of watergate matters, specifically.dent about the fact that there were money demands being made by the seven convicted defendants. he asked me how much it would cost. i told him that it might be as high as a million dollars or more. he told me that that was no problem. >> i concluded by saying this is going to take continued perjury and continued support of these individuals to perpetuate the cover-up and that i did not believe it was possible to so continue it. i told him that there was a cancer growing on the presidency and if the cancer was not removed, the president, himself, would be killed by it. and he said that it would be handled properly. >> now it is on the public record, john dean's damning, if largely unsubstantiated, testimony that the president knowingly participated in the watergate cover-up. nothing less than richard nixon's presidency may ride on whether the public believes john dean or not. cycling... practice french. cooking class? art festival. climbing. getting a new volkswagen can be easier than y

former nixon white house council john dean and former watergate special prosecutor. i just find this documentary so fascinating. the story of richard nixon it is shakespearean in scope and scale. for a lot of people watergate is like a flashpoint but in reality it played out over a very long period of time. >> two years from the time of the break in. two years and a couple of months until nixon's resignation in august of 1974 and it was a packed two years with a tremendous amount of information that at the time seems incomprehensibly difficult for a lot of people because of the huge cast of characters involved. i'm not sure that today's cast of characters might be even more difficult to follow. >> as a reporter of the washington post and with woodward, did you know he was going to go down ultimately? when was the moment that you realized oh, wait a minute, this leads to this? >> i'm going to have to tell a story. there was a moment. it was early. it was about ten weeks after the break in and we learned that there was a secret fund that had been controlled by those cl

this is 1971 when it lays the foundation for watergate. of those that gets involved in doing the president's bidding is a man named e. howard hunt and he would later be involved obviously in the burg glare. that's the human link with g. jordan liddy between these two. anyway, the point here is when you have a president who has a conspiratorial mind-set, that's very dangerous for the country because there are a lot of tools and instruments at their disposal where they can make a lot of -- they can do a lot of damage. richard nixon tried hard but fortunately, not everybody he ordered to do bad things did them. and things could have been much worse in the nixon administration but there were good government republicans who said no, mr. president. i can't do that. >> when we come back, nixon, trump and the silent majority. >> but the silent majority is back and we're going to take the country back. i was tired of having my calls dropped. it's very frustrating. and i was having these issues, and my friend said, "well, maybe you should switch ove

sam irvin is the one who started that during watergate.ear members of congress now use it all the time. it is sam irvin that they're referencing, but usually it means they're about to say something pretty good. today it was connecticut senator richard blumenthal's turn with the whole i'm just a country lawyer trick. >> now, we have gotten from the attorney general of the united states -- we have been so fortunate to receive a summary of the report. you know who is beginning to say that report is inaccurate and unfair? the mueller team is beginning to say you didn't do justice to our report, you didn't provide the findings and evidence. now, i'm -- i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut. but i can tell you the law is pretty clear, there is no executive privilege. congress deserves that full report and so do the american people. you paid for it. you deserve it. the full mueller report. release the full mueller report. >> senator richard blumenthal speaking in washington today at one of the several hundred protests that happened around th

said over and over again, no, i won't interfere with the watergate investigation or the watergate special then to get right to the point, they brought the watergate special prosecutor himself, they brought leon himself into the hearing room to sit down right next to william saxby to assure senators there was nothing to worry about. they had leon jaawarsky vouch for the attorney general as part of his confirmation process. yeah, with e ge get along. i vouch for him. he's not going to mess with me. he says he's not going to mess with me. i won't let him. they even did a buddy buddy press conference about it. >> the question being exploited a the graegreat length, prosecu affairs without any -- >> what would you do if the new attorney general now the attorney general designate tried to interfere in any way with your pursuit of the investigation? >> i'd march him down to this congressional committee if he and i couldn't work it out amongst ourselves. >> that is what it looked like when the country was in crisis when the watergate investigation was in jeopardy and people needed to be assured t

i will not interfere with the watergate investigation or with the watergate special prosecutor. to get right to the point, they actually dur his confirmation hearing, they brought the watergate special prosecutor himself, they brought leon jaworski himself into the hearing room to sit down right next to william saxby, to assure senators that there was nothing to worry about. they have leon jaworski, the special prosecutor vouch for the new attorney general as part of his confirmation process. yeah, we get along. see me sitting here? the two of us, you've got us both here at this hearing. i vouch for him. he is not going to mess with me. he says he's not going to mess with me. i won't let him. they even did kind of a buddy-buddy process conference about it. >> the question being sblored at great length here is whether mr. jaworski will have full authority to prosecute and investigate the full watergate affairs without any interfeeshs fr interference from you. will he? >> an unqualified yes. >> what would you do if he tried to interfere in any way with your pursuit of the investig

this is far more serious than watergate.oing to be impeached, based upon circumstances of the potential wrongdoing far less than what the current president has done so i think the democrats have a moral impeertive here and almost have to impeach. i'll say that political expediency aside, this is a moment where the conscious of the country is called into question. >> adrian, do you agree with don? he's putting out words in direct contradiction to rudy giuliani who he says the message battle is going very well for them. do you agree with what don's saying and do you think the trump camp is winning coming to shaping the narrative at this point? may be because the dem message appears splintered. >> democrats are trying to figure out what to do. congress has to exercise proper oversight authority which is essentially their duty in the constitution. to hold trump accountable, to make sure that we send a strong signal to future candidates, future presidents that this type of behavior is not acceptable. cannot ever happen again and

one of them was the watergate break-in.n by a historic landslide. >> i richard nixon do solemnly swear -- >> but the watergate story was still growing. so just weeks after the election inside the oval office richard nixon declared war on the press. >> the press is the enemy. the press is the enemy. write that on the blackboard 100 times. you'll never forget it. >> sound familiar. >> you are the enemy of the people, go ahead. >> i call the fake news the enemy of the people. >> there are other reminders of the present day. donald trump directs particular anger at certain news organizations. >> it's like the failing "new york times," which is like so bad. or cnn, which is so bad and so pathetic. they are the fake, fake disgusting news. >> nixon went after "the washington post" whose reporters bob woodward and carl bernstein led watergate coverage. >> i want it clearly understood that from now on, ever, no reporter from the "washington post" is ever to be in the white house. is that clear? >> absolutely. >> none, ever to be in.

democrats say it's worse than watergate. and firing james comey.emocrats say it's worse than watergate.and firing james c >> the president fired back on twitter today. democrats have issued a seep for mueller's full un-redacted report. for mueller to testify no later than may 23. >>> pope francis led a mass this easter trying to deliver a joyful message while discussing the bombings in sri lanka. the pope did not deliver a homily. after, he gave lihis easter speech. he touched on conflicts around the world. pope francis touched on today's massacre in sri lanka but the fire that destroyed much of notre dame. >>> the archbishop of catholics around the world, honored the firefighters who saved much of the church. they prayed for the monument to be restored. now because of that fire at notre dame during holy week, a lot of people had to find another place to attend easter service. >>> it's queen elizabeth's birthday. she's celebrating her 93rd birthday today. they posted this video. it shows a slideshow of the queen throughout her life. she part of her

she then says, quote, watergate offers a better precedent. then as now there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. it was complimented by public hearings conducted by a senate select committee that insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled white house aids to testify. the televised hearings added to the record and helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. similar hearings with mueller, former white house council don mcgahn and other key witnesses could do the same today. she then calls for the house judiciary committee to appoint a respected leader to lead an impeachment investigation just as the watergate era judiciary committee did. clinton then calls for an independent bipartisan commission along the lines of the 9/11 commission to help protect our elections from future attacks like the one we suffered in 2016. she cites the new york times report that trump's white house chief of staff reportedly told the homeland secu

when alexander butterfield tells the staff, the watergate, the watergate committee about the taping system, he also tells white house lawyers that he has just done this. so the white house has a little bit of notice before the public knows this. the president it just so happens, at bethesda naval hospital sick with pneumonia. and his lawyers and his chief of staff gather around his bed to discuss what to do. and this is july 1973. it is, you can't make this up. okay? and they're debating, and the president is getting all kinds of advice. vice president spiro agnew, who is not yet, had to resign for taking bribes when he was governor and bribes when he was vice president, his advice is, burn them. john connelly coming from a state that creates the best barbecue in the world, says build a bonfire. the president's lawyer is worried about an obstruction of justice charge against him, himself as well as the president. because the lawyers out there will know this is a challenge, if you know that something is going to be subpoenaed, and you destroy it, you actually could be charged. i don't know

in 1974 when watergate exploded. john sirica, 1973 and 1974, he is the judge who presided over a whole bunch of the watergate trials, but because the grand jury convened to investigate watergate by the watergate special prosecutor was convened in d.c. and sirica was the chief judge of the federal court in d.c., he was also the judge who made the call when that watergate grand jury decided that the information they had obtained, the evidence they had amassed and reviewed that pertained to potential criminal conduct by president nixon, when they decided that information should be sent over to congress to the house judiciary committee in march 1974, they made that plea to judge john sirica, the chief judge. the grand jury wrote to the chief judge, judge sirica and said hey, we've amassed a whole bunch of evidence that pertains to potential criminal behavior by president nixon. we the grand jury strongly recommend that this information be conveyed to the house judiciary committee for them to consider what to do with it.

clinton, secretary clinton, as a veteran of watergate, someone who worked on the watergate investigationows that. and that i think -- i don't think democrats have to be ashamed of possibly calling testimony that repeats some material in the mueller report. they're very different things and they serve different purposes. >> and in reference -- >> i was going to say, hearing the former white house counsel don mcgann say on television in a sound bite what he said to the mueller investigators, that the president told him to lie, to go fire the special counsel, all of that will be very powerful. >> which to jeffrey's point that like millions of other americans the president clearly gets his news and information largely from television as well. and in his opinion it could be very damaging to hear don mcgann say that. that's one of the reasons the president does not want him to testify. it was also interesting then to have hillary clinton reference watergate where she said in this op-ed, quote, executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct. she is suggesting and referencing t

that's what happened in watergate and the difference between what's happening now in watergate is inatergate we had the senate hearings where people saw the witnesses. i don't want to see mueller summarizing the evidence. i want to see the witnesses. i want to judge their credibility, their body language, i want to see what they have to say and compare it to what i know from documents. that's what's important, and i don't think we have to start impeachment hearings. we have to start educating the public with fact finding hearings. let's call the witnesses. let people make that judgment themselves. that's what we really need to be doing. >> you know, i'm going to remember from tonight's two hours what you just said about bill clinton because i've always wondered about robert bennett, his attorney, having him testifying before the grand jury and you said just come in with the brooks brother guide to gentlemen behavior and say a gentlemen doesn't say. where would that have been in legal terms if bill clinton had said that about the relationship with the aide? >> i don't know. i am one o

that's what happened in watergate and the difference between what's happening now in watergate is in watergate we had the senate hearings where people saw the witnesses. i don't want to see mueller summarizing the evidence. i want to see the witnesses. i want to judge their credibility, their body language, i want to see what they have to say and compare it to what i know from documents. that's what's important, and i don't think we have to start impeachment hearings. we have to start educating the public with fact finding hearings. let's call the witnesses. let people make that judgment themselves. that's what we really need to be doing. >> you know, i'm going to remember from tonight's two hours what you just said about bill clinton because i've always wondered about robert bennett, his attorney, having him testifying before the grand jury and you said just come in with the brooks brother guide to gentlemen behavior and say a gentlemen doesn't say. where would that have been in legal terms if bill clinton had said that about the relationship with the aide? >> i don't know. i am one

watergate wasn't just a fight over whether the white house tapes would be release.as also a fight, a big cort fight over whether congress would get to see the grand jury information that implicated nixon in potential crimes, specifically obstruction of justice. and it's interesting, it was that same lawyer in the supreme court case over the tapes, that same lawyer who was in court arguing for the special prosecutor's office that a court should give the go ahead and hand the grand jury material over to congress. >> the united states court of appeals in washington is still hearing arguments on a secret grand jury report that the judge ordered turned over to the house judiciary committee. the committee wants the secret report which focuses on president nixon. >> a historic argument among six judges unexpectedly shed new light on what is inside the secret grand jury report. philip lacovara who did the arguing says the report contains an index of arguments that might be important. the judge asked if the special prosecutors were aware of the risks of indictments against m

in watergate.is case you have no money paid by trump or his associates do you know, who paid for the russian meddling in our election? vladimir putin. chris: one quick question i don't try to compare this to watergate as there are more serious crimes from anybody in the trump campaign but looking back june 23rd smoking gun tape for the cia to lay off the watergate investigation because it is a national security matter. that wasn't the real reason but obviously it would incriminate people. is that so different from donald trump not the underlying crime but telling t15 with a special counsel investigation? . >> if you go back to that case it was six days after theanat burglary and nixon's chief of staff says to the president we are worried about the fbi because they can trace the money that is the key to watergate. i will repeat in this case there is no money transfer does that mean there is a much to investigate? indeed there is i know people in my business will be aggressively looking for new infor

>> well, the senate watergate hearings in the early part of 1973 riveted the country.was at those hearings that the public heard from john dean, a member of the president's inner circle, who said the president was, himself, involved in the cover-up and it was at those hearings the public then learned that we could test whether john dean was telling the truth or not because the president had taped most of his conversations. so the public saw watergate unfold in front of them then a few months later the president fires the special prosecutor and creates what is now known as, was known then, as the saturday night massacre. the public was very much watching watergate unfold like some kind of tragedy and that continued until the president resigned in august of 1974. >> president nixon, as you well know, he was defiant to the end, combative with the press, and of course, we remember his famous "i am not a crook" speech. how was he able to keep up that facade for so long? >> because most americans want to believe their president. when john dean said the president was part of

the question bubbling here is, is this watergate? is this nixon?ment in all of this is money. nixon used campaign money for the watergate aspiration, espionage and sabotage. he used campaign money to pay for the silence of the people involved in watergate, clear obstruction. in this case, you have no money paid by trump or his associates. you know who paid for the russian meddling in our election? vladimir putin. >> chris: i want to ask you one quick question and i don't mean in any way to compare this to watergate. there are obvious a lot more serious crimes that nixon and the committee to reelect were involved in than anybody in the trump campaign did. but i was looking back at the june 23rd smoking gun tape in which the president says to his then chief of staff, instruct the cia to tell the fbi to lay off the watergate investigation because it's a national security matter. and that wasn't the real reason. it was because it was obviously going to incriminate people involved in the campaign. is that so different from donald trump telling -- i'm no

she was a staff member as you know in 1974 on the watergate house impeachment inquiry and she says watergate should be the model, not what the republicans did in 1998. she is envisioning watergate-style televised hearings to educate the public, she said. so that they can understand fully what this very dense legal document that mueller put forth said. and she summarizes at the end this way in "the washington post" op-ed. the mueller report isn't just a reckoning about our recent history. it is a warning about the future. and unless checked, the russians will interfere again in 2020 and possibly other adversaries such as china or north korea will as well. this is an urgent threat. nobody but americans should be able to decide america's future and unless he's held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office. >> are you surprised, david, that hillary clinton is weighing in on all of this? at this sensitive moment? >> i'm not surprised that she feels so committed to seeing this through all the way to the end and she thinks th

than watergate. but sources tell cnn that current and former white house aides are worried about unflattering things they might have said to mueller about trump telling meantime democrats are already bracing

we proved that in watergate. and i love i don't use of the wro word stonewall.ident stone walled until america rose against them and then he agreed to give the tapes and then fought it again. we went to the supreme court. and i want to point out that we were subpoenaing the tapes in march and in july, it was argued in the supreme court and we got the tapes. it went very fast. so this idea that mueller couldn't have for example subpoenaed the president because it would have taken too long or that this would take too long, it won't take too long. these things can be expedited and now there is precedent. congress has a right to it. they need it. i'm all for fact finding hearings. then we can decide whether there is enough for impeachment. and i'm sort of on that side of we have to make sure that the american people are ready for that and that republicans are supporting. peter did a wril yant jbrilliane impeachment of watergate and brought the republicans along. >> there are lots of reasons to not have believed william barr based on his highly partisan background, b

and there are many other protections put in place post-watergate that have likewise been nullified.e are looking now at what will need to be done to protect against the recurrence of this i don't expect, frankly, that these are going to pass the congress while donald trump is in the oval office. i don't think the g.o.p. is willing to stand up to the president in that way. mr. costa: could the congressional democrats take some action? if a foreign power contacts a campaign what should your responsibility be in terms of reporting to the f.b.i.? mr. schiff: we're looking at that now. we're looking at what we thought were inviolate norms that turns out can be violated with impugntism it's difficult, i think, to legislate certain ethical behaviors. much as it would be desirable to do so if we could. i don't know what the regulations would look like, for example, that would prevent someone from pursuing a business opportunity in a foreign hostile power. mr. costa: you could make it illegal. if you're a presidential candidate do you believe it should be legal to have a business dealing wit

did this happen during watergate? were major print publications as gung-ho as this? >> i do not remember a headline saying nixon clean at any time during those two years. we're at a time when newspapers, needless to say, are taking sides in a way but they did not in those days. >> along with everybody else. i also want to share with you, we had camera crews out today as a network talking with some voters. i want to play for you a sampling. >> i do think it started out as a witch hunt. so that kind of threw me off. but there is really nothing that would change my mind about him. >> i am more likely to support trump today than i was at the original election with hillary. you know, he's not a perfect guy. i think he is a despicable human being. but he has done a lot of good things for the country. >> we can't ignore it. yet i think we should be very careful about overdoing an investigation, overdoing subpoenas, that type of thing. >> we also took a sampling of front pages. you see there depicted in places that donald trump carried. are there echos of previous opinions o

. >>> so what does legendary watergate journalist carl bernstein think now that he's read through theller report? we will find out next. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger, it's the right gear. with a terrain management system for... this. a bash plate for... that. an electronic locking rear differential for... yeah... this. heading to the supermarket? get any truck. heading out here? get the ford ranger. the only adventure gear built ford tough. thwho see things others can't. they're the ones who see a city that make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. at dell technologies, we see it too. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. getting dressed can be rough on sensitive skin

we followed watergate soaked richard nixon with i'll never lie to you jimmy carter. when the job seemed too big for carter we repleased him with breezily confident ronald reagan. later the buttoned down george h.w. bush before being beaten by saxophone baby boomer bill clinton, led to george w. bush shoes shoot from the hip style led to obama succeeded by blow the place up, donald trump. which is positioned to be best polar opposite of president trump. there have been 14 all viewing

joining us is phillip lap var rah, former prosecutor for watergate. lot of expertise in this. you're the perfect guest for us to have. you argued in 1974 that the grand jury testimony should be made public. so what was your rationale then and does it apply to today? >> well, it applies in part. the rationale at the time -- and this was the decision by the grand jury in consultation with us in the special prosecutor's office, that the information they developed about president nixon's own complicity in the watergate coverup was so important that it should be submitted to the house judiciary committee. and even though it was understood that that could complicate the indictments of president nixon's aides or the trial of those indictments, the grand jury concluded and we argued to the courts that the information was just too important not to share with the house impeachment inquiry. >> so you could make the very same argument today, couldn't you, that what's in there is so important to americans who have lived through this for the past two years, that th

and what happened in watergate was you had the senate hearings. then you had our indictment and then you had the impeachment beginning and by the time the impeachment hearings went ahead, we were able to request the court to turn over the roadmap we had prepared for impeachment and by the way it took only about three weeks from the day we turned over the briefcase of material to the court until it went to congress. so we're not talking about a long delay. if anybody would request the court to turn over the grand jury testimony, there would be a completely unredacted, at least as to grand jury testimony, mueller report that congress could review as the starting point. it isn't the end point. they still need live witnesses to show the american people which would then influence the republicans in congress to start paying attention to the facts, to the actual evidence in front of them. >> joe, what a spectacle that would be. all right. thank you so much for joining us today. first i'd like to bring in a member of the house judiciary and oversight and

john dean from watergate and carrie cordero. bill barr said he would provide explanations for his redactions and there was concern he wouldn't do that. how big of a deal is that? >> it's important because it will actually give congress some information upon which to make decisions about things they might want to challenge. so, for example, if he marks information that is redacted because it's classified, maybe that's the kind of information that the intel committees would say specifically they want to see but wouldn't be information that congress would subpoena, information that he remarks as 6e, protected by grand jury rule 6e, that would be the type of information that the judiciary committee may consider going to a court. it could be very useful for members of congress to decide which information they'll fight about and which they're not. >> so, what do you make of the fact that barr refused to directly answer so many questions? including have you talked to the white house about this? saying he doesn't recall while mueller di

the senate committee investigating watergate at the time and the watergate special prosecutor moved toy of those tapes that might pertain to the watergate investigations. president nixon in response said no. he refused to hand them over. cited separation of powers. he said he was confident the courts would uphold his position and uphold him saying no to those subpoenas. that said, nixon hedged a little bit. he did say he would abide by a, quote, definitive decision by the highest court. the only problem was, nobody knew what the meant. what counts as a definitive decision? it's not like you can appeal a supreme court decision. is there some other you can get? would was he saying if he got more than a couple of votes on his side -- he was prezzed by a reporter you might have heard of, a man named dan rather who at the time was working florida state a white house correspondent for cbs news. >> now, most if not every other american, any supreme court decision is binding, whether the person in terms of the decision finds it definitive or not. would you explain to us why you feel you're in

you know and when people say oh there's no comparison there is a comparison and and watergate was a small beer ok because this isn't the kadir of all conspiracies and it's really real daemon. go ahead. i agree with you completely about also taking on water and xander said about the damage of the material damage done by this investigation it's not only thirty five million dollars which were paid for it officially it's not only thousands of working hours of joy in this you know the new york times sent a team to prague to find out if trump's official met with the russian representative there and they've never happened also don't forget there are sanctions imposed on russia to be exactly exactly collusion and the sanctions if we take into account the slavish polish of the european union which also impose sanctions these sanctions according to u.n. estimates cost about one hundred billion dollars to that to the western wall to the european union and of course billions of dollars to russia so basically it's the damage from all of this story is huge and unfortunately it continues you know

we move forward to watergate. we don't need to be reminded of what happened. the saturday night massacre. in his early months, archibald fired.to become -- what was the reason? tactics by asive partisan staff. that one canoes hear if one posits to listen. i have made a bit of an amateur historian study of that which led up to watergate. i think president nixon had a point. he did have an argument. as to the unreasonableness of mr. cox. there were arguments on the other side. look into our world called the law. mr. cox did not accept it for is just proposed compromise regarding reviewing the other party said we have to see the tapes fully. some familiar? heard come back to be down the corridors of time. that we allppened know. the saturday night massacre. it started on saturday afternoon. history tells us it was a beautiful day here in washington. none of you is old enough to remember that day. october. and elliott given richardson. he said in response what? this is a legal crowd. there are textual us who want to get it exactly right. [laughter] general, what d

dean about watergate.hink the watergate, the number of crimes that president nixon committed and those around him committed were much larger than at least what we have evidence of at the moment, but in terms of a pattern of conduct that suggested dishonorable president, this particular mueller report puts president trump in the same family of misdeeds as those that we associate with some around ronald reagan and with richard nixon. there's no doubt in the summer of 1974, republicans and some of the democrats were upset that richard nixon had shown a party of dishonorable conduct. volume 2 of the mueller report says yesterday again we have a president with a pattern of dishonest conduct. there are no question there is certain parallels. >> democrats are ramping up the oversight. they have subpoenaed the unredacted report, but the doj calls this request premature and unnecessary. it sounds like a fight is brews. >> that's right. i do think a fight is brews they've already said they'll give you some version t

a lot of the basic facts of watergate were already available in one thousand nine hundred two before the one nine hundred seventy two election what happened was it just the temperature continued to rise through investigations and through the reactions of the white house itself and i think that's where where this could become much more pressing matter for the trump administration ties mark thank you very much for talking with you again tonight on the day thank you. here's some of the other stories now that are making headlines around the world pope francis has washed the feet of several prison inmates as part of traditional festivities ahead of easter previous popes have generally washed the feet of priests on holy thursday the current pope instead carried out the practice in facilities such as prisons and centers for migrants paris has honored firefighters who battled monday's blaze at notre dame cathedral with a ceremony at city hall a host of dignitaries thanked them for their service including the mayor earlier the firefighters were also invited to a ceremony at the police a palac

the more you try to cover up what it is, it didn't work in watergate. it's not going to work. >> jim, your response? >> following the law, 6e, classified information, all of those things need to be taken into consideration. executive privilege as it relates to people that, let's remember, the report hasn't been made -- none of it has been made public and they're already talking about subpoenaing witnesses who have already talked to mueller. now all of a sudden they're not interested in the investigation and want to redo the work? >> we doesn't know what they said to mueller. >> come on. >> mueller explicitly said on obstruction of justice he's not exx exonerating the president. why don't the americans have the right to see what he found? >> tens of millions on this investigation. >> that's not the question. >> now congress just wants to waste more money and the people are going to get frustrated with it. the people of this country are going to get frustrated with it. >> what are they afraid of showing the american people? why are they fighting so hard?

