late day trading with trades to be held with face-to-face talks next week. and strong second quarter earnings reports. that's it for me. i'm kasie hunt in for ali velschi. you can find me on twitter and snapchat. now, nicolle wallace. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. tomorrow, robert mueller, former fbi director and most recently special counsel who investigated russian interference in the 2016 election and donald trump in that election will be before congress and the eyes of the world will be watching would be an understatement. easily tracked on a twitter feed and rudy guiliani's media appearances and devastating

details unearthed by robert mueller's 448 page report will be discerned only after his testimony. does congress call additional witnesses to appear? do they strengthen the power of super bo subpoena or press the case of council himself. if he thought donald trump did not commit crimes he would have said so. today, we can answer questions about how we got here. how did the fbi come to open an investigation into the trump campaign and its suspicious contacts with russians. how did the fbi view the firing of its director after that director failed to abide by the president's request, did he see to it to let mike flynn, the president's national security advisor who admitted to lying to the fbi with the russian ambassador go? why did so many people around donald trump tell so many lies about the very same thing? their contacts and communications with russians.

how can members of congress best utilize their time, with the man who knows the answers before all those questions when he comes before them tomorrow. there is no one better suited for that mission former fbi director, former attorney general, author of the book, "higher loyalty," jim comey. with us at the table, chuck rosenberg, former senator, claire mccaskill and now an independent, david jolly and the prosecutor for the southern and eastern districts of new york, an embarrassment of riches in terms of experts. mr. director, how did we get here? >> we got here in terms of the fbi's investigation because we learned in late july of '16, from an allied ambassador who had a conversation with a trump foreign policy advisor about that advisor's conversations about the fact the russians had dirt and looking for ways to

coordinate it with the campaign and what started it in late july. >> it's so cut and dried, so straight and forward the way you just put it. what you just said is the subject of three investigations we know of, the origins of that fbi investigation are now being investigated, attorney general barr has ordered, i think, the third investigation being run out of the u.s. attorneys office in connecticut, and detailing in 17 seconds, investigating it for years. the inspector general is expected to come out with his findings. why is it under so much scrutiny by so many people. i don't know. i don't know exactly what all of those people are locking at. the reason we started it is plain and transparent, laid out in the special counsel's report and frankly, we all should have been fired if we didn't investigate that kind of lead to figure out, is there an american connection to this massive

russian effort. i don't know what people are looking at beyond that. i suppose we will find out at some point. >> i want to put a button on this part of the conversation because i expect it's what we will hear from republicans tomorrow and in their questioning of robert mueller. go ahead and investigate the investigators, if you must. when those investigations are over you will find the work was done appropriately focused only on discerning the truth. very serious allegations. there was no corruption or trees son or attempted coup. those are lies and dumb lies at that. those were good people investigating under difficult circumstances. >> does robert mueller have an obligation to represent the fbi tomorrow? >> i don't think he does. he has an obligation to represent his work and by his quality and step will represent the fbi in a pretty good way. >> i heard from a source that attorney general barr is nervous

about being attacked tomorrow. what sort of exposure does attorney general barr have. >> i don't think he will be attacked by the witness or witnesses. he may be attacked by democrats, fairly, in my view for misrepresenting what was in mueller's report and how he has handle the entire thing and slimed the fbi since. frankly, i hope there is not a lot of that. this is a chance for the american people to learn more about what the special counsel found and the fewer attacks and better questioned the better served the american people will be. >> do you think there's a trail of evidence, at least in the letter becomes public from robert mueller to attorney general barr that justice a couple rounds of questioning what robert mueller was so concerned about that chose him to write his long-time friend william barr two letters? >> i'm sure there is good reason for people to ask. if i'm advising them, i would

ask them not to waste their time on that. bob mueller is a person of his word and i'd be shocked if he answers process questions, as troubling as they might have been, if he will answer them instead of sticking to his report. >> you are known to be a very effective storyteller. how would you elicit robert mueller the story of his investigation? >> i would either ask him direct leading questions, to have him affirm key parts of the report, or i would ask him to read lines from the report or both. this is a chance for the american people to learn what he found. too bad having published a 450 page report that didn't get the job done but it didn't. folks don't know what he found. you can ask him in a straightforward way and get those details in front of the american people. >> what are those details in the first volume about the trump orbit and campaigns and contacts

with russians, the same sorts of intersections between suspicious russians and trump's campaign advisors that made you feel like you had to open an investigation into them? >> the first volume focuses on russian interference. to my mind, the most important finding of the special counsel there was a long series of contacts between people associated with the trump campaign and russians. two of those contacts are particularly troubling. one, his foreign policy advisor talking to someone representing the russians about the prospect of them weaponizing dirt they had on hillary clinton in the form of e-mails. second, that the senior campaign team took a meeting at the trump tower in june of 2016 they were told in writing was part of russia and its government's efforts to help mr. trump. those are two things i think will surprise a lot of people who have just listened to the attorney general and the president and who haven't read

the report. >> i think a lot of the public, if you're a hardened trump supporter, you may be comforted by the fact that no crinal conspiracy was charged. if you're on the other side, you may be troubled by it. if you're somewhere in the middle, you may be confused by it. what did the report find when it came to the question of collusion, contact, coordination with russia? >> first, the special counsel said this investigation is not about collusion. that's not a thing except in political rhetoric. he examined the evidence to see if there was sufficient evidence to charge any americans with being part of the russian attack on our election in 2016. to my mind, it's good news. he concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge somebody with a crime. this is not a criminal proceeding tomorrow, about showing the american people the facts found. the fact whether or not there were criminal charges were deeply troubling. there were a lot of contacts

between the russians bent on interfering and campaign keen to benefit from that interfering. those facts are important for people to know. >> you're important to this story, too. i can tell from your live shot you are nowhere near here tomorrow. you're in st. louis. claire mccaskill is here and glad to see that. >> great state. >> thank you! >> did you think when you opened that investigation, once that investigation that started, you started it, robert mueller ended it, did you think you would be watching as a former fbi director from st. louis or wherever you will be tomorrow? >> i did not. how i ended up in this place in my life is a mystery to me a little bit. i never would have expected it. i didn't know what the facts are. we opened an investigation, as we do all investigations to see what the facts were. i didn't know whether it would show there was a chargeable case

involving americans or not. i wanted to find out what was true. that's the fbi's job. as i said in the beginning i don't know who in their right mind would think the fbi should not have opened this investigation. i asked the staff at the fbi, do it well, do it discreetly, because we don't want to smear innocent people in the middle of an election year yet don't want to let the bad guys onto it. that's work we had to do. i didn't know it would end up with me sitting in a chair in awe assume st. louis talking to you. i'm proud of the investigation and proud of the way we did it and proud of the way director mueller and his team continued it. >> in the political analysis and i appreciate the distinction between what political pundits do and corrections and please correct me if i get anything of that in vain. >> a lot of people think you put some of that in motion by coming

after hillary clinton with her use of a personal e-mail account and whether or not she transmitted any classified information and being so public explaining her conduct. donald trump felt at the time that was a boost to him. you testified you feel physically ill at the thought you had any hand in the elections. do you ever open up the newspaper or turn on the television and feel any sense of responsibility for putting any of this in motion? >> i don't feel responsibility in the sense that i think we should have done something differently. i'm proud of the way we conducted ourselves, both with respect to the clinton investigation and this russian interference investigation. i wish we hadn't been involved at all, frankly. if i had a magic wand i would remove us from the picture. given where we were, we made decisions i think were thoughtful responsible decisions even if people disagree about them. we also made a decision not to say anything about the investigation of russian interference and whether americans were connected to it. i still think that was the right

decision. it was so early, we didn't know if there was any truth to it. it would have been irresponsible to talk about it. all that said, yes, it makes me slightly sick to my stomach to think the fbi had any role in the election process in 2016. i hate that idea. we didn't want to be involved and we were stuck in the middle and had to make the least bad decision of bad options. >> after the mueller report came out and parallel and criticisms from barr came down on all sides. you were forced to make a decision, you did that, you were criticized. mueller didn't make a decision and left that to barr and criticized by barr for not making a decision. do you feel the fbi is in the middle for slicing these very difficult questions? >> definitely. the fbi found itself the last couple of years like a ref on a

world cup soccer pitch. you have to make calls and people will hate you for the calls you make. i'm proud of the decisions i was part of being made. there's no way to get out of it without being criticized. transparency under the law is always the best path. i know i criticized bill barr a lot. i was very happy he offered transparency in the form of a report to the american people. very few people read the report. tomorrow is a chance for transparency, always good for democracy. >> i want to drill down a little bit on the investigation an obstruction investigation. please clean this up if i mess this up. i have chuck rosenberg as my tutor. >> he'll clean up me. >> what mueller found, what he said in his 9 minute press statement most recently, if he could have asserted they found the president hadn't committed

any crimes he would have said so. he did not. in the obstruction, 10 instant, one was your firing and whether or not the president obstructed justice. do you understand why the public is so confused by this statement he didn't not commit crimes and didn't get charged with any crimes? >> i do. above norm bob mueller was trying to do something principled and fair and sometimes confuses people a lot. >> makes some people mad, not confuse us. >> here's what i understand he tried to do. he reasoned as a prosecutor working at the department of justice he can't bring characterization against a sitting president. if he can't charge a sitting president, it would be unfair in writing to accuse the president of a crime because there count be any ajudication and opportunity for vindication by that president. he would try to be fair to the president in principle and lay

out the evidence he had gathered, so a future prosecutor when the man is no longer a sitting president can take a look at it. that confused a lot of people and the attorney general said there's no there there and ended the case. i think what the director has done will be shown tomorrow is laid out a damning set of facts to lay out how this president acteded regardless whether you think the attorney general made the right decision and made charges or not. tomorrow is not a decision, showing the american people here are the facts. >> you gave me two things to unpack on what you just said. this idea that robert mueller knew at the beginning he couldn't charge the president is the same defense sources close to barr said he should have issued a declination letter? >> i think he didn't issue a

declination letter because the evidence didn't support it. the evidence teed up facts laan law and he shouldn't engage in sorting that out because he might end up with the guy's guilty and that wouldn't be fair. he laid it out, i think, for a future prosecutor and for the congress and prosecutor to understand here's how this president has acted. >> a former colleague of mine from the bush white house says they're lucky robert mueller wasn't required to render a decision. he looks like he would have said guilty? do you agree with the 800 plus prosecutors who would have said if donald trump were anyone other than the president of the united states, he would have absolutely been charged with obstruction? >> the second question first, yes, i agree.

if this were a case for anyone other than the president, they'd have already been indicted on several of these, maybe all, i don't know. director mueller, i think, if pressed, would reach a decision at least on some of them there is sufficient basis to charge the president. again, he's a principled person trying to be fair and said, i shouldn't be doing that given that the man can't vindicate himself. i'd be shocked if he imagined bill barr would say, thanks, bob, no case we're, we're closing it. i would be shocked. i'm pressed tomorrow he would give any answers along the line of what we're talking about. >> you agreed to stick around. when we come back, message to congress, the former fbi director did some of your home work for you. we will take you question by question and facts to what robert mueller revealed. and taking the fifth amendment is for mobsters and guilty people. new questions about what it's

done in the mueller probe. the current fbi director and uptick of terrorism fueled pie white supremacy. ie white supremacy. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ introducing zero account fees for brokerage accounts. and zero minimums to open an account. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, your plans can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing, but your gut says, "not today."

if your current treatment isn't working, ask your doctor about entyvio. entyvio acts specifically in the gi tract to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. relief and remission i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, blem. and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

listen to the doctor. take it seriously.

ask. if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. >> we're back with former fbi director, jim comey. you said in "law fare" both in substance and approach might yield some of the best kind of evidence that the public could garner from the wall to wall coverage everyone expects

tomorrow. can i tick through some of them and tell me what kind of answers and evidence could be elicited by those questions? sure. >> you wrote members of congress in any party should ask questions like this, to mr. mueller, did you reach a judgment whether the president had admitted obstruction of justice crimes? did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes? what would those elicit? >> a no to the first one and yes to the second one. i think those are the best kind of answers in this context. i don't think the special counsel will answer those as easy as those are for people to digest. >> we've all become students of robert mueller. you worked closely with him. i worked in the bush white house when he served as fbi director. yes or no questions, i think he's made 88 visits to capitol

hill, he knows the answer and comes out quickly and can build an argument. i hope they're watching. >> did you find that the president directed the white house counsel to call the attorney general and tell him the white house council must be removed. did you tell him he would resign rather than carry out that order. don mcgahn, one of mueller's most important witnesses described these instances. what's the the purpose of getting bob mueller on the record. >> that's a clear cut decision by the president the white house counsel's actions at least to the white house counsel he understood they were corrupt. one of the things the attorney general said in the wake of this report was the president really wanted the white house counsel to share his concerns with the justice department about whether there were any disabling conflicts on the part of the special prosecutor.

if that's really what he was asking the white house counsel to do. you wouldn't think the white house counsel would drive home and call his private lawyer and drive back to quit over it. it indicates the contacts and tone of the president to shut this thing down. the tenor and tone of the president. >> don mcgahn said to rinse priebus in the white house staff, the president asked me to do some crazy bleeps. did you find the president wanted the white house counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special white house counsel removed and the white house counsel refused to do that because it wasn't true. what does that get? >> this notion you can't bring an obstruction case if the obstructive conduct is at the core of the president's constitutional responsibilities to make sure that the laws are

executed to oversee the executive branch. this something that doesn't come within a mile of those core responsibilities because what the special counsel found the president was trying to document, order the documentation of a lie. he was tampering with a witness and stubborning false testimony to get a record created untrue. that is clearly outside the bounds of any presidential responsibility and basis for an obstruction charge. >> i'm told that is one of the incidents known to be under scrutiny the white house was most concerned about as it awaited the conclusion of the obstruction investigation. is that a place where the president is particularly vulnerable? >> sure. i don't believe there is a straight-faced argument this is him making a decision, as they argued in my case, who should be in what job in the executive branch. this is him saying to a senior

lawyer in the white house, i need you to lie to this to protect me. there's no credible claim that's protected activity. >> i'm a good student and have been to your class. is crossfire hurricane the name the fbi gave into the investigation into the trump campaign and potential contacts with russia? >> yes. >> did pete decide to keep crossfire hurricane secret until after the election campaign indefinitely as far as he was involved? >> no, i did. >> did pete recommend to you that investigation remain confidential? >> not that i remember. it was so obvious that it needed to because it was just beginning and it was classified and we didn't know whether we had anything. i don't remember anybody raising the prospect to disclose that in some way. we needed to discuss a way to tell the american people what the russians were doing. the fact any americans were connected to it we never considered disclosing. >> did any man or women worked

there or associated with the fbi ever ever suggest to you or propose making public that donald trump was under investigation by the fbi? >> no. not that i remember. certainly, not before the election there was -- actually, no, i don't remember ever that happening. >> if you could just to sort of prepare everybody for what will be so detached from reality, what are republicans armed with tomorrow when they come in? propaganda? politics? what are they going to be undermining robert mueller's investigation with? armed with what? >> i don't know. i think some of the nonsense whether peter struck should have worked for him or released a page whether fbi phones were adequately preserved or some nonsense. i'm afraid they will do it, wish they wouldn't, they will try to burn down bob mueller in some way, he was conflicted because he was at the same golf club

with trump or something. or his long and close and loving relationship with me the president teens talking about. >> my last question to you, please describe your relationship with report mueller. it was talked about in the oval office saying you're best friends. are you best friends? >> no. i like the man, admire the man, not spoken to him in three years. he doesn't know my children's names, i don't know his. he is a great american. not a personal friend of mine. a great american. if there is good tomorrow the american people will learn he found troubling facts and represents what you want your children to grow up to be. >> thank you for spending time with us. lucky to call on you. i'm glad you're in st. louis, i know claire is, too. >> thanks for having me. >> chuck, straight to you. some really important information there and i hope some members questioning robert mueller follow director comey's

