joining me now is betsy woodruff and peter baker.ter, your colleagues at "the new york times" have reported all of this. and they write a little bit more in that story. in a meeting this year, mick mulvaney white house chief of staff made it clear that mr. trump still equated any public discussion of malign russian election activity with legitimacy of his victory. according to one official, mr. mulvaney said it wasn't a great subject and should be kept below his level. is this a sign that mulvaney didn't want this to be a priority of the government? or did he -- was he sort of trying to protect the president from his own worst instincts in this regard? >> look, i think this is consistent with what we have known now for the last couple of years and what was documented in the mueller report last week. multiple aides said the president considers any discussion whether it's in the past now or as we see today in the future to be a question about his legislate timacy. it's not about whether they're attacking the united states. he sees thes

i want to go to peter baker on this.ing has been bugging me and it's the behavior that is a weakening of the spine of the people covering him and the toughness with which they cover this president. i'm talking about the constitutional power of the legislative branch. for example, about subpoenas and this is an elasticity to subpoenas and they will have a tough time in court or whether or not it will be enforced. what happens? is there a fatigue right now, mental fatigue going on in the world about criticizing the president? i sense if. pelosi doesn't want to go after impeachment and the coverage with the best newspapers including yours seem to be like maybe he won't have to turn over his taxes. maybe he won't have to turn over this information. what's going on, peter? you are the big foot. what's going on? >> there is something between barr's letter to congress and the release of the report. people haven't known what to make of it. we don't know whether the two sentences that bill barr quoted reflect what's in the report

hey, peter baker, i'm going to give you the "last word." i need you to make a bold faced political prediction. because you have summed up presidencies for a living. will this be the defining document? will this be the defining day for this presidency? >> its oa great question. it's certainly the most anticipated report washington has seen or waited for since probably for 20 years since the starr, late clinton era. it probably becomes one more big day among many big days, it's hard to know. the problem for making a prediction like that is we don't know what action will follow, right? the report itself may be revelatory, may tell us things we don't know. but we've had two years, three years really of remarkable points but got overwhelmed by the next day's rather extraordinary news. the question is whether this report changes the dynamics not just for the democrats but the republicans. that's what nancy pelosi was saying. that's the one to watch for on thursday. not just what the democrats say, but what do the republicans say? do they look at

peter baker, look, there's no doubt that this has been one of his key issues. it's something he thinks he needs to keep hammering on, to shore up his base ahead of what's going to be a very tough re-election fight. but how frustrated is he that the fact it there are laws in place that will keep him from doing so many of the things that he thinks would be effective? >> well, i think that's right -- i come back to reminding us that he's the first president we've ever had who neither served in the military nor in government. the way the system works still aggravates him. he doesn't understand why it is that they have to be so many different agencies, so many bureaucratic rules, so many laws that inhibit the way he thinks that policy ought to be made. a lot of presidents, by the way, had frustrated by the limits on their power. they're surprised by the limits on their power. what's happening here is you have one who's pushing back a little more, pushing back further than, say, president obama did when he signed some orders that were later overturned by the courts.

and peter baker, msnbc political analyst. peter baker i saw you on "morning joe" this morning as you ticked through the litany of terrible headlines for the president this morning in your paper and the ones we cited, i said, wow does everything wear off this quickly? we're living these news cycles that feel like dog years. it feels like seven weeks ago the news of the mueller report wrapped up, a terrible week of headlines and a crush of bad news for donald trump. >> the bill barr letter about the mueller investigation feels like a million years ago and it should be something that lasted for the president for a while. he went through two years of this investigation, the bottom-line conclusions seemed to work in his favor, you would have thought that he would have want to spend more time soaking that in and enjoying the aftermath of that, but you're right he headed straight to health care, the border, the headlines on his tax returns and whistle blowers. not good for a guy who came out of a tough investigation. >> john hileman

