That hell be called to answer in any role that he plays will be exposed to the public. We dont want there to be any ambiguity about that. If whit sker still the acting attorney general when you become chair of the Judiciary Committee we will make sure that Matt Whitaker, immediately, one of the first orders of business will be to invite him, to subpoena him to appear before the committee. Some questions whitaker is likely to face on capitol hill, whether trump acquired a loyalty pledge in exchange for whitakers appointment, a demand trump has made of at least three other top officials. Thats a pattern being scrutinized as potential evidence of obstruction of justice. House democrats will also likely ask whether whitaker had an insistence from trump that he guarantee that whitaker wouldnt recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller Probe. Another reasonable concern given that sessions recusal was what turned trump viciously and permanently against him. I am disappointed in the attorney general. He should not have recused himself almost immediately after he took office. And if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office. And i would have quite simply picked somebody else. Those comments and many others like them are also a focal point of the obstruction piece of muellers probe. Now on top of all of this, the statement from one of trumps allies is raising eyebrows among critics and could raise more questions among investigators. I think hes really there to land the Mueller Investigation to get it done. I think what the president is attempting to do here is to have somebody who has already been involved to get the Mueller Investigation to its completion and then to turn the page for a new Justice Department afterwards. Joining us now at this table, we have a couple people ill get to, but on our monitors, New York Times reporter adam goldman, Barbara Mcquade and jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon. Mike barnicle and daniel goldman, former u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york. Barb mcquaid, we heard Chris ChristieSay Something that could be interpreted as a benign statement that had no ill intent or as problem at nick terms of what he thinks whitaker is in this job to do. How do you read that statement from christie on both sides. The benign way you can say that from a sort of an optics perspective, a pr perspective, Matt Whitaker is there to be there to the end of the Mueller Investigation and then a new attorney general could come in and turn the page, start with a clean slate and begin a new program agenda. A more sinister view of what he has to say is Matt Whitaker is there to do President Trumps dirty work. Make sure this investigation is ended, that it does not implicate President Trump and that hes there because hes got an agreement with President Trump to handle it the way that President Trump wants it done. Jeremy bash, i ask you, of those two potential interpretations, not just of what Chris Christie said but what Matt Whitaker is there to do, assessing all the evidence and taking everything into account, whats your read on the purpose of the promotion of this gentleman to this job. Hell not recuse himself because as you heard in the tape that you played, the president clearly asked him, will he recuse himself. Thats a question he wished he asked Jeff Sessions. And so, obviously, whitaker will not recuse himself. And i think his main duty is to, as Chris Christie said, land the probe, which is another way of saying, to obstruct it. To stop it. To rein it in. To make sure it does not implicate donald trump. Adam goldman, give me a sense of what you know about how this appointment came to be. Well, we reported it was don mcgahn, when he was white House Counsel who was interested who became interested in mr. Whitaker, even before when mr. Whitaker was running a conservative foundation called fact. Don mcgahn met him at the time and liked him. And later, in july of 2017, don mcgahn brings whitaker to the white house and has a chat with him and thinks he can be a type of attack dog directed at mueller. For whatever reason, the white house goes a different way and hours a ty cobb but he keeps his eye on whitaker and then installs him as Jeff Sessions chief of staff in october of 2017. One of the things that mcgann and others in the white house would have seen, if they were keeping their eye on whitaker is all the Television Appearances when he worked for cnn, some of which were critical, some very critical of the Mueller Probe and some which even suggested ways the Mueller Probe may be brought to an end. I want to read some reporting from bloomberg today and then well show a piece of the sound from cnn. Acting attorney general whitaker has told associates that the Justice Department will not cut the budget for special counsel Robert Muellers investigation into election interferences said a person familiar with the matter. Thats comforting. Not cutting the budget. Thats one of the ways mueller could be kneecapped. However, we have a different Matt Whitaker in previous job which was the television pundit, rather than i can see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment and that attorney general doesnt fire bob mueller but he reduces the budget so low that his investigation grinds to an almost a halt. So mike barnicle, i ask you, now he said he could see a scenario. He didnt say he would advise, embrace or enact that scenario but he did float the scenario by which you can essentially starve mueller. Theres now reporting that suggests hes not going to embrace that proposal, but do you think thats the real Matt Whitaker on television or the one trying to dweget word out through the press that mueller is going to be all right financially. The wheel Matt Whitaker. Who knows who the real Matt Whitaker is. He get shadow outlines of who the real Matt Whitaker might be. This is an example of the poor or no vetting of appointments. And i do know this, having spoken with three fbi officials over the last four or five days that they regard this appointment as a direct insult to the concept and the reality of the Justice Department. What the Justice Departments role is supposed to be in our society. They regard this appointment as an an insult. Does that comport with what you think . If you were still in the Justice Department, sitting there right now, and if you were on muellers team and saw this appointment, what would you be thinking right now that this guy, given his qualifications and given things hes said previously, what would you be thinking about his likely motivations . Hes there to undermine, interference, obstruct this investigation. You can look at what donald trump said about Jeff Sessions. You can look at Donald Trumps actions and requests for a loyalty pledge to james comey and his firing. The last year and a half has given us a road map into Donald Trumps mind. And when he places someone like Matt Whitaker, who has been on record as saying there is no collusion into the position of overseeing this investigation, its impossible to reach any other conclusion. I dont think, by the way, that the bloomberg article makes that much of a difference because the budget is made september 30th of each year. They already have their money for the next year. The real question would be whether he is, and i think from an ethical perspective, the fact that he has prejudged this investigation means that he must recuse himself. And, john, one interesting point about this, maybe the most interesting point about this appointment is that we are 50some odd days away from when Matt Whitaker is going to be summoned under oath to appear before the house Judiciary Committee and asked exactly these kinds of questions. Did you say you would take a loyalty oath. What else were you asked to do . Certainly thats a huge question. Theres another person who might want to know the answers to those questions. Bob mueller. If hes looking into an obstruction of justice, which we all think he is. Barbara mcquade, is not the case that Matt Whitaker is someone who if you were bob mueller youd want to talk Matt Whitaker to have a talk with whitaker in the same way these Congressional Committee chairs to be want to have a talk with him. Wouldnt mueller want to have that same discussion with him if he was exploring obstruction of justice . Yeah, i think he would. And this isnt because its just a fishing expedition, but i think there are enough Warning Signals here, enough smoke that would make it a genuine and legitimate question to find out whether they had any conversations about whitakers marching orders with regard to this investigation. Loyalty pledges. And all of those other things because if so, that could be additional evidence of obstruction of justice. Imagine a scenario where President Trump called Matt Whitaker in and said i want you to promise me youll not recuse yourself. And number two, i want you to do everything in your fopower to st that investigation down. Adam, i want to get to you because you tweeted something out today. A quote from robert litt, which caught your attention and caught ours, too. Robert litt, the former general counsel to the dni under barack obama. He wrote this in lawfair. I do not know what advice Rod Rosenstein and chris wray would give to whitaker but if they advise him to allow the Mueller Investigation to continue, as i believe they should, and he chooses to limit that investigation, against their advice, they should resign. So i ask you, you tweeted it out, what interested you about that and where do you think that particular thing is headed in terms of how this situation in this story might unfold . I think a lot of people are looking to chris wray, the fbi director, and Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney general to take a stand if this, in fact, were to happen. You know, the director wray is sort of navigating these treacherous waters with great care and caution. And has hinted, in fact, in the past that there were things maybe he would not do. If, in fact, you know, whitaker decides to trigger constitutional crisis and meddle, stymie, hobble, whatever you want to call it the Mueller Investigation, then a lot of people will look to wray and rod to see what they do. And i think there is a certain expectation that wray and rod will have to draw a line in the sand. And it will be a big moment. And it will be an enormous moment for wray and an enormous moment for rod. So, dan, you come back to this question of recusal. A lot of democrats attitude is, first of all, what kind of promises or conversations trump and whitaker might have had about the question of recusal because of the sessions precedent. Also the way recusal would happen. Whitaker would go to the office of professional responsibility and ethics in the doj and say, here are the things i said. Here are the other potential conflicts i might have. Id like some recommendations and advice on what i should do. Does he he doesnt have to do that. Its not like compulsory that he go. If he does not seek that opinion or seeks that opinion and the opinion says you should recuse and then he doesnt recuse, what happens . Well, i dont know that its ever happened before. Ive caucused some of my former colleagues, and no one is aware of a situation except a couple that people could remember of a scenario where the Ethics Office made a recommendation and people just rejected it. It is in theory possible but then you get into the scenario where you have Rod Rosenstein, you have other people who speak up or get out and go public with this. But you mention this. Mike you mentioned this, too. Well find out if 50 days when hes called up to the house Judiciary Committee or the house intelligence committee, why is that not happening now . Why do republicans just we just assume that they do not care you know the answer to this question. You said republicans a second ago. Thats the answer, right . To me, this really is beyond politics. This is someone who is trying to say im going to be the judge in my own case, which is donald trump, and im above the law. And at some point that is a nonpartisan issue. Would whitaker have to ask the opr, the office of professional responsibility for a ruling, or could they rule without him asking . They could do their own inquiry into it, but that for sure that would require them to speak to him because they need to understand exactly what his conversations have been and what his potential conflicts are. Let me get to one let me get to one last quick thing here which relates to, weve all been talking about whats going to happen when we get to january and the new Congressional Democrats take control and have the gafvel in all these. We had gerry nadler talking to jake tapper saying the following about Campaign Finance violations being perhaps impeachable. Id like to hear that sound and take it to jeremy bash. If the president is found to have been involved in Campaign Finance violations that are potentially criminal, is that an Impeachable Offense . That might very well be an Impeachable Offense, and the question would be, a, can you prove well, it may be an Impeachable Offense if it goes to the question of the president procuring his office through corrupt means. And that could be impeachable. Jeremy, people are talking about subpoena cannons, like a cannon with a boom, not canons of ethics. Starting to investigation everything in sight. Now you have jerry nadler raising not just the specter of impeachment but impeachment over something that we think donald trump troeprobably did relating Campaign Finance. Whats your read on how prudent for democrats to proceed along a path they already seem to be kind of chomping at the bit to run down as if theyre in a sprinting contest. Its imprudent now because the first thing the democrats have to do because i worked in the house when it turned democratic in 2006 is lay out your positive agend aincluding all the Kitchen Table issues and minimum wage increase and health care and all the things voters asked you to look after when they elected you. As these investigations unfold and as bob mueller issued his report, if hes not squashed by whitaker and the white house and is able to issue a report, then there may be an opportunity to hold hearings in which ultimately some decisions are made about whether high crimes and misdemeanors should lead to some result. I dont think were there yet but one day we will be there. Mike, do you sense like overreach is going to be is like already starting to kind of sniff overreach in the air on the part of democrats . You think theyll be restrained and play this smart . It depends on nancy pelosi. I dont think shell allow the house to overreach. Shell go for success in terms of, lets try to get something accomplished. Adam goldman, Barbara Mcquade, jeremy dash and dan goldman, thank you for being here. Barnacle, youre stuck here until the end of time. When we come back donald trump back on the world stage this weekend taking flack for his embrace of nationalism during the campaign. But unlike previous trips abroad, this time trump managed to draw outrage while saying very little. With the recount under way, trump and his republican allies are already slamming the process accusing democrats are fraud and demanding an end to the counting of votes. But it begs the question. With the current tally still leading in the gops favor, why are republicans so unnerved. And the big blue wave last week is getting bigger and bluer by the moment but its also becoming clear that the crest of the wave is bright pink as more women picked up wins in key races over the weekend. Well look at all of that next. No matter when you retire, your income doesnt have to. See how lincoln can help ensure you still have income every month of your retirement, guaranteed, at lincolnfinancial. Com. To give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you dont. [grunting noise] ill take that. 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar.