there were on members, no staffers there. so we re learning from members as we have the chance to talk to them. but it includes everything from the tax issue to the emoluments, being able to profit the trump organization while in office talking about oversight. so six specifictelligence to ove tax writing committee to judiciary, all of those different ways that they are pursuing democrats are pursuing information, evidence, testimony and the like for a variety of issues that involve the president personally as well as the administration. one of the questions would be have there been financial crimes, have there been misdeeds in that area, have there been issues related to russia not fully unearthed, the obstruction issue which goes to the don mcgahn subpoena which is going to be litigated. so it is that kind of thing, but
really, in either section but it clearly does not exonerate the president with the obstruction issue. which mueller spells out this does not exonerate him. yes. it seems as though white house or former white house counsel don mcgahn would be witness number one in an obstruction case. trump denies the special counsel s report that the president ordered mcgahn to fire mueller. the white house has told mcgahn not to comply with the subpoena. is it really up to the white house whether or not we hear from mcgahn? it is not. they have no control over him. they d have to go to court and get some sort of injunction against his testifying or he could be held in contempt of congress for not appearing. there s just no reason he could not go. he might take the fifth. he might say executive privilege, but he certainly has to appear if called. we still don t know if mueller will testify. what do you see as the potential impact of his testimony?
have read the mueller report, even know what its contents are. so it s early in the process, also. in fact, congressman amash says he believes most lawmakers haven t read the full mueller report. what s your reaction to that? i suspect that is the case. i worked on capitol hill. i was a staffer there on the judiciary committee and know members are awfully busy. today even more so than back when i was there. raising money is their full-time work. so i doubt they have read it. and i think they should. but i m not hopeful. if they read it, do you think it would make a difference? yes, it would make a big difference. it s a very persuasive document. it s not done with any sort of flaring rhetoric. it just lays out fact after fact after fact. and it doesn t draw conclusions really in either section, but it clearly does not exonerate the president with the obstruction
president, if there was a quid pro quo discussed with russia, you do this for us, we ll do this for you. if the russian came back and said we want this from donald trump. that s what i ll be tuned in to and whether or not there is an implication there that trump i m calling on behalf of trump. trump asked me to say this. trump is telling me to tell you this. that will be significant. and then this puts into a new light the actions of barr and rosenstein because now on this obstruction issue, where we re seeing phone calls from a personal lawyer of the president, a voicemail left, other attempts at obstruction, it just even puts in sharper focus how poor the decision was by attorney general barr to just declare that there was no obstruction when, in fact, we re getting more and more meat on that argument that there was, indeed, obstruction. greg, let me read you from federal court filing. this is quoting flynn. the defendant relayed to the government s statements made in
they had a voting committee about contempt. they believe he came before congress and lied. they believe the obstruction issue in the mueller report was ignored by him. they think he ignored other evidence, such as perhaps witness tampering. i asked about all of this. harris, in a word, in an action, he will shrug. this attorney general has made it clear that although he listens to their objections he doesn t much give it attention, or the mind or the time of day. in his words, when he will cry l you is that he was the right man at the right time to come in. he saw the department of justice was out of its lane and he s here to perhaps correct it. 30 years ago, remember, he was the attorney general under george h.w. bush. bush 41. he wants if he doesn t just come looking at ways that he sees now. he s bringing in all of that history and experience with him.