mueller abided by the olc policy and its logic.t said this, quote, a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would place burdens on the president's capacity to govern. he chose not to render a conclusion on obstruction of justice overlooking that a special counsel is to provide the attorney general with a report quote explaining the prosecution or declination decisions the special counsel reached. well he didn't do that. mueller went one step further. mueller claimed it would be unfair to establish a criminal case against a president in office where there would be no trial where the president could seek exoneration. that's why he made no finding on obstruction of justice. the report it said this, quote fairness concerns counselled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. the problem that i have is that neither robert dixon, the original author of the justice department olc policy nor robert mueller who took the policy one step further were acting pursuant to an express provision of

olc didn't matter, the olc did matter.was in front of two other people. >> i don't think he has any trouble. he appeared this week because his word have been misled -- have been used by the to be general to mislead the american people as to what he wrote. all he said at the press conference is what was in the report. bill barr was misleading the american people. judge jeanine: dan bongino is next. uh... do you mind...being a mo-tour? -what could be better than being a mo-tour? the real question is... do you mind not being a mo-tour? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. ...depend® silhouette™ briefs feature maximum absorbency, with trusted protection for all out confidence... beautiful colors and an improved fit for a sleek design and personal style. life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®. every day, visionaries are creating the future. ♪ so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. ♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to ho

olc didn't matter, the olc did matter.t was in front of two other people. >> i don't think he has any trouble. he appeared this week because his word have been misled -- have been used by the to be general to mislead the american people as to what he wrote. all he said at the press conference is what was in the report. bill barr was misleading the american people. judge jeanine: dan bongino is [♪] judge jeanine: the far left in a frenzy over robert mueller's statement about president trump and the russia investigation. here with the latest about the deep state trying to destroy the president, dan bongino. i will ask you one question about mueller. why the hell did he show up and give this statement? >> for two reasons. i have to disagree with stephanie. she said he didn't say anything. he said a lot. first he put that olc thing out there. he said there was evidence of criminality but the olc stopped them. but he created a new standard of justice, not not guilty. which is impossible to prove. it was shameful. judge jeanine:

he would have found a crime but for the existence of the olc opinion. and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. >> so that was justice department policy. those were the principals under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we would -- would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. >> joyce, now that mueller has spoken once and for all, what are we to take from it on that point? >> i think that there is some very fine legal arguments being drawn by the attorney general technically saying that mueller didn't go far enough down the road that the office of legal counsel memo compelled his decision. but those are really differences without a distinction. it is clear from mueller's comments. it is clear from the report itself that the special counsel's team operated in an environment where they knew from the get-go that they could not indict a sitting president of the united states, that the people ultimately with jurisdiction to do that would be prosecutors after

i played that clip of jerry nadler talking about that olc memo. with the distance we've seen the last few weeks when it comes to what bill barr's perspective is on the justice department's ability to do that. >> it helps to step back and paraphrase this. the olc basically handed down a rule saying the justice department is not allowed to indict sitting presidents. bill barr asked robert mueller if he had done the thought experiment of imagine this rule doesn't exist, will you indict the president? mueller's response to barr was i didn't do that thought experiment, i'm not going to do it, it's not my job as a federal prosecutor to disappear rules in my head so that i can do analysis that's not connected to reality. barr then responded to mueller and said, well, i think you should have done it anyway and then barr told the public that he and rod rosenstein did that thought experiment, which mueller wasn't interested in doing, and who would have thought, the thought experiment exonerated donald trump. that's basically what bill barr did. that's the c

don't think it worked i think there was daylight when he talked about obstruction piece of this how olcpinion controlled or did not control findings if you look at report read it does not say weefrp refusing to make findings because of the olc opinion to the contrary it talks about the thorny issue of criminal intent when it comes to proving obstruction by the president, there is daylight there that i think is aggravating ag barr. >> daylight between his report was more sxav about criminal intent on obstruction of justice and his statement, mueller's statement this week basically said the reason we didn't at least the implication was the reason we did not indict on obstruction because we couldn't because of this order, and that has turned out to be the thing that democrats have grabbed said aha, now it is our job to help with impeachment do you think to move ahead with impeachment some of them any away do you think he intended to give that impetus to impeachment or accidental? >> it is hard to know any time you try to summarize two easier of investigation, as barr has been finding out i

in hand, but the reality is such that because we have this now famous office of legal counsel, this olc opinion that said you cannot indict a sitting president, that's what mueller even referenced in his report as to binding his hands with a criminal analysis of obstruction in his report, this olc thing says you can't indict a sitting president so it does beg the question does the statute of limitations get tolled? people say it should be because but for the existence of that opinion, but from a legal standpoint what is going to be stopping that prosecution? is there something that should be done? should there be a sealed indictment, morgan, that gets filed so it starts that clock -- excuse me, stops that clock from running. people are saying if trump wins in 2020 he's going to dodge that statute but i am of the camp that you can still prosecute him once he gets out of office. i don't think they're mutually exclusive. >> it's not necessarily a done deal if he wins 2020? >> exactly. >> also the question though going back to something you said earlier, katie, what are the ramifications of

the olc only talks about prosecution and charging, but mueller would not do it. and he managed to write around the circumvents, the two u.s. supreme court decisions that say that statutes do not apply to a president exercising their constitutional authority and obstruction is a general statute. unless it said so. look at the obstruction statutes. they don't say so. and mueller knew that, but he could not bring himself to say that the law does not support obstruction of justice. so he tried to write this road map for impeachment hoping that the democrats in the media would pick up the mantle, and of course they have. >> sean: let me ask you both, ken starr i will start with you, this letter from stephen boyd to larry nadler, looking at review underway by the department of justice and the certain activities involving the campaign. and it goes on to say the review is broad in scope. it is multifaceted. it is intended to illuminate open questions regarding the activities of u.s. foreign officials as well as nongovernment organizations and individuals. i take this let

he shouldn't -- >> adriana, he said it was olc guidelines, he was trying to follow olc guidelines, heident with a crime, because he could not defend himself in any court other, so that's why he said it was another body, i.e. congress, it was up to them. he was laying out the evidence. >> let me speak antoine, it's my turn to speak. you know attorney general barr said that he is spoke with bob mueller and he told him on three times with witnesses present, that he did not bring, he did not not bring charges because of the office of legal counsel rules, he didn't bring charges because there was insufficient evidence. there's a big difference here. >> that's not -- >> look -- >> so adriana, let me ask you this, why in the world do we not have trump's appointed a.g., who has pledged allegiance to donald trump based on his behavior, why in the world would he not sit himself down before the congress and allow them to question him and flesh this out? because the a.g. was clear in his report and he was clear in his follow-up press conference just the other day that trump has not been exonerate

while governing olc opinions provide that a sitting president cannot be indicted there was nothing to preclude the special counsel from saying that the president would be convicted of obstruction of justice if that is what he believed. by not doing so, the special counsel put the attorney general in the difficult situation of having to make that decision. here, general barr's determination that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the president attempted to obstruct justice is an matly reasonable. while it is possible for someone to obstruct justice who did not committee the offense that is under investigation, it is streamly is rare. in the overwhelming majority of cases, individuals who attempt to obstruct justice do so because they know darn well they committed a crime and fear the investigation will uncover that fact. moreover, it is almost invariably the case that someone trying to obstruct an investigation also engages in other nefarious activities such as destroying evidence, subborning perjury, bribing witnesses or threatening them with bodily harm. here, the preside

the attorney general previously stated he affirmed he was not saying that for the olc opinion he would have found the president obstructed justice, and so when -- you know, if that's the answer that my democratic colleagues give for why he didn't prosecute, there was a joint statement made by both of them saying that was not the reason. and so, again, i very short on time. one of the other questions, do you think professor prakash, there needs to be an underlying crime in order to prove there's corrupt intent for obstruction of justice? >> i'm not an obstruction of justice scholar. i don't think there needs to be an underlying crime, but if there is none, it's less likely the person who allegedly obstructed on investigation did so with a corrupt intent. >> the time has expired. >> thank you. >> one of our witnesses, dr. polyakova has to catch a plane. with the thanks of the committee, you're excused. the committee will take a five minute break at this point. we'll recess for five minute and i mean five minutes, not six. the committee is in recess. t

i don't think anybody at olc believes this will be a winning legal argument. >> olc is the office of big news we're following is the president's efforts to clean up the damage from his original foreign dirt comments he made in that abc news interview. listen to what he told fox news earlier this morning. >> i don't think anybody would present me with anything bad because they know how much i love this country. nobody will present me with anybody bad. number two, if i was and you have to look at it because if you don't look at it, you're not going to know if it's bad. how will you know if it's bad? of course you give it to the fbi or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that. >> what do yo think? >> i think the president faced with widespread backlash is trying to do some degree of damage control but he still trying to have it both ways by saying you have to first look at it to see if it's bad when the widespread consensus is you don't need to look at it. when you're offered help from a foreign government, you pick up the phone and call the fbi. he spent a lot of yesterd

think there was some daylight created when he talked about the obstruction piece of this and how the olc opinion controlled or didn't control his findings. if yount look at the report and readoo it, it does not say we we refusing to make findings because of the olc opinion. to contrary, it talks about the thorny issue of criminal intent when it comes to proving obstruction by the president. so there is a little daylight ththere that i think is aggravating a.g. barr. paul: that daylight you're talking about is between his report, which was more expansive about criminal intent on obstruction of justice, and his statement, mueller's statement this week which basically said the reason we didn't -- at least the implication was the reason we didn't indict on obstruction was because we couldn't because of this order. and that has turned out to be the thing that democrats have grand and said, see, aha, now it'sow our job to help with impeachment. to move ahead with impeachment. some of them anyway. so do you think he intended to give that impetus to impeachment or is this accidental? >> >> it's

he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found a crime. he made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime. i didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but i am told that his reaction to that was that it was my -- my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. >> a little different isn't it? the special counsel did not agree with how the attorney general presented things there. so he wrote to him saying in part, quote, there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. because, mueller said, the summary letter did not capture the context, nature and substance of his conclusions. mueller's brief remarks this week were not significantly different from what was in his report, but it is also true that -- and president trump knows this better than anybody -- that we are living in a performative society and sometimes things televised have a way of seeping into the consciousness, become more iconic or are more enduring. so it comes as

buried him >> he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the olcwould have found obstruction. >> under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional. >> chris: again, barr says that the department guidelines was not the issue and bob mueller indicates that it was a central concern. >> this is nothing new. this is been out for a while. it was actually written on the report. a lot of people are saying that this was some kind of a new revelation from bob mueller this week. no, it was actually written into the report. we talked about it then -- >> chris: it does contradict contradict -- it does contradict what barr was saying, the attorney general when he said that mueller said that wasn't an issue and mueller says it was an issue, so at least was setting the record straight with regard to what attorney general barr has been saying. >> congressman collins: and that's his decision he made to do his press conference this week, or the discussion about it but it was also

previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found the president obstructed justice. let me again talk about some particular excerpts. and after reeling the mueller report it was clear to me that mueller knew he may not have a clear case that can hold up in court. and in fact he said the evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment, namely, a, the president has article ii authority and the acts the president engaged in a

the case against the president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the olcuch a case. david: now, senator, i realize it's a little like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin and most americans eyes glaze over when you're getting into some of this stuff. but there are these contradictions. while you were want to work on important things like opioid crisis and deal with specifics that americans care about. it seems that jerry nadler are focused about arguing about an angel on a pin. >> i listened carefully to mr. mueller's press conference last week. here is primarily what i heard him say. i'm done, no mas, i quit. i'm not going to testify. i don't want to testify. if you want to understand my testimony, read the report. okay. let's go to the report. first section, he says there's no collusion, so there's no indictment. second second, obstruction of justice, he's saying i'm not saying he did it, i'm not saying he didn't do it, but i'm not bringing an indictment. now, i heard bill barr testify underoath in front of the judiciary committee t

shannon: william barr said it wasn't about the olc. they have to figure that out. >> there is no other conclusion but the big point is kamala harris shouldn't be talking about it so i agree on that point but disagree there is a clean bill of health there. shannon: great to have you, thanks for stopping in. team usa criticized for celebrating too much during the smack down of thailand. s do the, just tease it a little. slather it all over, don't hold back. well, the squirrels followed me all the way out to california! and there's a very strange badger staring at me... no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. uh-huh, where's the camel? "mr. big shot's" got his own trailer. ♪ wheeeeeee! believe it! geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. ♪ applebee's new loaded chicken fajitas. now only $10.99. is that for

. >> democrats say a legal opinion known as an olc memo stopped charges from mueller bringing chargesre other factors that weighed against it. democrat announced the testimony less than 24 hours before tonight's debate after weeks of back and forth with the special counsel and his staff, shep. >> shepard: catherine, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> shepard: president trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, has done a sit-down interview with fox news during a trip to the middle east. trey yingst reporting live in bahrain where he asked kushner about the plan for peace. trey? >> shep, that's right. the trump administration wrapped up their peace prosperity summit in bahrain. the plan focuses on gathering and spending $50 billion over the next ten years on palestinian infrastructure projects and creating up to a million palestinian jobs. we sat down with jared kushner today. he was optimistic about the plan but you have to remember, there's a political side to this plan that has yet to be released. the big problem here, palestinians in gaza say they're not willing to sit down and have discuss

doors with the president of the united states, i think going back to the clinton administration, the olcpinion, it was tweeted earlier tonight, it's pretty clear. this is classic executive privilege information. classic. >> first, it is, number one. number two, presidents often invoke executive privilege and leave it to the courts bear that is where the system of checks and balances is about. congress seeks information, the president says no, and the courts decide get the system works and what happens. no president was ever -- when the courts told nixon to turn over the tapes, he did. clinton had to make certain information, and he did. congress has the power to go to the courts, but they shouldn't be complaining about privilege because they would do it themselves of their staff members were being called by prosecutors to testify. >> laura: bingo. alan, it's great to talk to you and hear your thoughts on the holocaust comparisons with the concentration camps. coming up, an actress releases photos of herself, and yeah, they are nude ones. and washes out at whoopi goldberg. raymond arroyo,

i think going back to the clinton administration, the olc opinion on this, paul wisenberg tweeted this earlier tonight that it's clear that this is classic executive privilege information, classic. >> well first -- it is, number one, number two, presidents often invoke executive privilege in closed cases and leave it to the courts, that's what the system of checks and balances is about. congress seeks the information, the president says no, the courts decide. the system works when that happens.id i know of no president who's ever refused to accept the rulings of the court. when the courts said turn over nixon did, when the courts told clinton he had to make provision, he did.e there's no evidence that trump would don't the same thing. congress has the right go to the courts but shouldn't be complaining about invocation of privilege because they would be doing it themselves if their staff members were called by prosecutors to testify. >> alan, great to talk to you and hear your thoughts, the holocaust comparisons with the concentration camps. coming up, an actress releases photos of her

he left open the idea that because of this olc memo he wasn't going to reach the question of whether there was obstruction of justice. a fair-minded response is okay, he has thrown it to congress that everybody has to understand the straight criminal law legal discussion are two different things, legal scholars will tell you the correct constitutional approach is to impeach because of the osc, that is what the memo says. if there is criminal behavior, wait until the president is out of office, but you can impeach him. i don't think impeachment will be that successful but to your question absolutely. look into it, why not. >> for the sake of our democracy how important is it for republicans or any members of congress to investigate how questions of potential coordination between the trump campaign and russia were born? >> i don't think that is something congress needs to delve into. as a trial lawyer it is frustrating because apple and orange mix politically. apples was due to russia, tried to do something to affect the election. the report says absolutely. two serious campaigns. we k

. >> reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found obstruction. >> hearing will include a close session with key mueller aids and there are logistical issues to work out with back to back hearings involving more than four dozen lawmakers. lew. >> sounds like a lot of circus katherine thank you so much. well robert mueller track record is -- somethingless than stellar. it is, in fact, in many regards a dismal as investigators and prosecutor among his failures it is a long list over many years as fbi director his bureau became aware that the boston bombers were radicalizing in 2011. the russians, in fact, warned them about the brothers two years before the attack. under mueller the fbi focused for years on wrong man, behind the post september 11th anthrax murders costing bureau millions of dollar in damages when a -- a one of the suspected scientists who was absolutely innocent was found to be under the utterly innocent and fbi inspection division examinerred director of intelligence a unit actually created by muelle

it doesn't make any sense, and to your point about that advisory olc opinion that bob mueller used as a basis, i wish i could tell you that i agreed with his analysis. the idea of the explanation that he gave, that opinion stands for the proposition that you can investigate a sitting president but not reach a decision or conclusion about whether criminal activity occurred it's just absurd. i wish i could tell you it conjures up james mattis but all i can think about is billy madison, part of the movie where they say everyone in the room is dumber for having listened to that explanation because it makes no sense at all. >> if there is no crime, there was no crime. you're either pregnant or not pregnant. to leave some crumbs around for bob mueller's friend in the media as well as in the democratic party, it's als actually stoking exactly what he intended enough impeachment conversation, again, this idea about what bob mueller was supposed to do was investigate and make a referral to congress, it doesn't work that way. members of congress make criminal referrals to the department of just

whether or not there would have been a finding that trump committed obstruction if it weren't for the olc policy, which was, frankly, kind of ludicrous because there really was -- there is a gulf. there is a gulf between barr saying no obstruction and mueller saying, well, i can't say there is obstruction but i can't say there's not obstruction, so i don't know why they put that out, but i think that's what trump is talking about, and clearly seems to me someone told him, oh, look, see, mueller had to correct himself. but that is -- really what happened is mueller got up and spoke, he was very clear. it wasn't as sort of, you know, it wasn't follow of hyperbole. it wasn't as exciting as people want it to be, but he was clear in his point in a way that i think terrified trump. and barr. barr has really stepped up his attacks on mueller since that press conference. which if you think about it is really remarkable. it's not just trump, you know, it's barr going after mueller directly saying mueller should have done this, he should have made an explicit finding and, by the way, he's wrong on

. >> he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found obstruction. >> the hearing will include a nonpublic session between key aides and back-to-back hearings involving more than four dozen lawmakers. >> bret: thank you. it lawmakers on capitol hill are putting new pressure tonight on social media platforms that some are saying are enabling terrorists around the world and are taking too long to remove objectionable posts. late today, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg said the delay in removing a fake video of house speaker nancy pelosi was an execution mistake. gillian turner takes a look at the new evidence and testimony. >> why is still up? to speak of the homeland security committee grilled executives from facebook, and google taking them to task for allowing hate speech, terrorist propaganda and altered videos to go viral. >> who are the people judging what is best, what is accurate? this is scary stuff. >> when it comes to terrorists using social media to spread violence and extremism, they say the company's track rec

he is the president and we're bound by olc opinion. i think that's what he'll say.mocrat asking questions and you understand the american people have not read this report, you want him essentially to read the report in its most damaging aspects and that relates to obstruction of justice, mcgahn trying to fire mueller, sessions trying to capitate the investigations and firing comey and saying to him, what facts did you find as to those issues when you were doing this investigation. have them say outloud, this is what we found. and then they can argue after the fact, ah-ha, you see, this is obstruction. >> how much of this are we going to see from him just reading the report. >> he may read the report or he may have it memorized at this point where he can say volume 2, section one on this question. we write, and he says -- >> you can read the summaries, right in. >> yeah. the question of what -- even if we accept there's also been some disorganization of whether obstruction requires you actually fired mueller or took the obstructive act. he can clarify, you can obstru

>> that's true, he didn't say it, he said he didn't say it because the olc precluded it. >> shannon:r said he was told by mueller and his team, it wasn't about the letter. >> if you read that report closely there is no other conclusion. kamala harris will be talking about it, i agree and i disagree there's some kind of clean bill of health care. >> shannon: always great to have you, thanks for stopping i in. teen usa women's soccer being criticized for celebrating too much during their 13-0 smackna down against thailand, that story next. something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. if you have a garden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. draw the line with roundup. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to target weeds precisely and kill them right down to the root. r

and that william barr the attorney general really just was dismissive about and that is but for that olcon, you cannot indict a sitting president, perhaps they would have either made a decision or acted differently and you have the elements laid out and again the fact that the president of the united states is indeed the president of the united states is really in many ways immunizing him from the inevitable. the interesting thing here is where do you go with that? this was all laid out prior to today's hearing. adding another log to an already blazing fire. congress, again, the road map though it may be is also a neon sign pointing to say what are you going to do about this whole thing called creation of powers, checks and balances, and at least opening an inquiry. >> mark, let me get your final thought on this. >> yeah, i mean, i thought it was interesting that in many ways the idea that robert mueller hasn't come to testify yet, in a way, has become sort of a taunt by republicans to the democrats. you know, they said early on if you watch the beginning of the hearing, you know, why do

the justice department is expected to release an opinion from the office of legal counsel known as olc supporting the treasury secretary's refusal to hand over president trump's tax information. you will recall the top democrat on the house ways and means committee has subpoenas for about six years worth of trump's personal and business related tax information. he said he needs it in order to understand better the auditing process for presidents. the treasury secretary has defied that subpoena along with the irs saying this is all politics. that's purely pretextual. the agencies said they were we lying on the justice department's advice. >> thank you so much. we've got the line up for the first democratic debate but already questions are being raised if it's been divided even if it's just an accident into the jv, debate one night and the varsity another. is elizabeth warren getting the shaft despite her rise in the polls? that's next. and get an unlimited plan with the samsung galaxy s10e included. for just $35 a month. it's a big deal. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.c

said, which was -- he implied that the only reason he didn't charge the president was because of the olc. and that conflicted with what the attorney general said later that same day. >> jessica: do you think bill barr lied? why? >> steve: there is no evidence of any criminality. what they are pointing to -- >> jessica: there are hundreds of prosecutors that said if it were anyone but the president he would be indicted. >> steve: know, with they are pointing to her examples of the president losing his temper. when you lose your temper if if your atari ministry and was being derailed by a -- >> jessica: awing your lawyer to obstruct justice is very different. >> melissa: i'm going to posit right here. i'm going to ask -- i think the point of wall with the wall street journal was in part is when you say that he is engaged in a cover-up, the logical question is, what is he covering up? and i don't think the democrats have an answer to that. >> dagen: i read that same "wall street journal" editorial, the point they made, no investigation was obstructed. the mueller investigation went on, and

. >> jessica: those were the olc framework guidelines. >> melissa: i want to stay in the realm of this fight between these two. what does it tell you about what's going to happen next, if anything? doesn't say that no deals will happen at all these other things important, like immigration? or do you think they would still put the words aside and get together? >> jessica: the house will continue passing bills. the senate will continue their work, the president will put out his bills, which a lot of republican senators didn't even like his immigration bill. i think what it tells you is there now 59 house democrats supportive of impeachment. they are very noisy and also from very liberal districts. debbie dingell is not. she's from michigan. she knows what she's talking about. having taken over her seat from her husband, held it for decades and decades, she knows the center of the country and where they are on this. witches were nancy pelosi's. she talks about the present going to prison -- it's not about the conversation we're having now, it's what's going on with fdny and new york state

policies around holding donald trump accountable for misdeeds, criminal conduct if you will, changing the olcemo and impeachment. do you think that's helping? >> i think it is on two grounds. one she has a message. there are candidates in the field that don't have a imagine, can't tell you why they want to be president. she has a message, holding trump accountable and why she wants to be president. >> she's not poll testing it. >> she's just ready to fight. that's what people want. >> correct. >> that's the criticism you see from democrats about what's happening in washington now, you have democrats sort of debating with themselves, should we go for impeachment or not? >> public isn't with us. >> just go out and fight, that's what she does. >> not to compare her to donald trump and george bush in one show because she'll never come on, that's not my point. one of the exercises in sort of the black and white nature of a campaign is that she communicates with the most clarity. i don't know if there's a democratic more clear than -- >> she's a teacher, she's a profess zer profe professer. she mad

questions about when he came to the conclusion he could not make a charging decision because of this olcpinion, how he dealt with certain difficulties during the case. to the extent republicans are going to be asking him questions that are tough and challenging, how he dealt with peter strzok, that's outside the scope of the report. i think he should answer those but he could do a lot in the way of explanation. how many people did you talk to, who was compliant, who was not? he should answer those questions. >> were you surprised democrats had to issue a subpoena? >> not really. bob mueller did not want to become either a pawn or a pinata at a hearing. he has eyes. he sees how these congressional hearing hearings unfold and doesn't want to be giving a basis to make political arguments. he didn't want to be an overly willing participant in what i think he views is sometimes looking like a circus. he's not going to shy away from it but wasn't dying to go testify. >> illegally deleting anti-trump text messages between two former fbi employees. in fact, those messages were wiped from governm

you have it at home, it goes on to say that, you kw, we have a lot of stuff here, but because of the olcdn't even broach the subject of whether the president committed a crime. we're not t even goin go there because, if we charge him, and t we can't bringim to trial, we can't indict a sitting president, well, it's unfair to the president because you charge him with a crime, but then he doesn't have an avenue of venue to defendimself and clear his claim, so that's why tholc memo says you can't endiet him while he's a sitting president but you can do it once out of officeecause he has th possibility to defend himself. >> nawaz: speaker s pelod she wants an iron-clade case before moving forwards that an unreasonable goal? >> i don't think it's unreasonable and i thwik i'm h david on this, most people have not read the mueller report and won't read the mueller report. in order for them to know what's in it the democrats whether through the committee process or through the beginning of an impeachment inquiry,hey will have to learn it by having nstnesses come up and testify, having special c m

answer, i don't think, to the hypothetical would you have charged the president if it were not for that olco. i don't see bob mueller giving an answer to that. but, if there are questions about things, for example, the interactions with bill barr, which i think are important, and how the investigation ended and what was it that led to his letter that he wrote to bill barr, you know, that i don't know the answer to. he might answer those questions. i think he should because that's not something that's nonpublic in the report. he will not want to, he is friend with bill barr, he's not someone who wants to personally, you know, get into personal interactions. >> yeah. >> but i do think it is important for the public to hear. and i hope that he does testify about that. >> if you were a law maker in one of those of committees, what would you ask bob mueller? >> one thing i would want to know is how and why the investigation ended when it did. maybe mueller was ready to wrap up. but it sure seemed to end abruptly with a lot of hanging threads. putting aside the contents of the report, if i had to

the mueller report went to great lengths to say that a sitting president per the olc, the office of legal counsel opinion cannot be indicted. she said that there was no indication there was any interference with the investigation. actually, volume two of the report details ten instances of interference. she did say one thing that i think was actually true. she said the best way to get re-elected is based on what you do as president. and i think that is actually what we will see with this president given his record that i think, of pretty. >> thank you for being here to respond and we'll listen to congressman cummings right now. >> this interpretation, again, yesterday. so, in other words, we needed to send a notice on monday for a mark up today. >> mr. chairman -- >> may i finish, please. that is exactly what we did here. that is how we have been interpreting our rules for the past six months. and that is now how i interpret the rule today. with that said, i understand if this rule change cause some conclusion. there are slight differences in the wording of our rule and the house rule. th

mueller, if there were not the olc memo, would you have charged the president? i'd love to hear the yes or no and explanation on that question for starters. >> gene robinson, it's peculiar that it had to come to this, that it had to come to subpoenas. this is the first time we've seen a special counsel in the situation like this who has been so reluctant to speak publicly. >> yes. and congressman adam schiff, the chairman of the select committee on intelligence, told rachel in the last hour that the special counsel's office would not consider this a friendly subpoena, just a proforma subpoena. you subpoena me and i'll happily come in and testify. they wouldn't consider it to be that, so clearly robert mueller did not want to do this. he wanted to stick to his pledge to say nothing more other than what he wrote in the report. but as harry said, he is a dutiful guy and he's not the kind of man who is going to -- going to rebuff a duly issued subpoena from congress. >> let's listen to what chairman schiff told rachel in the last hour. >> there will be also a closed

>> i have also read the olc opinion of may 20th that says that a white house employee or a former whiteouse employee has total immunity from testifying or appearing before congress. that pushes the outer limit further than i have ever seen it pushed. i think this is a smokescreen at this point and i hope that the committee will pierce it because i think it's important. >> in an effort to discredit that witness, john dean, republicans today in today's hearing accused dean of profiting from his place in history. here is part of an exchange with congressman matt gates. >> how many american presidents have you accused of being richard nixon? >> i actually wrote a book about mr. bush and mr. cheney with the title "worse than watergate." >> so it's sort of become -- did you make money on that book? >> it was a very successful book, yes. >> how much money did you make on it? >> i'm sorry, i don't have any idea. >> mr. dean has made a cottage industry out of accusing presidents of acting like richard nixon, i'd like to know how much money he makes based on these accusations and exploiting them