Giuliani: Mueller has 'high bar' to justify presidential subpoena

George Stephanopoulos interviews the president's attorney Rudy Giuliani about the president's legal strategy for the Mueller investigation.
14:18 | 06/03/18

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 Giuliani: Mueller has 'high bar' to justify presidential subpoena
Let's take you know the president's lead attorney Rudy Giuliani mr. Nye thanks to rush hour this morning and that this letter was written before you came on board is written by John Dowd writes secular about three months January. But do you stand by the arguments made in this letter RX. Yeah as a legal legal arguments but I didn't see as the time obviously I would have been allowed to but I I know the argument and it's very very persuasive it's similar of the article. Written by Ted Olson about three weeks ago weekly standard saying exactly the same thing maybe a little a little bit more to it in terms of they're not making the proper record there. Special counsel. So I mean this is basically I think what most constitutional lawyers. Who tension try to protect the presidency. Would say so look let's dig this on the specifics when it makes it pretty clear the you don't think the president to be Kent compelled to test I cannot be subpoenaed here. So does that mean the president will be sitting for me it doesn't mean that completely amazed at you know there's got to be a high bar they have to reach in terms of convincing us that the affair. Convincing us to we're gonna get the things we need I wanna see this by get report. Haven't gotten it. I want to see the authorization that they have which they gave to judge Ellis I think. The judge Ellis hasn't written opinion which convinces me there's a real problem would otherwise to judge were to sit earlier you're authorized such demand for case. The couple of outstanding very critical. Do we just can't do without that high I would have every lawyer that you put on the show. Remove my head off a violent and the interviews that city without knowing that there were authorized you actually written a letter the president seemed written letters arrived smaller yes when you lay at the conditions no question would step in changing the chain raskin disaster Jane and me. And Jane. Jane basically reiterated that we we we think we had an extra point oh we should which is. In addition to the constitutional issue which will be in or complex when we admit that although we think we have the better argument. The one that's definitive his deal will see what was legal counsel just Palmer wrote a memo at the conclusion of the Clinton thing and current administration and said. You cannot indict a sitting president. Nor can you compel process. So what's part of the rules and the Justice Department and Moeller is. Nothing bonded Atlanta has not. No response letter and mowers who is is completely. Surrounded by the rules we just ran and agreed to follow them is similarly so will what is the state of play exactly the Robert Mueller he has not responded. To that letter is responded to others think you know look. That's partly why wouldn't respond to the letter resume unless they made the decision to go one not to go from not gonna go why respond to it I got other things to do. And if I am gonna go I've been that night and it's been a month and in. And that. Ford was as to who's the president in how much Coleman is in house counsel him in the Lancaster where us. In the nation loses area of expertise you've represented President Clinton prevent President Bush is a theory he knows prohibited him in the world. So we're who we're relying on him and as well as Jenny and John did an excellent job. And everybody we've had look at this says. I guess what lawyers shall we say we can't guarantee it. But the 90% but thinking I should say seven it was the second 1998 you argue that President Clinton could be subpoenaed as we said Charlie Reppas. All of the Watergate litigation resolved the fact that the president is not above. The law is not able to avoid subpoenas and the president has a right like anyone else. To go before a judge and say. This is being done for improper per purpose isn't being done for purposes of harassment. For George agrees with that fine but if a judge doesn't then you have to testify. So what's changed what I what I guess first of all that I still agree with that exception which in. And president can go before the judges' save some provision of harassment as unnecessary. We win that and that's that you intend to do if you're subpoenaed oh gosh what will will say hey you got everything you need. He got. One point four million documents you have twenty eyewitnesses. President the president has given every explanation and and and corrected so that we're this impressions. You got everything in it what what do you just for affect most prosecutors don't have the least this subject or target or whatever you want cola from always going to subject right now. I think will remain that. They don't happen to have to make a decision without a so c'mon. Man up and make your decision North Korea summit is back on how does that play into the potentially. Well look you know but from a very narrow point of view. Jay and I and I and our team of course is an inch rough sit because it isn't just the interview and the facts of the unity of it's. It's a whole situation of all we can do it or not do it does this is the president's decision ultimately you gotta understand says he wants to do it. The George you've interviewed him you know we've talked dorms everybody at the affidavit the doubt she wants to do. Keep people he's telling the truth he is to on the truth. He believes that he should win justice should went out. I'm a lawyer I have years of prosecution and defense. It's not that simple and not what I plea was the truth and you re think isn't and they seem to have the heavy reliance on on call me I think that's gonna get knocked to heck with the Harwich reports and general. Inspector general's he's he's he's doing the whole Hillary Clinton investigation and and one of the main reasons for firing komen was how unfair that was to both of them to vote Hillary Clinton and two and two. And it and a presidential so you're still recommend he does not attempt. Jay and I want to keep an open mind and I have to just be honest and was leaning toward not. But look if they can convince us that we British would be so the point there are five or six points and has two clarify. And with that we can get to solve this long nightmare for the for the American public over when you ask me about Korea and how terrible I feel I have to call month. This letter comes out which would commit somebody should revert should look at these leaks and find out who the heck it is. I know we have no evidence came from the special counsel. But come from DOJ could come from more about whoever is we should find out who it is I have no I have no objection to sitting down and and and testifying and you put me under oath I don't care I think you didn't do you cut it originated doing Jane didn't do it Marty into the pad to do we didn't do. Have a mr. death. I don't think he did would hey that is John and John look. We're very grateful John this is a great job he NJ did a great job here they set this up beautifully. We can and he'll see argument to which I think it's an over the top in the Olson argument which is when I was talking about way back with with Bill Clinton. And I think we win this. The most breathtaking claim to my eyes in the letters that claimed that the president basically cannot be investigated. For obstruction of justice that he can terminate an investigation. At any time for any reason any time for any reason. I think the I think that oh look when you are getting arm in the broadest possible point we don't have to go there. Well you can you do go I didn't I wasn't there that I'd say that eskolaste argument not I think the stronger argument is hidden for how but he didn't. I mean. Firing and employee. When you know that or other employees gonna come in and take that job aunts and further the investigation. Cannot possibly obstruct the investigation. He said that to rest the hole when he was interviewed within days of doing it so you've got a contemporary contemporaneous. Statement of his of his and is intent. So how's that obstruction let me televised excellent conversation saying it sent SanDisk tech channel potential prosecutor. Give the guy a break you put Chris Christie on the on later and ask you how many times was he told. Asked given the break you know what that means you take into consideration the fact of the members of a war hero a patriot. A father his children the sick what do you know the whole thing sometimes you don't indict. Sometimes hit you lessen the severity of a society of north. But just to be just to be clear to press that point because that the letter is very explicitly says anytime for any reason. If the FBI developed evidence that the president had accepted a bribe or committed murder the present to terminate them I would not sure that's more. I I would not gonna for Georgia manager John you have to as John exactly what is drawing off of that I wouldn't go that far I think under circumstances where there's no. What we're at best there's ambiguity as to whether there was intent but for every one of these things he did we can write out five reasons why did. Before them with the Philly innocent and one of them is your assumption that it's a guilty motive push a president would do not. Each poppy can't possibly prosecute liberals or recommend impeachment. Letter also cites the presence pardon powers do you in the presence turns believe the president has the power of pardon of self. That he truck he's not me probably does. The men had I has no intention of pardoning himself but. Think probably I don't know if they get I mean that's another issue relief adjusting constitutional arm and the president pardon himself I'm myself I gotta run the pardon attorney. Complete would be an open question I think it would probably get answered by gosh that's what the constitution says and if you wanna change it change it but. We have a lot of focus on the present I think the political. Ramifications that would be tough parting of the people is one thing pardoning yourself is another other presidents have pardoned people in circumstances like this both. Both in their administration. And sometimes the next president even of the different party will come along and poured a lot of focus on the president's part and are this we keep pardon Dinesh decision we saw this week. Roger Stone says the president sending signals of those caught up if he in the Russian ETS and I think what he's going I think I think the president feels guilty or some of these were delayed. That maybe there was too much concern within justice Illinois doesn't about doing it does have looked at it is so different than the case cases he's involved in. And the issue of any porn there are so far do I don't mean. Except for public guilty pleas nobody living can make yet indications that aren't. Also I was totally tangential I mean there wolf. Our Andrea Arnold mark here the Russian the Russian thing. I mean 180 dollars hundred Madrid dressing up like a clown a supplemental would do what Hillary's advanced countries to have clouds coming arms that I know of that would dressed up with not a. You don't fully know the robber Mueller has wrapped up his investigation into collusion or any. Cooperation between people associated with president trump and the Russians were nipping her campaign. I do not know that I don't know that and probably will not to know eventually concludes. I gotta feeling he did have a showing that collusion. Has come up petroleum and that's why wanna see the reports on spy gate because I believe that came up in. Well let's talk about that a little that'll be exculpatory because trade trade Gatti and into a senior house Republican this week said he's he. Got the briefing here's what he had to say after. I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do win they got the information they got. And that it has nothing to do would Donald Trott. He's a senior Republican all the Democrats another briefing said the same thing but I don't think that that's the issue the and hooked up goes to the legitimacy of the investigation. I think it was illegitimate maybe maybe a crucial Muniz have little reminders that I wanna see what they revealed what they find. What concentrating not to check technicalities important though they are you at this we have no evidence the FBI did anything wrong. No I haven't but I but I also have tremendous suspicions because they can shielded from every year from the president. If if if it shows nothing which we all believe it doesn't it was perfectly proper and why wasn't shown to the president. Gosh you know especially dental office investigation was over. It's it's a concluded investigation there's no reason not to show it to him there's no reason not to show it to us and the more they refuse to show it. I'm sorry my instinct is a prosecutor tell me there's something wrong. And a lot of people look at wanted to at the president shifting explanations the way to shifting explanations for what happened in that. That meeting at the trump tower back in June of 2016 was done junior. I remember one when this was first reported Jay secular was on my programs of the president had nothing at all. To do without letter later Sarah Sander said Kuwait he he sort of weighed in but he didn't dictated and now this letter. From the president's lawyers say very very clearly he dictated the statement how do you explain the shifting explanations I haven't made with the whole situation of repaying. The money room that was laid out by Cohen when I first when the first and president first talked about it nobody focused on it nobody thought about it that was a very busy time. And then we got on board when when by went through everything. I was the only change we had to make at that point is on the changeable made when you consider the big scope of this narrative. Forsyth chapel can't think the president was there used to do in the letter traders all denied an amazing dictate that either of the Shea met Jay would have to answer that but I I've talked about it. I think she was wrong I mean is that this this is the reason you don't let the president testified. It's you know. Every all recollection keeps changing or what I even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption. In my case I made an assumption that liked them then we corrected and I got to write out some witnesses. Sooner that happens I think that's what happened he. I was struck by something else similar in when you're discussing that that dictation by the president. The letter says that this is a private matter between the president and the New York Times this isn't really correctly when you give and misleading statement to newspapers say something misleading and television. Tonight to watch it and organizations to the viewers just the public get item right to let him. I think it means it's not a 1001 situation for example he said that and that's again the danger of being edited. This is discussion by something say something wrong on this show. And sometimes they did George in the past not this we all that matters and we make mistakes we try to make clear they are. If you the FBI made my goodness Chad that they could trust for student for the mistake they should put a little lie. So that's one what that's the point is trying to make that trying to say it's a private. It's non governmental it's not. Under rose it's not under interview with the FBI. Like. Some of the prosecutions have been interviews with the FBI. Marcus who was on underwrote that was that was under this you know articles of impeachment both for Richard Nixon and for President Clinton included a very blind to the public very brought. Rather I had the position even with with the Clinton impeachment of terrible mistake both legal and political Beisel at first all. Congress is to move the peace somebody from line in the press that to open a a but they do malign the president about bottom line. Will the president testify and are you still do you still believe the Robert Mueller is committed to that. Wrapping this up by September 1 let's just take a fresh I believe he is because in the mid of the mid term elections he's a sensitive as everybody. To not doing on the call me in the two Schering. Horribly in in the election I don't think you had a fashion big impact some people think but what that does have a right to think that. Second eight I'd bagged by do sink. That it's still an open question but it's beginning to get resolved in favor of not donors unless they start coming across with things that were asked before. Mission I think for time aspect.

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

{"duration":"14:18","description":"George Stephanopoulos interviews the president's attorney Rudy Giuliani about the president's legal strategy for the Mueller investigation.","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/ThisWeek","id":"55615927","title":"Giuliani: Mueller has 'high bar' to justify presidential subpoena","url":"/ThisWeek/video/president-trumps-personal-attorney-rudy-giuliani-55615927"}