The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted 24-17 to authorize a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the U.S election and alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump, NBC News reported.

The committee took the action after Attorney General William Barr told Congress that he intends later this month to provide a report to lawmakers with certain material removed. The subpoena for the nearly 400-page report, along with underlying documents, will not be issued until that is approved by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

The resolution calls for the final Mueller report as well as “any accompanying exhibits, annexes, tables, appendices, other attachments and all evidence referenced in the report” as well as “underlying evidence collected, materials prepared, or documents used by” Mueller’s office.

The measure also authorizes the committee to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony from five individuals: former White House counsel Don McGahn, former Trump adviser and White House strategist Steve Bannon, former White House communications director Hope Hicks, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House deputy counsel Ann Donaldson. </s> WASHINGTON — Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The move marked the first time Mr. Mueller is known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle. The special counsel’s office has used subpoenas before to seek information on Mr. Trump’s associates and their possible ties to Russia or other foreign governments.

A second subpoena for Mr. Bannon to testify came from a House panel on Tuesday.

The Mueller subpoena could be a negotiating tactic. Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel’s offices about ties between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia and about the president’s conduct in office, according to the person, who would not be named discussing the case. But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently from the dozen administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.

The subpoena is a sign that Mr. Bannon is not personally the focus of the inquiry. Justice Department rules allow prosecutors to subpoena the targets of investigations only in rare circumstances. </s> Special counsel Robert Mueller has convened a grand jury in Washington to investigate allegations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, the Wall Street Journal reported

The grand jury has issued subpoenas in connection with a meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer in June 2016, according to Reuters.

It began its work in recent weeks and is a ramping up of that Mueller's inquiry into Russia's efforts to influence the election and whether it colluded with Mr Trump's campaign is ramping up,.

A grand jury's deliberations are secret and its existence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

It consists of lay individuals and it can hand down criminal indictments if convinced to do so by Mr Mueller.

Through a grand jury prosecutors can also have subpoenas issued for documents and put witnesses under oath.

The setting up of a grand jury was a sign that Mr Mueller believes criminal charges could be possible at some point, or at least that he thinks he will have to subpoena records and obtain testimony from witnesses.

Ty Cobb, special counsel to Mr Trump, told the Wall Street Journal he was not aware of the existence of the grand jury. </s> Updated at 11:3o a.m. ET

As the Justice Department prepares a redacted version of the Mueller report for release later this month, the House Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas for the full report and its underlying investigative evidence.

The committee also authorized subpoenas for figures in the Trump orbit, including former White House counsel Don McGahn; McGahn's former chief of staff Ann Donaldson; former adviser Steve Bannon; former spokesperson Hope Hicks; and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.

"We are dealing now, not with the President's private affairs, but with a sustained attack on the integrity of the republic by the President and his closest advisors," said Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York. "This Committee requires the full report and the underlying materials because it is our job, not the Attorney General's, to determine whether or not President Trump has abused his office."

The panel split along partisan lines, resulting in a vote tally of 24-17 to back the subpoenas.

During the contentious session, Republicans objected even to small procedural measures such as proceeding without verbally reading out the subpoena resolution in its entirety.

"Why is the chairman doing this?" asked the committee's top Republican, Doug Collins of Georgia. "Because even full compliance from these individuals wouldn't satisfy him. ... He's picking the fight because fighting makes good headlines, and because his caucus is desperate for dirt on this president."

Attorney General William Barr has promised to release a redacted version of the approximately 400 page Mueller report by "mid-April, if not sooner."

Barr said that the version he releases then will include redactions to grand jury information, intelligence information, information related to ongoing investigations and information that would "unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."

But congressional Democrats have demanded both a full accounting of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and for it to be provided to Congress sooner.

A deadline set by six House Democratic committee chairs for these materials passed on Tuesday without action by the attorney general.

Following the committee vote, Nadler said that he would continue negotiations with the attorney general to obtain the full report, but if that failed he would move to issue a subpoena for those documents — which could set up a lengthy court battle.

"We're going to work with the attorney general for a short period of time in the hope that he will reveal to us the entire Mueller report, and the underlying materials, and will go to court to get permission to have the [grand jury] material," Nadler told reporters. "But if that doesn't work out in a very short order, we will issue the subpoenas."

The president weighed in Tuesday, before the committee's proceedings, arguing on Twitter that "with the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM!"

The Justice Department declined to comment on the House Judiciary Committee vote. </s> The House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to authorize the issuance of a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full and unredacted report.

The move, which was approved on a 24-17 party-line vote, is one step closer to forcing Attorney General William Barr to turn over the roughly 400-page report.

He has said he plans to publicly release the documents with redactions later this month.

“We need these materials to fulfill our constitutional obligations,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the committee chair, ahead of the vote.

The vote gives Nadler authorization to issue a subpoena to the Justice Department for the final report, its exhibits and any underlying evidence or materials prepared for Mueller’s probe.

He has not said when, or if, he would do so.

The Democrat-led committee also approved subpoenas for five of President Trump’s former top advisers: Steve Bannon, Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus, Donald McGahn and Ann Donaldson. The five served as key witnesses in Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

Earlier, the committee rejected a GOP amendment that sought to block the subpoena from seeking grand jury information.

But afterward, Nadler told reporters he would “absolutely” go to court to get that information.

Nadler earlier hinted that he would delay the issuance of the subpoena to give Barr “time to change his mind.”

The move to compel the Justice Department to release the Mueller report comes one day after Barr missed a Nadler-imposed deadline to turn over the massive document. He told lawmakers last week that he couldn’t make the deadline but promised to release it in mid-April, if not sooner. </s> WASHINGTON — As negotiations over his potential testimony hit a sensitive point, President Trump complained Wednesday that the Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is interfering with presidential duties.

"There was no Collusion (it is a Hoax) and there is no Obstruction of Justice (that is a setup & trap)," Trump tweeted before citing a litany of economic and foreign policy challenges on his plate.

"What there is is Negotiations going on with North Korea over Nuclear War, Negotiations going on with China over Trade Deficits, Negotiations on NAFTA, and much more. Witch Hunt!" Trump said.

For a second straight day, Trump protested the Russia investigation amid negotiations by attorneys over whether he will comply with Mueller's request to provide testimony — talks that are shadowed by the prospect of an unprecedented subpoena of a sitting president.

John Dowd, one of the president's attorneys, confirmed that Mueller raised the prospect of a grand jury subpoena at a meeting in early March if the president refused to provide testimony.

Dowd and other Trump aides have argued that a prosecutor does not have the legal authority to subpoena a sitting president, and suggested they would challenge such a move in court.

That sets up the prospect of a long legal battle that would run parallel to the sprawling Mueller probe.

More: Donald Trump: Release of Robert Mueller questions is 'disgraceful'

More: Trump's new lawyer Rudy Giuliani talks to Robert Mueller about presidential testimony

Presidential advisers have been divided for months on whether Trump should speak to Mueller and his team. Some say he should not, citing reams of documents the Trump team has provided to the special counsel that answer their questions, or fearing that prosecutors may spring a "perjury trap" on Trump.

In his latest tweet, Trump referred to the obstruction of justice investigation as "a setup & trap."

Other aides said it is quite possible that Trump and Mueller will agree to some sort of testimony, perhaps written answers to questions posed by the special counsel.

Trump's renewed complaints about the Mueller investigation come after release of a list of more than four dozen questions the special counsel would like to ask the president.

The questions cover the full range of the probe, from whether Trump knew about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election to whether he sought to obstruct justice by firing then-FBI Director James Comey and ponder changes in the Justice Department.

While pondering whether to testify, Trump is setting up an unprecedented meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in an effort to get him to give up nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, Trump aides are negotiating with China about proposed tariffs that threaten to detonate a trader war between the world's two biggest economies.

As also cited in Trump's tweet, the administration is negotiating changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. </s> WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to authorize a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the U.S. election and alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

The committee took the action after Attorney General William Barr told Congress that he intends later this month to provide a report to lawmakers with certain material removed. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wanted to have the subpoena power ready in case Barr doesn't comply with Democrats' demands for the nearly 400-page report.

"The Constitution charges Congress with holding the president accountable for alleged official misconduct. That job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves — not the attorney general's summary, not a substantially redacted synopsis, but the full report and the underlying evidence," Nadler said in his opening remarks Wednesday, adding that so far, Barr has "refused" to work with him to help obtain access to materials the chairman said his committee is entitled to under the law.

Nadler indicated in his opening statement that he doesn’t plan to immediately issue the subpoena and would “give [Barr] time to change his mind.”

“But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials,” Nadler warned. "And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president or his political appointee — to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to review the complete record.”

The resolution calls for the final Mueller report as well as “any accompanying exhibits, annexes, tables, appendices, other attachments and all evidence referenced in the report” as well as “underlying evidence collected, materials prepared, or documents used by” Mueller’s office.

The measure also authorizes the committee to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony from five individuals: former White House counsel Don McGahn, former Trump adviser and White House strategist Steve Bannon, former White House communications director Hope Hicks, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House deputy counsel Ann Donaldson.

“We believe that these individuals may have received documents from the White House in preparation for their interviews with the special counsel. We also believe that these individuals may have turned this information over to their private attorneys,” Nadler said.

During the meeting, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., introduced an amendment that would have eliminated grand jury information from the documents requested in the subpoena, which failed on a party-line vote.

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., ranking member on Judiciary, blasted Democrats’ decision to move toward issuing subpoenas, saying that the move is “reckless and that they’re “desperately searching for something on the president.”

“This is all preemptive,” Collins said. “Five of the people listed in this subpoena have been cooperating.”

He also argued that the subpoena for the Mueller report would command the attorney general to break the law. "The attorney general's entire mandate is to enforce the law, and he’s expressly forbidden from providing grand jury material outside of the department, with very limited and narrow exceptions. Congress is not one of those exceptions, and the chairman knows it," Collins said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, suggested that Democrats should just be patient. “The attorney general has said he’s going to turn this over in a matter of days. Let’s wait.”

Barr said in a letter last Friday to Nadler and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that he planned to release the report to Congress “in mid-April, if not sooner,” but also said that there would be redactions.

In a letter to Barr on Monday, Nadler and five other Democratic committee chairmen wrote that that pledge wasn't enough. “On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee plans to begin the process of authorizing subpoenas for the report and underlying evidence and materials," they wrote. "While we hope to avoid resort [sic] to compulsory process, if the Department is unwilling to produce the report to Congress in unredacted form, then we will have little choice but to take such action."

During the meeting, several Republicans repeated an argument raised by Trump a day earlier in which they claimed that Nadler strongly opposed the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Bill Clinton related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Nadler, however, said he wanted to set the record straight.

“In 1998, the debate was not about Congress receiving evidence. Congress had already received the full, 445-page report and 17 boxes of additional documents, including grand jury material. We are owed that same opportunity today,” he said.

"In 1998, the central debate was about the public release of some of the materials accompanying the Starr report — materials that Congress already had, and that described private sexual acts in lurid detail," he added. "Congress has no business broadcasting graphic accounts of the president’s sex life. It was inappropriate in 1998. It would be inappropriate today.” </s> Transcript for Mueller says he could subpoena the president

We begin with that stunning headline in the Russia investigation. Special counsel Robert Mueller has warned president trump's legal team that if trump refuses to an interview Mueller could subpoena him to testify before a grand jury. It is a dramatic threat that could lead to a showdown in the supreme court. Pierre Thomas starts us off, good morning, Pierre. Reporter: George, good morning. The negotiations between the special counsel and president trump's legal team about whether the president will sit down for an interview have become more tense recently. And if they completely fall apart, the specter of an all-out court battle now looms as a real possibility. ABC news has learned that special counsel Robert Mueller is considering subpoenaing president trump if he does not agree to a request for an interview. Sources confirming that Mueller told the president's legal team earlier this year that if they reach an impasse he might seek a subpoena to compel the president to testify before a grand jury. Negotiations between the two under way for months had stalled into the recent addition of Rudy Giuliani in his stable of attorneys. There won't be a stitch of evidence he colluded. Reporter: The prospect of a legal fight between the attorneys could lead to a fierce court battle. This coming as we learn that president trump's attorneys developed a list of questions based on conversations with Mueller's prosecutors concerning what may be asked. The questions include a number of critical topic, the firing of former FBI director James Comey, the firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. At issue whether there was obstruction of justice and collusion between trump associates and the Russians. President trump still calling it all a witch-hunt and the white house refusing to comment on the state of negotiations. I'm not going to get into a back and forth about questions leaked or anything having to do with the special counsel and I would refer you to the president's attorneys. How intense have these been? Response to that threat of a subpoena, John dowd, the president's former attorney told Mueller's team you're screwing with the work of the president of the United States. It is getting serious. Pierre, thanks very much. Let's bring in Dan Abrams with more. This is real right now. If this -- if president trump refuses to answer questions, if Robert Mueller then does subpoena him, it goes to the courts. The courts have decided on this before. Let's take one step back which is typically someone could go in and invoke their fifth amendment right and that's fine. We saw Michael Cohen do that. Exactly, exactly, but because he's the president and because there are political implications I don't think anyone expect president trump will go and show up and invoke his fifth amendment right. Two, what happens then? This fight begins and, you're right, two big cases with Richard Nixon not with regard to testimony but tapes, then you have the Paula Jones case, ultimately Bill Clinton and with Ken Starr where it didn't work its way up to this question but all the cases together would clearly indicate that the president does not have a winning legal argument that executive privilege. President Clinton did agree to answer some questions for the grand jury. President trump's team seems to suggest they don't want to answer the questions right now. If the court rules against him, that's when it gets exceedingly serious. Let's say it works its way through the court and the supreme court says it's a valid subpoena and the president says I don't think so and I'm not going to show up. That's when you have the real potential crisis. I think the only real crisis occurs if you have in the end a real war between two branches of government where one is saying, you can't tell me what to do. Even though it's always been accepted that the courts are the final arbiters on a question. That's why you believe it's possible Mueller wouldn't follow through. I still don't think Mueller will do it. There is a difference between will and could. I could and I will is different. I don't think he will do even if trump and the Mueller team aren't able to reach common ground on the questions. A lot left to play out. Thanks very much. </s> Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said President Donald Trump’s best legal maneuver would be to challenge a potential subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller.

Dershowitz said, “Mueller has the ultimate card in his hand, the subpoena card. Because you subpoena the president, he has to go in front of the grand jury without his lawyer, without any opportunity to limit the questions.”

He continued, “But this gives the president some options, too. He can challenge the subpoena in court. He can go to the federal district court, the court of appeals, the United States Supreme Court. He can argue you can’t subpoena a president in a criminal case in front of a grand jury. He would possibly lose that broad issue. He can then argue you can’t ask a president why he engaged in acts that are authorized under Article II of the Constitution. He might well win that argument. Then he might argue you can’t ask me questions that go beyond the scope of the special counsel’s authority, namely to business dealings before he became president of the United States, and he may win or may lose that. It’s unclear.”

He added, “I think he’d be in a better position challenging this legally than sitting down with the special counsel and answering that list of 40-some-odd questions that are so open-ended, so vague and so general.”
Robert Mueller suggests that he could order a subpoena in order to get U.S. President Donald Trump to testify to the investigation.