also, we can put this up, some reporting here from maggie haberman of the "new york times" adding context here. she says quoting a person close to trump junior when he originally agreed to testify in 2017, there was an agreement between don and the committee he would only have to come in and testify a single time as long as he was willing to stay for as long as they'd like, which don did. don continues to cooperate by produing documents and willing to answer written questions no lawyer would ever agree to allow their client to participate in what is an obvious stunt from a so-called republican. senator and his boss mark warner. again, maggie haberman saying that's coming from a person close to donald trump junior taking clear shots there at senator burr. jeremy, let me start with you, reading that from maggie haberman and reporting, the odds are donald trump junior actually appearing before this committee, what would you say they are? >> pretty low. i think he'll resist or take the fifth. this is a moment of truth for mitch mcconnell. a moment of truth for senate republicans because their

. >> let's bring in maggie haberman. great to have you here. >> thank you for having me. >> is it your understanding national security adviser john bolton is too hawkish for the president's tastes and may be on thin ice? >> this has been a point of tension between john bolton and the president. both are people who ran for president on pretty different platforms. this was never going to be a surprise. john bolton wasn't part of the first round of presidential draft picks who president trump appointed for his cabinet for his top advisers. they have always not been allied on this point. president trump is very aware of what got him elected in the republican primary. it was his nonhawkish stance, the bring 'em home approach to american conflicts overseas. i would not read much into it. josh was warning you on that. the president grumbles about people. he was frustrated with officials seeing things not play out well. not like this is happening in isolation. john bolton suggested that maduro would be able to be toppled. it obv

joining us now is maggie haberman, cnn political analyst. maggie, thanks for being with us. do you get the sense that the administration cares about being held in contempt if that's a stick being held up by congress, is it one that the administration is afraid of? >> not particularly. i mean, i think you have to remember that unless you use the most exotic form of trying to hold someone in criminal contempt through congress, that this would then end up as a referral back to the department of justice and where do you think bill barr is going to end up on this? i don't think that they care particularly, i think we have seen the president use the strategy of stonewalling over a very long period of time and i think politically it has more often than not been successful for him. i think you are going to see both the president's folks within the white house and his private company as well as congress increase i cannily turning to the third branch of government, the courts, to try to adjudicate this going forward. >> let's talk about the president's taxes because so many inquiring

joining us now, cnn political analyst maggie haberman. chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, and senior analyst david gergen, who's been in the west wing in moments like this, i'm not sure exactly like this. what did you learn about how this went down today? was this planned out? was everybody in the white house on board with the idea? >> it was planned out but it was not some white house wide thing. it was basically decided on after pelosi's remark this morning where she said he had been part of a cover up or cover ups or something to that effect, and he was triggered by that remark. he told his aides he was in a bad mood, he has been for a few days, he told his aides he he wanted to go ahead and make a point about this. what was the point of having this meeting with nancy pelosi was going to say this. we're overlooking he has been accused of cover up by prosecutors in the southern district in the michael cohen case, in terms of the hush money payments in terms of women who claimed to have affairs with him. i don't think that's related to

. >> joining us now is maggie haberman, a cnn political analyst. that makes me break up in hives. i also once worked for an extremely stable genius who reminds me of that moment. roger ailes has some things that are similar to donald trump. and that having to kiss the ring, publicly, is an interesting practice. >> i'm sure when larry kudlow was tapped to come and be the top economic adviser, this was not the scenario he imagined, telling donald trump how calm he seemed the day before in public. we know that donald trump has a big need for affirmation publicly. this is like these scenes with these cabinet meetings where he has them go around and how great he is. it's sort of reality tv like, so it's not a huge surprise. but it is a reminder that for all the idea that nancy pelosi is not getting under his skin, she is getting under his skin. i don't know why somebody would say something about that. because other aides acknowledge that her comment about him being involved in a cover-up is what caused him to go out and cancel this meeting in the first place. he is, as you know, is ver

i want to break in maggie haberman, white house correspondent for "the new york times" and cnn political analyst. maggie, we're going to get to william barr and the tariffs in just a moment, but i want to get your reaction and maybe your insight into what we saw on this show yesterday, which was, the president on his way to colorado in this 17-minute free wheeling news conference that was full of lies and untruths including new attacks on robert mueller. what do you think is behind that? where is the president following robert mueller's first public statements? >> i do want to just asterisk that this was not a news conference. thch this was him walking out of the white house and calling this a news conference, it's not like everybody gets to come and ask their own questions. i want to make that clear in terms of process. but where i think his head is that he saw mueller on tv. remember, the president interprets the world through television, and mueller had not appeared on tv talking until now. so it caught the white house's attention in a big way. it was a big neon sign and mueller stood

joining us to give us insight into her reporting, maggie haberman, white house correspondent for "the new york times" and cnn political analyst. great to have you. >> thanks. >> so the president changes his mind because he was angry yesterday and walked out of his meeting and said that he can't work with lawmakers while they are investigating him, is that -- is that set or today will we hear something different? >> i don't know if we will hear anything different today but i don't think anything is ever set with donald trump. everything is one long continuous transaction. i think that that is what this was. if anything he stated it as a transaction. stop investigating me and then i will work with you. i think that he had made up his mind we know before speaker pelosi got there to blow up this meeting. >> tell us about that. what's your reporting that he was planning to do this? >> so he's been in a not great mood for the last several days, he was unhappy about his rally for some reason on monday in pennsylvania, was griping to aides about it on the way home. he was watching all this co

i want to bring in maggie haberman, white house correspondent for "the new york times" and cnn political analyst. let's start with both those issues, number one, this contempt vote is going to happen in less than two hours, maggie, to me that seems like game on. an important moment in this battle between the white house and congress over the larger mueller investigation. >> it's going to be a moment that is really hard to come back from. it guarantees, i think -- although i think it was headed there any way -- a court fight over exactly what congressional democrats are going to be able to see over this report. the two sides have been talking for, you know, many, many days now, going forward. neither side was moving as best as we can tell. i think that each side had discussed some form of a concession, i don't think either side thought it was enough. i think what you heard the chairman say just now in your interview is that essentially bill barr does not have the right to do what he is talking about and that you can't really put the genie back in the bottle in terms of executive privilege

joining me is maggie haberman. maggie, what does it say that the president wanted mcgahn to make a statement like this? >> look, i think this fits, anderson, with a pattern of what we have seen the president try to do over the last several years, which is he tries to get aidi aides to tamp down information he think may be problematic. he tried to get don mcgahn to issue a statement saying that the president had never told mcdpm mcgahn to fire mueller. mcgahn refused to do that. that is one of the acts mueller considered as possible obstruction of justice. so i think this fits in line with what we've seen the president do repeatedly, try to get people to issue statements on his behalf. it's notable that mcgahn declined to do so. >> if the president wasn't concerned about obstruction of justice and fully believed he had been exonerated as he keeps saying he is, why would he need to go to mcgahn to go out and say this? >> i think that's right. look, mueller -- to your point, mueller was pretty clear, he and his team, i

"the new york times" reporters peter baker joins us in a moment along with maggie haberman. the undercutting is raising questions about the administration's policy and personnel in the middle of confrontations with both long-term american adversaries. as we mentioned, the president appeared to embrace north korean dictator kim jong-un's insults about former vice president biden. the president was asked to further explain that. >> does it give you pause at all to be appearing to side with a brutal dictator instead of with a fellow american, the former vice president, joe biden? >> well, kim jong-un made a statement that joe biden is a low i.q. individual. he probably is based on his record. i think i agree with him on that. >> that didn't go over too well with some members of the president's own party, though most lacked the courage to speak up. republican congressman peter king of new york did write, quote, wrong for trump to criticize joe biden in japan and agree with kim jong-un. politics stops at the water's edge. never right to side with murderous dictator versus fellow

maggie haberman at "the new york times" and other news outlets are reporting that don jr.ched a deal to testify with senate intelligence, a limited number of hours. this is all worked out. this broke moments ago. >> katie: the same senate intelligence committee found there was no collusion, just like the mueller investigation found between the trump campaign and the russians. here's the deal. you can accept that the russians did interfere in the sense of propaganda, trying to hack systems and all that stuff, and still see the russians of the threat because they are. and still to see that there was no collusion to change votes between the russian government and the trump campaign. i find it rich that people like james clapper and john brennan now don't want any further investigation, they don't want to get hauled up to testify because they got caught with what they were doing and they don't want to explain to the american people why they were doing what they were doing with their security clearances. why they claimed they had evidence of russian collusion, the fact is if yo

"new york times" white house correspondent maggie haberman says his video announcement was a "solid kickoffral run. ">> shannon: trace gallagher, thank you very much. it's a test designed to assess a student's readiness for college but now the college board plans to add in adversity score to the s.a.t. that will rate the social and economic backgrounds of potential undergrads. correspondent mark meredith says it's likely to reignite the debate over race and class in college admission. >> the college board says this fall, 150 schools will receive a separate score judging and applicants community in high school, the so-called adversity score will consider 15 factors including the economic, crime, and historical makeup of a student's community. the college board's president says the information shines a light on students that have demonstrated remarkable resourcefulness to overcome challenges and achieve more with less. "the wall street journal" broke the story reporting the scores were arranged from 1 to 100 with higher scores signaling more hardships the student has faced. trial runs have al

. >>> joining us, cnn senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and david gregory and maggie haberman and elliott williams. jeff, i mean, the mueller letter, it certainly indicates and echos what you and others have been saying before the full report was released, that barr was clearly trying to shape the narrative and very obviously had alternatives and ignored them. >> and distorted the meaning of the report. i just don't think there is any doubt now that we have read the vast majority of it, that mueller was right. barr put out a misleading summary designed to spin it in a much more pro trump direction, shape the public perception of the mueller report forever because for weeks there was no alternative view out there and what we know until today, mueller was pissed. he saw what was going on and was powerless to do anything about it. >> maggie, it's obvious the attorney general of the united states was trying to make things look better for the president of the united states. >> it's hard to come to any other conclusion than he was putting the best possible face for the president. the argument i

york times," "trump gives attorney general sweeping power in review of 2016 campaign inquiry" by maggie habermannd mike schmidt. it appears the a.g. has to follow established norms. does this worry you in any way? >> very much so, brian. and look, let's break this down. what this order, this directive issued by the white house tonight, does is it strips the power of the cia director, the nsa director, and the director of national intelligence from making decisions about what information should remain classified, which intelligence sources should remain protected, and it gives all of that power over to bill barr. now, the power to declassify, which is what now barr has, is also the power to selectively declassify, to let drips and drabs out there, to bolster the president's political narrative. and i think that power in the hands of a political ally of the president, the attorney general, who's already shown that he's willing to mislead and misrepresent on behalf of the president, i think is very dangerous. and intelligence sources, human sources tonight, brian, i think should be concerned that t

joining us is maggie haberman, cnn political analyst. i want to read the statement from the biden campaign. they were eager to point out that they waited to release the statement until the president returned from his overseas trip. saying the president's comments are beneath the dignity of the office to be on foreign soil on memorial day and side repeatedly with a murderous dictator against a fellow american and former vice president speaks for itself. whether taking putin's word or exchanging love letters with kim jong-un. to me the interesting thing is how the biden campaign just keeps saying thank you essentially to the president's attacks on him. >> i want to separate two things out. there is no question that politically this is helpful to biden in the sense that the president has been so singularly focused on him including to the point of distraction while he was on this trip in japan. he was on twitter. my colleague wrote a great piece about how he couldn't stay in the moment. politically there is a reason the president's own advis

joining us now is maggie haberman. robert mueller is the man of the hour. everyone wants to hear from him. particularly since the back story between bill barr and robert mueller. they were friends as described by bill barr. he said we were friends before the mueller report. the barrs and the muellers will be friends after the mueller report. i'm not sure. he characterized robert mueller's letter to him expressing real concerns about the waybill bar summarized his findings, he described it as a little bit snitty, people heard that as a lot snotty >> and dismissively said it was probably written by mueller's staff. his criticism was striking. there was so much going on at the hearing. it was dramatic. it was basically suggesting and we have heard this privately that barr made it clear mueller didn't complete his work. he didn't know why mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction. he had not chosen to decide if the president did or didn't commit obstruction of justice. we heard for a while he was annoyed it was left up to him. it is public. there was a fair

. >> you know, peter baker, your friend maggie haberman over at "the times" is reporting what are theresident is really angry about is the reporting that's out there suggesting that john bolton is somehow manipulating the president or pushing things without the president's knowledge. the question is, is does john bolton have the authority within the administration to get the united states to do things that the president doesn't want to do? how much tension is there, really? >> yeah, there's nothing that gets under the president's skin more than the idea, certainly the public perception, anyway, that he's being led around by the nose by advisers. and of course, we remember that the first set of national security advisers in this administration were often characterized as restraining the president's more bellicose instincts. here, you have the opposite. where, in fact, it's the president kind of putting the breaks on things. he's the one behind the scenes, you know, making light of bolton, saying, if it were up to john, we would be in four wars by now. but that dichotomy between a presi

with me today to share their reporting and insights maggie haberman of the "new york times," cnn's manu raju and elliana johnson with politico. let start with the word on the hill, holding the attorney general in contempt. not a surprise that he didn't deliver the mueller report. what now? >> escalating a series of fights between house democrats and the trump administration this morning. jerry nadler scheduled a vote for wednesday to hold the attorney general in contempt because he defied that subpoena that required the full mueller report and the underlying evidence to be turned over. democrats have tried to set the stage for what they believe would be a successful legal strategy, you know, holding someone in contempt typically is a symbolic action. what they are really after is to show what they view as non-compliance by the justice department and encourage the courts to side with them so they have gone through what they believe is a series of reasonable requests in their view to turn over the underlying evidence as well. the justice department says the grand jury information in parti

. >> maggie haberman tweeted this, pelosi's language has grown pointed in talking about trump the waytalk about someone with an illness. or a toddler. >> intervention. >> let's be real. talked about the oranges of the investigation. you travel with him, there are plenty of flashes of whatever the opposite of brilliance is. this is not someone whose public appearancesic depict stability. >> without getting into hypothesizing into what his mental state might be. clearly when she came out, i know we talked about this before my impression was she was shaken we don't have 100% the full story of the president's yesterday rage in that meeting. i thinkth it was a number of things. he started tweeting before the second court ruling came out. i believe he was watching news coverage of his possible impeachment and this was not strategic in the extent of his melt down. it was strategic in they had placards prepared, shades drawn, no chair there for him. he is legitimately at this poin getting spun up because of the totality of what's happening, this strategyng of i'm giving y nothing, no records

here is how maggie haberman of "the new york times" described it, former acting ag whitit aker, barr is giving himself wiggle room of being contradicted without accused of committing perjury by saying he can't recall. >> joyce? >> i think that's what happened here. there was an incredibly uncomfortable long pause by the attorney general when asked if he had conversations with the white house about any of these cases that were spun off from the mueller investigation. we know that there are 12 that aren't named in the mueller report and then he wants to quibble about whether or not he had substantive conversations with the white house. look, if you're the attorney general and you're talking to the white house about criminal cases, which by the way may involve the president or his family members, it is very unlikely that you don't have precise, clear recall of those conversations and, you know, something that you learn when your identifying a witness as a prosecutor, if it doesn't look right, if something looks fishy, you should keep digging. someone needs to keep digging on what just h

you had a compelling piece in the "times" this morning with maggie haberman describing what is eitherhite house strategy or a trump strategy vis-a-vis joe biden or an accidental posture. now, the joe biden people have been thrilled apparently that the president keeps on talking about joe biden and there are trump advisers hong it's an accident, but on the other hand, and this is what you get to that i think is so interesting, there are people who suggest that the president is doing it purposefully. president trump has told advisers he believes he can portray biden as a representative of an ossified political class the same way he did hillary clinton, wounding him with enough attacks and put downs that mr. biden will either stagger into the general election or collapse in the primary. explain. >> well, the president since biden got in the race late last month on a nearly daily basis has been targeting him on twitter, in interviews and comments to the press and formally he has given him two variations of a nickname through his talk of his top lawyer, rudy giuliani, was going to go on a

here's the list according to maggie haberman and annie carney of the "new york times." 24/7 access tong office, a presidential order to other cabinet officials to follow koback's directives, a promotion to homeland security chief by november, no working weekends. koback wants to be home in kansas. we all know there's no place like home. bear with me. that's only halfway through. to serve of as the main spokesman for the white house on immigration, walk-in privileges to the oval office, a staff of seven, including his own personal media handler and an assistant to the president title so he can get the top tier pay day at the white house and finally a security detail if he needs it. >> number three is amazing. he wants every other cabinet official, people who have secretary in their title, to defer to him on all matters of immigration. you know, i don't know who provided this list to "the times" but one wonders whether it was -- >> not a fan. >> it's also just divorced from reality. the idea that he's going to be the face of the immigration policy is not going to work in a white house w

let me tell you what our colleague, maggie haberman, jim, is reporting from "the new york times."he says this. she says, a deal was struck between the senate committee, subpoenaing donald trump jr. for limited appearance, between two to four hours in mid-june. after an intense battle, she said, coming soon on "the new york times. there's a very significant development if the president's son now will appear before the committee for between two to four hours to answer questions. >> wolf, and i can say now that cnn has confirmed this story, as well, that this deal is reached here. it's important, because it's a resolution of a significant standoff. one, between congress and the white house on whether congress, whether a key congressional committee has the ability and the power to, in effect, subpoena who they want to subpoena, to ask hard questions about this investigation. and particularly significant in this case, because, of course, this is a committee chaired not by a, as the house committees are, but chaired by a republican. senator burr, which had led to enormous criticism of t

maggie haberman, correspondent for "the new york times" and sun min kim, white house reporter for "thehouse speaker saying the president is trying to goad them into impeachment. that's exactly what you reported in "the new york times" this week. >> right, or at least trying to goad them into saying what's that they're doing. i think there's an effort by the people around the president to make democrats have to provide a stark choice, yes, this is what we are doing, this is how we are going about it and they think, the president's folks, this will be politically damaging for democrats. the house speaker feels the same way. i don't think it's going to end up going to that point but i do think you're going to see the white house essentially just draw a line in the sand. we're not cooperating because this is what you're trying to do. >> sun min, that's exactly what you reported on this morning in "the washington post," detailing now 20 different investigations the white house is stonewalling, basically what adam schiff said were across the board and that is propelling more democrats to say