but right now we're in this investigatory mode. we need don mcgahn. we need witnesses who told us one thing and we found out that their representations might not be the truth. so there's a whole series. but, again, the question has to be, is this kind of behavior going to be the norm for the presidency of the united states of america? and we asked that of the american people. we think we laid out today a very complete story and picture of the fact -- >> yeah. >> -- that obstruction of justice did happen and the president was engaged in obstruction of justice. >> appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> congresswoman, good to see you. >> nice to see you, too. i'm going to talk to a man who knows robert mueller well. he was mueller's deputy at the fbi. next, he's going to tell me if he saw a different mueller at today's hearings. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that.

now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? i used to book my hotel room on those traalways a catch.here was like somehow you wind up getting less. but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks. i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back?

about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. [happy ♪irthday music]

♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade. ♪ ♪ ♪ let's cowboy up! exhilarating speed. woo!

precision control. woo! maximum reliability. access denied. [ repeats ] access denied. if it's not xfinity xfi, it's not good enough. for wifi with super powers, get xfinity xfi. and go see, fast & furious presents, hobbs & shaw. august 2.

this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. democrats planning their next moves tonight in the wake of robert mueller's testimony on capitol hill. his demeanor was somewhat shaky, his answers sometimes halting, but mueller was clear in his testimony that his report did not exonerate president trump, that russia's election attack was not a hoax and that his investigation was not a witch hunt. the house speaker nancy pelosi

saying this tonight. >> the american people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our constitution. >> so, now that mueller's hearings are over, cnn's learning that house democrats had a robust debate tonight behind closed doors about their next moves. they could include launching an impeachment inquiry and likely going to court this week to enforce a subpoena compelling don mcgahn, trump's former white house counsel, to testify. for his part, the president's claiming victory and slamming mueller's testimony. >> i think robert mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation. but in all fairness to robert mueller, he had nothing to work with. >> so i got to tell you, we've got a great group here to talk about all of this. shimon prokupecz, chris cillizza, juliette kayyem. before i get to them, first i want to bring in john pistole. john pistole worked directly under robert mueller at the fbi as his deputy director. john, it's always a pleasure and really important to have you on tonight and get your perspective. so, good evening to you. let me get your take on the most significant moments from the

hearing today. what do you think? >> well, thank you, don. i think it was really a tale of two testimonies. in the morning, after his opening statement and initial colloquy there with chairman nadler, i think he was not as focused or precise or, frankly, even in command of the facts as i think those of us who worked closely with him were used to seeing in his prior dozens of testimonies while he was the fbi director. i think he was more focused, more precise and more in command of the facts in the afternoon session, and perhaps because that was an area of more comfort and familiarity to him than the morning session. and the whole idea of was there obstruction and were these overt acts in furtherance of a -- were those substantive? and i think he addressed those in his succinct, sometimes terse answers, but the morning session was different where there was more just lack of focus, is the way i would describe it. >> you were on earlier with

anderson cooper this week and you said you expected to see the mueller who had testified before. do you think this was the same mueller you saw today? because he was shaky at times. he appeared that he didn't know what was in the report. has he lost a step? is he the same person that you worked with? >> well, this was not prime time bob mueller that i think, again, many of us would see who worked with him previously because, for whatever reasons, and was is the 448-page report and the level of detail and just the stress of the day and all that? i don't know. that's just speculation. >> mmm-hmm. >> but, again, i think it's a matter of what he articulated in the report, and i think one of the underlying takeaways, one, is that he encouraged people to keep focused on the written word in the report and then, second, again, without specifically saying read the report yourself, people, that's -- whether members of congress or everyday citizens.

