crist, i should say, hearing, if you look at it.of things that are that like he doesn't know what exoneration means. this esteemed lawyer, thought so highly by so many, doesn't know what exoneration means. he missed the whole point. mueller couldn't say whether or not he said he committed a crime. that he said because of the olc, office of legal counsel memo. what could he do? he did not want to say even if we can't prosecute him, he committed a crime. so he handed it to congress without pre derrelling how they is habul it but said he couldn't exonerate him. so his suggestion was this is worth your consideration. these ten instance that's i'm telling you are obstruction of justice. kids on the street know this president is a shame and a disgraceful resignation, impeachment, or prosecution, doesn't seem out of balance. out of consideration given his conduct, today and before this. >> ten instances. one of which was the president asking corey lewandowski, a private citizen, to take action and fire the attorney general. just get your h

i need you to listen to charlie crist and tell us whether barr is lying.the clip again. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter. that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think -- i suspect that they probably wanted more put out. >> so charlie crist's question, he said that they were frustrated that it does not adequately portray the report's finding. that's almost robertbatim in th >> he said, i suspect they wanted me to put more out, when he clearly had a conversation with robert mueller, in which robert mueller must have told him exactly why he sent the letter. >> is it a lie when he said he did not know whether they were frustrated. >> if he is claiming that he did not know that they were frustrated, then that is a lie. if he is claiming that he didn't know the basis for their frustration, then i

what -- >> that wasn't my question. >> well, i'm getting to the question, which is the question from crist was reports have emerged recently, press reports, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter in that they don't adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. i don't know what members he's talking about. and i certainly am not aware of any challenge to the accuracy of the findings. >> mr. barr, you seem to have learned the filibuster rules better than senators do. my question was, why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony mr. mueller had expressed concerns to you. that's fairly simple -- >> i answered the question. and the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob mueller, not members of his team. and even though i did not know what was being referred to, and had -- and mueller had never told me that the ex

, congressman crist, and basically he knew what the question was asking, which is was mueller content with what you did? and he suggested that mueller was content. and i think that we have to recognize that when you go before -- you know, chris van hollen on the senate, when you go before charlie crist on the house side, and they are representing the american public and asking questions of the american attorney general of the united states, right, this is our attorney general. this is not the attorney general of the president. it is the people's attorney general. and the attorney general has a responsibility to do the work of justice, and that means to be unbiased, to be straightforward, to be honest, to be truthful, and we've not seen evidence of that kind of perspective from this attorney general, at least on this issue. >> one of the exchanges i want to play for our viewers because you were asking him if he had taken the time to look at the underlying evidence. >> right. >> that mueller presented before deciding no obstruction. >> right. >> let's take a look. >> did you personally

quickly on the crist exchange.acknowledge they did have some frustration potentially that they weren't getting more than just that four-page summary. he dosage there was a back and forth that they had requested more information but he didn't want to put it out piecemeal. he wanted to put out the whole report in its entirety and the report was almost completely unredacted. 8% of it was redacted so everyone has now seen the absolute entirety of this report. there is nothing held back. so if members of this investigation were concerned about the way it was interpreted the american people have had a chance to read every single word and page. >> bill: i'm drawn to page two of the opening statement from bill barr. he will say part of his responsibility was to determine whether or not the conduct review constituted a crime that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. then he will say the special counsel was, meaning bob mueller, a federal prosecutor in the department of justice charged with making prosecution or deck l

crist: thank you. and you've stated that you're going to have an advertising campaign to try to make people aware to not be concerned or frightened or worried about the census and that it will be easy. i imagine you have a budget already dedicated for that. how much is that budget? mr. dillingham: our median outreach budget is about a half billion dollars. it is the largest budget ever. i think the last census it was somewhere around $350 million. so it's a substantial investment and we think it will prove to be a very wise investment. mr. crist: thank you. i appreciate that. , federal ask you agencies rely on the census data to make decisions about law enforcement, health care, equal employment opportunities, among other things. and that lgbtq people have needs and experiences unique to their communities. lgbtq advocates have long pushed for questions regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, to be included on the census. in 2017 the census bureau appeared to propose including those types of ques

