people trying cases together under the very simple premise that two heads are better than one. neal, one of the things that you raised in an op-ed today in the new york times was that the questioning could actually be very simple and direct. that the special counsel and indeed mr. zebley alongside him should perhaps just be asked about the way the president has characterized mueller s findings. ask him if it s true that it proved no collusion, that it proved no obstruction. why do you think that s an effective approach? well, because i think ultimately this is a really simple set of questions, which is did the president obstruct justice? and after mueller turned in his report, the attorney general spun it without showing us the report for many weeks and said, oh, it shows no obstruction. the report actually says the reverse, which is why over 1,000 former federal prosecutors, including today jim comey in another part of the clip before nicolle wallace saying, look, if i read that
in which the attorney general, as neal says, has sort of redefined what the rules are and whether or not mueller should have said whether or not the president committed crimes. will robert mueller see those things that attorney general barr has said as the policy of the justice department that he should follow because they re proclamations by the a.g.? yeah, i think it puts bob in a very difficult spot. i mean, i ve learned to take that man at his word, having worked for him. by the way, his default is taciturn. so the notion that he would do something other than what he already said he would do when he gave his press conference, he said i m not going beyond my report. my report is my testimony. i have nothing to add. i understand that mr. barr opened the door. i get that. but i don t think it s in bob mueller s dna to do it. mmm-hmm. it may not be in his dna, but doesn t he have to? i mean, this is a guy who oversaw this 22-month investigation, didn t reach a conclusion becaus
news. well, tomorrow robert mueller himself will be answering questions from the judiciary committee and then from the intelligence committee in the house. it starts early. you should probably be watching by about 8:00 a.m. they re going to gavel the first hearing into play at about 8:30. we know that mueller is going to have prepared opening statements for each of the two committees. we know that he has not provided them to the justice departmentnd advance. he s not providing them to the committees in advance and we re darn sure he s not going to release them to the public in advance. so they re due to gavel in at 8:30. you should probably be watching before that. right up towards the top, mueller will be giving an opening statement. the first one to the judiciary committee committee. we have no idea what he s going to say and nobody else does either. we re going to talk tonight over the course of this hour how the committees are preparing. what they might ask. what they should ask. w
any decision-making process within the special counsel s office. that he should not talk about any charging decisions or anyone who is an uncharged third party. that, of course, would include the president and anyone related to the president who hasn t been charged. there has definitely been pushback, including from your chairman jerry nadler, that that justice department guidance is improper. what do you make of the justice department and their effort to sort of shape what s happening here? well, shape what s going to happen or continue to assist the president in his efforts to suppress the mueller report. i mean, the first thing that we had happen was just nondisclosure of the report. then we get a redacted report. then we have the justice department and the white house saying that witnesses can t appear or even when they do appear, as hope hicks did, not allowing them to answer questions and then we still have not receive the underlying evidence. we ve only received a little bit o
so i think simple questions are important. then i think two questions that go beyond simple are important as well, which is the we know that mueller s by the book. so he wants to stick to the four corners of the report. but the book has changed because after he turned his report in, barr said, oh, you could have actually told the american people did mr. trump commit a crime. and if, you know, now that barr is saying that s permissible for mueller to have done, i think barr i think mueller should be asked that question by congress and should answer that question because barr is saying that s fair game to answer, mueller. i think that s a really, really interesting question. i would be interested in your take on this, chuck, because barr has discussed a number of things, including decisions within the special counsel s office and in the justice department about the special counsel s findings. things that the justice department just told mueller he can t talk about. right. so th