Within minutes of receiving notification that special counsel Robert Mueller had turned over his report on the Russia investigation, congressional Democrats were calling for the report to be fully released, including the underlying evidence. They have threatened subpoenas if it is not.

The demands are setting up a potential tug of war between congressional Democrats and President Donald Trump's administration that federal judges might eventually have to referee.

Six Democratic committee chairmen wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Friday that if Mueller has any reason to believe that Trump "has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct," then the Justice Department should not conceal it.

"The president is not above the law and the need for public faith in our democratic institutions and the rule of law must be the priority," the chairmen wrote.

Reacting to the release, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, told the Associated Press that "the American people paid for this report," adding "both American people and Congress have a right to see the full report. "

Lieu said although the special counsel report focused on Russia, the findings could also be used in a wide array of Judicary Committee investigations.

It's unclear what Mueller has found related to the president, or if any of it would be damning. In his investigation of whether President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the 2016 election, Mueller has already brought charges against 34 people, including six aides and advisers to the president, and three companies.

Lawmakers say they need the underlying evidence - including interviews, documents and material turned over to the grand jury - because the Justice Department has maintained that a president cannot be indicted, and also that derogatory information cannot be released about people who have not been charged. So if the investigation did find evidence incriminating against Trump, they may not be able to release it, under their own guidelines.

The Democrats say that it could be tantamount to a cover-up if the department did not let Congress and the public know what they found.

Washington - 22 March 2019

1. Wide, exterior view of Department of Justice

Los Angeles - 3 May 2018

2. STILL Image, Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California, Member of House Judiciary Committee

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Today is a proud day for America. Despite many attempts by Donald Trump to block this investigation Robert Mueller and his team were able to complete it. The fact that Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein kept their jobs I think is a strong testament to the vitality and strength of our institutions. This was a Republican led investigation of a Republican president and it was allowed to continue. I think that says a lot about America."

Washington - 22 March 2019

4. Wide, exterior view of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Now in terms of distribution, the American people paid for this report. It is a matter of intense national interest and under both the separation of powers as well as just general fairness and transparency, both American people and Congress have a right to see the full report. "

Washington - 22 March 2019

6. Wide, exterior view of Department of Justice ++NIGHT SHOT++

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"It's hard to know without knowing what's in the actual report. It's also important to understand that because the Department of Justice has taken the position that they won't indict a sitting president then the only other institution that can hold the press accountable is Congress. And we can't do that if we don't see the full report. So, that at every level when you look at it from separation of powers or the functions of both Congress and the special counsel in this case, the different functions we have to see the entire report."

Washington - 22 March 2019

8. Wide, people standing in front of White House

9. Close-up protester

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Special Counsel Mueller's investigation was largely centered on Russia. The House Judiciary Committee and other committees were interested in knowing did Donald Trump, his family, his associates commit any crime? Second, did they engage in any ethical misconduct, whether or not it rose to the level of a federal crime? And third how do we explain this to the American people to keep it from happening again?"

Washington - 22 March 2019

11. Wide, tourists walking in front of White House

12. Wide, White House ++NIGHT SHOT++

Within minutes of receiving notification that special counsel Robert Mueller had turned over his report on the Russia investigation, US congressional Democrats were calling for the report to be fully released, including the underlying evidence. They have threatened subpoenas if it is not.

The demands are setting up a potential tug of war between congressional Democrats and US President Donald Trump's administration that federal judges might eventually have to referee.

Six Democratic committee chairmen wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Friday that if Mueller has any reason to believe that Trump "has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct," then the Justice Department should not conceal it.

"The president is not above the law and the need for public faith in our democratic institutions and the rule of law must be the priority," the chairmen wrote.

Reacting to the release, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, told the Associated Press that "the American people paid for this report," adding "both American people and Congress have a right to see the full report. "

Lieu said although the special counsel report focused on Russia, the findings could also be used in a wide array of Judicary Committee investigations.

It's unclear what Mueller has found related to the president, or if any of it would be damning. In his investigation of whether President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the 2016 election, Mueller has already brought charges against 34 people, including six aides and advisers to the president, and three companies.

Lawmakers say they need the underlying evidence - including interviews, documents and material turned over to the grand jury - because the Justice Department has maintained that a president cannot be indicted, and also that derogatory information cannot be released about people who have not been charged. So if the investigation did find evidence incriminating against Trump, they may not be able to release it, under their own guidelines.

The Democrats say that it could be tantamount to a cover-up if the department did not let Congress and the public know what they found.

Washington DC - 22 March 2019

1. Wide, exterior view of Department of Justice

Los Angeles - 3 May 2018

2. STILL Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California, Member of House Judiciary Committee

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Today is a proud day for America. Despite many attempts by Donald Trump to block this investigation Robert Mueller and his team were able to complete it. The fact that Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein kept their jobs I think is a strong testament to the vitality and strength of our institutions. This was a Republican led investigation of a Republican president and it was allowed to continue. I think that says a lot about America."

Washington DC - 22 March 2019

4. Wide, exterior view of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Now in terms of distribution, the American people paid for this report. It is a matter of intense national interest and under both the separation of powers as well as just general fairness and transparency, both American people and Congress have a right to see the full report."

Washington DC - 22 March 2019

6. Wide, exterior view of Department of Justice ++NIGHT SHOT++

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"It's hard to know without knowing what's in the actual report. It's also important to understand that because the Department of Justice has taken the position that they won't indict a sitting president then the only other institution that can hold the press accountable is Congress. And we can't do that if we don't see the full report. So, that at every level when you look at it from separation of powers or the functions of both Congress and the special counsel in this case, the different functions we have to see the entire report."

Washington DC - 22 March 2019

8. Wide, people standing in front of White House

9. Close-up protester

Torrence, California - 22 March 2019

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Rep. Ted Lieu, Democrat - California: ++ AUDIO ONLY++

"Special Counsel Mueller's investigation was largely centered on Russia. The House Judiciary Committee and other committees were interested in knowing did Donald Trump, his family, his associates commit any crime? Second, did they engage in any ethical misconduct, whether or not it rose to the level of a federal crime? And third how do we explain this to the American people to keep it from happening again?"

Washington DC - 22 March 2019

11. Wide, tourists walking in front of White House

12. Wide, White House ++NIGHT SHOT++

President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general says he doesn't believe special counsel Robert Mueller (MUHL'-ur) "would be involved in a witch hunt."

Barr made the comment Tuesday at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump has repeatedly decried the special counsel's investigation as a "witch hunt" and has suggested he is being targeted by the Justice Department.

Mueller is investigating potential ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

Barr also says it would be an "abuse of power" for Trump to intervene in an investigation he "has a stake in."

William Barr said Tuesday at his confirmation hearing he believes such an action would be a breach of the president's constitutional duties and could violate federal law depending upon the circumstances.

Barr was responding to questions from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (FYN'-styn), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in light of a memo he wrote criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller's obstruction-of-justice investigation.

Barr has said the memo was intended to be narrowly focused on one of Mueller's reported interpretations of obstruction. Barr also says his memo was based solely on public reporting and not any confidential information.

POOL

Washington - 15 January 2018

1. Wide of hearing

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Are you familiar with the January 11th New York Times article about FBI open inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russians."

3. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee (off camera):

"Yes Mr. Chairman."

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Would you promise me and this committee to look into this and tell us whether or not, in the appropriate way, a counterintelligence investigation was opened up by somebody at the FBI slash Department of Justice against President Trump."

5. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think there were a number of investigations as I understand it going on in the department."

6.  SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"You ever heard of such a thing in all the time you've been associated with the Department of Justice."

7. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I have never heard of that."

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Are there rules about how you can do counterintelligence investigations?"

9. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I believe there are Mr. Chairman."

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"So if you want to open up one against the president. are there any checks and balances?"

11. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Not outside the FBI."

12. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"OK well we need to look at that."

13. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Mueller. You say you've known Mueller a long time. Would you say you have a close relationship with Mr. Mueller?"

14. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I would say we were good friends."

15. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"Would you say that you understand him to be a fair minded person?."

16. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Absolutely."

17. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"Do you trust him to be fair to the president and the country as a whole?"

18. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes."

19. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina (off camera):

"When his report comes to you, will you share with us as much as possible?"

20. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Consistent with the regulations and the law, yes."

21. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen Lindsey Graham, (R) South Carolina:

"Do you believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody?"

22. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I don't I don't believe Mr. Mueller would would be involved in a witch hunt."

23. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Will you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsel's investigation?"

24. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I will--the scope of the special counsel's investigation is set by his charter and by the regulations and I will ensure that those are maintained."

25. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to providing Mr. Muller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?"

26. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Yes."

27. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller is not terminated without good cause, consistent with department regulations?"

28. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Absolutely."

29. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"If special counsel Mueller makes any request, for instance, about the scope of his investigation or resources for his investigation will you commit to notifying Congress if you deny that request?"

30. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"I think the regulations require notification of Congress if there's a disagreement."

31. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Will you commit to making any report Mueller produces at the conclusion of his investigation available to Congress and to the public?"

32. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"As I said in my statement I am going to make as much information available as I can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations."

33. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California (off camera):

"Will you commit to making any report on the obstruction of justice public?"

34. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"That's the same answer."

35. SOUNDBITE (English) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California:

"Your 2018 memo, in it, you stated and I quote 'the framers plan contemplates that the president's law enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he had a personal stake' end quote. Please explain what you base this conclusion on."

36. SOUNDBITE (English) William Barr, Attorney General Nominee:

"Here's the Department of Justice right here and within the Department of Justice, enforcement decisions are being made. The president's over here. And I think of it as there are two categories of potential communications. One would be on a case that the president wants to communicate about that he has no personal interest in no political interest in. Let's say the president is concerned about Chinese stealing trade secrets and say I want you to go after this company that's being, you know, that may be stealing trade secrets. That's perfectly appropriate for him to do, to communicate that, but whether it's bona fide or not, as I said in my statement, the Department of Justice's obligation and the attorney general's obligation is not to take any action unless we reach, we, the Department of Justice and the attorney general, reach their own, independent conclusion that it is justified under the law. And, regardless of the instruction and that's my quote that everyone is saying you know siccing you know it's OK for the president to direct things. All I said was it's not per se improper for the president to call on the department for doing something, especially if he has no personal or political interest in it. The other category of cases and let's pick a you know an easy bad example would be if a member of the president's family or a business associate or something was under investigation and he tries to intervene. He--he's the chief law enforcement officer and you could say well he has the power. But that would be a breach of his obligation under the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws. So in my opinion if he attempts, if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to try to protect himself that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties whether it also violates a statute depending on what statute comes into play and what all the facts are."