.
>> Dana: AWAITING THE D.O.J.’S
NEXT MOVE AFTER A JUDGE
APPROVED A SPECIAL MASTER FOR
THE MAR-A-LAGO RAID.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL
BARR IS HERE, AUTHOR OF THE
BOOK ONE DAMN THING AFTER
ANOTHER.
IT GETS HIGH PRAISE INDEED.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> Dana: ONE THING THAT IS
INTERESTING ABOUT ALL OF THIS.
THE SPECIAL MASTER GETS
ANNOUNCED, THE LEAKS ARE
CONSTANT AND YOU HAVE TO WONDER
WHAT IS GOING ON THERE WHILE
ALL THE INVESTIGATION HAS TO
CONTINUE, THE LEAKS THROUGH THE
"WASHINGTON POST" AND "NEW YORK
TIMES" ALMOST EVERY MORNING YOU
CAN WAKE UP TO ONE.
>> THAT’S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND PEOPLE WITH AGENDAS IN THE
DEPARTMENT.
AND IT HAS BEEN INCREASE IN
LEAKING GEOMETRICLY OVER THE
YEARS.
TREMENDOUS LEAKING WHEN I WAS
A.G. AND IT’S VERY HARD TO STOP.
YOU ALSO DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH OF
THAT IS REALLY PEOPLE WHO KNOW
WHAT IS GOING ON AND HOW MUCH
OF THAT WILL PROVE ACCURATE AT
THE END OF THE DAY.
>> Bill: YOU CAN INFLUENCE
PUBLIC OPINION, THOUGH, WHEN
YOU DELIVER A LEAK AS WE’VE
SEEN FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS.
>> RIGHT.
>> Bill: MARCO RUBIO WAS ON
"FOX & FRIENDS" PART OF THE
EIGHT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL INTEL
BRIEFINGS.
HE SAID THIS HAS NEVER COME UP
BEFORE.
YOU MADE THE CASE YESTERDAY
WITH MARTHA ABOUT GETTING
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT ARBITER TO
COME IN AND LOOK INDEPENDENTLY
AT THIS MATERIAL.
SORT OUT WHAT’S RELEVANT AND
WHAT’S NOT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT.
YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST A
SPECIAL MASTER.
I GET IT IF YOU WANT TO GO IN
AND TAKE THIS AMOUNT OF
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL BUT IF YOU
ARE ALSO GOING IN TAKING ALL
THIS OTHER STUFF ABOUT STUFF
NOT RELEVANT IT MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE TO BRING IN A
SPECIAL MASTER AND DISCERN WHAT
IS RELEVANT AND WHAT IS NOT.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?
>> WELL, LET’S LOOK AT THE
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
DOCUMENTS.
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE
DOCUMENTS.
EVERYONE AGREES THAT THOSE
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
PRESIDENT.
IT WASN’T NECESSARILY BAD TO
PICK THEM UP BECAUSE YOU DON’T
GO INTO SOMEONE’S HOUSE AND
LOOK DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.
YOU TAKE WHAT YOU THINK WILL BE
RESPONSIVE AND THEN YOU SORT IT
OUT THROUGH A TEAM.
NO ONE DISPUTES THAT GOES BACK,
OKAY?
THE CLASSIFIED STUFF ARE
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND THEY
GO TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THERE IS NO SCENARIO LEGALLY
UNDER WHICH THE PRESIDENT GETS
TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS CLASSIFIED OR
UNCLASSIFIED.
IF IT’S GOVERNMENT STUFF.
>> Bill: I GRANT YOU THAT BASED
ON.
>> THE ONLY THINGS WOULD BE
PERSONAL ITEMS AND CLEARLY
PERSONAL STUFF.
THE REASON THAT WAS INCLUDED TO
BE SEIZED, THE ISSUE HERE IS
NOT WHO ENDS UP WITH IT.
THE QUESTION IS COULD THEY HAVE
SEIZED IT.
THEY COULD SEIZE IT AND KEEP IT
IF IT IS EVIDENCE OF THE WAY
THE DOCUMENTS, THE CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS WERE STORED.
IF YOU FIND VERY SENSITIVE
DOCUMENTS IN TRUMP’S DESK ALONG
WITH HIS PASSPORTS, THAT TIES
TRUMP TO THOSE DOCUMENTS.
THE PASSPORTS ARE THINGS THAT
THE GOVERNMENT -- THEY ARE
PERSONAL STUFF TO TRUMP.
THE FACT THEY’RE FOUND WITH THE
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IS
EVIDENTIARY.
THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES WHETHER
IT’S RELEVANT.
HE WILL GET THAT STUFF BACK.
THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE
SPECIAL MASTER AND WHAT SHE HAS
DONE WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
DOCUMENTS.
SHE DIDN’T ADDRESS THE ONLY
QUESTION THAT’S IN DISPUTE,
WHICH IS CAN THE FORMER
PRESIDENT HAVE STANDING TO SAY
THAT THE INVESTIGATORS DON’T
EVEN GET TO LOOK AT THE
DOCUMENTS, THE CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS THAT HE WRONGFULLY
HAD AT MAR-A-LAGO?
AND THAT’S THE ONLY QUESTION.
SHE DODGES IT AND SAYS SHE IS
BRINGING IN A SPECIAL MASTER TO
SEE IF IT’S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
OR NOT.
IF THE GOVERNMENT CAME TODAY
AND SAID WE’LL STIPULATE
EVERYTHING DELIBERATIVE
CLASSIFIED OR NOT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
IT BEGS THE QUESTION.
THAT’S NOT WHAT THE ISSUE IS
AND WHY I THINK THAT OPINION
WAS A MISTAKE.
>> Bill: YOU THINK IT WILL BE
APPEALED AND OVERRULED.
>> YES.
>> Dana: DO YOU HAVE A VIEW HOW
IT ENDS?
>> YEAH, AS I’VE SAID ALL ALONG
THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS.
WILL THE GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO
MAKE OUT A TECHNICAL CASE, WILL
THEY HAVE EVIDENCE BY WHICH
THAT THEY COULD INDICT SOMEBODY
ON INCLUDING HIM?
THAT’S THE FIRST QUESTION.
I THINK THEY ARE GETTING VERY
CLOSE TO THAT POINT, FRANKLY.
BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE
DAY THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
DO YOU INDICT A FORMER
PRESIDENT?
WHAT WILL THAT DO TO THE
COUNTRY?
WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT WILL IT
SET?
WILL THE PEOPLE REALLY
UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT FAILING
TO RETURN A LIBRARY BOOK.
THAT IT WAS SERIOUS.
YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THOSE
THINGS.
I HOPE THAT THOSE KINDS OF
FACTORS WILL INCLINE THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT TO INDICT
HIM.
I DON’T WANT TO SEE HIM
INDICTED, THE FORMER PRESIDENT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THEY WILL BE
UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE TO
INDICT HIM.
IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE
GOTTEN INDICTED WHY NOT INDICT
HIM?
>> Bill: MORE TO COME ON THIS.
WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
CAN I MAKE A 180 DEGREE TURN.
YOU HAVE A PIECE TODAY THAT
GOES TO THE INVESTING OF
BILLIONS IF NOT TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
THE HEADLINE IS ESG CAN’T
SQUARE WITH FIDUCIARY DUTY.
IT STANDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL,
SOCIAL AND -- THEY PUT MONEY
INTO COMPANIES THAT THEY
BELIEVE ARE WORKING FOR THE
SOCIAL GOOD, LET’S CHARACTERIZE
IT THAT WAY.
YOU POINT OUT THEY ALSO INVEST
IN COMMUNIST CHINA.
HOW DO WE SQUARE THIS RIGHT NOW
IN THE INVESTMENT WORLD?
WHAT’S THE ARGUMENT
>> THE ARGUMENT I’M MAKING IS
THIS IS TREMENDOUS
CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH THAT IS
USING IT IN AN ABUSIVE WAY.
ABUSIVE AND CIRCUMVENTING THE
WHOLE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
WHEN LITTLE INVESTORS GO FUNDS
AND OTHER THINGS, AS YOU SAY,
THE OWNERSHIP IS TECHNICALLY IN
THE HANDS OF MAINLY OF THREE
BIG COMPANIES, BLACK ROCK,
VANGUARD AND STATE STREET AND
SOME OTHERS BUT THOSE ARE THE
BIG THREE.
TECHNICALLY THESE PEOPLE OWN A
HIGH PERCENTAGE OF STOCK IN
THESE COMPANIES AND DICTATING
TO THE COMPANIES POLICIES LIKE
ENERGY POLICY AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
SO WHEN THEY TELL A BIG COMPANY
STOP PRODUCING OIL OR WE’LL
VOTE AGAINST YOU ESSENTIALLY,
THAT IS SETTING NATIONAL POLICY
AND THEY ARE USING OTHER
PEOPLE’S MONEY TO THROW THEIR
WEIGHT AROUND.
>> Bill: CAN YOU STOP OR CHANGE
IT OR JUST BRING ATTENTION TO
IT?
>> ONE THING AS THE ARTICLE
SAYS, THERE ARE SOME LEGAL DOCTRINES THAT CAN BE USED SUCH
DOCTRINES THAT CAN BE USED SUCH
AS THIS IS A BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY.
>> THAT IS THEIR INITIAL
RESPONSIBILITY?
>> THAT’S THEIR ONLY
RESPONSIBILITY.
OKAY?
AND THEY ARE PURSUING THEIR
POLITICAL PREFERENCES AND USING
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY TO HAVE
THEIR WAY TO DO IT.
THERE ARE LEGAL ATTACKS THAT
CAN BE MADE.
THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY
OF COMPANIES EMERGING THAT JUST
FOCUS ON WHAT THEY SHOULD BE
FOCUSED ON, RETURN TO THE OWNER
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
THIS POLITICALLY BECAUSE THIS
MEANS A HANDFUL OF COMPANIES
CAN DECIDE OUR ENERGY POLICY,
OUR EQUITY POLICY, AND STUFF
LIKE THAT.
JUST BY GOING AND HAMMERING THE
BIG COMPANIES OVER THE HEAD AND
SAYING WE OWN 10% OF YOUR
COMPANY AND WE ARE GOING TO
THROW YOU OUT.
>> Dana: AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND