BARR AGAIN OR EVEN BOB MUELLER HIMSELF.
HIMSELF. BUT FIRST, I WANT TO TURN TO A
VERY SPECIAL GUEST, DONALD
TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY JAY
SEKULOW, WHO JOINS ME ON A
NEWSWORTHY NIGHT ON "THE BEAT."
GOOD EVENING.
GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR COMING ON THE SHOW.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME, ARI,
APPRECIATE IT.
APPRECIATE IT. >> YOUR VIEW OF WHAT BOB MUELLER
FOUND REGARDING NO CHARGEABLE
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. >> WELL, I’M GOING TOE SAY
BEFORE WE GET TO THE NO
CHARGEABLE COLLUSION, I WATCHED
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER
AND MR. ROSSI, YOUR LAST GUEST,
AND YOU’VE CONFLATED THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE,
WHICH IS WHAT LEON JAWORSKI AND
KEN STARR WERE OPERATING ON IT.
HOLD IT.
HOLD IT. >> HERE’S WHAT I’M GOING TO DO.
I’M GOING TO LET US GET INTO ON
INSTRUCTION.
INSTRUCTION. I WANT TO BEGIN WITH SOMETHING I
THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED
IN.
IN. >> BUT I WANT TO SET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT.
STRAIGHT. >> LET ME PROMISE YOU THIS.
I WILL RESERVE TIME TO ADDRESS
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT
THAT.
THAT. >> GREAT.
>> GREAT. >> BUT AS THE MODERATOR, I’M
GOING TO BEGIN WITH SOMETHING
YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO TALK
ABOUT.
ABOUT. >> GO AHEAD, BUT I POSED AS THE
FIRST QUESTION AND I WILL SAFE
TIME FOR THAT REBEAUTY TOLL MR.
HOLDER.
HOLDER. I PROMISE YOU NOW.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WALK US THROUGH YOUR VIEW OF
NO CHARGEABLE COLLUSION, SIR.
>> WELL, I MEAN, IT’S VERY
CLEAR.
CLEAR. THE POSITION THAT WE’VE
ADVOCATED SINCE THE BEGINNING,
AND THAT’S CLEAR IN WHAT HAS
BEEN RELEASED IS THAT THERE WAS
NO COLLUSION.
NO COLLUSION. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF
COLLUSION, AND THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ENGAGED
IN COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT OR PEOPLE AFFILIATED
WITH THE RUSSIANS.
THAT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR.
SO THAT WAS THE BASIS, BY THE
WAY, ARI.
WAY, ARI. YOU KNOW THIS.
THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH THIS
INVESTIGATION STARTED WAS THIS
WHOLE COLLUSION ISSUE.
WHAT WAS THE RUSSIAN ENGAGEMENT,
OR LACK OF ENGAGEMENT DURING
THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE, AND
SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATED TO
THE PRESIDENT AND THE
PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN AROUND THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID THERE WAS
NONE.
NONE. >> SO ON THAT, GIVEN THAT THAT
WOULD BE BY MOST ACCOUNTS GOOD
NEWS FOR YOUR CLIENT, PRESIDENT
TRUMP, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HOW
MANY MISSTATEMENTS AND
FALSEHOODS THERE WERE?
OTHER PEOPLE AS YOU KNOW WERE
CONVICTED OF
CONVICTED OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRIMES AND
LYING TO THE FEDS.
THAT’S NOT IN DOUBT.
HOW YOU EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT NOW
THAT YOU HAVE THIS RESULT THAT
WOULD SEEM TO BE POSITIVE ON THE
LACK OF CONSPIRACY?
>> WELL, THAT INDIVIDUALS THAT
WERE CHARGED OR PLEAD OR WERE
CONVICTED WERE CHARGED WITH
CRIMES UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE OF
COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.
MOST OF THE CHARGES WERE WHAT’S
CALLED PROCESS CRIMES.
