Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Barr Reports that Mueller Found No Trump-Russia Conspiracy; Trump's Attorney, Jay Sekulow, is Interviewed about the Mueller Report; Rep. David Cicilline (D), Rhode Island, is Interviewed about the Democratic Post-Mueller Report Plans. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired March 25, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Central Florida have both this --

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS: Couldn't believe they didn't go down.

[07:00:03] BERMAN: Andy Scholes, thank you very much.

And of course, the lead story, Rob Gronkowski retiring. We have under covered what is the biggest story on earth today. But nevertheless, thank you, our international viewers for watching. For you, "CNN TALK" is next.

For our U.S. viewers, President Trump's attorney joins us live. NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP'S LAWYER (via phone): The president did not engage in collusion now. That is proven beyond any doubt.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want a summary of the report. I want the whole damn report.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's exonerated. Why can't Democrats acknowledge that fact?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: This does not amount to a total exoneration. Congress must step in to get the truth.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Shame on Mueller for not having the guts to come to a decision.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a shame that our country had to go through this. This was an illegal takedown that failed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. President Trump scoring a significant political and legal victory. In a letter summarizing the special counsel's report, Attorney General William Barr says Robert Mueller did not find that the president or his campaign or his associates conspired with Russia.

On the question of obstruction, the Mueller report did not make any conclusions about whether the president broke the law, but it also did not exonerate him. Mueller did not decide to charge him with obstructing justice. He punted on that decision. Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein choosing not to charge the president, saying there was not sufficient evidence to support any prosecution.

BERMAN: President Trump was jubilant over the results of the investigation, even as he blasted it as legal and illegal takedown that failed and even though the Mueller report explicitly says it did not exonerate the president on obstruction, the president called it a complete and total exoneration.

Congressional Democrats, they want to see the evidence that the Mueller team gathered on obstruction. And the House judiciary chair, Jerry Nadler, wants the attorney general to testify. But Democrats also have questions to answer, particularly those who claim they saw clear evidence of collusion.

CAMEROTA: All right. Joining us now is one of the president's attorneys, Jay Sekulow.

Good morning, Mr. Sekulow.

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Hi, Alisyn. Good to see you.

CAMEROTA: Great to have you.

SEKULOW: Thanks.

CAMEROTA: Did you have -- have you had a chance to talk to Attorney General Barr in the past 24 hours?

SEKULOW: I have not.

CAMEROTA: So he spoke to one of your colleagues, Emmet Flood, but not to you directly.

SEKULOW: Right. So Emmet represents the White House. I'm the president's private lawyer. Emmet is within the White House counsel's office. So the protocol was for the attorney general's office to notify the White House counsel when the information was being transmitted.

CAMEROTA: Did Mr. Flood share with you, or do you know how long the actual Mueller report is? How many pages?

SEKULOW: I do not. I don't have that information. I will see that information when you see it. Again, as a private counsel, we don't have the right. It's a

confidential report. So it goes between the -- under the regulations, the report goes between the special counsel directly to the attorney general.

CAMEROTA: And do you have a sense of when --

SEKULOW: As private lawyers, we don't get it.

CAMEROTA: Thank you. Do you have a sense of when you and I and the rest of the public will see that?

SEKULOW: Well, based on the way they moved on getting this report out that they did over the weekend, I expect it to be, you know, expeditiously. I don't have a time frame. They're going to have to look at -- there's a couple things, Alisyn, they have to look at. You can't release 6-E material, which is grand jury material. That could be released grand jury material. It can be criminal. So that's serious.

National security information, that may be in there. Also, you can't compromise our national security interests. So you've got a series of things that will have to be happening internally within the Department of Justice to evaluate what gets released. But Bill Barr said he wants to do as much transparency, or provide as much transparency as possible, and I take him at his word.

CAMEROTA: And on your end, do you imagine having to redact anything for executive privilege, anything like that?

SEKULOW: So on the executive privilege issue, that, again, would fall within the context of the White House counsel. In consultation with the Department of Justice, because both of them, both the DOJ and the White House are within the Article II branch of government.

As the private lawyers, we don't inject ourselves into that. That's not what we -- we inject ourselves -- our representation was to the president. Their representation is to the office of the presidency.

CAMEROTA: So the president was exonerated in terms of conspiracy, and in terms of collusion, as we've been saying. The term that people have been using with Russia, as was -- were his associates and his campaign.

But as you know, it was much more ambiguous on the question of obstruction of justice.

Here's what it said: "The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Do you know what Robert Mueller means by "difficult issues of law and fact"? [07:05:03] SEKULOW: I think I do. And that is, in obstruction of

justice cases are very fact-intensive, and there's questions of law.

So he finds that there are very difficult questions of law and facts here, leading him to not be able to make a conclusion as the special counsel as to whether there was any obstruction here. So what he did was follow -- remember, he's not an independent counsel. He's within the Department of Justice -- so he, Bob Mueller, by the book, did what a U.S. attorney could do.

And then you go to the Office of Legal Counsel. They look at these issues and determine whether a theory based on the facts presented is cognizable as something they could bring forward.

Here, the decision was made by the Office of Legal Counsel and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, and ultimately, the attorney general of the United States that there was no basis upon which an obstruction of justice charge could be met, and that is where the president can easily say that he was vindicated on both obstruction and collusion.

CAMEROTA: But total exoneration is what the president said, and that's not accurate.

SEKULOW: Well, no, I think it is, because let's -- let me read something that says, "In cataloging the president's actions, many of which took place in the public, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct."

That's about as vindicated and exonerated as you can be.

It's -- there were questions of law and fact. As the special counsel said, difficult questions of law and fact, which meant that, when they were looking at it, they could not conclude there was criminality. And as you pointed out, Alisyn, they did not say that the president violated or constituted an act of obstruction. They couldn't make the conclusion. They did what a prosecutorial office would do, and that's refer it upstairs, so to speak. And that's where the determination was made.

CAMEROTA: I appreciate that. But nor could they exonerate him. Let me read you again --

SEKULOW: Well, there you know prosecutors don't exonerate, by the way.

CAMEROTA: But here is what it says. This is a quote from the special counsel: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." And so for the president to say total exoneration, that's not what it says in here.

SEKULOW: Well, under the department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would not be able to prove reasonable doubt to establish obstruction of justice offense. That's what the letter from the attorney general says. And what the special counsel says, Alisyn, is that these were

difficult questions of law. In other words, the theory of law they were operating on was difficult, and difficult questions of fact.

So you -- when you have difficult questions of law and fact, you don't bring an action. And that's what happened here. So he really followed the guidelines.

CAMEROTA: Yes, I mean, obviously, I think it would be helpful to see more context from the actual Mueller report so that everybody could see what it was that Robert Mueller was wrestling with. And you have no problem I think, and the president -- correct me if I'm wrong -- with releasing that full Mueller report?

SEKULOW: Look, here's what happens. I think Bob Mueller's made it very clear. He's going to release, as I said, as much of this report as he can under the guidelines.

Obviously, the 6-E, the grand jury material, national security material. People that were looked at but were exonerated should not be released. That would be inappropriate under our system of justice. That's why James Comey what he did in intervening in the Hillary Clinton matter was incorrect and inappropriate.

So I think, look, he's going to move quickly on this. I think he's moving expeditiously, and we will see a lot more information. He got this out quickly. I think that helped a lot of us, helped the lawyers, helped the media so that we have something that we can at least talk about and then ultimately the report will be released according to the regulations.

CAMEROTA: Here's an important question. Will you release the president's answers, the written answers, that you gave to Robert Mueller's team? Can the public see those?

SEKULOW: Well that would not be a position that I would want to just make a statement, where we would release confidential communications that took place between the president of the United States and the Department of Justice or the special counsel's office.

If I was representing Alisyn Camerota and put forward a written statement, and there was a declination as to any legal liability, I would fight very aggressively for that information to not be released. I think any lawyer would.

CAMEROTA: But why? I mean, in the interests of transparency?

SEKULOW: Well, why because --

CAMEROTA: Talked so much about those written answers, and they do seem to be some of what Robert Mueller hinged his conclusions on. Why not?

SEKULOW: Well, just because as a lawyer, you don't wave privileges. And you don't waive -- you don't waive investigative detail, absent either a court order or an agreement between the parties, and you'd have to weigh a lot of factors there and how that affects other presidencies.

So I think that it's not as simple just to wave your hand and we release the document. I think that would be very inappropriate. As I said, if I was representing you in a case, and we came to a voluntary determination to submit answers in writing, and then you were exonerated, I don't think that that would be material that would be relevant to the general public.

That will be a decision the attorney general makes. But I have some strong opinions about that.

CAMEROTA: Since the president has felt that he is totally exonerated, he sounded -- when he spoke to reporters yesterday, he sounded still sort of angry, and as though he was looking for some sort of -- I don't know what the word is, vengeance or some sort of retaliation, I guess. And he said that he sure hoped that somebody would look into the other side.

What is next? What does that mean?

