Alex Witt hosts coverage of national and international news, including breaking stories. You cant on its face determine whether its unlawful or its within the law. Thats for prosecutors and factgatherers to decide, but, boy, it is something people will be looking at seriously. David . Kelly, very quickly. Youve been in contact with Rudy Guiliani over these last many weeks, talking to him about the grounds by which he might agree to have the president sit down for an interview. And we saw Rudy Guiliani. We saw the president s legal team and the White House Communications team this week talking about the president s tweets. What they signify to them. They talked about them as opinions versus orders when we got that extraordinary tweet earlier this week. It seemed to address the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, directly. Lets take that and apply it to this. I am sure that we will hear from the president s legal team. This is the president spouting off. Its him offering an opinion. Over the course of these last many weeks, we have seen a lot of reporting about how bob mueller, special counsel and his team, are looking at the president s tweets. So i guess what im saying here, kelly, the president and his team may see it one way. The special counsel and others
may see it another. Reporter yes. If you put it in a different form, if someone does an interview on television, like the president did with the lester holt interview, where he talked about the firing of james comey, for example, that could be a piece of evidence that could be put before a grand jury or a Court Setting to show an individuals thought process, the time perhaps might reveal intent. Any of those kinds of things. In our modern moment, apparently tweets could be such a reflection, as well. Its like outside statements that someone makes. Not testimony, but still a piece of evidence. And this would be something that could paint a part of the picture for investigators. Again, im not a lawyer, so i dont want to go too far. But at the same time, its youre right. The campaign and the white house both say in one breath, the president s statements on twitter are, in fact, official records, official statements of the president. And will be recorded as part of the president ial records act. Part of history and part of u. S. Official policy. And at the same time, they call it a First Amendment field day for the president , where he can spout about his opinions and so forth. And they try to find that line about what he says may not be an actual directive. Case by case, youve got to look at these. The president certainly has not shied away from using twitter. And one would think that probably on a Sunday Morning, theres probably not a lawyer at his elbow telling him what to tweet or not tweet. So this might be a very unvarnished sense of what the president is thinking right now. David . Helping us unpack these half dozen tweets this morning from the president of the United States. Kelly odonnell, from berkeley heights, new jersey, the president on his 11day Working Vacation there. Kelly saying shes not a lawyer. Lets turn to one now. Congressman elizabeth holtzman. Referring to this piece in the Washington Post. A complete fabrication, the president writes, that i am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son donald had in trump tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all of
the time in politics. And it went nowhere. I did not know about it. Liz holtzman, how do you read that tweet . Help us understand this in the context of what we have heard from the president and his legal team before about the substance of that meeting that took place in the summer of 2016. Well, what we know is that the president helped if not actually dictate a false statement about what happened at the meeting once. He wrote this Press Release, dictated this Press Release that had false information about it. So what the president says about this meeting definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt. But the problem here is that now he and his son are really in the crosshairs, because there is at least a report that Michael Cohen says that the president knew beforehand about this meeting that took place between the russians and donald trump
jr. And both donald trump jr. And the president are now denying that that happened. They didnt know about it before i mean, that the president didnt know about the meeting beforehand. The president knew about the meeting beforehand, then youre very close to conspiracy and youre very close at that point, possibly, to an impeachable offense. So this is the noose tightening very, very, very much around Donald Trumps neck and the neck of his son. And well just continue to see, i think, the president get more frantic. This is not a question of his opinion. This is a question of what he is saying and it definitely can be used in any kind of criminal proceeding or impeachment proceeding against him. Lets dig into the substance of this piece in the Washington Post. I want to get your read on how worried donald trump jr. Should be. It was just a couple of weeks ago that we had reporting that Michael Cohen was prepared to testify that the president that donald trump knew that that meeting was going to take place and what that meeting was about. Your read here, looking at that piece in the post, detailing, based on conversations, these three reporters had with advisers to people who know the president who are familiar with the administration. 14 of them in total indicating that there is some worry on the president s part about his sons future. How worried should he be, do you think, liz holtzman . First of all, we dont really know yet that Michael Cohen will testify under oath. That donald trump knew beforehand about this meeting with the russians. Secondly, if we dont have corroboration, its a he said she said situation. Is there corroboration . How reliable is it . Were not there yet, by any means. And is the corroboration solid . If that core ranatiroboration i donald trump jr. Could be in trouble, because he testified under oath to congress that his father didnt know about it
beforehand. And secondly, donald trump has told the country that he didnt know about it beforehand. If those statements turn out to be lies, both of them are in trouble. Serious trouble. Possible Criminal Trouble in terms of conspiring with the russians. The issue is not any more the issue is partly is donald trump telling the truth. Is his son telling the truth before instead of perjurying himself. Thats an issue of crime. And the second one is collusion with the russians. And were getting closer and closer on both issues. And its very disturbing, frankly, to see president of the United States in this situation. Here we are on a Sunday Morning, this is happening, as we just heard from Kelly Odonnell, unlikely he has one of his lawyers at arms length while this is happening, while hes sending out these tweets. Listen i go back to that piece in the Washington Post, something the president has said time and time again, is there was no collusion. This was a phrase popularized byRudy Guiliani, by the president s legal team and said over and over and over again. The president seems to delight in the brilliant simplicity of that term. Help us understand that debate here. Over collusion. The way this is being framed by the president and his legal team. Well, i think what the president is trying to do is bam boozel the american people. And he cant fool all of the people all of the time. The word collusion what theyre trying to say is the word collusion is not a crime. Its true that thats not a crime. But collusion means, basically, to work with another person to do something nefarious. Thats another way of saying conspiracy. Conspiracy is a crime. So mr. Trump, you know, maybe you have to look at the next page in the code of in the code book about statutes. But there is a crime called conspiracy. Thats another word for collusion. And you have to be very, very concerned. I was on the House Judiciary Committee during watergate. When we see a president and
if Michael Cohens statement turns out to be accurate, and if hes actually willing to say it, then we have a president who is walking right into impeachable territory. The president is trying to work with a Foreign Government to undermine an american election. To undermine the votes of americans. That is very, very, very serious. Its possibly criminal. Its possibly impeachable. Liz holtzman, always good to speak with you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to turn to danny cevallos, joins me now by phone. Danny, youve seen this tweet from the president. I just want to get your read on it. Again, it was one of about six weve seen thus far from the president of the United States. We are reading this in concert with the statement that was drafted on Air Force One, back in 2016, delivered first to the New York Times, then disseminated more widely, as Kelly Odonnell said. Im going to read from that statement, what heretofore we
had known to be the circumstances of this meeting as professed by the president and his team. Quote, we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of russian children that was active and popular with American Families years ago, and was since ended by the russian government. But it was not a Campaign Issue at the time. And there was no followup. Thats standing in stark contrast to what we see from the president this morning. Your read on that tweet. I see two issues at play here, based on my conversations with liz holtzman and with Kelly Odonnell. There is the contradiction i just described, then what kelly said at the top of the hour. That being, he took a meeting during which dirt was offered or proffered from a Foreign Government. Two Different Things here. I think one of the things that shocks me about the tweet, it seems to be a confession that there was a meeting to get information on an opponent. Which, as he says, is totally legal and done all of the time in politics. That isnt exactly true, especially when the meeting is
between an american and a Russian National or excuse me, a representative of the russian government. Because it is against election laws, against several different laws, to engage the assistance of a foreign power in affecting a National Election in the United States. So that one sentence or that one i would say phrase within the sentence. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, is not the complete story. And its not as innocent as mr. Trump apparently believes it was. But it acts as essentially an admission that the meeting went on to get information on an opponent, and not for adoption of the law purposes, as has been reported in the past. Danny, your take on the power of these tweets. We were talking about the skeleton that is formed by the president s tweets when you look at the Obstruction Case in particular. Thats something thats been detailed by several New York Times reporters, reportedly this is something that bob mueller and his team are looking at. What is the legal worth of a tweet like this one . You represent clients. We were just talking a moment ago about how the president might not have the lawyer close at hand or might not be regarding the counsel here. How problematic is this tweet . Whats your take as a lawyer of what the client has done here, offering up this tweet on a Sunday Morning . Often, as a defense attorney, clients shoot themselves in the foot by making statements, by talking to law enforcement, and in the modern era, using social media to either brag about or to make statements that are totally inconsistent with the defense. But as we talked about, david, we are in a totally new frontier. Only three president s have even been around since the advent of twitter. And only one has tweeted in the way that President Trump has. President obama, for example, his tweets its hard to say whether they were even his personal statements, because he had a team. A team that would vet and review these before they went out. Donald trump is giving us a direct line, it would appear, into his thoughts and his
intent. Only a few tweets weve seen are sometimes written by other people, ostensibly, by his attorney, has come out and said hes written Donald Trumps tweets. Its hard to say what evidentiary value they have, because he could call back on the notion, hey, those werent exactly my words. But when you and i tweet, it can be taken as an ironic comment or something else. When the president tweets, its the statement of the president of the United States. Entirely different. One thing for sure, mueller is on top of all of these statements, and piecing them together into one giant jigsaw puzzle, to see, if taken together, the evidence of intent makes out the elements of a federal crime. Danny cevallos, thank you very much. Our msnbc legal analyst joining me now. Just want to be clear here. The president has tweeted some 4,000 tweets. This is one that is particularly extraordinary in part because of
the way it contradicts what the president and his team said about a meeting that took place in 2016. Caitlyn hueyburns joins me now, political report for real clear politics, and eugene scott, political reporter for the Washington Post. Caitlyn, you know exactly what happened back in 2016. The president and his teams reaction to that meeting, what they have said since. How much has this upended that narrative, that story . Just fundamentally, it has. Remember, going back to when we when there was reporting about that Trump Tower Meeting, that the president , you know, denied having a role in crafting that statement and turned out that he did. And in that statement, he said that the meeting was about russian adoptions. Here its very clear the president has just said that that meeting was to get dirt on an opponent. I think that is a very striking development in this. And remember, the Trump Tower Meeting spe
meeting specifically is so key to the overall time line in this russia investigation. And then especially against the backdrop of reporting that we saw last week that the president that Robert Mueller is assessing the president s tweets as part of this body of evidence. Eugene scott, what is your read on the import of that meeting . I was talking with ken dilanian last weekend, who said maybe this was overblown, that this is of interest to ken mueller and his team. This is a contrarian view, central to bob muellers investigation. Picking up on what caitlyn said a moment ago, how pivotal was this moment, how does it change the conversation and the story surrounding that meeting, as you see it . I think the significance of this Meeting Needs to be understood, and the context that it wasnt just the president s son who was there. The president s son was a Senior Campaign adviser. And the president s former Campaign Manager was there. In addition to jared kushner, who is now in the white house. Were talking about jared
kushner, paul manafort, donald trump jr. These are key individuals involved in the trump campaign. This was not some isolated gathering or interaction with someone who was a lowlevel person involved in trying to communicate with a Foreign Government, which is not legal. Which, unlike what the president has tweeted. This is a very significant meeting. What all came out of it is still not yet clear. Its very possible that more was discussed than what has been admitted by the campaign, and we can trust that mueller is still looking into that. Caitlyn, last question to you here. The president beginning this tweet by saying, i am not concerned about the meeting with my wonderful son. You look at that Washington Post piece, all about the concern that he has here. Just ask you, in light of this tweet, how concerned should he be about his son in light of what was revealed in this tweet today . I think by virtue of him tweeting about it this Sunday Morning remember, this is the start to the president s socalled vacation i think shows a level of concern. At least implies that there is. That he is responding directly to this Washington Post reporting about this concern. So i think that tweet in and of itself tells you everything that we need to know about the president s State Of Mind as it relates to this overall investigation. I would also note that, remember, to put it in the larger context, whats so fascinating to me about the president continuing to talk about the russia investigation in realtime, is that, you know, the economy is pretty good right now. At least on paper. He could be talking about a lot of Different Things. Republican candidat