WHY IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTOR’S HAVE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTOR’S ANSWER ABOUT IF THERE’S ANSWER ABOUT IF THERE’S OBSTRUCTION.

OBSTRUCTION.

>> JOINING US NOW BY PHONE >> JOINING US NOW BY PHONE TRUMP’S LAWYER, JAY SEKULOW.

TRUMP’S LAWYER, JAY SEKULOW.

MR.

SEKULOW, THANK YOU FOR MR.

SEKULOW, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

JOINING US.

GIVE US YOUR INITIAL REACTIONS.

GIVE US YOUR INITIAL REACTIONS.

>> VERY PLEASED.

>> VERY PLEASED.

BOTH ON, FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS BOTH ON, FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS ENTIRE INQUIRY WE HAD SAID THAT ENTIRE INQUIRY WE HAD SAID THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS AND THAT DETERMINATION RUSSIANS AND THAT DETERMINATION PROVED TO BE CORRECT.

PROVED TO BE CORRECT.

WE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NO WE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION, AND THAT ALSO OBSTRUCTION, AND THAT ALSO BECAME CORRECT.

BECAME CORRECT.

SO WE’RE VERY, VERY PLEASED.

SO WE’RE VERY, VERY PLEASED.

WE THINK THIS IS A COMPLETE WE THINK THIS IS A COMPLETE VICTORY FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND VICTORY FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND I — I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT THE I — I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT THE PROCESS UPON WHICH THIS MOVED PROCESS UPON WHICH THIS MOVED THIS WEEKEND WAS VERY, VERY GOOD THIS WEEKEND WAS VERY, VERY GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT THIS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION SO THIS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION SO FAR HAS BEEN RELEASED THIS FAR HAS BEEN RELEASED THIS QUICKLY.

QUICKLY.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE >> WHAT ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE REPORT THAT SAYS ALTHOUGH THE REPORT THAT SAYS ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME IS DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM? IS DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM? >> THAT GOES TO THE STATEMENTS >> THAT GOES TO THE STATEMENTS FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT.

REPORT.

WHERE THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TO WHERE THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT YOU DID, POINT OUT THE FACT THAT YOU DID, NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY COMMITTABLE NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY COMMITTABLE PRIME AND DIDN’T, THE SPECIAL PRIME AND DIDN’T, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT.

COUNSEL DID NOT.

THEFT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE THEFT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE JUSTICE TO DETERMINE THERE JUSTICE TO DETERMINE THERE BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNLIKE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNLIKE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND WHAT INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MADE THE CONCLUSION OF JUSTICE MADE THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION, THAT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME.

CRIME.

AND THAT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE AND THAT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN AS THEY NOTED PUBLICLY, TAKEN AS THEY NOTED PUBLICLY, THE REPORT IDENTIFIES NO ACTIONS THE REPORT IDENTIFIES NO ACTIONS IN OUR SDWLAUCHLTJUDGMENT THAT C IN OUR SDWLAUCHLTJUDGMENT THAT C OBSTRUCTION.

OBSTRUCTION.

>> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT ROBERT >> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT ROBERT MUELLER ASKED DONALD TRUMP AT MUELLER ASKED DONALD TRUMP AT LEAST ON PAPER? LEAST ON PAPER? >> I CANNOT DISCUSS THAT WITH >> I CANNOT DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU AT THIS POINT.

YOU AT THIS POINT.

THAT WOULD BE NOT APPROPRIATE THAT WOULD BE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO DO.

FOR ME TO DO.

WE DID ANSWER A SERIES OF WE DID ANSWER A SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN WRITING THAT THEY QUESTIONS IN WRITING THAT THEY ASKED FOR AND THE PRESIDENT DID ASKED FOR AND THE PRESIDENT DID RESPOND TO THOSE.

RESPOND TO THOSE.

>> IF CONGRESS CONTINUES THIS >> IF CONGRESS CONTINUES THIS AND AT SOME POINT TRIES TO TALK AND AT SOME POINT TRIES TO TALK TO YOU OR TALK TO ANYBODY TO YOU OR TALK TO ANYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS INVESTIGATION, INVOLVED IN THIS INVESTIGATION, HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO HANDLE HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO HANDLE THOSE REQUESTS? THOSE REQUESTS? >> I’M THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.

>> I’M THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.

