Might he never of it . Ill ask lawyers from both defense and prosecution in the investigation of bill clinton what lessons they learned about putting a president under oath. Plus the Justice Department wants census takers to ask people if they are citizens. What impact might that one question have on the balance of state legislative and congressional power . And the nation was transfixed by the trial of the doctor who abused young female athletes. But did his sentencing judge overstep her legal role with words like this i would allow some or many people do to him what he did to others. And Everybody Loves the driving apps that show them how to escape traffic jams. Except the towns that get used as short cuts. We have the mayor who shut down his roads to out of towners. Is that legal . But first, what a week with regard to the mueller probe. The president surprised everybody including his own lawye lawyers by saying he was looking forward to testifying under oath. There has been no collusion what sorry. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And im looking forward to it. Now, almost immediately he qualified that by saying that hed have to check with his lawyer and his attorney ty cobb then down played the offer, later another trump attorney john dowd told cnn he is the one who will decide if the president will sit for an interview with muellers team and that no decision has been made. And then canome news that President Trump ordered muellers firing back in june citing three reasons that seemed awfully thin. They included the fact that mueller once resigned from a trump golf course over a fee dispud and that mueller most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented jared kushner. The first hardly seems grounds to charge bias against a former head of the fbi and the second, if it suggests any bias, it would seem to be in favor of the president. This reminded me of the circumstances surrounding the firing of james comey. Now, recall that in that instance, the stated reason for the firing as evidenced in a memo written by Rod Rosenstein was comeys mishandled investigation of hillarys emails. Quote, as you say have asked, i cannot defend the directors handling of the investigation of secretary clintons emails and i do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. That was never credible as a reason why trump would fire comey. And it was belied by a subsequent interview that the president gave to lester hoflt. And here is the potential significance. Intent is the key agreement in any potential charge for obstruction of justice. As in did the president have a corrupt motive when seeking to thwart a criminal investigation . Asserting false reasons for the firing of comey and then mueller suggests that he was hiding his real rationale. If the reason for comeys firing and the order that mueller being fired was that the president to use his words was just fighting back, fighting back against an unfounded probe that was looking for collusion where it never existed, ginned up by a fake dossier with the support of deflated democrats and an antagonistic press, then why not say so . Why create pretext when truth is on your side . The president absolutely has a right to defend himself. Its not a crime for the subject of a criminal probe to assert their innocence or provide Additional Information to exxon rates themselves. But where a person takes steps with intent to corruptly imt speed or stop such an investigation, that can amount to obstruction of justice. And now things aare about to ge really interesting. President said his meeting with mueller could take place in the next two as totothree weto th. That suggests that mueller is wrapping up his probe. Although the president has plenty of private sector xerns with litigation, i think it is politically dangerous for President Trump to be interviewed or more formally testify under oath. From a lawyers standpoint, hes an unpredictable client and that encounter with the press just before he left for davos is just an inkling of what he is like when he thinks he is right. Trump is laquacious and i believes that he can win over anybody if given a shot. And that is a hazardous combination when a special counsel is the one asking the questions. Which is why were entering a critical phase if if there is an upcoming encounter between trump and mueller, what will it looks like . Where will it be . Who will be there . Will mueller himself conduct the questioning . And will the president be under oath . Well, i have two perfectly credentialed guests joining me now, two veteran lawyers from opposite sides of another president ial inquiry that gripped the nation. Deputy independent council in the clinton intern investigation who questioned president trucli clinton said it depends what the definition of is. And also former counsel to both clinton and barack obama who quarterbacked the impeachment defense. If you represented this president , how willing would you be to produce him to bob mueller . Well, id be very reluctant. President trump like every other american citizen has the right to remain silent. And to weigh that right and go into either testimony under oath or for an interview puts not only his personal freedom and future in jeopardy, but also the office in play. I think the factors that went in to the decision and the advice that president clinton made in august of 1998 to testify in front of the grand jury are the same factors that are being considered by mr. Trumps lawyers today. And i think any lawyer will be very, very concerned about exposing his client to examination while he is the subject or the target of a grand jury investigation. So let me ask the direct question. Do you anticipate that President Trump at some point in the future will be invoking his fifth amendment rights . Well, i think there is clearly going to be considering it. I dont know that he will invoke his constitutional rights, but they will clearly consider that and make a decision based on their own judgment. So i cant tell you that he will invoke his constitutional rights. He may decide for political reasons that he wont. As did president clinton. And that he will go in and answer questions. In that event, i think the lawyers will be trying to control the topics and the time and the various ways in which the interrogation takes place. For example they might say look, were happy to answer questions about the campaign. But were not happy to answer questions about his finances. Were not happy to answer questions about his performance as president. But company aheask him questiont youre supposed to be investigating which is russian interference in the campaign. That may be one kind of way that the lawyers try to control the way in which the interview takes place. Where do you see it headed, will President Trump invoke a fifth amendment right, sal . He certainly should and i agree that takes very perilous situation for him. And in fact i think he is in much more danger than president clinton was because when president clinton sat down, we had already let him know about the dress. So on there was no point in him trying to deny a relationship. Whereas i can guarantee you mueller has found a lot of information that trump knows nothing about if there is any politician who can pull off as a pr matter invoking the fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination, it is President Trump. And he has kind of set the agenda for that by attacking mueller over the last few months and saying there is a witch lunt and it is a bogus investigation. And he can go in front of the American People and he can say look, the Supreme Court has said since the 1950s that the privilege against selfincrimination protects the innocent as well as the guilty. I think this is a gotcha investigation, they are looking for a way to get me and im going to invoke my precious fifth amendment right that protects us all. Well, you have given broth a legal and practical answer. Greg, on the practical answer, all i can think of is the way in which President Trump hammered hillary and more so the fbi for not putting her under oath which i think would make it very difficult for him now to be invoking a fifth amendment right. Well, i think you can overestimate the issue of the oath or not the oath. If he appears and answers questions from a federal official whether a prosecutor or an fbi agent, he is in jeopardy of violating the law if they believe he didnt tell the truth. That is title xviii United States code 1001. So the oath can be inflated in its importance. I agree with saul if he of it, he is putting his own future in jeopardy as well as the office. As you know, the first article ev of impeachment against president clinton was the allegation that he did not testify truthfully in the grand jury when saul was asking him questions. And speaking of which, i want to roll the tape and ask a question about this famous hospital. Play it. Whether or not mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with miss miss lewinsky, a statement there was no section of any kind, shape or form with the president. Was an utterly false statement, is that correct . It depends upon what the meaning of the word is is. By the way, saul, were you ready for that answer . Did that catch you by surprise as much as it did the rest of us when we finally got to see it and hear about it . It caught me by surprise because i think that the president had done generally speaking a masterful job in the questioning, in the grand jury questioning. And i thought this was his one mistake and his biggest mistake. It came off sounding very poorly. So you asked that question, that line of questioning of president clinton. Has bob hmueller been taken out of the prospect of questioning trum trump himself because of the revelation that trump did give an order to fire mueller . Oh, not at all. I would expect that mueller will be there. Unlike ken starr, mueller who really had very little involvement in the actual questioning, he asked some questions related to constitutional issues, but mob mueller has spent his whole life in Law Enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. So he is certainly capable ofmo life in Law Enforcement and prosecution and with the fbi. So he is certainly capable of participating substantively 37 but i think the bulk of the questioning will be handled by his top lieutenants. But i dont think this would prohibit him at all from asking questions. Greg, if you were representing this president in anticipation of some kind of an exchange with mueller or muellers staff, what is on your agenda, what are you looking for, what do you want this process to look like . Well, as i mentioned earlier, i would like to know with as even precision and detail as possible as to what the topics are. So that i can prepare the president. The president is going to be concerned about making statements in response to these questions that are not inconsistent with previous statements that hes made, not inconsistekconsistent with the of other individuals. And as saul said, the president wont know for example what general flynn has said about x, y and z. Prosecutors will know. So there is a challenge here for the president to be perhaps precise, perhaps abbreviated in his answers, and prepared for some specific areas just the way i agree with saul that president clinton when he was testifying in front of the gland jury was o grand jury was one of the best prepared witnesses in the history of trial practice. He did a very good job. And thvideotape you showed told the American Public how well he had done. All of the americans have had the opportunity to see your questioning of president clinton. Will americans get to see or read whatever questions are put to President Trump . I think so. I think if he ends up deciding to give testimony, that testimony it will probably be recorded. It will not be grand jury testimony. It will be an informal setting. I agreely agree that t lthat th significant as a legal matter. Martha stewart wasnt under oath when she got indicted to making false statements. I would imagine that it is going to be ultimately released. It is not as clear as it was in our case, it was part of a sealed impeachment report or impeachment filing that we made with congress and congress decided to disclose it. Here it is not clear what if any mechanism there is for mueller to disclose confidential things about his investigation. The grand jury if it decides not to indict anyone can issue a report if the court allows to, that is very rare, but not unheard of in high profile cases. So we dont know for sure, but i would imagine that it will come out. Saul, greg, cannot thank you enough. We really appreciate your being here on an important subject. Youre welcome. Our pleasure. I want to know what youre all thinking. Go to my website smerconish. Com and answer this poll question. Wherein formally or under oath, will President Trump ultimately be interviewed by muellers team, or invoke his fifth amendment right . Well show you results at the end of this hour. Also more social media reaction. Katherine, what has come in during the course of the first segment of the program . His ego will make him testify. He cant help position. I thinks i can beat mueller. Hell go against his lawyers. That is exactly what i was getting to. Im thinking ive represented many incorrigible clients. And i know the m. O. Of those who say i got this, i can handle this. And by the way, lets give the president credit. It has served him well through this part of his life. Whether it gets will imthrough the next chapter remains to be seen. Up ahead, america was riveted when 156 witnesses testified in court against the why wdoctor a young female athletes. But did the judge go too far. Theres a vacation at the end of every week. Whatever type of weekender you are, dont let another weekend pass you by. Get the lowest price when you book at hilton. Com ronoh really . Gs going on at schwab. Thank you clients . Well jd power did just rank them highest in Investor Satisfaction with full Service Brokerage firms. Again. And online equity trades are only 4. 95. I mean you cant have low cost and be full service. Its impossible. Its like having your cake and eating it too. Ask your broker if they offer awardwinning full service and low costs. How am i going to explain this . If you dont like their answer, ask again at schwab. Schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. Touch is how we communicate with those we love, but when your psoriasis is bad, does it ever get in the way . Embrace the chance of 100 clear skin with taltz. Taltz is proven to help people with moderate to severe psoriasis achieve completely clear skin. With taltz, up to 90 of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. In fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. Dont use if youre allergic to taltz. Before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. Taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if youve received a vaccine or plan to. Inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. Serious allergic reactions can occur. Ready for a chance at 100 clear skin . Ask your doctor about taltz today. And go to taltz. Com to learn how to pay as little as 5 a month. Lets team up to get the lady of the house back on her feet. And help her feel more strength and energy in just two weeks yaaay the complete balanced nutrition of great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. Ensure. Always be you. The nation was riveted when 156 accusers tearfully and defiantly spoke at the send tefrnsi sentencing of the why wdoctor w pled guilty. And the judge opened courtroom to anybody wishing to speak including other victims of dr. Nassar not part of the official case. When sentencing him, the judge told him it was a death sentence and she didnt stop there. Our constitution sddoes that allow for cruel or unusual punishment. I would allow someone or many people do to him what he did to others. And thsome said that was beyd on the pail. Joining me now, she wrote the moment the judge in the larry nassar case crossed a line. Rachel, i believe and agree with everything that the judge said. And as an attorney, i agree with everything that you have written. I mean the point is, she should have left those kind of comments to somebody like me. Absolutely. There is only one person in the courtroom who is not to be anned a vadvocate for either side. And that is the judge. And for the judge to make herself an advocate for the victims in the midst of a sentencing hearing is inappropriate. And calls into question our entire justice system. It poses a threat to the fairness of our institutions. Do you take issue with the way in which she conducted this sentencing process in addition to the comments that weve just played and that you and others have noted . In other words, substantively here, was there anything either about this process that you called into question . Yes, i mean i think throughout the sentencing hearing even prior to making those comments she clearly aligned herself with the victims. Often speaking to them as though they were her con if i she was their confidant and telling them that they were super heros and expressing compassion which of course all of us feel. The victims went through extreme trauma and are courageous for coming forward and speaking. But it is not appropriate for the judge in the mid ths of a sentencing hearing where she is supposed to still be open to hearing the entire evidence presented for her to already so clearly being on one side and to show such allegiance to that side. That is inappropriate. And as a result, do you believe now there are grounds for appeal on the part of dr. Nassar because of the conduct of the judge . Its hard to say. Certainly i would argue that if i were his lawyer. But i dont know michigan law specifically. Obviously this was a guilty plea. But a judge still has to consider the appropriate factors in sentencing. She is not free to use by as owing or any sort muof personal feelings. So yesterday i readas owing or any sort of personal feelings. So yesterday i read from the piece you published. And voters i got phone calls from some who said youve gone soft and youre a liberal and all you are doing is supporting now a pedophile. I tried to explain the point that you are making. I guess my point to you is, i can only imagine if that is the result i got on radio, what youve heard since publishing your opinion. Tell me. Absolutely. And let me be very clear, i am in no way defending n