we all remember the ken starr report. and it was very detailed, as we'll recall. >> oh, boy. >> it was. >> oh, boy. >> so when they decided that didn't work, they decide to establish a special counsel, not independent counsel, and the special counsel operates much like a federal prosecutor, which is to say you don't say very much. so there is going to be some kind of showdown if barr decides to say issue a summary. i'm presuming the gang of eight would be briefed. but the american public wants to know a lot. so he's got to -- he's got a balance that he's got to hit and it's going to be very difficult. of course, congress can always subpoena bob mueller. i think bob mueller would like to do a mike drop and walk out the back door and never hear from him again. they can -- they can go to the supreme court if they want. and have an argument with the white house over privilege. if things are de-defense of marriage act redacted. we know one thing for certain. it won't be easy. >> not at all. the gang of eight is the top republi

the law is sacred. >> meanwhile, ken starr had been digging into the clintons for more than two years to be working for congress or the court or the public? >> his investigation was winding down. >> i'm not going to be making any statements. >> then out of the blue, some explosive tape recordings came his way. >> i never expected to feel this way about him. >> conversations with monica lewinsky. >> we fooled around. >> that were secretly recorded by her co-worker, linda tripp. >> if you get to orgasm, that's having sex. >> no, it's not. >> yes, it is. >> no, it's not. >> starr expanded his investigation even further to look into lewinsky. >> my reaction is that's nuts. i couldn't believe that starr was going down this road. >> do you understand, sir, that your answers to my questions today are testimony that is being given under oath? >> yes. >> starr learned that the president was testifying about lewinsky in another matter. >> it's just humiliating what he did to me. >> a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by paula jones. >> your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury. do you

ken starr weighs in next. amily and it really shows.all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. we're finally going on the trip i've been promising. because with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. ♪ so even when she outgrows her costume, we'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure together. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only when you book with expedia. >> the discussion of the 25th amendment was simply rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort. charles: all right, acting fbi director andrew

ken starr, who is the precedent we were talking about before came on "the beat" and talked about why he thinks it's good to talk, which would mean more from mueller soon. take a look at that. >> was your more public strategy better than mueller's, or is he right to be so discreet on this probe? >> it's a judgment call. i don't think it's right or wrong. >> what's the better course? >> i think the better course is greater public information than we have been having. but that's bob mueller's determination, and have i the greatest respect for that determination as well as for him as a person. >> david? >> special prosecutors seek prosecutable offenses. this is a drum i've been banging since early in 2017. there is a real risk in this highly legalistic culture that we look to bob mueller to do things that is really up to congress to do. you know, it's not a crime to have a lot of gambling debts or to owe a lot of money to shady banks. those things aren't illegal. but you wouldn't give somebody a security clearance if those things were true of them. what we may find and what i have been w

he gave a report, just like ken starr did. they don't have as much distinction in this case? >> this is the million-dollar question. can you indict a sitting president, and i think there's a deate the -- death in the white house. >> mueller is most likely going to leave this, here's my report. >> the report back to the ken starr point, that was a statutory requirement that it be it a report. then there could be a second report if there is a conflict between mueller and the attorney general. if that doesn't happen, there might not be anything public at all. >> the democrats will ramp up on that one as he gets his second vote next week. >>> up next, why the nuclear arms treaty is happening with russia. lobsterfest is on at red lobster. with the most lobster dishes of the year, what'll you choose? how 'bout lobster lover's dream? more like a lobster dream come true. a butter-poached maine tail, roasted rock tail and creamy lobster linguine. or try new lobster in paradise. it's a crispy coconutty, vacation on a plate. new ultimate lobsterfest surf & turf is here, too. 'cause what

is. >> ken starr was operating under a different set of rules and laws that actually required him if impeachable offences to give that information to congress. if donald trump is found committing crimes, it's going to be a big question how house determin democrats who have talked about impeachment, how they're actually going to get that information is a huge question, especially if robert mueller decides, as the justice department protocol says, you can't indict a sitting president, we're kind of in a catch-22 situation here where who knows how that information is ever going to get out to the public. the house democrats have already told robert mueller and the justice department we want that information, they're threatening to subpoena it. that's going to be a huge battle to come. >> you're reporting today that in trump's inner circle, trump's inner circle is not the end game. what about the president's closest associates and children? >> they've been living under a shadow for two years. if they're not charged, they may never have their names cleared, at least publicly, in the course

that they were issues that i don't think -- >> unlike the ken starr report, which got very personal, you think? >> yes, it did. >> map, if there is a road map that could lead congress to consider impeachment, if there are impeachable offenses, how much of an obligation does barr have to give that directly to congress? >> i think congress is going to try to get that, whether barr wants to give it to them or not. look back at the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. very soon after that, we saw the fbi publicly release in response to freedom of information act requests reports of interviews, 302s, they're called, a detailed investigate civil summary. and these were just like reporters requesting them. congress is going to be all over barr and all over mueller to release whatever materials they have. if that report is like a detailed road map of what he found, great. they can probably get underway with whatever they want to do more quickly, but even if it's not, i think they are going to scrutinize this investigation, just like we saw the hillary clinton e-mail investigation scrutinize

>> well, we certainly don't have the same process that we did with ken starr report because now theres this medium in between. there is sort of a safety guard, if you will, of the attorney general. he gets to see the report first. and he basically gets to decide what goes to congress and what becomes public in the first instance. i think there is a lot of debate, it seems to me that he has a lot of discretion. these are all rules that he is in control of and so it will be largely up to him in the first instance how much of it comes out. and if congress isn't happy with it, i'm sure they will try to subpoena it as they should. and i think that what is so unusual about this, and i did listen to a fuller clip of what rosenstein said today in those remarks, and he also talked about their being exceptions to the policy. the general department of justice policy is you don't talk about people who you've not -- not feel you can indict because you don't have that level of proof. okay. but president trump is in a very different situation. he can't be indicted per the policy now. not because nec

came up with and not part of impeachment, part of ken starr's legislative remit.l be a bare-bones chronology. i think he's done a lot of work, his team has put a lot of work into this. i would imagine that any prosecutor would want to put the results of his work into one detailed document for the attorney general's consideration. that does not mean that it will become public. it does not tell us what will become public because barr is -- is limited by the regulations that govern him. and barr will have to decide what can be made public. of course, the house will have to make a determination what do we subpoena, how do we get our hands on this. that's how jaworsky made its way to the house in the watergate era. the house judiciary committee subpoenaed it, and the d.c. circuit, the court of appeals here in washington, approved that subpoena and ordered the documents turned over. we could see that here. >> which is i believe it's judge beryl howell. i was reading too much yesterday, who is presiding over the mueller case. there's that whole piece of it. let me play t

i mean, they're really trying to contain the vast scope of the ken starr report that really, you know700 pages, really necessary for the american public to read? so they're trying to contain it and there are regulations. so he's within the letter of the law in not releasing much. >> there are norms, not necessarily regulations, that say to prosecutors if you're not going to indict someone, bring charges, then you should not say anything. and i live by those norms when i was a federal prosecutor, as u.s. attorney in connecticut. but this case is different. what we have here is a special counsel ha hthat has been appoi because of the betrayal of public trust. it's an extraordinary case. and that's why the public deserves to know. public paid for this report and the american people deserve to knows what's in it. >> what happens if you just gives you a thumbnail sketch? >> there will be subpoenas from office, i hope from the senate judiciary committee where i sit. but there will also be a public perception of cover-up. because if william barr believes, i think he does, that a sitting pres

sanctions with people still out on the streets and we discussed the situation with antiwar activist ken starr. at the united states is playing with the same playbook as they you in venezuela and as they used against the former yugoslavia i guess libya against iraq against syria pulled into. what about this alleged defection at the u.n. now is part of the playbook first the first part of the playbook as you demonize the leader the second one is you deal with jitter made or you try to deal egypt make the government and that's what this tweet is about that the third step is economic sanctions to strangle the country and its people which has already been brought into effect and all that is followed by military action so yes it looks like the u.s. is heading for an attempted coup perhaps a military invasion or supporting a military invasion of venezuela it's blatantly illegal to do what they're doing you know to meddle in the affairs of a country of a sovereign country and try to auburn about changing government. a leading spanish newspaper has caused fury after publishing an article praising the

