We have to wear these goggles because the ashes coming off of there so fast, the winds are speeding up so much right now. This is the problem every afternoon here. And theres no end in sight right now. Theyre expecting these red flag warnings to continue. Stephanie, thank you. Stay safe. The news continues right now. I want to hand it over to chris and cuomo prime time. Chris . Thank you, anderson. I am chris cuomo and welcome to prime time. A roger stone confidant is facing a Contempt Charge in the Special Counsel probe. Is this about hiding the truth . His lawyer says, no, its about exposing it. Hes here to make the case to you. And looks like trump wants to give himself another tax cut. A rule that is good for him and people like him, not so good for the rest of us. One of the architects of the original trump tax plan is here to test it. And as charlottesville braces for the return of White Supremacist marchers, trump calls out wouldbe protesters. The problem is hes talking about nfl players taking a knee, not the klan. Seriously . Its friday but weve got so much news, were going to stay
late tonight. Two hours of prime time. What do you say . Lets get after it. So tonight the focus of Special Counsel bob muellers probe is on three people. They are all connected to one man, Longtime Donald Trump confidant roger stone. One of them is a radio host identified as the back channel to wikileaks. Another is a friend of stones known as the manhattan madam. The third is a former aide of stones named Andrew Miller, who refused today to comply with a subpoena. So he is now facing a Contempt Charge. Why dodge if you have nothing to hide . Lets get after it with millers lawyer, mr. Paul kamenar. Welcome to prime time, counselor. Thank you, chris. Good to be here. Good to have you. Lets test the case. Is this about hiding . Is this about ducking the truth if. Absolutely not, chris. This is a constitutional
challenge to the lawfulness of the Special Counsel mueller. What we did was challenge his constitutionality on the grounds that he was not properly appointed under article 2 of the constitution. And we said that if youre going to appoint him under the constitution, he has to be appointed by the head of the department. Right. And the head of the department is Jeff Sessions, not rod rosenstein. Right. You made that objection. It was ruled on by the judge in a 90pluspage decision that every expert that weve had on about it and that ive talked to in the reporting feels confident about it. Let me put up the key excerpt for people. This is what the judge said. Multiple statutes authorized the Special Counsels appointment, and the official who appointed the Special Counsel had power to do so. So for these reasons explained in further detail below, the witnesss motion to quash the subpoena is denied. In other words, you have made the argument. Its been weighed and measured
and found lacking. And while the a. G. Didnt appoint the Special Counsel he recused himself rod rosenstein, someone who is directly answerable to the president , did. So where is your issue . Very easy, chris. Jeff sessions recused himself from the investigation. Mmhmm. He did not recuse himself and he could not recuse himself from the constitution, which requires the head of the department to appoint the Special Counsel. But what you have on the screen there was a different argument in terms of is there even Statutory Authority to appoint a Special Counsel . The judge said yes. This judge said yes. Theres another judge who is also hearing this case in the same court, and the argument she had last week, she said these arguments are and this is her word compelling. She hasnt issued her decision yet, but you have to compelling in what context, counselor . Compelling political questions, because this judge said that too. These are interesting questions, but they are not legally sufficient. No. The judge the other judge said that the statutory argument was a compelling argument in terms of the lawfulness. In any event, chris, these are one judge in our case, and the reason we had to not appear at the grand jury was so in fact, we even asked this judge to hold our client in Contempt Of Court because under the rules of appellate procedure, you can only appeal a contempt citation. Right. So we had so you had to be in contempt in order to i get that. So were not hiding anything. Hold on. I get you on the procedural argument. Well stipulate to that for the point of this discussion. However, why isnt it about
hiding . This guy is not some constitutional, you know, reform zealot. If he has nothing to hide, give the documents over that they say. Give the testimony. Roger stone says Andrew Miller has no knowledge or evidence of russian collusion or wikileaks collaboration or any other illegal activity. Thats right. Then testify. All right. Heres the thing, chris. He already talked to two fbi agents for a couple hours. He didnt give them everything. And then they asked for all the documents. He gave them all the documents. He didnt give them all of them because theyre asking for more documents. Well, not really, chris. Theyre not asking for more documents. Theyre just asking him to testify about this, and now he is there was a june deadline that he had to meet in handing over additional document. And he did on he did. He gave them everything they asked for . Exactly. Theres nothing outstanding. Nothing outstanding. So all thats left is, okay, go into the grand jury. And he has a principled issue here. He, himself, is a very staunch libertarian. He worked on Gary Johnsons campaign in 2016. He doesnt didnt vote for trump, doesnt like trumps policies. So he committed for a restricted government power. And what we have here with Robert Mueller is basically a super u. S. Attorney, more powerful than the regular u. S. Attorneys. And regular u. S. Attorneys hes directly answerable to rosenstein, so how is he more powerful . So are other u. S. Attorneys. Thats my point. He can file cases in any jurisdiction, in d. C. , virginia, new york. Your regular u. S. Attorney cannot. But listen to this, chris. All these u. S. Attorneys are nominated by the president , appointed by the president with the consent of the senate. So here you have Robert Mueller acting like a u. S. Attorney at large, a super u. S. Attorney, and he hasnt been gone through the confirmation process. So thats why our two arguments is that if hes an inferior officer, Jeff Sessions has to 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. 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. Chris Cuomo asks the tough questions to newsmakers in Washington and around the world. 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 coates. 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
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. honking when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut. No one can totally satisfy a craving, with i get rewarded explowherever i go. Going out for a bite. Rewarded going new places. Rewarded learn more at theexplorercard. Com this is not a screensaver. Game. This is the destruction of a cancer cell by the bodys own immune system, thanks to medicine that didnt exist until now. And today can save your life. Yeah, i got some financialbody guidance a while ago. Howd that go . He kept spelling my name with an i but its bryan with a y. yeah, since birth. That drives me crazy. Yes. Its on all your email. Yes. They should know this . Yeah. The guy was my brotherinlaw. Thats ridiculous. Well, i happen to know some people. Do they listen . What . Theyre amazing listeners. Nice. Guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you. Its a revolution in sleep. The new sleep number 360 smart bed, from 999. Intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. And snoring . How smart is that . Smarter sleep. To help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. And now, save up to 500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. Plus