that's the bottom line. after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election. but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts. paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. that was attorney general william barr ahead of the release of the redacted special counsel's report on russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. mr. barr outlined the findings of the report and repeated

president trump's favored phrase, no collusion. the report was released to the public 90 minutes later. it offers a narrative of how robert mueller came to his conclusions. it also includes the written responses the president submitted to mr. mueller's office in the russia probe. let's bring in wall street journal columnist, dan henninger and kim stra strawsel and hoeman jenkins. is there anything left after this report of the collusion narrative? >> collusion in the mind of many trump critics means if vladimir putin wanted trump to be president, then they colluded and it's clear there was support coming from the russian government for the idea of a trump presidency and there of course was all the propaganda stuff that came out of the twitter accounts and that sort of thing to disrupt the u.s. politics. you can't do anything about other countries having preferences in our elections or engaging in prop began take proa

activities. a lot of people want to call trump a traitor on those grounds. paul: is there anything left, dan, the connection that homan describes russia wanted and what happened here in the united states with americans? >> no, there is nothing left of it. they went over in minute detail. i'm not going to go through here's the table of consistent tense. you go through all these things, trump tower, george papadopoulos, june 2016 meeting in the trump tower, extraordinary detail. at the end of each one they say there was no there, there. no conspiracy, no cooperation. russians were attempting to penetrate there. were all these overtures but in no case did they get any help from the trump campaign. that was the fundamental basic collusion charge, the russian collusion narrative and that does not exist. paul: kim, what's fascinating to me is what mueller does is he goes systematically through each

of the episodes and anecdotes that were raised over the last two years that were supposed to be examples or at least were touted in many quarter as examples of coul collusion. collusion, george papadopoulos, jeff page, in the end, they were unconnected, they had nothing to do with one another there. was no coordination. they were meetings that were taken for many reasons, some good, some bad. but they don't add up to anything. >> yeah, i think the most important thing is you finish reading that section and to your point, these meetings mostly by minor campaign aides, not in the central circle of things, this was a somewhat disorganized campaign, remember, but none of this -- we had the press for two years desperately trying to connect these dots and it turns out there were simply no lines between any of the dots and the mueller report i think that's the biggest value, exploding that and realizing how

unimportant most of this was. paul: what do you think is -- we learn about the steele dossier here? this was supposed to be the rosetta stone, the document paid for by the clinton campaign, alleging all kinds of nefarious connections between trump and russia. is it essentially vindicated in any way, validated in any way by this or is it -- >> it's not treated as a serious piece of evidence by mueller. it only surfaces in his account because comey went to trump and brought the moscow hotel room incident to his attention. paul: in january of 2017. >> yes, exactly. and i think the real thing there is that steele kicked off this whole thing and mueller never looked into it and never tried to validate any of the claims in it and doesn't also acknowledge that this is why his inquisition exists in the first place. paul: was it an abdi case by

mueller not to do that. >> it was on his part to accept the assignment. there was no evidence of a crime. there was nothing that the trump campaign did that ever rose to the level of suggesting the possibility of criminality. there should have been no investigation. >> on that point, there's a section in this report, one of these meetings in the white house in march of 2017, when comey is in talking to trump and comey is leaning on -- trump is leaning on comey to go public with the fact that he, the president is not under investigation. comey has told him that and trump said he with should make this public and comey said leaders in congress know about that but trump says you should make that public. they never did. that was two years ago. no one could deny that all the press reporting of this going back two years was trying to link donald trump to all of this activity, when they knew back then that he was not a target of the investigation. he had a reason to be upset.

