possible obstruction discussed in the mueller report. mcgahn is under subpoena already. what will congress do if he doesn't show? >> house democrats are threatening to begin contempt proceedings against william barr for failing to turn over the unredacted mueller report. house speaker nancy pelosi is accusing the attorney general of committing a crime by lying to congress. but testimony from robert mueller himself could eclipse all of that. one date mentioned for his appearance is may 15, less than two weeks from now. joining us to discuss this, we have susan glasser, staff writer for the new yorker and cnn global affairs analyst. we have michael smerconish and abby phillips, cnn white house correspondent. great to have you. michael, it seems as though robert mueller could have solved a lot of these problems by recommending, making a recommendation. he knew he couldn't indict a sitting president. he seemed to find ample evidence of wrongdoing and obstruction. here we are left with congress trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together still, trying to call some of the people that robert mueller called. the white house stonewalling. the white house blocking it. the american public feeling unsatisfi unsatisfied. >> i completely agree. i'll take it a step further. he created this situation. we had a conversation immediately after the release of his report and i said that i took issue with his lack of finding on obstruction of justice. frankly, i think he believes that the president did commit obstruction of justice. relative to collusion or conspiracy, call it what you will, he had no problem giving the president a clean bill of health. if he similarly believed that about obstruction, i think he would have said so. he left a void. bill barr filled the void with his own interpretation. we wouldn't be subject to all the interpretations if mueller had finished the task. >> now what's happening is that the administration seems to be blocking congress from getting into the void at all with help from congress itself, i might say. >> what are they doing? >> jerry nadler, he didn't have william barr testify because house lawyers couldn't ask the questioning. if you want more information, limiting yourself from getting the information isn't a good way to do it. the white house is standing in the way. let me play you what the president said about white house counsel don mcgahn testifying. >> i have had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> is the answer no? >> i can't tell him you can and everybody else you can't. it's done. we have been through this. nobody has ever done what i have done. i have given total transparency. it's never happened before like this >> don mcgahn is the central player in what is possibly the most incriminating case of obstruction laid out by robert mueller and the president just told us he doesn't want to let mcgahn testify. there will be a legal debate about whether he can stop mcgahn from testifying. it is important to note the president is going to try to stop it. susan glasser, the big question then is what will congress do? where this this fight go? how much and how do democrats want to battle here? >> it is an important question. if you draw in all three branches of government in a court fight, that's what potentially will happen. donald trump is essentially daring congress to follow through on their threats against him. so right now, yesterday, you had really extraordinary situation where you had a hearing in the house judiciary committee with an empty chair for the attorney general. there was thunderous claims made by chairman nadler that the fate of democracy itself and the presidency not being a dictator was at stake. they didn't decide what to follow through. next week i think we'll see, a, whether they pursue this and say we are going to enforce the subpoena. b, the white house may lose this in court. congress has a strong argument as a coequal branch of government that's entitled to the full mueller report without redactions and this is significant and overlooked. the underlying evidence. in the past, for example, when ken starr, again, a different statute. when he brought his report to congress about bill clinton, it came with all of the fbi's interviews, the underlying research and investigative material that went into the report to form the basis of the subsequent impeachment hearings. i think that's what congress believes it is entitled to and there is a strong precedent there. it will be interesting to see if the trump justice department follows through on their maximalist interpretation. >> it sounds like the president wants everyone to believe it's done, we're done. the mueller report is out. congress believes they are just getting started because of the evidence in those 400-plus pages of, again, ample evidence of wrongdoing. they believe they have this oversight responsibility and they are just getting started. these two are just on completely different timelines >> yeah. what susan is talking about, the underlying information is exactly what the white house is trying to say that they don't think congress is entitled to. the president's white house lawyer emmet flood put out a letter yesterday. part of the purpose of the letter was to basically say we believe that the underlying information here is potentially privileged. we reserve to right to not only stop you from getting the information but also stop any