♪
PAUL: WELCOME TO THE JOURNAL
EDITORIAL REPORT, I'M PAUL
GIGOT.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
VOTED WEDNESDAY TO AUTHORIZE
SUBPOENAS FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL
MUELLER'S FULL REPORT WITH
COMMITTEE CHAIR JERRIED NADLER
ARGUING THAT LAWMAKERS HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SEE THE UNREDACTED
VERSION.
>> THE COMMITTEE MUST SEE
EVERYTHING AS WAS DONE IN EVERY
PRIOR INSTANCE.
OBVIOUSLY, SOME MATERIAL WILL
HAVE TO BE REDACTED BEFORE IT'S
RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC TO
PROTECT PRIVACY, AND WE'RE NOT
WILLING TO LET THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL -- WHO, AFTER ALL, IS A
POLITICAL APPOINTEE OF THE
PRESIDENT -- SUBSTITUTE HIS
JUDGMENT FOR OURS.
PAUL: THE SUBPOENA THREAT COMING
AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM
BARR SAID LAST WEEK HE'D RELEASE
A REDACTED VERSION OF THE
400-PAGE REPORT NO LATER THAN
MID APRIL.
GEORGE TERWILLIGER SERVED IN THE
GEORGE H.W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
WELCOME, GOOD TO SEE YOU.
THANKS FOR COMING IN.
AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHAT IS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUIRED TO
TURN OVER TO CONGRESS REGARDING
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
>> WELL, IT'S ENTIRELY IN HIS
DISCRETION.
WHAT HE'S REALLY REQUIRED TO DO,
HE'S ALREADY DONE; THAT IS, TELL
THEM THAT HE GOT THE REPORT, AND
HE ACTUALLY WENT BEYOND THAT,
PAUL, AS YOU KNOW --
PAUL: RIGHT.
>> -- TO SUMMARIZE THE, QUOTE,
PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS IN THAT
REPORT.
BUT IT'S ALSO ENTIRELY EVIDENT
FROM ALL THE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE
INFORMATION THAT THE A.G. IS
COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY AND IS
TRYING TO GET AS MUCH OF THE
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS AND TO
THE PUBLIC, I MIGHT ADD, AS THE
LAW ALLOWS.
PAUL: SO WHAT ABOUT THIS, THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE A.G. MADE THAT
YOU HAVE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU NEED TO
REDACT, INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND
METHODS THAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO
REDACT.
AND, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T WANT
TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN INDICTED
FOR A CRIME, BUT THAT MIGHT
TARPISH THEIR REPUTATION.
ING -- TARNISH THEIR REPUTATION.
>> IN MY JUDGMENT, THEY ARE
JUSTIFIABLE REASONS.
I MEAN, THE FIRST TWO ARE, TO
USE A COLLOQUIAL PHRASE,
NO-BRAINERS, BECAUSE IT'S THE
LAW.
THE THIRD ONE IS A POLICY, AND
WE SAW WITH THE ANTICS OF JIM
COMEY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT
POLICY IS VIOLATED AND PEOPLE
WHO AREN'T CHARGED ARE,
NONETHELESS, THE SUBJECT OF WHAT
APPEAR TO BE OFFICIAL OPINIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS.
PAUL: WHAT ABOUT THIS
DISTINCTION THAT CONGRESSMAN
NADLER TRIES TO DRAW BETWEEN
WHAT MIGHT BE RELEASED TO THE
PUBLIC REGARDING GRAND JURY
TESTIMONY AND WHAT IS GIVEN TO
CONGRESS?
HE SAYS CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT
TO SEE IT ALL, EVERYTHING, EVEN
IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T.
IS THAT A FAIR DISTINCTION?
>> I THINK IT'S A DEBATABLE
DISTINCTION BECAUSE HE'S RELYING
ON WATERGATE-ERA PRECEDENT UNDER
THE OLD INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
STATUTE.
THIS REGULATION, IN FACT, WAS
DESIGNED -- AND I MIGHT SAY
DESIGNED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS
WITH JANET RENO, THEN-ATTORNEY
GENERAL JANET RENO'S FULL
PARTICIPATION -- TO LIMIT THE
INFORMATION THAT COMES OUT OF A
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
EXACTLY FOR THE REASONS WE WERE
JUST DISCUSSING.
PAUL: SO IF, IF THEY DON'T TURN
OVER EVERYTHING, IF HE DOES
ANYTHING, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
REDACTIONS OR, FOR THAT MATTER,
EVEN MINOR REDACTIONS AND THE
CONGRESS SAYS, SORRY, NOT GOOD
ENOUGH, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE IT ALL
AND THEY SUBPOENA THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND HE SAYS, I'M SORRY,
I CAN'T GIVE YOU MORE, WHAT
HAPPENS THEN?
>> WELL, THE CONGRESS HAS
REMEDIES APART FROM A SUBPOENA.
I MUST SAY THAT THE CURRENT TALK
OF A SUBPOENA STRIKES ME AS A
LOT OF POLITICAL THEATER
SURROUNDING THIS.
BUT THE CONGRESS CAN PETITION
THE COURT AND DEMONSTRATE, MEET
THE TEST OF DEMONSTRATING THAT
THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC NEED FOR
THAT GRAND JURY INFORMATION
WHICH OUGHT TO OVERCOME THE
SECRECY THAT ATTACHES AS A
PRESUMPTION TO SUCH INFORMATION.
PAUL: WELL, BUT -- AND THIS
DISTINCTION ABOUT TURNING
SOMETHING OVER TO CONGRESS, YOU
KNOW CONGRESS IS A SIEVE.
ANYTHING THAT'S UNDER THE OVER
THAT DOESN'T COME TO -- THAT THE
PUBLIC HASN'T SEEN, IT'S GOING
TO BE LEAKED.
AND IT MAY BE LEAKED
SELECTIVELY.
I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT, THAT'S A
REALISTIC VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENS.
>> WELL, OF COURSE, OF COURSE IT
IS, AND IT'S NOT ONLY A
REALISTIC VIEW, BUT THE
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR
CONCLUSION.
[LAUGHTER]
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
PAUL, THAT I THINK THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE THAT,
AND THAT'S WHY HE IS AIMING FOR
AS MUCH PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY TO
ALL OF THIS AS IS POSSIBLE.
PAUL: AND YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT WHAT'S IN THE
REPORT ITSELF -- THAT IS, IN THE
400 PAGES -- WOULD BE
CONTRADICTORY TO ROBERT
MUELLER'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION?
>> I HAVE TWO REASONS NOT TO
BELIEVE THAT.
ONE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BILL
BARR, IS A VERY INTELLIGENT MAN,
AND HE'S NOT GOING TO GET OUT
AHEAD OF HIS OWN HEADLIGHTS IN
TERMS OF SUMMARIZING THE
PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE
REPORT THAT WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT.
SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A
COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION, AND
THOSE CONCLUSIONS SEEM TO BE
RELATIVELY IRONCLAD EVEN IF
MR. MUELLER DIDN'T DEIGN TO MAKE
A JUDGMENT ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION
STATUTE.
PAUL: OKAY.
THE -- ONE OTHER ISSUE I WANT TO
ASK ABOUT, AND THAT IS THIS
REQUEST FROM CONGRESS FOR THE
TAX RETURNS OF DONALD TRUMP FOR
SIX YEARS.
IS THE STATUTE, IN YOUR VIEW,
THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE IS
RELYING ON, IS THAT PRETTY
IRONCLAD WHEN IT SAYS THE
TREASURY SECRETARY SHALL PRODUCE
THE TAX RETURN?
>> I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT
EXTENSIVELY, PAUL, BUT FROM WHAT
I HAVE SEEN, IT DOES,
UNFORTUNATELY, SEEM PRETTY
IRONCLAD BECAUSE, IN GENERAL AS
YOU KNOW, TAX RETURN AND RETURN
INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO A
GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
BUT THIS WAS AN OUTGROWTH OF THE
TEAPOT DOME SCANDAL, ONE OF A
NUMBER OF STATUTES THAT THAT
SCANDAL PRODUCED THAT PROBABLY
DESERVE A SECOND LOOK.
PAUL: BUT THEN IF THEY DO SUBMIT
THIS REQUEST AGAIN AND FINALLY
ISSUE A SUBPOENA, I GUESS IF
THEY RESIST, IT GOES TO COURT AS
WELL, RIGHT?
>> YES.
I MEAN, AGAIN, AS I SAY, I
HAVEN'T STUDIED IT, BUT THERE
MAY BE SOME BASIS TO CHALLENGE
THAT SUBPOENA.