which for the most part has turned a blind eye. and saying it out loud in interviews and tweets, it would be like if the nixon tapes were played in realtime on the evening news back in the early 70s. you could hear it all, right. it makes you curious as to what we re not hearing. we get so much of the inner monologue. he s musing out loud aboutic i could run the investigation myself. we know what he s thinking because he s glaringly transparent. for example, i pulled those security clearances because brennan was involved at the beginning of the russia investigation, not because of anything he said on television. the lester holt interview about why he fired comey. this is jack quinn, former white house counsel, worked in the attorney s office back in the clinton administration, back during the lewinsky investigation. his take on the impact of having it now public knowledge that the white house counsel don mcgahn not only cooperated with investigators but spent 30 hours with the
this guy to be a cooperating witness. we don t have an indication of whether they need anything from him, whether they think he knows anything relevant that they don t already know. i think there s still a question whether wh y when you get in the case of people like michael cohen, is this a credible witness? is this someone you can really use going forward in any case you want to make anyway? to the point we talked earlier, sometimes rudy giuliani when he speaks for the president is trying to make a legal argument. sometimes he s definitely making a political argument. michael cohen is also playing this game a little bit too. he s brought lanny davis, who helped spin in the clinton white house back during the lewinsky investigation. lanny davis is now a legal adviser but more a political adviser to michael cohen, who says this in politico today. i reached out to my old friend john dean because of what he went through with watergate. i saw some parallels to what michael cohen is expe
coming to discussion about reforms that need to be made on the national security front. susan, another sensitive subject, there s a growing chorus of people as you know on the left arguing that if confirmed president trump supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh to recuse himself from decisions related to the special counsel robert mueller s investigation. what is the basis of that argument and do you believe there s any chance kavanaugh would sit those decisions snout. well, i think the basis of that argument is a perception that donald trump selected kavanaugh because of prior statements that kavanaugh made, that trump might think he would rule favorably to him in the russia investigation. i actually think the law review articles misread and kavanaugh probably takes positions adverse to the president but the question is whether in confirmation hearings if there is an appearance that the president made the selection to benefit himself on the questions
the trump administration, with the president who nominated him. there is so far nothing indicating a personal issue with president trump would affect kavanaugh s opinions on the high court. but can robert mueller force the president to testify? president nixon fought a subpoena for his walter gate tapes all the way to the supreme court and lost. president clinton tried to fight a subpoena in the lewinsky investigation, he eventually agreed on his own to appear before a grand jury. giuliani are gutz president trump should be immune from testimony because the it would be too much of a distraction from the president s job. legal scholars are split. there is not a lot of case law in the area. what exists favors mueller, not trump in this fight. the president s have been compelled to appear, have been compelled to produce documents unless the court reverses the precedent, the president would have to appear. now, another big legal battle potentially brewing is whether president trump c
we could have the subpoena quashed. it could go all the way to the supreme court. if it does and brett kavanaugh is on the bench would kavanaugh have to recuse himself from the case. kavanaugh wrote in a law review in 2009, congress might consider a law exempting a president from criminal prosecution and investigation including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. tonight, democrats are pouncing on that. he has even argued that sitting presidents shouldn t face criminal investigation. no investigation of a president. is it any wonder president trump chose kavanaugh from the list of 25? when we know he is obsessed with this investigation. legal experts say just writing that opinion doesn t mean kavanaugh would have to recuse himself. the question is whether there is some reason why his impartiality might fairly be questioned. i think that turns much more on his personal relationships, with