and that is our broadcast on this good friday night which also marks the start of passover. thank you for being here with us. have a good weekend and good night from our msnbc headquarters in new york. why the dethe president daughter ivanka trump enter into a proffer session with prosecutors during the mueller investigation? why did one of the republicans who received a top level confidential intelligence briefing on the fbi's investigation of the president and his campaign turn right around after receiving that presidential briefing and take that information straight to the white house to let them know the state of the fbi's investigation and who that investigation was targeting? why did a trump cabinet official tell prosecutors that president trump had not asked him to intervene to try to stop the

fbi's investigation, when that same trump cabinet official told multiple members of his own staff that the president had done just that? and i could go on. it turns out, even the redacted version of the mueller report is like a really good ragu. it just better the second day. sometimes chinese takeout, too. it's good when you get it. after it sat overnight in the frig chilling for a while? next day, tastier! maybe less overwhelming than when it first came off the stove. you get more out of it on day two. we've got a lot going on this hour. we'll talk about all those questions i just raised right at the top here. i want to start with one aspect of the part of mueller's report that led to dramatic headlines like this all across the country today. fresno, california. mueller, trump tried to thwart inquiry.

trump attempted to thwart probe. wichita, kansas. mueller reveals trump's efforts to thwart inquiry. the "washington post," mueller details russian interference. trump's attempts to disrupt probe. the portland press herald. mueller lays out evidence of obstruction against trump. in hot springs, arkansas. mueller reveals trump's attempt to choke off russia probe. those were the headlines in papers large and small today. one of the things we got from mueller, that assesses the potential criminally on built on the question of obstruction of justice. one of the things we got was a really specific factual account of multiple instances of the president's behavior that might fall under the rubric of

obstruction of justice. and it is all stuff that is based on sworn statements and evidence. we've got references to exactly where they got all the evidence they got that supports the narrative that they laid out. we've got full names of the people who provided them with that evidence. we get places, times, we get any corroborating evidence, we get dates for everything. it's like a full blown receipt. an itemized receipt for exactly what happened. and we get that on all of them. pick your favorite here. there are ten broad categories of obstruction of justice that are described in volume ii of mueller's report. each of those ten broad categories has multiple components and multiple acts by the president. just pick one. i'll show you what i mean about the details here. in the table of contents, this is just picking one almost at

random. this is the first item under the heading the president's efforts to curtail the investigation. the president asks corey lewandowski to deliver a message to sessions to curtail the special counsel investigation. i could have picked any of them. literally just the table of contents for the obstruction of justice actions is three pages long, single spaced, small font. but i like this example in particular. not because it is the best or the worst, in the middle of the narrative, the detailed narrative of this one, you can tell there's this moment where the president thinks he has come up with a genius idea. eureka! he has a capital "i" idea that will solve everything. and it base which i leaps off the page that the president thinks he has nailed this one. here's how it starts. june 19th, 2017, the president

met one-on-one in the oval office with his former campaign manager corey lewandowski. senior advisers describe him as a devotee of the president and said the relationship between president and lewandowski was close. during that june 19, 2017 meeting, lewandowski recalled that after some small talk, the president brought up jeff sessions and criticized his recusal. the president then asked lewandowski to deliver a mention to sessions and that, quote, write this down. this was the first time the president had asked mr. lewandowski to take dictation and he wrote as fast as possible to make sure he captured the contend correctly. here's the president having a brain wave. he has come up with something that will solve the jeff sessions being recused from the russia investigation thing once and for all. corey, write this down! get a pen! take off the tip of your finger and write it in blood.

i got something here. the president directed that he should give a speech, i know that i recuse myself from certain things having to do with specific areas but our potus, our president of the united states, is being treated very unfairly. he should not have a special prosecutor/counsel because he hasn't done anything wrong. i was on the campaign with him for nine months. there were no russians involved with him. i know it for a fact because i was there. he didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in american history. that is the speech jeff sessions was supposed to give. the dictate message won't to state they would meet with the special counsel to limit jurisdiction on future election interference. now a group of people, this is what sessions is supposed to say. now a group of people want to subvert the constitution of the united states. i am going to meet with the special prosecutor to explain

this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections. you can see the president thinking this out. you can see the smoke coming out of his ears. you can almost smell it. this is not firing the special counsel. two days before the meeting with core dhae lewandowski, he had told the white house counsel that he should fire don mcgahn. that's detailed in here, too. don mcgahn refused and that he would quit. 2 a big pain in the neck. but you can see the president thinking his way you this this. this is genius. what he'll arrange through cor y

alone douseky. private citizen at this point. he loves corey. he'll arrange that jeff sessions will unrecuse himself from the russia investigation. and then jeff sessions won't fire mueller. that he knows would be a problem. instead, jeff sessions will just tell you, hey, from here on out, i'm redirecting your investigation. from here on out, it is only about crimes in the future. you have to heave all the crimes in the past alone. you're so unfair. you can only investigate future crime from here on out. quote, the president said if sessions delivered that statement, he would be the most popular guy in the country. corey lewandowski told the president, he understood what the president wanted sessions to do. write this down, corey. i've got a great idea! the redacted report goes to to explain that he doesn't deliver this message to jeff sessions. he tries. he makes an appointment with

jeff sessions. jeff sessions cancels and lewandowski doesn't know what to do. he puts the thing that he dictated from trump in a safe. one thing we know in this report is that lots of people around president trump not only have safes at home. they use them whenever the president asks them to do manage that seems lowell. that seems illegal. he gives the message to a locked safe. the president calls him back in for a one-on-one meeting. did you tell sessions? they have another meeting where the president asks corey lewandowski to deliver it again or else. and the or else is genius. back to the report. in the follow-up meeting, in the july 19 meeting with lewandowski, the president raised his previous request and

asked if lewandowski had talked on sessions. he told the president the message would be delivered soon. the president then told him if sessions did not meet with him, he tells attorney general that he needs on unrecuse himself. he needs to give a speech about how terrible the special counsel is and but about how donald trump ran the greatest presidential campaign in history and then he needs to announce that now that he's unrecused, he is changing the mandate of the special counsel. so from here on out, robert mueller can only investigate any crimes that happen in the future. nothing that already happened. if jeff sessions won't meet with you to receive this message about what he's going to do, then, corey, you fire him. you political consultant who used to work for my campaign who

is now just a random citizen, you fire the attorney general. you say, i corey lewandowski, fire you. this is how it's going to work, right? genius plan. after that point, more hilarity ensues. including lewandowski getting somebody else to do it. he does the deputy white house chief of staff. but then, we get all of this very specific narrative of when and how that all happened. how we know it all happened. we get the date of the first demand. hey, write this down. june 19, 2017. we get the date of the president meeting with lewandowski again to reiterate the demand and to say the back-up plan, if this doesn't work, is by a private citizen.

we get footnote after footnote after footnote saying which fbi interview and at which part of the interview corey lewandowski provided this to the investigation. also, rick dearborn, too. the deputy chief of staff. the guy he tried to hand off the plan to. and the 302 forms they used to memorialize these interviews. and then we get, as cockamamy as this was, as ridiculous as this was as a scheme, we then get mueller and his team in all seriousness explaining, allow you would charge something like this as a crime. and they do it in all these instances under the heading, analysis.

in analyzing the president's efforts to have lewandowski deliver a message, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice. the first one was what constitutes an obstructive act. there's a long discussion of all the elements of what the president did exactly. concluding the president's directives indicate he was directed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign. then the next element of obstruction of justice is nexus to an official proceeding. you have to show if you're going to show this is criminal obstruction of justice. in this case, they're very blunt and they say yes. by the time the president's initial meeting with lewandowski on june 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation was public knowledge. then one last element. the third element you need. and that is intent. the president's efforts to have

it limited to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president's and his campaign's conduct. the president knew the russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign and he perceived allegations of russian interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. the president further knew the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. those investigations would not proceed if the special counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only. it's obvious. you and me, we're not lawyers. yeah-uh. if the investigators are only allowed to investigate stuff that hasn't happened yet. it seems obvious.

but you're spelling out intent here for why an alleged person could be convicted of a crime and as such, you belabor the point. you spell it out. the manner in which the president acted provides additional evidence of his intent rather than high on official channels, the president met with lewandowski how soon. he selected a loyal devotee outside the white house to deliver the message, supporting the inference that he was working outside white house channels, including that of white house counsel don mcgahn who had two days previously. the president did not contact the acting attorney general on the russia matter who had just testified publicly that there was no cause to remove the special counsel. instead the president tried to use jeff sessions to restrict and redirect the special counsel's investigation when sessions was recused and could not properly take any action on

it. quote the july 17 meeting. provides further evidence to the's intent. the president followed up in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated the mention for sessions, demonstrating that he still sought to pursue the request. you do not need this level of detail. you do not need this much chapter and verse on intent. and all of this overt spelling out of criminal obstruction of justice, obstruction act, you don't need it if you're just trying to inform what the president is like behind closed doors or how this plot unfolded. you don't lay all that out to show that the president definitely didn't obstruct justice.

this is laid out to show that did he and to lay it out specifically for criminal charges. it is laid out so it can be brought. it is and not brought, there is no accompanying indictment that goes along with it. and mueller spells out why. he explains explicitly in his redacted report that he is bound by justice department policy that does not allow for the indictment or prosecuting of the president. so he couldn't bring a prosecution. he couldn't say explicitly, here, this is a crime. because if the president cannot be brought into court to face charges, he can't avail himself of the court either to prove his innocence. so instead we have this road map from mueller explaining in detail precisely what the president did and the evidence that proves it. the admissible evidence that proves it. how it fits every element of the you need to prove under criminal law to support for criminal behavior.

about which eric holder was quite blunt today. looking at the evidence and how it was laid out, this is what he said today. any, all caps, any public corruption prosecutor would bring corruption charges against trump and win. the only reason mueller did not was because of the flawed do restriction indicting a sitting president. now we have his road map for how one might prosecute this behavior by president trump. but who is supposed to follow this map? why lay it out like this with with all the different elements you need to bring charges? with all the evidence laid out. not just the factual record but how it fits the statute. who is this road map for? mueller explicitly raises two possibilities. and it's funny.

only one of these is being discussed in the wake of the report. in the report, there is clearly two. the one that nobody is talking about is from page one of the obstruction section of the report. it is explicit. not even legalese. while the justice department opinion concludes the sitting president may not be prutd, it recognizes a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible. an investigation during the president's term is permissible. the olc recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. and then a footnote to put the second exclamation point on that. citing the memo that says you can't bring charges against a sitting president. quoting this exact part, recognizing an immune from prosecution for a sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president's term is over. and this is something nobody is talking that in the wake of the mueller report. at least nobody is broadly

talking about it. but this is why mueller says he did his report this way. if you uncover crimes, but there can be no charges, why bother uncovering the crimes? right? well, he says because the immunity that prevents the perp from being charged, that is a noting thing. it doesn't last forever. it is not only worth investigating. it is worth laying down what looks like chargeable conduct here and why. as mueller says it, given those considerations, the facts known to us and the strong public interest in safe guarding the integrity of the criminal justice system we conducted a thorough, factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. why are you preserving the evidence? for whom? here's your road map. because as mueller says explicitly, when donald trump is

no longer president, there's no restriction on charging him. and here's how you do it on these charges. by the way, the statute of limitations on obstruction of justice is five years. five years from the last criminal act that would be, could be charged. so how long would prosecutors have here? how long does the president have to make sure he stays in office to avoid these potential charges? well, i mean, we get a lot of detail including a lot of specific dates in this narrative. it is not just a book about the presidency. it is receipts. right? so the president directs mcfarland to write an email that trump didn't call the russian government about sanctions. that was on february 23, 2017. add five years. okay. statute of limitations extends to february 23rd, 2022. the president personally directed that a public statement

about the trump tower meeting, delete a line for information helpful to the campaign. we know that was july 8, 2017. when will the statute of limitations expire? july 8, 2022. the president cleared everyone except james comey out of the oval office before asking comey, i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go. he's a good guy. i hope you can let it go. that was 2017. statute of limitations expires on that one february 14th, 2022. happy valentine's day. the president called don mcgahn. the president asked to contact jeff sessions saying that mueller must be removed. that was june 17. 2017. add five years, statute of limitations expires. the president met with corey lewandowski saying that sessions should publicly announce the

investigation was very unfair to the president. from then on he should only move meddling for future elections. that was june 19, 2017. then a follow-up meeting a month later in july. july 2017, add five years. july 2022. the special counsel laid out the obstructive act, the nexus for a criminal proceeding and criminal intent. if president trump is not reelected, he will be out of office in january, 2021. at that point he will no longer be immune from prosecution. he will still be well within the statute of limitations of all of the alleged in this report. they don't expire for more than

a year after he leaves office. if he is reelected, he will definitely still be in office while the statute of limitations on all those potential crimes expires and he can no longer be prosecuted for them. how is that for a re-election bumper sticker? four more years! four more years! so he can run out the statute of limitations on multiple felony charges. over and above, sdny and two campaign finance felonies already. four more years for that! that will fit. they'll make it run. they'll fit it on a hat. of course, in the united states, we have never had a situation where a president left office and then was charged with crimes he committed while being president. ford pardoned nixon as soon as ford was sworn into office so we never got to test that when it came to nixon. one of the senior watergate

prosecutors resigned in protest that day. bill clinton entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the successor to ken starr on his final day in office as president to avoid being charged with lying to investigators about his extra-marital affair. a grand jury to consider indicting bill clinton as soon as he left office for lying to investigators about his affair. but his last day in office, they came to a deal. a nonprosecution deal. he would not be charged once he was no longer president. but he had to pay a $25,000 fine and give up his law license for five years. that deal was announced on his last day in office. so we have been very close to charging expresidents with crimes they committed while in office but so far we haven't got there. robert mueller, however, has laid out a 182-page path for doing just that. even just on obstruction of justice.

unless of course president trump will face the music on this stuff the other way that is envisioned by the justice department. the other way that is laid out elegantly in mueller's report in the introduction to the obstruction section. the conclusion congress may 90 obstruction laws accords with our system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. that of course is about impeachment. that's the other way the president could be effectively prosecuted for these alleged crimes. using the evidence laid out by robert mueller in this report. that remedy, the impeachment remedy, is broadly viewed as political which i impossible. not the least of which because democrats don't want to go there.

today that started to change and in one way in particular, that could end up being a very big deal. that is the subject of our next segment and our next interview. we'll be right back. stay with us. making it stronger. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. there's never been a better time to become part of the mercedes-benz family. visit the mercedes-benz spring event before april 30th for exceptional lease and financing offers on the 2019 c 300. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, every day can begin with flakes. it's a reminder of your struggles with psoriasis. but what if your psoriasis symptoms didn't follow you around? that's why there's ilumya. with just 2 doses, a majority of people were clear or almost clear.

and over time, even more people were cla year...most clear.ins after 2 initial doses. plus, ilumya was shown to have similar risks of infections compared to placebo. don't use if you are allergic to ilumya or any of its ingredients. before starting treatment, your doctor should check for tuberculosis and infections. after checking there is no need for routine lab monitoring unless your doctor advises it. ilumya may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. this could be your chance to leave your psoriasis symptoms behind. ask your doctor for ilumya today, for a clearer tomorrow.

but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. an important new phase of the 2020 presidential and the response to the redacted mueller report began this afternoon at 4:5 p.m. eastern. this was a surprise. the mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile

foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help donald trump and donald trump welcomed that help. once elected, donald trump obstructed the investigation into the attack. mueller put the next step in the hands of congress. congress has authority to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. the correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment. to ignore a president's repeated efforts to investigate his own disloyal behavior would inflict lasting damage on this country. and i would suggest that both the current and future presidents would be free to abuse their power. it demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. that means the house should initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the united states. signed -- elizabeth warren. senator of massachusetts. candidate for president in the democratic primary. joining us now, elizabeth warren who as of tonight is calling for

the impeachment of the president. thank you for being here. i know you made time for us on short notice. so you are the first democratic candidate calling for the start of impeachment proceedings. democrats have been saying it's not worth the political cost. not worth the civic cost or, it's arguably just too soon. what made you decide to take this step today? >> well, i read the report. i was on an airplane yesterday and started reading it. i read it way into the night last night and i got to the end and realized. this is about principle. the report is absolutely clear. that a foreign government attacked our electoral system to help donald trump. he welcomed that help and then when it was investigated by our own federal authorities, donald trump took multiple steps to try to obstruct justice. this is one of those moments

when i get it. that there are people who think politically, no, it will be too hard to do this. this isn't about politics. this isn't even specifically about donald trump himself. it is about what a president of the united states should be able to do and what the role of congress is in saying, no, a president does not get to come in and stop an investigation about a foreign power that attacked this country. or an investigation about his own wrongdoing. equal justice under law. no one is above the law and that includes the president of the united states. it is the constitutional responsibility of congress to follow through on that. >> if you had a crystal ball and you could see into the future and you could see if the argument you're making carried the day in the house and impeachment proceedings began in

the house, an investigation in the judiciary committee, they referred articles of impeachment to the house, the house voted essentially to indict the president, and then the senate didn't act, or the senate voted and decided that the president should not be removed from office on the basis of those articles of impeachment, if you could see into the future and that's how it would go. the house says yes. the senate says no. would you still think it was the right thing to do for the country and it was a worthy use of resources and time? >> yes, it would. each person has to stand up and be accounted in a democracy. that's why we're elected into the house and the senate. there are times it beyond politics. when it is a point of principle to stand up and say, no president can do this. because it matters. not just for this president. it matters for the next president and the president after that and the president after that. i get it. in dictatorships, the government coalesces around the one person in the middle and does everything to protect that one

person. but that's not where we live. we live in a democracy and it is controlled by a constitution. and the way we make that democracy work is with checks and balances. and a president who says i don't have to follow the law, and nobody can touch me on criminal acts, that's not right. the constitution says that the house and the senate can do this. and look. this is not something i want to do. that's not the point. it is a point of principle and every member of the house and every member of the senate should be called on to vote. do you believe that that constitutes an impeachable offense? i do believe that the evidence is just overwhelming. that donald trump has committed these offenses. and that means we should open proceedings in the house. and then the house can take a vote. >> senator, i feel like i've been following your campaign

closely enough that i feel somewhat confident in saying that you did not plan to be calling for donald trump's impeachment in the middle of your presidential campaign. it's not the style that you've been, that you've taken to this campaign thus far. it is not the sort of thing that you seem to be building around. but i take you at your word that you were struck by reading the report. you were moved by the evidence. i will tell you, i haven't thought much about impeachment at all. i've been watching the democrats in the house for one say that the ones in leadership positions, who have a say saying no, no, they don't want to do it or not any time soon. when i read the report, the one thing i made sure to watch on tv. i took a break to watch southeasterly what jerry nadler would say. i had read enough of the report. i was 1,000% sure that what he was doing was getting in front of the cameras to announce he was opening an inquiry.

i would not have expected. that i wonder if you think more of your colleagues than people are expecting might come around to this. this report might have actually jarred something significantly loose compared to how people felt with this issue before. >> i think that's a good point. and it very well may have. i hope everybody in congress actually reads the report. i think it is important. but it is exactly where you started this question. this isn't what i had planned to do. i got into the race for president because my life's work about what's happening to working families across this country. and how it is that the road is getting rockier and steeper for working families. we have a government that works better and better for those at the top and worse and worse for everyone else. particularly for families of color. i got in it to talk about things

like a wealth tax and universal childcare and universal pre-k and student loan debt and all those things are there at elizabeth warren.com. i hope lots of people will go and look at them and volunteer and be part of that campaign. but we're not an america that can be politics all the time. it can't be a race all the time. there come moments that are serious enough and what has happened that we have to stop, take a deep breath and be willing to say that is wrong. and i'll stand up and say so. and i hope a lot of other people will, too. >> senator elizabeth warren. democrat of massachusetts. candidate for president in 2020. i know your time is at a premium and the heat of this campaign. thank you for taking time to explain it to us tonight. >> thank you. >> much more ahead chug actually another presidential candidate. stay with us. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone

how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ up. up. down. down. ah ah! that's one. up. that's two. down. down. get down, get down.

there is an element of the redacted mueller report that involves richard burr, the republican chairman of the senate intelligence committee and i think this one will leave a mark. the mueller report says in march 2017, two months after trump was sworn in, the fbi director, jim comey at the time, briefed the gang of eight on the status of the russia investigation including looking at the campaign. after receiving that confidential briefing from the fbi director, that was a briefing given only to the very top congressional leadership and the intelligence chairs. that's it. after getting that exclusive

high level briefing, quote, the white house counsel's office was in contact with senator richard burr about the russia investigations and appears to have received information about the status of the fbi investigation. the intelligence chairman in the senate apparently went and briefed the white house on the status of the fbi's russia investigation, including looking into the president's campaign, including who specifically were targets of that investigation. i don't think that's what you're supposed to do with your confidential briefing from the fbi. like i said. i think that will leave a mark. hold on. more on that coming up. stay with us. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sister) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sister) woah... (big sister) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it.

(vo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. love is now bigger than ever. there's so much scent in new gain scent blast detergent... ...you'll either love it or...

mmm... i guess not. new gain scent blast. love it or hate it. it's intense. essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr 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. needles. fine for some things.

but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". joining us now, eric swalwell. he's on the intelligence committee. he is a candidate for president of the united states. sir, thank you for making time tonight. appreciate it. >> senator warren was just here saying she believes the information in the mueller report is serious enough that she believes impeachment proceedings should begin in the house. that's not what she was calling for before this. did the report challenge your mind on that, too?

>> it certainly takes us closer about that. a member of the house judiciary committee that would start on our committee. and the way i see it, as a former prosecutor who tried nearly 40 cases, i knew every time i walked into the courtroom, the evidence better be air tight. the witnesses better be ready. the subpoenas better be ready to go. you only get one shot. a couple of way points. the first is to get all the documents. now we've requested the full mueller report. about 12.5% was held back. that is about an eighth. then to bring bob mueller before the american people to testify before congress. i think those are two key wait points and i'm not taking it off the table. >> tonight democrats have made cheer that this offer from the justice department that the gang of eight plus judiciary committee and ranking members, i guess, less than a dozen members, would be allowed to see a version of the report where all the redactions were dropped

except for those that pertain to grand jury material. democrat are rejecting that. turning down that report. i wonder if you support that decision. if you think there would be some v. the chairman, jerry nadler, being allowed to see what's behind the bulk of so many of those black boxes. >> i'm with them. congress can't do our duty to protect future elections unless we know what the russians did. if it is only a close hold, then they can't come to us and say we still have an ongoing threat from russia. when he had the 200 pages with collusion, nowhere does it say, all of these conversations and relationships have now seased so don't worry about them for the 2020 election. we have every reason to believe the russians will still do this. how do we protect ongoing threats? if anything this report shows that there was a failure of imagination by prior congresses to ever think that a campaign would conduct itself the way this president and his team did. so the president, yes, has escaped criminal liability. i don't think you can read this report and say, let's have that happen again and that would be great for our democracy.