if you want to know what's there then read the report and draw your own conclusions as opposed to being informed by people like you or me and those who have been opining about it all day. read the report. draw those conclusions and then figure out what takeaways you would like to see. what are the next steps from your own informed opinion -- >> okay. >> -- now as opposed to being told what the next step should be. >> well, john, he didn't defend himself much, but he did push back. it was really one of the longest answers he gave. he did push back hard when members of his team were criticized for their connections to dem politics. listen to that and then we'll talk about it. >> we strove to hire those individuals that could do the job. >> half -- okay. >> i've been in this business for almost 25 years and in those 25 years i have not had occasion

once to ask someone about their political affiliation. it is not done. what i care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity. >> listen, it's obvious, it was live and then there is a tape right there. he seemed to come to life when he was defending his team. was that the robert mueller you know? >> well, yes, and, again, as his deputy director for almost six years and then the head of national security and counterterrorism before that, so a total of nine years working closely with him after 9/11, i never had an exchange with him where he asked me what my political affiliation was, what my political leanings were, it was always just the facts approach, and as the old colloquialism is that the fbi at that time was an equal opportunity investigator. whether you're a republican, democrat, independent, no party affiliation, whatever, the idea was if there are credible allegations that you have violated a federal law that the fbi has jurisdiction for then the fbi would follow up and conduct a thorough investigation that is impartial without regard

to politics or any outside influence. and i think that's what he tried to adhere to, and i think that's what he did in his special counsel role, it just wasn't a tour de force in terms of his testimony today. so no concerns about him getting an oscar nomination for best performance in a dramatic series or anything because that was not his role. he was never seen as -- as the spokesperson to be out there trying to carry the day, he was the person who could gather the facts, do the thorough investigation and then make sure that all the prosecutive avenues were examined and then as appropriate follow those that he believed were appropriate. so, again, coming back to the olc opinion about not prosecuting a sitting president, that would obviously frame so much of that part of the investigation as to what were the potential overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy? was there obstruction?

and how did that play in that framework? >> let's talk about the president today. the president was gloating on twitter and on the white house lawn this afternoon, but mueller testified that among other things the president welcomed russian interference, lied about it, his encouraging wikileaks was problematic, that he was untruthful in his written responses, and that he was -- has not been exonerated on obstruction. is the president celebrating too soon? >> well, that obviously needs to be -- be seen as what happens in terms of next year's election. i think if -- if the president is re-elected then there is a question about, well, does the statute of limitations run out if he serves another four years and director mueller did not have a precise answer for that, so i think that is still to be seen, but clearly the olc opinion is -- >> do you have an answer for that?

do you know if the statute of limitations will have run out if he serves another term? >> i -- i believe it will have in terms of -- well, if it's perjury, for example, if somebody can prove he lied under oath, which he wasn't, or that he objected justice, no, i would not opine on that. >> okay. john, it's always a pleasure. thank you so much. >> thank you, don. >> yeah. so let's get the big picture now. joining me now is shimon prokupecz, chris cillizza, juliette kayyem. he is a good guest to have because he went there. and i saw you guys -- good evening. i saw you guys sort of -- your ears perked up, you know, when he talked about the guy that he -- wasn't him. >> not prime time mueller. >> why did you perk up when you -- >> well, he's got a lot more experience with bob mueller, watching bob mueller than i do, but the two-year public perception of bob mueller -- i mean, what's difficult, you have to step back. bob mueller never spoke, with very few exceptions, in two years.

it wasn't like -- he wasn't seen in public much, don, so there was sort of a sphinx-like who this guy was portrayed as sort of the uber prosecutor. he's got the receipts. and certainly in the house judiciary committee a little less so in the intelligence committee, but certainly that perception didn't marry up with what you were watching. it doesn't take away from what he said -- >> exactly. i agree with that. but it was jarring when you looked just even in the early to mid-2000s, some of the testimony he had and watching the performance today, that was the sort of juxtaposition that i was -- >> people i talked to today that know mueller, worked with mueller, people at the fbi, retired now, close to him were very surprised. >> yeah. >> no one expected this today and i think that is what is in the end is going to be partially the story line here. we were expecting a much more crisp kind of -- >> yeah. >> not that he would give much different information.

>> no, but someone -- i think what pistole said there about the -- this is what i said earlier, when you are in that position you have to have a command of the facts and he did not. that is what i think was so interesting in all of this. yes, this is a 400-page report -- >> yeah. >> -- but you are the leader here. you are the one that's supposedly -- yes, you are doing this with your team, but you're the head guy of this office. >> i want to move on but go on. >> no, to the what happens next. the story today is about the messenger. i think that the story is about the -- the long term -- >> i was going to say, if you put that aside. >> it's going to be about the message. what was successfully done and john picked up on it as well was by the intelligence committee hearing testimony. i thought mueller turned the story masterfully about law. really the volume ii question, is there a question of obstruction of justice, to the question of loyalty. he kept using this word loyal or disloyal. what did it mean to be a president of the united states

and his family and what they did with the russians? that's not a legal question. that doesn't require you to have a law degree. that, to me, is something that is graspable. that's something that i can explain to my mother or someone on the street. do you think it's loyal of people to do what they did given what we now know that the trump people and the trump family and trump himself did with the russians? and so i think if you think about the narrative going forward, i've always -- i've always worried, i've always said to you that volume ii took all the noise out of volume i. because volume ii is about don jr. and all the politics or whatever. volume i is about our democracy. >> mmm-hmm. >> and if mueller -- i think mueller successfully turned the story to loyalty, and that, to me, is something that both republicans and democrats can -- can, you know, republicans who care can run with. >> all right. everyone stick around. i want to talk about don mcgahn and whether he'll testify. next.

olay, face anything.

if your adventure... keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips. you may have overactive bladder, or oab.

not again! we're seeing a doctor when we get home. myrbetriq treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. 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. looking for a destination that isn't always the bathroom? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com.

so, house democrats may be looking for more big testimony soon.

back with me, shimon prokupecz, chris cillizza and ryan -- i almost said ryan lizza. sorry. >> it's cool. >> and juliette kayyem. so, listen, shimon, let's talk about this. democrats repeatedly brought up the former white house counsel don mcgahn and his place in the obstruction investigation. let's listen and then we'll talk. >> your investigation found that president trump directed white house counsel don mcgahn to fire you, isn't that correct? >> true. >> so it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation? >> i would say that's my general summary. >> so, shimon, looking forward, the house judiciary chairman jerry nadler says he's going to go to court to get a subpoena to get don mcgahn to testify. how important do you think it is for him to testify? >> i think outside mueller he is

the most important witness in all of this. >> but isn't he the star witness? >> he's the one who was there, he's the one dealing with it, he's the one communicating with the president and the president saying i want this one fired, i want that one fired, i want you to do things. >> put this into the record. >> yeah, also, he cooperated extensively with mueller. >> some 30-plus hours. >> so there is a lot of information that he can provide to the committee, and i also think him testifying would be devastating for the president. i think much different than what we saw with mueller today. this guy's in the white house. he's directly communicating with the president. the president has given him commands. he's objecting to them. he's kind of saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, i'll do this but then doesn't do it and is communicating with other people about this. he had memos about a lot of the interactions with the president. >> right. >> so he knows a lot, and i think this guy could potentially be very devastating. >> and just very quickly, it's

difficult to say, oh, bob mueller underperformed expectations because bob mueller made clear he did not want to do this in the first place, right? when he gives that statement he says the report is my testimony. he wanted to say, here's this report i did, that's it. whereas mcgahn, that would be a whole different thing. we don't -- you can -- mueller's testimony effectively is that 448-page report. we don't have a 448-page report from don mcgahn. we know he was at the center of all of this stuff. >> as you're sitting here and shimon was giving his answer, you know, we're sitting here pretending that what's in the report is not in the report because of his -- his performance. and, how -- >> yeah -- >> and how the attorney general has shaped the report when all you need to do is read the report and listen to what the man actually said today. >> we're also waiting for these eureka moments. >> it's in the report. >> you know, if only this witness came, and i think for -- i think for republicans who clearly don't want to admit the

eureka moment, it is there. i just keep going back to this. it is there in volume i. it is -- it is a president who, to quote mueller, welcomed the russians' assistance and a foreign entity that essentially is continuing to destroy our democracy. that eureka moment is already there. the democrats, to me, would be smart to focus on volume i, continue to focus on volume i. there is going to be no eureka moment with mcgahn. you get the head of cia in, the head of odni, you get everyone in. >> the voice of reason right there. >> and you say what are we doing for 2020? and why did the republicans just two hours ago veto two bills related to election security? >> yeah. >> is that troublesome, yeah, it's troublesome. >> i got to ask about impeachment so let's move on. quick answers. chris, the house speaker nancy pelosi said, she said -- i don't know, it's not the time for impeachment. >> that's right. >> so what's next for the democrats? where do they go from here? >> short answer? >> i don't know.

>> i don't know. i was going to try to go with yes or no. i don't know. look, there's 92 -- >> told ya. >> -- 92-ish house democrats who think impeachment should begin. there's 235 of them total, that's not a majority, according to my math. i think you'll probably see some more. i think it will go over 100. i think pelosi is very much dug in on this position that donald trump -- remember her quote, that he is not worth it. she believes trying to impeach him gives him exactly what he wants and they should focus on health care and immigration policy and not get caught up in this. the question is can she keep her caucus in line? >> yeah. >> i don't think today, by the way, hurt that argument. >> all right. >> there will not be a groundswell after today. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> that was not short. >> that was not short. i should have just said i don't know, don. >> i was trying to help out out and you wouldn't listen. robert mueller declined to answer questions more than 200 times today but does his report really speak for itself?

did you know that every single flush [toilet flush] flings odors onto your soft surfaces? then they get released back into the air so you smell them later. ew. right? that's why febreze created new small spaces. [clicking sound] press firmly and watch it get to work... [popping sounds] unlike the leading cone, small spaces continuously eliminates odors in the air and on surfaces [popping sounds] so they don't come back for 45 days. now that's one flushin' fresh bathroom. ♪breathe happy febreze... ♪la la la la la.

a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. neutrogena®

robert mueller's testimony today was the most anticipated in years. the pressure was on for the democrats, really, republicans as well and mueller himself. so who was the most effective? let's discuss now. elie honig is here and jack quinn. good to see you live and in person and also in stereo. let's start with you, jack, and robert mueller. i think his demeanor throughout the day took a lot of people by surprise. what did you make of it? >> it took me by surprise, that's for sure. i must say, he seemed unsteady

from time to time. and i think that most notable and most unfortunate was the back and forth that he had with -- >> radcliffe? >> i'm sorry? >> with radcliffe? no. >> no, with ted lieu, the whole ted lieu incident. >> got you. >> where, you know, he ended up correcting himself later. it really seemed confusing. it suggested confusion on his part. and i think it -- it was a big story line. now, you know, and worst of all it makes so little sense. i mean, he's essentially saying, well, you know, we could -- couldn't find -- we couldn't charge obstruction -- >> mmm-hmm. >> -- because we couldn't look for it because a long time ago two people who worked for doj wrote a memo saying you can't indict a sitting president and those -- those people, by the way, worked for presidents who were under investigation. >> mmm-hmm. >> and it was just -- it was a confusing mess and it just

seemed on one of the most critical issues they had under discussion he was confused -- >> yeah. >> -- by what they concluded. >> so, elie, listen, by cnn's count, at least 206 times that robert mueller declined to answer a question from lawmakers. >> wow. >> he obviously wants the report to speak for itself. that's a lot of times, though, right? did he undercut his own investigation by refusing to elaborate on it? >> i think he did. there are plenty of things in the report that are very important, but there are also important questions in the report. he put this arbitrary box around his report. he said when he spoke to us months ago i'm only going to testify on what's in my report. that's actually legally incorrect. robert mueller knows that. subpoenas, you don't get to choose. i'm not going to expand, "a," deprived us of a lot of important details, and, "b," undercut his overall effectiveness as a witness. seeing someone over and over 200 times say i'm not going to

answer, you start to wonder, is he hiding something? why not? >> if i may say -- >> there were many people saying, well, you guys were focussing on style and not substance, but that is substance. >> yeah. >> that's part of the substance. not answering and not being clear on what's in the report. >> exactly. >> the thing we were talking about earlier on obstruction, that's very much substance, it's at the heart of this thing, and, by the way, his -- mueller's report without any doubt paints a picture of a president who has checked all the boxes on the elements of obstruction of justice. >> yeah. >> and so why, you know, the only thing i can -- i can figure out that he was trying to do is basically say i'm lateraling the ball over to you guys now because as he had said earlier, you know, there's a process for dealing with a sitting president, it's called impeachment. >> mmm-hmm. >> and he didn't want to come out and say it, but -- >> yeah. >> -- there is no other explanation.

