protection from the law." a good country, right? we will be watching him monday. have a good weekend, everybody. bill o'reilly of next life. see you monday bill o'reilly up next life. see you monday. >> bill: "the o'reilly factor is on tonight. >> we can confirm now that the u.s. has lost tomahawk missiles at syria. >> the action by president trump has caused worldwide reaction. did the usa did the right thing by attacking the brutal dictator assad? we will have multiple tonight. >> it doesn't make sense for assad to make these decisions. >> bill: there is some on the friends you will not support american military action the matter what. we will take a look at that situation. >> the nomination of neil m. neil m. gorsuch to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states is confirmed.
>> also ahead, the usa has a brand-new supreme court justice. is that a good thing for you? caution. you are about to enter into the no spin zone. that "the factor" begins now. hi max, i'm bill o'reilly. thank you for watching the sniper the usa attack syria, that is -- around nine eastern time, 50 missiles were launched from american warships in the eastern mediterranean sea. 59 missiles hit their targets. the goal is to destroy an air base from which syrian planes recently dropped sarin gas on civilians, killing 30 children. 30. and 20 women, according to the syrian observatory for human rights. according to reporting based on a variety of cities, this is the
fifth time, at least, the fifth time, syrian dictator assad has violated the geneva conventions and use poison gas to go civilians get back in 2012, president obama threatened assad. >> the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally on acceptable. and if you make a tragic mistake of using these weapons, they will be consequences and you will be held accountable. >> bill: but assad is not held accountable. but instead, , the obama administration did what it always did, talk, and announced a deal with the dictator. a fascinating footnote to that is susan rice was on point alongside john kerry. >> we were able to find a solution that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known in syria in the way that use of wars would never accomplish. >> with respect to syria, we struck a deal where he got 100%
the new president on the ascending a message to the worl world, the united states will not tolerate war crimes from syria. the action is a reaction, so security has tightened here in the usa as we become a bigger target for evildoers. summing up, america was justified in destroying the syrian air force. the lone superpower has a responsibility. even most of the trump haters in congress agree that if we can stop children from being gassed to death, we should do so. and that is the memo. the top story reaction at this hour, joining us from palm beach florida where he's covering president trump's meeting with the chinese leader, john roberts. understanding that president in china has departed from mar-a-lago. what's going on there now? >> he left this afternoon, just having a typical friday night. he's having the rest of the week and here. the president, bill, i'm told is
feeling pretty good about what happened last night. he thinks that the military did a terrific job while one cruise missile fell into the sea, 59 of the 59 remaining hit their marks and he is facing praising the military to his staff and his friends that they performed marvelously here. and he's happy to see you in the most part with the international reaction is, he does know there are a couple of numbers in congress saying he should've come today, but he feels like he's an absolute firm ground here because as he pointed out last night this was a matter of urgent national security for the united states because i'm told the president believes that if bashar al-assad was able to do this and not suffer some consequent support this, that would normalize, at least in the area of the world, the use of chemical weapons and therefore might come back to bite the united states at one point if somebody decided, well, if bashar al-assad can use weber chemical weapons, will use the weapons.
>> bill: i.d. rapid fired answers. the chinese foreign minister said they shouldn't have done it. everyone should come down. was there anything coming outside of the president talking with mr. trump today on the missile attacks? anything at all? any utterance? spent well, there wasn't any public utterance, but i'm told, bill, that the white house believes it was pretty impressive show of force that the president went out last night to his chinese counterpar counterpart. and that will be taken back to beijing and sort of turned into that whole pot with north korea where it might give them something else about leaving mara longo -- and president trump's request to lean on north korea. if they do it in syria, but they do it in north korea? >> bill: did we get anything in north korea, any pr better cooperation in china? did they say anything? >> bill: >> they didn't say anything there was an agreement to deal with.
it was discussed. >> bill: but we don't have any joint statements? >> no concrete joint statement on that. no. but the secretary of state rex tillerson he's very disappointed with the russian response to all of this. according to rex tillerson, he said that this means russia is still in the camp of bashar al-assad. he says he's disappointing, but he's not surprised to hear what he's heard out of russia. he look, this is how we'll deal with these guys in syria. if you want to deal with bashar al-assad, it's going to put you on the wrong side of history. >> bill: john, we appreciate it very much. let's bring in catherine harris joining us for washington. doesn't seem to be any chinese reaction in the sense that sometimes after a meeting, a day and a half meeting, there is a joint statement that we didn't get any joint statements. putin postures behind the scenes.
is there any serious, serious reaction tonight? >> i wouldn't say serious reaction, but i would say the leading edge of this investigation right now is into whether russia had some kind of role, bill, in this chemical attack earlier this week, and whether a second strike on that town in syria was really an effort to destroy evidence and be part of a larger cover-up of that crime. and that is really where military intelligence is focused tonight. >> bill: they had a drone, i understand! >> correct. >> bill: russian drone over the area where the chemicals dropped and killed children. and a russian bomber bombed the hospital where civilians were taken. is that what we are talking about tonight? >> that's right. there was a drone immediately over the site where the sarin gas was released. and then about 4-5 hours later when the victims have been taken to the hospital, another drone showed up. shortly after that, there was a military strike on that hospital. the people i'm talking to tonight say that fits a patent
that they have seen before with the syrians especially and possibly this case the russians that they wanted to destroy evidence at that hospital compound. >> bill: we can i.d. drones anyway, so they were russian drones in that area. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> bill: okay, now. the ron pauls of the world say, "oh, no... how solid is the evidence that assad killed these 20 kids with sarin gas? >> i was told by my contacts that we have very high confidence and there were multiple streams of information from overhead imagery to radar, from information gathered by our partners in the region. and today they release a graphic that showed radar information. and you can see the syrian government chats over the site of the attak twice within a nine minute time
slot which is exactly when the sarin gas was released. there is really no doubt. >> bill: okay. there was always doubt among those who will not believe, no matter what you present, through them. i iran has been strangely signed about this. i haven't heard any saber rattling. have you? >> that's a little bit more worrying. what you don't know. >> bill: right. >> one of the possible plans for retaliation that they considered when they were planning this whole thing out is that syria and iran would use their proxy hezbollah to launch an attack, that third party retaliation. we have not seen that yet, but that is an idea that was on the table, bella. >> bill: do we have any information on the swedish attacks, again, president trump made that a centerpiece that sweden was destabilized by all of these muslim refugees pouring into the country. the country reacted vehemently against president trump, but we
now have -- it will take a terror attack in stockholm, right? >> that's right. a truck was hijacked and then it was driven right into this department store in central stockholm. really, at the height of rush hour, people were getting ready for the weekend. this sadly fits a profile that we've seen mostly with isis or self radicalized al qaeda followers. and they are using trucks and cars -- >> bill: to kill people speak . >> today, they took one cost suspect into custody, but we have not been able to verify his claims is accurate. but these are the types of plots as you know, bill, that are almost impossible to disrupt. and they go right to the heart of the economy and also people's sense of morality what is right. i mean, it's so offensive. >> bill: we appreciated as always, thank you. next on the run down from a senior u.s. military officials
effective? >> it was effective in two ways. number one, punishing bashar al-assad for the use of chemical weapons and reestablishing u.s. military credibility in the region. a lot of people talk about political solutions, they talk about the poetic solutions. there is never been at the poetic solution or political solution in the absence of military credibility. we can't predict where president trump is going from here, but in the narrow entrance for punishing bashar al-assad for using chemical weapons, and setting an effective deterrence for future use of chemical weapons, this attack was a success. >> bill: you heard of the talking points memo that the obama administration trotted out susan rice and john kerry a few years back to say, no, we negotiated with assad and he gave up all of his chemical weapons. of course, that turned out to be false. do you see this as mr. harmer does as an effective use of military power that will inhibit future chemical attacks?
>> um, i think it was a very effective attack. i think it was smart to uses with cruise missiles. there are still russians at the base to attest the accuracies of the weapon systems. i do not think it will guarantee it won't be used again. i think there is a very limited message being sent to assad, a very powerful message, overwhelming force. it was as our friend already said, a narrow message well delivered. but no. i don't see this guaranteeing. i think assad will trot this out again. and if we got the russians involved -- >> bill: why would he do that though? if you trotted out again, that doesn't make any sense to me. he knows that trump is going to up it, because trump is not going to say, "okay, i'm not going to do anything after you spit in my eye after i give you a warning." the next time instead of it
being 50, it will be 150. it will devastate the whole infrastructure of syria. don't you believe that? don't you think donald trump is going to back away from a punk like assad if he uses gas again? >> i didn't say anything about the president of united states backing up. you asked me if it's going to stop it -- >> bill: why would he risk his own neck? >> okay. we are dealing with a crazy man in the middle of a war with a thousand different factions, and he still has, i believe, he destroyed 1300 tons of that stuff back in 2012-2013 and he still got it. i think you could use it again in a few months. in small doses. i wouldn't be surprised at all if he uses it again. >> bill: mr. harmer, would you be surprised if this guy because it again knowing that the next time, going going to be ten times worse? >> i would be surprised if basher assad uses chemical weapons again for two reasons. number one, he cannot afford
direct conflict with the united states. he can survive with al qaeda and isis. what he cannot do is cross a redline that has been firmly established and a penalty is being affixed to that. second of that, bashar al-assad's military is on the narrow margins of survivability. the air force and all practical purposes barely exist anymore. the syrian air army no longer desists. that is why they need conscripts and mercenaries from afghanistan, he -- the syrian people will not fight on the behalf of bashar al-assad. he does not have the bandwidth to risk conflict. >> bill: doesn't he have the iranians -- >> he didn't have it before, guys! >> bill: let's not allocate our coverage. doesn't he have the iranians helping him out, though? >> absolutely. he's got the full support of the iranian government, the islamic revolutionary guard, the full support of hezbollah and russia. with that said, bashar al-assad
has a very narrow definition of success right now and that staying alive. there is no fallback option. those under to >> bill: you mentioned this last night. it russia. is russia stupid enough to get involved with poison gas? >> bad drones, as you talk about with catherine. i don't think -- i don't think, i know. assad is not doing anything without russian approval and russian involvement. this country was gone and lost until the russians showed up. assad is absolutely dependent on -- >> bill: if you were putin and you knew the world is horrified at poison gas killing 20 children. why would you -- i mean, why? >> i'm not sure, bill. look. why would a former kgb lieutenant colonel say okay to use sarin gas? >> bill: this kind of attention to syria because i
think this hurts assad. his survivability rate just went down. >> of course it does. the russians -- the russian involvement in this, they haven't stopped. again, i say this. they have been in syria, assad killing his own people. which got everyone obviously upset about this is the 20 kids, babies, that were killed. >> bill: yeah, the gas. >> i get it. but he's been doing this for 5-6 years. i don't see any reason that they gave him gas. putin would say, "don't do that." >> bill: do you think putin would okay a gas attack, mr. harmer? >> i think it's a dispute that the russians weren't aware that syria was resuming its chemical weapons capacity. i don't think the russians suggested this for there's a big difference between assad being dependent on russian help, which he is, and assad functioning as a mercenary for the russians, which is a stretch.
>> bill: the warships that putin is moving into the mediterranean sea, is that just for show? >> yes, that's part of the counteraction package. they send their ships in close proximity edge, it's is an easy way to show that they are viable, they can still stand up to us without risking escalation. it happens in the pacific, atlantic, mediterranean, it's not a big deal. it's just a show of force. >> bill: do you agree with that? >> yeah. this ship has been coming in the mediterranean a lot. >> bill: check out colonel hunt's new book "without mercy" about nukes in the hands of terrorists. directly ahead, security tightened all over the world after the attack and another alleged terrorist incident in sweden, as we mention. now judge neil gorsuch shea supreme court's to justice. what does that mean for you? those reports after these messages.
white house security council under presidents bush and obama. do you see any unintended consequences from this attack in syria? >> um, there's always a possibility for unintended consequences. i feel like the demonstration would not do this if they had not gamed out the potential side effects here. there's always a risk wherever the united states undertake military action abroad, whether or not we have come under direct attack or not, there will be risks here. this is not offensive action, as you know. that the united states was very have taken. the russians shows a side in the syrian conflict a few years ago when they decided to insert themselves under it under the false pretense of fighting isis. this is a smart move and a brave, bold move on the part of the u.s. but really defensive. >> bill: you were in the obama white house, i will play two sound bites with kerry and susan
rice. "we didn't negotiate it, we didn't need to go to war," that was the mantra of president obama eight years, we can negotiate anything. and we saw, he probably destroyed some stuff, but he did destroy all stops, and that is when babies are dead. when you are in the obama white house, did you notice there was a reluctance to do what donald trump did? >> well... i don't think you had to be at the white house to notice the reluctance to do it. >> bill: you are on the outside looking out. did you notice that when you were there that reluctance? >> i will go with yes. i think it would be hard to not see, you know -- the decisions that the folks made in the administration in 2013 when i was already gone from the white house, i did not see firsthand. but the results of the conversations they had were seen all around the world. and the effects are felt up
until today. so it's obvious there was rekay. colonel wood, when you saw the missiles hit the airfield in syria, did anything pop in your mind like a ron is doing this and put in is going to do that? that's what we mean by unintended consequences. >> i think there will be unintended horizontal consequences where putin will not see whole opportunity to up the game in syria, especially if he doesn't want to go to war in the united states. but he can do that in other theaters, ukraine continues, dismembering that country. much more provocative action against the baltic states. very concerned about what they are doing in the baltics and the are tics. there are a lot of other places where putin can play a strong hand to stymie u.s. efforts, dismember alliances, and certainly with a veto power on the u.n. security council, they can create all kinds of havoc. anything to do with israel or
u.s. efforts to get sanctions against north korea. reactions in the south china sea and against china i think it's a pretty broad playing board and putin will move his checkers where he thinks he can get an upper hand in other areas. >> bill: but i can't imagine that val ida between you and cares about assad on a personal novel or any other -- the chinese were interesting because the foreign minister came out and he didn't really condemn the action. he just said that everyone should calm down. that's why i was looking for a joint statement of any kind by the chinese president and donald trump, but today we didn't get anything. all they did is they had snacks at mar-a-lago i guess. i don't know what else they did there. >> they sidestepped out of the resort. got on the plane. >> bill: there wasn't any -- >> we will settle on out of here. it was strange.
i can't imagine how awkward, like, you know on the protocol level that must've been for these two leaders the first time they've ever met face-to-face? so many issues between them and meanwhile there is this huge elephant in the room, which is that the president is going back to his room at night and, you know, dropping bombs in syria. it's a little bit -- >> i don't think it was awkward for max trump at all. he saw this as a big advantage. comes in big and bold, taking military action against a bunch of vile people, dropping sarin gas on davies at all. it came from a competitive advantage in any -- >> bill: the chinese never show their hand. they never let you know what they are thinking. the chinese bureaucrats i'm talking about. >> sure. >> bill: so you don't know, you know. there is a's face they put on. i was looking for something out of president xi, we don't
even know if you like the food or anything. >> is that what you want to know, bill? "how were the burgers"? >> it was very aggressive, no warning, he just acted. and ten hours later, the chinese government is trying to figure out with that. i'm not surprised by the silence or having to recalculate their interest in north korea. keeping mom was probably the best course of action for the chinese. >> bill: they would do that anyway on american soil. but it was fascinating to see donald trump -- oh, resident xi past the pipe. by the way, in 3 minutes, 60 tomahawk's launched into syria. would you like a little bit more tv? during the dinner, that's where they all went. i thought they would wait until
"factor" would finish. we will talk to the white house advisor, dr. sebastian gorka about the world reaction from the missile attack. now the judge gorsuch is on the court and liberal americans are not happy! stay tuned for those reports.
gorsuch is -- is this good for the folks? professor, cut through the nuclear option and all the stuff. the regular people, the regular americans, many of them who don't even know who judge gorsuch is or what he does. is this man going to improve the country for the folks? >> i think he's going to improve the court. i think this country is better off when you have people who are intellectual leaders. too often we select nominees because they have never had an interesting thought in their lives. we really need people who see a horizon that can describe where the law should go. this is a conservative president that has the right to nominate a conservative -- >> bill: but how conservative is mr. gorsuch? >> he is conservative. he is a textualst.t
-- she's very conservative when -- looking at the original content. none of those things should bar him from the court. a lot of people share those views. >> bill: you've testified for judge gorsuch. >> i did. >> bill: what did he say? what did you see. >> i sense that gorsuch is something of a departure, welcome departure in that he has a long record. he's not a blank slate. we know what type of justice he will be. he will be a very good one for people might not like his conclusions always, but i think he's an honest intellectual and that honesty may take him across the ideological spectrum. >> bill: that's what i said last night. there is a chance in some of these rulings that conservatives will be angry if it is not like scalia. scalia was a -- i've never seen gorsuch promote that. >> that's the key people
conservatives, i've said for months, you should be not trying to replace a conservative with a conservative, but an intellectual with an intellectual. that is what gorsuch is and that is what scalia was. >> bill: okay. do you believe that judge gorsuch will be sworn in monday morning got caught up in the trump hate campaign! >> honestly i don't see a basis to oppose gorsuch, so i hope he doesn't carry a lot of baggage into this. a lot of democratic senators didn't feel they could vote for him, which i think is a terrible shame. >> bill: why? why didn't they think they could vote for him? three did. but why do the other things they couldn't? what you are saying is true. honest man, very smart, forward-looking, respects the constitution above all. why couldn't our democratic elected senators vote for him? >> i think it's an incredible of the ploys of
to -- we can no longer separate people from the politics. yet in honest good faith jurist that judge neil gorsuch is. >> bill: senator feinstein said she couldn't vote for gorsuch because she didn't believe the constitution was a living document that evolves as society evolves. i guess it's a living document. you have to feed it, walk it. that's why she couldn't vote for him, no matter how brilliant or honest, it had to be a justice who believes in evolution of the constitution. you -- your head must've blown off. >> i thought that was a particularly sad moment, because i have great reservations about the cause of a living constitution because i don't know how it's been defined and i'll tell you -- >> bill: is defined by your ideology, whatever you think is
the right policy. >> there is this broad spectrum that includes now with justice gorsuch on monday that people often separate originalists from living constitutions. there is this medal, good faith jurist that try to get it right. in the case of judge gorsuch, he starts with this original sense of the -- to present that move out of the main screen is the czar. >> bill: you see two more things really quick. second amendment is now bolstered by judge gorsuch. i think he would agree with that. second 11 religious people. they >> bill if there is a major case that he's going to hit the court just in time to hear the trinity lutheran church case. it has a huge case. >> bill: tell me what that case is quick to make >> this
was a church that was denied funds to a repay their playground because they are a religious organization. other nonfor profits that were given their funding. the church said that is not fair. just because we are religious groups, we are still nonfor profit. this is a case that could have far-reaching implications for how they handle the religion clauses of the first amendment. >> bill: i think religious people should be celebrating over the weekend, it's palm sunday and everything. that was a good discussion there, professor. >> thank you. >> bill: you didn't come across as a pinhead. >> [laughs] >> bill: i even understood it. you did a great job. we appreciate it. >> thanks, bella. >> bill: when we come back, missile attack defense. some people think president trump's actions were flat-out wrong. we will go to white house advisor to find out what could come next as president trump sending messages to the world. we will be right back.
dr. nick gillespie, , and emma ashford who works the cato institute. you know, a lot of people say if you are going to kill babies with poison gas, somebody's got to take care of you. and that somebody was president trump and the united states. you oppose it. why? >> well, i think that is frankly a false argument. i think that the attacks that president trump undertook does nothing to resolve the syrian civil war. it does nothing to prevent the further killing of syrian civilians. it makes the isis campaign more difficult, and it risks dragging us a larger conflict in syria. those are big negatives that we should be paying more attention. >> bill: that's why we have you on the air. so let's walk through and we will get to talk to gillespie. he uses poison gas, assad. that's against the geneva convention. the united nations is not doing anything because i never do. so donald trump, i am personally
going to write this wrong and i'm going to hit him, and if he doesn't again i'm going to hit him and take them out completely. you don't think that is an inhibitor? you don't think that's going to stop assad from using the gases? >> i don't think these tracks we undertook will do much to dissuade assad. >> bill: you expect assad to drop more poison gas on the civilian people? >> it's a distinct possibility. and even if he doesn't use chemical weapons, we have done nothing from this waiting him using barrel bomb's and other very nasty weapons to kill the people he's killed. >> bill: i want to wrap up the first round with you. so if you were the president, you would not have taken any action against assad for what he did? >> i wouldn't have taken military action like president trump did. i would have tried to restart diplomatic negotiations -- >> bill: like the obama administration and you her john kerry and susan wright say "we got it all out there," but they did not.
let's go to dr. gillespie. the emotional -- you are the president, and you do nothing to assad after he does that? >> first off, it's not up to the united states to enforce the geneva conventions. >> bill: cool would that be >> bill: who would that be? >> we are coming out of 15 years in the middle east where we have accomplished very little other than destabilizing the entire region and creating a iran -- >> bill: say on this -- >> no. >> bill: whose responsibility is this? >> the united states could start to build a coalition in the area. it's up to them to deal -- >> bill: if saudi arabia launched a few tomahawk's, you would be okay with a? >> it wouldn't be the united states. as a citizen of the united states, it's not our business to police what syria is doing in its civil war.
>> if that carries forth to other countries, you have a water barbarity so nobody is going to support the geneva convention -- >> that is a leap of -- you know, a leap of judgment that is not borne out by the facts. >> bill: weight. we all see what's happening in north korea, iran, do -- >> is what's happening in libya, after we dropped bombs in the name of humanitarian intervention, -- >> bill: you would hope that this is not an occupying situation. >> it's the beginning of one. >> bill: i'm going to go to dr. ashford. 30 seconds each. how would you deal with assad. specifically, dr. ashford? >> i would try and push for a diplomatic solution. i know what you are saying, but the obama administration try to do this, but president trump is
in a much better situation for far better relations with the russians, taking a harder line on iran -- >> bill: so you say diplomacy? >> i do say diplomacy because it's the only way civil war ends. >> bill: dr. gillespie, how do you deal with assad? >> we do not have to dealassad. our interest in iran right now or in the middle east has to do with islamic terrorism, not the assad regime which is a disgusting regime. you go after the terrorists. we are not in the business of policing what the assad does. >> bill: we are going after terrorists. we are doing two things here. very good discussion, appreciate it. sebastian gorka on next. we will get the white house. it what severity as it stands tonight. that as "the factor" continues around the usa and all the worl world.
>> bill: let's go back to washington and bring in sebastian gorka, deputy assistant to mr. trump. we assume that you are happy the missile attack was successful. you are a strategist, dr. gorka. we heard a lot tonight that this is not going to dissuade assad from using gas, he will use it again. number one, i don't believe that what i could be wrong. if he does do it again, have you guys been game planning for that? >> oh, absolutely. there are people inside the of the pentagon, people on the national security council, my good friends, they have gamed out the possible scenarios. unfortunately, i don't want to disappoint you, mr. o'reilly. unlike the last administration, we are not going to give those away in advance because that is very, very unwise. >> bill: sure. i think everyone understands that. except penn had a journalist who
except pinheaded journalist who goad you into doing that. you will have a plan, there are other things that may happen. am i correct on both of those? >> absolutely. >> bill: here's a key question. would you, you being the white house represent in the white house, tell assad if you use poison gas again, something worse will befall you. will that message be delivered personally to you? >> that message, i think, there are many ways to communicate strategic narratives. what you have seen in the last 48 hours is president trump being more decisive than obama was in the last eight years. messages can be given directly or indirectly. again, we are not going to give away how we communicate it. >> bill: would you give it directly because you could if you wanted to? >> yes. it's completely within the
mandate of the president, secretary to listen, or even secretary mattis to do that. >> bill: you don't love assad, you want to be on this planet, you better not do it again because it's not going to be pleasant. iran, we haven't heard much from them. usually, they've got a lot of people in syria doing bad things. can you tell us anything about their reaction? >> yes. i think is very interesting in the past eight years, they have been very, very loud, they have been very offensive in their comments even after events such as the hostage taking of our naval personnel and other other very dangerous things that they have done. i think their silence is a very positive sign because as the sponsor of the regime in damascus, they have to draw conclusions as well. this is about messages that are sent to nations like russia, china, and iran. >> bill: let's take russia. if putin condemns the act and sends a warship into the
mediterranean, saber rattling a little bit. you take that seriously or do you think that is where short? >> that is a classic standard operating procedure. we are the most powerful nation in the world has ever seen. this is just classic classic showmanship. it's not even brickman ship. they don't have the capacity to do something with our naval basil. it standard kgb kind of tactics coming out of moscow. >> bill: as he mentioned we did not get any chinese reaction at mar-a-lago. we did get a statement from the foreign minister that he wants everyone to calm down. that channel, do we know anything about how china processed the attack? >> if i did, i wouldn't be talking about it in front of your huge audience, i'm afraid, mr. o'reilly. >> bill: can you give me, again -- [site] looks, we are all americans. we want safety for this country.
we don't want to tea them off. do you think they were upset that we did this to syria or they don't care? >> i think they are incredibly strategic. they play for the long game. if there is one nation out there that understands the long game, it's china. look at history, look at sun tzu, look at everything they publish and classify domain. i think they understand. i think the bigger part of this is a new, really, this is proof that we have a new president and they are going to have to draw the right conclusions with regards to countries like north korea. i think it will have a positive effect because they are not irrational, bill. they are not irrational. >> bill: so you can reason with the chinese food that's what you're saying. >> yes. >> bill: what's the deputy assistant do, what do you do? >> whatever the president, whatever jared kushner wants me
to do. >> bill: would you read that and give us analysis, is that what you do? >> it can be. i meet with delegation with our allies, our partners. i work with counterterrorism issues, i was asked for my opinion on the first eos, including the immigration ones. i am your general player in the national security field within the white house. >> bill: you are the utility player. >> i am. >> bill: you play every position in the infield. >> that's it. >> bill: is a pleasure to have you on tonight, doc. factor tip today. would you like to meet jesse watters? if so, why? the tip moments away.
number one, killing the rising sun right behind number three after seven months in the marketplace we believe that the first ever in the american publishing world. but you remain remember that killing kennedy's number one, while killing lincoln was number two in 2012. i know some of you won't believe me but there was a time when i wanted to a bookstore saying i won't never get a book published, it's true. but i persevered, the key to life. thank you all for supporting the books. prior to pearl harbor, the world atrocities all over the globe. are we going to sit idle while iran, russia, china, and north korea plan our demise? nuclear weapons have changed war strategy, countries cannot launch a large scale attacks anymore, war is now. if the liberal democrats are decrying the syrian bombing are condoning the use of chemical weapons on babies which is why the liberal community really isn't decrying it, a few, not
many. the attack is justifiable on a human rights basis the liberal community is on human rights, that their dilemma. if missoula, montana, where is the u.n. help on that syria, where it always is, being discussed in meetings. mr. oh, you let lois lerner off too easy, what she did at the irs was criminal and she should have gone to prison. this may come as a shock to you but i do not have the power to incarcerate. if i did, prison overcrowding would be a far worse problem that it is now, i would open alcatraz, i would get to devils back from france. am i rambling here? i believe i am. dan kaiser omaha, nebraska, what makes people think that even if susan rice is guilty, if director called me will not prosecute clint and he will not go after miss rice.
i am so tired of congressional hearings that go nowhere, me too. if roger ellis, north hampton england, your interview with ambassador bolton was just brilliant, certain questions and excellent responses, the segment should be used as a teaching tool for college courses. i appreciate that. if killing the rising sun is amazing, although today's american warriors are just as brave, the jodi's home and on campus don't have the necessary love of country to win a war is brutal against the japanese. i've thought about that a lot and you are most likely correct. america's kids raised during the great depression during the 1930s, much tougher than modern young people. here's the thing, future wars as i mentioned will not need millions of infantry, there will be high-tech driven. the weapons today make world war ii tactics obsolete. after reading old school, i am rooting for global warming, it will melt the snow flakes.
read old-school, you and bruce fiercely and had me rolling with laughter. we have loads of snow flakes down here, it's a white out. old-school life in the same lane is a great combination of wit and wisdom, i think you and if you're staying for running it. finally tonight factor "tip of the day," i want to thank everybody who is purchase tickets to the spin the stops here live shows. your humble correspondent will see everybody in baltimore, maryland, at the royal farms arena friday, september 22nd. the next night we scurry on down to tampa, florida, a nice venue down there. december 15th, friday will be at caesar's palace, always be a great time, waters will be parted.
finally, saturday december 16th, great early christmas gift. we'll be at the honda center in anaheim, california, that show almost 40% sold out after one day. waters does most of our show in the audience you might get a close look at his world. ticket info on info on billoreilly.com, shows will sell out so we hope you check it out, make great gifts for all occasions. factor "tip of the day," that is it for us tonight please check out fox news factor website which is different from billoreilly.com. if we would like you to spout off about the factor, name in town if you wish to opine, word of the day, do not be's holisti holistic. that's it for us tonight on this
he praised it today. >> the president senate voted to repeal and replace the obamacare disaster. we are one step closer to liberating our citizens from this obamacare nightmare. and delivering great health care for the american people. we will do that too. i am back in the center of the america heartland, far away from the washington swamp, to spend time with thousands of true americans patriots. >> and the president had a stern warning to fellow republicans. >> every republican running for office promised to repeal and replace this disastrous law. now they must keep their
promise. the senate is working not only to repeal obamacare but to deliver great health care for the american people. any senator who votes against repeal and replace is telling america that they are fine with the obamacare nightmare. i predict they will have a lot of problems. >> that was the president today. feeling his roots. back with his supporters. feeling optimistic about the future. welcome on the personal tonight. >> excited to be with everyone. especially jesse waters. >> what did you think today this terms of the president's remarks and where we are now? >> he was in his element. i mean, he was feeding off that crowd. i think he was reframing his debate that the republicans
failed to frame this as obamacare is failing. there are good parts of obamacare the republicans don't want to admit. a lot more people were covered. but how do you play for that? president obama didn't lay that out and lied about you can keep your plan and your doctor. the republicans, we don't know what they would wind up with. it will be amended dozens of time. to frame it as we are in trouble with obamacare, premiums are escalating, let's move this forward, was smart on his part. feeding off that crowd, he would get the applause and start and wander around like a prize fighter and reveling. >> yes. >> remember when the house passed. it was a big celebration and a song and dance. they made a mistake. when the house passed the bill,
it was the first round in the prizefight. he was dancing in the end zone in the rose gardner. >> we have been waiting for president trump to push obamacare repeal and replace. he finally comes out swinging. we could have used that in june and yell. it's late july, and he comes out swinging. he is putting pressure on senators. that's what you need to do. he said it. it's dating. obamacare is in a death spiral. everybody believes it and knows it. we know the thing is failing. juan knows it. >> i am in shock. >> they talked about it in virginia. there are people lining up for health care and they don't have any health care. premiums are sky rocketing. juan, the bill is a disaster. no one likes it.
everybody wants to replace it, but these little daffy senators want the medicare money. that's the truth. >> medicaid. >> yes, the medicaid money. >> [laughing] >> the same thing. different cos -- cousins. i don't know if they will get the medicaid money, but health care is failing. >> kimberly help him out. the president campaigning in different states to get support. out there back with his base.
the speech might have been different if the motion to proceed failed. but senator john mccain gave a talk that everyone liked. there are some questions about the merits of the proposals going forward and senator mitch mcconnell also delivered. there was teamwork here. and even dean heller from nevada voted with the majority. when the president called all of the senators to the white house for lunch. he said if you can't vote to have a conversation about this, this is a big problem. they realized they would number deep problem. it's time to have this debate. there has been enough time talking around the edges. they will go forward and have lots of amendments and see what they come up with. >> right. they had the ingredients.
let's make jam, shall we? dana perino predicted they would get the votes to go forward and have the conversation to get this done. they have been complaining about obamacare and the fact they wanted to do something about it. now is the time. >> yes. debate what? we don't know what! you are buying lock, stock and barrel, like an empty vessel and saying let's have this debate. >> they know what the ingredients are. >> do the republicans know what is in the bill they will debate? no. john mccain today said he would never vote for any of the bills that are on the floor right now. you have people like rob out of ohio, dean heller out of nevada. paul and from west virginia. >> what is their point? >> they will never vote for any of the bills that are currently there.
>> that was their point. >> this is really an empty act. >> you don't think they will vote for it if it's amended in a way they support? >> no. the dynamic is evident. if you amend it to appeal to the u-conn huski conservatives, you will lose the moderates. >> that's a more important reason for president trump to keep doing what he is doing. >> for what? >> you said he is good at what he does and getting support out there. >> [overlapping talking]. >> the republicans on capital one are saying he doesn't know anything about health care. but we could use him out there using his twitter account. he is out there. even in the speech today -- >> [overlapping talking] >> they liked him helping them
get re-elected. >> how many of those republicans won by larger margins than trump. >> they fear trump? >> no. >> i think he embarrassed himself in front of the boy scouts yesterday politicizing the jamboree. there is total devastation in europe. murder in chicago. the founding fathers would protect industries. what industries were under? >> chicago run by a democratic mayor. does donald trump want to send in the national guard. >> that's another show. today we saw the emotional return of senator john mccain to the senate floor following his brain cancer diagnose voteing to move forward with the health care debate and mccain reminded us why he is called t
the maverick. >> stop listening to the loud mouths on the internet. to hell with them. they don't want anything done for the public good. our incapacity is their livelihood. >> amazing to see him there. when we are complaining about nonsense and this nan with a diagnosis has the courage and guts to come forward and be there when it count when the rest want to go on recess. god bless him for what he's done for this country. >> and a tremendous amount of strength to do that after surgery last week. >> remarkable. >> i will disagree with something he said. he said ignore the bombastic radio talk show hosts out in the country. i would talk to them more. not listen but talk to them more. the president should do an
hour's worth of talk radio every day. you don't have to do national talk radio. local talk radio in the pick-10 radio. he would probably enjoy it. it's a way to get to the constituents. they will respond. >> that's a fantastic idea and one i had not thought about. it would resonate. >> the courage of john mccain to step up and enter this debate and say let's move forward. why not a single democratic senator voted yes on the motion to proceed? why not at least have this debate? democrats said this is a great law, obamacare, pushing back about the premium increases and people losing their plans. schumer said we want to fix what is broken in obamacare but not a singe one voted to have the debate. >> what you are talking about is it's based on the house bill which we know, even president
trump said is a -- >> which you can not amend. >> the senate bill goes forward and it doesn't have the support of enough republicans as it stands. >> forget about their support. they had 8 years. now let the republicans have a shot. >> they have a shot but they have not come up with a better bill than obamacare. >> [overlapping talking] >> it can't get any worse than obamacare. >> is this is what mccain was talking about. ignore these loud mouths. >> are you talking about jesse? >> [laughing]. >> mccain said that. >> i think the other thing in terms of the president's speech tonight, it was similar to points we heard him give for the last several months. he is in his element, but he wants to go from we will do
this, to we have done this. trying to get this bill over the finish line. the biggest applause tonight was him talking about the middle-class tax cut. >> that tells you what people want. the way for the president to win ultimately even larger than health care, a pro-growth economy, jobs, tax reform. those things will resonate and permeate not only state lines, but party lines. everybody will be able to applaud that. >> he did an interview with the "wall street journal" today to bring the corporate tax rate down to 15%. he probably can't bring it down that far, but if he brings it down 22% it will bring back plants in youngstown and more money for the trump democrats who flipped and voted republican
last time. he has to deliver for those voters. he's done a lot of executive actions. >> the democrats abandoned him. he gave the working men and women across the country shelter when they were put out by the democrats who were not listening to them. that was part of your party. >> let me respond saying empty rhetoric doesn't help people who need jobs. >> the policy will. >> let's celebrate carrier. oh, carrier just sent their jobs to mexico. does anybody say that empty rhetoric was just hot air and he didn't help the workers of america? >> president obama said he was for the middle-class for 8 years and they got hammered. >> oh, yeah. >> like the stock market and rising wages. >> [overlapping talking] >> please. >> president trump comes into office. not only is the stock market rising but middle-class wages
are rising. if he can get middle-class wages to rise, he will win all of the states he won and pick off the hillary states like wisconsin and michigan. you will be out of luck! he only needs to win one more state than he carried in the last election, juan. forget about it. >> right. >> look at this enthusiasm. >> you could ace your s.a.t.s. >> oh, wow! >> whew! >> i love it. jesse, [laughing] can i get a michigan? all right. ed, tell me what you think. how does the president galvanize and move forward on this? there were some rough spots here. it seems that things are being
able to coalesces. he is putting wins up. >> it's not just about empty rhetoric. he has to build support for these programs. gets his hands dirty on the details and go to the american people to build pressure on the republicans on capital one. they had it easy for a long time. they voted to repeal obamacare knowing that president obama would veto. now it means business. dana is right about the talk radio stations. follow-up with talk radio in dayton and columbus and west virginia. west virginia, donald trump won by 30 or 40 points. how is the republican senator there not the big cheerleader? >> trump needs to call limbaugh? >> no, local talk radio. >> i would do that. i would flood those markets.
don't wait for them to take. it put the pressure right on those constituents. >> and the support. i would call into the local radio station in nevada and praise dean heller. it's one thing to manage out of fear and another thing to manage leading and praising. >> you know the reality is in fact on the president's direction, there is a threat against heller. they had to back that up. i am struck by the fact that nobody at this table said, they should have a better health care plan that helps to cover more americans. >> that's what they are trying to do. >> they have not done it! they don't have a bill. >> they just started. >> [overlapping talking] >> premiums sky rocketed under obamacare. >> [overlapping talking]. >> the companies are making money under obamacare. that's how broken it is. >> so far the prescription for success will be get
infrastructure dirt under your nails, right? smile and dial. sprinkle a little sugar on it in the local radio. more show coming up. president trump's criticism of jeff sessions intensifies. does he flan to fire the attorney general? . lan to fire the attorney general? . plan to fire the attorney general? . you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacementâ„¢, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacementâ„¢, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with youâ„¢. liberty mutual insurance.
>> president trump ramping up public criticism of attorney general jeff sessions in a string of tweets accusing him of taking a weak position investigating hillary clinton and explained it during a press conference at the white house this afternoon. >> i am disappointed in the attorney general. he should not have recused himself almost immediately after he took office. if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office. i would have simply picked somebody else. i want the attorney general to be much tougher on the leaks super intelligence agency. i am very disappointed from the attorney general. we will see what happens. time will tell.
>> a bizarre couple of days on this issue. jesse is looking at me intently and wants to take this first. take it away, jesse waters. >> donald trump is a private sector guy. if this was the trump organization he expects the in-house counsel to defend him. he thinks my attorney general should defender me. he will be my protector. trump feels exposed. sessions exposed him by recusing himself. i get it. it's not the private sector. he should not think like this, but in the private sector that's how a ceo react to somebody who did that. on talk radio people are saying, if he dumps jeff sessions, i won't like. that i won't like that a lot. jeff sessions was in on trump from the get go. jeff sessions was in on trump from the jump.
if he dumps him it doesn't look good. especially if he brings in rudy giuliani. i understand what trump's thinking is because he feels exposed but people feel that he needs to stick with jeff sessions. >> i don't understand the goal. the president tweeted yesterday that his attorney general was beleaguered. he was beleaguered because of the of the undermining him. today he said in an interview with the "wall street journal," sessions different like him as much as the crowd size in alabama. jeff sessions run by 95% of the valley. maybe he can't do a rally like president trump. what is the goal? >> you know what this is? this is the president being transparent. telling you i am having a hard time with this. i am frustrated.
i am feeling disappointed. yes, jeff was with me from the begin and he appreciated that. i think the frustration comes from the mueller investigation. instead of us wondering what the president thinks about it, it's all playing out in real time here. i think it's a problem for the president. if he were to fire jeff sessions or if jeff sessions were to resign. i don't think the president wants to fire him. >> it feels like he wants to hu milliate him. >> it could be poor for the president when the democrats supported getting rid of comey and we saw the fallout from that. it's distracting when you need to focus on other things like immigration and tax reform, and
health care. it's going to grow instead of providing clarity. >> the president is mad at jeff sessions for not knowing he should recuse himself before he took office so he would not have been appointed. shouldn't he be mad at the people that didn't tell him what happened after the firing of comey. >> i would be mad at those people who got that wrong. >> right. they told the president the democrats will love you firing comey. it didn't work. what kimberly guilfoyle is saying is it looked terrible for the president to beat up on his own person. loyalty is a two way street. this ties into our last segment talking about what kind of wins does this president have? jeff sessions has been quietly and not quietly racking up wins. he is cracking down on illegal immigrants. >> and sanctuary cities.
>> he announced last week a major crackdown on health care fraud. the money we want to squeeze out. >> the president feels exposed because jeff sessions recused himself from the russian things and feels there is disloyalty. >> maybe the president should not have gone on lester holt and said he fire comey for cause and not the memo. >> that was not a smart move. >> jeff sessions could have not recused himself and we would not have this problem. >> but then it would not be right. he did have contact with russia. >> that's not illegal. >> it's not just me. you have rudy giuliani as well as others in the senate saying, that was the appropriate thing to do. john cronin from texas said that was the right thing to do for jeff sessions. he behaved appropriately.
this is not about the president's feelings. i don't think he has bad feelings about the attorney general. he wants somebody who will fire robert mueller. >> he wants somebody who has his back. >> and something that will investigate the unmasking. >> [overlapping talking]. >> these are political ploys. don't pay attention to this. my hand is back here talking about leaks. >> here's the problem. the president is going like this. wakes up in the morning, he's what president obama had. here's what i have. what is going on here? that's part of it. the point is if you looked in the past, the attorney general has really been an arm of the president. >> [overlapping talking]
>> he wants someone who will guard the wall. >> this is not his personal lawyer. >> i understand. >> [overlapping talking] >> he wants the attorney general to fire robert muller but says today, you should go after hillary clinton. why aren't they investigating dirty, nasty hillary? >> we keep hearing that jeff sessions is not talking directly to the president. the president won't take his call. their staff is talking to each other. he won't resign. an opportunity for the president. his critics say he is emoting on twitter. he is mad about the recusal. call jeff sessions tomorrow. let's work together. >> i think that's what will happen. >> they have to sit down face-to-face and talk. >> stop fighting it out over twitter. >> focus on the things in this lane. don't slow it down. you are in the hov lane, keep
going. don't merge right. >> he can't fire robert mueller. that's the problem. that's why they are stuck. that's why you get in a situation -- hang on. you get mark levin and saying don't do this. >> sometimes -- i think they will makeup. it's plausible that he would not like it that all of these people are telling him what he can't do and he will continue to do that very thing. >> other people need to go. >> oh! who? >> i want to read your mind. >> you might pass out and expire. >> [laughing] >> who do you think has to go? >> i think that this health care hasn't happened. a lot of promises made from the president. i would be frustrated with that. you have the house and the
senate. what is the excuse? we have to go. >> you should not beat up on fellow republicans the way the president is right now. >> oh my god. >> juan williams says don't beat up on republicans. >> up next president trump takes trump at the media. a bit more from the president's rally earlier today. >> [cheers and applause] he is a young man. he is going back home to mommy. oh, is he in trouble. he is in trouble! >> [cheers and applause] >> i will bet his mommy voted for us, right? >> [cheering] it's just a burst pipe, i could fix it. (laugh) no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just because of a claim. i totally could've - no! switching to allstate is worth it.
we carry flowers that signifyn why we want to end the disease. and we walk so that one day, there will be a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor. join the fight at alz.org/walk. copdso to breathe better,athe. i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems.
these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com.
america great again rally in youngstown, ohio. he took jabs at one of his favorite subjects, the mainstream media . >> am here this evening to cut through the fake news filter and to speak straight to the american people. this has been a difficult week for the media because i forced them to travel with us all around the country and spend time with tens of thousands of proud americans who believe in defending our values, our culture, our borders, our civilization, and our great american way of life! >> what a dishonest group of people. i will tell you. the funny thing is you would think they would want to see our country be great again. you would think so, but they don't. some day they will explain it to
me why. >> that's the scaramucci effect. back out on the campaign trail. my washington sources told me this would happen. >> [laughing] >> he is back fighting against the mainstream media. effective tactic? >> yes, this is where he shines. people love. it they tune in. the numbers are great. this is quinte quintessential t. they remember candidate trump and embrace president trump. it's best with his message. it's more effective than going on twitter. he is able to reach through the screen and connect. you feel likeulg are right there embracing and taking in and soaking up the moment. i like when he does this. dana said when he speaks and is not on prompter, it's very authentic and people are sitting there listening and waiting for the next moment.
>> one of the reasons trump beat hillary was because he was oughtentic. -- authentic. he is back out there on the campaign trail. it resonates. >> yes, but 1, when he goes after the media, i feel like it's how he is going after sessions. apparently jeff sessions is blowing it off and ignoring it. i think the media is too. trump does like jeff sessions. they will probably makeup at some point. he likes the media. he did an interview today with the fake media. he likes to have them around. this is a lot of bluster and entertainment. i came to the conclusion he doesn't really many it. i think their is something missing and some scaramucci the director of communications can do to think these are more effective. at the top of the speech, have news to drive the next day. they are not doing anything.
this speech i heard so many times. it's the same thing over and over again. it's effective in those crowds. to drive the story the next day, you have to put something at the top that every reporter sitting there -- maybe that's the only part you listen to. i know you reporter times. >> oh! >> you reporter times. >> we did a lot of time together back in the day. >> we did. >> you know what i mean. you are looking for something right at the top. >> we heard this beat up the media stuff. >> it cuts through. you are right. the people want to hear it. it's authentic. harness that energy and going around the filter with meat about tax cuts, for example. newt gingrich said he has to get tax cuts by thanksgiving. you will see people going into the christmas season spending money and the stock market will
rise as it already it. that's the best revenge for this president. >> [overlapping talking] it's not too soon. they should do that right now. they are working very aggressivey on the tax reform. they know that's a winning narrative. pave the road right now with their best mess anger. >> the reality is they are spending time not on tax reform but on trying to recesuscitate health care. you want to say this is like a circus. it's entertaining. he says horrible things about the immigrants and the blacks in chicago and horrible things about -- >> he never said anything about blacks in chicago. >> talking about on-going murders. >> he's upset about the loss of life. how is that negative? >> i got a different message.
his concern is they are out of control in a democratic city and it's black. i find it off putting. >> off putting to care about blacks in chicago? >> no, believe me, he is not caring. >> i think that's an outrageous statement. >> [overlapping talking]. >> the president doesn't care that blacks are getting killed. >> that's why he offered help? >> no, if you allow me to speak. he is speaking to an all-white audience. these immigrants are slicing and dicing 15-year-old girls. that's the message coming people. >> he cares that people are dying on the streets of chicago and wants to save american lives, the justice department breaking news tonight about
sanctuary cities. that's cool. looking fabulous in my little black dress? that's cool. getting the body you want without surgery, needles, or downtime? that's coolsculpting. coolsculpting is the only fda-cleared non-invasive treatment that targets and freezes away stubborn fat cells. visit coolsculpting.com today and register for a chance to win a free treatment. with my moderate to severe crohn's disease,... ...i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay... then it hit me... ...managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor,... ...i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease... ...even after trying other medications. in clinical studies,... the majority of people on humira... saw significant symptom relief... ...and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability... ...to fight infections, including tuberculosis.
serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened;... ...as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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. just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
they won't give some cities grant money unless they give federal immigration authorities access to jaylen johnson. they want alerts when someone facing immigration is released from local custody. president trump addressed this at the rally. >> we will build the wall. don't even think about it. >> [cheers and applause] >> i watched the media as they say, well, he just had some fun during the campaign on the wall. that wasn't fun, folks. we are building that wall, and wallace do work. we will have great people come into our country. we are not going to put ourselves through the problems that we have had for so many years. american cities should be sanctuaries for law-abiding americans. for people that look up to the law. for people that respect the law.
not for criminals and gang members that we want the hell out of our country! >> [cheers and applause] >> this is a critical moment. you have the sanctuary cities under direct attack in terms of grant money. the president still talking about the wall. will this change anything? is this just static? >> well -- [laughing] law enforcement is split. you have some law enforcement, chiefs of police saying this not a good idea. we need to have sanctuary cities that allow us to gather the intelligence to protect people. they are not loud enough. this message is swamping democrats. from a political perspective, i think it's extremely difficult for democrats as it continues for them to oppose this policy. that sanctuary cities is a smart thing for the president to talk
about. he can talk about the wall simultaneously, but this is important. we saw the justice department and the attorney general jeff sessions is driving this poll. >> the fox poll asked how likely do you think the president will build a wall? >> 7% -- 67% no. >> you can see all of the drugs being catapulted across. that's very dangerous. the wall will be built. it will be beautiful. it's going to be big. if trump didn't build the wall, it would be such a big problem for his base, for the presidency. if this doesn't get built and it will be built soon. if it gets slowed down by paul
ryan, there will be hell to pay. you remember the funding last session, they didn't give it money. if they don't give it money in september it will be a huge problem. >> he will want to fire ryan. >> without building the wall or beleaguered jeff sessions moving forward, the number of border crossings has decreased. >> it's a success for this administration. >> down 70%. >> yes. >> that's a big deal. >> there you go, juan. that's trump winning again. >> i get so tired of the winning -- >> [overlapping talking] >> take a nap, juan. >> i should. i will lay on your shoulder. >> he needs a 5-hour energy drink. >> the fact you have people in the republican congress not giving the money and saying we don't care.
he talks about the wall. the crowd gets fired up. >> they love the wall. the president is 100% intent on building the wall and seeing it through. that's a fact. when you see that coupled with the rest of his policies with immigration and making sure we have national security as a priority, border security, you see what is happening in the courtrooms across the country. the crackdowns on sanctuary cities as a prosecutor was long overdo. ice is falling too. people are doing their job. they are following the law. they know the president is behind them. and the ag's office as well. we are seeing this big hit on ms-13 and criminal trafficking. >> they are deporting people who have made a misdemeanor for a broken headlight. >> false, false! >> this is so wrong and so
damaging to our values as americans. >> [overlapping talking] >> focus on the real point. >> [overlapping talking] >> seriously, he gets a health care bill and gets the tax cuts. then the lawmakers will see momentum. >> if he gets tax cuts, the president will get money for the wall. >> until he breaking news -- breaks this log jam, he is not getting the mony. >> he hasn't been efficient on health care. >> hang on. >> pass the bill in the house. that's a success, right? >> no. >> that's a bill -- >> [overlapping talking] >> as opposed to the bill failing, it passed. the motion to proceed. you scoffed at that.
>> i didn't scoff at that. >> [overlapping talking] >> you won't acknowledge the fact he got it through in the house. >> [overlapping talking] >> i think let's likely. >> he calls it a bad bill and then has a party in the rose gardner and you want to call it -- >> i called it a mistake. >> he said you are wrong. >> he moved the ball forward. now the u.s. senates will debate this despite everyone saying it was dead. >> putting humpty-dumpty back together again. the republicans are fragmented to go to arizona and talk to the people who have 120% increase in premiums. >> talk to john mccain. >> did he not come back to have this vote. read the tea leaves? >> my prediction is this will
get done. people have to get it done or they are beat it. >> they will beat it because they will suffer at the polls if americans lose medical coverage in order to get president trump a victory he can crow about. >> not the same. constituents support the president. y taking care of business. awesome notebook! check. but who takes care of them? office depot / office max. this week, these composition books are just 25 cents each. ♪ taking care of business but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.
[2. you're in the match app. now tap on the new missed connections feature. it says i've crossed paths with kate six times this week. that is a lot of times. she's cute too! yea! how did i miss her? you didn't. match picked it up for you. check out new missed connections on match. start for free today!
>> this is a fox news alert. president trump arrived at joint base andrews. our final thoughts on this busy news night. >> me first. >> you are ready to roll. >> wow! i am just proud that waters did not steal anything from me. previous programs, he hasn't come up with original thoughts so he turns to me. >> how dare you. >> that's the truth. i am happy to be here. a lively discussion. i think juan took some hits. >> you think? >> juan is used to. that he has bite marks on his body. he likes it. >> this was a good day for the president. the emotions that everyone thought was dead around july 4th, they are moving forward. >> the president and the first lady at joint base andrews. waveing to everybody as he returns to d.c. after his make america great again rally in
youngstown, ohio. >> president obama never held on to the railing. this is much more safe. they are both holding the railing and walking slowly. >> make america safe again. >> a final thought. go to foxnews.com, breaking news about a former it staffer from schultz's office who has questionable things going on with computer equipment that was destroyed and arrested. >> she doesn't want to turn it over. >> this is my final thought. >> [laughing]. >> arrested at the airport at dulles and charged with bank fraud. more tomorrow. >> that's a huge story that needs to be covered. tremendous national security implications. >> they are down playing this story. >> be specific about how they destroyed the hard drives. >> they got their home depot on.
>> we should ask ed who asked hillary clinton about wiping? >> wipe the server. >> she did with a cloth. >> did some staffers use hammers? >> there you go. my final thought. >> beleaguered. >> for all of the rose colored glasses. what a wonderful day, it seems to me at some point you have to deal with the idea that president trump has been unable to solidify a republican vote behind a health care plan and obamacare looks safer than ever. >> all right. >> we will see about that one. >> all right. it's a big night here on the fox news channel. "hannity" is next followed by a special report with bret baier at 11 p.m. eastern. we will see you back here tomorrow. good night from new york city. >> ♪ >> ♪
up 10 points. that has now evaporated. interesting to see who turns out, a testament to the excitement level. thank you all. that is all for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now with ari in for rachel. >> good evening. rachel has the night off. we have a pretty big show. today was day two of the federal criminal trial of the campaign chairman. the witnesses were several people who sold the defendant clothes and houses that he bought through secretive international wire payments. one important thing we learned from what happened today, this judge is holding mueller's prosecutors to the line, limiting their questions and how they present key evidence to manafort to the jury. a former prosecutor who tried these kinds of cases and inside that courtroom today joins me to explain if what the judge is up to could hurt mueller's case.
there are reports tonight about the russian woman charged with trying to carry out the government influence campaign through the nra in the u.s. and people who appear to have been her american co-conspirators. that is a big story. but we begin with something far more troubling than any of that. it began last march. let's set the scene. donald trump had been in office just six weeks and his national security advisor was already out. it was march 1st, they exposed jeff sessions participated in two encounters with the russian ambassador during the campaign, a ways away from session's own testimony at his own confirmation committee that he hadn't had quote communications with the russians. we now know internally at the
doj there was a process going of career lawyers recommending jeff sessions recuse himself from the probe, he had an obligation on that. this was a key inflection point. jeff sessions could have taken the doj guidance to recuse and could have also ignored it, a decision to make and donald trump at that moment could have stayed out of it or at least in the public realm. here's what happened. the next day, march 2nd, trump had this very big grand appearance arriving via helicopter on the "uss gerald ford, the navy's very new and expensive warship. trump spoke to sailors there. the traveling press corps for this big fancy appearance were with trump. watch this key moment. this was one of those unpredictable, you could seen say random times you see this normally routine even frustrating job of the traveling
reporters see it become pivotal, potential criminal evidence. watch reporters ask trump whether jeff sessions recusal because he was too close to the trump campaign should happen. >> mr. president, should sessions recuse himself from investigations of the campaign in russia? i don't think so at all. >> when do you think sessions spoke to the russian ambassador? when were you aware he spoke to the russian ambassador? >> i wasn't aware. >> that was a quick but pivotal moment. trump did two things, he inappropriately pressured sessions not to recuse and if you listen closely he contributed to the doj's argument for sessions recusal. because the doj standard for this is whether a person is too close to the subject of the probe, whether jeff sessions would basically be more of a trump campaign surrogate who happened to be attorney general rather than acting as a law enforcement officer.
Rachel Maddow takes a look at the day's top political news stories.
the probe remains open. that is just what we know based on what is in public and is leaked. one more thing as you take it all together. there is another reason donald trump may be writing things about sessions that look self-incriminating on twitter, have his own lawyers saying they aren't what they are. this requires you to entertain the believe the president is more canny than clueless. donald trump's team uses donald trump's past efforts to squeeze and oust jeff sessions. mueller's case may already have strong evidence of that, provable evidence. so knowing that it looks bad, donald trump may want to re-up the worst parts of this himself and say, how bad can it be if it's what i just tweeted? i turn now to a reporter leading much of our knowledge about this, investigative reporter for the "washington post," and she
has a new story tonight on the muumuu ler interview offer to trump, essential to all of this. thank you for being here on a busy night for you. >> glad to be here. thanks for the good questions you guys always ask. it's been a roller coaster of a day. >> i think that's fair to say. there's some theme parks open well into the evening. we may still be on the roller coaster at this moment. walk us through what you learned of mueller's counter offer for a potential trump interview and why do you think he's willing to limit some questions? >> i'm told mueller's team presents a counter-proposal in this 7 month-long investigation for them to interview the president that the president obstructed justice or sought to thwart a criminal probe. in this counter-proposal, what
lawyers, i need to know whether or not the president had corrupt intent when he took some of the actions that he took, most importantly, firing fbi director, jim comey. he wants the president in the room with him one way or another. the second seems to me likely possibility about this counter offer is he wants to show he's willing to negotiate a little and not be stoic and stubborn. so this is a little move closer to trump's request or the trump legal team's request, but i even hear within the sources close to the president and in the white house, that they're not so sure mueller moved that far, but he certainly made the effort to appear he was reducing some of the questions. >> do you have any hints whether he is prepared to go to the
supreme court if trump won't sit down and how do you do that and when do you trigger that? >> one thing we know very clearly he has given the trump legal team, he would like to avoid a subpoena fight. there are all sorts of good reasons. he knows that will take months. very little chance the court of appeals certainly involved on the road to the supreme court would move with any -- and the question never been answered, can you force the president to the table to talk about acts as president. if there is one thing we know as well, mueller has gathered a lot of evidence. he's interviewed a ton of people and pressed in his questions he hinted at to the trump legal team what he's interested in.
obstruction is a central piece what he wants to get to the president. >> you say obstruction. that brings us to the most damning and obvious question many of us watching would like your view on. why do you think donald trump wrote something on the internet that was so plate tently self-incriminating about obstruction into this case that is an investigation into obstruction. so blatantly. >> two things, i agree with the prosecutors i spent a lot of time in federal courts. i agree any statement you make that suggests you're threatening or intimidating or encouraging a course of action is not a crime but certainly goes to a state of mind and could be part of the mosaic laying out, arguing, the president was really signaling to tens of millions of people, this is what he wanted.
it's not a crime but builds the color around the state of mind of the actor, the president. the second thing is why did he tweet? the president has shown a talent for sending a message early in the morning, either about his anger or about the topic he wants all of us to be talking about. in this instance, i believe he's been watching a lot of coverage of paul manafort's trial. obviously, we're not live inside that trial but he's watching the cable news minute by minute updates and he wants to send a signal about how he feels this is wrong. it could be just a signal to his base and nothing more. >> you said it was a mosaic of sorts. i wonder whether it's a self-portrait titled evidence of obstruction, given how blatant it was.
carol, we appreciate you being here and your nuance. and asserting collusion is not a crime, he read aloud from the u.s. code the actual statutes that would be broken if there was collusion with russia and election interference certainly adds to the public record, senator. i want to start with your view of what donald trump wrote on the internet today is evidence of potential obstruction. >> it's certainly evidence, ari, of his state of mind, how he views the ongoing mueller investigation and what he thinks should happen. he's saying this morning jeff sessions should shut down the mueller investigation he calls a rigged witch hunt a number of commentators said this evening that could be entered into evidence what his state of mind has been. i'll remind you, this goes back to his lester holt interview following the firing of james
comey, when he said he had the russia investigation in mind when he fired jim comey, the former fbi director. i think there's abundant evidence obstruction and intent to interfere with the ongoing investigation whether or not russia committed some conspiracy with the trump campaign in order to violate our federal election laws. that's been out there in plain view now for months. my answer why president trump did that this morning is a combination appealing to his base and delegitimizing the mueller investigation and he can't help himself. >> can't help himself. his lawyer said it was come from the top and didn't do what it did. >> sometimes it feels like we're all going through a type of law school together in this era. you would be one of our voluntary professor, i suppose.
collusion, conspiracy, criminal hacking and theft, fraud against the united states, foreign campaign contributions, those are all felonies that relate to what has been alleged in 2016. walk us through your point about what crimes constitute collusion. >> first, the term "collusion" is being used casually. it's a conspiracy to break federal election laws. the federal election law, tite 52 of the u.s. code, says it is a crime to solicit or accept a thing of value from a foreign national in order to influence a federal election. i'm summarizing what is a much longer paragraph. essentially, that's what it says, a foreign national can't contribute either money or thing of value and an american can't solicit or receive a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a federal election.
that's the crux of what's being investigated here whether the russian well documented wide scale russian effort by dozens of russian military officers to influence the american election and offer hacked e-mails was in some way either solicited on accepted by the trump campaign team. that's why i think the developments in recent days, michael cohen may be willing to testify president trump knew about the june 9th trump tower meeting with russians offering dirt on hillary clinton could be a key turning point here. there's lots of public evidence of enthusiasm by the highest levels of the trump campaign to accept derogatory information of hillary clinton and her campaign and information robert mueller made of indictments and russian efforts to influence the outcome of the campaign. what is missing is what connects
point a to point b to make it a conspiracy and that may well be what robert mueller is trying to present. lying to investigators is also a federal offense. sometimes things said on twitter, whether by donald trump jr. or paul manafort or others, what really ends up being the thing that hangs them up, testifying to a committee or fbi investigator one way and proving the facts are the opposite. i think those are the three core issues here. violating a federal election law and working to break the laws, which is conspiracy and lying to investigators. most of the indictments that have so far come out from the mueller investigation move along one of those three tracks. i expect we will be seeing more indictments in the future. to paraphrase, they were right to say collusion is not a crime, collusion is like four crimes.
