Return to Transcripts main page


Mueller Investigated Rumored Compromising Tapes of Trump in Moscow; Mueller Considered Whether Trump Tower Meeting Could Violate Campaign Finance Laws; Mueller: Congress Still Has Ability to Find If President Obstructed Justice. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 18, 2019 - 13:30   ET


[13:30:00] PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Cohen, according to this report, told the special counsel that after he received this text message from the Russian businessman, he told Trump about it -- so Candidate Trump at that time -- about this. And that the businessman told prosecutors that the tapes ended up being fake, but he never conveyed that to Michael Cohen and, therefore, that was never conveyed to Trump. And so here you have a scenario was Trump was told in October of 2016 that there might be compromising tapes of him that are held by Russians and then he's briefed by his own FBI director in January 2017 about the dossier and that the Russians may have compromising tapes about him involving his conduct when he was a private citizen during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant. And that seems significant. And you put them in the context of the president's behavior and so forth, with this belief, this potential belief that there were these compromising tapes of him, that he's always denied.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And we should point out --

BROWN: -- point out --

COOPER: -- as you said the Russian businessman said that the tapes were fake.

BROWN: They were fake. Yes, so reiterate that.

COOPER: He was told the tapes were --


BROWN: Yes. He was told -


BROWN: He was told -- he was told the tapes were fake, but that was never conveyed to Cohen.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: For those following at home, that's volume two, page 27, footnote 112, footnote 112.

COOPER: How many people do you think are sitting at home with this 400-page document and say --


COOPER: -- wait, let me turn to that page?


TAPPER: There's a lot of fellow nerds out there.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Actually the version that -- that was put on the web is not searchable. And there's a big industry now of people --


TOOBIN: There are a lot of folks using technical skills that are greater than mine who are putting it out on the web now in searchable formats.


TOOBIN: But the original one was not.

TAPPER: And I suspect, by the way -- don't you, Pamela -- that the reason that this is a footnote is they want to de-emphasize it. They don't want people running around thinking --

BROWN: Absolutely.


TAPPER: -- oh, my god, this tape is real. The tape is real. It's a --

BROWN: They have no reason to believe, according to this footnote, that this tape was real --


BROWN: -- that it's validated.

TAPPER: He was told the tapes were fake.

BROWN: They investigated it. And we're now learning that Michael Cohen was told about a tape the Russians may have, but this person who conveyed that to Cohen during the campaign then told prosecutors he was told the tapes were fake. And as we know, the president has always denied this from the get-go. But what's interesting in this context is just the idea that the president was told this as a candidate, that this rumored existence of compromising tapes. And then he was briefed about it in January 2017 by the FBI director talking about the dossier. So it just gives more context to all of that.

COOPER: Sort of gives you a sense of the portfolio of Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization dealing with Russian businessmen and tapes.

TAPPER: And also the idea that, apparently, President Trump first learned about this apparently false allegation when the Russian businessman texted Cohen. Not --

BROWN: In October.

TAPPER: Yes, in October 2016, not from later on as he would find out from --


BROWN: Yes. So we've --


BROWN: He heard from the FBI director what he was told by Michael Cohen a few months earlier about these alleged compromising tapes, that again, we have no reason to believe actually exist.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But it goes towards a state of mind. I mean, that's part of this whole issue in talking about, especially with obstruction and the vested interest that this president would have to try to undermine it or try to influence or just say, you know, this has been a cloud over my presidency. Remember, he spoke to two Russians who came to the White House and said, I got rid that have nutjob Comey because I had the cloud of the Russian conspiracy or collusion overhead. This speaks to it. And earlier -- you may have reported on it, Pam - earlier -- the idea that one reason why they opted not to pursue the subpoena to actually get Donald Trump to testify to them in person as opposed to the take-home examination is because they had substantial information outside that have to be able to assess and evaluate the president's motivations and his interests at that point in time. That's one of the ideas about how the contextual and circumstantial evidence surround how you form what somebody's intent would have been, that's not actually saying it. You have a president that believes that aside from his drawing of a red line on finances, entre into his entire existence as candidate, as man, and now as president of the United States.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It doesn't quite add up though on the obstruction piece. On one hand, what I've seen so far in the report, what you're saying is that the special counsel says that we were not able to put together a case of obstruction. We didn't -- but we didn't seek the subpoena because we thought we had enough evidence to make a determination, but then they didn't make the determination. So there still is a piece of this that, even the special counsel's report explains somewhat of what they did with the obstruction, I still don't feel -- and maybe when I read more details I'll feel more confident in understanding exactly why the special counsel's office didn't make this determination.


