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
Saying it happened. people write memos to the file to serve their own interest. comey is not above that. isn t what they re worried about is putting someone we know who has a problem with abusing the truth, who has a problem with freelancing, who has a problem with sticking to what he is told to do and putting him across from people who would be uniquely motivated to point that out? i think what they re concerned about is the ultimate fact here, which is that this is not going to end in a trial. it s not going to end in charges. it s going to end in the house of representatives with an argument in favor or against impeachment. and the only thing he would be doing is providing grift for that particular mill. there s no legitimate criminal investigation going on here. well, that s an opinion. but the idea that he does nothing but add grift to the mill, i would suggest no. there is this legitimate investigation of people other than him, but there s no possibility of bringing a c
there is no possibility because the doj guidance. it doesn t mean that mueller s main probe responsibility is to get the facts and find out what happened. the president s part of that. and you say, well, why would he do it except to give grift to that mill, that mill being something nefarious in your perspective. i m saying no, not nefarious. it s for inclusion in a report to the house. right. that can then be used to consider impeachment. why would the president walk into that? because of the truth. he says he wants to tell the truth. if he doesn t sit down with mueller and we have some type of objective body, which i hold out hope that s what mueller is. everybody loved him until this probe didn t start going the way the president likes. now all of a sudden he s suspect. but if he doesn t sit down, it will always be an open question of whether or not he was hiding anything from the american people. fair point? fair point. but i would sitting in the president s place,