Return to Transcripts main page

ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT

Sanders Admits He's a Millionaire Despite Repeatedly Denouncing the Rich; Trump On Decades-Long Feud with Nadler: "Some Things Never End"; Israel Election Results Too Close to Call. Aired on 7-8p ET

Aired April 9, 2019 - 19:00   ET

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


WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, CNN: ... to our viewers, thanks for watching. Follow me on Twitter and Instagram @WOLFBLITZER. Tweet the show @CNNSITROOM. Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, ANCHOR, CNN: OUTFRONT next Attorney General William Barr refusing to answer simple questions about Mueller report. Where is the transparency? Plus, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic socialist says he's a millionaire. This coming from the same man who rails against millionaires and billionaires. And Trump versus Nadler, a decade long feud that started with the name calling in a Trump property in New York City and it's back. Let's go out front.

Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, dodge Barr, Attorney General Bill Barr dodging questions about the Mueller report before Congress today. Question after question, there were clear and simple answers to be had but he refused to give them even on this, whether the White House has seen the Mueller report. I mean, that's a pretty simple thing, yes or no. Barr could not give a straight answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NITA LOWEY (D-NY): Did the White House see the report before you released your summarizing letter? Has the White House seen it since then? Have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the Judiciary Committee?

WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I've said what I'm going to say about the report today. I have issued three letters about it. I'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OK, look, that was a pretty simple thing, there's a yes or a no answer to it. But the answer that he gave such that it was also appears to contradict what Barr did say clearly in the letter to Congress 11 days ago. Remember, he said, "There are no plans to submit that report to the White House for a privilege review." So, right, there were other plans that then happened or it didn't happen, again, there should be an answer. So then this, did Mueller see Barr's summary of his own report before

it was released? Barr says, "No." Why? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they not tell you in any way shape or form why they declined to participate in reviewing your three and a half page letter?

BARR: I said I don't recall whether that was related to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: I don't recall? I mean not only is that a simple yes or no, you would think that the Attorney General of the United States would recall why the Special Counsel chose not to see the summary that Barr was going to release to the entire world of his 22 months of work and then there's this key question, does the Mueller report actually exonerate the President as he has explicitly claimed or does it not on obstruction of justice? That's what Barr's letter actually quote the Mueller report is saying, so that again should be pretty simple, let me play it for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOWEY: Your memo stated, "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Yet President Trump has publicly stated that this report is a complete and total exoneration. Can you tell us who is factually accurate?

BARR: I'll be in a position, as I said, within a week to release the report, so I'm not going to discuss it any further until after the report is out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Manu Raju is out front life on Capitol Hill. And Manu, look, there were a lot of strange answers for some pretty simple questions, but Democrats, of course, were angry about what they heard from Barr today.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Indeed they were, Erin. Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker told me that the Attorney General has, quote, no business redacting information that is not national security-related. Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman made it very clear that he plans to issue a subpoena for the full Mueller report and the underlying evidence once that redacted report is turned over to Capitol Hill within a week's time as the Attorney General said today.

And, Erin, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff just told me moments ago that he has requested all of the counterintelligence information that Mueller's team gathered as part of that investigation. He wants to see whether or not there was any information that was gathered to show whether the President or his team was compromised in any way. And also Adam Schiff raising concerns about Bill Barr's handling of this saying that he's just simply trying to protect the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think that's a betrayal of what he promised during his confirmation. But it is what he was hired to do, which was to protect the President. The President wanted his own Roy Cohn and apparently he's got one, but it is deeply concerning --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now Republicans are taking an opposite approach. They're aligning themselves with Bill Barr's saying that he is following the regulations and putting out as much information as possible. The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman reiterating what he said to me last week that he doesn't see any need for providing this information.

Lindsey Graham say getting the redacted report is good enough and the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also said to me, "Why give the full report to Congress?" Because he believes it could ultimately leak out, but nevertheless the Democrats in the house are the ones in the majority with the subpoena power, and Erin they plan to use it, Erin.

[19:05:22] BURNETT: All right, thank you very much, Manu. And I want to go now to Democratic Congressman Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, the Vice Chair of the House Appropriations Committee that questioned Bill Barr today. All right, so you were in the room, your impression?

REP. MATT CARTWRIGHT (D-PA): He's in an uncomfortable position, Bill Barr is. It was his first time testifying on Capitol Hill since the release of the Mueller report and his summary of that. There were a lot of unsatisfied Members of Congress questioning him. I, myself, was questioning him about their decision to go after the health care law and even in that I was left unsatisfied because I asked him, "Did you talk that over with Mick Mulvaney? Did you talk it over with President Trump about your own feeling that that was a no-go?" The position that we should invalidate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

BURNETT: The Obamacare, yes.

