Might cut a deal with special counsel robert mueller. Moments ago when White House Press secretary was asked about this, she referred to and read a statement by ty cobb. I would refer you back to the statement from ty cobb in the report that youre asking about. No pardons are under discussion or under consideration at the white house. Can you say unequivocally that no one here has discussed pardons in this case . I can say that ty cobb is the person that would be most directly involved in this. He has a statement on the record saying theres no discussion and no consideration of those at this time in the white house. Does the white house worry about what Paul Manafort might tell special counsel mueller . As we said pretty much every day since we got here, because you guys continue to ask about this topic every single day, there was no collusion. Were very confident in that and look forward to this process wrapping up. Lets go to amy fiscus. Amy, all right, when you read this piece, this scoop from your paper, it says john dowd denies ever floating this notion of pardons. Tell me more about these alleged conversations that took place. Thats right, he does deny having these conversations. Weeks of reporting and talking to sources, we are reporting that last year that dowd talked to lawyers for two of the president s former top aides, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn at a time when the special counsel was closing in on them. This was before manafort was indicted and before flynn essentially agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with the special counsel investigation. Why is the timing significant here of when these said conversations were alleged to have taken place . It suggests that the president , at least his lawyer, was worried about what manafort and flynn would tell the special counsel, what they would reveal. Was there any indication that going by the New York Times reporting that dowd ever had a conversation about the idea of floating pardons . Its not clear that dowd talked to the president about this. You could also see the possibility that he did. Its hard to see clients freelancing with such a dramatic offer. With this president its also hard to predict just about anything. What do you make of their denials of this happening . We stand by our reporting and are confident that what we are reporting is true. We have five great reporters on this and have been chasing the story for weeks as the story said, months, actually. Amy fiscus with the New York Times, thank you so much. Well analyze this with my next two guests, two former federal prosecutors, elise wheel and michael zeldin. Good to have you both on. Michael, let me begin with you. The whole notion that the Trump Lawyers and john dowd specifically were broaching this idea, dangling pardons for manafort and flynn. What does that tell you about any kind of concern team trump would have had as the mueller team was closing in . Of course it makes sense that if you were pardoning people who had a story to tell that was disadvantageous to your situation that you would think about pardoning them. What is not clear to me here is whether this was a pardon discussion between the president and his Legal Counsel about the broad scope of his pardon powers generally speaking, which would be appropriate, or the pop possibility that they were talking about pardoning with the prospect of witness tampering or abusing their office. Assuming it was under discussion what the intent might have been with respect to the pardon contemplatio contemplation. Elise, i see you nodding. Thats exactly the point. The president has wide discretion to pardon someone for really almost anything. And its one of those things that, you know, we as citizens think well, you know, is that really proper, the pardon power and we can have debates about that. Under the constitution, really, the president does have that wide power. The discussion is the timing and skugs about why, you know, and the obstruction of justice. Thats the real critical issue here, the timing. The president s intent. Sure, sure. They go together. If the president was aware, was dowd freelancing, was this a conversation with trump . Thats yet to be determined. Again, the power of pardon is unique to the president. Right. But michael, if you are pardoning two key players in this investigation, one of whom has now pled guilty to lying and is cooperating with team mueller, how would one determine if you wanted to pardon in order to impede that investigation, would that be wrong . The way you would find that out is when you put the president under oath in an interview, which is why its, i think, fansible to think that mueller will not sit down and have an interview with the president. Crimes of intent and you could only define the intent or best way to define the intent of the actor youre discussing it with is to ask them questions about it. There will be objective circumstances surrounding it but not without the word of the president will you know what he was endeavoring to do here. Thats the issue whenever you have an intent crime. You have to go into the mind of a person. The way to go into a mind of a person is an interview, deposition or a confession which is not going to happen here. But michael said and, elise, i would love to have you weigh in. A Development Like this, michael said, would make it unlikely for the president to sit with mueller. Right. Do you agree . I do agree. Why . Why would the president expose himself to an interview at this point when now its been, you know, were raising the issue of obstruction of justice. How do you get to intent . You can get to intent by circumstantial evidence, by saying raising the question were raising right now of the time i timing and why would these questions have been raised . Why would we even be asking about pardons if not for the fact that he wanted to keep people quiet . You could raise the questions but you could answer the questions only perhaps with a witness, with a president , in this case, yes, i did this and this is the reason i did this. Why expose himself to that with an interview . He wouldnt. Brooke, let me say one thing to clarify. Please. It might be disadvantageous but in the end the power of the grand jury to subpoena the president thats different. Will prevail and notwithstanding what lawyers may say to him it would be better for you not to testify. I think hes going to have to testify unless he takes the fifth amendment. Unless he takes the fifth. Thats exactly right. Im curious, you have the denials from john dowd, the ty cobb statement which says have routinely responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or consideration at white house. What do you make of that . Nooem not surprised by that, that he would deny it. Im not saying one way or the other what happened. The denial doesnt surprise me. The only way to find that out now, to really answer the question, if he does not sit down for an interview would be v via the grand jury where either he has to answer the question or take the fifth. What precedent do we have for that . The precedent for the president is bill clinton and the grand jury there where we have the grand jury he did have to go into the grand jury which led ultimately to the impeachment of president clinton. Clinton went in voluntarily. He wasnt forced in. Right. The question would be, if this president said, you know what, i am not going to sit down, you have two years of litigation and nixon versus United States all over again. And optics and how it looks. Michael and lis, we could keep going. Have to break in. I appreciate both of you. Im sure we will on another day. Thanks very much to have you on. Thanks, brooke. On other things legal, is it a legal stunt, strategy . Stormy daniels attorney seeks to depose President Trump and Michael Cohen, alluding to this separately here, is such a precedent, bill clintons deposition in 98, will that work . Residents shut down a City Council Meeting in sacramento after a Deadly Police shooting of an unarmed black man. The white house was asked about this several times over, referring to these Police Shootings as local matters. Are they totally missing the mark . I wanted to get new blinds, and i was talking with my mom about what kind i should get, and she mentioned i should visit blinds dot com. Great quality for an incredible price, thats where i got my blinds. vo with blinds dot com, you get a free Online Design consultation, free samples, free shipping, and a 100 satisfaction guarantee. I give the Customer Confidence by being there every step of the way. We make it really easy. Thats what i love to hear vo go to blinds dot com slash tv right now and when you buy one blind, get the second 50 off. Almost 800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. With liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. Hey oh, thats 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. At crowne plaza, we know Business Travel isnt just business. Theres this. A bit of this. Why not . Your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. Which is what we do. Crowne plaza. Were all business, mostly. Were back. This is cnn. Im brooke baldwin. Could allegations of a porn star force the president to raise his right hand under oath . The white house has continued to dodge questions and the president remains uncharacteristically silent. That may not be for long if Stormy Daniels attorney get his way. Mr. President did you have a sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels . Did you have knowledge of the alleged threats against her . Did you know your personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her 130,000 to keep it all quiet . Those are the kind of questions that the president could face under penalty of perjury. Mark geragos, cnn legal analyst and joan kubiak is with me. Joan, first to you, Michael Avenatti going back to the 90s and Paul Jo Jones case set this precedent. Lets get a refresher on what happened there and how it could be applicable today. The case had to do with sexual advances that paula jones claimed that president clinton had made. Paula jones sues, saying that bill clinton, when he was the arkansas governor, made these advances toward her sheechlt sues for that, emotional stress and defamation. The case is pending and president clinton says no, i have president ial immunity. I cant be called into court at all. The Supreme Court in 1997 ruled unanimously that, no, you can be forced to testify in a case involving behavior that took place before you were the president if its not going to take much away from your duties. And in that case, the Supreme Court again unanimously thought this isnt going to take much out of his duties. Can he attend to this, not knowing what was lying, waiting ahead with not just paula jones but monica lewinsky. Goes and testifies and lied under oath and that set in motion the impeachment process. The main point, brooke, there is this 1997 precedent out there that says that a president can be is not immune from liability for this kind of civil case. I should say, though, thats sitting out there. It tonight mean necessarily that drch is going to have to testify in this case. It doesnt . No. Look, it has to do with an arbitration agreement. With paula jones, it was actual behavior that was being alleged, you know, individually toward him. In fact this one almost kind of recalls much more the suit right now pending by Summer Zervos against donald trump that has to do with groping and tee famation. In both, President Trump could be asked to testify but theres a little bit more of a parallel with paula jones. In california the motion filed in federal court by team stormy, do you think the move, mark, is it a total stunt from avenatti or does this truly, truly get trump closer to seeing the inside of a courtroom . My prediction of whats going to happen, theyre going to compel arbitration. The federal judge will grant the motion to compel arbitration. Theyll go over to probably adr, a local l. A. Dispute resolution place. That judge will impose sanctions under the arbitration agreement and Stormy Daniels is going to have not only to pay back the money that she got but shes probably going to have to pay some amount of money for v violating the agreement. I dont think theres a whole lot here. At the same time what i think you see is happening, i have to give President Trump credit. His ratings are going up. His Approval Ratings are going up and it does remind me of bill clinton. The more they went down the sexual road in the 90s, the higher his Approval Ratings wen went. Why do you think that is, putting you on the spot . I think most people are more concerned with other things, especially in this case, where she has come out and said its a consensual relationship and most people dont understand why were dealing with Something Like this 13 years after the fact. You take a look at that 60 minutes interview. It reminded me of geraldo and the vault. We havent talked since that interview. Did you think it was a nothing burger . What did you think . I mean, look, that supposed threat in the parking lot seven years ago, give me a break. You dont believe her . I think michael is im sure that she probably thinks that there was a threat. The idea that somehow that seven years later is going to mean anything is ill just be charitable with t there was nothing to it. The whole thing, i think, borders on ludicrous. Wow, okay. Mark geragos and joan kubik, thank you very much. More protests planned in sacramento after an unarmed black man was killed by police. The white house was asked to weigh in on this story and others moments ago. Their stunning response next. Timwalk in and youll get 1000 forwhen you switch this year. Tt. Plus another 100 when you file next year with jackson hewitt. And theres no appointment necessary. Looking for a hotel that fits. Whoooo. Your budget . Tripadvisor now searches over. 200 sites to find you the. Hotel you want at the lowest price. Grazi, gino find a price that fits. Tripadvisor. More protests are expected across sacramento tonight after stephon clark, unarmed black man was shot and killed by police. Protesters shut down a Sacramento Kings game. One woman walked up to the door wearing a tshirt that said i wont keep calm. I have a black son. Clarks brother interrupted City Council Meeting with this emotional outburst. The chief of police got my brother killed. Enough. He shows no emotion at all. Stevante . Thank you. Shut the [ bleep ] please. Tell him i dont hear him talking. Hes not the mayor anymore. Those protests caused the mayor to cancel the meeting and schedule at a later date for safety concerns. Clarks case and the attorney general not to charge Police Officers in the death of alton sterling. Here is the white houses response. Certainly we want to make sure that all Law Enforcement is carrying out the letter of the law. The president is very supportive of Law Enforcement. At the same time in these specific cases and these specific instances, those would be left up to local authorities to make that determination and not something for the federal government to weigh in on. Gardner that cried out 11 times, i cant believe, his mother is still looking for inindictment of Police Officers in new york. Does the president ask them the status, is something going to happen . What . Im not aware of any specific action. These would be local matters that should be left up to the local authority. Eye wanted to talk to april about that exchange. Shes with me now there at the white house. Shes also White House Correspondent for you aurban ra networks. April . Yes. A local matter. What was your reaction to that . Well, its not a local matter. You know, stephon clark, the California Attorney general is looking at it. And then when you have when you go to and thats a state issue as well as a federal issue. Not just local. When you go to the situation with eric garner in a police choke hold and said i cant breathe 11 times and died on the scene, the federal government is now looking at that. And, you know, i talked to a former highranking official at justice who said there should have been an indictment on that by now. And that is in the criminal section of the u. S. Justice department. So thats not a local issue. And its not local when it goes national. Brooke, when we look at history this is where history plays a part. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The fact is that there have been problems with the black community and police since black people were brought on slave ships here to this nation called slave patrols. Its gone on for years and years and years. There were whispers about this has happened, this has happened. Now you have the visuals of the accountability piece with the cell phones, whatever device you have or tablets, what have you. People are seeing whats not whispered anymore. Its real. Its not myth. Its not conjecture. Its real. What do you do . I remember talking to jay johnson, former head of Homeland Security in the obama years. He said when you have tensions between the black community and police, theres a National Security issue. And he described the National Security issue being that when you dont trust what eac