>>> WELCOME BACK.
THE BATTLE OVER THE MUELLER
REPORT IS FAR FROM DONE.
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JERROLD NADLER ISSUED A
SUBPOENA ON FRIDAY SEEKING THE
FULL UN-REDACTED REPORT.
HE WANTS MUELLER TO IT TESTIFY.
JOINING ME IS THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JERROLD
NADLER.
NADLER.
WELCOME BACK TO "MEET THE
PRESS," SIR.
>> GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> LET ME START WITH THE -- BEFORE I GET YOUR REACTION TO
GIULIANI, LET ME GET SOMETHING
FROM THE MUELLER REPORT AND
CURIOUS ON YOUR REACTION ON.
OBSTRUCTION, THIS IS WHAT
MUELLER WRITES, "CONGRESS CAN
VALIDLY MAKE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
CORRUPTLY MOTIVATE OFFICIAL ACTS
OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT IMPERMISSIBLY UNDERMINING HIS
FUNCTIONS."
FUNCTIONS."
DID YOU READ THAT AS A DIRECTIVE TO CONGRESS, THAT BASICALLY THEE
TO CONGRESS, THAT BASICALLY THE CALL IS IN YOUR COURT, NOT BILL
BARRS?
BARRS?
>> NO.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ALREADY
THE LAW.
AND THAT HE IS -- THAT SENTENCE
IS PART OF AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE ESSENTIALLY DISAGREES TO
WHY HE ESSENTIALLY DISAGREES WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS
WILD, FAR-OUT LEGAL THEORY THAT
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DMIT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- COMMIT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE NO MATTER
WHAT HE DOES BECAUSE HES HEAD OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.EAD
OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
HES SAYING THAT CONGRESS CAN
MAKE CORRUPTLY MOTIVATED ACTS BY A PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY IN THE BY
A PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH A CRIME, AND I
-- AND IT HAS.
UNLESS YOU THINK THAT BAR IS
RIGHT, THEN ALMOST NO LAWYER THINKS HES RIGHT, AND -- INR
THINKS HES RIGHT, AND -- IN SAYING A PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE
FROM -- THAT AS LONG AS HE DID
HIS OFFICIAL POWERS, HE CAN DO ANYTHING.IAL POWERS, HE CAN DO
ANYTHING.
THATS LIKE SAYING, THATS LIKE SAYING THAT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR OR
AGAINST THE FARM BILL.
ITS TRUE.
BUT IF YOU VOTE FOR THE FARM BILL OR AGAINST IT BECAUSERM
BILL OR AGAINST IT BECAUSE SOMEONE GAVE YOU A BRIBE, THATS
AN OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE
AND BRIBERY.
THE PRESIDENTS NO DIFFERENT. >> LET ME ARE THE YOU THIS PART.
THIS IS THE -- LET ME READ YOU
THIS PART.
THERE IS THE COMPLICATING FACTOR
IN ALL THIS.
"UNLIKE CASES WHEN A SUBJECT
ENGAGES IN OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE TO COVER UP A CRIME, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW THAT THEHE
EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN
UNDERLYING CRIME RELATED TO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTES TO NOT
REQUIRE REQUIRE PROOF OF THE
CRIME IT AFFECTS THE ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENTS INTENT ANDYSIS OF
THE PRESIDENTS INTENT AND REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF OTHER
POSSIBLE MOTIVES FOR HIS
CONDUCT."
THEY GO ON TO STATE THAT KWHETHER YOU THINK IT --
PREGNANT YOU THINK ITS
DISTASTEFUL OR NOT, THE PRESIDENT CONCERNED ABOUT HIS
POLITICAL STANDING MIGHT NOT BE
AN ILLEGAL REASONING BEHIND SORT
OF HAVING CONCERN ABOUT THIS CASE.VING CONCERN ABOUT THIS
CASE.
>> NO.
THE -- THE MUELLER REPORT GOES ON TO STATE THAT THERE MAY BES
ON TO STATE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE
NOT CRIMES THAT WOULD -- THAT
NONETHELESS ARE PREDICATES FROM
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME TO
SAVE YOUR REPUTATION FOR OTHER
REASONS.
WHAT MUELLER SAYS, AND THIS IS
WHERE BARR DELIBERATELY EAR ONE
OF THE PLACES WHERE BARR
DELIBERATELY MISLED THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, WHAT MUELLER SAYS IS THAT ALTHOUGH A THOROUGH FBI
INVESTIGATION MIGHT VERY WELL
SHOW THE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT,
WERE NOT GOING TO DO THAT
BECAUSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE LEGAL OPINION THAT A
SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
INDICTED.
