Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Barr and Rosenstein Made Call Not to Charge Trump with Obstruction of Justice; Trump's Lawyers Interview about Mueller Report; Rocket Fired from Gaza Hits Home in Israel; Theresa May Defying Calls to Step Down; Armed Men Kill 134 in Mali; Cruise Ship Reaches Port After Daring Rescues at Sea. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired March 25, 2019 - 00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[00:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello, everyone. Our breaking news this hour, "complete and total exoneration." That's Donald Trump's takeaway from the special counsel's report on his Russia investigation.

Thanks for joining us. I'm Natalie Allen.

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm George Howell. While the report did not exonerate the president completely the summary released by attorney general William Barr was clear on the issue of collusion.

It reads here, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

ALLEN: In other words, exactly what the president has insisted from the start. There was no collusion.

On obstruction of justice, the attorney general says, in his judgment, looking at the facts, there is not enough evidence to bring a case against the president.

HOWELL: But there is another takeaway, this one from the author of the report, the special counsel Robert Mueller. He writes this.

"While the report does not include that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

ALLEN: President Trump on his way home from his Florida resort was said to be in a great mood but he remained defiant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a shame that our country has to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this before, before I even got elected it began. And it began illegally. And hopefully somebody is going to look at the other side. This was an illegal takedown that failed. And hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALLEN: It's not clear what that means for the future but what is fear clear, the president has just been vindicated on a very serious allegation against him. A source tells CNN the special counsel's office had spoken with the Justice Department about a possible subpoena for President Trump. Pamela Brown has more on that.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We have learned that special counsel, his team and DOJ officials, top officials, raised the specter of issuing a subpoena for President Trump for an interview and ultimately the decision was made not to move forward with a significant investigative step of issuing a subpoena against a sitting president.

We know that Robert Mueller and his team had been asking for a sit- down interview with President Trump to the legal team and the legal team simply would not have it, said no. They gambled that Robert Mueller would not issue a subpoena. Sure enough that happened.

But we are told there were those discussions, the sensitive discussions, about whether they should issue a subpoena when it became clear that the president's legal team would not allow a sit-down interview with the president.

We are told that ultimately the decision was made that the merits and the evidence that they had did not didn't justify issuing the subpoena beyond just DOJ protocol that you can't indict a sitting president. They decided there was not enough there.

Certainly it makes you question, as you read Bill Barr's memo today, whether Robert Mueller said in his report to Barr that some of the president's behavior, he could not be exonerated from, because he never got that sit-down interview to talk to him and understand his intent.

What is clear from meeting the memo is that Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who Mueller had consulted with on the subpoena, among other DOJ officials, did not think there was enough there, did not think that the president's actions that were laid out showed corrupt intent and that the conduct was obstructed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOWELL: Pamela Brown, thank you very much from Washington.

A senior Trump administration official tells CNN, the White House is thrilled with the Mueller report findings.

ALLEN: CNN Abby Phillip is in Washington. She has more on the White House reaction. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Complete and total exoneration. That's how President Trump and his aides are describing what the Mueller report found and that was distilled in a letter from the attorney general Bill Barr to members of Congress and to the public on Sunday afternoon. President Trump spent his weekend in Florida at Mar-a-Lago waiting for these findings to finally be released. And he was briefed in his private quarters by two of his lawyers Emmet Flood and Pat Cipollone about the findings. And sources tell CNN that the mood both at Mar-a- Lago and on Air Force One as he flew back to Washington was --

[00:05:00]

PHILLIP (voice-over): -- essentially jovial.

[00:05:00]

PHILLIP: This is a president who is extraordinarily happy about the findings that reiterate what he's been saying himself for over two years now that there was no collusion. As for obstruction, the president and his aide say that while Mueller did not make a finding on obstruction, they believe the fact that they did not have enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction is a sign that he was exonerated on that point as well.

President Trump told his deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley to pass on the message to reporters that he believes this is good news for him.

But now the question goes to what is he going to do now?

Does President Trump still believe as he said a few days ago that the report should be made public in its entirety.

And when he spoke to reporters upon leaving Florida, he suggested that others should be looked into, that the other side should be looked into. What exactly that means is not clear. But in the past, President Trump has talked about wanting to investigate Hillary Clinton further.

And reporters asked the Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley on Air Force One whether or not President Trump intended to ask his Justice Department to look into Democrats. And Hogan Gidley said that's not something that they had discussed as of right now but it remains an open question for President Trump.

President Trump also has perhaps want more and more decision to make. There were a number of his associates and former advisors who were caught up in this investigation who pled guilty or were found guilty and are facing jail time as a result of investigations related to the Mueller probe.

Will he want to pardon them? That is an open question and it's certainly within the president's

authority but in the coming days it's one that reporters will undoubtedly be asking President Trump to weigh in on, especially as this turns to a political discussion about what Democrats are going to do with this report on Capitol Hill and whether the general public will ever see the full Mueller report -- Abby Phillip, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: Congressional reaction to the report's summary has been split along party lines, the Democratic chairman on the Judiciary Committee is challenging the findings and says it raises more questions than answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-N.Y.), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: President Trump is wrong. This report does not amount to a so-called total exoneration. Special Counsel Mueller was clear that his report "does not exonerate" the president. The special counsel spent 22 months uncovering evidence of obstruction and other misconduct.

Attorney General Barr, who auditioned for his role with an open memorandum, suggesting that the obstruction investigation was unconscionable and that a president -- and that it was almost impossible for any president to commit obstruction of justice, since he, as the head of the executive branch. made a decision about that evidence in under 48 hours.

His conclusions raised more questions than the answer given the fact that Mueller uncovered evidence that, in his own words, does not exonerate the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWELL: It all depends on which camp you are in. Republicans view the Mueller report as vindication and exoneration of President Trump. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeting this.

"I have just received top line findings from attorney general Barr. Good day for the rule of law. Great day for President Trump and his team. No collusion and no obstruction."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: Joining me is Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Also Brian Karem, a CNN political analyst and host of the podcast, "Just Ask the Question."

Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming in. This is an important topic that we're finally discussing.

So Brian, I want to begin with you.

BRIAN KAREM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure.

ALLEN: This report concludes there was no collusion with an enemy of the U.S., Russia in the presidential campaign.

That's a very good conclusion for the country and for Donald Trump, isn't it?

KAREM: Yes, it is. It is both of those things. If you are a citizen of the United States, it's good to see that an investigation, even though it was spoken against very vociferously from the president, has shown that the president did not collude or did not contribute to anything with our enemies, Russia.

And at the same time, it is very good for him as he pointed out. And he certainly was giddy when he landed on the south lawn and brought that out rather obviously, saying this is the greatest country and the greatest place in the world.

He was very happy to say that. Didn't take any questions as he came back from Mar-a-lago. But he came here certainly much happier than when he left.

He was -- that cloud was still over him when he left on Friday. He was not a very happy camper when he left and didn't want to take any questions about Mueller, although many of us tried to ask them.

But now he is a little more happy than he was then and yes it is very good news for all of this --

[00:10:00]

(CROSSTALK)

KAREM: But there's still a lot of questions.

ALLEN: Right. We will see if that carries on. He is often disgruntled, so we will see if this elevates his mood overall --

KAREM: Yes.

ALLEN: -- in the days ahead for him.

Elie -- I want to go to you now. On obstruction, the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, but it also does not exonerate him. The White House says it does though. What do you say?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it does not exonerate the president. Look, it's good news. Unequivocally, this letter is good news for the president. But obstruction is a little hard to figure out candidly.

I was really surprised that Mueller punted on obstruction of justice. Look, he made a very specific recommendation on the conspiracy of coordination with Russia where he recommended no criminal charges. But on obstruction he just said to Attorney General Barr, I don't have a conclusion. You can figure it out. And I'm surprised because prosecutors make those decisions about whether something should be charged or should not be charged all the time.

And I'm sure Robert Mueller has made that decision hundreds or thousands of times in his career.

So why did he punt it to William Barr?

I do not know. And once it got to Barr, it was a foregone conclusion what he was going to do with it. Before Barr became attorney general in 2018, he wrote this unsolicited memo to the Department of Justice out of thin air seemingly, where he attacked Robert Mueller's theory of obstruction. He called it asinine and he said it was fatally flawed.

So I think once it went to Barr's purview we knew where it was going to come out.

ALLEN: Right. Brian, the open-ended obstruction question will be an area as we have already seen Democrats on the Hill will pounce on. They want to see the full report. Talk to that and the significance at this point.

KAREM: Well, there is two things that we have to remember. Probably the reason why he punted on obstruction or the speculation from the Department of Justice officials that I've have spoken to in the last 20-odd hours is that he did not get a chance to interview the president.

So that was maybe the reason why they punted, but that is speculation. We still haven't seen the report. No one -- very few people have seen that report. We have only seen what Barr has come up with.

And the other issue really it is not just enough for the president of the United States not to have committed a criminal act. But if you remember back in the campaign, the real legitimate question is the behavior of our politicians.

When a candidate for the president of the United States stands up and encourages our enemy to hack emails, as President Trump did as a candidate, that may not be illegal, but is it something that we want as a country in our politicians?

So there is some overall questions about behavior that aren't answered by this report and has to be answered by each individual voter when they go to the polls in 2020.

The real issue to deal with is not the criminal act, but who are we as a country?

I will agree with the president of the United States. This is a great country.

But what do we want it to be? And those are the questions that we are going to face going into 2020

that this probe could not answer.

ALLEN: Right. And he never --

KAREM: And I don't think ever will answer.

ALLEN: -- right. He never vigorously went after Russia for meddling in the 2016 election.

KAREM: Still hasn't.

ALLEN: That's the question, why not?

Right.

So, Elie, the president was never subpoenaed. That was a decision by Mueller.

And why do you think that was made?

HONIG: That's another curious one. And again, look, I am an admirer of Robert Mueller's and I think he handled himself as he had throughout his career, with complete integrity throughout this investigation. But I do not think that specific question on the subpoena came out well for him.

So here is the deal. He wanted to have an interview with the president. The president did not agree, he resisted. He agreed to take these written questions on the what we're calling collusion.

On obstruction, the president called his bluff. The president's legal team said he is not going to sit for a voluntary interview with you. The only counter move by Mueller then would have been a subpoena and Mueller backed down off that.

Now, I have to say though I think Brian makes a lot of good points. I am not buying this argument. And I think you were just reporting something else that had been said.

I am not buying this argument that the reason Mueller punted on obstruction was because he was never able to have a face-to- face sit down with Donald Trump. I charge obstruction many times as a prosecutor. I never spoke with the person.

You don't need to have the person say yes I had corrupt intent to your face in order to charge obstruction. You can glean someone's intent based on their words, based on their actions. What are the reasonable inferences from their actions?

So I think that -- I think what Brian said was -- is the story that is coming from Congress or DOJ --

KAREM: Right.

HONIG: But I'm not buying -- yes. And I'm not buying what is coming from them based on my own experience as a prosecutor.

ALLEN: And Brian, we did see many people associated with Donald Trump and the campaign charged and indicted from the Mueller report.

So the question is, will the president use the outcome to move forward on pardons?

KAREM: Well, that's the big question, too. He has called this a witch hunt. He has called it a hoax. Yet it bagged 25 Russians and it also backed several other people.

So what was a hoax?

And what was -- at some point in time --

[00:15:00]

KAREM: -- you think the president of the United States, if he had an ounce of humility, would come out and say thank you for doing what you did, you did your country a service. But I don't think we're going to hear that from the president of the United States.

Yet it isn't -- or never was a hoax and never was a witch hunt. There were 25 Russians who were indicted for what they tried to do to the United States of America in the 2016 election. And we should never forget that and neither should the president.

And that more than anything else tells you the weight and the scope of this investigation and the reason why it was important and the reason why we should see as much of that report as possible.

ALLEN: Right. We will wait and see what happens there.

I want to ask you, Elie, the president called the investigation an illegal takedown that failed. But you know, the Justice Department took a lot of hits during this. And they have come out of this with this report.

Is the president accurate to characterize it as such?

HONIG: No. And I think it just underscores how ill served this entire strategy has been all along of attacking the Department of Justice's independence and integrity.

And even from the president's own sort of narrow self interest, wouldn't he be much better positioned today if all along he had been saying, I'm going to respect the integrity of DOJ. I have faith in these career prosecutors to do the right thing. And I'm going to stay out of it.

Today's result would have hit even harder in his favor than it already has -- right. It's kind of hard to have gone through a couple years of saying witch hunt and bad motives and evil Democrats, angry Democrats -- KAREM: More than 200 times he said that.

HONIG: Exactly. And if he had just taken the straight line which he should have from the first, I respect the independence and integrity of the DOJ, they're going to do what they're going to do and I will accept what comes out of it, then this letter comes out today as it has and he ends up even better positioned and heaven knows DOJ has its integrity more impacted and the public confidence in the DOJ more where it should be.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLEN: We thank you both.

KAREM: That's a good point. I just want to say really quick, the biggest point -- takeaway that you have just outlined is the simple fact that they have again muddied the waters and erosion of trust has occurred in the very institutions that we hold dear. And we've got to change that.

ALLEN: Brian Karem and Elie Honig -- we thank you both. We appreciate your insight.

HONIG: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOWELL: Really good conversation.

Stay at CNN on continuing coverage on the CNN report, we will be back after the break.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

[00:20:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOWELL: Recapping our breaking news, the U.S. attorney general, William Barr, has released his summary of the findings from the Robert Mueller Russia investigation.

ALLEN: If found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians. The Justice Department decided not to prosecute President Trump for obstruction of justice but Barr noted the report does not exonerate him.

Mueller never interviewed President Trump but a source tells CNN the special counsel seriously considered issuing a subpoena to the president.

HOWELL: The president, who has called the investigation a witch hunt from the beginning, claimed a total victory. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It was just announced there was no collusion with Russia. The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, none whatsoever. And it was a complete and total exoneration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALLEN: As expected, the reaction in Congress has been divided along party lines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADLER: These conclusions raise more questions than they answer given the fact that Mueller uncovered evidence that in his own words does not exonerate the president. We cannot simply rely on what may be a hasty partisan interpretation of the facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALLEN: Following the attorney general's summary of the Mueller report, the chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee says he wants William Barr to testify to lawmakers.

HOWELL: That's right. Our Randi Kaye has a closer look at the controversial attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: I do.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: William Barr, back in January, at his confirmation hearing for attorney general, fielding questions about his friendship with special counsel Robert Mueller.

GRAHAM: You say you've known Mueller a long time.

Would you say you have a close relationship with Mr. Mueller?

BARR: I would say we were good friends.

GRAHAM: Would you say that you understand him to be a fair minded person?

BARR: Absolutely.

GRAHAM: Do you trust him to be fair to the president and the country as a whole?

BARR: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now let me introduce Bob Mueller, the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department --

KAYE (voice-over): Turned out Barr and Mueller have a history. They have been friends for 30 years, going back to their early days in the Justice Department. Barr was Mueller's boss during his first stint as attorney general in the early 1990s under president George H. W. Bush. At the time, Mueller was head of the DOJ's criminal division.

BARR: I have the utmost respect for Bob and his distinguished record of public service. When he was named special counsel, I said his selection was good news and that, knowing him, I had confidence he would handled the matter properly.

KAYE (voice-over): The two men are so close, Mueller reportedly attended the weddings of two of Barr's daughters. And their wives to go to Bible study together. In fact, during his confirmation, Barr split with the president on Mueller's probe being a witch hunt.

BARR: I don't believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt.

KAYE (voice-over): Barr, now 68, graduated Columbia University. His wife is a librarian and they have three daughters.

At the DOJ, Barr helped create programs to reduce violent crime. He also led the department's response to the savings and loan crisis and oversaw the investigation into the doomed flight Pan Am 103. Barr left government and worked as a corporate lawyer for years before President Trump nominated him for attorney general.

TRUMP: Bill Barr, one of the most respected --

KAYE (voice-over): Like Trump, Barr is tough on immigration and supports executive power and the power of --

[]

KAYE (voice-over): -- presidential pardons. Before the official nomination, Trump asked Barr about his relationship with Mueller.

BARR: He said, oh, you know, Bob Mueller, how well do you know Bob Mueller?

I told him how well I knew Bob Mueller and how the Barrs and Muellers were good friends and would be good friends when this is all over and so forth.

KAYE (voice-over): Back in June, before his nomination, Barr wrote this unsolicited memo to officials at the Justice Department. In it, he appears to criticize part of Mueller's probe, calling Mueller's obstruction of justice theory "fatally misconceived."

Barr denied being critical of Mueller but it was enough to leave many to wonder about how he would handle the final report -- Randi Kaye, CNN, Palm Beach, Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: So the special counsel has delivered his report but the controversies are far from over. We will continue our breaking news coverage of the Mueller investigations conclusions coming up here.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ALLEN: Welcome back to our continuing coverage of the summary of the Mueller report. I'm Natalie Allen.

HOWELL: And I'm George Howell at the CNN Center in Atlanta.

We are following breaking news this hour; after nearly two years of investigation, the conclusions of the Mueller report are finally now public.

ALLEN: Attorney general William Barr wrote a summary of the report by Congress Sunday. Here is the key conclusion.

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

HOWELL: What does that mean?

Well, just as the president has said all along, there was no collusion with Russia. But as to obstruction of justice, the special counsel left that up to the attorney general to decide and William Barr writes he does not see enough evidence to file such charges.

[00:30:11] ALLEN: While all that may sound like good news for the president, Special Counsel Mueller provided his own conclusion to the obstruction question. He writes, "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

HOWELL: President Trump, on his way home from his Florida resort, called for another investigation. This time, into Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction. And none whatsoever. And it was a complete and total exoneration.

It's a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this, for before I even got elected it began. And it began illegally. And hopefully, somebody is going to look at the other side. This was an illegal takedown that failed. And hopefully, somebody is going to be looking at the other side. So it's complete exoneration, no collusion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALLEN: Well, top Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate disagree with what President Trump said, and they're challenging the attorney general's findings from the Mueller report.

HOWELL: In a joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said this: "Given Mr. Barr's public record of bias against the special counsel's inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report."

ALLEN: Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, went even further. He says President Trump is wrong in saying the report exonerated him, and he wants the attorney general to testify about his summary in the near future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: These conclusions raise more questions than they answer. Given the fact that Mueller uncovered evidence that, in his own words, does not exonerate the president. We cannot simply rely on what may be a hasty, partisan interpretation of the facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWELL: And Kamala Harris, who is running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president, joins Nadler in his frustrations. She tweeted this: "The Mueller report needs to be made public. The underlying investigative materials should be handed over to Congress, and Barr must testify. That is what transparency looks like. A short letter from Trump's handpicked attorney general is not sufficient," she says.

ALLEN: And Bernie Sanders, who is also running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president, tweeted, "I don't want a summary of the Mueller report. I want the whole damn report."

HOWELL: Well, the president's lawyers are calling the report a vindication.

ALLEN: Here's Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow on Sunday, speaking with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to get your reaction to one line in this letter. They quote the special counsel, Robert Mueller, as saying, "As far as obstruction of justice" -- this is to you, Jay, and to Rudy Giuliani -- quote, "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." What's your reaction to that?

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP (via phone): Yes. But then if you go on to the next two paragraphs, Wolf, the attorney general does kind of a brilliant analysis of it. And he says that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice crime.

Then it goes even further, and he points out that, basically, on the settled law, it's almost impossible to have an obstruction of justice if there's no underlying crime. Kind of a brilliant lawyer-like analysis. And then he concludes with a very strong statement: "In cataloguing the president's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no action that, in our judgment" -- that's Rosenstein and Barr -- "constitute obstructive conduct." That is a complete exoneration by the attorney general and Rod Rosenstein.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Mr. Mayor and Jay Sekulow, it's Dana Bash. I just wanted to drill down on what you just said, Mayor Giuliani, about the fact that -- that the letter, the part of the -- about the obstruction, is to use your word, the analysis of the attorney general. We're already hearing from Democrats as high as the House Judiciary chairman that it's only that. That this is not the determination of Robert Mueller but simply the analysis of the president's handpicked attorney general.

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP (via phone): Let me just say one thing. No one should be conflating an independent counsel statute, which is what Ken Starr operated under, and a special counsel regulation. He's part of the Department of Justice and is bound by the Department of Justice policies and guidelines. And policies in this particular case on obstruction are very clear, and that's what they followed.

[00:35:04] So what Robert Mueller apparently did was lay out here are all the facts. We're not saying he committed a crime. We're not making an exoneration. What we're doing is saying basically the Department of Justice, you evaluate it. And they say that the attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and the Office of Legal Counsel made the conclusion that there was no crime.

BLITZER: Based on your interpretation of this for page leather -- and I assume both of you have already consulted with your client, the president of the United States -- does he still support releasing everything to Congress and the American public, as he said the other day?

SEKULOW: The president made a statement. Under the regulations, Wolf, it is up to the attorney general to determine the way in which this is released. That will be a determination that's made by the attorney general. Certainly, his private lawyers, Rudy and I, don't engage that. That's an issue over where we have jurisdiction.

BASH: But would you like that to happen?

GIULIANI: Sure. I mean, we'd like it to happen, because if it doesn't happen, somebody is going to say there's something hidden there.

Let me say this for the 400th time. The president did not do anything wrong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: All right. Let's talk more about these developments with Jessica Levinson, a professor of law and governance at Loyola Law School. She joins me from Los Angeles.

Jessica, thanks for being with us and for weighing in, like everyone else on this. First question to you: the White House is taking a victory lap. Justified after this investigation did not find collusion with the Russians. But what do you make of the fact that Mueller didn't render any kind of decision regarding obstruction. He punted, and he never interviewed the president or his inner circle?

JESSICA LEVINSON, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: Well, I think it's fascinating. And look, let's be honest. Today is an mitigated victory for the president, politically speaking. I mean, this is a huge win for him in the sense that Robert Mueller looked into two questions: was there conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and did the president try and obstruct justice? And the headline for the American public is no to both.

As you pointed out, particularly when it comes to the obstruction of justice claim, it really is -- there's a lot more gray there. And what's fascinating to so many people, and particularly legal watchers, is this idea that -- and this is so unusual for an investigator to just essentially say, "I'm not going to come to a conclusion. Here's all the evidence on one side. Here's all the evidence on the other side. And it's up to you, Mr. Attorney General, to make that determination."

And then, even more, I think, problematic for the president is the way that the attorney general made that investigation [SIC], essentially saying that you need to be found -- it needs to be that you can try someone criminally for an underlying crime in order to find a claim for obstruction of justice.

ALLEN: Right. Included in the report by the attorney general was this passage: "While the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." That's confused people today trying to haggle over this. What is hanging over the president still, then?

LEVINSON: Well, so politically, I think not that much. But what's hanging over the president legally is that what people, I think, kind of misunderstand is that if any prosecutor -- for instance, a county prosecutor, a state prosecutor, a federal prosecutor -- can find a lot of evidence of wrongdoing, but it's not enough to say, "I'm going to go to court, and I'm going to make a criminal charge and say I can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt."

And so what's hanging over the president is, I think, one, that his politically-appointed attorney general is the one who made the decision on, I think, the much tougher charge, the obstruction of justice, that there's nothing there. And I think, two, this idea that there might be a lot of really

problematic conduct that Robert Mueller found. And then three, that there are a lot of other ongoing investigations. Now whether or not the American public has the appetite for it, I don't know. But there's investigations into the Trump charity, the Trump businesses, the Trump inauguration, just to name a few.

ALLEN: Yes, and Jessica, I want to ask you, what about the president's assessment that he called the investigation an illegal takedown that failed?

LEVINSON: Well, that's inaccurate. So it was an entirely legal investigation, and it was ruled to be legal a number of times. And the idea that this was a takedown that doesn't work, I think, fundamentally misunderstands what an investigation is supposed to do.

An investigation is supposed to do exactly what it says, look at whether or not there's enough to charge. It's not supposed to come to a predetermined conclusion. So I think, if you want to look at the Mueller investigation, we shouldn't judge its success on whether or not there was enough to charge the president. We should charge [SIC] it on -- we should judge the success on whether or not he could complete the investigation, go through all the evidence that he needed to go through. It's notable that Robert Mueller never actually was able to interview the president, particularly where you have to dig into the person's mind and figure out if you can prove corrupt intent.

ALLEN: Jessica Levinson, we always appreciate your insights. Thanks so much.

LEVINSON: Thank you.

HOWELL: We're following breaking news here into CNN. Authorities in Israel say that a rocket fired from Gaza hit a home in central Israel, setting the building on fire and injuring those inside.

This is a video we have there. The rocket landed in an area north of Tel Aviv, making it the farthest rocket that's been fired into Israel since 2014.

CNN's Oren Liebermann following the story live for us in Jerusalem. And Oren, has there been any confirmation from Palestinians on this?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We haven't yet seen any confirmation or claim of responsibility from Hamas or from Palestinian Islamic Jihad or any other militant group in Gaza.

But this would be the most powerful rocket fired from Gaza since the end of the 2014 war.

It landed in a small village north of Tel Aviv called Mishmeret. The house it hit was lit on fire, and five or six people inside were injured, according to Magen David Adom, Israel's emergency response services.

It is worth noting that two weeks ago, there was a rocket that landed just south of Tel Aviv, and that, until now, was the most powerful rocket fired at Israel, powerful rocket fired at Tel Aviv.

Now, the Israeli military's assessment at the time, according to local media reports, was that was fired by low-level Hamas operatives accidentally. That, of course, leads to the question of why, then, this rocket, a more powerful rocket, again the most powerful rocket fired since the end of the 2014 war. And that is a much more difficult question to answer.

First, the power of the rocket is, in and of itself, exceptional. Second, the timing. This was fired at about 5:45 in the morning, local time, which is a very unusual time for a rocket to be fired. Normally, it's late at night. So there are a lot of questions here.

More importantly, that rocket hit a house in a small village called Mishmeret. A number of people have been injured inside. Emergency responders says a woman in her fifties or sixties was lightly to moderately injured and a number of others were lightly injured.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has -- he's in the United States right now. He has talked to his security heads here to essentially decide what steps are next. But it could be a very difficult here as we see how this develops and, George, why this rocket was fired and by whom.

HOWELL: All right. Again, Oren following this story for us in Jerusalem. Oren, thank you. We'll keep in touch with you as you continue to learn more. Thank you.

Now to the British prime minister, who is fighting for her political survival yet again. The latest on Theresa May's Brexit battles in NEWSROOM. Take a listen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOWELL: Welcome back to CNN NEWSROOM.

In the United Kingdom, it is shaping up to be another crucial work for the British prime minister, Theresa May, and for the issue of Brexit. We will be watching to see if ministers try to oust the prime minister.

[00:45:06] Senior Conservative Party members were seen arriving at the prime minister's country estate on Sunday. "The Times" reports she is clinging on one and defying calls to exit -- to set her exit date. That's despite 11 -- reports that 11 cabinet ministers were planning to threaten a mass resignation if she doesn't step down.

We're also looking to see if Ms. May tries to put her deal for another vote. If she does, there has been no indication that it will pass.

ALLEN: We also want to see if Parliament votes for a second referendum. It would be nonbinding, but it's among several alternative options lawmakers could decide on this week.

With the Brexit process in chaos, they have to come up with something. Calls are growing to hold a new referendum and send Brexit back to the people. This was the scene Saturday. A huge rally in London calling for another public vote.

HOWELL: Let's talk more about this now with CNN's European affairs commentator, Dominic Thomas. Dominic joining us this hour in London. Good to have you.

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Hi, George.

HOWELL: Dominic, so it seems to be not only a decision for the United Kingdom and Brexit but also for the prime minister. Her leadership on the line now. Does it appear that there's enough support among her cabinet to oust this prime minister?

THOMAS: Well, George, this is a really key question. You know, in many ways you could argue that Theresa May never fundamentally had full support from the moment she called that snap election back in 2017 and lost the majority. Since that time, she's been unable to legislate. Her withdrawal agreement has failed to past twice in the House. She's already faced a vote of no confidence, one tabled by her party members, the other by the Labour Party. She has also faced all sorts of defiance from people within her party.

The big question that people will have to ask at this particular juncture would be whether or not replacing Theresa May at this particular moment would do anything to advance the Brexit process, considering just how many divisions there are within both sides of the political spectrum. But I do think that this week, we will have some greater clarity on that issue.

HOWELL: Because something has to happen at this point, Dominic. Look, for the prime minister, for her deal, do you believe that she will try to put that deal before Parliament for a third vote? And even more importantly here, due to the speaker's rules preventing her from doing so, can she still put it out for a vote?

THOMAS: Well, this is interesting, of course. I think that it would be, obviously, in terms of the speaker, he was very clear last week in terms of outlining where we were to go, that this is the one thing that is bridging taking us to the next step of the Brexit process. It is clear that there's going to be a range of administrative procedures that are going to be invoked in order to get to that point.

The bigger question is the impact and the consequences of this for Theresa May. It seems, as things stand currently right now, that she will not get the support of the far-right Brexiteers, who simply do not like her deal. They want to be fully out of the European Union and not to maintain the kinds of obligations and arrangements that Theresa May is proposing.

And clearly, on the other side of the political spectrum, the priority for the Labour Party is to get a general election and try to take over at 10 Downing Street.

But Theresa May, essentially, last week was a very big moment, because the European Union essentially put around a red line. Either she must pass this bill, or should she not put it to a vote, she has to come back in less than 20 days to the European Union with a concrete plan. Either to let them know that they are going to go for a no deal, and that seems unlikely to pass in Parliament. It's the one thing that they agree on at this particular juncture. Or to invoke, or to revoke Article 50 and essentially cancel Brexit, or the most likely outcome is to go back to the European Union with a set of indications as to where Parliament stands.

And perhaps rather than putting her withdrawal agreement to a third vote and losing, she might prefer to go down that road and to kind of test the pulse of Parliament to see where they stand, including on the issue, of course, the all-important issue right now of going back to the people, either through a general election or through a people's vote.

HOWELL: Is there enough support in Parliament for that to happen? Do you believe?

THOMAS: It's interesting, because thus far, of course, the vote went against that particular option. That we've seen increasingly this petition, very large-scale demonstration that took place over the weekend in London. And ultimately, Theresa May herself was unable to deliver Brexit on March 29, and the Parliamentarians who we should not forget represent the people, have been unable to do this.

And I think that many of these politicians and MPs, as they listen to their constituents and to the frustration they are feeling around the country, it may simply come to the moment where it's going to be almost impossible for them to not go back to the people. And ultimately, what could there be that is more democratic than going back to the people and asking them to weigh in on this particular issue once and for all?

[00:50:10] HOWELL: Dominic Thomas, joining us not in London, joining us there in California, but we do appreciate your insight today. We'll stay in touch with you and see where the Brexit ball bounces this week.

THOMAS: Absolutely. Thank you, George.

HOWELL: Thank you

ALLEN: Other news now, armed men have killed 134 people during an attack on a rural village in central Mali.

HOWELL: The United Nations says the victims are members of the Fulani ethnic group, which is frequently targeted and accused of having ties with Jihadist organizations in that area.

Our David McKenzie has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The French ambassador to the United Nations is calling it an unspeakable act. On early Saturday, in Central Mali in West Africa, ethnic militia attacked the village, say the United Nations, killing at least 134 people, including mothers, women, young children, even. They were able to evacuate some of those casualties in what can only

be described as a massacre and the worst killing of its kind in recent times.

A spokesman for the United Nations secretary general saying, "The secretary general condemns this act and calls on Malian authorities to swiftly investigate it and bring the perpetrators to justice."

Mali's president on Sunday dissolved the so-called self-defense unit that has been accused of similar attacks in the past.

Human Rights Watch says that these attacks are increasing, and they've been exploited by jihadi groups linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda. The U.S. Has significant boots on the ground in Mali and the region; and there is a U.N. peacekeeping force in Mali, but it's one of its deadliest on the globe. The difficulty here is, say experts, with ISIS losing its territory in the Middle East that future battlegrounds against groups linked to it will be fought, potentially, in West Africa.

David McKenzie, CNN, Johannesburg.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: A cruise ship that was stranded in rough waters for 20 hours has made it safely to port. When we come back you'll hear some of the passengers' stories about their ordeal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOWELL: What a nightmare it's been for so many people, 1,300 people who were stuck aboard a cruise ship stranded off the coast of Norway in extremely rough waters.

ALLEN: The Viking Sky made its way safely support on Sunday after experiencing engine problems in the Norwegian sea. For more about it, here's Salma Abdelaziz in London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN PRODUCER: After a 24-hour ordeal, the Viking Sky crew ship is now docked at port, and its nearly 1,300 passengers and crew are safe and on land.

Their drama began midday Saturday, when the cruise ship lost engine power in the middle of a dangerous storm. Fifty-five-mile-per-hour winds and waves as high as 25 feet whipped the ship around. Video from inside showed furniture sliding around as ceilings came down on passengers.

Now rescue services in Norway immediately initiated operations to help those people on board, airlifting them by helicopter, flying down low and plucking people up, one by one in the middle of those horrifying weather conditions.

Take a listen to what one American couple said about what they endured. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[00:55:11] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Furniture WOULD slide across the room, slide back, and with it came people and glass. It was -- it was a very dangerous situation, frankly. A few people got hurt.

We could see that we were getting blown in towards some rocks, and that was the most frightening thing, I think. But luckily, that wasn't our destiny.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The guy came down from the helicopter, one of the Coast Guards, snapped my belt and said, "Hold it" and shot me up about 100 feet in the air and onto the helicopter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABDELAZIZ: These dramatic evacuations continued for hours. Some 500 people rescued this way. But by midday Sunday, three out of four engines on that ship were back up, and the ship was able to slowly but surely get back into port.

Back on land, the Norwegian Red Cross said it was treating bruises, broken bones, and cuts. And we do know that some 20 people were injured.

Now, the company which manages this cruise ship has issued a statement saying, "Throughout all of this, our first priority was for the safety and well-being of our passengers and our crew." That's a statement from Viking Ocean Cruises. And they have said that they are arranging flights for people to go home as quickly as possible. Some relief after a terrifying weekend.

Salma Abdelaziz, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: We have this one for you. We like this one. A math and physics teacher from Kenya is the winner of a $1 million teaching prize. The Varkey Foundation prize was awarded to Peter Tabichi in a ceremony in Dubai.

HOWELL: Tabichi is a Franciscan brother who gives away 80 percent of his monthly income to help the poor. He teaches in a rural village with only one computer and poor Internet connection. He goes to internet cafes to get content for his classes. He brings that information, then, back to his student.

ALLEN: All right. How about that one? We like it. We'll end on that for the hour. Much more ahead. Thanks for joining us. I'm Natalie Allen.

HOWELL: And I'm George Howell. The news continues right after this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)