captioning sponsored by cbs >> brennan: it's sunday, may 5th. i'm margaret brennan, and this is "face the nation." six weeks after the mueller report's completion, president trump is still taking victory laps. this time in a conversation with russian president vladimir putin. >> he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain, and it ended up being a house. >> brennan: russian interference in the 2016 election is, of course, what prompted the investigation in the first place. >> did you tell him not to meddle? >> we didn't discuss that. >> brennan: what should be done to punish russia and keep

them from meddling again? we'll talk with secretary of state mike pompeo. and attorney general william barr faces a firestorm on capitol hill, angering democrats on one committee -- >> please, mr. attorney general, give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on around here. >> brennan: -- and declining to appear before another. >> chicken barr should have shown up today and answered questions. >> brennan: that same committee is threatening to hold him in contempt of congress. we'll explain why. and there is outrage over some of barr's answers in testimony last month. >> he lied to congress. if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. >> brennan: we'll ask the top republican on the house committee, doug collins, and california democrat eric swalwell what's next. plus we'll speak to the number-two democrat in the senate, dick durbin of illinois. we'll have plenty of analysis on all of the news of the week. it's just ahead on "face the nation."

>> brennan: good morning and welcome to "face the nation." it's quiet here in washington, but that is not the case in other parts of the world. overnight we've seen the worst flare-up in violence between israel and hamas in months. hamas fired hundreds of rockets into israel, which responded with what prime minister native netanyahu called "massive air strikes in gaza." meanwhile, north korea tested what appeared to be short range missiles. kim jong-un personally oversaw that launch. and in venezuela, a u.s.-backed uprising against nicolaás maduro fizzled as opposition leader juan guaidoó was able to peel away key military support. we begin this morning with america's top diplomat, secretary of state mike pompeo. welcome to "face the nation" on a very busy morning for you. on this latest north korea test, it appears to be short-range missiles.

does kim jong-un get pass on this? are we looking at a situation where more sanctions are necessary? >> so the sanctions haven't changed. toughest sanctions in the history of north korea remain in place. that's probably what's putting some of the pressure on chairman kim today. you saw this happen too right after his visit to russia, right? right after he spoke with vladimir putin, he made the decision to take these actions. we're still evaluating the appropriate response, but i want everyone in your audience to know we will exhaust every diplomatic opportunity. i continue to invite our counterparts for negotiations. we still believe there is path forward where chairman kim can denuclearize without resorting to anything beyond diplomacy. with we're hopeful that we can achieve that. we have made real progress between singapore and hanoi. we hope that progress can continue. it would be the best outcome to the world. chairman kim's commitment remains in effect. he has said he's prepare to denuclearize. my task as america's most senior diplomat is to achieve that.

>> brennan: when president trump tweeted "i'm with him," he wasn't saying this test will go without consequence? >> i think president trump understands that the path forward that is the most optimal for the entire world is the negotiated solution to this. so we're -- i talked to him last night. we are full speed ahead in trying to work with the north koreans to diplomatically achieve denuclearization on the peninsula. >> brennan: the mother of otto warmbier spoke out forceically about kim jong-un and the diplomacy under way. take a listen. >> this is not only a nuclear problem, this is a problem that we're dealing with absolute evil. there is a charade going on right now. it's called diplomacy. how can you have diplomacy with someone that never tells the truth? >> brennan: how do you respond to her? >> i've gotten to know the warmbier family, especially cindy. she's an amazing patriot and a

remarkable woman. i have enormous sympathy and admiration for her. i completely understand her remarks. we're hopeful. we don't expect chairman kim to tell us the truth. that's why we're going to verify any denuclearization that takes place. that's why we will ensure that we see actual on-the-ground outcomes. we're not going to take anyone's word for it. but we want to work to try to do that in a way that is a negotiated solution. that's our mission set. >> brennan: are you still president trump's lead negotiator on north korea? >> as far as i know. >> brennan: the north koreans have said they objected to negotiating with you personally? >> the north koreans don't get to choose our negotiator. we don't get to choose theirs. each of these two leaders are very personally committed to this effort. they have both shown great effort to achieve this outcome. i am working to support those two leaders so we can get the outcome that the world deserves. >> brennan: i want to ask you about china. chinese officials are headed to washington for trade talks. we heard from a pentagon official on friday, a pretty stark description of what is under way right now in china.

he said that there are three million muslims being rounded up into consecration camps in china. why hasn't the administration taken any kind of action or sanction against beijing for this? >> oh, goodness, president trump has pushed back against china in a way no previous president has. >> brennan: concentration camps. >> they had given the chinese a free pass in every direction. you have seen me peek out about the same situation you're describing, this number certainly up to a million people held in reeducation camps. the trump administration is going to hold every nation accountable. >> brennan: you're okay with that term, "reeducation camp," not concentration camp, which the pentagon used? >> we can use lots of different terms to describe what's taking place. it's an enormous human rights violation. i have spoken about it repeatedly. the entire administration has spoken out. >> brennan: you just said a million minorities. the pentagon says three million. is there a discrepancy within

the administration on what to do about this and what's actually happening? >> no. don't play ticky tack. >> brennan: concentration camps is a loaded term, sir, and three million muslims being rounded up is something that many would expect the united states to raise at the highest level. >> and we've done. so. it sounds like you're satisfied with that. we have done so. >> brennan: the accusation, as you know, sir, is the trade talks are causing the u.s. to choose its own financial interests over its values. are you saying that's not the case and there will be actions taken? >> thanks for the clarify cailings of your question. i appreciate that. this administration can do more than one thing at a time. we're working to stop the intellectual property theft that has destroyed millions of jobs in the united states. we're working to stop the foreign technology transfers that have taken place. we have got the largest defense budget in history in place. part of which will go to ensuing we counter chinese military

power. we're working on human rights violation, as well. this administration takes a backseat to no one in our efforts and our out comes in achieving a more rational relationship with china. the previous administration put us in a bad place. we're working to fix it. >> brennan: were you just saying human rights are going to be included in the trade deal? >> no, human rights are going to be addressed. we have done some i have raised it in multiple conversations with my counterpart and with others. >> brennan: you've got the whole world as your portfolio, so let's move on to venezuela and russia. there was this phone call between vladimir putin and president trump that just happened. the president described it to us in an oval office spray. why didn't he bring up election interference on this phone call when he said he did discuss the findings of the mueller report, which found sweeping and systematic russian interference in 2016. >> well, you'll have to ask the white house that question. the president has been very clear. the administration has taken

great action. i wish the previous one had stopped the election interference that took place in 2016. they failed to do so. between 2017 when president trump came into office and 2018, we had a successful election instead of midterm elections. we're working diligently to ensure the elections in 2020 aren't interfered with by russia, by iran, by north korea, or anyone else. we have enormous resources deployed against that challenge. the american people should be sure their government is working hard to keep our elections safe and secure. >> brennan: you said this week that moscow has hundreds of people in venezuela and were very clear that you think it was russia that convinced nicolaás maduro not to get on a plane and to flee the country. here's what the president said during his -- after his phone call with vladimir putin. >> he is not looking at all to get involved in venezuela other than he'd like the see something positive happen for venezuela. and i feel the same way. >> brennan: there seems to be a difference in how the

president describes this situation and how you and ambassador bolton have described it. >> no, no difference. no difference. the president has said... i think he in fact tweeted that the russians must leave venezuela. we have asked every nation that's interfering with venezuelan democracy. i was down on the border. we saw mothers who couldn't feed their children fleeing the country. we saw families that had sick kids but couldn't get medicine. it's all sitting within 50 miles of where we were located. and "madame fourcade's secret war -- maduro won't allow them to come in. the president has been clear. we want the cubans out. there are iranians on the ground. there we want everyone out so the venezuelan people can get the democracy they deserve, that includes mr. maduro leaving. >> brennan: so when the president says putin is not looking to get involved at all in vensz la, that's not the president accepting him at face value? he knows that's not the case? >> the president has tweeted that he wants the russians out of venezuela. >> brennan: so he was just

putting a positive spin on things in that moment? >> we are working very diligently to ensure that maduro leaves and we get free and fair elections in venezuela. that will require the 2,300 cuban security force, frankly, the people closest to maduro who are protecting maduro. they have to leave. we're working on that. we're working with the cubans to get an outcome that will let the venezuelans have this opportunity. >> brennan: i know you will be meeting with the russian foreign minister in the coming days. is there a deal to be struck with russia on this front? russia benefits, right, by having venezuelan oil off the market, by having a level of influence in america's backyard. is the u.s. going to negotiate a deal with russia on venezuela? >> i'll certainly bring up venezuelaa. it will be one of many topics that foreign minister lavrov and i speak about, whether there is a particular deal that can be reached, only time will tell. >> brennan: lindsey graham, the republican senator from south carolina, who i know you know well, tweeted this week,

cuba, russia send troop to prop up government in venezuela while we talk. where is our aircraft carrier. he seemed to be calling a bluff. you mentioned that military options aren't off the table. what is being considered here, because you can't refer to use of military force lightly. is there an actual option you are considered deploying in the coming days? >> oh, goodness, the president has made clear that no option is off the table. we worked this week to further the planning so we would have a wide range of options, diplomatic option, political option, options that would involve the department of defense. we have made clear the president -- >> brennan: is that actual offensive action? >> there will be many options that we will fully bake, make sure they're ready, get laid out in exquisite detail so when the situation changes on the ground or when the president makes a conclusion it's path he wants to go down, that's an option we've

prepared for him. we don't want to be flat-footed. we have worked to make sure a wide range of capabilities are prepared to be executed. >> brennan: final point on, this juan guaidoó, the oppositin lead their the u.s. backed and many other countries recognize as the legitimate leader, has said he essentially miscalculated the level of support in assuming the military would back him or break away from mad door row. are you still saying a military option is on the table when the opposite leader we're backing can't get the support of his country's military? >> he didn't get it that day. although the senior intelligence official left. it's not the case that military haven't left. there have been lots of even land military that have departed. not yet. we're not there yet. we won't be successful until the day that we are. we are determined to see the venezuelan people have democracy, as are 54 other nation, including most every nation in the region. they understand that three million migrants that have departed venezuela and another

two million this year is unacceptable for the region. they're working to build a coalition to support the venezuelan people and their democracy. >> brennan: mr. secretary, we have to leave it there. >> thank you, ma'am. >> brennan: we turn now to the number-two democrat in the senate, dick durbin of illinois. he joins thus morning from chicago. senator, i want to get to a number of domestic issues. you have visited venezuela within the past few years. do you support the administration's approach? >> i support with their approach. i don't agree with lindsey graham. i am not in favor of military intervention. i can tell you i listened to secretary of state pompeo trying to explain this president's conversation with vladimir putin, and i just don't get it. this president is totally dazzled by vladimir putin, by the crown prince of saudi arabia, by authoritarian lead centers countries like brazil. he gets on the phone with them and he loses it. he gets all googly eyed over their assertions they have nothing to do with what's going on in venezuela. listen to what john bolton says. listen to what secretary of state pompeo said.

russia has sent at least a planeload full of these little green men that we've seen in eastern ukraine, and they are destabilizing the situation there. they're there to support maduro. they don't want to see the change that the american people want to see, and that's to have a free election in that country and a choice of someone democratically. >> brennan: now to the question of russian election interference in this country's election in 2016, which is what prompted the mueller report and brings us to where we are right now with the attorney general testifying to congress about his description of that to the public. speaker pelosi said this week that a.g. bar lied. do you agree with her? >> well, i don't know what other conclusion you can reach. i asked him the question point blank and charlie crist of florida asked him, well, is there any effort by the people who worked on the mueller staff and such to raise questions about the accuracy of what you said in your letter, and he said, ," no i don't know."

the fact is he had received a letter from bob mueller just a few days before that explicitly said in writing the concerns which he had with the characterizations by attorney general barr. i don't know any other way the characterize it. >> brennan: let's listen to that exchange that you just referenced. >> 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 that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> new no, i don't. i think... i suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. >> did bob mueller support your conclusions? >> i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusions. >> brennan: that was congressman crist and then senator van holland. those questions that you are

saying you view as a lie. republican defenders of attorney general barr say, no, no, this was a matter of answering the question regarding members of mueller's own team disagreeing, not saying that he was not aware that the special counsel personally objected. why don't you buy that excuse? >> i don't buy it at all. let's be honest about it, attorney general barr not only received that letter from bob mueller saying in writing that he disagreed with the attorney general's characterization of the mueller report, he then had a telephone conversation with him to follow and to say he wasn't aware of mueller's misgivings about his characterization, that is at the minimum misleading the not worse we -- deception to the american people. >> brennan: you did have a chance to ask some questions of the attorney general yourself. the chairman of the senate judiciary committee lindsey graham has since issued a letter saying that offering robert mueller the chance to testify specifically about this phone

call and conversation with the attorney general. do you expect him to testify, and if he declines, do you consider that a closed matter? >> i hope it is not a closed matter, but a there are so many unanswered questions. remember, there are two volumes to the mueller report. first volume deals with russian interference in our election. much of that is redacted. we need to know what they did which led to the indictment of russians by mueller and led to i hope a new resolve by the united states to never let it happen again. >> brennan: do you expect him to testify, take lindsey graham up on that offer? >> well, i would take him up on it, but i asked him point blank on the record on thursday in the senate judiciary committee, are we going to have bob mueller before this committee, and he said no, as far as he was concerned it was over. if he's opened the door the bring in bob mueller, good. i believe he should testify, not only about the first volume on russian interference, but clearly about his conclusions or lack of conclusions on obstruction of justice. >> brennan: you wrote an op-ed recently challenging the

attorney general and saying he should recuse himself from a number of the related investigations that have sponge off the special counsel's probe itself. are you suggesting that the attorney general would meddle in ongoing investigations regarding the president? >> i am not going to suggest, that but i will tell you this, for the sake of justice and in light of what we have seen in the rollout of bob barr or bill barr's rollout of this mueller report, he should recuse himself. 14 different matters are being investigated because the mueller inquiry, the mueller investigation, and mr. barr should not be a hindrance or raise any questions about whether this is going to be an investigation an a prosecution with total integrity. he has raised that question because of his cash industry triization of mueller testimony. -- characterization of mueller testimony. >> brennan: should he resign? >> i have not called for redization, some of my colleagues have, but recusal, yes, he should withdraw himself

from any of the results that are leading could possibly lead to prosecutions because the mueller investigation. >> brennan: aren't you concerned that this could just, you know, in some ways strengthen the president's decision to take this as a fighting matter, make this a matter of partisan politics. he clearly feels that the mueller report in his words exonerated him, and that this is a fight he wants to have in the public space. >> well, the mueller report expressly said it was neither exonerating him nor finding him guilty. that's what led to the conclusion by many barr and mr. rosenstein when it came to the obstruction of justice. but as far as i am concerned, there is work to be done on the mueller report in volume one to protect us from russian interference. the fact that the president of the united states had this conversation with vladimir putin within the last several days and didn't raise this issue after the mueller report, what is he thinking? we don't want to relive what happened in 2016 in the united states. the russians ought to take their

hands off of our election process. >> brennan: senator, thank you for joining us this morning. >> thank you. >> brennan: we will be joined in a minute by congressman doug collins, the top republican on the house judiciary committee. the house judiciary committee. stay with us. ars earn. grow with google is here to help you with turning ideas into action. putting your business on the map, connecting with customers, and getting the skills to use new tools. so, in case you're looking, we've put all the ways we can help in one place. free training, tools, and small business resources are now available at google.com/grow

>> brennan: we're back now with congressman doug collins, the top republican on the house judiciary committee and joins us from warner robbins from his home state of georgia. good morning to you. have you read the full 400-plus pages of if mueller report? >> good morning, margaret. yes, i have. i have also let what bill barr rent us go back and opened it up even more. i have went to the department of justice and read the less redacted report. i have read all of it except than a little less than 2%, almost 1% of the report. >> brennan: that is what the democrats on your committee are calling for to be made public and, in fact, there is this threat of holding the attorney general in contempt if he doesn't share more information

and underlying evidence. do you expect him to be held in contempt? >> it's really interesting, margaret, what's happened here. a little over 16 days ago the chairman asked for this material. he knows he can't get in a normal oversight proceeding, but he continues on. now with pressure like from his own side, they're going to move to contempt over not producing the document, not showing up. this is about the documents. but if you go back to any other, irs exholder, others. this is a longer process. we're looking at 16 days or over that to go to contempt on information he knows he can't get. my question to the chairman is why doesn't he read what's already available. if he wants more, then work with the department of justice to figure this out instead of having the public show of contempt and trying to discredit bill barr. >> brennan: well, democrats would say they look at it and can't talk about it publicly, then that's not fair. but on top of this, are you disappointed that the attorney general didn't come before your committee so you could have this

conversation? >> i'm very disappointed that my chairman let that happen. i wanted to actually talk the bill barr. he had that opportunity. and the day before he was in the senate and sat for over six hours and a double round of questions for democrats. bill barr is not afraid of testifying. bill barr has said he will testify. he just didn't want to be part of a show in which the democrats who have not brought up impeachment because they know they can't -- i have a question, margaret. why would you impeach a president after mueller said there was no collusion, there was no obstruction. at this point we have the best economy we had in 50 years, 50 years of unemployment. what are you impeaching him for? >> brennan: we'll talk about that more. >> they want to make it look like impeachment. >> brennan: we have to take a quick commercial break. i want to talk to you about that more on the other side of it. more on the other side of it. please stay with us. us then here in logistic, to avoid disruptions! here in sales. even here!

i'm talking about ai we can build to work... here, predicting trends. and here, wherever our data lives! and here, working with all our other ai! i think we're done here. expect more from ai. ibm watson. but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

with licensed agents available 24/7. it's not just easy. it's having-a-walrus-in-goal easy! roooaaaar! it's a walrus! ridiculous! yes! nice save, big guy! good job duncan! way to go! [chanting] it's not just easy. it's geico easy. oh, duncan. stay up. no sleepies. >> brennan: be sure to join us next sunday. we'll have an interview with former defense secretary robert gates. that's next week on "face the that's next week on "face the nation."

and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with new retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena®

>> brennan: some of our stations are heaving us now, but we will be right back with more from republican congressman doug collins of georgia. stay with us.

>> you read the letter and you see what he was concerned about ala through the press. >> he didn't. >> the quote was as i read it. >> i read it. i read the letter as well in totality. he never disagreed with the

conclusions of the attorney general. the conclusions were right. as mr. mueller said in that letter, he was concerned about how it was put out. he thought there might have been more put out at a certain time and its attorney general's job on how he was going to put that out and for the public to see it. that was if you take a strict reading of the letter. >> this is not the only hearing. in fact, there are many investigations, many subpoenas that have been issued to the administration. and it seems that really you're seeing a head-to-head clash between the congressional branch of government and the white house on many fronts. is the refusal to comply worrisome to you that they're setting a precedent that undermines the oversight of capabilities and charge of congress? >> no, it does not. it is happening with he evevery

administration. with obama there was pushback, a slow walk of information. this is something that goes on at all times. i'm very much in favor of congressional oversight no matter who is in the white house. there is a give and take between the two. especially in regards to what we are seeing right now if the chairman would engage and find a way to find accommodations, offer accommodations do things that have been done in the past historically instead of rush to go press release or assumption, we could get to the oversight that we need to have on this. >> congressman, thank you for your time this morning. we turn to congressman eric swalwell who joins us this morning from mason scity, iowa. a welcome to "face the nation". congressman, i know you are -- >> thank you. >> you are very much involved as well with these hearings and investigations. so let's start there before we talk about your 2020 platform.

this hearing we were just talking about that the attorney general did not show up for, in the center of the room one of your democratic colleagues put a bucket of kentucky fried chicken and an actual chicken. it obviously got a lot of press attention. but is this really the tone that democrats want to set? >> the tone we want to set is to highlight that america was attacked by the russians in 2016. the basic function of the government is to protect its people from a foreign attack. and we needed the attorney general to come to congress, a separate branch of power, and tell us what the russians did, who they worked with and what happened next. he did not show up. there will be consequences for that. that was highlighted by another colleague of mine. the bigger issue is he didn't show up. >> he didn't show up over these procedural arguments in regard to having other lawyers, staff

lawyers question alongside a congressman like yourself. for you, you think this is just a refusal to comply because of what? >> you know, margaret, i don't care if we asked him to meet us here in mason city to tell us what the russians did. we are i separate branch of power and we have the right to ask so we can protect the american people. this is more about not wanting to play a home game. he had an away game with senator graham. he didn't do so well there. it seemed he lied to question. he didn't want to answer more questions. if we are not able to protect our people from a foreign attack do we have a government that can defend us. >> you seem to agree with speaker pelosi that the attorney general lied. specifically here, what is it that you are taking issue with? >> well, first, he prejudged the report before he even became attorney general.

he should have never been confirmed. but once confirmed, should have recused. he micharacterized the press conference and to congressman crist what bob mueller's view was. most importantly, he missed the deadline to give us the full mueller report. there have to be consequences like this. you have to move this obstruction out of the way. we need to impeach attorney general barr. >> did you real all the mueller report? >> yeah. there's an eighth of it i'm not allowed to read but i should be allowed to read. >> your leadership has the ability to read it. but we know there is a reason for that object skwrebgobjectio. the interference that is laid out in the report is substantiated. but i know you have been talking because you are also an intelligence role on that house committee.

saying a number of things. i want to quote back to you up until this point. >> yeah. >> you were asked do you believe the president right now has been an agent of the russians? you said yes. you were asked at the end of the month by questioner. i'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of russia. you said, yeah, i think it's pretty clear. it's almost hiding in plain sight. the mueller report did not substantiate any conspiracy or coordination with russia. do you regret prejudging the outcome? >> n actually, i think i should have been louder considering the top of your show when you talked about the phone call between vladimir putin and the president at the president's request. margaret, the mueller team was not even loud to look at the financial entanglements. it is hard to draw a -- >> you still believe he is an agent of russia? >> eufrpbg he acts i think he a

behalf. ten years from now we will see, are you kidding me? after russia attacked the united states, after the special counsel laid out 200 pages of links between the russians and the trumps and how they tried to help him, our president, instead of calling the russian president and saying don't do this again, he talked for him an hour and a half and said the russian president was smiling. that is nutty, margaret. that is putting the russians' interests ahead of the united states. >> this, along with other investigations, the administration is pushing back on. given the level of pushback, do you think this is stirring up enough frustration among democrats that they might change the judgment and go ahead with impeachment. do you support impeachment of the president? >> this president is taking us down this road. it is maybe the only road to save the country. right now i'll tell you, with the attorney general we should move to impeach him first. i'm a father of a 2-year-old and 6-month-old. we're going through the terrible

twos. when my son takesmiss behaves, take a toy away. unless we start showing consequences for their actions, he's only going to get worse, and the next kid, the tphez president will look what we did now. we have to start taking this president seriously and speaking the only language they know, which is forcing consequence. >> so you're running for president. day one, more sanctions on russia? >> yes. . but also day one is take the oath and go on a global affirmation tour. we need our allies to be a check on russia. >> congressman, more to talk about with you. we will have to leave it there. >> i look forward to that. >> we will pick up the conversation another time. we will be back with our political panel. change has many faces.

names you'll never know. the bright-eyed, the brave, the visionaries. where challenges exist, you'll find them. everything they do is for those who come next. so side by side, they pave the road ahead to create a place where everyone belongs. at citi, we empower people who are out to change the world. because tomorrow waits for no one... but it belongs to those who welcome it with open arms. citi. welcome what's next the one thing you learn pretty as a small bquickly,owner, is that there's a lot to learn. grow with google is here to help you

with turning ideas into action. putting your business on the map, connecting with customers, and getting the skills to use new tools. so, in case you're looking, we've put all the ways we can help in one place. free training, tools, and small business resources are now available at google.com/grow > we have the "washington post" and michael crowley security editor at politico. not for long, though, because congratulations, mike ral, you are headed to a new assignment for the "new york times" to cover the white house. >> thank you. i'm excited. >> hope to have you back at this table. byron, good to see. >> you thank you. >> the speaker of the house said the attorney general lied under

oath. did he? >> i don't think so. i think if you look at the next of what the attorney general said in that change with representative crist, you played it earlier. bill barr gave an accurate and very lawyerly answer. we have seen that in congress before. he was asked about robert mueller's team, about a news story that appeared in the "new york times" right before about members of mueller's team told associates they were unhappy with the report. specifically said they didn't know what mueller himself thought. and bill barr said, look, i talked to robert mueller himself. i don't know what his team said. that's why i answered the question. it was not forth coming. it was narrow. but it was not a lie. >> but the letter from the special counsel that became public this week underscores, it seems, at least some level of disagreement between the special counsel and the attorney general and the public portray.

>> al >> i don't thi. there was intense public pressure when it was sent to the justice department march 22nd. i had to get something out. so in a couple of days i summarized the report's principle conclusions. i didn't characterize the whole report. basically he said that mueller had found the evidence did not substantiate a charge of conspiracy. and he chose not to exonerate the president on obstruction. and he included that in his letter. look, i think a two-page letter is not going to characterize a 448-page report. what this underscores, and also what barr is hearing in the senate judiciary committee underscores is the need to hear from mueller. so many questions that attorney general barr got that day. we were asking him to characterize bob mueller's thoughts. and he said i don't want to characterize bob's thoughts about a question from a democrat.

and i think if bob mueller is willing to speak to the senate judiciary committee, that whole thing, he can actually answer some of these questions that barr got. that can help figure out, was it a lie? was it not a lie? all of those things rest on bob mueller. >> and if you're explaining, you're losing. so maybe barr can go and explain, well, i thought the question was this or that. democrats think they have enough to say he lied. it's not just that comment. he has ignored two subpoenas from the house democrats. he did not show up at a hearing that he was supposed to attend last week. and they have a whole list of grievances with him. so we're going to see them, it's spwb interesting with your interview with swalwell he talked about impeaching barr. do we just hold him in contempt of congress? they are going to do that. it's a matter of when, not if.

if they impeach barr, does that make it harder to impeach the president. there was a conversation with judiciary democrats last week where they debated that very thing. will they impeach both or the president, not barr. it is sort of an interesting how they handle that will be interesting. >> the time to impeach is dead on arrival in the republican-controlled senate. to people at home it sounds just like more fight anything washington. >> with the mueller report, house democrats had a call right after and it was the same. do not talk about the impeachment. well, we will keep investigating the president. but the president came out and said i'm going to ignore all subpoenas. that infuriated a hole bunch of democratic investigators in the house. that, more than the mueller report i would say, made more people start talking about impeachment.

pelosi is feeling a lot of heat. her rhetoric is sharper and sharper, talking about the president being worse than nixon. she has to calm the caucus down if they don't want to go to impeachment. >> it is a fair question. is it fair to ask why the president didn't bring this up with vladimir putin given it has been discussed. they have confronted him in some way through other channels. in the wake of the mueller report, should we have expected the president to have pushed vladimir putin? >> well, i wouldn't have expected it because at this point we know that the president just doesn't want to talk about this. he doesn't want to prioritize it in his relationship with putin. and i find it, although, you know, strange on some level, also utterly unsurprising. and what's more spraoeutriking general the president's tone is just completely unchanged. in other words, it is not about election interference and is he

still pushing that. it's just he's still talking about trying to have a good relationship with russia. speaking in general positive terms about putin, describing this, you know, this kind of bond between each other, light rapport, joking around, putin was smiling through the telephone. that unusual language trump used. i wonder if he feels although the russia stuff is behind us and i can get become to this relationship, congress tied hish hands, made it difficult to change u.s. policy, there is still a lot trump can do in terms of building relations with putin, giving him more freedom to act. his comments about venezuela. he said one thing verbally and another on twitter, as mike pompeo pointed out. he can make it difficult for putin to operate in venezuela, syria, and the middle east if he wants to. beyond that particular question, which is very important, i'm

watch to go see if trump now feels he can resume this effort to develop a relationship. the last thing i will say, margaret, very quickly, is pompeo meeting to tee up a potential trump/putin meeting at the g20 in japan this summer. that is very possible. >> right. we're going to have to take a break. that thought on the other side. stay with us. we'll be back in a moment. are we tnot yet.? at crystal geyser we put our mountain source on our bottle... that's cool. ...because we bottle at our mountain source. crystal geyser alpine spring water. always bottled at the mountain source.

when you can't get to the mountain...

that's cool. ...we bring the mountain to you. let's go hike over there. i'm out. i'm out. me too. guys! crystal geyser alpine spring water. always bottled at the mountain source. we're back now with our political panel. byron, i'll start with you. i cut you off before the break. we were talking about russia and the president's lack of confrontation. >> it is a recurring show. trump has consistently refused to publicly condemn putin. it happens over and over and over. he makes a mistake every time he does that. with trump, as with everything else, there are always two levels going on. there's what the president said publicly and what the administration is doing. i was at a hoover institution event a few days ago, stanford. michael mcfaul, the obama administration's ambassador to russia. no fan of trump at all.

said i don't see a big difference between the late obama years and early trump years. i see more continuity in strengthening nato, punishing russia for pwhreupbbelligerent and strengthening ukraine. you do have to remember what the president's administration is doing against russia neighbor i to what he is saying. >> but it also puts his administration is a weird position. one thing about secretary pompeo's interview with you, he had to find himself either ignoring or explaining away the president of the united states. you're right, we see this happen over and over again. it's worth paying attention to what the administration continues to do. what does that say to our friends, allies, the people who don't like us around the world when the president continues to say one thing but secretary pompeo and everyone else say something else? it is just confusing. it isn't clear. and the president's words do matter in foreign affairs. just one sentence.

now that the mueller report is behind us and mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy to collude with russia, will the president change u.s. policy. >> and potential meetings since the president proposed an idea of a nuclear deal with russia and china. more to come on that front. back at home. rachel, in an interview with the "new york times", speaker pelosi said the best plan to defeat president trump, not to impeach him, but is to win at the ballot box in 2020. own the center left. own the mainstream. is that message being heard? >> yeah, it's really interesting to see pelosi. for years we saw republicans paint her as this san francisco liberal. this boogeyman. she, more than any other leader of the democratic party, is really taking a pragmatic approach to impeachment, to 2020. she put any notion of putting medicare for all to the house

floor to the side. they are having hearings on that. she's not talking about it. she said calm down on impeachment. this shows this cautious approach she is taking when it comes to keeping her own majority. and the spirit she has, her caucus could overreach or being accused of overreaching when it comes to this these investigations. it could have a blowback not only on the house but potentially giving trump a second term, which is the last thing that she wants. i also think it's interesting to look at the republican side, too. you ask collins if he had any concerns about preston here and about trump stonewalling, all of these investigations. i covered his -- his response was, oh, every administration does this. it is true there is always a tug of war between the house and the white house. but i covered the irs scandal, the benghazi investigation. the obama white house hated those investigations. they gave a ton of information. they let people do depositions. so it's really interesting to see republicans don't have any

concerns about precedent here. they will undercut themselves when there is a democrat in the white house and they regain control of the house. >> byron, why isn't there more concern about that? >> i am a little mystified at pelosi's behavior. she has been putting the brakes on this a lot. on impeachment talk. she knows a lot of her base wants it. a lot of senator democrats like pelosi believe imimpeaching clinton was political suicide in 1998. in 1998, republicans thought they would pick up seats in the house with impeachment, and they didn't. they actually lost a few seats. but they won control of the house. after impeaching clinton, they won control in 98, 2000, 2002, four. when they lost in 2006, it had nothing to do with bill clinton. they won the white house in 2000 and 2004. impeachment was not political suicide for republicans. and i think nancy pelosi has a

difficult case to make to her base on that. >> but nancy pelosi also says, and i think this came up in that phone call that they had right after the mueller report came out but all the democrats were scattered throughout the country because of the recess. some of the things we remember from the nixon situation, john dean talking, all of that stuff, weren't impeachment hearings. they were hearings about the investigation and hearings about what was going on. her point was we can get our version of the mueller report out into the world because we know lots of people are going to read it. we can do it through committee hearings without quite going as far as impeachment when we know we will lose that argument in the senate. she is focused on what the pr way to do this. can we do this, get mueller out in front of it, do all that and not have to call it impeachment. >> the problem there is, though, with the president doing the stonewalling of congress, the

democrats -- that plan is going up in smoke right now. >> not bob mueller. >> bob mueller is one thing. he will appear before the house at some point in the next couple of weeks. don mcgahn was a dee witness in the mueller investigation and on questions of obstruction of justice. but the white house is saying they're not going to let him appear. the whole planning of investigating and laying it out for the public is shot right now. >> we will be back with the other part of this must-watch television in a moment. welcome to fowler, indiana. one of the windiest places in america.

and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. armando: i am a veteran, i lost both legs in vietnam. announcer: as america's veterans face challenges, dav is there. armando: my victory was getting my benefits and a good education. announcer: dav helps veterans i've slain your dreaded dragon.

for saving the kingdom what doth thou desire? my lord? hey good knight. where are you going? ♪ ♪ climbing up on solsbury hill ♪ grab your things, salutations. coffee that is a cup above is always worth the quest. nespresso. tis all i desire. did thou bring enough for the whole kingdom? george: nespresso, what else?

(female announcer) america's number one anti-aging body treatment system for crepey skin just got even better. (male announcer) new crepe erase advanced gives you even faster results and is clinically shown to give you smoother, firmer, younger looking skin. (female announcer) on your neck... (male announcer) chest... (female announcer) arms... (male announcer) legs... (female announcer) and hands. sponsored by body firm and featuring jane seymour, courtney thorne-smith... (male announcer) and dorothy hamill. this is the arm of a 74-year-old woman, and this is the same arm after using crepe erase advanced just one time. (female announcer) imagine results like this on your body.