what was barr's response? different people's perspectives, right in from bill barr's perspective, he is taken aback. he offered mueller, by his account. he offered mueller the chance to review that four-page letter that he sent to congress and mueller declined the opportunity to to so. so bill barr, the way it's described to us tonight is thinking eventually i will release this report. everything is good and then he gets this letter and is chokd, oh my gosh i didn't realize there was this level of discontentment. he calls mueller and they talk it out. mueller wants to release the executive summary, at the beginning of each section. mueller wants to suggest redaction so it's easier to do bill barr doesn't want to do that. he wants to proceed to doing everything at once. eventually that's what happens. >> do you have any idea why? mueller feels barr misrepresents the nuance, the substance, he feels that way, you are saying barr gave him the opportunities to review the summary. do you know why mueller didn't take

barr. that's where rosenstein is now. that's an attempt to grab the credibility of that in the same way mr. mueller is name checking for redactions and a plan that appears to be driven by the trump agenda of defending the white house and owning the news cycle and driving it forward. the whole day is about their first draft of history, don't call it a summary. at what point does the establishment legal community say the respect and esteem barr had previously is now gone. >> it's hanging on by a thread, if at all. i think tomorrow once we see this is a fair shot at redacting out what must be redacted. we don't want to compromise ongoing investigations and some things need to be redacted out. will there be enough substance that it is a fair reading of what in the world is going on with this president and this administration. >> let me ask you this. i have been waiting to get to you here as one of our prosecutors. have you seen the president announce a justice department press conference about the findings of an investigation

they left it to barr to make decisions for them.here is trust from the white house perspective and the president's perspective that barr will do what's necessary for it to be done in order for it not to be a complete disaster for the president. that might be an unfounded confidence they have in barr. maybe it is founded. maybe it is based on something. we'll find out soon when the report is released. >> one thing that's the way to frame the entire day is we are not going to be talking much about process once the report is digested. is there anything there? did they find anything or not? if you are in a hurry that's the question you want to know the answer to. this will be a battle to define the findings. the president, rudy giuliani, they have been waiting for this moment for a long time. the president has been trying to answer that for two years by saying it's a witch hunt, there's nothing here. it was not that. there will be damaging information. to what extent does it hurt? that's the real prospect that the lines will be hardened

barr ses -- excuse me, he says mr. barr, why are you with holing it from this committee? barr then insist it was the policy of the justice department that opinions like this must remain confidential. it does not appear at all to have been the broad-based policy of the justice department such documents remain confidential. but nonetheless he insisted that was the policy he was following. the committee chairman knew that he was asserting a confidentiality policy that didn't really exist, and he pushed him on it. the committee chairman said, quote, i understand that mr. barr, but this is public business. the subject of much discussion in the united states. you are going to have to tell the public and the congress some time why you changed the rules on this arresting of fugitives overseas. william barr responds, that's what i'm here doing. we have no objection to explaining our conclusions and our reasoning to the committee. i'm just not going to give you the document. i'll explain it to you. i'll describe what's in it. so here's congress saying this is matter of intense publ

barr made that decision. barr then went in front of congress and said he believed there was spying on the trump campaign. that's the president's ward. that's an inaccurately and highly partisan word used to describe what could have happened. how could anyone take what barr says tomorrow as anything but covering for the president? >> well it would be very difficult to do so. his credibility in washington has certainly slipped, maybe he still has some credibility with trump's base who want to hear what he has to say. but it's sad. he -- he has actually done this before as well in protection of another president. this isn't a totally new pattern for barr. when we did a little digging as has come out in the last few months we saw he had done the same thing both in pardons and investigations that he nipped in the bud things that were headed towards the white house. >> ryan, ryan goodman's excellent analysis of a prior summary he did about fbi detentions. april, neither mueller nor anyone from his team is going to

barr. i imagine the president is frustrated that even fox news wasn't buying all that spin. >> after a long career in the law, the attorney general would have to reconcile himself to the fact that this will be how his reputation is set in legal history again at the age of 68. he made clear in his confirmation hearing he was looking forward to life of leisure and a life of retirement and he wasn't looking to get back in the game, did not seek this job. others have disagreed with that with the unsolicited memo he submitted on the scope of presidential power. we're looking forward to talking to our two folks who were inside that news conference and that's pete williams and julia ainsley to get some of the flavor of that event. you'll know hardly every question was answered, especially some of the more negative questions the a.g. blushed past. our own carol lee continues to watch and listen. carol? >> brian, look, i think there's no other way to say it. the attorney general went in, made a cons

you're william barr tonight. you're planning on one or two or multiple versions of different reports, mueller's report being released minus everything you want taken out of it. heading into that bold plan for tomorrow morning, you now know that at least one federal district court judge in washington, d.c. is planning on checking your work soon. and that judge is already expressing concerns in open court about how you are handling this matter and why he might need to correct for it. this was judge walton in open court yesterday afternoon. we just got the cratranscript y. ready? quote, obviously, the judge says, there is real concern whether there will be full transparency. and i hate to say it, but unfortunately the attorney general has created an environment that i think is going cause a significant portion of the american people to be concerned about whether there is transparency. and that puts the court obviously in a very difficult situation. but i have dealt with difficult situations before, and, you know, i'

we've already seen barr editorialize. going to see him do exactly what he did in that four-page summary which is to put his frame and spin on it, that the president didn't do anything wrong, and he will couch if it in language of he is no the exonerated but -- as though he is not guilty of anything. i think we have to be careful about seeing barr for what he is. he is not calling it straight down the middle. >> here is a look at the room and the room where it will happen. >> wait a second. does it get more exciting than that? >> who was that? >> i don't know. that meant something. >> why is that flag moving? which flag is it? are two the same? david, what was your point? >> let's just remember that bill barr is not the only major player here. he is a major player in terms of how i agree in terms of how he has cast what we're going to see. the fact that he has been the gatekeeper of the report and his initial letter and now we're going so see redactions, but do have rod rosenstein who brought in the special pros durt, who

and i think that barr -- you know, barr sort of gave them fodder for that. he played into this narrative saying there was spying, and that's something that the trump folks want to push. i think he's given democrats a lot of reason to be skeptical of his ability to be an honest broker in this. >> jeremy? >> can i address the issue of the attorney general addressing lawful surveillance as spying. he knows better. he told me so. in 2007, 2008, he was lobbying congress, we were engaged in a rewrite of the fisa legislation, and he was saying directing to engage in surveillance should be immune. and we had many conversations, this was predicated, this was lawful, approved. there was a distinction between lawful and authorized service and unlawful and unauthorized surveillance. he knows better than to say in front of congress what they did was spying. >> i think so much of what we're going to see, it's all in the eye of the beholder, donald trump is not the root of this, but he's come about and taken hold because of the tribalism, the division and he's accentu e ac

barr is a person. as a human being, he also, according to the "new york times," and i think your reporting reflects this, appears concerned about the way he is being covered in his job and the "times" reports that he has shown flashes of frustration and chafed at how the news media and some lawmakers had characterized one of his letters. >> i'm sure he is. i don't know how this could have been anything but expected. and i'll tell what you wave two will be. we're seeing with this reporting, what never happened during this investigation is happening now. which you nicely laid out in your opener. the leaks. so if this information is inadequate and the investigators feel their work is not being accurately represented in whatever the final product is that's given to congress. i would expect more of that and i know congress expects more. >> i think you put your finger on it. andrew weissman, or whomever, there are people who may have a shorter fuse than him. he may have a longer fuse but people are people. t

barr has released none of it. in my estimation, appears to be freelancing a little bit, feeling his way in terms of how he is handling the material in the report. overall, what's your take on how this is being handled thus far? >> i would say the primary characterization is that it's being handled in a very clumsy way. i think the attorney general's office has not distinguished itself in the way they've immediately served up what seems to me to be a highly contentious version or summary of a 400-page report, and now i think they're simply complicating matters by the way they're trying to back and fill in describing the reasons why they reached conclusions as they did and why they're not yet in a position to release any of the details of the report. and i think one of the most significant pieces of information that's come to light in the last day or so is that mueller's staff, not surprisingly, had done their own summaries of the major chapters of the report, and that these summaries were done with an eye toward re

barr took advantage of that. i hope it's not too late for the american people to learn and absorb what actually happened, but it may very well be. we need to get mueller up there quickly. to congress to explain what he did. >> it seemed that until he said otherwise was preparing a report for use by the congress for impeachment proceedings. >> that's exactly what he was doing. if his name was not president trump, he would be indicted today. any normal prosecutor reads that memo, that is an indictment memo. the only reason why it's not is the justice department guideline and bob mueller followed the rules. >> robert, we are having a perry mason moment here to use an old reference. something is happening in the courtroom of public opinion that we didn't know. we know thanks to your paper's reporting that robert mueller was not happy. he was dissatisfied with the report made by the attorney general 48 hours after getting his report where in the general made erroneous statements about that report in termts of the cont

also telling in barr's history is this 19-page unsolicited memo barr wrote to the justice departmentnated him. in it, barr criticizes the mueller investigation calling mueller's obstruction of justice fate lally misconceived. >> it's what he was hired to do which is to protect the president. but it is deeply concerning. >> reporter: back in 2017, barr also raised eyebrows telling "the new york times" there was more basis for investigating the sale of uranium between the u.s. and russia while hillary clinton was secretary of state than the trump campaign's alleged collusion with russia. but when barr said it, the fbi had already investigated the uranium one deal and no evidence has ever been made public showing proof of a bribery scheme or wrongdoing. barr later walked back his claims. >> i have no knowledge of the uranium one. i didn't particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. >> reporter: meanwhile, if you think william barr may be too close to the president, consider this. his son-in-law works in the white house counsel's office. the son

is barr covering for trump? the mueller report coming any day. >>> growing opposition to president trump's pick for the federal reserve, nancy pelosi saying it is one of the worst picks he could possibly make. and former governor from massachusetts taking on trump in the primary? bill weld is my guest. let's go "outfront." good evening, i am erin burnett. out front tonight, fueling the fire. bill barr giving president trump what he needs to push trump's unfounded claim the obama administration spied on his campaign. >> i think what he said was absolutely true, there was absolutely spying into my campaign. i'll go a step further, in my opinion it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again. and i think his answer was actually a very accurate one. >> trump seizing on one word barr said again and again and again. spying. >> i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. i think there was spying did occur. i think spying did occur. >> spy

why is bill barr doing this? this looks like they're taking every precaution like, oh, my god, we think it's a tropical storm. they think it's a category 5. >> i think that's right. and the reason for that is not the legal ramifications that would come out of a justice department finding, but it is the political and the narrative that comes with this report about behavior, about the way the president runs and manages things, how the staff and all the inner workings of the politics there and sort of the -- >> do you think this will be news to people or will it be news to those that don't watch mainstream media? >> no, i think it will be to a certain degree news for everybody. it is the combination, chuck, of all the books that have come out so far. it's all one reading right there. everything from omarosa to -- you know, so it is all right there. that's why the staff is running around going i wonder if they can figure out that i said this, that or the other thing, because they know trump will react to that. more t

i'm going to let barr call this one. he had plenty of evidence to say on collusion absolutely not, and he actually punted over to barr. again, that's the way the system can and does work. >> it certainly is one way the system can work. the claim by donald trump's chief of staff that they know what mueller did that he, quote, punted without seeing the report leaves open a lot of question, unless they've been briefed by barr. tonight the absence of the report appears to be in its own way an attempt to frame what is in the report, and that is before anyone has actually seen all of mueller's findings. i'm joined first by the former counsel of new york and civil prosecutor from sdny. daniel alonzo, former federal prosecutor and also former top official in the manhattan d.a.'s office. and we will turn soon to some other washington experts. but beginning here, maya, it does seem like the country has had a speed course in how the doj deals with these things. and the big question is what does it mean that bob mueller did the anal

barr fight.ral william barr says he expects to release a redacted version of special counsel robert mueller's report within a week. the house democrats want the see the whole thing and vowing to use subpoena power to get it. >>> cage match. president trump falsely claims his family separation policy for migrants start under president obama. he denies he's considering bringing it back while at the same time appearing to justice it. >>> star's indicted. a high profile hollywood couple and other parents slapped with serious new charges as prosecutors up the pressure on them. >>> putin defends trump. russian president vladmir putin speaks publicly about mueller report offering a squacathing assessment and strong backing for president trump. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> breaking news, the democratic chairman of the house judiciary committee is threatening

barr has publicly indicated.he "new york times" goes on to say that mueller's investigators actually wrote their own summaries of their findings and their investigation, which the justice department decided not to release. so instead they could release barr's summation of their supposed findings which, according to this "times" report, is not an accurate reflection of what mueller's investigators concluded and put in their report which he, again, is still sitting on. that's just a wild bunch of news tonight from the "new york times." within an hour or so of that breaking, we got this from the house ways and means committee asking mr. trump for the information from a bunch of his businesses. the statute actually says that the irs shall provide tax returns when they are requested from the chairman of the ways and means committee and the way that chairman richie neal has requested tonight. and the "washington post" says tonight that, yes, jared kushner is senior white house official a who was identified by the house

put yourself in william barr's shoes right now. if you are newly appointed attorney general william barr and tonight you are planning on a big day tomorrow, you are planning on making yet another william barr public declaration of what you say mueller found and you're planning on doing that tomorrow without anybody being allowed to read what mueller found and without mueller being allowed to explain himself what he found and without mueller or anyone on his team being available to answer questions about what they found, no, you are planning on you handling all of that in your own terms and nobody being able to check you against the real record. you're william barr tonight, you're planning on one or two or multiple different versions of mueller's report being released minus everything you want taken out of it. heading into that bold plan for tomorrow morning, you now know that at least one federal district court judge in washington, d.c. is planning on checking your work soon, and that judge is already expressing concerns in open co

barr? if mueller had finished slightly earlier, do you think rod rosenstein would have reached this far, or would it have been more like when the mueller report comes out, it comes out? >> i think when the mueller report comes out, it comes out. they played a very successful doj chess game, essentially, from the trump team's perspective, from sessions to whittaker to barr. they delayed this down the road. i feel the special counsel got put into a position where it was, i can try to push this, and it becomes a three or four year debate, which goes to the supreme court maybe, about what is the special counsel allowed to do, or do i close this out and use the process, which i think was meant to be impeachment process, push it to congress as an institution and say, they can make a decision. if they want, they could potentially call the president to actually testify. or they could bring some sort of questions to him. seems so me it was all short circuited. >> many things about this today that ar

barr responded. he said i suspect they wanted more from the mueller findings to be included in his letter. so that's what he says he's working on. now, one thing, kate, i think is interesting here today, sort of like looking at the atmospherics. one of the things politically that barr has been trying to do is lock arms with robert mueller, with rod rosenstein, try to present a united front that even though this is his letter, these are his summaries, he's trying to say, you know, everybody is onboard. but a couple times in the hearing so far, he's also said that, you know, mueller was offered a chance to look at that letter, the first letter he sent, and mueller declined that opportunity. he didn't apparently look at the second letter either. we're probably seeing a little bit of daylight between not only between barr and the mueller team but perhaps with other people there, because we do know that there's a lot of sentiment in the department to not release much more information. barr may be going fu

so i think the rod rosenstein/barr relationship is very -- it's very odd because barr also invoked rosenstein's name today to support the conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice. even though barr is compromised as well because he was a witness in the obstruction of justice investigation. therefore, by clearing the president of obstruction, he clears himself. he's kind of out of the woods on that one. i think going back to how conflicted barr himself is, this is someone who not only wrote that 19-page memo outlining the reasons why the president could not possibly be investigated for obstruction the way mueller was investigating him. he also wrote to the "new york times" saying there was more of a foundation to investigate the clinton foundation and uranium one scandal than there was to investigate the russia case. and he said for the justice department not to look into those would abdicate their responsibilities. so you get a sense right off the bat how he's going into the job and what he thinks the proper investigation should have been, which was the clinton foundation, which wa

barr." the president says he's not worried about what might come out once the mueller report is released. >> i'm not concerned about anything because, frankly, there was no collusion and there was no obstruction. and we never did anything wrong. the people that did something wrong were the other side, the dirty cops and a lot of the problems that were caused. you're just lucky i happen to be the president, because a lot of other presidents would have reacted much differently than i reacted. >> so there's that. and there's this. a new sign tonight that mueller's work is continuing to result in charges. this time the target is a prominent big name democrat, president obama's former white house counsel greg craig, charged with lying to the government about work he did in 2012 for russia. the russian-aligned government of ukraine, more specifically. the case stems from the manafort prosecution. it's the first indictment since the special counsel ended his inquiry. greg craig is denying the charg

that was bill barr.e watched it, read a five-page statement, too four or five questions about some of the conclusions he drew. chris wallace, bret baier, shannon bream, martha maccallum continues her coverage. andy mccarthy with legal analysis and ed henry is bringing us whatever he can. brit hume is on the line as well. bret, come back to this line i'm reading from bill barr. january and february of 2017. there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability tying him to russia, what russia was doing in the election. as he said from the beginning there is, in fact, no collusion. that's bill barr in my view trying to get inside of the head of the president what he was going through at that time. >> yeah. the collusion part of this presentation, this press conference was pretty cut and dried. it matched what the letter he sent up to the committees said and matched his testimony on capitol hill. the democrats will see what they're looking at there but he is quoting f

barr indicated. the special counsel's investigators have already written multiple sumries of the report and some team members believe mr. barr should have included some of their material in the letter he wrote march 24th. the officials and others interviewed declined to flush out why some of the special counsel's findings were viewed as more damaging to the ptds president than mr. barr explained. mr. barr and his advisors have expressed their own frustrations about mr. mueller and his team. mr. barr and other justice department officials believe the special counsel's investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether mr. trump it illegally had an inquiry. and they wanted to obtain it the full, unedited mueller reported, including all underlying documents. mr. barr intends to release a redacted version of the mueller report later this month. one of the "new york times" reporter who broke this story, pulitzer prize winning writer for the "new york times." and joyce vance and jeremy b

barr just went right at it.ismiss the questions but he had a very solid answer for everything asked of him, am i right? >> why did you make a decision on whether or not to say the president was guilty? that's your job. why didn't you leave this could congress? that's not their job. it was an interesting way to see him kind of educate some of the reporters in the room on where the, where the power lies here and where the decision-making processes are. he was very, very clear in his words. you couldn't really get around it. no one outside of these groups of people had any decisions on redactions, et cetera. he was as clear as he could be. but there will still try to muddy the waters i believe. stuart: i think right at the top of the press on friends, i keep saying this on seven occasions seven different times the man said, this is william barr, attorney general of united states of america, he said there was no evidence anyone in the trump campaign or any american conspired with or coordinated with russia in the at

it wasn't just barr though, right? we know rod rosenstein, who was overseeing the investigation, according to barr, agreed with him, that there shouldn't be obstruction. certainly, you'd want to know more about that and how they reached that conclusion. but this tension between the idea that, well, nobody was charged, so we shouldn't see this information, congress still has a unique role to play here. >> absolutely. the questions will be expansive today. i'm very curious how far barr goes in his actions. david gregory, stick around. >> sure. >>> at this hour, israelis are heading to the polls to elect a new government. prime minister benjamin netanyahu facing the toughest challenge of his political career while trying to fend off multiple corruption probes. oren lieberman is live there with more. >> reporter: we're hundreds of polling places. there are political parties trying to rally voters in the final hours of this campaign. one of the ultra orthodox parties are over my shoulder. there are signs for netanyahu's lik

-- ed: william barr.: obviously democrats are on their heels because they don't like this 9:30 preference. schumer said this hand picked attorney general meaning bill barr, has thrown out credibility. we see some of the negativity there. they say this. after seeing the preference and knowing the report is going to come out and be lightly redacted. they have called for bob mueller to come in and testify. i got news for you, they are not -- the republicans are not going to push back. ed: i agree with you and i agree with the democrats. bob mueller should testify and ask him whatever they want. look, much of what is and we haven't seen it redacted. the law requires the attorney general to redact. iif you redact more than the law requires, he is going to lose some credibility. if he redacts less than what the law requires, is he complying with, excuse me the clip that you just ran at his confirmation hearing where he said is he going to err on the side of transparency. there is a tremendous desire on the part

barr has had this by tomorrow, 27 days. could you make an argument that his influence starts to end if not just wane starting tomorrow, that like a stock he starts losing his value and his reach and control over his matter? >> you know what i think the timing you mentioned is interesting because it's surely no accident he's doing it at a time when a lot of reporters are gone, when congress is out of town, when americans are paying attention to easter and passover, not what's going on in not just wane starting tomorrow, that like a stock he starts losing his value and his reach and control over his matter? >> you know what i think the timing you mentioned is interesting because it's surely no accident he's doing it at a time when a lot of reporters are gone, when congress is out of town, when americans are paying attention to easter and passover, not what's going on in washington. i think william barr runs a risk here of losing influence especially as he comes under more criticism. but you heard him get praised by the presid

i mean, we heard it from barr today. and maybe that's the other side, the flip side of the coin that we'll see laid out in the mueller report. >> presumably, we'll also hear at some point, sooner i assume rather than later, from the president of the united states. a quick reminder about why the attorney general's judgment faces a lot of scrutiny before president trump nominated barr to lead the justice department, the attorney general then as a private citizen wrote an unsolicited 19-page memo that argued that mueller's obstruction investigation was in the words of william barr, fatally misconceived. barr writing back in june of 2018, and i'm quoting now, mueller should not be able to demand that the president submit to an interrogation about alleged obstruction. this theory would have potentially disastrous implications, not just for the presidency, but for the executive branch as a whole. pamela brown, i know you have been reading that very, very closely, going back to that initial memo, what he wrote as a private citi

the barr mac nations offend the sensibilities. we had the break down of norms and the bipartisan courtesy over the last few years and trump has accelerated that. i go back to the point i made earlier, chris. that is to the sdegree to which democrats get mad and the process for which things are happening, that will help detract and protect trump from the original sin of his presidency. aiding and abetting. while they have a right to be upset, they have to find a way to focus on the things before us. whether it's the russian scandal or deutsch bank stuff that maxine waters is doing. the emoluments case. they need to show the public while they can be passionate, they need to do the oversight in a reasonable and effective way and tell the public what the public needs to know. >> natasha, when we meet again, maybe you, maybe david, certainly me and the viewers tomorrow night, we will have new facts. that's undeniable. all the process aside, all the redactions aside and manipulations and massaging that bill barr is doing to this, we wil

barr was saying. first came up when new hampshire democratic senator jeanne shaheen asked about reports that attorney general barr has a special group looking into why the fbi opened their investigation of the russian interference in the 2016 election. she wanted to know why. here's what he told her. >> for the same reason we're worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that during -- i think spying on a political campaign is a big deal, it's a big deal. >> that word spying obviously set off some alarms, so senator shaheen pressed for more. >> so you're not suggesting though that spying occurred. >> i don't -- well -- i guess you could -- i think there is, spying did occur. yes, i think spying did occur. >> well, let me -- >> but the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated and i'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated but i need to explore that. >> keeping him honest, attorney general barr is both a skilled lawyer and seasoned washington operator.

also telling in barr's history is this 19-page unsolicited memo barr wrote to the justice department in june last year before trump nominated him. in it, barr criticizes the mueller investigation, calling mueller's obstruction of justice theory fatally misconceived. >> this is what he was hired to do, which was to protect the president. but it is deeply concerning. >> reporter: back in 2017, barr also raised eyebrows, telling the "new york times" there is more basis for investigating the sale of uranium between the u.s. and russia while hillary clinton was secretary of state than the trump campaign's alleged collusion with russia. but when barr said it, the fbi had already investigated the uranium one deal and no evidence has ever been made public showing proof of a bribery scheme or wrongdoing. barr later walked back his claims. >> i have no knowledge of the uranium 1. i didn't particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. >> reporter: meanwhile, if you think william barr may be too close to the president, consider this. his son-in-law works

barr. mr. barr had already written a report saying it wasn'tgoing to happen. >> thanks so nuch fmuch for joi us. >> thank you. >> let's dig deeper into this with our analysts and experts. this jerry nadler tweet that the report will not be made available to be public after the news conference at 9:30 a.m. that's pretty extraordinary. >> it's not going to -- congress isn't going to be briefed on it. when you think of this se sequence of events here. you have an attorney general who has written a four page letter summarizing the report or bottom li lining it. redacted the report, talked to the white house about it, given a press conference about it at 9:30 tomorrow morning. all before members of congress have seen it. i think when nadler says he's troubled, i kind of don't blame him. the attorney general seems to be doing an an run around the democrats. >> it is pretty extraordinary. he's going to have a news conference that releasing the report but the reporters, if you believe jerry nadler, the

>> that's a question only bill barr can answer. there is no indication it would be illegal or improper. but the decision, for example, to say we will not pursue obstruction cases when that was apparently not concluded by mueller, there are a lot of questions about the special counsel reporting to the a.g., a partisan appointee. that's where the scrutiny will come and should come. did mueller intend for you to make the massive decision? or had he intended that to be a decision congress could make? >> that's the heart of the matter. why don't we know the answer? did he address it yesterday? >> he did not. you can expect some senators on the appropriations subcommittee to follow up today. barr's answers today will be, more than yesterday, i have the redacted version coming out in a week's time or less. wait for it. then we'll do this all over again. the open question is what are the redactions. democrats are opposing any of them. it's reasonable for the a.g. to redact things if it compromises an ongoing investigation, sources or metho

barr has had this by tomorrow, 27 days. could you make an argument that his influence starts to end if not just wane starting tomorrow, that like a stock he starts losing his value and his reach and control over his matter? >> you know what i think the timing you mentioned is interesting because it's surely no accident he's doing it at a time when a lot of reporters are gone, when congress is out of town, when americans are paying attention to easter and passover, not what's going on in washington. i think william barr runs a risk here of losing influence especially as he comes under more criticism. but you heard him get praised by the president in that radio address today in his radio interview in great contrast to what the president had been saying about his predecessor, jeff sessions because of the independent stance jeff segs took on this very issues. so barr may lose some influence with members of congress, even the public but he seems to be gaining influence with the president. >> annie carny, prognosticate as to the

barr indicated. that's according to government officials and others familiar with their frustrations. it adds, the special counsel's investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report and some team members believe that mr. barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on march 24th. laying out their main conclusions. new reporting in "the washington post" adds this about how mueller's team crafted their report and what was intended for public release, quote, the report was prepared so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately or very quickly, the official said. it was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary and the work would have spoken for itself. mueller's team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public the official said, so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words, and not in the attorney general's summary of their work. has turned

. >> let barr go through the review. then let the fights begin. >> the department is wrong to try to withhold information. congress is entitled to all of the evidence. >> the american people have a right to know whether he's benefitting from the policies that he's pushing. >> we will follow the law and protect the president as we would protect any taxpayer. >> he's been careful. this is not about politics. this is about policy. >> the white house has been bracing for this. expect a legal fight. they are not going to take this lying down. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." breaking overnight, the first signs that the mueller team doesn't like how their findings are being depicted and they may be starting to do something about it. the "new york times" was the first to report some investigators for the special counsel are saying that attorney general bill barr did not adequately portray the findings of the nearly two-year probe in his four-page m

barr. >> he should testify. >> did you want this to go to congress or this guy to put out a four-page quickie. >> the only way to know is to hear from mueller himself. >> the report will reflect what happened. why did mueller punt? there was division of opinion within the office. >> that division is? >> some people thought there was a provable case and some thought there wasn't. >> this is a question that anybody can figure out the problem. a lot of this intent on the part of the president is pushing comey on michael flynn. pushing for a loyalty oath and getting rid of comey. all these decisions and getting rid of sessions. all this looks like the self interest of the president and the president has a lot of power under article two. he's president. the whole executive branch responds to him. what i have been able to figure out is mueller is going wait a minute. how can i give impeachable evidence when he has the power when he was using it for pure political purposes. >> the attorney general

did barr say a word about that?rr, if he tells you, don't see this movie, you probably should see it because he saw a different movie than the one that actually exists. ( laughter ) >> stephen: now, is the obstruction issue now unobstructed? do we finally know why mueller came to his conclusion. is it the o.l.c. decision from the '70s he's citing essentially. >> two things, number one, which is the desayings that says a sitting president can't with be indicted, and the second thing that the president tried to obstruction of justice but he failed because his folks wouldn't carry it out. i think they're one of the most creative legal teams in the country but i never heard of that defense which is you're so incompetent that you couldn't obstruction oobstruct justice. what does that say about our president? ( cheers and applause ) >> stephen: are you surprised the wording in the report -- i thought the most shocking thing in the report was them writing in the report that, you know, we would have found him innocent if we

, and barr exonerated him to? >> i suspect that we'll get a window into this at some point and the way you lay it out is just right, as a prosecutor your fundamental job is to make a decision. do i indict this case or decline this case? if you decline a case there are a number of reasons you might check. weak or insufficient evidence or no federal offense evident would be some of the major reasons. that's not what mueller did. instead he did what people have characterized as punting. but what i suspect is far closer to a practical recognition of the fact that he did not have the power to indict a president because of existing doj policy. and so he left the decision in this case up to the only body with decision-making power, congress. and that reflects, you know, this important truth that the president seems to ignore which is that he's the only person in the system who is arguably above the reach of average prosecutors. and who's only accountable through congress. that's what makes him different and what makes it

rod rosenstein or barr himself or the appointees.ecial counsel is not do that. >> mr. barr had to make a decision and he said he wished that mueller made a call on obstruction of justice to exonerate the president on collusion, but since he didn't make a call, he believed comey was wrong when he chastised hillary clinton. he was not willing to indict because mueller had not made that call and he had to c exonerate. >> there are thoughts on that. there is a cannon here that barr did to hillary clinton what comey did, by throwing in that line from the special couple's office that he was not totally exonerated. some argue that's not fair like he said hillary clinton was careless. >> barr decided it was wrong to hurt the reputation of someone unless you are going prosecute? >> yeah. like i said, one can make the argument about the exoneration and it wasn't helpful to trump on the larger point. -- >> we lost adam goldman. what a big news story that is. there is tension between mueller and barr. real tension. we will read about that tomorr

what would you ask barr tomorrow morning? >> i'd start off with questions about barr's process.ou willing to turn over an unredacted or less redacted version of the report to congress, specifically to the intelligence committees, who are charged with maintaining it under lock and seal? would you consider going to a court and asking for permission to release at least some of the grand jury materials, as ken starr did in 1998 and was given permission? you talked about protecting information on peripheral third parties. william barr said, i do not include the president in that. there will be information about the president. but do you include donald trump jr. in that category? do you include jared kushner in that category? are those people who are going to be sort of benefitted by redactions? then i would ask barr some questions about his view as the role as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. perhaps you did not see enough to charge a criminal conspiracy, but did you see anything in the russian contacts that gives you alarm, that you think needs to be addressed in your rol