PLEASE, TRY TO TAKE YOUR PARTISAN HATS OFF?
JOINING ME NOW IS SOMEONE VERY
FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT WORKS, ERIC HOLDER,
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.
MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WELCOME TO
THE SHOW.
THE SHOW. >> GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION
TO WHAT ROD ROSENSTEIN SAID.
I’M SURE YOU AGREE WITH THE
SENTIMENT.
SENTIMENT. BUT DID YOU GET THE SENSE THAT
HE’S CONCERNED PEOPLE ARE ABOUT
TO DIG IN THEIR HEELS EVEN MORE?
>> I THINK HE’S PROBABLY
REACTING TO THAT WHICH WE SAW
YESTERDAY UP ON THE HILL AND
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE PAST
FEW MONTHS WHERE THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN UNDER
ATTACK, PARTISAN ATTACK, BY
PEOPLE OF HIS OWN PARTY AND
MAKING CHARGES THAT ARE CLEARLY
UNSUBSTANTIATED.
UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS
COMPRISED OF DEMOCRATS,
REPUBLICANS, ALL OF WHOM PUT
THOSE FEELINGS ASIDE AND DO
THEIR JOBS ON THE BASIS OF THE
FACTS THAT THEY FIND AND THE LAW
THAT THEY HAVE TO APPLY.
>> I’M SURE WHEN YOU SAW PETER
STRZOK GO THROUGH THAT HEARING,
YOU’RE LIKE, HMM, THAT’S
FAMILIAR.
FAMILIAR. >> BEEN THERE.
>> YOU’VE BEEN THERE WITH THE
HOUSE REPUBLICANS, PARTICULARLY
THE HOUSE -- A HANDFUL OF HOUSE
REPUBLICANS THAT SIT ON -- IT’S
THE SAME GROUP THAT SITS ON THE
JUDICIARY THAT SEEMS TO BE PART
OF THE TRUMP SORT OF PROTECTIVE
WING THERE.
WING THERE. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF YESTERDAY?
>> I THOUGHT THAT STRZOK, THOUGH
HE HAD DONE SOME THINGS THAT I
THINK WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND IT
WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO BE
REMOVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION,
DID A REALLY GOOD JOB IN DEFENSE
OF HIMSELF AND OF THE FBI.
I THOUGHT THAT THE REPUBLICANS
DID NOT COVER THEMSELVES IN
GLORY.
GLORY. THE SAME PEOPLE.
YOU KNOW, LOUIE GOHMERT, JORDAN.
LET’S TAKE UP A COLLECTION.
LET’S GET JORDAN A JACKET.
WHAT’S THAT ALL ABOUT?
DARRELL ISSA.
DARRELL ISSA. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GOING AT STRZOK
IN WAYS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT ABOVE ALL
ELSE.
ELSE. PROTECT THE PRESIDENT, NOT TO
PROTECT THE NATION.
>> SO THIS ISSUE OF POLITICIZING
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
REPUBLICANS BELIEVED YOU WERE
THERE TO PROTECT PRESIDENT OBAMA
ON EVERYTHING.
ON EVERYTHING. AND WHETHER THERE WAS FACTS TO
SOMEHOW JUSTIFY THE ACCUSATION,
IT JUST HAPPENED THERE’S GOING
TO BE A BELIEF THAT THERE’S A
GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE TO PROTECT
PRESIDENT TRUMP, RIGHT?
I THINK THERE’S SOME -- WHAT WE
ARE GETTING NOW IS NOW YOU HAVE
THE EXTREMES OF BOTH PARTIES
THAT ESSENTIALLY BELIEVE
GOVERNMENT IS IN THE POCKET OF
WHOEVER IS IN POWER.
HOW DO WE ERASE THIS?
>> WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP
PUSHING FACTS OUT THERE.
AND THE REALITY IS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY AND
LARGE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN
EXCEPTIONS, CONDUCTS ITSELF IN
APPROPRIATE WAYS.
APPROPRIATE WAYS. AND WHEN A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GETS TOO CLOSE TO A WHITE HOUSE,
THAT’S WHEN THE DEPARTMENT FINDS
ITSELF IN TROUBLE.
I THINK THAT WHAT ROD HAS DONE
HERE, YOU KNOW, I DISAGREE WITH
SOME OF THE TACTICS THAT HE’S
USED.
USED. I THINK HE SHOULD PUSH BACK A
LITTLE HARDER, A LITTLE SOONER,
BUT I THINK HE’S DONE A GOOD JOB
IN TRYING TO NAVIGATE A PRETTY
DIFFICULT POLITICAL SITUATION.
>> YOU’VE BEEN A PROSECUTOR,
YOU’VE BEEN A U.S. ATTORNEY,
YOU’VE DONE THIS.
PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES WANT TO
SEND A MESSAGE WITH TIMING OF
INDICTMENTS OR TIMING OF
SUBPOENAS OR TIMING OF NO-KNOCK
SUBPOENAS SOMETIMES.
SUBPOENAS SOMETIMES. MUELLER COULD HAVE EASILY WAITED
UNTIL TUESDAY.
UNTIL TUESDAY. HE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?
>> THAT’S VERY INTERESTING.
CLEARLY THIS IS SOMETHING, GIVEN
THE FACT I UNDERSTAND THE
PRESIDENT WAS BROEFDIEFED ABOUT
THIS.
THIS. >> ROD ROSENSTEIN SAID THAT ON
THE RECORD.
THE RECORD. THAT’S A PUBLIC RECORD.
>> THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
AFTER THE SUMMIT.
I THINK THIS WAS A MESSAGE IN
SOME WAYS THAT WAS BEING SENT BY
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AT A TIME
THAT WOULD HAVE MAXIMUM IMPACT.
I THINK THAT ON THE BASIS OF
THIS, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
CLEARLY CANCEL THAT TRIP TO
HELSINKI UNLESS HE’S GOING TO
TAKE THIS INDICTMENT WITH HIM.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY,
ISN’T THERE A CASE TO SAY THE
OTHER SIDE OF IT IS, HERE’S THE
EVIDENCE, BUDDY.
EVIDENCE, BUDDY. ENOUGH OF THIS STUFF.
I MEAN JUST GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT
OF THE DOUBT.
>> BUT THERE’S NO BASIS TO
BELIEVE HE’S EVER GOING TO DO
THAT.
THAT. EVERY TIME THEY HAVE HAD SOME
KIND OF INTERACTION, HE’S
RETURNED FROM THAT SAYING THAT
PUTIN DENIED THAT HE DID
ANYTHING.
ANYTHING. HE SEEMINGLY AGREED WITH WHAT
PUTIN SAID.
PUTIN SAID. I DON’T HAVE ANY BASIS TO
BELIEVE THAT TRUMP WOULD TAKE
THAT INDICTMENT OR CONFRONT
PUTIN IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE.
APPROPRIATE. >> YOU HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH
BOB MUELLER.
BOB MUELLER. >> MM-HMM.
>> MM-HMM. >> YOU, I THINK, HIRED HIM TO BE
A DEPUTY WHEN YOU WERE THE U.S.
ATTORNEY HERE IN D.C.
WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN IN THIS
INVESTIGATION THAT LOOKS
FAMILIAR TO YOU AND WHAT IS
DIFFERENT?
DIFFERENT? >> OH, I THINK THIS IS TYPICAL
BOB MUELLER.
BOB MUELLER. THIS IS THOROUGH.
THIS IS PRECISE.
IT’S SYSTEMATIC.
IT’S SYSTEMATIC. EACH STEP IS BUILT ON THE ONE
BEFORE AND LEADS TO SOMETHING
THAT IS TO COME.
WE HAVE SEEN, I THINK, IN THIS
INSTANCE NOW, WE HAVE PRETTY --
I THINK A PRETTY COMPLETE
PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE
RUSSIAN SIDE.
RUSSIAN SIDE. >> WE REALLY DO.
>> NOW THE QUESTION IS WHPD ON
THE AMERICAN SIDE.
I THINK THAT’S THE THING WE’LL
PROBABLY SEE NEXT.
>> IS HE EQUIPPED FOR 21st
CENTURY INFORMATION WARFARE?
BOB MUELLER.
BOB MUELLER. THE REASON I SAY THIS IS THAT
YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT HAS
SEEDED THE GROUND IN A DIFFERENT
WAY.
WAY. THAT FACTS MAY NOT MATTER BY THE
TIME THEY COME OUT.
MUELLER IS BEING THOROUGH, HE
CAN’T MAKE A SINGLE MISTAKE.
I THINK HE KNOWS, WE MAKE ONE
MISTAKE AND THE PRESIDENT
ACCUSES US OF FAKE NEWS.
HE CAN MAKE 17 MISTAKES, IT
DOESN’T MATTER.
DOESN’T MATTER. I THINK MUELLER REALIZES HE’S IN
THAT THERE’S NO -- YOU’RE NOT
ALLOWED -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE 100%
ON THE EXAM.
IS HE PREPARED FOR THE MODERN
INFORMATION WARFARE THAT I
THINK -- ARE PROSECUTORS IN
GENERAL PREPARED FOR THIS?
>> I THINK PROSECUTORS, BOB
SPECIFICALLY, ARE CRIPPLED BY
THE OBLIGATIONS THEY HAVE TO
MAINTAIN SECRECY, ONLY SPEAK
WHEN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
REVEAL AN INDICTMENT.
AND THAT IN THIS ERA IS NOT
NECESSARILY AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO
DEAL WITH THAT.
PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO HAVE SERVED
BEFORE NEED TO DO AS MUCH AS WE
CAN TO REASSURE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THAT WHAT’S BEING DONE IN
THEIR NAMES IS BEING DONE
CORRECTLY AND BEING DONE
APPROPRIATELY.
APPROPRIATELY. >> LOOK, IN FULL DISCLOSURE, WE
SCHEDULED YOU, I THOUGHT WE WERE
GOING TO TALK ABOUT AN ARRAY OF
TOPICS, BUT I WANT TO BRING UP
ONE NON-RUSSIA RELATED ISSUE AND
THIS IS THIS NEW CALL BY A LOT
OF PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS THAT
SAYS GET RID OF I.C.E.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THOSE CALLS
AND WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THEM?
>> I DON’T THINK THAT
SUBSTANTIVELY OR POLITICALLY
THAT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF
SENSE.
SENSE. I THINK I.C.E. NEEDS TO BE
REFORMULATED AND REFORMED, BUT
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THAT WHICH
IS MOST IMPORTANT AND THAT’S THE
SEPARATION OF THESE KIDS FROM
THEIR PARENTS.
THEIR PARENTS. NOW, I.C.E. PLAYED A ROLE IN
THAT BUT I THINK IN SOME WAYS
YOU’RE GIVING THE REPUBLICANS A
GIFT BY SAYING WE’RE GOING TO
HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER
I.C.E. SHOULD BE ABOLISHED AND
THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON WHAT THIS
ADMINISTRATION DID TO THOSE
CHILDREN.
CHILDREN. >> I AM CURIOUS WHAT YOU THINK
AND SORT OF IF YOU’VE DONE -- IF
YOU’VE HAD WHIPLASH HERE.
YESTERDAY AT THAT HEARING YOU
HAD REPUBLICANS TRASHING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND YOU HAD
DEMOCRATS STANDING UP FOR THE
FBI AND THE RULE OF LAW.
YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTERIZATION
OF BOTH PARTIES, YOU KNOW, IS --
AND I THINK EVEN CEDRIC RICHMOND
SAID AS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MAN
IT’S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO DEFEND
THE FBI.
THE FBI. >> YEAH.
>> YEAH. AND I HOPE THAT VOTERS WILL
REMEMBER THIS WHEN REPUBLICANS
IN 2018, 2020 TRY TO CAST
THEMSELVES AS THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PARTY, WILL REMEMBER
ALL THE THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS
HAVE DONE TO ATTACK THE
CREDIBILITY OF WELL-INTENTIONED,
GOOD SERVING PEOPLE IN THE FBI,
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AS WELL.
>> I BRING THAT UP IN RELATION
TO THE I.C.E. THING BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT SENDS A MIXED MESSAGE
FROM DEMOCRATS SOMETIMES.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERN.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERN. IT OUGHT TO BE ABOUT THOSE KIDS.
THERE’S A POLITICAL BENEFIT TO
FOCUSING ON THOSE KIDS AND
THAT’S SECONDARY TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERN.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERN. I DON’T THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE
AS CONCERNED ABOUT ABOLISHING
I.C.E.
I.C.E. AGAIN, THAT’S AN AGENCY THAT
NEEDS TO BE REDONE AND
REFORMATTED, BUT THE FOCUS
SHOULD BE ON THOSE CHILDREN.
>> ERIC HOLDER, ARE YOU RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT ISN’T.
>> WE’LL SEE.
>> THAT MEANS I THINK I’LL HAVE