>> that's right. what we are commonly referring to as collusion is a complex series of violations of federal election law, truthfulness to investigators and commonly known of conspiracy 183 c 71, working with more than one person to break federal law, simple conspiracy. >> senator chris coons, a member of the senate judiciary committee, an expert on this. i appreciate you. and we have the former federal prosecutor in the courtroom today in just a moment. ♪ ♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models
plus $1,000 bonus cash.
in this courtroom believed the law did not apply to him, not tax laws, not banking laws, this man collected over $60 million for his work in a european country called ukraine. this man didn't want to use all his income and used foreign countries to funnel. the judge interrupted, the evidence you say will show this? yes, your honor. >> the prosecutor tried to continue to say, to funnel millions of dollars. the judge said, did you hear what i said? then we get a more typical response, yes, your honor. the court said, all right. do it that way, please. ellis did press both sides and told manafort's lawyer they must speak of evidence and not claims that. in terms of quote, you will hear
evidence that dot dot dot dot. right out of the gate that has been the issue. judge ellis didn't mellow out at all. at one point he scolded them to rein in their facial expressions. it's been reported that lawyers leaving the bench roll their eyes, communicating essentially why do we have to put up with this idiot judge. don't do that. obviously, if i see that i might be upset. you can see that running a courtroom at times is no different than dealing with your average teenager, at least from this judge's point. the judge is trying to trim the sales of these aggressive lawyers including mueller's aggressive prosecutors. the court saying oligarchky is just despotic power exercised by
someone and principals of high schools are that. saying he was being paid by people who are themselves criminals. the name, oligarch has a majoritive meaning. he told them, look, find another term to use. almost immediately, not being able to say the word, oligarch, kind of like a banana peel for the prosecution, i'll read to you again what we're learning from this big trial, the payments were made on behalf of mr.ian nokovic, i would say oligarch but by the wealthy businessman. the judge wanted to know who paid that money? and he said, those are the oligarches. >> those are the individuals that financed it, don't use that term and what good lawyers say, understood. and now a matter whether the prosecutors can use photographs
of manafort's very expensive suits as evidence. grand names basically greek to this judge. ica can't recognize these names. if it doesn't say men's warehouse, i don't know it. that got something of a laugh in his courtroom and then this did not. these pictures of manafort's very fancy suits may never get to the jury. the big curveball came when the judge started questioning other evidence pertaining to rick gates, mueller's former deputy they got to cooperate. it has the potential to be the most riveting part of this trial and maybe the whole prosecution at this point because we're talking about the deputy campaign manager for donald trump who flipped. look at this. judge ellis says, quote, you will offer up mr. gate, aren't you? mueller's prosecutor say, your honor, we're not sure if we are. he may testify in this case, your honor, he may not.
that is one of those things that sounds very measured, we may do this, we may not but has big repercussions what we will hear out of this case. why would the prosecution be considering not putting what is described as their star witness on the stand? a good question. i will be joined by someone at the trial today and also covering as "politico"'s correspondent, covering the trial since the beginning. i put that question to you. >> whether gates will testify. interesting moment in the trial. a sudden hush in the courtroom and sudden scurrying in the courtroom when a number of people ran out the back. judge ellis himself said, that's a surprise to me and apparently about 25 other people out of the courtroom who just ran out like rats from a sinking ship,
presumably reporters who would report back this statement. if you think about it they very well may not decide to call in rick gates. the case is coming in very well. it's primarily a paper case, which if you're a prosecutor is a dream. paper doesn't lie or forget or admit to biases. if you can prove your case, you may not need a live witness who can go sideways in a lot of ways. sounds like they're playing it in a lot of ways and may end up not calling rick gates if they don't need to and presents potential risks. >> a good trial lit gator has no ego or attachment, just wants to win. have they found manafort's defense lawyer has been effective enough they want to keep this option open? >> they were non-committal to
be. as long as they're on your list you may call them but you don't have to call all of them. when you do call a witness, you're required to turn over all their prior statements on the subject matter and turn over anything that could be used to attack their credibility, like the plea deal, anything bad he has admitted to, any statements he made about the russia matter. it may be prosecutors would rather hold that foreclose to the vest for now and save him as a witness in the washington, d.c. trial in september. if they can get through this one on paper and save him, i think they can view that as a good thing. they can make that call next week and see how the case has come in and decide whether to call him at all. >> josh, walk us through a little more color of the reading rainbow segment that was just a few quotes. did you ever see eye rolling and how pivotal is this judge? >> i think some of the eye rolling may have come through the jury selection process when
we had very long sidebars. the judge does seem to really be riding the prosecution. there wouldn't be any reason to be riding the defense because the defense at the moment is just putting in a few congratulati cross-examination questions. it's the prosecution's ball on this side of the field at this point. the judge is limiting the amount of evidence i think the defense might view as prejudicial. as you mentioned, the issues of photo, ostrich jacket and home renovations very expensive. the photos of all the suits, of all the other luxury goods manafort used money to buy that he said came from his work in ukraine. the judge is trying to keep this to facts and figures, to the invoices, the paper. >> let me draw you out on that.
the criticism of the mueller view is they're trying to make manafort like he had fancy coats and fancy brands. legally, that's not the problem and unfair and all they have to prove is tax evasion. do you think the judge is hitting that right and fairly? >> i think he is, although he does bring it up a lot. i'd say roughly hour or two he makes a comment about manafort is not on trial for being rich or having a lavish lifestyle or extravagant tastes and prosecutors often agree with the judge but insist they need to show the value of these luxury goods that manafort was getting them to convince jurors his tax returns could not cover the lifestyle he was living in addition to proving this point of the very very strange payment arrangements. nearly every vendor that came up said they were paid by overseas wire transfers from shell
companies whose names they never heard of or only got from manafort and today we had forged invoices, a couple saying they were being shown invoices with their name at the top of the letter head but not authentic and somebody forged those as part of the process of getting these shell questions paid overseas. >> honestly, it sounds exhausting to be that shady all the time. we don't always relate to what they're accused of. we have one more note, manafort has those expensive tastes. that includes, we will show you, a $15,000 ostrich coat, josh just mentioned it. we want you to see it. you're not a juror so you have every right to see it. we submit it to you without comment. ♪ ♪
♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ but it's tough to gete enough of their nutrients. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley.
moved, it happened last minute over where the public is not permitted there so protesters couldn't get as close. when they got the word the meeting was moved, protesters marched at the hart center where hemed with senator boozman. they got louder, blocking the halls shouting, hell, no, kavanaugh. dozens were arrested. 74 people arrested and charged, the counts around crowding or obstructing because you can't interfere with the gathering places there. when disability rights activist bar kin was wheeled in, he was cheered by the protesters. the battle is in early stages. democratic senators mostly saying they will not meet with kavanaugh. they want documents of his time serving as bush's time in the
white house. they will not say when the confirmation hearings will start but does say they're not likely to september which is getting close to the mid-terms themselves. if today is any indication what's to come, there could be a lot more bumps on that road. >> there ♪
bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. ahoy! (laughing) bounty, the quicker picker upper. big news when the trump campaign announced the deal. at the time trump was campaigning he was insisting he had no deals with russia. another scoop where negotiations with trump tower and moscow were far more extensive and lasted longer than previously reported and went into june 2016, after trump became the nominee, and
negotiations conducted by michael cohen with plans for trump to make a mid-campaign trip to moscow, a great idea and another bombshell that relates to collusion, even before mueller was appointed special counsel, fbi agents learned trump was in frequent contact with foreign individuals about trump moscow and that some of these individuals had knowledge of or played a role in 2016 election meddling. that would be a big headline all on its own if we didn't have so many other things happening. just one exhibit in collusion issues around trump. now, this team is back with a new scoop. this one is about the accused spy, maria butina of acting as an agent accusing her of a covert influence with the nra and other conservatives and that she was aided by two persons from the u.s., paul erickson who
had a relationship with butina and the second one is george o'neill jr., a rockefeller heir and worked on the pat buchanan campaign in '92 with erickson. details are piling up about butina's alleged influence campaign financed by support from the russian billionaire and with deep ties to the russian presidential administration and the word you can't use in the trial, the oligarch's son. and the senate today unanimously approved turning over that transcript, what she told them and details about the billionaire to prosecutors as well as the defense lawyer. buzzfeed is hot on the trail and they're reporting investigators are looking at $300,000 in these transactions by butina and erickson, which includes $90,000
sent to or from a russian bank. the transactions were first flagged by anti-fraud investigations at wells fargo in some cases found no economic business or lawful purpose to explain them. those records also handed over to the fbi. joining me now is one of those authors of those scoops, buzzfeed investigative reporter, anthony cormier. i guess i should start with, wow, there is a lot here. >> a lot going on. the $300,000, what does it mean? >> we know now this massive investigation is doing what they do, following the money. who is supporting miss butina in the u.s. and what she was doing with the funds while here and if anyone else was involved in what is alleged to be a grand conspiracy to influence figure is in the u.s. on russia's behalf. >> you say anyone else involved,
she and the others linked to putin on this sleeper cell or other dogs? >> both russian and american, i think, to we can say that that's what the fbi is sniffing around on. >> you are familiar with the term what happens in las vegas stays in las vegas? what happens online has not stayed online in this case. the midterm campaign hacking we're hearing about involving offline events. how much of this looks to you like bigger offline physical activity inside the united states and how does mueller view that? >> i will speon't speak for mr. mueller. but our sources tell us that
money has to go somewhere. this is cash. it moves. they want to know where it went. it is going to be difficult, right? when you deposit cash on the front end, it is hard to know where it came from. when you pull it out, it is difficult to know where it went. the fbi has a massive sweeping counter intelligence investigation and they are firmly going to get to the bottom of it. >> and being so hands on means what? >> it means you can make a beeline right to the kremlin if this all stands up, right? if the charges stick, if they do find where the money came from, where it went, it is going to be very difficult for the kremlin to say, we had no idea. >> final question, there is a lot of discussion about regulating finance and banks in america. is this story, which you report, begins with banks regulations and laws a sign that's a important part of regulating banks? >> absolutely. whether it's citi or wells
fargo, they are critical points where the fbi is able to go and full records. paper don't lie and the fbi is making paper to sort of make these cases. >> it is fascinating. and you have been doing a lot of reporting that we have been indebted to. customers bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that.
it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions... ...like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms,... ...sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation,... ...back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com
the political state of ohio has a 12 district right here. it has been reliably red. hasn't gone to a democrat for congress since run dmc was the top of the charts in the '80s. right now they don't have someone representing them because you have that big ohio shaped hole in the u.s. house. that's why we have a special election to fill that seat this coming tuesday. you can say the mid terms have already started. although, it is a special election. that has gone up like a flair for democrats. take a look at the latest poll. trailing by just one point. well within striking distance would be a huge shift, blue in the state. and democrats say this is not the only good piece of data they are getting right now. today over in texas, which is reliably red, the idea of a senator like ted cruz losing his seat to a democrat would seem
like a total fantasy, but there is this poll out of texas. the democrat running against ted cruz trailing now by 6 points. that is tight for texas. now, the race has an upset potential for democrats. the flip side if you follow the news or know in texas, everyone loves ted cruz. that's just an issue any time you run against him. having said that, there is a bat signal going on for the democrat party's biggest cheerleader, former president barack obama using today to release his list of endorsements for these midterms and trying to push some candidates over the finish line and chipping away at the republican majority in congress. it is now 97 days until the midterms, and this former president is choosing this as his moment to get back in the spotlight, saying he's eager to get back into politics. we're about to enter the sprint to november. make sure to stretch.
the fact is, there are over ninety-six hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?
but climbing 58,070 steps a year can be hard on her feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they're clinically proven to relieve pain and give you the comfort to move more. dr. scholl's, born to move. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline. with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. new fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it.
Rachel Maddow takes a look at the day's top political news stories.
whether a person is too close to the subject of the probe, whether jeff sessions would beak be more of a trump campaign surrogate who happened to be attorney general rather than acting as an independent law enforcement officer. if sessions didn't recuse after that statement, it would have made him look even more like he was doing trump's bidding. and trump apparently didn't know that making that statement would also as just a general matter of embarrassment, make him look weak and out of the loop about a decision that was already done. because there were reports that show the internal doj process had already resulted in sessions' accepting that nonpartisan recusal recommendation from the career staff earlier that week and that jeff sessions was already working with doj officials op writing the very rationale they would soon release to the public. in fact, it was barely an hour after trump put that public pressure on sessions to stay in charge of the probe to not recuse that jeff sessions stepped out to the world with a
fateful announcement that would actually change the arc of this entire probe. it would enrage trump, it would make rod rosenstein a new household name in every household that follows the news these days. and then what happened next is at issue and it's in the news tonight. donald trump responding with a mix of call it personal rage and a kind of management impotence by which i mean that he freaked out enough that a lot of people heard about it but did not follow through to actually do the firing of jeff sessions that he initially demanded in his initial freakout. so there were credible sources able to tell both "the new york times" and "the washington post" that trump was fuming about firing sessions that he told his aides he wanted it done. of course, we know he did not get it done. and that's not all. donald trump was apparently unaware completely unaware of a pretty key rule in legal recusals. i'm talking, of course, about no backies.
the doj doesn't recommend a legal recusal for say some factual reason and then just take it back. that's what the trump was demanding. he told sessions to take back the recusal from the russia probe in our time line, this was a few days later, march 4th and sessions goes down to mar-a-lago where "the president objected to his decision to recuse himself. mr. trump it the times reported who had told aides he need aid loyalist overseeing the inquiry berated sessions and told him to reverse his decision, an inappropriate request. sessions refused. confrontation being investigated by bob mueller as are the president's private and public attacks on sessions and the efforts to get him to resign. so let's take this all together. there are many people i'm sure you know many people who say this. that donald trump is somehow ignorant or clueless hors d'oeuvre. you hear that from time to time. and donald trump may certainly be ignorant of all kinds of things, certainly the things he
doesn't care about. but the evidence in this mounting case shows that he is very informed and very canny about using a whole range of tactics to get what he wants in there criminal probe. now, here is how that is key to where this probe is heading. donald trump deploys both public and private means to do these things that look like evidence of obstruction of justice and that's key to what is the disturbing news tonight. so let's go back into the timeline. donald trump presses sessions and ha became part of mueller's probe itself because had he an interest which "demonstrates sessions' overlooked role as a key witness into the investigation into whether trump tried to obstruct the inquiry. mueller's investigators pressed current and former white house officials about trump's treatment of sessions and whether they believe the president was trying to impede the investigation by pressuring him. the attorney general beintervied
at length. of the questions mueller wants to ask trump, eight reit to sessions among them what efforts did you make him to try to get him to reverse his recusal that's the context for what trump did today. while we don't usually treat trump's tweets as news stories because they're often ploys and some are just lies there one is important. "this is a terrible situation and attorney general jeff sessions should stop this rigged witch hunt right now before it continues to stain our country any further. mueller's totally conflicted. his 17 angry democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the usa." what are we looking at there? we're seeing the public part. what else is trump doing to shut down the probe in private tonight? that's a big question. you can also see how this is evidence of obstruction that concerns even trump's own lawyers because their argument
today was hey, no, trump did not say what he said, that his call to stop the probe was not really a call to stop the probe, not an order. mueller's investigators may disagree with that. they are probing how the president talks to and pressures the doj. one democrat a former prosecutor, spoke to how this all fits into criminal intent. >> clearly there statement is serious and substantial evidence of criminal intent. even if it doesn't constitute a crime itself. the president is coming close to actual committing the crime of obstruction of justice if not crossing that line already. and these tweets adding to each other amount to evidence of criminal intent. there is now right now a clearly credible case of obstruction of
justice against the president of the united states. >> so why is this happening now? well, there's a new report that suggests it's not just the manafort trial which shows what happens to the defendants who don't cooperate with mueller but also that trump learned within the last day the special counsel will limit the scope of questioning and would like to ask questions both orally and written for the president to respond to. in other words, there is still serious pressure for an interview. according to news sources familiar with the president's actions wednesday, that was the genesis for his early morning tweet storm. rachel pinpointed a lot of important issues today require to us focus on what people do. not just what they say. the question that could determine the future of the trump presidency tonight involves whether trump is trying to do something with what he's saying to his attorney general and to the other doj and fbi officials that he's -- well he's attacked, berated, undercut and, of course, who he's tried to remove from office. remember, this is the still the only american presidency to ever
successfully seek the removal of the top two officials at the fbi. they're now both potential witnesses to obstruction. it's the only presidency inivity under investigation for the unsuccessful efforts to remove both an attorney general and a special prosecutor himself as the probe remains open. and that, of course, is just what we know based on what's in public and what is leaked. so one more thing as you take it all together. there is another reason why donald trump may be writing things about sessions that look self-incriminating 0 twitter that have his own lawyers saying they weren't what they are. this theory requires to you entertain the belief that the president is more canny than clueless. donald trump's team has good reason to have learned by now that mueller's case uses donald trump's past efforts to squeeze and oust jeff sessions. mueller's case may have already strong evidence of that. provable evidence. and so knowing that it looks
moved that far but he certainly made the effort to appear he was reducing some of the questions. >> do you have any hints over whether he is prepared to go to the supreme court if trump won't sit down and how do you trigger that? when do you do that? >> so if one signal we know very clearly that mueller has given the trump legal team is he would like to avoid a subpoena fight. and there are all sorts of good reasons for that, ari, like he knows that that will take months. there's very little chance that the court of appeals which would certainly be involved on the road to the supreme court would move with any alacrity. this could takes months to fight over an interview and a constitutional question that's never been answered, can you force the president to the table to talk about acts as president. and if there's one thing we
know, as well, mueller has gathered a lot of evidence. he's interviewed a ton of people. he's pressaged in his questions that he's hinted at to the trump legal team what he's interested in. and obstruction is a central piece of what he wants to get from the president. >> you say obstruction and that brings us to the most damning and perhaps the most obvious question that i'm sure many of us watching would like your view on. why do you think donald trump wrote something today on the internet that was so blatantly self-incriminating about potential obstruction of this case which is an investigation into his obstruction? >> so two things. i agree with all the prosecutors that i've spent a lot of time with as a reporter in federal courts all over. i agree with them that any statement you make that suggests that you're threatening or intimidating or encouraging a
certain course of action is not a crime but certainly goes to your state of mind. and could be part of a mosaicing that any prosecutor could lay out orging look, the president was really sig that willing to tens of millionses of people this is what he wanted. and that is not a crime but it builds the color around the state of mind of the actor, the president. the second thing is your question about why did he tweet. the president has shown a talent for sending a message early in the morning either about his anger or about the topic he wants all of us to be talking about. and in this instance, i believe he's been watching a lot of coverage of paul manafort's trial. obviously, we're mot live inside that trial but he's watching the cable news, minute by minute updates. and he wants to send a signal about how he feels this is wrong. and it could be just a signal to his base. and nothing more.
>> well, you said it was a mosaic of sorts. i wonder whether it's a self-portrait titled "evidence of obstruction," given how drastically blatant it was. carol, we always appreciating your reporting and nuance. thank you so much. >> i turn to senator chris coons on the senate judiciary committee and rebutting giuliani's assertion that have collusion is not a crime. he re he -- i want to start with your view of whether what donald trump wrote on the internet today is evidence of potential obstruction. >> well, it's certainly evidence of his state of mind how he views the ongoing mueller investigation and of what he thinks should happen. his saying this morning that jeff sessions should shut down the mueller investigation which he calls a rigged witch hunt as
a number of commentators have said so far this evening could be entered into evidence as something that suggests what his state of mind has been. i'll remind you this goes all the way back to his lester holt interview following his firing of fbi director james comey. whether he said that he had the russia investigation in mind when he fired jim comey, the former fbi director. so i think there's abundant evidence that obstruction and intent to interfere the ongoing investigation into whether or not rush yar committed some conspiracy with trump campaign in order to violate our federal election laws. that's something that's been out there in plain view now for months. frankly, my answer as to why president trump did in this morning is a combination of appealing to his base, delegitimizing the mueller investigation and he frankly partly just can't help himself. >> right, because as we've reported his lawyer's reaction shows that this was coming from the top and that they wanted to
say it didn't do what it did. getting to your other piece, you know, sometimes it feels like we're all going through a type of law school together in this era. you would be one of our voluntary professors i suppose. collusion, conspiracy, criminal hacking and theft, fraud fraud against the units, foreign campaign contributions are all felonies that relate to what has been alleged in 2016. walk us through your point about what trims constitute collusion. >> well, first the term collusion here is being used casually. what it's really referring to i'll remind you is a conspiracy to break federal election laws. the federal election law and i think it is title 52 of the u.s. code, section 30121 says that it is a crime to solicit or accept a thing of value from a foreign national in order to influence a federal election. i'm summarizing what is a much
longer paragraph. but essentially, that's what it says is that a foreign national can't contribute either money or a thing of value and an american can't solicit or receive a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a federal election. that's really the crux of what's being investigated here is whether or not the russian well documented wide scale russian effort by dozens of military intelligence officers tore influence the american election and to be offer hacked e-mails was in some way either solicited or accepted by the trump campaign team. that's why i think the developments in recent days that michael cohen may well be willing to testify that president trump knew about the june 9th trump tower meeting with russians offering dirt on hillary clinton could be a key turning point here. there's lots of public evidence of an enthusiasm by the highest levels of the trump campaign to
accept information derogatory to hillary clinton and his campaign. there's lots of evidence that robert mueller's investigation has made public through indictments of russian efforts to influence the outcome of the campaign. what's been missing so far is something that connects point a to point b and makes it into a conspiracy. that may well it be the evidence that robert mueller is preparing to present. i'm remind you lying to federal investigators is also a federal offense and sometimes things that are said on twitter whether it's by donald trump jr. or paul manafort or others, what really ends up being the thing that hangs them up is having testified in front of a committee or to an fbi investigator one way and it being proven that the facts are the opposite. i think those are the three core issues here. finally federal election law working in partnership to break the american laws which is conspiracy and lying to investigators most of the indictments that have so far come out from the mueller
investigation move along one of those three tracks. i expect we'll be seeing more indictments in in the near future. >> to paraphrase it, sounds like they were right to say collusion is not a crime because it is like four crimes. >> that's right. what we are commonly referring to as collusion is a complex series of violation afsz federal election law, of truthfulness to investigators and the commonly known crime of conspiracy which is i think 18usc371. that's just working with more than one other foreign break federal law. that's simple conspiracy. senator chris coons, a member of the senate judiciary committee, i really do appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you, ari. >> still ahead there could be a big development in paul manafort's trial. we have that former federal prosecutor who was in the courtroom today in just a moment.
i love you, basement guest bathroom. your privacy makes you my number 1 place to go number 2. i love you, but sometimes you stink. febreze air effects doesn't just mask, it cleans away odors. because the things you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up to 30 days. breathe happy with febreze. bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott!
it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that. with our largest variety of crab all year! like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. but hurry in. 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected.
it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. now, to the trial. mueller's prosecutors moving fast in day two of paul manafort's trial which is what's generally required in this rocket docket. in fact, the prosecutors say they're way ahead of schedule on this trial and could rest their case as early as next week. many witnesses may be afraid of mueller's team but the judge there t.s. ellis is not. of course, he's not supposed to be. seconds after prosecutor an season yea starred delivering his opening statement, the judge
cut him off. the prosecutor saying a man in the court did not believe the law did not apply to him and collected over $60 million for his work in a country called ukraine but this man didn't want to report his income so he used foreign bank accounts to funnel and boom, the judge interrupted the evidence you contend will show this? the prosecutor says yes. and judge ellis does a little smackdown. that's the way i would put it. and the prosecutor tried to continue saying to funnel millions of dollars and judge ellis collapsed back and says, did you hear what i said? then we get a more typical response. the prosecutor says yes, your honor. the judge says all right, do it that way please. ellis pressed both sides. he is a known stickler and told manafort's lawyers they also must speaking in evidence telling them "it's preferable if you couch in this case your argument or your defense in terms of "you will hear evidence
that" dot, dot, dot. now right out of the gate that has been the issue. today the judge didn't mellow out at one point scolding the prosecutors and defense team to rein in their facial expressions. "it's been reported that lawyers upon leaving the bench roll their eyes communicating to those watching them essentially why do we have to put up with this idiot judge." don't do that. obviously, if i were to see it, i might be a little upset. you can see that running a courtroom sometimes is no different than dealing with well, your average teenager at least in the view of this judge on the record. put aside the facial expressions and what's going on is the judge is trying to trim the sails of aggressive lawyers and that includes mule he's aggressive prosecutors. he took issue with the word oligarch, arguing it is just despot tick power exercised by a privileged few and by that definition, principles of high schools are oligarchs, too.
what he was getting at what i want to avoid somehow to use the term oligarch to mean manafort was being paid by people who are criminals. the only thing we know about them is if they had a lot of money. it has come to have a pejorative meaning. he told them look, find another term to use. almost immediately, not being able to say the word oligarch, that's kind of like a banana peel for the prosecution and i'll read from what we're learning from this trial. the payments were made on behalf of mr. ian cuevich i would say oligarchs the prosecutor said but by wealthy businessman. the judge said who paid. the prosecutor said those are the oligarchs. >> the judge said those are the individuals who financed it. don't use that term. now we go back to what good lawyers do. they said understood. there was also a matter of
whether the prosecutors can use photographs of expensive suits as evidence. there were brand names that were greek to this judge. the judge said if it doesn't say men's wearhouse, i don't know it. that got something of a laugh. then what happened did not. we're showing you this because it matters legally. judge ellis hinting these pictures of manafort's very fancy suits may never get to the jury. the big curveball came when he starred questioning other evidence that pertained to rick gates. that's manafort's former deputy who mueller got to cooperate. gates' testimony has the potential to be the most riveting pivotal portion of this trial. maybe of the whole mueller prosecution up to point. we're talking about the deputy campaign manager for donald trump who flipped. but look at this. judge ellis says "you're going to offer up mr. gates, aren't you? ." and mueller's prosecutor says your honor, we're not sure if we are. he may testify in this case, your honor.
he may not. that is one of those things that sounds very measured. we may do this, we may not but actually has really big repercussions what we'll hearn from there case. whied the prosecution be considering not putting what is described astaire witness on the stand. i'm joined by barbara mcquade at the trial today and josh gerstein reporting as politico's correspondent and covering the manafort case since the we beginning. barbara, i will you the that question to you. >> yeah about, whether gates will testify? interesting moment in the trial. and there was sort of a sudden hush in the courtroom. and then a sudden scurrying when a number of people ran out the back. in fact, judge ellis himself said that's a surprise to me. and apparently to about 25 other people in the courtroom who just ran out of here like ras fleeing a singing ship. presumably reporters who were
going to report back there statement. and if you think about it, it may very well be that they decide not to call rick gates. in my view, the case is.coming in very well. they've gotten in lots of documents. this is primarily a paper case which if you're a prosecutor is a dream because paper doesn't lie. paper doesn't forget. paper doesn't admit to biases and so if you can problem your case with paper, you may not need a live wit fles who can go sideways in a lot of ways. it sounds like they're playing it by ear but may well end up not causing rick gates because they don't need to and he prens potential ricks. >> good trial litigators have no attachment to anything that's come before. they just want to make the case to win. is there something going on some of the undercutting by the defense counsel was effective enough they want to keep this option open. >> yeah, i think so. there were noncommittal today and don't need to be.
when you put a name on your list it, is who you may call. but you don't have to call all of them. when you do call a witness, you're required to turn over all of their prior statements on the subject matter and required to turn over anything that could be used to attack their credibility like the plea deal, like anything bad that he has admitted to, any staps he's made about the russia matter. it may be that prosecutors would rather hold that information close to the vest for now and save him as a witness in the washington, d.c. trial that's going to occur in september. they can get through this one on paper and save him, think they'll view that as a good thing. they can make that call next week when they see how the case has come in and decide if they need to call him at all. >> josh, walk us through the color from taking just a few quotes. did you ever see eye rolling and how pivotal is this judge? >> i think some of the eye rolling may have come during the jury selection process when we had very long sidebars.
the judge does seem to really be riding the prosecution. now, there wouldn't be any reason for him to be riding the defense because the defense at the moment is putting in a few cross-examination questions at the end of each witness called by the prosecution. so it's really the prosecution's ball on their side of the field at this point. been the judge is beak limiting the amount of evidence that i think the defense might view as prejudicial. as you mentioned, the issues of the photos or the photos of the ostrich jacket, photos of home renovations that were very expensive, photos of all the suits of all the other luxury goods that manafort used pone to buy money that the prosecution says came from his work in ukraine, but the judge is trying to keep this really to facts and figures to the invoices to the paper. >> let me draw you out on that. do you think this is fair in the criticism of the mueller team is
they're trying to make paul manafort out like he's sean diddy coves and had fancy coats and fancy brands and that legally, there's not the problem. it's kind of unfair and what they really have to problem is that there was tax evasion. do you think the judge is hitting that right and fairly? >> i think he is. he does bring it up a lot. i'd say roughly every hour or two, he makes a comment about manafort is not on trial for being rich or for having a lavish lifestyle or extravagant tastes and the prosecutors will often agree with the judge but they insys they need to show the value of these luxury goods and that manafort was getting them to really convince jurors that manafort's tax returns could not possibly have covered the lifestyle that he was living in addition to trying to prove his point of the very, very strange payment arrangements, nearly every vendor who came up said they were paid by overseas wire transfers from shell companies whose names they had never heard
of or only got from the manafort. today we had a strange development of forged invoices a couple of vendors saying that they were being shown invoices with their company's name at the top of the letterhead but that they were not authentic. it appears somebody fortunatelied those as part of the process of getting these bills paid by shell companies can overseas. >> it sounds exhausting to be that shady all the time. but we don't always relate toe what defendants are accused of, innocent till proven guilty, of course. former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade and politico's josh gerstein. we have one more note. manafort has those expensive tastes and that includes we're going to show you a $15,000 ostrich coat. josh just mentioned it. we want you to see it because you're not a juror. you have every right to the information out there. here is we submit to you the ostrich coat in question and we submit it to you without comment. we'll be right back. always have been.
when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable.
the world is full of different hair. that's why pantene has the perfect conditioners for everyone. from air-light foam, to nourishing 3 minute miracle, to the moisture-infusing gold series. we give more women great hair days - every day. pantene.
at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california. so check this out. the scene outside republican senator's john thune's office today. this is the dirksen senate office building right ahead of the senator's scheduled meeting with trump's new supreme court pick bret kavanaugh. nbc counted about 200 demonstrators lining the halls. they stood mostly in silent protest. with the protest under way, senator thune's meeting was moved in fact this happened the last minute.
they brought him over to mitch mcconnell's office suite in the capitol. the public not permitted so protest serious couldn't get as close. when they got word the meeting was moved, they marched on the hart office building where he was scheduled to meet with the john boozman. protesters singing songs, they were blocking the halls and some chanted oh, "hell no," kavanaugh. dozens of them were then arrested for that conduct. according to capitol police, 74 people arrested and charged. the counts around crowding or obstructing because you can't interfere with the gathering places there. when disability rights activist aidy barkin was wheeled into a police holding area he was cheered by.protesters. the battle is still in the early stages, democratic senators saying they not meet with kavanaugh. they want more facts from his time serving as bush's staff secretary in the white house. meanwhile, republican chuck grassley who leads the judiciary
committee says he has mot said when these confirmation hearings will actually start. but he does admit they are not likely till september which, of course is getting close to the midterms themselves. if today's any indication what's to come, it could be a lot more bumps on that road. it's the ford summer sales event and now is the best time to buy. man: (on tablet) preparing classic campfire trout. say what? trout. trout. alright. you don't think i need both? why does he have that axe? make summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand.
now get 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash on a great selection of suvs. during the ford summer sales event, get our best offer of the season: 0% financing for 72 months plus $1,000 ford credit bonus cash. ayep, and my teeth are yellow.? 0% financing for 72 months time for whitestrips. crest glamorous white whitestrips are the only ada-accepted whitening strips proven to be safe and effective. and they whiten 25x better than a leading whitening toothpaste. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com
back pain can't win. transitionsâ„¢ now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. it was big news when "the washington post" and the times reported last summer that the middle of the 2016 campaign, the trump org was actively secretly trying to bid the trump tower in moscow. as we know, candidate trump was signing documents about that deal during the campaign at the very time he was publicly insisting he had no business des with russia. this may, buzzfeed's anthony cormier and jamp lee poed advanced the story with another scoop that the negotiations for trump tower moscow were far more extensive and lasted longer than reported and the planning went on after trump became the nominee and that the negotiations conducted by michael cohen included plans for
trump to make a mid-campaign trip to moscow also known as a great idea. the buzzfeed report includes another bombshell on the subject that relates to collusion. even before mueller was appointed special counsel, fbi agencies learned that cohen was in frequent contact with foreign individuals about trump moscow and that some of those individuals had knowledge of or played a role in 2016 election meddling. that would be like a big headline all on its own if we didn't have so many other things happening. it's one exhibit in the collusion issues around trump. now, buzzfeed's cormier and leopold this team is back with a new scoop. this one is about the accused spy maria butina currently in jail accused of acting as a russian agent. prosecutors accuse her of waging a covert operation of influence targeting the nra and other conservatives and allege she was aided by u.s. persons one and two. first one matches political operative paul erickson who also
had a relationship with her, the second one i.d. and giorgio neil junior, a rockefeller heir, a conservative writer and he worked on the pat buchanan campaign in '92 with erickson. the details are piling up about her alleged influence campaign in the u.s. financed by a russian billionaire with deep ties to the russian presidential administration. to use a word you can't use in the manafort trial, that oligarch had a son who worked as a volunteer on trump's campaign. now sources are saying butina first told the senate about this funding source in her interview there. today the senate unanimously approved turning over that transcript what she told them and the details about the billionaire to prosecutors, as well butina's defense lawyer. buzzfeed reports federal investigators hot on the trail and reporting that the investigators are looking at $300,000 in these transactions by butina and erickson which includes $90,000 sent to or from
a russian bank. the transactions were actually first flagged by anti-fraud investigations at wells fargo who in some cases found "no an apparent economic business or lawful purpose to explain them." those records also now handed over to the fbi. joining me now is one of those authorize of those scoops, buzzfeed reporter anthony cormier. i guess i should start with wow. >> thanks. >> there's a lot here. >> a whole bunch going on. >> $300,000, what does it mean? >> we know now this massive counter intelligence investigation is doing what all investigators do, following the money. they want to know who was supporting her in the u.s. and what she was doing with the funds while she was here and whether or not anyone else was involved with this sort of what they are alleging is a grand conspiracy to influence political figures in the u.s. on russia's behalf. >> right. when you say anyone else involved, it's oh, are she and torsion linked to putin some
sort of tiny lone would he have sleeper cell or are there other dogs on this russian dog sledding team. >> both russian and american i think. telling us they want to know to whom torsion was funneling money, whether those are russian individuals and were torshin was sending pone to anyone in the u.s. that's not been proven. we can say that's what the fbi is sniffing around at. >> you're familiar with the term what happens in las vegas stays in las vegas. what happens online has not stayed online in this case. the midterm campaign hacking we're hearing about involves offline events, the digital operations mueller charged involve a lot of offline problems. how much of this looks to you like bigger offline physical activity inside the united states and how does mueller view that even if this predates his mandate. >> i won't speak for mr. mueller. but i will say that our sources in the fbi tell us that that money has to go somewhere.
right? these are -- this is cash. it moves. they want to know where it went. it's going to be difficult when you deposit cash on the front end, it's hard to know where it came from, when you pull it out, it's difficult to know where it went. they're the fbi and this is a massive sweeping counter intelligence investigation. our sources are telling us they are firmly going to get to the bottom of it. >> torshin being so hands on as a putin billionaire means what? >> you can make a bee line to the kremlin if stands up, if the butina charges stick. if they find out where the money came from and where it went, it will be very difficult for kremlin to say we had no idea. >> final question. a lot of the discussion about regulating finance and banks in america. is this story which you report begins with bank regulations and laws forcing oversight a sign that's an important part of overseeing banks? >> absolutely. we jason and my partner and i have been reporting on this sort of money and steen again and again whether it's citi in the
past, wells fargo. they are critical vectors, points where fbi is able to go and pull records. as we saw earlier in the show today, paper doesn't lie. the fbi is using paper to make these cases. >> it's fascinating and as we've shown in our introduction, you've been doing a lot of reporting. thank you so much anthony cormier. democrats say they got good news. 97 days out of the midterms. that's next. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ 97 days out of the midterms. that's next. and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ gives skin the moisture it needs and keeps it there longer with lock-in moisture technology
skin is petal smooth after all, a cleanser's just a cleanser unless it's olay. just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their dayr back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta
the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card. but behr premium stain y can weather any weather. overall #1 rated, weathers it all. find our most advanced formula exclusively at the home depot.
of ohio has a 12i district smack in the middle that have state and it's been reliably red. the 12th hasn't gone to a democrat for congress since run-d.m.c. was is the top of the charts in the '80s. right now this district doesn't have a member of congress representing them because you have a big ohio 12-shaped hole in the u.s. house and that's why we have a special election to fill that seat this coming tuesday. you could say the midterms have already starred although it's a special election. now that, has gone up like a flare for democrats trying to win back the house. the latest poll out of that district, the democrat trailing the opponent by just one point. well within striking distance which we've just shown you would be a huge shift blue in the state. democrats say this is not the only good piece of data they're getting right now today. over in texas, which, of course is relily red the idea of an incumbent republican senator like ted cruz losing to a progressive upstart democrat
would seem like a total fantasy but there is this poll out of texas, the democrat running against ted cruz beta o'rourke trailing by six points. that is tight for texas. larry sabato the said the race has an upset potential. if you follow the news or live in texas, you know everyone loves ted cruz. he is super popular and well liked. that's an issue anytime you run against him. having said that, there is a bat signal thing going on for at least the democratic party's biggest cheerleader, former president barack obama using today as thisser good data is coming in to release his list of endorsements for the midterms and trying to push some over the finish line and chipping away at the republican majority in congress. it is now 97 days from the midterms and this former president is choosing this as his moment to get back in the spotlight saying he's eager to get back into politics. we're about to enter the sprint to november. make sure to stretch. ♪
with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique.
sure sure sure the legend of the asian financial meltdown on the brink recently dangerous time for her to make sure my. plane. player. playing. this is news live from berlin and donald trump pulls out his health and historic nuclear treaty trump says the u.s. will apes of a cold war era deal that banned a whole range of nuclear weapons because of russian violations most vocals the move a dangerous step also coming up. from saudi arabia's foreign minister of course the killing of jamal khashoggi the join the station mistake and he insists that those
responsible will be held accountable. and in the bundesliga by in munich steady the ship off to a poor run for him brought it even was back on this philippines as the champions beat wolves but it wasn't all plain sailing we'll have a look at that and the best of the weekend's football action from germany. her. place. i'm christine with well welcome to the program. u.s. president donald trump has told reporters that the u.s. will unilaterally. arms agreement with russia the landmark intermediate range nuclear forces treaty was negotiated some thirty is a good buy then president ronald reagan and soviet leader mikhail gorbachev if it
bans nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges of five hundred to fifty five hundred konami says his with donald trump extasy russia has violated the agreement they've been violated here for many years and i don't know why president obama didn't negotiate or pull out. there we're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement they go out of their weapons and we're not allowed to we're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we bonded the agreement but russia is not one fortunately on to the agreement so we're going to terminate their group and we're going to pull out. or i for more on this this cross to washington correspondent alexandra phenomena hallett's u.s. allies have warned against trump's decision to pull out of the treaty how much support is there in washington for the move and why. well when you talk to nuclear arms experts they tell you that they are very concerned saying that that decision would speed very dangerous and could build an arms
race in the next. increasingly cold war like behavior among the u.s. russia and china trump is also facing criticism from democratic lawmakers one of them that this decision would be reckless that the white house has to consult the allies in europe there are also republican lawmakers standing behind the president and we have to say that the you asked military leaders have been complaining for a quiet long time now that russia has been violating this treaty and that this treaty is a one sided constraints on the u.s. ability to come for a china that was not a signatory of this treaty and it's all of this as the u.s. says national security adviser john bolton is heading to moscow for meetings with
president putin and foreign minister lavrov how this how will this impact russia u.s. relations well many experts here say the u.s. russia relations are there are low worst point ever and that this announcement is not going to help but of course and then we have to ask ourselves were john bolton is the right person to deescalate because he is known for his hawkish should views on russia on the iran over issues and he was reportedly the one who was pushing for this plan for this withdrawal behind closed doors in the white house the u.s. has accused russia of violating the treaty on its part has the u.s. stature the agreement to or does the terms of the agreement. well we know there. is a thinking about producing deploying a new messiah was to account for as i said that china's activities in cell with
china sea but so far the pentagon has only begun research and development into such missiles that would be banned by this treaty and research is not prohibited by under the spec now the german foreign minister heikal mas has the us to consider the consequences that this will have on future decide on them and if it has washington fully weighed up the risks yet well you know that's not the way how a president. is thinking and how his conducting his foreign policy issues he has pulled out of the paris climate agreement and without considering the consequences he pulled out of the iran nuclear treaty and so far there was no one who could convince him in three thinking his decisions however in this case we have to say that now he is pulling out of one treaty there
is another one then you start treaty on strategic arms that is due to expire it's twenty twenty one and if that happens the world will be left behind with oh it's any limits on nuclear arsenals of nuclear powers right and it's on reporting for us in washington. saudi arabia's foreign minister has reacted to the killing of dissident journalist jamal khashoggi calling it a huge and grave mistake he also told us brought osce to fox that those responsible would be held accountable saudi authorities have stated died in a fistfight in the country's consulate in istanbul he was last seen entering the building on october the second turkish officials suspect he was assassinated. but paris and london have issued
a joint statement demanding that saudi arabia clarifies the circumstances off the journalist if for the first time german chancellor angela merkel said that she backs a freeze on arms sales to the kingdom. but will turn first we condemn this act in the strongest terms. there's an urgent need to clarify what happened with this issue is far from having been cleared out and those responsible are still not held accountable. because i agree with all those who say that the already limited arms exports can continue and the situation we're currently in. the threats. on them in them all magicks and. now to some of the other stories making news around the world israel has announced it's postponing the demolition off a palestinian town in the west bank for a few weeks in the hopes of negotiating a peaceful evacuation with the residents the international criminal court warned
that a forced evacuation off the big one people in the con could constitute a war crime. at least twenty two people have been killed and one hundred seventy one injured in a train derailment in taiwan the poor huma express train was traveling from taipei to title a city on the south east coast now the reason for the disaster is still and clear. more than fifty people have been killed during violence in afghanistan's first parliamentary elections in eighty is voting was extended to stand or to sunday at many polling stations off to take nickel and organizational problems the previous day turnout was larger than expected with around four million people costing their votes. thousands of central american migrants who've joined together to journey north have resumed their march off to illegally crossing into mexico they vow to continue on to the intended destination the united states prison donald
trump has threatened to deploy troops to the us mexico border if the migrants are not stopped. thousands of people took to the streets of dresden on sunday in rival marches the anti islam and immigrant they gave a movement celebrated its end of its fourth anniversary as larger crowds joint council demonstrations in the eastern german city they gave to has helped the rise of the far right party which placed third in germany's parliamentary elections last year. burned openminded to the. some ten thousand people marched through the eastern german city calling for love not hate inclusion and respect the state of saxony is premie i also took part in the protest you know that you're on your mind now more down ladies and gentlemen it's up to us to make our country open minded and friendly so that children and
young people feel welcome here so that people from other regions can choose to come here and i'm glad to see so many people here today who want exactly that. too much as you know. they came together in defiance of another rally that of the un to immigrant piggy to movement. is the acronym for pottery arctic europeans against the islam is a sion of the west. the banas warning the german chancellor that day is a numbered the group is marking the fourth anniversary of its founding. in twenty fourteen it held its first so-called evening stroll through to. support for its regular rallies swell during the migration crisis but its momentum appears to be fizzling out piccy does rally today with five thousand people by the counter demonstrations many residents are tired of the city being linked to the far right
people of those at the far right rallies for at present. news colorful and deborah street for this york needs to stop here in my beautiful city. organizers say it's the first year different groups joined forces to oppose. this is still it's really great for us we've worked once this for years to overcome political differences and to be united on this one issues. in fog. these activists united in their rejection of piggy does message of sin a phobia and race. sports news and time to look at the results from sunday's bundesliga action has a bilin and freiburg shared the points andre do the next that his sixth goal of the
season for hazza best defender robin brought freiburg level one all the level the final score glad buff posted minds in sunday's game jonas hoffman two goals and then the floodgates opened for going hasn't got a third and struck off men again to complete his hatrick four nil was how it ended . by and munich travel to wolfsburg on saturday with the bavarians needed to make a statement off the four games without a win in all competitions and the reigning champions didn't disappoint relieving the pressure on boss nicole coven. mico kobashi carried his usual calm demeanor even if he was feeling pressure to turn things around it didn't show no thomas moore had nor fake robbery were starting in this one prior to kickoff wolfsburg who had worse form than their opponents formed a constellation of unity while biron stars roamed the pitch with looks of pure
focus their focus paid off late in the first half pummels with the final pass through tiago rubber living dusty was there to put his side ahead this school ended a three match goal drought for the polish striker byron taking a one goal lead to the break. eleven ghosty wasn't done with scoring off the long past will splurge william with the set up live in dusty there for the clean up and the finish to neil for the visitors buyer defender nick lesula created the chance with a great pass and william with the woeful assist with the lead nico kobayashi kept his cool unlike iron robin who was sent off for a second yellow buyer a man down at the hour mark minutes later will spur capitalized about this house left alone in the penalty area to pull one back the wolves made a light work of the bahrain defense. but live in dusky set up how miss to secure the league making it three one breaking buy in back to winning ways. again how
his a roundup of all the weekend's results then is that droll between a has that and five o'clock box go fast against mines and fines much needed win against evil spirit elsley goldman secured a massive victory of a new and it went down to hoffenheim but and leipsic shared the spoils david coups and head of the also each took away a point and lehmann shall come on friday frank that thumped this little. let's see how those results affect the standings dortmund stay top but glad we're human and by munich all move up and on not in pursuit life sick and has to both drop places and then besides in the bottom how often managed to win they've accused and shall continue they have ploys stalwarts stood guard and dissolute will swap places at the bottom. now sprinkle agency saying both look say to the chief
>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the russia collusion conspiracy theory. as democrats continue to voice this expect tackle on the american people as well as you, mr. mueller, the american people may recall the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016 when fusion gps, funded by the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign started developing the steele dossier, a question of outlandish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. fusion gps, steele and other confederates fed these theorys to naive reporters and top officials in numerous government agencies, including the fbi, department of justice and the state department. among other things, the fbi used dossier allegations to obtain a
warranty to spy on the trump campaign. despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified, former fbi director james comey briefed those allegations to president obama and president-elect trump. those briefings conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign ex-spy, one who admitted he was desperate that trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an fbi source for leaking to the press. after comey was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information to the press and successfully so of engineering the appointment of a special counsel, who sits here before us today.
the fbi investigation was marred by further corruption and abuses. top official bruce orr, who his own wife worked on fusion gps's anti-trump operation, fed steele's information to the fbi, even after the fbi fired steele. top fbi investigator and his lover, another top fbi official constantly texted about how much they hated trump and wanted to stop him from being elected. and the entire investigation was opened, based not on intelligence but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving a maltese diplomat widely portrayed as a russian agent but seems to have far more connections with western governments, including our own fbi and our own state department than with russia. braisingly ignoring all these
red flags, as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they're making, democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. like the lochness monster, they insist it's there, even if no one can find it. consider this. in march 2017, democrats on this committee said they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but they couldn't reveal it yet. mr. mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the collusion. then when no collusion was found and mr. mueller's indictments, the democrats said we would find it in his final report. then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told attorney general barr was hiding it. then when it was clear barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with mr. mueller himself. and now that mr. mueller is here, they're claiming that the collusion has actually been in his report all along.
hidden in plain sight. and they're right. there is collusion in plain sight. collusion between russia and the democratic party. the democrats cloouded with russian sources to develop the steele dossier, russian lawyer gnat ala veselnitskaya cloouded with glenn simpson. through interviews and usual anonymous statements to reporters that today's hearing is not about getting information at all. they said they want to, quote, bring the mueller report to life and create a television moment through ploys, like having mr. mueller recite passages from his own report. this is political theater, hail mary attempt to convince the american people that collusion is real and that it's concealed in the report. granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public. it's almost like the democrats
prepared arguments, accusing mr. barr of hiding the report and didn't bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing. among congressional democrats, the russian investigation was never about finding the truth. it's always been a simple media operation by their own accounts, this operation continues in this room today. once again, numerous pressing issues this committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to deserve hillary clinton's administration. it's time for the curtain to close on the russia hoax, the conspiracy theory is dead. at some point, i would argue, we're going to have to get back to work. until then, i yield back the balance of my time. >> to ensure fairness and make sure that our hearing is prompt, i know we got a late start,
director mueller, the hearing will be structured as follows. each member of the committee will be afforded five minutes to ask questions, beginning with the chair and ranking member. as chair, i will recognize thereafter in alternating fashion and descending order members of the majority and minority. as each member is asked his or her questions, the ranking member will be afforded an additional five minutes, followed by the chair, who will an additional five minutes for questions. ranking member and the chair will not be permitted to delegate or yield our final round of questions to any other member. after six members of the majority and six members of the minority have concluded their five-minute rounds of questions, we'll take a five or ten-minute break. we understand you've requested before resuming the hearing with congressman swalwell, starting his round of questions. special counsel mueller is accompanied today by aaron zebley, who served as deputy special counsel from may 2017 until may 2019 and had
day-to-day oversight of the investigation. mr. zebley resigned end of may 2019 when the special counsel's office was closed. both mr. mueller and mr. zebley will be available to answer questions today and will be sworn in, consistent with the rules of the house and the committee. mr. mueller and mr. zebley's appearance is in keeping with the committee's longstanding practice of receiving testimony from current or former department of justice and fbi personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters. as this hearing is under oath and before we begin your testimony, mr. mueller and zebley, would you please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn? >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give at this hearing is the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? thank you. the record will reflect that the witnesses have been duly sworn. ranking member? >> thank you, mr. chair. i just want to clarify that this is highly unusual for mr. zebley to be sworn in. we're here to ask director mueller questions. he is here as counsel. our side is not going to be directing any questions to mr. zebley and we have concerns about his prior representation of hillary clinton campaign aide. i just want to voice that concern that we do have and won't be addressing any questions to mr. zebley today. >> i thank the ranking member. i realize as probably do mr. zebley that there is an angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here tod today, but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn in and testify and you are
welcome as a private citizen to testify and members may direct their questions to whoever they choose. with that, director mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks you would like to make. >> good afternoon, chairman schiff, ranking member nunes and members of the committee. i testified before the house judiciary committee this morning and asked that that opening statement be incorporated into the record here. >> without objection. >> unique jurisdiction and you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counter intelligence matters. as we explained in our report, special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of
united states attorney. as a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. we did not reach what you would call counterintelligence conclusions. we did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counterintelligence information on to the fbi. members of our office periodically briefed the fbi about counterintelligence information. in addition, there were agents and analysts from the fbi who are not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. for these reasons, questions about what the fbi has done with the counter intelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the fbi. i also want to reiterate a few
points that i made this morning. i am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. first, public testimony could affect ongoing matters, limiting the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings and consistent with longstanding justice department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. second, the justice department has asserted privileges regarding information, decisions, on did ls going matters within the justice department and deliberations
within our office. these are justice department privileges that i will respect. the department has released a letter, discussing the restrictions on my testimony. i, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the opening of the fbi's russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called steele dossier. these matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the fbi or the justice department. third, as i explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. the report contains our findings, analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we stated the results of our
investigation with precision. i do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. as i stated in may, i also will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. i was appointed as a prosecutor. and i intend to adhere to that role and to the department standards that govern. flienl as i said this morning over the course of my career, i've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. i am sure that the committee agrees. now before we go to questions i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lieu who said, and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion.
that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report, and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. with that, mr. chairman, i'm ready to answer questions. >> thank you, director mueller. i recognize myself for five minutes. director mueller, your report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by russia to influence our presidential election. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and during the course of this russian interference in the election, the russians made outreach to the trump campaign, did they not? >> that occurred over the course of -- yeah, that occurred. >> it's also clear from your report that during that russian outreach to the trump campaign, no one associated with the trump campaign ever called the fbi to report it, am i right? >> i don't know that for sure. >> in fact, the campaign welcomed the russian help, did
they not? >> i think we report in our report indications that that occurred, yes. >> the president's son said when he was approached on dirt about hillary clinton, the trump campaign would love it? >> that's generally what was said, yes. >> the president himself called on the russians to hack hillary's emails? >> there's a statement by the president in those general line lines. >> numerous times during the campaign, the president praised the releases of the russian-hacked emails through wikileaks? >> that did occur. >> your report found that the trump campaign planned, quote, a press strategy, communications campaign and messaging, unquote, based on that russian assistance. >> i am not familiar with that. >> that language comes from volume i, page 54. apart from the russians wanting to help trump win, several individuals associated with the trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition, is that
correct? >> that is true. >> paul manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a russian oligarch? >> generally that is accurate. >> michael flynn was trying to make money from turkey? >> true. >> donald trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in moscow? >> to the extent you're talking about the hotel in moscow? >> yes. >> yes. >> when your investigation looked into these matters, numerous individuals lied? >> number of persons we interviewed in the investigation, it turns out, did lie. >> mike flynn lied? >> he was convicted of lying, yes. >> george papadopoulos was convict fd lying? >> true. >> paul manafort was convicted of lying? >> true. >> in fact, went so far as to encourage other people to lie? >> that is accurate. >> deputy rick gates lied? >> that is accurate. >> michael cohen, the president's lawyer, was indicted
for lying. >> true. >> he lied to stay on message with the president? >> allegedly, by him. >> when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that is also false, is it not? >> i like to think so, yes. >> your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it? >> it is not a witch hunt. >> when the president said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? >> true. >> when he said it publicly, it was false. >> he did say it publicly that it was false, yes. >> when he told it to putin, that was false, too, wasn't it? >> that, i'm not familiar with. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, that was false, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to go into the details of the report along those lines. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, in fact, he was seeking to build a trump tower in moscow, was he not? >> i think there is some question about when this was accomplished. >> you would consider a billion
dollar deal to build a tower in moscow to be business dealings. wouldn't you, mr. mueller? >> absolutely. >> in short your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election, right? >> generally, i think that would be accurate. >> russia informed campaign officials of that? >> i'm not certain to what conversations you're referring to. >> intermediary informed papadopoulos that they could help in stolen emails? >> accurate. >> committed crimes in order to help donald trump. >> you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? >> yes. >> absolutely. >> the trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy around those stolen documents? >> generally, that's true. >> and then they lied to cover it up? >> generally, that's true. >> thank you, mr. nunes.
>> thank you. welco welcome, director. as a former fbi director, you would agree that the fbi is the world's most capable law enforcement agency? >> i would say we're -- yes. >> the fbi claims the counter intelligence investigation of the trump campaign began july 31st, 2016. but, in fact, it began before that. in june 2016 before the investigation officially opened, trump campaign associates carter page and steven miller, a current trump adviser, were invited to attend a symposium at cambridge university in july 2016. your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting them to this symposium. they also failed to interview an american citizen who organized the event and invited carter page to it. is that correct? >> can you repeat the question? >> whether or not you interviewed steven schraege who
orged the cambridge -- >> those areas i'm going to stay away from. >> the first trump associate to be investigated was general flynn. many allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a cambridge academic, lokova, who was a russian spy. some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by british historian christopher andrew. your report fails to reveal how or why andrew, and his collaborator, richard dearlove, head of mi-6 spread these allegations and you failed to interview svetlana lokova about these matters. is that correct? >> i'm not going to get into those matters to which you refe refer. >> you had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents and unlimited budget.
correct, mr. mueller? >> i would not say we had an unlimited budget. >> let's continue with the opening of the investigation, supposedly on july 31st, 2016. the investigation was not opened based on an official but based on a rumor by alex ander downer. volume i, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. he was actually a long-time australian politician, not a military or intelligence official who previously arranged a $25 million donation to the clinton foundation and, has previous ties to dearlove. so, downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between papadopoulos and mifsa, calling mifsa a russian agent, yet your report does not refer to him as a russian agent. he has extensive contacts with
western governments and the fbi. for example, a recent photo of him standing next to boris johnson, the new prime minister of great britain. what we're trying to figure out here, mr. mueller, is if our nato allies or boris johnson have been compromised. comey says mifsin is a russian agent. you do not. do you stand by what's in the report? >> i stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that which is not in the report. >> i want to return to mr. downer. he denies papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about hillary clinton emails and denies that he took that to papadopoulos. mifsin denies mentioning them to papadopoulos in the first place. how does the fbi know to continually ask papadopoulos
about clinton's emails for the rest of 2016? even more strangely, your sentencing memo on papadopoulos blames him for hindering the arrest or detain mifsid, who waltzed in and out of the united states in december 2016. the u.s. media could find him. italian press found him. a supposed russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy. he is the guy who knows about the hillary clinton emails and that the russians have them but the fbi failed to question him for half a year after aofficially opening the investigation. and then according to volume i, once mifsid was finally questioned he made false statements to the fbi. but you declined to charge him. is that correct? you did not indict mr. mifsin?
>> i'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you articulate them. >> you did not indict mr. mifsin? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> pardon? >> you did not indict mr. mifsid? >> true. >> mr. mueller, thank you for your perseverance and patience today. director, your report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. the first statement is one that as of today is not acknowledged by the president of the united states. and that is, quote, the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. the second statement remains controversial amongst members of this body, same page on your report. i quote, the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. do i have that statement right? >> i believe so. >> director mueller, this attack
on our democracy involved, as you said, two operations. first, a social mediainformation campaign. this was a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like twitter and facebook. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> facebook estimated, as per your report, that the russian fake images reached 126 million people. is that correct? >> i believe that's the sum we recorded. >> director, who did the russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, hillary clinton or donald trump? >> donald trump. >> the second operation -- >> let me say donald trump. there were instances where hillary clinton was subject to much the same behavior. >> the second operation was a scheme, what we call the hack and dump, to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the democratic party and the clinton campaign. is that a fair summary? >> that is. >> did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked emails were strategically timed
to maximize impact on the election? >> i would have to refer you to our report on that question. >> page 36, i quote, the release of the documents were designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 u.s. presidential election. mr. mueller, which presidential candidate was russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, hillary clinton or donald trump? >> mr. trump. >> is it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the presidential election? >> those issues are being or have been investigated by other entities. >> 126 million facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on hillary clinton's health. would you rule out it might have had some effect on the election? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> mr. mueller, your report describes a third avenue of attempted russian interference. that is the numerous links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to
the russian government. >> would you repeat that question? >> your report describes a third avenue of russian interference, links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government. >> yes. >> let's bring up slide one, which is about george papadopoulos. it reads on may 6, 2016, ten days after that meeting with mifsid, papadopoulos represented to representative of a foreign government that the trump campaign had received indications from the russian government it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to hillary clinton. director, that's exactly what happened two weeks later, did it not? >> i can speak to the screen being accurate as what is in the report but not the second half of the question. >> on july 22nd through
wikileaks, thousands of emails stolen by the russian government appeared, correct? that's on page six of the report. this is the wikileaks posting of those emails. >> i can't find it quickly but please continue. >> okay. so just to be clear, before the public or the fbi ever knew, the russians previewed for a trump campaign official, george papadopoulos that they had stolen emails they could release anonymously to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton, correct? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> director, rather than report this contact with joseph mifsid and the notion that there was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the fbi, which most of my constituents would expect an individual to do, mr. papadopoulos lied about his
russian contacts, correct? >> that's true. >> we have an election coming up in 2020, director. if a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts? >> should be. can be, depending on the circumstances, a crime. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conway? >> thank you. mr. mueller, did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should have been in the report? >> i don't think so but it's not a small report. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank the gentleman for yooeding. good afternoon, director mueller. in your opening remark this is morning you made it pretty clear you wanted the special counsel
report to speak for itself. you said that was the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. you spent the last three hours of your life from democrats trying to get you to answer all kinds of hypotheticals about the president, and i suspect it might continue the next three hours of your life. i think you stayed pretty much true to what your intent and dire was, but regardless of that, the special counsel's office is closed and has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special counsel's written report? >> as to the latter, i don't know or expect changes in conclusions that we included in our report.
>> some construed a change to the written report. you talked about the exchange you had with congressman lieu. i wrote it down a little bit different. i want the record to be perfectly clear. he asked you, quote, the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, to which you responded, that is correct. that response is inconsistent, i think you'll agree, with your written report. i want to be clear. it is not your intent to change your written report? it is your intent to clarify the record? >> as i start ed today, this afternoon, either a footnote or end note. what i wanted to clarify is that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way. we did not start that process down the road. >> terrific. thank you for clarifying the record. a stated purpose of your appointment as special counsel
was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, as part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination did the special counsel office make about whether the steele dossier was part of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> again, when it comes to mr. steele, i defer to the department of justice. >> well, first of all, director, i very much agree with your determination that russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. i think it should concern every american. that's why i want to know just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. i want to find out if russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to christopher steele about a trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist. >> well, again, i'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to mr. steele.
in terms of a portrayal of the conspiracies, we returned two indictments in the computer crimes arena. one gru and another active malaysias in which we lay out in excruciating detail what occurred in those two rather large conspiracies. >> i agree with respect to that. but why this is important is an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the united states government to spy or surveil on trump campaign associate carter page and the steele dossier was submitted as a central piece of evidence to that. the premise was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the trump campaign and russian government but the special counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy, correct? >> well, what i can tell you is that the events that you are
characterizing here, now, is part of another matter that is being handled by the department of justice. >> but you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one? >> again, i pass on answering that question. >> the special counsel did not charge carter page with anything, correct? >> special counsel did not. >> all right. my time is expired. i yield back. >> director mueller, i would like to turn your attention to the june 9th, 2016, trump tower meeting. slide two, which should be on the screen now, is part of an email chain between don junior -- donald trump jr. and a publicist, representing the son of a russian oligarch. the email exchange ultimately led to the now infamous june 9th, 2016, meeting. the email from the publicist to donald trump jr. reads in part, the crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that
would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and is part of russia and its government's support of mr. trump. in this email, donald trump jr. is being told that the russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt hillary clinton and help donald trump. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, trump junior's response to that email is slide three. he said, and i quote, if it is what you say, i love it. especially later in the summer. then donald junior invited senior campaign officials paul manafort and jared kushner to the meeting. did he not? >> he did. >> this email exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance. is it not? >> i cannot adopt that characterization. >> isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government? >> generally speaking, yes, but generally the cases are unique.
>> you say in page 184 volume i that the federal campaign finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, et cetera. and then you say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. it says clearly in the report itself. >> thank you. >> now, let's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. when donald trump jr. and the others got to the june 9th meeting, they realized that the russian delegation didn't have the promised, quote, unquote, dirt. in fact, they got upset about that. did they not? >> generally, yes. >> you say in volume i, page 118, that trump junior asked what are we doing here? what do they have on clinton? and during the meeting kushner actually texted manafort saying it was a waste of time, quote, unquote. correct? >> i believe it's in the report along the lines you specify. >> to be clear top trump
campaign officials learned that russia wanted to help donald trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent. trump junior said, loved it. then he and senior officials held a meeting with the russians to try to get that russian help, but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they had hoped. so, to the next step, did anyone, to your knowledge, in the trump campaign ever tell the fbi of this offer? >> i don't believe so. >> did donald trump jr. tell the fbi that they received an offer of help from the russians? >> that's about all i'll say on this aspect of it. >> wouldn't it be true, sir if, they had reported it to the fbi or anyone in that campaign during the course of your two-year investigation, you would have uncovered such a -- >> i would hope, yes. >> yes. sir, is it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the fbi if they receive information from a foreign government? >> i would think that is something they would and should do. >> not only did the campaign not
tell the fbi, they sought to hide the existence of the june 9th meeting for over a year, is that correct? >> on the general characterization, i would question it. if you're referring to later initiative that flowed from the media, then -- >> no. what i'm suggesting is that you said in volume ii, page 5, on several occasions the president directed aides to not publicly disclose the email setting up the june 9th meeting. >> yes, that's accurate. >> thanks. sir, given this illegal assistance by russians, you chose, even given that, you did not charge donald trump jr. or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. is that right? >> correct. >> and while -- >> when you're talking about -- if you're talking about other individuals, you're talking about the attendees. >> that's right. >> of june 9th. >> that's right. even though you didn't charge them with conspiracy, don't you
think that the american people would be concerned that these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help in an election and don't you think that we set a precedent for future elections? >> i can't accept that kind of characterization. >> it seems like a betrayal of american values, to me, sir. if not being criminal it's definitely unethical and wrong and i would think we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not want to divulge information to foreign adversarial governments. >> pursuant to regulations you submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation. what i would like you to confirm is the report that you did, that is the subject matter of this hearing was to the attorney
general? >> yes. >> you also say you threw overboard the word collusion because it's not a legal term. you would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term? >> well, it depends how you want to use the word. in the general parlance, people can think of it that way. if you're talking about criminal statute arena, you can't, because some -- it's much more accurately described as conspiracy. >> right. your words are, it's not a legal term so you didn't put it in your conclusion, correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. mueller, i want to talk about your powers and authorities. the attorney general in the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the attorney general. the attorney general has no ability to give you powers and authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general, correct? >> i don't believe. yeah. i think that is correct. >> mr. mueller i want to focus
on one word in your report. it's the second to the last word in the report. it's "exonerate." the report states, accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. now, in the judiciary hearing, in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with mr. ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term, that there is not a legal test for this i have a question for you, mr. mueller. does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? what i'm putting up here is the united states code. this is where the attorney general gets his power, and the constitution, and the annotated cases of these. we even went to your law school i went to case western but i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. we got the criminal law textbook from your law school. mr. mueller, nowhere in these -- because we had them scanned, is there a process or description on exonerate. there's no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office, no certificate at the bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have the power
to exonerate? >> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> because it embroils us in a legal discussion. i'm not prepared to deal with a legal discussion in that arena. >> mr. mueller, you would not disagree with me when i say that there is no place that the attorney general has the power to exonerate? he has not been given that authority. >> i take your question. >> great. the one thing that i guess is that the attorney general probably knows that he can't exonerate either. and that's the part that kind of confuses me. if the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate. and i believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. so this is the part i don't understand. if your report is to the attorney general and the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate and he does not -- he knows that you do not have that power, you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the president. he knows this already.
so then that kind of changes the context of the report. >> no. we included in the report for exactly that reason. he may not know it. he should know it. >> you believe that attorney bill barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the department of justice there's an office of exoneration? >> no, that's not what i said. >> i believe he knows. and i don't believe you put that in there for mr. barr. i think you put that in there for exactly what i'm going to discuss next. "the washington post" yesterday when speaking of your report, the article said trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself. trump could not be exonerated. that statement is correct, mr. mueller, isn't it, in that no one can be exonerated? the reporter who wrote this, this reporter can't be exonerated. mr. mueller, you can't be exonerated. in our criminal justice system there is no power or authority to exonerate. this is my concern, mr. mueller. this is the headline on all the news channels while you were testifying today. mueller, trump was not
exonerated. mr. mueller, what you know is that this can't say mueller exonerated trump. because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate trump. you have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him anderson cooper. the problem i have here is that since there's no one in the criminal justice system who has that power, the president pardons, he doesn't exonerate. courts and juries don't declare innocent, they declare not guilty. the statement about exoneration is misleading and meaningless and colors this investigation. one word out of the entire portion of your report and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning and it has colored your entire report. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. carson? >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director mueller, for your years of service to our country. i want to look more closely, sir, at the trump campaign chairman paul manafort, an individual who i believe
betrayed our country, lied to the grand jury, tampered with witnesses and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the trump campaign to make more money. let's focus on the betrayal and greed. your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between mr. manafort and russian individuals before and after the campaign. is that right, sir? >> right. correct. >> in addition to the june 9th meeting just discussed, manafort also met several times with a man named konstantin kilimnik, who was found to have ties to the russian government. >> correct. >> he didn't just meet with him but shared private trump campaign polling information with this man linked to russian intelligence. is that correct, sir? >> that is correct. >> in return, the information was shared with a russian oligarch tied to vladimir putin. is that correct, sir? >> allegedly. >> director mueller, meeting with him wasn't enough. sharing internal polling
information wasn't enough. mr. manafort went so far as to offer this russian oligarch tied to putin a private briefing on the campaign. is that right, sir? >> yes, sir. >> and, finally, mr. manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania and minnesota. the russian intelligence linked individual. did he not, sir? >> that's reflected in the report, as were the items you listed previously. >> director mueller, based on your decades of years of experience at the fbi, would you agree, sir, it creates a national security risk when a presidential campaign sharm shares private polling information on the american people? private political strategy related to winning the votes of the american people and private information about american battleground states with a foreign adversary? >> is that the question, sir? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not going to speculate along those lines. to the extent it's within the
lines of the report, i support it. anything beyond that is not part of that which i would support. >> i think it does, sir. i think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. director mueller, manafort didn't share this information in exchange for. >> i can't answer that question without knowing more about the questio question. >> it's clear he was hoped to be paid back money he was owed by russian olgarchs for the passing of campaign information. >> that true. >> as my colleague, mr. heck, will discuss later, greed corrupts. sharing private campaign information in exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption, one that presents a national security risk to our country, sir? >> i'm not going to reply on that. i don't have the expertise in
that arena to really opine. >> would you agree, sir, manafort's contacts with russians close to vladimir putin and his efforts to exchange private information on americans for money left him vulnerable to blackmail by the russians? >> generally so, i think that would be the case. >> would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values our country rests on? >> i can't agree with that. not that it's not true, but i cannot agree with it. >> yes, sir. director mueller, in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and a member of congress, fortunate to serve on the intel committee, i know enough to say yes. trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt and can leave you open to blackmail. it certainly represents a betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. thank you for your service again, director mueller. appreciate you coming today. i yield back my time.
>> dr. winstrop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. mueller, for being here today. is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of clinton campaign-related emails? >> can you read or can you repeat the question? >> is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of the clinton campaign-related emails? >> i don't know. well -- >> volume i, page 5, the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinate ed with the russian government in its election interference activities. so, it would, therefore, be inaccurate, based on this to describe that finding as open to doubt, that finding being that
trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the clinton campaign emails. are you following that? >> i do believe i'm following it, but it is -- that portion, that matter does not fall or fall within our investigation. >> basically what your report says, volume i page 5. open to doubt is how the committee democrats describe this finding in their minority views in a 2018 report. and it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report. the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton? >> let me turn that over to mr. -- >> i'd like to ask you, sir, this is your report, that's what
i'm basing this on. >> can you repeat it. ? >> the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about joseph misfit's claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton. >> if it appears in the report, it's accurate. >> in the report it says no documentary evidence that papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign. it's inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the june 9, 2016 tower meeting, the campaign was likely already on notice via george papadopoulos's contact that russia in fact had damaging information on trump's opponent. would you say that that is an inaccurate to say it's likely already -- >> i direct you to the report. >> i appreciate that, the
democrats jump to this conclusion, which contradicts what you have in your report. i have a number of statements i'd like you to clarify. president trump was a russian agent after your report was publicly released. that statement is not supported by your report, correct? that is accurate. >> multiple members have asserted that manafort met with julian assange. because your report does not mention finding evidence that manafort met with assange, i would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting, is that assumption correct? >> i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. >> but you make no mention of it in your report? >> yes, i would agree with that.
>> does your report contain any evidence that president trump was enrolled in the russian system as a member of this committee once claimed? >>. >> what i can speak to is evidence that we picked up as the special counsel. >> thank you, i appreciate that. did you ask the department of just is to expand the scope of the special counsel's mandate august 20th, 2017 scoping peo e memoran memoranda? >> without looking at the memoranda, i could not answer that -- >> did you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate at all? >> generally, yes. >> and was that ever denied? >> i'm not going to speak to that. it goes into internal deliberations. >> i'm trying to understand process, is expanding the scope am coulding from the acting
attorney general or rosenstein or does it come from you, or can it come from either? >> i'm not going to discuss any other alternatives. >> thank you, mr. mueller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you're the greatest patriot in this room today, and i want to thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> you said in your report, and i'm going to quibble with your words that the russia system was sweeping and systematic. ity think it was an invasion. i don't think it was sweeping and systematic, i think it was sinister and scheming. having said that, one of my colleagues referred to this russian intervention as a hoax. i'd like to get your comment on
that you talk about the internet research agency. and how tens of millions of u.s. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, there were some 80,000 posts on facebook that facebook itself admitted 126 million people have probably seen the posts that were put up by the internet research agency. they had 3800 twitter accounts. and had designed more than 75,000 tweets that reached 1.4 million people. the internet research agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the united states in what i would call an invasion in our country. would you agree that it was not a hoax?
that the russians were engaged in trying to impact our election? >> absolutely, it was not a hoax. the indictments we returned against the russians were substantial in their scope using the scope we're in. and i think one of the -- we have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our investigation that has and would have long term damage to the united states that we need to move quickly to address. >> thank you for that. i'd like to drill down on that a little more. the internet research agency actually started in 2014 by sending over staff as tourists, i guess, to start looking at where they wanted to engage. there are many that suggest and i'm interested in your opinion as to whether or not russia is presently in the united states looking for ways to impact the
2020 election. >> that would be in levels of class and communication. >> let me ask you this. often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. you have a very large report here of over 400 pages, most americans have not read it. we have read it, the fbi director yesterday said he hadn't read it, which is discouraging, but on behalf of the american people, i want to give you 1:39 to tell the american people what you would like them to glean from this report. >> well, i -- we spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report. it also is a signal, a flag to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to
exercise those responsibilities swiftly and don't let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years. >> all right. you didn't take the whole amount of time, i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> i thank the gentle woman for yielding. director mueller, i wanted to ask you about conspiracy. generally a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, acceptance of that offer and an overt act and further answer of it, is that correct? >> correct. >> don junior was aware that the russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct? >> i don't know that for sure, but one would assume. >> when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer? >> it's a wide open request. >> and it would certainly be evidence of acceptance, when you say, i would love it, that would be considered evidence of an
acceptance. >> you stay away from any one or two particular situations. >> this particular situation, i'll have to continue in a bit i now yield to mr. stewart. >> i do have a series of important questions for you, before i do that. i want to take a moment to emphasize something my friend mr. turner has said. no person is above the law. many times they had not even the president which is i think is blazingly obvious to most of us. >> i'm having a problem hearing you, sir. >> i agree with this statement, that no person is above the law, there's another principle we have to defend and that is it the presumption of innocence. i think the way that your office phrased some parts of your report, it makes me wonder, i
>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, everyone, to the last gas of the russia collusion conspiracy theory. as democrats continue to foist the spectacle on the american people, as well as you, mr. mueller, the american people may recall the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016. when the fusion gps, funded by the dnc and the elder clinton campaign, started developing the steele dossier. a collection of outlandish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. effusion gps, steel, and other confederates -- and to top officials in numerous agencies, quitting the fbi, the apartment of justice, and the state department. among other things, the fbi used dusty allegations to obtain a
warrant to spy on the trump campaign. despite acknowledging dusty allegations as being salacious and unverified, former fbi director james comey briefed those allegations to president obama and president-elect trump. this briefings conveniently leaked to the press. launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign ex-spy. one who admitted he was desperate that trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an fbi source for leaking to the press. after combing himself was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information on president trump to the press for the specific purpose and successfully so, as engineering the appointment of a special counsel who sits here before us today.
the fbi investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses. top doj official bruce ohr, whose own wife worked on fusion gps's anti-trump operation, said sent steele's information to the fbi even after the fbi fired steele. the top investigator and has liver, another top fbi official, constantly texted about how much they hated trump and wanted to stop him from being elected. and the entire investigation was open based not on intelligence but on a tip from a foreign politician. about a conversation involving joseph mifsud. he is a maltese diplomat who is widely portrayed as a russian agent, but seems to have far more connections with western governments, including our own fbi and our own state department. than with russia.
ignoring all these red flags as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they are making, the democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. like the loch ness monster, they insist it's there even if no one can find it. consider this -- in march 2017, democrats on this committee said they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion but they couldn't reveal it yet. mr. mueller was soon appointed, and they said he would find the collusion. when no collusion was found, and mr. mueller's indictments, they said they find it in the final report. then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told attorney general barr was hiding it. then when it was clear he wasn't hiding anything, we were told it would be revealed through a hearing with mr. mueller himsel himself. and now that mr. mueller is here, they are claiming that the collusion has actually been in his report all along.
hidden in plain sight. and they are right -- there is collusion in plain sight. collusion between russia and the democratic party. the democrats colluded with russian sources to develop the steele dossier, and russian lawyer natalia veselnitskaya colluded with a key architect. fusion gps head glenn simpson. democrats have already admitted both in interviews and through their usual anonymous statements to reporters that today's hearing is not about getting information at all. they said they want to "bring the mueller report to life." and create a television moment, through ploys like having mr. mueller recite passages from his own report. in other words, this hearing is political theater. it's an attempt to convince emergent people that collusion is real, and that it's concealed in the report. granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public. it's almost like a democrats
prepared arguments accusing mr. barr fighting the report, and didn't offer to update their claims once he published the entire thing. the russian investigation was never about finding the truth. it was a simple media operation. by their own accounts, this operation continues in this room today. once again, numerous pressing issues this committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to serve hillary clinton's administration. it's time for the curtain to close on the russia hoax. the conspiracy theory is dead. at some point i would argue we are going to have to get back to work. until then, i yield back the balance of my time. >> to ensure fairness and make sure that our hearing is prompt -- i know we got a late start,
director mueller -- the hearing will be structured as follows. each member of the committee will be afforded 5 minutes to ask questions, beginning with the chair and ranking member. as chair i will recognize them after in alternating fashion and ascending seniority. members of the majority and minority. after east felt like each member was asked her questions, they will be afforded an additional s followed by the chair, who will ask an additional five questions. 5 minutes for questions. ranking member and the chair will not be permitted to delegate or yield our final round of questions to any other member. after six members of the majority and six members of the minority have concluded their five-minute rounds of questions, we will take a five or ten minute break. we understand that you have requested that. before resuming the hearing with congressman swallow starting his round of questions special counsel mueller is accompanied today by aaron zebley, who served as deputy special counsel from may 2017 until may 2019. and had day-to-day oversight of
the special counsel investigation. mr. mueller, and mr. zebley, resigned from the department of justice at the end of may 2019 when the special counsel office was closed. both mr. mueller and mr. zebley will be available to answer questions today and will be sworn in consistent with the rules of the house and the committee. mr. mueller and mr. zebley's appearance today before the committee is in keeping with the committee's long-standing practice of receiving testimony from current or former department of justice and fbi personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters. as this hearing is under oath, and before you begin your testimony, mr. mueller and zebley, would you please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn? would you swear them and? >> do you swear or affirm the testimony were about to give at this hearing is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. the record will reflect that the
witnesses have been duly sworn. ranking member? >> thank you, the strattera. i just want to clarify that this is highly unusual for mr. zebley to be sworn in. we are here to ask director mueller questions. he is here as counsel. our side is not going to be directing any questions to mr. zebley, and have concerns about his prior representation e hillary clinton campaign aide. so i just want to voice that concern that we do have. we will not be addressing any questions to mr. zebley today. >> i think the ranking member, i realized -- as you probably do, mr. zebley -- that there is an angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here today. but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn in and testify, and you are welcome as
a private citizen to testify, and members may direct their questions to whomever they choose. with that, director mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks he would like to make. >> good afternoon, chairman schiff. ranking member newness, and members of the committee i testified this morning before the house judiciary committee, i ask that the opening statement i made before that committee be incorporating incorporated into the record here. >> without objection, director. >> i understand this committee has a unique jurisdiction. and that you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counterintelligence matters. as we explained in the report, the special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of united states attorney.
as a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. we did not reach what you would call "counterintelligence conclusions." we did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counterintelligence information on to the fbi. members of our office periodically briefed the fbi about counterintelligence information. in addition, there were agents and analysts from the fbi who were not on our team but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. for these reasons, questions about whether the fbi has done, with the intelligence integration obtained by her investigation, should be directed to the fbi. i also want to reiterate a few points that i made this morning.
i am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. first, public testimonies could affect several ongoing matters. in some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders, limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. consistent with long-standing justice department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. second, the justice department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and citizens. ongoing matters within the justice department, and deliberations within our office.
these are justice department privileges that i will respect. the department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. i therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the opening of the fbi's russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment. or, matters related to the so-called "steele dossier." these matters are the subject of ongoing review by the departmen department. any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the fbi or the justice department. third, as i explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. the report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. we stated the results of our investigation with precision.
i do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. as i stated in may, i also will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. i was appointed as a prosecutor and i intend to adhere to that rule into the department standards that govern. finally, as i said this morning, over the course of my career i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. i'm sure the committee agrees. before we go to i want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lou who said, and i quote, "you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion." that is not the correct way to
say it. as we say in the report, and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. with that, mr. chairman, i might answer questions. >> thank you, director mueller. i recognize myself for 5 minutes. dr. mueller, your report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by russia to influence our presidential election. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> during the course of this russian interference in the election, the russians made outreach to the trump campaign. did they not? >> that occurred over the course of -- yes, that occurred. >> it's also clear from your report that during that russian outreach to the trump campaign no one associated with the trump campaign ever called the fbi to report it. am i right? >> i don't know that for sure. >> in fact, the campaign welcome to the russian help. did they not? >> i think we report -- in the
report, indication that that occurred, yes. bingo the president's son said when he was approached by dirt on ellery clinton that the term campaign would love it? >> that is generally what was said, yes. >> the president himself called on the russians to hack hillary's emails. >> there was a statement by the president along those general lines. >> numerous times during the campaign the president praised the releases of the russian-hacked emails through wikileaks? >> that did occur. >> your report found that the term campaign planned "a press strategy, communication medica, and messaging based on that russian assistance? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> that leg which comes from volume 1, page 54. apart from the russians wanting to help trump wind, several of the individuals associated with trump campaign were also trying to make money during the trump campaign and transition.
is that correct? >> that's true. >> trying to >> that is accurate. >> michael flynn was trying to make money from turkey? >> true. >> donald trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in moscow? >> to the extent you are talking about the hotel in moscow? >> yes. >> yes. >> when your investigation look into these matters, numerous trump associates lied to her team. the grand jury , and to congress. >> in number of persons we interviewed, and in our investigation, it turns out did live. >> mike flynn lied? >> he was convicted of lying, yes. >> george papadopoulos was convicted of lying? >> true. >> paul manafort was convicted of lying? >> true. >> paul manafort went so far as to encourage other people to lie? >> that is accurate. >> deputy, rick gates, lied? >> that's accurate. >> michael cohen, the president's lawyer, was indicted for lying? >> true. >> he lied to stay on message
with the present? >> allegedly, by end. >> and when donald trump called her investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not? >> i would like to think so, yes. >> your investigation is not a witch hunt? >> it is not a witch hunt. >> when he said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? >> true. >> when he said it publicly, that it was false? >> he did say publicly that it was false, yes. >> and when he told it to putin, that was false too, wasn't it connect >> that, i'm not familiar with >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, that was false, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to go into the details of the report along those lines. >> when the president said he has no business dealings with russia, in fact, he was seeking to build a trump tower in moscow, was he not? >> i think there was some question about when this was accomplished. >> would you consider a billion-dollar deal to build a
tower in moscow to be business dealings? wouldn't you, director mueller? >> absolutely. >> in short, your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election, right? >> i think generally that would be accurate. >> russia informed campaign officials of that? >> i'm not certain to watch the conversations you are referring to. >> intermediaries informed papadopoulos he could help with the anonymous release of stolen emails? >> accurate. >> russia committed federal crimes in order to help donald trump? >> when you were talking about the computer crimes, absolutely. >> the trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents? >> generally that is true. >> and then they lied to cover it up? >> generally, that is true. >> thank you, dominic. mr. nunes connect >> thank you. welcome, director.
as a former fbi director, he would agree that the fbi is the world's most capable law enforcement agency? >> i would say, yes. >> the fbi claims the counterintelligence investigation of the trump campaign began on july 31st, 2016. in fact, it began before that. in june 2016, before the investigation officially opened, trump campaign associates carter page and stephen miller, a current trump advisor, were invited to attend a symposium at cambridge university in july, 2016. your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting these trump associates to this symposium. your investigators also failed to interview stephen trickey, an american citizen who helped organize the event and invited carter page to it. is that correct? >> can you repeat the question? >> whether or not you
interviewed stephen schrage. >> those areas, i'm going to stay away from. >> the first trump associates be miss katie was general flynn. many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a cambridge academic, and that she was a russian spy. some of these allegations were made public in the 2017 article written by british intelligence historian, christopher andrew. your report fails to reveal how or why and you his collaborator, richard dear love, former head of britain's mi6, spread these allegations. and he failed to interview svetlana lokhova about these matters. is that correct? >> i won't get into these matters you refer to. >> you had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents, and an unlimited budget. correct, mr. mueller?
>> i would not say we had an unlimited budget. >> let's continue with the ongoing -- the opening of the investigation, supposedly on july 31st, 2016. the investigation was not based on intelligence, but a rumor conveyed by alexander downer. on volume 1, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. but he was actually a long-time australian politician. not a military or intelligence official. who had previously arranged a $25 million donation to the clinton foundation and has previous ties to dear love. so downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between papadopoulos and joseph mifsud. james comey has publicly called mifsud a russian agent. yet, your report does not refer to mifsud as a russian agent. mifsud has extensive contacts with russian governments and the
fbi. for example, there is a recent photo of him standing next to boris johnson, the new prime minister of great britain. what we are trying to figure out here, mr. mueller, is if our nato allies or boris johnson have been compromised. so we are trying to figure out -- comey says mifsud is a russian agent, you do not. so do you stand by what's in the report? >> i stand by that which is in the report. not so necessarily with that which is not in the report. >> i want to return to mr. downer. he denies that papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about hillary clinton's emails and in fact mifsud denies mentioning that to papadopoulos. he denies that papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about hillary clinton's emails. in fact, mifsud denies mentioning them to papadopoulos in the first place. so how does the fbi know to continually ask papadopoulos
about clinton's emails for the rest of 2016? even more strangely, your sentencing memo on papadopoulos names him for hindering the fbi ability to potentially detain or arrest mifsud, but the truth is mifsud waltzed in and out of the united states in december 2016. the u.s. media could find him, the italian press found him, and he is a supposed russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy. he's the guy who knows about hillary clinton's emails and that the russians have them. but the fbi failed to question him for half a year after officially opening the investigation. and then, according to claim one, page 193 of your report, once mifsud finally was questioned he made false statements to the fbi. but you declined to charge him. is that correct?
you did not indict mr. mifsud? >> i won't speak to the hearings done makes use of happenings is reticular them. speak of the time of the gentleman has expired. >> pardon? >> you did not indict mr. mifsud? true. because mr. himes? >> director mueller, thank you for your lifetime of service to this country and thank you for your perseverance and patience today. director, your report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. the first statement is one that is, as of today, not acknowledged by the president of the united states. that is, "the russian government interviewed in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion on. the second remains controversial among members of this body, same page on your report. "the russian government perceived it would benefit of a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." you have that right? >> i believe so.
speak of this attack on our democracy, as you said, involve two operations. first, a social media disinformation campaign. this was a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like twitter and facebook. is that correct? because that's correct. >> facebook estimated prereport of the russian fake images reached 126 million people. is that correct? >> i believe that is the sum we recorded. >> director, who did the russian social media campaign ultimately intended benefit? hillary clinton or donald trump? >> donald trump. >> the second operation -- >> i can say donald trump him but there were instances where hillary clinton was subject to much the same behavior. >> the second was a scheme, will be called the hack and dump to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the democratic party and the clinton campaign. is that a fair summary? >> that is. >> did your investigations find that the releases of the hacked emails were strategically timed
to maximize impact on the election? >> i would have to refer you to a report on that question. >> page 36. i quote, "the release of the documents were designed in time to interfere with the 2016 u.s. presidential election." mr. mueller, which residential candidate was russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit? hillary clinton or donald trump? >> mr. trump. >> mr. mueller, is it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by russia actually had an effect on outcome of the presidential election? >> those issues have been investigated by other entities. >> 126 million facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on hillary clinton's health. would you rule out that it might have had some effect on the election? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> mr. mueller, your report describes a third avenue of attempted russian interference. that is the numerous links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government. is that correct?
>> could you repeat that question? >> we will report describes what is called a third avenue of russian interference. that is the links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government. >> yes. >> let's bring up slide one, which is about george papadopoulos. it reads, "on may 6th, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with mifsud, much discussed today, papadopoulos suggested to a representative of the foreign government that the trump campaign had received indications from the russian government that it could assist the campaign for the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to hillary clinton." director, that is exactly what happened two months later, is it not? >> i can speak to the expert you have on the screen as being accurate from the report. but not the second half of your question. >> well, the second half is reported pages of the report pair that on july 22nd,
through wikileaks, thousands of the email stolen by the russian government appeared. correct? that's on page 6 of the report. this is the wikileaks posting of those emails. >> i can't find it quickly, but please continue. >> okay. just to be clear, before the public or the fbi ever knew, the russians previewed for a trump campaign official, george papadopoulos, that they had stolen emails that they could release anonymously to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton. is that correct? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> director, rather than report this contact with joseph mifsud and the notion that there was dirt, that the campaign could use -- rather than report that to the fbi, that i think most of my constituents would expect an individual to do, papadopoulos in fact lied about his russian contacts to you. is that not correct? >> that's true.
>> we have an election coming up in 2020, director. if a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts? >> should be. can be, depending on the circumstances of crime. >> i will you'll back the balance of my time >> mr. conaway? >> thank you. mr. mueller, did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should have been in the report? >> i don't think so, but it's not a small report. >> if somebody asked you specifically to exclude something? >> not that i can recall. >> i yield the balance of my time. thank you. >> i think the gentleman for yielding pretty good afternoon, director mueller. in your may 29th press conference, again, in her opening remarks this morning, you make it pretty clear you want the special counsel reporto speak for itself.
you said that your press conference that it was the offices final position, and "we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president." he spent the last few hours of your life, from democrats trying to get you to answer all kinds of hypotheticals about the president, and i expect it may continue for the next few hours of your life. i think you have stayed pretty much true to what your intent and desire was. but i guess, regardless of the outcome of the special counsel office is closed. it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. what would be you or or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions? >> as to the latter, i don't know or expect changes in conclusions that we included in our report. >> to that point, you just one of the issues that i needed to, which was from your testimony this morning. some construed it as a change to
the written report. you talked about the exchange that you had with congressman lieu. i wrote it down a little different, i want to ask you about it so the director is perfectly clear. i recorded that he ask you, "the reason you did not indict donald trump's because of the olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president," to which he responded, "that is correct." that respond is inconsistent. i think you will agree with your written report. i want to be clear that it's not your intent to change your report. it's your intent to clarify the record to that. >> as i started today, this afternoon, and added either a footnote or an end note, what i wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability. we did not start that process down the road. >> terrific. thank you for clarifying the record. the stated purpose of your appointment as special counsel
was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. as part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination to the special counsel office make about whether the steele dossier was part of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> again, when it comes to mr. steele, i defer to the department of justice. >> first of all, director, i very much agree with your determination that russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. i think it should concern every american. that's why i want to know just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. i want to find out if russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to christopher steele about a trump conspiracy that you determined did not exist. >> again, i'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to mr. steele. in terms of a portrayal of
conspiracies, we return two indictments in the computer crimes arena. one, gru, and another, active measures. in which we lay out in excruciating detail what occurred. in those two rather large conspiracies. >> i agree with respect to that. why this is important, an application and through renewal applications were submitted by the united states government to spy or surveilled trump campaign carter page, and on all occasio, the government submitted the steele dossier as a central piece of evidence with respect to that. the basic premise of the dossier, as you know, was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the trump campaign on the russian government. but the special counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy. correct? >> what i can tell you is the events you are characterizing
here, now, is part of another matter that is being handled by the department of justice. >> but you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one? >> again, i pass on answering that question. >> the special counsel did not charge carter page or anything, correct? >> the special counsel did not. >> my time is expired. i yield back. >> miss sewall? >> i would like to direct your attention to the 2016 trump tower meeting. slide two, which should be on the screen now, as part of an email chain between don jr. -- dumb trump jr. and a publicist representing the son of a russian oligarch. the email exchange ultimately led to the now infamous june 9th, 2016 meeting the email from the publicist to donald trump jr. reads, in part, "the crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that
would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia, and as a part of russia and her government 'support of mr. trump. in this email, donald trump jr. is being told that the russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt hillary clinton and help donald trump." is that correct? >> that's correct. >> trump jr.'s response to that email is slide three. he said, and i quote, "if it's what you say, i love it. especially later in the summer." then donald jr. invited senior campaign officials paul manafort and jared kushner to the meeting. did he not? >> he did. >> this email exchange is evidence of an offer of a legal assistance, is it not? >> i cannot adopt that characterization. >> but isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government? >> generally speaking, yes, but generally the cases are unique. >> you say on page 184, volume
one, that the federal campaign finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals for making contributions, et cetera. and then you say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. it says clearly in the report itself. >> thank you. >> let's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. one donald trump jr. and the others got to the june 9th meeting, they realized the russn delegation didn't have the promised "dirt." in fact, they got upset about that. they not? >> generally, yes. >> you say in volume 1, page 118, that trump jr. asked, "what are we doing here? what to they have on clinton?" and during the meeting, kushner actually texted manna for palm enforcing was a waste of time. correct? >> i believe it's in the report along the lines you specify. >> to be clear, top campaign
officials learned that they wanted to help donald trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponents. he said he loved it. then officials held a meeting with the russians to try and get that rationale. but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they hoped. did anyone to her knowledge of the trump campaign ever tell the fbi of this offer? >> i don't believe so. >> did donald trump jr. tell the fbi they received an offer of help from the russians? >> that's about all. >> if they had reported it to the fbi or anyone in that campaign, during the course of your 2-year investigation, you would have been covered such a -- >> i would hope, yes. >> sir, is it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the fbi if they receive information from a foreign government? >> i would think this is
something they should do. >> they sought to hide the existence of the june 19th meeting for over a year. is that not correct? >> on a general care duration, if you are referring to later -- an initiative that flowed from the media, then -- >> what i'm suggesting is you said on volume two, page five, on several occasions the president directed aides not to publicly disclose the email setting up the june 19 meeting. >> that's accurate. >> thanks. sarah, given this illegal assistance by russians, you chose, even given that, you did not charge donald trump jr. or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. is that right? >> correct. when you are talking about -- if you are talking about other individuals, you are talking about the attendees? >> that's right. so, mr. mueller, even though you did not charge them with conspiracy, don't you think the american people would be
concerned that these three senior campaign officials sought a foreign adversaries help to win elections? don't you think reporting that is important? that i don't set a precedent for future elections? >> i can't accept that characterization. >> well, listen -- i think it seems like a portrayal of american values to me, sir. that someone, if not being criminal, it's definitely in ethical and wrong. everything we i would think he would not want to set a precedent that they would divulge information of the foreign governments. thank you, sir. >> mr. turner? >> mr. mueller, i have your opening statement. in the beginning of your opening statement, you indicate that pursuant to justice department regulations, that you submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation. what i would like you to confirm is, the report that you did, that is the subject matter of this hearing, was to the attorney general. >> yes.
>> you also state in this opening statement that you threw overboard the word "collusion" because not a legal term. he would not conclude, because collusion was not a legal term. >> it depends on how you want to use the word. in the general parlance, people can think of it that way. but if you're talking about in the criminal statute arena, you cannot. because it's much more accurately described as conspiracy. >> are in your words, it's not a legal term so you didn't put in your collusion. correct i want to talk about your powers and authorities. the attorney general and the appointment order give you powers and authorities that reside with the attorney genera attorney general. the attorney general has no ability to keep powers and authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general. correct? >> i don't believe -- yeah, i think that is correct. >> mr. mueller, i want to focus on one word in your report. it's second to last word in the
report. it's "exonerate." the report states, "accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him." in the judiciary hearing, and your prior testimony, you have already agreed with mr. ratcliffe that "exonerate" is not a legal term. that there is not a legal test for the spirit so i haven't a question for you, mr. mueller. mr. mueller, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? this where the attorney general gets its power. in the annotated cases of these, which we have searched. leaving whittier law school, because i went to case western but i thought maybe her law school teaches it differently. we got the criminal law textbook from your law school. mr. mueller, nowhere in these -- because we had them scanned -- is there a process or description on "exonerate." there is no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office, there is no certificate at the bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have
the power to exonerate? >> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> because it embryos us in a legal discussion and i'm not prepared to deal with legal discussions in that arena. >> mr. mueller, he would not disagree with me when i say that there is no place that the attorney general has the power to exonerate, and he has not been given that authority. >> again, i take your question. >> great. well, the one thing i guess is that the attorney general probably knows he cannot exonerate either. that's the part the kind of confuses me. if the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate, and i believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. this is the part i don't understand. to the attorney general, and the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate and he knows that you did not have that power. you don't have to tell him that you are not exonerating the president. he knows this already.
that changes the context of the report. >> no, we included it in the report for exec about reason. he may not know it, and he should know it. >> so you believe the attorney bill barr belief somewhere the hallways of the deferment of justice, there is an office of exoneration? >> that's not what i said. >> i believe he knows and i don't believe you put that in there for mr. barr. i believe you put that in there for exactly what i'm going to discuss next, and that is, to "the washington post" yesterday, when speaking of your report, the article said that trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself. trump could not be exonerated. that statement is correct, isn't it? and that no one can be exonerated? the reporter wrote this -- this reporter can't be exonerated. mr. mueller, you can't be exonerated. in fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to exonerate. this is my concern, mr. mueller. this is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today. "mueller: trump was not
exonerated." mr. mueller, what you know is this can't say, "mueller exonerated trump." because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate him. you have no more power to declare him exonerated then you have to declare him anderson cooper. so the problem i have here, since there is no one in the criminal justice system that has that power, the president pardons that she doesn't exonerate. courts and juries don't. they don't even declare exoneration. the statement about exoneration is misleading, and it's meaningless. it colors this investigation. one word out of the entire portion of your report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. carson? >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director mueller, for your years of service to our country. i want to look more closely, sir, at the trump campaign chairman paul manafort. an individual who i believe betrayed our country, who lied
to a grand jury, who tampered with witnesses, and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the trump campaign to make more money. let's focus on the betrayal and greed. your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between mr. manafort and russian individuals during and after the campaign. is that right, sir? >> correct. >> in addition to that you know if meaning just discussed, manafort also met several times with a man named konstantin kilimnik. who the fbi assessed to have ties with russian intel agencies. is that right, sir? >> correct. >> infect comment esther manafort didn't just meet with him, he shared private trump campaign polling information with this man linked to russian intelligence is that correct? >> that is correct. >> in turn, the information wasn't shared with a rush a russian oligarch tied to vladimir putin. is that right, sir? >> allegedly. >> director mueller, meeting with him wasn't enough. sharing internal polling information wasn't enough.
mr. manafort went so far as to offer this russian oligarch tied to putin a private briefing on the campaign. is that right, sir? >> yes, sir. >> finally, mr. manafort discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states -- michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota. but the russian intelligence intelligence-linked in visual. did not, sir? >> that is reflected in the report, the items you listed previously paid >> director mueller, based on your decades and years of experience at the u agree, sir, that it creates a national security risk when a presidential campaign chairman shares private polling information on the american people? private political strategy related to winning the votes of the market people, and private american battleground state information with the the for an adversary? >> is that the question, sir? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not going to speck of it along those lines. to the extent that it's within the lines of the report, than i
it. i think beyond that, it's not part of that which i would support. >> i think it does, sir. i think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. director mueller, manda fort didn't this information for nothing. did he, sir? >> i can't answer that question without knowing more about the question. >> it's clear he hoped to be paid back the money he was owed by it russian or ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign information. >> that is true. >> director mueller, as my colleague will discuss later, greed corrupts. would you agree, sir, that the sharing of private campaign information in exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption? one that presents a national security risk to our country, sir? >> i'm not going to comment on that. i don't have the arena truly
opined. >> it would you agree the contacts with russians close to flooding an end repeat jeanette 's efforts to exchange private information on americans money, led to blackmail by the russians >> i think so. that would be the case. >> would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values of our country, that it rests on? >> i can't agree with that. not that it's not true, but i cannot agree with it. >> yes, sir. >> director mueller, i can tell you in my years of experience as a law-enforcement officer and as a member of congress, fortunate to serve on the intel committee, i know enough to say yes, treating political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt it. and it can leave you open to blackmail. it certainly represents a betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. i want to thank you for your service again, director mueller. we appreciate for coming today. i yield back, chairman.
>> dr. wenstrup? >> thank you for being here today. is it correct to say that there was no evidence they were involved in the theft or publication of clinton campaign-related emails? >> can you repeat the question? >> is it accurate to say you are investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of the clinton campaign-related emails emails? >> i don't know. well... >> volume 1, page 5, the investigation did not establish that members of the term campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. so, it would therefore be inaccurate based on this to describe that finding as open to doubt.
that finding being that the trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the clinton campaign emails. are you following that? >> i do believe i am following it, but that portion or that matter does not fall within our jurisdiction. her fault that are investigatio investigation. >> basically report says volume 1, page 5, i just want to be clear that "open to doubt" is how the committee democrats find this in their minority views of. it flies in the face of what you have in your report. is it accurate also to say that the investigation found no documentary evidence, that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton? >> let me turn that over to mr. zebley. >> i would like to ask you, sir. this is your report. that's what i'm basing this on.
>> then could you repeat the question for me again? >> is it accurate to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about joseph mifsud's claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton? >> i believe, it appearing in the report, that it's accurate. >> in the reported says, "no documentary evidence that papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign." it is therefore inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the june 9th, 2016 trump tower meeting, "the campaign was likely already on notice via george papadopoulos' contact with russian agents that russia, in fact, had damaging information on trump's opponent." would you say that is inaccurate, to say it's likely already -- >> i direct you to the report. >> i appreciate that, because the democrats jumped to this
incorrect conclusion in their minority views. again, which contradicts what you have in your report. i'm concerned about a number of statements i would like you to clarify. a number of democrats have made some statements that i have concerns with, and maybe you can clear them up. this committee said president trump was a russian agent. after your report was publicly released. that seem it is not supported by your report, correct? >> that is accurate. it's not supported. >> multiple democrat members have asserted that paul manafort melt dominic met with julian sanchez in 2016 before wikileaks released emails implying that he concluded with assange. before i was done i would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. is that assumption correct? >> i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. >> but you make no mention of it in your report. would you agree with that? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> mr. mueller, does your report
contain ever get dominic and evidence that mr. trump was enrolled as a member of this committee once the claimed? >> what i can speak to is information of the special counsel. i think that's accurate as far as that goes. >> thank you, i appreciate that. did you ask the department of justice to expand the scope of the special counsel's mandate related to august 2nd, 20 17, or august 27th, 2017 scoping memoranda? >> without looking at the memoranda, i cannot answer that. >> let me ask you, did you ever make a request to expand your office mandate at all? >> generally yes. >> was that every denied? >> i'm going to have -- i will not speak to it. he goes into internal deliberations. >> i'm just turning to understand processes. expanding the scope coming from the acting attorney general,
rosenstein, or does it come from you? or can it come from either? >> i won't discuss any other alternatives. >> thank you, mr. mueller. >> ms. speier? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you're the greatest patriot in this room today and i want to thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> you said in your report -- and i'm going to quibble with your words -- that the russian intervention was "sweeping and systematic." i would quibble with that because i don't think it was just an intervention. i think it was an invasion. and i don't think it was just "sweeping and systematic," i think it was sinister and scheming. having said that, one of my colleagues earlier here referred to this russian intervention as a hoax. i would like to get your comment on that.
on page 26 of your report, you talk about the internet research agency. how tens of millions of u.s. persons became engaged with the post that they made, that there were some 80,000 posts on facebook, that facebook itself admitted that 126 million people have probably seen the posts that were put out by the internet research agency, that they have 3800 twitter accounts and have designed more than 175,000 tweets, that probably reach 1.4 million people. the internet research agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the united states and what i would call "an invasion" in our country. would you agree that it was not a hoax? that the russians were engaged
in trying to impact our election? >> absolutely. that was not a hoax. the indictments, two different ones, were substantial. in their scope, using that "scope" word again. to a certain extent, that aspect of our investigation that has and would have long-term damage the united states, that we need to move quickly to address. >> think of it. i would like to drill down on that a little bit more. the internet research agency actually started in 2014 by sending over staff as tourists, i guess, to start looking at where they wanted to engage. there are many that suggest -- i'm interested in your opinion -- as to whether or not russia is presently, in the united states, looking for ways to impact the 2020 election.
>> i can't speak to that. that would be in levels of classification. >> all right. let me ask you this -- often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. you have a very large report here, of over 400 pages. most americans have not read it. we have read it. actually, the fbi director yesterday said he hadn't read it, which was a little discouraging. but on behalf of the american people, i will give you a minute and 39 seconds to tell the american people what you would like them to glean from this report. >> we spent substantial time believing we are giving a message to those who come after us. it also is a signal, a flag, to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to exercise those responsibilities
swiftly and don't let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years. >> all right. you didn't take the whole amount of time, so i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> i thank you for yielding. director mueller, i wanted to ask you about conspiracy. generally, a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, acceptance of that offer and overt act and furtherance of it, is that correct? >> correct. >> and don jr. was made aware that the russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct? >> i don't know that for sure, but one would assume given his presence at the meeting. >> and when you say you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer? >> it's a wide open request. >> and it would certainly be evidence of acceptance if you say when somebody offers you something illegal, you say i love it, that would be considered evidence of
acceptance. >> i would stay away from addressing one particular or two particular situations. >> this particular situation, i'll have to continue in a bit. now yield to mr. stewart. >> mr. mueller, it's been a long day. thank you for being here. i do have a series of important questions for you. before do i that, i want to reemphasize something my friend, mr. turner, has said. i have heard people state no person is above the law. many times recently they have not even the president which i think is blazingly obvious to most of us. >> i'm having trouble hearing you. >> is this better stphr. >> yes. >> there's another principle we have to defend and that is the presumption of innocence. i'm sure you agree with this principle though the way your office phrased some parts of your report, it does make me wonder, i have to be honest with
do. it is even more difficult when they don't have direct evidence of it. donald trump expected to testify and said he will do that. certainly deny his own mental intent here and michael cohen. the lawyers will be very resentful of michael cohen and all of the plots and ploys he was using over the years much less his fraud. >> bill: if trump's team is trying to find a diamond in the rough. 12% of the vote in manhattan. as jeanine was pointing out yesterday they come off the voter rolls. it is an overwhelmingly democratic city. do you think they can find the diamond in the rough? >> they need to play it as an underdog story. not because of the facts. he is an underdog because this case should have never been brought in the first place and sitting in front of judge merchan, a district unfair toward him given the disparity of red versus blue but facts are on his side. if his defense team is playing
action now. >> we can abet the cost of reckless political ploys, from the state of texas, hello. >> bottom line is this going to congress to act, we need them to do it expeditiously, we cannot have type of chaos he continues to come from the state of texas. brian: but that is what texas asking us and despite the record invokes, we see that have hoping maybe you should is welcome that the renting and rhetoric and the other white house encompass might affect me to a deal in congress after all, because with the presence of approval immigration unfolds as low as 2t the democrats are hurting, inventing and you don't know if you're there's an election coming up and it summa networks have no choice, but to really harsh reality, to their audience. >> few issues have biden administration like the unprecedented number crossing illegally from a skill. >> turning up the pressure on