>> also you talked about the exchange on obstruction. there was also the collusion versus conspiracy exchange that happened with georgia republican doug collins. let's watch it. >> collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct? >> no. >> if no, on page 180 of volume 1 of your report, you wrote as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute. are you sitting here testifying something different than what your report states? >> i -- i leave it with the report. >> there was rapid fire, like -- >> yeah. >> but -- >> so what that was i think was trying to save the last of the big three because right off the bat we lost no obstruction, right? i think the first answer mueller gave all day was false. second question was total and complete exoneration. >> should they have just stopped at nadler? >> honestly, we were saying -- if they had said we rest, that's it.

that might have been -- but you knock out those two all you're left with is no collusion. so we get into this really sort of silly semantic game. and i think what mueller was trying to say is legally conspiracy's a term, collusion's not. but every day, colloquially the way that people talk they're interchangeable. this is a tactic you see in criminal law sometimes when you got nowhere to go, which is attack the investigators, point the finger at the other side, at the prosecutors, and it can work sometimes. >> yeah. so last night, jack, on fox news sean hannity spent most of his opening monologue laying out a series of questions for lawmakers to ask mueller. and today some of the republican questions were remarkably similar. here's one. here's on mueller's meeting with trump. look at this. >> did he give you a reason why he fired james comey, yes or no, mr. mueller? >> did he mention the firing of

james comey in your discussion with him? >> is it fair to say, mr. mueller, that you're friends with jim comey? >> you and james comey have been good friends, were good friends for many years, correct? >> were you aware that weisman was a devote democrat who was at hillary clinton's victory party? >> andrew weisman attended hillary clinton's election night party. did you know that before or after he came on the team. >> were you aware that jeanie ray worked for you while she worked for hillary clinton on the clinton foundation as her lawyer? >> were you aware jeanie ray represented ms. hillary clinton regarding emails originating from hillary clinton's time as secretary of state? >> hard to overlook the similarities. i'm just saying. >> how long did it take sean to write those questions for the republicans on the committee? seriously. >> yeah. >> right? >> yeah. so, listen, let's talk about the democrats. the president and his allies are out there claiming that it was a

disaster for them. was it a disaster? >> no. let me say -- look, first of all, i don't think a lot of people watched it from beginning to end. >> yeah. >> secondly, i think the chairs of both committees, and jerry nadler in particular, really set the table well. >> mmm-hmm. >> and got answers that sort of got to the critical points in the early part of the hearing. >> yeah. >> but more importantly, this is not the end of the hearings. we're going to have hearings that are going to have witnesses -- star witnesses like don mcgahn. and that's the meat of this thing. >> okay. all right. >> this hearing was not meant to sort of close the book on this. >> quickly. democrats? >> it was jarring to see the president come out on the driveway and declare victory and triumph on a day when the testimony was no obstruction, false. complete exoneration, false. the president and the people around him welcomed election interference and lied about it. >> yeah. >> the president can be indicted when he gets out of office. >> yeah. >> putting aside criminality, at

the end mueller said he did things that were unpatriotic and immoral and dangerous. >> yeah. >> how is that a good day? i don't know. >> not that he was going to charge him but he couldn't if he wanted to anyway because of doj. >> he couldn't even decide. >> all right. thank you both. i appreciate if it. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation

about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures

and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

both sides declaring victory tonight in the wake of mueller's testimony. >> this has been a very bad thing for our country, and despite everything we've been through, it's been an incredible 2 1/2 years for our country. the administration, our president, me, we've done a great job. we've done it under this terrible phony cloud, a phony

cloud, that's all it was, and they should be ashamed of themselves. absolutely ashamed. and you know who knew it was a phony cloud more than anyone else is schiff and nadler and schumer and pelosi, every one of them, they all knew it was phony stuff. >> the american people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our constitution. >> so, now what? what happens going forward and where does all this leave republicans and democrats with 2020 looming? let's discuss now. max -- mike shields is here. this is why i said max. max boot also here. he's the author of "the corrosion of conservatism: why i left the right" and hilary rosen here as well. good to have all of you on. good evening. thanks so much. max, let's start with you. you know, i want to start with you because you're in new york tonight. i don't want you to get left out of this conversation. this is a headline. this is from your column today. you said, "mueller wins on the facts but loses on tv." in the trump era, you know, the

reality show world we live in right now, have we gotten to the point where that's what matters, the court of public opinion, what the folks think? >> that's my fear, don. i think what you saw today is that robert mueller is a great american, great patriots, great lawman, great investigator but not a great tv performer. he certainly cannot match up with donald trump, who is not one-tenth the american robert mueller is, but donald trump knows how to perform on tv and mueller either doesn't know how to do it or refused to do it, whatever reason, so he was not very telegenic today. he did not get across his findings in a very forceful manner. and, unfortunately, i think that gave a win to the republicans who are basically eager to obstruct justice and to defend donald trump at all costs. and my real frustration was, you know, i wish that mueller had channelled a little bit of his joseph welsh, the army counsel during the mccarthy hearings that said, have you no decency, sir? at long last. that's what i wanted him to say to all these republicans impugning his integrity and the integrity of his investigators.

>> okay. >> it was outrageous. instead it was just joe friday. it fell a little bit flat. >> hilary, let's talk about the democrats. they were disciplined. i was surprised. they were very disciplined. do you think they accomplished what they wanted despite of the performance of robert mueller? >> look, you know, you had some democratic members on early. clearly the caucus is in spin mode saying we got what we wanted out of it. i think what they didn't get out of it were a lot of changed minds. you know, robert mueller and his investigation was supported by an overwhelming majority of americans throughout the entire time, and that is because people had faith in him. i think what we saw today was everyone went back to their

corners. you know, democrats went back to their corners. republicans went back to their corners. the facts in the mueller report are still that the president obstructed justice, but was it going to change the politics? no. it didn't change the politics. >> do you think it moved the needle, mike? >> no. i think that this blew up in the democrats' face. i think they're actually worse off today than they were yesterday after doing this, and that's not what they wanted. i think their caucus is more split, there's more pressure on nancy pelosi now from the people that they heard what they wanted to hear and they're going to be ratcheting up that we've got to impeach him. so she's back in that position again. in the meantime, the country, the voters didn't hear anything that was different. they've already digested as much of this as they can. i don't see how this could help them. >> even hearing robert mueller

say -- >> people have been repeating that line for mueller for the last -- since his report came out. >> let me ask you about, you know, when he started his testimony. he said, listen, i can't answer anything about the origins of the investigation, the steele dossier, whatever. the republicans then continued to ask him about it. do you think it was disrespectful? they had no other choice? >> i think it was theater. >> you do? you admit it was theater? >> well, of course it was. this whole thing has been a circus from the start. i think republicans want the country to understand something about the beginning of this investigation. democrats are trying to have him literally read his own report out. all the fund-raising e-mails were written the day before this and people tried to make stars out of themselves. actually, i agree with you, hilary, at the end of this, people go back and saw what they wanted to see out of it. that's not good for the democrats. >> there was a lot of theater on the republican side, for sure, because they really felt like they needed to undermine bob mueller. i actually think the democrats might have done better if they had treated him like the reluctant witness he was. >> mmm-hmm. >> if they had really forced him

to kind of characterize issues not just respond to the report. >> mmm-hmm. >> you know, because bob mueller is a patriot. and the behavior described in the mueller report, regardless of what you think, you know, of the facts that were uncovered, is wholly inappropriate for the president of the united states. >> asking him to come was theater. >> max, i've got 20 seconds left. i'll give you the last word. go on. >> i mean, we can talk about bob mueller's performance, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that he did document obstruction of justice on the part of the president, he did document collusion on the part of the president, he did document lying on the part of the president, and the republicans couldn't care less about that. >> right. >> the only republican who cared at all about the underlying charges was congressman will hurd. the others all of them were basically in obstruction of justice mode themselves and defaming an american patriot and hero in robert mueller and it was a disgraceful performance, i thought, by republicans on both committees. >> that's got to be the last word. thank you all. i appreciate it. the cnn democratic presidential debates less than a week away, tuesday in detroit, and the fireworks have already started for some of the candidates.

these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

about the colonial penn program. here to tell you if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.

i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, and it's yours just for calling. so call now.

so we're getting a sneak peek at some of the fireworks we may see at next week's cnn democratic presidential debates in detroit. most of the candidates are already in the motor city for an naacp convention. so joining me now to discuss is bakari sellers and joe trippi. gentlemen, good evening. good to see you. >> good evening. >> joe, i'm going to start with you. two of the most anticipated candidates at today's forum were joe biden and kamala harris. biden defended his civil rights record and fired back at cory booker and kamala harris. watch this and then we'll talk. >> you've got to find $30 to $40 trillion and how are you going to do it? people who say medicare for all, that they're not going to tax the middle class because you don't need to do that. come on. is this a fantasy world here? if you look at the mayor's

record in newark, one of the provisions i wrote in the crime bill, pattern and practice of misbehavior, his police department was stopping and frisking people, mostly african-american men. we took action against them. the justice department took action against them. held the police department accountable. >> hmm. so, listen, after the bruising he got from harris in the first debate, do you think biden was more prepared today going on the counterattack? >> well, he was obviously prepared for it. i just don't know -- again, i think he's much better when he stays above the fray, but that may not be possible going into this debate. people are going to come -- i mean, for a lot of the folks they're looking for that kamala harris moment that she had. she's looking to do it again. and the best place to score is with joe biden. but i think one of the things we need to, you know, the people lose sight of is the african-american vote in particular is not monolithic.

i think older african-americans give joe biden a more benefit of a doubt. the fact that he was obama's vice president matters more to them. matters more to them. he's got more protective tissue with older african americans. but the younger members of the community, they're different -- i think more identifying with kamala with bernie and just about everybody else in the race. we'll see what happens. >> i wonder if it's smart lines of attack. one more before i the smart lines of attack. medicare of all and criticize the police department of the african american men under booker. >> daryl? smart line of attack? >> yeah. the medicare may well be. it turns out a lot of democratic voters the independent voters are worried about losing private

health insurance. and it also is there are a lot of african americans are more moderate than a lot of white progressives. in the party. on issues like this. there's a that might be a better line of attack than attacking the attack that he did on booker. >> okay. i want to bring you in now. you're a harris supporter. biden is calling for a medicare for all proposal. claiming she would enact it without raising taxes. will she need to explain that because she's also flip-flopped on healthcare position? so does he need a clear answer on that? >> i'm not certain she flip-flopped. she has to have a clear stance. back it up and not go and clarify the next day. or question whether or not the question was heard correctly.

she has to do that. and has to get this healthcare answer correct the first time. and nail it. i think that is the ground that joe biden wants to play on in the debate and to go to the question you asked joe, he was right. the vice president looked prepared today. i know he's been making rounds and quotes he won't be polite at the next debate. the people at the next debate want biden to be prepared. it's one thing to have a statement. they want him to be prepared to take the sustained hits on healthcare and criminal justice. >> good lines of attack for him? >> i think that the there has to be clarity from harris. on her healthcare proposal. there can be one weakness said about the campaign throughout the it has to be just standing in your healthcare answer. being able to explain and talk about how to pay for it. that has to be answered next week. criminal justice a good line of attack for biden on anybody? hell no.

he doesn't need to be talking about anybody's criminal justice record when his hand are the dirtest on stage. castro has been doing well. he'll be on the stage. keep your good eye on him as well. >> joe, biden also said that president obama wouldn't have chosen him to be his vice president if he had he was bad on civil rights. what do you think about that? he gets a lot of lee way. with older black voters. what you think about the comments? >> i think sooner or later we'll see scenes of him and obama looking out the oval office window together. look, it's a strength of his -- not just with african americans. a lot of democrats. that he was obama's vice president. it's the stronger cards he's got.

prepared for the job. we'll keep hearing about that. i do agree to watch other people in this thing. castro. also i think there are a lot of candidates who go into the debates. the last chance to make it into the next round for them. and it's going to be very aggressive. one will score. >> ten seconds. what do you think? >> i'm going to steal a line from a legendary biden debate quote. right now biden is subject verb obama. and black folk and everybody will get tired of hearing. he has to stop using obama as a

shield. subject verb obama. >> i appreciate it. don't miss the cnn democratic presidential debate next tuesday and wednesday night. we'll moderate july 30 and 31. beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. breaking news out of the puerto rico. thanks for watching, everyone. our coverage continues. he's out. rossello says he will resign as governor of puerto rico after more than a week of protests. it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here. they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> robert mueller's blunt warning on russian interference put democrats in a scramble after mueller said little if anything to move the needle on impeachment. and two projectiles fired by north korea. south kore