>> sandra: and the president's response? "nothing changes from the mueller report." he tweeted that out a few moments ago. thank you for staying with us through all this. we didn't know that was coming. we will see you here tomorrow morning. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> melissa: fox news alert for you now, new reaction to special counsel robert mueller's first public remarks since completing his report on russian interference in the 2016 election. that was 68 days ago. you are reiterating there was insufficient evidence to charge the trump team with conspiracy. >> speak of the report as 2 parts -- addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. the first volume of the report details numerous efforts in a needing from russia influence the election. this volume includes a discussion of the trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was

insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. >> melissa: but on the matter of obstruction he said it was "not an option" to charge president trump with a crime, citing justice department policy. president trump, just minutes ago, not surprisingly tweeting, "nothing changes from the mueller report. there was insufficient evidence, and therefore in our country a person is innocent. the case is closed. thank you." but moments ago the democratic chairman of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler, releasing a statement, writing, "he did not exonerate the president of the united states of obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system. the constitution points to congress to take action to hold the president accountable." chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge's life in washington with the latest. this does not seem to match what attorney general barr said. what are your thoughts on that?

>> melissa, good afternoon. i was inside the justice department when robert mueller spoke, and you get a slightly different sense when you're close to the principal. he was very relaxed, but also very focused on this text. in my view, not during from that prepared testimony. he didn't quit take questions at the end of the session we got the clearest indicator today that he has no plans to testify to congress either in a public or in a private session. listen. >> i hope and expect this to be the only time that i will speak to you in this matter. i am making that decision myself. no one has told me whether i can or should testify or speak further about this matter. i hope and expect this to be the only time that i will speak to you in this manner. i am making a decision myself >> he also made the two buckets

of the special counsel investigation. one was russian election interference. he said it was serious and systematic. it involves russian military intelligence and military assets. targeting, he didn't name the campaign, but it was the clinton campaign with the hacking and theft of emails. and using social media to amplify messages that further divided the american people. on the question of obstruction, robert mueller was very clear that he felt he could not get out of the gate on any kind of charges against the president because of his office of legal counsel opinion. the olc is the office and the justice department behind me. it's like the lawyer for the executive branch. robert mueller did not mention congress, and he did not mention impeachment, but he seemed to be passing the baton on to lawmakers. >> special counsel's office as part of the department of justice. by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. charging the president with a

crime was therefore not an option we could consider. first, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. >> he also addressed a conflict between himself and his boss, attorney general william barr, over how as special counsel report was handled and released. a 4-page letter sent by the attorney general to congress with the bottom-line findings, and how that was portrayed in the media. today robert mueller said there may have been differences but he felt his boss, attorney general barr, had acted in good faith. >> at one point in time i requested that certain portions of the report be released.

the attorney general preferred to make the entire report public all at once. we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public, and i certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision. >> robert mueller literally had the stage to himself today for about 10 minutes at the justice department. but i think it's important to provide some balance. what we heard from attorney general william barr during his congressional testimony is that they put the office of legal counsel opinion aside. so, the opinion that says you can't to that to a sitting president. the framework laid up a robert mueller and his investigator as well as the evidence that they gathered, along with rod rosenstein, they measured the evidence gathered by mueller and they used his framework to consider whether there was sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice could

charge charge. his view, that of the attorney general rod rosenstein, was insufficient to bring a charge separate from the olc opinion. so there seems to be significant daylight between what we heard from robert mueller today and what the attorney general testified to just a few weeks ago, melissa. >> melissa: catherine herridge, terrific reporting as always. thank you for that. >> you're welcome. >> melissa: for more on this, let's bring in bret baier. he's fox news political anchor and the anchor of "special report." that struck me and i met so many people as we watch this. william barr had said the decision was not made because of that thinking that you can't indict a sitting president, and the lg guidance. however, catherine herridge saying there that barr had said, "we laid it out, we put it up against." could we put it up against ubs? "no, he could be." it didn't feel like we heard that from mueller. >> it was night and day.

specifically, this is what he said in testimony. he said mueller stated three times in that meeting. it was march 5th, 2019. in response to her questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found obstruction. he said that several people were in the room, barr did, that would be able to testify to the fact that mueller told him that. this is not what mueller said today in explaining the lack of an obstruction charge. he said we could never get there. also, we should point out that sarah sanders has just put out a statement, which kind of encapsulates what the president said. saying the special counsel has impleaded the investigation, closed his office, has close the case. mr. miller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore does not plan to testify before congress. the report was clear there was no collusion, no conspiracy, and that apartment of justice confirmed there was no obstruction.

special counsel mueller also stated that the attorney general barr acted in good faith and is handling the report. after two years, he's moving on his life and everyone else to do the same." noting the difference here that the department of justice saying that it was not found. the decision of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. >> melissa: it seemed like he punted to the impeachment process. i looked at what ken starr had said, he was so much more clear. 11 possible grounds for impeachment. he outlined them. yet at the same time, didn't feel like you are handling don michelson to bob miller there, we are closer to some democrats charging impeachment customer closer than we were before he went to the microphone? >> 100%. the focus, the town, the tenor of his statement, it was not really beyond the words of the report. but it did have a little bit more edge to it.

justin just as it was treated after the statement. i think this is really a political matter but how speaker pelosi is really going to have to battle with on the house side. it's probably after this going to take us well into the election cycle as my head that way. >> katie: hey, bret. katie pavlich here. on the political note, what is the white house doing to prepare for this impeachment? he said he will pursue what he said were crimes that the president has committed. he's not giving an allegation or an accusation. he is saying there were crimes committed. is the white house prepared to take on this fight? >> that's a great question. i think they have staffed up, lawyerwise, and the lead up to the release of the mueller report. they may have been relaxed a bit since then, but we just had jay sekulow put out a statement. i think they will be prepared to make with the president says is no obstruction, no collusion. they are going to say, "listen,

the attorney general's call and be a deputy attorney general, they made the call on obstruction." i think the robert mueller statement right there just makes it a lot more complicated and much more likely that they will be an impeachment process. >> katie: in terms of the justice department, for weeks now we have heard from democrats at attorney general bill barr no longer has credibility. we saw that contempt vote in the house, not in the full floor but out of the committee. they pushed the vote off. where does this go in terms of bill barr considering the discrepancy between what mueller said today about charging the president and what bill barr said under oath about not charging him? >> i bet he will be called again to clarify up on capitol hill. i think he will probably be talking to people and explaining his point of view. he has been kind of matter- of-fact. the same time he has been looking at the investigation of the investigation. he doesn't even deal with any of that. this is totally separate of

that. remember, those things are also coming to the fore probably in the next few days. >> melissa: bret, of course we heard the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani, a short time ago, and his impression of this period was played again for our audience in case they didn't hear it >> he has lost his notion of the american status. to become as a leader, it's astounding that he is expounding on whether we can exonerate, can't we do this, can we do that. the reality is, he doesn't have a case. he doesn't have a collusion case, an obstruction case. i mean, if he was constrained by this justice department rule, then why did he do the investigation at all? >> melissa: bret, the attack is on. it gives mueller. meanwhile, he stood up there and kind of tried to say, "it's been great being here, i'm riding off into the sunset now. i'm not testifying any longer. i don't want to say anything more. i'm not even going to answer questions here. i'm going to go on with my

life." what are the odds of that? >> actually, i think they were pretty good. because he definitively said that even if he is called to testify -- in other words, given a subpoena or compelled to testify -- that he is not going to say anything beyond what is in the 400 plus pages of his report. in other words, saying the work stands for itself. if you're going to go down that road and democrats agree to call him and that's what they get, is the report text, i don't know how fruitful or time-consuming that might be. >> melissa: that's what this was kind of supposed to be, and that's what attorney general barr's summation was supposed to sort of be. "here is the hitchhikers guide to this report." but yet the way the two of them both interpreted what they saw in those 400 plus pages was dramatically different. it reinforces that argument, "let the work speak for itself and don't take to the microphone at all." >> right, you cannot see the letter between mueller, that he sensed him barr come but has

been characterized. you can see the difference, the tone of it, the focus. what a spotlight. mueller is a prosecutor. prosecutors traditionally are go, no-go. to be have a case, or do we not have a case? this was not that. it was much closer to jim comey saying, "there are a lot of bad things happen, but we can't make a case and therefore we are not going to." >> melissa: a little comey-esque in that way. we will bring it out to the couch, guy. >> guy: a fascinating few minutes, watching the statement as mueller made it. much of my reaction in real time was that this is all in the report. the news at the very end, he didn't feel like he was going to testify any further. he said some nice things about william barr that i think is sort of an intriguing part of this. he chose to spotlight certain elements of the report and not mention others. which i think is perhaps telling

and interesting. i think the subject we have been seizing on, and sort of ruminating on here, is this apparent massive discrepancy -- canyon -- between what william barr testified and what mueller said today about this olc guidance piece of this. where it seems that they are at complete loggerheads on that question. i know a lot of people are wondering, was mueller coming out today and effectively accusing barr of lying about that exchange that they had in private? and that might be the case, except for the fact that mueller went out of his way to praise barr, to appreciate how he made his decisions in this, and to endorse his good faith. >> lisa: but barr was also not alone, as well. william barr said rod rosenstein was at that march 5th meeting. so i don't get rod rosenstein on the record of what was said? clearly bob mueller is saying something drastically different than what william barr has testified before congress. i would also say to robert mueller, if you want to slit his work stand, what was

the point of giving this press conference today outside of wanting to pour gasoline on the impeachment fire? i would also say that only one person between william barr and robert mueller has gone before congress and testified under oath, and that is not robert mueller. this raises a lot of questions, and hopefully everyone gets to the bottom of this. >> katie: from a doj official about this discrepancy issue, is a senior doj official saying ia discrepancy. they did not reach a decision, even so they didn't want to reach the impression that that's what they're doing. what mueller said is that he didn't even engage. he told them he didn't want to leave the impression that there was a discrepancy between barr and mueller. psychic is important ten to mention that >> melissa: hang on, let me get your reaction. we are going to do a lot more this legal angle and as i can pay it i want to talk about the 2020 race and how everyone is responding there.

i will get your take on that. these are some of the tweets that are coming and already from those who are running on the democratic side in 2020 prayed this is kamala harris. "what robert robert mueller bay did was return a referral. it's up to congress all this president accountable. we need to start impeachment proceedings. it's our constitutional obligation." capri? >> capri: i think putting words in the mouth of law enforcement officials is dangerous. i recognize that kamala harris is obviously a former attorney general, a very large state. but i do think, politically, it's going to become increasingly more difficult for nancy pelosi in particular to send off the cries from -- from the impeachment crew. you have five committees that are dealing with everything under the sun. jerry nadler in the house judiciary committee, it's obvious they are taking this as a message from mueller that this is a "pass the baton" moment that they have an obligation to

continue investigation. i think some of these 2020 folks are using more pointed and incendiary language to basically take it one step further and say, "we need to jump on the gun for impeachment." one other quick thing i want to note, though, because of the discrepancies between barr and mueller, i think we may see a contempt vote on the floor sooner rather than later. for barr. and i also think we need to maybe think about what happens at the house -- excuse me, the senate. which is controlled by republicans. what happens when they call robert mueller to try and emphasize parts of this report? >> guy: that he didn't say. >> capri: exactly. >> lisa: if he had anything died, why would he release 400 pages of the report question work especially looking at volume two, which is almost unredacted. why would he do that? it makes no sense. >> katie: the question now is whether robert mueller statements today give democrats more fuel to go after the underlying documents, which are

very few come in their quest for evidence. last week, when we were talking about this issue, we had a former doj attorney on the couch and he was saying there is a big difference between what the committees can do in the house now and what they would be able to get under impeachment charges. or, an impeachment investigation. they get more power to get a lot more of those documents. when you have jerry nadler saying, "it is our job to investigate and to go after," they are going to want that extra power to go after whatever they think is the insufficient evidence. because the invocation there is that there was evidence but there is insufficient. >> capri: from what i took from that, is that it was on the conspiracy claim. but essentially -- >> katie: it doesn't matter. >> capri: under the underlying aspect of going to come he basically said he tried to prove a negative. >> katie: but they will go after it. >> guy: on the collusion piece of this, mueller -- as democrats

