DEMANDING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE REPORT, SAVANNAH.
REPORT, SAVANNAH. >> ALL RIGHT, KRISTEN, THANK YOU
SO MUCH.
SO MUCH. WE’RE JOINED BY WHITE HOUSE
PRESS SECRETARY SARAH HUCKABEE
SANDERS.
SANDERS. GOOD MORNING, GOOD TO BE WITH
YOU.
YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.
>> THE PRESIDENT SEEMS ELATED,
MAYBE EVEN RELIEVED.
HE SAID AMERICA IS A GREAT
COUNTRY AT THE WHITE HOUSE
YESTERDAY.
YESTERDAY. HE’S IN A POSITION NOW TO
PUBLICLY SUPPORT MAYBE EVEN
AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THIS
UNDERLYING MUELLER REPORT.
WILL HE DO SO?
>> I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE SHOULD,
AND THAT’S LEAVING THAT DECISION
INTO THE HANDS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND WE’LL SEE WHAT
DECISION HE MAKES ON THAT FRONT.
>> WELL, LAST WEEK HE SAID LET
IT COME OUT, AND OF COURSE THERE
WAS A BIPARTISAN VOTE IN THE
HOUSE TO RELEASE THE -- PUBLICLY
THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF, SO
HE’S ALREADY ON THE RECORD, SO
DOES HE OR DOES HE NOT SUPPORT
THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF THIS?
>> LOOK, I DON’T THINK THE
PRESIDENT HAS ANY PROBLEM WITH
IT.
IT. HE HAS BEEN THE MOST TRANSPARENT
ACCESSIBLE PRESIDENT WE’VE SEEN
IN MODERN HISTORY.
THIS IS A PERSON WHO LOVES TO
ENGAGE WITH THE MEDIA, TAKES
QUESTIONS DAY IN, DAY OUT.
HE’S MORE THAN HAPPY FOR ANY OF
THIS STUFF TO COME OUT BECAUSE
HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT DID AND
DIDN’T HAPPEN.
DIDN’T HAPPEN. NOW FRANKLY THE REST OF AMERICA
KNOWS.
KNOWS. THEY KNOW THERE WAS NO
COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. THEY KNOW THERE WAS NO
OBSTRUCTION, AND IT’S A COMPLETE
AND TOTAL EXONERATION OF THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> IF THAT’S THE CASE IS HE WILL
BE TO WAVE ANY CLAIM OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SO, AGAIN,
THIS COULD BE MADE PUBLIC?
>> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE
WEEDS ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THAT’S A DETERMINATION, AGAIN,
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE
WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.
THEY DO WANT TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS, AND THEY
ALSO WANT TO PROTECT THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENCY.
THIS IS SOMETHING, FRANKLY, THAT
SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
THIS IS A TWO-YEAR WASTE OF
TAXPAYER TIME AND DOLLARS.
THEY SPENT OVER $25 MILLION ON
THIS JUST TO FIND OUT THAT THERE
WAS NOTHING THERE.
THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO
ANOTHER PRESIDENT, AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS
PROTECTED.
PROTECTED. >> LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT
THIS REPORT -- WHAT THIS LETTER
IS AND WHAT IT ISN’T.
IT IS AN EXONERATION, A LEGAL
EXONERATION WITH REGARD TO
CONSPIRACY OR COLLUSION.
AS TO THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE IN
THIS INVESTIGATION, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL DOESN’T SAY, AND IN
FACT, MAKES A POINT TO SAY THIS
REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME.
IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM.
WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS
INCORRECT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
CALL THIS A TOTAL EXONERATION.
>> NOT AT ALL.
IT IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL
EXONERATION.
EXONERATION. HERE’S WHY.
HERE’S WHY. BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,
THEY SAID THEY COULDN’T MAKE A
DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS
THEN THEY LEAVE THAT UP TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WENT
THROUGH AND BASED THEIR DECISION
ON MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION.
THIS WASN’T BASED ON JUST THEIR
OWN IDEAS AND THEIR OWN
THINKING.
THINKING. IT WAS BASED ON MUELLER’S
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. >> IN POINT OF FACT YOU HAVE A
SPECIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE THE
PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO BE
INDEPENDENT AND SUPPOSED TO MAKE
THIS LEGAL JUDGMENT.
IN THIS CASE FOR WHATEVER
REASON, MUELLER DIDN’T.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TOOK IT
UPON HIMSELF TO ISSUE A LEGAL
CONCLUSION, AND SOME CRITICS ARE
SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE, HE DID IT
IN 48 HOURS, AND HE WROTE A MEMO
SIX MONTHS AGO, EIGHT MONTHS AGO
IN JUNE LAST YEAR STATING THERE
WASN’T AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CASE SO THE CRITICISM IS HERE’S
A GUY MAKING A SNAP JUDGMENT WHO
HAD ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND
ABOUT THE CASE AND IT’S ON THE
RECORD.
RECORD. >> IT’S NOT A SNAP JUDGMENT.
THIS IS A -- ANYBODY THAT KNOWS
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR INCLUDING
A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE
KNOWN HIM FOR DECADES AND HAVE
TALKED ABOUT WHAT A GREAT
INDIVIDUAL HE IS AND HOW HIGHLY
RESPECTED HE IS IN THE LEGAL
COMMUNITY, HE TAKES HIS JOB
SERIOUSLY.
SERIOUSLY. LET’S BE CLEAR, IT WASN’T THAT
HE TOOK THIS UPON HIMSELF.
THAT’S THE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
COULDN’T MAKE A DECISION,
COULDN’T MAKE A FINAL
DETERMINATION, THEY REFER THAT
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE
THAT DECISION.
THAT DECISION. HE MADE IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHO’S BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED
IN THIS PROCESS FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING.
BEGINNING. IT’S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE SOMEBODY
THAT JUST SHOWED UP ONTO THE
SCENE MAKING THIS IN A SILO.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA HE
ALREADY HAD JUDGED THE CASE.
I MEAN, HE WROTE A 19 PAGE MEMO
STATING THERE’S NO OBSTRUCTION
CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
BEFORE HE SAW ONE PIECE OF
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE. >> LOOK, I THINK THAT IT IS VERY
CLEAR -- LOOK AT BOB MUELLER’S
REPORT.
REPORT. HE COULD NOT MAKE A
DETERMINATION.
DETERMINATION. IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY WHEN YOU
CAN’T CONVICT SOMEBODY ON
SOMETHING, YOU’RE EXONERATING
THEM, LEGALLY EXONERATING THEM.
>> YOU’RE NOT.
AS A LEGAL MATTER TO SAY THAT
YOU CAN’T PROSECUTE SOMEONE
BECAUSE THEY DON’T MEET THE
ELEMENTS OF THE STATUTE IT’S NOT
AN EXONERATION.
AN EXONERATION. >> THEY COULDN’T MAKE A
DECISION.
DECISION. THE BIG TAKE AWAY HERE IS THAT
THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW
CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THEY COULDN’T MAKE A FINAL
DECISION.
DECISION. THEY FOLLOWED THE LEGAL PROCESS.
THEY REFERRED IT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WHO CONSULTED WITH THE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAD
NOT BEEN -- HAD NO MEMO AND HAD
BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED FROM
THE BEGINNING, AND TOGETHER THEY
MADE THAT DECISION.
>> IT IS A LEGAL CLEAN BILL OF
HEALTH.
HEALTH. THIS LETTER SAYS THERE’S NOT
GOING TO BE CHARGES AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT ON BOTH OF THESE.
>> LET’S ALSO NOT FORGET WHEN
THERE IS NO CRIME AND THERE IS
NO COLLUSION, IT’S VERY HARD TO
OBSTRUCT SOMETHING.
OBSTRUCT SOMETHING. >> THAT’S A TECHNICAL LEGAL
ELEMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
GUIDED THE DECISION-MAKING.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, FOR THE
LAST TWO YEARS THE PRESIDENT HAS
ABSOLUTELY EVISCERATED BOB
MUELLER, A LIFELONG PUBLIC
SERVANT, A FORMER MARINE, A
REGISTERED REPUBLICAN.
REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. HE’S CALLED HIM A NATIONAL
DISGRACE, A PROSECUTOR GONE
ROGUE WHO OVERSAW A GANG OF
THUGS.
THUGS. IN THE END THIS INDIVIDUAL
CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION, CAME TO
A CONCLUSION THAT ULTIMATELY
CLEARED AS WE JUST DISCUSSED THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. DID ROBERT MUELLER DESERVE
BETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT THAN
THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE AND
BEHAVIOR?
BEHAVIOR? >> FRANKLY, I THINK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DESERVED BETTER.
THEY DIDN’T DESERVE FOR THE
ELECTION OF THIS PRESIDENT TO BE
TRYING TO BE TAKEN DOWN --
>> THE PRESIDENT’S RHETORIC
ABOUT A PUBLIC SERVANT DOING
JOB.
JOB. >> THE PRESIDENT’S RHETORIC, THE
MEDIA AND DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED
THE PRESIDENT AN AGENT OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, BUT THAT IS
AN ACCUSATION EQUAL TO TREASON,
WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH IN
THIS COUNTRY.
THIS COUNTRY. >> WAIT A MINUTE.
YOU HAVE KIDS AND YOU KNOW THAT
IF YOU SAY DID YOU DO THIS, THE
ANSWER ISN’T YEAH, BUT MY
BROTHER DID THAT.
SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR.
PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR. HE CALLED ROBERT MUELLER -- HE
TRASHED HIM FOR TWO YEARS, AND
IN THE END MUELLER JUST DID AN
INVESTIGATION THAT ULTIMATELY
THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS A TOTAL
EXONERATION OF HIM.
DOES HE OWE ROBERT MUELLER AN
APOLOGY FOR THAT KIND OF
RHETORIC?
RHETORIC? >> I THINK DEMOCRATS AND THE
LIBERAL MEDIA OWE THE PRESIDENT
AND THEY OWE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AN APOLOGY.
AN APOLOGY. THEY WASTED TWO YEARS AND
CREATED A MASSIVE DISRUPTION AND
DISTRACTION FROM THINGS THAT
PEOPLE -- THAT IMPACT EVERYONE’S
DAY-TO-DAY LIFE.
DAY-TO-DAY LIFE. I MEAN, LET’S NOT FORGET THIS
TOOK PLACE UNDER THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION. YOU HAD PEOPLE LIKE CLAPPER AND
BRENNAN LYING TO CONGRESS TO
PERPETUATE THIS IDEA OF RUSSIA
COLLUSION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES --
>> I THINK THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT
THE FACT THAT RUSSIA DID, IN
FACT, MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS,
WHICH IS BORNE OUT BY THIS
LATEST REPORT AND THE SBEMGS
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF THE
U.S.
U.S. >> AND THEY TRIED TO TIE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO IT.
TO IT. >> I THINK THAT WAS THE SUBJECT
OF THE INVESTIGATION, WHICH WE
NOW HAVE THE RESULTS OF, AND
THEY ARE VERY CLEAR.
IT SAYS NO COLLUSION.
SARAH, THANK YOU.
>> I THINK IT’S A SHAME FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT WE’RE ALL
VERY GLAD I THINK IT’S OVER AND
WE CAN MOVE OVER AND FOCUS ON