assume the biggest personnel issue is the fact that the recusal by the person that he appointed to head the southern zriktd-district of new york related to the cohen case, i guess is there any way to find out what was said in that meeting? is it possible the transcript should be released or would be released? the transcript should be released. just like i ve insisted that the entire mueller report should be released. and very possibly matt whitaker should be brought back before the committee in public under oath. chairman nadler is a very careful and meticulous attorney. and he uses words carefully. there is a lot of smoke here. which indicates fire. more questions than answers. and very likely there needs to be a release of this transcript, but also more testimony to establish exactly what whitaker is saying. because he seemingly is playing
southern district of new york and whether brighters there went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case against cohen. why does this matter, now that whitaker is gone? as you said, it goes to the question of whether the president was trying to put his thumb on the scale in some way or influence the investigations into cohen where he was directly implicated and in some cases whitaker was on the receiving end of these calls and maybe the only one who really knows what happened. so the ranking member on the committee, congressman doug collins, republican, he disputes almost the entirety of this account, correct? that s right. we have two diametrically opposed versions. collins says nadler s reading into whitaker s testimony, pushed back on nadler s characterization of their interview, downplaying what whitaker told the committee, saying there s simply no evidence whitaker discussed the cohen case with the president. but interestingly, my colleagues manu raju and others on the hil
the meaning of it. is the transcript going to be released? is there any way to tell what whitaker actually said? well, unfortunately for us, this was behind closed doors today. there is no transcript. so like most things in life, it will come down to credibility determination and whose side you believe and which one sounds more like the facts. laura jarrett, thank you. you ll recall the question of whether the president asked him acting attorney general to take action against the southern district. it has come up before. such as this moment not long after whitaker s testimony. did you ask acting attorney general matthew whitaker to change the leadership of the investigation into your former personal attorney michael cohen? no. not at all. i don t know who gave you that that is more fake news. a lot of there is a lot of fake news out there. so does the president still believe that? seeing as kaitlin colins joins
unseemly which are not actually illegal. key question, we need to know more facts. before we reach a conclusion, we need to know what the president s actual words were and what his intent was, to be gleaned from those words. we need to know whether whitaker took any action. how whitaker interpreted it. we re not likely to know those facts in the next 24 hours. the only way to really obtain them is to have whitaker back and chairman nadler has been pursuing very assiduously and meticulously an investigation that has historic consequences. the president s potential conversations with whitaker indicate that he s treating the department of justice like his own personal attorneys. and the american public has a right to wonder why is whitaker so vague and disingenuous if there is nothing to hide. senator blumenthal. i appreciate it, thank you very much. thank you.
end of these calls and maybe the only one who really knows what happened. so the ranking member on the committee, congressman doug collins, republican, he disputes almost the entirety of this account, correct. that is right. we have two diametrically opposed versions. collins pushed back on the interview and down playing what whitaker told the committee and saying there is simply no evidence that whitaker discussed the cohen case with the president but interestingly, my colleagues manu raju and others on the hill thought some of the campaign finance charges against cohen were, quote, specious, pointing to implicate john edwards on similar charges and according to gop aides who were in the room, anderson. i don t quite understand how nadler and the democrat and the republican can have such dia metticry opposed accounting of what whitaker actually said and