Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting.

Trump cheered the Sunday outcome but also laid bare his resentment after two years of investigations that have shadowed his administration. "It's a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this," he said.

Democrats pointed out that Mueller found evidence for and against obstruction and demanded to see his full report. They insisted that even the summary by the president's attorney general hardly put him in the clear.

Mueller's conclusions, summarized by Barr in a four-page letter to Congress, represented a victory for Trump on a key question that has hung over his presidency from the start: Did his campaign work with Russia to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton? That was further good news for the president on top of the Justice Department's earlier announcement that Mueller had wrapped his investigation without new indictments. The resolution also could deflate the hopes of Democrats in Congress and on the 2020 campaign trail that incriminating findings from Mueller would hobble the president's agenda and re-election bid.

But while Mueller was categorical in ruling out criminal collusion, he was more circumspect on presidential obstruction of justice. Despite Trump's claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr's summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Barr, who was nominated by Trump in December, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017 and oversaw much of his work, went further in Trump's favor.

The attorney general said he and Rosenstein had determined that Mueller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court that Trump had committed obstruction of justice to hamper the probe. Barr has previously voiced a broad view of presidential powers, and in an unsolicited memo last June he cast doubt on whether the president could have obstructed justice through acts - like firing his FBI director - that he was legally empowered to take.

Barr said their decision was based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller and not affected by Justice Department legal opinions that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So perhaps the most significant finding out of the special counsel's report today is that special counsel Mueller did not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy between anyone associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. That is there's no quote unquote "collusion" that is prosecutable in any way between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. And that is the question that has been hovering over this investigation from the start. So that's a big victory for the president. it's a really unequivocal victory. The other interesting finding of note is on the question of whether the President obstructed justice. And here it's a little bit more complicated. In this particular aspect of the investigation the special counsel did not reach a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the President obstructed justice. Instead, according to Attorney General Barr who summarized these findings, Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the ledger for these different episodes involving Trump's behavior that were examined, and then did not reach a conclusion one way or the other. However, Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had reached their own conclusion based on Mueller's evidence and determined that it was insufficient to establish obstruction of justice."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So the letter today from the attorney general, it's a four-page letter, it marks the conclusion, the real end conclusion of the special counsel's investigation. We expect to hear more details of what the special counsel found in coming days and weeks."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

3 . SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The major investigation that concerns the president right now is taking place in New York City. That's an investigation into hush money payments that were made to two women, one a former Playboy model, the other a porn star, who both say they had sex with the president about a decade before he was elected. And both received money during the campaign effectively to not come forward with their allegations. Prosecutors in New York City, in southern district of New York, are investigating whether that's a campaign finance violation. The president's been implicated in wrongdoing by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. It's not yet clear what's going to happen with that investigation."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"I think the main takeaway actually is going to be how unsatisfied Democrats are. This is a four-page summary of what appears to be a very lengthy, very detailed report from the special counsel. And there is a suggestion in this letter that the special counsel did find evidence in at least some of the episodes he examined of potential obstruction of justice and simply did not reach a conclusion. So if you're a Democrat on Capitol Hill right now, you want access to all of the special counsel's work and you want the American public to see all of the evidence he gathered and his underlying report. And so we can expect going forward, that is going to be the next big legal front is this fight between Congress and the Justice Department over how much of Mueller's two years of work the public has to see. Especially because on the question of obstruction, it's clear that Mueller did indicate that there's a there there. He just didn't reach a conclusion one way or the other so that's given hope to Democrats that they want to see more."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The regulations actually do not stipulate that the report is made public. That's a judgment call. It's what the regulations actually mandate is that a confidential report is delivered by the special counsel to the attorney general, who oversees his work. So in this case that would be Mueller to Barr. And then it is possible that a document could be made public. But you have to imagine, and we know this for sure in this case, that this is a document that concerns grand jury information, perhaps classified information. That's a complicated process to scrub that document of any potential issues, executive privilege issues. And that's going to take some time."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is important to take stock of this moment that this is a pretty significant victory in terms of this collusion, or no collusion finding I should say, between the president and Russia and the special counsel according to Barr was pretty unequivocal about that. And so the president, we can expect him to rightfully claim victory and based on what we know from the special counsel's findings, that perhaps seems justified on that front. However there is a reference that is interesting and that is multiple offers from people connected to Russia, Russian associates, two individuals associated with the Trump campaign, offering help. We suspect that's a reference to the Trump Tower meeting that took place in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin connected lawyer. He took that meeting with the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton that could be used in weaponised during the campaign. We also know that a former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos had a meeting in London where he learned from a professor that Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of stolen e-mails. So we suspect that Mueller's making reference to that, the fact that there are these multiple overtures of help from people connected to Russia. But there's no evidence or no allegation even that either of those two sides worked together. And that's a significant conclusion."

Washington, D.C. - 11 November 2018

7. Still - Donald Trump Jr. (Partly covers Soundbite #6)

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"As it relates to the question of collusion, we do have a definitive answer from the special counsel and ostensibly endorsed by the attorney general that there was no collusion. We've heard that from the president for the last two years. That is the central finding and take away from this four-page summary that there was indeed no collusion, no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign on one hand and the criminal in the Kremlin on the other to get Trump elected."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is possible that House Democrats could come up with a different conclusion on the on the collusion question. It's not clear how readily embraced by the American public that would be, because the special counsel is regarded as the ultimate arbiter of, with subpoena power, evidence, ability to criminally prosecute, so he's regarded as the final voice. So it's not clear whether the American public will accept if Mueller says no collusion and House Democrats say otherwise."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting.

Trump cheered the Sunday outcome but also laid bare his resentment after two years of investigations that have shadowed his administration. "It's a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this," he said.

Democrats pointed out that Mueller found evidence for and against obstruction and demanded to see his full report. They insisted that even the summary by the president's attorney general hardly put him in the clear.

Mueller's conclusions, summarized by Barr in a four-page letter to Congress, represented a victory for Trump on a key question that has hung over his presidency from the start: Did his campaign work with Russia to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton? That was further good news for the president on top of the Justice Department's earlier announcement that Mueller had wrapped his investigation without new indictments. The resolution also could deflate the hopes of Democrats in Congress and on the 2020 campaign trail that incriminating findings from Mueller would hobble the president's agenda and re-election bid.

But while Mueller was categorical in ruling out criminal collusion, he was more circumspect on presidential obstruction of justice. Despite Trump's claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr's summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Barr, who was nominated by Trump in December, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017 and oversaw much of his work, went further in Trump's favor.

The attorney general said he and Rosenstein had determined that Mueller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court that Trump had committed obstruction of justice to hamper the probe. Barr has previously voiced a broad view of presidential powers, and in an unsolicited memo last June he cast doubt on whether the president could have obstructed justice through acts — like firing his FBI director — that he was legally empowered to take.

Barr said their decision was based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller and not affected by Justice Department legal opinions that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So perhaps the most significant finding out of the special counsel's report today is that special counsel  Mueller did not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy between anyone associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. That is there's no quote unquote collusion that is prosecutable in any way between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. And that is the question that has been hovering over this investigation from the start. So that's a big victory for the president. it's a really unequivocal victory. The other interesting finding of note is on the question of whether the President obstructed justice. And here it's a little bit more complicated. In this particular aspect than the investigation the special counsel did not reach a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the President obstructed justice. Instead, according to Attorney General Barr who summarized these findings,  Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the ledger for these different episodes involving Trump's behavior that were examined, and then did not reach a conclusion one way or the other. However Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had reached their own conclusion based on Mueller's evidence and determined that it was insufficient to establish obstruction of justice."

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So the letter today from the attorney general, it's a four page letter, it marks the conclusion, the real end conclusion of the special counsel's investigation. We  expect to hear more details of what the special counsel found in coming days and weeks."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

3 . SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The major investigation that concerns the president right now is taking place in New York City. That's an investigation into hush money payments that were made to two women, one a former Playboy model, the other a porn star, who both say they had sex with the president about a decade before he was elected. And both received money during the campaign effectively to not come forward with their allegations. Prosecutors in New York City, in southern district of New York, are investigating whether that's a campaign finance violation. The president's been implicated in wrongdoing by his former lawyer Michael Cohen. It's not yet clear what's going to happen with that investigation."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"I think the main takeaway actually is going to be how unsatisfied Democrats are. This is a four page summary of what appears to be a very lengthy, very detailed report from the special counsel. And there is a suggestion in this letter that the special counsel did find evidence in at least some of the episodes he examined of potential obstruction of justice and simply did not reach a conclusion. So if you're a Democrat on Capitol Hill right now, you want access to all of the special counsel's work and you want the American public to see all of the evidence he gathered and his underlying report.  And so we can expect going forward, that is going to be the next big legal front is this fight between Congress and the Justice Department over how much of Muller's two years of work the public has to see. Especially because on the question of obstruction, it's clear that Mueller did indicate that there's a there there. He just didn't reach a conclusion one way or the other so that's given hope to Democrats that they want to see more."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The regulations actually do not stipulate that the report is made public. That's a judgment call. It's what the regulations actually mandate is that a confidential report is delivered by the special counsel to the attorney general, who oversees his work. So in this case that would be Mueller to Barr.  And then it is possible that a document could be made public. But you have to imagine, and we know this for sure in this case, that this is a document that concerns grand jury information, perhaps classified information. That's a complicated process to scrub that document of any potential issues, executive privilege issues. And that's going to take some time."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is important to take stock of this moment that this is a pretty significant victory in terms of this collusion, or no collusion finding I should say, between the president and Russia and the special counsel according to Barr was pretty unequivocal about that. And so the president, we can expect him to rightfully claim victory and based on what we know from the special counsel's findings, that perhaps seems justified on that front. However there is a reference that is interesting and that is multiple offers from people connected to Russia,  Russian associates two individuals associated with the Trump campaign, offering help. We suspect that's a reference to the Trump Tower meeting that took place in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin connected lawyer. He took that meeting with the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton that could be used in weaponized during the campaign. We also know that a former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos had a meeting in London where he learned from a professor that Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of stolen e-mails. So we suspect that Mueller's making reference to that, the fact that there are these multiple overtures of help from people connected to Russia. But there's no evidence or no allegation even that either of those two sides worked together. And that's a significant conclusion."

Washington, D.C. - 11 November 2018

7. Still - Donald Trump Jr. (Partly covers Soundbite #6)

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"As it relates to the question of collusion, we do have a definitive answer from the special counsel and ostensibly endorsed by the attorney general that there was no collusion. We've heard that from the president for the last two years. That is the central finding and take away from this four page summary that there was indeed no collusion, no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign on one hand and the criminal in the Kremlin on the other to get Trump elected."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is possible that House Democrats could come up with a different conclusion on the on the collusion question. It's not clear how readily embraced by the American public. That would be because the special counsel is regarded as the ultimate arbiter of, with subpoena power, evidence, ability to criminally prosecute, so he's regarded as the final voice. So it's not clear whether the American public will accept if  Mueller says no collusion and House Democrats say otherwise."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Elaine Kamarck, of the Brookings Institution says "we're pretty much at the end of this process" as she discussed the next steps in the special prosecutors Russia probe.

Kamarack, Senior fellow in the Governance Studies program as well as the Director of the Center for Effective Public Management , said on Tuesday that "The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors."

In a related story The Associated Press reports that President Donald Trump has been calling the Russia probe a witch hunt for two years.

But now, Trump and his allies are starting to see it as something potentially very different: a political opportunity.

Trump has grown increasingly confident that special counsel Robert Mueller's report will produce no clear evidence of a conspiracy between Russia and his election campaign.

A change is also underway among congressional Democrats, who had believed the report would offer damning evidence

Kamarack says "We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment."

Washington - 19 March 2019

1.Wide shot of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro walking out of White House into Rose Garden

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"It's not often that a president is subject to a special counsel and that means often that the findings of a special counsel could lead to something very dramatic like impeachment. Or it could just turn out to be a bunch of nothing. And so everybody was interested in this. Everybody was excited about it. The president himself was furious about it. But this is a big deal. We don't generally have investigations like this of sitting presidents."

3. Side shot of Trump speaking

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional issue for impeachment, and so we're sort of down to the end game here. I mean it looks like there was a rapid string of indictments, trials, etc. It's possible that one or more of the president's children or in-laws could get indicted but it's, we're pretty much at the end of this process."

5. Trump speaking

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The issue, though, is did the House and Senate, did the intelligence committees when they were controlled by Republicans ignore important pieces of evidence? The Democrats think they did. And so the Democrats will have to start their own investigation. They may find nothing as well."

Washington - 25 February 2019

7. STILL - The Capitol is seen in Washington as Congress returns to work following a week-long recess. A top House Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has threatened to call special counsel Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill, subpoena documents and sue the Trump administration if the full report on Mueller's Russia investigation is not made public.

Washington - 06 March 2019

8. STILL - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, of California, left, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., return to hear Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, testify before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee, on Capitol Hill

Washington - 19 March 2019

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there, the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment? Now, Nancy Pelosi has said, wisely I think, that probably not that. There's just not unless there's some blockbuster finding in the Muller report or someplace else. Probably not because bet we're almost at 2020. Let, it's cleaner, easier for democracy to let the voters decide."

