a good gain about .2% on the dow. the nasdaq is closing in negative territory. that wraps up the hour for me. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern and then again at 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can find me on social media. thank you for watching "deadline white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. for the first time in the nearly two years since the start of robert mueller's russia investigation, tension between mueller's team and the justice department are spilling out into public view. the justice department today hitting back at special counsel investigators who have now for the first time pulled back the curtain on their findings, accusing attorney general william barr of downplaying the damaging evidence against the president. from the "new york times" the first to report on the brewing conflict of interest, quote, some of robert mueller's have

told associates that attorney general barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry, and they were more troubling for mr. trump than mr. barr indicated. that's according to government officials and others familiar with their frustrations. it adds, the special counsel's investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report and some team members believe that mr. barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on march 24th. laying out their main conclusions. new reporting in "the washington post" adds this about how mueller's team crafted their report and what was intended for public release, quote, the report was prepared so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately or very quickly, the official said. it was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary and the work would have spoken for itself. mueller's team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public the official said, so they prepared

their summaries to be shared in their own words, and not in the attorney general's summary of their work. has turned out to be the case. instead, attorney general william barr released a four-page letter describing the findings containing just five sentence fragments from mueller's actual report. and now house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is calling for the immediate release of any summaries the special counsel prepared. this as a justice department pushes back on suggestions they acted improperly by holding back specifics from mueller's findings. their statement reads, quote, every page of the confident report provided to attorney general barr on march 22nd was marked may contain material protected under a law that protects confidential grand jury information and therefore could not be publicly released. given the extraordinary public interest in the matter. the ag decided to release the report's bottom-line findings and his conclusions immediately

without attempting to summarize the report. with the understanding that the report itself would be released after the redaction process. president trump added his spin in a tweet this morning, quote, the "new york times" had no legitimate sources which would be totally illegal concerning the mueller report. in fact, they probably had no sources at all. they are a fake newspaper who already been -- have been forced to apologize for their incorrect and very bad reporting on me. maybe you need one of their editors, sir. that's why we start today with our favorite reporters and friends, neil katia, the man who helped write the special counsel regulations, claire mccaskill, mimi roker, and donny deutsche is here. take us through the original

report, michael, and then i want to get to the president's attack on you and your colleagues. >> to deal with that sort of off the bat, the president is repeating this falsehood about us about how we apologized after the election to something he said repeatedly, it's false and he continues to do it. there's not much we can actually do about that. in terms of the reporting here, there is this frustration within some of the mueller team. they're disappointed that the narrative has been seized by barr. that barr was able to cast the dye and essentially clear the president without showing the fruits of the investigation and giving a greater sense to the public or to congress about what is really here and the conduct that they uncovered. and they feel that this has helped cement the narrative for the president, and the president obviously going out and taking that narrative further than it actually is and saying that the mueller report completely exonerates him.

>> it seems that, in your reporting on the justice department's world view, they're defending themselves in a way that would suggest they're ac e acutely aware they've been painted into a corner as donald trump's lawyers, as being on donald trump's side and not on the special counsel side. was that a factor? >> i think that the -- for barr, barr was in a position he had to make a call on whether a law had been violated. mueller declined to make a decision about this. this highly unusual move where he didn't want to say yes or no on whether the president broke the law. that left barr out there on his own having to make a determination. the rationale from barr's side being we're the justice department we determine whether folks broke the law or not, we had to make the call here. the rub comes in where the special counsel office investigators are saying, you guys went out and cleared this president, but there's this

other information that's particularly troubling. why was that not made public at the time? >> mike schmidt your reporting goes a long way in reporting this growing gulf between the attorney general and some of robert mueller's investigators. it seems we still don't have the answer to whether or not their peak is over the fact that barr reached a conclusion that mueller and his team refused to, about whether or not to prosecute or say the crimes or the conduct around obstruction was to be prosecuted or exonerated. they didn't reach that conclusion. are they made that barr did that for them, or are they mad the spin contained five sentence fragments and downplayed the conduct that is clearly in this report? >> i think the frustration is that the barr letter doesn't provide a fuller picture of what was there. the real question we don't know and completely have our hands around yet is whether mueller's folks truly wanted congress to deal with it.

