SUMMARY: Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Ahead of his appearance, the White House had instructed Lewandowski to discuss only matters covered in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report -- and indeed, Lewandowski refused to answer numerous questions from members of the committee. Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY: The Mueller report continues to generate legal debate. Several hundred former federal prosecutors published a statement this week asserting that President Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice, were he not the sitting President. William Brangham talks to Paul Rosenzweig, who worked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the impact of the Mueller report, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, participating by phone.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And joining us now in our studio in Washington, our regular Friday news analysis team, Mark Shields and David Brooks.
Hello, gentlemen.
It looks like we have a little bit of news, although we don't know what the news is in the news.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: We are waiting for more information. We're going just on the thinnest of threads.
But, Mark, based on what we're hearing — and, of course, we just heard from two individuals who work in — have worked at the Justice Department, have been a federal prosecutor.
If it's the case there are no indictments being recommended, that's going to bring a sigh of relief from this White House, isn't it?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I would say it is, Judy.
I mean, we know about Robert Mueller, that this has been leak-proof, and that he has a reputation for incredible thoroughness. And I think the relief — or maybe the question will turn out to have been the indictment or whether they can indict a sitting President or not.
And, you know, I don't know, quite frankly. But, I mean, let's be frank — 34 people have been indicted, right, six associates of the President. Five have pleaded guilty. I mean, we are — this is not for naught. It's not an empty exercise, by any means.
Judy Woodruff: David, how do you read what little bit, little bit we know?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, the news event is, a piece of paper was handed from one office to another office. That is what happened today.
This takes place in a political context. And I think a lot of people — we have been talking about the Mueller report. And some people were treating it as the messiah that was going to come and rid them of Donald Trump.
And there was an expectation that it would shift fundamentally the ball game. Right now, there are daily allegations about Trump about this or that, bad tweets. Republicans have stuck with him. Democrats have opposed. And we have been in this World War II situation.
And so the question is, does the report change that trench warfare, essentially? And if there are no indictments, I really have trouble seeing how it does that. No indictments on collusion, but even the ones I expected there might be were on the obstruction piece.
And this started as an obstruction investigation, after the Comey firing. And so if there's no indictments even on obstruction, then there will be bad stuff, presumably, but we will fundamentally probably be in the same situation.
And so I think the smart money for the past month has always been shifting, as we have been saying, to the Southern District of New York and to his financial crimes. The collusion, I have always been a skeptic, just because I don't think there was a Trump campaign. There was no organized thing to actually do the collusion.
Judy Woodruff: It sounds — David is saying, in essence, Mark, that, yes, there have been referrals to the Southern District of New York, but they don't appear to go to the heart of what this investigation was about.
That's the reason they were referred to the Southern District.
Mark Shields: Yes.
I mean, remember, Bob Mueller had a pretty narrow mandate, which was Russia and Russia's involvement in this election. So, in that sense — but, no, I do agree, Judy, that what we have, beyond being astonishingly leak-proof, is the question of what does come out.
I mean, you will recall the Starr Report coming out in all its graphic, specific, embarrassing detail.
Judy Woodruff: About President Clinton.
Mark Shields: About President Clinton.
And the policy has been in the past, the Department of Justice, that you do not identify anybody who is targeted, but against whom no legal action was taken. So, we don't know what the status is of the report on the President or anybody else at this point, I mean, unlike in the Comey investigation, where he felt obliged to make his statements about Hillary Clinton, the Presidential candidate, in 2016.
Judy Woodruff: I'm going to ask both of you to stand by, sit there and wait with me, because on the phone right now is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, congressman from California.
Congressman Schiff, obviously, we're in the very early moments, hours of having this report transmitted from the special counsel, Robert Mueller, to the office of the attorney general.
The briefings have not yet happened, I gather, at your end. But what do you know so far?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif): Well, I think what we know so far is that this report is going to deal with the decisions to prosecute certain people and the decisions not to prosecute others, why the special counsel felt the evidence was sufficient as to some, but not as to others.
The important point here, though, is, this focuses predominantly on the criminal investigation. But this investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation. And that may be the far more significant side of the House, because that goes to the question of whether the President or anyone around him has been acting, either wittingly or unwittingly, as an agent of a foreign power.
And it's going to be very important, number one, that the report is made public, so the public understands what decisions the special counsel made and the criminal evidence. But it's going to be even more important, potentially, that the Congress understand, if there are counterintelligence risks, that this President or those around him are acting not in the national interest, but because they have some pecuniary interest or because they're beholden or are compromised in any way.
The Congress and our committee in particular has a statutory right to know. And we expect that the Justice Department is going to share that information with us, because they're going to have to.
Judy Woodruff: Well, when you remind us that this investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation, what does that say about what we may or may not be seeing right now in this report?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif): Well, it means that what we are going to see when the report is made public — and we may have to fight the attorney general to make sure that happens — but in a very bipartisan showing on a very polarized issue, the House quite overwhelmingly said, we expect this to be made public.
That may only tell us about prosecutorial decisions that may shed very little light on the issue of compromise. And to give you one very graphic illustration, the President during the campaign sought to consummate, which — something that would have been among the most lucrative deals of his life, and that is the building of a tower that would have required Kremlin support, at a time he was publicly espousing a new relationship with Russia and praising Vladimir Putin, whose green light might be necessary for that project.
That is obviously deeply compromising, but that may not be much of the report, because, whether it was criminal or not will go into the report, but what is essential in terms of the public safety and the security of the country is another matter entirely.
Judy Woodruff: And, Congressman, what do you make of these early reports that this will not include any further indictments than what we have already seen?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif): Well, I think a couple of things.
First, that means that this office, the special counsel's office, which is essentially like an outside counsel for the Justice Department, it won't be bringing any future indictments.
That doesn't preclude either the main Justice Department or the Southern District of New York or other elements of the Justice Department from bringing indictments. And I think it's very possible, given the number of redactions in the Mueller pleadings that suggest other investigations that are still ongoing.
But the last point that I want to make, because it addresses the conversation you were having before I came online, is this issue of, does the department share information about people not indicted?
And it's important for people to know that, during the last Congress, the Justice Department shared over 880,000 pages of discovery with the Congress in an investigation in which no one was indicted about Hillary Clinton, about Bruce Ohr, about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, about Andy McCabe and others.
And it did so because of the intense public interest and it did so because Congress insisted on transparency.
And, as I told them at the time, they are not getting away with a double standard. If the Congress changes hands, as it has, we will insist on the same level of transparency as to this even more important investigation.
So the department may speak in generalities about that, but the reality is, it departs from that policy when the public interest demands it, and, here, clearly, the public interest demands it.
Judy Woodruff: Congressman Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, thank you very much. We appreciate your joining us.
And again I'm joined in our Washington studio by our analysts, Mark Shields and David Brooks.
David, you hear the congressman, Chairman Schiff, making a point about transparency and saying, this is paramount right now.
David Brooks: Yes. I think we're all uncomfortable with the idea that prosecutors dump a bunch of information on someone they decide not to charge.
That is generally the rule. And so I understand their suspicion. But I think Adam Schiff's argument is essentially the correct one, that there are exceptions to this case.
And when you're investigating the President of the United States over something where he may have compromised national security issues, I do making it public is the — the weight is on that side.
And once they make it public to Congress, we will all know. And so the idea — Mueller has not leaked, but we're about to have a little fight over how much we release. But I suspect, by the end of the day, everything will come out.
Judy Woodruff: Mark, I don't know if you want to comment on that.
But I do want to come back to this point that Chairman Schiff made about the distinction between what's the criminal investigation and what is the investigation into counterintelligence, the Russia piece of this, which there have been a number of indictments around that so far. But we don't know yet how many more shoes, if any, there are to drop on that.
Mark Shields: No. No, we don't.
And, I mean, his point, that whether the President willingly or — wittingly or unwittingly is dealing with a foreign power — I was rather struck by Mitch McConnell, who is — if anything else, he's very careful.
He made a statement today saying, when this came out, that, "Many Republicans have long believed that Russia poses a significant threat to American interests," which, is you know, sort of — I mean, he's not someone given to idle chatter.
And I don't know, but I think that's where the focus is going to turn. And, obviously, his mention — he said main Justice — I mean, the Justice Department or the Southern District of New York as well.
Judy Woodruff: I want to come back. Pick up on that, David, if you want to, but I want — I do want to come back to your point earlier about how much energy and time.
And this was — Yamiche and Lisa were speaking about this earlier, how much time and energy and oxygen has been expended in Washington over the last two years-plus reflecting on this, anticipating this, wondering what's going to happen, and a lot of fingers pointed at the President.
David Brooks: Yes, a fair investigation is worth it, even if it doesn't come with indictments. You have to investigate things, even if just to find out what happened.
And when the President of the United States' campaign team has a meeting in the Trump Tower with Russians, that merits an investigation. And if you come up and there's no further indictments, I think we trust Robert Mueller, and we say, well, good job, and thank you for your service.
That doesn't mean it's going to change the politics, but I do think an investigation has been done, and a sign that American institutions can actually work.
Judy Woodruff: And again picking up on what Chairman Schiff said, Mark, about, yes, we know that — we now know, at least if we believe Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, there were continuing efforts to try to strike a deal over a Trump Tower in Moscow into — well into the campaign in 2016.
Mark Shields: Yes. That's right, well into 2016, is what Michael Cohen has testified.
David Brooks: There are decisions lawyers make, and there are decisions voters make.
Mark Shields: That's right.
David Brooks: And whether Michael Cohen and whether Trump was complicit or bowing down to Vladimir Putin for this reason or another, that's a decision more for voters than for lawyers, I would say.
Judy Woodruff: At this stage, though, I think both — and both of you have said this — when we don't know any more than we know, we want to be careful about assuming.
Mark Shields: We do.
And, I mean, whatever Robert Mueller is and has been, I mean, his career has been one of being careful, being thoughtful, of being complete, and not rushing to judgment.
So, whatever he delivers will be taken with gravitas and seriousness but any fair-minded person. Obviously, partisans on both sides will go to their corners.
Judy Woodruff: Yes.
Mark Shields: But, I mean, he — I can't think of a public figure who would have been more credible in this situation.
Judy Woodruff: You haven't seen leaks.
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: And at a moment when Sean Hannity and many others have been going after Robert Mueller day after day after day…
Mark Shields: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: … he must have felt an incredible temptation to strike back in some way, but he just…
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: … and delivered the report.
Judy Woodruff: Yes.
I'm trying to compare this with other investigations where the leaks have been at a minimum. This may be — this may hold the record for the fewest bits of information shared with the press, with the public.
Mark Shields: He ought to be the personnel director for any President's administration.
The people he chose were exactly like him. They have been just as circumspect, just as discreet, and just as tight-lipped.
Judy Woodruff: All right.
Well, it is has just literally come out in the last hour or so. We learned at 5:00 Eastern that the report had been submitted and the Congress was notified.
And now we wait. We wait. We see what happens.
Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.
Mark Shields: Thank you.
David Brooks: Thank you.
SUMMARY: A nearly two-year investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election “does not exonerate” President Trump, Attorney General William Barr said in a summary of the Mueller report on Sunday, as Democrats consider whether there is enough evidence to impeach the President. NewsHour politics correspondent Lisa Desjardins joins Hari Sreenivasan for a look at what Congress may do next.
SUMMARY: The Republican establishment on Sunday felt a sense of vindication following the release of a Justice Department summary on the Mueller report. NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports. She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss reactions from both sides of the political aisle.
SUMMARY: Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find evidence that President Trump conspired with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign, according to a summary released by the Justice Department on Sunday. Bob Bauer, a professor at NYU's School of Law and former White House counsel to President Obama, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how much of the full report should be made public.
SUMMARY: What does the departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions mean for the Mueller investigation? Matt Whitaker, the acting attorney general, was formerly Sessions’ chief of staff, but before joining the Justice Department, he was openly critical of the Mueller probe he now oversees. William Brangham speaks with Devlin Barrett,who covers the Justice Department for The Washington Post.
In his first public statement as acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker said he was “committed to leading a fair department with the highest ethical standards.”
But Whitaker, who was chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions before President Donald Trump picked him Wednesday to replace Sessions, has worked as a conservative activist in recent years, raising questions about whether he can lead a department overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, is a well-known figure in conservative legal circles in Washington, D.C.
Prior to joining the Justice Department as Sessions’ chief of staff, Whitaker founded a conservative judicial watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, that called for investigations into Hillary Clinton, former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Florida) and into accusations that the Democratic National Committee was working with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
During the 2016 election, Whitaker, who ran as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in Iowa in 2014, called for a special counsel to be named to investigate Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.
He has also repeatedly criticized Mueller’s Russia investigation, which the Justice Department oversees, both in appearances as a CNN commentator and on Twitter. Those attacks on the Mueller probe, in particular, are drawing fresh scrutiny now as Washington waits to see how Whitaker will approach the investigation in his new role.
Whitaker’s record on the Mueller investigation
In an op-ed published last year by CNN, Whitaker warned Mueller would be crossing a “red line” if his investigation looked into the finances of the Trump family.
“If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel’s investigation was a mere witch hunt,” Whitaker wrote.
During an appearance on CNN last year, Whitaker suggested that whoever replaced Sessions would not need to fire Mueller but could reduce his budget “so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.”
In August 2017, Whitaker retweeted an article that called Mueller’s team a “lynch mob.”
Whitaker warned Mueller would be crossing a ‘red line’ if his investigation looked into the Trump family’s finances
The New York Times reported in September that the Trump administration was prepared to name Whitaker as the No. 2 at the Justice Department should Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resign. Rosenstein kept his job after a flurry of speculation that he would be fired following a New York Times report that suggested Rosenstein had raised concerns about Trump.
Rosenstein had been overseeing the Russia investigation after Sessions recused himself. But a Justice Department spokesperson said Wednesday that Whitaker is now “in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice,” which presumably would include the Russia probe.
Progressive activists denounced Whitaker as a political operative.
“This is somebody who has already been out there, who has opined about the scope of the investigation, who is a political appointee,” Marge Baker, the executive vice president of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, said in an interview. “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious as a threat to democracy.”
Whitaker’s legal and political career
Whitaker has long been involved in Republican Party politics.
Whitaker received a law degree from the University of Iowa and then worked in private practice before being appointed in 2004 by then-President George W. Bush to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern district of Iowa. Whitaker held the position until 2009.
As U.S. attorney, he prosecuted national security, immigration, income tax and firearm cases. Few of those cases were high profile. In 2008, he was part of a nationwide effort by the Justice Department to crackdown on fraud in the H1-B visa program for high-skilled immigrant workers.
Whitaker, who has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, grabbed headlines when in 2007 when he prosecuted an openly gay Democratic state senator in Iowa for alleged extortion. The senator was found not guilty, and Whitaker was criticized for running a politically motivated case.
After leaving the office of U.S. attorney in 2009, Whitaker, along with Chris Hagenow and Bill Gustoff, founded the law firm Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP. The firm’s name was changed to Hagenow & Gustoff when Whitaker left in September of last year to become Sessions’ chief of staff at the Justice Department.
People who know Whitaker say he deserves an opportunity to prove himself
Whitaker’s private legal career largely focused on white collar litigation. People who have known Whitaker for decades said he deserves an opportunity to prove himself.
Gustoff said he, Whitaker and Hagenow founded their law firm with common conservative beliefs and the goal of serving their faith, families and Iowans rather than solely to make money.
“Our politics plays into our law and our law plays into our politics,” Gustoff said in an interview.
Others praised Whitaker’s integrity and argued he wouldn’t let his personal beliefs cloud his judgment.
“Regardless of what his positions are, he has a job to do, and he will do that within the frame of the law,” said Scott Raecker, the executive director of Drake University’s center focusing on leadership ethics and civility and a former Iowa state representative.
Still, Whitaker has made his strong conservative viewpoint and support for the Republican Party clear. Whitaker was the co-chair of Raecker’s 2010 re-election campaign for the state legislature, and co-chaired former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign in Iowa. He ran for Iowa state treasurer in 2002, years before making his failed 2014 U.S. Senate.
During a 2014 debate when Whitaker was running for U.S. Senate, he said appointed judges should have a “biblical view of justice.” If they had a secular worldview, he said that would make him “very concerned about how they judge.”
SUMMARY: White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made the surprising announcement on Wednesday that she will leave the Trump administration in the coming weeks. The news comes a day after Hicks testifies for hours before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Russia probe. Judy Woodruff learns more from Ashley Parker of The Washington Post.
SUMMARY: President Trump reportedly ordered the dismissal of special counsel Robert Mueller last June, but backed down after White House counsel Don McGahn said he would quit rather than carry out the order, according to The New York Times and others. In Davos, the President dismissed the report as "fake news." John Yang reports and Judy Woodruff talks to Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School.
SUMMARY: Since the San Bernardino attack, the FBI has been trying to read the contents of a cell phone used by attacker Syed Farook, made impossible by encryption. Now Apple CEO Tim Cook is rejecting a federal court order to create software to unlock the device. Gwen Ifill talks to Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, and Nate Cardozo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): The battle over privacy vs. security is back front and center, as Apple digs in against the FBI and the courts over the issue of access to data on its phones.
December 2, 2015, that's the day Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, went on a murderous rampage in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Hours later, they were, in turn, killed by police. Ever since, the FBI has been trying to read the contents of a cell phone Farook used.
JAMES COMEY, FBI Director: We still have one of those killers' phones that we have not been able to open. And it's been over two months now. We're still working on it.
GWEN IFILL: Last week, FBI Director James Comey told a Senate hearing that the Apple iPhone's encryption has made it impossible for the agency to access its content.
Now a federal judge in California has ordered the company to create software that will do just that. But Apple CEO Tim Cook forcefully rejected that order early yesterday, writing in a letter addressed to Apple customers: “In the wrong hands, this software, which doesn't exist today, would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest disputed that, saying the government wants access only to the single device associated with Farook.
JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary: We're not asking Apple to redesign its products or to create a new back door to its products. This is a much more specific request that the Department of Justice has put forward.
GWEN IFILL: Apple stepped up its protections after NSA leaker (aka traitor) Edward Snowden exposed government surveillance of phone traffic in 2013.
One feature can even erase the iPhone's contents after 10 failed attempts to unlock it. Prosecutors say they are worried that this feature could be on the phone Farook used. And unless Apple devises a way to unlock it, they could lose all its data. The company now has five days to make its formal response in court.