hey, peter baker, i'm going to give you the last word. i need you to make a bold faced political prediction because you have summed up presidencies for a living. will this be the defining document? will this be the defining day for this presidency? >> it's a great question. look, it is certainly the most anticipated report, i think, that washington has seen or at least waited for in probably 20 years, probably since the starr report during the late clinton era. whether it becomes just one more, you know, big day among many big days, it's hard to know. the problem for making a prediction like that is we don't know what action will follow, right. the report itself may be revelatory. we've had two years, three years really of all sorts of remarkable revelations at various points. then sort of got overwhelmed by the next day's rather extraordinary news. the question is whether this report change the dynamics. not just democrats, but republicans. does it change republican minds on capitol hill? if it doesn't, there's no point talking about imp

>> can you quote peter baker? >> that's the next volume. >> the baker tapes. >> the essential baker tapes. [ laughter ] >> what really worries me is that the constitution is relatively clear, clear enough to my mind, on how you impeach and convict a president. there's nothing in the constitution about how you actually physically remove him from the oval office [ laughter ] no, i'm serious. think about the scenario. the president gets impeached and convicted. he is in the white house. he is tweeting to his followers, they are trying to take away your president. they're trying to nullify your election. here's an interesting fact. his followers tend to be heavily armed. so all it takes is 15,000 of them to show up in washington, d.c. heavily armed, and you get something much, much worse than tiananmen square. >> the secretary of defense, nixon's secretary of defense told us at the library that he was so concerned that someone in the white house would order a troop movement -- he didn't think it would be nixon. he knew

. >> here for our lead off discussion on a thursday night in new york with us this evening, peter baker chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." by the way, peter's book "obama the call of history" has just been released with material including a forward by john mechem. and reporter with the "new york times" and chuck rosenburg, a former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, we welcome all three of you. peter, because home field advantage is an advantage, we'll start with you here in new york tonight. for seven days exactly, i've been talking about the disparity and 400 plus pages, all the detail, rich detail, footnotes, granularity versus the president's quick comeback is as if however judging from his behavior and his talking points that the tonnage is seeping. >> you see a significant shift in his message. originally he was climbing total exoneration and now hit job. he's going back and forth. it a classic trump world, you know, situation where there is a thin line between victor and victim, right? he expresses grievance at the same time and claiming that he's been

joining my now is kristin welker, harry litman and msnbc political analyst peter baker, chief white house correspondent at the "new york times." the fact is the attorney general is going to appear before the senate judiciary panel and suggesting they are still in negotiations that he may refuse to appear before the house panel that has oversight over him. there is really no precedent for that. >> that's right. and again just to under score the point that you made. at issue here is the fact that the judiciary committee wants staff lawyers to have an opportunity to ask questions of the attorney general once lawmakers are finished with their line of questioning. the attorney general saying that he agreed to sit down and answer questions before the judiciary committee but this is out of bounds. this is an ongoing standoff and the white house is digging in in its support for barr. sarah sanders saying dems were acting in a childish manner. over the weekend, you have the chairman saying they would move to subpoena him if he does in fact refuse to show up. all of this really highlighting a deepe

so peter baker, the president lands tonight at mar-a-lago. as we said, he promptly tweeted out a promotion of the fox prime time schedule. he tweeted out the fact that russian interference happened under obama. and laura ingraham went on fox tonight to say where's the apology, mainstream media, to fox news. that's another way of me asking you, where do you think this is headed? >> that's a great question. i mean, brian, you and i were around 20 years ago when another report came down on another president. like the starr report in those days, we sort of knew the broad outlines before the report came in only to be shocked by the details and the volume of evidence that was in it. the difference then is that ken starr, operating under a different statute, recommended to congress articles of impeachment. he said that what he found justified high crimes and misdemeanors. what robert mueller has done is assemble a lot of evidence, and it seems in some ways almost like an impeachment referral to the congress but without drawing a conclusion. without

peter baker, let me start with you. you're part of the reporting team that's delivering us what we think is happening inside this white house. but this is -- we've said this before but with each successive white house chief of starks this feels like a new layer level of chaos with these multiple firings. >> what you're seeing is a president frustrated after two years in office he hasn't been able to have the impact on the border he thought he would be able to have. he hasn't gotten the wall built. although he went down last week to claim that it's now under construction. he hasn't gotten the numbers you know, down to zero obviously in fact they've been coming up the last couple months. he blamed kristin nielsen for this. that's not the only one who is going to leave as a result. a number of top people at the department of homeland security will leave in the coming days probably because he's trying to clean house and find a new team of people. i tell you something that two years in he hasn't found a team he thinks can ca

peter baker, correspondent for "the new york times," carol lam, and michael crowley white house and national security editor for politico. thank you all for being with us. peter, i'll start with you. well, okay, we see what the president is saying there on twitter about your -- about your newspaper, but let me ask you, behind the scenes there, what is your sense about how this is -- this news, this development reported in "the times," in "the post," by nbc news, that some number of folks who were part of this mueller investigation have some issues with how it was characterized by the attorney general, how their findings were characterized. what are the conversations like within the white house about this? >> well, you know, it's a great question. some of these people who were on bob mueller's team, they looked at what the attorney general had done in terms of -- if he didn't want to summarize, whatever word you want to use, in wrapping up their investigation into basically two sentence fragments that were quoted from the report itself, and they were disturbed. they found that this after two

and jane fox, senior reporter for vanity fair and carol lee because joyce vance and peter baker, msnbc political analyst and "new york times" chief correspondent. peter baker, i saw you on "morning joe" this morning and as you all ticked through the litany of terrible headlines for the president this morning in your paper and in the ones we cited, i thought, wow is it everything just wear off this quickly? we're all living these new cycles that feel like san diego years and it feels like seven years ago, not one or two weeks ago, that the news of the mueller report wrapped up and terrible week of headlines, a crush of bad news for donald trump? >> exactly. the barr letter, the bill barr letter about the mueller investigation feels like a million years ago. it should have been something that lasted for a while for this president, right? he went through two years of ordeal with this investigation. the conclusions, at least, the bottom line conclusions seemed to work in his favor. you would have thought he would want to spend more time soaking that in and enjoying the aftermath of that, b

let me go to peter baker on this. that is, of course, the people out there, just the people, but for some reason the political people don't want to go respond to that. your thoughts, peter? >> well, the poll you just cited says 2/3 of democrats think he ought to be impeached but you need 2/3 of democrats and republicans in the senate to impeach. that means you need 20 republican senators. it's been four, five days since the mueller report came out and you haven't heard one republican suggest they're anywhere close to the idea of supporting impeachment. for speaker pelosi, she's looking at this from a practical point of view. do you go forward with something that doesn't seem to have much chance of success, simply on the idea that they ought to do it because of the matter of principle and risk whatever political backlash there might be? or do you let this be settled at the ballot box and try to beat him, you know, on issues like health care and other questions? that's the argument you're hearing take place amongst the

reporter for "the washington post," robert costa, and moderate of washington-week on part-time job, peter baker, the ageless white house correspondent for "the new york times." peter, you get to go first because of a story in your paper tonight that was just handed to us before we came on the air. broad strokes of it is the president and his eldest children have filed federal lawsuit against deutsche bank and capital one to prevent those companies from cooperating with subpoenas and coming forth with his financial records. people may ask we know about bochy bank, why capital one? capital one is where he has his personal checking account, giving new meaning to what's in your wallet? what do you know about the story that can fill in the blanks? >> the president has openly said he's going to resist all subpoenas from congress from the house democrats at the very least, and he's been taking this on on multiple fronts. he doesn't control those institutions. he didn't decide for them whether they should comply with subpoenas by congress and those institutions are reluctant, of course, to get on the b

brian: peter baker is credible. >> peter baker is a good reporter, i have no doubt about that.ed barack obama not to endorse him. really? truly any think obama decided not to endorse anybody at this stage. who knows. there are several reasons that barack obama would not want to encourage joe biden. i think mainly he doesn't think he is a very good candidate. steve: bill, don't you think, back four years ago, barack obama thought, okay who is best to carry on my legacy with obama care and everything else? looks like hillary clinton is a better shoo-in than joe is. >> he was a loyal vice president but he wasn't exactly a strong and vigorous vice president. you wouldn't confuse him with dick cheney, for example. i think that is probably a very good assessment. yeah, you're right. ainsley: i saw you last night on fox news with abby and she was asking you about "wise guys" your segment on folks nation. let's show folks at home a little clip what they can see next week on your show. >> are we at a point now where the democrats are admitting there is a problem? we're such a richer, be

joining me now kristin welker and peter baker, "new york times" chief white house correspondent. let's talk about impeachment because you were out on the south grounds during the easter egg roll. you asked the president about it. let me play you a little bit of that. >> are you worried about impeachment, mr. president? >> not even a little bit. >> not even a little bit. a for effort there, welker. you take euro chanyour chances can. what is the atmosphere there? he certainly seems to be both angry about the report andd and >> i wasn't sure he would hear me over the easter eggs rolling. he did answer me, he said not even a little bit, defiant publically on the issue. we know that behind the scenes he was fuming about revelations in the mueller report. you sort of saw that mixed reaction in the tweets that he sent out on easter day. one tweet saying he has never been happier. in other tweets lashing out at the mueller probe. i think you are really seeing the president start to absorb some of the damaging headlines that were in that report. in terms of the issue of impeachment there

let's also bring in "new york times" chief white house correspondent and msnbc political analyst, peter baker. part of the reporting that your paper did, peter, surrounded summaries that mueller and his team prepped for the doj, for the attorney general. what was the intention for those summaries? >> i think the intention was that these executive summaries would at least be the first word out on what the mueller team found. in other words, it wouldn't just be two sentence fragments in a memo sent by bill barr, but it would be these executive summaries either whole or executively cited in anything that bill barr sent to the congress. all the attorney general gave us boils down to less than two sentences, directly quoted from robert mueller's report. these executive summaries are four versions of what they found. they would give a more nuanced and more sophisticated, more comprehensive understanding of their findings that would presumably be, and what we're told is, less definitive than the, you know, the simple declarations that the attorney general gave the congress. >> ken dilanian, this rep

for more, i'm joined by peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." white house reporter for npr and former republican congressman from florida, who we have to say is no longer associated with the republican party. thank you all. i want to start with peter. this looks like something big. like, is this trump getting ready for re-election saying i'm going to be mr. big, i'm going to be tough as hell on illegal immigrants? >> well, look week of course he's been frustrated for quite some time his own administration is unable to carry out the wishes he's imposed on it. as you say, in some cases they're telling him we can't do it. we don't have the authority to do it upped the law or cord orders or what have you. he lashed out last week. he said i'm going to close the border entirely to all trade and traffic, and even legal immigration until he was warned by economics officials that that would do great damage to the economy. he bakcked off, but clearly in deciding to get rid of secretary nielsen and some other people also on the way out, he's trying to, you

peter baker, white house correspondent for "the new york times." staff writer at "the atlantic." congressman, thanks for coming on tonight from the white house. what do you make of this discussion that's going on in our country, the president's chief of staff, a government employee, can just kiss off matters of morality, ethics, patriotism and corruption as if they're not relevant because they haven't nailed the president for a felony, yet? >> well, he works for an immoral and unethical individual. so questions of morality and ethics would certainly work consequence against him. they're going to do everything they can to preserve his presidency so he can continue to appoint judges that will look ascans at women's issues and other issues. they want to repeal roe v. wade and get as many judges on the supreme court and court of appeals as they can. this i think is why barr was chosen. i think trump saw the benefit of the federalist group giving gorsuch and kavanaugh. that's what barr is doing -- >> how far -- >> to get these judges through. >> do you see him as a puppet? >> i defini

peter baker, thank you, sir. matt and daniella will stick around. we have more on the republicans' health care dilemma. >> but coming up, joe biden's touchiness, and it's a reminder that he may be out of touch. can the former vice president win in today's democratic party? ? humira patients, you inspire us. the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here. a little change can make a big difference. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and

. >> we're going to begin with another poll conducted -- >> maybe we can have unicorns for peter baker >> the poll shows that president trump is hitting an all-time low. the morning consult politico poll has trump's approval rating dropping to 39%, tying his local numbers after his reaction to the deadly racist violence in charlottesville in august 2017 when he did not condemn racism. 57% disapprove of trump's job performance, up 6 points since last week. this follows trump hitting a 12-month low in the ipsos/reuters poll, also conducted in the wake of the mueller report's release. while trump is unpopular, so is people. only 34% support the beginning of impeachment proceedings. that is down from 39% in january, 48% are opposed. joe, we were talking before the show and your analysis of these polls are so interesting because what has happened with this mueller report in some ways shows that trump's the insider now rigging the system. >> yeah. and you know, peter baker, donald trump's appeal to middle american voters was the fact that he was fighting against the system, he was fighting a

peter baker, your story in the new york times today capturing what was really vealed.the ugliness, the lines, the distortion. the white house that emerges from more than 400 page s a hot bed of conflict. defined by a president who lies to the public and his own staff and try to get his aides to lie for him. take it from him, peter. >> that's right. as john said there's no bottom line charges that are going to result from this. we don't see any real movement toward any kind of impeachment on the hill. no republican is come out as a result and said i think we ought to think about that. what that means is lasting impact of this report will be what it tells us about this presidency. what it tells us about this white house. unlike the best selling books and journalistic accounts that are infused by necessity from anonymous sources, this is all on the record from pretty unimpeachable source. >> there's the list. you have been reporting on the concern of some whouwhite houses they were too cooperative. they were told to cooperate from the former lawyers. then you have this li

. >> msnbc political analyst, peter baker joins me now. r, let's stipulate that she's an 18 year veteran that clearances are very specific process. there's a number of issues that are supposed to be looked at including people's bank ground on finances and whether they are a credit risk. that's a key indicator where they would be pressured by a foreign government. that credit risk issue has been obliterated under there white house. >> that's right. one of the things they look for are there issues in your past that would make you susceptible to blackmail or some other form of extortion by foreign powers. obviously, jared kushner financial past is rather complicated as he said on that fox news interview. we don't know what would triggered the concerns raised about him but they had been extensively documented in the news media about projects to raise money and so forth. the president of the united states has the authority and the right to grant a security clearance even to those who are not deemed worthy of them by career officials. that's his

as our friend peter baker at "the new york times" wrote today, quote, in mr.s world there is a fine line between victor and victim. he adds, even when trump is on top he lapses into anger and resentment convinced he has been unfairly treated and wanting to strike back. it's a subject worthy of not one but two pulitzer prizewinning recipients. eugene and john meacham, author, presidential historwherein and now we learn country music enthusiast if necktie enthusiast. he's co authored a book. it comes out on june 11th no doubt followed by john's next book on june 12th. gentlemen, welcome to you both. and john i will begin with you despite you being out of uniform for this broadcast. the presidents have wallowed in self-pity, we have learned they've eaten their young and lashed out against their enemies through the capable eyes and hands of historians like you. seldom in realtime are we treated to as mr. baker put it victim and victor often in the same sentence. >> it's another example of how president trump is the most vivid manifestation of many of our least att

[laughter] no because i think that there was an excellent new york times story today by peter baker on the front page about the very friendly relationships between obama and biden, but it was really a dye section of the president's decision to go with hillary the last time around and i think president obama has decided he wants to stay out of this one and therefore, joe biden has to put the best face on that decision and the best way to do that is to say well i didn't want him to endorse anybody now. of course he would welcome president obama's endorsement. president obama remains the most important and popular man within the democratic party. >> and then there is the current president who welcomes the competition take a listen to what president trump had to say. president trump: on issue after issue the democrat party has never been further outside the americans. i mean it's crazy what's going on with them. oh, do i look forward to running against him. >> [applause] president trump: they are pushing a $100 trillion government takeover. they've introduced a total federal takeover. >> j

. >> bring in peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "new york times" and political analyst. and philip bump, "the washington post" political reporter, mara gay, as well. peter, let me start with you in terms of the path forward. looks like nancy pelosi is articulating for democrats. is it fair to say impeachment proceeding that will not be called an impeachment proceeding, will not have an impeachment vote but will have all of the investigative effects of one? >> yeah, some ways seems like impeachment by any other name, right? there is an important difference though. for one thing calling it impeachment has a different effect in terms of the legal stature that the house would hold if they have to go to court, for instance, to get a hold of documents. if they need to sue bill barr for the unredacted report, they would have a stronger argument if they say we're exercising impeachment authority under the constitution than if they say we're exercising routine oversight authority. that's one difference. largely as a matter of politics, no, feels like an impeachment hearing, look

joining me now, peter baker, and a former "new york times" man in israel and white house reporter fromberg news. this embrace of netanyahu is so all out, and netanyahu saying this weekend if reelected, he will actually try to annex part of the west bank, the jewish settlements in the west bank, and what president trump is saying about your prime minister, this seems to be an emerging trump strategy to try to divide the american jewish community and pick up more votes based on the charge of democratic anti-semitism. >> there's no question in the run up to tomorrow's election in israel that president trump has made clear whose side he's on. he's been very close with prime minister netanyahu. he hosted him here in washington just the other day. he recognized israeli sovereignty over the golan heights that no american president has done. he moved the american embassy to jerusalem and the big posters in israel today show prime minister netanyahu with donald trump. that's who he wants to be associated with. he thinks that the president is a selling point. and he may be right. the last poll p

. >> peter baker, carol lenox, to you and all of your colleagues, congratulations on a body of work that more than held up when we saw what robert mueller was able to find with, as john hileman said, subpoena power and witnesses. and thank you both for spending time with us on this important day. we're grateful. >>> after the break, the steps that robert mueller took to investigate the president's conduct while witness memories were fresh sounds like preserving a crime scene for after trump leaves office. we'll go inside mueller's effort to safeguard the evidence. and did attorney general barr go over the top? questions about why barr mischaracterized mueller's findings. ongoing criminal probes, more than a dozen of them and they remain redacted, what we know about all we cannot see. those stories and more coming up. t see. those stories and more coming up xfinity watchathon week has sadly come to an end. what, what, what! no! but don't let that stop you from watching the best shows and movies from showtime, hbo, epix... jesus, what happened? ...and more. it's just the tip of the iceberg

as peter baker points out, donald trump is the only president in the history of gallup polling nevero earn the support for a single day. >> we have to remember the president hasn't really tried to do that. a lot of think pieces on the idea that presidents try or unify the country and say the president has been throwing at his base since the moment he was elected and the trump campaign is seeing numbers and this is all we need to be re-elected. >> that is a good point. stick around. we have much more coming up in the show, including the trump administration dropping the hammer in a couple ways with two separate crackdowns. one on asylum seekers and the other just announced moments ago on cuba. we will take you to that briefing from secretary of state and explain both, next. it was the last song of the night. it felt like my heart was skipping beats. they said i had afib. what's afib? i knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. i needed answers. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. to help keep me protected from a stroke. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... si

and peter baker reminded us on twitter they didn't apologize the first time and they don't owe him one now. >> stephanie, you're right. this goes to "the new york times" new reporting in the final months she was forced to resign then homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen was really trying to focus the white house's attention on efforts to compat new ways that russia was trying to interfere heading into the 2020 election. but according to "the new york times," the president and his chief of staff mick mulvaney told her not to bring it up in front of president trump. to the president any sort of public discussion by maligned russian activity he equated with questions about his own legitimacy, about his own victory in 2016. "the times" reports mulvaney said it wasn't a great subject and should be except below his level. well, mick mulvaney provided nbc news with a new on-the-record statement pushing back saying i don't recall anything along the lines of what "the times" is reporting taking place at any point. he said the trump administration will not tolerate foreign interference i

. >>> author of the power up newsletter from the "washington post," peter baker with the "new york times," and writer ativanty fair. do you have a sense if and when the white house has been briefed about this report? do they know even broadly about what might be in the report? is it at all fair to assume that they could have an inkling of when and how the redacted report gets released? >> i think it's fair to assume that they do. attorney general barr was asked that last week during his testimony, and like previous occasions, he wouldn't say if he had or had not briefed the white house. why wouldn't you say it last week when you had said before that you had not. that seems to be an indication that his justice department has, in fact, provided some understanding of that to the counsel's office, as you noted abc's report telling us. and that wouldn't necessarily be surprising. and you see increasingly in the president's tweets and his public statements, you know, sort of a change in his tone. his tone has gone from, yes, let's put it out, let's see everything that's in it, to, we don't nee

. >>> joining me now, abigail tracy, writer for "vanity fair," and peter baker, msnbc political analystis back and forth with barr's testimony, do you think, number one, barr will testify, and number two, if he does, had see going to do so in a meaningful sense? >> yeah, it's a great question. usually when these kinds of disputes come up on testimony, the two sides huff and puff and posture and so forth and end up working something out, something both sides can more or less live with. but this is a different era. it's hard to see whether or not that's going to be the case this week. if he doesn't testify, if he does defy the house committee, that becomes a bigger deal. that's where it escalates this confrontation. remember just last week the president said he was going to defy all subpoenas by the house. not true. turns out they have given permission to their personnel security chief to go ahead and testify in one specific instance. but this is a big showdown right now between executive and legislative branches. >> so abigail, what are some of the big questions congress will ask barr? >

and already received through sorely, peter strzok, james baker and fbi and doj officials involved in the witch hunt and it was against donald trump. the free pass given of course, they literally give a get out of paris jail card because they like hillary. the guy that interviewed peter strzok commission went 100 to zero. we have been classified material that was found on unsecured private server that was managed by networks. it was in a bathroom closet. she committed a real crime. and for us had a real intent to obstruct justice by destroying . hence, 33,000 deleted acid washed emails. the media on thursday will pretend to care about obstruction of justice. meanwhile, lithium will ignore the biggest slam-dunk of obstruction of justice case, that is right hillary's case. democrats, they believe all the cavanaugh the kuiper -- a kuiper -- accusers, deafening lieutenant governor, he has been accused of rate and violent sexual assault so where are all the eye believers? obstruction matters but only if it is trump, not hillary clinton. charges of rate serious sexual assault, only matters

i want to see james comey and andy mccabe and peter strzok and lisa page and jim baker and bruce ohr all go to jail and make sure this never happens again. lou: and i want to see the republican party stand up and raise money for every single person you're referring to, not by name, but every single person and we know most of those names, i believe, who deserve support, and to be given restitution as best it can be provided. >> you look what they did to k. t. mcfar land, to general flynn. these folks were put through the ringer, lou and right around the time of that tweet if i recall correctly, was when james comey leaked that information right to create that special counsel. you look at the nature of what the former fbi director did. that is, it has never been done before in american history and people need to pay for it and make sure it never happens again lou: well there's another current in all of this that came out today as we listen to alexandria ocasio-cortez saying, well tweeting in point of fact that she wanted to see kirstjen nielsen devastated, destroyed. we're hearing the

. >> sara: we have to look at james comey, peter strzok, the doj and possibly james baker. >> sean: what >> : a lot of people in jeopardy. almost 100 people interviewed on the investigation and that is exhaustive. we will see the fbi. >> sean: james comey said he had the right to remain silent and should have used it a long time ago. thank you all. when we come back college admission scandal trace gallagher with the details plus you will not believe congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez's at this time. cara mucci, here with that and more as we continue. no i'm serious, i live here now. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. he more. car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it.