before. 1st of march, 1974 with supporting evidence, and that allowed the house to essentially good ahead. and that was considered to be so hot it wasn t released until about seven months ago. and then in the case of the starr report, that was released to the public in september of 1998, and starr sent that immediately to the house, along with 18 boxes of evidence. and once again, the members of the house which was republican at this point said let s impeach, and they began the investigation. there was not this feeling that we have to hold back because maybe we ll look too political. mueller indicated clearly today that his preference is not to have to say another word about the investigation, not to have to testify. is there any help from history on that point? is there precedent in terms of special counsels or other high profile public investigators like this having to testify or electing to testify after making some form of their findings
presidents of war. mr. beschloss, it s great to see you. thanks for being here tonight. thank you. me too, rachel. is this restraint that we re seeing from the democratic leadership in the house, do you think it is unusual given the historical circumstances here? yeah, i do. i think it really defies history. just as you said in the case of richard nixon after the saturday night massacre, a lot of members of the house wanted impeachment, and also leon jaworski, the prosecutor sent this secret over to the house that was called the watergate road map. you and have i talked about that before. 1st of march, 1974 with supporting evidence, and that allowed the house to essentially good ahead. and that was considered to be so hot it wasn t released until about seven months ago. and then in the case of the starr report, that was released to the public in september of 1998, and starr sent that immediately to the house, along with 18 boxes of evidence. and once again, the members of the h