30
30
May 22, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 30
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to quote absolute immunity unquote from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked his former counsel harriet myers to ignore a subpoena issued by this committee. ms. myers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates who was appointed by president bush slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. the asserted absolute immu
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to quote absolute immunity unquote from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified...
33
33
May 22, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 33
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to absolute immunity from our subpoenas. wrongw this argument is because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush similarlyto invoke a broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked former counsel harriet miers, who ignored a subpoena issued by this committee. miers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. the judge slapped down that executiveuickly, "the cannot identify a single opinion immunity for presidential advisers in this or any context." that bears repeating. the asserted absolute immunity claim here is unsupported by case law. close quote from the judicial decision. in other words, when this committee issued a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness mu
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he is entitled to absolute immunity from our subpoenas. wrongw this argument is because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007 president george bush similarlyto invoke a broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked former...
111
111
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 111
favorite 0
quote 1
that he had not asked mcgahn to fire the special counsel. mcgahn refused. and there's some speculation as to whether he risks being dismissed or resigning over this issue. for you to suggest this was some sort of a kabuki dance with rod rosenstein, i think the president's intent was very clear. he wanted this to end. he told lester holt, going back to the issue that was raised by the chairman, the reason to get rid of comey is because of the russia investigation. over and over again this president was explicit. it certainly is very expository in a style. let me ask you this, my time is up, do you have any objections, can you think of an obstruction of why don mcgahn shouldn't testify about this experience? >> yes, i mean, i think that he's a close advisor to the president. >> never exerted executive privilege. >> we haven't waived privilege. >> what about bob mueller, should he be allowed -- >> i already said publicly i have no objection. >> don mcgahn, should he be allowed today testi testify. >> it's a call for the president to make. i assume he's be test
that he had not asked mcgahn to fire the special counsel. mcgahn refused. and there's some speculation as to whether he risks being dismissed or resigning over this issue. for you to suggest this was some sort of a kabuki dance with rod rosenstein, i think the president's intent was very clear. he wanted this to end. he told lester holt, going back to the issue that was raised by the chairman, the reason to get rid of comey is because of the russia investigation. over and over again this...
78
78
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 78
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn would call rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and was worn down so he wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because did he not follow the president wants directive did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. called his personal lawyer. then called his chief of staff. then the report says he went to his office, packet up his stuff, submitted his resignation letter and later told priebus and ban anyone band urged him not to do it. mcgahn returned to work and remained to his position. he never gave that order. the mueller report then continues. stay with me. around the same time chris christie recalled a telephone call with the president in which the president asked that christie, what christie thought about the president firing the special counsel? christie advised against doing so because there was no substantive basis for the president to fire the special counsel. and because the pr
mcgahn would call rosenstein. mcgahn recalled that he had already said no to the president's request and was worn down so he wanted to get off the phone. mcgahn recalled feeling trapped because did he not follow the president wants directive did not know what he would say the next time the president called. mcgahn decided he had to resign. called his personal lawyer. then called his chief of staff. then the report says he went to his office, packet up his stuff, submitted his resignation letter...
81
81
May 10, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 81
favorite 0
quote 0
when ever mcgahn rebuffed him, what did the white house strategy become, attempting to prevent mcgahn to testify. they attempted to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell. when he said i'm not going to do that, they pivoted their tactic to prevent him from testifying at all. >> you heard preet say it was hovering close to witness tampering. what do you think? >> as we have seen with the mueller report, the various elements of the obstruction crimes of witness tampering can be complex and need to know the various pieces of information. mcgahn wasn't necessarily going to be testifying. the president's overall hostility to the law. this is not about the president not understanding the various technicalities. he should no better than anyone this stuff is deeply inappropriate. it walks right up against the line of criminal law and yet he cannot resist engaging this behavior. >> it's clear the president believes this is politically damaging to him. one of these occasions was even before the mueller report was available to the public to read. after his lawyers got an early look fr
when ever mcgahn rebuffed him, what did the white house strategy become, attempting to prevent mcgahn to testify. they attempted to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell. when he said i'm not going to do that, they pivoted their tactic to prevent him from testifying at all. >> you heard preet say it was hovering close to witness tampering. what do you think? >> as we have seen with the mueller report, the various elements of the obstruction crimes of witness tampering...
71
71
May 4, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 71
favorite 0
quote 0
if you go back and look at the episode where mcgahn -- the president gave mcgahn an instruction, mcgahn's version of that is quite clear in each time that he gave it and that was that the instruction said go to rosenstein. raise the interest of conflict of interest, and mueller has to go because of his conflict of interest. so there is no dwhae that, that whatever instruction was given to mcgahn had to do with mueller's conflict of interest. the president later said that what he meant is that the conflict of interest should be raised with rosenstein, but the decision should be left with ro rosenstein. on the other end of the spectrum, mcgahn felt it was more directed and the president was saying push rosenstein to invoke a conflict of interest to push mueller out. where ever it fell on that spectrum of interest, the "new york times" story was very difficult. the "new york times" story said the president directed the firing of mueller, told mcgahn mueller. there is something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a spec
if you go back and look at the episode where mcgahn -- the president gave mcgahn an instruction, mcgahn's version of that is quite clear in each time that he gave it and that was that the instruction said go to rosenstein. raise the interest of conflict of interest, and mueller has to go because of his conflict of interest. so there is no dwhae that, that whatever instruction was given to mcgahn had to do with mueller's conflict of interest. the president later said that what he meant is that...
87
87
May 13, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 87
favorite 0
quote 0
the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice and mcgahn refused. >>> actress felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to paying a large sum of money to help her daughter get into college. >>> good morning, everybody, it is monday, may 13th, i'm yasmin vossoughian along side geoff bennett. let's start with the stock market. as u.s. and china negotiators appear far party in resolving president trump's trade war. on friday, the trump administration added fuel to the fire raising tariff rates on $200 billion worth of chinese goods to 25%. and over the weekend, the president issued a lengthy tweet storm beginning on saturday writing in part this, i think that china felt they are being beaten so badly in the recent negotiations that they may as well wait around for the next election to see if they could get lucky and have a democrat win in which case they would continue a ripoff of the united states. the only problem is they know i am going to win and the deal will become far worse for them if it has to be negotiated my
the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice and mcgahn refused. >>> actress felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to paying a large sum of money to help her daughter get into college. >>> good morning, everybody, it is monday, may 13th, i'm yasmin vossoughian along side geoff bennett. let's start with the stock market. as u.s. and china negotiators appear far party in resolving president trump's trade...
241
241
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
KPIX
tv
eye 241
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now, there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then, as the report says and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and he wanted mczban gahn to correct i. so we believed it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing mcgahn to say something false because it wasn't necessarily false. moreover, mcgahn had weeks before already given testimony to the special counsel, and the president was aware of that. as the report indicates, it could also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear that he never outright directed the firing of mueller. so in terms of the request t
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now, there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then, as the report says and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and he wanted mczban gahn to correct i. so we...
58
58
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 58
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and wanted mcgahn to correct t we believe it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing mcgahn to say something false because it wasn't necessarily false. moreover, mcgahn had, weeks before, already given testimony to the special counsel and the president was aware of that. and as the report indicates, it could also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear that he never outright directed the firing of mueller. so, in terms of the request to ask mcgahn t
he told mcgahn, fire mueller. now there's something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests you're going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that "the times" article was inaccurate and wanted mcgahn to correct t we believe it would be...
57
57
May 17, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 57
favorite 0
quote 1
mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, annie donaldson, to inform her of his decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. donaldson recalled that mcgahn told her the president had called and demanded he contact the department of justice and that the president wanted him to do something that mcgahn did not want to do. mcgahn told donaldson that the president had called at least twice and in one of the calls asked, have you done it? mcgahn did not tell donaldson the specifics of the president's request because he was consciously trying not to involve her in the investigation, but donaldson inferred that the president's directive was related to the russia investigation. donaldson prepared to resign along with mcgahn. that evening, mcgahn called both priebus and bannon and told him that he intended to resign. mcgahn recalled that, after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the president's request,
mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer and then called his chief of staff, annie donaldson, to inform her of his decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. donaldson recalled that mcgahn told her the president had called and demanded he contact the department of justice and that the president wanted him to do something that mcgahn did not want to do. mcgahn told donaldson that the president had called at least twice...
55
55
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 55
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn fire mueller. there's something very different about firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed from conflict which suggests you'll have another special counsel. the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times' article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. we believe it would be impossible for the government to say beyond all reasonable doubt. mcgahn before had given testimony to this special counsel and the president was aware of that. and as the report indicates, it would also have been the case that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear he never directed the outright firing of mueller. in terms of the request to ask mcgahn to memorialize that fact, we do not think in this case that the government could show correct intent beyond a reasonable doubt. >> just to finish this, but you still have a
he told mcgahn fire mueller. there's something very different about firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed from conflict which suggests you'll have another special counsel. the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says, and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times' article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. we believe it would be impossible for the...
38
38
May 3, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 38
favorite 0
quote 0
not to object to the disclosures that mcgahn made. and that to me is a waiver of executive privilege. putting aside the issue of whether he could do it at all, but this seems to be an absolutely clear case of waiver. and once you allow a privilege to be violated, any privilege, whether it's a marital privilege or religious privilege or executive privilege, you can't then say oh, by the way, now i want to protect the information that might be covered. so i think if it goes to court, he'll lose. he'll be able to delay it. but i think he'll lose. >> robert, do you agree he would lose in court? >> not so sure about that. i know -- i respect jeffrey's view. i know that jerry nadler is of a similar view. in fact, we raised it, anderson, you and i when he was on set with me i guess several weeks ago. i think it's one thing to say that, you know, within the executive branch was sort of the first round of this, i don't think there can be a waiver. the only place where a waiver arguably occurs is at the point at which the white house and in thi
not to object to the disclosures that mcgahn made. and that to me is a waiver of executive privilege. putting aside the issue of whether he could do it at all, but this seems to be an absolutely clear case of waiver. and once you allow a privilege to be violated, any privilege, whether it's a marital privilege or religious privilege or executive privilege, you can't then say oh, by the way, now i want to protect the information that might be covered. so i think if it goes to court, he'll lose....
94
94
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 94
favorite 0
quote 0
he told mcgahn fire mueller. now, there is something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you are going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. so we believe that it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing mcgahn to say something false. because it wasn't necessarily false. moreover, mcgahn had weeks before already given testimony to the special counsel and the president was aware of that. and as the report indicates, it could also have been the case that what -- that he was primarily concerned about press reports and making it clear that he never outright directed the firing of mueller. so in terms
he told mcgahn fire mueller. now, there is something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you are going to have another special counsel. so the fact is that even under mcgahn's -- and then as the report says and recognizes, there is evidence the president truly felt that the times article was inaccurate and he wanted mcgahn to correct it. so we believe that it...
53
53
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 53
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn refused to do it. there is nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your march 24th letter. >> that's your characterization of it. it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. there are very plausible alternative explanations. but the -- what i was trying to get out was the final report and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it clear in the march 24th letter that bob mueller didn't make a decision, but that he felt he could not exonerate the president. >> that's right. >> i wasn't hiding on where mueller was. he was presenting both sides of the issue. he was not making a call. he felt he couldn't exonerate the president. and then i briefly described the process we went through to make a judgment. as i say, from the public interest standpoint i think it should be the complete report. >> i know we differ in our conclusions about what that meant, but my concern is that that gave president trump and his folks more than three weeks
mcgahn refused to do it. there is nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your march 24th letter. >> that's your characterization of it. it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. there are very plausible alternative explanations. but the -- what i was trying to get out was the final report and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it clear in the march 24th letter that bob mueller didn't make a decision, but that...
46
46
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 46
favorite 0
quote 0
the last point i want to make is about don mcgahn. if you read the section here, 113 to 120 on don mcgahn's experience, the president wanted him to state publicly that the "new york times" article was untrue, that he had not asked mcgahn to fire the special counsel. mcgahn refused and there's speculation as to whether he risked being dismissed or even resigning over this issue. and for you to suggest that this was some sort of a dance with rod rosenstein, i think the president's intent here was very clear. he wanted this to end. he told lester holt, going back to the issue that was raised by the chairman earlier here, the reason to get rid of comey is because of the russian investigation. over and over again, the president was very explicit and certainly was very expository in his style. let me ask you this conclusion. my time is up. do you have any objections? can you think of an objection about why don mcgahn shouldn't come before this committee and testify about his experience? >> yes. i think he is a close adviser to the president
the last point i want to make is about don mcgahn. if you read the section here, 113 to 120 on don mcgahn's experience, the president wanted him to state publicly that the "new york times" article was untrue, that he had not asked mcgahn to fire the special counsel. mcgahn refused and there's speculation as to whether he risked being dismissed or even resigning over this issue. and for you to suggest that this was some sort of a dance with rod rosenstein, i think the president's...
122
122
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 122
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he entitled to absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branches tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly unjustified and asked his former counsel to ignore subpoena issued by this committee. ms. myers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates who was appointed by president bush slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a singal judicial opinion that recognizes immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by the case law. close quote from th
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he entitled to absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course, because the executive branches tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly unjustified and asked his...
44
44
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 44
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn refused to do it. again, there's nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your march 24th letter, is there? >> well, that's your characterization of it. i think it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. i think -- >> an important point -- >> there are very plausible alternative explanations. but the -- what i was trying to get out was the final report and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it clear in this march 24th letter that bob mueller didn't make a decision but that he felt he could not exonerate the president -- >> that's right. >> i wasn't hiding it. he was presenting both sides of the issue, all the evidence, but he was not making a call, but he felt he couldn't exonerate the president. and then i briefly described the process we went through to make a judgment internal into the department of justice. and as i say, from the public interest standpoint, i felt there should be only one thing issued and it should be the
mcgahn refused to do it. again, there's nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your march 24th letter, is there? >> well, that's your characterization of it. i think it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. i think -- >> an important point -- >> there are very plausible alternative explanations. but the -- what i was trying to get out was the final report and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it...
137
137
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 137
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. the president says house democrats shouldn't get a do over. a federal judge ruled against the president last night. cummings has requested 10 years of the president's financial records. the white house argues the subpoena is an abuse of power. the federal judge disagrees and determined the president's accounting firm must provide those financial records to congress. >> president trump: as far as the financials are concerned. we think it's the wrong -- it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an obama-appointed judge. >> this issue among several others between house democrats and the white house will continue to work their way through the federal court system to determine how much congress can obtain from the president and how much the white house can do to withhold. jon. >> jon: the battle goes on. rich edson at the white house. thanks. >> sandra: and as william barr launches investigations into the origins of the russia probe, some of those investigators could be turning on each
mcgahn. the president says house democrats shouldn't get a do over. a federal judge ruled against the president last night. cummings has requested 10 years of the president's financial records. the white house argues the subpoena is an abuse of power. the federal judge disagrees and determined the president's accounting firm must provide those financial records to congress. >> president trump: as far as the financials are concerned. we think it's the wrong -- it's totally the wrong...
94
94
May 13, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 94
favorite 0
quote 0
. >>> the president lashes out at don mcgahn, following reports that the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice but mcgahn refused. >>> felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to help her daughter get into college. . >>> good morning, everybody. it is monday, may 13th. i'm yasmin vossoughian alongside nbc news white house correspondent jeff bennett who is in more ayman mohyeldin. >>> stock market bracing for another dumpy ride as u.s. and chinese negotiatiors are far apart on reaching a deal. over the weekend the president issued a lengthy tweet storm beginning on saturday writing in part this, i think that the china felt that they were being beaten so badly in the recent negotiation that they may as well wait around for the next election to see if they can get lucky and have a democrat win. in which case they will continue to rip off the usa. . the only problem is they know i'll win and the deal will become far worse for them if they have to be negotiated in my second term. be wise for them to act now. then 23
. >>> the president lashes out at don mcgahn, following reports that the white house asked mcgahn to publicly state that trump didn't obstruct justice but mcgahn refused. >>> felicity huffman heads to court today where she's expected to plead guilty to help her daughter get into college. . >>> good morning, everybody. it is monday, may 13th. i'm yasmin vossoughian alongside nbc news white house correspondent jeff bennett who is in more ayman mohyeldin. >>>...
75
75
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 75
favorite 0
quote 0
about that, lie in mcgahn's view. and then he tries to get him to write a memo, stating for the record, having nothing to do with the "new york times" or "the washington post," stating like, he never asked him to fire mueller. and eventually, you know, with president trump attacking mcgahn so often, mcgahn might feel the need to come forward and say, no, this is what happened. >> no question. i mean, he was taking clear notes and his assistant was taking clear notes, when he knew that there was an investigation underway. anyone who's a lawyer, don mcgahn, obviously, mueller, they know where this is going. when there's a written record of something, that is information that can be, you know -- can go to the public. and they did that knowing that, i think. i think what's pivotal here is for democrats to not get distracted by barr. yes, it's a call for him to resi resign. he doesn't care what he thinks, that's good politics. call for him to be impeached if you're a presidential candidate. but this is about president trum
about that, lie in mcgahn's view. and then he tries to get him to write a memo, stating for the record, having nothing to do with the "new york times" or "the washington post," stating like, he never asked him to fire mueller. and eventually, you know, with president trump attacking mcgahn so often, mcgahn might feel the need to come forward and say, no, this is what happened. >> no question. i mean, he was taking clear notes and his assistant was taking clear notes,...
91
91
May 3, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 91
favorite 0
quote 0
it's done. >> the white house has no leverage over mcgahn. if he wants to testify there's nothing the president can do. >> executive privilege is there. he has a really strong case. >> if it goes to court he will be able to delay it but he will lose. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day." it is friday, may 3rd, 8:00 now in the east. former white house counsel don mcgahn had a lot to say when he spoke to special counsel robert mueller's team for more than 30 hours, but if president trump has his way mcgahn will not be doing any more talking. despite a subpoena from congress. so what do democrats do now about the stonewalling coming from the white house? >> the chairman of the house judiciary mmte
it's done. >> the white house has no leverage over mcgahn. if he wants to testify there's nothing the president can do. >> executive privilege is there. he has a really strong case. >> if it goes to court he will be able to delay it but he will lose. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day." it is friday, may 3rd, 8:00 now in the east. former white house counsel...
152
152
May 13, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 152
favorite 0
quote 1
mcgahn in the report and i don't think that helped convince mcgahn to put the statement out. >> the inverse would be true as well. if he refused to say that, he might refuse to give the help to the democrats. >>> after the break, donald trump's war on the fbi continues with a new attack on director chris wray. and fear mongering from the president about a coupe. >>> and the world on fire as donald trump flails on the world stage with china, new fears he's inching the u.s. to a conflict with iran. and joe biden stays on message and surges in south carolina. we'll check in with all the 2020 democratic candidates. all those stories coming up. dem. all those stories coming up. i switched to liberty mutual, because they let me customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >>> our justice department and our fbi have to start doing their job and doing it right and doing it now. >> these are the top people at the
mcgahn in the report and i don't think that helped convince mcgahn to put the statement out. >> the inverse would be true as well. if he refused to say that, he might refuse to give the help to the democrats. >>> after the break, donald trump's war on the fbi continues with a new attack on director chris wray. and fear mongering from the president about a coupe. >>> and the world on fire as donald trump flails on the world stage with china, new fears he's inching the...
134
134
May 2, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 134
favorite 0
quote 0
i think we will hear from mcgahn. this is consistent with everything that has happened since we've learned that mueller sent the document, sent the volumes over to barr, which is you are just going to delay every little thing. it's exhausting, of course, but you're going to delay everything. now they said oh, mcgahn, he can't testify. i think the most telling thing from yesterday is barr says i want to personally disapprove of mueller testifying. you're the attorney general. what does that mean? you don't have personal opinions. >> right. this isn't the forum for your personal opinion? >> does that mean professionally you might not have him testify? it's going to be like this for years. >> let me play the exchange yesterday between dick durbin and bill barr about mcgahn. here it is. >> yeah. >> can you think of an objection of why don mcgahn shouldn't come testify before this committee about his experience? >> yes. i mean, i think he's -- he -- he's a close advisor to the president and the president -- >> never assert
i think we will hear from mcgahn. this is consistent with everything that has happened since we've learned that mueller sent the document, sent the volumes over to barr, which is you are just going to delay every little thing. it's exhausting, of course, but you're going to delay everything. now they said oh, mcgahn, he can't testify. i think the most telling thing from yesterday is barr says i want to personally disapprove of mueller testifying. you're the attorney general. what does that...
129
129
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 129
favorite 0
quote 1
if you go back and look at the episode where mcgahn -- the president gave mcgahn an instruction, mcgahn's version of that is quite clear in each time that he gave it and that was that the instruction said go to rosenstein. raise the interest of conflict of interest, and mueller has to go because of his conflict of interest. so there is no dwhae that, that whatever instruction was given to mcgahn had to do with mueller's conflict of interest. the president later said that what he meant is that the conflict of interest should be raised with rosenstein, but the decision should be left with ro rosenstein. on the other end of the spectrum, mcgahn felt it was more directed and the president was saying push rosenstein to invoke a conflict of interest to push mueller out. where ever it fell on that spectrum of interest, the "new york times" story was very difficult. the "new york times" story said the president directed the firing of mueller, told mcgahn mueller. there is something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a spec
if you go back and look at the episode where mcgahn -- the president gave mcgahn an instruction, mcgahn's version of that is quite clear in each time that he gave it and that was that the instruction said go to rosenstein. raise the interest of conflict of interest, and mueller has to go because of his conflict of interest. so there is no dwhae that, that whatever instruction was given to mcgahn had to do with mueller's conflict of interest. the president later said that what he meant is that...
111
111
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 111
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn ii. you are hereby commanded to be and appear before the committee of the judiciary of the house -- committee on the judiciary of the house of representatives of the united states at the place, date and time specified below. they say the testimony will take place in the rayburn house office building in washington, d.c. on may 21st, 2019. time of testimony 10:00 a.m. now since that subpoena was issued to don mcgahn to come testify about what he told mueller's investigators and what he saw of the president's behavior that was described in such detail in mueller's report, since that subpoena was made public right after mueller's report came out, the white house has been full of bluster about it, right? the president himself saying in an interview on fox news that he would not let don mcgahn testify. he would not let mcgahn respond to that subpoena for his testimony. now it is not up to the president whether or not some third party is allowed to testify in response to a congressional subpoena
mcgahn ii. you are hereby commanded to be and appear before the committee of the judiciary of the house -- committee on the judiciary of the house of representatives of the united states at the place, date and time specified below. they say the testimony will take place in the rayburn house office building in washington, d.c. on may 21st, 2019. time of testimony 10:00 a.m. now since that subpoena was issued to don mcgahn to come testify about what he told mueller's investigators and what he saw...
75
75
May 2, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 75
favorite 0
quote 0
the points did the president tell mcgahn to do something, to get rid of him in the a.g. says, i don't think he meant it that way. he didn't use the word "fire." there are alternate meanings of what could have happened. where do you get the confidence in that? >> well, you left out another key component of that clip which is after the president asked mcgahn to get rid of the special counsel, he then asked mcgahn to falsify a paper trail so that it never showed that he made that request. so that itself there shows a corrupt intent. it shows that he's trying to conceal what he was in fact trying to do. as far as barr can know, he cannot. as you mentioned, there was no interview done of the president. there were no written answers given. so he has only mueller's evidence, which he admitted today in his testimony that he himself has not reviewed. if what he's doing is what legal scholars say is a day novo review of all of it brand-new, he has to go to the underlying evidence, and he basically admit head didn't do that. from what i could tell, he's barely read the report. >> a
the points did the president tell mcgahn to do something, to get rid of him in the a.g. says, i don't think he meant it that way. he didn't use the word "fire." there are alternate meanings of what could have happened. where do you get the confidence in that? >> well, you left out another key component of that clip which is after the president asked mcgahn to get rid of the special counsel, he then asked mcgahn to falsify a paper trail so that it never showed that he made that...
68
68
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 68
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he's entitled to, quote, absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course. because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and asked his former counsel, harriet miers, who ignore a subpoena issued by this committee. ms. miers also did not appear at her scheduled hearing. judge john bates, who was appointed by president bush, slapped down that argument fairly quickly. quote, the executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisers in this or any other context. that simple yet critical fact bears repeating. he asserted absol
mcgahn. in short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today. this conduct is not remotely acceptable. the white house asserts that mr. mcgahn does not have to appear today because he's entitled to, quote, absolute immunity, unquote, from our subpoenas. we know this argument is wrong, of course. because the executive branch has tried this approach before. in 2007, president george bush attempted to invoke a similarly broad and...
53
53
May 22, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 53
favorite 0
quote 0
let's talk about dmon mcgahn. what are the next steps for don mcgahn considering he didn't show up. >> right, he was a no-show, infuriating democrats on the judiciary committee and democrats as a whole. democrats don't have a lot of good steps, a lot of good options here. they are looking, perhaps, chairman nadler said we're going to compel his testimony one way or another. one of those ways they could do it is to vote to hold don mcgahn in contempt of congress. that doesn't have a lot of teeth. you know, to enforce something like that, they could direct the sergeant at arms to go out and arrest don mcgahn to bring him and confine him in the united states capitol. somehow, that hasn't been done since the 1930s so that's probably a little bit unlikely. i think what they're trying to do is, you know, eventually, take this to the courts and have the courts decide that don mcgahn needs to testify before congress. if they hold a vote of contempt, that could demonstrate that they exhausted all of their options. and then
let's talk about dmon mcgahn. what are the next steps for don mcgahn considering he didn't show up. >> right, he was a no-show, infuriating democrats on the judiciary committee and democrats as a whole. democrats don't have a lot of good steps, a lot of good options here. they are looking, perhaps, chairman nadler said we're going to compel his testimony one way or another. one of those ways they could do it is to vote to hold don mcgahn in contempt of congress. that doesn't have a lot of...
82
82
May 3, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 82
favorite 0
quote 0
don mcgahn doesn't work at the white house anymore. don mcgahn is subject to contempt. he is a lawyer in good standing who might put that good standing at risk if he doesn't. don mcgahn has been called a liar by the president. he may have reason. i wouldn't expect him to go willingly, but my prediction is that he'll say if you subpoena me, i will show up. >> yes. >> my point, john, and i'm sorry if i sound like they have broken my spirit. >> that's what it sounds like. that's the goal. >> it's worked. i think i am channelling many members of the american public who feel the past two years have been disheartening for people who believe in justice. the reason i say that is because you see in the mueller report ample evidence laid out of obstruction of what robert mueller considered obstruction, but nothing happens. you see violations of the emoluments clause and nothing happens. nepotism >> emoluments is going forward in the courts. >> there is a feeling of exhaustion. we know it from polls, from voters turning away after the mueller report that they think congress will c
don mcgahn doesn't work at the white house anymore. don mcgahn is subject to contempt. he is a lawyer in good standing who might put that good standing at risk if he doesn't. don mcgahn has been called a liar by the president. he may have reason. i wouldn't expect him to go willingly, but my prediction is that he'll say if you subpoena me, i will show up. >> yes. >> my point, john, and i'm sorry if i sound like they have broken my spirit. >> that's what it sounds like. that's...
97
97
May 12, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 97
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn never act odd that. then january 2018, "the new york times" reported that exchange that trump had asked mcgahn to get mueller removed and trump asked mcgahn to deny that those conversations took place. mcgahn declined to come out and deny them. he said that the reports were true. trump was also frustrated about that but this request from the white house to mcgahn to come out and say that the president didn't obstruct justice shows the measures the white house is willing to take to try to portrayal the mueller report as fully exonerating. >> thank you, sarah westwood. so much to discuss as we talk about what lies ahead first. let me tell you about 2027 candidate pete buttigieg. at a campaign crowd last night he said he feared it even drives people of his own party apart the mayor on saturday addressed one of his biggest vulnerabilities. running for president as a privileged white man. he tried to connect with his audience and supporters by recognizing that discrimination isn't experienced the same way by
mcgahn never act odd that. then january 2018, "the new york times" reported that exchange that trump had asked mcgahn to get mueller removed and trump asked mcgahn to deny that those conversations took place. mcgahn declined to come out and deny them. he said that the reports were true. trump was also frustrated about that but this request from the white house to mcgahn to come out and say that the president didn't obstruct justice shows the measures the white house is willing to take...
114
114
May 20, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
. >>> the silence of mcgahn. the white house steps in to prevent former counsel don mcgahn from testifying to a house panel, arguing that he has immunity. does that mean mcgahn's chair will be empty at tomorrow's judiciary committee hearing? will he be held in contempt? >>> impeachment threshold. a republican lawmaker is the first to say that president trump's behavior has met the threshold for impeachment. congressman justin amash of michigan is doubling down tonight, sending out a fresh round of tweets, even though he's already facing a primary challenge for speaking out. >>> and loose lips? president trump may never have heard the phrase "loose lips sink ships," known for his unguarded moments, it seems the president may have again given away some sensitive u.s. intelligence. >>> i'm wolf blitzer. you're in the situati"the situ." >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >>> breaking news. the white house moves to block congressional testimony by former white house counsel don mcgahn, claiming that as a former
. >>> the silence of mcgahn. the white house steps in to prevent former counsel don mcgahn from testifying to a house panel, arguing that he has immunity. does that mean mcgahn's chair will be empty at tomorrow's judiciary committee hearing? will he be held in contempt? >>> impeachment threshold. a republican lawmaker is the first to say that president trump's behavior has met the threshold for impeachment. congressman justin amash of michigan is doubling down tonight, sending...
95
95
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 95
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. if he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him. >> everything that we're looking at today, even gaveling in today's hearing without a witness is theatrical. the chairman orchestrated today's confrontation when he could have avoided it because he's more interested in the fight than fact-finding. >> cnn political analyst and "washington post" reporter rachel bade is on capitol hill. you did some great reporting and you have your finger on the pulse up there probably better than anybody. how much is the ground shifting for house democrats on the issue of impeachment right now? >> reporter: i would definitely say there's been a groundswell of support in terms of backing the idea of starting this impeachment inquiry but it's too early to say and probably unlikely that that's actually going to happen because speaker pelosi is adamantly opposed to that right now. rereported last night that there's been a group of jud
mcgahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. if he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him. >> everything that we're looking at today, even gaveling in today's hearing without a witness is theatrical. the chairman orchestrated today's confrontation when he could have avoided it because he's more interested in the fight than fact-finding. >> cnn political analyst and...
47
47
May 1, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 47
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn refused to do it. again, there is nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your letter. is there? >> that is your characterization of it, and i've been through it a couple of times. i think it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. i think they are very positive done a possible alternative vaccinations what i was trying to get out was the final report, and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it clear in the march march 24th letter that bob mueller did not make a decision, but that he felt he could not exonerate the president. i wasn't hiding, that he was presenting both sides of the issue. all the evidence. but he was not making a call. that he couldn't exonerate the president. i briefly described the process we went through to make a judgment, internal to the department of justice. as i said, there could be one thing issued, the complete report. as complete as it could be. >> in our conclusions about what that meant, my conc
mcgahn refused to do it. again, there is nothing about the president's request to create a false record in your letter. is there? >> that is your characterization of it, and i've been through it a couple of times. i think it would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. i think they are very positive done a possible alternative vaccinations what i was trying to get out was the final report, and have one issuance of the complete report. i made it clear in...
114
114
May 7, 2019
05/19
by
CNNW
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
with respect to mcgahn just coming to testify wing that's a dead man loser, because mcgahn's l already talked to the special counsel. a lot of the things he said to the special counsel have been made public in that report that we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks. they might have a slightly better argument with respect to the documents that mcgahn has, but with respect to the testimony, i don't see how that wins at all. >> is it invoking executive privilege like invoking the fifth amendment when you testify or invoking a spousal privilege when you testify, once you waive it, that's it? even if it was waived for mueller and we're talking about a different form here, the house judiciary committee? >> yeah, i mean, generally speaking, it can be. there was an argument that the lawyers put forward, which was not a terrible argument. i think in depending what the terms were with bob mueller, that with respect to the testimony of don mcgahn and others, going before the special counsel, if they explicitly reserve their rights and the special counsel agreed to take the testimon
with respect to mcgahn just coming to testify wing that's a dead man loser, because mcgahn's l already talked to the special counsel. a lot of the things he said to the special counsel have been made public in that report that we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks. they might have a slightly better argument with respect to the documents that mcgahn has, but with respect to the testimony, i don't see how that wins at all. >> is it invoking executive privilege like invoking...
46
46
May 11, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 46
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn had told mr. mueller's investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice according to one of the people. after "new york times" article revealed that mr. mcgahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, mr. burke tried to reassure the white house that his client told mr. mueller that he never believed mr. trump had committed an obstruction offense. pall paul butler, let me ask you about that. there's some sourcing here. so who knows? if what is being suggested here is true, that is to say mcgahn's lawyer, mcgahn told the white house that he had told mueller i didn't think what you did was obstruction, does that change at all questions about propriety of the white house doing this? >> well, i think that in terms of whether the president committed obstruction, don mcgahn has never been a federal prosecutor, he's never practiced criminal law. on that issue i'm going to go with the judgment of the over 800 former federal prosecutors including barbara and i, who signed th
mcgahn had told mr. mueller's investigators that he believed the president had not obstructed justice according to one of the people. after "new york times" article revealed that mr. mcgahn had spoken to investigators for at least 30 hours, mr. burke tried to reassure the white house that his client told mr. mueller that he never believed mr. trump had committed an obstruction offense. pall paul butler, let me ask you about that. there's some sourcing here. so who knows? if what is...
63
63
May 9, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 63
favorite 0
quote 0
of course, we have a lot of questions for mueller and mcgahn. and remember that barr began this whole process by misrepresenting what was in the mueller report twice and by making his own judgment of what the mueller report clearly intended to be congress' judgment, and then attempts to silence mueller and make sure he doesn't appear before congress or now before anybody. >> because we've seen what i believe is a real escalation, a sort of steady escalation over these past six weeks from the president, from the white house, increasingly from the administration about trying to lock down as much as possible around the mueller investigation, stepping up their ability -- or stepping up their efforts to try to keep more of the report under wraps, now exerting executive privilege over all of it, now saying they're going to block all witnesses, all requests for documents, it seems to me like they're probably getting more aggressive in their stance on whether or not they're going to try to prevent mueller from testifying. it makes me wonder what the pro
of course, we have a lot of questions for mueller and mcgahn. and remember that barr began this whole process by misrepresenting what was in the mueller report twice and by making his own judgment of what the mueller report clearly intended to be congress' judgment, and then attempts to silence mueller and make sure he doesn't appear before congress or now before anybody. >> because we've seen what i believe is a real escalation, a sort of steady escalation over these past six weeks from...
