Russia Investigation; Ohio Voters React To Comey's Testimony.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And now - and maybe his harshest attack yet, President Trump is blasting his Former FBI Director, James Comey as "cowardly". He tweeted this out earlier today writing, "I believe that James Comey leaks will be far more prevalent than anyone ever thought possible, totally illegal? Very cowardly." The tweet is a reference to Comey's admission that he leaked memos of his conversations with the president in the hope that it would lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Russia probe and he got his wish, Congress is still waiting to get copies of those memos and they're also waiting to hear from embattled Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. He's expected to testify on Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, likely to be a closed hearing according to a justice department official, although the committee does get to make the final decision on that. Either way, Sessions will face tough questions about Comey's account that the president cleared everyone including Sessions out of the oval office before telling Comey that he "hoped" he would drop the investigation into Former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. And while the president and his lawyer both say that Trump never put it that way, the president's own son may have just contradicted his father's version of what was said. Listen to this.</s>DONALD TRUMP, JR., PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: When I hear the Flynn comment, you and I, both know my father a long time.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.</s>TRUMP: When he tells you to do something?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.</s>TRUMP: Guess what? There's no ambiguity in it. There's no, hey, I'm hoping. You and I are friends, hey, I hope this happens but you got to do your job. That's what he told Comey. And for this guy as a politician to then go back and write a memo, oh, I felt - he felt so threatened. He felt that - but, he didn't do anything.</s>SANCHEZ: That's what he said to Comey. I want to bring in CNN White House Correspondent, Athena Jones. She's live in New Jersey where the president is spending the weekend. Athena, this may all come down to how you define the word "hope" because Comey said that when he heard that, he thought it was a directive.</s>ATHENA JONES, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Boris. That word "hope" is certainly getting a lot of attention and it is interesting to hear the president's own son sound like he's confirming something the president is denying. But, you have the president's supporters who say, well, even if he said, hope, "I hope you'll let this go, it's not an order. May be Comey interpreted it that way but it's really no big deal, nothing to see here." Then you have others, who say, including some Republicans, who say it was just entirely inappropriate for this topic to even come up. I do think that this is something that the special counsel is going to be looking deeply at. And we'll see what the special counsel -- how he interprets -- and his team interpret that word, "hope." But, it's certainly getting a lot of attention, Boris.</s>SANCHEZ: Yes, and Athena, there are growing calls for the president to turn over any tapes or recordings if they do exist so that we can finally know what happened during that James Comey meeting in an objective way. But the president just kind of keeps flirting with the idea. He won't confirm, yes or no.</s>JONES: That's right. And this has become like the question of the year, does the president have recordings in the oval office, and more specifically does he have recordings of some sort, tapes or cell phone recording perhaps, or even just records, of those conversations he had with the then-FBI director. This is a question we journalists have been asking. It's also a question that members of Congress have been asking and Senators who were on "State Of The Union" this morning, GOP Senator, Susan Collins and Democrat, Dianne Feinstein talked about this. Listen.</s>SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: He should voluntarily turn them over, not only to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but to the Special Counsel. So, I don't think subpoena should be necessary, and I don't understand why the president just doesn't clear this matter up once and for all.</s>SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN 9D), CALIFORNIA: There were no witnesses. If there are tapes, please, and the president's equivocal on this bring those tapes forward.</s>JONES: And we just heard today from a lawyer on the president's legal team with Marc Kasowitz, this is Jay Sekulow who spoke to ABC this week, and said that the president would be addressing this matter next week meaning this coming week. So, certainly, we will all be watching for that, Boris.</s>SANCHEZ: We will. Athena Jones, thank you. I want to bring in our panel, Alan Dershowitz, he is Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and a Prominent Scholar On Constitutional And Criminal Law and CNN Contributor and Former Obama White House Ethics Czar, Norman Eisen. Norman, I'll start with you. The Senate Intelligence Panel, ultimately gets to decide whether or not Jeff Sessions is going to testify in an open or closed session, what kind of factors weigh-in to their decision?</s>NORMAN EISEN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Boris, thanks for having me. They'll look first at the public interest in hearing from him publicly. And second, the balance of confidential and classified information, and publicly reviewable information in what he's likely to say. I think that those factors cut strongly in favor of the Comey solution. Start with a public hearing. The public needs to know. They have a right to know major questions about Sessions. Now, with allegations that there is another Russia meeting that he didn't disclose in his congressional testimony. Then, if you can't get into some of that stuff, as we did with Comey, then move into private session. I hope that's what they'll do.</s>SANCHEZ: Alan, if you were on that Senate Intelligence Committee set to hear Jeff Sessions testimony, what would you ask him?</s>ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: First, I would agree completely with my former student and great American norm, I think we should start with the public hearing, and then if it has to be a closed hearing, that should be a last resort. I don't think that the Sessions' questions are going to produce much information because it seems like President Trump didn't really include Sessions in the loop but he did what he did on his own. I think he's making a terrible mistake attacking Comey. Comey is his best friend. People forget that Comey testified in front of Congress that Comey believes that the president had the authority to direct him. Not to "hope," but to direct him to stop the investigation. And that probably explains why he didn't go to prosecutors, because he understood, as I understand and some others understand, it's is very controversial and much disputed that the president did nothing unlawful by either hoping, wishing, suggesting, or even directing that the investigation be stopped. He could have simply pardoned Flynn, and that would have ended the investigation completely. There are a lot of law professors who are taking a different view, but I have issued a challenge to them. Would they be taking the same view if it were Hillary Clinton who had been elected president and the Republicans were going after her and trying to expand the espionage statute, trying to expand obstruction of justice, and trying to get her? I suspect that many of the folks who are now trying to expand, statutes and contract constitutional rights would be doing the opposite. I am not here as an advocate for Trump. I don't like a lot of things he did. I'm here as an advocate for civil liberties and the rights of everybody.</s>SANCHEZ: Well, Norm, the president and his Attorney, Marc Kasowitz, flatly deny that the president told Comey that he hoped the Flynn Investigation would go away. But, as you heard just a few moments ago, Donald Trump Jr. seemed to contradict that account on Fox News implying that his father did say that he hoped the Flynn Investigation would go away, but Comey took it the wrong way. Is there a grey area here or, in your opinion, does saying that he hopes the Flynn Investigation goes away cross a line?</s>EISEN: I do think it crosses a line. I disagree with my professor and friend. He set me on a wonderful career as a white collar defense lawyer. I did my first big case with Alan Dershowitz but he's wrong here, three key points, Boris. Number one, there is strong initial evidence enough to open an investigation and Mueller is opening an investigation of obstruction of justice here. The danger, number two of Trump's getting on camera and saying, "No, I didn't do it", Mueller's going to accumulate other investigation that other evidence that Trump did obstruct justice, his own son corroborating it today on TV. Sessions will corroborate it if he says, yes, the president kicked me out of the room. And then the third point, the most interesting point, the one that Alan raises, is can a president obstruct? I believe, and the majority of scholars...</s>DERSHOWITZ: Sure.</s>EISEN: ...believe, yes. As a matter of law, a president can obstruct justice. Congress has the power to cabin that firing authority, and they have done it by passing an obstruction statute. The obstruction statute, Alan, is just like the bribery statute. You wouldn't say President Trump could take a bribe from Vladimir Putin to fire - to fire Jim Comey neither can he fire Jim Comey with corrupt intent.</s>DERSHOWITZ: There's a total difference...</s>EISEN: And there is a strong initial case -- an initial case, that he's done that. Now, we need to let the evidence play out but he can obstruct justice.</s>DERSHOWITZ: Well, I agree with obstruction of justice. Of course, he can obstruct justice by bribing, by destroying tapes, by...</s>SANCHEZ: But, you don't think that saying that he hopes an investigation goes away is obstructing justice?