mr. mcgahn's testimony. so mr. mcgahn answered the special counsel team's questions folsomly and honestly as any person interviewed by federal investigators must. the big question we're asking today is was it a good strategy to let the white house lawyer talk to mueller? joining me is msnbc news white house correspondent kristen welker, white house reporter for the "associated press" jonathan lamire, ken vogel and editor and chief of "lawfare" at brookings institution ben wittes. onthan and ben are msnbc analysts and contributors. kristen welker, let's start with you with the white house. the president's team is trying to say that donald trump knew all along that mcgahn was going to testify and they weren't worried about it. the president is tweeting about this. rudy giuliani tried to, you know, cool it down yesterday on "meet the press" on sunday. but "the new york times" say that trump's lawyers sudden realization, they don't know what don mcgahn told mr. mueller's team, they write mr. mcgahn and mr. burke feared

mr. mcgahn laid out how mr.rump tried to ensure control of the investigation, giving investigators a mix of information, both potentially damaging and favorable to the president. what do you make of that, glenn? is it enough of a case for obstruction? how solid does obstruction have to be before you can bring a charge like that? >> alex, no one piece of the puzzle alone proves obstruction, but i have to tell you, as we continue to get more pieces of the puzzle, every piece tends to fit together with every other piece. as a career prosecutor for over 30 years, i wish i had evidence supporting a conspiracy or obstruction charge as i have seen simply reported in the public record here. we can't reach any conclusions yet, but i'll tell you, the evidence of conspiracy and obstruction from this career prosecutor's perspective is really becoming overwhelming. >> okay. let's look at the paul manafort trial. the jury has gone into deliberations both thursday and friday without reaching a verdict. now, they come back tomo

mr. mcgahn's testimony so mr. mcgahn answered the special counsel team's questions honestly as any person interviewed by federal investigators must. so what did he tell mueller? well, we don't know for sure. but "the times" says, quote, mr. mcgahn laid out how mr. trump tried to ensure control of the russia investigation. giving investigators a mix of information both potentially damaging and favorable to the president. mr. mcgahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw mr. trump go beyond his legal authorities, although the limits of executive power are somewhat americay. was it a mistake for trump to allow mcgahn to speak to mueller? depends who you ask. "the times" says mcgahn and his lawyer were, quote, stunned by that decision. quote, mcgahn's attorney, william burke, has explain head told white house advisers he did not appreciate the exposure and it was insane that mr. trump did not fight a mcgahn interview in court. but if you look at the president's tweets over the weekend, he says the reason he didn'

mr. mcgahn's testimony. so mr. mcgahn answered the special counsel team's questions honestly as any person interviewed by federal investigators must. trump's former outside counsel john dowd spoke to fox news. he claimed that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. as for the special counsel, jon, they are not commenting on this one way or the other. jon? jon: ellison barber, thank you. the trial of former trump campaign chairman paul manafort heads into its fourth week tomorrow. the jury is set to resume deliberations after going home for the weekend without reaching a verdict. but no matter what jurors decide, the legal and political battles are far from over. garrett tenney has a look at this from washington. >> it's back to work tomorrow for the jury in paul manafort's trial after the judge told them not to speak with anyone about the case and to put it out of their mind until 9:30 monday morning. this will be day three of jury deliberations as they review all the evidence from the trial including testimo

mr. mcgahn -- he is not mr. trump's personal lawyer. the white house is its own person. mr. mcgahn represents the office of the white house, but the point is -- think about it. if mr. mcgahn had said something incriminating or something that was really harmful to mr. trump do we think he would still have a job in the white house? >> the president doesn't know exactly what mr. mcgahn said to the special counsel's team. >> perhaps he would have resigned. >> the "new york times" says based on what they are hearing from the many people they had been talking to that mcgahn told mueller's teams about actions and trump's obsession with pull precipitation -- putting a loyalist in charge. how does this help the president? >> this is not -- we keep talking about fake news. this is really old news. there was nothing new in the "new york times" article. there was nothing news breaking about it. there was no secret that don mcgahn and a number of other white house officials were interviewed by mueller's team. part of that was that it was sanctioned as part of the president's legal team. t