73
73
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 73
favorite 0
quote 0
mcgahn not to appear. a lawyer for mcgahn said the former white house counsel would respect the president's instruction and not appear today. chairman jerrold nadler says the committee will still meet this morning adding mr. mcgahn is expected to appear as legally require and if he did not testify quote the first thing we're going to do, we'll have to hold mcgahn in contempt. president trump was asked by reporter yesterday why he instructed mcgahn to defy the subpoena. here's what he had to say. >> president, why are you asking don mcgahn to defy a congressional subpoena. >> as i understand that they are doing it for the office of the presidency. it's an important precedent and the attorneys say that they are not doing that for me, they are doing that for the office of the president. we're talking about the future. >> several top democrats are urging house speaker nancy pelosi to move forward with an pea impeachment proceedings. >> let me clear if don mcgahn doesn't testify it's time to open an impeachment
mcgahn not to appear. a lawyer for mcgahn said the former white house counsel would respect the president's instruction and not appear today. chairman jerrold nadler says the committee will still meet this morning adding mr. mcgahn is expected to appear as legally require and if he did not testify quote the first thing we're going to do, we'll have to hold mcgahn in contempt. president trump was asked by reporter yesterday why he instructed mcgahn to defy the subpoena. here's what he had to...
153
153
May 12, 2019
05/19
by
KGO
tv
eye 153
favorite 0
quote 0
they now want don mcgahn to testify as well. will we see the former white house counsel before congress any time soon? >> reporter: well, tom, there is definitely a deadline. house democrats would like to see mcgahn appear before congress by may 21st, but so far, the white house telling him not to meet any demands. if mcgahn doesn't show up, well, democrats are threatening to hold the former white house counsel in contempt. so it's another drawn out battle ahead, tom. >> kyra phillips outside a rainy white house tonight. thank you. >>> now to the change in travel plans for the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani. following major backlash, he is backtracking on plans to go to the ukraine. here's abc's lana zak. >> reporter: the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani doing a complete 180. reversing course on his planned trip to ukraine to advocate for foreign investigations that include looking into democratic front runner joe biden. >> i'm not going to go because i think i'm walking into a group of people that are e
they now want don mcgahn to testify as well. will we see the former white house counsel before congress any time soon? >> reporter: well, tom, there is definitely a deadline. house democrats would like to see mcgahn appear before congress by may 21st, but so far, the white house telling him not to meet any demands. if mcgahn doesn't show up, well, democrats are threatening to hold the former white house counsel in contempt. so it's another drawn out battle ahead, tom. >> kyra...
90
90
May 21, 2019
05/19
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 90
favorite 0
quote 0
department of justice is not going to prosecute don mcgahn. he would have the public stigma of being held in contempt. >> so you basically have no teeth in the fight right now, in terms -- i'm looking directly at leslie for democrats on this. without don mcgahn, what does that get you? you've got the mueller report, nearly all unredacted. what else could democrats be looking for? >> they are looking for answers to the redacted areas. this is to the american people who want, as the president even says, full transparency. i understand to your point not just this presidency, but future presidency, why you have to protect the executive branch. i get that. but to your point, melissa, there were hours and hours of testimony, and congress in their position of oversight over the executive branch has the responsibility not just to the constitution but the american. >> they were offered it behind closed doors so that right there lays out what their motive is. if they won't ask the exact same questions in closed session, but insist they try to embarrass
department of justice is not going to prosecute don mcgahn. he would have the public stigma of being held in contempt. >> so you basically have no teeth in the fight right now, in terms -- i'm looking directly at leslie for democrats on this. without don mcgahn, what does that get you? you've got the mueller report, nearly all unredacted. what else could democrats be looking for? >> they are looking for answers to the redacted areas. this is to the american people who want, as the...
107
107
May 8, 2019
05/19
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 107
favorite 0
quote 0
it's don mcgahn and democrats want to hear from don mcgahn and mueller. >> this is something the white house will forcely dispute. i was with a senior white house official about this issue. they have been consistent making this legal argument that many folks included, it's quite a head scratcher, which is even though mcgahn was allowed to talk to mueller, they say the executive privilege covers the executive branch, the pushback is we got a bunch of mcgahn quotes in the report publicly available. >> that said, despite that counterargument, this is something we will see the white house argue pretty, in a very clear way in the coming weeks. >> i think you make an important point as we start to consider whether or not we are going to hear fromcounsel. the democrats indicate they are nailing down a date. we don't have that date set. betsy, do you anticipate we will, in fact, hear from robert mueller or is this a sign the president will drop it? i asked president trump last friday, would you like to see mueller testify? he said that's up to the attorney general. a day later he said he's opp
it's don mcgahn and democrats want to hear from don mcgahn and mueller. >> this is something the white house will forcely dispute. i was with a senior white house official about this issue. they have been consistent making this legal argument that many folks included, it's quite a head scratcher, which is even though mcgahn was allowed to talk to mueller, they say the executive privilege covers the executive branch, the pushback is we got a bunch of mcgahn quotes in the report publicly...