nick ackerman, sari raises the interesting point, jeff sessions isn't just the cabinet secretary.esident's guy. he was supporting donald trump before anyone else in the upper chamber gave the guy a second thought, and now he hangs him out to dry. what do you make of it? >> well, there's a number of things that are problematic here. first of all, this reflects this president's total disregard for the law. the idea that you would fire an attorney general because ethically he believed he had to recuse himself in the russian investigation is totally outrageous. and then when you compound that with the fact that he's also criticizing him for not going after hillary clinton, the idea of a president telling an attorney general to go and prosecute somebody, somebody who as his opponent -- >> on twitter. >> on twitter. even worse. it just shows that first of all, totally unethical. it's a basis for impeachment in and of itself to direct your attorney general to do such a thing, and in addition to all of that, it reflects a president who is totally unhinged and has no idea what he's doing.

former security director, and from new york, nick ackerman. let's start with you.ent's layers apparently want him to stop talking about russia. is it time for the president, himself, to distance himself from his son-in-law? >> jared is omnipresent in this administration. two is that scandal has followed jared everywhere he has gone. i don't think we can say just yet, but -- >> when you say scandal has followed him everywhere. >> jared did not report his meetings with the ambassador. he did not disclose meeting with the head of a russian bank. he prepared a covert back channel with the russians so evade detection. and it was jared that, for months, allowed his colleagues from the president on down, to deny any meetings of that sort took place. he made liars out of all of them for months. >> nick, according to the time article, kushner says he failed to read to the bottom of the e-mail invitation to that meeting. if you didn't read all of the way down, read that it was a promise from the russian informati information, does that clear him? >> the idea that he didn't r

also nick ackerman.rlie, i want to start with you, can the president par ddon. >> a question with no answer. no court has ever been able to weigh in on this question. we have had legal speculation on it. it would be a conflict of interest. some say there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't. >> so this has only been tested one or twice in america history, and i want to go to you, nick. it is a couple months old, how does throwing around the concept of a pardon impact the investigation? >> i don't think it has any practical impact on the investigation. i think they go ahead and do what they have. i think there is no court case on this, our system of justice that really doesn't allow someone to be a judge upon themselves really kind of comes out with a conclusion that really the president can't pardon himself. one, if he were to pardon himself, it information is -- is really an admission of guilt, and what he is getting into here is an obstruction of justice. you could do something that under

law professor paul butler with us a long-term veteran of justice department and here in new york nick ackermanback with us. he was among the watergate prosecutors. and nick i'm starting with you as a matter of law. is it at all clear to you the president knows the definition, the mechanism of recusal not even the amazings kroesken saying okay president i'll take your job as ag when i get there an inquiry is going to be started an i'm going to need to recuse. do you think he knows the ag job among cabinet jobs is different and brings different responsibilities. >> i don't think he has a clue. he doesn't even care never mind have a clue. all he cares about is trying to stop this whole russian investigation. the fact of the matter is jeff sessions properly recused himself from any involvement in the russian investigation. >> after considered legal judgment correct. >> absolutely. this is an ethical standard that guides all of the lawyers in the department of justice. it guides the judges who sit on the bench. this is an important legal right. and the problem with this president is he has no regar

joining our conversation tonight former federal prosecutor and assistant watergate prosecutor nick ackerman back with us. julie pace and eli stokeles have been kind enough to hang out a bit longer. nick, tell us about this form. tell us how rare it is to come back, amended it once, amend it twice more and add 100 foreign contacts. >> i mean that in itself as far as i'm concerned proves that he lied. the way this form is presented to you, you do it online now. it's a very extensive form. it takes many hours to complete the form. and it is so detailed. and throughout that form they put the fear of god in you that if you lie and you don't put in everything that's asked for that you're committing a federal felony in violation of title 18 united states code section 1001 for lying to the government, punishable up to five years in z prison. then after you go through the entire form where they ask everystones with your met any foreigner, anyplace you've gone overseas everything about parents, family, friends after you've given all the references you are then vis visited by a retired fbi agent who g

nick ackerman, former assistant special watergate prosecutor, josh barro, senior editor for business insider and i like him so much because he knows economics. also with us, a man who worked overtime this week, "new york times" peter baker, who interviewed president trump on wednesday, that extraordinary "new york times" piece that i just can't get enough of, also the author of a new book, "obama: the call of history." peter, you know i'm starting with you. i want to play a part of your interview with the president, a part that stuck out to me. >> what would cause you to -- what would be the line beyond which if mueller went, you would say, that's too far, we need to dismiss him? >> look, there are so many conflicts that everybody has. >> okay. then this is not on tape, but he told you this -- there were many other conflicts that i haven't said, but i will at some point. okay. let's just break this down for a moment. this is not reality tv. we are not waiting for a grand finale. if the president and the administration the focused on getting to their agenda, what on earth do you think

i'm joined by nick ackerman, a former watergate special prosecutor, and michael kaputo, a former trump campaign adviser who testified about russia before the same committee kushner will face tomorrow and his company website describes him as the only executive in history who worked for both the white house and the kremlin. nick, do you see anything wrong with kushner's defense that he was innocent and just out of the loop? >> if you read through it, it is very carefully drafted, such that he basically lies about everything. he's got himself out of every single situation. for example, the june 9th meeting. he claims he didn't read the e-mails. he claims he didn't know what it was about. even though he shows up at 4:00 when he's told in a subsequent e-mail that the meeting was starting later. he says that he didn't know what was discussed at the meeting. no idea it was russians. even though he says they were talking about adoption. and of course, they had to be talking in russian, because at least two of the people there only spoke russian, with a russian interpreter. he basically took hi

with me now, nick ackerman. also senior foellow at the research institute.r a russian lawyer or anyone russian, i guess, working on behalf of the kremlin to approach a campaign and say hey, i have dirt on your opponent. >> i think it is unlikely but not unheard of. i think all campaigns, except for this one, would distance themselves. if someone walk-ins and says "i have compromising information on your opponent, i think i would take a lot of caution. maybe they're trying to dooub you or get you into conspiracy. >> don junior had a lot of different responses. coming out saying i had some dirt on the campaign, but she did not. >> he could be facing treason claims, we don't know what was actually said in that meeting. we can't really go to the bank for the explanation of what occurred. >> what would be tremendousson? >> going in knowing that the russian government likely got it from it's spying efforts by taling them, it is a serious matter to deal with a russian spy and taking information from her. >> there is no consensus that she was a russian spy. >> first

here with me now, nick ackerman, a former assistant special wate prosecutor and a partner with dorsrytney. and in d.c. ron hos co, former assistant director of the fbi. in this case, i'm going to start with you because you're sit sg here. if you were prosecuting this case, what's the first step you would take? >> well, i think the first thing i would do would be to come up with an investigate ti high pot sis as to where i want to look based on the facts that i know at the time, my own gut stingts and where kind of all the players sit. here we've got a situation where on june 4th there is in that e-mail a statement that documents are going to be turned over to the trump campaign. ron goldstone first says they're going to be sent to trump's secretary and then he says he's going to give them to done junior himself. then on june 7th, before that meeting on june 9th, donald trump in a campaign appearance after he wins the new jersey primary takes out of context, sort of extemp iranousel says that he's going to be revealing all kinds of information on the chin tons. it's going to be very da

professor paul butler back with us, a long time veteran of the justice department and here in new york nick ackermanck with us, among the watergate prosecutors. and nick i'm going to start with you as a matter of law. is it at all clear to you the president knows the definition, the mechanism of recusal? not even the amazing it kreskin could have said okay, mr. president, i'll take your job as ag but warning, when i get there an inquiry is going to be starred, i'm going to need to recuse. that's question number one. do you think he knows the ag job among cabinet jobs is different and brings different responsibilities? >> i don't think he has a clue. he doesn't even care, never mind have a clue. all he cares about is trying to stop this whole russian investigation. the fact of the matter is, jeff sessions properly recused himself from any involvement in the russian investigation. >> after considered legal judgment, correct? >> absolutely. i mean, this is an ethic call standard that guides all of the lawyers in the department of justice. it guides the judge who's sit on the bench. this is a very impor

. >> joining me now, nick ackerman. i'm sure you're having flash backs to watergate. when they're sending a message to the white house saying you should not be doing this, don't even think about it it, but the president keeps going after him verbally and on twitter. you have not heard any one of his senior staff say "the president believes in jeff sessions" because he is saying basely thically that he doesn't. why not fire him? >> i don't think he can because of the blow back if he does fire him. it reflects that he has no respect for the law, for legal ethics, and for the independe e independents. >> this president is a wimp. part of the reason is because he has no understanding of the issues that he is supposed to have a handle on. he doesn't know what recusal is, he probably can't spell it. this is not something that the president has anything to do with or should have anything to do with. >> and yet he tried to make it bigger than himself, right? when he said this is about the presidency. as if there was something big at stake. >> the only thing that he is concern

. >> the former white house press secretary under president obama and nick ackerman. the form he u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. the tikes sessions, aside from being humiliating and unseamly and bizarre, they are also, they strike me as an attempt to get him to quit so he doesn't have to fire him. what is your understanding of why he is doing this? >> well, i had the same reaction. he is acting like somebody who doesn't have the nerve to follow his attorney general. he is being as mean as he can in the most passively aggressive way possible. to try to get him to quit. what is interesting to me is the strategy to the extent there is one. it does not appear to be the conventional strategy that would you recommend to someone. ordinarily what you would do is marshal evidence, find validators on the other side of the aisle who would back up your story. you go the great lengths to demonstrate what you're doing the cooperate with the investigation or releasing reams of e-mail. reams of pages of documents and e-mail. agreeing to all sorts of questioning.

attorney nick ackerman. i want to start with you, tom. kellyanne conway was on this morning saying nothing came of the meeting with don jr. is that enough? he went to the meeting with the expectation that a russian, a russian was going to give him dirt on hillary clinton and he didn't go to the meeting alone. he brought with him paul manafort and jared kushner, can the person who did not disclose at this point more than one meet m ing with russians. >> if i had been advising the trump campaign i would have said don't have that meeting. i would not put this in a category of best practices at the same time, what we know at this point is that number one there is no agreement that was reached at the meeting. there was no sort of collusion, no sort of quid pro quo. and number two, it's not entirely clear this woman was, in fact,ing on behalf of the russian government. i think it's something that bears investigation. i'm glad that younger mr. trump has come forward and given his version of events. i think it's worth looking into, but at least a