was it their hope to simply just write a report that laid out the facts in the hopes it would just be passed to congress and allow congress to deal with it. we don't know how explicitly that was said here. as we go forward and see the report, maybe we'll get more clues as to why mueller made this decision. neil i see you nodding. jump in. >> the first thing i want to do is stand up for michael and the "new york times." because for 22 months they've been reporting on this and they've been right, they've never had to apologize. they never reported anything like the extraordinary thing they discussed yesterday that mueller and sourcing to the mueller team have found frustrations with barr and feel like barr is not being up and up. i agree with what michael said to the extent that anyone thinks that barr had to resolve the obstruction of justice charges

that mueller himself didn't, i can't imagine that. that is in watergate for example, the special counsel didn't resolve the obstruction charges and instead left that for congress. so it was open for barr to do that. once barr clears the president in 48 hours of something that mueller couldn't do in nearly two years. i think it raises every suspicion that we're reading about in michael's story and now in "the washington post's" story as well. i think all of this is deeply suspicious and troubling. >> neal i have to put you on the spot. could the reg have been written a way to force the report to go to congress at the same time to bypass a political appointee with hardened views on obstruction? >> i suppose it could. but the regulations were written not just for high level presidential investigations, they were written for something

broader than that, including investigations of a president's secretary or the attorney generaar and not every instance would you you come out. so i don't fault barr for reviewing the report, for information particularly sources and methods, before it's released. the problem occurs when mueller has already done evidently, according to one of the stories, and provided a sanitized version that could be publically released and when you have an attorney general who appears to be not the lawyer of the people, which is what the attorney general is supposed to be, but the lawyer of donald trump. and in those circumstances when you've got something like that, there's obviously a lot more pressure for an immediate release of the information because otherwise barr's letters look like an advocacy document. it looks like i want to give the president a get out of jail free card. >> it would seem that barr is going to be the preverb yal dog

chasing the car here because the initial summary only included sentence fragments and it took this extraordinary occurrence of what you're talking about, word of mueller's team, investigators, being disconti e discontented by the spin he put on it. until the full thing is available, he'll never get out of the shadow of politics. >> that's true. the technical legal term for how the mueller team is feeling is pissed. >> even know i that one. >> exactly. there's something deeply wrong about releasing a clearing document and a couple of pages and then -- and then not providing any of the other information. and, you know, now today the justice department releases this statement saying there's grand jury material in. yeah but there's a process and this is what happened in watergate. you can go to a court and get

the -- permission for the grand jury material to be given to congress. it's easy to do. barr has had 13 days and counting to do that. he hasn't done that, but within 48 hours he felt perfectly comfortable acting in a hurry to clear president trump. so there's a real mismatch here and it does feed this idea that barr is the president's guy, not the people's guy. >> let me ask you one more question about that process, because it would seem that mueller's investigators have been removing grand jury material from their filings for the 22-month period they've been at this. there have been other suspects and targets and people who were convicted -- they've been filing documents for which they would have had to remove or redact grand jury information for the 22 months they've been in business, isn't that right? >> absolutely. there's a way in which they could do that. i credit what the justice department today said. they said every page of the mueller report may contain

information, i take them at their word for that. only they know because we're still all in the dark. but having said that, there was an easy remedy to deal with that. they could have done it last saturday. they still haven't done it for 13 days and counting, and that gives further rise to my suspicion that the american public will not be able to feel this is anything but a cover up until we see the actual report. the actual words that mueller and his team put together. >> claire, there's an interesting sort of nuance in the times reporting that brings jim comey and hillary clinton back in the circle, feels like everything old is new according to officials, he and his aides limited the details they revealed because they were worried about wading into political territory -- i'm sorry. mr. barr and his advisers expressed concerns if they included derogatory information about mr. trump while clearing

him they would face what comey did during the clinton investigation. comey reached a decision, saying she had not committed a crime, then detailed the conduct. mueller didn't even reach a decision. he neither exonerated or recommended prosecution. and barr came out and sort of poured hot sauce in the pudding. what they did and how they handled themselves, at least from my old view as a communicator, what they did was far more egregious that jim comey? >> yes. they make comey look like a piker, in terms of clearing the deck for trump. i think what the investigators, having not been a federal prosecutor but a state prosecutor, i know something about the culture of the justice department. and the culture is that we are rule of law folks, not political folks. and the people who did this investigation worked very hard for 22 months.

and they did summaries. and every single one of the people involved in writing those summaries knows about 6e and grand jury testimony. they know about what can be released and what can't. the fact that they worked so hard on summaries, assuming they would be given to the public, and that barr uni laterally said no i'm going to say no harm, no foul all over. and that will be the narrative that will grip america and it'll be difficult for that narrative to be changed. i think it's insulting to those professionals that worked on this investigation. the volume of evidence and facts they compiled that they felt the need to write 400 pages, that's what the american people need to see. not barr substituting his judgment for the independent counsel's or for the american people. that's what he did. he substituted his judgment for the american people. i think a lot of the president's advisers are nervous now because they think he's gotten so far

out on i've been cleared of everything, i've been cleared of everything, that when this information gets out there, it's going to make it worse for him, not better. >> do we still have mike schmidt? is there any sense -- what i was going to ask, do you think there's any remorse? do you think there's regret? do you think that maybe barr -- let's give him the benefit of the doubt in the moment he made his best judgment, best determination and maybe it is a reaction to the comey handling of clinton, although i don't think it's a good one. do you think by now seeing how the president went on a six-day exoneration tour said every day for six days i've been fully exonerated, fully exonerated, on day 8 this leaked to the times? >> there seems to be regret. because barr is putting out these letters trying to walk it back, i didn't mean for this to be a summary, didn't want to release it piecemeal.

and today, every page has 6e -- >> you're right, all the statements. he puts out new -- >> that last one about 6e that's a generic stamp that goes on any document where there might be grand jury. you don't want it left in the msnbc green room. that doesn't mean every page has 6e, barr knows that. that shows how desperate he is. i'm not saying there's not 6e in there at all, but mueller and his team know how to write summaries that do not have 6e. by all accounts and it sounds like and makes sense they would have written summaries for public consumption, this is a smart, organized, disciplined team. they weren't going to leave it to someone else to get the facts out. and that's what happened. that's why they're frustrated. it's not just that barr is spinning the facts, he didn't let any of the facts out.

he made a legal judgment in a place that mueller didn't feel it was his place to make. you can agree or disagree with that. but then he substituted his own facts by not putting in the summaries that apparently mueller's team had prepared. it's sad for me that this -- i did give bill barr the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. i thought he's an institutionalist. he's someone that's going to hold up the integrity and independence of the department of justice. and it looks, as neal says, he is playing trump's lawyer, not the doj lawyer, and it's a bad look. >> i thought the politics on this were going to be very difficult for the democrats, but they seem to have bought a break every day with donald trump overreaching on the full and complete exoneration, if he e kept his mouth shut and moved on to what he was doing, closing the border, health care, but now

you have the last unimpeachable body, the mueller investigators speaking out. >> these are 40 fbi agents, 19 prosecutors. i knew one way or another -- this is not a surprise. what will come out, mimi you can speak to this better than i can, a friend of mine, 20 years ago murdered by his wife, it was a pure circumstantial case. i knew 17 of the things. and hearing the prosecutor put them all together, one after the other, it paints a different picture. i think that's what's going to happen when it comes out. somehow, you know this this is what you do for a living, the six things we know already, and the 17 we don't know, thread together are going to paint a clear obstruction picture. having said that, take the numbers 37 and 45. at the end of the day we saw polls a week after trump was exonerated, they don't move. >> nothing changes. >> we can get in the sauce, we

have to get into the soup, at the end of the day speaking of the politics of this, even if it is as we're speculating, it's not going to move us anywhere. it's not going to move one person how they feel about trump. and on the more literal side of the equation, these are 75 obstruction, he's not going to get impeached. this is what barr did do, he will be the persecuted victim. they said i was exonerated. by the way my father was born in germany. so his narrative is not going to change. it allows him to be the persecuted victim to his base. so we end up in the same place we started with all of this circling around. >> maybe i have something different in my coffee cup. neal, i think there's some hope if you paint this picture that donny describes, this presidential picture of misconduct, there's still an audience out there for understanding what don mcghan,

the sitting white house counsel, had to spend 30 hours explaining. there was no witch hunt. the witnesses were all trump hand-picked staffers. we don't know what we don't know. it's possible if the obstruction case was so devastating that mueller neither recommended prosecuting a president that couldn't be indicted because he was president, nor exonerating him, there should at least be a question about what that looks like, no? >> absolutely. i don't think this is about 35% or 47% or whatever. i think this is about a very basic thing, which has the president acted with fidelity to the constitution and laws of the united states. politics aside, i'm a professor of constitutional law, and i can't think of a more important question than trying to understand and get to the truth of has our president committed crimes or acted in ways incompatible with his job as president of the united states.

i want someone for once someone in the trump administration to stand up for the rule of law. it's barr with the coverups, trumps saying this week, let's get rid of judges. it smells from the top down every time. to me that's the big issue. maybe it's not a good political issue for the democrats. i don't know. i don't care about that. i care about getting to the truth and having the american people learn it. >> any democrat who watched the damage done to hillary clinton, even though she wasn't charged with a crime. however the description of her conduct, she at least views that as part one of the reasons why she lost. >> part of this, to donny's point, is timing. there has been so much with trump. it's a bed of nails. any one thing might really hurt but because there's so much, you're numb to it. and the timing of the announcement about hillary and the resurfacing of the email

controversy it's right at that moment, as you know, at the end of a presidential, there's a large group of people that get to the point they can't either one of them because it's so negative. and a large group of people go which is the lesser of two evils. that happened at that moment where a lot of people were making up their mind and they decided trump was the lesser of two evils. this happening this early, i agree we need the facts out there, neal, the rule of law matters, this president demeans every institution in this country, including the military, the rule of law and all of the things, the freedom of the press, all of the things that make us america. but i do agree with him that i don't think this is going to move the needle in terms of how people view the president. now, let's fast forward 15 months from now. something coming out at the end where everybody is sick of both nominees that is particularly damning to one of them could

make a difference. >> or a ware out factor. >> exactly. >> we take 18 months in the supreme court. i think going back to do we swing between 35 and 47% approval rating. at some point people go let's go the other way. that's the hillary thing. >> there was a cumulative drip, drip, drip effect. >> if this continues for the next 24 months i believe the american public gets to a point they need to turn the channel. >> it gives new meaning to soft bigotry. >> there you go. next, the challenge of securing a president who believes intrusions at mar-a-lago are a fluke. a top democrat goes straight to the irs for trump's taxes. will the public learn why the president has described his finances as beyond his red line.

and a new film. all that coming up. w film all that coming up

the arrest of a chinese national by the u.s. secret service at mar-a-lago this week appears to have been a wake up call igniting new scrutiny of the gaping holes in donald trump's security apparatus at his favorite escape. reporting from "the washington post" today paints an alarming picture, the growing security concerns at a resort where anyone with enough money can get close to the president and how trump himself complicates the

situation. house oversight chairman, elijah cummings and jim jordan will receive a briefing from the secret service on this issue today. that's not all for security concerns surrounding the trump white house this afternoon. today we learned something from the "the washington post," the senior white house official whose security clearance was denied last year because of concerns about foreign influence, private business interest and personal conduct is presidential son-in-law jared kushner. that's according to people familiar with documents and testimony provided to the house oversight committee. joining us here sam stein. it's a sign of the times that you have to lump in the two security scandals in one segment. >> yeah, no. things aren't going well right now for jared kushner or for donald trump for that matter. i guess you have to step back and recognize one of the iron anies here is, of course, we had an election in which the prevailing, most important issue

is a politician being lax with her security and confidential information. and for this to now happen goes to expose how shallow those concerns were over hillary clinton's email server. this isn't a story about nepotism or favoritism and allowing jared to get a security clearance, it's about not being careful with sensitive information. it's a story about compromise. we don't know why it is precisely jared was denied security clearance by professionals but i would like to know what it was that he could be compromised -- >> in debt and the kushner organization about to go under, let's go with that. >> mbs for money. >> it was a cia flag, does that narrow it at all? >> i suppose, although you can make a fast universe of guesses -- >> it was known in the entire real estate community that 666

deal was the worst deal, it was bringing down cujared kushner. the saudi group that got the deal was owned by the group that bought 666 when no one would touch the property. >> i think the other point is the sheer dishonesty here. the talking point from the white house is, of course, the president would not intervene. ivanka trump is on tape saying her father had no role whatsoever in getting her security clearance granted, that's clearly not true. there should be a price to pay for lying so blatantly in public, but i don't know there is a price. >> we're talking about the clearance because that's where congress has oversight. do you think there's a criminal investigation into whether there's pay to play. >> with the mar-a-lago piece there's not just the woman who was caught entering.

there's real potential criminal exposure for other people. we don't know who may have already been compromised, knowingly or unknowingly. it's not dissimilar to what people were looking at with respect to russia. one other point about mar-a-lago, i think it's remarkable the secret service spoke out. it's like the mueller team speaking out. the secret service does not do that. they put out a statement saying we're not in control of mar-a-lago, those guys are. with the is it your clearance it's a whistle blower coming forward. the price to pay for these lies it may not be criminal. the security clearance, it's hard to make a criminal case out of that, but i think the truth is emerging in all of these different areas we're talking about and the common link is people or even agencies who are willing to speak up about it. >> claire, there's something -- the undercurrent for the russia

story was always why. why doesn't he want anyone in those five meetings with putin? why aren't there notes? why does he say good things about the russia invasion -- why? i guess the same question comes up, why did he overrule the cia? a normal president would say i want him on my staff, he work on turning the government into -- if he has this talent, i don't know you'd know better than me, i don't know what his talent is, he can work on stuff. >> advise me. >> but why doesn't the president care about a flag from the cia? >> it's not important to him. the only thing important to him is what will reflect on him and make him look good? i think ivanka and jared were bugging him about the clearances. i want to go back to what sam said. we have to take a moment here "lock her up" was all about -- out of thousands and thousands of e-mails on several handfuls there was an argument about

whether it was classified before she sent it on a personal server or after. >> right. >> now that's what "lock her up" was about. we have him using his personal cell phone. blowing up the security clearance process in the white house for anybody he feels like blowing it up for. you know, failing to secure, even basic means of communication. having russia in his office. having nobody taking notes with russia in his office. or when they were finding out he was telling them stuff he shouldn't have. >> never mind six of his buddies actually getting locked up. >> yes. there is time after time after time he has shown such a blatant disregard for national security, which makes the whole thing so ironic that this little bitty pea under the mattress caused hillary clinton such trouble. and now we've got a boulder and everyone is going -- >> to answer your question. i think the other story here is one of staffing. so when trump comes into office,

obviously he has no real connections to the republican establishment, but he's a guy that doesn't trust many people. family business operator, has a small unit he uses to run the business. so when it comes time to staff critical government functions he turns to one person only which is jared kushner. jared at one point in time was supposed to help with criminal justice reform, middle east peace that's a lot. because trump couldn't lean on professionals with that type of background who would have had an easier time getting the clearance, because he only had the small unit he trusted, he ended up having to bend and then ultimately break the rules. part of the story is inherently a staffing story. >> let me give you the last word on this mimi. what tools do the democrats have to get to the bottom of them? we learned there was a counterintelligence

investigation into the chinese efforts to infiltrate mar-a-lago or whatever they're trying to do there, and the security clearances we have a chairman trying to make sure it's secure. >> it goes back to your first question of me. it's possible that there are links, that jared kushner the reason he was denied the clearance in the first place because he has so many dealings going on with foreign governments and foreign entities. so those could end up being part of other investigations that we don't yet know about, maybe have been spun off from mueller. i think that's one area. and i think there's other possibly counterintelligence investigations going on that we don't know about. the nature of them is we wouldn't know about pe them. again i think these facts are going to come out. we've been focussed in many one area, we've been focussed on russia. hopefully the investigators, as always, have been ten steps ahead of us and they're already focussed on this. >> it's amazing we have to lump

together today's security scandals. donald trump's tax returns as democrats fight to get their hands on them. we'll talk to one of the few journalists out there who's actually seen them. tually seen m

if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make-or-break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects,

like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones.

democratic house ways and means commissions moments ago asked the irs for six years of your tax returns. >> is that all? >> that's all. >> usually it's ten. we're under audit despite what people said. and we're working that out. i'm always under audit it seems. i've been under audit for years because the numbers are big and i guess when you have a name you're audited. but until such time as i'm not under audit, i would not be inclined to do that. thank you. >> donald trump may not be inclined to share his tax

returns with congress or the general public for that matter but democrats don't care. house ways and means chairman richard neil has filed a formal request with the treasury department to obtain his taxes writing, quote, we have completed the necessary ground work for the request of this magnitude and i am certain we are within our legitimate legislative and legal and oversight rights. speaker nancy pelosi drove home that point today, insisting the law is very clear. >> the secretary shall furnish, shall, not may, should, could, shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request. >> joining the conversation tim o'brien. if i were steve manu chin i'd say yes. she's not messing around.

>> she's not messing around. it's a nonpartisan, nonideological issue. u.s. citizens should know the conflicts that reside with the president. business relationships that have maintained after he went to the white house. foreign influences through loans or investments in his businesses all are sitting out there in a dark cloud that no one has a handle on because he hasn't released his tax returns. when he uses a smoke screen of an audit -- let's remember richard nixon, he was under audit when he turned over his tax returns. nelson rockefeller sat on the floor of the senate for two days getting confirmed as vice president and holdings that were more complex and valuable and he put it all out there. it was a sense if you're part of the public wheel you owe it to the public. i think until he comes clean

with this and until the documents get into the public realm, everyone is at all loss. >> he's not under audit. audits do not take three years. tax years go year-to-year. it doesn't happen. >> he said 12 years, too. >> he will fight this to the supreme court. if the eyes are -- let us stare into the soul, a tax return is the financial soul. in real estate more than anything else, let's go on the premises he is as dishonest as anyone can be. there's so much dishonest things. he would say the value on a golf club based on 30 cottages and there were 20. the other thing you'll also see, the least charitable wealthy person on the planet. that's what you see. the foundation, not his money, never gave a dime to anybody with his own personal money. >> he's giving his salary away. >> yes. >> we made that salary.

>> you've seen the taxes, though, right? >> right. he turned the taxes over. so he sued me, because he sued me for three pages of the book when we got to the discovery process we got the bank records and taxes and business records. i think it's clear what he's afraid of coming out in those things -- >> what? >> part of it is his ego. he doesn't want people to know his business is not as robust as he claimed it to be. i don't think that's the scarest thing sitting in front of him. the thing that's the most weighty in his mind is what kind of financial relationships does he have overseas in russia, the arab world and china in particular. and once we know that, what does it say about the policy making processes. is he compromising policy around sanctions with russia or policy in the ukraine because of business deals he had or financial relationships he had that surfaces in those

documents. in the context of everything that's happened with mueller. it's good to note these questions were asked about him before the mueller investigation surfaced. and they'll continue regardless of how the mueller investigation wraps up because it goes to the core of who he is. >> they are the focus of chairman adam schiff. >> and chairman elijah jumings who has asked for records from auditors from when donald trump was trying to purchase the buffalo bills. so there are three or four prongs of the investigation happening simultaneousimultaneo. you have to wonder one of them will come up with information. we forget what's there, michael cohen testified in front of the house oversight committee that he committed banking and tax fraud -- >> and insurance fraud. and going back to hillary clinton, michael cohen is going to jail for exaggerating the fall of a home equity loan.

talking about trumps with hundreds of millions of billions of dollars, talk about the false statement there. >> he's immunized because he's president. we know from testimonials from people close to him, that this is what he's done. yes, it would be nice to have the primary documentation. but we moved on from that michael cohen testimony because so many things happen so fast that we have to ingest something new. >> we do, but i'm not sure investigators do. this is another norm busted in 2016. i remember when mitt romney condemned trump's refusal to release his taxes he got away with it. >> i think the interesting part of the story is the fight that's coming. but ultimately this is going to be about statutory con construction. >> what's that? >> i was afraid to ask. >> that's the smartest person in the room. >> it's a strict interpretation of what the law says. what this committee has done, they've had lawyers look at it,

they are ready for court, they are using the plain language of the statue which says that congress can for public policy or oversight reason request a tax return of anybody. now, let's fast forward we have this fight in the courts, mnuchin is going to say no, there's going to be a lawsuit filed. you get to the supreme court. all of these judges who swore they were strict constructionists they're not going to write law, they're only going to interpret the law as written. the law as written is clear. they're going to be caught in a vice grip where there's an assumption by the conservative base in the country that the supreme court will save the day for the president. and if they're true in their oaths and what they swore in front of the judiciary committee, they have to say that's what the statue says, turn them over or change the statute. >> does this end up in the supreme court?

