tv New Day With Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota CNN May 18, 2018 4:00am-5:00am PDT
hopeful. >> i would think he would want to go in there and do it. ♪ >> one day away from the royal nuptia nuptials. >> it represents something they have never had before. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day". alyn is joining us from the place to be, windsor, england. they are getting ready for the royal wedding. we have so much news that happened overnight here. we have president trump and his allies stepping up efforts to expose an fbi informant whom the president alleges spied on his campaign. now, he's getting some of this from the "washington post". but there is no evidence if any spy was imbedded. now, the fbi, however, is preparing to minimize fallout if this person's identity is
revealed. we have the president's lawyer, rudy guiliani, in the house this morning. he says there may be a better chance now for a trump/mueller interview. why? what changed? we'll ask him directly. the trump campaign reportedly planning a series of summer sessions to prep him if there is any eventual sit down. we will talk to rudy about all of this in just a moment. alisyn, you look too good to ignore the reality on the ground there. how is it this morning? >> it's beautiful here, chris. it is beautiful. it's sunny. it's electric. everyone is excited. i'm here in windsor, england where the royal wedding day will get under way just 24 hours from now. we have had breaking news already in the last hour this morning. we now know who will walk meghan markle down the aisle. it will not be her mother but rather prince charles. kensington palace made the
announcement one day after meghan markle confronted her father would not be here in order to focus on his health back at home. we have learned prince marry's grandfather, prince philip, will attend the wedding less than two months after he had hip surgery. doria ragland will have tea with the queen today. this will be their first ever meeting. ragland has been introduced to some of the royal family, including prince william and kate middleton and their children, george and charlotte. we assume little louis was napping. >> don't lose that hat i lent you. don't lose it. we'll check back in a little bit. joining us now to discuss a lot of news is former new york city mayor and the newest member of president trump's legal team,
mr. rudy guiliani. always a pleasure. thank you for being with us. >> good to be back. >> we have to get into this full-throated conversation about what you believe is happening with the probe. first, are you okay? >> oh, yeah, i'm fine. i'm absolutely fine. >> what i heard, in the side view mirror you saw a squeegee guy and you opened the door into him. >> i saw chris christie. >> so you're good. that's good to know. this news that you believe that according to special counsel and their investigative team, there may be a narrowing of questions. is that accurate? >> yes, it is. it is accurate as of wednesday night. we received a communication from them. we did go through five letters. we didn't get a response. then they sent us a response. i can't go into detail. but narrowing the subjects for questioning down to about two.
>> that list that came out. >> i had five categories. >> all right. that's fair. five, maybe seven. >> three are out. no secret that the whole thing with michael cohen is out, the southern district of new york. >> you believe mueller turned over all of that or do you think he may have reserved certain aspects. >> it's my belief he turned all of it over. they should communicate. >> it would send a signal that he had connections with the president. as long as he believes it there. it seems, from everything i know, to be correct. that's an independent issue. and it doesn't fend at all on the resolution of this one. >> all right. so as far as you know mueller isn't looking at cohen. that's about the southern
district. >> and the southern district basically isn't looking at the president if he's in the rear-view mirror somewhere who knows. we will keep an eye on that. >> that's off the table. what else is off the table? >> the main focus wpt is simply russia. was there a connection with russia. we see that the report in the "new york times" which we think is a prophecy of what will be revealed, the ig of justice, is that as of the beginning of the mueller investigation, after a 100-day investigation, the fbi found no connection with president trump for russia. now, here's the issue that i really feel strongly about with this informant. first of all, i don't know for sure if there really was. we're told that. >> told that by whom? >> by people who for a long time have been told there was some kind of infiltration.
at one point the president thought incident was a wiretap. there were some fisa applications. we were notified he was not on a wiretap. >> there's been no proof either? >> he said it many times. >> i think he thought that. >> that doesn't make it true. that's part of the problem with understanding this situation. the president feels something, states it as fact. people believe it. it turns out to be not true. >> two imbedded people in the campaign. >> now, when you say you were told. let's clear the record. you mean you're gleaning this from the reporting that's out there? >> it corroborates what people told us off the record. you don't know if they're right or not. people knew about the investigation. >> the president this morning may have been quoting a fox news
commentator as his source of being concerned about this. this is the man who has authority to pick up the phone and say, did you put somebody in my campaign? >> the doj and the current situation, that would probably be really misunderstood. this should tell us if it was. the obligation is on them. >> the president has not been shy about talking to people at the top of the investigation about what he wants to know. he asked the person running the investigation to say publicly -- >> as his lawyer, that has to go through the white house counsel's office or possibly us. shouldn't go through him. i believe if there was an imbedded person, that person cleared us. the if you can cleared us. i wonder what the heck is the legitimacy in the first place. the fbi came to the fact that there was no collusion. >> how do we know that?
>> it was in the "new york times" yesterday. >> rudy guiliani, president's lawyer, is using the "new york times" as a good source. a source that the president assails only because it suits his advantage. it's good to hear you own the media. >> chris, the reality is the "new york times" is trying to take the wind out of the sails of the report. >> we haven't seen the report. we all welcome in. >> flat-out liar. >> yes. >> then comey disowned it. >> yes. what am i pausing? it doesn't go to the truth that you want to push which is the probe is out to get the president. >> he's a liar. >> fine. i'm not disputing that, nor have i ever. >> comey is a flat-out leaker. >> hold on a cond. e at a time. what mccabe was doing was
fanning the flames of his own intentions about going after hillary clinton. >> right. >> that does not shed the light, he lied about one thing so he is lying about another. he wants to say the probe is wrong, that it is dirty and that it is out to get him. and he is using, we do not know if any of that is true. >> it is. >> this was based on an illegitimate source, comey. clearly an fbi problem. i'm sorry. he's fbi director. can't get around that. he does something foolish. fbi agents will be fired and maybe go to jail. he leaks to a professor who gives it to the press, with the spweplgz of getting -- >> maybe, maybe not. it is more complex. >> jim comey can't be trust odd anything.
>> he said he leaked it. so why is he a liar? >> he said he didn't think the professor was going to necessarily give it to the press. >> that's not what he said in the interviews. he said the opposite. he said i gave it to him to district it. i didn't do it myself because i thought that that would create different compromises. >> i'm a sneaky lawyer. >> no. that's what you say. that's not what started the probe. >> yes, it is. >> the pbe went to mueller because all of a sudden sessions had recused himself. rosenstein decided he needed a special prosecutor. trump just turned down the fbi director. >> two questions. one, he didn't turn him down. he met with him about working for the fbi. then got picked special counsel right after it. the reporting is that he never said to him. you're saying that the president said you're not getting the fbi. >> i don't think we should have
it -- >> in what context? >> in the context of right after the interview. >> whoa, whoa. >> i don't know if it is a day or two days when he was selected. >> hold on. why would the president of the united states call rosenstein and say, hey, i just interviewed bob mueller for fbi. he's not getting the job. >> i do that if i don't want somebody. >> what does he have to do with it? >> he sat in on the interview. >> why call him? >> because he sat in on the interview. he's sharing his thoughts. i would do that. >> hearing the president doesn't think he's fit for the fbi, rosenstein said he's perfect for special counsel. why would he do that? >> i don't know why we would do that. >> the president picked him. >> he didn't pick him. jeff picked him. totally different. my commission picks people. you're really getting off the point. >> please. >> the point is the whole
investigation is totally legitimate. the question of whether there was collusion had been resolved in the first investigation by the fbi which the "times" revealed, which horowitz will analyze in a couple of weeks. in that investigation there is a memo that says that there is no evidence of collusion with the russians on the part of donald trump. end of story. why an investigation? there is no probable cause for anything. >> we don't know what mueller has or doesn't have. especially you. if anybody should respect the process -- >> mueller comes after the fact. >> you're leaving out a huge event that precipitated it, the firing of james comey by the president of the united states. >> what happened? >> arguably nothing or a lot because of why he did it. which he has jumped on it. >> tell me what the why would be? the issue of the investigation.
when in fact, he said a couple days later to lester holt, i know what would extend the investigation. it would take longer. >> the way i understand it is that its was said by the president and people around him, not you at the time, that he fired him had nothing to do with the russia investigation. he gives the interview with lester holt and said i was going to fire him anyway. >> only because people wanted to track it. there were five reasons to fire rosenstein. >> freudian slip. rosenstein has to go. >> not jeff. >> now he's a good man. the president has maligned jeff sessions again and again and
again during his tenure, short as it has been. >> maybe we could have honorable people there. jeff has been a friend 30 years. if i were the attorney general, the case would be dismissed over the improprieties of the case. >> how about manafort? >> first they prosecute is manafort. rosenstein gives permission to do it. manafort's case was in 2005. it had already been investigated. >> it also included activities they believe he was doing during his time with trump and before. >> and investigate matters all by himself. >> they are. >> no, they're not. they're investigating part of special counsel investigation. the justice department should be investigating that. there is no kneeled for a special counsel. >> why did rosenstein pick him? >> he's he's scared? of what? >> that he is going to have the same kind of land on him. >> why did jeff sessions -- >> rosenstein -- jeff sessions
recused him because he worked on the trump campaign and he felt he was too close. >> is that the right move? >> i can't criticize it. >> not being a lawyer or wanting to smear anybody who seems suggestive of anything that is critical. >> that is simply not fair. how about what jeff sessions has done to him. >> what has he done for him? >> stick him with special counsel. he didn't step up and say i can make this decision. th $20 million later has come up with nothing. explain to me why he interviewed the president if he doesn't want to trap him into perjury, which is what the judge in the manafort case has said about that. they are trapping people into perjury. >> let's not flood the zone. you can't compellingly argue that's what they do in these kinds of sessions. you were a master of these
sessions. the president won't tell the truth. >> that's not true. that he wants not true. >> especially when you have said to the president -- >> it is not true. a perjury trap is when you get somebody into a lie about telling the truth. the president would testify tomorrow if it was about the truth. the truth is he had nothing to do with russia. i was on that campaign. he didn't talk to russians. >> why won't he just sit down and say it. >> because you've got people that are going to ask questions on what did you say to him, comey coming forward and lying. they believe comey rather than -- look, it's like martha stewart. martha stewart never would have gone to jail if she hadn't gone and testified. >> she lied. >> lying is black and white. it isn't black and white. the president is not going to lie. the president is going to tell --
>> what gives you confidence to say -- >> because i have gone over the whole thing. i investigated the whole thing. >> out of habit. >> that's a disgraceful comment about the president of the united states. out of habit he defends himself against the press. >> he abuses the truth. he misstatemes and sometimes li. he says things that are untrue. >> if we are talking about liars, let's talk about comey. >> one liar at a time. the president of the united states matters the most. >> that is the guy they are going to trust against the president. >> we don't know that. if anything, why wouldn't they be deferen challenge to the president of the united states. >> they will have to explain how they wasted 20 million bucks on an investigation that begins without any evidence and ends without any evidence. >> first of all, so far we know it is seven. by the way, say it was 70. say it was 700. >> why do they want to give the
documents to the house? >> why do you think? do you think devin nunes has been a fair brokern this? to work hand in&glove with them on an independent probe. he had to step away. he had to get investigated for ethics consideration. >> anyone who lies about the president is okay. >> when have i ever said that? >> you're talking about comey, rosenstein, jeff sessions having done nothing wrong. >> no. i asked what did he do that was wrong. it seems to be your answer is he stuck the president with special counsel. so what's jeff sessions' job, to cover the back of the president or uphold the constitution? >> he didn't uphold the constitution. nobody is recused in the white house because jeff sessions is recused. >> that's why rosenstein is there. >> so rosenstein should be handling the case? >> he is. >> no, he's not.
he's given it to special counsel. >> both sides of the aisle they stood up and said bob mule ser a great guy. >> not in the business of doing that now for the president? >> i would violate my oath as a lawyer. >> true. this is where you are compromised. this is why i'm asking you to come on. >> you want me to come on because i'm compromised? >> no. because you are fundamental to this and the president's mind. and i appreciate you taking the opportunity. you know that. you have lived a life where you were fundamental to the operation of justice on the federal level, okay. you held the jobs and have been in key components of the authority structure of what is now under scrutiny. if anybody else were sitting in that chair making these arguments, i would just deal with the arguments. but when rudy guiliani says storm troopers. when rudy guiliani says that
there is dirty at the top and that they would set a perjury trap and that these people are out to get him, you have spent decades of your life, and i would come to you, you said these were the best men a women we have. don't j their character. you're doing the opposite. >> no, i'm not. >> how about storm troop senators michael cohen. >> they invaded the attorney/client privilege. i never did that. >> storm troopers? nazi foot soldiers. >> you don't go into a man's house in a morning for a case that is 10 years old. >> did they have a warrant? >> of course they had a warrant. >> were they professional, courteous? >> i don't know if they were. >> michael cohen said they were. >> i don't know if they were. i would be upset if i was michael's lawyer. >> you're still calling them storm troopers.
you know better. >> i don't know better, chris. they are. and stick with it. and accept it. and own it. >> the men and women working for the fbi were storm troop senators. >> do they act inappropriately sometimes? do you get a big liar like comey, mccabe in the fbi, a guy with a conflict from day one on the hillary investigation which is why he is lying to cover his ass? of course. you get bad people in the fbi. you get bad people in justice, bad people in parties. it is my job to flush them out. if you can tell me this investigation is worth the time that it's gotten and the money spent, then you don't know what you're talking about. >> what's interesting about this situation, i have now been told i don't know what i'm talking about by you and nancy pelosi. you were both wrong. here's why. we know that russian
interference was real. okay. we know that they wanted to do it and they were successful in many of their efforts. we know they did it because they wanted to help trump and hurt clinto we need to get to the answers. >> we have the answer! >> how they do it, who might have helped them, and how to stop it next time. >> the party probably hemmed them. >> come on. >> that's the basis of the investigation. >> come on. >> the corrupt dossier was developed on the president. and if you're asking me who has committed crimes here, the crimes have been committed by the investigators. illegal leaking, lying about relevant matters, invasions of the attorney/client privilege, which were unethical. >> you have a great judge, who i'm sure you will agree with in kemba wood, a pointing special master. letting them see privileged information. having her look at it. >> she is very concerned about
the violation of the attorney client privilege. >> which is why she is put in place. they are following the law. they are following the law, rudy. shoe respect that as much as anybody. >> that's why i'm fighting in court. >> you are maligning the whole process saying they violated it -- >> you're telling me you can violate my client's rights and i have to just accept it? >> no. i'm saying you shouldn't assume they violated his rights and they acted appropriately. >> i practiced law for years. i have never heard of searching awe client's office -- >> you were known as a muscled up guy at the southern district. >> i'm not a muscle guy. get out of here. >> you didn't take aggressive action? >> i argued for my clients. my client is being unfairly prosecuted -- he's not being
prosecuted. and we pointed out he cannot be indicted. do you want to dispute thath me? >> i think it's auestion o process. but listen. i know the guidance from the doj. >> and you know special counsel is governed by that guide. >> 100%. theoretically he could choose to ignore it. but you have been told they won't. >> after some hesitation, i have been told they won't. second, if they do, they know it will be dismissed. >> fine and if they do the justice department -- >> first of all, just to not go down to rat hole. i think we have a graphic on it. if we do, the options for mueller, you can put it up. otherwise, i will just detail them. he could not indict the president. he could fore going and indict the president. he could do something that is far more likely. we need to investigate, put together the facts. then the process is different than it would be for you or me. be removed first through
impeachment, then indicted later. or he could die co-conspirators. when you say you can't indict the president we are talking about true but also a long process. >> a long answer equals you can't indict him. >> you have to understand why you can't and what you still could do and how in any way does that affect his ability to comply with the subpoena? if he is subpoenaed, if he were subpoenaed, the president of the united states, not being able to be indicted is irrelevant. he still has to comply. >> no. >> the people of the memo said you cannot indict the president, nor issue a criminal process with regard to a case involving the president. now, you say what happened with nixon? nixon was documents. we didn't raise any privilege. 1.4 million documents for which the case should be resoed. number two, if you apply that,
really there is no case in which a president has complied with a subpoena for his person. >> clinton did. >> no, he didn't. they removed the subpoena. >> because he complied. >> he did not comply. he negotiated terms for a two and a half hour interview, which they wanted much, much more. and he did it on video feed and he had control of the questions beforehand, or at least approval of the questions beforehand. something we're trying to negotiate, by the way -- >> you can cut your own deal. you can negotiate terms, that's fine. number one, no president ever complied -- >> he spoke in front of the grand jury. >> he removed the subpoena. and his justice department, i have the memo right here. his justice department issued an opinion in 2007 saying a president cannot be subject to a
criminal process. it is a prerogative of article ii. >> why did you say if you get subpoenaed, you have to go. >> i never heard of a subpoena for the president's person. >> you said exactly that. >> no, no. >> you went on to say -- >> chris, let's distinguish between a subpoena for documents and a subpoena that takes the president out of the oval office and puts him in front of a grand jury or hearing. can't do it! can't do it the second. you can do the first. >> you never made that distinction before. >> it never would have occurred to me they would try to subpoena the president. >> that's exactly what was going on in 1998. here's charlie rose in the interview. you tell me what you meant. >> come on. it's not even relevant. testify, subpoenaed. s asked to >> that is really unfair. what you are doing right now is exemely unfair. >> what does that have to do with this?
>> they are all trying to bring trump in. he's not involved in it, chris. >> avenatti has been fed information that wound up being more true than not, mostly michael cohen. will what he is doing on tv, that's his business and the people who put him on. i'm talking about this, and it matters. and i played that piece of sound. it is not my decision what comes on and not on all the time. i asked you very much to come on. i think that matters. but he's not my concern. and you know that. i played that piece of sound because i wanted to give you the benefit. because otherwise people will just beat you over the head with it. >> play it. i'm talking about a subpoena for documents rather than a subpoena for your person, which i never contemplated anyone would suggest -- >> that's exactly what they were asking clinton to do, sit down and answer questions. he eventually wound up sitting. you said legally he had to. >> if you give me a subpoena and you negotiate terms and you
withdraw the subpoena, the subpoena is now dead. >> you end up doing the same thing, answering questions under oath. >> but with questions. >> fine. >> because there was lack of clarity after my statement, not just me, the justice department wrote an opinion which is you cannot -- they call it criminal process. >> right. >> you can't issue criminal process to the president. end of story. you can't do it unless you change that opinion. if mueller did it, the justice department could take the subpoena. >> or you could just litigate it. >> i would go right to the attorney and say, je put on your big boy pants. >> and he is recused. >> then i go to rosenstein and say you put on your big boy pants. >> we'll see what happens when it comes to pass. >> i have two reasons why we are not getting that. one, i believe we can work out conditions. >> yes.
>> that may be a little too optimistic. a lot of lawyers disagree. but my client agrees with me. >> okay. >> and second, if we don't, i don't believe they will subpoena. >> why not? how does he end the probe without speaking to the president? >> i get most of my criminal probes without speaking to the subject. >> what a no-go zone for you? what is off the table? >> 12 hours of sitting there. >> so time. >> they will do this another three or four months. they're going to ask any question they want. we're going to go into all of this manafort, this one, and that one. >> so manafort is off the table? is cohen off the table? what categories are off the table? >> that is unfair. we are talking about two hours and six. >> so time. >> a difference between one or two subjects to three or four subjects. we're almost in the zone of maybe we're disagreeing about the 30 days. we're in a zone of comfort.
>> 30 days about what, when you'll do it or how long after -- >> i believe -- sitting around, write the report for the interview in a specious way like comey did. but they are not going to do that. >> this is an actual investigation that's going on and that wasn't? >> damn right it wasn't. thank you for knitting it. >> i have never notnitted it. they didn't believe thehad grounds to go forward with an investigation. >> and laid out all the reasons why she should go to jail. >> that's not how comey explained >> it she destroyed documents. she lied. she had people destroy documents. she got immunity and people who perjuried themselves. >> they were making decision sadecisions based on she's going to get elected. >> nobody disagrees with you about that.
he made moves that were unorthodox and wound up compromising a lot of different dynamics. let's not run too far away. this has all been very helpful, right away. >> interview, report. interview, report. do you need his testimony? the president is not going to vary in any material respect from what he said publicly already. he's already spoken in detail. >> it's different when you are being asked a question in that setting by investigators with perjury hanging of your head. >> i guarantee you it won't be anything. >> but what if he's not telling the truth? >> he is going to tell the truth and he has told the truth. he has no reason not to. there is no possible jeopardy here of any kind except from an unfair meeting. >> if that were true, he wouldn't be so itchy to
undermine the probe the way he has. you don't attack the process. >> you don't exact a process trying to victimize you unfairly. you just let them do it. if you do, you're accused of obstructing justice. >> how are they victimizing him unfairly? they have said he's not a target. they left him alone until now. they don't like the way the white house does. what have they done to make you think they are so jaundiced. >> they don't leak? >> you think mueller is leak something. >> no, the fbi. >> i'm talking about the mueller group. >> how could the "times" have written the report they did yesterday without getting confidential information in advance of the horowitz report from the very fbi. i have total respect for all the fbi but the people screwing ound. i put in this case in jail that
were screwing around. i put police officers in jail. i love the new york city police department. >> now you are representing somebody's interest who wants to undermine the justice in this country. >> no, he doesn't. >> christopher wray comes out and says not a witch-hunt. i said that when i was being confirmed. now that i am there i know it even more so. not a witch-hunt. >> it is a witch-hunt. maybe he doesn't want to get involved. maybe he wants to look independent. >> maybe he's right? how about that? >> he's wrong. i know more about the case than he does. >> you think you knew more about the case? >> yes. if he knows a lot about it, he's going to have a lot of problems? >> how? is he in charge of the investigation. >> the reality is that christopher wray came after the investigation started. >> true. >> he should disassociate himself from the comey miss deeds. nothing like comey, thank god. and there is no reason he needs
to be involved in this except to get the information. now, what he's got to do is the leaks in the fbi. you agree with that, right? >> i'm a journalist. i like leaks. i like to get the information for transparency. >> is there an offense for which they would be fired. >> there is often risk for people. whistle brothers alowers all ov place. >> you or me getting the information, no problem. we're entitled to get the information and entitled under the first amendment to speak about it. >> right. the president of the united states has raised questions about whether or not i should be able to get that information and whether or not he should be part of the hedging process on getting after leaks. you know he said it. it may be one of the ways that we deal with the leaks is to go after the journalists as well. do you like that? >> the obama admintration did that too.
>> it was widely condemned. >> and i journalist went to jail. >> so that was wrong. you didn't like it, right? the president is suggesting dow that to us now. >> the president is not putting anybody in jail. >> he has done exactly that, actually. he says we're the enemy -- >> we have to let you broadcast. >> maybe a day will come to pass where he wants to move on people who criticize him. >> i'll represent you. >> great. just what i need. let me ask you something about this confidential informant's report. it is troublesome that there was interference. >> if the president would interfere now. >> it is not interfering to ask whether or not you had someone inside. >> then ask me not him. >> then he should do that. instead of quoting a fox news
comme commentat commentator, because they don't know either. i don't see how you get to your conclusion with what we know right now. it is just as likely that someone from inside the campaign turned and came to them with information that it is that they put someone in there as you would call a spy. you know spying is a p prejorative. people in the doj, people you worked with and respect hate that word. >> so we have an imbedded informant or "deep throat". >> you either have somebody who came from inside the campaign and said i have information, which happens to square most with the reporting that we know. what do we kn? simpson said a couple of different things. he suggested that he knew the fbi was getting information from the inside. we know when chris officchris or
steel went to the fbi, it sounds like more someone has come inside to talk to them. they would need a basis of knowledge to do that. >> let's go back. let's get the conclusions first. the conclusion is no wrongdoing. >> wrongdoing of what? >> by the president. >> who reaches that conclusion? >> the fbi. >> i do not get that at all. >> the "times" said no connection between president trump and russia. >> but based on this one narrow piece of what they were doing investigatively. not what mueller has. >> no. that's where mueller started. mueller started with a conclusion. it makes it hard for me to believe that you would start with mueller in the first place. i begin with either some evidence of a crime that is committed or cop tracontrary evt no crime was committed. >> nobody raised -- you don't
have proof. no one stood up in any meaningful way when he was picked, bob mueller, and said this was a travesty. it was perceived as something that should be done, done well. >> nobody at the time knew if it was a travesty or not. now that we look back we see no reason to appoint mueller in the first place. >> what's what you think. >> that's what the "times" told me yesterday when i saw they had concluded after 100 daysf investigation that there was no evidence of trump boeing linked to russia. >> that has been exposed or revealed by the investigation. >> and illegally leaked. >> but it's not over. so we don't know. >> somebody in the u. s. attorneys' office says we want you to open an investigation into chris cuomo. i go why?
>> which may happen, by the way. >> to be fair, i don't think it was ever presented to rosenstein that way. that's the reality. that he wants the reality. and i think the fbi didn't tell -- comey was -- it was really about the firing of comey that led to rosenstein. >> well, right. you wouldn't give me that early on in your conversation. you left it out of the analysis. the president firing comey had as much to do with rosen teen than anything else. >> no one is going to investigate. he has complete investigation to fire anybody he wants. >> what about corrupt intent? >> doesn't apply. >> why not? you don't think the president can obstruct justice. >> he can. but in the case of firing a subordinate who is going to be replaced by someone else on an active basis immediately. >> but it is why you fired them, corrupt intent. it is part of the legal analysis.
>> it can't result in anything. the investigation continued. it expanded. >> obviously firing him charged a suspicion into the firing. >> there were ten reasons for firing comey that had nothing to do with corrupt anything. >> the president offered several different versions and settled on i didn't like what was happening with the russian thing. >> that could be he legitimate. >> that's what he said. >> if there were five other reasons, you can't focus that one and pretendonitis the sole reason. the man mishandled the clinton investigation. it was known as a consistent leaker way back, way back he was dealing with cases. >> you now have someone who people respect in mueller, okay? i know the president has been on a little bit of ajee had -- oh, please. he said so many things about his
conflicted. >> i will tell you something. i think he gets the benefit of the doubt much more often than given credit for. >> do you think most people think i crazy for cing here. >> do you think this interview has been unfair? >> absolutely. >> why? >> i don't think you have given me a chance to explain the injustice, the basis of it with the fbi report that was faulty, the fbi report that came to the conclusion -- i don't understand how a man can be prosecuted if you come to the conclusion there was nothing wrong. you didn't play up that part of the report. yesterday in the "new york times" i underlined the section that said after 100 days of investigation, no evidence. of collusion with the russians. >> and i would suggest you're taking that out of context of what the reporting was. rudy, to your main criticism, you just said what you said five times during this interview.
there is no purpose for an investigation. >> i had to get it in. >> you said it at least five times. >> there is interrupting, da, da, da. i've been told it doesn't really say that. it's out of context. you can't say it's out of context. the whole investigation is out of context. the fbi clears trump before mueller probe. that's the headline. >> that's not the exact headline. >> i know it's not, but it should be. >> that's not the headline. that's why i pushed back. that doesn't make it fair. >> i just learned that the word leed is l-e-e-d. >> if the president writes it lead or leed and i write it led, is that unfair? >> it depends whether i like you that day or not. i have to go, chris.
i have to go do my job as a lawyer. >> you have been helpful in coming here to help usun rstand where your head is. >> it hasn't been good for people feeling you're not going to get a fair hearing, i have to tell you. i have to be honest with you. >> all the time you had to make the points that you want to make, you got questioned about them to justify the basis. that's the definition of fairness, by the way. >> okay. that's good. i can live with that. but a lot of people can't. >> as long as you're okay with it. >> i'm okay with it. i'm a lawyer. this is what i do best. i'm glad the president selected me because it is an honor to represent him. you don't very often in my business get to represent someone like this. >> you said it was the most important part of your career. you have an open invitation to give us the president's perspective. >> i will absolutely make that. >> i promise you i'm always were trying to be fair. raougt
rudy guiliani, thank you for being here. appreciate it. we will unpack all the things rudy says he didn't get a chance to argue. we'll be right back. (vo) i was born during the winter of '77. i first met james in 5th grade. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru.
almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call
for a free quote today. you could save $782 when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. but he hasoke up wwork to do.in. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd 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.
moderate republican lawmakers are going against party leadership and invoking this rare procedural rule to force a vote on a potential solution to daca. the effort is called a discharge petition and it's kind of an end run around the committees and all of the write-ups and markups they have and makes a bill get a vote on the floor. it requires the signature of 218 members of congress. right now the tally is supposedly about 150 that have already signed on it, obviously from both parties, but house speaker paul ryan is urging his members not to sign. two of the republicans behind this plan are representatives william hurd of texas and jeff
denham of california. they join us now. gentlemen, thank you for coming on this morning. will, let me start with you. is it true that you guys are not the only two people on your side of the aisle that want this to happen? is it true that you may get this threshold number of republicans to get this procedural motion through? >> the short answer is yes, chris. we have the votes we need in order to pursue this. ultimately what we're trying to do is let's have a debate. let's do our job. let's come before the american people and debate a number of pieces of legislation. this rule, which we are trying to discharge, would bring four bills to the floor. one of them is my bill that deals with border security and fixing daca. we need to get this done now. the time is over -- the time for waiting is over and let's have this debate in front of the american people. >> so jeff, the criticism is twofold. one, the bills that you guys
want are too moderate, they're too liberal. they don't really comport with what the leadership wants. the second criticism is you're out of line. the leadership is telling you to do it their way and you're not doing it. your response. >> first of all, we've given a lot of time, years actually to not only secure our border but to find a permanent fix for dreamers. even this president gave us a march 5th deadline. congress, get your job done, put something on my desk, we have failed to ask. i have asked the speaker every single week give us a timeline on these bills when we can have a debate in front of the american people and we failed to get one, so we're forcing one. this is republicans and democrats coming together to say let's have a debate. let's have a debate in front of the american public, full transparency, and let members answer to their own districts on what their position is to doing this. >> will, what's the chance that it happens, that you get the required signatures? do you think that you can beat the leadership? >> yes, we can. i believe we have the votes.
i believe we also know what the count is on the various pieces of legislation. chris, i would disagree with your premise that people are saying that these bills are not strong enough. it's 2018. we do not have operational control of the border. i know because i have 820 miles of it. it's a place i spend a lot of time on. one of the bills that we'd be voting on is looking at all 2,000 miles of the border at the same time and let's gai operationa ctrol over it by 2020. there is no other piece of legislation out there that does that. there is no other piece of legislation that is focused on smart ways to actually secure our border as well as solving the problem for over a million young men and women who have only known the united states of america as their home who are already contributing to our culture, our economy. we're at 3.9% unemployment. we should be making sure these million kids that are already in school or working stay here and continue to contribute to our economy.
>> i hear the argument. i'm just laying out what is offered as resistance. both of you know these arguments well, jeff. they're certainly not of my own owe ridge nation. the idea is no amnesty, no path to citizenship for the dreamers. that's not what your party wants in the main, at least on the fringe, that's the criticism. and border security has to begin with the wall and we'll go from there. if you don't put those things in your bill that way, you're going against what your party wants. fair criticism, jeff? >> certainly fair criticism. but the thing that's left out, each one of these bills, including the one that the freedom caucus is asking for an up or down vote on, each one of these bills has the opportunity to be amended before it comes to the floor. and none of these bills have an appropriation today on border security. we are assuming that each one of them will have an appropriation for border security. that's the only way we'll get this signed into law by the president. it's certainly the only way we'll get it through the senate
and something we're working on on a bipartisan level. so i expect each of these bills to change, each of these bills to get stronger. i just believe that through this process the bill that will and i are working on together has the best opportunity of getting support from the president and becoming law. >> obviously that would be a good tactic is to go to the president and know what he will support. that would be an efficacy move. of course i understand that th white house has been slow on wanting to give that kind of assurance to people in congress about what the president is okay with and not. so what happens next, will hurd? >> well, what happens next is we continue to press forward with getting the 218, work on a funding solution to these issues. i'm continuing to get more support for our initiatives. one of the things that's funny about being up in washington, d.c., there's a lot of people up here that have a hard time counting to 218. that's the magic number in order to get things done here in washington, d.c. you're talking to one of the
best vote counters in d.c., that's jeff denham from california. and being able to pull this together and get this done. i also in your earlier point, chris, people say -- people wanting to say the base disagrees with this. people want to use the phrase "the base" when they don't disagree with something. this is an issue that 75% of republicans say should be solved, and that is having a permanent solution to daca recipients. most people, whether you're republican or democrat, say you should secure the border. why it's taken this long to try to get to something, i don't know, but i think this initiative that we're working on is a way to bring this conversation to the forefront and finally get something done. >> first of all, the polls reflect that regardless of party stripe, people wanting some type of sympathetic conclusion for the dreamers. we've seen that in the polls. gentlemen, thank you for giving us some transparency on what's going on.
you are welcome back any time to let us know what's happening and what challenges you face on getting the debate on the floor so people can judge the positions of their elected leaders. thank you very much to both congressman. you heard that conversation and also the earlier one with rudy giuliani. he laid out his arguments in depth with scrutiny, so now we have a different level for appraisal. so let's bring in the legal experts, the political experts. what did they learn, what does it mean, next.
if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far.
now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. it looks like the trump campaign may in fact have been surveilled. >> they will make any claim that serves the president. they are not backing up any of these claims with facts. >> the american people have a right to know the entire scope of an investigation into the guy they elected president. >> the day that we can't protect human sources is the day the american people start becoming less safe. >> donald trump owes it to the american people to answer questions. >> we had the first hopeful communication. i think it was a good faith attempt to really narrow the focus. >> the excitement is growing here in windsor. >> the