AG William Barr testifies on Mueller report before Senate Judiciary Committee, live stream


FIRST TIME SINCE HE RELEASED A REPORT ON THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE CERTAIN TO ASK ABOUT LETTERS CLAIMING THAT WILLIAM BARR’S INITIAL FOUR PAGE SUMMARY TO CONGRESS AND THE REACTION TO IT >>Reporter: THREATENS TO UNDERMINE A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT APPOINTED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ASSURE FULL PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. >>NOW, ROBERT MUELLER WROTE THAT LETTER IN MARCH. THE DETAILS ARE NOW BECOMING PUBLIC AND HAVE LED SOME DEMOCRATS TO CALL FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RESIGN. FOR NEARLY A MONTH BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE REPORT, THE PRESIDENT USED WILLIAM BARR SUMMARY AND CLAIMANT FOUND NO COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA AND NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WE ARE COVERING THIS FROM ALL ANGLES. NANCY CORDES IS OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM WITH WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THE SENATORS QUESTIONS BUT FIRST, WE ARE GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITH PAULA REID AND A LOOK AT ROBERT MUELLER’S LETTER. >>Reporter: WHAT IS SO EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THIS LETTER FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILLIAM BARR, AS IT LAYS OUT A TIMELINE OF THE EXTENSIVE MEDICATION BETWEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO MARCH 5 WHERE THE TWO PARTIES MET AND SPECIAL COUNSEL HE GOT EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD EXPECT. HE REVEALED THE FACT THAT HE WOULD NOT BE MAKING CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND IT SHOWS THAT THE MORNING AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED HIS FOUR PAGE SUMMARY, COUNSEL MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS FOUR PAGE MEMO ACCURATELY PORTRAYED THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WORK. IN ADDITION, WE ARE ALSO GETTING IN THIS LETTER WHICH WE LEARNED FIRST ABOUT LAST NIGHT ON MARCH 27 WHERE HE PUT DOWN, HE MEMORIALIZED ALL OF HIS CONCERNS AND URGED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RELEASE THESE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD CREATED SO THE PUBLIC COULD GET A FULL CONTEXT, A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OF THE WORK THAT HE HAD DONE IN THIS INVESTIGATION. COMPENSATING THIS LETTER, WE KNOW THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REACHED OUT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL, HIS LONGTIME COLLEAGUE IN A PHONE CALL AND THE TWO MEN SPOKE AGAIN URGING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RELEASE HIS SUMMARIES BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OBJECTED. ACCORDING TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT WANT TO RELEASE INFORMATION SO THE 15 MINUTE PHONE CALL CONCLUDED WITH THE TWO MEN AGREEING TO RELEASE THE REDACTED REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ARGUING ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS HE WOULD GET FROM DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS IS WHAT HE TOLD THEM LAST TIME HE WAS ON THE HILL THAT HE WASN’T SURE IF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AGREED WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS WHEN CLEARLY THERE IS A PAPER TRAIL MAKING IT VERY CLEAR HOW ROBERT MUELLER FELT ABOUT THE CONCLUSION. >>>TODAY’S HEARING IS EXPECTED TO BE A TALE OF TWO PARTIES. THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS RUN BY REPUBLICANS FOCUSING ON THE EARLY DAYS OF THE INVESTIGATION, HOW IT GOT STARTED AND WHY AND NOT NECESSARILY THE 27 DAYS BETWEEN THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE RELEASE OF THE REDACTED MUELLER REPORT. DEMOCRATS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE NOT EXPECTED TO HOLD BACK ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILLIAM BARR, AND HIS DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT THE REPORT FOUND AND WHAT HE SUMMARIZED THE REPORT TO BE. NANCY IS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM TODAY’S HEARINGS? >>Reporter: DEMOCRATS ARE ALREADY PLANNING TO COME OUT SWINGING. THEY BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PUT HIS THUMB ON THE SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY BUT NOW, THIS NEW LETTER JUST GIVES THEM MORE GRIST FOR THE MILL. EXPECTED TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THEY HAVEN’T SEEN THE FULL, UNREDACTED REPORT, WHY HE SO QUICKLY DECIDED NOT TO SEEK OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ONE THING THAT IS NOTABLE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY, COMMITTEE, THREE OF THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT SO THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE LOOKING TO MAKE THEIR MARK IN A VERY CROWDED FIELD. ONE OF THEM, AMY TOLD ME LAST NIGHT THAT SHE HAS BEEN REWORKING HER QUESTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE LATEST. >>THANK YOU, NANCY. HERE WE HAVE, LINDSEY GRAHAM, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE SPEAKING. >>GIVING US AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE ACTIONS HE TOOK AND WHY HE TOOK THEM REGARDING THE ROBERT MUELLER REPORT AND HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS, HERE IS THE MUELLER REPORT. YOU CAN READ IT FOR YOURSELF. IT IS ABOUT 400 AND SOMETHING PAGES. I CANNOT SAY I HAVE READ IT ALL BUT I HAVE READ MOST OF IT. THERE IS AN UNREDACTED VERSION OVER IN THE CLASSIFIED SECTION OF THE SENATE, A RUMOR YOU CAN GO A LOOK AT THE UNREDACTED VERSION AND I DID THAT AND I FOUND IT NOT TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF AN OUTCOME BUT A BIT ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. WHO IS MEULLER? FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT KNOW, I DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN BUT YOU MAY NOT KNOW, BOB MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION IN THIS TOWN AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS BEING AN OUTSTANDING LAWYER, AND A MAN OF THE LAW. HE WAS THE FBI DIRECTOR, HE WAS THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. H WAS A UNITED STATES MARINE AND HE HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY IN A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES LONG AND WELL. FOR THOSE WHO TOOK TIME TO READ THE REPORT, I THINK IT WAS WELL WRITTEN, VERY THOROUGH. AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WENT INTO THIS REPORT. THERE WERE 19 LAWYERS EMPLOYED, APPROXIMATELY 40 FBI AGENTS, INTEL AND WAS, FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS AND OTHER STAFF. 2800 SUBPOENAS ISSUED. 500 WITNESSES INTERVIEWED. 500 SEARCH WARRANTS EXECUTED. MORE THAN 230 ORDERS FOR COMMUNICATION, RECORDS SO THE RECORDS COULD BE OBTAINED. 13 REQUESTS TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS FOR EVIDENCE, OVER $25 MILLION SPENT OVER TWO YEARS. WE MAY NOT AGREE ON MARCH AND I HOPE WE CAN AGREE THAT HE HAD AMPLE RESOURCES, TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND YOU CAN READ FOR YOURSELF WHAT HE FOUND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL TELL US A BIT ABOUT WHAT HIS OPINION OF THE REPORT IS. IN TERMS OF INTERACTING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE , THE WHITE HOUSE TURNED OVER TO MR. MUELLER 1.4 MILLION DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ONE TIME OVER 20 WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS INCLUDING EIGHT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE WERE INTERVIEWED VOLUNTARILY, DON McGAHN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INTERVIEWED FOR OVER 30 HOURS. EVERYBODY THAT THEY WANTED TO TALK TO FROM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ON THE GROUND, THEY WERE ABLE TO TALK TO. THE PRESIDENT SUBMITTED HIMSELF TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. SO, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — MR. MUELLER WAS THE RIGHT GUY TO DO THIS JOB. I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS CONFLICTED OUT BECAUSE HE WAS PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. HE WAS THE RIGHT GUY WITH AMPLE RESOURCES AND THE COOPERATION HE NEEDED TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS GIVEN, IN MY VIEW. BUT THERE WERE TWO CAMPAIGNS IN 2016 AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE SECOND ONE, AND A MINUTE. SO WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THIS REPORT? AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME AND ALL OF THIS MONEY, MR. MUELLER AND HIS TEAM CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. I DIDN’T KNOW LIKE MANY OF YOU HERE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, WE ALL AGREED THAT MR. MUELLER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO HIS JOB WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. I JOINED WITH SOME COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FOR A CAUSE. HE WAS NEVER REMOVED. SHE WAS ALLOWED TO DO HIS JOB. SO, NO COLLUSION. NO COORDINATION. NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE 2016 ELECTION. AS TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, MR. MUELLER LETTER TO MR. BARR TO DECIDE AFTER TWO YEARS AND ALL THIS TIME, HE SAID, MR. BARR, YOU DECIDE. MR. BARR DID. A BUNCH OF LAWYERS ON NEXT COMMITTEE AND I WILL TELL YOU THE FOLLOWING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUS UNDERLYING CRIME, IT IS PRETTY HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT INTENT MIGHT BE IF THERE WAS NEVER A CRIME TO BEGIN WITH. THE PRESIDENT NEVER DID ANYTHING TO STOP MUELLER FROM DOING HIS JOB SO I GUESS THE THEORY GOES NOW, OKAY, HE DIDN’T COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS AND HE DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY DO ANYTHING TO STOP MUELLER BUT ATTEMPTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OF A CRIME THAT NEVER OCCURRED, I GUESS IS SORT OF THE NEW STANDARD AROUND HERE. WE WILL SEE IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. TO ME, IT DOESN’T. NOW THERE IS ANOTHER CAMPAIGN, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THIS REPORT? THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION. SO CAN SOME BIPARTISANSHIP COME OUT OF THIS? I HOPE SO. I INTEND TO WORK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO INTRODUCE THE DETER ACT AND TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO DEFEND THE INTEGRITY OF THE VOTING SYSTEM. CENTER THERE AND I HAVE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DENY ANYONE ADMITTANCE INTO THE UNITED STATES A VISA FOR THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN INTERFERING IN THE AMERICAN ELECTION. SENATOR, THE WHITE HOUSE AND BLOOMINGDALE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU HAPPEN TO A STATE ELECTION SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT TIED TO THEIR INTERNET, THAT IS A CRIME. I WOULD LIKE TO DO MORE TO HARDEN INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS DID IT. IT WASN’T SOME 400 POUND GUY SITTING ON A BED SOMEWHERE. IT WAS THE RUSSIANS. AND THEY ARE STILL DOING IT. AND IT COULD BE THE CHINESE, IT COULD BE SOMEBODY NEXT SO MY TAKE AWAY FROM THIS REPORT IS THAT WE’VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND OTHER BAD ACTORS AND I PROMISE THE COMMITTEE WE WILL GET ON WITH THAT WORK HOPEFULLY IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION. THE OTHER CAMPAIGN. THE OTHER CAMPAIGN WAS INVESTIGATED NOT BY MR. MUELLER BUT BY PEOPLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE CLINTON SECRETARY CLINTON WAS THAT SHE SENT A PRIVATE SERVER UP SOMEWHERE IN HER HOUSE AND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WAS ON IT TO AVOID THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED OF BEING SECRETARY OF STATE. SO THAT WAS INVESTIGATED . WHAT DO WE KNOW? WE KNOW THAT THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING HATED TRUMP SCOTT’S. I DON’T KNOW HOW MR. MUELLER FELT ABOUT TRUMP BUT I DON’T THINK ANYBODY ON OUR SIDE BELIEVES THAT HE HAD A PERSONAL ANIMOSITY TOWARD THE PRESIDENT TO THE POINT THAT HE COULDN’T DO HIS JOB. THIS IS WHAT WAS SAID ON FEBRUARY 12 OF 2016. NOW HE IS IN CHARGE OF THE CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION. TRUMPS ABYSMAL. I KEEP HOPING THE CHARADE WILL AND AND PEOPLE WILL JUST DUMP HIM. FEBRUARY 12, 2016. PAGE IS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYER ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE. MARCH 3, 2016, GOD, TRUMP IS A LOATHSOME HUMAN BEING. STROKE, OH MY GOD! TRUMP IS AN IDIOT! HE IS AWFUL. STROKE, GOD, HILLARY SHOULD WIN 100 MILLION TO NOTHING. COMPARE THOSE TWO PEOPLE TO MUELLER. MARCH 16, 2016. I CANNOT BELIEVE TRUMP IS LIKELY TO BE AN ACTUAL SERIOUS CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. JULY 21, 2016. TRUMP IS A DISASTER! I HAVE NO IDEA HOW DESTABILIZING HIS PRESIDENCY WOULD BE. AUGUST 8 OF 2016, THREE DAYS BEFORE STROKE WAS MADE DEADLY ACTING IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF THE FBI. HE IS NEVER GOING TO BECOME PRESIDENT, RIGHT? PAGE 2 STRUCK, NO, NO, HE WON’T. WE WILL STOP HIM! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE INVESTIGATING THE CLINTON EMAIL SITUATION AND STARTS, THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. COMPARE THEM TO ROBERT MUELLER. AUGUST 15, 2016. STROKE, I WANT TO BELIEVE THE PATH TO THE ROUTE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANDY’S OFFICE THAT THERE IS NO WAY HE GETS ELECTED BUT I AM AFRAID WE CAN’T TAKE THAT RISK. IT IS LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT YOU DIE BEFORE YOUR 40. AUGUST 26, 2016. JUST WENT TO THE SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WALMART. I COULD SMELL THE TRUMP SUPPORT. OCTOBER 19, 2016. TRUMP IS A [ BLEEP ] IDIOT. HE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE A COHERENT ANSWER. SORRY TO THE KIDS OUT THERE. THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT MADE A DECISION THAT CLINTON DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG AND THAT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS WARRANTED. WE ARE GOING TO, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, I HOPE, DEAL úW BUT WHEN THE MUELLER REPORT IS PUT TO BED AND IT’S IN WILL BE, THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO LOOK LONG AND HARD AT HOW THIS ALL STARTED. WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE FISA WARRANT PROCESS. DID RUSSIA PROVIDE CHRISTOPHER STEELE THE INFORMATION ABOUT TRUMP? THAT TURNED OUT TO BE GARBAGE THAT WAS USED TO GET A WARRANT ON AMERICAN CITIZENS AND IF SO, HOW DID THE SYSTEM FAIL? WAS THERE A REAL EFFORT BETWEEN PAPADOPOULOS AND ANYBODY IN RUSSIA TO USE THE CLINTON EMAILS STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS OR WAS THAT THOUGHT PLANTED IN HIS MIND? I DON’T KNOW BUT WE ARE GOING TO LOOK! AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS, IF YOU CHANGE THE NAMES, Y’ALL WOULD WANT TO LOOK TO. EVERYTHING I JUST SAID JUST SUBSTITUTES CLINTON FOR TRUMP. SEE WHAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WITH CAMERAS WOULD BE SEEING OUT THERE ABOUT THIS. AS TO COOPERATION IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION, I TOLD YOU WHAT THE TRUMP PEOPLE DID. I WILL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE CLINTON PEOPLE DID. THERE WAS A PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE SERVER ISSUED BY THE HOUSE AND THERE WAS A REQUEST BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO PRESERVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION ON THE SERVER. PAUL CAN BETTER AFTER HAVING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER — USED A SOFTWARE PROGRAM CALLED BLEACH BIT TO WIPE THE EMAIL SERVER CLEAN. HAS ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF PAUL CAN BETTER? NO. UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER FROM THE HOUSE TO PRESERVE THE INFORMATION UNDER REQUEST FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO CONSERVE THE INFORMATION, HE USED A BLEACH BIT PROGRAM TO WIPE IT CLEAN. WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM? NOTHING! 18 DEVICES POSSESSED BY SECRETARY CLINTON SHE USED TWO DO BUSINESS AS SECRETARY. HOW MANY OF THEM WERE TURNED OVER TO THE FBI? NONE. TWO OF THEM COULDN’T BE TURNED OVER BECAUSE JUDITH CASPER TOOK A HAMMER AND DESTROYED TWO OF THEM. WHAT HAPPENED TO HER? NOTHING. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE ARE ABOUT TO HEAR FROM MR. BARR THE RESULTS OF A TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ALL THINGS RUSSIA, THE ACCENTS THE PRESIDENT TOOK BEFORE AND AFTER THE CAMPAIGN, $25 MILLION, 40 FBI AGENTS. I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH WHAT MR. MUELLER DID FOR THE COUNTRY. I HAVE READ MOST OF THE REPORT. FOR ME, IT IS OVER. SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND THE WELLCOME ATTORNEY GENERAL. ON MARCH 24, YOU SENT A LETTER TO CHAIRMAN GRAHAM AND THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE PROVIDING YOUR SUMMARY AFTER THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION SET OUT IN SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER’S REPORT. THIS LETTER WAS WIDELY REPORTED AS A WIN FOR THE PRESIDENT AND WAS CHARACTERIZED AS CONFIRMING THERE WAS NO CONCLUSION. FOLLOWING THIS LETTER, THE WHITE HOUSE PUT OUT A STATEMENT DECLARING SPECIAL COUNSEL AND IPO, SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT FIND ANY COLLUSION AND DID NOT FIND ANY OBSTRUCTION,” AND THAT THE REPORT WAS A TOTAL AND COMPLETE EXONERATION,” OF THE PRESIDENT. HOWEVER, LAST NIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER SENT YOU A LETTER IN LATE MARCH WHERE HE SAID YOUR LETTER TO CONGRESS FAILED TO, QUOTE, FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF HIS OFFICES WORK AND CONCLUSIONS END QUOTE AND THAT HE SPOKE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CONCERN THAT THE LETTER THREATENED TO UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS”, AS WELL. AND THEN ON APRIL 18, YOU HELD IN PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE YOU ANNOUNCE REPEATEDLY THAT THE MUELLER REPORT FOUNDER COLLUSION AND NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. AN HOUR LATER, A REDACTED COPY OF THE MUELLER REPORT WAS PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS AND WE SAW WHY MUELLER WAS CONCERNED. CONTRARY TO THE DECLARATIONS OF THE TOTAL AND COMPLETE EXONERATION, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT CONTAINED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT. FIRST, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTED THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO MISLEAD MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND THAT RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES HACKED INTO THE DNC AND THE DCCC COMPUTERS, STOLE EMAILS AND MEMOS AND SYSTEMATICALLY RELEASED THEM TO IMPACT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION . YOUR MARCH LETTER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, QUOTE, CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH RUSSIA, END QUOTE. HOWEVER, THE REPORT OUTLINES SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED, ENCOURAGED AND EXPECTED TO BENEFIT ELECTORALLY FROM RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. THE MUELLER REPORT ALSO DETAILS HOW TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TOOK STEPS TO GAIN ADVANTAGE FROM RUSSIA’S UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, PAUL MANAFORT, PAST INTERNAL CAMPAIGN PULLING DATA MESSAGING AND STRATEGY UPDATES TO CONSTANTINE: NICK, A RUSSIAN NATIONAL WITH TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. THE MUELLER REPORT EXPLAINS HOW PAUL MANAFORT BREACHED HIM IN EARLY AUGUST OF 2016 ON, AND IPO, THE STATE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S PLAN TO WIN THE ELECTION, END QUOTE. INCLUDING THE CAMPAIGN’S FOCUS ON THE BATTLEGROUND STATES OF MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA. NEXT, THE MUELLER REPORT DOCUMENTS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING SECRETARY CLINTON AND THE DNC’S STOLEN EMAILS. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORT STATES, AND I CALLED , WITHIN APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLING ON RUSSIA TO DEFINE SECRETARY CLINTON FEMALES, RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY GRU OFFICERS , QUOTE, TARGETED FOR THE FIRST TIME CLINTON’S PERSONAL OFFICE ,”. THE MUELLER REPORT ALSO REVEALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY ASKED INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH THIS CAMPAIGN INCLUDING MICHAEL FLYNN,, QUOTE, TO FIND THAT DELETED CLINTON EMAILS,”. THESE EMAILS INCLUDED SUGGESTIONS TO CONTACT FOR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, RUSSIAN HACKERS AND INDIVIDUALS ON THE DARK WEB. THE REPORT CONFIRMS THAT TRUMP KNEW OF WIKILEAKS RELEASES OF THE STOLEN EMAILS AND RECEIVED STATUS — STATUS UPDATES ABOUT UPCOMING RELEASES. HAS CAMPAIGN PROMOTED COVERAGE OF THE LEAKS. DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH WIKILEAKS AND AT ITS REQUEST PUBLICLY TWEETED A LINK TO EMAILS STOLEN FROM CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER. SECOND, IN YOUR MARCH LETTER TO CONGRESS, YOU CONCLUDED AND I CLOSED, THAT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE ,”. HOWEVER, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER METHODICALLY OUTLINES 10 EPISODES, SOME CONTINUING MULTIPLE ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND INTERFERE WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION. IN ONE EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN AT HOME AND DIRECTED HIM TO FIRE MUELLER SAYING, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO, CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. AND THEN LATER, THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY ORDERED McGANN TO RELEASE A PRESS STATEMENT AND WRITE A LETTER SAYING THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ORDER MUELLER FIRED. THE MUELLER REPORT ALSO OUTLINES EFFORTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO INFLUENCE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DETER COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM COMMUNICATED TO WITNESSES THAT PARDONS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF THEY, QUOTE, STAYED ON MESSAGE, END QUOTE. AND REMAIN, QUOTE, ON TEAM, END QUOTE. IN ONE MESSAGE SENDING A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO PAUL MANAFORT THAT HE WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF AND JUST, QUOTE, FIT TIGHT. END QUOTE. THE PRESIDENT THEN CONFIRMS THIS COMMUNICATION BY STATING THAT MANAFORT WAS, QUOTE, A BRAVE MAN,” FOR REFUSING TO BREAK. SIMILARLY, THE ROBERT MUELLER REPORT STATED THE PRESIDENT USED INDUCEMENTS IN THE FORM OF A POSITIVE MESSAGE IN AN EFFORT TO GET MICHAEL COHEN NOT TO COOPERATE AND THEN TURNED TO ATTACK AND INTIMIDATION TO DETER THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION OR UNDERMINE COLLINS CREDIBILITY. FINALLY, WHILE THE MARCH LETTER TO CONGRESS AND THE APRIL PRESS CONFERENCE LEFT THE IMPRESSION THERE WERE NO REMAINING QUESTIONS TO EXAMINE, THIS REPORT NOTES SEVERAL LIMITATIONS MUELLER FACED WHILE GATHERING THE FACTS THAT CONGRESS NEEDED TO EXAMINE. MORE THAN ONCE, THE REPORT DOCUMENTS THAT DOES EXCUSE ME THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE NOT DRAWN BECAUSE WITNESSES REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR FAILED TO RECALL THE EVENTS. IN ADDITION, NUMEROUS WITNESSES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO JARED KUSHNER, SARAH SANDERS, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, MICHAEL FLYNN, STEVE BANNON AND JOHN KELLY ALL STATED THEY COULD NOT RECALL EVENTS. THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF, SAID MORE THAN 30 TIMES THAT HE COULD NOT RECALL OR REMEMBER ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ALSO RECOUNTED THAT, QUOTE, SOME ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DELETED RELEVANT COMMUNICATIONS OR COMMUNICATED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD USING APPLICATIONS THAT FEATURED ENCRYPTION OR DO NOT PROVIDE FOR LONG-TERM RETENTION OF DATA, END QUOTE. BASED ON THESE GAPS, THE MUELLER REPORT CONCLUDED AND I, QUOTE, AGAIN, THE UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION WOULD HAVE SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON OR CAST A NEW LIGHT ON EVENTS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT, END QUOTE. AND CONTRARY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, THE MUELLER REPORT EXPLICITLY STATES AND I COAT, A STATEMENT THAT DID NOT ESTABLISH PARTICULAR FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THOSE FACTS. VOLUME 2, PAGE 2. LET ME CONCLUDE WITH THIS: CONGRESS HAS BOTH THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE THE SERIOUS FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE MUELLER REPORT. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER ON HIS VIEWS OF THE REPORT IN HIS MARCH LETTER. I ALSO BELIEVE SENATORS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HIM ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS AND QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. I HAVE REQUESTED THIS TO OUR CHAIRMAN TO AUTHORIZE A HEARING WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND I HOPE THAT WILL HAPPEN SOON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. EXPECT THANK YOU. BEFORE WE RECEIVE YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. BARR, WE HAVE THE LETTER THAT MR. MUELLER SENT TO YOU ON MARCH 27 OF 2019. I WILL PUT THAT IN THE RECORD NOW. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >>WHOA, I GOT US WHERE YOU’RE IN. SORRY. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THE TESTIMONY GIVEN TO THIS COMMITTEE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH — TO GOD. SORRY ABOUT THAT! EXPECT THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. COMMITTEE. DURING MY CONFIRMATION PROCESS, THERE WERE TWO CONCERNS THAT DOMINATED. I THINK YOU WILL ALL AGREE, THE FIRST WAS WHETHER I WOULD IN ANY WAY IMPEDE OR CURTAIL SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION AND THE SECOND, WHETHER I WOULD MAKE PUBLIC HIS FINAL REPORT. AS YOU SEE, BOB MUELLER WAS ALLOWED TO COMPLETE HIS WORK AS HE SAW FIT . AND AS TO THE REPORT, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE REPORT IS TO BE MADE TO THE AG AND IS TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT BE MADE PUBLIC, I TOLD THIS COMMITTEE THAT I INTENDED TO EXERCISE WHATEVER DISCRETION I HAD TO MAKE AS MUCH OF THE REPORT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSAS I COULD CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW. THIS HAS BEEN DONE. I ARRIVED AT THE DEPARTMENT ON FEBRUARY 14. AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I ASKED IT TO BE COMMUNICATED TO BOB MUELLER’S TEAM THAT IN PREPARING THE REPORT, WE REQUESTED THAT THEY MAKE IT SO WE COULD READILY IDENTIFY MATERIAL, SO WE COULD QUICKLY PROCESS THE REPORT. >>SIX HE IS GRAND JURY MATERIAL THAT CANNOT BE MADE PUBLIC. IT IS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE. AND I WANTED THAT IDENTIFIED SO THAT WE COULD REGRET — REDACTED MATERIAL AND RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE DEPARTMENT AND WAS BRIEFED, I FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HIS PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY, CALLAHAN, WERE IN REGULAR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNSEL’S OFFICE, HAD BEEN. AND THEY COMMUNICATED THIS REQUEST AND HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BOTH THE TIMING OF THE REPORT AND THE NATURE OF THE REPORT. ON MARCH 5, I MET WITH BOB AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE DEPUTY AND THE PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY, BOB MUELLER. I MET WITH BOB MUELLER. TO GET A READOUT ON WHAT HIS CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE. ON MARCH 25, AND AT THAT MEETING, I REITERATED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME BEFORE I WAS IN A POSITION TO RELEASE THE FULL THE REPORT, I ASKED THAT THEY IDENTIFY THE MATERIAL. WHEN I RECEIVED THE REPORT ON MARCH 22 AND WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE THAT EASILY IDENTIFIED, UNFORTUNATELY, IT DID NOT COME IN THAT REFORM. AND IT QUICKLY BECAME APPARENT THAT IT WOULD TAKE THREE OR FOUR WEEKS TO IDENTIFY THAT MATERIAL AND OTHER MATERIAL WOULD HAVE TO BE REDACTED. SO IT WAS NECESSARILY GOING TO BE A GAP BETWEEN THE RECEIPT OF THE REPORT AND GETTING THE FULL REPORT OUT PUBLICLY. THE DEPUTY AND I IDENTIFIED FOUR CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION THAT WE BELIEVE REQUIRED REDACTION AND I THINK YOU WILL KNOW OF THEM THAT THEY WERE THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL, INFORMATION THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ADVISED OR REVEALED SOURCES AND METHODS. INFORMATION THAT IF REVEALED AT THIS STAGE WOULD IMPINGE ON THE INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF THE RELATED CASES AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD UNFAIRLY AFFECT THE PRIVACY AND REPUTATIONAL INTEREST OF PAROCHIAL THIRD PARTIES. WE WENT ABOUT REJECTING THIS MATERIAL IN CONCERT WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. WE NEEDED THEIR ASSISTANCE TO IDENTIFY THE MATERIAL, IN PARTICULAR. THE REJECTIONS WERE ALL CARRIED OUT BY DOJ LAWYERS WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL LAWYERS IN CONSULTATION WITH INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES. THE REPORT CONTAINS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OVER WHICH THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE FOR THE NEXT ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BY THE PRESIDENT MADE THE DECISION NOT TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND TO MAKE PUBLIC AS MUCH OF THE REPORT AS WE COULD SUBJECT TO THE REDUCTIONS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE REQUIRED. AS YOU SEE, THE REPORT HAS BEEN LIGHTLY REDACTED. THE PUBLIC VERSION HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO HAVE ONLY 10% REDUCTIONS. ALMOST, THE VAST BULK OF THOSE REDACTION’S RELATE TO, ARE IN VOLUME #1 WHICH IS THE VOLUME THAT DEALS WITH COLLUSION AND IT RELATES TO EXISTING, ONGOING CASES. VOLUME 2 HAS ONLY ABOUT 2% REDUCTIONS SO 98% OF VOLUME 2 DEALING WITH RESTRICTION ARE DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE MADE REPORTS THAT GO TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS. FOR THIS VERSION, OVERALL REDUCTIONS ARE LESS THAN 2% FOR THE WHOLE REPORT AND FOR VOLUME #2 DEALING WITH THE OBSTRUCTION, LESS THAN 1/10 OF 1% SO GIVEN THE LIMITED NEIGHBORHOODS NATURE OF THE REDUCTIONS, I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC REPORT WILL ALLOW EVERYONE AMERICAN TO UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WORK. BY NOW, EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL’S BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIA ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION. IN VOLUME 1, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOUND THAT THE RUSSIANS ENGAGED IN TWO DISTINCT STEAM. FIRST, A RUSSIAN ENTITY WITH CLOSE TIES TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT CONDUCTED DISINFORMATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA OPERATION TO SOW DISCORD AMONG AMERICANS. SECOND, THE GRU RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE HACKED INTO COMPUTERS AND STOLE EMAILS FROM INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATED WHETHER ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THESE CRIMINAL SCHEMES. THEY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONSPIRACY OR COORDINATION WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OR THE IRA. AS YOU KNOW, VOLUME #2 OF HIS REPORT DEALT WITH OBSTRUCTION AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CONSIDERED WHETHER CERTAIN ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT COULD AMOUNT TO OBSTRUCTION. HE DECIDED NOT TO REACH A CONCLUSION. INSTEAD, THE RECORD REPORT POTENTIAL LEGAL THEORIES FOR CONNECTING THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS TO ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OFFENSES. NOW WE FIRST HEARD THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S DECISION NOT TO DECIDE THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE AT THE MARCH 5 MEETING WHEN HE CAME OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT AND WE WERE FRANKLY SURPRISED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO REACH A DECISION ON OBSTRUCTION. AND WE ASKED THEM A LOT ABOUT THE REASONING BEHIND THIS AND THE BASIS FOR THIS. SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER STATED THREE TIMES TO ASK IN THAT MEETING IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONING THAT HE EMPHATICALLY WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION HE WOULD’VE FOUND OBSTRUCTION. HE SAID THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE SUCH THAT IF SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD RECOMMEND ABANDONING THE OLC OPINION BUT THIS IS NOT SUCH THE CASE. WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT REACHING A DECISION. AND WHEN WE PRESSED THEM ON IT, HE SAID THAT HIS TEAM WAS STILL FORMULATING THE EXPLANATION. ONCE WE HEARD THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION, THE DEPUTY AND I DISCUSSED AND AGREED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO RETREAT DECISION. WE HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE AND TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT. I SAY THIS BECAUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED TO CARRY OUT THE INVESTIGATIVE AND PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD TO DO IT AS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE POWERS HE WAS USING INCLUDING THE POWER OF USING THE GRAND JURY AND USING COMPULSORY PROCESS EXIST FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THIS ARENA WHICH IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN CRIMINAL CONDUCT. IT IS A BINARY DECISION. IS THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHOW A CRIME AND DO WE BELIEVE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED? WE DON’T CONDUCT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS JUST TO COLLECT INFORMATION AND TO PUT IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. WE DO SO TO MAKE A DECISION. AND HERE WE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHICH IS VERY PUBLIC INVESTIGATION. AND WE HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WERE GOING TO BE MADE PUBLIC AND THAT THE DEPUTY AND I FELT THAT THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED BY THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME AND THEREFORE WOULD BE A RESPONSIBLE AND UNFAIR FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO RELEASE A REPORT WITHOUT STATING THE DEPARTMENT’S CONCLUSIONS AND THUSLY LEAVE IT HANGING AS TO THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THERE HAD BEEN CRIMINAL CONDUCT. SO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I CONDUCTED A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE REPORT WITH OUR STAFF AND LEGAL ADVISORS AND WHILE WE DISAGREE TO SOME OF THE LEGAL THEORIES AND FELT THAT MANY OF THE EPISODES DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION AS A MATTER OF LAW, WE DIDN’T REST OUR DECISION ON THAT. WE TOOK EACH OF THE 10 EPISODES AND WE ASSESSED THEM AGAINST THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK THAT HAD BEEN SET FORTH BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND WE CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED DURING SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE. LET ME JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS MARCH 24 LETTER AND BOB MUELLER IS LETTER, I THINK, ON THE 20th WHICH I RECEIVED ON THE 28th. WHEN THE REPORT CAME IN ON THE 22nd AND WE SAW IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO GET IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC, I MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT WE HAD TO PUT OUT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. THE BODY POLITICS WAS IN A HIGH STATE OF AGITATION. THERE WAS MASSIVE INTEREST IN LEARNING WHAT THE BOTTOM-LINE RESULTS OF BOB MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION WAS, PARTICULARLY, AS TO CONCLUSION — COLLUSION. CONSTANTLY PREDICTING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY WERE GOING TO BE INDICTED, THERE WERE PEOPLE SUGGESTING THAT IT TOOK TIME TO TURN THE REPORT AROUND THAT IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IN LEGAL JEOPARDY SO I DIDN’T FEEL THAT IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO ALLOW THIS TO GO ON FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AND SO I DECIDED TO SIMPLY STATE WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS WERE. WHICH IS WHAT THE DEPARTMENT NORMALLY DOES, MAKE A BINARY DETERMINATION. IS THERE A CRIME OR ISN’T THERE A CRIME? WE PREPARED THE LETTER FOR THAT PURPOSE TO STATE THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS. WE USED THE LANGUAGE FROM THE REPORT TO STATE THOSE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS. I ANALOGIZE IT TO ANNOUNCING AFTER AN EXTENDED TRIAL WITH THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL IS. PNDING RELEASE OF THE FULL TRANSCRIPT. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, NOTIFY THE PEOPLE AS TO THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION. WE WERE NOT TRYING TO SUMMARIZE THE 410 PAGE REPORT. SO, WE RELEASED THAT. I OFFERED BOB MUELLER THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER BEFORE IT WENT OUT AND HE DECLINED. ON THURSDAY MORNING, IT WAS PROBABLY RECEIVED AT THE DEPARTMENT WEDNESDAY. BUT ON THURSDAY MORNING, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM BOB, THE LETTER THAT HAS JUST BEEN PUT INTO THE RECORD. AND I CALLED BOB AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE ISSUE, HERE? AND I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE MARCH 24 LETTER WAS INACCURATE AND HE SAID, NO, BUT THAT THE PRESS REPORTING HAD BEEN INACCURATE. AND THE PRESS WAS READING TOO MUCH INTO IT AND I ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY WHAT HIS CONCERN WAS AND HE SAID THAT HIS CONCERN FOCUSED ON HIS EXPLANATION OF WHY HE DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION. AND HE WANTED MORE PUT OUT ON THAT ISSUE. HE WANTED, HE ARGUED FOR PUTTING OUT AND SUMMARIES OF EACH VOLUME, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY HIS OFFICE AND IF NOT THAT, THEN OTHER MATERIAL THAT FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF WHY HE DIDN’T REACH THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTION BUT HE WAS VERY CLEAR WITH ME THAT HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE HAD MISREPRESENTED HIS REPORT. I TOLD BOB THAT I WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PUTTING OUT SUMMARIES AND I WASN’T GOING TO PUT OUT THE REPORT PIECEMEAL. I WANTED TO GET THE WHOLE REPORT OUT AND I THOUGHT SUMMARIES BY VERY DEFINITION REGARDLESS OF WHO PREPARED THEM WOULD BE UNDERINCLUSIVE AND WE WOULD HAVE SORT OF A SERIES OF DIFFERENT DEBATES AND PUBLIC DISCORD OVER EACH TRANCHE OF INFORMATION THAT WENT OUT AND I WANTED TO GET EVERYTHING OUT AT ONCE AND WE SHOULD START WORKING ON THAT SO THE FOLLOWING DAY, I PUT OUT A LETTER EXPLAINING THE PROCESS WE WERE FOLLOWING AND STRESSING THAT THE MARCH 24 LETTER WAS NOT A SUMMARY OF THE REPORTS BUT A STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE BOB MUELLER’S ENTIRE THINKING WHEN THE REPORT WAS MADE PUBLIC. SO I WILL LEAVE MY STATEMENT THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN AND I AM GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS TO THE ACTUAL REPORT ITSELF, WAS THERE EVER AN OCCASION WHERE YOU WANTED TO — WHERE SOMETHING WAS REDACTED FROM THE REPORT THAT MR. MUELLER OBJECTED TO? >>I WOULDN’T SAY OBJECTED TO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CATEGORIES WERE DEFINED BY ME AND THE DEPUTY. I DON’T THINK — I HAVE NO — >>– DID YOU WORK WITH HIM ON THE REDACTED VERSION? >>THOSE CATEGORIES WERE EXECUTED BY DOJ LAWYERS WORKING WITH HIS LAWYERS. I THINK THERE WERE MAYBE A FEW JUDGMENT CALLS, VERY FEW, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS A PRUDENTIAL MATTER OR SHOULD BE TREATED AS A REPUTATIONAL INTEREST OR SOMETHING SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME ABRASIONS OF THAT BUT AS FAR AS — >>I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO HURT SOMEONE’S REPUTATION UNLESS SEPARATELY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME, IS THAT CORRECT? SO WAS THERE ANY DISAGREEMENT ABOUT ANY GRAND JURY MATERIAL? ANY DISAGREEMENT ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION? >>NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF? >>SO THAT CONCLUSIONS IN YOUR FOUR-PAGE SUMMARY, YOU THINK, ACCURATELY REFLECT HIS BOTTOM LINE ON COLLUSION, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>AND YOU CAN READ IT FOR YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT. AS TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WERE YOU SURPRISED HE WAS GOING TO LET YOU DECIDE? >>YES, I WAS SURPRISED. I THINK THE VERY PURPOSE — THE FUNCTION HE WAS CARRYING OUT, THE PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTION IS PERFORMED FOR THE PURPOSE — HOW MANY PEOPLE DID HE ACTUALLY AND DIE, DO YOU KNOW? >>I CANNOT REMEMBER OFF AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >>IT WAS A LOT. HE ACTUALLY HAS THE ABILITY TO INDICT, IF YOU WANT TO. HE USES THAT POWER FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. THE OTHER THING THAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED ON FOR A WHILE AS ADDITIONAL EPISODES WERE LOOKED INTO INTO INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT SO MY QUESTION IS OR WAS, WHY WERE THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO REACH A DECISION THAT THE END OF THEM? >>DID YOU CONSULT ROSENSTEIN ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION MATTER? >>CONSTANTLY. >>SO, WAS HE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR DECISION NOT TO PROCEED FORWARD? >>YES. I’M SORRY, THE AGREEMENT OF WHAT? >>NOT TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH OBSTRUCTION. >>RIGHT. >>SO VERY QUICKLY, GIVE US YOUR REASONING WHY YOU THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE. >>WELL, — GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND OBSTRUCTION CASE TYPICALLY HAS TWO ASPECTS TO IT. #1, THERE IS USUALLY AN UNDERLYING CRIMINALITY. >>STOP RIGHT THERE. WAS THERE AN UNDERLYING CRIME HERE? >>NO. >>USUALLY, THERE IS EXPECT USUALLY. BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY, THE PARADIGM AND I AM CASE. THE PERSON IMPLICATED OR THE PEOPLE INDICATED CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CRIMINALITY BEING DISCOVERED, TAKING INHERENTLY MALIGNANT ACT AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID TO OBSTRUCT THAT INVESTIGATION. >>SO PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT THAT HE FIRED JAMES COMEY TO STOP THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE. LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JAMES COMEY. I DO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN HIM, COMBING, ANY LONGER. THAT WAS CHUCK SCHUMER NOVEMBER 2 OF 2016. I THINK HE, CALL ME, SHOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHAT HE HAS DONE AND I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE A BAD THING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IF HE DID STEP DOWN. BERNIE SANDERS, JANUARY 15, 2017. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRE COMBING, IMMEDIATELY. ANTIOCH TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. THAT IS CONGRESSMAN NADLER, NOVEMBER 14, 2016. DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY, HE HANDLED THE CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION? >>YES, I SAID SO AT THE TIME. >>OKAY. SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK COMEY SHOULD BE FIRED, DID YOU FIND THAT TO BE A PERSUASIVE ACT OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE? >>KNOW. I THINK EVEN THE REPORT AT THE END OF THE DAY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IF YOU READ THE ANALYSIS THAT A REASON THAT LOOMED LARGE THEREFORE HIS TERMINATION WAS HIS REFUSAL TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT HE WAS PRIVATELY TELLING THE PRESIDENT WHICH WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION. >>AS TO WHERE WE GO FORWARD, AS TO HOW WE GO FORWARD, WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND EVERY OTHER COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS DO OUR BEST TO HARBOR INFRASTRUCTURE AGAINST PREACHER RUSSIAN ATTACKS? >>ABSOLUTELY BE EXPECTING YOU THINK RUSSIA IS STILL UP TO IT? >>YES YOU’RE EXPECTING YOU THINK OTHER COUNTRIES WILL GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION IN 2020? >>YES. >>SO YOU WOULD SUPPORT HARDENING OUR ELECTORAL INFRASTRUCTURE? >>YES. >>IS THAT ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS OF THE MUELLER REPORT? >>YES. >>DO YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS? >>YES. >>DO YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AND HOW IT WAS OPENED AND WHY WAS OPENED? >>YES. >>DO YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS AND THE LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IN THE EMAIL INVESTIGATION IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL LOOK AT? >>YES. >>DO YOU EXPECT TO CHANGE HER MIND ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS OF THE MUELLER REPORT? >>NO. >>DO YOU KNOW BOB MUELLER? >>YES. >>DO YOU TRUST HIM? >>YES. >>HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN THEM? >>30 YEARS, ROUGHLY. >>DO YOU THINK HE HAD THE TIME YOU NEEDED? >>YES YOU’RE EXPECTING YOU THINK HE HAD THE MONEY HE NEEDED? >>YES. EXPECTING THE BIGGIE HAD THE MONEY HE NEEDED? >>YES. AND I THINK HE DID A THOROUGH JOB AND HAD ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CALLS. >>DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN IN 2016 WAS THOROUGHLY LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS? >>YES. >>AND THE ANSWER IS NO ACCORDING TO BOB MUELLER. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>HE COULDN’T DECIDE ABOUT OBSTRUCTION AND YOU DID, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>DO YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOUR DECISION? >>YES. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIRMAN, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT DESCRIBES HOW THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO FIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND LATER TOLD McGANN TO WRITE A LETTER, QUOTE, FOR OUR RECORDS AND >>Reporter: STATING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT ORDERED HIM TO FIRE MUELLER. THE REPORT ALSO ACCOUNTS HOW THE PRESIDENT MADE REPEATED EFFORTS TO GET McGANN TO CHANGE HIS STORY. KNOWING THAT McGANN BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT’S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS FALSE, SPECIAL COUNSEL BOUND AND I COAT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND, QUOTE,, THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHANGE McGANN’S ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. SPECIAL COUNSEL ALSO FOUND THAT McGANN IS A CREDIBLE WITNESS WITH NO MOTIVE TO LIE OR EXAGGERATE GIVEN THE POSITION HE HELD IN THE WHITE HOUSE. HERE IS THE QUESTION: DOES EXISTING LAW INHIBIT EFFORTS TO GET A WITNESS TO LIE , TO SAY SOMETHING THE WITNESS BELIEVES IS FALSE? >>YES. LIE TO THE GOVERNMENT, YES. >>AND WHAT LAW IS THAT? >>OBSTRUCTION STATUTES. >>THE OBSTRUCTION STATUTE. AND YOU DON’T HAVE IT, I GUESS, BEFORE YOU? >>I’M NOT SURE WHICH ONE THEY WERE REFERRING TO HERE. WAS PROBABLY 1512 C2. >>SO THESE THINGS, IN EFFECT, CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >>WELL, YOU ARE TALKING IN GENERAL TERMS. YOU ARE NOT TALKING — >>WELL, I AM TALKING SPECIFICALLY — YES, YOU’RE CORRECT INNOCENCE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN HIS REPORT FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHANGE McGANN’S ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PREVENT — AND THIS IS A COAT — FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE INVESTIGATION,”. SPECIAL COUNSEL OF ALSO FOUND McGANN AS A CREDIBLE WITNESS WITH NO MOTIVE TO LIE OR EXAGGERATE SO WHAT I’M ASKING YOU, THEN, IS THAT A CREDIBLE CHARGE? UNDER THE OBSTRUCTION STATUTE? >>WE, WE FELT THAT THAT EPISODE , THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH OBSTRUCTION. THE — IF YOU GO BACK AND IF YOU LOOK, THE EPISODE WHERE McGANN — THE PRESIDENT GAVE McGANN AN INSTRUCTION, McGANN’S VERSION OF THAT IS QUITE CLEAR IN EACH TIME HE GAVE IT WHICH IS THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS SAID GO TO ROSENSTEIN, RAISE THE ISSUE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND MUELLER HAS TO GO BECAUSE OF THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WHATEVER INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN McGANN HAD TO DO WITH CONFLICT, ROBERT MUELLER’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST. NOW, THE PRESIDENT LATER SAID THAT WHAT HE MEANT WAS THAT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHOULD BE RAISED WITH ROSENSTEIN BUT THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE LEFT WITH ROSENSTEIN. ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, IT APPEARS THAT McGANN FELT IT WAS MORE DIRECTED AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ESSENTIALLY SAYING PUSH ROSENSTEIN TO INVOKE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO PUSH MOWER OUT. WHEREVER IT FELL ON THAT SPECTRUM OF INTEREST, THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY WAS VERY DIFFERENT. THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY SAID FLAT OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE FIRING OF MUELLER. HE TOLD McGANN, FIRE MUELLER. NOW THERE IS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT BETWEEN FIRING A SPECIAL COUNSEL OUT RIGHT WHICH SUGGESTS ENDING THE INVESTIGATION AND HAVING A SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED FROM CONFLICT WHICH SUGGESTS THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER SPECIAL COUNSEL SO THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH McGANN’S — AND THEN, AS THE REPORT SAYS AND RECOGNIZES, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT TRULY FELT THAT THE TIMES ARTICLE IS INACCURATE AND HE WANTED McGANN TO CORRECT IT. SO WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS INSTRUCTING McGANN TO SAY SOMETHING FALSE BECAUSE IT WASN’T NECESSARILY FALSE. MOREOVER, McGANN HAD WEEKS BEFORE ALREADY GIVEN TESTIMONY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT. AND AS THE REPORT INDICATES, IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN THE CASE THAT HE WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT PRESS REPORTS AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT HE NEVER OUT RIGHT DIRECTED THE FIRING OF MUELLER. SO THE OCEAN IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST TO ASK McGANN TO MEMORIALIZE THAT FACT, WE DO NOTHING, IN THIS CASE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SHOW CORRUPT INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT . >>JUST TO FINISH THIS, BUT YOU STILL HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A PRESIDENTS, ESSENTIALLY, TRIES TO CHANGE THE LAWYERS ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER CRITICISM OF HIMSELF. >>WELL, THAT IS NOT A CRIME. >>SO YOU CAN, IN THIS SITUATION, INSTRUCT SOMEONE TO LIE? >>IT HAS TO BE — WELL, TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE LIE HAS TO BE TIED TO IMPAIRING THE EVIDENCE IN A PARTICULAR PROCEEDING. McGANN HAD ALREADY GIVEN HIS EVIDENCE AND, I THINK, IT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE THAT THE PURPOSE OF McGANN MEMORIALIZING WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING WAS TO MAKE THE RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED McGANN TO FIRE AND THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMEONE SAYING GO FIRE MUELLER AND SAYING, HAVE HIM REMOVED BASED ON CONFLICT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT RESULTS! >>WHAT WOULD THAT CONFLICT BE? EXPECT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS IF YOU REMOVE SOMEONE FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT WOULD PRESUMABLY BE ANOTHER PERSON APPOINTED. >>BUT WOULDN’T YOU HAVE TO HAVE, IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, AND IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT THAT MAKES SENSE OR ELSE, DOESN’T IT BECOME A FABRICATION. >>WE CAN SHIFT FROM THE ISSUE OF WRITING A MEMO FOR WRITING A RELEASE LATER ON AND THE ACTUAL DIRECTION SO THE QUESTION HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LEVELS TO IT. AND FIRST, AS A MATTER OF LAW, I THINK THE DEPARTMENT’S POSITION WOULD BE THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DIRECT DETERMINATION OR THE REPLACEMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE OBSTRUCTION STATUTE DOES NOT REACH THAT CONDUCT. PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, EVEN IF IT REACHES THE CONDUCT, COULD YOU ESTABLISH CORRUPT INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? WHAT MAKES THIS CASE VERY INTERESTING IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO UNDERLYING CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND YOU TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT THERE WAS MALIGN NO THE QUESTION IS WHA THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF TAKING AWAY THE UNDERLINING CRIME? UNDERLYING CRIME AND IT’S NOT — THE REPORT SUGGESTS THAT ONE IMPACT IS WE HAVE TO FIND SOME OTHER REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. BUT THERE’S ANOTHER IMPACT, WHICH IS IF THE PRESIDENT IS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED, WHICH THE EVIDENCE NOW SUGGESTS THAT THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM WERE FALSE, AND HE KNEW THEY WERE FALSE. AND HE FELT THAT THIS INVESTIGATION WAS UNFAIR, PROPELLED BY HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS, AND WAS HAMPERING HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN, THAT IS NOT A CORRUPT MOTIVE FOR REPLACING AN INDEPENDENT COUNCIL. SO THAT’S ANOTHER REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY PROVING THIS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. >>SENATOR JOHNSON AND I WROTE YOU ABOU TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN PETER STROCK AND LISA PAGE THAT APPEAR TO SHOW THE FBI MAY HAVE TRIED TO USE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS FOR THE TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM AS INTELLIGENCE GATHERING OPERATIONS. I HOPE YOU WILL COMMIT TO ANSWERING THE LETTER IN WRITING. BUT ALSO PROVIDING COMMITTEES THE REQUESTED BRIEFING. THAT’S MY QUESTION. >>YES, SENATOR. >>HAVE YOU ALL READY TASKED ANY STAFF TO LOOK INTO WHETHER SPYING BY THE FBI AND OTHER AGENCIES ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS PROPERLY PREDICATED? AND CAN CONGRESS EXPECT A FORMAL REPORT ON YOUR FINDINGS? >>YES, I DO HAVE PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT HELPING ME REVIEW THE ACTIVITIES OVER THE SUMMER OF 2016. >>OKAY. >>I SUPPOSE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU COME TO, BUT IS THERE ANY REASON WHY CONGRESS WOULDN’T BE BRIEFED ON YOUR CONCLUSIONS ? . >>IT’S A LITTLE EARLY FOR ME TO COMMIT COMPLETELY. BUT I ENVISION SOME KIND OF REPORTING AT THE END OF THIS. >>THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE HIRED FUSION GPS TO DO OPPOSITION RESEARCH AGAINST CANDIDATE TRUMP. FUSION GPS THEN HIRED CHRISTOPHER STEEL, FORMER BRITISH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, TO COMPILE WHAT WE ALL KNOW AS THE STEEL DOSSIER. THAT REPORTEDLY USED RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SOURCES FOR INFORMATION. THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS CENTRAL TO THE NOW DEBUNKED COLLUSION NARRATIVE. NOW, HERE’S THE IRONY, THE MULLER REPORT SPENT MILLIONS INVESTIGATING AND FOUND NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. BUT THE DEMOCRATS PAID FOR A DOCUMENT CREATED BY A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITH REPORTED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SOURCES. NOT TRUMP. BUT THE DEMOCRATS. THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF COLLUSION. DESPITE THE CENTRAL STATUS OF THE STEEL DOSSIER TO THE COLLUSION NARRATIVE, THE MULLER REPORT FAILED TO ANALYZE WHETHER THE DOSSIER WAS FILLED WITH DISINFORMATION TO MISLEAD U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND THE FBI. MY QUESTION, MULLER SPENT OVER TWO YEARS, 30 MILLION DOLLARS INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. IN ORDER FOR A FULL ACCOUNTING OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE ATTEMPTS, SHOULDN’T THE SPECIAL COUNCIL HAVE CONSIDERED ON WHETHER THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS PART OF A RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION AND INTERFERENCE CAMPAIGN? >>SPECIAL COUNCIL MULLER HAS PUT OUT HIS REPORT. AND I HAVE NOT YET HAD ANYONE GO THROUGH THE FULL SCOPE OF HIS INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE DID ADDRESS OR LOOK AT ALL INTO THOSE ISSUES. ONE OF THE THINGS I’M DOING IN MY REVIEW IS TO TRY TO ASSEMBLE ALL THE EXISTING INFORMATION OUT THERE ABOUT IT. NOT ONLY FROM HILL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE OIG, BUT ALSO TO SEE WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNCIL LOOKED INTO. SO I REALLY COULDN’T SAY WHAT HE ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO. >>BUT YOU THINK — IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAD LOOKED AT ALL THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, YOU’RE TELLING ME YOU COULD HAVE SAID YES OR NO TO MY QUESTION. >>IF I HAD LOOKED AT IT. >>AND YOU’RE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO FIND SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IF IT’S AVAILABLE. >>YES. >>SIMILARLY, SHOULDN’T THE SPECIAL COUNCIL HAVE LOOKED INTO THE ORIGINS OF THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA? >>THE ORIGINS OF THAT NARRATIVE? >>YES. >>I DON’T KNOW IF HE VIEWED HIS CHARTER THAT BROADLY. AND I DON’T KNOW WHETHER HE DID OR NOT. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I AM REVIEWING. AND AGAIN, WE’LL LOOK AT WHATEVER THE SPECIAL COUNCIL HAS DEVELOPED ON THAT. >>IN VOLUME TWO OF THE REPORT, THE SPECIAL COUNCIL DECLINED TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL DECISION. INSTEAD, THE SPECIAL COUNCIL LAID OUT 200 OR SO PAGES RELATING TO A POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS AND THEN DUMPED THAT ON YOUR DESK. IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU SAID THAT YOU ASKED THE SPECIAL COUNCIL WHETHER HE WOULD IS MADE A CHARGING DECISION OR RECOMMENDED CHARGES ON OBSTRUCTION. BUT FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL’S OPINION ON CHARGING SITTING PRESIDENTS AND THAT THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MADE CLEAR THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. SO MR. BARR, IS THAT AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE SPECIAL COUNCIL? >>YES. HE REITERATED SEVERAL TIMES IN A GROUP MEETING THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND OBSTRUCTION. >>IF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL FOUND FACTS, SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WOULD HE HAVE STATED THAT FINDING? >>IF HE HAD FOUND THAT, I THINK HE WOULD STATE IT, YES. >>WAS IT SPECIAL COUNCIL MULLER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A CHARGING RECOMMENDATION? >>I THINK THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I THOUGHT IT WAS. BUT NOT JUST CHARGING BUT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL. THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE CHARGED — COULD NOT BE CHARGED AS LONG AS HE WAS IN OFFICE. >>DO YOU AGREE WITH THE REASONS THAT HE OFFERED FOR NOT MAKING A DECISION IN VOLUME TWO OF HIS REPORT? AND WHY OR WHY NOT? >>I’M NOT REALLY SURE OF HIS REASONING. I REALLY COULD NOT RECAPITULATE HIS ANALYSIS. WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS IN MY MARCH 24th LETTER, I SIMPLY STATED THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION. DIDN’T TRY TO PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH. I THINK THAT IF HE FELT THAT HE SHOULDN’T GO DOWN THE PATH OF MAKING A TRADITIONAL TRADITIONAL PROSECUTIVE DECISION, HE SHOULDN’T HAVE INVESTIGATED. >>THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF LEAKS COMING OUT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DURING HIGH PROFILE INVESTIGATIONS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND DURING THE DEPARTMENT’S INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR MISHANDLING HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THERE WAS A CULTURE OF UNAUTHORIZED MEDIA CONTACTS. DURING THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, THE LEAKS CONTINUED. LEAKS UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF INVESTIGATORS TO INVESTIGATE. FURTHER LEAKS TO THE PAPERS WHILE CONGRESSES QUESTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT GO UNANSWERED IS UNACCEPTABLE. WHY? WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO INVESTIGATE UNAUTHORIZED MEDIA CONTACTS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FBI OFFICIALS DURING THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION? >>WE HAVE MULTIPLE CRIMINAL LEAK INVESTIGATIONS UNDER WAY. >>THANK YOU. >>SENATOR LEE. >>THANK YOU, ATTORNEY GENERAL. I’M SOMEWHAT TROUBLED BY YOUR TESTIMONY HERE. AND IN THE OTHER BODY. YOU APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS ON APRIL 9th. YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT MEDIA REPORTS AND — THAT YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER DIDN’T ADEQUATELY PORTRAY THE REPORT’S FINDINGS. AND THE CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE THIS IS CONGRESSMAN CHRIS, ASKED IF YOU KNEW WHAT THOSE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL’S TEAM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU TESTIFIED IN RESPONSE, NO, I DON’T. YOU THEN SAID YOU MERE HI SUSPECTED THEY WOULD HAVE PREFERRED MORE INFORMATION WAS RELEASED WITH THE LETTER. NOW WE KNOW CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAID APRIL 9th, THAT ON MARCH 27th, ROBERT MULLER WROTE TO YOU. EXPRESSING VERY SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER, YOUR TESTIMONY ON APRIL 9th, THAT YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER FAILED TO CAPTURE THE, TO QUOTE MR. MULLER T CONTEXT, NATURE, AND SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT. AND WHAT REALLY STRUCK ME, MR. MULLER WROTE THAT YOUR LETTER THREATENED TO UNDERMINE THE CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT APPOINTED THE SPECIAL COUNCIL. TO ASSURE FULL PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION. WHY DID YOU TESTIFY ON APRIL 9th THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE CONCERNS BEING EXPRESSED BY MULLER’S TEAM? WHEN THE FACT THAT YOU HEARD THE CONCERNS DIRECTLY FROM MR. MULLER TWO WEEKS BEFORE. >>WELL, AS I SAID, I TALK DIRECTLY TO BOB MULLER ABOUT HIS LETTER TO ME. AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOUR CONCERNS ? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE MARCH 24th LETTER WAS MISLEADING OR INACCURATE? OR WHAT? HE INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT. HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT. AND THAT WHAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT — >>THAT WASN’T MY QUESTION. >>I’M GETTING TO THE QUESTION. WHICH IS THE QUESTION FROM CHRIS WAS REPORTS HAVE EMERGED RECENTLY, PRESS REPORTS THAT MEMBERS OF SPECIAL COUNCIL’S TEAM ARE FRUSTRATED AT SOME LEVEL WITH THE LIMITED INFORMATION INCLUDED IN YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER IN THAT THEY DON’T ADEQUATELY OR ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE REPORT’S FINDINGS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT MEMBERS HE’S TALKING ABOUT. AND I’M CERTAINLY NOT AWARE OF ANY CHALLENGE TO THE ACCURACY OF THE FINDINGS. >>MR. BARR. YOU SEEM TO HAVE LEARNED THE FILIBUSTER RULES BETTER THAN SENATORS DO. MY QUESTION WAS, WHY DID YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF CONCERNS WHEN WEEKS BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MULLER, HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO YOU. THAT’S A FAIRLY SIMPLE — >>I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. AND THE QUESTION WAS RELATING TO UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS WHO WERE EXPRESSING FRUSTRATION OVER THE ACCURACY RELATING TO FINDINGS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT REFERS TO AT ALL. I TALK DIRECTLY TO BOB MULLER. NOT MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM. AND EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS BEING REFERRED TO, AND MULLER HAD NEVER TOLD ME THAT THE EXPRESSION OF THE FINDINGS WAS INACCURATE, BUT I DID THEN VOLUNTEER THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING AB THE DESIRE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION PUT OUT. BUT IT WASN’T MY PURPOSE TO PUT OUT MORE INFORMATION. >>I FEEL YOUR ANSWER IS PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING. AND I THINK OTHERS DO TOO. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER ONE. YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT IS FULLY COOPERATING WITH THE INVESTIGATION. BUT HIS ATTORNEY HAS TOLD A DEFENDANT HE’D BE TAKEN CARE OF IF HE DIDN’T COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. IS THERE A CONFLICT IN THAT? >>I’M SORRY COULD YOU REPEAT THAT. >>MR. MANAFORT, AND MR. COWEN WERE TOLD BY TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, THEY’D BE TAKEN CARE OF IF THEY DID NOT COOPERATE. YOU SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FULLY COOPERATING. IS THERE A CONFLICT THERE? YES OR NO? >>NO. YOU THINK IT’S FULLY COOPERATING TO INSTRUCT A FORMER AID TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION, AND DECLARE THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG. >>I DON’T THINK — WELL, OBVIOUSLY SINCE I DIDN’T FIND IT WAS OBSTRUCTION, I FELT IN A THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT SUPPORT AN OBSTRUCTION — >>I’M ASKING IS THAT FULLY COOPERATING? I’M NOT ASKING IF IT’S OBSTRUCTION? IS THAT FULLY COOPERATING. >>HE FULLY COOPERATED. >>BY INSTRUCTING A FORMER AID TO TELL ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, AND SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION AND DECLARE THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG, THAT’S FULLY COOPERATING. >>WHERE IS THAT IN THE REPORT? >>VOLUME TWO, PAGE FIVE. ON JUNE 19th 2017. THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A MESSAGE. THE INVESTIGATION IS VERY UNFAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG. THAT’S COOPERATING? >>FIRSTLY, ASKING SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF WE DO NOT THINK IS OBSTRUCTION. >>I’M NOT ASKING IF IT’S OBSTRUCTION. IS IT COOPERATING? >>WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF THAT DECLARES THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG. THE PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF COLLUSION DID NOTHING WRONG. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>THE CONCLUSIONS AREN’T A CRIME. IT’S THE OBSTRUCTING. BUT IS THAT FULLY COOPERATING TO SAY THAT? >>WELL — I DONE SEE ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT AND FULLY COOPERATING WITH THE INVESTIGATION. >>THE PRESIDENT OF COURSE DECLARED MANY TIMES PUBLICLY IN TWEETS AND CAMPAIGN RALLIES THAT HE WOULD TESTIFY. HE NEVER DID TESTIFY. I THINK YOU KNOW WHETHER HE TESTIFIED. >>AS FAR AS I KNOW WE DIDN’T TESTIFY. >>MR. MULLER FOUND THE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO BE INADEQUATE, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I THINK HE WANTED ADDITIONAL. BUT HE NEVER SOUGHT IT. HE NEVER PUSHED IT. >>THE PRESIDENT NEVER TESTIFIED. NEVER DOES THE FACT THAT MR. MULLER FOUND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS RECEPTIVE TO OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE FROM RUSSIA. OR THE FACT THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN NEVER REPORTED ANY OF THIS TO THE FBI, DOES THAT TROUBLE YOU? >>WHAT DID THEY REPORT TO THE FBI? I THINK THE REPORT SAYS OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE EXPECTING TO BENEFIT FROM WHATEVER THE RUSSIANS — >>THE VOLUME ONE REPORT SAYS THE INVESTIGATION ESTABLISHED MULTIPLE LINKS BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS. THOSE LINKS INCLUDED RUSSIANS OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE TO CAMPAIGN. IN SOME INSTANCES THE CAMPAIGN WAS RECEPTIVE TO THE OFFER. IN OTHERS THEY WERE NOT. ┗>THAT ALL. >>I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THAT REFERS TO. WHAT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS THAT REFERRED TO. >>YOU HAVE THE REPORT. I KNOW MY TIME IS UP. ALL RIGHT NANCY CORDES IS OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE ROOM AS WE SWITCH UP TO NANCY. IT FEELS LIKE A TAIL OF TWO HEARINGS. THE REPUBLICANS FOCUSING ON HOW THE MULLER REPORT STARTED. AND THE DEMOCRATS BEARING DOWN ON THE REPORT ITSELF AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CONCLUSION AND HOW HE FRAMED THEM IN HIS SUMMARIES. >>SURE, AND IT’S STILL EARLY ON IN THIS HEARING. A LONG WAY TO GO. BUT ALL READY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN FORCED TOICS PLAIN A COUPLE ASSERTIONINGS HE’S MADE IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS. THAT NOW APPEAR TO HAVE FACTUAL INACCURACIES. HE WAS JUST GRILLED BY PATRICK LAHEY. ABOUT HIS CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE MULLER INVESTIGATION. HE BROUGHT UP EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE. THAT IN THE MULLER REPORT. IT SHOWED THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT FULLY COOPERATIVE. HE WAS QUESTIONED BY DIANE FEINSTEIN OF CALIFORNIA ABOUT THIS LETTER. WE NOW KNOW ROBERT MULLER, THE SPECIAL COUNCIL SENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR AFTER BARR RELEASED HIS FOUR-PAGE MEMO SORT OF SUMMARIZING THE REPORT’S FINDINGS. MULLER VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE FELT THE PUBLIC WAS BEING MISLED IN A WAY. ABOUT WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNCIL’S REPORT HAD CONCLUDED. AND BARR WALKED THROUGH A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD ON THE PHONE WITH ROBERT MULLER. WHERE HE SAYS MULLER DIDN’T TAKE ISSUE WITH ANY OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION IN HIS MEMO. HE JUST THOUGHT SUMMARIES SHOULD BE PUT OUT THERE. AND BARR SAID AGAIN TODAY HE HAD NO PLAN TO PUT THOSE SUMMARIES OUT. >>NANCY, THANK YOU. I WANT TO TURN NOW TO TWO LEGAL EXPERTS WHO ARE JOINING US NOW FROM WASHINGTON. ONE OF THEM CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST, JONATHAN TOUR TURLEY HE’S KNOWN ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR FOR A LONG TIME AND TESTIFIED ON HIS BEHALF AT HIS OWN CONFIRMATION HEARING AND ALSO JOINING US IS KIM WAYLY. FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. ESSENTIALLY THIS HEARING SEEMS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE VORACITY OF THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF IN HOW HE EXPLAINED TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNCIL CONCLUDED OR AT LEAST FOUND WITH THIS REPORT HIMSELF. MR. TURLEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND HERE. >>IN TERMS OF THE VALUE ADDED TESTIMONY. THE THREE STRAND OUTS INVOLVED THE NEW INFORMATION THAT BARR BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. FIRST OF ALL, HE SAID THAT THE DELAY IN RELEASING THE REPORT WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT MULLER DID NOT CARRY OUT HIS REQUEST TO IDENTIFY INFORMATION. THAT’S SURPRISING. HE SAYS REALLY, QUITE CLEARLY, THAT HE TOLD HIM TO IDENTIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS RULE 60 OR GRAND JURY INFORMATION. AND HE DIDN’T. AND THAT LED TO A DELAY. SECOND, HE SAID THAT MULLER DID NOT QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF FOUR-PAGE LETTER. THAT HE WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE CONTEXT OF HIS DECISION NOT TO REACH A CONCLUSION. AND FINALLY, HE STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH MULLER NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION. >>ALL RIGHT, KIM WALEY, 45 SECONDS. YOUR REACTION SO FAR. >>I THINK IT’S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE’RE NOW IN BASICALLY A SITUATION WHERE MR. MULLER AND MR. BAR ARE BEING PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER. WHEN ROSENSTEIN APPOINTED MULLER THE IDEA WOULD BE A MUTUAL RESPECTED PERSON AND THE PUBLIC COULD RESPECT THOSE CONCLUSIONS THE DEBATE HAS TO DO WITH SUMMARIES. THEY HAD REDACTIONS OF INFORMATION. BUT IN THE BIG PICTURE, MR. BARR IS BEING TRANSPARENT. HE’S BEING VERY CLEAR TO THE MORE THAN PUBLIC. AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE NEED TO READ THE SUMMARIES FOR THEMSELVES AND DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHAT THE NEXT POLITICAL STEP IS. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS ARE VERY COMPLICATED. >>THEY ARE, THEY WILL BE DELVED INTO ON OUR 24 HOUR STREAMING NETWORK, CBSN, ALL OF YOU CAN WATCH THE REST OF THE HEARING AT CBSNEWS.COM OR OUR CBS NEWS APP. >>>THANK YOU MARGARET BRENNAN. WE’LL TAKE YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM. >>WE KNOW FROM PUBLISHED REPORTS THAT THE HEAD OF THE CIA, MR. BRENNAN. WENT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND BROUGHT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT INITIAL INDICATIONS OF RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE CAMPAIGN AS EARLY AS LATE JULY 2016 AND INSTEAD OF DOING MORE DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO HOOK INTO THAT AND DISRUPT AND DETER RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES THAT THREATENED THE VALIDITY OF THE CAMPAIGN IN 2016, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI DECIDED TO PLACE THEIR BETS ON HILLARY CLINTON. AND FOCUS THEIR EFFORTS ON INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. BUT AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, THANKS TO THE SPECIAL COUNCIL WE NOW HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT NO AMERICANS CONCLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS IN THEIR EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE NOW NEED TO KNOW, I’M GLAD TO HEAR WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR INQUIRIES AND YOUR RESEARCH AND YOUR INVESTIGATION WE KNOW NEED TO KNOW WHAT STEPS THE OBAMA FBI, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHAT STEPS THEY TOOK TO UNDERMINE THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND PUT A THUMB ON THE SCALE IN FAVOR OF ONE POLITICAL CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER. AND THAT WOULD BE BEFORE AND AFTER THE 2016 ELECTION. WHAT’S A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING IN A COULD BEER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >>YOU COULD HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS. IF YOU LEARN THAT SOMEBODY IS BEING TARGETED BY A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. ONE FORM OF A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING IS TO GO AND ALERT THAT PERSON TO THE RISKS. >>I THINK ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH SAID IT’S ROUTINE IN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH HER? >>YES. >>DO YOU KNOW WHETHER A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING WAS EVER GIVEN TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BY THE FBI BASED ON THEIR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? DID THEY EVER TELL THE PRESIDENT BEFORE JANUARY 2017 WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE TRYING TO TO AND ADVISE HIM TO TELL PEOPLE AFFILIATED WITH THIS CAMPAIGN TO BE ON THEIR GUARD AND BE VIGILANT ABOUT RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE ELECTION. >>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. >>THAT WOULD BE — THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THAT WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY OR NOTABLE FAILURE, WOULD YOU AGREE. >>I THINK UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN NOT FATHOM WHY IT DID NOT HAPPEN. IF YOU’RE CONCERNED AB INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. AND YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN. FORMER U.S. ATTORNEYS. THREE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEYS WERE THERE IN THE CAMPAIGN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THE BUREAU WOULD NOT HAVE GONE AND GIVEN A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING.>>SENATOR DURBIN. I’VE BEEN LISTENING TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT APPEARS THEY’RE GOING TO COORDINATE THE LOCK HER UP DEFENSE. THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE MULLER INVESTIGATION. THE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ELECTION. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND SO FORTH. IT’S REALLY ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS. FINALLY WE GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE. HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS AND QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE ASKED ABOUT BENGHAZI ALONG THE WAY, WHAT ABOUT TRAVELGATE. WHITE WATER. THERE’S A LOT OF MATERIAL WE SHOULD BE GOING THROUGH TODAY ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPONSE TO THIS. THAT IS TOTALLY UNRESPONSIVE TO THE REALITY OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW. THEY PAID A LOT OF MONEY, $25 MILLION FOR THIS REPORT. I RESPECT MR. MULLER AND BELIEVE HE CAME UP WITH A SOUND REPORT. THOUGH I DON’T AGREE WITH ALL OF IT. BUT I FIND, GENERAL BARR, THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU’VE ENGAGED IN, REALLY LEAVE ME WONDERING WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOUR ROLE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WITHIN IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS — WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. LISTEN TO WHAT — INSIDE IT’S PUT IN THE RECORD. LET ME READ IT. LISTEN TO WHAT YOU RECEIVED IN A LETTER ON MARCH 27th FROM BOB MULLER. THE SUMMARY LETTER THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS REACHING PUBLIC LATE IN AFTERNOON MARCH 24th DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE, AND SUBSTANCE OF THE OFFICE’S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. WE COMMUNICATED THE CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT ON MARCH 25th. THERE’S NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECT OF THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. THIS THREATENS TO UNDERMINE A CENTRAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT APPOINTED THE SPECIAL COUNCIL. TO ASSURE FULL PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. I CAN NOT IMAGINE THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT LETTER ON MARCH 24th AND COULDN’T ANSWER CONGRESSMAN CHRIS DIRECTLY WHEN HE ASKED YOU IF THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS BEING MADE ON FINDINGS BY THE PEOPLE WORKING FOR BOB MULLER. YOU SAID NO, I DON’T KNOW. AFTER YOU RECEIVED THIS LETTER. WHAT AM I MISSING? >>AS I EXPLAINED TO SENATOR LAHEY, I TALK DIRECTLY TO BOB. AND BOB TOLD ME THAT HE DID NOT HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THE ACCURACY — >>ATTORNEYS DON’T PUT THINGS IN WRITING UNLESS THEY’RE PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT THEM. THERE’S AN OLD RULE IN POLITICS, A GOOD POLITICIAN DOESN’T WRITE A LETTER AND DOESN’T THROW ONE AWAY. SO I HAVE TO ASK YOU, IF HE PUTS IT IN WRITING, YOU COULDN’T RECALL THAT WHEN CONGRESSMAN CHRIS ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION A FEW DAYS LATER. THE MARCH 24th LETTER STATED THAT BOB MULLER DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION. AND IT HAD THE LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT NOT EXONERATING THE PRESIDENT. MY VIEW OF EVENTS WAS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CRITICISM OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR THE ENSUING FEW DAYS. ON THURSDAY, I GOT THIS LETTER. WHEN I TALKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNCIL ABOUT THE LETTER, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS HIS CONCERN WAS NOT THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE FINDINGS IN MY LETTER, BUT THAT HE WANTED MORE OUT THERE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO EXPLAIN HIS REASONING ON WHY HE DIDN’T REACH A DECISION ON OBSTRUCTION. >>I’LL JUST SAY THIS, MR. BARR, IF YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM BOB MULLER AFTER YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER IT WAS CLEAR HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID AND DID UP TO THAT POINT. >>HIS CONCERNS WAS HE WANTED MORE. AND I WOULD ANALOGIZE IT TO THIS. AFTER A MONTHS LONG TRIAL. IF I WANTED TO GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THE VERDICT WAS, PENDING PREPARATION OF THE FULL TRANSCRIPT. I’M SAYING HERE’S THE VERDICT. AND THE PROSECUTOR SAYS WELL, THE VERDICT DOESN’T REALLY FULLY CAPTURE ALL MY WORK. HOW ABOUT THAT GREAT, YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION I DID? OR HOW ABOUT THAT THIRD DAY OF TRIAL WHERE I DID THAT? THIS DOESN’T CAPTURE EVERYTHING. MY ANSWER TO THAT IS I’M NOT TRYING TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING. I’M TRYING TO STATE THE VERDICT. >>NO, YOU JUST ABSOLUTELY USED THE WORD SUMMARIZED IN YOUR LETTER. >>SUMMARIZED THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS. >>WHICH MOST WOULD VIEW AS A SUMMARY. LET ME MOVE TO ANOTHER TOPIC IF I CAN FOR A MINUTE. THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL’S DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT. YOU HAD STRONG FEELINGS REFLECTED IN YOUR MEMO TO THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM. YOUR 19 PAGE MEMO. >>DID I DISCUSS THAT? >>YOU DISCUSSED WHETHER OR NOT A PRESIDENT SHOULD COOPERATE WITH AN INVESTIGATION. YOU SAID AT ONE POINT, IN SUMMARIZING THE FINDINGS OF MULLER, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE FULLY COOPERATED. WE KNOW FOR A FACT, AND YOU’VE STATED ALL READY, THE PRESIDENT NEVER SUBMITTED HIMSELF TO WHAT WAS CHARACTERIZED AS A VITAL INTERVIEW. AN ACTUAL SIT DOWN INTERVIEW UNDER OATH. NOT ONCE. AND THAT HIS QUESTIONS, THAT WERE ANSWERED SOME 30 TIMES, HIS MEMORY FAILED HIM. SO TO SAY THE WHITE HOUSE FULLY COOPERATED, I THINK IS A GENEROUS CONCLUSION. ON THIS OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THIS VOLUME TWO OF THE MULLER REPORT. AND ON PAGE ONE, HE TALKS ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS IN ANY WAY RESTRICTED. AND WHAT HE COULD CONCLUDE, BECAUSE OF THE OUTSTANDING OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL OPINION ON THE LIABILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT, YOU DISMISS THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. AND SAID WE ASKED HIM TWO OR THREE TIMES. YOU SAID THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ON THE FIRST PAGE OF VOLUME TWO THAT HE SAYS IT HAD A LOT TO DO WITH IT. HE COULDN’T REACH A BINARY CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>IT WAS ONE OF THE BACKDROP FACTORS THAT HE SITED AS INFLUENCING HIS PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT THAT HE SHOULD NOT REACH A DECISION. WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN CITING THE OHC. CITING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION, I WOULD INDICT. >>I’M GOING TO STAND BY WHAT HE’S WRITTEN. AND I ASK OTHERS TO READ IT AS WELL. THE LAST PART I WANT TO MAKE IS ABOUT DON MCGANN. IF YOU READ THE SECTION HERE. 113 TO 120 PAGES ON DON MCGANN’S EXPERIENCE. THE PRESIDENT WANTED HIM TO STATE PUBLICLY THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE WAS UNTRUE. THAT HE HAD NOT ASKED MCGANN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNCIL. MCGANN REFUSED. AND THERE’S SOME SPECULATION AS TO WHETHER HE RISKED BEING DISMISSED OR EVEN RESIGNING OVER THIS ISSUE. AND FOR YOU TO SUGGEST THAT THIS WAS SOME SORT OF A DANCE WITH ROB ROSENSTEIN, I THINK THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT HERE WAS VERY CLEAR. HE WANTED THIS TO END. HE TOLD LESTER HOLT GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE CHAIRMAN EARLIER HERE. THE REASON TO GET RID OF COMEY IS BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS PRESIDENT WAS VERY EXPLICIT. AND CERTAINLY IS VERY EXPOSITORY IN STYLE. LET ME ASK YOU THIS CONCLUSION, MY TIME IS UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS. DO YOU THINK OF ANY OBJECTION WHY DON MCGANN SHOULDN’T TESTIFY ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE? >>YES, I MEAN, I THINK THAT HE’S A CLOSE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT. AND THE PRESIDENT. >>NEVER EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >>WE HAVEN’T WAVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >>AT THIS POINT. WHAT ABOUT BOB MULLER? SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY? >>I ALL READY SAID PUBLICLY, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HIM. >>DON MCGANN? SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY? THAT’S A CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE. HE’S A PRIVATE CITIZEN. I ASSUME HE’D BE TESTIFYING ABOUT PRIVILEGED MATTERS. >>I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS WITH ACTUAL TESTIMONY AND WITNESSES AFTER WE’VE TAKEN ANOTHER CLOSE LOOK TO HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS. SENATOR LEE.>>IN HIS CLASSIC DESCENT IN MORRISON, JUSTICE SKALIA REMARK REMARKED THAT NOTHING IS TO POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE IS THE ABILITY TO CHARGE THAT ONE’S OPPONENT IS NAIVE, AND INEFFECTIVE. BUT IN ALL PROBABILITY, CROOKS, NOTHING SO EFFECTIVELY GIVES AN APPEARANCE OF VALIDITY TO SUCH CHARGES AS A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION. THAT OBSERVATION HAS I THINK BEEN BORN OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL ADVERSARIES HAVE EXPLOITED THE MULLER PROBE. ITS MERE EXISTENCE. TO SHARE BASELESS INNUENDO IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE 2016 ELECTION. AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. FOR EXAMPLE ON JANUARY 25th 2019. SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI ASKED WHAT DOES PEE TIN HAVE ON THE PRESIDENT POLITICALLY? PERSONALLY? OR FINANCIALLY? MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN QUOTE UNQUOTE HAS SOMETHING ON PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>NONE THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>IN FEBRUARY 2019, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE SAID ON NATIONAL TELEVISION TO THE ENTIRE NATION THAT HE THINKS IT’S POSSIBLE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE AWARE OF THAT SUGGESTS EVEN REMOTELY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT? >>NONE THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>REPRESENTATIVE, ERIC, REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT DONALD TRUMP QUOTE ACTS ON RUSSIA’S BEHALF. ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU’RE AWARE OF TO BACK THAT UP BY WAY OF EVIDENCE THAT? THE PRESIDENT ACTS ON RUSSIA’S BEHALF? >>NONE THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>SO BASICALLY WE’VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON NATIONAL TV, IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE HOUSE AND SENATE FLOOR AND IN THE MEDIA, WE’VE HEARD ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ALLEGED COLLUSION. WITH RUSSIA. BUT WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS AS BASELESS AS ANY CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT WE’VE SEEN IN POLITICS. ANY THAT I CAN THINK OF. THE PURVEYORS OF THIS CONSPIRACY WERE IN MANY CASES PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITION PARTY. THAT’S CONCERNING. FROM THE BEGINNING, THERE WERE INDICATIONS THAT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS PERHAPS NOT ALWAYS CONDUCTED WITH THE ABSOLUTE IMPARTIALITY THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD EXPECT AND HAVE COME TO HOPE TO FIND IN EXISTENCE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD OF EXCELLENCE THAT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SHOWN. ACCORDING TO THE MULLER REPORT ITSELF, THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGAN ON JULY 31st 2016. AFTER A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT CONTACTED THE FBI ABOUT COMMENTS MADE BY GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, IS THAT ACCURATE? OR WERE THERE OTHER PRECIPITATING EVENTS THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS? >>THAT IS THE ACCOUNT THAT IS — HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE PAST AS TO HOW IT GOT GOING. >>YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IMPROPERLY SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I ASSUME THAT’S A REFERENCE TO THE FISA WARRANT FOR CARTER PAGE. IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND? OR ARE THERE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES YOU HAVE IN MIND THERE? >>THERE ARE PEOPLE, MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO ASSUME THAT THE ONLY INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION THAT OCCURRED WAS A SINGLE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT. AND A FISA WARRANT. I’D LIKE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THAT IS IN FACT TRUE. IT STRIKES ME AS A FAIRLY ANEMIC EFFORT IF THAT WAS THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE EFFORT DESIGNED TO STOP THE THREAT AS IT’S BEING REPRESENTED. >>WAS CARTER PAGE UNDER SURVEILLANCE DURING HIS TIME WORKING FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WHICH WAS ROUGHLY JANUARY 2016 TO SEPTEMBER 2016. >>I DON’T KNOW. >>WAS ANY OTHER TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL UNDER SURVEILLANCE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >>WELL, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I NEED TO LOOK AT. AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT, AS I’VE SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS ANY OVER REACH, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOME — A FEW PEOPLE IN THE UPPER ESHLANS OF THE BUREAU AND PERHAPS THE DEPARTMENT. BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER THERE. AND I’M WORKING CLOSELY WITH CHRIS, WHO I THINK HAS DONE A SUPERB JOB AT THE BUREAU. AND WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER ON TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT EXACTLY WHAT WENT DOWN. ONE THING PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW IS THAT THE BUREAU ITSELF HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT HANDICAPPED IN LOOKING BACK BECAUSE OF THE PENDING MULLER INVESTIGATION AND THE OIG INVESTIGATION. >>AS WE KNOW, THE FISA WARRANT FOR CARTER PAGE WAS BASED LARGELY ON THE SO-CALLED STEEL DOSSIER. AND IN PARTICULAR, ON TWO SPECIFIC FACTS ABOUT PAGE’S TRIP TO MOSCOW TO DELIVER A SPEECH IN JULY 2016. FIRST ACCORDING TO THE WARRANT, PAGE HAD A SECRET MEETING WITH IGOR SESSION. DOES THE MULLER REPORT CONFIRM THAT PAGE MET WITH SESSION? >>MET WITH WHO? >>MET WITH MR. SESSION WITH IGOR SESSION? >>I CAN’T RECALL. I DON’T REMEMBER THAT. LET ME JUST SAY I WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM GETTINGTOO DEEPLY INTO THE FISA ISSUE. BECAUSE THAT’S CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE OIG. >>UNDERSTOOD. SECOND AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WARRANT ALSO SAYS THAT PAGE MET WITH IGOR DVEKIN TO DISCUSS WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS COMPROMAT AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON. DOES THE MULLER REPORT THAT PAGE MET WITH DVEKIN. DOES IT CONFIRM THAT PAGE DISCUSSED COMPROMATE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON. >>>NOT THAT I KNOW. >>IT’S SORT OF THE GOLD STANDARD OF WHAT WE’RE DISCUSSING HERE. I’M GLAD THAT YOU’RE LOOKING INTO IT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK INTO WHY THE FBI RELIED ON THIS FALSE INFORMATION. AND I HOPE YOU’LL SHARE THE RESULTS. THE PUBLIC OBVIOUSLY HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HAVE A LONG HISTORY, AND A LONG HISTORY OF SUCCESS THAT’S BEEN BASED ON RESPECT. THEY DESERVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE’S NOT SO MUCH POWER THAT’S BEEN CONCENTRATED IN THAT ONE AGENCY. THAT THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION CAN DEPEND ON THE WHIMS OF WHO MIGHT BE ASSIGNED TO IT. THEY HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BELIEVE THAT A PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION MIGHT BE STRUCK IN PAGED. MIGHT NOT BE TARMACKED. MIGHT NOT BE INFLUENCED BY AN IMPROPER CONSIDERATION POLITICALLY OR OTHERWISE. THANK YOU MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>SENATOR WHITE HOUSE. I’M TOLD WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TWO VOTES BEGINNING AT 11:45. WE’LL DO SENATOR WHITE HOUSE. AND WHY DON’T WE JUST COME BACK AN HOUR LATER, WE’LL BREAK. BREAK FOR AN HOUR. AND DO THE VOTES AND HAVE LUNCH. SENATOR WHITE HOUSE. >>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CHAIRMAN GRAHAM EARLIER THIS MORNING WHICH YOU DESCRIBED THE IMPORTANCE TO USE CHAIRMAN GRAHAM’S WORDS, HARDENING OUR ELECTORAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGAINST FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I ASK YOU, IS ANONYMOUS ELECTION FUNDING AN AVENUE FOR POSSIBLE FOREIGN ELECTION INFLUENCE? AND INTERFERENCE? >>YES. >>LET’S TURN TO THE MARCH 27th LETTER WHICH IS YOU RECEIVED AND READ MARCH 28th, THE MULLER LETTER. CORRECT? >>YES. >>WHEN DID YOU HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH BOB MULLER ABOUT THAT LETTER THAT YOU’VE REFERENCED? >>I THINK IT WAS ON THE 28th. >>THE SAME DAY THAT YOU READ IT. >>WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST STORIES THAT WOULD MAKE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS LETTER PUBLIC? THE ONES THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT? >>I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN YESTERDAY BUT I’M NOT SURE. >>WHEN THEY CONTACTED YOU TO ASK FOR ANY COMMENT. >>THEY DIDN’T CONTACT ME. >>CONTACTED DOJ TO ASK FOR ANY COMMENT. >>I CAN’T ACTUALLY REMEMBER HOW IT CAME UP. BUT SOMEONE MENTIONED IT. >>SO AT SOME POINT YOU KNEW THE MULLER LETTER WOULD BECOME PUBLIC AND THAT WAS PROBABLY YESTERDAY. >>I THINK SO. >>OKAY. WHEN DID YOU DECIDE TO MAKE THAT LETTER AVAILABLE TO US IN CONGRESS? >>THIS MORNING. >>WOULD YOU CONCEDE THAT YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS LETTER PUBLIC ON APRIL 4th WHEN REPRESENTATIVE KRIST ASKED YOU A VERY RELATED QUESTION? >>I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY RELATED QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION. >>I CAN’T EVEN FOLLOW THAT DOWN THE ROAD. I MEAN — BOY — THAT’S A MASTERFUL HAIR SPLITTING. THE LETTER REFERENCES ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS AND ENCLOSED MATERIALS, RIGHT? ARE THOSE THE SAME THINGS AS WHAT YOU CALL THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THAT MULLER PROVIDED YOU? >>WITH THIS LETTER? >>YES. >>IT’S ALL THE SAME DOCUMENT? >>I’M SORRY — WHAT’S ALL THE SAME? >>WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THAT MULLER PROVIDED YOU, THEY ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS WITH THAT LETTER WHICH WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. >>I THINK THEY WERE. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. THEY’RE IN THE REPORT. THE SUMMARY’S IN THE REPORT. >>IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT IN THE REPORT. THERE’S NOTHING ELSE THAT HE PROVIDED YOU THEN. >>I THINK THAT’S WHAT HE PROVIDED. >>IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE WILL YOU PROVIDE IT TO US? IF IT’S DIFFERENT IN ANY FORM. >>I THINK THEY WERE THE REDACTED VERSIONS OF THE SUMMARY HAS THE ARE EMBEDDED IN THE REPORT. >>CAN WE GET THAT JUST TO BE SURE? >>SURE. GREAT, THANK YOU. YOU AGREE THAT NONE OF THAT MATERIAL WAS EITHER GRAND JURY OR PRESENTED A RISK TO INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS OR WOULD INTERFERE OR COMPROMISE ONGOING INVESTIGATION OR WERE EFFECTED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >>THERE WERE REDACTIONS MADE IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES. BUT AS I SAID, I WASN’T INTERESTED IN PUTTING OUT SUMMARIES, PERIOD. AND FRANKLY — >>THIS IS ANOTHER HAIR SPLITTING EXERCISE. BOB MULLER WHO WE THINK IS CREDIBLE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED YOUR LETTER AS A SUMMARY. YOU CAN SAY IT WASN’T. BUT MULLER SAID IT WAS A SUMMARY. >>I WASN’T INTERESTINGED IN SUMMARIZING THE WHOLE REPORT. I WAS STATING THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT. — I WASN’T INTERESTED IN. >>YOUR LETTER SAYS IT’S INTENDED TO DESCRIBE THE REPORT. >>DESCRIBE THE REPORT. >>WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE REPORT IN FOUR PAGES AND IT’S A 400 PAGE REPORT. I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU’RE CAVELLING ABOUT THIS. >>BECAUSE I STATED IN THE LETTER IT’S THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS. BOB MULLER WAS EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE’S PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. HIS WORK CONCLUDED, WHEN HE SENT HIS REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AT THAT POINT, IT WAS MY BABY. AND I WAS MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE IT PUBLIC. I EFFECTIVELY OVER ROAD THE REGULATIONS, USED DISCRETION. TO LEAN AS FAR FORWARD AS I COULD TO MAKE THAT PUBLIC. IT WAS MY DECISION HOW AND WHEN TO MAKE IT PUBLIC. NOT BOB MULLER’S. >>WITH RESPECT TO THE OLC OPINION THAT INFORMED BOB MULLER’S DECISION AS HE DESCRIBES IN THE REPORT, DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS MERELY AN EXECUTIVE OPINION AND THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE DECISION AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS IS MADE BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. >>I’M SORRY, COULD YOU — >>WITH RESPECT TO THE OLC OPINION THAT INFORMED MULLER’S DECISION NOT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON OBSTRUCTION, AS HE SAID IN HIS REPORT, DO YOU CONCEDE THAT THAT IS AN EXECUTIVE OPINION AND THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, WHAT THE LAW IS GETS DECIDED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. >>YES. >>IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE OLC’S OPINION TO BE TESTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO SEE IF IT’S CORRECT OR NOT. >>NONE THAT COMES TO MIND. >>AND IT COULD BE WRONG, COULD IT NOT? >>I GUESS HYPOTHETICALLY, IT COULD BE WRONG. >>AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE LEGAL MINDS THAT DISAGREE WITH THAT, CORRECT? >>EXCUSE ME. >>THERE ARE MANY RESPECTED LEGAL COMMENTATORS AND PROFESSORS AND LAWYERS WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT, CORRECT? >>IT’S VERY HARD TO FIND LAWYERS THAT AGREE ON ANYTHING. >>WELL. SO THE INTERESTING THING TO ME IS THAT IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION, WE HAVE TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT AN EXTRA BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE HE HAS DENIED HIS DAY IN COURT. WHERE HE COULD EXONERATE HIMSELF. THAT SEEMS LIKE A FALLACY TO ME. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU CAN WAVE THE OPINION AND SAY I’M READY TO GO TO TRIAL. I WANT TO EXONERATE MYSELF. LET’S GO. COULD YOU NOT? >>HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO MY DECISIONS ? >>IT’S RELEVANT. >>I ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS NO OLC OPINION. >>WELL, WE HAVE A REPORT IN FRONT OF US THAT SAYS THAT THIS INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME. AND IN PARTICULAR, IT SAYS IT INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME BECAUSE IT DEPRIVED THE PRESIDENT OF HIS ABILITY TO HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT AND MY POINT TO YOU IS THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD EASILY HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT BY SIMPLY WAVING OR OVER RIDING THIS OLC OPINION THAT HAS NO JUDICIAL BASIS. CORRECT? >>WELL, I DON’T THINK THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING TO HAVE A DAY IN COURT ON. I THINK THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE A PROSECUTABLE CASE. >>BUT MULLER DIDN’T AGREE BECAUSE HE LEFT THAT UP TO YOU. HE SAID HE COULD NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY THERE WAS A PROSECUTABLE OCCASION. HE LEFT THAT TO YOU. WHEN HE DID. YOU SAID. AND YOU APPARENTLY HAVE AGREED THAT THIS OLC OPINION BEARS ON IT. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE PRESIDENT PUTTING HIM TO THE BURDEN OF. >>I DON’T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE BOB’S THOUGHT PROCESS. >>I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO CHARACTERIZE IT. IT’S IN THE REPORT. >>I’M NOT SURE WHAT HE MEAN BIS THAT IN THE REPORT. I WANT TO NAIL DOWN, YOU USED THE WORD SPYING ABOUT AUTHORIZED DOJ INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES. >>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MY TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS. >>YES. >>IN THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR PREVIOUS CAREER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, HAVE YOU EVER REFERRED TO AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES OFFICIALLY OR PUBLICLY AS SPYING. I’M NOT ASKING FOR PRIVATE CONVERSATION? >>I’M NOT GOING TO ABHOR THE USE OF THE WORD SPYING. I WAS IN THE CIA. TO ME THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS WHETHER OR NOT IT’S AUTHORIZED AND ADEQUATELY PREDICATED, SPYING. I THINK SPYING IS A GOOD ENGLISH WORD THAT DOESN’T HAVE SYNONYMS BECAUSE IT’S THE BROADEST WORD INCORPORATED ALL FORMS OF COVERT INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION. I’M NOT GOING TO BACK OFF THE WORD SPYING. I’M NOT SUGGESTING ANY PEJORATIVE. AND I USE IT FREQUENTLY. >>WHEN DID YOU USE IT? OFF THE CUFF ON THE HEARING ? OR DID YOU GO INTO THE HEARING? >>IT WAS OFF THE CUFF TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. AND WHEN THE SENATOR. I MEAN THE — >>CONGRESSMAN PROBABLY. >>FROM HAWAII. WHOEVER IT WAS. GO AHEAD. WHEN HE CHALLENGED ME AND SAID DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR LANGUAGE. I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING LIKE WHAT’S THE ISSUE? I DON’T CONSIDER IT A PEJORATIVE. FRANKLY WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED ALT PRESS USAGE. UP TUN TILL THE OUTRAGE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, IT’S COMMONLY USED IN THE PRESS TO REFER TO AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY. >>BUT IT’S NOT COMMONL USED BY THE DEPARTMENT. MY TIME IS UP. >>IT’S COMMONLY USED BY ME. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE’LL COME BACK AT 10 TILL 1:00. THANK YOU. . >>>ALL RIGHT, YOU’VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE SENATE TESTIMONY THERE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. LET’S JUST DIG RIGHT INTO IT HERE. WE’VE GOT RICKY AND REBECCA. THEY’RE OUR CBS NEWS LEGAL CONTRIBUTORS. LET’S JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST HOUR OR TWO HOURS THAT WE’VE BEEN LISTENING TO THIS TESTIMONY. ONE, REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT A LOT OF FOLKS THINK ARE UNRELATED TO THE MATTER AT HAND. HILLARY CLINTON, THE INVESTIGATION ON WHETHER PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE POTENTIALLY MEDDLING IN OUR ELECTIONS. AND DEMOCRATS TRYING TO PIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOWN ON TWO THINGS. ONE, WHY WHEN HE WAS GIVEN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DID HE SAY THAT HE HAD NO INTERACTION WITH ROBERT MULLER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MULLER THOUGHT HIS SUMMARY WAS ACCURATE? AND TWO, SO LET’S JUMP INTO THAT FIRST, REBECCA, SENATOR PATRICK LAHEY OF VERMONT CHALLENGED MR. BARR ON WHY HE DIDN’T ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED IN MR. MULLER’S LETTER WHICH WE ALL NOW HAVE THAT HE RECEIVED IN AN EARLIER HEARING. I THINK WE HAVE THAT SOUND. I WANT TO PLAY THAT. AND I’LL TALK TO YOU AND RICKY AFTER WORDS. LET’S PLAY IT. . >>MY QUESTION WAS, WHY DID YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF CONCERNS WHEN WEEKS BEFORE, YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MULLER HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO YOU. THAT’S A FAIRLY SIMPLE. >>I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. AND THE QUESTION WAS RELATING TO UNIDENTIFIED MEMBERS WHO WERE EXPRESSING FRUSTRATION OVER THE ACCURACY RELATING TO FINDINGS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT REFERS TO AT ALL. I TALK DIRECTLY TO BOB MULLER. NOT MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM. AND EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS BEING REFERRED TO, AND MULLER HAD NEVER TOLD ME THAT THE EXPRESSION OF THE FINDINGS WAS INACCURATE. BUT I THEN DID VOLUNTEER THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DESIRE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION PUT OUT. BUT IT WASN’T MY PURPOSE TO PUT OUT MORE INFORMATION. >>I FEEL YOUR ANSWER WAS PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING. AND I THINK OTHERS DO TOO. >>WAS THAT A MISLEADING RESPONSE, REBECCA? >>I THINK IT WAS A MISLEADING RESPONSE. HE COULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE. HE COULD HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING. HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING ASKED. HE COULD HAVE REPLIED. HE HAS A TECHNICAL RESPONSE. WHEN GIVING TESTIMONY, IT’S PRETTY EASY TO COME UP WITH SOME EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE WORD DIDN’T MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THE PERSON THOUGHT IT MEANT. SO YOU RESPONDED TO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY. BUT HE KNEW WHAT THE GIST OF THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT. AND HE WASN’T FORTHCOMING IN THE ANSWER. AND I MEAN THAT JUST SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME. HE ANSWERED IT SEVERAL TIMES. AND IT NEVER SOUNDED PARTICULARLY CONVINCING TO ME. >>RICKY? >>I AGREE. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GENESIS OF ALL OF THIS. NUMBER ONE IS, MR. MULLER. AND MR. BARR HAD A CONVERSATION PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT ROBERT MULLER FELT THE NECESSITY TO ACTUALLY WRITE A LETTER. SO IT COMES UP LATER IN THE TESTIMONY FROM QUESTIONS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU DON’T — I THINK IT WAS DURING SENATOR DURBINE’S QUESTIONS, THAT YOU DON’T GET TO THE POINT IN THE GOVERNMENT WHERE YOU PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING, WHERE YOU SEND A LETTER, WHERE YOU WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE AT THE POINT THAT THAT’S YOUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE. SO OBVIOUSLY, THIS FIRST CONVERSATION, THAT WILLIAM BARR CONVENIENTLY FORGET ABOUT, MUST HAVE RAISED SOME OF THESE CONCERNS THAT THEN CREATED THE NECESSITY, ONCE HE LEFT OUT THE FOUR-PAGE SUMMARY, AS WE HAVE CALLED IT, ON MARCH 22, THAT CAUSED ROBERT MULLER TO HAVE TO WRITE A LETTER. NOW, WHAT WILLIAM BARR WOULD LIKE US TO THINK IS THAT THE REAL REASON FOR ROBERT MULLER HAVING TO WRITE THE LETTER WAS NOT ABOUT WILLIAM BARR’S FOUR- PAGE SUMMARY, IT WAS ABOUT THE PRESS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE MULLER REPORT. NOW, THAT MAY BE TRUE THAT THAT IS CORRECT IN PART. BECAUSE THE PRESS HAD RUN WITH AN INTERPRETATION. THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE DOCUMENT. >>ALL RIGHT, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT DEMOCRATS SEEM TO BE HAMMERING ON IS RELATED TO DON MCGANN, WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL AT TIME. HE TOLD THE SPECIAL COUNCIL’S TEAM THAT THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM TWICE IN THE SUMMER OF 2017 AND TOLD HIM TO TELL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO FIRE ROBERT MULLER ON THE GROUNDS OF SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. MULLER’S GOT TO GO. THAT WAS WHAT WAS QUOTED IN THE SPECIAL COUNCIL’S REPORT. MCGANN WHO SITED OTHER INTERESTS SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING QUOTE, SILLY. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT, AND HE TOLD SENATORS THAT THE REQUEST IN HIS MIND DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL EFFORT TO IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION, DID IT? >>WELL, I MEAN, TO ME, IT’S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A FIRING. AND THEN THERE WAS A NEW SPECIAL COUNCIL. SO IT’S LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOUR DEFENSE HERE IS OH I JUST DIDN’T WANT HIM. I WANTED A DIFFERENT NEW SPECIAL COUNCIL. IT’S NOT A REALLY VERY GOOD ONE. BECAUSE IT SEEMS, FIRST OF ALL, ONE, UNLIKELY THAT THAT’S ACTUALLY WHAT YOU’RE DOING. AND TWO, IT DOESN’T EVEN MATTER. IF WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS TRYING TO GET IN THE WAY OF, YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON WHO HAS ACCOMPLISHED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT IN AN INVESTIGATION, THAT’S PROBLEMATIC. SO IT SEEMS PRETEXTUAL TO ME. AND I THINK AT THE SAME TIME, SAYING WE’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW MCGANN TO COME FORWARD AND EXPLAIN ALSO MAKES IT SEEM A LITTLE BIT MORE PRETEXTUAL. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE REPORT — THIS IS WHAT I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS WHOLE TESTIMONY IS. THE REPORT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IT’S VERY CLEAR IN THE REPORT WHAT THE PROSECUTORS CONCLUDED FROM THIS PARTICULAR INTERACTION. AND THAT’S SORT OF MORE WHAT I’M INTERESTED IN THAN ANY OF THESE PARTICULAR PLAYERS INTERPRETATION. >>WHEN BARR SAYS TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, OR TO WHOEVER HE WAS RESPONDING TO, THAT IN HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT, HE SAID THERE’S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN GO FIRE MULLER, AND HAVE HIM REMOVED BASED ON CONFLICT. IF I’M AN EMPLOYEE AND SOMEBODY SAYS, GO HAVE RICKY REMOVED. I’M GOING TO FIRE YOU. THAT’S THE WAY I WOULD THINK OF IT. BUT HE’S SPLITTING A HAIR THERE. AND — >>HE’S SPLITTING MORE THAN ONE HAIR THERE. IS IT THAT MULLER REALLY HAD A CONFLICT? OR IS IT GO TELL THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT HE HAS A CONFLICT. THERE’S A DISTINCTION THERE. IN ADDITION, WE CANNOT FORGET ALL OF THE ACTIONS OF DON MCGANN AS THE RESULT OF A NUMBER OF ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO HIM OR SUGGESTIONS AND THE BEST LIKE GIVEN TO HIM BY THE PRESIDENT WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THE CRAZY, AS HE PUTS IT, STUFF, MR. I’M GOING TO USE RATHER THAN THE OBSCENITY THAT’S COMING OUT OF THE PRESIDENT’S MOUTH. AND HE LITERALLY GETS LEGAL ADVICE AND PACKS HIS STUFF TO LEAVE. I MEAN. THIS WAS NOT SOME LITTLE SUGGESTION ABOUT PLEASE GO TALK TO ROD ROSENSTEIN AND SUGGEST THAT ROBERT MULLER HAS A CONFLICT. >>RIGHT. SO LET’S PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF THAT INTERACTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKING ABOUT DON MCGANN. . >>SO WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS INSTRUCTING MCGANN TO SAY SOMETHING FALSE. BECAUSE IT WASN’T NECESSARILY FALSE, MORE OVER, MCGANN HAD WEEKS BEFORE ALL READY GIVEN TESTIMONY TO THE SPECIAL COUNCIL. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT. HE WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT PRESS REPORTS AND MAKING IT CLEAR HE NEVER OUT RIGHT DIRECTED THE FIRING OF MULLER. SO IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST TO ASK MCGANN TO MEMORIALIZE THAT FACT, WE DO NOT THINK, IN THIS CASE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SHOW CORRUPT INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. >>RICKY, YOU WERE SHAKING YOUR HEAD LISTENING TO THAT. >>WELL, THE PRESIDENT ASK ASKING DON MCGANN TO QUOTE UNQUOTE MEMORIALIZE WHAT ASKING OCCURRED. OR IS HE ASKING HIM TO MEMORIALIZE AN EXCUSE FOR WHAT OCCURRED. AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK DURBIN, SENATOR DURBIN GETS IT RIGHT WHEN HE SAYS, I’M GOING TO USE MY PHRASE, NOT HIS WORDS, WELL, I WANT TO TALK TO DON MCGANN. WHAT HE’S SAYING IS WHY CAN’T WE TALK TO DON MCGANN? AND THE PRINCIPLES HERE, THAT HIS PRINCIPLES BEING PEOPLE, I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM DON MCGANN. AND I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ROBERT MULLER. I DON’T NEED TO HEAR PERSON WHO THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN DON McGAHN AND THE PRESIDENT IS EITHER DON McGAHN. >>OR THE PRESIDENT. >>OR THE PRESIDENT WHO’S NOT GOING TO TELL US. OR THE PERSON WHO INTERVIEWED DON McGAHN AND ACTUALLY I ASSUME TOOK THE NOTE OR WROTE THE REPORT. BUT I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM DON McGAHN WHICH BRINGS US TO THE NEXT QUESTION, AND I’LL GIVE IT TO THE PROFESSOR IS THAT NOW WILLIAM BARR IS SAYING, WELL, THIS MATTER MAY BE PRIVILEGED. >>RIGHT. >>THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COULD BE RAISED. AND I SAY, OH, REALLY? >>LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT. IF YOU’RE JUST JOINING US HERE AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR ON CBSN, WE’RE BREAKING DOWN THE TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. HE IS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IT’S BEEN ABOUT TWO HOURS SINCE HE’S BEEN GRILLED ON THE STAND THERE OR IN THE BRIEFING ROOM BY MOSTLY DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. THE REPUBLICAN, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, HAVE BEEN FAIRLY FAIR TO THE MAN. IT’S SORT OF INTERESTING. I’M NOT A LAWYER, BUT WHEN I HEARD WILLIAM BARR SAY, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, DON McGAHN MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE LAW, LIKE THROUGH COLLEGE IS THAT IF YOU SPEAK TO AN INVESTIGATOR OR THE F.B.I., YOU WAIVE ANY KIND OF EXECUTIVE — OR ANY KIND OF PRIVILEGE AND IN THE CASE OF DON McGAHN AS WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT? >>WELL, I DON’T KNOW. HE SEEMS TO BE OPERATING ON SOME KIND OF LEGAL THEORY THAT I’M NOT EXACTLY AWARE OF. BECAUSE IN MY VIEW FOR SURE, IF YOU SEND SOMEBODY IN WITH YOUR BLESSING TO GO SPEAK TO SPEAK TO AN INVESTIGATOR FULLY ON A TOPIC AND THEN TO LATER CLAIM PRIVILEGE SEEMS PROBLEMATIC. I GUESS THEY’RE SUGGESTING THAT A WAIVER HAS TO BE MORE OFFICIAL OR IN SOME KIND OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDING RATHER THAN IN JUST A CONVERSATION OR AN INTERVIEW WITH A SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS WHICH HE DIDN’T REALLY ADDRESS IS OF COURSE DON McGAHN IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN NOW, SO IT’S A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED THE LAW WHEN THE PRESIDENT CAN’T REALLY ON BEHALF OF THIS PRIVATE PARTY INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE, OF COURSE DON McGAHN COULD CHOOSE TO RESPECT THE PRESIDENT’S FEELING ON THAT, THAT’S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING ON THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT THERE THERE IS SORT OF THIS EFFORT TO SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SO FULLY COOPERATIVE HERE — I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF THE SENATORS WAS POINTING OUT IS NOT FULLY TRUE, BUT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY, YOU KNOW, BUT WE’RE HOLDING ONTO THESE PRIVILEGES, I THINK MOST PROSECUTORS THINK WHEN SOMEBODY’S BEING REALLY COOPERATIVE, YOU KNOW, YOU DON’T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU WAIVE PRIVILEGES, THAT TENDS TO SHOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, I’M IN IT, I’M JUST HERE HELPING YOU GUYS, I’VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOES CAST A LITTLE BIT OF DOUBT ON THIS OTHER SORT OF LINE THAT BARR WAS SORT OF PUSHING HERE WHICH IS CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW AMAZINGLY COOPERATIVE THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN, IT’S NOT REALLY — DOESN’T REALLY — >>AND THAT WAS THE EXCHANGE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD WITH ANOTHER LEAHY. HE TOOK HIM ON WHEN HE — BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS SAYING THAT MR. TRUMP HAD COOPERATED FULLY WITH THE INVESTIGATION AND THEN THE SENATOR, SENATOR LEAHY CITED THIS INCIDENT WITH CORRINE LEWANDOWSKI WHO WANT TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF AND SO THE QUESTION WAS THROWN BACK TO THE SANTORUM HOW CAN YOU SAY THE — THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOW CAN YOU SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS COOPERATING FULLY AND WE GOT SORT OF A NON-ANSWER. >>WHAT SENATOR LEAHY DID, AND SENATOR LEAHY I FIRMLY BELIEVE AS A LAWYER IS A WONDERFUL CROSS EXAMINER. HE’S A TERRIFIC QUESTIONER BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE HAS GOLD. HE HAS ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND HE WANTS TO REACH THAT GOAL. AND HIS GOAL IN PART WAS TO COMPLETELY SAY THE PHRASE AGAIN AND AGAIN, IS THAT EXAMPLE FULLY COOPERATING, THAT WAS A REFRAIN FOR HIM. AND WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO WAS WE’RE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE DAY THAT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS RELEASED WHEN WILLIAM BARR GAVE HIS SPEECH WHICH WE HAVE A COPY OF WHILE HE WAS FLANKED BY HIS OTHER DEPUTIES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO STOOD THERE BEHIND HIM AS HE REALLY GAVE EXCUSES FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FULLY COOPERATIVE AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FRUSTRATED ABOUT THESE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND THAT THEREFORE ACTED IN A CERTAIN WAY. AND THAT ALL CAME UP AGAIN TODAY. SO I GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT. IF YOU ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING FALSELY ACCUSED AND YOU HAPPEN TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DOES THAT GIVE YOU THE EMPARAMATER TO BE ABLE TO FIRE PEOPLE AT WILL? WELL, YES, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE FOR A REASON OR NO REASON. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. BUT IF YOUR REASON IS TO STOP AN INVESTIGATION INTO YOUR OWN ACTIVITY, THAT HAS A CORRUPT PURPOSE. AND WHAT THE WHOLE THRUST HERE OF THESE QUESTIONS OF LOOKING AT OBSTRUCTION IS WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT? WELL, IF YOUR INTENT IS TO STOP AN INVESTIGATION INTO YOU, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT A CORRUPT PURPOSE. >>AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL QUOTING, HE SAID I DON’T SEE ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, ASKING JEFF SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION AND FULLY COOPERATING WITH THE INVESTIGATION, THAT’S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE TOP LAWYER IN THE COUNTRY. >>I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ONE THING ALSO THAT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT YET IS THAT ONE OF THE THEMES THAT BARR KEEPS TRYING TO PRESS IS, LIKE, LOOK, IF YOU’RE NOT BRINGING CRIMINAL CHARGES AND THAT’S THE END OF YOUR JOB, I MEAN, HE ACTUALLY JUST SAID THAT MUELLER SHOULD HAVE STOPPED, AT THE MOMENT WHICH HE DECIDED I’M NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY PURSUE A CRIMINAL CASE AND THAT’S IT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT OLC OPINION THAT SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT INVESTIGATE A SITTING PRESIDENT, QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING A SPECIAL COUNSEL IS TO INVESTIGATE HIGH EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SOMETIMES THE PRESIDENT. AND OUR CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A WAY IN WHICH WE THEN HOLD THOSE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. AND THAT’S THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT OR THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS, AND IN ORDER FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE TO WORK, THE FACTS HAVE TO COME FORWARD. SO THIS SORT OF COMPARISON THAT BARR WAS GIVING OF A VERDICT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS JUST NOT REALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE THIS ISN’T A CRIMINAL CASE. AND MUELLER KNEW IT WASN’T A CRIMINAL CASE, IT WASN’T GOING TO END UP IN A COURT, NOT NOW. IT’S ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT THIS EVIDENCE COULD BE USED BY SOME PROSECUTOR LATER WHEN HE’S NO LONGER PRESIDENT TO INDICT HIM. BUT NOT NOW. SO THE COMPARISON TO A CRIMINAL CASE AND THIS IDEA THAT WE AS PROSECUTORS ARE OBLIGATED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE CRIMINAL CHARGES, THAT TO ME IS JUST INACCURATE. THAT APPLIES IN A RUN-OF-THE- MILL CRIMINAL CASE. IT DOESN’T APPLY WHEN YOUR TARGET CANNOT BE INDICTED WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. SO I JUST — THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE GO DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE OF IS IT CRIMINAL, IS IT NOT CRIMINAL. IT’S USEFUL CONVERSATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY IS THE MAIN QUESTION IS NOW ARE THOSE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH BASICALLY MEANS ABUSE OF OFFICE, AND IT’S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STANDARD. SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE THINGS TOGETHER AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN DID A GREAT JOB IN THE BEGINNING OF JUST LAYING THEM OUT TOGETHER AND LOOK AT THEM AND YOU DECIDE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO IS BEING FULLY COOPERATIVE. TO ME IT SEEMS ON THAT PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION OF BEHALVES GOING ON DOES NOT TO ME SEEM CONVINCING. BUT THAT’S THE QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE LOOKING AT. >>SO LET’S PLAY — I WANT TO — I KNOW WE HAVE IT QUEUED UP, THAT EXCHANGE BETWEEN WILLIAM BARR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AROUND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WE WANT TO PLAY THAT. BUT I ALSO WANT TO QUEUE UP IF WE HAVE IT, CONTROL ROOM, AT SOME POINT THAT LAST EXCHANGE BETWEEN SHELDON WHITEHOUSE BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OLC DECISION, I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING, SO WE’LL HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO TURN THAT AROUND AFTERWARDS. BUT LET’S PLAY THE SOUND BITE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >>DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, CAN YOU THINK OF AN OBJECTION OF WHY DON McGAHN SHOULDN’T COME AND TESTIFY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE? >>YES. I MEAN, I THINK THAT HE’S — HE’S A CLOSE ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT — >>NEVER EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >>EXCUSE ME? >>WAVE WAIVED — >>NO, WE HAVEN’T WAIVED THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >>WHAT ABOUT BOB MUELLER, SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS — >>I’VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HIM — >>AND DON McGAHN, SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY? >>THAT’S A CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE. >>WELL, HE’S A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT THIS POINT AS I UNDERSTAND. >>I ASSUME HE’D BE TESTIFYING ABOUT PRIVILEGED MATTERS. >>WELL, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS WITH ACTUAL TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AFTER WE HAVE TAKEN ANOTHER CLOSE LOOK AT HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS. >>A LITTLE DING THERE BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME SENATORS WHO RAISED THE ISSUES OF HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT I FOUND REALLY INTERESTING IS HE SAID WE HAVEN’T GIVEN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >>WELL, YOU KNOW, AT A MOMENT IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SO FRONT AND CENTER IT’S A LITTLE BIT — IEP, YOU KNOW, IT’S HARD FOR HIM. YOU KNOW, HE CAN’T CHOOSE HIS WORDS EXACTLY. >>RIGHT. >>BUT TO SAY IT DEMONSTRATES A KIND OF CLOSENESS WITH THE EXECUTIVE THAT ISN’T EXACTLY HIS ROLE AS THE WHITE HOUSE — IF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAD SUGGESTED THAT OR MAYBE EVEN A PERSONAL ATTORNEY THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME RELEVANCE. BUT THAT’S REALLY NOT HIS ROLE TO BE DETERMINING. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK — MAYBE IT WAS A SLIP, BUT IT DOES SORT OF TEND TO SHOW THAT I THINK THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS DEVELOPED A REAL ALLIANCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PRESIDENT IN A WAY THAT IS SOMEWHAT TROUBLING FOR THIS PRINCIPLE OF INDEPENDENCE THAT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL TO THE WAY IN WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS. >>AND IT’S REALLY — AND NO ONE CAN SEEM TO ANSWER WHY THAT IS BECAUSE IT DOESN’T SEEM AS IF THEY KNEW EACH OTHER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HE’S A LONG-TIME WASHINGTON INSIDER WHO KNOWS MANY OF THESE LAWMAKERS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SORT OF SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS. THERE’S ONE MORE EXCHANGE I WANT TO PLAY BEFORE WE JUMP TO PAULA REID WHO’S STANDING BY TO BRIEF US ON WHAT KELLYANNE CONWAY HAS SAID ABOUT THIS. AND THAT’S THE EXCHANGE THAT WE HAD RIGHT BEFORE WE WENT TO BREAK WITH SHELDON WHITEHOUSE ABOUT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. >>BOB MUELLER IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A U.S. ATTORNEY. HE WAS EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE’S PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. HIS WORK CONCLUDED WHEN HE SENT HIS REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AT THAT POINT IT WAS MY BABY, AND I WAS MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE IT PUBLIC, AND I EFFECTIVELY OVERRODE THE REGULATIONS, USED DISCRETION TO LEAN AS FAR FORWARD AS I COULD TO MAKE THAT PUBLIC AND IT WAS MY DECISION HOW AND WHEN TO MAKE IT PUBLIC, NOT BOB MUELLER’S. >>ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WAS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE OF RHODE ISLAND TALKING ABOUT THIS. SO LET’S — EXPLAIN WHAT HE’S TRYING TO GET AT HERE, RIKKI. >>WELL, I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT SHELDON WHITEHOUSE IS TRYING TO GET AT, I DO THINK THAT WILLIAM BARR’S STRONG SUIT IN ALL OF THESE HEARINGS IS EXACTLY WHERE HE WAS JUST THERE WHICH IS, LOOK, I MADE THIS REPORT AS TRANSPARENT AS ANYONE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE IT. THE AMOUNT OF REDACTION IN THIS REPORT IS MINISCULE. I HAVE GIVEN YOU VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE THING IN HERE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SMALL PERCENTAGE AND EVEN THAT PERCENTAGE WOULD NOT EXCHANGE THE RESULT. AND THE OTHER THING I DID WAS I GOT IT OUT TO YOU AS FAST AS I POSSIBLY COULD. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS BARR ON HIS BEST BEHAVIOR AND THAT’S WHERE HE WANTS TO BE IN THIS HEARING, AND THAT’S WHERE THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD LET HIM BE. >>ALL RIGHT. OUR PAULA REID IS STANDING BY FOR US IN WASHINGTON AT THE WHITE HOUSE. PAULA, I KNOW THAT YOU’VE GOTTEN SOME REACTION FROM THE COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT KELLYANNE CONWAY. WHAT IS SHE SAYING? >>REPORTER: THAT’S RIGHT. SHE JUST GAGGLED WITH REPORTERS HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND OF COURSE WE ASKED HER FOR HER REACTION TO THE HEARINGS SO FAR. SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT IS CONFIDENT IN HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, PLEASED WITH HIS PERFORMANCE. BUT THEN WE FOLLOWED UP. WE SAID, LOOK, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT AGREE WITH HOW THE RESULTS OF THIS WERE PORTRAYED. BUT THE WHITE HOUSE HERE, THEY ARE COMPLETELY SPINNING THIS IN THE EXACT SAME WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TRYING TO. THEY PARROTED BACK HIS CLAIM THAT WHEN HE TALKED TO MUELLER, MUELLER CLEARLY STATED THAT BARR HAD NOT MISREPRESENTED HIS FINDINGS. BUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE LETTER THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE CLEARLY SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT FOUR-PAGE MEMO TO CONGRESS ACCURATELY PORTRAYS THE CONTEXT AND THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS INVESTIGATION. NOW, ONE INTERESTING THING I ASKED KELLYANNE. I ASKED HER, I SAID WAS THE WHITE HOUSE AWARE BEFORE THE “WASHINGTON POST” REPORT, WAS IT AWARE THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPLYING THIS PRESSURE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RELEASE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS? SHE KICKED THAT QUESTION. SHE COULDN’T SAY YES OR NO. I WENT BACK AND I SAID, WAIT A SECOND, YOU CAN’T JUST ANSWER THAT UP OR DOWN, YES OR NO, YOU DON’T KNOW? PLENTY OF WAYS SHE COULD ANSWER THIS. AND SHESAID NO. TWICE SHE DEFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE HE IS, QUOTE, TESTIFYING UNDER OATH. I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING TO PURSUE, THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS IN ANY WAY CONSULTED ON WHETHER OR NOT BARR SHOULD BOW TO THIS PRESSURE FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO RELEASE THESE SUMMARIES BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL THAT THAT FOUR-PAGE MEMO THAT THE PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY QUOTED REPEATEDLY AND CELEBRATED ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED WHAT HAPPENED. >>YEAH. AND SO, PAULA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN BEING ASKED ABOUT THAT KICKED IT BACK TO US, THE MEDIA, SAYING THAT HE BLAMED THE MEDIA FOR, QUOTE, READING TOO MUCH INTO THE INITIAL SUMMARY OF THE MUELLER REPORT, AND HE WENT ON TO SAY, AND I’M QUOTING HERE, HE WAS VERY CLEAR WITH ME THAT HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE HAD MISREPRESENTED HIS REPORT. >>REPORTER: THAT WAS VERY CIRCULAR. I DON’T KNOW THAT I HEARD THAT PART. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU GET AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT A LOT WHICH IS A THEY SORT OF PRESENT THE MEDIA AS A STRAWMAN. OH, WELL, THE MEDIA IS REPORTING THIS. AND IF YOU DOUBLE DOWN AND SAY WAIT A SECOND, WHO REPORTED THAT? SPECIFICALLY WHERE WAS THAT, CAN YOU POINT TO SOMETHING SPECIFIC? IT’S PRETTY GENERAL. LET’S BE CLEAR, NO WHERE IN MUELLER’S LETTER DOES HE SAY THE MEDIA IS CONFUSED. HE TALKS ABOUT THE GENERAL PUBLIC. HE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING APPOINTED WAS TO CONDUCT A FREE AND FAIR INVESTIGATION AND THEN REPORT HONESTLY AND OPENLY TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS INVESTIGATION. SO NO WHERE DOES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAY HIS CONCERN WAS TO THE MEDIA. THAT’S ONLY BARR’S INTERPRETATION OF A PHONE CALL IN WHICH WE DON’T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT. >>PAULA, JUST STAND BY BECAUSE I WANT TO BRING IN NANCY CORDES. SHEEHAN’S ON THE HILL RIGHT NOW. NANCY, YOU’VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS ALL ALONG. BEFORE YOU TOLD US THIS ALL BEGAN, THIS WAS GOING TO BREAK DOWN BY PARTY LINES. BUT I JUST WANT TO READ A TWEET THAT JUST POPPED UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA FROM SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN WHO I DON’T BELIEVE IS ON THAT COMMITTEE, NANCY, BUT YOU CAN TELL ME IF SHE IS. AND SHE WRITES THIS, A.G. BARR IS A GRAIS AND HIS ALARMING EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE MUELLER REPORT SHOWS THAT HE NOT A CREDIBLE HEAD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, HE SHOULD RESIGN AND BASED ON THE ACTUAL FACTS IN THE MUELLER REPORT CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. OBVIOUSLY SHE’S RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. SO LET’S TAKE THAT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. BUT IT DOES FALL INTO LINE WITH THE WAY THAT YOU’RE LISTENING TO THE GRILLING FROM DEMOCRATS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT WHAT HE HAS REPRESENTED IN HIS SUMMARY AND WHAT HE’S BEEN SAYING TO THEM IN THOSE HEARINGS. >>REPORTER: SURE. AND IT SHOWS THAT THE NOTION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD RESIGN IS PICKING UP STEAM AMONG DEMOCRATS. IT’S NOT JUST A FEW FRINGE PLAYERS ON THE LEFT. YOU NOW HAVE A NUMBER OF MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WHO ARE SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HANDLE THE MUELLER REPORT PROPERLY AND IS NEW ON THE JOB AND THAT THIS HAS ALREADY PROVEN THAT HE’S NOT FIT TO HOLD THE JOB, CERTAINLY THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO MAKE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S LIFE DIFFICULT. OF COURSE, AS YOU POINT OUT, IT’S NOT SURPRISING TO HEAR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. BUT THERE ARE THREE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO ARE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR TURN AT GRILLING BARR THEMSELVES. AND THEY ARE NOT SHRINKING VIOLETS EITHER. SO THEY HAVE DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THEY SEE AS BARR PUTTING HIS THUMB ON THE SCALE FOR THE PRESIDENT AND ALREADY YOU’VE SEEN SOME OTHER DEMOCRATS IN THIS COMMITTEE KIND OF TEAR APART SOME OF THE ASSERTIONS THAT BARR MADE EARLIER ON IN THIS PROCESS, MOST NOTABLY HIS CLAIM IN THAT FOUR-PAGE MEMO THAT THE WHITE HOUSE FULLY COOPERATED WITH THIS INVESTIGATION. THAT IS A VERY BLUNT ASSERTION THAT LEAVES NO WIGGLE ROOM. IT’S WHAT HE SAID IN THE FOUR- PAGE MEMO. WELL, PATRICK LEAHY OF VERMONT BASICALLY QUOTED HIM FROM THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF, MULTIPLE INSTANCES WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT FULLY COOPERATE, WHERE THE PRESIDENT DECLINED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CLEARLY WANTED MORE FULL SOME ANSWERS OF HIM IN WRITING TO SOME OF THEIR QUESTIONS AND ON AND ON. SO CLEARLY DEMOCRATS VERY UNHAPPY WITH WHAT THEY’RE HEARING, BUT REPUBLICANS BY AND LARGE BOTH HERE IN THE COMMITTEE AND MORE BROADLY SAY THAT BARR HAS BEEN A MODEL OF TRANSPARENCY. HE RELEASED THE REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT JUST A FEW WEEKS AFTER RECEIVING IT FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THEY SAY HE COULD HAVE SLOW WALKED THAT RELEASE. HE DIDN’T. AND THEY BELIEVE THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AND OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE BECAUSE MUELLER DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SO THEY SAY ALL OF THE REST OF THIS IS JUST BACKGROUND NOISE. >>YOU KNOW, NANCY, AND IT’S A GOOD POINT THAT YOU MAKE ABOUT MORE MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATS COMING OUT AND SUGGESTING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY HAVE TO RESIGN BECAUSE LET’S JUST REMIND OUR VIEWERS, YOU WERE COVERING THIS BACK IN EARLY APRIL WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE, AND HE WAS ASKED — BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS NEWS REPORTS THAT HAD COME OUT THAT SUGGESTED THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD CHARACTERIZED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT. HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT AT A HOUSE HEARING IN APRIL AND HIS REPLY WAS, QUOTE, I DON’T KNOW. THEY ASKED HIM WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID I DON’T KNOW, AND AS YOU SUGGESTED, NANCY, TODAY SENATOR LEAHY SAID WHY DID YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CONCERNS WHEN WEEKS BEFORE YOUR TESTIMONY WITH MR. MUELLER HE HAD EXPRESSED THEM TO YOU. >>REPORTER: RIGHT. AND SO DEMOCRATS ARGUE THAT HE’S SPLITTING HAIRS HERE WHEN HE DEFENDS THAT CLAIM IN THE HEARING A FEW WEEKS BACK. WHAT BARR HAS BEEN ARGUING IS ú CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE CRIST OF FLORIDA IN THAT HOUSE HEARING WHETHER HE FELT THAT THE — THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS HAPPY WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS, MOST NOTABLY HIS DECISION NOT TO SEEK OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS ALSO ASKED AT THIS PAIR OF HOUSE AND SENATE HEARINGS WHETHER THE — WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT THESE RUMORS AND REPORTS THAT MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TEAM WERE UNHAPPY. HE SAID HE ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS FACTUALLY BUT THAT HE WASN’T ASKED SPECIFICALLY WHETHER MUELLER WAS HAPPY WITH HIS FOUR-PAGE MEMO. HE SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE GENERATED A DIFFERENT ANSWER, HE MAY HAVE COPPED TO THIS LETTER THAT HE HAD RECEIVED FROM MUELLER, BUT HE SAID THAT’S NOT WHAT HE WAS ASKED ABOUT AND THAT HIS RESPONSES WERE TRUTHFUL AND FACTUAL. >>YEAH. AND HE WENT ON TO SAY, NANCY, THAT, YOU KNOW, HE HAD TALKED — YOU SAID HE SPOKE WITH ROBERT MUELLER AND NOT MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM AND THEN I’M GOING TO QUOTE HIM HERE SO I DON’T GET IT WRONG, HE SAID, QUOTE, MUELLER HAD NEVER TOLD ME THAT THE EXPRESSION OF THE FINDINGS WAS INACCURATE. SO IT’S HARD TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT — I MEAN, AT THIS POINT IT’S WHAT HE’S SAYING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SO IT’S HARD FOR US TO KNOW. NANCY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I KNOW YOU’RE GOING TO BE JUMPING BACK INTO THAT MEETING WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM LUNCH. LET’S GO BACK TO PAULA REID. PAULA, YOU’VE BEEN LISTENING TO THIS. YOU WANTED TO JUMP IN. >>REPORTER: ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, HE HAS MADE SEVERAL APPEARANCES, BUT ON APRIL 10th, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS ASKED, QUOTE, DID BOB MUELLER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION? HE ANSWERED I DON’T KNOW WHETHER BOB MUELLER SUPPORTED MY CONCLUSION. IT’S CLEAR HE WAS ASKED THIS. THAT WAS HIS ANSWER. >>RIGHT. >>REPORTER: UNDER OATH. SO FOR HIM TO TRY AND SPIN AND SAY I WAS ASKED SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT CONCLUSIONS OR STAFFERS, THAT’S JUST NOT TRUE. >>AND THAT IS WHAT WE AND OUR PANEL IS HERE, REBECCA AND RIKKI HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I SORT OF FEEL THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE ONE BIG SORT OF NARRATIVE THAT COMES OUT OF THIS HEARING BECAUSE THAT’S FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE A BIG DEAL, TO SIT BEFORE THE HOUSE AND TO SAY YOU DON’T KNOW, TO ANSWER YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THAT’S COMING FROM, NEVER HEARD OF IT, DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THEN WE FIND OUT YESTERDAY AND THEN YOU FINALLY ENTER INTO THE RECORD THIS LETTER THAT HE RECEIVED FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, RIKKI. >>I ALSO THINK THAT THAT RELATES TO THE OTHER MAIN BIGGER PICTURE ISSUE HERE WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT MUELLER SAID IS THAT BY DOING THIS YOU’VE INTERFERED WITH THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND CONFIDENCE IN THIS UNDERLYING INVESTIGATION. THE REASON WHY WE HAVE SPECIAL COUNSEL RULES THAT ALLOW FOR THE APPOINT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL IS THERE’S THIS IDEA THAT A POLITICAL APPOINTEE IS NOT IN A GOOD POSITION TO BE INVESTIGATING THE PERSON WHO APPOINTED THEM. SO THEREFORE WE CREATE A LEVEL OF DISTANCE. AND THAT LEVEL OF DISTANCE IS WHAT ASSURES THE PUBLIC THAT WE’RE ALL OKAY. SO THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT AT THE END OF THIS INVESTIGATION BARR HAS JUMPED IN IN SUCH A WAY — THIS IS WHAT I THINK MUELLER WAS SAYING — TO UNDERMINE THAT VERY PRINCIPLE. AND SO OUR CONCERN HERE IS THAT HE’S TRYING TO GET OUT A POLITICAL MESSAGE THROUGH THIS REPORT, AND AFTER MUELLER DID SUCH A, LIKE, AMAZING JOB OF ACTUALLY DEVELOPING THESE FACTS IN AN APOLITICAL, NONPARTISAN KIND OF WAY THAT WHEN BARR SAID IN YOUR EARLIER CLIP NOW IT’S MY BABY, LIKE, NO, ACTUALLY, THAT’S NOT YOUR BABY. >>RIGHT. >>THAT’S THE BABY OF THESE CAREER PROSECUTORS WHO WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS INVESTIGATION, SO YOU CAN’T JUST TAKE THE BABY AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT BECAUSE YOU’RE GOING TO UNDERMINE THE WHOLE — THE WHOLE PURPOSE OR AT LEAST HALF THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD THINK THIS IS KOSHER, AND THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU COME OUT AT THE END AND WITH ALL OF THIS SORT OF SEEMINGLY POLITICAL AGENDA, IT’S REALLY DOING DAMAGE AND THAT’S WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE. >>I WANT TO ASK IF WE HAVE PAULA STILL STANDING BY AT THE WHITE HOUSE THERE. PAULA, SO TWO THINGS THAT WERE ALSO RAISED DURING THIS TESTIMONY IS WHETHER OR NOT ROBERT MUELLER WILL APPEAR BEFORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SENATE AND THE HOUSE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING HE’S BEEN ON THE RECORD SAYING HE DOESN’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I’M WONDERING DOES THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT DON McGAHN APPEARING BEFORE LAWMAKERS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS REALLY SORT OF INTERESTING AND HE WAS IN AN EXCHANGE WITH SHELDON WHITEHOUSE WASN’T CLEAR, BUT HE SAID WE, IN OTHER WORDS WHEN IT CAME TO THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE SAID WE, AND REBECCA AND RIKKI BOTH HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONSE AND USING THAT TERM PROBLEMATIC. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. THE QUESTION I GUESS FOR YOU IS HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IF THEY ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT THAT DON McGAHN HAS NOT WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NUMBER ONE, AND NUMBER TWO, WOULD THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BOB MUELLER TESTIFYING? >>REPORTER: WELL, LET’S START WITH ROBERT MUELLER. IT IS EXPECTED THAT HE WILL BE ASKED TO TESTIFY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS THEY DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. THE WHITE HOUSE DEFERS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT SO FAR NOBODY’S BEEN WILLING TO PUT A DATE ON THE CALENDAR. PERHAPS THEY WERE WAITING TO SEE HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S TESTIMONY WENT TODAY. BUT AT SOME POINT IT IS LIKELY THERE WILL BE EITHER A FORMAL REQUEST THAT IS REJECTED AND/OR A SUBPOENA. I EXPECT THAT ROBERT MUELLER WILL TESTIFY. SOURCES CLOSE TO HIM HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT HE WOULD COMPLY WITH A REQUEST. HE HAS NO PROBLEM DOING THIS. AND THE OPTICS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AT THIS POINT BLOCKING HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE GREAT FOR THIS WHOLE SITUATION. IN TERMS OF DON McGAHN, THAT’S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED. FOR THE MOST PART THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REALLY WAIVED PRIVILEGE OVER A LOT OF THE KEY ISSUES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND DON McGAHN. BUT THERE ARE STILL SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO FIGHT HIS TESTIMONY. IF THIS HE WERE TO DO THAT, I AM TOLD THAT THEY WOULD TRY TO ARGUE THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EXTENDS TO SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS. THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TRIED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OVER HARRIET MEYERS AND IT DID NOT SUCCEED. AT THE LOWER COURT THEY FOUND, LOOK, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT DOESN’T EXTEND THAT FAR, BUT IT DIDN’T HAVE A CHANCE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO AN APPEALS COURT OR EVEN THE SUPREME COURT. STILL AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION. BUT IF THEY WANT TO GAMBLE ON SOMEBODY, I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO DO IT ON McGAHN. I’VE BEEN TOLD THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT EVEN IF THEY PREVAILED ON THAT ARGUMENT, MOST OF WHAT THEY’RE FIGHTING FOR, THE PRIVILEGE HAS ALREADY BEEN WAIVED. SO IT MAY BE JUST EASIER TO TRY TO PUT SOME LIMITS ON HIS TESTIMONY BUT LET HIM GO AHEAD. >>ALL RIGHT. PAULA REID AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR US. PAULA, AS ALWAYS, WE THANK YOU. WE’LL CONTINUE BRIEFLY WITH REBECCA AND RIKKI BEFORE WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK. BUT ONE LAST POINT THAT WAS MADE AND IT WAS, AGAIN, WITH SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, AND I DON’T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT SOUND BITE, BUT IT WAS WITH REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE TERM SPYING. AND THAT GOT A LOT OF PLAY. AND HE SORT OF SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT IT GOT A LOT OF PLAY FROM THE MEDIA BECAUSE WE JUMPED ON IT AND WHAT DID IT MEAN AND THE PRESIDENT USED THAT WORD BEFORE, HE SAYS HE DOESN’T CONSIDER IS PREJOTTERRIVE. HE SAYS THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH OUTRAGE OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS AROUND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU MADE OF THAT LITTLE EXCHANGE. >>WELL, HE SAID HE WORKED FOR THE C.I.A. IT’S A TERM OF ART. I THINK THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO WILLIAM BARR BY USING THE WORD SPYING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND MUCH OF HIS TESTIMONY BOTH BEFORE TODAY AND TODAY, THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE LOOKS PARTISAN. WE DON’T WANT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE PARTISAN. WE WANT HIM TO SIMPLY BE FIRM AND FAIR. AND I THINK THAT THE REFERENDUM ON TODAY’S HEARING AND TOMORROW’S HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE IS REALLY NOT GOING TO BE ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. IT’S GOING TO BE ABOUT THE CHARACTER AND COMMITMENT AND FUTURE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>AND IF — REBECCA, IF ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIES AND YOU HEARD WHAT HAS BEEN NONPARTISAN HAS BEEN ALMOST EVERYBODY THERE AND ON SOME DAYS THE PRESIDENT THINKS MUELLER IS AN HONORABLE GUY, OTHER DAYS HE DOESN’T THINK HE’S AN HONORABLE GUY, BUT YOU HEARD LINDSAY GRAHAM SAYING THAT HE THOUGHT ROBERT MUELLER WAS AN HONORABLE MAN. HE LISTED HIS RECORD IN GOVERNMENT, HE LISTED HIS SERVICE AS A UNITED STATES MARINE. IF ROBERT MUELLER GETS UP ON TO THIS — INTO THIS HEARING ROOM AND HE SAYS, YEAH, I DID HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARACTERIZED MY REPORT WHEN YOU JUST HEARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING THAT ROBERT MUELLER TOLD HIM HE HAD NO COMPLAINTS WITH IT, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? JUST, LIKE, PLAY THAT OUT FOR US. >>YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK IT’S A MOMENT IN WHICH WE TAKE STOCK AND WE TAKE STOCK — AS RIKKI WAS SAYING, WE TAKE STOCK OF WHAT WE CAN TRUST AND WHAT’S VULNERABLE HERE. AND I THINK ONE THING, ONE VICTORY HERE IS THAT WE HAVE CAREER PROSECUTORS IN THOSE OFFICES WHO ARE MORE THAN HONORABLE. THEY REALLY DO DO THEIR WORK, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN JOB, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICAL OPINIONS, BUT THEY DON’T LET THOSE POLITICAL OPINIONS IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE WORK THAT THEY DO. AND THAT’S, LIKE, A WIN. THE QUESTION ABOUT THESE OTHER LAYERS OF PROTECTION THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE PRESIDENT THAT ARE STILL SUPPOSED TO BE ENSURING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND HOW VULNERABLE THEY ARE TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF INFLUENCE I THINK THAT’S A DIFFERENT STORY. AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WE REALLY KNOW AT ERODING SOME OF THOSE — ERODING SOME OF THOSE LINES THAT SHOULD BE FIRM. >>LET ME ASK YOU AS WE PREPARE FOR THESE SENATORS TO COME BACK FROM LUNCH IN ABOUT A HALF HOUR, YOU SAID EARLIER, RIKKI, THAT A LOT OF THIS IS THEATER, IT’S POLITICAL THEATER. YOU GOT THREE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. WE CAN EXPECT A LITTLE BIT OF SHOW BOATING. BUT WOULD YOU CHANGE TACT AS YOU GO INTO THE NEXT HALF OR WOULD YOU KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, AMY KLOBUCHAR OR SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY, WELL, LOOK, I WANT YOU TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER IN THE DAY, OR SHOULD THEY BE FOCUSING ON OTHER THINGS OR IS THERE NOTHING ELSE TO FOCUS ON OTHER THAN WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS? >>WELL, EACH PERSON WHO ASKS THEIR FIVE MINUTES WORTH OF QUESTIONS OUGHT TO HAVE A THEORY OF THEIR CASE AS A LAWYER WOULD SAY THAT HAS A BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END THAT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN FIVE MINUTES. WHATEVER THAT GOAL IS. AND BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES, YOU’RE PROBABLY BETTER OFF WITH ONE GOAL BECAUSE IT’S TOO HARD TO SPREAD IT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THEY COULD DO IS DIVIDE UP THE 10 EPISODES OF ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION WHICH DID NOT COME UP TO A CRIMINAL CASE OF OBSTRUCTION BUT WERE EPISODES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THEM IN A DIFFERENT STANDARD SUCH AS THE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS STANDARD. SO YOU’VE GOT 10, YOU’VE GOT ENOUGH SENATORS, DIVIDE THEM UP AND LET’S LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE ACTS. THAT’S ONE TACT. THE OTHER TACT IS TO KEEP BEATING THE DEAD HORSE OF WHAT DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOW IN TERMS OF ROBERT MUELLER AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT, AND FINALLY, THE WHOLE IDEA OF WHY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ROD ROSENSTEIN WITH HIM MADE THE DECISION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO GO FORWARD WITH ANYTHING CONCERNING OBSTRUCTION AND TAKE THAT DECISION OUT OF THE HANDS OF CONGRESS, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS IS TAKING IT BACK IN HIS HANDS. >>REBECCA, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, HE’S BEEN ON THE RECORD, HE WAS ON THE RECORD AT “CBS THIS MORNING” SAYING HE BELIEVES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD RESIGN. HE SAYS THAT HE MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH AN INACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE MUELLER REPORT. I DON’T KNOW. WHAT IS THE PROCESS — IF HE DOESN’T RESIGN, CAN HE BE IMPEACHED? BUT HE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT. >>I MEAN, I DON’T THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I DON’T ACTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD HAPPEN. I MEAN, HE WAS APPOINTED BY A DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT. HE IS CLEARLY QUALIFIED. AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS, AS RIKKI WAS SAYING EARLIER, THAT HE HAS DONE RIGHT. HE REALLY DID MAKE THESE FACTS GOT, FOR THE MOST PART, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF REDACTION TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND I THINK THAT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT COULD HAPPEN HERE. I THINK AT THE END HERE HE’S DONE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE DONE DAMAGE TO THE INSTITUTIONS THAT WE ALL REALLY CARE ABOUT. BUT FOR THE MOST PART I THINK IF WE WERE — YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK IF HE RESIGNED, I MEAN, HE’S NEVER GOING TO RESIGN. >>RIGHT. DOESN’T SOUND LIKE HE IS. JUST THE WAY HE’S ANSWERING QUESTIONS. >>BUT IT SEEMS TO ASK THINGS LIKE BEYOND WHERE THEY NEED TO GO AT THIS POINT FOR CALLING FOR HIS REMOVAL AT THIS POINT. YOU CAN DISAGREE, AS I DO, WITH MANY OF THE DECISIONS HE’S MADE, BUT HE’S STILL A COMPETENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND I THINK THAT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I DON’T THINK THAT THAT’S — >>SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS HERE, RIGHT? ONE IS — AND YOU RAISE A REALLY GOOD POINT AS WE PREPARE TO GO TO A BREAK. THERE IS THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, AS YOU POINTED OUT LIGHTLY REDACTED, IN OTHER WORDS, HE WOULD SAY AND HE HAS SAID THAT HE’S BEING TRANSPARENT WITH THE REPORT THAT ROBERT MUELLER — THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT. THERE’S THIS OTHER ISSUE AS TO HIS SUMMARIES AND HIS CHARACTERIZATIONS AND WHAT HE THINKS AND HOW HE THINKS THE PRESIDENT FEELS ABOUT IT, THE PRESIDENT WAS EMOTIONAL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING BEAT UP BY THE PRESS AND ALL THAT STUFF WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM HIS OBLIGATION AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RELEASE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. SO ON THE ONE HAND HE’S DOING THAT RIGHT. >>YEAH. >>IS WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, AND YOU AS WELL, RIKKI, THEN ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE THESE QUESTIONS THAT LAWMAKERS HAVE ABOUT THE WAY THAT HE’S DOING IT. >>WELL, AND THAT HE’S NOT DOING THAT RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT I CAN SAY THAT WITH SOME DEGREE OF OBJECTIVITY, IT IS NOT HIS JOB TO BE THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER, HIS PERSONAL LAWYER. HIS JOB IS NOT TO GIVE EXCUSES FOR THE PRESIDENT. HIS JOB IS SIMPLY TO PRESENT THE MUELLER REPORT. >>WHICH HE DID. >>WHICH HE DID. BUT HE ADDED ON TO IT WITH HIS ORIGINAL FOUR-PAGE SUMMARY AND THEN WITH HIS PRESS CONFERENCE AND THAT WAS THEN WRITTEN DOWN WHEN HE RELEASED THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF, AND HE CONTINUES TO DO THAT HERE. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT FOR ME, MAYBE NOT FOR A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, BUT THE PROBLEM FOR ME AS A LAWYER IS I WANT MY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE AN OBJECTOR, UPHOLDER OF THE LAW AND TO NOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR THE PERSON WHO APPOINTED HIM. THAT’S NOT HIS JOB. NOW, I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH REBECCA. I THINK IT’S ONE THING THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AND AS NANCY PELOSI SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE GOTTA GET SOME STUFF DONE HERE. I MEAN LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT WAS REALLY GREAT. >>THEY CAME OUT OF IT YESTERDAY, THEY SAID IT WAS A SUCCESS. >>IT’S, LIKE, YES, WE’RE DOING SOMETHING FOR THE GOOD OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. SO IF WE GET SIDETRACKED ON IMPEACHMENT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, DOES THAT SERVE US WHEN THE ELECTION IS IN 2020? AND NOW IF WE GET SIDE TRACKED ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I MEAN, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED JOBS, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HEALTHCARE, LET’S TALK ABOUT ALL OF US WHO NEED INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING GET DONE IN WASHINGTON. >>YEAH, I THINK THAT’S — AND, YOU KNOW, FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY SAW SENATOR SCHUMER AND NANCY PELOSI COME OUT YESTERDAY AND SAY, LOOK, WE HAD A REALLY GOOD MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, WE DIDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT MUELLER, WE TALKED ABOUT — YOU KNOW, HERE’S THE NUMBER, WE’RE GOING TO MEET AGAIN IN THREE WEEKS AND EVERYBODY SAID HALLELUJAH, THIS IS GREAT NEWS. >>PEOPLE SAY THAT TO ME ALL THE TIME, WHY DO YOU SPEND YOUR TIME THINKING ABOUT THIS THING WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T CARE AT ALL. I DO THINK THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL AND IT’S CONNECTED TO ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. GOVERNMENT WORKING PROPERLY REQUIRES ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THIS IS ACCOUNTABILITY. SO I JUST DON’T THINK THESE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES AS PEOPLE ALWAYS SEE BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THESE INSTITUTIONS OPERATING IN A FUNCTIONAL WAY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET STUFF DONE. SO THEY’RE NOT SEPARATE. >>RIGHT. >>EVEN THOUGH I KNOW PEOPLE THINK OF THEM THAT WAY. >>AND I WANT TO ECHO THAT BECAUSE I DO THINK ACCOUNTABILITY IS CRITICAL. I DON’T THINK THAT IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT — >>NO. >>– THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HEAVEN KNOWS WHO ELSE IS THE SAME AS ACCOUNTABILITY. >>FOR SURE. THIS HAS REALLY BEEN A FASCINATING DISCUSSION. I ALWAYS LEARN SO MUCH SITTING WITH THE BOTH OF YOU AND WITH PAULA AND NANCY BECAUSE I’M NOT A LAWYER AND I DON’T COVER THE D.C. BUBBLE, BUT I HOPE THAT I’M ABLE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK OUR VIEWERS ARE ASKING BECAUSE WE’RE ALL WATCHING THIS AND A LOT OF TERMS ARE BEING THROWN OUT, A LOT OF LEGALESE IS BEING THROWN OUT AND SOMETIMES IT’S HARD TO MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL AND WE’RE NOT ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT YOU, SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK BECAUSE IN JUST ABOUT 25 MINUTES OR SO — OH, REALLY? I THOUGHT THAT THEY — THIS THE CONTROL ROOM TALKING TO ME, SO PEOPLE ARE THINKING I DON’T HAVE A VOICE IN MY HEAD, I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE COMING BACK INAN HOUR. SO MAYBE IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES. 12:45 IS WHAT I’M TOLD THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL BE BACK IN THAT BRIEFING ROOM, SO WE WILL BE BACK WITH THAT ON CBSN, SO STICK AROUND. >>>OPPOSITION LEADER JUAN GUAIDO IS URGING A SECOND DAY OF PROTESTS IN VENEZUELA. HE CALLED FOR A MILITARY UPRISING YESTERDAY. TODAY HE’S CALLING FOR ALL OF VENEZUELA TO TAKE TO THE STREETS. TODAY ALSO HAPPENS TO BE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS’ DAY. >>ARMORED VEHICLES DROVE INTO CROWDS YESTERDAY AS THE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO CONTAIN THE UNREST. CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT INDONESIA INDONESIA HAS MORE ON — ADRIANA DIAZ HAS MORE ON THE FALLOUT FROM THE FIRST DAY OF CLASHES. >>REPORTER: VLAD AND ANNE MARIE HERE IN MIAMI VENEZUELANS ARE WATCHING THE TURMOIL CLOSELY. AN ESTIMATED 190,000 VENEZUELANS LIVE IN FLORIDA, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DID FLEE NICOLAS MADURO’S REGIME. NOW, MANY HERE SUPPORT OPPOSITION LEADER JUAN GUAIDO, BUT HIS SO-CALLED OPERATION FREEDOM APPEARS TO ONLY HAVE LIMITED MILITARY BACKING SO FAR. OP LITION LEADER JUAN GUAIDO CALLED FOR PROTESTS TO CONTINUE WEDNESDAY AS NICOLAS MADURO APPEARED ON STATE TELEVISION OVERNIGHT ALONGSIDE THE COUNTRY’S TOP MILITARY LEADERS. WHILE IN WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO CLAIMED MADURO IS BEING PROPPED UP BY FOREIGN FORCES, INCLUDING RUSSIA AND CUBA. >>WE LITERALLY HAD NICOLAS MADURO GETTING PREPARED TO GET ON THIS AIRPLANE AND HEAD OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE HE STOPPED REALLY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE RUSSIANS. >>REPORTER: MADURO SAID THAT NEVER HAPPENED. A POWER IMBALANCE WAS ON DISPLAY AS PROTESTERS FACED PRO- MADURO MILITARY VEHICLES THAT CHARGED CROWDS. FLANKED BY MILITARY SYMPATHIZERS, GUAIDO CALLED FOR THE REST OF THE MILITARY TO RISE UP. >>MY SALARY ISN’T EVEN ENOUGH TO BUY FOOD. >>REPORTER: CBS NEWS SPOKE TO A VENEZUELAN SOLDIER IN FEBRUARY WHO PREDICTED CRACKS IN MADURO’S SUPPORT WITH SOLDIERS SUFFERING FROM THE FAMINE AND POVERTY MADURO HAS OVERSEEN FOR YEARS. >>REPORTER: WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO CHANGE SIDES? >>IN THE NATIONAL GUARD ALL WE NEED IS A HIGH-RANKING GENERAL TO REBEL, TO LEAD THE WAY. >>REPORTER: FOR NOW AT LEAST DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE MILITARY ARE BACKING BOTH SELF- PROCLAIMED PRESIDENTS. THE U.S. SAYS IT SUPPORTS THE UPRISING AND SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE TO MADURO. >>FIRE UP THE PLANE. >>REPORTER: SO FAR THERE ARE NO CONFIRMED DEATHS FROM THOSE CLASHES, BUT AT LEAST 69 PEOPLE WERE INJURED. NOW, IN THAT VIDEO GUAIDO TWEETED LAST NIGHT, HE CLAIMED MADURO DOES NOT HAVE THE, QUOTE, BACKING OR RESPECT OF THE MILITARY. HE TOLD VENEZUELANS HE WILL SEE THEM IN THE STREETS TODAY. VLAD AND ANNE MARIE. >>ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >>> WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK. YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN, CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. >>> ALL RIGHT. IF YOU’RE JUST JOINING US BACK HERE ON CBSN, WE’RE CLOSE TO THE TOP OF THE HOUR, BUT WE’RE ALSO CLOSE TO THE MOMENT WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR WILL TAKE HIS SEAT AGAIN IN THAT BRIEFINGROOM WHERE HE WILL CONTINUE TO FACE GRILLING FROM THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I DON’T THINK HE’S ENTERED BACK INTO THE ROOM. BUT WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE A.G. TO BE SEATED, LET’S BRING IN KEIR DOUGALL. HE’S A CBSN CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NEW YORK’S EASTERN DIRECT AND OF COURSE STILL OUR OLD FRIEND RIKKI KLIEMAN, CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST ALSO HERE WITH US AS WE ANTICIPATE ROUND TWO OF THIS HEARING. KEIR, YOU’VE BEEN LISTENING IN OUR GREEN ROOM, YOU WERE FOLLOWING ALONG TO WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING ALONG WITH REBECCA AND WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS SAYING EARLIER IN RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS. WHAT DO YOU THINK? >>COUPLE BIG TAKEAWAYS FOR ME. ONE IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONFIRMED THAT THE STANDARD THAT HE APPLIED WHEN HE FOUND THERE WASN’T SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION WAS A PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD. NOW, THAT’S WHAT I SUSPECTED HE WAS APPLYING, BUT IT WASN’T COMPLETELY CLEAR UNTIL HE SAID IT TODAY IN THE HEARING. AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHAT IT MEANS IS THE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW. AND THAT LEAVES A LOT OF TERRITORY BELOW THAT VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL OF PROOF, RIGHT, OF AWFUL CONDUCT THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT. AND SO THE EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT IS — >>AWFUL CONDUCT. LET’S JUST BE CLEAR, AWFUL CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN PUTTING HIS FINGER, DANGLING POTENTIAL FAVORABLE TREATMENT AND PRAISE UPON WITNESSES WHEN THEY ARE UNCOOPERATIVE AND CALLING THEM RATS WHEN THEY ARE NOT DOING WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS HIM TO DO. IT APPEARS ATTEMPTING TO STEER THE INVESTIGATION, AN INVESTIGATION DIRECTED AT HIMSELF. IT’S GOOD EVIDENCE THAT’S DESCRIBED IN MANY CASES IN THE REPORT, BUT WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONFIRMED FOR US IS THAT HE WAS APPLYING A PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD. AND SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF TERRITORY FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT TO EXPLORE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS CONDUCT FOR A PRESIDENT WHOSE OATH IS TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE, WHO IS BOUND BY ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS. I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONGRESS TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REPORT, EVEN IF IT DOESN’T QUITE REACH THE TOP OF MOUNT EVEREST TO GET TO PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IT IS FAIR FOR THEM TO SAY IS THIS HOW WE WANT OUR GOVERNMENT TO FUNCTION. >>SO, RIKKI, SETTING ASIDE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE THE BREAK WHICH IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN TRANSPARENT IN THE RELEASING OF THE REPORT, BUT THAT HE HAS EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR THAT SOME WOULD CALL BEHAVIOR THAT IS UNBECOMING OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MORE OF THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU KNEW ROY COHEN, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU KNEW ROY COHEN, BUT THE PRESIDENT DID KNOW ROY COHEN AND HE’S TALKED ABOUT ROY COHEN OFTEN. HE WANTS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL LIKE ROY COHEN. HE SAID THAT HE WANTED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL LIKE ERIC HOLDER WAS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA, ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT OBAMA DID NOT ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN WHERE HE WOULD NEED SOMETHING LIKE A ROY COHEN TO BE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT WHAT KEER IS SAYING IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SAYING, LOOK, NOTHING IN THIS REPORT SAYS THAT I COULD NAIL THE PRESIDENT ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM FOR CONGRESS TO ENGAGE IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST LOOK INTO WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. >>100%. IT IS WHY WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THAT THEY ARE STRUCTURED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS TO HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS EVER DO COME UP IN THE FEW TIMES THAT THEY HAVE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THEY’RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE CALL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH IS A MUCH BROADER DEFINITION THAN WHAT WOULD BE IN THE CRIMINAL CODE AND PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEER AND I HAVE DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THAT IF YOU LOOKED FOR EXAMPLE AT A STATE PROSECUTOR AND A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, MANY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS — IN FACT, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THE VAST MAJORITY IF NOT ALL DO LOOK AT CASES THAT THEY WILL NOT GO FORWARD WITH A CASE THAT THEY — UNLESS THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN GET A CONVICTION WHICH MEANS THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN HAVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHEREAS MANY STATE PROSECUTORS ARE SIMPLY PRESENTED WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT IS BROUGHT TO THEM BY A POLICE DEPARTMENT OR A SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THE EVIDENCE IS SOLID, THE EVIDENCE IS GOOD. BUT REASONABLE JURORS COULD DIFFER AT THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS MORE THAN PROBABLE CAUSE AND ACTUALLY REACHED PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, HENCE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MORE ACQUITTALS OR MORE CONVICTIONS OF LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES ON THE STATE SIDE THAN WE EVER HAVE ON THE FEDERAL SIDE. FEDERAL PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT LOSE CASES, THEY REALLY SHOULDN’T BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY’VE HAD THE TIME, SO THEY DO NOT COME FORWARD WITH AN INDICTMENT UNTIL THEY’RE READY. STATE PROSECUTORS DO NOT OFTEN HAVE THAT LUXURY. SOMETIMES THEY DO WHEN THEY’RE DOING A LONG-TERM INVESTIGATION, AS LONG AS THEY CAN GET IT IN IN THE TIME OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEIR BRINGS UP, AND I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER, IT’S NOT SO MUCH TODAY WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS TOMORROW. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE TITLE IS WHICH IS TO USE OVERSIGHT. AND SO THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONSIST INCIDENT WITH THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY JUST IGNORE ALL OF THIS. THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. >>THAT’S A GREAT POINT BECAUSE, KEIR, YOU POINTED OUT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY, THERE ARE SOME — THIS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION. SOME HAVE SAID, LOOK, IMPEACHMENT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL IN CONGRESS REMEMBER THAT AFTER PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED HE WAS MORE POPULAR THAN EVER. PEOPLE FELT THAT WAS A REAL WITCH HUNT SUPPOSED ONE THAT HAD TO — AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT HAD TO DO WITH AN INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN COLLUSION. SO IS CONGRESS ABDICATING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AS A POLITICAL TOOL AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT IS EMPOWERED IN THEIR OFFICE? >>SO, I MEAN, LET ME JUST COME AT THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY AS I THINK YOU’RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION, WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS’ ROLE HERE BE. >>RIGHT. >>AND IT’S NOT STRICTLY LIMITED TO IMPEACHMENT. MOLLY HOOPER HAS SAID ON THE AIR AND IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ME THAT CONGRESS HAS OTHER ALTERNATIVES, RIGHT? THEY CAN CENSURE, RIGHT, SOMETHING LESS THAN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BUT STILL EXPRESSING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT NORMAL, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE EXPECT FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION. CONGRESS ALSO OF COURSE HAS A ROLE TO MAKE LAWS. THEY HAVE — AND WE’VE SEEN SOME QUESTIONS IN THE HEARING ALREADY, YOU KNOW, ABOUT HARDENING OUR ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION OF CONGRESS IS NOT SIMPLY TO GIVE A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN ON IMPEACHMENT, IT’S BROADER THAN THAT. AND SO ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE NOW AS A RESULT OF THE GOOD EVIDENCE IN SOME CASES, IN THE MUELLER REPORT CAN OPEN UP, YOU KNOW, THESE INQUIRIES ON SORT OF DIFFERENT AREAS AND CONGRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK ABOUT CAN WE MAKE OUR LAWS BETTER TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF CENSURE, OR DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING MORE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES FOR OVERSIGHT. >>YEAH, BUT WITH THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, I’M JUST THINKING NOW ABOUT EMOLUMENTS AND ALL THESE THINGS THAT EXIST ALREADY THAT HAS NOT SEEMED TO MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PRESIDENCY. >>I WANT TO GO BACK TO EMOLUMENTS IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT UP. >>THE EMOLUMENTS CASE HAS GONE AWAY AND IS BACK AGAIN. >>YES, IT IS, WE GOT A GOOD JUDICIAL — WELL, IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE ABOUT WHAT THE EMOLLUMENTS CLAUSE MEANS, WE’VE JUST HAD ANOTHER JUDGE — >>CORRECT. >>– INTERPRET IT AND INTERPRET IT IN A WAY THAT I THINK MANY LEGAL SCHOLARS, INCLUDING MYSELF, WHICH I THINK WAS BROAD AND COMPORTS WITH THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. THEY INTENDED KIND OF A PREVENTIVE MEASURE WITH THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, AND SO THE REASON WE DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T HAD PRESIDENTS, AT LEAST FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS — >>RIGHT. >>– WHO, YOU KNOW, HAVE REALLY PUSHED AND TESTED THIS, THAT PARTICULAR CLAUSE, RIGHT, RIKKI? >>I THINK THAT’S EXACTLY CORRECT. SO IT IS BACK. AND I DO THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STYMIES THE DEMOCRATS AND STYMIES THE ANTI- TRUMPERS IS THE FACT THAT IT IS PERCEIVED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS FAMILY, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, SEEM TO GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING. WHATEVER THAT MEANS. >>THAT’S THE PERCEPTION. >>THAT’S THE PERCEPTION. >>THOSE WHO DON’T LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>I’M NOT SAYING IT’S MY OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS IT JUST SEEMS THAT THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS FAMILY GET TO DO THINGS THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS GOTTEN TO DO BEFORE WHICH ALSO BRINGS US BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE WITH THE PRESIDENT SAYING HE WANTS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL LIKE ROY COHEN. ROY COHEN WAS A FIXER. ROY COHEN WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF A PERSON LARGE AND WIDE THAT WE SHOULD NEVER WANT TO HAVE AS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL. HE MAY HAVE BEEN BRILLIANT WHICH BY ALL REPORTS HE WAS AND A SCHOLAR, BUT THAT WASN’T HIS JOB. >>YEAH. >>HIS JOB WAS TO GET STUFF DONE. >>FOR ORGANIZED CRIME MEMBERS, IF MY MEMORY AND MY EDUCATION SERVES. >>AMONG OTHERS. >>YEAH, AMONG OTHER PEOPLE. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE IS NOW SEATED THERE AT THE DESK, READY TO TAKE ON LAWMAKERS THERE ON CAPITOL HILL. I THINK WE CAN SORT OF DIP IN BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT TO BEGIN. SO LET’S LISTEN. >>SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THERE AND THIS IS THAT MOMENT WHERE THE PERSON WHO IS TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS OR BEFORE THE SENATE, YOU SEE ALL THOSE PHOTOGRAPHERS THERE GETTING ALL THOSE PICTURES, I ALWAYS FIND THAT TO BE THE MOST FASCINATING ASPECT OF THESE THINGS WHERE YOU’VE GOTTA SIT THERE AND STARE BLANKLY AT THE WALL AS PEOPLE TAKE PICTURES OF YOU, REALLY KIND OF REMARKABLE. BUT THIS IS JUST ABOUT TO GET STARTED IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. >>SENATOR FEINSTEIN TOLD US ON THE WAY — WE’LL GO AHEAD AND START. I THINK THE NEXT QUESTIONER IS REPUBLICAN SENATOR KENNEDY. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ABOUT ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS? >>JUST BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIRMAN. SENATOR CORNYN ASKED ME ABOUT DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS BEFORE, AND AS I SAID, THERE WERE DIFFERENT KINDS OF THEM, AND I WAS REFERRING TO THE KIND OF WHERE YOU WERE TOLD OF A SPECIFIC TARGET AND I’VE BEEN TOLD AT THE BREAK THAT A LESSER KIND OF BRIEFING, A SECURITY BRIEFING THAT GENERALLY DISCUSSES, YOU KNOW, GENERAL THREATS APPARENTLY WAS GIVEN TO THE CAMPAIGN IN AUGUST. >>THANK YOU. SENATOR KENNEDY. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR LETTING ME GO OUT OF ORDER. I PROMISE TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MR. CHAIRMAN — OR MR. — OR GENERAL, THANKS FOR COMING TODAY. HUMANS HAVE A UNIVERSAL NEED, I THINK, TO BE LISTENED TO, TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND TO BE VALIDATED, I THINK WE ALL SHARE THAT. I HAVE LISTENED TO THE MUELLER TEAM, I VALIDATE THEM, BUT I WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND THEM. HAS MR. MUELLER OR HIS TEAM CHANGED THEIR CONCLUSIONS? >>YOU MEAN DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION? >>NO, TODAY. IT’S CLEAR AT LEAST ACCORDING TO PRESS REPORTS — EXCUSE ME, GENERAL — THAT AT ONE POINT THE MUELLER TEAM WAS UNHAPPY. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH YOUR LETTER. WHAT MATTERS TO ME IS — AND I’LL GET TO THIS IN A MOMENT. I WANT TO KNOW, FIRST, HAS THE MUELLER TEAM CHANGED ITS MIND ON ITS CONCLUSIONS? >>ITS CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHAT? >>AS TO COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY AND CONSPIRACY? >>NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>SO THE DECISION NOT TO BRING AN INDICTMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FOR COLLUSION CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA HAS NOT CHANGED? >>NO, IT HASN’T. >>AND THE CONCLUSION TO NOT BRING AN INDICTMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAS NOT CHANGED? >>NO. >>OKAY. >>I TAKE IT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THE MUELLER TEAM WAS UNHAPPY WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM MR. MUELLER. ? >>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THE TEAM AS A WHOLE. >>ALL RIGHT. MR. MUELLER THEN? >>WHEN I TALKED TO BOB MUELLER, HE INDICATED HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESS COVERAGE THAT HAD GONE ON THE PREVIOUS FEW DAYS, AND HE FELT THAT WAS TO BE REMEDIED BY PUTTING OUT MORE INFORMATION. >>OKAY. I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY, AND THESE ARE MY WORDS, NOT YOURS, THE FIRST CONCERN THAT MR. MUELLER HAD, HE FELT LIKE YOUR LETTER WASN’T NUANCED ENOUGH. >>CORRECT. >>OKAY. THAT PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED, HAS IT NOT? >>WELL, IT WAS SORT OF SOLVED BY PUTTING OUT THE WHOLE REPORT. >>EXACTLY. >>WHICH WAS THE — THAT’S WHY I THINK THIS WHOLE THING IS SORT OF MIND-BENDINGLY BIZARRE BECAUSE I MADE CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT I WAS PUTTING OUT THE REPORT, AS MUCH OF THE REPORT AS I COULD, AND IT WAS CLEAR IT WAS GOING TO TAKE THREE WEEKS OR SO, MAYBE FOUR TO DO THAT, AND THE QUESTION IS WHAT’S THE PLACE HOLDER, AND THE PLACE HOLDER IN MY JUDGMENT WAS THE SIMPLE STATEMENT OF WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS WERE, AND I WASN’T GOING TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF FEEDING OUT MORE AND MORE INFORMATION S TIME WENT ON TO ADJUST TO WHAT THE PRESS WAS SAYING. >>AND THAT’S YOUR CALL AS ATTORNEY GENERAL? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>THAT WOULDN’T BE THE CALL OF A U.S. ATTORNEY OR A SPECIAL COUNSEL? >>NO, NOT AT ALL. >>OKAY. NOW, THE SECOND REASON — I MENTIONED THE NUANCE CONCERN. THE SECOND REASON THAT MR. MUELLER WAS CONCERNED — I DON’T WANT TO SAY UNHAPPY BECAUSE I’M NOT TRYING TO BE PEJORATIVE, I SAY CONCERNED, HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PRESS COVERAGE. >>HE INDICATED — HE FELT THAT WHAT WAS IN ACCURATE WAS THE PRESS COVERAGE AND WHAT THEY WERE INTERPRETING THE MARCH 24th LETTER TO SAY. >>AND WHAT WERE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT THAT? >>I WANTED TO PUT OUT THE FULL EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED IN THE REPORT, AND I SAID TO HIM I WASN’T INTERESTED — AND, BY THE WAY, THOSE SUMMARIES, EVEN WHEN HE SENT THEM APPARENTLY, THEY ACTUALLY REQUIRED LATER MORE REDACTION BECAUSE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. SO THE FACT IS WE DIDN’T HAVE READILY AVAILABLE SUMMARIES THAT HAD BEEN FULLY VETTED. BUT I MADE IT CLEAR TO HIM I WAS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PUTTING OUT PERIODIC SUMMARIES BECAUSE A SUMMARY WHICH START A WHOLE PUBLIC DEBATE, IT’S BY DEFINITION UNDERINCLUSIVE, AND I THOUGHT WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS FOCUS ON GETTING THE FULL REPORT OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHICH WE DID. >>AND THAT’S YOUR CALL AS ATTORNEY GENERAL? >>OF COURSE. >>AND THE NEWS COVERAGE ISSUE — WELL, NONE OF US CAN CONTROL WHAT THE NEWS PUBLISHES OR PRINTS EXCEPT THE MEDIA. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT AN ARGUMENT WAS MADE, THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE FULL REPORT, THAT’S A MOOT ISSUE NOW TOO, ISN’T IT? >>YES. >>CAN YOU BRIEFLY GO OVER WITH ME ONE MORE TIME — I FIND IT CURIOUS THAT THE MUELLER TEAM SPENT ALL THIS TIME INVESTIGATING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THEN REACHED NO CONCLUSION. TELL ME AGAIN BRIEFLY WHY MR. MUELLER TOLD YOU HE REACHED NO CONCLUSION OR HE COULDN’T MAKE UP HIS MIND OR WHATEVER — I’M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. >>I REALLY COULDN’T RECAPITULATE IT. IT WAS UNCLEAR TO US. WE FIRST DISCUSSED IT ON MARCH 5th. THE DEPUTY WAS WITH ME, ED O’CALLAGHAN, THE PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY, AND WE DIDN’T REALLY GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONING. AND THE REPORT I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE FULL LINE OF REASONING IS, AND THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS I DIDN’T WANT TO TRY TO PUT WORDS IN BOB MUELLER’S MOUTH. >>BUT HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO BRING AN INDICTMENT, WE KNOW THAT MUCH? >>RIGHT. >>REGARDLESS OF THE REASON. >>RIGHT. >>I’M GOING TO REPEAT QUICKLY IN LESS THAN ONE MINUTE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE. THIS IS ONE PERSON’S OPINION. AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I THINK THE F.B.I. IS THE PREMIER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, AND I BELIEVE THAT. I DO THINK THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE, MAYBE SOME ARE STILL THERE, WHO DECIDED IN 2016 TO ACT ON THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS. THERE WERE TWO INVESTIGATIONS HERE. ONE WAS THE INVESTIGATION OF DONALD TRUMP. THERE WAS ANOTHER INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON. I’D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT ONE STARTED TOO. AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WE ALL HAVE A DUTY IF NOT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO THE F.B.I. TO FIND OUT WHY THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE STARTED, WHO STARTED THEM AND THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY WERE STARTED. AND I HOPE YOU WILL DO THAT AND YOU WILL GET BACK TO US. AND THERE’S ANOTHER SHORT WAY HOME HERE AS WELL. ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS RELEASE, THE PRESIDENT CAN, RELEASE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AT THE F.B.I. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO THE 2016 ELECTION. NOW, YOU CAN REDACT NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION, BUT JUST RELEASE INSTEAD OF US GOING THROUGH ALL THIS SPIN AND INNUENDO AND LEAKS AND RUMORS, LET’S JUST LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THEM. AND THE FINAL POINT I’LL MAKE, WHEN YOU’RE INVESTIGATING LEAKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE F.B.I., I HOPE YOU WILL INCLUDE THE MUELLER TEAM AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>SENATOR KLOBUCHAR. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, I’M GOING TO TAKE US OUT OF THE WEEDS HERE BECAUSE I THINK THE AERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ELECTION FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE LAND. AND I’LL JUST GIVE MY VIEWS VERY QUICKLY AND NOT ASK YOU ABOUT THESE TOPICS. I THINK YOUR FOUR-PAGE LETTER WAS CLEARLY A SUMMARY AND THAT’S WHY DIRECTOR MUELLER CALLED IT A SUMMARY. I THINK WHEN SENATOR VAN HOLLEN AND REPRESENTATIVE CRIST ASKED YOU IF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DISAGREED WITH YOU UNDER OATH, YOU HAD TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY NOT TO AT LEAST MENTION THE FACT THAT HE HAD SENT YOU THIS LETTER, THAT YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT. AND THEN FINALLY I WOULD SAY THAT WE MUST HEAR FROM DIRECTOR MUELLER BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES’ QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE MEANT OR WHY HE SAID IT, AND I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM. SO I WANT TO FIRST START WITH RUSSIA. SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S REPORT FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTFERRED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION. LATER DIRECTOR WRAY HAS INFORMED US THAT 2018 WAS A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR THE BIG SHOW IN 2020. DIRECTOR COATS, THE PRESIDENT’S INTELLIGENCE ADVISER HAS TOLD US THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE GETTING BOLDER, YET FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS SENATOR LANKFORD AND I ON A BIPARTISAN BILL WITH SUPPORT FROM THE RANKING AND THE HEAD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE SECURE ELECTIONS ACT PASSED. THIS WOULD REQUIRE BACKUP PAPER BALLOTS IF ANYONE GETS FEDERAL FUNDING FOR AN ELECTION, IT WOULD REQUIRE AUDITS, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE BETTER COOPERATION, YET THE WHITE HOUSE JUST AS WE WERE ON THE VERGE OF GETTING A MARKUP IN THE RULES COMMITTEE, GETTING IT TO THE FLOOR WHERE I THINK WE WOULD GET THE VAST MAJORITY OF SENATORS, THE WHITE HOUSE MADE CALLS TO STOP THIS. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >>NO. >>OKAY. WELL, THAT HAPPENED. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOU AS OUR NATION’S CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IF YOU WILL WORK WITH SENATOR LANKFORD AND I TO GET THIS BILL DONE BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY CLOUT TO GET BACKUP PAPER BALLOTS IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG IN THIS ELECTION. >>WELL, I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF OUR ELECTION AND I’LL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU’RE PROPOSING. I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. >>OKAY. WELL, IT IS THE BIPARTISAN BILL. IT HAS SENATOR BURR AND SENATOR WARNER, ITS SUPPORT FROM SENATOR GRAHAM WAS ON THE BILL, SENATOR HARRIS IS ON THE BILL AND THE LEADS ARE SENATOR LANKFORD AND MYSELF, AND IT HAD SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE AS WELL. THE GRU, THE RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TARGETED THE U.S. STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ALONG WITH PRIVATE FIRMS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRONIC POLLING AND VOTER REGISTRATION. THE GRU ACCESSED VOTER INFORMATION AND INSTALLED MALWARE ON A VOTING TECHNOLOGY COMPANY’S NETWORK. I UNDERSTAND THE F.B.I. WILL BRIEF YOU AS SENATOR RICK SCOTT AND FLORIDA GOVERNOR DESANTIS ON EFFORTS BY RUSSIAN HACKERS TO GAIN ACCESS TO FLORIDA ELECTION DATA. WILL YOU COMMIT TO HAVE THE F.B.I. PROVIDE A BRIEFING TO ALL SENATORS ON THIS? >>JUST ON THE FLORIDA SITUATION? >>ON THE ENTIRE RUSSIA SITUATION. >>SURE. >>INCLUDING THE FLORIDA SITUATION. >>OKAY. THAT WILL BE HELPFUL. AGAIN, SENATOR LANKFORD AND I ARE TRYING TO GET OUR BILL PASSED AND I THINK IF EVERYONE HEARS ABOUT THIS, IT MAY HELP. ALSO ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THE I.R.A. PURCHASED OVER 3,500 ADS ON FACEBOOK TO UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY AS THE CHAIRMAN HAS POINTED OUT CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HEARD FROM A HIGH-RANKING OFFICIAL AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THIS WAS NOT JUST A FEW FACEBOOK ADS. I AM PLEASED THAT CHAIRMAN GRAHAM HAS AGREED TO BE THE LEAD REPUBLICAN ON THE HONEST ADS ACT THAT I INTRODUCED LAST YEAR WITH SENATOR McCAIN, AND WILL YOU HELP US TO TRY AT LEAST TO CHANGE OUR ELECTION LAWS SO THAT WE CAN SHOW WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM AND WHO’S PAYING FOR THESE ADS SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO THESE ADS? >>IN CONCEPT, YES. >>OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WE NEED THAT SUPPORT. NOW LET’S GO TO SOMETHING I NOTED IN YOUR — IN THE OPENING. YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS AT YOUR NOMINATION HEARING WERE ABOUT THE REPORT AND ABOUT MAKING THE REPORT PUBLIC. THERE WAS A THIRD CONCERN AND IT WAS SOMETHING I RAISED, AND THAT WAS YOUR VIEWS ON OBSTRUCTION. I ASKED YOU IF A PRESIDENT OR ANY PERSON CONVINCING A WITNESS TO CHANGE TESTIMONY WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND YOU SAID YES. THE REPORT FOUND THAT MICHAEL COHEN’S TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE BEFORE IT THAT THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY IMPLIED THAT COHEN’S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD COMMITTED CRIMES, DO YOU CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE A WITNESS TO CHANGE TESTIMONY? >>NO. I DON’T THINK THAT THAT COULD PASS MUSTER, THOSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS HE WAS MAKING COULD PASS MUSTER AS SUBORDINATION. >>BUT THIS IS A MAN IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE, IN THE MOST POWERFUL JOB IN OUR COUNTRY AND HE HAS BASICALLY — I’M TRYING TO THINK HOW SOMEONE WOULD REACT, ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS IMPLYING — GETTING OUT THERETHAT YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME, SO YOU DON’T CONSIDER THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE TESTIMONY? >>WELL, YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. YOU HAVE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT’S AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IS A CORRUPT INTENT. I DON’T THINK GENERAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS LIKE THAT HAVE — >>OKAY. >>WELL, WE COULD SHOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENTLY PROBABLE EFFECT — >>OKAY. THEN LET’S GO TO SOME PRIVATE STATEMENTS. THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL TOLD PAUL MANAFORT THAT HE WOULD BE, QUOTE, TAKEN CARE OF. THIS IS IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 123 TO 24, THAT YOU DON’T CONSIDER OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >>NO, NOT STANDING ALONE, BOTH — ON BOTH THE SAME REASONS. >>AND I THINK THAT IS MY POINT HERE. >>WHAT? >>YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT’S WHAT I LEARNED WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, YOU LOOK AT THE THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL TOLD MICHAEL COHEN THAT IF HE STAYED ON MESSAGE ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT THE PRESIDENT HAD HIS BACK. THAT’S VOLUME 2, PAGE 140. >>RIGHT. BUT I THINK THAT THE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT’S UNCLEAR WHETHER HE WAS REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMEN ON THAT. >>OKAY. THE REPORT FOUND THAT AFTER MANAFORT WAS CONVICTED THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED HIM A BRAVE MAN FOR REFUSING TO BREAK. >>YES. AND THAT IS NOT — AND THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT — THE EVIDENCE — I THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS WOULD SAY IF THIS WERE EVER ACTUALLY JOINED IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT FLIPPING ARE QUITE CLEAR AND EXPRESS AND UNIFORMLY THE SAME WHICH IS BY FLIPPING HE MEANT SUCCUMBING TO PRESSURE ON UNRELATED CASES TO LIE AND COMPOSE IN ORDER TO GET LEEIENT TREATMENT ON OTHER CASES, THAT IS NOT — IT’S A DISCOURAGING FLIPPING IN THAT SENSE IS NOT OBSTRUCTION. >>OKAY. WE’LL LOOK AT THE PATTERN HERE. THE REPORT FOUND THAT AFTER COHEN’S RESIDENCE AND OFFICE WERE SEARCHED BY THE F.B.I. THE PRESIDENT TOLD COHEN TO HANG IN THERE AND STAY STRONG. THE COURT FOUND THAT AFTER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MICHAEL FLYNN RESIGNED THE PRESIDENT MADE PUBLIC POSITIVE COMMENTS ABOUT HIM, AND THEN WHEN HE COOPERATED CHANGED HIS TUNE. DURING YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING, I ASKED YOU WHETHER A PRESIDENT DELIBERATELY IMPAIRING THE INTEGRITY OR AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION, AND YOU RESPONDED YES. AND THIS IS A DIFFERENT TAKE ON SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S QUESTION. WOULD CAUSING McGAHN, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED — ORDERED HIM TO HAVE THE — WHEN McGAHN, HE TOLD HIM TO DENY REPORTS, RIGHT, HE TELLS McGAHN DENY REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED HIM TO HAVE THE COUNSEL FIRED. IF YOU DON’T SEE THAT AS OBSTRUCTION AND DIRECTING HIM TO CHANGE TESTIMONY, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD CREATE A FALSE RECORD TO IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE? >>IT FAILS ON — THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH ANY OF THE THREE ELEMENTS THERE. FIRST, IT’S NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT BECAUSE IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT TO BE FALSE. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT’S FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT I NEVER TOLD YOU TO FIRE McGAHN — DID I EVER SAY FIRE? I NEVER TOLD YOU TO FIRE McGAHN. McGAHN — >>I’M GETTING AT SOMETHING THAT IS ABOUT IMPAIRING THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE, I JUST SEE IT AS DIFFERENT. >>THE SECOND THING IT’S HARD TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS TO THE PROCEEDING BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAD TESTIFIED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. HE’D GIVEN HIS EVIDENCE. AS THE REPORT ITSELF SAYS, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY THOUGHT AND BELIEVED THAT “THE TIMES” ARTICLE WAS WRONG. THAT’S EVIDENCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SIDE OF THE LEDGER, THAT HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG AND WAS ASKING FOR ITS CORRECTION. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THE REPORT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT WAS DIRECTED AT THE PUBLICITY AND THE PRESS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVE THINGS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND AS THE REPORT SHOWS, THERE’S AMPLE EVIDENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER THAT WOULD PRESENT — PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM ESTABLISHING THAT. >>OKAY. AGAIN, I LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT IS A PATTERN, AND THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN HAVING ONE INCIDENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>YES, MA’AM. SENATOR SASSE. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GENERAL BARR, I’D LIKE TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA AND YOUR OPENING STATEMENT LAID OUT SOME OF WHAT THE GRU HAD DONE, WHAT RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE HAD DONE IN TERMS OF HACKING. I’D ALSO LOOK TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE OLIGARCHS AND SOME OF THE CORRUPTION SO CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH PUTIN. VOLUME 1, PAGES 129 TO 144 ARE LARGELY ABOUT DERIPOAASK A. CAN YOU TELL US WHO HE IS AND WHAT HIS OBJECTIVES ARE? >>I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO THAT IN THIS OPEN SETTING. >>WELL, I’LL AT LEAST QUOTE THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. SO HE IS A DESIGNATED INDIVIDUAL, HE POSSESSES A RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT, HE REGULARLY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, HE’S IN ALUMINUM AND OTHER METALS BILLIONAIRE AND HE’S BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND BY OTHER OF OUR ALLIES FOR MONEY LAUNDERING. HE’S BEEN ACCUSED OF THREATENING THE LIVES OF HIS BUSINESS PEOPLE, TAKING PART IN EXTORTION AND RACKETEERING SCHEMES. HE’S BRIBED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HE’S ORDERED THE MURDER OF A BUSINESSMAN AND HE HAS MANY LINKS TO ORGANIZED RUSSIA CRIME. WE CAN AT LEAST IN AN OPEN SETTING THAT HE IS A BAD DUDE, RIGHT? THIS IS A BOTTOM-FEEDING SCUM SUCKER AND HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO — I’LL TAKE YOUR LAUGH AS AGREEMENT. AND HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ALIGNMENT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE U.S. PEOPLE AND OUR PUBLIC. SO THE SECTION OF VOLUME 1 THAT DEALS WITH NO, MA’AMINNALLY PAUL MANAFORT BUT IT REALLY ABOUT DERAPAASK A, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HELP US HAVE AN AMERICAN PUBLIC 101 UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS AND ISN’T ALLOWED, SO PAUL MANAFORT IS HIRED BY DERAPASKA OBJECT EXTENSIVELY FOR THINGS TO UKRAINE. THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF FAILED BUSINESS VENTURES IT LOOKS LIKE OVER TIME, BUT HE’S ON THE PAYROLL OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH THAT IS COMPLETELY MISALIGNED WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE INTERESTS OF NATO AND HE’S ON HIS PAYROLL. IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO BE PAID BY SOMEBODY WHO’S BASICALLY AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND COULD THAT INDIVIDUAL JUST VOLUNTEER AND START TO DONATE THEIR TIME AND TALENT AND EXPERTISE TO A CAMPAIGN IN THE U.S.? AND I MEAN THIS — LET ME INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND AND SAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS PAINFULLY TRAGIC ABOUT A HEARING LIKE THIS, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TUNE IT OUT, AND THOSE THAT PAY ATTENTION ARE GOING TO THINK THE ONLY TWO TAKEAWAYS YOU NEED TO KNOW IS A BENCH OF PEOPLE WERE PRO-TRUMP BEFORE THEY CAME, AND THEY STAYED PRO- TRUMP, AND THEY WERE ANTI-TRUMP AND WE DIDN’T DIG INTO ANY OF WHAT THE REPORT ACTUALLY SAYS. I THINK THESE 448 PAGES SAY A BUNCH OF REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE, OUR PUBLIC, OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR PUBLIC TRUST AND I THINK IT ISN’T JUST ABOUT 2016. THERE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT 2016. CHAIRMAN GRAHAM SUMMARIZED AT THE BEGINNING HOW MUCH MONEY AND TIME WAS AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND HIS TEAM TO DO THEIR WORK, SO THERE ARE A BUNCH OF FACTUAL MATTERS ABOUT 2016 THAT MATTER. BUT IF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS IS THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE — IT NEEDS TO BE THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE UNDER ATTACK AGAIN IN 2020, AND IT ISN’T JUST GOING TO BE RUSSIA WHO’S PRETTY DANGED CLUNKY AT THIS STUFF, BUT IT’S ALSO OVER TIME GOING TO BE CHINA WHO IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED ABOUT THIS STUFF. CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT A LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ABOUT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BEING INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS, AND WHAT SHOULD AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND ESPECIALLY AMERICAN CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES KNOW ABOUT WHAT’S APPROPRIATE AND NOT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE IN THE FORM OF HELP FROM FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES? >>I MEAN, THAT’S A VERY BROAD TOPIC WHAT IS LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. COULD YOU REFINE IT A LITTLE BIT? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PROPAGANDA, THAT KIND OF THING COMING INTO THE COUNTRY? >>COULD — >>OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN’T PUT MONEY, FOREIGN MONEY OBVIOUSLY INTO A CAMPAIGN. >>YEAH, BUT COULD YOU TAKE — COULD RUSSIA, CHINA, I’M MAKING UP A COUNTRY DECIDE TO COME INTO THE UNITED STATES AND LOOK AT ALL THE POLITICAL TALENT, MAKE A DATABASE. BY THE WAY, THE OPM HACK IN 2014 TELL US THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN CREATING DATABASES OF PEOPLE THEY CAN POTENTIALLY USE AS LEVERAGE AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS. MORE THAN 20 MILLION PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IN THIS RECRUITMENT DATABASE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA. COULD THEY COME IN AND BUILD A DATABASE OF ALL CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES IN THE U.S. AND SOME FOREIGN ENTITY JUST DECIDE TO HIRE ALL OF THEM, AND THEN SAY WHY DON’T YOU GO AND VOLUNTEER FOR THIS CAMPAIGN AND YOU GO AND VOLUNTEER FOR THAT CAMPAIGN. COULD WE HAVE CHAIRMAN AND WOMEN RUNNING AROUND THE U.S. WHO HAVE CAMPAIGN TALENT AND EXPERIENCE PAID FOR BY FOREIGN ENTITIES JUST CHOOSING TO VOLUNTEER ON CAMPAIGNS GOING FORWARD, IS THAT LEGAL? >>IF THEIR TIME IS PAID FOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN A CAMPAIGN, I WOULDN’T THINK IT’S ILLEGAL. >>BUT GIVEN HOW SLEAZY SO MUCH OF THIS CITY IS AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE LIVE ON RETAINERS OF $15 AND $20 AND $30,000 A MONTH, IS IT ALWAYS OBVIOUS WHAT YOU’RE PAID FOR VERSUS WHAT YOU DO, SO SOME RUSSIAN OLIGARCH JUST DECIDES TO START PUTTING AMERICAN CAMPAIGN PERSONNEL ON RETAINER PAYMENTS AND SAY WE MAY NEED YOU TO LOBBY SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE, THEY’VE GOT VIEWS ABOUT OIL PIPELINES AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES INTO GERMANY, WE’LL JUST HOLD YOU ON RETAINER, AND, BY THE WAY, YOU’RE A PERSON WHO LIKES TO WORK FOR SPECIFIC CAMPAIGNS AND PARTIES AND CAUSES, GO DO WHATEVER THE HECK YOU WANT WHENEVER YOU WANT, IS THAT A PLACE WE SHOULD HEAD? IS THAT ALLOWED UNDER U.S. LAW TODAY? >>WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT, WHO THE PERSON IS REPRESENTING, ARE THEY REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, ARE THEY A FOREIGN AGENT, ARE THEY REGISTERED, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE COULD — IT’S A SLIPPERY AREA AND WE COULD SIT HERE ALL DAY AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC — >>I ONLY HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. I DON’T GET ALL DAY. BUT YOU’RE THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO HAVE A SHARED UNDERSTANDING AS WE HEAD TOWARD THE 2020 ELECTION OF WHAT CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES SHOULD WELL UNDERSTAND IS BEYOND THE PALE. SO IF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO START HACKING INTO 2020 CAMPAIGNS, I WOULD HOPE THERE’S CLARITY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE TRUMP RE- ELECTION CAMPAIGN ARE ALLOWED TO SAY, HEY, WE’RE INTERESTED IN THIS HACKED MATERIAL GOING FORWARD. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE CLARITY ABOUT A QUESTION LIKE THAT, AND I THINK AS SOMEBODY WHO SITS NOT JUST ON JUDICIARY, BUT ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, I THINK THERE ARE A BUNCH OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE CAMPAIGNS DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAWS ARE, AND I THINK WE NEED A LOT MORE CLARITY ABOUT IT BECAUSE I’M — LET ME AT LEAST GIVE IT TO YOU THIS VERSION AS A PRECISE QUESTION. THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITIONS ACT, ONCE YOU HAVE A DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT AND A REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO IS WE START TO BRIEF THEM ON IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WOULD BECOME THE PREDICT, YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW — THE PRESIDENT-ELECT, YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN DIFFERENT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. SHOULD WE BE ADDING TO THE TRANSITIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ACT SHOULD WE THE CONGRESS BE THINKING VERY INTENSELY ABOUT AUTHORIZING THE ABILITY OF THE BUREAU AND IN A SHARED BROADER I.C. CONTEXT, BUT WITH THE BUREAU OR HOMELAND SECURITY BEING PROBABLY THE INTERFACE ENTITY, SHOULD NOMINEES FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND HEADING INTO 2020 BE RECEIVING REGULAR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS ON THE FACT THAT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ARE GOING TO SURROUND PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE PEOPLE OF INFLUENCE AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD THEY WIN? >>ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THE DANGER FROM COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA, RUSSIA AND SO FORTH IS FAR MORE INSIDIOUS THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST BECAUSE OF NON- TRADITIONAL COLLECTORS THAT THEY HAVE OPERATING IN THE UNITED STATES. AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE UNAWARE OF HOW PERVASIVE IT IS AND WHAT THE RISK LEVEL IS. AND I THINK IT ACTUALLY SHOULD GO FAR BEYOND EVEN CAMPAIGNS, MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT HAVE TO BE EDUCATED ON THIS. >>THANK YOU. I’M OUT OF TIME, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU AND THE BROADER INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ON THAT MORE. I THINK THERE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHO KNOW WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR ATTEMPT TO ENCIRCLE LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE INFLUENCE IN THE FUTURE, AND I THINK WE — NOT JUST THE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT EFFORT, BUT AS A WHOLE OF SOCIETY EFFORT HAVE TO BECOME MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED ABOUT WHAT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AND ESPECIALLY THE CHINESE ARE PLOTTING FOR THE FUTURE. >>IF I COULD JUST SAY THAT THE PATTERN IS WHENEVER THERE IS AN ELECTION FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR OPERATIVES FREQUENTLY DESCEND ON THE PEOPLE WHO THEY THINK COULD HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING, AND IT’S COMMON, AND THE MOST TYPICAL SCENARIO IS THAT THEY DO TRY TO MAKE CONTACTS AND SO FORTH. SO — >>AND IN A DIGITAL CYBER ERA, YOU DON’T NEED A BAR AND A HOOKER ANYMORE, YOU CAN SURROUND PEOPLE DIGITALLY MUCH EASIER, AND WE KNOW THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE HAVING THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS IN THE FUTURE AND WE NEED TO UP OUR GAME. THANKS. >>MINUS THE BAR AND THE HOOKER, WE’LL HAVE HEARINGS ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF. SENATOR >>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, THANK YOU ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, AND I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THAT LINE OF QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SASSE AND KLOBUCHAR. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED FIRST TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIA’S ATTACK ON OUR DWNZ ELECTION AND — 2016 ELECTION AND POTENTIAL COORDINATION WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I’M GLAD THE CHAIRMAN STARTED THIS HEARING BY RECOGNIZING WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THAT DEMONSTRABLE ASSAULT ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND TO PROTECT OUR ELECTIONS GOING FORWARD, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES WHETHER IT’S ON SANCTIONS BILLS OR IT’S ON THE LANKFORD/KLOBUCHAR BILL, BUT WE GENERALLY NEED LEADERSHIP FROM YOU, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND OUR PRESIDENT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT OUR NEXT ELECTION. BUT, FRANKLY, WE ALSO CAN’T IGNORE VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT WHICH I THINK DETAILS UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN. AND THAT INCLUDES TRYING TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WITHOUT CAUSE. I APPRECIATED THE LEADERSHIP OF SENATORS GRAHAM AND TILLIS, BOOKER AND I IN A BILL TO TRY AND PROTECT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, SOMETHING I THINK IS STILL WORTH DOING FOR FUTURE SPECIAL COUNSELS. WE WERE TOLD BY MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES THERE WAS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WASN’T GOING TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. BUT I WAS PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY SOME REPORTS IN THE SECOND VOLUME THAT THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO DO EXACTLY THAT. AND I FRANKLY, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, HAVE CONCERNS THAT YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER OBSCURED THAT CONDUCT, AND AS A RESULT WORKED TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, RATHER THAN GIVE THE FULL TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS I KNOW BELIEVE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER WAS URGING YOU TO DO AS REFLECTED IN THE LETTER WE JUST RECEIVED TODAY. SO I’M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WORK FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. ACCORDING TO SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S REPORT, IN JUNE OF 2017 PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL McGAHN AND DIRECTED HIM TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSELREMOVED. AND I QUOTE, AND THIS IS FROM ABOUT PAGE 85, 86. McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM AT HOME TWICE, AND ON BOTH OCCASIONS DIRECTED HIM TO CALL ROSENSTEIN AND STAY THAT MUELLER HAD CONFLICTS AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. THERE WERE NO CREDIBLE CONFLICTS. McGAHN TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD SHARED THAT THESE CONFLICTS WERE SILLY, WERE NOT REAL AND CHRIS CHRISTIE ADVISED PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT THE SAME TIME THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIVE BASES, NO GOOD CAUSE TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. IN ONE CALL THE PRESIDENT SAID CALL ROD, TELL ROD MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS, CAN’T BE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO. AND I ASSUME HE DIDN’T MEAN GO TO CLEVELAND OR GO TO SEATTLE, HE MEANT GO, BE FIRED, CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. I THINK THE PRESIDENT’S COMMANDS TO FIRE MUELLER WITHOUT — DEMANDS TO FIRE MUELLER WITHOUT CAUSE ARE % UNACCEPTABLE. AND MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT ONE BIT OF WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WAS IN YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE, WAS IT? >>NO. I WASN’T — >>BUT IT WAS IN THE SUMMARIES THAT WERE OFFERED TO YOU BY SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND HIS TEAM WHICH YOU CHOSE NOT TO RELEASE, IS THAT CORRECT? WERE IN COMPLETE FORM IN THE FINAL REPORT WHICH I WAS STRIVING TO MAKE PUBLIC AND IN WHICH I DID MAKE PUBLIC. >>AND WHICH I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE. BUT A CRITICAL THREE WEEKS PASSED BETWEEN WHEN YOU DELIVERED THE LETTER WITH THE FOCUS ON THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND WHEN WE ULTIMATELY GOT THE REDACTED REPORT, AND WHAT I TAKE FROM THE MUELLER LETTER — >>WHY WERE THEY CRITICAL? >>WELL, I THINK THAT THE VOLUME 2 SUMMARY WOULD HAVE REVEALED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC A WHOLE RANGE OF INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CORE TEAM. I’LL GO TO A SECOND EPISODE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. ON FEBRUARY 5th OF 2018, OVER A WEEK AFTER THIS STORY BROKE PUBLICLY THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED THAT McGAHN CREATE A FALSE RECORD SAYING THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE PRESIDENT WASN’T LOOKING FOR A PRESS STATEMENT HERE, HE WASN’T LOOKING TO CORRECT THE RECORD. HE WANTED A FRAUDULENT RECORD FOR WHITE HOUSE RECORDS, A LETTER THAT WASN’T TRUE. McGAHN REFUSED TO DO IT. AGAIN, THERE’S NOTHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD IN YOUR MARCH 24th LETTER, IS THERE? >>WELL, THAT’S YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF IT, AND I’VE BEEN THROUGH IT A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE THAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. >>AND AN IMPORTANT POINT HERE — >>THERE THEY ARE VERY PLAUSIBLE, ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS. BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET OUT WAS THE FINAL REPORT AND HAVE ONE ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLETE REPORT. I MADE IT CLEAR IN THE MARCH 24th LETTER THAT BOB MUELLER DIDN’T MAKE A DECISION, BUT THAT HE FELT HE COULD NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>I WASN’T HIDING THE BALL ON WHERE MUELLER WAS — AND THAT HE WAS PRESENTING BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, ALL THE EVIDENCE, BUT HE WAS NOT MAKING A CALL, BUT THAT HE FELT HE COULDN’T EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. AND THEN I BRIEFLY DESCRIBED THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH TO MAKE A JUDGMENT INTERNAL INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND AS I SAY, FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDPOINT I FELT THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE THING ISSUED AND IT SHOULD BE THE COMPLETE REPORT, AS COMPLETE AS IT COULD BE. >>AND I KNOW WE DIFFER IN OUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANT, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT GAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS FOLKS MORE THAN THREE WEEKS OF AN OPEN FIELD TO SAY I WAS COMPLETELY EXONERATED WHEN HAD YOU RELEASED THE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND VOLUME, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE MOTIVATED THAN EVER BASED ON THE FIRST VOLUME TO WORK COOPERATIVELY TO PROTECT OUR NEXT ELECTION AND MORE CONCERNED THAN EVER ABOUT MISDEEDS, ABOUT INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT AND BY SOME OF HIS CORE TEAM AS A RESULT OF THIS SUMMARY OF THE SECOND VOLUME. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU’VE HAD A NUMBER OF EXCHANGES WITH COLLEAGUES WHERE YOU’VE SAID I CAN’T TELL YOU WHY MUELLER CHOSE NOT TO CHARGE, I WANT TO HEAR THAT FROM BOB MUELLER. I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER. LET ME MOVE ON TO A POINT THAT SENATOR SASSE WAS JUST ASKING THAT I THINK IS WORTH REVISITING ABOUT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ROLE IN OUR ELECTIONS. THE REASON WE HAD THIS INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS WAS TOLD THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON. THE RUSSIANS HAD A DIRECT CONTACT TO DONALD TRUMP, JR. AND OFFERED TO GIVE DIRT ABOUT HIS FATHER’S OPPONENT. DONALD TRUMP, JR. SAID I LOVE IT AND INVITED THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT’S SON-IN- LAW TO THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN TO A MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS. >>WHO DID YOU SAY OFFERED IT? WHO DID YOU SAY OFFERED IT? >>IN THE SECOND INSTANCE IT WAS RUSSIANS MADE AN OFFER TO DONALD TRUMP. I HAVE 30 SECONDS. LET ME GET TO A QUESTION, IF I COULD. GOING FORWARD, WHAT IF A FOREIGN ADVERRARY, LET’S SAY NOW NORTH KOREA OFFERS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIRT ON A COMPETITOR IN 2020? DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THE CAMPAIGN SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE F.B.I.? >>FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE? >>A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. >>YES. >>HAVE DIRT ON AN OPPONENT, LOIV IT, LET’S MEET, OR SHOULD THEY CONTACT THE F.B.I.? >>THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE DOES, YES. >>HERE’S MY CORE CONCERN. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO HAVE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FIRED. HE FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO COVER IT UP, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD MAKE A CRIMINAL CHARGE OF THIS, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. AND EVERYONE WHO SAID WE DIDN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS FLAT OUT WRONG. THE RUSSIANS OFFERED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN NEVER REPORTED THAT TO THE F.B.I. INSTEAD THEY TRIED TO CONCEAL THE MEETING AND MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO WORK ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS GOING FORWARD TO PROTECT OUR ELECTIONS FROM A REPEAT OF THIS, AND WE NEED YOUR LEADERSHIP AND THE PRESIDENT’S. YOU SOMEHOW CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND YOU ANNOUNCED THAT YOU HAD CLEARED THE PRESIDENT 25 DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC COULD READ THE MUELLER REPORT FOR THEMSELVES. I THINK IT’S NO WONDER SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER THOUGHT YOUR FOUR-PAGE LETTER CREATED PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THAT THAT THREATENED TO UNDERMINE THE SPRAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED. I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER. I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM DON McGAHN, AND I THINK WE NEED TO REVIEW HOW WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE GOING FORWARD THE FACT THAT YOU ARE SUPERVISING 12 ONGOING CASES THAT CAME OUT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND HAVE BEEN REFERRED. THIS BODY HAS A CENTRAL ROLE IN OVERSIGHT THAT I BELIEVE WE NEED TO EXERCISE GIVEN YOUR RECENT RECORD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>SENATOR HAWLEY. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GENERAL BARR, I COMMEND YOUR CANDOR IN CALLING WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WHAT IT IS WHICH IS SPYING ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND SPYING ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I’D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SPYING. úCOUNTERINTE INVESTIGATIONS LIKE THE ONE WE NOW KNOW THE F.B.I. LAUNCHED AGAINST CANDIDATE TRUMP AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, THOSE ARE DESIGNED TO THWART SPYING AND SABOTAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS THE F.B.I. EVER LAUNCHED A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF ANOTHER PRESIDENT THAT YOU’RE AWARE OF? >>NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>SO IT’S SAFE TO SAY THAT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THIS MOVE WAS COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED? >>TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>WOULD IT BE UNUSUAL IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE FOR F.B.I. AGENTS TO HIDE THE EXISTENCE AND RESULTS OF AN INVESTIGATION, SUCH AN INVESTIGATION FROM THEIR SUPERIORS? >>DID YOU SAY WOULD IT BE TYPICAL? >>NO. WOULD IT BE UNUSUAL? >>VERY UNUSUAL. >>YES. AND, IN FACT, THAT IS INDEED WHAT PRESS REPORTS SUGGEST HAPPENED HERE. WHEN F.B.I. OFFICIALS HIDE INVESTIGATIONS FROM SUPERIORS, IS THERE ANYBODY TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT INSTANCE? >>THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. >>HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THE DECISION BY THE F.B.I. TO WHY THEY HAVE LAUNCHED A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >>I AM LOOKING INTO IT AND I HAVE LOOKED INTO IT. >>AND YOU WILL — WILL YOU COMMIT TO TELLING US WHAT YOU FIND IS THE RESULT OF YOUR OWN REVIEW AND INVESTIGATION? >>WELL, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN I FORM CONCLUSIONS, I INTEND TO SHARE IT. >>I’LL TAKE THAT AS A YES. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE 25th AMENDMENT, IF I MIGHT FOR JUST A MOMENT. WE KNOW THAT FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I. ANDY MCCABE, HE’S PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE CONTEMPLATED FORCING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE USING THE 25th AMENDMENT. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAVE F.B.I. OFFICIALS EVER CONTEMPLATED FORCING ANY OTHER PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AGAINST HIS WILL USING THAT PROVISION? >>NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>THE 25th AMENDMENT CONTEMPLATES THE VICE PRESIDENT TAKING OVER AS PRESIDENT WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS UNABLE TO ACT, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT TEXT CONTEMPLATES PHYSICAL AILMENTS LIKE A COMA, MENTAL INKA PASSTATION, NOT JUST POLITICAL DIFFERENCES OF OPINION? >>YES. >>HAVE YOU EVER DOUBTED SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT IS PHYSICALLY ABLE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES, HIS DUTIES AS PRESIDENT? >>NO. >>WOULD YOU AGREE THAT DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE F.B.I. OF FORCING THE PRESIDENT OUT OF OFFICE FOR POLITICAL REASONS GIVES THE PUBLIC AT BEST REASON TO QUESTION WHAT THE F.B.I. IS DOING AND TO FEAR THAT THERE MAY BE ABUSES OF POWER IN THAT ORGANIZATION? >>I THINK IT GIVES REASONS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED. I DON’T ATTRIBUTE IT TO THE ORGANIZATION. >>SPEAKING OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INVOLVED, I HAVE TO SAY, I’VE LISTENED TO THIS TESTIMONY ALL DAY TODAY, AND TO ME MAYBE THE MOST SHOCKING THING I’VE HEARD IS THIS, CHAIRMAN READ IT EARLIER, AUGUST 26th, 2016, THIS IS A TEXT MESSAGE FROM PETER STRZOK, A TOP COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATOR WHO WE NOW KNOW HELPED LAUNCH THIS COUNTER SPY INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. PETER STRZOK SAYS JUST WENT TO A SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WAL-MART. I COULD SMELL THE TRUMP SUPPORT. SMELL IS CAPITALIZED. JUST WENT TO A SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WAL-MART. I COULD SMELL THE TRUMP SUPPORT. MY VIEW, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON HERE, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION REALLY HAPPENED, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY WE’RE ALL SITTING HERE TODAY? THAT’S WHY IS BECAUSE AN UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT, AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS GOVERNMENT WHO CLEARLY HAS OPEN DISDAIN, IF NOT OUTRIGHT HATRED FOR TRUMP VOTERS, LIKE THE PEOPLE FROM MY STATE, FOR INSTANCE, I SMELLED THE TRUMP SUPPORT, THEN TRIED TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. THAT’S WHAT’S REALLY GONE ON HERE, THAT’S THE STORY. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT A TOP OFFICIAL OF THIS GOVERNMENT WITH THE KIND OF POWER THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD WOULD TRY TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN PREJUDICES, AND THAT’S WHAT THIS IS, IT’S OPEN BLATANT PREJUDICE, WOULD TRY TO USE THAT IN ORDER TO OVERTURN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION, AND TO MY MIND, THAT’S THE REAL CRISIS HERE, AND IT IS A CRISIS BECAUSE IF THERE’S NOT AT KILT, IF THIS CAN GO ON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MY GOODNESS, GRACIOUS WE DON’T HAVE A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE. I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP. AND MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THE RESULTS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS COMMITTEE CONTINUING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AND MAKING SURE THAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS VINDICATED AND ESTABLISHED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, ATTORNEY BARR, FOR BEING HERE TODAY. YOU’VE BEEN VERY ADETROIT AND AGE IL IN YOUR RESPONSES TO — AGILE IN YOUR QUESTIONS HERE, BUT I THINK HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU HARSHLY AND MAYBE A BIT UNFAIRLY BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO HAVE BEEN THE DESIGNATED FALL GUY FOR THIS REPORT. AND I THINK THAT CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE IN LIGHT OF THE FOUR-PAGE SUMMARY AND THEN THE PRESS CONFERENCE YOU DID ON THE DAY IT WAS RELEASED KNOWING THAT YOU HAD IN HAND A LETTER FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYING THAT HE FELT THAT YOU MISCHARACTERIZED HIS REPORT, AND YOU WERE ASKED BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, SENATOR VAN HOLLEN WHETHER YOU KNOW — WHETHER YOU KNEW THAT BOB MUELLER SUPPORTED YOUR CONCLUSION AND YOU SAID I DON’T KNOW WHETHER BOB MUELLER SUPPORTED MY CONCLUSION. YOU WERE ASKED BY REPRESENTATIVE CRIST — >>EXCUSE ME, SENATOR. THAT CONCLUSION WAS NOT RELATED TO MY DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDINGS IN THE MARCH 24th LETTER. THAT CONCLUSION REFERS TO MY CONCLUSION ON THE OBJECT INSTRUCTION CASES. SO IT’S A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. >>THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WAS USED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND ON THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE AT PAGE 8 AND 182 OF THE REPORT. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY SAID AT THE SAME TIME, I’M QUOTING, IF WE HAD KV KENS AFTER A THOR — CONFIDENCE AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WE WOULD SO STATE. HE SAID IT AGAIN AT PAGE 182 AND IN YOUR SUMMARY AND IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT YOU DID YOU IN EFFECT CLEARED THE PRESIDENT ON BOTH SO-CALLED COLLUSION. >>THE DIFFERENCE IS I USED THE PROPER STANDARD. THAT STATEMENT YOU JUST READ IS ACTUALLY A VERY STRANGE STATEMENT FOR A PROSECUTOR — >>ON FOUR OF THE SPECIFIC OBSTRUCTION EPISODES ROBERT MUELLER CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON FOUR — ON THE THREE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION. >>WELL, YOU’RE — YOU’RE A PROSECUTOR. >>I HAVE TO FINISH MY QUESTION. >>YOU HAVEN’T LET ME FINISH MY ANSWER. >>WELL, LET ME JUST FINISH THE QUESTION. >>WE CAN DO BOTH. >>ALL RIGHT, GOOD. >>YOU IGNORED IN THAT PRESS CONFERENCE AND IN THE SUMMARY THAT ROBERT MUELLER FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IT’S IN THE REPORT, AND WE HAVE A CHART THAT SHOWS THE ELEMENTS OF THAT CRIME, INTENT, INTERFERENCE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND THE OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. SO I THINK THAT YOUR CREDIBILITY IS UNDERMINED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, IN THIS COMMITTEE AND WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU WHETHER ON THOSE REMAINING INVESTIGATIONS, THE 12 TO 14 INVESTIATIONS WHETHER YOU HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>NO. >>AND WILL YOU GIVE US AN IRON- CLAD COMMITMENT THAT YOU WILL IN NO WAY — >>I’M NOT SURE — YOU KNOW, THE LAUNDRY LIST OF INVESTIGATIONS. BUT I CERTAINLY HAVEN’T TALKED TO SUBSTANCE OR BEEN DIRECTED TO DO ANYTHING ON ANY OF THE CASES. >>WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY. HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT THOSE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE SPAWNED OR SPUN OFF BY — >>I DON’T RECALL HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION ON THE INVESTIGATION. >>HAVE YOU HAD ANY NON- SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION? >>IT’S POSSIBLE THAT A NAME OF A CASE WAS MENTIONED. >>AND HAVE YOU PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OF THOSE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS? ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER? >>I DON’T RECALL, NO. >>YOU DON’T RECALL? >>I DON’T RECALL PROVIDING ANY — >>WOULDN’T YOU RECALL ABOUT WHETHER YOU GAVE INFORMATION TO SOMEBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? >>YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST DON’T RECALL PROVIDING ANY SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT A CASE. >>IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? >>IF I PROBABLY LOOKED OVER A LIST OF CASES AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT. BUT I DON’T RECALL — >>YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS ARE? WE’VE DISCUSSED THEM AT YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING, CORRECT? >>I THINK THERE ARE 12 OR 18 CASES, RIGHT? >>YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS ARE? >>I DO GENERALLY, BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN’T REMEMBER EACH — >>LET ME ASK YOU ONE LAST TIME. YOU CAN’T RECALL WHETHER YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THOSE CASES WITH ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>MY RECOLLECTION IS I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THOSE. >>BUT YOU DON’T RECALL FOR SURE? >>I CAN SAY VERY SURELY I DID NOT DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE — >>WILL YOU RECUSE YOURSELF úFR >>NO. >>LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A COUPLE OF QUOTES FROM THE PRESIDENT SINCE A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RAISED THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, AND THESE ARE FROM THE REPORT, UNTRUTHSTRUTHS RECITED BY THE REPORT FROM — RECITED BY THE REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT IN 2016 WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY’S CONCLUSION THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION TO BOOST TRUMP’S CHANCES. HE SAID, QUOTE, I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT’S RUSSIA, CHINA OR SOMEBODY. IT COULD BE SOMEBODY SITTING IN A BED SOME PLACE. >>400-POUND PERSON. >>I’M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>400-POUND PERSON SITTING ON A BED. >>THAT ISN’T WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID. HE REFERRED TO IT AS SOMEBODY. >>HE ALSO AT HELSINKI DENIED RUSSIAN ATTACKS IN 2016 ON OUR ELECTION, ANOTHER LIE. TWO DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ELECTED RUSSIAN OFFICIALS TOLD THE PRESS THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT HAD MAINTAINED CONTACTS WITH TRUMP’S, QUOTE, IMMEDIATE ENTOURAGE, UNQUOTE, DURING THE CAMPAIGN, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT IT, HE SAID, QUOTE, THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND ANY FOREIGN ENTITY DURING THE CAMPAIGN, THAT’S AT PAGE 21 OF VOLUME 2, THE FIRST QUOTE I GAVE YOU WAS FROM PAGE 21 OF VOLUME 2. THE PRESIDENT BICIALLY DENIED PLAYING — INITIALLY DENIED IN PLAYING ANY ROLE IN SHAPES HIS SON’S STATEMENT TO THE PRESS ABOUT THE INFAMOUS JUNE 9th MEETING, THE MUELLER REPORT ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A MISLEADING STATEMENT ABOUT THAT MEETING THROUGH HIS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR HOPE HICKS, THAT’S AT PAGE 101 AND 102 OF VOLUME 2. AFTER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED McGAHN, MR. McGAHN TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED, THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY DISPUTED THESE ACCOUNTS, THE MUELLER REPORT ESTABLISHES THAT, QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT IN FACT DIRECTED McGAHN TO CALL ROSENSTEIN TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED, THAT’S AT VOLUME 2, PAGE 88. IN YOUR VIEW, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THOSE OCCASIONS AND OTHERS RECITE IT IN THE REPORT, LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? >>WELL, I’M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHEN LIES ARE TOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I’M IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING WHETHER A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. >>SO HE MAY HAVE LIED — >>BUT I’D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, OKAY? YOU STARTED BY CITING THIS THING IN VOLUME 2 ABOUT HOW THE REPORT SAYS THAT THEY COULD NOT BE SURE THAT THEY COULD CLEARLY SAY THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. AS YOU KNOW, THAT’S NOT THE STANDARD WE USE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. IT’S PRESUMED THAT SOMEONE IS INNOCENT AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVE THAT THEY CLEARLY VIOLATED THE LAW WE’RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF EXONERATION, WE’RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO PROVE THAT THEY DIDN’T VIOLATE THE LAW. >>YOU EXONERATED HIM IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE AND YOUR FOUR- PAGE SUMMARY. >>HOW DID THAT START? I DIDN’T HEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTION. >>YOU IN FACT EXONERATED OR — YOU IN EFFECT EXONERATED OR CLEARED THE PRESIDENT. >>I DIDN’T EXONERATE. I SAID WE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH AN OBSTRUCTION, AN OFFENSE — A JOB WHICH IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE JOB OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOW OVER. THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CRIME. THE REPORT IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. EVERYONE CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. THERE’S AN ELECTION IN 18 MONTHS. THAT’S VERY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. BUT WE’RE OUT OF IT. WE HAVE TO STOP USING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS AS A POLITICAL WEAPON. >>MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I APOLOGIZE, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE FOUR- PAGE LETTER AND THE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT YOU DID LEFT THE CLEAR IMPRESSION, AND IT’S BEEN REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT YOU CLEARED THE PRESIDENT. >>THANK YOU, SENATOR. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND VISITING WITH ALL OF US. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AND IN ALL OF THE RIPPLES THAT CAME FROM THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAVE REALLY PERMEATED THE COUNTRY. I MEAN, THERE IS GREAT INTEREST IN THIS. AND AS I’M TOURING THE 99 COUNTIES OF IOWA, I AM ASKED ABOUT THIS AT TOWN HALLS AND OTHER INTERACTIONS WITH MY CONSTITUENTS JUST AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER ISSUE AT HAND. AND I’M SURE MANY OF THE OTHER SENATORS HERE HAVE HAD THE SAME AND I’D LIKE TO START TODAY BY VISITING WITH YOU ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF RUSSIA DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I THINK THAT’S WHERE A LOT OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOCUS GO. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THEN LOOK AHEAD AND MAKE SURE WE ARE SAFEGUARDING OUR PRACTICES. SO I THINK IT’S NATURAL TO THINK OF ACTS OF AGGRESSION BY A FOREIGN STATE IN TERMS OF BULLETS, IN TERMS OF BOMBS, THAT’S WHAT WE TYPICALLY THOUGHT OF AS ACTS OF AGGRESSION. AFTER ALL, UP UNTIL JUST RECENT DAYS ACTS OF AGGRESSION OR WARFARE HAS BEEN A SYMMETRICAL OPERATION BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY. IN THE PAST IT’S BEEN PRACTICED BY BOOTS ON THE GROUND OR VARIOUS BOMBING CAMPAIGNS. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT WE ARE FACING TODAY. AND I DO BELIEVE WHAT WE SAW FROM RUSSIA WAS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION. OTHER ADVERSARIAL FOREIGN STATES, NOT JUST RUSSIA, BUT I THINK A NUMBER OF COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED CHINA AS WELL, PERHAPS NORTH KOREA, IRAN, WE COULD GO ON AND ON, NOT ONLY DO THEY PRACTICE DIRECT HOSTILE MILITARY ACTION, JUST AS RUSSIA DID IN UKRAINE WITH ITS ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA, BUT AS WAS DETAILED IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT THEY SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS OF OUR FREE STATES THROUGH CYBER MEANS. AND IT IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT THAT RUSSIA ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION. WE KNOW THAT, FOLKS. ALL OF US ADMIT TO THAT. WE SEE THE EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA TRIED TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION, THE HACKS, THE DISINFORMATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA CYBER ATTACKS BY RUSSIA WERE DONE WITH THE INTENT TO SOW DISCHORD AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. RUSSIA WILL SHOW NO HESITATION, THEY HAVE NOT IN PAST, THEY WON’T IN THE FUTURE IN USING THESE TYPES OF AGGRESSION IN AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS PROCESS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE. AND IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE ATTACK IS COMING FROM THE END OF A BARREL OF A GUN OR THE CLICK OF A MOUSE, WE HAVE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. AND SO GENERAL BARR, THE PAST TWO YEARS WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED, AND NOW WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE HOW TO DO BETTER. SO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT IS THE END OF THE ROAD. I THINK MANY HAVE STATED THAT, THE END OF THE ROAD WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S INTENT, BUT IT IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION ON HOW WE COUNTER RUSSIA AND OTHER FOREIGN ADVERSARIES IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE OUR REPUBLIC. SO IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, DO YOU SEE VULNERABILITIES OR WEAKNESSES THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME THAT LEFT US OPEN TO FOREIGN AGGRESSION, FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION SYSTEM AND THEN HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MAKING SURE WE’RE SHORING UP SOME OF THOSE AVENUES OF APPROACH OF A OUR FOREIGN ADVERSARIES? >>YES. THE F.B.I., YOU KNOW, HAS A VERY ROBUST PROGRAM, THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE TASK FORCE WHICH IS FOCUSED ON THIS PROBLEM, AND IS WORKING TO COUNTERACT AND PREPARE FOR THE KINDS OF INTERFERENCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN, AND IT’S A VERY DYNAMIC PROGRAM. I’VE BEEN BRIEFED ON IT BY CHRIS WRAY, I’M VERY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY’RE UP TO. I THINK THAT — THE WAY I VIEW THIS GENERAL PROBLEM IS THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN EFFORTS BY RUSSIA AND OTHER HOSTILE COUNTRIES TO INFLUENCE AMERICAN ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC OPINION, BUT IT WAS MORE EASILY DETECTABLE AND IT WAS SORT OF A CRUDER OPERATION IN THE PAST. AND WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS TECHNOLOGY AND THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF INFORMATION, THE DANGER IS FAR MORE INSIDIOUS, AND IT ENABLES NOT ONLY THEM GETTING INTO EFFECTIVELY OUR WHOLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM HERE IN % THE UNITED STATES, AND I’M JUST — I MEAN, JUST THE WAY WE COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND INTO OUR BUSINESS SYSTEMS, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE SEEN WHICH IS BECAUSE OF OUR ROBUST FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS THEY’RE ABLE TO COME IN AND PRETEND THEY’RE AMERICANS AND EFFECT THE DIALOGUE AND THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS IN THE UNITED STATES IN A WAY THAT THEY’VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DO BEFORE. AND IT’S A HUGE CHALLENGE TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT I THINK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE AND THE THREAT. I THINK — I HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH BOB MUELLER ON MARCH 5th WHEN HE WAS BRIEFING ME ON HIS WORK AND DISCUSSING LESSONS LEARNED, WHAT HE HAS SEEN IN DISMANTLING THE THREATS THAT HE, YOU KNOW, WAS ABLE TO DETECT AND HOW WE CAN START USING THAT APPROACH ACROSS THE BOARD. >>SO WE’VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT THROUGH OUR FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THEN, ARE WE ABLE TO WORK WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS, OTHER PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP COUNTER SOME OF THIS? DO YOU SEE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY STEPPING UP TO THIS CHALLENGE, TAKING THIS ON AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE PUSHING BACK AS WELL AGAINST WHAT THEY MIGHT DETERMINE AS A FOREIGN 800,000 VER SAIR? >>– ADVERSARY? >>YES, I THINK THE PRIVATE COMPANIES ARE STEPPING UP THEIR GAME AND BEING MORE RESPONSIBLE IN ADDRESSING IT. >>I THINK IT’S — I THINK THAT’S IMPORTANT. I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD, PLEASE, GENERAL. I JUST THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE REALLY FOCUS ON WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY, AND THAT’S BECAUSE WE DID SEE RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN OUR 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IS MANY OF OUR OTHER COLLEAGUES — AS OUR OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE NOTED IS THAT THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN TO US AGAIN AND WE ARE AWARE, AND AS A PUBLIC WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING NOT JUST IN OUR OWN ELECTIONS PROCESS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT TO MANY OF OUR ALLIES AROUND THE GLOBE AS WELL IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ADEQUATELY PUSHING BACK AGAINST THAT AND EVEN OVERMATCHING IN MAKING SURE THAT WE KEEP THAT TYPE OF INFLUENCE OUT OF OUR ELECTION CYCLINGLE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. >>SENATOR HERONO. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BARR, NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM RUDY GIULIANI OR KELLYANNE CONWAY OR ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO SACRIFICE THEIR ONCE-DECENT REPUTATION FOR THE DRIFTER AND LIAR WHO SITS IN THE OVAL OFFICE. YOU ONCE TURNED DOWN A JOB OFFER FROM DONALD TRUMP TO REPRESENT HIM AS HIS PRIVATE ATTORNEY. AT YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING, YOU TOLD SENATOR FEINSTEIN THAT, QUOTE, THE JOB OF ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT THE SAME AS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT. SO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BUT YOU’VE CHOSEN TO BE THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER AND SIDE WITH HIM OVER THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TO START WITH, YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SUPERVISING THE ROBERT MUELLER INVESTIGATION. YOU WROTE A 19-PAGE, UNSOLICITED MEMO WHICH YOU ADMIT WAS NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS ATTACKING THE PREMISE OF HALF OF THE INVESTIGATION. AND YOU ALSO SHOULD HAVE INSISTED THAT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN RECUSE HIMSELF. HE WASN’T JUST A WITNESS TO SOME OF THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. WE NOW KNOW HE WAS IN FREQUENT PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT, A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. YOU SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT TO A CAREER OFFICIALS. THEN ONCE THE REPORT WAS DELIVERED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU DELAYED ITS RELEASE FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. YOU LET THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYERS LOOK AT IT BEFORE YOU EVEN DEINGED TO LET CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC SEE IT. DURING THE TIME YOU SUBSTITUTED YOUR OWN POLITICAL JUDGMENT FOR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S LEGAL CONCLUSION IN A FOUR-PAGE LETTER TO CONGRESS, AND NOW WE KNOW THANKS TO A FREE PRESS THAT MR. MUELLER WROTE YOU A LETTER OBJECTING TO YOUR SO- CALLED SUMMARY. 