norma eisen, jim schultz, and ambassador eisenberg.u now hear this fuller description from michael caputo about his experience with the team. what jumps out at you? >> well, the intensity of sitting there and having to answer questions, anderson, from experienced prosecutors who know more than you do. imagine what that's going to be like if president trump has to subject himself to an even more intense version of that. i don't see that happening, having advised defendants for decades, no way should trump -- i have to agree with michael -- it just doesn't make sense for trump, if he tells the truth, he risks incriminates himself on obstruction or collusion. if he lies, it's perjury or false statements. if he takes the fifth, how can you have a president who takes the fifth amendment? the more likely course is to do battle with this. i don't think the president is going to put himself through a longer, harder version of what michael described. >> saul, it's interesting listening to michael kcaputo, who's so struck by the intensity of a v

. >> want to bring in former white house lawyer jim schultz who worked in the trump administration forose first six months. long time, no see. great to have you here. what do you make of general kelly's comments right there, that people were hired that should not have been hired? >> well, look, he certainly made that decision. there were folks that were moved out of the administration as soon as he came in. was his prerogative as chief of staff to make those staffing decisions. so i think that's what he's getting at. he's saying, look, i came in, i brought order to the white house. we moved folks on that we didn't believe were contributing in a way that was positive for the white house. and made some decisions to again restore order to the office. go ahead. >> i was going to say, you were there, we weren't there. you were there. so sort of two fold question. one, is kelly right that things, you know, were not working back then and are working now? and if they are working now, what about the chaos surrounding just rudy giuliani? >> look, rudy giuliani does not work in the white house. s

let's discuss the implications with laura coates and jim schultz. m, i want to start with you because you were a former white house lawyer for president trump. if you saw or i should say when you read this list of questions today, would you would be inclined to allow the president to sit down with robert muler? >> why would the work product of a lawyer for the president ever make its way into the public domain if that is, in fact, what this is? that's the most disturbing part of this is that attorney work product if it is attorney work product whether it's just notes from a meeting with mueller's team and you know a scope of questions, it's just very troubling to me that these questions would be in the public domain. >> what's the answer to that? hold on. before that, what's your theory on what's the answer to that, jim? >> i don't know what the answer to it is. if it is, in fact, the legal team for the president's work product, i don't know how that gets in the public domain except for someone close to the president. if it is, in fact, something tha

joining us now former white house lawyer for president trump jim schultz, let's first start with the claim that the president doesn't have to comply with a subpoena, is that how you see it? >> it is untested whether the president will have to respond to a grrj subpoena or not. this question is not settled by the supreme court. and so if he decides not to testify, it may go all the way to the supreme court. >> sfo tthe bomtttom line is th president has ever been faced with a subpoena because there's never been a situation like this. but the president has been openly critical of people doing exactly that. letsd list let's listen. >> have you seen what's going on in front of congress? fifth amendment, fifth amendment, fifth amendment, horrible. the mob takes the fifth. if you're innocent why are you taking the fifth amendment? when you have your staff taking the fifth amendment, taking the fifth so they're not prosecuted, i think it's disgraceful. >> so jim, if he takes the fifth, won't be say he must have something to hide? >> look, i think this is the danger of talking about legal str

joining me now, jim schultz is here, former attorney in the trump white house and jennifer rogers, a lecturer at columbia law school. do you believe that donald trump wants nothing more than to speak to robert mueller? >> well, i'm inclined to doubt it. this is kind of what he said about the tax returns as well. i would be happy to release my tax returns, my lawyers say i can't. he zndoesn't want to sit down wh them. this way he gets to have his cake and eat it too. he says i love to do it, i want to clear the air, they won't allow me to. >> we hear from the president that the mueller team is all democrats. and let's not get into it, because we already discussed a lot of that, we all know that mueller is a republican and everyone respects what he has done. that is a political argument, though, we know, and could be an effective one that we have heard from him before. but do you think this, when the president says that now, is the beginning of what he hopes is a legal argument in the case of a subpoena? >> no, i don't. i think the president's message is consistent with what giuliani s

joining us jeffrey toobin and former white house lawyer jim schultz. jeff, first of all the thing that rudy guiliani said that surprised me besides the president did repay, which we all kind of knew he must have. although, that's not something that went public and michael cohen seemed to indicate that wasn't the case is guiliani clearly said, imagine the damage this would have done. it was 11 days before the campaign if it happened in the middle of the debate, rudy guiliani says that flies in the face exactly what michael cohen and his supporters said all along. it had nothing to do with the campaign. >> this is extremely incriminating what guiliani said about this payment. because the issue. the wleem issue surrounding this, putting aside the moral issue of the entire white house lying about this for weeks. the legal issue is whether this was a campaign expenditure. and the article, the argument that's been put out so far is that even though this sexual encounter took place ten years earlier and had been released in a tabloid five years earlier, it's

. >> do you -- jim schultz do you find it odd donald trump wouldn't remember who he called after theing to a blocked number. >> you're talking about a campaign. you make phone calls all day every day. it's craziness during a campaign. taking calls making calls. a lot of us have blocked numbers. you might have a blocked number. but it's silly to make that immediate assumption that it was his father. >> joe what do you think. >> i think there is -- you don't know about this cull. but it's a piece of the puzzle. i've worked in five presidential campaigns. the idea that the candidate's son, the campaign chairman and the candidate's son-in-law took this meeting, you can't just pass it off as oh, they were just on a fishing expedition. there is something here. mueller may know how the pieces fit. we don't know but the idea this that this was a meeting we were border by the meeting is absurd. >> it's interesting michael, i've always thought it odd that donald trump junior learns in the email that russian government is supporting his father's campaign and that he never mentioned that to his

i talked to former trump white house lawyer jim schultz and was pretty critical of giuliani and says giuliani needs to stop talking off the cuff and be more strategic and giuliani told dana bash he and trump have a strategy, that they have come up a plan and that trump likes the way things are going and what he is seeing, perhaps a bad strategy, but a strategy? >> you know, this reminds me a little bit of the scaramucci episode in july and jonathan swan with "actionos" has said the mooch has been thrown around the west wing with people in the white house comparing the giuliani situation with skarmy who came into the white house with a lot of fanfare, was praised and had a disastrous ten days. in the beginning trump supported him and liked him but as he sort of flew closer and closer to the sun trump sort of discarded him and pushed him out of the white house with the help of the chief of staff john kelly. i'm not saying that's where giuliani is going to end up, but sometimes trump praises a performance like giuliani's and then he has second thoughts when there's a great deal of backl

. >> joining me now to discuss, paul begala and jim schultz. paul, politics is politics, but it doesn't matter, he's dying anyway. when john mccain, as everyone knows, is in arizona right now at home battling brain cancer. where is the line between, you know, politics and human decency? >> well, there is no decency in a comment like that, obviously. it's one thing to argue over whether gina haspel should run the cia. recently people can differ. reasonable people, good people don't say things like that. why did this aide say it? she's just a dust speck in the american body of public, right? as zeleny points out, because the president sets the tone. once norms are shattered, it's very difficult to put them back together. i worked for a president who gave the medal of freedom to his component on the campaign of 1996, bob dole. why? because bob dole deserved it. they didn't agree about politics, but deal was an american hero. we need to find a way to get back to it, but this president makes it very, very difficult. can i note quickly what exactly s

george schultz and jim baker how assume were aghast at what happened under president obama. i'm sure in private or even public settings they would express dissatisfaction. but they didn't meet with our adversaries and counsel them on how best to deal with the united states. i would be in favor of congress doing something for a change and repealing the logan act. it's hard to get into these things to know who said what when. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. if we are going to be prosecuting mike flynn who actually had a position with the administration. and we are accusing him of the logan act because he didn't hold office until two weeks after that call. here john kerry is colluding in a quasi official capacity. he should be prosecuted. >> what if he says no, i'm expressing my right as a private citizen? i think it's in the interest of my country. >> the law is a couple sentences long. the question would be what happened in the conversation. presumably he wouldn't testify against himself. and the iranian foreign minister wouldn't want to testify either. but

jim. speaking of the starbucks closures happening today, some 8200 stores nationwide, they exhibit of chairman of starbucks, howard schultzreleasing an open letter to customers around the country. the open letter, the full-page ad in many national newspapers today, writing in the open letter, "the incidents have prompted us to think more deeply on bias, the role of our stores in communities, and our responsibility to make sure nothing like this happens again." partners will be sharing life experiences, hearing from others, reflecting on the realities of bias in our society, and talking about all of us pretty public spaces where everybody feels like they belong, because they do. the conversation will become part of our company and how we screen partners, discussing race is not easy, and various people have helped us to create a learning experience we hope will be educational, participatory, and make us a better company. we want this to be an open and honest conversation and we will make the curriculum available to the public." the open letter in many national newspapers today, you might come across it as you go through you