>> it will. i also don't think six years are enough. they need to go back 15 years p a lot of cash came into his business from sources that are murky, i think they would answer a lot of questions about his relationship with russia, for example. and i don't think six years is going to do it. >> that's one heck of a tease. thanks tim for coming up. a new movie that might prove to be chicken soup for the political person's soul. that's next. he political person's soul. that's next. just go together.

now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. earn points with each restaurant reservation on opentable and redeem them for hotel discounts on kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards.

termites, we're on the move.24/7. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. a lot of your friends out here are worried about you, buddy, they'd like to see this situation resolve itself peacefully. >> tell him this is a peaceful demonstration. >> this is a peaceful demonstration. >> no one is building held against their will? >> no. everyone is here because they want to be here. >> everyone is here because they want to be here. >> would it be safe to assume

that some are not of sound mind? >> you don't need to be mentally ill to know it's freezing outside. >> homelessness and mentalness and the too common connection between the two. it coincides with a applicable moment some of the most zrat humans on the planet are targets attracts. we're joined by e mill owest vez. thank you so much for being here. we walked into hugs and -- >> i feel like i know all of you. >> likewise. >> and so it's -- i feel so blessed and grateful to be on

the show. it's a privilege. >> tell us about the movie, first, and then i want to talk about why it matches this moment. >> so the film takes place in the downtown cincinnati public library, on a cold night which of course we all know. we just experienced this polar vortex, so it's right out of the headlines. it's where the patrons, many of whom are homeless decide to stage an old foundationed '60s sit in. and it doesn't go well. they don't have a plan. so law enforcement is brought in to try to deal with it and deescalate it. the media gets involved and they spin it up to grab ratings and then of course there's a politician who's involved, who's in the middle of an election cycle for mayor and he tries to change the narrative for his own

political gain. >> what i took away is that, nothing is beyond -- we have a president who mocked disabled people, we have a president engaged in a war against the victims of hurricane maria, we had a president who ran in a midterm against summer seekers. >> that's right. >> this film seems to lift some of those themes. >> it does. and this has been 12 years in the making. so i started this in 2007. and i started to create this story, and you can imagine the frustration on my part as every year that the movie wasn't getting made, i was watching the stories in the film unfold in realtime on television, online, and it was -- i kept saying, this movie has to get made. we have to do whatever we can in our power to make sure that this comes to fruition. >> is this -- do you all kind of talk about showing, not telling. it seems like there was a

backlash against hollywood, but it seems like storytelling may be your weapon. >> over the centuries, the artists have been some of our greatest activists. i don't believe there's any separation between the artists and the activists. we are tasked with holding up a mirror and saying this is what you look like. and journalists as well. but i think that that is where we are right now at this moment in history. >> to your point, the timing is so brilliant. and i'm sure one of the takeaways of the film, it's easy to not see these people as humans. what i do with every homeless person, tell me about you, how did you get here? that's the people. and they started out with moms and dads, went to -- >> and homes. >> and it went back. and i challenge everybody -- because that's what this movie is about. help them and go, how did you get here? and you will be stunned. i guess that's a big theme in the movie.

>> the film puts a face and name and dignity into those experiencing homeless -- those may be in the grips of mental illness or addiction and it takes place inside your local public library where there's no first class cabin. the library is a great equalizer. >> maybe something people don't realize is so real because libraries around the country have been a place where the mentally ill have felt comfortable and safe, quiet, nobody bothers them, and the sad thing is, our country shut down a lot of mental health facilities and for good reasons because we were warehousing people and medicating. but when we shut them down, we did not put the public policy dollars behind mental health

treatment in a group setting and a lot of the folks out there, that are doing criminal things and are frankly probably portrayed in your movie, it is an issue of justice mental health treatment which includes addiction treatment obviously. so this is really -- i hope not just talking to homeless, but i hope your movie motivates people who are running for office to talk about mental health funding in this country and whether it's been funding. >> president carter signed the mental health services act which was the following year was voted out. so, yeah, it's a -- mental health is an important component to dealing with it. >> last question, does this moment change the kinds of things you dedicate your times and your talents to? >> i made a left turn andersbou years ago.

i started making films that were about a shared trauma, were about a shared humanity and these are the films that i want to go see. >> we all do. thank you for being here. "the public" is a universal picture. it comes out in theaters tomorrow. go see it. you she mad at forced camaraderie. and you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, who's tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad. get e*trade's simplified technical analysis.

pictur

thanks to senator claire mccaskill, the rest of you just have first names, thank you all for watching. "mtp daily" starts right now. >> thank you, nicole. if it's thursday, we've got even more questions about what's really in the mueller report. ♪ good evening. i'm