[07:10:22] SEKULOW: Well, look, I mean, there's serious questions that were raised, irregularities throughout this investigation. No one denies that. I'm not going to restate. We've talked about him before. I'm not going to restate them again. It's -- there's a laundry list of these, and I'm not going to get into

whether the Department of Justice is investigating something else or not.

But I will say this to the United States House of Representatives and to the United States Senate. And in their oversight capacities and their congressional inquiries.

Let me tell you what they're not going to get. They're not going to get 500 search warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, 230 orders of communication records, 50 orders offering use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interview approximately 500 people. And to keep that going, rather than doing the people's business, I think, to me personally, is -- would be tragic when we have the opportunity in our country right now, I think there's a growing consensus on immigration reform. How about spending the time and effort on that for the American people. I think that would be a really good move.

I think this has been fully investigated and fully vetted and concluded. I hope that Congress moves forward.

CAMEROTA: And do you feel that the Congress should also move forward on not investigating, for instance, the president's political rivals, as he seemed to be suggesting?

SEKULOW: Well, the Congress, I don't see any movement on the president investigating, or the president's political rivals being investigated by anyone right now.

CAMEROTA: I mean, he just called for that. I was just saying, because he seemed to call for something like that yesterday. SEKULOW: Well, no, the president wonders -- I mean, it's a legitimate

thing to ask, and that is, you've got, you know -- you had a three- year investigation of the president started as a counterintelligence investigation off of an unverified and salacious dossier, which without question -- and I think we all agree -- Bob Mueller said no evidence of any collusion with the Russian government. That's what started this whole thing.

CAMEROTA: Hold on.

SEKULOW: And then --

CAMEROTA: I mean, I don't want to relitigate all this, but as you know, that's not what started this whole thing. I mean, what the FISA warrant said was it was George Papadopoulos. It was the Australian ambassador was so concerned about what George Papadopoulos seemed to know when he was spouting off at a bar that they called the U.S. and alerted people, because they were so concerned that George Papadopoulos seemed to know that the Russians had hacked the DNC.

SEKULOW: You're conflating -- you're conflating the FISA issue with the counterintelligence investigation known as Cross-fire Hurricane.

CAMEROTA: That is also what started it.

SEKULOW: Yes. Well, Crossfire Hurricane was based, in large part, on the dossier. And that's where the Russian collusion issue developed. So --

CAMEROTA: I mean, we've also --

SEKULOW: Let's be fair on that. And the end result of that entire inquiry was that there was no collusion. And not only has the president said it, but Bob Mueller said it. The attorney general has said it. And to go relitigate this or reinvestigate this with the Congress, I think is a waste of the taxpayers' money, quite frankly.

CAMEROTA: I hear you. And just making sure that, on both sides, that the president isn't calling for a reopening and a re-litigation of all of these different threads. But --

SEKULOW: Yes, I don't have -- you know, I'm the private lawyer. I'm not the White House counsel. I'm not the Department of Justice. I'm not the person to opine on that.

CAMEROTA: Jay Sekulow, we really appreciate your time.

SEKULOW: Thanks, Alisyn. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Thank you very much for being on NEW DAY.

SEKULOW: All right.

CAMEROTA: John.

BERMAN: All right. A lot to discuss from that fascinating interview. Joining us now, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin; and former

prosecutor Laura Coates; and CNN political correspondent Sara Murray.

Jeffrey, a few things here. No. 1, Jay Sekulow doesn't look like he's in any hurry to release the answers that the president gave to the Mueller team. That's significant.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It's significant. It's not surprising. You know, one of the rules of life is when you're winning, you're winning. And why -- you know, why stir the pot further by disclosing these answers now? If you were interested in full transparency, maybe you'd do it anyway, but it seems to me, you know -- his preference would be to leave things as they are.

Obviously, the report, some version of the report is going to come out, but whether those answers are included in that remains to be seen.

BERMAN: It does beg the question, though. If you're totally exonerated why don't you just release -- in your mind, why don't you just release what he said there?

Other things that came out of that interview that Sekulow said that require some fact checking. Sekulow insisted that the president was exonerated on obstruction. No. He was exonerated by Barr, specifically not exonerated by Mueller.

And when Sekulow says that Mueller kicked it upstairs -- Sekulow said he kicked it upstairs to Barr, that's not clear to me. It's very possible that Sekulow kicked it upstairs -- sorry, that Mueller kicked it upstairs to Congress.

TOOBIN: Right. I mean, I think one of the real ambiguities of the news that came out yesterday is what did Robert Mueller say about obstruction of justice and to whom and why?

[07:15:09] Barr took what Mueller said as an opportunity to opine himself, along with Rod Rosenstein, about the possibility of an obstruction of justice case.

BERMAN: It's not clear that it's his place to. He can choose to if he wants to, but no one asked him, actually.

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, that's not clear. Jay Sekulow seemed to imply that Mueller asked Barr's opinion. He said, you know -- but that was Jay's interpretation. Based on the -- what was disclosed yesterday, that was not apparent.

CAMEROTA: Laura, your thoughts?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think it's impossible for them to get around the notion that there is a direct quote that Mueller has said it does not exonerate the president.

Now, I happen to look at that as kind of a Mueller maybe, which to me is really atrocious. After two years, if you still have questions and you still can't answer that question, it's not good to have to say, "Well, you decide whether or not he's actually committed a crime." That's one of the things you were actually tasked with.

Which is why I think there must be something more behind the scenes to say that -- I find it impossible that he would say, "You know what? I don't feel like -- we're wresting with a very hard question. Why don't you go ahead and take it, Barr? I'm done. I'm kind of tired." There must be something more.

But the problem is we're left with one of the great triumphs of Jay Sekulow and his particular representation, which is all we have are written answers of the president of the United States. There was never an opportunity, it appears, that Mueller was actually able to ask questions, follow-up questions, have an in-person opportunity to assess whether the president did, indeed, have corrupt intent in any -- any form or fashion. Which to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you never endeavored to get the information, well, then you would not have the information.

Therefore, the report to me, until I have all the context and see the basis as to why they didn't pursue that action and why it went to somebody other than the person who had the duty to do so, I'm completely unsatisfied.

CAMEROTA: Jeffrey, why do you think that Mueller settled for the written answers?

TOOBIN: I think it's -- that's a great unanswered question.

I think one issue may have been time. The fact that he knew that, if he went to a subpoena, it would have gone to court. It would have taken many months to be litigated through a district court, through a circuit court and almost certainly through the Supreme Court of the United States, so -- with an uncertain result. I don't think anyone knows for sure whether Mueller would have won that.

In addition, the issue of -- you know, what he would have gotten out of it is unclear. I mean, the president is an experienced giver of testimony, and he is someone who could dance around these questions. And he may have thought it was not worth it, but you know, it's a good question to ask Mueller.

BERMAN: Two things -- go ahead, Sara.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He may not have done that, because he didn't find evidence of an underlying crime. I mean, that was one of the issues that Bill Barr and that Bob Mueller pointed out that made this obstruction idea, this obstruction case, so murky, is that they didn't find evidence that there was members of Donald Trump's campaign or that he was involved in colluding with the Russians.

And so they may have been staring down the idea of a subpoena fight, which as Jeffrey Toobin pointed out, could have taken a year or more and said, with no evidence of an underlying crime, and the fact that we cannot prosecute the president as it is, and the fact that we've interviewed 500 witnesses, many of whom, obviously, provided testimony about what the president was thinking, what he was saying in a variety of these activities that may look like obstruction of justice. OK, let's hand these facts over to Congress and let them do their part. Let them make their determination.

We just now have this wrinkle where Bill Barr has now weighed in with what he thinks is a crime or not.

BERMAN: Laura.

COATES: That's true -- well, I was going to say, that's absolutely true. And I agree, Sara, there may not be evidence there.

But the problem that I have is that the Mueller report, or the Mueller summation, as is relayed to us through Barr, actually does not answer the question definitively. Nor does it say, specifically, at this point that it wanted to go to Congress.

The way that it's written, if there is no evidence, then he should state that. If there is evidence to clear the president, he should state that, if he is exonerated. The reason it's a problem is because it continues to loom like a sword of Damocles over the president and over the electorate's ability to say that no one truly is above the law. It's that unsettled question for me.

Particularly given the fact that Bill Barr has already told the president, through his what's called an audition -- I don't want to be pejorative towards him for that -- but he's already said in, what, 18- , 19-page letter what his views on obstruction were. So did he just put in information that was already going to substantiate what he already believed? Or was there something more?

That's the question and why, I think, we need to see more context. Otherwise, the president should not feel exonerated. He should feel irritated that it's still out there. And the American people should not feel as though they totally have the question resolved, whether the head of the executive branch of government was involved in obstructing justice.

[07:20:11] BERMAN: Jeffrey, quickly.

TOOBIN: Well, it's just remembering how important the issue of obstruction of justice is. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. Richard Nixon was forced out of office for obstruction of justice.

This -- obstruction of justice is something uniquely within the ability of the president to do as head of the executive branch. So it is a very serious question, and it is unresolved.

BERMAN: And very quickly, what would Martha Stewart tell you about not being able to be charged for obstruction with no underlying crime?

TOOBIN: Well, that -- you know, the -- the notion put forward is that it is almost impossible to charge someone with obstruction of justice without an underlying crime is simply not true. It's not Justice Department policy. As you point out, Martha Stewart was never charged with insider trading, but was charged with lying and obstruction of justice.

BERMAN: I only know that, because I read your article.

TOOBIN: Well, I appreciate that.

BERMAN: Jeffrey Toobin, Laura Coates, Sara Murray, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Coming up in our next hour, we have White House press secretary Sarah Sanders joining us. We have many questions for her, as well.

BERMAN: All right. The attorney general summary of the Mueller report. Look, what we have is a Barr report. We don't yet have a Mueller report anyway. But the Barr version of it tells us that Mueller says there may have been some evidence of obstruction of justice.

What will Democrats do with this? And how will Democrats respond now that Robert Mueller has said there's not enough evidence to charge the president with conspiracy or coordination? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:25:35] BERMAN: One of the key quotes from William Barr's summation of the Mueller report is this: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So what does that mean? How will Congress receive that information? How will the Democratic-controlled House now receive that information?

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman David Cicilline. He is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. Did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

I know you will want to speak about obstruction. I promise we will get to that. But on the issue of coordination and conspiracy here, presumably given how many witnesses the Mueller team talked to, the documents, the pen registers there, is that not now conclusive on the issue of what has become to be known as collusion?

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D), RHODE ISLAND: Yes. I mean I think that language certainly suggests that it is. Obviously, we really need to see Mr. Mueller's report to understand the context of that statement; because you could imagine, for example, that he concluded there was insufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but still substantial evidence to support the claim.

So I hate to sort of guess, because we haven't actually seen the report and the supporting documents, but I think it's clear that the conclusion of the special counsel was there was insufficient evidence to move forward with prosecutions, which we know means a certain standard was not met.

It doesn't mean, of course that there was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians, but maybe not sufficient to meet that burden. But again, we shouldn't be forced to guess.

CAMEROTA: No.

CICILLINE: It's important to see the actual report --

BERMAN: Yes.

CICILLINE: -- and the supporting materials so we can make our own judgments.

BERMAN: We should -- we should see the report. But does it clear him of that? Does it clear him of conspiracy and coordination in your mind, legally?

CICILLINE: I think it -- yes. I think it clearly clears the president for purposes of the conclusions of the special counsel, assuming that quotation adequately captures the contents of the report. That's the only caveat, because we don't see --

BERMAN: I understand we do want to see the full report. But give, then, the sheer amount of evidence, the witnesses they spoke to, there are questions now being raised about what some Democrats have said in the past in this investigation.

Just let me play you an exchange between Alisyn Camerota and your chairman, Jerry Nadler, from a few months ago. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: It's become very clear that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in trying to subvert the election. The question has been --

CAMEROTA: How is that -- Wait, wait. Hold on. How is -- how can you say that so definitively that they've colluded?

NADLER: Well, the fact that -- the fact that Manafort and Trump Jr. met with Russian agents who told them that they wanted to give them dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's attempt to help them and that they said, "Fine."

I mean, it's clear that the campaign colluded. There's a lot of evidence of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So your chairman says it's clear the campaign colluded. "Clear the campaign colluded." Yet Robert Mueller's team yesterday, we now know that they don't feel there's the evidence to charge the president for conspiracy or coordination. And you just said, by all indications, that clears the president. There is a dichotomy there. Those two things are -- can't both be true.

CICILLINE: No, I think they're -- I think they can both be true. Look, it is -- it may well be the case, and again, we're guessing, because we haven't seen the report, that the special counsel has concluded there is insufficient evidence to charge the president or members of his campaign with conspiring with the Russians. And at the same time, there is evidence that, in fact, conspiracy or collusion occurred at some level.

You look at the meeting in Trump Tower that Chairman Nadler referenced. This is clear evidence that's in the public domain that members of the Trump team met with Russian operatives who committed to sharing dirt on Hillary Clinton.

We know Paul Manafort shared polling data with the Russian asset. So there are facts that are in the public domain which are inconsistent with that conclusion, which is why we need to see the report to find out kind of what the special counsel was talking about.

BERMAN: Understood.

CICILLINE: But I think Mr. -- Chairman Nadler's points are exactly right. But those are facts which we are -- we know are true in the public domain and which are evidence of a conspiracy between individuals and Russian operatives. So this is why seeing the contents and the context of this conclusion is really important.

BERMAN: Is it possible there's evidence of this but again, it's not criminal? That even if these meetings did took place, it didn't break a law?

CICILLINE: Yes.