NOW ON PAUL MANAFORT. HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ALONG WITH HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ALONG WITH FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR GLENN FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR GLENN KERSHNER. KERSHNER. WE NEED THE LEGAL TEAM TONIGHT. WE NEED THE LEGAL TEAM TONIGHT. >>> BUT OUR FIRST DISCUSSION >>> BUT OUR FIRST DISCUSSION TONIGHT WILL BE WITH THE TONIGHT WILL BE WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ADAM INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ADAM SCHIFF, WHO WILL GIVE US HIS SCHIFF, WHO WILL GIVE US HIS VIEW ON ALL OF THESE VIEW ON ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING A STUNNING ADMISSION BY THE FORMER STUNNING ADMISSION BY THE FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, MATH ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, MATH CUE WHITAKER, TODAY TO HOUSE CUE WHITAKER, TODAY TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER. JERRY NADLER. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, AS YOU ALL BY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, AS YOU ALL BY NOW KNOW, HAD ANOTHER 43 MONTHS NOW KNOW, HAD ANOTHER 43 MONTHS ADDED TO THE TIME HE IS ALREADY ADDED TO THE TIME HE IS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO SERVE IN PRISON SCHEDULED TO SERVE IN PRISON TODAY. TODAY. THE ADDITIONAL SENTENCE FOR PAUL THE ADDITIONAL SENTENCE FOR PAUL MANAFORT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF MANAFORT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF HIS GUILTY PLEA TO TWO COUNTS OF HIS GUILTY PLEA TO TWO COUNTS OF CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROBERT IN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROBERT MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION. MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION. THAT MEANS PAUL MANAFORT WILL THAT MEANS PAUL MANAFORT WILL NOW SERVE A TOTAL OF 7 1/2 YEARS NOW SERVE A TOTAL OF 7 1/2 YEARS IN PRISON AFTER THE SENTENCE HE IN PRISON AFTER THE SENTENCE HE RECEIVED LAST WEEK IN FEDERAL RECEIVED LAST WEEK IN FEDERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA IS ADDED TO COURT IN VIRGINIA IS ADDED TO THE ONE HE RECEIVED TODAY. THE ONE HE RECEIVED TODAY. BUT TODAY MIGHT NOT BE THE LAST BUT TODAY MIGHT NOT BE THE LAST TIME PAUL MANAFORT IS SENTENCED. TIME PAUL MANAFORT IS SENTENCED. IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS SENTENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS SENTENCE WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED TODAY, WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED TODAY, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYRUS VANCE ANNOUNCED A NEW CYRUS VANCE ANNOUNCED A NEW 16-COUNT INDICTMENT AGAINST PAUL 16-COUNT INDICTMENT AGAINST PAUL MANAFORT ON CHARGES INCLUDING MANAFORT ON CHARGES INCLUDING MORTGAGE FRAUD, ATTEMPTED MORTGAGE FRAUD, ATTEMPTED MORTGAGE FRAUD, CONSPIRACY AND MORTGAGE FRAUD, CONSPIRACY AND FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS. FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS. THE CHARGES IN NEW YORK STATE THE CHARGES IN NEW YORK STATE WOULD BE BEYOND THE REACH OF A WOULD BE BEYOND THE REACH OF A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON BY DONALD PRESIDENTIAL PARDON BY DONALD TRUMP, WHICH COULD ONLY APPLY TO TRUMP, WHICH COULD ONLY APPLY TO FEDERAL CASES. FEDERAL CASES. TODAY THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED TODAY THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED ABOUT PARDONING PAUL MANAFORT. ABOUT PARDONING PAUL MANAFORT. >> WILL YOU PARDON PAUL >> WILL YOU PARDON PAUL MANAFORT? MANAFORT? >> I HAVE NOT EVEN GIVEN IT A >> I HAVE NOT EVEN GIVEN IT A THOUGHT AS OF THIS MOMENT. THOUGHT AS OF THIS MOMENT. IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT RIGHT IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT RIGHT NOW IS ON MY MIND. NOW IS ON MY MIND. I DO FEEL BADLY FOR PAUL I DO FEEL BADLY FOR PAUL MANAFORT. MANAFORT. >> RIGHT AFTER THE SENTENCING >> RIGHT AFTER THE SENTENCING TOOK PLACE HERE IN WASHINGTON, TOOK PLACE HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT D.C., THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED STATE CHARGES ATTORNEY FILED STATE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO AGAINST HIM, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE A WAY TO GET AROUND THE BE A WAY TO GET AROUND THE EFFECT OF ANY PARDON. EFFECT OF ANY PARDON. >> I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT >> I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT. I HAVEN’T HEARD THAT. I HAVEN’T HEARD THAT. I’LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I’LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. >> IN HIS SENTENCING HEARING, >> IN HIS SENTENCING HEARING, PAUL MANAFORT APOLOGIZED FOR HIS PAUL MANAFORT APOLOGIZED FOR HIS CRIMES FOR THE FIRST TIME, CRIMES FOR THE FIRST TIME, TELLING JUDGE AMY BERMAN TELLING JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON, QUOTE, I AM SORRY FOR JACKSON, QUOTE, I AM SORRY FOR WHAT I HAVE DONE AND FOR ALL THE WHAT I HAVE DONE AND FOR ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE GOTTEN US ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE GOTTEN US HERE TODAY. HERE TODAY. I KNOW IT WAS MY CONDUCT THAT I KNOW IT WAS MY CONDUCT THAT BROUGHT ME HERE TODAY. BROUGHT ME HERE TODAY. FOR THESE MISTAKES I AM FOR THESE MISTAKES I AM REMORSEFUL. REMORSEFUL. JUDGE JACKSON WAS LESS JUDGE JACKSON WAS LESS SYMPATHETIC TO MANAFORT THAN SYMPATHETIC TO MANAFORT THAN JUDGE T.S. ELLIS WAS, WHO GAVE JUDGE T.S. ELLIS WAS, WHO GAVE HIM WHAT MANY SAW AS A LIGHTER HIM WHAT MANY SAW AS A LIGHTER SENTENCE LAST WEEK AND PRAISED SENTENCE LAST WEEK AND PRAISED HIS, QUOTE, JUDGE ELLIS PRAISED HIS, QUOTE, JUDGE ELLIS PRAISED MANAFORT’S, QUOTE, OTHERWISE MANAFORT’S, QUOTE, OTHERWISE BLAMELESS LIFE. BLAMELESS LIFE. JUDGE JACKSON TOLD PAUL JUDGE JACKSON TOLD PAUL MANAFORT, WHAT YOU WERE DOING MANAFORT, WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS LYING TO CONGRESS AND THE WAS LYING TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. AMERICAN PUBLIC. IF THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE THE IF THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE THE FACTS, DEMOCRACY CAN’T WORK. FACTS, DEMOCRACY CAN’T WORK. SHE ADDED, SAYING I’M SORRY WHEN SHE ADDED, SAYING I’M SORRY WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT IS NOT AN YOU GET CAUGHT IS NOT AN INSPIRING PLEA FOR LENIENCY. INSPIRING PLEA FOR LENIENCY. JUDGE JACKSON ALSO CRITICIZED JUDGE JACKSON ALSO CRITICIZED THE MANAFORT LAWYERS. THE MANAFORT LAWYERS. THEIR DEFENSE MEMO ABOUT THE THEIR DEFENSE MEMO ABOUT THE SENTENCING TODAY. SENTENCING TODAY. SHE SAID, THE NO COLLUSION SHE SAID, THE NO COLLUSION REFRAIN THAT RUNS THROUGH THE REFRAIN THAT RUNS THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEFENSE MEMO IS ENTIRELY ENTIRE DEFENSE MEMO IS ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO THE MATTERS AT UNRELATED TO THE MATTERS AT HAND. HAND. THAT DID NOT STOP PAUL THAT DID NOT STOP PAUL MANAFORT’S LAWYER FROM GOING OUT MANAFORT’S LAWYER FROM GOING OUT ON TO THE COURTROOM STEPS AND ON TO THE COURTROOM STEPS AND TRYING TO DELIVER WHAT THE JUDGE TRYING TO DELIVER WHAT THE JUDGE CALLED THE NO COLLUSION MANTRA. CALLED THE NO COLLUSION MANTRA. BUT PROTESTERS IN THE CROWD KNEW BUT PROTESTERS IN THE CROWD KNEW BETTER AND SHOUTED DOWN WHAT WAS BETTER AND SHOUTED DOWN WHAT WAS -- WHAT WAS CLEARLY GOING TO BE -- WHAT WAS CLEARLY GOING TO BE A LONGER AND UNTRUE SPEECH. A LONGER AND UNTRUE SPEECH. >> JUDGE JACKSON CONCEDED THAT >> JUDGE JACKSON CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RUSSIAN COLLUSION IN THIS OF ANY RUSSIAN COLLUSION IN THIS CASE. CASE. SO THAT MAKES TWO COURTS -- TWO SO THAT MAKES TWO COURTS -- TWO COURTS HAVE RULED NO EVIDENCE -- COURTS HAVE RULED NO EVIDENCE -- >> TRAITOR! >> TRAITOR! LIAR! LIAR! >> PART NUMBER TWO -- >> PART NUMBER TWO -- >> THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE SAID! >> THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE SAID! THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE SAID! THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE SAID! >> LIAR! >> LIAR! >> SENTENCE THAT IS TOTALLY >> SENTENCE THAT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. UNNECESSARY. >> YOU GUYS ARE LIARS, MAN. >> YOU GUYS ARE LIARS, MAN. YOU’RE NOT LAWYERS, YOU’RE YOU’RE NOT LAWYERS, YOU’RE LIARS. LIARS. >> AND, OF COURSE, RIGHT ON CUE >> AND, OF COURSE, RIGHT ON CUE TODAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATED TODAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATED THE NO COLLUSION MANTRA AT THE THE NO COLLUSION MANTRA AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WHITE HOUSE. THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING IN THAT THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING IN THAT VIDEO THAT YOU DON’T NEED TO VIDEO THAT YOU DON’T NEED TO HEAR BECAUSE IT WILL BE THE HEAR BECAUSE IT WILL BE THE 1,000th TIME YOU’VE HEARD HIM 1,000th TIME YOU’VE HEARD HIM SAY IT. SAY IT. IN AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION IN AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION TODAY, JERRY NADLER, THE CLARM TODAY, JERRY NADLER, THE CLARM CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE RANKING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE MET WITH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE MET WITH FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL MATTHEW WHITAKER PRIVATELY TO MATTHEW WHITAKER PRIVATELY TO DISCUSS WHAT HE SAID PUBLICLY DISCUSS WHAT HE SAID PUBLICLY UNDER OATH TO THAT COMMITTEE UNDER OATH TO THAT COMMITTEE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP INTERFERING WITH THE PROSECUTION INTERFERING WITH THE PROSECUTION OF MICHAEL COHEN OR OTHER OF MICHAEL COHEN OR OTHER PROSECUTIONS. PROSECUTIONS. >> AT NO TIME HAS THE WHITE >> AT NO TIME HAS THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED FOR NOR HAVE I HOUSE ASKED FOR NOR HAVE I PROVIDED ANY PROMISES OR PROVIDED ANY PROMISES OR COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION OR ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION. OR ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION. >> AND HERE IS CHAIRMAN JERRY >> AND HERE IS CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER TODAY DESCRIBING WHAT NADLER TODAY DESCRIBING WHAT MATTHEW WHITAKER NOW SAYS ABOUT MATTHEW WHITAKER NOW SAYS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL INTERFERENCE. PRESIDENTIAL INTERFERENCE. >> UNLIKE IN THE HEARING ROOM, >> UNLIKE IN THE HEARING ROOM, MR. WHITAKER DID NOT DENY THAT MR. WHITAKER DID NOT DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM TO THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM TO DISCUSS THE MICHAEL COHEN CASE DISCUSS THE MICHAEL COHEN CASE AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS IN THE AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT. SOUTHERN DISTRICT. TWO, WHILE HE WAS ACTING TWO, WHILE HE WAS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. WHITAKER ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. WHITAKER WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO FIRE ONE OR MORE U.S. ATTORNEYS. FIRE ONE OR MORE U.S. ATTORNEYS. THREE, WHILE HE WAS ATTORNEY THREE, WHILE HE WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL -- ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL -- ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. WHITAKER WAS GENERAL, MR. WHITAKER WAS INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE SOUTHERN THE SCOPE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. ATTORNEY BERMAN’S RECUSAL AND ATTORNEY BERMAN’S RECUSAL AND WHETHER THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT WHETHER THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT WENT TOO FAR IN PURSUING THE WENT TOO FAR IN PURSUING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE IN WHICH CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS LISTED AS THE PRESIDENT WAS LISTED AS INDIVIDUAL NUMBER ONE. INDIVIDUAL NUMBER ONE. >> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION >> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION NOW, THE MAN WITH THE GLOBAL NOW, THE MAN WITH THE GLOBAL VIEW OF ALL OF THIS, CONGRESSMAN VIEW OF ALL OF THIS, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA. ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA. HE’S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE HE’S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, CAN WE JUST AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, CAN WE JUST BEGIN GOING BACKWARDS THROUGH BEGIN GOING BACKWARDS THROUGH THIS MATERIAL, THROUGH WHAT WE THIS MATERIAL, THROUGH WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM CHAIRMAN NADLER? JUST HEARD FROM CHAIRMAN NADLER? WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO WHAT WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO WHAT CHAIRMAN NADLER IS TELLING US CHAIRMAN NADLER IS TELLING US NOW ABOUT WHAT MATTHEW WHITAKER NOW ABOUT WHAT MATTHEW WHITAKER CLEARLY WITHHELD, AT MINIMUM, IN CLEARLY WITHHELD, AT MINIMUM, IN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SOME THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SOME WOULD SAY DELIBERATELY MISLED WOULD SAY DELIBERATELY MISLED THE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE. >> WELL, MY REACTION IS THIS. >> WELL, MY REACTION IS THIS. JEFF SESSIONS WAS EFFECTIVELY JEFF SESSIONS WAS EFFECTIVELY FIRED BECAUSE HE RECUSED FIRED BECAUSE HE RECUSED HIMSELF. HIMSELF. BECAUSE HE FOLLOWED THE ADDVICE BECAUSE HE FOLLOWED THE ADDVICE OF ETHICS LAWYERS AT THE JUSTICE OF ETHICS LAWYERS AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. MATT WHITAKER WAS HIRED BECAUSE MATT WHITAKER WAS HIRED BECAUSE HE TALKED ABOUT HOW HE COULD HE TALKED ABOUT HOW HE COULD PRIVATELY CRIPPLE THE MUELLER PRIVATELY CRIPPLE THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND BECAUSE I’M INVESTIGATION AND BECAUSE I’M SURE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONFIDENT SURE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONFIDENT HE WOULD NOT RECUSE HIMSELF. HE WOULD NOT RECUSE HIMSELF. THE ETHICS LAWYERS URGED HIM TO THE ETHICS LAWYERS URGED HIM TO DO SO. DO SO. HE REFUSED. HE REFUSED. THEN YOU HAVE THE NEW ATTORNEY THEN YOU HAVE THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTED, WHO REFUSES GENERAL APPOINTED, WHO REFUSES TO COMMIT TO FOLLOWING THE TO COMMIT TO FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF ETHICS LAWYERS ON THAT ADVICE OF ETHICS LAWYERS ON THAT SAME ISSUE, RECUSAL. SAME ISSUE, RECUSAL. SO IS IT PLAUSIBLE THAT THE SO IS IT PLAUSIBLE THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RECUSAL OF THE ISSUE OF THE RECUSAL OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE SOUTHERN PROSECUTOR IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAME UP? DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAME UP? ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. IS IT I THINK STRAINING CREDIT IS IT I THINK STRAINING CREDIT UTILITY TO THINK THAT IF HE DID UTILITY TO THINK THAT IF HE DID HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT WITH OTHERS OR THE PRESIDENT WITH OTHERS OR THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WOULD HAVE A FAILURE OF THAT HE WOULD HAVE A FAILURE OF RECOLLECTION ABOUT IT? RECOLLECTION ABOUT IT? THAT DOESN’T STRIKE ME AS TOO THAT DOESN’T STRIKE ME AS TOO CREDIBLE. CREDIBLE. >> THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE >> THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE TODAY, THAT HE HASN’T EVEN TODAY, THAT HE HASN’T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT, NOT EVEN THOUGHT THOUGHT ABOUT, NOT EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT PARDONING PAUL MANAFORT. ABOUT PARDONING PAUL MANAFORT. >> NOT THE LEAST BIT BELIEVABLE. >> NOT THE LEAST BIT BELIEVABLE. WHAT I FOUND REALLY STRIKING WHAT I FOUND REALLY STRIKING ABOUT THE MANAFORT SENTENCING ABOUT THE MANAFORT SENTENCING TODAY, AND INDEED MANAFORT’S TODAY, AND INDEED MANAFORT’S CONDUCT GENERALLY DURING THIS CONDUCT GENERALLY DURING THIS COURT PROCESS, IS PAUL MANAFORT COURT PROCESS, IS PAUL MANAFORT MADE THE CALCULATED DECISION TO MADE THE CALCULATED DECISION TO LIE ABOUT PROVIDING POLLING DATA LIE ABOUT PROVIDING POLLING DATA TO SOMEONE LINKED TO RUSSIAN TO SOMEONE LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. INTELLIGENCE. HE MADE THE CALCULATED DECISION HE MADE THE CALCULATED DECISION TO DO THAT AND RISK GETTING TO DO THAT AND RISK GETTING CAUGHT AND RISK GETTING A MUCH CAUGHT AND RISK GETTING A MUCH GREATER SENTENCE. GREATER SENTENCE. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? YOU WOULD DO THAT IF YOU FELT YOU WOULD DO THAT IF YOU FELT THAT IF YOU GAVE THAT EVIDENCE THAT IF YOU GAVE THAT EVIDENCE THAT GOES RIGHT TO THE ISSUE OF THAT GOES RIGHT TO THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION, THERE IS NO INNOCENT COLLUSION, THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR GIVING INTERNAL EXPLANATION FOR GIVING INTERNAL POLLING DATA, RAW DATA TO THE POLLING DATA, RAW DATA TO THE RUSSIANS OR SOMEONE LINKED TO RUSSIANS OR SOMEONE LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, THAT IT RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, THAT IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY KILL ANY WOULD EFFECTIVELY KILL ANY CHANCE OF A PARDON. CHANCE OF A PARDON. AND SO INSTEAD OF -- INSTEAD OF AND SO INSTEAD OF -- INSTEAD OF REVEALING THIS INFORMATION, HE REVEALING THIS INFORMATION, HE CHOSE TO LIE ABOUT IT AND THEN CHOSE TO LIE ABOUT IT AND THEN GO OUT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS GO OUT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY AND SAY NO THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY AND SAY NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION, WHICH COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY THE -- AKIN TO IS EFFECTIVELY THE -- AKIN TO SAYING, MR. PRESIDENT, PLEASE SAYING, MR. PRESIDENT, PLEASE PARDON ME. PARDON ME. >> AND THEN THE PRESIDENT ECHOS >> AND THEN THE PRESIDENT ECHOS EXACTLY WHAT MANAFORT’S LAWYER EXACTLY WHAT MANAFORT’S LAWYER HAS SAID A LITTLE BIT LATER. HAS SAID A LITTLE BIT LATER. >> IT WAS REFRESHING, TOO, TO >> IT WAS REFRESHING, TOO, TO HEAR THE JUDGE CALL HIM OUT -- HEAR THE JUDGE CALL HIM OUT -- REALLY CALL OUT BOTH MANAFORT REALLY CALL OUT BOTH MANAFORT AND THE PRESIDENT. AND THE PRESIDENT. CALL OUT MANAFORT BY SAYING, CALL OUT MANAFORT BY SAYING, DON’T TRY THAT NO COLLUSION DON’T TRY THAT NO COLLUSION BUSINESS HERE. BUSINESS HERE. I KNOW THIS IS A THINLY VEILED I KNOW THIS IS A THINLY VEILED PLEA FOR A PARDON. PLEA FOR A PARDON. YOU DON’T FOOL ANYONE IN THIS YOU DON’T FOOL ANYONE IN THIS COURTROOM. COURTROOM. BUT ALSO WHEN SHE SAID THAT BUT ALSO WHEN SHE SAID THAT FACTS MATTER HERE, THAT WAS A FACTS MATTER HERE, THAT WAS A REBUKE OF THE PRESIDENT, AS MUCH REBUKE OF THE PRESIDENT, AS MUCH AS IT WAS OF PAUL MANAFORT. AS IT WAS OF PAUL MANAFORT. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY POWERFUL AND CERTAINLY WAS A POWERFUL AND CERTAINLY WAS A POWERFUL CORRECTIVE TO THE POWERFUL CORRECTIVE TO THE OTHERWISE SHAMELESS LIFE OTHERWISE SHAMELESS LIFE BUSINESS WE HEARD FROM THE -- BUSINESS WE HEARD FROM THE -- FROM JUDGE ELLIS. FROM JUDGE ELLIS. >> YEAH, YOU’RE A FORMER FEDERAL >> YEAH, YOU’RE A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. PROSECUTOR. A FEDERAL PROSECUTION COMES TO A A FEDERAL PROSECUTION COMES TO A CONCLUSION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. CONCLUSION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WITH THE SENTENCING OF A WITH THE SENTENCING OF A DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT. INSTANTANEOUSLY IN NEW YORK INSTANTANEOUSLY IN NEW YORK CITY, THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT CITY, THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, INSTANTANEOUSLY COMES ATTORNEY, INSTANTANEOUSLY COMES OUT WITH A 16-COUNT INDICTMENT. OUT WITH A 16-COUNT INDICTMENT. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN A IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, HOW MUCH SITUATION LIKE THAT, HOW MUCH COOPERATION WOULD THERE HAVE COOPERATION WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN BETWEEN THE FEDERAL BEEN BETWEEN THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS GETTING THAT GUILTY PROSECUTORS GETTING THAT GUILTY PLEA TODAY AND THE MANHATTAN PLEA TODAY AND THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, IF ANY? DISTRICT ATTORNEY, IF ANY? >> YOU KNOW, MY GUESS IS THAT >> YOU KNOW, MY GUESS IS THAT THE PROSECUTORS HAVE KEPT AN THE PROSECUTORS HAVE KEPT AN ARM’S LENGTH DISTANCE. ARM’S LENGTH DISTANCE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DECONFLICTION. DECONFLICTION. MY GUESS, FRANKLY, IS THAT THE MY GUESS, FRANKLY, IS THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DECIDED ON THEIR OWN THAT THEY DECIDED ON THEIR OWN THAT THEY WOULDN’T STEP ON THE SENTENCING WOULDN’T STEP ON THE SENTENCING OF MANAFORT. OF MANAFORT. THEY DIDN’T WANT TO INFLUENCE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO INFLUENCE THE SENTENCING OF MANAFORT. THE SENTENCING OF MANAFORT. BUT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF A BUT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES OR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES OR WHEN THEY DO THEY THINK, OKAY, WHEN THEY DO THEY THINK, OKAY, YOU’VE GOT THE HOUSE AND SENATE, YOU’VE GOT THE HOUSE AND SENATE, YOU’VE GOT THE CONGRESS AND THE YOU’VE GOT THE CONGRESS AND THE COURTS, YOU’VE GOT THE EXECUTIVE COURTS, YOU’VE GOT THE EXECUTIVE AND THE COURTS. AND THE COURTS. THESE ARE ALL PART OF THE CHECKS THESE ARE ALL PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. AND BALANCES. BUT THERE IS ALSO A CHECK AND BUT THERE IS ALSO A CHECK AND BALANCE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL BALANCE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE STATE SYSTEM. SYSTEM AND THE STATE SYSTEM. AND HERE THAT CHECK AND BALANCE AND HERE THAT CHECK AND BALANCE WORKED PERFECTLY BECAUSE YOU WORKED PERFECTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN UNETHICAL PRESIDENT HAVE AN UNETHICAL PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT INTERVENING IN A TALKING ABOUT INTERVENING IN A CASE IN WHICH HE IS IMPLICATED, CASE IN WHICH HE IS IMPLICATED, DANGLING A PARDON. DANGLING A PARDON. CERTAINLY PUBLICLY AND MAYBE CERTAINLY PUBLICLY AND MAYBE PRIVATELY AS WELL. PRIVATELY AS WELL. AND YOU HAVE THE STATE OF NEW AND YOU HAVE THE STATE OF NEW YORK SAYING, NOT SO FAST, IF YORK SAYING, NOT SO FAST, IF YOU’RE GOING TO BETRAY THE RULE YOU’RE GOING TO BETRAY THE RULE OF LAW THAT WAY, WE ARE GOING TO OF LAW THAT WAY, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THE RULE OF LAW IS MAKE SURE THE RULE OF LAW IS ENFORCED IN THE STATE OF NEW ENFORCED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. YORK. >> THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE >> THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS AN EYE ON ALMOST ALL OF HAS AN EYE ON ALMOST ALL OF THESE MOVING PARTS. THESE MOVING PARTS. IT’S HARD FOR US TO TELL BECAUSE IT’S HARD FOR US TO TELL BECAUSE SO MUCH OF YOUR WORK IS CLOSED SO MUCH OF YOUR WORK IS CLOSED AND NEEDS TO BE HOW MUCH YOU’RE AND NEEDS TO BE HOW MUCH YOU’RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE THINGS LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT SOME OF THE OTHER THAT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMITTEES ARE LOOKING AT AT THE COMMITTEES ARE LOOKING AT AT THE SAME TIME. SAME TIME. IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT SOMETHING IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT SOMETHING CHANGED IMPORTANTLY TODAY IN CHANGED IMPORTANTLY TODAY IN WHAT JERRY NADLER LEARNED FROM WHAT JERRY NADLER LEARNED FROM THE ACTING FBI DIRECTOR? THE ACTING FBI DIRECTOR? BECAUSE THAT’S A NEW LEVEL OF BECAUSE THAT’S A NEW LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE INTERFERENCE LEVEL DETAIL IN THE INTERFERENCE LEVEL THE PRESIDENT IS WILLING TO GO THE PRESIDENT IS WILLING TO GO TO. TO. I THINK IT WAS REASONABLE FOR I THINK IT WAS REASONABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING HIS EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR TO GUESS HIS EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR TO GUESS THAT THINGS LIKE THAT COULD THAT THINGS LIKE THAT COULD HAPPEN, BUT HERE YOU HAVE AN HAPPEN, BUT HERE YOU HAVE AN ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> IT’S HARD FOR ME TO EVALUATE, >> IT’S HARD FOR ME TO EVALUATE, NOT HAVING BEEN IN THE ROOM, NOT HAVING BEEN IN THE ROOM, WHETHER THIS WAS THE ATTORNEY WHETHER THIS WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING I CAN’T REMEMBER GENERAL SAYING I CAN’T REMEMBER IF I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE IF I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE PRESIDENT OR I’M NOT GOING TO PRESIDENT OR I’M NOT GOING TO DENY WE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS. DENY WE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS. I’M NOT GOING TO DENY IT. I’M NOT GOING TO DENY IT. I DON’T KNOW HOW HE I DON’T KNOW HOW HE CHARACTERIZED THIS. CHARACTERIZED THIS. I FIND IT, YOU KNOW, VERY I FIND IT, YOU KNOW, VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT IF HE DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT IF HE DID DISCUSS THIS THAT HE WOULD DID DISCUSS THIS THAT HE WOULD HAVE SOME FAILURE OF HAVE SOME FAILURE OF RECOLLECTION ABOUT IT, BUT ALSO RECOLLECTION ABOUT IT, BUT ALSO THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO HAS HAD THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO HAS HAD NO COMPUNCTION ABOUT DIRECTLY NO COMPUNCTION ABOUT DIRECTLY INTERFERING IN AN INVESTIGATION INTERFERING IN AN INVESTIGATION WHICH HE’S IMPLICATED. WHICH HE’S IMPLICATED. HE DOES IT EVERY DAY BY BASHING HE DOES IT EVERY DAY BY BASHING MUELLER, BY DANGLING PARDONS, BY MUELLER, BY DANGLING PARDONS, BY FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR. FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR. I THINK WHAT WE SAW TODAY, BOTH I THINK WHAT WE SAW TODAY, BOTH IN THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE COHEN IN THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE COHEN SIDE OF THINGS AND THESE NEW SIDE OF THINGS AND THESE NEW E-MAILS THAT WERE PUBLICLY E-MAILS THAT WERE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED, BUT AS WELL THE DISCLOSED, BUT AS WELL THE CONVERSATION THAT MR. NADLER CONVERSATION THAT MR. NADLER HAD, CHAIRMAN NADLER HAD WITH HAD, CHAIRMAN NADLER HAD WITH MATT WHITAKER, A GROWING BODY OF MATT WHITAKER, A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. JUSTICE. I THINK THAT’S REALLY THE I THINK THAT’S REALLY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT’S COME OUT SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT’S COME OUT OOD. OOD. >> AND AS THAT BODY OF EVIDENCE >> AND AS THAT BODY OF EVIDENCE GROWS, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF GROWS, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF SPEAKER PELOSI’S STATEMENT THAT SPEAKER PELOSI’S STATEMENT THAT CAME OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT CAME OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT I’M NOT FOR IMPEACHMENT? I’M NOT FOR IMPEACHMENT? IT SEEMS -- SHE ACTUALLY GAVE IT SEEMS -- SHE ACTUALLY GAVE THAT INTERVIEW A WEEK BEFORE THAT INTERVIEW A WEEK BEFORE THAT QUOTE CAME OUT, AND AS I’VE THAT QUOTE CAME OUT, AND AS I’VE WATCHED THIS AND AS YOU SAY THE WATCHED THIS AND AS YOU SAY THE EVIDENCE GROWS, QUOTES LIKE THAT EVIDENCE GROWS, QUOTES LIKE THAT MOSTLY HAVE MEANING THE DAY MOSTLY HAVE MEANING THE DAY THEY’RE SAID BECAUSE YOU DON’T THEY’RE SAID BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE GROUND IS GOING TO KNOW WHAT THE GROUND IS GOING TO BE UNDER YOU AS INVESTIGATORS BE UNDER YOU AS INVESTIGATORS THE NEXT WEEK. THE NEXT WEEK. >> WELL, I MEAN, HERE’S THE >> WELL, I MEAN, HERE’S THE THING. THING. I WAS WATCHING ONE OF MY INTEL I WAS WATCHING ONE OF MY INTEL REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TODAY. REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TODAY. ONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE ONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE COLLEAGUES ON TV COMMITTEE COLLEAGUES ON TV SAYING -- BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS SAYING -- BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS WHITAKER INTERVIEW AND SAYING IF WHITAKER INTERVIEW AND SAYING IF THE PRESIDENT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, THE COHEN CASE WITH THIS CASE, THE COHEN CASE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WORKS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WORKS FOR HIM. HIM. WELL, IF THAT’S YOUR ATTITUDE WELL, IF THAT’S YOUR ATTITUDE THEN ALL OF THE NORMS THAT HAVE THEN ALL OF THE NORMS THAT HAVE GROWN UP SINCE WATERGATE, THAT GROWN UP SINCE WATERGATE, THAT YOU DON’T INTERFERE IN A CASE IN YOU DON’T INTERFERE IN A CASE IN WHICH YOU’RE IMPLICATED, ALL OF WHICH YOU’RE IMPLICATED, ALL OF THE DEGREE TO WHICH THAT SHOULD THE DEGREE TO WHICH THAT SHOULD BE JUST REPUGNANT, UNETHICAL AND BE JUST REPUGNANT, UNETHICAL AND PERHAPS ILLEGAL, BUT IF THAT’S PERHAPS ILLEGAL, BUT IF THAT’S THE VIEW OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE VIEW OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE GOP, GETTING THEM BEHIND AN THE GOP, GETTING THEM BEHIND AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEACHMENT, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW IMPEACHMENT, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW DIFFICULT THAT WOULD BE. DIFFICULT THAT WOULD BE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE’VE HAD THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE’VE HAD WITH THIS PRESIDENCY. WITH THIS PRESIDENCY. WHICH IS HE HAS SO DUMBED DOWN WHICH IS HE HAS SO DUMBED DOWN ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT IT’S HARD ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT IT’S HARD TO NOTICE HOW OFTEN THEY’RE TO NOTICE HOW OFTEN THEY’RE TRAMPLED. TRAMPLED. I FIND IT ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE I FIND IT ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE THAT THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NOW THE PERMANENT ATTORNEY AND NOW THE PERMANENT ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTH REFUSE TO COMMIT TO GENERAL BOTH REFUSE TO COMMIT TO FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF ETHICS FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF ETHICS LAWYERS. LAWYERS. THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN THE COUNTRY WON’T PERSONNEL IN THE COUNTRY WON’T COMMIT TO DOING THAT. COMMIT TO DOING THAT. I MEAN, THAT IS JUST SHOCKING. I MEAN, THAT IS JUST SHOCKING. >> WHAT ABOUT THE COMMITMENT TO >> WHAT ABOUT THE COMMITMENT TO RELEASE THE MUELLER REPORT? RELEASE THE MUELLER REPORT? YOU DON’T HAVE THAT EITHER. YOU DON’T HAVE THAT EITHER. >> WE DON’T HAVE THAT EITHER. >> WE DON’T HAVE THAT EITHER. NOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HIS NOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HIS CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS SAID CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS SAID THAT HE WOULD RELEASE IT TO A THAT HE WOULD RELEASE IT TO A MAXIMUM DEGREE HE’S ALLOWED TO. MAXIMUM DEGREE HE’S ALLOWED TO. WELL, HE’S ALLOWED TO RELEASE WELL, HE’S ALLOWED TO RELEASE THE WHOLE THING. THE WHOLE THING. WE’RE GOING TO HOLD HIM TO THAT. WE’RE GOING TO HOLD HIM TO THAT. THERE MAY BE CLASSIFIED PORTIONS THERE MAY BE CLASSIFIED PORTIONS THAT NEED TO BE REDACTED, BUT THAT NEED TO BE REDACTED, BUT EVEN THERE THE JUSTICE EVEN THERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS DECLASSIFIED DEPARTMENT HAS DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION LIKE THE FISA INFORMATION LIKE THE FISA OPINIONS, AT LEAST PORTIONS OF OPINIONS, AT LEAST PORTIONS OF THEM. THEM. >> FOR REPUBLICANS. >> FOR REPUBLICANS. >> FOR REPUBLICANS. >> FOR REPUBLICANS. AS OF JUNE OF LAST YEAR, THE AS OF JUNE OF LAST YEAR, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER 880,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY TO 880,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY TO THE REPUBLICANS. THE REPUBLICANS. >> YEAH, AT THE REQUEST OF THE >> YEAH, AT THE REQUEST OF THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. >> AT THE REQUEST, AND BEAR IN >> AT THE REQUEST, AND BEAR IN MIND THAT WENT TO AN MIND THAT WENT TO AN INVESTIGATION IN WHICH NO ONE INVESTIGATION IN WHICH NO ONE WAS INDICTED, IN TERMS OF THE WAS INDICTED, IN TERMS OF THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION. CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION. SO WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SO WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUGGESTS NOW, AS THEY ARE SAYING SUGGESTS NOW, AS THEY ARE SAYING ANONYMOUSLY, THAT, WELL, THEY ANONYMOUSLY, THAT, WELL, THEY CAN’T POSSIBLY SHARE EVIDENCE IN CAN’T POSSIBLY SHARE EVIDENCE IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION THAT DOESN’T RESULT IN INDICTMENT. DOESN’T RESULT IN INDICTMENT. THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE DOUBLE THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE DOUBLE STANDARD. STANDARD. AND I THINK IT WOULD SO AND I THINK IT WOULD SO DRAMATICALLY UNDERMINE PUBLIC DRAMATICALLY UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE IMPARTIALITY CONFIDENCE IN THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IT WOULD BE A MISTAKES THAT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKES THAT WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES -- WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES -- REPUTATIONS CONSEQUENCES NOT REPUTATIONS CONSEQUENCES NOT UNLIKE BUSH V. GORE WHEN THE UNLIKE BUSH V. GORE WHEN THE SUSPECT ABANDONED PRECEDENT. SUSPECT ABANDONED PRECEDENT. THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF A THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN PUBLIC DRAMATIC CHANGE IN PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE SUPREME COURT PERCEPTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS A PARTISAN BODY. AS A PARTISAN BODY. I THINK IF THE JUSTICE I THINK IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT USES A DOUBLE DEPARTMENT USES A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE IT WILL HAVE THE STANDARD HERE IT WILL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK SAME EFFECT OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF THAT DEPARTMENT, WHICH I CAME OF THAT DEPARTMENT, WHICH I CAME OUT OF, WHICH I LOVE, WHICH I, OUT OF, WHICH I LOVE, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, VENERATE AND I DON’T YOU KNOW, VENERATE AND I DON’T WANT TO SEE THE DEPARTMENT GO WANT TO SEE THE DEPARTMENT GO DOWN THAT PATH. DOWN THAT PATH. >> ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT >> ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT AMERICA WILL EVENTUALLY KNOW AMERICA WILL EVENTUALLY KNOW EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT? MUELLER REPORT? THAT YOU IN CONGRESS EITHER THAT YOU IN CONGRESS EITHER THROUGH SUBPOENA POWER OR OTHER THROUGH SUBPOENA POWER OR OTHER METHODS WILL BE ABLE TO GET ALL METHODS WILL BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THAT REVEALED. OF THAT REVEALED. >> I AM. >> I AM. THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT. THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME OUT. WE ARE GOING TO USE WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO COMPEL THE MEANS NECESSARY TO COMPEL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BE FORTH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BE FORTH COMING. COMING. THEY’D BE MUCH BETTER OFF NOT THEY’D BE MUCH BETTER OFF NOT FIGHTING IT, NOT LOOK LIKE FIGHTING IT, NOT LOOK LIKE THEY’RE TRYING TO COVER THEY’RE TRYING TO COVER SOMETHING UP. SOMETHING UP. INDEED, THE CASE FOR PROVIDING INDEED, THE CASE FOR PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION IN THE MUELLER THIS INFORMATION IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS FAR STRONGER INVESTIGATION IS FAR STRONGER THAN IT WAS IN THE CLINTON THAN IT WAS IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. FOR THIS REASON. FOR THIS REASON. ONE OF THE REASONS THE SPECIAL ONE OF THE REASONS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS WERE WRITTEN COUNSEL REGULATIONS WERE WRITTEN AND THE OFFICE WAS CREATED IS AND THE OFFICE WAS CREATED IS BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE NOT BE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE NOT BE ALLOWED TO COVER UP A CRIME. ALLOWED TO COVER UP A CRIME. IN THE CASE OF HILLARY CLINTON, IN THE CASE OF HILLARY CLINTON, SHE WASN’T THE PRESIDENT. SHE WASN’T THE PRESIDENT. THERE WASN’T THAT DANGER THAT THERE WASN’T THAT DANGER THAT SHE COULD COVER UP THINGS SHE COULD COVER UP THINGS BECAUSE SHE CONTROLLED THE BECAUSE SHE CONTROLLED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THAT DANGER EXISTS HERE. THAT DANGER EXISTS HERE. THAT’S A MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAT’S A MUCH MORE POWERFUL REASON FOR TRANSPARENCY AND REASON FOR TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE THAN IT WAS WHEN THEY DISCLOSURE THAN IT WAS WHEN THEY GAVE 880,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY GAVE 880,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY IN THE CLINTON CASE TO THE
