. >> i want to ask you bob mueller. his investigation captured the attention and the imagination across the ideological spectrum for very different reasons. people who thought if he could not answer exactly what russia's role was in 2016, it did not matter what else happened, and wanted to know the extent of the term campaign's coordination with or awareness of the russian hack, as well as people who watched in real time donald trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation into the russian attack and his involvement. do you think mueller answered either of those questions to the public's satisfaction? >> yes and no. yes in the sense that using really talented people he ran the nature and extent of the attack. he laid it out in detail, in indictments and in the report. he removed any possible doubt i keep hearing russian hoax. let thoughtful person thinks there is a hoax around the russian attack? >> i would not call them thoughtful, but donald trump and his 63 million followers got enough of a muddied picture from muell

but let me defend bob mueller. what bob mueller did on july 24th was he conditioned the public to believe that maybe donald trump doesn't shoot straight. what bob mueller testified to were 150 contacts between the trump campaign and the russians during the campaign, which while not a criminal conspiracy in the conclusions of the mueller report, sounded like maybe donald trump viewed foreign governments as something to be used for his political purposes. and then robert mueller's service to the country was also in that second volume an obstruction report. and if you read the report in "the new york times" yesterday, that donald trump is seeking to fire as recently as a few weeks ago the watchdog in charge of the intelligence community, who transmitted or delivered to congress the original whistle-blower complaint. robert mueller probably has a better place in history for having conditioned the public to understand just how donald trump rolls so that all this information doesn't sound -- with what we already know abo

the july 25 call between the market president and ukrainian president occurred 120 after bob mueller not a bombshell, it was a big bomb. the multi-report comes out and bob mueller testifies on jul july 25, 1 day later president trump was thinking i want to ask you can president about 2016 and i want to get to the bottom. and then he says wilensky may be the first dimension, but more important it's wilensky who talks about how the united states is hopeful in the ukrainian president was he sister president trump to drain the swamp and root out corruption. >> giuliani also had this interest in ukraine and we know this is been widely reported. this is not just presumably financial interest, he was representing the president. i saw a conflict of interest, i'm wondering what efforts were made to ensure that that conflict of interest was dealt with. on the one hand going to ukraine representing the president of the united states and at the same time has been business interest. it sounds like a conflict of interest. >> i would need to refer the question to really giuliani because only he can

testified about that 2016 interference. >> the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. >> above the law. that is how chairman schiff has closed this jam-packed set of impeachment hearings over basically these two weeks. what comes next? we can tell you. they're writing a public report to detail the key findings, which will include evidence drawn from today's testimony from donald trump's former expert fiona hill who detailed the bribery plot. >> ambassador sondland leaned in basically to say, well, we have an agreement that there will be a meeting when specific investigations are put underway. that's when i saw president zelensky stiffen. they were to talk to mulvaney so these meetings could get schedu

an active retaliation he appointed bob mueller. think about this. twenty-two month long national nightmare because one guy got angry. he knew what he had done was wrong. the day of the appointment. after it was announced. he is confronted in his office about what he had done. the abuse of a regulation. he cowers behind his desk and he blubber's am i going to get fired. that tells you he knew what he had done was wrong. >> if he had gotten fired earlier, we may have avoided so much of this drama. go back to this whole idea of donald trump pre-being elected to the presidency. this relationship with russia, i still have flashbacks to all the interviews and stuff in the run-up to the republican nomination and the general election of 2016. there was always this intrigue about donald trump made by russia or bailed out by russia. a constant theme. no fax or even details. where did this come from? >> it began originally with hillary clinton in early 2016. she began to pepper her speeches with references to trump and putin that trump might be, you know, a kr

and looking for candidates will be heard over and over again about bob w mueller and then quintessentially got the perfect candidate. but if it was or was not true when did the fbi of the road path? didn't start before mueller? it started before mueller and then it escalated after. >> using any power that they could so they are the truly those that can break the rules. >> and that began before because right after he was appointed fbi director around 9/11 he is hauled into the fisa court the secret star chamber court. and confronted with evidence that the fbi had four years been presenting lies to the fisa court and warrant applications topl spy. to institute new rules andpr procedures but then continue to violate the woods procedures with the investigation of donald trump and spying on carter m page. it predates all of her but continues under his leadership. >> so once again with my experience with the bush administration that's the firstid time comey was considered. and most of the checking that we did that he was a chameleon and.d. he would say he loved president bush and say that that s

most recently was bob mueller emphasizing that while he couldn't indict trump, he would pass his report to this very same congress. and that brings us to the big difference here. there was a russia special counsel. there is not one for ukraine. and bill barr rushed to say he wasn't investigating this, which may have backfired by pushing congress to act even more swiftly because there is no probe to wait on. adam schiff is not waiting. he's doing the investigative work, grabbing the documents, text message, the e-mails, interviewing the witnesses behind chosed doors so they can't conspire and also he's moving into the more traditional congress here that we have been discussing tonight, the public hearings that at least on their best day are supposed to enlighten america and provide accountability. that is a lot more one committee chair to handle. this is what i want to get into with you right now. it is pretty interesting. mr. schiff has a lot more experience with this first role than most members of congress having worked in the hard charging legal post as a federal prosecutor before. s

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, russia, if you're listening, come get hillary's emails and later that day they tried to hack her server. the day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help and the campaign, they made full use of it, they lied about it, they obstructed the investigation into it, and all this is in his testimony and in his report, the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me, this president believes he is above the law. beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home, and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> you're watching cnn special coverage of the public hearings in the impeachment investigation. i'm jake tapper li

than bob mueller's testimony.s, adam schiff is a great fiction writer, he writes fictional monologues in the last hearing. he had pre-scripted this event with a 45 minute opening with these witnesses, he had chosen the actors but they crumbled in 7 minutes when jim jordan said let me back up. you have never spoken with the president. where do you get this clear understanding about linking aid to investigating? he asked that of bill taylor and said 6 conversations with foreign people. we have double hearsay going on, they crumbled under the pressure of jim jordan. jillian: listen to what john barrasso had to say. he asked the question a lot of people are wondering about. >> in this impeachment hearing today where we impeach the president for treason, bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in a? are either of you here to assert there was an impeachable offense in a queue queue jillian: what do you make of his question and the answer? >> there is no impeachable offense, there is no crime. this

. >> yes, i do believe he lied and so did bob mueller. bob mueller in his testimony to one of the members of congress said that the president generally was not truthful. now it is becoming increasingly clear that the president had knowledge about these wikileaks. there is evidence suggesting that he actually engaged in conversations about the timing of those wikileaks. so this is something that should be included in the articles of impeachment. the president misleading the congress in not being honest is an impeachable offense. >> let me read to you a statement that the speaker nancy pelosi released today in a letter to democratic colleagues. she said among other things, she said this, the facts are uncontested that the president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security interest. do you agree with her? >> i do. and what is surprising to me is that you don't have more republicans agreeing with this. larry prief had a great op-ed calling this president the anti-president and he's the op

. >> harris: you talk about that is appointed, democrats are so thirsty for bob mueller to give a dramatic of his own report. we didn't get that. he didn't even really to a that took us deeper than whatever was on that page. brian may have hit upon something here. this is great for republicans if there's actually no cirque du soleil there. >> jessica: you are right that bob mueller's testimony was more monotone and certainly reserve. he had been clear going in -- >> harris: monotone? he basically read what was written. >> jessica: it right, in a static voice, and there was no real drama to it. i believe the intel committee questioning revealed a lot more of that. that's when we talked about the ten or 11 potential counts of obstruction of justice, if the olc guidelines have been different. was going to be different about this investigation is we have multiple witnesses. let's say marie yovanovitch isn't that compelling, maybe bill taylor is, or lieutenant colonel vindman, or george can't. >> harris: you know what would be really cool? if the facts are that compelling. >> jessica: i find th

. >> bob mueller did not find it credible, do you dispute what his findings were? they didn't use it in the prosecution or in the report. >> i'm not aware that bob mueller did not find it credible. i think it was evidence in other proceedings. >> so the motivation for leschenko was to go after a trump official and under mice his candidacy, are you aware of that? >> if you mean by the release of the black ledger, his motivation was the same as it always was which was to expose corruption in ukraine. >> but partly to under mine the trump candidacy that he -- >> and you're aware that the you heard dr. hill's testimony, but the steel dossier initially had that information in the fbi, were you aware that the democrats -- >> i never had any involvement. >> i'm just asking, not even if you knew at the time, but you know today that the democrats paid for that information. >> i do want to be clear that all of that happened because i arrived in ukraine. in addition, i have read about those issues, but i'm not an expert on them. >> but you're not disputing the democrats and t

the july 25 call between the market president and ukrainian president occurred 120 after bob mueller not a bombshell, it was a big bomb. the multi-report comes out and bob mueller testifies on jul july 25, 1 day later president trump was thinking i want to ask you can president about 2016 and i want to get to the bottom. and then he says wilensky may be the first dimension, but more important it's wilensky who talks about how the united states is hopeful in the ukrainian president was he sister president trump to drain the swamp and root out corruption. >> giuliani also had this interest in ukraine and we know this is been widely reported. this is not just presumably financial interest, he was representing the president. i saw a conflict of interest, i'm wondering what efforts were made to ensure that that conflict of interest was dealt with. on the one hand going to ukraine representing the president of the united states and at the same time has been business interest. it sounds like a conflict of interest. >> i would need to refer the question to really giuliani because only he can

>> what is fine with me is the day after bob mueller's testimony which was as big of a bomb as the mueller report despite the fact that for two plus years everyone in this town talked about nothing we spent $35 million in taxpayer -- and the next day the president of the united states is saying to the president of ukraine and i heard about crowdstrike 2016 and people are talking about this prosecutor. had nothing to do -- he doesn't mention 2020. >> but it -- the word "biden" -- >> -- just because -- >> it is not about 2020. >> even if joe biden were not running for president and still a private citizen going off into the smet, would it be okay for the president-- the president o united states, yes or no, to ask another foreign leader to -- >> for corruption -- >> to investigate an american citizen. >> that is not -- that sounds like a very oversimplified presentation of what is happening here. what is happening heres is the president of the united states said, penal are talking about this prosecutor and, excuse me, in this investigation. and we have joe biden bragging on tape in january o

now, of course, you know, in sort of legal terms those are what bob mueller would call weasel words. that they left just enough room that they do not directly contradict what mueller -- sorry -- what roger stone's trial told us where rick gates said that he was aware of a conversation where roger stone was discussing this with the president in july of 2016 and that the campaign was aware as early as april 2016 that russia had some of these wikileaks dumps coming of hacked hillary clinton email, stolen hillary clinton emails. so it's a complicated situation in that, you know, rick gates does not directly catch the president in a lie, but it does make the president's version very hard to believe. >> do you think in part may because of some of the weasel words and what we learned from the roger stone trial paints a clearer picture than what robert mueller was able to paint? >> absolutely, yes. one of the things this early information, and it's curious we didn't know some of this information until today, because rick gates moving back that the campaign had knowledge of these forthcoming d

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, hey, russia, if you're listening, come get hillary's emails, and later that day, they tried to hacker surv survey. the day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign, they made full use of it. they lied about it. they instructed the investigation into it. although this is in his testimony report. the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me, this president believes that he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president that believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, and the words of my great colleague, "we are better than that." adjourned. [applause] >> neil: all right, you have been watching the week 2, dave t hearing. they both closed out with

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference -- the day after that donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> congressman, how -- how dire do you think the stakes are in terms of the message that is sent both to this president and future presidents if it is essentially deemed fine to do what the president did? >> if he normalizes this, chris, absolutely. we have an opportunity here to hold the president accountable. and if we do not, pretty clearly he would have established the base that any future president can get away with, the kinds of things that he did. and that there will be no wa

now thousands of pages of transcripts out there, what will be different today versus listening to bob mueller in the mueller hearing. and remember bob mueller was a government employee who was in the position to have to be completely impartial and in the weeds of all kinds of legal things. the american people today are going to hear from two and then another on friday person who will tell their personal story. and having listened to all of them behind closed doors and in the depositions, they will tell the story of how concerned and outraged they were by what they saw. n now, remember. the american people need to remember and understand that these are not democrats. these are not people who have done anything other than serve their countries for a very long period of time. extraordinarily competent people who have devoted their lives to their country. i think them telling their stories and them telling the story about how they've never seen anything like what president trump has done in ukraine is going to be a very powerful story to the american people. >> as you know, i think, republicans c

. >> the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. >> strong summation in your view? >> strong summation that will have little or no effect at all. the congress is going no recess for the thanksgiving holiday. they're closed up. we're calling 35%, 40% on both sides. there is a small margin of independents that will make up their minds as we go closer. but we are in a context of history we have never seen before. we're moving into a political season in just a couple of months and most importantly, as dahlia pointed out, we have no agreement on truth or facts. no one can agree whether the sky is blue or whether chocolate, whether it be dark or light is black or chocolate. >> what do you think of the subst

in the mueller investigation, the public got to hear from bob mueller but because of the stone walling the administration, the public got to hear from almost none of the witnesses who had firsthand knowledge. so this is very different. now, i will say this, the president's circumstances are also very different than watergate and i think for a very fundamental reason. in watergate it wasn't that the existence of tapes made all the difference, was certainly important, you know, in this impeachment proceeding, we have the existence of the call record, but i don't think that's really what differentiates then from now. i think the main difference is the president now has fox primetime and that allows his supporters to live in this alternate fact world and, frankly, i think if richard nixon would have had fox prime time, he would have never been forced to leave office. that's what we're up against, an information environment in which you can live in a world devoid of facts and that's a world, frankly, that is very suitable for a president like this who doesn't have much adherence to the fact

or misled bob mueller which could be a separate crime.that donald trump, your old boss, lied here in contrast to what stone ultimately was proven to have done? >> i think there are a lot of caveats in the mueller report when he answered that question. what i would say is i don't know his state of mind. but i do think -- i do think that he did discuss this with roger. >> you've been in the grand jury room. sam, you've been in the room. you've been under the heat. do you think donald trump was truthful or not about this? >> ultimately, no. and i also would also note here that opposed to manafort, as opposed to flynn, as opposed to bannon, but as potential easied to manafort, flynn, and gates, roger's sbiindictment he was fo guilty of is analogous to this investigation. if the president pardon scooter libby, i don't understand why he won't partner roger. but we shall see. >> obstruction is no small matter. this was a crime of obstruction without any other underlying offense. the libby pardon was by many seen as a signal. we will see what hap

and now it's even speaking to leads that bob mueller's own investigators apparently pursued right upg whether there were any potential charges related to those famously hacked e-mails as well as how wikileaks did what it did. so we are getting out to a whole other place. as for the trial, closing arguments are now set for tomorrow. i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst and former prosecutor glen kirschner who worked with bob mueller and has been following most of the stone trial as an analyst for us. and senior analyst for fox who's also been inside that courthouse for the roger stone trial and uzin there today for the testimony of rick gates. good evening, gentlemen. >> good evening. >> glen, i want to start big and wide. what does it tell you about the issues beyond the actual narrow case against mr. stone that these prosecutors including a former mueller prosecutor are ladling out to the trial and thus to the public these bigger leads from the e-mails? >> yeah, a couple of take-aways, ari, if we kind of full back to 30,000 feet. one was that i thought steve bannon's testimony yes

and if that is the position they take, they're affirming fiona hill's warning and bob mueller's warningand elijah cummings' warning to us. it's a bigger moment than just the impeachment of the president. >> fiona hill and her lawyer taking their seats alongside david holmes and his lawyer. looks like the questioning in the second session with these witnesses today is about to begin. >> we have no members. >> ari, we've talked about the weaknesses in the republican defenses. if they were to try to get themselves on offense with someone get himself on offense, might that look like. we have seen them try to big p diplomats so say there is nothing wrong, but i have a hard time imagining what this will look like from the nunes access of disinformation. >> that is a great question that we have not seen answered and we're looking at this something of a ritual here on capitol hill which is an accommodation for the traditional still photographers that put out the dramatic pictures of people so to see these witnesses and it can appear to us and the viewers to be something of a head fake. then we'

. >> the bottom line was that bob mueller identified some episodes. he did not reach a conclusion. he wasn't sborexonerating the president, but he wasn't finding a crime either. it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. >> a big story and we turn to two experts. former federal prosecutor, john flannery and matt miller, who worked at the justice department under eric holder. good evening, folks. >> evening. >> good evening. >> mr. flannery, what does this story mean to you? >> well, i guess trump's of the view that, hey, twice this guy's taken care of me. he killed the mueller report and then he's investigating the investigation. but what he should have studied was that great american philosop philosopher, clint eastwood who said a man ought to know his limitations. and inc. barr looked at this and thought, that stone wall is crumbling and falling down like the walls of jericho and i don't want to do anymore of this. so he's standing back. some people would like to believe that he's such an ethical presence that he wouldn't do this improper thing. but the peop

. >> or bob mueller or jim comey or andy mccabe, any number of these folks.he but, you know, we obviously stand by the reporting, and i'm eager to talk about it and the consequences of it. >> so take us through what you reported. >> yeah. so last night we reported that president trump wanted bill barr, his attorney general, to have a full on sort of press conference declaring that bill barr had looked through this transcript of president trump's call with his ukrainian counterpart and determined that trump broke no laws. i'm sure everyone remembers around the time that the administration released that rough transcript. the justice department put out a statement sort of saying that. they said that officials had looked at the rough transcript of the call and determined that there was no reason to investigate campaign finance violations. but that was a written statement, and it's kind of very specific to that one issue. and trump wanted more. now, we haven't reported that he sort of directly ordered barr to do this or even had a personal conversation with barr.

bear on whether or not president trump was telling the truth when he answered those questions to bob mueller about stone and wikileaks. >> let's talk about gordon sondland. you're going to be talking to ambassador volker and ambassador sondland this week. both of whom have had sort of inconsistencies in their testimony. both of whom were very involved in the things that are going on. what are you trying to get at from them? because you have a whole bunch of people who built a case and sort of outlined what was happening prior to the call, during the call, and after the call and what happened with aid to ukraine. and then you had sondland who came back, fixed his testimony, fiona hill said he still wasn't fully telling the truth. turns out there are things volker said that had inconsistencies. so you got a whole bunch of people making a case and then you got these two guys who are in sort of a different position. >> sure. you know, i think volker and sondland, as you know, were two of the three amigos with rick perry, the energy secretary, being the third. and they were basically, it appears,

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, hey, russia, if you're listening, come get hillary's emails, and later that day they tried to hack her server. the day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference but that he welcomed the help and the campaign. they made full use of it. they lied about it. they obstructed the investigation into it. and all this is in his testimony and his report. the day after that donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. [ applause ] >> you just watched the closing statement of the chairman of this committee chairman adam schiff. that w

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, russia, if you're listening, come get hillary's e-mails and later that day they tried to hack her server. the day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign. they made full use of it. they lied about it. they obstructed the investigation into it. and all this in his testimony and his report, the day after that donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law. beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing nor dangerous than an unethical president that believes their above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the word of my great colleague, we are better than that.

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law. beyond accountability. and in my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> i believe quoting elijah cummings. that came after we heard today from the 11th and 12th witnesses in these public hearings. collectively, this group has given democrats more than enough evidence to win an argument in a court of law, and perhaps impeach the president in the house of representatives, but you have to ask yourself, do the democrats have enough evidence to win a political argument and remove the president in a senate trial? that's a question that they have yet to ans

. >> bob mueller did not find it credible. do you dispute what bob mueller's findings were? that they didn't use it in the prosecution of the report. >> are not aware that he did not find it credible. i think it was evidence and other criminal proceedings. its credibility was not a question those proceedings. >> so the motivation for lutsenko was reported -- was to go after a trump campaign official, and undermine trump's candidacy. are you aware of that? >> if you mean by the release of the black ledger, i think lutsenko's motivation was the same motivation he has always expressed, which is to expose corruption in ukraine. >> right, but he has admitted motivation was to, partly, at least, undermine the trump candidacy he did not support. >> he did not say that to me. if he said that to you, i will take your word for it. >> and you are aware -- you heard dr. hill's testimony, but the steele dossier, that contained that initial information that was fed into the fbi, were you aware of the democrats had paid for that information? >> i never had any involvement directly -- >> i'

>>i thk so which is sort of song with a bob muller but mueller report the people weren't willing to rely invest in 445 pages of e reporter for your for whatever whatever was and there really weren't any kind of riveting testimony god knows bob mueller is not rivetg testimony wall-to-wall coverage on all the networks. you have. very interesting words phrases reveals that are going on you're going to have a lot of people talking about this think and this cooler. i is given health how much public opinion shifted just th tranript and how and in hearing that transcript or he people report about it. this is a potential to move it. and i think that's why i've never seen you know i thinthat's where you see devin nunez and other people sort of going wildnd talking about the steele dossier and turning it back into their conspiracy and that really may be the ukrainians really were behind it. i mean tom going. >>you know that the vote open it up a 100 by the me now they're just trying to say there's nothing to this there ner was anything to this. no one believes that the intelligentur intelligence s

a pattern that goes back to the first days of the white house and the russian interference, and bob mueller put ten distinct, specific examples of obstruction of justice in. so i think that will go in. i don't think they'll go into the collusion and all of that stuff. but i think they will look at ukraine, abuse of power, the bribery to get to the high crimes and misdemeanors. obstruction of congress because the most of the senior people at the white house haven't testified, and obstruction of justice. >> scott, i want to ask you about something that you briefly hit on at the top. as we go forward -- is this kind of moot? do you want to just see these proceedings sort of end the house vote and -- and get into what we think will be the inevitable next step, and that's the trial in the senate? >> yeah. look, i mean, i think we can analyze all of what's about to happen to death. but i think the outcome here is really certain. and the house is going to do what it's going do. i think the only thing i'm wondering about is are they going to get so full of themselves that they're going to add on a

. >> it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller -- testified, day after bob mueller testified, donald trump invited russian interference, russia if you're listening come get hillary's emails, later that day they tried to hack her server. the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, i don't know accountability. ainsley: mr. president, was there quid pro quo, extortion, bribery? >> no, not at all and let me tell you he is a sick puppy. he is so sick. this guy, i've been going through it 2 1/2 years about russia. i've been tougher on russia than any president in history but for 2 1/2 years i had to listen. this was their talking point, trump and russia. if you take a look at it, just look at the facts. even look what i've done for ukraine by giving them tank busters, giving them stuff, obama would send pillows and sheets, he wouldn't send anything else. the whole thing, now, schiff, remember this, he makes it all up. he's sick. there is something

russians are continuing to tryo do in 2020 and in my hearing again after the mueller investigation, bob mueller saidhe sitting today, the russians are still trying to do it. >> do you think part of the russian disinformation campaign is this idea it was actually raine? it was subscribed interfering in our elections, not russia? sure and there's elements of the russian government making it sound like it was ukraine. >> is i helpful to have the president, what happens when the esident is spreading a narrative not true about our foreign allies? >> it's bad foreign policy. it's also bad foreign policy when you have demrats on the house select committee on intelligence suggesting that republicans don't believe that the russians we involved in the 2016 election that actually contribut to all this disinformation. >> you've spent this past two weeks hearing fro members of our foreign service and served in similar positions as you have in government. one of them is the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitc for nearly four minutes. but you said tpent the first mi about her accomplishments and he

house of representatives now looking into whether the president lied to special counsel bob mueller inn the russia investigation. the house general counsel has filed in federal court on monday, did the president lie, was the president not truthful in his responses to the mueller investigation. the general counsel telling the u.s. court of appeals in district of columbia circuit why the house needs access to this grand jury material to prove that was the case or not. >>> the markets having wind of this have not really moved one way or the other on it. more important obviously is what's happening on the trade front and also, an interesting meeting at the white house today involving no less than the president of the united states and the federal reserve chairman. blake burman with more on that. blake? reporter: would you look at this. what came out of the white house seemingly out of nowhere this morning. president trump meeting with the chair of the federal reserve, jay powell, earlier today, as you said it was kind of a fly on the wall moment. afterwards, the fed gave their readout of w

. >> bob mueller did not find it credible for you the dispute what bob mueller's findings were and they did not use it in the prosecution or the report? >> i am not aware that bob mueller did not find it credible, because it was evidence in other proceedings and it was credible in those proceedings, but i am not aware of it now. >> so the motivation for leschenko as reported was to go after a trump campaign official, and undermine trump's candidacy and are you aware of that? >> if you mean by the release of the black ledger, i think that leschenko's motivation was the same as he has expressed to expose corruption in ukraine. >> but he has said that his motivation was to partly undermine the trump candidacy that he did not support. >> he did not say that to me, and if he said, that i will take your word for it. >> and you are aware of -- and you heard dr. hill's testimony that the steele dossier that was initially fed to the fbi, and are you aware that the democrats had paid for that information? >> sir, i never had any involvement with -- >> i am not accusing you of involvement, and not

it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified, that donald trump invited russian interference, hey, russia, if you are listening, come get hillary's emails, and that day they tried to hacker server. the day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help to the campaign, they made full use of it, they lied about it. they obstructed investigation into it. all this is in his testimony and his report. the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. presidentto me this believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. to peopled just say watching here at home, around in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. [applause]

. >> bob mueller did not find it credible for you the dispute what bob mueller's findings were and they did not use it in the prosecution or the report? >> i am not aware that bob mueller did not find it credible, because it was evidence in other proceedings and it was credible in those proceedings, but i am not aware of it now. >> so the motivation for leschenko as reported was to go after a trump campaign official, and undermine trump's candidacy and are you aware of that? >> if you mean by the release of the black ledger, i think that leschenko's motivation was the same as he has expressed to expose corruption in ukraine. >> but he has said that his motivation was to partly undermine the trump candidacy that he did not support. >> he did not say that to me, and if he said, that i will take your word for it. >> and you are aware of -- and you heard dr. hill's testimony that the steele dossier that was initially fed to the fbi, and are you aware that the democrats had paid for that information? >> sir, i never had any involvement with -- >> i am not accusing you of involvement, and not

judge jeanine: you don't have to say it, hogan, bob mueller said there was no corruption there. president said the date before the so-called hearings are going to start, i'm going to release the second transcript. now i love his timing, i love it. but do you think it's going to matter to them at all? >> i hope so. i talked to the president about this yesterday. we were on a trip together. the fact is, the president has done nothing wrong. we are the ones who released the transcript. democrats are holding these back door, behind closed door meetings, selectively leaking things to hurt the president. releasing opinions about a document we released to the american people. this is public now because the president is all about transparency. that's why he put forth the transcript. he has done nothing wrong. the democrats -- republicans, democrats, independents, they all understand fundamental fairness. democrats are not giving this president due process under the constitution. if you judge get a parking ticket you would have more rights than the democrats are giving this president. it

hasn't turned over his taxes despite saying he would do that and didn't show up in person with bob mueller despite saying he would do that and giving written statements to the mueller team. we would like the witnesses we subpoenaed to come to congress. he's not serious in this process and i don't think it's worth our time engaging with him on this other than to say we have a lot of evidence right now and we shouldn't allow him to dictate the terms for this investigation. >> on this front, she says she would like him to answer questions. he says he would do it maybe in writing. do you disagree with the speaker? >> i disagree the president is serious about it. i don't think any of us believe donald trump is serious about this. a serious person would have already cooperated with the lawful subpoenas we sent over. instead, he's blocking people who could help us in the investigation. >> we just got this notification the justice department michael horry wi horowitz has been subpoenaed to testify on december 11th on the origins of the russia investigation and what the investigators were up to. wh

even bob mueller who was no friend of donald trump at all said there is no evidence.: i go through in my book all the lies spun by adam schiff and it's a lengthy part of a chapter. this is a guy who doesn't have any credibility. he launched a top secret inquisition in which americans are not entitled to peek behind the curtain and all the hocus pocus. we are supposed to accept this out of ignorance and have faith in adam schiff. there is a reason why he's nicknamed shifty schiff. david: you can't write books fast enough to keep up with this craziness. >> it's one collusion conclusion after another. i am reminded nancy pelosi saying we'll never consider impeachment unless it's bipartisan. today we learned it ain't. david: you will learn more if you read "witch hunt" by greg jarrett. it explains the absurdity of the russian collusion. it's amazing it got as far as it did. viral video of a toddler in love with a creepy zombie baby doll. first, reporters scrambling to fact check a joke tweet from president trump. >> tweeting this photo shopped image of the k9 commando rec

bob mueller comes out and never read theit report. >> laura: what is your dad's mind set tonight going into tomorrow's public hearing? >> people are bored of this. americans are bored of this. >> laura: yes. >> i was with him yesterday at the veterans day parade. there was a world war ii veteran. battle of the bulge. he saluted my father and thank you for what you doing for this country. you here real americans like those that have done so much. on the flip side you see the parallel. pencil neck adam schiff up there with his crazy eyes. doing what he does every single day. so disconnected from real america. my father is doing an unbelievable job. >> laura: do yous think it would be better for your dad just to focus on his accomplishments. today incredible speech about the economy. and let his team fight the impeachment. i don't think most people reall care about it. >> you need to fight this lunacy. that's what america got. they have a fighter. anybody else would have been steam rolled by this nonsense. >> laura: the "wall street journal" said it's not the economy anymore, stupid. the