advice about how yes or no responses from robert mueller underscores the veracity and power of what's in the report. >> either short declarative questions and he agrees or disagrees with the question or ask mueller in his own words to read the part of the report. as you said, nicole, you can open up with anything. >> i've got it. mine are covered with stickies. you can go to any page in the volume and it's devastating. >> you can ask him to read from random reports and it's devastating, the difference between a book and movie. if we hear anything devastating tomorrow, because we're paying attention to the movie. my hopes are not crazy high. i don't know there's a lot of undecided people in this country or people who will watch it with an open mind. people are predisposed to what they're going to hear and see what they see. if you take the time and listen tomorrow and the questions are goods, you can learn something.

>> claire. >> i think the dirty little secret is the problem with congressional hearings is members of congress are anxious to make news about themselves, not about the subject. they can't to grab that moment. it's particularly acute in the house, where there are so many members trying to get that spot in the sun is harder than it looks. what i'm most afraid of members will have what i used to call when i was training young lawyers for the courtroom wab perry mason moment, where they think if they just do the question right the witness will break down on stand, you know how many times it happens, the witness breaks down on the stand, yes, i did it. this not that kind of hearing. everyone needs to park their ego at the door, park their own political campaigns at the door, park their local coverage at the

door and allow the report to speak for itself. mueller will be a wonderful narrator if they will give him a chance. i am so nervous -- >> i think we all are! >> -- to try to be a star in the hearing and instead, it's going to give the other side the opportunity to make it look wildly political. >> i think there's four powerful moments to be created tomorrow. one is if donald trump wasn't president, would you have charged him? that's the obvious one. mr. mueller when donald trump says no obstruction and no collusion, do you agree with that? and he will probably say no. the third is the circulation of polling data with russian interests, something easily understood by the american people. why would the trump campaign be sharing polling data and a conversation around that, the fourth one is a little contrary,

which is to put the focus back on congress. bob mueller said, i did all this and didn't offer an opinion, as director comey said, i wanted to preserve the information. charging a president has to happen in a forum other than a justice system. mr. mueller according to your understanding of the constitution, what form is that? if i'm a back centered judiciary committee thinks this isn't given enough urgency, i say at the end of the day, i know i will upset some folks when i say this. it is not bob mueller's job to convince the american people whether or not donald trump should be impeached. it is not the american people's job to read the mueller report. they have elected representatives in washington whose job it is to determine what's in the report and if it rises to the level of accountability. if it does, tell the american people you will do that and if

it doesn't, you will not do that. if democrats do nothing when all of this is said and done. the final gavel hits tomorrow, if democrats decide to do nothing they've accepted bob barr's saying nothing in the report rises to accountability and accepted bill barr and house democrats came to the same conclusion. >> don't want to skip over this. this is really really important. this is the most important opponent ahead of these hearings. this is it. if he gets reelected. nancy pelosi was hand wringing on impeachment, i'm sure she has really good reasons. if this gets political, she's reaping what she sewed. they better not be political and she better not think he did anything impeachable. >> you don't have to be political. there can be a powerful moment. >> if she doesn't think he deserved to be impeached and

doesn't see an underlying crime, god bless her. i'm not saying they have to conclude impeachment is justified, conducting and impeachment proceeding is what the justice department thought this report would elicit. they were expecting to have to turn over grand jury evidence in the course of an impeachment proceeding commenced. if donald trump is reelected, in the second term, maybe a reporter ends up in jail or an investigator being investigated for the third time. every person who blinked when this document came out will have explaining time. >> mueller will talk to the congress and much will be determined in the next 10 days. above normal testifies tomorrow and 10 days from now the house goes on a five-week vacation. there will be zero urgency.

the american people are begging for clarity. if it's impeachment, let's go and if not, explain yourself. >> you really do have distinct audiences for tomorrow's proceeding. you have the american public we all acknowledged has not read the report in all its granular details. for that audience -- >> you have to carve out the viewers on this program. they stop me on the streets and say i read the report. i hate it when people say we didn't read the report. >> even if you have read the report, the report is dense, full of detail, some nuanced, full of legalees. for the american public, that segment of the audience, what chuck was saying, you want discreet leading questions that give a yes or no, and part of that is to have a sound byte for lack of a better word to counteract the no col collusion,

ne obstruction mantra. for that audience, it shouldn't be questions getting to an answer you already know you want to hear. it should be open-ended questions. what is it still left in their minds they don't know they're holding back? >> are they not capable of asking questions they don't know the answer to. i didn't know the answer to the questions i asked. are they not capable of that? >> what should happen tomorrow is the opposite, every question a democrat asks they should know the answer to it. the definition of a good cross-examination is only ask a question you know what the answer is going to be, based on evidence you know you have and the depositions statements. this is the deposition. those members of that committee should not ask one question they do not know what his answer is going to be that's in this report. he will not say anything else.

i have to say one thing. i get the point you're making about the principle what's in this report and whether or not impeachment should begin. i get the point you are making. remember, these folks are responding to the public. let's not lose sight of the fact the public is not clamoring for impeachment. the public is not asking for impeachment proceedings. the public is reluctant for us to get into this. >> impeachment doesn't start from the public. there's no example in history. >> the congress responds to the public. i've watched it time and time again. it happens. tomorrow is an opportunity to try to get the public more engaged so we can in fact find that moment in the sun, which would be justice, based on the facts in this report. don't lose sight of the job they have to do bringing the public along. nippert who si

any body who sits and says this is difficult, it is. >> i'm not saying impeachment is the right thing. if you think crimes were committed what mueller found and if you think the southern district of new york sponsored, that donald trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a hush money scheme, it's x and y. >> no question. impeachment is a different animal than charging a crime. impeachment involves the public. it involves the american people and whether or not they're going to taken an action to negate what they did. as much as i dislike what the american people did, as much as i'm frustrated with the electoral college and the fact he didn't win the popular vote, frustrated with russia's involvement, we have to realize when we move to negate the actions of the american people in electing a president, it has

to be done carefully. i think tomorrow will tell the tale whether or not this is a moment the public finally realizes this guy did terrible things and is making a mockery to the rule of law in this country. >> i will button this up. it is interesting me from this moment, people from law enforcement, especially republicans from government law enforcement are more open to a process that investigates and holds him accountable to crimes than politics, especially democratic politics. >> i think i oversimplify this because i come out of that law enforcement world as does barry. we look at the evidence, whether you call it a deposition or report. we look at the evidence and see overwhelming indicia. >> what's that mean? >> evidence. >> sounded like a pleural latin word. >> okay. thank you. >> of criminal behavior.

i find the impeachment discussion really troubling. to me, that should be incredibly simple. i understand there's a political calculation to it, i understand that. but he committed a crime. if you can go to jail, you ought to be impeached. >> we have to sneak in a break. breaking news from one of report mueller's star witnesses. stay with us. if your adventure... keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips. you may have overactive bladder, or oab.

not again! we're seeing a doctor when we get home. myrbetriq treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions, like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms, sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation, back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. looking for a destination that isn't always the bathroom? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com. wake up! there's a lot that needs to get done today. small things. big things. too hard to do alone things. day after day, you need to get it all done.

and here to listen and help you through it all is bank of america. with the expertise and know-how you need to reach that blissful state of done-ness. so let's get after it. ♪ everything is all right what would you like the power to do?® ♪ all right

even on the eve of hearing crucial testimony from the architect, democrats are still their beating heart. house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is preparing to compel testimony from former white house secretary, don mcgahn. unlike mueller, he would be a fact witness and essential to the report mueller put together and considered a linchpin against donald trump.

in may, he defied a subpoena to testify and insisting he was immune to congressional testimony. the committee held him in contempt. in the next few days they could seek an order to compel him. >> joining us, mike, you quote eric swallow in your piece. report mueller is act one witness and mcgann, act two. what do you mean by that? >> this surprised me the last two weeks talking to the judiciary staff how important mueller was. the name, don mcgahn kept coming up. the reason is he witnessed the most. his name came up in the maturity report 500 times and gave 30 hours of voluntary testimony to him. the cliche is the mueller testimony tomorrow is all about bringing to life the mueller

report. no one watchreads the book. what happens going forward now, they think tomorrow you will hear don mcgahn's name come up a lot. they already subpoenaed don mcgahn, at the orders of the white house, has not testified or turned over documents they want. the question is how soon they get mcgann in inherent to the contradictions of the investigation that mcgann's testimony is critical to impeachment and without that, they might not be able to impeach him but if they launch it they could get it. >> we went through some testimony with jim comey. it's important, we haven't talked about these incredibly vivid scenes days after the

mueller report first came out. we lived some with jim comey. there's an idea mcgahn is a complicated witness and doesn't wish the president ill and a republican closely aligned with mitch mcconnell. but saying the president wanted me to do crazy bleep. he was sort of the narrator for the president's misconduct around the russia probe. asked to fire mueller, put out this false denier not accurate. talk about what mcgahn saw. >> this is if there is an impeachment charge of obstruction of justice, he is critical it to. mcdonnell's chief of staff was asked if she was president in the room when mcgahn was called

in the room to order him to talk about jeff sessions whether or not to recuse himself. she was asked whether she was in the room to fire mueller outright. donaldson was not allowed to answer those questions by white house counsel. that's why we will see don mcgahn's name come up tomorrow. i've been told they already have the legal paperwork ready to bring this case to court to try to force mcgahn into the chair and hope to add to that case by getting more from mueller tomorrow and illustrate why they need him here. >> an incredible piece. donald trump has not attacked -- >> and why they need him. >> thank you. congratulations on it.

we will dive more into this story after a quick break. don't go anywhere. t go anywhere. ♪work so hard give it everything you got♪ ♪strength of a lioness tough as a knot♪ ♪rocking the stage and we're never gonna stop♪ ♪all strength, no sweat... just in case you forgot♪ ♪all strength, no sweat... ♪no no no sweat...

that's why united rentals is combining equipment, data, safety and expertise to help your worksite perform better. united rentals.

we're talking about breaking news broken by my colleague that the house judiciary committee is getting ready to compel don mcgahn, one of the star witness's testimony. >> get to it. if the house is going to compel don mcgahn they are going to get challenged on a bunch of issues including privilege. that will be litigated. one way, you need as many arguments as you can muster, open an impeachment inquiry. once that's open privilege would give away to a legitimate impeachment inquiry. look, i think it's time for the house to act, to david's point, we have the facts. we have the facts right now. they can strengthen their legal argument and prevail on the executive privilege question more likely by opening that inquiry. >> it's so interesting to hear

the legal argument for commencing an impeachment proceeding. i hear you on the political reason to pump the brakes. in terms of changing public opinion, you're back with the chicken or egg. the dam breaks getting witnesses like mcgahn. i still don't know why corey lewandowski hasn't made their trip to capitol hill, they have no privilege. is that an argument for impeachment proceedings. >> i don't think it's the art to commence impeachment proceedings, it's the benefit. barrett knows this better than me, when you go to court, you want the best arguments you can muster. there is such a thing as executive privilege. it's not a made up thing. if you're going to prevail over it, you have to demonstrate a real need for the information you're seeking. the real need, for instance, can't just be curiosity. the real need would have to be

an impeachment proceeding. >> interestingly, they really in my perspective have to move forward with a legal case to enforce this mcgahn subpoena for no other reason than they have to follow through with what they said they were going to do. otherwise any future subpoenas they issue are going to be just routinely ignored, right? what incentive would there be for the administration to cooperate in any meaningful way if they let something like this die. so whether or not they think mcgahn is actually useful to them after hearing from mueller, i think they have no choice but to go forward with that. >> torpedo sz full speed away getting to court on all these kem contempt. none of these are enforced by nip other than the courts. when we found back page we had to go all the way to the supreme court to prevail to eventually get the testimony, which they took the fifth, but we got the documents. that's how we shut them done. this is about moving forward with all these court cases. they can move forward with this

case immediately and try to get an expedited hearing during the august break. if they don't prevail, they still have another shot at it if they open an impeachment inquiry. i'm betting they prevail in court because i think this executive privilege claim is very weak under the circumstances. you can't claim executive privilege if you're asking people to break the law. >> seem like a deal breaker to me but what do i know. >> this is one of those things i think they have got pretty good legal ground. they should do all the cases. this is what we said before. get going, guys. if you're going to get the public behind you, and we're going to actually have an impeachment inquiry, let's get them people in front of you sooner rather than later. >> david, claire said something about taking the fifth. our colleague, a banner day for nbc news and great reporters and colleagues. carol lee has one of the big quest up for mueller tomorrow,

we have hypothesized this since the day it came out. among the questions for mueller, why wasn't donald trump jr. interviewed. a lot of smart people, including chuck here, have offered the very likely possibility that he took the fifth, whether or not he did it in front of the grand jury or over the phone through his attorney is unclear at this point. but what would it say about the breakdown? seems like junior taking the fifth, mueller not pressing for an interview with donald trump, those sort of speak to the atmospherics, dynamic between the special probe and trump family. >> look, the trump family did not cooperate. they tried to kill this investigation. junior didn't testify because he didn't want to incriminate himself. the same reason donald trump only agreed to limited written answers because that entire family plays dirty pool. what i would say to kind of wrap a lot of this together, my lament, my frustration, is that politicians either follow public opinion, or they rise up and they lead public opinion.

in the three months since the mueller report comes out, it is hard to find house democratic leaders trying to lead public opinion. by contrast, it's not just us at the table. i give you elizabeth warren who continues to rise in the presidential polls, who if you asked her today, should donald trump be impeached, she can tell you in 340 seconds. she says, yes, because russia tried to attack our democracy. when donald trump had an opportunity to work with them or turn them were a, he worked with them at every chance. when our own government tried to investigate that, he obstructed justice and tried to have the investigation shut down. that is a narrative that tries to lead public opinion. we have not seen that from house leadership. they are following public opinion but it is not the public's job to read and understand 420 pages of legal e legalese, it is the job of congress to tell us what's in it and what we should do with it. >> i agree with every word of that. we're going to sneak in a break, though. we'll be right back. to sneak in, though we'll be right back.

you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not, because you have e*trade whose tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad, get e*trade. 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. would shakespeare have chosen just "some pens?"s. methinks a tul pen would serve m'lady well. thanks! and a unicorn notebook! get everything on your list.

this week's doorbuster - notebooks for 10¢, 10¢ in store or online from the advisors at office depot officemax. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. we carry flowers that signifyn why we want to end the disease. and we walk so that one day, there will be a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor. join the fight at alz.org/walk. that's why united rentals is combining equipment,

data, safety and expertise to help your worksite perform better. united rentals. this inot this john smith smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith, who met with humana to create a personalized care plan. at humana, we have more ways to care for your health, and we find one that works just for you. no matter what your name is. all right. a couple of big announcements

before we go. our special coverage of the mueller testimony begins tomorrow at 8:30. i'll be here with my friend brian williams to take you through the whole thing. one more note, yesterday during our hour one of the favorite guests said fox news channel would not be carrying tomorrow's mueller friends. he's a good friend, nice person and corrected that on twitter. we want to make sure he corrected that statement. fox news called us and asked us to let you know they are carrying the hearings. don't watch them, though. watch me and brian. we'll be more fun, i promise. i think maybe that means the president will see it. in the meantime my thanks to chuck roczenberg, senator claire mccaskill but most of all to you for watching. i'm nicolle wallace. steve kornacki