the same range now for 45 minutes. stuart: we have indeed. 26,500. now, we should not ignore what's going on on the market this morning. we had some very, very good economic news. specifically, i call this the firing rate.

it's a new jobless claim, that's the technical word for it, basically how many people got fired, how many were laid off. it's at a near 50-year low. only 192,000 first-time jobless claims. ashley: lot less than expected. stuart: lot less than expected. well under 200,000. liz: really powerful march after a powerful january and february for retail sales. stuart: retail sales up, i don't like playing the expectations game. liz: i know. stuart: it was not expected. ashley: people are spending. that's good. stuart: not sure what's on the right-hand side of the screen. i think we are lining up people in the halls of congress, by the looks of it. that's the wounded warriors thing on the white house there. we are awaiting president trump. he's expected to speak to the wounded warriors and he may well address that lightly redacted mueller report which by the way, is going to be released to congress in about 15 seconds,

literally. shortly thereafter, the department of justice will put it online so we can all read it at will. now, i'm told that it is lightly redacted. okay? that means not much of it is blacked out. some members of congress will see the entire report, with only little tiny bits of it blacked out, where the law requires blacking out and redaction. it's 11:00 eastern time. i think that's now been presented to the congress. ashley: it is indeed. stuart: as we speak. liz: they will pore through ten episodes of alleged obstruction cited by the mueller report. stuart: isn't it great? ashley: yes. stuart: a couple of immigrants sitting here watching history unfold in america. one of the great days in american history. our president absolved from any collusion with those wicked russians after two years of insinuatio insinuations. ashley: here we are at this point, time to move on.

stuart: two years of name calling. liz: they won't move on. stuart: they will undermine democracy, undermine the great institutions. quickly, the other story on wall street is the two big ipos. pinterest and zoom. i will update you first on pinterest. we have an indication that the first trade will be around $23.50. now, this stock is going out at $19 so you've got a pretty good pop there to $23.50 if that is indeed the first price. the real pop here is at zoom. the video conferencing company going out at $36, with the expected first price, first trade will be just around $60 per share. so somebody's real happy this morning. ashley: oh, yes. stuart: you got a piece of zoom? ashley: good for you. stuart: smile. it's 11:01 eastern time. shall i recap what we have seen in the last 90 minutes, last two hours? okay.

let me do that for you. here we go. attorney general william barr, 9:33, i believe he appeared at the podium, and launched into seven different times he said there was no collusion, there was no evidence of any kind that anybody in the trump campaign had coordinated with the russians or cooperated with the russians or conspired with the russians. didn't happen. the russians tried, they launched a disinformation campaign. the report, by the way, has been posted online. now, the russians engaged in a disinformation campaign, they hacked into computers over here, concerning the election. they met people one-on-one. they were trying to influence the election. they failed. nobody in the trump campaign bit on the russian bait. nobody did that. no collusion. then mr. barr went on to discuss obstruction of justice. he said that look, on ten occasions, there were ten episodes involving the president

and possible obstruction because the president had been angry, he had been angered by what mr. barr called relentless media claims of culpability. he had been called names. he had been called a russian agent and he was angry. so on occasion, he may well have said to his people fire mueller, i'm going to fire him, i'm not happy. that does not amount to obstruction of justice. in fact, president trump cooperated in full with the entire organization, the entire mueller report. he did not use executive privilege to redact anything from the mueller report. nor did any member outside the department of justice. nobody had a role in redactions at all outside the department of justice. there was no interference in this. that's my summary. okay? what a day. brad blakeman is here, former deputy assistant to bush 43. how am i doing? >> i think you summed it up perfectly. stuart: it was a great day for

the president. case closed. >> nope. the legal case is closed. the question of politics now just begins. because now the democrats will spin those ten items of obstruction of justice that were reviewed by mueller, mueller then gave the report to barr, barr and rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, looked at that and said there is no obstruction of justice legally. now, politically, they will parse it and they will abuse it, and they will make allegations that politically, they have found an obstruction of justice. the question is what do they do with it. the only avenue of redress the democrats would have is to bring articles of impeachment in the house. certainly i don't think the american people would stomach that because they know the exhaustive two-year investigation found no criminal liability. how can there be high crimes and misdemeanors when the president has been exonerated? stuart: i just want to restate

what i said just a moment ago. we do not know what those ten instances, those ten occasions involving the president and possible obstruction of justice, we don't know what they are. i suggested they might have been when the president was angry. i do not know that. i'm inferring that. let's be clear. there were also occasions where attorney general barr and robert mueller disagreed on obstruction of justice and how to go about saying it and presenting it. i should make sure that there are those limitations there to what i said previously. but look, we've got nancy pelosi, speaker pelosi saying attorney general barr mounted a staggering partisan effort and senator schumer is saying basically, the statement from barr was part of the trump campaign. ashley: and elizabeth warren weighing in saying it's a disgrace to see an attorney general acting as if he's the

personal attorney and publicist for the president of the united states. >> the attorney general did his job. that's what they are frustrated. in one sense, they want the attorney general to follow the law, but only the laws they agree with. the fact is he followed it. he did everything he was supposed foto do. the problem is they don't like the result. they wanted everything released. legally, he is not entitled to release it. so in one sense congress says the president should follow the law, the attorney general should follow the law but only the laws that they seek to be followed. and disregard the rest. this is hypocrisy at its finest. one thing we saw today, the justice system works in the end. stuart: americans should be cheerful about that. brad, stay there for a second. edward lawrence in d.c., what have you got for me? reporter: yeah, just the special counsel's report is meant to show the level at which the russians tried to affect our presidential elections and that's the reason the attorney general says this is a very important report. he also did the obstruction of

justice issue. attorney general says he and the deputy attorney general disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories but they said some of the episodes they examined did not amount to obstruction of justice, they believed. still, using mueller's framework, barr says the white house fully cooperated. listen. stuart: hold on a second. i have to go to the white house. president trump has arrived there for his meeting with the wounded warriors people. he's standing in front of them right now. i want to listen in for a minute. let's see what he's doing, what he's saying. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. please. i am thrilled to host the wounded warrior project. it's been a long relationship i've had andsoldier ride is very, very special. something few people can do,

including me. i hate to admit that, general. including me. we are deeply honored to be in the presence of true american heroes. i want to thank our great vice president, mike pence, and karen pence, for being with us today. thank you. mike, stand up. and theirs is really a fierce devotion, i can tell you that. i deal with mike and karen. they have a fierce devotion to america's veterans and we all do. thank you very much. we're also grateful to be joined by acting defense secretary patrick shanahan. patrick, thank you very much. great job you do. 100% of the caliphate, so that was great. that was one of our early assignments, right? so i appreciate it. great job.

general counsel of veteran affairs, jim byrne. thank you very much, jim. great job. and army vice chief of staff, general james mcconville. james, thank you, james. i also want to thank two great congressmen for being here and if we had room, we would have had a lot more. phil rowe and james baird. thank you very much. and they're having a good day. i'm having a good day, too. it was called no collusion, no obstruction. there never was, by the way, and there never will be.

we do have to get to the bottom of these things, i will say. this should never happen. i say this in front of my friends, wounded warriors, and i just call them warriors because we just shook hands and they look great. they look so good, so beautiful, but i say it in front of my friends, this should never happen to another president again. this hoax, it should never happen to another president again. thank you. with us onstage today are the wounded warriors from the air force, the army, the navy, the coast guard, the national guard and the marine corps. each of you is a living testament to the outstanding determination, persistence and patriotism that made this the greatest nation ever to exist on the face of the earth. and as you know, we are spending the biggest number of dollars we've ever spent, not even close, you know that very well,

general. $700 billion my first year. i won't even tell you how much higher than before we got here. then $716 and this year, we're even trying to up it, we are rebuilding our military like never before. stuart: there's the president of the united states, donald j. trump, addressing the wounded warriors. he did make a brief mention of what we saw earlier this morning in william barr's press conference. he said i'm having a good day, no collusion, no obstruction. this should never happen to another president again. that's what he said. the president appears very happy with the proceedings thus far today. and brad blakeman is with me. so he should. i think he's had a very good day thus far. >> there's no doubt about it. but the democrats are only going to focus now on the redactions. and the redactions are minimal and the redactions are required by law. if the democrats don't like it, they have a redress. go to court and make your case as to why the law should not be followed to protect sources and

methods, grand jury and innocents caught up in this investigation. the president did a superb job in cooperating and there was no mention that the president or his staff or anybody related to him obstructed justice in their cooperation with mueller. stuart: barr specifically said that the president did not interfere in the mueller report. >> fully cooperated. stuart: did not do anything of the kind. by the way, i'm looking at competing channels. the leftists, all they've got is they're showing a couple of redactions. that's all they've got. they are insinuating coverup. liz: ash and i are going through the mueller report right now, and the ten episodes, the allegations of obstruction, is asking jeff sessions, an attorney general, to recuse himself -- rather, not to recuse himself in the mueller probe, unrecuse, asked the heads of the cia and nsa and director of intelligence to dispel any trump

russia collusion. this is what they are saying the president did, and the president asked james comey to publicly said he was not being investigated by the fbi. that's the information now coming in about the allegations of obstruction. stuart: i'm going to break into this. we have susan li at the nasdaq who has the latest on zoom. this ipo, i'm looking at a really big pop. is that still the case? susan: yeah. we are looking at close to 70% up from its offer price. we are moving around three million shares. the lead underwriter and market maker is morgan stanley and looks like they right now are not in a rush, they tell us they are not in a rush to open the trade just yet. a lot of demand out there so it looks like three million shares are being traded at this point. back to you. stuart: thank you, susan. the dow industrials are now up 78 points. i wonder if that's any reaction to the barr press conference and the release of the mueller report which has now been out

there for 13 minutes. yeah, up 80 points, 26,528, up about a third of 1%. it's a rally on wall street, this barr testimony day. back to pinterest, the ipo there on the new york stock exchange. gerri willis, what have you got for me now? gerri: all right. they have added 23.5 to the price on 9.5 million shares now so they are getting closer. they are easing their way into getting this stock open this morning. it takes awhile down here. there's a lot of conversation, price discovery is a long thing but -- this is it, guys. we are close. $23.75 on ten now. $23.75 on ten. that's what we're hearing. this is a big ipo, to be sure. 75 million shares. we are watching at price discovery, a newly public company. that's what we are talking about. why do people do this on the floor of the new york stock exchange, because they have people who will negotiate these

prices. it's not about the machines. it's about the human beings negotiating this price. we have been talking about pinterest all morning. one of the interesting things about this company, it has no earnings, no profits, as you know, but they are narrowing those losses. revenues up 60% year over year. the biggest risk according to what i was reading last night, people lose interest so they have people who do nothing but keeping the attention of those folks. this is about to come, i think, any moment now. we await the first pricing on pinterest. last night it was $19 was the pricing, up from $15 to $17 originally. now it looks like it will come as something like $23.50 is what we're looking at. they matched apparently nine million orders and that's because it's typically 10% of the float, 75 million shares, that's a pretty big deal. everybody waiting with baited

breath as the san francisco based company comes public on the floor of the new york stock exchange. i got to tell you, i think the birth of a public company is a very exciting thing. we have probably 200 employees down here who are watching. i think somebody's in my ear, please repeat here? do we have a final price here? still waiting. $23.75 now. $23.75. stuart: okay. these technology ipos are very, very important. this is an opportunity for ordinary people, you and i, to buy a piece of the action. that's what we want. if you want to be participating, you want to be participating in this american technology, you can do it. you can do it as of today by investing in pinterest if that's what you want. you can invest in zoom, if that's what you want. bottom line is, this is the united states of america.

these are american companies. they are going public today and if you want to be in on the ground floor of this extraordinary performance by american technology companies, you can. i'm not suggesting that you do. you don't have to buy these things. you don't have to. but you've got the choice. coming up later, not today, but later this year, you are going to get -- who is it? who else have we got? we have uber coming up. that could raise $100 billion. talk about getting in on the ground floor with new technology. and airbnb maybe this year, i don't know what the price would be, but maybe this year. this is an opportunity for all americans, anybody anywhere in the world, if you want a piece of our action, a piece of america's technology action, this is it. as you heard from gerri willis on the new york stock exchange, we're about to get probably the very first trade in pinterest. it's going out at $19 a share. the likely first trade is around $23.75. i can't do the math in my head

but that's a pop of 20%? ashley: yeah. stuart: very roughly speaking. on the other side of the coin is zoom, going out on the nasdaq composite, the nasdaq market, and that, there's a real pop there. look at it, left-hand side of the screen. see that interest? that's because the price is going straight up. ashley: 70% pop. stuart: a 70% pop. now, zoom is going out at $36. that's the price, the offering price. the first trade is likely to be around $60 per share. so that is a pop and a half, is it not. that's why there's all this excitement on wall street, even though you've got an enormous amount of excitement in d.c. surrounding the barr press conference and the mueller report. ashley: i've got to give you a nugget. stuart: hold on a second. the mueller report is out. ash has been reading it. give me the nugget. ashley: this is the president's reaction according to the report

on being told that the special counsel is being appointed. apparently he slumped back in his chair, said quote, oh, my god, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency, i'm f. the president became very angry, lambasting the attorney general for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating how could you let this happen, jeff? everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency, it takes years and years. i won't be able to do anything. this is the worst thing that's ever happened to me. stuart: there's a nugget and a half. ashley: very interesting. stuart: hold on a second. edward lawrence in d.c., come on in. what have you got for me? reporter: this is on obstruction of justice, later on in the report. the president or the special counsel looking to see whether the president obstructed justice related to this investigation. very interesting, he said in this report, it says if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. it goes on to say based on the

facts of the applicable legal grounds, we are unable to reach the judgment or reach that judgment. so basically, what the report is saying there is that they were not able to unequivocally say the president was cleared of obstruction of justice but under the law, they could not say that he did obstruct justice. this is the section that the democrats are really going to try and key on and hammer away. again, the report not saying the president obstructed justice, just saying they couldn't prove that he did not obstruct justice. stuart: got it. edward, thank you very much indeed. how about this. democrat senator, presidential candidate elizabeth warren. here's her tweet. the a.g. is supposed to serve as the country's top law enforcement officer, someone who stands up for the rule of law and defends the u.s. constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. william barr is standing up for only one person, tpt of the united states. come in, judge napolitano. what do you make of the elizabeth warren tweet? >> i reject it entirely, stuart.

because under our system, one person has the final say about whether equivocal evidence, evidence that could be interpreted as guilt or not guilt, is sufficient to charge. normally, that person is not the attorney general, because normally the defendant or proposed defendant is not the president. but here, it is the president. here, the attorney general makes the determination. we are scrambling to read this right now. but as i read it, there is some evidence of obstruction of justice and a lot of evidence that it was not obstruction. when the attorney general weighed and balanced the it is evidence versus it is not evidence, he came to the equ qualitative conclusion that they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, the president is not going to be charged. stuart: that will be the basis of the democrats' proposition going forward. am i right? >> yes, you are. the democrats will examine each

of these ten events, some of which we know about, some we didn't, which ash just described so nicely for us. the democrats will examine each of these ten events with their own legal teams that the house judiciary committee already has, and they will come to their own conclusion, they will second-guess, they will second-guess the attorney general. stuart: judge, i'm going to read that report. i think it will read like a novel. all right. let's get back to susan li at the nasdaq. we are close to the first trade? susan: we are indeed. we just had a two-minute count two minutes ago. i think there has been a bit of a silence here as we await the first trade. we are looking at $65 right now, four million shares being traded. that's a pop of 75% on day one. some would say this is dessert. we knew there was a lot of hype for this heading into it because it was 30 times oversubscribed. they raised their price range twice, by the way, in this offering. they are one of the rare

unicorns making money, $7 million in actual profit last year. i can tell you there's a lot of investor interest. they are trying to move this order book. it's pretty good flow. looks like morgan stanley is ready to go at $65, four million shares. that puts the value at close to $9 million if we open at $65 which is the price indicated at this point. looks like the company may have doubled in just one day. the executives are behind me, right now surrounding the agents that will make the first trade, try to balance that book between buy and sell. we are told we are very close. we were told two minutes ago. we're still waiting. there you go. open for trade. they are very, very happy employees.

