mr. barr says he won't show tomorrow. >>> also, big question from today. how can the attorney general rationalize clearing the president on crimes that are driven by intent without knowing what the president's intent was? that's the big question for cuomo's court. we'll take it on. let's get after it. >>> so the latest is that chairman nadler in the house says that the a.g. is trying to blackmail his committee by not showing tomorrow and he's threatening to hold mr. barr in contempt unless the full, unredacted mueller report is handed over. now the question is, should they subpoena mr. barr? why did they not? they had that available to them. mr. barr has no interest in changing perceptions about him, given what he said today, especially when it comes to suggestions that he's just covering for the president. we saw that when he made excuses on trump's behalf, parsing words over what the president may have meant when he talked to don mcgahn and others. here's a sample. >> the president never dir

mueller or mr. barr? >> mr. barr. trying to tear barr down. >> lindsey graham said he acknowledged that there is a diskrepcrepancy between what m e barr says and the letter that robert mueller sent. do you see the similar discrepancy? >> i'd like to hear bill barr to answer that question today, but my chairman took that ability away. by consisting on an unprecedented act, 206 years of this committee have never had staff does questions in that type of hearing. only time they have asked questions was impeachment hearings. so they want to look like impeachment hearings. if they would bring the impeachment hearing, he would have access to all kindsdumt documen documents. >> do you have any concerns about what the attorney general told the senate hearing yesterday? any concerns about his testimony? >> there were concerns from a -- i'm not he sure a concern, but i'd like clarification. but i didn't have that that chance 37 chance. the chairman took that right away because we didn't have this ability to -- he voluntarily said

bottom line is, we're about to hear from mr. barr the results of a two-year investigation into the trump campaign, all things russia, the actions the president took before and after , 40 ampaign, $25 million f.b.i. agents, i appreciate very much what mr. mueller did for the country. have read most of the report. or me, it is over. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. on march 24, you sent a letter to chairman graham and the ranking member of this committee providing your summary of the princico

mr barr dismissed accusations that he'd downplayed the conclusions of the special counsel's report tosident. he said he'd "stuck to the bottom line." us judiciary chairman jerry nadler argues attorney—general barr stonewalls the congress and makes the mueller investigation more difficult. the attorney general has the nerve to try to dictate, or the administration has the nerve to try to dictate our procedures, it is pa rt to dictate our procedures, it is part of the administration's com plete part of the administration's complete stonewalling of congress. what's the ranking member is saying is that by determining how we will proceed, we are stonewalling, as if it is our choice that he should not come. he is trying to blackmail the committee into not following what we think is the most effective means of eliciting the information we need. more now from our correspondent chris buckler in washington dc. chris, strong words, and it seems tomorrow no words, from mr barr. does leave everything? yeah, we had feisty exchanges today at that senate congressional hearing. it is for the house of

i would like to make one comment on mr. barr and his testimony. robbers inside, i don't know either of these gentlemen. i don't know him or mr. rosenstein. rosenstein for two years as deputy attorney general supervising the mueller investigation, i was publicly very supportive of everything i saw rosenstein do. he stood up in a way that made law enforcement professionals proud. years underfor two pressure from the white house, the hill, and other places. in the last two months, we have a number ofr take steps that have caused many people like me to question whether he is handling this in the straight up fashion that we saw mr. rosenstein handle it. i put the behavior of those two and drawide-by-side conclusions unfavorably for mr. barr. if i were a member of the committee, i would ask mr. mueller, why didn't you subpoena president trump to come before your grand jury? the answer given was it would have taken too much time. he had two years. he would have known right away that the president's testimony could be critical. he would have known it would

mr. barr testified clearly. he said i met with mr. mueller.r. mueller was asked is the reason you are not not recommending indictment on obstruction of justice because of the doj policy that you can't indict a sitting president? mr. barr said mr. miller said absolutely not. absolutely not. so that's a very false narrative. >> if you are bob mueller and i'm trying to play devil's advocate the attorney general to whom you are submitting this report has a certain view on obstruction what is allowed and what's not that essentially mueller pulled his punches because that was kind of the impression of the letter from mueller in which he said that barr confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation? >> i saw that and i asked mr. barr about that. here's what i -- and, look i don't know, neil but here is what i think i think mr. mueller thought mr. barr's letter was not nuanced enough. okay. that's academic because now we have the report. mr. barr's letter doesn't matter anymore. i think mr. mueller was upset about the news covera

and today mr. barr gave them more ammunition, blowing past congress' long known deadline to provide the full unredacted mueller report. house democrats are not having it. they are moving towards a vote this week to hold him in contempt. now if that happens, mr. barr would become only the second attorney general ever held in contempt in u.s. history and the first to be held in contempt during his very first year on the job. chairman nadler issuing a 27-page contempt report against barr. it sites impeachment for the very first time as a possible, possible end result of the house probe. let me show you what i mean. it notes that this house probe may decide whether to approve articles of impeachment for this president or any other administration official. that clearly has barr's attention. his department now responding to nadler today, suggesting that they meet on wednesday to negotiate some sort of, quote, acceptable accommodation. now it's noble and perhaps notable that at this juncture, we have chairman

mr. barr did not fully capturet, the contature, and substance of this office's work and concsions. he continued, there is no public -- now public confusion about the critical aspects of the results of our investigation. >> i don't know -- jane: mr. barr blames the media for that confusion but demrats blame him. they asked why he had not previously mentioned mr.r' mue's concerns. mr. barr also said he responsibility for the report once it was delivered. >> bob mueller is the equivaleno of a u.s. ey.he was exercising the powers of the attorney general attorney -- the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. he is pa justice.department of his work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general, at that point, it was my baby. supervision of the attorney and i was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public. i effectiveloverrode the regulations, used discretion to lean as far forward as i could to make that public, and it was my deci

attorney general william bard now if you read the report you know that mr barr summary was off the mark and you're not alone tonight the u.s. congress questioning the attorney general did he purposely mislead the public did he lie to congress to protect the president i'm bored golf in berlin this is the day. column the psalms for here's the muller it's for. can say i've read it all but i've read most of it. but he was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report why did you test in april ninth that you didn't know the concerns being expressed of mahler's from the shirt here i feel. it was purposely misleading pete couldn't decide about it struction you did is that correct that's right you feel could affect your decision absolutely his work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. at that point it was my baby i have requested this to our chairman to authorize a hearing with special counsel my lawyer and i hope that will let them see. which of our viewers on p.b.s. in the united states and all around the world welcome what we begin

central scrutinize or say the democrats plan is clear, vilify mr. barr. doing so, the ongoing investigation into who was behind the witchhunt can also be that. atert saying barr testifying the house committee would be like going to the fun house in an amusement park. he's on twitter saying he had not read the underlying evidence in the report -- robert on twitter saying he had not read the underlying evidence in the report. ofr push for pages propaganda to keep loyalists loyal and bury it. host: charlie in indiana. a democratic color. what do you think? -- caller. what do you think? caller: i think it was explained fairly clearly, why they want to have lawyers ask questions for 30 minutes. when members of the committee asked questions, they have five minutes, and when three quarters of that is eaten up by barr saying, could european that or i am struggling with this word, then -- could you repeat that or i am struggling with this word, then there is no time for follow-up questions. in the kavanaugh hearings, they had lawyers come and republicans asked the

the only thing that is done is esther trump and mr. barrnd this administration, which has perpetrated a fraud on the american people and upon the criminal justice system. this is what he has been doing his entire life and it is time that mr. trump be brought to terms with his lawbreaking. he has constantly avoided anding over his tax returns he just thinks the law was made for him and that he doesn't have to keep it and he can keep perpetrating fraud upon the american people and it goes on and on and on as it has been going on his entire life. host: who would you like to see congress call to testify? caller: mr. mueller. totaleller's investigation has been ignored by mr. barr. mr. barr did not even attempt to read mr. mueller's evaluations of what transpired in this administration. a prime example would be how could mr. barr overlook mr. c ohen's testimony concerning the checks turned over to these women? that is a point that has been overlooked completely by the news media. host: how is that related to mueller investigation? he was investi

it won't be in a private review overseen by mr. barr. this is basic stuff. the fbi director hand picked by trump after the comey firing was duty bound to rebut barr's spying claim. >> do you believe that they are engaging in spying when they are following fbi investigative policies and procedures? >> well, that's not the term i would use. >> do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the fbi occurred? >> i don't think i personally have any evidence of that sort. >> there is another big claim from barr here. he's fine with trump using that witch hunt term to describe mueller's probe. >> if you were the president i think you would view it as a witch hunt and a hoax. he's been hammered for allegedly conspiring with russians. we now know that was simply false. >> a witch hunt would be an improper investigation -- hunting for witches. the fact that it was a valid investigation and didn't end in every single thing that was investigated being charged if anything shows how fair it was. yo

during the crucial period where mr. barr and the president were claiming no collusion, no obstruction. we know that mueller wrote at the time privately and said there's public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our probe. this threatens to undermine the purpose of which i was appointed, quote, to ensure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation. do you think from then to now that bob mueller's concern about that issue that he identified has increased or decreased? >> i think it's exactly the same. the public perception at the time he wrote those letters, at the end of march, the 25th and the 27th, was that the president was saying, and the attorney general was saying, that essentially there wasn't russian intervention. and there was. and i do think he will highlight the fact that there was russian intervention in the election. he can say that over and over and be quoting from his own report without dissing the attorney general at the same time in an overt way. >> again, just working off the f

mr. barrized his report. so many questions and so far, not many answers. at least none that are acceptable to democrats. they say the attorney general's summary of the mueller investigation was misleading and they want to know why he decided to clear the president of obstruction of justice. >> being attorney general of the united states is a sacred trust. you have brayed that trust. america deserves better. you should resign. jane: but william barr insisted he stuck to the reports basic conclusions. >> we were not trying summarize the 410 page report. jane: however, it has now emerged the special counsel robert mueller himself was notwi happ the way his investigation was portrayed. in a letter he said mr. barr's summary did not fully capture fie context, nature, and substance of this 's work and conclusions. puhe continued, there is nic -- now public confusion about the critical aspects of the i results of oestigation. >> i don't know -- jane: mr. rr blames the media for that confusion but dem

mr. barr's four-page statement was not correct. so here we are today asking to see the full mueller report, and it's just not about what happened in 2016, and it's not about who did what, when and how. sadly, it's about something equally important, which is the 2020 election. i also sit on homeland security. the former head of homeland security, secretary nielsen, before she resigned she tried to tell the president that the russians were at it again. and the president did not want to listen. if we are to have significant democracy in this country, we have to make sure that we protect it from foreign interference, and today getting to the bottom of that mueller report is the first step in the direction of protecting america, protecting our democracy and making sure that people in this country are assured that their votes and their elections are sacred. mr. chairman, i yield. >> for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> to say the last word. >> gentlelady's recognized.

in hindsight, mr barr would have been better off in the country, better off letting the miller reportnd on its own legs. now we have barr on one hand, the other on the other, another kind of dispute. no one really wins in these situations, particularly the american people who want to know what to understand about this complex situation. the letter published today is important in the context of what mr barr told the committee. he was asked on that occasion whether he had heard that robert mueller was unhappy with the conclusions he was making. reports have recently emerged that members of the special council's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information, including your march 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. do you know what they are befitting with that? no, i don't. that really goes to the heart of what the democrats are pushing about. they think he has mischaracterised the report i'd misled congress. that was a puzzling exchange. the way it was framed, people within the miller team had issues with accuracy. he did t

we undercut our whole argument by making the argument to mr. barr saying, hey, you know, look, mr. barr, why don't you just join us. why don't you just join us in asking the court to authorize release of 6e material. what does that do? it says, quite frankly that the folks that will be sitting there before a court, propounding execution of a contempt citation, they'll have the great privilege of saying, yeah, we put a sword of damocles over william barr. we created a hobson choice. we said, guess what, mr. barr. you either get held in contempt or you violate federal law. because that's just the way we do things in the judiciary committee these days. that's just the way it is. that is unprecedented and will hold this committee up to derision. and as my colleague, mr. johnson from louisiana said, there was a case that just came out last month which said -- and this gets to my colleague from georgia who said, you can't be misled. there are exceptions. that's right. and the court said, you must fit within one of those exceptions before you can release rule 6e material. but don't be misl

mr barr dismissed accusations that he'd downplayed the conclusions of the special counsel's report, to president. he said he'd "stuck to the bottom line." us judiciary chairman jerry nadler argues that attorney barr had stonewalled congress. the attorney general has the nerve to try to dictate, or the administration has the nerve to try to dictate, our procedures. it is part of the administration's complete stonewalling of congress. what the ranking member is saying is that by determining how we will proceed, we are stonewalling, as if it is our choice that he should not come. he is trying to blackmail the committee into not following what we think is the most effective means of eliciting the information we need. earlier i asked our washington correspondent chris buckler where all this leave us. yeah, we had feisty exchanges today at that senate congressional hearing. but as for the house of representatives hearing, which was expected to take place just hours later, that is now not going to happen. bill barr says he will not be there, he will not take part in it, and it seems to come d

mr. barr's four-page statement was not correct. so here we are today asking to see the full mueller report, and it's just not about what happened in 2016, and it's not about who did what, when and how. sadly, it's about something equally important, which is the 2020 election. i also sit on homeland security. the former head of homeland security, secretary nielsen, before she resigned she tried to tell the president that the russians were at it again. and the president did not want to listen. if we are to have significant democracy in this country, we have to make sure that we protect it from foreign interference, and today getting to the bottom of that mueller report is the first step in the direction of protecting america, protecting our democracy and making sure that people in this country are assured that their votes and their elections are sacred. mr. chairman, i yield. >> for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> to say the last word. >> gentlelady's recognized.

before we receive your testimony, mr. barr, we have the letter that mr.ueller sent to you on march 27th, 2019. i'll put that in the record now. the floor is yours. oh, got to swear you in. sorry. do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> yes. >> sorry about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. during my confirmation process, there were two concerns that dominated, as i think you'll all agree. the first was whether i would in any way impede or curtail special counsel mueller's investigation. the second, whether i would make public his final report. as you see, bob mueller was allowed to complete his work as he saw fit. as to the report, even though the applicable regulations require that the report is to be made to the a.g. and is to remain confidential and not be made public, i told this committee that i intended to exercise whatever discretion i had to make as much of the report available to the public and to cong

we must compel mr. barr to comply with a lawfully-issued subpoena and get to the work of oversight finding the truth and demonstrating in this country no one is above the law including the president of the united states. with that, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentle lady from alabama seek -- >> move to strike the last word. >> we have heard over and over again how the attorney general has not accommodated this committee's demands. asked unanimous consent that the timeline be included in the record. >> without objection. >> on march 22, 2019 the attorney general immediately notified the chairman and ranking members of the house and senate committees that he received the confidential report from the special counsel. on march 24, 2019, two days later, the attorney general informed congress of the special counsel's principle conclusions. on march 29, 2019, five days later, the attorney general updated congress on the department's review and outlined the four categories of redactions that the depar

of congress but here's what's next is a problem here with mr miller's letter which indicated that mr barr misrepresented the actual report of the investigative report and mr mollett had actually prepared summaries earlier back in march and asked mr barr to use the summaries to go and presented to congress and the public and barr didn't do that instead he comes up with a four page summary letter which was very misleading and set the tone for the public to misunderstand what happened with the investigation and deal problem right now and congress is furious indeed another bar of course you know the public also very confuses what's going on at the moment because i will not see plays he calls a liar but sort of words are not enough they they democrats certainly want to try and get the public behind them behind this potential for to impeachment of the president why won't they make that move on their own. well there's a difference of opinion with the democratic party which leads the house the palosi faction believes that they should go slow and make sure they win the next election without gettin

and we're all on television talking about what mr. barring, and i suspect a few years ago, most of us didn't remember who bill barr was. so i think unfortunately, for a lot of people, they're willing to put a lot on the line in order to get that attention and relevance. and it's really unfortunate in the case of mr. barr, because he is supposed to be working for all of us. >> what do you see happening next? matthew, do you -- obviously, he releases his prepared statement for the senate tomorrow. what do -- do you have any idea? does anyone have any idea what's going to happen later in the week when he is supposed to go and testify before congress? >> i imagine it's going to be contentious as expected. i mean, i think this really puts democrats in a difficult position. >> how so? there. >> are a bunch of them already pushing for impeachment. this is going to increase the pressure on them. their leadership, however, wary. it does not look like the public is kind of there yet, if they're ever going to be there. >> well, matthew, let me ask yo

now mr. barr is going to have to answer for the nature of the relationship with mr. mueller. why weren't these misgivings back in march reported when he came forward now? why not? what does it mean? how much will the a.g. say? how much will the a.g. have to answer for having said in the past that doesn't square with this reporting. there is a lot to go through. >> why is he not here? this is his report. >> what he did for me as the attorney general, he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. i'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision entirely discretionay to make it public. >> a lot of what this attorney general has done is subjective. it's not wrong. it's certainly not illegal. he hasn't been going by the book. he has been going by his own book and he's plagued by these rules before. we saw him do this. we saw him stimey congress in an earlier administration and not wanting to give out reports that they had a right to get. him saying here there is no requirement. it's true. but the only other time we had a special counse

mr. barr's

now mr. barr is going to have to answer for the nature of the relationship with mr. mueller. why weren't these misgivings back in march reported when he came forward now? why not? what does it mean? in terms of what mr. mueller believes about obstruction? how much will the a.g. say? how much will the a.g. have to answer for having said in the past that doesn't square with this reporting? there is a lot to go through. let's get after it matters as much as ever tonight. take a listen to this. >> there's a lot of public interest in the absence of mr. mueller. why is he not here today? this is his report. >> what he did for me as the attorney general, he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. i'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision entirely discretionary to make it public. since these reports are not supposed to be made public. that's what i'm here to discuss. >> now, a couple of things. this by the book thing, it requires context. a lot of what this attorney general has done is subjective. i'm not saying it's wrong. it's

before we receive your testimony, mr. barr, we have the letter that mr. mueller sent to you on march 27th, 2019. i'll put that in the record now. the floor is yours. >> well -- i've got to swear you in. sorry. to swear you in. sorry. you do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> yes. >> sorry about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. during my confirmation process, there were two concerns that dominated, as i think you will all agree. the first was whether i would in any way impede or curtail special counsel mueller's investigation. and the second, whether i would make public his final report. as you state, bob mueller was allowed to complete his work as he saw fit. and as to the report, even though the applicable regulations require that the report is to be made to the ag and is to remain confidential and not be made public, i told this committee that i intended to exercise whatever discretion i had t

>> well, mr. barr has testified that mr. mueller did not quibble with the conclusions as articulated in these letters. based on the testimony today, here's what i heard mr. barr say. that mr. mueller was concerned that the letter wasn't nuanced enough. well, that problem has been solved because we now had the full report. the second concern that mr. mueller had was he didn't agree with the press reports. well, that's not something mr. barr could do anything about. >> was it fair for the mueller team or someone close to moouler to release this letter on the day of barr's testimony? >> well, mr. barr is in the process, as he testified this morning, of conducting leak investigations at fbi and the department of justice. i'm going to ask him when it's my turn if that includes members of the mueller team. anything else, guys? all right. >> hearing from a couple of members of the senate judiciary committee outside of the hearing room. the committee taking a break, a one-hour break. there are votes on the floor of the senate, and t

mueller left it to mr. barr after two years and all this time. he said mr. barr, you decide. mr. barr did. a bunch of lawyers on this committee, and i will tell you the following. pretty hard to figure out what intent might be if there was never a crime to begin with. the president never did anything to stop mueller from doing his job. the theory goes now, okay, he didn't collude with the russians or do anything to stop mueller but attempt of obstruction of justice apparently is the new standard around here. we'll see if that make necessary sense. to me, it doesn't. there was another campaign, clinton campaign. what did we learn from this report? the russians interfered in this election. can some bipartisanship come out of this? i hope so. i intend to work with my colleagues on the other side to introduce the deter act and legislation to defend the integrity of the voting system. senator durbin and i have legislation that would deny anyone admit us into the united states a visa that they were involved in interfering in an american election. working with senator blumenthal to ensur

mr. barr's moment of accountability will come soon enough. >> after trump defiance of congress grows, is to impeach bill barr? then senator richard blumenthal on the question bill barr avoided. >> i don't recall having substantive discussion on the investigation. >> plus, 2020 candidate bernie

. >> mr. barr, the american people know that you are no different from rudy giuliani or kellyanne conway or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the liar that sits in the oval office. do you think it's okay for the president to ask his white house counsel to lie? >> well, i'm willing to talk about what is criminal. >> do you think it is okay for president to offer pardons to people that do not testify against him, to threaten the family of someone who does? is that okay? >> when did he -- pardon -- >> i think you know what i'm talking about. please, mr. attorney general.

before we receive your testimony, mr. barr, we have the letter that mr. mueller sent to you on march 27th, 2019. i'll put that in the record now. the floor is yours. got to swear you in, sorry. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> yes. >> sorry about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. during my confirmation process, there were two concerns that dominated as i think you will all agree. the first was whether i would in any way impede or curtail special counsel mueller's investigation and the second whether i would make public his final report. as you see, bob mueller was allowed to complete his work as he saw fit. and as for the report, even though the applicable regulations require that the report is to be made to the ag and is to remain confidential and not be made public, i told this committee that i intended to exercise whatever discretion i have to make as much of the report available to

mr. barr's determining who was on the periphery. we're talking 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 killed supreme court first nominees of the last president of the united states in his one-year before and frustrates the constitutional prerogative of the president to nominate members to the supreme court but now frustrates the other house by not having hearings whats

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 expression of the findings was inaccurate. but i did then volunteer that i thought they were talking about the desire to have more information put out. but it wasn't my purpose to put out more information. >> mr. barr, you, i feel, your answer was purposefully misleading. i think others do, too. let me ask you another one. you said the president is fully cooperating with the investigation. but his

the special prosecutor, they knew exactly what they were doing and seems that the barr people and mr. barrlf do not like nuance. they wanted black and white and now they have a muddy pile they've collected here. >> it's clearly problematic for barr. he'll face tough questions from democrats on the hill when he talks to the senate. isn't the public's perception of the report though already kind of baked in at this point? wasn't that the whole point in barr releasing the information in the way that he released the information, which was to shape the way most people will see this? most people who haven't read the 448 pages. >> i can't be inside mr. barr's head, but there certainly are appearances that that might have been his purpose. and there were the four weeks where a certain perception was allowed to form, with the president claiming total exoneration, both on obstruction and collusion. the report goes out of its way to talk about the fact that collusion is not a legal term, et cetera, et cetera. what we have here is we need to hear from mr. mueller. and i can't predict what the american

mr barr said he stuck to the bottom line but robert mueller says otherwise.changes today. during the senate committee in which the us attorney general was continually criticised by democrats. he seemed to suggest that he was behaving as if he was the attorney simply for president trump. he said that wasn't his role. the key to all of this is a summary that he first gave us after he was given the full report but mueller. the special counsel who was looking into the allegations of collusion and whether or not president trump is trying to obstructjustice. in the key issue of obstruction of justice, there seems to be concern from the team of mueller in the way it was presented. he did not come to a decision. he decided not to hold if you want that and leave it to the us attorney general. but he made clear that he was not exonerating the president. in a letter that was sent from mueller to barr, he felt the attorney general did not capture the attorney general did not capture the context, nature and substance of the context, nature and substance of the report find

mueller's knowledge of what mr. barr has done leads him to conclude that the attorney general must recuse himself from the continuing trump investigations." it's a long list, matt. obviously, valid questions. one problem, bob mueller is an employee of the department of justice. his boss is bill barr, the attorney general, unless and until such time he's allowed to testify or is no longer an employee. >> yeah, bill barr said today as he said previously he had no objection to the special counsel testifying. however, for some reason he can't -- the justice department can't seem to find a date to make him available to the house judiciary committee which said very much it wants to have him come testify. i think those are very good questions that neal laid out. i think before this week, i always thought mueller's testimony would be a bit of a disappointment, come in and talk and testify the way he did when he was the fbi director which would be reticent to say anything beyond what was in that report. after finding out last nig

mr. barr's doing what he can to do the best by this president, now what? >> of course it's clear. >> even if you have mr. mueller come in and he says yeah, i couldn't make a decision on this, but you can as a congress. >> now what? we'll see. nice job. thank you, sir. >>> this is "cnn tonight," i'm don lemon. here's our breaking news tonight, the attorney general william barr is refusing to testify before the house tomorrow. and here's what the judiciary chairman jerry nadler has not ruled out issuing a subpoena saying today that barr is "trying to blackmail the committee" so will there be a hearing with an empty chair? we'll find out in just a few hours. that comes after barr's defiant combative performance in the senate today. republicans in the senate stepping right up to help him. saying this, in the first minutes of the hearing about the crucial question of whether the president of the united states tried to obstruct justice. >> attempted obstruction of justice of a crime never occurred, i guess is sort of the new standard around here, we'll see if tha

. >> mr. barr, now the american people know that you are no different from rudy giuliani oracle know an conway or any people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the grifter who sits in the oval office. you said the job of attorney general is not the same as representing the president. you know the difference, but you have chosen to be the president's lawyer and side with him over the interest of the american people. you used every advantage of your office to create the impression that the president was cleared of misconduct and selectively quoted from the counsel's report, taking the most important statements out of context and ignoring the rest. you put the power and the authority behind a public relations effort to help donald trump protect himself. >> for his part, president trump was more than thrilled by barr's performance that the attorney general was really, really solid and did a great job. former federal prosecutor and michael schmidt and david corn, mother jones washington bure

mr. barr's moment of accountability will come soon enough. i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee for his opening statement. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chairman. let's be very clear there is only one reason and one reason only at this point we are not being able to fulfill our constitutional role of oversight and that is the chairman's demands that were played out yesterday. we could have had a hearing today, what bothers me the most about this is not only did in standing for the questions that were discussed and the issues that have been discussed between me and the chairman not only did he take the ability to the american people to hear again from bill barr, he took our ability to hear from bill barr today. to protect, maybe. because some didn't feel they could ask proper questions, maybe they wanted more staff questions, who knows. but yesterday we found this, that he claims he wants staff to question the attorney general because the five minutes per member is not enough. but yet we approved a motion yesterday that