</s>DERSHOWITZ: ...it's not even a close question and you can't say that the president's power has been constrained by an overbroad general statute like obstruction of justice which has been on the book, a hundred years. If Congress wanted to constrain the president, they would have to do with the way they did it when they pass the special prosecutor statute. But, now they've eliminated special prosecutor statute, so the president as the head of the executive branch has complete authority over the justice department. Thomas Jefferson exercised that authority. Abraham Lincoln did. Jefferson told prosecutors who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. He told them what witnesses to pull. He gave immunity to witnesses. John Kennedy did that. Many presidents have done that and the idea that that is now suddenly constitutional to tell the president that he can't tell his attorney general ahead of the FBI who to prosecute or who not to, it's not a good system, but it is the system of constitutionality that the framers adopted. So, I respectfully disagree with my former A-plus student, Norman and I do think that it would be better to move on to whether he did right or wrong. I don't approve of what the president did. I think what he did, kicking the people out of the room and telling Comey that he hoped he would drop the investigation, I don't approve of that. But, I think it's a big difference between (ph) what I approve of and what is actually criminal particularly when you're trying to use criminal law against the elected president.</s>SANCHEZ: All right.</s>DERSHOWITZ: You have to know with absolute certainty that he violated the law. That's why bribery is different. That's why paying money, that's why telling somebody lie is different than obstruction of justice with a corrupt motive, those are the vaguest terms imaginable. And, Norm, as a civil libertarian and a defense attorney, I know you fight against those terms all the time and you fight the good cause. Why are you suddenly becoming a prosecutor and looking...</s>EISEN: Boris?</s>SANCHEZ: Alan, I hold - I hate to cut you off - I hate to cut you off, but I have to ask you about this. We heard today from fired United States Attorney, Preet Bharara, he talked about calls that he got from President Trump saying that Comey's testimony felt like "deja " for him. Listen to this.</s>PREET BHARARA, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: So, he called me in December, sensibly just to shoot the breeze and ask me how I was doing and wants to make sure I was OK. It was similar to what Jim Comey testified to with respect to a call he got when was getting on the helicopter. I didn't say anything at the time to him. It was a little bit uncomfortable, he was the president, he was only president-elect. He called me again two days before the inauguration, again seemingly to checking and shoots the breeze. And, then he called me a third time when he became - after he became president and I refused to return the call and in reporting the phone call to the chief of staff, to the attorney general, I said it appeared to be that he was trying to cultivate some kind of relationship.</s>SANCHEZ: Cultivate some kind of relationship. Norm, to you, is it appropriate for the President of the United States to try to get close to people that he's supposed to stay at arm's length from? Does this bolster Comey's testimony?</s>EISEN: No, Boris. It's absolutely inappropriate and it's not just inappropriate, it's legally actionable. The courts -- contra to Alan, the courts have long recognized that this kind of a pattern, even if you have a legal authority, the 7th circuit said that a lawyer who was filing legal briefs, but doing so with a corrupt purpose to intimidate was violating the law. It's the same with the president exercising his authority here, but, I want to agree with something that Alan has said. Number one, it's early days. We only have the initial evidence. Let Mueller investigate. Number two, Mueller will then make a decision. The question has been unresolved since Watergate whether this pattern, the attempt to cultivate Comey, the loyalty pledge, the demand for Flynn to be fired, and when Comey wouldn't act firing Comey, whether that pattern is obstruction or not, whether and it's been unresolved since Watergate, it was briefed to the Supreme Court by the - by the two sides, can the president be criminally charged? Another way Mueller can go, and may be my old professor will agree with me on this, even if he determines that there's not an adequate basis here for a criminal charge, and I think there may very well be, he can refer to congress and say, hey, I believe there was a high crime or misdemeanor. This whole pattern stinks to high heaven. It's intimidation. It's wrong Congress, you act on it. So, he can go the criminal route - the congressional route, or both. Alan, I hope you agree.</s>DERSHOWITZ: I don't agree.</s>SANCHEZ: We are just about - we are just about of time. My producers are probably going to kill me but I want a yes or no, very brief answer from you, Alan. Were the phone calls to Preet Bharara inappropriate?</s>DERSHOWITZ: They were appropriate if he was trying to decide whether to reappoint him as U.S. Attorney. It would be inappropriate if he was trying to somehow influence ongoing prosecutions, but they still wouldn't be criminal under either circumstance.</s>SANCHEZ: That was more than yes or no, but we'll take it. Alan Dershowitz, Norman Eisen, gentlemen, thank you for taking time out of your Sunday to chat with us. We appreciate it.</s>DERSHOWITZ: Thanks, Boris. Thanks, Alan.</s>EISEN: Thank you.</s>SANCHEZ: Coming up, explosive new allegations against the NSA contractor accused of leaking a highly classified document. Did she mishandle other national secrets? And, the lonely president, look at how Trump has become increasingly isolated from the men who preceded him in the Oval Office.