but if you're expect lengthy report like ken starr, pete williams has a reality check. >>d police say an infamous c case mystery is solved. the murder of an 11-year-old girl 45 ars ago. how authorities say her killer was finally found. ic >>> a dramat rescue caught on camera. a skier falling 200 feet. one ski sticking out under a foot of ow. tonight the frantic race to pull him out alive. >>> good evening, everyone. breaking as we come on the air tonight, a u.s. coast guard officer and self-proclaimed white nationalist is charged tonight with plotting a massive dostic terror attack. compiling a lengthy list of targets including prominent politicians and journalists from nancy pelosi and cory booker to msnbc's joe scarborough and chris hayes. prosecutors releasing this photo of a weans cache they say was discovered in the suspect's maryland home. i according estigators, the man dreamed of killing almost every last person onarth, and had hoped to use violence to create a white homelan let's go to nbc's gabe gutierrez with the chilling details. >> reporter: christopher pau

mark: ken starr, over two years we have until the president has been colluding with the russians i nevermean does that mean have a drink? i have russian heritage if i speak to the president is that a russian thing? it is an ambiguous term but yet the chairman of the senate intelligence committee is not a show boat. he's pretty quiet and seems to try to be doing a studious job that he is cornered by cbs or nbc or both and says we haven't found direct evidence of any collision. other than a quick hit from the media i don't see that being pounded as breaking news. alert. a new revelation then you have 14 shows talk about it. where is the russian collusion? thousands of journalists are looking hundreds of americans looking federal prosecutors looking. leaks all over the place people writing books all over the place there is evidence of collusion whatever that is you would see it by now? semi- wrong. >> not at all apparently there is no evidence of collusion in the public domain. we have more than that we have contraindications and those are the two indictments returned on bob miller's with t

i look at the media treatment of ken starr. and robert mueller.are mirrored opposites of each other. has the media gone completely in the tank? . >> yes. i have no doubt but you need to know andrew wiseman is a master manipulator of the media he did that throughout enron litigation also and sat in the courtroom with his arm around the lead reporter for the houston chronicle throughout the litigation of enron. mark: during the course of the investigation with the associated press? . >> yes. that was before he was on special counsel in department of justice looking into the manafort issues. mark: i will pursue this with you in a moment. most every weekday watch me on levintv. sign up and give us a call. teefive we're go to blaze tight - - blaze tv / mark. we will be right back. before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? t

david: the case of ken starr was fairly long, as i recall.ut when he does submit it, he will not release it to all the media. >> no come he is precluded -- no, it has to be a confidential report to the attorney general, so the discussion turns to the attorney general, what he will say to congress, because regulations require the attorney general to now explain to congress what was in the report. that is where we will see some pushback from congress, i think, if they do not get the full report. david: when the report comes decides tor mr. barr submit it, it does not really end the process because there are other investigations that have spun off, including in the southern district, your old office. what do we know about what they are looking at? jessica: those are focusing on the trump organization and the you now grow committee. a report thatas came out that they were looking at wire fraud, money laundering and is specifically violations of the laws that preclude foreign donors from donating to a committee, said they will be waiting for the i

drill to that issue, which is one of several you pointed out in your lead, number one bill clinton/ken starrrecedent is not often thought of a great example, albeit serious to many people for mini ways presideand there is a case john edwards was not convicted because the jury decided however despicable, it didn't seem like that should be counted as a campaign expense. so i'm not sure the people feel it leads to a high crime. my question is how many other thijs came up in the congress and mueller are digging into that might be even bigger? >> cohen said trump noeever overtly told him to lie to congress, but that he made clear. >> at the same time i was actively negotiating in russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no russian business and then go on to lie to the american people by saying the same thing. in his way he was tell me to lie. he doesn't give you questions, ehe doesn't give you orders. he speaks in a code and i understand the code because i've been around flim a decade. >> and it's your impression that others who work for him understand the code as well? >>

. >> and ken starr, you think that is a big difference and bad one, too, correct? >> i do. the president did attack the investigation regularly through surrogates. a more skillful set of attacks with terms like "witch hunt" and james carville and sidney bloom and all that. politically, it was a wise move on the part of president clinton to say i'm focused on the work of the people and rise above it. >> the second difference? >> the second difference is mr. mueller has conducted his investigation very close to the vest. we don't know what he knows. there haven't been leaks. i, as the white house press secretary, everyday dealt with leaks coming out of this investigation. i know mr. starr has denied his office was responsible for it. i would recommend everyone listen to the slate podcast and you will find some of his prosecutors deeply uncomfortable with the amount of information coming out, how the investigation was prosecuted. in fact, by the time the report was issued, most of the information was already out in the press. it was my view at the time, mueller is trying to in

most people when they hear the phrase mueller report think of what the 9/11 commission did or what ken starrpublish a heavily footnoted full novel. it's worth noting how much mueller has been filing in these court documents so far. the so-called speaking indictments where he's speaking not through the press, not through ancillary materials, but through the actual indictments and court filings and guilty pleas he's filing with the court along the way. i think we are most likely to see that mueller chooses a vehicle like that to make public what he needs to make public or what he feels he needs to make public. that's something he has total control over. anything that he hands over to william barr as the attorney general then it's up to barr to decide what to hand over. whether it's a full report, a summary or something in between. this is a situation where the one thing that mueller can absolutely control are the court filings. >> jennifer, if this happens early next week or as early as neck week, how do you see it playing out? >> it's hard to say. if mueller gives information about the eviden

clinical analysis of the evidence without any conclusions drawn and then in juxtaposition of that, ken starr's report which is 440 pages plus -- and it gave conclusive comey-like narratives so mueller has to figure out who is he? is he jaworski or starr? he's around different statute but that will be informative of us. so that's 55 pages or 450 pages michael, staying with you, depending on what bill barr wants to do hypothetical he get this is monday and there's a real thirst by we the people of the united states to understand what this has been about, how quickly do you think he can turn something around for the public? >> it depends on how much classified information is in that report. if he writes a report that's -- counterintelligence component of which bears on a lot of methods and sources and data that is acquired from intercepts and the like, it will take a long time to redact that report and make it publicly available. it could be that barr decides he's going to send the report, he has an obligation to send it to house judiciary, senate judiciary, house intelligence, senate intelligenc

. >> in the monica lewinsky investigation, ken starr gave a report to congress and gave all the grandade it all public. we need to do some thing like that. >> he was required to do that. >> bret: we will see. coming up, why police showed up at a 6-year-old's birthday part party. quaid. he's a pretty good spokesperson. ehhh. so when i say, "drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412," you probably won't believe me. hey, actor lady whose scene was cut. hi. but you can believe this esurance employee, nancy abraham. seriously, send her an email and ask her yourself. no emails... no emails. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. jushis local miracle ear t at helped andrew hear more of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your f

this is going to work a little bit differently than ken starr with bill clinton years ago.ongress could vote to release the whole thing. this goes into the justice department. there's a question of what any of us in the public are going to get to see. >> the president actually said something today in a press conference that was true. and asked should the report be released, he said it's up to william barr. he has a huge amount of power. this is the most consequential investigation, criminal investigation, national security investigation in american history. how much do the american people get to know about what mueller has been doing this two years. so during his conformation hearing, what barr said wasn't confident inspiring. there's a theory that was an oddition for barr to be in this position and he's going to do the right thing, which would be consistent with grand jury secrec secrecy allowing as much of the evidence to be transparent, given the light of day as much as possible. >> and speaking of that reporting from the "washington post" tonight. the white house, may b

attorney is the southern district of new york is with us as is paul rosen swieg, former counsel to ken starr. gentleman, ali, start withing with you, out of the gate, this is obstruction? >> what other reason could the president have for calling matt whitaker as the cohen investigation was growing, threatening him. clearly trump knew it was coming for him for a reason and asking whitaker, can we get my guy, berman, session technically put him in. that's a white house pick to get my guy back in charge? the thing that jumped out at me in the "new york times" article, whitaker said the southern district needs adult supervision, that's laughable when you look at whitaker's credentials. he wanted them to conno remember with the image of what prosecutors should do, protect him, donald trump at all costs. that's why he was so furious that sexes wasn't there. and at james comey for protect. i don't see an innocent explanation for this. >> palm, what do you think? >> well, it's really hard to come up for an explanation to ask somebody to unrecuse from a recusal that seems wholly appropriate. i think

at that time, ken starr subpoenaed them and got them to come and testify before his grand jury.'re asking what did a president do with the interpreter and with the interpreters' notes, you're putting the interpreter in a very difficult position here. an interpreter is supposed to be the neutral party here, just simply passing information back and forth. if they suddenly become witnesses in a criminal or congressional investigation, that puts them in a difficult spot. again, alex, i don't want to be defending the president's conduct here, which is truly extraordinary. but the presidency is decided -- is entitled to some protections here. and we need to keep our eye on that big picture. donald trump will come and go. but presidents will be here forever. >> yeah. well, i do appreciate you making the distinction and also appreciate as always your insights. thank you so much, nelson. good to see you. >> thank you. >>> a lonely feeling. why everyone clapped as ivanka sat silent at the munich security conference. the stony-faced story is next. e. e. delicious boost® high protein nutrit

. >> tucker: i supported ken starr's independent counsel investigation, and i'm ashamed to support thatause it was totally wrong. it was nondemocratic, should not have supported it. >> try to be consistent. >> tucker: trying to be honest. congress have a deal to end the debate over a border wall, what is in it? is it enough to satisfy the president? one of the members of congress negotiate with the joys of after the break. ♪ - i think the best company's succeed as a team and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. we order custom ink to welcome new employees, personalize team shirts, and even for company events. the design lab is so easy to use. we just upload out logo and if we have any questions, customer service is there to help. seeing our team together in custom ink gear is an amazing reminder of how far we've come as a business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com upload your logo or start your design today i found a companyeans to who believes in me.rt. they

as the independent counsel investigating bill clinton, ken starr had a report hundreds of pages long.cial prosecutor leon jaworski laid out a road map of president nixon's wrongdoing. could it look like either of those? >> i think this is different. i think this is something where robert mueller is following the mandate that he was given to investigate, prepare a report, and submit that report. so i don't see him going out and doing press conferences. i don't see him releasing it publicly at all. i think he will keep with the tasking that he was given. which is to provide that to the attorney general. and then to walk away from it. and then see what follow-up, if any, the individual u.s. attorney's offices, or perhaps the manhattan d.a.'s offices, that they may file charges against manafort. there's a grand jury apparently convened in manhattan for that. and that would then address the double jeopardy issue. if the president decided to pardon anybody, manafort or somebody else, on the federal charges, that would not apply to the state charges. a number of different aspects, but interl

we are not operating under the same rules as the ken starr investigation where everything about that was to be made public. so mueller's investigation involves grand jury testimony, it involves classified information. the republicans, when they were in control, pushed the doj to turn over documents. there were fights between the doj and the white house and congress to get documents turned over. as you saw adam schiff alluding to, now shoe is on the other foot, and the concern here now is that democrats are going to be pushing in the same way the doj to turn over documents that people who are sort of doj veterans or came up there this world don't necessarily think it should be made public. it could be for political reasons, but when you talk to the veterans of the justice department, it's not just political reasons. it's because this is part of their work. they investigate people all the time. that's not meant to be made public unless it's through the judicial branch, unless it's through an actual court filing. i think that's a concern i've heard other people express. >> i happen to h

the experience with special counsels, whether it is ken starr or whitewater now mueller with the trump are not finding president trump violated the law, why are we trying to off-load what is really congress' job. if it wants to have impeachment hearings, they can have impeachment hearings but why are we trying to off-load this and criminalize what really is out policy dispute between the president and congress. i hope this might lead us as a nation to reconsider whether investing all this power and some are like a mueller, no matter how great a guy he is, it's not the way we should be running the separation of powers in our government. >> charles: no doubt. quickly, we have 30 seconds. i want your thoughts on whether or not it should be released next week if it's ready while president trump is away. >> it's a good point. traditionally we try not to undermine our presidents when they are abroad, particularly insensitive matters like north korea. >> charles: john, thank you very much. really, really appreciate it. folks at home, i appreciate it. it's been a great time filling in for the

we sort of have this idea that he's going to turn in, you know, one definitive novel sort of like ken starrwers all of our questions. and i don't necessarily think that's the most likely scenario, in part because he doesn't have a way to release that directly to the public. as you said he's turning over something to the attorney general that the end of his investigation, and then the attorney general is choosing what would get turned over. so the one thing that bob mueller does have control over is what gets filed in court as part of indictments. and so i think if there are more charges that bob mueller can bring, that's a way that he can ensure that he has control over what information gets made public and when it gets made public. >> so, eric, all of this really relss on the attorney general. the new attorney general, by the way, bill barr, it rests on his shoulders. he promised to be transparent, but we don't know how he's going to proceed. >> i don't think bill barr knows either. i think in his confirmation hearing i think he was speaking out loud a little bit. that said he is someone w

. >> tucker: i supported ken starr's independent counsel investigation, and i'm ashamed to support thatause it was totally wrong. this independent counsel thank was nondemocratic, i should not have supported that. >> try to be consistent. >> tucker: trying to be honest. congress may finally have a deal to end the debate over a border wall, what is in it? is it enough to satisfy the president? one of the members of congress negotiated with it joins us after the break. ♪ it? chicken?! chicken. chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! nia: it takes a village to heit changes your whole life.ma. narrator: find free adult education classes near you at finishyourdiploma.org want more from your entejust say teach me more. into your xfinity voice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice comm

and unlike ken starr who was an independent counsel, robert mueller is in effect an employee of the justice department. so bill barr decides whether the conclusions are valid or not. we don't know what's going to happen. lots of time to chew it over. >> how barr would handle the report handed to him. if there is a report, that was in his conformation hearings. we're talking about roger stone. the case was brought by mueller. clearly this roger stone case is not going to be wrapped up by next week. can we read anything into that? is stone lukely to be the last indictment we see from mueller? >> it might be the last indictment you technically see from the mueller team. i think about this in two buckets. there's the mueller bucket and cases that he brought. remember his remit was rather narrow. it was to probe russian election interference and coordination with the trump campaign. but there's this whole other big bucket you have to talk about. the investigations and the cases of the southern district of new york, federal prosecutors of manhattan. the trump inaugural committee, investigations o

of dicey to me is more like the clean water think it is a $30 million investigation for years and ken starranas. at the end of the day he hangs around a lot of quicker people. those guys went down. and then they got him on some unrelated stupid thing. i hope this does not one depending with you know, somebody and somebody's girlfriend and saying something under oath because that is all stuff that they hate rightfully. it was way out of line when the republicans are doing it. and they're so quick to adopt the message that the right was on. it wasn't that long ago the fbi had a hold on mlk being a communist. and the democrats were like, -- >> john lennon too! it looks like a 1960s fbi guy and i think until we really know the story, i don't want to know because we do not know the final stuff yet. >> there is word that trump did not place whitaker in nomination for attorney general. because he said, i cannot put him in charge of the southern district of new york. what does it say to you?>> is not a surprise if it's true. but it was interesting to note is that he did not get his way. part of the

a former federal prosecutor on ken starr's team.time no speak. >> good to see you. >> let me start with this promise from mr. cohen's attorney that he is prepared to implicate the president in criminal conduct. what's the likelihood it will be new information to anyone other than the public? >> there is not much likelihood of that. there may be pacifics that we don't know about that having to do with how he was reimbursed for the payment to the two women. i doubt there will be anything new except one of the things they have spoken about that has to do with financial statements of the president and how they were change and manipulated, presumably in connection with different financial advantages the president was trying to get. that would be something that i haven't heard that much about. there would be potential criminal liability for anybody who submits a phony financial statement to a lending institution. >> if there was another part of that sound byte i just played and hope you listened carefully enough, but the way he 0ed nothin

darlene, clinton was advised by a lot of people about the special counsel, which ken starr pretty much had to run the gamut. this one, remember, trump said the election was rigged. now that they're investigating it, why not have someone that finds out what was done to have the election rigged. that was my point. thank you. >> thank you. >> any comment? >> okay. let's hear from michael, san diego, california, on our republican line. michael? >> caller: yes. good morning. my republican party is the party of honest abe lincoln, not of lying donnie trump. i can't believe any person who supports this man can call themselves a true american. he's not what america is about. at every single republican politician that spoke out against him before he became the republican candidate and now supports him wholeheartedly is a hypocrite. what has changed? the man hasn't changed. he's evil. he calls himself a nationalist. that's what the nazi party stands for. can't people see how bad this man is for our country? he bankrupted our country, and we're not going to have his father around to bail us out.

people think they're going to get the ken starr several hundred page narrative. who talked to this person and that person. those files are still available online with respect to the investigation that eventually uncovered an affair involving then president clinton and monica clun ski. if you' lewinsky. if you're looking for that narrative -- >> i can't? >> the regulations in place then, the independent counsel regulations in place then, those have nouz changed. and so there is a different regulations as far as how these reports should be put together because back then they kind of found that, well, if we have future independent counsels, they're going to 3lead to these wide fishing expeditions and we'll get these huge narrative reports, reports that may not hold up in courts, narrative reports that may not be entered in court because there isn't necessarily a crime. those regulations changed. this has to be tied to specific crimes, and i think that's why you're going to see that if there isn't specific criminal activity, that violates a u.s. statute, the u.s. cri

>> look, i think it's important for everybody to under that, and i asked ken starr about this a couple of months ago that nobody knows what mueller knows. we find out things in bits and pieces, a transcript like this, partiallyis redacted. we have more of an understanding of what is going on. fats fascinating about this bit of news is that they believe ve that president trump's possible willingness toos pardon people involved in this investigation could have an impact on their testimony and we'vect seen over the past couple of years that this president seems to have a wider view of the pardon powers than his predecessors. often presidents will use pardon, even controversial pardons that are not widely accepted by the public at the end of time in their office. president trump has been willing to use it early and often. he has a liberal view of his of pardon powers. he likes using this executive authority. it couldex have an impact on current investigations. this one among them. >> david, stick around. we'll talk to you in just a bit. >>> amazon ceo is excusing the parents company of the

from 1995 to 1997 he was detailed to independent counsel ken starr assisting with the whitewater investigationhe then became an assistance u.s. attorney in maryland when he went back to main justice in the bush administration serving as principle deputy to the assistant attorney general for the tax division. in 2005 george w. bush appointed rod rosenstein to be the u.s. attorney for the district of maryland. he was the only u.s. attorney in the country appointed by bush who was later kept on by president obama and he was again held over by president trump. rod rosenstein's long tenure as u.s. attorney was marked by dramatic declines in murders and other violent offenses, attributed to effective enforcement but also to robust collaborations between prosecution, police and the community focused on crime prevention. equally impressive, he demonstrated his strong commitment to preserving public trust in the justice system by going after corrupt police officers, correctional officers and even elected officials as doggedly as he pursued violent repeat offenders and large-scale drug dealers. in 2017

justice department officials about the fact this is not the first special counsel under these new post-ken starr independent counsel rules. the first one was actually john danforth, who did a long study about what happened on waco and disastrous fire in the death of the branch davidians. he put out two reports, all of them public, and the message i get from the justice department people is yes, we know, but we intend to follow the rules. and then i think the fight will start between the justice department and congress. they will want to see more and it could go to court. who knows how that will end up. >> that's exactly what i wanted to ask you about, pete. what is your sense how that legal battle might play out? how long might it take? >> how long might it take? it could take many months. it could take a year perhaps if it goes all the way to the supreme court. here's the thing, normally speaking the justice department doesn't give internal memoranda like this to congress. they don't tell the congress and the public of people they chose to investigate and decided not to prosecute for obvious re

one of the reasons on barr that he has so much authority here was because of the excesses of ken starrhey allowed the independent counsel statute in 1999 or 2000 to expire because, you know, 2,700 pages went up to -- and was made public. there is a middle ground and barr needs to find that. middle ground of i'm not going to release everything, but i have to release it. and, in fact, politically i don't think it's that big a winner for the president if this thing is kept secret because then you still have 60% of the country who thinks he did it. there's going to be exculpatory things in here, there has to be, and i think that politically it's not a simple equation as everyone thinks. >> there's a different precedent from '74 where some of the grand jury testimony could be made available to congress if they're engaged in impeachment proceedings, which is formality. but that could be something big to watch for in the house. all right, asha, joe, laura, thank you very much. >>> college basketball's brightest star stopped in his tracks. they had a major shoe company issued a major statement

