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

eastern tonight, quote, white house plans to fight the house subpoena of former white house counsel don mcgahn for testimony on the mueller report. white house lawyers saying they're going to try to exert executive privilege so don mcgahn can't talk about the issues with the president. fascinating story by the white house because don mcgahn already testified about those things to the special counsel, so it's a little late for the white house to be saying those things are privileged and can't be discussed outside the white house. because of that scoop from "the washington post" tonight, we made plans to talk to one of the reporters who got that scoop. we made plans to talk to reporter robert costa. but then as we were racing towards show time, robert surprisingly let us know that, hello, he had just received a call from the president, from the president himself. quote, president trump says he is opposed to current and former white house aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration of

once it moved to the white house grounds, you could smell the white house easter egg roll before he can see it. >> if they did not find some of the eggs and hard-boiled eggs were left to rot, that really created a problem. jonathan: that was the problem. and it was something that even happened in the 20th century. there was one year in the nixon administration where they decided to use a lot more real eggs and a few got misplaced shall we say, for a wild, and that was the last time he did that. 1876 was rutherford b. hayes. why did president hayes and his family decide they wanted to take over this tradition? jonathan: the president was out on his daily walk and some schoolchildren covered him and said we have no place to roll our eggs now. he said that is odd. why don't you just come back with me and you can roll eggs on the white house grounds? a couple hundred children did that first year in 1878. , you tell goes by this in your story -- first of all, who did the illustrations? jonathan: john hutton. absolutely genius art history historian. towhat were you trying collaboratively achi

house can do what white houses have done and this white house i think will do a lot of, which is say no -- >> but they have to have the law. >> they have to have the law to ultimately win, but they don't have to have the law to protract and delay and do what politically they think is to their advantage to do, fight. >> so, carrie, a, how long a protracted fight could this be? and ultimately, would a court, do you think, rule on the side of congress? >> i think congress has a real strong argument here for the reasons that jeffrey described, which is that don mcgahn has already been interviewed by the special counsel's office and the white house waived the privilege in that circumstance as well as when the report came out. so, i think -- i agree with rick to the extent that this is a political strategy on the part of the white house, and i think it's a part of a broader strategy. it's not just about mcgahn's testimony. it's about the security official who the white house is not wanting to go before congress. it's about the challenge on the release of the president's taxes. this is just

we will arrest your white house aides and your former white house counsel and anybody else you're trying to keep from testifying to us. we will arrest them and compel their testimony. you sure you want the say that he can't be here? that was the response from the watergate committee in 1973. and so, yes, john dean testified, and we know how that worked out in 1973. it took a long time after his testimony, but a little over a year later is when president nixon had to resign. that's when they moved toward passing the articles of impeachment against him. well, now this president is trying to as of today stop all white house staffers, including specifically his white house counsel don mcgahn from testifying under subpoena from congress. you can see why the president would be wanting to block all white house aides from testifying and specifically don mcgahn. but it turns out the way president trump is trying to stop that testimony before congress not only looks like it won't work, it might also be getting this president in further trouble. and what's interesting to me about that prospect is t

experience in the white house, and what we know about how this white house operates. i mean, we have a president that, instead of wanting to be truthful to the american people about what exactly is going on, cannot be trusted with regards to the truth and not only cannot be trusted with regards to the truth, i'm afraid cannot be trusted with regards to upholding the rule of law. and that raises a lot of concerns about the future of this presidency. and what will happen, particularly if a crisis occurs. >> the sheer volume of lies, though, it's -- there's kind of a shamelessness to it all. i mean, you have sarah sanders today not even owning up to, you know, making up stuff about countless fbi agents calling her. she said the countless was a slip of the tongue. but it's not like she ever came out an hour later after saying it or two hours later or the next day and said, you know what, i was thinking back, i said this countless thing, it wasn't countless. that was a slip of the tongue. she didn't say that until today when it had just been revealed what she actually said

white house counsel from implying with a duly issued subpoena. >> if the white house objects, they will say his testimony is stoudge executive privilege and the president has asserted his executive privilege. that's tricky legal argument because don mcgahn already testified to bob mueller, and the white house agreed to allow his testimony to become public with the publication of the report. ultimately if the white house chooses to assert that privilege, this will be decided by a judge, and we could be looking at a fairly lengthy court battle. >> just to read from the report here that you coauthored, white house lawyers plan to say they will be asserting executive privilege. trump maintained that the white house counsel's office has not made any final decision whether it will block congressional testimony, but that he oppose cooperation with house democrats who he claimed were trying to score political points against him. do you know of any precedent for a president saying because he believes the opposing party to score political points that he can assert anyone who has worked for him in

let's talk about the white house correspondents dinner with the white house reporter from politico. good morning. >> good morning. >> as background for our viewers, tell us what the white house correspondents dinner is, how long has it been around, and why is it important? >> it has become this full weekend of parties, political intrigue, it has ballooned into a 4 day affair. >> normally, if i'm not mistaken, the president attends this dinner, but president trump is not attending, and has not since winning the white house? instead, he will be in green bay? why is president trump not going to this dinner? >> he says it is a very boring dinner that was mean to him last year and the previous years. he doesn't want to reward the press with attending their premier function every year. it has become a point of contention. his staff notld to attend the dinner and the events around it. they may relax that a little bit. president trump has such bad relations with the media. he craves our approval so much. he can't really decide whether he loves us, hates us, or both. attend thepresident dinn

white house. look, if the attorney general said he consulted with the white house, do you and i really believe that they kept it secret from the president of the united states? i don't believe that. >> what do you make of this special gift to the white house of a couple days of briefing to help them put together their trashing of the report, basically. >> it's pretty outragious and brings to mind two things. they have been paying a lot of attention to the college admissions scandal and your kids do better when they get the test results in advance. much more importantly, this is an incredible violation of our checks and balances and incredible insult to congress. we should all be offended that this white house is coordinating with the justice department and what seems like another act of obstruction to impede whether and how the russians affected our 2016 election and what they are planning for the next election. >> you have somebody tell you what you ought to know from the newspaper. their way. th

house incredible because they make the white house so incredible. with our terrific presidential photographers, very talented people, you take pictures, you've seen people from all over the world, some of the great pictures they get. people.ented, talented i wish they could make me look a little better. sometimes i think they do it on purpose, actually. me pictures -- my chin is pulled away income i look terrible. that's ok. they do it on purpose. letters ofitten thank you to the brave warriors of our united states military .or defending our american flag very special people. on behalf of the first lady and myself, and she was with you for a large part of the day, we hope that you have had a terrific time. some of you were here last year and i remember a couple of you, you have grown a lot bigger. it has been 12 months but you have grown a lot bigger. is a veryhouse special place of our nation. you look back and you see so many of the things, the jefferson memorial, the washington monument, it is really incredible. sometimes, i walk up these pads wo

for five senior white house staffers. you were one of 420 alarms who voted unanimously last month to make sure the full mueller report is released. do you support this effort by the judiciary committee? >> look, wolf, i've said all along, let's make this completely transparent. the fact that democrats can't take a two-week break from their mission to overturn the election in 2016 and wait for attorney general barr to go through the process to make this report completely transparent says a lot more about the state of the democrat party today than anything else. i think we can afford to wait a couple of weeks to the point that the attorney general goes through, whether it's the grand jury testimony or some of the classified parts of it to go through that legal process, to make it -- to make it unclassified and available to the public. i think we can afford to wait. but the democrats aren't willing to do that pb aand that says a more about the disarray of their party than anything else. >> let's get your thoughts, congressma

house. >> if they work in the white house. this has been reaffirmed many times, most recently during the obama administration and by their doj. i think they're going to run into some serious roadblocks if they come after kushner and ivanka and the poster who exist as the senior-most layer in this white house. >> let's turn to the fact that jerry nadler and the judiciary committee is trying to subpoena the full mueller report. president trump tweeted today, quote, no matter what information is given to the crazed democrats from the no-collusion mueller report, it will never be good enough. does he have a point there? i know you disagree with him, but the bottom line is, democrats are going to be trying to talk about the mueller report no matter what it says. >> but the american public wants to see the mueller report. people feel as if they paid for it, they feel as if this is something they want to see. democrats are acting on behalf of people who elected them, the majority. and they want to see the report and underlying data.

he is still at the white house. again, president trump heading to atlanta, georgia, leaving behind what may be a new challenge to congressional oversight of the white house. last night the president telling "the washington post" he may keep his aides from testifying before congress since he's already cooperated with special counsel robert mueller's probe. quote, there's no reason to go any further and especially in congress where it's very partisan. obviously very partisan. i don't want people testifying to a party, because that is what they're doing if they do this. peter alexander on his post at white house. jeff bennett there for us at little. mr. alexander, i will start with you. did the president have anything to add to what he might do when congress does call administration officials to testify? >> reporter: well, we may hear from him in his own words just moments from now he'll be boarding marine one. reporters are staking him out there. if he says anything we'll turn that around for you right away. of course

how does the white house function like that? >> i worked on the clinton white house, it wasn't perfect but it sure didn't function that way. there you had a president -- and we've had presidents of both parties, frankly until now, who when they are told by legal counsel, sir, this is a line that we should not cross, the presidents understand that. they might find ways to work around it, they might find ways to change the law, but i've never seen one who just blatantly seems to do as this president does. i don't care. do it any way. that is extraordinary to me. >> kim, you wrote yesterday that the president's actions seem a lot like obstruction. as you have time to focus on and reflect, do you still believe that? and if that is the case, was it just the fact that mueller's operating under the department of justice guidelines and not only exception to the -- accepts the guidelines and it would be unfair if he can't be indicted and go to court to defend himself. >> absolutely. the obstruction of justice statute is very broad. mr. b

remember, key white house officials current and former members in the white house spoke to robert mueller's team, don mcgahn, reince priebus, steve bannon, hope hicks, stephen miller just to name a few and they were key witnesses in the obstruction of justice probe. my colleague laura jarrett is reporting that is the section of the report released later today that is lightly redacted and their names are expected to be revealed. remember they spoke to robert mueller's team under penalty of lying to the fbi which lends more credence to what they told mueller's investigators. so that is going to be key. that's really what we're focused on. at the time the strategy in the white house was to let robert mueller speak to basically whoever he wanted to besides the president in order to try to prevent an interview with the president. well, that may have worked, but as one source says that i spoke with, one of the witnesses who spoke to robert mueller's team, that may not be good for these former and current white house aides who may have provided embarrassing information about the president and i am

contention between house democrats and the white house. the house judiciary committee voting on rules today for thursday's hearing with attorney general bill barr. there is this dispute over whether the panel's lawyers should be allowed to ask questions of barr in a separate round. do you see any room for compromise here, congressman? should there be? >> bill barr should come and testify and it's hypocrisy for him to assist that jerry nadler can have an expert witness or expert counsel interview him. the republicans did that with kavanaugh. they had an expert counsel interview betsy ford. >> how can that be okay and not this? >> should barr be subpoenaed if this comes to a head before thursday and he does not show up? is that something you would support? >> absolutely. he will support. he has to show up. you can't have the attorney general not show up to the judiciary committee. that would be unprecedented. he is reluctant to show up because he understands the serious issues of perjury that may be there. and his misrepresentations. >> cong

his wrath, even if they're still in the white house or now outside the white house. you don't want to have the president coming down on you publicly. and he uses this little thing called twitter to do that. and he just might. >> well, those current and former officials, they had to testify under -- >> they were under oath, right. >> and if they lied or didn't tell the truth, that's perjury. >> right, i don't think they're worried about the lying part of it, because i think they think they told the truth, they were there with their attorneys, i think they're worried about trump's reaction to the truth. >> and can we take for a moment, on the democrats' requests or requirement that this report be released in full? how about going to one of those witnesses before they spoke to the special counsel and say, hey, by the way, at some point, this will be released to the public and the president will see what you're going to say. i mean, for every american, and there are like 90% of americans who think this should be released, who think it should be released, one of the chall

we'll get to that. >>> first, to our chief white house correspondent jim acosta at the white house. the president is taking some sharp exceptions to a critical finding by the special counsel robert mueller. >> he certainly is. president trump angrily denied one of the key findings in the mueller report that he ordered don mcgahn to fire the special counsel robert mueller. the problem for the president, mueller's report is drawn from comments by people who swore to tell the truth. if the white house isn't worried about what mcgahn has to say, why is the west wing blocking his testimony? swat away a key finding in the mueller report, president trump denied he attempted to shut down the russia investigation. a denial that came in his favorite social media echo chamber as he tweeted i never told don mcgahn to fire robert mueller, even though i had the legal right to do so. if i wanted to fire mueller, i didn't need mcgahn to do it. i could have done it myself. but that's not true according to the mueller report based on interviews with those who swore to tell the truth or face perjury c

>>> white house consultant. there's a new report out that justice department officials have had numerous conversations with white house lawyers about the special counsel's conclusions in recent days. how much did they reveal to the president's team? >>> two reports. the justice department reveals that some members of congress will get to see a less redacted version of the mueller report than the one that's made public. will that satisfy democrats demanding to see everything. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're many t you're in "the situation room." >>> we're following a lot of brea

as you say, and it bears repeating, the objection of the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel who by the way allowed trump to do a lot of things that i think more reasonable people might not have let him do. they drew the line at that. at the same time saying other people should have security clearance taken away because of political reasons makes the whole thing sound corrupt. >> last word phil rucker, any indication they will subpoena or request john dolly, former white house chief of staff concerned enough about the process to write a memo and former white house counsel don mcgahn also concerned enough about the process to write a memo to the file will be asked to testify about the committee about so alarmed them about the process. >> nicolle, i don't know if that decision has been made. you can imagine as the investigation goes forward, those are two of several people who would be most likely to be brought before the committee to share what they know. clearly they were intimately involved in this process. remember, back in february of 2018 after the rob porter scan

it's not -- this is not just pitting the white house against the press corps that covers the white house. that's a taxpayer funded press secretary so when she makes a comment from the podium, she says it's a slip of the tongue. she actually made it multiple times and i was there that day. a reporter gave her the chance to walk it back. they said really, sarah, countless people have called you from the fbi? yes, she had received e-mails and texts from a large number of people at the fbi, even though she gave the caveat she didn't know many people who worked at the fbi. >> mueller, the former fbi director i think made it a point to put that in the report even though mueller not -- not a giant fan of james comey if you read the entire report. >> the press secretary is sort of unique among people in the white house. the entire credibility of the her job is based on the idea that people who were asking her questions in the press room or these days the press gaggle or -- maybe they are getting spin on it or maybe certain information left out but they are at least getting some kind of truth. he

by the house judiciary committee for former white house counsel don mcgahn to testify. the administration also plans to oppose other requests from house committees for the testimony of current and former aides about actions in the white house described by mueller's report. white house lawyers plan to tell attorneys for administration it witnesses called by the house ni that they will be asserting executive privilege over their testimony.in more on that in a bit with a very good lawyer. earlier today we heard trump's son-in-law and senior advisor jared kushner launch his own attacks on the mueller report.un in his first public comment since the report's release, what you're about to hear is jared kushner diminishing the russian attack on our election. >> the whole thing's just a big distraction for the country. you look at what russia did, buying some facebook ads to sow dissent and it's a terrible thing. but i think the investigations and all the speculation that's happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact on democracy than a couple of facebook ads.

>> allison, it's not news inside the white house. the president has always viewed any discussion of russian interference as questioning his current legitimacy as president. so just to bring the top tick up is to end upsetting down the conversation. the president ends up saying to everybody else, well, this didn't happen, this part of the russia hoax, so forth and so on. that's one thing when you look

abby phillip is at the white house. at this point, where do things stand in this growing battle between congressional democrats and the white house. >> the white house is taking steps to deny democrats their requests on multiple fronts. yesterday, the trump organization took legal action in federal court here in washington to prevent the house oversight committee from getting records relatedo

intelligence -- >> andac he waschannel being the white house -- he wash back channelin white house. and that changed the dynamic and both sides went to their camps. bottom line there was a lot of very obvious alarms. there were, you know, alarms going off in 2016. they had to do a counterintelligence investigation. there were so many meetis that were not acknowledged by mike flynn and others, and lied about which they've established. they got guilty pleas to that point. so any way you look at it they had areble witness in christopher steele who had been working with them.ey and o check out that dossier and they had to begin looking at russian inrtstigation. ro what is the battle to come, nancy, on the redcations? asra dem and republicans some of them calling for a full release of the mueller report, if the attorney general gives a 400-page document with 200 paget redacted w does that mean for congress? >> well, i did think it was interesting that in the sene hearing, barr said that he is deferring, completel to mueller's team of investigators about what to redact and what not to red

former nixon white house council john dean and former watergate special prosecutor.

and the white house. we have the latest next. ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was-- ♪ born to walk alone! keep goin' man! you got it! if you ride, you get it. ♪ here i go again geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more. the biggest week in television is almost here. xfinity watchathon week. starting april 8th, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! whether it's more jaw droppers, standing o's upon standing o's or tv's biggest show stoppers. get more into what you're into. get ready to watch with xfinity x1 or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week. free starting april 8th. boop! >>> certainly not a dull moment or dull morning on capitol hill. cnn's manu raju is there where the fireworks continue to fly at this house oversight committee meeting dealing with security clearances. what more are we hearing? >> yeah, very intense back and forth between democrats and rep

house officials, all ratcheting up of sorts between the white house and house democrats. the question ultimately is how do the -- does the administration respond, but i can tell you here democrats are preparing for a court fight if necessary if they are not able to get this information. john? >> contentious start to spring here in the new washington. manu raju live on the hill. keep us updated that is hearing continues. with me in the studio is cnn's kaitlan collins and olivia knox and let's start on the here and now. legitimate questions democrats say about the security clearances and how it happens. happens to include, why it gets dicy for the white house, jared kushner and ivanka trump, and, again, the democrats say we want to call up at least one official and maybe more. who did this? career experts say don't do it. they have conflicts. they don't qualify. the president said not him but the reporting says he did. >> especially about jared and ivanka, and that's why there's so many questions about this, and the white house doesn't feel like they have a lot of footing h

let's go live now to the white house and nbc's hans nichols. what did mnuchin say and where do we go from here? >> reporter: mnuchin says that april 23 deadline is entirely arbitrary. what you're starting to see is a concerted effort across the government on how they're going to push back against this challenge. let me read you a little bit of what mnuchin is saying, an indication really they want to take their time. he's saying, look, the implications of this is way beyond, in my mind, a congressional oversight issue and a precedent issue. the issue is i feel a responsibility that we get this right and that the irs doesn't become undermined like the nixon administration. he's saying the process needs to run its course. the democrats have refuted that argument in the past. they sent out a separate letter yesterday demanding those tax returns. that's a hard deadline, april 23rd. >> before i let you go, any idea how the white house is preparing for the release of the mueller report, which is likely tuesday? >> reporter: officially they're saying

the white house correspondents dinner first. good morning. guest: good morning. host: as background for our viewers, tell us what the white house correspondents dinner is, how long it has been around, and why it is important. house the white correspondents association has been around for about 100 years. they have an annual dinner. promote goodly to journalism and to give scholarships to needy student journalists and to promote the cause of good reporting. it has become this huge weekend of parties and political intrigue with lots of different shindigs around it. it has ballooned into a four-day affair. normally, if i'm not mistaken, the president attends this dinner. president trump is not attending and has not attended since winning the white house. why is president trump not going to this dinner? it is a verys boring dinner that was mean to him. last year and in previous years. he does not want to reward the press with attending their premier function every year. it has become a real point of has warnedwhere he his entire staff not to attend the dinner. they m

call the white house today. help stop cuts to part d drug coverage that put medicare patients at risk. >>> if you're keeping count there are already 18 presidential candidates in the race for the democratic nomination including former colorado governor john hickenlooper. what will separate the governor from the pack? joining us now, governor john hickenlooper. good to see you. former governor, just got out in 2019. we discussed before we came on you have a unique background. you were a businessman. in colorado's history in a pivotal time of the need to rethink how denver would be and one of the most ambitious things we have seen in terms of social programming in this country which is what to do with legalizing marijuana. what do you bring to the table nobody else does? >> i am an entrepreneur who built a business from scratch. i also had eight years as a successful mayor and governor. the one thing i bring is i have been able to bring people together to get things done. i have a long record of progressive accomp

nixon's white house chief of staff, h.r. haldeman who was indicted by that same grand jury, haldeman did appeal sirica's decision. haldeman tried to get a higher court, tried to get the d.c. appeals court to block sirica's decision, to block the conveying of that grand jury information to congress, but haldeman lost that appeal quickly. and ultimately that same week as those reports, the grand jury information about potential criminal conduct by the president, it did get conveyed to the house judiciary committee. it became the road map for the impeachment articles that were ultimately drawn up against nixon. but there is two interesting/amazing things about the way that all landed that i think now we need to figure out what they mean for us. in what really feels like an allegorical time where mueller's report is in. we're told by the attorney general that mueller's report contains some amount of grand jury information. the attorney general says he won't let anybody see mueller's report, not yet. one of the things he says he

abby, in terms of the white house, today, how is the white house defending its defiance? >> well, erica, the answer from the white house is all about stonewalling and stopping democrats from moving forward with these investigations. which they believe are just an extension of their efforts to undermine president trump's presidency and potentially lead toward impeachment. we heard this morning from the white house that they don't know why these committee chairman are seeking all of this information. one white house official who i spoke to a few minutes ago said that he's not sure what chairman neal wants, for example, from don mcgahn. that there's nothing in their view that democrats can learn from bringing someone like don mcgahn in to testify before congress after he's already spoken with the special counsel and his answers are relaid in that report that we all saw last week. and on the taxes, the white house is digging in its heels on that as well. they're saying this is not even information that congress needs at all, and furthermore, in their view, the american people

the white house did not calculate their white house counsel testified to mueller. i think he's concerned about the obstruction of justice issues and what the white house counsel would have told mueller. >> they might be worried, the report might have made him angry at them, should everyone that talked to mueller should assume one day who what they say would become public? >> i think in an investigation like this, if you work for the white house counsel, you should assume this will become public. especially as mueller's report was going to go to congress. what is surprising to me is the president nor anyone on his team actually talked to the white house counsel or some of the aides to see what they told mueller. this is why they're concerned. they're worried about what might have been shared. >> there are four categories that barr has said he will use in terms of what to redact. one of them is about third parties. and it's not clear exactly what he means by that, he said it doesn't apply to the president. do you think it possibly applies to members of the president'

one former white house official said. one source describes, quote, break down-level anxiety among some current and former staffers who cooperated with the investigation at the direction of trump's legal team at the time. there is also concern that new facts in the report could be disclosed that do not reflect favorably on the president. many of the white house staff members who spoke with mueller's team would most likely have been questioned about obstruction, including but not limited to the firing of former fbi director james comey. the pressure on former attorney general jeff sessions to step down. the attempt to get rid of special counsel robert mueller. some of the top officials who were in trump's close orbit and who also spoke to mueller include, but aren't limited to, white house counsel don mcgahn, former coms director hope hicks, and the two former chiefs of staff reince priebus, john kelly. even current white house officials like jared kushner, sarah sanders, stephen miller took part in interviews with the spec

the attorney general did say in a previous, that the white house was not told, the white house has said he didn't have the report and the president has tweeted in recent days he didn't have the report. so was that just the attorney general saying, i'm not answering your question, or in the last several days is it possible that the president and his lawyers have been given the report? >> i think that is the question right now, because it puzzled me why he wouldn't be able to say even an answer to part of that question. because as you pointed out, both parties, both the white house and the justice department have been actually kind of clear about when or about the fact that there has not been a briefing on the full report, up until probably about a week ago. the question is, has that changed in the last several days? and it's possible that it has. and that might be why he wouldn't say that if he started to answer one part of the question, he would need to answer the second part. but i think it does raise some eyebrows. and you know, the white house hasn't wanted to talk about this on the

mean while, white house white house spokesperson hogan gidley had this response to the question. >> whether does this stop. if we gave them the unredacted report and tax returns, he woo still want something else. we're not going to deal with jerry nadler in that manner. we've already cooperated so much with the house democrats and we'll continue to do so. but the fact is this is just more political grandstanding. >> okay, so political grandstanding on both sides. interesting that hogan gidley said that we are not going to give him the unredacted report, and talking about jerry nadler, that is not the white house to give that is under the auspice of the department of justice. >> and things look calm at the white house but heated stuff behind the scenes now. >>> and speaking of that, we want to get to breaking news from "the new york times." the reporter reporting that mueller witnesses who once served in the white house now fear trump's ire. joining me now by phone is "new york times" washington correspondent michael schmidt and also an msnbc national security contributor. and you learned th

house and the white house correspondents. i think we need to create an environment for a serious reflection, and we also need to create an environment where we can still have political sat tire that doesn't slip into crude insult. and we have to do that without being worried about certain folks who are kind of snowflaky. >> i think rons chernow put it pretty well. barack obama was very good at it. ronald reagan, george w. bush, they all -- look, every president has their tough moments. every president has to go or has gone into that dinner at tough moments. bill clinton in the middle of the monica lewinsky scandal had an awful lot of funny things to say. i do think that oliveier, he's said we need to dial it back. and i guess in some ways the comic is a part of that, right? most of the comics have been sort of headline making names, people that folks know. he said, you know, chernow was a scholar who sat at an intersection of history and popular culture. and i think to that extent he's right. that different point and again i'

take the case of then white house counsel don mcgahn. in january of 2018, "the new york times" reported that the president had ordered mcgahn to remove robert mueller. hear what the president's reaction to the story was at that time. >> do you want to fire robert mueller? >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> what's your message? >> typical "new york times" fake stories. >> turns out the story was true. and the mueller report works through the entire episode step by step, as the president stews over the report, tries to get mcgahn to lie about it, too, and demanding he write a letter calling the story inaccurate. which it wasn't. according to the report, which says the president asked mcgahn, did i say the word fire? mcgahn responds, what you said call rod rosenstein, tell mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. the president responded, i never said that. the report says trump was always suspicious of mcbegan's potential power. why do you take notes, trump asked? lawyers don't take notes. i never had a lawyer who took notes.

this week the white house counsel's office directed carl klein, the former director of white house personnel security not to comply with a subpoena to a deposition yesterday. it is possible that the issue of the mcgahn subpoena could end up in court. jerry nadler said our request covers the subjects described by mr. mcgahn to the special counsel and described by special counsel mueller to the american public in his report. as such the moment for the white house to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed. there is legal precedent for mcgahn to testify. back in 2008 a federal judge ruled that president bush's white house counsel harriet meyers and his chief of staff josh bolton were not immune from subpoenas. but the president's position is look, mcgahn told everything he knows to mueller. mueller put that in his report. there is nothing more for congress to find out about. i think what we're worried about here, bill, is any time you get an official in front of a congressional hearing there is the matter at hand and then there is everything else o

has the white house seen it since then. have they been briefed on what was in the summarizing letter to the judiciary committee? >> i said what i'm going to say about the report today. i'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it. >> a notable exchange there. house democrats planning to waste no time seeking the full mueller report as soon as they receive the redacted version. >> congress has need of the entire report, including the grand jury material, including everything. i presume we are going to get the redacted report within a week. when we do so, if we don't get everything, we will issue the subpoena and go to court. >> democrats highly critical of barr's refusal to release grand jury material from the full report. adam schiff comparing barr to the late and zealous attack dog lawyer, roy comb, a one-time mentor for the young donald trump. >> that's a betrayal of what he promised. it is what he was hired to do. it is concerning. >> republicans, meantime, d

trump made a phone call to the white house counsel. president trump called don mcgahn and told him to remove the attorney general. he decided he would rather resign than trigger what he regarded as a potential saturday night massacre. mcgahn left the white house last fall. >> one of the most fascinating aspects of this report. we have cnn reporter marshall cohen this morning. >> good morning. >> great to see you again. i have a question about credibility within the white house because right now the president and his allies are pointing to the report and saying this is the authority on what happened. this is the gold standard. there was no collusion, no obstruction even though we can debate the details of what mueller actually wrote about obstruction. list zwroen what president trump said to reporters when he was asked about news reports back in january of 2018, that he was trying to get robert mueller fired. list zwroen this. >> mr. president, did you seek to fire robert mueller? >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> what's your message t

we'll start with jim acosta at the white house right now. jim, walk us through how all of this is playing out. >> reporter: anderson, we heard from the president earlier today say in that interview with a local radio station here in washington there are going to be very strong things coming from the attorney general, william barr. that gave everybody some indication like, okay, wait a minute, what's happening here? how is it that the president knows or has some idea as to what the attorney general is going to say? keep in mind, anderson, for the last couple of weeks when we pressed white house officials whether or not there have been conversations between the justice department and the white house, they have basically said we cannot answer that question. now, i will tell you, anderson, i just talked to a senior white house official in the last 30 minutes who said that this person had been around the president earlier this evening and in the words of this official, he is not fuming, he is not worried, and according to this official, these att

one white house official i spoke with today said he's letting -- the white house is letting bill barr take the lead. this official said we're letting bill barr drive this train, and i think the white house, in my sense of talking to officials, the necessity to play a role in the redactions over executive privilege has changed now that the findings have already been out there and the white house is calculating that it may be worse for them if they do get involved in the process. they understand the amount of scrutiny it would bring. >> pamela brown, thank you very much. >> yep. >>> tonight ahead of the mueller's report release, the top members of the house intelligence committee are demanding a briefing by the special counsel on all materials -- all materials -- from his investigation. this rare bipartisan request was signed by the democratic committee chairman adam schiff and ranking republican devin nunes. our senior congressional correspondent manu is joining us now. schiff and nunes have been at odds basically since the start of this russia investigation. how telling is it they're

>> i think the white house press office as a whole has lost the confidence of the white house press corps far before yesterday. we have been dealing with a situation where you have people who come out and speak on behalf of the president, on behalf of this administration, who say things that are factually inaccurate. we have been dealing with that literally since the first day of the administration. i think it's really important to point out that the problem here isn't that sarah sanders or other people who speak for this administration are lying to journalists. it's that they're lying to the american people. that's the real problem here. i would hope that no matter what your political persuasion is, the fact that an administration is lying to the public would really bother you. >> that clip we just played from 2017, that's not the only time that sarah sanders made that bogus claim, is it? >> no, wolf. she said it several times. even when reporters gave her the chance to follow up on it because they didn't think what she said was accurate, even one reporter saying really, to her during a