>>> WELCOME BACK. IM STEPHANIE RUHLE.
A GROWING NUMBER OF FEDERAL
PROSECUTORS, U.S. ATTORNEYS AND
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS
INSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE
FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR
OBSTRUCTION IF HE WERE NOT
PROTECTED BY THE OLC POLICY THAT
SAYS A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT
BE INDICTED.
BE INDICTED. MORE THAN 630 HAVE NOW SIGNED ON
TO A STATEMENT THAT SAYS IF THE
EVIDENCE LAID OUT IN THE MUELLER
REPORT WAS APPLIED TO ANY OTHER
PERSON, IT WOULD RESULT IN
MULTIPLE FELONY CHARGES.
CHUCK ROSENBERG IS AN MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER U.S.
ATTORNEY AND SENIOR FBI
OFFICIAL.
OFFICIAL.
HES ALSO THE HOST OF A MUST LISTEN TO NEW PODCAST CALLED
"THE OATH."
"THE OATH." CHUCK, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND
WHATS THEIR GOAL?
WHY WOULD THEY WRITE THIS?
>> THIS IS A BROAD GROUP OF
PEOPLE.
PEOPLE.
I LIKE TO THINK OF IT AS
NON-PARTISAN RATHER THAN
BIPARTISAN, STEPHANIE.
BIPARTISAN MEANS PARTISANS ARE ON BOTH SIDES.NS PARTISANS ARE
ON BOTH SIDES. NONPARTISAN MEANS YOU REVIEW THE
FACTS IN A STRAFTD WAY.
THIS IS A GROUP OF NONPARTISAN
FOLKS THAT ARE CORRECTLY STATING
IN MY VIEW THAT SAY IF ANYBODY
ELSE DID THE THINGS THE
PRESIDENT DID WOULD BE FACING
MULTIPLE FELONIES.
MULTIPLE FELONIES.
THATS CLEAR.
>> I WANT TO PULL A QUOTE FROM THE STATEMENT THAT READS TO LOOK
AT THESE FACTS AND SAY THAT A
PROSECUTOR COULD NOT PROBABLY
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE
STANDARDS SET OUT IN PRINCIPLES
OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION RUNS
COUNTER TO LOGIC AND OUR
EXPERIENCE.
SO TO YOUR EXACT POINT, THIS IS
THEIR VIEW, THIS IS YOUR VIEW, BUT HE IS THE SITTING PRESIDENT.
SO WHATS TO BE DONE?
>> RIGHT. SO AS SITTING PRESIDENT, POLICY
SAYS YOU CANNOT BE CHARGED.
BUT, REMEMBER, EVERY SITTING PRESIDENT BECOMES A FORMERNG
PRESIDENT BECOMES A FORMER PRESIDENT AND THESE FACTS ARE
NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
IF ANYTHING, MR. TRUMP SEEMS TO CONTRIBUTE EVIDENCE TO THISS TO
CONTRIBUTE EVIDENCE TO THIS INVESTIGATION WITH EVERY PASSING
WEEK.
SO SHOULD ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION
TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE
POLICY OR SHOULD THE PRESIDENT,
YOU KNOW, NO LONGER BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT, WHICH IS GOING
TO HAPPEN AT SOME POINT, I
IMAGINE CHARGES COULD BE
BROUGHT.
I THINK THE PROSECUTORS HAVE IT
RIGHT.
I WAS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FOR A
NUMBER OF TIME AND BROUGHT A
NUMBER OF OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE
CHARGES MANY ON FARLESS EVIDENCE
THAN YOU FIND IN VOLUME 2 OF THE
MUELLER REPORT.
>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS
AROUND THE IDEA OF CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT BECAUSE NOW THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT COMPLY WITH
ANY OF THE SUBPOENAS.
HES COMPLETELY STONEWALLING
THEM.
THEM.
IS THERE AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY?
I MEAN, WE KNOW HES TRYING TO
RUN OUT THE CLOCK AND THAT
WORKS.
HOW DO DEMOCRATS WHO WANT THIS
INFORMATION RESOLVE ANY OF THIS?
>> RIGHT. SO YOU PUT YOUR FINGER RIGHT ON
IT.
IT.
IF THE STRATEGY IS TO RUN OUT
THE CLOCK, THEN CONTESTING AND
LITIGATING EVERY SINGLE MATTER IS GOING TO INURE TO THEMATTER
IS GOING TO INURE TO THE PRESIDENTS BENEFIT.
PRESIDENTS BENEFIT.
LOOK, TRADITIONALLY, STEPHANIE,
THIS HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH
ACCOMMODATION.
HISTORICALLY WHITE HOUSES AND
CONGRESSES, YOU KNOW, QUARREL, SQUABBLE OVER WHAT TO PRODUCE,
WHO TO PRODUCE, HOW TO PRODUCE
IT, WHEN TO PRODUCE IT AND YOU REACH AGREEMENT THROUGHAND YOU
REACH AGREEMENT THROUGH ACCOMMODATION.
ACCOMMODATION.
THIS WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT SEEM
INCLINED TO ACCOMMODATION.
IF THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING, THE CLOCK IS GOING
TO RUN.
TO RUN. THERES SEVERAL LAYERS OF
FEDERAL COURTS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THROUGH BEFORE YOU HAVEE TO
GET THROUGH BEFORE YOU HAVE FINALLY ADJUDICATED THE QUESTION
AND THATS A PROBLEM.
>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT WANT DON McGAHN TOSE
DOES NOT WANT DON McGAHN TO COMPLY.
COMPLY.
HOW DOES THIS WORK?
THE WHITE HOUSE ALLOWED DON
McGAHN TO NOT ONLY SPEAK TO ROBERT MUELLER, HE SPENT TO
ROBERT MUELLER, HE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS, GAVE NOTES,
GAVE DOCUMENTS.
GAVE DOCUMENTS. NOW THAT WERE MONTHS AND MONTHS
AFTER THAT, WEVE SEEN THE
MUELLER REPORT, WE KNOW WHAT A
KEY PARTICIPANT.
HIS NAME IS IN THAT REPORT OVER
100 TIMES, HOW CAN THE WHITE
HOUSE MAKE THE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE WITHOUT IT LOOKING
SIMPLY LIKE POLITICS.
McGAHN MADE MUELLER LOOK BAD SO THEY DONT WANT HIM TOOOK BAD SO
THEY DONT WANT HIM TO PARTICIPATE.
PARTICIPATE.
>> GOOD QUESTION. GOOD QUESTIONS.N.
GOOD QUESTIONS. LET ME GET A LITTLE BIT NERDY ON
YOU.
YOU.
>> NEVER.
>> NO, IM GOING TO. IM WARNING YOU. TO.
IM WARNING YOU. THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENT
IS PRETTY NUANCED AND PRETTY
LAYERED.
LAYERED.
THERE ARE REAL THINGS CALLED SELECTIVE OR LIMITED WAVERS AND
SO WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL
DO IS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE WE ONLY DISCLOSED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVELY
DISCLOSED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WE HAVENT DISCLOSED
MORE BROADLY AND WE HAVENT
WAIVED IT.
NOW WHATEVER YOU MAY THINK OF
THAT ARGUMENT, ITS STILL
SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE LITIGATED AND WHICH IS,
THEREFORE, GOING TO TAKE A LOT
OF TIME.
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS THAT ANY
WHITE HOUSE CAN ASSERT.
THERE ARE ALSO FRIVOLOUS
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS THAT A WHITE HOUSE CAN ASSERT,
BUT TO YOUR EARLIER POINT, IF
YOU HAVE TO LITIGATE IT, YOURE