THAT’S LYING TO THE FEDERAL
OFFICERS, TAX EVASION, FARA
VIOLATIONS.
VIOLATIONS. THOSE ARE VERY DIFFICULT.
IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE
INDICTMENTS THAT WERE ISSUED
HERE, THERE WERE NO INDICTMENTS
THAT MADE AN ALLEGATION OF
COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS OR
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
SO I THINK THAT THE INDICTMENT
SPOKE FOR THEMSELVES IN THAT
SENSE.
SENSE. AND PATIENTLY, AND WE HAVEN’T
SEEN THE REPORT OBVIOUSLY.
WE’VE SEEN WHAT’S BEEN PUT
FORWARD IN THE SUMMARY LETTER
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ISSUED, THAT THERE WAS NO
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. AND THAT’S CRYSTAL CLEAR.
>> NOW YOU WANTED TO GET INTO
THE OBSTRUCTION PART OF THE
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION. >> YES.
>> YES. >> INCLUDING WHAT FORMER
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SAID.
LET ME PLAY SOME OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HOLDER AND GET YOUR
RESPONSE.
RESPONSE. WE’RE GOING GET THIS CLIP OF IT.
BECAUSE BASICALLY, ONE OF THE
MOST INTERESTING THINGS THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, WHICH
RELATES NOT ONLY TO YOUR CLIENT,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, BUT RELATES TO WHO
SHOULD BE THE DECISION-MAKINGER
ON ISSUES OF OBSTRUCTION.
>> YES.
>> YES. >> IS WHETHER THAT’S SOMETHING
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HANDLES OR THE CONGRESS.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> HE’S CERTAINLY DEPARTING FROM
THOSE PRECEDENTS.
THOSE PRECEDENTS. AND I WOULD SAY HE IS ACTING IN
A WAY THAT’S INCONSISTENT WITH
THE BEST PRACTICE.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT HAVING
RECEIVED THE INFORMATION IN THE
WAY THAT HE DID FROM BOB MUELLER
THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR
SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT
INFORMATION AND THEN, YOU KNOW,
PACKAGED IT IN THE APPROPRIATE
FORM AND SENT IT TO THE HOUSE
FOR CONSIDERATION.
FOR CONSIDERATION. >> DO YOU DISPUTE THAT THAT IS
HOW OBSTRUCTION ISSUES WERE
DEALT WITH IN BOTH THE CLINTON
AND NIXON PRECEDENTS?
>> I DON’T DISPUTE THAT’S HOW
THEY WERE DEALT WITH IN THE
NIXON AND THE SITUATION WITH
PRESIDENT CLINTON.
PRESIDENT CLINTON. BUT WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND MR. ROSSI FAIL TO RECOGNIZE
IS THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS
OPERATED UNDER AN INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL STATUTE, ARI.
THAT IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT.
THAT LAW SUNSET.
BIPARTISAN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS DID NOT WANT THAT LAW
TO CONTINUE AFTER THE
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON.
CLINTON. SO WHAT REPLACED IT WAS A
SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATION.
AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEON
JAWORSKI AND KEN STARR WAS THEY
REPORTED TO JUDGES AND PANELS.
HERE YOU HAVE AN
INTERDEPARTMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE SITUATION.
JUSTICE SITUATION. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS NOT AN
ENTITY UNTO HIMSELF.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORTS TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES. THAT’S DIFFERENT.
THAT’S DIFFERENT. AND THEN THERE IS A SPECIFIC
REGULATION THAT GOVERNS WHAT
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT IS DELIVERED
NOT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS, BUT A REPORT THAT
FIRST GOES FROM THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEN
MAKES A DETERMINATION PURSUANT
TO THE REGULATIONS ADDS TO WHAT
SHOULD BE RELEASED TO THE UNITED
STATES CONGRESS.
STATES CONGRESS. I ALSO THINK IT’S NOT RIGHT --
YOU HAVE GIVEN ME THE
OPPORTUNITY AND I APPRECIATE IT.
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> TO CRITICIZE BOTH BOB MUELLER
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
WHAT THEY WROTE WHEN WE HAVEN’T
SEEN THE REPORT.
SO EVERYBODY’S JUMPING --
>> THAT’S HARDLY -- I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU’RE SAYING.
>> YOU GOT TO GIVE BILL BARR
CREDIT.
CREDIT. HE RECEIVED THE REPORT ON A
FRIDAY AND RETURNED SOMETHING TO
THE PUBLIC, WHAT WERE CALLED
PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS IN 48
HOURS.
HOURS. SO EVERYBODY MOVES OFF THE
NARRATIVE.
NARRATIVE. YOU MOVE OFF THE NARRATIVE.
>> LET’S TAKE BOTH PIECES.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> AND IF YOU’VE SEEN "THE
BEAT," YOU KNOW WE WILL DEAL
FAIRLY AND YOU’LL GET TIME.
YOU’VE RAISED TWO POINTS.
ONE, YOUR REBUTTAL TO HOLDER AND
OTHERS.
OTHERS. NOT PERSONAL.
NOT PERSONAL. SO LET’S TAKE EACH OF THEM.
FIRST ON THE HISTORICAL
PRECEDENT, YOU ARE ALLUDING TO
THE FACT THAT THERE IS A
DIFFERENT GOVERNING AUTHORITY
HERE.
HERE. >> WHICH YOU KNOW.
>> WHICH I KNOW, YES.
>> AND THE REPORTING AUTHORITY
IS DIFFERENT.
IS DIFFERENT. >> JAY, I KNOW WE’RE BOTH
LAWYERS.
LAWYERS. I’M GOING TO FINISH THE QUESTION
AND I’LL LET YOU ANSWER.
SO GIVEN THAT DIFFERENT
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT, THOUGH,
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT
OBSTRUCTION BY A PRESIDENT, ANY
PRESIDENT IS NO LONGER THE
PROVINCE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE?
COMMITTEE? I MEAN, THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT
SUNSET ALONG WITH THAT FEDERAL
LAW.
LAW. >> YOU’RE CONFLATING TWO
SEPARATE ISSUES.
SEPARATE ISSUES. YOU ASKED ME IF THE REPORTING
PROCESS AND YOUR PREVIOUS GUEST
SAID THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
IN ESSENCE WAS DERELICT IN HIS
DUTIES BY ENGAGING WHAT THE
STATUTE DEMANDS, AND THAT IS A
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT INITIALLY
BETWEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
YOU THEN TAKE THE ISSUE OF
OBSTRUCTION, WHICH BY THE WAY,
IF YOU READ WHAT BILL BARR WROTE
IN HIS LETTER, WHAT DID THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL SAY?
I DON’T THINK THIS IS ANY GREAT
MYSTERY.
MYSTERY. NONE OF US HAVE SEEN THE REPORT.
BUT WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY SAY?
HE SAID THAT THESE ISSUES OF
OBSTRUCTION PRESENTED DIFFICULTY
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
WELL, IF YOU HAVE A DIFFICULT
QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, HE
DIDN’T SAY THE PRESIDENT
VIOLATED THE LAW.
IN FACT, HE SAID THE OPPOSITE.
THERE IS NO STATEMENT ABOUT
VIOLATING THE LAW.
HE SAID IT’S NOT AN EXONERATION.
WHICH BY THE WAY, THEY DON’T
EXONERATE AS YOU KNOW A
PROSECUTOR EITHER MAKES A CASE
OR DOES NOT.
>> YOU’RE QUOTING BARR, QUOTING
MUELLER.
MUELLER. HE SAYS QUOTE, DIFFICULT ISSUES.
THAT’S THE SENTENCE, DIFFICULT
ISSUES.
ISSUES. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE WAS
AROUND THE SENTENCE.
I TAKE IT AS OF THIS HOUR YOU AS
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR THE
PRESIDENT HAVE NOT SEEN THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. >> I HAVE NOT.
