Dershowitz: 'Won't have any doubt' Mueller 'hated Trump'

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz and ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams discuss the latest developments in the special counsel's investigation and more on "This Week."
9:43 | 05/20/18

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

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Dershowitz: 'Won't have any doubt' Mueller 'hated Trump'
The acting attorney general, rod Rosenstein, has decided to appoint a special council to investigation Russian interference in the 016 election. Any ties with the trump campaign and they call it related matters. One year ago, may 21, 2017. Joined by chief legal analyst Dan Abrams. Alan Dershowitz professor emeritus at Harvard law school and author of the new book, "Trumped up." We have a lot of new tweets from the president this morning. I want to start out with one he put out on the anniversary of the Mueller pick. He said, congratulations, America, we're now into the second year of the greatest witch hunt in American history. Still no collusion, no obstruction. The only collusion was done by Democrats unable to win an election despite the spending of far more money. That's his take on the first year. What's yours? I mean, look, what we know for certain as a result of the this investigation is that the Russians did meddle in the election. 13 Russians have been indicted by the special counsel. At least six others have been indicted in the last year. In connection with the investigation. So this notion that sort of nothing has happened, here we are a year later. We're still waiting. A lot has happened in the first year. The questions still remain as to what's next. Meaning, will they be able to indict? Will they indict any senior members of the trump campaign in connection with that? We don't know the answer to that. The notion that up to this point, it's been a witch hunt or a hoax makes no sense. One thing we also know, professor Dershowitz, and you have criticized this, that other inguest vagss -- investigations have gone on for far longer than a year. I think it was a mistake to appoint a special counsel. Commission to find out how the election went wrong. One of the worst in modern history. The Russian attempts to influence. Other attempts by gulf countries to influence. The existence of FBI agents trying to desperately turn the election away from trump. We should have had a massive investigation and we should change the laws to make it clear what you can and can't do. I don't think this investigation has gotten us what we need to know. Knowledge and information about how to prevent this in the future. That is not passing. We have evidence that the FBI agents where trying to turn this against trump. We don't have any evidence that FBI agents were trying to turn the election. How about struct's tweets? When he said, we need a guarantee? We need an insurance policy? We have to investigate that. Those were not tweets. Those were private texts. What's the difference? We got 'em. There's massive difference. They show a state of mind. Did you read all of his texts? If you do, the total context is not saying, oh, my goodness. Donald Trump is the problem. He talked about Hillary Clinton and problems with Hillary Clinton, as well. To throw that in there with what the rest of the special counsel has found, to me, it just minimizes what we have really found with regard to Russian meddling. And I think it should minimize it because what we found is not particularly significant. You don't think the meddling is significant? I do. I don't think the criminal charges are significant. We don't know to this day what the law is. The supreme court has said foreign governments can intrude themselves into elections if they have an interest in the outcome. They can't contribute money. The law is very unclear. Now we have information of an FBI informant in the campaign. That's worth investigation. FBI informant in the campaign. No evidence an FBI informant was in the campaign. No evidence? None. Here's the evidence that we have. The evidence we have is an FBI informant spoke to members of the trump campaign. That's not in the campaign. That's good enough to get an investigation going. Dan, let me ask you a question. Was this a good election? Is this something we should be proud of? Or is this an election that warrants an investation, a nonpartisan investigation on both sides to make sure that in the future, a, we know what the rules are, B, we know how to stop countries from improperly intruding on elections. That's what we need to know. We need to stop this in the future. We need to stop making up crimes and expanding the criminal law to fit people we have targeted. That's dangerous to democracy. Alan's been consistent on the issue about the law over the years. And I respect that. But the notion that the special counsel can't view this objectively, that Robert Mueller is somehow, what, so compromised? Which way? A long-time Republican. Why can't he be the one to assess whether there are crimes here? First of all, this long-term Republican. Comey was a long-term Republican. They're all long-term Republicans who hated trump? You know that Mueller hated trump? You won't have any doubt of that at the end. Because maybe he'll find evidence? Maybe he and Comey are so close, their history is so close together that when you read Comey's book and you see what he has said, you really wonder about the objectiity of the investigation. If there was evidence of crime, the U.S. Attorneys can investigate it as the southern district is doing. The main justice could investigate it. One person should be recused. Rod Rosenstein. Because he's a witness. He's the main witness. There was never a need for special counsel. Special counsel have targets. They are looking to try to find crimes against people. That doesn't serve the interests of America. America's interest is served by finding out the truth, the facts, changing the law, and making sure it never happens again. It sounds like you're in league with president trump on impeaching the credibility of the special counsel at this point. In the meantime, the investigation is continuing. One of the things we learned, this weekend, "The New York Times" report this morning, that Robert Mueller is investigating this meeting that Donald Trump Jr. And other aides had with emissaries of gulf nations. Wealthy Arab gulf nations offering help to win the election. The president tweeted, things are getting ridiculous. The failing and crooked "New York Times" has done a long and boring story indicating that the world's most expensive witch hunt has found nothing on Russia and me so now they're looking at the rest of the world. This story, Dan, is bait complicated. I'll grant that. It says Donald Jr. Had a meeting with an emissary of the uae and Saudi Arabia who was offering help, perhaps, working on social media. I read the article twice. And then again. I'm still not certain after reading it three times whether there is potential criminal activity. Isn't that a problem? Isn't that a problem that we don't know what the law is today? No, it's not that we don't know what the law is. It's that we don't know what the facts are. At least for me. As far as I know. I'll tell you the basics. Let Dan finish. The basic law as I understand it, a foreign national can't provide anything of value, which has been interpreted to mean typically substantial assistance. In connection with an election. Period. Let's take the following scenario. You have countries in the world who hate the Democrats because of the fact that they made a deal with the Iranians that they think endangers their security. They want to see a Republican elected, is that a crime? You don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer to that, because the supreme court and the legislatures. Wait, I do know the answer to that. What is it? If they gave money, that would the a crime. If they gave campaign assistance that would have a value, that would be a crime. No, that's not true. The United States supreme court has had case after case where you can give things of value if they're protected by the first amendment. If they're informational. If they're a concert. For example. There are cases all over the place. They go both ways. The law not clear. Alan, the law in every area has gray areas. That's why cases make to it the supreme court. Because appellate courts end up interpreting things in different ways. It makes its way to the supreme court. The supreme court has to resolve. Exactly what it means. To suggest, oh, this area of the law is so much more vague. It's not. It's -- It is. We don't know what -- first of all, you talk about the Israeli person. We have had foreign people involved in American elections from the very beginning of time. That's perfectly legal to have a foreign person involved, as long as they don't make substantial campaign contributions. There's a volunteer exception. There's another exception that says, if you're doing it for your own purpose. You're intentionally making this more complicated than it needs to be. It's complicated enough. They're going to figure out. Was a law violated? It's just not that hard. To throw up your arms and say we can't interpret this area of the law. You and I can't agree. You're a law professor. Law professors point to specific difficult questions. You do it for a living. Never should be the basis for criminal prosecution. Unless you know with absolute clarity where the line is and you -- Or you cross the line. Or you cross the line. Make the hamlet decision to be or not to be a felon, it should not be a crime. Crime should not be matter of degree. I have to interrupt. This is not the last time we'll hear from the two of you. We'll come back when the next development on the investigation. "Roundtable" is coming up. When we come back, Larry

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

{"duration":"9:43","description":"Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz and ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams discuss the latest developments in the special counsel's investigation and more on \"This Week.\"","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/ThisWeek","id":"55305382","title":"Dershowitz: 'Won't have any doubt' Mueller 'hated Trump'","url":"/ThisWeek/video/clear-end-sight-year-special-counsels-investigation-55305382"}