PENN/BIDEN CENTER BEING INAUGURATED TODAY NEAR THE CAPITOL. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS BREAKING TODAY. YOU’VE BEEN A BIG SUPPORTER OF COMBATTING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, THE LEGISLATION. HERE YOU HAVE THE FBI WARNING THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS WHITE HOUSE, FOR MONTHS THAT ONE OF THE TOP ADVISERS IN AND OUT OF THE OVAL OFFICE WAS ACCUSED BY TWO EX-WIVES OF DOMESTIC ABUSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIS ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF FRANKLY IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, DESCRIBING HIM AS A MAN OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY?>>I CAN’T EXPLAIN IT. IT’S LONG PAST DUE THAT HE LEFT. I UNDERSTAND HE’S DEPARTED. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF ONE THING, THE FBI DIDN’T THINK HE SHOULD GET A PERMANENT SECURITY CLEARANCE.>>THEY HAD TO KNOW THAT.>>SURE, THEY KNEW THAT.>>THEY WERE WARNED?>>AND — LOOK, THE CULTURE’S CHANGING, BUT NOT FAST ENOUGH. THE IDEA THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE OVAL OFFICE. NOW, I DON’T KNOW, I HEARD IN THE WAY I WAS BRIEFED ON THE WAY IN THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, HE SAID GO. IF THAT’S THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER KNEW ABOUT IT, GOOD FOR THE PRESIDENT.>>HOW COULD THE PRESIDENT NOT KNOW THAT ONE OF HIS CLOSEST ADVISERS DID NOT HAVE A TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE? WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND THIS WHITE HOUSE?>>OH, ANDREA, LOOK, I’M HAVING ENORMOUS DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS WHITE HOUSE FUNCTIONS AND WHO’S ON FIRST, WHO’S ON SECOND AND WHO’S PITCHING, WHO’S CATCHING. I MEAN, IT REALLY IS CONFUSING. ALL I KNOW IS THAT THE RESULT OF THIS SEEMS LIKE CONTROLLED CHAOS, IT’S DAMAGING US INTERNATIONALLY, DOMESTICALLY, AND I CAN’T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN’T GET THEIR ARMS AROUND JUST THE FUNCTIONING, THE DAY-TO-DAY FUNCTIONING OF THE WHITE HOUSE.>>WELL, LET ME TAKE YOU BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID JUST THE OTHER DAY ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD SIT DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT MUELLER. AND YOU SAID THAT YOUR ADVICE — YOU’RE A LAWYER — WOULD BE THAT HE SHOULD NOT, BECAUSE TO QUOTE YOU, HE HAS SOME DIFFICULTY WITH PRECISION. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT IS THIS. >>WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY MISSTATEMENTS, DELIBERATE MISSTATEMENTS. AND YOU LOOK AT HIM AND WONDER WHAT IN THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT. FROM THE FIRST DAY, SAYING THAT THE LARGEST CROWD EVER AT AN INAUGURATION, TO TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE. BUT IT’S ALMOST LIKE IT’S — IT’S BEEN DUMBED DOWN SO MUCH ALMOST LIKE IT DOESN’T MATTER. BUT HE SAYS THINGS — >>BUT IT DOES MATTER BECAUSE HE’S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.>>IT MATTERS IMMENSELY. IT MATTERS IMMENSELY. BUT IT’S JUST, I FIND HIM JUST NOT CREDIBLE IN THE THINGS HE SAYS.>>DO YOU MEAN THAT HE’S A LIAR?>>LOOK, I’M NOT GOING TO CALL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A LIAR. HE DOES NOT TELL THE TRUTH. HE’S NOT ACCURATE IN MUCH OF WHAT HE SAYS.>>SO TO TAKE IT FURTHER, IF HE DOES NOT AGREE TO AN INTERVIEW, DOES THAT MEAN HE’S ABOVE THE LAW?>>NO. HE CAN BE SUBPOENAED. LOOK, I WAS LITERALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION, IF I WERE HIS LAWYER, WHAT WOULD I RECOMMEND. NOW, I THINK HE SHOULD GO BEFORE THE COUNSEL. HE SAYS HE WANTS TO DO IT. DO IT. GO AHEAD. BUT I WAS ANSWERING A LITERAL QUESTION. I PUT ON MY HAT AS A LAWYER. WERE I HIS LAWYER, WOULD I LET HIM GO BEFORE THE COUNSEL AND ANSWER QUESTIONS? I WOULD BE VERY, VERY CONCERNED. YOU CAN TELL HIS WHOLE TEAM IS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HE SAYS. I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE CHIEF OF STAFF A LONG TIME AGO ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO STOP HIS TWEETING. AND IT’S NOT JUST HIS TWEETING, IT’S INACCURATE TWEETING. HE’S LIKE A LOOSE CANNON. AND I DON’T — BUT HE SHOULD, A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS SECURITY BREACHES THAT’S OCCURRED IN AMERICAN HISTORY, RUSSIA ATTEMPTING TO AFFECT AN IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS. THEY’RE DOING IT IN EUROPE ON A REGULAR BASIS.>>MEXICO?>>MEXICO. THEY’RE DOING IT — AND THEY’RE TRYING TO DECONSTRUCT A LIBERAL ORDER, THE NOTION OF FREEDOM OF DEMOCRACY, THEY’RE TRYING TO DECONSTRUCT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE BUILT UP AFTER WORLD WAR II THAT WERE DESIGNED TO — AND I JUST CAN’T FATHOM, I CAN’T FATHOM WHY THE PRESIDENT, JUST AS A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, LET ALONE AS PRESIDENT, WOULD NOT BE LOOKING FOR EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA IN EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SHOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHAT THEY’RE ATTEMPTING TO CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO DO.>>LET ME JUST BUTTON DOWN WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO AN INTERVIEW OR NOT.>>OBVIOUSLY HE SHOULD.>>CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TAKE THE FIFTH AND NOT SUFFER GRIEVOUS POLITICAL HARM, OR CAN THIS PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH TAKING THE FIFTH?>>WELL, I — YOU KNOW, IF THE PRESIDENT TOOK THE FIFTH, HE IS BY DEFINITION, IN MY VIEW, ABDICATING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. THE IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS, I TAKE THE FIFTH, THAT I MIGHT INCRIMINATE MYSELF IN SOMETHING THAT IS THIS CONSEQUENCE, YOU KNOW, THAT TO ME IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE AS AN INDIVIDUAL. IT’S AN ABHORRENT NOTION AS A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OPINION. >>– THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.>>>YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, THE CIA CHIROPRACTOR AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAVE SAID IT’S STILL GOING ON. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID WE CAN’T STOP THEM BETWEEN NOW AND THE MID TERMS. IS THAT BECAUSE THIS WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT MOVED AGGRESSIVELY?>>ABSOLUTELY. LOOK, MY UNDERSTANDING — AND I DON’T KNOW, I DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ANYMORE. I DON’T GET BRIEFED EVERY MORNING BY THE AGENCY AS I DID FOR EIGHT YEARS. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS, THEIR ATTEMPTS ARE CONTINUING. WHAT WE DO KNOW, WHAT I’M TOLD, IS, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN INTERAGENCY, BRINGING ALL THE RELEVANT AGENCIES TOGETHER AT ONE TIME IN ONE MEETING, TO FOCUS ON HOW DO WE STOP THEM. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE’S NOT EVEN BEEN AN INTERAGENCY MEETING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.>>FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE DEMOCRATIC REPORT SAID THAT’S NEGLIGENCE.>>IT IS NEGLIGENCE. IT’S ABSOLUTELY NEGLIGENCE. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SECRETARY OF STATE SAYING, WE KNOW THEY’RE STILL DOING THIS AND WE CAN’T STOP THEM. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? HAVE YOU BROUGHT TOGETHER THE CIA, HAVE YOU BROUGHT TOGETHER ALL THE AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY, AT LEAST, TO BE ABLE TO STOP AND THWART WHAT THEY’RE DOING? HAVEN’T EVEN DONE THAT.>>WHY DO YOU THINK THIS PRESIDENT IS SO RELUCTANT TO TAKE ON VLADIMIR PUTIN?>>LOOK, I — YOU KNOW, I — I WANT TO GIVE EVERY AMERICAN, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. BUT I CAN’T FATHOM ANY REASON OTHER THAN, HE IS CONCERNED WHAT PUTIN MIGHT SAY OR DO, OR WHAT INFORMATION HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE. BUT UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S COLLUSION, SEPARATE AND APART FROM ALL THAT, IT’S NECESSARY FOR US TO STEM THIS PROBLEM. IT’S NECESSARY FOR US TO CORRAL THE RUSSIANS. I JUST WROTE A MAJOR PIECE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TALKING — AND THE FIRST CALL I GET, I GOT A CALL FROM FORMER PRIME MINISTER WANTING TO PUT TOGETHER A GROUP OF SIX OR SEVEN, SITTING AND NON-SITTING PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTING THE PANA PLEA OF LEFT TO RIGHT IN EUROPE TO SET UP AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN EUROPE. AFTER I WROTE THE ARTICLE. I MEAN, WHAT HAS TO BE DONE? WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO CONVINCE THESE GUYS THAT THEY’RE BEING DERELICT IN THEIR DUTY AND THEY ARE, IN FACT, JEOPARDIZING AMERICAN SECURITY?>>IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE ATTACKING THE FBI, AS HE HAS FROM DAY ONE, WHEN THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING HIM?>>LET’S ASSUME THE FBI WASN’T INVESTIGATING HIM. LET’S ASSUME THE FBI WAS DOING BAD THINGS. THE WAY TO SETTLE IT IS INTERNALLY, FIRST FIX IT. THEN ANNOUNCE YOU FIXED IT. BUT WE’RE MAKING VLADIMIR PUTIN’S CASE HERE. WHAT IS EVERYTHING — AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS INSIDE AND OUT. WHAT IS VLADIMIR PUTIN’S OBJECTIVE THE LAST SIX, EIGHT, TEN YEARS? IT’S TO DELEGITIMIZE THE WEST. DELEGITIMIZE THEM. SO HERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SAYING THAT THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS NOT RELEVANT, IS NOT REASONABLE, IS NOT HONEST, IS NOT — ALL THOSE THINGS. PUTIN MUST BE SITTING BEHIND HIS DESK IN THE KREMLIN GOING, IT’S WORKING, MAN. THE REST OF THE WORLD GETS THE MESSAGE THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS NOT TRUTHFUL, IS NOT HONEST, IS PLOTTING AGAINST HIM, IS A DEEP STATE. MY GOD!>>WELL, YOU KNEW THIS WAS HAPPENING, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT BEFORE THE ELECTION.>>YES.>>THE ADMINISTRATION, YOUR ADMINISTRATION SAID SOMETHING ON OCTOBER 7th. THE AGENCIES WERE WORKING ON IT. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THAT IF YOU HAD THOUGHT HE WOULD WIN, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OUTSPOKEN, BUT YOU WERE SO CONFIDENT HILLARY CLINTON WAS GOING TO WIN. WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN MORE FORCEFUL, SPOKEN OUT MORE IF YOU THOUGHT SHE WERE GOING TO LOSE.>>IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. FIRST OF ALL, WE DIDN’T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE ULTIMATELY HAD IN JANUARY. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WE DIDN’T WANT TO PLAY INTO PUTIN’S HANDS, DOING THE THING THAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF BARACK OBAMA HAD COME OUT AND SAID, THE FBI HAS INFORMATION THAT THE TRUMP TEAM IS COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO TIP THE ELECTION TO HILLARY CLINTON? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHAOS. AND WE DIDN’T HAVE THE DATA WE HAVE NOW. WE DIDN’T HAVE THE DATA WE HAD EVEN IN JANUARY. AND WE DID GO BEFORE THE ELECTION, TO MITCH McCONNELL AND SAY, WE SHOULD PUT OUT A JOINT STATEMENT, SO WE DON’T MAKE RUSSIA’S CASE FOR THEM, THAT WE JOINTLY ARE, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN, NOT BRINGING A JUDGMENT WHO’S A BAD GUY, WHO’S A GOOD GUY, WE’RE LOOKING AT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. THEY WOULDN’T DO IT.>>HILLARY CLINTON AND HER SUPPORTERS CERTAINLY ARE BLAMING IT ALL ON JAMES COMEY BECAUSE SHE WAS — THE MOMENTUM WAS RISING AND, BAM, HE CAME OUT LATE IN THE GAME AND RE-OPENED THE E-MAIL INVESTIGATION. DO YOU BLAME JAMES COMEY? WOULD SHE HAVE WON IF NOT FOR JAMES COMEY?>>IT’S HARD TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. BUT WE’RE MIXING TWO THINGS NOW. JAMES COMEY WASN’T INVESTIGATING THE RUSSIANS. JAMES COMEY WAS INVESTIGATING HER E-MAILS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE — I KNOW YOU DIDN’T INTEND TO DO THAT — >>BUT IF HE HAD NOT RE-OPENED THE E-MAIL INVESTIGATION — >>STRAIGHT QUESTION. LOOK, THERE’S NO DOUBT IT HAD TO HURT HER. WHETHER THAT WAS ENOUGH TO MAKE THE 72,000-VOTE DIFFERENCE IN THE KEY STATES, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN. BUT LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, IT SURE DIDN’T HELP.>>WOULD SHE HAVE WON IF SHE WERE A BETTER CANDIDATE?>>I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS SOMETHING WE’VE NEVER SEEN IN AMERICAN POLITICS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE AND THE PRESS THOUGHT THAT HE HAD DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF 15 TIMES, YOU KNOW, BY THE THINGS HE SAID ABOUT HIS GROPING WOMEN, THE — AND WHAT I REALIZED, THE SHOREN STEEN SCHOOL AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY DID A STUDY. ONLY 4% OF ALL THE CHATTER AND ALL THE NEWS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON HAD TO DO WITH ISSUES. HE WAS — LOOKING AT IT IN RETROSPECT, THINK ABOUT IT WHEN HE STARTED LOSING THE FIGHT IN THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE, WHAT DID HE DO? HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT TAKING A KNEE IN A FOOTBALL GAME, KAEPERNICK, AND THESE DISTRACTING INITIATIVES, WHICH YOU THINK WOULD BE DISQUALIFYING ISSUES FOR THIS CANDIDATE, SEEM TO WORK FOR HIM. BUT SHE WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES? HOW DO WOMEN WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO WORK, PAY $22,000 A YEAR IN WASHINGTON FOR CHILDCARE AND STILL WORK? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE PEOPLE MAKING SENDING

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *