Bharara: Trump wants attorney general 'to protect him from the due process of law'

Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams discuss the Russia investigation on "This Week."
3:00 | 01/07/18

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:



Skip to this video now

Now Playing:


Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Bharara: Trump wants attorney general 'to protect him from the due process of law'
Everything that I've done a 100% proper. That's what I do is I do things proper. I guess the collusion now is dead. Because everyone found that after a year of study, there's been absolutely no collusion. There's been no collusion between us and the Russians. Mr. President, are you committed to going to speak to the committee? Just so you understand. There's been no collusion. There's been no crime. When you have done nothing wrong, let's be open and get it over with. Baas honestly, vs. Very, very bad for our country. It's making our country look foolish. And this is a country that I don't want looking foolish. President trump yesterday on the Mueller investigation. Let's talk about that with former U.S. Attorney preet bharara. Now a distinguished scholar at nyu school of law and our legal analyst Dan Abrams. You heard the president say, there is though collusion. Even though Mueller is still doing all his work. More evidence this week that the special counsel very focused on this idea of obstruction of just justice. Both "The knonew York Times wrts report and some of the the revelations in the book. If you believe the reports, there's a continuing saga of information that would lead you to believe that Mueller and his team are looking at other things that paint a picture of potential obstruction. The report in "The New York Times" was aspect was that apparently, and reportedly, the president asked his white house council, don mcbeggan, as you said, to encourage Jeff session not the recuse himself. Why can't a president do that? That by assist not necessarily criminal. It's unhelpful. It max him look bad. You have to consider the reason why hi didn't want people to look at -- the reason for that is, that doesn't get talked about as much is that presumably the president wanted to be protected bay loyal attorney general. Not to protect the process of law. But to protect him from the due process of law. That's not right. Over time, if row have enough instances of things that show that the president wanted to end the Russia investigation. And this is just a piece of it, you start to find yourself building -- It has to be pattern of behavior. One of the quos is the president railing with his staff, where is my Roy Cohn? If that's true, that's a horrible thing to look back on. He means I want someone to protect me, if he said that. There are two avenues. Was there collusion with Russia? Is there a possible conspiracy charge? And number two, is this a possible obstruction of justice. For the last year, it's been proven, shown, we know it didn't happen. I don't know where that is coming from. How do we know? We don't know what Mueller knows? When don't know what he's going to conclude. We know he's got an plea agreement from George papadopoulos. Yes. You have that piece. And then the second piece is this possible obstruction. Again, we don't know that Robert mooul sir going to conclude that there was obstruction. But of course he's going to be looking at it. Of course he's going to be investigating it. You have to view it as a puzzle, as preet is saying. You look at the pieces, if you put these together, does that tell a story of corrupt intent? If you look at the various pieces. The New York Times article that the discussions with don mcgan and Jeff sessions. All the discussions in the white house. Before James Comey was fired. And the president talking about how he wanted to fire James Comey. All those discussions in the white house where the president helped write a false statement about his son don jr.'s dealing with the Russians. Would you need to talk to the president about that if you add that all up? Generally speaking, when an investigation is overt as opposed to covert. Even nose what's happening. The lawyers have said they want to meet. The president's lawyers want to meet with special counsel Mueller. Generally speaking, before you make a decision about this, buttoning everything up, crossing every "T," dotting every "I," usually, you have a high-profile potential target, you talk to that person. The president doesn't have to talk. I imagine the president will talk because that's what he does. The president will talk. That is a perilous decision for the president and his lawyers. I don't think he can do it. I don't think that the president can sit down with Mueller's team and answer these sorts of questions. Why? Because he's opening himself up to other possible crimes, right? If he gets in there and they determine he isn't telling them the truth about certain things, again, it doesn't have to be about the fundamental questions as to Russian collusion. It can be about almost anything. He's opening himself up to the possibility of additional federal charges. I think that that -- I think he will say, maybe I'm wrong. I think he'll say, my lawyers have told me. I want to be in there. I want to talk. And I believe that by the way. I believe Donald Trump wants to be in there and talk to them. I have to believe that his lawyers will tell him not to. Do you disagree? I believe the president doesn't listen to his lawyers. The president -- a gentleman who is a stable genius, he tells us, was listening to his lawyers, there's lots and lots of stuff he would not have said, done, tweeted. Sure. Here's a person who wants to defend himself. He does it through the platform of Twitter on a daily basis. And he said he wanted to talk. To the special counsel's office. If they make the request, or say we're available for you to talk us to, it seems untenable not to do it. Let me flip it. What does the special counsel do if the president refuses to talk to them? They go on their merry way and decide to make a case or not. It doesn't matter all that much to them depending on what they're looking at. Usually there are two reasons you want to talk to target close to the end. One is to afford them the opportunity, them and their lawyers, to explain to you why you may have it wrong. We did that all the time. People think prosecutors have a blunder bus approach. It's an open and notorious thing that prosecutors are doing, you give them the opportunity. Why did you say this? Why did you do that? Why don't you give us your explanation? It may be the case, as Dan says, you could fall into a trap if you speak and lie about it if you think you're charming enough to address the facts and circumstances. Another vn to further the investigation. In a case like this, they're going to have all the facts that they have. They're going to be interested in wanting to hear from the president if he wants to talk to him. We'll see which one of you are right. Up next, are we headed to a

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":52194051,"title":"Bharara: Trump wants attorney general 'to protect him from the due process of law'","duration":"3:00","description":"Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams discuss the Russia investigation on \"This Week.\"","url":"/ThisWeek/video/bharara-trump-attorney-general-protect-due-process-law-52194051","section":"ThisWeek","mediaType":"default"}