have been doing that for weeks, he went out of his way to highlight there was insufficient evidence to prove a chargeable conspiracy on the broader so-called collusion issue. he also said the written report speaks for itself, and also included coronation prey not just a criminal conspiracy. they also looked at coordination and found insufficient evidence on that front, as well prayed even though that's not a legal term. so that is something that mueller chose not -- >> melissa: what does that make you think? >> guy: i think mueller highlighted a very narrow part of a seemingly broader conclusion that they reached in volume one, in actual report, that he says is tantamount, really, to his testimony. i want to make another point of the politics of this. i was interested to listen to andy mccarthy and judge napolitano and legal experts on this wrangling over the olc stuff. >> melissa: i said it well gee come earlier. by the way. you are the oil g. >> guy: #oneluckyguy. i'm glad to be one and all the other pay [laughter]

on the politics, i would be really curious to know how nancy pelosi is feeling right now. >> melissa: horrible, i think. >> guy: let's think about this -- her position, her stance, trying to straddle the fence on this with her party, it was already profoundly precarious and seemingly unsalable. after this, it feels like a tipping point. the people within her party were going to push for impeachment, they have a sense of momentum a newfound purpose. what she is trying to do this holding pattern ain't going to last anymore. >> melissa: on that note, we will come back with more reaction after robert mueller spoke directly to the american public for the special counsel making it clear that he could not charge a sitting president. so where does the legal fight go from here? we were just talking politics. let's talk legal after this. does the white house still have the grounds to deny congressional subpoenas? don't go away. ♪

do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

you're having one more bite no! one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win.

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?

>> if we had confidence of the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. >> melissa: that was special counsel robert mueller breaking his silence in the last hour, saying his office couldn't charge president trump with a crime because of long-standing guidelines at the department of justice. those remarks appearing at odds with what attorney general william barr said a few months ago, you will remember, when he first addressed the release of the special counsel report. here's what he told reporters then about his conversations with mueller. listen. >> when we met with him, deputy attorney general rosenstein and i met with him 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. >> melissa: let's bring in judge andrew napolitano, fox news senior judicial analyst. this discrepancy jumped out at all of us when we were listening. is there any way to reconcile those two statements of that they both can be true? what mueller said, and what barr said? >> let me start by saying i would rather be ol g then olc right now. [laughter] my buddy guy benson has that role. there is no way to reconcile the discrepancy between the two. this is a he said, he said. this opinion of the olc -- and the olc stance or office of

legal counsel. these are the legal gurus who do research for the justice department. when the justice department itself needs to know what the law is, where it's unclear, they get an opinion from the olc. this olc report is dated octobe. it says that a sitting president should not -- not cannot -- should not be indicted while still in office because of material disruption to his constitutional duties. guess what happened 60 days later? in late november and early december of 2000? the justice department charged bill clinton with lying under oath and obstruction of justice. and guess what he did a month later? two weeks before george w. bush was sworn in as president? pleaded guilty to lying under oath. that was under indictment, that was under information. the document filed when the government and the defendant agree on the allegations. that tells you that this olc

report is advisory only. it is not mandatory. it is there to use or they are not to use, depending on what officials want to do. now, why did bob mueller take to the microphones today? i don't know. but this was not good news for the president, because he has ginned up all the democrats to believe there must be a there there, and it was a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, bill barr, who basically whitewashed what mueller said in the 4-page summary he distributed back in march. >> melissa: absolutely. judge napolitano, thank you for clarifying that. we appreciate our time. let's bring it back out to the couch. you know, he is not the only one who disagrees with the interpretation of the olc. andy mccarthy said the same thing in the last hour, that he didn't agree with their interpretation that you can't and died a sitting president. >> katie: there are multiple interpretations and there are also multiple regulations inside

the olc. it all comes down to what was determined. looking back on what was looked at by rod rosenstein, by robert mueller, by bill barr, they all worked together to put out this report. at the time, bill barr -- who was the only one talking -- said that they were all on the same page when it comes to what was being produced, and that they were in agreement with the bottom-line findings of what the report was going to say. so when it comes to the obstruction of justice part, they are now questions because of the statement that was made today by robert mueller, about whether the president was not charged with a crime just simply because you can't charge a sitting president. and i don't think they made that clear at all when it comes to trying to explain what the agreement was before robert mueller made that statement today. >> melissa: we've got to squeeze in another quick break. robert mueller saying his report is his final testimony. but we'll democrats have a final say? will he testify? we are live with more reaction

from the hill. ♪ ♪ limu emu and doug.

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 ♪

>> no one has told me whether i can or should testify, or speak further about this matter. there has been discussion about an appearance before congress. any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings, and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. the report is my testimony. >> katie: straightened to the point. special counsel robert mueller saying his report is his final testimony, that he does not tend to testify before congress. they may have different ideas. peter doocy has more from washington. peter? >> katie, some republicans on the hill think that he closed the book on the two year long discussions. doug collins, ranking member of house judiciary, says, "while he

hoped he would come before the committee and ask her questions from lawmakers, robert mueller has led an extra near left public service and is entitled to his life as a private citizen once again." but judiciary chairman jerry nadler is not done. he says given that special counsel mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president, it falls to congress to respond to those crimes and other wrongdoing of president trump, and we will do so. no one, not even the president of the united states, as above the law." he has one republicans support. it's term credit justin amash who writes, "the ball is in our court, congress." cory booker, the democrat from new jersey also running for president, tweeted this. "robert merely stated makes it clear congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. but they democrat is calling for someone different. speak of the democrats and senate want to give more money

to localities so they can prevent collusion? sorry. so they can prevent interferenc interference? and it should be done. >> a republican ally, mark walker, says "if you spent 675 days interviewing 500 and the jewels, spending more than $25 million, and still have been sufficient evidence, maybe it's because there is no collusion. time to move on and stop attacking donald trump's family for an investigation built on lies. ." the reaction is most the coming online so far, as congress is out of town. but this will dominate the hallways as soon as lawmakers come back from recess. >> katie: peter doocy will be in the holy tracking them down for us. thank you very much. we are on the 2020 campaign trail, impeachment is a tough thing politically for democrats. obviously a lot of candidates are going after it. >> guy: i want to do what joe biden will see about this, as the front runner. it seems like the left leg is feeling and i to begin the proceedings. we will see if there are still

dissenting voices, starting with the speaker of the house and possibly the 2020 front runner. on the question of subpoenaing robert mueller to come forward and testify, i am sort of trying to figure out how there is any way around that at this point. i understand even having this discussion during the breaks. he could get up there, and he suggested today this is what they would do. he will say, "what i have to say is in my report prayed i've addressed that in the report." in leif's responses to that. the problem is on this big question we've been wrestling with, on the olc guidance question , the parent goals separating what barr said and what mueller said today on whether or not the impossible against the president of the united states,t is a question that needs to be asked of bob mueller. we had judge napolitano on moments ago and he described as a "he said, he said." i don't quite agree with that because there were, to lisa's point, other people in the room at those meetings. barr said it was emphatic for

mueller that that was not the case. only mueller now -- he is the last piece of this puzzle. he needs to be asked specifically, did those conversations happen question because the attorney general lying about them? i would be shocked if his answer was yes. >> katie: the dealer gsa it was never. but capitol hill and the politics, this is your area of expertise. how did they do with us now question rick will be the far left of the party, or is nancy pelosi really going to have a challenge trying to get the democrats in the middle of the road, so to speak? none aboard the impeachment train? >> lisa: two guys point, rod rosenstein was also in the meeting. i assume other officials as well who could testify as to what was actually said at that march 5th meeting. regarding capitol hill, up until last week, if you look to the democrats have been calling for impeachment -- or at least the start of the impeachment investigation -- it's been these democrats in really heavily-leading democratic districts. that's part of need to close his concern about moving forward on

