house, chief white house correspondent hallie jackson. let me start with you. that's the question to ask. what is the administration trying to do? there was an iran deal, the president campaigned against it. his national security adviser hasn't been in favor of that deal. now president trump talks of threatening to them but talking to them, getting negotiation, getting nuclear weapons out of their hands. what's the end goal? >> reporter: this is classic donald trump, notably on the foreign policy front. the negotiating tactic with kim jong-un, fire and fury interspersed with being in love. it is similar with the iranian regime. the president in that fox news interview taped it last week, prior to the tweets talking about warning of the end of iran and that of course sparking the foreign minister's fiery response. it is mixed messaging and back and forth. this is a president as his advisers will say likes to keep adversaries off balance. this appears to be if you want to call it strategy, a strategy to do just that. there's also the person

and they are going to keep going after white house officials or former white house officials, connected to the president in their sweeping investigation into possible obstruction of justice. now, these two names, annie donaldson, and hope hicks, two of the people who were closest to the president and don mcgahn, who you noted, did not show up today for a scheduled hearing, did not comply with this subpoena, showing kind of an increased broad effort to increase pressure on white house officials that may have knowledge related to the committee's ongoing obstruction of justice case, their investigation. and the reason why this is so important is that it doesn't just push back against the white house, which has been defying congressional democrats in every way, but it also sends a message to their own counterparts. two house democrats over the course of the last 24 hours, just out of sheer frustration, has caused a lot of democrats who have been falling into line behind speaker nancy pelosi, behind the committee chairman, that impeachment, at least, is not ready for now, are starting to tur

let's get to the white house counsel. he says that the demands by your colleagues on the house judiciary committee are, quote, outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch of the u.s. government. how do you respond to that? >> yeah, that's not the case at all. congress has a right to conduct oversight and to investigate these matters and what you have is an administration that's stonewalling in every single way that it can and jerry nadler is right that the president is trying to act like a king, as though nobody can investigate anything that his administration does, and ultimately, the congress is going to have to go to court, the house of representatives is going to have to go to court, probably, to enforce these subpoenas. >> do you support the judiciary committee chairman's threat to fine people for not complying with their subpoenas, even up to the attorney general, bill barr. >> well, yeah, i think that it's important that we've been negotiating, trying to get them to come in and testify and so for

house counsel. >> maybe not this white house counsel. >> you talk about walking in to work at the white house every day and you did that during some of the most challenging times in the history of the united states, after 9/11 and the war on terror , talk to us about being part of a white house during this unprecedented legal time. you were really treading in uncharted legal water, having to make unique, novel decisions on behalf of the white house and on behalf of justice so talk to us a little bit about assessing those issues and relying on the people that were around you. >> the job of the white house counsel is not to make the final determination and with respect to top legal issues, live surveillance like those were not legal decisions by those involved in white house counsel. what i would do as a general matter is when a policy issue goes up like the ones i just described, i would get lawyers and affected agencies to come to the west wing and we would debate them. for a long time. obviously would have someone from justice, oftentimes the head of the criminal division. someone from

other white house officials. there's been this building of tension between the administration and house democrats over a litany of issues. >> it's very clear what we're seeing is bill barr and the department of justice, they don't want to be pushed around here. i don't think -- what we have seen from bill barr is he's not afraid to answer questions and say what's on his mind. he gave some very interesting answers. he knew what he was doing today. i think laura knows this best, the department of justice are saying enough is enough. we're not going to let you push us around. that's ultimately, i think, what this is all about. >> you heard nadler say the trump administration cannot dictate to the house of representatives how to conduct a congressional hearing. >> they can't. what's going to happen? people are defying subpoenas. who are going to hold all these people responsible for not responding to subpoenas? for not appearing to congress? what's the recourse here? >> heit is criminal, is it civi? this will drag ou

>> it's a little card that allows you to get into the white house through security to go to white house press brief wrrings go to meetings with senior administration officials in the white house. it's a valuable thing to have. and once you have it, you really should do everything possible to make sure that it's renewed. however, when i got my hard pass renewed under the trump administration that was in 2017, and i got it because one of the nbc cameraman at the white house said once you have it, don't lose it so go and get it, so i got it. but i never went to the white house. so when i got an e-mail from the white house on march 19th saying our records show that you haven't been -- in the last 180 days you've been to the white house 50% less of the time, therefore your pass is expired, i didn't think anything of it. i thought, well, they got me. i haven't been since january -- actually april of 2017. so, fine, okay you can have it. but it wasn't until i read dana's column this week where i realized oh, holy smokes it wasn't just that this was a systematic thing, and that's why i retweete

