tv After Words Gregg Jarrett Witch Hunt CSPAN November 11, 2019 1:31pm-2:30pm EST
government. >> now on book tv afterwards. fox news legal and political analyst offering his thoughts on the molar report. the investigation of russia's interference of the 2016 election. interviewed by matt. chaired the american conservative union. afterwards, the weekly interview program with relevant guest coast interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> it is my great honor to be here with greg jarratt. my friend and someone who has made me smarter. your most recent bestseller, the witchhunt. a fascinating read that tells us all the details that we have been going through since 2016. this is a follow-on to your best seller the russia hoax which was a new york times number one bestseller. i am sure that this will be as well. >> thank you. >> you are off to the races.
>> it's great to be with you. thank you for having me. >> when i first heard the president use the term witchhunt and that tweet, much like he used fake news, the fact that the election could be rigged, all of these things, for people like me who has spent most of my professional life in washington, d.c., kind of recoil. they are bold praises. now you have borrowed this phrase for your book. why? >> because he is very telling. people tend to forget that there are no real which is. this overwhelming irrational desire is what propels a witch hunt. that is what happened here. an astonishing array of smart people. convincing themselves and millions of others. the president had committed one
of the most obnoxious crimes there is in the criminal codes treason. conspiracy with vladimir putin hatched in the bowels of the kremlin. stealing the 2016 election. it was based on, not a shred of of credible evidence. the book explains how now we know true testimony of those involved, they never had any plausible evidence to launch the original fbi investigation in 2016. nine months later when the special counsel was appointed, they still had no evidence. the appointment itself violated the regulations authorizing the appointment. i explain how in the book. one of the things that struck me as truly amazing is that the appointment was made by deputy attorney general rod rosenstein.
it was not based on the evidence or the law. it was based on vegans. he named a special counsel because rosenstein had become angry with the president. he was overwrought. he was emotional. an active retaliation he appointed bob mueller. think about this. twenty-two month long national nightmare because one guy got angry. he knew what he had done was wrong. the day of the appointment. after it was announced. he is confronted in his office about what he had done. the abuse of a regulation. he cowers behind his desk and he blubber's am i going to get fired. that tells you he knew what he had done was wrong. >> if he had gotten fired earlier, we may have avoided so much of this drama. go back to this whole idea of donald trump pre-being elected to the presidency.
this relationship with russia, i still have flashbacks to all the interviews and stuff in the run-up to the republican nomination and the general election of 2016. there was always this intrigue about donald trump made by russia or bailed out by russia. a constant theme. no fax or even details. where did this come from? >> it began originally with hillary clinton in early 2016. she began to pepper her speeches with references to trump and putin that trump might be, you know, a kremlin. >> do you think she believed that or she just knew it was potent politics? >> one of the unanswered questions is did she get it from cia director john brennan who was already beginning to investigate trump and any potential ties with russia. he has described in my book as the instigator of the witchhunt.
he put together an interagency task force that grew to be the foundation of the russia hoax and the investigation. used by the fbi, and, in particular the head of counterintelligence for the fbi. the point person in the witchhunt. we don't know whether it was something that came from the rich imagination of hillary clinton or john brennan or both. james clapper was involved. he turned out to be the prodigious leader. i explain his leaks in the book. it all came to a head when the hillary clinton campaign and the committee paid for russian disinformation that was composed by next british spy. the amazing part, and i explain this in the witchhunt, that he puts together his anti-trump dossier. lickety-split.
within the course of 10 days to 14 days of being hired. that is impossible. you read the first memo of his dossier. that is a kind of information that would take months, if not years. source information on the ground in russia. not more than 10 years. >> whether it is true or not about donald trump. i think in the end, i think russian disinformation was little tidbits of truth. classic this information. anyone could find it on the internet. did christopher steal or brennan and the obama appointees, did they use allies to try to handle
some of this? dark places that they could watch their hands to try to stop trump. >> the cia, they are not allowed under law. they are prohibited under that. they outsourced it. keeping people in the campaign. overseas. so they could feed them information that could be used to justify their investigation. they use confidential informants like a long-term cia asset i the professor in great britain.
and in the fbi, we are a cii, we, we are not sure, since in an fbi analyst under a fake name. described as a sexy model blonde. seducing george papadopoulos who is a minor proliferative volunteer junior advisor on the trump campaign. what they end up getting is not incriminating information. what they got was exculpatory information. it was hidden in the backyard. >> covered up. >> amazing how that works. understanding this rotten stench. i don't like saying it. that comes from really high up law enforcement officials. government. you kind of have to wind the
tape back and go all the way back. not the way back to all the clinton scandals because that is a long tape. the hillary clinton ben ghazi tragedy, her tradition to keep in the bathroom of their home. her decision to have an outside the normal government process to collect e-mails and data. all of that becomes quite a scandal as moeller, as the fbi director, comey is the fbi director, has to go through and figure out how do i handle all of this scandal. in reading your book again, i felt like i lived every moment of that. it is quite extraordinary. the result of all of that. tell us the story. >> chapter one is entitled a tale of two cases.
it compares the clinton investigation to the trump investigation. it demonstrates the disparity of treatment. the unequal prosecution and justice that is based not on the law, but based on politics and partisanship. >> the bottom line is hillary clinton committed acts that constitute felonies. it is abundantly clear. a violation. the espionage act. james comey said there is no similar case that someone has been prosecuted for that. prosecuted for exactly what hillary clinton did. that is just not true.
reasonable prosecutors brought innumerable cases. knowing what clinton did was a crime. most to pull crimes. the statement two months before even being interviewed. in it, he uses the language of the espionage act. then he presents that statement to his staff and says i still want to clear her. the staff says, well, you, you cannot clear her if you just found her guilty of a crime under the espionage act. he sits down at his computer with his lover, lisa page, standing over his shoulder. he eliminates the incriminating words. and substitute something that is
actually synonymous. it sounds not in the criminal code. extremely careless. it had been borrowed from barack obama. based on that, he cleared cleared hillary clinton. he twisted the facts in order to clear her. >> doesn't he say that he was ordered to do that? >> yes. >> by the department of justice. headed by loretta lynch who just before comey clears clinton meets on the tarmac on a plane with bill clinton, but, yeah, they're just talking about grandkids and golf. she owes much of her success. >> viewed as a close ally. >> he elevated her. she eventually became the attorney general. he advanced her career. she then pretends to recuse herself in the case, but she
does not actually recuse herself from the case. >> you know, there are people that don't like the clintons. did not vote for hillary clinton who really get into the whole dynamics of the story. we have a lot of people watching this show that our clinton supporters. it might just bring out the worst of what hillary clinton did. why does it matter? breaking the espionage act. she says she does this, but for a matter of convenience. we can understand that. why was it a problem to keep her e-mails vulnerable? >> jeopardizing national security. as i explain in the book, document subsequent to her being clear, demonstrate foreign companies obtain her e-mails.
>> classified documents as well. that jeopardizes our national security. >> when president trump, before he was president, his point was she says she deleted the e-mails it is a fact that our enemies read the e-mails. it was ironic and tragic. it may be truthful. >> actually referring to russia. let us know. it was obviously said. it turns out that it was likely true. some of the hacked emails ended up in russian hands. they were hacked through a russian server.
i think it is hard for people that support the clintons and voted for hillary clinton, greg, so what. this was about hot yoga and wedding plans and what we are going to have for dinner. this is quite an extensive research project. indications that the e-mails were destroyed because there were sensitive conversations. >> entirely successful in the e-mails. that would be an obstruction of justice. congress had asked her to preserve it. when you defy congress with a subpoena, they were not under subpoena. reprimanding.
did she destroyed these emails after congress had made it very clear? >> congress had sent in writing or request to preserve evidence. a subpoena was forthcoming at that point. that is still obstruction of justice. it turns out that some of the e-mails she destroyed turned up elsewhere. some of them contained very sensitive government information it was not yoga and wedding plans. >> are they all public? >> her explanation is simply untrue. and, yet, in, in addition to violating the espionage act and the evidence is overwhelming that she did, she destroy documents that congress had demanded and, when you receive preservation, you have to abide by it. not only that, i am a former
former government official. my wife has just recently left government services. this is her second go round. you have an obligation to retain records. that is explained to you on your very first day of the job. you don't need a letter from congress or from an ig to notify you. you are told immediately that you have to keep those records. the reason is, when you work for an administration, every day is history. the taxpayer has a right to be able to have a process that everyone gets to see that information because it's part of our history. >> transparency and accountability. under the federal records act, anything you do in writing in the course and scope of your employment is not your property. the government and the american
people's property. there was nothing on hillary clinton's state department e-mail account. empty. zero. everything she did in the scope of her employment was kept at her home on a private server. you are jeopardizing national security. also violating federal law. she signed a document on her first day in office saying i understand these rules. she received a tutorial on here is the law you must follow it. she signed two separate documents acknowledging it and saying i will abide i it. she already knew that fro senate. having received the same instructions about how you have to preserve documents and you cannot jeopardize national security by leaking them. >> she well knew the rules, but
she ignored them with impunity because she felt she was above the law and that the rules just do not apply to her. >> you are a lawyer. what is your legal background? >> i was a defense attorney for many years in san francisco. a lot of people to defend out there. >> most of my clients are still behind bars. [laughter] >> that is a lawyer joke. >> my point is, if you look at this black letter law, you sign the document, you know what the document is saying. you understand that the concept of records. overhang the river there in little rock. they know all about records because they have a museum that houses them.
you don't get a pick and choose what those records are. if it is hillary with a different surname, what kind of legal penalties would someone face? >> inevitable federal indictment issued by a grand jerry. it is a slamdunk case. loretta lynch knows this. james comey knows this. what intervenes, as you said, to make to make that stop? loretta lynch just saying to the fbi, we are are not going. we will not prosecute this. this is a matter. this is an investigation. >> former top officials at the fbi, who were there at the time all of this unfolded testified behind closed doors. that testimony has since been released. very few journalists have actually read it. thousands of pages of testimony.
for example, you know, know, lisa page at the fbi admitted under oath that they were told by the department of justice that no charges would be brought against hillary clinton. you know, comey stood in front of cameras and said, the department of justice does not know what i'm about to do. they knew. they were directing it. a lot of people believed that nothing like this really could have happened without the president, the vice president being aware of that. you could not find any proof of that. people just have to survive how high up the food chain this went. >> as i lay out the facts in the book witchhunt, when the change in the exoneration statement was made to clear her, first implicating her and then clearing her, he seems pretty upset about that publicly. it was strange wording.
he was being so aggressive. >> he was. with his language. >> it all came to an interview that barack obama had done several months before. this was a public instruction. i don't want hillary clinton to be prosecuted. what she had done was careless. that was the language at comey eventually adopted after finding she was in violation of the law. gross negligence. >> he did. he told the inspector general when he was interviewed that he paid close attention to what barack obama had said. she is just careless and it did not jeopardize national security exactly what comey ended up saying on july 5, 2016 when he
cleared her. he was adopting, not just the language of president obama, but, essentially, a public order maybe an unfair question, but do you think barack obama sent every signal he could to make sure that hillary clinton got a pass on her legality #. >> his method was actually quite clever and ingenious. there will be no paper trail. i am not going to tell people at the department of justice or fbi what to do. but i will go on television and tell everybody what to do, and they will hear it. >> that is right. then the story takes a turn. first of all, all of these various aspects of the clinton world. they are on defense.
she has committed crimes. she has to get herself out of this. this terrible tragedy in benghazi. this testimony up on the hill. it's not about the victims, it is kind of about her. congress goes through various considerations of investigations of benghazi. the last investigation, they actually find. how many did they have in the house? >> there were multiple dueling investigations going on at the same time. trey gaudi's investigation investigation was probably the foremost. had it not been for the deceptions by hillary clinton and the state department about benghazi, we would have never discovered this private server. hundreds of thousands of emails and classified documents were stored at her home. >> to me, it seems that the folks that you chronicle in the book, the fbi, predominantly by
mr. brennan and folks in the intelligence community switch then and go on offense. some point in this process. we have to stop him. they take extraordinary measures to try to dig up dirt. overseas. specifically with russia to kind of push it towards the clinton campaign to make the idea of voting for donald trump a repugnant thing for voters. how did that possibly happen? >> there were two parts to the plan. part number one was to exploit. christopher steele. >> the fbi was unable to verify. they tried, but they could not. >> you cannot verify something that does not exist that is a
lie. the plan was to leak it to the media. and, they assumed that the media would run crazy with this story. it would damage trump politically and ensure hillary clinton's election in november, 2016. many members of the media did pick up in the story, it did not quite in traction and resonate with american voters when trump was elected. the insurance policy was plan b. the insurance policy famous from the lisa page text message. we have an insurance policy. the insurance policy was the fbi investigation if donald trump one, we would kick it into overdrive. and really go after him and make our investigation of him as a, you know, a potential or alleged
russian asset. they did it in january 2017 before he was even sworn into office. comey, clapper, brennan concocted this plan. selectively give him information about the dossier. gauge his reaction and use that meeting as a pretext to leak it to the media and that is how the dossier was published. once it was published, the media was off to the races with the russia hoax. >> the troubling part of that is, you know, there are times where you have to exploit sensitive information. it is hard to do with the leader of the free world. it seemed like they were using this leverage of blackmail over
the president. >> they were. that seems to be. >> very hoover ask. >> it really was. we thought those days were over. one final question before we go into the fbi and the consequences on that piece of the story. and all the dossier that we have read about and watched all of the in-depth reporting on it and everything else, and all of this work that hillary clinton campaigned, the deep state, all of these things that we come to know, is there any truth to any of these things? donald trump had any kind of illegal actions with russia. is there any truth about things that are just embarrassing from president trump? >> no. all of the collusion allegations turned out to be untrue.
you can read it in volume one of the molar report. the fbi created a spreadsheet of all of the collusion allegations it all turned up empty. there was nothing on the spreadsheet. they could not prove anything. the author of the dossier said, the information that he wrote is unfair or viable. because it came from, you know, multiple anonymous hearsay. hearsay is generally not allowed in the court of law. double the hearsay. never allowed because --dash this was triple and quadruple hearsay. .... ....
>> in fact, he got fired by the fbi for line. he was on the payroll -- >> that seems to be a trend. >> he was on the payroll not just of the hillary clinton campaign, democratic national committee, but on the payroll of the fbi and had been since early 2016, the year of the election. but he lied to the fbi about talking to the media and feeding of this disinformation to the media and too many people in the fbi found out about it and had to fire him but they still used him. comey goes to the foreign intelligence surveillance court to get a warrant application to spy on the trump campaign and he vouches for steel as credible, knowing he wasn't and he was a liar and was internal kit medications at the time. knew that he lied to him.
you know, the state department, kathleen cadillac, the author's or met at one point before the by the application to spy with christopher steel and she decides him up in the course of about an hour and realized he was a phony and she checked out one major part of his dossier, it was some consulate in florida and it did not even exist. she notified the fbi and the deferment of justice that this guy is a fraud, be careful here. ignore that warning and went ahead to the judges at the fisa court and lied to them and deceive them and concealed evidence. it was not just the state permit warned the fbi but the department of justice who was the conduit for the dossier information and giving it to the
fbi warned them that be careful of this information because its totally unverified and the fbi and james kony and andrew mccabe did not care. the pfizer were navigation has at the top verified information yet they relied on the dossier which were unverified. last time i checked line two of a judge is a fraud on the court and i as i explain in "witch hunt" it's also five other different potential felonies. when the inspector general report comes out i expect it to be a damning indictment of the actions of these people, especially with the deceptions of the pfizer court. >> i work for president george w. bush and i was involved with the meetings around selecting bob muller to be the fbi director and i went to bob muller's swearing-in in the rose garden and i met one of my
mother and her wonderful friends from wichita and we had great photos from the occasion but i remember the meeting that whether we are looking for candidates one thing you heard over and over again about bob muller this was the bush administration during his time was that he was the quintessential perfect candidate to be the fbi director was it true then and if it was or wasn't true when did the fbi get on this most dangerous of rogue paths? did start with muller or is it a comey, obama problem? what happened? >> it started before muller but then it escalated after -- >> using any power they could because they are the good guys and there the g-man and they
have the white hat so they can do these things and they are truly elites that can break the rules in the interest of the country. >> the reason i say it began before mueller's because right after mueller was appointed fbi director around the time of 911 he gets hauled in front of the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance court, secret start to record and they confront him with evidence that the fbi, had for years, then presenting lies to the fisa court in warrant applications to spy and mueller promised that he would fix it, institute new rules and procedures and he actually did, it's called the woods procedures. but the fbi continued to violate the woods procedures particularly in this particular
case in the investigation of donald trump in the surveillance of the spine on carter page. it predates mueller but it continued under his leadership and then it escalated under james kony. >> once again with my experience in the bush administration that is the first time james kony was considered as a real candidate to come to justice and are believed to come and we did a checking on jim comey, it was not a name i was filled there with and i'm not a lawyer but most of the checking we did he was a bit -- at least politically he was a bit of a chameleon paid he would tell us he loved president bush and loved his policies but then you talk to liberal and he said james comey is secretly one of us and is pretty liberal on everything, you got this hodgepodge story and one person
who knew him well summarized him well by saying, the best thing to know about james comey he is about james comey. >> i saw it early on when he was a u.s. attorney back in the 1990s and i attended a news conference that he held about some case that he had launched and i remember my [inaudible] walked out to the van with me after the news conference and he said while, have you ever seen a guy who loves himself that much? i always remember that because i then saw it vividly in my research and in following the case and james comey i described in the book as this vainglorious, sanctimonious, self-righteous individual who only cares about james comey. >> that was our experience and if you think back to those major
jobs he had he turned on the person who picked him and he turned on president bush at the end of the administration on sensitive questions about renewal for patriot act, 911 era legislation -- obviously, this whole hillary clinton think back and open and reopening the investigation right before the election date completely infuriating all the obama folks like what is he doing and to this day now he really has the social media presence of almost an aoc acolyte -- he's a warrior in the communist resolution and it's amazing metamorphosis. >> yeah, i mean it's rather nauseous when he tweets out standing by the sea and some philosophical phrase he uses or standing among the tall trees.
it's actually pretty comical. >> you do not see stanley buying the curtains. [laughter] >> standing among the trees. james comey is a guy who lied to the president repeatedly telling him you are not being investigated. the truth was in the document shows that he was and he was lying to the president. it's really one of the reasons in addition to the mishandling of the hillary clinton case that trump fired him because trump knew that comey was lying to him all the time and at one time comey delivers testimony before congress and becomes apparent to trump that he's been lying to me the last several months which was the final straw and he fired james comey. then comey, who had told the president i don't leak or do sneaky things that steals government document, not his properties government property
and leak some to a friend for the purpose of leaking them to the media to trigger the appointment of the special counsel who just happens to be his long time and friend and colleague and mentor, bob mueller. that is how devious james comey is. when he gets caught in a lot of these things he feigns memory loss as he did in his testimony. i think he said 149 times i don't remember and interviews when confronted he pretends that he does not know that dossier and i'm not quite sure i know what that is. christopher still, i know i've heard that name before but those kinds of answers that really makes you seriously doubt the ability of james comey. >> if he is someone that brings rack and ruin and certainly to
the reputation of the fbi that's undeniable but then the question about the policies using power to stop trump to push this russia hoax who hires andy mccabe to be the deputy in all this? how does the cast of characters around james comey come together? is that his doing or internal process or is it inevitable because how do all these people with left-wing politics and an animus towards the duly elected president how do they get into the upper echelon? that cannot happen by anything other than purpose spirit comey surrounded himself with sycophants and it did not matter their qualifications so i talked to several former top fbi officials who said mccabe was not qualified to be deputy fbi director and eventually upon the firing of comey acting fbi director. even though i had a spouse
involved in politics and there's a lot of people in 21st century america have that but even this question of having a spouse that is so politically active in the commonwealth and even that you would think ig's and the optics of that are gre great. >> yes, you should have recused himself. he eventually did but it was too late and at the very end. i open chapter four entitled the attempted coup by observing that rod rosenstein and andrew mccabe are living proof of the peter principle and that people in a hierarchy tantalized to the rise the level of their own incompetence. that is true of rod rosenstein and andrew mccabe but to answer your initial question the people that comey surrounded himself with were, as i say, sycophants. they are all on the same page and not that they're qualified
to do what they're doing but these are people who believe in james comey and are willing to do anything even undermine the rule of law and subvert the democratic process which is what they did. you go forward to the process and donald trump is struggling to get this whole idea of collusion with russia behind him and it must just be bedeviling to have this keep coming forward and the stories and everything else and you tell the story of the reemergence of bob mueller who from my understanding of having conversations with people who would know was actually maybe some say in the hunt to beat donald trump's director of the fbi after james comey is let's go. >> i wrote a column recently deposed the question did mueller lie to congress when he denied
that he was interviewing the fbi director again with president trump in the oval office the very day before he becomes special counsel. documents show that rosenstein who appointed mueller and mueller were securely communicating the mueller was already on board to be the special counsel. what was he doing then in the oval office the day before he takes the job? he denied he was interviewing for fbi directorship but i interviewed the president of the oval office and said absolutely he was great that's why he was there. i interviewed his personal assistant to set up the meeting and was pretty to the conversation so yeah, it was an interview for fbi director. multiple administration witnesses and documents demonstrate that mueller was either terribly mistaken or not
telling the truth when he denied all of that but it invites the question what is he doing there and if he is already deciding to take the job as special counsel why is he in the oval office and was that a conversation under false pretenses so that mueller could gather information from trump in the oval office to be used against him in the special counsel investigation and the key question is did the president explain to mueller his reasons for firing comey? if the answer to that question is yes, then mueller cannot have served as special counsel because that makes them both prosecutor and witness in the same case which is strictly prohibited. i put the question to the president when i interviewed him just a couple months ago for the book and said did you tell
mueller your reasons for firing jones comey? the president paused and thought about it and he smiled and he said no comment. he said i could tell you the answer because i know the answer and i vividly remember the conversation and as i write in the book he was clear to me sitting across from the president and judging his reaction and his demeanor that the answer was yes. it's inconceivable that they would not have talked about the firing of james comey days before because trump had been talking to everybody about it. again, mueller should never have been special counsel. he was a fact witness and he wasn't honest with the president and did not say to the president, by the way, i've agreed to be a special counsel to investigate you and he wasn't forthright and he was not honest and truthful to the president which to me is unconscionable.
