Giuliani: "Nothing Wrong with Taking Information from Russians; Trump Rants about Report Before Attending Easter Sunday Service
WHITFIELD: President Trump's team has a rebuttal to the Mueller report ready to go, but president's attorney Rudy Giuliani said today on CNN that they won't release it until they have to. Giuliani on the one hand is calling the report an unfair one-sided assessment while also claiming it's a total vindication and exoneration of the president, and today he had this to say about the links between the Trump campaign and Russia detailed in the Mueller report.</s>RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.</s>JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER": There's nothing wrong with taking information --</s>GIULIANI: -- where it came from. It depends on where it came from. You're assuming that the giving of information is a campaign contribution. Read the report carefully. The report says we can't conclude that because the law is pretty much against that. People get information from this person, that person.</s>TAPPER: So you would have accepted information from Russians against -- against a candidate if you were running in a presidential election?</s>GIULIANI: I probably wouldn't. I wasn't asked. I would have advised out of excess of caution don't do it. I'll give you another thing though.</s>TAPPER: But you're saying there's nothing wrong with doing that.</s>GIULIANI: There's no crime.</s>TAPPER: You just said you wouldn't accept help from the Russians --</s>GIULIANI: I don't know if I would or I wouldn't. The legal advice I would give is out of an excess of caution don't do that but maybe that's informed by what's going on right now and what we've learned since then. The reality is you're picking on a minor point when the major point is he was pursued for years for a false charge, two FBI investigations -- one with four affidavits for electronic surveillance that turned out to be fraudulent. That's a big crime. Now it turns out he didn't do it.</s>WHITFIELD: Let's check in with CNN's White House correspondent Boris Sanchez. He's live in West Palm Beach, Florida, near Mar-a-Lago where the president is spending Easter weekend. So, Boris, the president spent this morning you know slamming the report on Twitter and then he was at Easter service, so what about this additional messaging coming from his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.</s>BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Rudy Giuliani echoing a lot of what we heard from other Trump supporters, Fred, essentially touting the results of the Mueller report, accepting the results of the Mueller report but then refuting the portions of it that they don't like. Giuliani here, making a curious argument. He's essentially saying that no one on the Trump campaign did anything illegal. The president didn't know about anything unethical that may have happened though he acknowledges that certain actions were taken that may be deemed unethical, yet he says that he believes that unethical things happen in all political campaigns. On top of that, Giuliani went after the former White House Counsel Don McGahn. You'll recall, Fred, in a portion of the Mueller report, McGahn told investigators that President Trump effectively told him to get rid of Robert Mueller as special counsel, the president citing certain conflicts of interest that the Department of Justice did not take seriously. McGahn at that point threatened to resign. In this interview, Giuliani effectively says that McGahn's recollection is wrong. He cites different recollection that McGahn had. To be clear, McGahn spoke about those accusations this weekend. He cleared it up saying that he stands by that recollection that he basically threatened to quit if he wanted -- if President Trump wanted him to carry out that order to fire Robert Mueller. We should also point out that's one instance of an attempt at an obstruction of justice. There are at least 10 in this report, Fred.</s>WHITFIELD: So, tell us more about, you know, what's unfolding behind the scenes in terms of the president checking on who is loyal, who is with him, et cetera.</s>SANCHEZ: Right, yes, that's one of the key takeaways from the report. We've learned from sources that President Trump was fuming when he saw depictions coming from former White House officials of an unhinged president, someone who is paranoid and angry and that people weren't following his orders. They were either ignoring them or refusing them all together like we were just discussing with McGahn. So what we've heard is that since the release of the report President Trump has been seeking assurances that people are actually following his commands and doing what he asked to be done as president. Really an interesting dynamic to come from that report, Fred, that so many people basically told the president that they weren't going to do what he was asking because of the danger that it could pose for them.</s>WHITFIELD: Boris Sanchez, thank you so much. All right, let's talk further. Joining me right now to discuss, CNN's Marshall Cohen who has been closely following the Mueller probe for the past two years, former Obama Homeland Security official and CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem and former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Shan Wu. Good to see all of you. All right, so Julie, you first, you know your reaction to Giuliani saying it's OK you know for a campaign to get information from Russia.</s>JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I mean, it's so shocking at this stage, but I think it's worth saying that it is shocking, and I think it shows the struggle that the Trump White House is going to have, and for that matter all Republicans in defending volume one. I've been making it clear that there's volume one to me is the heart of the matter. It is about the Russia attempts or not even attempts but success during the election, and shows even if it's not -- conspiracy does show activities between the Trump campaign and even Trump to try to work with and at least grease the runway for the Russians to engage themselves in our campaign. So, remember where we started. There was no contact with Russia. We then move to the contacts they were with the coffee boy, remember that defense. Then contacts didn't matter, right, because they had no influence to now the only defense they have left which Giuliani was clearly put out to say which is the contacts themselves with Russia are OK. Every Republican is going to have to either agree or disagree with that at this stage because that's their only defense to the volume one accusations as compared to the obstruction of justice accusations or list from volume two.</s>WHITFIELD: And many Democrats are calling for impeachment proceedings to begin. Here's House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler's take.</s>CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST, "MEET THE PRESS DAILY": Do you think this is impeachable?</s>REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Yes, I do. I do think that this -- if proven -- if proven which hasn't been proven yet. Some of this -- if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes.</s>TODD: All right.</s>NADLER: Obstruction of justice if proven would be impeachable.</s>WHITFIELD: So, Shan, you're among those who say you know obstruction was a slam dunk legally. So what would stand in the way of impeachment proceedings to get underway?</s>SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nothing except the law stands in the way which is whether there is the political will to do it, and I think that Speaker Pelosi and the more senior folks are very well aware of the fact that their jury pool, which is the Senate right now, they don't have the votes on their jury. So I think that's the concern that they have. But legally as a former prosecutor, I certainly think that if you have sufficient evidence that you could have charged criminally, which I believe there was, I think the only reason they didn't charge is because of the Justice Department opinion in existence from the Nixon era, from the Office of Legal Counsel, that says don't charge sitting presidents. But if there's sufficient evidence to charge criminally there would be enough evidence to go forth with the impeachment. I'm not exactly sure what Nadler means says if proven because there's not going to be a proven case in court criminally so I'm not sure what that level would be though.</s>WHITFIELD: And Congressman Elijah Cummings who is chairman of the House Oversight Committee says this report was a real road map. At the same time he says Congress does not need more information about the president's conduct in other matters. Take a listen.</s>REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I'm not there yet, but I -- I -- I can foresee that possibly coming, but, again, the fact is that I think we have to do -- be very careful here. The American people, a lot of them, clearly still don't believe that President Trump is doing things to destroy our Democracy and has done a lot of things very poorly. And so I think that we need to make sure the Congress has all the information.</s>WHITFIELD: So, Marshall, you know Congress does have this duty of oversight, and we know that Nadler has, you know, put in a subpoena. He has subpoenaed for the unredacted report. Will that help fill in any blanks to allow them to know how to move forward?</s>MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Yes. As a journalist I would love to see every single word that's in that report. I'm sure everyone else agrees with that. Whether or not Democrats are going to be successful with this effort will be determined far down the line, and probably if I'm guessing by a federal judge. Some of this stuff in there that was redacted has to be redacted by law, like the grand jury stuff. That didn't really come into play in the obstruction portion, but the first volume on collusion, potential collusion, did have stuff redacted on the grand jury. A federal judge could lift those redactions, but it's going to take time, and whether or not they get it, you know, that's -- that's not a sure thing.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes, in terms of the next year and a half.</s>COHEN: Right.</s>WHITFIELD: You're talking. OK. So, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, he's had a lot of thoughts this morning. He also said today, you know, he plans to call former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee. Meanwhile the president's attorney, Giuliani, says the former White House Counsel McGahn has other questions he needs to answer.</s>TAPPER: Are you suggesting that McGahn is lying?</s>GIULIANI: No. I'm telling you he's confused. He gave three different version and the special prosecutors</s>WHITFIELD: So, Shan, what does Congress want to know from McGahn?</s>WU: I think they want to, first, try to ask him some clear questions to go over what's already in the Mueller report and then, second of all, I think they want to have him expand on the context of what was his impression of what the president was asking him to do, why did he refuse to do it, and I think that's going to shed a lot of light, not very favorable light, upon the president's actions. And --</s>WHITFIELD: I mean, he would have to further explain what's already in the report which is, you know, he didn't feel that that was the right thing to do, wasn't the legal thing to do. He would need to elaborate on that impulse.</s>WU: If I were the one doing the questioning, absolutely. I would want him to elaborate on that and to fully explain, what are your concerns? You know, what's not legal about that. It's one thing to conclude that what looked like the Saturday Night massacre. It's another thing to explain what's in his mind because I think what was in his mind was that's committing obstruction of justice, and for him to say that that's going to be very, very negative for the president.</s>WHITFIELD: And, Juliette, Giuliani says the rebuttal to this Mueller report you know if it's going to be released. And if there really is one, he does say that it's ready to go but they are waiting for the right timing. What would that be timing -- isn't this right now on display sort of a rebuttal and the president's tweets and all that?</s>KAYYEM: Absolutely. And -- and, you know, this is -- this is the scorched earth rebuttal. It's Trump saying some things, Giuliani saying another. We love Mueller. We hate Mueller, but it's to obfuscate or to sort of confuse viewer who is not watching it or reading it as much as we are that the facts are unclear. So let's just make it clear here. In volume one and volume two the facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the legal conclusions from those facts, whether there was collusion with the Russian or whether there was in fact obstruction of justice or because he was the president based on the OLC memo that they could not prosecute him. So I think that their strategy has got to be done to confuse people about the facts and just going back to my first point which I made - you know just volume one issue, the Russia issue. There's no defense to it because the White House doesn't seem -- is able to sort of ignore the facts in volume one which is they just did have all of these contacts with the Russians that they lied about over years. And so I think that's going to be -- they are just going to go after the facts and then, of course, the witnesses because reality is just not on their side at this stage.</s>WHITFIELD: Except the White House likes that you know there's no collusion is what the White House wants to stick with, you know, on the Russia involvement, and doesn't seem to be very distracted, nor concerned about all the evidence of possible obstruction.</s>WU: I think it's really important that distinction that was just made about the legal versus the factual. They are trying hard to blur up the facts, and they are worried about that, but it's real important to remember that this was an exercise of prosecutorial judgement, discretion. A different prosecutor, different department might have come out differently on this. Because it was a big legal decision for Mueller to decide not to charge on the -- first of all, not to charge because he could have said I would charge but for the OLC opinion. And then second of all for him to decide not to reach a conclusion on obstruction. Those are exercises of discretion. He was off the beaten path. No one had told him exactly how to do that, so that's a real problem in terms of us understanding what happened, and what the Trump folks want to do, of course, is spin that as a factual fait accompli and the reason that didn't happen is because the facts don't support it. And that's simply wrong.</s>WHITFIELD: Yes. And Marshall, what's at stake particularly for members of Congress? While there's going to be a conference call tomorrow involving you know Democrats, how to proceed, et cetera. What is at stake for Congress if it doesn't pick up the ball, so to speak, from this Mueller report and do what it is constitutionally, you know, permitted and obligated to do in terms of having all of these facts and then following through with it? If it does nothing, what's at stake for Congress?</s>COHEN: Well, as Shan pointed out, impeachment is a calculation. It's a political calculation, right? If the Democratic leadership, if Nancy Pelosi and the others thought that impeaching Trump would help them next year in 2020, help them maybe recapture the Senate, they would be rushing to do it right now. You would have heard everyone this morning on all the shows saying I'm for it. Let's do it. We're starting tomorrow. Clearly, impeachment is political. It's not a criminal trial. It's a political endeavor. The political calculation appears to have been made, although there are some cracks, Elizabeth Warren right out there on the trail saying that she's for it. Maybe there will be more splintering, Fred.</s>WHITFIELD: Right. We shall see. Go ahead, Julie, real quick.</s>KAYYEM: I just wanted to add to Marshall's. I think one of the things that's changed for a lot of national security folks, I've changed my mind about impeachment over the last 72 hours has certainly been that it's also a security decision given what Giuliani said today. We just have the no assurances that this group won't do it again or other -- other people won't do it again. The Russians are empowered by what Giuliani said today, what Trump is saying on Twitter, and that to me makes it not just political but also just thinking about the security aspects and why more cautious people seem to be like myself for honestly a little bit, you know, much more accepting of the impeachment process than I was even last Wednesday.</s>WHITFIELD: All right, Shan Wu, Juliette Kayyem, Marshall Cohen, good to see all of you. Thank you.</s>WU: Good to see you, Fred.</s>KAYYEM: Thank you.</s>WHITFIELD: We'll be right back.