CARTWRIGHT: He didn't want to answer that and he didn't want to tell me whether he was invoking executive privilege in not telling me, so I demanded that he tell us and then he tell us in writing.

BURNETT: And so it seems like again and again doesn't want to answer those questions. I mean, he did say that we're going to get the Mueller report within a week, so presumably by next, what, Monday or Tuesday. But there's going to be reductions, Grand Jury details among them. The report itself we know is close to 400 pages, right?

CARTWRIGHT: Right.

BURNETT: So what's your impression, are we getting 200 or are we getting half of that? I mean what are we actually going to see? CARTWRIGHT: You're not talking to an expert in the kind of report

that a Special Counsel generates, but my guess is that there'll be significant reductions because he outlined four different categories of information in the report that he wants to redact, including Grand Jury evidence. What I'm what I'm hoping is that he does keep it to a minimum, he said that, Attorney General Barr has said he wants to keep it to a minimum, because he knows as the rest of America knows that the more he blacks out, the more people are going to be screaming and asking for other questions.

BURNETT: All right, so I want to play an exchange that Barr had today with one of your Republican colleagues and there was a pretty strong allegation in here, so let me play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM GRAVES (R-GA): Members of Congress have said they intend to ignore the public redactions and leak the full report, would that give you pause if that were to occur?

BARR: Someone's going to leak the full report?

GRAVES: That's what we --

BARR: Well, that would be unfortunate, because there's Grand Jury information in there that under the law has to be redacted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: All right, so the Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy then added the Congress should not get the unredacted report at all, because you of guys, Democrats, are going to leak it. What's your response when you hear that being thrown out there?

CARTWRIGHT: Well, when I said before people are going to be screaming about it, I didn't limit that to Democrats, we've got Democrats and Republicans. On the Appropriations Committee we like to say, "Well, there are Democrats in Congress and Republicans in Congress and then there are appropriators." And Congressman Graves is a Republican, but he's an appropriator above all and we like to do things together and I know that's a shock to many people.

BURNETT: Well, we hope there's more of it. All right, I want to bring into this conversation John Dean and Carrie Cordero as well. Obviously, John Dean, former White House Counsel and, of course, during Watergate, and Carrie Cordero, former Counsel of the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security. OK, thanks to both of you.

So Carrie, Barr explicitly said he's going to provide explanations for any of his redaction. That was the one thing he did say today and there have been concern he wouldn't do that. How big of a deal is that?

CARRIE CORDERO, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: I think it's important because it actually will give Congress some information upon which to make decisions about things they might want to challenge. So for example if he marks information that is redacted because it's classified, maybe that's the kind of information that the intel committees would then say specifically that they want to see, but it wouldn't be information that Congress would subpoena information that he remarks as 6(e) protected by Grand Jury Rule 6(e) that would be the type of information that perhaps Congressman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee would consider going to a court.

So I think actually it could be very useful for Members of Congress to decide which information they're going to fight about and which they're not.

BURNETT: Right. So John Dean, what do you make of the fact that Barr refused to directly answer so many questions, including, "Have you talked to the White House about this?" I mean including saying he doesn't recall why Mueller didn't look at his summary. I mean that just seems absurd to a layperson.

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Erin, it's what we call during Watergate stonewalling and it's a classic example where you don't really respond in a responsive way to questions and it put that into the political vocabulary. He's emphasizing it. He really was an uncooperating witness. He's casting suspicion on what he's doing. I think it's not really the wise route, but he's clearly protecting the President.

[19:10:16] BURNETT: And today Barr said that Mueller's team didn't have any role in drafting Barr summary, no role. And as I said decline to review it before it came out, but as I said 22 months, 400 pages, Mueller's team cares a whole lot about how that report was first shown to the public, and yet, again, we heard that there was no reason, he doesn't remember why. Let me just play that again, Carrie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they not tell you in any way shape or form why they declined to participate in reviewing your three and a half page letter?

BARR: I said I don't recall whether that was related to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Carrie, is that possible? "I don't recall why Mueller didn't look at my summary."

CORDERO: Why he didn't look at the summary, I don't know what the Attorney General remembers and what he doesn't remember. What I can say is that if the Special Counsel decided not to review the letter and didn't give the office of the Attorney General the reason ...

BURNETT: Yes, what does that mean?

CORDERO: ... I think it's actually a wise decision on the part of the Special Counsel, because he knew that either way this letter would be perceived politically. There's no upshot for the Special Counsel to review it and then have there be some disagreement between them.

BURNETT: Because that looks like either a disagreement or an endorsement if he doesn't --

CORDERO: It could be perceived as an endorsement if he recommended changes or didn't recommend changes. So really this was, if it's the way the Attorney General described it, the wisest call by the Special Counsel which I'm not surprised by because it just kept him out of that letter which did become very political. I mean the Attorney General has been beat up over that letter since he issued it a couple of weeks ago and in the ensuing time he's been trying to hold back.

BURNETT: So when you hear John Dean described the Attorney General today as a not cooperating witness, stonewalling, that sounds pretty consistent with what you were expressing.

CARTWRIGHT: Well, it's pretty hard to go through what John Dean went through in his life and not be a little jaded about those things. I have to say I took a little encouragement at the time when the Attorney General said that he'd be willing to work with Chairman Nadler about finding a way to reveal at least to Chairman Nadler what was redacted, whether you take that with a grain of salt and I suspect Mr. Dean does.

BURNETT: Yes, go ahead.

DEAN: I'm hopeful if that happens that somebody like the Speaker, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee should be shown that kind of material in-camera so to speak, in other words not publicly so at least they know and can verify. Otherwise, it's going to be a total sham.

BURNETT: Do you think that Barr knows, and believes and understands that he is a part of a moment in history?

DEAN: I'm sure he does. He's been around long enough. He helped ease a former president out of a real serious problem called Iran- Contra by endorsing these pardons that would make it go away for Bush one, and it solved a real nasty problem for a president, so he's been there. He's been around the block.

BURNETT: All right, thank you all very much. And next new details tonight on the Democratic strategy to get the full Mueller report. Plus, Trump's Treasury Secretary on the defense tonight admitting the agency's lawyers discuss Trump's taxes with the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN MNUCHIN, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Our legal department has consulted with the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: And he's railed against them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Billionaires and

millionaires have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: And now we know Bernie is one of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:32] BURNETT: New tonight, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler says he's found a way to get the full Mueller report according to Politico that includes all the crucial Grand Jury testimony and the word impeachment is part of it. It may be the exact maneuver that former Watergate lawyer Philip Allen Lacovara told Nadler to take in an op-ed today in the Washington Post, the title, "The full Mueller report could be released - if the House opens preliminary impeachment hearings."

Philip Allen Lacovara joins us now. All right, I appreciate your time. So you're basically saying to know what really happened here you got to get all of the Grand Jury testimony and that is a secret and it's pretty much secret no matter what you do or say except ...

PHILIP ALLEN LACOVARA, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Except.

BURNETT: ... when there's a related judicial proceeding and you say that in Watergate. Once they began formal impeachment proceedings that counted as exactly that, a formal judicial proceeding so they were able to get it. The full report, all of the underlying Grand Jury evidence and obviously that was crucial ended in the presidential demise of Richard Nixon. Nadler says he's doing enough here. What he's doing so far even though it's not formal is enough to get it, is he right?

LACOVARA: Well, I think he's got a harder road to hoe than we did in Watergate because Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Nadler have declined to do a formal impeachment inquiry. In Watergate, we were able to structure a submission of evidence, raw Grand Jury evidence submitted to the House Judiciary Committee because there was a formal impeachment investigation already underway and the key thing is the federal rules that limit Grand Jury secrecy have an exception for matters preliminary to or in conjunction with a judicial proceeding. We argued that an actual impeachment inquiry is a judicial proceeding ...

BURNETT: Is a judicial proceeding.

LACOVARA: ... or it's enough like a judicial proceeding.

BURNETT: All right.

LACOVARA: If he stopped short of that, I think the Chairman's got a tougher job.

BURNETT: And he is stopping short about it.

LACOVARA: Yes.

BURNETT: Because he's saying what I'm doing right now, which by the way to be clear to the viewer is not a formal impeachment proceeding. It's not even close. He's saying but I'm looking at things that could one day be, it's good enough and you're saying it may not be good enough.

LACOVARA: It may not be. There is an argument that he's making which is this is preparatory to a judicial proceeding I think he's one step too far.

BURNETT: One preparatory adjective too many?

LACOVARA: I think so.

BURNETT: Yes.

LACOVARA: And just last week the Court of appeals said they're going to construe these exceptions narrowly and I think that's the problem.

[19:19:57] BURNETT: So because he has made it very clear and he's still saying he may never do impeachment proceedings. He's basically saying, "Well, I don't know what I don't know, so until I know what I don't know, I don't know if I should do impeachment proceedings."

