Me. The president calls this total exoneration. Thats not what the a. G. Said. What is his argument. Later his colleague is going to join us, very interesting. The legal tandem is tag teaming my show and Sean Hannitys show tonight preaching to the converted over there, appealing to open minds here, but it shows you where we are. The big issue, will the president really push for you to see the report . How about his answers to mueller . Should you get to see that . Thats just one of the issues that democrat Hakeem Jeffreys has to consider. How big of a blow is this early assessment of the Mueller Report to democrats and their cause . What is their path forward . Is impeachment still an option . Big questions, big night, big players. Lets get after it. The president of the United States is okay with the idea of releasing the fuel muellll mull report. Here he is in his own words. Up to the attorney general. Wouldnt bother me. Has he said that to the a. G. . Well get an answer tonight. Democratic house chairs issued an ultimatum to bill barr demanding congress see the full report by a week by tomorrow. Rudy giuliani welcome back to primetime. Thank you. Important moment. Yes. The idea of disclosure, do you believe that the people, congress, certainly, deserve to learn more . Sure. Like the president id like to have the whole thing out because i believe theres nothing that will hurt us and i believe if there is any argument there that tries to hurt us, we can rebutt it. We have a 97 pamg report ready to rebutt anything they say, about 30 of it is devoted to obstruction of justice which is a totally specious charge. Theres laws that have been to be followed. One of them is a criminal law. If bar were to release grand jury testimony or make a mistake and release it, its a federal felony. Five years in prison. Hes going to have to go to a federal judge and get an order to do it. Just wilike with the watergate prosecutors. The judge is going to read through it. It could take two weeks. But theres things they could release. First obstruction, there was no uninjury. It would be unfair to release it piece mill . What about charge by charge . You could do collusion first i dont know, the best way is figure out what you can release and put it all out. We waited long enough. True. If we have to wait two weeks to do it right. But barr has no interest in holding it back. I hope thats the case. It is. And why would i want something hidden where everybody is going to start saying whats hidden when i know that i can rebut every single piece. If the president wants closure, closure comes from clarity. People have to see things. Heres why, counselor, its because the idea of criminality matters, thats what the special counsel was looking for in the main, but we know that he believes there was wrong doing. Theres political ramifications. Criminality is not the standard. We need to know the information so people can make a judgment. But it is the standard for impeachment if you read the constitution strictly. High crime or misdemeanor. No high crime. Certainly no high crime. Provable and no misdemeanor, provab provable. President ford said a high crime or m. D. Is what Congress Says it is. One of yours . Republican president. Its about votes. He says while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, so no conclusion that he committed a crime. This is all the prosecutor. Whats the part after that. It does not exonerate him. They dont have to exonerate him. You have to prove hes guilty. Thats absolutely true. I dont know why the a. G. Echoed that. I dont know why mueller said it. This is a cheap shot. For a prosecutor this is unprofessional. Fair point his job is not to exonerate. He is exonerating in the next two paragraphs. The next two paragraphs say not sufficient evidence and no obstructive conduct. Thats exoneration by Rod Rosenstein the attorney general. Now i would argue that he was a little bit more circumspect than that. The reason he says he couldnt come to a conclusion about obstruction is because there was proof both ways and some division either internal or internal to his own mind. So obviously there was proof of wrong doing when it came to obstruction sufficient enough that he couldnt just make a call. There isnt proof of wrong doing. What there is he has a staff of at least eight people that are rabid partisan democrats. Never should have been on the staff. One of them was the counsel to the Hillary Clinton foundation. Thats like saying hes not a conservative. He wouldnt have selected weissman. So republican his whole life. Hes certainly not a trump republican. In any event he had 8 people work for him that hate trump. He had a lead investigator that was all over saying he hated trump. Thats disgraceful. You think this is objective . Ridiculous. I agree with you. Its not objective. Its a cheap shot. Im with you on that. What im saying is this, criminality, you know my line, felony, if not a felony then its fine, that doesnt work for me as a standard for president ial conduct. It doesnt work for president ial conduct but for overturning the will of the electorate and throwing out a democratic leader it better be a serious crime. Thats why they said high crime. Or a pattern of abusive pattern that turns up the nose of republicans and democrats. How fair was this investigation . Lets go to the first part of it. Its only four pages. Its been like a year and a half. Thats okay. How about the first conclusion. We should take a breath and stop and everybody should apologize for accusing the president falsely of collusion. Its completely unsupported. Hes completely unsupported. Theres no evidence of it. They bear on each other. Lets take that one count. You have to look at his analysis. Very hard to obstruct a noncrime. You can do it. He says more than that. He says theres no obstruction in the context of there being no underlying crime found. You dont need to have an underlying crime to have obstruction. He said it is very rare that you can have corrupt intent when there is not an underlying crime. He is exactly right. It is very rare. Yes it is possible but its a very heavy burden to overcome. Theres also something extremely bush league about investigating somethi something, theres no crime committed and now youre going to trap the guy. Russian interference, there wasnt real questions about it no evidence that the president of the United States was involved. Do you know how absurd that charge was to me . Being on that campaign . It was ridiculous. Tell me how you can make an obstruction case when he didnt destroy 30,000 emails. When is that the standard . He got rid of comey. He said it in a way that seemed to be related to he is allowed to fire anyone that worked for him and he had seven good reasons to do it. He could have had some bad reasons too. That doesnt matter as long as you have good reasons. It does in terms of why you look. No, theres no reason to have looked. He had every right to fire comey. In fact, that was an intrusion on the president s power. Then why do the guys keep lying about this. People lie all the time. You told me Martha Stewart lied when there was no underlying crime. Maybe theyre embarrassed. Maybe they forget. But if you lie people look. Maybe they get tricked by tricky prosecutors like weissman thats been cited three times for unethical behavior. The man is a menace. The man is an absolute menace. How could you arguably im arguing points of fact. How can you possibly with a straight face say that you would find a crime with trump obstructing when Hillary Clinton destroyed what does she have to do with it let me finish my sentence. She destroyed 30,000 emails. She took a hammer to her cell phone. She whitewashed her servers. He didnt do any of that. How can you say this was obstruction . Second what was obstructive . The thing went forward. We finished. He had went forward but comey was taken out. Thats the reason rosenstien asked for the special counsel. What did it obstruct . 90 agents. If you attempt to obstruct thats something that we want to look at. Now we have an attempt to obstruct a noncrime. This is like stretching to prosecute the man. You are defining it that way its not very clever. You guys have tortured this man for two years with collusion and nobody has apologized for it. Before we talk about obstruction apologize not a chance. Of course youre not because youre not being fair. You know better than that. No, im outraged. Collusion, collusion, collusion. No collusion, chris. Heres my case. Apologize. Never. Never. I didnt do anything wrong. These questions are real. They needed to be regarded as such. Treasonous. Did i say that . No. How about this network should apologize. Do i ask you to apologize for everything the president says that isnt true. I ask you to apologize. Tell me what i did and ill apologize. Im not saying that you should do it. I dont apologize for the network. Your network should apologize. Im proud of the network and the job it does but i only control what i say. The Washington Post should apologize and adam schiff should apologize. Thats a question for him. Before we start jamming him up in obstruction, couldnt we take a day off and say the man was falsely accused . This is a i dont believe he was falsely accused. He was. Show people what is in the record and let them decide. What do you mean he wasnt falsely accused . He did a pattern of things that triggered the curiosity and concern of a lifelong prosecutor Rod Rosenstein. Not some clintonista or congressman. He didnt reveal to the court that chris for St Christopher steel had been fired by the fbi. Was paid 1. 1 million by Hillary Clinton. Certain things they corroborate if you read that dossier you get past the second page and you think its an intelligent report youre an idiot. It is a National Enquirer story. It is a cheap National Enquirer story. Ive had four or five retired cia agents read it. There was russian interference and his guys were taking meetings. Page 4 of the affidavit is the report. The guy you just had on here said there never would have been a pfizer warrant without the steel affidavit. Steel was put forward as a completely verified informant. But they understand it you know this. No, you have to tell the court theres a great obligation on the prosecutor before a court. Lets see what we can. I have seen. I know you have. Im saying the rest of us rudy. Let people see it and make their judgments. The footnote is public. Four pages on all the efforts of mueller is not enough. No, were talking about Rod Rosenstein that has to account for the fact that he signed a false affidavit. He also wrote the letter to get rid of comey for the president and jeff sessions. And also came to the conclusion theres a is he a good guy or bad guy . People are not good guys or bad guys, people are complicated. He also took a judgment here on obstruction thats arguably not his job to do. He also wrote a letter to take down comey that he shown have done however the report says the president of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, is not guilty of collusion. He is totally exonerated of collusion and for 2. 5 years people have been going after him not for obstruction of justice, not for Campaign Finance let me just make my point on this because it matters. A disgraceful horrible thing. I know that you know this. I agree with you that the a. G. Says that mueller found that there was no criminal case to be made about conspiracy to coordinate with those involved with russian interference. Its in here and true and i accept it as true but i want this point to be made for people. We have to find a way to move forward together. You say there was no collusion. I know that you know what im about to say. Youve heard me say it before. Collusion is a behavior, not a crime. Thats why the word collusion is not in muellers report. He doesnt talk about i found collusion, i didnt find collusion. Was there collusion . Conspiracy to interfere was there collusion . Yes. What manafort did with the polling data was collusion. What that meeting was about in trump tower it was tricky behavior to get close to people you shouldnt have been close to. Was it a crime . Thats not collusion. Its not a crime. I dont think you should say no collusion because i believe thats oversimplifying the point but i agree with you theres no criminality on it. There was no collusion by the president of the United States with anybody. He didnt talk to a russian. I have seen no proof to the contrary. From the beginning, he had no information about russian interferen interference. No but it was after you and everybody around the president said nobody talk to nobody and it turned out there were a locality of peoplot of people talking i didnt say that. You were much more eloquent than that. You did use the word collusion. Yes and what about manafort giving the polling data and stone trying to get the emails. Thats not collusion. If you talk to a russian youre interfering with the election. He was brought in on the theory that he was going to be the link. Maybe so. He testified under oath and i have no knowledge of any interference in the election. They gave him a 14 day sentence. Bye bye. Flynn, no knowledge of interference with the election. Cohen fell apart. He should be prosecuted for perjury for the perjury he committed for the house committee. One of them youre going to be a witness in. Youre going to be a witness, maybe. Id call you as a witness right in front of the grand jury, you prove unequivocally that he was seeking a job with the administration which he lied about in front of cummings and he said im going to throw the book at you. He also lied about not asking for a pardon. Ill have to be a witness for that. The man is a total perjer. Heres where i want to get us at on here. These are tough questions but i believe they needed to be asked. I believe that whatever disclosure can happen is to be on antiseptic. The more they know the more people come together. Thats why im a little worried about just four pages. But thats since the beginning. Its just the beginning. But has the president asked the a. G. , you should the president certainly certainly the a. G. Has heard if the president talks to the a. G. About this theres going to be all kinds of this, that and the other thing. The a. G. Has said the right thing. I will put out the maximum amount of information the law allows. Now i have to ask everyone to realize there are laws. There are. Although one of the guidelines he wasnt supposed to say but i cant exonerate. That is true. He wasnt supposed to say that. That should have been crossed out. It wasnt. But okay its there. But then he does a very good job of rebuting it. However there are laws. I understand that. I would like to see every single thing come out because i believe every single thing can be rebutted. This obstruction theory is garbage. I think the information should come out. Read barrs letter of 8 months ago. I just need to know what he found. They have a crazy theory that if the president was thinking about obstruction, that that constitutes obstruction. Well, first of all, the president wasnt thinking about obstruction and secondly weissman is out of his mind because if people get prosecuted for what theyre thinking if somebody said i think i might want to kill that guy because he was mean to me but doesnt he mean formulation of intent . Corrupt intent . No, thats why he says theres no obstructive content. It has to come out of my mind and be conveyed to somebody. It never happened. It would have been better if mueller made the call. Mueller couldnt decide between contending factions. I understand but that wasnt his job. Shame on him. His job was to make a call. He should return some of the money we spent. As a taxpayer, im always in favor of that. Thank you. Thank you for the argument. Thank you for the opportunity. Im sure jay will do a better job than me. Im happy to take on the both of you and i appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. God bless and be well. This is a conversation to have. You dont have to hate each other to disagree on legal points of all things. Now god forbid indeed, jay sekulow is going to be with us, so is Hakeem Jeffreys. What are they going to do with this information . He says they should apologize. What do they believe is the path forward . And then great people that used to do the job of the prosecutions to tell us what matters and what doesnt. Conspiracy is the crime. Collusion is a behavior. Were coming right back. Nicks mom called the tball league eight times to help her shy son make some new friends. His parents shared videos of highlights, dance moves, and Jimmy Carlyle stealing third. Almost. They sent seven texts when a new friend invited nick for a play date. But in the end, they put their phones down, and watched as nick finally felt part of the team. You wont find relief here. Congestion and pressure . Go to the pharmacy counter for powerful claritind. While the leading allergy spray only relieves 6 symptoms, claritind relieves 8, including sinus congestion and pressure. Claritind relieves more. Book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. Norwegian cruise line. Feel free. The house, kids, theyre living the dream and here comes the wacky new maid maid . Uh, im not the. Is she an alien, is she a spy . Shes always here, someone tell us why why, oh, why shes not the maid we wanted because im not the maid but shes the maid we got again, im not the maid. I protect your home and auto. Hey, campbells. Whos your new maid . Theres passion, theres outrage but theres also real questions that we still dont have the answer to. More information than we did before but where do we go . Lets bring in House Democratic caucus chair hakeem jeffries. Great to see you. Now this report, there were a lot of expectations built in. I dont blame everybody for everything. Ive had a lot of conversations with you about this. Members of your party were saying this is going to be it for him. When mueller comes out, its going to be true. Obstruction, he punted and the ag didnt. What is the path forward . To make sure that the Mueller Report, every single word is released publicly so that the American People can make an evaluation as to why bob mueller drew the conclusions that he drew, both with respect to the absence of finding collusion with the Trump Campaign and russian spies as well as his inability to exonerate the president with respect to obstruction of justice which as you know is an extremely serious charge. True. I dont know why he did i guess he was speaking to something that he didnt expect which is a division either within his team or his team saying that i dont know that we can make a case but i cant exonerate. Either you can make a case or you cant. His job is to make a call on it. Unusual there. There are rules. Grand jury testimony. Very tough to get out. How do you handle those . With respect to the grand jury information if theres a compelling Public Interest as there obviously is in this case then that can overcome the presumption of grand jury secrecy. Every person democrat or republican or of the view that we have to protect those sources and methods and that is an appropriate thing to do. Everything else, disclose to the American People so we can figure out what happened, how did it happen and how do we prevent this dynamic from ever occurring again . Clearly 17 different intelligence agencies concluded that russia interfered with our election with the purpose of artificially trying to place someone at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and there were more than 100 contacts between the Trump Campaign and russian operatives. Right. None of the agencies thought that russia didnt interfere. Only the president was doing that. But we know why. He felt threatened by this. That was the one word he shouldnt have used because its the one word that mueller went out of his way to put in there as a qualifier of what didnt happen in the report. But thats politics. Do you believe theres still a path for impeachment . We have been very clear from the beginning and i think the speaker layed out the case to say, one, democrats have always been focused on getting things done for the American People. We didnt run on impeachment or win the house of representatives on impeachment. Were focused on lowering health care costs. Thats the preimminent issue. And real infrastructure. You should be able to walk and chew gum. Absolutely. I would argue you have showed not just democrats but congress that you have trouble doing either and i believe in being fair to the individual, even when representing the party, some of them, one, name is not that important but she came out and said lets impeach the blank, blank, so you do have a faction of your party that is rabidly interested in impeachment. How do you control that . But nancy pelosi said for us to proceed with impeachment, the case must be compelling. The evidence must be overwhelming and public sentiment around impeachment must be bipartisan in nature to the extent that any of those three elements is missing, were not going to go down this road. So well continue not to go down this road. Youre still going to do fact finding. It could wind up being the same thing. Were a separate and coequal branch of government. We dont work for donald trump. We work for the American People. We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on what has been an out of control executive branch but we wont overreach, we wont overinvestigate. Were going to keep the focus on what were trying to do for the people. Do you accept the a. G. And deputy a. G. Saying there was no obstruction, well make the call for mueller . Or do you believe its still to be decided . Thats problematic because we dont have the underlying documentation and the entirety of the report. Which is important. What we have been calling for is not just the report to be disclosed but the underlying documents so that the American People can have everything to make their own evaluation. What we have right now is the four page barr report. What we actually need is the Mueller Report that took place over a 22 month period. Heres the big problem. If not a felony then fine is not an acceptable standard and its certainly not just a crime that can get you impeached. This high crime and misdemeanor, Rudy Giuliani is clever to lay it out that way but its not a legal standard. Its a political standard. Its up to you men and women to figure out what you want to vote on. There is wrong doing. Enough that he couldnt make up his mind about obstruction. There was enough findings of Counter Intelligence to put in findings about it. There was wrong doing that was there enough to consider whether or not it was a crime. Wrong doing matters. This isnt a criminal trial where its not guilty and its done. Do you think well get it . The most important point to point out here, we are going to get all the facts and all the evidence. The American People voted to put House Democrats in part so we can make sure that theres transparency. Its ironic that the same crowd that in 1998 was talking about the seriousness of obstruction of justice and impeached a president based on that act as well as abuse of power is now saying, well, those arent really serious things. We are just going to take this based on the four corners of the evidence and wait for the Mueller Report to be turned over. Hypocracy is no stranger to politics all pain is personal. I wish we could get away from the teams. I believe the more information we have the better chance that the American People could be on the same page. Thank you. Anything that you can do to get us more information we would appreciate it. He says you already know everything that you need to know but he says if more wants to come out then great. The president says the same. Cocouncil is here. Does he agree . Does he see nuisance . Where . Why not . Where does he believe the path forward is here . Well take that all up for you and we have great legal minds to do analysis. Stay with us. Exactly. Alright, call td ameritrades trade desk. They can help gutcheck your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. Call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. Our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. buzzer sound holiday inn express. Be the readiest. The latest inisnt just a store. Ty its a save more with a new kind of Wireless Network store. Its a look what your wifi can do now store. A get your questions answered by awesome experts store. Its a now theres one store that connects your life like never before store. The xfinity store is here. And its simple, easy, awesome. All right, look, we got lucky tonight. Were fortunate to have both players that counselled president in the mueller matter. What an interesting moment were living. Ive never had this happen where Legal Counsel tag team two different shows. There you go. My take is fox are preached to the converted. They havent thought the president had anything to worry about all along and here you get to talk to people that have open minds. I did every network today. Every Cable Network and every tv network. Im glad to be with you tonight. Its a great time to hear from you guys. We need intelligent discussion. Give us hope about what you expect in terms of more transparency about what the American People can hope to learn beyond the four pages. First, you have to put it in context of what happened. The attorney general got the report from special counsel bob mueller. He worked with the Deputy Attorney general of the United States and their staffs and they put together a four page document thats called principle conclusions. These are the principle conclusions that were reached in the report. They delivered that really within 48 hours which is record time in washington. I mean, this is very quickly. The attorney general said he is going to disclose as much as he can, consistent with the law and the regulations and i believe hes going to do that. The biggest things you have to look at is the material grand jury. You have to be careful about people that may have been looked at and were declined. Theres a big issue with that. But there is a test. Theres a judicial process to get through it. Its not an impossibility. No but you have to go through the process and then of Course National security information. So i havent seen it. I dont know whats in it but i expect that theyre going to do a im sure that theyre working on a thorough review. Youve seen a quick transition and turn arounded on this document and youll see a quick turnaround on the other. We reported it when we learned it but its important for the audience to know. The idea that the ag figured out obstruction was not fair. They were told three weeks ago i cant make a decision on this and rosenstein has been with it every step of the way. It wasnt in a vacuum. It wasnt in a vacuum. Fine but we need to know more. Its about what your standard of behavior is for review. Even if they wanted to do impeachment and i have been very clear all the way down through the line, i didnt see the criminality. May happen. May not. The process, i mean, not only are we nowhere near it, but if you look at what has to happen in a process like that, this is not that case. You look at it and you say is this that kind of case and its clearly not. But this is why i need to see the stuff because felony or fine is not a good standard. High crime or misdemeanor, i dont even know what it means. Abuse of power is a real ingredient in that political accountability. But where would be the abuse of power here, chris . Lets be realistic. This investigation starts as a Counter Intelligence investigation. Thats concern over possible what they were calling or however it started the word collusion. Conspiracy with the russians or russian operatives with the Trump Campaign and people affiliated. To help them interfere in the election. Yes. And the special counsel said after 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants. 13 requests to foreign governments and 500 witnesses that it doesnt exist. That was the basis upon which this started. No crime. He says more than that. He said because where your correct is the word collusion has been used. The special counsel says the special counsel investigation did not find that the Trump Campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with russia in its efforts to influence 2016 u. S. President ial elections. Its not just crimes. They said no conspiracy or coordination. This last part matters and ill tell you why. Im not being picky. I dont need to be. When they say with its efforts to influence the election, okay. What we saw with manafort and stone and trump tower meeting, those are things they shouldnt have done. That has to matter too. Were both lawyers. This is the key here. You have to look at what is the law that was involved and this situation with paul manafort, violation, tax issues, there was not a charge in conspiracy. Just because it wasnt a crime doesnt mean that it was okay. But the special counsel had a man date. Yes. And the special counsel issued a order based on their mandate. So that is what happened here. Yes. We havent seen the report. Im talking about congress. Congress has a different role. Heres the thing that i ask though. Lets go back to this. The United States congress, they havent seen it but theyre saying its not enough but do you think that the United States congress is going to get to 2,800 subpoenas . No. Are they going to get 500 search warrants . No. 230 orders of communication records . No. Are they going to get 13 requests to foreign governments. No but theyre going to get more than four pages. They are. He said im going to turn this around quickly. I hope to get it to you by this weekend, the principle conclusions in the report. He said during his testimony i want to give as much of the report as i can consistent with the law and regulations and i dont think anybody would argue that. Heres the one that i dont understand that you have been arguing yeah. Why shouldnt we get to see the president s answers . Well, number one, you dont have a right to see the president s answers. Why not. Because if i was representing you and worked out an arrangement with the special counsel or u. S. Attorney and this was going to be done in a particular way, would you be comfortable with me releasing your records if i were president of the United States and it was a matter of critical importance and confidence why would it make a difference if its the president of the United States or you chris cuomo. It doesnt legally, you know that. But i think its a duty as the highest elected office of the land. The facts are they asked questions and we responded. Thats it. He already got the benefits of great minds helping him with the answers. We cant see those. You already vetted him once. Youre kind to say all of that first of all, im the president s lawyer. So im not waiving anything absent a court order. Theres going to be no court order here. What did the special counsel include or not include in the report . I dont know. I havent seen it. Ill see it when you see it. The president wants closure. Yeah. He wants clarity. So much so that he used one word he shouldnt have used. He said im totally vicinity ka vindicated. He shouldnt have said exonerated but thats about public relations. Whats the difference between by the way, do you think a prosecutor when you think about this was does a prosecutor exonerate . So i dont know why its in there. I dont know why its in there either. I dont know why he digit madn the call ill tell you why. He said it raised difficult questions of law and fact. You were an attorney. When you have difficult questions of law and difficult facts, guess what you dont do prosecute. Right. So he should have said dont prosecute. Why did he use the word exonerate . I dont know because the job of a prosecutor, youve done it, ive done it, you prosecute or you dont. Technically its basically declanations. I can tell you what i think happened. They layed out all the facts as they understood. They are not an independent. They kept saying what they did and ken starr did. This is not an independent counsel. They reported to a three judge panel. And they have a man date that they deliver impeachable information to congress. They got rid of that because the politicians didnt like it and created this. And he said he didnt like it. Thats right. Okay. So the special counsel is under a different set of rules. He is part of the department of justice. I dont see where the a. G. Gets to make the call for him though. Well, of course he does because who is the chief Law Enforcement agency head of a department . The a. G. Is. The attorney general. The whole point was to have it outside of the department. It wasnt outside of the department though. Hes underneath the deputy a. G. No, no, chris, the special counsel is actually under the attorney general. In this case he was recused, but the document itself is a department of justice document. Yes it is. He works for the department of justice. He is an employee of the department of justice. He has regulations that set forth specifically what he can do and what he cant. Hes bound by department of justice guidelines. He has to give whats called a confidential report to the attorney general. If theres any disagreement between him and the special counsel hes supposed to tell congress. They said here there was none. It taints it a little bit in the Public Perception would be my suggestion but thats why the more that can come out, the more clarity there will be. Thats why i was happy to hear the president say today i think it should come out. I cant believe hes not telling you waive it all. I have nothing to hide. I want the people to see what i said. Im not worried about what he said why didnt you put him under oath because i have been practicing law for 40 years but this is the president of the United States clinton did it. Clinton had to do it. He did it before the subpoena came. No, the subpoena came. And he said no subpoena necessary ill do it. To a grand jury. We didnt reach that stage. Would he have done that . Would he have done what . Do you think the president would have ever done it under oath . On camera . Im not post litigating a case that is closed. Smart man. I appreciate you taking this opportunity and making the case to the audience and i will be in contact going forward. Yes, sir, thank you, chris. Thank you very much. Appreciate them both. Up next, we need better brains than mine to process what matters here and what we still need to know and what that process will probably look like. We have those people for you. Plus are you surprised by the Mueller Report findings. And learn some lessons. Fit me foundation from maybelline new york. Fits skin tone and texture. In 2 finishes matte and poreless and dewy and smooth. 64 fits. Fit me foundation. Only from maybelline new york. Plants capture co2. What if other kinds of plants captured it too . If these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. Carbon capture is Important Technology and experts agree. Thats why were working on ways to improve it. So plants. Can be a little more. Like plants. I switched to geico and saved hundreds. Thats a win. But its not the only reason i switched. Geicos a company i can trust, with over 75 years of great savings and service. Now thats a winwin. Switch to geico. Its a winwin. Switch to geico. Itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. Stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. Pg e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. For more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge. Com safety. Do you know that the white house still hasnt seen the full Mueller Report. Now, to be happy to be happy . To be honest, theyre happy with just the headline here, right. For the rest of us, weve got to know the guts of this situation if were ever going to have true understanding. Because if you look at bill barrs summary, the president has reason to take a victory lap, all right . Hes saying total exoneration. I dont know why he used that word. The truth was good enough. O esks on ration is exactly what mueller said he couldnt give him. Whether mueller should have said that is another question. Heres the good news. I have great brains for you tonight to go through what this means and what more should be known. Mark mazetti, laura coates, and fra franklin foer. What kind of name is that . An ellis island name. What was it before . Russian. Ethnics always know. Laura, lets start with this. One, what we were talking about before. Often the most interesting stuff we talk about, we dont say on tv. Mmhmm. Mueller strong, known for prosecutorial discretion, known for knowing how to make the tough call. Didnt make the tough call. Punted on obstruction. I get there may have been a division in the team, but wasnt his job to make the tough call . Absolutely. Its like going to the doctor and saying here are my symptoms and they go, you should get that checked out. I came to you for a reason. Youre the person whos supposed to know. Mueller actually has a mandate to reach a decision and present a report based on the declinations for the reasons to prosecute. When he chose not to do so and instead said, you decide, you choose, especially when you have barr, who wrote a 19page memo that already was a foregone conclusion of how he would feel, to me, it feels very unsatisfying. And frankly the punt, i wonder, was it truly to bill barr, or was the punt to congress . Well, the reporting is thats a good question. The reporting is three weeks earlier, he had gone to the a. G. And the deputy a. G. And said, were locked on this. They probably didnt use that language. Thats what a jury would say. So they had time. So its not fair to say barr and rosenstein figured this all out in 48 hour. Sure. They had weeks and rosenstein was along every step of the way. Be that as it may, heres where we are now. So, mark, the question becomes, well, where do you go from here . Should we get a lot more information . Does it matter if its criminality wrongdoing, and why . We definitely need to get more information. We have to see as much of the Mueller Report that can be put out to the public, and they are pledging that they will get out as much as they can and they did. On obstruction, there was no grand jury testimony. They should be able to give us almost the entirety of that. Of course it goes into the political arena. This is actually one of the problems and complicating factors of mueller not actually making the determination. You create a you have a special counsel in part to remove politics from an investigation, right . If youre worry about conflicting investigating, you know, public figures, you have a special counsel. He didnt make a decision and the decision was made by political appointees of the president. That complicates things. It makes it muddier, and it obviously now has congress riled up. So it doesnt make a clean end to the investigation. Well, its got congress riled up on the democrat side, but they also have to take a step back and check themselves because there was a significant number of them and a lot of media also who were front running expectations on this, and they were wrong. So its time for them to be quiet or at least work on more information. The president , do you agree with sekulows argument that the president s not going to give you his answers, you dont have any right to the answers, you shouldnt have the answers . Of course. Do i agree with it . No. I think we have a right to the answers. I think this is an open wound. I mean the questions that were raised and the questions that were reaffirmed in barrs interpretation of muellers report are huge. We know that the russians were manipulating our election. We know that they were trying to partner with trump and colluding in this election. We know that trump was lying to us about his work on trump tower moscow. We know that corruption is shot through this administration. The questions that were raised were totally legitimate. They needed to be pursued, and we need to take the answers as they come. We shouldnt be grasping at straws. We shouldnt be inventing conspiracies where they dont exist, but we do need answer. And a point that i got from laura coates many months ago i should finally give you credit for it, which is dont get so caught on criminality you said to me many months ago. But this is a political question, and it was after i had done an interview with Rudy Giuliani. You said, i get what hes dog. This is going to be a political battle. We know that there was enough wrongdoing that muellers team couldnt make a decision on obstruction. We know there was enough wrongdoing that they had to make a call about whether to have a criminal case for conspiracy, which is what collusion winds up as legally. We dont know anything about what they found on counterintelligence. So certainly theres got to still be some existing jeopardy in what those answers mean to the political process. Absolutely. Remember, the constitution does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. They do it for a reason. They want to have the flexibility to be nimble to the actual circumstances because everything that has a criminal code corresponding notion is not always going to translate to why you want to have somebody remain the head of the they have an even higher burden that most people because youre the ones in charge of enforcing. So theres that element of it but a lot of this theres a political reason. Im actually surprised his attorneys are so happy with the lack of an exoneration because he has been put in the exact same position frankly that Hillary Clinton was placed in. The idea extremely careless behavior, not criminal. You have had a cloud now hanging over your head. Before it was raining with collusion. Thats now done, but now the question still remains the very thing that congress is charged with having to look at, which is there is a legislative reason to try to make sure it wont happen again . Ill tell you, though, they have to be happy because you lied so much about things you knew were wrong, and you wound up not getting caught for it criminally. Theyre going to take that as a win. Clearly thats what theyre dog, but there are almost what, a dozen other cases that we still have to figure out here in different parts of the judicial system. Franklin, mark, laura, thank you so much for helping us understand all of this. So tonight has been about getting some things straight. What do we know . What do we still need to know . What does this process mean . All right . The questions that sparked the russia probe are legit and have always been legit. Knowing if anyone helped the russians mess with our democracy matters. It wasnt just about the dossier. They know thats not true. Russian interference is and was real. People around this president did things they should not have done. They knew it because they lied about it. Was what they did a crime . Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And it is good and helpful to have some answers now that mueller is done. Its important to know that our president was not involved in a criminal conspiracy to help russias efforts to interfere in our election. Its good to know there are not more people around him believed to be criminals on top of those who have already been exposed as such. Now, i dont think either of those reckonings are cause for celebration. In fact, i think celebrating not being a felon is a gross reflection of how low our standards for leadership have become. Think about the standard, the trump trio and other are tremp etting. If theres no we need to know about any relevant wrongdoing, not just crimes. Clearly mueller believed there was enough wrongdoing that he could not clear the president of obstruction. So you should see whatever we can get and judge for yourself. How much does this matter . How big a deal is this . Should president s weigh it any further . Should there be action . All right . Remember, thats just on russia. Theres still like a dozen cases that are looking at serious types of wrongdoing. The answers matter. The president should want all the info to come out, including his answers. You have a right to know what the man you put in power to lead you said on these important questions. Legal or not, he has a duty. Now, youve heard me say this a lot on my show, on my sirius xm radio show and elsewhere. That matters too right now. Many on the right are in i told you so mode. I get it. I get their umbrage. There were people in politics and the media who were almost guaranteeing results that were be bad for the president. They were getting praise. They were rewarded in various ways the farther that they went in making the case that criminal activity was likely and that the president had money problems that may be damning. Now, to be fair, theres more to know before we can assess the whole basket of allegations. But much of it has been found to be without basis criminally or somehow lacking by mueller. People should own that too. Many will now say it was wrong to assume what they were, in fact, assuming. My team did not play that game. Here is just a taste of the proof of my argument. If you are waiting for something to come out from the Mueller Probe that ends this presidency, prepare yourself for disappointment. If you think mueller is going to take down the president with his report, that will be highly unlikely. I do not think criminality is a reasonable bar for people to anticipate in terms of when this probe winds up personally. I dont see how mueller threatens the presidency. I think this is about lying, why they lied, who knew what and when, and wrongdoing, not necessarily criminality. I dont see how the Mueller Probe winds up in the prosecution of the president or removal of him from office. You have people on the left who have been set up for disappointment because theyve been set up to believe that this is going to lead to the downfall of the president. Now, listen, this isnt an i told you so because i dont know what im talking about. We have to learn more. I could still be long. There are like a dozen cases out there. But i know people were selling you on expectations, and it wasnt right, and it wasnt fair. We do this show differently. We do both sides because were here to test power, not to play to it. And im not going to try and just bring someone down, facts be damned. Playing to one side is a great ratings strategy, believe me. I see the proof of it every morning. It can make you a president ial pal as well, but it is also toxifying our political culture. I know some of you are disappointed by this outcome. I get it. Its regrettable. But its also instructive. We need to find out the facts, argue about what they mean, do it with decency. There is no need for us to be driven apart by our pursuit of the truth. My hope is that if you keep an open mind and you dont just listen to an echo of what you already believe, the pursuit of truth, of justice can bring us closer together. Lord knows it should be easy to get to a better place than the one were in right now. Thank you for watching. Cnn tonight with d. Lemon starts right now. Welcome back. Good to be here. Yeah, its good to have you back. It was a very interesting week without you or while you were gob gone, i should say. I think youre right on in your assessment there. Heres the interesting thing. People think if youre tough on this president , then youre out to get him oar r if you were to on this president , you automatically thought the Mueller Investigation was going to take him down. Its our job to be tough on people in power, especially considering how much this president does not tell the truth. But that doesnt mean you thought the Mueller Report was going to take him down. Ive said it, and youve said it. Im very tough on this president. But i have said, look, if you think at the end of the day this president is going to be led out of the white house in handcuffs and an orange mp