captioning sponsored by newshour productions, ll >> woodruff: good evening, i'm odruff. on the newshour tonight... >> did you actually totally exonerate the president? >> no. >> now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. >> it does. >> mwoodruff: robeller testifies. the former special counsel appcoears beforress answering questions about russian interference in the 2016 election and whether president trump obstructed justice. then, we devote most of the show to examining mueller's testimony. what it means for the presidentn what it reveals about the scope of russian interference. all that, plus the day's other headlines on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: a language program that teaches real-life conversations in a new language, like spanish, french, angerman, italianmore. babbel's 10-15 minute lessons are available as an app, or online. mor be information onbel.com. ♪ ♪ >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressskg problems-- llfoundation.org. e >> melson foundation. committed to improving lives through invention, in the u.s. and developing countries. on the web at lemelson.org. pp >> ted by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful

world. more information at macfound.org >>rtand with the ongoing sup of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station om viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the man in charge of the years-long inquiry into present trump took the stand todkay, in back to b all culminated in a full day of testimony today al former speouncil robert mueller. and as william brangham as william brangham reports, the partisan war over the mueller probe was on full display. >> brgham: it was a historic day on capitol hill, two years in the making. former special counsel robert mueller testified bore two use committees about his

report on russia interferce in the 2016 election, and president trump's repeated attempts to end it. house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler of new york started off trying to rebut president tmp's assertions out mueller's report: >> so the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and what about total exoneration- did you actually totally exonerate the president? >> no. >> now in fact, your reports expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. >> it does. > brangham: democrats zeroed in on a key point-- why mueller did not determine if mr. trump obstructed justice or not. >> director mueller, you found evidence that as you lay out in your report that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justict isn't tharrect? >> that's what is says in the report, yes i stand by the >> you found evidence that the president engaged in efforts and i quote, "to encourage witnesses

not to cooperate with the invs estigation"at right? >> it's correct. >> ssan unsucl attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, correct? >> that is correct. >> brangham: but mueller said he was limited because of a longstanding department of justice memo written by the office of legal counsel. it dictates a sitting president cannot be indicte >> because the o.l.c. opinion, offnsice of legal c, indicates that we cannot indict a sitt the tools a prosecutor would use is not there. >> brangham: mueller also agreed that some witnesses misled investigators, which impacted his conclusions. >> according to your report, page nine volume one, witnesses lied to your office and to congress, those lies materially impaired the investigation of ssia interference, according to your report. and that lies by trump campaignf icials and admfistration oficials impeded your investigation. >> i would generally agree with that. >> brangham: multiple former

associates of mr. trump's campaign and members of his administration were charged for lying to mueller's team and to coness. the judiciary committee had almost four hours to question mueller. but one topic that was barely touched? impeachment. no democrats brought it up. and mueller declined to say his report was a blueprint for removing the president from iafice. >> rueddled in the 2016 election. the president did not conspire with the russians and nothing we hear today will change those facts. >> brangham: for their part, the rep dublican't spend much time addressing whether the president tried to slow or derprail mueller'e. instead, they returned to their longstandg criticisms of the investigation, including that it was more political than legal. >> it's startinto look like having desperately tried and faitoleake a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead. youer put it in a pack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran. >> i don't think you will review

a report that is as though, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us. >> you hired people that did not like the president. >> brangham: accusations of political partisanship among his legal team roused some of the strongest defenses from mr. mueller, especially when >> andrew weisman's one of your top attorneys? >> yes. >> andrew weisman attended hillary clinton's election night party, did you know that before or after he came onto the team? i don't know when i foun that out. onm not even talking about the 49,000 theyed to other democrats, just the donations to the opponent who's the target oo r investigation. >> can i speak tore a second to the hiring practices? >> sure. we strove to hire those individuals that could do e job. >> okay. i have been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years, i have not had occasion once to ask somebodyhe about political affiliation. it is not done. what i care about is the capability of the individual to

do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity. >> brangham: othe, like florida republican matt gaetz criticized mueller for his unwillingness to investigate the role played by ee notorious ele dossier, a series of unproven allegations about don russia, compiled by former british spy christopher steele. >> here's my question: did russians really tell that to christopher steele, or did he make that up and was he lying to the f.b.i? >> let me backup second if i could and say as i said earlier with regard to steele, that's beyond my purview. >> no it is exactly your purview mr. mueller and here's why: only e of two things is possible, right, either steele made this whole thing up and there were never any russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or, russians lied to steele. >> mueller went before the house intelligence committee for another round this afternoon.

>> welcome to the last ga of the russia collusion conspiracy they. >> reporter: in the early days of the russia investigation >> brangham: in the early days of the russia investigati, republicans on this same committee released their own report on russian interference the 2016 election. but their report came to a very different conclusion than mueller's. it deteedrmussia did not interfere in the election to help mr. trump's campaign. but democrats tay again pushed ck against that idea, and the assertion by the president and other that the inveion was a waste. >> and when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt that was also i like to think so yes. >> your investigation was not a witch hunt. >> it was not a witch hunt. nt said the presi russian interference was a hoax that was false wasn't it? >> true. >> when false? publicly it was >> he did say publicly that it was false. >> yes. >> qubrangham: anothetion, one that's been on the minds of many since the report was issued, why wasn't the president interviewed under oath? new york democrat sean patrick maloney: >> why didn't you subpoena the

president? >> we negotiated with him for a little over a year. the expectation was if we did subenpoena the presthat he would fight the subpoena and we'd be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time. >> brangham: representative will hurd, republican of texas, turned the hearing back to what the special counsel has always cited as one of the most serious issues raised by his investigation: the past and future threat of meddling in our elections: >> our committee issued a report andnsht saying that russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity and would you agree with that? >> yes, in fact one of the other areas that we have to look at are manmore companies. t companies, many more countries are developing an ability toreplicate what the russians have done. >> in your investigation did you emink this was a single a by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again? >> oh, it wasn't a single attempt, they're doing it as we sit here.

>> brangham: for the pbs newshour i'm william brangham. >> woodruff: president trump speitnt most of today at the house and was tweeting reaction during the mueller hearing late this afternoon, he spoke to reporters on the white house lawn. >> so we had a very good day today, the republican party, our country, there was no defense of what robert mueller was trying to defend in all fairness to robert mueller. whether his performance was a bad one or a good one, i think everybody understands that, i think everybody understand what's going on. there was no defense for this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that's been going on for a long time, pretty much front he time i came down the escalator with our first lady, its disgrace what happened but i think today proved a lot to everybody. >> woodruff: our yamiche alcindor who has been tracking

the response from the white house. so, yiche, you did hear all what the president had to say. what are you taking away from whee house? >> the president, h words an white house aides all agree that the president feels like he's in a better position today than he was yesterday. he se this hearing as really foubling down and being proof o what he's been saying which is all a witch hunt and a waste time. he said the democrats were in a worse position today because they came away with nothing. democrats, of course, take issue with that. they think getting robert mueller on the record saying he didn't common rate the president and helso could be charged when he leaves office was a win for them, but the president overall was pretty confident that he thinkgothis ig to help him in the 2020 election. i also put the question to the president directly. robert mueller said generally the questions and the answerrous gae him were utrue. the president got very, very upset and said that the question

was untruthful. when i pressed him some more, he said campaign des and white house aides hadn't lied to the president, hadn't liebe to t mueller, but rosht robert, of course, said the exact opposite. so this was in a lot of ways a ttotal repudiation of wh president was saying, but he's continuing to say mostly falsely that he was common rated a in full defense of what he was saying. >> woodruff: you were addressing one of t qstions i was going to ask you, what robert mller said in answer to different questions of different members of congress, was he did find the president's answers nol ys credible, not generally truthful was another question he answered. sothou're sayingwhite house is simply pushing back on all of this? >> the white house and the president personally, to me, are pushing back on the idea that theert mueller said that president's answers, written answers were generally untruthful and that campaign aides and white house aides

lying impeded the mueller investigation. the president is, i think, very upset with the idea that robrt mueller on the record before millions of people essentially were saying that the people around him aself were lying. the president really feels as though he has to now defend his character. he called republicans today incredible warriors for him and hiid that his party really was coming t defense, as everyone was really trying to attack him. but when you lk at what robert mueller said, he really did push back on so many claims that president trump has been making over thers last two y. ae president said this was witch hunt carried out by 12 democrats, the president said this was a hoax and there w no russian interference. all of that robert mueller was wrg and that was not true. >> woodruff: yamiche alcindor following it all from the white house, thank you, yamiche. so this evening, house >> woodruff: this evening house speaker nancy pelo reacted to the hearings, speaking to atreporterhe capitol. she said the house is still not prepared to pursue an impeachment inquiry against the

president. >> my position has always been, whatever decision we made in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand ande still have some outstanding matters in the courts. it's about the congress, the constitution and the courts. and we're fighting the president in the courts. >> woodruff: our lisa desjardins was in the hearing room toy and been following the response on capitol hill. fisa, in general, what are democrats sayingst of all? >> well, democrats say they feel that their members that that preparation really married, that they were able to focus mr. mueller in a way that they think helps. they also like their mantra of no one is above the law, of course, talking about the the president at that point. it's interesting that there's a divide among democrats when you speak to them privately over how mr. mueller did.

many says this was a huge report, 448 pages long, she shouldn't be expected to know every detail, but oths admit the democrats involved in the investigation that they felt mr. mueller was not quite as sharp that as they expected himo be. the reaction in the caucus is interesting as well, they just had democratics-only meeting and i'm told it wa especially lively. there were a lot oof thanks t committee chairm but not overall enthusiasm. the caucuses are still discussing what this moment means. >> woodruff: lisa, we just heard speaker pelosi said they're not ready to move ahead with impeachment. that suggests they don't think what mr. mller had to say today moved the ball down the field very much. >> iget that suggestion. i think they are mulling it over right now. we know a couple of things are going to happen, talking to sources in both committee. the judiciary committee next is going to move to push for subpoenas on don mcghan. his name came up a lot today

because he is a witness that told mueller the president instructed him to fire mr. mueller. they're going to court over that. the house inence committee is planing to call mr. witnesses includingck gates in september. he's the former deputy campaign chairman to donald trump. finally they will focus more on financial investigations in the intelligence committee, not just the mueller report. but this is a bigquestion of impeachment yes or no. i'm told behind doors that speaker pelosi told democrats w at they're infavor of impeachment that she will respect that. she's sending them home for ndgust recess which begins fridayis saying talk to your members and district, we'll see what happens when you come back. she does not want to begin an impreevment inquiry but august will be important. woodruff: you mentioned don mcghan the special formal legal

counsel to president trump, but what you're saying suggests democratare not dropping this, they are moving ahead, but they are picking and choosingow they're going to do that? >> that's right. they see this as one huge in a large series of parts of the investigation. this is something they anabsolutelyd to do. at the same time, judy, republicans feel very good about what happened today. ey don't feel like they were able to really take down mr. mueller's credibility, which some of them wanted to do. they don't feel successful at that, but they do think the greater burden was on democrats and theyave a point, the democrats needed to move public opinion in their direction if they're going to for impeachment, which speaker pelosi has said, and today republicans think that what happenedwhether it confirms the parts of the report that democrats think are important or not, they don't think republicans that it moved the dial, that there were no electrifying electrifying the moments that might have galvanized public opinion or thought. we'll see what happens, but republicans feel this was a win for them and that democrats did

not get what they wanted. >> woodruff: lisa desjardins at the capitol, thank you, lisa. >> you're welcome. >> woodruff: at the table with inme herur studio for the hearings and remaining with me now: joh tcarlin. he r justice department's national security division from 2013 to 2016. before that, he served as chief of staff to then f.b.i. director and, mary mccord was acting head seof the nationarity division in 2016 and '17. tishe is med in mueller's report, as part of the team that went to the white house to voice warnings about formenational security adviser michael flynn. eyoth have worked at justice in both democratic and republican administrations. hello to both of you. we have been together all day long, but let's try to sum it

all up. john carlin, what, for you, is the main takeawa? we heard robert mueller saying, at several points today,t's not normal for a prosecutor to be testifying before congress. >> tt's right, and you saw different agendas. i think you saw the democrats trying to use this moment to make the american people more aware of certain parts of the report and use it as feeder in that regard. you saw the republicans by and largest special in the early morning trying to attack the credibility of mr. mueller and his team. and you saw mr. mueller and his agenda, which was to stick with the department of justice ce in this unusual situation for a prosecutor and stick to the four corners of the number two, to defend his team and come across credibly and not give either side a sound byte, which i thk he did as well. and number three, you saw him try to raise the alarm bell about russian interference and those rare moments where he was moved off script and beyond the

four corners of the report were all around sounding that alarm bell and russian interference, expressing diseasure and does belief that the president along with others were welcoming foreign interference and pushing back on attacks on his team. w druff: and definitely pushing back on attacks. we heard some of that in the sound byte we playeeaier. mary mccord, he did try to wistick, as john saidin the four corners of the report, but there were these interesting exchanges where he raised his voice in saying the president wasn't completely credible in his swers. >> i think one of the sort of most memorable parts to have the day came toward the very end when representative demings asked him a series of questions about the president's written sponses to questions, and he was very pointed when asked, first of all, did the president always respond, and his answer was there were many questionsmpe didn't answer, he said true to that. she asked, there were in answers

ttehat contradother evidence that you accumulated during your ation, and he said yes to that. and then pointedly, she asked, isn't it fair to say tt the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he oftendn answer, but that when he did answer, many of his answers were not always and to that, mr. mueller took a second of breath and said, i would say generally. so agreeing really for the first time publicly tha the president's own written responses not only contradicted the facts developed through the extensive investigation as shown in these 448 pages, but that they weren't always truthful, in his opinion. >> and, john, does that do you think, to what robert mueller wanted to do when he came before the members of congress today? >> i think the -- not being used by either side and not creating a sound byte was definite today in trying to put people's

attention back on the r that, as he said, was one of the most thorough and consistent reports in history. and in that way, if you read th repotting people to focus on the russian interference, i think mary makes a good point, i'm not sure intentional, that that exchange is quite memorable because it's not as clear in the report what he said today in the hearing about the president's credibility. >> woodruff: mary, something else you and i were discussiong he air before we went on tonight had to do with what robert muellersion was and whether he did or did not find president trump guilty of a crime. >>r charged with a crime. i think one of the unfortunater misimpressions misdirections from all of the discussion about the mueller report about the focus on whether a crime occurred, and that's partly because as a result of the special counsel regulations he was required t submit a confidential report to the attorney general, which we call in prosecution the prosecution

memo which has to recommend prosecution or declination. anhe answered at one part in the testimony to focus on whether crimes were committe, but his actual appointment only had sort of a after thought that he could pursue criminal prcharges if appate. the actual mandate was to see if n ere were links or cooed nation betwmbers of the trump campaign and the russian government and certainly part one shows all kinds of links, and i thinkthe didn't get to the point of a chargeable offense, but what the americans should be very concerned about ks, again, and i thin representative schiff went through this very nicely in his very first set of questions, you know, russia made outrage to the campaign, the campaign welcomed that outreach. trump, jr. said we delight in itn trump called the russians to hack into the e-mails. khe praised wikil for what wikileaks was doing.

the campaign planrs th press strategy around the hacking and disclosure of e-mails and, apart from helping trump win, people in his orbit, his campaign, had a financialiotive luding himself, manafort, trump, and when investigated, they lied about it. so that might not equal conspiracy under the law for a precution, but it's a whole lot of links, it's a whole lot of unethical and un-american and undemocratic behavior. >> woodruff: and thank you for correcting me. i was referring to not finding him guilty t charging him one way or the other, which was within the purview of what he john carlin, there were also parts of his testimony that gave us an understanding of how frustrating it was for him, that he never was able to sit down with president trump,hat that just didn't happen, despite more than a year of ying to get the white house to agree to this. k>> yeah, he really did w through that in a detail in a

series of exchanges, and in tt exchange explain that in some ways that made the investigation more difficult to not be able to sit down and ask the president questions,nd that's what i think led to the exchange as well, where the written answers for estions that were answered where he said very remarkably, i think, when referring to the written answers under oath from the president of the united states, said that they were not consistent with the evidence that they found in rtthe re >> it was a direct answer to questions about, you know, did you get the answers, how much more did you want to know from the president that you weren't able t get, in essence, is what the members were trying to get. so mary mccord, john carlin, thank you both. >> thank you. >> woodruff: let us get reaction from lawmakers from both

parties. we start with representative mike joh louisiana.blican from he is a member of the judiciary committee. before his election to congress in 2016, he was a constitutional attorney for 20 years. he questioned robert mueller earlier today and he joins us now from capitol hill. so, congressn johnson, your main takeaway from these former special counsel's testimony. >> the main takeaway was there were not many surprises. many of u expected mr. mueller would stick to the four corners of his document. he said as much in the weeks preceding today's events. he did exactly that. i don't think he offered anything new. i think some ofoc our dt friends expected much more of today and i don't think they got what they were after. >> woodruff: you said earlier today, i wasooking at a quote from an interview you gave, you id there would be great frustration that you couldn't answer any questions about -- this is what you said to robert

mueller, that he couldn't answer any questis about the origins of what you called "this edarade." why were you focn the origin? >> well, there are a lot of people in is country that are deeply concerned about that because it goes to the integrity of the investigation itself. the origin of it is what everyone has heard w, the dirty dossier, the christopher steele dossier, it had a political origin. it was a document created as a hack job and haso real credibility. that was the foundation for what started the whole russian collusion investigation. he mentioned it in his report in a number of places, but he was unwilling to talk about it today, and i think that's a source of frustration for a lot of people. >> woodruff: how credible did you find robert mueller? >> look, mr. mueller is an individual, someone who deserves our admiration and respect. he served his country admirably in the military in so many respects and positions, but i think todat was a difficy for him, i think it showed in his face, on his count nance. i the weight of this has been pretty heavy on him. elievnk he's very

today, but i think his performance is something that everyone will be talking about in critiquing for -- and critiquing for some time and i'm not sure, again, it's what airman nadler and our democrat friends wanted to come out of it today. >> woodruff: wel did i concern you when he said on several occasion that he didn't find president's answers -- particularly toward the end of the day when he said he did find the president's answers, that he had been given written questions beuse he couldn' get an many n-person interview, he didn't find all those answers edible and ineneral he found some to have the president's answers to be not truthful. >>neell, look, evers able to read the report now, we've all seen thnge day-earing and people are going to draw their own conclusion. as an individual, he as the same right and prosecutors do iter day. he had the ability to subpoena the president and there was an exchange today where i think he chose not to do that, but if the written responses were not what he was expecting, he could havue

goneer. he didn't and now we have to live with the results of the >> woodruff: didn't he say very clearly that that was because he was under pressure te no the investigation go on any longer than necessary? >> well, look, it went on for 22 months. an spent $30 million and inordinate amount of time and resources, taxpayer dollars that are precious res rces. he han unlimit and exhausted amount of time and he needed llo the facts where they led. he came up with a report nearly 450 pages long and we've gone in it in gross detail. hei'm not sure's much more to do or talk about and we hope we can move on to the t wo have the american people. the judiciary committee has one of the broadest agendas in congress because we have beehi mired in all we hope we can turn the page and move on to something else. >> woodruff: do ink the president should have met with mr. mueller in person and answer pequestions in on? >> i think any president in his

position probably would have avoided that. it's a trap, often, in situations like that, certainly aen you're talking about chief executive, and i know why his lawyers advise him not to do it, but, you know, we'll all have our own opinions about that decision ultimately and what it means for the report. wewoodruff: at this point are hearing from lisa desjardins that covers the capitol for us that democrats plan to subpoena don mcghan, theñi president's former white house counsel, other people close to or who erked for the president, those -- from your perspective, are those going to be productive steps? e> no, i think that we are losing the patief the american people. i think at least half the country and maybe a growing number is readyfor us to move on because we're miring, i said, the important time of this committee into all this endless hearing. i think the democrats want to drag this into the election cye because i think it's part of their strategy but i don't think it's going to work and will frustrate more and more

people. >> let me play devils advocate, doing you think it's important to get to the bottom of some of the important questions even if nsit mringing people before the congress to answer direct questions? >> well, if the special counsel with a he team of investigator, lawyers, agents and 500 witnessnd depositions everything that they did for nearly two years and $30 million could not get to the bottom of it, i'm not sure what a handful of the member of congress are going to do in a limited hearing. i think we've gotten enough of this and i thinkat the end of the day, that will be the conclusion. >> woodruff: representative mina johnson of louis, we thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we stay on capitol hill and turn to a lawmaker who sits on both the judiciary and intelligence committees. she is only one of three members of congress today to question robert mueller twice. her exchange in the second hearing was one of the most commented-on of the day. gsrepresentative val dems a democrat from florida and she joins me now.

congresswoman demings, thank you very much for talking with us. your principal takeaway from today'stime? >> i think special counsel nfmueller's testimony med that russia interfered with our election, they interfered in a sweeping and systematic way, according to the report, that the president on multiple occasions attempted to interfere with t investigation into ossia's interference, that he obstructattempted to obstruct justice, thatpecia counsel mueller could not exonerate or clear the president, clear him from wrongdoing, and that, in the president's written responses, as you've already stated, that he refused to do a sit-down or h wasrson interview, wh extremely disappointing, special counsel tried for over a year to try to get him to do that. but in his written responses that the president was not completely truthful in those

drsponses. >> wf: i'm sure you know or perhaps you haven't heard that president trump's comments on all of this today was that it was a disaster for democrats, that special counsel -- the former special counsel had really nothing new to add, that it was a weak performance and essentially democrats ha hurt their case by bringing him before the congress. t>> well, you know, doesn't surprise me, of course, president trump would say that, and what's also very amazing, for the president to notven comment on the part about russia systematically interfering with our election, you would think as opposed to attacking democratic member of congress or attacking special cosel mueller hat he would at least focus on that. so it doesn't surprise me a especialer today what the president is saying or is not saying. also, if i may comment, too it also pains me when other members of the committee, or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the president try to make this a partisan issue, i do believe the person people do

care about what happened 2016 election. i believe the american people do want to hold t president accountable, if he was engaged in wrongdoing, and this is t a partisan issue. this should be a bipartisan ysue. and i teu what, we're not going to stop until we do just that. >> woodruff: and what does that mean? >> that means we willcontinue our investigations. i knhe you asked question earlier about attorney mcghan who played a major role in the investigation. according to attorney mcghan who special counselir cod today is a very credible, was a very tcredible witnesse president tried on multiple times to get attorney mcghan to call assistant attorney general rosenstein to fire mueller. as a matter of fact, the. presidents said something to the effect mueller has to go leon multimes. then to me, like a mobster then been the question, has it done yet, has it been done yet.

and, so, i believe that attorney thisan's testimony about attempted obstruction on the part of the president is extremely important to the additional work ahead ofs. >> woodruff: what do you see this leading to, congresswoman demings? do you see it leading to impeachment prtheedings, sog short of that? how do you see the building toblocks cominther? we heard speaker pelosi saying today again that the house, shey is not ror the house to take that next step. no>> yeah, and, you i've said before, leadership, as we have the ability to see the entire field, t have to be able to see the big picture, and make decisions based on that. i sa four months ago after reading the special counsel's report that i believehathere was enough in the report to begin an impeachment inquiry att thme. so we're going to continue our investigations, we're gointo hopefully provide information for then ameri people and

other members of congress, so we can do really what the forefathers expected us to do and that is to really hold the president accountable. and i also heard my colleague bofore me talk the american people being tired of this. i don't belii e so. not believe that. i mean, that's his opinion. he's entitled tohat. but the provision was put in our constitution that, when aladditiccountability needed to be exercised, that responsibility is given to congress to do that, and wedo intend to hat. >> do you believe the case for impeachment was advanced today by robert mueller? >> i certainl ny do because,, remember, i believe that four anths ago as a former police chie former police detective, when i saw the report, the element of crimes on multiple occasions, the number ,of people who lihe abuse of power, i believe we had enough

then, but,y certain, listening to attorney mueller today confirmed some very special points in the case and also, again, talk about the president not being completely truthful in his written response. i certainly lieve that the ball was advanced down the field today. >> woodruff:ng sswoman val demings of florida, we thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we turn now to garrett graff. he has written extensively about robert mueller for over a decade. he's the author of "the threat matrix: inside robert mueller's f.b.i." and david rivkin served at the justice department and the white house counsel's office in the reagan and george h.w. bush

administrations. hello to both sh you, and i i ld point out, david rivkin, that it emerged in today's hearsg that it wa president reagan who initially nominated irbert mueller for hist job as a prosecutor and president george h.w.bush, bush 41, who nominated him for another position at the f.b. david rivkin, what is your main takeaway from today, though? >> my main takeaway that it was good day, i think, for all sides. i think -- >> woodruff: all sides? all sides. i think the special counsel did a good job, he stuck to the report. i happen to think that the main take waste were the same -- takeaways were the sa as you can get from the report. i think the effort to suggest that he hadis ted something that is damaging the president is part of the spin. i frankly don't think the republices have d much damage to mr. mueller's credibility, and i have a lot of

regard for him. i think it was a nonevent. it was llthe intual equivalent ofy2k. >> woodruff: a nonevent? substantively, aen non >> woodruff: garrett gff, you have been following robert mueller. how did you read his performance or advance order changed understanding of what happened? >> i agreely lar with david with the exception of that by sticki so closely to th report, mueller made clear that, actually, the report hadib incr damning information about the the president's behavior in volume one on obstruction and then candidate trump on the trump campaign's willingness to accept russian help in the secobud part. i do think, along with david, that i'm not reay re this substantially moved the needle for either side today, in

part because mueller really went out of his way time and time again to avoid saying anything or giving any of the sort of incrime na tore sound bytes i think the democrats were waiting for. >> woodruff: and yet as we have been discussing, david rivkin, we did hear robertel r answer a series of questions about how truthful, how credible he found the president's answers. at this point, doethat change our understanding of what happened? all of this? >> with all respect to special counsel mueller, he expressed concern in a sense that he did not thk that the answers he got from the president mirrored the information he got. let me say the job of the prosecutor, special counsel, a few things that somebody's lied to him, a prosecutable crime. mr. eller actually indicted a number of people for that, properly so. if he felt that, he would have

written a confidential report t torney general, if he think the president, despite the teorary immunity thpresident enjoys, would have written a report that he thinks theid prt could be charged with that offense. he did not. so we have to put this in a proper context. by the way, the notion that he did noexonerate the president is correct, but exonerating the president is not a task of any criminal investigation. we are all presumed innocent. the task of prosecutor is to come up with a recommendation to indict. so i did not find it trouble, troubling is an effort to spin something which this is not. >> woodruff: it is the case, garrett graff, that robert mueller made it clear when he was asked that no, i have not exonerated the president. the republicans challenged him saying it's not your role to exonerate the president, but he ntmade it clear the presi is still subject to prosecution potentially after he leaves office. >> yes, and that mueller, vehis

igation gathered the facts, domes, e-mails -- comets, e-mails -- documents, e-mails, witness testimony to make sure that th evidence would be preserved for the future for either congress or a future prosecution of the esident after he leaves office. >> this is absolutely correct, that the president is not above the law. noe president is also beneath the law, okay. i don't know of any criminal investigation whose job it is to exonerate somebody. so the fact he's not is is a ve -- important due process, let's get beyond partisanship, it's a due process issue. nobody in america is supposed to be exonerated by the government. a person is presumed to be innocent including this president. >> something i want you both to hear, d this is an excerpt from the hearing in which a member of congress was asking the former special counsel, hado to ith wikileaks. i want you to listen to this and i will ask you abt.t

>> director pompeo assessed wikileaks in one point as a hostile intelligence service. giving your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what wikileaks did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something silar? how would you assess what wikileaks does? >> absolutely, and they're partly under indictment. >> but would it be fair tom describe t as you would agree this director pompeo, that's what he was when he made that rema, that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct? >> yes. if we could put up slide 6. i love wikileaks. donald trump, october 10, 2016, this wikileaks stuff sun believable. it tell us h the innert. you've got to read it. donald trump october 12, 2016, this wikileaks is like a treasure trove.

pboy, i love reading those016, wikileaks. donald trump november 4, 2016. y of those quotes disturb you, mr. director? >> i'm not sure i would say -- >> reporter: how do u react? well, it's probably -- problematic is an understatement in terms of the waitspl ded, in terms of giving some, i don't know, hope or some boost to what is and shou illegal activity. >> woodruff: so clearly, garrt graff, an attempt here to get the former special cosel to look at the president's praising what wikileaks was doing, which was al information that had been stolen from hillary clinton. >> i think this is a close as we got today to a raw,l persona opinion from robert mueller. in most all another ines,

pretty monosyl00labic,imes he told people to go back to the report. this is a moment where his own personal feelings about how troubled he was about the president's behavior in the 2016 campaign. >> woodruff: david r troubled but not enough to go beyond that and say the president -- >> not only not e it does not incriminate at all. let me say for the record thatis i'msted by in things wikileaks has done. let me also say for the record that if you look at some of the other previous statements about democrats about wikileaks previous leaks long before trump got into office, there's a lot of praise. but to me there's something fundamentally wrong as a matter of process to do somethi ng asa critique of a president's personality, a president's policy statements and rapid context of indictment, as a lawyer, i don't know of any legal argument why praisin somebody doing bad or illegal things can amount to even an element of offense. >> if i can respond to that,

though, i do think that there's a question in this about whether we should -- you know, there's a question of what's legal, and that'sof this, but then what is -- >> a criminal -- but that's not what mueller's answer was here, and i do think that there's a fair question of whether the president and elected leader should be held to thhigher moral and ethical standards ir behavior in terms of the behavior that we want to condone in our democratic society. >> i don't mind thcriticism of the president. d very much mind as a lawyer an american citizen when this criticism comes in the context of a multi-year criminal and law enforcement investigation of a president. the context is wrong. the process is wrong. >> woodruff: where do you seeoi this from here, garrett graff? i mean, we've now that had this long-awaited testimony, the former special counsel has spoken. what do you see? >> i think it's a very difficuqt tion, judy, in part because, you know, next week, we're

heading into theyougust recess, know, sort of whatever momentum congress built up today is going to dissipate, members are going back to their 're going to hear from their constituents in down meetings and -- town meengs d then the current plan for houseimes is to convene a new series of hearings in the fall involving some of the witnessing weke don mcghan, but i think e really going to see the august recess help shape whether people really believe congressman johnson or congresswoman demings and sort of whether the american people have a stomach for this.>> ave an appetite for this, and this is something that we will all be -- >> i agree, t only point is, if you want to criticize the president, what he says about chairman kim orchairman g., tryo ut it in the context of breaking the law is abhorrent and wrong and setsp poisonous

politics even more>>. oodruff: david rivkin, garrett graff, we thank you th. >> wf: it was a chaotic day in puerto rico. the island's governor, ricardo rosseld been expected to resign all day amid a political scandal that haged puerto ricans. amna nawaz has the latest. i>> nawaz: arelis hernanda staff writer for the washington post, where she has reported extensively from puerto rico in the aftermath of hurricane maria. she is followi the political turmoil that has engulfed th a island and tinistration of governor ricardo rossello in the past two weeks and joins me on the phone from san juan. arelis, thanks for being with us. let's start with the latest the e know of. a spokesman for the governor came out a short while asmght did he have any news on whether

governor rosselloó will resign? >> this evening, we don't know how or when and that he didn't take any questons, but at some point, it, you know, rossello will be observeevision or talk live with the people of puerto rico presumably because he's goir to resign o appoint a secretary of state to relieve him. >> give us a sense of what it's like on the ground now. obheously, we have following protests historic in their nature and scope, tens of thousands of people taking to the streets, they're still out there today, many of themed gatherutside of the governor's mansion. to say that the last day has been chaotic is an understand statement, though. give us a sense of what's happened over the course of today. >> a giant understatement. in i'm in fronts of the

governor's mansion now and you can hear the protesters down the street. they sound like the crowd has gotten much bigger but basically this starts around last night at local media started rumors that the governor's resignation was imminent. so peoplhave been in the frenzy waiting for the rdnouncement, whether a video reg or through a press statement of some kind. i lked to bunchesf people today who were, like, puerto rico is not sleeping now. we went through this anxious place trying to understand what's next. and, so, we heard -- 10:00 a.m., we heard noon that this recorded farewell message would be transmitted but nothing came over. then we heard that thprident of the health representatives here in puerto rico, carlos men do's nuúñez called a meeting of the new progressive party which is the stateho party rossello belongs to and as a result of that particular meeting, people

inspecting what was going on, he gave a press conference this afternoon at the capitol tbuilding basically sayit the impeachment inquiry that he sort of had commissioned a week or so ago had come back with a conclusion orrecommendation that there were indeed grounds for impeachment within the evidence from these leaked chat me tages. so sinn, in that message, mendez also mentioned that he was ready to beginmpeachment proceedings against rickaro rossello but that essentially he's giving the governor a chance t resign first so the country wouldn't have to go through the process but sounds like he has the two-thirds majority that he would need to start a formal impeachment process. >> reporter: arelis hernandez reporting on the ground. we'll see what governor rocio

has to say in the statement later on. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, the u.s. justice department declined to pursue criminal contempt charges against attorney general barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross. democrats in the house of representatives had voted to cite them for contempt, for refusing to turn documents on adding a citizenship question to the census. the e department says that act did not constitute a crime. a federal judge in washington, d.c. refused today to block new restrictions on those seeking legal asylum at the southern border, while a court challenge plt. the ruling permits the trump administration to require that migrants seek asylum in countries they pass through, infore reaching the u.s. it is aimed at stothe surge of migrants from central america. in britain, boris johnson took .ver as the united kingdom's prime minister tod he succeeds theresa may, who appearedefore parliament a final time as prime minister and conservative party leader.

later, she spoke outside her official residence. >> i'm about to leave downing street but i'm proud to continue as member of parliament for maidenhead. i will continue to do all i can to serve the national interest and to play my part in making our u.k. a great country with a great future for everyone. >> woodruff: as may departed, crowds waved european union flags, marking her failed attempts to reach a brexit deal with the bloc. then, johnson, a brexit advocate, arrived at 10 downing, saying his leadership will put things right. >> after three years of unfounded self-doubt, it is time to change the record, to recover natural and historic role as an enterprising, outward-looking and trobal britain. no one in the last few centuries

has succeeded in betting against the pluck and nervambition of this country. >> woodruff: the new prime minister has vowed to deliver brexit by hall with or without an e.u. deal. there's word that north korea has carried out a new weapons test. south korea's military says the north fired at least two projectis early thursday about 270 miles across the sea of jan. it's the first such incident since north korean leader kim jong un met with president trump at the bndary between the two koreas, last month. >> president trump veet owed a congress would have barred some arms sales to saudi arabia. it passed both house and senate but not with a veto-proof majority. n may the white house anned that it would invoke emergency authority to push through $8 billion worth of sales. in this country, facebook

facebook will pay $5 billion, in a sweepi federal trade commission, involving privacy violations. today's announcement is the f.t.c.'s largest penalty ever for a tech company. facebook did not admit any wrongdoing, t it will face a ew of new requirements. those include increased trancy and oversight by an independent privacy committee. and, on wall street, the dow jones in points to close at 27,270. the nasdaq rosoints, to a new record close, and the s&p ded 14, also finishing a a record close. and that's tshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> text night and day. >> catch it on replay.

>> burning some fat. >> sharing the latest viral cat! >> you can do the things you like to do with a wireless plan designed for you. with talk, text and data. consumer cellular. consumercellular.tv >> babbel. a language learning app that uses speech recognition technology and teaches real-life conversations. >> and with the ongoing support of thesetutions and individuals. >> this program was made captioning sponsored by dnewshour pions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

hello, everyone. and welcome to amanpour and company. here's what's comin up. >> do you feel teda >> i don't think so. >> boris johnson becomes tne u.k. prime minister. ap you lis you list who looks a sounds like donald trump. and exhausted eopean negotiators, irish, nep and vice presidentf the parliament joins me. >> then -- >> there is no nothing. they're wasting their time. >> marla mania strikes in the united states. i speak with pat tumi. >> plus -- >> practices of ria