is not the truth. is that just misspeaking or part of a campaign of deception? it s time to go deep. let s get after it. in an on the record interview with reuters, the president says that he could run the probe himself if he wanted. all this coming after his biggest tweet storm yet about mueller and word that his white house counsel cooperated with mueller s probe more than trump might have known. here to discuss that and much more, former attorney general michael mukasey. judge, good to have you as always. good to be with you. so if you were to hear that the president has decided, i m taking over this probe. i m taking it over. what would your reaction be? i would shake myself and wake up. just a dream? yeah. can he, or should he not? i i have no idea whether he can. i can t believe that he can. he d have to fire mueller in the
Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with in-depth reporting and investigations.
making a false statement to an fbi agent.
Anderson Cooper takes viewers beyond the headlines with in-depth reporting and investigations.
he said that initially. they later reversed themselves and flynn was indicted for making a false statement to an fbi agent. but as point of fact, judge, he s told them things that were not true and things that he should have known and recollected in realtime. right. maybe he did. and maybe he did it because he thought there was some impropriety about having the conversation with kislyak. that s why sally yates, then at the a.g. s office, then went to don mcgahn and said you better figure out what s going on with this. i don t think there was any impropriety in that conversation at all. in fact i think flynn would have been committing malpractice if he had not had the conversation with kislyak. he is the guy who was going to be the national security then why did he lie about it? beats me. that s a good question, no? it s an excellent question, but i don t know the extent t
Them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! for a limited time, when you get fast, reliable internet, you can add voice for just $24.95 more per month. call or go online today. call or go on line today. the closing argument, i want you to keep two things really clear in your mind, okay? a perjury trap is what the counsel to the president rudy giuliani and the president himself keeps saying that s what they re worried about, that s what s waiting for the president if he testifies. we have no reason to know that. a perjury trap is a form of arguable prosecutorial misconduct. this is form of entrapment. you re not supposed to do this, they re not supposed to bring you into an interview just to try to get you to lie. the precedent is, did they bring you for fact-finding purposes or
We have no reason to know that. a perjury trap is a form of arguable prosecutorial misconduct. this is form of entrapment. you re not supposed to do this, bring you into an interview just to try to get you to lie. and the precedent, is well, did they bring you in for fact finding purposes? perjury is what they re really worried about, a material misrepresentation of fact for the purpose of deception. it s a crime. so the idea if they believe comey instead of trump and that s it, that s not it. it s a crime. they would have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. okay, i argue rudy uses this phrase because it s part of their narrative that the president is being victimized. but what they re really worried about is perjury, that the president is going to do something to himself, he s going
A situation where he swears under oath. but a perjury trap is where they re not bringing him in for fact-finding purposes. they don t need any fact-finding. they know his answer. but there are tons of questions they can ask him about what he did, why he did. that s part of the negotiation process. you want to take that question out? i would never take that question out. well, then you have to. why? because you re trapping him into perjury. you know the answer already. no. i know an answer he s given in the past already. but we re willing to stipulate that s the answer today. right, but that s because you re not under oath and sitting in front of me as a federal investigator. well, the only reason i would do that is and he s given different answers about things. he s never given a different answer about that. he s always said i never had that conversation. i ve never heard him say that, i never spoke to comey about flynn. i m going to tell you he said t