capitol hill. also, this is important, they really want that supporting underlying evidence to also be released. this is something they ll certainly be hearing a lot from democrats. this is the senate minority leader chuck schumer last night. now that special counsel mueller has submitted his report to the attorney general, it is imperative for mr. barr to make the full report public and provide its under lying documentation to congress. attorney general barr must not give president trump, his lawyers or his staff any sneak preview of special counsel mueller s findings and evidence. as you ve been talking about this morning, attorney general bill barr, in his letter to congress, they made it clear that they could spotentially be getting information and certainly, lawmakers and staffers up on the hill are
of the obstruction type things. we don t know what other part of mueller investigation fed into the ongoing encounter intelligence going on inside the fbi. we don t know the things that ll be revealed to congress will end up leading to new investigations. so we really don t know. washington s great gain has been when will we see the report. today s great game is what s in the report. everyone is speculating and barr knows what s in the report, we don t yet. and no one around him has done anything wrong and the fact that seven of his key advisers have been indicted in this thing and 20 something others indicted. mueller is laying out a path work to show us how russia is playing in the 2016 election. i don t think this premature
american people enough that they feel satisfied that they have a sense of what this investigation is about, but then have to walk that line that michael was talking about that he has to protect that line that he legally can t divulge. underlying the whole issue here, the doj policy is you don t indict a sitting president. what is it in this report, what does it say about donald trump s actions? that s why democrats want it so badly to become public. they said this is about their responsibility of oversight and if there should be impeachment proceedings, were there high crimes that they need to investigate. that s buy they re pushing saying he can t be shielded because doj policy says you can t indict a sitting president, if in fact there is a crime and activity that mueller found but he can t charge. yes. there is this narrative of victory or defeat 12 hours in. and we don t have anything from the report. we don t know what s in it. we don t know.
so matthew, there was also the reporting jared kushner spoke to them and sergei about set something up a back channel between the trump transition team and russia and remember, it was kushner who according to the washington post wanted to use russian diplomatic facilities and equipment so they wouldn t be monitored. will we learn what was going on with that? you know, again, will we learn from this report? i don t know. we know a lot about that and, you know, is it unseemly? that s unseemly. is it illegal? probably not. doesn t look like it. nobody is being charged in connection with it. that s time and again that you come back to with the mueller investigation. this is about criminal charges. building a criminal conspiracy case is difficult and complicated but all political collections one should ask and americans will get a chance to ask and answer again. unanswered questions about two trump associates cooperating with investigators, rick gates and michael flynn.
we don t know if mueller believes the president told the truth or not, do we? no, we really don t. given the doj s policy given indictment of a president, i think the lack of an indictment doesn t mean anything and the devil is in the details of the report. i will say i find it very unusual that mueller concluded the investigation without interviewing the president or at least trying to seek that interview so one thing that s interesting is to find out what steps mueller took to get a sitdown interview with trump and why he ultimately decided he was not going to pursue a subpoena or try to compel the testimony and maybe he had enough information that didn t indicate the president did anything wrong? therefore didn t need to do it. you know, i got to say it s possible but based on publicly available information, hard to believe on obstruction issues he wouldn t want to speak to the president to find out his intent, his thoughts on it. on that issue it s very hard for me to under