From your times, are like about this today, the molecule sent its report to the attorney general the attorney general, sent a summary of that report to Congress. Now you report, it shows members of modesty deal that bar summary did not reflect the report. They, it's Thursday April. Fourth, so take back to the beginning of last week. What do we know at that point? So we knew that Bill bar gang Bob Mowers, three to four hundred page report, had gone through it, except

simply and boiled down what he called the principal conclusions to just four pages. Nick fanned us covers Congress MIKE Schmidt, covers security. We were in this unusual situation where the special Council, Robert Mahler, had sent his report of eternity no said. I found no evidence that the campaign conspired with Russia to impact the election, but he declined to make this Vision on obstruction in what he said was or didn't reach what bar called a traditional prosecutor. Coral decision in other words, Mahler presented evidence for the could. The president may have obstructed justice, but didn't go as far as to conclude that he had. He essentially pointed to the attorney general's office and in this case, by mauler, not we your determination. He leaves the door open for bar to come in, to say

Ok, mother didn't make a determination on this issue of obstruction. He did on collusion. I'm gonna look at all the facts and he makes his determination no case to be made here on both of these issues. The problem, though, is that the perception is that mauler, the independent investigator, whose there to do an inquiry free of politics, has not made a call on this central question, but bar the president's appointee. Who's been there just for a few months is making the decision. So the question is: is the fixin? Why is it more or didn't come? Do an answer, the attorney general, So, at the beginning of last week we know that Mahler made the unusual decision not to make a call, and bar made the unusual decision to make a call, and the question is why it's

unusual that bar made a call the Justice Department is there to decide whether p broke? The law not- and he was doing that what's different in unusual here is. Bore in Mahler. Don't look like they on the same page, Mahler said can't make a determination on this issue, and bar did So why is it that they looked at it differently? Why was it that mauler, the prosecutor here eating. Do, though, one thing there prosecutors at the Justice Department do, which is make a call, and that was the question that we spent the last week trying to figure out what is the deal

and hear what is the evidence that they're looking at and why did Mahler and bar make the decisions that they made around this question of obstruction of justice And what have we now learned. What we ve now learn is that nobody is happy the tea that was working, or at least some of the team that was working with Bob Mauler, feels that bar stepped in and build a vacuum in a way that didn't properly capture what their twenty two month, investigation, found and bars team feels the Bob Mauler fell short of doing his job. So, let's start with the boss. Side explain more about why the attorney general and those around him are upset so in not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice bar has to go. Out on his own and make their determination without the top cover,

of the independent investigator who went out and was supposed to make a determination on whether the present broke the law. And what do you mean by top cover? One of the reasons you have a special council is to insulate destination from politics and then, when the investigation is concluded, have a way of holding up the product of the inquiry, the fruits of it to the public and saying look, this was done free of politics. We assessed, matter, based on the facts, and now you have a result that is exposed, at least in part, to the perception that the President's guy made the decision made during two hundred correct undercutting one of the key points of motor deployment in the first place and you're saying that the people in the Justice Department and that bar himself Arabs

that to be put in a position where the systems now working the way it's supposed to you had molar there for one reason: yea or nay, on crime and on one of these central questions he couldn't get there and buys stepping back and saying. I don't know it allows the least the Democrats to say what. How is this decision made? How did they get to this? How is it that the present political point with the ultimate decider and it gives them real credence to go and say we need to see all the evidence. We need to see the whole file here, because the president's handpicked man made this decision. Maybe we'd reach a different conclusion. If we look at the evidence, bomber seems to have so then why did bar choose to make a call our fresh of justice if he knew and was upset

this was going to be seeing a type of political and it would fan the flames of Democrats in Congress. The problem for bar was that when he got the report and looked at the evidence to him, it was a pretty clear case that you would not press this kind of charge if the president hadn't obstructed Justice- and you got to remember that bar comes to the job with pretty expansive view of executive power. As Democrats made famous, he wrote a memo before he was appointed attorney general arguing that certain acts by the president shouldn't be construed as obstruction of justice that part of his executive powers, and so he looked at this, and I mean he can't make the same decision. That more did. Somebody has to make a choice about whether or not this the chargeable offence, and he looked at it and says well in our judgment in this teams judgment, it's not so bar reads the report and thinks: what are you talking about? It's not clear whether or not there was a fraction of just

there in his mind. Clearly wasn't board, does acknowledge that there is evidence basically of behaviour that could be construed as obstructive. He gives crew to what mowers presenting but says when you add it all up, it doesn't Tipp into criminal criminal obstructive territory writin, while it felt political for barter reach, our conclusion to make a call that mother wooden I think it would have felt even more political in bars mind for Congress. To be the one to perform that rule, and so he was upset to have to make this call. But it sounds like felt that he had to. I don't know if he's upset as much as he looked at this situation says. This is not the way supposed to be working. Someone needs to make a decision on whether the present broke the law I'll step in,

dad- and I think I can do that based on the facts in congress- can still play a role redacting. The report of I'll give it to with sensitive information blacked out, and then you can make your own judgment, but the public has an intense interest in this I got to say something and I decide whether acts broke the law or not. I don't think this one did do. We know if Mueller's team expected bar to make this call on a structure of justice after they declined to do so. We don't know precisely what the Mueller team expected on this obstruction question. Seems that they were not clear and communicating to the Justice Department what they wanted men of mannered anyway, but we do know is that after bar came out with this four page summary which essentially exonerated the president on collusion and said he. Not break the law on obstruction. Some members of Mr Miller's team felt that he had inadequately and only partially

represented the work of their twenty two month investigation. So this is the other side of your report that not only was the bar side disappointed with the mother side. The mother's side was disappointed with the far side. What we have learned is that sense. Are made his public statement about a week ago, members of the Mahler team have told associates that they feel essentially that his work, if it was Miss representative of theirs didn't give the full picture which I believe, is more damaging to the president and the attorney general's letter. Let's on now, we are not so, that. Every member of the more team is frustrated by this. We dont know what Bob Mahler himself It remains one of the black boxes at the centre of this investigation, but there are members of the team who were involved in the decision making around here

tat we ve been talking about who have watched and Ben discipline. In an angry about how its being characterized and what is the focus of their disappear, to the degree you understand it so when they read billboards, concise or page letter, they were fresh waited? But he had not drawn more from their own work and in fact, what we discovered and reporting this piece out is that they had prepared summaries of their own work that were part of the report that they handed over to the Justice Department couple weeks ago and felt that some of that material, could have easily been drawn into what Mr Bar handed over, so not that he shouldn't have made decision about whether the President obstructed justice are not in a criminal sense, but that concurrent with He should have put out more of their evidence or analysis to kind of fill out. The public picture the Justice Department says, though summaries

sensitive information in them. Classified information, grand jury, secretive grandeur, information that could become public and ultimately didn't use any of it. So it Molly folks are essentially saying is hey. We wrote this. Greece. If you were going to go out and say something about this investigation, and you are going to do thing as extreme or as declarative as clearing the brethren Why is it that you didn't include some of the things that we found and specifically, why didn't you include some stuff that we found that was pretty damning you're making it seemed like the president didn't do anything wrong. Donald Trump has come out in the days after bars declaration and said the Molly report was. Beautiful and it completely exonerates him if you're an investigator who spent the last two years. Looking at Donald Trump,

and you think there's a lot of questionable behaviour there. That is something that is going to irritate you mightily. I mean do either. If you think of the mother, people have a legitimate point here, or is this a classic case of pride of authors, They wanted to see their work in the public summary. I dont think that we fully know what seems clear in our boarding is that there was no specific communication or agree and by the more team to the bar team. You should use these Things are. We want these things to be out. They seem to have had an intense. And they certainly now have a regret about it, but dont know what interaction there was in the actual decision making process. Happen that weaken two weeks ago, also Why do we think that bar chose not to include More of what was in the summer is especially the negative material in his four page. Summary

I think there is one big, broad reason and another contemporary reason. The brain reason being the bar in many Justice Department, officials and For many years, prosecutors believed that if they decide not to charge someone. The fruits of the investigation should not be just thrown out there. Further public or for the enemies of the person who were investigated. Dirty laundry be aired. If the subject of those dirty laundry are not charge for the crime, if you cannot meet this incredibly high bar of bringing a federal prosecution that doesn't and you didn't get the just take the trash and just sort of throw it out in the street and let the public rummaged stir and my

the contemporary example. You refer to I'm assuming you're talking about James call me I'm talking about the July twenty. Sixteen press coverage that James co me held its right in the heat of the presidential election ends up and says we, the F B, I have done this investigation into Hillary Clinton, use for private email account. We don't think there is a case to be made here, but we found some very questionable behaviour and how she handled sensitive national security secrets. The press conference was seen as very damage. The Clinton even know a case was never me and so you're saying that boy are. You would be? I'm not be the one to replicate dad by drawing from these Mahler team summaries and putting those out into the public sphere

correct. We don't use criminal investigations to go out and find damaging things that may not be crimes there He then simply released to the public to be used against someone. The problem, is. This was never a normal average criminal investigation. It has broad national security implications as implications for was every decision that made the highest levels the government. This is more about a pathway of how you deal with the president's conduct and what it appears from the mother. Side is that there are saying look. This is the president of the United States. There is some conduct here that we think the public in Cairo should see and ok Justice Department. It may not be criminal, but this is the present

and this needs to be examined more thoroughly by the political process and by Congress, is about a pathway of dealing with the president and billboard doesn't seem to disagree with that. Fundamentally, he said throughout that he wants to make as much of this report public as possible, but he doesn't think of that jobs, him of the Justice Department role of same whether or not the president or campaign broke the law, and so he's grappling with the Justice Department version to talk about individuals that it's not saying broke the law, but yet he knows that the public and the Congress want an problem. We are owed more information about what did happen and so of operating somewhere in the middle of those two things did difference here is that it

I was under investigation and the Justice Department determined that I didn't break the law, then there's no other process that really needs to be dealt with me. Maybe my company needs to decide whether I get fired and not for that conduct in this instance. There's another issue with the present. Ok, the president in break the law, but maybe the president did things with his power that the public should know about Congress. You know about and need to be more closely examined, because maybe it's not just about breaking the law. It's about how he conducted himself as president and as Congress need to deal with that and what we are starting to see from mother's side. Is this frustration that hey, we think there's some bad, stuff that happened here, but by bar coming out and not disclosing that but saying the present in break the law? He is casting the die on

How the public will later look at the president's conduct. It will say that for several weeks after we finished our report Only thing that was out there with bill Bore saying the president didn't break the law and the present turnaround in saying I was fully exonerated and they're saying: hey America, we think more of this process needs to play out right, so this all comes down to. The vexed question of how do we investigate a sitting, president and house,

done in a way that the public has the utmost confidence in that, and in that is this tension between how much independence the investigator should have an Nixon that pendulum swung too far in the president's direction. In the star investigation of Clinton, it went the other way. The investigator had too much power, and here between Mahler and bars teams. They are fighting that same fight and have different understandings of how this should all be dealt with, and it's the same issue that we ve been Looking out for fifty years, just the latest episode of it so side of one presidential investigation, these two teams

our embodying all the tensions that have basically been present since Watergate correct it. How much you can, EL, the public, and how is apparent misconduct by the President dealt with, and there is no clear pathway on that, so whatever bar does will be viewed by one side as well. Let laying on the break through the president whenever my does will be viewed by the president's enemies as trying to get him and the confidence process then arose and its messy hard to figure out. What are the real facts here? What really happened but at this point we're just talking about the summary that no bar sent a Congress were still waiting on the full report. So won't this tension that you are describing eventually be more or less resolved when we learn

how much information will ultimately have access to it may be, and we may see a very different set of facts at the end of the day, but I The question here is about who sets the narrative for the intervening period of time. And being a month before we see a fuller version of the Mitchell Report and for that time, bill bars. Conclusion the president didn't break? The law is going to be the kind of dominant now and I think that what were hearing from hours of the Mueller team is a concern that, by the time they're full of work does come out. The narrative is baked so much so that, even if it shows, for instance, that the president didn't break the law but abused his office or conducted acts, that Congress will do

You know inappropriate for his office that there's not room to have a full debate around that that the conclusions about the work that they did for twenty two months will have been pre judged at that point. And that it won't quite matter what the report says for the president's political fate neck like. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Thanks groundless

The committee has a job to do because the fusion charges Congress withholding the present accountable for alleged official misconduct on Wednesday. The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize the use of subpoenas to obtain a full copy of the Mulder report. That job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves, not the attorney general's summary, not substantially rejected synopsis with the report and the underlying evidence, the committee's chairman, democratic representative, during Adler of New York, said he would not immediately issue a subpoena, but his power to do so will intensify pressure on the attorney general, William BAR quickly release and unread active copy of the report, I will give him time to change his mind, but have we I not reach an accommodation and we will have no choice but to

you subpoenas where these materials will they? This path cast is supported by each trading isn't for everyone, but he trade is whether it saving for a rainy day or your retirement e trade. Has you covered? They can help you check financials off your list and with a team of professionals giving you support when you know You can be confident that your money is working hard for you get more than trading with e trade to get started visit each dot com such power asked for more information. Each trade secure. These LLC member fin raw my pc. Years. What else you need to know analysis of deadly terror attacks involving white extremists has found that at least a third of them were inspired by fellow.

White men who carried out similar attacks and had either professed admiration for them or interest in their tactics. In one case, a school shooter in New Mexico correspond with a gunman who attacked a mall in Munich altogether, the two men killed eleven people. The connections between the Killers Cross continents and highlight how the internet and social media have spread white extremists and destroyed. I my career, like a to make a human connection. You my responsibility a ground? My shoulders must. Surely you can do this on Wednesday former Vice President Joe right responded to a series of complaints from women that his close physical Carter had made them uncomfortable warms began to change their shifted.

Protecting personal space. Having reset time can I can I hear what I understand in a video this sent as Biden prepares for a possible presidential. He defended his behavior but said, He is able to change our always fully covered, quite frankly, wife for that matter is welcome it. That is the deal. I'm like a mobile cinema between two accounts

nations lost creative gags and shrinking out revenue. The covert nineteen crisis is making it clear that the system supporting creative people is broken patriarch offers a better way. We help creators make up lost revenue and build a more sustainable income source by offering a monthly membership to their fans. In turn, fans get access to exclusive community premium contents and the chance to become active participants in the work they love checks patriarch dot com. Now and help change the way art is valued