they are making quite a return here on day one of trade. can you hear me? back to you. stuart: i hear you. well done, susan. you got in there first. that's the first report of the first trade. there you have it. zoom now trading at $65 a share. that's an 80% pop. susan, i know you are right in the middle of it, very exciting stuff. give me a sense of what's going on. susan: okay. they are congratulating the employees. the founder as well. half of this offering was from the early backers, the venture capitalists like the big funds out of silicon valley. yes, they have made a pretty good change on day one, up 80%. 11 million shares were from early investors, $9 million is the actual cash raise for the company. i think they are pretty good with some 80%. stuart: by the way, everyone, if

you don't know what zoom is, let me try and tell you. it is a video conferencing company. bottom line is that it also has a little bit of action in the cloud which is of course, a rapidly expanding back office business for major corporations. i believe zoom has some activity there. it's also a profitable company and also, it has extremely high quality video and audio. if you have ever tried some competing services, they don't always match up. i am told zoom is the best of the lot. if you want to have some kind of video conference, zoom, i am told, is the high quality operator. i don't use it, never seen it, but that's what i'm told. look at that stock go. a 78% pop. out of sight. susan, i don't know whether you can hear my description there of zoom. susan: i heard that. after all the celebration and champagne popping taking place here after the first trade. stuart: did i get it right?

it's a video conferencing company, very high quality stuff? susan: very high quality. great user experience. it's basically me and you interacting face-to-face. you need that, especially in this sort of environment where it is a globalized world, you have teams dispersed around the world. you have to be nimble so what zoom enables you to do is to cooperate, to work together via video conference on your phones and in traditional boardrooms or conference rooms. it's very high quality and it's not skype. stuart: sounds like a party going on down there. not surprised. some people just got real rich. good stuff. let's get to the pinterest ipo. gerri willis at the new york stock exchange. is a trade imminent? gerri: a trade is imminent. i think we are going to get an open price here shortly. it could happen any time, even when i'm in front of this static cam. let me tell you what's going on. last indication, $23.75 on 11 million. i have to tell you one of the

traders told me goldman sachs pulling this out, lengthening this out trying to get the best price possible. we are waiting and as you know, the share price was originally going to be 15 to 17. last night priced at 19. now indications, $23.25 to $23.75. we are just waiting with baited breath. i have to tell you, it got really quiet just a few moments ago, and i thought we were really going to go. the head of the new york stock exchange actually walked up to the post and i thought it was going to go right there. we're still waiting. cameras are being raised, i can see in the shot right now, and hopefully we will get a price shortly. as you know, this company has -- this is it. stuart: is that it? gerri: yeah, this is it. i don't think you get cheering like that for any other reason. $23.75. $23.75 is the open. that's a 4.85%, 25% gain.

you can see, boy, that took a lot. holy cow. that was exciting stuff. pinterest, san francisco based company, they are an online bulletin board that sells advertising. 200 of their employees are here today to cheer them on. they were all really excited to get here. we saw the ceo, we saw the founders for the exchange ringing the bell. most interesting fact about this company, in my view, eight of ten moms in this country are n pinners. it's coming up a little bit. this is the first of a newly public company we are witnessing down here. people do it here on the floor of the new york stock exchange. human beings shepherd that price. some people like that better. they like human beings to be in charge of the trades as opposed to computers. so that's why they are down here. i have to tell you, lot of people excited about this. this is really day one for tech trading as we know. we saw lyft last week, though

shares have gone down from their ipo price. everybody is watching. pinterest is a case study, really, for these tech stocks. we are seeing up 25%, good news for shareholders. by the way, the voting for this stock is going to be very closely held. this is one of those special cases where the voting rights stay with the founders, stay with the ceo, and his circle of folks. if you are thinking you are going to buy pinterest shares and vote them, try to influence this company in some way, probably not. up 24% now as we continue to watch pinterest shares as they open. you can see there are a lot of excited people here. i have to tell you, here's how hot the ipo market is. this wasn't the only ipo today. there was another ipo. they are coming hard, they are coming fast, and we are watching all of it. back to you. stuart: i think gerri willis and susan li have both given us a sense of the excitement that's going on on the nasdaq and the

new york stock exchange. and exciting, it is. it's not just that money has been made. it's that two american technology companies have gone to the marketplace, allowed us to buy a piece of the action, if that's what we want, and the share price on both occasions has zoomed, forgive the pun, zoom has gone up 80% from its going-out price, from $36 a share, the going-out, it's now at $60 per share. it had been higher than that. okay. you're looking at a 70% pop as of right now. pinterest, they just started trading, just over $23 a share. i think it was $23.75. you're looking at $23.26 now on pinterest and that is a very nice pop there, 22% higher. not bad for a company which does not make a profit. zoom makes a profit. pinterest does not. we'll see about what happens in the future. what a day on wall street. extraordinary stuff. ashley: what a day, period. stuart: what a day, period.

look, i'm going to break away just a little, if i may. i've got a special guest with us. his name is robert goldstone, okay? you may not know him, but this is the guy who wrote the most famous e-mail that led to the trump tower meeting. he wrote the book about this, it's called "pop stars, pageants and presidents." welcome to the program. i want to get right at it here. you were in the room, you were in the meeting. donald trump jr., i think who else was there? kushner, jared kushner was there. >> paul manafort. stuart: paul manafort was there. that was the meeting which everybody centered in on. was there any evidence of collusion or manipulation in that meeting? you were there. >> i was there. and we have seen so many people who have nothing to do with this give their opinion. so let me give you someone who was there. i've said from the very beginning that if my e-mail and the subsequent meeting formed perhaps the cornerstone of what was perceived to be evidence of

collusion, there would be no collusion. stuart: there was none. from your perspective. >> from my perspective, and i'm not an expert, i'm not a legal expert, but i sat in that meeting. stuart: this was where there was a russian lawyer and i thought that was supposed to be about the adoption of children from russia, right? >> so that becomes very confusing to people. you know, in my e-mail which was -- i have said it quite publicly, i have testified including to mueller and the grand jury, this was a publicist which is what i am puffing up an e-mail to get donald trump jr.'s attention. it was as simple as that. people have speculated as to a million different reasons why i sent that e-mail. i sent it to get his attention. and to get him to take a call with my client, which led to the meeting. so if we put that in perspective, i then was in the meeting itself. the so-called dirt that people have talked about for two years now was that natalia v

veselnitskaya talked about how people were making donations to hillary's campaign, to the democrats. it was very generic. so much so that jared kushner, who was sitting next the me, said at one point i have no idea what you're talking about, could you refocus. it was at that point when she switched and talked about the real reason she said she wanted to be there which turned out to be the magnitsky act and the sanctions and how awful that was because of the sanctions that had been put in place on adoptions, and people keep saying why are you all talking about adoptions, it's a lie. i walked out of that meeting with only one word sticking in my mind. why did we just have a meeting about adoption. and anyone that knows the magnitsky act, i have never heard of it before that meeting, i should now actually be the poster child for it. that's all i talk about now, is the adoptions. it's a relevant part of that. it was the sanctions russia put

in place against america, apparently. stuart: that's what it was all about. >> that's what it was all about. stuart: nothing to do with interfering in our election. >> nothing that was said, you know. i guess robert mueller and his people spent a long time investigating just what went on. but i always believed that so many people said i was a russian spy, i was putin's puppet, i was all those things, and very infrequently did somebody say wasn't he just a publicist who puffed up an e-mail. stuart: that's what you were. >> that's what i was. stuart: we heard from the attorney general about the mueller report, no collusion. he said it on seven different occasions. no obstruction of justice. do you feel vindicated? >> it's not just that i feel vindicated. look at how many other people like me have had their lives kind of turned upside down for a couple of years, and i'm not saying poor me, poor me, but you know, it's very tough to go through this sort of investigation. even if you fundamentally know

you have done nothing wrong. i mean, i say this to people all the time. try and remember what you said to somebody last week and then try and say it under oath. it's a very, very big ordeal. so do i feel vindicated? in a way, but i always knew and believed and had confidence that bob mueller and his team would come to the conclusion that would make perfect sense knowing what i know about my part in all of this. and by my pashths i mean the e-mail and the subsequent meeting. and that meeting really has been in the news all of this time. stuart: yes. robert goldstone, thank you very much for being with us and sharing your story today. that's real good stuff and we really appreciate it. thank you very much indeed. back to the mueller report and the barr press conference. edward lawrence is there, in d.c., read the report or chunks of it. what's new information do you have? reporter: i'm a speed reader but not that fast. 448 pages. the mueller report looked at ten specific instances where they thought could be obstruction of

justice. a few of them on january 27th, 2017, when dinner with the former fbi director james comey, where the president reportedly asked for comey's loyalty. the second one, february 14th, 2017, meeting with comey again where the president reportedly asked comey not to pursue an investigation of flynn. the president's private request to comey that made public the fact that the president was not subject of an investigation. the president also, the outreach he made to the national intelligence director and directors of the national security agency, the fbi, related to the russia probe. another one he looked at was the president's rationale for terminating comey on may 9th. also, the investigators looked at the president's reported involvement in issuing a statement on or about june 9th from the trump tower meeting, or related to the trump tower meeting with his son, donald jr. there was a number of different instances they looked at but again, the mueller report doesn't go as far as saying he committed obstruction of justice, just saying they could

not determine that he did commit obstruction of justice. so again, something they looked at, something the democrats will probably key in on, but not enough to actually go forward with anything related to obstruction of justice. stuart: edward lawrence, thank you very much. keep reading, please. i'm sure it reads very well. judge napolitano is with us, host of "the liberty file" on the fox nation operation, now judge, you heard what edward lawrence had to say. your comment, please? >> again, these are qualitative judgments that were not made by bob mueller, but were made by bill barr, that whatever is there was not enough to constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction. look, there's a lot of things the president is not going to like. there's an instance in here in which he apparently asked k.t. mcfarland to create a false narrative about his conversations with michael flynn and in return offered her the ambassadorship to singapore. according to bob mueller, that was wrong, it was bad, it was an effort to obstruct justice but

