Trump Says He Has Power to Pardon Himself; White House Dodges Questions about Changing Story on Trump Tower Meeting.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: He's next door in THE SITUATION ROOM.</s>WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news. Above the law. The White House says no one is above the law after President Trump suggests he is, tweeting he has the absolute right to pardon himself and slamming the appointment of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, as unconstitutional. Refusing to answer. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dodges questions about why she told reporters the president had no role drafting a statement defending his son's meeting with Russians when his lawyers say he dictated the entire thing. Why won't the White House admit that it changes its story? First appearance. After more than three weeks out of the public eye, the first lady, Melania Trump, is scheduled to attend a White House event this hour honoring Gold Star families. Why has she waited until now to appear in front of others? And replacing Kim's generals. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un purges three of his top military leaders ahead of the summit with President Trump. Tonight, new details of their upcoming meeting and how it may be influencing Kim's decisions. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in</s>THE SITUATION ROOM. ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.</s>BLITZER: We're following breaking news. The White House peppered with questions about a false statement it made and about President Trump's claim that he has what he calls the absolute right -- his words -- absolute right to pardon himself. We'll talk about it this hour with Congressman John Garamendi of the Armed Services Committee. And our correspondents and experts are also standing by. Let's get straight to the White House first. Our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, is standing by. Jim, some very pointed questions for the press secretary just a little while ago. But very few answers?</s>JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. The White House spent much of the day making some questionable constitutional claims about the president's powers that he has the power to pardon himself and that the appointment of the special counsel is unconstitutional. But the White House didn't devote much time to explaining those claims. And when asked why the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, gave false information to the public, incredibly, she referred that question to the president's outside legal team. Even though it was her own bogus statement. It was one of the days that made you say over here, "Beg your pardon?"</s>ACOSTA (voice-over): At the White House today, there were more talking points than actual answers. When asked about the president's tweets that he has the absolute right to pardon himself and that the appointment of the special counsel is "totally unconstitutional," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly turned to prepared responses.</s>SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Thankfully, the president hasn't done anything wrong and wouldn't have any need for a pardon. Once again, thankfully, the president hasn't done anything wrong and, therefore, wouldn't need one.</s>ACOSTA: The questions came in response to the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, who initially made that claim over the weekend.</s>GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Do you and the president's attorneys believe the president has the power to pardon himself?</s>RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: He -- he's not. But he probably does. He has no intention of pardoning himself. But he probably does.</s>ACOSTA: Not only do fellow Republicans disagree --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I were president of the United States and I had a lawyer that told me I could pardon myself, I think I'd hire a new lawyer.</s>ACOSTA: Back in the 1970s, the Justice Department wrote just before the resignation of Nixon that a president cannot pardon himself, adding, "No one may be a judge in his own case." The White House also sidestepped questions about its own explanation for Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian attorney offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. At the time, both the president's lawyer and Sanders said Mr. Trump did not dictate a response to "The New York Times" about the meeting.</s>JAY SEKULOW, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: That was written by Donald Trump Jr. and, I'm sure, with consultation with his lawyer. So that wasn't written by the president.</s>SANDERS: He certainly didn't dictate. But, you know, he -- like I said, he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do.</s>ACOSTA: Now Mr. Trump's lawyers say just the opposite, telling the special counsel's office in a January letter the president dictated "a short but accurate response" to "The New York Times" article on behalf of his son. When asked to explain her own false statement, Sanders dodged big-time.</s>SANDERS: This is from a letter from the outside counsel, and I direct you to them. It's also pertaining to a letter from the president's outside counsel, and therefore, I can't answer.</s>ACOSTA: Giuliani conceded the Trump Tower meeting demonstrates why the president may not ever talk to the special counsel.</s>GIULIANI: This is the reason you don't let the president testify. It's -- you know, every -- our recollection keeps changing.</s>ACOSTA: The White House also didn't want to touch this outlandish comment from Giuliani to "The Huffington Post," claiming the president cannot be indicted while in office. "'I don't know how you can indict while he's in office,' Giuliani said, 'no matter what it is. If he shot James Comey, he'd be impeached the next day. Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him." (on camera): Is that appropriate language coming from the president's outside lawyer, to be talking about the president shooting Jim Comey in that fashion?</s>SANDERS: You would have to ask Rudy Giuliani about his specific comments. But thankfully, the president hasn't done anything wrong, and so we feel very comfortable in that -- Josh.</s>ACOSTA: If I could ask a follow-up question. Sarah, if I could ask a follow-up question.</s>SANDERS: Josh. Sorry, I'm going to keep going.</s>ACOSTA: Ask a follow-up question. Who were these --</s>SANDERS: Not today, Jim.</s>ACOSTA: We have a long briefing sometimes, Sarah.</s>ACOSTA: Now, one of the president's outside lawyers, Jay Sekulow, released a statement to CNN about that Trump Tower meeting, saying, quote, "The statement in the January letter to the special counsel's office reflects our understanding of the events that occurred." But Wolf, even that statement does not explain the false statements initially given to the public about the Trump Tower meeting. Wolf, if the president likes to say there was no collusion, that this is a witch hunt, then why are they giving these false statements about the Trump Tower meeting? And then when asked about why the president dictated that meeting [SIC] and why they covered that up initially, why did they give false statements about that, Wolf? False statements covering up false statements, in most people's minds, those are considered lies -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: Why won't she take follow-up questions from reporters? I've been covering White House briefings going back several presidents, and every press secretary always takes follow-up questions. Why won't she?</s>ACOSTA: Wolf, I think it's because they just don't want to answer these questions. And this has been happening gradually over time, where we're having fewer briefings and the briefings are shorter. And then Sarah Sanders is just going around the room, taking one question from each reporter. I think what we need, Wolf, is perhaps a new strategy on the part of the White House press corps to start asking the question from the previous reporter who was cut off by the press secretary, because clearly, this is a strategy designed to not give information to the American people, Wolf.</s>BLITZER: All right. Jim Acosta over at the White House, thank you. Let's dig deeper into all of this. Our justice correspondent, Evan Perez, is joining us. Evan, President Trump tweets that he can pardon himself and that the special counsel appointment is unconstitutional. Are those arguments part of his legal team's strategy?</s>EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Look, I think the pardoning yourself argument is not going to be one that they're going to pursue very much longer. I think Rudy Giuliani sort of got himself into a little corner there that I think even the rest of the legal team is not really willing to pursue. But the question of whether or not the Mueller investigation is constitutional, I think we're going not see that surface again, especially if they can't reach a deal with regard to a voluntary interview with the special counsel, Wolf; whether the president has to sit down with him and the special counsel has to resort to a subpoena, we may yet see that argument. And let's keep in mind, Paul Manafort's lawyer, the former chairman for the Trump campaign, his lawyers have tested out this whole idea that Mueller was illegally appointed by Rod Rosenstein, and so far, one judge has already ruled that that is not true.</s>BLITZER: The January 29th letter -- 20-page letter. "The New York Times" first published this letter from the president's former lawyer, John Dowd, to Robert Mueller. Lays out a pretty aggressive strategy against Mueller, but that was in January. Has it escalated since then?</s>PEREZ: Yes. I think it has escalated. I think they now, if you listen to the president's legal team, they view this as less of a legal case and more of a political -- political case. This is something that Rudy Giuliani certainly -- he's not much of a president -- he's not much of a lawyer for the president. He is more of a political mouthpiece for the president. There's not much lawyering happening there. The lawyering is being done by the Raskins and by Jay Sekulow. Those are the people who are handling the interactions with the special counsel. And if there is a deal for a voluntary interview for the president, that's where it's going to come. Rudy Giuliani is really just to do television.</s>BLITZER: The first person to serve actual jail time in connection with the Mueller probe was released today after 30 days for lying to investigators. Does that mean that there's a new start now of the beginning of the end? What?</s>PEREZ: I don't think it's the beginning of the end. I think one phase of the investigation certainly is closing, is nearly closing, I think. Certainly, the president and whether or not he sits down with the special counsel is what everybody is waiting for. And it appears that the strategy -- at least for -- from the part of the president, is to drag this out. It appears they've now decided that they want the -- this to be a political issue for the midterms. And so this is why six months after this -- this began, this whole -- the discussion of whether or not to do a volunteer interview, we still don't know whether he's going to sit down with the special counsel. So look, I think they're -- they're lengthening this out, because they believe, politically, this works for the president. Once the president sits down, then we'll see whether there's another phase of the investigation which will focus on the Russians and what they did in the 2016 election.</s>BLITZER: Evan Perez, thanks very much for that explanation. Let's get some more on all of this. Democratic Congressman John Garamendi of California is joining us. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks for joining us. Let me get your reaction to the White House press secretary. She says the president isn't above the law, but the president says he has the absolute right to pardon himself. How do you see it?</s>REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, the president is absolutely wrong. The framers of the Constitution did not want a king. They didn't want a monarch that had absolute power, and they very carefully designed the Constitution in such a way as to make certain that the president was not a king and did not have absolute power. Now the president has a responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the nation. And if he breaks the laws, then it seems to me that he is subject to the full indictment against breaking the law. And besides that, he's there to honor and preserve the Constitution.</s>BLITZER: The president's legal team believes this will ultimately come down to the question of whether or not Congress decides to pursue impeachment. If the president were to pardon himself, do you believe Republicans in Congress would line up behind an impeachment effort?</s>GARAMENDI: Well, there'd be something ahead of an impeach -- ahead of a pardon, and that would be an indictment. And at that point, it would seem to me that Congress has to act. It's the -- impeachment is misdemeanors and high crimes. There's an allegation of a crime even before there's a pardon. Now if there's a pardon, you just add that on top. And absolutely, under that circumstance, there should be an impeachment and there should be a trial in which the president would be found guilty. Now all of that is off in the future. We'll see what happens. But there should be no doubt -- no doubt in anybody's mind that if the president purposely disobeys a law, for example, obstruction of justice, which is a law, then indicted and, if found -- and at that point an impeachment would be absolutely in order.</s>BLITZER: The president also tweeted this morning that the special counsel, Robert Mueller's, investigation, in his word, is unconstitutional. Does that line of attack have any legal basis at all?</s>GARAMENDI: Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But I'll tell you, it has no political basis. It seems to me that what we have here is the Department of Justice setting up a special counsel to investigate a special set of problems, and that's what Mueller is doing. I don't think it is a question of constitutionality; it's a question of process. We have a prosecutor and an investigation underway by a special counsel. Let that go forward. Let the -- whatever it's going to be, let it show its hand. Was there a crime? Yes, no. Was there obstruction of justice? Yes, no. Was there collusion? Yes, no. When those answers come out, that may lead to an indictment; may not. And it may lead to an impeachable offense; it may not. We don't know. But we have to get this investigation not only underway but completed; and the president and his cronies have to keep their hands off of it. Justice has to be found.</s>BLITZER: Yes, I'm just wondering why a year after this investigation started, all of a sudden the president is saying the whole thing is unconstitutional, even though the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, named Robert Mueller to lead this special investigation. Let's turn to another explanation --</s>GARAMENDI: Sure.</s>BLITZER: -- about that misleading public statement regarding the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russians, including the president's son. The president's legal team now acknowledges that the president himself dictated that public statement which was released by his son Donald Trump Jr. This comes after months of denials that he had anything to do with it at all. Should those misleading denials, repeated once again over several months by multiple White House officials, play a role in Robert Mueller's obstruction investigation?</s>GARAMENDI: I would think that they would. An obstruction is an effort by an individual or parties to derail, to obstruct an investigation. And it seems to me this is something that Mueller will clearly want to look at. And particularly, keep in mind that, if you're looking for the truth, don't look to Trump. And don't look to his team. There's been one lie after another since -- even before he was sworn into office. And it's continued on at about nine lies a day right now. That seems to be the average number of lies, either in tweets or in words, that come from the president or directly from his tweets.</s>BLITZER: In that statement that the president dictated, he said the meeting was not a campaign issue at the time, but we know the meeting was largely the result of a proposal from these Russians that they had so-called dirt on Hillary Clinton they wanted to share with the Trump campaign. So that statement was not a campaign issue, at the time, that it simply had something to do about adoptions, clearly was erroneous.</s>GARAMENDI: There's no doubt about it. And you also have the president's son, with his very famous statement. I think something like "Bring it on," something like that. No, they knew exactly what they were looking for. They were looking for some dirt on Hillary, and the Russians who were offering it. There's no doubt about that. Now whether the -- and now the question arises, was there effort to derail, to misdirect the investigation? Was that obstruction? That's what Mueller undoubtedly is going to be looking at.</s>BLITZER: Congressman Garamendi, thanks so much for joining us.</s>GARAMENDI: Glad to be with you.</s>BLITZER: There's more breaking news ahead. The president slams the Mueller investigation once again as unconstitutional but says he will, quote, "play the game." Plus, more on the president's claim that he can pardon himself. Why is he floating the idea if he has no intention of doing it?