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++

Following a hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday, many Senators seemed dissatisfied with the tech mogul's testimony.

Zuckerberg disclosed Tuesday his company is "working with" special counsel Robert Mueller in the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign — and working hard to change its own operations after the harvesting of users' private information by a Trump campaign-affiliated data-mining company.

"We have to continue to press Facebook, continue to press Mr. Zuckerberg," said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., after the hearing.

The founder of the social media giant publicly apologized for his company's errors in failing to better protect the personal information of its millions of users, a controversy that has brought a flood of bad publicity and sent the company's stock value plunging.

"I'm not yet satisfied that we've got an accounting for why Facebook took so long to be fully transparent with the public about what happened with Cambridge Analytica," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware.

Coons also criticized President Donald Trump for tweets he made Tuesday accusing Special Counsel Robert Mueller of violating attorney-client privilege.

"My concern is that as this investigation gets closer and closer to him or his family or his attorney, he is more likely to take some abrupt and unwise action," he said.

Washington - April 10, 2018

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Ed Markey, (D) Massachusetts

"In my opinion, we have to continue to press Facebook continue to press Mr. Zuckerberg. It should be the parents of America not Facebook who determine whether or not children's information is resold to third parties. That should be a fundamental privacy bill of rights for young people in our country. I think that's why most Americans are watching. They want to know the answer to these questions. Everything that happened in Cambridge Analytica is something that then raises questions in American families about what protections they have, what protections their children have."

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Ed Markey, (D) Massachusetts

"I hope that he provides all of the information which the Mueller investigation is requiring. I think it's absolutely indispensable that the American people have every bit of information out in public which makes it possible for them to determine whether or not there was, in fact, an interference with the election of 2016. It's a sacred institution that we fought the American Revolution to protect. And Facebook should provide every bit of information which is necessary for them to be able in the Mueller investigation to get the answers for the American people."

3. Sen. Dick Durbin enters

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dick Durbin, (D) Illinois

"There is a genuine concern with the decision by the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York to go into Mr. Cohen's law offices and private residence. This is getting closer and closer to the President, and we hope he does not over-react. Leaders within the Republican Party has said consistently that he should not fire Bob Mueller."

5. Wide of Sen. Chris Coons

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Chris Coons, (D) Delaware

"I'm not yet satisfied that we've got an accounting for why Facebook took so long to be fully transparent with the public about what happened with Cambridge Analytica."

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK++

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Chris Coons, (D) Delaware

"I think this will be the first of several important hearings that will allow the American people to better understand the ways in which their personal data has been monetized, and in some cases misused by important social media platforms like Facebook and others. While I was encouraged by the positive statements made by Mr. Zuckerberg at the beginning of the hearing, in my questioning I try to point out to him that there have been many cases where profits seem to be put ahead of privacy."

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK++

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Chris Coons, (D) Delaware

"President Trump has made a number of really disturbing statements in recent days -- particularly following a Department of Justice and FBI raid on his personal attorney Michael Cohen's home and office. And more and more, President Trump is saying things about his view that Robert Mueller's investigation is a witch hunt that the attorney general Jeff Sessions shouldn't have recused himself. Now we know full well that months ago President Trump was determined to fire Robert Mueller and was only stopped by his own White House counsel Don McGahn threatening to resign. My concern is that as this investigation gets closer and closer to him or his family or his attorney he is more likely to take some abrupt abrupt and unwise action on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats have said in the Senate don't do that. It's not in our country's interest. It's not in your interest."

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Bill Nelson (D) Florida

"But my personal information -- I don't want the Russians to have it, I don't want commercial users to have it. My personally identifiable private information ought to be private to me."

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."