ideal, but they are working aggressively behind the scenes to try to figure out how to get some of those key people before their committee in the public. and they re being stonewalled, not responding to testify at all. laura, the former u.s. attorney joyce vance also testified. i want to get your reaction to this exchange with sheila jackson lee where she reads in the mueller rart about the call trump made directing mcgahn to fire mueller. watch this. mcgahn recalled the president saying mueller has to go. and call me back. when you do it, mcgahn understood the president to be saying that the special counsel had to be removed by rosenstein. what do you believe or what is your reaction to this exchange, and would you find such behavior concerning? professor vance and then professor mcquaid. yes, this conduct to me seems to have all the elements prosecutors would need to have to successfully charge obstruction of justice. there s an obstructive act, the
effort to go ahead and have the special counsel fired. there s a nexus to an investigation. at this point the president is aware that the investigation is ongoing. and there appears to be a corrupt motive as well curtailing the special counsel s investigation. this entire series of conversations and conduct is deeply troubling. laura, all the elements to successfully charge obstruction and that s just one of the episodes mueller lays out in his report. she s right on all front seat and frankly this highlights again whatnot only mueller said in his written report but also in his press conference and that william barr the attorney general really just was dismissive about and that is but for that olc opinion, you cannot indict a sitting president, perhaps they would have either made a decision or acted differently and you have the elements laid out and again the fact that the president of the united states is indeed the president of the united states is really in many ways
commit a crime were attorney client privilege conversations or just they couldn t they couldn t prove intent. the fact that you couldn t prove that he intended to obstructs justice doesn t mean it s not an obstructive act. that s one of the things that mueller made a note of in the report when citing in particular thing. and then also finally the last i know i m rambling a bit. they dangle a pardon. and again, the president s pardon power is absolute. but i don t think the framers when granting the president clemency power intended for the president of the united states to be pardoning floating pardons to people merely to sort of assure silence or assure testimony. so there is just a lot going on. and it just speaks to poor judgment at a minimum and a maximum criminal conduct by the cht united states. susan page, i got one for you. this is former democratic congressman from maryland dona edwards in washington post today about now exacts need to
trace the president s intent to it partly because many of the communications between the president and dowd that could have established the president s intent that he intended to commit a crime, attorney/client conversations, right? or they couldn t neal said they couldn t prove intent. the fact that you couldn t the fact that you couldn t prove that he intended to obstruct justice doesn t mean it s not an obstructive act. that s one of the things that mueller made a note of in the report, you know, when citing this particular thing. and then also, finally, the last point, i know i m rambling a little bit, they dangle a pardon and, again, the president s pardon power is pretty absolute, but i don t think the framers when granting the president clemency power intended for a president of the united states to be pardoning, floating pardons to people merely to sort of assure their silence or assure their testimony. so there s a lot going on and it just speaks to poor judgment at a mini
thought was ultimately obstructive but couldn t find or trace the president s intent to it partly because many of the communications between the president and dowd that could have established the president s intent that he intended to commit a crime, attorney/client conversations, right? or they couldn t neal said they couldn t prove intent. the fact that you couldn t the fact that you couldn t prove that he intended to obstruct justice doesn t mean it s not an obstructive act. that s one of the things that mueller made a note of in the report, you know, when citing this particular thing. and then also, finally, the last point, i know i m rambling a little bit, they dangle a pardon and, again, the president s pardon power is pretty absolute, but i don t think the framers when granting the president clemency power intended for a president of the united states to be pardoning, floating pardons to people merely to sort of assure their silence or assure their testimony. so there s a lo