mr. mueller to come? be helpful in understanding what kind of mueller are we going to get. what does he think about the border? does he have any concerns about whether or not this bill will get done? nadler coming up on a big night, next. behr presents: outdone yourself. staining be done... and stay done through every season. behr semi-transparent stain, overall #1 rated. stay done for years to come. find it exclusively at the home depot. you mighyour joints...ng for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. did you know the exact same hotel room...whoooo. ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. your perfect hotel room for the perfect price! ♪ here i go again on my own

mr. mueller himself. manu, thank you for being on quick watch like this. what have we learned. >> major news involving robert mueller, the special counsel. just moments ago the house intelligence committee and the house judiciary committee announced they have agreed, the special counsel has agreed to appear in public on july 17th in an open session to testify about the -- what he found as a part of his two-year investigation into russian interference as well as potential obstruction of justice in the white house. now, they say in this letter, both the chairman of this committee, jerry nadler and adam schiff, that they have subpoenaed bob mueller and he's agreed to testify under subpoena. now what they say in this letter, chris, is that they say they understand this is a letter that they wrote to the special counsel saying that we -- further understand there are certain sensitivities with your testimony and there are certain things that he will not say in these -- and of course mueller has said his work speaks for itself and does not want to speak about this

mr. mueller maintained an almost eerie silence.was his written words, not the his voice, that did the talking. but that changed this week. on wednesday mr. mueller announced that he was stepping down from the job and going back to private sector. and in a conspicuous verbal parting shot, he took the opportunity to offer some cryptic observations highlighting specific parts of his report and what they say about president trump. first, he suggested -- as he'd written -- that the only reason the president wasn't charged with crimes was because he can't be. >> but under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. gerry: and then he offered this, shall we say, inconclusive conclusion about the president's guilt or innocence: >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determin

mr. mueller says it's not over. mr. mueller says he did not have the authority pursuant to ustice policy to go further. but he pointed out that there are other bodies that have the authority and responsibility to do so. who is that? us. the congress of the united states. now, one of the problems that the having is that president has instructed almost all of government not to respond to the congress of the united states. not to answer questions. not to testify. not to appear. i've called that perhaps the biggest cover-up in history. of any president who has in effect give a blanket suggestion and in some cases order that people ought not to testify. he said there is no reason to go any further. he's made that decision. and especially in congress where it's very partisan, obviously very partisan. partisan.his is not this is our responsibility. -- responsibility to the american people. by refusing to cooperate with congress, the trump administration has engaged in a refusal to allow the congress to exercise its responsibili

mr. mueller aloud mr.ey to testify despite his being in the middle of this massive obstruction investigation. we thought that was curious. and this is why there needs to be at least an internal ethics investigation of the way that mueller operation proceeded and its interaction with some of these witnesses you know mr. mueller for instance strzok was caught red handed writing anti-trump and a proclinton strzok testified mueller didn't ask him a question about whether or not his anti-trump hatred influenced the investigation. mueller was disinterested in that isn't that curious. >> it is curious and after today -- there are more questions about the witch hunt as the president first characterized it. of which i think is an avid description of what this turned out to be. mueller says that charging president -- he at least tries to intimate that the charging the president was never an option. so why did he persist at all? he didn't by the way. there were no coconnen spear tores indicted. so why did he per cyst

mr. mueller's efforts. by seeking to curtail the investigation, president trump committed an act that threatened the national security of this country. as robert mueller concluded in his report, he reiterated the central ealingtses of his indictments were multiple and systematic efforts to interfere in our election occurred that. allegation deserves the attention of every american. i hope to answer your questions to give that allegation the attention it deserves. thank you. chair nadler: thank you very much. we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. mr. dean, as you are no doubt aware the committee seen kwlad former white house counsel don mcgain to produce white house documents shared with him and the counsel over the course of the special counsel's investigation and to testify before the committee on may 21. at the direction of the white house, mr. mcgahn has not produced any documents. additionally, the white house while it has not

mr. mueller was named -- was appointed to that job. he was a former fbi director and he was allowed to serve longer than 10 years. and mr. mueller was named to the job by rod rosenstein, who was the deputy attorney general and it was mr. rosenstein's responsibility to decide if this should happen because his boss, jeff sessions famously recused himself because of his own involvement in the trump campaign and he did what most lawyers believe was the right thing. the president did not think it was the right thing and recused himself and rosenstein appointed robert mueller. my understanding of how the budgeting for this works is when such a person is appointed and there is a special counsel appointed, the budget is open- ended and it is essentially whatever that prosecutor and the justice department agree he needs to spend, he gets to spend. this may sound silly to callers, but the amounts of money that we are talking about are not large by federal government standards. they are in the millions, not billions in the justice department is a

mr. mueller's statement? >> first of all that he spoke at all. r two years, mueller had been this blank canvas on whichot people projected their hopes and their fierce about where this investigation will lead. and he finally spoke. that's very compelling because he's never done it before. but his message was interesting in that it was one of -- folks, i'm done here. whatever youecide to do is up to you now. you know, this investigation has been sort o two roads for a long time, a legal criminal investigation, and then the political road. i think those two roads he now merged. and mueller is saying i'm not driving further down the road. whatever happens will ben the political role. i don't know that congress will take that for as answer.: robeid he offer any clarity on o -- on obstruction justus. >> he sin -- insists heco won't ider the question. na's the basic contradiction of work because why do you investigate the president if not to reach a decisio in that report? e beliefs that justice department policy does not permit him to reach a decision

mr. mueller on intent but add illuminating thoughts from him. that's their hope on the russia front. >> a reminder of where we are as we have this conversation. a current occupy of the white house is facing crises. the tensions with iran, a new accusation that our president raped a woman as a civilian two decades ago, and our treatment of migrant children at the u.s./southern border. this one incredibly sad photo may become one of those photos that galvanizes public opinion. this was taken in mexico monday. they are apparently refugees from el salvador. just today the president's latest acting head of customs and border patrol resigned amid the stories of children on concrete floors with a foil sheet lacking soap and tooth paste. the president was asked about these conditions this afternoon. >> are you concerned about the conditions at the border facilitys? >> yes, i am. i am very concerned, and they're much better than they were under president obama, by far, and we're trying to get the democrats to agree to really give us some humanitarian aid

mr. mueller knew it but his team was radicalized. rget he had a radical team that conducted the investigation. they come out and i don't know robert mueller from adam but i can tell you this the reality is mr. mueller put out a report that is not a legal brief. he shouldn't have done it at all. but it's an opinion piece. this is going to look like the hope hicks interview. you had the democrats reading or asking her to read. direct quotes from the mueller report. hope hicks say that was my statement. that is what you will get. go to mueller. you won't get anything new from the democrats. nadler said, chairman nadler already said hey, we will probably have him just read things. this is designed to keep up their narrative of something that happened that there was an obstruction of justice, somehow just like you heard in the debate last night, somehow the president is guilty of something. there is nothing here. they know it. they can't get him on anything that is criminal so they will attack and try to sully his name with the consistent

mr. mueller testify.er tom mcclintock earlier today on cavuto live. >> now he's coming back, dropping little innuendos and saying by the way don't question me. well, i'm sorry, the process doesn't work that way. >> if jerry nadler is listening to you right now, you want him to subpoena mr. mueller? >> very much, and it's his responsibility to do so. and it's something that he's been promising to do, so let's do it. arthel: that was david asman in for neil cavuto today. on set with me is robert shock, former prosecutor, and richard paul, good to have both of you. >> good to be here. arthel: why is there such fallout over mr. mueller's nine minutes of spoken word and do you think that through mr. mueller, through his report that mr. mueller wanted congress to investigate potential obstruction of justice on the part of the president? >> well, look, mueller's is a seasoned prosecutor, but he did make a mistake here by coming out publicly and speaking about -- in my opinion, coming out publicly speaking about

mr. mueller's effort, by seeking to curtailel efforts. mr. trump committed an act that threatened the national security of this country. as robert mueller concluded in his report, he reiterated that the central allegation of our indictments were that multiple efforts to interfere with our election occurred. that allegation considers attention of every american. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. mr. dean, as no doubt are aware that the committee subpoenaed don mcgahn over the course of the special counsel's investigation and to testify before the committee on may 21. at the direction of the white house, mr. mcgahn has not produced any documents. additionally, the white house while it is not formally invoked executive privilege over any specific information mr. mcgahn's testimony may cover has instructed him not to appear at all merely because it may implicate the privilege. do you agree with the white house or does mr. mcgahn hav

mr. mueller on a timeline reported last week? when would we expect to see that? mr. nadler: we'll get mr. mueller's testimony soon enough, i hope we don't have to subpoena him but if we have to, we will. reporter: with the department of justice, what are the documents? mr. nadler: remember we asked for the unredacted, i'm sorry, the redacted portions of the report and underlying document, underlying evidence, etc. what we're going to get is the redacted portions of volume two, that is the obstruction of justice, not the russian attack, not including the grand jury information. for that we're going to go to court promptly, we always anticipate having to go to court for that. and we'll get access to the underlying documents on a priority basis that we are supplying to them. that's their promise. >> you'll be able to see the unredacted report of volume two? mr. nadler: other than the grand jury -- there are four reasons for redaxes. one of them is grand jury information. that they didn't promise us, we have to go to court for that, which we will. but the other three par

mr. mueller and to mueller's team. president is a free speaker. he just sort of wanders down paths.doesn't give much thought to the truth. and he doesn't give much thought to what he said previously. from a criminal defense lawyer perspective, that's perilous. understand the mueller team thought they had most of what they needed and they were worried about the report taking too long if they had to litigate an issue over a subpoena to the president. but this docile straight as you know the, why you want to sit down with the subject of the investigation and talk to him. you want to hear in his own words what he was thinking. today he told us. >> i just want to read for the audience one more time what the law actually says about this. it says it shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or indirectly to make a contribution or doe of money or other thing of value or to make an express or implied promise in connection with a local, state or federal election. the same law makes it against the law for a person to accept such a thing and sam stein, president trump said tonight he wo

mr. mueller knew it, but his team was radicalized. rget, he had a radical team that was conducting the investigation. i don't know bob mueller from adam, but the reality is that mr. mueller put out a report that is not a legal brief at all. he should never have done it in the first place. second of all, it is basically an opinion piece. but what is going to happen, i think this is going to look a lot like the hope hicks interview. that is, you democrats reading or asking her to read direct quotes from the mueller report. and hope hicks would say yeah, that was my statement. that is what you are going to get when the democrats go to mueller. you're not going to get anything new from the democrats. in fact, nadler has already said --ha chairman nadler has already said, hey, we will probably just have him read things. this is designed to keep up their narrative of something that happened, that there was an obstruction of justice, somehow, just like you heard in the debate last night, somehow the president is guilty of something. there is

mr. mueller on the time line of the reported last week when would we expect to see that. >> we'll get mr. mueller's testimony soon enough. i hope we don't have to subpoena him, but if we have to we will. >> how would you characterize the documents. >> what are the documents that you're going to be -- >> it's basically -- remember we asked for the redacted forcings of the report and the underlying documents, underlying evidence et cetera. what we're going to get is the redacted forcings of volume 2, the obstruction of justice not the russian -- not the russian attack volume. not including the grand jury information. for that we are going to court promptly. we always anticipate having toth to court for that. and we're getting access to the underlying documents on a priority basis that we are supplying to them. that's their promise. >> you'll be able to see the unredacted report of volume two. >> other than -- other than the grand jury -- remember there are for four reasons for redactions. one of them is grand jury information. that they didn't promise us. we have to go to court for that whi

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. person who the rejected the premise that this matter was over was robert mueller in a relatively short press conference in which he answered no questions, but he clearly demonstrated that he thought mr. barr misrepresented the fact that this was over. in fact, he said, if we thought done sident had not anything wrong and we were convinced of that, we would have said so. we did not say so. now, having said that, this is not related to impeachment. this is related to the congress' authority under the constitution of the united states to receive information from the executive on behalf of the american people. now, if mr. barr believes that the information requested need ot be submitted, then he has nothing to fear, because what we are seeking is a court ruling, an independent body's ruling as to whether or not he ought to be held in contempt and directed by a court to provide the information to the congress of the united states acting pursuant to its constitutional duty. i will tell my friend that it is a sad day when the republicans and democrats do not stand together on behalf of this i

mr. mueller says it's not over. mr. mueller says he did not have the authority pursuant to ustice policy to go further. but he pointed out that there are other bodies that have the authority and responsibility to do so. who is that? us. the congress of the united states. now, one of the problems that the having is that president has instructed almost all of government not to respond to the congress of the united states. not to answer questions. not to testify. not to appear. i've called that perhaps the biggest cover-up in history. of any president who has in effect give a blanket suggestion and in some cases order that people ought not to testify. he said there is no reason to go any further. he's made that decision. and especially in congress where it's very partisan, obviously very partisan. partisan.his is not this is our responsibility. -- responsibility to the american people. by refusing to cooperate with congress, the trump administration has engaged in a refusal to allow the congress to exercise its responsibili

mr. mueller had agreed to testify but wanted to do so behind closed doors. wouldn't be the first time we have seen a misrepresentation from the chairman regarding mr. mueller's preferences. >> martha: you got into it a little bit with john dean yesterday. of watergate fame, the former attorney for richard nixon. let's take a listen to a little bit of that. >> here we sit today in this hearing with the ghost of christmas past. >> mr. gates. >> here as a prop. you are functionally here as a prop because they can't impeach president trump. >> i did. actually, i know the players. i have watched them before. i watched them badger hillary clinton. they are all flame throwers. >> martha: he said you are a flame thrower. >> i never had the chance to question hillary clinton but i sure would like the opportunity it. is obvious that john dean had nothing to offer regarding illuminating facts in the mueller report. he was there merely to raise the specter of impeachment and the specter of richard nixon. i think whether you have a sitting president of the united states

mr. mueller.f the democrats want to move forward with impeachment, they probably have everything they're going to have at this point with it. they're hoping there's something else in the underlying document that wasn't captured by mr. mueller that will give them that greater push to get more support. but it doesn't seem like a particularly wise strategy at this point. >> neil: it's a confusing one. thanks, katie. you're looking at the live duelling events in iowa, the president of the united states in council bluffs and the former vice president in mount pleasant. on the right there, we're waiting to hear from both. both will be speaking. stay with us. ♪ limu emu and doug. what do all these people have in common, limu? [ guttural grunt ] exactly. nothing! they're completely different people. that's why they make customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need. yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. [ limu grunts ] only pay for what you need. ♪

mr. mueller said.illi turner has news inside the beltway. >> it was a captivating press conference there. to capitol hill democrats and one republican are ramping up their efforts to get mueller to testify and begin impeachment proceedings against president trump. the democratic caucus saying despite mueller's announcement that he's closing up shop. they say it's more important than ever that they hear from him directly. the speaker of the house has remained cool on the "i" word, but there are questions unresolved and unanswered. >> why this president is not above the law, while this president must be held accountable, the only person who knows better than i do, is the president of the united states. he knows. he knows what his violations have been. >> 2020 contenders by comparison taking a no holds barred approach. elizabeth warren even calling for legislative solutions to what she sees as the trump problem, saying, i pledge to nominate an office of legal counsel head who will reverse the watergate er

mr. schiff: some argue we should ignore everything bob mueller has to say. we should ignore everything the russians did because they have problems with aspects of the fisa application. the fisa application was opened months after the investigation began, correct? mr. mccarthy: correct. mr. schiff: it didn't initiate the investigation, zphrect mr. mccarthy: also correct. mr. schiff: in fact carter page was not with the trump campaign any more at the time the application was filed, is that correct? mr. mccarthy: don't think that's relevant but that is as i understand they had formally separated. i assume you know -- mr. schiff: would it -- mr. mccarthy: you can go backwards -- mr. schiff: it is relevant if you are making an accusation of spying on ott trump campaign that a fisa application of carter page didn't begin until carter page was no longer with that campaign, isn't that accurate? mr. mccarthy: no. i think that if you are getting access to somebody's communications under circumstances where that access will afford you the opportunity to go backwards so

mr. mueller should come and testify freely and openly and candidly before the committees of jurisdiction in both the house and the senate. let's remember there are reports that less than 5% of the american public have read the mueller report, and i think he has a responsibility to come out and educate and defend his findings, and i think if he does, that we will better educate the american people. if anything we learned from mr. mueller this week in his very limited appearance he feels it's incumbent upon the congress of the united states to take the appropriate actions as the constitution dictates, and, number two, that he really feels that he has done his job. he has put put forward. it's time for the house of representatives to do what it needs to do in terms of the judiciary committee and -- and at the same time let's be clear. he and attorney general barr v been sparring. mr. mueller believes obstruction of just cities something that the house of representatives should take up. >> so scott, in the last month support for impeachment has gone up 4% according to this new cnn polling. h

mr. mueller, over 400 pages. but it is not likely that many americans will read the full report as mr. r has suggested they do and as congress must do. but the history of these kinds of reports tells us that a report alone is not sufficient and i would point to the bipartisan 9/11 commission whose hearings elucidated what wound up in a final report that grabbed the attention of the country and made a significant difference, i think, we would agree. so we need to bring the public along, we who have read this material and are alarmed by the interference by a foreign adversary in our electoral process and congress has the oversight responsibility ato make sure that's not replicated. the hypocrisy of the administration saying oh, you're having hearing and there's no new evidence being elucidated in this hearing is so stunning because they have refused to allow witnesses to testify. so the next step is in the courts as far as getting new information. but in the meantime the public should understand and be brought along with the importance, the gravity of what's in this report. >> you can mak

mr. mueller and he grand jury to conduct that investigation. by the anctioned attorney general of the united states and while -- the former general abstain interested that, rob rosenstein attorney general oversaw that investigation. the investigation itself as it russian interference with our election was something by the sanctioned justice department generally. and they had subpoena power they can request information from private individuals, government agencies, so on and forth. hat material in most times is secret information an what is not secret grand jury that ation is information can be turned over to congress because they have an interest in the intelligence issues and oreign interference issues and rightful rightfully should be turned over appropriate security clearances. so it is appropriate for request some of this information, just not all of t. from doris on the democrats line from arizona. i would like for kwhychultz to explain to me he information received shouldn't be shared with .merican people totally if the president has noth

mr. mueller's team and the judiciary committee. they understand it's critical mr. eller come before the committee. he has a duty to walk the american people through the findings of his report, explain his decisions and the evidence he collected. i expect mr. mueller will be before the judiciary committee. >> do you feel the democrats have lost the messaging war on this issue? >> no. look we want to make sure we're doing it right. went to respectful of the special counsel. it's always better if a witness comes voluntarily. someone who has devoted 22 months to this intense investigation deserves that treatment and i think trying to accommodate him makes sense. but if that doesn't work then obviously we'll compel his attendance. no question the american people need to hear from the special counsel. >> you're starting a series of hearings on tuesday involving big tech. you're not the only part of the government looking into google, facebook, et cetera. we learned this week the ftc and doj have divvied up responsibility for probes into these gigantic players. what do you

mr. mueller's shoes. i didn't know what he was finding.e rest of the american public, i had to allow him to do his job. but when he comes forward and says that there are four -- at least four counts of obstruction of justice and there is substantial evidence supporting all four of those counts then it's my job to pick up that evidence and make a decision, and that's what i've done here. >> let's listen to what another california member of congress, chairman adam schiff of the house intelligence committee, said about impeachment. >> regardless of how people come out in terms of whether this is the right thing at the right time, people do need to be aware that there's a perception that if we announce an impeachment inquiry tomorrow things change dramatically, that suddenly witnesses like don mcgahn, who have been resisting coming in are going to show up and say, okay, where do i testify. the justice department is going to open its files. none of that is going to happen. we're still going to have to go to court. if anything, the administratio

mr. mueller, i wouldn't get in the way of that. let's have mr. mueller come and testify. but the truth is, the report in and of itself is evidence because all of the statements contained in the mueller report were taken from persons who were giving their testimony at the expense of committing perjury if they didn't give a truthful statement. so perjury was a consequence of ving an untruthful statement to the f.b.i. agents who were asking these questions. and the mueller report is pretty good evidence. we could use that to impeach if we chose to do so. i believe that the mueller report contains some 10 opportunities for this congress to engage in impeachment, bring impeachment to the floor of this house for a vote. and fordfication purposes, the -- and for edification purposes, the president doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. we won that battle. that's one of the first things that was said when impeachment was called to the attention of this body some more than two years ago. what crime has he committed? well, we know now that you don't have to commit a crime.

mr. mueller was wrong about this. i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. and mr. chairman, i ask for a unanimous consent that an article by david webb, published june 18th, 2019, be admitted into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, sir. i am intrigued, quite frankly, at the title of this hearing. i represented ngos at the united nations and other multilateral institutions. i served in a state legislative body for 14 years and was a senate president in arizona for four years and a majority leader for one. and i have sat on this committee now for, we are at the 2 1/2 year mark, i suppose. and i just, i find it intriguing what's happened today. i have not seen hearings conducted in this fashion before. all that have, whether it be at the international level, state level, and actually the other committees i sit on and sub committees. i was a subcommittee chairman for the last two years. this has been intrigue to go me, to watch in my opinion the devoelution of the process in some ways. i will say this. one of the lessons i have learned is that we all see t