3 WHEN YOU CALLED MUELLER TO DISCUSS HIS LETTER, THE REPORTS ARE THAT HE THOUGHT YOUR SUMMARY WAS GIVING THE PRESS, CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC A MISLEADING IMPRESSION OF HIS WORK. HE ASKED YOU TO RELEASE THE REPORT’S SUMMARIES TO CORRECT THE MISIMPRESSION YOU CREATED, BUT YOU REFUSED. WHEN YOU FINALLY DID DECIDE TO RELEASE THE REPORT OVER A CONGRESSIONAL RECESS AND ON THE EVE OF TWO MAJOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS, YOU CALLED A PRESS CONFERENCE TO ONCE AGAIN TRY TO CLEAR DONALD TRUMP BEFORE ANYONE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT AND COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS. BUT WHEN WE READ THE REPORT, WE KNEW ROBERT MUELLER’S CONCERNS WERE VALID AND THAT YOUR VERSION OF EVENTS WAS FALSE. YOU USED EVERY ADVANTAGE OF YOUR OFFICE TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CLEARED OF MISCONDUCT. YOU SELECTIVELY QUOTED FRANKMENTS FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT, TAKING SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT AND IGNORING THE REST. YOU PUT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEHIND A PUBLIC RELATIONS EFFORT TO HELP DONALD TRUMP PROTECT HIMSELF. FINALLY, YOU LIED TO CONGRESS. YOU TOLD REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE CRIST THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT OBJECTIONS MUELLER’S TEAM MIGHT HAVE TO YOUR MARCH 24th SO- CALLED SUMMARY. YOU TOLD SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW IF BOB MUELLER SUPPORTED YOUR CONCLUSIONS, BUT YOU KNEW YOU LANDSLIDE, AND NOW WE KNOW. A LOT OF RESPECTED NON-PARTISAN LEGAL EXPERTS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE SURPRISED BY YOUR EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. BUT I WAS NOT SURPRISED. YOU DID EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT YOU’D DO. IT’S WHY I VOTED . >>>AS PRESIDENT CAN’T BE GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THEN DIDN’T REACCUSE YOURSELF FROM THE MATTER. FROM THE BEGINNING YOU WERE ADDRESSING AN AUDIENCE OF ONE. THAT PERSON BEING DONALD TRUMP. THAT IS WHY BEFORE THE BOMB SHELL NEWS OF YESTERDAY EVENING, 11 OF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AND I CALLED ON THE DEPARTMENT MUCH JUSTICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE WAY YOU HAVE HANDLED THE MUELLER REPORT. I WANTED THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOUR ACTIONS COMPLIED THE DEPARTMENT’S POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND WHETHER YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT IMPARTIALITY TO CONTINUE TO OVERSEE THE 14 OTHER CRIMINAL MATTERS THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REFERRED TO IN OTHER PARTS — TO OTHER PARTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. BUT NOW, WE KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR DEEP INVOLVEMENT IN TRYING TO COVER UP FOR DONALD TRUMP. BEING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES IS A SACRED TRUST. YOU HAVE BETRAYED THAT TRUST, AMERICA DESERVES BETTER, YOU SHOULD RESIGN, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. IS THE WHITE HOUSE EXERTING ANY INFLUENCE ON YOUR DECISION WHETHER TO ALLOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO TESTIFY IN CONGRESS AND WHEN >> NO. >> YOU HAVE BEEN CLEAR TODAY YOU THAT DON’T THINK ANY OF THE TEN EPISODES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OUTLINED IS A CRIME. I DISAGREE. YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT IF IT’S NOT A CRIME THEN TERE IS NO PROBLEM. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. SO, WITH APOLOGIES TO ADAM, DO YOU THINK ALL OF THE THINGS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID ARE OKAY ARE THEY WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE DOING, FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO FIRE AN FBI DIRECTOR TO STOP HIM FROM INVESTIGATING LINKS BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA IT MAY NOT BE A CRIME BUT DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY >> WELL I THINK THE REPORT IS CLEAR THAT. >> I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REPORT. >> I’M TALKING ABOUT. >> IF A CRIME OCCURRED. >> I DON’T THINK THE EVIDENCE. >> DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DO WHAT HE DID TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> I THIS DON’T THINK THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS. >> I GUESS YOU THINK IT’S OKAY. DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO LIE >> WELL — I’M WILLING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT’S CRIMINAL. >> WE HACKL NOD YOU THINK IT’S NOT A CRIME. EVEN IF IT’S NOT A CRIME DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ASK HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO LIE >> WHICH. >> IF YOU JUST ARE GOING TO DO. >> WHICH EVENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT >> LET ME ASK YOU THE LAST QUESTION. DO YOU THINK IT’S OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO OFFER PARDONS TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T TESTIFY AGAINST HIM, TO THREATEN THE FAMILY OF SOMEONE WHO DOES IS THAT OKAY >> WHAT — WHEN — FOR A PARDONO. >> I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. PLEASE. WAY. DO YOU MEAN >> YOU KNOW GIVE US SOME CREDIT FOR KNOWING WHAT THE IS GOING ON. >> NOT REALLY. TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. LISTEN. YOU SLANDERED THIS MAN. >> WHAT I SORT OF WANT TO KNOW IS HOW DO WE GET TO THIS POINT >> I DO NOT THINK THAT. >> HOW DO WE GET TO THE POINT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. I AM DONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AND YOU SLANDERED THIS MAN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. SO, IF YOU WANT MORE OF THIS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT. IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS YOU CAN. >> YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION AND I HAVE MINE. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU GENERAL BARR FOR BEING HERE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I WANT TO TALK WITH YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF YOUR BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS ONE THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK TO. A LITTLE BIT AND AS I HAVE LISTENED TO A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION HERE TODAY, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IS WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE CULTURE AT DOJ AND THE FBI. I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE AND WERE GRATEFUL FOR THEIR SERVICE. EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS A CULTURE. WHETHER IT’S A CORPORATE CULTURE OR A CHURCH OR SCHOOLS OR WHATEVER. WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED AT THE FBI IS THERE IS A SEEDY, CYNICAL, POLITICAL CULTURE WITH IN A GROUP THAT DEVELOPED AND THESE INDIVIDUALS COLLECTIVELY SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY COULD WORK WITH IN THE POWER OF THEIR JOBS AND THEIR ROLES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEIR WAS AN ELITISM AND ARROGANCE AND IT SPEAKS TO A VERY UNHEALTHY WORK CULTURE WITH IN THAT AGENCY. I WILL TELL YOU THIS. WHEN I TALKED TO TENNESSEE RESIDENTS THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI POST ALL OF THIS. A RESTORATION OF TRUST AND INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AND REALLY IN TENNESSEE THEY WILL TALK TO ME ABOUT FOUR THINGS. THEY TALK A LOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE, JOBS IN THE ECONOMY, THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT GETTING FEDERAL JUDGES CONFIRMED AND ABOUT BRINGING IN GOVERNMENT AND HOLDING IT RESPONSIBLE. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF HYSTERIA. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GLOW WITH GREW WITH IN THE RANKS OF THE FBI. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR REBUILDING THAT TRUST AND INTEGRITY SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SAY WHEN THE FBI DOES ITS JOB, WHEN THE DOJ DOES ITS JOB WE KNOW THAT IS A JOB DONE RIGHT >> I DON’T THINK THERE IS — THERE IS A BAD CULTURE IN THE FBI. I DON’T THINK THE PROBLEMS THAT MANIFESTED THEMSELVES DURING THE 2016 ELECTION ARE IN THE INSTITUTION. I THINK THE FBI IS DOING ITS JOB. I MEAN JUST THIS RECENT CASE OUT IN CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY GOT THIS WOULD BE BOMBER. THEY DO GREAT WORK AROUND THE COUNTRY EVERY DAY AND IT’S A — I AGREE WITH SENATOR KENNEDY WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, IT’S THE PREMIERE LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD. I BELIEVE THAT — I SAY TO THE EXTENT THERE WAS OVER REACH. I DON’T WANT TO JUDGE PEOPLE’S MOTIVES AND COME TO CONCLUSION ON THAT. TO THE EXTENT THERE WAS OVER REACH, WHAT WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS AT A — A FEW PEOPLE AT THE TOP — GETTING IT INTO THEIR HEADS THAT THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT IS WHAT WE HOPE THAT YOU ARE. >> YEP. >> YOU ARE ADDRESSING. LET’S GO BACK TO THIS BECAUSE TO REPEAT — TO THE REPORT. TO PRODUCE IT I THINK THAT MR. MUELLER PUT TOGETHER WHAT WOULD BE CALLED A DREAM TEAM. 19 ALL-STAR LAWYERS. WATERGATE PROSECUTOR, A DEPUTY SOLICITOR, WHO CLERKED FOR TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, FORMER HEAD OF THE ENRON INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE, CHIEF OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION UNIT IN THE MANHATTAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE TAKEN DOWN MOB BOSSES, THE MAFIA AND ISIS TERRORISTS. DO YOU CONSIDER THESE LAWYERS TO BE THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST IN THE FIELD >> NOT NECESSARILY. >> ARE THEY THE WARRIORS YOU WOULD WANTON YOUR SIDE IN THE COURTROOM >> YOU KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF GREAT LAWYERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. HE PUT TOGETHER A VERY COMPETENT TEAM. >> ARE THEY METICUULOUS INVESTIGATORS WHO WILL HUNT DOWN EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE >> YES. >> ARE THEY DEVOTED TO FINDING THE TRUTH >> YES. >> ARE THEY MASTERS AT TAKING DOWN HARDENED CRIMINALS, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC >> YES. >> IF THERE WERE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A RECOMMENDATION FOR COLLUSION CHARGES DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM WOULD HAVE FOUND IT >> YES. >> AND IF THERE WERE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT DO YOU BELIEVE THE TEAM WOULD HAVE FOUND IT >> I THINK THAT THEY HAD AN EX– THEY CANVASSED THE EVIDENCE ON — THEY DIDN’T REACH A DECISION ON IT. THE QUESTION JUST BEEN ASKING RAISES A POINT I WANTED TO SAY WHICH IS — HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT HERE WHERE THEVIDENCE IS NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS AND ACCUSED OF BEING TREASONOUS AND A RUSSIAN AGENT AND THE EVERYDAY IS THAT WAS WITHOUT BASIS AND TWO YEARS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BUY THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE. YOU KNOW, TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THE RHETORIC YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE MUELLER REPORT HAD FOUND THE OPPOSITE. >> AND YOU KNOW WILL ATTORNEY GENERAL I WILL TELL YOU THAT IS WHAT TENNESSEE RESIDENTS SAY. THEY SAY HOW DID WE GET HERE HOW IS THERE THIS ALLOWANCE AND ACCEPT EDNESS OF SAYING THAT’S OKAY BECAUSE IT’S NOT. PEOPLE WANT AGENCIES TO ACT WITH RESPONSIBILITY, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEY DON’T WANT TO EVER SEE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN IT. DOESN’T MATTER IF A CANDIDATE IS A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN OR INDEPENDENT. THEY NEVER WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THIS WAS POINTED AT USING THE POWER THAT THEY HAD TO TRY TO TILT THE ELECTION OR TO ACHIEVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT EQUAL JUSTICE, THEY WANT RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND THEY WANT FAIRNESS FROM THE SYSTEM. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION DEALING SOCIAL MEDIA. TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD A — A TEN UNDER SCORE GOP ACCOUNT THAT WAS SET UP BY THE RUSSIANS. YOU KNOW, EITHER — I THINK AS WE LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA, EITHER THEY WERE WILLING TO TURN A BLIND EYE AND ALLOW THESE ACCOUNTS TO GO UP BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE BEING PAID IN RUBLES ON SOME OF THESE ACCOUNTS. OR THERE WAS JUST NEGLIGENCE. SO, MY HOPE IS THAT — WITH ALL OF THE BAD ACTOR STATES, WHETHER IT’S RUSSIA OR IRAN OR NORTH KOREA OR CHINA THAT YOU ALL HAVE A GAME PLAN FOR DEALING WITH THESE PLATFORMS IN A WAY THAT ARE YOU REALING TO BRING THEM IN FOR THE 2020 ELECTION. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. SENATOR BOOKER. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BARR AS I TAKE A STEP BACK AT THIS I JUST REALLY THINK WE ARE AT A SOBERING MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT GOING ON WHEN YOU TAKE TIME AND READ THIS WHOLE REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT WE ARE SORT OF AT A CROSS ROAD. I FEAR THAT WE ARE GOING INTO A NEW NORMAL THAT IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR DEMOCRACY ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS. I FEAR UNFORTUNATELY AND I HOPE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS THAT YOU HAVE NOT ONLY PUT YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY INTO QUESTION BUT SEEM TO BE GIVING SANCTION TO BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LANGUAGE YOU USE IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE YOU HELD, THE LANGUAGE YOU USE IN YOUR SUMMARY THAT STIMULATED MUELLER TO WRITE SUCH A STRONG REBUKING LETTER. I FEAR YOU ARE ADDING IT TO A POINT WHERE WE SHOULD BE SOUNDING ALARMS INSTEAD OF SAYING THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. SO ONE — THIS 448 PAGE REPORT THAT HAS A DEEP LITANY OF LIES AND DECEIT AND MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INCOMING PEOPLE TO LIE AND BE DECEITFUL. PEOPLE TRYING TO COVER UP BEHAVIOR THAT IS MORALLY WRONG WHATEVER THE LEGAL STANDARD IS. I FOUND IT TO BY SAYING THAT THIS KIND OF CONDUCT WAS ACCEPTABLE BUT YOUR SENTENCE SAYING THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR IT. THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF NORMAL THAT I WANT TO EXPLORE. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO EXPLORE. WE WILL EXPLORE THIS. I WANT TO MAKE MY TWO STATEMENTS AT THE TOP. ONE THAT IS A PROBLEM AND THE SECOND PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT YOU SEEM TO BE EXCUSING A CAMPAIGN THAT HAD HUNDREDS OF CONTACTS WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY THAT I THINK IS — A CONCLUSION AMONG IN A BIPARTISAN CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE TO EVEN REPORT THOSE CONTACTS THAT WE ENGAGED IN BEHAVIORS THAT FOLKS KNEW — THAT WERE WRONG. THAT THEY TRIED TO ACTIVELY HIDE. THEY SEEM TO WORK — SEEM TO WORK ON THIS FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. I MEAN IN OUR COUNTRY WE KNOW IT’S ILLEGAL FOR A CAMPAIGN AND WRONG FOR A CAMPAIGN TO SHARE POLLING DATA WITH AN AMERICAN SUPER PAC BUT WE HAVE HERE DOCUMENTED A LEVEL OF COORDINATION WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY SHARING POLLING DATA. WE ARE SEEM TO BE — YOUR CONDUCT SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO NORMALIZ TAKE BEHAVIOR AND THAT’S WHY I THINK WE ARE IN SUCH A SERIOUS MOMENT THAT COULD — THAT IS ERODING THE CULTURES OF THIS DEMO CRACY. YOU SAID WE KNOW THAT THE RUSSIAN OPERATIVES WHO DID THESE SCHEMES DID NOT HAVE THE COOPERATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP OR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALL AMERICANS CAN AND SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO HAVE CONFIRMED. THE THINGS I JUST MENTIONED, WILLINGNESS TO MEET WITH RUSSIAN OPERATIVES TO WORK WITH INFORMATION. I DON’T THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. I FIND YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS ALARMING, I THINK IT CALLS IN TO QUESTION YOUR OBJECDIVITY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT. SO SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE GRATEFUL THAT A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO BENEFIT FROM MATERIAL AND INFORMATION THAT WAS STOLEN BY A FOREIGN POWER IN AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION >> I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY SEEK TO BENEFIT. THERE’S NO INDICATION THAT THEY ENGAGED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO ACTOR THAT THEY ENGAGED IN THE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDING OUT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS CRIMINAL. >> ARE USING THE WORD CONSPIRACY WHICH IS A LEGAL TERM. IN THAT PRESS CONFERENCE YOU USED OBSTRUCTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. >> OBSTRUCTION IS A LEGAL TERM. >> YOU PULLED INTO HIS WORDS AND I’M ASKING YOU SPECIFICALLY. I’M SORRY. COLLUSION IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. YOU SAID THE AMERICA PEOPLE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL THAT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO BENEFIT FROM MATERIAL BUT THEY DID SEEK 20 BENEFIT. DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR SEEMED TO CELEBRATE THEY MAY HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN GROUP. IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT SOMETHING THE. >> HE APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO THE REPORT HE WAS — YEAH. APPARENTLY, HE WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THIS RUSSIAN WOMAN HAD IN THE WAY OF QUOTE. >> AND DID NOT REPORT IT AS — I THINK EVERYBODY WHO IS IN POLITICS KNOWS IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD DO. >> WELL. >> SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE GRATFUL THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MADE SEVERAL DOCUMENTED ATTEMPTS TO THWART AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE LINKS BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR >> I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> I’M — I’M TALKING ABOUT THE ATTEMPTS THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT MUELLER POINTED TO AT LEAST TEN TRIES TO THWART THE INVESTIGATION. SHOULD WE BE GRATEFUL FOR THOSE TEN WELL DOCUMENTED ATTEMPTS >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION PART OF THE REPORT >> I’M TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND VOLUME. LET ME CONTINUE. SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE GRATEFUL THAT THE TRUMP HAD MORE THAN 215 DOCUMENTED CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIAN LINKED OPERATIVES AND THEN LIED ABOUT THEM AND TRIED TO HIDE THEM. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR OR ANY PRESIDENT, >> AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, DURING A CAMPAIGN FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS MAKE AN — AND FOREIGN CITIZENS FREQUENTLY MAKE A LOT OF ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT DIFFERENT CAMPAIGNS. IF WE WERE RIGHT NOW TO GO AND LOOK AT HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN DURING THE SAME TIME FRAME YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, CHINA TRYING TO ESTABLISH CONTACT. >> WE RIGHT NOW HAVE A NEW NORMAL IN OUR COUNTRY. WE HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS OVER 200 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND FOREIGN ADVERSARY SHARING INFORMATION THAT WOULD INTEREST. >> WHAT INFORMATION WAS SHARED >> POLLING POLL DATING DATE A. POLLING DATA. >> WITH WHO >> YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BRUSH OVER THIS AND SAY WORDS LIKE GRATEFUL. NOBODY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. CONCERTED EFFORTS FOR DECEPTION, MISLEADING, INAPPROPRIATE ACTION AFTER INAPPROPRIATE ACTION THAT IS CLEAR AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT AT A TIME THAT WE ALL RECOGNIZE WE HAD A FOREIGN POWER TRYING TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTION YOU THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER NOT ONLY UNDERMINES OUR OWN CREDIT ABILITY, USING THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS, HAVING IT CRITICIZED BY MUELLER BUT THE CHALLENGE WE NOW HAVE IS THAT HE ARE GOING INTO AN AREA WHERE YOU SEEM TO NOT EVEN BE WILLING TO BE CRITICAL IN YOUR SUMMARIES. I BELIEVE THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION YOUR CREDIBILITY AND MY TIME IS UP. >> SENATOR TILLIS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. GENERAL BARR THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE — IN THE LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR FOUR PAGE MEMO IT STATES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ISSUED MORE THAN 2800 SUBPOENAS, EXECUTED 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, OBTAINED # 30 ORDERS FOR COMMUNICATION RECORDS, ISSUED 50 ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PEN REGULARS, 13 REQUESTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INTERVIEWED 500 PEOPLE. THAT SEEMS PRETTY EXTENSIVE. TOOK 22 MONTHS. >> RIGHT. >> AND IT WAS SUMMARIZED IN ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 400 PAGES, VOLUME 2 WAS JUST UNDER 200 PAGES. I HAVE READ VOLUME 2 AND MOST OF VOLUME 1. THE NEW NORMAL IT SEEMS TO BE CREATED HERE IS EVEN AFTER ALL OF THIS INVESTIGATION, AND YOU HAVEN’T FOUND ANY CONDUCT WORTHY OF INDICTMENT THAT YOU CAN JUST BOUNCE BACK FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND INDICT SOMEONE. NOW I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE OTHER PART THAT I FIND INTERESTING HERE. THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS ISSUED A HEADLINE THAT SAYS, MUELLER PUSHED IN LETTER FOR BARR TO RELEASE THE REPORT’S SUMMARY. NOW THE NARRATIVE. DOESN’T THIS UNDERMINE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BECAUSE MUELLLER WANTED THE SUMMARIES ISSUED. NOW I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOU SAID THAT — I BELIEVE USING YOUR WORDS THE BODY POLITIC WAS — THAT WAS UNRESTFUL. YOU GOT THE REPORT. YOU DIDN’T GET THE INFORMATION. YOU HAD TO DO THE REDACTING AND KNEW IT WAS GOING TO TAKE TIME. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO GET THAT WHEN THE REPORT WAS TRANSMITTED IT TOOK HOWEVER LONG IT TOOK. YOU ISSUED THE SUMMARY, YOU USED THE ANALOGY OF ANNOUNCING THE VERDICT AND WAITING FOR THE TRANSCRIPT. DID YOU EVER AT ANY POINT SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT I WANT TO DO IS ISSUE THIS LETTER AND THEN LET THE NEWS MEDIA PLAY WITH IT FOR THREE OR FOUR WEEKS AND THEN WE WILL GET THE REDACTED VERSION OUT DID THAT CROSS YOUR MIND >> NO. WE WERE PUSHING. >> TO GET IT DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >> TO GET IT OUT. >> AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ISSUE THEIR OWN ADVICE ON REDACTIONS OR ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEKS YOU WERE TOWING THE REVIEW OF THE REPORT DID YOU GET ADVICE FROM THE PRESIDENT OR FROM ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR REDACT ANY PORTION >> NO. >> NONE. AND SO THE NARRATIVE BETWEEN THE LETTER AND THE REDACTION PROCESS WAS WE WILL GET A REPORT THAT’S 80% REDACTED. WHAT IS THE VERSION AVAILABLE — THE NUMBERS AGAIN. I THINK YOU SAID ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT. WE ARE SPENDING TIME ON VOLUME 2. DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS HAVE ACCESS TO ALL BUT ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF THE REPORT >> APPROXIMATELY, YES. >> SO, GUYS, YOU CAN GO OUT AND SPIN THIS ANY WAY YOU WANT BUT THE DATA IS THERE. THERE WAS NO UNDER LYING CRIME INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS INTERESTING THAT WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO INDICT. THEN THEY WENT ONTO SAY NOR CAN WE CLEAR HIM. WHAT IS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING A SUBJECT >> THEY AREN’T. >> WHY WOULD SOMEONE PUT THAT THE REPORT >> I DON’T KNOW. >> IF THAT’S UNUSUAL IT WOULD FOLLOW YOU WOULDN’T HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN A SUMMARY BEFORE THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE REPORT COULD BE DONE, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT >> THAT’S A FAIR STATEMENT. I DID PUT IN THE SENTENCE ABOUT NOT — I DID PUT IN THE SENTENCE ABOUT NOT EXON ERA TION. >> I THINK THAT THE THING THAT FRUSTRATES ME, NUMBER ONE I SHOULD HAVE STARTED BY SAYING THIS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE. THE CHAIRMAN IS RIGHT. STARTING WITH PAGE AND EVERYBODY ELSE LEADING UP BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION I HOPE THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. THE SCOPE OF THE OIG. WHERE DOES — DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF THAT REPORT WILL BE WILL IT BE ON THIS INVESTIGATION OR WOULD IT EXTEND TO OTHER ACTS THAT MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THIS INVESTIGATION >> I DON’T WANT TO BE TO SPECIFIC. I TALKED TO MIKE A FEW WEEKS AGO ABOUT IT. IT’S FOCUSED ON THE BASIS FOR THE FISA AND THE HANDLING OF THOSE APPLICATIONS. IT LOOKS BACK A LITTLE EARLIER THAN THAT. THE PEOPLE I HAVE HELPING ME WITH MY REVIEW WILL BE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH MR. HOROWITZ. >> I’M CLEAR THERE WAS NO UNDER LYING CRIME IS THAT CORRECT >> YES. >> THAT’S THE CONCLUSION OF THE REPORT. >>AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ASSERT THAT THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. A LOT OF THAT EVIDENCE WAS IN THE PUBLIC EYE BECAUSE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FEETS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT WERE TRYING TO USE TO ASSERT AS EVIDENCE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IT SEEMS STRANGE TO ME THAT PEOPLE ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT POUND AND POUND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY WITH THE EXTENT OF THIS REPORT, WITH THE NUMBER OF RESOURCES, NEARLY $30 MILLION, WHEN THE FACTS DON’T LEAD TO THE OUTCOME THAT YOU WANT, THE ONE THAT THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT WANTED TO USE THIS AS A POLITICAL TOOL FOR THE NEXT 20 MONTHS, IT SEEMS STRANGE TO ME THAT WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF SAYING THAT WELL, IN SPITE OF ALL THE WORK, WE WILL INDICT HIM ANY WAY AND IF WE CAN’T WE WILL CALL YOU A LIAR. THANK YOU. >> SENATOR HARRIS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE >> I WOULDN’T. >> YES OR NO. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION >> I WILL REPEAT IT. HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE, YES OR NO, SIR >> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE. >> SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND BE ABLE TO TELL US. >> YEAH BUT I’M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD SUGGEST. THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE THAT — THEY HAVEN’T ASKED ME TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. >> PERHAPS THEY SUGGESTED. >> I DON’T KNOW. I WOULDN’T SAY SUGGEST. >> HINTED. >> I DON’T KNOW. >> INFERRED. YOU DON’T KNOW. OKAY. IN YOUR MARCH 24th SUMMARY YOU WROTE THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINAL REPORT. >> LY SAY. >> I’M ASKING A QUESTION. IF YOUR MARCH 4th SUMMARY YOU WROTE THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINAL REPORT THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION PRODUCED A GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE. I’M LED TO BELIEVE IT INCLUDED WITNESS NOTES AND E-MAILS, TESTIMONY, WITNESSES INTERVIEWS, WHICH WERE SUMMARIZED IN THE FBI 302 FORM, MEMOS AND THE PRESIDENT’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS. MY QUESTION, IS IN REACHING YOUR CONCLUSION DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDER LYING EVIDENCE >> NO. WE TOOK. >> DID. >> WE ACCEPTED. WE ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT AS FACTUAL RECORD. WE DIDN’T GO UNDERNEATH IT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ACCURATE. WE ACCEPTED IT AS ACCURATE. >> SO YOU ACCEPTED THE REPORT AS THE EVIDENCE. >> YES. >> YOU DID NOT QUESTION OR LOOK AT THE UNDER LYING EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE REPORT. >> NO. >> DID MR. ROSENSTEIN REVIEW THE EVIDENCE THAT UNDER LINES AND SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE REPORT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. úWE AC THE REPORT. >> DID ANYONE IN YOUR EXECUTIVE OFFICE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE REPORT >> NO. >> NO. YET YOU REPRESENTED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THEST WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT. THIS IS NOT — THIS IS NOT — IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WE HAVE CROSS MEMOS EVERY DAY COMING UP. WE DON’T GO AND LOOK AT THE UNDER LYING EVIDENCE. >> WOULD YOU SUPPORT — AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES YOU RUN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IF IN ANY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE AROUND THE — THE HEAD OF THIS OFFICE WHEN BEING ASKED TO MAKE A CRITICAL DECISION ABOUT IN THIS CASE THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEM RECOMMENDING A CHARGING DECISION TO YOU IF THEY HAD NOT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE >> THAT’S A QUESTION FOR BOB MUELLER. HE IS THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. HE IS THE ONE WHO PRESENTS THE REPORT. >> IT WAS YOU WHO MADE THE CHARGING DECISION YOU úMADE TH CHARGE. >> IN THE CROSS MEMO AND. >> YOU SAID IT WAS YOUR BABY. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT >> IT WAS MY BABY TO LET — TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE PUBLIC. >> WHOSE. WHO HAD THE POWER TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE >> PROSECUTION MEMOS GO UP TO THE SUPERVISOR, IN THIS CASE IT WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DECIDE ON THE FINAL DECISION. THAT IS BASED ON THE MEMO AS PRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. >> I THINK YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE. WE CAN MOVE ON. YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR YOU HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE AND WE CAN MOVE ON. WILL YOU AGREE TO CONSULT CAREER ETHICS ISSUE MUCH OFFICIALS ABOUT IF YOUR RECUSAL FROM THE 14 INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY MY COLLEAGUES IS NECESSARY >> I DON’T SEE ANY BASIS FOR IT. I CONSULTED WITH THEM AND. >> YOU HAVE CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT THE 14 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS >> ABOUT THE MUELLER CASE. >> HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THE CAREER ETHICS OFFICIALS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF YOU BEING INVOLVED OR RECUSING YOURSELF FROM THE 14 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED OUT >> ON WHAT BASE >> CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> WHAT IS IT >> I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS SEEN YOU ARE BIASED IN THIS SITUATION AND HAVEN’T BEEN OBJECTIVE. >> I HAVEN’T BEEN THE ONLY DECISION MAKER HERE. NOW LET’S TAKE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WHO APPROVED BY THIS SENATE, 94-6 WITH SPECIFIC DOES ON THE FLOOR THAT HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISOR THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. >> I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THAT. >> HE HAS 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE AND WE HAD A NUMBER OF SENIOR PROSECUTES. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT SUBJECT UM. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. EARLIER TODAY IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR GRAHAM YOU SAID, THAT YOU CONSULTED WITH ROD CONSTANTLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AND REPORT. THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY AGAIN IS ALSO A KEY WITNESS IN THE FIRING OF COMEY. DID YOU CONSULT WITH ETHICS OFFICIALS BEFORE YOU ENLIST ENLISTED HIM >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HE HAD BEEN CLEARED ALREADY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. >> SO YOU HAD CONSULTED WITH THEM AND THEY CLEARED IT >> NO I THINK THEY CLEARED IT WHEN HE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION. >> DID YOU. >> THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER HE HAS BEEN CLEARED OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST >> IT WOULD BE PARTICIPATING IF IT WAS A CONFLICT. >> YOU ARE SAYING IT DIDN’T NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CAREER ETHICS OFFICIALS IN YOUR OFFICE >> I BELIEVE IT WAS — I BELIEVE IT WAS REVIEWED. >> WHAT WAS. >> I WOULD POINT OUT THIS IS A FLIP-FLOP BECAUSE WHEN THE PRESIDENT SUPPORTERS WERE CHALLENGED BY. >> YOU AREN ‘T ANSWERING THE QUESTION. DID THE ETHICS OFFICIALS IN YOUR OFFICE, IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REVIEW THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ROSENST. >>ANNOUNCER: IN BEING A PART OF MAKING A CHARGING INVESTIGATION ON AN INVESTIGATION WHEN HE IS A WITNESS IN. >> SO AS I SAID MY UNDERSTANDING HE HAD BEEN CLEARED AND BEFORE I ARRIVED. >> IN MAKING A DECISION ON THE MUELLER REPORT >> YES. >> AND THE FINDINGS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE WOULD BE CHARGED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HE HAD BEEN CLEARED ON THAT >> HE WAS THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE INVESTIGATION. >> HAD HE BEEN CLEARED. >> HE HAD BEEN — I AM. >> BY YOUR SIDE. >> I’M INFORMED THAT BEFORE I ARRIVED HE HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ETHICS OFFICIALS. >> OF WHAT >> OF SERVING AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE CASE. >> HOW ABOUT MAKING A CHARGING DECISION ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE >> THAT IS WHAT THE. >> OFFENSES WHICH INCLUDE HIM AS A WITNESS >> THAT IS WHAT THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S JOB IS. >> TO BE A WITNESS AND TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT BEING A PROSECUTOR >> NO BUT TO MAKE CHARGING DECISIONS. >> I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. MY TIME HAS RUN OUT. >> THANK YOU. SENATOR — LET’S SEE. WE HAVE SENATOR CRUZ. I WANT TO DO SHORT SECOND ROUNDS. I HAVE ANOTHER HEARING AT 2:40. WE WILL TAKE FOUR VOTES BUT TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE I WOULD LIKE TO DO A VERY SHORT SECOND ROUND AND WRAP IT UP. I’M SORRY. SENATOR — SENATOR — I APOLOGIZE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO FAR TODAY. I WILL GO OVER A FEW THINGS YOU TALKED ABOUT. I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO GET INTO IT WITH ME. FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LETTER OF March 27th THAT’S BEEN TALKED ABOUT A LOT FROM MR. MUELLER. WHO RELEASED THAT LETTER TO TH PUBLIC >> RELEASED IT TO WHOM >> HOW DID IT GET RELEASED DID YOU DECIDE TO RELEASE THA LETTER . >> I THINK THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDED IT THIS MORNING. >> I MEAN TO THE WASHINGTON POST. HOW DID THE WASHINGTON POST GET IT >> I DON’T KNOW. >> THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THE LETTER FOR A MOMENT. YOU INDICATED THAT. >> I ASSUME THE WASHINGTON POST GOT IT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> WE NEED TO FIND THAT OUT. WE CAN GET INTO THAT LATER. IN YOU AREN’T AWARE THEN LET’S MOVE ONTO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT FEEL YOU NEEDED TO RELEASE AS MUCH AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THOUGHT YOU NEEDED TO RELEASE. YOU GAVE A SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS AND HE APPARENTLY WANTED TO SEE A — THE SUMMARIES OF EACH SECTION THAT HE HAD PUT TOGETHER RELEASED, CORRECT >> YES. >> COULD YOU GO OVER AGAIN THE REASON WHY — YOU RESPONDED TO HIM WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO RELEASE PORTIONS OF THE REPORT BEFORE YOU RELEASED IT >> YES. THIS WAS ON THE CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY, THE DAY I GOT HIS LETTER. I SAID THAT I — I DIDN’T WANT TO PUT OUT — IT WAS ALREADY SEVERAL DAYS AFTER WE HAD RECEIVED THE REPORT AND I HAD PUT OUT THE FOUR PAGE LETTER ON SUNDAY. I SAID I DON’T WANT TO PUT OUT SUMMARIES OF THE REPORT. THAT WOULD TRIGGER ALL KINDS OF FRENZY ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN THE SUMMARIES AND THEN WHEN THE — WHEN THE MORE INFORMATION COMES OUT IT WOULD RESTART THE VAT AND I SAID I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT ONE TIME, EVERYTHING TOGETHER. I TOLD HIM THAT WAS THE GAME PLAN. >> ALL RIGHT. THEN — I JUST THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO POINT THAT OUT AGAIN. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SPIN ABOUT THE LETTER AND WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED AND WHAT YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS. >> RIGHT. >> I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET THAT OUT AGAIN AND CLARIFY THAT. THE REASON I ASK WHO RELEASED THE LETTER IS THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF RELEASES FROM THE FBI THAT WERE LEAKS. WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO IF THAT LETTER WAS A LEAK. I’M NOT. >> I HOPE MY PEOPLE JUMP ME IF I’M WRONG. THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONCERNS WERE LEAKED AND I THINK SOME NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WERE STARTING TO ASK ABOUT THAT. >> THEN THE LETTER WAS. >> IN THAT CONTEXT THE LETTER WAS PROVIDED, IS THAT ACCURATE >> THERE WERE LEAKS AT LEAST ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT — AND THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD. >> YES. >> THAT GETS BACK TO THE BROADER QUESTION OF LEAKS THAT I WANT TO GET INTO NOW. YOU HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE — SENATORS HAVE ASKED YOU ABOUT THE PERCEIVED BIAS AT THE FBI. I HEARD YOUR RESPONSES EARLIER THAT YOU BELIEVE THE CULTURE AT THE FBI IS STRONG AND SOLID AND I AGREE WITH THAT. I DO BELIEVE HOWEVER, THAT IT’S — BEEN PRETTY CLEARLY SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THERE ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS AT THE FBI, AT HIGH LEVELS WHO IN THE PAST FEW YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN HOLDING UP THE STANDARDS OF THE FBI THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT OF THEM. I’M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE REPORT OF THE DOJ’S INSPECTOR GENERAL WHERE HE LOOKED AT BIAS IN THE FBI. IN FACT HE FOUND IT. HE INDICATED IN A HEARING IN THIS ROOM BEFORE US THAT HE DID IN FACT THAT THERE WAS BIAS AT THE FBI AND THAT — BUT HE SAID THAT HE WASN’T ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE BIAS AFFECTED THE EMPLOYEES WORK PRODUCT BECAUSE AS — IN QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED HIM. HE SAID — I FOUND THAT THERE WAS CLEARLY BIAS, BUT IN ORDER TO PROVE IF THAT AFFECTED THE WORK OUTPUT OF THOSE WHO WERE BIASED I HAD TO ASK THEM IF IMPACTED IT AND THEY OF COURSE SAID NO. I DIDN’T HAVE OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THIS GETS BACK TO A CONVERSATION ABOUT IF THE FBI’S BUSINESS OR HIS BUSINESS WAS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE OR WHETHER IT WAS TO FIND SOME ACTIONABLE CONDUCT. MY REASON IN GOING THROUGH THIS WITH YOU IS THAT I WANT TO GET AT WHAT WE CAN DO — FIRST OF ALL WHETHER YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM OF BIAS IN THE FBI AND SOME PARTS OR SOME INDIVIDUALS AT THE FBI AND WHETHER YOU ARE UNDERTAKING ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS THAT. >> YOU KNOW I — YOU MEAN POLITICAL BIAS >> YES. IF THERE IS POLITICAL BIAS THAT IS RESULTING IN BIASED CONDUCT BY FBI AGENTS. >> I HAVEN’T SEEN THAT SINCE I HAVE BEEN THERE. I THINK THAT CHRIS RAY, THE NEW DIRECTOR HAS CHANGED OUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE BEFORE AND BROUGHT IN — NOT BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE BUT PROMOTED AND DEVELOPED A NEW LEADERSHIP TEAM THAT I THINK IS DOING A GREAT JOB AND — I THINK HE IS — FOCUSED ON SEE THAT THE BUREAU ISN’T BIASED AND THAT ANY OF THE PROBLEMS FROM BEFORE ARE ADDRESSED. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT’S INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT FOR AN FBI EMPLOYEE TO LEAK SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURPOSES OF IMPACTING POLITICAL DISCUSSION >> YES. YES. AND I THINK SOME LEAKS, SOME LEAKS ARE FOR MAYBE POLITICAL PURPOSES. I THINK PROBABLY MORE LEAKS ARE BECAUSE PEOPLE HANDLING A CASE DON’T LIKE WHAT THEIR SUPERVISORS ARE DOING AND THEY LEAK IT IN ORDER TO CONTROL PEOPLE UP THE CHAIN. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE SOME INVESTIGATIONS INTO THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT UNDERWAY. >> YES. >> JUST ANOTHER COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. WHEN DID THE DOJ AND THE FBI — IF YOU KNOW, WHEN DID THE DOJ AND THE FBI KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PAID FOR CHRISTOPHER STEEL’S DOSSIER WHICH THEN SERVED AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE CARTER PAGE FIZA APPLICATION >> I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> ARE YOU INVESTIGATING TO DETERMINE THAT >> YES. >> AND THEN LASTLY, DID THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE FBI AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES ENGAGE IN INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES BEFORE AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED IN JULY OF 2016 >> I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT THAT’S ONE OF THE. >> YOU ARE ALSO INVESTIGATING THAT. >> YES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SENATOR CRUZ. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. GENERAL BARR THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. LET ME START BY SAYING THANK YOU, YOU HAVE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL LEGAL CAREER. YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO TAKE THIS JOB. YOU STEPPED FORWARD AND ANSWERED THE CALL YET AGAIN, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE KIND OF SLANDEROUS TREATMENT, THE KAVANAUGH TREATMENT WE HAVE SEEN OF SENATORS ATTACKING YOUR INTEGRITY. I FOR ONE AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU AND ARE LEADING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BOTH WITH INTEGRITY AND FIDELITY TO LAW. THAT IS WHAT THE NATION EXPECTS AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE PREFORMING THAT VERY ABLY. I THINK THIS HEARING TODAY HAS BEEN QUITE REVEALING TO ANYONE WATCHING IT, THOUGH PERHAPS NOT FOR THE REASON SOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS INTENDED. ONE THING THAT’S REVEALING IN THE DISCUSSION IN QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP, A WORD THAT OCCURRED ALMOST NONE AT ALL IS THE WORD RUSSIA. FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS WE HEARD DEMOCRATIC SENATORS GOING ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT RUSSIA. WE HEARD REPORTERS GOING ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT RUSSIA. ALLEGING AMONG OTHER THINGS SOME USING EXTREME RHETORIC CALLING THE PRESIDEN A TRAITOR. WE HEARD VERY LITTLE OF THAT IN THIS HEARING TODAY. INSTEAD THE PRINCIPLE ATTACK THE DEMOCRATIC S SENATORS HAVE USED CONCERNS THIS MARCH 27th LETTER FROM MUELL ER AND IT’S AN ATTACK THAT I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND JUST HOW REVEALING IS. IF THIS IS THEIR WHOLE ARGUMENT THEY AIN’T GOT NOTHING. THEIR ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. YOU INITIALLY WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE MUELLER REPORT RELEASED TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC A FOUR PAGE SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS. THEN ON MARCH 27th THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ASKED YOU TO RELEASE ANOTHER 19 PAGES, THE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY HE HAD DRAFTED. INAREHE SAID I’M REQUESTING YOU PROVIDE THESE MATERIALS TO CONGRESS AND AUTHORIZE THEIR PUBLIC RELEASE AT THIS TIME. THE REASON HE SAID IS THAT IT’S TO — IT’S THAT — IS THAT TO FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE OFFICE’S WORK AND CONCLUSION. YOU DIDN’T RELEASE THOSE 19 PAGESSA THE THIS TIME. INSTEAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER YOU RELEASED 448 PAGES. THE ENTIRE REPORT WHICH INCLUDES THOSE 19 PAGES. DO I HAVE THAT TIMELINE CORRECT >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> SO THE THEIR ARGUMENT IS YOU SUP PRESSED THE 19 PAGE THAT ARE PUBLIC, THAT WE HAVE, THAT WE CAN READ THAT THEY KNOW EVERY WORD OF IT AND THEY ARE COMPLAINING IT WAS DELAYED A FEW WEEKS. THAT WAS BECAUSE OF YOUR DECISION NOT TO RELEASE THE REPORT PIECE BY PIECE BUT TO RELEASE IT ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE 448 PAGES. >> YES. >> IF THAT IS THEIR ARGUMENT, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IS A VERY WEAK ARGUMENT. IF YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW YOU ARE DOING A VERY LOUSY JOB OF HIDING IT. THE THING THAT THEY ARE SUGGESTING YOU HID, YOU RELEASED TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT’S IN THOSE 19 PAGES, THAT ARE BEING SO — BOB SAID RELEASE TE 19 PAGES. YOU DID. YOU DID IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER BUT WE CAN READ EVERY WORD OF THE 19 PAGES ALONG WITH THE FULL REPORT. IN YOUR JUDGMENT WAS THE MUELLER REPORT THOROUGH >> YES. >> DID THEY EXPAND HUGE TIME, ENERGY AND RESOURCES INVESTIGATING PRODUCING THAT REPORT >> YES. >> AND THE MUELLER REPORT CONCLUDED FLAT OUT ON THE QUESTION OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CRIMINAL CHARGES >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> AND THE MUELLER REPORT REPORT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY 19 LAWYERS WHO WERE ON THE TEAM, APPROXIMATELY 40 FBI AGENTS, INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS, AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ISSUED MORE THAN 2800 SUBPOENAS, NEARLY 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, MORE THAN 230 ORDERS FOR COMMUNICATION RECORDS, ALMOST 50 ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PEN REGISTERS. 13 REQUESTS TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INTERVIEWED 500 WITNESSES. >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> WE HAVE INVESTIGATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LEVELED AT THE PRESIDENT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS HAVE MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED AND INSTEAD THE COMPLAINT IS THE 19 PAGES THAT WE CAN ALL READ COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED A FEW WEEKS EARLIER, THE CALAMITY. I BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS VERY POLITICAL AND WAS WEAPONIZED TO GO AFTER POLITICAL OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENT. IF THAT IS THE CASE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT POLITICIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MAKING A WEAPON IS ABUSE OF POWER >> I THINK ITS ABUSE OF POWER REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT. >> OF COURSE. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE WHEN DID SURVEILLANCE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGIN >> THE POSITION TODAY APPEARS TO BE THAT IT STARTED IN JULY BUT I — I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. >> IT IS AN UNUSUAL THING IS IT NOT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO BE INVESTIGATING A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, PARTICULARLY A CANDIDATE FROM THE OPPOSING PARTY OF THE PARTY IN POWER >> YES. >> DO WE KNOW IF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INVESTIGATED ANY OTHER CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT >> I DON’T KNOW. WELL, I’M SORRY. I GUESS THEY WERE INVESTIGATING HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE E-MAIL. >> DO WE KNOW IF THERE WERE WIRE TAPS >> I DON’T KNOW. >> DO WE KNOW IF THERE WERE EFFORTS TO SEND INVESTIGATORS IN WEARING A WIRE >> I DON’T KNOW. >> I WOULD URGE YOU HAVE HAD REMARKABLE T TRANSPARENCY. YOU PROMISED YOU WOULD RELEASE THE MUELLER REPORT REPORT PUBLICLY. YOU HAVE RELEASED THE REPORT. ANYONE CAN LEASE IT. ITS RIGHT HERE. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO BRING THE SAME TRANSPARENCY TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT WHETHER IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLITICAL, TARGETED POLITICAL RIVALS AND USED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ASSETS TO SURVEIL THEM IMPROPERLY. >> THANK YOU. THAT’S THE END OF THE FIRST ROUND. WE HAVE VOTES I THINK AT THREE. I THINK THERE ARE FOUR VOTES. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS JUST CAN YOU DO FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES HERE YOU ARE OKAY YOU ALL RIGHT GOOD. SENATOR — YOU ARE NEXT. WE WILL DO THREE MINUTE SECOND ROUNDS. >> SENATOR FEINSTEIN NOTED, SHE FELT THE FBI DERELICT OF DUTY IF IT DIDN’T INVESTIGATE AFTER LEARNING AUSTRALIA. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BUT AUSTRALIA. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN KNEW RUSSIA HAD STOLEN DEMOCRATIC E-MAILS BEFORE THE VICTIMS DO AND THEY WERE TOLD THE RUSSIAS ADD HAVE ASSISTED THE CAMPAIGN. WITH THE — WITH THE STOLEN E- MAILS. THE FBI WAS RIGHT TO LOOK INTO IT. THAT RESULTED IN OF COURSE IN 37 INDICTMENTS. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. BARR IN YOUR LETTER YOU CLAIM THE LACK OF THE EVIDENCE BEARS ON IF THE PRESIDENT HAD THE INTENT TO COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS, ONE SOMEONE MAY INTERFERE WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS. MOST CRITICALLY IN THE INTERFERENCE MAY PREVENT THE FINDING OF AN UNDERLYING CRIME YOU MAY NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A CRIME BUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID FIND EVIDENCE OF CRIMES INCLUDING ONE THAT H IMPLICATED THE PRESIDENT. DIDN’T WE LEARN DUE TO THE INVESTIGATION THAT DONALD TRUMP IS KNOWN AS INDIVIDUAL 1 IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, DIRECTING HUSH PAYMENTS AS PART OF A CRIMINAL SCHEME TO VIOLATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. THAT MATTER WAS FOUND BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, REFERRED TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT IN NEW YORK. IS THAT CORRECT >> YES. >> THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE THE MUELLER REPORT REFERENCES A DOZEN ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS STEMMING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. YOU COMMIT THAT YOU WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. >> CAN YOU SAY >> YOU COMMIT THAT YOU WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DOZEN ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS >> I WILL SUPERVISOR THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> WILL YOU LET THEM REACH NATURAL CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY >> YES. >> THANK YOU. YEAH. AS I SAID WHEN I WAS UP FOR CONFIRMATION. PART OF MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN CASES. >> WELL AND YOU TESTIFIED A NUMBER OF THINGS AND THAT’S WHY I — I’M DOUBLE CHECKING. THE RESPECTATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED IF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL EXPRESSED ANY EXPECTATION OR INTEREST IN LEAVING THE OBSTRUCTION DECISION TO CONGRESS AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN’T SAY THAT TO YOU. YOU SAID HE DIDN’T SAY THAT TO ME. >> RIGHT. >> THEN HE HAS REFERENCES IN HIS REPORT TO CONGRESS PLAYING A ROLE IN DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU TESTIFIED MANY TIMES BUT. >> I. >> THAT WAS NOT CORRECT. >> THAT’S NOT CORRECT I THINK IT IS CORRECT. I DON’T — HE HAS NOT SAID THAT HE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS. THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. THAT’S NOT WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DOES. >> HE INCLUDED REFERENCES REPORT TO CONGRESS, PLAYING A ROLE IN IT. VOLUM 2 PAGE 8, CONGRESS [INAUDIBLE] CORRUPT EXERCISE AND POWERS OF OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE. >> I DON’T THINK BOB WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE NEXT STEP HERE WAS FOR HIM TO TURN THIS OVER TO CONGRESS TO ACT UPON. THAT’S NOT WHY WE CONDUCT GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS. >> AND THE PRESIDENT — I’M CORRECT IN MY EARLIER STATEMENT NEVER ALLOWED ANYONE TO INTERVIEW HIM DIRECTLY UNDER OATH, IS THAT CORRECT >> I THINK THAT’S CORRECT. >> EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE WAS READY TO TESTIFY. THANK YOU. >> COULD I. >> SURE. >> A POINT YOU RAISED ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF A U NDERLYING CRIME. ONE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER IS THE ABSENCE OF A CRIME DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE OTHER MOTIVES FOR OBSTRUCTION THOUGH — IT GETS HARDER TO PROVE AND MORE SPECULATION AS TO WHAT THE MOTIVES MAY BE. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER IS THAT IN THIS SITUATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISOR PR PROCEEDINGS. IF A PROCEEDING WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED, IF IT WAS A GROUNDLESS PROCEEDING, US BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T HAVE TO SIT THERE, CONSTITUTION WISE AND LET IT RUN ITS COURSE. THE PRESIDENT COULD TERMINATE THAT PROCEEDING IT WOULDN’T BE A CORRUPT ATTEMPT BECAUSE HE WAS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED AND HE WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON HIS ADMINISTRATION. THAT’S IMPORTANT BECAUSE MOST OF THE OBSTRUCTION CLAIMS THAT ARE BEING MADE HERE OR — EPISODES DO INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND WE KNOW THAT HE WAS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. >> I DON’T AGREE WITH THAT. THAT’S OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. IF YOU DON’T MIND. THE MUELLER REPORT — PARDON ME. GENERAL BARR. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. THE MUELLER REPORT REPORT DESCRIBES THE REASONS WHY THE FBI OPENED A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IN JULY 2016 INTO RUSSIA ELECTION INTERFERENCE. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY REFERENCES TO WHY THEY WOULD DO SUCH A THING. BY THAT DATE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE SERVER HAD BEEN HACKED AND RUSSIANS HAD BEEN DEEMED RESPONSIBLE. SOME HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY WIKILEAKS. AUSTRALIA HAD TOLD OUR FBI THAT A TRUMP FOREIGN AIDE SAID HE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY A PERSON ON RUSSIA’S BEHALF OFFERING TO ASSIST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFERING TO RELEASE INFORMATION DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE PREDICATE FOR OPENING A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF RUSSIA HAD TARGETED PEOPLE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO OFFER HACKED INFORMATION THAT MAY IMPACT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >> I WOULD HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE REPORT WAS FROM DOWNER, THE AUSTRALIAN DOWNER AND WHAT HE QUOTED GEORGE AS SAYING. FROM WHAT YOU JUST READ I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE CONNECTION IS BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS HAVING DIRT AND JUMPING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT SUGGESTED FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE HACKING. >> ACCORDING TO MR. MUELLER THIS INVOLVEMENT OF TRUMP FOREIGN POLL — HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THEIR CONCLUSION. ITS BEEN REPORTD THAT ON APRIL 16th YOU RECEIVED A WAIVER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION AND LITIGATION OF THE ONE MDB MATTER. THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO A MALAYSIAN COMPANY FOR ALLEGED MONEY LAUNDERING. AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS INVESTIGATING WHETHER A NATIONAL ILLEGALLY DONATED TO THE TRUMP COMMITTEE WITH MONEY TAKEN FROM 1MDB. YOU SOUGHT A WAIVER TO PARTICIPATE THOUGH YOUR FORMER LAW FIRM REPRESENTS A GROUP INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION. NAMELY GOLDMAN SACHS. HOW MANY WAIV ERRS HAVE YOU RECEIVED TO LET YOU PARTICIPATE IN MATTERS AND INVESTIGATION INVOLVING TRUMP BUSINESSES OR THE INAUGURATION COMMITTEE >> NONE. >> YOU DID SEEK ONE IN THIS CASE >> I ACTUALLY THE — AS I RECALL AND PEOPLE SHOULD JUMP ME IF I’M WRONG BUT IT DIDN’T COME FROM ME. I WAS ASKED TO SEEK A WAIVER IN THIS CASE. >> DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM IF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT A MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATION IN MALAYSIA IS SENDING MONEY TO THE TRUMP COMMITTEE THAT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES YOU MAY NOT WANT TO — INVOLVE YOURSELF IN THAT >> WELL NO, I DON’T. I DON’T. I WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH IT. >> WHY WOULD YOU SEEK A WAIVER THEN >> IT WAS — I GUESS THE CONFLICT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY RELATIONSHIP I HAD TO THE INAUGURATION COMMITTEE, WHICH I DIDN’T. >> NO IT’S TO GOLDMAN SACHS. >> NO IT’S TO KIRKLAND ELLIS. >> I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD TOUCH THAT HOT STOVE. >> THAT’S A GOOD. >> YOU SOUGHT THE WAIVER. THAT’S WHY I’M ASKING THE QUESTION >> THE ATTORNEY — THE CRIMINAL DIVISION ACTUALLY ASKED ME TO GET A WAIVER BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION OVERALL. I WAS REQUESTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION. I DIDN’T SEEK IT. IT DIDN’T COME FROM ME. >> AND WHO WOULD THAT BE THAT MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO YOU >> I’M TOLD IT WAS THE CRIMINAL DIVISION. . >> YEAH HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION BUT APPARENTLY THEY DISCUSSED IT WITH THE CAREER ETHICS OFFICIAL AND THEY MADE >>>SOMEWHERE BETWEEN MARCH 5th AND MARCH 24th YOU MADE THAT DECISION. WHAT WAS THAT? >>STARTED TALKING — WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT ON MARCH 5th. AND THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO MARCH 5th INVOLVING THE DEPUTY, THE PRINCIPLE ASSOCIATE DEPUTY AND THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT HAD DEALINGS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. SO THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF A NUMBER OF THE EPISODES AND SOME OF THE THINKING OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. SO RIGHT AFTER MARCH 5th, WE STARTED DISCUSSING WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WERE — >>YOU MADE THE DECISION WHEN? >>PROBABLY ON SUNDAY, THE 24th. >>THAT’S THE DAY THE LETTER CAME OUT. >>YES. >>YOU MAKE A DECISION UNTIL THE LETTER CAME OUT? YOU MUST HAVE TOLD SOMEBODY THOUSAND WRITE THE LETTER. — HOW TO WRITE THE LETTER. WHEN DID YOU ACTUALLY DECIDE THAT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION? >>THE 24th. >>OKAY. WHEN DID YOU GET THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE MUELLER REPORT? >>FIRST — IT WASN’T A DRAFT. WE GOT THE FINAL. >>THE FIRST VERSION OF IT. THAT YOU SAW. >>WELL, THE ONLY VERSION OF IT I SAW THE 22nd. >>22nd. YOU SOLD SENATOR HARRIS — TOLD SENATOR HARRIS THAT YOU MADE YOUR DECISION ON THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE, YOU AND ROSENSTEIN. BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT. DO I CORRECTLY INFER THAT YOU MADE THAT DECISION THEN BETWEEN THE 22nd AND THE 24th. >>THE FINAL DECISION WAS MADE ON THE 24th. >>YOU DID — >>YOU HAD MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS. >>UNTIL THE 22nd. >>WE HAD MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS TO CONSIDER THIS. OLC HAD ALREADY DONE A LOT OF THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES EVEN BEFORE THE — WE GOT THE REPORT AND EVEN BEFORE MARCH 5th. I HAD BEEN IN REGULAR CONTACT. THE — THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH MUELLER’S PEOPLE AND UNDERSTOOD YOU KNOW — >>THE OLC WAS LOOKING INTO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WHILE IT WAS GOING ON. AND WITTING OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE GATHERING ON OBSTRUCTION. BEFORE YOU SAW THE MUELLER REPORT. >>NO I WASN’T THERE. OKAY. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEPUTY AND THE — WHAT WE CALL THE PAY DAG THE PRINCIPLE ASSOCIATE DEPUTY WERE MANY REGULAR CONTACT — IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH THE MUELLER’S TEAM AND WERE GETTING BRIEFINGS ON EVIDENCE AND SOME OF THEIR THINKING AND SOME OF THE ISSUES. >>DID THAT KNOW ENOUGH — >>OLC WAS BROUGHT INTO SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. >>DID THEY KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NODE TO BE REDACTED BEFORE THEY SAW THE 3/22 REPORT? >>, THE PROBLEM IS — NO, THE PROBLEM WE HAD IS WE COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE 6E MATERIAL WHEN THE REPORT CAME OVER. WE NEEDED THE HELP OF BOB MUELLER’S TEAM TO DO THAT. >>LASTLY, CAN YOU ASSURE ME THAT NOTHING RELATED TO OBSTRUCTION OR THE MUELLER REPORT WAS DISCUSSED AT YOUR OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL BROWN BAG LUNCH ON JUNE 27th? >>NOTHING ABOUT WHAT? >>NOTHING ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE AND NOTHING ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF WAS DISCUSSED WHEN YOU HAD A BROWN BAG LUNCH ON JUNE 27th WITH OLC. >>YEAH. I MEAN — WE DIDN’T DISCUSS ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE MULER REPORT OR — MUELLER REPORT OR MUELLER’S EVENTUAL POSITION ON OBSTRUCTION. >>DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR OBSTRUCTION MEMO? >>I FORGOT IF IT WAS THEN BUT I THINK I PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT I MENTIONED IT THAT I HAD A MEMO AND WAS SENDING IT TO — >>YOU HAVE HAD — YOU HAVE NOT YET SAID THAT IT WAS MENTIONED AT THIS OLC — >>I DON’T THINK — WELL, IT’S NOT AT THE BROWN BAG LUNCH. NO. >>MY TIME UP. >>OKAY. WE ARE — THE VOTE HAS STARTED AND WE’RE GOING TO SPLIT THE TIME BETWEEN SENATOR KLOBUCHAR AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. WE’LL TRY TO GO — THEY WON’T HOLD THE VOTE OPEN TOO LONG BUT LET’S START WITH SENATOR KLOBUCHAR AND SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT THIS. >>THANK YOU. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. ON APRIL 27th. PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED MUELLER, I ASSUME, FOR $35 MILLION, HE CHECKED MY TAXES AND HE CHECKED MY FINANCIALS. IS THAT ACCURATE? DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REVIEW THE PRESIDENT’S TAXES AND THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS? >>I DON’T KNOW. >>CAN YOU FIND OUT IF I ASK LATER IN A WRITTEN QUESTION? >>YES. OR YOU CAN ASK BOB MUELLER WHEN HE COMES HERE. >>OKAY. WELL I’LL DO THAT TOO BUT I’LL ALSO ASK YOU I THINK AND THEN OF COURSE WE WOULD WANT TO SEE THEM AS UNDERLYING INFORMATION. DURING MY EARLIER QUESTIONS, WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL LOOKED INTO. MY POINT WAS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PATTERN THAT THE REPORT DEVELOPS. ON PAGE 13, OF VOLUME 2, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INSTRUCTS THAT WE DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. THE REPORT SAYS AND THIS IS A QUOTE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ILLUMINATES INTENT MAY INCLUDE A PATTERN OF POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS. ON THIS POINT, THE REPORT CITES THREE U.S. CASES. U.S. V FRANKHOUSER AND U.S. V ARNOLD AND ANOTHER ONE. DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE’S A PATTERN OF POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS? >>WELL, INTENT EVENTUALLY HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. OBVIOUSLY SOME INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO AN OVERALL DETERMINATION OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT THAT’S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS WHOLE APPROACH THAT IS SUGGESTED IN THE — THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT. WHICH IS IT IS TRYING TO DETERMINE THE SUBJECTIVE INTENT OF A FACIALLY LAWFUL ACT AND IT PERMITS A LOT OF SELECTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTORS AND IT’S BEEN SHOT DOWN IN A NUMBER OF OTHER CONTEXTS. SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE VERY SKEPTICAL OF THIS APROACH IS THAT — >>YOU MEAN YOU AND DIRECTOR MUELLER OR — YOU THE JUSTICE DEPARTMNT? >>THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IS THAT IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, WHERE YOU HAVE A FACIALLY INNOCENT ACT AND A YOU KNOW, THAT’S AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. >>I JUST — >>IT’S HARD TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT’S CORRUPT. >>OKAY. I JUST WANT TO GET IN JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS LIKE SENATOR WHITE HOUSE DID. AT YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING YOU TESTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE. THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE POLITICALLY FOR ABUSING THE PARDON POWER. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE YOUR SUGGESTION THAT POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS AVAILABLE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION IS REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND ASSERTING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT VERY ACCOUNTABILITY? >>AS TO A PARDON? >>NO, THIS WAS ABOUT IN YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING. YOU SAID IN THE ABSENCE OF A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE, THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE QUOTE ACCOUNTABLE POLITICALLY END QUOTE FOR ABUSING THE PARDON POWER IF HE DID. >>YOUR QUESTION REALLY IS ABUSING ANY POWER, NOT JUST THE PARDON POWER? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >>UH-HUH. >>I MEAN IT’S HARD TO EVALUATE THAT. >>PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE AS HAVE OTHER OFFICE HOLDERS. >>OKAY LAST QUESTION, ARE THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS DETAILED IN THIS REPORT CONSISTENT WITH HIS OATH AFTER OFFICE AND THE — OF OFFICE AND THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT HE TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. >>IS WHAT CONSISTENT WITH THAT? >>I SAID ARE THE PRESIDET’S ACTIONS DETAILED IN THE REPORT CONSISTENT WITH HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT HE TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED? >>WELL, THE EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT IS CONFLICTING AND THERE’S DIFFERENT EVIDENCE AND THEY DON’T — THEY DON’T COME TO A DETERMINATION AS TO HOW THEY’RE COMING DOWN ON IT. >>SO YOU MADE THAT DECISION. >>YES. AND AS YOU KNOW, IF IT’S — >>ALL RIGHT. WE GOT — >>OKAY. >>TWO MINUTES LEFT. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. >>THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, I WONDER IF YOU COULD TELL US ABOUT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOURSELF AND BOB MUELLER SHORTLY AFTER YOUR SUMMARY WAS ISSUED. HE CALLED YOU? >>NO I CALLED HIM. >>WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO CALL HIM? >>THE LETTER. >>YOUR LETTER. OR HIS LETTER. >>HIS LETTER. >>HIS LETTER. YOU CALLED HIM. >>YEAH. >>AND HOW LONG DID THE CONVERSATION LAST? >>I DON’T KNOW. MAYBE 10, 15 MINUTES, THERE WERE MULTIPLE WITNESSES IN THE IT WAS ON THE SPEAKERPHONE. >>WHO WAS IN THE ROOM? >>AMONG OTHERS, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS IN THE ROOM. >>ANYONE ELSE? >>YEP. SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THE PROJECT. >>NEBRASKAS OF YOUR — MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF. >>YES. AND THE DEPUTY STAFF. >>AND AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL, IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED, WHO — WHO SAID WHAT TO WHOM? >>I SAID BOB, WHAT’S WITH THE LETTER? YOU KNOW. JUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL ME IF THERE’S AN ISSUE? AND HE — SAID THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY THE MEDIA WAS PLAYING THIS. AND FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET OUT THE SUMMARIES WHICH THEY FELT WOULD PUT THEIR WORK IN PROPER CONTEXT. AND AVOID SOME OF THE CONFUSION THAT WAS EMERGING AND I ASKED HIM IF HE FELT THAT MY LETTER WAS MISLEADING OR INACCURATE. AND HE SAID NO. THAT THE PRESS HE FELT THAT THE PRESS COVERAGE WAS AND IT WAS — AND THAT A COMPLETER, A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF HIS THOUGHTS AND THE CONTEXT AND SO FORTH WOULD DEAL WITH THAT. AND I SUGGESTED THAT I WOULD RATHER JUST GET THE WHOLE REPORT OUT THAN JUST PUTTING OUT STUFF SERE YACHT UP AND PIECEMEAL. AND I SAID I WOULD THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE. AND THE NEXT DAY I PUT OUT A LETTER THAT MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO ONE SHOULD READ THE MARCH 24th LETTER AS A SUMMARY OF THE OVERALL REPORT AND THAT A FULL ACCOUNT OF BOB MUELLER’S THINKING WAS GOING TO BE IN THE REPORT AND EVERYONE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. >>BUT THERE’S NOTHING IN ROBERT MUELLER’S LETTER TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESS. HIS COMPLAINT TO YOU IS ABOUT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REPORT. CORRECT? >>WELL, THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >>IT DOES. AND IN FACT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, WHY NOT JUST PICK UP THE PHONE? THIS LETTER WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT. A CAREER PROSECUTOR REBUKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES MEMORIALIZING IN WRITING. RIGHT? I KNOW OF NO OTHER INSTANCE OF THAT HAPPENING. DO YOU? >>I DON’T CONSIDER BOB AT THIS STAGE A CAREER PROSECUTOR. HE’S HAD A CAREER AS A PROBATION REPORT. >>HE’S A VERY EMINENT PROSECUTOR. >>HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE FBI FOR 12 YEARS. >>HE’S A CAREER — HE’S HAD — LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL. YES . >>RIGHT. >>I KNOW OF NO OTHER INSTANCE — >>BUT HE WAS ALSO POLITICAL APPOINTEE AND HE WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE WITH ME AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. YOU KNOW. THE LETTER IS A BIT SNITTY AND I THINK IT WAS PRETTY PROBABLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS STAFF PEOPLE. >>DID YOU MAKE A MEMORANDUM OF YOUR CONVERSATION? DID YOU MAKE A MEMORANDUM OR DID ANYONE ELSE? >>NO. >>DID ANYONE EITHER YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR STAFF, MEMORIALIZE YOUR CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT MUELLER? >>YES. >>WHO DID THAT? >>THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN OF THE CALL. >>MAY WE HAVE THOSE NOTES? >>NO. >>WHY NOT? >>WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE THEM? >>I’LL TELL YOU, WE GOT TO END THIS BUT I’M GOING TO WRITE A LETTER TO MR. MUELLER AND I’M GOING THE ASK HIM IS THERE ANYTHING YOU SAID ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION HE DISAGREES WITH. AND IF THERE IS, HE CAN COME AND TELL US. SO THE HEARING IS NOW OVER. >>IF I — >>BLUMENTHAL, I PROMISE YOU THAT IF THERE’S ANY — MR. MUELLER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONVERSATION RELAYED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IS ACCURATE AND I’M GOING TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO CORRECT ANYTHING YOU SAID THAT HE FINDS MISLEADING OR INACCURATE. AND THAT WILL BE IT. >>OKAY. >>FIVE SECONDS. >>ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. AND ESPECIALLY TODAY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CIVILITY. AND YOUR COMPOSURE. I MISSED WHAT HAS BEEN A NEEDLESSLY AND UNFAIRLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT. YOUR PROFESSIONALISM HAS BEEN REMARKABLE. I’M GRATEFUL. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. >>MY POINT OF VIEW IS PRETTY INTERESTING. AND IT GOT OFF IN A DITCH EVERY NOW AND THEN BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THE COMMITTEE DID PRETTY GOOD AND THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT. THANK YOU FOR BEING OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >>HI EVERYONE, I’M REENA NINAN. YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING WILLIAM BARR TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MUELLER’S FINDINGS AND ALSO SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES TO GET INTO. CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST RIKKI KLIEMAN IS HERE AS WELL AS CBS AND LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR KE R ADOUGAL. START WITH YOU. A LOT OF THE FOCUS OF THIS TESTIMONY WAS ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>YES. >>AND THE FOCUS ON FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN WHO ADMITTED, SAID THAT IN FACT THE PRESIDENT DID AT ONE POINT INSTRUCT HIM TO FIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIES. BUT HE SAID AT THAT POINT HE WAS READY TO CLEAR OUT HIS DESK AND WALK AWAY. I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WILLIAM BARR HAD TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>SO WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THAT HE — THAT HE WAS INSTRUCTING McGAHN TO SAY SOMETHING FALSE. BECAUSE IT WASN’T NECESSARILY FALSE. MOREOVER, McGAHN HAD WEEKS BEFORE ALREADY GIVEN TESTIMONY TO THE — TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT. AND AS THE REPORT INDICATES, IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN THE CASE THAT WHAT — THAT HE WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT PRESS REPORTS AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT HE NEVER OUTRIGHT DIRECTED THE FIRING OF MUELLER. SO — SO IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST TO ASK McGAHN TO MEMORIALIZE THAT FACT, WE DO NOT THINK IN THIS CASE THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SHOW CORRUPT INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. >>I WANT TO GET INTO THE YARDSTICK THAT HE USES VERSUS MUELLER ON THIS ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>RIGHT, SO I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT POTENTIALLY, A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN, PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND WHAT IS THE STANDARD THAT’S BEING APPLIED HERE WE SAW OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE HEARINGS, SENATORS POSING A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. IF SOMEONE DID THIS, YOU KNOW, INTERFERED WITH EVIDENCE, WOULD THAT BE OBSTRUCTION? OKAY. SO WHEN YOU — GIVE THAT HYPOTHETICAL, YOU ARE ASSUMING THERE’S PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, WELL YES. IF YOU TELL A WITNESS TO LIE, THEN YOU CAN PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU HAVE — THEN YOU HAVE A CONVICTABLE, A CHARGEABLE AND CONVICTABLE CRIME. WHAT MR. BARR IS DESCRIBING HERE IS A DISPUTE OVER THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. SO YOU HAVE ON THE ONE SIDE POTENTIALLY MR. McGAHN. SAYING WELL, I WAS DIRECTED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. YOU HAVE TRUMP DENYING IT. AND THE — SO YOU COME DOWN TO SORT OF THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. AND MR. BARR TOLD US REPEATEDLY THAT USING THE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT YARDSTICK, THAT DISPUTE, THAT — THAT AMBIGUITY IN THE EVIDENCE DIDN’T IN HIS MIND RIDES TO THE LEVEL OF A — RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CHARGEABLE OFFENSE. SO YOU — YOU HAVE THIS SORT OF CONFUSING SITUATION. WELL, YOU HAVE THIS UNDERLYING CONDUCT BUT IT’S NOT A LANGUAGE IS LOOSE. IT’S NOT A CRIME. I’VE STRUGGLED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND — FIGURE OUT A WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS AND IF I CAN I’D LIKE TO MAKE KIND OF A CULTURAL REFERENCE THAT WILL DATE ME. AND IT’S TO A NAVY. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SAW THE MOVIE “STRIPES.” WHERE THE HAROLD RAMIS CHARACTER AND BILL MURRAY JOIN THE ARMY AND THEY’RE ASKED BY A RECRUITER. THEY’RE ASKED HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A FELONY? AND HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A MISDEMEANOR? HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A ROBBERY FOR INSTANCE AND WITH COMEDIC TALENT THAT I CANNOT REPLICATE HERE, BILL MURRAY LOOKS AT RECRUITER TOYING WITH HIM AND SAYS CONVICTED? AND HAROLD RAMOS LEANS IN AND SAYS WELL, NO. NEVER CONVICTED. OKAY. SO THE — THE COMEDY THAT’S HILARIOUS IN A MOVIE WITH THE TWO GUYS TRYING TO SUGGEST THEY’VE DONE ALL SORT OF BAD THINGS BUT NEVER BEEN CONVICTED. IT STRIKES ME THAT THAT’S AT LEAST A CLOSE ANALOGY FOR WHAT MR. BARR IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE. WELL, WE DIDN’T FIND PROOF THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH THAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET A CONVICTION. AND SO WE DECIDED THAT THERE WEREN’T CHARGEABLE OFFENSES. BUT THE DISTINCTION IS AND THIS IS THE PART THAT’S I THINK REALLY HARD TO GRAPPLE WITH, IS EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR A CONVICTION, THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT — YOU KNOW, THERE CAN STILL BE ALL THIS AWFUL CONDUCT THAT — THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THE MUELLER REPORT TALKS ABOUT. THE EVIDENCE IN SOME CASES IS GOOD. SOME CASES IT’S NOT SO GOOD. BUT THE DETERMINATION THAT YOU DON’T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE — EXCUSE ME, PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT DOESN’T MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS TOTALLY EXONERATED. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT SOMEBODY IS INNOCENT. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG. AND I THINK THAT’S — AN AREA WHERE I STRUGGLE AS A LAWYER NOT TO FALL INTO THE LEGALESE. BUT TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO EXPLAIN IT AND MAYBE THAT’S A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. >>YEAH I’M — IS THIS ON NETFLIX OR AMAZON? LOOK THIS UP THIS WEEKEND. IT’S ON MY LIST NOW. OF MOVIES TO LOOK UP. I WANT TO ASK YOU THOUGH. IT’S THIS GRAY AREA THAT’S SO HARD FOR US TO UNDERSTAND. I MEAN THERE’S SOMETHING LIKE TEN INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I OUTLINED IN THE MULER REPORT. WHY — MUELLER REPORT. WHY IS THIS NOT MORE DEFINED AND UNDERSTANDABLE TO CHARGE A PROSECUTE ON THIS ISSUE? >>WELL, WE’RE — PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE? >>WELL, WE’RE DEALING WITH LAIDERS OF CONFUSION BECAUSE — LAYERS OF CONFUSION BECAUSE WE’RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW. IN A CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW, IF YOU WORK IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AS KE RA HAS IN THE PAST, THE U.S. ATTORNEY HAS A LOT OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME. AND THEN WHEN THE U.S. ATTORNEY DECIDES THAT HE OR SHE HAS EVIDENCE THAT WILL MOST LIKELY LEAD TO A CONVICTION OR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEY CAN BRING THE CHARGE. THERE ARE OTHER PROSECUTORS PARTICULARLY STATE SIDE WHO WILL SAY LOOK, REASONABLE JURORS COULD DIFFER ON THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. BUT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TO GO FORWARD. THOUGH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT’S NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I FIRST READ AN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S FOUR PAGE LETTER THAT CAME OUT ON MARCH 22nd, WAS THAT IT SOUNDED TO ME AS THE THERE WERE PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS WITHIN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE WHO DIFFERED ON THE CONCLUSION. SOME BELIEVING THAT YOU DID HAVE EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SOME BELIEVING THAT YOU DIDN’T. ROBERT MUELLER WAS LEFT IN A STATE OF NOT KNOWING IF HE SHOULD GO FORWARD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUCH PROOF. NOW, IT HAS BEEN SAID BY OTHERS THAT ROBERT MUELLER FELT IT WAS NOT HIS PLACE REGARDLESS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. BECAUSE OF THE OPINION OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE INDICTED. SO IT WAS NOT THAT HE WAS HANDING IT OVER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND HIS DEPUTY ROSENSTEIN TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. HE WAS HANDING IT TO CONGRESS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. AND THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF A CRIME. IT’S HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH IS A VERY VAGUE PHRASE BUT REALLY CAN ALSO GO TO THE CHARACTER AND THE QUOTE UNQUOTE CORRUPTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO WHICH USING AMY KLOBUCHAR, TO WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO HER EXAMINATION, WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY, YOU HAVE TEN EPISODES THAT HAVE LITTLE EPISODES WITHIN THEM. THAT ARE REPRESENTING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND THAT HOW ARE WE, AS PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS, SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THOSE? >>YOU MENTIONED AMY KLOBUCHAR. SOP OF THIS AFTERNOON’S SESSION WAS FOCUSING ON 2020 FOLKS TO — WHO ARE LOOKING AT THIS AS WELL. AMY KLOBUCHAR. SO MUCH OF THIS WASN’T JUST ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. WITH AMY KLOBUCHAR’S QUESTIONING WAS ALSO ABOUT PROTECTING THE NEXT U.S. ELECTION. I WANT TO PLAY A BYTE FOR YOU FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR. >>YOU LOOK AT TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT’S WHAT I LEARNED OR WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PATTERN HERE. LOOK AT THIS. THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL TOLD MICHAEL COHEN IF HE HE STAYED ON MESSAGE ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROCORRECT, THE PRESIDENT HAD HIS BACK. THAT’S VOLUME TWO. PAGE 140. >>I THINK THE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT’S UNCLEAR WHETHER HE WAS REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ON THAT. >>THE REPORT FOUND THAT AFTER PAUL MANAFORT WAS CONVICTED THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED HIM A BRAVE MAN FOR REFUSING TO BREAK. >>YES AND THAT’S NOT OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT — THE EVIDENCE I THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS WOULD SAY IF THIS WERE EVER ACTUALLY JOINED, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT FLIPPING ARE QUITE CLEAR AND EXPRESS AND UNIFORMLY THE SAME. WHICH IS BY FLIPPING, HE MEANT SUCCUMBING TO PRESSURE ON UNRELATED CASES TO LIE AND COMPOSE IN ORDER TO GET LENIENT TREATMENT. THAT’S NOT — IT’S A DISCOURAGING FLIPPING IN THAT SENSE IS NOT OBSTRUCTION. >>WHAT’S YOUR TAKE AWAY THE THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING THERE? >>WELL, I LIKE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING IN THE SENSE OF MEANING THAT I THINK THAT SHE HAD A GOAL. I THINK SHE HAD A PURPOSE. I THINK AS I LIKE TO SAY, SHE HAD A BEGINNING AND A MIDDLE AND AN END. I ALSO DISAGREE WITH MY RECOLLECTION. OTHER PEOPLE MAY DIFFER, OF THE PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS WHICH OCCURRED ON VARIOUS MEDIA OUTLETS AS WELL AS ON TWITTER ABOUT FLIPPING. I DON’T RECALL THEM BEING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT IT WAS FLIPPING ABOUT SOME OTHER CRIME AT SOME OTHER PLACE IN TIME. AND LYING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF FLIPPING, WHICH IS NOT AN EXPLOSION PRESENTATION THAT I USE — EXPRESSION THAT I USE IN THE PAST. WHEN I WAS PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING. OR HIS CALLING SOMEONE A RAT. AND HIS CALLING PAUL MANAFORT A STANDUP GUY. THE IDEA WAS IF YOU MAINTAINED YOUR SILENCE, AND DID NOT GIVE INTO THE PROSECUTOR, YOU WERE A GOOD GUY. WELL, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, THIS IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HE SHOULD WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. AND WE KNOW THAT IN OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICES AND STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICES, THAT CASES ARE OFTEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SOMEONE USUALLY, AT A LOWER LEVEL, WHO COMES IN AND IN ORDER TO HELP THEMSELVES TELLS THE TRUTH, THE TRUTH, VERY IMPORTANT, ABOUT WHO ORDERED THEM TO DO WHAT. NOT ABOUT SOME MADE UP STORY. >>YOU KNOW I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS YOU. AT ONE POINT KAMALA HARRIS. SENATOR HARRIS FIRST LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS DID ANYBODY, OR THE PRESIDENT ASK YOU TO OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANYONE AND HE HESITATED. >>YES. THERE WERE SEVERAL POINTS IN THE TESTIMONY WHERE I THOUGHT THAT YOU KNOW, MR. BARR DIDN’T PERFORM TERRIBLY WELL. AND THAT WAS — THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. THAT’S AN ANSWER THAT YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR. AND A NUMBER OF THOSE CASES YOU SAW HIM FALL BACK ON THE TICK WARDS. WELL I DON’T RECALL. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I DON’T REMEMBER. OR HE DEFLECTED IN SOME OTHER WAY. BUT TO GET BACK TO WHAT RICKI WAS SAYING ABOUT FLIPPING QUESTION, PROSECUTORS DO NOT BRING WITNESSES IN TO LIE. THEY SIMPLY DON’T DO THAT. THEY WORK EXTRAORDINARILY úDILI FEDERAL LEVEL WITH THE FBI AND WITH THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, TO CORROBORATE EVERY WHICH WAY POSSIBLE AND IN FACT, THE PROCESS WITH THE COOPERATED BEFORE WHERE THEY’RE ACCEPTED IS ONE OF CHALLENGE. AND — AND THEN CORROBORATION. BECAUSE NOT TO MENTION THAT IT’S THE WRONG THING TO DO BUT A PROSECUTOR WHO KNOWINGLY PUTS ON PER INJURY COURTHOUSE TESTIMONY CAN BE PROSECUTED THEMSELVES. LET ALONE LOSE YOUR LIVELIHOOD AND BE DISBARRED AND ALL THE REST OF IT. SO THAT — THAT WAS AN ANSWER BY MR. BARR THAT I DIDN’T THINK WAS A TERRIBLY ARTFUL ANSWER. >>AND IN FACT, THE PROOFER IS IN THE PUDDING — PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING WHEN IT COMES TO PAUL MANAFORT BECAUSE PROSECUTORS ONLY WANT TRUTHFUL COOPERATORS. IF YOU DON’T SPEAK THE TRUTH, YOUARE GOING TO BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY OR AS IN THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT, YOUR PLEA DEAL IS GOING BYE BYE. YOU ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. SO THE LAST THING A PROSECUTOR WANTS IS SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A CASE AND TALK ABOUT THEM FALSELY. NOBODY WANTS THAT. >>WELL, WERE YOU SURPRISED THERE WAS A MOMENT TOWARDS THE END OF THE SYSTEM, WHEN DICK DURBIN CAME FORE WARD AND AT ONE POINT BARR SAID I DON’T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE EVEN OPENED UP THIS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR — >>I THINK WE WERE BOTH FLABBERGASTED FRANKLY. THE — IF I MAY SPEAK FOR YOU ON THAT ONE. >>PLEASE. >>BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY SHOCKING BECAUSE WHAT WAS LINED UP — EXCUSE ME OUTLINED BY SENATOR DURBIN IN HIS SECOND ROUND WERE THE FACTORS OF EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED OF HOW THIS INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY GOT REOPENED. AND WE HAD THREE THINGS. THE DNC SERVER WAS HACKED. WIKILEAKS RELEASED THE STOLEN — RELEASED E-MAILS THAT WERE STOLEN WHICH WERE HILLARY CLINTON PEOPLE E-MAILS AND I’M GOING TO CALL HER FOLKS’ E- MAILS. THEN GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS SAYS TO SOMEONE FROM AUSTRALIA THAT HE’S BEEN CONTACTED AND IS ABOUT TO GET DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON FROM THE RUSSIANS. SO WILL YOU TELL ME PLEASE WHAT THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AT THAT POINT. >>AND DNC WAS ATTRIBUTED AT THAT POINT TO THE RUSSIANS. >>CORRECT. >>WHICH IS THE CONNECTION THAT — THAT WHEN WE WERE SITTING HERE AND SHE WAS FLABBER AND I WAS GASESSED. WE WERE — WE WERE THINKING WE WANT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT — WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT PROTECTING THE COMPUTER SERVERS OF A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY. ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE OUTREACH BY A HOSTILE FOREIGNED A VERY SAY. >>AND I MEAN, IT’S THE — ADVERSARY. >>AND I MEAN IT’S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR THAT I THINK EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. SOMETHING THAT’S ANTITHETICAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY. WE DON’T WANT OUR ELECTIONS CORRUPTED AND CONTROLLED BY AN OUTSIDE FOREIGN INFLUENCE PARTICULARLY AN ENEMY. AND WE OUGHT TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SIMILAR THINGS HAPPENING FROM ANY FOREIGN ADVERSARY OR EVEN FRANKLY DOMESTIC ADVERSARY. THAT WANTS TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN 2020. >>YOU KNOW I THINK IT WAS I’M LOOKING BACK AT THE NOTES, I BELIEVE BEN SASSE SAID EARLIER WE’RE GOING TO BE UNDER ATTACK AGAIN. PROBABLY FROM CHINA. WHAT’S THE APPROPRIATE ACTION? BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT STILL HANGS OUT THERE. THE ELECTION COMING UP NEXT YEAR. AND THERE’S STILL GREAT CONCERN BY FOLKS IN THE SENATE OF THIS HAPPENING POTENTIALLY AGAIN. >>WELL, CERTAINLY YOU HAVE THE FBI THAT IS HIGHLY INVOLVED IN DEALING WITH BOTH LITERAL THREATS AND SECURITY THREATS AND CYBER SECURITY THREATS. YOU ALSO HAVE THE BEGINNING OF THIS ENTIRE HEARING WHERE LINDSEY GRAHAM OUTLINED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THE BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION THAT HE AND OTHERS ARE BRINGING FORWARD. IT WAS ALSO ECHOED BY SOME OF THE OTHER SENATORS PARTICULARLY AMY KLOBUCHAR. ABOUT LEGISLATION THAT IS BEING ENACTED TO TRY WITH ALL THAT WE CAN, TO PROHIBIT THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENING AGAIN. IN ADDITION, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A BIG LOOK-SEE INTO PLACES LIKE FACEBOOK. WHERE WE SAW WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH THE AMOUNT OF ADS THAT WERE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY IN LOCATIONS AROUND THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO — AND STORIES — THAT WERE TARGETED. IN ORDER TO AFFECT VOTING. AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MR. ZUCKERBERG AT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN MADE ACUTELY AWARE, MUCH TO HIS DETRIMENT, AS TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE JUST GOT TO POLICE THEIR SITE MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY. >>YEAH AND I THINK IT WAS SENATOR SASSE THAT SAID THIS. THERE SHOULD BE MORE CLARITY ABOUT THE IDEA OF A CAMPAIGN ACCEPTING STOLEN MATERIAL. WE HAVE A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE WITH THE — IN THE BUSH/GORE ELECTION WHERE DURING THE DEBATE PREP, PRESIDENT GORE’S TEAM ONE OF HIS MEMBERS, RECEIVED WHAT WAS OBVIOUSLY STOLEN MATERIAL FROM THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. THAT PERSON IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE FBI AND TOOK THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PREP TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF TAKING BUT THAT — THERE’S CERTAINLY WASN’T THAT SKEPTICISM. THERE WASN’T THAT CONCERN IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. YOU KNOW, DON JR. SAID YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. I LOVE IT. LATER IN THE SUMMER. YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE SIMPLY IGNORANCE. I THINK MR. MUELLER’S REPORT CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS SOME IGNORANCE THERE. BUT THAT I THINK WOULD HELP ALL OF US IN THE FUTURE IF IT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT CAMPAIGNS SHOULD NOT TAKE STOLEN MATERIAL. >>I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IT ISN’T CRYSTAL CLEAR. I MEAN, I THINK THAT ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS UNDERSTANDS THAT IF OBVIOUSLY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY, BUT EVEN SOMEONE WHO IS LOOSELY, POSSIBLY ATTACHED TO A FOREIGN ADVERSARY, YOU DO NOT TAKE THE INFORMATION YOU GET ON THE PHONE TO THE FBI. >>AND I SHOULD SAY YOU KNOW, SEPARATELY SENATOR HARRIS AND SENATOR GILLIBRAND HAVE COME FORWARD CALLING FOR BARR TO RESIGN. THERE WAS A LOT OF PETE PLACED ON BARR THAT HE DIDN’T GO BACK AND RE-EXAMINE SOME OF THIS. IS THIS NORMAL FOR A U.S. ATTORNEY TO GO BACK, POST SPECIAL INVESTIGATION AND LOOK BACK AT THE EVIDENCE? >>NO. I — I RESPECT KAMALA HARRIS A GREAT DEAL. I KNOW HER FROM MY DAYS IN CALIFORNIA. SHE WAS A PROSECUTOR UP IN SAN FRANCISCO. I DO NOT KNOW, KERA MAY, BUT I DON’T, I DO NOT KNOW A LEAD PROSECUTOR EVER IN MY YEARS OF PRACTICE, I GUESS I CAN SAY DECADES OF PRACTICE, WHO HAS EVER GONE BACK AFTER GETTING A PROSECUTORIAL MEMO AND HAVING A CONVERSATION ORE TWO OR MORE MANY MORE WITH THE ASSISTANT AND HAS GONE BACK IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE GOING BACK INTO WAREHOUSES AND LOOKING AT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. I DON’T SEE ANYONE WOULD DO THAT. >>THE CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN GRAHAM WEIGHED IN SAYING HE WILL NOT CALL MUELLER TO TESTIFY BEFORE SAYING AND I’M QUOTING HERE — IT IS OVER. CHAIRMAN GRAHAM SAYS HE’S NOT GOING TO CALL HIM. AND ENOUGH ALREADY. IT’S OVER. I’M NOT GOING TO RETRY THE CASE. IT IS OVER. >>WELL, HE HAS THAT RIGHT. HE’S THE HEAD OF THE COMMITTEE. AND AFTER ALL, THE DEMOCRATS LEAD THE HOUSE COMMITTEES AND SO ROBERT MUELLER IS GOING TO BE CALLED IN THE HOUSE IF HE’S NOT GOING TO BE CALLED IN THE SENATE. >>YEAH. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK — ONCE MR. BARR SAID THAT HE ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED IN THE MULER REPORT — MUELLER REPORT, AT THAT POINT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THE ULTIMATE SUPERVISOR IN A PROSECUTION TO THEN GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK. >>HAVE YOU EVER SEEN — I HAVE NEVER SEEN. >>WHERE — WHERE THE — WHERE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, WHERE THERE AREN’T QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE EVIDENCE REFLECTS. I DON’T THINK THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT YOU KNOW, THE ULTIMATE SUPERVISOR TO CLIMB THROUGH THE 2800 SUBPOENAS. THE 500 WITNESS REPORTS. AND ON AND ON. I DON’T THINK THAT THAT — >>WE SHOULD ALSO SAY YOU KNOW, WE’VE HEARD FROM MUELLER HIMSELF, RELEASING A NOTE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. MORE THAN ONE NOTE. SAYING THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUMMARIES AND THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WERE DRAWN. YOU KNOW. AND SO WE DO KNOW HE HAS WEIGHED IN. IS SENATOR GRAHAM RIGHT? IS IT OVER? >>WELL, FOR LINDSEY GRAHAM IT’S OVER AND HE’S THE HEAD OF THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE COUNTRY IT ISN’T OVER. BECAUSE CERTAINLY IF IT’S NOT GOING TO COME UP IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IT’S GOING TO COME UP IN THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. I MEAN, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IT IS NOT OVER IN OTHER QUARTERS. I DON’T KNOW FRANKLY, YOUR POLITICAL PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING ON LATER MAY KNOW MORE THAN I KNOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A WAY TO OVERRULE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT IS DONE. >>THE THING — THAT ALSO STRUCK ME ABOUT ALL THIS IS BARR REPEAT — ALTHOUGH HE DIDN’T QUESTION THE EVIDENCE HE SAID REPEATEDLY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND MUELLER’S DECISION AND I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE STANDARD THAT HE WAS APPLYING. I APPLIED PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD HAVE — UNDER THOSE FACTS I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO CLIMB THROUGH THE WAREHOUSE. BUT I DO WONDER WHY THERE WASN’T MORE CLARITY BETWEEN MR. MUELLER AND MR. BARR BETWEEN, MARCH 5th AND WHEN THE REPORT STARTED TO COME OUT, OVER WHAT IS A VERY CLEAR MISUNDERSTANDING OR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF WHAT THE NONINDICTMENT POLICY IS. SO WHAT — WHAT YOU HAVE IS MR. MUELLER SAYING I CAN’T INDICT THE PRESIDENT. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MAKE A úC THERE’S NO — NOT GOING TO BE A TRIAL WHERE HE CAN CLEAR HIS NAME. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I AM YOU KNOW, I AM NOT GOING TO REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE CHARGED. MR. BARR SAID VIRTUALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE. AND HE SAID OUR JOB IS TO CALL BAWLS AND STRIKES. — BALLS AND STRIKES, CHARGE NO CHARGE. AND IF HE — APPARENTLY I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE QUESTION FROM ONE OF THE SENATORS, BARR REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE WASN’T SUFFICIENT. BUT LET’S TAKE THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT IT WAS. LET’S SAY IN BARR’S MIND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON OBSTRUCTION OR ANOTHER REASON. THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WHAT MR. BARR WAS SAYING WAS HE WOULD HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. AND THAT WOULD OPEN ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT MR. MUELLER LED HIM TO NOT REACH THAT SAME DECISION. THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF LEAKS, THAT IT WOULD IMPAIR THE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO PROCEED AND CONDUCT HIS OFFICE, THERE WERE REALLY STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE IMPACT OF THAT POLICY. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I’M SURPRISED IT WASN’T A MEETING OF THE MINDS BETWEEN MR. MUELLER AND MR. BARR BECAUSE IT’S — I THINK IT’S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT HAS LED TO THIS CONFUSION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. >>I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. AND THERE WAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT ONLY THE CHAIRMAN, BUT LET’S ADD ROD ROSENSTEIN TO THE MIX. FOR THE THREE OF THEM TO MEET TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR POSITIONS WERE THE SAME. AND IF THEY DIDN’T DO THAT, THE QUESTION IS WHY NOT? SO DOES LINDSEY GRAHAM HAVE SOME OBLIGATION TO TIE THIS INVESTIGATION UP? HIS COMMITTEE, UP WITH TO A BOW. WELL, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE APPROPRIATE THING WOULD BE TO HAVE MR. MUELLER TESTIFY AND IN ORDER TO SEE JUST THAT ISSUE. BECAUSE WE’RE REALLY DEALING WITH VOLUME TWO HERE, REALLY DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF THE TEN EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION. I THINK EVERYONE CAN MAKE A LOT OF NOISE TODAY OR ANY OTHER DAY ABOUT THE INCIDENTS OF CONTACT BY RUSSIANS AND THEIR HACKING AND THEIR BAD CONDUCT ABOUT THE ELECTIONS. AND WHETHER OR NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS JUST KEPT MISSING EACH OTHER AND THERE WAS NO MEETING OF THE MINDS FOR AN AGREEMENT. SO IF WE PUT VOLUME ONE ASIDE, WE’RE STILL LEFT WITH THIS PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION OF NOT HAVING A CONCLUSION ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE THAT. AND THE ONLY WAY THAT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT IS IF WE HEAR FROM ROBERT MUELLER. >>I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. WATCH STRIPES. AND RIKKI KLIEMAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON SUCH A DAY LIKE TODAY. >>>WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. WE’VE GOT A LOT MORE NEWS ON ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S TESTIMONY AEAD. YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN, CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. >>>THIS IS AMERICA’S LATEST SUPERHERO. >>DON’T FORGET TO SHOW LOVE. >>THIS IS HIS KINDERGARTEN CLASS. THIS ONE TIME SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS NOW ARCHITECT. THIS IS JUST SOME OF HER WORK. >>I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. >>THIS IS DOABLE. >>THIS HISTORY IS STILL LIVING. >>THIS IS A MIRACLE. >>THIS IS WORKING. >>ALWAYS WORKING.>>>WE HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF STIGMA AROUND SEXUALITY IN THIS COUNTRY. >>JUST SAY NO UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED. >>HERE’S HOW YOU USE A CONDOM. HERE ARE DISEASES YOU CAN GET IF YOU DON’T. >>ONE IN FIVE WOMEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND ONE IN 16 MEN. >>IT IS MURKY AT BEST. IF THERE’S LIKE A SENSE OF THREAT. DON’T DO IT. >>IT’S REVERSIBLE. IF YOU SAY YES AND THEN YOU SAY NO, IT’S NO. >>>OF ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT ACCEPTED REFUGEES. PER CAPITA SWEDEN RECENTLY TOOK IN THE MOST. >>WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY WE’RE TAKING IN. >>WE GOT IN THE PROBLEM IN — THE CITY. >>THE ISSUE OF MIGRATION AND THE RISE OF THE RIGHT IS MIRRORED IN THE U.S. >>WE NEED A STRONG WELFARE STATE SO THEY CAN FEEL INCLUDED. >>THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF THE ANTIIMMIGRANT RIGHT CONTINUES TO RISE. >>ALL CULTURES ARE NOT EQUAL. >>>AND I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WAS — I MEAN, ABSOLUTELY ENLIGHTENING AND SHOULD BE DEEPLY TROUBLING TO THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THAT HE MADE A DECISION AND DIDN’T REVIEW THE EVIDENCE. NO PROSECUTOR WORTH HER SALT WOULD MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS INVOLVED IN AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE. THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL LACKS ALL CREDIBILITY AND HAS I THINK COMPROMISED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC’S ABILITY TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A PURVEYOR OF JUSTICE. >>SHOULD HE RESIGN? >>YES. >>THAT WAS CALIFORNIA SENATOR AND 2020 CANDIDATE KAMALA HARRIS CALLING FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR TO RESIGN. CAITLIN HUEY BURNS JOINS ME NOW. WE’VE GOT HARRIS AND GILLIBRAND AND BOOKER AND WARREN. CASTRO. ALL CALLING FOR BARR TO RESIGN. >>OUR PHONES ARE KIND OF BLOWING UP WITH THE TWEETS AND CALLING FOR THEIR RESIGNATIONS. IT DOESN’T TAKE MUCH POLITICALLY TO CALL ON BARR TO RESIGN. YOU SAW THE REPUBLICANS IN THE COMMITTEE REALLY COMING TO HIS DEFENSE. AND FOCUSING ON OTHER ISSUES. WHETHER IT WAS THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN. THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AND ELECTIONS. THEY WERE NOT GOING TO WAY THAT DEMOCRATS WERE GOING. AND YOU MENTIONED 2020 CANDIDATES. THIS PANEL HAD A LOT OF THEM. COREY BOOKER AND KAMALA HARRIS, AMY KLOBUCHAR. THEY’RE ALL RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. AND THEY ALL EITHER HAVE LAW DEGREES OR ARE FORMER PROSECUTORS THEMSELVES. AND SO YOU SAW THEM KIND OF USE THIS AS A WAY TO KIND OF AUDITION IN A WAY TO TAKE ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN 2020. IT’S A LOT HAPPENING HERE. AND A LOT OF INTERESTING DYNAMICS TO WATCH. >>WHEN YOU WEIGH IN, YOU KNOW YOU HAVE GOT THE 2020 LENS AS WE’RE LOOKING THROUGH THIS, WHERE DO YOU SEE THIS HEADED AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BED. >>RIGHT AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN THIS — SITUATION WHERE THEY WANT TO PURSUE WHEREVER THIS INVESTIGATION MAY LEAD THEM. WHATEVER THREAD THEY CAN PULL OUT BUT ALSO VERY WARY OR CONCERNED RATHER THAT WHAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS. AND YOU KNOW, THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, GUN ISSUES. AND OTHER ITEMS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. BUT THEY’RE LEAVING THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. YOU HAVE HAD ELIZABETH WARREN AND JULIAN CASTRO, 2020 CANDIDATES CALL FOR BARR TO BE IMPEACHED. TRYING TO GET A STEP FURTHER. WE’RE IN THE MOMENT IN THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY CANDIDATES ALL LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DIFFERENTIATE THEMSELVES AND MAKE SOME NEWS. USING BARR IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT. YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE FUNDRAISING LETTERS COME OUT TODAY. YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HEAR THEM TALKING ABOUT THIS AT LEAST TODAY BUT THE CONCERN I THINK FOR THEM WOULD BE HOW TO MESSAGE THIS TO VOTERS. >>I DID NOTICE THERE WAS A MESSAGING — WITH TRUMP AND PENCE SENT OUT A SHORT TIME AGO ON THIS. WE’RE HEARING FROM WHITE HOUSE TEAM CBS NEWS WHITE HOUSE TEAM SAYING THAT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TELLS CBS THE PRESIDENT DID WATCH BARR’S TESTIMONY. THE OFFICIAL WOULD NOT SAY HOW LONG HE WATCHED BUT HE COVERAGED THE COVERAGE ON TV AND HE HAD A MEETING WITH LAWMAKERS ALSO THIS AFTERNOON ON MARITIME POLICIFUL SOMETHING SEPARATE. IS THIS A INNING WISH — WINNING ISSUE FOR THE PRESIDENT? >>YOU KNOW IT’S BEEN REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE MUELLER REPORT WAS A CLOUD, REALLY HANGING OVER THIS ADMINISTRATION, WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FRUSTRATED AND INFURIATED BY IT. WE SAW THAT IN THE ACTUAL REPORT ITSELF. NOW THE CAMPAIGN SEES THIS AS SOMETHING TO REALLY OUT THE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. REALLY USING THAT HEADLINE FROM THE — THAT FOUR PAGE MEMO THAT BARR PUT OUT AFTER HE SAW THE REPORT. AND THAT’S WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND THAT’S WHY YOU SEE THIS AGGRESSIVE QUESTIONING OF BARR. THE QUESTIONING OF WHETHER HE ACTUALLY SAW ANY UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, AND WHETHER HE HAS BEEN POLITICAL IN THIS WHOLE ENTIRE THING BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAS SEIZE ON THAT INITIAL HEADLINE, NO COLLUSION. THEY KNOW THAT HE HAS SEIZED ON BARR’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND THAT’S NOT A CONCLUSION THAT MUELLER WAS ABLE TO MAKE HIMSELF. THEY KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ABLE TO KIND OF GET OUT AHEAD ON THAT NARRATIVE. AND I’M JUST WONDERIG KIND OF HOW THIS WILL ALL CHANGE IF AT ALL. I JUST REALLY DON’T SEE THIS HAVING MUCH OF AN IMPACT BEYOND WHAT PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE CONCLUDED THEMSELVES. ABOUT THE RESULTS. >>WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS HEADED WITH THIS? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY DON’T HAVE POWER IN THE SENATE. SO WHATEVER THEY DO IN THE HOUSE, I MEAN, WHERE’S THIS GOING? >>IT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION, WE’RE ALL WONDERING THE BARR WILL ACTUALLY COME TO THE HOUSE TOMORROW BECAUSE IT WILL BE MUCH DIFFERENT SETTING. TODAY YOU HAVE THE SENATE CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS. LINDSEY GRAHAM AS YOU SAW THERE. VERY DEFENSIVE OF THE PRESIDENT. VERY DEFENSIVE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. IF THIS WERE A HOUSE HEARING WHERE DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL, IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION. AND A LITTLE UNCERTAINTY PERHAPSFOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DYNAMIC. BUT DEMOCRATS ARE IN THIS — IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THEY WANT TO MESSAGE TO VOTERS THAT THEY’RE CUTTING OVERSIGHT. THAT THEY BELIEVE — CONDUCTING OVERSIGHT THAT THEY BELIEVE HAS BEEN LACKING OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THEY ARE PURSUING THIS INVESTIGATION CONTINUOUSLY. BUT THEY ALSO DON’T WANT TO APPEAR LIKE THEY’RE OVERREACHING. THAT THEY’RE TAKING THIS TOO FAR. >>THE MESSAGING IF PELOSI IN THE MIDTERMS, VERY CAUTIOUS OF THIS. AND VERY CONSCIOUS. BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT OVERREACH IN PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE OWE FUSTING ON — FOCUSING ON THE HOUSE AND YOU HAVE THE SENATE AT THIS POINT, EVEN BARR WAS SAYING TODAY THAT HE WAS SURPRISED THAT MUELLER DIDN’T REACH SOME SORT OF CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THERE’S A DIFFERENT CAMP THAT SAYS WELL HE LAID IT OUT AND SO CONGRESS CAN DO TO WORK. IF REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE APPETITE TO TAKE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHERE ARE WE HEADED? >>EXACTLY. AND THAT’S EXACT LITTLE RIGHT. AND THAT’S WHAT NANCY PELOSI HAS BEEN TRYING TO SAY. THAT GOING FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENTED WOULD TAKE A BIPARTISAN BUY-IN. YOU HAVE CANDIDATES LIKE WARREN SAYING WE SHOULD GET THE PRESS STARTED. AND YOU HAVE OTHERS WHO ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE RELUCTANT TO GO THAT FAR. AND WHAT PELOSI IS DEALING WITH IS NOT THE MORE LIBERAL MEMBERS OF THE PARTY. BUT REALLY THOSE MEMBERS WHO HELPED WIN BACK THE MAJORITY FOR DEMOCRATS. AND THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO WON BACKSEATS IN REPUBLICAN HELD DISTRICTS AND AREAS THAT TRUMP WAS REALLY POPULAR. SORRY, TRUMP WAS UNPOPULAR BUT THAT REPUBLICANS TRADITIONALLY DO WELL IN. IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN AND YOU SAW FROM REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR EXAMPLE, REALLY SHOW THAT. SHOW HOW KIND OF POPULAR TRUMP WILL BE IN THEIR HOME STATES. SENATORS FROM RED STATES. AND BEING REALLY DEFENSIVE OF HIM. >>I WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT “NEW YORK TIMES” HAS AN OP-ED JAMES COMEY FORMER FBI DIRECTOR WEIGHED IN. IT’S CALLED JAMES COMEY — HOW TRUMP CO-OPS LEADERS LIKE BARR. HE LOOKS AT MATTIS AND HE SAID IT TAKES CHARACTER LIKE MATTIS TO AVOID THE DAMAGE BECAUSE HE TALK, ABOUT SITTING SILENTLY WHEN HE LIES AND MAKING YOU COMPLICIT BY YOUR SILENCE. COMING IT I KNOW JAMES COMEY WEIGHED IN ON THIS. BUT WHEN DEMOCRATS LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF THE FUELER REPORT, WHEY — THE MUELLER REPORT, WHAT ARE THEY FINDING THAT DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT? >>NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THAT I HEAR VOTERS TALKING ABOUT OR EVEN ASKING ABOUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. THEY PRETTY MUCH BELIEVE ALL OF THE CONCLUSIONS THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE HERE. BUT THEY REALLY WANT THEM TO BE FOCUSED ON ECONOMIC ISSUES AND HEALTH CARE AND THINGS THAT AFFECT THEM PERSONALLY. >>IT’S THE ECONOMY THAT THEY’RE INTERESTED IN. >>SURE. AND THEY ALREADY HAVE NEGATIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. THEY ALREADY BELIEVE NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT HIM. AND SO THIS WON’T REALLY CHANGE THEIR MINDS AT ALL. AT IT WON’T CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND SO IN THESE SETTINGS, YOU ARE HEARING THEM TAKE A VERY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH. BUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, IT’S REALLY HARDLY EVER MENTIONED. >>HADLY MENTIONED. — HARDLY MENTIONED. A GOOD POINT TO MAKE. ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT AS WE LOOK AT 2020 AND WHAT A DIFFERENCE 24 HOURS MAKES WHEN WE HAD PELOSI AND SCHUMER COME OUT YESTERDAY SAYING WHAT A GREAT MEETING IT WAS WITH THE PRESIDENT. DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ARE ABLE TO PUT THE MUELLER REPORT ASIDE AND MOVE FORWARD ON ISSUES LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE? >>THEY CAN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY IN WASHINGTON THOUGH REALLY THINKS A BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL CAN ACTUALLY PASS AND MAKE IT ON TO THE PRESIDENT’S DESK. JUST BECAUSE BOTH PARTIES HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT IDEAS OF HOW TO PAY FOR SKIT WHAT AN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. THAT’S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. BUT I THINK THAT THEY WANT TO TRY TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. AND THAT’S WHAT THEY KEEP ARGUING WHENEVER WE ASK ABOUT THIS IDEA OF OVERREACH OR WHETHER VOTERS MIGHT GROW TIRED OF THEM PURSUING THE INVESTIGATIONS. THEY CAN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AND THEY BELIEVE THAT OVERSIGHT HAS BEEN LACKING IN THISN OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. SO THEY WANT TO HAVE HEARINGS LIKE THESE THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY CAN SEE. ┗>ALL BURNS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US CAITLIN. >>THANK YOU. YEAH. >>>WELL WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. W’VE GOT MUCH MORE NEWS ON THE OTHER SIDE. STICK WITH US, YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN. >>THIS IS AMERICA’S LATEST SUPERHERO. >>DON’T FORGET TO SHOW LOVE. >>THIS IS HIS KINDERGARTEN CLASS. THIS ONE TIME SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS NOW ARCHITECT. THIS IS JUST SOME OF HER ART. >>I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. >>THIS IS DOABLE. >>THIS HISTORY IS STILL LIVING. >>THIS IS A MIRACLE. >>THIS IS WORKING. >>OH, IT’S WORKING. >>THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT FIRE CREWS WERE AFRAID OF. >>THIS IS A DANGEROUS AREA. >>THIS. >>THIS IS WHAT IT IS LIKE COVERING A STORY HERE IN CHINA. >>OF ALL OF THE COUNTRY THAT’S ACCEPTED REFUGEES, SWEDEN RECENTLY TOOK IN THE MOST. >>WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY WE’RE TAKING IN. >>WE’V GOT IMMIGRANT PROBLEM IN CITY. >>THE ISSUE OF MIGRATION IS MIRRORED IN THE U.S. >>WE NEED A STRONG WELFARE STATE SO THEY CAN FEEL INCLUDED. >>THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF THE ANTIIMMIGRANT RITE CONTINUES TO RISE. >>HI, EVERYONE. I’M REENA NINAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR TESTIFIED ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE RELEASE OF ROBERT MUELLER’S REPORT ON RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS GRILLED BARR ON THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINDINGS. MUELLER HAD CONFRONTED BARR ABOUT HIS FOUR-PAGE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REPORT. IN A LETTER MUELLER TOLD BARR THAT HIS LETTER TO CONGRESS DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF MUELLER’S VIEWS ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HERE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE TESTIMONY. >>WITH HE PREPARED THE LETTER FOR THAT PURPOSE, TO STATE THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS. WE USED THE LANGUAGE FROM THE REPORT TO STATE THOSE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS. I OFFERED BOB MUELLER THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER BEFORE IT WENT OUT AND HE DECLINED. ON THURSDAY MORNING, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM BOB. THE LETTER THAT HAS JUST BEEN PUT INTO THE RECORD. AND I CALLED BOB AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE? ARE YOU — AND I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE MARCH 24th LETTER WAS INACCURATE. AND HE SAID NO. BUT THAT THE PRESS REPORTING HAD BEEN INACCURATE. AND THAT THE PRESS WAS READING TOO MUCH INTO IT AND I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY WHAT HIS CONCERN WAS. AND HE SAID THAT HIS CONCERN FOCUSED ON HIS EXPLANATION OF WHY HE DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION. AND HE WANTED MORE PUT OUT ON THAT ISSUE. BUT HE WAS VERY CLEAR WITH ME THAT HE WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE HAD MISREPRESENTED HIS REPORT. >>DO YOU EXPECT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS OF THE MUELLER REPORT? >>NO. >>DO YOU KNOW BOB MUELLER? >>YES. >>DO YOU TRUST HIM? >>YES. >>HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HIM? >>30 YEARS ROUGHLY. >>DO YOU THINK HE HAD THE TIME HE NEEDED? >>YES. >>DO YOU THINK HE HAD THE MONEY HE NEEDED? >>YES. >>DO YOU THINK HE HAD THE RESOURCES THAT HE NEEDED? >>YES. >>DO YOU THINK HE DID A THOROUGH JOB? >>YES AND I THINK HE FEELS THAT HE DID A THOROUGH JOB AND HAD ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CALLS. >>DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN IN 2016 WAS THOROUGHLY LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS? >>YES. >>AND THE ANSWER IS NO ACCORDING TO BOB MUELLER. >>THAT IS RIGHT. >>HE COULDN’T DECIDE ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. YOU DID; IS THAT CORRECT. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>DO YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOUR DECISION? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST RICKY CLEMAN IS HERE AND KYRA DUGAL. I WANT TO START WITH YOU, KYRA. A LOT OF THE FOCUS OF THE TESTIMONY WAS ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>YES. >>AND DAN MCGHAN WHO ADMITTED, SAID THAT IN FACT THE PRESIDENT DID AT ONE POINT INSTRUCT HIM TO FIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIES. BUT HE SAID AT THAT POINT HE WAS READY TO CLEAR OUT HIS DESK AND WALK AWAY. I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU WHAT WILLIAM BARR HAD TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>SO WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS INSTRUCTING MCGHAN TO SAY SOMETHING FALSE BECAUSE IT WASN’T NECESSARILY FALSE. MOREOVER, MCGHAN HAD WEEKS BEFORE ALREADY GIVEN TESTIMONY TO THE — TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT. AND AS THE REPORT INDICATES, IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN THE CASE THAT WHAT HE — THAT HE WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT PRESS REPORTS AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT HE NEVER OUTRIGHT DIRECTED THE FIRE OF MUELLER. SO IN — SO IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST TO ASK MCGHAN TO MEMORIALIZE THAT FACT, WE DO NOT THINK IN THIS CASE THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SHOW CORRUPT INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. >>I WANT TO GET INTO THE YARDSTICK THAT HE USES VERSUS MUELLER ON THIS ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >>RIGHT. SO I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT OR POTENTIALLY A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND WHAT IS THE STANDARD THAT IS BEING APPLIED HERE. WE SAW OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE HEARING SENATORS POSING A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. IF SOMEBODY DID THIS, YOU KNOW, INTERFERED WITH EVIDENCE, WOULD THAT BE OBSTRUCTION. OKAY. SO YOU — WHEN YOU GIVE THAT HYPOTHETICAL, YOU’RE ASSUMING THAT THERE IS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND THEN YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, WELL, YES. IF YOU TELL A WITNESS TO LIE AND YOU CAN PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU HAVE — THEN YOU HAVE A CONVICTABLE, CHARGEABLE AND CONVICTABLE CRIME. WHAT MR. BARR IS DESCRIBING IS A DISPUTE OVER THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. SO YOU HAVE ON THE ONE SIDE POTENTIALLY MR. MCGHAN SAYING, WELL, I WAS DIRECTED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. YOU HAVE TRUMP DENYING IT. AND THE — SO YOU COME DOWN TO SORT OF THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE. AND MR — MR. BARR TOLD US REPEATEDLY THAT USING THE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT YARDSTICK THAT DESPITE, THAT AMBIGUITY IN THE EVIDENCE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CHARGEABLE OFFENSE. YOU HAVE THIS SORT OF CONFUSING SITUATION. YOU HAVE THIS UNDERLYING CONDUCT BUT IT IS NOT A — LANGUAGE IS LOOSE. IT IS NOT A CRIME. >>UH-HUH. >>I’VE STRUGGLED TO TRY TO — FIGURE OUT A WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS. AND IF I CAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE KIND OF A CULTURAL REFERENCE. IT WILL DATE ME. AND IT IS TO A MOVIE. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE STRIPES. >>UH-HUH. >>WHERE THE HAROLD RAMUS CHARACTER AND BILL MURRAY GO TO JOIN THE ARMY. THEY’RE ASKED BY A RECRUITER AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO JOIN THE ARMY, THEY’RE ASKED HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A FELONY? HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A MISDEMEANOR? HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A ROBBERY, FOR INSTANCE. AND WITH COMEDIC TALENT THAT I CAN BE REPLICATE HERE, BILL MURRAY LOOKS AT THE RECRUITER TOYING WITH HIM AND SAYS CONVICTED? AND HAROLD LEANS IN AND SAYS WELL, NO, NEVER CONVICTED. OKAY. SO THE COMEDY THAT IS HILARIOUS IN A MOVIE WITH THE TWO GUYS TRYING TO SUGGEST THEY HAVE DONE ALL SORTS OF BAD THINGS BUT THEY’VE NEVER BEEN CONVICTED. AND IT STRIKES ME THAT THAT IS AT LEAST A CLOSE ANALOGY FOR WHAT MR. BARR IS ACTUALLY SAYING HERE. WELL, WE DIDN’T FIND PROOF THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH THAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET A CONVICTION. >>UH-HUH. >>SO WE DECIDED THAT THERE WEREN’T CHARGEABLE OFFENSES. BUT THE DISTINCTION IS, AND THIS IS THE PART THAT IS REALLY HARD TO GRAPPLE WITH, IS EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR A CONVICTION, THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE — YOU KNOW, THERE CAN STILL BE ALL OF THIS AWFUL CONDUCT THAT — THAT, UNO OWE THAT THE MUELLER REPORT TALKS ABOUT. THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASES IS GOOD. SOME CASES IT IS NOT SO GOOD. BUT THE DETERMINATION THAT YOU DON’T HAVE PROBABLE — EXCUSE ME, PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT DOESN’T MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS TOTALLY EXONERATED. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS INNOCENT. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG. AND I THINK THAT’S AN AREA WHERE I STRUGGLE AS A LAWYER NOT TO FALL INTO THE LEGALESE BUT TRY TO FIND A WAY TO EXPLAIN. IT AND MAYBE THAT’S A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. >>IS THIS ON NETFLIX OR AMAZON? I’M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IT UP THIS WEEKEND. IT IS ON MY LIST OF MOVIES TO LOOK UP. IT IS LIKE THIS GRAY AREA THAT IS SO HARD FOR US NOT IN THE LEGAL WORLD TO UNDERSTAND. THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE TEN INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WHY IS IT NOT ENOUGH TO CHARGE A PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE. >>WELL, WE’RE DEALING WITH LAYERS OF CONFUSION BECAUSE WE’RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW. IN A CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW, IF YOU WORK IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, THE ATTORNEY HAS A LOT OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME. AND THEN WHEN THE U.S. ATTORNEY DECIDES THAT HE OR SHE HAS EVIDENCE THAT WILL MOST LIKELY LEAD TO A CONVICTION OR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEY CAN BRING THE CHARGE. THERE ARE OTHER PROSECUTORS, PARTICULARLY STATE SIDE, WHO WILL SAY, LOOK, REASONABLE JURORS COULD DIFFER ON THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. BUT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TO GO FORWARD. THOUGH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT IS NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN I FIRST READ ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S FOUR-PAGE LETTER THAT CAME OUT ON MARCH 22nd, WAS THAT IT SOUNDED TO ME AS IF THERE WERE PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS WITHIN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE WHO DIFFERED ON THE CONCLUSION. SOME BELIEVING THAT YOU DID HAVE EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SOME BELIEVING THAT YOU DIDN’T. ROBERT MUELLER WAS LEFT IN A STATE OF EQUAL POISE OF NOT KNOWING IF HE SHOULD GO FORWARD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUCH PROOF. NOW, IT HAS BEEN SAID BY OTHERS THAT ROBERT MUELLER FELT IT WAS NOT HIS PLACE REGARDLESS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE OF THE OPINION OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE INDICTED. SO IT WASN’T THAT HE WAS HANDING IT OVER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND HIS DEPUTY ROD ROSENSTEIN TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. HE WAS HANDING IT TO CONGRESS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. AND THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF A CRIME. IT IS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, WHICH IS A VERY VAGUE PHRASE. BUT REALLY CAN ALSO GO TO THE CHARACTER AND THE, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, CORRUPTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO WHICH USING AMY CLOBOCHAR, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TOTAL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ACCORDING TO HER EXAMINATION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY, YOU HAVE TEN EPISODES WITH LITTLE EPISODES WITHIN THEM THAT IS REPRESENTING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HOW ARE WE AS PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THOSE. >>RICKY YOU MENTIONED AMY. SO MUCH OF THIS WAS FOCUSING ON 2020 FOLKS TOO WHO WERE LOOKING AT THIS AS WELL. AMY, SO MUCH OF THIS WAS NOT JUST ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. WITH HER QUESTIONING IT WAS ALSO ABOUT PROTECTING THE NEXT U.S. ELECTION. I WANT TO PLAY A BYTE FOR YOU FROM HER. >>YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT’S WHAT I LEARNED WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PATTERN HERE. LOOK AT THIS. THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL TOLD MICHAEL COHEN THAT IF HE STAYED ON MESSAGE ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT, THE PRESIDENT HAD HIS BACK. THAT’S VOLUME 2, PAGE 140. >>RIGHT. BUT I THINK THE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER HE WAS REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ON THAT. >>OKAY. THE REPORT FOUND THAT AFTER MANAFORT WAS CONVICTED, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED HIM A BRAVE MAN FOR REFUSIN TO BREAK. >>YES. AND THAT IS NOT — AND THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT’S — THE EVIDENCE — I THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS WOULD SAY IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY JOINED, THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT FLIPPING ARE QUITE CLEAR AND EXPRESS AND UNIFORMLY THE SAME. BY FLIPPING HE MEANT SUCCUMBING TO PRESSURE ON UNRELATED CASES TO LIE AND COMPOSE TO GET LENIENT TREATMENT. THAT IS NOT — IT IS A DISCOURAGING FLIPPING IN THAT SENSE IS NOT OBSTRUCTION. >>WHAT IS YOUR TAKE-AWAY FROM THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING THERE. >>I LIKED THE LINE OF QUESTIOING IN THE SENSE OF MEANING THAT I THINK THAT SHE HAD A GOAL. I THINK SHE HAD A PURPOSE. I THINK AS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SHE HAD A BEGINNING, A MIDDLE AND AN END. I ALSO DISAGREE WITH MY RECOLLECTION, OTHER PEOPLE MAY DIFFER, OF THE PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS WHICH OCCURRED ON VARIOUS MEDIA OUTLETS AS WELL AS ON TWITTER ABOUT FLIPPING. I DON’T RECALL THEM BEING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT IT WAS FLIPPING ABOUT SOME OTHER CRIME AT SOME OTHER PLACE IN TIME AND LYING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF FLIPPING, WHICH IS NOT AN EXPRESSION THAT I USED IN THE PAST WHEN I WAS PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING OR HIM CALLING SOMEONE A RAT OR CALLING PAUL MANAFORT A STAND-UP GUY, THE IDEA IS IF YOU MAINTAINED YOUR SILENCE AND DID NOT GIVE INTO THE PROSECUTOR, YOU WERE A GOOD GUY. WELL, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, THIS IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HE SHOULD WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. AND WE KNOW THAT IN OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY, U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICES, STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICES, THAT CASES ARE OFTEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SOMEONE USUALLY AT A LOWER LEVEL WHO COMES IN AND IN ORDER TO HELP THEMSELVES TELLS THE TRUTH. >>UH-HUH. >>THE TRUTH, VERY IMPORTANT, ABOUT WHO ORDERED THEM TO DO WHAT. NOT ABOUT SOME MADE-UP STORY. >>I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. AT ONE POINT KAMALA HARRIS, SENATOR HARRIS, FIRST LINE OF QUESTION, DID ANYONE — DID THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ASK YOU TO OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANYONE? AND HE HESITATED. >>YEAH. THERE WERE SEVERAL POINTS IN HIS TESTIMONY WHERE I THOUGHT THAT, U KNOW, MR. BARR DIDN’T PERFORM TERRIBLY WELL. AND THAT WAS — THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. THAT IS AN ANSWER THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR. AND IN A NUMBER OF THOSE CASES, YOU SAW HIM FALL BACK ON THE TICK WORDS, WELL, I DON’T RECALL, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I DON’T — OR I DON’T REMEMBER OR HE DEFLECTED IN SOME OTHER WAY. BUT TO GET BACK TO WHAT RICKY WAS SAYING ABOUT THE FLIPPING QUESTION. >>UH-HUH. >>PROSECUTORS DO NOT BRING WITNESSES IN TO LIE. >>RIGHT. >>THEY SIMPLY DON’T DO THAT. THEY WORK EXTRAORDINARILY DILIGENTLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WITH THE FBI AND THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO CORROBORATE EVERY WHICH WAY POSSIBLE. AND IN FACT THE PROCESS WITH THE COOPERATIVE BEFORE THEY’RE ACCEPTED IS ONE OF CHALLENGE AND THEN CORROBORATION. BECAUSE NOT TO MENTION IT IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. BUT A PROSECUTOR THAT KNOWINGLY PUTS ON PERJURY TESTIMONY COULD BE PROSECUTED THEMSELVES, LET ALONE LOSE YOUR LIVELIHOOD AND BE DISBARRED AND ALL OF THAT. SO THAT WAS AN ANSWER BY MR. BARR THAT I — I THINK DIDN’T THINK WAS A TERRIBLY ARTFUL ANSWER. >>AND IN FACT THE PROOF IS IN THE PUD BUILDING IT COMES TO PAUL MANAFORT. BECAUSE PROSECUTORS ONLY WANT TRUTHFUL COOPERATORS. IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH, YOU ARE GOING TO BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY. OR IN THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT, YOUR PLEA DEAL IS GOING BYE-BYE. YOU’RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. SO THE LAST THING THAT A PROSECUTOR WANTS IS SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A CASE AND TALK ABOUT THEM FALSELY. NOBODY WANTS THAT. >>UH-HUH. TESTIMONY WHEN DICK DURBIN CAME FORWARD AND BARR SAID I DON’T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE OPENED UP THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. >>I THINK WE BOTH WERE FLABBERGASTED. >>PLEASE. >>IT WAS SHOCKING. WHAT WAS LINED UP — EXCUSE ME, OUTLINED BY SENATOR DURBIN IN HIS SECOND ROUND WERE THE FACTORS OF EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED, HOW THE INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY GOT REOPENED. AND WE HAD THREE THINGS. THE DNC SERVER WAS HACKED. >>UH-HUH. >>WIKILEAKS RELEASED THE STOLEN — WIKILEAKS RELEASED E- MAIL THAT’S WERE STOLEN, WHICH WERE HILLARY CLINTON PEOPLE E- MAILS. I’M GOING TO CALL HER FOLKS E- MAILS. AND THEN GEORGE PAPADOPOULOUS SAYS TO SOMEONE FROM AUSTRALIA THAT HE HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND IS ABOUT TO GET DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON FROM THE RUSSIANS. SO WILL YOU TELL ME, PLEASE, WHAT THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AT THAT POINT. >>AND THE DNC HACK WAS ATTRIBUTED AT THAT POINT IT THE RUSSIANS. >>CORRECT. >>WHICH IS THE CONNECTION THAT — WHEN RICKY AND I WERE SITTING HERE AND SHE WAS FLABBER AND I WAS GHAST, WE WOULD WANT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE OF PROTECTING THE COMPUTER SERVERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY, ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE OUTREACH BY A HOSTILE FOREIGN ADVERSARY. >>IT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR THAT I THINK EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. SOMETHING THAT IS TO OUR DEMOCRACY. WE DO NOT WANT OUR ELECTIONS CORRUPTED AND CONTROLLED BY AN OUTSIDE FOREIGN INFLUENCE, PARTICULARLY AN ENEMY. AND WE OUGHT TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SIMILAR THINGS HAPPENING FROM ANY FOREIGN ADVERSARY OR EVEN FRANKLY DOMESTIC ADVERSARY. >>SURE. >>THAT WANTS TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN 2020. >>LOOKING BACK AT MY NOTES I BELIEVE IT WAS BEN SASS THAT SAID EARLIER WE WILL BE UNDER ATTACK AGAIN, MAYBE BY CHINA. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ACTION? SHOULD WE BE DEFINING THIS FOR CAMPAIGNS AT THIS POINT. IT SEEMS TO STILL HANG OUT THERE. WE HAVE THIS ELECTION COMING UP NEXT YEAR. AND THERE IS STILL GREAT CONCERN BY FOLKS IN THE SENATE OF THIS HAPPENING POTENTIALLY AGAIN. >>WELL, CERTAINLY YOU HAVE THE FBI THAT IS HIGHLY INVOLVED IN DEALING WITH BOTH LITERAL THREATS AND SECURITY THREATS, CYBER SECURITY THREATS. HE ALSO HAVE THE BEGINNING OF THIS ENTIRE HEARING WHERE LINDSEY GRAHAM OUTLINED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THE BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION THAT HE AND OTHERS ARE BRINGING FORWARD. IT WAS ECHOED BY SOME OF THE OTHER SENATORS ABOUT LEGISLATION THAT IS BEING ENACTED TO TRY WITH ALL THAT WE CAN TO PROHIBIT THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENING AGAIN. IN ADDITION, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A BIG LOOKSEY INTO PLACES LIKE FACEBOOK WHERE WE SAW WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH THE AMOUNT OF ADS THAT WERE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY IN LOCATIONS AROUND THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO — AND STORIES THAT WERE TARGETED IN ORDER TO AFFECTER VOTING. AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MR. ZUCKERBERG AT FACEBOOK HAS BEEN MADE ACUTELY AWARE, MUCH TO HIS DETRIMENT. AS TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE JUST GOT TO POLICE THEIR SITE MUCH MORE THOROUGHLY. >>AND ONE — I THINK IT WAS SENATOR SASS SAID THERE SHOULD BE MORE CLARITY ABOUT THE IDEA OF A CAMPAIGN ACCEPTING STOLEN MATERIAL. >>YEAH. >>WE HAVE A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE WITH THE — IN THE BUSH-GORE ELECTION WHERE DURING THE DEBATE PREP. >>YEAH. >>PRESIDENT GORE’S TEAM, ONE OF HIS MEMBERS RECEIVED WHAT WAS STOLEN MATERIAL FROM THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. >>YEAH. >>THAT PERSON IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE FBI AND TOOK THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PREP TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF STOLEN MATERIAL. BUT THAT — CERTAINLY THERE WASN’T THAT SKEPTICISM. THERE WASN’T THAT CONCERN IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. YOU KNOW, DON JUNIOR SAID SAY WHAT IT IS. I LOVE IT LATER IN THE SUMMER. YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE SIMPLY IGNORANCE. I THINK MR. MUELLER’S REPORT CONCLUDE THERE’S WAS SOME IGNORANCE THERE. BUT I THINK WOULD HELP ALL OF US IN THE FUTURE IF IT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT CAMPAIGNS SHOULD NOT TAKE STOLEN MATERIAL. >>I WANT TO ASK — >>AND I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IT ISN’T CRYSTAL CLEAR. I THINK ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS UNDERSTANDS THAT IF OBVIOUSLY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY BUT SOMEONE LOOSELY ATTACHED TO A FOREIGN ADVERSARY, YOU DO NOT TAKE THE INFORMATION YOU THAT GET ON THE PHONE TO THE FBI. >>I WOULD SAY THAT SENATOR HARRIS AND GILLIBRAND HAVE COME FORWARD ASKING BARR TO RESIGN. HE DIDN’T GO BACK AND REEXAMINE SOME OF THIS. IS IT NORMAL TO GO BACK POST INVESTIGATION AND LOOK BACK AT THE EVIDENCE? >>NO. I RESPECT KAMALA HARRIS A GREAT DEAL. I KNOW HER FROM MY DAYS IN CALIFORNIA. SHE WAS A PROSECUTOR UP IN SAN FRANCISCO. I DO NOT KNOW, KERA MAY, BUT I DO NOT KNOW A LEAD PROSECUTOR EVER IN MY YEARS OF PRACTICE, I GUESS I CAN SAY DECADES OF PRACTICE, WHO HAS EVER GONE BACK AFTER GETTING A PROSECUTAL MEMO AND HAVING A CONVERSATION OR TWO OR MANY MORE WITH THE ASSISTANT AND HAS GONE BACK IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE GOING BACK INTO WAREHOUSES AND LOOKING AT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. I JUST DON’T SEE ANYONE THAT WOULD DO THAT. >>THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM WEIGHED IN SAYING HE WILL NOT CALL MULE TORE TESTIFY BEFORE SAYING I’M QUOTING HIM, IT IS OVER. ENOUGH ALREADY. IT IS OVER. I’M NOT GOING TO RETRY THE CASE. IT IS OVER. >>HE HAS THAT RIGHT. HE IS THE HEAD OF THE COMMITTEE. AND AFTER ALL THE DEMOCRATS LEAD THE HOUSE COMMITTEES. AND SO ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE CALLED IN THE HOUSE IF HE’S NOT GOING TO BE CALLED IN THE SENATE. >>YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONCE MR. BARR SAID THAT HE ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED IN THE MUELLER REPORT, AT THAT POINT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THE ULTIMATE SUPERVISOR IN A PROSECUTION TO THEN GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK — >>HAVE YOU EVER SEEN? I HAVE NEVER SEEN. >>WHERE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. WHERE THERE AREN’T QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE EVIDENCE REFLECTS. I DON’T THINK THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT THE — YOU KNOW, THE ULTIMATE SUPERVISOR TO CLIMB THROUGH THE 2800 SUBPOENAS, THE 500 WITNESS REPORTS, AND ON AND ON. I DON’T THINK THAT THAT — >>AND WE SHOULD ALSO SAY WE HAVE HEARD FROM MUELLER HIMSELF, RELEASING A NOTE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MORE THAN ONE NOTE SAYING HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUMMARIES AND THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WERE DRAWN, YOU KNOW. SO WE DO KNOW THAT HE HAS WEIGHED IN. IS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM RIGHT? IS IT OVER? >>WELL, FOR LINDSEY GRAHAM IT IS OVER AND HE IS THE HEAD OF THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE COUNTRY, IT ISN’T OVER. BECAUSE CERTAINLY IF IT IS NOT GOING TO COME UP IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IT’S GOING TO COME UP IN THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. I MEAN, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IT IS NOT OVER IN OTHER QUARTERS. I DON’T KNOW FRANKLY YOUR POLITICAL PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING ON LATER MAY KNOW MORE THAN I KNOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A WAY TO OVERRULE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT IS DONE. >>THE THING THAT ALSO STRUCK ME ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS BARR REPEATED — ALTHOUGH HE DIDN’T QUESTION THE EVIDENCE, HE SAID REPEATEDLY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND MUELLER’S DECISION. I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE STANDARD THAT HE WAS APPLYING. I APPLIED PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD HAVE — UNDER THOSE FACTS I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO CLIMB THROUGH THE WAREHOUSE. BUT I DO WONDER WHY THERE WASN’T MORE CLARITY BETWEEN MR. MUELLER EXAMINE MR. BARR BETWEEN MARCH 5th AND WHEN THE REPORT START TODAY COME OUT OVER WHAT IS A VERY CLEAR MISUNDERSTANDING OR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF WHAT THE NONINDICTMENT POLICY IS. SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS MR. MUELLER SAYING I CAN’T INDITE THE PRESIDENT. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MAKE A CHARGING DECISION BECAUSE THERE IS — THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE A TRIAL TO CLEAR HIS NAME. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I AM — YOU KNOW, I AM NOT GOING TO REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE CHARGED. MR. BARR SAID VIRTUALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE. HE SAID OUR JOB IS TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES, CHARGE, NO CHARGE. AND IF — AND APPARENTLY I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE QUESTION FROM ONE OF THE SENATORS, BARR REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE WASN’T SUFFICIENT. BUT LET’S TAKE THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT IT WAS. LET’S SAY THAT IN BAR’S MIND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON OBSTRUCTION OR SOME OTHER REASON. >>UH-HUH. >>THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WHAT MR. BARR WAS SAYING IS HE WOULD HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. AND THAT WOULD OPEN ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT MR. MUELLER LED HIM TO NOT REACH THAT SAME DECISION. THE POSSIBILITY OF LEAKS. THAT IT WOULD IMPAIR THE PRESIDENT ACE ABILITY TO CONDUCT HIS OFFICE. THERE WERE REALLY STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE IMPACT OF THAT POLICY. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I’M SURPRISED THERE WASN’T MR. MUELLER AND MR. BARR BECAUSE IT IS — I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE REAPS THAT HAS LED TO THIS CONFUSION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. >>I AGREE WITH THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT. AND THERE WAS EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT ONLY THE TWO OF THEM, LET’S ADD ROD ROSENSTEIN TO THE MIX, FOR THE THREE OF THEM TO MEET TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR POSITIONS WERE THE SAME. AND IF THEY DIDN’T DO THAT, THE QUESTION IS WHY NOT. SO DOES LINDSEY GRAHAM HAVE SOME OBLIGATION TO TIE THIS INVESTIGATION OF HIS COMMITTEE UP WITH A BOW? WELL, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE APPROPRIATE THING WOULD BE TO HAVE MR. MUELLER TESTIFY. >>YOU HAVE. >>IN ORDER TO SEE JUST THAT ISSUE. BECAUSE WE’RE REALLY DEALING WITH VOLUME TWO HERE. WE’RE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF THE TEN EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION. WE’RE NOT — I THINK EVERYONE CAN MAKE A TODAY OR ANY OTHER DAY ABOUT THE INCIDENCES OF CONTACT BY RUSSIANS AND THEIR HACKING AND THEIR BAD CONDUCT ABOUT THE ELECTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS JUST KEPT MISSING EACH OTHER THERE AND WAS NO MEETING OF THE MIND FOR AN AGREEMENT. SO IF WE PUT VOLUME ONE ASIDE, WE’RE STILL LEFT WITH THIS PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION OF NOT HAVING A CONCLUSION ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE THAT. AND THE ONLY WAY THAT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT IS IF WE HEAR FROM ROBERT MUELLER. >>I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU FOR THE HOMEWORK TO WATCH STRIPES ON AMAZON OR NETFLIX. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON A DAY LIKE TODAY. >>>WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. WE HAVE A LOT MORE NEWS ON ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S TESTIMONY AHEAD. YOU’RE STREAMING CBS NEWS. CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. >>THIS IS AMERICA’S LATEST SUPERHERO. >>DON’T FORGET TO SHOW LOVE. >>THIS IS HIS KINDERGARTEN CLASS. >>THIS ONE-TIME SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS NOW ARCHITECT. THIS IS JUST SOME OF HER ARBY. >>I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. >>THIS IS DOABLE. >>THIS HISTORY IS STILL LIVING. >>THIS IS A MIRACLE. >>>>THIS IS WORKING. >>OH, IT’S WORKING. >>THIS IS THE SCENE IN TIJUANA TODAY. EARLIER — >>YOU USE TODAY LIVE IN THE U.S. >>YES. >>BY ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, YOU WERE AN AMERICAN. >>YEAH. >>RAFA HAS A YOUNG SON. HE WANTS TO SEE HIM GROW UP IN THE U.S. LIKE HE DID. >>WE WERE ALERTED TO ANOTHER SHOOTING HERE. >>I GOT SHOT WITH A .38. >>ARE YOU AFRAID OF JACOB GETTING SHOT? >>YEAH. AS A PARENT I WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET MY SON TO THE NEXT STEP. >>WE’RE IN THE MIDST OF A SERIOUS FINANCIAL CRISIS. >>HOUSING SHORTAGE NOW AFFLICTS CITIES ACROSS THE NATION AS TENANTS ARE EVICTED AND RENTS ARE DRIVEN UP. >>WE’RE IN NEED OF 550,000 UNITS OF HOUSING. INSTEAD WE’RE BUILDING LUXURY HOUSING. >>I’M SHOWING YOU MY BEDROOM AND IT SUCKS. >>DID YOU EVER THINK THAT YOU COULD BE LIVING OUT OF YOUR VEHICLE? >>NO. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE I FAILED AS A MOTHER. >>OF ALL OF THE COUNTRIES THAT ACCEPTED REFUGEES PER CAPITA SWEDEN TOOK IN THE MOST RECENTLY. >>WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY WE’RE TAKING IN. >>WE’VE GOT IMMIGRANT PROBLEM IN CITY. >>THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION AND THE RISE OF RIGHT IS MIRRORED IN THE U.S. >>WE NEED A STRONG WELFARE STATE SO THEY CAN FEEL INCLUDED. >>THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF THE ANTIIMMIGRANT RITE CONTINUES TO RISE. >>ALL CULTURES ARE NOT EQUAL. >>AND I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WAS ABSOLUTELY ENLIGHTENING AND SHOULD BE DEEPLY TROUBLING TO THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THAT HE MADE A DECISION AND DIDN’T REVIEW THE EVIDENCE. NO PROSECUTOR WORTH HER SALT WOULD MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS INVOLVED IN AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE. THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL LACKS ALL CREDIBILITY AND HAS I THINK COMPROMISED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC’S ABILITY TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A PURVEYOR OF JUSTICE. >>SHOULD HE RESIGN? >>YES. >>WELL THAT WAS CALIFORNIA SENATOR AND 2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE HARRIS CALLING FOR BARR TO RESIGN. CAITLIN HUEY BURN JOINS ME NOW.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *