Transcript for Trump lawyer: Comey's credibility 'brought into question'

member of president trump's legal team. Jay sekulow joins us from Washington. Thanks for joining us this morning. You heard preet bharara suggesting that he thought -- had a feeling of deja Vu when watching James Comey's testimony because of the phone calls he received during the transition. Do you believe the president was trying to cultivate a relationship with the then U.S. Attorney? I have no idea what the context of that call was or was going to be and I can't speculate on that. But I would say at the outset, George, you raised this, the issue of the leak from James Comey to his friend at Columbia law school, that was ultimately leaked to "The New York Times" is unprecedented. I mean I want everyone to be thinking about this. The current -- then current FBI director took con temp andous notes and put them on a form and used government facilities to do that. They usually fill out a form 302. What it an agent leaked that out to "The New York Times"? What the allegations would be? So this was an unprecedented move and preet mentioned the issue of executive privilege. The president and the administration wasn't -- they did not invoke executive privilege on this hearing but on these documents they didn't know what the contents were. It may well -- I would assert I'm sure it was executive privilege. But James Comey never gave anyone the opportunity to determine if that was going to be the case. Didn't the president -- once he talked about the meetings -- that's what the tweet about the tapes was about. Those two don't actually relate. The executive privilege follows on any conversation the president had in the process. Again there was only -- neither you nor I nor preet are privy to that conversation but you have to say, anybody looking at this case honestly has to say there were three things that took place here. One, it was made very clear from the FBI director on multiple occasions that the president had not been and was not under investigation for obstruction of justice. He made that very clear in his written testimony which is by the way part of the record. Number two and I think, again, the unprecedented nature of this, that there were no evidence and you've had other people on this program including senators, members of the intelligence community that said there has been no evidence of collusion. So you look at the issue and say then what is the role of the special counsel here? And the special counsel allowed James Comey to testify, James Comey said he reviewed his testimony with the special counsel and you wonder if -- it's unusual to me and I've done a lot of cases for 40 years of practicing law almost and at the highest levels including the supreme court that you have a situation, I think this is unprecedented where the testimony was reviewed. It was then discussed and then it was part of that testimony, a large part -- Are you suggesting there that you and the president and the president's legal team don't have confidence in Robert Mueller to conduct a fair investigation? No, what we're saying is, look, I mean, Marc kasowitz is in charge of the legal team and said clearly that he is putting forward a legal team and a legal defense that will address all of the issues. But I think that the unusual situation here, this is unprecedented in our history, is that the former executive -- former FBI director was the source of a leak. I mean, George, you know, we've all been concerned about leaks and here he was the source of that leak and I mean I think -- Dianne Feinstein was a bit shocked and others were. This was not a partisan information. You heard preet bharara say it might not have been the best way to do that but what he said, you're cherry-picking and you believe James Comey that he's not under investigation but the president's denying that James Comey is telling the truth about the oval office meeting on February 14th about his dinner with the president. The president saying he's not telling the truth there. So do you believe, remember, James Comey was under oath. Do you believe that the doj should pursue perjury charges against James Comey? I think -- James Comey has made misstatements to the house and senate on multiple times during the investigation into secretary Clinton where he had to go back and you know this, had to go back and correct his testimony. In this very last hearing, he was asked a question regarding the recusal of the attorney general of the United States, Jeff sessions, he made a statement that he wa not aware of any memorandums, explaining that and the department of justice released that on March 2nd I believe the date was that in fact a memorandum was sent to the FBI director explaining the basis of the recusal, so I mean I'm going to lay it on as I would look at it as a lawyer, if I was preparing a supreme court case. And I think that James Comey's credibility has been brought into question on multiple occasions during the Clinton investigation and here. Look, that's ultimately the special counsel has to weigh that as he makes -- does his investigation but I think it raises serious issues. The president could clear it up if he released the tapes. Does he have them? Will he release them. The president said he will address the issue of the tapes, whether the tapes exist or not next week. That's a decision the president will make in consultation with his chief lawyer Marc kasowitz and the president said he'll address it next week. Here's the one thing that's clear, right now what do you have? A leaked memo that was leaked to "The Washington post" allegedly because he read in "The New York Times" or he read the tweet but yet you know what's also interesting, much of the content of what appeared to be in the memorandum was in "The New York Times" the day before and James Comey made this statement which I find troubling. He said he issued the release or the disclosure or I would say leak of the information through his friend, not even directly, through his friend in order to draw a special counsel and the next day he got one. I think you say in the loss rest Indianapolis locate question Tur, it speaks for itself. Do you expect him to testify under oath to Robert Mueller. The president made that very clear and made the statement of what he would do as far as testimony if that's necessary. I find it ironic that people are questioning the president when he said he would do that. Yet secretary Clinton when she was under investigation by James Comey was not put under oath. I find that ironic will. Will the president promise not to interfere and not order the deputy attorney general to fire Robert Mueller? The president of the united States as we all know it's I unitary executive. He will seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside. I'm not going to speculate on what he will or will not do. Right now the role of the president is to govern the United States of America. He's going to do that. He's going to leave anything else to the lawyers but I can't imagine that that issue is going to arise but that again is an issue that the president with his advisers would discuss if there was a basis. I mean, George, about there was a basis upon which there was a question raised that raised the kind of issues that are serious as in the situation with James Comey, the president has authority to take action, whether he would do it is ultimately a decision the president makes. I think that's complete conjecture and speculation. The constitution it's a unitary executive. You worked for the president. Jay sekulow, thanks for your time this horng. Thanks for having me.

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