HE SIGNED OFF ON THAT TO. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FBI’S
ACTIVITY, HE’S CURRENTLY A
SUBJECT OF IT.
I’M JOINED HERE ON SET BY JAMES
BAKER.
BAKER. HE WAS THE FBI’S GENERAL
COUNSEL.
COUNSEL. THANKS FOR DOING THIS.
>> THANK YOU, CHUCK.
HOW ARE YOU?
>> I’M ALL RIGHT.
LET ME START WITH YOU RESPONDING
TO THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET THIS
MORNING.
MORNING. IT FEELS AS IF HE WAS TALKING
ABOUT YOU AND A LOT OF PEOPLE AT
THE FBI.
THE FBI. HE TWEETED, MY CAMPAIGN FOR
PRESIDENT WAS SPIED ON.
NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER
HAPPENED IN AMERICAN POLITICS.
A REALLY BAD SITUATION REASON
MEANS LONG JAIL SENTENCES.
IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITIONS
OF TREASON.
OF TREASON. AND THERE’S BEEN NO CONCLUSION
ON THIS SPY ISSUE.
DID YOU FEEL TARGETED BY THIS
TREAT?
TREAT? >> IT WAS BROUGHTPROBABLY INTEND
COVER MY BEHAVIOR, BUT I FEEL
CONFIDENT THERE WAS NO TREASON,
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS DONE
ILLEGAL, IMMORAL OR UNETHICAL.
AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE.
AND I WOULD NOT HAVE NOT
CONDUCTED SUCH ACTIVITY.
>> IN HINDSIGHT, NOW THAT YOU’VE
READ THE MUELLER REPORT AND
YOU’VE SEEN ALL OF THAT, IS
THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD HAVE
DONE DIFFERENTLY.
DONE DIFFERENTLY. >> I WOULD HAVE RUN SCREAMING
FROM THE BUILDING.
>> YOU WOULDN’T -- YOU WOULD
HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF THE FBI.
>> EXACTLY.
>> EXACTLY. AFTER ALL OF THIS.
I SAY THAT JOKINGLY, BUT THIS
WHOLE THING WAS TRAUMATIC.
JUST AS I WAS LISTENING -- AS
YOU WENT THROUGH THE VARIOUS
THINGS I WORKED ON.
THE WHOLE THING WAS TERRIBLE
STARTING WITH THE CLINTON
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. IT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE WANTED
TO DO.
TO DO. IT WAS SOMETHING WE FELT THAT WE
HAD A DUTY TO DO.
>> IT FELT AS -- YOU LOOK AT IT
NOW AND THE PRESIDENT IS
CLAIMING THE FBI WAS WORKING ON
THE BEHALF OF OBAMA AND CLINTON.
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN BELIEVES IT
WAS WORKING AGAINST HER GIVEN
THE WAY THAT INVESTIGATION IS.
I UNDERSTAND YOU SAY YOU RUN
SCREAMING FROM THE BUILDING, BUT
DO YOU IN HINDSIGHT FEEL LIKE
THE FBI MISHANDLED 2016?
>> I DON’T THINK WE --
HONESTLY -- DID WE MAKE MAKE
MISTAKES, AS AN ENTERPRISE OF
HUMAN BEINGS TRYING TO DO THEIR
BEST?
BEST? MAYBE.
MAYBE. BUT HONESTLY I’M NOT SURE HOW, I
THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THAT,
OBVIOUSLY, AND I JUST DON’T NOW
THAT WE COULD HAVE COME UP WITH
A BETTER SOLUTION WITH RESPECT
TO WHAT WE DID.
WE DID WHAT WE THOUGHT THE LAW
REQUIRED US TO DO.
WE DID WHAT WE THOUGHT OUR
OBLIGATION TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE REQUIRED US TO DO.
>> YOU TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS
THAT ONE OF THE REASONS -- ONE
OF THE PREDICATES FOR OPENING UP
THE INVESTIGATION YOU THOUGHT
AFTER THE COMEY FIRING THAT HE
WAS SOMEHOW FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS
OR PERHAPS WAS DOING THIS AT THE
BEHEST.
BEHEST. IS IT THE RAW -- IS IT THE
INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE
MEETING WITH THE RUSSIAN
AMBASSADOR THAT TRIGGERED THIS
BECAUSE IT WAS -- I BELIEVE IT
WAS THE DAY OR SO AFTER THE
COMEY FIRING WHERE THE PRESIDENT
SAYS TO THE -- SAYS TO THE
RUSSIANS THAT THEY GOT THIS OUT
OF THE WAY.
WAS IT THE COMBINATION OF THOSE
TWO THINGS THAT MADE -- THAT WAS
THE PREDICATE FOR THAT.
>> I DON’T WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT
WAS DONE.
WAS DONE. LET ME PUT THAT TO THE SIDE.
>> WE CAN’T -- I THOUGHT WE KNOW
FOR A FACT THERE WAS AN
INVESTIGATION OPENED ON THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> I DON’T KNOW WHAT WAS
CONFIRMED OR NOT SO I’M JUST NOT
GOING TO GO THERE.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. >> HAVING SAID THAT, LOOK, WE
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WAS
GOING ON HERE AND THOSE EVENTS
DIDN’T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM.
THEY HAPPENED AGAINST A
BACKDROP.
BACKDROP. WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT RUSSIA
WAS UP TO GENERALLY AND THE
THREAT THAT THEY POSED.
WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY
WERE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR
ELECTION AND THEN WE WERE
LOOKING AT THE EVENTS, ALL THE
INTERACTIONS THAT DIRECTOR COMEY
HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT LEADING
UP TO THE FIRING AND THEN THE
FIRING, AND I FELT CONFIDENT AT
THAT POINT IN TIME THAT OUR
INVESTIGATE ACTIVITIES WERE
LAWFUL AND APPROPRIATE.
>> THE IDEA OF ROD ROSENSTEIN
WEARING A WIRE, IT SEEMS AS IF
IT WERE A MORE SERIOUS IDEA
SPECULATED.
SPECULATED. DID IT GO TO YOU ASKING YOU FOR
THE LEGALITY OF THAT?
>> MY OPINION WAS ASKED OF IT.
AND WE TOOK IT SERIOUSLY.
THIS WAS NOT A FUN, LIGHT
HEARTED TIME IN THE BUREAU AND
IN THE DEPARTMENT.
WE TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE DISCUSSED IT SERIOUSLY.
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A TERRIBLE
IDEA FROM THE OUTSET AND
RECOMMENDED AGAINST IT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE ISSUE OF SURVEILLANCE OF THE
CAMPAIGN, I DON’T THINK
ANYBODY -- IT DOESN’T SEEM AS IF
THERE WERE ANYBODY AT TRUMP
TOWER THAT WAS EVER UNDER
SURVEILLANCE, IS THAT A -- IS
THAT A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT --
DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN THAT
CAN BE CONFIRMED OR NOT?
>> I CAN’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT’S CONFIRMED ABOUT
THAT.
THAT. JUST TALK ABOUT SURVEILLANCE FOR
A SECOND.
A SECOND. IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OBTAINING POLITICAL
INTELLIGENCE, WHAT THE CAMPAIGN
IS DOING IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEN
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT NEVER
OCCURRED, I NEVER --
>> IS THIS A META DATA THING,
MEANING IT’S POSSIBLE LIKE
MICHAEL COHEN WAS UNDER
SURVEILLANCE, NOT IN HIS PHONE
CALLS, BUT THE NUMBERS GOING IN
AND OUT?
AND OUT? IS THAT SOMETHING THEN THAT
THAT’S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN DONE?
BEEN DONE? >> I GUESS THAT ANYTHING IS
POSSIBLE, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I
DON’T BELIEVE THAT KIND OF
ACTIVITY WAS GOING ON EITHER.
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
ABOUT THE POLITICAL INTENTIONS,
STRATEGY OF THE CAMPAIGN, WHAT
WE WERE FOCUSED ON ALL THE TIME,
WHAT THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT WAS
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA. WHAT WERE THEY UP TO.
>> THE STEEL DOSSIER WHICH IS
INTELLIGENCE FROM SOMEBODY WHO
WAS AT ONE TIME A SOURCE.
WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THIS
INFORMATION, DID YOU KNOW, WHEN
THIS CAME INTO THE FBI, DID YOU
KNOW IT HAD BEEN GATHERED AS
PART OF ESSENTIALLY AN
OPPOSITION RESEARCH REQUEST
FIRST BY A REPUBLICAN DONOR AND
THEN BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
>> I DID.
>> I DID. >> YOU DID KNOW THAT.
HOW DID YOU VIEW THE MATERIAL
AND WAS IT USED AS SORT OF FIRST
ROUND OF EVIDENCE OR
CONFIRMATION, IF YOU WILL?
>> IT WAS MORE INFORMATION THAT
HAD -- THAT WE VIEWED THAT I
VIEWED
VIEWED VIEWED CONCEPTICALLY AND I WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
STEELE WAS AND HAD BEEN A SOURCE
THAT WE THOUGHT WAS RELIABLE.
HE’S REPORTING ALL OF THIS
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. IT LOOKS ALARMING.
WE TOOK IT SERIOUSLY, BUT WE
TRIED TO VET IT.
>> WOULD YOU HAVE STILL APPROVED
THE CARTER PAGE FISA WARRANT WAS
THE STEELE DOSSIER?
>> SO, BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION
OF THE FACTS AT THE TIME THAT
ARE MOSTLY REDACTED NOW IN THE
FISA APPLICATION, MY ANSWER IS I
THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT I
THINK THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE
APPLICATION EVEN WITHOUT THAT
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. >> BUT THAT INFORMATION WAS PART
OF THE APPLICATION?
>> YES.
>> YES. >> IS CARTER PAGE THE ONLY PLACE
THAT THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS USED
FOR A FISA APPLICATION?
>> I DON’T THINK I SHOULD
COMMENT ON THAT.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE THE
GOVERNMENT HAS CONFIRMED.
I DON’T WANT TO CONFIRM OR DENY
ANYTHING ABOUT POTENTIAL FISA
APPLICATIONS.
APPLICATIONS. >> MY READING OF THE MUELLER
REPORT MAKES IT SEEM THAT THE
STEELE DOSSIER IS NOT THAT
IMPORTANT -- NOT SORT OF FRONT
AND CENTER FOR MUELLER AND HIS
INVESTIGATORS.
INVESTIGATORS. HOW IMPORTANT DID THE FBI VIEW
THE STEELE INFORMATION?
>> IT WAS IMPORTANT BUT IT’S NOT
WHAT STARTED THE INVESTIGATION.
IT’S ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO
REASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ABOUT.
ABOUT. IT WAS THE GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. IT WAS THE GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
WE SPENT RESOURCES ON IT, BUT IT
WAS NOT THE CENTER PIECE OF
EVERYTHING.
EVERYTHING. >> YOU BRING UP GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS AND THAT BEING THE
START AND YOU HAD A FEW FBI
INFORMANTS, I BELIEVE YOU HAD
SOMEBODY WORKING FOR THE FBI AND
ALSO AN INFORMANT IN STEPHON.
BUT THIS GENTLEMAN ENDED UP IN
THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A WHITE
HOUSE MEETING AS AN FBI
INFORMANT.
INFORMANT. AT SOME POINT, DID YOU THINK,
WHAT HAVE WE -- THAT WAS
ALARMING TO ME TO READ THAT AN
FBI INFORMANT WAS STILL SORT OF
ACTIVELY HELPING YOUR
INVESTIGATION BUT ALSO
PRETENDING TO BE A TRUMP ALLY.
DO YOU SEE WHY -- UNDER THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE PERHAPS WHY THE
PRESIDENT IS SO PARANOID?
>> I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE POWER OF THE
FBI AND SOME OF THE INVESTIGATE
TECHNIQUES THAT WE USE.
WITHOUT CONFIRMING OR DENYING
THE SPECIFICS.
THE SPECIFICS. WHAT WERE WE TRYING TO DO?
AGAIN, I’M SAYING IT AGAIN, WE
WERE FOCUSED ON WHAT THE
RUSSIANS WERE UP TO, WHAT THEY
WERE DOING.
WERE DOING. WE WEREN’T TRYING TO GATHER
INFORMATION ABOUT POLITICS OR
PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT
ACTIVITIES.
ACTIVITIES. WE DON’T DO THAT KIND OF THING.
