Chris Cuomo asks the tough questions to newsmakers in Washington and around the world. Appoint him. If hes a superior officer, the senate has to confirm him. And hes not really being supervised closely by rosenstein. Hes basically given free rein. Hes indicting Russian Foreign agents. He has a specific mandate. Rosenstein reviews it. Weve seen that decisions have been made to parse out Different Things that mueller started looking at and then went to the Southern District so that, you know, theres been a judiciousness in terms of what he can do. I dont see why you think thats a clear question. Well, no. It is because in terms of the supervision, Rod Rosenstein basically does not effectively control the actions why not . Well, because you see that there has been no limits on rosensteins on muellers jurisdiction and authority. He is now going after manafort, which is has nothing to do with the russian investigation. But in the mandate, it says that things that arise from it. Sure. And it can go as far as you want
on that. But were still challenging whether or not he can lawfully exercise those powers under the constitution. What im saying is the judge ruled on this, and youre saying youre not satisfied with the ruling even though yes. This easily be dispensed with, and mr. Miller could go on with his life if he really has nothing to offer up. This seems like a potential distraction of process. Its not a the constitution is never a distraction, chris. These are important principles. Right. But youre assuming its unclear under the constitution. This judge says it is not. Well, thats one judge. You have the court of appeals. You have the Supreme Court. Chris, remember in morrison versus olson, you had that case in terms of the independent counsel where the District Judge ruled he was unconstitutional, and then by the way, they were held in Contempt Of Court too. Right, but there was but you remember what the issue was in that case, right . Its not the same one that youre bringing. Its still the same issue as
whether or not the special in that case, the independent counsel satisfied the separation of powers in the appointment clause. They ultimately ruled that they did, but in morrison, Justice Scalia dissented and that decision by the way is basically going to be overruled, if it already has been. Many jurists including Justice Elena kagan says that Justice Scalia was right on point on this. So that decision but you had a Majority Decision that went against what youre arguing right now. No, not on point because we had several other arguments that were not addressed in morrison and that dealt with a different issue of whether the threejudge court can be the appointing power. So it is a very weak precedent at best, and the Supreme Court has the last word on this. We think is there any case that has ever ruled the way you want to see it . Well, this is a precedentsetting case. By definition no. There isnt. But we have a lot of arguments that we make to show that we do
have a good case. Right. The judge recognized it if you lose, will he testify . Hell have to testify if we lose, of course. So he will not hold out because hes libertarian. Maybe he would just hold out on principle. No, no, no. Hes been cooperating with the Special Prosecutor special counsel in this case. So hes not going to be a recalcitrant witness. Were just standing on principle, chris. This is the constitution thats involved and thats what our main interest is. Both are true. He is a recalcitrant witness, but youre saying its because of principle. He wont testify. Thats by definition recalcitra recalcitrant. Usually recalcitrant is im not testifying for no good reason, where i just dont want to talk to you. Thats debatable because [ Overlapping Voices ] the court stayed the contempt by the way, and the case law is that if you raise a good issue, a constitutional issue, the judge usually stays that case. True. Fair point. Okay. Fair point. Its friday night, ill let you end on that one. Thank you. Counselor, thank you for coming on. As we learn more about this case, do me a favor. Please come back. All right . Good to have him on the show. So one of the other roger stone connections is the Manhattan Madam. She has a name. Its Kristin Davis. She testified today before the mueller grand jury. She did not have this grand constitutional case that mr. Miller has. What does it mean that they brought in the Manhattan Madam . We also have the case of the curious new radio duo of rudy and jay, trumps lawyers. We take on both in cuomos court, next. Salads should look like this. Crisp leaves of lettuce. Freshly made dressing. Clean food that looks this good. Delivered to your desk. Now delivering to home or office. Panera. Food as it should be. Now im gonna tell my momma that im a traveller im Gonna Follow The Sun now im gonna tell my momma that im a traveller transitions™ light under control™ anncr as you grow older, your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. Learning from him is great. When i can keep up anncr thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. Dads got all the answers. Anncr prevagen is now the numberoneselling brain Health Supplement in drug stores nationwide. She outsmarts me every single time. Checkmate you wanna play again . Anncr prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Lets do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. They taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed,
when he books direct at choicehotels. Com. Or just say, badda book. Badda boom. Book now at choicehotels. Com stop the things you do no card . No problem. Life, lived serenas way. Chase, make more of whats yours. So why would mueller call the Manhattan Madam, pause i mean to testify about roger stone . And why are the president s lawyers on the radio hosting a show running down the probe . Is that going to help them with mueller . Lets bring in laura coats and jim schultz for cuomos court. Laura coates, lets start with the Manhattan Madam. Why . Well, because she has a professional relationship with roger stone, who by his own admissions, his own statements, has alluded to his own relationship with julian assange, who has infamously now posted a lot of the emails that were hacked by russians to the 2016 election. So theyre trying to figure out what it is she knows about that
relationship are that person . Why would she know anything . Because she served add a clerical who worked with him as scheduling and calendar and issues around that. Perhaps there is something to be had about the corroboration of sam nunberg who said that he told him he was talking to julian assange, was with him at different points in time. So perhaps she could give him information about that particular aspect of it. But then stone said he was just puffing when he was talking to nunberg, and nunberg says that could be true. So how do you see the decision to have Kristin Davis on the stand . I see the decision as one thats a comprehensive investigation to not leave any stone forgive the pun unturned because you have a good pun by the way. You have to have good corroboration about things like that. You cant take anybodys word if credibility is a factor here. Schultz, lets come in on this. The idea is how tenuous are you going to get . You havent called stone. If you want to know, call stone. But theyre calling people
around him. How far away from somebody, how small a role can Somebody Play in someones life and still get called before a grand jury . Look, they are clearly looking at the people in roger stones orbit to see what they know before they decide to call roger stone to the stand. They want to get the information, corroborate the information that they may already have, and then eventually get to roger stone and put him on the stand and ask him what he knows and what contacts he really had. So they can show that there was some activity that would equate with collusion . Well, i think theyre right. I mean thats the purpose of the investigation is to look. It was an intelligence investigation to begin with, a foreign intelligence investigation to begin with, looking at interference with the election. And there was some discussions and public statements made by stone about his relationship with julian assange. Right. And, again, he did say that was puffing. He did walk that back a bit. But the bottom line is, you know, these prosecutors are going to verify that. Okay. Theyre going to verify that information and then call him in. So one more thing on this, laura. Go ahead. If i can just say, though, if he is a target of the investigation, he himself, and the goal is not to get to perhaps somebody more directly in with the Campaign Like donald trump, then they would never call him. They would be trying to get everyone around him to talk about the information they have. He himself may be the target. You got an indictment of those 12 gru agents where they talk about somebody who is an american citizen, who was in cahoot. And stone had said he didnt think that was him, but it was so obvious it was him. He admitted it was. On my show. Thanks for watching laura coats. I think its a little premature to label him a target. That would be rationale for not calling him. I get your point. But everything that could be speculated about, alleged about roger stone were true, whats the crime . Well, he cannot, as an american citizen, facilitate or solicit the help of a Foreign National of any kind to try to influence the election. That is a part of collusion. Thats an Umbrella Term thats often used, and the focus has always been on members of the trump campaign. But in reality, muellers mandate is far more expansive. It also includes looking into things he discovers in the course of that campaign, of that collusion investigation. If he is somebody who solicited the help of a Foreign National, that is a crime. You think stone could get stuck for that, mr. Schultz . I dont know. We dont know what roger stone what communications he had as of yet. I mean thats clearly what theyre trying to get at here by pulling these folks in that are in his orbit, to find out what he knew and what he said and the communications he had. Next topic while i have you here. Schultz, are you okay with rudy and jay sekulow having a radio
show and cohosting and beating up the probe and making their case . Look, they have a job to do as lawyers, and this probe has been in the public domain, and they have to have a pulpit in order to defend their client. And their client is in the news day in and day out talking about the probe, criticizing the probe. This is an opportunity for them as the lawyers to speak on his behalf, as his lawyer, and make their arguments in public. And maybe that prevents the president from going out and doing it himself. Coates . Well, theres a court of Public Opinion, and then theres the Kangaroo Court with the peanut gallery. They are now in the latter. It is to me ridiculous that two private attorneys on behalf of the president of the United States, not on behalf of the office of the white house counsel, are making their claims over the airwaves in this fashion. And they, im sure, will at some point will try to articulate the attorneyclient privilege about Different Things theyve talked to him about. Theyre essentially throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping one will stick, and they
know full well this is an argument thats going to lead to a greater discussion perhaps if impeachment is ever able as an opportunity. But in my mind as a lawyer, an officer of the court, i think its pretty unconscionable that theyre going to use this medium. It really undermines the credibility of their client and demonstrates they have no strategy other than a focus group using the media and the people who listen to Sean Hannitys show. Coates so day in and day out, you know, the folks that are on the other side of this, the democrats from the house and the senate, the folks that want to see donald trump fail, day in and day out are pontificating about this investigation, making arguments and throwing statements out nobody is saying they shouldnt be in the media. There needs to be someone telling the president s side of the story. Look, theyre on tv all the time. I invite them on here. They take other invitations. They go on. They talk whenever they want. Nobody is barring them from having their say. Its about what coates phrase was, in this fashion. And when you are simultaneously bashing the probe, saying its unsubstantiated, shouldnt stand, there are no arguments, its unconstitutional, and asking the special counsel to accept your terms for an interview, how do you think those things go together . Peanut butter and jelly or Peanut Butter and sardines . It depends whether the special counsel is caring about the court of Public Opinion in Making Determinations as to what this interview is going to look like. Theyre human beings, right, jim . That factors into all of it, and the court of Public Opinion matters to all the folks involved in this thing. Well, to answer your question, its Peanut Butter and sardines, chris. And the actual court of law has an interest in this as well because if you think about it, they are going to try to make some argument Rudy Giuliani and jay sekulow at some point, once mueller is frustrated by the absence of good faith negotiations and is forced at some point if he chooses to issue a subpoena, theyre going
to have to go before a court of law and not a court of Public Opinion and articulate that they in fact were negotiating in good faith, were not using terms like perjury trap as a pretextual reason for the president , the head of the executive branch, to thumb his nose at the Subpoena Power of a grand jury. And theyre going to be faced with the commentary on that very show, and the court of law is not going to be receptive. Thats my hope as somebody who is a member of the court of law. I didnt play any sound from the Radio Interview theres been no allegation go ahead, jim. Make your final point. Theres been no allegation that the president s legal team is acting in bad faith in these negotiations. Certainly not out of the special counsels office. Its irresponsible to say it at this point in time. Theyve gone back and forth a number of times now with some conditions. Theyre narrowing the scope. Thats clearly what the president s legal team is looking to do, and mueller wants to ask as many questions as he can. So those two parties are going to continue to argue and negotiate over this for some time to come. All right. Final point. Laura coates, defend yourself. He said what you said is indefensible. Its not irresponsible. Actually quite astute. Heres the reason why. Their comments that theyre making on the radio and other mediums in the interest of their client in the court of Public Opinion are based on their statements that they are trying to avoid the socalled perjury trap. Now, trying to evade a perjury trap, if you know as an officer of the court, which would suggest that every Single Person who goes into a court of law to answer questions either at trial or an investigation is somehow being nefariously enticed by somebody who is looking to administer justice. And so if thats their basis, thats not negotiating in good faith. And if thats their sole basis and the court hears that exclusively from the radio, then they would make that assertion. Its not irresponsible. Frankly, it is inferred by the content of their own statements. I reserve judgment on the ruling until we see more facts of what the investigation is. But i will say this right now. They dont want to put the president in that room for one main reason, jim, and i dont have to tell you this because
you have experience with the president yourself. They are afraid of him freelancing and him answering questions in a way that goes beyond the scope of what he needed to answer and getting himself in trouble. And they wont be able to help him when hes looking at a federal officer. That is their main concern no matter what else theyre arguing. We know thats what it is. And i didnt play any sound from the radio for one very selfserving but important reason. I want them to do it on this show, not without being tested. You need to be tested to get respect and legitimacy for your arguments. Theyre welcome here anytime. Laura coates, jim schultz, on a friday night, thank you very much. Thank you. The Attorney General slamming Sanctuary Cities once again. But is his case legit . I have the facts and what figures, next. These are a few of My Favorite Things you wouldnt accept an incomplete job from any one else. Why accept it from your Allergy Pills . Most pills dont finish the job because they dont relieve nasal congestion. Flonase sensimist is different. It relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills dont. Its more complete allergy relief. And all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. Flonase sensimist helps block six key inflammatory substances. Most pills only block one. And six is greater than one. Flonase sensimist. And six is greater than one. Im a small business, but i have. Big dreams. And big plans. S