of these people like don mcgahn, like any of the other white house officials that cooperated with the special counsel probe from testifying yet again before congress. they are doing that because they don't think there is a closed book. they are worried congress will take up the issue of obstruction which they view as a subjective determination. they're going to use that as a means to simply just investigate the president into the ground. they view it in a lot of ways as a major threat to trump's presidency, not just about pushing back against partisans in congress. i think they think obstruction is an open door that bob mueller left there. and that they have to close it because if they don't, they could be opening up all kinds of avenues for congress to continue to push president trump on some of the issues of accountability and create problems for him at a particularly important time when he's going into his re-election campaign. they are willing to fight it all the way through the courts even if they may not have a strong legal argument, as susan said. the thing about the courts is it just takes a long time. time is what they need now >> michael? >> i think don mcgahn won't move the needle even if he testifies. in a big picture sense what just transpired and this is the impact of what's gone on with a.g. bill barr in the last couple of days. there was a two and a half or three-week window there where all of us were dealing only with the four-page summary that barr provided which i argue is at odds with the mueller report itself. i think it's baked in. at the time the four-page summary was out on the street you had the president saying no collusion, no obstruction and to half of the american population, i think they have now walked away from it with that conclusion in their mind. it will be very hard to now go back and convince them otherwise >> that's a matter of public opinion. not necessarily a matter of truth though if the pursuit of truth is the goal, asking don mcgahn under oath did you think the president was telling you to fire bob mueller, yes or no? the answer to that question matters whether or not it moves public opinion. abby, i cut you off. go ahead >> the president believes don mcgahn is no longer in that category of people who he can rely on to protect him in a public setting like this. to him, letting don mcgahn testify is just one more way in which all of the negative information about him can be put out in the public. don mcgahn made it clear he thought the president was doing something that imperilled his presidency that would cause a saturday night massacre. he's no longer someone in the camp that the president can trust to go out there and say it in a way that's the least damaging to him. maybe he won't move it from a legal perspective but laying out for the public what the president's intent was or what mcgahn believed the intent was on the issue of getting rid of the special counsel will be critically important for people's understanding of whether they think it was an attempt by the president to thwart the investigation. that's the crux of obstruction >> susan, that leads us to your piece. i think it is so timely. i hear so many people people wonder what it is about donald trump to gets people around him that he can coopt people around him and get them to change their own moral compass in a way they are parroting his frame of mind, his world view even if they didn't come into the white house with that. you write getting and staying in this president's good graces requires an extra helping of groveling, flip floppery and televised pronouncements. this aspect was on full display at wednesday's senate judiciary hearing where senator lindsey graham of south carolina and attorney general bill barr went out of their way to appeal to the president at the expense of their own credibility. what is happening? >> what is happening? there was a powerful piece in the "new york times" from james comey, the former fbi director who called donald trump an eater of souls. he said he eats your soul in small bites. it gets at the psychological fact of the trump white house. people who have had a long career as attorney general bar have had. why strike your credibility on a president who is so challenged with the truth? why stake your professional reputation on some of the actions that the president requires you to make. i was just blown away listening to lindsey graham open up that hearing the other day by reading out loud in the tone of complete moral outrage. text messages from fbi agents complaining about donald trump. they were actually more mild-mannered about donald trump than the things that lindsey graham himself said in 2016 about donald trump when he called the future president a cooke saying he was unfit for office. what is it that requires lindsey graham to do that? why be so over the top, flagrant and insulting to the american people as to say, you are idiots, basically. i'm allowed to change my mind and say anything i want because my only concern right now is to talk to the president of the united states. again, i'm just marveling over the substance of this. it's not just some rhetorical flip-flops. the attorney general gave an extraordinary statement of executive power. he said donald trump is like a king. donald trump can shut down any investigation of himself if he wants if he thinks it's unfair. is that how the government works? i don't think so. >> friends, thank you very much for your perspectives on this. remember to watch smerconish tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> what? >> michael's guest, rock star peter frampton. >> do you feel like i do? >> we didn't see that coming. >> is michael still there? >> i don't know. michael? >> yeah. >> will he do the thing where he plays the guitar through his mouth? >> do you mean the framp-tone? it might be there >> awesome. >> i'm not promising. >> michael will do do the whole show through the framp-tone. what will congress do about the attorney general and the president's administration st e stonewalling seemingly all investigations. we'll speak to a democrat running for president next. >> announcer: "new day" is brought to you by ihop. pancakes, pancakes, pancakes. -omar, look. [ thunder rumbles ] omar, check this out. uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog. [ rhythmic tapping ] hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there. -i can still taste it in my mouth! (alarm beeping) welcome to our busy world. where we all want more energy. but with less carbon footprint. that's why, at bp, we're working to make energy that's cleaner and better. we're producing cleaner-burning natural gas. and solar and wind power. and wherever your day takes you... we have advanced fuels for a better commute. and we're developing ultra-fast-charging technology for evs.. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. so we can all keep advancing. my mom washes the dishes... ...before she puts them in the dishwasher. so what does the dishwasher do? cascade platinum does the work for you, prewashing and removing stuck-on foods, the first time. wow, that's clean! cascade platinum. hyour shoe's untied.. ♪ ensure he's well taken care of, even as you build your own plans for retirement. see how lincoln can help. the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. what is deadly serious is the attorney general of the united states of america was not telling the truth to the congress of the united states. that's a crime. >> house speaker nancy pelosi says attorney general bill barr lied to congress last month. a growing number of democrats want him to resign. so will congress hold barr in contempt for not handing over the full mueller report? what will that mean? joining us now, democratic presidential candidate seth molton. if you believe the attorney general lied -- is that accurate? >> he clearly lied. >> now what? >> well, i think speaker nancy pelosi is right. he needs to resign. i have called for him to resign. i called for it the night it was apparent he lied. when i went to marine training, one of the first things you learn is that you can drop out of a run and they'll let you retake the run. you can fail a test and redo the test. if you lie about anything, you are gone that afternoon. that's the standard of integrity we expect from privates in the military. >> understood. >> that's not the code apparently in the administration. the question again is what are you going to do? >> he's not going to resign. >> no. he should be held in contempt. there are different options for what that means. you can hold someone in contempt and do nothing. you can technically put that person in prison. >> are you going to have them thrown in the house jail? >> he may like it. he has a lot of trump associates in there. a campaign reunion >> that's probably not going to happen. >> you could assess a fine to put pressure on him every day. the bottom line is that it's really sad that in this country we have to talk about the top law enforcement official lying before congress, violating the constitution that he swore an oath to protect and defend. >> i still don't get what the repercussion is. it can be sad or democrats can try to do something about it. does that mean you hold hearings about william barr? does that mean you hold impeachment hearings? >> i am absolutely for impeachment hearings. i voted for that with regards to the president last year. congress does two things. we debate things and vote on them. you should always debate before you come to a vote. i don't think the time is right to vote on impeachment of the president, for example. we don't have the full mueller report. i called a year ago to start discussing this. don't tell me when you have over 30 people indicted by the mueller investigation, the campaign chairman in prison now, that we shouldn't debate this as congress. that's our job >> here's what democrats say are the important issues to them now. we'll pull up our graphic. climate change rates top. medicare for all rates very high. guns and what to do about the gun violence, very high. free public college, impeaching trump is fifth. paying reparations, voting rights for felons. in terms of prioritizing, there are only 24 hours in a day. what does congress want to focus on? all of the barr and impeachment stuff or the rest of the things? >> how about congress does what's right by the constitution? those are polling results and that's important. we need to be in touch with the voters we represent. but the simple fact is the right thing to do under the constitution of the united states is to have this debate. have a check on the administration. that's our responsibility in congress. that's called leadership. that's called upholding the oath we swore when we got the job >> can we throw up the chart? medicare for all was number two on the list. as a presidential candidate and a member of congress you are not for medicare for all. you are for a public option, the medicare-x like tim kaine is proposing >> like president obama wanted under obamacare which is to have a public option to compete against private options and bring down premiums, prescription drug prices and improve outcomes for everybody. competition is good in the market. everybody in america deserves health care. it is a right. we shouldn't force everybody on a government plan designed in 1963 to get there. people like their private health care plans. let those plans compete. the postal service, a big government-run system, isn't exactly the hallmark of efficiency. imagine how much worse it would be if it didn't have to compete against u.p.s. and fedex. some people like u.p.s. and fedex. we should preserve that competition. >> as a veteran, is it fair to say you have had a less than satisfying experience with health care for yourself? >> that's more than fair to say. i'm the only candidate in the race who gets single-payer socialized medicine today because i made a commitment to continue going to the v.a. even as a member of congress. >> what's it like? >> the first time i showed up for surgery was at the v.a. in washington. i checked in at the desk, gave them my name and social security number. of course they should have a comprehensive record system. after 20 minutes they said, we can't prove you're a veteran. so we'll consider taking you as a humanitarian case. fast forward a day later. i got surgery for a hernia. the surgeon was great. she was volunteering her time there. she didn't have to work at the v.a., but wanted to take care of veterans. after the surgery which went well they sent me back to capitol hill, gave me strong painkillers. said when the anesthesia wears off, you will need this. i took them because, well, first of all, i didn't take them right away because we had votes and i wanted to remember. but then it started to hurt. i took one pill. they said you can take one, maybe two. one pill didn't help at all. i went back to get a second and looked at the bottle more closely. they had sent me home with the wrong medication. >> oh, gosh. >> that's the experience of a lot of veterans. there are things the v.a. does well and that's important to say. there are lessons that can be learned from a single-payer system. the v.a. negotiates drug prices which medicare doesn't do. that's something the v.a. does better. that's a lesson -- a positive lesson we can learn >> my question from a politics perspective is do you think medicare for all is bad politics because you have been quoted as saying we can't go too far to the left or we'll lose middle america. what's too far to the left? >> i think too far to the left is forcing everybody onto a government system. once you start asking -- i understand the top line polling. it sounds good. as soon as i start having this conversation with voters and listening to them and what they want they start to realize we could have a better system. we could have competition in the system. bank with a public option that competes against private plans would be better for everyone. it makes more sense. that's what voters want at the end of the day. they want better health care. they want coverage for pre-existing conditions. they also want an american system that makes sense >> now for the kicker. we want to take a minute to talk to you about one of our favorite topics. ♪ music. candidate mixed tape. we ask the candidates for your favorite musical genre. >> i'm all over the place. i grew up a classic rock guy. then i spent time in the marines where you are bombarded with country from every direction. my favorite band at the moment is zach brown band. when the to a great concert at fenway not long ago >> if it's at fenway it must be good. >> what about the cars, j.geils band, aerosmith. >> there are great ones. >> boston, eh. >> fair enough. we have a good music culture in massachusetts >> lots of live music. it's great there. congressman, thank you very much for being here in studio >> appreciate it. >> all right. the "new york times" says the fbi sent an undercover investigator to meet with a trump campaign adviser because they were suspicious of what he was up to. what do you call it? we discuss it next. i had no symptoms of hepatitis c. mine... ...caused liver damage. epclusa treats all main types of chronic hep c. whatever your type, ask your doctor if epclusa is your kind of cure. i had the common type. mine was rare. epclusa has a 98% overall cure rate. i just found out about my hepatitis c. i knew for years. epclusa is only one pill, once a day, taken with or without food for 12 weeks. before starting epclusa, your doctor will test if you have had hepatitis b, which may flare up and could cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you have had hepatitis b other liver or kidney problems, hiv or other medical conditions... ...and all medicines you take, including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with epclusa may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects include headache and tiredness ask your doctor today, if epclusa is your kind of cure. it's our best sale of the season semi-annual sale... featuring 20% off select diamonds. dare to be devoted. only at jared. the "new york times" reports that the fbi sent an undercover investigator to meet with george papadopoulos in london about two months before the 2016 election. here's what george papadopoulos told fox about that encounter. >> she barely spoke english. she was flirty and was trying to do two things -- one, extract information about my professional connections in the middle east and, two, to see if i had any information she could potentially extract for me about trump and russia which is nonsense. i was very suspicious. you know, from that moment i knew there was something wrong. i was laughing about it. >> joining us now is former fbi senior intelligence adviser and counter-intelligence analyst phil mudd. why would the fbi send an undercover investigator to investigate something suspicious? >> it's happened since the beginning of time. right after we decided prostitution was a good thing for humans, politicians about 10,000 years ago decided taking bribes and political corruption was a good thing. every day in america if you look at city councils up to the congress the fbi has to investigate allegations that someone who holds an office of public trust is taking money, for example, to turn a contract one way or another. to be simple about it, one of the ways you've got to investigate this, any of the allegations of corruption is human informants. that's a classic way to collect intelligence. the difference in this case is you have an allegation of involvement with a foreign adversary in a presidential campaign. the tactic of using informants in a political investigation is pretty common. i would bet you it's happening today >> how can the attorney general not know that? >> i don't understand how he doesn't know that. one of the basic -- if you look at the top five priorities of the fbi, when we used to discuss them all the time, you have counter terrorism, counter-intelligence. go to any field office, especially an fbi field office in a state capital and they'll say one of the priorities is investigating dirty politicians all the time. it's common practice. again, there are only two ways to collect intelligence. one is wires, listening to somebody's phone or collecting it on their email. one is informants. sending somebody in to elicit information when you ask a question. george papadopoulos, what are you doing with the russians. this is simple >> the attorney general of the united states sees it in a different category. here's what he said to congress in april. >> i think there was spying that did occur, yes. i think spying did occur. >> let me -- >> the question is whether it was adequately predicated. i'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated, but i would need to explore that. i think it is my obligation. >> was surveillance on george papadopoulos adequately predicated? >> boy, i think this is going to go ugly early. any time you investigate a complicated case like this you look at the volume of information files, et cetera that the mueller team acquired. that's a lot of court orders, interviews by witnesses who may be intimidated, a lot of informants. when you have the inspector general look in this case at a very unique in some ways investigation, the likelihood in the next, say, 30 to 60 days, the inspector general of the fbi or the department of justice doesn't come out with a report saying there is dirty stuff here. how significant it is. i guarantee you whatever it is, it could be a speck of dust on my lapel. the white house will say this shows you the fbi was corrupt and we did nothing wrong. the investigation will show that there were problems in thes s c. i suspect those problems will include pred indicatioication. >> you predict it wasn't warranted to see what george papadopoulos was up to? >> it's like the irs looking at a rich person's tax return. if you want to look at a thousand pages of tax return you'll say on page 66 you probably should have declared the dinner with a friend wasn't a business expense. you want to make sure -- or you could say there is $10 million you didn't declare and that's significant. any time the inspector general looks at a case they are going to find something. their business is to find something. i predict they are going to find something. i never saw an inspector general's report where they say, you guys are geniuses, there is nothing wrong here. i will be reading it from moment one to determine whether the public portrayal of it from the white house represents what the inspector general said. i will guess there will be an air gap there >> the point i'm trying to ask you about is obviously spying has a connotation of dark cloaks and skullduggery and all of that. i want you to keep reminding people that's kind of what you're tasked with doing. that's kind of what the fbi has to do every day >> how about investigation? >> yeah. >> it's an investigation. would you prefer the american law enforcement officials don't investigate public corruption? they are going to send in an informant to figure out if the politician wants to take a bribe. would you call that spying, protecting america's constitution? i would go with the latter. >> phil mudd, great to talk with you as always. >> thank you. >> an admitted terrorist is about to be a free man. the reasons why a federal judge feels he's a changed person. this is a fascinating and important story. that's next. woman: this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. vo: 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 if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman: help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. right here. right now. ♪ book now and enjoy free unlimited open bar and more. norwegian cruise line. feel free. hmm. exactly. and doug. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? oh. well, we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance, because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. [ loud crash ] yeah. he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ up in overnight, a convicted terrorist who planned to bomb new york city's subway is set to be released from prison in just days. a federal judge sentenced him to time served after helping the federal government catch terrorists. miguel marquez joins us with more. this is a fascinating story. to me, a sign of the times >> it was expected he would spend most of his life if not all behind bars. not anymore. >> the terrorist who plotted to blow up new york city's subway system ten years ago set to be free in days after prosecutors cited his, quote, extraordinary cooperation with u.s. investigators that led to terrorism charges against numerous individuals. >> justice was definitely served in this instance. >> reporter: at the sentencing, the judge praising his ten-year transformation saying is this the same mr. zazi i saw ten years ago? all indications are, it is not. investigators say he planned the suicide bombing with two others on the anniversary of the september 11 attacks in 2009. authorities had been surveilling them for months and followed zazi on his way from colorado to new york foiling the plot and arresting them. then attorney general eric holder said upon zazi's arrest there is no doubt american lives were saved. >> this was one of the most serious terrorist threats to our nation since september 11, 2001. it could have been devastating. >> reporter: zazi pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2010 and faced life in prison. he earned a lighter sentence after cooperating with the government, meeting with them more than a hundred times. prosecutors say he provided critical intelligence and unique insight regarding al qaeda and its members adding he cooperated at great personal cost to himself and his family and his help came in the face of substantial potential danger. speaking to the judge, zazi denounced his past radical islamic views saying, i tried my best to correct my horrific mistake by cooperating with the government. i am not the same person. i find it hard to imagine what i was involved in in 2008 and 2009. the judge telling zazi which once unthinkable second chance has come your way and you earned it. his attorney agrees. >> i have witnessed that transformation over the past ten years. the reality is the light at the end of the tunnel is extremely bright for him. >> reporter: now zazi was born in afghanistan, came here at 15 and said he loved new york's sports teams, was supportive of the u.s. invasion in afghanistan and in 2007, 2008, 2009 became radicalized. now set to get out in days >> what fascinates me is in the wake of september 11 and the wars in iraq and afghanistan there was a period where you had a sense that everyone connected to terrorism would go away forever. if they were going to be in prison they would be put away forever. things change. this reminds us that some of that was ten years ago now or longer >> the fear was like a steel trap that seemed inescapable. now with this, it's such a shocking sort of conclusion to this. you can see almost anything. it will probably cause a revisiting of guantanamo and other things that happened after september 11 >> they better be sure. they seem sure he's rehabilitated >> the judge, prosecutors. it is amazing to read through the transcript and through the trial and see how sure they are this man has changed. time will tell certainly >> miguel, thank you very much. facebook is banning several far right extremists from its services because it considers them dangerous. this includes the nation of islam leader louis farrakhan, alex jones, paul nalan, an an - anti-semite and paul lewis johnson >> a crushing setback for spacex. the company confirms the crew dragon capsule meant to carry humans was destroyed during a test fire. the crew dragon was undergoing engine tests when the capsule erupted in flames. you can see the images there. at the time spacex would only say an anomaly occurred. sad day for "star wars" fans like john berman. peter mayhew who played chewbacca in the films has died. >> screaming about it won't help you. >> it's not wise to upset a wookie. >> no one worries about upsetting a droid. >> a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. wookies are known to do that >> that's a good scene. this was a 7'0" actor. i didn't know that until today. this is from the original "star wars" trilogy. he reprised the role in two later films. mark hammill called him the gentlest of giants. this is him talking about carry fischer who had just passed away >> i think it was my size. you get security from someone who's a lot bigger than you are. i'm quite a lot bigger than carrie is. it was nice to be able to just have someone on the set that you could look up to. >> a lot of people looked up to him. 7'3". >> 7'3". i brought my c3po today. this is the original >> it's beautiful. >> the loss of peter mayhew who was 74, in a way that's our childhood. more and more of it seems longer ago. it's sad to see >> i liked when carrie fischer said, out of my way you walking carp carpet. >> he was the walking carpet. democrats want robert mueller to testify and answer this question -- why did you punt on obstruction of justice? a former watergate lawyer joins us next. 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. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ my car was swept away in a flash flood. after about five hours, a lot of phone calls, they sent a helicopter, picked me up to safety. this network saved my life. (vo) the network more people rely on gives you more. like one of our best phones when you buy another. that's verizon. rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. i got it! what? what? l.a. bookers book apartments and vacation homes as easy as hotels. ridin' scooter! l.a. baby! l.a. baby! be a booker you're welcome. at booking.com robert mueller testifies before congress he will be asked why he did not come to a conclusion on obstruction of justice despite detailing ten different instances in his report. the attorney general claims it caught him by surprise. >> as to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was going to let you decide? >> yes, i was surprised. we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. we did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. >> special counsel explained in great detail about why he didn't reach a decision, it was because justice department guidelines are that a sitting president cannot be indicted. joining us now is david dorsen, former assistant chief counsel on the senate's watergate investigation and the former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. thank you so much for being with us right now because it is in contention at this point, i do want your opinion. do you think it was right for robert mueller to decline any kind of suggestion about whether he thought the president obstructed justice? >> well, it's a complicated issue. i feel that he should have come to a conclusion, but he was being very generous to donald trump by not coming to a conclusion because he felt that his choice of possibly you're exonerating or indicting him was not an appropriate one here because, as you said, the justice department guidelines prohibited indicting a sitting president. so he did not want to be in the position of accusing a president of something and not being able to follow through with an indictment. >> and to be clear, it's justice department guidelines, it's not the law, but those guidelines do state clearly at this point that a sitting president cannot be indicted, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you say that based on your reading of the 448 pages or what you've read and i've read them, when you do read them you do get the sense -- let me pose this as a question. do you get the sense that if push came to shove robert mueller would say to the american people he does think that the president obstructed justice? >> well, i won't predict what he will say. i will say that the case for obstruction of justice is a very strong one. robert mueller is a very careful person and he may not want to be put in that position, but he laid out evidence of a strong obstruction of justice case. as a former federal prosecutor i would think this was a very strong case for obstruction of justice. >> that's why i think it's odd to an extent that the administration, william bar and the white house counsel wrote this five-page letter complaining about the mueller report saying that robert mueller should have made a ruling on obstruction. i feel like that might be disingenuous because had mueller actually come down on one side, at least based on the evidence and the way he states it, it does seem mueller may have said there was obstruction. what do you think mueller will say if he's asked about that in a house hearing? >> i think he certainly would say that he did not pass the buck to william barr. i think that was totally disingenuous and wrong of william barr to say that he was the designated decider. i think what robert mueller did was lay out the facts for somebody who could do something about it, which was the house of representatives or the senate. so i think barr's assumption or claimed assumption that mueller wanted him to decide is just totally wrong. >> despite the guidelines, though, you do wish that robert mueller had come to a conclusion? >> yes, i do, and the reason is that unlike most people who if they're criticized in a report have no access to the media to defend themselves, donald trump has access. so the point would be that this is a unique situation where robert mueller could have said i would have indicted or sought an indictment against the president, because the president can and has responded. so i just think that his reasoning was flawed. i hope he comes out and says what he thinks. i'm not sure he will. >> let me play you something the president said yesterday which gets to what could be the next step in this whole episode, which is will don mcgahn the white house counsel, in some ways the star of the mueller report, will he testify before congress? the president seemed to suggest that he doesn't want it. listen. >> i've had him testifying already for 30 hours. >> so is the answer no. >> i don't think i can let him and then tell everybody else you can't. i would say it's done. we've within through this. nobody has ever done what i've done. i've given total transparency. it's never happened before like this. >> does privilege cover don mcgahn if he's no longer in the white house? >> well, it would cover him except he has waived the privilege. president trump just makes things up. we had total access to everything in watergate. the idea that what is going on now is unprecedented is just false. i also want to say if mr. mcgahn is subpoenaed, he's going to have to testify or go to jail and i don't think donald trump is going to take his place in prison. so president trump says i won't let him testify. it's not for president trump to decide whether he will let a witness testify, now a private citizen, before a house of congress. they are equal branches of the government and they could subpoena him and have him testify without the permission of the president, which i just think the president has an exaggerated view of his status and powers. >> david dorsen, thanks for coming on and sharing your experience in these matters. really appreciate it. >> thank you very much. now to the college admissions scandal. the mother of a stanford student involved in this scandal is defending her actions. through her attorney she basically justifies the $6.5 million that she paid to the scam's ringleader, says it was supposed to be a donation. video has also surfaced of the woman's daughter saying she, quote, worked hard to get into stanford. what's this new wrinkle? >> what she says could have bigger implications and i will explain that in just a minute. first let's go over that. the mother only identified in this statement from her attorney as mrs. zou admits to paying $6.5 million to rick singer the mastermind of the college admissions scheme. she said she thought the money was a donation and did not intend to buy admission for her daughter into stanford university. she identifies her daughter as uzi zou. we found a video from 2017 where she speaks for 90 minutes and says in part i want to he will it you all that i gained my admission into stanford through my own hard effort. for example, i wasn't doing well academically when i was in elementary school but i can now go to stanford after working hard. she says her daughter got good grades, lots of acceptances. the mother said i thinked was helping the family guide the family through the admissions process. she said singer asked for the donation for stanford through his donation which we now know was a fake. she said the money would go towards the salaries of academic staff, scholarships and helping those students who would not be able to afford too to attend stanfo stanford. since the matters concerning mr. singer and his foundation have been widely reported, mrs. zhao has come to real leads she has been misled, her daughter was fallen victim to this scam. the father, the head of a chinese pharmaceutical company also released a statement on his company's website today saying none of the money connected to i thinked came from his company and this is a family matter. well, it's important to know the zhou family hasn't been charged and stanford says it never received any money from a family connected to singer or from singer himself for that amount. here is why this is so significant, it shows really how global singer's business was but it also shows how much of a con man he was, too, which talking to defense attorneys throughout this whole process his persuasiveness, the way he got business we are likely to see more of that, more from other parents who have pleaded not guilty in this case and may actually take this to trial. >> they're going to say they were scammed here by singer in all of this. >> exactly. >> it will be interesting to see. thanks so much on your continued reporting on this matter. "new day" continues right now. we're going to move on to make sure we secure the testimony of mueller. >> let's slam the special counsel claiming they were playing politics. >> this is a shot across the bow. with if you are not going to prosecute why include all this other information? >> i think the letter is a diversion, the special counsel went out of his way to be fair to the president. >> i've had him testifying already. i don't think i can let him and tell everybody else you can. it's done. >> the white house has no leverage over mcgahn. if he wants to testify there's nothing the president can do. >> executive privilege is there. he has a really strong case. >> if it goes to court he will be able to delay it but he will lose. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day." it is friday, may 3rd, 8:00 now in the east. former white house counsel don mcgahn had a lot to say when he spoke to special counsel robert mueller's team for more than 30 hours, but if president trump has his way mcgahn will not be doing any more talking. despite a subpoena from congress. so what do democrats do now about the stonewalling coming from the white house? >> the chairman of the house judiciary mmte

Related Keywords

Norway , New York , United States , Afghanistan , Iraq , South Carolina , Colorado , Boston , Massachusetts , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Togo , Russia , London , City Of , United Kingdom , New Yorker , America , Norwegian , Russians , American , Zach Brown , Miguel Marquez , Louis Farrakhan , Peter Mayhew , Tim Kaine , Nancy Pelosi , Susan Glasser , Doug Liberty , Robert Mueller , Phil Mudd , William Barr , Bob Mueller , Al Qaeda , Lindsey Graham , John Berman Peter Mayhew , Alex Jones , George Papadopoulos ,