watergate committee. this week donald trump has stonewalled subpoenas and document teameds from committees investigating his tax rushes, the census, the recent firings from the department of homeland security. tonight the white house agreed to a republican proposal to allow carl kline, the former head of personnel security, to sit for a voluntary transcribed interview to answer questions about how security clearances were granted to officials like jared kushner and ivanka trump. but that is not what chairman elijah cummings was requested. he wanted cline to testify before the house oversight committee and there's no sign that the democrats will accept this proposal because there is a scheduling conflict that that would represent with william barr's testimony on wednesday. we're back with congresswoman stacey plaskett, congressman lloyd dog yet and lloyd huffman. the tax return issue, you're on the ways and means committee. chairman rich i neal has the absolute legal authority to see any tax return he want

>> well, jake, what i did is i looked on my shelf for the watergate committee report.n/contra report. i also looked at the ken starr report which is too big to bring to the set here. it's four volumes, over 2,000 words. and i've read all of those. and in 400 words, mr. -- this report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a president. this is really a devastating report. >> and yet, it concludes there's insufficient evidence to say that the president and his team conspired with russia which was the most important part of the investigation, one might argue. >> exactly. you know, and i think we've also lost some of the context of what's going on here. this was a campaign that trump has all but admitted was not a serious presidential campaign. it was a branding under taking. and they wanted all the help they could get from wherever they could get, and it's clear they got a lot from the russians. an unusual amount. does it rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy? apparently not, at least with the evidence that's available. not everybody wa

the senate committee investigating watergate at the time the watergate special prosecutor moved to theof those tapes that might pertain to the watergate investigations. president nixon in response said no. he refused to hand them over. cited separation of powers. he said he was very confident the courts would uphold his position and they would okay him saying no to those subpoenas. that said, nixon hedge d a litte bit. he did say he would abide by, quote, a definitive decision of the highest court. it oonly problem is no one knew what that meant. what counts as a definitive decision from the supreme court? was nixon saying he'd only abide a unanimous decision or a really lopsided ruling, but he if got more than a couple of votes on his side he might not consider that definitive, he might refuse to comply? what did he mean? president nixon at the time was pressed on that point by a reporter you might have heard of, a man named dan rather who at the time was work as a white house correspondent for cbs news. >> now, for most if not every other american any supreme court decision is -- wou

a lot of the basic facts of watergate were already available in one thousand nine hundred two before the one nine hundred seventy two election what happened was it just the temperature continue to rise through investigations and through the reactions of the white house itself and i think that's where where this could become much more pressing matter for the trumpet ministrations times mark thank you very much for talking with you again tonight on the day thank you. well here's some of the other stories that are making headlines around the world north korea has demanded that washington removed secretary of state mike pump aoe from any theater nuclear talks and foreign ministry spokesman described mr bump aoe as immature and reckless earlier north korean media said that the country's military had tested a new tactical guided weapon that's the first reported weapons test in six months new york police have arrested a man who tried to enter st patrick's cathedral with eight leaders of gasoline police say the man told them he wanted to use the cathedral as a short cut but we don't know whe

lou: it is bigger than watergate, it is a scandal far greater than watergate. and it rests clearly on the dems. we'll have much more on that and more as we continue. please stay with us. ♪ ♪ hmm. exactly. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ lou: house intelligence committee chn adam schiff still failing in his efforts to in any way reasonably teal with the -- deal with the president on the issue of collusion. he keeps making bizarre comparisons between russian meddling, the trump campaign and watergate. he is particularly challenged. the dem congressman failed to recognize robert mueller's conclusion that neither the president, nor his campaign staff, nor any american -- remember that expression? -- nor any american coordinated with russia. also ignoring the fact that the russians wanted bernie sanders to win in 2016. schiff also failed to mention it was president