>> Laura: YOU JUST HEARD DINESH
D'SOUZA TELL US ABOUT THE
HORRORS OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH I ASKED
MIKE ABOUT A SHORT WHILE AGO.
DINESH D'SOUZA ABOUT THE HORRORS
OF THE POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS,
WHAT HE BELIEVES, BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
AND HIS EXPERIENCE CERTAINLY HAS
SOME IMPLICATION, I THINK, FOR
THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, AS WE
MIGHT LOOK AT THIS UNHOLY
ALLIANCE OF THE FBI DIRECTOR JIM
COMEY AND DOJ PROSECUTORS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT, FOR
LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THIS
RUNAWAY PROSECUTION THAT A LOT
OF US ARE CONCERNED ABOUT?
>> I THINK THAT IN THE NORMAL
COURSE, THAT SORT OF CASE WOULD
HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED WITH THE
OUTCOME BEING A FINE.
IT'S NOT ONE OF THE BRIGHTER
CHAPTERS THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN
PROSECUTING THIS IN THE WAY THAT
HE DID.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER
DINGS AND DENTS.
BUT THAT WAS, I THINK, A PRETTY
SUBSTANTIAL ONE.
>> Laura: JUDGE MUKASEY, ADAM
SCHIFF SAID THE PARDON OF DINESH
D'SOUZA IS BASICALLY AN APPARENT
SIGNAL BY THE PRESIDENT TO
SIGNAL OTHERS, LOOK, IF YOU DO
RIGHT BY ME, I'LL DO RIGHT BY
YOU.
>> IT'S FURTHER EVIDENCE OF A
CORRUPT INTENT ON THE
PRESIDENT'S PART.
FURTHER EVIDENCE HE MAY HAVE
VIOLATED THE LAW BY OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE, IN THE FIRING OF COMEY,
BUT IN OTHER EFFORTS AS WELL.
IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE A MESSAGE TO
MICHAEL CULLEN WHO MAY ALSO BE
IMPLICATED IN EXCEEDING CAMPAIGN
LIMITS WITH THAT STORMY DANIELS
PAYMENT.
YOU HAVE THE FURTHER
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THAT HE MAY PARDON MARTHA
STUDENT, ANOTHER TV PERSONALITY
WHO WAS CONVICTED OF, GUESS
WHAT, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
LYING TO AUTHORITIES.
NOTHING ABOUT TRANSPARENT.
>> THEY SAID THE SAME THING
EVERY TIME HE EITHER ISSUES A
PARDON OR MAKES A STATEMENT,
THAT IT'S A SIGNAL, A DOG
WHISTLE, SO ON, SO FORTH.
I THINK THE PROSECUTION OF
D'SOUZA, AND THE WAY IT WAS
DONE, IS UNJUSTIFIED.
I THINK THE PROSECUTION OF
MARTHA STEWART WAS DUBIOUS.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT COMMUTED
BLAGOJEVICH'S SENTENCE.
HE SERVED SIX YEARS.
AND THAT'S A JUDGMENT CALL.
HE WAS CERTAINLY NOT PARDONED.
>> Laura: LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT
JOHN BRENNAN HAS BEEN UP TO.
HE'S NOW A COMMENTATOR ON
ANOTHER XHETWORK.
OF COURSE, FORMER TOP INTEL
OFFICIAL, U.S. GOVERNMENT.
HE HAS BEEN ON A TEAR WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> I THINK MR. TRUMP HAS
DEMONSTRATED A PARANOIA IN HIS
SECURITY, AS WELL AS A REAL
CONCERN ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION
THAT IS UNDER WAY.
CERTAINLY HIS TWEETS DO NOT SEEM
LIKE THEY'RE COMING FROM A
PERSON OF INNOCENCE AND
CONFIDENCE.
>> MY REACTION IS, ORDINARILY,
WOULD BE THAT JOHN BRENNAN WAS
DIRECTOR OF THE CIA, MAYBE
SHOULD BE TOLD TO STICK TO HIS
DAY JOB.
THE TROUBLE IS, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE
FINDING OUT ABOUT THE WAY HE DID
HIS DAY JOB, INCLUDING HIS
PARTICIPATION IN PUTTING AN
INFORMANT INTO THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN, MAYBE WE'RE BETTER OFF
WITH HIM AS KIND OF AN AMATEUR
PUNDIT.
I THINK HE MAY BE PROJECTING HIS
OWN VIEWS, IF I MAY BE AN
AMATEUR PSYCHIATRIST FOR A
MOMENT, ONTO THE PRESIDENT.
BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO HAVE A
LOT TO ANSWER FOR.
I BELIEVE WHEN THE ENTIRE STORY
GETS TOLD ABOUT WHAT THE CIA WAS
DOING IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RUNNING OF THE INVESTIGATION,
AND WHAT IT WAS DOING WITH
REGARD TO WHAT HAD BEEN ITS
INFORMANT, AND HIS BEING PUT
INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
>> Laura: WE TALKED ABOUT -- A
LITTLE ABOUT THIS ON RADIO THIS
MORNING, JUDGE.
