it's not the bob mueller that we remember. we lose a little bit of verbal dexterity over the years, but i think his basic unfamiliarity with the report itself, having to pull in his deputy for backup, does not inspire confidence and his answers today did not inspire confidence that he was a man in control. >> the deputy seemed like caretakers. this is the u.s. presidency involved. we were led to believe that this was going to be the best of the best, the fairest of the fairest, and it wasn't. saul, you have been a big defender of mueller from the beginning. you never worked withg him, but after today, your thoughts. >> i've been a big defender of his integrity from the beginning, and i'm still a defender of his integrity. i'm not going to kick him when he's down. like kevin, i got text messages from people out of the blue, people i haven't talked to, ex- fbi in years that said literally this is not the bob mueller that i knew. something is wrong. i don't know when that started, but i know to me that failure today is a failure

it's not the bob mueller that w remember. we lose a little bit of verbal dexterity over the years, but i think his basic unfamiliarity with the report itself, having to pull in his deputy for backu commit does not inspire confidence and his answers toda did not inspire confidence that he was a man in control. >> the deputy seemed like caretakers. this is the u.s. presidency involved. we were led to believe that thi was going to be the best of the best, the fairest of the fairest , and it wasn't. saul, you have been a big defender of mueller from the beginning. you never worked with him, but after today, your thoughts. >> i've been a big defender of his integrity from the beginnin and i'm still a defender of his integrity. i'm not going to kick him when he's down. like kevin, i got text messages from people out of the blue, people i haven't talked to, nex fbi in years that said literall this is not the bob mueller tha i knew. something is wrong. i don't know when that started, but i know to me that failure today is a failure o

bob mueller sent a letter to the attorney general stating as much, and when bob mueller came out and made his 8, 9 minute statement a couple of months ago, it was just that, a statement without question. now, members of congress will get to ask the questions many americans have had on their minds since the release of the report. 448 pages worth, which let's be frank, most people in the country have not read. this is a chance for democrats to tell a story, and with the help of bob mueller to lay out in detail the cases of obstruction of justice. he said in volume one there was no evidence to support a criminal conspiracy, what about collusion, what about all the instances when the trump campaign welcomed the help of russians, and then line by line, those 12 cases that represented obstruction of justice, did bob mueller view those as obstruction of justice and just that he could not prosecute because of justice department regulations and policy. >> it's going to be interesting is i'll tell you mika, i agree with willie, and the facts bear it out, most americans haven't read this report

take a look. >> i have no objection to bob mueller personally testifying. >> what about bob mueller? should he be allowed to testify? >> i've already said publicly i have no objection to him. >> i'm joined by former prosecutor glenn kirschner who worked directly for bob mueller in the washington attorney's office. what do you make of mr. barr's shift? >> you know, ari, i see this last-ditch attempt at the bill barr department of justice to try to muzzle bob mueller by sending the letter, the two-page letter that was sent yesterday. i would say it's a letter of do's and don'ts, but it's really just a letter of don'ts. when you read that two-page letter, it's surprising how many prohibitions they could actually cram into just two pages. let's just tick through them really quickly. they say bob mueller, you better stick to the four corners of your report, and here's what you're prohibited from doing. don't talk about grand jury materials. don't talk about redactions. don't talk about ongoing investigations. don't mention uncharged persons. don't talk about executive privilege. don't men

he is going to be questioning bob mueller on wednesday y. want to give you a chance to respond to this breaking news, the letter that we have just received from the associate deputy attorney general. it is to bob mueller and states any testimony must remain in the boundaries of your public report. goes on to say because there is executive privilege could effect many things including decisions made during your investigation. what do you think about this message going to mueller? is this a threat or is this fair and square? >> this isn't the first witness they have attempted to intimidate. it's just the one who has the most credibility and had the most powerful position of any witness dealt with so far. let me just say, this president should be thanking mr. mueller for how he handled this investigation because in the final analysis the special counsel bent over backwards to be fair to this president. he followed d.o.j. regulations and didn't indict him. he refused to take a stance in the report about obstruction because he said since he won't

. >> bob mueller does not understand the burden of proof? i got to keep moving. >> it's your program. let me really quickly, here is the issue. you and i both know that the term "exoneration" is not a legal term of art. that in any case where there is a criminal manner, a prosecutor either moves forward with the prosecution or declines. and this in a sense became a declination and certainly became a declination when it went to the department of justice. but it's your program, your question. >> it certainly in ways looked like a declination, but the president claimed it was total exoneration, putting words in mueller's mouth. today is the first americans have herd mueller say the president was wrong about that. let me show you something that i think is more concerning for your client. you obviously never want to be in a situation where a former prosecutor is suggesting your client committed perjury. take a look at this today. >> isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, his answers show

>> because you trusted bob mueller to find the answer. >> bob mueller is your boy. >> he's not my boy. >> he's a minted republican. >> let me speak for myself about that. i did the first political check on james comey. i'll start there. he was not a rock ribbed republican. >> i'm talking about mueller. >> bob mueller might be a registered republican but he was a trump hater. someone we call a never trumper. >> he interviewed to be head of the fbi right before he did this. >> yeah, why is there an obstruction of justice to get rid of james comey who he would have replaced? he never brought that up to the president. >> why would bob mueller ask the president the day before he's picked to be the special counsel for the job of fbi director -- >> he was asked to come in to interview. he didn't ask for the job. that's not my understanding. he was asked to come in by a mutual friend. >> you don't come in and talk to the president about being the fbi director unless you have an interest. >> i'm not saying he didn't have an interest. >> if he thought what he had just done to james comey was un

know bob mueller. this is a very dry, just the facts kind of guy who clearly doesn't want to be there. but the message that he's bringing is really important and it's a kind of sign of our times that he can go, he can say the things that he said, write the things that he wrote in that report and all people want to talk about afterwards is the at more feesics of it. look, he went in there and pled both in his press conference weeks ago in the report itself and yesterday for people to take seriously the idea that russia is doing these things and that other countries will do these things, as well. i suppose the good news is that the republican members of the committee who were intent on discrediting mueller and discrediting his findings actually didn't contest the facts of the report at all. they didn't contest what he was saying substantively. the bad news is they also won't act on it and the president does just kind of deny the whole premise down to the clips that you mayed from yesterday. i think we ha

that brings me to a classic bob mueller riddle to keep in mind for next week. what's the difference between bob mueller and a bottle of wine? wine changes, mueller doesn't. we checked these tapes and here's how he swats away hypotheticals and questions every time he doesn't want to answer. >> i hesitate to speculate because i have just a piece of the puzzle also. i would have to check to make absolutely certain. in every investigation particularly a fast-moving investigation, there are steps taken that may not workout. it's very difficult to generalize or to reach some sort of understanding or make progress with that generalization. >> those all sound like basically true statements, but they stop short of what the congressional questioners wanted to know. the point here isn't that mueller's past hearing suggests he's trying to only be evasive or protect anyone, but rather that even when he's sitting on block buster evidence or dramatic stories which you are about to see, his style is almost always just the facts. and that brings me, as i mentioned, to a key par

enable bob mueller to walk through the evidence that's in his report. you know, i'm disappointed there is not staff counsel guiding that in a very professional way but i'm convinced that if democrats stick to a script, you know, follow their questions, ask followup questions, and get out of the way and let bob mueller tell the evidence that's in that report, that it will be damning for the president and if the republicans want to go sideways and down every other rabbit hole that you can find, let them do that. they will look foolish in the face of the evidence presented by bob mueller. so i'm not worried at all. i think -- and, by the way, for members of congress who like the public haven't read the report, there are still 24 hours. >> carol, i'm guessing iceberg dead ahead is not in the script but you've got some new reporting where you think you know what might be in there. it is questions around don jr. and why he didn't testify. >> well, look. there's the broad implications of the overall report and what people who are going to be watching tomorrow

and bob mueller prepares to face lawmakers. we are two hours away from the former special counsel being sworn in to testify on the findings of his russia report. "morning joe" will have extensive coverage leading to today's hearings, including house judiciary member joe neguse on what he wants to hear from mueller, and andrew mccabe and neil katia will join the conversation. the conversation when i was diagnosed with breast cancer, there was no hesitation, i went straight to ctca. after my mastectomy, it was maddening because i felt part of my identity was being taken away. when you're able to restore what cancer's taken away, you see that transformation firsthand knowing that she had options that she could choose, helped restore hope. my team made me feel like a whole person again. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. cancer treatment centers of america. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, every day can begin with flakes. it's a reminder of your struggles with psoriasis. but what if you

he was not a rock ribbed republican. >> i'm talking about mueller. >> bob mueller might be a registered republican but he was a trump hater. someone we call a never trumper. >> he interviewed to be head of the fbi right before he did this. >> yeah, why is there an obstruction of justice to get rid of james comey who he never replaced? he never brought that up to the president. >> why would bob mueller ask the president the day before he's picked to be the special counsel for the job of fbi director -- >> he was asked to come in to interview. he didn't ask for the job. that's not my understanding. he was asked to come in by a mutual friend. >> you don't come in and talk to the president about being the fbi director unless you have an interest. >> i'm not saying he didn't have an interest. >> if he thought what he had just done to james comey was unconstitutional and obstruction of justice, i don't think he would have agreed to be interviewed. >> i don't think he knew. i think he sbeenl the investigation with exactly what he put on page one of part two. i'm not allowed to indict a sitting

bob mueller is the one who ers on the side of not commenting and disclosing. it was mueller who stayed quiet while barr released letters and excerpts which mischaracterized the mueller report of about it was released. when barr is demanding less disclosure, it stands out. of course, it was barr's justice department that flat out purnd mueller's top prosecutors not to testify at all. and barr has opined against this week's hearing knock being it as an unnecessary public spectacle. for all this talk about how wednesday's hearing could end up being a or dry or redo, it does appear that people inside the trump administration are still concerned about mueller and his team talking. because even in his careful style, bob mueller was, in one sense, blunt in his last and only public remarks to date, saying, his probe simply did not allow him to conclude donald trump did not commit a crime. >> as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. >> and they didn't say so.

because after all it's bob mueller's day. but nevertheless republicans pushed back also on the request, underscoring the tensions ahead of tomorrow's very high stakes hearing. now moments ago we had a chance to talk to the house judiciary committee chairman about his expectations ahead of tomorrow. and he believes what mueller needs to do is lay out what's in the report and undercut what the attorney general and the president have been saying. >> i hope that tomorrow -- as i've said before -- mueller investigation revealed a lot of conduct by the president which the american people should be aware of. the president and the attorney general have systematically lied that what was in the report they said no obstruction or no inclusion. totally exonerated all three statements not true. it's important the american people understand what was in that report. and that will o from there. >> what's the risk tomorrow -- the risk -- >> well the question is where do they go from there? i asked the chairman of the committee whether or not

. >> great line, bob mueller -- >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> bob -- it was no bob mueller's purview, i love that word, i people are looking up purview. >> you will use bailey wick too. >> it was in his realm to investigate the trump tower meeting, oh, my god, where there was a russian lawyer about to give information about dirt on hillary which she never gave, and yet it was not not in his purview to investigate that russian lawyer met with fusion gps, a word he's never heard of, the night before the meeting at trump tower and the night after the meeting at trump tower, oh, not in his purview. >> led the investigation of a president that the purpose was specifically to overthrow this -- this president's attention to remove him from office. as you watched him stumble and stammer the bewildered looks on his face, if you do not take into effect the tool of radical dems, party of hate, two years and continuing with their assault on the president, you could feel sympathy for him but what evil he has done over the course of 2 years, joe

bob mueller walked that back. if you're going to be honest about this, the most vulgar tweet out there by a democrat is from michael moore. it's vulgar but it's michael moore. the same token, it's the most honest assessment of today, let it go. >> neil: so what happens now? if you're in the marks, you're looking for some continuity, whatever that can be. it's straight on to the election there. >> straight on to the election. they did the budget this week. it's not the budget that traditional republicans always said that they wanted. every time they got a chance to put one in, it never looks -- >> neil: neither party is very constraint. >> that won't be an issue. mueller won't be an issue. right now looks like it's really clear sailing with respect to the economy and the stock market. it's just a matter of keeping it going to 2020. >> neil: thanks, buddy. charles payne read on that. the president is still talking, too. you know the drill on that. he speaks, they rush the tape back. maybe it's not taped anymore. it'

bob mueller is somebody who people work with respect immensely. he models behavior and models integrity. squun and one of the things i think is most important for him to today about peter struck and all sorts of allegations made by the president is to forcefully reject those allegations, defend the integrity of the investigation. people need to hear it from bob mueller himself. >> and it's going to be a significant development, laura, when we watch all of this unfold because mueller as we've been saying he didn't want to have to do this but he's been doing it. >> it is. and he didn't want to have to write a letter to william barr saying please present my summaries i gave to you. i think it lays the groundwork to say any statements on the integrity base claim, to defend the honor or career legacy of his team is going to be viewed as him simply trying to preserve himself as opposed to the american people. >> the democrats, they've been practicing, they've been rehearsing. they've had mock hearings. >> you know what they should practice the most? shu

>> my thought is i have to disagree with bob mueller. when i read volume 2, it was designed for congress. he turned himself into an independent counsel, with the reporting obligation to the congress of the united states. >> martha: ken, as i turn to the panel here can be found 13 charges of impeachment against bill clinton? is that correct? >> 11. >> martha: 11. it's interesting -- let me go to the panel now, andy mccarthy -- it's interesting, he said he didn't want to talk about impeachment. "impeachment was not a part of my purview." it's interesting to note, would he go back to the ken starr investigation, there were 11 articles of impeachment found. >> not only that, but in his statement on may 29th, which i think he teed up -- he was trained to help the committee, he teed up impeachment for them they are better than he does in his report. he is very clear, saying that in our system it's not for federal prosecutors to be the ones to regulate misconduct by the president. that the constitution as another vehicle for that, and another l

i did not expect to see that side of bob mueller today. that's a different man than i used to brief. however this was the bob mueller that we expected in terms of what he did with the substance. he promised us he was going to stay within the report as much as possible. he said i don't know to testify read the report everything is in the report. if i testify it will be the report. this is my testimony. and he generally stuck to that. so while his delivery was halting and while he had problems sometimes getting the right word to characterize what he said. >> didn't have facility with the written word of what was on what page and what it concluded. >> right that prevented him at times from doing what i expect he would have done back at fbi director where he would give a no, but this. sometimes that pause led the member who was on a very tight time schedule to jump right in with the next question and made him look more hesitant to answer than he was. >> you were surprised he didn't push back more aen. >> particularly at the beginning of the ju

we begin with this fallout from bob mueller's testimony. democrats are now eyeing a key witness turning to trump's finances highway the mueller hearings did belong to the chairs of intel and judiciary, today it's the democrat in charge of formal oversight of the administration, elijah cummings authorizing new subpoenas to trump world, figures like steve bannon and former nsa adviser kt mcfarland, mick mulvaney and jared kushner and ivanka trump. this is also a request for those people's personal communications and that might sound broad even to some harsh, but remember, several of these people including donald trump's family memberses in office have already been caught using personal accounts to avoid potential accountability. democrats noting the hypocrisy given these same people's focus on hillary clinton's infamous personal e mail account. now, having deployed a subpoena to make yesterday's hearing happen, chairman nadler says he's about to enforce a subpoena against a witnesses that mueller cited most, former white house counsel don mcg

there's legal precedent where bob mueller can say whatever bob mueller wants. but why a brush-back pitch from the trump justice department. >> if you remember, attorney general barr did not abide by those rulings when he decided to testify. he talked about all issues outside of the report. he explained his decision and why he decided that the president was not guilty of obstruction of justice so he's applying different rules for bob mueller. but this has been the strategy of the trump administration to limit the amount of people coming up to testify about the mueller report, limit the amount of information that can be shown on television about the mueller report, limit the amount of testimony that can be put forward about what's in the mueller report because the mueller report is damning for the trump administration. even though he has no obstruction, no collusion, it is not a positive picture of what is happening within the white house. >> that's what he says, not what the report says. >> democrats are leaving nothing to chance. they really want to sell the te

>> i agree with byron and look, i don't think any of us knew that bob mueller was so fragile. this was a slow-motion train wreck anyone could have seen from the day the mueller report came out. it was clear for most americans this was about a conspiracy with russia to undermine our democracy and once it was established by the mueller report that that did not happen then the democrats should have said case closed, let's move on. there was a poll in april and may when this moved out, herbert harris poll, 80% of americans say they want their congressional representative's work and more in infrastructure, and immigrations than investigations of donald trump. they decided not to do that and focus on this and it's completely overshadowed their agenda. "washington post" reported that the democratic congressional campaign committee did focus groups which show that americans believe they are preoccupied with investigations and it's completely overshadowing their agenda. that's why pelosi was the winner today, i agree with amy, because she's been trying to push them off of this and get

>> clear bob mueller wasn't deeply involved in that. he's a deeply respected man and when it comes to this actual report, it's the persons on the committee that put it together, much of which had a lot of bias. i think the other gentleman is there to answer the real questions or at least let bob mueller know what's in the report that needs to be answered. trish: isn't that crazy? you are using him as a figurehead? he's a puppet on a string? does it look like he's in charge because he has a respected reputation? >> people throw around some different terms. i'm a trial lawyer. i have been watching witnesses for 34 years in court. sad to say, and i'm serious about the sad part. it came across very poorly today. he didn't seem to know the contents of his own report. he seemed confused and befuddled. trish: he didn't even know what fusion gps is. he didn't know who corey lewandowski is or was. the man running the campaign for donald trump at the time in question. it's like he's been living in a bubble and didn't watch any cable news for a ye

bob mueller, the mueller report, was not authored by bob mueller, the investigation was not run by bob mueller, it was run by these deputies, and the fact of the matter is, this is what -- rudy and i know this, and her colleagues, we know this, they did not abide by the so-called olc opinion, as rudy just said. untiler the summer of last year, so this nonsense that they knew from the beginning -- that is why he had to correct it because it wasn't true. so whether it was intentional or unintentional, irrelevant. you can't defend the indefensible. >> sean: would this be a fair characterization? we now found out last week that all the hiring was done by andrew weissmann, who has a history of prosecutorial misconduct, withholding exculpatory evidence, we can all read -- mr. mayor, we can read the grade book by sidney powell, "license july -- >> we kind of memorized it. >> sean: tens thousands of americans lost their job, four people to jail, he was in charge of everything. here's my point. he's the biggest, most corrupt prosecutor he could have with the most abusively biased, one-sided dem

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

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 -- >> ye

so much so that bob mueller had to contradict him. i think it's important to revisit that and say, here's what this report really said and didn't say. because it didn't say that the president was exonerated of obstruction of justice. very much the contrary. and people need to understand that from the guy who actually investigated and wrote the report. >> earlier today, the house speaker nancy pelosi tried to quash this growing dispute with some of the freshman democrats, including congressman ocasio-cortez, who accused nancy pelosi of singling out the newly elected women of color. her words. why has this become so contentious? >> i kind of wish this was not the language that my colleague from new york had used. nancy pelosi is not in any way, shape, or form racist and i think you had tape earlier of alexandria ocasio-cortez acknowledging that. here's what's happening, wolf, it is not some news-worthy gulf within the democratic party. we are a huge and dwiiverse par. we have people from all over the country, gay, straight, white, black

bob mueller wouldn't talk about that possibility. yet democrats, a lot of them, point to this as this road map. where do you think that stands today as opposed to yesterday? >> just about where we were. i certainly don't think, as i think a number of us have said, that the ball, for those that favor impeachment and dog gone it, made their plot fails. because one of the things that adam schiff said that is so relevant is we're 80 days from the first votes in a presidential election year. so allow this process to work. it's one of the reasons that the politics of impeachment just are not working out, even with the president's unfavorables being higher than he would like going to a re-elect year, the sentiment in favor of impeaching him for his ethics and that's what we heard today, was that this afternoon, the ethics, the morality, the greed, the other considerations didn't justify even launch an impeachment inquiry. we were not hearing about there's definite proof of crime as there was during the clinton investigation. >> all right. t

mueller reporting on the russian activity hen bob mueller outlinee russian interference campaign he identified two lines of effort and there was a hacking campaign and a social media campaign but one of the things we started to see in europe is that there's usually a financial component to russian interference. there's been financial ties from a russian bank to the national front in france and recent stories in italy can act with far right parties of dangling russian money and it seems to me rather odd that there were not be a russian financial component to interfering in this election and it is, after all, what candidates need and what campaigns politicians are asking for donations and having people for money to support the campaign and it is in fact, to fund it. did more look into the finances and you have a sense of whether money was -- whether mueller examined or russian money laundering somehow made its way into the trunk campaign. >> short answer is we don't know. we don't know what the scope of mueller's invitation was and we don't know whether the decisions on scope were imp

new clashes with a week to going from bob mueller's public testimony. trump's border chief under fire for denying reported facts about conditions at trump administration migrant facilities. he will also testify next week. and democrats rallying around this new challenger to mitch mcconnell. wait till you hear how much money she just raised. we have all that in the show. but begin with new clashes over the mueller hearings. one week away as of tonight. for months, trump and his attorney general claimed they were fine with mueller testifying and if he does, it wouldn't be a big deal. that are bluster though is already giving away to some kind of palpable fear. including this new report that the trump doj wants to silence mueller's deputies from testifying it at all even in closed session and now giuliani joining trump allies to blast these hearings before they begin. >> a bunch of unethical disgraceful prosecutors which is what they are and all this lionizing of mueller is disgraceful. he was a hit man. >> when it comes to mr. mueller's testimony, a lot o

i heard comments about whether bob mueller was quick enough or sharp enough or forceful enough. the report was not undermined a wit today. in my mind it would mean the president could be indicted. that all stood up. you had dozens of republican members of the house ask question after question after question with a lot of gusto to try to get bob mueller to back off of them, and he didn't. in fact, many of the questions went to things that were collateral and peripheral. but many people engaged with the conclusions in the report, the facts in the report and all other things in the report that talked about the ways in which donald trump probably broke the law. and that remains. if someone thinks that bob mueller right out of the box makes a statement about how he did not exonerate the president which undermines the falsehood that the president has been saying for a long time, and all the other conclusions in the report remain unscathed, i don't know how you call that total victory. >> he specifically also, jim sciutto, he made it clear that he believes the president could be indict

>> i would imagine by this time bob mueller will have cracked. [laughter] he will have acknowledged that the doj policy would've indicted the president and will say, in fact, because william barr told me i could reach that conclusion i'm not ready to reach a conclusion. i'm joking. [laughter] i hope that where we are at this time tomorrow is with a better public understanding of the gravity of what the russians did and the systemic nature of what the russians did and the gravity of what the trump campaign did and what our own president did and how unethical it was and how unpatriotic it was and whether it could be proved to meet all the elements of the crime of conspiracy to willingly invite, make use of, foreign help and not just foreign help but help from a foreign adversary in a country that wishes us ill. and then to obstruct the investigation into that foreign interference for reasons of selfish protection of reputation or a desire to avoid criminal culpability, regardless of what it does to the country and how it leaves the country vulnerab

his media mechanism ran with it, and so tomorrow you get a chance to have bob mueller unfiltered. i don't think we should set enormously high expectations. he's going to be a by the book guy. i think we should have a real filter that the republican guys are going to try to set their asses on fire and try to distract people from the weight and gravity of this testimony, but that -- so that show tomorrow is going to be one that is going to hold america pretty transfixed. it's going to get a ton of media coverage, and you're going to be able to weigh and assess it by how damaging it is by the degree to which trump loses his mind on twitter. >> bill kristol, when historians look back at the role of the attorney general in playing mr. mueller in effect, getting out ahead, taking that body blow, will it be said that he might have saved the trump presidency from trump? >> that's a good question. maybe. thinking about this over the last 48 hours and thinking about the testimony, it seems we use the metaphor, the movie, the movie script tomorrow. like a show. why are movies interesting? be

so far so not so good for bob mueller. disappointing a lot of democrats by not having a stronger performance today. some republicans who wanted him to explain what prompted his investigation in the first place today. neither side got that. let's go to blake burman live at the white house, how the white house is taking all this in. hey there, blake. reporter: neil, robert mueller right off the bat in his prepared testimony before even started taking questions he would not answer questions on a couple issues. one of then being the origination of the russia investigation and also he said he wouldn't answer questions as it relates to the steele dossier, the thinking or reasoning for mueller earlier today, those topics are currently under review by the department of justice. however, it was this exchange right here with republican congressman steve chabot who left many with questions afterwards. watch. >> when you talk about the firm that produced the steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was fusion gps. is

is he reaching out to bob mueller and asking to clarify? is he putting out a letter, a statement, is the president telling bill barr to put out a statement? the testimony as it stands is really bad. >> republican congresswoman was pressing him at one point, goeding him to say whatever barr said in the initial summary was accurate. it was one of the more combative exchanges. mueller said you're not mentioning my follow-up letter of the issues we raised with his characterization. >> there were times in the hearing he was sharp as a tack. we can't avoid the fact that there were times in the hearing he was not. there were times in the hearing when he didn't seem to either -- he couldn't hear what the questioner was asking, and sometimes they spoke very quickly and they were not particularly polite and respectful of the fact that this was a 74-year-old who obviously was having trouble -- >> let's ask aaron. he has written a book about it. >> what i was going to say, often times it seems he was unfamiliar with parts of the investigation. he didn'

>> what did bob mueller say today? could the problem, did he have the authority to fire jim comey for whatever he wants? yes. >> he said no, it depends -- >> no, that was asked to him. could you fire james comey for any reason? >> he does not. he elaborates. it depends what it's about. >> do you think the president of the united states has the authority to fire the fbi director for whatever reason he wants? >> no. corrupt intent has to be taken into consideration. >> they tried that. it didn't work out. >> it doesn't mean it's not right. >> you don't think -- >> enough. enough. we're back 50 years. i'm saying this, do you think we can get to a place, and i'll say it to you now. you have to remember this. jay sekulow and his legal team did this president right. i know that's going to upset a lot of you. they knew if they put him in the chair, there was going to be trouble. they kept him out of the chair even though the special counsel says some of the answers weren't that helpful. >> he never sent a letter that said the

because it is clearly not bob mueller. they used mueller reputation to hide behind while maybe they have their own agenda and kept saying this republican, if fbi director war hero meanwhile they were going to town maybe perhaps with their agenda. let me ask you something, mr. speaker, while the speaker of the house talks impeachment maybe not impeachment when it comes to what had the mernl people care about, immigration is now reigning through roof and had had it comes to the economy, about 52.of the country approve of where 4 point up from where it was in may '19. >> now i think the fact is, that the president is in pretty good position to be reelect and every time democrats have a debate, it gets to be in a better position. they're taking a series of very radical positions. decriminalizing breaking the law by cross the american border. basically having an open border. providing tax paid health care for illegal immigrants. being for abortion and 9th month in some states and for -- you go down taking away your right to hav

>> what did bob mueller say today? could the president, did he have the authority to fire jim comey for whatever he wants? yes. >> he said no, it depends -- >> no, that was asked to him. could you fire james comey for any reason? >> he does not. he elaborates. it depends what it's about. >> do you think the president of the united states has the authority to fire the fbi director for whatever reason he wants? >> no. corrupt intent has to be taken into consideration. >> they tried that. it didn't work out. >> it doesn't mean it's not right. >> you don't think -- >> enough. enough. we're back 50 years. i'm saying this, do you think we can get to a place, and i'll say it to you now. you have to remember this. jay sekulow and his legal team did this president right. i know that's going to upset a lot of you. they knew if they put him in the chair, there was going to be trouble. they kept him out of the chair even though the special counsel says some of the answers weren't that helpful. >> he never sent a letter that said t

bob mueller and his prosecutors are not. here he gives this very authoritative sounding opinion with respect to the powers of the presidency. i think he got a lot have it wrong. i think he got a lot of the analysis wrong on obstruction of justice. the presentation of the facts, just raises the question, again, was this a fair presentation and balanced presentation of the facts. at this stage i say no. >> sean: ken starr, thank you. how many lawyers go we have? four, that's a lot. you're a lawyer, start with you, judge, we love dearly. that 9 1/2 minutes that was a disaster for mueller. go ahead. >> it was a disaster. first of all that report as ken starr just said is a report that was supposed to go to the attorney general. the attorney general can decide what if anything he wants to do with it. he didn't to have disclose it, release it -- >> sean: he said no collusion in part one. >> he said no collusion in part one. and then as it related to obstruction he says i can't really acquit the defend, the president. yeah, of obst

even bob mueller was challenged on the optics. he wouldn't concede the fact that he never attempted to build a team that would be perceived as legitimate by the american people. president trump was right when he said how do you obstruct something that never happened in the first place. if they didn't collude, what are you obstructing'? he knew the whole point was to digs credit his presidency. he said if i'm going to solve the people's problems, i need a clean slate to do so. david: mr. mueller did have the purview of looking at russia influence. the trump tower meeting ad infinitum with a whole host of subpoenas. but the russian agent who was at the trump tower meeting met before and after fusion gps. he didn't even know what fusion gps was. >> it's shocking. it shows you how difficult bill barr's and michael horowitz's job is. bob mueller testified because he felt like he had to. if you are in the cocktail circuit. you do egg you can to take down trump. he did his level best. bronze star was the winner in vietnam. but this perfo

it the way you laid it out, if bob mueller just laid it out as you said it and talk about how significant those things were, that will be a momentous thing. >> i want to welcome our viewers all around the united states and around the world. we have live special coverage of robert mueller under oath. he is set to testify publicly about his investigation into russia's attack on the 2016 election here in the united states and allegations of obstruction by the president. i'm wolf blitzer. >> and i'm jake tapper. it is a doubleheader, of course. he'll before the judiciary committee. democrats there would like mueller to say whether president trump would have been charged if he was not a sitting president. but mule har has made it clear he wants to stick to the 448-page report and not deviate from it in any way. >> the judiciary hearing is expected to last about three hours and then the intelligence comittee will focus in on russia's election influence. >> this could potentially be a do or die moment f. for republican, on the other hand, it could be a chance to close the book. for president tru

listen, give bob mueller credit. he is a vietnam veteran, a good man, a prosecutor's prosecutor, but prosecution and politics don't mix. what we saw yesterday was a mix of prosecution and politics and it doesn't work. >> sandra: it was really something, guy. appreciate your reaction this morning. a heck of a lot more coming up on all of that. thank you, guy. as we mentioned democratic senator chris koouns will be joining us in a few moments. jim jordan, who questioned mueller at yesterday's hearing will also join us in 20 minutes from now. and next hour former congressman and prosecutor trey gowdy will be our headliner so lots more reaction coming up. >> jon: now this fox news alert from puerto rico where celebrations have replaced protests after governor ricardo rossello announced his resignation. demonstrations demanded he step down. bryan llenas is live in san juan with more. >> puerto rico ex hailtion after two weeks of tensions. the governor resigned, the first governor to do so in puerto rico history but not wi