>> Martha: THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BILL BARR WROTE IN HIS
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.
BUT SOME ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH
THAT, INCLUDING MY NEXT GUEST,
LAW PROFESSOR OF 50 YEARS.
HE WRITES IN A NEW OP-ED THAT
MUELLER DID NOT FINISH THE JOB.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS A HARVARD LAW
PROFESSOR WRITING AN
INTRODUCTION TO THE UPCOMING
PUBLICATION OF THE MUELLER
REPORT, WHICH IS HIS NEXT
REPORT.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE TONIGHT.
EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK IT WAS NOT
OKAY THAT AFTER TWO YEARS,
ROBERT MUELLER DECLINED TO BE
DEFINITIVE ON THE ISSUE OF
OBSTRUCTION.
>> HIS JOB WAS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARGE, THE
PRESIDENT WAS GUILTY OF
OBSTRUCTION.
HE HEARD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH
SIDES.
HE'S IT SUPPOSED TO BE THE
DECIDER.
HE IS NOT A LAW PROFESSOR
WRITING -- HE IS NOT A HEDGE
FUND OPERATOR'S, HEDGING HIS
BETS.
HE SHOULD
, ESPECIALLY THE PROBLEM WAS HE
TURNED IT OVER TO TWO PEOPLE.
HE TURNED IT OVER TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WHO IS AN
HONORABLE, DECENT, TERRIFIC GUY
AND GAVE THEM 24 HOURS TO MAKE A
DECISION THAT MUELLER COULD HAVE
MADE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD AND
TURNED IT OVER TO ROD ROSENSTEIN
WHO WAS COMPLETELY CONFLICTED.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED
JUSTICE BY FIRING COMEY, THEN
ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS A
COCONSPIRATOR.
>> Martha: ONE OF THE THINGS
HE WOULD'VE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH
WAS INTENSE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE
DID AN INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT,
THAT HE SUBMITTED RESPONSE TO
QUESTIONS.
IT'S A GOOD POINT.
HOW BILL BARR AND ROD ROSENSTEIN
WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE
INTENT WHEN ROBERT MUELLER FELT
LIKE HE COULD NOT.
>> I DISAGREE.
I DO NOT THINK INTENT IS
RELEVANT.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT TO ACT
ACCORDING TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE, YOU CAN'T GO BEHIND HIS
ACTIVE PRESIDENTS ARE MOTIVATED
BY A LOT OF THINGS.
THEY WANT TO WRITE A GOOD BOOK
WITH A BIG RETAINER AFTER THE
PRESIDENCY, THEY WANT TO
REMEMBERED BY HISTORY, THEY WANT
TO WIN REELECTION.
YOU DO NOT PROBE A PRESIDENT'S
MOTIVE AND INTENTIONS IF HE ACTS
WITHIN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY.
WHEN GEORGE H.W. BUSH -- WE KNOW
WHY HE PARTED HIM.
HE PARTED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID WEINBERGER WOULD COME
AROUND AND POINT HIS FINGER AT
HIM AND BY PARDONING HIM, HE
ENDED THE INVESTIGATION.
BUT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LAWRENCE
WALSH DIDN'T SUGGEST PROSECUTING
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD A
RIGHT TO PARDON.
IF THE PRESIDENT PARDONS, HE
FIRES, THAT'S THE END OF THE
INQUIRY.
THE BODIES ENTITLED TO LOOK AT
THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT OR
THE MOTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.
YOU LOOK AT HIS ACTIONS, IF HIS
ACTIONS LAWFUL, THAT'S THE END
OF THE ACTION.
YOU ONLY LOOK AT INTENT AFTER
YOU CONCLUDE IF THE ACTS ARE
UNLAWFUL.
>> Martha: OF ROBERT MUELLER
SAW THAT THERE WASN'T
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN
THE ACT OF FIRING, THEN AT THAT
POINT, IN THE INVESTIGATION
WOULD DETERMINE WHAT THE INTENT
WAS AND IF THERE WAS, BUT AS YOU
RIGHTLY POINT OUT, THE PRESIDENT
HAD EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THE
MOVIE MADE, CORRECT?
>> SURE.
COMPARED TO NIXON.
NIXON DESTROYED RESIDENT DOMINIC
EVIDENCE, TOLD HIS PEOPLE TO
LIE, PAID HUSH MONEY TO POTENTIL
-- YOU LOOK AT THE INTENTION.
IF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTS ARE
LAWFUL.
I MADE THIS ARGUMENT FROM DAY
ONE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR
PICKED UP MY ARGUMENT WHEN HE
WROTE HIS LETTER BEFORE HE WAS
APPOINTED ATTORNEY GENERAL.
I HAVE BEEN RIGHT FROM DAY ONE
AND ALMOST ALL THE OTHER
PENDANTS AND PROFESSORS HAVE
JUST BEEN DEAD WRONG.
IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO FESS UP,
IT'S TIME FOR CNN TO ISSUE AN
APOLOGY.
SEE ANN AND BANNED ME FROM THEIR
AIR BECAUSE I WAS BEING TOO
FAIR.
I WAS TRYING TO ASSESS WHAT THE
ESSENTIAL ISSUE WAS, AND I
WASN'T BEING PARTISAN.
THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT.
I DIDN'T WANT THAT.
FOX IS PREPARED TO PRESENT ALL
SIDE OF THE ISSUES.
I'M A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT WHO VOTED
FOR HILLARY CLINTON BUT YOU HAVE
ME ON THE AIR.
SEE AND THEN WOULDN'T HAVE ME ON
THE AIR BECAUSE THEY WANT THE
ONE-SIDED PRESENTATION.
EVERYBODY WHO WATCHED CNN WAS
SHOCKED BY THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
NOBODY WHO WATCHED ME WASN'T
SHOCKED BECAUSE I'VE BEEN