AND IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO LAY OUT THE FACTS JUSTIFYING ANAY
OUT THE FACTS JUSTIFYING AN INDICTMENT WITHOUT GIVING THE
PRESIDENT THE OPPORTUNITIES IN A
TRIAL TO CLEAR HIS NAME.
BECAUSE OF THAT LEGAL DOCTRINE,
WERE NOT GOING TO CHARGE HIM
WITH OBSTRUCTION.
BARR MISINTERNITIED OR
MISREPRESENT -- MISINTERPRETED OR MISREPRESENTED IT.TERPRETED
OR MISREPRESENTED IT. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF
OBSTRUCTION, AND THEY SAY IN SO
MANY WORDS.
IF WE PURSUED THIS, WE MIGHT PUT OURSELVES IN AN IMPOSSIBLEHT PUT
OURSELVES IN AN IMPOSSIBLE
POSITION BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A
CRIME WHICH THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT WONT PERMIT US TO
DO.
>> DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE REASON BOB MUELLER DID NOT CHARGEREASON
BOB MUELLER DID NOT CHARGE ANYBODY WITH CONSPIRACY WITH THE
RUSSIANS IS BECAUSE HE HAS FOUND
THAT NO CONSPIRACY TOOK PLACE,
OR THAT HE DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION?
AND IS THERE A DISTINCTION IN
YOUR MIND?
>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY THERES A DISTINCTION.IOUSLY THERES A
DISTINCTION.
BUT -- BUT HE PRETTY MUCH STATES
IN MOST CASES -- FIRST OF ALL,
HERES AGAIN WHERE BAR MILLIONS LED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.LLIONS
LED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
HE SAID THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. COLLUSION IS A TERM THAT IS NOT
A LEGAL TERM.
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOUND,
MUELLER FOUND AS YOU PUT ON TV A LITTLE WHILE AGO, THAT THERE WAS
PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE
RUSSIANS INTERVENED IN THE ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP.THE
ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP. THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN KNEW
ABOUT THAT AND ENCOURAGED -- AND
WANTED IT.
AND IN FACT, KNEW ABOUT SOME OF THE WikiLeaks DUMPS OF STOLENOF
THE WikiLeaks DUMPS OF STOLEN INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE
RUSSIANS IN ADVANCE. WHAT HE COULDNT PROVE WAS THAT
THERE WAS BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT WAS THAT THERE WAS A
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
ALTHOUGH IN THE ONE CASE, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HE DIDNT CHARGE
ON JUNIOR AND OTHERS IN THE
FAMOUS MEETING WITH CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY BECAUSE THEY WERE --
HE SAID THAT THEY DIDNT CHARGE
THEM BECAUSE YOU COULDNT PROVE THAT THEY WILLFULLY INTENDED TO
COMMIT A CRIME.
YOU DONT HAVE TO PROVE THAT.
ALL YOU HAVE TO PROOF FOR
CONSPIRACY IS THAT THEY ENTERED
INTO A MEETING OF THE MINDS TO
DO SOMETHING WRONG AND HAD ONE OVERT ACT.NG WRONG AND HAD ONE
OVERT ACT.
THEY ENTERED INTO A MEETING OF
THE MINDS, TO ATTEND THE MEETING TO GET STOLEN MATERIAL ONMEETING
TO GET STOLEN MATERIAL ON HILLARY.
HILLARY. THEY WENT TO THE MEETING.
THATS CONSPIRACY RIGHT THERE.
>> THEY SEEM TO HAVE ANOTHER
ISSUE.
IM CURIOUS IF THIS IS A FLAW IN OUR CODER IS THIS THE WAY THEIN
OUR CODER IS THIS THE WAY THE LAW WAS MADE, CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAWS?
ONE OF THE OTHER REASONS THEY
DECLINED IS HE COULDNT FIGURE OUT HOW TO VALUE OPPOSITIONRE
OUT HOW TO VALUE OPPOSITION RESEARCH, THEY COULDNT FIGURE
OUT OUT HOW TO VALUE STOLEN MATERIAL WITH THE LEGAL CODE
THAT HAS TO DO WITH PHYSICAL
MERCHANDISE.
MERCHANDISE.
IT SEEMS THAT MUELLER WAS ALL
BUT SAYING, HEY, YOUR LAW, THE
WAY YOU WRITE THE CAMPAIGN
FINANCE LAWS STINK. >> THAT MAY BE, I THINK THATS A
CONSERVATIVE READING OF THE LAW
BECAUSE CERTAINLY PEOPLE ARE
WILLING TO PAY A LOT OF MONEY
FOR OPPOSITION RESEARCH.
JUST LOOK AT THAT -- THAT
SO-CALLED DOSSIER THAT STARTED
OUT AS OPPOSITION RESEARCH
AGAINST TRUMP, FINANCED BY I --
FROM A BIG REPUBLICAN DONOR.
THEN WHEN TRUMP BECAME THE
NOMINEE, THEY SHIFTED THE FINANCING OVER TO HILLARY.
SO PEOPLE -- CAMPAIGNS ARE
WILLING TO PAY A LOT OF MONEY
FOR OPPOSITION RESEARCH.
BUT THE KEY IS HERE THAT BARR
CLEARLY MISLED THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BOTH ON OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE WHERE THERES PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS
OBSTRUCTION, LAID OUT IN THE
REPORT --
>> YEAH.
>> HE SAID, AND AGAIN, HE DIDNT
SAY THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.
HE SAID WE CANT PROVE -- WE
CANT PROVE THE NEGATIVE BECAUSE
THERES TOO MUCH EVIDENCE FOR
THAT.
AND WE CANT CHARGE HIM BECAUSE
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WONT LET
US CHARGE HIM.
SO WERE NOT GOING TO LOOK FOR
THE EVIDENCE.
LET ME JUST SAY WE HAVE TO GET
-- SOME OF THIS, WE HAVE TO --
IS WHY WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM
BARR, MUELLER, WE HAVE TO HEAR
FROM PEOPLE LIKE DON McGHAN WHO WERE GOING TO CALL.N McGHAN WHO
WERE GOING TO CALL. WE HAVE TO GET THE ENTIRE REPORT
INCLUDING THE REDACTED MATERIAL
SO WE CAN EVALUATE IT. AND SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN
KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND CAN
MAKE JUDGMENTS.
>> YOU HAVE ALL OF THIS CASE OF
OBSTRUCTION PRESENTED IN THE
MUELLER REPORT AS YOU STATE.
SOME MIGHT ASK WHY HAVENT YOU
START -- WHY HAVENT YOU OPENED AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR, IND
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR, IN FAIRNESS, IS THAT WHAT YOURE
DOING NOW?
>> I DONT THINK WERE DOING
THAT.
WE MAY GET TO THAT, WE MAY NOT. AS I SAID, IT IS OUR JOB TO GO.
AS I SAID, IT IS OUR JOB TO GO THROUGH ALL THE EVIDENCE, ALL
THE INFORMATION WE CAN GET --
>> DO THE POLITICS IMPACT THIS? HOW MUCH DO THE POLITICS MATTER
IN THIS --
>> TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE
LEADS.
IM SORRY?
>> HOW MUCH DOES THE POLITICS IMPACT THIS?DOES THE POLITICS
IMPACT THIS? IMPEACHMENT GETS POLITICIZED.
SO YOU HAVE A LEGAL CASE THAT
YOU BELIEVE THIS HAPPENS AND YOU SHOULD DO IT, BUT THE POLITICSOU
SHOULD DO IT, BUT THE POLITICS DICTATE SOMETHING ELSE.
HOW MUCH IS THAT GOING TO
INFLUENCE THE DECISION IN?
I DONT KNOW.
THAT WILL COME DOWN THE ROAD
WHEN -- WHEN WE SEE WHAT WE
HAVE.
>> IS IT IN NANCY PELOSIS
HANDS?
>> AMONG OTHERS. SHES NOT THE ONLY PERSON.
SHES CERTAINLY THE LEADER OF
THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE.
ITS PARTLY HER AND PARTLY A LOT
OF OTHER PEOPLE.
>> DO YOU THINK THIS IS IMPEACHABLE?INK THIS IS
IMPEACHABLE?
>> YEAH, I DO.
I DO THINK -- IF PROVEN, IF
PROVEN WHICH HASNT BEEN PROVEN
YET, SOME OF THIS WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE, YES. WOULD BE
IMPEACHABLE, YES. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IF PROVEN
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE.
>> AND YOURE GOING TO GO ABOUT TO SEE IF YOU CAN PROVE IT?OUT
TO SEE IF YOU CAN PROVE IT? >> WERE GOING TO SEE WHERE THE
FACTS LEAD US.