ISSUE A PURPORTED SUMMARY OF OUR
REPORT THAT WAS NOTHING LIKE OUR
REPORT AT ALL.
>> YOU LED ME TO MY NEXT
QUESTION.
WHEN YOU PREPARED THAT REPORT,
YOU WORKED ON IT FOR TWO YEARS,
YOU KNEW WHAT WAS INSIDE IT, YOU
KNEW THE STORY IT TOLD.
WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR GOT
OUT AHEAD OF YOU ALL AND
SUFFERED HIS OWN SUMMARY, WHAT
WERE YOU THINKING?
WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION?
WHAT WERE THE SPECIFIC PLACES
YOU THOUGHT, BOY, HE HAS
COMPLETELY MANIPULATED WHAT WE
HAVE SAID?
>> LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES
OF HOW HE MANIPULATED WHAT WE
SAID.
FIRST, HE SAID THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE FULLY COOPERATED WITH OUR
INVESTIGATION.
LET ME JUST GIVE YOU ONE SIMPLE
FACT AS TO WHY THAT IS JUST NOT
TRUE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES NEVER SAT FOR AN
INTERVIEW AND REFUSED TO
ACTUALLY TELL US WHAT HIS STORY
WAS.
HOW IS THAT FULL COOPERATION?
ANOTHER IS EVEN THOUGH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID RUSSIA
INTERFERED WITH THE ELECTION, HE
MADE IT SOUND LIKE RUSSIA WAS
BIPARTISAN, IT WAS JUST TO SOW
DISCORD WHERE THE PROOF IN THE
CASE WAS RUSSIA HAD STRONGLY PUT
ITS THUMB ON THE SCALE TO
SUPPORT CANDIDATE TRUMP IN THE
PRIMARY AND IN THE GENERAL
ELECTION.
AND, FINALLY, HE MADE THE
DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS NO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
FRANKLY, EVERYONE THREE WEEKS
LATER WHEN YOU COULD FINALLY
READ ALL OF THE FACTS, NO
REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD
CONCLUDE THAT THAT WAS NOT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THERE WERE JUST -- THERE WAS SO
MUCH EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTING OUR INVESTIGATION.
>> SO, ANDREW, LET’S GO TO TODAY
AND "THE TIMES" DOUBLE-BARREL
STORIES ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TAX
SITUATION.
THEY APPEAR TO HAVE AT LEAST
VIEWED SOME OF THE TAX RETURNS,
FROM THEIR REPORTING, WHICH IS
INCREDIBLY SPECTACULAR
REPORTING.
IF THAT REPORTING YOU’VE READ
ABOUT IN "THE TIMES" ON HIS
TAXES WERE DROPPED ON YOUR DESK
WHEN YOU WERE BACKS IN THE
EASTERN DISTRICT AS U.S.
ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT U.S.
ATTORNEY, DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN
WHAT WE’VE READ, WHAT WE FOUND
OUT THAT’S INDICTABLE?
>> SO, IT’S POTENTIALLY
INDICTABLE.
I DON’T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THE
EVIDENCE WE HAVE SO FAR.
BUT THIS IS -- THIS IS NOT
ROCKET SCIENCE.
WE DID THIS KIND OF TAX CASE
WITH RESPECT TO PAUL MANAFORT.
SO THE IRONY HERE IS WE FOLLOWED
THE MONEY WITH RESPECT TO PAUL
MANAFORT, BUT WE WEREN’T ABLE TO
AND DIDN’T FOLLOW THE MONEY WITH
RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
AND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS YOU
WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT IS ACTUALLY
REPORTED IN THE RETURNS, AND
THEN YOU COMPARE IT TO WHAT IT
IS THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND
DONALD TRUMP KNEW AT THE TIME.
WHAT WAS HE TELLING HIS
ACCOUNTANTS?
ONE OF THE REASONS YOU HAVE THE
PRESIDENT FIGHTING SO HARD TO
KEEP THE INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT -- THAT HIS ACCOUNTANTS
HAVE FROM THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BECAUSE THAT
IS CRITICAL INFORMATION.
I DESCRIBE IN THE BOOK, WHEN WE
FOUND THAT INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO PAUL MANAFORT, THAT
WAS AN A-HA MOMENT, WHERE WE
KNEW THAT WE NOW HAD A TAX CASE
BECAUSE WE COULD COMPARE WHAT HE
KNEW INTERNALLY VERSUS WHAT HE
WAS TELLING THE IRS.
>> WOULD HIS TAX ASSEMBLER, HIS
TAX PERSON, WHOEVER IT WAS,
WOULD THAT PERSON ALSO -- OR
THAT COMPANY ALSO POTENTIALLY BE
INDICTABLE?
>> POTENTIALLY, BUT YOU HAVE TO
REMEMBER, THEY’RE PRESUMABLY
RELYING ON INFORMATION THEY’RE
GETTING FROM DONALD TRUMP AND
PEOPLE AT THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION.
SO, I WOULD SAY THEY’RE SORT OF
A SECOND TIER OF PEOPLE TO LOOK
AT.
BUT IT’S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FOUND
WITH RESPECT TO PAUL MANAFORT IS
THERE WAS A PERSON AT HIS
ACCOUNTING OFFICE WHO KNEW THAT
PAUL MANAFORT WAS DOING
SOMETHING NOT JUST SLEAZY, BUT
ILLEGAL, AND THAT PERSON WENT
ALONG WITH IT.
AND SHE ENDED UP BEING A
DEVASTATING WITNESS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE PAUL MANAFORT
TRIAL.
TESTIFYING ABOUT WHAT SHE KNEW
AND WHAT PAUL MANAFORT HAD DONE.
>> ALL RIGHT, JONATHAN LEMIRE
HAS THE FINAL QUESTION.
JONATHAN?
>> ANDREW, I WANTED TO GO BACK
TO WHAT YOU SAID A MOMENT AGO,
IT WAS A REAL PIVOT POINT DURING
THE INVESTIGATION.
AND YOU EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION
THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T SIT
DOWN FOR AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT
HINDSIGHT NOW, BUT COULD THAT
HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY?
COULD A SUBPOENA HAVE BEEN
ISSUED?
WAS THERE A WAY TO DOWN FOR THAT
INTERVIEW, WHICH POTENTIALLY
COULD HAVE CHANGED THE COURSE OF
THE INVESTIGATION AND WHY WASN’T
IT DONE AT THE TIME?
WAS IT A MATTER OF FEARS THE
PRESIDENT WOULD DISBAND THE
ENTIRE PROBE ITSELF?
>> THERE WAS THAT FEAR BECAUSE
WE HAD THE CONCERN THAT WE’RE
INVESTIGATING SOMEBODY WHO COULD
PULL THE PLUG.
BUT THAT’S AN AREA WHERE, AS I
DESCRIBE, I DISAGREED.
I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PRECEDENT THAT WE WERE SETTING
BY NOT CALLING THE PRESIDENT TO
TASK AND NOT REQUIRING HIM TO
TESTIFY.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER BENT
OVER BACKWARDS TO TRY AND
ACCOMMODATE THE PRESIDENT.
WHEN THE ANSWER WAS, NO, I’M NOT
GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
AND HAVE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, AT
THAT POINT, I THOUGHT IT WAS
NECESSARY TO GET THE
INFORMATION.
I DESCRIBED IT AS, THIS IS
HAMLET WITHOUT HAMLET.
WE WERE MISSING THE CENTRAL
CHARACTER IN OUR STORY, AND I
WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
THIS MEANS FOR THE NEXT
INVESTIGATION THAT WE HAVE, GOD
FORBID, OF A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, WHERE THEY’RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK BACK
AND SAY, WELL, LOOK, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT ISN’T NECESSARY.
IT WASN’T DONE IN THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION, AND I
DON’T THI THAT IS A GOOD
PRECEDENT TO SET BECAUSE HERE,
HIS TESTIMONY, THAT IS DONALD
TRUMP’S TESTIMONY, WAS SO
INTEGRAL TO UNDERSTANDING HIS
INTENT AND MOTIVE IN LOOKING AT
ALL THE THINGS WE WERE CHARGED
TO LOOK AT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE NEW BOOK IS "WHERE LAW
ENDS."
INSIDE THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION.