constitutional design. thank you so much. my colleague peter alexander is ready to continue our coverage. hey there. >> a good full weekend for all of us. peter alexander, we have a big afternoon ahead. we will tell you more about the mueller report as soon as we see the principal conclusions. gillibrand just finished her first campaign rally. doing so with a sort of in your face new york flavor right outside one of the president's own properties. also anxiously waiting all eyes are on attorney general william bar, what he decides to do after reviewing, will it come out today? plus after nearly 40 hours

of silence the president sends out his first tweets. it is make it one of the longest absences from twitter. open to the public, democrats are demanding full transparency calling for the release of the entire report and a warning from the white house not to interfere. >> again, transparency is key. as we learn from the case executive privilege cannot be used to hide your own doing. >> just wrapped up her campaign kickoff speech in new york city. the democratic senator taking the president to task calling him a bully and a coward. here is more of what she had to say. >> president trump is tearing apart the moral fabric of this country. >> he demonizes the vulnerable

and he punches downment . he puts his name in bold on every building. he does this because she wants you to believe he is strong. he is not. our president is a coward. >> right now we want to go to senior editor for politics. let's get your take away. democrats have been grappling with the best strategy to go after president trump as a sort of russian law as we just saw moments ago. >> reporter: that's right. i bet a lhave been to a lot of kickoffs. for the most part what i have seen, they would mention trump but sort of in passing. they were focusing more on what they wanted to do as president, sort of a more aspirational future message. she decided to step right up and

pretty much rhetorically punch him in the nose. she did it here at trump international hotel. she called it a monument to greed. she was very tough and the language she used. she did do a few other things that were note worthy. all of the people that spoke to her character and spoke to why they want her to be president are women. most were activists either transgender or lgbtq activists. she was the one that brought her to the stage. it was a very sort of female oriented survivor vors of sexual that trauma and sexual assault.

>> as we are seeing right now with a big line-up of democrats hopes to replace in the white house help us sort of better understand why she is trying to find her lane here. a lot of energy has been focused on joe biden about beto and some of the attention he received. even harris you mentioned there as well. the first major speech as they are billing it there. what does she think she can find as a point of difference? >> her lane is women. she is taking the female lane all the way. they believe women that experienced discrimination and harassment in the workplace that's the lane she can. it's a risky strategy but they

think she can do it. >> thank you. thanks very much. back here in washington the expectation that any time now the attorney general william barr will turn over those principal conclusions to some of the members of congress. all weekend barr and the deputy attorney general have been pouring over the contents of mueller's findings to live up to barr's commitment to provide as mu much transparency as possible. both political parties backing into their sort of political corners preparing their messages ahead of the attorney general's

conclusions. >> that there's not going to be any finding of any collusion whatsoever. >> if they have so confident that the report is going to exonerate them they should report to make it public and available to congress. >> they thought it was going to show something they could impeach the president on. it is not seemingly going to happen. >> the special prosecutor is limited in scope and limited to crimes. what congress has to do is look at a broader picture. >> joining me now is security injustice reporter. she is joining us by phone. she has been monitoring all of the activity at the justice department. she is our fly on the wall there right now. it appears from all of the conversation, that we will see something in some form before

the end of this afternoon. >> that's right. what i'm hearing today is today not necessarily this afternoon. i wonder if it's a slight clang in wording. i think the deadline he gave in his letter to the judiciary committees will stand. by the end of this day we will have an idea of these conclusions and congress will get that before the public sees it. >> and they give us more about the principle conclusions here. we know it will be the prosecution and decline nation.

>> there are so many questions people want answered in what will be essentially a letter that lays out this summary. we want to of course know about collusion. was there collusion between this president's campaign and the russian government in 2016, how it influenced the election and why certain people weren't prosecuted. there are some people who have said they expected to be prosecuted. people associated with roger stone who have not been prosecuted. as we learned friday there are no further indictments coming from special council. so there are a lot of questions about why certain people weren't charged and will want to know. it could be that some information is not going to be made available at this time. they are only taking about 48 hours to turn around from report to summary. a lot of these are things that might be in question about what you can say around someone who is not prosecuted might be up

for debate. he said there would be a second but i think there will be a lot more debate over that. they don't want to taint someone's expectation. >> covering all things robert mueller today. she is parked at the department of justice. if it goes that late we hope to check in with you soon. americans wait. while the country sits playing this waiting game for more details on the investigation that lingered for 22 months the president has been pretty quiet today. so far the white house has yet to be briefed according to the president's aids. after calling the investigation

a witch hunt dozens of times and even after doing it eight hours before he submitted his findings the president is yet to make any comments about it certainly not on twitter even with the attorney general's con clus ifr summary. make america great again with his exclamation points. mike is here. we have been reechg oaching out sources. he is fortified by a much bigger group of aids and allies including his attorneys including sarah sanders and her deputies there to try to come up with a communications strategy going forward. they are trying to cast the idea that it is in good spirits. he is on the golf course not concerned about things, right? >> you're completely right.

let's get that out of the way really quick. he has spent the last two nights. we do expect him back this afternoon at the white house perhaps early in the evening. it's a possibility that that report from bill barr will be known perhaps become public while the president is in the air. he would arrive back at the white house for a host of questions. it is possible we could hear from the president then but you're absolutely right. since late friday i counted radio silence from the president. he has been advised we are told by our friend and colleague by aids that he should stay off twitter, that he should not spike the football. it was kidd rock that golfed with him.

we learned this quote from steve bannon. he said he -- after 22 month his work is done. it is all over about the shouting here in washington, peter. >> mike also notable, he has his first campaign rally this weekend. it is often the sort of formats where he sort of likes to go off. we want to take you right now to capitol hill. mike has been stationed peeking to his sources. they anticipate the first look about the decisions made by mueller. walk us through what you're expecting. >> yeah. as you know, for lack of a clear signal we do a lot of tea leaf

reading. lawmakers had been given an all clear. they have been told they would not be getting that summary from attorney general barr just yet, maybe another day. a lot of those are here in their officers very much expecting that word to come down today. they will be looking for two important things. how is this they are getting from attorney general bar? has the attorney general been able to do a more full some summary and secondly beginning the definition of the political and legal battlefield, a key question for jerry nadler, what if anything does robert mueller say in his report about decisions or the decision not to bring charges against president trump? was that decision based on the

facts of the case and the investigation he did or was it based on the guidance that governs and these decisions which is to say you can't indict a sitting president. he was telling us if he says that, if he says they made a decision not to prosecute that makes it more important to get full access to the report and underlying documents. the justice department would be saying she above the rule of law and they need to hold him accountable here. >> mike, we'll be checking in with you as we get anymore details i want to bring in our panel now to join this conversation. joining me onset is kimberly. ben, editor and chief of law fair at msnbc law analyst. nice to be with you guys all today. we thought we might have new

details to play with here. now like a lot of americans we are still playing the waiting games. i think one of the most important points you make about this is the idea that the investigation is the report and the report is the investigation. given the fact that the office of legal counsel basically said you can't indict a president. the fact that he wasn't indicted, we knew it was likely to be the conclusion. what's in there is what we care about. >> that's true at least as regards to the president himself. any time you wrap up an investigation including the president's family, right and the senior white house staff that maybe had been wrapped up in this. you know, you get to conclude that the evidence would not have necessarily supported a prosecution. that's a really big deal for them. you don't get to conclude that with respect to the president. it says you can't indict a sitting president and while

people have argued that that, you you know, isn't correct and shouldn't apply and have sort of fantasized that he would defy it there was never a chance that bob mueller was going to defy it. there was never a chance he would have been allowed to. we always knew from the beginning of this investigation it would not result in an indictment while he remained in office. as to the president the whole ball game was what is going to be contained in this report. we still don't know anything about that. >> which is what makes it premature when you hear from an ally of the president. she said enough already. the american public needs to accept the results and mover on. we don't actually know the results. we know there was no chargeable conspiracy and no criminally charged collusion but we don't know more beyond that. >> yeah. we know there were no additional charges recommendsed or brought

by bob mueller. >> period. >> and we know that there is a document that lays out and the only word we have that describes this document is one or two press reports that call it comprehensive. there is some kind of comp hence ifr document that talks about the findings of the investigation. that is all we know. >> there seems to be some conflicting messaging among the republicans today. here is what we have been hearing from some of them. take a listen. >> i think we also have to respect what the department of justice and mueller has been doing. if we do that then the american people can see we are respecting the rule of law. >> a lot of people wanted to say we can burn it up. it is a partisan document. what we really need to see is what was the fbi's involvement? >> that was devin nunez there. republican congressman from

california, an ally of this a administration. the fact that there will not be any sort of collusion is a win. now it seems as if they are going to uphold it and say this is a thor reinvestigation by someone very respected. it is done and we need to move on and we have won. we are already seeing that shift there. you'll hear it get louder the more democrats on the house side begin to ramp up their investigations. when you talk to folks on the democratic side they are clearly in a posture that they are just

getted started it is to say it wasn't the be all end all. it is the opportunity to get all of the evidence and make the conclusions we see fit. a lot of republicans position, 87% according to a recent cnn poll want to see this report. it's not just whatever version of the report they clohoose to t out it's actual answers why the president and so many of his top advisers have been lying about contacts with russia, about a business deal, a major multi-million dollars business deal with trump-moscow. t not just the document it's that the documents answers the public's answers.

it's on whether the underlying documents that mueller used to reach his conclusions are released. you can already see democrats are saying we need those documents. it helps us get a better understanding of where we are. all next calls for transparency for both sides of the congressional aisle when it comes to the mueller report. the plan house democrats as they wait for the latest word from william bar. you're watching msnbc live. you're watching msnbc live tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums tums chewy bites with gas relief

hi, what's this social security alert? it's a free alert if we find your social security number on the dark web. good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. why's that? [bird speaking] my social is 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] somebody thinks it's hilarious. free social security alerts from discover. somebody thinks it's hilarious. we humans are strange creatures. other species avoid pain and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures.

our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! not this john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. ♪

this isn't just this is moving day with the nbest in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving simple. easy. awesome. stay connected with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

as we learned from the nixon case executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrong doing. it ordered that all of the claims be overridden. >> that was house judiciary could not be used to block parts of the mueller report as house democrats battle with the white house. the committee is focusing on possible obstruction of justice,

corruption and abusive power over on the intelligence side. she plans to pursue about russian interference. they will follow the trump money trail in ties to the bong amongest others. help us understand your biggest take aways. he helped host during the course of the tcampaign. the fact, it kind of looks that way. it is sort of reading the tea leaves and it looks like we

don't really have a read on what mueller feels is going forward. the president is an exception because of the olc memo. the president below who have -- there has been discussion about collusion or obstruction of the mueller investigation it does appear without knowing for sure but while we are reading that they are in the clear. >> i guess the question is could any other sdny, anybody else pick that up or is that it? >> well, it would depend if they come with creative theory. it looks to me like no. >> that's interesting. i think that's one of the biggest take aways we have had. we heard from adam schiff. abuse of power is not criminally chargeable. they may try to determine there was abuse of power. they want access to what's in this report, right?

>> yes. folks have been very clear for days now. just this conclusions, the conclusions that are coming out of william barr's officer will not be enough. they want this underlying evidence. i think you can expect subpoenas for this evidence if it's not voluntarily put over and not just that, they will call people to testify. there's a question of whether it could include robert mueller. it is before we get to the bottom of this. it is their role here that it was a specific investigation looking into one thing and underscoring their oversight responsibilities are much broader than that. >> we heard from him earlier. you want to hear what he played and get the reaction to how they are framing that. take a listen. >> the american people deserve to know whether donald trump is either a legitimate president, a

russian asset, c, the functional equivalent of an organized crime boss or a useful it yod thidiote history of the republic. >> your reaction? >> this is why they want the under dr underlying documents. he could have decided there was not a conspiracy here that rose to the level of being criminal. it doesn't mean there wasn't wrong doing that took place in the context of pay the play in the context of trading information about manafort. we know from special counsel office was not helpful. there is still a lot of questions they want to get to. to her point he can issue as many subpoenas as he wants and the white house can stone wall that. it ka tacan take years to play .

that's why congress gets and congress is able to share with the public is so critical in terms of restoring trust in this administration. >> and attorney general barr, he said he pledged that he would try to be as transparent as possible i think going to that very point. for him to do something less of that would be really problematic. >> this issue, help give us this sort of layperson's understanding of what we should anticipate. the white house is sort of in a unique position. they want to be able to fight to protect whatever they want to fight to protect. >> right. >> if it exonerates the president there will be a -- >> exactly. >> so but separately the same time they are anxious about geling it first. what do you expect as it relates here? what would be protected? >> well, criminal conduct is not protected. so that will frame the debate. someone is going to have to look

at this and say there's criminal conduct or there isn't criminal conduct. that's the first level. the odd thing about executive privilege is that the white house let everybody go talk to mueller and now -- which you would presume would weigh the executive prif lemvilege. they want to dlclaw it back. that's a function of a different legal strategy from the current lawyers. it will be a difficult position to be in. most of this will be politics though at this point. >> so in terms of questions you do want to see answered here as they relate to the poe ten rnl for investigations that spin off in eastern district of virginia what specific questions do you want to see answered from this report inside it? what would you be looking for? >> i'm looking for is the president compromised either financially or otherwise by the

russians? did mueller decline to prosecute because of the olc mem more because there was some sort of -- >> office of legal counsel. >> right. that says you can't indict. is that the reason why he didn't or is it because he didn't think there was a case there either an obstruction or some other nefarious reason? i would like to know exactly what happened with don jr. and this meeting. i would like to know what his conclusions were about the august meeting when manafort shared polling data. i would like to know what his thoughts were about the entire trump tower moscow. i would like to know what his thoughts are on the laundering of money over the years. i could give you a hundred questions. >> i guess did he make a mistake by not ever sitting down with donald trump? should he have pressed further for that? >> my guess is he couldn't have

gotten any further. >> no 2k0doubt. >> whatever happens i trust mueller. >> we appreciate your expertise. thanks very much. still ahead right here the russia collection even if mueller didn't find evidence of collusion democrats say it's there in plain sight. we take a closer look at the president's ties to russia and what we should make of it. o rusd what we should make of it. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

[zara larsson - "wow"] ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop drop say oh my drop drop drop ♪ ♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪

guys go through a lot to deal with shave irritation.

so, we built the new gillette skinguard with a specialized guard designed to reduce it. because we believe all men deserve a razor just for them. the best a man can get. gillette.

>> conspiracy. does any of the information that's been revealed about the fact that and lied about it. special counsel if there was conspiracy or collusion.

russia. >> they write hundreds of pages of legal filings since mueller was appointed nearly two years ago pointainted a striking portl on the attack on the u.s. political system and eager to accept the help. recent court filings suggest they were looking in the potential coordination between trump associates and russia. is it possible to have all of that smoke and no fire? she is a federal and white collar federal defense attorney. he is a former u.s. ambassador we also know there was no

chargeable collusion, no chargeable conspiracy as it relates. it is to violate our sovereignty. every now and then especially in the indictments we got incredible detail about what they did. my assumption is he has that detail on other parts and it hasn't been revealed. it has to be the national security focus and then seconds you're quite right. just because it's not criminal conspiracy doesn't mean it's not wrong. that meeting in june between the

trump campaign from a foreign government. trump said if you're out there go steal data from my political opponent. he said that several times. i think that's wrong and we need public policy to prevent that kind of activity in the future. >> let me ask you, the washington post reads this investigation began as a counter intelligence investigation. those rarely lead to criminal charges. why is that? >> well, i mean it's one thing to be politically compromised, right? it would be the focus of that's why you might not necessarily see any indictments coming out of that type of investigation. a plain old conflict of interest isn't necessarily criminal.

there is no chargeable limited conduct. the collusion part, right, that is a closed chapter in this book in terms of criminal conducts of americans potentially colluding or associated with russians. it's just not happening. it should nonetheless be investigated. >> what behavior are you concerned about as we continue to watch the president for the remainder of this term of office? >> well, as i just said before, that meeting in june, that happened. we know most of the facts. maybe there should be a norm that we shouldn't meet with governments during the campaign. there is a whole host of things the russians did on social media platforms. we do not have new laws or

legislation in place to prevent it in the future. some of the companies have taken action. we haven't as a society decided is it legal or not to put it very bluntly. the russian government organization tweeted out #crookedhillary. it was in 21 states in the united states. thankfully they didn't intervene on election day but they were cruising around. what have we done? it is not compromised. it is national and she needs to protect her sovereignty. >> a political assessment if

they think. it is to stay with us. details. conclusions. they won't endiet. the trump shoulder face moving forward as congress ramps up etc. own series of investigations. s up etc. own series of investigations why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today. and we're usaa members for life. [laughter] ♪ ♪ "i'm okay." ♪

♪

a white house official. and golf today with lindsay graham. republican congresswoman from south carolina and nick from his strapped up around the president. in the next couple of hours. the president and rest of america. >> there is no children it sow rows in on its own. the house of putin. the untold story. i appreciate you both being with

us. it relates to the president's children. his son-in-law one of his most trusted aids. what are some of the most lingering legal risks that still exist? >> i don't think anybody can defly there's a massive amount of criminal exposure. i would point out that ivanka wasn't one of 81 recipients of that house judiciary requests. it puts her in a little bit of a different category. reflow because there are no new indictments comes out there are many many ongoing criminal investigations in other prosecutors offices throughout the country in the southern district of new york and eastern district of virginia. i think he said it himself when you engage in nepotism of this kind you can't invoke it's a red line to go after my family.

he brought his children into the folds and they have a lot of exposure here. >> does it surprise you that robert mueller kushner or donald trump jr.? >> it does actually surprise me. were it any other investigation he would have. meadows said that the slew of ongoing congressional investigations are largely unnecessary. here is what he said. he says we want to investigate

different things it would be it is to investigate. >> do you a political it is on the house of trump. sit going on. it is donald trump and the kids were involved in it.

the file. and filed a documents saying the heart of the investigation went to the havana cigar bar meeting after that trump tower meeting, and i don't know that -- >> august, 2016. no doubt. what we'll focus on and wait with others to try to get our first look at some data. the detail, the evidence collected by robert mueller and his team over the course of the 22 months. appreciate your expertise. thank you for your time. breaking news just in the to our newsroom on the mueller report. details on just how soon we could have our first look at portions of it as soon as we come back. we'll have that, next. ♪ do you love me now that i can dance? ♪

applebee's 3 course meal. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world!

like new york! from bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. and you can cancel most bookings up to 24 hours in advance for a full refund. so you can make your next trip... monumental! read reviews check hotel prices book things to do tripadvisor

we are back now with breaking news. this is coming out of the department of justice. joining me by phone, julia ainsley. national justice reporter. how is this likely to play out? >> reporter: we are expecting to get at least a 30 to 45-minute

heads up before the report is sent to congress. we will be able to say at a certain point on-air the report should be released at a certain time. i say report but it's really a letter. a comprehensive of the finding of the main conclusions william barr found off the report he got friday. hopefully we'll at least be able to get you a firmer time later today on when that will be transmitted. >> for more clarity, we understand it, this will be transmitted to key members of congress. will it be hand-delivered to the press or will we wait to receive it from congress? >> reporter: sent to the press as well. we know that congress will have the first crack at it. since that is part of the regulation, that the attorney general reports to congress, but the media and public should have it soon thereafter. we don't expect a very long time lag there, but it will first be

sent lech trorelectronically to and shortly after we'll have it there. >> julia ainsley at the department of justice, like you and me waiting for details. coming up next in the next hour with my friend katy tur. the president in a good mood. the president started the day tweeting to followers and just wrapped up a round of golf with among others senator lindsey graham. could this be a sign of what it is to come? we're back, watching msnbc "live" this sunday afternoon.

[zara larsson - "wow"] ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop drop say oh my drop drop drop ♪ ♪ make u say oh my god my drop drop ♪ ♪ make you're jaw drop make u say oh my god ♪

better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

that will do it for us this hour on msnbc. my friend katy tur takes things over. we wait four hopefully in the course of your window more details to walk through. >> i hope we have more details. peter alexander, thank you so much. hope you get rest before your back at work bright and early tomorrow morning. appreciate it. noon out west and 3:00 p.m. in washington where attorney general william barr is at his office on a sunday. as it stands at this hour the mueller report is in the hands of top officials at the justice department. barr and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein spent their saturday combing through the document. in a letter to lawmakers, barr suggested members of congress could receive a summary of mueller's conclusions before the weekend is over.

that has not yet happened. lawmakers are not the only ones who are still in the dark. the white house is also waiting to see mueller's findings as well. anticipation of its release did not dampen the mood in mar-a-lago where president trump broke a 40-hour streak of twitter silence to send two innocuous message to followers. trump's attorney rudy giuliani told politico the president is in a remarkably good mood. reportedly spent the weekend mingling with mar-a-lago guests and golfed with kid rock who tweeted a photo of the outing. in washington, a bit more tense. lawmakers on both siftds aisle filled up the sunday morning news shows. >> what i know it's critical that everything in that report and the underlying evidence be public, be open to the american

people. that transparency key. >> the speaker is saying i completely agree, do not think you can bury this report. do not think you can bury the evidence in secret by briefing eight people in congress and say we discharge our responsibility. that's not going to cut it. >> we want the full report. we deserve it, and we're going to keep the pressure on to say to him, we want transparency. >> joining me now, nbc news white house correspondent mike viqueira, former prosecutor doug burns and chief washington correspondent and from the justice department pete williams. pete, we've waited with bated breath all day. what is the latest we no? >> reporter: no change here. we're still waiting with bated breath. is does seem fairly clear something will be delivered to congress today and sometime after that it will be made public, but i can't tell what you time that's going to happen,

because i don't know, and we also don't know exactly the nature of what it's going to be, how voluminous it's going to be. so, i mean, the fact that i don't know what it's going to be or when we're going get it, all i can say it appears likely we'll get something today. >> do we know how it will be delivered, pete? >> my guess is it will be e-mailed to people on the hill, but which ones i don't know. for certain i would think the chairman and ranking members of the house and senate judiciary committees. they're the ones who received the letter from attorney general barr on friday. they are the only two, the only four officials referred to anywhere inside the regulations that govern the special counsel. so that would be my guess, but beyond that i don't know. >> do we know, have any idea yet, pete, how long the report was from mueller? do we know it was more than 50 pages? more than 100 pages? any idea of how thorough and lengthy it was, the report that

made it to a.g. -- >> none whatsoever. hold on a second here. can you report that? okay. so a little update here. a justice department official says that 30 to 45 minutes from now. so by 4:00, or by quarter a 4:00, the material will be sent to the hill. so we're going get it here within 30 to 45 minutes. the hill is going get in 30 to 45 minutes and at some point after that it will be made public. so it's coming within the hour. >> so 30 to 45 minutes nap is breaking news. we now have a timeline when it will be delivered to congress. within this hour. pete williams, are we going to be waiting to get it from members of congress or will the attorney general be giving us our own version of this summary? >> those are details to be worked out. >> to be worked out. >> but i would say that the

attorney general's obligation is to give it to the hill. they'll receive it first. at some point i'm sure it will be made public, but precisely what the logistical arrangements are for that, how long we'll have to wait i'm not sure i can say. >> so 30 to 45 minutes from now. we are hearing more and more from democrats on the sunday shows today, pete, and pretty much in the interviews they've done also on the campaign trail frand republic and from republicans they want to see the entire report. how much pressure is the justice department feeling right now to release this with as few redactions as possible? >> well, i would strike the right now out of that and go back to bill barr's confirmation hearing in january. he's well aware of the intent interest in this. he doesn't need representatives on the sunday shows de s tellin justice department there's a lot of interest in seeing this.

they get that, they understand the enormous curiosity from the public and desire from congress to see as much as possible. so they're well aware of that and have been for months. >> mike, any word from the white house? have they been alerted to this? >> of course, president trump spent the fwhnd marweekend in m oh. not due to depart for more than an hour. marine one will light on the south lawn and we may hear from the president. you know he's stopped frequently at these ins and outs, stakeouts when moving from place to place, airplane to helicopter to limousine. everybody on the edge of their seat. the breaking news pete just reported we expect it to be transmitted in the attorney general to congress, this summary, whatever we're going to call it, to congress and presumably it public bep should know something here very quickly. again, the geography, the

president maintaining radio silence over the course of the last 48 hours now. no tweets. we understand from kristen welker aides urged him, advised him not to tweet about bob mueller at all over the course of the weekend. he stuck to that only tweeting something innocuous, perhaps trolling for everybody waiting for him to say something saying good morning, have a great day and moments later, make america great again. at 8:01 and 8:02 eastern time. rare message from the white house as they wait with the rest of us to find out exactly what is going to be transmitted to the congress by bill barr, the attorney general. we only know that the president has been golfing. he just got back from the links with three south carolinians, three former members of congress themselves, carolinian. of course, lindsey graham, close ally of the president, mick mulvaney, acting chief of staff and trey gowdy, former south carolina congressman. earlier in the weekend, yesterday, with kid rock and then lindsey graham lauding the

president as a dinner at mar-a-lago on friday night. but no mention of the report. we have seen members of congress, a raid before tv cameras over the course of the last 24 to 48 hours. vindication for the president is the theme for republicans. possible implication for democrats and insistence from nancy pelosi on down that they want to see the full report. remember, nancy pelosi said he doesn't want a classified briefing for the so-called gang of eight nap refers to the top leaders of congress and top leaders of the house and senate intelligence committees respectively, because she would be hamstrung what she could say if in fact that was the type of briefing. democrats are going to insist, it's all over but the shouting at this point. 22 months bob mueller on the case, notifying that the attorney general friday night he was done. one more thing, katy, the pictures we saw that bob mueller this morning, he was outside st. john's episcopal church. there you see it. for services this sunday morning.

that's directly across the street from the white house, and that, of course, is the place where president trump and first lady melania trump went for their first-ever sunday services in office we are aware of. just last sunday. an amazing juxtaposition there. robert mueller, an illusive character the past few moss but at church this morning. >> someone's phone is ringing. i imagine getting information. whoever it was, pick thaup that phone. go ahead. and let's play for sound from lawmakers ar how they want to see the full report. this is from ted cruz. >> i think the report needs to be made public, needs to be released to the congress and it needs to be released to the american people. this has consumed two careers of the american people's time and we need to have full

transparency. we need to know the special counsel conclusions. >> not just democrats. republicans want to see it as well. >> correct. just the other week a vote in the house of representatives by 420-0 of a rare moment of bipartisanship in a very divided congress for republicans joining democrats to say they would like to see this mueller probe made public. the question becomes number one right now is just in more than a half hour when special counsel bob mueller and attorney general, the attorney general barr delivers the summary findings to congress, what will be the differentiation in timeline for when that is made public? and that will only be the summary conclusions. i can tell you that based upon what the department of justice has said, mr. barr has consulted with the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein as well as special counsel mueller to craft this very importantly worded summary that will be sent to the

senate and house judiciary committees. now, senator lindsey graham, republican from south carolina, is chairman of the senate judiciary committee. and jerry nadler, democrat from new york, the congressman who oversees the house judiciary committee. from there, in speaking with kree previous staffers who worked in these committees, kate k, during high-intensity information when transmitted to them, in sthis i secure type of transmission and the staffers even able to first see these type of documents, they're going to have to sign themselves into a very secure log system and carefully, will be very carefully looking over this. the question becomes ultimately, jund u just under an hour, once lawmakers is the opportunity to reflect on this is what are they able to say and what redactions

are made? because the attorney general, william barr, has said, katy, if he feels national security interests prevent him from having to disclose any information that he's going redact it. but we've heard from people like senator ted cruz, we just heard from, as well as from democrats that they want this made public. >> they do want this made public, and a large portion of the population wants this made public. reporters would like to see it as well. covering this now over two years. so i guess the clock we are looking at right now. the time frame we're looking at is sometime past 3:30 in this hour, between 3:30 and 4:00, when congress will get it. unclear when we in the news media will get a summary as well. but i would imagine it will be shortly thereafter that. doug, you know william barr. your father the attorney deputy

general under president reagan. how do you expect this to go. >> yes. i think bill barr deserves benefit of the doubt. basically will summarize what's in there. those in this field know there's going to be a huge dust-up, a huge fight, between whether it sounds like it's a failure of proof, not enough evidence versus it didn't happen. there was no offense. that's where everybody's going to dig in. so it's going to be extremely interesting. as far as i'm concerned. bill barr was named attorney general way, way back. he was very young. in his early 40s. now he's back at attorney general but people have described him as an institutional type of guy. he's very well respected. so we'll see what he comes up with. they'll be something in it for everybody. >> what's his position on executive privilege? >> let's be fair. he did make a slight mistake in my view sending in that memorandum, unsolicited. weighed in, cabineted doj about things like executive privilege.

but, again, i think that's unfair. he's a private citizen. so i think his view on executive privilege -- >> why did he send that in, sdwloe t the purpose? >> cynical answer people against him said he was auditioning to become attorney general. you know? seriously. that's a very good question that's hard to answer. why would you, as a private citizen come in with a memo? >> unless he felt the president was being treat understand fairly. >> exactly right. the memo actually went to the parameters of the obstruction of justice statute. you've heard this debated so many times which is, okay. he said, can you drop that case? but you need further corrupt intent. i think it bothered attorney general barr people were closing over that. >> the president and his team are poised to exert executive privilege if need be. >> yes. >> jerry nadler on "meet the press" today says he doesn't believe that will work. let's listen to nadler. >> yes. i remember that, actually. >> it's coming. hold on one second. you know, we don't have it.

i was -- >> that's t. i want to make sure viewers see it, not just you, doug. here's what he said. i'm going to read it. i do not believe it exists here at all as we learned from the nixon tapes case executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrongdoing. in that case the supreme court 9-0 ordered that all the claims of executive privilege will be overridden. the president may try to assert it, try to hide things behind it, but i don't think that's right or will be successful. >> he states the legal standard correctly but makes a leap of faith factually. in other words, yeah, he's right. if this criminality, an exception to -- >> criminality there has to be criminality. a little of an open question. i understand where he's tumming from. basically if executive privilege is exerted it will end up in court. you've heard leap pundits say that and somebody has to decide as they did in the nixon tapes case. >> pete williams, still with us? had to jump off.

i think that phone call was going to him. in looking at what mueller was investigating the issue of russian collusion, whether or not somebody on donald trump's campaign or the president himself may have collude or inspired. no more indictments. no indictments, any conspiracy with russia to interfere in the election. many looking at that meaning they couldn't find it. is that correct? >> yes, and no. because, again, a little bit of a broken record point. you have the distinction between, although you're right, couldn't find it, whether it happened, is there evidence of it? two separate -- >> couldn't find enough proof to charge. >> separate discussion. i doubt that special counsel mueller will come out and say this didn't happen. you know. he's going to say there was a failure of an ability to find evidence of it. i do think and this is why there's so much political thirsting for all the underlying information. you've heard that. the report's got to contain things, inadvisable to have take an certain step or contact a

certain person, that does raise to criminality but provides political ability to pile on more and more. >> what about obstruction of justice? >> you've heard everybody say, those on the right -- >> going to be impeached for -- >> those on the right and left went too far. on the right, can't possibly be obstruction of justice. the president can tell the u.s. attorney in oklahoma to drop a bank robbery case. true. but not if it could double back from cooperation to the president. i parted company with those who said that. on the left, though, right away, it's definitely obstruction of justice. they're ignoring the statute other requirement of corrupt intent. if i tell a u.s. attorney to drop the case and am bribed, paid or my son gets a job, that's the type of area that provides corrupt intent. without that, with nothing more you don't have it. again, i try to be a little bit down the middle. voice of reason on some of this

stuff. >> mike viqueira, obstruction is something that a lot of people have raised as a possibility of something that robert mueller should be looking sa khave mike's not with us either. and addressing obstruction, how much more investigating will we see from capitol hill on that? >> they'll continue. on wednesday the house judiciary committee already has a hearing that is scheduled prior to friday's developments, katy that particularly looks into whether or not there can be any indictments or any pardons. so they're already looking into just the precise conversations that we're having right now. now, the question then becomes ultimately a question for democratic leadership. people like speaker of the house nancy pelosi. she is going to have to serve as

the political referee of sorts to try to sort through much of the furor that exists not just among elected officials in the democratic party, but also amongst the progressive base. that issue of impeachment is going to be a conversation that democrats are going to have to sort through. now, i can tell thaw you that i speaking with democratic staffers as well as others on the left they are ready to have that debate within their party, but over this weekend in talking with campaign staffers with the trump re-election campaign as well as other folks within that type of political orbit, katy, you know from your reporting, i know you know this. they feel that the issue of indictments has been settled. so that there is no indictments, they're viewing that and you're seeing that from the president's tweets to some extent, his, i don't know if you recall them, call it a subtweet, but they feel that as a political victory. >> kevin, what about the indictments that potentially come out of the sdny or edda or

courts or legal jeopardy that way comes from attorneys general across the country investigating donald trump or his associates in matters maybe not directly related to russian collusion, that was mueller's purviews that matters that came out of the investigation into potential conspiracy or collusion? >> absolutely why this story is far from over. and absolutely why that, you know, there might be a sense of a sigh of relief on behalf of several prominent individuals within the president's political orbit, but in terms of the legality from a court perspective, this is going to continue. and from a policy standpoint. it is important top note that just in, you know, we're going get this summary sent to capitol hill in just over a half hour, katy, from the department of justice, but from a policy standpoint, when you look at what has already been released from the intelligence community, from various officials and what has been discussed not just

amongst democrats but amongst republicans as well. let us know that russia and other actors, foreign actors, are, you know, still trying to influence elections, and that is something that hopefully will ultimately yield to non-partisan concern as we head into another 2020 presidential cycle. >> we know there are no more indictments coming down but also we know it's just department policy as stated in a memo. you can argue whether or not the policy is, that can be upheld in could, but you don't indict a sitting president. >> yes. >> so i guess technically we won't know whether there were, there was enough to -- not charge the president but look critically at the president until we see what's in this report. >> you read my mind, because the one point was about "enough proof." the other is the business of the doj memos from the office of legal counsel. so you have to -- we're going to look carefully to see how

special counsel mueller puts it. makes it sound like the only reason he didn't go forward with respect to the president is because of those memos that's a whole different discussion. absolutely. again, we can't pre-jump ajudge. see whether it's couched wasn't really there, wasn't sufficient proof or the ooc counce ims. sounds like a political spououn bite. hear me out. those in his circle are not indicted, no memo covers that. >> and a number of memos floated as potential targets of this investigation, people very close to the president not indicted in connection with this investigation. >> important point. >> an important point. >> i think so. >> and talking to some of those people, kristen welker, the past couple of days feel vindicated, yes, and also angry. angry their names were tossed around and that allegations and charges were made in the public

sphere never made in court. they're angry about it and feel like they've been unfairly tarnished. also a note from another person in donald trump's circle, someone else whose name came up and more joking. it was a, a take on that facebook theme where you mark yourself safe from some sort of bad event except this was marking the person safe from robert mueller. >> and you hit on something critical, katy, i think. the fact you do have some people coming forward, jerome corsi saying i'm glad i didn't cooperate, frankly. now i feel vindicated. someone who was sort of one of the president's former advisors. but, look, here's the bottom line. we still don't know what's in the report. >> we do not. >> what we know right now is that there are no further indictments. that has prompted some to start to take a victory lap, prizingly, nikki haley tweeted time to move on, even though we don't know what's in the report.

steve bannon said earlier today that president trump is going to essentially be prepared to campaign on this. out on the campaign trail he's going to weaponize the mueller report. it's an indication, katy, for some of his staunchest supporters, this is a victory already. and they are going to be prepared to turn whatever we learn in the next hour or so into a political hammer to wield against democrats. in terms of the thinking, though, inside the white house, inside the president's legal team it is far more measured. they understand that we are still in a wait and see mode. in the words of one adviser, it's way too soon to spike the football. they want to know what is in this report. now, we know that his legal team is going to be looking closely at the question of obstruction. they are predicting that this report will not include any allegations of obstruction, having said that, though, katy, they're bracing for the discussion about that. because obviously we've spent a lot of time discussing that as

well and know it's something mueller was looking at and they're prepared to, frankly, argue it 100 different ways i am told. they're bracing for all the different range of things we could learn in this report but are far more measured than other voices out there ready to claim victory underscoring the fact that we just don't know what's in the report. still waiti inwaiting. >> what do you make of that? usually the white house is out in the front saying there's nothing there, all collusion. a witch-hunt. all a big joke. this is wrong. it's incorrect. the president on friday greeted reporters i believe you were one of them, not with a hello. or a wave. he greeted them with no collusion. no collusion. it's been ace mantra now. he said it over 200 times at least in the public sphere. why do you think they're being more cautious? >> a couple reasons, katy. i think they understand the enormity of this moment. some of the president's advisers are urging him, for example,

stay off of twitter. >> since when does he listen to his advisors? >> this time he has, katy. we haven't got an mueller related tweet since friday. nothing. he spoke publicly at that event at mar-a-lago with lindsey graham. said nothing about the mueller report. it is striking. you're right. one of those times he understand the enormity of the moment and wants to turn the page. wants to be able to say this is a victory and he knows, he feels, as though he may be close to doing that but doesn't want to overstep and get ahead of it. that's what his advisers are advising him to do. now, we still have to wait, katy. he could tweet as i'm speaking's i don't want to say anything that's won't be true in the next 30 seconds or so. you know better than anyone he is someone who sees himself as his own best communicator. so for him to be listening to his advisers in this regard is really something. quite remarkable. then i just think you have his legal team with him there at mar-a-lago throughout the

weekend. people who know this is a dell ted moment and situation and know we are waiting for details of this report. knew we would get something over the weekend. first thought maybe a little information yesterday. now it's today. clearly, they're being very careful how they go through this report. the attorney general knows the stakes as well. so everyone really taking a wait and see approach and, again, i think it underscores the fact that this is a significant moment politically for this president. perhaps the largest moment that he has had. the biggest test yet that he will face, and we're going to know more answers coming up here very shortly. >> we got the news at about 3:05. people williams reported it live on television. somebody told him and he relayed it to us in the very moment that william barr would be spending the summary to congress within 30 to 45 minutes. that means at 3:35 that is the soonest, the earliest, that congress could get it, and after

that, it would probably, we think, come to us at some point. though that is unclear. still it will be out of it's attorney general's hands and in the hands of lawmakers and then soon thereafter in the hands of the american public. let's also go to former u.s. attorney greg broaugher, former assistant officer of office affairs for the fbi. talk about redactions. viewers know on our air yesterday talking how he does not believe there will be much, if anything, in this report that does need to be redacted. he referenced an indictment that was made i believe it was last year or maybe a year and a half ago. the 13 russian nationals and 3 russian entities that talked about how they hacked into the dnc and what they were trying to do with hillary clinton's e-mails. he said those were full of

information about how the -- how the investigation discovered what they did and it had names it had times. it was full of details. they thinks that that indictment can be as detailed as that, then this report could be potentially released entirely to the public as well. >> certainly that's possible, katy. depends on exactly how the report has been drafted. it may well be that the mueller team has drafted this report so as to minimize potential redactions. remember that the categories that would potentially be subject to redaction are classified information, grand jury information, information about ongoing investigations and the potentially the issue of executive privilege, yet to be plushed out because, of course, the president and his team would have to review the report it make any executive privilege assertions. it's quite possible the report was drafted in a way that minimizes redactions. >> what do you expect to see? >> well, this is going to be very interesting, to say the

least. of course, we have to remember that the law and the regulations that apply to the special counsel's work don't require any sort of summary to be provided as we anticipate today, and i think that that will likely lead to the classic no good deed goes unpunished sna scenario whereby vi provided, congress doesn't think it's enough and asks for more detail nap . that is going to cause a series of negotiations between doj and the white house with respect to executive privilege issue and congress to determine exactly what parts of the report are produced to the congress. it is possible, katy, i would say that, again, if the report is drafted in a certain way that virtually the entire report will be provided. what's in there, though, is anybody's guess. i would imagine it will include an explanation of kind of a summary of the indictments we've

seen publicly so far. a summary explanation of what the special counsel's team did not do, because of what they did not find. it will not include, i would imagine, detailed information about the so-called spin-off cases to other districts that are ongoing. simply because those are ongoing cases. but, you know, congress, i think it's safe to say will not rest until it gets enough detail to understand exactly what the mueller team found with respect to the president. why the president and others were not indicted, and the key question, of course, that everybody is waiting to find an answer to is this -- did the special counsel's team find enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing with respect to the president to justify an indictment but did not seek an indictment because of the prevails opinion from doj's olc that a sitting president cannot be indicted? that is a were question and if that is found how do you expect

a.g. barr to deal with that? will he immediately give that information to congress? >> well i would imagine that, that is part of the report that the mueller team has provided to the a.g., and that is the one thing, in my view that if congress doesn't get enough of the report to understand the answer to that question, congress will continue to push until it gets an answer to that question. if that includes bringing bob mueller up to the hill for at least a private interview, perhaps a public hearing, i'm sure congress will do that. to me, that question has to be answered. of course, if the answer to the question is, no, there was not sufficient evidence to seek indictment of the president regardless of his status or olc memos, that's a very good finding and result for the president. if on the other hand the mueller team did gather evidence that would have likely resulted in the indictment of a person, if he was not the president, well, that's a very different thing

and will be interesting obviously to especially congressional democrats, but, you know, theoretically to both sides. >> again, this centers around how we define terms, though. again, i was a philosophy major in college and said this on television before. you start everything defining your terms. what is your definition or what do you believe the definition is of principle findings? william barr said he would commit mueller's principle findings to congress. what are principle findings? >> that's the big question of the day. again, there is no statute, there's no regulation that defines that term and deed. there's no legal requirement that the attorney general even provide principle findings. so there really isn't any definition that we can go on today. we're simply going have to wait and see what findings are provided. again, regardless of what the attorney general in good faith and i think there are very good reasons for him to provide a summary as he apparently intends to do today it will not be

enough for some on the hill and the department will have to go back to the drawing board and decide what parts of the actual report, perhaps including the entire thing, will also have to be provided at some later date. >> stick with us. i want to bring in ken delanian, nbc news national intelligence reporter. reporting on this from the beginning. do you have an idea of what that would mean? principle findings? >> i really don't, katy, but i think, look, the big question we're confronting here is whether the justice department will violate its own guidelines which say you either indict or shut up. james comey violated those guidelines when he went out and talked about uncharged conduct by hillary clinton. said her conduct with her e-mail server was reckless and irresponsible and one of the reasons cited president trump used as a rationale for firing comey. now we're in a situation where

normally the justice department does not talk about the conduct of individuals who it doesn't charge, because the theory is gish these people a chance to defend themselves in court and clear their good name. not bringing a criminal case no forum and you're smearing them. we're in a different situation. this is the president of the united states who cannot be indicted. the base line question here, under olc legal opinion. some argue he did -- >> interrupting you. mike memoli has breaking news. >> hey, guys -- >> mike? >> just tweeted doj sent us a very brief letter about the mueller report which we will share shortly. once again, that's chairman of it's house judiciary committee jerry nadler. one of the four lawmakers who received that notification of the summary from the attorney general. he's now tweeting he received that summary. he says it is a very brief letter. that's an important point. one of the questions that lawmakers had been asking as

they await what they were waiting for from the justice department is this just top line summary? a multipage summary? a full-on report from the attorney general? we're getting at this early instance from nadler the signal this is a very brief letter. democrats will not be satisfied with that. we heard speaker pelosi say in a conference call with her caucus yesterday that simply his offer of a summary is insufficient. she also said she will not accept any classified briefings as part of the gang of eight with the justice department. they want everything to be unclassified to speak about this publicly. we're going to work our sources on the hill. now that they have the report they'll share dames. our colleagues expecting to receive the report same time it was sent here to capitol hill. i'll keep an eye on eye phone and standing by with you as well. >> right on time. 3:35 they said this would happen. 35 to 45 minutes. it happened right at 3:35.

also news from our own pete williams we get a paper copy in two minutes. i imagine we will be hearing petal or julia ainsley read it live on television. because it will be a paper copy, not an e-mail copy. very short, though, according to jerry nadler. this is interesting. because, ken, as you know, rod rosenstein was at the justice department over the weekend, and mueller was, still, is still being consulted. i thought they were working on trying to figure out how much of the report, as much of the report as possible, as they could make public? >> i did, too, katy, and i think this answers the question i just raised. seems like if it's a very short report, they are not -- >> sorry to interrupt. >> -- summarize what we already knew about russians prosecuted for interfering in the election by either trying to hack into hillary clinton's e-mails or setting up false social media accounts. but here's what it says about

obstruction of justice. it says, after making a thorough factual investigation into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct, and he's talking about a number of actions by the president, most of which have been the subject of public reporting. that would be the firing of comey. criticism of the special counsel, asks them to go easy on mike flynn. so it says after making a thorough fact cruel investigation the special counsel considered whether or not to evaluate the conduct governing prosecution and deck lynation. prosecute or not, ultimately determined no the to make a traditional prosecute oral judgment. the special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. instead for each of the relevant actions investigated the report, which means mueller's report, sets out evidence on both sides

of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as "difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction." the special counsel says in his report, "while the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." now, i'll continue to read and as i'm reading this to you i'm seeing it the first time. the special counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusion leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitute a crime. over the course of the investigation the special counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the special counsel's obstruction investigation. after reviewing the special counsel's final report on these

issues, consulting with department officials including the office of legal counsel here at the justice department, and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, this is attorney general barr speaking, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and i have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. our determination was made without regard to and is not based on the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. so, in other words, he's saying, set aside the question of whether a president can be indicted, and, of course, there's a longstanding justice department policy under both republicans and democrats that a president cannot be indicted for separation of powers reasons. their determination that there was no crime to be prosecuted

was not based on that. in other words, they're saying it's not that we couldn't indict him. we don't think we need to or could or the evidence doesn't establish it. one other paragraph about this. in making this determination we noted that the special counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to russian election interference." and that while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president's intent with respect to obstruction. generally speaking, to obtain and sustain about obstruction conviction the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a person acting with corrupt intent engaged in obstructive conduct weren't aesisht nexus to a proceeding. the president's actions many took place in public view the report identifies no actions that in our judgment constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus

to a pending or contemplating proceeding and done with corrupt intent, each of which under the department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish and obstruction of justice offense. so -- then it goes on to say the letter says, that under the regulations the special counsel's report is confidential. he says i am mindful this is barr speaking again, i am mindful of the public interest in this matter for that reason my goal and intent is to release as much of the special counsel report as i can consistent with applicable law and departmental policies and goes on to say after looking at it it's apparent the report contains material that is or could be subject to federal rules of criminal procedure 6e. that's the rule that says grand jury material is separate and can't be released. rule 6e, certain information

disclosure of that beyond the strict limits is a crime in certain circumstances. the restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings ensuring the unique and invaluable poirs of a grand jury are used strictly for intended criminal. the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the department can identify the 6e material. the grand jury material that can't be made public. i've asked for the assistance of the special counsel in identifying all the 6e material information contained in the report as quickly as possible. separately i must identify any information could impact other ongoing matters including the special counsel referred to other offices. as soon as that's done i'll be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable policies and signed

william barr attorney general. the headline here is that the attorney general has concluded based on the fact that robert mueller's investigation didn't say one way or the other whether the president obstructed justice, that they've looked at the law, they've looked at the facts and determined that he did not. and that he, therefore, wasn't indicted, and had nothing to do with the fact that longstanding justice department policy that you can't indict a sitting president. i would say one other thing here, kate. the whole question of grand jury material came up in the watergate as well. you may remember that in that investigation the watergate grand jury actually prepared a report and stent to congress want federal judge signed off on it. but a critical fact when the judge looked at that about whether this grand jury stuff could be sent to congress was the fact that the president at the time, president nixon, didn't tobt thobject to that ma going to the hill. if donald trump objects to it, might be a different story.

for now, this is all that congress is going to get. the attorney general saying it's going to take a while to see how much more i can give you. >> pete williams, reporting for us. reading directly from the summary that was sent to lawmakers on capitol hill. jerry nadler called it a brief summary and that it was, and he laid out the headlines. julia ainsley is with us. one thing i still have a question on, julia. we joined pete slightly late. whether mueller found any evidence of conspiracy. >> glad you asked that, katy. i just got to a footnote. what he decided to investigate was coordinated, this would be conspiracy charges. wanted to be able to define coordinated. whether or not the trump campaign coordinated with russian efforts. i'll read, it's key. it says in assessing conspiracy charges special counsel considered whether members of the campaign coordinated with

russian election interference activities. special counsel, this is key, defined coordination as an agreement, tacit or expressed between the trump campaigned the russian government on election interference. in that case they did not find that coordination. said there were several attempts by the russian government to reach out to the trump campaign but it says despite multiple offers from russian affiliated individuals to assist the trump campaign, the special counsel did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these efforts. he's spelling out exactly what he is clearing them from and says tacitly or expressly they did not answering a big question. a lot of people thought there were signals. it wasn't expressed. the president said as a candidate, if you're listening, could that have been tacit? robert mueller said that was not tacit. no coordination or conspiracy. >> this vindicates the president

on collusion. >> it does. vindicate him on collusion. remember, collusion is a term that was laid out in the charge given to special counsel robert mueller when he got this assignment but not a criminal charge. there's a statute on collusion. what you would have would be conspiracy or coordination. that is what robert mueller is answering here because he's sticking to the criminal statute and been cleared, cleared the president and his campaign and anyone associated with it on both of those things. >> not just russia, if you're listening, julia. this also goes to the trump tower meeting. people out there believed and expressed this much that don junior even accepting dirt from a russian national that was alleged to have come from the russian government in an e-mail was enough to say that there was conspiracy. robert mueller said, no. that was not enough. >> that's right. we have been talking about that 2016 june trump tower meeting a

long he said, president's son if you have dirt i would love to see this and had that meeting. the line from the trump white house about their campaign was they didn't find anything material. that the lawyer who came didn't present them any material. apparently robert mueller weighed in, that say way. again. multiple efforts. think about roger stone meeting with wikileaks. russia affiliated people reaching out to meet with roger stone, his soeshltsz. other people associated. konstantin meeting with paul manafort when chair of the campaign. all of those things together, robert mueller decided none of those meetings were tacit or expressed agreement to coordinate with the russian government. so he's clearing them of that. >> what we don't have, though -- i. could go on. >> we don't have an answer, julia, on all of the so-called smoke. all of the questions of why so many people within donald trump's orbit lied about their

contacts with russia and continued to do so even to federal investigators. >> and that's why there's more to come. from looking here at the last page of this letter, the attorney general lays out that based on his discussions with the special counsel, it's apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to a criminal procedure law and poses restrictions on the disclosure of information but notes some of the information may be in the public interest. of course, we have a lot of questions that are not answered in this letter. all of the smoke, all of the signals you lay out, katy, haven't been answereded. i think that the attorney general and what i've heard from sources today is that he wants to answer as many of these questions as he can, and in due time, but answered the two big questions today. which were obstruction and collusion. of course, defining that as coordination or conspiracy. but more to come. >> yeah. according to the letter, what we're hearing from bill barr is that they're going to go through

all of the material in the mueller report. they're going to identify what they cannot release, a lot of that grand jury testimony, which is secret and cannot be released, and then will give as much as possible to the public. is that going and the

rick gates sentencing. a number of things connect back to this president. that william barr might be constrained and what he can say if they implicate in those matters. >> pete welcomes, talking about the issue of conspiracy. the charge of conspiracy that was not found in this mueller report. the other part of it was obstruction. i think it's interesting that according to bill barr it says that bob mueller's team looked at obstruction from a public viewpoint, from the public reporting on it. laid out both sides of it and then allowed bill barr and rod rosenstein to make the determination. >> okay. so i would just amend ma slightly. what they're saying is that the incidence of potential obstruction are those that are

already publy and don't list them here in the letter. presum presumably, firing of comey, comments made in the interview with lester in the meeting at the oval office. in his comments to comey, can't you go easy on michael flynn? his repeated public criticism of the special counsel. his concern that jeff sessions didn't recuse himself. all of that. so i read the letter as to say that it's the, that the potential acts of obstruction were those that were public. not that the report is based solely on that is public. >> got it. is that based on the motivation here? because what we just heard from julia was her reading a footnote in this summary talking about how mueller did not find conspiracy. did not find anybody within the trump campaign or trump orbit who expressly conspired with

russia to sway the election. because that wasn't there. does that mean that the -- the effort to obstruct could not be there either? because you're not obstructing something that didn't happen. >> so the report says, and this is a quote. not from barr's letter, but it's -- well it is. but it's barr quoting the mueller report. "the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities." >> so on the issue of obstruction, pete, if a.g., bill barr, and rod rosenstein say they don't have evidence of obstruction, what are we expecting to hear from congress on this? >> so i'll leave that to your guess is as good as mine on that, but what they're saying is, that the evidence, the evidence that they have isn't

sufficient to establish, to justify filing obstruction charges. setting aside the question of whether the president can indeed be charged with a crime or not. they neverpie -- my assistance, never got that far. didn't have to go through the door and ask that question, because we didn't have enough information to say that, that this was, that these actions did reach the threshold of being a crime for the reasons are intent and all the other factors that they cite in the letter. >> kristen welker, have we heard from the white house? >> we're getting our first small reaction from the white house, katy. this comes from dan skavino one of president's top advisers. fact, as we've said the past two years the special counsel's investigation did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with russia in its

efforts to influence the 2016 u.s. presidential election. so the victory lap has begun. this is from lindsey graham, an ally of president trump's, who says this, i have just received top-line findings from attorney general barr. good day for the rule of law. great day for president trump and his team. no collusion, no obstruction. the cloud hanging over president trump has been removed by this report. bad day for those hoping the mueller investigation would take president trump down. he's, of course, the chair of the senate judiciary committee, katy. we are awaiting response from democrats now to your question, what happens next? what do we expect to hear from lawmakers on capitol hill? well, i think you might hear a battle over how much of this report gets released. now, this is going to be the big question mark. is president trump going to say, release the entire report? this report says, according to what we've just heard from pete

williams, there was no obstruction, no collusion. so will president trump, in fact -- he's already said he wants the whole report released. what specifically does that mean? there might be parts of the report that might be deemed protected by executive privilege. might president trump say, look, democrats want to see this full report. we're going to now be more cooperative. we have to wait and see. now, president trump about to leave florida, katy. he lands here just after 6:00. we will have a chance to hopefully get reaction from the president himself to all of this. again, a remarkable day in the trump presidency and certainly, certainly something that you can expect to see him use out on the campaign trail as he tries to win re-election, katy. >> let's bring in chuck todd. chuck, to recap for viewers from the summary give ton lawmakers from bill barr on robert mueller's findings he found that, one, there was no express agreement by anybody on the team

or within trump's orbit to coordinate or conspire with russia to affect the election. the other thing is on obstruction. they compiled all of the evidence on both sides on obstruction. and allowed bill barr and a deputy a.g. rod rosenstein to make the determination whether or not the president obstructed justice. and both barr and rosenstein have said they do not believe that the president obstructed justice. this, i imagine is a good day for the president. he must be feeling relatively good right now? >> he is and probably feeling relatively good about his selection of bill barr as hi t.his attorney general. this will color what is in the mueller report before we actually see it. the two big determinations, one, no evidence of any conspiracy with russia and the trump

campaign, but the second on obstruction, tell you, you know, katy, it's very confusing in here. the report did not make a decision on obstruction. it's the attorney general that's making a decision on obstruction. we already know had he a very expansive view of executive power on this front. so that isn't going to resolve the obstruction question. as far as congressional democrats are concerned in general, and probably many members of legal community. this is going to about debate, i think. you can't have the debate until you see the actual evidence of the obstruction, and i'll say this. i think politically the president is being done a huge favor here by the fact that there is a predeterminenation on what the obstruction is from the attorney general without anybody else seeing that evidence. and, yes, it was bob mueller who theft to the a.g. and the deputy a.g., begun, it's their

interpretation on this not mueller's or anybody else's. >> that's not going to sit well with congressional leader or a number of voters who want to see all of the evidence. will we hear the same calls from the republicans going forward to see the entire report? to see what bob mueller compiled on the question of obstruction? >> on paper you would think this should be an easy call. the big question's been answered. if you believe obstruction politically was never going to be enough, you shouldn't be afraid of it politically on chill. we'll s on capitol hill. we'll see. politically it's not in the president's best interests to see the details of this report come out, because there's no doubt in my mind the details will be far worse than this summary and right now it's not going to feel better than it is for him right now. which is, a definitive word on number one, mueller says, no conspiracy. not barr. that is mueller proof, that is a big deal. we know voters have a lot of

faith in mueller. a lot of people. that is mueller saying, curious to see if democrats will accept this conclusion since that came from mueller. on obstruction, katy, i fully understand if there is a debate and dispute over this, because this was not mueller's definitive word. this was bob barr's word. this is where they'll be a fight. again, politically the toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. >> yeah. >> so, you know, this isn't getting resolved in this country until november 2020. >> no doubt about that. i think what we can take from this is that the investigations will continue in congress, but ultimately and who knows how long it will take to potentially see the rest of this report, or what we are able to see, but ultimately this is going to go to voters in 2020 and what the president's going to do, chuck, and the steve bannon's made this clear and anybody who followed the 2016 campaign would assume as well, he's going to