INJURED WITH THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MEDICAL BILLS.
TODAY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18th,
2018.
>>> 7:32. WE BEGIN WITH THE MAN AT THE
CENTER OF THE POLITICAL
FIRESTORM, AT THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. FORMER FBI DIRECTOR, JAMES
COMEY.
COMEY. THE FBI OPENED THE RUSSIA
INVESTIGATION UNDER HIS WATCH AND THE PRESIDENT FIRED HIM.H
AND THE PRESIDENT FIRED HIM. NOW, HES OUT WITH A NEW BOOK,
"A HIGHER LOYALTY."
AND HIS CHALLENGES OF THE
PRESIDENTS CREDIBILITY HAS LANDED HIM RIGHT BACK IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE STORM.
GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US. >> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.US.
>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU. >> IS IT LIBERATING TO TALK
ABOUT IT?
IS IT PAINFUL OR CATHARTIC? >> TERRIFYING.OR CATHARTIC?
>> TERRIFYING. I DONT CRAVE THAT.
ITS HARD FOR ME TO HIDE BECAUSE
IM A GIRAFFE.
ITS A LITTLE FREAKY.
>> YOU ARE SHORTER IN PERSON, I DID HAVE TO SAY.ER IN PERSON, I
DID HAVE TO SAY. I DONT WANT TO BE AN ARMCHAIR
PSYCHOLOGIST.
PSYCHOLOGIST.
BUT I READ THE BOOK. IVE BEEN WATCHING YOUR
INTERVIEWS.
INTERVIEWS.
IT STILL SEEMS RAW. IT FEELS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE
SOME SCORES TO SETTLE.
YOU KNOW, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A
LITTLE BIT OF ANGER LEFT OVER
AND A LITTLE BIT OF BITTERNESS.
WOULD YOU PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL
THAT?
THAT?
>> I WOULDNT.
I WOULD TAKE THAT ONE TO TRIAL. I THINK IT IS RAW IN THE SENSE.
I THINK IT IS RAW IN THE SENSE THAT I FIND IT REALLY PAINFUL TO
RELIVE, READING THAT BOOK, DOING THE AUDIO BOOK LEFT MEOOK, DOING
THE AUDIO BOOK LEFT ME PHYSICALLY DRAINED.
PHYSICALLY DRAINED. BUT I DONT FEEL A SENSE OF
ANGER.
ANGER.
IM WORRIED, ACTUALLY, WHICH IS WHY IM DOING SOMETHING I DONTS
WHY IM DOING SOMETHING I DONT LOVE, TALKING ABOUT IT AND
WRITING ABOUT IT.
BUT NOT ANGER.
>> THERES BEEN A LOT OF
REACTIONS TO THE BOOK SO FAR.
SOME OF THE MOST WIDELY CITED
PARTS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR
DESCRIPTION AND WORDS ABOUT
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I MEAN, INCLUDING CALLING HIS SKIN ORANGE AND SAYING HE LOOKED
LIKE HE HAD TANNING GOGGLES.
SOME PEOPLE SAID THAT WAS, FOR
LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THAT WAS
A LITTLE CATTY.
DID YOU ENJOY TAKING THOSE SHOTS
AT THE PRESIDENT?
>> I DIDNT THINK OF THEM AS
SHOTS AND I STILL DONT.
>> REALLY?
>> REALLY? >> YOU READ THE BOOK.
YOU SEE THE DESCRIPTION I GIVE
OF MY HIGH SCHOOL BOSS IN THE
GROCERY STORE.
GROCERY STORE.
I TRY TO BRING THE READER INTO THAT SCENE AND DESCRIBE GREATO
THAT SCENE AND DESCRIBE GREAT DETAIL.
DETAIL.
IM NOT TRYING TO PICK ON
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR MY BOSS FROM
HIGH SCHOOL.
>> YOU TALK ABOUT HIS HAIR.
WAIT A MINUTE.
YOU JUST GOT IN THE GUTTER WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO IS KNOWN
FOR HIS NAME-CALLING.
HE CALLED YOU A SLIMEBALL AND A NUTJOB AND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.
DID YOU STOOP?
>> I DONT THINK SO.
AGAIN, MAYBE IM MISSING IT. BUT I THINK IM DESCRIBING WHAT
HIS HAIR LOOKS LIKE IN MY HEAD,
THE EDITORS VOICE KEPT BOUNCING
AROUND, SAYING TAKE THE READER
WITH YOU.
WITH YOU.
>> YOU DONT ANY YOU DIMINISHED
YOURSELF?
>> I HOPE NOT.
AND I HOPE WHEN PEOPLE READ THE
BOOK, THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT
VIEW OF IT THAN THE QUICK HITS
THEYVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT.
>> YOU HAVE MADE SOME PRETTY
STRONG ASSERTIONS AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.
YOU SAID HES MORALLY UNFIT.
SAID HE LIES ALMOST CONSTANTLY. YOU ARE THE STAR WITNESS,ANTLY.
YOU ARE THE STAR WITNESS, PERHAPS, IN FORMER DIRECTOR
MUELLERS INVESTIGATION INTO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
YOUR TESTIMONY AGAINST PRESIDENT
TRUMPS TESTIMONY.
TRUMPS TESTIMONY. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT YOU MADE
THAT PROSECUTION TOUGHER?
YOURE OUT THERE AND YOU
DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU HAVE A
BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE OBVIOUS
TO BEGIN WITH.
HE FIRED ME. FROM A PROSECUTEORS PERSPECTIVE
MY TESTIMONY HAS BEEN LOCKED IN
SINCE I TESTIFIED UNDER OATH.
>> HE DID FIRE YOU.
YOUVE GONE FURTHER THAN THAT.
YOU CAN HELP WHAT YOU WRITE.
I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, DID YOU ASK
DIRECTOR MUELLER, DO YOU MIND IF
I WRITE THIS BOOK?
IS IT GOING TO MESS UP YOUR
CASE?
CASE?
>> NOT DIRECTLY. BUT I SUBMITTED THE BOOK FOR THE
FBI FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW.
AND NOBODY ASKED ME TO DO IT.
>> THATS NOT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL.
COUNSEL.
DID YOU SAY, IS IT BETTER IF I DONT SAY ANYTHING? BETTER IF I
DONT SAY ANYTHING? YOU NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION
LIKE THAT?
LIKE THAT?
>> NO.
THEY HAVE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME
I WAS WORKING ON A BOOK.
>> LETS TALK ABOUT THE CLINTON
E-MAIL INVESTIGATION.
YOURE FAMOUS FOR SAYING IT MADE
YOU A LITTLE NAUSEOUS, OR NAUSEATED AS YOU CORRECT IN THE
BOOK, TO THINK YOU HAD SOME
IMPACT ON THE ELECTION.
AND I WANTED TO DRILL DOWN ON
THAT.
THAT.
YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAD SOME IMPACT ON THE ELECTION.D
SOME IMPACT ON THE ELECTION. WE DONT KNOW IF IT WAS
DECISIVE.
DECISIVE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID IN
ANNOUNCING THAT THE CLINTON CASE
WAS GOING TO BE REOPENED AND
RE-EXAMINED 11 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, IT HAD SOME IMPACT,E
ELECTION, IT HAD SOME IMPACT, RIGHT?
RIGHT?
>> I DONT KNOW THAT.
I ASSUMED THAT IT MIGHT.
I HOPE IT DIDNT.
BUT IM NOT EXPERT ENOUGH TO
TELL YOU.
>> I MEAN, ITS A VERY COMPLEX
QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS
DETERMINATIVE OF THE OUTCOME,
WHETHER IT ALL SWAYED AND TURNED
ON WHAT YOU DID.
BUT YOU HAD TO KNOW THAT IT
WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT. >> I ASSUMED IT MIGHT HAVE SOME
IMPACT, WHICH IS WHAT MADE ME
REALIZE I WAS CHOOSING BETWEEN
TWO TERRIBLE OPTIONS.
WE ALWAYS TRY TO AVOID ANY
ACTION IN A RUN-UP TO AN
ELECTION THAT MIGHT HAVE AN
IMPACT.
IMPACT.
BUT I COULDNT FIND A DOOR THAT WAS LABELED NO ACTION.OOR THAT
WAS LABELED NO ACTION. >> HAVE YOU TRIED TO LOOK INTO
IT NOW?
IT NOW?
CAN YOU SEE IN LESS THAN THREE
STATES IT WAS LESS THAN A
PERCENTAGE POINT.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THE POOLS AND
NATE SILVER, WHO IS A POLITICAL PROGNOSTICATEORO IS A POLITICAL
PROGNOSTICATEOR PROGNOSTICATOR, SAYING IF THE
ELECTION WAS HELD THE DAY BEFORE
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE, SHE
WOULD HAVE WON.
WAS IT A DECISIVE FACTFACTOR?
>> I READ A LOT OF THAT STUFF,
AND IT MAKES ME FEEL NAUSEATED,
WHICH IS THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY
IT.
IT.
IT WOULDNT CHANGE HOW I THOUGHT ABOUT THE DECISION AT THE TIME.
ON OCTOBER 28th, I HAVE FACTS IN
FRONT OF ME AND A DECISION TO
MAKE.
MAKE.
I WISH I HAD A TIME MACHINE BUT
I DONT AND I DIDNT.
>> SOME PEOPLE SAID THIS ALL STEMMED FROM -- YOU FELT LIKE I
HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING.
I ALREADY SAID THE CASE IS
CLOSED.
CLOSED.
I HAVE A DUTY TO CORRECT THE
RECORD.
ITS OPEN AGAIN AND RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.N AND RIGHT BEFORE
THE ELECTION. HERES THE IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION
YOU FIND YOURSELF IN.
YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WERE GOING
TO ANNOUNCE UNILATERALLY YOU DID
NOT RECOMMEND CHARGES AGAINST
HILLARY CLINTON.
HILLARY CLINTON.
YOU DID THAT IN THE SUMMER. THAT WAS UNORTHODOX.SUMMER.
THAT WAS UNORTHODOX. THAT WAS UNPRECEDENTED.
WHY DIDNT YOU JUST GO TO THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND SAY, THIS
IS MY RECOMMENDATION?
>> BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WOULD
DO GRIEVOUS DAMAGE TO THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. I HAD TO CHOOSE THE LEAST BAD
OPTION TO PRESERVE PUBLIC FAITH
THAT WE HAD DONE THE
INVESTIGATION IN A COMPETENT AND
INDEPENDENT WAY.
INDEPENDENT WAY. >> IS THE SYSTEM SET UP THAT THE
FBI IS SET UP WHERE
INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATE AND
PROSECUTORS PROSECUTE.
PROSECUTORS PROSECUTE.
YOU THOUGHT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARED COMPROMISED.NEY GENERAL
APPEARED COMPROMISED. >> THATS RIGHT.
NO DOUBT ITS UNORTHODOX.
ITS UNORTHODOX TO BE EXAMINING
ONE OF THE CANDIDATES IN THE
MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION.
IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED.
>> WHY DIDNT YOU GO TO SALLY
YATES, WHO WAS THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO WASNT
ACCUSED OF HAVING CONFLICT AND
SAYING, THIS IS WHAT I THINK YOU
SHOULD DO.
SHOULD DO. AS OPPOSED TO SAYING, IM GOING
TO ANNOUNCE IT AND STEP OUT INTO
IT AND MAKE THIS STATEMENT THAT
HILLARY CLINTON SHOULDNT BE
CHARGED BUT SHE WAS CARELESS?
>> THATS A FAIR QUESTION.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD
ANNOUNCED SHE WAS NOT GOING TO
RECUSE HERSELF.
RECUSE HERSELF.
AND SHES MY BOSS AND SALLY YATES BOSS. BOSS AND SALLY
YATES BOSS.
I DIDNT THINK IT WOULD MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. WOULD MAKE
MUCH DIFFERENCE.
WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME TERRIBLE
POSITION IN OCTOBER IF I HAD
DONE THE NORMAL THING BACK IN JULY.THE NORMAL THING BACK IN
JULY.
>> LETS TALK ABOUT YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
TRUMP.
WE HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY IN CONGRESS AND YOU GET INTO IT IN
THE BOOK.
THE BOOK.
I TOOK AWAY THERE WERE MANY MOMENTS THAT MADE YOU DEEPLY UN
UNCOMFORTABLE.
UNCOMFORTABLE.
IN YOUR TELLING THE PRESIDENT IS DOING THINGS THAT ARERESIDENT IS
DOING THINGS THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE, FOR ONE THING.
THE FIRST MEETING, GAMING OUT
THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF
RUSSIAS INTERFERENCE IN THE
ELECTION.
ELECTION. LATER ASKING FOR YOUR LOYALTY.
LATER SAYING I HOPE YOU CAN LET
THE FLYNN INVESTIGATION GO,
ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
WHY DID JAMES COMEY, OF ALL
TEAM, NOT STAND UP TO THE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT?
YOURE THE PERSON MOST FAMOUS, FROM YOUR TIME AS A DEPUTYUS,
FROM YOUR TIME AS A DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, GOING INTO THE
BEDSIDE OF JOHN ASHCROFT AND
STANDING UP TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THATS YOUR REPUTATION.
WHY WOULDNT YOU SPEAK UP TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> WHAT DOES STANDING UP MEAN IN
THAT CONTEXT.
THAT CONTEXT. I STARED AT HIM.
>> YOU CAN SAY THATS
INAPPROPRIATE.
INAPPROPRIATE.
ARE YOU ASKING ME TO LET GO OF AN ONGOING CRIMINALO LET GO OF
AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?
INVESTIGATION?
>> MAYBE.
THATS A FAIR QUESTION.
IF HE DIDNT KNOW IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, WHY DID HE KICK
OUT THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL?
ATTORNEY GENERAL?
I DONT KNOW IF I SHOULD HAVE
DONE IT DIFFERENTLY.
IN THE MOMENT, THE THING TO DO
WAS JUST MAKE SURE YOURE NOT AGREEING TO DO SOMETHING NOT
AGREEING TO DO SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE.
INAPPROPRIATE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU TO PUT YOUR
PROSECUTORS HAT ON.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
LETS TAKE TWO UNDISPUTED FACTS. YOU WERE FIRED AND YOU WERECTS.
YOU WERE FIRED AND YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT WITH
REGARD TO RUSSIA COLLUSION AND
THE CAMPAIGNS CONNECTION TO
RUSSIAS INTERFERENCE.
RUSSIAS INTERFERENCE. AND TWO, HE TOLD AN INTERVIEW,
LESTER HOLT, WHEN HE FIRED YOU,
THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS AT
THE FOREFRONT OF HIS MIND.
OKAY.
OKAY.
THATS ACTION AND THAT IS, I THINK, TELLS YOU INTENT., I
THINK, TELLS YOU INTENT. ON THOSE FACTS ALONE, DO YOU
HAVE A STRONG CASE OF
OBSTRUCTION?
OBSTRUCTION?
>> YOU MIGHT. IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT ALL THE
OTHER FACTS WERE AROUND THAT,
ABOUT HIS INTENT THAT I CANT
SEE AND YOU CANT SEE YET.
>> YOU HAVENT MADE A JUDGMENT
IN TERMS OF JUST THE PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. >> MY JUDGMENT IS IT COULD BE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER
YOU CAN BRING A CASE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT
WAS HE TALKING ABOUT AROUND THAT
CONVERSATION, WHATS IN WRITING?
WHAT DO THE E-MAILS SAY TO GET A
CLEAR PICTURE OF HIS MENTAL
STATE?
STATE?
>> WOULD YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT
OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL OFFICE?
>> NEVER.
>> THATS A VERY DIRECT ANSWER.
VERY UNWASHINGTON-LIKE. >> NEVER.SHINGTON-LIKE.
>> NEVER.
I WANT TO SAY IT AGAIN SO MY
WIFE HEARD IT TWICE.