PARTISAN AND NOT ACTING AS AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE.
>> CHUCK ROSENBERG, ANDREW
WEISSMANN AND MATT MILLER HAVE
OPENED A FEW DOORS.
I’M GOING TO PLAY SOME OF THE
PIECES OF TESTIMONY THEY
MENTIONED.
I WANT TO START WITH YOUR TOP
LINE OBSERVATIONS.
AS SOMEONE WHO WORKED IN THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHO LOVED
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, I SPOKE
TO OTHER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIALS.
EVEN SOME WHO WERE IN THAT
BUILDING IN THE TIME OF TRUMP
AND I ALWAYS MAKE THESE
COMPARISONS TO TRY TO EXPLAIN TO
MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS JUST HOW
BAD THEY ARE.
THEY’RE SO BAD THAT JEFF
SESSIONS LOOKS LIKE THE PERSON
WHO ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS JOB
WITH THE MOST INTEGRITY OFFER
THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> FOUR WORDS I NEVER THOUGHT
I’D UTTER.
I MISS JEFF SESSIONS.
IT’S ABSOLUTELY STUNNING.
>> ME NEITHER.
>> HERE’S THE THING.
THE SMARTEST PEOPLE THAT I KNOW
EMBRACE AMBIGUITY OR COMPLEXITY
OR NUANCE.
THERE IS A LOT OF GRAY IN THIS
WORLD.
BUT HE DOESN’T ALLOW ANY OF THAT
TO CREEP INTO HIS TESTIMONY.
AND I AM ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT
SOMEBODY WHO HAS NO DOUBT.
NO DOUBT ABOUT EVERYTHING.
AT THE VERY LEAST, NICOLLE, AT
THE VERY LEAST YOU’D HAVE TO
ADMIT IF YOU WERE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR AND YOU WERE BEING
HONEST, THAT THE PERCEPTIONS OF
WHAT HE DID ARE TROUBLING.
WHETHER IT’S THE
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE
MUELLER REPORT OR INTERVENTION
IN THE FLYNN AND STONE CASES OR
THE CLEARING OF LAFAYETTE
SQUARE.
BUT TO HIS WAY OF THINKING OR AT
LEAST HIS WAY OF EXPLAINING,
THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN HIS
LIFE.
EVERYBODY ELSE IS JUST FLAT-OUT
WRONG AND WE SEE THESE THINGS AS
ALUMNI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND WE’RE DEEPLY
TROUBLED BY IT FOR A REASON.
THAT’S BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND
THAT PERCEPTION MATTERS A LOT.
EVEN IF HE HAS A LEGAL ANSWER,
AND HE DID, TO SOME OF THE
ISSUES, PERCEPTION MATTERS A
LOT.
HE DOESN’T SEEM TO CARE AT ALL
ABOUT IT.
>> YOU KNOW, DONNA EDWARDS,
CHUCK ROSENBERG, AS HE OFTEN
DOES, PULLED OUT, WIDENED THE
LENS AND MADE THE PERFECT POINT.
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS
SUFFERING.
I THINK TODAY WE CROSSED A
THRESHOLD WHERE 150,000 OF OUR
FELLOW AMERICANS WHO WERE ALIVE
SIX MONTHS AGO HAVE NOW LOST
THEIR LIVES FROM THE CORONAVIRUS
PANDEMIC.
THERE ARE UPRISINGS ON THE
STREETS OF AMERICAN CITIES.
AND AS THOMAS FRIEDMAN HAS
WRITTEN, IT’S DONALD TRUMP’S
VERSION OF WAGGING THE DOGG.
AND AGAIN, TO CHUCK’S POINT,
THERE MAY BE TECHNICAL LEGAL
DEFENSES OF PIECES OF THESE
STORIES FOR THE PRESIDENT.
BUT THERE IS SUCH AN INABILITY,
SUCH AN INCAPACITY, SUCH AN
UNWILLINGNESS TO SPEAK TO
ANYBODY LIVING IN THE COUNTRY
AND STRUGGLING OR SUFFERING OR
QUESTIONING WHETHER THIS JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT EVEN PRETENDS TO
BELIEVE THAT ITS JOB IS TO DO
JUSTICE FOR EVERY AMERICAN.
>> WELL, I THINK TODAY WHAT YOU
SAW WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
THAT HE MAY HAVE SERVED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WELL IN HIS TESTIMONY BUT HE DID
NOT SERVE THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WELL AT ALL.
AND CERTAINLY NOT THE CAREER MEN
AND WOMEN WHO WORK AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
YOU KNOW, HIS IDEA THAT
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS, HE SEEMED VERY PUT
OUT BY HAVING TO DO THAT.
IT APPEARED AS THOUGH HE WOULD
TAKE ANY QUESTION AND TRY TO
NUANCE HIS WAY THROUGH IT OR TO
FILIBUSTER HIS WAY.
I THINK THAT’S WHY HE SAW SO
MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SEEKING
TO RECLAIM THEIR TIME BECAUSE
THEY REALIZE THAT HE WOULD BE
EASY AT FILIBUSTERING FIVE
MINUTES OF THEIR TIME TO TRY TO
GET QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS ONTO
THE RECORD.
AND I THINK THAT HE DEMONSTRATED
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE
CARES LESS ABOUT JUSTICE THAN HE
DOES ABOUT DEFENDING WHAT IS
BOTH QUESTIONABLE AND IN SOME
CASES PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ACTIONS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION
AND THIS PRESIDENT.
>> AMONG THOSE ARE THE
PRESIDENT’S COMMUTATION OF ROGER
STONE.
MATT MILLER, YOU MENTIONED IT.
I WANT TO PLAY YOU THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING FROM CONGRESSMAN
SWALWELL.
WE’LL TALK ABOUT IT ON THE OTHER
SIDE.
>> AT YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING,
YOU WERE ASKED, DO YOU BELIEVE A
PRESIDENT COULD LAWFULLY ISSUE A
PARDON IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
RECIPIENT’S PROMISE TO NOT
INCRIMINATE THEM.
YOU SAID --
>> NOT TO WHAT?
>> THAT WOULD BE A CRIME.
YOU WERE ASKED, COULD A
PRESIDENT ISSUE A PARDON IN
EXCHANGE FOR THE RECIPIENT’S
PROMISE NOT TO INCRIMINATE THEM.
YOU RESPONDED, NO, THAT WOULD BE
A CRIME.
>> YES, I SAID THAT.
>> YOU DIDN’T SAY IT WOULD BE
WRONG OR UNLAWFUL.
YOU SAID IT WOULD BE A CRIME.
WHEN YOU SAID THAT, THAT A
PRESIDENT SWAPPING A PARDON TO
SILENCE A WITNESS WOULD BE A
CRIME, YOU WERE PROMISING THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IF YOU SAW
THAT YOU WOULD DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THAT.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT’S RIGHT.
>> NOW MR. BARR, ARE YOU
INVESTIGATING DONALD TRUMP FOR
COMMUTING THE PRISON SENTENCE OF
HIS LONGTIME FRIEND AND
POLITICAL ADVISER ROGER STONE?
>> NO.
>> WHY NOT?
>> WHY SHOULD I?
MATT MILLER?
WHY NOT?
WHY SHOULD I?
BECAUSE IT’S STUNNING.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY THE
MOST REVEALING EXCHANGE OF THE
ENTIRE HEARING.
FIRST WHEN CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL
ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT
THE SENTENCING CHANGE AND ASKED
WHETHER HE WOULD INTERVENE IN
THE OTHER SENTENCES AND HE WAS
UNABLE TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF
ANY OTHER SENTENCE HE HAD
INTERVENED.
AND THIS EXCHANGE WHERE HE NOT
ONLY WOULDN’T GET INTO AN
EXAMINATION OF THE UNDERLYING
FACTS, SOME OF WHICH WERE IN THE
MUELLER REPORT.
SOME OF WHICH WE’VE ONLY BECOME
KNOWN TO US RECENTLY AS THEY’VE
BEEN UNVEILED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS KNOWN FOR OVER A
YEAR NOW.
BUT THEN YOU HAD THIS EXCHANGE
WHERE CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL READ
ONE OF THE PRESIDENT’S TWEETS TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHERE THE
PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT ROGER
STONE FOR NOT FLIPPING ON HIM
AND TESTIFYING AGAINST HIM.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID HE
WASN’T AWARE OF THE TWEET WHICH
WAS, I THINK, A BIZARRE
STATEMENT BECAUSE THAT TWEET WAS
IN THE MUELLER REPORT.
IT WAS IN ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT SECTIONS OF THE
MUELLER REPORT EXAMINING THE
PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND WHETHER
HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
THIS GOES AGAIN TO THE POINT
WE’RE ALL MAKE CHICAGO IS, IF
YOU ARE ANYTHING BUT A PARTISAN
REPUBLICAN, IF YOU WATCH THIS
HEARING AND WATCH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S ANSWERS, IT’S HARD TO
HAVE FAITH THAT HE’S DOING
ANYTHING LIKE GUARANTEEING EQUAL
JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
>> AND I THINK IN A RACE TO THE
BOTTOM, THIS NEXT MOMENT ALSO
STANDS OUT AS ONE OF THE MOST
HAUNTING ONES.
ANDREW WEISSMANN, I WANT TO SHOW
YOU WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
NOT THE 2016 ATTACK ON OUR
DEMOCRACY FROM RUSSIA BUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF AN ATTACK IN
2020.
HERE HE IS SAYING IT DEPENDS ON
WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE SAUFRDIS
OFFERED.
>> IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE
REPUBLICAN-LED SENATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THAT RUSSIA
INTERFERED WITH OUR ELECTIONS
AND ATTEMPTED TO UNDERMINE
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
CORRECT?
>> AND I SAID SO, TOO.
>> IS IT EVER APPROPRIATE, SIR,
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SOLICIT OR
ACCEPT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN AN
ELECTION?
>> DEPENDS WHAT KIND OF
ASSISTANCE.
>> IS IT EVER APPROPRIATE FOR
THE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE TO ACCEPT OR SOLICIT
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND
IN HIS OR HER ELECTION?
>> NO, IT’S NOT APPROPRIATE.
>> OKAY.
SORRY YOU HAD TO STRUGGLE WITH
THAT.
>> ANDREW, I HAVE HAD -- I’VE
READ THIS THREE TIMES.
I WAS SURE IT WAS TRANSCRIBED
INCORRECTLY AND I JUST WANT TO
ASK YOU, I WANT TO TAKE THIS
LINE BY LINE.
THE REPUBLICAN-LED SENATE INTEL
COMMITTEE IS CITED.
BARR SEEMS TO WANT A POPSICLE OR
LOLLIPOP FOR SAYING, AND I SAID
SO, AND I AGREED WITH CHAIRMAN
BURR.
AND THEN HE STRUGGLES.
HE’S ASKED THIS QUESTION.
IS IT EVER APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO SOLICIT OR ACCEPT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN
ELECTION.
HIS UNDER OATH ON THE RECORD
ANSWER IS, QUOTE, DEPENDS WHAT
KIND OF ASSISTANCE.
WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE IS EVER
LEGAL FROM A FOREIGN POWER IN AN
AMERICAN ELECTION?
WHAT IS BARR TRYING TO NORMALIZE
THERE BEFORE HE GOT CAUGHT AND
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE
TOOTHPASTE BACK IN THE TUBE?
>> SO, FIRST, THERE IS A FEDERAL
STATUTE THAT MAKES IT A CRIME TO
ACCEPT OR SOLICIT ANY
ASSISTANCE.
SO THE CONGRESSMAN HAD IT
TOTALLY RIGHT.
SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
INITIAL STATEMENT WAS JUST
WRONG.
AND YOU COULD SEE WHAT WAS GOING
ON THERE WAS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT
BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE EVIDENCE WITH
RESPECT TO THE IMPEACHMENT.
AND HE WAS TRYING TO DUCK IT.
AND SO THAT DOESN’T REALLY SPEAK
WELL FOR HIS TAKING THE OATH
THAT HE WAS UNDER SERIOUSLY.
HE EVENTUALLY GOT TO WHAT WAS AN
OBVIOUS ANSWER, WHICH IS NO.
YOU CANNOT ACCEPT OR SOLICIT ANY
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.
AND IT GOES TO SORT OF A LARGER
POINT THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
GETTING AT, WHICH IS THE
PARTISAN NATURE OF WHAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS UP TO
TODAY.
WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE
RUSSIAN HOAX, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, HE WAS WILLING TO SAY THAT
THERE CLEARLY IS GOING TO BE
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
CONNECTION WITH HAVING MAIL-IN
VOTING.
BUT HE ALSO HAD TO ADMIT HE HAD
ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT.
SO YOU HAD ENORMOUS DICHOTOMIES
BETWEEN THE TRUTH AND PARTISAN
EFFORT ON HIS PART TO SUPPORT
THE PRESIDENT.
>> CHUCK ROSENBERG, I DON’T WANT
TO MOVE ON FROM THIS TOPIC JUST
YET BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU
STITCH TOGETHER AND SOME OF THIS
IS ON US.
WE COVER THESE AS SEPARATE
BEATS.
DONALD TRUMP’S -- NOT DAILY,
ALMOST HOURLY DELUGE OF TWEETS
SEEKING TO DELEGITIMIZE AN
ELECTION THAT HASN’T HAPPENED
YET, THAT HE HASN’T LOST YET.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SEEMING --
SEEMING TO STRUGGLE WITH THE
QUESTION ABOUT IT DEPENDS WHAT
KIND OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, AS
ANDREW JUST SAID, CLEANING UP
THAT ANSWER.
WHAT HALF A DOZEN CALLS THAT
DONALD TRUMP HAS HAD WITH
VLADIMIR PUTIN IN WHICH NOT ONLY
HAVE THE RUSSIAN BOUNTIES PUT ON
THE HEADS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS
NOT COME UP, BUT WE DON’T HAVE
ANY SENSE, ANY READ-OUT.
JOHN BOLTON WRITES IN HIS BOOK
THERE RARELY IF ANY FOREIGN
POLICY ADVISERS OR STAFFERS OR
EVEN STENOS ON THOSE CALLS.
WHAT ARE WE TO -- WITH EYES WIDE
OPEN THIS TIME, RIGHT?
IT’S BEEN FOUR YEARS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OUR SCENARIOS
ARE FOR NOVEMBER?
>> WELL, ONE THING I WANTED TO
MENTION, I’VE LEARNED TODAY I
HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHICH
SURPRISED ME.
I DON’T READ THE PRESIDENT’S
TWEETS EITHER.
IF I WERE IN HIS POSITION, I
THINK I WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME
THING.
I’D STAY FAR AWAY FROM IT.
WHAT IS IN STORE FOR NOVEMBER?
IT DEPENDS IF THERE’S A DECISIVE
VICTORY, EITHER THE REPUBLICAN
OR DEMOCRATIC SIDE.
ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, IT’S
EASY.
THE PRESIDENT WILL ACCEPT THAT.
AND IF IT’S A DECISIVE VICTORY
ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, HE
PROBABLY HAS TO ACCEPT THAT BOTH
LEGALLY AND POLITICALLY.
BUT WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THE
SCENARIO WHERE IT’S NARROW.
OR WHERE IT TAKES A VERY LONG
TIME TO COUNT THE VOTES.
MORE WHERE WE END UP AS IN 2000
WITH A DECISIVE STATE SUCH AS
FLORIDA WHERE IT’S DIFFICULT TO
COUNT THE VOTE AND WE END UP IN
THE COURTS.
ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS PLAY INTO
THE PRESIDENT’S CONSPIRACY
THEORIES.
AND IN TERMS OF HAVING THE RIGHT
PERSON IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE
RIGHT TIME, THIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL SEEMS TO CARE MORE ABOUT
PLEASING THE BOSS THAN ADHERING
TO HIS OATH.
LOOK, BILL BARR IS A SMART MAN.
BUT I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE
WITH HOW HE’S APPROACHING THE
JOB.
AND TO THE POINT I’VE TRIED TO
MAKE EARLIER, THE FACT THAT HE
SEES NO AMBIGUITY OR NUANCE IN
ANYTHING HE DOES OR CAN’T
UNDERSTAND WHY CRITICS WOULD BE
UPSET WITH THE PERCEPTION THAT
HE HAS CREATED AROUND HIS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SORT OF
BAFFLES ME.
AND SO I WORRY A LOT ABOUT
NOVEMBER.
NOT THAT WE WON’T EVENTUALLY GET
TO THE RIGHT PLACE AS A COUNTRY.