President Trump, Don Mcgann, Robert Muller discussed on News, Traffic and Weather

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Makes its way to ABC's this week with George Stephanopoulos today. From ABC news this week with George Stephanopoulos. We're going to dig in more now on that impeachment debate so much turns on the question of the evidence laid out by Robert Muller on obstruction of Justice the special counsel decided he couldn't charge the president. But couldn't clear him either. So the attorney general stepped in and here's what the president said about that on Friday. We essentially get a rolling no obstruction based on the facts. Our great dirty general made an immediate cessation. There was no obstruction. But that conclusion contradicted, even by one of Trump's usual defenders judge Andrew Napolitano from Fox News. When the president has Corey Lewandowski's former campaign manager to get fired. That's obstruction of Justice. When the president asked his then White House counsel to get fired and then lie about it. That's obstruction of Justice when he asked Don Mcgann to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony. That's obstruction of Justice when he dangled pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep calling from testifying against him. That's obstruction of Justice. And our new poll shows a close to vision. Forty-seven percent say the president did obstruct Justice forty-one percent say he did not let's bring in our legal experts. ABC news chief legal analyst, Dan, Abrahams and Harvard Law School, professor medicine. Dershowitz you've written a new take on special counsel's findings and introduction to the mall report. Welcome to you both. And let me begin with you. It's interesting that the public is divided on this question because if you just look at Muller's report seems kind of equivocal do you believe that he though was laying out the idea that president? Trump obstructed Justice. I don't think there's any question that Robert Muller believed that the president obstructed Justice. So then why wouldn't you have set it? He made it clear in his introduction to the section on obstruction of Justice. He said number one, a sitting president can't be indicted, number two. We can't even accuse him of a crime in this report because that would be improper, but if we could exonerate him, we would and we can't that's it. And then they lay out, and I'm not saying in every single one of the ten or eleven instances that Muller believes there was obstruction. But I think certainly with regard to Don Mcgann, if you read that carefully so that he was asked by the president of fire Robert then to lie about and then to lie about the conversation. I think it is clear that Robert Mueller if this were different situation. Would it be saying he obstructed Justice? In the case of Don Mcgann. I agree with that. I think Muller does believe that. I think he's just dead wrong in my introduction. I argue I think very compellingly that you have to have an active as an active crime. And the access race of a crime. The act cannot be the exercise of a constitutional authority under article two the president has the authority to fire Komi Komi said that himself and the president had the thority to do virtually everything it takes on that argument direct report. Yeah. And he's wrong. He's wrong. The best analogy, and he he does not mention this in this book. And this is an outrage that he doesn't mention it the largest most important precedent is the decision by George H W Bush to pardon casper Weinberger, he did that to stop the investigation. The special prosecutor said he did it to stop the investigation. And yet nobody suggested obstruction of Justice because the president has the power to pardon and the president has the power to fire. So you can't both have the power to do it under the constitution. And that be the act gives rise to an obstruction just to be clear Alan's position as a minority position in the legal combat. It's right. It may be right. But it's a minority position the legal community. But let me ask you this. What about the fact that he according to the report is telling Mcgann to lie, right? Is that a little bit different? That's not about firing right? Yeah. No, you're right. If if he told Mcgann to lie to a federal official, that's what Nixon did. And that's Nixon was guilty of obstruction. If there were evidence that the president told some. Subordinate to lie to a government officials said to lot obstruction not a crime to lie. We have no politicians in America during an investigation right in the course of investigation when the media comes sniffing about the Mcgann issue and the president allegedly instructs or ask again to lie as far as you're concerned that I'm concerned as far as the laws can still already position. Rotation charity position is that the law says it's a crime to lie to an F B I official. It's a crime to lie to a grand jury. Nowhere. Does it say it's a crime to light of the media and under our system of law in less it specified as a crime in the statute books? It's not a crime. We don't live in the Soviet Union where unless it's legal everything is illegal. We live in a country where unless it specifically illegal. It may be immoral, but it's not illegal. No, no, I understand. That's why we have broad laws right there called obstruction. Terrible libertarian. That's fine. You may think they're terrible. But the notion that there's not a long books is nonsense. There is a law in the book the question of whether it gets into. Your money at twenty and fifty past the hour on KOMO news. Komo money report is brought to you by propel insurance stocks closed with a fresh all time high Friday on Wall Street as.

Coming up next