paul: is there anything missing in the report that you were looking for, hoping to see and didn't see? >> yeah, that entire point about asking the question of how we got here. that would have absolutely have been mueller's responsibility. you get given this assignment which i agree with homan he should never have taken because there was no criminality but you get it and you get this dossier that is the source of all of these allegations, you find out that none of them are substantiated, your next obvious step is to ask, therefore, how such accusations came to be lodged at the top levels of law he enforcement. instead of that, this document reads as defense of all of the fbi's poor decisions. paul: isn't there some value in this having been done in the sense that now we can put all this to rest for the country. >> it clears the air. and trump is completely vindicated. do you want prosecutors using the long arm of the government to tear apart people's lives on

the hope they might find a crime? theif they don't find anything,o public the results? -- publish the results? it's a misuse of the prosecutor l y'alprosecutorial force. paul: it does clear the air. >> sure it does. trump is vindicated on the fundamental question and he'll carry that into 2020 as a big flag. paul: no collusion but what about obstruction. the mueller report has a lot to stay and not to say on that subject. that's next. will it feel like the wheend of a journey?p working, or the beginning of something even better? when you prepare for retirement with pacific life, you can create a lifelong income... so you have the freedom to keep doing whatever is most meaningful to you. a reliable income that lets you retire,

without retiring from life. that's the power of pacific. ask your financial professional about pacific life today. ♪ ahhhh! ♪ we're here. ♪ ♪ this is the family who booked the flight, ♪ who saved by adding a hotel, which led to new adventures, ♪ that captured their imaginations ♪

and turned moments into memories. with flights, hotels, activities and more for your florida vacation, expedia has everything you need to go. we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. the triple threat of dandelions, lurking crabgrass and weak, thin grass! scotts turf builder triple action. this single-step breakthrough changes everything. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass for up to 4 months, and feeds so grass can thrive, all guaranteed. only from scotts. our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ paul: the special counsel report outlines 10 instances where it looked into possible obstruction of justice. including the president's firing of fbi director james comey and his efforts to curtail the mueller investigation. the report drew no conclusion

about whether president trump had in fact obstructed justice. however, attorne attorney generl william barr said nothing the president did rose to the level of obstruction of justice offense. >> the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. a apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. paul: but the mueller report goes on to say while the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him, end quote. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and holman jenkins. so dan, having looked at those 10 episodes that he describes, lays out the facts, how strong is the evidence of obstruction? >> i don't think it's particularly strong.

i mean, this is all about donald trump and a lot of this coverage of the obstruction part of the report is built around that one line of mueller's, this does not exonerate him. why is that line in the report? paul: that's a good h trump sal weeks ago he was, quote, totally exonerated by what was going to come out in the report. donald trump is incapable of absorbing any kind of political attack. he always has to respond. he always has to fight back. that is essentially what was going on in a lot of these white house incidents. he felt he was under pressure, under attack. he knows that he's not a target as i just explained, comey had told him that. he's pressing everybody to go out there and let the public know, shut this down. yeah, he came up to the edge in many ways by telling his counsel, don mcgahn, to go over and tel and tell sessions t

it down and fire mueller. it doesn't go to obstructing a crime. paul: when it comes to, kim, on mcgahn, the general counsel, for example, trump said go over, tell rod rosenstein who is supervising the probe at justice to fire mueller. mcgahn doesn't do it. in fact, he's prepared to resign rather than do it. so that -- and then trump dropped the idea, as he been known to do. what about some of these other sort of episodes that he goes through. for example, allegedly dangling pardons in front of michael flynn and michael cohen and paul manafort by saying nice things about them. >> well, look, last time i looked, paul, those guys are either in jail or going to jail. no pardons have been issued. and i think that's the important point here, is there's an enormous especially legally difference between words and a actions. and donald trump is all about words, all the time.

but when you step back, the question -- and i think attorney general bill barr tried to spell this out -- is was in the end the bottom line, was there any effort or any action taken in any way impeded or obstructed the special counsel probe. in tend, there was not. to the extent that we are seeing all of these unflattering details in this report, it's because the white house waived executive privilege, gave everything they wanted and made available witnesses that normally would not talk to a special counsel. they went over and talked to him for hours. paul: holman, i read that section with real real fascinat. in many ways it's a hamlet act by mueller. here's the facts of obstruction that might warrant criminal judgment. i didn't make it. but i didn't exonerate him either. what was -- >> it was a complete dereliction. the fbi and cia had put the collusion story to rest before mueller got the job, it was the firing of comey and the

possibility that constituted obstruction why we have a special counsel. if he couldn't give us a ruling on that case, then what was he there for. that was the fundamental crime he was there to sort out. paul: mueller was supposed to be a stand-up guy, courageous, doesn't take pressure. how do you explain that abdication. >> some people are reading it he wants it resolved by congress with impeachment hearings or at least considering impeachment. maybe that's his thinking. i don't know. i think he should have said there is no obstruction of justice case, there was no motive, there was no collusion. >> i think it was a hung jury. he has 18 prosecutors. they spent $35 million, they spend all this time, they almost always get their target, right. >> in this case there was no indictment. they had something to he show for it. i'm sure there was internal pressure inside the prosecution team to explicitly say that trump should be cited for obstruction of justice and i get the impression there must have

been a counter argument saying we don't have enough evidence to say that, we'll simply give congress a road map if they want to pursue it. paul: do you think that's what mueller was doing, kim, giving congress a road map for impeachment if it wants to proceed. there is a reference in the report to the fact that congress has the constitutional authority to be able to challenge a president who does obstruct justice. >> several references. this is very clear that this is what he was doing. he was laying out the case so that congress can take action and by the way, this is really a appalling in a lot of ways. we've had a debate for the past year or two about jim comey standing up, berating hillary clinton but not bringing charges. bill barr talked about this, about the misuse of justice resources to simply convene grand juries and throw out innuendo. this is what mueller did in his report. he didn't have the ability to bring charges, wouldn't bring charges but nonetheless throws this out there for the public to

now mull over and congress to wrap its arms around. paul: when we come back. now that the mueller report is in the hands of congress, will there be more legal fallout? that's next. i don't keep track of regrets. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life.

i switched. we switched. i switched to chevy. i switched to chevy. we switched to chevy. we switched for value. for family. for power. it was time to upgrade. i switched from ram to chevy.

see why people are switching to chevy. we love our chevy. i love my malibu. my colorado. my camaro. my traverse. why did we switch? just look at it. ♪ i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet,

you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today. the special counsel made clear that he did not exonerate the president. the responsibility now falls to congress to hold the president accountable for his actions. congress must get the full unredacted report along with the underlying evidence uncovered by special counsel mueller. congress requires this material in order to perform our constitutionally mandated responsibility. paul: house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler, hours after the release of the redacted special counsel report

on friday morning. he issued a subpoena for the full unredacted version. it requests that attorney general barr turn over the documents by may 1st at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. that could spark a lengthy court battle. we're joined by former department of justice torn, att, james trus trustee. ed good to see you again. let's take the criticism about william barr. he summarized some of the report. a lot of critics say that was not kosher. do you think that was fair criticism? >> i don't think it is. barr didn't say it was a flat-out across the board acquittal for the president. there was vaguery to the obstruction part of the analysis. it was a four page summary of a 483 page document. you can always pars and say why did he leave this out, why did he leave that out. i think barr is the credible guy

that got him the job in the first place. i think it's a fairly premeditated but unfair attack on him to say somehow he tried to mislead the public during that three week period. paul: you looked at the redaction as we all have. there's a fair number of them but it's -- you can read most of the report without them. do you think the redactions and their justification look okay to you? does it look like they're reasonable? >> the bottom line is, all of the bases for redactions here are ones that preexisted the investigation. it makes sense that grand jury material, which statute torely has to -- which has to be secret unless the judge orders release, you knew there would be grand jury redactions in here. you knew there was a solid chance of ongoing matters creating redactions and i would say also classified for foreign intelligence gathering techniques, these are traditional areas you don't want to publicize. it's no surprise there was some portion of the report redacted.

paul: barr said that he's going to allow senior members of congress and the key committees to come in and take a look at all the redacted material except for the grand jury material. is that -- that sounds like a pretty major accommodation to congress. >> that is. it's funny, it's kind of a heavy-handed approach to say give me everything by may 1st, here a subpoena when barr seems to be true to his word from the beginning. in the confirmation hearings he was talking about full disclosure to the best he could under the law. this is a pretty traditional and sensesenseical type of issue. we'll meet under circumstances so you can look at things that aren't before the general public. the grand jury material part it doesn't matter who is asking, that requires a judge. so somebody those go to a judge and convince a judge that this type of disclosure, which is unlike typical litigation disclosures, makes sense.

paul: and nadler is suggesting he's going to do exactly that and demand barr turn over the full report and accompanying materials. if barr says wait a minute, i've given you everything except 6c which only a judge can turn over and i'm going to resist your subpoena because of that, how's that legal fight going to turn out? >> great question and who knows. but i would say it's going to be a little uphill. i mean, again, when you have -- paul: for the congress, you mean uphill for congress? >> yes. for rule 6c materials it's typically because a defendant's rights are involved. in other words, i'm representing a client. there's a trial going on. the witness that's going to take the witness stand previously testified in the grand jury. i'm entitled to see if there's inconsistencies between those statements. that's the type of thing you see very routine release of rule 6c materials but not just congress really, really wants to know. and the reality is, remember,

the report didn't actually have to even go to the public or congress. paul: right. >> it was supposed be going to the attorney general. they made it political and i think a correct calculation that they couldn't sit on it and keep it from public scrutiny. paul: that ought to be something in the justice department's favor. i assume this would go up mull multiple rungs. it could go to the supreme court. >> it could. if the court says we'll allow qualified release to congress, maybe treating it like classified information, then that could end it without a bunch of appeals by doj. if doj is saying no, and the courts are agreeing, it could take a while to resolve that. paul: we have a minute left. i want to ask about the obstruction section of the report. particularly, the line by the special counsel that he said though we found -- did not find that the president committed any crime of obstruction of justice, we did not conclude that he was -- find enough to exonerate him. is that playing fair do you

think by the special counsel, leave that cloud over the white house? >> yeah, that's a tough question, because you could certainly envision a report probably very stripped down from what we have here that literally gives the e emperors emperor thr thumbs down. there could be a situation where they said there's not enough to prove the case beyond ah ha reasonable doubt. each side of the analysis is a little different. to say there's not enough to prosecute and there was no collusion, is going beyond what some people are called for in terms of the prosecutorial model and also leaving dirt on the table and saying it's not enough is problematic, makes people have to defend or prove their own innocence when they shouldn't have to. it's a tough call. paul: thank you, james. appreciate it. partisan battle lines are being drawn over the mueller report. who will the public side with? we'll look at what's next on the political front, straight ahead.

the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪

we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico.

conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom. ♪ ♪ paul: how might the release of the mueller report play out politically? it may take time to know. the house and senate are out of formal session for more than two weeks due to the easter, passover recess. but attorney general william barr is slated to appear before the senate judiciary committee on may 1 and house judiciary committee a day later. and chairman nadler requested that special counsel mueller testify no later than may 23r

may 23rd. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel, and holman jenkins. kim, so just as a legal matter first, is this over? and on the law. >> well, certainly in terms of the justice department, it is over. okay. because bob mueller has rendered his verdict on the request of whether or not anything to due with russia conspiracy, they looked at all kinds of laws, none of them applied. so that's done. bill barr made the call on no obstruction chargeses. if anything is going to happen, it has to happen in congress from an impeachment perspective. paul: there are 12 redacted criminal referrals. we don't he know what those are, what those cases are in the report. but do you think they relate at all to trump? >> no, i think they're follow-ups. bob mueller was pretty clear in his office that there was not going to be additional prosecutions than the ones we've seen there. they would seem to relate to, for instance, the roger stone case which is ongoing and

certain prosecutions relate r&d to the russians themselves that were indicted for meddling in the election. paul: all right. holman, politically, let's turn to the politics. how are democrats going to hand handle this? are they going to impeach him? >> they're working that out right now. they go back and forth by the hour. a bunch of democrats would like it to be behind them, like nancy pelosi, they see no future with impeachment. they think it would only help trump. they're responding to the nuts in their audience and those especially on cable tv, they're sleekinshupset more than ever aw terrible trump is. paul: they might try on obstruction. i guess the he question is can you obstruct a president for-of obstruction of justice about an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that didn't happen.