there will be new laws we'll to have write to make sure it doesn't happen again. the only way to do that is to fully understand what the russians did, who they worked with, what the failures were in our own government. >> the only other awkward question that i have arrived at, and i'm not quite sure what to do with here, that i feel like the way robert mueller laid out the findings on obstruction was that he was laying out a road map. either that will be done through impeachment proceedings or he explicitly says it will be done when the president leaves office. the prospect of prosecuting an american president as soon as he leaves office is something that we have never confronted before. the way i read this, i feel like that is what mueller is explicitly suggesting. is that how you read it? >> that is how i read it. >> i do not believe jeopardy has attached in a legal sense meaning the president by the bar letter escapes liability when he

leaves office. i approached this not in harm i can harm donald trump. but every day, what can i and others do in congress to prevent donald trump from harming america. that has to be the priority. once he is out of office, that will be in january 2021 at the very latest. he will have to answer in one way or another for what he and his team did. >> congressman eric swalwell. 2020 presidential candidate, thank you for joining us. i know your time is tight. appreciate it. >> much more to get to. busy friday night. o get to busy friday night.

we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. scotts turf builder triple action. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass and feeds so grass can thrive, guaranteed. our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard.

i have a couple of really specific questions about stuff that was laid out in the mueller report for which i need legal advice. here with me on set is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama burning the midnight oil. >> good to see you. >> i want you to be my legal index here. one of the things that comes up that i did not expect is that a whole bunch of people it's described in footnotes gave proffer sessions to robert mueller including some people you wouldn't expect like for example, you know we knew about paul manafort doing sessions like that. that makes sense. we didn't know about ivanka trump doing a proffer session. from talking to all you guys i thought i understood that a proffer session is something you do once you are cooperating with prosecutors. it's something that comes up after a plea agreement or something. why would people like the

president's daughter be doing a proffer session. >> it can happen in a couple different postures. it can be once you're cooperating and the initial step that brings you in to cooperate. prosecutors don't like to buy a pig in a poke and want to see what you have. a proffer you can come in at no rick and tell prosecutors what your testimony would look like if you were cooperating. that could account for someone like ivanka trump coming in if her lawyer believed she had some criminal exposure and needed protection. >> you would do that essentially to offer prosecutors information under terms where you would not get in trouble for telling them what you know? >> that's right. there's usually a letter agreement. that protects the person who is coming in and proffering. if they lie during the session, then everything that they've said is fair game and

prosecutors can use it against them. >> were you surprised to see references to proffer sessions in the footnotes in terms of citing ivanka, steve bannon, erik prince? >> we assumed all along that mueller would be using proffer sessions but didn't know the details. those are some obvious names. it's interesting so little word leaked out. we don't know whether or not her proffer session was productive. did she become a cooperator or testify in front of the grand jury or are did prosecutors decide she had nothing to offer. >> one of the other questions i have involves a process question around a controversy in the report involving dan coats. dan coats is described by the special counsel's office as having had an encounter with the president that bothered him essentially. the president definitely asked dan coats to make public statements exonerating the president with regard to russia. potentially the president also asked him to talk to the fbi director about ending the investigation. i say potentially because as the special counsel lays out, he told his own staff, people who were with him right after that meeting that's what the president had done. two different of staffers with can dan coats that day say he came out of that meeting and

said the president just asked me to talk to comey. nevertheless, dan coats told them the president did not making that qualify him. they have corroborating testimony from two witnesses that defy what he told them happened with the president. how would you maneuver through that as a prosecutor. >> and this is nothing other than speculation. say that the devil is in the details. and perhaps there's something limiting in the request that the president made, how specific it was, it's possible that will coates may have made a comment to his support folks that exceeded what the president actually said or that it was misinterpreted in the moment. but i would say that mueller would have been very careful to corroborate the details here. and to have an authoritative version the best possible version of the evidence. that's what he tells us he's done. he's put together evidence that's reliable and excluded accounts that can't be corroborated. >> we'll do everything we can to chase this down in part because

dan coats is a serving official and this is a troubling account. >> it is. >> thanks so much for being here. joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama. we'll be right back. still, we never stopped making it stronger. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. there's never been a better time to become part of the mercedes-benz family. visit the mercedes-benz spring event before april 30th for exceptional lease and financing offers on the 2019 c 300.

just to recap something that happened on our air this hour, it's time for the last worded with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. i was riveted to that interview. you took elizabeth warren through every question that we're all wondering about how did she come to this position,