thanks for watching. i'll see you back here next saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern and then again at 8:00 p.m. eastern for an msnbc special. it's called "not just black and white: race and the 2020 election." that's next saturday at 8:00 p.m. on msnbc. up next, "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> this sunday after mueller, president trump. >> no collusion, no obstruction. >> and his allies. >> the best day since he got elected. >> claim total victory with the release of the mueller report but the report paints unflattering picture of the president and has campaign and lays out a pattern of obstruction prompting mr. trump to bash the report with a profanity. and democrats demand to see the whole document. my guest this morning the chairman of the house judiciary

committee jerrold nadler and rudy giuliani. plus the impeachment debate. >> this isn't about politics. this is about principle. that's why i've asked the house to start impeachment proceedings against donald trump. >> while others worry that the sthu divides democrats and united states republicans. >> the avenue is not impeachment. the avenue is further disclosure to the american people. >> look who's running. joe biden ahead in the polls is launching his campaign this week. previous front runners often fail to win their nomination. how much does polling mean at this early stage in the race? joining me is hallie jackson, joshua johnson, amy walter, and jonah goldberg, senior editor of national review. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington,

the longest running show in television history. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. we're going to get to the mueller report in a moment, but there was a terrible series of terror attacks in sri lanka on this easter morning. the attacks targeted worshippers in churches and high end hotels frequented by foreign tourists. the death toll is going to number into the hundreds. the attacks broke a period of peace in sri lanka that endured a civil war that came to an end. >> the mueller report. there was a tale of two reports or two tales of one report with a divided public free to choose its version of the truth. on one hand was the president and his supporters, who framed the report as exoneration of the

president. on the other hand was the report itself have had 448 pages including many redactions is a far cry from no collusion. a president who later worked furiously to obstruct the investigation. in fact, mr. trump may have been saved if are awe formal obstruction charge by aides who saved him from himself. the mueller team writes the president's efforts to influence the inest have interrogation were mostly unsuccessful. but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or seed to his request. then there is the iconic closing sentence. while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. it's a line that gives ammunition to both sides of the trump divide but one that is likely to cloud the president's reputation whether or not he is reelected. >> we need the whole report. >> the 448 page report details

aggressive and ultimately successful attempt by vladimir putin to interfere in 2016 election and destabilize the united states. >> i have nothing to do with russia. >> i know from being on the campaign there was no contact with russians. >> but the report lays out scores of links between the russian government and the trump campaign, among them paul manafort shared information with russians and manafort acknowledged was a back doorway for russia to control part of eastern ukraine. then there are the ties between the trump campaign and wikileaks. >> i love wikileaks. >> the report details advanced knowledge of wikileaks releases by members of the campaign including the president who was described as taking a phone call and then telling deputy campaign chair rick gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. there was the june 2016 trump tower meeting when donald trump

jr., jared kushner, and paul manafort met with russians to get dirt on hillary clinton. >> mr. trump has no financial relationships with russian oligarchs. >> that's what he said. that's what i said, that's obvious our position. >> in fact there were many contacts arranged at the highest levels including a meeting in the islands between the head of russia's sovereign wealth fund. on obstruction mueller lays out ten possible episodes including the firing of james comey. the president's attempt to get jeff sessions to unrecuse himself. >> he took the job and then said i'm going to recuse myself. what kind of man is this. >> and telling white house counsel don mcgahn to fire mueller. mcgahn refused telling chief of staff that the president asked him to do crazy asks. the day mueller was appointed,

president trump slumped back in his chair and said oh my god, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency, i'm f-ed adding later this is the worst thing that ever happened to me. >> the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation. >> in fact the report details how individuals lied or deleted communications and the president refused to sit with an interview. president trump responded to written questions with some version of i do not recall or i do not remember 30-something times. >> we have a constitution of the united states and it says when a president engages in this kind of activity, then it's time for impeachment. >> but house democratic leader plus led by speaker nancy pelosi are putting the breaks on saying one step at a time. >> the avenue is not impeachment. the avenue is further disclosure to the american people. >> joining me now is rudy giuliani. mayor, welcome back to "meet the

press." let me start with some of the front line conclusions from the report itself which is square one. the first one is this. the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion. do you accept that as a fact? >> we do. there's no reason not to accept it. >> and the president accepts it as well? >> i'm sure he does. >> the next fact is this one. the special counsel's investigation establishes that russia interfered in the presidential election through two operations, first a russian entity carried out social media campaign that disparaged hillary clinton. do you and the president accept the idea that the russian interference was designed to help president trump? >> i believe it was. i can't tell you for sure. i haven't examined all that evidence. >> does the president accept that? >> i think he does. that wasn't part of defending him. >> no, but a lot of the report seems to indicate he feared that the idea the russians helped him

was going to delegitimize his presidency. >> whether he did or didn't, i think it's quite clear that there are a lot of factors that go into any election. and the reality is that he was elected president, there are a lot of good reasons why he was elected president and she wasn't elected president that have nothing to do with this. and it's hard to believe that this was a decisive factor. they don't find that. >> let me put in this. the report does say this -- >> did all that happen? i imagine it did. i can't dispute it. >> let me put up this one. russian intelligence service conducted computer intrusion operations against entities and employees working against the clinton campaign. you agree and the president accepts the russians did this to hurt hillary clinton? >> sure. i do find that other parts of the report that there are substantial inadequacies in putting forth other testimony making it false or other

versions. >> this is on the first two pages of the report, this additional fact that they declare. the investigation established that the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and work to secure that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit lek toirlly from information stolen and released through the russian efforts. it's this last part. the campaign wanted -- knew that the russians were helping and were waiting to -- >> i was on the campaign for four months, probably as close to donald trump as anybody could be. i saw no evidence of that. so that one i would have to examine much more critically. i saw no evidence of anybody talking about russia, involved with russia. one of the reasons i volunteered to defend him was i knew personally it was a false allegation. >> then why did the president trump et wikileaks so many times? >> because they were putting out things that were true and very, very damaging to hillary clinton. of course you would want things

that a that are -- >> you at the time knew these were stolen? >> i did not. the pentagon papers were stolen. they were stolen from the department of defense. my god, that's horrible. during -- >> this is a foreign adversary though, someone who -- >> what's the difference between a spy and a foreign adversary? >> one works for the united states of america and one doesn't. >> wait a second -- >> doesn't one work for the united states of america and one doesn't. >> stealing classified documents is theft. there are overriding reasons for it, but it's theft. legally and morally it's the same thing. here's the thing interesting and i don't want to dispute this much but everything they put out about hillary clinton was true. they shouldn't have stolen it but the american people were just given more information about how deceptive, how manipulative her people and her campaign were. in other words, if the russians had stolen the information and showed hillary clinton to be just a wonderful person and

everybody was fine, they were all honest and terrific, it would have helped her. if it helped her at all, it only hurt her because the american people got information in the wrong way but it was true. all that stuff that backfired on her -- >> in 2016, i'm just curious, the intelligence services knew that wikileaks was not a journalistic enterprise anymore. it may have started that way. that it was serving as a front for essentially foreign adversary intelligence dumps. >> right. >> why did the president think it was ethical to essentially trumpet what wikileaks was doing. >> even in law enforcement, if i'm running an investigation and evidence is given to me about the criminality of the person i'm investigating, even if it comes from a questionable source, i'm going to use that information. and there was nothing to suggest that this was manufactured evidence. everything printed -- >> but does it bother you at all that a foreign adversary wanted

to interfere with our why parti? >> nobody's participating. >> trumpeting wikileaks is participates. >> no, it is not. in the middle of this investigation, my cocounsel received four documents that indicated that special counsel was using kpedingly unethical tactics in trying to get jerome corsi to testify. i don't know where they came from. i went okay the fbi, gave them to the fbi, and we used those documents. they came from a legitimate source. the reality is when you get information about your opponent and it's true -- >> even if it comes from a foreign entity. >> i wonder if there is a -- >> why didn't donald trump jr. call the fbi when the russians offered dirt on hillary clinton? >> i wonder if there isn't an argument that the people had a right to know that information about hillary clinton? people had a right to know that hillary clinton and the people

around her were as dishonest as they are. >> why not run an honest political campaign depicting that? why youz a foreign adversary? >> nobody used them. >> donald trump jr. accepted the wikileaks -- >> i let you read all that, but i notice you didn't read there was no evidence of collusion with the russians by trump or anyone in the trump campaign. there was no involvement. >> but they wanted to. should that bother americans they wanted to. >> if somebody on the campaign wanted to do something wrong -- a lot of people on hillary clinton's campaign wanted to do something wrong. the legal standard that makes it possible that we're not going to be prosecuted for our thoughts is every line we go right to the fact that did trump or anyone from the trump campaign participate in the disimnation of hacked material? and the answer is no. it had already been disemanated. he is free and clear of an allegation. this wasn't international news

for three years because the russians tried to invade our election. they've done that before. we've just caught them this time. other countries do it. the real news here is donald trump conspired with the russians to do this, making him almost a traitor. that turns out after two fbi investigations, counterintelligence seven months, this one 13 months, not true. >> why isn't the president angry at the russians? why is he so angry at bob mueller, don mcgahn -- >> they tried to frame him. >> the russians are the ones that have created the impression that his election was illegitimate. >> why wouldn't you be angry at someone who tried to accuse of you treason when it's not true? >> i'm not finished. >> why aren't you now interested in how is it that two investigations proved these charges were false and nobody is investigating who started the investigation? isn't that a horrible thing? do you think maybe they were manipulating the election also?

do you think that papadopoulos getting that information from maltese ambassador undercover guy, do you think that was accidental? come on. american intelligence, foreign intelligence -- >> your painted jen rauted this idea the russians stole this. >> i'm not saying they didn't. >> you're going in another direction. >> i'm going in the direction any prosecutor would follow. when you find out the allegation is untrue, you turn around right away and investigate how did it happen. i've had investigations like that? i had one where two police officers were being falsely accused. when i found out they were falsely accused i found out the reason why. mueller has no interest in that. he has no interest in the fact that the people on june 9 mentioned all the time, they met with the head of gps which was the company promulgating the steel dos say, the day before,

the day of -- >> gps told donald trump jr. i love it. >> nobody told him to say that? who set up the meeting? an operative from gps? >> or from the kremlin? >> who knows let me answer the question. would you like to know the truth or just one side of the truth? vesnel skyia -- wait, please, it's complicated. it's not just one fact. they met the day before the meeting with donald trump jr., spent hours together having dinner. they met the morning of the meeting with donald trump jr., and they met the day after. they had set up the meeting on the grounds that it was about dirt on hillary. they never spoke about dirt on hillary. they spoke about russian adoptions and never followed up. to me, having been involved in the justice department for 17 years that's as clear a possible set up as you can get.

>> why did donald trump jr. embrace the idea that russians could have dirt on hillary clinton. >> why did the special prosecutor come on tha obstruct. he's very embarrassed. he knows he didn't follow up on the suggestions that was a set up. that's why it was a one sided investigation. the biggest take away of all is where's the interest in trying to figure out how could it be that the fbi investigated the this in two separate investigations, used four wiretaps in order to do it, four electronic surveillances, talked to 500 witnesses, spent $40 million, and the answer is there was no, not the slightest bit of evidence of conspiracy between trump, anyone on the trump campaign and the russians. that was the story, not this stuff which is underneath him. >> so, it is now okay for political campaigns to work with material stolen by foreign adversaries? >> depends on the stolen material. if the stolen material is --

first of all, was it all right for the "new york times" and "the washington post" to print against the objections -- >> you're putting pentagon papers and vladimir putin on the same level of morality. >> the theft. the theft. how many times do you steal classified material? >> i hope not often. >> you do. i don't know if nbc was part of it, but the media went to court over it. i guess the public didn't have a right to know how sneaky and dishonest hillary clinton and the people around her were. >> you said something interesting in the campaign about hillary clinton and the fbi issue she was a part of. she claimed she can't remember things. this has to be a lie. otherwise she has such a bad memory she should be going somewhere for memory lesson, not running for president of the united states. and the questions you helped the president answer of the special

counsel, you used some form of not recalling or not remembering i think the number was 37 times. >> i think it was 22 times. in any event, jim comey did 201 times. and it wasn't i don't remember all the time. i have to count the i don't remember. it was to my best recollection. i will never let a witness answer a question. >> he wasn't as forthcoming as he could be. >> he was as forthcoming as the question demanded. i don't allow any witness to volunteer. it's a terrible thing to do. that's the way they trap you for perjury. i'll give you an example. the president says that the events described by michael cohen, the correct version is the first one he gave under oath, not the second. michael cohen is a big a liar i've ever seen. the guy lied on television, in the last hearing before the congress when he said i didn't ask for a job -- >> do you represent the most truthful client you've ever had in donald trump? >> i respect the most important

client i've had with regard to the future of the united states. >> do you feel like he's truthful? >> i believe he's truthful, as much as he can be in a world in which every word you say is picked apart and if you say four and it's five they claim you're lying. >> if we have confidence in the facts the president didn't commit obstruction of justice, we would state. based on the legal standards we are unable to reach that judgment. this is not an exoneration. >> why do you read the harmful things when 80% of it is good. >> don mcgahn didn't carry out obstruction. >> he had a perfect right to fire mueller. mueller at that time had several good reasons to fire mueller. mueller had substantial conflict of interest. he hired a person who was the chief counsel to the clinton foundation to investigate donald trump.

if i were investigating hillary clinton and i hired the person who ran the trump foundation, i think the media would go nuts on me. so, that was a legitimate reason to want to fire mueller for bad judgment. he's the president of the united states. mueller is not an independent counsel. mueller works for the justice department. he could have been fired any moment. and unless you could show that he wasn't going to replace him with somebody to take over the investigation like with comey, you would have no obstruction. he could have fired him. >> you don't believe don mcgahn saved the president from obstruction of justice. >> no, absolutely not. in fact in one circumstances don k many gann gives three versions of the facts, one of which is perfectly innocent and the special counsel decides to use another version. really sloppy -- that entire report and the way you just reported it is all from the point of view of let's see if we can hang donald trump and also the standard of proof they used government to page two of the obstruction thing. the president's got to prove he's innocent. they have to be convinced he didn't do it. when is that the standard ever

in america? how can you prove a negative? that has to be pointed out and never used again because innocent people will get tarred and feathered with this. the question should be for anybody who wants justice, how did this happen, who started? and i think you may find that the clinton campaign may have interfered in the election more than the ugs ares. >> it's an undefended accusation i can't get into now. >> barack obama knew -- it says or raises specter between struck and his girlfriend, they say the obama people are keeping in close touch with this. that's the execution of the steel dossier. >> you mean it could also be that the russian government -- >> why do you laugh that away? >> how do you not know -- because you're making an assumption that it's some nefarious thing. >> i'm not making assumption. >> why wouldn't the government be concerned about russian interference into the president.

>> why wouldn't the government be concerned about investigation opened up right after you clear hillary clinton on donald trump based on seven words that was said to papadopoulos that don't even suggest a possible crime. it says russians have dirt on hillary clinton. it didn't say stolen, didn't say taken. nothing connects it to donald trump. why didn't they tell him it was a problem like they did with feinstein with she had a chinese communist spy. let me finish. they told her she had a spy working for her. trump didn't have a spy working for him. trump turns out to be totally fnt had. >> why isn't he angry at the russians? >> because the russians didn't try to frame him. he's angry at the russians for interfering in the election but angry at the people who try to take away his presidency based on a plan done by struck, prevent and remove, and you guys avoid it. the slightest little evidence about trump, boom. this is real evidence.

it's real evidence, the steel dossier is phony, that it was a fraud on the court. >> steel dossier barely mentioned in the mueller report for what it's worth. >> yeah. for good reason. but you make my point for good reason because it makes him innocent. anything that makes him innocent is ignored by the report and something like the steel affidavit in which four people signed under oath and never gave the court the information of it. >> you have two other interviews. >> there's a big investigation to come. >> you want bill barr to start a new investigation? >> do i want him to? i've wanted it for a year. >> do you think he'll do it? >> i hope so. they tried to frame the president of the united states. >> you think bob mueller tried to frame him? >> no, i think the people making the allegations. i think mueller was derelict in not investigating it. how did this happen?

two investigations, no collusion, not a coincidence. how did it happen? happy easter. >> happy easter, mr. mayor. when we come back i'll be joined by the chair of the house judiciary committee, jerrold nadler of new york. don't stoop to their level. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. it extends with a protective shield and targets weeds more precisely. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while guarding the good. roundup sure shot wand. got weeds in your grass too? try roundup for lawns. kills weeds, not the lawn. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years. glad you're back how you feeling? ♪ ♪ (both) exhausted. but finally being able to make that volunteer trip happen was... awesome. awesome. you have to scrub.

what do they... they use for washing. ♪ ♪ let's do it every year. we'll do it every year. i thought you'd say that - let's do it. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. verizon got us vip tickets three feet away from justin timberlake. and to say vip is an understatement, because i sawww justin timberlake. he literally looked into the phone and started dancing-- well, he was already dancing-- locked eyes and continued dancing. every now and then, i'm like, "wait, did that happen?" (gasps) i've got photos of it, it must have. (vo) get more music on us with verizon up, the rewards program that gets you vip tickets. plus, get a free galaxy s10e when you buy one, and $400 when you switch. only on verizon. 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. did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no.

i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv. cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast. >> welcome back. the battle over the mueller report is far from done. house judiciary committy jerrold nadler wants others to testify before the committee. joining me now is jerrold nadler. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good to be here. >> before i get your reaction to mr. giuliani, let me start with something from the mueller report and curious your reaction to it. on obstruction, this is what mueller writes, congress can validly make obstruction of justice applicable to the

president without undermining article two functions. did you believe that -- did you read that as a directive to congress that basically the call is in your court, not bill barr's? >> no. i believe that that is already the law and that he is -- that sentence is part of explanation of why he disagrees with attorney general barr's wild far out legal theory that the president cannot commit obstruction of justice because he's the head of the justice department. he's saying that congress can make corruptly motivated acts by the president or anybody in the executive branch a crime. and it has. unless you think that barr is right, and almost no lawyer thinks he's right in saying a president is immune from -- that as long as he does his official powers he can do anything. that's like saying that a member of congress has a right to vote for or against the farm bill. it's true.

but if you vote for the farm bill or against it because someone gave you a bribe, that's obstruction of justice and bribery. the president's no difference. >> let me read you this part because this is the complicating part. unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to uncover a crime, the evidence did not involve require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the president's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. they go on to state that whether you think it's distasteful or not, a political motivation, meaning the president concerned about his political standing, might not be an illegal reasoning behind sort of having concern about this case. >> no, the mueller report goes on to state that there may be other considerations that are not crimes that would none t

nonetheless are predicates for obstruction of justice. what mueller says -- and this is where barr deliberately misled the american people. what mueller says is that although a thorough fbi investigation might very well show the evidence of obstruction of justice by the president, we're not going toarent of justice legal opinion that a president cannot be indicted and it would be unfair to lay out the facts of indictment without giving the president chance to clear his name. barr misrepresented that to say they didn't find obstruction. there is plenty of evidence of obstruction, and they say in so many words if we pursue this we might put ourselves in an impossible position because we would then have to charge the president with a crime which the justice department won't permit

us to do. >> do you assume the reason bob mueller did not charge anybody with conspiracy with the russians is because he has found that no conspiracy took place or that he didn't have enough evidence to sustain a conviction? and is there distinction in your mind? >> obviously there's a distinction. but he pretty much states in most cases first of all here's again where bar misled the american people. he said there was no collusion. collusion is a term that is not a legal term. the special prosecutor found as you put on tv a little while ago that there was plenty of evidence that the russians intervened to help trump. there was evidence that the trump campaign knew about that and wanted it. and new about some of the wikileaks dumps of stolen information supplied by the russians the in advance. what he couldn't proof was there was beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal conspiracy on the one case i do not understand why he

didn't charge on jr. and others in that famous meeting with criminal conspiracy. he says he didn't charge them because you couldn't prove they willfully intended to commit a crime. you don't have to prove that. you have to prove they enter into a meeting of the meeting of the minds. they entered into a meeting to get stolen information on hillary. that's conspiracy there. >> i'm curious is this a flaw in the code or the way the campaign finance laws are made. one of the reasons they declined is he couldn't figure out how to value research, cyber material when looking through stolen property, the legal code that has to do with physical merchandise. it seems to me mueller was all but saying to congress the way you wrote the campaign finance laws stink. >> that may be, but i think it's

a conservative reading of the law because people are willing to pay a lot of money for opposition research. just look at that so-called dossier that started out as opposition research against trump financed by some big republican donor. then when trump became the nominee, they shifted the financialing over to hill i are. campaigns are willing to pay a lot of money over for research. the key is barr misled the american people on obstruction of justice where there's plenty of evidence on obstruction laid out in the report. he didn't say there's no obstruction. he said we can't prove the negative because there's too much evidence for that, and we can't charge him because the justice department won't let us charge them. let me just say some of that -- we have to -- is why we have to hear from barr. we have to hear from mueller. we have to hear from other

people like don mcgahn who we're going to call. we have to get the entire report including the redacted material so we can evaluate it and so the american people can make judgments. >> you have all of this case of obstruction presented in the mueller report as you just stated. some might ask why haven't you opened impeachment inquiry or in fairness is that what you're doing right now? >> i don't think we're doing that. we may get to that. we may not. as i've said before it's our job to go through all the evidence -- >> do the politics impact this though? how much do the politics lead this? >> -- and to go where the evidence leads us? i'm sorry. >> as you know impeachment gets politicized. how much is that going to influence this decision? >> i don't know. that will come down the road when we see -- >> is this in nancy pelosi's

hands? >> among others. she's not the only person. she's certainly the leader of the democratic caucus. she's the speaker of the house. >> do you think this is impeachable? >> yeah, i do. i do think that this -- if proven, if proven, which hasn't been proven yet. if proven some of this would be impeachable, yes. obstruction of justice would be impeachable. >> and you're going to go about to see if you can prove it? >> we'll see where the facts lead us. >> thanks for coming on and sharing your views, sir. one item worth noting before we go to break, the mueller reports validates most, not all, but most of the reporting done by major organizations throughout this investigation. many, many of the stories we were told that were fake news show up as reported in the mueller report and confirmed by firsthand accounts. it's something worth considering the next time you hear someone

use the phrase fake news. when we come back, did we normalize a political dark art, foreign interference? erence fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky new maid ♪ -maid? uh, i'm not the... -♪ is she an alien, is she a spy? ♪ ♪ she's always here, someone tell us why ♪ -♪ why, oh, why -♪ she's not the maid we wanted ♪ -because i'm not the maid! -♪ but she's the maid we got -again, i'm not the maid. i protect your home and auto. -hey, campbells. who's your new maid?

>> welcome back. panelists here, joshua johnson, amy walter, hallie jackson, and jonah goldberg. hallie, let me start with you. one thing we don't have and will never get is a counterreport from rudy giuliani or the lawyers. >> for weeks you've been hearing they probably would not do that or we're going to wait until after the mueller report is out. they want to die couple things, turn the page, close the case in their view, and muddy the waters. and i think the last 12 minutes we saw with rudy giuliani and you did just that. >> let's talk about the things that came out of the interviews.

the defense is anybody would have done it, so what with foreign interference? >> i think it's nonsense. rudy giuliani is playing a spin cycle. the notre dame fire was a week ago, feels like it was in the cretaceous si cretaceous cycle. they think they can punt it i think he's opening a huge can of worms going forward that we're legitimizing hacking in and of itself. >> so that if a campaign in 2020, 2024 gets information from a foreign adversary, that according to giuliani was true, as long as what was hacked by a foreign government and given to you was true, then it's usable. >> so, everybody's going to have they super pack with foreign intelligence. >> that is clear as long as -- who am i to say? who am i to say?

>> did rudy giuliani just signal the russians to help us now? >> he may have. but the question you asked before the break, are we normalizing this idea of foreign interference in the elections. no, none of us do. this is incumbent on lawmakers to make sure that does not become acceptable. >> also buttigieg emails would be norwegian, so not a problem. >> jarld nadler thinks he's offenses are impeachable and said the caveat assuming we prove obstruction true. what part of the 448 page document did did you not read? >> i think 448 pages redact ld that have laid out a great deal of the president -- >> it was fairly light. >> it was fairly light. >> it seemed to be legitimate

redactions at the moment. there's a lot of cases out there. >> we talk about impeachment process. it's a political process because all the people involved in the process are political appointees. there's no way to separate that. but the idea that congress would walk away, to your point about nancy pelosi, that they would walk away as a matter of course from considering itch impeachment, that's one of the things that a lot of democratic voters are going to be like wait, the constitution says this is your job. aren't you supposed to do this part of your job? >> we have a two track world view where i felt like at times it was hannity talking points at one point and you're in the reality of where we live here. jerry nadler is going to have one investigation and lindsey graham is going to have one on peter strzok. peter strzok is going to be a star for the republicans regardless of the dose yea --

they're not even relevant points in the investigation. >> to defend the republicans slightly on this one, i think it is worth -- you do have a big chunk of this country that thinks that this whole thing was launched for fraudulent reasons. it is worth informing the american people about the truth of that, period. at the same time, i'm one of those guys who i think the mueller report basically confirms all of my positions which is a common thing in washington these days. i never thought that the hard case about trump being a putin puppet and all that kind of stuff was true. but we know this reflects his character and was willing to collude and didn't. >> i want to put up the list of people that saved the president from obstructing. look at the pictures of these people. they have one thing in common where it's don mcgahn, jeff sessions, james comey, what's the one thing that they all have in common? everybody that stopped the president from his worst

instincts, not there. >> i think it says a lot about this administration. the president over the last 48 hours is mounting this aggressive i'm living my best life pr strategy. that's not the case. i've been talking to sources saying he's furious. he's really mad at don mcgahn. >> the guy who saved him from an impeachment proceeding. >> he is furious. there's second guessing about why mcgahn was allowed to sit for such a long time for 30 hours with the special counsel who said open the door. if there's nothing to hide, get out there and talk about it. there's relief in the west wing that the ire from the president is not being aimed at people still there. >> they got him out of a jam and he still doesn't like what it did. >> the central theme and when you read the second volume of this report, it reads like a character novel, right?

like it just lays out -- >> it's michael wolf's fire and furry but written for bob mueller. >> it gives you a sense of who this person is and it comes down to legitimacy. that is what he's worried about. anything that questions his legitimacy is worth fighting back. >> kudos to who wrote the narrative. it is well-written for a legal do document. it is easy to read for the layperson. joe biden is launching his campaign this week and leading in the polls, but how significant are polls for a front runner at this stage of the campaign. e campaign save you moneylirty mun 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. ♪ 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.

- the tech industry is supposed in invention and progress. but only 11% of its executives are women, and the quit rate is twice as high for them. here's a hack: make sure there's bandwidth for everyone. the more you know. welcome back. >> welcome back. data download time. joe biden is expected to announce his presidential bid week. he's ahead in the polls and has been for weeks. history isn't always kind to the early front runners. in april of 2007, hillary clinton was ten points ahead of the party's eventual nominee barack obama. and in 2016 donald trump was all the way at the back of the

field. democrats a long way away from choosing a nominee. if you're joe biden you have to hope the history doesn't repeat itself. when we come back, end game and the democratic party's newparty debate over the issue of impeachment. over the issue of impeachment. discover. hi, what's this social security alert? it's a free alert if we find your social security number on the dark web. good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. why's that? [bird speaking] my social is 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] somebody thinks it's hilarious. free social security alerts from discover.

your but as you get older,hing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

back with "end game." check out the different responses you get from presidential candidates on the "i" word. take a listen. >> so i've been really careful

about talking about what we would do if an impeachment came before us. >> first i'd want to hear from bob mueller. >> i'm focused on replacing him the old-fashioned way. >> we should open proceedings in the house and then the house can take a vote. >> joshua, it's interesting there, kamala harris says i want to hear from bob mueller like -- first it was the report. what more do you need from bob mueller? >> you've got a ream of paper from bob mueller. redacted, i know, redacted. here's the thing -- we've heard enough. like enough. can we just do the "tv guide" version of this? if they can summarize an episode of "game of thrones" before every single show, we can summarize this report. the report says the president of the united states engaged in behavior that, per one commentator, you could describe as lawful by awful. that prosecutors didn't have enough legal basis to press charges for constitutional and legal reasons, the president is not exonerated from wrong doing

and that now the power rests with congress, vis-a-vis the people to do anything. that is the "tv guide" summary of what happened. if you need more information to know whether you're in or out, what game are you playing? now, i'm not saying what the outcome should be. but at a certain point, you know, the light's green. are you going to go or pull over? >> mueller's grandkids still haven't testified yet. >> exactly. and i think part of the -- >> there is going to be -- there is this desire to have the aha moment, to have that jack nicholson i ordered the code red. that's what folks are hoping to see. that's never going to happen. >> that was in bob mueller's power. >> it's never going to happen. bob mueller's not going tots -- >> that's the value of the interview she gave. i think it's the power of it because it allows the president leading into 2020 to still have a foil. remember what rudy giuliani said, wouldn't you be upset, too, if someone had tried to frame you, and that i think

is part of the political power of donald trump. is having -- >> you have to accept the premise. >> yeah. but having a foil in d.c. gives the president something to talk about in the 2020. >> i'm old-fashioned about this. i find all of the talk about this -- about impeachment being a legalistic criminal matter to be flawed. basically impeachment is about breach of trust with the public. and you can impeach anybody for anything. impeachment doesn't mean conviction, it's the political equivalent of an indictment. >> or the recall -- >> right. >> i mean the senate will never remove. to me this is purely a political question. do the democrats think they could get enough votes? is it worth -- is it in their political interests to do it? will any republicans go along? will it appear a victory if it goes to the senate and is not taken up. it's a political question. they're talking about the smoking gun but it taking legalistic era and applying it to politics. >> he loves a foil. i'm told he's been telling friends and allies the phrase, hey, look at what happened to republicans during the clinton impeachment era and look at what

happened to bill clinton. he is ready for a fight. he thinks it could help with the people who support him. >> can i tell you what's sitting out there that we haven't talked about -- i apologize for the control room because i'm going to ask for something, the 12 cases that none of us know. >> yeah. >> 12 -- yes, we know. but these are unknown cases. these were stuff that fell outside the parameters of russia. here it is. 12 unknown cases. we know michael cohen, greg craig, where mueller had to ship it off to another entity. that's -- these are little land mines that we don't know what they will explode when they explode. we know israel and uae and saudi arabia, they're all these other foreign entities that were involved in stories with the seychelles islands. the report only dealt with russia. there's more land mines for the president. the report only dealt with russia for the president. >> do we think either of those will change, the political or the legal calculations for president or those we know immediately in his circle? >> no. >> the question for democrats, too, is about the same issue they have is what the president is worried about, too. legitimacy. that has framed this entire issue of russia for him.

that -- whatever has been done to him has been done to undermine the credibility of his whim. for democrats i think the legitimacy question is this -- if we go down an impeachment path, are we then building this narrative for him with a better legitimacy to beat him in an election. >> vladimir putin. the most successful campaign he could ever have imagined. look what we're doing. >> through the russian military. it is frightening. the import of all this. you're rights, the other 12 matters are going to be very consequential. could i step back from the beltway quickly. it's easter. it's passover. it's a gorgeous day. i got a brand-new harley i'm eager to ride as soon as the show is over. i think for people watching this, take a breath. the system is designed to work through this. >> we're all hoping the system works -- >> it will. >> however it's supposed to work. that's all for today. thank you for watching here. we're wishing everybody a happy easter. happy passover, happy harley

ride. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday it's "meet the press." (mom vo) it's easy to shrink into your own little world. especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sister) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sister) woah... (big sister) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. love is now bigger than ever.

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 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.

welcome back to "kasie dc." i'm kasie hunt. we're live every sunday from washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight very legal and very cool. the mueller report spells out russian interference in the 2016 election. and finds no criminal conspiracy with the trump campaign. but it paints a grim portrait of the presidency and does little to quiet the partisan divide in our country.