the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he's entitled to, quote, absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course. because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked his former counsel, harriet miers, who ignore a subpoena issued by this committee. ms. miers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates, who was appointed by president bush, slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisers in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. he asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by the case law. close quote, from the judicial decision. in other words, when this committee issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidenti

this is the style of this white house. this is the style of the white house to want to fight, to want to have a foil, in particular, a democratic foil and the foils here, of course, are nancy pelosi, jerry nadler, the folks who are over these committees and over the house democrats. i think this will continue from this white house, because it isn't clear where this goes. it's not clear how long this fight lasts. it's not clear how you resolve it. what is the real power of the democrats to actually compel people? are they willing to go as far as susan is talking about here? or as barr joked about, this idea of handcuffs and putting people in jail. i guess there's a little congressional jail some place on the hill. but for now, this is a white house that likes to have this defiant posture. and also, i think, the zroerts, too. the republican voters. the idea that this is a place that they're under siege. >> bianna, the white house argues that the democrats are certainly trying to do a do-over on the mueller report. they say t

ice with the white house? >> reporter: that's a good question. he is the trump appointee. he has said things that the white house has taken note of. i will note as we talk about this issue of robert mueller in the course of this conversation, i press the president's counselor on this issue earlier. we heard from the president in recent days saying that robert mueller should not testify. that was a reversal from what he said formally. remember immediately after the report came out he said that mueller was honorable. that has changed in recent weeks. kellyanne conway said to me the bottom line is they have made a decision if they will stop him from testifying. they do think he should not testify. the mueller report was the final conclusive and outright definitive report on the investigation and she called on democrats to move forward for the sake of the country. i pressed her about congress's oversight responsibilities. she said there's a difference between oversight and overreach and evidenced by the talking po

the white house instructs the former white house counsel don mcgahn to not turn over these records to the house judiciary committee. in this letter from the white house counsel, he says this. the white house records remain legally protected from disclosure under long-standing constitutional principles because they implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege. now, according to this letter from the white house counsel, mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, has directed him -- has made it clear that don mcgahn is not to provide these records. now, in the letter from don mcgahn's attorney, he says there's really nothing he can do. he wants the legislative branch, congress, to cut a deal with the white house about what records can be turned over. and he said he is essentially going to be listening to his former boss. now, the democrats will say, look, the executive privilege question had been waived when don mcgahn had testified before bob mueller, when he went before him, spent 30 hours being interviewed. he was a central player, witnessed

let's go to peter alexander at the white house. what reason is the trump administration giving for the president directing don mcgahn to defy a congressional subpoena and not testify today? >> the white house counsel details this in a letter to the house judiciary chairman writing that the justice department has advised him that mcgahn is immune from white house testimony. the legal opinions go back four decades it says regarding a president's close advisers and makes clear in this letter the president has directed mcgahn not to appear. president trump was pressed on his decision on the south lawn before departing town last night. >> why are you asking don mcgahn to defy a congressional subpoena? >> well, as i understand it, they're going that for the office of the presidency for future presidents. i think it's an important precedent, and the attorneys say that they are not doing that for me, they're doing that for the office of the president. so we're talking about the future. >> meantime, the democrats have scored their first cou

the white house says that don mcgahn, the president's former white house counsel doesn't have the legal right to provide documents subpoenaed by congress. do you believe this is a valid legal argument? >> well, i don't think so. i think don mcgahn -- frankly wing it's the president who has waived executive privilege by allowing don mcgahn to testify pot special counsel and share things to the president's own personal attorneys. that's an issue that may end up being litigated in court. more broadly, it's pretty striking that just a few weeks ago, the president was claiming complete and total exoneration and is now taking steps to prevent don mcgahn, the white house counsel who provided so much information to the special counsel from even appearing in front of congress. i do think this is one of those instances where i'll repeat a line i said a number of times before. if the president's truly innocent, he ought to act like it and allow white house counsel mcgahn to testify to congress. >> one of the arguments they make over at the white house is that the president allowed don mcgahn to sp

whether trump and the white house will try to stop him from doing so. here's what the president had to say about that today. >> will you allow robert mueller to testify? >> well, i'm going to leave that up to our very great attorney general, and he'll make a decision on that. bob mueller's no friend of mine. i had conflicts with him. we had somebody that is in love with james comey. he liked james comey. they were good friends. >> this is a potential reversal from one he wrote mueller should not testify. earlier this evening james comey who was fired exactly two years ago today had this to say about mueller and about trump's remarks. >> i respect him. i don't think we have that kind of relationship. >> you think mueller should testify? >> of course. and explain his thinking. the president says this report is a complete exoneration of him. why wouldn't the special counsel be permitted to testify? >> tonight trump is also coming to the defense of his son, donald trump junior who is now facing a subpoena from the senate intelligence committee which is carr

however, the white house and lower level u.s. navy officials did exchange emails about keeping the ship's name out of sight, lest it provoke the president's anger. navy leadership nixed that idea. this morning at the white house, the president exhibited more of his trademark anger and resentment regarding the late senator and this story. >> i would not have done that. i was very angry with john mccain because he killed health care. i was not a big fan of john mccain in any way, shape or form. i think john mccain had a lot to getting president bush, a lot to do with it to go into the middle east, which was a catastrophe. to me, john mccain, i wasn't a fan. but i would never do a thing like that. now, somebody did it because they thought i didn't like him, okay? and they were well meaning, i will say. i didn't know anything about it. i would never have done that. >> the buck stops with him, not. a reporter then asked the president do you owe the sailors of the mccain an apology, the president replied no, not at all. hours later, se

here is what the white house would like to do. like to flip it and make it 57% employment and skills, 33% family, 10% humanitarian and other grounds and don't forget they want to end the visa lottery. border security. the president will talk about that. building the new wall. modernizing ports of entry. updating the legal immigration process. if you know anyone trying to immigrate to this country it is long and expensive. expedite the adjudication process and quickly remove those who do not have legitimate asylum claims. it has been cast into sharp focus thanks to the millions coming here claiming asylum by by passing and jumping the line white house officials say ahead of those fighting to come here the legal way. but any solution to this problem will have to begin in the halls of capitol hill. >> white house's plan is not designed to -- this is designed to become law. the white house plan is trying to unite the republican party around border security and merit-based immigration. i'm trying to get relief to our border patrol agen

is why the white house special counsel emmitt flood wanted to put this on the record with the white house view on, because there is this debate going on right now of whether the president can still do so since he didn't -- he didn't assert executive privilege on the mueller report. this is a brewing battle as we speak, brianna, between the white house and house democrats over this issue. brianna? >> it is, and we see the battle lines in this letter. pamela brown, great reporting. thank you so much. i want to bring in our panel to discuss this. we have laura coates, a former federal prosecutor and julian epstein, a former chief economic council and gloria borger our chief political analyst. all right. so what's the objective of having a letter like this sent from emmitt flood to bill barr? it's to memorialize something, but what's the objective here? >> well, there's a political objective, and you guys can speak to the legal objective. what they are basically saying, what emmitt flood is saying here is that the mueller report was a completely political document, that said things it did not

another no from the trump white house. the president blocks his former counsel from testifying, and more and more democrats say the price of this defiance should be an impeachment inquiry. plus, some perspective employees ask for a parking spot. others may be a chance to telecommute. just wait until you hear the demands of a kansas politician who wanted to be the president's new immigration czar. and the president on the road doubling down as his own producer. he loves the rally stage

they're his, while he is refusing to answer whether he is talking to the white house about how the white house wants those ongoing prosecutions to be handled. justice department, just so you know, is supposed to be totally independent of political interference in terms of who it prosecutes and who it doesn't and how it conducts prosecutions. but barr today refused to say whether or not he was consulting with the white house about the conduct of the prosecutions that have sprung from mueller's report. barr also today announced, i'm not kidding, that if a president wants to contend that he has been falsely accused of wrongdoing, well, that's all he needs. that's all he needs if he wants to fire a prosecutor investigating that. and i know you think that i'm being hyperbolic. i know you're thinking right now that barr couldn't possibly have said that a president can fire a prosecutor if he believes that prosecutor is investigating something that is a false accusation. i know you think that i'm being hyperbolic here, but honestly, that is exactly what he said. >> if it was based on false alle

why he is refusing to answer whether he's talking to the white house about how the white house wants those ongoing prosecutions to be handled. justice department, just so you know, is supposed to be totally independent of political interference in terms of who it prosecutes and who it doesn't and how it conducts prosecutions. but barr today refused to say whether or not he was consulting with the white house about the conduct of the prosecutions that have sprung from mueller's report. barr also today announced, i'm not kidding, that if a president wants to contend that he has been falsely accused of wrongdoing, well, that's all he needs. that's all he needs if he wants to fire a prosecutor investigating that. and i know you think that i'm being hyperbolic. i know you're thinking right now that barr couldn't possibly have said that a president can fire a prosecutor if he believes that prosecutor is investigating something that is a false accusation. i know you think that i'm being hyperbolic here, but honestly, that is exactly what he said. >> if it was based on false allegations, the