decided they didn't want to prosecute it. before rudy and company are saying a knockout total victory, they are going to have a lot of things in here they are going to have to address and this k.t. mcfarland incident is apparently just one of them. the bottom line is the decider, the attorney general, decided after looking at all the evidence in favor of prosecuting for obstruction and all of the exculpatory evidence, the exculpatory outweigh the evidence of guilt, therefore they would not prosecute. but there is a word that the attorney general used three sundays ago that he did not use today. exonerate. stuart: okay. >> i think he took a step back from that because he realized the doj is not in the business of exonerating. it's in the business of deciding whether or not there's enough evidence to prove a case. if it is, they go for it. if it isn't, they stay silent. stuart: i suspect the democrats will dig into this, expose the k.t. mcfarland false narrative

general flynn, talk about that, and also about the president's language. i believe ashley talked about he used bad language, for example. >> you know -- stuart: they will say he acted unpresidential. that's what they'll say. >> the president's language is nothing new to anyone who knows the president. if i could tell you the stories, but i can't. the president's language as ashley quoted from the report is nothing new to anybody that knows the president or has spent any private off-air time with him. whether that's presidential or not is irrelevant. that language is not the basis for impeachment. if the democrats think that the president's use of four-letter words is a basis for impeachment they have to go back to law school. stuart: from what you have seen so far, can you say categorically there are no legal grounds to charge this president with obstruction of justice? >> i can't. i can say that the attorney

general forms that conclusion. i might come to the same conclusion, i might not. i have only seen the 400 page report, i haven't seen the raw evidence. but i have faith and confidence in that conclusion. look, if these conclusions, as is going to happen in the next days and weeks and months, keep getting reexamined and reexamined and reexamined, there will be no finality to any of this. but we know this is final. the legal jeopardy towards donald trump is over. the page is turned. what remains is political jeopardy. i don't know how that ends. stuart: okay. thanks very much, judge. stay there. i'm sure you've got more for us. you always do. thank you very much, judge. brad blakeman is still with me. your judgment, you have heard all of this, you have heard some of the stories coming out of the mueller report, you have heard what ash had to say about the statements being made. the president still looks good, doesn't he? i'm trying hard to find fault with the man. >> you have to look at the totality of the two years. what did the president do. first of all, we know the

president has never held political office before. the president is not an attorney. the president is being attacked relentlessly. democrats are lying. we have schiff and swalwell coming out before the television cameras saying we have evidence. they had no evidence. they had no evidence. the president felt cornered. he knew he was innocent. this is what innocent people do, they try and clear themselves. you have the entire judicial system coming down on the president. you have the political system coming down on the president. democrats want him removed, yet they have no basis for it. now he's been cleared. as far as a matter of law criminally. now it moves to the political process. good luck to democrats trying to make a case against this president for impeachment. nancy pelosi said it already. it's not on the table. stuart: no. and i don't think this country wants an extended, another two years of digging into mueller, retrying russia, russia, russia. i just don't think they want that. >> here's the beauty of our

system. we are seeing it today with the ipos. whatever is happening in washington, the beauty of our system is there's confidence out there. our system works. stuart: right. yeah. >> the markets are reflecting that. stuart: no collusion. our president was not a russian agent. every american should be happy about that. and relieved, indeed. thank you very much indeed. now, we showed you the president speaking to the wounded warriors people. that was just a few minutes ago. listen to what mr. trump said about mueller and the press conference this morning. roll it, please. >> and i'm having a good day, too. it was called no collusion, no obstruction. there never was, by the way, and there never will be. stuart: okay. bring in former georgia congressman bob barr. bob, welcome back. good to see you again, sir. >> thank you, stuart.

a lot going on. glad to be with you. stuart: please compare jerrold nadler and what he's been saying recently and again today with what he was saying when you were active in politics back in the 1990s. go. >> right now, jerry nadler has told us long before bill barr's presentation today or even last month that we, that is we the democrats, and i, jerry nadler, know that there was collusion. he's made very clear that he has jumped ahead of any evidence, any conclusions by trained lawyers who have looked at the massive evidence in this case, and made his own conclusion from which he is not going to waver. contrast that, of course, with jerry nadler's position 20 years ago with the clinton probe and the starr report which came up to the house. he wanted to have no part of that. there's nothing here, nothing to look at, folks, just go home, and of course, neither he nor

any other democrat looked at the actual evidence in the starr report. it's like night and day, stuart. stuart: okay. bob, i'm just going to read you a little excerpt from the special counsel's report. this is what president trump said when told that a special counsel had been appointed. this is what the president said. this is the end of my presidency, that's according to the mueller report. everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency. i'm f'ed, he said. any response to that, bob barr? >> well, i mean, i suspect that any new president, particularly one who is not himself or herself a trained lawyer or former prosecutor, might have the same reaction. now, thankfully in this case, the report or the investigation took only two years, but the president's concern at the very beginning of his administration, particularly with what he knew about what had already gone on

with surveillance of his campaign and his post-campaign, pre-presidency operation, certainly had every right to be concerned about it, and i would think that any democrat in the same situation would be just as concerned as they start their administration. stuart: i do want to bring up one more point. mueller, robert mueller, considered trump's written answers quote, inadequate. that's what the mueller report said. the special counsel's report said that the team, the mueller team, chose not to pursue a subpoena because of the substantial delay that would cause. i suspect the democrats are going to go right at that, bob barr. >> i really don't think that it was so much that the mueller team was worried about a delay. i suspect that the real concern was there's not -- there's nothing here. there is no obstruction. they dug deep, they had

thousands of interviews, hundreds of subpoenas and yet they could not find obstruction as hard as they tried. contrast that here again with the obstruction count that was passed by the house in 1998 against president clinton, or the obstruction charge that was passed by the house judiciary committee against president nixon. they were based on real hard facts and evidence that showed that a president, nixon and clinton, had taken specific steps in order to keep witnesses from testifying or to change their testimony. none of that was present or even close to being present in this case. stuart: okay. bob barr, thank you very much, sir. just asking our producers for a second, do we have judge napolitano still available? judge, okay, come on in, please. listen to this. i'm reading this from "the washington post." william barr just did trump another favor.

subtitle, laying out the facts is one thing, providing a defense for president trump on obstruction is another. go. >> i don't buy that, stuart. i mean, maybe it's because i have been in the system so long. the system ultimately causes these decisions to rest at the desk of one person and it is the attorney general. validly nominated and lawfully confirmed and properly in office. the democratic problem or the problem with the editorials at "the washington post" is they don't like the person that nominated him. what was his judgment within the realm of acceptable legal judgment, absolutely. would every lawyer have concluded the way he did, no. the lawyers on mueller's team couldn't come to a conclusion. but ultimately, these decisions rest with one person and he's made the decision. but, but there are tenets and as chad pergram counted them, 11 that they examine and there's evidence of attempts to obstruct

in each of them, but when you add them all up, there's not enough to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the bottom line on obstruction. stuart: but if there are 11 incidents, each one concerning obstruction, but they don't add up to a legal case for making obstruction of justice, that's not very good, is it? if you've got 11 instances, you put them all together and still prosecute -- >> let me, if i may, choose a different word. it's not very damning for the president. stuart: right. >> it's also not very good for him, because if people want to pursue this, these issues will continue to be in the political domain. but as we said earlier, they are no longer in the legal domain. stuart: judge, hold on for a second. i just want to revert to money for a moment. left-hand side of your screen, two big technology companies sold shares to the public for the first time today. zoom is truly zooming. it's up 73% from its offering price.

and pinterest is up 30% from its offering price. now, ashley got new details on mueller. ashley: mr. goldstone here couldn't comment on this. okay. by june of 2017, the president became aware of e-mails setting up that june 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and russians, who offered derogatory information on hillary clinton as part of russia and its government's support for mr. trump. on multiple occasions, it says, in late june and early july of 2017, the president directed aides not to publicly disclose the e-mails and then dictated a statement about the meeting to be issued by donald trump jr. describing the meeting as about adoption. stuart: mr. goldstone, ball's in your court. all of that accurate? >> well, whether it's accurate, i obviously haven't read the report. again, they have investigated this. they have gone through it. it sort of speaks to the fact that whenever i have heard don jr. or somebody like that say adoption and there's an outrage

about this, i think what's always been missing is the meeting did ultimately turn out to be about adoptions. but they obviously perceived going in that what was in my e-mail was something different. and maybe that's never been addressed correctly. but as i say, i have said from the very beginning even before i started testifying, i puffed up that e-mail. it didn't come from the russian government. it came from the mind of rob goldstone, who is sitting with you here today. stuart: did you -- were you investigated by mr. mueller? >> i was a voluntary witness and everyone i met with, including congressional committees in the senate and also the grand jury in a voluntary capacity. i was never i believe investigated as such. i have been involved -- stuart: because it was your e-mail which set up the trump tower meeting, don jr. and others, the russian lawyer, the lady who was really there to talk about russian adoption. but you set up that meeting with that puffed-up, as you call it,

e-mail. >> actually, if we are being completely accurate, i set up a call between don jr. and my client with that e-mail which led to the meeting. but yes, i was out to do that. so it's very much taken as i say for two years, because of that, they have used me as the link to show proof to the russian government. stuart: as part of puffing it up, did you say hey, we have some dirt on hillary clinton you need to hear? was that the puffing up? liz: or did anybody say that? >> they said that was -- my client said there was potentially damaging information to the democratic campaign and its candidate. well, there was, i sat there, but it was about very general statements by veselnitskaya, people like bill browder making donations to the democratic party. she could argue, i'm not trying to make her defense, it wasn't the dirt people thought. stuart: got it. thank you, sir. hold on a moment. from the house intelligence committee chair adam schiff, here we go, the house intelligence committee has formally invited special counsel mueller to testify on the

counter intelligence investigation. after a two-year investigation, the public deserves the facts, not attorney general barr's political spin. comment, please, mr. blakeman? >> i welcome any and all people who have something to add. the fact is, here's the rub. are they going to call him for a purpose that is fine and turn the hearing, as we have seen with barr and everyone else, into something else. that's the key. are they going to have a sideshow to get him before there, to the committee, then turn it -- stuart: then perform for the cameras. >> absolutely. that's the danger. stuart: political theater. >> how can anybody on the right say that they don't want mueller to testify, or they don't want barr to testify, or any other credible witness that can add something that we don't already know. the key to democrats in the house is they need to get these people in the chair under the guise of something else in order to make news happen. stuart: what chairman adam schiff will never do is look

deeply into how this thing got started. what did president barack obama know and when did he know it, what was hillary clinton up to, comey, et cetera, et cetera. he will not hold hearings into that, period. >> absolutely not. but barr has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of how this whole thing started, including the dossier, including the fisa warrant, including the political actions by high senior fbi officials and their family members. stuart: brad, thank you very much. edward lawrence poring through the report. what have you got for me now? new information, please. reporter: other nuggets about wikileaks. the democratic national committee e-mails july 22nd of 2016, now, following that, it looks like the mueller report, what he did is took the president's personal or public comments from a press release or press conference that happened days after that on july 27th and he bounced that off of michael cohen. the president's former personal

attorney, saying whether the president was saying was true or not true. basically the president during that, saying the wikileaks, if he had connection with wikileaks during that press conference, said that that was far-fetched. the president saying it was ridiculous. then mueller turned around and went back to cohen, asked him about oh, is this exactly what the president was saying behind the scenes, and not in terms of this, cohen said that through this, they developed a party line that there was no connection to the russians, there was no business with the russians. cohen also talking to the special counsel about the tower deal or possible tower in moscow deal, and through those conversations, according to this report, cohen says that the president developed this party line that he then disseminated through his campaign and everyone should repeat. stuart: edward lawrence, thank you very much indeed. i want to bring in christian whiton, former state department official. i know you have been listening to this all morning long. i think it's a good day for the president. i think he's clearly stated no collusion, no obstruction of justice. where are you coming from on

this? >> yeah. just addressing it from the view of foreign leaders who i think have been overinvested, they pay a little too much attention to the establishment media and establishment voices that may have thought realistically that the president was in danger. he is not in danger. he has been vindicated. your analysts have pointed out correctly of course, democrats will try and make hay. they won't. this is way too far in the weeds. the public i think has reached a conclusion, same as mueller, same as the attorney general, which is no collusion, no guilt at all. this strengthens the president whether dealing with foreign leaders, allies or adversaries. stuart: i think we all, americans, we should all celebrate this. i can't think of many countries in the world which would investigate ad nauseam a sitting president or prime minister, spend $25 million and two years going at the person. i don't think there's many other countries that would do that. now he's vindicated. in my book, the man is vindicated. no collusion, no obstruction of justice. i think this is a celebratory

moment for america. >> it is. and the attorney general alluded to that, too, that we should be happy that while they did find the russians attempted somewhat ham-fistedly to interfere in our election, there was no instance of an american who knowingly colluded with him in a criminal way. so not just great for the president, great for the american public. you know, there were of course people who were involved in obstruction of justice but frankly, it was the democrats. it was schiff, head of the house intelligence committee, who has said knowingly false things to his colleagues in congress, to the public, to his constituents, said he has some sort of information that was secret about collusion. we now know that not to be the case. now they are also in that position. i'm kind of stunned the democrats aren't looking for a way to get away from this, by bringing these people up, by actually calling mueller up to testify, it will actually make them look worse. stuart: but they are too heavily invested. they have spent two years and all their hopes on getting rid of this president or using the dirt on the president to win in 2020. they can't back off now.

i think they are too heavily sheft invested, right? >> right. their sort of inability and frankly, the lack of an agenda that's palatable, in the house their agenda is being run by not more moderate people elected from upstate new york, western pennsylvania and orange county, california, but three very left wing progressive people. they don't have an agenda. they thought this was their silver bullet. they are sort of stuck. stuart: okay. christian, thank you very much for joining us. i want to bring everybody back together again here who has been sitting with me for the last three hours, going through an historic day. first of all, to you, judge andrew napolitano. i want you to sum up the day so far as it's unraveled for you. >> the president is no longer in any legal jeopardy. he's no longer in any legal cross-hairs. the people who have the authority under our system of government to make that decision have made it. and they have done so based on a prudent and acceptable mode of analysis. but that will not satisfy his

opponents because there are at least 11 questionable incidents that the special counsel examined which will be stuart: legal trouble aside. now politics. pure politics from here on out, am i right, judge? >> in a word, yes. stuart: okay. that's the word i wanted, judge. i'm glad you supplied it properly. brad blakeman, with me, last comment from you, sir? >> legal jeopardy president has escaped because he is innocent. now the political theater continues. to my democratic friends i warn you, it is not enough to be against somebody or something, you have to stand for something. as far as the president is concerned move on because you will do it to your detriment down the course of trying to remove the president. stuart: as reaction continues to roll in. got this for you, senator amy klobuchar who is presidential candidate tweeted this. attorney general barr made it

clear he is not impartial when it comes to this investigation. now that we have the report, we should hear from robert mueller in public hearings. our democracy demands it. nobody is raising any objection to robert mueller testifying himself as far as i know. liz: that's right. house intelligence committee, republicans on it already asked adam schiff to resign for perceived bias. this moves from the court of law into the court of public opinion as the democrat party tries to indicate to voters yes, president trump is problematic in the white house given behaviors as outlined in the mueller report. stuart: what have you got, ash? ashley: to brad's point. democrats continue to hammer away because they're so invested in it, it is another losing strategy. quite right. the president moves on from here. he has been vindicated. he can move forward with his agenda as we move towards 2020. stuart: pay attention to the bottom of your screen. dow industrials are moving

closer to 100 points. i have to believe that has some connection to the no collusion and vindication of obstruction of justice from our president. market likes it. left-hand side of the screen, zoom up 72ers from the offering. pinter es up 25. neil, it is yours. neil: thank you, stuart. or that the attorney general somehow missed, sort of spoke when he talked about exonerating president or getting a pass on obstruction of justice, the market seems to have bet money that was not the case. again they are not worried about this report. or possibility that all this goes aside. that the political battles back and forth on this then there is the debut of these incredible offerings today, pinterest and zoom soaring well above their initial offering prices. we'll get to that. markets have