Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Barr Grilled on Mueller Report and His 4-Page Summary; Barr: Didn't Use the Term Spying in a "Pejorative" Way. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired May 01, 2019 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's all he was trying to do, he was not (INAUDIBLE).

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: On collusion or conspiracy.

TAPPER: And on obstruction. And that's his argument. It wasn't a summary for anybody including Bob Mueller who thought it's very much seemed like a summary especially since it was the only thing floating out there for a month.

I want to bring in some of our legal experts here. A lot of heat on the attorney general about whether or not he himself committed perjury or was less than honest when he testified before Congress, you know, between the House and the Senate and was asked about the -- a New York times Report at the time suggesting that members of Mueller's team were upset with the four-page verdict, summary, whatever you want to call it as not being really getting into the weeds and expressing the nuance and the complexities of the case. We now have this letter from Bob Mueller, the special counsel himself to Barr from March 27th making the argument that the March 24th letter did not, quote, fully convey the context, nature, and substance of the office's work and conclusions.

I was talking about how maybe he was successfully hairsplitting as lawyers do in saying I didn't know who these anonymous people talking to the times were about my conclusions. I did know about Mueller and the letter, but that is a separate matter.

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I think he is successfully hairsplitting to defend himself from a perjury charge. But, lawyers hair split when they want to make sure that the question isn't misleading or confusing to their client. So the question is who is his client? His client is not the president, it's not Mueller, it's the American people. So there was nothing misleading about those questions if he is there representing the American people and there to inform people, he should have spoken transparently about it. That's not the time to be hairsplitting.

TAPPER: So what he should have said?

WU: He should have told them I did speak with Bob Mueller. He expressed these things to me, we had this discussions, he's where I come out on. TAPPER: And does he have the prerogative? One of the things that Mueller said, Laura was, in this letter, I wrote two summaries for volume one about conspiracy in which he did not find sufficient evidence. In volume two on obstruction which he basically kicked to the attorney general and then also maybe to Congress, I wrote two summaries that didn't need to be redacted. I wanted you to release them.

Attorney General Barr said I didn't want to do that.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. And he didn't give a good explanation rather than to say well, I had to scrap out the 6e grand jury material. Well, that wasn't the case. Obviously, Mueller over a 22-month investigation was more than aware it would actually become public one day. He contemplates it what needs to be redacted and not and did not incorporate things that shouldn't be in the public's eye in those summations.

If you remember, Barr promised transparency to the extent that he could under the regulations of DOJ. I think he confused the word transparent with opaque perhaps because I think he misconstrues what the two mean. He actually should have been providing the American people with that summation at the very least.

And remember, the actual letter that Mueller wrote to Barr said, first of all, please release it to Congress and the public at this time. He waited three weeks and then the interim gave it to the private attorneys not the White House counsel of the president of the United States. Clearly, he was well aware about what the implications would be. It wasn't because of Rule 6e grand jury testimony. It wasn't because he was trying to simply split hairs.

He was being deceptive, he knew he was. And frankly, I expect a great deal more from the attorney general of the United States because if I had had a witness on the stand pull the same antics he did talking about, oh, I'm sorry, did you mean when you asked the question for the subject and the verb and the predicate to all agree? Oh, I misunderstood that conversation. I would look at you and say well, I hope you like to have a superseding indictment of perjury.

You should expect the same thing for the attorney general of the United States. He knew what he was doing, and he was more than splitting hairs. He was being deceptive and deceitful. An opportunity when he has promised transparency. And at a time he says, I didn't want to (INAUDIBLE). Well, what did you think a hearing was for?

TAPPER: Right.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Bill Barr is not a good witness. I'm thinking of this again through a trial lens. I mean, you can almost see when he's nervous about a question, right? When he's comfortable, when the Republicans are questioning him, he's got his hands full that he is very direct and credible.

But when the Democrats' hand goes up right to the face, he's fiddling with his glasses, he's drinking water. And he's invasive and he's giving what world are we living in kind of answers? He said I was not interested in putting out summaries.

That's all he did for almost a month. He had a press conference, he testified in Congress, he gave us his letter. He is giving bizarre answers like -- at one point he asked, what do you mean by receptive? I think he knows what receptive means. So, if I was at a break right now and he was my witness, I would say get it together, give straight answers both ways. You're transparently leaning one way here.

BLITZER: Let's go up to Capitol Hill. Manu Raju is standing by. Manu, a lot of Democrats are calling on the attorney general Bill Barr to resign and to resign immediately. What are you hearing?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. And a lot of Democrats are calling for Bob Mueller to come and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee or the House Judiciary Committee run by Democrats have invited him to testify by sometime this month.

And just moments ago, a Republican senator essentially joined those calls like Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.

[12:35:05] He -- I asked him about the concerns that he had. What he was hearing from the attorney general and he said that I have, quote, no problem hearing testimony from Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said, quote, I'd like to know what he's unhappy about.

Now, this is different than what the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman has been saying, Lindsey Graham, who said that essentially this, is over after today as far he is concerned. He said Bill Barr will have the final word before his committee. He has no plans. He doesn't want to hear from Bob Mueller.

He said frankly -- this week he said, quote, I don't care about hearing from Mueller in a public setting. I tried to ask Graham just moments ago if he's changed his view on that. He said he's not going to comment about any of this until after today's hearing, no indications that he will. But, Democrats here in the hallway too are seizing on this testimony from this morning, not going as far as saying that he committed perjury, but that he, quote, deliberately misled this committee, definitely misled -- I mean, during past testimony by these conversations and concerns that he apparently heard from Bob Mueller that he did not reveal in his testimony before the House and Senate (INAUDIBLE) panels.

And also I caught up, Wolf, with the Democratic Senator Doug Jones who was one of three Democrats who actually voted to confirm Bill Barr. I said, do you regret your vote for Bill Barr. He would have said I don't regret the vote yet, but he said that he is getting very close to losing confidence. He says that I have -- he told me -- he said that, I'm incredibly disappointed with Barr's handling of the Mueller report. Getting close to losing confidence.

And you're hearing Democrats lined up in criticizing the attorney general in very stark terms. Some Republicans at least want to hear from Bob Mueller, at least one does, John Kennedy. Wolf?

TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much. Just moments from now, Barr's testimony will continue.

Plus, we're going to discuss how the attorney general answered the question of whether it was appropriate for the Trump campaign to be receptive to the help being offered by the Russians. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:30] TAPPER: And just moments from now, senators will continue their questioning of Attorney General Bill Barr on the Mueller report or on Hillary Clinton's various misdeeds depending on what side of the aisle they sit.

Moments ago, Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy pushed the attorney general about the actions of the Trump campaign when it was clearly offered help from the Russians.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): The fact that Mr. Mueller found the Trump campaign was receptive to some of the offers of assistance from Russia or the fact that the Trump campaign never reported any of this to the FBI, does that trouble you?

BILL BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: What would they report to the FBI?

LEAHY: That they are receptive to offers of assistance from Russia.

BARR: What do you mean by receptive? I think the report says -- you know, obviously, they were expecting to benefit from whatever the Russians --

LEAHY: Page 173, the volume one, the report says, in some of the investigations (INAUDIBLE) multiple links between Trump campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offering assistance to the campaign and in some instances, the campaign was receptive to the offer.

Does that bother you at all?

BARR: Well, I have to understand exactly what that refers to, what communications that referred to.

LEAHY: Well, you have the report. I just gave you the page from the report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So let's bring in our team here because Pamela Brown, I would think that an attorney general of the United States of America who has just minutes before acknowledged that the Russians are seeking to interfere in this election and other foreign bodies are seeking to interfere in this election in 2020 and did so in 2016 might say, if anybody from a foreign country offers to help your campaign, offers dirt especially stolen materials about the -- a rival campaign, you should bring that information to the FBI immediately. But that's not what the attorney general (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Especially from a hostile foreign country.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: From a hostile -- I mean, he is the chief law enforcement officer in our country. I can't imagine, first of all, they didn't know what he meant by receptive. And second, the offer of dirt at the Trump Tower meeting at the very least is one example that was laid out on the report. He acted like he didn't know what he was talking about and he's going to have to look at the report.

And as I listened to that, I just think why is he sort of splitting hairs and acting like I don't know, I have to look, and I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you mean. If there is nothing to hide, if everything was above board, if he is been totally transparent and forthcoming, you don't need to split hairs.

BLITZER: You know, he kept suggesting he's the attorney general of the United States --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

BLITZER: -- Bob Mueller is a special counsel so like a U.S. attorney, I'm the boss, I decide, they come to me, and I make the final decisions, he doesn't.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes. He really wanted to convey here this idea that, you know, sort of the public has valorized Mueller and put him on a pedestal. Today, Barr seemed to want to take him down a few knots just to make it very clear who is in charge of this investigation. This is my baby, this is what he said about the report.

And it's interesting, he made it pretty clear I think that he actually doesn't think Mueller did his job because he didn't reach a decision, an ultimate decision on obstruction of justice. And he said what was the purpose of investigating if you weren't going to reach a decision. Well, Mueller says the reason he lays all of this out in such painstaking detail is to preserve the record.

[12:45:01] He says that we want to do this when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. He makes it very clear why he's going to all of this trouble. There was a purpose here.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And look at the contrast -- sorry, just look at the contrast in how Barr answers the questions. Lindsey Graham, the Republican chairman, did Russia interfere? Yes. Is Russia still interfering? Yes. Will you work with us on doing things to prevent that from happening in the future? Yes.

Clear answers, right? But they ripped the rearview mirror out of the car. They refuse to look backwards, they just refused to look at anything that happened in the past. What do you mean by receptive? He's the attorney general of the United States. He's an accomplished attorney in Washington, he was the attorney general 25 years ago.

What do you mean by receptive? Well, it's right here in the report which I assumed he's read. The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the Internet Research Agency and members of the Trump campaign. The investigation identified no similar connections between the Internet Research Agency and the Clinton campaign.

Then it goes on, Don Jr. direct messaging with WikiLeaks. The Trump Tower-Moscow conversations, negotiations continuing well past when everybody in the Trump campaign had said publically they were over. The Trump Tower meeting, other conversations.

So, define receptive, how about taking information from people, engaging in ongoing communications with people when a simple search engine in the case of WikiLeaks would tell you they're kind of suspect. Others being known Russians.

BLITZER: Let me get to Jeffrey Toobin to weigh in. It would seem to be, you know, simple answers instead of these convoluted explanations but that's what we're hearing.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you give convoluted explanations when you don't want to give a simple answer. I mean, the problem that Barr faces particularly with the two questions that we've been focusing on earlier, the one from Congressman Crist and the other from -- Senator Van Hollen about his knowledge of Mueller's discomfort with this whole process.

The reason he's giving these very convoluted answers is that the simple answer is, those answers were untrue. That he was hiding from the Congress, that Mueller was upset about how this whole process had been handled. He was trying to give the impression that Mueller was on board, that everything Barr had said, Mueller endorsed which was not true.

So instead of making that straightforward comment, straightforward answer, he is coming up with these convoluted answers about members of Mueller's staff but not Mueller himself. And, you know, that's a problem. But that's why people give convoluted answers when they don't want to give simple ones.

TAPPER: Any moment now, Barr's testimony is going to continue. This is CNN's special live coverage. We're going to squeeze in a quick break, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:51:51] TAPPER: Lawmakers are just now arriving for round two of the testimony for Attorney General Bill Barr. Listen to this exchange with Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Barr's previous use in previous testimony of the word spying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Have you ever referred to authorized department investigative activities officially or publically as spying? I'm not asking for private conversation or comments.

BARR: I'm not going to abjure the use of the word spying. I think -- you know, my first job was in CIA and I don't think the word spying has any pejorative of connotation at all. To me, the question is always whether or not it's authorized and adequately predicated spying. I think spying is a good English word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating all forms of covert intelligence collection. So I'm not going to back off the word spying except I will say -- I'm not suggesting any pejorative and I use it frequently as the media.

WHITEHOUSE: When did you decide to use it, was it off the cuff in that hearing that day or did you go into that hearing intending to use the word?

BARR: It was actually off the cuff, to tell you the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's bring in our CNN law enforcement analyst, the former FBI supervisory special agent Josh Campbell. You know, Josh, the whole issue of spying, the allegation was that they were officials, sort of deep state officials as a lot of the critics call them who were inside the FBI, your former agency, inside other parts of the U.S. Government who were spying on the Trump campaign during the election.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes. It's interesting to hear the attorney general doubled and tripled down on the use of that word because if you talk to anyone inside the Justice Department or the FBI who I've talked to many, they were very much perplexed by the use of that term. Because I will agree with the attorney general that it is a good English word but within the halls of the Justice Department and the FBI it's only used to refer to what foreign governments do to us for example. When you're trying to stop spies, stop foreign threats. So, to hear that used by a lawyer is very curious.

I also think it's important to note that, you know, there has been this kind of back and forth about whether the Congress or others should be looking into the actions of the FBI during that election. And I think that they should. And a democracy law enforcement can't just say trust us, they have to obviously have that oversight.

And I talked to people who actually welcome it and say, look, this -- you know, we want to be vindicated here, we want to be reviewed. The problem is that there's a question as to whether Bob -- Bill Barr is the person to do that review. He appears conflicted based on the fact that he appears to be running interference for the president whether willingly or unwillingly. He misled the American people on the nature of the Mueller report.

So, people inside the Justice Department and the FBI, they want to be looked at. The question is should he be the one leading that effort.

TAPPER: And Josh, one of the other questions you heard a lot of Republican senators bring up questions about the investigation into Hillary Clinton and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their text messages in which they said rather nasty things about then-candidate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton destroying more than 30,000 e-mails, et cetera.

[12:55:03] Is that all currently being reviewed by the inspector general of the FBI at the Justice Department?

CAMPBELL: So the FB -- the inspector general already went back and looked at the FBI's actions as related to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. They have put out this voluminous report in which they actually -- it's a scathing rebuke of people like, as you mentioned who were texting each other. And, you know, again, I talked to people inside the Justice Department and the FBI who think that those two especially did great harm to the agency and the reputation. The question is, did they actually impact an investigation?

And I think that's where the president and his allies and Senator Graham, for example, to try to conflate the two that you had bad behavior that the attorney general has looked at. Those two people are no longer in the department. And trying to conflate that with the FBI getting to some kind of political motivation and so they were out to get President Trump. Which I have said this before, I'll say it again if there's repeating that if you believe this conspiracy theory that there was this deep state inside the FBI trying to bring down Donald Trump, why didn't anyone know about it in the public before they went to the ballot box?

The FBI kept that investigation secret as they do with most and conducted their work and then -- you know, eventually came and announced that it was under investigation. And when the Justice Department authorized that announcement but at the time, they didn't announce that because they were focussed on the work, not trying to bring down Donald Trump.

TAPPER: All right, Josh Campbell, thanks so much.

BLITZER: You know, I was going to just point out that you see the chairman Lindsey Graham is about to gavel this round two into the session. Bill Barr, the attorney general is in the seat. They always give the photographers a chance to take some pictures, Jake, as you and I know having covered these hearings many times over the year. But by my count, there are still about 14 senators who will each have seven minutes to ask questions.

TAPPER: And three of those senators are Democratic presidential candidates, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kamala Harris of California, and Cory Booker of New Jersey, the third one. And obviously, we expect that they will take advantage of the opportunity to have a national stage when they are running for president to make points that are probably broader than ones that have to do with this specific hearing.

Pamela Brown, let me ask you, what are you waiting to hear resolved or asked at this hearing in the remaining hours?

BROWN: Gosh, there is a lot. But I am not so optimistic that we're going to hear it given how the attorney general hasn't been fully forthcoming it appears or has been hairsplitting as we've said. But I would like to --

BLITZER: Hold on a moment.

TAPPER: Sorry to interrupt, we're going to listen into the hearing.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): -- is Republican Senator Kennedy.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHAM: Oh yes, something you wanted to say, Mr. Attorney General about one of your statements?

BARR: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cornyn asked me about defensive briefings before and as I said there were different kinds of them. And I was referring to the kind where you are told of a specific -- you're a specific target. And I have been told at the break that a lesser kind of briefing, a security briefing that generally discusses, you know, general threats apparently was given to the campaign in August.

GRAHAM: Thank you. Senator Kennedy?

KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to my colleagues for letting me go out of order. I promise to be as brief as possible. Mr. Chairman, thank you -- or Mr. -- or general, thanks for coming today.

Humans have the universal need I think to be listened to, to be understood and to be validated. I think we all share that. I have listened to the Mueller team, I validate them. But I want to be sure I understand them. Has Mr. Mueller or his team changed their conclusions?

BARR: You mean during the course of the investigation?

KENNEDY: No, today. It's clear at least according to press reports, excuse me, general, that at one point, the Mueller team was unhappy. I think it had to do with your letter. What matters to me is -- and I'll get to this in a moment, I want to know first, has the Mueller team changed its mind on its conclusions?

BARR: Its conclusions as to what?

KENNEDY: As to collusion conspiracy and conspiracy.

BARR: Not that I'm aware of.

KENNEDY: So the decision not to bring an indictment against the president for collusion conspiracy with Russia has not changed?

BARR: No, it hasn't. KENNEDY: And the conclusion not to bring an indictment against the president for obstruction of justice has not changed?

BARR: No.

KENNEDY: OK. I take it from your testimony that the Mueller team was unhappy when you received the letter from Mr. Mueller.

[13:00:00]