apparently they discussed it with the career ethics official and they made the recommendation. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an -- >> -- right. >> on march 24th, he sent out a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principle associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the

special counsel's office. so they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so, right after march 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we -- >> and you made the decision when? >> probably on sunday the 24th. >> that's the day the letter came out? >> yes. >> you didn't make the decision until the letter came out? >> no. >> you told somebody how to write the letter. when did you actually decide that there was no obstruction? >> >> the 24th. >> okay. when did you get the first draft of the mueller report? >> the first -- it wasn't a draft. we got the final. >> the first version of it that you saw? >> only version of it i saw. >> the only version you saw. >> the 22nd. >> the 22nd. you told senator harris that you made your decision on

the obstruction charge, you and rosenstein, based on the mueller report. did i correctly infer you made that decision then between the 22nd and the 24th? >> well, we had had a lot of discussions before the 22nd but the final decision was made on the 24th. yes. >> until the 22nd? >> we had more than two and a half days to consider this. llc had already done a lot of thinking about some of these issues even before we got the report and even before march 5th. they had been in regular contact. the department had been in regular contact with mueller's people and understood, you know their thinking. >> the llc was looking into the mueller investigation while it was going on and whiting of the evidence that they were gathering on obstruction before you saw -- >> -- my understanding -- i wasn't there.

but my understanding is that the deputy and the what we call the pay dak. were in regular contact with the mueller's team and getting briefings on evidence and some of their thinking and some of the issues. >> did they know enough -- >> -- llc was brought into some of those discussions. >> did they know enough to know it might need to be redacted before they saw the 322. >> no. the problem we had is we could not identify the 6 e material when the report came over. we needed the help of bob mueller's team to do that. >> lastly, can you assure me that nothing related to object destruction or the mueller report was discussed at your office of legal counsel brown bag lunch on june 27th? >> nothing about, what? >> nothing about the obstruction issue and nothing about the mueller

report itself was discussed when you had a brown bag lunch on june 27th with olc? >> yeah, i mean, we didn't discuss anything having to do with the mueller report or mueller's eventual position on obstruction. >> did you discuss your obstruction memo. >> i forgot if it was then but i think i have previously said that i mentioned that i a memo and was sending it to. >> have you not yet said that it was mentioned at this olc. >> well it was not at the brown bag lunch, no. >> my time is up. >> okay. we are -- the vote has started. we are going to split the time between senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal. we will try to go. they won't hold the vote open too long but let's start with senator klobuchar and see if we can do this. >> thank you. mr. attorney general on

april 27th, president trump stated mueller, i assume, from $35 million he checked my taxes and he checked my financials. is that accurate, that the special counsel reviewed the president's taxes and the trump organization's financial statements? >> i don't know. >> can you find out if i ask later in a written question? >> yes or you could ask bob mueller when he comes here. >> okay. well i will do that too. i think i will also ask you and obviously we would want to see them as underlying information. during my earlier questions, we went through a number of actions by the president that the special counsel looked into. my point was that we should be looking into the totality of the evidence and the pattern that the report develops. on page 13 of volume 2, the special counsel instructs that we do something similar. the report says, and this is a quote: circumstantial

evidence that illuminates intent may include a pattern of potentially obstructive acts. on this point the report cites three u.s. cases. u.s. v. franken houser, u.s. v. arnold and u.s. v sentollo. do you agree intent for a pattern of potentially obstructive acts? >> intent eventually has to be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. obviously, some inferences can be drawn from circumstantial evidence that can contribute to an overall determination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's one of the problems with this whole approach that is suggested in the special counsel's report, which it is trying to determine subjective intent of a lawful act and it

permits a lot of selectivity on the part of the prosecutors and it's been shot down in a number of other contexts. so, one of the reasons that we are very skeptical of this approach is that. >> you and director mueller or you the justice department? >> the justice department is that in this kind of situation where you have a facially innocent act and authorized by the constitution it's hard -- it's hard to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it's corrupt. >> i just want to get into a few more questions like senator whitehouse did. at your confirmation hearing you testified that in the absence of a violation of a statute the president would be accountable politically for abusing the pardon power. how do you reconcile your

suggestion that political accountability is available when the administration is refusing to comply with subpoenas and exerting executive privilege to stand in the way of that very accountability? >> as to a pardon? >> no. this was about in your confirmation hearing you said in the absence of a violation of a statute, the president would be, quote, accountable politically, end quote, for abusing the pardon power if he did. >> your question is abusing a power not just the pardon power. is that what you are saying? >> um-huh. >> well, i mean, it's hard to evaluate that. >> presidents have been held accountable for and as have other office holders. >> last question are the president's actions detailed in this report consistent with his oath of office and the requirement in the constitution that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed? >> is what consistent with that? >> i said are the president's actions detailed

in the report consistent with his oath of office and the requirement in the constitution that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed? >> well, the evidence in the report is conflicting and there is different evidence and they don't come to a determination as to how they are coming down on it. >> so you made that decision? >> yes. and as, you know, if -- >> we got -- >> -- okay. >> two minutes left. senator blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, i wonder if you could tell us about the conversation between yourself and bob mueller shortly after your summary was issued. he called you? >> no. i called him. >> what prompted you to call him? >> the letter.

>> your letter? or his letter? >> his letter. >> so you called him? >> yes. >> and how long did the conversation last? >> i don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes. there were multiple witnesses in the room. it was on a speaker phone. >> who was in the room? >> among others, the deputy attorney general was in the room. >> anyone else? >> several other people that had been working on the project. >> members of your staff? >> yes. >> and the deputy's staff? and as best you can recall, in the language that was used, who said what to whom? >> i said bob, what's with the letter? you know, why not just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue? >> and he said that they were concerned about the way

the media was playing this and felt that it was important to get out the summaries, which they felt would put their work in proper context, and avoid some of the confusion that was emerging. and i asked him if he felt that my letter was misleading or inaccurate, and he said no. that the press, he felt that the press coverage was and it was -- and that a more complete picture of his thoughts and the context and so forth would deal with that. and i suggested that i would rather just get the whole report out than just putting out stuff piecemeal but i said i would think about it some more. and the next day i put out a

letter that made it clear that no one should read the march 24th letter as a summary of the overall report and that a full account of bob mueller's thinking was going to be in the report and everyone would have access to it. but there is nothing in robert mueller's letter to you about the press? his complaint to you is about your characterization of the report. correct? >> well, the letter speaks for itself. >> it does. and, in fact, in response to your question, why not just pick up the phone, this letter was an extraordinary act, a career prosecutor rebuking the attorney general of the united states memorializing in writing, right? i know of no other instance of that happening. do you? >> i don't consider bob at this stage a career

prosecutor. he has had a career as a prosecutor. he was the head of the fbi for 12 years. >> is he a career law enforcement professional? >> right. >> i know of no other instance of -- >> -- but he also was a political appointee and political appointee with me at the department of justice. the letter is a bit submity and i think it was probably written by one of his staff people. >> did you make a memorandum of your conversation? >> huh? >> did you make a memorandum -- >> -- no, i didn't make. >> what? >> did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with robert mueller? >> yes. >> >> who did that? >> there were notes taken of the call. >> may we have those notes? >> no. >> why not? >> why should you have them? >> i will tell you we have got to end this. but i'm going to write a letter to mr. mueller and i'm going to ask him is

there anything you said about that conversation he disagrees with and if there is, he will come and tell us so the hearing is now over. mr. blumenthal i will promise you that if there is any -- mr. mueller will have a chance to make sure that the conversation relayed by attorney general barr is accurate. and i'm going to give him a chance to correct anything you said that he finds misleading or inaccurate and that will be it. >> okay. >> five seconds. >> attorney general barr, i just want to thank you for your service to our country and especially today i want to thank you for your civility and your composure amidst what has been a needlessly and unfairly hostile environment. your professionalism has been remarkable. i'm grateful. thank you. >> from my point of view it's pretty interesting and it got off in a ditch every now and then generally speaking the committee did pretty good and this is what

