HE WILL.
WE TALKED TO TREY GOWDY ABOUT
THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DID SPEAK TO TREY GOWDY ABOUT
FLYNN AND MICHAEL CULLEN.
WATCH.
>> SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT, IT HAS NOW BEEN
REVEALED BY HIM THAT WHEN HE WAS
INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI, WHO
WANTED TO KNOW WHO WAS INVOLVED
IN THE COLLUSION DURING THE
CAMPAIGN OR THE TRANSITION WITH
RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, INFLUENCE IN
THE U.S. ELECTIONS.
HE SAYS THAT ANDREW McCABE
ADVISED HIM THAT HE DID NOT NEED
AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING THAT
INTERVIEW.
AS WE KNOW, WHAT HE WILL BE
SENTENCED FOR HIS LYING TO THE
FBI IN THAT MEETING.
WHAT YOU MAKE OF THAT?
>> A STUNNING DEPARTURE FROM THE
WAY THEY HANDLED ANOTHER
INVESTIGATION, AN EXAMINATION.
THAT WAS WITH SECRETARY CLINTON,
THEY HAD MULTIPLE LAWYERS WHO
WERE ALSO FACT WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM.
THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY
SUPPLY THE QUESTIONS TO
WITNESSES AHEAD OF TIME.
THERE WAS A CLEAR INSINUATION
THAT CERTAIN WITNESSES DID
MISREPRESENTED MATERIAL FACTS TO
THE INVESTIGATORS, NO ONE WAS
CHARGED WITH MAKING A FALSE
STATEMENTS.
LOOK AT THE RUSSIAN
INVESTIGATION, FLYNN, MICHAEL
COHEN, I'M NOT MINIMIZING THAT.
I PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR IT TO.
IF THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE, TO
SERIOUS.
IT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO
OTHER LARGER CRIME.
NO ONE IN THE CLICKED
INVESTIGATION WAS PROSECUTED FOR
MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS.
I JUST NAMED THREE.
FOR HIM TO BE TOLD YOU DON'T
HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT AND FOR
THEM TO ALLOW HER TO HAVE FACT
WITNESSES WHO WERE LAWYERS, IT
IS A STUNNING DICHOTOMY THAT
DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>> Martha: MICHAEL: SENTENCED
TO THREE YEARS, WHAT YOU MAKE OF
THAT?
>> IT IS ABOUT RIGHT.
HE PROVIDED INFORMATION, THE
OTHER
DISTRICT DID NOT VIEW THEM AS A
COOPERATOR.
IT IS THE SAME PATTERN, MICHAEL:
SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO THOUGHT HE
WAS A LIAR THE DAY BEFORE HE
PLED
GUILTY AND
THEN THEY THINK HE IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THE WORLD
THE DAY AFTER HE PLEADS GUILTY
COME A JURY IS NOT GOING TO
BELIEVE SOMEONE LIKE COHEN.
IF YOUR CASE HINGES UPON THE
CREDIBILITY OF COHEN, GOOD LUCK.
>> Martha: IT SOUNDS LIKE IF
YOU LOOK AT THESE MEMOS, AND THE
NEW INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE
TODAY WITH REGARDS TO MICHAEL
FLYNN.
MICHAEL COHEN.
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION
OF
>> I GO BACK TO WHAT WE WERE
ASKED TO DO, WHICH IS FIND OUT
WHAT RUSSIA DID.
UNTIL HE WRITES THAT DEFINITIVE
REPORT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIM,
NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN THAT
PART OF HIS REPORT EXCEPT FOR
MAYBE A HANDFUL OF US.
IT IS STUNNING THAT PEOPLE ARE
READING UNDER BLACK REDACTED
LINES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING
THAT IMPLICATES THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THEY LOST INTEREST IN WHAT
RUSSIA DID.
THE THROWAWAY WAS, BY THE WAY,
IF THERE IS CRIMINALITY, WE WANT
TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, TOO.
I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT
RUSSIA DID IN 2016.
I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN THE
CRIMINALITY, BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN
SO FAR ARE FALSE STATEMENTS,
BANK FRAUD, AND COMEY ADMITTED
LAST FRIDAY, COLLUSION IS NOT A
CRIME NO MATTER HOW BADLY CNN
AND THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO BE.
COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME.
>> Martha: YOU HEARD FROM
JAMES COMEY LAST WEEK, AND HE
WILL BE BACK ON DECEMBER 17TH.
HE WAS VERY UPSET THAT THAT WAS
NOT AN OPEN FORUM, AND WHEN HE
CAME OUT AND TALK TO REPORTERS,
HE SAID THAT.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY
SHOULDN'T BE AN OPEN FORUM.
HE ALSO SAID, THE SUGGESTION
THAT THERE WAS A FISA ABUSE IN
THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE
INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN AND ANY CONNECTION TO
RUSSIA WAS RIDICULOUS.
ABSURD, IS I THINK THE WORD THAT
HE USED.
>> MARTHA, I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN
WHAT HE DIDN'T REMEMBER BUT I
WAS MUCH MORE DISAPPOINTED IN
WHICH HE HE NEVER KNEW.
THE HEAD OF THE FBI HAS THE
CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT UNDER
INVESTIGATION, HE NEVER READ THE
INITIATION DOCUMENT, DIDN'T KNOW
THAT PETER STRZOK HAD SIGNED IT.
HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW TO THIS
DAY THAT IT MADE REFERENCE TO
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
HE STILL THINKS IT IS FOUR
INDIVIDUALS.
DOESN'T KNOW WHO PETER STILL IS,
KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT EFFORTS TO
EITHER COOPERATE OR CONTRADICT
THE DOSSIER.
DOESN'T AGREE THAT THERE IS A
DUTY TO PRODUCE EXCULPATORY
INFORMATION.
I ASKED HIM, WHEN DID YOU LEARN
THAT THE DNC WAS FUNDING THE
RESEARCH INTO TRUMP, HE SAID,
OH, I DON'T KNOW.
AS IF IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IF YOU'RE NOT TELLING A JUDGE,
DON'T YOU THINK IT IS RELEVANT,
HEY, MY POLITICAL ENEMIES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THIRD OF
WHAT I AM GIVING YOU.
A JUDGE WANTS TO KNOW THAT.
COMEY IS ONE OF THE BEST I HAVE
EVER SEEN AT ALWAYS BEING RIGHT
IN HIS MIND, AND IT DOESN'T
MATTER IF HE IS A UNIVERSE OF
ONE.
IF YOU WRITE A BOOK ABOUT ETHICS
AND MORALITY, THAT IN AND OF
ITSELF IS A FAIRLY HIGH OPINION
OF YOURSELVES THING TO DO.
COMEY JUST THINKS HE'S ALWAYS
RIGHT, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
EVERYONE ELSE CONCLUDE HE DID
WRONG.
HE KNOWS BETTER.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
INTERVIEW AN AMNESIAC WITH
INCREDIBLE HUBRIS.
>> Martha: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT
HE FUNCTIONED AS A POLITICAL FBI
DIRECTOR?
>> I THINK JIM COMEY WAS
PRIMARILY MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE
TO PROTECT THE BRAND OF JIM
COMEY.
I DEFENDED HIM IN 2016, EVEN
WHEN IT WAS LONELY TO DO SO.
I WOULD STILL DEFEND HIM TODAY
IF I THOUGHT HE WAS MAKING THE
RIGHT DECISION, BUT HE HAS BEEN
SO OVERTLY PARTISAN SINCE HE
LEFT, NOT JUST AS PRESIDENT, BUT
HE WANTS PEOPLE TO VOTE
DEMOCRAT, HE WANTS A DEMOCRAT
HOUSE.
HE IS VERY FLUNKY.
HE SAID IN THIS ROOM WHERE WE
ARE RIGHT NOW, THE PRESIDENT
DOESN'T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT
POLITICS.
AND McCABE, THAT IS WHO WAS
RUNNING THESE TWO MAJOR
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THEY
DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS.
GO READ THE TEXT FOR YOURSELF.
GO READ COMEY'S TWITTER FEED AND
SEE IF HE CARES ABOUT POLITICS.
>> Martha: WHAT DID YOU THINK
ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP?
YOU MET HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME
THIS WEEK.
>> YES, MA'AM, .
NUMBER ONE, APPRECIATE HIM
LETTING ME COME.
I WANTED TO ADVOCATE FOR JOHN
RADCLIFFE FOR AG, AND HE HAD
ALREADY MADE THE PAY, BUT HE WAS
KIND ENOUGH TO LET ME COME
ANYWAY.
A WIDE-RANGING CONVERSATION FROM
LIFE AND KAVANAUGH, TO AN
OPINION THAT CAME OUT
YESTERDAY -- NOT AN OPINION, BUT
THE DENIAL OF SERVICE.
GOLF.
>> Martha: WHAT DID HE SAY
ABOUT THAT?
>> MY OPINION, WHICH I SAID A
LOT, HE SAID WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT IT?
MY SENSE IS THAT KAVANAUGH DID
NOT THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT
FACTS TO HAVE ANOTHER HEARING ON
AN ABORTION RELATED CASE.
IN THE VICTIM ACTUALLY BECAME
PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A RATE,
SO WE TALKED ABOUT EXCEPTIONS
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INT
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INE
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE IN,
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INW
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INE
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INT
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INL
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INE
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE IND
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INA
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INO
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INT
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INC
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INI
AND WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE INF
OF STAFF, WE TALKED ABOUT AG, HE
GOT LINDSAY ON THE PHONE AT ONE
ONE POINT.
IT WAS A FASCINATING --
>> Martha: THAT HE HAVE A
CHIEF OF STAFF IN MINDED THAT HE
SEEMED TO BE LEANING TOWARDS?
>> IF HE DID, HE DIDN'T SHARE
WITH ME.
>> Martha: AS YOU LEAVE AND WE
SEE THE NEW CONGRESS COMING IN,
MAJORITY DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE
SIDE, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THEY
WILL PURSUE IN TERMS OF
OVERSIGHT, GIVEN THE LANDSCAPE
RIGHT NOW?
>> EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING THAT THEIR BASE WANTS
THEM TO PURSUE.
EVERYTHING THAT IS CALCULATED TO
DISRUPT THE LAST TWO YEARS OF
TRUMP'S TENURE IN OFFICE, AND
IT'S -- THEY MAY BE SMART ENOUGH
NOT TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT,
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THEM OR NOT.
60 OF THEM HAVE ALREADY SAID HE
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND HAVEN'T
ISSUED A SINGLE FINDING YET, SO
IT WILL BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT
FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE
HOW THEY WILL HANDLE SUBPOENAS
AND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
IT WILL BE BITTERLY IRONIC FOR
ME TO LISTEN TO DEMOCRATS CLAMOR
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO BE
RESPONSIVE WHEN THEY DIDN'T SAY
A WORD TO SEE IF WE WERE TRYING
TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
>> Martha: WHAT DID YOU THINK
OF THE SCENE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
YESTERDAY WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW HE WANTS
TO BUILD A WALL?
HE SAID, I WOULD BE PROUD TO
SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OVER
THE ISSUE OF BORDER SECURITY.
IT MEANS THAT MUCH TO ME.
AND NANCY PELOSI AND
CHUCK SCHUMER VERY MUCH WANTED
TO TAKE THE CONVERSATION
PRIVATE, DIDN'T WANT IT TO TO
PRIVATE, DIDN'T WANT IT TO TA
DEBATE IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC.
>> FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE
TRANSPARENCY, WELL, THERE IT IS.
I'M WASN'T SURE IF I WAS
WATCHING FOX OR PROFESSIONAL
WRESTLING.
I'VE SEEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS
BACK IN JUDGE BROWSER-BASED
CHAMBERS, I'VE SEEN THEM WHERE
THERE ARE NO CAMERAS.
I'VE NEVER SEEN IT LIKE THAT.
IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT
NANCY PELOSI DID NOT WANT TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN
PUBLIC, BUT IF YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN A FRAMING THE
ISSUES, THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES
THAT THE WALL IS INEXTRICABLY
INTERTWINED WITH BORDER
SECURITY, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE
TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THEY
BELIEVE IN BORDER SECURITY, BUT
NOT A WALL.
WHAT I WOULD LOVE FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO ASK YESTERDAY, AT
ONE POINT, YOU VOTED FOR THE
WALL.
WHAT CHANGED?
WHY WAS IT A GOOD IDEA FIVE
YEARS AGO, BUT NOW IT IS
XENOPHOBIC AND RACIST AND NOT
REFLECTIVE OF OUR VALUES?
WHAT, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I
CHAMPIONED THE IDEA, WHAT HAS
CHANGED?
>> Martha: DID YOU THINK IT
WAS A POLITICAL MISTAKE FOR HIM
TO SAY "I WILL OWN THAT SHUT
DOWN.
IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, I AM
HAPPY TO OWN IT."
>> I THINK THERE WAS A PRETTY
GOOD CHANCE THEY WOULD CALL IT
SHUTDOWN NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID.
THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD COUNTER
TALKING POINT.
WE GAVE YOU 1.6, WHAT HAVE YOU
DONE WITH THAT.