Special conditions. There has been no collusion between the Trump Campaign and russians or trump and russians, no collusion. When i watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, the democrats are all running for office, but the bottom line they say theres no collusion. There is no collusion. When you talk about interviews, Hillary Clinton had an interview where she wasnt sworn in, she wasnt given the owes, they didnt take notes, they didnt record, and it was done on the fourth of july weekend. Thats perhaps ridiculous, and a lot of people looked upon that as being a very serious breach, and it really was. Again, ill speak to attorneys. I can only say there. There was absolutely no collusion, Everybody Knows it, ive been in office now for 11 months. For 11 months theyve this phony cloud over this administration, over our government, and it has hurt our government. It does hurt our government. Its a democrat hoax that was brought up as an execution for losing an election that frankly the democrats should have won, because they have such a tremendous advantage in the electoral college. It was brought up for that reason. Its been determined theres no collusion, and by virtually everybody. He said the words no collusion eight times. I want to play this next on its own so you can better see his reasoning and especially where it would lead. Certainly well see what happens, but when they have no collusion and nobody has found any at any level, it seems unlikely you would even have an interview. So thats the bottom line why talk when theres nothing to talk about . To begin with, he may have no choice. He could always be subpoenaed. Before we go any further heres the webs sisters definition of collusion. Now, keep that in mind so you can decide for yourself whether any of of what we already know is collusion. Quote through his false statements and omissions defend impeded the fbis pending investigation. And the russian governments efforts to interfere. Theres that and Michael Flynns guilt pleas, and some of the allegations and the other indictments other than the indictments, we do not fully know what if anything the special counsel has uncovered about collusion, nor whether congressional committees looking into this have learned. What we do know is simple. Neither of committees nor the special counsels office have said anything either directly accusing the president or his campaign, or clearing them of anything. Back in november Dianne Feinstein told jake tapper that she had yet to see any evidence. She did not clear anyone of colluding with russians to interfering in the election. She did say that the investigation continues. So did republican rich afford burr, chairman of the intelligence committee. We have more work to do ago it relates to collusion, but were developing a clearer picture of what happened. That sentiment is echoed by senator mark warner. We have successfully pressed for the full accounting of russian cyberefforts to targets our state electoral systems. And despite the initial denial of contacts during the election, this committees efforts have helped uncover numerous and troubling highlevel engagements between the Trump Campaign and russian affiliates, many of which have only been revealed in recent months. So that doesnt sound like the allclear on collusion, nor does this just today from michael hayden, whos worked for democratic and republican president s. Its not a hoax, theres now historical record, which we can all agree there were contacts between the campaign and agents of the russian federation, that there was some cooperation, some synchronization of activity between the campaign, the russians and wikileaks. Whether its collusion or criminal, thats a completely different matter, but there is some there there, which struck me about the president s comments. He needs, he wants, he should be pursuing closure, and he doesnt get closure until he talks to bob mueller. To that point, just a reminder, none of us knows when this will end. It seems no room for the president to claim vindication until all the facts are known. And adam schiff, i spoke to him earlier this evening. Congress maam schiff, President Trumps claim that democrats say its all collusion and theres a phony cloud hanging over his administration. Is it your fact that theres no collusion . Of course not. The president seems to repeat this as a mantra, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion. I think in an interview he said it some 16 more times. We found scores the meetings that the Campaign Said they never had. Officials lied about those meetings, and, of course, a pivotal meeting in trump tower with three of the top Campaign People that was undertaken with the promise of obtaining dirt from the russians on Hillary Clinton in part of what was described as the russian effort to help the Trump Campaign. So, no, the president is certainly wrong, but hes not alone in being wrong on that issue. The fact the president wouldnt say whether he would be willing to immediate with mueller, does that give you any pause just in terms of how cooperative the president wants to be . I have to imagine both the president and his team of lawyers are desperately concerned about any interview hi might give under oath to the special counsel. After all this is a president who says one thing in the morning and will Say Something completely different only hours later and haw made some potential incriminating comments, you know, such as the one he gave to lester holt about his motivation in fire james comey. I can certainly understand the concern, but at the same time i understand the imperative of special counsel in conducting this interview. Its not something you can ask a witness like this to do in writing. If you ask the president to respond in writer, what youre getting are the lawyers answers, not the president s answers. Way back in march, though, last year, you said you had seen, quote, more than circumstantial evidence that people connect that the president where do you stand on that now . Have you seen any more than circumstantial evidence . Yes, i think even if you look at what is in the public domain, you have to be willfully blinding yourselves or accrediting every selfserving explanation to ignore the evidence that is before us. Here you have as early as april the russians apromise the George Papadopoulos that they have dirt on Hillary Clinton, that was told to the Trump Campaign before even the Clinton Campaign was aware of it. And you have that Trump Campaign person lying to federal agents about it. You have mike flynn meeting or discussion, rather, secretly with the Russian Ambassador ways to undermine the bipartisan policy of the United States visavis sanctions over russias intervention in the election, and then lying about that. You also have, of course, that meeting at trump tower. You have the connections with wikileaks, the fact that after the trump tower meeting, almost immediately thereafter you see schoolian assange for the first time acknowledging receipt of these stolen emails we now know came from the russians. So theres ample evidence in the Public Record on the issue of collusion. The only issue really is whats the strength of that evidence . What will, for example, George Papadopoulos and mike flynn and the other witnesses have to say if were allow to do bring them in . That will tell us how strong is the evidence. In the absence of that, its very hard to be able to say this is what i predict the evidence will be at the end of the investigation. Just to kind of just drill down on that a bit, essentially youre saying youve seen possible indications of collusion, how real it is, youre not willing to say at this point . I think we have seen evidence of collusion. The question is ultimately for bob mueller, is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt, such that he would feel comfortable seeking an indictment or seeking to go before a jury and make the case. For us in congress its not a question of beyond a reasonable doubt . Its what conclusions can we draw from it, whether or not it amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there enough evidence so far in the Public Record . You talk about this not on a legal basis, but a political basis, for congress, for impeachment . Im reserving judgment on what well ultimately find. I voted against the impeachment resolution we have in the house. I think we need to fin our investigation, determine the strength of the evidence and the consequences that are to flow from that. The testimony that was released by senator fieinstein, from the founders of gps, does that put around end to the argument that this socalled dossier was the work of Hillary Clinton . The Clinton Campaign did pay money after the research was already begun by republicans. Well put an end to it, because this is not really based on fact. This is based on the desire to create a political narrative, to distract attention frankly from what the russians did and the connections between the russians and the Trump Campaign. I dont imagine that any amount of evidence is going to deter at least some members of the house and some members of the senate from trying to make this all about the government, and anderson, i was a prosecutor for six years. I have seen this gathe problem the white house is not their client, at least it shouldnt be. We should all be investigators here, but unfortunately that is not the role that i think many of my colleagues are taken on. Congressman schiff, i appreciate your time. Thanks, anderson. Just ahead, legal views from across of spectrum on the nocollusion claim and noncommitment about talking to robert mueller. And later from california, the death toll rising, well have an update on the search for survivors. Dwinning geico mobile app, our customers have 24 7 access, digital id cards, they can even pay their bill beep bill has joined the call. Hey bill, were just phone hi guys, bill here. Do we have julia on the line too . k, well well just phone hey sorry. I had you muted. Well yea lets just phone so what i was thinking ok well well phone yeah lets just go ahead phone oh alright the awardwinning geico app. Download it today. But he hasoke up wwork to do. In. So he took aleve. If hed taken tylenol, hed be stopping for more pills right now. Only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. Aleve. All day strong. Need a change of scenery . The kayak price forecast tool tells you whether to wait or book your flight now. So you can be confident youre getting the best price. Giddyup kayak. Search one and done. [speaking french] this is what our version of Financial Planning looks like. Tomorrows important, but, this officially completes his education. Spend you life living. Find an advisor at northwesternmutual. Com. Ltry align probiotic. N your digestive system . For a nonstop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. Get 24 7 digestive support, with align. The 1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. Also in kids chewables. We danced in a german dance group. I wore lederhosen. Man. When i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasnt finding all of these germans in my tree. I decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. The big surprise was were not german at all. 52 of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. So, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. Ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. Get started for free at ancestry. Com. So the president suggested today there seems to be nothing to talk about. No collusion, now leave aside the reality he may not have a choice in the matter, that he could be compelled to talk, what the president says today differs from what he said before. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of 100 . I didnt say under oath. I hardly know the man. Im not going to say, i want you to pledge allegiance. Who would ask a man to do that think of it. I hardly know the man. No, i didnt say thats correct and i didnt say the other. Lets get a legal perspective from jim schultz, and norm eisen, and carey cordero, a legal analyst for cnn as well. Would you advise resisting from being interviewed . I think this is a lot about the president taking advice. He said he would speak with a special counsel. Hes said that in the past, and now hes pulling that back a bit, probably at the behest of his lawyers. Whats going to happen here the same thing that happened for george w. Bush, the negotiation will take about the time, the scope of the inquiry, what questions, what topics can be discussed all of this will be negotiated by lawyers. So you think it would be a negotiation . Probably at the end there will be a negotiation whether he goes before muellers team or not, and to the extend, i would expect his lawyers will negotiate that out. As much as they can. Do you believe the president has grounds to resist being interviewed, and do you think its part of an opening ga. I think the president is helping his lawyers in the negotiation. He does not have ground to resist. Its not just his public statement. Mueller can subpoena him. He has no legal grounds after u. S. V. Nixon. That was also a subpoena to the president. The Supreme Court said the president has to answer it. Mueller knows he can haul the president before a garage with a subpoena. So its not a real negotiation. The president s lawyers have one hand tied behind their back. Theyve try to get the best deal they can, but that interview with happen, because theres a lot of evidence of obstruction. It cant be resolved without understanding the president s intent. Carrie, who do you think has the most leverage in this situation . The without or the special counsel. Obviously if the president is subpoenaed, one of the problems with that, for the president is his lawyers then would not be present. Right. In my view, the special counsel has the upper hand in this negotiation, certainly the details will need to be worked out in terms of what the subject matter of a particular interview is, the timing, the location, who is present, all those sorts of things are up for negotiation and will be worked out, but i do think the special counsel, if the special counsel determines for his investigation that they need to interview the president and i dont think thats something they would do lightly. They understand the gravity of interviewing the president of the United States, and all that is involved with that, but if they determine they need to, then they have already if whats been reported is they have already communicated to the White House Counsels Office and the president s lawyers that they want to interview him. Its just a matter of when. It might be that the president s office wants to delay. I cant imagine that the president is in any rush to want to be interviewed by the special counsel, nor really would any president , so they might want to delay it. They might want to put it off, but at the end of the day, if the special counsel wants to interview him, they will be able to. Your former boss seems to be caught up in this. Do you believe he would put his own if credibility at stake, because his job is hes not the president s personal attorney. Hes the attorney for the office of the president. Don mcgahn has been a stabilizing force in the white house from day one. Hes a tremendous white House Counsel. The reports of him having a discussion with Jeff Sessions were entirely appropriate. A white House Counsel talking with a member of the cabinet about a legal issue related to a recu recusal. Its much ado about nothing. I think the president has a right to be frustrated. He wants to be back to talking about the 12 circuit judges that he wants to confirm, putting people back to work. He wants to get back to talking about about transportation infrastructure. Would it have been legal all this time if they were talking about all this . Whether its russian obstruction, making sure their stories match up, is that technically allowed . Anderson, that kind of effort to line your stories up and obscure the truth is a classic part of an obstruction of justice pattern. Thats why emerging evidence continues to come out about the president himself on air force one, trying to shake don juniors story about the notorious meeting at trump tower between don junior and the other Campaign Officials and the russians. Thats why its so concerning a tremendous amount of obstruction evidence. My goodness we have evidence the president of the United States asked the fbi director can you see your way clear of letting flynn go . And when he didnt do it, he fired comey. He cried out in the oval office, where is my roy cohen . He seemingly had something to hide, but theres no way to know for sure without bob mueller sitting him across the table, and gauging his answers, and his credibility. Was he intending to obstruct or not . Carrie, theres the criminal standard that mueller is looking at, that congress has the standard that doesnt have to dovetail precisely with muellers standard. Which standard should the white house be more concerned about . Theyre probably most concerned about legal exposure with the special counsels case, because the special counsels investigation star what we know, it looks like its covering several different areas ranging from potential violations of possibly Computer Fraud and abuse act, which is the hacking aspect, whether there was any advance nothing of that, to obstruction, so theres a lot of legal exposure. Not all of that is directed at the president. Some of that is directed to individuals who were involved in the campaign, others potentially who still work in the white house. So theres a lot of legal exposure here, but, of course, institutionally, for the office of the presidency, and this is what the white <