i'll see you at noon eastern. now it's time for "up" with ali vels velshi. >> this is a great treat to be with you again. people forget at some point in recent history you and i used to be together every morning. >> i know. >> we used to wake up together, but don't take that the wrong way. have a good one. >> have a great rest of your day. this is "up". we begin this morning with the battle within the democratic party over impeachment. senator elizabeth warren among those leading the charge and calling on the house to begin the impeachment proceedings against president trump. >> it is about what a president of the united states what the r congress is. we'll ask a democratic congresswoman where she stands. plus spin city. house dems clash with bill barr over the mueller report issuing

a subpoena to see the whole thing. >> saying that barr spun or mischaracterized. he lied. >> and new details of the backlash within the west wing following the mueller report. who is the president blaming and who stood by their man? >> don mcgahn's recollection is wrong? >> i'm not saying that something didn't happen. i'm saying it's far different than it's been described. >> some are questioning whether president trump really we wro his own answers for the mueller report. >> i have reason to believe that these responses were not actually written by donald trump, because, um, they're written. that's it. now -- >> up with me this morning national security car correspondent for politico natasha berstrand.

and assistant u.s. attorney, barrett berger. and glen kershner. for two years americans have waited for the conclusion of robert mueller's russia investigation. for nearly a for attorney gener william barr to complete his review and release his redacted report. this morning the mueller report is tewest best-seller about the interworkings of the trump administration. as americans digest the findings, the focus now shifts to congressional democrats to decide what comes next. robert mueller was not able to establish a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia to interfere in the election. but he did lay out a road map outlining ten instances of possible obstruction of justice by the president. the question for democrats is will that road lead to more

congressional hearings and investigations, or will it lead to the i-word, impeachment. so far democratic responses on how they plan to hold trump is accountable have been all over the map. jerry taking a wait and see approach. >> reporter: when you see this congress is responsible to hold the president accountable, does that mean impeachment? >> that's one possibility. there are others. we obviously have to get to the bottom of what happened, and take whatever action that seems necessary at that time. it's too early to reach those conclusions. it's one reason we wanted the mueller report. we still want the mueller report and we'll want other evidence too. >> house intelligence commi he path to impeachment is a nonstarter with the republican-held senate and is riddled with political land mines that could have fallout for the 2020 election. >> an impeachment proceeding cannot be successful if one

party decides they're more loyal to the president and the constitution or the party. that's a problem. while warre leading it as a point of principle. >> there are times when it's beyond politics, 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. >> in a letter to house democrats, nancy pelosi writes the caucus is scheduling a conference call for monday to discuss this drive matter. you can expect a spirited debate she concludes with congressl not be silent. the question, of course, is what congress will all right. let's talk to my panel now about this. let me start with natasha.

the lack of clarity of what was in that report has now created an issue. because the road map is not entirely clear. 14 legal rrchss of cases that could continue. we have democrats in different places about what to do next. >> that's right. i think they want to see the full unredacted thing before they take any steps forward. that's the position of many of the me mainstream democrats, especially in leadership. wr whereas others are saying regardless of what the redacted material says, there's enough in the report to show the president tried to obstruct justice, aided and abetted russia's attack on the election by not going to the fbi and telling them about the russia-related contacts the campaign was having, by not acknowledging the fact that russia was attacking the election and by praising vladimir putin when he was pursuing the multiple dollar deal in russia. he was acting in his own best

interest. there's a lot we already know. that's the argument that the democrats on the other side are making, that if we don't hold the president accountable for this, then what is the press don't going to be that we're setting here. the question is also you know, the conviction, i think, is on the republican side right now, the conviction is not there with the democrats. the conviction with the republicans is this was spy gate. we need to launch investigations into whether the fbi acted properly. the conviction is not unified with regard to impeachment. i think they need to come up with a strategy here otherwise it's going to be a divisive moment. >> i'm looking at a response from mitt romney, for instance. he's one who has sort of said he's very troubled by the degree of lawlessness and things that came from levels as high as the president. an indication. he didn't say what anybody should do about it, but there was an indication of frustration

of the sort that is leading some people to talk about impeachment. mitt romney is not doing that, but others are saying there was a lot of wrong doing. there's no way to read that report and not find lots of wrong doing. including the mitigating events where people stop the president do. the argument here is it legal or is it solely political? >> so i think the difference that we have to keep in mind is the standards for what is legally required to actually charge somebody with the crime of obstruction of justice. you have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the highest threshold there is in the criminal justice system has it should be. on the political side, it's a different standard. and it's a little bit more emorphous. we're talking about different standards. as prosecutors and glen could probably attest to this too, we're somewhat used to this

consent of there are things that are bad. there are things that are moral. there are things that are unethical that are never able to be turned into crimes. that just have to be left out there as something that's bad, something that happened, something that maybe you have evidence of but you can't charge it as a crime. whether it reaches the threshold of something that's impeachable, i'm not sure. that's up to congress. we know mueller at least did not think that it rose to the level of a criminal case that he could bring. >> don, even if it could rise to the level of impeachable, it's a political outcome. if republicans don't support it and there's zero indication that. s will support an impeachment effort, what's the cost to republicans of pursuing it versus the cost -- >> to democrats? >> to democrats, thank you. versus the cost to democrats of not pursuing something that feels so unjust? >> ultimately robert mueller

laid out evidence of a crime. it's a crime that wasn't carried out to completion, but attempted obstruction is certainly a crime. so the cost to democrats of pursuing it is certainly the 23 to 25 seats in the margin that are somewhat attainable by republicans. but it's also the more progressive wing if you don't pursue it. the conversation has shifted and will shift over the next week squarely from legal to squarely in the political realm. there's a severe cost to democrats. but i think that -- and i'm pretty much a moderate on impeach or not. i think at this point you have to impeach. you have evidence of a crime. ten instances or so of attempt laid out. if you don't impeach, then you're looking at a situation where unprecedented conduct by a president will go unchecked. >> that's the argument that the tom steyers and elizabeth warrens are making. >> it doesn't matter if the senate convicts or it doesn't matter about elections in 2020 for the presidency or the sake of the house.

because we don't as voting base, we don't send them up there to protect their own seats. we send them up there to protect the country. i think you have to impeach. >> when don says it moves squarely from the legal to the political, what's left on the legal side? there are these 14 charges that have been referred. if it goes to a district, they can pursue things without the same limitations that the mueller report had? >> a lot is left. we learned from appendix d to the report a lot is left on the. there are 14 cays and investigations that have been referred out as a career prosecutor, how do i see that? 14 potential corporating witnesses who can perhaps provide additional information about the wrong doing of others. but i agree with don. i mean, i don't think -- i think impeachment is reallynow. it's a moral imperative. and here's why, ali. because when you think about

what donald trump did, first of all, we know courtesy of michael cohen's plea that he paid off porn stars and play mates in order to try to rob the people of the full value of their vote. he committed crimes to acquire power. we know from the report that he committed probably 6 to 10 obstruction of justice offenses to obtain power. now if the congress declines to act, if they decline to open impeachment hearings, it will be to acquire power and ultimately retain power. and i think if they do that, we as a country are lost. you know, my favorit junior's, e arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. i think if the democrats and congress generally declines toe will be perverting that to the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward

political expediency. we can't let that happen. >> is there an argument it's getting election? >> i think that's the argument the people like adam schiff and pelosi make which is that the democrats will get too far ahead over their skis and the appetite among the democratic bas is not there for this. they'll lose support among perhaps independents who don't want to see these kind of impeachment proceedings overtake everything in the next year and a half. but -- so the ultimate argument there would be we need to do everything in favor of beating donald trump in 2020. this is not going to help us. but yet again, i mean, impeachment proceedings not just something that would be designed to remove the president. they're also -- its own investigation with resources and dedicated staff that could hold the president accountable perhaps in a way that regular oversight hearings could not.

that's another argument. >> thank you to all of you. coming up, they protested in front of the white house and in the streets demanding action. what are congressional democrats prepared to do to get the full unredacted mueller report? congresswoman madeline dean joins me later in the hour. first the mysteries in the mueller report. we'll take a crack at the other investigations that remain a secret. t remain a secret i can't tell you who i am or what i witnessed, but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my

car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn their unsold seats into amazing deals, sports fans are seeing more away games. various: yeah-h-h! isn't that a fire hazard? uh, it's actually just a fire. priceline. every trip is a big deal. ♪ with venus, you're in charge of your skin. so, write your own rules. because no one gets an opinion on why you shave - or how you show your skin. ♪ you wouldn't accept from any one else. so why accept it from your allergy pills?

most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase allergy relief is different. flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. start your day with flonase for more complete allergy relief. flonase. this changes everything.

welcome back to "up". while the president celebrates his trump has been vindicated tour tweet tour in mar-a-lago this weekend, we wanted to break down some of the inner findings of the mueller report. of particular interest glen mentioned this a while ago, section d-4 year the end of the document, the special counsel pointing to 14 instances of, quote, potential criminal activity, end quote that were uncovered over the 22-month investigation and handed over to other offices within the justice department. only two of those are known to the public. michael cohen, the former trump fixer and lawyer expected to begin his prison sentence in may and gregg craig, the former obama white house counsel who had overnight -- had an august trial date set after being indicted for lying. the rest, the other 12 were

redacted on the grounds that releasing the details would cause harm to an ongoing matter. let's register this. 12 other people may have charges brought against them for things having to do with what mueller was investigating. my panel is back. we're joined by melissa murray, professor of law at nyu and former law clerk to justice sonya sotomayor. i want to bring up a tweet that we've just seen from the president which he says the fake news media is doing everything possible to stir up and anger the polls and as many people as possible. seldom mentioning the fact that the mueller report had as its fact that there was all capitals here, no collusion with russia. the russia hoax is dead. appreciate it, mr. president, that you're watching the show this morning so we want to take this up for you.

melissa. >> if there were an answer on my exam, it would get an f. that's not what the mueller report established. it said there was actually lots of evidence of the russians being involved in the election, sweeping infiltration to the election. it said there was insufficient evidence to establish there was coordination with the trump organization. as the guest said before, that's a high bar for a criminal activity. you have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. there wasn't enough evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. not that it happen. >> how common is this when a prosecutor decides not to move against somebody in pursuing charges that that person then claims they're exonerated? >> i mean, it does happen. you would hope that in that situation they would go quietly into the night because the last thing you want to do is poke the beast, but it does happen. i think anyone who has been

through the rigor of a criminal investigation and there are no charges brought against them probably has the desire to stand on the courthouse steps and yell it to the public saying i'm cleared, but as we all know and said just because you're cleared from criminal charges doesn't necessarily make you innocent, and it doesn't necessarily make you immune from future political accountability from congress. >> but glen, donald trump doesn't seem to care. this is actually one of the milder things wooes tweeted over the last few days. he tweeted there was no collusion, no obstruction, because there was no underlying crime, something bill barr continues to put out there. most lawyers tell me it's just a poor conclusion to draw. >> nobody can accuse the president of tweeting accurately or truthfully. everything he does is nonsense, quite frankly. but to your point, ali, you're right. you can obstruct justice even if there is no underlying crime.

let's assume we're owl on a board of directors together and the fbi is iting wdirectors. let's assume that i then, i'll be the fall guy. i start paying people off to lie to the fbi because i don't want the fbi to look into and expose what we've been doing as the board of directors. and then the fbi concludes you know what? there's not enough evidence to charge any of the board members with crimes. guess what. i've still committed the offense of obstructing justice because i paid off witness to lie to the fbi during an official investigation. that's sod and what has now bee exposed is he obstructed justice. and there's no such thing as attempt to obstruct justice. because obstruction of justice is defined as actually impeding an investigation, or attempting to impede an investigation. so there's no he

obstructed justice. plain and simple. the fact that others stopped him from doing it is not a legal defense. and that's why when the olc memo says you can't indict a sitting president because you can impeach him, now that's where we are. you can't say we've found ten crimes but we're not going to bother impeaching him. >> and going back to the collusion aspect of this, we may not expect the president to tweet things that are factual and accurate, but we should expect more from the attorney general of the united states, and during his press conference that he held two hours before the mueller report was released, he echoed the president's climbs here pretty much verbatim. after two years the president was right, there was no collusion. but when we look at the report which we didn't get to see and mueller says he did not consider the question of collusion because that is not a legal term. he looked at this through the frame of a conspiracy.

maybe the president is not a great legal mind, but bill barr has been in the department of justice and has been a lawyer for his entire adult life. his family works in doj. his son-in-law now works for the white house legal better. i think that was a political moment. it was clear, and for him to say that there was no collusion was extremely misleading. >> bill barr didn't come out of nowhere. this guy has done republican, he's carried republican water for a long time. it's a little puzzling that he wrote this long memo unsolicited from the mueller report and then he becomes attorney general and then he does something that seems to have mischaracterized the mueller report. >> it's a great question. i think we're trying to figure it out. i think it became clear that when he -- his writing the 19-page memo about the idea the president can't obstruction justice and the inquiry was

misguided and his behavior in the press conference were not divorced, he also interviewed to be the president's defense lawyer. this is someone who is deeply conflicted. and rod rosenstein is conflicted as well. the democrats have considered whether or not to impeach bill barr. the republicans last year tried to impeach rod rosenstein. there is a precedent there and whether or not they do that and whether or not that can help them get the grand jury material as well is up in the air. >> all right. natasha, hang around. barrett, thank you for joining us. glen and melissa hang around as well, please. coming up reports that there are talks with the doj to get robert mueller to testify. what steps democrats are taking to make it happen. we'll ask a member of that committee next when madeleine dean joins us.

i was tired of having my calls dropped. it's very frustrating. and i was having these issues, and my friends said, "well, maybe you should switch over to verizon." and then i'd heard that i could get apple music if i switched over and i said, "boom!" music is very important to me. i come from the techno era, but i'm hip-hop at heart. (vo) the best network ien better now that apple music is included with unlimited. plus get a free galaxy s10e when you buy one, and $400 when you switch. only on verizon.

since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved

and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.

i think it would be perfectly reasonable for congress to open up impeachment proceedings. >> it certainly is the case that you can see lots of evidence that this president deserves to be impeached. >> 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. >> welcome back to "up". it's the first time i've done this show. i don't often watch it because if i'm not on tv, i like to be sleeping. they really have food on this show. i've been eating a little -- there's a table of donuts here. fascinating to me. welcome back to "up". i'm ali velshi. as democrats mull over what to do next, one thing is certain. the chorus calling for impeachment is growing louder. joining me now is representative congresswoman madeleine dean. congresswoman, good to see you. thank you for being with us early on a saturday morning. >> thank you for having me. >> you're in pennsylvania. this is interesting because donald trump won your state. that was a surprise to some people but not to others. what are people in your district telling you about impeachment? >> well, i have to tell you that as a result of the mueller

report, in its redacted form, i was talking with constituents yesterday in our local barbershop. they're deeply troubled by the accusations in there by the inn of justice to the president. they said please get at the truth. the american people have a right to know what happened. this was an important set of lies and deceptions. and many attempts by the president to get others to do things that were not legal, were not moral or ethical. so lie for him, to fire special counsel mueller. people talking to me say this is an incredibly grave moment in our democratic history. and we need to preserve our democracy and the integrity of our criminal justice system. so they say to me on judiciary, do your job. complete the investigation. >> and does that mean that in your opinion that somebody on judiciary you may come to

conclusions or you may learn things you haven't learned through the mueller report yet or through the other 14 investigations that continue to go on that could lead you to say pursuing impeachment is the right thing or do you say it's hard to get the senate to vote to impeach? is it a waste of time and should you pursue other matters to guarantee your electioand the defeat of donald trump in the next general election? >> i'll leave the second calculation to people more politically savvy than i. i believe the first calculation is what is necessary. what else will we learn as a result of our investigation and getting the entire report and the entunds underlying documents that present a clear case to the american public about possible obstruction of justice by this president. the political calculation is not

on my table. i want a clear, complete evidence. >> what do you make of the presidential candidates who are talking about impeachment? is that something you can do because you're a presidential candidate versus something you in particular have to be more cautious of because you're a member of congress representing a state that is a swing district, a swing state? >> well, i think it is appropriate for presidential candidates to talk about where they think this should go. i see my role differently. i am a sitting member of congress, and i'm on the judiciary committee. so i think it would be irresponsible of me to say yes, let's roll with impeachment. what i think i have to do is job. and follow chairman nadler and the subpoenas and get all the information. have br before us. he's lost all credibility of independence and also have mr. mueller before us which we'll have very soon. >> congresswoman dean, always good to see you. coming from pennsylvania. i will be in montgomery county in about three hours.

we'll see if we can clear the weather up a little bit. >> i'll work on it. >> have a good afternoon. good rest of your morning. all right. coming up the one senior white house official who may have single handedly saved donald trump's presidency breaks his post mueller report silence as we learn of the men and women who disobeyed donald trump and those who went above and beyond to cater to his every whim. you're watching msnbc. you're watching msnbc. cooper!

did you eat all of your treats? ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone going back to the doctor just for a shot.

with neulasta onpro... ... family... ...or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study... ...neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17%... ...to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver... ...neulasta the day after chemo... ...and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, somimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome... ...have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing... ... or allergic reactions to your doctor right away in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes... ...fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect... is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor... ...about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

i'm begging you... take gas-x.ed beneath the duvet your tossing and turning isn't restlessness, it's gas! gas-x relieves pressure, bloating and discomfort... fast! so we can all sleep easier tonight.

♪ stand by your man give him two arms to cling to ♪ >> not everyone in the trump administration is adhering to that well known verse stand by your man. the mueller report revealing several members of the i'mer circle who defied or circumvented requests from the president. the president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful but that was largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out his orders to acede to his requests. mcgahn refused the president's directive to fire mueller. mcgahn's lawyer writing in part it is a mystery why rudy

giuliani needs to relitigateinc not obstruction but they were accurately described in the report. >> heaeven if it's true, it's n. those aren't real orders. when he wants to fire somebody, ask jim comey if he can fire somebody. yes he got upset. the messages were never delivered. he didn't mean them to be delivered. >> others who the reports say defied donald trump include cory lun douse si, ck deerborn and reck sessions. we have our panel back. welcome to lisa. lisa, i need to start with you on this one. rudy giuliani was once well-respected mayor ofew says.

and this kind of stuff is crazy. he didn't mean for them to be fired. he didn't mean for the messages to be delivered. he is the president of the united states. it could be true he doesn't mean these things but how if you work for the president of united states in a serious job like don mcgahn had and given an instruction are you supposed to know this? >> you want to take your boss's or client's words literally. the president seems to have flounders on the difference between the types of l prefers, roy cohen, michael cohen. >> roy cohen disbarred michael cohen. >> a disgraced former mob lawyer. neither of them apparently fond of note taking and their purpose was being a fixer for the president. that's not a class they teach in law school. contrast that with someone like don mcgahn who decided it's appropriate for me to tell the truth. he was freed of privilege constraints when he went to speak to the special counsel.

he gave over 30 hours of testimony and did so under oath. that's what normal lawyers do. they take the truth seriously. they take notes, like on this legal pad of what's going on. and they mean to uphold their own oath as licensed counselors to care about the law and uphold the law. it's interesting the president seems to have trouble understanding that that's what actual lawyers do. >> what is this stuff about note taking? the president seems to have a big issue with this. we first learned about this from jim comey who takes notes after he had meetings with donald trump. yesterday the president tweeting about all the note taking people around him. >> donald trump doesn't want his wrong doing do you wanted. that's why he doesn't send e-mails. we know and we all heard with our own ears the undercover recording that michael cohen made of donald trump talking about paying off play mates and

porn stars. he wants all of his wrong doing kept in the dark. and it was interesting. i think it was corey lewandowski who was the one person he said hey, i want you to take this down, and then he gave him crazy instructions. i want you to tell jeff sessions to unrecuse himself, and then i want you to tell him don't look at path possible collusion or conspiracy. only look at future crimes which doesn't make any sense as prosecutors i can say rarely do we sit down and try to investigate crimes that haven't been committed yet. >> minority report. >> the minority report, exactly. the whole notion that trump is afraid to have what he says and does documented, i think it tells us everything about his intent and what's going on. >> you know,ifou look at don mce leader of this group of the 12 or 13 who refuse to conduct

the -- execute the president's criminal orders. don mcgahn is a d.c. institutionalist. he is, his wife is. the defining aspect of the presidency is it's been staffed by people who are not really of this world. this d.c. beltway universe. therefore, they owe their existence to donald tr don mcgahn is not that guy. >> he's part of the group donald woulde swamp. >> absolutely, and you know who is not? steve miller an island of misfit individual who is are inhabiting the white house. they do what the president says. they execute his nefarious missions. don mcgahn says i was here before you. i'm going to be here after you and i have to protect my interests in this town and eco system i inhabit. i find that to be a defining characteristic of why he's the guy who can say everything that happened.

he has to protect himself in this world long after donald trump. >> relatedly, we saw a lot of leaks about don mcgahn earlier this year and throughout the last year. and those leaks made him look good. i think that was kind of -- that attested to the idea that either he or people around him were trying to protect his reputation as someone with integrity, as someone who was trying to stop the president's worst impulses but we know a lot of what was said about don mcgahn before it came out. we knew mcgahn was talking to inve investigato investigators. the white house didn't anticipate that. and kt mcfarland. the president apparently asked her to write an internal memo saying that the president had not directed michael flynn to discuss sanctions with kislyaki.

she didn't do that because she didn't know if it was true. aides don't know what's true or false and they don't want their names attached to this. similarly, people in the white house spokes people, communications people, they won't attach their names to statements. because they don't know whether what the president has asked them to do is true or b, if he's going to undermine it in a tweet five minutes later. i think this is a pattern and place don mcgahn did not want to be associated with forever. >> interesting point. some of these people who didn't do things because they didn't know them to be true, that's different than not lying for the president because you're trying to protect yourself. that's i don't know this to be true. there was a piece in the report about sara sanders who was found to have said something to reporters that wasn't true. mcfarland as well said things she knew not to be true. to the extent that -- it's not clear where these lines are. some people drew certain lines to say i'm not lying for the

president. some drew lines and said i'm not committing crimes for the president, and others absolutely did get involved in the mix. >> you know, for those who said this is a lot like fire and fury but more footnotes and better documented. people spoke to the counsel's office under oath. these are like as best we can get irrefutable evidence of wrongful behavior of not telling the truth. so the pushback now about the veracity of these things i find amusing given people like mcgahn spoke freely because they were given permission to speak freely. >> right. >> it kind -- remember the anonymous letter out of the white house that said don't worry america, there are adults in charge? i find that one of the themes. it says that person was telling the truth. >> there were some adults in the room, people not engaging in the misdeeds. natasha, thank you for joining us. don, lisa and glen, please stick around. up next, revelations within the mueller report that have at

least one white house reporter calling for sarah huckabee sanders now. >> she should be let go. she should be fired. end of story. when there is a lack of credibility there, you have to start and start lopping the heads off. it's fire me thursday or fire me good friday. she needs to go. considering? the 2019 subaru outback is an iihs top safety pick plus. the honda cr-v is not. sorry, honda. which suv would make the best investment? the subaru outback has the best resale value in its class for 2019, according to kelley blue book. even better than the toyota rav4. sorry, toyota. it's easy to love a subaru.

i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke.

could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card. welcome back to "up".

i'm ali velshi. apparently i've become a pastriat. sarah huckabee sanders is on the offensive following revelations in misled the american people to defend president trump. in may of 2017, sanders insisted that, quote, countless fbi agents personally told her they lost confidence in former director james comey leading up to his dismissal. here is that moment. >> i can speak to my own personal experience, i've heard from countless members of the fbi that are grateful and thankful for the president's decision and i think that we may have to agree to disagree. i certainly heard from a large number of individuals and that is just myself. and i don't even know that many people in the fbi. >> 60, 70? >> look, we won't get into a numbers game. i've heard from a large number of individuals that work at the fbi that said that they are very happy with the president's

decision. >> countless, large number. i'm not getting into a numbers game. when sanders was asked about it by the special counsel's office, she said it was a, quote, slip of the tongue that was not founded on anything. might be my next book about covering the trump administration, not founded on anything. yesterday sanders tried to defend her credibility. >> you repeated the claim slip of the tongue several times. what exactly did you mean to say? because you appeared to be reading -- you appeared to be reading those comments on several occasions. what did you mean to say? >> look, i've acknowledged that the word "countless" was a slip of a tongue. >> why can't you acknowledge that what you said then was not true? >> i said that the word i used, countless, and i also said if you look at what is in quotations from me, it is that and it is that it was in the heat of the moment meaning that it wasn't a scripted talking point. i'm sorry that i wasn't a robot

like the democrat party. >> all right. melissa donnelly and glenn back with me. so what is that all about? >> we are a long way away from, you know, the west wing and the idea that press secretary really serves two functions, advocating for the presidency, but also advocating for all of us through the intermediary, the media. and look, it has been a while since press secretaries were fully open to the public, weren'tly advocating. but now it seems as if she behave shaved in a cavalier fashion with regard to the truth. and the specificity of the false statement, right, countless, doubling down on it, in my personal experience, although i don't know many fbi agents. kind of hard to listen to that and then the zeigleresque denies of it, and i'm referring to ron zeigler, president nixon's press

secretary who had a way of obfuscating his defense of his own lies. >> what do you make of what you just heard? >> in some perverse way she is a very admirable human being. i think we all need a sarah huckabee sanders in our lives because she will have the president's back no matter what. he lies. she stands up with him. he says things that are objectively false and he can count on her to be there and spin it. >> she is the survivor in this administration. >> she is the survivor and she is going down with the ship. i just find it fascinating. if you walk around congress, you see people with big guns. countless fbi agents have come up to her and told her this. just in the same way as countless normal federal government workers came up to the president and said keep the shutdown going, we believe you. this administration has no relationship with facts whatsoever. and it flows from the top, the president has set the tone, and sarah huckabee sanders is his most loyal soldier. this is an instance where she's

been caught red handed, but by no means should any of us be surprised. and in a weird way, i kind of give her props because she is a loyal soldier. >> i had one of those countless moments in 2016 in houston during the campaign when donald trump told me that count muslims had told him that they were really happy about the muslim ban that he was proposing. >> i'm so back on sarah huckabee sanders driving the white bronco. this is too much. this is a woman who has constantly berated the immediate use for what she calls spreading of fake news and here she is caught in a bald faced lie and she doesn't just admit it, she continues to double down on it. this is outrageous. and we expect of a press secretary some defense of the white house and its policies, but generally transparency about what is going on in the white i

making up facts. >> so it would be funny if it wasn't so terrifying that the press secretary not only is willing to lie for the president, we've all seen that on a daily basis, but she's also lying about what the fbi is saying and thinking and how it is behaving. and that is the real tragedy because people will hear that and they will form impressions about the fbi. now -- and it is always 1984 when she steps to the podium. it is george orwell's 1984 and i expect her to say chocolate rations are up. but maybe now we can use the name huckabee in a more useful way. we have sarah huckabee sanders. we have bill huckabee barr and rudy huckabee giuliani and that explains what their mission really is. >> let's play a little more of what she said this morning in defending the president.

>> the president isn't asking people to break the law, he isn't asking them to do anything that is dishonest. >> so you're saying the president has never asked you to say anything you knew not to be true? >> correct. and he's also never asked me to break the law. >> in 1991, i broke a window in my parent's house. my mom is watching now i'm sure. when they came home, they looked at me and that was the face. what sarah huckabee sanders just did, that was my face. the bigger picture here is that she is the voice of this administration, not only to the american people, but to the world. there is no reason to believe anything that this president or this administration has to say and that is a sad place. >> it used to be we would be very sad about the limited number of availabilities for sarah huckabee sanders. that's been sharply reduced. maybe it is a blessing in disguise. >> we'll leave it there. still ahead in our next hour, a literal wall of redactions as we attempt to go beyond the mueller

report's black bars. ro khanna will join us when "up" continues. s. billions of mouths.

billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. woman 1: this is my body of proof. man 1: proof of less joint pain and clearer skin. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2: ...with humira.

woman 3: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. announcer: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action.

welcome back to "up." i'm ali velshi. this week william barr's releas robert mueller had the country seeing less red white and blue and more black white and redacted. while we don't know what is underneath all those black boxes scattered through the reports, 448 pages, we can see where those redactions occur. on the left side of the wall, o redactions occur in volume one of the report, which focused on the russian election interference, versus volume two. the right side of the wall, it focused on obstruction of justice. and barr is also telling us why he is concealing the information contained with the roughly 951 redactions. here is how they stack up. 426 portions could compromise ongoing investigations. 358 reference prohibited grand jury material.

93 would reveal sources and methods. and 74 infringe on personal privacy or damage the reputations of third parties. the report includes seven pages that are completely redacted. but house democrats want the attorney general to scrub the report of all the black ink sending the justice department a subpoena yesterday for the full unredacted version of the mueller report. jerry nadler writing, quote, i'm open to working with the department to reach a reasonable accommodation for access to these materials, however i cannot accept any proposal which leaves most of congress in the dark as they grapple with their duties of legislation, oversight and constitutional accountability, end quote. joining me now, former fbi special agent, senior fellow and msnbc national security analyst, clint watts. former assistant watergate special prosecutor and msnbc

contributor jill winebanks. senior vice president and legal analyst myaya wiley and company host of the podcast unredacteun felipe rynas. maybe we should start with you. >> i'm more than happy to have bill barr on as our first guest. you see those numbers and i'm not going to light my hair on fire and say every single one should be seen by every american. obviously anything that is legitimately going to compromise national security or sources are on methods shouldn't be seen. the grand jury stuff it seems like we should see, personal information, i don't want to know someone's cell known. the reputation, if they are in that report, probably pretty bad to begin with. but thereknown. the reputation, if they are in that report, probably pretty bad to begin with. but there is a difference betweenis s between us seeing every word and

congress. the game that barr is playing, there are people in congress who are trusted with our nation's most sensitive secrets. they knew when we would get bin laden, they know what we know about north korean missile testing. you don't say to them you can't see this. and barr is continuing a stonewall that has been incredibly effective. he is part of the stonewall team led by president trump and rudy giuliani and it works. >> wise not to light your hair on fire. i tried it once and look what happened. jill, i have -- you and i have been talking for a few years and i have not talked to you since the mueller report -- since the new mueller -- the actual report. what is your sense of it? because you were involved we have closely with watergate and the idea was that -- and it seems to have been robert mueller's idea that he will prepare this report and hand to congress to do something with.

does congress have enough information to do something with it? >> congress does. i agree with felipe that we should have 100% of that report go to congress. they absolutely have the clearances they need for the classified part. they absolutely have a right under the exceptions to the federal rules of evidence, they can have it. there are two exceptions to the rules that allow congress, not all of america, but congress certainly has a right to it. we proved that in watergate. and i love i don't use of the wro word stonewall. in watergate the president stone walled until america rose against them and then he agreed to give the tapes and then fought it again. we went to the supreme court. and i want to point out that we were subpoenaing the tapes in march and in july, it was argued in the supreme court and we got the tapes. it went very fast. so this idea that mueller couldn't have for example subpoenaed the president because

it would have taken too long or that this would take too long, it won't take too long. these things can be expedited and now there is precedent. congress has a right to it. they need it. i'm all for fact finding hearings. then we can decide whether there is enough for impeachment. and i'm sort of on that side of we have to make sure that the american people are ready for that and that republicans are supporting. peter did a wril yant jbrilliane impeachment of watergate and brought the republicans along. >> there are lots of reasons to not have believed william barr based on his highly partisan background, based on the fact that he sent an unsolicited memo about the mueller investigation way before he was attorney general which seemed to be an audition to be attorney general. but now his letter, his four page memo about the mueller report turns out to have contained things that just weren't that true or were very

loose interpretations of the law and the findings of the report. >> clearly not true. say it a little bit more strongly. look, when we first saw that four page letter, many of us were already concerned because in the summary, one, the fact that he said in his written sentence robert mueller did not find any conspiracy, and then he quotes robert mueller's report but he only quotes part of the sentence, not the full sentence, and it is clear from a legal reading that that sentence says i didn't have enough evidence. it didn't say i didn't find. and it became the way that the administration created a sound bite that said no conspiracy when there was actually not a finding and we know from what we have seen from the report various explicitly saying i didn't have enough evidence. that is not i exonerate. in the conspiracy section of the report, there is no exoneration

language. what he says is, very clearly, he cannot establish directly that there was any relationship conspiracy agreement between the troll farms and hacking and the campaign. he also makes clear that there is much evidence he could not get around all these contacts between the campaign and russians that were happening alongside it. and some very explicit activity where the campaign is clear that it is getting or trying to get information from russian nationals. but three things hampered him. he had witnesses that were not in the country that he couldn't interview, he had administration officials lying, he encryption and deletion of communications that he would have been able to ascertain whether or not he could have exonerated the president. the thing about william barr, he's a consummate attorney. there is no question about his act as an attorney.

so he understood what he was reading in the report. and any attorney would have said this is not exoneration, this is insufficient evidence. it doesn't prove that there was conspiracy. it doesn't disprove it. and then when you get to the obstruction section, which you have to read i think with volume one, what is very clear is he said big concerns, very troubled. i think he very clearly is signalling that there is evidence of obstruction and he felt constrained by the office of legal counsel's opinion that he could not indict a sitting president and that is why he was very clearly and explicitly kicking to congress and william barr then says in his summary after reading that, after being clear on what that means, he says -- >> no obstruction. . >> life- >> -- he left it on to me. no, he didn't. >> this is why the gutter ral

scream would happen, listening to what she said. >> and i think number one he intended and it is clear that this should go to congress for political judgment because he was bound by the counsel not to act. and secondly i would add that i believe that he was saying that the reason that he was not able to find enough evidence was because the obstruction succeeded. so you do have to read the obstruction part. and it says we were obstructed and it worked. and so that is a very serious accusation that needs to be fully explored. >> and we have breaking news out of paris right now, where tensions are erupting in protests. paris police are reporting 126 arrests so far. protesters have begun throwing stones at police. this is happening with the yellow vests. that is these marches that have been going on for several

months. matt bradley is there with the latest. matt, what is going on? >> reporter: well, this has been going on now for nearly six months. this isn't completely out of the ordinary. as the yellow vest protests get smaller, they tend to include more and more harder core participants. and that's what we're seeing now. but this is special, this is unique. because as you know, on monday, notre dame was nearly burned to the ground. right after that within a couple days, donor, major donors, major entinternational kroorpgcorpora donated more than a billion dollars and that is inciting a lot of the rage here. they are saying why is it that there is a billion dollars begin to a pile of stone as it were and not to help the are poor of france or even the middle class. so a lot of the rage here as it has for the last nearly six months is being directed at president emmanuel macron. they want to see reforms that lead to more income equality, they want more participation of

the public involved in the government and policy making here in france. and they want to see a change in the way that elites carry themselves in public life. a lot complaints here involve complaints about elites, people who are highly educated who come from the wealthy parts of paris. and these people are really rejecting that not just politics, but the culture around that. ali. >> matt bradley for us in paris, yellow vest protests. an interesting type of protest in france. it is a legal requirement that people keep the yellow vests in their cars as a safety measure, if the car breaks down, that has been the thing that these protesters have taken to and they go on to the streets wearing these yellow vests. i want to finish this block off with clint. clint, the one thing that it doesn't matter who you are, there is no controversy about in this report the extent to which the russians were interfering in the 2016 election. and the evidence we have from

dan coats and we have from call of the intelligence agencies that that continues to happen into the 2020 election. but all week tweets from the president, not a single one about russian interference. he does not want to acknowledge that because he believes it undermines his presidency. if he acknowledges that the russians interfered, then his presidency, his election in his opinion would be delegitimized. >> yes, the president is a small man. from the beginning all he had to do is come out and say doesn't matter what happened, you know, in terms of the outcome, i won. but this is a serious threat to our country and a leader of all americans, not just those who vote for me, we should deal with russian interference. and it would have gone away. we could have then talked about election security, we talked about it yesterday, five states still in the really secure, no backups. we could have talked about how we're with going to deal with russian influence you like if you lied thousands of times then it gives russians endless

ammunition to influence in the u.s. audience space. they don't need to make fake news when americans make plenty for them. and we could have talked about dealing with others that are doing this. we have not addressed it. and so we are in a complete pause now for three years, maybe even four years from my perspective, we're going into 2020, this is going to happen. we have, what, 30 candidates on the democratic side. what are we doing to protect them so this doesn't happen again? that there aren't oligarchs orem miss tak emissaries that elevate in social media. so just for the country, it shows that the system has failed whenever -- >> and that is really a national emergency, when your democracy is under attack. and donald trump can be on the right side of that issue irrespective of anything in the mueller report. >> yeah, he just has to say i still won but let's make sure it doesn't happen again. >> thanks to all of you. stick around, because up ahead,

mueller gave congress a clear roadmap, but what is he going to -- what is congress going to do with that roadmap and how will it deal with the impeachment question? we'll ask ro khanna, he is coming up next. coming up next every day, visionaries are creating the future. ♪ so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. ♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it.

because the future only happens with people shaving has been difficult for me. i have very sensitive skin, and i get ingrowing hairs.

oh i love it. it's a great razor. it has that 'fence' in the middle. it gives a nice smooth shave.

been nearly 48dacted muelle released and democratic lawmakers are at a cross road. one faction smells blood in the

water to pursue impeaching the president while the other faction wants to take a more conservative approach fearing impeachment would not only be unsuccessful, but could cost the party its house majority in 2020. so what does the future entail for elected democrats? joining me now, congressman ro khanna of california. good to see you again. thank you for joining us on a saturday morning. >> thanks so much for having me on. >> what do you t of that characterization that i just delivered, is that fair that there are some members of the democratic conference who want to pursue impeachment or a road that gets to impeachment versus others who say there are other priorities to pursue? >> well, there are obviously differences of opinion in the caucus, but there are a few things i think we can all agree on. we should have bob mueller testify. we should have the full report. we should have the committees do their work. and then we'll go he as a caucus and meet about this and many people frankly will look to

nancy pelosi whose judgment has been terrific and who most people believe has stood up to this president. and i do think that she will set the agenda along with jerry nadler and after we have a caucus discussion. >> congressman nancy pelosi has implied that the successes that democrats had in the 2018 midterms were sort of moderate districts that were taken over as opposed to as she commented districts like her own in which she i think sarcastically said a glass of water with ademocrat n impeachment as they are in other things, maybe economic issues, maybe health care. does this go counsel partisan lines or is it something else? >> i don't think that it is about partisan politics. i will say even in my district, which is a progressive district, people care most about health care, about prescription drugs, about jobs. but look, there is a very difficult issue before congress. on the one hand, we know that the president's conduct has been

inappropriate. congress needs to speak out about that. so we condemn that and it never happens again. on the other hand, there is a judgment of a country that is deeply polarized and how do you stitch that nation back together. it is not about craven politics, about whether the democrats will win or not, it is about exercising responsible constitutional judgment and i think pelosi is saying let's have hearings about it, be deliberative and then make a decision. joan winebanks makes the point that there is still more information to get, that the redacted mueller report isn't enough to get all the information, that maybe if you and congress get the full report or a fuller report, you are in a better position to determine what next steps are. >> i think that is a very thoughtful point. and i'd like to see every member ever congress ha

of congress have access to it but at the very lease, leadership of the relevant committees should have the full report. and one of your guests made an interesting point that once we have the committees doing their work and once mueller testifies, things can emerge. when you look at watergate, it took many months of committee hearing before public opinion was shaped. >> let's talk about what you took from that report. what was your big takeaway? clint was talking about the fact this that we're worried about the fact that there was russian interference in the election regardless of who was colluding with whom, they were doing it then, they will do it again in 2020. others are concerned about the degree to which the president seemed to ask people to lie on his behalf. what is your takeaway, what concerns you most out of this report? >> the most chilling facts for me was the extent of the russian interference. i didn't know the extent of it until i read the mueller report. the fact that they not only hacked clinton's campaign, but they were hacking former secretary of states, they were trying to target our board of

elections, that they were engaging in a systemic disinformation campaign where the president of the united states even unintentionally was retweeting russian agents. and what i don't understand, and i don't understand it about my republican colleagues, is why we can't come together to at least make sure that this never happens again to our democracy and why the president can't come out and say i will do everything to make sure we don't have foreign interference again. >> one wonders why that is not possible. congressman, thanks for joining me. he is on the oversight and reform committee. make sure to tune in tonight when chris matthews anchors special coverage of the mueller report starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and up ahead, why jerry nadler insists it is just a matter of weeks before robert mueller publicly testifies as he kick starts a legal battle with the department of justice over subpoenas for the full unredacted mueller report. ller .

look limu. a civilian buying a new car. let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ bleech! aww! awww!

♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft for the win win. ♪ i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious,

and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

monitor their blood glucose every day. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. now that special counsel robert mueller has finished his work, one of the questions that remains is whether the american public will get to hear from robert mueller himself. democrats on the house judiciary committee are in talks with the department of justice to make that happen. chairman jerry nadler wants mueller to testify next month after lawmakers question attorney general bill barr. barr said this week he has no problem with mueller testifying,

but there is some division on the matter among senate republicans. senator lindsey graham the top republican on the judiciary committee and a trump ally says that he is not interested in having mueller testify. senator susan collins disagrees. in a statement she says if mr. mueller were to testify, it could give the congress and the american people another opportunity to better understand the facts and conclusions that he reached during his investigation. joining me at the table now, elizabeth holtzman, former member of the judiciary committee during watergate, who voted to impeach president nixon. and the rest of the panel is with me. liz, great to see you. this is really relevant, this whole last few years has been relevant to your particular experience during watergate, but this is really relevant now because we have what we have in the mueller investigation. after all these pages and redactions, there are still a lot of questions we don't have answered. we're more certain about some things, that the trump campaign

absolutely benefited from whatever it was the russians were doing. and there are real questions to be answered. do you feel that more -- that it will be clearer if the judiciary committee is able to interview robert mueller and bill barr? >> well, they won't find anything out from bill barr. bill about a are oig has bebarr obstruct mueller. so i don't hold any candle there for -- or any hope that he will do anything that will illuminate the truth. as for mueller, i don't know what he is going to say, but i think the focus and the obsession with the two of them has to end. what the american people have to hear from is not robert mueller, but they need to hear from the witnesses like don mcgahn who could say how many times president trump came to him and told him to obstruct the investigation. what they need to 45hear from i the people who witnessed the criminal conduct, and i'll say it, in this administration. that is what they need to do.

that's what happened in watergate. we didn't hear from jaworski. he never testified. no special prosecutor came there. the justice department people didn't come to testify. the american people didn't get the facts filtered. they heard john dean, they heard holderman, they heard the actual people involved in the criminal conduct. that is what congress has to focus on now. it is great to hear from mueller. i don't know moisture he will say. but we've been spending too much time obsessing about him instead of and congress should have been doing this starting january 3, getting theexplaining to the american people. people won't read 440 pages, but they can watch they can try to understand the truth from that. >> absolutely 100% agree. the watergate hearings were one the most watched things ever in television history.

and probably to this day it is a very high record. and seeing the credibility of witnesses is so crucial. body language, your tone of voice. michael cohen was not believed. and then he testified in public and his credibility was, oh, he's pretty credible. so if you can compare the witnesses themselves and hear exactly, all mueller can do is summarize the testimony that he heard. and who wants it filtered? i think that liz is 100% correct that we need these fact finding hearings. that is why i've been so adamant about that is what we need. the american public has to be educated. and i still believe that like paula duncan, the jury who said i'm a loyal trump supporter, but the evidence on manafort, i voted to convict him on all 18 counts. and i think even the most loyal trump people will see when they hear the witnesses that they are truthful and they will be appalled. it is a terrible thing to have a

president saying please go out and lie, please cover up for me, please say -- >> this was the fascinating part of this thing, clint. for all that was proved or wasn't proved from this report, there is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of requests to cover up, a whole lot of attempts by the president to get mueller out of the way. as a guy who is trainedo interview and investigate people, it is just weird. >> totally weird. so my favorite of the weird interactions that went down is admiral rogers. the phone call to admiral rogers. can you imagine being admiral rogers, you just went through this period of the russians attacking theyou are the nation agency leader, and now you're going to call the president and he says hey, you need to tell everybody i had nothing to do with russia? i don't investigate anything. but you need to put that out there because i need to reset relations with russia. you're talking with the guy who was just defending our country

w. against the russian election interference. so his head must be why i can't understand why the president would think that i would do this. it is probably quite unsuggesting to me to tell me we need to reset relations with russia when they just attacked us. >> liz, why the lies? if i were barr and i read this report and i had to give a summary of it, there needs to be some explanation as to why someone would lie that much and ask so many other people to lie on his behalf. you were a prosecutor. i have to remind people. >> correct. put quite a few people in prison, too. but what i have to say is that people lie generally to cover up conduct that is criminal or seriously embarrassing or seriously harmful, politically harmful. and the president went out of his way, he was hysterical about this. he was obsessed with this. he couldn't focus basically on anything else. hard to think what he could focus on, but this he was

focused on. so the problem here is to get at the truth. and to try, as jill echoed and others have said, we have to get the facts before the american people. we have a president who covered up -- we haven't been able to find out what was fully covered up here. and part of the reason, and i fault robert mueller's report for this, they don't say explicitly that the reason that they couldn't -- it should be one sentence, not broken up in different places in the report. one of the reasons that they could not establish this is that they were confronted time and again with an obstruction, with lies and coverup. and the president was part of this. the president was sending out stroking messages to witnesses. be strong. president loves you. not only himself, but through various aides. and then he was dangling pardons. we know that publicly. so what is going on thing is not to -- i think mueller made a

mistake here. he shouldn't have it, nothing there basically or allow people to draw that conclusion. he should have said we were faced with obstruction after obstruction. these are not two separate parts of a report. they trinity mathematically connected. the obstruction prevented us from finding out the whole truth of why the president of the united states has been involved in this effort to impede an investigation, to influence witnesses, to tamper with witnesses and to obstruct. >> elizabeth halts moltzman, thu for joining us. when we come back, why we're not as protected as the white house may lead you to believe. protec may lead you to believe. ♪

i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card.

welcome back to "up." the mueller report makes it clear russia's election meddling was sweeping an systemic and there s a clear favorite in the race. donald trump. the report gives a detailed look at the kremlin-linked troll farm known as the internet research agency in st. petersburg. in posts on facebook,instragram directive from higher ups. and the national intelligence director now warns that the threat is not going anywhere. >> foreign actors will view the

2020 u.s. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. we expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other's experiences and efforts in previous elections. >> my panel is back with me along with michael waldman joining us, former speechwriter for president clinton. welcome to you, michael. >> great to be with you. >> maya, i want to play something from the acting cia director -- former acting cia director about this election cycle we're in. let's listen to this together. >> we still don't have a cybersecurity coordinator in the white house. we still don't have a single person in charge of this whole operation. and we have at least 3,000 plus counties across the united states where elections in a v out. so i don't think that we're much better off. >> so let's say you're one of

these people who read this report and said all right, can't find sufficient evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and russians. what we did establish is that there was russian interference in favor of a particular candidate, donald trump working against hillary clinton in this election. an outcome that no democracy-loving american should ever want to occur again. >> correct. >> and we are not doing anything from the head of this government. this president has still not fundamentally acknowledged this. >> the president has not only not acknowledged it, after the fbi informed candidate trump that they knew that russians were trying to interfere in the election and please come tell us if you've received any contact, and what happens? the trump campaign has multiple contacts with russians offering to help and support his election in various ways, and they don't report a single one of those. but even now in his

administration, they actually undermine some of the capacity in the department of homeland security that was starting to pay attention to issues of bolstering election protections and cybersecurity. and so there actually have been some moves in the wrong direction under this administration just in a very bureaucratic way, just in the normal operations of federal government, to make it more difficult. and i want to add a third thing that we don't talk enough about. one of the things that the troll farming did was actively use race as a way to divide us as a country. donald trump spent much of his campaign using race as a way to divide us. and actually suggesting that many americans have a legal right to vote shouldn't. and in addition though russians were actually using social media to drive fake news on both sides to polarize and surrounds race.