democracy is all about. thank you for being our attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [gavel] >> shepard: and there we go. for now the hearing is concluded. i'm shepard smith in new york. now some analysis of this legal and otherwise our reporters will come in as welaswell as our reporting begis with calling out attorney general william barr for the way he described special counsel robert mueller's findings. they accused him of creating a false narrative. deceiving the public with his first summary letter which barr says was not a summary letter and allowing that summary letter to live as gospel while the actual mueller report told a different story. then, for three weeks allowing the president to take a victory lap when the mueller report actually pointed to 10 instances in which special counsel mueller establishes that the president may have interfered with the investigation or obstructed it though he did not reach a conclusion on that matter because of department rules.

and, a further rebuke to release robert mueller's summaries of the report, something he still has not done, then holding a news conference the morning of the release of the redacted report an hour and a half in advance in order to reinforce the same narrative. in other words, acting more as an attorney nor the president rather than the chief law enforcement officer for the people. >> you lied congress. you lied. and now we know. america deserves better. you should resign. >> shepard: senators getting a chance to grill the attorney general for the first time since the release of mueller's redacted russia router. ahead of today's senate hearing we found out mueller had concerns about the way the attorney general initially characterized the investigation. in a newly released letter to barr, first obtained by "the washington post" last evening, mueller wrote the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public,

did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. we communicated the concern to the department. there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel. to ensure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. just days after getting that letter, barr testified under oath and more than once that he was not aware of any concerns about his four-page summary of the mueller report. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter. do you know what they are referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> i think -- i suspect that they probably wanted, you

know, more put out. >> did bob mueller support your conclusion? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> shepard: democratic senators pressed barr on why he cleared president trump of obstruction of justice even though mueller laid out those 10 instances where the president possibly tried to obstruct the investigation including an instance where president trump allegedly directed his white house counsel don mcgahn to get mueller removed from the case. >> quote: mueller has to go, and i assume he didn't mean go to cleveland or go to seattle. he meant go, be fired. call me back when you do it. i think the president's demands to fire mueller without cause are alarming and unacceptable. and, mr. attorney general, not one bit of what i just described was in your march 24th letter to this committee, was it? >> no. >> >> shepard: barr testified that mueller did not say his four-page summary was inaccurate. >> i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob

mueller, not members of his team. and, even though i did not know what was being referred to, and mueller had never told me that the expression of the findings was inaccurate, but i did then volunteer that i thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out. but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information. >> shepard: attorney general barr on his actions before congress today. let's turn to chris wallace the host of "fox news sunday." chris, what did you think? >> well, i thought the most interesting period of this whole entire 5-plus hours was the last minute and a half between senator blumenthal, democrat of connecticut and bill barr in which he asked him and it's amazing that nobody had up until that point you had a conversation the day after on march 25th after mueller sent the second letter we

all know about but another letter on march 25th saying i don't think have you accurately reflected what's in our report and i want to talk to you about it. mueller calls him up. has a conference call. and a -- barr calls mueller up and mueller make makes it clear that he is unhappy. so unhappy that he, again, says release more of the report and then sends a letter on march 27th, a second letter to the attorney general again saying i'm unhappy about it. interestingly enough, barr for one of the few times his reserve broke down and he called it a snity letter and blumenthal said have you ever heard of a u.s. attorney in effect which is what the special counsel was raising that kind of an issue and he didn't answer the question but, you know, i know there are some people who don't think this march 27th letter is a big deal and some opinion

people, some opinion people who appear on this network who may be pushing a political agenda but, you know, we have to deal in facts. the fact is that this letter from the special counsel and it was one of at least three contacts with the attorney general between march 25th and march 27th was a clear indication that the attorney general was upset, very upset with the letter that had been sent out by the attorney general and wanted it changed or wanted it at least added to, and the attorney general refused to do so. he felt the attorney general's letter was inaccurate, he says in a conversation he was talking about media coverage. that's not what he says in the letter. what he says in the letter is you didn't reflect what we found in the report. a lot of people having read now the full report or as much as it has been not redacted, you know, agree that he didn't reveal what was fully in the report. again, those aren't opinions.

that's not a political agenda. those are the facts. >> shepard: and i want to ask you if it's more than that. with this as context. if what you say, obvious you say that mueller was unhappy with the way this went down, if he had just wanted the attorney general to know that, he could have just told the attorney general to do that. and it's been my experience that when lawyers go to paper as they put it, it's not that they want the person in question to know, it's that they want all to know. they want this to be released to the "the washington post." they want the people to know that they believe what the attorney general did was mislead the people, create a false narrative ahead of the release of a 448 page report that the vast majority of americans will not read. >> well, i'm not going to go as far as to say he wanted it released to the "the washington post" because that, i don't know. i don't know he released the report. somebody obviously did and they did it on purpose just hours before bill barr was going to testify. but it is certainly clear, i

agree with you completely because, in fact, barr knows that because what happened is he gets the letter own 25th, the day after he releases his four-page report and he calls him up in his conference call that's on speaker phone and he says why the letter? why didn't you just call me up? so he knew it was an effort by mueller to set a record to memorialize his objections and have it there whether it was going to do come out in the "the washington post" or come out some other points perhaps in some kind of hearing before congress but that it was to set a record, there is no question about that. >> shepard: chris, thank you. appreciate it? >> you bet. again, those are facts. not opinions. >> shepard: no doubt about it chris, again. jeffrey cramer now for legal analysis. former federal prosecutor, assistant u.s. attorney and live with us this afternoon. jeffrey, thank you. >> certainly. possible your viewing and hearing what you just saw and heard, was the attorney

general acting appropriately in his capacity as the chief law enforcement officer for the people or as a spin meister and lawyer for the president? >> >> i think you would have to say it's more of the latter. he was certainly mimicking some of the white house's talking points using loaded phrases. he went to spying again. and he mentioned no collusion. you know, those are the talking points. and it's unfortunate. because, as chris wallace just indicated, the facts are the facts. and mueller's report did itemize 10 instances that could lead to object destructioto --obstruction. for the attorney general to spin it is unfortunate. > >> shepard: you mentioned instances. there were 10 instances mentioned in the mueller report of possible evidence of interfering with the mueller investigation or obstruction of justice by the president. we reported on all 10 of them the day the redacted report came out.

and just in case you are one who has not had the opportunity to read the 448 pages, we are now going to dig deeper on just one of them. and that is the president trying to get his lawyer, don mcgahn, to have rod rosenstein fire the spowb and then later to lie about it to the public. the president doing that. here's an exchange from the hearing today. listen. >> and there is a distinction between saying to someone go fire him, go fire mueller and saying have him removed based on conflict. >> shepard: well, according to the report there was an initial call on the matter of getting rid of mueller. then beginning on page 86, volume 2 of the report, mueller's team writes regarding this series of incidents that there was a second call to don mcgahn and in it the president said something like call rod. tell rod that mueller has to go. call me back when you do it. mueller writes: mcgahanna understood the president to

be saying that the special counsel had to be removed by rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and he was worn down. so he just wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to follow the president's directive but did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer and then called the chief of staff. then, to end the conversation with the president, mcgahn left the president with the impression that mcgahn would call rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and was worn down so he wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because did he not follow the president wants directive did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. called his personal lawyer. then called his chief of staff. then the report says he went to his office, packet up his

stuff, submitted his resignation letter and later told priebus and ban anyone band urged him not to do it. mcgahn returned to work and remained to his position. he never gave that order. the mueller report then continues. stay with me. around the same time chris christie recalled a telephone call with the president in which the president asked that christie, what christie thought about the president firing the special counsel? christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the president to fire the special counsel. and because the president would lose support from republicans in congress if he did so. then the report gives analysis from mueller and mueller's prosecutors. that analysis reads as follows: a, obstructive act. as with the president's firing of comey, the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation. and any grand jury proceedings that might flow

from the inquiry. even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation continuing under a new. appointee, a fact finder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further actions in the investigation. chill out actions of any replacement special counsel or otherwise impede the investigation. a threshold question is whether the president, in fact, directed mcgahn to have the special counsel removed. after news organizations reported that that in june 2017 the president had ordered mcgahn to have the special counsel removed, the president publicly disputed these accounts and privately told mcgahn that he had simply wanted mcgahn to bring conflicts of interest to the department of justice and detention. some of the president's specific language that mcgahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the president went further and, in fact, directed mcgahn to call rosenstein to have the

special counsel removed. first mcgahn's clear recollection was that the president directed to tell rosenstein that not only conflicts existed but also that mueller has to go. mcgahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the white house. mcgahn spoke with the president twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or ms. interpreted the president's request. in response to that request, mcgahn decided to quit because he did not want to participate in an event that he described as akin to the saturday night massacre. he called a lawyer, drove to the white house. packed up his office. prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff. told reince priebus that the president asked him to do crazy shit and informed the president and steve bannon he was leaving. those would be a highly unusual reaction to convey to the justice department.

second in the days before the calls to mcgahn the president through his counsel had already brought and asserted conflicts to the attention of the department of justice. accordingly the president had no reason to have mcgahn call rosenstein that weekend to raise conflicts of issues that already had been raised. third, the president urgency to mcgahn to take emergency action on the weekend. have you got to do. this have you got to call rod. supporting mcgahn's recollection that the president wanted the department of justice to take action to remove the special counsel. had the president, instead, sought only to have the department of justice re-examine asserted conflict to evaluate whether they posed an capitol hill bar, it would have been -- ethical bd make repeated calls to mcgahn. finally the president had discussed knocking out mueller and raised conflicts of interest on a may the 23rd, 2017 call with mcgahn

reflecting this the president reflected the contact to remove the special counsel. in the days leading up to june 17th, 2017, the president made clear to reince priebus and steve bannon and then told rudy that the president was considering termating the special counsel. also during this time period out president reached out to to. >> chris: state of ohio get his thoughts on firing the special counsel. this evidence shows writes mueller that the president was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but, instead, was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the special counsel. is that obstruction of justice? >> i will jump to the end, yes. and little vignette you went through i think more so than any other in the report really crystallizes to just take that story then of the president trying to fire mueller and then juxtapose it with what the attorney general said. first the attorney general said there was no underlying

crime. but did admit that's not a requirement of obstruction. in other words, if you are trying to impede or obstruct an investigation itself, for whatever reason, that can be obstruction. you have to look at someone's intent and if it was just that one story, that one interaction with mcgahn though it went back and forth. then you might have an argument we couldn't ascertain the individual, the president's intent. but, after two or three or seven or in this case 10 instances, you start to garner intent. and then i think we also have to recognize that while the president is allowed to fire whomever he wants, he also has to realize or reshould realize that if he does so with the intent to obstruct an investigation, that could be -- that's for anyone but the president a charge obstruction. now we have to look at conflict which is the last item. really and barr mentioned this that there were possible conflicts that the president raised for firing mueller. what were those conflicts?

there were two that the president raised one with respect to mueller being part of his golf course back in the day. and here you have mueller a decorated war veteran, u.s. attorney of two large offices fbi director for 10-plus years during the most difficult time in our history he is upset because he couldn't get a tee time that doesn't make a lot of the sense. you have to put that to the side. there really is no conflict. as you indicated this wasn't a request to look at conflicts, which would have been reasonable. this was fire mueller because i want the investigation to stop. mcgahn knew this was a problem. barr didn't. and i think that's the problem. >> shepard: the question here, the overriding question is this. you said at the beginning of this segment that when barr was testifying before members of the senate committee today, that he was acting more as a sort of facilitator, lawyer for the president than as the chief law enforcement officer for the people of the united states. here's the question.

when he ruled following the release of this report, that the president had not obstructed justice, an assertion mueller was not able to make. when he made that ruling, was he acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the united states or was he doing the president's bidding? >> i would say again he was doing the president's bidding. he was letting the president off the hook and making a legal determination, again, not as the chief legal officer that whether you are a republican or a democrat we want someone in that office to just call balls and strikes. he was acting as the president's lawyer. and just like people who are upset at eric holder during the obama administration we have the same thing now. we have an attorney general who is doing the bidding of the white house and not doing the bidding of the american public. >> shepard: you have read the mueller report, correct? >> correct. >> shepard: i would be interested to know if the attorney general has read it because his memory of many

matters was either clouded or there were times when some legal analysts suggested that it seemed to them like he might have just been briefed by staff. but i wonder if after all of this is over if there is some sort of recourse that the people have through congress or otherwise against this attorney general for the actions that you have described here. >> the only recourse is by congress. yoimpeach the attorney general if they want to take that up i don't think that's going to happen. same recourse that could happen with the president of the united states himself. other than with the attorney general and other investigations going on trump foundation and his company, the only actions that could be taken against the president as we sit now are congressional or in the 2020 election. that's the only remedy left. >> shepard: what about against the attorney general? >> the attorney general can be brought before congress if they believe he has said things that are either untrue, purposefully untrue and you can move to impeach

or censure the attorney general: >> shepard: jeffrey cramer, thank you so much. >> certainly. >> shepard: legal analyst from jeffrey cramer. now reaction william barr testified in front of judiciary committee on the russia report. our chief white house correspondent john roberts has that he has the latest from the north lawn. hi, john. >> shep, good evening to you. the white house has been watching the hearing closely all day. the president did take a break to meets with some members of congress. we have yet to get a readout of that meeting. also monitoring the situation in venezuela as well. an administration official that i spoke with about two thirds of the way through the hearing told me that the white house believed that democrats had not laid a glove on the attorney general though i think it should be pointed out that kamala harris did have a pretty spirited conversation with the attorney general and that is chris wallace

pointed out earlier there was that moment at the end exchange between senator richard blumenthal of connecticut and the attorney general as to what the conversation was between the attorney general and his team and robert mueller when he called him to complain or at least when william barr called robert mueller to talk about what his problems were. the president has not tweeted about this since it ended. we have not gotten any comment from white house staffers since it has ended. the president tweeting about it earlier saying, quote: no collusion, no obstruction. besides how can you have obstruction when not only there was no collusion by trump but the bad actions were done by the other side. the greatest con job in the history of american politics. the president tweeting about the obama administration pitting some of the blame on them. why didn't president obama do something about the russia in september before the november election. when he told by the fbi, he did nothing. and had no intention of doing anything. we expect to hear from white house staff as the hours progress here in the wake of

the barr hearing. one question outstanding is will william barr appear before tomorrow before the house usual area committee. so far there is no agreement for him to do so because gerald nadler wants and has set aside time through a vote for staff attorneys to question barr. and the department of justice, the white house do not want that to happen. so whether or not barr appears tomorrow is another question at this point. >> shepard: as the bagpipes again serenade john roberts reporting on the north lawn. thank you, john. reaction from capitol hill on all of this from the right and the left. that's next as our reporting continues on this wednesday afternoon. ♪ ♪ i had a heart problem. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life.

my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today. you might or joints.hing for your heart... and we're usaa members for life. but do you take something for your brain.

with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. yeah, i've had some prettyeer. prestigious jobs over the years. news producer, executive transport manager, and a beverage distribution supervisor.

now i'm a director at a security software firm. wow, you've been at it a long time. thing is, i like working. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪ i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today.

>> shepard: continuing coverage of the senate judiciary committee hearing with attorney general barr

on the mueller report. our chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge was in the room for the hearing and live with us now on capitol hill. catherine? >> shepard, just within the last few minutes we had what's called a gaggle. an impromptu sort of news conference with senator graham chairman of the committee and he told reporters as far as he is concerned this is over but he did say that he was reaching out to robert mueller to see if the special counsel thought there were inconsistencies with what the attorney general testified to about their interactions and the speaker phone conference call and if there were senator graham said he was open to bringing mueller back. one of the key issues here has been the issue of intent in this prosecution. here is mr. barr. >> i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob mueller, not members of his team. and, even though i did not know what was being referred to, and mueller had never

told me that the expression of the findings was inaccurate, but i did then volunteer that i thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out. but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information. >> just took a series of questions about former white house counsel don mcgahn and his direction from the president which according to the special counsel as you just read at length shepard was to direct the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein that there was a conflict and that he should go. the attorney general testified that he did not believe this met the criminal standards for an obstruction charge. listen here. >> so there is no question whatever instruction was given mcgahn had to do with conflict -- mueller's conflict of interest. now, the president later said what he meant was that

the conflict of interest should be raised with rosenstein but the decision should be left with rosenstein. >> the republican chairman of the committee lindsey graham said at one point that he felt the democrats had slandered the attorney general and what was consistent in what we heard from the republicans on the committee is that they wanted to turn the page. they want to focus on the genesis of the fbi's counterintelligence investigation and whether this dossier that was used to secure surveillance warrant for trump campaign aide in october of 2016 was part of a russian disinformation operation. here is senator graham again. >> you van slandered this man from top to bottom. if you want more of, this you are not going to get it if you want to ask him questions, you can. >> again, the key take away in the last few minutes is the senator has left the door open to bringing mueller here in some kind of

format if there are inconsistencies identified by mueller given the attorney general's testimony and his recollection of this conversation about the four-page letter to congress with the bottom line finding, shep. >> shepard: catherine, thank you. lawmakers are reacting to the attorney general's testimony, specifically his defense of that four-page letter that he sent to congress. we now know that robert mueller raised concerns about that memo in writing to barr directly. mike emanuel reporting he is live on capitol hill. mike? >> shep, good afternoon. some leading democrats clearly think that attorney general william barr has been protecting president trump. >> meeting some of the words denied by attorney general justify his political position but i'm not happy. i think his first responsibility is to our law and to the constitution. apparently he feels his first responsibility is to the president on a political basis. >> senior republican says

democrats are just disappointed by the special counsel robert mueller report. >> the democrats and you folks in the media are not concerned about the report. i think you are concerned about the results weren't what you expected and i think you are finding out that everybody was sold a bunch of snake oil and none of it shakes out. >> very different conclusions based upon your political point of view, shep. >> shepard: what's the latest on the attorney general's barr's appearance before a house panel tomorrow? because the house of representatives obviously headed up by democrats and the democrats hoped to have lawyers question the lawyer. >> you are absolutely right. fox news has learned from a senior democratic source that house democrats are considering holding attorney general william barr in contempt of congress if he doesn't show up although i am told no final decision

has been made. the big battle has been whether attorneys for the house judiciary committee will be able to ask questions of attorney general barr. >> house judiciary committee asked questions in the past under democratic and republican majorities during both public hearings and privately transcribed interviews. for example, committees pa that were pated in questions during impeachment inquiries into president nixon, president clinton and judge thomas -- >> the justice department and leading republicans say lawmakers should do the questioning. >> the chairman has decided along with the majority that they want to appear as if they are doing impeachment. they want to have an impeachment-like inquiry because the president for staff questioning is impeachment but the problem is they can't bring themselves to bring impeachment. >> that house judiciary committee hearing set for:00

a.m. see if the attorney general shows up. probably get a letter sometime later tonight saying whether he is a yes or a no. >> shepard: a short break from our coverage of this because of the crisis in venezuela. yesterday, it appeared, at least, that the citizens, that was the appearance, might be rising up along with some unknown number of members of the military to try and out the dictator there. then we learned from our own secretary of state that what was supposed to have happened was that the dictator would get on a plane and go to havana yesterday morning. and that there would be a peaceful transfer of power to another man instead according to the white house or at least to the secretary of state, the dictator in venezuela was talked out of leaving by the russians. so now he is still in power. so now what does america do? after we have been informed that all options, including military are on the table.

where does this put the united states in its standoff in a proxy of sorts with the russians? that reporting is next live from caracas. - [narrator] meet the ninja foodi,

the pressure cooker that crisps. it's the best of pressure cooking and air frying all in one. with tendercrisp technology, food will be juicy on the inside, crispy on the outside. (upbeat drumming) the ninja foodi, the pressure cooker that crisps. a cockroach can survive heresubmerged ttle guy. underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah. not getting in today. terminix. defenders of home. what do all these people have in common, limu? [ guttural grunt ] exactly. nothing! they're completely different people. that's why they make customized car insurance from liberty mutual.

they'll only pay for what they need. yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. [ limu grunts ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

when you start with a better that's no way to treat a dog... ...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs. i get to select my room from the floor plan... free wi-fi... ...and the price match guarantee. so with hilton there is no catch. yeah the only catch is i'm never leaving. no i'm serious, i live here now. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee.

what's happening is some percentage of the citizenry is making every effort to overthrow the man in charge in venezuela as their economy has cratered as supplies have gone to almost nothing as inflation is at something near a million percent and yesterday we witnessed some violence in the streets and you know given we only have this view, here is what we are seeing today. listening.

that's full again. [shouting] >> shepard: this has been advertised as a day of demonstration by the opposition leader who apparently was making an effort to take over control of the country yesterday. secretary of state pompeo in the united states says that the plan had been for the dictator there to get on a plane and go to havana and for a transition to take place. but then the russians talked him out of it. which makes you wonder where does that leave things with the russians and the according to our people, 20 to 25 -- by our i mean the united states government 20 to 25,000 cuban soldiers on the ground and the united states on the other side. you wonder where this leaves everything. steve harrigan is live.

he is in caracas for us this afternoon. steve, has this been going on much of the day? >> it really changed throughout the day, shepard. i was out this morning as the crowds began to gather and it was a lot of families. a lot of people with backpacks. a lot of people with venezuelan flags either hats or flags wrapped around them. people trying to be patriotic. they want change. they want this dictator nicholas maduro out but they want to do it peacefully. we have seen a real change in tone since yesterday. juan guaido said yesterday he wants a military uprising. he has been leading marches for four months. it hasn't gotten the opposition anywhere. he wants something different yesterday. so we are seeing a change in tone. yesterday we saw a lot of squirmishes. even with military vehicles. 70 people in the hospital. and today it is turning violent again as well. it's a problem for juan guaido. is he backed by 50 nations but on the ground here in venezuela he really doesn't have much power other than

to call his people out to march when they march they get slaughtered either shot or hosed down or hit with rubber bullets. so you have an odd situation where the u.s. and 50 nations support guaido again he is largely powerless on the ground. it's also getting to be a much bigger picture. this is just not about a battle over who is going to be president of venezuela anymore. it's not between maduro and guaido. each of whom calls himself president right now. but it's really getting to be a dispute between russia and the u.s. you have some sharp words going back and forth diplomats. russia you are backing dictator in our backyard. russia saying that's fake news. you have secretary of state mike pompeo saying today this could derail the u.s.-russia relations. so it's a lot more than just the water canons going on. >> shepard: you mentioned rubber bullets. is that the firing here or

has there been live fire? we saw yesterday one of these military type vehicles running over people. actually our connection with steve harrigan is frozen at the moment as we are working off sort of internet signal. so we hope to reestablish with him in just a moment. these are the pictures that we have been seeing largely. [rapid fire] >> seeing from time to time throughout the day. i don't have a way to know exactly what's being fired but the question has been from the very beginning will the government harm the citizenry in the middle of all of this? and what will happen to the opposition leader who had planned to take over? these matters are reporting for another day. [rapid fire] >> shepard: the final bell is ringing on wall street

and the dow has cratered in the last hour and a half. this came after jerome powell noted that interest rates will likely not be cut again. your world with cavuto with the political news and the business starting now. ♪ >> neil: thank you, shepard earned these developments in venezuela not helping our markets growing in civility there. two men vying for the president of that country. nicholas maduro 24 hours ago was ready to board a plane and get back out of the country and that he was going to allow the man who everyone seems to think is the legitimately elected constitutionally recognized president of that country juan guaido assume power. then the russians essentially said no do not get on that plane stay in the presidential palace you are not going anywhere. that disrupted what some