Transcript for Mueller report reveals more on Russia's interference in 2016 election
We're back now with more revelations from the Mueller report. It includes new details about Russia's interference in the 2016 election and how the Kremlin targeted at least two our chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas is in Washington with all the latest. Good morning, Pierre. Reporter: Amy, good morning. Today the Kremlin is calling the Mueller report a, quote, waste of money. But the truth is the Mueller report details an audacious efrlt by the Russia government to impact and interfere with the 2016 election. They hacked the DNC and other democratic computer party networks, stealing hundreds of thousands of documents. Mueller identified at least two states that were targeted as well, Illinois where the Russians stole information related to thousands of voters and according to Mueller the FBI believes the Russians gained access to at least one Florida county computer network. Next the Russians engaged in social media warfare, pushing out reams of bogus news stories and advertisements all aimed at sewing divisions among Americans on issues like race and immigration. And George, get this, the Russians were even able to use covert social media campaign to organize rallies here in America, some of which were attended by hundreds of people. All this activity, Mueller said, was done to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help then candidate trump, George. It was a broad, audacious effort. Thanks very much. Let's bring in Dan Abrams and Chris Christie. So Russia interfered, no criminal conspiracy established by Robert Mueller between the trump campaign and Russia but the big open question, and we heard both Sarah Sanders and congressman Nadler address it, what did Mueller say about who should look at obstruction and why couldn't he reach a decision? Look, I don't think that Mueller is specifically addressing head on the question of who should be addressing it but implicit in what he's saying is the office of legal counsel precedent that no sitting president can be indicted impacted everything that we did. If you take that at face value, the only other way to hold the president accountable is congress because the whole point of the office of local counsel memo is, in effect it's not the prosecutor's job to hold the president accountable. That would be something left to I agree with Dan. I said that from the beginning, that I thought Mueller was going to be hamstrung by the opinion and that's the way it should be. In my view the way it should be is the way the constitution has it which is if the president is engaged in conduct that we believe is over the line it's for congress. Barr shouldn't have stepped in? I don't think, a, and B, I don't think that Mueller should have gone into -- I think he was in a real tough spot. Dan and I were talking about this earlier. Once he started to go down the road of saying I can't charge him, you're going to do what Comey did to Hillary, which is he puts out all this information but I'm not going to charge you and let someone else decide. And that puts the president in a really unfair and difficult position as well, although once you're the special counsel and you start to look, you have an obligation to report it under the statute. That's why yesterday was so confusing and in part because yore going through the report, especially those first two pages, where Mueller is trying to explain why he didn't bring charges. I concluded that the ooc opinion was the overriding reason that he kept hands off and said go elsewhere. Doesn't this also paint a pretty unflattering picture of what was going on inside this white house, this culture of lying that George was just pressing Sarah Sanders on? It seems like it could be really hard for them to go out and claim fake news every day when they've got very serious questions this morning about their own credibility. This report actually verified some of the very news that has been called fake in the past. Of course that's a problem. When you look at this in its totality, it's a damning document. I mean, I think that in the obstruction section there are sections, not all ten of them, but there are three of them maybe where it seems pretty clear that Mueller is saying this would be a crime. I mean, he goes through an analysis, a three-part analysis on each of these, and it sounds like he's saying that this is obstruction of justice but for coming back to this issue of the fact that a sitting president can't be indicted. So this notion that this somehow clears the president and that this shows that he's been exonerated is absurd. I'd say, listen, to answer your question directly on the white house, I'd say the answer is yes and no. So certainly some of the things that the president was engaged in, trying to encourage don mcgahn to lie about what went on regarding his direction to fire Bob Mueller, is bad, really bad. On the other hand, don mcgahn's conduct in all this is extra naerl -- White house council. Yes. And a number of other people, Corey Lewandowski. Who basically said no to the president. Right. The ones inside that building looking at him and saying, no, this is a bad idea, I'm not going to do it, reince Priebus deserves some credit as well for trying to control the doj situation with Jeff sessions. So I think it's both. As you know, I've been critical of a lot of the white house staff over the course of the years, but a few of these folks, reince and Corey on the outside, don mcgahn deserve credit, real credit for standing up. Think about what we're celebrating here, that people in the inner circle stopped the president from doing something. Had they not -- It's kind of stunning. But Richard Nixon probably looked back on it and wished that people had done that for him. I'm sure president trump will appreciate your comparison to Richard Nixon. It's the morning we're in, Dan. Thank you, guys. Back to Amy. Coming up next, guys, our
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.