it says the white house learned in august that mr. mcgahn had told mr. mueller's investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice according to one of the people. after "new york times" article revealed that mr. mcgahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, mr. burke tried to reassure the white house that his client told mr. mueller that he never believed mr. trump had committed an obstruction offense. pall paul butler, let me ask you about that. there's some sourcing here. so who knows? if what is being suggested here is true, that is to say mcgahn's lawyer, mcgahn told the white house that he had told mueller i didn't think what you did was obstruction, does that change at all questions about propriety of the white house doing this? >> well, i think that in terms of whether the president committed obstruction, don mcgahn has never been a federal prosecutor, he's never practiced criminal law. on that issue i'm going to go with the judgment of the over 800 former federal prosecutors including barbara and i, who signed th

an administration official revealing that the white house asked former white house counsel don mcgahn to say publicly that president trump did not obstruct justice and mcgahn refused. a source familiar with the president said he was upset with mcgahn's reversal. the story was first reported in "the wall street journal." the white house made the request to mcgahn at least twice in the last month. mcgahn was a key witness for robert mueller. he was mentioned in the report more than 500 times. according to the mueller report, president trump sought to have mcgahn fire mueller. mcgahn refused to do that as well but the president denied that ever happened. joining us is the reporter who first broke the story, rebecca ballhouse. rebecca, what are you learning about this outreach from the white house to don mcgahn. >> what we understand is within a day of the release of the mueller report, emmet flood, a top white house lawyer, the white house special counsel, received a request from the president that he ask don mcgahn to publicly declare in a statement that he didn't believe his interactio

a busy morning at the white house. and a busy morning for 2020 candidates making a whirlwind trip through iowa. several others focusing on winning over one of the nation's biggest unions. we will go live to both places up next. >>> also, jill biden weighing in on her husband's presidential campaign. and how he will handle attacks from president trump. >> i should say that your husband can give it as well. he called president trump a clown recently. we all remember in 2016 when he said if this is high school, we'd go back and i'd beat the hell out of him, always the ugly heest, fastest -- >> no, i spoke to him about that. >> what did you tell him? because i was going to say, is he going to get down in the mud 1234. >> no, he's not. remember what michelle said, when then go low, we go high. >> tech: at safelite autoglass, we know sooner or later... every chip will crack. this daughter was home visiting when mom saw a chip in her windshield. >> mom: honey is that a chip? >> tech: they wanted it fixed fast so they brought

the white house informing house democrats that they have told don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, he should not testify. this is in defiance of a subpoena from the house judiciary committee. let's go live to rich edson to get reaction from the white house and the reasoning. good to see you, rich. >> the statement from the white house is saying to this, the special counsel received more than 1.4 million documents, hours of interviews. they have spoken to don mcgahn about 30 hours and this is unnecessary and claiming that the privilege extends to the former counselor to the president and he doesn't have to comply with the subpoena. the democrats are hoping he would be on the hill to discuss the mueller report and his inclusion in it. he was cited a number of teams by robert mueller on the question of obstruction of justice, whether the president had tried to thwart the investigation and the attempt to fire robert mueller. this is supposed to be something that democrats were going to ask him about tomorrow. but now the white house instructing that that won't be the case, this is a c

another no from the trump white house. the president blocks his former counsel from testifying, and more and more democrats say the price of this defiance should be an impeachment inquiry. plus, some perspective employees ask for a parking spot. others may be a chance to telecommute. just wait until you hear the demands of a kansas politician who wanted to be the president's new immigration czar. and the president on the road doubling down as his own producer. he loves the rally stage and the bright lights, just not too bright. >> i thought that was the sun in my eyes. it's these stupid lights, these people. i mean, what are -- what are they doing? is there any way they can turn those lights down, folks? a real genius got those lights. >> we begin this hour on capitol hill with another empty chair. the house judiciary committee holding a hearing today with the former white house counsel don mcgahn who was supposed to testify. the white house directing him last night not to testify. we'll dive more into the white house lega

left the white house. and i remember just listening to the tails of that meeting an really being in a state of shock, that's when i realized that this was not simply a lack of sophistication or a lack of undersnding about how we do our work. >> it was an active effort to influence what we weng. >> narrator: once again comey typed his notes of the meeting on his laptop. >> comey begins opening hisyp laptop andg down words, the phrases that he can remember the president said's because hat scared of what this is that has just happened. >> there's an old adage in the organization that, "if it happened and you didn't write id down, itt happen." and so i think that he was thinking, at that time, that, you know, "the president is at least walking himself down this trail to an investigation where he could become subject to investigation, and i need to be able to document what has happened." w for the first time, fbi director james coml reveal... >> narrator: but comey didn't back down. >> comeyill be appearing bef

for former white house counsel don mcghan not to testify. the white house announcing in the last hour that mcgahn has been directed to defy a congressional subpoena and skip a house judiciary hearing tomorrow. the move will set up a lengthy court battle and potential contempt proceeding for mcgahn. it's another aggressive step by the trump administration in their efforts to stone wall lawmakers. that's where we start with our former reporters and friends, joyce vance joins us, mike schmidt is back, john heileman is back from "parts unknown" -- >> so far-off the grid it wasn't clear i'd ever get back. i somehow did. >> and david jolly, who i have to say, i saw an echo of what you've been saying in congressman amash's tweets. and karine jean-pierre is here. all, of course, lucky for us msnbc contributors. mike schmidt let's start with you. your story popped up an hour ago. you reported that mcgahn was going to get this legal opinion from olc at doj, the opinion in the white house saying our guy isn't showing up. is he really their guy and is h

, wolf. >> jim acosta over here at the white house for us. let's bring in kara scannel and senior justice correspondent, evan perez. evan, if flynn did, in fact, tell mueller that there were individuals associated with the trump administration or with congress, trying to get him to change his testimony in order, presumably, to make it more favorable toward the president, why wouldn't mueller have brought specific charges of obstruction against individuals? >> you know, that's a big question. i think members of congress are going to be drilling down on exactly that, that question, wolf. i think we get a few hints in the mueller report. we can see that, according to the mueller report, they couldn't reach to this issue, simply because there's an attorney general/client privilege issue. there's a reference to this in the report, that there is a trump personal attorney who had reached out and left this voice mail, this voice mail in which a sort of oblique reference to, we want to keep you on the team, get a heads up on what you're saying. but i

the white house blocking former white house counsel don mcgahn from testifying in front of the judiciary committee today. the latest effort to stone wall investigations into the trump administration. mcgahn's lawyer telling judiciary chairman jerry nadler, mr. mcgahn finds himself facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of government. nadler threatening to use, quote, all enforcement mek schisms at the committee's disposal, including holding him in contempt. >> you're dealing with a lawless president who is willing to go to any lengths to prevent testimony that might implement him. >> reporter: white house saying he is immune to testify. sarah sanders adding, this action is taken to ensure future presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the office of the presidency. add i >> he cannot seek to be a dictator and seek the separation of powers and be above the law. that's what he's trying to do. >> reporter: meanwhile, the d.c. district court dealing a significant blow to the white house, rejecting another administration attempt to block a house committ

things he said happened in the white house didn't happen in the white house. after saying that mcgahn is a liar, that the he lied to investigators which is a crime, the white house is also saying and don mcgahn is not allowed to speak to congress to clarify the record or to defend himself while he denounce him as a liar. i wonder if that creates yet another dynamic here that is almost unsustainable in terms of mcgahn going along with what the white house says. >> and yes, he shouldn't, rachel. i'm asking him tonight, be a patriot. be someone who puts your country above the lawlessness of this white house. again, this is a cycle that we see from donald trump. i'll show you my taxes, i just have to wait until the audit's over. you're never going to see my taxes. i'm going to order the secretary of treasury to not give them to you. i was exonerated. i was the most transparent president ever investigated. mueller can testify. mueller can't testify. mcgahn can't testify. this is just the cycle of donald trump. we're just, you know, we're not going to put up with it

white house source saying things will inevitably cool down. there's a lot of that that can get done without a lot of interaction between the white house and congress. as of 2 p.m., this is pretty serious. >> dana: he is the decider indeed. john roberts, thank you. for reaction from the democratic leadership, mike emanuel is on capitol hill. schumer and pelosi left the white house, went straight microphone. >> reporter: no doubt about it, dana. good afternoon. speaker nancy pelosi continues talking about that infrastructure meeting which abankruptly conned. people ask her if she's surprised and she said nobody should ever be surprised about what happens here. >> there's so many needs. we thought we had some level of agreement. but you never know with this president of the united states. so that's what happened this morning. it was very, very, very strange. >> reporter: chuck shumer accused president trump of coming up with a preplanned excuse when he couldn't figure out how to pay for # $2 trillion worth of infrastructure. >> we were interested

is not backing down. >> the white house and the department of justice is enabling the white house to try to evade accountability to the people. to say in effect the president is a tyrant and dictator with no limit. we'll use any legal power we have with respect to mr. muller and mr. mcgahn, to anybody to do our job of holding administration accountable. >> democrats have issued subpoenas to nearly ten current and former trump officials among them the secretary of the treasury steve mnuchin is still refusing to release six years of the president's tax returns to the house ways and means committee and has until friday to reply. today mnuchin was asked about that deadline. >> how do you plan to respond to chairman neal's claims? >> we haven't had an official response yet. we will compile with the timing of it, i think you can pretty much guess how we're going to but i haven't made a decision. the democrats are trying weaponize the irs. it's a very, very dangerous issue. >> mnuchin had not spoken to the president or white house about how to handle the demand for records and we're learnin

that lived in the white house. i think it is mind boggling that it still exists and is in such great condition. that room i really love. i also really like the state dining room. not because of necessarily how it is now, although it is lovely, but that corner of the room is where jefferson's private study was and where he had his cabinet meetings. i think my next book will be looking at adams and jefferson's cabinets. that space really holds a special spot in my heart because it does not exist really anymore like it did look at the time. trying to imagine what it was is a special thing. susan both of you have only : known working with a trump administration. it's hard to compare with past presidents. you said each administration brings their own different sense of history. what about the level of interest that the trump's have and the history of the mansion? how have they express that in working with you and others? matthew the first lady has : worked with us in terms of the egg roll coming up. that is something th

white house. and i remember just listening to the details of that meing and really being in a state of shock, that's when i realizedhi thatwas not simply a lack of sophistication or a lack of understanding about how do our work. >> it was an active effort to influence what we were doing. >> narrator: once again cotyy d his notes of the meeting on his laptop. s>> comey begins opening laptop and typing down words, the phras that he can remember the president said whcause he's that scared o this is that has just happened.e >>'s an old adage in the organization that, "if it happened and you didn't write it wn, it didn't happen." and so i think that he was thinking, at that time, that, you know, "the president is at lest walking himself down t trail to an investigation where he could become subject to investigationand i need to be able to document what has happened." >> for the first time, fbi director jes comey will reveal... >> narrator: but comey didn't back down. >> comey will be appearing before a

the white house is done. this is not something that the president is going to give the green light to. he didn't in 2016. he views the fact that he won without having to do that when it was considered at the time a pretty major step back from tradition has given him, any way, the reason to draw the conclusion i didn't need to do this in 2016. i'm not going to need to do it again in 2020. >> so, the president doubling down on it being litigated already. thanks to daniel, aswan, and jeff. >>> so, "saturday night live" poking fun at republicans asking the question what would it take to break with president trump. >> okay. this week president trump has escalated his trade war with china. it's estimated this will cost the country $1.4 trillion in market value. you all have opposed tariffs in the past. do you support the tariffs now. >> there's a simple answer to that. there was no collusion. >> okay. but i'm asking you about china. >> uh-huh. mm-hm. h. mm-hm. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you on

associated press white house reporter jonathan lemire. ashley parker white house reporter for "the washington post." and nick con if sore, reporter. what could go wrong on a friday? joyce we're going to start with you. this is two different pieces of evidence. two pieces of evidence that are eluded to in the mueller report but now we might have the kind of evidence that could crack open the public's understanding of donald trump's misconduct around the question of whether or not and how he and his legal team sought to obstruct the mueller probe. please explain both pieces for us. >> this should help the public understand how dangerous and devious attorney general barr's efforts to mischaracterize the mueller report as essentially exonerating the president although he didn't go that far but how deviate that mischaracterization was because now we learn more evidence detailed inside the mueller report we see there was this concerted effort by the president's personal lawyers to try to get michael flynn, someone who held powerful evidence abo

this comes amid an escalating showdown between house democrats and the white house. president trump today exerting executive privilege on the full, unredacted version of the mueller report and all underlying materials subpoenaed by house democrats on the judiciary committee. in a letter released today the assistant attorney general wrote as we have repeatedly explained the attorney general could not comply with your subpoena in its current form without violating the law, court rules and court orders. that is an apparent reference to top-secret grand jury testimony and other materials that had been previously redacted. this all comes as the white house has made something of a stonewall strategy to refuse to comply with the questions made by house democrats as part of their oversight responsibilities including trying to get the president's taxes, find out more information about his finances and the attorney general's refusal to testify before a democratic led committee. senior congressional correspondent manu is on capitol hill. what are the next steps for democrats? >

the white house thinking is this isn't normal. why would we put a cabinet official when an elected member of congress can do it. >> there is a bit of irony for the first time in two-plus years the white house wants things in washington to be normal. >> the attorney general's testimony and the special counsel's report. we'll break down where these two friends contradict each other. one stitch. one load. one breakthrough at a time. everything that matters, made better. you know them by their work. they know us by ours. everything, built for those who are on to bigger things. well, here's to first dates! you look amazing. and you look amazingly comfortable. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck... that's when you know, it's half-washed. try downy fabric conditioner. unlike detergent alone, downy helps prevent stretching by conditioning and smoothing fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done. like.. pnc easy lock, so you can easily lock your credit card when its maximum limit differs from its vertical limit. and c

house didn't happen in the white house. after saying that mcgahn is a liar, that the he lied to investigators which is a crime, the also white house is also sag and don mcgahn is not allowed to speak to congress to clarify the record or to defend himself while he denounce him as a liar. i wonder if that creates yet another dynamic here that is almost unsustainable in terms of mcgahn going along with what the white house says. >> and yes, he shouldn't, rachel. i'm asking him tonight, be a patriot. be someone who puts your country above the lawlessness of this white house. again, this is a cycle that we see from donald trump. i'll show you my taxes, i just have to wait until the audit's over. you're never going to see my taxes. i'm going to order the secretary of treasury to not give them to you. i was exonerated. i was the most transparent president ever investigated. mueller can testify. mueller can't testify. mcgahn can't testify. this is just the cycle of donald trump. we're just, you know, we're not going to put up with

when will they get the aid from the white house? >> according to a colleague on the fox business side it could happen this week. $15 billion. consider it like a subsidy now to help out the farmers. they've been financially hurting because of the trade war. china buys a lot of agricultural products for example everybody uses soybeans. what is happening now is china is pivoting buying from brazil. if china keeps doing that they may do it in the long term and all the farmers will get hurt. you have these potential hand-outs, $15 billion. last year it was $12 billion. i interviewed a lot of farmers supportive of what the president is doing. however, at one point you don't want a government hand-out. you want actual revenue and people buying your product versus somebody putting a band-aid on the problem. >> eric: makes it uncertain for their future. >> and what shall we plan and move forward? spend more on equipment? we don't know what the demand is going to be in the near future? >> sandra: we want our farmers to thrive. california deci

the white house announcing former white house counsel don mcgahn will ignore a subpoena to testify tomorrow before the house judiciary. we break down that fight tonight. >>> early in the day the president spent a good deal of time sounding off on everything from threats to iran and hillary clinton to the genesis of russian probe. we debate should president trump and republicans zooming in hard right now on the strength of the u.s. economy? where are the republican because this is the 2020 fight. it will be a referendum on the economy and president trump himself. right now you're witnessing the biggest 180-degree turn around of all, it is this. a year-and-a-half before the 2016 election all the republican candidate were talking about big tax cuts. this a year-and-a-half, before 2020 all the leading democrats are talking about getting rid of trump's victory and tax cut and enacting the biggest tax hike ever joe biden issuing a campaign, stop fighting, start fixing. biden's words don't match his actions. two terms of economic failure with president obama, high unemployment, florida flat-lining

the white house resisted. at least one official at the bush white house tried to have him fired for resisting it. but james baker at the justice department was convinced he was right and he was stubborn. and eventually he won. the white house had been intent ongoing around that court and overtly denying the court any information about that new spying program. and they ended up getting forced to inform the court about because of the way james baker stood up to them. i mean, more officials -- he convinced more officials that he was right about it. more officials raised objections. the program ultimately became public. congress intervened in craft's surveillance legislation. and again you may not be a big fan of the legislation congress ult ultimately created about this. but before this was a spying program being run more or less off the books without any court oversight at all just by the white house. the inspector general report on this spying program, which it was a program called code name stellar wind, this

the white house as white house counsel. as far as we know, the letter has not been officially sent to capitol hill blocking the testimony. that's the expectation today because the deadline is tomorrow for the system. >> one more, pam, don mcgahn himself, do we have anything from him? what's he saying? >> we don't have anything from him. his lawyer has been in touch with the white house. we know that previously with the document request that was blocked, the white house sent a letter to don mcgahn's lettawye. that's the expectation for how this is going to play out. clearly mcgahn i'm told is deferring to the white house and will not fight anything the white house wants him to do. in this case, blocking his testimony either through executive privilege as the white house did previously with the document request or through the assertion of immunity. there is a doj dock run and memo that makes the case of why presidential advisers should not be compelled to testify to congress. that's one of the areas the white house and doj ha

so that dynamic is unfolding within the white house, but sarah huckabee sanders the white house press secretary just moments ago told me and a group of other reporters that there are no divisions within the president's team and that the president is the ultimate decision-maker here. she also adds that they are reviewing all possible options when it comes to dealing with this very, very serious situation that is unfolding in iran. but clearly our sources are elg it us otherwise. this is a source of deep frustration for the president. >> so, wait, let me get this clear here. the president wants to talk to iran to diffuse the crisis, this is a president who repeatedly criticized president obama for negotiating with iran, of course, withdrew from the iranian nuclear deal. is he says here that the white house strategy if the president is rejecting bull ton's approach that the white house strategy is negotiations with iran? >> well, he is. he said it publicly multiple times, but you're right, jim, the vehicle for these kinds of negotiations would have been the iran nuclear deal, which the p

how long will it last to be cleared of white house influence? >> the opinions in case law are on our side. take a look at the meyers case. where the court said not once but twice, there is no such thing of a claim of a blanket immunity. that's a claim an administration with make, but not case law. that won't hold up. >>> you confident the district court in d.c. would handle it? who am deliver what you consider just? >> i hope the courts see that every institution of our government framed over the course of hundreds of years through sweat, blood, and giving of their lives will say this is too important of a time to allow this amoral president to tear down whether it's judiciary or rule of law, coequal branches of government. i hold out hope that the judiciary is sworn to uphold the law against an out of control administration. >> he seems to be, this president, operating like -- and i would do the same. if we were on death row, we would do everything to delay it. he's going to challenge every subpoena and every citation for contempt. every reques

cnn abby phillip is live at the white house. and so abby, we know sources tell cnn the president was in their word erupted -- that he erupted after hearing speaker pelosi speaking out this morning. let's take some steps back. how did this whole news conference evolve complete with the podium signs and printed handouts? how did it come together. >> reporter: that was the big question. because one report -- when reporters were haste illy called into the rose garden they were greeted by that sign which was a greatest hits of all the president has been saying about the mueller investigation. but sources say this morning after the president heard what nancy pelosi had to say about him, he was livid. he was angry about those comments and you heard him bring it up repeatedly in that press conference. so aides went ahead and started putting together this poster. they had a printout that was also featuring a number of facts about the mueller investigation and the president likes to cite. but that -- that pamphlet they were handing out to

the white house press secretary declared to reporters, quote, there was no real news here. which is true, except for the part that mueller stating publicly that if his team thought the president didn't commit a crime, he would have said so. sanders had an answer, though, saying if bob mueller determined there was a crime, he would have had a moral obligation to report it, he didn't. that's not really true. mueller explained because of the guidelines he was working under, no president could be unindicted. it would be unfair to the president or any defendant to be charged, but not able to have their day in court. mueller did report what could be considered efforts of possible obstruction that could be determined defenses by congress, but sanders had none of that. >> i think it's real simple. i say what we have said is that they were looking at whether or not there was collusion. that would be the crime that would have been committed, collusion or obstruction, and all of those things have been determined to have not taken place, collusion, conspiracy, obstruction. and again, w

information that pertained to the white house, not necessarily the agencies, the white house is pushing back, saying it is not something they have to turn over to democrats. host: you mentioned the efforts to come up with a new immigration plan to overhaul legal immigration. what details do we know on that? guest: jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, last week started briefing people on this plan. this is something he has been working on since january. it is a significant piece of time for him. you mentioned legal immersion. it will include that. the president saw the initial draft and said it had to include border security. you will see border security and legal immigration. the bottom line is the proposal has numbers exactly the same. it would increase the number of migrant workers that could come to the u.s. to work. but it would decrease the number of people who could come and be sponsored by family members. by now, you have extended family that can come in if you are a legal resident and you can sponsor them. but the plan they are looking at is limited to probably spouse and

and white house involvement? >> the big issue is puerto rico funding. republicans and donald trump feel they have provided enough money for puerto rico and the u.s. territory has poorly spent the money. they don't want to provide more. they have given leeway in that -- in theations negotiations on the senate side. the reason the house held this vote today on disaster aid, they had one in january but since and there were floods tornadoes and other disasters that they wanted to add funding for. the complaints. as we mentioned 34 republicans voting against it, it is a significant showing given trump tweeted not to vote for it. >> what about the senate's version? are they trying to come up with their own? not familiar because i cover the house but they are working on the puerto rico issue as i understand it. >> it included border security. is that a sticking point? >> there are republicans that would like -- the white house does want -- they had sent a supplemental for border security spending, $4.3 billion to help w