>> the answer is if you're jerry nadler, certainly. paul: he's the head of the house judiciary committee. >> he's the head of the judiciary committee. there's so many things operating at many levels, most of it under the heading of trump derangement syndrome. there are people out there who simply hate donald trump, democrats who hate him. no one hates donald trump incidentally more than the washington press corps. the washington post and new york times might as well have put impeach trump on their newspapers the next dey're pusho pursue an impeachmentt the reacf the democratic presidential candidates like kamala harris and kirstin gillibrand. they've got to say something, they've got to get angry about something. i think the professional political campaigns are a little

bit leery about making this a thing about donald trump for the next two years. paul: kim, what about the mueller testimony, when he does testify. my guess would be he stays within the four corners pretty much of his report and doesn't go much beyond that. what do you think? >> i agree. by the way, i think it will be healthy for mueller to testify. people should hear from him. he was the author of this report and democrats obviously aren't going to be satisfied until he does so. but i think that he understands the political peril of being seen to be to, for or against either side here so he will probably play it straight up the middle and don't remember anyone who ever ran the fbi got to the levels that bob mueller has. they're very, very crafty when it comes to congressional testimony. they're operators. they know how to do that. paul: is bauer going to resist the subpoenas going out do you think for the full report? >> i think he will for the grand jury material, which he has made

clear. especially, look, this gets complicated. the court actually has to a grant approval for that grand jury material to go out. barr's made it pretty clear, if nadler wants to go ask the court to do that and fight that legal battle he can, but he's not doing it on nadler's behalf. paul: one of the thing the press commentary is going for is it turned away from collusion and is talking about trump's behavior, it's a damning portrait of a white house in disarray and trump raging like leer on the heath over this. is that going to hurt trump going forward? >> well, it might have, except here's the problem. trump's character, his history, his personal behavior has been an easy target for democrats all along. instead of being satisfied with that, they created the biggest lie in american history, this collusion thesis. paul: the biggest lie in american -- >> yeah, the biggest political lie. it's complete fabrication. i mean, how can they f any

better. you're as big a liar, as sleazy as he is. >> what does your party represent? are they simply about hating donald trump. or are we about health care, income inequality. i think people like bernie sanders will get around to talking more about that than the results of the mueller report. paul: still ahead, bernie sanders is shaking up the field yet again. what his red hot start could mean for the democratic primaries and the 2020 race to the white house. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could

feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪

i want to ask the audience a question, if you could raise your hand here. a he show of hands of how many people get their insurance from work, private insurance, right now. how many get it from private insurance. of those, how many are willing to transition to what the

senator saysensation,senssenaton system this was a poll of a politically diverse audience on monday. the audience's response to the question about government run health care is just one factor shaking up democrats. the senator from vermont is also out-performing his democratic rivals and fund raising and even president trump is taking notice, tweeting on the day after the town hall, i believe it will be crazy bernie sanders versus sleepy joe biden as the two finalists to run against maybe the best economy in the history of our country and many other great things. i look forward to facing whoever it may be. may god rest their soul. we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and holman jenkins. is bernie sanders a better

candidate this time around? >> he's performing better than he did last time around. there's a couple reasons for that. he's got the name recognition that he got last time around. he also has a structure in place that he put together last time and he was able to reenergize that right away. three, he doesn't necessarily have the democratic national committee or at least the party organization actively working against him in the way they were back when hillary clinton was running. that has helped him a lot. paul: the colleague, karl rove, columnist, says he thinks bernie is softening the harder edges of socialism this time. do you agree? >> no. but he's not talking about that so much. he's talking about health care, which everybody wants to have handed to them. paul: medicare for all. >> he doesn't explain that it's government dictating what treatment you can get and what treatment you can't get and getting in line and that sort of thing. you know, i think the democrats if they thought bernie had a

chance of beating trump would reconcile to his candidacy much more quickly than they're doing now. i think it's because they know he's a loser. paul: you think he can't beat trump? >> he can't he beat trump. >> i don't know if i agree with that. remember in the head to head polls if 2016 when they pit democrats against republicans, bernie always led in those polls. i thought it was mystifying. he was ahead of hillary and usually ahead of trump as well. i think there's a lot you can say about bernie's that trumpian, believe it or not, in the sense politically. most of the democrats are really afraid of alienating bernie's followers so they try to be really nice to bernie and his ideas because they know that he's got support. even in the polls now, his strongest support is coming from people 18 to 29 years old. far ahead of joe biden or any of the other younger candidates. somehow you've got to come to grips with that. paul: the reason he appeared on fox is he wants to make the

case, sanders does, to the democratic nominating electorate that, hey, i can get their votes, i can get these viewers, i'm not afraid to ask them for it and everybody else may be, i'm not and i can win pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin. >> there's a lot of overlapping voters there. there's other voters in the suburbs who don't like the idea of socialism or the government taking aware their health care. paul: you think the democratic establishment will do everything it can to defeat bernie again. >> until they think he can win, then they'll climb on-board pretty quick. paul: could be too late. if he can't win. what about, kim, this fight between bernie sanders, this week in publicatio public and tr for american progress, a left wing think tank associated with hillary clinton's campaign in 2016 and had run its journalistic arm, think progress had run a couple pieces critical of sanders and sanders really hit back hard. >> well, it backs up holman's

point. democrats don't think bernie can win. they're very, very scared. and cap is a very good example of that. right there in the center, they were a clinton aligned group. these people are all-in, all they want to see is the ends of trump. they want a candidate they he know is going to do it. they feel bernie is too left, too liberal, they'll alienate the suburban voters. he didn't perform well last time around with core democratic constituencies, for instance, african americans. that's one of their concerns. they're also concerned if he gets in, he could lull along or inspire a third party challenger to get in as well too, like a howard schultz, the starbucks guy. they're all-in to take him out. and i think that that's reflective of their concern about his prospects. paul: is anybody going to challenge bernie's socialism? i mean, holman, you say it can't

sell in the unyours. are you going the -- suburbs. you're going to get democrats on the stage, medicare for all, don't do it, you're going to lose with it. >> you don't have to say it. you have to be joe biden and say that's a very nice idea, let's talk about it, bernie. people know they can trust joe biden. >> one of the things bernie has going for him, i think he impresses the younger voters as authentic. he's a lifetime politician but he comes across as an authentic personality, where the others do not. that was the one thing the other candidates running against trump couldn't overcome. it's a strange kind of potion that's out there in the electorate right now. younger voters like that. i think that explains their support for a guy who is 78 years old. paul: on the left has sanders eclipsed elizabeth warren. is she dead in the water? >> she seems to be dead in the water. i think his big competition is kamala harris, possibly mayor

pete buttigieg ofot of support m people who want a candidate and i think that's probably where -- paul: i think trump's -- sanders has taken a page out of trump's playbook by taking on the establishment, saying you don't take this away from us again. that's pretty shrewd. >> it will be interesting to see how democrats finally kill him off, it will be an amazing assassination. paul: the legendary notre dame cathedral, the fire that brought the whole world together wouldn't you know there's controversy surrounding its restoration too. that's next.

(speaking in foreign language) i'm sorry i don't understand... ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone don't just dream book your next vacation.. ♪ be a booker at booking.com

we wail rebuil will rethe ne

cathedral even more beautiful. paul: french president emmanuel macron tossing out a worldwide challenge to rebuild the notre dame cathedral in just five years. it was gutted by fire this week, losing its legendary spire in virtually all of its roof top. the fire was also a call to unity during easter week. within days, more than $1 billion has been pledged for the cathedral's re restoration. it seems the fund raising has also sparked controversy. we're back with dan henninger, kim extra strassel and holman j. i suspect many viewers have taken photos in front of notre dame. i know i have. it's a great place to visit. why do you think it has -- the burning has had such a cultural resonance around the world? >> that's an interesting thought. i mean, the question is, sure, it's a tourist attraction. but it is also a symbol of

christianity, going back eight centuries. gothic cathedral, that's the way they were designed. they don't just point towards the sky, they point heaven ward and one feels the religion inside the cathedral. europe has become extremely secularized, france is, germany, pope benedict when he was pope used to write about the secularization of europe and what a danger it was and didn't get too many listeners. here you have this event of this symbol of christianity burning and in flames like this and i think it reminded people of what the cathedral actually stands for, whether that will have a follow-on effect, i don't know. i think it brought back into people's minds that reality. paul: how d do you see it, holman? >> it's an important landmark to people. i understand why they felt that way. i felt that way. just seems extraordinarily

careless to treat an heirloom of that importance the way the french have. paul: that they were really derelict in the upkeep and -- >> it's amazing when you learn how many of these gothic cathedrals around france depend on american support groups that raise money to maintain them. paul: kim, what about the issue of the billionaires who stepped forward and corporations and others and many individuals, much smaller donations, offering more than a billion dollars now to build it. there's been something of a backlash in france itself from many on the political left and some of the elites, saying well, why would you be willing to spend all of this money on a building, revisiting -- rebuilding notre dame, when you should really be paying all that money in taxes for social welfare. >> yeah, the complaint here is that you had all of these wealthy french families open up

their pocketbooks which was great to see but france has its tax code has a very, very generous deduction if you give in charitable giving, then you can claim enormous tax benefits as a result. so all of this money that's now going towards notre dame is not going to be going into the french coffers. there's nothing that the french love more than high taxes and using these on social programs. add to this a lot of complaints in france over the last year, in particular, the yellow vest protests, people generally feeling as though workers are getting a bum deal and now you've got people on both sides of the political aisle very unhappy again over the political direction of france and bigger issues than just notre dame. paul: it's an impoverished vision that suggests we're better off putting money into transfer payments than putting its into rebuilding a symbol of western civilization for 900

gleers i900years. >> if it weren't for donations, notre dame wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. the government wasn't doing it. paul: if those artisans in the twelfth century had the same point of view, the thing would never have gotten off the ground. >> that's right. i'm going to go out an a limb or a spire here and say france is going to hold a competition on the redesign of the spire. i will bet there's going to be a serious argument that it should be inclusive and somehow represent all religions, not just christianity. paul: you think would rebuild the church for being an acuity acumenical symbol, not a symbol of christianity. >> entirely possible. paul: is that because france is so secular as a nation that it really can't even -- won't be willing to recognize the christianity. >> under any circumstance, the

proponents of those ideas will make those arguments and because france is so secularized and they have the population they do, they're going to say we should rebuild this cathedral and a similar bole o symbol of s -- religions. paul: i'm going to tell you i hope better and think better of the french. we have to take a break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. let's see, aleve is proven better on pain

than tylenol extra strength.

and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. >> time now for hits and misses of the week. kim, start us off. quickly hit to democratic represented in 2020 contender eric swalwell for finally being honest about where the left is ongoing control. he said that we he president, he would ban means of popular rifles. he would require you to give him to the government and he

admitted if you fail to do so you would go to jail. you have a lot of democrats that are just talking about background checks, closing loopholes, this where the party really is. they want to take your guns. that is worthwhile remembering. >> patent settlements have always been really bullish for technology. go back to the early days of intel in the pc chip and they fought before they launched the pc revolution. steve jobs coming back to apple intimately settling a dispute. the big settlement this week it's had for mwill move forward revolution. now that they put peace between them. chris good news. dan? >> a mr. nick city which is beginning to lose population. u.s. census reported this week for the first time in 10 years, not only is new york to chicago and los angeles, beginning to experience migration. it would be a case of people fled for high taxes but now

even the middle class is fighting the cost of living too much in these strongholds. >> thank you dan. that is it for this week's show. think it's my panel and all of you for watching. i am paul gigot. have a happy easter. we hope to see you right here next week. >>. arthel: a political battle escalating in washington. house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler issuing a subpoena for the unredacted mueller report. although with the underlying evidence by the justice department is pushing back on the move quote - premature and unnecessary. however welcome to a brand-new hour of "america's news headquarters", i'm arthel neville. eric: thank you for joining sima eric shawn.the latest drama to consume the nations capitol and our country.the justice department now saying that chairman nadler and oth