In a Twitter message Saturday evening, the president said he allowed White House attorney Don McGahn and others on the White House staff to "fully cooperate" with Mueller in a bid to show there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction."

The president's message followed reports that McGahn had spoken with investigators from Mueller's investigative team multiple times, which Fox News confirmed Saturday.

The revelation came amid a New York Times report, citing multiple sources, indicating that McGahn willingly spoke to the team members - who are looking into, among other things, whether President Trump obstructed justice - for 30 hours over the course of at least three separate occasions. He reportedly gave insight into Trump's demeanor regarding Mueller's investigation.

Fox News Contributor and Columnist For The Washington Times Charles Hurt joins Fox News Radio's Marie Harf to weigh in on the New York Times story. 

On the NYT story about McGahn speaking with Mueller's team for 30 hours: It's just so funny to me. So, the one data point they have is 30 hours, but we have no idea what he said. And yes, he is Counsel To The Presidency rather than President Trump himself, but he is bound by certain things, which in this case were waived. Executive privilege is an important issue, which by the way the fact that Trump waived executive privilege in this case. The thing that irked me about this story the most is what is he doing waiving executive privilege. I don't think he should waive executive privilege here.  (2:16)

On if he is nervous after reading the story: No, I'm not at all.  I don't like it because I don't like it on the principle because it's executive privilege. A president should be able to talk to his attorney about different things, especially with this. This is the most investigated thing in the history of the world and there's still no evidence of what the original thing was, which was collusion.  (4:59)

On Trump's response to NYT: It really makes him mad because he's president and he's trying to get things done and this is a distraction. All this nonsense is a never ending soap opera that drives him crazy. The far more important question is, 'Why if he has something to hide would he waive executive privilege to allow Done McGahn to testify?' The thing that I just think is so funny and the media does this again and again is they take this one data point, the only important data point, 30 hours that Don McGahn talked. Agreed, that's a long time to talk, but they take that and they just turn it into the most sinister thing possible that 'McGahn has turned on Trump' and 'McGahn is telling all these state secrets' and they turn it into this whole nonsensical thing for which there's no evidence whatsoever. I have a message to the New York Times and everyone else who is going crazy over this: Shut up and we'll find out what happened! (7:29)

On Russian interference in our election: Yeah, I think it's a big deal. I don't like it. I don't like them messing with anything, but the idea that they set up some Facebook pages, I guess they were ads, and then they set up some Twitter bots and they do all this stuff. Suddenly, everyone is freaking out that the Russians interfere in our election, and I'm like wait a minute. We've had Russian t.v. in America for how long? Forever.   (10:46)

Listen below: