john dowd claims he authored the tweet. he's trying to clarify the contents of the tweet, the intention of the tweet. is he saying he misspoke? what exactly is he trying to clarify? >> reporter: i had a brief e-mail exchange with john dowd this morning and he appeared to suggest backtracking in fact on this tweet he claims he authored saying that the president did not know at the time michael flynn had lied to the fbi. he said at the time of the firing no one including justice had accused flynn of lying. that was the crime he was charged with and pled guilty to. but this does raise questions about why in fact either the president or the president's attorney john dowd decided to put out this statement. john dowd said he drafted the statement but pushed it over likely to social media director who physically posted the tweet on to twitter but the president's attorney would not answer whether the president himself was involved in the drafting of that tweet. the president as you know is typically very involved when it comes to h

do we know if john dowd, the attorney was in the car with trump sending out this tweet or john dowd may have been sending from another location? what do we know about the attorney taking responsibility for this tweet? >> that's right. we don't know where john dowd was or if he was with the president when the tweet was sent out. we know john dowd has not concerned he was the one who drafted the tweet and he said in an e-mail he was not the who posted it. he said he believes it was perhaps the president's social media director who physically posted the tweet he drafted and refused to answer questions about whether the president himself actually reviewed this tweet before it was posted. the focus on this is because the president's initial explanation for why he fired general flynn is he misled the vice president. nothing about lying to the fbi which is what this tweet suggested. now john dowd, the president's attorney, is suggesting that this was an attempt to put the white house lawyer ty cobb's statement into tweet form. the statement made no mention of firing general flynn because of ha

let's just say we have not heard from john dowd again today. there are a lot of questions now about whether he can proceed, even, as the president's attorney, a sort of ill-advised statement from him, and an ill-advised tweet over the weekend causing a lot of unnecessary noise and raising all sorts of eyebrows while the special counsel is still continuing to look at this investigation. >> are your sources, shimon, buying that john dowd is the one behind this tweet? >> for law enforcement, i don't think that that is a big concern because if there is any obstruction and part of the case that they're making out has really to do with the conversation that the president had with james comey about michael flynn, that's really the center of the obstruction investigation, and what was the president's state of mind at that time? what exactly did the president know, and in his statements in his conversation according to james comey, it appears that the president had some idea that the fbi was investigating michael flynn and that's why he asked him to let

i have known john dowd for a long time and he's a good and careful lawyer. to throw cold water on dowd making a colossal mistake, yesterday you and i talked about this tweet and said yesterday i didn't believe it was true. i didn't believe that the president knew that flynn had lied to the fbi and that tweet was mistaken. i still think that's the case, but i don't know yet how it got to be drafted and who was behind it and what was the purpose in crafting and releasing such a tweet. it did create a huge mess for the president as a consequence of it. it's not true. it's just not true. he did know it. >> why are you convinced that was a mistake and he did not know about lying to the fbi. why would that be out of the realm of possibilities in your view? as opposed to it being a slip. >> anything is possible and i should be careful in this administration of making definitive statements, but at the time only people that could have possibly known about this where the fbi agents with director comby and sally yates. i don't believe any of them replay laid that infor

in order by the president, but authored by this attorney, john dowd himself. this tweet, though, is the one that has caused the most problems for the white house this weekend because it has once again raised the specter of obstruction of justice. in this tweet, the president appeared to suggest that he knew that michael flynn, his national security adviser had lied to the fbi while he was still a senior white house official. but now the president's attorney john dowd signaling that the president did not in fact know that. and that the tweet was simply an attempt for the white house to continue to try to put some distance it seems between michael flynn and the president. this of course has dominated the weekend. but it's a weekend during which the president should perhaps instead be celebrating. the senate of course on friday night passed a tax reform bill, the first major legislative accomplishment of this president's time in office so far. but now again he will head into this next week as the senate and the house seek to reconcile those two bills instead with

and john dowd is not engaging. that's not a legal matter for the attorney to say. can you tell us when the payment became aware of that. >> the attorneys feel differently and feel it should be answered by them and i will encourage them to respond to you. i will refer you back to john dowd. >> it's not about something of what the president knew and when he knew it. >> i will listen to the attorneys and john dowd will hopefully follow-up with you. i'm going to keep bouncing because i'm tight on time. >> it's simple. they said it's an open question whether the united states will participate in the winter olympics. is that now in doubt? >> that was not exactly what the inbass dor said. no official decision has been made and we will keep you posted as the decisions are made. look, i know that the goal is to do so, but that will be a decision made closer to time. i think that's an inner agency process and ultimately the president would weigh in, but again that's something he would take into account with a number of the s

maybe john dowd will. we are reaching out again for yet another day to see if we can get some sort of response to this. again, the white house, sarah huckabee sanders, the press secretary and want to refer to the outside counsel it's their prerogative to do so. from the podium the press secretary and others do occasionally talk about special counsel matters for example, that subpoena that was reportedly issued to deutsche bank by the special counsel. >> yep. >> a report that turn out torg to jay sekulow to be incorrect. also today that is a special counsel matter that the white house commented on. i think that's one of the headlines coming out of the briefing today. but it's notable there were a lot of political topics that came up. including importantly jerusalem and also including importantly the endorsement of roy moore in alabama. >> it is an importantert ma. people say why do you cover these briefings because it's important for people to see that piece of sausage being made. we are trying to get simpl

so john dowd trying to take responsibility for that. but of course, it did raise questions over the weekend about possible obstruction. john dowd saying look, he dictated that tweet to dan skoe vin know, a social media coordinator. i spoke with one white house official who said in reality the only people who are actually putting in words into the president's twitter account are the president and dan sca vin know. to kellyanne's point, based on my reporting while it's possible that the lawyers may be helping to add words and thoughts, the idea here is that typically it comes from the president and from his social media director. andrea, what's interesting is the talking point and the narrative and strategy that has come out this morning from john dowd who now says that these questions about obstructioning are absurd. he says because the president can't be accused of obstruction because he's the chief law enforcement officer essentially. that's what the john dowd is arguing. he's allowed to raise these questions in a legal setting. that i

i would refer you to john dowd on that specific question. since it is a legal matter i'm not allowed to weigh? >> you have weighed in on other special counsel matters before, a statement of fact, what day the president discovered this lie issue. >> i'm telling you a as statement of fact you should contact john dowd. doesn't seem that hard. >> you said a moment ago that the president would want somebody in the senate who supports hess agenda. is it the white house's position that it is worse to have a democrat in that senate seat than somebody accused of sexually abusing a teen girl? >> as i said we foopd the allegations to be troubling. >> why did the president endorse? >> look, i think those are different things in terms of we aren't going to be the ones to determine that process. that's for the people of alabama to determine. what those things come down on. he does want people that support his agenda. he's not going to obviously support a democrat. i think if that's our standard then we need a look at a number of members of congress that h

john dowd confirmed to cnn that he wrote the tweet but you seem to have some doubts. i want to show our audience some tweets you sent out, quote, i dare you to tell mueller you logged into the president's twitter account and wrote pled and the rest of that. i dare you. i followed that up with this. dowd's explanation to cnn makes no sense. he claims that he wrote the tweet claiming that flynn was fired partly for lying to the fbi but he also rejects the idea that the president knew flynn had lied. why would you write the tweet then, dowd, or did you? is it fair to say that you think john dowd is covering something up? >> i think it's a possibility. i won't go so far as to accuse him of that actually being the case. he's either not being accurate when he tells us that he wrote this tweet or he did something very weird and very reckless for a licensed attorney to do. the thing that concerns me the most is, if he's now taking this position that he wrote it, it had better be true or he could face some serious consequences. he's a licensed attorney. his client appeared to

dowd, those of you tried john dowd, he's not engaging. that's a knowable fact in this building. it's not a legal matter for the attorney to say. can you tell us when the president became aware of that? >> the attorneys feel differently and feel this is a question that should be answered by them and i'll encourage them again to respond to you, but i'm going to have to refer you to john dowd again. >> it's a legal question not about something the president knew and when. >> john decker is the only attorney in here. i'll listen to the attorneys on this one and john dowd will hopefully follow up with you on short order. >> john dowd did not follow up with anybody in short order. the white house has said, over and over and over and over again, even under considerable pressure from the press corps, they keep saying that the president's russia attorney, john dowd, will be the one who answers this question, about whether the president knew that mike flynn had lied to the fbi. the president's attorney will not answer this question, nor will the pr