mr. mcgahn and mr. burck feared that mr. trump was setting up mr. mcgahn to take the blame for any possible wrong doeg so they embraced the opening to cooperate with mr. mueller in an effort to demonstrate that mr. mcgahn had done nothing wrong. >> it's all fun and games until you realize that someone ha you're working with and need to trust to get the work done of the american people might be wearing a wire or as we learned last week, might have a tape recorder in her purse. these folks to some extent can't do their jobs effectively if they're constantly having to look over their shoulders because of the risk that the president has put them under and the mess that they have created of their own doing, starting from the top of the white house. >> nick, you and i have often talked about rudy giuliani and whether he's helping or hurting the cause. his conversation with chuck todd about what did or didn't happen on that june 9th meeting, look, none of us need to be lawyers, experts or investigators. we know what we know and that is that there was an e-m

mr. mcgahn leaving, i worry who the president might put in and do with the special counsel's office. >> after the president announced that mcgahn was going to be leaving, senator chuck grassly said i hope it's not true mcgahn is leaving white house counsel. you can't let that happen. what do you think your colleague is so worried about? >> i think it is very telling that a republican u.s. senator is basically telling donald trump don't do this. and that's because again, mr. mcgahn even though i disagree on policy, in terms of the rule of law he clearly understands it and understands the president is not above the law. he was trying to get donald trump to follow the law and it seems like donald trump wants to get rid of him because of mr. mcgahn's views on the law. >> let's talk attorney general now, congressman, if you will. i'm talking about jeff sessions. ignoring questions about his fate today. take a listen. >> you are seeing a split within the gop. do you think his days are numbered or sessions is the president's favorite punching bag and that's the way it is and will remain? >> i hope h

mr. mcgahn and his team feared and embraced the cooperation to cooperate fully with mr. mueller. mcgahn wanted to talk to them, and maybe trump was left with little choice. >> absolutely. don mcgahn is very smart. he got himself an attorney. and this is almost like a shakespeare play in that mcgahn saw there's a possibility i'm going to be thrown under the bus like michael cohen and a lot of other people. so he smartly got an attorney. here's what's important about what rudy giuliani said. he paused on how do you know what he said. okay. he doesn't know what mcgahn said. you know why? because if rudy giuliani called the attorney for don mcgahn, it would be a click. i can't talk to you. if it's a smart attorney, and i have no doubt that mr. mcgahn who seems to be a very honorable man has a very honorable attorney and they're not talking to rudy giuliani. >> right. tom, to that point, rudy giuliani made another false statement about the june 2016 meeting at trump tower. let's listen. >> i'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so he gets trapped into perjury. and when you

mr. mcgahn testified to, to mr. mueller? >> i think that through john dowd we have a pretty good sense of it. john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than i mean, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. also, they don't need to know what the president is going to say because the president has said it. and we've told them that we would stipulate what the president has said is the president's true belief that he did nothing wrong, that he wasn't involved in collusion, that he wasn't involved in obstruction. they have yet to propound a question to us, give us a question where there is not an answer to it already by the president of the united states. so the only reason they could possibly want the president of the united states is because they are desperate for some kind of charge they can hang their hat on. they don't have collusion or conspiracy, as brennan pointed out, and they -- >> how do you know that? you say this so definitively. how do you know they d

mr. mcgahn -- you don't know 100% of what he testified to to mr. mueller? >> i think that through john dowd we have a pretty good sense of it and john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than mine, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. >> now, even though mayor giuliani contends that they have a good handle on exactly what don mcgahn said to the special counsel, there's another "new york times" report that says exactly the opposite, that the white house and the president's legal team was not prepared for the voluminous amount of information that don mcgahn could have potentially given to the special counsel and he's not been debriefed outside of a short list of notes that was provided by don mcgahn's personal attorney to the effect of exactly what he talked about. and that could be the problem for the white house. mcgahn and his legal team have said repeatedly that they've been honest, and there are few people who know as much about exactly what the president's been up to over the past ye

what impact do you think don mcgahn's departure will have on his role atness to the mueller investigation? mr. gonzales: i'm not sure it will have much of any impact, quite frankly.t it appears tn mcgahn has cooperated fully to this point, and i'm assuming -- well, i know he will have been truthful and complete as possible in sittcig with the sal counsel and the special counsel's team finding information. widon't anticipate tha bange. i suspect he may ncalled back by the special counsel simply because of the fact that he has left s current position. there is no attorney-client privilege between the white house counsel and the president. the reason for that is the president of the united states is not the client of the white house counsel. the white house counsel the institution of the presidency and not the individual person. there is no attorney-c went privilegch would have prevented don mcgahn from being totally honest and complete in the testimony he has provided to the special counsel.: jaesident trump has praised mr. mcgahn, but he has gone after his attorney general jeff sessions time a

mr. mcgahn gave to mr. mueller's investigators a sense of the president's mindset in the days leading to the firing of mr. comey. how the white house handled the firing of former national security adviser michael t. flynn and how mr. trump repeatedly ber rated mr. sessions, tried to get him to assert control over the investigation and threatened to fire him. don mcgahn's cooperation is central to possible obstruction of justice by the president. in a follow up report after its original story "the new york times" reported that president trump's lawyers don't know how much don mcgahn told the special prosecutors. mr. trump's lawyers realized on saturday they had not been provided a full accounting after "the new york times" published an article describing mcgahn's cooperation. mr. trump's lawyers never asked for a complete description of what mr. mcgahn had said, according to a person close to the president. yesterday in what was for reasons we will get to later rudy giuliani's most spectacularly ridiculous t

mr. don mcgahn later how mr. trump tried to ensure control the investigation giving investigators a mix of information potentially damaging and favorable to the present pretty never saw mr. trump go beyond the legal authorities although the limits of executive power are murky says the times. so what does it mean if don mcgahn spends 30 hours talking about how the president is raging against the russian probe, how he does not like jeff sessions and is angry at jeff sessions for recusing himself, etc. but quote - he never saw mr. trump go beyond his legal authorities. which one would presume would mean he never saw any criminal action of any sort by the president of the united states. >> right. one would assume that is the case. i think the question will be whether or not there was anything in the testimony of don mcgahn, in conversations with special counsel that led them to overturn other stones that were not necessarily anything within the 30 hours. the other thing i would throw in here is, it remains to be seen

mr. mcgahn, 100% of what he testified to mr. mueller? >> i think that through, through john dowd we have a good sense of it, and john dowd yesterday said, and i will use his words rather than mine that the mcgahn was a strong witness for the president, and i don't need to nknow much more about that. >> but what the white house has not really responded to was the assertion in "the new york times" report that when don mcgahn learned of the counsel for the president, his private attorney suggesting that he meet with the special kocounsel and that he was concerned that perhaps he was being setup, and this is a way for them to perhaps put him on the hook for any obstruction of justice charges that the special counsel discovered and that is when he got his own personal attorney and advised by his own personal attorney to handle the situation, and don mcgahn's personal attorney has been clear this weekend, he did not go into the interviews with the goal of providing incriminating information, but no doubt he has been a corroborating witness, and

mr. mcgahn himself was surprised by the president's announcement that mr. mcgan would mcgahn would be leaving the white house, that left me feeling like really this was the firing of don mcgahn. it may have been that mr. mcgahn was looking toward the exits, that he was planning on arranging his departure from the white house, announcing his departure, submitting his notice as it were sometime fairly soon. he may have even been signaling when that might have been. if he was surprised today by the president saying he's out, is this essentially an involuntary departure? a sort of firing of mr. mcgahn? >> it's not the same kind of event as the tillerson tweet, not the same as the h.r. mcmaster, the national security adviser you're out of here. it's not that kind of see you later, charlie, kind of moment. don mcgahn has telegraphed to many people including reporters he planned to go in the fall that cab anyhow's confirmation was sort of the crown that he hoped to finish off. that would be the ending of his moment as white house counsel. however, it's just an inde

mr. mcgahn was also centrally involved in mr. trump's attempt to fire the special counsel, which mcgahn resisted. his cooperation with the special counsel stem from a decision by the president's first team of criminal lawyers, "the times" report. in a statement, white house press secretary sarah sanders said, quote, the president and don have a great relationship. but two senior administration officials tell abc news say the two have a frayed relationship. according to "the times," mcgahn has called the president king kong behind his back given his volcanic anger. >> tara, we don't know how his cooperation has affected the special counsel's investigation so far. but tonight, the president's lawyers are responding. >> that's right, rudy giuliani tells me that he's confident that mcgahn didn't hand over any evidence that's remotely harm to the president. trump's former lawyer john dowd called mcgahn a strong witness. tom. >> tara, thank you. >>> and join us tomorrow for "this week," martha raddatz one-on-one with white house nationa

mr. mcgahn cautioned investigators that he never saw mr. trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky. let's go to ellison barber. she is in berkeley, heights, new jersey, here the president's golf club in bedminster. the president is weighing in on this. ellison? >> he is, jon. as he often does, he's weighing in on this on twitter. earlier this evening, he tweeted this, quote, i allowed white house counsel don mcgahn and all other requested members of white house staff to fully cooperate with the special counsel. in addition, we readily gave over 1 million pages of documents. most transparent in history. no collusion, no obstruction. witch hunt. a source familiar with the investigation confirms to fox news that mcgahn spoke with the mueller team at length on three different occasions. the new york times is reporting a whole lot of details including that those interviews added up to more than 30 hours. at least a dozen sources told the new york times that mcgahn is cooperating extensively with the sp

mr. mcgahn's lawyer has offered only a limiting -- limited accounting of what mr. mcgahn told the investigators. according to two people close to the president. that has prompted concern among mr. trump's advisors that mr. mcgahn's statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel robert mueller. >>> here's rudy giuliani again on "meet the press" this morning. >> john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his words rather than mine, that mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. so i don't need to know much more about that. they don't have collusion or conspiracy as brennan pointed out. and -- >> how do you know that? you say this so definitively. how do you know they don't? >> i know they don't because, look, this whole mcgahn thing leaked from them. if they had, if they had some kind of evidence that there was collusion or there was obstruction, don't you think it would have been leaked? i mean, they leak everything else. >> ken dilanian, what in your view is the significance of what we now know about the mcgahn testimony? and

mr. mcgahn, an idea supported by several of his aids and his children. but mr. porter told the president he did not believe he was qualified for the role. felt it was the wrong fit for him. he has since left the white house amid accusations of spousal abuse. and, jill, rob porter never really worked as an attorney. no one has ever had a discussion in the history of the white house with a potentially less qualified white house counsel than rob porter. >> there is no question about it. and what it shows, again, is the president as a ceo is really bad because hiring good people is one of the most important things a ceo can do. and for a man who promised us the best, he has certainly not delivered on that. we're in a bigger swamp than we've ever been in. and mcgahn, despite all the problems and ron is correct, he should have done things differently in the very beginning and he's been at the center of a lot of the problems that mueller is now looking into. but he did at least stop firing by the president of mueller and he didn't succeed but tried to stop him from fir

mr. mcgahn testified. mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. >> i think he's going to be a very, very valuable witness. if you're an investigator, you're a prosecutor, you want somebody who's been in the room when the key discussions happened, and that's don mcgahn. >> the white house counsel spending hours being questioned. plus, clashing over security. former cia director john brennan now considering legal action after his clearance is revoked. >> i think this is yet another example of his egregious use of power and authority. if my clearances and my reputation as i'm being pulled through the mud now, if that's the price we're going to pay to prevent donald trump from doing this against other people, to me it's a small price to pay. >> it was my view at the time that he and others in the obama administration were politicizing intelligence. i think that's a very dangerous thing to do. he couldn't be in the position he's in of criticizing president trump and his so-called collusion with russia unle

mr. mcgahn could not understand where mr. trump was willing to allow mr. mcgahn to speak freely to the special counsel and feared mr. trump was setting up mr. mcgahn to take the blame for any possible illegal acts of obstruction. so jeff, another little tidbit des not not the best friends relationship and getting along and fighting sometimes but working side by side but they are gaining the potential that the president is setting up his very own white house counsel to take the fall. >> it certainly is a window into some of the conversations and some of the concerns happening within the white house. certainly outside of the white house we've seen the very public shake-up of the president's outside legal team. you saw john dowd gave us a comment and he left the legal team sometime ago in part because he didn't think that the president trusted his advice and thought the president was ignoring him. so we've seen again how the president's team of lawyers have changed their relationship, changed their public standing in direct relation to hip just based on his ow

mr. mcgahn gave to mr. mueller's investigators, people said, a sense of the president's mindset. joining us now jill wine-banks, former assistant watergate special prosecutors, ron klane and a former senior aid to president obama. and mimi rocca, an msnbc contributor. jill, i want to go on this issue with the white house counsel. we're seeing that the president is getting rid of his white house counsel at a time when the white house counsel's office is already dramatically understaffed, especially when you consider they are now consciously wrapping up for an impeachment battle. how does this compare to the way president nixon was represented both in the white house counsel's office at the time of your investigation and with private attorneys? >> he had very good private attorneys, and he had a full staff in the white house counsel's office. he fired john dean after the investigation was well under way in the house. but before the watergate prosecutor was appointed. so he got fired in april, john dean. and then cox was appointed in may. but he replaced the person, and there was a

mr. mcgahn's lawyer only provided a limited accounting of what mr. the president seemed to be obsessed with the role john dean played as an informant to watergate, mcgahn reportedly told others he was determined to avoid the same fate as dean. as for dean himself, he tweeted this weekend that mcgahn is doing right. oh, and politico reported tonight that michael cohen's lawyer lanny davis has been reaching out regularly to mcgahn. since we're speaking history with john dean, fascinating that both the president of the united states, as well as his lawyer are thinking about john dean in this particular moment because dean himself did what he did, and please help fill in the gaps for somewhere our viewers who may have forgotten these bits of their american history classes. essentially he was afraid he was going to be the scapegoat. >> absolutely. dean was very young, i think 32, 33 years old when he was in the nixon white house, brought in as white house counsel, in and out of a number of meetings in the very hard hitting nixon white house. he was the fi

mcgahn to see that mr. mueller was dismissed, the people said. >> look, this is a president who is incapable of keeping a story straight for more than a day. he changes his story and changes his motivations and actions all the time. i think more broadly, just look at the tool kit with which donald trump constructed success in business and politics. he used payoffs. he used fixers. he used ndas, secrecy, right? these are all the tools he used. they are all crumbling around him. he can't enforce the ndas. his lawyers and fixers are testifying or cooperating against him. and he can't buy his way into cooperation with some of the people who are against him. and his own inability to show loyalty to his own people is coming back to haunt him. they're all turning on him. that's a terrible place for him to be. i'm not surprised he's firing off a machine gun of tweets all the time on ten different topics. >> if he's just trying to fire people or talking about firing people, is that enough, paul, to make it obstructi

mcgahn told people he was determined to avoid the fate of richard nixon. mr. john danny joins us now on the phone. john, what's your reaction to all of this and this reporting that you were on mcgahn's mind? >> he's doing the right thing. post-watergate they resolved a tricky question of who is the client. white house counsel, it's a office of the president. he's doing the right thing in representing the office of the president and there can be conflicts between the incumbent and the office. don did get wrong that i went to prison. i didn't. i was actually in the witness protection program on and off from june of 1973 to january of 1975. >> "the new york times" quoting a former white water investigator saying this is like having the keys to the kingdom. is that how you see it? >> well, it certainly does give them a good guide as to where the problems may or may not be. as for the clarifying remark that mcgahn didn't incriminate the president. we don't know if that's true or not. probably mcgahn doesn't know if it's true or not. he gave them the knowledge he had

mr. mcgahn testified to. i can figure it out. >> you don't know what he testified to to mr. mueller? >> i think through john dowd, we had a good sense of it, john dowd said, i'll use his words, mcgahn was a strong witness to the president. i don't need to know more about that. >> reporter: the mayor ignores a key point where it talks about the president's lawyers actually have no idea the depth of the conversations between don mcgahn with the special counsel team and what they covered. they agreed to mcgahn to sit for the conversations and waived attorney/client privilege. they had no idea what don mcgahn would say when he sat down with the special counsel's team. there are few people who have insight into the president's conduct especially with the russia probe for the past year and a half. the white house doesn't know how to handle this and what it could mean for the investigation going forward. dave and christine. >> ryan, thank you. >>> trump attorney rudy giuliani has a new fact style explanation for keeping the president away from robert mueller. listen to what he told nbc about

mr. mueller may ask many mcgahn. setting aside the question of the fact that nobody tried to invoke executive privilege, we have 30 hours of interviews in the hands of the special counsel. it may be that mr. mcgahn told the special counsel, i did not see the president exceeding his authority or commit a crime in front of me but what i did hear the president say is something like i want the special counsel fired to shut down the russia investigation. why might he have related that kind of information because we have to think back to the reporting of when mr. mcgahn was threaten to quit because the president wanted to fire the special counsel. where as because he did not fire the special counsel, chris, that did not ripen into obstruction of justice but what it does is that it gives the mueller's team insights into the president's thinking and his motivation and his intent. even if it did not accommodate with the crime, it could be now the special counsel has a much more complete picture of what has been motivating the

mr. mcgahn did nothing wrong. what do you make of this idea that he was worried about being thrown under the bus. >> that's one i understand. that was what prompted me -- i didn't talk to the media during watergate or ever when i was in government. but when i had tried to get them to end the cover-up and it was clear they weren't going to, but rather they were going to try to make me the scapegoat for the cover-up and the former attorney general john mitchell, the scapegoat for the bunk you would watergate break-in, i dictated a brief comment that my secretary read to "the washington post," the a.p. and the "new york times," to get the message through i wasn't interested in being their scapegoat. so i can understand his thinking. >> do you think the president should be worried? >> you know, the investigation if it were as simple as dowd and thought explained initially the approach they were taking, it would have been over. but it is obviously much more complex. they didn't have all the facts. i'm not sure that tru

mr. mcgahn and his lawyer could not understand why mr. trump was so willing to allow mr. gahn to speak freely to the special counsel to take the blame for any possible legal access of obstruction. they devise their own strategy to do as much as possible to cooperate and demonstrate they did nothing wrong. if that turns out to be true in fact cannot independently confirm it's true, but if it turns out, if mcgahn was so worried he would throw him under the bus, couldn't the strategy backfire? >> it certainly could. many legal observers say that this is crazy that the president would allow his lawyer, the white house lawyer to go and talk to an investigator who's investigating potential crime that the president and the president's campaign may have committed with regard to the 2016 election. the president is going to counter in his lawyers have countered that he has absolutely nothing to hide, that if the president's lawyer come at the white house counsel mcgahn had done something wrong, he would have resigned. he would have helped the president. he would have been admitting

be of great headline is because of how mcgahn is at the heart of many, many issues related to obstruction of justice. one of which would be, again, the firing of mr. mueller or the attempt last summer and the discussion thereof. and the discussion that's are maybe only privy to don mcgahn. >> right. and the president not very many hours ago tweeted pretty aggressively that oh, "the new york times" is trying to paint don mcgahn as a rat. or a snitch, however you want to phrase or paraphrase it. in this on going trump russia-related probe. and the president on twitter essentially implying that that's not the case. and i let my guys do this and sit for team mueller. this is all fake news, et cetera, et cetera. i just want to point out to viewers that president took a similar tone on twitter when the post michael cohen raid news came out and he started rage tweeting about michael cohen. oh, michael cohen is a good guy. i love him. he loves me. and he would, of course, never flip on me. obviously we know that this situation with the relationship between president trump and michael cohen has significantly cratered in the time since. now i'm not saying

that according to the times struck don mcgahn and his lawyers is odd. they do that mr. trump would want don mcgahn to openly speak with the special counsel. and don mcgahn and his lawyer reportedly concerned that donald trump might be setting mr. don mcgahn up for setting the blame for any actions. they say they decided to incorporate as much as possible. here's how one democrat sees it. >> he doesn't trust people he should trust. it is more of the chaos and the instability we are seeing at 1600 pennsylvania. i would have to think his golf game was terrible. reporter: john dowd call allegations of apprehensions about his corporation with robert mueller 's team fiction. eric: the time to saying it was self-preservation according to the paper. meanwhile, what does the white house special counsel say on this if anything? reporter: just received a statement from the white house. sarah sanders told fox news that when it comes to the working relationship between don mcgahn and the president quote - the president and don mcgahn have a great relationship. he preaches all the har

mr. mcgahn. >> were you afraid the president would betray you? >> do you regret that decision? >> will you continue to comploo i? >> have you briefed the white house on everything you told the special counsel? >> mcgahn has been involved in most of the key events in mueller's obstruction probe as far as we know, including michael flynn's early ouster of the white house and getting jeff sessions to recuse himself the firing of james comey. it was mcgahn you will recall according to "time's" who threatened to have mueller fired, in fact, ordered him to do so. the "time's" lays out how se is controlling the investigation. he kaugsd investigators that he never saw the president go beyond highs legal authorities. it's not clear past or present has a real grasp of what mcgahn toll mueller's team. >> we have a good sense, obviously, of what mr. mcgahn testified to i can figure it out. >> how do say that good sense? are you debriefed until. >> no, mr. dowd has a good sense of it. he talked to him at the time. >> you don't know 100% of what he testified to, mr. mueller? >> i think that t

mr. mcgahn said. we start with caitlyn collins. let's start with the connection, the communication, or perhaps lack thereof, between trump's personal legal team and the white house counsel, don mcgahn. what do you know? >> brooke we are seeing how they are still scrambling to find out what it was that don mcgahn said during these 30 hours that he sat down with investigators from robert mueller's team. it's pretty clear they don't know a lot. we heard from rudy giuliani who is the president's lead attorney on the president's outside legal team handling this russia probe saying he is relying on what john dowd told him. esque on the president's legal team last year but left the team five months ago. hasn't been around in five months yet that is the person that jaul joule is relying on for his information that he is essentially getting secondhand here, brooke. we are seeing them scramble to find out what it was that says since no one on the president's counsel team debrief don mcgahn about what he said. the president questioning why mcg

mr. mcgahn testified to. i think that through john john dowd good sense and john dowd yesterday said, i'll use his word, rather than mine, mcgahn was a strong witness for the president. i don't need to know much more about that. >> a lot of speculation why this is coming out now, don't forget negotiations continue between the president's attorney and robert mueller about possibility of an interview with the president. did something arise from the conversations that mueller had with mcgahn that he now wants to speak with the president in person about? it is widely believed, shep, mcgahn will leave his position as white house counsel after the brett kavanaugh confirmation is complete. that might have something to do with it, as well. >> john, webster's defines as body of real things, events and facts and the state of being the case. it's truth. it's knowable, often demon strabable, sometimes elusive, but truth is truth, except that phrase lives inside alternative facts in a new place unique to the current enviro

mr. mcgahn testified to. >> you don't know 100% of what he testified to to mr. mueller? >> i think through john dowd we have a pretty good sense of it. >> but mcgahn was reportedly worried trump was setting him up to take a fall for any potential wrongdoing so he decided to be completely open and told them about some events they didn't know about like trump's efforts to fire mueller, all that as guiliani continued to push back against trump testifying and went viral with this moment. >> i'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth. >> truth is truth. >> no. truth isn't truth. the president of the united states says, i didn't. >> truth is the truth -- mr. mayor, do you realize -- this is going to become a bad meme. >> don't do this to me. >> in a moment i will speak to texas congressman who serves on the house intelligence committee but begin wi

mr. mcgahn testifi testified.ss for the president. >> i think that he is valuable, and if you are an investigator and prosecutor, you want somebody who has been in the room, and that is now mcgahn. >> the white house counsel spending hours as a witness in the investigation, and today, the president calling it mccarthyism. >>> and john brennan is calling for legal action after his clearance is revoked. >> this is another example of his egregious power and authority. if my clearances and reputation as i am being pulled through the mud now if that is the price to prevent donald trump from doing this against other people to, me, it is a small price to the pay. >> it is to me that he and others were politicizing intelligence, on television, and that is a dangerous thing to do and he could not have been in the position to criticize trump and the is so-called collusion with russia unless he did use classified information. classified information. >> cnn newsroom starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >>> and he

mr. mcgahn to respond to it. he provided the investigators examining whether mr. trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president's most intimate moments with his lawyer. i want to get straight to cnn's ryan nobles live near the president's golf course in new jersey where he's spending the weekend. ryan, tell us more about mcgahn's role and what kind of information he may be providing. >> reporter: well, ana, this is significant for a number of reasons. now, we knew that don mcgahn had met with the special counsel before but what this "new york times" report is revealing is the extent of these interviews and the role he is playing now as essentially a cooperating witness in the special counsel investigation while still serving as the white house counsel. now, this was actually on the recommendation of donald trump's former criminal lawyers who were -- said that mcgahn should meet with the special counsel because they viewed that the president had nothing to hide, but what "the new york times" is reporting is that don mcgahn and his lawyer were concerned that

mr. mcgahn. >> but they waived it. they waived it. >> that's the point. >> yeah. >> they ended up waiving it. and that waive will now cause consequences in terms of others who may be interviewed in coming days. indeed, i think that one of the really serious implications of this whole thing is that others are standing by. they see that don mcgahn went in and talked to the special counsel. they know that he may have been a better witness than the president. what i mean by that is that the president would have been presumably guarded and not as forthcoming. don mcgahn for the reasons you outlined had ever interest in the world in essentially telling all. so presumably, he did. others -- now, again, we are assuming here that there may have been something untoward, something concerning. if others have guilty knowledge, they are sitting there, having watched the president's counsel go in and testify before the special counsel. nobody wants to be the last one standing. nobody wants to watch one's colleagues go in, spill the b

mr. mcgahn to respond to it. now, he provided the investigators examining whether mr.mp obstructed justice a clear view of the president's most interest mat moments with his lawyers. among the topics he shared insight it into are the firing of james comey, alleged intents to put a loyalist in charge of the russia inquiry, pressure on attorney general jeff sessions. former outside counsel john dowd who arranged the kpoop ration with mueller called it a complete fiction. >>> yesterday, rudy guilliani addressed what mcgahn might have said. >> we have a good sense obviously of what mr. mcgahn testified to. i can figure it out from -- >> how do you say that, good sense? have you debriefed him? >> no, no, but mr. dowd has a fwd sen good sense of it. >> two people close to the president tell "the new york times" mcgahn's lawyer only a limited accounting of what the white house counsel has told special counsel investigators. >>> joining me onset, dan any is a -- savalis. let's talk about the revelation that don mcgahn has been cooperating with the mueller investigation, to the