. >> joining me now allen dershowitz, also chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. the fact that the president said there's november questions about collusion in the leaked questions, that is blatantly false, isn't it? there are at least a dozen questions in there. >> it is not just blatantly false about the questions because as you have pointed out several times, there are many questions in the mueller list that deal with collusion. but the fact that the president keeps saying over and over again, there was no collusion, there was no collusion, that has not been established and in fact there is lots of evidence that collusion did take place. you know, starting with the infamous meeting in trump tower where donald trump jr. sought to get dirt on hillary clinton from the russian government. that is collusion right there and that is just the beginning. and i think patience is not a virtue that we all have, but this is an investigation about collusion. there is already some evidence of collusion and we will see if mueller finds more. >> but the key is to distinguish be

our two next guests, jeffre toobin and professor allen dershowitz. flood for him to be at this meeting yesterday? >> well if i am a defense lawyer i try to be at any meeting i am not kicked out of. their job of the defense lawyer is to find out anything he can in whatever way he can as long as it is legal and ethical and the other side is prepared to let him listen. if there is anyone to blame it is the people who let him into the meeting. >> rudy giuliani assumes that flood was in the meeting because the president wanted him to be. does this give the appearance that the white house is trying to abuse their authority. >> i don't know about abuse their authority, but this whole enterprise, this fake controversy about a spy is about one thing, it is about discrediting the mueller investigation. and potentially leading to his firing. it has nothing to do with civil liberties or with fairness. it is a splittpolitical attack mueller that flood was trying to gather information, in a way that traditionally has not been allowed. and that is the moment we are

i know alan dershowitz, giuliani said, he's no allen dershowitz.s attack comes hours after avenatti tweeted this warning, quote, let this serve as formal notice, there is significantly more evidence and facts to come relating to mr. cohen's dealings and mr. trump's knowledge and involvement. you can come clean now or wait to be outed, your choice, we have only just begun. some of that information may be coming to light. the "wall street journal" reports michael cohen made aboverture to provide consulting services to ford motor company in january of 2017 but was rebuffed. the "journal" reports special counsel robert mueller has taken an interest in cohen's approach, mr. mueller's team requested information from ford about the outreach including e-mails and records and interviewed ford's head of government affairs, ziad ojakli, people familiar with the matter said. and the daily beast is reporting at&t met with another group of the president's allies around the time it hired michael cohen. the company spoke with the washington lobbying firm avenue st

you see allen dershowitz on cable questioning the probe.ing today to discredit the origin of the probe. so it's not always totally coordinated. but now it's all of these voices, almost every day. trying to raise questions about the probe now. but also the origins of it. and the why it matters. the why it matters, is that the more you have this and the more successful it is, and polls show with republicans it is pretty successful, where you have a lot of republicans saying this investigation should end and that the president is not guilty enough to be impeached. that gives the president more and more leverage. because at the end of the day, this is both a legal debate, but it is also a political debate. because it's a house of representatives, that's controlled by republicans that would decide impeachment. and it's the senate which is controlled by republicans that would decide removal. so we should pay attention to this campaign. >> so besides it just being kind of a public chorus and solidifying that republican base, this is actually produ

think when you talk about an obstruction of justice charge, there are people that would say, allen dershowitz being one of them, that the president has executive authority under the article 2, his powers under article 2 to really see fit to really say what he wants to say in terms of how he thinks things should be going. therefore the firing of james comey cannot be obstruction of justice. now others say if that firing was for a corrupt intent for the purpose of undermining an investigation, well then that certainly could be an obstruction of justice. we're in uncharted legal territory here. there really hasn't been a testing all the way up to the supreme court which is why when you look at this question of giuliani asking whether or not a sitting president can be subpoenaed, that hasn't been taken up to the supreme court either. so we're in sort of a whole new world here in terms of the president's authority. >> jamil, you were talking about the fears that you have of the unmasking of this individual. help me understand what the ramifications of that would be in the case of this individual,

i had allen dershowitz on earlier today he usually is a big defender of the president is his actions. even said that this is a meeting that the president probably shouldn't have without his lawyer present if the president is going to go off script and talk about anything other than what it was initially said the meeting was going to talk about, what was not this investigation. >> so i'm -- i mean -- i found disturbing the president's -- the white house's statement after the meeting in which, you know, on the one hand, the president does seem to have backed down from his threats yesterday by tweet to demand an investigation. and rod rosenstein and chris wray appear to have persuaded him what they did yesterday which was to refer to matter to the department of justice inspector general. on the other hand, however, the president does seem to have gotten in that second half of that statement the deputy attorney general and the head of the fbi to agree to, under certain controlled circumstances share those highly sensitive materials that they have been balking at sharing with congressional

. >> allen dershowitz, thank you for your time. >>> the white house has now just sent a statement. we've received. they confirmed emmitt flood is in as the president's attorney and that ty cobb is retiring. again, confirmation coming now from the white house on this. . more on this story we are following breaking news here. next, the president's former doctor tells all. an exclusive interview with nbc news. he claims then-candidate trump wrote his own bill of health. this as trump seized on hillary clinton's fall during the 2016 campaign for his own gain. we'll talk about that next.ir ds) ds) this is not a cloud. this is a car protected from storms by an insurance company that knows the weather down to the square block. this is a diamond tracked on a blockchain - protected against fraud, theft and trafficking. this is a financial transaction secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a patient's medical history made secure - while still available to their doctor at their fingertips. this is an asteroid live-streamed to millions of viewers from 220 miles above earth. th

. >> bill: allen dershowitz said they're softball question.s to have a follow-up by a lawyer or prosecutor standing nearby to hit you with a fastball. is that the way it works? >> yeah, that is the way it works when you are trying to get somebody. we had a judge in new york said you can indict a ham sandwich if you want to. the question is how intense it will be. are they being honest about it? again, i've been through so many hearings and interviews and gone through so many documents i've seen no evidence of collusion. i've seen no evidence of obstruction of justice. to me the president has very plausible and honest answers to each of those questions but again if you are trying to find some contradiction somewhere you can do it to anyone. >> bill: no obstruction and no collusion. what about the question of paul manafort and ties to russia? judge napolitano seems to think it tells us something. does it tell you something or not? >> i'm not aware of that. i have seen no indication that russia got involved at all or anything manafort did or trie

abby: allen dershowitz. he said this is not about politics.ing on here and the stretch, he said we should all be concerned because this could happen to any one of us talking about paul manafort and others involved. here's what he said. >> what they are doing to these people, like manafort and flynn and cohen could happen to any of us. if we happen to be collateral damage. if you know somebody who they are going after, they are going to find something on you. they are going to squeeze you. this is something that has plagued the american justice system for many decades. they do it to get the mafia. maybe it's understandable. if they do it to get terrorists, it's understandable. to do it to get an elected president of the united states, to use that mafia terrorist tactic of squeezing people and making them testify and making them sing and making them compose endangering the civil liberties of all americans. pete: judge's larger point was what was paul manafort's bigger sin in the eyes of mueller he was trump's campaign manager. that was the sin.