. >> i'm getting to the question which is the question from crist was reports have emerged recently, press reports, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, in that they don't adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. i don't know what members he's talking about. and i certainly am not aware of any challenge to the accuracy of the findings. >> mr. barr, you seem to have learned the filibuster rules even better than senators do. my question was, why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony, mr. mueller had expressed concerns to you? that's a fairly simple -- >> i answered a question. the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob mueller, not members of his team. and even though i did not know what was being referred to, and mueller had never told me that the expression of the findings was inaccurate, bu

i don't think so though. >> let me for important context as you're pointing out charlie crist, he was speaking at an appropriations committee hearing in early april. van hollen in a senate appropriations hearing one day later, that is we assume what nancy pelosi is getting to in terms of telling a lie. asha, let me play for our viewers the context, the back and forth with charlie crist and the attorney general and what this is all kind of centering around and what this is also why one of the reasons we have bill barr not showing up and why there was an empty chair at the hearing that was supposed to be happening today in the house. listen to this. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> and then we know the letter came out that had already been sent to bill barr at that time, the letter we have rec

he micharacterized the press conference and to congressman crist what bob mueller's view was.mportantly, he missed the deadline to give us the full mueller report. there have to be consequences like this. you have to move this obstruction out of the way. we need to impeach attorney general barr. >> did you real all the mueller report? >> yeah. there's an eighth of it i'm not allowed to read but i should be allowed to read. >> your leadership has the ability to read it. but we know there is a reason for that object skwrebgobjectio. the interference that is laid out in the report is substantiated. but i know you have been talking because you are also an intelligence role on that house committee. saying a number of things. i want to quote back to you up until this point. >> yeah. >> you were asked do you believe the president right now has been an agent of the russians? you said yes. you were asked at the end of the month by questioner. i'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of russia. you said, yeah, i think it's pretty clear. it's almost hiding in plain sight. th

he's very good at splitting hairs sometimes, like in his answer to charlie crist. but i don't think there have been any game changer so far in this. not all that much gastric theatrics. we'll have to wait for enclosure and kamala harris and cory booker. the three democratic presidential candidates that are on this committee and will be speaking later. i think they'll get more heated. >> sandra: can start suggesting the real fireworks may come after lunch. bret, i know you're treating this morning preeti tweeted out that william barr said under oath three times that mueller'sn was not based on doj policy, that a president can't be indicted. that was a point made several times. >> it was. the other things he said under oath about that letter that he received from mueller, that he had the conversation with bob mueller saying that mueller told him -- again, this is under oath -- but he did not have any problems with the conclusions of the letter that barr issued, the four-page letter to congress. and his understanding, barr's understanding, was that mueller had a probl

that is from congressman charlie crist of florida.s is chiefly criarlie crist before, when he asked a specific question. >> reports emerged recently, general that members. special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think, i suspect, in they probably wanted, you know, more put out. >> okay. no, i don't. no, i don't. i don't know. charlie crist asks very specifically, does not believe his letter adequately or accurately necessarily supports the report. march 27th, the letter, when it's dated. and it says, from mueller, the summary letter, the department sent to congress, and released to the public did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. that's a lie. is it perjury? and if it's perjury, who's going to do something about it? >> the attorney general of t

members of the house of representatives this morning, speaker pelosi told florida congressman charlie crist we saw barr commit a crime when he answered your question. here is the moment the speaker was talking about. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> no one knew it then but we now know that william barr was in possession of a letter of complaint signed by special counsel robert mueller and according to william barr's guessing yesterday in the senate judiciary committee, that letter was written by the special counsel's team. >> you know, the letter's a bit snitty and i think it was probably written by one of his staff people. >> that was a major blunder in his under oath testimony yesterday. because william barr has been claiming that because congressman crist used the phrase the special counsel's te

here is barr with charlie crist april 9th. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you think what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think -- i suspect that they probably wanted, you know, more put out. >> we now know that aside is a well informed speculation now in hindsight by the attorney general there. here is the attorney general this morning defending himself from the idea he perjured himself in that crist exchange. >> why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony, mr. mueller had expressed concerns to you. that's a fairly simple -- >> i answered a question. and the question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration over the accuracy relating to findings. i don't know what that refers to at all. i talked directly to bob mueller, not members of his team. and even though i

congressman charlie crist, a democrat of florida, had a question for him.. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> is that perjury? >> i'm not going to sit here on cable television and accuse the attorney general of perjury, but it's clearly not being straight. it's clearly not being transparent. and it's odd, also, because you know, he must have thought, maybe, it's not going to come out, that this letter was sent. and essentially, that report and the language used by representative crist mirrors and tracks almost exactly the language that bob mueller used in the letter that was already in the hands of bill barr when he said "i don't know what you're talking about." so, i don't really get it. i don't know that it's an important enough thing in the scheme of other thin

i cannot imagine you received that letter on march 24 and could not answer congressman crist directly when he asked you whether there were concerns about representations being made on these findings by the people working for bob mueller. you said no. i don't know. after receiving this letter. what am i missing? atty. gen. barr: as i explained to senator leahy, i talked directly to bob and bob told me that he did not have objections to the accuracy -- senator durbin: attorneys don't put things in writing unless they are serious about them a good politician doesn't write a letter and doesn't throw one away. so i got to ask you, if he puts it in writing of his concerns can, your representations on a march 24, you couldn't recall that when congressman crist asked you that question a few days later? tty. gen. barr: i'm saying -- the march 24 letterer stated that bob mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. and it had the language in there about not exoriginal rating the president. -- exonerating the president. view of events was there was a loft criticism of the special counsel f

and said he lied to you and this is a reference to a hearing back in early april where crist asked the attorney general about reports that were public that members of the mueller team were frustrated b -- about how the four-page summary if you will characterized the findings of the report and attorney general barr said he didn't know what they were referring to but he suspected they wanted more information out. there was also another hearing where senator van hollen from maryland asked a similar question, if he knew mule ear greed with his conclusions and the attorney general said he did not know that. this is a driving force behind the frustration. frustration from democrats related to that hearing and frustration to the lack of the attorney general barr presence during today's hearing and also frustration overall about subpoenas that haven't been complied with, a white house that has made very clear they will defy pretty much anything that house democrats ask related to the mueller report or broader investigations and you're starting to see that spill out. now i should note the justi

which was in march that mueller did have a problem with how that played out and the question from crist was answered by barr as saying he didn't have any problem with this. she was clear in saying he lied to congress and it was in response to the frame of the question about a crime. it's different than being president of the united states. her answer reflecting the deep anger inside the democratic caucus toward the attorney general. their options are limited in punishing him, subpoenaing him but they clearly are trying to figure out something to do. this is the highest profile back and forth that we have seen between pelosi and a member of the president's administration. her firing down one way on pennsylvania avenue, the department of justice already firing back at her. they have been fighting with jerry nadler. nancy pelosi is a tough enemy to have. >> this comes after the warm gathering where they didn't criticize each other. >> any reaction to the way nancy pelosi took the attorney general on. >> we heard from sarah sanders just prior to interactions with k kasie there. there is the

and crist von holl en.your testimony with charlie crist in florida and chris van hollen. is that upfront? >> up front and completely accurate. >> bill: you said i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> that question that he asked me was about my conclusions along with rod rosenstein that there had been no obstruction and he was asking whether bob mueller agreed with those conclusions and i don't know. >> bill: in your view there was no con try dick shun. >> one was bob mueller's conclusion and one was my conclusion. >> it's why we have lawyers. they can sit there and parse language and cut it up into fine pieces. i think what critics would say is you were being asked both by in the house by charlie crist and in the senate by chris van hollen whether you knew the mueller team was satisfied what you said. he took a very lawyerly and precise approach. it was only afterwards we found out that mueller had called him the day after he issued his conclusions and said he wasn't happy with it. so

crist in committee, he had no idea that mr. mueller or anybody in the special counsel investigation would have objected. that's not true he lied when mr. crist asked him that question. that's beyond contempt, that's a lie. so we're depending on mr. barr's decision of who was on the preferry. we're talkinging about the opportunity for congress to do its proper oversight as described in article 1 of the constitution which is being trampled upon. the trump administration refuses to respond to any subpoenas. destroying article 1 and congress' prerogatives. now, we had a question, i think it was maybe the ranking member said, we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been signed into law by this committee? well, ask mitch mcconnell, who has declared that the senate is a graveyard for all legislation that comes from the house. we have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee, it's gone to the graveyard, where mitch mcconnell who first killed supreme court nominees of the last novet united

>> reporter: hill crist heights is one of the schools with beds at oasis urban gaen and farm.er: what they learn$8 classroom. >> this is our our school had been -- we won a billboard at our school so we are here to learn whatto do so that we could then take it back 3⌜school. >> we have to be very mindful of what we' putting into our bodies and again teaching this to our children is very essential. >> reporter:f course the benefits of growing and eating healthy food isn't just a lesson for the young. >> i've done it one time before. i wasn't super successfuan >> reporte even the seasoned gardeners here had a rough winter. >> i lost broccoli on the endkl ebecause of th cold. if it had been a mild winter, these plants would have been n reale and large. >> reporter: we are all hoping for a better harvest this time. our cucumbers turned oran last summer left on the vine too long. but we are planting on. >> some kale. spinach and green beans. >> reporter: and we're learningo right with the students. >> what are you going to put in that dirt once you get the weeds out? >> i'm going

the attorney general told congressman charlie crist of florida he was unaware of any concern from thecial counsel team. t? do you know what they're referencing by t >> no i don't i think, i suspect they probably wanted more put out. >> woodruff: today illinois senator dick durbin claimed barr misled that committee. >> you when congressman crist asked you that question a few days later? >> the march 24 letter stated that bob mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction, andit ad the language in there about not exonerating the president. druff: while most hemocrats zeroed in on what happened after016 s ection, some republicans shifted their fo what happened before election day. >> now there was a difthrent campaignclinton campaign. >> woodruff: republican senator josh hawley of missouri argued the initial probe into the trump campaign began with two f.b.i. agents, assigned to the investigation, who opposed mr. trump. o i cannot believe a top officithis government with the kind of power that these people had would tryo exercise their own prejudices and that's what this is, it's open

and this exchange between barr and congressman charlie crist. >> reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your march 24th letter that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's findings. do you know what they're referencing with that? >> no, i don't. >> yes, he did. of course he did. he had mueller's letter for nearly two weeks when he answered that question. we know that now and he was clearly expecting to be asked about that. so he had an explanation prepared to try to convince you that what he said before, that it wasn't a lie. >> i don't know what members he's talking about. and i certainly am not aware of any challenge to the accuracy of the findings. >> mr. barr, you seem to have learned to filibuster, and you do it better than senators do. my question was, why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony mr. mueller had expressed concerns to you? that's a fairly simple thing. >> i answered a question, and the que

you know, both congressman crist and senator van hollen asked him in pretty direct ways that were youe upset about how you characterized the mueller report, and he said no, he didn't know that they were upset. and we now know that there were two letters and a phone call which are extremely dramatic events. event barr didn't claim that he forgot about these incidents. he claimed that the questions were not phrased in such a way to call for a answer of "of course i'm aware." but boy, i think he is not going to be prosecuted because the justice department is not going to move against the attorney general, but the question of whether barr told the truth, i think he's got a tough argument there. >> eliot, what is interesting is barr was saying while the question was imprecise and i didn't know what his staff felt, i had a conversation directly with mueller, but the letter, which from all intents and purposes was written by mueller, barr then went on to say well, his staff -- somebody on his staff probably wrote the letter. so by that logic, he did hear from the staff if that in fact was hi

crist asked him that question. that's beyond contempt, that's a lie. so we're beyond determining what the repercussions would suffer. we're talking about the opportunity for congress to do its proper oversight in described in article i of the constitution which is being trampled upon. the trump administration refuses to respond to any subpoenas. destroying article i and congress' prerogatives. now, we had a question, i think it was maybe the ranking member said we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been sign eed into law by this committee? well, ask mitch mcconnell who has decided that the senate is a graveyard for all legislation that has come from the house. we have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee. it has gone to the graveyard, where mitch mcconnell, who first kills supreme court nominees of the last president of the united states in his one year before and voids and frustrates the constitutional prerogative of the president to nominate members to the supreme court, but now frustrates the oth

crist in committee, he had no idea that mr. mueller or anybody in the mueller special counsel investigation would have objected. that's not true. he lied when mr. crist asked him that question. that's beyond contempt. that's a lie. so, we're depending on mr. barr's determining who was on the periphery and what reputations would suffer. we're talking about the opportunity for congress to do its proper oversight as described in article i of the constitution, which is being trampled upon. the trump administration refuses to respond to any subpoenas, destroying article i and congress's prerogatives. we had a question. i think it was maybe the ranking member said we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been signed into law by this committee? well, ask mitch mcconnell, who has declared that the senate is a graveyard for all legislation that comes from the house. we have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee. it's gone to the graveyard where mitch mcconnell, who first killed supreme c

you were asked by representative crist -- >> excuse me, senator. that conclusion was not related to my description of the findings in the march 24th letter. that conclusion refers to my conclusion on the obstruction. so it's a different conclusion. >> it was used by special counsel mueller. and on the obstruction issue, at page 8 and 18 2 of the report, the special counsel specifically said at the same time if we had confidence after thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. he said it again at page 182 and yet in your summary and in the press conference that you did, you in effect cleared the president on both so-called -- >> the difference is i used the proper standard. that statement is a strange statement. >> robert mueller concluded that there was substantial evidence on four -- on the three necessary elements of obstruction. >> you're a prosecutor -- >> i have to finish my question. >> if you let me finish my answer. >> we can do both. >> you ignore in that press conference

i looked back and looked at the exchange between charlie crist and bill barr. asked a rambling questions about news reports and what were the news reports referring to and barr said i don't know, because he doesn't know what the news reports are referring to based on anonymous sources. then he went forward and said i presume that they are probably concerned that i didn't put enough out there. concerns that were certainly alleviated when a few weeks later, he put the whole report out there. so this whole issue is really much ado about nothing. the report is out there. everybody can read it for themselves. neil: fair enough. that's a very good point. again, i think just to be clear, when he originally said he wasn't aware of mueller taking issue with any of his top line findings, when in fact he had a letter saying as such, it is a moot point if the report's out there, people can judge for themselves, but do you think that's going to be a sticky point and just widen this at least for democrats? >> you know, i think democrats are going to seize on anything they ca

sways in there we see that the head of the freedom party has crist and straka offering to do deals with them and sort of brings a sort of mission that's true. and i think that's why he had to resign within 12 hours of the video being released sebastian cordes the chancellor of austria called new elections within 24 hours so if there's anything good about what happened in austria over the weekend i think we can say that it showed that in a western european democratic country that the institutions are still working despite the influence of the far right there it's important to remember that the freedom party was a member of the government and had more than a quarter of the of the votes in the last which is different from most of the populist right wing part of this is obviously very good in government and they are have just been much more successful over the years in austria than they have in other countries is the 2nd time in recent years that they were a member of a governing coalition karen taylor one of the one of the topics of our discussion today is inevitably going to be values and

. >> reporter: riding in a rescue chopper troy helmer and crist berquist discovered amanda clinging toife on a waterfall in the rainforest. >> as soon as we saw her it was like oh my god, we got her. >> reporter: she had lost 20 pounds, suffered a fractured leg, abrasions on her ankle and severe sunburn but she still had her smile. >> the calvary arrived what were the first word. >> to be entirely honest i don't remember because it was so excited we were crying, screaming and laughing. >> reporter: for the first time in more than two weeks she called her dad. >> it was nothing but pure emotion. >> reporter: amanda went missing after going for a jog on may 8th last seen on surveillance mailing a mother's day card. on friday she was plucked from isolation and airlifted to safety. >> it did come down to life-and- death and i had to choose. and i chose life. >> reporter: speaking from her hospital bed, she thanks the more than 200 volunteers that scoured the 2,000 acre reserve night and day. >> i have the most gratitude and respect and appreciation. i can't even put it into words for the p

you couldn't recall that when congressman crist asked you that question a few days later?was -- the -- the march 24th letter stated that bob mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. and it had the language in there about not exonerating the president. my view of events was that there was a lot of criticism of the special counsel for the ensuing few days and on thursday i got this letter. you know, the letter's a bit snitty and i think it was probably written by one of his staff people. >> would you concede that you had an opportunity to make this letter public on april 4th when representative crist asked you a very related question? >> i don't know what you mean by related question. it seems to me it would be a very different question. >> i can't even follow that down the road. i mean, boy. that's a masterful hair splitting. >> did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with robert mueller? >> yes. >> who did that? >> there were notes taken of the call. >> may we have those notes? >> no. >> why not? >> why should you have them? >

is clear on its face when my good friend and colleagues from across tampa bay, congressman charlie cristasked the attorney general directly about whether he had heard from mueller or his team about what the ag originally put out and he said directly, no, he had not. now we know because of reporting and the letters from special counsel mueller that that was not true. so, what we have to do now is to proceed in a very deliberate way, according to the law, and i think it is probably appropriate to consider contempt for the attorney general. he is acting more as a defense attorney for president trump, rather than the attorney general, who represents people all across the country. i think it is also quite important now to schedule special counsel robert mueller to come before the judiciary committee and to continue to work to obtain the full mueller report, unredacted, for the committees and their professional staff. and to continue in a very deliberate way to get to the bottom of what has happened on obstruction of justice. everything the administration is doing right now appears to be more

crist's you know i think it would be blind of the united states simply to allow the chinese companies to control this crucial infrastructure and here we're talking specifically about weiwei which has close links to the chinese government to the chinese military and to allow them to control american infrastructure what i think just be a dereliction of oversight on the part of the american government it shouldn't happen and shouldn't happen in close american allies like australia the united kingdom nato countries as well but can you really advance that kind of argument and call for the enforcement of w.t. all rules because if you prevent one chinese company from operating in the american market i don't see how it would encourage the chinese leadership to permit a more open space with the american or other companies in their own country. have a built in national security exception mechanism and you know i think it would be entirely appropriate if china were to prohibit american companies from controlling this crucial infrastructure but let's be very serious about this china for hits face

is what nancy pelosi is trying to say, that he lied to congress in answering questions to charlie cristut of florida. >> yes. what democrats are saying, he lied and using that term lying meaning they don't like what he said. they have no proof whatsoever of that, everyone can read the report, 7% of 448 pages were redacted and that according to law. they have no legitimate basis so to say they will hold him and criminal contempt simply for presenting the facts and saying this is what i did is just a political maneuver and would not hold water for the legal rules that would be sufficient for criminal contempt, no way they could prove that in a court of law. daymac we will see what happens today. love having you with us. the time is 20 minutes until the top of the hour. mayor pete abca11 blasting the president and america. >> the past he is promising to return us to was never as great as advertised especially for marginalized americans. ibly20 the backlash is growing and hbo pouring out apology to game of thrones and after a starbucks cup has been seeming on social media. the top trending

people are pointing to is this exchange between charlie crist and the attorney general.video clip] >> reports have emerged>> recently that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated with the limited information included in your letter, that it does not sccurately portray the report' findings. you know what they are referencing? >> no, i don't. host: did he lie? 27st: if he read the march letter, which i assume he did, it is hard to square it with an answer that says i don't know. host: what is the answer to that? guest: i think it is going to get increasingly difficult for mr. barr to be testifying in front of congress on any matter. congress expects integrity from the officials it has confirmed to assist the president. once officials get in a position is underir integrity question, their ability to carry out their job diminishes rapidly. when that is the attorney general of the united states, even more so. he explained in his testimony on wednesday, he addressed this concern. did he do so adequately? guest: that may be the answer. perhaps not adequately. i thi

you are asked by representative crist -- >> excuse me, senator. that conclusion was not related to my description of the findings in the march 24 letter. that conclusion refers to my conclusion on the of shropshire -- the obstruction cases. >> conclusions used by special counsel mueller and on the , at page eightue and 182 of the report i don't know what the have it in front of you, the special counsel , if we hady says confidence the president did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. summary and the press conference that you did you, in effect, cleared the president on both so-called collusion -- >> the difference is i used the proper standard. that statement you just read is a very strange statement -- >> four of the specific obstruction episodes robert mueller concluded there was thetantial evidence on three necessary elements of obstruction. i have to finish my question. >> you have not let me finish my answer. >> we can do both. you ignored in that press conference and in the summary that robert mueller found substantial evide

with the president and former vice president trading barbs over race here is crist are walled's take, trump stokes racial resentment to hinder biden's rise. let's get reaction from senior advisor to trump's 2020 campaign, lara trump joins us tonight. one of the latest things that has cropped up his this decision by the treasury department not to go ahead with harriet tubman on the $20 bill next year. here is was one congresswoman says, it shows a basic pattern of bias and hate this president and his lackeys are fond of and it is disgusting and disrespectful. the treasury department has that this is about working against counterfeiters, it is a security issue, the president's credits are not buying it. >> of course they are not buying it because their default is always the race card. they desperately want donald trump to be a racist. we see he has done more for the african-american community than the previous president who was the first african-american president actually did. it is about security and nobody is saying it's not going to happen. no one is saying harriet up and will not b

matter of fact and a lot of this turns on one particular answer he gave in testimony to congressman crist he didn't know why bob mueller was the way he summarized the report when it was fully released when he got a letter from bob mueller why he was unhappy the way the report had been summarized so there are spend particular games about contempt or not contempt. but i think bob mueller was unhappy with the way the attorney general characterized the report. >> absolutely. jerry we appreciate your insights. >> thank. >> we've heard talk about contempt charges in congress. what actually happens when lawmakers take that sort of action? some suggest it could involve a secret jail deep in the bowels of the capitol so our chad berger went looking for answers. turns out there's a lot of history and misconception. that's coming up later this our separating fact from fiction. >> president trump in the last hour announcing u.s. will drop steel and aluminum tariffs against mexico and canada. rich is keeping tabs. what's happening? >> with the president u.s. mexico and canada have all done is drop maj

i believe it was congressman crist asked if you knew what the members were concerned about.ou testified in response, no, i don't. you then said you merely suspected you'd prefer more information was released with the letter. now we know contrary to what you said april 9th, that on march 27th robert mueller wrote to you expressing very specific concerns that your march 24th letter -- remember your testimony on april 9th -- that your march 24th letter failed to capture, to quote mr. mueller, the context, nature and substance of his report. what really struck me, mr. muleer wrote that your letter could undermined the central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel, to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. why did you testify on april 9th you didn't know the concerns being expressed by mueller's team when, in fact, you heard those concerns from mr. mueller two weeks before? >> well, as i said, i talked directly to bob mueller about his letter to me and specifically asked him what exactly are your concerns. are you saying the ma

this goes back to william barr's testimony back in april when florida congressman charlie crist askedout reports that people on mueller's staff were not happy with how the mueller report had been represented in that summary of the bottom-line findings that barr had put out. barr said he did not know what was behind the complaints. of course, we have since found out that robert mueller himself voiced those complaints in a letter that was dated on march 27 but was received on march 28 and did outline concerns that mueller had about his summary. today, nancy pelosi used the l word to describe what barr did. listen here. >> he lied to congress. he lied to congress. if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. nobody is above the law, not the president of the united states and not the attorney general. >> we do have a response from department of justice coming up from the justice department spokesperson saying -- >> shepard: finally as a matter of an appointee or nominee of the fed, it seems there's one less guy available. >> yeah. the nomination of steve moore, an economist h

the other was an exchange from congressman charlie crist out of florida where he asked about reportst members of the mueller team were upset with how the findings were being characterized. this is the mueller letter. it says, the summary letter of the department to congress. and we are communicating that, and there is now critical aspects. and that undermines the central purpose for which the department for the outcome of the investigation. in the testimony, he said basically he was upset, and he wrote these letters, in an effort to make sure they had it on the record. >> but i repeat, they offered to make suggestions for how the summary would come out. turn that down and then turn around and complained that he didn't like the way that it was being covered, and he turned down the opportunity to edit. so, sorry, you had your chance and you didn't do it. what it came down to is he wanted the executive summary released. as barr explained today, he even suggested edits and reduction so they can be released. but barr said today that the reductions -- even if they agree to, he couldn't do

congressional hearing i believe on april 9th in answer to questions that were put to him by representative cristwhat they're trying to say is that his comments were about -- essentially a general description of barr's, of mueller's report, when in fact what he was talking about was narrowly, this is clear from the transcript, the conclusions in the mueller report. charles: what do you glean from yesterday? what do you think the democrats were trying to achieve yesterday? in other words, i mean there's a lot of political theater that surround all these kind of things but from a legal point of view, what were they trying to unearth here they couldn't get from barr? >> i think, charles, the questions about unearthing anything out of the report are frivolous because the report is actually 95% unredacted and the parts that are still redacted are things like grand jury material that if congress wanted to, they could pass a law to get access to that. it is never about what it's about, right? i think they're trying to create the impression that there is a coverup and that's, that leads into what you saw