don mcgahn. he was white house counsel for the first two years of the trump administration. one of the signal moments in the scandals and investigations that have plagued this presidency from the start was the somewhat inexplicable decision by president trump to allow don mcgahn to give totally unrestricted testimony to the investigators who were working for robert mueller. "the new york times" was first to report this last year. quote, last fall -- so meaning the fall of 2017 -- mr. mueller's office asked to interview don mcgahn, to the surprise of the white house counsel's office, president trump and his lawyers signaled they had no objection, without knowing the extent of what mr. mcgahn was going to tell mueller's investigators. mr. mcgahn was stunned, as was his own attorney, william burke, who mcgahn had recently hired out of krn that he needed help so stay out of legal jeopardy. mr. mcgahn explained to others he told white house advisers they didn't appreciate the president's legal exposur

it looks bad that don mcgahn rebuffed him. ou read the article, which i only looked at 90 seconds before i came on air. mcgahn's lawyer says a dip employeemat m-- diplomatic thing. they didn't take it as a threat and thought it was a professional -- i don't have the language in front of me. a professional request seeking to put a gloss on it that it wasn't something awful and nefarious. i think it was a poor move and looks not good. >> there's more details now coming in from the new york times which has not only matched the wall street journal report but has additional details as well. let me read a few sentences from the new york times story that was just posted. white house officials asked twice in the past month for the key witness against president trump in the mueller report. the second to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice according to two people briefed eed on the request. one of the people said his reluctance anger who believed mr. mcgahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for t

now we've got don mcgahn. don mcgahn is supposed to come tomorrow. he no longer works at the white house. he's essentially now a private citizen. he has been called to testify. today the department of justice puts out a 15-page document basically saying no, he has to listen to the president. the president says he can't do it. how broad, how aggressive is this move by the white house, harry? >> so it's very aggressive, although it's not that much more aggressive than other white houses have done. but the real big move here is to say that it applies in the case of former officials. they cite no legal authority because no court has decided it with one exception. a district court previously ruled against basically the identical argument in the harriet meyers case. that was then settled out on appeal. but this is a tough one. i think the previous argument is going to prevail across the board at the d.c. circuit. this is one whether or not there's a testimonial privilege that applies to former close advisers that likely will go all the way to the supreme c

breaking news we're following, the trump administration is directing former white house counsel don mcgahn not to testify before congress tomorrow. let's go to our congressional correspondent and the house judiciary committee has said it will hold a hearing with or without mcgahn tomorrow morning. what are democrats warning will come next. >> reporter: something chairman nadler reiterated in a statement saying this committee hearing is going to go on whether don mcgahn ends up showing up or not and no expectation that he will and certainly we could, of course, see a little theatrics at play there, potentially an empty chair to really signify he didn't show up as we saw earlier this month in the hearing when the attorney general, bill barr did not show up. now, nadler tonight saying in a statement that the attempts to block mcgahn from testifying shows that in his words president trump clearly does not want the american people to hear firsthand about his alleged misconduct so he has attempted to block mr. mcgahn from speaking in public tomorrow and nadler went on to say this is just the lat

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 presidential adviser, mcgahn is immune from testifying. jerry nadler has made it clear if mcgahn ignores

that congress does not -- it says -- >> so in lay person's terms, it means congress cannot punish don mcgahnte house and the president have decided to invoke or assert executive privilege in these circumstances. so no punishment for mcgahn because the white house has decided to assert executive privilege over material that has been shared within the executive branch and the special counsel. they argue based on the law there's not an exception to give it to congress. they're not required to do so at this point. >> you talked about this with the president of the united states in your interview. >> two weeks ago i was fortunate to sit down with the president. i asked him a direct question. under what circumstances would he allow don mcgahn to testify to congress. he went back and forth a little bit. but then he ultimately said that he felt that this was done, those were his words, that they had fully co-operated and don mcgahn wouldn't be going to capitol hill. what we see is the opinion from the justice department backs up that position from the president, that his counsel shouldn't go to the

this is our big story tonight sources telling cnn that the white house asked don mcgahn, don mcgahn is the former white house counsel, asked him to publicly state that the president did not obstruct justice. mcgahn refused. the source goes on to say that the president was upset by mcgahn's refusal to say what the president wanted him to say. i'll bet he was. the white house has since ordered mcgahn to defy his subpoena from democrats. sure doesn't seem like the president believes his own line that he was -- he's been 100% exonerated from the mueller report. if he really thought that, why would he need don mcgahn? this is all the more reason the american people need to hear from don mcgahn and from robert mueller. in their own words. and there's more today. i told you. a top lawyer, the top lawyer at the fbi, when the russia investigation began, is saying that he feels compelled to speak out. his name is james baker. and he says the investigation was open for "lawful legitimate reasons" and he calls conspiracy theories like those pushed by the president and the attorney general "bs." oh

don mcgahn has his own interests at this point. the president has dried to drag him through the mud behind him at this point and mcgahn's got to do what he's got to do for himself in addition to listening to what the white house is yelling at him. >> it is astonishing the justice department would produce this memo today and completely ignore that and several other points raised by jerry nadler, but that particular point which is the justice department's own policy that is executive privilege should not be invoked in any matters involving possible how do they put it, wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive officers. >> right, and you know, where was that fortunatelied? in the heat of watergate when nixon was trying to claim privilege over stuff where what he was doing when that stuff was finally exposed was plotting crimes. it turns out that can never be a privileged discussion. these fights are -- these fights are louder than they are sae on the part of the white house. >> so far the president is only winning legal points

the president told us he doesn't want white house counsel don mcgahn to testify. ast night out loud. mcgahn was part of what might be the most overt

i mean, what is revealed in the mueller report by don mcgahn is probably one of the most damning passages report. in the section on obstruction of justice, there is a very detailed narrative that partly comes from mcgahn, that the president asked him to fire mueller. and he basically ignored his requests. so mcgahn was a very important witness for mueller. he was a very important witness when it comes to the obstruction of justice allegations. and i think the democrats want maybe a little bit more of from him, in terms of the narrative and what his view of this was. but most importantly, they want him in front of a camera, saying what the mueller report said. they want, you know, frankly, for certain political reasons to be the face, you know, the key witness and face of the president obstructing justice, because that is the -- he is the key witness in the mueller report. so, you know, as susan said, it's sort of silly that they're talking about executive privilege. i mean, that privilege was already waived, right? we already have the account, we already have the facts. they're in the rep

halle jackson asked account president about don mcgahn today. >> should don mcgahn be held in contempt of congresses? >> i don't know anything about what's going on. >> yesterday trump attacked fbi director christopher wray who the president appointed to the job after he fired comey. he tweeted the fbi has no leadership -- the director is protecting the same gang that tried to overthrow the president through an illegal coupe. that is not true, no one attempted to overthrow throw the president. that has never happened. american history. donald trump is one of the very few presidents who has been the subject of a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor work within the justice department. that is a legal and constitutional process. the reason for the president's sudden attack on his own appointed fbi director is that the fbi director disagreed with what has become the trump way of describing the fbi, a description echoed by the president's new attorney general william barr. here is fbi direct ker christopher wray refusing to say the trump magic word "spying." >> when fbi agents con

jackie let's talk about don mcgahn. the thing that's stunning about the president's tweet is that don mcgahn is the guy who was responsible for doing all of the things that conservatives say they love about the trump administration. it's don mcgahn who packed the courts with conservative judges to include the two justices that donald trump got in the supreme court. so what do you make of the fact now that the president and the white house frankly is trying to press don mcgahn to get on the same page as president trump when it comes to the mueller report. >> yeah, i think this is another example of the president taking action in a way that doesn't necessarily positively serve himself. you know, this president is at the end of the day very concerned with perception, and it's clear that he's consistently wanted mcgahn to correct the record to reflect what the president wants the public to believe, whether or not that's, you know, accurate. clearly don mcgahn does not agree with that and has refused on a number of occasions

and it doesn't mean don mcgahn don mcgahn is in the clear just yet. before this news broke, house judiciary chairman jerry nadler threatened to hold don mcgahn in contempt if he doesn't comply with a subpoena to come before the committee. >> we've subpoenaed don mcgahn and we're expecting him to show up on the 21st. and if he doesn't, he will be subject to contempt. unless he has a court order telling him he can't, which i don't think he would get. and we have -- he has to respect the rule of law like anybody else. >> this threat of contempt is just one example of the democratic gloves coming off. house democrats fed up with the trump administration's attempts to stone wall congressional oversight are mounting an increasingly aggressive campaign for him to comply. as the constitution demands. tonight the chairman of the ways and means committee in the house subpoenaed the treasury department and the irs for six years of donald trump's personal and business tax returns. chairman richard neal said while i do not take this step lightly, i believe this ac

the white house saw the mueller report which said that trump had ordered his white house counsel, don mcgahn, the fire bob mueller. mcgahn turn the president down then and in this request to publicly say that wasn't obstruction of justice. mcgahn is crucial to all of this. he was one of bob mueller's key witnesses. mentioned many ore than 500 tim. more than any other witness many the document. trump oddered mcgahn to fire mueller which is a request the president has publicly denied making. >> i never told don mcgahn to fire mueller. if i wanted to fire mueller, i would have done it myself. >> pamela brown is out front live outside the white house. what are you learning this hour in. >> we're learning more about the white house reaction to the episodes laid out about don mcgahn and the president's request to him to dismiss the special counsel. we have learned through sources familiar with this matter that the white house reached out to don mcgahn's lawyer william burke asked burke to ask his client to come out and say that the president's directive to fire the special counsel robert mueller w

available. >> reporter: also tonight, an empty table that speaks volumes, as former white house counsel don mcgahn followed trump administration instructions and defied a subpoena to testify before the house judiciary committee, where chairman jerry nadler warned he's running out of patience. >> mr. 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. >> reporter: despite threats from congress to go to court, mr. trump is making it clear he's in no mood to cooperate. >> what do you have to say to americans who feel that your administration is stonewalling all of these investigations up on capitol hill? why not let don mcgahn testify? are you afraid of what he has to say? >> i think we've been the most transparent administration in the history of our country. now what happens is the democrats want a redo and we've had enough and the country has had enough. >> reporter: the president is continuing to take his case to his base, lobbying accusations that unname

my other point is i'm uncomfortable with all of this respect don mcgahn is getting for not loying p don mcgahn only was in the white house, look into this guy, whole background has always been to get conservative judges on court. >> and he did very well. >> don mcgahn will be more responsible for turning america into gilliad in the handmaid's tale more than anybody else. let's not give him too much credit. >> let's go back to the issue specifically that we've seen that kind of post white house career white washing, whether it's anthony scaramucci. and kyrstin nielsen suggesting in reporting she's pushing for more interest in election interference and white house staff telling her not to do that. we are seeing that again. there's a revarnishing, whitewashing here of don mcgahn. >> it's very easy after the fact to say i was there and tried my best to stand up to this president. end of the day you chose to be part of the white house and all of the policies that came with it. i'm with you, pete, every time i hear the word loyalty, it makes me shutter a bit. it doesn't mean loyalty to the co

former white house counsel don mcgahn is supposed to be testifying in public under oath any minute nowl counsel of apparent obstruction of justice attempts by president trump. >> instead, mcgahn almost surely will be cited for contempt, though maybe not today. and democrats who have sided with the house speaker,

the president then told don mcgahn to create a false record denying any of that ever happened. mcgahn also declined to do that. according to this new reporting from "the wall street journal" tonight, the president was not done asking don mcgahn for things even after he left the white house. right after robert mueller's report was submitted to the justice department, after mueller's report was submitted to the justice department and shown to the white house so they could see how don mcgahn was this key witness to all of these alleged incidents of obstruction of justice by the president, the president we now know from this reporting in "the wall street journal" later confirmed by "the new york times" and by nbc news. the president had his new white house counsel reach out on behalf of the president, asking mcgahn to put out a statement telling the public that despite all of these things, don mcgahn described to robert mueller which mueller laid out as potentially incidents of the president obstructing justice and wanted don mcgahn to make a public statement saying that he, mcgahn,

don mcgahn rebuffed the request. the "times" adds white house officials asked twice in the past month for don mcgahn to make that public statement. nbc news has since confirmed this reporting. it seems we have finally found the one person in donald trump's orbit while he was perfectly willing to put his reputation on the line by associating himself professionally and in history with donald trump, would not risk being disbarred for donald trump. it's a pretty low bar. and it doesn't mean don mcgahn is in the clear just yet. before this news broke, house judiciary chairman jerry nadler threatened to hold don mcgahn in contempt if he doesn't comply with a subpoena to come before the committee. >> we've subpoenaed don mcgahn and we're expecting him to show up on the 21st. and if he doesn't, he will be subject to contempt. unless he has a court order telling him he can't, which i don't think he would get. and we have -- he has to respect the rule of law like anybody else. >> this threat of contempt is just one example of

we know that the president has already basically called don mcgahn a liar, saying, oh, what don mcgahntedly said in that report, i never did that. this would be a chance for don mcgahn to clear his name, because it makes no sense, why would don mcgahn lie to robert mueller and risk criminal indictment against him, ruining his reputation, when we know the president has lied over and over, and he also let don mcgahn speak to bob mueller, which he did for hundreds of hours. >> so, i do think that don mcgahn will make the decision. and i absolutely think that he cannot ignore a congressional subpoena. the president can order don mcgahn all he wants. he's no longer an employee of the president's. and that is an important legal distinction. what i remember from my time on the senate judiciary committee is we were investigating the firing of u.s. attorneys in 2007 and 2008, and the bush administration didn't want to produce harriette myers, a former white house counsel, to testify. it went to court. and the court found that she should not be shielded from having to testify in front of congres

now that the mueller report has been made public, including all that material that don mcgahn gave muellerff as privileged or you don't. if you let mueller testify about it to -- if you let mcgahn testify about it to mueller then you let the mueller report become public, you've admitted that the stuff is not covered by privilege. it's apparently not just democrats who are raising this question now, though. check this out. this is tucked into the "washington post" report tonight on the white house telling don mcgahn not to comply with this congressional subpoena. "some in the white house see the legal arguments as dubious because the administration has already waived privilege for the mueller report." so it appears that even inside the trump white house right now, they know the attempt to block don mcgahn from complying with the subpoena is a dubious legal argument, but despite that division, even in the white house, they are trying it, anyway. when even your own white house is that divided over even trying this, how long are you likely to hold out? hold that thought. hat thought. hey, who

don mcgahn -- you know, there's been all sorts of guessing, whose side is don mcgahn on? does he want to testify in front of lawmakers, or does he not want to? is he just using the president, saying he cannot testify as cover? it is interesting because his lawyer, here's the rational that don mcgahn is saying. basically, he's facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of government. the president is saying, you may not do this. congress is saying, you must do this. he's going to err on the side of the president's instructions. i thought it was interesting insight, in what they're using to describe why he won't show up today. >> lawyers have been saying it is up to him, which argument dusz does he think is the strongest? he has to weigh his former employer's desires and the white house's claim that this is not something that typically senior white house officials do, versus congre congress' subpoena, which has the weight of the law. i think what you're seeing him do is require the democrats do the same thing that they did with this case, that was decided

now, the democrats will say, look, the executive privilege question had been waived when don mcgahn hadfied before bob mueller, when he went before him, spent 30 hours being interviewed. he was a central player, witnessed a number of things including the president apparently directing mcgahn to fire the special counsel. they're going to say that has been waived. you can't just come back and reassert it, but here, the white house is saying he should not turn over the records by this deadline today, and kate, also in question is will he testify before the same committee in public? he's directed to appear no later than may 21st. a major question about what he'll be able to answer if he were to come in to a public hearing and a question still about how the house judiciary committee plans to respond to possible contempt citation could be on the table. we'll see how they respond. jerry nadler, we expect a response from him, but a significant development in the escalating clash between the white house and house democrats. the white house now saying the former counsel don mcgahn should not turn

chairman jerry nadler warned don mcgahn may be held in contempt for failing to appear. doug collins said nadler's move is all about politics. chairman nadler vowing democrats will go to court to enforce the subpoena. watch it. >> mr. mcgahn did not present today because the president did not allow it. we will go to court to secure it. we will hold this president accountable, one way or the other. special counsel closed up shop without having democrats anything to deliver to their base. now the democrats are trying to make something out of nothing. cameras love a spectacle. majority loves chance to rant against the administration. i'm glad we don't have chicken on the dias today. >> harris: he said democrats don't get a do over on the mueller investigation. the decision to block mcgahn is about testifying the executive branch. >> as i understand it, they are doing that to protect the office of the presidency. the attorneys say that they're not doing that for me, they're doing that for the office of the presidency. we're talking about the future. >> harris: one way or the

members of the house judiciary committee plead with pelosi to launch inimpeachment proceedings if don mcgahn refuses to comply with the subpoena to testify this morning. so far he's refusing. >> no one is above the law including the president of the united states. let me be clear. if don mcgann doesn't testify, it's time to open an inimpeachment inquiry. >> i'll talking to a democrat who's pushing for the impeachment inquiry. >>> first, democrats are putting increasing pressure on nancy pelosi. let's go to kelly o'donnell on capitol hill. the calls for impeachment took place during a democratic leadership meeting last night for the inquiry. one source describes it as long, very emotional. take us inside that meeting. what details have you learned about it? >> well, these are regularly scheduled meetings, consider it the democratic family coming together at different levels of leadership and responsibility. this is where they hash out their agenda. and in this instance it was about the dividing lines over impeachment with some members arguing to the leadership team the last straw should be do

sara, let's talk about don mcgahn.s not testifying but in a new letter tonight chairman nadler is telling him tonight there will be serious consequences if he doesn't appear. what's this about? >> that's right. don mcgahn's attorney essentially provided a letter saying our understanding is that don mcgahn is essentially immune from congressional testimony because of his role he had as a senior adviser to the president, the president is now asking him not to testify. and, you know, as his former client his president -- the president was his former client and so don mcgahn will not be showing up and now jerry nadler is saying okay we are going to proceed in essentially a hostile fashion. we don't expect the vote to happen until tomorrow, it's not going to happen tomorrow, it's going to happen later down the road but i think this is indicative of how the white house has approached all of these issues. they're not going to give congress what they're asking for at the first take and ultimately i think this could again be an

former white house counsel don mcgahn had a lot to say when he spoke to special counsel robert mueller'sre 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

gabe, he said if don mcgahn doesn't show up tomorrow and doesn't look like don mcgahn is showing up, he is calling for house democrats to begin impeachment inquiry. that would get the ball rolling to impeachment. >> absolutely and that's a significant thing he told you there. the question that you asked him, will overseen yor members of the judiciary committee or senior members of leadership go that far. and the broader question that cicilline and other members of the house caucus, do people understand the difference between impeachment inquiry and impeachment overall. big part of what they said for months if not years, we're not going forward with impeachment unless the overall country can stand for it. i don't think that the vast majority of people understand the difference, that an inquiry is asking the question, should we go down this road of impeachment. but it is a legal maneuver to compel more testimony. >> that's an interesting point, too. it was in 1998 when republicans were trying to decide what to do with the starr report, month before the midterm elections, republican con

do you believe the white house is trying to intimidate don mcgahn or a legal leg to stand on here? >> it's happening in public. we have seen the president threaten mcgahn, talk about his law firm. perhaps it's not been as direct as one might expect from this president in person, but certainly the public persona has been somewhat menacing. the important point here, though, is that mcgahn had the opportunity to show up. he no longer works for this president. he was free to testify, if he chose to. i thought representative nadler's of the president laying out his argument that mcgahn was a liar and mcgahn not choosing to show up in congress to defend himself and discuss the facts was very telling. so, you ask whether the president has a leg to stand on and the reality is nadler does a good job of laying out the law here. a case he cited which is persuasive authority, not binding. but it indicates that the white house is just wrong here. >> charlie. it is clear that this is heading towards a court fight almost certainly. you heard that from jerry nadler and heard it when he said our sub

you might remember in robert mueller's report don mcgahn recounts in detail how the president ordered mcgahn to fire the special counsel robert mueller. don mcgahn said no, he wouldn't fire the special counsel, said he would resign if the president tried to force him to do it. the president then told don mcgahn to create a false record denying that any of that ever happened. mcgahn also declined to do that. according to this new reporting from "the wall street journal" tonight, though, the president was not done asking don mcgahn for things even after he left the white house. right after robert mueller's report was submitted to the justice department, after mueller's report was submitted to the justice department and shown to the white house so they could see how don mcgahn was this key witness of all these incidents of alleged obstruction of justice by the president, the president we now know from this reporting by "the wall street journal" and later confirmed by "the new york times" and nbc news, the president had his new white house counsel reach out to the old one asking mcgahn to

why is don mcgahn important?ouse judiciary and democrats on the committee have been wanting to speak with him, he was featured heavily in volume two of the mueller report, the volume that dealt with obstruction. he spent 30 plus hours with the special counsel team answering questions. was he says directed by president trump to have robert mueller fired. that's the heart of what house members want to find out more about. there are a couple of questions i have, what will the house judiciary committee do. women they hold an empty chair hearing like a couple weeks ago or will they move on and will the legal fight continue to escalate. >> let's bring in pete williams. talk about the relate of all this. >> reporter: this is different from executive privilege. this is not executive privilege. this is what the justice department calls i mmunity from coming to congress to testify. these are co-equal branches of government, that congress cannot summon the president to a hearing room than the president could command members

this time at the center is don mcgahn. man who is critical to robert mueller's report and whose name was mentioned over 150 times. now he's ignoring a request at the instruction of the white house to turn over documents to house democrats. the white house is not yet asserting executive privilege but they want democrats on capitol hill who are trying to conduct oversight know they feel they have the ability to do so when it comes to mcgahn. tonight the white house is stopping don mcgahn from turning over documents to house democrats. the latest jab in the oversight showdown with the administration. in a letter current white house letter telling the house judiciary committee that the former white house counsel will be ignoring their subpoena. arguing that president trump may want to assert executive privilege in the future and mcgahn does not have the legal right to disclose these documents to third parties. house investigators subpoenaed the documents as part of their investigation into obstruction of justice. we're hoping

he's just written a letter to don mcgahn in response to be don mcgahn's lawyer as you know, of coursen't show up tomorrow because the president told him not to and the justice department said that's okay because he has complete immunity from any kind of congressional subpoena. he points out that memo from the justice department isn't really citing case law so much as

he's just written a letter to don mcgahn in response to be don mcgahn's lawyer as you know, of course, saying that don mcgahn won't show up tomorrow because

they are in don mcgahn's possession. you see almost the shadow boxes taking place where the white house is trying to prevent mcgahn the documents that he has in his possession from handing them over. we don't though ts tho't know i comply with the request from the white house not to hand over these documents. another interesting thing about this, the deadline to handoff those documents, 10:00 a.m. when does the letter come out? in the 11:00 a.m. hour. that to me is an indication that this is not a white house that is overly keen on cooperating with congressional investigators especially as it relates to the mueller probe. but again, they haven't invoked executive privilege on mcgahn's testimony. they are hinting that they will do that and this that is the dwrekts they ar direction they are going, but they haven't formally invoked it. >> and meanwhile the fbi director chris wray just answer some had questions in frontcomm talked about the special counsel's investigation. what did he say? >> reporter: wray basically saying

at some point i think we'll see don mcgahn as a witness and the assertion of privilege will be only question by question. >> interesting. phil rucker, is mcgahn is loyalist or an institutionalist? traditionally i would say pick one. can't do both but that describes at least half of the u.s. senate on any given day. >> throughout don mcgahn's tenure in trump world which actually began before the launch of the campaign shl, he's tried be both a loyalist and an institutionalist and he's continuing to try to do both of those things and he's finding it difficult. he certainly doesn't want to be in this moment where he has to choose sides and take orders from a white house he no longer serves. but there's a great deal of anxiety the president might feel about what mcgahn has to say. it's one thing for all of those details for that narrative to be spelled out in a written report, the 400-page mueller report, it's another thing entirely to have a national television spectacle of the former white house counsel before congress answering these questions under oath and getting in, frankly, into more det

even after don mcgahn got him those two supreme court justices. ink mcgahn has to have a little discussion with himself, as susan said -- >> he's even a smaller fan now that -- >> not a fan at all. >> he was asked by the white house to say that the president never interrupted justice? yeah. >> much more right after this. (music throughout) has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. did you know the exact same hotel room...whoooo. ...can have many different prices? that's why tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the lowest price on the hotel you want. yo

lawyer don mcgahn had a better chance of being fired, not mueller. not a big fan. this is according to "the wall street journal" and other publications on friday, saying that the white house went to mcgahn after the redacted report had been published and asked that don mcgahn release a statement saying he didn't believe that the president, as has been conveyed in this report, that the president's request to fire bob mueller amounted to obstruction of justice. don mcgahn refused to release a statement to that end. this is not the first time he's kind of affronted his employer at the white house. the white house released a statement saying that don mcgahn should not release documents that he was using when he was the white house counsel. that was a major confrontation, that is likely to be drawn out in the courts. as it stands, this is only in the twitterverse. but this is likely to play out in court, in this massive drama that's been unspooling. >> we'll see if don mcgahn will testify. matt, thank you. >>> i want to bring in julia manchester, reporter for "the hill,"

they know don mcgahn's testimony will only take them so far. hope hicks was around him constantly, his confidante, strategist. also annie donaldson, how did mcgahn describe the conversations to her to, again, figure out the intent. >> your colleague wrote an article a few days after the mueller report was out. i was just handed my copy. i have a lot of hope hicks and annie donaldson footnotes. they appear in the footnotes. what she describes in her piece, annie donaldson's notes could be seen as a parallel to the nixon tapes in that they have put in writing some of the reactions, some of the efforts the lawyers were taking and making to try to protect and preserve themselves, to try to offer the president legal analysis of some of his desired moves. when he wanted to investigate hillary clinton, when he wanted to fire jim comey, they wrote in their own notes to themselves and others, possible obstruction. they were aware he was walking up to and in some instances possibly crossing the line into obstructive conduct. >> they were very aware. anni

if he's resisting don mcgahn testifying. >> well, i think the house judiciary committee does everythingto compel him to testify. and they take every step they can in that direction. mcgahn is a big fish here. he was very central to the mueller report, the descriptions in the mueller report. that got toward obstruction of justice. trump telling mcgahn to do this, to not do that in volume ii where the obstruction sections are-related out so mcgahn would be a key witness for the house to get. i don't know how they do it but 38 push hard to do it. he would make for some pretty dramatic television. we know what took place. he released a statement saying everything in the mueller report that was laid out with regards to him and his interactions with the president was accurate. why is the president resisting this q and a with don mcgahn? >> because he knows what john alter just said in your last segment. there is nothing quite like seeing it. it is not the same as seeing don mcgahn sit there under questioning from democrats and admitting this and this and that is true. and watching it on this

paul: let's start don mcgahn. the white house claim of a testimonial privilege. he doesn't even have to appear under the constitution because of the separation of powers. is that justified? >> it is justified, when message to chairman nadler, congressional power to obtain evidence, the context of oversight or impeachment is not unlimited. it is all because of transitional powers the case is compelling. first of all paul, we're talking about discussions between white house counsel.e there in the sweet spot, all forms of testimony and executive privilege. it is the most i can repair the other argument that's very interesting that is somewhat more complex were also very compelling, what are they doing this for?not really for oversight purposes because oversight power r is by literac power are we going to legislate things a president can discuss with white house counsel? no. what they really trying to do, this article impeachment sub rosa. like mueller to testify or don mcgahn to testify or get documents that twould justify the mueller investigation. to try to find s

last month, trump issued this denial of the account. >> i never told don mcgahn to fire mueller. if i wanted to fire mueller, i would have done it myself. >> this latest news will likely spark a new push for house democrats to get mueller as well as mcgahn to testify. tonight judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler sent this tweet saying this is why it is critical for mr. mcgahn to come before our committee and answer questions for the american people. the president cannot keep mcgahn from testifying. nadler says he's negotiating with mueller but it is unlikely mueller will testify next week. nadler added this earlier today. >> he will come at some point, if necessary we'll subpoena him and he'll come. >> meanwhile another house committee is using subpoena power to dial up the heat on the administration. treasury secretary steven mnuchin who has refused to hand over six years of trump's tax returns, he received a subpoena today from the chairman of the house ways and means committee. the irs commissioner also received a subpoena. these moves come just days after the "new york ti