WHY IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTOR’S
ANSWER ABOUT IF THERE’S
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. >> JOINING US NOW BY PHONE
TRUMP’S LAWYER, JAY SEKULOW.
MR. SEKULOW, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US.
JOINING US. GIVE US YOUR INITIAL REACTIONS.
>> VERY PLEASED.
BOTH ON, FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS
ENTIRE INQUIRY WE HAD SAID THAT
THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE
RUSSIANS AND THAT DETERMINATION
PROVED TO BE CORRECT.
WE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NO
OBSTRUCTION, AND THAT ALSO
BECAME CORRECT.
BECAME CORRECT. SO WE’RE VERY, VERY PLEASED.
WE THINK THIS IS A COMPLETE
VICTORY FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND
I -- I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT THE
PROCESS UPON WHICH THIS MOVED
THIS WEEKEND WAS VERY, VERY GOOD
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT
THIS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION SO
FAR HAS BEEN RELEASED THIS
QUICKLY.
QUICKLY. >> WHAT ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE
REPORT THAT SAYS ALTHOUGH THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME
IS DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM?
>> THAT GOES TO THE STATEMENTS
FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
REPORT.
REPORT. WHERE THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TO
POINT OUT THE FACT THAT YOU DID,
NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY COMMITTABLE
PRIME AND DIDN’T, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL DID NOT.
THEFT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
JUSTICE TO DETERMINE THERE
BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNLIKE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND WHAT
HAPPENED WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE MADE THE CONCLUSION
THAT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION,
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING
CRIME.
CRIME. AND THAT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE
TAKEN AS THEY NOTED PUBLICLY,
THE REPORT IDENTIFIES NO ACTIONS
IN OUR SDWLAUCHLTJUDGMENT THAT C
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT ROBERT
MUELLER ASKED DONALD TRUMP AT
LEAST ON PAPER?
>> I CANNOT DISCUSS THAT WITH
YOU AT THIS POINT.
THAT WOULD BE NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR ME TO DO.
WE DID ANSWER A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS IN WRITING THAT THEY
ASKED FOR AND THE PRESIDENT DID
RESPOND TO THOSE.
>> IF CONGRESS CONTINUES THIS
AND AT SOME POINT TRIES TO TALK
TO YOU OR TALK TO ANYBODY
INVOLVED IN THIS INVESTIGATION,
HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO HANDLE
THOSE REQUESTS?
THOSE REQUESTS? >> I’M THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.
COMMUNICATIONS THAT I HAVE ARE
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. >> IN TERMS OF THE REPORT, AND
WHAT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE
PUBLIC, ARE YOU EXPECTING TO
REQUEST THAT ANYTHING IS
PRIVILEGED IN THE REPORT, OR
WILL YOU ALLOW IT TO BE MADE
PUBLIC AS-IS?
PUBLIC AS-IS? >> THAT’S NOT A DECISION -- JUST
TO BE CLEAR.
ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THERE’S
EXECUTIVE MATERIAL OR PRIVILEGED
MATERIAL WOULD BE A DECISION
THAT WOULD BE ENGAGED BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
WHITE HOUSE.
WHITE HOUSE. NOT THE PRESIDENT.
THAT WOULD NOT BE ME, RIDE YOU
GIULIANI OR OUR LEGAL TEAM NAP
WOULD BE A DECISION MADE BY THE
WHITE HOUSE IN CONSULTATION WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE
THAT GENERAL BARR MOVED VERY
QUICKLY HERE, GETS THE REPORT ON
A FRIDAY AT 5:00 AND 48 HOURS
LATER DELIVERS WHAT THEY CALL
THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WELL
THOUGHT OUT AND OBVIOUSLY WE’RE
VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH THE
RESULT.
RESULT. WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAPPENS IN
THE FUTURE IS NOT REALLY IN --
NOT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS PRIVATE
LAWYERS.
LAWYERS. >> HAVE YOU REQUEST ADD COPY OF
THE MUELLER REPORT IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
ENTIRETY. >> WE HAVE NOT.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO?
>> NOPE.
>> NOPE. >> WHY NOT?
>> NONE OF IT -- BECAUSE THE WAY
THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN IT
IS A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND WE DON’T HAVE, UNDER THE
REGULATIONS, AND I THINK -- WE
DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN
AND DEMAND ACCESS TO THE
UNDERLYING REPORT.
UNDERLYING REPORT. >> DO YOU BELIEVE CONGRESS
SHOULD STOP INVESTIGATING?
>> I MEAN, LOOK, YES.
I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF, I
MEAN, I CANNOT COUNT THE NUMBER
OF TIMES PEOPLE ON ALL THE
NETWORKS SAID, WE HAVE
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF
AND THE RUSSIANS, SOME CALLED IT
TREASONOUS, OTHERS COLLUSION OR
CONSPIRACY WITH THE RUSSIANS,
INTERFERENCE BY THE RUSSIANS
KNOWINGLY MADE BY THE PRESIDENT.
ALL THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOOK A
CONTRARY VIEW.
CONTRARY VIEW. THERE WAS NOT COLLUSION.
THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS
INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED, AND
THE CONCLUSION WAS UNEQUIVOCAL
THERE WAS NONE.
>> CAN YOU MAYBE SHED LIGHT ON
THIS FOR US?
A QUESTION WE’VE BEEN ASKING A
LOT.
LOT. WHY DID SO MANY OF THOSE AROUND
DONALD TRUMP ON THE QUESTION OF
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA LIE ABOUT
IT IF THERE WAS NOTHING
NEFARIOUS GOING ON?
>> I CANNOT ADDRESS THAT AS THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER. IT’S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD KNOW
OR BE AWARE OF, BUT THE
PRESIDENT, AND THEY SAID THE
CAMPAIGN AS WELL IN THE REPORT,
THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF
COLLUSION, PERIOD.
COLLUSION, PERIOD. UNEQUIVOCAL.
UNEQUIVOCAL. >> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? >> IF I DID, I WOULDN’T TELL
YOU.
YOU. >> WHY NOT?
>> BUT I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO
CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE
PRESIDENT OR HAVE NOT HAD WITH
THE PRESIDENT, NEEDLESS TO SAY
WE’RE VERY PLEASED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF?
HIMSELF? I’M SURE YOU’VE TALKED TO HIM
ABOUT THIS.
ABOUT THIS. I HAVE NOT ASKED HIM THIS --
>> JUST SENT OUT A STATEMENT.
>> I ASKED ABOUT THIS IN THE
MOMENT BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SHED
MORE LIGHT ON THIS.
WHY GET ON A STAGE AND ASK
RUSSIA TO FIND HILLARY CLINTON’S
E-MAILS?
E-MAILS? >> I’M NOT GOING TO -- I’M NOT
GOING TO WHAT WE CALL RELITIGATE
FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.
ALL OF THESE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE OUT
THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY EVALUATED
BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEY
CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. >> THE PRESIDENT TWEETED, NO
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. NO OBSTRUCTION.
NO OBSTRUCTION. COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION.
>> THAT’S CORRECT.
>> KEEP AMERICA GREAT.
WERE YOU GIVEN ADVICE OVER THE
WEEKEND TO KEEP QUIET UNTIL THIS
CAME OUT?
CAME OUT? >> IF I WAS YOUR LAWYER WOULD
YOU WANT ME TELLING THE ADVICE I
DID OR DID NOT GIVE TO YOU?
YOU WOULD NOT WANT ME TO DO
THAT.
THAT. I’M NOT GOING SAY.
>> AND LOTS OF LEGAL MINDS ON
THE PANEL NOW WHO ARE
QUESTIONING HOW QUICKLY BILL
BARR WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT
THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.
WE KNOW THAT ROBERT MUELLER
PRESENTED BOTH SIDES OF THE
ISSUE.
ISSUE. EVIDENCE TO SAY HE DID OBSTRUCT,
EVIDENCE THAT HE DID NOT.
A LOT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE
ALREADY.
ALREADY. WE’VE BEEN REPORTING ON IT.
THE COMEY FIRING.
THE TWEETS, ET CETERA.
THE BEHAVIOR PRESUMABLY TO JEFF
SESSIONS AMONG THOSE.
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PRESUMING.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO SAY
THAT, THAT, ASK HOW QUICKLY CAN
BOB BARR, WILL WILLIAM BARR
REALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THAT?
THAT? >> FIRST OF ALL, THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES WAS INVOLVED IN THIS FROM
THE OUTSET AND YOU SAW IN THE
LETTER HE WAS NOT ONLY CONSULTED
BUT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THAT
BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROB
ROSENSTEIN AND I CONCLUDED,
READING FROM THE LETTER.
THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED DURING
THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.
ALSO IMPORTANTLY SAID HERE OUR
DETERMINATION WAS MADE WITHOUT
REGARD TO AND IS NOT BASED ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION
SURROUNDING THE INDICTMENT AND
CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OF A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. THAT’S IMPORTANT BEAUX IT WAS
NOT A DECLINATION BECAUSE YOU
CAN’T INDICT A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. A FACTUAL DECISION THERE WAS NOT
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.
>> WHY DID THE PRESIDENT NOT SIT
BACK AND ALLOW THIS
INVESTIGATION TO HAPPEN?
WHY WAS HE SO INVOLVED?
>> THE INVESTIGATION DID HAPPEN.
GOING AN ALMOST TWO YEARS.
BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED WITH
ALL THE ATTACKS ON THAT ISSUE,
AND THAT WERE MADE.
BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED.
NO FBI AGENT INVOLVED IN THE
CASE WAS INTERFERED WITH.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THERE
WAS NO COLLUSION.
THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION
DETERMINATION HERE.