All right, thanks, Anderson. I am Chris Fomo, live from Washington, DC, and welcome to

prime time. The Attorney General Bill Barr did not back down an inch before the Senate

Committee today, and that made strengths and weaknesses of his case and his cause very

clear. Democrat on the Senate panel who did get to cross examine the Attorney General

today, he's going to tell us what comes next now and what comes next in the House. Now

that Mr. Barr says he won't show tomorrow. Also, big question from today. How can the

Attorney General rationalize clearing the President on crimes that are driven by intent without

knowing what the President's intent was? That's the big question for Pomo's court. We'll

take it on. Let's get after it. So the latest is that Chairman Nadler in the House says

that the AG is trying to blackmail his committee by not showing tomorrow, and he's threatening

to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the full unredacted Mueller report is handed over.

Now, the question is, should they subpoena Mr. Barr? Why did they not? They had that

available to them. Mr. Barr has no interest in changing perceptions about him, given what

he said today, especially when it comes to suggestions that he's just covering for

the President. We saw that when he made excuses on Trump's behalf, parsing words over what

the President may have meant when he talked to Don McGahn and others. Here's a sample.

The President never directed him to fire, and there is a distinction between saying

to someone, go fire him, go fire Mueller, and saying, have him removed based on conflict.

Right, the problem is that that distinction is based on your intention, right? The words

you use are a function of what you mean. But as far as we know, the Attorney General doesn't

know what the President meant because we are told he never spoke to him about this, and certainly

the President refused to be interviewed and never answered any written questions even through his

...