we did not make that calculation. how could you not have made the calculation with the regulations the olc opinion, office of legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. so one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? yes. you believe that he committed you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? yes. it s remarkable. yes. but just revisiting that exchange and the aftermath of yesterday s testimony or yesterday s transcript release of don mcgahn s testimony before congress, because that transcript makes it abundantly clear. any honest conversation surrounding donald trump s conduct in office centers not on whether you think he criminally obstructed justice but whether you care that he absolutely, positively did. so, given what robert mueller said there, what now? is it time to prosecute him? he s out of offi
is big news in this inquiry and very bad news for this white house. anderson? jim acosta, thanks very much. congressman ro khanna sits on the oversight committee, which has helped conduct the closed door hearings that have laid much of the groundwork for what we re going to see on wednesday. he joins me now. in today s transcript release, we learned that a person named laura cooper, the pentagon s deputy assistant secretary for russia, testified that ukraine was very much aware of their military aid being blocked and that a statement on opening investigations would unfreeze the aid. i m wondering how critical is what ukraine knew and when they knew it to the overall case that you re presenting to the american public. well, it s absolutely critical. it goes to the pressure that they were facing, and they actually didn t want this revealed because they felt that their relationship with the united states was at risk. here, anderson, is the important part. laura cooper, the career of
this is not a quid pro quo. i want him to clean up corruption before i give him $400 million. the president of ukraine said no, i was never threatened by president trump, i never believed there was a quid pro quo where i had to investigate joe biden and hunter biden to get $400 million of military aid. the whole thing is a joke. the whole thing is being driven bipartisans in the house. adam schiff is not looking for the truth and the testimony is incoherrent. it depends on who you talk to but there is one common theme. the president of ukraine and the president of the united states have both said there was no quid pro quo. martha: with regard to adam schiff, here is what he said today when he walked out of this transcript release. most important facts are largely not contested. the president enlisted whole departments of government in the illicit aim of trying to get ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent as well as further conspiracy theory about
thenman has direct knowledge of the phone call between donald trump and the recently elected ukrainian leader which launched democrats impeachment inquiry, quote, i listened in on the call. i did not think it was proper to demand a foreign government investigator us citizen and i was worried about the implications for the us government support in ukraine. house lawmakers debated the significance of his testimony among familiar party lines. the transcript release for today s deposition you will see how much you were misled. you will see how much you have been misled on so many different depositions on so many different days. this is about the united states constitution, the rule of law, this is about national security, this is about abuse of power, the fact that the president betrayed his oath of office. reporter: last summer all was going well until the ukrainians brushed the meeting between donald trump and ukrainian counterpart at which point he