that s how it sort of comes back to cloak the communications. so i mean, this was sounds to me like he didn t like the answer he was getting because he didn t like the fact that flynn was cooperating. that s what he was that s what dowd or whoever it was who was communicating was getting angry at. right? it was the fact that flynn was actually cooperating. and to get angry at a witness for cooperating is trying to dissuade them from cooperating. that is an obstructive act in my mind. now, it s very interesting as you pointed out. i mean you immediately think why is this not yet another obstructive act that trump should be responsible for. let s put the lawyer s awful conduct aside for a second. it seems that mueller wasn t able to get to the bottom of was this is something that was directed by trump, did he have discussions with trump about doing this when he communicated it to flynn s counsel. i think that we can all assume that it was something that trump understood was happening e
defense agreement, which happens automatically when someone is cooperating which by this point they well knew that flynn was cooperating, once the joint defense agreement goes away, there s no basis for him to be sharing for flynn s lawyer to be sharing information anymore with trump s lawyer. i mean, it s not only that he can t.an he shouldn t be, right? because now we have attorney/client privilege be basically in effect again. that s how it sort of comes back to cloak the communications. so i mean, this was sounds to me like he didn t like the answer he was getting because he didn t like the fact that flynn was cooperating. that s what he was that s what dowd or whoever it was who was communicating was getting angry at. right? it was the fact that flynn was actually cooperating. and to get angry at a witness for cooperating is trying to dissuade them from cooperating. that is an obstructive act in my
remember this is what got flynn in hot water in the first place, talking about sanctions with the then russian ambassador and lying about it to the vice president and to the american people. so we could still learn more about this case going forward. so will the transcripts be something if we hear the voice mail. sarah murray, thank you very much. let s analyze. i have ashar rengoppa and frank bruni is a new york times opinion columnist and a cnn contributor. so welcome to both you. asha, you first, does what we ve just learned, this voice mail and communication, does that qualify as obstruction potentially? it can potentially qualify as obstruction. i think it is important to point out that this is actually in the mueller report. it is in volume two around pages 130, 131. you re good. not that i photographically memorized it. but i think it just goes to the volume of information in there. he does say that this could be an obstructive act.
it really, i think, cuts against the president s you know, the sort of argument that this is something other than political, right? it sort of made this into a much more political event than i think it should have been. so it is really hard for me to understand from the legal vantage point why he would walk into that room even for a minute. rich, do you see it as a problem? no, not if the if it is true that he was just there at the beginning and didn t actually participate in the briefing and just emphasized that the president does have an interest in transparency. i don t see what the problem is with the president having an interest in transparency. i mean there are a lot of questions about this investigation and how it began, that congress has a right to look into. i think it is ridiculous as we heard from the congressman a little earlier the make every single thing the white house does with regard to this investigation another obstructive act that perhaps might be another su
minute. rich, do you see it as a problem? no, not if the if it is true that he was just there at the beginning and didn t actually participate in the briefing and just emphasized that the president does have an interest in transparency. i don t see what the problem is with the president having an interest in transparency. i mean there are a lot of questions about this investigation and how it began, that congress has a right to look into. i think it is ridiculous as we heard from the congressman a little earlier the make every single thing the white house does with regard to this investigation another obstructive act that perhaps might be another subject for the this investigation, which is turning into you don t think there s any sub text to his appearance there? i think the subtext was probably the text, which is the president is interested in the most possible transparency about what occurred here, consistent with protecting sources and methods. so do you think when