if you look at what bob barr mass said with respect to presidential authority, bob barr has basically said a president is almost above the law. i mean, he pretty much took a -- >> the obstruction of justice. >> he took a position, obstruction of justice in his confirmation hearing. i like john kennedy. but i can tell you, i don't think bob barr's word on these kinds of issues is acceptable when the american people want the real report. >> so i want to drill down a bit on something manu just said. mueller's team -- and a lot of people may not be aware. but according to the "new york times" mueller's team was ready. this is the 400 panls. and by the way, bill barr, here are multiple summaries of the report, giving him options. according to the "new york times." obviously with he know bill barr did not use any of thimm. he didn't work with the mueller team to edit any of those summaries. he didn't do that. he wrote his own. again, senator, his reason in part today, given the extraordinary public interest in the matter, the attorney general decided to release the report's bottom line find

thinking of the un so i thought what does bob barr have to offer younger people. and we've got an entertainment program for younger people we have in clubs the club bernstein in the casino for example way international d.j.'s spin discs on the weekend. and we have a new concept for a bar and restaurant casual fine dining room is rooftop bar and pool. so there's something for the hipsters to buy. it also is a bit exclusive you need cash don't you. know what. i'd say it is exclusive but there's something here for every budget it about right. now we've reached the end of entirely at least the tell every. it is still a residence for nuns. from here we had on downtown. here here to the right we see the russian church to show. oh ok i've already seen lots of russians in town so why is it that so many of them come here. by bombarding barton has historical ties to russia. a beautiful princess from baton louisa married the futures are alexander the first . and then lots of russian alters came to. like dostoyevsky to go and you have tolstoy and gogol they all wrote about it

what i think is important about mueller's rebuke of bob barr, he understood how the gap between what he produce and what barr was telling the public and he pointed out that the point, one of the main points of this investigation was to give some sort of public narrative that everybody could trust about what happened. to give a resolution to all the confusion and doubts about the 2016 election at trump's behavior in it and after it. and bob barr, that closure was so necessary for the country and bob barr blew it up by going out there and misrepresenting the contents of the report in a way that allowed republicans to pretend it said something contrary to what it said. it still allows them to say no collusion. in his quest to protect the president, he basically made it almost impossible for the tropt do what it was supposed to do which was to give the country clarity and closure. >> so you don't have to wait for the newspaper tomorrow, this is what robert mueller said in his criticism of the four-page summary document by the attorney general. the summary letter the department sent to con

the ruling from the attorney general, bob barr.itics calling it unconstitutional saying it's illegal to keep asylum seekers locked out without due process. besides, where do we have that many jail cells? the chief correspondent jonathan hunt live with more. jonathan? >> this is another strep in the administration's ongoing attempts to tackle what they have repeatedly called a crisis at the border. it's clearly meant to act as a deterrent to those that cross the border illegally as you see in this video here. outside of official ports of entry. those that do that and then claim asylum when picked up by border patrol agents will not be able to go free while their cases are processed. instead, they will be held until a final decision is made. that could mean weeks or even months in detention. republicans have welcomed the move as part of the efforts to end what president trump has derided as the policy of catch and release. >> until we find a way to improve the asylum process -- we pride ourselves on providing asylum but you can't all

bring in former georgia congressman bob barr. bob, welcome back. you again, sir. >> thank you, stuart. a lot going on. glad to be with you. stuart: please compare jerrold nadler and what he's been saying recently and again today with what he was saying when you were active in politics back in the 1990s. go. >> right now, jerry nadler has told us long before bill barr's presentation today or even last month that we, that is we the democrats, and i, jerry nadler, know that there was collusion. he's made very clear that he has jumped ahead of any evidence, any conclusions by trained lawyers who have looked at the massive evidence in this case, and made his own conclusion from which he is not going to waver. contrast that, of course, with jerry nadler's position 20 years ago with the clinton probe and the starr report which came up to the house. he wanted to have no part of that. there's nothing here, nothing to look at, folks, just go home, and of course, neither he nor any other democrat looked at the actual evidence in the starr report. it's like ni

. >> bob mueller -- >> and bob barr.d with bob barr and mueller. >> i'm so glad you're up with us at 2:53 in the morning given that expertise on all of this. my question to you was do you believe that mueller could have done more? could he have gone further here? do you believe he had a sufficient basis to go further on the obstruction issue? >> yes, i believe he did, and i don't understand the last statement in his report which said essentially if i had more information or if i had more time, i might have been able to make a more definitive conclusion. there was nothing that was preventing him from going forward with his investigation and the notion that he didn't subpoena the president because he felt it was going to take time, the nixon case went, and you can confirm this with tim, from the time of the contest and the subpoena to the tapes to the supreme court resolution of it was just a few months' time. it was not a lot of time. and there's a lot that could have been done here. for example, you said -- you asked the

second question bob barr says something awful from the units here. and many young people have reacted with violence as the position of a stereotype in many countries means that they face lives with fewer opportunities than their parents. and. indeed. one of the strong narratives in the western world about these faraway places is that they really literally waiting to come and then we shall violence that is already there. in many ways it's actually insulting to these parts of the global south where the youth themselves these largely very normal lives and their frustrations are of a different nature. of the front porch because of. a lot of. it will have been some blokey. of opportunity. and shooting and then the work of the difficulties to do that because you should look at this is it wouldn't matter if you do. let me stop the action that immediately you can get is for. sure the key they had was that appearance obesity so they had it. all. did all. of what they. did europe. or. in the. belief that. only. for the composition off one off one. with. if res

kennedy: bob bar barr said that president needs to focus on the economic messages. >> and healthcare. kennedy: and economics,. >> we cannot impeach. kennedy: you can if you want president reelected. i don't know if this is as close as you get to vindication, what does that look like for president. >> president has been called on regular basis for two years a traitor to country and guilty of treason. that is a crime punishable by execution. this is not just random people, high level democrats, former cia director, head of house intelligence committee, speaker of house, waters, and all democrats who make up cnn and mcircumstancmsnbc. all that, that pretty close to vindication, the big story that trump should use in 2020 election, you have obama deep state, turn the entire state apparatus on opposite candidate for what turned out to be nothing, and ruin. >> i think that democrats will pull out of context or portions of this mueller report like the i'm f-ed sep -- senseario and use it in attack ads. kennedy: there was some stuff in there that questionable. what do you think hurt him? >> i

and we go on from there. >> isn't that what bob barr, bill barr wants? at the end of the day, i don't know if you heard this. >> i heard the whole report is really good news for donald trump. total exoneration. i heard maybe some parts are written in caps that it is just a series of trump tweets. if it is as good as barr and trump said, why are they hiding it? i present that for your analysis and michelle's under the caption, obvious questions on "the beat." >> because none of what you said is true. that's why. this is where mueller was pretty slick about it. he is like, okay. here it is. now political pressure is not on mueller. it is on the administration. and in particular, the attorney general to do right by this. you have aggressive, an aggressive oversight function taking place simultaneously that is putting that pressure, added pressure on the attorney general to get this right out of the box. and as you saw from the testimony, he had some difficulty at various times doing that. >> you know, i think that what they've been able to do. one of the gr

your reaction to bob barr' pre-buttal and the way characterized the report which was different than readinghe report. >> unfortunately, i think barr's pre-buttal was barr acting as the communications director for the white house rather than the u.s. attorney general which is to say that he was using a term collusion, as you pointed out, that is a term that robert mueller explicitly said in his written report was not an appropriate term to use. it was actually using the language that donald trump himself has been using and saying no collusion. it absolutely was reenforcing something that was not what robert mueller was saying. robert mueller was clear he had not found sufficient evidence to establish that there was conspiracy. he also noted in his report that there were several factors that impeded his investigation, including witnesses taking the fifth, witnesses lying and his inability to get to certain witnesses, particularly those who were over seas. when you take all that into account, that's obviously not an exoneration of the president. it's true there was not evidence that directly i

barr does with the report. releasing 95% of the report and bob mueller says the report will contain everything the american people know should barr be fired then? i don't think so. he only had a report a few weeks. what is the big rush? let him finish the job. i can't believe people would think let me also say he doesn't need protection. he can take care of himself. he seems to be the only adult in the room and knows what he is doing. heather: you have speculation about trouble he may be in under the headline does mueller report anticipate campaign finance related to trump's russia contact, you write trump and his campaign are not out of the woods for prosecution of campaign-finance violations about contact with russia. what might you learn in the mueller report? >> and william barr's summary he talks about obstruction and says mueller didn't come to a conclusion on obstruction and talks about conspiracy or collusion and he found no crime. bar did not discuss anything about campaign-finance violations including campaign-finance violations related to the russia contact by the trump campaign. that is significant. t

but in essence, you know, bob barr, william barr, excuse me, will have to come up with something.e's not going to recant. what's going to happen is he is trying to raise the bar, raise the level going forward in trying to change the rules of how probes are conducted into presidents and these candidates. that's what he's ultimately trying to do. so ultimately in time, while the conversations and what figuring out what can be done against william barr, bull market barr is going to have to put up with shutting up or put up with this. balls it's all about trying to change what has happened with the u.s. president as it relates to donald j. trump. >> all thank you all very much. next breaking news, one of trump's favorite targets, jeff bezos, now he is about to speak to federal prosecutors. the same prosecutors who are looking into the hush money payments related to trump. plus, trump says he can't release his taxes because he's under audit. is that true? here's the commissioner of the irs. >> i don't think i will answer that question, though. but she might not be sweatpants cool. not

barr and rosenstein together no, word on whether bob mueller would be in the room but all of this comes weeks into barr's process of basically delaying when the redacted report would come out, after issuing conclusions and summary that's he did not want called summaries. when we get a press conference, we'll get something about the mueller report. the key to think about with this press conference, as well as whatever tomorrow turns out to be. we'll be dealing with primary sources when we see the reports from the court ordeal with evidence or the material is present in context. we won't automatically be getting facts about this report. when we hear from government officials, whoever they may be. or politicians in whatever party or the president who has a vested interested. we'll hear a lot of debikss which when this all breaks tomorrow morning. >> you'll see a lot of very strong things come out tomorrow. the attorney general barr will be giving a press conference. maybe i'll do one after that. we'll see. but he has been a fantastic attorney general. he's grabbed it by the horn. >> grabbe

former georgia rin -- congressmn bob barr, there no relation between he and attorney general. >> welcome. >> i was enjoying listening to your exchange with my former colleague. >> what strikes you most about differences between the starr report and mueller report, how the information was accessed and i did system nated -- disseminated. >> the environment is different, which is is taking place. back then, there were democrats did not like what judge starr did, and investigating and they found great fall wit fault witht now it is at a point why nothing that attorney general barr says or does will satisfy the democrats, if he came upside here is the report, have at it. they would look at it, they would still believe there something missing, if they ask mr. attorney general do you believe there was spying going on, he said i don't know, i have not look at this, i can't say, they would say why not, what are you hiding this a no-win situation. >> you point out that all democrats want to see went that report, they don't' redactions they want to look for everyins y possible instance of impeachab

he doesn't want to look like he is in with this administration as bob barr -- excuse me bill barr has taint on him from what is going on right now. and the questions that loom about how closest to the president and what is this and what is that? mueller is trying to stay away and keep the sangtty of this investigation intact. it's going to be hard. but there are going to be questions of him after this is over i'm sure. because we are going to be left with questions. they never seem to always answer the questions the way we think they should. >> yes. >> yes or no or give us the detail. and mueller is staying away from that. he knows he has foreshadowing of things to come. >> phillip let me ask you about the redactions because as you pointed out the only way to get grand jury testimony you have said is to initiate formal impeachmented proceeding and you can force congress to get all the grand jury testimony. but it's not just grand jury testimony redacted it will be classified information and sources and methods alling all the color coding. there is a two versions. a less redacted versi

it is not the responsibility of bob barr or -- >> it's bill barr. >> i know. >> by the way, understand i did it too a couple times on sunday. >> i think it's premature to say that this failed. mueller did not get fired. he was able to complete the investigation and once we see the report, it may be that people will be, wow, this really answered the question in a way that's satisfying, not just this bumper sticker, there was or was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but what happened in 2016? what was the texture of it? >> the problem that trump lives in bumper sticker land. and we won't, but his people live in bumper sticker land. >> and to answer your questions, the two weeks gives the president a great deal of momentum. whatever the report actually says this two weeks of crowing about complete exoneration, that makes a political difference given the high expectations for the announcement of the report. >> only today do democrats have something to call for now. >> i felt as if before, you're like congressional democrats didn't know what t

the notion that bob barr can win a legal fight here i think is very, very unlikely. what i think beryl howell would do in a case like if attorney general barr is not willing to do what previous attorney generals have done, particularly in a momentous situation like this where the situation involves the president is the house judiciary committee would go and try and compel a subpoena. it's a lengthy process, but i think the merits are all on the side of the house judiciary committee. and to the extent that there are issues for retaining 6-e privacy, most of the reasons for privacy evaporate after an investigation. sometimes there are reasons to maintain privacy. one reason would be national security. another reason might be people's personal privacy, their bank records. another might be other ongoing proceedings. but if there are those concerns, the judge can accommodate those concerns, the judiciary committee can accommodate those concerns by doing things like viewing some of the information in camera, having some agreement from the committee not to release public inf

case. >> you hit the nail squarely -- >> what barr said seems to be blatantly untrue. >> you know, bob barr's shot. bill barr's credibility is shot. let's just say that and play the violins. this president tried to do -- what do you call it that switcher oo game, changing those in charge of mueller. and this report, to try to get him out. there were skerpted attempts. whatever bill barr says at the moment, it's not justifiable. we know we report it. and it's fact. they called us fake. but we know what happened. and we have the tapes to prove it. we have people who have talked to us about it. this president's intent was to break the rule of law. but people did not follow through. and that is the only reason why there is not obstruction ever justice. and that is a fact. so whatever bill barr is saying, you know, he is whistling in the wind. >> john here is what bill barr said about the release of the stolen democratic emails during the campaign. informs also something very carefully laid out in the report. here is the attorney general. >> under applicable law, publication of these types of mate

and that means getting bob barr up to the hill, getting robert mueller up, subpoenaing in documents. it's very much a political matter. on the other side, to add on to something that was just said, it was extraordinary to me to see that there were 14 criminal referrals to come out of the mueller investigation. we knew of some. i think only two have been publicly revealed. so that just shows the intricate nature of this investigation that spun out in so many different directions. many of them we still don't know about. that's going to keep everyone busy for a while, too. >> i also think this focus exclusively on sort of the question of criminality and legality masks the larger question of basic acceptability. is it acceptable for the president of the united states to falsely accuse the former fbi director of lying under oath? right? one of the things this report does is vindicates jim comey's entire story top to bottom. is it acceptable for the president of the united states to pressure the attorney general to unrecuse from an investigation? to fire him when he fails to do so? and the

we know what bob barr says the report says. i only know about a report card and a summary of a report that the attorney general has given on what bob mueller -- >> we know conclusively that bob mueller said there was no collusion. >> did you read the report? >> it was excerpt in quote. >> not one full sentence from mueller's report appears -- >> you think the attorney general is lying? misrepresenting it? >> i'm not going to take the attorney general's word for it. i want to see the mueller report. >> i have questions about what i'm asked to believe here. am i asked to believe that barr, a longtime professional in this -- even in this particular role is engaged in a cover-up of his longtime colleague and someone he's friendly with, bob mueller's two-year investigation. >> i think they're good friends. >> and that he would put this forward in the -- for the purpose of setting a narrative which then the media two weeks later would allow to sit if the report were substantively different than what barr had put out? like that's -- th

you know, bob barr can say i'm sticking by the rules., whatever it is, '24? that says here are the three people who can ask for this. it says if one of these people asks, the irs shall give it over. the question is whether or not the whole committee gets it. where's the leeway? >> you can make arguments. i will say that the letter that the democratic chairman sent, you know, arguably, it is political. it looks like it doesn't relate to a specific legislative function. if that's the standard. i don't know if that's the proper standard. they have an interest figuring out how the irs audits and deals with others, the narrow read. what i find interesting in the request. i think it is much more narrow. request number five. the committee asks the question, which of donald trump's. at a returns have been under audit and for what period of time? you might say that's a matter of privacy. individual citizens are not supposed to be subject to prying. the president of the united states has said every day, i can't release my tax returns because they'

. >> they have not accepted bob barr's summary of the mueller report, the tin foil hats are back on., the new york times is out there saying that there's sources say that, you know, there's this mueller team is very upset with the way bob characterized the mueller report now, why should we listen to the new york times who is wrong for two years about collusion, now all of a sudden they got great sources again, that these guys are right? it's ridiculous. >> and by the way all "the talk" about this group of prosecutors, they never leak, they are the most nobel human beings to ever crawl on the face of the planet. well obviously they're leaking and they leaked all the time in my humble opinion. this whole thing is anti- american and you have prosecutors you either speak in your courtroom or you shut the hell up so they put this report together under the regulations, this report goes to the attorney general, he has no obligation to release it to congress or the world for that matter. he made a promise during his confirmation hearings, he gave them as much as they want. now they want secr

get all the information, they were not given the full picture of things and that's what i think bob barr -- or bill barr is going to try to get to, is were the proper procedures, was the information that should have been provided to those groups like the fisa court, was that followed. >> gary kaltbaum. i know this is probably a loaded question. i watched the media for the last day. i have watched them for two years accuse the president of everything under the sun, including being an agent of russia, and all they did for two years was cite unnamed sources. now you have the a.g. come out, makes a statement and all of a sudden, they are worried about all kinds of evidence, where's the evidence, when for two years it was all unnamed sources. what's your take on all that? >> well, i think it's just hypocrisy by the democrats. to your point, they basically called the president of the united states an agent, a spy, you could use that word, for russia with no evidence, and it went unchallenged for two years. it's now been completely exposed as a hoax but god forbid we actually call what was bein

jesse: -- have not accepted bob barr's summary of the mueller report. why should we listen to the new york times who was wrong for two years about collusion? now all of a sudden they got great sources again that these guys are right? it's ridiculous. >> and, by the way, all the talk about this group of prosecutors, they never leak. they're the most noble human beings to ever crawl on the face of the planet. well, obviously, they're leaking, and they leaked all the time, in my humble opinion. look, you have prosecutors, you either speak in your courtroom or shut the hell up. they put this report together, under the regulations this report goes to the attorney general. he has nole obligation to releae it to the congress or the world, for that matter. he made a promise he'd give them as much as they want, now they want secret grand jury information, they want clasker in or give it to jerrold nadler, another leaker? we have members of congress who cannot be trusted, but i have an idea. i think the administration should cut a deal with congress. you release

we fully expect he would want to be cooperative, particularly if bob barr has engaged in a sustained try to color in inappropriate ways the findings of the mueller investigation. >> if barr is going to release a report that raises concerns for you tomorrow, obviously chairman nadler has secured the authorization from the committee to issue a subpoena. how do you think that will go? for those of us who don't know congressional subpoenas versus grand jury subpoenas versus who enforces that sort of thing, what is your best guess? wi not what you're hoping but the way you think it will unfold. >> i think in my view, first we want to evaluate carefully whether the report has been overly redacted. we've agreed in the beginning that sources and methods should not be disclosed wechlt don't want to jeopardize any national security concern as it relates to the safety and security of the american people. we also have this concern that i think is justified by the behavior that we've seen from the attorney general over the last few weeks where he seems to be acting like the president's publicist a

>> we want to know what bob mueller thinks about the bob barr summary. there are credible reports that mueller's team is deeply dissatisfied after being discreet for so long, the fact this they are now speaking out is profoundly important and they are saying there is alarming and significant evidence, that is the quote from your report that there was obstruction and compelling evidence possibly even of collusion even if it doesn't rise to level of proof beyond treasonable doubt. the legislation i've offered with my republican colleague chuck grassley of iowa should be adopted requiring full disclo disclosure not only of the report but all of the facts and findings. the american people want us to deal with infrastructure and taxes and health care and veterans issues, but they also want overwhelmingly full disclosure and transparency as reflected in the rallies going on across the country. >> and you participated in one just before you came here. in his four page letter to congress, bill barr used mueller's own words that he quoted, did not establish consp

you heard bob barr say specifically when he was asked whether or not he would invoke executive privilege, he said he wouldn't and didn't have the power to do that. he said his authority, as he understood it, was that the president has authorized him to release what he thinks is necessary. it seems to me, the headline there, is that bill barr is ignoring the president's twitterfeed. >> there has been criticism in an office where there has frankly been an amazing amount of secrecy. there has been criticism after the release of that letter by william barr. criticism that it misrepresented, did not fully represent what was in the mueller report. interestingly, it was a republican, charlie crist who asked him about the whole line of criticism that he's not accurately portraying what robert mueller found out. let me play that for you. >> can you elaborate on what is meant by does not exonerate the president? >> that's the language from the report. >> right, i understand that. >> that's a statement made by the special counsel. >> right. >> i reported as one of his bottom line conclusions. i'm n

this is a -- this is a critical issue for the credibility, not just of bob barr but of the justice system overall. my big fear, chris, is that he uses the excuse of this grand jury rule 6-e to say i'm not going to have anything to do with anybody that's indicted including the president. what is the special counsel statute for? it's to hold the president accountable because he can't be indicted under the federal rules. that's what this is for. we have to see it. >> i'm out of time but one point he makes bears repeating. it's all about where he comes out on it and then it will be time to attack the process. but jennifer, well argued. ken as always, thank you. >> so the ag, is he just defending the law? is he playing it by the rules or is he using the rules to protect the president? now look, you can't come to a conclusion before you see what he actually does. but what do we know about the ag? what do we know about how these rules have worked in the past? that's instruck tif. the team has worked it out for you. i'll lay it out, next. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i

seems like appropriate to have a healthy skepticism coming from the doj or the fbi and it really is bob barr'sconfidence by being calm, answering their questions, following up. i mean i don't know, i'm not taking anyone at their word right now. >> well, that is probably very wise, very smart way to address all of this. it would have been a smart way for everybody in washington to have looked at this from day one, which is of course not what happened. so after two years of hearing all of this stuff from democrats talking about russia collusion and all this, to have people like chuck schumer and democrats accuse bill barr of pedaling conspiracy theories after what we've heard from them over the past two years it kind of, it strains credulity to put it mildly but it is, i do think that, you know, we have known all along, the report is going to come out, there will be redactions. we'll see what those redactions are, in terms of how heavily redacted it is, but we'll get a good sense what that stuff is. i suspect that mueller will release another report for congress' eyes only with fewer redactions.

in an opinion piece in the "daily caller" bob barr writes fueled by the long standing lurnt for power but now by the left hatred for donald trump, judicial public policy activist engull fls the executive branchs of the government. any president, republican or democrat, how concerned are you about them trying to effectuate, they can stop for years at a time? >> this has been a growing problem over the years, aticketed the obama administration too. i was a constitutional lawyer before i took my current post, i argued supreme court cases for doj. and the way injunctions are supposed to work you're supposed to grant relief to the party in front of you. you aren't supposed to grant relief to any number of thousands of people not in front of you. whether single district judge grants relief nationwide, they are deciding a bunch of cases that aren't presented,cationles of plaintiffs not in front of them. that hampers the development of the law, the supreme court tends to wait for cases after they perk late in the lower courts, a lot of judges weighed in. but when one judge takes it upon himse

can't say anything other than what i know and we know what william barr has told us -- excuse me, bob barrdon't know that we know the full extent of the mueller report so i just can't say that. i just want to read it. trish: what i want to know is how on earth this whole dossier wound up in the hands of the fbi and the fbi was out there getting fisa warrants on innocent americans, invading their privacy and their rights. i want to know who was responsible for that. >> absolutely. that launched the fbi investigation which then launched the special counsel probe. this was a three-year investigation when you count the fbi into president trump. he's now completely exonerated. this conclusion was a direct quote from robert mueller, no collusion, no coordination. why were the civil liberties of a trump campaign official violated. why was the trump campaign spied on. why were they looking into someone as an insurance policy against president trump's election? it is outrageous and yes, we need to get to the bottom of it. trish: maxine waters is going to continue with her impeachment dreams along t

by the way, doesn't bob barr sound like dr. evil? he's exonerated. the president did no collusion.ed. liz: eight minutes before the closing bell rings. dow is up 107 but where are pinterest and zoom stocks? we are going to look. . . ou reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz... the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. re

it's also the fifth presentation from bob barr about a report we still haven't seen. >> neil? >> i agree with you. the rhetoric was extraordinary. it sounded like a spokesman, not an attorney general. the word collusion -- ta lawyer doesn't use that term. there is no crime of collusion. only trump uses that term. you have the attorney general parroting that. we know there's one sentence in the mueller report which says do not -- this does not exonerate trump. did we hear a word of that in the summary? there's nothing i heard about that. that leads me to wonder is this an up-and-up determination description. >> how do we know this is true. barr said, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion. well, rod rosenstein didn't know that or he would not have spent all the money or gone through all the trouble of reappointing robert mueller as special counsel. the two people behind barr were rod rosenstein and ed oh cannon. his signature was on the applications. rod rosenstein was viewed as a protector of the mueller probe. to be a part of the shilling of the resul

the only person coming out worse than this is bob barr who stained his reputation. he said he was going to be confirmed as somebody interested in transparency. this is about getting out as far as you can and let it get embedded and entrench and then it doesn't matter what questions conclusions people reach. he set up the narrative. >> approximate whwhen he was tay you give us what he was asked, why did you give us the letter when it's ready to go. here's what he said. >> in my view, i was nod interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize. any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of being under inclusiincl ov overinclusive, but triggers a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. i was not interested in a summary. >> it would trigger -- this is the problem. it would trigger discussion and now everything coming out at once. it is so transparent, i'm almost shocked. they are not getting away with it. we see what they are doing. >> we see it, but will the public see it? they will see headl

of justice in washington so mike the order of this is there is a bit unusual the attorney general bob barr is going to address the media about his edited version of a report that the journalists in the room would have read by this point the release for his report is actually going to come after so what do we understand is actually going to happen with this. as conference today. well it's certainly unusual and very very controversial opposition democrats arguing very strongly that it is completely just for the head of the department of justice to be talking about a public report which the public have not yet seen not even members of congress will see it until a few hours time when it is put on floppy disks we are told and delivered to capitol hill there's going to be a scramble on the hill to find equipment that can still play floppy disks but within the next hour we're going to hear the news conference held by the attorney general william barr he's going to be explaining his take on the more than four hundred pages of investigation carried out by robert mueller now we know already that thi

they would like to produce the mueller report, almost 400 pages, down to two sentences that bob barr reported in his summary last week. those two summary statements are important because they say the president did not establish collusion between the campaign and russia, but sarah sanders said it can't be read as anything other than exoneration, but that's what robert mueller said, it's not exoneration even though he's not accusing him of obstruction. we want to see what robert mueller had to say explaining that conclusion. >> and according to this abc report, the white house is mainly concerned about don mcgahn. he's the variable here, the wild card, if you will, because as former white house counsel, he spoke with robert mueller for 30 hours, if not more. what is it that he might know, peter, that they could be concerned about? >> well, he's right at the heart of everything, particularly on the obstruction issues. if, in fact, there is a concern in this report expressed that donald trump or his associates tried to impede the investigation, even if it was not a crime, they could be a

bob mueller says bill barr got it wrong.his is both concerning and not surprising, erin. this is the problem when bill barr acts as the personal attorney to the president as opposed to the attorney general of the united states of america and tomorrow there is going to be a lot of very important tough questions that have to be asked and that must be answered. it also shows the urgency of why the attorney general must also testify before the united states house of representatives before chairman jerry nadler and the judiciary committee. >> why do you think this is coming out tonight? this didn't happen yesterday. obviously, bill barr is testifying again tomorrow. so, some, you know, there is obviously, it would appear very fwar to ask if there is a method to the timing of this information coming out. >> well, one thing i always appreciate is good journalism and investigative report,. whenever we're able to be fortunate to learn the important stories of what must be told that matters. but people probably find out tomorrow morni

the subpoena but i think they should have. >> we might be hearing more i don't recall when bob mueller and bill barrit to capitol hill. what do you expect might come down in light of what's been redacted in the 440-page report? >> what we've seen from bob mueller throughout the course of his investigation as well as the 448-page report, he is committed to detail. i will not expect to hear, i do not recall, from someone like robert mueller. i expect him to be consistent with the information he provided. i also expect, though, assuming we could get that far because, remember, we've had these subpoenas for the unredacted report and the subpoenas for not only bill barr but robert mueller to come testify in congress, i don't except robert mueller to go against the redactions. i don't take him to take a position adverse to what the department of justice has averted, which the redacted portions of the report must remain redacted until court order or some type of waiver. >> one of the takeaways looking at the mueller report by the numbers here, katie, was a number of investigations, right, or cases. whateve

absolutely nothing in regulations that say bob mueller can't get up there and talk about his report. that's not the way it works. what happened is william barr used his position as attorney general to keep bob mueller from answering questions so that he could put his spin on the report before the rest of us saw it. >> and melissa, this report which is so voluminous, we have been making our way through it, but it reflects bob mueller's choices about what you need to know. it's long but there are things we know from our reporting that aren't in there. and then there are things that are in there. i want to read some of them because they paint a portrait of this white house and president and his efforts to shape the outcome of the investigation. looking at some highlights. donald trump finding out that mueller is appointed and he says i'm f'd. you have trump deciding mueller has to go. you have trump saying the whole thing is going to be, quote, the end of my presidency. trump's own lawyer explaining what he won't do, he won't fire mueller which might get him in jail, he says i won't do this crazy expletive. trump goes back to it saying i have t

bob mueller is maybe the most respected prosecutor of his generatio generati generation. barre's made decision after decision that looks suspicious because they are suspicious. and i think it's a missed opportunity for the attorney general and you have to ask yourself when you keep making decisions that, you know, don't in some sense -- aren't in keeping with the department's best practices and policies and are the most controversial decision, why are you bringing this controversy on yourself and hurting the department's reputation than to no other reason to help the president. they look like they're designed to help the president because there's no other explanation for them. >> i'm really interested to hear your perspective on this as someone who worked with bob mueller previously. there's been some reporting that through soes yatassociates who n the investigation they're saying it's not reflective of the work that they drew. are you surprised that it's been presented this way and that bob mueller, if that really is their view from the special counsel's office? >> i'm a litt

that sten, we just heard bob barr would be find with robert mueller testifying. likely it happens and would they be okay with mueller testifying? >> i put that question to one o kellyanne conway. she ultimately got to the point of saying, look. m wouldn't stop that f happening. are they going to be cheerleading for that every day? i wouldn't expect that. but, look. this is about transparency and it's about having democrats i think be able to take that next step. you have the democratic base saying, look, now we need t impeach. and in talking to officials overnight, they're saying we're not going to take thattepyet. the next step really has to be talking to mueller and making sure that we see the full unredacted report. >> democrats have to determine for themselves how far they want to go with ts and wheth they want to continue to investigate. do you read the report as mueller saying explicitly or implicitly that this is a matter for congress because he is forbade by these rules from doing anything in the justice department? >> it's definitely implicit. i think mu

former georgia republican congressman bob barr says democrats will try and follow the clinton impeachmentman, i will ask what i just asked a.b. don't you think that democrats are at all concerned with the fact that there may be investigation exhaustion out there and there may be a rebellion by voters come 2020? >> they certainly ought to be concerned about that, but what they have done, that is the democratic leadership in the house in particular, they boxed themselves into a corner. they are scared to death of the ocasio-cortez element or faction of the democratic party and the only thing that they can all seem to agree on, because there's no substantive issues they can agree on with these far left elements, is to go after trump. so that's one thing that they seem agreed on that they will do. i think it's going to backlash very, very seriously against them if they continue this, which they probably will. david: we're not just talking the presidential election, where it may -- there may be backlash. there are a lot of congressmen, democrat congressmen, who come from districts who voted fo