at the same time, what happened here is the justice department got the information from the national security council from the cia who got it first and they referred it to the criminal division which is within the justice department, responsible for prosecuting crimes. they looked it and assessed there was no crime here. bob mueller charged the russian folks with violations, conspiracies that involve underlying campaign finance violations. there may be a legal theory under which you could prosecute. the question is what is the justice department going to do and their assessment was there was no violation. they re entitled to make that judgment. they could refer is to the u.s. for dc and we could see what happens there. eric: i don t know if your wife wants groceries or if it s a viewer, but if you want to put your iphone on silence for a second because they re going to get you again. carrie kupak said this. the president has not asked the attorney general to contact ukraine on this or
they re out of control. the socialist democrats in washington are now the party of impeachment. and literally, just a few days ago, they were as you said talking about impeaching justice kavanaugh and they had a whistleblower complaint. they now are shifting back over to impeaching the president which they said they wanted to do. reporter: house democrats have insisted they have every right and really the responsibility to hold the president accountable, especially after a whistleblower raised concerns the president was trying to get ukraine to dig up dirt on his potential 2020 rival, former vice president joe biden. i think we have to stay focused as far as the public is concerned on the fact that the president of the united states used taxpayer dollars to shake down the leader of another country for his own political gain. reporter: lawmakers say they also want to know if the white house tried to cover up the conversation the president had with the president of ukraine by pla
the underlying matter, but also his analysis of whether there was a crime here. if in fact the congress goes forward with the impeachment effort, the ag will be likely called to testify because he appears to be a material part of this question. that alone may be a basis for recusal. the last time a an attorney general recused from a matter involved in the president, the president got very upset. we saw the shaming of jeff sessions all over twitter. that i may take effect if the attorney general decides to recuse. eric: the democrats and those in the hill will probably be hearing from him, rather shortly. always good to see you, thank you. appreciate it. eric: we have reaction from a member of congress coming up. we ll interview him about the subpoena of mike pompeo and this
matter. she said the president has not spoken with the attorney general about having ukraine investigate anything relating to former vice president biden or his son. so that s a pretty clear statement there. you have this in usa today. quote, make no mistake, these facts now implicate the attorney general, the nation s chief law enforcement officer directly in the commission of acts that many of our country s leading legal experts consider federal crimes. whether as election law violations, bribery or other offenses concerning public corruption. the revelation of the possible involvement should alarm all of us concerned with the rule of law in this country. at a minimum, it s no longer sustainable for the attorney general to oversee the handling of the ukraine scandal. how do the facts implicate the attorney general if the doj says he wasn t involved. i think the real challenge as you point out, eric, correctly, is this question of what did the ag do and when, what was the involvemen
not clear what the ag s role if any was in this matter and the underlying matter at all. eric: the democrats say that the picture s already in, it s clear that he s doing the president s bidding, they accuse him of acting like the president s personal lawyer by the actions the justice department apparently took by not releasing this material, by not sending it to congress and you heard nancy pelosi calling it the coverup of the coverup. of tto you, does that hold any water? there s a very fair debate going on about whether or how the whistleblower complaint should have been delivered to congress. the question is whether this was a matter arising under the intelligence role of the dni. there was apparently a debate within the justice department, whether that was the case, they decided no which is why they advised the dni not to release it. it involved the use of the intelligence system at the white house where they stored the material and whether the underlying discussions came under