>> well, there are, if it's results what dershowitz was talking about. there was an initiative on behalf of the trump administration or campaign to try to facilitate the illegal activity like hacking, like trying to actually attach to a criminal statute. any prudent and diligent prosecutor or investigator knows there will be dozens if not hundreds of rabbit holes to pursue. robert mueller is no means an elmer fudd in this scenario. there may be some dead ends but there will be some indication to figure out, listen, who did what, why and to what game and was there a criminal connection? right now we want to have the answers immediately and a litany of whys that we all have lead us to only one conclusion. we need an investigation. why? because there's a lot of unanswered questions. if what has happened in this case is that the trump campaign was the passive recipient of information of disinformation and just acquiesced the distribution of it, you don't have the kind of crime we've been talking about. if, however, they are in the driver's seat and trying to

dershowitz joins us next to mr.itz joins us next to explain how thattttt you won't see these folks at the post office. mr. dershowitz joins us next to explain how thattttt they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. >> tucker: democrats like congresswoman maxine waters have hailed the appointment of a special counsel to investigate donald trump's presidential campaign saying it's the latest step toward his inevitable impeachment. but one of the country's top lawyers is not convince me harvard law professor alan dershowitz says the council could been the -- vindicate trump then lead his downfall. >> read the statute. i don't want us to become what stalinist russia became when stalin was told "show me the man, i will find you

laura coates, professor allen dershowitz, and steve hall. dana, first what do you make of this bombshell report in the "the washington post"? >> look, first it's hard for us to wrap our heads around it. how many times have we said that in the news cycles we're living with these days? but there's a lot of reporting here and a lot of unanswered questions. the biggest question is why would jared kushner make such a naive request to do something like ask the russians to see if he can use their communications to have a back channel? it doesn't make sense on its face. having said that, this meeting supposedly happened at the beginning of december. this was a campaign that frankly thought it would be disbanded and would go back to their businesses and were suddenly a transition into the presidency of the united states, and they were trying to get their sea legs. is jared kushner wanted to be and became the guy who his father-in-law, slash president-elect will rely on. look, "the post" suggested this. this was brand new and he did something really,

dershowitz joins us next to explain how that might happen.ndup for lawns has arrived to put unwelcome lawn weeds to rest. so draw the line. roundup for lawns is formulated to kill lawn weeds to the root without harming a single blade of grass. draw the line with roundup for lawns. >> tucker: democrats like congresswoman maxine waters have hailed the appointment of a special counsel to investigate donald trump's presidential campaign saying it's the latest step toward his inevitable impeachment. but one of the country's top lawyers is not convince me harvard law professor alan dershowitz says the council could been the -- vindicate trump then lead his downfall. >> read the statute. i don't want us to become what stalinist russia became when stalin was told "show me the man, i will find you the crime." what is the crime? >> tucker: mr. dershowitz joins us for a professor, i was struck with this. i didn't think he was a big trump supporter. >> i'm not. >> tucker: i know that. you asked the question nobody has asked, "what is the crime to which t

to dershowitz's supposition.as the attempted kiss by the president of james comey back whenever it was t"the godfather kiss? what do you think? is that what that was? >> that is the question. we will know. just before we get to -- you know, how much drama ahead, let's see what the memo says. >> we have to get it. i have a prediction. there are no tapes. if there were tapes, the white house would not create a credibility contest with comey because they will lose that one. they were assertive saying it didn't happen because they know there are no tapes. >> gentlemen, i appreciate it. alisyn. >>> lawmakers on both sides of the aisle demanding answers over the comey memo. one gop leader says he wants to see it and he has his subpoena pen ready. a little report from capitol hill next. every truck guy has their own way of conveying powerful. yeeaaahhh boy. kind of looks like a monster coming to eat ya. holy smokes. that is awesome. strong. you got the basic, and you got the beefy. i just think it looks mean. incredible

professor dershowitz joins us. i don't think you are a bigtrum.mp supporter. >> tuc not. >> tucker: you asked a qkeur:e w you asked that nobody has asked. what is the crime to which thiso special counsel is responding. s what is the answer?ding"? >> well first i'm here not as at supporter of donald trump. as i voted for hillary clinton verr proudly. i'm here as a supporter of civir liberties and construing statute s narrowly as they werei jt written. see i don't see a crime her ae. i see perhaps political wrongwr. i see le doing, leaking information oaknr both sides. on but even if, for example, thee campaign campaign coordinated, which there is no evidence of, but coordinated activities with but coordinated russia and even with russia and the campaign said wouldn't it be wo't it better if trump were elected? that's political wrong doing bus not a crime.rime. nobody can point me to a statuta that would be violated. the prosecutor is only athlatlod a lo look for evidence of aowed to federal crime. and the reason i think trump may the benefit from t

