matter. so you say so you say that bush was criminal, that george h.w. bush was a criminal, because that fits exactly into what you re saying. he had a corrupt motive to saver his own skin, and he pardoned. that s not true. it was on the last day. no, i m not saying that. what s the difference if it s the last day? it s a total because there was no more presidency. there was the presidency was over. he wasn t worried about criminal but it doesn t matter if he committed a crime on the last day, he committed a crime on the last day. remember, that a president can be indicted and convicted after he leaves office. so he was trying to save his own skin. yes, it would have been a crime under your theory. but i think your theory respectfully is wrong. thinking is a wonderful trip down memory lane to the george herbert walker bush presidency. precedent matters. precedent matters. from the master. jeff toobin, professor dershowitz, thank you so much. thank you. referen
saying that. how is he a good witness for president if he is saying that the president was asking him, directing him in his words, to let the michael flynn investigation go? he didn t direct him to do that. what he said to him was comey says so in case you missed that, because the cross talk, mr. giuliani said, quote, what he said to him was, can you give me a break, which is of course the exact thing he denied saying to jake. not to be deterred, mr. giuliani took another crack at it this morning. what he was saying is perfectly justifiable. he didn t say you must, you have to, i ll fire you if you don t. he said consider it. number three, he never said it. lawyers talk like this all day. we call it arguing the alternative. so let s start to unpack all of that. i m joined by alan dershowitz, the author of the book the case against impeaching trump and jeffrey toobin, who once study under professor dershowitz. jeff, the idea that giuliani floated that the conversation ne
strategic shift or is this just a lawyer who can t keep the story straight? no, i think there is method here. you need to look at what giuliani is doing as a political strategy more than a legal strategy, and he is giving choices to what people want can believe. they can believe that this conversation never took place. they can believe that if it took place, there was no crime committed there. and i think this is something that the president has been doing, which is basically throw everything up against the wall. and, you know, if you look at the polls, some of it seems to be work. professional dershowitz, is there a method there? giuliani did there in the morning shows actually there was a conversation, just not how it was portrayed. well, i think jeffrey is absolutely correct. this is a political tactic. and i m not an expert in politics. it may or may not be working. from a legal point of view, it makes very little sense because mueller has a witness. and from his point of v