ARI MELBER" STARTS RIGHT NOW. .
. >>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO
A SPECIAL EDITION OF "THE BEAT"
FROM WASHINGTON ON THE FIRST
WORK DAY SINCE THE MUELLER PROBE
ENDED WITH NO CHARGEABLE
COLLUSION AND AN OPEN QUESTION
ON WHETHER DONALD TRUMP
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. MY EXCLUSIVE GUEST TONIGHT IS
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC
HOLDER WHO SERVED UNDER
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND IS ON "THE
BEAT" TONIGHT FOR HIS FIRST
INTERVIEW SINCE THE MUELLER
PROBE ENDED.
PROBE ENDED. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> IT’S GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> BEFORE WE GET TO YOUR
ASSESSMENT OF ALL THIS, WHAT
DOES IT MEAN THAT THIS PROBE
ENDED WITH 37 INDICTMENTS?
WHAT DID THEY FIND?
WHAT DID THEY NOT FIND?
>> WELL, THEY CERTAINLY FOUND --
THE HEADLINE IS THAT THE
CAMPAIGN WAS NOT COLLUDING WITH
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA. BUT I THINK IT ALSO FOUND VERY
SIGNIFICANTLY THAT THE RUSSIANS
IN TWO WAYS TRIED TO INFLUENCE
OUR ELECTION, BOTH THROUGH THE
USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND THROUGH
HACKING.
HACKING. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT, ARI, TAKES
ME BACK TO HELSINKI.
THAT IS A CONSISTENT FINDING
WITH WHAT THE INTEL COMMUNITY
HAS BEEN TELLING THE PRESIDENT
OVER THESE MANY, MANY MONTHS.
AND I THINK ABOUT HIM STANDING
THERE IN HELSINKI, IN SPITE OF
THE FACT THAT HE HAD THIS
INFORMATION FROM THE INTEL
COMMUNITY AND ESSENTIALLY SAYING
THAT I BELIEVE THIS GUY, AND
POINTING AT VLADIMIR PUTIN, AS
OPPOSED TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
SITTING IN FRONT OF ME, THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. BOB MUELLER HAS REALLY PUT IN
TERMS THAT ARE NOT INTEL SPEAK A
VERY COMPELLING CASE, THAT THE
RUSSIANS IN FACT DID THAT WHICH
DONALD TRUMP HAS SEEN SO
RELUCTANT TO ADMIT.
>> DOES THE LACK OF THE
CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT CLEAR
DONALD TRUMP OF COLLUSION?
>> I THINK IT DOES.
I MEAN, ON THE BASIS OF WHAT I
HAVE SEEN, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. BUT CERTAINLY ON THE BASIS OF
THE LETTER THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR PUT TOGETHER, IT WOULD IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS A
SUBSTANTIAL FINDING THERE.
AND I THINK IT’S GOOD NEWS FOR,
YOU KNOW, FOR THE PRESIDENT AND
FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.
>> GOOD NEWS FOR THE PRESIDENT.
BEFORE WE TURN TO OBSTRUCTION,
LET’S TALK ABOUT THE LETTER.
ALL WE HAVE TODAY IS THE
FOUR-PAGE BARR LETTER, NOT THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. WHAT DOES IT SAY TO YOU THAT
BARR’S LETTER NEVER QUOTES EVEN
A COMPLETE SENTENCE FROM THE
MUELLER REPORT, LET ALONE A
PARAGRAPH?
PARAGRAPH? >> IT’S A LITTLE TROUBLESOME
BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT THE LETTER
AND YOU’RE TRYING TO FIGURE HOW
MUCH OF THIS IS BARR, HOW MUCH
OF THIS IS MUELLER, HOW MUCH OF
THIS IS BASED ON THE MUELLER
FINDINGS.
FINDINGS. I THINK IT ALL POINTS TO THE
FACT THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
CONGRESS, THE PUBLIC ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO GET ACCESS TO THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. AND ALSO, I THINK HERE FROM BOTH
BOB MUELLER AND FROM ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR.
GENERAL BARR. >> WHEN YOU WERE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, WOULD YOU EVER GET
PROSECUTORS PROVIDING
PROSECUTORS PROVIDING INFORMATION WITHOUT A CHARGING
RECOMMENDATION?
RECOMMENDATION? >> I WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
SIX YEARS, THIRD LONGEST SERVING
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE HISTORY
OF THE UNITED STATES.
I NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM A
PROSECUTOR --
PROSECUTOR -- >> NEVER?
>> NEVER? NEVER ONCE?
NEVER ONCE? >> NOT ONCE.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ABOUT
WHAT BARR SAYS MUELLER HAS DONE
SO FAR?
SO FAR? >> I THINK THAT WHAT BOB MUELLER
WAS DOING THERE WAS PRESENTING
SOMETHING AS BEST HE THOUGHT HE
SHOULD DO UNDER THE OBLIGATIONS
THAT I THINK HE FACED.
I THINK HE WAS TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
REGULATION THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT
INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.
AND I THINK THAT REALLY CHANGED
THE WAY IN WHICH BOB MUELLER
CONDUCTED HIMSELF, CONDUCTED HIS
PROBE.
PROBE. I MEAN, I’VE KNOWN BOB MUELLER
FOR 30 YEARS.
>> YOU HIRED HIM.
>> I HIRED HIM IN THE U.S.
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN WASHINGTON,
D.C.
D.C. SAW HIM GO INTO ONE OF THE
TOUGHEST PARTS OF WASHINGTON,
D.C., MAKE HOMICIDE CASES, MADE
HIM U.S. ATTORNEY IN SAN
FRANCISCO.
FRANCISCO. HE IS THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE CRIMINAL
DIVISION.
DIVISION. THIS IS A GUY WHO HAS THE
ABILITY TO AND THE CONSTITUTION
TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS.
SO THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT MAKE
A CALL HERE I THINK IS AN
INDICATION THAT HE DID WHAT HE
THOUGHT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO
GIVEN THE STRUCTURES THAT HE WAS
UNDER.
UNDER. >> WELL, LET’S GET INTO WITH
THOSE STRUCTURES.
THOSE STRUCTURES. BARR ASSERTS WITHOUT QUOTING
MUELLER THAT ESSENTIALLY, BY NOT
GIVING A CHARGING
RECOMMENDATION, IT LIVES IT TO
BARR TO DETERMINE WHETHER DONALD
TRUMP’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A
CRIME.
CRIME. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DON’T SEE THAT.
I DON’T SEE THAT AT ALL.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE
MORE LOGICAL THING WOULD BE FOR
BOB MUELLER TO HAVE MADE THESE
FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS AND THEN
FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
RECEIVE THOSE AND SAY FULL STOP.
AND THINK ABOUT WHERE THIS
INFORMATION THEN NEEDS TO GO.
AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT
SEEMS THAT IT NEEDS TO GO TO
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. >> SO WHEN BARR IN HIS LETTER
SUGGESTS THIS IS UP TO HIM, IS
HE RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT THAT?
>> I THINK HE IS WRONG.
I THINK HE IS TAKING ON TOO
HIMSELF A ROLE THAT HAS NOT
TYPICALLY BEEN USED BY PEOPLE IN
THE POSITION THAT BOB BARR HAS
HAD.
HAD. >> YOU MENTION TYPICALLY.
>> YES.
>> YES. >> FOR YOUR ANALYSIS, LET’S LOOK
AT THE NIXON EXAMPLE WHERE THE
PROSECUTOR JAWORSKI HAD A PROBE
AND DID NOT OFFER A CONCLUSION
ON OBSTRUCTION, SAYING HE WOULD
ALLOW, QUOTE, THE HOUSE TO
DETERMINE WHAT ACTION WAS
WARRANTED.
WARRANTED. IN THE SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL
KEN STARR EXAMPLE, HE DID NOT
FORMALLY OFFER A CONCLUSION ON
OBSTRUCTION, NOTING IT WAS NOT
THE ROLE OF HIS OFFICE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS WARRANT
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. IS BARR THROUGH HIS LETTER
VIOLATING THOSE PRECEDENTS?
>> THAT’S KIND OF A STRONG TERM,
VIOLATING THOSE PRECEDENTS.
I THINK HE IS ACTING IN A WAY
THAT IS INCONSISTENT.
>> IS HE DEPARTING FROM THOSE
PRECEDENTS?
PRECEDENTS? >> HE IS CERTAINLY DEPARTING
FROM THOSE PRECEDENTS.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT HE IS
ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS
INCONSISTENT.
INCONSISTENT. IT WOULD SEEM ASKING IN THE WAY
HE DID FROM BOB MUELLER THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SHOULD
HAVE TAKEN THAT INFORMATION AND
PACKAGED IT IN THE APPROPRIATE
FORM AND SENT IT TO THE HOUSE
FOR CONSIDERATION.
FOR CONSIDERATION. >> DO YOU KNOW WHY HE WOULD BE
TAKING THAT APPROACH, IF AS YOU
SAY IT’S SO UNUSUAL?
>> I DON’T KNOW.
AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS,
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK
HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE,
BOB MUELLER’S TESTIMONY BEFORE
THE HOUSE, THE EXAMINATION OF
THE REPORT IS SO CRITICAL.
IT SEEMS HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE
THAT BOB MUELLER ASKED BARR TO
DO THIS.
DO THIS. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE BOB
MUELLER SHIFTING THE
RESPONSIBILITY FROM MAKING THE
CALL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AND THAT’S JUST NOT THE WAY IN
WHICH BOB MUELLER IS WOUND.
THAT’S JUST NOT THE WAY HE IS
WOUND.
WOUND. >> THAT IS REALLY STRIKING
COMING FROM YOU AS AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE
WHO HAS BEEN IN THOSE SHOES AND
UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS UNUSUAL
HERE, AND AS YOU SAY, SOMEONE
WHO KNOWS BOB MUELLER SO WELL
YOU.
YOU. HIRED HIM.
HIRED HIM. AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU A LITTLE
BIT OF A YOUNGER ERIC HOLDER
GIVING A TRIBUTE TO MUELLER ON
HIS RETIREMENT AS FBI DIRECTOR.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> IN EVERY ENDEAVOR, BOB’S
SKILL, HIS INTELLECT, HIS
EXCELLENT JUDGMENT, HIS
HUMILITY, AND HIS NATURAL SENSE
OF LEADERSHIP WERE ON CONSTANT
DISPLAY.
DISPLAY. >> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, DO
YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE WE WOULD
LATER HEAR BOB MUELLER’S VIEW OF
THIS, EITHER THROUGH WHAT HE
WROTE IN THE REPORT AND WHETHER
THIS WAS INTENDED FOR CONGRESS,
OR A REBUTTAL TO WHAT YOU SAY IS
BARR DEPARTING FROM PRECEDENT
THIS WEEKEND?
THIS WEEKEND? >> DO I THINK WE WOULD HEAR FROM
MUELLER?
MUELLER? MUELLER, I THINK WHAT WE HEARD
FROM MUELLER IS HIM DOING WHAT
HE THOUGHT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO
DO, GIVEN THE PARAMETERS WITHIN
WHICH HE WAS WORKING.
HE IS A DEDICATED CIVIL SERVANT.
HE IS AN EX-MARINE.
HE FOLLOWS ORDERS.
HE UNDERSTANDS THE MISSION.
HE COMPLETES THE MISSION.
AND I THINK HE COMPLETED THE
MISSION IN THE WAY HE THOUGHT HE
WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IT.
>> PREET BHARARA WAS A U.S.
ATTORNEY WHO YOU ALSO OVERSAW.
>> GOOD MAN.
>> I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU WHAT
HE IS SAYING ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE
SOME ARE PUTTING THIS ON BARR,
AS YOU JUST DID.
HE SEEMED TO ACCEPT BARR’S
EXPLANATION, EVEN THOUGH WE
HAVEN’T GOTTEN THE MUELLER
REPORT AND SAYING MUELLER IS
ABDICATING HIS ROLE.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> MY FIRST REACTION IS IT SEEMS
TO BE AN ABDICATION OF A
RESPONSIBILITY.
RESPONSIBILITY. YOU GIVE A CASE TO A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, A SPECIAL COUNSEL
FOR THAT PERSON TO MAKE A
PROSECUTIVE DECISION.
PROSECUTIVE DECISION. HE DID NOT.
SO HE PUNTS TO CONGRESS, AND
THEN SORT OF BILL BARR RUNS ON
THE FIELD, TAKES THE BALL AND
RUNS IT IN FOR A TOUCHDOWN FOR
THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT. >> YOUR REACTION.
>> I RESPECT PREET A GREAT DEAL,
BUT I THINK HE IS WRONG THERE.
I THINK BOB WAS FACED WITH JUST
A COUPLE OF POSSIBILITIES.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE COULD NOT
INDICT, HE HAD THE POSSIBILITY
OF DECLINING PROSECUTION, AND HE
THOUGHT THERE WAS TOO MUCH
EVIDENCE I THINK THERE TO
DECLINE.
DECLINE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LETTER.
THE LETTER TALKS ABOUT HE IS NOT
EXONERATING ANYBODY.
EXONERATING ANYBODY. SO HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO
DECLINE THE CASE.
THE ONLY OTHER OPTION THAT HE
HAD WAS TO PUT THIS CASE IN AS
GOOD A FORM AS IT COULD WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT SOMEBODY WOULD
DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
AND IF PAST PRECEDENT IS ANY
GUIDE, THAT WOULD BE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMEBODY IN
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHIPPING
OUT THAT WHICH HE PUT TOGETHER
TO CONGRESS FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LETTER,
THERE WERE TWO VERY NEGATIVE
THINGS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION FOR
DONALD TRUMP THAT BARR FELT THE
NEED TO INCLUDE.
ONE, THAT THERE ARE OTHER SECRET
ACTIONS THAT MUELLER UNCOVERED
THAT TRUMP TOOK THAT GO TO THE
OBSTRUCTION ANALYSIS, AND HE
DIDN’T RELEASE WHAT THEY ARE.
AND TWO, WHAT YOU JUST
MENTIONED, THAT MUELLER DID NOT
EXONERATE DONALD TRUMP ON
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST EXPLAINED TO
US, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO
INTERPRET BARR INCLUDING THAT
NEGATIVE INFORMATION WHILE GOING
BEYOND MUELLER TO SAY HE DOESN’T
THINK TRUMP COMMITTED
OBSTRUCTION?
OBSTRUCTION? >> WELL, I THINK IN SOME WAYS I
THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
MAYBE TRYING TO COVER HIMSELF SO
THAT HE CAN SAY I WAS PRETTY
FULSOME IN THE LETTER THAT I
PREPARED.
PREPARED. AND IN SPITE OF THAT FULSOME
NATURE IN WHICH I DESCRIBED THAT
WHICH MUELLER DID, I MADE THE
DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS NOT
A BASIS TO PROCEED.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE FACT
THAT HE SAYS THAT THERE IS
INFORMATION THAT WE DON’T HAVE
ACCESS TO, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
NOT EXONERATED MEANS THAT THERE
HAS TO BE, AS THERE HAS BEEN, AN
EXAMINATION BY CONGRESS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS
FURTHER ACTION AND WHAT KIND OF
FURTHER ACTION IS NECESSARY.
THE INJECTION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO COME, IN ESPECIALLY
THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL AFTER THAT
17-PAGE MEMO OR WHATEVER IT WAS
HE WROTE SOME MONTHS AGO BEFORE
HE WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, I WOULD
THINK THAT GIVEN THAT HISTORY
AND THIS DETERMINATION, I WOULD
HAVE BEEN A LITTLE HESITANT IF I
WERE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO
MAKE THE DETERMINATION HERE.
NOW I THINK HE ATTACHES ROD
ROSENSTEIN TO THE DETERMINATION,
BUT I DON’T THINK THAT IS
SUFFICIENT TO GET ME OR I THINK
MANY OTHER PEOPLE BEYOND A
CONCERN THAT THE APPROPRIATE
PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED.
>> THAT’S SIGNIFICANT COMING
FROM YOU.
FROM YOU. IT SOUNDS ALARMING I THINK FOR
PEOPLE LISTENING TO YOU AS AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF THIS SAYING, NUMBER ONE, THIS
IS NEVER HOW PROSECUTORS SUBMIT
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. AND NUMBER TWO, THE PRECEDENT,
WHETHER YOU LIKE THE FINDINGS OR
NOT, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IF
THERE IS A POTENTIAL HIGH CRIME
BY THE PRESIDENT, IT’S THE
CONGRESS WHO DEALS WITH IT.
AND THAT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE
WE’VE HEARD FROM KEN STARR ON
THIS SHOW ABOUT THAT, AND
ALTHOUGH I THINK THE TWO OF YOU
MAY DISAGREE ABOUT MUCH, YOU
SEEM TO OVERLAP AT LEAST ON THE
FACT THAT, YES, IT IS CONGRESS,
NOT AN AG, EVEN ONE LIKE
YOURSELF OR BILL BARR OR OTHERS
WHO DECIDES THIS.
TAKE A LISTEN TO KEN STARR.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. >> I’M SAYING THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TOOK THE
EVIDENCE AND SAID WE HAVE A DUTY
TO DO WHAT WE FEEL OBLIGATED TO
DO.
DO. >> THAT’S WHAT YOU HAD THEM DO.
>> IT’S NO LONGER A DEFECT THAT
BOB MUELLER HAS TO LIVE WITH IS
THAT THE STATUTE SETS THE BAR
VERY LOW FOR PROVIDING
INFORMATION THAT MAY CONSTITUTE
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
>> ISN’T THAT WHAT OBSTRUCTION
BY A PRESIDENT WOULD ALWAYS BE
ABOUT?
ABOUT? NOT PREJUDGING THE MUELLER
REPORT, WHICH WE HAVEN’T SEEN,
BUT THE PROCESS IS THE HOUSE
DECIDES WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, IF
ANYTHING.
ANYTHING. >> SURE.
>> SURE. AND OBSTRUCTION IS THE THING
THAT CERTAINLY BROUGHT DOWN
RICHARD NIXON.
RICHARD NIXON. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE HOUSE
IS INSTITUTIONALLY FAMILIAR
WITH.
WITH. BUT LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.
I DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO LEAVE
WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT I’M
SAYING THAT BILL BARR HAS DONE
SOMETHING THAT’S INCONSISTENT
WITH HIS DUTIES AS ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THAT HE IS DOING
SOMETHING IN A WAY THAT I’M
QUESTIONING HIS INTEGRITY.
I THINK WHAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT
IS THAT HE HAS THIS REALLY
EXPANSIVE VIEW OF EXECUTIVE
POWER, THE POWER OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT MIGHT
HAVE SOMEHOW INFECTED HIS
DECISION ABOUT HOW HE WAS GOING
TO HANDLE WHAT HE GOT FROM BOB
MUELLER.
MUELLER. >> FROM BOB MUELLER.
I HAVEN’T HEARD YOU SPEAK TO HIS
INTEGRITY AT ALL, BUT I’M
HEARING YOU SAY, ECHOED BY THE
HISTORY WE JUST SHOWED AND
PEOPLE LIKE FORMER PROSECUTOR
STARR THAT THE NOTION THAT THIS
WOULD BE WRAPPED UP BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ODD, JUST AS
JANET RENO DID NOT RESOLVE THE
CLINTON ISSUE.
CLINTON ISSUE. ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARDSON DID
NOT RESOLVE THE NIXON ISSUES.
AND SO BARR, AS YOU SAY, IS
PUTTING IT IN A MAXIMALIST
POSITION.
POSITION. THERE IS ONE OTHER THING ABOUT
THIS THAT I’VE GOT TO ASK YOU,
AND I JUST DON’T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED HERE.
HAPPENED HERE. I’M CURIOUS IF YOU DO.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE
RULES THAT CONGRESS SHOULD BE
NOTIFIED ABOUT THE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHO TO CHARGE AND NOT
CHARGE.
CHARGE. AND ON FRIDAY, BARR SAID HE WAS
GOING TO DO THAT AS SOON AS THIS
WEEKEND.
WEEKEND. DOES THIS LETTER CONSTITUTE
THAT?
THAT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO DEAL VERY
HERMETICALLY WITH A FEW THINGS,
BUT DOESN’T IN ANY WAY TELL
CONGRESS ABOUT THE OTHER
INDIVIDUALS OR OTHER ISSUES
UNDER INVESTIGATION THAT WERE
DECLINED TO BE CHARGED.
DOES THAT REQUIREMENT STILL HAVE
TO BE MET BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL?
GENERAL? >> I THINK IT STILL HAS TO BE
MET.
MET. AND I THINK IT’S -- IT WAS
ANTICIPATED THAT THAT WOULD BE
MET BY A FULSOME DISCLOSURE TO
CONGRESS ABOUT THE THINGS THAT
YOU HAVE JUST MENTIONED AND ALL
THE OTHER THINGS THAT CONGRESS
NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE A
CORRECT DECISION AS TO WHAT
ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH
REGARD TO A PRESIDENT WHO WAS
UNDER INVESTIGATION.
UNDER INVESTIGATION. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE ERIC HOLDER,
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES TONIGHT IS SAYING
THE CONSPIRACY COLLUSION ASPECT
OF THIS IS CLEARLY OVER BASED ON
WHAT MUELLER HAS DONE, AND THE
OBSTRUCTION QUESTIONS ARE JUST
BEGINNING FOR ANALYSIS.
>> OH, I THINK THE OBSTRUCTION
QUESTIONS, I CERTAINLY WOULD
AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION
OF MY VIEWS ON COLLUSION.
BUT WITH REGARD TO OBSTRUCTION,
I THINK WE’RE REALLY AT THE
BEGINNING -- MAYBE THE MIDDLE OF
THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE.
WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THOSE WERE.
WE NEED TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT WAS
THE NATURE OF THE INTERACTION
BETWEEN BOB MUELLER AND BILL
BARR.
BARR. AND THEN WE ALSO NEED TO
UNDERSTAND HOW WAS IT THAT BILL
BARR REACHED THESE CONCLUSIONS.
WHAT WERE THE THINGS THAT HE
WENT THROUGH?
WENT THROUGH? WHAT LAWS DID HE APPLY, WHAT
RULES DID HE APPLY?
HOW DID HE INTERPRET THE
APPROPRIATE RULES AND STAT UTES,
HOW DID HE APPLY THE FACTS.
THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, A
FOUR-PAGE MEMO THAT MAKES SOME
REALLY CONSEQUENTIAL
REALLY CONSEQUENTIAL DETERMINATIONS.
DETERMINATIONS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN CONGRESS ARE
ENTITLED TO HEAR SUBSTANTIALLY
MORE THAN SIMPLY THIS DOCUMENT.