is don mcgahn worried? do we have reason to believe he's concerned that he may be a target rather than a witness of the mueller investigation? >> i've seen no indication that mcgahn himself is under investigation in this. what we have seen a lot of is that mcgahn is a central witness in and figure in all of this because he can provide insight into what president was thinking from a story perspective. i find mcgahn's position incredibly interesting because this is a skilled washington lawyer who had to take the whims of a president and try to keep them legal and try to carry them out and time and time again, we learn about different an in this case doincidents where he was trying to take a square and put it in a round -- >> one of those. >> square hole or whatever. yeah. screwed that one up. that is pretty remarkable in this whole thing is how did mcgahn balance his issue and what was ethical and legal. >> michael schmidt, incredible scoop tonight. thank you so much. congratulations on this scoop. >> thanks

remember don mcgahn was part of that, too. so you have donald trump trying to assemble around himself a protection force. and feel like all these attorneys around him need to protect him. protect him from what? >> joy is adding a piece in the details. if those were real concerns, anyone working for the president, including a lawyer, could certainly explore them, nothing wrong with that. but just as you said, and lawrence was eluding to this earlier, a prefatory remark russia is on my mind, i need to protect my family finances, so go find me fake reasons for an unlawful firing, okay, now you have other people on the hook for potential obstruction. if you'll permit me. i brought one more aid since we were talking about where the rules are. this is the cfr doj rules it says only the attorney general may remove the special counsel and only for good cause that cause must be specified in writing for the specific reason of his or her removal. if you start asking people, lawyers or others, to falsify those things you're asking people

don mcgahn is one of your successors as white house counsel. do you think there's any problem, legal impediment, reason why don mcgahn couldn't testify about this incident in front of a congressional committee the way you testified about your conversations with president nixon? >> in front of a congressional committee it's open question, if the president invoked executive privilege, he might be able to impose it. if you recall, during watergate that was unresolved element of executive privilege. grand jury clearly had access to the tapes, senate watergate committee never got access. judge stopped it, didn't rule on it, thought it was political question. that's unresolved issue. as far as attorney/client privilege, that's pretty well resolved by ken starr case. >> why were you allowed to testify about conversations with the president? why wasn't executive privilege invoked about that? >> i don't know why they didn't. how do you invoke executive privilege? there's no such thing as injunction to not testify. they did waive attorney/client privileg

who held the exact same job as don mcgahn holds now. he testified at great length and in incriminating way about his conversations with president nixon. seems incumbent upon don mcgahn given the questionable nature of this exchange, he should be arrow required to tell congress and the american people what the heck was going on. >> the number of people from the white house invoked not executive privilege because not white house, but invented form of that, i just don't want to tell you my conversations with the president because i don't think i should, seems like everyone else has done it, why not don mcgahn? >> we might. congress never knows until it asks. the fundamental fact of the congressional investigations is that republicans are in charge, republicans in charge of the house and senate and these investigations seem much more designed to protect president trump than to investigate him. but that doesn't mean those of us following it from the outside shouldn't say that congress should do its job and get these people under oath, find o

we can't know because don mcgahn isn't talking. if i was donald trump, i would be awfully nervous about don mcgahn right now, not following your order and a lot of stories coming out that paint me as donald trump in a bad light and don mcgahn in a good light. >> so i want to ask you about some conflicts of interest that the president apparently had presented to mcgahn for his reasoning to why mueller could be dismissed. three things. mueller was involved in a disagreement, apparently, over fees at a trump golf club. mueller's previous work for a law firm that represented jared kushner, and because trump interviewed mueller for the fbi director job after comey was fired where the reasons president trump thought perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad idea to fire mueller. are those valid concerns of conflict of interest? >> no, they're comedically bad reasons. i mean, if you're looking for a cover story, you really could do a better job than that. the idea that he can't conduct the investigation that he would have been authorized to con

i don't see don mcgahn as leaking type. that's not the type of lawyer he is. not the lawyer that i met and spent a little time with. so i don't see that but that's out there. and i'm sure people are asking that question. but here's the bottom line which is the important thing to remember here is that if president fires bob mueller he'll be in a lot of trouble, he knows that and realizes that, so i'm not sure that's a focus here. what the president ought to go doing is focusing on agenda and stop worrying about the mueller investigation. it's going to happen. the president should stick with his agenda. >> does that prejudice the investigation all the leaking? >> i don't know. it might help the investigation. certainly leaking to that book, that michael wolff book, but then again president trump and his political people invited author right there in the white house to go around interviewing people. of course, the president who throws staff members under the bus and fires people with regularity is going to have more leaking going on for example president bush. we

don mcgahn the white house counsel may have saved the trump presidency. the white house counsel reportedly stopped trump from being richard nixon. specifically when nixon fired cox. forget the president's reference of rose mary woods. his secretary. the real nixon reference is that if the president had moved on the special counsel bob mueller, there may well have been a cascade of resignations just like with nixon. that would have left trump exactly where nixon was. forced to resign. for efforts to derail justice. that's where we are tonight. let's bring in one of the "new york times" reporters who broke the story. magg magg maggie haberman. where do you want to start? it makes most sense. have you heard anything from the white house in term of response to the report? >> just the statement from ty cobb that's in the story. that out of respect for the process and special counsel they were going to decline comment. that's not a denial. and i think it's just worth noting. the story i think speaks for itself. the first we have heard of an actual effort by the

so i don't know if don mcgahn is the leaker. maybe he is a guy who the victim of a lucky coincidence. but i'm saying if i was donald trump i'd be eye balling don mcgahn right now. >> the other person in the room he know of would be donald trump himself. listen, i asked john dean about your tweet in the last hour. and this is what he said. >> well i don't think he -- he has any choice. in this instance. he -- his client is not donald trump. it's the office of the president. he's going to have to respond accordingly. i think walter makes a good point about canonizing the counsel for doing what he is supposed to do. but i think it also suggests that he saw the peril in this and the potential criminality of it, and that's why he backed off, and was wise to do so. >> so very similar question mr. shaub as i asked before. do you think mcgahn is pulling a john dean here? john cooperated with the investigators during the nixon administration, by the way, when they were looking into the watergate cover-up. >> well it sure sounded from tha

don mcgahn is a professional, he's got a reputation as a very fine lawyer. he would be committing malpractice as white house counsel if he didn't alert the president. so the president said i don't care, i want him gone. i want him gone. and i order you to get rid of him. and there are various things that don mcgahn could have done to carry out that crime and it would have been a crime because it clearly would have been an ongoing obstruction of an important piece of the system of justice. but not wanting to commit a crime and perhaps worried about how he had already been implicated, in the firing of comey, and in trying to pressure jeff sessions, not to recuse himself, don mcgahn did what any decent lawyer would do and that is to say, mr. president, i will not commit this crime, i can't do it. in fact if you make me do it, i'll quit. and of course at that point, the president backed off. but it shows a great deal about his corrupt motives and eliminates the possibility of any defense that he was simply a novice at the political game and he didn't know what h

don mcgahn is the white house counsel. and donald trump's personal counsel is ty cobb and john dowd. do those two functions representing the white house, represent the president ever diverge, and do you see any signs they could diverge in where you understand this investigation to be now and where you think it's heading? >> we haven't seen that publicly yet, but there's a lot we don't know, nicolle. for example, when don mcgahn was called as a witness, did he assert any privileges? attorney/client privilege or executive privilege? conversely, has robert mueller tried to invoke the crime fraud exception which he did in the manafort case to get a lawyer to come and testify. you can do that if the lawyer has information about what you think is a crime. so this is a secret investigation. there's a lot we don't know. we haven't seen any signs in public that the interests of donald trump the client are diverging from the interests of the united states government. but it's an interesting sort of line of inquiry to pursue. >> and

it's about the president versus don mcgahn, whoever else he told, what e-mail don mcgahn sent, what text messages there are. there's a pattern of activity about the removal of special counsel i guarantee you mueller has seen and the president risks walking into a trap if he just says this never happened. >> there's proof that this is not a case simply about obstruction of justice, there are four words, paul manafort and rick gates. >> those charges aren't even about trump. >> the idea that mueller's entire probe is centered around one end point being about obstruction is absurd. bill clinton sat for four hours. do we think that donald trump has the wherewithal to be able to withstand four hours, 40 minutes with mueller and his team to be able to do all these things, withstand all these seasoned investigators asking questions point blank? it's a very impossible feat. >> and president clinton, one of the articles of impeachment was perjury and another one of the four was suborning perjury. we have a lot more to discuss on the president ordering the firing of robert mueller. what might this

is don mcgahn fit to continue serving in this important role? >> i certainly know it's a tough role. it's not clear if he's doing a good job or not. there are many things happening from this trump white house i disagree with. i think the best grade is "i" for incomplete. i think it's critical for those around donald trump to make it clear to the president that we don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a constitutional form of democracy and there are certain norms that are consistent with the founding fathers as to how our republic proceeds. he doesn't get to go around and dictate how things are going to unfold in terms of policy and certainly with a criminal investigation. and hopefully the white house counsel will make that clear to him as we move forward so the investigation can move forward without any interference from the president. >> thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you, wolf. >> up next, the president returns back to the white house amid word he tried to fire special counsel robert mueller. quickbooks. backing you. returns back

don mcgahn, ty cobb are not always on the same page. they don't see issues like executive privilege and disclosure to mueller the same way. mcgahn more in favor of protecting those powers for future presidents, mcgahn actually representing the office of the presidency, thinking about that. where cobb takes the perspective that the president has nothing to hide, and the sooner they cooperate with mueller, the more documents they give to him, the more forthcoming they are, the sooner they are to get a resolution and have this cloud taken away from the president. obviously, a huge political cloud over him. over everything. and there is this constant tension between the two of them as cobb has tried to do everything possible to try and move along the white house's cooperation with mueller. >> frank, i want to bring you in on that point, because i know you shared some thoughts with us today that donald trump's reaction to this story, by calling michael schmidt and maggie haber man's account fake news, he may have impeached the credibility or

i think that don mcgahn threatened to resign because he had no choice. he realized he was engaging and possibly joining a criminal conspiracy to remove or to obstruct justice. and that's what a lawyer has to do in a situation like that is either threaten to resign or quietly resign. in some jurisdictions, they actually have to make a noisy withdrawal when they do it. >> yeah. you were shaking your head in agreement when you said this is another piece in the puzzle, and a big piece. >> it is. because we see the pattern above all things. donald trump through his first year in office has done everything possible to undermine, obstruct, demean, and halt this legitimate investigation into his campaign, the conduct of people in his family. it doesn't mean they're guilty. he doesn't want this investigation to go forward at all costs. he now has engaged the republican party, which is staking its future to some extent in trying to undermine the investigation. what we've seen in the last two weeks from republicans trying to undermine mueller's version is quite ext

there has not been a public denial from white house counsel don mcgahn, and given that, and given the news, you have to wonder what the future meetings will be like with the president and his white house counsel. we're told that up until this point, that don mcgahn wanted to be in this role, was happy with this role, but you can imagine that sets up some awkward meetings, some i have spoke with said that they were surprised by the -- this was a tense time, there was a lot of anxiety going on, it was really touch and go. it but certainly a lot of them didn't realize the extent to which this boiled over with don mcgahn, white house counsel, apparently according to sources threatened to resign over the firing of robert mueller. how intense are these negotiations going on between white house counsel and robert mueller's team. at one point we thought that the don mcgahn order to fire robert mueller could be part of the investiga investigation. >>> joining us now is democratic senator cory booker. senator booker, president trump ordering mueller to be fired, taking it with everything we kno

mcgahn and some of the key difference is don mcgahn is not the president's personal lawyer, he's the white house counsel, right? he's responsible to the office of the president and not personally to mr. trump. why does that matter here when it comes to potentially coming before congress and testifying publicly and et cetera? >> it really does put mcgahn's conduct and his willingness to go to the attorney general, it raises the importance, right, his obligation is not just to the president individually or to the american people more broadly. if they thinks the president is making this request to throw sand in the gears of the russia investigation, and expect sessions to do things on his behalf to impede the investigation, and mcgahn has a separate obligation to push back on the president or somehow sort of -- he's supposed to be managing that relationship, managing that communication with the attorney general and it makes it incumbent upon mcgahn, not to be the messenger for the president but to apply his own legal judgment to ensure the communications between the white house and the

but the bigger story here is the fact that the white house counsel, don mcgahn tried to dissuade jeff sessionss from stopping away from the probe. tan that is drawing outrage. and of course adding another layer to this obstruction of justice probe by mueller's team. so the times reports it was actually the president who gave those firm orders to don mcgahn to stop the attorney general from recusing himself. and then reportedly, brooke, the president erupt

>> i think don mcgahn is one of the best in the business. it is also very plausible there is a civil conversation at this early stage when the counsel is together about are there conflicts of interest, for example, on the director's side. >> why would you have that conversation unless you were thinking about firing mueller? >> i think any lawyer worth their salt would go to raise the different things that are going on as you're analyzing what is going into this. i think with this is supposed to be about, at least i thought, was about some investigation into supposed collusion between the campaign and foreign entity. so far at this point, practically two years into or at least a year and a half, two years into this investigation and there is still nothing. >> seems like it could be taking a turn towards obstruction. for what? that's the whole thing. there hasn't been -- >> getting in way of the investigation. >> but he hasn't done anything to get in the way. he didn't go and fire mueller. perfectly within his presidential power to fire comey.

you know, don mcgahn and the president have had a very rocky relationship going back months. i don't think this is going to endear mcgahn to the president anymore if, in fact, and he's the only one in the hierarchy there would have been able to say, hey, keep this information from the president. if, in fact, that occurred and mcgahn did that, i can tell you that the president would not be happy about that. >> what does the special counsel, phil mudd, robert mueller doing about all of this? >> thank god i'm not a lawyer. i don't know what the lawyers would say. i can tell you what might come up at the table, what are the facts? the facts aren't technically whether or not somebody told the attorney general whether to recuse himself. the facts i would be interested in and an investigator would be interested in, did anybody impede the special counsel from interviews? did that stop anybody from interviewing with the council? did they tell anybody what to say when they went into an interview? did they tell the special counsel he couldn't have access to document? did they limit in -

tells cnn white house council don mcgahn personally reached out to sessions in early 2017 to try to dissuade the attorney general from recusing himself from that probe. they learned about the outreach and it was a direct order by president trump who reportedly erupted in front of several white house officials when sessions announced he recused himself. >> therefore, i recuse myself. >> reporter: saying mr. trump said he had expected his top law enforcement official to safe guard himself the way robert f. kennedy as attorney general had done for his brother john f. kennedy and eric holder for barack obama. walter shaub said at the time he recommended recusal and expressed outrage upon learning mcgann was personally lobbying sessions against it. >> while i was on the phone caulking to department of justice officials telling them that jeff session has no choice but to recuse, in order to resolve a criminal conflict of interest. we now learn that don mcgahn was pressuring jeff sessions on behalf of the president to do just thes on. >> i think that we are in a neighborhood where i hope m

and we know don mcgahn didn't carry through with the request to fire mueller. let's talk about the implications, what happens next. mark preston is with us, cnn political commentators mary catherine hamm and alice stewart, nice to have you all here. mark preston, this is not just our reporting. this is "the new york times" this is multiple outlets, the president asked about it this morning in davos. he doesn't say no, i never did this, he just again brushes it off as fake news, which we can attribute it to just news he doesn't like. >> if i try to put this in perspective for everybody out there, couple of things that are important. one, four sources told "the new york times" who broke this story about this incident. cnn, "washington post," many other outlets have confirmed it. there is there there. no question about that. it is important that you can't keep on explaining away bad news by calling it fake news. he's been doing that to great success, certainly with his base. his base needs to wake up. i'm not saying he's guilty of anything. you need to follow the

and don mcgahn. there are many others we don't know. we just simply don't know how many people mueller and his team have talked to, and so that just -- every day it's pins and needles, people at the white house. they have to hire lawyers. i saw this in the clinton administration, but there you didn't have that same sense that looking over your shoulders to see who might have been telling something that could directly be counter to what you might be telling and that you could each be hurting the other. it's much more different here. it's much more personal. >> eugene, should we spend a moment talking about don mcgahn who, as we said earlier in the broadcast, knowing what we know tonight, just may have averted something of an early constitutional crisis last summer? >> he may well have. look, i think we would expect, frankly, someone, a lawyer who was able to rise to the level of white house counsel to react in that manner, to see the president about to commit an act that's deeply unwise and undemocratic counter to our system and throw th

here's reference to don mcgahn, paige 212 of your book. mcgahn tried to explain that, in fact, comey himself was not running the russia investigation, that without comey the investigation would proceed anyway. mcgahn, the lawyer whose job was to issue cautions, was a frequent target of trump rages. typically these would begin as a kind of exaggeration or acting and then devolve into the real thing. now the president is focussed in a vicious fury on mcgahn and his cautions about comey. that's just comey. so we can presume something similar went on with that with the attempt to fire mueller. >> let me give a slightly different context than the "new york times" gives. the "new york times" makes it sound like trump thought about it, sat down, determined that he should fire -- that he should fire mueller, that he should act on this, and then told mcgahn to cary this out. and that's not untrue. but the difference is, he does this constantly. every day the president is saying he's going to fire somebody. anybody who he feels is -- has annoyed him

on the 26th, yates briefs white house counsel don mcgahn about the flynn interview, warns about false statements. on the 26th mcgahn briefs the president, chief of staff, steve bannon about what flynn has done. 27th, trump asks comey for a loyalty pledge at a rare dinner between president and the director of the fbi. also on the 27th, as you pointed out, we know from george papadopoulos's guilty plea that he's interviewed by the fbi. why is that important? >> so, papadopoulos was a member of the campaign, a foreign policy advisor. they couldn't really find any really great experts out there that wanted to work with him, so they found george papadopoulos. and papadopoulos met with the fbi that day about his contacts with the russians, how he had interacted with them during the campaign. and it is in that interview that he lied about his -- about how he had been talking to them, how they had been offering things to them, you know, as they were trying to cuddle up to them during the campaign. and that's just another odd coincidence here. in these first seven days of the presidency which

we now know it wasn't just don mcgahn pressuring jeff sessions not to recuse himself. two other high-ranking white house officials. do you see this as obstruction of justice? >> this excellent reporting certainly indicates a key element of an obstruction of justice case, which is corrupt intent. what is building here, it may not have reached the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to try to shut down the investigation to interfere with it by telling jeff sessions he had main control over it and stymie it if possible. the standard here has to be a high one for any kind of obstruction case, but clearly when you're dealing with senior white house officials and the president of the united states, the bar is especially high. here is one point for sure, jeff sessions ought to explain this kind of contact from the white house. the white house staff ought to be called before the grand jury. and i would predict there'll be convictions and indictments early in the new year. >> convictions and indictments of people currently on the white house staff? >> currently on the

don mcgahn is deeply woven into all of this. i've actually heard people today say this shows tremendous courage on don mcgahn's part. but courage that people absolutely did not think he had. >> this is someone who is no stranger to washington, to politics. he was a partner at jones day law firm, a private firm. then he was commissioner and chairman at the federal election commission. actually, he was the commissioner before he joined jones day. before that, he was the formal general counsel for the national republican committee. he has experience in politics, in dealing with washington and dealing with some of these big players, big personalities, high-level officials. so in this critical moment, it seems like he made a critical choice, which was effectively to say that he wasn't going to agree to move forward with the firing of robert mueller. so that was significant move. some would say one that saved this president from political disaster. again, this looms over everything, as the russia probe marches on, steph. >> kristen we

over rob bherts muert mueller's investigation reaching a boiling point back in june ordering don mcgahn to have the justice department fire the special counsel, but mcgahn refused. >>tounding that he thought getting rid of mueller was a good idea. >> the president has considered reported firing or in the case of james koedoem actually fired five top officials including the big daddy of them all, robert mueller. >> trump had three reasons. one, a past dispute with mueller over fees at a trump golf club in virginia, two, his former firm's representation of son-in-law jared kushner, and three, he had been interviewed by -- he had interviewed to be the fbi director in the wake of james comey's termination. but the revelation that trump ordered mueller's firing contradicts what white house facials have been saying for months. when asked if the president had any intention at all of axing the special counsel, they have repeatedly denied it. >> does the president commit to not firing robert mueller? >> the president has not even discussed that. the president is not discussing firing bob mueller

we are told by sources that up until this point, don mcgahn wanted to stay in his role, happy in his role. this could set up for awkward meetings. in terms of mood and reaction to this in the white house, a sense of surprise by the revelation. they knew this past june was a period of intense time, a lot of anxiety going on as one source said. really touch and go. a lot of them didn't realize the extent to which this tension boiled over with don mcgahn threatening to resign. how will this impact the negotiations going on. one source told me the fact that he ordered don mcgahn to fire mueller could be an extra layer in the obstruction case and whether the president will sit down and talk to robert mueller still ongoing at this hour. anderson. >> thank you very much. joining us now is cory booker. president trump ordering mueller to be fired taken together with everything we know so far, to you does it rise to the level of obstruction of justice. >> to me, it is a troubling fact pattern. and we see this president who has in my opinion very authoritarian tendencies that upset, more than

don mcgahn is to be commended. he's a man of integrity, a very good lawyer. he stood up and he did the right thing. if the president were to fire robert mueller, that would set off a political firestorm, the likes of which we haven't seen since watergate. >> does the report of intent in any way add to your view any mounting evidence of obstruction or an attempt of obstruction by the president? >> well, the mueller investigation deals with, you know, russian interference in our election and if there was any, you know, involvement by the trump campaign. i am not aware at this moment of the president in any way colluding, although there are others who obviously have some real exposure. so i'm not sure just what mueller -- director mueller is going to find, but it's pretty clear to me that, you know, he is looking, he may be looking at obstruction. i mean, if the president, as he has stated, that he has done nothing wrong, i don't understand why he seems to want to interfere with this process. >> well, what does that s

ambassador, white house lawyer don mcgahn, do his reported actions give you reason for concern? >> ana, thanks for having me back. having worked in the office of white house counsel, i'm shocked and appalled by the behavior of don mcgahn. attorney general sessions had a clear obligation on it. it was not a close call that he had to recuse himself. he can't investigate the campaign when he worked on the campaign. and mcgahn urged him not to do so in direct contravention of those regulations, those ethics rules. that feels more like advancing an obstruction of justice than mcgahn's duty of serving the office of the president. so profoundly disturbing. >> so you think he could be in some legal trouble himself? >> i think that anybody who is involved in aiding and abetting what may have been an obstruction of justice by the president, big additional evidence pointing to that coming in this week, anybody who was nearby ought to feel some concern, and i am sure that bob mueller and his team are taking a close look at the actions of don mcgahn. remember that the critical cooperator in

in that "new york times" article, something i thought was big, there was no don mcgahn in there saying this never happened or declining to comment or anything like that. i think for a white house whose credibility is already in tatters, this is just sort of another hit to that. >> jennifer, i heard a lawyer on television tonight as the game goes on, "the new york times" says there were four sources on this story but i heard a lawyer say this is probably not a lawyer because of professional responsibility. they did not think a leak like this could come from a lawyer. >> it wouldn't be a lawyer with an attorney client relationship with donald trump. >> good point. >> other than that, i mean, there wouldn't be any professional responsibility for a lawyer not acting in the capacity of a lawyer to, you know, keep that communication confidential. so i don't know why it wouldn't be someone who by profession is a lawyer. >> cynthia, a dual question for you. number one, not brought up a lot, what about mike pence? and number two, if trump woke up tomorrow morning wanting above all to fire bob m

white house counsel don mcgahn carried out the orders and lobbied in charge of it. i don't know how it works with context whether or not like the attorney general should be recused. for the president to effectively lobby against his attorney it is improper for the president to effectively lobby against his attorney general's recusal this way? >> well, the president can express a desire that the attorney general stay in a case, but you shouldn't be surprised by what i'm about to say, rachel. the department of justice is full of lawyers. there is a bunch of rules written down about when you must recuse yourself and should recuse yourself. so the must category is really easy. let's say you would have a financial stake in the outcome of the case. you must recuse yourself. or it involves a family member, you must recuse yourself. but there is also a whole bunch of instances where you should recuse yourself. where, for instance, your participation in a case would give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest because for the justice system, appearances count for a l

but the bigger story here is the fact that the white house counsel, don mcgahn tried to dissuade jeff sessionss from stopping away from the probe. tan that is drawing outrage. and of course adding another layer to this obstruction of justice probe by mueller's team. so the times reports it was actually the president who gave those firm orders to don mcgahn to stop the attorney general from recusing himself. and then reportedly, brooke, the president erupted in rage in front of several white house officials when jeff sessions did announce that he was stepping aside from the probe in march. so all of this information will add to mueller's probe. and also, brooke, we have learned that a handwritten note from rans preeince preeb bass t president that he wasn't under investigation. so all of this coming together in mueller's probe. but of course brooke it was the firing of james comey in may that started up these questions of obstruction of justice. because at the time the official line from the white house and the department of justice was that comey had been fired because of the handling

don mcgahn wasn't able to persuade jeff sessions but reportedly he tried. also, "the new york times" further reports tonight that his, the president's intention to fire james comey was so unnerving to some members of the white house staff, to people inside the white house counsel's office, his intention to fire comey according to the "new york times" led one of mr. mcgahn's deputies to mislead the president about his authority to fire the fbi director. this is quite remarkable. the lawyer, somebody named dillon, don't know how you pronounce the first name, u-t-t-i-m, a deputy to don mcgahn in the white house counsel's office was convinced if comey was fired, it could be imperilled because it would force the justice department to open an investigation. long-standing analysis of presidential power says the president does not need grounds to fire the fbi director, mr. dillon is a veteran lawyer and had been so before joining the trump white house and assigned a junior lawyer to examine this issue. they determined the fbi director was no different than any empl

. >> also don mcgahn's bafrt. it is important to point out don mcgahn isn't donald trump's lawyer. donald trump's lawyer is not don mcgahn. don mcgahn is the lawyer for the government, the lawyer for the white house. he does not enjoy confidentiality between him and the president. >> he does not. and the job is to act on behalf of the american people, not to protect the president, as you said. so, the fact that he was going in sort of trying to convince the attorney general to remain loyal essentially to the president and protect the president is extraordinary, as is the fact that one of his deputies tried to lie to the president to keep him from firing comey and convince the president that he needed to do it for cause even though he didn't. i mean, a lot of the details in the report. >> he's totally exposed if he has to go up with robert mueller. there is nothing holding any of his testimony back. but doesn't this, peter, fit sort of a larger pattern? and we've been alluding to this. but donald trump and his opinion on how the government is supposed to work and who it is supposed

start putting yourself in the position of don mcgahn because he has a job you held. acting attorney of the united states says your national security adviser lied to the fbi a few days ago. is lying in the press or lying to the vice president, saying things that are untrue and questioned by the fbi and declines to tell you how he did, what are you thinking if you're don mcgahn? >> i don't know all the facts known to mcgahn at the time. it's very difficult for me to say what don mcgahn did or what i would do if i were in his place. however, it is strange that somehow according to nbc report, today, nobody inquired enough to know anything about those lies till flynn already left the white house. that seems strange, implausible in my view. >> it seems that three weeks go by that you start to at the very least, you bring him in, talk to him, some conversations emanate out of that other than just ah. >> i would assume that flynn would have retained an attorney. i think at that point somebody could have spoke with the attorney. >> the president's comments tonight about want

nbc news is reporting that the president backed off when his white house counsel don mcgahn threatened to resign over it. the story first in the new york times has been widely corroborated by numerous news organizations with multiple sources. but today in davos, the president dismissed the report as fake. >> fake news, folks. fake news. typical new york times, fake story. >> let's get to nbc news intelligence and national security reporter ken delaney covering the story every step of the way. break it down for us. this latest development, give us the details and what does it mean. >> one thing that is really important is the context of this firing order by president trump. it came in june. the mueller investigation only just begun at that point but it was already clear that it was going in dangerous directions for the white house. recall president trump told russians that he thought by firing james comey hes would relieving pressure on him regarding russia but that was not the case. the white house learned in june that robert mueller was investigating whether the president himself obst

the president is hearing don mcgahn would quit. this was a public public of conversation at the time. in our crack research team here came up with a bunch of statements. the president made last summer of 2017. august 10 the president was asked in when he was in bed minister. would you consider firing bob mueller. in august he said i quote i haven't given it any thought. i have been reading about it from you people. you say i'm going to dismiss him. i'm not dismissing anybody. i have haven't given it any thought. we learn from maggie indeed he had. >> i want to thank the panelists. that's it for us. obviously this is a major story tonight. time to hand it over to chris cuomo. for "prime time." >> i appreciate it. we're going to be able to get beyond this headline. the president trying to fire the special counsel. is no long r a hypothetical. the "new york times" is reporting it almost happened. last summer. we now though more about the concerted effort that the president had under taken to under mine the special counsel. what it mea

steve bannon's lawyer is also szczerbi serving as don mcgahn's lawyer in the white house investigation, so that feels like an odd conflict. >> that could be called a dynamic all it's own, what is is broader strategy here, what is the implication and what about it showings the view of congress, and is this coming from the top of the white house or is this kind of a side deal with don mcgahn, the truth is at this hour, we don't know. let me be clear and fair, don mcgahn has every right to stem the bleeding in public from this briefing. he does have a legitimate argument to withhold some of the information bannon has with the congress. will the white house try to stop other aids from testifying? late this afternoon, the top democrat on the house intel committee, saying cory lewandowski also refused to answer questions. >> mr. lewandowski came to testify yesterday, he said on fox he would answer every question we had. today he refused to answer questions like steve bannon that referred to anything after he left the campaign. >> there are questions, we're looking for answers, i'm joined by

according to "the times," the president ultimately backed down when don mcgahn threatened to resign, saying the move would have a catastrophic effect on mr. trump's presidency. >> certainly there's an argument to be made that you add this piece to the other pieces in the puzzle and this is one more potential problem for the president. >> reporter: the president's white house attorney on the russia/ty cobb said, we decline to comment out of respect for the office of the special counsel and its process. the president has publicly insisted ousting mueller isn't on the table. >> mr. president, you sought or thought about or considered leading to the dismissal of special counsel? anything bob mueller would do that would lead you fin that thought? >> i haven't thought about it. >> there's no solution. now they're saying, oh, well, did he fight back? you fight back, oh, it's obstruction. here's the thing, i hope so. >> reporter: democrats are sounding the alarm. senator mark warner, top democrat on the senate intelligence committee, says firing the special counsel is a red line the presiden

i look at don mcgahn and wonder, the story puts him in a very positive light. why now is the story coming out. we learned recently this week that jeff sessions was interviewed by the special counsel's office. other intelligence leaders have recent -- it's been reported recently that they too have been interviewed. there are other reports that show this obstruction of justice element of the investigation has moved forward and is moving forward. and so i wonder if the president isn't maybe returning to this idea now as the investigation intensifies, returning to the idea of getting rid of mueller and this isn't somebody leaking to -- >> if he did that, really. >> you think people are concerned possibly that he might try to fire him? >> leaks happen often for a reason. sometimes it's justnes interpersonal battles but sometimes there are other bigger reasons. i wonder about that. this story paints mcgahn in a positive light and makes it much more difficult for the president to make a move on mueller right now. >> mcgahn bannon and priebus all share the same lawyer.