this. she's not worried about those democrats who basically have a primary to a bout. they don't have a general election to write about. they are worried about the ones running a republican district. that has been the pause here. what's important is to look at the kind democrats in the coming days that call for impeachment. you have the katie hills of the world, democrats running in a publican-leading district or trump district calling for impeachment? >> capri: i'm with chuck schumer on this. what i'm worried about right now are the russians, and we are all sitting around talking about those other idiosyncrasies, which are important, but we are doing exactly what the russians want us to do, that is be distracted. i did my masters on democratization in the former soviet republics. let me tell you right now, bob mueller made it very clear, he said, "i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election and that allegation deserves the attention of every american." and that includes, especially, members of congress who need to their job.

>> melissa: i think everybody will call for impeachment now the democratic side, except for joe biden. and this will be how he tries to differentiate himself from the rest the pack. he will let them screen for and he will stand to the side. that's my production. >> katie: what does all this mean for the investigations into the origin of the russia probe? what the trump 2020 campaign had to say about mueller's remarks, up next. ♪ ey for their family. with our service, veterans like us earned the powerful va home loan benefit that lets us borrow up to 100 percent of our home's value, instead of just 80 percent like other loans. at newday usa, that can mean a lot more money, especially if your home has gone up in value. on average, our veterans take out 54,000 dollars. the newday 100 va loan lets you refinance your mortgage, consolidate your high rate credit card debt, get cash and lower your payments by over 600 dollars a month. so if you're a veteran and need money for your family, call newday usa.

at newday usa veterans can buy a home with no down payment. at newday, your service is your down payment.

>> lisa: welcome back. president trump 2020 campaign looking to turn the tables. campaign manager putting out the statement in the past hour, reading, "now it's time to turn the origins -- turned to the origins of the russia hoax and get to the bottom of why the trump campaign was spied on by the obama-era doj and fbi. anyone who is for transparency, constitutional silver liberties, and the rule of law should want to know why human sources, wiretapping, and unmasking reuse to infiltrate a presidential campaign." this, as james comey once again

is lashing out at president trump in an op-ed, calling the president a liar. call me right in, "we will find the work is done properly and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations prayed there was no corruption, no treason, no attempt at coup. those are lies and dumb lies, i thought. they were just good people try to figure out what was true under unprecedented circumstances." really today, top white house aide kellyanne conway saying he says panic >> melissa: we believe you! [laughter] >> lisa: let's start with the comey op-ed. why would he write this? >> guy: because james comey wants dram self-talk and wants to see his byline in "the washington post," and also defend what he believes is the institution i believe he's undermining, with every utterance that he continues to make. he is essentially laying early groundwork to contradict what may or may not come out from the inspector general and from the durham investigation that was

commissioned by the attorney general. we saw, as you were reading through the comments from the trump campaign manager and all of this, what i am struck by his on the question of impeachment i think the actual salient question is whether public opinion moves significantly on the question of impeachment. because i am skeptical that it will. because we've had this report and there is nothing new today that wasn't already in the report. the polls have shown that people are bored of this issue, for the most part. if public opinion shifts toward impeachment, that might be a game changer. but there will be other very significant development's when it comes to shaping public opinion when the inspector general comes out with his findings. when it durham finds or doesn't find whatever he may, when it comes to the russia investigation. there will be signposts along the way between now and the election that will once again change the game, change the narrative, change the public discussion around this issue that i think to most americans has been beaten -- >> capri: you know what i find really classic about this, as we

are talking about comey? talk about before you are against it and then for it, the republicans loved and hated them, we are saying the same thing with mueller. now we love him, we hate them, which one is it? to this point, this entire thing is political. there is no question that the only way the ball moves as if public opinion moves. that is sad, because again, we're talking about article impeachments. this is serious matters. should be moved by politics but it will be. >> lisa: he's making the case, "nothing to see her, we are doing things by the book, and a discussion doing the job." how does a square that with the fact that he was the one he release his own memos, government memos come to spur special counsel to stick? >> katie: if you want to make that argument that everything was done by the book, as many of the people who are part of this cabal said, "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried about an investigation shall this happen?"

i think it is rich that he accused him in his op-ed of undermining our institutions, when that's exactly what has happened, not just at the fbi but across the sector of the intelligence agencies. i don't think purely particle. there are concerns about the way the fisa court was set up at the very beginning and has been used now against american citizens. >> guy: the dossier. >> melissa: along that point, i think it was striking that mueller said what really matters here is that russia tried to interfere and everybody needs to focus on that. but he didn't look at fusion gps. he did look at christopher steele. if you want to see you interacted and helped the russians or fell victim to them or however you want to say it, how can you live out that piece? >> lisa: great point. coming up in the next hour, the white house press secretary is here with the latest white house reaction to robert mueller. and then we are awaiting remarks from the democratic chairman of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler, and where he and his fellow democrats go from here. stay with us. ♪ alright, i brought in ensure max protein...

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't (grunti)g i'll take that. (cheering) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar ensure. for strength and energy. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. 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.

>> the team explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. among other things, that evidence could be used if there were coconspirators who could be

charged now. under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged for a federal crime while he's in office. that is unconstitutional. even if the charges kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. >> melissa: guy, they make it sound so definitive when they say. the next person gets up and totally contradicts that. but i guess that's what interpreting the law is all about. that people look at the exact same words and they see something different. >> guy: in this case it was a mall, it was olc guidance or opinion. even as judge napolitano said earlier, wasn't even followed to the letter during the clinton administration after the guidance had been put out in the year 2000. it struck me this way, that mueller decided at some point in this process -- i would like to know when -- that he was entirely handcuffed on the question of whether he could even think about recommending

charges for the president based on the guidance. when did he make the decision, why, or is that a cop out to punt on that crucial issue that maybe he didn't want to touch in his final report? and i still would like to hear from you under oath if the conversations with barr happened the way that barr set or not, because i'm trying to think of ways to reconcile the two comments and i'm coming up empty for now. merely needs to be pressed on it. speed when i did think of away. katie, let me ask you on this. he says he can't decide one way or the other, he has to lay out all the facts on the table. and barr says, "we sat there with the exact same idea in mind and we said, "let's put aside the olc and look at these facts and decide, if he can be charge or not." and they decided now. can we reconcile them that way? >> katie: barr's office as saying that the special counsel from the beginning never considered charges for the president of the united states

because of the olc guidance saying the president could be charged with the crime. if that was the case outside of the coconspirator argument, the big question is why we had a $40 million special counsel investigation in the first place if they do with the beginning that going after the president wouldn't result in any kind of indictment or charge. >> guy: and barr said that wasn't the case. >> katie: according to barr's office, they have this meeting on march 5th and they were in agreement. rod rosenstein, robert mueller steam, and bill barr, that this did not apply. that's the explanation. to. >> melissa: your final thoughts on the riverside. thanks, guys. more "outnumbered." 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? oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away

if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. findican be overwhelming.r dry eyes... for relief that lasts... you want soothe xp from bausch + lomb. soothe xp helps restore the eyes' lipid layer... ...seal in moisture... ...and protect against further irritation. soothe xp. the right choice for dry eyes.

who used expedia to book the vacation rental that led to the ride ♪

which took them to the place where they discovered that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. ♪ flights, hotels, cars, activities, vacation rentals. expedia. everything you need to go. >> katie: lisa, quick last word from you? >> lisa: it's hard not to see investigators are putting their film on the scale. got peter strzok who demonstrated by a state of mind, comey releases on his own memo to start the discussion. >> katie: lots of news.

thank you to capri and to guy benson. we are back tomorrow at noon eastern. now come up to melissa francis who is in for harris >> melissa: fox news alert, president trump cleaning vindication, saying the case is closed after robert mueller breaks his silence in explosive fashion prayed let's go "outnumbered overtime." i'm melissa francis into different harris faulkner. a dramatic moment in washington, to say the least. robert mueller making his first public remarks since he took over the russia probe two years ago. saying there was insufficient evidence to prove your broader conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. watch. >> the first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from russia to influence the election. this volume includes a discussion of the trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader