but that is a trend apparently. and for the record, women are better drivers. >> we establish that. we establish that women are better at everything. >> perfect driving record right here. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> harris: is going to be a busy afternoon, fox news alert with this, we are awaiting remarks from the president of the united states as he is set to welcome italy's prime minister to the white house. one topic that may come up with the correspondence they are, his personal attorney rudy giuliani ramping up his attacks on the president's former personal attorney michael cohen, calling him a pathological liar and scoundrel. this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis. a former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton, adrian elrod. post of kennedy on fox business, can be herself. and in the center seat, the political editor of townhall.com and cohost of benson and hart, guy benson.

you know the benson part. he is "outnumbered," haven't seen you in a bit. welcome back. >> guy: it's in the hashtag. >> melissa: we love it. >> harris: we are glad you're here. we could get new reaction from the president of that news conference i mentioned s's lead attorney now rudy giuliani does not hold back at all on michael cohen. he's even suggesting that cohan may have adopted that recording of then candidate donald trump discussing potential buying of the story of a woman who claims they had an affair, giuliani says the tape proves the president wanted to document any possible payment. but in the tape abruptly ends, watching. >> he said not by max cash, interruption cohen says but, and trump says check and immediately is cut off. next thing you hear is don jr.

must be talking to don jr. so he erased them. the expert is going through them trying to figure out a few things like is is a recording of a recording? that he cut it off at the time the? did to go back to laboratory whatever he had and cut it off? >> harris: it didn't stop there, also went after cohen reclaim the president knew about that 2016 trump tower meeting between trump campaign officials and a russian attorney. giuliani says it's flat-out not true. >> is wild, crazy, and are out of their minds. he did not participate in any meeting of the russian transaction. the other meeting said he was never there. at least four separate witnesses who say that against a guy who has been proven to be one of the biggest liars in america. >> harris: one top democrat is not dismissing michael cohen's

allegations. senator patrick leahy says it's time for donald trump jr. to come back before the senate judiciary committee to answer them, but this time in public under oath. what do you think? where are we? is the story moving forward where we mired in an angry x attorney? >> guy: i can tell you this. a place at the president does not want to be is having his current attorney firing back at his longtime attorney. it's not a healthy spot for team trump because michael cullen was a trusted fixer and attorney and confidant for many years for president trump prior to him being president and if he has decided it is in his interest to flip on trump whether he's telling the new truths or inventing new stories to help his own self, save his own skin, and that is a war of words that is not particularly helpful to trump. for example, watching rudy giuliani go on tv and pursing whether certain recordings cut off at a certain time and asking why that's the case, not a

healthy spot. >> harris: 's a of development today that we've seen, and that somewhat coming from giuliani and other reporting and that is there may not be any other tapes of the president's voice on them. but there are a lot of tapes which begs the question how many people was he recording? we don't know. >> kennedy: you don't know. it is legal to do that and i think what's interesting here is giuliani is clearly trying to cast so much doubt on the tapes and whether or not they are doctors and they're not really tapes, their digital recordings since he recorded them with his phone, it's not like he had a reel to reel and it watergate era reporting device. it's pretty easy to chop that stuff up on your phone. i don't know why cnn was it more explicit about what they got in question why they didn't get more of it because that's always confusing and i'm sure cnn would love to play the world anything they could damage the president,

but we are getting so far away from focus and objectivity and it would be really interesting to see, is talking about the president enough to damage his reputation that he is ultimately removed from office? that seems to be the aim of many of the players here. >> harris: i want to draw everybody's attention to the live picture on the left side of your screen because that is the white house and of course, we are waiting for italy's prime minister to join our president of the united states inside the white house. he will arrive, this is very traditional and so we always like to capture these pictures with a happen. as a particularly special and interesting because this man conte is supposed to be or has said to be the closest ally supporter of our current president in europe. so this will be one to watch, they will have a bilateral meeting, they will have a news conference a bit later and we will cover it as it happens here on on fox news channel.

so that is off to the left of the screen as you look at your tv and i just want to reference that. there has been a little bit of a quiet from democrats on this. chuck schumer is always out there saying something. it hasn't been the drumbeat. as is perhaps one of those situations where you sit back and let the attorneys that themselves on proverbial fire? >> adrienne: i think a lot of democrats are realizing that the mueller investigation appears to be coming toward an end. if you have so many things that are culminating that insist that is coming to an end. >> harris: i haven't heard democrat say that. >> adrienne: the way that he is interviewing witnesses, the way that he's bringing them. you're right, we don't assume anything. but it would not be a crazy assumption to think that this is not coming to an end sooner rather than later. however, on this particular point, rudy giuliani is digging his own death, so what are they want to step into it?

he is constantly contradicting himself on television. a couple months ago, he called michael cohen an honest man. >> harris: he did not know about this tape and that's what he's been saying. >> adrienne: now he's disparaging the credibility of the tape. i think the last person who donald trump and his current attorney would want to criticize is michael cullen. michael cohen knows a lot. it's been his attorney for years. >> kennedy: they were so terrified and obviously the president and his associates know the content of the meetings that they have with michael cohen in his office and some of the phone conversations, if they were so worried, that's where you would come up with radio silence. not necessarily from democrats. >> harris: whatever is gettable, he wants it. speaking whenever i hear the clinton cleaner out there defending the trump, my ears, i just feel like i want to watch them out with something because it's also tawdry.

lindsey graham said earlier over the weekend when he said i've been a lawyer for a long time and i've never seen a lawyer behave this way talking about cohen and the fact that he recorded all of these conversations with clients and now he's saying the reason why he did this is because he like to record things rather than taking notes. i don't buy that, that's not what lawyers do. >> harris: our senior judicial analyst here at fox news said. he has said that it is actually not rare that people would do this because of the phone devices that people might record to help take notes. it makes it easier contemporaneously. you can get an assistant to help you transcribe. they said it wasn't uncommon. >> guy: is an interesting conversation to have about the tape because of the president's voice on one of them. >> harris: wouldn't you tell the president that you were recording him if he were his

confidant? >> guy: you assume trump would be understandably upset to learn that he was surreptitiously recorded by his own attorney and that tape is now leaking to cnn. as a nightmare scenario. i just want to make one point, rudy now has gone on tv twice today on our network and another one saying that collusion is not a crime. was is a change or a pivot from there is no collusion. and i'm sitting here watching rudy and i'm wondering is this rudy being the pundit or is this a new legal strategy? they have insisted and sworn top to bottom there was no collusion, and if the president top lawyer now is out there ceding this messaging on television that collusion wouldn't be a crime, that seems like a bit of a change and on "fox & friends," rudy said president trump was not at that meeting. donald trump was not at that meeting. that was never the allegation. not that he was there, that's an odd denial of something that no one is alleging. >> adrienne: you bring up such a great point because it is

true, we have not heard this from giuliani so far. we've heard trump time and time again on twitter, a national television, at rallies saying i didn't collude, there is no collusion, not you have an attorney who is going on cable news constantly saying by the way, collusion is not a crime. >> melissa: i think it has more to do with why are they investigating if it's not a crime? >> kennedy: i do think that is a legal strategy. a shift like that, there's something intentional going on and back to michael cohen, he only had three clients and maybe he foresaw this and this was his insurance policy to make sure if you are doing so many untoward acts on behalf of his very few clients. >> harris: but he was but getting paid, you don't have to be shady, you can just do your job. >> melissa: or if you're shady, you're shady. >> harris: we will cover the news as it happens. rudy giuliani also saying that the president's legal team is not yet in the final stages of negotiations with robert mueller. over whether the president will

sit down for an interview with a special counsel. here is giuliani earlier. >> are you still having negotiations with his team? >> not yet. >> those are yet not? >> we haven't heard anything, i don't know why. they can write a report without him, they do not need president trump's -- they have two aspects of this. collusion, they have his side of the story. even as russian meeting, i'm happy to tell them he wasn't there. >> harris: all this is new polling from "cbs news" shows many of the president's supporters have his back in the russian investigation was about 70% calling the russian investigation now the witch hunts. and this comes as the president goes on the attack on the special counsel again, it happened yesterday, he tweeted this. there is no collusion. the robert mueller rigged witch hunts headed now by 17 angry democrats was started by a fraudulent dossier paid for by

cricket hillary and the dnc. therefore, the witch hunt is an illegal scam. just real quickly, that number increased from 13 angry democrats including one obama white house attorney to now 17, just clarifying that. is robert mueller ever going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to president trump including the fact that we had a very nasty and contentious business relationship? i turned him down to head the fbi. one day before the appointment as special counsel. in our own chief white house correspondent john roberts says while there are still discussions on going, the president's legal team is now leaning toward not having the president sit down for an interview. i don't know that changes much. the facts are fresh. >> guy: will her wand has been the ongoing saga now for months. i feel like i've been sitting on his couch debating whether he will earn will not. >> harris: the president said it politically. i haven't heard in attorney say it's a great idea to sit down.

>> guy: will go out there and say i'd love to talk to him. every attorney has said do not do that so i would be very surprised of this interview were to happen. there's a lot to unpack there in the president's tweets, i'm confused about what this nasty conflict that he is alleging no now. at a golf club is something that we are hearing about. if the idea was that robert mueller was too biased to preside over this investigation because of golf club fees disputes from years ago, it's odd to bring that up now, the highlight that. >> melissa: we've heard that before but i'm really stuck on what you said before because now i heard really giuliani, it sticks out like a sore thumb. when he said it again, he wasn't at the meeting. so he's now saying that intentionally like that was a mistake, he sang it intentionally to different places, probably means he knew about the meeting other change changing the wording now. >> kennedy: is also talking about the parameters of collusion. that has been the basis of his

negotiation with mueller's team. we will talk about collusion, we will not talk about obstruction. if you remember, the 50 questions that were leaked to the potential he came from federal counsel, it was how did you feel when jeff sessions offered his resignation? how did you feel when you heard that george papadopoulos was drunk and very chatty with london business executives? >> harris: i just love to hear kennedy do this. >> kennedy: it seems like an amateur therapist talking you about your fees and not the president of the united states. >> guy: it was like a paraphrase. >> adrienne: it was not leaked from mueller, exactly. >> kennedy: it also wasn't refuted from mueller's team. >> harris: absolutely fair and true. we talk about his team not having any leaks. >> kennedy: he has come out. >> harris: she can't do the other 47 questions. i just kind of want to get an idea because we saw a lot of twitter activity from the

president, and we've heard from his attorneys, you pointed out twice on a monday already, so what does that tell us about what we know? >> >> melissa: it is very aggressive, mix if you like something is coming. >> harris: that's a rudy giuliani homework, that aggressive legal appetite. speak your thinking maybe this is a result of doing too many interviews too early in the morning or a little bit all over the place but it's consistently different now. >> adrienne: i think we're looking at two things here, number one looking at a president who feels like the laws of back are closing in. >> harris: that's from a democrat perspective. you seem to link this investigation is just going to end. >> adrienne: we will see. >> harris: he is also looking at the president's tweets which i've had legal professionals tell me that that length of the investigation but by all means, go right ahead. >> adrienne: i'm just saying

what i think could be happening, who knows? to the point you just made, mueller's team has not leaked anything and they have been radio silent. so first of all, from a democratic perspective, the president feel like the walls are closing in. secondly, he is also delivering red meat to his base to try to solidify their support has a go into the midterms. >> guy: there is a chance that this is a frantic effort from the president's team. the walls are closing in, they really scared. over this president loves brawling, getting out there defending himself, throwing punches or muddying the waters and getting walking over here and having exactly this conversation. >> adrienne: i don't think that's a smart move. >> harris: like i would've been just a few hours ago but there's no evidence of collusion. rudy giuliani and his comments have now gotten all of us to talk about even if there is, is not a crime which is completely different and that would be a shift if he wasn't just a thing.

>> kennedy: they also feel like the existence of the first place is just to undermine his election to the presidency. that's what this whole thing, that's what he so offended and so defensive because if there was some how russian interference to the point where it changed both and that's why he is president, that's very problematic for him, he feels to the core of his being that that is patently false. it feels like he is an illegitimate. >> harris: we are going to hear from the president coming up because we're going to hear his remarks from an expected meeting in the oval office from the prime minister of italy. when the prime minister arrived shortly, and we get the president's remarks, all of that be seen right here on fox news channel come out numbered. also, the border wall battle is heating up big time. president trump now is threatening a government shutdown in september if he does not get the funding he demands for the wall. whether this could backfire on

the president and congressional republicans or does this simply fire up the base? joe manchin said to be the first democrat senator to sit down with the president supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. this is this is senate minority leader chuck schumer works to block that nomination. how this could affect vulnerable democrats. ♪

you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

>> harris: breaking news is happening, italy's prime minister arriving at the white house. italy's prime minister giuseppe conte said to be perhaps the closest of allies in europe to support this president, but he is facing an interesting political ground where he is in italy, antiestablishment forces wanting things like closing the door to migrants and questioning the ground rules of italy's relationship with the european union and in favor of closer ties to russia. those two men now meeting inside the white house, will bring you the news on it as it goes. >> melissa: in the meantime, senator joe manchin from west virginia is scheduled to meet with supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh a short time from now, this will make him the first senate democrat to do so. joe manchin is facing a tough

election battle in a state that president won by a huge margin. the meeting comes a senate minority leader chuck schumer is reportedly pushing red state democrats to hold back any support for brett kavanaugh as long as possible. schumer is also calling for the release of cavanaugh's time in the white house where he worked his legal counsel and staff secretary. this morning, senate majority number said he will try to delay the process until that demand is met. watch. >> the question is what they're hiding, what are they concealin concealing. i will meet this with mark nominee and will certainly urge my colleagues to vote against him if we are denied those documents. >> melissa: in the meantime, senate republican is warning against an expedition saying they should request documents only relevant to who to who is potential supreme court service. i want to ask you about this. if so a bunch of these documents have to do with the time when he was staff secretary at the

white house. they say that job is somewhat called it a paper pusher, that's not quite what that is but they're saying that his job was to not about providing advice, that what it was about is making sure all the documents that were coming from different parts of the executive branch that were supposed to get in front of the president got in front of the president and he saw them and then it has nothing to do with his legal thinking. he didn't have any say over how the documents were constructed or what was in them, he was just responsible for getting them to the president. >> guy: they should strike an agreement about a reasonable document request from the bush administration era days but keep in mind, judge kavanaugh has sat on the d.c. circuit now for 12 years. that is the body of work that is most relevant to his nomination to the u.s. supreme court. i think it's interesting to see him as the first democrat to come in this guy has been a nominee for a month, the democrats are finally getting around to actually meet with him and he is in a very tough spot because there was a poll that came out that polled four red states that democrats currently

hold one senate seat in. three of them are up for reelection this year, in west virginia, his state by 25-point margin. the people of that state want to see him confirmed. in north dakota, which is where heidi heitkamp is running for reelection, it is plus 38 in favor of kavanaugh's confirmation and also a big double digit number in alabama and indiana as well. there was going to be immense pressure brought to bear on these red state democrats from the republican party, from their opponents, and meanwhile chuck schumer is over here saying please give us time for a fishing expedition, they have nothing, let's be honest. and if they want to find something to hang their hat on and they're asking these red state democrats to march along with schumer and company to give them that the lang. >> harris: are not just asking them, look at dick durbin, look at some of the other democrats. they are saying will fall on your sword for the cause. what is the cause exactly when you have opportunity, you're looking at a nominee that has

300 opinions that you could read through. let's say you do get all those documents, i don't know if you can read it all by october 1st bill is not protest too much because i don't think anybody read all of that health care legislation. but you look at these things and democrats have an opportunity to get on the record and meet with him and ask all the questions. it's money, it's dirty. in >> adrienne: first of all, i think everything a united states senator regardless of party affiliation said meet with him. but of course, democrats and the public and should be doing the same thing. we want as much information as we can get on him, that includes his emails and documents from his time in the bush administration. when elena kagan was going through her supreme court nomination, the tables were turned and republicans sought as much information on her. >> harris: they met with her, was of the situation where a month and we are waiting for one i'm a >> guy: her position was solicitor general which is popular for the u.s. government

who argues for the supreme cour. the job was specifically related to working the supreme court. >> adrienne: you should certainly make the argument that his time is very applicable. >> harris: i think others are making that argument which is directly why they went to george w. bush to find out if he would release the paperwork that they are looking for. >> melissa: it seems like a ridiculous question with the staff secretary. that stuff has nothing to do with his legal perspective. it was about getting papers together. >> adrienne: that's assistant to the president. speak to them he asked kennedy, is it suicide for these democrats when you hear the numbers back i if they vote against kavanaugh? is it automatic suicide or just one issue for them? >> kennedy: they have to think are they really representing their state? is so frustrating when we have these conversations because they are so far from the focus of what these meetings should be which is the united states constitution. it is the judicial branch, it is

holding the other two branches accountable, and asking some of those major philosophical questions which i have the opportunity to do. stay when we got breaking news right now, and we've been talking about the attorney for the president of the united states, rudy giuliani. and he is now on the telephone with us. mr. giuliani, you're with us? >> how are you? >> harris: i'm doing fantastic and i know you have your hands full with a whole lot and i went to get right to the questions if i can. do you want to first on earth with the statement because we certainly want to talk about what's happening this morning so take it away. >> let's begin and with that someone said today there is no collusion and therefore that collusion also is no crime, i've been saying that very beginning, it's a very familiar lawyer's argument that the alternative, my client didn't do it and even if he did it, it's not a crime.

and i have said that over and over. collusion is not a crime. the only crime is hacking and is ridiculous to think of the president hacked. why do i say that? i say that to attack the legitimacy of the investigation because it has become crystal clear this investigation that began with peter strzok has been continued as an illegitimate investigation and someday, we may have to prove it is. second thing that i wanted to correct, said why would we attack cohen, he can do terrible things. he could not do terrible things. we are fully confident that he has no evidence that would indicate the president. we have listen to three unique conversations which are all the ones that i would like them to be out of the public to hear them, but i can't do that. i can only respond to the ones that they leak out every time we do, we prove our case that the president did nothing wrong and when i said to him with a decent man, i had no reason not to think he was. all of a sudden, i find out the

man is taking his client, he is lying to him and hiding tapes, that he had lied and that i find out from listening to these tapes a lot of other things we don't know yet. but i think i've got a scandal on my hands. and of course, i'm not going to have my client attacked by a scoundrel. >> harris: i want to unpack that a little bit. first of all, let's start off with a collusion because what you said was he wanted to correct yourself and what we had you in two interviews today saying what appeared to be a shift was that you said collusion would not be a crime. but what you're now correcting for the record as i understand, is that you have said all along that there was a, no collusion and then b of their work collusion, it would not be a crime. is that correct? stay back there may be some sentences and that 40 minute interview that i didn't say both at the same time. it's similar. we say the flint conversation never took place with comey but

if it did take place, you can ask a prosecutor to go easy on somebody. >> harris: so we got that one point, he went on to a couple of others but i want to skip ahead to something else which seemed also like a shift today. and that was the tower, the trump tower meeting with the russian officials who were here to meet with donald junior, donald trump jr. and others from the trump campaign. in that meeting at trump tower there, it has been a question because of michael cohen now saying that he was willing to go on the record with russia investigation had robert mueller to save the president knew that meeting was going to take place. what we heard you say today was the president was not at that meeting. that actually takes on a question that has not been asked or even suggested. so why did you say that? >> because there were two different meetings, one of which has big doubt and the other one who has given the three reporters, beating up excellent

take you through it. the day of the meeting with the russians, cohen has said, he liked it so we are not even sure he said it. somebody set up for him the reporter. he said that he was in president trump's office in donald trump walked in, that is categorically untrue. didn't happen, two witnesses demonstrate that. he has talked about this endlessly on those 193 unique recordings and he never mentions it at all. he would have it had anything to do with anything. the reason he is saying it's one of the few things he can lie about where the tapes don't contradict, but the testimony of other people does. second, there was another meeting that has been leaked that hasn't been published yet. that was an alleged meeting three days before according to

be 13 or according to the leak, maybe cohen will withdraw this, i don't know. they haven't pursued it. and two publications are not going to publish it. i think they found independent contradiction. he says it was a meeting with donald, jr., with jared kushner, with paul manafort, possibly to others. in which they out of the presence of the president discussed the meeting with the russian. we checked with their lawyers, the ones we could check with, that meeting never took place, it didn't happen. it's a figment of his imagination or he's lying. the only meeting that they find for that day that included any of these people is a meeting about the hispanic judge that the president had criticized back around that time. so that hopefully set the record straight. >> harris: let me just ask it this way. to you now told us about two

meetings, there was one that the public knows about, which when you talk about a meeting and you say the president wasn't there, that's the one that everybody would assume that we are on the same page about what you're saying now is that there was another meeting that was leaked that has not been made public and i would assume until now, really described by you in detail that have been three days prior that had done, jr., jared kushner, paul manafort, gates, and possibly to others and thus the meeting that michael cohen says the president knew about the head of time, but you say the president was not there. >> but i don't know. all i have are two reports telling me cohen told him there was a meeting three days before with a group of people that i said that they discussed it and that the president was not there. he didn't say the president knew about it. i am telling you the meeting didn't take place, never happened, he had to handle it himself.

second, there's another leak, this one is out, and this one, he says he was in donald trump's office when donald trump jr. walked in and told him about a russian meeting that was about to start. that is also not true. >> melissa: this is melissa francis and i just want to jump in. i don't think any of that really addresses the question of why he would say he wasn't at the meeting? why are you saying that the president wasn't at the meeting? i understand those two meetings that you just set out there, but that doesn't explain why you're saying. who asked if he was there? no when asked if he was there. >> he is alleging the meeting took place and we are making it clear that the president was not at that meeting. cohen doesn't even allege that the cut it off. two alleged meetings, first meeting, a group people, not the

president, that group of people says the meeting didn't take place, who alleged it is cohen and secondly, president's office, in walks donald trump jr., says let me meet with the russian, never took place, didn't happen. >> melissa: neither of them happen, is different to say that meeting didn't happen to say it didn't happen but to say he wasn't there implies that it happened and he wasn't there. >> is alleged by a liar. as alleged by cohen. >> harris: they understand that. i went to get to this, mr. giuliani just so that everybody is on the same page. there was a meeting that witnesses saw. it wasn't really secret, they walked into trump tower, people went into that meeting. what do you say today about that meeting that we know of and don jr. was at that meeting, this is the first one, not the second, what is your latest take on that as you get ready

potentially to decide whether the president will sit down with robert mueller separate from anything? i just want to get you back on the record about that meeting. >> that meeting that did take place, they did in take place anywhere near that. that meeting that we are talking about with the russian woman and the other russian did take place, it's been described already by donald, jr., it's been described by i think jared, i'm not sure. but they came, they were supposedly going to be some bad information about hillary clinton, didn't have any, the meeting was over and it was never followed up. in the president didn't know about that meeting beforehand. >> harris: and that's the one that people really key in on and you've given us some information about things that are not in the bloodstream of america yet and now they are. and as we learn more, we have kai benson who was with us today and he has a couple of follow-ups if you can hang on for just one second.

>> guy: thank you so much for calling in. i just want to make this crystal clear for the audience because there are so many meetings, it's hard for all of us to keep track of. so the questions are very simple, number one, regardless of whether or not collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion with the russians whatsoever on behalf of the trump campaign? >> correct. >> guy: second question is, of that meeting that we knew about at trump tower with the russians and high-level people within the trump world, the trump campaign at the time, you were saying again for the record that the presidential nominee, donald trump at the time did not know about the existence of that meeting prior to it occurring. >> i'm glad you asked that a very, very clear, yes. let me make one slight amendment when i say the trump campaign, i mean the upper levels of the trump campaign. they have no reason to believe anybody else did. the only people i checked with of the top four or five people.

>> harris: kennedy is here too, she wants to get in the question but before we go there, want to follow up with something that you said because you said one of the meetings that may not have happened according to michael cohen had donald, jr., jared kushner, paul manafort, these would've been the upper people in the trump campaign that you're talking about in your amendments here. >> correct. >> kennedy: mayor giuliani. >> they have all denied it. >> kennedy: i want to ask you more broad question because we have heard some of the parameters that you have laid out for the president sitting down in an interview with special counsel. what does a special counsel want from you? what are some of the guidelines that they have given you a? what are they requesting from you from the president? >> i can't go into all the details. number one because he want to keep it as privileged, not privileged or confidential as possible. second, the keep changing.

it keeps changing. the central parameters of it are we believe they are not entitled to ask any questions about obstruction because obstruction is could not have happened. under article two of the constitution. the president had a right to fire comey, he's got ten good reasons, he can't go try to construct another good reason another trying to do it by looking at tweets. i've never heard of obstruction by tweets. if they want to talk about collusion, which as i told you, we are very clear on. we might allow some questions about that. we didn't think they were trying to trap them. and that's what we have been negotiating. if there's some area where we can agree, it would be helpful to them and we wouldn't feel like being trapped. >> harris: mr. giuliani come at this point, we do have a democrat cast on our cash today, adrienne elrod, worked very closely with a hillary clinton

camp and one of the things that we have learned via adrian and other democrats is that there is this thought that we might be coming more to a close with the investigation that mueller has. knowing what you know, and we don't know all of what he has, are you now a "yes" or "no" on a sit down between the president and robert mueller? >> two things, no want to sit down until we get ironed out exactly what they want to do. and then the process is, we have five cocounsel, senior people, we will advise the president, he decides. and he's always leaned in favor of doing it. be when what you're telling him about that? what advice are you giving him? >> right now, i'm telling him no way. the five as a politician or as a lawyer? >> as a lawyer. i can be a politician, it's too confusing if you try to be both. and that was a very good question because there's a whole

political when you represent and the president, you're not as representing and there's a whole political aspect of this, however, i do think the political climate has changed a bit and i think people will understand much better now and maybe one of the reasons we reemphasize the point about the legitimacy of the investigation is we want to show that maybe he shouldn't be testifying at an investigation that has been no legitimacy. so i agree with the woman you mentioned, that i have the sense that he is near the end, i don't know that. he hasn't said that. he did say one thing that i can sort of support that with him at two months ago, back before all of this stuff happened, he was aiming at beginning of september at the time to get the report, he never said it, but i thought he was thinking of the november election. >> harris: interesting. to grow quickly, can i just do a

fastball up, you say that you think the political climate has changed in terms of what's "happening now" with the president, how so and why? >> i think going back, rewind, you didn't have the raid on the 13, he didn't have the horwitz report, the beating up on the legitimacy of the hillary clinton investigation and also the beginnings of the counterintelligence investigation against the trump campaign. because he's never been a subject of that. but i'm not sure i know what that means. the way that they define it. and it seems to me that we are at a natural ending point now and i hope it happens because ultimately, remember, he can indict. >> harris: he said he wouldn't. he said he would in any way. >> he did, you're right. that means he writes a report,

he's got plenty to write a report. >> melissa: can i ask you quickly? this is melissa francis again. i just want to clarify, you're talking about a second meeting that you say was going to possibly come out in the media, but it didn't happen, so now it is not going to surface as a meeting and it didn't happen. and that's one one where you d. walked into president trump's office? >> so the public record contains a leak by cohen that he was present at a meeting in which donald junior came in and informed the president, we deny that happen, we say didn't happen and if it had happened, it would've been mention a long time ago on the various outlets of tapes that we have. the second meeting was brought to my attention from jay sekulow, both of us out with it with two different reporters,

essentially the same information about at this meeting that took place three days early with a whole group of people, everyone of those people said it didn't happen and why did i mention it? because first of all, i thought it was going to come out, second, my experiences that when you have something like this floating around, it comes out. i don't want to come out and be unreported when it originally comes out. if it's part of what we are trying to do, the jury for this case of the american public. the congress, yes, the congress is a creature public opinion and how it's being shifted. 22% net for the president. meaning disapproval of his investigation has gone up, some polls have it over 50%, used to be down to 37 or 38, and in the president's division has shifted by about an equal number including his approval rating. so it seems to me there be more

understanding why you might not just run in their and testify. also, all of you put on so many lawyer and say we would be out of our minds of it but the president up for questioning come of it has to affect the public. i tell the president if we make you testify, we are going to get disbarred. >> harris: it's interesting what you say and people may watch this and wonder okay, so they're getting there influence from fox news or other media, but the actual truth of the matter is there a lot of people both sides of whatever political idol that you might drop to say in a legal profession separating out the politics should be crazy to put your client into a situation when you know that he is not economic with his words. and it might get a little dicey and who would do that with your client? so if you have separated the two hats that you wear because you were formally a politician. i want to go back grow quickly just to something that you said.

>> of euros and a doctor coming after be able to represent the doctor. he can't pretend you're not. and also, if you are not the president, the advice would be clear, he would not be testifying as normally as you know, defendants don't testify in grand jury's for the prosecutor. they got to make up their minds without that. >> harris: just going back to something you just said post to melissa's question, why do you feel is necessary to get on the record with things that haven't been asked yet? or that are not public yet? what is coming? >> when i thought it was going to be published, i wanted to get out in front of it. and the reality is that i can't comment on the dates and less for the situation unless we are attacked, we are not allowed to do that so we were being attacked and i would actually my life would be a lot easier if everyone of of those tapes was out there.

if you had all the transcripts. but i can't do it. >> harris: can i get this straight though? the reporting this morning is that there's only one reporting but the president's voice on it yet you talk about it and i wrote it down, 183 tapes or recordings. what is on those that would be so different if they don't contain the president and even if you don't name names and you probably can't, it's a big question. >> it is, but it's easy to answer. there are only 12 recordings of any substance, 11 of them. the others are coming back, see you later, the president of this today, the president did that today. some of them have little substance to them but nothing harmful. but them aside, there are 12 we would think of as conversations, one of them only when i could mention. because it has come out publicl publicly. what is the recording of cohen and the president.

what is the recording of ♪ ♪ and the president. the other ten or with other mostly reporters, i think the others, might be some media executives. >> harris: who was recording these things? >> the scoundrel. >> harris: i just want to get this straight, i want to try to understand. of these recordings and we are assuming that some of them, it's not old-school as kennedy has said, nobody has cassette tapes anymore. so these are really recordings and they are probably on a digital device like our phones i'm assuming, but i think i'm probably pretty right. you have prints promo with the president for two hours. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> melissa: to the president of that was being recorded? >> harris: chris comeau and

cohen? and the state of new york, we put that as legal? >> yes, legal. >> harris: and then another tape with cuomo and the president, how long would you say for that one? >> cohen in the president, was a 3 minutes. >> harris: then he said the other ten or so or what? >> similar conversations to the one between cohen and colombo. different reporters, all being deceived about being taped clearly, you can hear it. in a few cases hot, he goes through a major centrifuge which is he takes his phone and he puts it in a drawer and says i'm not recording this, he must have another phone with which he was recording it. >> harris: 's you can hear him saying after what you called subterfuge, i'm going to stop this one and put in a drawer. a couple of these he makes a big deal about it.

>> harris: is a lot of information. >> the one that would be a real problem for him aside from credibility problems with the others is the one with his client. the one with president trump. >> kennedy: who leaks the tape to cnn? >> the first one was leaked at the time to michael schmidt, they went on the restaurant, record and said it was in us. it is turn them over to us. they didn't get until a day later. >> melissa: does chris palma know about this? >> he knows everything about it, he reported on it. i'm not sure he's ever really -- he was an off the record conversation which is kind of silly now because it's off the record recorded in link to the public. you have to ask him about it. they would grow quickly before we let you go, is there any legal recourse that you take on

an off the record surreptitious recording? i understand how the laws work here in new york, there are exceptions to the laws, what are you looking at? >> the ones without the president have no legal implications and they have ethical implications, just for human relationships. the one with the president is a real problem because he's the president's lawyer. and it's another subject discussed that's clearly attorney-client privilege, the one we are talking about is attorney-client privileged and has to lead to some kind of disbarment proceedings, i'm sur sure. >> harris: that is when it is not public yet, that other subject. >> although somebody is actually mentioned it, it's not worth it. >> harris: rudy giuliani, the personal attorney for the united states president, we appreciate you calling in and thank you very much for taking all of our questions. >> also want to understand the

confusion and is going to get more confusing when his other tape start coming out but eventually, when you put them altogether, it's going to mean the president did nothing wrong. >> harris: got it, you've given us some of that information about things that are in the bloodstream yet and some that are not. appreciate your time. thank you. >> very good, thank you. >> harris: guy benson, your notebook is full. >> guy: first of all, can we talk about how extraordinary it is that he called in to the show live after watching her for segment? >> harris: we can talk about how extraordinary that is because he wanted to get on the record, you and i were talking about the fact that twice already today, he has said if there was collusion, that it wasn't a crime, and he wanted to get in and i were to town, he wanted to correct the record because he said it several times, maybe root was captured and didn't get captured were he actually said there is no evidence of collusion, but if there were it would not be illegal. >> guy: i just wanted to make sure which as i lie at the very blunt question, are you still saying there was absolutely no collusion and yes, the distiller

position. i would be curious if we had five more minutes with him to ask how he would define collusion, but at least that position appears to be unchanged where is this morning, it looked like the goalposts were shifting and also, on the second part of it, the second meeting, he said trump wasn't at the meeting and we are all sitting here thinking why are you saying that, we know he wasn't at the meeting, no one says he was and now we have learned of a second meeting that apparently has been alleged is about to come out but doesn't exist? >> harris: hence why he answered a question that has been asked yet. we're like why is he telling us? >> guy: it still didn't quite make sense. >> melissa: if the meeting didn't happen, why did you say he was an addict? >> guy: would say didn't happen. >> kennedy: was not in studio 54 with abraham lincoln. >> harris: what i thought was critical here and i called you up because i wanted him to know that we had someone here to and

opened up the possibility for you to ask question as well. but i thought this was really important. i said why do you think the political climate has changed for the president such that you would consider doing anything differently in his legal representation? he said that rewind three months, the rate on michael cohen, the ig report from horwitz which seemed to beat up on hillary clinton and her campaign, and it feels like a natural ending. i come to you on that because if you have raised the point that it also sort of seem like a natural ending for the russian investigation by bob mueller. >> adrienne: he is interviewed so many witnesses that would make one conclude that we are coming to an end. i want to talk with her quickly because i know we don't have much time left but these tapes that he is talking about, the additional tapes that are coming forward is something that is another issue. >> harris: he said out of the 183 or so that were on point with the issues at hand legally.

>> guy: the subterfuge part was really interesting. that he would go for a whole show. >> harris: fascinating hour of television here on out numbered, we will be back, stay close. ♪ when i touch you like this

♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's.

>> all right. guy benson is here with us and the rest of the couch. still a little stunned. >> we're all processing. >> we are. guy, what is your take away from

that long conversation with the former mayor? >> the president's team saw there were issues with what rudy said on tv this morning and had him call it in and we hashed it out. >> you think those issues were rectified? >> somewhat. here's harris. >> i'm going to ask her question but we're going to move on. the big news that news on "outnumbered." up trump ramped up his attacks on robert mueller and what appears to be his harshest criticism yet. we just heard from rudy guliani. fresh information to go through now, this is "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. the president ripped robert mueller claiming he has numerous conflicts of interest including what he describe as the very nasty business relationship.