HE BELIEVES DOING THE JOB AS
PRESIDENT IN DEBATE PREP.
HE HAS DONE VERY LITTLE IN
FORMAL PREPARATIONS.
>> JOINING US NOW A LEAD
PROSECUTOR IN ROBERT MUELLER’S
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, ANDREW
WEISSMANN.
HE ALSO SERVED AS CHIEF OF THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S CRIMINAL
FRAUD SECTION AND AS GENERAL
COUNSEL FOR THE FBI UNDER
DIRECTOR MUELLER.
HE’S NOW AN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST
AND AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK,
"WHERE LAW ENDS: INSIDE THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION."
ANDREW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS FOR YOU WHERE THE
INVESTIGATION STOPPED AND WHY.
BUT CAN I FIRST ASK YOU ABOUT
THESE TAX RETURNS, WHAT THEY
TELL YOU ON THE FACE OF IT FROM
WHAT WE’VE SEEN SO FAR AS
RELEASED BY "THE NEW YORK
TIMES"?
>> I THINK THE TAX RETURNS TELL
ME THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE
REALLY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I DESCRIBE FOR
READERS, AND I’M GOING TO TELL
YOU NOW FOR YOUR VIEWERS, ARE
THE VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS WE
HAD TO MAKE IN THIS
INVESTIGATION.
I THINK THE FIRST THING TO NOTE
IS WHEN YOU INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR 22 MONTHS, YOU ARE LIVING
UNDER A SORT OF DAMACLESE
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES HAS THE ABILITY TO
PULL THE PLUG ON YOUR
INVESTIGATION AT ANY MOMENT.
AND EARLY ON IN THE
INVESTIGATION WE ISSUED A
SUBPOENA TO DEUTSCHE BANK AND
THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED US UP,
IRATE, ASKING, ARE YOU DOING A
FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PRESIDENT?
THAT DOES NOT NORMALLY HAPPEN.
I’VE INVESTIGATED ORGANIZED
CRIME CASES, I’VE ENINVESTIGATED
ENRON.
USUALLY THE PERSON YOU’RE
INVESTIGATING DOES NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DEMAND AN ANSWER WITH
THE THREAT OF PULLING THE PLUG
ON YOUR INVESTIGATION.
SO, DIRECTOR MUELLER HAD A VERY
DIFFICULT DECISION, AT LEAST AT
THAT EARLY STAGE OF THE
INVESTIGATION, DO YOU GO AHEAD
WITH THE INVESTIGATION AND RISK
BEING FIRED, OR AS HE DECIDED,
DO YOU GO FORWARD?
WE KNOW HE WAS ABLE TO, WITH A
LOT OF HELP FROM WONDERFUL
AGENTS AND PROSECUTORS, PROVE
WHAT RUSSIA DID, HOW IT HACKED
INTO THE ELECTION, HOW IT HACKED
INTO THE DNC.
IT WAS HELPING CANDIDATE TRUMP.
WE PROVED, AND THIS WAS THE SEEM
I LED, WE PROVED THAT PAUL
MANAFORT WAS SHARING INTERNAL
POLLING DATA WITH A RUSSIAN
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DURING THE
CAMPAIGN.
WHERE I HAVE AN ISSUE IS THAT AT
SOME POINT IT WAS NECESSARY TO
REVISIT THAT DECISION NOT TO
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
THE WAY WE DID WITH PAUL
MANAFORT.
THAT’S SOMETHING WE DIPLOMAT DO.
SO, YOU END UP WITH THIS REPORT
IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AND I
LOOKED AT IT, FRANKLY, WITH
PERSONAL REGRET.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE
DONE?
>> SO, IF YOU HAD, THOUGH, EVEN
AT THAT LATE DATE, WOULD THE
RISK OF BEING FIRED HAVE BEEN
GREATER?
AND WOULD BEING FIRED FROM THE
PROBE AT THAT LATE DATE,
PERHAPS, PROVIDED SOME INSIGHT
THAT AMERICANS NEEDED?
I’M JUST WONDERING AS YOU LOOK
BACK?
OF COURSE IT’S ALWAYS EASIER
LOOKING BACK TO SAY THIS COULD
HAVE HAPPENED.
BUT, I MEAN, WAS THERE ENOUGH
CONSIDERATION THAT WE NEED TO GO
BACK TO THE MONEY NO MATTER
WHAT?
>> I THINK THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS
TO THAT.
MY VIEW IS LATER IN THE
INVESTIGATION, WE SHOULD HAVE
CROSSED THAT RED LINE THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS PUTTING DOWN
WITH RESPECT TO A FINANCIAL
INVESTIGATION AND FOLLOWED THE
MONEY, EVEN IF IT RISKED BEING
FIRED.
ONE OF THE MANTRAS I TALK ABOUT
IN THE BOOK IS A NUMBER OF US
SAYING, BETTER TO BE FIRED.
WE HAD TO DO OUR JOB AND IF THAT
RESULTED AT THAT POINT, AFTER
HAVING PRODUCED A LOT OF RESULTS
AND SHOWING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE UP TO,
WHAT THE CAMPAIGN MANAGER WAS UP
TO IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, THAT AT
THAT POINT IT WAS BETTER TO
CROSS THAT LINE.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, ALTHOUGH WE
HAVE "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
REPORTING, THERE ARE A LOT OF
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS SUCH AS,
WHO DOES HE OWE?
WHO THE PRESIDENT OWES $400
MILLION TO?
ONE OF THE LEADS WE HAVE ON THAT
QUESTION IS ERIC TRUMP IN 2014
MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION DOES NOT RELY
ON AMERICAN BANKS FOR MONEY.
THEY HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING FROM
RUSSIAN SOURCES.
AND THAT’S SOMETHING WE DON’T
HAVE THE ANSWERS TO.
>> ANDREW, IT’S WILLIE.
THE BOOK OUTER TODAY LISTS
SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE YOU WERE
FRUSTRATED THAT THE
INVESTIGATION DIDN’T PUSH
FURTHER OR AT LEAST GO HARDER AT
DONALD TRUMP.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FINANCES,
THE FINANCIAL TIES TO RUSSIA.
YOU TALKED ABOUT SUBPOENAING THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND THE
PRESIDENT’S FAMILY.
AND YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT
OBSTRUCTION.
YOU SAY YOU WERE FRUSTRATED THAT
ROBERT MUELLER DIDN’T EXPLICITLY
AND CLEARLY COME OUT AND SAY
THERE WAS CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION
HERE.
WHAT WAS HIS ARG UPT BACK TO
YOU?
WHY NOT TAKE THAT STEP?
>> ROBERT MUELLER MAKING THAT
DECISION WAS MOTIVATED BY THE
PUREST OF REASONS.
HIS CONCERN WAS THAT IF YOU
PUBLICLY SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS COMMITTED A WRONG, AT THE
SAME TIME, YOU ARE NOT ABLE
UNDER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
POLICY, WHICH WE WERE BOUND TO
FOLLOW, WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO
FOLLOW THAT SIPS WE WERE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WE COULD
NOT INDICT THE PRESIDENT.
HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE
PRESIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HIS DAY
IN COURT.
SO, IT CAME FROM A VERY NOBLE
PLACE, THE IDEA THAT HE WOULD
ACTUALLY NOT LABEL THE FACTS
THAT WERE LAID OUT IN THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PART OF
THE REPORT.
MY ARGUMENT, AS I LAY OUT IN THE
BOOK, UNDER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
RULES, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO WRITE
AN INTERNAL REPORT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
IT WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
DECISION WHETHER TO MAKE THAT
PUBLIC OR NOT.
SO, WE HAD EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE
RULES TO SET OUT WHAT HAPPENED.
THIS IS REALLY WHERE I THINK --
ONE OF THE THINGS I LAID OUT IS
WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE
TREACHERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR.
AT THAT POINT HE JUST STARTED.
PEOPLE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE AN
INSTITUTIONALIST.
HE WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF
ROBERT MUELLER.
AND HE BASICALLY HOODWINKED US.
AND SAID IT WAS ALL RIGHT NOT TO
ISSUE THAT FINDING, ONLY TO HAVE
HIM ON MARCH 24th, 2019, A DAY I
WILL NEVER FORGET AND I RECOUNT
IN DETAIL IN THE INTRODUCTION TO