CORDERO: Unless it was because they were simply providing the fact -

[13:35:18] TOOBIN: Mueller also says in the report that another reason why they didn't seek out Donald Trump's testimony was that the legal delay would have just eaten up months, that they didn't feel like they had to. (CROSSTALK)

CORDER: They would have had to weigh it. They were weighing the delay, which is very subjective, I think, that announcement. I don't know what you guys think.


CORDERO: It could have taken longer, or it could have been expedited. Courts could have handled it in different ways given the gravity of the matter. So I feel like that --

COOPER: I want to point out --


COOPER: -- the Mueller report was saying the president's answers were inadequate. Those were solely answers on the issues of collusion, nothing about -- he refused to do even written answers on obstruction of justice, which is obviously a more fraught area, clearly, given that --


SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I really read that -- I don't know what the other prosecutors think. I read that as them feeling like, we've got him, in terms of the intent of evidence. We don't need to interview him.


COOPER: They said that his personal -- that his public statements and other stuff already gave them an idea of what was going on.

WU: Yes. I it was a closed book on whether he intended that or not. It's a separate question. Do you decide to indict or follow the policy? But in terms of the evidence I don't need to interview the guy. I've already got it.

COATES: And they said, "We have sufficient evidence to understand relative events and to make certain assessments without the president's testimony." Almost rendering it absolute. I don't see it that way. I would want to ask the follow-up questions, get it vetted by the lawyers and have the necessary questions about your amnesia that you're supposed to have that your lawyers taught to you. But I can't recall this exact fact we're talking about. Oh, do you want to follow up. He's actually talking about the issue here of pressure in some way. So you're right. He didn't have to answer questions about this. And I agree with you on the assessment that they thought, well, I don't need this. But for the legal issue here of, look, we're precluded from being able to pursue anything. So again, I'm teeing it up here for Congress. Here we go.

COOPER: We're also learning from the report that Donald Trump Jr Announced at a meeting of the top campaign members that he, quote, "He had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation in the days leading up to the Trump Tower meeting.

Let's go back to Evan Perez with that -- Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Anderson. One of the mysteries has been what happened surrounding the days -- the days surrounding that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting that Don Jr had been led to believe was going to produce dirt on Hillary Clinton. And according to the special counsel report, they are saying that Donald Trump Jr told others in the campaign that he had some leads. And I'll read you a part of it. It says that, "Donald Trump Jr announced" -- at a morning meeting of campaign people, and he says, quote, "That he had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation.

Now we know from some of the materials that have been released it was just dirt on Hillary Clinton that he was being promised. There were a number of people in this meeting, including Eric Trump, Paul Manafort, Hope Hicks, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Some of those people denied they knew anything about the Trump Tower meeting and some perhaps forgot. It appears that during this meeting that Donald Trump Jr was excited about the prospect of getting information from somebody he said was related to Azerbaijan -- this is a reference to the developer, Agalarov, who set up the meeting -- it appears Paul Manafort during the meeting spoke up and said, I don't know about that. It seemed he had some doubts as to whether or not this meeting would ever produce anything of importance. We know from other parts of this volume that the special counsel ended up deciding that nothing of value was produced during this meeting. In other words are, no violation of the law by either Donald Trump Jr or other people related to the campaign. They looked at whether or not this was a campaign finance violation. It would illegal, for instance, if the campaign was trying to get something of value from a foreigner during this meeting. It's appears because of the fact that it produced nothing, they ended up deciding that they could be charged that could be sustained by the evidence that they had.

Back to you.

COOPER: Thanks very much.

The question now for everyone is, what happens now? What do Democrats in Congress -- I mean, this is essentially being hand delivered to Congress, to Democrats in Congress. There's -- Robert Mueller is saying he's got -- he's gotten everything that is out there, and it's up to Congress next. That's the question, what do Democrats do now?

TAPPER: I think it's clear that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, of New York, is trying to subpoena the entire Mueller report and all the underlying documents as well.

[13:40:11] In fact, let's go to Manu Raju on Capitol Hill who can tell us more about what's next now when it comes to Congress.

Manu, what's next? What are Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Nancy Pelosi and others going to do? MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Moments ago, Jerry

Nadler put out a statement saying he plans to issue a subpoena for the full Mueller report and underlying evidence. He says he's not been told by the Justice Department that they are going to see a less redacted version of the report. That is what Bill Barr said at his press conference today that he would provide a limited number of members of Congress with a less redacted version, but it was information about grand jury information would still be redacted. That is not sufficient to Jerry Nadler, who wants to see the grand jury information. He says Congress is entitled to that information. He's actually asked separately to go to court with the Justice Department or do it on their own to actually compel a court to provide that grand jury information to Capitol Hill. But he's not side with what Bill Barr has been saying publicly. He's very critical about the things he's seen in the report and he's concerned about what is behind the black lines.

Just moments ago, he made very clear. He said, "Contrary to public reports, I've not heard from the department about receiving a less redacted version of the report because Congress requires this material in order to perform constitutionally mandated responsibilities. I will issue a subpoena for the full report and the underlying materials."

And recall that the House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize, among party lines, for a subpoena for the full report and for five additional subpoenas for White House officials because of records that they may have received from the White House as they have testified before the Mueller probe. So makes very clear, in the aftermath of this report, the Judiciary Committee plans to push this investigation ahead and plans to fight with the Justice Department to get all of the material that they are not able to see right now -- Jake and Anderson?

TAPPER: Manu, one of the things that -- one of the chasms right now is between the Democratic grassroots and a number of individuals actually running for president on the Democratic ticket who want President Trump impeached and the Democratic establishment, the Nancy Pelosis of the world, who Nancy Pelosi said it's not worth it about Donald Trump, an impeachment. What role do you see the Mueller report playing in terms of Democrats seizing it and saying, we need to impeach, we need to impeach, or conversely some people saying, look, the president was not found guilty of conspiracy with Russia, that was the most important part of this investigation, and we need to move on and talk about issues such as health care?

RAJU: Yes. I think you'll expect Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler and people to continue to tamp down those calls for impeachment because Pelosi particularly is concerned about going through the entire process to lead to essentially a fruitless endeavor, given that the Senate Republicans are unlikely to convict. And they are concerned about moving forward on this that would be unsuccessful and could help Trump politically. Instead, what the Democrats want to focus on is the investigative part. The Judiciary Committee has already launched an investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The special counsel's report makes it clear that the believe Congress has the authority to continue to look into potential obstruction of justice. That is what Jerry Nadler wants to investigate. And the House Intelligence Committee has demanded all the underlying intelligence that was turned up by the counterintelligence aspect of the Mueller investigation. They want to use that as a road map to look into everything about the president's finances and whether he was compromised in any way by foreign interests. So the House Democrats want to pursue this on an investigative route. They don't want to go to the impeachment route which may disappoint some of their most fervent supporters. But the believe that is more -- that's where they believe they can convince the public that they are right. But Republicans believe that will all amount to overreach and that the public is ready to move on. And that's what we're hearing from a number of Republicans in the aftermath of the release of this report -- guys?

