>>> ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, HAS
>>> ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE
THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR
WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR
SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?AN
INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE? >> I WOULDNT -- I WOULDNT --
>> I WOULDNT -- I WOULDNT -- >> YES OR NO.
>> YES OR NO. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
QUESTION?
>> I WILL REPEAT IT. HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT
HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR
THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN
SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?
INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?
YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR. >> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY
>> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY ELSE.
ELSE.
>> SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BE ABLE TO TELL US.
>> YEAH, BUT IM TRYING TO
GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD,
"SUGGEST."
I MEAN, THERE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE
THAT THEY HAVE NOT ASKED ME TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION, BUT --O
OPEN AN INVESTIGATION, BUT -- >> PERHAPS THEYVE SUGGESTED?
>> PERHAPS THEYVE SUGGESTED?
>> I DONT KNOW.
I WOULDNT SAY SUGGEST.
>> HINTED?
>> I DONT KNOW.
>> INFERRED?
YOU DONT KNOW.
>> ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR NEVER ANSWERED THAT QUESTIONBARR
NEVER ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FROM CALIFORNIA SENATOR KAMALA
FROM CALIFORNIA SENATOR KAMALA
HARRIS.
TODAY, SENATOR HARRIS FOLLOWED
UP IN A LETTER TO THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
"DEAR INSPECTOR GENERAL
HOROWITZ, I WRITE TO EXPRESS
GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM
BARR.
ON MAY 1st, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR APPEARED BEFORE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS
THE CONCLUSION OF SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLERS INVESTIGATION. MUELLERS
INVESTIGATION.
IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS DURING THE HEARING, ATTORNEY
DURING THE HEARING, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR PROVED UNABLE OR
GENERAL BARR PROVED UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO STATE WHETHER HED
UNWILLING TO STATE WHETHER HED BEEN DIRECTED TO OPEN
BEEN DIRECTED TO OPEN
INVESTIGATIONS AT THE REQUEST OR SUGGESTION OF THE PRESIDENT OROR
SUGGESTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.
OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS. AN ALARMING RESPONSE THAT
AN ALARMING RESPONSE THAT
STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF THE
RULE OF LAW AND THREATENS TO
UNDERMINE THE LONGSTANDING
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.E OF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
IN LIGHT OF THE DISTURBING CONDUCT DOCUMENTED IN THEG
CONDUCT DOCUMENTED IN THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT AS WELL
SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT AS WELL
AS ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR PIECE
FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE HIS OWN
INDEPENDENCE FROM THE PRESIDENT
ON SUCH MATTERS I URGE THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO
INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE A.G. HAS
RECEIVED OR ACTED UPON REQUESTS,
SUGGESTIONS, WHETHER IMPLIED OR
EXPLICIT, TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENTS PERCEIVED ENEMIES.
SINCERELY, SENATOR KAMALA
HARRIS."
JOINING US NOW FOR "THE
INTERVIEW" IS SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS.EW" IS SENATOR KAMALA
HARRIS.
SHES A CALIFORNIA SENATOR.
SHES A 2020 DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
SENATOR HARRIS, THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE.
>> OF COURSE, OF COURSE, THANK
YOU, RACHEL.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.
THAT MOMENT FROM THE HEARING HAS
BE SEEN AS THE CRYSTALLIZATION
ABOUT NOT ONLY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR HAVING TROUBLE FACING TOUGH
QUESTIONS --
>> YEAH.
>> -- BUT ALSO SOME OF THE SORT
OF CAN OF WORMS THAT HAS OPENED
HERE.
THE MUELLER REPORT WAS ONLY IN
SOME VERY SMALL AND SPECIFIC
WAYS ABOUT THE PROSPECT THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS ORDERING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS PERCEIVED
ENEMIES.
>> RIGHT.
>> WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERALS
RESPONSE TO YOU ACTUALLY A
SURPRISE TO YOU?
I WONDERED WHEN YOU WERE ASKING
THAT IF YOU EXPECTED HIM TO BE
ABLE TO GIVE YOU A CLEAN NO?
>> I HOPED HE WOULD GIVE A CLEAN
NO, BUT I THINK THAT WE ALSO
KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH IS HE IS
SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THE WORDS
THAT HE SPEAKS AND TO SPEAK THEM
IN A WAY THAT HE CAN ACTUALLY
READ THEM ON A TRANSCRIPT AS
HES SPEAKING THEM AND HES
SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IF HE SPEAKS CERTAIN WORDS, HE WILLHE
SPEAKS CERTAIN WORDS, HE WILL PERJURE HIMSELF AND FACE
PERJURE HIMSELF AND FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES, HIMSELF, AND
CRIMINAL CHARGES, HIMSELF, AND SO I THINK HE WAS BUYING TIME
SO I THINK HE WAS BUYING TIME
FOR HIMSELF BY ASKING THAT THE QUESTION BE REPEATED AND HE WAS
QUESTION BE REPEATED AND HE WAS PARSING HIS LANGUAGE.
PARSING HIS LANGUAGE. KNOWING THAT IF HE ANSWERED
KNOWING THAT IF HE ANSWERED
EXPLICITLY THE QUESTION ASKED AND WITH A YES OR A NO, EITHER
AND WITH A YES OR A NO, EITHER HE OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS IF
HE OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS IF THE ANSWER IS YES, OR IF THE
THE ANSWER IS YES, OR IF THE
ANSWER IS NO, HE WOULD HAVE PERJURED HIMSELF.WOULD HAVE
PERJURED HIMSELF. SO HE DIDNT ANSWER.
SO HE DIDNT ANSWER.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ITS POSSIBLE HE HAS BEEN GETTING
POSSIBLE HE HAS BEEN GETTING DIRECTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
DIRECTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OR FROM THE PRESIDENT ABOUT
OR FROM THE PRESIDENT ABOUT
OPENING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRESIDENTS PERCEIVED ENEMIES?HE
PRESIDENTS PERCEIVED ENEMIES? DO YOU THINK THAT IS WHATS
DO YOU THINK THAT IS WHATS HAPPENING?
HAPPENING?
>> BASED ON HIS NONRESPONSE, I AM NOW SUSPICIOUS.NRESPONSE, I
AM NOW SUSPICIOUS. >> THATS --
>> THATS --
>> WHICH IS WHY IVE ASKED THE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE THIS BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE ATTORNEY
BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUPPOSED TO ACT ON BE
GENERAL IS SUPPOSED TO ACT ON BE BEHALFBE
BEHALFBE
BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT ACT AS THE PRESIDENTS HENCHMAN.T ACT
AS THE PRESIDENTS HENCHMAN.
AND IF, IN FACT, THERES BEEN ANY INFLUENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
ANY INFLUENCE BY THE PRESIDENT OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE
OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE
SHOULD KNOW THAT AND THATS
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
INVESTIGATED AND DISCLOSED AND
DISCOVERED, OBVIOUSLY.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY TO GET
AT THAT?
I SAY HAS A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, OBVIOUSLY
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS A
LOT OF HIGH-PROFILE ROLES
INCLUDING INTERROGATING WITNESSES THE EYE DIDWAY YOU DID
WITNESSES THE EYE DIDWAY YOU DID THIS WEEK BUT HAVE OVERSIGHT.
THIS WEEK BUT HAVE OVERSIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE
IS THAT SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE
SHOULD BE --
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD
BE.
I DONT KNOW THAT WE WILL.
>> YEAH BE.
>> YOU KNOW, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE HAS SAID EVEN WHEN WE
REQUESTED BOB MUELLER COME TO
GIVE US DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT
THE -- ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION
IN THE REPORT, THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMITTEE HAS REJECTED THAT
REQUEST.
SO I DONT KNOW IF IT WILL
ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
IT SHOULD HAPPEN, RACHEL.
IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAPPEN.
I MEAN, PART OF THE ISSUE THAT IS REALLY AT PLAY IS THEE THAT
IS REALLY AT PLAY IS THE INTEGRITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF
INTEGRITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE.
LITERAL LITERALLY.
LITERALLY. THIS IS THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT
THIS IS THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TOP LAW OFFICIAL OF THE
AND TOP LAW OFFICIAL OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHO THROUGH HIS OF
JUSTICE, WHO THROUGH HIS TESTIMONY AND THEN ALL OF THE
TESTIMONY AND THEN ALL OF THE
WEEKS LEADING UP TO HIM
TESTIFYING BEFORE US, HAS CALLED
INTO QUESTION HIS INTEGRITY.
HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION HIS
ABILITY TO BE UNBIASED, TO DO THE WORK OF JUSTICE, TO DO THE
THE WORK OF JUSTICE, TO DO THE WORK OF PURSUIT OF TRUTH,
WORK OF PURSUIT OF TRUTH,
PURSUIT OF FACT.
THIS HAS NOW BEEN CALLED INTO
QUESTION.
AND, RACHEL, THE WAY I THINK
ABOUT IT ALSO IS EVERY DAY IN
AMERICA, THERE ARE PEOPLE
WALKING INTO COURTHOUSES AROUND
OUR COUNTRY.
STATE COURTHOUSES, FEDERAL
COURTHOUSES.
AND THEYRE GOING TO WALK INTO
IS THOSE COURTHOUSES SKEPTICAL
OF WHETHER JUSTICE ACTUALLY
OCCURS IN THOSE PLACES.
AND THAT IS REAL.
THAT IS A REAL CONSEQUENCE WHEN
WE SEE THE KINDS OF BEHAVIORS
WEVE BEEN SEEING OUT OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS IT IS
UNDERMINING PEOPLES CONFIDENCE IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT IS NOT
IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT IS NOT AN OVERSTATEMENT.
AN OVERSTATEMENT.
NOT TO MENTION WHAT
COMMUNICATING TO OUR FRIENDS AND
FOES AROUND THE WORLD.
ONE OF THE GREATEST STRENGTHS OF WHO WE ARE, ITS ALMOSTRENGTHS OF
WHO WE ARE, ITS ALMOST INTANGIBLE, BUT IT IS VERY REAL,
INTANGIBLE, BUT IT IS VERY REAL,
ONE OF OUR GREATEST STRENGTHS AS
A NATION IS THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY.HAVE A
SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY. THAT WE WILL FIGHT FOR THAT.
THAT WE WILL FIGHT FOR THAT.
WE WILL DIE FOR.
AND ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PILLARS IN THAT SYSTEM IS OURNT
PILLARS IN THAT SYSTEM IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
NOW, WE KNOW IT ISNT PERFECT AND WE KNOW IT IS DEEPLY FLAWED
AND WE KNOW IT IS DEEPLY FLAWED IN MANY WAYS, BUT WHEN THE
IN MANY WAYS, BUT WHEN THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL IN THE LAND
HIGHEST OFFICIAL IN THE LAND PRESENTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD
PRESENTS HIMSELF TO THE WORLD
THE WAY WEVE JUST WITNESSED, I
THINK IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE
INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM OVERALL.
>> I WANT TO PLAY YOU ONE MORE
LITTLE PIECE OF SOUND FROM THE HEARING.IECE OF SOUND FROM THE
HEARING.
YOU GUYS, THIS IS -- IN THE CONTROL ROOM, THIS IS SOUND
CONTROL ROOM, THIS IS SOUND NUMBER 1.
NUMBER 1.
THIS WAS -- SENATOR GRAHAM WAS
ACTUALLY ASKING -- CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN, WAS
ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SOME
FAIRLY LOW-KEY QUESTIONS AND
THEY ENDED UP VEERING IN A WAY
THAT I CERTAINLY DONT THINK SENATOR GRAHAM EXPECTED.INK
SENATOR GRAHAM EXPECTED. I CERTAINLY DIDNT EXPECT IT.
I CERTAINLY DIDNT EXPECT IT.
WATCH IT. THEY VEER PRETTY QUICKLY INTO
THEY VEER PRETTY QUICKLY INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINING
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINING WHY HE THOUGHT IT WAS LEGAL AND
WHY HE THOUGHT IT WAS LEGAL AND IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF
IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE -- FOR ANY PRESIDENT -- TO
FIRE -- FOR ANY PRESIDENT -- TO FIRE ANY PROSECUTOR
FIRE ANY PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HIM OR HER IF THE
INVESTIGATING HIM OR HER IF THE PRESIDENT DIDNT THINK THE
PRESIDENT DIDNT THINK THE
INVESTIGATION WAS A GOOD ONE.
IT WAS A SHORT CONSTRUCT, BUT
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
>> IF IT WAS BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT DOES
ALLEGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE TO SIT THERE,
NOT HAVE TO SIT THERE, CONSTITUTIONALLY, AND ALLOW IT
CONSTITUTIONALLY, AND ALLOW IT TO RUN ITS COURSE.
TO RUN ITS COURSE.
THE PRESIDENT COULD TERMINATE THAT PROCEEDING AND IT WOULD NOT
THAT PROCEEDING AND IT WOULD NOT BE A CORRUPT INTENT BECAUSE HE
BE A CORRUPT INTENT BECAUSE HE
WAS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED.
>> "IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE IS FALSELYEVES
THAT HE OR SHE IS FALSELY ACCUSED, THEN HE OR SHE IS
ACCUSED, THEN HE OR SHE IS
LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO FIRE ANYBODY WHO IS
EMPOWERED TO FIRE ANYBODY WHO IS INVESTIGATING THAT PRESIDENT.
INVESTIGATING THAT PRESIDENT. THAT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING
THAT WAS RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING O
O
OF THE HEARING AND I FELT LIKE
LETS ALL GO HOME NOW.
WHATS YOUR TAKE?
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER HE ASSERTED
THAT?
>> RIGHT. LETS ALSO POINT OUT THE FLAW IN
LETS ALSO POINT OUT THE FLAW IN HIS LOGIC IS THAT HE IS THEN
HIS LOGIC IS THAT HE IS THEN
REINFORCING THE IDEA THAT
JUSTICE IS A SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT.
DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PERCEIVE
THE TREATMENT THAT YOU RECEIVE, YOU CAN MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW
YOU CAN MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
THE SYSTEM WORKS. >> EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT PEOPLE
>> EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE
WHO KNOW THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE
DONT GET ARRESTED. RIGHT?ET ARRESTED.
RIGHT?
>> RIGHT.
>> THATS CLEAR, RIGHT?
I KNOW IM A GOOD PERSON, THEREFORE, IM IMMUNE TO ARREST.
THEREFORE, IM IMMUNE TO ARREST. >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT.
THEREFORE.
AND SO WHEN WERE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE LIVES,
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE LIVES, THE LIBERTY, OF OTHER PEOPLE,
THE LIBERTY, OF OTHER PEOPLE,
SUCH AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, WE NEED TO HAVE INTEGRITY IN THAT SYSTEM TO
HAVE INTEGRITY IN THAT SYSTEM AND THE SUGGESTION BY THIS
AND THE SUGGESTION BY THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION
COULD SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE HE PERCEIVES IT TO BE
BECAUSE HE PERCEIVES IT TO BE
UNFAIR IS RIDICULOUS. I MEAN, THERE ARE LEGAL TERMS,
I MEAN, THERE ARE LEGAL TERMS, BUT ITS ACTUALLY JUST
BUT ITS ACTUALLY JUST
RIDICULOUS.
AND IT FURTHER -- THE STATEMENT FURTHER REINFORCES THE POINTENT
FURTHER REINFORCES THE POINT WHICH IS THAT THIS ATTORNEY
WHICH IS THAT THIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOES NOT THINK OF
HIMSELF AS BEING AN OBJECTIVE,
NEUTRAL, PLAYER ON THIS ISSUE, BUT THEN WE KNOW BECAUSE HEUE,
BUT THEN WE KNOW BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A 19-PAGE
ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A 19-PAGE RESUME FOR THE JOB AND THEN ONLY
RESUME FOR THE JOB AND THEN ONLY TWO DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE
TWO DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE MUELLER REPORT, R WHICH WAS A
MUELLER REPORT, R WHICH WAS A
REPORT BASED ON TWO YEARS OF YOU
CAN BELIEVE AROUND-THE-CLOCK INVESTIGATION BY TOP LAWYERS IN
INVESTIGATION BY TOP LAWYERS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM EVER, IN TWO
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM EVER, IN TWO DAYS HE SUBMITS A SUMMARY
DAYS HE SUBMITS A SUMMARY
CLEARLY DESIGNED, HIS SO-CALLED SUMMARY, TO INFLUENCE THECALLED
SUMMARY, TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLICS PERCEPTION OF THE
PUBLICS PERCEPTION OF THE
NATURE AND THE FINDINGS OF THAT INVESTIGATION. FINDINGS OF THAT
INVESTIGATION. HE CLEARLY WAITED A LONG PERIOD
HE CLEARLY WAITED A LONG PERIOD
OF TIME BEFORE THEN SHARING THAT REPORT WITH THE PUBLIC.RING THAT
REPORT WITH THE PUBLIC. REMEMBER PART OF HIS TESTIMONY,
REMEMBER PART OF HIS TESTIMONY,
HE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT,
OH, YOU KNOW, BARELY 10% OF THE
REPORT HAS BEEN REDACTED.
WELL, WHY DID IT TAKE YOU SO
DARN LONG TO REDACT THE THING? YOU COULD SUMMARIZE THE THING IN
YOU COULD SUMMARIZE THE THING IN TWO DAYS AND IT TAKES YOU THAT
TWO DAYS AND IT TAKES YOU THAT
LONG TO REDACT IT?
IT -- THE LODGEIC LOGIC DOES NOT
AND WHEN HE THEN MAKES A
STATEMENT TO SAY THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE HE DOESNT
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE HE DOESNT LIKE THE WAY ITS WORKING, IS
LIKE THE WAY ITS WORKING, IS
ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS.
>> AND THE QUESTION, OF COURSE, IS WHETHER ITS CONTROLLINGURSE,
IS WHETHER ITS CONTROLLING
PRECEDENT NOW THAT HES
ARTICULATED THAT AS ATTORNEY