30
30
May 22, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 30
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to quote absolute immunity unquote from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked his former counsel harriet myers to ignore a subpoena issued by this committee. ms. myers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates who was appointed by president bush slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. the asserted absolute immu
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to quote absolute immunity unquote from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified...
57
57
May 17, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 57
favorite 0
quote 1
mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, annie donaldson, to inform her of his decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. donaldson recalled that mcgahn told her the president had called and demanded he contact the department of justice and that the president wanted him to do something that mcgahn did not want to do. mcgahn told donaldson that the president had called at least twice and in one of the calls asked, have you done it? mcgahn did not tell donaldson the specifics of the president's request because he was consciously trying not to involve her in the investigation, but donaldson inferred that the president's directive was related to the russia investigation. donaldson prepared to resign along with mcgahn. that evening, mcgahn called both priebus and bannon and told him that he intended to resign. mcgahn recalled that, after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the president's request,
mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, annie donaldson, to inform her of his decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. donaldson recalled that mcgahn told her the president had called and demanded he contact the department of justice and that the president wanted him to do something that mcgahn did not want to do. mcgahn told donaldson that the president had called at least twice...
81
81
May 10, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 81
favorite 0
quote 0
when ever mcgahn rebuffed him, what did the white house strategy become, attempting to prevent mcgahn to testify. they attempted to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell. when he said i'm not going to do that, they pivoted their tactic to prevent him from testifying at all. >> you heard preet say it was hovering close to witness tampering. what do you think? >> as we have seen with the mueller report, the various elements of the obstruction crimes of witness tampering can be complex and need to know the various pieces of information. mcgahn wasn't necessarily going to be testifying. the president's overall hostility to the law. this is not about the president not understanding the various technicalities. he should no better than anyone this stuff is deeply inappropriate. it walks right up against the line of criminal law and yet he cannot resist engaging this behavior. >> it's clear the president believes this is politically damaging to him. one of these occasions was even before the mueller report was available to the public to read. after his lawyers got an early look fr
when ever mcgahn rebuffed him, what did the white house strategy become, attempting to prevent mcgahn to testify. they attempted to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell. when he said i'm not going to do that, they pivoted their tactic to prevent him from testifying at all. >> you heard preet say it was hovering close to witness tampering. what do you think? >> as we have seen with the mueller report, the various elements of the obstruction crimes of witness tampering...
122
122
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 122
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he entitled to absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branches tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly unjustified and asked his former counsel to ignore subpoena issued by this committee. ms. myers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates who was appointed by president bush slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a singal judicial opinion that recognizes immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by the case law. close quote from th
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he entitled to absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branches tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly unjustified and asked his...
70
70
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 70
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn ii. you are hereby commanded to be and appear before the committee of the judiciary of the house -- committee on the judiciary of the house of representatives of the united states at the place, date and time specified below. they say the testimony will take place in the rayburn house office building in washington, d.c., on may 21st, 2019. time of testimony, 10:00 a.m. now, since that subpoena was issued to don mcgahn to come testify about what he told mueller's investigators and what he saw of the president's behavior that was described in such detail in mueller's report, since that subpoena was made public right after mueller's report came out, the white house has been full of bluster about it, right? the president himself saying in an interview on fox news that he would not let don mcgahn testify. he would not let mcgahn respond to that subpoena for his testimony. now, it is not up to the president whether or not some third party is allowed to testify in response to a congressional subp
mcgahn ii. you are hereby commanded to be and appear before the committee of the judiciary of the house -- committee on the judiciary of the house of representatives of the united states at the place, date and time specified below. they say the testimony will take place in the rayburn house office building in washington, d.c., on may 21st, 2019. time of testimony, 10:00 a.m. now, since that subpoena was issued to don mcgahn to come testify about what he told mueller's investigators and what he...
87
87
May 13, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 87
favorite 0
quote 0
the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice and mcgahn refused. >>> actress felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to paying a large sum of money to help her daughter get into college. >>> good morning, everybody, it is monday, may 13th, i'm yasmin vossoughian along side geoff bennett. let's start with the stock market. as u.s. and china negotiators appear far party in resolving president trump's trade war. on friday, the trump administration added fuel to the fire raising tariff rates on $200 billion worth of chinese goods to 25%. and over the weekend, the president issued a lengthy tweet storm beginning on saturday writing in part this, i think that china felt they are being beaten so badly in the recent negotiations that they may as well wait around for the next election to see if they could get lucky and have a democrat win in which case they would continue a ripoff of the united states. the only problem is they know i am going to win and the deal will become far worse for them if it has to be negotiated my
the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice and mcgahn refused. >>> actress felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to paying a large sum of money to help her daughter get into college. >>> good morning, everybody, it is monday, may 13th, i'm yasmin vossoughian along side geoff bennett. let's start with the stock market. as u.s. and china negotiators appear far party in resolving president trump's trade...
33
33
May 22, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 33
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to absolute immunity from our subpoenas. wrongw this argument is because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush similarlyto invoke a broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked former counsel harriet miers, who ignored a subpoena issued by this committee. miers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. the judge slapped down that executiveuickly, "the cannot identify a single opinion immunity for presidential advisers in this or any context." that bears repeating. the asserted absolute immunity claim here is unsupported by case law. close quote from the judicial decision. in other words, when this committee issued a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness mu
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to absolute immunity from our subpoenas. wrongw this argument is because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush similarlyto invoke a broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked former...
114
114
May 20, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
. >>> the silence of mcgahn. the white house steps in to prevent former counsel don mcgahn from testifying to a house panel, arguing that he has immunity. does that mean mcgahn's chair will be empty at tomorrow's judiciary committee hearing? will he be held in contempt? >>> impeachment threshold. a republican lawmaker is the first to say that president trump's behavior has met the threshold for impeachment. congressman justin amash of michigan is doubling down tonight, sending out a fresh round of tweets, even though he's already facing a primary challenge for speaking out. >>> and loose lips? president trump may never have heard the phrase "loose lips sink ships," known for his unguarded moments, it seems the president may have again given away some sensitive u.s. intelligence. >>> i'm wolf blitzer. you're in the situati"the situ." >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >>> breaking news. the white house moves to block congressional testimony by former white house counsel don mcgahn, claiming that as a former
. >>> the silence of mcgahn. the white house steps in to prevent former counsel don mcgahn from testifying to a house panel, arguing that he has immunity. does that mean mcgahn's chair will be empty at tomorrow's judiciary committee hearing? will he be held in contempt? >>> impeachment threshold. a republican lawmaker is the first to say that president trump's behavior has met the threshold for impeachment. congressman justin amash of michigan is doubling down tonight, sending...
68
68
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 68
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he's entitled to, quote, absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course. because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked his former counsel, harriet miers, who ignore a subpoena issued by this committee. ms. miers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates, who was appointed by president bush, slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisers in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. he asserted absol
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he's entitled to, quote, absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course. because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and...
97
97
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 97
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn refused to do that. that is one of the acts mueller considered as possible obstruction of justice. so i think this fits in line with what we've seen the president do repeatedly, try to get people to issue statements on his behalf. it's notable that mcgahn declined to do so. >> if the president wasn't concerned about obstruction of justice and fully believed he had been exonerated as he keeps saying he is, why would he need to go to mcgahn to go out and say this? >> i think that's right. look, mueller -- to your point, mueller was pretty clear, he and his team, in the report that they were not exonerating the president on obstruction of justice. that if they felt they could say that a crime was not committed, that they would have made that very clear. they didn't feel they could say that and so they didn't. it was bill barr, the attorney general, and rod rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, who said in their summary that they do not believe that obstruction was committed because there was no unde
mcgahn refused to do that. that is one of the acts mueller considered as possible obstruction of justice. so i think this fits in line with what we've seen the president do repeatedly, try to get people to issue statements on his behalf. it's notable that mcgahn declined to do so. >> if the president wasn't concerned about obstruction of justice and fully believed he had been exonerated as he keeps saying he is, why would he need to go to mcgahn to go out and say this? >> i think...
39
39
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 39
favorite 0
quote 0
now we've got don mcgahn. don mcgahn is supposed to come tomorrow. he no longer works at the white house. he's essentially now a private citizen. he has been called to testify. today the department of justice puts out a 15-page document basically saying no, he has to listen to the president. the president says he can't do it. how broad, how aggressive is this move by the white house, harry? >> so it's very aggressive, although it's not that much more aggressive than other white houses have done. but the real big move here is to say that it applies in the case of former officials. they cite no legal authority because no court has decided it with one exception. a district court previously ruled against basically the identical argument in the harriet meyers case. that was then settled out on appeal. but this is a tough one. i think the previous argument is going to prevail across the board at the d.c. circuit. this is one whether or not there's a testimonial privilege that applies to former close advisers that likely will go all the way to the supreme c
now we've got don mcgahn. don mcgahn is supposed to come tomorrow. he no longer works at the white house. he's essentially now a private citizen. he has been called to testify. today the department of justice puts out a 15-page document basically saying no, he has to listen to the president. the president says he can't do it. how broad, how aggressive is this move by the white house, harry? >> so it's very aggressive, although it's not that much more aggressive than other white houses...
151
151
May 20, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 151
favorite 0
quote 1
if mcgahn doesn't show up the answer would be yes. there is no reason other than the president doesn't want that information out in public for mcgahn to not testify and so, yes, he should be held in contempt if it comes to that. >> your republican colleague in the white house, justin attach says president trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. are you surprised to see that. >> no, not at all. many republicans are deeply disturbed and looked at the report and said, oh, my, there's something here and don't want to step outfront. let's hear it for amash. he's been willing to step outfront and do what is necessary and that is to say that there's something here that needs to be thoroughly investigated by congress. will it lead to an impeachment? that's possible. let's get the investigations under way and hear from mcgahn. let's hear from the others and see if the end during durithat process if impeachment is warranted. >> tens of thousands of dock thes are from trump inaugural committee. have you seen indications that foreign donors may
if mcgahn doesn't show up the answer would be yes. there is no reason other than the president doesn't want that information out in public for mcgahn to not testify and so, yes, he should be held in contempt if it comes to that. >> your republican colleague in the white house, justin attach says president trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. are you surprised to see that. >> no, not at all. many republicans are deeply disturbed and looked at the report and said, oh, my, there's...
137
137
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 137
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. the president says house democrats shouldn't get a do over. a federal judge ruled against the president last night. cummings has requested 10 years of the president's financial records. the white house argues the subpoena is an abuse of power. the federal judge disagrees and determined the president's accounting firm must provide those financial records to congress. >> president trump: as far as the financials are concerned. we think it's the wrong -- it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an obama-appointed judge. >> this issue among several others between house democrats and the white house will continue to work their way through the federal court system to determine how much congress can obtain from the president and how much the white house can do to withhold. jon. >> jon: the battle goes on. rich edson at the white house. thanks. >> sandra: and as william barr launches investigations into the origins of the russia probe, some of those investigators could be turning on each
mcgahn. the president says house democrats shouldn't get a do over. a federal judge ruled against the president last night. cummings has requested 10 years of the president's financial records. the white house argues the subpoena is an abuse of power. the federal judge disagrees and determined the president's accounting firm must provide those financial records to congress. >> president trump: as far as the financials are concerned. we think it's the wrong -- it's totally the wrong...
74
74
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 74
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn refused. the source goes on to say that the president was upset by mcgahn's refusal to say what the president wanted him to say. i'll bet he was. the white house has since ordered mcgahn to defy his subpoena from democrats. sure doesn't seem like the president believes his own line that he was -- he's been 100% exonerated from the mueller report. if he really thought that, why would he need don mcgahn? this is all the more reason the american people need to hear from don mcgahn and from robert mueller. in their own words. and there's more today. i told you. a top lawyer, the top lawyer at the fbi, when the russia investigation began, is saying that he feels compelled to speak out. his name is james baker. and he says the investigation was open for "lawful legitimate reasons" and he calls conspiracy theories like those pushed by the president and the attorney general "bs." oh, but there's more. a retired supreme court justice today accusing president trump of overstepping his presidential power
mcgahn refused. the source goes on to say that the president was upset by mcgahn's refusal to say what the president wanted him to say. i'll bet he was. the white house has since ordered mcgahn to defy his subpoena from democrats. sure doesn't seem like the president believes his own line that he was -- he's been 100% exonerated from the mueller report. if he really thought that, why would he need don mcgahn? this is all the more reason the american people need to hear from don mcgahn and from...
202
202
May 20, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 202
favorite 0
quote 2
so that's where we stand with mcgahn. the question is whether or not there may be some a little challenges to this issue by members of the house i don't rememberry committee. the argue has been made that because so much material was already dumped out to the public domain by the special counsel that some of the protection was no longer in effect. they had given up that right. that's where the legal question will go forward, ed. >> in the case of william bar, we heard about the possibility of house democrats trying to arrest him. we've heard about other administration officials who defy subpoenas could potentially face financial fines, penalties in order to compel them to testify. with mcgahn being a former official, is there any difference at all? to we know what punishment he may face? >> what they're saying, ed, he's a former adviser but his period of time working for the president is covered in perpetuity. so forever. just because he's out of government doesn't give him latitude to comply and testify -- comply with tha
so that's where we stand with mcgahn. the question is whether or not there may be some a little challenges to this issue by members of the house i don't rememberry committee. the argue has been made that because so much material was already dumped out to the public domain by the special counsel that some of the protection was no longer in effect. they had given up that right. that's where the legal question will go forward, ed. >> in the case of william bar, we heard about the possibility...
46
46
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 46
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn had told mr. mueller's investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice according to one of the people. after "new york times" article revealed that mr. mcgahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, mr. burke tried to reassure the white house that his client told mr. mueller that he never believed mr. trump had committed an obstruction offense. pall paul butler, let me ask you about that. there's some sourcing here. so who knows? if what is being suggested here is true, that is to say mcgahn's lawyer, mcgahn told the white house that he had told mueller i didn't think what you did was obstruction, does that change at all questions about propriety of the white house doing this? >> well, i think that in terms of whether the president committed obstruction, don mcgahn has never been a federal prosecutor, he's never practiced criminal law. on that issue i'm going to go with the judgment of the over 800 former federal prosecutors including barbara and i, who signed th
mcgahn had told mr. mueller's investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice according to one of the people. after "new york times" article revealed that mr. mcgahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, mr. burke tried to reassure the white house that his client told mr. mueller that he never believed mr. trump had committed an obstruction offense. pall paul butler, let me ask you about that. there's some sourcing here. so who knows? if what is...
289
289
May 10, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 289
favorite 0
quote 0
i never told don mcgahn to fire mueller. if i wanted to fire mueller, i would have done it myself. >> pamela brown is out front live outside the white house. what are you learning this hour in. >> we're learning more about the white house reaction to the episodes laid out about don mcgahn and the president's request to him to dismiss the special counsel. we have learned through sources familiar with this matter that the white house reached out to don mcgahn's lawyer william burke asked burke to ask his client to come out and say that the president's directive to fire the special counsel robert mueller was not obstruction of justice and that don mcgahn rebuffed that request. a source familiar said was because bill barr had already come out and said that publicly he didn't obstruct justice. the calculation was made among don mcgahn and his attorney that it wasn't necessary. the white house was aware that don mcgahn had told the special counsel his more than 30 hours of interviews. it appears the white house wanted mcgahn to co
i never told don mcgahn to fire mueller. if i wanted to fire mueller, i would have done it myself. >> pamela brown is out front live outside the white house. what are you learning this hour in. >> we're learning more about the white house reaction to the episodes laid out about don mcgahn and the president's request to him to dismiss the special counsel. we have learned through sources familiar with this matter that the white house reached out to don mcgahn's lawyer william burke...
78
78
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 78
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn would call rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and was worn down so he wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because did he not follow the president wants directive did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. called his personal lawyer. then called his chief of staff. then the report says he went to his office, packet up his stuff, submitted his resignation letter and later told priebus and ban anyone band urged him not to do it. mcgahn returned to work and remained to his position. he never gave that order. the mueller report then continues. stay with me. around the same time chris christie recalled a telephone call with the president in which the president asked that christie, what christie thought about the president firing the special counsel? christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the president to fire the special counsel. and because the pr
mcgahn would call rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and was worn down so he wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because did he not follow the president wants directive did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. called his personal lawyer. then called his chief of staff. then the report says he went to his office, packet up his stuff, submitted his resignation letter...
79
79
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 79
favorite 0
quote 0
so mcgahn was a very important witness for mueller. he was a very important witness when it comes to the obstruction of justice allegations. and i think the democrats want maybe a little bit more of from him, in terms of the narrative and what his view of this was. but most importantly, they want him in front of a camera, saying what the mueller report said. they want, you know, frankly, for certain political reasons to be the face, you know, the key witness and face of the president obstructing justice, because that is the -- he is the key witness in the mueller report. so, you know, as susan said, it's sort of silly that they're talking about executive privilege. i mean, that privilege was already waived, right? we already have the account, we already have the facts. they're in the report. but democrats want that face up on the hill. >> you know, john kirby, you're a retired admiral. you were the pentagon spokesman. we're learning now that iran is likely moving short-range ballistic missiles by boats in the persian gulf. we're also l
so mcgahn was a very important witness for mueller. he was a very important witness when it comes to the obstruction of justice allegations. and i think the democrats want maybe a little bit more of from him, in terms of the narrative and what his view of this was. but most importantly, they want him in front of a camera, saying what the mueller report said. they want, you know, frankly, for certain political reasons to be the face, you know, the key witness and face of the president...
86
86
May 10, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 86
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn's reluctance angered mr. trump and mcgahn showed disloyaltiy by showing investigators about attempts to maybe tan control over the russian investigation. it's similar to what got trump in trouble in the first place. in january of 2018, trump pressured began to deny the reports he tried to fire the special counsel. in that case began also refused the president's request. i want to bring in the director of the center on georgetown law. glen kirschner and michael schmidt from the "new york times" who joins us by phone. michael, another amazing story. give us the sense you have of what trump was up to when he told mr. mcgahn his former counsel in the white house to say he never thought there was anything wrong with what trump did in the first place of trying to say fire mueller. >> well, i think the problem is that mcgahn is at the center of the most problematic episodes in the report. what they are trying to do is downplay the obstruction issue. there was a difference of opinion between mueller and the attorney
mcgahn's reluctance angered mr. trump and mcgahn showed disloyaltiy by showing investigators about attempts to maybe tan control over the russian investigation. it's similar to what got trump in trouble in the first place. in january of 2018, trump pressured began to deny the reports he tried to fire the special counsel. in that case began also refused the president's request. i want to bring in the director of the center on georgetown law. glen kirschner and michael schmidt from the "new...
78
78
May 20, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 78
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn doesn't appear. we would still be required to compel witnesses who tee fdefy subpoenas, we would have to bring that to the floor, but it is done in context of impeachment inquiry hear than in normal oversight responsibilities. >> sounds like you don't consider it precondition to launch impeachment inquiry going through the process here of full house vote on contempt. >> no, no. in fact it may well be the face if impeachment inquiry is open, we are still obligated to litigate efforts by the white house to stop us from getting documents and witnesses. there's no reason to think if we were opening inquiry they would suddenly cooperate. my guess the president will continue an effort to conceal from the american people and hide information from the american people. our fight to get to the truth, to be sure that we demonstrate no one is above the law and compel production of witnesses and documents will continue, it will just be in context of open inquiry on question of impeachment rather than the traditio
mcgahn doesn't appear. we would still be required to compel witnesses who tee fdefy subpoenas, we would have to bring that to the floor, but it is done in context of impeachment inquiry hear than in normal oversight responsibilities. >> sounds like you don't consider it precondition to launch impeachment inquiry going through the process here of full house vote on contempt. >> no, no. in fact it may well be the face if impeachment inquiry is open, we are still obligated to litigate...
82
82
May 3, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 82
favorite 0
quote 0
don mcgahn doesn't work at the white house anymore. don mcgahn is subject to contempt. he is a lawyer in good standing who might put that good standing at risk if he doesn't. don mcgahn has been called a liar by the president. he may have reason. i wouldn't expect him to go willingly, but my prediction is that he'll say if you subpoena me, i will show up. >> yes. >> my point, john, and i'm sorry if i sound like they have broken my spirit. >> that's what it sounds like. that's the goal. >> it's worked. i think i am channelling many members of the american public who feel the past two years have been disheartening for people who believe in justice. the reason i say that is because you see in the mueller report ample evidence laid out of obstruction of what robert mueller considered obstruction, but nothing happens. you see violations of the emoluments clause and nothing happens. nepotism >> emoluments is going forward in the courts. >> there is a feeling of exhaustion. we know it from polls, from voters turning away after the mueller report that they think congress will c
don mcgahn doesn't work at the white house anymore. don mcgahn is subject to contempt. he is a lawyer in good standing who might put that good standing at risk if he doesn't. don mcgahn has been called a liar by the president. he may have reason. i wouldn't expect him to go willingly, but my prediction is that he'll say if you subpoena me, i will show up. >> yes. >> my point, john, and i'm sorry if i sound like they have broken my spirit. >> that's what it sounds like. that's...
92
92
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 92
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn saying? >> reporter: through his attorney, mcgahn is basically saying he will sit this out, not hand over those documents until there is agreement reached between congressional democrats in this case the house judiciary chairman and the white house. so this is mcgahn basically complying, acknowledging that he still has duties to the president and this is in his attorney's word that he still feels bound by his duty to the president not to share information and documents that was produced in conjunction with the mueller probe. so this is basically mcbegan through h -- mcgahn saying he is siding with the white house until there is an agreement reached between mr. nadler and the white house counsel. so this puts mcgahn in the camp of the president which we basically knew but we still like to hear it directly from his lawyer and we still don't have any clarity on whether or not the white house will invoke executive privilege and not allow mcgahn to testify as some house democrats clearly want him
mcgahn saying? >> reporter: through his attorney, mcgahn is basically saying he will sit this out, not hand over those documents until there is agreement reached between congressional democrats in this case the house judiciary chairman and the white house. so this is mcgahn basically complying, acknowledging that he still has duties to the president and this is in his attorney's word that he still feels bound by his duty to the president not to share information and documents that was...
57
57
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 57
favorite 0
quote 0
he's just written a letter to don mcgahn in response to be don mcgahn's lawyer as you know, of course, saying that don mcgahn won't show up tomorrow because the president told him not to and the justice department said that's okay because he has complete immunity from any kind of congressional subpoena. he points out that memo from the justice department isn't really citing case law so much as citing itself. citing memos from that legal office over the decades. and chairman nadler points out that one of the justice department rules that is completely ignored in that memo is he says the justice department's own be long-standing policy is that "executive privilege should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive officers." amazing how that would have been left out of that memo today. >> well, and you know, for the white house to be asserting that people should defy subpoenas in the abstract because the white house believes or they can get the office of legal counsel to state or the president's lawyers aver something is true is one thing. bu
he's just written a letter to don mcgahn in response to be don mcgahn's lawyer as you know, of course, saying that don mcgahn won't show up tomorrow because the president told him not to and the justice department said that's okay because he has complete immunity from any kind of congressional subpoena. he points out that memo from the justice department isn't really citing case law so much as citing itself. citing memos from that legal office over the decades. and chairman nadler points out...
97
97
May 12, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 97
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn never act odd that. then january 2018, "the new york times" reported that exchange that trump had asked mcgahn to get mueller removed and trump asked mcgahn to deny that those conversations took place. mcgahn declined to come out and deny them. he said that the reports were true. trump was also frustrated about that but this request from the white house to mcgahn to come out and say that the president didn't obstruct justice shows the measures the white house is willing to take to try to portrayal the mueller report as fully exonerating. >> thank you, sarah westwood. so much to discuss as we talk about what lies ahead first. let me tell you about 2027 candidate pete buttigieg. at a campaign crowd last night he said he feared it even drives people of his own party apart the mayor on saturday addressed one of his biggest vulnerabilities. running for president as a privileged white man. he tried to connect with his audience and supporters by recognizing that discrimination isn't experienced the same way by
mcgahn never act odd that. then january 2018, "the new york times" reported that exchange that trump had asked mcgahn to get mueller removed and trump asked mcgahn to deny that those conversations took place. mcgahn declined to come out and deny them. he said that the reports were true. trump was also frustrated about that but this request from the white house to mcgahn to come out and say that the president didn't obstruct justice shows the measures the white house is willing to take...
45
45
May 10, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 45
favorite 0
quote 0
on the first call, mcgahn recalled the president said something like, "you have to do this, you have to call rod." volume two,e 85 -- page 85. >> next is barbara lee. evidencential indicates that the catalyst for the president's decision to fire james comey was james comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation despite the president's repeated requests that james comey make such an announcement. other evidence indicates that the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. two,nto, page -- volume pages 75 and 76. >> sean casten. this is in response to the attorney general's claim that the president has constitutional immunity from prosecution. mr. mueller writes, we were not persuaded by the argument the president has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise valid article two powers. some like to talk about what that standard is but i want to read the footnote. a possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power wo
on the first call, mcgahn recalled the president said something like, "you have to do this, you have to call rod." volume two,e 85 -- page 85. >> next is barbara lee. evidencential indicates that the catalyst for the president's decision to fire james comey was james comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation despite the president's repeated requests that james comey make such an announcement. other evidence indicates that...
69
69
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 69
favorite 0
quote 0
we know that the president has already basically called don mcgahn a liar, saying, oh, what don mcgahn reportedly said in that report, i never did that. this would be a chance for don mcgahn to clear his name, because it makes no sense, why would don mcgahn lie to robert mueller and risk criminal indictment against him, ruining his reputation, when we know the president has lied over and over, and he also let don mcgahn speak to bob mueller, which he did for hundreds of hours. >> so, i do think that don mcgahn will make the decision. and i absolutely think that he cannot ignore a congressional subpoena. the president can order don mcgahn all he wants. he's no longer an employee of the president's. and that is an important legal distinction. what i remember from my time on the senate judiciary committee is we were investigating the firing of u.s. attorneys in 2007 and 2008, and the bush administration didn't want to produce harriette myers, a former white house counsel, to testify. it went to court. and the court found that she should not be shielded from having to testify in front of c
we know that the president has already basically called don mcgahn a liar, saying, oh, what don mcgahn reportedly said in that report, i never did that. this would be a chance for don mcgahn to clear his name, because it makes no sense, why would don mcgahn lie to robert mueller and risk criminal indictment against him, ruining his reputation, when we know the president has lied over and over, and he also let don mcgahn speak to bob mueller, which he did for hundreds of hours. >> so, i do...
58
58
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 58
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and wanted mcgahn to correct t we believe it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing mcgahn to say something false because it wasn't necessarily false. moreover, mcgahn had, weeks before, already given testimony to the special counsel and the president was aware of that. and as the report indicates, it could also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear that he never outright directed the firing of mueller. so, in terms of the request to ask mcgahn t
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and wanted mcgahn to correct t we believe it would be...
89
89
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 89
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn did waive privilege to speak to robert mueller's team but the white house argues mcgahn is exempt because he's a former senior presidential adviser. and now mcgahn's lawyers say with contradictory orders from congress and the white house he owes it to his former client not to attend. >> democrats want to hear from the former white house counsel because the mueller report says mcgahn refused president trump's orders to fire the special counsel. now democrats are weighing their next move for mcgahn and the president. judiciary chairman jerry nadler warning there will be serious consequences if mcgahn does not show up today. >> the first thing we're going to do is we're dgoing to have t hold mcgahn in contempt. it's making it more and more difficult to ignore all alternatives, including impeachment, and we'll have to consider that and all other alternatives. >> trump has personally announced the white house will fight all congressional subpoenas but he's distancing himself from the move to block mcgahn's testimony. >> the attorneys say they are not doing that for me. they are doing t
mcgahn did waive privilege to speak to robert mueller's team but the white house argues mcgahn is exempt because he's a former senior presidential adviser. and now mcgahn's lawyers say with contradictory orders from congress and the white house he owes it to his former client not to attend. >> democrats want to hear from the former white house counsel because the mueller report says mcgahn refused president trump's orders to fire the special counsel. now democrats are weighing their next...
87
87
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 87
favorite 0
quote 0
but mcgahn declined. the "new york times" reporting the white house made that request to mcgahn twice before and after the mueller report was released. and saying tonight the request was not perceived as something sinister. but a source saying the president was upset with mcgahn's refusal and dmgs moving quickly to get the president's tax returns. issuing subpoenas for six recent years of trump returns. and the treasury secretary refused an official request. are they stone walling? creating a constitutional crisis? tonight we'll look at the big picture. thank you so much for joining us on this friday evening, everyone. what are does it say that president trump wanted don mcgahn to make a statement saying he didn't obstruct justice? >> i guess it's not surprising. it's very reminiscent of some of the anecdote covered in the earlier behavior trying to get intelligence chiefs to make a statement saying he didn't have anything to do with russia. far from the disorganized white house that's passively sitting t
but mcgahn declined. the "new york times" reporting the white house made that request to mcgahn twice before and after the mueller report was released. and saying tonight the request was not perceived as something sinister. but a source saying the president was upset with mcgahn's refusal and dmgs moving quickly to get the president's tax returns. issuing subpoenas for six recent years of trump returns. and the treasury secretary refused an official request. are they stone walling?...
91
91
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 91
favorite 0
quote 0
don mcgahn declined to do that on both occasions. the "new york times" writing the white house made one of the requests to mr. mcgahn's lawyer, william burke, before the mueller report was delivered. and once again after. sitting down with investigators from the special counsel's for more than 30 hours in total. the mueller report how the president put pressure on mcgahn to fire robert mueller. the president says this is not true. i never told then white house counsel dawn mcgahn to fire robert mueller even though i had the legal right to do so. if i wanted to fire mueller, i didn't need mcgahn to do it. i could have done it myself. mike, what are we hearing from the white house, if anything, about this? the stories came out midafternoon yesterday. there has been a conversation about the degree to which the white house had earlier exposure to the report, knew what was in it, and now we're getting some sense here of how they might have wielded what they learned from that report. >> right, david. that in and of itself is controversial.
don mcgahn declined to do that on both occasions. the "new york times" writing the white house made one of the requests to mr. mcgahn's lawyer, william burke, before the mueller report was delivered. and once again after. sitting down with investigators from the special counsel's for more than 30 hours in total. the mueller report how the president put pressure on mcgahn to fire robert mueller. the president says this is not true. i never told then white house counsel dawn mcgahn to...
55
55
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 55
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn fire mueller. there's something very different about firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed from conflict which suggests you'll have another special counsel. the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times' article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. we believe it would be impossible for the government to say beyond all reasonable doubt. mcgahn before had given testimony to this special counsel and the president was aware of that. and as the report indicates, it would also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear he never directed the outright firing of mueller. in terms of the request to ask mcgahn to memorialize that fact, we do not think in this case that the government could show correct intent beyond a reasonable doubt. >> just to finish this, but you still have a
he told mcgahn fire mueller. there's something very different about firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed from conflict which suggests you'll have another special counsel. the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times' article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. we believe it would be impossible for the...
73
73
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 73
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn not to appear. a lawyer for mcgahn said the former white house counsel would respect the president's instruction and not appear today. chairman jerrold nadler says the committee will still meet this morning adding mr. mcgahn is expected to appear as legally require and if he did not testify quote the first thing we're going to do, we'll have to hold mcgahn in contempt. president trump was asked by reporter yesterday why he instructed mcgahn to defy the subpoena. here's what he had to say. >> president, why are you asking don mcgahn to defy a congressional subpoena. >> as i understand that they are doing it for the office of the presidency. it's an important precedent and the attorneys say that they are not doing that for me, they are doing that for the office of the president. we're talking about the future. >> several top democrats are urging house speaker nancy pelosi to move forward with an pea impeachment proceedings. >> let me clear if don mcgahn doesn't testify it's time to open an impeachment
mcgahn not to appear. a lawyer for mcgahn said the former white house counsel would respect the president's instruction and not appear today. chairman jerrold nadler says the committee will still meet this morning adding mr. mcgahn is expected to appear as legally require and if he did not testify quote the first thing we're going to do, we'll have to hold mcgahn in contempt. president trump was asked by reporter yesterday why he instructed mcgahn to defy the subpoena. here's what he had to...
51
51
May 3, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 51
favorite 0
quote 0
not to object to the disclosures that mcgahn made. and that to me is a waiver of executive privilege. putting aside the issue of whether he could do it at all, but this seems to be an absolutely clear case of waiver. and once you allow a privilege to be violated, any privilege, whether it's a marital privilege or religious privilege or executive pilgrimage, you can't then say oh, by the way, now i want to protect the information that might be covered. so i think if it goes to court, he'll lose. he'll be able to delay it. but i think he'll lose. >> robert, do you agree he would lose in court? >> not so sure about that. i know -- i respect jeffrey's view. i know that jerry nadler is of a similar view. in fact, we raised it, anderson, you and i when he was on set me i guess several weeks ago. i think it's one thing to say that, you know, within the executive branch was sort of the first round of this, i don't think there can be a waiver. the only place where a waiver arguably occurs is the point at which the white house and in this insta
not to object to the disclosures that mcgahn made. and that to me is a waiver of executive privilege. putting aside the issue of whether he could do it at all, but this seems to be an absolutely clear case of waiver. and once you allow a privilege to be violated, any privilege, whether it's a marital privilege or religious privilege or executive pilgrimage, you can't then say oh, by the way, now i want to protect the information that might be covered. so i think if it goes to court, he'll lose....
79
79
May 12, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 79
favorite 0
quote 0
don mcgahn is ckoufefi number two. when you have donald trump saying mcgahn is a liar and he never ordered mcgahn to get rid of robert mueller, thereby obstructing an investigation, he created a serious he said/he said battle that needs to be played out in court or congress. >> following the refusal, can the white house commitment to block mcgahn from testifying before congress, ordering him not ko comply with his subpoena, in that case could it be considered witness tampering? >> i'm want trying to be melodramtic or alarmist about it. if you're trying to affect the outcome of someone testify, any of those that donald trump has been seek rektly been channelling information to, but dorn mcgahn is being savvy. he's saying, you know whattic, i'm going to let this battle play out between the house and the white house. maybe he ends up being collateral damage. we haven't heard publicly from mcgahn. nope. >> when it comes to the subpoenas, you have the stonewalling "the washington post" writing, if the president is able to r
don mcgahn is ckoufefi number two. when you have donald trump saying mcgahn is a liar and he never ordered mcgahn to get rid of robert mueller, thereby obstructing an investigation, he created a serious he said/he said battle that needs to be played out in court or congress. >> following the refusal, can the white house commitment to block mcgahn from testifying before congress, ordering him not ko comply with his subpoena, in that case could it be considered witness tampering? >>...
40
40
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 40
favorite 0
quote 0
on the other hand, does mcgahn want to be held in contempt? does that mean anything to his legal practice in washington? could he have his law license taken away or something along those lines? probably not. but he's in a dicy position here, and he's fallen back and said, look, i'm going to do what the white house tells me to, and that was his message to congress. and that's why he's not going up tomorrow to testify. and he's asking the committee and the white house to work this out. look, putting all the legalese and law firm stuff aside the most important thing for the narrative of this story is that the democrats can't seem to get a witness. they have a 400-page report that has a bunch of damning allegations against the president. it's all laid outright there. and they can't seem to get any momentum. and now they can't seem to get any documents or anyone to come up and talk about it, at least anyone who would maybe galvanize the public or get the public's attention. that's where we find ourselves. >> barbara, i'm coming to you for what i'm
on the other hand, does mcgahn want to be held in contempt? does that mean anything to his legal practice in washington? could he have his law license taken away or something along those lines? probably not. but he's in a dicy position here, and he's fallen back and said, look, i'm going to do what the white house tells me to, and that was his message to congress. and that's why he's not going up tomorrow to testify. and he's asking the committee and the white house to work this out. look,...
110
110
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 110
favorite 0
quote 0
this time at the center is don mcgahn. man who is critical to robert mueller's report and whose name was mentioned over 150 times. now he's ignoring a request at the instruction of the white house to turn over documents to house democrats. the white house is not yet asserting executive privilege but they want democrats on capitol hill who are trying to conduct oversight know they feel they have the ability to do so when it comes to mcgahn. tonight the white house is stopping don mcgahn from turning over documents to house democrats. the latest jab in the oversight showdown with the administration. in a letter current white house letter telling the house judiciary committee that the former white house counsel will be ignoring their subpoena. arguing that president trump may want to assert executive privilege in the future and mcgahn does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third parties. house investigators subpoenaed the documents as part of their investigation into obstruction of justice. we're hoping
this time at the center is don mcgahn. man who is critical to robert mueller's report and whose name was mentioned over 150 times. now he's ignoring a request at the instruction of the white house to turn over documents to house democrats. the white house is not yet asserting executive privilege but they want democrats on capitol hill who are trying to conduct oversight know they feel they have the ability to do so when it comes to mcgahn. tonight the white house is stopping don mcgahn from...
36
36
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 36
favorite 0
quote 0
in a letter sent to mcgahn late tonight nadler says he expects mcgahn to appear and if he does not the committee is "prepared to use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal." meanwhile a federal judge's ruling that trump's accounting firm cannot keep his financial records from the house oversight committee is the first big court test, really, for the president's efforts to resist all incoming subpoenas. without a stay from a higher court, this one will be the tough one to beat. tonight trump hinted at that and pointed to his predecessor when responding to questions about this judge's decision. >> we disagree with that ruling. it's crazy because you look at it, this never happened to any other president. they're trying to get a redo. they're trying to get what we used to call in school a do over. it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an obama appointed judge. >> and late today the house intel committee voted to release hundreds of pages of michael cohen's non-public closed door testimony. dates back to february and march. cohen is currently doing time as you'll recall. in his
in a letter sent to mcgahn late tonight nadler says he expects mcgahn to appear and if he does not the committee is "prepared to use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal." meanwhile a federal judge's ruling that trump's accounting firm cannot keep his financial records from the house oversight committee is the first big court test, really, for the president's efforts to resist all incoming subpoenas. without a stay from a higher court, this one will be the tough one to beat....
73
73
May 8, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 73
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn can't testify. this is just the cycle of donald trump. we're just, you know, we're not going to put up with it anymore because we're not powerless. we have subpoenas and the courts are on our side. >> congressman, if you wouldn't mind holding on for a second, there's another matter i want to ask you about. we have bombshell new reporting from "the new york times" which obtained tax records from ten years of the president's tax history. we've also got an aggressive move by another committee that you're on, the intelligence committee, about trying to get some of the underlying mueller documents. i'd like to ask you about those things when we come back. congressman eric swalwell of california. democratic presidential candidate. he'll be with us right when we come back. stay with us. nutrition can seem overwhelmin. even if you try to eat well, you might fall short in key nutrients. get more by adding one a day. it's the #1 multivitamin uniquely designed for men and women. one serving, once a day. one a day. and done. i'm workin♪ to make eac
mcgahn can't testify. this is just the cycle of donald trump. we're just, you know, we're not going to put up with it anymore because we're not powerless. we have subpoenas and the courts are on our side. >> congressman, if you wouldn't mind holding on for a second, there's another matter i want to ask you about. we have bombshell new reporting from "the new york times" which obtained tax records from ten years of the president's tax history. we've also got an aggressive move by...
114
114
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
with respect to mcgahn just coming to testify wing that's a dead man loser, because mcgahn's l already talked to the special counsel. a lot of the things he said to the special counsel have been made public in that report that we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks. they might have a slightly better argument with respect to the documents that mcgahn has, but with respect to the testimony, i don't see how that wins at all. >> is it invoking executive privilege like invoking the fifth amendment when you testify or invoking a spousal privilege when you testify, once you waive it, that's it? even if it was waived for mueller and we're talking about a different form here, the house judiciary committee? >> yeah, i mean, generally speaking, it can be. there was an argument that the lawyers put forward, which was not a terrible argument. i think in depending what the terms were with bob mueller, that with respect to the testimony of don mcgahn and others, going before the special counsel, if they explicitly reserve their rights and the special counsel agreed to take the testimon
with respect to mcgahn just coming to testify wing that's a dead man loser, because mcgahn's l already talked to the special counsel. a lot of the things he said to the special counsel have been made public in that report that we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks. they might have a slightly better argument with respect to the documents that mcgahn has, but with respect to the testimony, i don't see how that wins at all. >> is it invoking executive privilege like invoking...