COOPER: Manu, if there are continued obstruction of justice hearings, to what end? I mean, at the end of all of this, I mean, it seems like the evidence that Mueller has presented is pretty comprehensive. Assuming that Congress doesn't find anything more than what Mueller already found. If they are not going to go down the road of impeachment, what is the point of -- what's the end result of hearings on obstruction of justice?

RAJU: Well, they believe there's things that the public still needs to see. Its' unclear exactly what they want to the do at the end, other than potentially write their own report that may go much further than what the special counsel did.

[13:45:04] But, yes, as you mentioned, Anderson, this is an exhaustive investigation. They interviewed all sorts of individuals who would probably be more cooperative with the special counsel than they would with Democrats running this committee. What else they could turn up is a big question. They are saying they have their own responsibility to do their own investigation. But whether what they turn up is different that the Mueller probe is a big question, especially since they are unlikely not to do an impeachment, that just feeds into the Republican narrative that this is all overreach -- guys?

COOPER: Manu Raju, thank you very much.

Do you see them -- do you see them continuing? Does this change the investigations that are already under way?

TAPPER: I think it gives more fuel to the House Democrats and the investigations they are conducting. They would say we are doing what we're constitutionally mandated to do, oversight of the executive branch. I think there's also a degree, to be frank, of let's bloody the president more.

COOPER: Right.

TAPPER: And 2020 is coming up. We want the American people to not like him. And what better way to do that than by using the Robert Mueller-sanctioned report that illustrates all the ways in which his is an abnormal and perhaps, in the view of many, an unethical presidency. COOPER: The flip side of it, the Democrats have to consider, does it

alienate people who may not look the president on the Republican side and may be willing to vote for a Democrat if they are seen as just political investigations that go on even after this Mueller report --

TAPPER: Well, I'll tell you


TAPPER: -- it's obvious the investigations into Bill Clinton's behavior in the '90s are different than this. But I will tell you that House Republicans will say to Democrats you can go down that road, but it's not going to help you. It's not going to help you because you will be perceived by Independent voters or whatever as merely trying to investigate and harass the president as opposed to putting forward problem-solving legislation that will help my insurance premiums go down, et cetera, even if they are doing that simultaneously.

COOPER: Yes. I talked to Jim Clyburn yesterday who said -- you know, Congressman Clyburn, who said, from his perspective, he wants the 2020 presidential hopefuls to be focusing on tabletop issues, on issues that people are talking to him about in his district in South Carolina, not so much focusing on the president.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The lesson, we'll see. The president thinks 2018 does not matter because he wasn't on the ballot. Democrats think 2018 does matter because they had so much success, particularly in suburban America, places where you win presidential elections in big battleground states in Pennsylvania, like Ohio, by focusing on health care and by focusing on bread-and- butter, economic issues, things that matter. And that's where Democrats think they mostly want to stay. That the -- that the Republican moderate women, not just Republican women, suburban women don't like the way the president conducts himself. To most Democrats, that's baked in. That assumption is there. You don't need to remind voters of that. They see it every day hearing about the president's tweets. They'll focus on issues and let voters process it that way.

But I think one interesting dynamic with this crowded Democratic presidential field -- we'll see what happens in the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi will try to manage the most restive of her people who say let's impeachment. Eric Swalwell, one of the long- shot candidates, a House member and running for Congress, called for Barr's resignation after what the attorney general did this morning. Do one or two of the presidential candidates trying to make a name for themselves in the crowded field decide to go out beyond the others, whether a call for Barr's resignation.


KING: -- bring up impeachment.

And there's a flip side to this, too. I brought this up earlier, saying what will Republicans say about this. The president's campaign says, you know, let's turn the tables. This is a statement who cares about the Ohio Republican chairwoman, right. Except this is where we are and the world we live in. This is now going to be processed politically. The statement from the Ohio Republican Party chairwoman says, "This is a complete and utter exoneration of President Trump." It's not. That's not what this report is. Read it at home, take a look. Don't believe me. Don't believe anybody here. Don't believe the Democrats or Republicans. Read it yourself. It's not.

