Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Attorney general Jeff Sessions should stop this rigged witchhunt right now before it can stain our country any longer. Bob mueller and the democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the usa. The key sentence, Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions should stop this rigged witchhunt. Thats what the president said. He said stop it right now. It sounds like the president , who Chief Executive wants to see jeff session, who works for him and the russia investigation ended right now. That is what it sounds like, because that is actually what the president wrote. Unless, of course, you believe his Press Secretary and tv lawyer who scrambled to try and convince the public that what the president said about what he wants to see happen and happen right now was in no way a directive to actually make it happen and happen right now. No, according to them, it was only some guys opinion, the guy who happens to be president , Commander In Chief. Now stopping this investigation, its complicated. Sessions would have to recuse himself. Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein might have to be
Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Theyre considered official statements by the president of the United States. Doh spicer. So the white house used to claim that the president s tweets are not just idle opinionating, theyre official statements with the power of the white house behind him. How many times have people working for the president said the president s tweet speaks for itself or words to that effect . Except for todays tweet. That apparently doesnt speak for itself. That needs a spokesperson and a tv lawyer speaking for it, sweeping up after it, quietly trying to wipe it off the bottom of their shoes. When the president of the United States says one of his subordinates should do something and do it now, how is that just one guys opinion . It all smacks of another effort that was made recently to suggest that the president didnt really say what everyone heard him say. And a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word would instead of wouldnt. The sentence should have been i dont see any reason why i wouldnt or why it wouldnt be russia. Sort of a double negative. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. The story centers on talks between the president s legal team and Robert Mueller over a possible president ial interview. We now have a better idea of the terms mr. Mueller may be offering. Evan perez and Gloria Borger got the story. Evan joins us by phone. What do you know about where these negotiations stand right now . Well, anderson, there is an important concession by the Special Counsel in this latest proposal. Were told that they finally got a response from the Special Counsel, first time in almost a month that theyve heard back from the mueller team. And in this proposal, they are essentially asking, theyre suggesting that theyre willing to limit the number of Obstruction Questions that the president would be asked, but that he would still be asked some of those questions in a sitdown interview. So the president s team has been proposing this idea of a take home test. I like to call it a takehome test where the president gets to write answers to some questions about anything related to things that happened after he was
inaugurated as president. So anything having to do with obstruction would come in this written test, so to speak. And so thats where theyve been pushing. And so you now have at least some movement from the mueller team. But keep in mind, anderson, theyre still insisting that they want a sitdown with the president , and some of those questions will cover this very important question of obstruction of justice. Do we know at this point where things stand about any questions regarding collusion . Well, the collusion question, believe it or not, the trump team has been open to having the president answer those questions, you know, if there is a sitdown interview. Now keep in mind, anderson, i think Rudy Giuliani said this in his Statement Today that the lawyers do not want trump to do any interview at all, but obviously they have a client who is insisting that he does want to do an interview. He wants to sit down with Robert Mueller facetoface because he believes if he doesnt, hes going to get crucified politically. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. An act possibly of obstruction of justice. It is remarkable the extent to which the president and the white house are continually walking back things that the president has said. He says them very clearly. Whether hes thought about it or not, but in this case, he wrote it out. It wasnt just a slip of the tongue. And now theyre saying oh, kind of ignore what hes actually said when in the past theyve said no, thats what the president actually believe. Absolutely right. And in fact going back in history, the president of the United States actually has fired people on twitter. Right. So to say should stop when its the Commander In Chief has real instructional meaning. Do you believe this is obstruction of justice, this tweet . Its certainly very powerful and credible evidence of malign and corrupt intent, which is an element of obstruction of justice. And oven the most difficult to prove. It is a threat, plain and simple, brazen and blatant. Its purpose and effect is to threaten and intimidate the Special Counsel. But there is also a subtext here, anderson, which is all of the president s surrogates, his cronies on capitol hill that are calling for the impeachment of Rod Rosenstein who controls this investigation and the other kinds of intimidation coming from my colleagues unfortunately, very unwisely on capitol hill on the republican side. Do you think the investigation can be properly completed without an interview of the president . No. The president has to be interviewed. Because to figure out intent . To know what the intent was, to give him an opportunity to clarify what he meant by these kinds of tweets and a variety of others that he has sent and conversations and other points he may have made privately. A lot of it is in the public eye, but some of it may be
privately known only to mueller at this point. Mueller knows a lot more than we do. If you were the president s attorney, though, you would not want him to sit down with Robert Mueller, would you . Given what he said in front of Vladimir Putin on a world stage with cameras rolling that they then have to walk back, oh, i said wouldnt, i meant would. What he would say to Robert Mueller, there is just no telling what would come out of his mouth. Thats why i think youre seeing this reluctance and constantly moving of goalposts by Rudy Giuliani about what he would accept as a condition for sitting down. Remember, just a couple of weeks ago, he said there has to be proof of a crime committed by the president. You have to show us your evidence. Before well sit down with you at all. Now theyre using other goalposts. And i think that ultimately, they are very, very reluctant, and understandably so because the president is a tinderbox of Potential Perjury. Senator blumenthal, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Other views now joining us. Alan dershowitz, author of the
case against impeaching trump. Cnn legal analyst anne milgram. Professor dershowitz, this reporting that muellers team is willing to reduce the number of questions that ask about potential obstruction, do you this thats going to be enough to get the president to sit down . Well, its a very smart move by mueller because its not about quantity, its about quality and substance. If they can just get the president to testify about what his motive was in firing comey or about why he spoke to comey about being going soft on flynn, those are Potential Perjury traps. So mueller is very smart to reduce the number if the result is that he can get trump to sit down and talk to him. The lawyers are not happy about this. The lawyers do not want the president to answer any questions because that would subject the president to a possible 1001 prosecution, that is lying to a prosecutor. So and remember too, the lawyers are saying to him, look,
you dont have to answer questions about your intent. We have a very good Privilege Argument that will probably prevail in front of a court. If you had the right and the power to fire comey, then you cannot be questioned about why you did it any more than senator or a congressman or a judge can be questioned about why they rendered a decision or a vote. So i think in the end, its going to be very unlikely that the lawyers will lose this battle and the president will actually sit down and expose himself to a possible perjury trap. Professor, you use the term perjury trap. Its only a perjury trap if someone wants to perjure themselves. No, thats not true. Well, no one is being forced to lie. Its a perjury trap correct me. Well, i will correct you. If you have the president saying something that he believes is truthful, and then you have another witness, cohen or manafort or one of the others contradicting him without regard to who is telling the truth, you could get a perjury prosecution. So ive often advised clients
who have insisted to me that they will only Tell The Truth. I say to them, but it is possible that any other witness will Tell The Truth different than yours . And if the answer to that is yes, in 53 years ive never had a client sit down with a prosecutor, innocent, guilty, or in between. So youre absolutely right that for the most part if youre completely innocent, the risks are lower. But there are risks even if youre innocent. If you have people who are being squeezed. Remember judge ellis has said about manafort theyre not really interested in him. Theyre trying to squeeze him. And he used a term, a term i have used for years. Sometimes you can squeeze a witness into not only singing, but composing. If you can get a witness to compose, it really does become a perjury trap. But the biggest perjury trap is having a witness who is prone to lying. No quebec it. And also i think the way the professors describing perjury, it makes it seem like if there is two completely different versions of events, someone can be charged with perjury. In my experience as a state and
federal prosecutor, thats not the case. To prove perjury is a very high standard, and you actually have to be able to prove to a jury that one version of events is false. Again, i tend to think the same way most people do, that, you know, if you have nothing to hide and youre going to Tell The Truth, you should go in and talk to the investigators. Thats why youre not a Defense Lawyer. Thats why youre not a Defense Lawyer. If you were a Defense Lawyer you would understand completely. Its enormously risky to go in and Tell The Truth if somebody is telling a different truth, and if prosecutors have an interest in promoting the truth that the other person is saying. Its just too risky. If i could switch a little, i think its worth debating this question of perjury, but ill tell you my view. My view is that the president doesnt want to go in. So we talk about whether or not the lawyers want him to go in or dont want him to go in. And i think that mueller very much wants anymore. So what were seeing a little bit is this dance. My view is, look, people tell the president not to tweet. He tweets all the time. If you were his lawyer i assume
would not have told him to send that tweet this morning, yet he is pretty unstoppable. So my view is if he really wants to go in, hes going to go in. I think well know soon enough whether its true that he wants to tell his side of the story. Professor, the tweet from the president this morning saying the Attorney GeneralJeff Sessions should stop the investigation, the white house said it was an opinion, not an order. I wonder how you read it. Previously the white house has said these are statements by the president. They hold the imprint of that. Well, i dont know what the tweet was intended to do because hes telling sessions to stop the investigation. Sessions doesnt have the power to stop the investigation. Sessions is officially and formally recused. He is not permitted to take any action to stop the investigation. If he really wanted to stop the investigation, he would direct Rod Rosenstein to stop the investigation, or he would fire mueller, which he has the power to do legally, but not politically. Politically he does not have the power to fire mueller. It would be enormously costly to him. Nor does he have the power politically to fire rosenstein. So hes just, you know, puffing off about sessions when sessions has no authority to stop the investigation at all. Anne, is that how you see it . That its just kind of puffing off . To me its pretty stunning that were in the middle of this National Conversation that started last week about the president s tweets and whether or not he is obstructing justice in tweeting about wanting to stop or influencing an investigation, and then he literally sends a tweet this morning talking about wanting to stop the investigation. And so whether or not he could actualize it and make it happen strikes me as almost not the point here. The point is that please. Finish your thought. Hold on. Just finish your thought. I thought you were done. The conversation about tweets to me is tweets can absolutely used against someone in a court of law. Peoples words are used against them all the time. And it is one of those things where to me the tweets will be looked at all together, and there are multiple tweet that i
think could pose legal jeopardy to the president. So obviously, you know, its stunning to me that he would be tweeting about this today. Professor . I just want every american to think about what it would mean if we started prosecuting any american, the president or anybody else for expressing strong views about the unjustness of a prosecution. Any defendant feels that the prosecution or the investigation against them sun just. Every one of my client has railed against prosecutors. Threatening prosecution. Now of course thats right. But he doesnt have the power to stop it through sessions. And he really doesnt have the political power to stop it. I want to talk about the Civil Liberties implications of basing a prosecution on cobbling together public tweets. Obstruction of justice takes place generally but you know theyre not basing it on tweets. You certainly know theyve been amassing evidence now for quite some time. But its almost all public. Its almost all public things he did, acts that he was entitled
to do under article 2. Its an extraordinarily week obstruction case. You have no idea what the evidence they gathered is. Well, we know what the public evidence is. That doesnt mean anything. We know the tip of an iceberg. If there is look, if he did what nixon did and paid hush money or told his people to lie or destroyed evidence, of course thats obstruction of justice. But engaging in public outrage at a prosecution that he honestly feels is unjust has to be protected by the first amendment, whether youre the president or anyone else. All right, professor dershowitz, appreciate it. Anne milgram as well. What went on today as the case continues to speed through court. Also, why the governments never ending why they never ended up calling their star witness, excuse me. And next, the rage at trump rallies and the president s encouraging of it. Were keeping him honest, when we return. Today. Now that you know the truth, are you in good hands . If todays a attempt at downplaying the tweet could be comical at times, this next is not. Its downright disturbing. Its something the president encouraged people to do, something hes repeatedly encouraged people to do. What youre going to see are otherwise respectable people, fellow citizens, fellow americans, people youd say hello to on the street shouting profanities, making obscene gestures, emptying their rage on members of the press attend of last nights rally in tampa. Take a look. So it gets worse, as youll see in a moment. One of the things thats alarming about this, besides the very real potential that this kind of angerer can lead to violence is instead of taking steps to tamp down the anger or curtail the protesters or just
admonish them, the president of the United States has encouraged them, even retweeted some of the video out to his millions of followers. And if you think anyone in the white houses that courage or conviction to criticize what the president is encouraging, you would be mistaken. Here is Sarah Sanders generically condemning violence, something that did not happen last night, thankfully, but saying what did actually happen. The president condemns and denounces any group that would Insight Violence against another individual, and certainly Doesnt Support Groups that would promote that type of behavior. So she was trying to steer the conversation towards far right conspirac