Washington - 06 March 2019

10. STILL - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., with Ranking Member Doug Collins

Washington - 19 March 2019

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"This investigation has taken place simultaneously with a very chaotic presidency and with a separate investigation into Donald Trump's business empire. Now it may not be impeachable to be a corrupt businessman. All you have to do is look at the Deutsche Bank story in today's (New York) Times and you can see that that's that's going to be a big story. But maybe it's not impeachable but it sure isn't desirable."

12. STILL - President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade of the White House, towards the Rose Garden with visiting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro

Elaine Kamarck, of the Brookings Institution says "we're pretty much at the end of this process" as she discussed the next steps in the special prosecutors Russia probe.

Kamarack, Senior fellow in the Governance Studies program as well as the Director of the Center for Effective Public Management , said on Tuesday that "The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors."

In a related story The Associated Press reports that President Donald Trump has been calling the Russia probe a witch hunt for two years.

But now, Trump and his allies are starting to see it as something potentially very different: a political opportunity.

Trump has grown increasingly confident that special counsel Robert Mueller's report will produce no clear evidence of a conspiracy between Russia and his election campaign.

A change is also underway among congressional Democrats, who had believed the report would offer damning evidence

Kamarack says "We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment."

Washington - 19 March 2019

1.Wide shot of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro walking out of White House into Rose Garden

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"It's not often that a president is subject to a special counsel and that means often that the findings of a special counsel could lead to something very dramatic like impeachment. Or it could just turn out to be a bunch of nothing. And so everybody was interested in this. Everybody was excited about it. The president himself was furious about it. But this is a big deal. We don't generally have investigations like this of sitting presidents."

3. Side shot of Trump speaking

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional issue for impeachment, and so we're sort of down to the end game here. I mean it looks like there was a rapid string of indictments, trials, etc. It's possible that one or more of the president's children or in-laws could get indicted but it's, we're pretty much at the end of this process."

5. Trump speaking

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The issue, though, is did the House and Senate, did the intelligence committees when they were controlled by Republicans ignore important pieces of evidence? The Democrats think they did. And so the Democrats will have to start their own investigation. They may find nothing as well."

Washington - 25 February 2019

7. STILL - The Capitol is seen in Washington as Congress returns to work following a week-long recess. A top House Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has threatened to call special counsel Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill, subpoena documents and sue the Trump administration if the full report on Mueller's Russia investigation is not made public.

Washington - 06 March 2019

8. STILL - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, of California, left, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., return to hear Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, testify before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee, on Capitol Hill

Washington - 19 March 2019

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there, the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment? Now, Nancy Pelosi has said, wisely I think, that probably not that. There's just not unless there's some blockbuster finding in the Muller report or someplace else. Probably not because bet we're almost at 2020. Let, it's cleaner, easier for democracy to let the voters decide."

Washington - 06 March 2019

10. STILL - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., with Ranking Member Doug Collins

Washington - 19 March 2019

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"This investigation has taken place simultaneously with a very chaotic presidency and with a separate investigation into Donald Trump's business empire. Now it may not be impeachable to be a corrupt businessman. All you have to do is look at the Deutsche Bank story in today's (New York) Times and you can see that that's that's going to be a big story. But maybe it's not impeachable but it sure isn't desirable."

12. STILL - President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade of the White House, towards the Rose Garden with visiting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro

Elaine Kamarck, of the Brookings Institution says "we're pretty much at the end of this process" as she discussed the next steps in the special prosecutors Russia probe.

Kamarack, Senior fellow in the Governance Studies program as well as the Director of the Center for Effective Public Management , said on Tuesday that "The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors."

In a related story The Associated Press reports that President Donald Trump has been calling the Russia probe a witch hunt for two years.

But now, Trump and his allies are starting to see it as something potentially very different: a political opportunity.

Trump has grown increasingly confident that special counsel Robert Mueller's report will produce no clear evidence of a conspiracy between Russia and his election campaign.

A change is also underway among congressional Democrats, who had believed the report would offer damning evidence

Kamarack says "We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment."

Washington - 19 March 2019

1.Wide shot of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro walking out of White House into Rose Garden

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"It's not often that a president is subject to a special counsel and that means often that the findings of a special counsel could lead to something very dramatic like impeachment. Or it could just turn out to be a bunch of nothing. And so everybody was interested in this. Everybody was excited about it. The president himself was furious about it. But this is a big deal. We don't generally have investigations like this of sitting presidents."

3. Side shot of Trump speaking

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The only thing that really seems to remain is whether or not the president himself is guilty of some crimes and do those crimes constitute in the minds of the members of Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the constitutional issue for impeachment, and so we're sort of down to the end game here. I mean it looks like there was a rapid string of indictments, trials, etc. It's possible that one or more of the president's children or in-laws could get indicted but it's, we're pretty much at the end of this process."

5. Trump speaking

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"The issue, though, is did the House and Senate, did the intelligence committees when they were controlled by Republicans ignore important pieces of evidence? The Democrats think they did. And so the Democrats will have to start their own investigation. They may find nothing as well."

Washington - 25 February 2019

7. STILL - The Capitol is seen in Washington as Congress returns to work following a week-long recess. A top House Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has threatened to call special counsel Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill, subpoena documents and sue the Trump administration if the full report on Mueller's Russia investigation is not made public.

Washington - 06 March 2019

8. STILL - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, of California, left, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., return to hear Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, testify before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee, on Capitol Hill

Washington - 19 March 2019

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"We're at a point where this is about to move unless there's some you know smoking gun. This is this investigation is about to move from the legal to the political and there, the Democrats are going to have to decide do we move forward with impeachment? Now, Nancy Pelosi has said, wisely I think, that probably not that. There's just not unless there's some blockbuster finding in the Muller report or someplace else. Probably not because bet we're almost at 2020. Let, it's cleaner, easier for democracy to let the voters decide."

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP Clients Only

Washington - 06 March 2019

10. STILL - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., with Ranking Member Doug Collins

Washington - 19 March 2019

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Elaine Kamarck, Senior Fellow Brookings Institution:

"This investigation has taken place simultaneously with a very chaotic presidency and with a separate investigation into Donald Trump's business empire. Now it may not be impeachable to be a corrupt businessman. All you have to do is look at the Deutsche Bank story in today's (New York) Times and you can see that that's that's going to be a big story. But maybe it's not impeachable but it sure isn't desirable."

12. STILL - President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade of the White House, towards the Rose Garden with visiting Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro

Democrats launched a sweeping new probe of President Donald Trump on Monday, an aggressive investigation that threatens to shadow the president through the 2020 election season with inquiries into his White House, campaign and family businesses.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House committee that would be in charge of impeachment says the panel is requesting documents Monday from more than 60 people from Trump's administration, family and business as part of a rapidly expanding Russia investigation. The panel sent document requests to 81 people linked to the president and his associates.

Maryland Democrat, Jamie Raskin, who is a member of the committee said, "There is a lot of criminality which has already been attested to by one witness, Michael Cohen. But we want to hear from lots more witnesses and we want to get a lot more documentary evidence."  

The broad investigation could be setting the stage for an impeachment effort, although Democratic leaders have pledged to investigate all avenues and review special counsel Robert Mueller's report before trying any drastic action.

"If it leads to impeachment because there is evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that actually undermine the fabric of our constitutional democracy, then so be it. Then that's something, we'll have to do," said Raskin.

President Donald Trump said he'll cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee's sweeping investigation into his White House, campaign and businesses, but when a reporter asked him Monday if he was going to cooperate with the investigation led by Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Trump replied: "I cooperate all the time with everybody. You know, the beautiful thing, no collusion. It's all a hoax."

Raskin said the response of "no collusion" is a "red herring."  

"What we're looking for is public corruption and crimes against the republic," said Raskin.

++GRAPHICS COVER VIDEO++

Washington - 4 March 2019

1. Graphic of names of people sent letters by House Judiciary Commitee

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D) Maryland:

"The House Judiciary Committee has sent out document requests to 81 different individuals who have information relevant to our investigation into abuse of power, obstruction of justice and other potential crimes at the White House.

Washington - 27 February 2019

3. Various of Michael Cohen at House Oversight hearing

Washington - 4 March 2019

4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D) Maryland:

"There is a lot of criminality which has already been attested to by one witness, Michael Cohen. But we want to hear from lots more witnesses and we want to get a lot more documentary evidence. Michael Cohen provided a lot of documentary evidence ... But we think that there's a lot more documentary evidence out there of the potential corruption and lawlessness in the administration."

Washington - 28 February 2019

5. Michael Cohen walks through U.S. Capitol

Washington - 4 March 2019

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Donald Trump, US President:

"(Reporter: Mr. President, are you going to cooperate with Mr. Nadler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee)?

"I cooperate all the time with everybody. And you know the beautiful thing, no collusion, it's all a hoax."

Washington - 4 March 2019

7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D) Maryland: (Responding to Trump and Republican's defense that there is no collusion"

"If there's no collusion, they've got nothing to worry about. But in any event, collusion is not even a legal term. That's kind of a red herring of their own creation. What we're looking for is public corruption and crimes against the republic.

Washington - 26 June 2018.

8. Nadler and Raskin at hearing

Washington - 4 March 2019

9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D) Maryland:

"None of us is beginning with the idea that this is about impeaching the president. If the president is not impeached, we still need to know all of this and we need to act effectively to end the corruption and the lawlessness. But if it leads to impeachment because there is evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that actually undermine the fabric of our constitutional democracy, then so be it. Then that's something, we'll have to do. But I've had the thought from the beginning that impeachment should not be a fetish with anybody nor should it be a taboo."

Washington - 8 February 2019

10. Rep. Doug Collins (right) at a hearing with Rep. Jerrold Nadler

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee suggested on Wednesday that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker may have had conversations with President Donald Trump about Michael Cohen's legal troubles, saying that Whitaker "did not deny" the conversations during a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Representative Jerrold Nadler did not get into the specifics of what Whitaker said when he met with Nadler and the top Republican on the panel, Georgia Representative Doug Collins.

Collins said he heard Whitaker's comments differently and maintained that Whitaker said he "had not talked with the president about Mr. Cohen at all." Two Republican staff members in the room backed up Collins' version. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential meeting.

There was no transcript taken at the meeting, according to the Republican aides, so it wasn't clear exactly what Whitaker said, and it may never be clear.

But the dispute could have high stakes, as Democrats have voiced concerns that Whitaker was a Trump loyalist whose appointment, they suspect, was aimed at suppressing investigations of the Republican president.

Whitaker returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday after Democrats said they wanted him to clarify his open testimony before the Judiciary panel in February.

One thing that Nadler said he had questions about was whether Trump had "lashed out" at Whitaker after Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and lying to Congress.

News reports said Trump did lash out at Whitaker, but Whitaker said in the hearing that he did not.

In a letter to Whitaker asking for him to return and clarify his comments, Nadler said that the committee "has identified several individuals with direct knowledge of the phone calls you denied receiving" from the White House.

After Wednesday's meeting, Nadler said that "unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case".

Nadler also said after the meeting that Whitaker was "directly involved" in conversations about whether to fire "one or more" US attorneys - he did not say which ones - and that he was "involved in conversations" about the Southern District of New York's case against Cohen and whether it might have gone too far. Nadler did not give details on those conversations.

Collins said that Whitaker suggested the conversations about district attorneys were normal personnel issues, and to characterize those comments otherwise were "an overreach and a stretch." Collins added that Whitaker said he hadn't had any conversations with officials in the Southern District of New York.

According to the Republican aides, Whitaker said that those conversations were among other Justice Department staff and that Whitaker said he thought some of the claims in the campaign finance case were "specious" from a legal standpoint.

At the February hearing, which was held while Whitaker was still acting attorney general, Democrats confronted him on his past criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller's work and his refusal to recuse himself from overseeing it, attacked him over his prior business dealings, and challenged his credentials as the country's chief law enforcement officer.

Nadler said after the public testimony that his answers were "unsatisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence."

In the letter sent to the Justice Department, Nadler said Whitaker didn't offer clear responses about his communications with the White House and was inconsistent about what questions he refused to answer.

Whitaker left the Justice Department after Attorney General William Barr was confirmed on 14 February.

Washington, DC - 13 March 2019

1. Former acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker walking down hall, gives reporters thumbs up, walks away

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman of House Judiciary Committee:

"We were concerned about some of the Attorney General, former Attorney General Whittaker's testimony at the hearing, and I think there were three main takeaways, that we take away, from today. One, unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president (Donald Trump) called him to discuss Michael Cohen (Trump's former personal lawyer), the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the southern district. Two, while he was acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was directly involved in conversations about whether to fire one or more US attorneys. And three, while he was attorney general, acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was involved in conversations about the scope of the Southern District of New York US Attorney Berman's recusal, and whether the southern district went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case in which the president was listed as individual number one. Those are the three takeaways from today."

(Reporter: "What do you mean, he did not deny the president's involvement?"

Nadler: "Just what I said, he did not deny it, unlike in the hearing."

(Reporter: "So that means that he had conversations with the president about Michael Cohen?")

Nadler: "He would not say no."

++BLACK FRAMES++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee (Asked about charges against Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed by New York state prosecutors):

"Mr. Manafort cannot be pardoned by the president if he is convicted of crimes against  the state of New York. What that means is, he lied to investigators so whether this means he'll stop doing that, I don't know."

++BLACK FRAMES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Representative Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee (Asked if President Trump would pardon Manafort):

"Well I would certainly hope the president would not pardon people because they don't testify truthfully. The president has made very clear that if someone cooperates with law enforcement he's a rat, and if he doesn't, he's a stand-up guy. That's the position of a mobster, not a President of the United States."

++BLACK FRAMES++

5. Nadler leaving

FOR CLEAN VERSION SEE STORY NUMBER: apus113691

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee suggested on Wednesday that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker may have had conversations with President Donald Trump about Michael Cohen's legal troubles, saying that Whitaker "did not deny" the conversations during a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., did not get into the specifics of what Whitaker said when he met with Nadler and the top Republican on the panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins. Collins said he heard Whitaker's comments differently and maintained that Whitaker said he "had not talked with the president about Mr. Cohen at all." Two Republican staff members in the room backed up Collins' version. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential meeting.

There was no transcript taken at the meeting, according to the Republican aides, so it wasn't clear exactly what Whitaker said, and it may never be clear. But the dispute could have high stakes, as Democrats have voiced concerns that Whitaker was a Trump loyalist whose appointment, they suspect, was aimed at suppressing investigations of the Republican president.

Whitaker returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday after Democrats said they wanted him to clarify his open testimony before the Judiciary panel in February. One thing that Nadler said he had questions about was whether Trump had "lashed out" at Whitaker after Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and lying to Congress.

News reports said Trump did lash out at Whitaker, but Whitaker said in the hearing that he did not. In a letter to Whitaker asking for him to return and clarify his comments, Nadler said that the committee "has identified several individuals with direct knowledge of the phone calls you denied receiving" from the White House.

After Wednesday's meeting, Nadler said that "unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case."

Nadler also said after the meeting that Whitaker was "directly involved" in conversations about whether to fire "one or more" U.S. attorneys - he did not say which ones - and that he was "involved in conversations" about the Southern District of New York's case against Cohen and whether it might have gone too far. Nadler did not give details on those conversations.

Collins said that Whitaker suggested the conversations about district attorneys were normal personnel issues, and to characterize those comments otherwise were "an overreach and a stretch." Collins added that Whitaker said he hadn't had any conversations with officials in the Southern District of New York.

According to the Republican aides, Whitaker said that those conversations were among other Justice Department staff and that Whitaker said he thought some of the claims in the campaign finance case were "specious" from a legal standpoint.

At the February hearing, which was held while Whitaker was still acting attorney general, Democrats confronted him on his past criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller's work and his refusal to recuse himself from overseeing it, attacked him over his prior business dealings and challenged his credentials as the country's chief law enforcement officer.

Nadler said after the public testimony that his answers were "unsatisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence." In the letter sent to the Justice Department, Nadler said Whitaker didn't offer clear responses about his communications with the White House and was inconsistent about what questions he refused to answer.

Whitaker left the Justice Department after Attorney General William Barr was confirmed Feb. 14.

Washington, DC. - 13 March 2019

1. Former acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker walks down hall, gives reporters thumbs up

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"We were concerned about some of the Attorney General, former Attorney General Whittaker's testimony at the hearing, and I think there were three main takeaways from today. One, unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss Michael Cohen, the Michael Cohen case. And personnel decisions in the southern district. Two, while he was acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was directly involved in conversations about whether to fire one or more U.S. attorneys. Three, while he was attorney general, acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was involved in conversations about the scope of the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Berman's recusal. And. Whether the southern district went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case in which the president was listed as individual number one. Those are the three takeaways from our, from today."

(Reporter: "What do you mean, did not deny the President's involvement? Cannot deny the President's involvement?")

Nadler: "Just what I said, he did not deny it, unlike in the hearing."

(Reporter: "So that means he had conversations with the president about Cohen?")

Nadler: "He would not say no."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

(Asked about charges against Paul Manafort filed by New York state prosecutors)

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Mr. Manafort cannot be pardoned by the president if he is convicted of crimes against  the state of New York. What that means is, he lied to investigators so whether this means he'll stop doing that, I don't know."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

(Asked if President Trump would pardon Paul Manafort)

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Well I would certainly hope the president would not pardon people because they don't testify truthfully. The president has made very clear that if someone cooperates with law enforcement he's a rat, and if he doesn't, he's a stand-up guy. That's the position of a mobster, not a President of the United States."

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee suggested on Wednesday that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker may have had conversations with President Donald Trump about Michael Cohen's legal troubles, saying that Whitaker "did not deny" the conversations during a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., did not get into the specifics of what Whitaker said when he met with Nadler and the top Republican on the panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins. Collins said he heard Whitaker's comments differently and maintained that Whitaker said he "had not talked with the president about Mr. Cohen at all." Two Republican staff members in the room backed up Collins' version. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential meeting.

There was no transcript taken at the meeting, according to the Republican aides, so it wasn't clear exactly what Whitaker said, and it may never be clear. But the dispute could have high stakes, as Democrats have voiced concerns that Whitaker was a Trump loyalist whose appointment, they suspect, was aimed at suppressing investigations of the Republican president.

Whitaker returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday after Democrats said they wanted him to clarify his open testimony before the Judiciary panel in February. One thing that Nadler said he had questions about was whether Trump had "lashed out" at Whitaker after Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and lying to Congress.

News reports said Trump did lash out at Whitaker, but Whitaker said in the hearing that he did not. In a letter to Whitaker asking for him to return and clarify his comments, Nadler said that the committee "has identified several individuals with direct knowledge of the phone calls you denied receiving" from the White House.

After Wednesday's meeting, Nadler said that "unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case."

Nadler also said after the meeting that Whitaker was "directly involved" in conversations about whether to fire "one or more" U.S. attorneys - he did not say which ones - and that he was "involved in conversations" about the Southern District of New York's case against Cohen and whether it might have gone too far. Nadler did not give details on those conversations.

Collins said that Whitaker suggested the conversations about district attorneys were normal personnel issues, and to characterize those comments otherwise were "an overreach and a stretch." Collins added that Whitaker said he hadn't had any conversations with officials in the Southern District of New York.

According to the Republican aides, Whitaker said that those conversations were among other Justice Department staff and that Whitaker said he thought some of the claims in the campaign finance case were "specious" from a legal standpoint.

At the February hearing, which was held while Whitaker was still acting attorney general, Democrats confronted him on his past criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller's work and his refusal to recuse himself from overseeing it, attacked him over his prior business dealings and challenged his credentials as the country's chief law enforcement officer.

Nadler said after the public testimony that his answers were "unsatisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence." In the letter sent to the Justice Department, Nadler said Whitaker didn't offer clear responses about his communications with the White House and was inconsistent about what questions he refused to answer.

Whitaker left the Justice Department after Attorney General William Barr was confirmed Feb. 14.

Washington, DC. - 13 March 2019

1. Former acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker walks down hall, gives reporters thumbs up

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"We were concerned about some of the Attorney General, former Attorney General Whittaker's testimony at the hearing, and I think there were three main takeaways from today. One, unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss Michael Cohen, the Michael Cohen case. And personnel decisions in the southern district. Two, while he was acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was directly involved in conversations about whether to fire one or more U.S. attorneys. Three, while he was attorney general, acting attorney general, Mr. Whitaker was involved in conversations about the scope of the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Berman's recusal. And. Whether the southern district went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case in which the president was listed as individual number one. Those are the three takeaways from our, from today."

(Reporter: "What do you mean, did not deny the President's involvement? Cannot deny the President's involvement?")

Nadler: "Just what I said, he did not deny it, unlike in the hearing."

(Reporter: "So that means he had conversations with the president about Cohen?")

Nadler: "He would not say no."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

(Asked about charges against Paul Manafort filed by New York state prosecutors)

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Mr. Manafort cannot be pardoned by the president if he is convicted of crimes against  the state of New York. What that means is, he lied to investigators so whether this means he'll stop doing that, I don't know."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

(Asked if President Trump would pardon Paul Manafort)

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D) Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Well I would certainly hope the president would not pardon people because they don't testify truthfully. The president has made very clear that if someone cooperates with law enforcement he's a rat, and if he doesn't, he's a stand-up guy. That's the position of a mobster, not a President of the United States."