LACOVARA: Well, I think that's a political judgment that he's making. In Watergate the same sort of issue came up. The House didn't start out saying, "We're going to impeach Richard Dixon." They said, "There's enough out there of concern that we ought to do a formal inquiry into whether there are grounds for impeachment." The House I think at the moment is trying to have it both ways, trying to get the otherwise secret information without taking that first step.

BURNETT: And for some reason both Chairman Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just feel that that's a step too far. Politically, they think it's a really bad idea. Nancy Pelosi has said Trump is not worth impeaching, sort of a - kind of a separate point, but saying, "Just don't worry about it, because he's not even worth it." Why do you think that could be a mistake?

LACOVARA: Well, it's a question of your own priorities as matters of Congress. I did an op-ed a couple of weeks ago right before Nancy Pelosi came out with her, I think, bizarre statement that Donald Trump was not worth an impeachment inquiry. And I said that you have to bite the bullet and exercise your responsibilities to look to see whether or not there's enough for impeachment.

I think they've made a decision that politically the 2020 election will not turn on whether or not they've been able to muster enough support to go after Donald Trump for a possible impeachment, they want to change the narrative and that's a pure political judgment. I think from my standpoint as a one-time constitutional lawyer and prosecutor it's the wrong judgment.

BURNETT: Well, from your standpoint is they've got to do it. They've got to launch it and it's got to be formal.

LACOVARA: I think they've got to confront the dilemma one way or another. If they're not willing to do a formal impeachment inquiry, they have to run the risk or they're not going to get that underlying Grand Jury information.

BURNETT: And we'll see if they are willing to do that. All right, thank you very much, Philip. I appreciate your time. Good to see you.

LACOVARA: Glad to be here.

BURNETT: And out front next, Trump's Treasury Secretary faced some very tough questions today about Trump's tax returns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): You're not afraid that you will be fired if in fact you release the returns?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Plus, Bernie Sanders says he's about to release 10 years of tax returns and that's not all he's saying about his wealth tonight.

[19:25:39] BURNETT: New tonight Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin revealing White House lawyers consulted Treasury on the potential release of President Trump's Taxes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MNUCHIN: I have had no direct conversations with the President or anybody else in the White House about this. Our legal department has consulted with the White House as they would and as I believe would be normal. That is not taking direction from the White House. I don't view that as interference, was not specific to the President's - anything related to the President's tax returns other than the expectation of getting this request.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So then what was it about? I mean, it raises the question why is the White House playing any official role in the Treasury Department's decision to release the returns. It comes as Democrats have given the IRS which, of course, is a part of the Treasury until tomorrow to hand over six years of Trump's tax returns. I'll go out on a limb here, it's not going to happen.

Out front now, Mark Preston, CNN Senior Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, our Chief Political Analyst, Symone Sanders, Communications Consultant for Priorities USA. She was also the National Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. And David Urban, former strategist for the Trump campaign.

So Gloria, talking the Treasury and the White House having conversations about this, at the least does not look good. GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: No, it doesn't look good.

On the other hand, you kind of have to expect to a certain degree and he made a point that this occurred before Congressman Neal's letter went to them.

BURNETT: Requesting the six years.

BORGER: Requesting the tax returns, you have to presume that there were some conversations about it. But don't forget we also know that the President was very interested in getting the chief counsel of the IRS in place and he said one point according to The New York Times, this is more important than getting the Attorney General in place. So you know how much this was bothering the President and still bothers the President, but in the end it's going to be up to the courts.

BURNETT: And the chief counsel, Shymone, we should note for the IRS that the President wanted who has been confirmed had done work for Trump, fully disclosed but --

SYMONE SANDERS, FORMER NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY, 2016 SANDERS CAMPAIGN: Oh, shocking. Shocking.

BORGER: What a coincidence.

SANDERS: What a coincidence that they know each other. Look, I think it definitely raises more than a few eyebrows that Treasury and the White House lawyers were speaking, because the request goes to Treasury. It is up to Treasury to decide if the tax returns should or should not be released. And so any well-meaning person could - should deduce that why is Treasury talking to the White House, why? What do they need to coordinate about? Do they need to ask the White House what they're doing? Why? Why? I don't know. That's why we have the hearing today and I don't think we got any real answers, Erin.

BURNETT: Why?

SANDERS: Why? Tell us why, David Urban.

DAVID URBAN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: So, listen, as you saw Secretary Mnuchin was very measured in his response. He was very precise in his language and he talked about conversations between lawyers, the Treasury lawyers and the White House Counsel about that.

BURNETT: Yes, he tried to say it wasn't a conversation that he had with the President.

URBAN: Right. It wasn't the President and Secretary Mnuchin kind of discussing the strategy on the release of his returns, it was two sets of lawyers talking about how it's going to be done not out of the ordinary.

BURNETT: So there were some moments today, Mark, and one of them was between the Chairwoman Maxine Waters and Mnuchin, and it was on Mnuchin wanting to leave by the time that they said the hearing was going to be over.

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He's tired.

BURNETT: I don't know what he was going to, he said he had a meeting, but let me play the exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MNUCHIN: If you'd wish to keep me here so that I don't have my important meeting and continue to grill me, then we can do that. I will cancel my meeting and I will not be back here, I will be very clear. If that's the way you'd like to have this relationship.

WATERS: Thank you. The gentlemen, the Secretary has agreed to stay to hear all of the rest of the members. Please cancel your meeting ...

MNUCHIN: OK, so let's just be clear to the press --

WATERS: ... and respect our time.

MNUCHIN: I am cancelling my foreign meeting.

WATERS: Who is next on the list?

MNUCHIN: You're instructing me to stay here and I should cancel my --

WATERS: No, you just made me an offer.

MNUCHIN: No, I didn't make you an offer.

WATERS: You made me an offer that I accepted.

MNUCHIN: I did not make you an offer. Let's be clear, please dismiss everybody, I believe you're supposed to take the gavel and bang it. That's the --

WATERS: Please do not instruct me as to how I'm to conduct this committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESTON: It seems like she made an offer and he accepted, I mean, to me it seem like he threw it out there and she called his bluff.

BURNETT: Yes.

[19:29:56] PRESTON: Now, what's interesting though about this is that he goes up to Capitol Hill while he probably does have a very important meeting. He's also meeting with the co-equal branch of government and that's Congress.

[19:30:08] And, David, you spent many years in the United States Senate as chief of staff for a senator by the name of Arlen Specter, who was very --

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That wouldn't have gone so well. PRESTON: No, right. He would not have accepted that.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Glued him to the chair.

PRESTON: What we've seen, though, is a Congress diminished level of congressional influence, certainly over the oversight of the administration.

URBAN: I would say, Mark, to your point also, you saw Matt Whitaker, preview of this in the Matt Whitaker, telling Chairman Nadler, your light is on. I think you're over your time. Secretary Mnuchin may have been trying to replicate that in this case, but not a wise move from the committee, the chairwoman --

BURNETT: It came off as very --

URBAN: Oversight of your entire budget.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Republicans are not used to this. Let's be honest about it. They had a Republican House. They had a Republican Senate. They have never had this kind of oversight. They've never been told what to do by a committee chairperson. And so, they have to get used to this new life they are now living.

URBAN: I think they're well aware. They're getting enough subpoenas and lots of documents. There's a little attempt to pushback, maybe a little overaggressive pushback on the part of the secretary.

SYMONE SANDERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it was condescending. Look, Congresswoman Maxine Waters is the chair of the committee that has specific oversight over Treasury. I do not think that is a battle or enemy for that matter that you want to make on the committee.

BURNETT: At the least, yes.

SANDERS: Yes. And I find it so interesting that Secretary Mnuchin said he had a meeting. Look, Hillary Clinton went to testify for Benghazi for 13-plus hours. God forbid had she told the committee she had a meeting.

BURNETT: It's something from the country of Bahrain which is fine, but he's saying Bahrain, whatever country it might have been, fill in the blank, more important than the United States Congress?

(CROSSTALK)

PRESTON: I'm fairly certain that the representative of the Bahrain would delay the meeting and meet with Mnuchin tonight if he had to.

BURNETT: Any country would have.

PRESTON: Of course.

BORGER: He was over it. URBAN: To be there 12 hours, asked and answered.

BORGER: But he might have been performing for an audience of one. Let's not forget that. Let's not forget what Donald Trump thinks of Maxine Waters, calling her low IQ and other name.

SANDERS: Look, whether Secretary Mnuchin was there for 12 hours, 13 hours, 14 hours, 15 hours, if the congressmen want him to stay, he had not been dismissed. It was condescending, it was rude. I hope he calls and apologizes. That was a very poor performance from the secretary today.

URBAN: I don't think it damaged the relationship with Maxine Waters. It was a bad place to begin with. I don't think it made things any worse.

BURENTT: Mnuchin tried to say also that he's not afraid to lose his job over how he handled this. You can interpret it several different ways. Let me play that exchange. It was also with chairman waters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): What you are basically saying is you follow the law and you are not afraid you will be fired if, in fact, you release the returns?

STEVE MNUCHIN, TREASURY SECRETARY: Well, I'm not afraid of being fired at all.

WATERS: Very good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: I mean, I can take that a lot of different ways.

BORGER: Right.

First of all, if you're in the Trump cabinet, you should be afraid of being fired, as almost everyone else has been.

BURNETT: Unless he thinks it's a good thing to be fired.

BORGER: In the end, it will be up to the courts and not Steve Mnuchin. But in terms of him personally, we know he has been on thin ice because of Jerome Powell. He recommended him to head the Fed and the president is unhappy but he probably is not afraid of being fired because he has a nice life to go back to.

And this, in the end, as I was saying before, is not going to be up to him. It's going to be up to the board.

BURNETT: So, Mark, what do you interpret that as, sly look on his face? I'm not afraid of being fired because I'm so rich, I don't care, or I'm not afraid of being fired because it's a badge of honor?

PRESTON: I think it's a little bit of both. I would go back to the Trump administration and the folks who have since left and wondered if they were going to be fired, should they quit? How would it look if they were only there three, six, nine months? It doesn't matter anymore. It really doesn't.

I think we're in a whole new paradigm, whole new world and you are going to be judged upon the actions that you take as an individual and not necessarily whether you were fired or whether you were embraced by the president or any politician at this point. People are going to judge you on who you are as a person I believe anyway.

BURNETT: Do you think that there are some view being fired by Trump's senior people in there now that would be good for them, the way they're perceived by others?

URBAN: No, I mean, I don't think, if you're there as a cabinet secretary as a senior position in the White House --

BURNETT: At this point.

URBAN: No. If they do, they should quit. Go back to the anonymous letter.

BURNETT: That's right, "New York Times."

URBAN: A billion years ago that we forgot about. A different lifetime.

BORGER: August.

URBAN: My point is if you don't want to work for this president, you can simply put your resignation in.

[19:35:07] You can spend more time with your family. There's lots of ways to go out. Lots of people think it's a privilege to work for the administration, any administration.

BURNETT: People thought they were doing it to protect the country from the president. That's the point of the op-ed.

SANDERS: You know what? I just have to say that, look, as a person who has worked for people, I feel as though I cannot carry out your mission, I should not be there. And I think that anyone who feels they cannot carry out the mission of this administration, which I think someone like Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, for example, former secretary of DHS, she's someone that folks said she stayed there because she felt the need to be there. But you put kids in cages.

Honestly, if you sign up to carry out the mission of this administration, you are potentially signing up to cross boundaries you never thought you would cross before. If you don't feel like you should be there, go.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much. But you're staying with me because next, favorite punching bag on the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Millionaires. Millionaires. Millionaires. Millionaires.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Do you know how happy he must have been when he found out he was among them?

Plus, the history behind President Trump and Jerry Nadler's public and deeply personal feud.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Jerry Nadler, who I've known, he has been fighting for me half my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:40:28] BURNETT: New tonight, we have learned Senator Bernie Sanders is a millionaire. Sanders is a Democrat socialist who has made inequality a cornerstone of his campaign and now says he will release his tax returns and he admits that it will show that he is rich. In an interview with the "New York Times" Sanders says, quote: I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling bob, you can be a millionaire, too.

That is right. Bernie is lucky to live in a capitalist society.

Back with me now, Mark Preston, Gloria Borger, Symone Sanders, and David Urban.

OK, Symone.

URBAN: Spin it, Symone. Spin it.

SANDERS: Well, to be clear, I do not work for Senator Sanders, as you noted. I'm an adviser for Priorities USA, and I'm neutral here in this presidential primary.

But I will say look I was talking with Gloria in the makeup room and I said, you know, we never said we didn't take money from millionaire, just not billionaires in 2016.

I think the point here is I wonder how this plays, frankly, with a number of people in the progressive base. Think about it. Donald Trump is someone who has championed himself as the little guy and he is a billionaire. I have to use quotes because we don't know.

And they seem to have taken to his message. I don't know how much this will hurt Senator Sanders but the fact that he hadn't released his tax returns and we still had not seem them, what's he hiding? Was he considered about being a millionaire? I would have come out and said, yes, we're making money, because you know what? Everyone deserves a shot at this country. That's just me. BURNETT: That would have been a normal message to say except for, Gloria, maybe he remembered things like this.

BORGER: Uh-oh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Billionaires and millionaires have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process, supporting Republican candidates and today is payback time for them.

The bulk of the benefits in this legislation go to large, profitable corporations and to millionaires and billionaires.

Well, my view is you don't give, as Trump wants to, huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Is that what he was worried about?

BORGER: It's a little discordant from his message, I would have to say. He's going to have to fine tune that a little bit.

But, look, Hillary Clinton, who is a multimillionaire, was out there saying the wealthy ought to pay more. So is Howard Schultz. So are all these people. Not Donald Trump.

But he is going to have to explain this. Look, he wrote two books. One of his books, I believe he got an advance for $800,000. He could say people like my message and that's why I got this huge advance and they bought my book. Symone is smiling. Am I spinning this?

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: But it is difficult for him to say capitalism is working for me and I think that's a bit of a problem.

BURNETT: But not for the rest of you.

BORGER: Yes.

BURNETT: There should be nothing wrong with it. He's right. Right? And people want to buy it. And you become wealthy. And that should be something that this country celebrates.

PRESTON: Here is the rub in America, right? It's a dirty word to say that you're successful and that you go out and make money, right? It's a dirty word that he feels sullied by the fact that he as a millionaire. No, no, no. This is how you're made to be felt (ph).

However, let's go back to be judged on the actions that you do as a person and not the perceptions that people cast upon you. So, he may be a millionaire. Let's see how much money he gives away to charity. Let's see how much he complains about the taxes that he's writing. I have to write a big check to the IRS. I was shocked by it. What am

I going to do? I have to write the check. You have to do what you have to do.

For him right now, he's going to be careful not to look like someone --

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: Perhaps he feels a little differently about the tax code.

URBAN: It's also important to know what his effective tax rate is. Is he paying tax, ordinary income or has he done some tax planning, tax avoidance, consult with a lawyer? That would be the height of hypocrisy. If he pays a normal flat rate like every other American on a million bucks, he pays whatever the rate is, I think there's less problem for him.

If he had some smart tax lawyer say, here is how you shelter it, put it in a trust and do this and do that, it could be much more --

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: All of which is perfectly legal.

URBAN: No, no, exactly.

BURNETT: Which is why we have an IRS tax code the way we do. It shouldn't be a problem, although, Symone, for Bernie Sanders, it would be a problem.

SANDERS: For Bernie Sanders, I think it would be a problem. But we don't know at this point. We're just pontificating and speculating. So, we have to say --

URBAN: It's OK for the president.

SANDERS: Well, I think Donald Trump is somebody that has knowingly hid his tax returns. I said it was a problem that he had not released his tax returns.

BURNETT: Well, they may both have the same reason, that maybe embarrassment of net worth.

(CROSSTALK)

[19:45:06] BORGER: One too high and maybe one too low.

SANDERS: But I will say that I think this is a case of and this is something we're going to see throughout the entire presidential primary, that things are going to happen, whether its oppo, whether people find out things, reporters really do good investigative work. And campaigns are going to have to respond.

I would venture to say this has been out here and I haven't seen anything from the Sanders campaign, and even Sanders allies. And for me as a strategist looking in on it, for me, that's problematic.

BURNETT: Mark, before we go, Kirsten Gillibrand, obviously, many in the Democratic field who are wealthier than a lot of the people that they want to vote for them, but she's be here tonight for a town hall. That's part of the reason we're here.

PRESTON: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESTON: Moderating.

BURNETT: What are you looking to hear from her?

PRESTON: Very quickly, she has to have a breakout moment. By the end of May, there will be more than 20 Democrats that are running for this Democratic nomination. Everyone needs to break out of the pack.

Nobody really has other than Bernie Sanders. He's clearly the frontrunner, but that's due, in part, because of name I.D., and also a campaign operation that's been operational for several years. She needs a breakout moment.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much.

And coming up, that town hall will be tonight at 10:00 Eastern right here live from Washington. We'll be in those chairs.

And next, they are two of the most powerful men in Washington and, wow, they have been at each other for decades. Why?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Jerry Nadler, I've been fighting him for many years.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The president, as you can see, is a bully.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Plus, President Trump is not on the ballot, but he is a dominant factor in a crucial election under way tonight. And as we speak, it is too close to call.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:50:29] BURNETT: Tonight, some things never end. President Trump tweeting those words this morning, reviving a decades-long feud he's had with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler who, by the way, would be the person overseeing any impeachment proceedings and also represents Trump's old district in New York City.

Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT with more on this deeply, bitter and personal rivalry.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: Jerry Nadler, who I have known, he's been fighting me for half my life.

NADLER: The president, as you can see, is a bully.

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The on-again, off-again feud between President Trump and Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler is back on.

Trump reigniting the rift in a series of tweets today.

Congressman Jerry Nadler fought me for years on a very large development I built on the west side of Manhattan and now I'm dealing with Congressman Nadler again. Some things never end. But hopefully, it will all go well for everyone. Only time will tell.

NADLER: Trump administration --

CARROLL: Nadler is the chairman of the house judiciary committee and has been at the forefront of Democratic oversight efforts, including seeking information from 81 White House advisers and Trump associates. His committee also has the power to launch impeachment proceedings. Trump has called the efforts presidential harassment.

According to "The Washington Post," Trump complained about Nadler at a gathering of Republican lawmakers at the White House just last month who were there to talk trade. By all accounts, the bad blood between the two began in the mid-1980s when Trump was an ambitious real estate developer and Nadler a New York assemblyman.

NADLER: Thank you very much.

CARROLL: The two butted heads over Trump's controversial development plan for the west side of Manhattan.

Linda Rosenthal was Nadler's aide.

LINDA ROSENTHAL, FORMER AIDE TO REP. JERRY NADLER: Trump, it's always personal because that's the only way he can manage to get anywhere. Jerry, it's like water off a duck's back.

CARROLL: Trump wanted to move a highway and build a skyscraper as part of his plan. A number of community activists and Nadler who later became a congressman in 1992, vehemently opposed it. Trump in true fashion got personal attacking Nadler.

The executive vice president of the Trump organization at the time, Barbara Res, still remembers the nasty name-calling.

BARBARA RES, FORMER EXECUTIVE VP OF DEVELOPMENT, TRUMP ORGANIZATION: I would hear him refer to Nadler as Fat Jerry or Fat Nadler, whatever. You could tell it was not a term of endearment. It was clearly he did not like the guy.

CARROLL: The name calling wasn't just behind closed doors. In 1995, Trump defended the use of the insult to "The New York Daily News", saying he was trying to inspire Nadler. To be honest with you, he's a walking time bomb, and if I can convince him to put himself not in great shape but in reasonable shape, I'm doing a great service to him and his family.

Nadler underwent gastric weight loss surgery in 2002. As for that real estate project, Nadler cut off federal funds that would have allotted to be built as Trump originally imagined. The highway was not moved but Trump did build a number of residential condos and apartment buildings along Manhattan's West Side, bearing his name, although residents of the apartment voted to have Trump's name removed after his election.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARROLL: And, Erin, those who know Nadler say because he's had this long history with Trump, who better to know how to handle his personal insults. What seems clear given the history between them, neither seems likely to be the first to back down when facing each other -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Jason, thank you.

And next, breaking news. The results of the Israeli election are too close to call. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:58:12] BURNETT: We have breaking news.

It is too close to call in the Israeli elections. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu really in the political fight of his life. Exit polls show him neck and neck with rival Benny Gantz as Netanyahu is trying for a fifth term as prime minister and a hugely, when you talk about investigations, he could be facing if he loses, this is a huge race for him, and of course, President Trump has had a big role.

Oren Liebermann is live from Tel Aviv in the early hours of the morning there. Still too close to call.

What's the latest on the results?

OREN LIEBERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke a short time ago in Tel Aviv and claimed an awesome victory, a great victory. Not only his Likud party but also for the right wing. He says he has the support of the smaller right wing parties you need to form a governing coalition, and with that support, he would have the right-wing bloc even if his Likud party isn't the biggest after the elections.

And that is why he was so confident. Despite his rival, his former chief of staff, Benny Gantz, claiming his own victory just a short time earlier. Of course, we'll wait for the results to come in, and they're beginning to trickle in, but Netanyahu claiming victory to the chants and cheers of his supporters.

This despite the corruption investigations he faces. When you look at the situation of the world today, especially when it comes to Washington, D.C., this is very much a golden age for Netanyahu. President Trump making it clear to Israeli voters, the world really, it was Netanyahu he would prefer to work with. Gifting scores of gifts from recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, to branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terror organization.

Netanyahu seemed to take some credit for that, saying that was at his request. Netanyahu was more than happy to play up his relationship with Trump in the weeks and months of the campaign. Trump seemed happy to have him do that.

There's still a lot of results to come in, but it looks like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is claiming victory tonight. We'll have a better idea of the results in the morning.

BURNETT: All right. Obviously, the political and personal fight of his life.

Oren, thank you.

And thanks to all of you. I'll see you back here tonight at 10:00 for the town hall with Kirsten Gillibrand. Don't miss that.

In the meantime, "AC 360" starts right now.