Put what on the president . This idea that you just said the the New York Times is reporting that the president approved either wrote or approved the that is not an outlandish suggesting. I take the the New York Times reporting on its face and why wouldnt a father thats president of the United States want to have a say in what his son was putting out that involves him and his presidency. Seems like a legitimate thing thats why i asked. 39yearold son whose running the Trump Corporation and the trump organization, so he doesnt need to be looked over the shoulder by his father. Heres what i think we need to really focus on and obviously i appreciate you having me on. I need to be clear about three things here. Number one, the president was not aware of the meeting, did not attend the meeting and was only made aware of the emails very recently by counsel and not seen the emails. In fact, you know, i didnt see the email until yesterday and im one of the lawyers. So there you have it. Okay. So thats point one. Whats point two . Point two is, the three points were. He was not aware, did not attend and just found out about the emails or saw the emails yesterday. Right. Let me ask you something, how can you see these emails as anything other than proof of russian efforts to infiltrate the election . Well, look, first of all i just heard your last guest who said the entire thing was a put up. That none of this true. I know he said that but if you dont think that there are questions of credibility in this situation, whether Its Don Junior who changed his story or the notion that this man, mr. Goldstone who obviously is going to have to come forward and clear this up at some point, can you imagine not firing a guy who made up a lie like this about you, counsellor . Can you imagine . If you had somebody working for you who said that you met with prosecutors and had Sensitive Information and that you wanted to help an election and you dont fire the guy, thats pretty strange . You about it. Its an important conversation, please. The way its been framed, youre putting her on, the network, all the networks are put those statements on about her as a fact statement. No. Im putting her on that this is her say. She also said don junior and jared and manafort all wanted dirt so badly. She said that also which takes you back to the Appropriateness Argument For Donald Junior and a Disclosure Argument for Jared Kushner who subsequently amended his Disclosure Statement and Paul Manafort which we havent heard from. I dont represent paul. Jared kushner, he amended his disclosure form, so and then donald trump jr. Put out the entire chain of emails. Heres what you have. The emails are out. The information about the meeting is out. It was discussed by two of the principals that were at the meeting and what do we have . Not a violation of the law. And of course im a lawyer and
because you dont let russia interfere in American Election . You know that. Doornd junior has said as much. Don junior was very direct last night when he was on hannity talking about that. You know political campaigns well. You come from a long line of families in political campaigns. You know what happens. Theres a lot of meetings. The Ukrainian Government was giving information to the dnc and Hillary Clintons people on who, donald trump. Were acting as if this doesnt happen. Lets look at it very quickly. Ukraine is not russia, okay . You can get you can get research from whomever you want, but if you solicit information from a foreign government, let alone a hostile one you could be in trouble with the fec. I dont want to talk about legality thats not my place. If you dont think it was inappropriate to take this
meeting, not only are you disagreeing with donald junior, i think we have different ethical standards. Donald trump jr. Said he would have handled things differently. Which i think is the right thing to say and that point is there. I want to finish up with this. You just said that if its the ukrainians its okay, if its the russians thats not. Thats not the law. Im saying ukraine is not russia. I think they would be analyzed differently in terms of Potential Threat to the process, so hesitation is the legal key. We can agree to disagree. Why did he say it was inappropriate . What he said was in retrospect he would have looked at it differently. So he would have done it at a different time or thought differently of this decision. Its been criticized on both sides of the aisle. I dont know why you would fight that proposition. Im not fighting and he took it. He had the meeting. Youre saying it was okay to take it i think. Im saying no. Im talking about you asked i dont want to talk about the law. Appropriate is not a legal standard. Im the president s lawyers. I understand that. If our culture is only about what you can go to jail for, we got a messed up democracy. Its got to be about doing what is right as well. You just said if the ukrainians did it, its fine. If the russians did it i did not ever say that. I never said it. What i said was in your view is it okay for the russian chris. Is it okay in your view for the ukrainians to give Dossier Information they got Governmentally On then President Trump to the dnc and the Hillary Clinton campaign . Is that okay with you . Is that okay . One, lets be honest. Is it okay . Not my call Special Counsel. Two, is it illegally no because i think solicitation is what triggers election law standards. This is not about the law. The ukrainians came to the Clinton Campaign and supposedly this lawyer came to donald trump jr. Two observations, one, again, i think it depends who it is coming from in terms of appropriateness not legality. I want people to remember this moment. You and people who support the president and the president himself cannot say enough that the media cant forget the election. We keep dwelling on the election and yet it is you, sir, that brings up Hillary Clinton as the excuse for dealing with this current situation. No, no. You use Hillary Clinton because you guys cant leave the election alone. We have moved past no you havent. You are the one who brings up Hillary Clinton, not me. You asked me and you just said again, chris, with due respect, you said, if ukrainian does it could be different. I think it would be a different analysis, if a known
hostile actor that was cited by our Intelligence Community for trying to interfere in our election, yes, ukraine is not known for that. Do you think the meeting that donald trump jr. Took, do you think that the meeting he took was the violation of the law . I dont know. Its not for me to say. The standard is tight. Treason say very tight statute. You know its not statute. Chris, you know this isnt treason. Its not my call. By the way, jay, like i feel about running down the road of Hillary Clinton every time something is brought up about the president , i feel the same way about legal arlts leave it to the Special Counsel. My concern in this situation is this, forget about donald junior, however, this is proof of an alleged russian agent trying to infiltrate the campaign to the disadvantage and potential. You think she is a russian
agent . Im saying that that was the suggestion, that this information was coming from the russian government. Why the president would insist on calling this a witch hunt instead of doing what you would think the responsibility of the president would be which is to put your arms around this investigation and you see you see what the russians tried to do to my son, we have to figure it out, all the different ways they did it and stop it, not on my watch. Why does he insist on calling it a witch hunt despite what he just saw in his sons own emails . Look at the basis upon which this investigation was triggered. James comey leaks internal memos that he took of conversations with the president of the United States. He takes them in his meeting with the president. He puts them in his government computer, sticks them in his Government Desk and creates a memo that he leaks when he gets fired to a friends of his to go to the press for the sole purpose he said under oath of obtaining a Special Counsel. Which is then appointed. Theres a Special Counsel appointed and think about this for a moment. He gets a Special Counsel is appointed based on what, illegally leaked evidence. I dont think thats okay, and if you were a lawyer in my situation i dont know that its illegally leaked evidence. If an fbi agent rosenstein. He didnt leak the information. Rosenstein is responsible for the Special Counsel. That is someone that the president leaned very heavily on, said he was of the highest regard. What was the basis of the Special Counsel being appointed . The whole world knows it. He did the release and leak the information that was to get the Special Counsel. You have to ask you have to ask mr. Rosenstein. Oh, okay. Chris, chris. He didnt say he did it because comey wanted it and you have republicans stand up and say this was a great move. Yeah, chris, do you think that its okay for james comey, the fbi director to take the
notes of his conversations with the president and then release them . A conversation he had with the president of the United States on multiple times, you think thats okay . I dont think it qualifies as a leak unless its confidential information. You take Government Property which is this and, by the way, the governments take in the position that its Government Property temporary to james comey and you distribute that thats a violation. How come how come the Doj Doesnt Act on it . How do we know theyre not . How do we know they are . We dont know is the answer. I get what youre answer but at the end of the day. You still wind up where you are and what we just learned about we learned about a couple of different ways. One is from donald trump jr. Himself and the other is from what you would call leaks i wouldnt. What would you call them . What would you call a conversation chris that the president of the United States that he gave to a third party to the the New York Times . Why is that not a leak . I dont think its material. If thats something thats separately investigative thats fine. But as a journalist i look at
the sum and substance of the actual information. But this was an fbi director having a conversation with the president of the United States. I understand. Its immaterial to our current conversation. No, its not. You know this and i know this. Conversation between the fbi director and the president of the United States are protected by what, the executive privilege. Sure. James comey ignored that and he shouldnt get away with that. Thats your position. I accept it but that does not mean that what Don Junior Put Out in his emails and what came out from people in the white house around the president Doesnt Matter and thats how we got to where we are right now with this chain. A chain that the president , our president still refers to as evidence of a witch hunt and i dont get it. I dont get it. I dont understand how you can make ill answer the question. The entire basis upon which this investigation was triggered and took place was what, leaked information by the fbi director. Do you believe this is a witch hunt . Do you believe theres no validity to the russian interference einvestigation . I think the whole underlying matter this is started is wrong. You dont think russia interfered with the election. President obama supposedly knew that the russians were trying to interfere with the election . What did he do . He went to Vladimir Putin and said stop it reportedly and he took a couple of their properties. For a couple months. Thats what he did. If he thought it was that bifg a deal. What happens . Is that a no . Is that a no from you that you dont believe russia interfered in the election . I have no idea what the russians did or look, i have no idea what russia tried to do or didnt try to do. You have no idea therefore you must reject what the Intelligence Community is saying. One step at a time. If you have no idea what they did, you must necessarily therefore believe what the Intelligence Community said is a lie . No. The Intelligence Community said to President Obama from what weve seen and what youve reported and others have reported. They put out a report that said it is in controe vertable. There is no question russia interfered in the election in many different ways. They also said it Didnt Impact One Single vote. Which is different. No. No one is suggesting that it changed the election outcome. No, chris, who was the president of the United States when this was taking place . This is a distraction. Im answering your question. Who was the president of the United States . Yes, they interfered, no they didnt interfere. Look, based on the information weve seen of the russias supposedly attempted. I havent seen the data. You havent either. Im a lawyer and i didnt even understand it. Did they do it or not do it . The russians hacked it or not. I have no idea if they interfered. You dont believe the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community has given Inconsistency Reports over 17 intelligence agencies. Said it all happened then it was reported that it was four. Im not looking at intelligence reports that anywhere different than what you would see in the
public. Heres what i know. President obama trumps own chiefs, his appointments have said yes this is what happened. Youre saying theyre lying. No, im not. Thats not correct. What im saying. Whats the other possibility . Either you believe them or you dont. Have you seen internal intelligence reports on this . Nope. No. Have i . No. But i have no reason to disbelief these people who are trusted with serving the people of the United States and evidently you do. Heres the great question, so President Obama knew this was going on, he did very little about it and you ask yourself that question. We have a Special Counsel investigating issues surrounding the russian probe. Thats what the Special Counsels appointed for. And the information about the russian hacking and russian attempts to interfere were already previously known. You tell me if you think its right to have this kind of investigation. I dont think it is. I dont understand the premises. The premise is russia interfered in the election and you want to protect your deposition, you have to investigate how did they do it, what worked . How do we stop it . Where are the holes . Sure. Thats not a job of a Special Counsel. No. He looks at different criminal aspects of that. Did people work with them . Was there criminality . If theres nothing there theres nothing there. The Special Counsel can handle the Counterintelligence Investigation which is what youre talking about. Thats your opinion. They cant. Thats not within their purview. Thats not what hes doing. Hes doing the criminality around this. I asked you if the russian interference investigation is worthwhile or a witch hunt. You didnt want to answer whether it happened and now youre just going into whether mueller should be looking at crimes. No. You asked me about the to be clear, you asked me about the president s statement about witch hunts. I told you that the whole basis
upon which and i could say it again, i dont have to bore you with it again, its the same statement and that is the basis upon which the Special Counsel was appointed was based on leaked information by the former director of the fbi based on conversations he had with the president of the United States. Thats not completely accurate because we noel the doj was looking at it before he did that. Thats the counterIntelligence Community is investigating and looking into the russia situation. Thats different than the Special Counsels job. I want to be clear on that. Of course theyre different jobs. Even on the face of it, weve been hearing nothing from the people around the president except we never met with any russians or think about