MSNBC: Rep. Quigley Joins “Hardball” Panel to Dissect the Michael Flynn Memo & Implications on Mueller Probe
MATTHEWS: I'm joined now by Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, Elia Stuckles, a White House reporter for the L.A. Times, Susan del Persia, a Republican strategist, and Mike Quigley, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. …
…
MATTHEWS: Congressman Quigley, thanks for joining us. Could you use this report last night as kind of a flashlight to point forward as to what Mueller's got here? Where he's headed?
QUIGLEY: I think what's striking is, what, 17 months into the investigation, we're still learning the width and depth of what the Special Counsel is looking into. And why does Flynn matter? For those who forget, let's just remember what Director Comey told us. That the President himself asked him to go easy on Flynn or what would it take to let it go. Obviously there's a lot at stake here and we have to remember was accused of. It was lying to the Justice Department or the FBI about his meeting with the Russians on lifting sanctions. News stories all day long, all week long, about what those sanctions mattered to the President about. So I'll say this, there's no coincidences in the Russian investigation and apparently everything is tied together.
MATTHEWS: Well, the President has been characteristically silent on the memo since its release yesterday. His lawyer, Rudy Giuliani said of Flynn, "If he had information to share with Mueller that hurt the President, you would know it by now." He added, "There's a Yiddish toward that fits, they don't have bupkis."
…
MATTHEWS: Congressman, I'm wondering about how much information has fled already to the President through Whitaker, his Acting AG. If Whitaker got ahold of these documents before they were redacted, he would know a lot of stuff that we'd like to know right now, and he could walk it right over to the President and say, "Guess what, Donald, here's what we've got. Here's where they're working. Do they know -- Does Whitaker know what's on this redaction?
QUIGLEY: Obviously the appointment of Mr. Whitaker was meant to, at the very least, slow or hinder the investigation if not obstruct or end the investigation. So the fact that he's there and potentially, we just don't know, has access to the redacted words in this document is particularly of concern. If he turned it over to the President, at the very least it would be wildly unethical if not a violation of the Department of Justice regulations. And we have to ask ourselves and Congress needs to find out did he do this and has the President asked for this information? What communication is taking place and obviously if the President asks for it, it would be another one of his abuse of powers.
MATTHEWS: Right, but he's not been -- recused himself, Whitaker, at all. Why wouldn't he just ask Mueller's team? Let me look at that un-redacted, I want to know what's in there.
…