Counsel robert s. Mueller to subpoena the president. Now we dont know if Robert Mueller was planning to subpoena the president any time soon. But we do know hes given trump every opportunity to get his side of the story on the record. Mueller haggled with trumps former attorney general john dowd for months about an inperson interview until dowd resigned rather than let trump sit down with mueller. According to Bob Woodwards book fear he pleased with him. I wish i could persuade you, dowd said. Dont testify. Its either that or an orange jumpsuit. Mueller told trumps lawyers that hed accept written answers from trump but just this afternoon, trumps attorney Rudy Giuliani acknowledged to politico that trump still hasnt submitted the answers. That leaves a subpoena as a logical next step for the special counsel. Opening up a highstakes line of questioning. Has donald trump appointed in Matt Whitaker someone who is likely to turn down any request from mueller to subpoena the president . And did whitaker make that promise to trump or anyone close to him before he took the job as acting ag. And if either of those answers is yes, does that represent obstruction of justice . Here to help try and answer that question for us, some of our favorite reporters and friends. Devlin barrett from the washington post, katie benner who covers the Justice Department for the new york times, former chief spokesman for the doj, matt miller, harry litman and jonathan lemire, White House Reporter for the ap. Matt miller, you were here in this hour yesterday. We were talking about this in more theoretical thunderstorerm. Still figuring out who Matt Whitaker is. Matt whitaker is someone not inclined to approve a subpoena from Robert Mueller for this president. Its fairly remarkable that he has already apparently reached that conclusion before being briefed on the case. Hes reached the cornclusion hes not going to recuse himself before hes consulted with ethics officials about whether that would be appropriate. It looks like the president has put Matt Whitaker in this job precisely for the reason obvious to everyone. He expects him to come in and either slow down or curtail or shut down the investigation. One of the cliches that i think is misused most often in washington is the idea the coverup is worse than the crime. Oftentimes people like the president like i believe the president is doing right now execute coverups because the underlying crime is terrible and they know theyre going to get caught. To see the president do something that is so transparent and so obvious and so hamhanded it just makes me wonder what he thinks or what he knows is coming down the pike next from the special counsels office. Harry litman, can you jump in about whether or not we know the president s conduct, visavis Jeff Sessions, is so suspect that Robert Mueller, i think there are 49 questions total. Eight of them are specifically about Donald Trumps interactions with attorney general Jeff Sessions, his decision to recuse, conversations about whether he would unrefuse, conversations about whether to fire him. He submitted his resignation once before. Can you explain how, if those things are under scrutiny for obstruction of justice, it seems logical that firing him abruptly yesterday might also be. Can i explain . Yeah. In a word, brazenness. It certainly could be one of the things mueller considers. Its certainly one reason and one reason only that whitaker is appointed, and thats to put the boot on the neck of the Mueller Probe. Hes got really no credentials at all other than personal loyalty to mueller. And it would be, in fact, a kind of coverup in plain sight. You could think of legal arguments and one could make when push comes to shove about why he disapproves this or that specific step by mueller. But basically, theres, you know, i think its all transparent. And as matt suggests, trump does it because he thinks he can. Now, of course, theres a new cop on the beat with the House Judiciary Committee and well see if thats right. But i dont think theres any secret here. Its just the brazen president. Devlin, its your reporting weve been talking about. Take us through what you guys are reporting and what people should know about the new acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker. So the new acting attorney general comes from a very strange place when it comes to picking an attorney general. And thats the chief of staff of the recently departed attorney general. Thats a very rare way for this to work. Normally the chief of staff is someone who is fundamentally loyal to the attorney general and, in this case, hes now Matt Whitaker is now the acting attorney general. And what were told is that he has made very clear to people close to him that he has zero interest in recusing himself. Its not even clear if he is going to raise this question at all with ethics officials. And were also told he has already expressed in different venues at different times a real disagreement with the very notion that the president should be issued a subpoena. Thats important because the threat of the subpoena is the thing that has been hovering over those negotiations all this month. And if you take away that threat of a subpoena, you would then have a situation where one side doesnt have really much leverage anymore. Devlin, the threat of a subpoena is not a legal tactic. It is a way to get the truth. I guess it is both a legal tactic that prosecutors and investigators deploy, but its also almost a lastditch effort if mueller seeks permission to subpoena the president from, i guess, until yesterday it would have been Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein. It would have been a last attempt to get the truth. Its abundantly clear and we included john dowds comments as bob woodward reported them in his book fear because no one who represents the president in a legal capacity thinks he can tell the truth. Right. This whole fight over this whole negotiation has been a dance and now they basically if the subpoena is taken off the table, and thats still an if but were definitely getting signals that may be taken off the table, i think the music stops and theres no more dancing anymore because you have no way to force their hand from the prosecutions point of view. And everyone is trying to figure out who makes the next move at that point. Katie benner, if you could weigh in on what you and your colleagues have reported about being Rod Rosenstein. Not just over the last 17 months but today. Today Rod Rosenstein, its my understanding, as of this morning, was still the doj official ostensibly in charge of the Mueller Probe. They put out a statement yesterday saying Matt Whitaker is in charge of all matters and all investigations at the Justice Department. Very rarely do we even know who the Deputy Attorney general is. Rod rosenstein has been in a unique position because hes been handling the highest profile and some would call arguably the most important case, the Justice Department has handled in quite a long time. Now by having Matt Whitaker oversee it, immediately rosenstein becomes less significant and a far less problem for the white house and also far less power. It will be interesting whether he even wants to stay on now that he no longer has control of this consequential case or if he wants to retire, which hes talked about numerous times in light of the reporting the times did saying that he had doubts about the president after comey was fired. That he had threatened or spoken of possibly secretly taping conversations for the president. His future at the department has been very, very procurious and now that he is no longer in charge of this investigation, it may be time for him to step down before hes pushed out. You and your colleagues weve been talking about an investigation that most reasonable people would like to see continue, the Mueller Probe. There are other investigations that the president and his allies are interested in seeing commenced. You report this. Your paper reports, mr. Whitaker and mr. Trump also share similar views on what they consider the need for a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clintons use of a private email server. The fbi investigated, but closed the case without bringing charges in 2016. Mr. Sessions rebuffed calls for another special counsel. In 2014, mr. Whitaker became the executive director of the conservative foundation for accountability and civic trust known as f. A. C. T. The Organization Called itself a Watchdog Group and mainly made accusations of ethical or legal violations against democratic politicians, including mrs. Clinton. Now i recall Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein being peppered, and thats a nice word, by House Republicans like jim jordan and mark meadows and others about appointing a Second Special counsel. They testified under oath that was not necessary. Could whitaker reopen that pandoras box . Sure, whitaker most certainly could. If he does, the next question then is, what happens to morale at the Justice Department . These cases, especially the Hillary Clinton case, has been adjudicated so many times, including with an inspector generals report. I tong hink to reopen the matte might have serious consequences about how people feel about working on the case and working for Matt Whitaker and it makes the Justice Department a spectacle again and catnip for ultra partisans on both sides of the aisle who want to fight about Hillary Clinton. I dont think its a place that anybody at the Justice Department would want to be. Jonathan lemire, its just a remarkable turn that donald trump who is under active investigation for obstruction of justice fires one of the witnesses in the obstruction of justice case and, in his place, installs someone who is interested, who shares his passion and zeal for investigating Hillary Clinton again. Thats right. And according to our reporting, this, as much as there are certainly overtones here, tactical overtones, the decision to fire sessions was almost instinctual move by the president who has wanted to do this for months. He was tired of having the guy around. So upset by sessions decision to recuse himself napt was the original sin he could never forgive. As you know, for months, he wanted to do it and was talked out of it by his closest aides inside and outside of the white house. Rudy giuliani told me he had to repeatedly tell him, dont do it. Its the worst thing you can do for this probe. And trump agreed begrudgingly to hold off for a little bit. The votes were still being counted in the midterms and he agreed to hold off until then and then decided enough is enough. Now it has this repercussion effect and this went into the thinking as to what now for the Mueller Probe. And there are people around him alarmed by this decision to do it now while the investigation is going. Chief of staff john kelly suggested he wait until the Mueller Probe was over before he acted on sessions but trump decided not to. Consequences be damned. Other people have given him that same advice. He didnt listen to them. Hes now looking around, casting about for a new attorney general and quince dentally maybe not. Chris christie was at the building today. He was there for a different event. He huddled with Jared Kushner after about some prisoner reform stuff. Any time theyre in a room, its an interesting moment. But christie is one of the people hes considered. Someone i was talking to say even giulianis name has come up. Certainly not really a sense that whitaker will be kept on full time but weve been told is that trump may not rush into this decision. That he feels like, as we know, so regretful of how things turned out with sessions that he wants to spend a little more time figuring out who he wants, particularly because he seems very happy with his interim attorney general. Matt mueller, you said yesterday that Matt Whitaker would need to or would likely be counselled to recuse himself from the russian probe. Would Chris Christie have a similar set of circumstances that would let you to make a similar assessment . I think more black and white in Chris Christies case. Matt whitaker will be a little gray area based on public statements and the fact he has Close Association with sam clovis. Rod rosenstein is one of those that can tell the ethics officials whether clovis is an important part of this investigation. Rod rosenstein may still have a card yet to play. But with Chris Christie, it would be black and white. Under the same doj regulations that caused sessions to have to recuse himself. He had a role on the campaign that was that is now under investigation. It would be just as clear that Chris Christie would have to recuse himself as well, if he was nominated and eventually confirmed as attorney general. Harry litman, Chris Christie, his body of public statements about mueller compared to Matt Whitakers body of statements about mueller puts him far more sort of i dont know if theres a center anymore in politics but he has not called for mueller to be fired. Hes not ever called the Mueller Probe a witch hunt. He was very critical of pete strzok who sent antitrump texts. But hes never criticized the probe as an effort, as an endeavor. Do you think that he is confirmable . And if i could just tack on a twopart question here and have you whack at both, what role does an incoming democratic, you know, House Judiciary Committee and House Intel Committee have in making sure that the public sees the results of muellers work . Okay. So first question is, is he confirmable . Im not sure but it doesnt really matter. I think the i dont believe the idea is to keep whitaker in for a couple of weeks. Under the statute, whitaker can serve seven months and then if someone is nominated at the end of that period, he can stay on. Thats an eternity for the Mueller Probe which i think everyone agrees is the reason he is in there. So i think if they want him there riding herd or even worse on mueller, they keep him for a while. In terms of the House Judiciary Committee, you know, yes, i think there will be immediate hearings that nadler will convene. What kind of counterweight would that provide . It should be able to get some facts out and puts a stop to the devin nunes mischief of trying to uncover confidential information. Thats going to be the big question, though, of the next year or two. Will the American People care deeply and permit the House Committee to serve as a real counterweight. I think the jury is out there. Devlin, let me read you something on this topic from your colleague at the washington post. Heres how dems can respond. Democrats could subpoena muellers findings said one legal expert but expect the white house to put up a fight in response to this subpoena. Other legal experts think that if the white house defied such a subpoena, the courts would rule against them meaning congress would get muellers findings. If you follow the logic here that whitaker is there to sort of snuff out the Mueller Probe, it does it could ultimately fall to the democraticrun committees in the house to try and obtain that work. What is your reporting suggest today on the state of that effort . I think were still at the very early stages of that. The next move is basically whitakers and then a lot of things flow from that. If whitaker does essentially line up in some sort of opposition or resistance to the Mueller Probe, i think then it becomes a question of, so, what is, for example, Rod Rosenstein going to do about that, assuming hes still at the doj. What are the democrats in Congress Going to do. But i do think that when it comes to the question of what are the House Democrats going to do, whitaker still has the first card to play because, for one thing, the democrats wont be in charge for another two months. A lot can happen in two months. Just think of whats happened in the last 24 hours. Its trump land. Its like dog years. Before that becomes a player here. We live seven years in every one. Let me put something to you that i would only ask about this president. Hes so obsessed with resume, with the look, with the experience. Whitaker doesnt seem to fit the bill for someone that donald trump wo