so if we're not willing to stop demonizing americans for voting, to start recognizing that we need all of our citizens to be able to participate in the democratic process, that means stop making boogeymans around latino, stop suggesting that black people shouldn't be able to vote, stop all of that and recognize we have to work together as a country and in addition solve our racial division so that we are less subject from a national security perspective to the interference from foreign government. >> that is a tall order, but a good point, michael, because we don't know that anybody's ballot was changed, but we do know lots of people didn't go to the polls. we did know lots of people got fake information. we know people saw things that looked like articles that they thought were articles that were sponsored by the russian troll farm. >> this attack on our democracy and this report show the

porousness of our system. the ramshackle way we run elections and the fact we are still hugely at risk from russia or some other actor ond someone at home trying to suppress participation in the vote or all the other ways that people can be turned off. i don't know if you remember, but a week after the is the vens united supreme court decision, president obama stood in the well of the house, gave the state of the union address and said this will allow foreign interests to interfere in our politics. and justice alito mouthed no, no, that is not true. president obama was right. basically there was a dark money operation being run out of a building in st. petersburg, russia by an oligarch affiliated with putin. and this was of course important when they say the russian government which did have military units doing t hacking of dnc emails, but those in their orbit were using social media, were stoking divisions and all these other things. and there are things we still

have not done as a country to make sure it doesn't happen again. 12 states the voting machines don't all have paper records. that graphic back up. we have some states -- 12 states without paper backups. 40 states use machines th yearss use voting machines that are no longer manufactured, so that has questions about maintenance and security breaches. >> if you want to de-i can't lal delegitimize the result, you know which systems to attack. the russians did penetrate some of the infrastructure and install malware. this is in the open. and which the other thing that we didn't talk about, this is a playbook laid out that by publishing the results of this report lays out for even exactly how you do two things. one, obstruct justice, but two how you also go after the u.s.

election, how you can create chaos. and we've not really shored up these gaps. we have the foreign influence task force at the fbi which i think is great. we have the national security agency, they actually did something in 2018. but are these pieces really connected? >> people are devoted to this in america at high levels in the military and intelligence community who are trying to fix this. and at state levels who are trying to fix this. but many people like you have told me it does need to be an all of government thing, that is led with a president who is not saying it is a 400 pound guy on his bed somewhere doing this. >> imagine you are national security agency or cyber command, you want to go after the troll farm, you launch an attack and the russian gru comes back and attacks instead indiana or florida or arizona in their election infrastructure. who thought that through strategically to say if we go at this troll farm, maybe they will knock out all of our voting

systems or change the voting registrations. we used to do this all the time in the military intelligence community. i feel like if you can't say russia in the white house, you can't encounter them on the battle field. up next, he has already over a dozen obama holdovers jumping on board, some big news from joe biden that could change the crowded 2020 field in a major way. way.fe drivers have to pay as much for insurance... as not safe drivers! ah! that was a stunt driver. that's why esurance has this drivesense® app. the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm actually a safe driver. i'm just pretending to be a not safe driver. cool. bye dennis quaid! when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums smoothies. it neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪tum tum tum tum smoothies. also available tums sugar-free.

save a little longer, i may need it in a few weeks. >> i have the most progressive record of anybody running -- anybody who would run. >> welcome back. joe biden has had a tough time keeping his plans a secret. he is set to end months of speculation by formally announcing a run for president. biden has topped nearly every 2020 poll in crucial states like california, iowa and new hampshire. means biden will enter the race as the clear democratic front runner. but his long career is already haunting him. thank you all for being with us. what is the good and bad about joe biden running? >> well, he's the most experienced in the race. i think he's a good man.

i think he has the timarit and spine to stand up to the biggest bully that has ever occupied the office. right now he's in that sweet spot where he's not running. he can go home and watch tv if he wants to. we've already seen he will have challenges. the most recently which is that he's overly affection gnat. anyone who has been around him will know it. he has tried to explain it. i don't know if that is satisfactory. he's going to have to explain the clarence thomas hearings with anita hill. he'll have to explain why someone that age, which is something bernie sanders will have to explain, which on the

flip side donald trump is just a few years younger. if you were to ask democrats if the election was tomorrow and you could just stick someone in, they'd probably put biden in as the best shot against trump of the group that is running now. but conversely is he going to have one of the harder times. one of the reasons he's delayed this long is i think he knows he's going to have a hard time raising money. he's basically skipped the first quarter so we don't have to see my god, look how little he's raised. he's not going to get $20, to $27 at a time from the internet. he'll have to go room to room and ask. really the question is, is this the year of the woman or also the year of the not man? >> let's broaden out and see if

he's capturing it.ore than the the woman and the year of the not man. jo joe biden, like you said, may be the best positioned to go up against donald trump. do you think the anita/hill stuff could have been handled differently. does he capture that thing that about 40% of democrats are feeling. they want the world to lu arch forward. >> it is that what the democrats need do is piece back together the obama coalition. that was a coalition of

millennials, now gen z, multiracial. a huge base including people of color, including white moderate democrats. that is the question that joe biden problems. are black women going to do the hard work? one of the reasons hillary clinton lost was wisconsin and michigan. we saw a decline of black female turn out in milwaukee and detroit. those are key demographics for democrats. if you are not paying attention to whether or not you are going to excite and capture that base in addition to holding together the broader coalition, you are not going to win. that's the question for joe biden.

he hasn't demonstrated it yet. >> it is a striking fact, the last time the democrats nominated a white man for president was 2004. biden cannot allow this to be the one good day he has is the first day. he'll have to have a real good forward leaning and not just say i'm from the good old now about the challenges facing the country running. >> nobody around the table has said it is a nonstarter. >> we've never elected anyone over 54 or anyone that needed more than one try. >> thank you for joining me on this saturday morning. you can watch me monday through friday at 1:00 p.m. eastern with my colleague stephanie ruhle and solo at 3:00 p.m. eastern.

ahead, as congress grapples with what to do next. congress finds themselves not n unified on impeachment. where to go next. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repathaan cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face.

most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card. and reduce your risk with repatha®. 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. >> that's it for me today. time for "am joy" with my good friend joy reid. >> the spe