ken starr was, what, 453 pages. that would seem to be a droop in the bucket of what he's going to do. >> he doesn't have the same requirements as starr has. starr had the right of public disclosure to a large extent. the requirements are simply he has to explain prosecution and explain justice department interference or limitations on it. beyond that, it's structuralist form. i do think we'll never see the raw data in that report. thi i think there's no question as to who the attorney general is working for, and he has plenty of good, solid, rationales not to release anything negative. he can use that longstanding policy, no disparaging information. so i really think what's going to happen is there will be a very sanitized summary, and then the ball's really going to be in congress' court because the question is, what can they glean? they can subpoena the document. they get some of it. they can subpoena witnesses. it's going to be in their court. >> it's going to be pretty amazing, it seems right. you all seem to th

i think the country was generally revolted by ken starr, who overshared and also by fbi director comeybout hillary clinton despite not indicting her. so i think rod rosenstein is reacting to that. but of course when we're talking about president trump, that is a unique case. i mean as a general rule, yes, the government should not be sharing derogatory information about somebody unless they're indicting that person. but in the case of donald trump, according to the justice department, he can't be indicted. so does that mean that no derogatory information about the president can possibly be released because he can't be indicted? in that case, he's above the law. that clearly doesn't make any sense. >> let me ask you a question. i'm not sure if you're old enough. do you remember this president named bill clinton? >> yeah. >> do you remember this president had a scandal. it was a special counsel. it started with whitewater. >> right. >> so you were a republican then, right? >> yep. >> were there a lot of republicans saying, well, this isn't about whitewater. all of a sudden it's become so

saying is, i don't think the public should expeck, and i don't think the regulations call for, a ken starr-like report that puts a whole big narrative around it and explains everything. now, if the attorney general or if the special counsel were called to testify, maybe through more of that information, more would be revealed, or it could be that there will be more information in the special counsel's report that will indicate additional charges that might be coming, that would be closer to the president or more of his inner circle. or it could be that the outcome is that the investigation did not reveal actual collusion, although i think given the information that's been revealed so far, the big question is why did donald trump make the statements in the summer of 2016 asking russia, are you listening? and that specific information will probably be in the report in a way that describes whether or not there was criminal activity. >> it sounds, jeff, a, we don't know obviously the final thing, but a lot of these questions just could not be public, might not be answered. >> and what a disgrace th

that reinforces unlike some chattier people in law enforcement, ken starr or james comey, there are only sources of firsthand information we get on the probe. the filings, material he releases, and information released by people that interact with mueller, witnesses, defendants and their lawyers. that's it. if you want hard intel on the probe, things that people saw or experienced, you immediate those witnesses or their lawyers. that's why on the beat we turn to people with firsthand experience whenever possible, regardless of politics or choices. we interviewed a member when he defied mueller, he later backed down. he was a firsthand source. we interviewed two roger stone associates that describe potential crimes by roger stone. mueller later indicted stone for allegations they made on live tv. we also convened the first joint summit of mueller witnesses to learn what they told mueller and how the probe was going. each of those people had inside knowledge. in the law, they're called fact witnesses. mueller's team spent dozens of hours with those witnesses to learn about anything they mi

ken starr was famously the republican special counsel investigating clinton.took the same view. >> you solicited an opinion for your investigation that argued a sitting president could be indicted. did you agree with that view then? >> yes. >> do you agree with that view now? >> yes. >> those are major prosecutorial opinions. neither of them actually did the thing they say they could have done legally. they say they have that power or think that power should exist but didn't indict a president as you know. doj guidelines and a debate over what they mean. they're not law. the man who wrote the ones for the special counsel said this. >> regulations say mueller you're bound by doj policy but can seek exceptions. that's what i would expect he would do. >> that's why all of the backstory in the legal history matters tonight. we don't know what mueller is going to do. but if, according to the man who wrote his rules he uncovered the kind of crime that was so significant that he needed or thought there was a public interest to indict a sitting president, he would hav