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. democrats find themselves at a fork in the road. some see the mueller report as a road map to impeachment.

others want to pump the breaksh hopes for 2020. first on may 2017, rod rosenstein wrote himself into history, a special counsel is necessary in order for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome. our nation is grounded on the rule of law and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly. with that he set in motion robert mueller's work for the next two years. and despite that goal and 448 pages from mueller and his team, republicans and democrats alike still seem skeptical that government officials are administering the law fairly. though mueller concluded there was not a case for criminal conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian operatives, many democrats still want mueller himself to testify to bring his pros to life and make plain the contrast they see between his words and those of attorney general william barr. and, of course, democrats are

openly grappling with whether impeachment for obstruction of justice should come next. and many republicans want barr to investigate the origins of the investigation itself. which he has said that we will do, quote, a special counsel is necessary in order for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome rod rosenstein wrote. this evening it's not clear the report rendered that effect. we tried to get more clarity from the special counsel today. >> will you testify before congress, sir? >> no comment. >> are you sure about that, sir? >> no comment. >> if he were anybody but the president would mr. trump be indicted, sir? now that you finished -- >> sir, why didn't you make a recommendation to congress one way or the other? did the attorney general accurately characterize your positions on conspiracy and

obstruction, sir? >> two years and 448 pages later, mueller as can you see there remains a man of few spoken words. with that i'd like to welcome my panel, with me white house bureau chief for "the washington post" philip rucker, "usa today" washington bureau chief susan page, author of if the the m matriach". and greg news yana. and joining us from new york, national security reporter ken dilanian. and in tucson arizona, msnbc national security analyst frank figliuzzi. we've got a great team for a big -- the end of a big week in news. ken dilanian i want to start with you on this idea that when we set out on this two-year

journey, there was this idea that a special counsel could potentially give us the answers that we were looking for. and sitting on the other side of this, it does not feel that way. what is your sense of what has been accomplished here, what comes next and whether this report gave people a sense of closure at all? >> i agree with you, kasie that it has not. i've been thinking about this a lot in the past few days. as it turned out, we didn't so much need a prosecutor looking at these matters as we needed more of an inspector general. some figure who could explore conduct short of crimes and explain what it means. you have a lot of new information on the report, particularly on the collusion side, which i've been spending my time going through. because what mueller really showed is not only did the russians try to help trump get elected but the trump campaign was willing to accept that help, knew they were benefitting from stolen russian information, happy to do that, and after the

election, the russian government swarmed the trump transition team with proposals, reconciliation, the back channel meeting in the seychelles finds its way to jared kushner and rex tillerson. the only reason they didn't go through with it is the backlash from the democracy and the media. so there was by a lot of standards a lot of wrong doing here but not a critical conspiracy. the problem i have is robert mueller and his team didn't pass a any judgment on the conduct of this. so we're left with democrats, middle of the road people looking at this saying it's a damning report. but then rudy giuliani saying there's nothing wrong with taking information from a foreign government. i think there is room to move the ball forward as mueller

comes to testify on the hill and congress continues to sift through the information. >> you mentioned rudy giuliani's comments this morning on "meet the press." and frank figliuzzi i saw that you were tweeting about that earlier. i want to touch on it briefly before we talk about phil rucker's reporting in "the washington post." this idea that it's okay to do what's laid out in this report, that if a foreign adversary is digging around db this is essentially the argument that rudy giuliani made that everything robert mueller laid out in the report is -- all's fair in love and war. >> look, rudy giuliani and this administration are essentially redefining the ethical standards and standards of integrity for the presidency and doing it in a downward spiral. the bar is being reset, if it's not indictable it's okay, and that's just wrong. i would have to ask rudy giuliani would he be okay if someone like beto o'rourke were found to get stolen information from the iranians and using it

against the republicans. i would assert that rudy would have a major problem taking information from an adversary if the other party were doing it. the standards have been reset, it's disingenuous and it's not making any sense. and with regard to ken's point of the mindset of the special counsel and the attorney general did not serve us well. it's clear they were both applying a criminal standard, trying to meet criminal elements of a criminal statute and that's what this isn't about. and that's why people feel we don't have the answers we need. and rudy giuliani, of course, one of the people still working for the president of the united states, unlike many of the people who were cited in this report and the president is reportedly very angry about, i want to read from this piece that phil co-wrote for "the washington post." he writes, quote, the vivid portrait that emerges from mueller's 448-page report of a

presidency plagued by pair know ya, insecurity and scheming and of an inner circle gripped by fear of trump's spasms. trump frankpressured aides to l the public deny true news stories and fabricate a false record. so phil this obviously focuses -- we were talking about the collusion portion of the mueller report on this list of 10 obstruction items that essentially describes many of the president's aides saving the president from himself. >> that's right. and in some cases, many cases, the aides don't actually challenge the president. so you have a president trying to push his aides to the brink of committing crimes. trying to undermine the rule of law. trying to act dishonestly and lie to the american people. and the aides often times don't directly challenge him.

they just sort of absorb what he says and when they leave the room they don't do anything about it. a couple cases there were challenges to the president but it shows how difficult the scenario was for the people who knew what the president was telling them to do was wrong and yet they wanted to keep their job, their power, they couldn't really challenge the president directly. and what you have is a whole atmosphere of dishonesty and corruption in the white house that was bred by the president himself. >> i'm reading through this and reading through phil and his team's excellent dislags of what's going on here. i'm reminded of people on capitol hill who say nice things about the president in public, but then say i was trying to fix the problem or it would be so much worse than it is. what's the ethical impairment with this president, where

people are attempting to, it seems, keep the country on the right path but they're still in that office every day trying to go to work. >> when you work for a politician you buy into them and their agenda to a degree but you have an obligation to yourself, morality to the law. and you need to find a way to do both of those things. sometimes the role of a lawyer, working for a politician or someone in business is to tell them, no, you can't do that. that might be a stupid law, but you can't do that. a lot of that was happening here. don mcghan comes off looking pretty good at helping the president -- the form er-white house counsel helping the president advance his agenda while containing behavior that could be criminal. >> susan page, you just wrote this fabulous book on barbara bush and have looked on the our immediate political instances through a historical lens. what did you take away from what unfolded in the oval office.

so much we learned piece by piece, but taken together it is a stunning portrait. >> we think of the presidency of george w. bush and george h.w. bush being different than barack obama or bill clinton, but they're more like each other than any like donald trump. this is an administration consumed with itself. one thing that comes through is how much the mechanisms of the oval office and administration are consumed with trying to protect the president from this investigation and others. therefore we have problems as a nation in health and education and global warming. these issues seem to be not even on the table for these conversations at the top levels of our government. >> that's a good point. i also want to zero in on one thing that we really learned from the mueller report. because it reveals that the president's advisers repeatedly lied to the press, and therefore the public, on his behalf. for example on the day of

mueller's appointment, white house aides say the president reacted calmly to the news. the mueller report shows the president's reaction was anything but calm, you can see it there. the report also states after the president expressed anger over a washington post story about michael flynn's contact with a russian ambassador. k.t. mcfarland called to say the report wasn't true. and it says during a may 5th dinner, the president told family and aides he wanted to remove james comey. and after a while sean spicer told reporters he would answer questions if he wasn't filmed and then he said it was rod rosenstein's decision. quote, it was all him, no one from the white house. that was a doj decision. the following day, sarah sanders said this.

>> i've heard from countless members of the fbi that are grateful and thankful for the president's decision and i think that, you know, we may have to agree to disagree. i'm sure that there are some people that are disappointed but i've heard from a large number of individuals, and that's just myself, and i don't even know that many people in the fbi. >> you said today and i think you said yesterday, that you personally have talked to countless fbi officials, employees since this happened. >> correct. >> i mean, really? so are we talking -- >> between email, text messages, absolu absolutely. >> 50? 60? 70? >> we're not going to get into a numbers game. i heard from a large number of individuals that work at the fbi that said they're very happy with the president's decision. >> sanders told mueller's investigators her reference to hearing from, quote, countless

members of the fbi was a, quote, slip of the tongue. phil we talk all the time about the lies coming out of this administration, but this report really exposed that they lie all the time. constantly. >> it did. and it shows that they do so at the direction of the president and because of the culture that donald trump has created in the white house. you know, they care so much more about surviving to the next day politically, covering up for what the president might have done, getting that victory that he wants, that they don't care that much about the truth and we see it time and again. this report confirms a couple of instances of just outright lying to the american people but that's not entirely new to us. we chronicled this for two and a half years now, we postor nbc or the "new york times" will have a story that's true and reported and confirmed information and the president and his aides will call it fake news. it's not fake news, it's a true story. this is another episode of sort

of confirming that the lying is taking place. >> relevant to this mueller week, is that almost all of those lies and misdirections are to the press and to the american people perhaps but not to investigators. the white house did seem to allow its people to talk honestly with investigators. did not direct anybody to lie, which is the meat of the -- >> michael flynn lied to investigators, the national security advisor. >> he did. >> pretty low bar to say they didn't lie when they were subpoenaed and under oath and could be prosecuted for lying. let's hope they didn't lie to investigators but there's a corrosive effect to lie to the press and american public on these issues. who are the americans supposed to believe when there's a dispute between what the newspaper is saying and the white house spokesperson is saying. >> what standard does this set for members of congress?

this conduct used to be enough to get you fired. >> it's clearly a problem. when i worked on the hill and spoke for my office or boss or prepared words for them, it was important that they were true. they might be a shaded version of the truth, but truth or my best effort at it. this is a problem and it's a problem in our culture, i think it's beginning to happen in both parties with some of the rising celebrities in the house now who think that the bigger narrative is more important than getting the details right. that's a problem and the job of the press and voters to hold them accountable. >> frank figliuzzi last question to you in this block. what sort of weight do you think americans should put on the facts laid out. they don't have to believe us if they don't want to. this has been laid out by robert mueller. >> i'd urge every american to spend time reading this report in sections. it's unfortunate many won't,

they'll get it from their news sources. but the reality is, we get a little glimpse through a redaction in an appendix in the report of what the american people think of the culture of cover up and the president's nonresponses to questions. i think congress should look at it. we see robert mueller say i tried to get an in-person interview, i told them the written responses were insufficient and the president declined. the next paragraph is redacted for grand jury material. following that redaction, mueller says i thought about a grand jury subpoena, i knew the president would not agree to a voluntary interview. what does that tell me? i believe that redaction says the american people sitting on that grand jury, our neighbors, people like you and me that got called to jury duty said we need to hear from the president. we're not buying this 37 times denial. 37 times i can't remember, i can't recall. why isn't the president sitting in front of us being interviewed? that's what i think is behind

that redaction and congress should look at that as a voice of the american people. >> i echo your call to have everybody read the report. i'm heartened that apparently harvard had to stop printing it. keep it up, guys. after months of anonymous sources it's remarkable to see so many names spelled out in black and white. just ahead we'll look beyond the heavy redactions. i'm joined by abigail spanberger a former cia case worker. we'll talk about what this means to the intelligence community. we'll have a report on the tragedy in sri lanka. "kasie dc" is back after this. ya "kasie dc" is back after this. ♪ ♪ 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. ♪ mmm, exactly!ug liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain.

naysayer said no one would subscribe to a car the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪

xfinity watchathon week has sadly come to an end. what, what, what! no! but don't let that stop you from watching the best shows and movies from showtime, hbo, epix... jesus, what happened? ...and more. it's just the tip of the iceberg. upgrade now to get more into what you're into. thanks! just say "watchathon" into your x1 voice remote to upgrade and keep getting more of what you love. you inspired us to create internet that puts you in charge. that handles anything. that protects what's important. and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi. this is xfi. simple, easy, awesome.

there is still a lot that we don't know about the mueller report. and some aspects of the investigation into russian election interference are still ongoing as ken dilanian reports fbi efforts to assess and combat russian influence over the u.s. political system, including the trump administration, are ongoing. meanwhile, the mueller report also has more than 1,000 redactions. leaving a lot of holes in the full story. according to attorney general william barr the majority of those redactions were made because revealing the information could compromise ongoing investigations. speaking of ongoing investigations, during the course of mueller's 22-month probe, he referred 14 criminal

cases to other offices. only two of those referrals are public, one involves michael cohen the other involves former white house council under president obama greg craig. you've been digging into this and you mentioned at the top of the show, what we don't know is most of the redactions come in the section about russian collusion and these ongoing investigations. what are you zeroing in on -- what do we not know that you're most interested in figuring out. >> one of the biggest missing pieces is the mention of what happened to the counterintelligence investigation that andrew mccabe told the world the fbi opened on the president and the question of short of criminal activity, is donald trump or anyone around him compromised by a foreign adversary russia. also missing is any mention of an investigation into donald trump's finances, other than the

trump tower moscow project it's not clear whether mueller went to see if there was russian investments in the trump overseas golf courses as mentioned by one of his sons. it's not clear if this is redacted in the report. it's missing entirely. my understanding is it's classified, it's been farmed out. this whole counterintelligence question not just continuing to look into the trump administration but the whole question of russia's attempt to influence our politics. the thing with counterintelligence investigations, as frank can tell us, they often do not result in criminal charges. the remedy is often mitigation. if some american is per received to be an agent of a foreign power you can take their security clearance away, fire them, the question is if you're the fbi and you determine senior officials or the president himself has issues along these lines we're in uncharted territory. that's a missing piece. and i feel like the american

people here deserve answers about this. and adam schiff has made this the focus of the house intelligence committee. it's not just russia, it's the united arab of emirates and saudi arabia. >> frank figliuzzi weigh in here. what has happened to this counterintelligence investigation? >> the only glimpse we really have into this is a reference that fbi agents not assigned to the special counsel were imbedded in his office for the purpose of funneling intelligence and c.i. material back to fbi headquarters. those have got to be counterintelligence or fbi intelligence agents and analysts. that tells me this is still going on. don't forget, as ken said,

andrew mccabe actually inserted the president's name into the title of the existing russian counterintelligence case, and to this day we don't know if the president's name has been removed from that case. so the house and senate intelligence committees need to demand some answers, in closed session, classified, and understand whether the fbi has any remaining concerns and evidence regarding vulnerabilities of this president or his administration, compromise or coopting by foreign powers and we don't have the answer to that yet. >> greg is that something that say the gang of eight, mitch mcconnell who you've worked for, would be among those people, do republicans have any interest in knowing the status of this investigation? or would they prefer to ignore it? >> i think republicans on the hill have interest in this. obviously there are lots of republicans who have strongly-held views about russia that have existed for a long time and are different from this president's.

they're interested for that reason and institutional reasons. ing and partisan reasons, they're concerned about how this investigation started, did it start because they didn't like the president's foreign policy. there's nothing criminal about a president that wants to be close to russia. it's more if he's corrupted or they have something on him. >> phil, what did we learn about it? it's so many instances where the president and administration is favorable to vladimir putin, this report doesn't explain why. >> if we're looking for answers to explain it, we're not going to find it in the report. there's information about the contact and the campaign, but nothing that explains why trump was so set on meeting vladimir putin from even before taking office, why at helsinki did he meet with him one on one for two hours with no note taker there is and no official record of

what was discussed. we don't understand that relationship, what putin may have told trump, what trump may have told putin and why trump is e nam erred with the russian strong man. >> thank you for your help. we want to turn to terror attacks in sri lanka, at least eight bombs exploded in churches and hotels, leaving 200 people killed and 450 more injured. secretary of state mike pompeo has condemned the attacks and confirmed several of those killed were americans. now we're learning several people are under arrest in connection with the bombings. let's go to sarah harman, she's live for us in london. >> reporter: this is the worst violence in sri lanka since the end of the civil war there in 2009. at least 207 people confirmed dead, two of them americans. tonight the conversation is

turning to what authorities knew and when about the potential for an attack like this one. the blast shook churches during the holiest day on the christian calendar. the explosion started just before 9:00 a.m. packed easter services shattered. when it was over, chaos and carna carnage. dash cam footage captured the moment one blast ripped through st. anthony's shrine. this is what the inside looks like now. the near simultaneous blasts targeting three churches across the country and in the capital three luxury hotels popular with tourists. later two more explosions reported in the city. witnesses describe the horror. >> i could see a lot of people with glass pierced into their body. people with blood all over them. i saw a lot of chefs from sri lanka with white apron on which had been almost painted red, if

i can say so, with the blood of the guests or themselves, i don't know. but it was a tragedy. >> reporter: among the dead, two u.s. citizens. president trump tweeting condolences to sri lanka, writing we stand ready to help. the state department condemning the terror attacks. tonight sri lanka police saying they arrested seven suspects. the prime minister acknowledging there was intelligence on possible attacks and now pledging a full investigation. the government has placed the entire country under curfew over night and blocked access to social media. as those who planned to celebrate easter with their families now plan funerals. tonight the announcement that the sri lankan president will appoint a committee to look into the tragedy, that report due in two weeks. when we come back, congresswoman and former cia

case worker abigail spanberger joins me. why she has deep rezservations s elections loom this fall. rezsea elections loom this fall [farmers bell] (driver) relax, it's just a bug. that's not a bug, that's not a bug!

(burke) hit and drone. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ [kno♪king] ♪ memories. what we deliver by delivering. i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem.

so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign 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. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

welcome back. tomorrow house speaker nancy pelosi will hold a conference call with the entire democratic caucus to determine their next steps following the release of the mueller report. joining me now is democratic congresswoman abigail spanberger abigail spanberg , she's a former cia officer. great to have you on the show. >> thank you for having me, kasie. >> i want to start with the big question of the day, which is the spechter of impeachment. it's hit the 2020 trail. there are some in your caucus who are arguing that impeachment should be the next step. based on what you've read in the mueller report, do you think that the president committed impeachable offenses? >> well, i think the important piece to note here is more than 10% of this document that we've had access to so far is redacted because of ongoing criminal investigations. so from the perspective of a

former cia case officer and former law enforcement officer, i want to know what that additional 10% of that document says. the other thing that i think is really worth noting here is the minute that the house takes a vote, we've finished with our ability to investigate anything. so any further questions we may have, any desire to have anyone else come before the judiciary committee or other committees, we've now closed the door on that and pushed the responsibility over to the senate. so i'm of the opinion that we need more answers before taking a definitive next step. >> do you think, you know, to that end that there would be room for impeachment hearings in the judiciary committee, is that something that you'd like to see? >> i'm very pleased that chairman nadler has said that he'd like to see special counsel mueller come before the judiciary committee, that's going to be an important step to answering questions that remain

for those of us who have read the report. so i think that's a good next step. >> at what point do you think the redactions question becomes a moot one? how long do you think the effort to get what remains hidden in this report should go on before you make a political decision about whether to try to move forward on the impeachment question? >> well, unfortunately, you know, i think the question is more of when will we know enough to move forward. and it -- in my mind it is not a political decision we would be making. in my mind it's a constitutional responsibility question that we would be making. so i think any action congress does or does not take is that of a constitutional responsibility. it should be all of of our priority to have as much information as possible. so to the extent we can get some of our questions answered, have an idea what is the scope of the

ongoing investigations, sit multiple ongoing investigations or just one investigation, do those involve the president or any of those acting on his behalf on a continued basis? even if we don't get the full details, i think answering some of the basic questions about what is the scope of the ongoing criminal investigations would be important to know. >> i'm glad you raised the constitutional and ethical piece of this. there is a certain amount of tension, right, between the political imperatives of doing impeachment proceedings or not and the ethical responsibility of the congress. how do you balance those two things in your mind? you come from a swing district. if, in fact, the house were to move forward with impeachment proceedings that's something that could lose you your next election. how much are you considering those kinds of considerations against what congress may be permitting the president to get away with if you don't move forward? >> i have two responsibilities.

one is to serve the people of my district and legislate in a way, provide services in a way that can help make people's lives better and the second most important part of my job is to uphold the constitution of this country. i have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution three times in my career and absolutely nothing is more important to me than that obligation. >> fair enough. let's talk about that. as you're considering your background as a cia officer, as you read through this report, particularly the sections occlusion, part one of the report that deals with those contacts between trump associates and russia and where mr. mueller came to the conclusion there was not a conspiracy, what as a former intelligence officer do you want to know? what in your view stood out to you? >> what stood out to me was the fact there was systematic and sweeping efforts to influence the u.s. electorate. to hack and conduct cyber

attacks, spear phishing and other means against the democratic campaign, national committee, the campaign committee, and the election's infrastructure and the private company that assist with that infrastructure. we know a foreign adversary nation took aggressive tactics to try to influence our voters and also to try to steal documents, successfully in what they were able to do, from a major political candidate from our political party and they attempted to hack into the systems that manage our voting system. to me it is absolutely stunning. it is -- it should be alarming and frightening to every american. our free elections are the most important piece of our democracy. and freedom from attack from a foreign adversary nation should be the number one priority that we have in keeping those elections safe. >> to that very point, rudy

giuliani, the president's lawyer, was on "meet the press" with chuck todd this morning and he said, quote, there is nothing wrong from taking information from russians. do you agree? should that be acceptable? >> it is wholly unacceptable. and i would give a couple examples of why. if in my former job as a cia case officer, working in the executive branch, i had taken any documents from a russian and didn't immediately report that to law enforcement, that would have been a fireable offense. that would have been absolutely an indication that i was incapable of doing my job in a way that was accident occsecure recognizing the counterintelligence threats against me. there's the example recently of al gore and george w. bush and al gore's team was given a briefing book of george w. bush's debate prep and it was immediately given to the fbi, and the individual that received

it, immediately recused himself. i think there's clearly an ethical question about what extent one is willing to go through to win an election. we have a clear one where al gore made a choice, and adding it was a foreign adversary nation providing information and attempting to potentially meddle in an election is absolutely unbelievable to me. >> congresswoman abigail spanberger thank you for coming on the program tonight. and i'll see you on capitol hill after the conclusion of this two-week recess. when we return, democrats running for president are divided over whether to pursue impeachment it's one of the issues where the democrats in the crowded field really differ. back after this. e crowded field. back after this. with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard.

with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

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. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs.

eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

how do we get more young people involved in the election process andfter the trump administration? >> i wanted to know what you had to say treechl treatment/mistreatment of prisoners in america? >> i want to know how you expect how the party will come together, besides anti-trump. how has your faith affected your politics throughout your life? >> what would you do on behalf of our students and our recent graduates who tackling debt? >> even in the days immediately following the release of the mueller report, democratic voters seem much more interested in other issues. and for weeks, even as they talked tough, 2020 candidates weren't willing to directly call

for the impeachment of the president. >> here's what bothers me. the time we get to 2020, donald trump may not even be president. in fact, he may not even be a free person. >> but that changed this week as julian castro and elizabeth warren upped the ante. >> we cannot be an america that says it is okay for a president of the united states to try to block investigations into a foreign attack on our country or investigations into that president's own misbehavior. so i have called on the house to initiate impeachment proceedings.

>> laying down a marker there. susan page, what's your take on how this is going to play out in the 2020 field. she's clearly on the left side trying to stake out some ground with voters who really want this. i would say we're going to see biden get in the race this week, amy klobuchar others have tried to steer clear of this. >> elizabeth warren on the left side, also someone who has not gotten the traction she hoped to get. julian castro, also having trouble getting contention, so it's interesting that only two have come out with impeachment. if you're talking impeachment next year, democrats are losing. as you heard from talking to voters, voters care about their own lives rather than donald trump's. they care about can they get health care, college for their kids. these are the things that get voters to go to the polls.

>> we heard abigail spanberger say she wants more information before she makes a decision on an impeachment decision. how much more information is there to be had? democrats have been resting on that for months. we have to see the mueller report. we have it now, there are some redactions but at what point do they have to man up and make a call one way or the other. >> she also tried to put the focus back on what matters, which is that russia attacked our elections and intelligence officials are saying they're coming back in 2020 and there's very little plan in the trump administration to deal with the problem. you have individual departments that have strategies. the nsa has attacked a russian troll farm election day and turned off the lights for a day. the justice department has a strategy but there's nobody in the white house who's in charge of this. and donald trump has shown no interest in this. i'm not sure that catches fire with voters necessarily but it's certainly something that congress has to keep a focus on.

in terms of what they're going to get in the trump administration, that depends on the counterintelligence aspect of this. adam schiff is convinced there was a fruitful investigation to be had in looking at donald trump's you know richard neal in the house is trying to get trump's tax returns. they're looking at deutsche bank's loans to trump and does trump have a history with the russians, and what explains this favorable policy that trump has had towards vladimir putin. we just don't know whether that's going bear any fruit or not. if it does, if there are new revelations to be had, that could be consequential. but it could also backfire because there is fatigue with some of this investigation, and as you illustrated, voters aren't asking about this issue on the campaign trail. >> and phil, tonight the president is tweeting essentially, you know, daring democrats to pursue impeachment against him from a political perspective. and we also had, to ken's point, the counsel for the president essentially saying that if the russians try to interfere again and they hack our election again

and release stolen material again, that the president seems to have no problem using that material. >> yeah, that was pretty extraordinary what rudy giuliani said this morning about that. i think other people in the administration would disagree with giuliani's point of view there. but on this issue more broadly, first of all it is certainly top of mind for the president. this is easter sunday, and he has been tweeting all day long about the mueller investigation and the witch hunt and so on. but this impeach for the democrats, the challenge is it's not a motivating issue, and we saw that the midterms in 2018. they won back the house not because of impeachment, but because of issues like health care. >> i guess the question is what do they decide based on the new information they have. we finally have the mueller report. ken dilanian and susan page, thank you so much for your insights. >> thanks. when we continue, what the mueller report told us about seth rich and months of false claims from julian assange. that's next.

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. with peak season berries, uniqcreamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess.

come taste what a salad should be. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. you won't find relief here. congestion and pressure? go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritin-d. while the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritin-d relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. claritin-d relieves more. there are roadside attractions. and then there's our world-famous on-road attraction. if you've never seen yourself in a mercedes, you've never seen these offer. lease the 2019 glc 300 for just $479 a month at the mercedes-benz spring event. hurry in before april 30th. travel and dining now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine.

with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. 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. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ buried in the 448 page mueller report was another investigation into a prolonged conspiracy theory involving the death of a young democratic national committee staffer. the special counsel robert

report debunked suggestions from wikileaks founder julian assange that seth rich was involved in the release of thousands of internal dnc emails. the report says wikileaks and assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the true source of the leaked emails, russian hackers. here is assange speaking of a dutch news program one month after seth rich was killed. >> wikileaks never sits on material. whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risks. as a 27-year-old, i worked for the dnc, was shot in the back, murdered just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in washington. >> that was just a robbery, i believe, wasn't it? >> no. there is another finding. >> what are you suggesting? what are you suggesting? >> i'm suggesting that our

sources take risks and are -- they become concerned to see things occurring like that. >> but was he one of your sources then? >> we don't comment on our sources. >> why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of washington? >> because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the united states, and that our sources are, you know -- our sources face serious risks. that's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity. >> on that same day, wikileaks announced a $20,000 reward for information about rich's killing. the daily beast points out that assange was an active contact with the actual sources from russia's gru for months after rich's death. a former spokesman for the family put out this statement, quote, assange did untold damage

to a grieving family in order to try and hide his work with russian intelligence to destabilize american democracy. just ahead, another hour of "kasie dc." the president once reportedly asked, quote, where is my roy cohn. now some democrats are accused of finding him one in william barr. plus, nancy pelosi meets a deeply divided group of americans, the house democrats. i'm joined live by debbie dingell. pay as much for insuran. as not safe drivers! ah! that was a stunt driver. that's why esurance has this drivesense® app. the safer you drive, the more you save. don't worry, i'm not using my phone and talking to a camera while driving... i'm being towed. by the way, i'm actually a safe driver. i'm just pretending to be a not safe driver. cool. bye dennis quaid! when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

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. shaving has been difficult for me. i have very sensitive skin, and i get ingrowing hairs. oh i love it. it's a great razor. it has that 'fence' in the middle. it gives a nice smooth shave.

the mueller report. >> the mueller report. >> the mueller report. >> the mueller report has finally been made public. >> says there is insufficient evidence that the trump campaign conspired with russia. >> there is not the slightest evidence of conspiracy. >> full exoneration. no criminal conspiracy. >> there was a clear intent to collude with the prosecutions. >> he didn't collude with them. he didn't conspire with them. >> mueller clearly found there was enough evidence to bring an obstruction case. >> we're talking about something that didn't happen. >> we have to hear from other people like don mcgahn. >> president trump directing white house counsel at the time don mcgahn to have rod rosenstein fire the special counsel. >> don mcgahn gives three versions of the facts. >> don mcgahn had no reason to exaggerate, no reason to emestablish. >> if he had told hymn to fire. >> the essential premise was collusion, and there wasn't any. >> no collusion. >> collusion is a term that is

not a legal taeerm. >> the obstruction of justice is far worse than anything richard nixon did. >> do you think this is impeachable. >> yeah, i do. >> politically speak, it would be a mistake. >> it is okay for a political campaign to work with materials owned by foreign adversaries. >>? it depends on the stolen material. >> you're a heck of a lawyer. >> you're a heck of an interviewer. >> oh, boy. welcome to the second hour of "kasie dc." in his report, special counsel robert mueller confirmed that his office was operating under a doj guideline that says a sitting president cannot be indicted, but noted, quote, congress can per miserably criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president. on the question of impeachment, house democrats are proceeding with caution. after the report was released, majority leader steny hoyer said, quote, based on what we have seen today, going forward impeachment is not worthwhile at this point.

very frankly, there is an election in 18 months. the american people will make a judgment. elizabeth warren has called on the house to initiate impeachment proceedings, and here are what some other top democrats had to say this morning. >> i'm not there yet, but i can foresee that possibly coming. >> do you think this is impeachable? >> yeah, i do. i do think that -- if -- if proven, which hasn't been proven yet, if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes. >> when mitch mcconnell will not stand up to the president either, it means that an impeachment is likely to be unsuccessful. now it may be that we undertake an impeachment nonetheless. i think what we are going to have to decide as a caucus is what is the best thing for the country. >> house speaker nancy pelosi said all the way back in march

that the president is, quote, just not worth it. we expect to find out more tomorrow if the rest of her party feels that way when she leads a conference call with the full democratic caucus. joining me now on set white house bureau chief for "the washington post" msnbc political analyst philip rucker is still with us. white house correspondent for pbs news hour and political analyst, kayla tausche, and brendan buck, and from birmingham, a.m., joyce vance. thank you all for being here. so many questions for house democrats, brendan. if you were nancy pelosi, what do you do? >> i don't open up tomorrow's call for q&a. a conference -- having gone through a few of these on our side, they go awry. conference calls like this are not a good format. you've got 230 people on the line, and you're really at the mercy of whoever presses star 3

to get in the queue first. she wants to get a lot of facts from her members and feel the temperature. i don't think they're going to make any decisions tomorrow. i think that would be a little premature. but it would be very interesting to hear what kind of feedback she gets. >> yamiche, we've seen some splintering here among democrats. after the barr letter came out, there was sort of a kibosh put on the impeachment conversation. it felt as though it was completely off the table. now it feels a little differently with elizabeth warren putting down the marker on the left side of the 2020 field saying this is what we should do. >> nancy pelosi is in a tough spot. it is 18 months until 2020. and arguably, the american people in some ways will have learned about all this stuff that's in the mueller report and will look at president trump and make that decision whether or not they want him to be reelected. but there is a real feeling among grassroots democrats, among democratic consultants who say how can the president get away with some of the things we read about in the mueller report, lying, to not only people around him, but also

directing his staff to do things that if they had actually followed them through would have been obstruction of justice. but a grain of salt on elizabeth warren. i was talking to someone inside her campaign who quickly after she came out for impeachment said just to be sure our campaign message isn't impeachment, we're still going to be rolling out big policy ideas. it made it seem like elizabeth warren came out with this idea that she wanted to back impeachment, but her camp wanted to make it very clear this is not what she is going to be focused on there are other things on their plate and they realize that 2020 is really the end goal here. >> with all due respect, i take their point, of course, and she has been out front of the field on policy. but kayla, this is going to become a thing that is mentioned every time the first time we talk about. >> it hasn't been mentioned that impeachment isn't pulling so well. the only shot last week after the report came out, 46% of independents say that the president should not be impeached. 36% say that he should be.

when democrats look at, and they look at the vote they want to win the white house in 2020, public opinion is not in their favor on this one. i think they feel at the committee level there is a division of labor 2000 enthe tax returns and the deutsche bank subpoenas, they can control the news cycle and change sentiment in a way that they don't have to move forward with impeachment investigations necessarily to be able to turn the tide in their favor. >> what does the white house want the have happen here? >> the white house actually likes for this fight to be going on, because they feel like mueller, because he didn't bring any charges against the president, has vindicated him in some way. they have that talking point of no collusion, no obstruction. so the more and more the democrats dig in, continue this investigation, continue looking into president trump's finances or at least trying to look into them, the more trump has a foil there, and trump can argue that the democrats are overreaching, that they're looking into the president's background instead of focusing on the american people instead of doing what they said they would do when they ran to take back the house

in 2018, which is fix health care and look at a whole bunch of other issues. >> brandon, were you surprised what jerry nadler said to chuck on "meet the press"? >> i was surprise head didn't have an answer more prepared. as you saw, he wait, he had to think about it. it shows the tough spot they were in. they are forcing enormous pressure back home to be tough on the president. that's what you saw elizabeth warren doing, showing she is tough. do they really want to spend the next year with this being the political backdrop? if they go down the road of impeachment, that is the political story for the next year. you have all these people making a compelling case for why they are better for president. it's going to be hard for them to break through if that happens. >> what would paul ryan say if he were still in the house? >> i don't know. i think what he saw was not terribly surprising. i think that's what the portrait that we got was obviously disturbing. but maybe the strangest part of it is it wasn't all that surprising.

we had known about a lot of these things that in realtime what has happened. i think that he's happy that this has been finalized, this report has been coming for so long and we finally have some of these answers and hopefully some closure to it. >> he has made the argument that the conversations he had with the president made some of these things better. some of these things could have been worse. but at what point is there an ethical line that gets crossed? a lot of the people that pushed back against the president didn't follow what criminal instructions in many cases have ultimately left. >> we didn't have any exposure to that kind of thing. i think one of the things he talked about a lot is getting the assurances that bob mueller wasn't going to be fired. i think we learned soon after some of the incidents that were in the report publicly about them and have those conversations and got those assurances that he wasn't. and ultimately, he was able to finish his report and get all the fax out there. >> and what made you decide to believe the people you were talking to about not firing bob

mueller? >> a lot of candid conversations over a long period of time, and ultimately he was proven right. >> joyce vance, from a legal perspective, what's your take on what robert mueller wanted out of this. does he want congress in