But then it goes on to say, "Democrats will be held accountable at the ballot box for why they started a senseless and harmful investigation that cost taxpayers over $25 million and upended the integrity of our entire democratic process." Yes, the FBI counterintelligence investigation began in the Obama administration, and he's a Democrat. Robert Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, President Trump's deputy attorney general. So as we now decide what to do with this document, how to proves this document -- I mean, some of this stuff coming out is just horse manure. And that's the political world we live in.

TOOBIN: I just wonder, the ability of Democrats to talk themselves out of doing anything. I mean, the idea that you have a report here that implicates the president in multiple crimes and the Democrats would say, no, no, no, we don't want to investigate this because people will say we're investigating too much. That seems crazy to me. It just seems bizarre.

[13:50:02] COATES: What is also crazy is the idea that tweet you're talking about just completely ignores the fact this was a productive investigation. It did not implicate directly thought an indictment of the president of the United States but it did identify, as Bill Barr said today, that Russians did interfere and tried to do so in our election. And it didn't happen just in '16. It happened in '18. And it will probably happen in 2020. You did have indictments. You did have multiple and hundreds of counts involved overall. So you think of the idea of the framing it, look at that from the idea of the genesis of the investigation, which is why we should have focused as well as a spying notion that Bill Barr talked about, he also talked about the genesis and the Christopher Steele dossier as a code word for it, about the FISA warrants and Carter Page, among other things. So you have this talking point revolving. And if this investigation or report did not change that, that is pretty astonishing.

COOPER: Let's show a little bit of -- some of what Barr said this morning because it sort of adds to some of the points that everybody is making as. You talk about Eric Swalwell calling for Barr to step down. Take a look at some of what he said this morning.


WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion. And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there's substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.


TAPPER: So that's his spin on it.

COOPER: Right.

TAPPER: And it is absolutely true that the Mueller concluded no conspiracy with Russia and President Trump was frustrated with that. And Mueller also wrote that, quote, "The evidence does indicate that a thorough investigation by the FBI would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally, that the president could have understood to be crimes or would give rise to personal or political concerns," unquote.

So one of the motivations was he's frustrated because there was no conspiracy, so he thought it was an unfair investigation. But the one that Barr did not mention is he also worried that the FBI, if doing an investigation, would uncover a whole bunch of stuff that he didn't want out there, including crimes.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And you see Bill Barr choosing his words carefully saying the president was frustrated but still allowed them to have unfettered access to the White House meaning production and witnesses cooperating. He leaves out the fact that the president called his White House counsel and tried to get him to fire the special counsel. He leaves out that he got Corey Lewandowski and wanted to send him a message, Corey Lewandowski, who doesn't work in the White House, never worked in the White House, and was an outside private consultant to get rid -- to essentially deliver this message to the attorney general to change the investigation.

So Bill Barr is choosing his words carefully and that has to do with he knows the president is watching that press conference because the president was tweeting about it and encouraging people to tune in. And behind the scenes, the president has been praising Bill Barr at length for the performance over last two months, comparing him often to Jeff Sessions and talking about how he's doing such a better job than Sessions did. And he's relating it back to the Russia investigation.

TAPPER: And a joint statement from Leader Schumer, Senate Democratic minority leader, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, from the House, quote: "The differences are stark between what Attorney General Barr said on obstruction and what Special Counsel Mueller said on obstruction. As we continue to review the report, one thing is clear, Attorney General Barr presented a conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice while Mueller's report appears to undercut that finding." Which is factually accurate.

TOOBIN: It is factually accurate. And the Barr statement about cooperation did a good job of talking about some of the things he left out. But it left out that the president refused to talk to Mueller, which is the most important evidence in the whole case. So the idea that this sort of "woe is me" experience for the president not only is inaccurate, but it gives you a motive for obstruction of justice. The reason he was -- he could have obstructed justice -- and there's evidence that he did -- is precisely for the reasons that Barr summarized there, that there were leaks and he was unhappy about it. That is not exculpatory. It is incriminating.

[13:55:22] WU: I'm sorry, but as someone who has worked for the attorney general closely, I find Barr's behavior to be unconscionable. It's inappropriate.

COOPER: In what way?

WU: He's defending the president and making him sound like a victim and saying "unprecedented" and he had a sincere belief. The word "sincere" is huge to use there. That means he's evaluated the president's intent and finds it to be sincere. I can't imagine Janet Reno, Eric Holder, making that kind of statement in this scenario. The right thing to do is let the report speak for itself and don't get involved in translating it. The only thing transparent about his performance is how politically motivated it is.

TOOBIN: May 1st, as many of us know, Barr will testify before Congress and I anticipate there will be a lot questioning about that statement and it will be some must-see TV.

COATES: And on the point of sincerity, a great way to be able to assess the sincerity of the president's statements, an in-person interview and you're able to assess the credibility. You have to wonder, over a 22-month period of investigation, Mueller's team was unable to get that personal interview, for what reasons it actually attributed to. But there weren't able to do the that in-person credibility. And then, all of a sudden, within a few months after taking office -- tell me at what point Barr was able to assess the sincere beliefs of the president of the United States. Was there a private interview between him and the Department of Justice in assessing that? Because that would have been helpful to the Mueller probe if they had done that. So you look at this again, and the motivation behind Barr doing so, I think, in a way, he was trying to placate the American people to say, listen, this is great news and it is not a constitutional problem here, there was interference, but, on the other hand, this person is getting a raw deal. And the word was this investigation result "confirms" what the president has --


COOPER: It is interesting. You can't ignore the fact that Barr essentially sent in an audition tape to get this job. Out of nowhere sent in this memo about how obstruction of justice, that the president can't be indicted of a crime, and then he becomes the attorney general. It is not a -- I think from the outside, you look and say, oh, he's an establishment guy, an institutionalist, he has a long- storied career, but he wanted this job for this president and he's fulfilling what would seem to be what the president wants.

COATES: And guess what, in that 19-page memo, he said that you can't compel a president to sit down for an interview based on obstruction of justice. Wow, the coincidence that you weren't able to something, you didn't pursue it and they found no obstruction of justice as a decision here. You have the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy that taints the credibility. Even if he has some benign and completely non-nefarious reason for doing so, he has put a cloud that moved from the president's head onto the top of the Department of Justice.


KING: But that helps in the context of what Jeffrey just said, Bill Barr will testify on Capitol Hill. And so if the fight is over, are you a political hack for the president, are you the shield for the president? That helps the president. Because it is not about this. And it becomes tribal warfare again. And the way the president is heading into the re-election is to make sure he reinforces his tribe and make it more exciting than the other tribe.

COLLINS: Another thing to note about what is going to happen as we move forward, with with Barr testifying, with what the Democrats do, a lot of what's in this report talks about how the president gave directives to people who work for him, sometimes people that don't work in the White House, to do things, and they didn't listen because they didn't think it was legally sound or they thought it would hurt him politically. That is something that still happens in the White House regularly. You hear people say that the president told them to do X, Y and Z and, instead of telling him now, they say, OK, and wait a few weeks and hopes the president forgets about it. That is still happening. Not throughout the investigation but it happens related to a lot of other things.


BROWN: What is laid out is a microcosm of what you see in the White House a lot but the difference is this was an actual federal investigation by special counsel Mueller and Mueller is painting this picture of a president trying to get people, witnesses to not cooperate with them, which is certainly unique.

Now back to Barr, just talking about, has he been a good-faith arbiter of the information from this report. Remember during the hearing last week, he said, I included as much language as I could from the report, which was sort of a head scratcher at the time, because I don't remember the amount of words but there wasn't much. And now we're seeing the context around, for example, the obstruction line where he said the president could be exonerated. What he left out in that initial four-page letter that shaped public perception about the investigation, is the special counsel said we obtained - "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions --