let's go back to jeffrey toobin.here is how much does this blur the line between church and state? justice sotomayor thinks so much she was one of two voices who read aloud her descending opinion from the bench. >> it is unusual. it's indication of strong dissent. on the other hand, this is the court that is deeply polarized with four liberals and four conservatives. two were liberal, they voted with the majority here. this was a 7-2 opinion and one that may or may not have implications. there's an interesting footnote in the opinion, which says this case is only about playgrounds. it's not about funding. it's not about anything bigger than that. i think that was an attempt by the court to say, look, let's take this one at a time. this is a case where it really looked like discrimination against a religious school, but we are not deciding that, you know, all state tax money can now go directly to churches. >> it is about using, basically, rubber tire material to make playgrounds softer and safe for children. now, the

before we go, quickly back to you, jeffrey toobin.with san diego, it was going to be likely the biggest case heard since the heller decision on second amendment rights. they're not going to hear it. >> they are not. they are letting the lower courts address this -- these gun issues. what's particularly interesting about the decision not to hear the second amendment case -- >> conceal and carry case. >> right. is justice thomas, joined by justice -- justice gorsuch is taking his place on the very far right of the court, that he is aligning himself. we've seen it in these decisions coming up. for the last couple of months, that thomas and gorsuch are voting together a lot of the time, which is something that should please conservatives a great deal. >> a very clear signal, indeed. stay with us. you still have nowhere to go. 10:00, we're getting another decision. stay with us. we'll be right back. >>> more than 70 million americans rely on medicaid and it is medicaid that is at the center of the health care debate. the perspective, 1 in

let's bring in our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, how damning is this testimony, the written statement released that i had by james comb? what's the most potentially dangerous aspect of it? >> well, if it's to be believed, and obviously it's only one person's version, but if it's to be believed, i think it does lay out a case of obstruction of justice against the president, and the key moment is the february 14th meeting in the oval office where they discuss the investigation of michael flynn which as fbi director comey is in charge of, and the president asks him to let it go, to drop it. it's more than inappropriate, and you can tell that the president knows it's inappropriate because he asks the vice president and the attorney general to leave the room before he makes that request. >> because inappropriate is one thing. illegal, obstruction of justice is another thing. some legal scholars have suggested there has to be proven intent to -- to successfully prosecute obstruction of justice. >> that's right, and the word that t

but then this is what he tweeted just a month ago, to jeffrey toobin's point. robert mueller is a superb point to be special counsel. his reputation is full of honesty and integrity. the media should calm down. which is which? what's changed? which one should we believe? >> remarkable the way things change. i do want to say, don, i think on this show about six weeks ago when mueller was appointed, i raised the possibility that the president might fire him, and i think you kind of dismissed it and said it was impossible, so i just want to state that for the record -- >> i was wrong. >> -- that it's in the mix. >> if i was there, i would pat you on the back. go ahead. >> but look, i mean, it is -- i can see a scenario where trump does do this. he says there's nothing to this investigation, it's a waste of time, it's a waste of money, they've spent months, they haven't come up with any evidence of collusion, and it's a distraction from my agenda, and he would make his case to the american people, and if the congress doesn't like it, they can impeach me. you know,

jeffrey toobin is here as well. good evening to all of you. athena, let's take a look at the president's tweet. the president said "with all the recently or theed electronic surveillance intercepts, unmasking, illegal leaking of information, i have no idea whether there are tapes or recordings of my conversations with james comey that i did not make, but i did not make and do not have any such recordings." so it took the president, what, 41 days to answer a very simple question. he, himself, first raised. are there tapes of his conversations with james comey or not? why and why now, athena? >> reporter: hi, don. well, exactly. this should have been a yes or no answer, yet there's been weeks and weeks of dodging. a senior administration official told cnn that it became clear that the president would have to answer this question today before tomorrow's deadline set by the house intelligence committee to turn over any tapes if they exist. so, that's why we're finally seeing an answer from the white house today. but, don, even that tweet there, th

we also have jeffrey toobin with us. he knows the issues behind this.bin, are you surprised by this ruling and what does it mean for the travel ban going forward? >> i was a little surprised, because the court obviously did a little more than just decide to review the case. they modified the stay that had been in effect, in, i think, a rather clever way. what the court said is that the blanket travel ban from the six muslim countries, muslim majority countries, is not in effect anymore. but the people -- but the people who have a bona fide connection to the united states, who have relatives here, who have a job offer here, who are admitted students they are, they can come in. the stay does not apply to them. so strangers, tourists can't come in from the muslim majority countries, the six countries, but people with a connection to the united states can come in. and that strikes me as an interesting compromise, and it is certainly a better result for the trump administration than it's had from any of the court of appeals so far, so certainly this is a bet

that great lawyer was jeffrey toobin. be saying the same today about not expanding obstruction of justice to cover constitutionally authoritied presidential actions. >> respond. >> that is not what the constitution says. there is no right to obstruct justice. it is true the president can fire the director of the fbi, but that act can be evidence of a broader obstruction of justice. for example, my favorite law professor that loves hypotheticals, what if donald trump said to james comey, i am going to fire you unless you give me $100,000? is that constitutionally protected? >> are you citing one of the exceptions to it which is corrupt intent, bribery as one of the witness tampering, do you believe those are -- >> that's precisely what this investigation is about, is whether there was corrupt intent. can the fbi -- can the president go to james comey and say i am going to fire you because you're a catholic? that power is not unreviewable. >> jeffrey's point is, can he fire, yes. can he fire for bad reason and still have th

jeffrey toobin is here as well. good evening to all of you.ena, let's take a look at the president's tweet. the president said "with all the recently reported

we have cnn's jim sciutto, evan perez and senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, let's go to the nuts and bolts of this. is there any crime in this? if everything that jim comey says is accurate, is that a crime? >> there may well be, obstruction of justice, absolutely, yes. >> you think there's an obstruction charge in here? >> the february 14th meeting where he says -- where the president says to everyone else in the room least. i want to talk alone to comey, which certainly suggests that he may know he owes doing something inappropriate and then he goes to the director of the fbi and says can you drop this investigation of my former top aide, that, combined with the fact that days later or a couple -- three months later when comey does not drop the investigation, he fires comey i think lays out a plausible case of obstruction of justice. >> what about the hurdle, i'm being told by people close to comey, intent is a big hurdle. >> the law says corruptly, and what that means is with bad purpose. you don't -- you are not as president of the united states a

our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joining us from new york. here in washington, cnn politics reporter and editor at large chris slis a and laura coates i with us as well. jeffrey what do you make of the decision to let parts of the ban take effect? give us clues, for example, how the arguments might go when the full court takes up the case in october? >> i think this is definitely much more of a win than a loss for the trump administration. there are three justices. the three most conservative justices. thomas, alito and gorsuch, who say, look, the ban is clearly fine, and they would let the whole ban go into effect today. so the only issue is whether they can get two more votes for, for that position, but all nine justices agree that the president has the power at least for the short term to keep the people who do not have close ties to the united states out of the country. so -- the court seems to have thread a needle actually quite elegantly where they have dealt with the people who have the biggest hardships. the saddest stories. the people

bring back panel, maggie haberman, chris cillizza, jeffrey toobin, david gregory.al with the easy question first. it is absurd to hear from anybody that the president's tweets don't matter. we have been told nothing else by the president of the united states himself and by everybody around him when convenient, case in point, they put out the big guns yesterday, kellyanne conway, sebastian gorka to say you media, you focus on the tweets, you should focus on what matters. the president chose london terror attack to tweet about the travel ban and what he wanted. that was on him, listen to dpork, a adporgorka and huckabee sanders talk about it. >> it's social media. >> it's not social media. it's his words, his thoughts. >> not policy, not an executive order, it's social media. please understand the difference. >> i think social media for the president is extremely important. it gives him the ability to speak directly to the people without the bias of the media filtering those types of communications. he has over 100 plus million contact through social media and all th

that you have jeffrey toobin, who is still making his legal analysis come along comey whatlf exactly mirrored alan dershowitz has been saying for a month in regard to the powers of the president. it really was just amazing to watch cnn's reaction. host: thanks for the call. we have been checking out the editorial pages of newspapers around the country and sharing them with you, including this from "usa today." the headline -- "president trump's a liar -- now what?" all this adds to the credibility crisis surrounding the white house that has undermined the president's agenda at home, stein media ministrations efforts to recruit top talent, and frayed long-standing alliances abroad. whether trump is a criminal as well as a liar is a more complicated matter, one that will depend on legal definitions of obstruction of justice and additional evidence to be uncovered by special counsel robert mueller and congressional investigators." another line of questioning yesterday involved the clinton emails and robert mueller's involvement in that. hears that extent. -- here is that exchange. [vide

jeffrey toobin, i want to take your temperature. when you read the opening statement, you thought it could approach obstruction of justice or qualified. now that you have heard james comey's actual answers. what do you think? >> i think it is even clearer this is a case of obstruction of justice. this is essentially in the political arena now. you know, what matters is whether the republican party sticks with him more than anything. it seems like the republican party will. when you look particularly at the february 14th meeting in the oval office where he shoos everyone out of the oval office which prosecutors call conscienceness of guilt and ask to drop the investigation of michael flynn. that to me is just a classic obstruction of justice in the mold of watergate. if you have any doubt of that, when comey declines to drop the investigation, what happens? he gets fired because of that. it's straight forward to me. >> yet, chris cillizza, the republicans yesterday when hearing all that from comey, did not push back, but brought up l

back with us, maggie haberman, jeffrey toobin and chris slice as. what's happening here?> you know exactly what's happening. >> before do you think he said cameras are here, say something good about me. >> i don't think the president ordered that edict, maybe another person ordered that edict. those who have seen mr. trump a long time at trump tower know this is how his staff talk to him, too. it's not a huge leap. with everything, this is the seat of the u.s. government. this is a cabinet room, a somber meeting. look, it is absolutely a privilege to serve as vice president. it is absolutely -- i thought rex tillerson was the most demure, honor to serve your agenda. thanks for giving me the opportunity. everything else translated into what i thought "the washington post" captured, dear leader language we don't hear in this country. that was surreal. >> it was very north korean, i thought. interestingly because i'm weird, i watched that whole video. mattis, secretary of defense mattis does not exactly play along. he says i'm proud to represent the men and women in uniform.

jeffrey toobin, they know what happened with sessions yesterday. the sensitive issue becomes he was wrong about defending his honor as he said. he was not strong about defending the constitution. he seemed to preference protecting the president. he said i don't want to talk about the conversation. i will exert the executive privilege. that is not how that works. what did you think of the refusal to answer? >> it shows how much witnesses are in control of congressional hearings. there is no judge forcing you to answer. i thought his legal position was clearly wrong. the executive privilege belongs to the president. congress has a right to investigate executive branch matters. the only way you are supposed to be able to decline to answer questions is if the president instructs you. i believe these conversations with covered by executive privilege and you must not answer. >> there is no preemptive executive privilege which is what he was saying. >> no preserving executive privilege for later. you exercise it or you don't. what his failure to answer di

jeffrey toobin perfect as always. >>> and to you our international viewers, thank you for watching.you, "cnn newsroom" will be next. for our u.s. viewers we have a big day in a battle over health care. this cbo score, what this bill means for families like yours is going to make a difference. what do you say? let's get to it. >> this cbo report should be the end of the road for trumpcare. >> we are no longer forcing someone by a policy that they don't want. >> if you're on the fence i'm mott so sure this report helps you much. >> he wants a bill that has heart, wants to make sure people have access and that it's affordable. >> these are our families that are being impacted, so let's please get it right. >> the trump administration says syria could be preparing another chemical attack. >> it's a very ominous statement but very much a red line. >> when you kill innocent children, innocent babies, that crosses many, many lines. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo, and alisyn camerota. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." alisyn is off. brianna keilar by my side. >> good to be

jeffrey toobin, thank you, professor dershowitz. he was injured with the others, starve zach barth.running and he dove for his loaf. life. now you drive 300to be fmiles to watch this. yes, nice pop toss! flag dancing? we've been there. and with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome, we'll be there for you. hampton by hilton. blue moon is brewed mwith valencia orange peel, for a taste that shines brighter. ( ♪ ) beth is a total boss because she switched to the best deal in america: total wireless. she gets the largest, most dependable 4g lte network, and 5 gigs of high speed data for $35 a month. mommy didn't sign no contract. make it rain, beth, make it rain. $35, 5 gigs of 4g lte data. get a samsung galaxy s7 or bring your own phone. >>> the annual congressional baseball game is still going down behind me. democrats up 7-2. safe to say this is the most attention the game has ever gotten. the game is for a good cause, attention for a tragic reason. the game got under way as planned after a shooting at the field where republicans were practicing yesterday morning. congressman steve s

lots back with our legal experts, jeffrey toobin and ken cuccinelli. feel pressured by the president to impede this investigation. does that in any way meet the bar of obstruction of justice? because it certainly seems it stops well short of it. >> well, it certainly does. i think this whole thing is helpful to the president and makes you wonder why was the white house not more on top of its game in terms of talking to these guys when they were headed into public testimony and to settle the question with them in their own minds about the exercise or lack thereof of executive privilege so this wouldn't have carried on the additional days that it has. because this was helpful to the president today. does it end everything? no, it doesn't. but they like to get their positives as well and it seems like they could have done this a lot more smoothly and sooner if the white house had just returned these gentlemen's calls. >> i don't see how it's favorable for the president. i agree it's not obstruction of justice in and of itself but it's an indirect corrobor

senators and other leave this senate intelligence committee hearing room, i want to bring in jeffrey toobin, our senior legal analyst to get your initial reaction to what we just saw. >> well, if you cared most about what donald trump's involvement was and his -- and his motivations were for firing jim comey and his views of the russia investigation, you didn't learn very much today because attorney general sessions virtually refused to answer virtually all questions about his interactions with -- with the president. he did so without formally citing executive privilege referring to some confidentiality which was apparently of his own invention, and as several senators, specifically senator heinrich of new mexico, senator king of maine pressed him on like what was the basis for your refusal to answer these questions about president trump, and he kept referring to this confidentiality but not executive privilege, so i think the white house sort of had its cake and ate it, too, because they got to shut down investigation -- any inquiry into what president trump said or did but they didn't hav

talk to professor alan dershowitz and jeffrey toobin joining us. also tonight, the sadness, the fury and of course all the unanswered questions in the wake of a young american's death after being held captive in north korea. are you done yet? does it look like i'm done? shouldn't you be at work? [ mockingly ] "shouldn't you be at work?" todd. hold on. [ engine revs ] arcade game: fist pump! your real bike's all fixed. man, you guys are good! well, we are the number-one motorcycle insurer in the country. -wait. you have a real motorcycle? and real insurance, with 24-hour customer support. arcade game: wipeout! oh! well... i retire as champion. game hog! champion. if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and

jeffrey toobin, along those lines, if this were a legal case, it's not, it's a congressional hearing, what would they be trying to get from the witnesses if they were trying to prove obstruction of justice which is what a lot of democrats are after here. >> the real question about obstruction of justice is intent, it's the question of intent. is the subject of the investigation here, it's obviously the president of the united states, was he trying to shut down the fbi investigation of russia because he thought it was against national security? he thought he had motives that were appropriate or was he trying to protect his personal and political interests which would be improper which was the reason richard nixon was impeached, trying to use the fbi to cover up crimes, to cover up things that were damaging politically to the white house. so we're not only looking at what the president said to these various people, comey, coats, et cetera, about the fbi investigation, but what his motive was in trying to shut down this investigation. >> jim sciutto, gloria's reporting about what comey w

here with me to discuss the high stakes, we have senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, matthew whitaker and gloria borger. jeffrey, let's start with a story that's been breaking in the last day or so, which is that according to chris ruddy, a friend of president trump's, it's possible that president trump might assert executive privilege and fire robert mueller, who is the special counsel investigating the russia investigation. >> and that's where today's earlier hearing comes into play. rod rosenstein testified before a different committee and he was asked about this because this really goes to him. the president cannot directly fire robert mueller under the justice department regulations. he would have to ask the attorney general to fire mueller. the attorney general is recused so it would be up to rod rosenstein. rosenstein was asked repeatedly about this issue and said, i see no basis for firing robert mueller and i would only fire him for good cause. so i think he basically put to president trump today, if you want to fire robert mueller, i'm going to quick first. saturday night ma

now former advisor to four presidents, including clinton and nixon david gergen, gloria borger, jeffrey toobin and former white house nixon counsel john dean. we have the people here that need to be here to understand this. this is a crucial moment in this investigation. the most crucial moment perhaps thus far. when you read through these prepared remarks, it is six single spaced pages, going through meeting after meeting after meeting. does this to you look like obstruction of justice or not? >> it does, because it tells a story. it's not just one isolated incident. it's a demand for loyalty. not just where -- not just to -- not to the constitution, not to the fbi but a demand for loyalty to the president. comey dodges that with you it's clear that he is looking for response from comey and he has a demand and that demand is made over and over again, vindicate me, vindicate me. and finally on february 14th, he says drop the investigation of mike flynn. that february 14th meeting, if it's believed, if comey's testimony is accurate -- >> right. >> -- is frankly a smoking gun in my view. and the

. >> jeffrey toobin is a left wing kook, which is why he is qualified to be legal analyst at cnn. >>u look at the right first of all. and second you see a completely different version of this is about deep state effort to bring down trump. p>> for weeks we have been warning you about the deep state, obama guftd bureaucrats, hell benlt on destroying the president. president trump. >> i know the entire senate will join. >> reporter: let's state the obvious. the republicans control the senate. the republicans control the hois house. donald trump has been our president just five months. talk of impeachment its probably premature and certainly plays right into the hands of the president's most ardent supporters. >> i marvel at the ability to drive these people crazy. they think they're driving trump crazy, they may be. they're losing it too. they're literally out of their mind now. >> you see the battle between donald trump and the media which is very volatile. and it is back and forth. it is every day. earnest in november, 1969. >> the great silent majority of my fellow americans. i ask

jeffrey toobin,th to get your reaction from the supreme court decision here, to say part of that travel ban may be implemented, but the rest of it we'll take up in october? >> every lower court that has considered this, or just about every court, has said it violated the constitution in one way or another. the supreme court did not say that. the supreme court unanimously let part of it go into effect. that is certainly a win for the trump administration. they -- they did not let the whole thing go into effect. people who have specific ties to the united states, whether they are students admitted or close relatives or they have job offers in hand, will you allowed to come from those six companies so, in that are the the ban will not go into effect, but by and later this is better news from the trump administration that is it's had from the courts from day one, and that's something you would think they would want to take about. >> mark preston, politically speaking, we know the full ban is not in effect. we won't know the fate of that until october, but will the president take a victory l

jeffrey toobin/cnn senior legal analyst: " the court seems to have thread a needle actually quite elegantly, where they have dealt with the people who have the biggest hardships, the saddest stories, the people who have close relatives." the affected countries -- iran, syria, yemen, libya, sudan, and somalia -- are all majority muslim. lower courts had blocked the travel ban before it went into effect, ruling -- in part -- based on trump's comments on the campaign trail. "donald j trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states "the white house said the the ban was for national security reasons -- not religious ones. the court will sort out those arguments when it hears the full case this fall. in the meantime, both sides are claiming a win. the department of homeland security has yet to say when the partial ban will go into effect. (steve) our team coverage continues..bay area travelers we spoke with are upset that parts of the travel ban have been reinstated... kron4's ella sogomonian is live at san francisco international airport... ella - what ca

. >> and the jeffrey toobin joins us and can join the conversation's in reading this, seems as if the court is leaning, a., number one aloud part to go into effect. a victory for the trump administration. we'll have the arguments in october. what's your biggest takeaway tea leaves the court how it views the decisions, as julie noted, lower courts saying religious animus. the supreme court doesn't seem ready to go there. >> good news for the trump administration. not final, definitive news, but certainly this was an order that leaned in the direction of the trump administration. first of all, you have three votes that are pretty much in the bag for the trump administration. you have justice thomas, justice alito and justice gorsuch essentially saying, we don't see a problem with this order jufrijufr i justifying any sort of interruption of the order. you figure their votes are already locked in in favor of the administration and can they scare up two more votes from the chief justice or from anthony kennedy or even from stephen breyer or elena kagan? i've always thought that this -- ex

it's interesting, jeffrey toobin, i keep coming back to this statement that the president made yesterday, a tweet at 9:14 a.m. when he said this: republican senators are working very hard to get there with no help from the democrats. not easy. perhaps just let obamacare crash and burn. we've heard that from the president before. if there's no deal, you know what, just let the affordable care act crash and burn, and then they will, presumablpresum believes, run back to the president for a fix. >> that might be. there might also be a crisis they blame the republican party for. the republicans have an arithmetic problem. this is mostly, in significant part, a tax cut bill. they want to cut taxes. obamacare raised taktxes and th want to cut taxes. but that means there's less money there. there's less money for medicaid. which means less money for people of low income. that's a big part of the plan, to cut medicaid. obamacare means everybody has to get health care. if you afford it, there will be subsidies for you. if they want to cut those subsidies, that's the problem that they're facing th

jeffrey toobin, to be precise, there were six documents who have one opinion, three justices have a differenton, right? >> that's right, but the three justices wanted to agree with donald trump completely. and it was the nine others who agreed with him somewhat. so i think it is fair for donald trump to take credit for unanimous support, at least, for part of his decision. and i think the fact that three justices wanted to end any sort of stay, who wanted to ratify the executive order completely bodes pretty well for his chances when the case is argued on the merits in the fall. because he's already got three votes in hand, it looks like, the three most conservative justices: justice thomas, justice aledo and justice gorsuch. this is actually good for him. >> let's talk about the report on the republican senate health care proposal that could come up for a vote as early as this week. the cbo score similar to what we saw in the house health care bill, the republican bill, that narrowly passed the house of representatives. the president, as you know, has publicly over the weekend called the hou

. >> martha: so that was legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, on another network tonight. saying that the president did obstruct justice. as we look at james comey's opening statement, comey writes, he asked what we could do to "lift the cloud." he agreed, but then reemphasized. the problem that this was causing him. here now, fox news judicial analyst, judge napolitano. is there any problem with that statement? >> well, i do not share the view of my friend and colleague, that this is an open and shut case of obstruction of justice. in fact, reading the comey statement, it's like a christmas tree with ornaments on it. you find one that you like and you find one that you don't like. there's material here for the democrats to throw some mud at the president tomorrow. did the president actually obstruct justice? no. the process of investigation of general flynn is going on. did he attempt to obstruct justice by saying that he is a nice guy, i want you to make this go away, apparently, the people of the fbi did not perceive it that way because the investigation continues to go

let's bring in cnn's legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. of course we are awaiting reaction from the white house. as soon as we get that, we will bring it to you, be it a tweet, a statement or otherwise. don't laugh. it's real. >> that is how it works. >> you tell me things via tweet as well. there were several options of how they could move forward, the justices. they could completely lift the stay, not take up the case at all. how they did it today, what does it mean? >> well, i think it's basically a good sign for the trump administration. i think, certainly, there are three votes, justice gorsuch, justice thomas and justice aledo who feel the ban is slightly unconstitutional. they didn't think the stay should remain in place at all. the question is, can the trump administration get two more votes? and the other big knews, anthony kennedy did not announce his retirement. that means he is likely to be on the court in october when this is argued. chief justice roberts, those five appointees looked like the most likely votes for the trump a

joining us now is cnn analyst jeffrey toobin.meaet for the last scheduld conference on thursday. some people wonder is this is an indicator they're going to rule on the travel ban case? >> they have a lot of options with the travel ban case. they have not even accepted to review it. they may hear it. they may put a stay on it. they may just leave the validation in place. there are a lot of moving parts when it comes to this place. it's a little different from the usual case that goes up. >> can you imagine them passing on it, on the chance -- >> i don't know. what's so peculiar about the travel ban case is that in many respects it's not even final yet. it's a 90-day review that the president ordered which has or has not expired depending on how you look at it. it's procedurally in a very difficult place and the supreme court often looks for ways to duck difficult questions, and there are some ways they could do that in this case. >> as jeffrey often explains, the supreme court wants to be the final word. they like to rule on thin

joining us jeffrey toobin and laura coats.this whole it is a travel ban, it's not a travel ban, back and forth, how much does it matter legally speaking? >> it's not helpful to the trump administration. i don't think it's fatal to their case before the supreme court. remember, the real problem is if he would have said this was a muslim ban. this is not, according to the administration, a muslim ban. a travel ban is a less problematic phrase. but it's still suggestive of the improper motive that the lower courts found, which raises something that the administration would rather not deal with, as this case comes before the supreme court. >> professor dearthswits, these tweets from the president, do they undermine his justice department's case as it heads to the supreme court? >> i think they do to a substantial degree. there are three issues that the supreme court will confront. is there standing, number one? and on that issue, he says that the first travel ban is as good as the second ban. that's just wrong. the first travel ba

. >> now jeffrey toobin, gloria borger, jack kings sthon, and brian fallon who was former press secretary for hillary clinton's campaign. yefri, lets me start with you. comey is kmmd to say he did not tell trump three times that trump was not under investigation, so let me read what the president said. me wrote this letter to comey. while i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i am not under investigation, and he wonts don't -- he was really loud about that. what if the former fbi director finds him guilty? >> it's not a crime to write a statement that is disputed in a letter. i -- it's not an imbeachble offense. but it is part of a story where if you believe james comey the president is not to be trusted and the president behaved badly. how badly is one of the things people are going to have to conclude. i think one very important fact we're going to learn on thursday is will we see the underlying documents? will we sea comey's contemporaneous notes because those are usually considered very good evidence of what actually took place rather than later recons

david gregory and jeffrey toobin and phil mudd and matthew rosenberg. gentlemen, we got senator warners on the intel committee. democrat. his opening comments. one paragraph is relevant. we should start the discussion there. throw up the paragraph from warner. you don't have it? all right. this is important point he makes. the than t the president appears to have threatened comey's job while telling him i need loyalty. david gregory, there will be a lot of focus on him asking comey to stop the flynn investigation. that is part of what you will hear a lot of politicians call inappropriate today. the question is what does that mean in censure or legality or illeg illegality. warner says, that means do you want to save your job. is that a fair reckoning of the question? >> i think there is no question the president created this awkward pre-text to get together and comey describes it. he indicated he wanted to stay in his role and it was if they never had that conversation. here trump is setting up a dinner with the two of them alone where they isolated and

. >> let me get jeffrey toobin's reaction. >> it is part of the pattern.his administration is accommodating of russia since before -- i mean, during the campaign, after the campaign. all these connections that are being investigated currently. why were all these administration officials, campaign officials in 2016, meeting with russians and not telling the truth about it when they are asked about it this year. the idea that the president relied on false russian propaganda, to endorse a major policy crisis, and in qatar where we have a number of troops, is amazing. but the president is also retweeting the drudge report. this is man with access to the greatest intelligence operation in the world and he is retweeting the george report apparently a false story here. >> retweets fox and friends. he watches that show in the morning. retweets that. but also amazing to me, and the white house refusing to answer a simple question. remember the root of this whole conflict is that donald trump remains angry at jeff sessions for refusing himself from the russia invest

i will go back to a point that was raised earlier by jeffrey toobin there on the panel about conflicts, whether or not director mueller has conflicts in his law firm or whether he has conflicts because of his close personal relationship with director comey. they have been friends for over 15 years. comey is a star witness here. they have been very, very close allies, battle buddies. i don't know what the terminology has been used in the past. there may be a conflict there. as well as the poor optics of hiring attorneys who work on this investigation who have given -- who are partisan. given no money to republicans and huge amounts of money to democrats. >> jeff toobin, what about that? >> i think particularly two of those prosecutors, michael dreeben is perhaps the finest appellate lawyer in america when it c it comes to criminal law. he has argued something like 100 cases before the supreme court. the justices lean forward when this guy argues. he is a legend. andrew weisman was also the head of the enron prosecution team. these people have impeccable credentials. >> bad optics though

john avelon joins you can, gloria borger and jeffrey toobin. david sanger also here.ia, let me start with you. this will be a major turning point. this. was not under personal investigation, that is, until he fired the fbi director and he now is under personal investigation, the washington post reports. >> yeah. you know, it's the first real sign that the question of obstruction is being investigated by the special counsel. don't forget. this is an investigation that started out about russian medaling into the american election process and now according to the washington post reporting, the special counsel mueller has broadened his investigation as often occurs with these special counsel investigations and has broadened it to look into this question of obstruction and whether the president was involved in that. so i do think, erin, that it is quite significant. >> john? >> no question significant. what i think it does is it cod fiez the firing of comey seems to have triggered a broader investigation. the president had not been a target but the firing of comey seems to

jeffrey toobin, the cnn legal analyst and alan dershowitz we've asked whether this was a crime. what is he going to do? is he going to sit there in the white house oval office stunned and decide right then and there whether this goes to grand jury and he gets a true bill. so he goekz -- this is the way the fbi operates. all you have to do is report it to the fbi at that point, begin your evaluation of whether a crime has occurred and begin there. but you don't -- it's not the fbi mow dus operandi to breedly raeflt unless there's a violent crime. >> matthew, as steve mentioned, some very different viewpoints on james comey's behavior and whether or not the president actually cried to obstruct justice. what do you think? >> what i think it's important to remember here is that it's a bed rock principle of the rule of law that there be a -- that law enforcement be free to do its work free from political interference. it's essential that law enforcement do its work based on the facts and on the law. that's why traditionally through administrations of both parties there's been a stric

join me "outfront" is jeffrey toobin, jack kingston and jennifer granholm. nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity can be banned now. it's okay to ban people who are not american and don't have bona fide ties. what does that mean? >> it only applies to the six muslim-majority countries. >> yes. >> but it means that the people who have close relatives within the united states, who have job offers within the united states, who have letters of admission but donald trump having lost a series of courts got all nine justices to agree that some part of his travel ban can go into effect and i think that's a victory. >> the president tweeted, a different tone, to be fair, he wasn't jumping up and down but said, "very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the supreme court. we must keep america safe." can you give him this? this is a win for him tonight? >> i think part of it was but it wasn't a unanimous decision in the sense that some portions of the ban -- for example, those coming as tourists are banned but it's not a victory when you th

jeffrey toobin.s tell his story what he says is his story, and it turns out to be what is reported, that the president asked comey to slow or stop the investigation of flin, does it mean obstruction of justice? i thought he said not being under political pressure. >> well, you have to listen to what he says. it's a possibility. if the facts are that trump encouraged comey to stop the investigation and when he didn't stop the investigation, he fired him, that is lays out a plausible matter of obstruction of justice. a lot of the matter is in the details. and very important matter, along with this testimony, will congress have access to and release comey's notes? because that would certainly give a lot more credibility to what he says. because it wouldn't just be his recollection. it would be his contemporaneously written notes. >> the contemporaneous notes the former fbi director reported to a newspaper? that is not going to be significant evidence, number one. number two -- and jeff knows this. the s

joining us jeffrey toobin and laura coats.a travel ban, it's not a travel ban, how much does it matter legally speaking? >> it's not helpful to the trump administration. i don't think it's fatal to their case before the supreme court. remember, the real problem is if he would have said this was a muslim ban. this is not, according to the administration, a muslim ban. a travel ban is a less problematic phrase. but it's still suggestive of the improper motive that the lower courts found, which raises something that the administration would rather not deal with, as this case comes before the supreme court. >> professor, these tweets from the president do they undermine his justice department's case as it heads to the supreme court? >> i think they do to a substantial degree. there are three issues that the supreme court will confront. is there standing, number one? and on that issue, he says that the first travel ban is as good as the second ban. that's just wrong. the first travel ban really gives standing to green card holders

. >> jeffrey toobin, he also tweeteded this about the travel ban.issue is going before the u.s. supreme court. he said this. the justice department should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down politically correct version they submitted to the supreme court. but he signed that revised version that he said and authorizing the justice department to take it to the supreme court. it's his justice department. >> it is, and that's certainly complicating the efforts to defend the travel ban in the supreme court which is now just about -- just about before the justices. i wouldn't overstate that though. the government still is going to have some very strong arguments to defend this travel ban or whatever you want to call it, the executive order. this is a ban about national security supported by the president, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state about an area, immigration, that is traditionally reserved to the power of the.. i think he's going to have strong arguments in the supreme cou

stoddard, cnn senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jeffrey toobin. chris cillizza, the possibility that robert mueller could be fired. obviously you hear people saying that would be a very bad idea. had they known james comey was going to be fired, they would say that before then also. what are you hearing? >> well, look, anyone that you would talk to, and i've talked to about this will say it's a terrible idea. it would be politically disastrous. but that doesn't mean donald trump -- you can rule donald trump out from doing it. my read on the chris ruddy thing is the time line seemed pretty clear. he goes to the white house. we now know he does not meet with the president. he comes out, gives an interview to pbs in which he says they are thinking about doing this. i think it would be a really bad idea. seems to me someone at the staff level he meets with at the white house says this is in the mix. this is a possibility. ruddy thinks it's a really pad idea and knows that the best way to communicate that it's a bad idea to his friend, the president of