>> NEITHER HAVE I, AND NEITHER
HAVE MOST PEOPLE THAN BARR AND A
FEW DOJ FOLKS.
SO LET’S GET IT ON RECORD HERE
BEFORE I TURN TO CORY BOOKER WHO
IS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND OTHER GUESTS IN THE SHOW,
LET’S GET IT ON RECORD.
WHAT DOES "NO EXONERATION ON
OBSTRUCTION" MEAN TO YOU?
>> NO.
>> NO. WHAT DOES NO CRIME MEAN ALSO.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL --
>> I DON’T KNOW.
WHEN YOU SAY, NO I DON’T KNOW
WHAT YOU MEAN.
IT SAYS NO EXONERATION.
AND I’M GIVING YOU A SENSE TO
SAY WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU.
>> READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE.
WHAT DOES IT SAY RIGHT BEFORE NO
EXONERATION?
EXONERATION? >> WE CAN PUT THE WHOLE THING ON
THE SCREEN IF YOU WANT.
>> LET’S DO IT.
>> LET’S DO IT.
WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT
CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED A CRIME, IT DOES ALSO
NOT EXONERATE HIM.
SO WHAT DOES NONEXONERATE TO
YOU?
YOU? >> THEY DIDN’T MAKE A
DETERMINATION.
DETERMINATION. THAT’S ALL IT MEANS.
THEY DID NOT FIND THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED A CRIME.
THEY DID NOT MAKE A
DETERMINATION.
DETERMINATION. WHAT DID THEY DO?
THEY EITHER, FOR WHATEVER REASON
THEY HAD INTERNALLY THAT.
>> HAD A DISCUSSION.
THEY DECIDED THAT IT WAS NOT
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AS A
CRIME.
CRIME. IT SAYS WHILE THIS REPORT DOES
NOT CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT
ENGAGED A CRIME, IT DOESN’T
EXONERATE.
EXONERATE. >> IT’S INTERESTING.
LET ME PUSH YOU A LITTLE BIT ON
THIS AND I’LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE
TO RESPOND.
TO RESPOND. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> BECAUSE YOU AND I KNOW AND AS
WE REPORTED, SO VIEWERS KNOW,
THE STANDING POLICY TOFT JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT UNDER ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE IN BOTH PARTIES IS --
>> HOLD IT.
>> LET’S KEEP THIS --
>> GO AHEAD.
GO AHEAD.
GO AHEAD. YOUR SHOW.
YOUR SHOW. >> I’M GOING FINISH AND THEN YOU
GET TO RESPOND.
>> YOUR SHOW.
>> SO GIVEN THAT, IS YOUR VIEW
THAT MUELLER SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A
RECOMMENDATION, IF IT WAS FOR
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND YOU
DON’T INDICT, DOESN’T THAT GO
BACK TO THE CONGRESS?
YOUR RESPONSE.
YOUR RESPONSE. >> ARI, YOU READ WHAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WROTE.
HE SAID THE DETERMINATION WAS
NOT BASED ON THE EXISTING
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICIES
REGARDING WHAT ISSUE?
THE ISSUE OF YOU CAN’T INDICT A
SITTING PRESIDENT.
SITTING PRESIDENT. >> IN A FOOTNOTE TOO.
>> BARR IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> YES, HE IS.
A LAWFUL ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES IS ROD
ROSENSTEIN.
ROSENSTEIN. THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL IS
PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, AND BOB MUELLER IS PART
OF THAT SAME DEPARTMENT.
SO THEY DID NOT DETERMINE THAT
THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED NOR
WERE THEY, QUOTE EXONERATE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THEY COULD NOT MAKE A
DETERMINATION.
DETERMINATION. THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS.
WHAT THEN HAPPENS?
IT THEN GOES TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT -- DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE FOR REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAW.
>> I’M NOT TRYING TO GET YOU.
>> ARI, LISTEN, WITH DO RESPECT,
AND I DO WATCH YOUR SHOW, YOU
ARE CONFLATING.
ARE CONFLATING. YOU CONFLATED THE INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
AND YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OFF
WHERE IT SAYS THE PRESIDENT --
WE’RE NOT ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT
OF A CRIME.
A MINOR THING YOU LEAF OFF.
>> JAY, JAY, JAY, SAVE THE MEDIA
CRITICISM FOR WHEN WE’RE NOT
DOING THE INTERVIEW.
>> NO MEDIA CRITICISM.
I’M ASKING YOU ONE.
>> YOU WANT TO GET INTO IT.
>> WE ALREADY DID.
>> TELL THE PRESIDENT THIS.
THE FULL SCREEN UP ON THE SCREEN
THAT WE PREPARED FOR THIS
INTERVIEW HAS THE ENTIRE QUOTE.
SO WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS
INACCURATE.
INACCURATE. >> NO, WHEN YOU -- LET’S PLAY
THE TAPE BACK.
PLAY THE TAPE BACK.
>> I WILL PLAY THE TAPE BACK,
BUT I’M NOT GOING TO DO IT
DURING THIS INTERVIEW.
I’VE BEEN REPORTING THAT ALL
WEEKEND, SIR.
WEEKEND, SIR. I’VE GOT IT BACK UP ON THE
SCREEN.
SCREEN. I’M NOT DOING THAT TO UNDERCUT
YOU.
YOU. JUST THE FACT IS WE HAVE THE
ENTIRE QUOTE.
ENTIRE QUOTE. WE DEAL WITH CONTEXT HERE.
JAY, BEFORE I LET YOU GO, AND
VIEWERS MIGHT WONDER WHY YOU
AREN’T MORE EXCITED ABOUT THE
GOOD PART OF THIS.
>> I’M EXCITED ABOUT ALL OF
THIS.
THIS. IT’S A GREAT DAY FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. A GREAT DAY FOR THE COUNTRY.
>> BEFORE I LET YOU GO AND I
TURN TO SENATOR BOOKER, LET ME
ASK YOU THIS FINAL THOUGHT,
WHICH IS WHY DO YOU THINK THAT
BARR FELT THE NEED TO GO FARTHER
THAN MUELLER ON THE OBSTRUCTION
ISSUES?
ISSUES? WHY NOT LEAVE IT THE WAY IT,
NOTIFY CONGRESS UNDER AS YOU SAY
THE DOJ RULES WRITTEN BY NEAL
KATYAL THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN
THE UNDERLYING FEDERAL STATUTES
THAT USED TO EXIST.
WHY DID BARR GO FURTHER?
IT WAS GOOD FOR YOUR CLIENT,
DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP. BUT WAS IT NECESSARY IF THE
MUELLER REPORT LEFT IT GOOD
ENOUGH?
ENOUGH? >> HERE’S THE -- AGAIN, ARI,
WITH DUE RESPECT, YOU’RE
CONFLATING INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL.
BOB MUELLER WORKS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
HE DOESN’T WORK TO A THREE-JUDGE
PANEL.
PANEL. IT’S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
SYSTEM.
SYSTEM. IT WAS ELIMINATED, THE
INDEPENDENT STATUTE, AND KEN
STARR WAS UNDER IT AND SAID
SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.
WHEN THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
ADMITTED IT IN --
>> --
>> -- >> WHEN HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN
CONJUNCTION AND THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL DO WHAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES IS SUPPOSED TO DO AS FAR
AS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
OR THE CASE.
IT’S THAT SIMPLE.
>> I WILL SAY THIS.
WHY YOU AND I MAY DISAGREE ABOUT
YOUR ASSESSMENT OF "THE BEAT" OR
HOW MUCH CONFLATION IS GOING ON
IN MY MIND.
>> NO.
>> NO. >> NO, NO.
>> I APPRECIATE ON A BIG NEWS
NIGHT COMING ON "THE BEAT."