hours before mueller's investigators waiving of privilege? >> brian, there's nothing naive about you. mcgahn has already testified. there's no executive privilege to something that's already in the public sphere. mcgahn said there's not attorney-client privilege. >> all right. thank you. we also have the specter to the point maya just raise and and reminds us about. we never seen a client attorney general choosing to use the verbiage preferred by the white house. it mean a great deal. spying and collusion. he worked in carefully, quietly, another no collusion in his second to last answer. >> he's right in one respect.

spying is a word. yes, that's true. >> in the english vocabulary. >> you can pick up almost any dictionary and find the word. it's not what we use. even though you can find it, words matter, so the words you pick matter. if you're talking about what the fbi does, use accurate words. so, what he's basically saying is don't quibble with me. the word popped out of my mouth. it's a legitimate word. i use it all the time. we don't in the industry use that word to describe how we exercise that lawful authority. >> just over 12 hours ago you and i talked about fisa warrants.

since that's what we're talking about, tell me the process. if i said i saw nicole wallace having lunch in the russian tearoom and she was surrounded by russians. i just think we ought to looking at her communications. what would it take for me to get a fisa warrant? >> i'd send you back to work. that wouldn't be sufficient. we don't get warrants to surveil americans based on where they dine. i'm being slightly fecetious. >> as was i. >> these are hard things to get.

if we had probable cause. even if i'd sort of skinny it down a bit. >> to reauthorize, isn't the standard even higher? >> it's always probable cause. a federal judge will want to see the first warrant was fruitful. >> this one that they are talking about was re-authorized three times. there were four. they're only talking and it's in public and i'm not sure they are saying everything about the first one. the other three were re-authorized and signed by one rod rosenstein. the process is incredible le ly

cumbersome by design. we don't get a warrant because we dislike someone. we don't get a warrant based on where they dine. we don't get a warrant based on what they may be wearing. it goes do federal district judge. sitting article three judge. if she doesn't sign it, we don't have a warrant. >> we talked about this last night. the rigor required in this process. you said at doj there's always another pair of eyes that wants to see whatever you're doing. >> it's true. chuck's discussion of the process is interesting particularly when you think about where it starts. it typically will start in a u.s. attorney's office with their counter parts and local fbi working and sending it up to colleagues in the national security division to the fbi where there are multiple sets of eyes going over critically because here is doj philosophy.

they never want a fisa warrant to go to a court and have the court reject it. we bend over backwards internally to police the process to make sure the court can believe we are serious about these warrants. >> because when we bring a fisa warrant to a federal judge, we're appearing ex parte without defense counsel. our obligations are absolute aplex. i hope apex means height. the absolute apex when we appear alone. we have to go to those judges with the best warrants because they are relying on us to be government officials to be candid. >> we aring loe looking at the expert people to exam the trees but the forest is one which william barr took us to.

>> they didn't disappoint you. >> they did. let's talk about tone, tenor and vocabula vocabulary. >> one is this catch 22 that he seemed to have set up. he's described it as a binary choice. that's the term he kept using over and over. the justice department faces a binary choice. you bring charges or you don't. according to the opinion that mueller references in the report and we have talked about since the beginning, it's not a binary choice because one of those choices, charging the president is off the table.

you have this situation where the special prosecutor, i think quite rightly, you could agree with it kind of bend over backwards because he couldn't charge the president, he came to the conclusion that i can't also accuse him of the crime. he bent over back wards to be fair to the president. what you saw is the attorney general then exploit that fairness and come in and make his own determination. he then makes this further claim that if you weren't going to make this choice, if you knew from the beginning that a president couldn't be charged then you shouldn't investigate him for obstruction. i thought that was a remarkable thing to say because it leaves the department in this position where we can only ever clear the president. we can't conduct an investigation if we're not going to bring charges. a real catch 22. the second thing with reference to this debate we have been having about spying, really just reprehensible moment from the attorney general. not just this debate over spying but in the questioning from mike

lee where he said there was misconduct on the part of senior officials at fbi and the justice department. he made that with no evidence. he didn't put anything on the record to back it up and he is smearing the men and women that work at the agency with no basis in fact. i think that's an absolutely abombable thing. >> he said the fbi has purged the fbi of scum. >> this is family show, isn't it? >> yes, it is. >> i already blew it. >> i'll say it a different way. that scum that have been purged from the fbi are my friends and they are my colleagues. i know them to be men of tremendous integrity and so it's incredibly painful to me, personally, to hear them described that way. none of us are perfect.

we are all fallible. these are people who spent their public lives trying to get this stuff right. we can argue about whether or not they made the best choices under some optimal circumstances. i've worked with them and to hear them described that way. it's very painful to me. for him not to take this opportunity to educate the senate, the congress, the american people about how careful that process is, we spent a few minutes doing it. he could have done that too. he chose not to. he chose to characterize spying as a word we use to describe what the fbi does. couldn't be more wrong. >> don't we have some opportunity here for a silver

lining. sadly after 9/11 and the deaths of 343 new york city firefighters people who hadn't given it a lot of thought realized, oh, yeah, they were killed because they were running into a collapsed and dangerous situation. do we have good hearted people noticing we haven't always noticed the work of the fed, doj professionals. i tend to think we'll have a lot of kids wanting to be federal prosecutors. >> i'd hope it's true. it's so damaging to have a president who takes to twitter and criticizes prosecutors, law enforcement and the intelligence community. like you, i have a lot of faith in the american people and think they can see through it. i hope what we will have is a whole new generation of agents

and prosecutors who are willing to work to upholds the rule of law. >> nicole, can you believe that at a certain level the conversation we're having is the danger inflicted upon these professionals by the a administration of power. >> donald trump has really nice things to say about the fbi when he thought they were going to prosecute hillary clinton. he thought jim comey was great. he now thinks he's a bleeping, bleeping bleep because he refused to bend to donald trump's corrupt will. the entire mueller report is about donald trump's effort to corrupt people around him. the trump story, right now, is about successful and less than successful efforts at corruption. he tried to use don mcgahn to carry out his corruptly intent

effort of obstructing and thwarting this investigation. don mcgahn both participating extensively, we know from these footnotes it was 30 hours. if you read through all of them, it sounds like more than 30 hours of conversations. his presence in that interrogation room as well as his presence in the west wing where he sometimes stood is the only reason, the only reason that we're not talking about charges being recommended for donald trump. this is an elegant conversation. the reality is whether the democrats will say politics bedammed. donald trump tried to commit crimes. for reasons unknown didn't recommend charges be brought. where this goes after today is that we know what we have got. it's sort of like dating gone awra a awry and you catch someone

cheating. at least you know what you're working with. in barr we have a staunch trump ally and who is smarter than donald trump. that makes him scarier on both those measures. we have the substance, the richness, the texture, 150 witnesses attesting to donald trump's efforts at committing crimes. if the democrats can't do something with that, i'm not sure what other evidence can be provided. this is the clearest, the sharpest, the most distilled document of donald trump's presidency that we have seen. >> if your theory on barr is correct, where did he become radicalized? >> i already offered my theory about fox news. rachel maddow has done some great reporting on his role and par dadons around the iran cont scandal.

i'm in a blame the smart people move first that we were lulled into complacency about barr. let me just say, let me hang lantern around my tenure in the white house. jon ashkroft was never celebrated as high water marks for leaders of the justice department. i never, ever, as a press officer in the bush white house, had to defend anything like what i saw on william barr. the problems were different. it felt extended of presidential powers and authorities after 9/11. alberto gonzalez got wrapped in a different kind of scandal. there's a through line. emmett flood who is donald trump's special counsel or white house counsel in charge of the special counsel investigation was brought in at some point in the second term of the bush

presidency to do what we sense the white house is about to do now, exert executive privilege. >> chuck. >> you know, interestingly if i can add a historical note. i work for john ashcroft when he was attorney general. he was controversial but part of that was a function of the time which you served. i'll also say this, i have deep respect for the man because he was an institutionalist. the word i used to use for bill barr. he really cared deeply. whatever you may have thought of his politics about what the men and women thought was the right thing to do and he went out and defended its work. i'm not trying to introduce a revisionist history of ashcroft's tenure. i worked for him. i admired him. i enjoy eed it to the extent yo with enjoy working those hours

under that pressure. i also said he had more in common with janet reno than anybody could imagine. they took the obligation seriously that their oath was to the constitution and not to a particular person. relied on the career men and women of the department to make the best decision they could. >> i'm old enough to remember when that was a thing. kasie hunt is standing by for us. >> reporter: great to see you. the hallways especially among democrats have really been buzzing about one major contradiction in barr's testimony that you have touched on. this idea that william barr didn't want to do what bob

mueller was asking him to do because he was opposed to summarizing the report after he had both put out his own summary of the top line conclusions and proceeded to hold a press conference before leasing te r entire report. i spoke to amy klobuchar . this is the point she made. i think the question as we head into the second half. we have only heard questions from eight of the 22 senators. we are expecting another 90 plus minutes of questioning here. that's going to include all of those 2020 candidates. klobuchar asked him about obstruction of justice during his confirmation hearing. it's played into the entire

narrative. we will hear from cory booker and kamala harris, who has a former prosecutor has made marks in these kinds of hearings. my question is how they will add just based on what they have heard this morning. there are pitfalls to the format of these hearings as nicole was alluding to. i think they are drilling down on that particular point. i would also say it's noteworthy there's been this kind of swell of opposition to barr. mark warner criticizing him after this story broke. he is not somebody who weighs in on these issues lightly or makes the criticisms lightly. i think the general sense among democrats is his credibility is next to nothing. you have seen republicans take the opposite tact with lindsey graham opening this hearing by saying that for him this is already a closed matter.

a lot still ahead in the coming hours. >> thank you. elizabeth warren, ag warren is a disgrace. he's not a credible head of law enforcement. he should resign and based on actual facts in the mueller report, congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the president. more on that in a bit. we're going to take our first break. we'll be back right on the other side. break. we'll be back right on the other side but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about

your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto® to help keep you protected. xarelto® - a blood thinner approved by the fda - when taken with low-dose aspirin is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, a recent study showed it may not be enough to manage your underlying risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems.

enjoy every moment - and help protect yourself from an unexpected one like a serious cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

bob mueller is the e kwi equivalent of u.s. attorney general. he's part of department justice. his work concludesed when he sent his report to the attorney general. at that point, it was my baby. i was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public. i over rhodode the regulation t lean as far forward as i could to make that public. it was my decision how and when to make it public, not bob mueller. >> that's attorney general speak for i'm the captain now. nicole wallace. >> or another -- i call the code red. that's what i hear. accept his premise for a minute,

it was his baby. here is what robert mueller thought of his treatment of his baby. on the 24th, wrote him a letter saying mischaracterizing the substance. on the 27th, he wrote a second letter. first one was on the 25th. a letter about william barr's handling of his baby. he said dear attorney general barr, i sent you a litter dated march 25th that enclosed the introduction for each volume of the report and sentences for you. the point is, we should be careful not to put onto robert mueller things we think he might feel because we have so much evidence in the form of the report where we know how he felt about don mcgahn's credibility. we know how he felt about donald trump's efforts to obstruct justice. we also know how he felt about how william barr carried his baby and he didn't think he carried that baby very

responsibly and he thought he distorted it. i would love to know what robert mueller thought about those statements where he seemed to lie about it. >> elliot williams is with us. he was with the obama administration. do you wince a bit when you hear mr. barr say in effect no different, mueller is no different from a u.s. attorney under me? >> he said i'm the captain. i was thinking i am the state, essentially imposing himself on the proceedings and so on. you do wince given the amount of care and the amount of dedication that went into the crafting of the report. there are a number of problems that showed up today in the testimony. number one, someone talked about this question of binaries a little bit earlier. he made this analogy a few times to the fact it's just as if i were announcing a verdict and had said whether -- this is the

crafting of the summary. what happened here was a pretty gross misraeepresentation. i don't think we can just call it an up or down. he was just saying in principal con clclusion conclusions, which was his term. it was a misrepresentation of facts and 440 some pages of facts. i also think it's a separate point today sets the predicate for all of the proceedings that are now to follow in the house of representatives which, as you know, will be far more partisan and far more contentious. the body has the capacity to introduce impeachment proceedings. they will have a field day with barr given the nature of his

testimony but number two we have set a clear predicate for mueller's testimony where before it might have been his testifying about the four corners of the report but frankly all of these conversations that barr was characterizing today you can now get mueller's take on. there's a rich body of testimony that's going to come up that is all laying a predicate for whether they end up in impeachment or not. i think one last point just to piggy back on something beautiful chuck said before the break about john ashcroft. i was a much younger career attorney under i don't know jon beginning. there was also a sense, yes, he was sort of a figure that you might roll your eyes up with the velvet sheets over the naked statues and so on. >> i remember that. >> they were there. it was a thing. there was always a sense the attorney general and the leadership at the justice

department had the interest of the employees and their career employees and career officials at heart. i think some of that reputation has been bruised over the last couple of years. i think there's no question with matthew whittaker and through barr there's a question as to whether the leadership of the department is out for protecting the president and not the fundamental legal interests of the united states. >> thank you for that. let's go back to the top of what elliot said. barr is likely to invoke this, it's similar to a verdict in a trial. mueller didn't come to a verdict but there are other problems in his logic. >> i think the biggest flaw is barr is going to rely on this analogy is when you have a jury trial, the jury is entitled to make a decision.

here no matter how much verbal gymnastics he engages in, mueller concludes whether it's for predential republicasons th cannot make the decision. mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to the presidency and ensure at the end of this investigation government can move forward. barr just tramples like someone walking through the muck in a battlefield. this all comes down to this issue of the summaries and whether or not mueller's summaries, the internal summaries contain in the report could have been released. barr chooses doesn't matter if you call him principal c conclusio conclusions, barr chooses to release his own summary that has the sentences that are out of mueller's report in a way that

distorts their context. if you read the entire mueller report and the context of that report, you know that mueller's summaries are very faithful to the context of the report and are in effect an aid for people who do not have time to pour over the entirety of the report but still want to any what it concludes. if you want principle conclusions mueller wrote them. >> the justice department knew there was no context without the summaries. officials said to me, after the time that mueller had finished but before the report was out, i don't understand the explanation for obstruction. they knew that it was not easy to understand without the substance. if you read this mueller twice after barr released his letter, mueller twice implored barr to

put out more context. you since that mueller's discomfort was with barr did. >> he said i gave you more content. >> before putting out the context that mueller had twice written letters about and we don't know if aaron who was working hand in hand with rod's deputy, we don't know if there were other conversations below the bar. as a former staffer, lots of conversations go on before the two principals talk. there was enough alarm and consternation that at the highest level of that organization, mueller, they reached out to the person at the highest level, twice, to say what you have put out is so concerning to us, please put out more. barr not only refused to, he doubled down in the other direction. on the day of the report and that plan to brief 90 minutes before the report came out was not in place the day before. we need to know where was the

coordination. was the white house counsel's office coordinating. where was the press plan hatched such that they took two written letters ripped them up. bleep you. not only am i not going to listen to the concerns, i'm going to go the other direction. how did that happen ? >> and four to five references for the phrase of no collusion. as you may know, we're witnessing a full blown crisis to the south of our nation in venezuela. it is 12:32 eastern time. that puts us in what is normally the hour on this network for andrea mitchell reports. we have an important and rare opportunity to hear from the national security adviser at the white house. without delay, andrea mitchell has that. >> thank you so much.

with all of this going on in washington, the president has been meeting with national security adviser and others on this issue in venezuela. the political crisis escalating. the last 24 hours alone the u.s. declared that maduro was ready to leave with a plane on the runway but was told to stay by russia. something both maduro and russia have denied. are we at a tipping point? what will the u.s. do? the white house holding pl inin principal's meeting today. what is the situation now on the ground? >> reporter: it's a very delicate point. we have seen violence against citizens of venezuela demonstrating against the regime. today was long planned for country wide demonstrations.

this cuban presence, 20 to 25,000 cuban security forces, the russian presence all make it very difficult for the people to express their will. we have imposed sanctions to make it happen. we are hoping that yesterday's development may be a step in the right direction. >> russia is accusing the united states of interfering in the affairs of another country. they are accusing the u.s. of staging a coup against

legitimate regime. what is your -- and saying this is a violation of international law. what's your response to the minister? >> i think it's completely erroneous. the venezuelan national assembly which was freely and fairly elected. under the venezuelan constitution in january determined it was vacant because nicholas maduro had been elected by fraudulent means. that's what they did. that's why, as you mentioned, 54 mostly democratic countries recognized guido as legitimate president. trying to take control of the government is not a coup. the coup we're worried about may have taken place through the

insertion of tens of thousands of cuban security forces. i believe if the cubans went home today, maduro would fall by midnight. that's what we're worried about. we think the russians are very much involved in that. >> instead what maduro did is to replace the head of the national police. is the uprising failing as the chilean foreign minister said it is. >> i don't think it is. the chavez maduro has been in power for 20 years. this struggle has only been three months in the making. it shows just how weak maduro is. guido is out walking the streets of caracas.

maduro is in a facility. this is not sustainable. it's brought the people to a really pathetic state. i don't think thisdure much longer. >> if anything happens to guido or his family, if he's arrested, or harmed, what will the u.s. do? will the u.s. take military action? >> we made it clear, we expect the regime not to do that. it was very interesting as it has been for months. yesterday it was not the regular military on the street. it was the police, the national guard and. i think if they gave an order to the military to arrest gurido,

they disobey it and that's been clear. we want a peaceful transfer of power but we're not going to see guido mistreated by this regime. >> can you share the president's view? is he watching the hearings? is he talking about it? what is his mood? >> we were talking about other things in the oval office a few minutes ago. he's following the situation in venezuela very closely. i can tell you that. >> thank you very much. brian, back to you. >> thank you. we appreciate that special report. nicole, you were making a point that in a way this is tied in with everything else we're witnessing. >> yeah. these stories are so important. these are -- you cannot -- >> venezuela. >> venezuela. you see tanks driving there.

i think one of the conondrums is because there's been a lack around foreign policy and key adversaries like russia. when these crisis come to pass, people are disoriented. it's not clear which side we're on. not that the side we're on is everything. there are civilians on both sides. these stories are very disorienting for people. it's good that we broke in and andrea had an important interview. we have been covering it. i think these stories land in a very disorienting way to a country that's been holden to politics on just about everything. i think if you look at cause and effect, one of tefhe effects around the fog on the russia question and the russia attack on our democracy, if that's the cause. the effect is a lot of confusion around policy and trump led policy. >> chuck, to bring it back fully

to things d s domestic. growing up as a kid if you didn't follow geo politics as a 15-year-old, what you could do as a loose guide is when you heard russia then the ussr was on the side of someone or some place, you'd say we're on the other side. only recently has the russia normalization to cover unspecified tracks become a thing in our society. >> yeah. it's jarring for me. he spent the day talking about the obstruction piece. >> old testament and new testament. >> as it pertains to barr's testimony. to your point, volume one is about russian interference in our election. not russian attempts. russian interference. i worry, to nicole's point, we're missing some of this.

it's hard to ask people to read the 440 page report but you can read the executive summary. we have the information available to us. volume one details two plots. one by the internet research agency. an arm of the russian government to invade our social media, to infect our social media and to steer americans in their voting pattern and voting habits. the other and equally destructive thing that volume one details is an effort by russian military intelligence, the gru to hack into dnc and triple c computers to steal data and using cut outs that the russian government concocted to feed that stolen information to wikileaks for publication. to up end our election. we're probably close in age but

i'm not quite a cold war baby although i'm awfully close, it is astonishing what russia did. it is astonishing that they will do it again and that we are not laser focused on it because this is a real threat. >> since the mueller robert came out, jared kushner has diminished volume one by saying the russian attack. the investigation into it was more damaging than the actual russian hoax. all they did was buy a few facebook ads. >> to that point, the estimate is that russian active measures which is what they call their attempts to influence the foreign policy of another government. in this case our, reached somewhere between 29 million and 126 million americans. 126 million americans. i did the math, that's 39% of our population. it's not a couple of facebook ads. it's really, really dangerous

stuff that they are doing. >> why would you stop if jared kushner said last week it was just a couple of facebook ads? if you're russia, why would you stop? >> you're 100% right. why would you stop because it worked like a charm? >> the president won't confront any of these problems which are now firmly established in mueller report because it might somehow make it win seem less legitimate. his own personal insecurity is making the entire country less secure. >> for all of us who want to label this era we're living through, we have the guilded age p, post-war america, the cold war. the regression. here we are fighting the measles in the united states. once thought to be eradicated. if you listen to our mutual

friend, he'll tell you don't kid yourself. the anti-vax community has been aided and assisted by social media, a friendly fire from the russians because a sick society is much more pliable. >> this term, i first heard ift after 9/11, 9/11 truthers. now there are charlottesville tr truthers who are re-writing the president's facts. this whole idea is indicative of everything that's happening in our politics. it's anything but the truth. >> i believe mr. corsi's work in addition to his birtherism was to point out that unbeknownst to all of us, exploezives were bui -- explosives were built into the world trade center.

they had the foresight in the '70s that such a government event would need to be launched one day. >> i had the privilege of supervising the 9/11 prosecution. talk about things that are jarring. the notion that the government was complicit or did something to facilitate the acts. it's such a disgusting service to men and women who lost their lives. there are no words to capture my feelings. it's dangerous. >> it's dangerous and disorienting. >> you play tape of something that we all saw with our own eyes. that we all know happened. then you see donald trump at a maga rally saying don't believe your eyes.

don't believe your ears. then you see the truthers around either the charlottesville response or around something else and it's this disorienting feeling that there are people who seek to rewrite knowable facts and to take us back to where we started, the role of russia isn't a mystery to us anymore. it's in black and white. we should all read it out loud. we'll chunk it up untinto 20 minutes. people need to hear what russia did. >> this is important. we said the washington post is out with a print version at your local book seller available on amazon. also there is a spoken word version. you can get the audio book of the mueller report. it takes 18 hours start to finish. it's on audible.

some people are going to inhale this. right before we go back in the room, the hearing room. i'm noting it's starting to fill up. what to look for in this next session? >> you have some of the best questioners coming up. amy klobuchar has been good in questioning in the past. she was good in questioning bill barr and down the other end you have kamala harris who has been the best questioner on this committee. to the extent anyone is about to draw out and expose misstatement, those might be two of the senators that most do it. to pick up on the conversation you just had because i think if they will likely come back to it, this conversation about what the russians did and whether we really confronted it, i was jarred by something the attorney general said in his testimony. he said the president did nothing wrong with collusion and that was basically the outcome of this investigation.

that wasn't at all the outcome of this investigation. he didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone, the president or anyone else around him with a crime. he did establish all sorts of behavior that i don't think we is say was nothing wrong. it was pretty jarring for the attorney general to say that's nothing wrong because as long as you have the attorney general excusing behavior like that publicly, there's no reason to think trump campaign or other campaigns in the future won't welcome it. i would want to zero? on that topic when they resume questioning here. >> thank you for that. americans of a certain age, associate our attorneys general with grainy kind of black and white films of the sending

federal troops to a place in the south to enforce a verdict of the ruling of the u.s. supreme court. even if our attorneys general have been the brother of the sitting president with zero courtroom experience, it was expected and i think joyce vance proven in the long scope of history that the attorney general under john f. kennedy did the right thing. >> well know that in my home state of alabama where the stand in the schoolhouse door an attorney general and president kennedy's decision to send national guard troops to integrate the university of alabama where i teach was successful. we have relied on our attorneys general throughout history to take these sorts of brave stands and also to exhibit independence from the presidency where necessary. >> we're waiting for the hearing room to settle and to bring in

our next quest, i waguest, i wa something first. this is the exchange with congressman crist, democrat of florida that democrat from florida that's been referenced at least three times this morning. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think -- i suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. but in my view, i was not interested in putting out summaries or -- >> and now we bring in former attorney general from the state of florida, florida governor of

the state of florida, current congressman, charlie krist. as the author of that exchange, when you hear barr split it and say this was people around mueller, the question had to do with people around mueller. >> he's inaccurate again. i asked about people on the special counsel's team, one would assume it would include the quarterback of the team, mr. mueller himself. and so i think his trying to parse the answer and obfuscate is sad. it's unfortunate to see particularly, brian, by the chief legal officer of the united states of america. this is the attorney general of the country. i served as the attorney general of florida and understand that you're held to a higher standard and people expect you to be transparent, to be clear, and to be honest in your responses. and it's clear to me that sadly, the attorney general was no in that instance.

and the very next day with senator chris van hollen of maryland. >> former fbi director jim comey has dropped an op-ed. he's grappling with some of the same questions we've been asking here. it just landed on the "new york times" website. i'll read a little bit of it to our viewers. he asked how could mr. barr go before the committee on wednesday and down play president trump's attempt to fire mr. mueller? he asked what happens to these people? it seems to be the question of the hour. >> seems to be. it's kind of confusing what the administration is trying to get accomplished here. i think there was a lot of confidence, nicole, coming in with mr. barr based upon his reputation, his prior reputation. and people were giving him credit for that. what we've seen of late really erodes that confidence. certainly it does mine. i know it does other colleagues of mine. but the real problem here is not

exactly how the attorney general responded to the house and to the senate, but by doing so that's how he's responding to the american people. and that's the real erosion of confidence that this administration is suffering now and it's hemorrhaging and it's pathetic to see. and i'm anxious to see some of the hearings coming up on the senate side. i'm glad that other members are asking tough questions. this is the time to do that and this is an important moment in our history. >> congressman, do you regard the hearings under way and to come as impeachment hearings in all but title? >> i don't know about that, brian. time will tell. i think what is important for us to be focused right now is on congressional duty of oversight and that's exactly what the american people are seeing and that's what you're reporting on. and that's the strength of our country that we have three coequal branches of government. it's to make sure there are those appropriate checks and

balances so that the american people can continue to have confidence in our form of government and be optimistic about the future of our country. >> experienced lawyers seldom ask anything by accident and we noted at the time you asked that question that you were an experienced lawyer. and one of the names in the news today, thank you so much for spending time with us today as part of our ongoing coverage of this hearing, before the house judiciary continues their work tomorrow. the attorney general has been reseated in the hearing room. let's see if we can hear any of this before it is gavelled back into order. i presume you're all familiar with the sound of camera shutters. nicole? >> i've read through the rest of

this op-ed from former fbi director jim comey. i want to read a little bit of it before we start here. speaking rapid fire, mr. trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his facts or delusions. this president has built a web of his alternative reality. of course to say you must be seen as on his team so you make further compromises, you use his language, tout his commitment to values and you are lost. he has eaten your soul. that's from jim comey just posted on the "new york times" website. >> words that will no doubt live beyond today. just waiting for the gavel and we will continue to hear from the president's hand-picked attorney general. he of the unsolicited memorandum

read like a job application before he was handed the job. important to point out that because donald trump is not a student of history or the ways of washington and had no government experience before becoming president, he really did not have any knowledge of one bill barr. if anything, he was identified with the bush crowd. >> and it brings into question how he ended up there. donald trump didn't know him. he actually had met with the president about this case at an earlier point. but donald trump doesn't run around with conservative legal types. >> just waiting like everybody else. i think we're waiting on dianne feinstein, the ranking member to return from the break. >> you were talking about mueller and how his report was

sensitive to the presidency and i think you can contrast that with mr. barr who seems to be deferring to the president. those are two very different things. obviously the president inhabits the presidency, but institutionalists care about the first one and politicians care about the second one. i don't know if you have thoughts on that. >> i think that's right. if you believe in the rule of law and think that it's a foundational institution -- >> next questioner is -- >> i think the chairman is saying that they're going to go ahead and start with senator -- >> is there something you wanted to say about one of your statements. >> just briefly, mr. chairman. senator cornyn asked me about defense of briefings and i was referring to the kind where you are told of a specific -- you're

a specific target. and i have been told at the break that a lesser kind of briefing, a security briefing that generally discusses, you know, general threats apparently was given to the campaign in august. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to my colleagues for letting me go out of order. i promise to be as brief as possible. mr. chairman -- or general, thanks for coming today. humans have a universal need i think to be -- to be listened to, to be understood and to be validated. i think we all share that. i have listened to the mueller team. i validate them. but i want to be sure i understand them. has mr. mueller or his team

changed their conclusions? >> you mean during the course of the investigation? >> no. today. it's clear, at least according to press reports, that at one point, the mueller team was unhappy, i think it had to do with your letter. what matters to me is -- and i'll get to this in a moment. i want to know first, has the mueller team changed its mind on its conclusions? >> as to what? >> as to collusion. >> not that i'm aware of. >> so the decision not to bring an indictment against the president for collusion, conspiracy with russia has not changed? >> not, it hasn't. >> and the conclusion not to bring on a indictment against the president for obstruction of justice has not changed? >> no.

>> okay. i take it from your testimony that the mueller team was unhappy when you received the letter from mr. mueller? >> i can't speak to the team as a whole -- when i talked to bob mueller, he indicated he was concerned about the press coverage that had gone on the previous few days and he felt that was to be remedied by putting out more information. >> okay. i understood you to say -- and these are my words, the first concern that mr. mueller had, he felt like your letter wasn't nuanced enough. >> correct. >> that problem has been solved? >> it was solved by putting out the whole report which was the -- that's why i think this whole thing is sort of mind bendingly bizarre. i made clear from the beginning that i was putting out the report, as much of