COMMUNICATIONS THAT I HAVE ARE COMMUNICATIONS THAT I HAVE ARE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

>> IN TERMS OF THE REPORT, AND >> IN TERMS OF THE REPORT, AND WHAT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE WHAT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, ARE YOU EXPECTING TO PUBLIC, ARE YOU EXPECTING TO REQUEST THAT ANYTHING IS REQUEST THAT ANYTHING IS PRIVILEGED IN THE REPORT, OR PRIVILEGED IN THE REPORT, OR WILL YOU ALLOW IT TO BE MADE WILL YOU ALLOW IT TO BE MADE PUBLIC AS-IS? PUBLIC AS-IS? >> THAT’S NOT A DECISION — JUST >> THAT’S NOT A DECISION — JUST TO BE CLEAR.

TO BE CLEAR.

ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THERE’S ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THERE’S EXECUTIVE MATERIAL OR PRIVILEGED EXECUTIVE MATERIAL OR PRIVILEGED MATERIAL WOULD BE A DECISION MATERIAL WOULD BE A DECISION THAT WOULD BE ENGAGED BETWEEN THAT WOULD BE ENGAGED BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WHITE HOUSE.

WHITE HOUSE.

NOT THE PRESIDENT.

NOT THE PRESIDENT.

THAT WOULD NOT BE ME, RIDE YOU THAT WOULD NOT BE ME, RIDE YOU GIULIANI OR OUR LEGAL TEAM NAP GIULIANI OR OUR LEGAL TEAM NAP WOULD BE A DECISION MADE BY THE WOULD BE A DECISION MADE BY THE WHITE HOUSE IN CONSULTATION WITH WHITE HOUSE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE THAT GENERAL BARR MOVED VERY THAT GENERAL BARR MOVED VERY QUICKLY HERE, GETS THE REPORT ON QUICKLY HERE, GETS THE REPORT ON A FRIDAY AT 5:00 AND 48 HOURS A FRIDAY AT 5:00 AND 48 HOURS LATER DELIVERS WHAT THEY CALL LATER DELIVERS WHAT THEY CALL THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS.

THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE.

AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WELL AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT AND OBVIOUSLY WE’RE THOUGHT OUT AND OBVIOUSLY WE’RE VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH THE VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH THE RESULT.

RESULT.

WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAPPENS IN WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE IS NOT REALLY IN — THE FUTURE IS NOT REALLY IN — NOT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NOT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PRIVATE PRESIDENT AND HIS PRIVATE LAWYERS.

LAWYERS.

>> HAVE YOU REQUEST ADD COPY OF >> HAVE YOU REQUEST ADD COPY OF THE MUELLER REPORT IN ITS THE MUELLER REPORT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

ENTIRETY.

>> WE HAVE NOT.

>> WE HAVE NOT.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO? >> ARE YOU GOING TO? >> NOPE.

>> NOPE.

>> WHY NOT? >> WHY NOT? >> NONE OF IT — BECAUSE THE WAY >> NONE OF IT — BECAUSE THE WAY THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN IT THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN IT IS A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT BETWEEN IS A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT BETWEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND WE DON’T HAVE, UNDER THE AND WE DON’T HAVE, UNDER THE REGULATIONS, AND I THINK — WE REGULATIONS, AND I THINK — WE DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN AND DEMAND ACCESS TO THE AND DEMAND ACCESS TO THE UNDERLYING REPORT.

UNDERLYING REPORT.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE CONGRESS >> DO YOU BELIEVE CONGRESS SHOULD STOP INVESTIGATING? SHOULD STOP INVESTIGATING? >> I MEAN, LOOK, YES.

>> I MEAN, LOOK, YES.

I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF, I I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF, I MEAN, I CANNOT COUNT THE NUMBER MEAN, I CANNOT COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES PEOPLE ON ALL THE OF TIMES PEOPLE ON ALL THE NETWORKS SAID, WE HAVE NETWORKS SAID, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.

COLLUSION.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF AND THE RUSSIANS, SOME CALLED IT AND THE RUSSIANS, SOME CALLED IT TREASONOUS, OTHERS COLLUSION OR TREASONOUS, OTHERS COLLUSION OR CONSPIRACY WITH THE RUSSIANS, CONSPIRACY WITH THE RUSSIANS, INTERFERENCE BY THE RUSSIANS INTERFERENCE BY THE RUSSIANS KNOWINGLY MADE BY THE PRESIDENT.

KNOWINGLY MADE BY THE PRESIDENT.

ALL THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE.

ALL THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE.

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOOK A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOOK A CONTRARY VIEW.

CONTRARY VIEW.

THERE WAS NOT COLLUSION.

THERE WAS NOT COLLUSION.

THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED, AND INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED, AND THE CONCLUSION WAS UNEQUIVOCAL THE CONCLUSION WAS UNEQUIVOCAL THERE WAS NONE.

THERE WAS NONE.

>> CAN YOU MAYBE SHED LIGHT ON >> CAN YOU MAYBE SHED LIGHT ON THIS FOR US? THIS FOR US? A QUESTION WE’VE BEEN ASKING A A QUESTION WE’VE BEEN ASKING A LOT.

LOT.

WHY DID SO MANY OF THOSE AROUND WHY DID SO MANY OF THOSE AROUND DONALD TRUMP ON THE QUESTION OF DONALD TRUMP ON THE QUESTION OF CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA LIE ABOUT CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA LIE ABOUT IT IF THERE WAS NOTHING IT IF THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON? NEFARIOUS GOING ON? >> I CANNOT ADDRESS THAT AS THE >> I CANNOT ADDRESS THAT AS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.

PRESIDENT’S LAWYER.

IT’S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD KNOW IT’S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD KNOW OR BE AWARE OF, BUT THE OR BE AWARE OF, BUT THE PRESIDENT, AND THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT, AND THEY SAID THE CAMPAIGN AS WELL IN THE REPORT, CAMPAIGN AS WELL IN THE REPORT, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION, PERIOD.

COLLUSION, PERIOD.

UNEQUIVOCAL.

UNEQUIVOCAL.

>> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE >> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT? PRESIDENT? >> IF I DID, I WOULDN’T TELL >> IF I DID, I WOULDN’T TELL YOU.

YOU.

>> WHY NOT? >> WHY NOT? >> BUT I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO >> BUT I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OR HAVE NOT HAD WITH PRESIDENT OR HAVE NOT HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT, NEEDLESS TO SAY THE PRESIDENT, NEEDLESS TO SAY WE’RE VERY PLEASED.

WE’RE VERY PLEASED.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT >> WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF? HIMSELF? I’M SURE YOU’VE TALKED TO HIM I’M SURE YOU’VE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THIS.

ABOUT THIS.

I HAVE NOT ASKED HIM THIS — I HAVE NOT ASKED HIM THIS — >> JUST SENT OUT A STATEMENT.

>> JUST SENT OUT A STATEMENT.

>> I ASKED ABOUT THIS IN THE >> I ASKED ABOUT THIS IN THE MOMENT BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SHED MOMENT BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SHED MORE LIGHT ON THIS.

MORE LIGHT ON THIS.

WHY GET ON A STAGE AND ASK WHY GET ON A STAGE AND ASK RUSSIA TO FIND HILLARY CLINTON’S RUSSIA TO FIND HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS? E-MAILS? >> I’M NOT GOING TO — I’M NOT >> I’M NOT GOING TO — I’M NOT GOING TO WHAT WE CALL RELITIGATE GOING TO WHAT WE CALL RELITIGATE FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

ALL OF THESE FACTS AND ALL OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE OUT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE OUT THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY EVALUATED THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY EVALUATED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEY BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEY CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

COLLUSION.

>> THE PRESIDENT TWEETED, NO >> THE PRESIDENT TWEETED, NO COLLUSION.

COLLUSION.

NO OBSTRUCTION.

NO OBSTRUCTION.

COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION.

COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION.

>> THAT’S CORRECT.

>> THAT’S CORRECT.

>> KEEP AMERICA GREAT.

>> KEEP AMERICA GREAT.

WERE YOU GIVEN ADVICE OVER THE WERE YOU GIVEN ADVICE OVER THE WEEKEND TO KEEP QUIET UNTIL THIS WEEKEND TO KEEP QUIET UNTIL THIS CAME OUT? CAME OUT? >> IF I WAS YOUR LAWYER WOULD >> IF I WAS YOUR LAWYER WOULD YOU WANT ME TELLING THE ADVICE I YOU WANT ME TELLING THE ADVICE I DID OR DID NOT GIVE TO YOU? DID OR DID NOT GIVE TO YOU? YOU WOULD NOT WANT ME TO DO YOU WOULD NOT WANT ME TO DO THAT.

THAT.

I’M NOT GOING SAY.

I’M NOT GOING SAY.

>> AND LOTS OF LEGAL MINDS ON >> AND LOTS OF LEGAL MINDS ON THE PANEL NOW WHO ARE THE PANEL NOW WHO ARE QUESTIONING HOW QUICKLY BILL QUESTIONING HOW QUICKLY BILL BARR WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT BARR WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.

THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.

WE KNOW THAT ROBERT MUELLER WE KNOW THAT ROBERT MUELLER PRESENTED BOTH SIDES OF THE PRESENTED BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

ISSUE.

EVIDENCE TO SAY HE DID OBSTRUCT, EVIDENCE TO SAY HE DID OBSTRUCT, EVIDENCE THAT HE DID NOT.

EVIDENCE THAT HE DID NOT.

A LOT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE A LOT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE ALREADY.

ALREADY.

WE’VE BEEN REPORTING ON IT.

WE’VE BEEN REPORTING ON IT.

THE COMEY FIRING.

THE COMEY FIRING.

THE TWEETS, ET CETERA.

THE TWEETS, ET CETERA.

THE BEHAVIOR PRESUMABLY TO JEFF THE BEHAVIOR PRESUMABLY TO JEFF SESSIONS AMONG THOSE.

SESSIONS AMONG THOSE.

THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PRESUMING.

THAT’S WHAT WE’RE PRESUMING.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO SAY WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO SAY THAT, THAT, ASK HOW QUICKLY CAN THAT, THAT, ASK HOW QUICKLY CAN BOB BARR, WILL WILLIAM BARR BOB BARR, WILL WILLIAM BARR REALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF REALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT? THAT? >> FIRST OF ALL, THE DEPUTY >> FIRST OF ALL, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WAS INVOLVED IN THIS FROM STATES WAS INVOLVED IN THIS FROM THE OUTSET AND YOU SAW IN THE THE OUTSET AND YOU SAW IN THE LETTER HE WAS NOT ONLY CONSULTED LETTER HE WAS NOT ONLY CONSULTED BUT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THAT BUT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE THAT BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROB THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROB ROSENSTEIN AND I CONCLUDED, ROSENSTEIN AND I CONCLUDED, READING FROM THE LETTER.

READING FROM THE LETTER.

THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED DURING THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED DURING THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.

ALSO IMPORTANTLY SAID HERE OUR ALSO IMPORTANTLY SAID HERE OUR DETERMINATION WAS MADE WITHOUT DETERMINATION WAS MADE WITHOUT REGARD TO AND IS NOT BASED ON REGARD TO AND IS NOT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION SURROUNDING THE INDICTMENT AND SURROUNDING THE INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OF A SITTING CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT.

THAT’S IMPORTANT BEAUX IT WAS THAT’S IMPORTANT BEAUX IT WAS NOT A DECLINATION BECAUSE YOU NOT A DECLINATION BECAUSE YOU CAN’T INDICT A SITTING CAN’T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT.

A FACTUAL DECISION THERE WAS NOT A FACTUAL DECISION THERE WAS NOT EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.

EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.

>> WHY DID THE PRESIDENT NOT SIT >> WHY DID THE PRESIDENT NOT SIT BACK AND ALLOW THIS BACK AND ALLOW THIS INVESTIGATION TO HAPPEN? INVESTIGATION TO HAPPEN? WHY WAS HE SO INVOLVED? WHY WAS HE SO INVOLVED? >> THE INVESTIGATION DID HAPPEN.

>> THE INVESTIGATION DID HAPPEN.

GOING AN ALMOST TWO YEARS.

GOING AN ALMOST TWO YEARS.

BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED WITH BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED WITH ALL THE ATTACKS ON THAT ISSUE, ALL THE ATTACKS ON THAT ISSUE, AND THAT WERE MADE.

AND THAT WERE MADE.

BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED.

BOB MUELLER WAS NOT FIRED.

NO FBI AGENT INVOLVED IN THE NO FBI AGENT INVOLVED IN THE CASE WAS INTERFERED WITH.

CASE WAS INTERFERED WITH.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THERE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

WAS NO COLLUSION.

THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION DETERMINATION HERE.