Doh spicer. All right, 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 that 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. That actually happened. Doesnt it seem like a decade ago . Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with indepth reporting and investigations. 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 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. In terms of the tweets of the president this morning, im wondering if youre learning about what actually led up to them. Least not just yet. All right, evan perez, thank you so much. With us now, richard blumenthal, democrat of connecticut, serves on the Senate Judiciary committee. Thank you so much for being with us. The idea first of all this new reporting that the mueller team is willing to reduce the number of questions. Does that make sense to you . Well, it makes sense to a point. As a prosecutor, both federal and state Attorney General, i can see some limits, but this investigation cannot close without all of the relevant questions about both the conspiracy to aid the russians in attacking our democracy and also the Obstruction Of Justice that is continuing in realtime right before our eyes. You just laid out the word games that the white house is trying to play in walking back the president s very blatant and brazen threats to shut down this investigation, which itself is an act possibly of Obstruction Of Justice. It is remarkable the extent to which the president and the
white house, i mean, are continually walking back things that the president has said. He says them very clearly. You know, hes whether hes thought about it or not, but i mean, many 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, well, no, thats what the president actually believes. Absolutely right. And in fact, going back in history, the president of the United States actually has fired people on twitter. Yeah. 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 often the most difficult to prove. 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
mil 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. And so i 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. Isnt it . I mean 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. And 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, you are absolutely right that for the most part, if you are completely innocent, the risks are lower, but there are risks, even if you are innocent. If you have people who are being squeezed. Remember that judge ellis said about manafort that theyre not really interested in him, theyre trying to squeeze him, and he used the term, a term that i have used for years, saying sometimes you can squeeze a witness not only into singing, but composing. And if you can get a witness to compose, then it really does become a perjury trap. But the biggest perjury trap is having a witness who is prone to lying. No question about it. And also i think the way the professor is describing perjury, it makes it seem like if theres 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. And so, you know, 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. And so, we talk a lot 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 him in, and so, what were seeing a little bit is this dance. And my view is, look, people tell the president not to tweet, he tweets all the time. If you were his lawyer, i assume you would have not told him to send that tweet this morning. And hes unstoppable. So, my view is, if he really wants to go in, hes going to go in. And so, 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 untended 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,
punchipunch i 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 we could actualize and make it happen, you know, strikes me as almost not the point here. The point is but finish your thought, anne. Hold on. I want anne to finish her 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 him is unjust. Every one of my client has railed against prosecutors. But your clunt clients dont the power to stop that. Of course. 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 the prosecution 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. We dont know that. You dont know what they its extraordinary weak obstruction case. You have no idea what the
evidence they gathered is. Well, we know what the public evidence is. Right, well, that doesnt mean anything, though. 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. Thank you. Just ahead tonight, more on how the Paul Manafort trial may factor into all of this. What went on today as the case tonights to speed through court. Also, why the government may never end up calling their star witness. Also next, the rage at trump rallies and the president s encouraging of it, directed at reporters. Keeping them honest, when we return. My moms pain from
i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. And if that pain could mean something worse. Joint pain could mean joint damage. Enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. Serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, Nervous System and Blood Disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. Tell your doctor if youve been someplace where fungal infections are common. Or if youre prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for Heart Failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. Dont start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. Since enbrel, my moms back to being my mom. Visit enbrel. Com. And use the joint Damage Simulator to see how joint damage could progress. Ask about enbrel. Enbrel. Fda approved for over 18 years. If todays attempt at downplaying the president s russia tweets could be comical at times, this next issue is not. Its downright disturbing. Its something the president encouraged people to do, as he often does, something hes repeatedly encouraged people to do. Im going to show you the video in a moment. 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 covering last nights trump 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 anger can lead to violence, is that 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 house has the courage or conviction to criticize what the president is encouraging, you would be mistaken. Here is Sarah Sanders generically condemning violence, something that, of course, did not happen last night, thankfully, but saying nothing about what actually did 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 farright conspirery groups like qanon, which well talk more about. And even then, as youll see, she lumped them together with the press, suggesting there was some kind of equivalence between the two. In fact, there was another reporter in the briefing pointed out, thats not the issue. At issue at least for now. Its not the issue. The issue at hand is the kind of open display of rage last night that the president is encouraging in rallies and on twitter. Now here is some of the video that Cnns Jim Acosta put up on instagram. I want to play through it a couple of times. First what cameras saw and then
with portions highlighted so you get a better idea of what jim and other reporters were surrounded last night in tampa while simply doing their constitutionally protected jobs. [ bleep ]. Stop lying Tell The Truth. Tell the truth. So, thats what it sounded like. I just want to play it again with certain things highlighted, because, you know, its easy to lose it in the crowd. It starts with a man shouting f the media and everyone you see
here, they could be your neighbor, they could teach your kids science, they could be in your carpool, they could be saying prayers next to you in church. But at thees rallies that potential churchgoer might be raising a middle finger, shouting, as on man says, stop lying, stop lying into the camera. Now there is another lady who first raises one middle finger. This lady right here is very charming. Then she raises both fingers shouting you suck, you suck. Youre only seeing less than a minute of it. But this kind of thing went on a whole lot longer. And again, the president saw fit to encourage it on twitter, and again, Sarah Sanders did not see fit to just condemn it simply and without reservation. The president , as i just said, does not support violence against anyone or anything. And weve been very clear every single time weve been asked about that. When it comes to the media, the president does think that the media holds a responsibility. We fully support a free press, but there also comes a high
level of responsibility with that. The media routinely reports on classified information and Government Secrets that put lives in danger and risk valuable National Security tools. This has happened both in our administration and in past administrations. One of the worst cases was the reporting on the