jeffrey toobin joins us, kirsten powers, paul begala, allen de dershowitz and john kirby.dmiral, how big of a deal is it for the attorney general not to have included the russians and others? if it was just the russians, i would see that being a bigger problem than the idea of him just not including anyone, thinking according to him that he didn't have to. >> i agree with you on that. in the context of everything that was going on over the course of the summer and through the election season, to not list them, to not put them on there, i do think that's significant. i think that was a mistake, he should have put them on there. that said, and you probably just saw the justice department just put out a statement saying that he specifically was advised not only by his own staff, but by the fbi investigator that was doing this -- helping him fill out this form that he didn't need to list every contact he had in the business of being a senator. i also don't think there was any maliciousness here or intent to conceal. i think the staff was just trying to churn through a very cum

with us, alan dershowitz, law scholar, harvard law school. i keep saying that. what to do with this, i want to find out, if you were president of the united states, would you have fired comey? if so why, and when? >> i would have fired him, but i would have fired him on day one. i wouldn't have waited until we learned that there was an investigation of people close to him. comey disqualified himself from serving as head of the fbi. he lost his credibility both with democrats and republicans. both were being very selective in their criticism, you know. if you hurt me, i criticize you, if you hurt me, i praise you. there is enough hypocrisyo go around on this one. he lost his credibility and he should have resigned. i called for his resignation months ago on the campaign. >> should president obama have fired him, if so, when? >> yes, he probably should have fired him. probably right after the election during his lame duck period, it would have been a perfect time to do that. but he didn't. and, so, the president trump was faced with a very difficult situation. his

joining me now is alan dershowitz, laura coates and gloria borger. you had said i think last week that the president should lawyer up, should get an attorney, outside counsel. he's expected to hire his long tooi -time attorney to represent him on matters related to russia. how significant is that? >> well, i think every person who is possibly under investigation ought to have their own independent counsel, and he's picked a good lawyer. i know the firm. i'm actually working with the firm now on another matter, an unrelated matter. and they're an excellent, excellent law firm. there are two kinds of lawyers you need. for the individual cases you need your own personal lawyer. and then the white house counsel can provide aid and assistance on matters relating to the government and the white house. now, flynn particularly needs a lawyer because of course his documents have been subpoenaed. he pleaded the fifth amendment. but the government can get around the fifth amendment by giving him what's called production immunity. let me just explain that. let's

and harvard law professor allen dershowitz. jim i know your communication devices have been blown up with people you've been talking to what's the reaction you're getting. >> the reaction is exasperation and dep deep concern. on a number of levels. one here because it's classified information. that's obvious. two, that the russians were the ones to receive the classified information. a prime adversary in the view of the u.s. intelligence community today. three, that it appears to relate to a sensitive intelligence sharing relationship which is very difficult to build over time there are countries you share bell with as a matter of i inss uk, france, et cetera that's natural. there are others that you don't want public because of the nature of those relationships. that country doesn't want it public that it's sharing this sensitive information with the u.s. those three things make this particularly serious. a former senior u.s. intelligence official described it to me this which. i have never before seen a senior government offi

liz: harvard law professor alan dershowitz. good to see ualan. >> good to see you, thank you for having me on. liz: what evidence do you see of collusion? do you see anything? >> first of all, i don't see evidence of collusion. if there was major collusion, it's not a crime. hypothetically, if the administration or the candidate got together with the russians and said please help me become president, do whatever canou to help me, that wouldn't be a crime, it would be terrible politically but wouldn't be a crime. liz: why? >> that's why i think the appointment of special counsel is more window dressing than anything else. he has very limited jurisdiction. he can only look at crimes and the most serious allegations that have been made have nothing to do with criminal conduct. collusion with the russian says not criminal. leaking information to the russians that may have hurt the security of one of our allies, intelligence services, that's not a crime. firing the director of the fbi, that's not a crime. liz: wait, alan, hang on. t

. >> well, let me agree with alan dershowi dershowitz. what matters are actions.an israeli government that since december when the united nations pass ad resolution, 14 votes to 0 asking israelis to hold back from settlements, saying they are the number one problem to achieving the two state solution, cynic then they've announced five and a half more housing units, they've announced building the new settlement. they retroactively legalized 4,000 settlement that's were on palestinian land. so this is an israeli government which is composed of minute sisters who say they don't believe in it and which takes action on the ground that makes it impossible. >> let's remember when the u.n. passed this obnoxious resolution, 14-0 and dead wrong. how many years did it takes before christians stopped accusing jews of using the blood of christians. so just because it is 14-0 doesn't make it right. an obnoxious resolution. it said the western wall was occupied territory. israel hasn't built one single new settlement. and finally when they had to issue of the settlement, they bu

alan dershowitz didn't say he didn't do it.we need to find out the extent of what he said. >> but right now there is no evidence from what we've seen in regards to any obstruction. i think the thing i'm excited about is comey is going to have an open hearing. i want to see him in the open. i want to have the conversation. but the thing about any impediment, any attempts, you had comey under oath may 3rd, you had acting director mccabe under oath. there have been no attempt to impede. >> that's not true. after comey testified, that's when we went to the directors of national intelligence trying to get them to make a statement. comey testified and two weeks later he's going to the directors of national intelligence that testified yesterday and said donald trump asked us to say that there was no collusion publicly. >> so under oath or what he just said? there's a problem with that. >> i'm talking about the time line of what donald trump did mop what director comey did. he testified and said there was an investigation and then trum

>> alan dershowitz is wrong, and a smarter person, lawrence tribe, disagrees with him. i disagree with alan because congress has a full right to review the actions. we get to decide what constitutes a high crime, and the president commits obstruction of justice, that could certainly fit what constitutes a high crime. >> impeachment against bill clinton was a political disaster for republicans back in the '90s. clinton's poll numbers went sky high. a lot of americans thought there was a possible gop vendetta against him. congressman, do you worry by going down this path of impeachment possibly and the idea that we're discussing here, might it have a similar effect on your democratic party? the opposite of what you would hope? >> i think a better comparison would be richard nixon. the first article of impeachment for richard nixon was obstruction of justice. impeding a federal investigation or obstructing it, is a serious felony. anybody else that commits obstruction of justice would face up to five years of prison time. this is very different than what president clinton

if trump has nothing to worry about, he'll say just what alan dershowitz said. on the other hand if something -- or if he's lied to the fbi or shredded documents illegally, these sort of things will come to light. the good news for america, i think is we have mueller in the mix, hand can get some clarity with this. everyone's bells are being rung, tea pat dome scandal, the clinton woes, watergate. usually the reason we're making thinks comparisons is because of this special prosecutor. so i think all eyes on the country will be on mueller. he's stepped up. even though donald trump can fire mueller, if he wanted to, he would never do that. >> why didn't he say bring it a? i have nothing to hide? >> that's what do you understand. that's what he should have said from day one, but he seems to be in cover-up mode. that's why it's ringing the watergate mode. why aren't you more transparent? we'll have to see how this all plays out, but i think the good news is most people can agreed mueller is going to run an honest investigation. >> let me give you the bad news. >> w

. >> so if you were watching last night, alan dershowitz was on.e was suggests that they are actually working backwards on this, that unlike other investigations where you have a crime and that's where you begin and instead they are starting this investigation without a crime. is that fair? >> i don't think it is. what he's misunderstanding or comprehending is, show me the crime, the term collusion is an undefinable concept in terms of a statute that it attaches to and tl wouit would be able to st the collusion was more than just that. it was a criminal action taking place. to suggest that this is somehow a premature conclusion, that would be right if they had made a conclusion. what they have done is say, look, we've got an investigation, we've got a special counsel now. we're going to investigate whether or not there is some link or connection or reason why there have been so many misstatements on verifiable facts with regard to russia. >> go ahead, mark. do you want to jump in? >> early in my career, in the '90s, i was involved in defending the

professor dershowitz? >> every civil libertarian should be outraged by the breadth of the statute and applying it to the president's decision to fire comey. think of the implications of that for the rest of us. anybody could be charged with obstruction of justice for doing something lawful. there is a case, i worked it, for someone allegedly being convicted for doing lawful things. filing privilege lefrivolous ap. this is a disaster from the civil liberties point of view. it is a terrible mistake if you are a liberal and don't like trump to broaden the statute to go after trump and stuck with the precedents to diminish the civil liberties of all americans. >> the fact he had the lawful right to remove the fbi director under law. why he did it doesn't matter? >> we don't put people's motives on trial. there has to be an illegal act. there are some cases that say that if the whole scheme was corrupt, you could look at it as a totality. >> how about the acknowledgement he pressed the fbi director by his own a

with us right now, alan dershowitz. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> neil: is that true?s ask agents or clients are you under investigation. they never tell you but you always ask. they usually give you a routine answer. if you're the target of the investigation, you'll get a target letter. if you're the subject, you'll get a subject letter. they won't go further than that. i suspect what happened at most that comey said that. that the president -- >> neil: he would have to say it three times though. >> the president interpreted it that i'm not under investigation. >> neil: what about the recording issue? much has been made of the president recording conversations or raising that. >> it's perfectly legal in washington d.c. to record if one person consents. >> neil: even the person recording, that's the only party that needs the consent. >> that's right. >> neil: so if i invite you in the office and you don't know anything about it and i'm recording you, in washington, it doesn't matter. >> every time i'm in the white house i assume i'm being recorded. the fbi assumes they

liz: professor allen dershowitz, thank you so much. we're huge fans of yours. >> thank you. liz: next up, the media saying the economic news coming from the overseas trip. >> as the president takes the world stage, can he outrun the chaos here at home? >> the president left behind the most devastating week of his young presidency. >> back home, the president remain unintercepted. over whether worked with russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. liz: let's bring in fox media buzz howard. hi, howard. >> hi, liz. liz: what do you think of the coverage? >> i think it's getting unusually positive coverage for his first couple of days for the trip, particularly well received and sober speech in saudi arabia. yesterday but this morning when he was live cable coverage of his rival in jerusalem, i'm watching and suddenly those breaking news banners flash, particularly on some other cable networks about mike flynn, the former national security adviser, going to invoke the fifth amendment, not respond to subpoena and i said anybody who thought the president would escape the

you had said there was nothing. >> if only we could find legal scholar allen dershowitz.fully he is with us and cnn senior legal analyst jeffrey tuber >> we heard sean spicer is that accurate do you believe the the president has been completely appropriate in dealing withes james comey. >> everybody wants to know they're under investigation every time i i have a contract i try every way to find out whether they're under investigation. i know they're not supposed to tell me that doesn't mean i shouldn't try. and sometimes they do give me hints for example they'll say well if i haven't gotten a target letter then ushld know he is not a target. or if you've gotten a subject letter -- you know so you do get information but the president is different of course the president also a. >> also at a dinner where according the president james comey basically saying he wants to stay on i guess that adds to the dinner of i would like to stay on in my job you know are you loyal to me a am i under investigation? >> well he is not -- at that point if he is under investigation he is not g

allen dershowitz came out and said, you know, look, this is -- this is ridiculous what they're doingically said they should not be honoring her. she's embracing terrorists that kill young people. >> i don't know about her background, but i've been on camera with her. she was a co-chair, if i remember correctly of the women's march, and we were talking abouon camera about organizingnd sort of the policies, the concerns that came out of that march. so she's been around and, you know, she's very active in small democratic politics. but, you know, the university has a right to invite her and if the students don't -- are concerned, i know there's been a lot of anger from the jewish community and a lot of groups have come out and said that they -- that the university should resend its offer. but if there are a lot of folks that don't like it, they can -- >> i'm a defender of the first amendment, and i'm going to defend free speech on all occasions. and if sunni pictured to speak, that's fine. but you have to really question what's going on on college campuses. cheryl, i think this is antit

i could go on and on, is dershowitz really, really serious about this?u have to admit it is hyperbole when you see all other examples. not to mention more recently we had a president who allowed isis to grow and flourish calling them the jv team suggesting that they weren't a big threat. >> that is judgment. go to the same president we know misled the american people deliberately about the provisions of the nuclear agreement with iran, and then traded money for hostages with those two planes sitting on the tarmac in switzerland. again lied to the american people bit. while we're on that issue what about the white house that countenanced the american people being told that the benghazi incident was a result of a video that nobody saw? i mean, we've got plenty of this. my recommendation would be, settle down, deal with the things, with the facts as we know them. we can have disagreement what the import of those is but the suggestion this is the worst thing a president has ever said or done is just simply way over the top. david: karl, here is another thing

i just, anderson, want to respond to one thing that professor dershowitz said, it struck me as i was listening to him, that had "the washington post" not disclosed the fact of sally yates' meeting with the white house counsel over general flynn, we don't know if he would have ever have been removed as national security advisor. it was only after it became public that the president took action on it. apparently it was only after it became public that the vice president knew he had been lied to. so i understand the sensitivity of leaks and the administration i worked for was tough on leaks for sure. but there's no doubt that some of these leaks have shown a bright light in places where light was very much needed. >> i have no problem with "the washington post" publishing it or the times publishing it. i do have problems with the people who work for the national security agencies leaking confidential information that may cost lives, that may make it much more difficult to detect lap tops. remember the only way isis got this information is through the leak. and you have to be very carefu

alan dershowitz is a constitutional law scholar and professor emeritus at harvard law school. i know you've been listening and following this all day. your thoughts? >> well, total misconception when you say that mueller somehow gave him clearance, or gave him permission to testify. let's be clear. as a matter of constitutional law, congress has more authority than mueller does to call comey. congress is a co-equal branch of government. it certainly had the power to impeach the president, therefore it can have hearings. there is great doubt whether mueller has the power to indict the president. so, congress does not have to defer to mueller. they can make comey testify on any subject. comey has only two options. he can plead the fifth amendment, he's not going to do that, or he can plead executive privilege. he's unlikely to do that. so, this nonsense constitutionally, at least, that mueller has to somehow give permission or clearance to testify should be absolutely forgotten about. that's just not the way the constitution operates today. >> all right. the one thing that i'm e

alan dershowitz is a constitutional law scholar.ven suggest that because that seemed jumping far ahead saying criminal problems since we haven't proven anything nevertheless the news is very disturbing. your thoughts about this? >> i don't think there's a criminal problem but much more serious than your previous guest suggested. let's take the following hypothetical. what if it was israel that provided this intelligence because they had spies on the ground in syria and within the intelligence organization, the information gets to russia. russia sends it to iran and they're allies when it comes to syria and they send to it hezbollah. this could be a real disaster on the eve of his visit to israel. i hope it's not israel and hope the information doesn't get to hez gol law and syria and other terrorist organizations. it could and could result in a cut off of information from american allies to the united states as a result we would all suffer and be in danger. just because it's not criminal doesn't mean it's not extremely serious. mate

professor dershowitz, what do you think? >> well, i think that attorney general moukasey is absolutely right. this is being done backwards. and it raises great concerns about civil liberties. usually, you can point to a statute and say, we're investigating crime under this statute. what mueller seems to be doing is saying, we don't like what happened. maybe there was some collaboration. but i can't figure out what statute was being violated. you know, when hillary clinton was being investigated, at least we knew what the statute was -- >> but, alan -- >> he's been working -- >> what's the statute? i don't get it! >> he's been working for a week, how do you expect him to have decided what investigation -- >> he shouldn't be working for five minutes -- >> one at a time! >> don't you agree that there's a great danger -- don't you agree that there's a great danger to civil liberties when you say, let's investigate and maybe we'll find something that we can find a statute to fit. that's not the way it ought to happen! and if i we

allan dershowitz said, i think she's made a mistake here. it's holdover terrorism. he thinks you made a political section, not a legal one. >> i struggled. >> you thought about resigning? >> absolutely. i went back and forth. >> two former attorneys general, alberto gonzales said you should resign. if you disagree. you were grandstanding looking for a way out. >> i think it's a fair question to ask, why didn't you just resign? and that's something that i crapled with. i felt like resigning would protect my personal integrity. >> reporter: from the time she was fired,ial sally yates didn' speak publiclien in she was on mril testifying last week. >> are you familiar with -- >> not off the top of my head, no. >> the binding statutory authority for the binding order that led to your administration. >> i am familiar with that the i'm familiar with an additional provision that says, no person shall receive preference or being discriminated against in theish wans of a visa, because of place and nationality and place of birth. >> no other president has been denied his autho

. >> chris, editor at large at the weekly standard, alan dershowitz, law college professor. alan, first to you. what was purported to be said in a conversation in a contemporaneous memo that we have not seen, let the investigation go. if that is true, what's next? >> well, first we should have no trouble getting the memo. the memo belongs to the united states government. it does not belong to comey. and, so, the white house is wrong when it says the burden of proof is on the "the new york times". the rules of edvidence is on th person who has the evidence available to him or her. the government has that memo available. they can read it. they probably have read it. memos are important because they reflect the current, the contemporaneous views of the person writing it rather than something that occurred afterward. also, there may be a taping system in the oval office. so, we should be able to ultimately find out what exactly was said, and everything will turn on what was said. if it was a polite request saying, oh, you know, he's a good guy, flynn, i wish you'd back off this

let's bring back in rob o'neill, pete, and allen dershowitz.gnificance for the israelis and the christian community as they visit this church. >> well, it's very significant because when jordan controlled the old city of jerusalem, people couldn't go and pray freely. jews couldn't pray at the western wall, jews couldn't go visit. now of course with jerusalem in the hands of israel, it's an open city. anybody can go there and anybody can pray and it creates such harmony between jews, catholics, prodistins, muslims, and i think the president visiting the church freely and openly and then visiting the western wall sends a very, very important symbol of why jerusalem must remain under the control and sovereignty of israel. it's the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all. steve: professor, explain to us -- this is clearly part of the israeli visit. the palestinians also claim the old city, which is where this is with its jewish, muslim, and christian sacred sites as part of their future capital with a palestinian state. how is that working

allen -alan dershowitz is sayine obstruction of justice claim is ridiculous. charles: are you confidence they can get this done? >> that's for the president to determine. but they need to do a better job or look for replacements. >> i come at this from an optics perspective. i think putting a former f.b.i. director in under department a.g. rosenstein is a brilliant move. even though democrats will cry foul, they will have to admit he's qualified to run an investigation because he has run the f.b.i. but i'm very concerned about the deep state. charles: the leaks, we don't talk about them, we don't hear them. none of this fist quote-unquote news. it probably would be made a lot easier with the last-second decision by the obama administration to give wide access to folks to unmask individuals and get this information to the mainstream media. >> leaks are going to heed rode the foundation of any governance. people should be prosecuted. the problem as i experienced in government is when you you do the mole hunt and try to find out who's leaking, it's kind of a fool

