>> i'm back now with elliott williams and we're joined by cnn legal analyst and former u.s.e district in georgia michael more. let me begin with you hear michael on this very important point. first of all, the president cannot pardon for state level charges. we know there are two cases or he is indicted, obviously in new york and georgia. but the idea that he might be able to, or is considering to pardon himself is really wild, wild west territory. what do you make of the possibility of that being constitutional? >> well, i'm glad to be with both of you. i don't think it is a settled question about whether a president can self-pardon. there is an old 1974 opinion from the office of legal counsel at the department of justice that said, in fact, the president could not do that. but it is uncharted waters. so i'm not sure that the legal scholars are certain of his ability to do it as he seems to be here. you are right, it would have no effect whatsoever on the state charges that he faces. the truth is, he may not need it if in fact we were to get elected he could simply direct

elliott williams, don't you go anywhere, and sit there in that chair, and we will come back to you. >od breaks. >>> and dangerous mission to go save a man's life. a man is trapped in a cave more than 3,000 feet underground. and an inmate has died in fulton county jail. the 10th to die there this year. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. >>> right now, some 150 rescuers are involved in what has become a complex mission to rescue an american cave expert. he is now stuck thousands of feet below the surface. is mark dickey and part of the research team working in a cave in turkey and the third deepest cave in turkey and a total depth of more than 4,100 feet

>> back now with elliott williams and also we're joined by michael moore. michael, let's begin with you on this very important point here. first of all, a president cannot pardon for state level charges. of course we know there are two case that's is indicted obviously in new york and georgia. but the idea that he could be considering to pardon position is really wild wild west territory. what do you make of the possibility of that being constitutional? >> well, i'm glad to be with both of you. i don't think that it is a subtle question on whether a president can self-pardon. there was an old 1974 i think opinion from the office of legal counsel that said a president could not do that. but it is unchartered waters. so i'm not sure that the legal skop scholar are as certain as he seems to be. and he could not do it in the state charges. if he got reelected, he could simply direct that the cases be dismissed or the prosecutions be terminated at some period of time. so a lot of talk and i guess the question remains whether or not that he even has the constitut

. >>> joining us now former assistant attorney general elliott williams and cnn republican strategistavid urban. elliott, how strong do you think the special counsel's argument actually is given that this is a person running for president of the united states and is the leading republican candidate, how likely do you think the judge will grant it? >> it's a strong argument because you can still run for office and not attack the criminal justice system. if you notice, when you go through this motion, anderson, the number of times the justice department says, asking the judge to issue a, quote, narrowly tailored order, they're not asking for a broad prohibition on the president's speech. what they're asking is he not speak about witnesses, evidence, and court personnel. that's not unreasonable when that defendant has the largest platform of any criminal defendant in american history. and there is a serious risk to the administration of justice if he continues to say things like he did at 6:19 tonight after the justice department made a motion. he's taunting the justice system to act, an

. >>> let's go to elliott williams now for a legal perspective on what is happening with the former president. so elliott, donald trump blamed other forces for his indictments. he did also take some degree of credit, ownership for what is happening. let's play that sound bite now. >> were you listened to your lawyers advice or were you listening to your own instincts? >> i was listening to different people and when i added it all up, the election was rigged. >> were you calling the shots, mr. president, ultimately. >> as to whether or not i believed it was rigged. sure. it was my decision. >> elliott, you and i have talked about previously how it em soos like the trump camp has tried to push some responsibility over things like the fake electors, what happened on january 6 on to his attorneys at the time. people like sidney powell and john eastman. do you hear anything there from trump that could be seen as useful for a prosecution, and ultimately could shifting blame to his attorneys be a good defense? >> i don't think a ton in that statement that is that useful to prosecutors. largely becau

monday when donald trump is officially in court with his legal team, former federal prosecutor elliott williams as here. elliott, you heard from michael cohen just there. we also heard from trump's current attorney saying that they believe, in their quotes, this is completely disconnected from the facts, from the governing law. they're going to appeal. what can they do? can they be successful? what is the likelihood of that? >> it's hard to say. look, parties often, when they get slapped down in court, will make a statement saying that this is -- from the facts and law. but let's look what the judge actually did. this is a summary judgment motion, which was in effect the judge saying there's no reasonable quest tth those just no and i think questions suc th mothis by could not hav therand >> is subje literally quoted doug suit saying you're never going to but it when you look at all of the judge, hail mary, when it comes to throwing out s that what bac trump's legal >> i nu to fil that haithey would lose so if the their trial in oit's called preserving your argument. so that's one. number two,

perspective on what this evidence means to investigators, i am joined now by former federal prosecutor elliott williamst me start with you. i think the obvious question here is how strong is this testimony how strong could it be when it comes to what trump is facing, which are obstruction charges? >> these are acts of obstruction, at least as alleged. i don't think based on what's available right now that the justice department would charge him within just -- just this conduct here. what you have is the statement of one witness. as far as we know, it's not corroborated by anything else. there are test messages establishing it. but this is an act of obstruction of justice if what she is saying is true. what you have is a defendant who is aware of an open investigation, and he's urging another person to either influence, delay, or prevent her testimony. that's right out of the obstruction of justice statute. so at a minimum, it's valuable testimony, it speaks to sort of character and misconduct in a guilty mind, even if they don't charge him with it. >> and i think it makes a important point, because thi

elliott williams, your reaction t to this and specifically the sitting u.s. senator who is the chair of the u.s. senate foreign relations committee, and you are talking about, and you just heard a u.s. attorney say that he was working to benefit the government of egypt. >> not good. and what is interesting is the manner of the exchange of favors if you want to talk about it is often through his wife. the way that the indictment is structured, there are a number of statements and communications made between senator menendez and his wife and allegedly between senator menendez's wife and the those charges that are leading to the actions that the prosecutors are saying that senator menendez engaged in. but it is incredibly serious when you are speaking of nonpublic information being provided to foreign actors and a point that i noted in our earlier segment is that at least one of the conversations that they recount is a phone call that happens to, you know, two officials, and maybe egyptian officials outside of the presence of senator menendez's staff. as a forme

discuss with cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutors elliott williams.g loss for meadows and other defendants in the case making it xlwill be toh to move these cases to federal court. >> on the big question, jim, i city think he ultimately loses on this point of, i was a federal official. therefore, i shouldn't be sued in state court. i think he's lose on that. to this point where he's asking to stay the appeal, stay the lower case while it appeals, actually on to something, because you don't want to rush somebody to trial when he has an open legal question might be resolvedal in this favor. >> gueets a stay, how long does the appeal process happen? push back the trial? >> notice, before the standard timeline, before a federal appeal plays out. could be months. >> key. jump up to the calendar here. right? >> yeah. >> we were talking about a proposed trial date as soon as next month? >> you were. here's the thing. once someone is charged with a crime -- to be clear. he's accused doing grave things to the united states and the people of the state of georgi

we have manu raju and former federal prosecutor elliott williams as well.cilla, we're seeing the strategy here from president biden, the white house, the campaign as well confronting this impeachment probe with sharp rhetoric, but also he's trying to keep working. >> and they have been preparing for this. they are going on the offensive, and just yesterday white house spokesperson called it extreme politics at its worst. they point out the fact that republicans haven't been able to point to any wrongdoing, that they don't have enough evidence or any evidence for that matter, and so they are going in on this inquiry and saying what do you have to show for you, fine your own party can't get behind it? now we should note that this white house briefing actually started with the white house top economic adviser jared bernstein talking about the economy and then later national security spokesman john kirby talking about geopolitics so that goes to show that the white house didn't kick off responding to this impeachment inquiry. they kicked off with their agenda,

mean and what it will look like on monday when donald trump is potentially in court, elliot williams is here. elliott, you heard from michael cohen. we heard the attorney saying they believe this is disconnected from the facts. they are going to appeal. what can they do ? can they be successful? >> it is hard to say. parties will make a statement that this -- let us look at the judge did approve this is a summary judgment motion which was the judge saying there is no reasonable question of fact. even given the facts of this case in the most favorable let us just assess the case from trump's perspective. in saying even under those circumstances, there is no question. questions such as the what michael referred to a moment ago is the idea of fighting the square footage of a property by a factor of three simply could not have been a factual error or a mistake. it was evidence of fraud. it is not out of the question that this gets appealed and gets affirmed exactly in the form that was written here. >> the judge was saying, this is subjective. the judge said, who are you going to believe? when you look a