WE WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT
THE THREAT WAS FROM THIS
PARTICULAR FOREIGN POWER.
>> DO YOU THINK WE KNOW ALL THE
INFORMATION ON WHAT RUSSIA DID
OR DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT
THERE WERE TEN INSTANCES OF
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION THAT
MUELLER FOUND THAT PERHAPS
PREVENTED THE FBI AND MUELLER
FROM FINDING OUT EVERYTHING?
>> I DON’T THINK THE OBSTRUCTION
HELPED, THAT’S FOR SURE.
>> YOU SAY THAT OBSTRUCTION AS
FACT.
FACT. YOU BELIEVE THERE’S ENOUGH
EVIDENCE HERE?
EVIDENCE HERE? YOU’RE A FORMAL FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR.
PROSECUTOR. >> I’VE REFRAINED FROM MAKING
THAT CONCLUSION.
THAT CONCLUSION. WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT IF THIS
IS NOT ILLEGAL, IT CERTAINLY
REVEALS A PATTERN OF CORRUPTION
THAT SHOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE IN
AMERICA.
AMERICA. WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT KIND
OF BEHAVIOR FROM YOUR LEADERS.
>> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT BILL BARR
HERE AT THE END.
I THINK YOU’VE -- YOU KNOW HIM
QUITE WELL.
QUITE WELL. I THINK YOU’VE WORKED WITH HIM.
>> I WORKED WITH HIM BEFORE,
YES.
YES. >> WHICH BILL BARR DO YOU KNOW?
THE BILL BARR IN THAT INTERVIEW
THAT’S USING A LOT OF INNUENDO,
IT’S A LOT OF INNUENDO AND HE
DOESN’T BACK IT UP -- I’VE GOT
MORE QUESTIONS, OKAY.
YOU CAN SAY THAT ABOUT ANYTHING.
OR IS HE THE BILL BARR THAT
APPOINTED A U.S. ATTORNEY OF
BIPARTISAN CREDENTIALS TO DO A
REVIEW WHERE IT DOESN’T LOOK
LIKE HE PUT A THUMB ON THE SCALE
IN THE REVIEW.
WHICH BILL BARR SHOULD THE
PUBLIC BELIEVE?
PUBLIC BELIEVE? >> I THINK IT’S THE SAME BILL
BARR.
BARR. I’VE KNOWN HIM AS AN EXCELLENT
LAWYER --
LAWYER -- >> IS HE BEING A PARTISAN HERE?
>> WHAT WE ALL NEED TO DO IS
CALM DOWN AND JUST LISTEN TO THE
ACTUAL WORDS THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS SAYING AND I THINK
ONCE WE DO, IT’S MUCH LESS
ALARMING AND I’M SOMEBODY WHO’S
IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF THIS STUFF.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE
CONFIDENT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE FBI,
IS ACTING IN A LAWFUL AND
APPROPRIATE WAY WITH RESPECT TO
ITS USE OF INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORITIES.
AUTHORITIES. THAT IS JUST -- THAT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING WE ALL AGREE ON.
AND SO IF HE’S NOT CONFIDENT IN
THAT YET, THEN HE NEEDS TO BE --
HE NEEDS TO OBTAIN THE
INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE HIM
CONFIDENT TO MAKE SURE HE HAS
THE RIGHT POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH
THIS KIND OF OF A SITUATION.
>> GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT’S
HAPPENED, ARE WE IN A BETTER
PLACE TO STOP RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE OR IN A WORSE PLACE
TO STOP RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE?
>> WE’RE ALERTED THE COUNTRY AS
TO WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE UP TO
AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED
ON THAT AND PEOPLE ARE WORRIED
ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON.
BUT THEY’VE GOT US CHASING EACH
OTHER AND FIGHTING WITH EACH
OTHER AND I THINK THAT’S BAD.
AND I THINK THAT’S WHY I’VE BEEN
URGING PEOPLE NOT TO GO DOWN THE
ROAD OF HATE WITH RESPECT TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR HIS FOLLOWERS
AND TO WORK TOGETHER AS
AMERICANS IN A BETTER WAY.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT
IS UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION?
>> I’LL HOLD OFF ON THAT