>> john dowd said he wrote the tweet. the first one he has ever written for the president. i think the president himself has talked before that tweet and after that tweet quite a lot on the matter. we should look at the full measure of what he has said. he said he was asked -- i was standing there when he was asked on the south lawn saturday morning before we took off for new york by the press pool they asked him are you worried about yesterday and he said no, there was no collusion. we're happy about that. he keeps saying that. that is exactly what the mainstream media who has been in a lather about russia, russia, russia for a year now, that's what they've been focused on and changing their tune now to other charges. the president has also said we need an f.b.i. that is objective and he is very concerned to think that any type of investigation was compromised. the revelation that an f.b.i. agent had to be reassigned for taken out of this particular investigation because he was anti-trump in his texts and had interviewed general flynn and was working with hillary clinton w

ty cobb, john dowd, they suggested this was going to wrap up shortly. there was one prediction this would be over by thanksgiving. that obviously has come and gone. >> where are they getting -- >> by most, people outside observers suggest, no, this process has a long way to go. for now, anyway, the president is willing to listen to them. he has been telling people close to him he believes he's going to be exonerated. he believes this will clear up. now, there are many of his allies, both inside the white house and out, who are -- think this is exactly the wrong approach, who he fielded several calls this weekend according to the reporting done in the associated press, from allies who say, mr. president, i don't think that you understand necessarily the gravity of the situation you are in right now. the ramifications of this tweet. you need a new tactic. whether that means a new legal team or a new legal strategy, or even setting in motion the mechanism that could lead to the replacement of robert mueller. the president right now has said he doesn't want

dowd said, that the president can't obstruct justice because in john dowd's words, he is the chief law enforcement officer under the constitution and has every right to express his view of any case. you don't buy that defense? >> i don't buy that one bit, wolf. i think it's nixonian to argue that somehow the president has cart blanch to do whatever he wants with regard to law enforcement and ongoing investigations. in particular, an investigation into his conduct. that would create a presidency that is completely above the law and unaccountable. i do think there is a debatable proposition about whether impeachment is the only means of removal of a president, but i don't think it's debatable whether the president has impunity to interfere with whatever investigations he chooses. >> does the president have the power to pardon himself? >> that's also something that's never been tested before. but i think going back to the federalist papers, to the very founding of our country, there has often been asserted the principle that you cannot be both judge and jury in a case. and if the presiden

but i would refer you to john dowd. i would refer you to john dowd on that specific question since it's a legal matter. >> great question from hallie jackson there. when did the president of the united states find out that his national security adviser committed a felony by lying to the fbi? it's a question the white house and the president's lawyer have refused to answer, a question that's central to the possible obstruction of justice case against the president. remember, flynn pleaded guilty a week and a half ago to deceiving investigators telling them he had not received sanctions for the u.s. ambassador. january 24th, less than a week into the new trump administration. two days later top, 26th, the white house was warned that flynn's account to the vice president had been false, leaving flynn compromised and vulnerable to possible russian blackmail. but it wasn't until 18 days later on february 13th that flynn was finally forced to resign after news of that deception leaked to the press. and according to sworn test

>> reporter: no indication that john dowd was with the president when that tweet went out but john droowd who does not work a the white house he claimed to cnn this morning he was the one that crafted that tweet. i asked some follow-up questions some which he refused to answer but he said he believes it was the president's social media director who physically posted the tweet even though he crafted it. he refused to answer questions about the president's own role in this tweet. the president personally involved when it comes to any messages posted on his own twitter account. so this is leading to a lot of questions, of course, about what the president knew and when about michael flynn and his interview with the fbi. the tweet suggesting that the president knew that michael flynn had lied to the fbi. the crime for which flynn pled guilty to before he fired him. the president's attorney now saying that neither the president nor anybody else at the white house really knew that flynn had lied to the fbi back earlier this year. >> and jeremy, today the president tweeting again kind of like off

the white house counsel, don mcgahn, and then the president's personal lawyer john dowd. there are small gradations of difference between all three, and it's confusing but it ultimately all goes to whether or not the president was aware that his national security adviser was in criminal trouble. was he a person who had given false misleading information to the fbi? and sally yates has testified that she didn't describe this problem that mr. flynn might have as a result of his interview with the fbi agents. mr. mcgahn according to a person familiar with his account has said he surely thought the account that flynn had given the fbi was not complete and inaccurate based on what the acting attorney general told him. and mr. dowd has said that the president knew from his lawyer mr. mcgahn that it was likely that mr. flynn had given an inaccurate account. sorry. inaccurate account. >> an inaccurate account. got it. so it depends on the credibility of each of these people who are telling each of these stories, i suppose. and the credibility, our assessment of their credibility

in this case, lawyer john dowd, the first person ever to take the blame for a presidential tweet. trump's tweet and sarah sanders' explanation simply are not the same. they contradict each other. they also don't match cnn's reporting. a source telling cnn that white house counsel don mcgahn told the president in february that flynn lied to the fbi and misled pence. pence ran the presidential transition team. we know pence was aware that flynn had contacted russia. but for a year now, pence has insisted that he didn't know flynn and the russian ambassador discussed u.s. sanctions against russia. court filings unsealed last week indicate a wide circle of trump advisers were aware of that. so how is it possible that the vice president, pence, the man in charge of the transition team, was one of the few who remained in the dark? sara murray is out front at the white house to begin our coverage. sara, obviously, these new charges coming. we're going to talk about that more in a moment with jim sciutto, but i want to ask you about the situation with the vice president. it seems like a l

let me pick up the new defense from john dowd that the president cannot obstruct justice because he's the president. ask richard nixon or bill clinton, but is that accurate? it seems generously rather controversial? >> yes. what happens is that it's possible that to argue that the president cannot obstruct justice or be prosecuted or indicted for it. that's different than saying he cannot discuss justice and be impeached for it. he may be saying, in effect, if there's a case or obstruction, it has to go to the house for impeachment and to the senate for prosecution. but it can't go to the federal courts. he he won't be sitting in a grand jury or a petit jury box while he's president because the constitution says as chief executive, he can't be in that position. that is the argument. >> okay. so you have been around the law for a long time, does that pass the smell test to you? >> well, if i use the smell test, we would have to be talking about a lot more than this. no, i think it is possible. yes, i think it is possible to argue from the constitutional viewpoint that a president of th

this man has stepped in, john dowd, tells nbc he prompted the tweet, not mr. trump. and according to a report later confirmed by nbc news, the lawyer believes the president cannot obstruct justice because he's the chief law enforcement officer under the constitution. ken delay knee, nbc national security reporter and phil rutger, white house bureau chief and msnbc political analyst are joining me from washington. peter alexander is here as well. this is a confusing round of events. who wrote the tweet? what kind of jeopardy is the president in? have we had clarity from the white house this morning? >> reporter: we have not had much clarity on this topic. you played the clips of the president earlier as he defended himself and michael flynn and the way he's been treated has been unfair. broadly speaking, we have also heard over the course of this day significant from john dowd, basically laying out the new defense strategy as noted there, dowd telling nbc news that the president cannot obstruct justice, which is raising questions about many individuals on whether he's

>> think about the amazing statement that john dowd both michael and i know john from our years in the profession. think about the amazing statement he made this morning that a president cannot commit a crime when exercising his official acts. could the president, if a mobster came to him and said i'm going to give you a bribe. fire jim comey, go ahead. he's investigating me, and the president fires him and then the president can't be investigated for taking a bribe, for a violation of 18 usc 201? it's absurd. that's not the kind of country that we have. it's of a piece of many other assaults by this white house on the constitution on the rule of law, and it will not stand. >> let's take a closer look, michael, at this tweet that norm was just referencing that the president put out, but then his lawyer john dowd said i drafted that. norm thinks it was a collaboration. i had to fire general flynn because he lied to the vice president and here is the key part, and the fbi. do you believe this explanation from john dowd that he's the one who drafted this or oh, my goodness, i have to step

so trump's personal lawyer, as you heard, john dowd, telling nbc news he authored that tweet. he was trying to paraphrase a previous statement from ty cobb. does that explanation clear up the questions that this tweet has raised in terms of timing? >> well, first, let me say, alex, a couple of things here. one, this is -- i think we all know now, you can't call this a witch hunt. you can't call this fake news. and you can't say as the white house keeps saying, this investigation is winding down. i think the chairman just indicated, this is a serious criminal investigation that is -- that has moved from the campaign into the white house. this is very, very serious stuff. as to -- i was stunned by this e-mail from -- this tweet, rather, from the president saying that he fired flynn because he lied to mike pence, but he also lied to the fbi. now, i agree with congressman ted lieu. whether or not john dowd, and if you believe him, wrote that, and handed it to the president, the president doesn't read his tweets before they go out? and if it's true, then the president knew that fly

>> as i said earlier, i referred you back to john dowd's clarification -- >> i'm asking for a day. when did he find out? was it prior to the announcement friday. >> the president's lawyer, john dowd was asked that same question. again he gave this answer in a statement. quote, i am not going to engage on this subject. flynn was first accused and charged last friday. no more questions. the president has been outspoken for his support about michael flynn as you may have seen. but when asked today about flynn's future, mr. trump declined to comment. >> any plans to pardon general flynn, mr. president? >> thank you. >> that's how that went in the oval office. with that let's turn to our lead off panel. michael crowley, senior correspondent for politico. tamara keith, and ken vogel. thank you all for being with us especially as part of our lead off panel tonight. ken, i'll lead off with you. what do you make of this bank subpoena? if true, is it a big deal? what else does it speak of? >> absolutely. we always kind of knew this was a possibility that mueller would start looking into dona

and from the impression of john dowd so far, he is one of those. we have other personal lawyers, people he put in his inner circle, frangly, like michael flynn where he's not surrounding himself with the best people. where his inexperience in politics, which was politically a virtue, is turning out in the administration to be a setback. >> so, danny, let's go the whole question of competency and the legal question in front of us. can a president obstruct justice? can he be charged with obstructing justice? >> he can. we got a preview to this back in the days of nixon when several members -- a dozen house of the house judiciary committee concluded, yes, the president can commit a crime and he can commit obstruction of justice. now, that statement that trump's lawyer gave is incorrect as stated. there are circumstances where the president's interference with an investigation could be lawful. most obstruction statutes come down to two major elements. number one, did the person interfere with an investigation or proceeding or something like that? but s

but i don't think he's out to get anyone. >> let me ask you a lawyer question about john dowd. effective john dowd claiming credit to be the author of the tweet that to some implied or confirmed obstruction of justice if such a thing can happen in our world. he took a position in this case. >> right. >> does that mean he's going to have to not represent the president anymore because he could conceivably be asked did you, in fact, write that tweet? >> i guess it's conceivable. but there's also ways around that. for instance, if the only -- you asked the lawyer questions i'm afraid you're going to get a lawyer answer. >> that's all right, we came prepared. >> or maybe a prosecutor answer. but, if the only fact that the mueller team needs that john dowd wrote that e-mail, they can stipulate to that. so there's probably a way around a potential conflict. frankly i don't think it's a great moment. >> when we hear about the deutsche bank potential subpoenas, is that further evidence to an experienced guy like you that donald trump's tax returns have been sitting on bob mueller's desk

however, soon after that tweet, the president's lawyer, john dowd, told cnn that he, not the president, drafted the tweet. that account raises the question, what did trump know when soon after he urged then fbi director james comey to drop the investigation into flynn. >> i took it as a direction. i mean this is the president of the united states with me alone saying i hope this. i took it as this is what he wants me to do. that's why i understood him to be saying was what he wanted me to do was drop any investigation connected to flynn's account of his conversations with the russians. >> president trump has disputed comey's account. most recently in a sunday morning tweet writing, quote, i never asked comey to stop investigating flynn. just more fake news covering another comey lie, exclamation point. congressional democrats aren't quips convinced. >> i think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice. i see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of director comey and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not ag

and, john dowd called me ignorant and arrogant. not the first person to do that. and actually it wasn't specifically me. but everyone including everyone in the news media and the legal community who took the trump tweet to be an admission of obstruction of justice. john dowd said the tweet did not admit obstruction. that is an ignorant and arrogant assertion. joining us now, harry mitman, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant general at ucla. also with us, judge sugarman from fordham university. and professor sugarman, there's so much to unpack in what's going on here. but first of all, your legal reading of the tweet that "the daily news" interpreted as an admission of obstruction of justice. how would that tweet play in an obstruction of justice investigation? >> there are two pieces here. first of all, it is the third confession. it doesn't matter if we believe trump or comey. we have to believe trump with lester holt and what he said on may 10th that he fired comey because of the russia investigation. but one important factor with the dweet is this

the president's personal lawyer john dowd now claims he drafted the president's tweet. but top democrats in congress say obstruction is very much a part of the wider investigation. >> the judiciary committee has an investigation going as well. and it involves obstruction of justice. and i think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of case of obstruction of justice. >> president trump now looking to shift the focus seizing the news that a member of special counsel robert mueller's team was removed over anti-trump sentiments he expressed. let's bring in jeremy diamond at the white house. >> good morning. the president spent part of his weekend on social media attacking the fbi after special counsel robert mueller and the first charges against michael flynn, the former national security advisors who pleaded got lying to the fbi. and the president picking up on a different story this weekend to go after the fbi's reputation saying that it is in tatters. this is regarding an fbi agent that is detailed to robert mueller's team. he sent text messages to another

i asked john dowd if the president in fact signed off on that tweet. no response to that request. >> no response. interesting. kristen welker at the white house. thanks very much. >>> so can the president, in fact, be prosecuted for obstructing just is? legal scholar alan dershowitz came to his defense this morning. listen. you cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power of fire comey and his constitutional authority to tell the justice department who to investigate who not to investigate. that's what thomas jefferson did, lincoln did, what roosevelt did. we have presidents that clearly establish that. >> so much to dig into here. i'm joined by stanley pottinger from the civil rights division under nixon and ford administrations, involved in the watergate investigation. so many questions to get at. tweets, the policy, if someone implies they broke the law in the tweet, how do you prove who tweeted it? get to the crux of this, that dowd is talking about that a president cannot obstruct justice because of

john dowd would not have -- >> i was hacked. it wasn't me. >> that was anthony weiner's first response. someone else found this. like it doesn't -- it just strains any sense of credibility. we know this president. no one tells him what to say when it comes to twitter, otherwise they would have snatched it out of his hands eight months popping clearly this was him. he has a record of saying incriminating things. if this was just about the president incriminating himself and making clear he was engaging in obstruction of justice. mueller is going for something more. if we go by the president's words himself, he pretty much is in trouble. >> he wants it to stick. >> he's dealing in a fact-free zone. kimberly, let me bring you in on the question of the overlap because we have all of the people on the right saying, look, friday was an awesome day for the president. no russian collusion. well, we don't know that. and the big whopper of a lie that we do know about was about russian collusion. it may have been bungled but it was about t

dowd. >> john is an experienced criminal defense lawyer. he's a tough guy. a former marine. he knows what he's doing, but i think he acknowledges that he made a mistake with respect to this twitter. >> do you believe it was he who wrote that tweet? >> he said he did. i take him at his word, yes. >> do you think he will be called in to testify and explain how that unfolded? >> i think that's what happens when you conplate being a defense lawyer and being a pr flack. they have two distinct roles. i think mr. secolo got in trouble. >> a private attorney as well. will he have to remove himself from the case if he is called to testify as a witness in this specific oligation of obstruction of justice? >> i don't think so. the underlying facts are what they are. look, the president either knew or had to know that flynn was lying. he knew he was lying and had been interviewed by the fbi. whether or not he knew that lying to the fbi was a felony, who knows. the president has demonstrated a fair degree of ignorance when it comes to how government wor

john dowd has worked on this before. the person make thing claim tonight, oh, no, we would never go after mike flynn is the lawyer who claimed the free styling authorship of one of the most infamous tweets of all time. it was so bad. donald trump doesn't apologize for a lot of tweets. not only did they apologize. they retracted this thing. this was written by donald trump @real donald trump. i had to fire general flynn because he lied to the vice president and the fbi. he pled guilty to those lies. it's a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. that was nothing to hide. >> that would look like the knowledge that nine committed a crime and that's why he was fired. and asking someone to stop an investigation is about as textbook for obstruction as you can get. he didn't write it but came up with it and said it over the phone. that's his denial. if you're representing a client who was facing potential criminal charges, and has a penchant for tweeting and has a number of what can only be called grossly i

>> i refer you to john dowd's clarification. >> asking for date? announcement on friday or -- >> refer to john dowd. >> reporter: president's outside lawyer tells nbc news i'm not going to engage further on this. adding no more questions. but there are more questions, including potential obstruction of justice by the president, something he denies. and president's in-house attorney is distancing himself from the outside lawyer's controversial legal argument that no president can obstruct justice. >> hallie jackson, thanks. >>> downfall of the dean john conyers. he's out. calling retirement, it comes amid accusations of sexual misconduct and capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt has the details. >> reporter: pressure, flood of accusations and escalating calls by top democrats to resign his seat, john conyers had nowhere else to go. >> i'm retiring today. >> reporter: calling in from hospital where he's treated for stress, still denying he harassed anyone. >> they're not accurate, they're not true. >> reporter: his lawyer insisting he's leaving for h

>> i want to nail something down with respect to john dowd. he's argued that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice because he's the chief law enforcement officer in the country. that's his opinion. does the white house share that opinion? have they looked into that question and share that respect? >> i'm not going to get into a back and forth on legal theories. i can tell you as the president said, there's no collusion, there's no obstruction. we're confident the facts will show that when this is wrapped up. jim? >> what about obstruction of justice? it's been discussed. a lot of people talking about it. what do you think about it? >> i'm not an attorney. as far as i know, only john decker in the room is. if you want to ask him legal questions, you can. i don't know if he will answer them. that's as far as i'm going to go on it. >> i'm not an attorney either. let me ask you -- >> i know. that's why i didn't call you out. >> i appreciate that. this decision on jerusalem, is the president concerned that there could be viole

>> i made that comment about john dowd. we go way back on matters unrelated to the current issues we're talking about on the show, during my time as u.s. attorney. look, i think it's unusual to have a team of lawyers in such a high-stakes situation -- i'm not casting aspersions on any lawyers in particular, who one day say one thing, and the next day, some other lawyer on the team says something else. i believe over the weekend, john dowd went out on television, publicly, and defense lawyers don't have to speak. they don't have to say anything at all. but if you choose to speak, it's usually, you know, with the best interests of the client in mind, and having some game plan to be on the same page as everyone else. and i think john dowd came out and said, as a legal matter, there's no way that president trump can be guilty of obstruction, because he's the president of the united states. and i think the next day, ty cobb, another one of the president's lawyers, completely disputed that and said, you know, the dershowitz and d

i'd like to know how many times john dowd has sent tweets before this one. seems like a highly unusual thing that john dowd tweets for the president. and then k.t. mcfarland's e-mail. >> right. >> you just take those two at face value and you're like, what else is there? >> right. and the question they're raising with k.t. mcfarland's e-mail, being influenced by russia, they're saying they were kidding and characterizing what the democrats had said. >> right. >> there was some business done on capitol hill in the dark of night, about 2:00 in the morning on saturday morning. the senate passed tax reform by a 51-49 margin. now they have to get together with the house, that's no easy feat. do you think the president is going to get his wish of tax law before the end of the year? >> i'm still thinking it's only 50-50 he gets to sign this before christmas. i think it's possible. the differences between the house and senate bill could get a little gummed up between the two of them. look, they have very little margin for error. and in some of the differences here c

carol, over the weekend you spoke to john dowd. what was his explanation of the tweet and what exactly the president knew about mr. flynn and when did he know it? >> so john dowd is the president's personal lawyer. and on seatd at the poses we reported based on two sources that dowd had actually drafted and written that tweet. on sunday morning mr. dowd let me know that that was true. he had drafted it. and he also explained that it may not have been as precise as he would have liked. he used some other words for that and he said that the president didn't know that flynn had lied to the fbi. no one told, i should say, no one told the president that flynn had lied. he wanted people to understand that the white house counsel had communicated to the president that flynn had likely told the same inak rat story to the fbi that he told the vice president. >> o'brien: a little surprising that a defense attorney of that stature would be so imprecise. >> well, many people are speculating right now that indeed, the president did know this. b

john dowd, though, the president's attorney, is telling axios this morning that president can't obstruct justice it's impossible for the president to obstruct justice and says that the president cannot obstruct justice because he's the chief law enforcement officer under the constitution and every right to express his view of any case. this seems to be like the nixon argument to david frost, it's not illegal if the president does it, asia. >> the president is not above the law. period. it's telling dowd is making this turn because i believe he can no longer argue the fact so he will challenge the law. this what is he's going to do as a lawyer, but as a legal matter, he is incorrect. in fact, he kind of makes the case against himself. because it is true that the president can express whatever view he wants of a case, but precisely because of that, he can't interfere in them. the 14th amendment of the constitution guarantees everyone equal protection of the laws so you can have a president who has his own views directing investigations and shutting some down and starting them, we got rid o

john dowd is making an argument. what do you think of that? >> it is a political and public relations disaster to make this argument. now that the president cannot obstruct justice. one, you're making an argument that the president is like a king above the law. that doesn't sound great for the white house. but more importantly, you only make that argue when you're seeding the fact that based on the president's behavior he did obstruct justice. yes, his actions may seem like he obstructed justice, but that looks like a political statement. i don't read into ty cobb's argument. you watch closely, if the special counsel does move against him at some point in obstruction of justice, they are back in the legal argument that he's the chief law enforcement officer. his actions can't constitute. >> one of the friends of the show was out on axios this morning with an interesting and important point to make on this. that i have heard reflected in my conversations with sources in and around washington. allen writes, this part of the plan has been in full

however, john dowd, his attorney, read that and two words came to mind, legal jeopardy. so he went in and tried to help clean this up. i think explaining this as a way to clean this up because the way it's worded, it does appear that the president recognized the fact that flynn lied to the fbi and then he let him go. and the timeline just goes to show that the president knew there was something illegal done here and he obstructed justice by trying to ask comey to take it easy on flynn. >> i see we're all kind of gleefully accusing dowd of lying which, of course, would violate all the guidance in the bar in this. this is a very serious charge against an officer of the court. i'd caution everybody against it. but also i can tell you as someone who worked for donald trump that people draft tweets for the president quite often. they can come from outside the white house. and it happens, you know, dan scavino in charge of social media takes care of that most of the day. there are times where the president is tweeting on his own, but there are also times he is not. to say that

but i would refer you to john dowd for that. >> just a statement of fact. what day the president discovered this lie issue. >> and i'm telling you as a statement of fact that you should contact john dowd. it doesn't seem that hard. >> it doesn't seem that hard. that's snarky. reached for comment last week, john dowd told abc news i'm not going to engage on this subject. back to you, julia. i want to take a chance to try to make this -- i keep thinking of denzel washington in philadelphia. explain it to my grandmother. i real have to let people catch unon this story. if the question sheer whether the trump administration in its early days, in its infancy was involved already, back and forth and in cahoots with the russian, fine. the question is did they obstruct justice by trying to protect that information. if the president knew that his national security guy had in fact discussed sanctions, relieving sanction under the new administration, if he knew that happened and helped him keep it secret from the investigators, would that be, even if it was only for 1

the only person seems to be john dowd and alan dershowitz. a lot of them are concerned about his legal strategy when you have the two highest profile lawyers seemingly disagreeing on what the basis of the defense is. >> it is breathtaking, harold, to be a lawyer in washington, d.c., and to go out and make the argument that the president of the united states is above the law. that the president of the united states can't obstruct justice in an investigation that pertains to his campaign first, to his administration second, and to him third. it is hard to climb back from that, hard to get a job in washington, d.c. after you're branded as somebody putting forth an autocrat's defense. >> she didn't dispute the substance, she said who wrote it. one could surmise she's siding with ty cobb, saying if the president was the author, there's a problem which is the point made this morning. heidi's point should not be as relates to the legal part should not be overlooked quickly. dowd puts himself in, all these other people are under oath. if mueller asks