YOU ASKED THIS QUESTION WHICH IS
WHY YOU'RE SO SMART, WHO PAID
THIS INFORM MAPT, WAS HE JUST
DOING THIS PRO BONO, THE WORK
FOR THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN?
OR FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
WHO PAID?
>> UNDERSTAND, HIS HISTORY WAS
AS A CIA ASSET.
BEING PUT INTO AN FBI
INVESTIGATION IS VERY ODD.
UNDERSTAND, THESE TWO AGENCIES,
NUMBERS ONE, DON'T SHARE THEIR
TOYS VERY WELL.
AND AREN'T SUPPOSED TO.
THE CIA IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE
IN AN OUTWARD LOOKING, FOREIGN
DIRECTED FASHION.
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING
ANYTHING IN THE UNITED STATES.
THERE'S A STATUTE THAT RESTRICTS
THAT.
THE FBI CONDUCTS INTELLIGENCE
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES.
AND FOR HIM TO BE PUT INTO
ESSENTIALLY AN FBI
INVESTIGATION, I KIND OF WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED,
WHO COORDINATED IT, WHO PAID
HIM, AND HOW THAT WAS ARRANGED.
>> Laura: BARBARA McQUAID IS A
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY APPOINTED
BY BARACK OBAMA, AND SHE SAID
THE FOLLOWING TODAY.
>> I THINK TODAY'S NEWS ABOUT
MICHAEL COHEN REALLY SHOWS YOU
WHAT HE EXPECTS IN AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
HIS EXPERIENCE WITH A LAWYER IS
SOMEONE LIKE MICHAEL COHEN, A
PIT BULL, SOMEONE WHO WILL
PROTECT HIM, SOMEONE WHO WILL BE
VERY AGGRESSIVE IN DEFENDING HIS
INTERESTS, NO MATTER WHAT.
BEING LOYAL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP,
AS OPPOSED TO LOYAL TO THE
MISSION.
AND IF THAT IS HIS MOTIVATION,
THAT IS A CRIME.
>> FOR HER TO COMMENT ON WHAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXPECTATIONS
ARE AND HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO
SERVED IN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, ERIC HOLDER,
REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS THE
PRESIDENT'S WINGMAN, STRIKES ME
AS PRETTY RICH.
>> Laura: YEAH, YOU WERE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
TALK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A PRESIDENT AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS OUT TO BE
SUCH A CRIME, THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WANTED AN ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHOSE FIRST INSTINCT IT WAS NOT
TO RECUSE HIMSELF.
THE RECUSAL ISSUE IS SOMETHING
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.
BUT THAT HAS STUCK IN THE
PRESIDENT'S CRAW.
IF I WAS THE PRESIDENT, I WOULD
NOT BE TWEETING, I WISH I HADN'T
SELECTED JEFF SESSIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE THINKS THAT
GETS HIM.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S
PARTICULARLY WISE TO DO.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S HOW HE
FEELS.
HE THOUGHT, WHY AM I APPOINTING
YOU ATTORNEY GENERAL, IF THE
FIRST THING YOU DO IS RECUSE
YOURSELF.
>> WELL, THE CIRCUMSTANCES KIND
OF CAUGHT UP WITH JEFF SESSIONS,
AND WITH THE PRESIDENT.
AND AT THE TIME THAT JEFF
SESSIONS RECUSED HIMSELF, IT MAY
BE THAT HE TECHNICALLY DIDN'T
HAVE TO, BECAUSE THE
INVESTIGATION AT THAT POINT WAS
A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
INVESTIGATION, NOT A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION.
BUT THEN DUE IN LARGE MEASURE
THE THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT
SAID AND DID, IT BECAME A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
AND AT THAT POINT, REGULATIONS
REQUIRED THAT JEFF SESSIONS
RECUSE HIMSELF.
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SUGGEST
SOMEHOW JEFF SESSIONS SHOULD
HAVE HAD THE GIFT OF PROPHECY
AND THE SITUATION WOULD DEVELOP
THAT WAY WAS RIDICULOUS, AND FOR
HIM TO START CLAIMING HE SHOULD
HAVE APPOINTED SOMEBODY ELSE IS
INANE.
IT DOESN'T, AS YOU POINT OUT, IT
DOESN'T SERVE HIS INTEREST,
PARTICULARLY WHEN HE'S GOT AN AG
IN PLACE IN A PERSON IN JEFF
SESSIONS WHO IS PURSUING HIS
AGENDA, AND VERY EFFECTIVELY,
BRINGING IN M-13 CASES,
CONCLUDING A HUGE ANTITRUST
SETTLEMENT, EFFECTIVELY RUNNING
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.