'Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd': Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow responds on latest in Mueller investigation to "This Week" Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos.
18:36 | 08/05/18

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 'Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd': Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow
Matthis week. Goodorning andelcome to his week." Thgreat ameran Sandberg oid, if the law is against yougue the fas. If facts arest you, argue the law. And if both are against you, pound the table anll like hell. No we don'ow all the cts that rerhas that preside trump and his team. Which laws if they may he en. But watching president trump this week he sure se lbout both. A weil HT DI anal attackyet scialcounsel. It started Sunday wit baseless claims about mue's nflicts. On Monday trump er Giuliani had a new argument, collusion N. For goodeasure, a es tweet took on both the law and the facts. Cousion is N a that doesn't matter because there was no collusion then came his call to shut down the investigation. Clear words from the president of the United States. Atrney general jsessions should stop this rigged witch right nowef continues to S our count any further. Words the white house D to clean up It's not aner, it's T president's opinion. The president is not obstructin he'shting back he's bee I think, ystal clear T how he feels about this investigation from the beginning. I think I'verified Thi about N times now. It's the president's opinion. I don't have anythrther. Ne big queiow this week triggerethese extraordinartbursts? Of Paul manafo's trial, E showdown with ler over a presidential interview, or this new porting om "The gton post"? Trp E confidante'sgering unee about how S in his orbit including eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., ad ruia probe. As one adviser described the prest's think, he does not believe his son purposely have inadvertently waedinto legaleo a lot of quest F t'attorney, sekuw. Thank you for joining us aga justefme on the air another tweet from the president out what iust had E about don Jr. Heais is reporting a fabrication that I am concerned about the meeting myde son Donald had in trump tower.this was a meetingget fo an opponent, totalegal and ne all the time in politics and it went nowhere. I DI about it. A loto unpack there. Asgrth ident Thate's not concerned but he says the meeting,otally legal, done all specl counsel Robert Mueller has, this was a meeting G infoion from T crown prosecutor of Russia on Hillary ton's campgn how woulthat be lel? Well, the question is how be illegal real questn here is,ou a meet of that Tu constitute a violation -- the meeting itself cut violation of the. Ate is a sittion -- and I've said this well over a year. U have to ok at what laws, rules, regulations, STEs are purportedlviolated here. And when yeally look this, George, and you look at the comments tt mas week viatter, if you look at the comments that my colleagu mayor giuan has stated, they're in one sense ratheremarkable that th idea that this Heeg now R a year, let's be hest with the American people, there are was -- I think the phrad you usedasd. The fact of the matter is who would not concerned tt the lead investir on your counterintgence inst and we now know going on for well a year before rt muelleras T in place -- was ma the statements that he made to Lisa showing bs, how WOU you notrnedt bruceorr, the number fourthe apartment of jtiwi Nelly Orr, worked for fion his the orgization tt put together T chrispher Steele dossier. Hould you not be concerned that that vidual, Bruce Orr, was still working for the depant of juste and his wife was working on the dossier. So you have to look at the tality. Look at aeeting, George, that took E in the yearore the -- nwo years ago, the question is what law, statute, rule or regulation been viod. Nobody has pointed to one. They pointed to several, includinconspiracyo defraud thunited STAs. That would be one of the possible aiding abetting D cy. But I want to get to T remarkable shifting of nations about tme the present denying again that he knew about this meeting. Whenfirst talk about T meeting he denied having anything to do with statements deribing the meeting, describing the meeting in a misleadiay as primil about option now it shifted. Now E presidenis saying, wathis was aeeting to T inrmation our opponent that's one conion right I too have to ask about Thi because I haven't had Youn T Ogram for ite a while a year WHE I asked you if T president had anything to do with out a stement Abo T meeting at trump tow, you Sahe wasn't involved in any way at all. Sign off on anything.as coming bam the g20.atement th was red on Saturday was released by Donald T Jr. I'm se consultaon with his lawyer the president wasn't involved in that. You saithe present wasn't involved in any way at all later rah sandersapresident ighed in B didn't dictate anything. Then in janua of thisea the president's legal team incdi you sent a let toobert muellerncluding T you ve receiveale note testimony indicating that the president did dictate a short bu response "The rk times" ticle on behalf of his n.why did yodesident trlvement? Wh did you learn that the denial wn'ue? Well,et me tellou two things on that. Numberne as yoknoworge, I was he case Atha a couple of weeks and th a lot of information being gathered as my colleague Rudy Giuliani sai I had baformation that point. I made a mistake in my statement. I talked about that before. That happens when you have CAS like Thi as far as when did we correct it, the imant part ithinformatioatred with tffice of sci counsel I'm not going to get tols but we re very C voat trip and the stathae to "Tews." So ihiry important to point outt in a sittion ke this yohave over me facts lop. That's wt investations do. I agreed to N your network and otherss Ng retain on this and had a lot of infortion to process. I got that one wrong. Hat does tt mean?, for the purpof, again, an investigation, that doesn't mean illegality, criminal. Onof the this that we've learned after over ar of this invesgaatre has no evidence put frd by anyone at this point that seen 1.4 milliocuments, wve-- of any co behalf of the president and the ians. E most lanvestigations story and I think if you're , demt or whatever, you can't ignot. Erstand thnd I gave you a chance to explain all thirregulariesht you he investiga.ked you Abou you saidcollusion.irst the wte said the contacts with the Russians. Nere were at least 80 contacts. Hite houser anyone nnected toheampaign acceptedormation fm Russians, that could potentially be collu that would be -- could be considered collusion, could be Ed particiting with a conspiracy. So that'alsi of a leg violation all but I do want to ask you -- In thategation, T that's not whatults in anssue of crimity. By Tay, you know, the phrasingere, especlly at late dateisrtant. So everyone is stillking about this collusion con that agerble. What wast? What was the facts? The facts that we know is what is the violation or what violation has anybody put D of an actualeral Ute that'see B the esident of the united es.we see it. As I said, we've seen an awful lot ofdence. That's E of things that Robert Mueller is investigating. I agwith you othat.on don Jr., ent says he's notoncerned. Has don Jr. Been told that he isestigation been inteiewed by Robert Mueller? I don't represent don Jr. But I wi tell you ha knowledge at all of don Jr. That he's a target of Y investigion, and iav knowledge H intervied by the social counsel. Andhent said agn that he had no knowledge of this in trump tower is theresident ppa teunder oath that he no knowled of that meeting and that he was not involvedany Y? You just asthe predice rst. Unr oath. Let address that first.e's been a lot of speculation over that. We are moving as expeditly as posble to makth determinmmendationo en the idbelear that he wants to interview. I will tell you his legal team concerned. We're conc number of reasons. Mber one, see questioning goes to the heart CL Y did you re James ceyticle two. There's a series oose. The price omaking a determination that the president the unitestl sit down with B going. It done in a professional manner but there's not a situatiowh just you say,. Make that no matter the legaleam recommends, if wcommend thpresident were to gihe interview if the remmendation wive the interview, you'ring to getawyers on ere saying can't believe that sekulow and Giuliani a the otherawyers allowed the president to D. If we say, no, we're not going to do the the same to do the interview, the same 12 lawyers are going to say, what are they hid we have to put away the clutter of the commentators and make a desion based the law and what's in the best interests of time. Mayor Giuliani says it could come witdays. To take a bit longer than that. You do if the president follows the recommendation you're lining tower R now, to sit do F interview? What happens if Mueller subpoenas the president? Youe a fight Der the constitution. Eally becescl situion. What would happen is if -- and we have no basis tow at this if a subpoa would be fi by the way, interviews could still happen. There cabeuestions.there's otr S can happen. The president may decide at the end Oto take his law a that's U hen the day. He's there he gets to make that decision. We're ING to give . If you G a subpoen you file motion to as that wilbe filed in the dict court, then there E coofd to the lower courts again. So if the counsel mas determination and gets the authorand that's a question they have to have the auity seek that subpo a suoe for live imony has never tested inou a pr the United States and others a lot of languagcles and precedent against that. But if that decision is made weprepare toandle it I co , I always operate under the assumption that that's the case but I think that the -- I think of cooperation that'sforward, George, 32 witnesses, 1. Million documents from the white house, ihaed to see Y they neetht's St why is the president's testiny needt's the key. Ou argument T you ane president allies includg iani and many others said it was absolutely essal that Hillary Clinton sit down for review and it under th. You're sing in this inveation you don't need the president's cooperation. No, actually I if I was T have done any intews at that point. That wasp awyers. By the way, if youk at the comparison of the two, I mean, the wathey were hands far as the view to interview ion or proposed interview, completely different. This is a lately difreanel. You do not have FBI directors leaking action to pre order toet an appointment of a special counsel. You did the rathe larity of mes Comey announcings investigion was op, out the S and thenay wasn't going to estigated and re-opening the facts and then clo it again. That kind of interference right before an election is not helpful ur cost or helpful oitu lpful to O constitutnare. I suspect and ueller is not goto gohrt exercisegain. But I think if you just look at you have to belear, a lot of factors go into whether the presi the Ed states and Hillary Clinton wat the present of the United States and th a G differ, whether the pridheates of that rv questioning what his authority is under the constitution, U Artie so that's a part of th. The tweet this week saying attorney general Jeff sessions should coues to stain our co you Hearin other, democratare saying this is evidence obstructn of St your response? Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd. Opinions out there, but this theory that's bebandied arou that you N have an obstruction case by tweet -- and , Jeff sessions and Bob muelleand all of them, the enartment of justice are under what? The arcle two ranch of governme and that's why I go to saying at the end of the day this is all T the constitution. 'S all Abo article two. That would be the question. If it we to court,hat would be the question that the courts woressing. Someone N make an legation of obstruction, those are article two Powe a very coelling case. S like then you eve the president has the authority to shown the invtigation if he wao. That, we'rlking action of justice. Neformation me os week in the New York review of books,eporter murrawass talk a confideia white house memoranda that said when the president met with James comey,ortedly pressured him to shown the investion into Michael flynn,e olat Flynn was under criminal investigation. Sahe confideial white house memondis in the special counsel's possession explicitly states that W president trpressured come he hadust been TD F his top aides, then chief of chaff recent white house counsel don mcgahn that Flynn was under final investigatn. Has that memo been given to the spl ot at liberty iscuss that number one and I'm not going to discuss a coat that had wite ent. But if you just lookthat at face Vue and juslook at th legal issue that's existing re, and that I a president have the authority to shut D investigation. The answer to of course under article two is yes. The prident hasn'tessions still the attoey general.senstein ithe deputy attorney general and Bob Mueller the speci counsel. It's a of an acami discussion, but again I'm not going to get interetations. Re you sugsting it wouldn't be a problem if the pressured S Comey to let the Flynn investigati got knowing tchael Flynn was under criminal inveation? I want stand I me, I S sounds remarkabo people but there were investigation going on on martin Luther king and do you think president Kennedy would have gone to J. Edgar Hoover and sa stop that,hald have been an obstruction of justice aim? Of course not. At would he LE two authority. But nof that hasappened re. There's been no shutting down of any inveigno shutting to be decided in a vacuum and it's not. There's Ory on Thi T predent has said Bert contentus siness relationship.what is thprreferring to T and have U legal team filed any objections with the deputy atto gen over Robert Mueller's conflict The issue of conflicts was used early ffice of special counsel. Some of colleagueat the raised that issue it's the business situation thatthe presidrefers Ancern that Bob ler intervwefbi rector and within was appointed as theal counsel. Hat will braised in appropriate proceedings if it may note necessary. If it isessary -- er not be aceeding toaise it. If there is a eeding to raise itbe raised. Those E the kinds of things this. You point out could be potential conflicts of ierest. So THAs all that he's Ng er's all we' saying. Finally on anottter, you've been workin behalf of Andrew Brunson, the American past's been held capti in Turkey. It's been a subject of great nsion betwn the unit states and Ty. Sati both sides. I kn've talked presidenab any update on that situation? We do. The president was successful in negotiating what I call phase on son was inl, george,s yoknow andkey has be very for rious minor. Greek orthodox had tremenus problem the otrch has ha tremendous problems.this pastowafo months and the actual charge, George, in tndictment from the Turkish officials said ristianizaonthis was lerally theharge they said. Ey said that was alation of their espionage and spying. The president Haen very aggresve securinhis release Ave obtained his release om jail. He's beereo what we would consider house arrest in his apartment in izmir, Turkey. Having said that, the ultimate Ory here the retu of andr Brunson this countrof origin which is the united styou the prent is working Ver diligently on that. I knowpompeo metith the in a tsh prison,ou can imagine how difficult that is. See Andrew Brunson returned home. Thatl be good R Brunson fami for Turke good for the United States and our long relationwith a Na than F asking. Jay sulanks for your time this morning. Thanks, geoe.

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

{"duration":"18:36","description":"Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow responds on latest in Mueller investigation to \"This Week\" Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos.","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/ThisWeek","id":"57041100","title":"'Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd': Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow","url":"/ThisWeek/video/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-assesses-state-special-counsel-57041100"}