dershowitz has made it clear on tv last night that he agreed with what i knew immediately.here's been no evidence of a crime, there hasn't been any suggestion of a basis for a crime. -- theyre has been evidently have singled out jared kushner for talking to the russians, which is what he was supposed to do. mr. trump came and prepared to do things. i am not pro-trump. i'm anti-trump as to many of his actions. he came in prepared and his people did indeed act as though they were going to be in office in a month . host: at the bottom of all of these investigations is the fact that intelligence officials say russia attempted to meddle in the u.s. election. caller: we don't know that for certain. now, we have a group claiming the man who was killed in washington, d.c. was the one that was communicating with wikileaks. he was in the dnc employment in some way or another. were not certain of anything. you don't start an investigation until there is a crime. we have a deputy attorney general who is out of control. he says that the hillary investigation was flawed because had no au

. >> allen dershowitz said you're a terrific public servant but quote irving she made a serious mechanic. spo easy ton hero innot appoint fwhid president. he says you went on to make a political decision and not a legal one. >> i struggled over the decision whether to resign or whether to direct the department of justice not to defend. >> you thought about resigning. >> i went back and forth. >> because two former attorney generalless william bahr say you should have resigned if you disagree with the order and that essentially you were grand standing to looking in for a way to get out to is the get for you to for a political year. >> i think it's a fair question to ask why didn't you just resign that is something i grappled with during that time. sort of the bottom line is that i felt like resigning would have protected my personal integrity. but it would not have protected the integrity of the department of justice. >> this does allow you by essentially confronting the president of the united states and declining to ask doj lawyers to support the executive order it does set you up in a

. >> alan dershowitz saying he was upset with the president, who once advised the president on israel. this is not a partisan issue. it is pretty much universal that the president didn't have a good relationship with bibi. >> eboni: that is different than a good relationship with israel. >> kat: in general, israel is very much our ally. in saudi arabia, i thought the way he was speaking about not trying to force our way of life on other people, that is something i really, really did like because our attempts at nationbuilding have been a failed experiment, not like the good kind. like a disaster. we have been spending so much money on it, so i thought it was a good thing to see. i like -- were going to get into a speech a little later. it's going to be an ongoing thing. it's going to take a couple, more than a couple good trips. it's a good start. >> is a big step, making -- were not going to force our ways on you but you will respect me and my family. >> eric: first seeded u.s. president to put his hand on that wall. he is breaking new ground almost by the week -- how many times have

. >> kimberly: as dershowitz set there hasn't been anything suggesting. >> jesse: not yet.ng hot in the kitchen. >> juan: stop the presses jesse watters actually thinks it's news here? >> jesse: i don't know about news. it could be fake news, juan. a lot of anonymous sources. could be a lot of anonymous sources because ton of leaks. a ton of leaks coming out of the fbi and out of this white house. >> juan: i think what's happening now is that you are entering a more active phase of the investigation and mueller is bringing in new people and so they are gathering information and i think when you have the subpoena out of the grand jury in virginia for flynn's financial records. i think that things are getting hotter. >> kimberly: this is leaks from before mueller. >> jesse: financial smantial. fallujah thing is substantial. >> juan: thing about the kushner thing is it's so close to the president. son-in-law. >> dana: we have a chance to talk about that again. let me get greg in here one more time. i wanted to ask you and you might want to talk about the other issue. but presi

i fall into the same school as allen dershowitz who exexplain plained at a civil libitarian we have tofederal investigations, fbi probes and now the investigation by special counsel bob mueller. as something looking into violations of federal law. now even if jared kushner or other members of the trump campaign, transition team or administration were talking to russians, even coordinating with the russians with regard to potential release of information, release of e-mails that were hacked into by wikileaks or the russians or released by wikileaks, even if that's true, there's no federal crime. there's no federal law that prescribes that type of activity. it may look bad politically. we may want sunlight to be a good sanitizer on letting everyone know that was going on, but it's not a crime. >> i think there are a lot of questions here. even if this ends up being -- kushner ended up being an an slary party in all of these discussions or something happened or gave russians more insight into something, and that wasn't his intention, there is a question here about the trump campaign and t

although, the president could always make the argument allen dershowitz, #law pssor has de tt the presidentas constitutional authority to hire and fire ody the executive branch and tell them what to do. we've had past presidents that have told the department of justice and the fbi stop this investigation, do that investigation. all the way back to thomas jefferson who directed his attorney general what to do. trish: gregg jarrett, thank you very much for your perspective. we've got more on the breaking story next there's nothing traditional about my small business so when it comes to technology, i need someone that understands my unique needs. my dell small business advisor has gotten to know our business so well that is feels like he's a part of our team. with one phone call, he sets me up with tailored products and services. and when my advisor is focused on my tech, i can focus on my small business. ♪ ♪ trish: all right. i have a big programming alert for you. tomorrow morning bright and early, i'm going to be baking with my kids and my husband, my three little children on fox and friend

vonnie: coming up on "market," alan dershowitz discusses the trump controversy.is all in the next couple of hours of "bloomberg markets." ♪ in new york, noon 5:00 p.m. in london, and midnight in hong kong. i am vonnie quinn. welcome to "bloomberg markets." from bloomberg world headquarters in new york city, here are the top stories on the bloomberg and around the world that we are following. president donald trump is facing the deepest crisis of his presidency with another political bombshell. this time, a memo written by the then fbi director james comey alleging the president asked him to drop a presentation into former national security adviser michael flynn. the house of representatives now demanding all comey memos to be handed over by next week. the turmoil in washington is spilling over into financial markets.u.s. stocks falling the most in nearly two months with financials leading the decline. meanwhile, haven assets are getting a bid with the yen, gold, and treasuries all gaining. we will get reaction to turmoil in washington at what he mean

allen dershowitz here to react next.it escape with great deals on great gear. like our best selling fish fryer for under $30. only at bass pro shops. it's just a burst pipe, i co(laugh) it. no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just because of a claim. i totally could've - no! switching to allstate is worth it. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. and get medical help right away. i count on my dell small for t

when you've got people like alan dershowitz and me, who see the law differently, but are both committedhinking comey should go and you saw democrats and republicans, comey -- >> but he called him a showboat! >> -- dug his own hole. and one thing comey said beyond the rosenstein letter, by the standards of a director of the fbi, comey in the last year or two really had become a grandstander and that's no what you want in your chief federal investigator. >> so you agree with the president's assessment in calling him a grandstander and a showboat. let's remember, though -- >> which, by the way, there is such great irony about donald j. call -- >> i think you're reading my mind. >> -- showboating, that is all he has done practically his entire life opinion. >> there's that -- >> very different for the director of the fbi. >> let's remember when donald trump called out -- and many people did -- you know, loretta lynch and bill clinton and their chat on a tarmac and let's remember it was his wife who was running for president who was under federal investigation. but yet, now you have, you kno

i will tell you several legal scholars including alan dershowitz and other that there was nothing inappropriate about that. dave? >> did the white house counsel -- >> i don't know the answer. dave. >> on the trip, [ inaudible ] raising the issue of persecution, and i wanted to ask you about a case in the last week in indonesia where a christian governor in the state of jakarta was imprisoned for two years for blaspheming the koran. does the president find that case troubling? does he plan to -- >> john, does he give you this question? >> i'm sorry. >> i don't have any updates on that particular case. i would ask you to check with the state department. >> sean? >> thanks, sean. i want to clarify on jeff's question, in a yes or no fashion. is the president of the united states currently recording conversations taking place in the oval office? >> i think the point they made with respect to the tweet is the president has no further comment on this? >> cam. >> a follow up? >> you were involved in this on tuesday night as well, at the time that it was all him regarding deputy attorney general rod ros

alan dershowitz, attorney and legal scholar says this is the worst charge ever leveled against a sitting president. do you agree and why? >> i don't know if it's the worst charge leveled against a sitting president, i think some of the things president nixon was accused of are of comparable gravity here. we're talking significant gravity. i'm not going to quibble with phil whose knowledge of how intelligence is handled is far superior to mine. i think there's an additional debate here beyond the question of the source, the level of granularity the president discussed it as david sanger said would allow you to reverse, engineer and figure out sources and methods even if he didn't disclose them. look, this is extremely serious. it goes to, i think, a core question that has been there throughout the campaign. the principle doubt that president trump has faced from the beginning, during the campaign, and certainly since his election among the public and certainly among leadership in congress is not so much ideology but confidence. it's whether by temperament, by experience, by judgment he is

even though harvard law professor alan dershowitz repeatedly tells them, sorry, it's not a crime in ast it is, but there's no criminal statute that outlaws and criminalizes collusion in a political campaign. and yet the media tends to completely ignore that and be oblivious to it. are they guilty of that? >> well, of course they are. and it's the old world media, "the new york times," the washington post, cnn, it's like they have a renewed fervor, sorry, for fact checking that didn't exist on the obama administration. i went through scandals, but if we go into foreign policy challenges, what about the obama administration allowing the leak of the name of the pakistani doctor who turned in bin laden that has now been sentenced to high treason and is rot anything jail? the reason -- rotting in jail? how many of your listeners know about that? those are the kinds of things that if they happened under the trump administration, this renewed fervor would create a level of heightened awareness among it's the media -- amongst the media. gregg: leaks are illegal, and it seems like the media pa

. >> right here and alan dershowitz and bernie sandersn who went out there and defended and coulter'so speak at berkeley especially since they receive federal funding. >> sean: name the only three people that did.d. there is not allowed outcry from people on the left to say stop being liberal fascists just silence conservative speakers. >> they think this makes them social justice warriors they think they are doing the country a service. they probably wouldn't serve the actual country overseas they think by protesting especially at uc berkeley somehow they are fulfilling some kind of a duty. >> when you have a draft dodging president right now when you fully support don't bring up the serving overseas issue, i have great respect. >> sean: what are you talking about? >> the bone spurs? >> sean: do you know anything about his medical condition, no, let's not speculate. here is the bigger issue ith thought your side loved free speech and for the most part, 99% of your side is silent when conservatives are constantly silenced, under attack, boycotted and everything done to intimidate and

. >> and i know professor dershowitz was here earlier. his contention is the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the united states pan he directs investigations. and he can direct them any way he wants. now, i don't think that we accept that constitutional view anymore. even though maybe it was accepted when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. you know clinton was impeached and so was nixon -- or cleeft charges brought against them. >> let me ask you this reportery because here is what the white house said in response to "the new york times" report about the comments inside the oval office the president always emphasize the the importance of making deals as relates to syria ukraine and defeating isis and for the benefit and safety by by grandstanding and politicizing the james comey created unnesses ability to engage with russia. he goes on to say once again the real story is the national security has been undermined by leaking of private and highly classified conversations. so turning again to this idea of leaks be

that's what -- you know, every lawyer we've had on the program over the last several days, alan dershowitzers have said he's got to stop talking, whether he has counsel or not, he's not taken that message because he's out tweeting about things today and going back to the rod rosenstein explanation the white house put out the day comey was fired and the president reversed the next day to lester holt. >> anderson, one of the things about watergate people don't realize is nixon was not a master criminal. he made just like trump is doing one mistake after another mistake and just deepened his problems. he had several exits where he could have not gotten himself so deeply involved in the cover-up. he chose not to exercise any of them. even after he was warned of his troubles. and he doesn't get a really good lawyer, criminal lawyer, until after he resigns. that's too late. >> nixon didn't get a get criminal lawyer until after he resigned, really? >> that's right. >> wow. that's fascinating. john dean, thank you so much for being on. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> coming up, how the r

>> legal experts i have spoken to, alan dershowitz, said there is no obstruction.o the fbi director. i think the press is criminalizing it. i think it's weird. the president's instinct about letting comey go is right. this memo proves pit snp. >> what memo proves it? >> the details of the leak. we haven't seen the memo yet of director comey's conversation with the president. >> that's reason to fire him? >> well -- i think it's about his instinct that you can't trust the fbi director. isn't it a little strange the fbi director has a private conversation with the president, instead of saying to the president, mr. president, you're new to this job. you're not a legal law enforcement guy, what you're saying is inappropriate to me, speak to your white house counsel and the justice department about how the approach this. instead, he goes back to his offi himself, sticks it in a file, supposedly he did this for every meeting. what was the purpose? if he thought the president was doing something inappropriate, he should have sproek spoken to the president about it then go

. >> professor dershowitz, does the intent of the president in sharing this information matter, if hen't intend to give up classified information, he's inexperienced in these realms. >> if he were a private citizen he would, because it requires -- but as the president he's exempted from any laws, the separation of powers, prevents the president from doing what he wants with classified information, so he's probably not guilty of any crime, probably has not committed any impeachable defense. but he's put at tremendous risk. it sounds more and more like it might be jordan or israel. i know there were rumors earlier on that israel was having trouble deciding whether it will share information. imagine information getting to iran, or through iran to hezbollah, this is going to create a terrible problem, particularly for the president as he's going to the middle east this week. >> i want to read something that bob corker who chairs the senate foreign relations commission. he said, quote, the white house has got to do something soon to bring itself under control, obviously they're in a downwa

hey, chris cillizza, the way alan dershowitz, esteemed professor emeritus at harvard puts it is this. >> this the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president. let's not minimize it. comey is in the waste basket of history. everything else is off the table. this is the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president of the united states. let's not underestimate it. >> cillizza, your column, trump's intelligence slip up may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. make the case. >> i talked to a bunch of republican house members as well as republican operatives last night. obviously this was fresh information at that point. a lot of them says, look, we're okay with the strategic and tactical -- his unorthodoxy there, but when he does stuff like this, really bad self-inflicted wounds, it makes our members very, very nervous. now, i will tell you in that same reporting, lots of people told me you will not see republicans abandon donald trump wholesale until you start seeing either special election losses in places like georgia 6 district, montana open seat which