just to benefit donald trump. that is potentially an obstruction of justice. however, as you just pointed out, the letter that the white house counsel wrote to the judiciary committee yesterday suggests that lewandowski s not going to testify about any of that which is just an astonishing legal claim to me, the idea that a conversation between a private citizen and the president of the united states and everyone a conversation between the president a private citizen and other white house advisers could be covered by executive privilege seems well beyond any assertion of executive privilege the courts have ever approved as far as i can understand. the white house is claiming privilege for everything beyond the information provided in portions of the report that have already been disclosed to the committee. presumably lewandowski will be able to answer questions for things that are in writing in the mueller report, just nothing beyond that. but to your larger point, jeffrey, is there
where do we go from here, related to two things, one ongoing investigations and two, bob mueller wants this to be his last word. can it be. will calls for him to testify grow even louder today? well, they grew louder yesterday. let s be clear that for a lot of people, yesterday s comments raised more questions than provided answers, because, you know, why should this investigator be treated differently than so many investigators in the past. a lot of people remember how in 2016, two days after comey, james comey closed the investigation into hillary clinton, he was on capitol hill for 4 1/2 hours, taking questions from everybody. so democrats will see what they do. the chairman of the judiciary committee yesterday, jerry nadler kind of hinted that he heard what he wanted to hear from mueller, so i mean, it looks like this is yet another issue that democrats are splintered on, and they need to find a consensus. and of course nadler and
republicans sending a signal to the president by passing i believe out of the judiciary committee that bill that would try to protect mueller. yeah. here s the thing. mitch mcconnell is never going to bring it to the floor, right? that s leader said this bill that has bipartisan support came out of the judiciary committee yesterday and will never come to the floor. the president would never sign this. supporters of the bill, in this case, some of the republicans say that s not the point. they wanted to send a signal and did so in a public way yesterday. folks who have backed the president, senator hatch, he didn t vote for this but speaking about how damaging it would be for the president to fire mueller. lindsey graham saying the same thing and four republicans joining every democrat on that committee to pass this bill hoping that the president will pay attention to the political consequences to him even if the bill doesn t become law. garrett haake, pleasure to have you on. t
united states could make. but the trump administration is saying essentially without the president agreeing this is a problem that needs to get addressed, it doesn t really go anywhere. i want to read you a segment of the report. while president trump stands practically idle, mr. putin continues to refine his asymmetric arsenal and look for future opportunities to disrupt governor ans and erode support for the democratic and international institutions. the report says that the united states should with other countries address this in almost the same way we do with terrorism or other international threats, band together with nato, work with our allies in europe. it s fascinating and it does come in the context of senator dianne feinstein releasing unilaterally this transcript of the glenn simpson interview before the judiciary committee yesterday. democrats by and large are starting to stand up and say they re not going to wait for republicans to push back with the midterms, the next ro
disturbing. i don t know as we ve heard enough from him to refute them. in we don t hear enough to refute them, i think there s senior members of the senate that want to do the responsible thing here. to your point, ben, you can t have a guy with all of these allegations of molestation sitting in the u.s. senate. i will say this. attorney sessions was asked about this in his senate house hearing before the judiciary committee yesterday. he said he has not, just as you just said, he has not seen enough evidence that he would doubt the stories of the accusers, these women against roy moore. louis germer told me that he s adjudicated a lot of these rape cases, sexual assault cases. he thinks it s hard 38 years lawyer, but what do you do? you have to ask the question what do you do next? as the party said, the rnc cut ties. they have pulled funding to him,