instrumental in determining who the candidate for the democratic nomination will be. and if that person is ignoring the african-american or hispanic vote, that western will not be our nommy. >> thank you both. that is all in for this evening. rachel maddow starts right now. and good evening, rachel. >> i am the rachel maddow. >> slowly try to panel to oh, two more seconds and bam. have a great show. thanks for joining us this hour. as well, happy friday. why did the president's daughter, ivanka trump enter into a proper session with prosecutors during the course of 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 around after receiving that confidential briefing and take that information straight to the white house to let them know the

e 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. i mean, it turns out -- turns out even the redacted version of the mueller report is like a really good ragout. it's just better the second day. same thing about chinese take out, too. it's good when you get it, but after it's sat overnight in the fridge chilling for a little 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're going to talk about all the questions i just raised right at the top here, but 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. the tuscaloosa news in tuscaloosa, alabama, trump tried to disrupt probe. the portland press herald, mueller lays out evidence of obstruction against trump. the sentinel record in hot springs, arkansas, mueller reveals trump's attempt to choke off russia probe. those were the led elines in papers large and small across the country today. and one of the things we got from mueller in the section of his redacted report that assesses that the subject of all those headlines, that assesses

the potential criminal liability for the president specifically on the issue of obstruction of justice, one of 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's all stuff that is based on sworn statements and evidence. we've got references to exactly where they got all of the evidence that they got that supports the narrative they laid out. we get full names of the people who provided them with that evidence. we get places, we get 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. i mean, just pick your favorite here. each of those ten broad

categories has multiple acts by the president. just pick one. 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 special counsel's investigation. the president ands cory lewandowski to deliver a message to jeff sessions to curtail the special counsel investigation. i mean, i could have picked any of these. literally just the table of contents for the president's obstruction of justice actions is three pages long, single space, small file. but i like this example in particular not because it's the best one or the worst one but in the middle of the narrative of this one, 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 as a capital idea that will solve everything, and it basically leaps off the page that the president thinks he has nailed this one. here's how the account of this one starts, quote, on june 19th, 2017 the president met with his campaign manager lewandowski and said the president -- said the relationship between the president and lewandowski was close. during that june 19th 2017 meeting lewandowski recalled after some small talk the president brought up jeff sessions and criticized his recusal of the russia investigation. the president then asked lewandowski to deliver a message to sessions, and said, quote, write this down. this was the first time the president had asked mr. lewandowski to take dictation, and lewandowski wrote as fast as possible to make sure he captured the content correctly. so 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. cory, write this down. get a pen, bite off the tim of your finger and write it in blood, i just had a thought. get this down. i've got something here. quote, the president directed that sessions should give a speech publicly announcing i know that i recused 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 shouldn't 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. so that's the speech that jeff sessions is supposed to give. mueller says, quote, the dictated message went onto state that sessions would meet with the special counsel to limit his

jurisdiction to future election interference. now a group of people -- this is what, again, 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 exexplain 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. a you can see him thinking. this is not firing the special counsel. two days before this meeting with cory lewandowski, two days previous to that meeting he had told white house counsel don mcgahn that don mcgahn should fire robert mueller, the white house special counsel. don mcgahn refused that order from the president. and this is genius, but he'll

arrange through cory lewandowski, private citizen at this point, no role in the administration whatsoever, he'll arrange that the attorney general jeff sessions will un-recuse himself from the russia investigation. he will rescind his recusal. and then once he's un-recused jeff sessions won't fire mueller. now he knows that will be a problem. instead jeff sessions will just tell mueller, hey, from here on out i'm redirecting your investigation. so from here on out it's only about crimes in the future. you, robert mueller, you have to leave 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 that if sessions delivered that statement, he would be the most popular guy in the country. cory lewandowski told the president he understood what the president wanted sessions to do.

write this down, cory. got a great idea. the redacted report then goes onto explain that cory lewandowski in fact doesn't go deliver this message to jeff sessions. he tries. he makes an appointment with jeff sessions, but jeff sessions cancels and then lewandowski doesn't really know what to do, so he puts the thing he dictated from trump in a safe. one thing we learn in this report is lots of people around president trump not only have saves at home, they use them whenever the president asks them to do something that really seems illegal. but after cory lewandowski doesn't give the message to jeff sessions and instead gives the message to a locked safe, the president asks lewandowski again, calls him back in for another one-on-one meeting, did you tell jeff sessions? the president asks cory lewandowski to deliver this message to is sessions again or else. and the or else here is similarly genius.

back to the report. in the following up meeting, quote, in the july 19th meeting with lewandowski the president raised his previous request and asked if lewandowski had talked to sessions. lewandowski told the president that the message would be delivered soon. soon, boss, soon. lewandowski then recalled the president told him if sessions did not meet with him lewandowski should tell sessions that he was fired. so you go meet with the toerng, you give him this message from the president that tells the attorney general he needs to un-recuse himself, he needs to give a speech about how terrible the special counsel is and about how donald trump ran the greatest presidential campaign in history and then he needs to announce now he's un-recused he's changing the mandate from the special counsel so here on out he can only investigate crimes in the future, nothing that happened, and cory, if jeff sessions won't meet with you to receive this message ability what he's going to do well then,

you, cory, you fire him. you political consultant who used to work for my campaign who's now just a random private citizen, you fire the attorney general. you say i, cory lewandowski, fire you. this is how it's going to work, right? genius plan. after that point more hilarity ensues including cory lewandowski then trying to make someone else do this. he does the deputy chief of staff to do it, he does not do it. but then we all of this specific narrative of when and how that all happened and how we know that all happened. i mean, we get the date of the first demand from the president. hey, cory, write this down. that's june 19th, 2017. we get the date of the president

lewandowski again to reiterate the demand. if this doesn't work, is the attorney general being fired by a private citizen. we get footnote after footnote after footnote in this section of the report saying exactly which fbi interview on come date and which page of the fbi's record of that interview, cory lewandowski provided this information and also rick dearborn, too, the guy he tried to hand-off this plan to. we good all the details regarding the specific references to their fbi interviews and the 302 forms the fbi used. and as cockamamie as this was, as ridiculous this was as a scheme we get mueller and his team explaining how you would charge something like this as a crime. and they do it for all these instances of potential criminal

obstruction by the president under the heading analysis, in analyzing the president's efforts to director the special counsel investigation would be confined to future election interference, the following evidence is relevant to the evidence of obstruction of justice. and then the first discussion is of the destructive act, what constitutes the obstructive act. there's a long discussion of all the elements of what the president did exactly concluding, quote, the president's directives indicate sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign. then the next element of obstruction of justice as a criminal matter is nexus to an official proceeding, which you have to show if you're going to prove this is criminal obstruction of justice. in this case they're very blunt and say, yes, there's a nexus to an official proceeding. quote, to the time of the president's official one-on-one meeting the existence of a grand

jury investigation supervised by the special counsel so that's the nexxus. and there's one last element. there's a third element you need to establish criminal obstruction of justice, and that is intent. quote, substantial evidence indicates the president's efforts to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation 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 on his campaign and perceived russian interference to cast doubt on his election. and he further knew it had cast doubt on his 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. which is obvious as a logical matter, right? you and me we're not lawyers just looking at this stuff yeah,

duh. if the investigator is only now allowed to investigate stuff that hasn't happened yet. i mean, it seems obvious, but you're spelling out intent here for why an alleged perpetrator chd be charged or should be convicted of this crime. and as such, you belabor the point. you spell it all out. quote, the manner in which the president acted provides additional evidence of his intent. rather than rely on official channels, the president met with lewandowski alone in the oval office. the president selected a loyal devotee outside the white house to deliver the message, supporting an inference that he was working outside white house channels including that of white house counsel don mcgahn who had just two days previously resisted contacting the justice department about the special counsel. the president also did not contact deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the acting attorney general on the russia matter who had just testified

publicly there was no cause to remove the special counsel. instead the president called jeff sessions when sessions was recused and could not properly take any action on it. provide further evidence of the president's intent. the president followed up with lewandowski in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated the message for sessions demonstrating 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 the three elements that constitute criminal obstruction of justice, obictive act next to an official proceeding, intent, you don't need all of that if you're just trying to inform the public of what the president's like. you certainly don't lay all that out in order to show the president definitely did want

obstruct justice here. i mean, this is laid out to show that he did. and to lay it out specifically as a predicate for criminal charges. this is laid out so that this can be charged. and it's not brought here in this report in the form of actual criminal charges being unveiled against the president. there's no accompanying indictment to the president, right, and mueller spells out why. mueller explains explicitly that he is bound by justice department policy that does not allow for indictment or prosecution of the president of and so therefore he could not bring charges. he couldn't bring a prosecution. he couldn't say explicitly, here, this is crime because the president can't be hauled into court to face charges, he can't avail himself of the court either to prove his innocence. and so instead we get 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, and how it fits every element you need to prove under the criminal law in order to support a criminal charge for obstruction of justice for this type of behavior. about which former attorney general eric holder was quite blunt today. looking at this evidence and the way mueller laid this out this is what holder said today. any, all caps, any competent corruption officer would bring obstruction charges against trump and when. only reason mueller did not was because of the flawed justice department restriction. and now instead of an indictment of the president we've got his road map for how one might prosecute this behavior by president trump. but who's supposed to follow this map? why lay it out like this with all of the different elements you need to show in order to

bring charges? with all of the evidence laid out, not just the factual record but how it fits the statute, who's 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. but in the report there's very clearly two. the one nobody's talking about is from page one of the obstruction section of the report. it's explicit. it's not even -- it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible, an investigation is permissible. the olc opinion also recognizes that the president does not have immunity after he leaves office. and there's a footnote just to put the second exclamation point on that, citing the olc memo but quoting this exact part of it.

quote, recognizing an immunity from prosecution from a sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president's term is over. and this is something nobody is talking about in the wake of the mueller report. at least nobody's broadly talking about it. but this is why mueller says he did his report this way, right? if you uncover crimes that there can be no charges, why bother uncovering the crimes, right? well, he says because the immunity that prevents the perp from being charged in this case, that's a fleeting thing. that doesn't last forever. so it's not only worth investigating, it's worth laying down what looks like chargeable conduct here and why. as mueller says it, quote, given the considerations and the facts known to us in safeguarding the integrity of the justice system we conducted a thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence.

when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available, why are you improving the evidence? improving it for whom? here's a 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's not just a book about the presidency, it's receipts, right? so the president directs kt mcfarlen to write an e-mail

saying trump didn't call flynn. add five years, okay statute of limitations there extends to february 23, 2022. the president personally directed that a public statement about the trump tower meeting, delete a proposed line that acinformationed don junior expected at that meeting to obtain information helpful to the trump exam main match that we know from the mueller report was july 8, 2017. when would the statute of limitations expire on that, add five years, july 8, 2022. he cleared everyone out of the office before asking comey i hope you can see this way clear, i hope you can let this go. that was february 19, 2019 -- excuse me, 2017. statute of limitations expires on that one february 14th, 2022. happy valentine's day. the president called don mcgahn and directed him to contact attorney general jeff sessions and relay the message special

counsel mueller had conflicts of interest. add five years, july 17th, 2022. the president met with cory lewandowski and dictated a message for him to give to sessions saying sessions should publicly announce the investigation was very unfair to the president. and from then on the special counsel should only move forward investigating election meddling for future elections. that initial meeting was june 9 19th 2017. then a follow up meeting a month later, july. july, 2017, add five years, july 2022. the special counsel laid out an oboctave act and intent on all of these. if president trump is not re-elected he will be out of office in january 2021.

at that point he will no longer we immune from prosecution and well within the statute of limitations on all the alleged accounts laid out in this report. if he is re-elected he will definitely be in office while the statute on limitations on all those potential crimes expires and he can no longer be prosecuted for them. how's that for a re-election bumper sticker infour more years. four more years for that. i 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. we never got to test that when it came to nixon, one of the senior prosecutors resigned in protest that day. bill clinton entered a non pros cushion 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. they were actively working with a grand jury to consider indicting bill clinton as soon as he left office for lying to investigators about his affair. by his last day in office they came to a deal, a non pros cushion 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 be been very close to charging expresidents with

crimes they allegedly committed while in officewise president. but so far we haven't gotten there. robert mueller, however, has laid out a 182-page path for doing just that even on obstruction of justice. unless of course president trump is going to face the music on this stuff the other way that is laid out in the constitution, that is envisioned by the just department regulations that prohibit him from being charged while he is a sitting president. the other way laid out elegantly in mueller's report. quote, the conclusion congress may apply the obstruction laws accords with our constitution of checks and balance and the principle that no person is above the law. that, of course, is about impeachment, right? that's the other way the president could be effectively crimes. using the road map and using the evidence laid out by robert

mueller in this report. that remedy, the impeachment remedy is broadly viewed as politically impossible, not least of which democrats don't want to go there. maybe. today that started to change, and in one way in particular that could end up being a very big deal. and that is the subject of our next segment and our next interview. we'll be right back. stay with us. interview. we'll be right back. stay with us [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't.

flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. the 2019 subaru outback is how safe is the car you're considering? 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. itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey."

along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge 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. quit smoking "slow turkey." talk to your doctor about chantix.

a new phase of the 2020 presidential campaign and the response to the redacted mueller report began this afternoon at 4:45 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. quote, 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 next step is impeachment. it would inflict great and lasting damage on this country. and it would subject both the current and future presidentswise be free to abuse their power in similar ways. it demands 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 democrat democratic primary. zwroing us now is senator elizabeth warren who as of tonight is calling for the impeachment of the president. i know you made time for us on short notice. >> yeah, it's good to be here. >> other democrats have been saying it's gnat worth the political costs or 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 well into the night last night and i got to the end and realized this is about a point of 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's going to 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 could see into the future and you could see that the argument you were making carried the day in the house and impeachment proceedings began in the house and it was 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 decided the president should not be removed from office based on those articles of impeachment, the house says yes, senate says no, would you still think it's the right thing to do for the country and a worthy use of resources and time? >> yes, i would. i think each person has to stand up and be counted. i think that's why we're elected into the house and senate. and there are times when it's beyond politics, when it's 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. but 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's a point of principle. and every member of the house and every member of the senate should be called onto vote. do you believe that that constitutes an impeachment 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 didn't 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's not the sort of thing you seem to be building around. but i take you at your word that you were struck by reading the report, that you were moved by the evidence. i would tell you i haven't thought much about impeachment at all. i've been watching the democrats in the house and one, the ones in leadership positions who have a say over this sort of thing say, no, no, they don't want do it. either never or anytime soon. when i read the report the one thing i took a break to watch is

see what gerald nadler would say. by the time he was speaking i was 1,000% she was he was going to talk about the inquiry. but because of what i experienced i wonder if more of your colleagues are expecting it might come around to this, this might have jarred something significantly loose compared to how people felt about 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's important, but it's exactly where you started this question. this isn't what i had planned to do. i got into the race for president because of my life's work about what's happening to working families across this country and how it is that the road is getting rock yr 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 those families of color. a wealth tax and universal child care and student loan debt, and all those things are there. elizabeth warren.com, and 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 in what's happened that we have to stop, take a deep breath and be willing to say that's wrong, and i'll stand up to say so. and i hope a lot of other people will, too. >> democrat of massachusetts, candidate for president in 2020. i know your time is at a premium. thank you for making time to explain this to us tonight. much more ahead tonight

including actually another presidential candidate. stay with us. another presidential candidate stay with us

hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪

there is an element of the redacted mueller report that involves a republican u.s. senator, richard burr, the republican chairman of the senate intelligence committee. and i think this one is going to leave a mark. the mueller report says that in march 2017, so two months after trump was sworn in the fbi director james comey at the time briefed richard burr and other members of the dpang of 8 on the

status of the fbi's russia investigation including looking at president trump's campaign. after receiving that confidential briefing from the fbi director, a briefing given only to the top leadership and 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 investigations and appears to have received information about the status of the fbi's 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 the 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's one's going to leave a mark. k that's s going to leave a mark.

we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

(danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you. for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact.

and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. joining us now is democratic congressman eric swalwell of california. he's on the intelligence committee and judiciary committee, also a candidate for the president of the united states. sir, thanks for making time tonight. really appreciate it. senator elizabeth warren was here saying she believes the behavior describes in mueller's report is seriousness enough she now believes an impeachment investigation should start in the mouse. that is not a position she had before this report came out. i know you have not called for impeachment in the past, but did the report change your mind on that, too in. >> it certainly takes us closer

there, rachel. and as a mebl of the house judiciary committee that would start on our committee. and the way i see it as a former prosecutor i know my evidence filed better be airtight, the witnesses better be ready to go because you only get one shot, and so there are a couple of way points i see right now and the first is to get all of the documents. and now we've requested the full mueller report about only about 20% was held back and then to bring bob mueller before the american people to testify to congress, i think there are two key way points that get us to, i i'm not taking it off the table one bit. >> tonight democrats have made clear that this offer from the justice department that the gang of eight plus judiciary committee chairman and ranking members, and so i still less than a dozen members would be allowed to see a version of the report where all of the

redactions were dropped except for those that pertain to grand jury material. democrats are rejecting that, turning down that report. i wonder if you support that decision or if you think there would be some value to the chairman of intelligence, and chairman of the judiciary and many others being allowed to see what's in those black boxes? >> i'm with them because congress can't do our duty to protect future elections unless we know what the russians did. and if it's only a close hold they can't come to us and tell us, look, we still have an ongoing threat from russia. nowhere does mueller say, by the way, all of these conversations and relationships have now ceased so don't worry about them for the 2020 election. we have reason to believe the russians are still going to do this, so how do we protect ongoing threats to our democracy. but also this report showed there was a failure of imagination by prior congresses

to ever think that a campaign would conduct itself the way the president and this team did. so the prelz, yes, has escaped criminal liability, but i don't think he can read this report and say well, let's have that happen again and that would be great for our democracy. the only way you can do that is to fully understand what the russians did, who they worked with and what the failures were in our own government to stop them. >> congressman, the only other awkward question that i have arrived at and i'm not quite sure what to do with here is i feel the way robert mueller laid out the findings of his investigation specifically on obstruction, is he was laying out a road map of the prosecution for president on obstrugz. and either that will be done through an impeachment proceeding or when the president leaves office. it's something we've never confronted before, but the way i read this and i know you're a

former prosecutor yourself, i feel that's what mueller is suggesting. is that how you read it? >> that's how i read it, i i do not believe jeopardy has attached in a legal sense, meaning the president now escapes liability when approach this not in how 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's out of office, that's january 2021 at the latest. then he's going to have to answer in one way or another for what he and his team did. >> congressman, member of the intention committee, judiciary committee, 2020 presidential candidate. thank you for joining us. i know your time is tight. >> thank you. a business friday night. stay with us. pay for what i need. only oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... liberty. liberty. ♪ only pay for what you need.

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. each day justin at work... walk. and after work. he does it all with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort. to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.

i swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance.

and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ you know reliable support when you have it, and that dependability is what we want to give our customers. at comcast, it's my job to constantly monitor our network. prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible.

my name is tanya, i work in the network operations center for comcast. we are working to make things simple, easy and awesome. i have a couple of really specific questions about stuff that was laid out in the mueller report for which i need legal vice. 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 notner 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 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 two different of staffers with 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 evidence 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. what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

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

about xeljanz xr. but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor 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. ♪ just to recap something that happened on our air this hour, democratic presidential candidate and massachusetts senator elizabeth warren tonight becoming the first 2020 presidential candidate and she's a leading candidate to call for impeachment proceedings to begin in the house specifically on the basis of the evidence produced in the mueller report about the president and obstruction of justice. elizabeth warren is not the kind of candidate who would build a campaign around this. this is not the way she has been campaigning thus far. she says she told me here on the air she came to that revelation after reading all the way through the report and finding evidence overwhelming. that does it for us tonight.