>> so, the mueller to comey to rosenstein rings back the mueller and if we look through all this parade of characters in the meantime the fbi is taking quite a black eye which i don't think anyone of us or any american like to say that the fbi because it's an important instrument of our government and much needed agency in our government do you think their own path to recovery and -- >> no, no, because comey's twin brother is the fbi director. i'm saying that metaphorically. christopher ray. i don't think -- to me judging the actions of christopher ray since he has been fbi director demonstrates that he does not care about transparency and on spooling the spoof to the
american people. he cares about coming up to protect the fbi. how do i know that? because he has divide lawful subpoenas issued by congress and he has fought the declassification of critical documents that would expose the truth behind the "witch hunt" so it's a shame christopher ray can't be more honest and forthcoming and transparent to the american people. they need to know the truth. they deserve the truth. accountability in a democracy is fundamental. >> jim klapper, john brennan, these are two names that appear throughout the book and we've all had to read and watch their roles in all of this. can they be prosecuted and is that a live wire? should they be? >> i think it is possible and that is why it's very significant and important that william barr several months ago
launched an official department of justice investigation and appointed u.s. attorney from connecticut john durham to headed out. durham is well-versed in corruption at the fbi in the cia. he's prosecuted and put behind bars people who have engaged in lawless acts in those agencies. as i write the book inventing a lie is easy but starting the lie is easier in uncovering the truth is hard because the truth always has its enemies. it will take time to unravel all of the lawlessness and corrupt acts involved in the "witch hunt" but i have confidence in william barr and john durham. the inspector general's report will be very important but they are not waiting for the ig report they are moving full steam ahead and in fact we recently learned durham has expanded his investigation,
added additional personal which suggests to me he likely has already found evidence of potential crimes. what is amazing when you read the book and recollect the amazing path that our country has been on it seems like during the obama years nothing leaked. nothing leaked from this deep state. we put that in air quotes. they have no real dirt on us and our enemies overseas but have real information and nothing on the hillary clinton e-mails and nothing on trying to stop him from quote, peter stzrok and nothing leaked but chat with president trump there is a delicious leak including conversations with foreign leaders and others on a very regular basis. why is that asymmetry allowed to because for the eight years of the barack obama administration intelligence community, fbi they were all empowered.
the small group of unelected but powerful officials to collect the deep state and so do others but i call it a malignant force and they saw donald trump coming and he was a threat, the perpetuation of their power. hillary clinton would've been a third term of barack obama and their power would continue but donald trump remember bowed to drain the swamp and they are the swamp, all malignant force, they did not want to be drained. power in washington is like crack cocaine. once you get on it you don't want to give it up and you will do anything to stop someone who will take your power away from you that is how the russia hoax began and that is how it began with the "witch hunt" is because these people saw donald trump as a threat to themselves and to
what they love which is power and the end justified any means, even lawless means. >> you've written two books on this whole tragedy since 2016 but i don't think it seems to end. you have to end this book. >> while the whole dynamic is going in i and the book -- >> in the journal everyday hitting ready for the next book because you better take good notes because some stopping. >> i'm not inclined to write another book but the only cure for a lie is the truth and the only remedy for lawlessness is justice. i end with that and say the reckoning awaits. we wait. i follow it obviously very carefully and continue to write columns on the subject matter so we will wait and see and i'm as
curious as the american public is to see whether or not people will be held accountable because nobody is above the law but no one is below the law either. trump was treated as if he's below the law but for example, he was accused of obstruction of justice and constantly -- >> with no crimes. >> because he dared to speak out that the investigation against him was wrong and that he had not done anything wrong and he was not obstructing justice but was protesting and injustice. under the law that's not obstruction of justice and yet the mueller team thought that just criticizing them and their investigation was obstruction of justice as one of the lawyers as i recount in the book said they acted like cry babies that no
one, not even the president can exercise his first amendment right that what you're doing is wrong and it's a "witch hunt". it was a "witch hunt". but now we know. in the moments -- >> in the moments we have left tell us more about your career and your path to chronicle these amazing stories that are truthful in your two books and how did you get to this point? >> i was a lawyer, defense attorney, great many years ago and i accidentally fell in to tv and did local news -- >> how did you fall into tv? >> a buddy of mine was auditioning for a morning tv job and i tagged along and i ended up auditioning. >> they like to better. >> yeah, he still my friend. >> he fall into tv? spirit no, he had a wonderful career doing other things but i
did both from anything years and it became too much. i was young and single and did not have a mortgage and i thought i'll take a sabbatical from the law firm where i worked in san francisco. after a couple of years the firm said you are still on the letterhead, is this sabbatical ever going to end? i did local news and court tv for several years and i was at msnbc and anger at fox news for 15 years but i started writing columns and the columns took off so i asked fox i'd like to give up the anchoring because it's a conflict of interest and the columns led to two books and -- >> met spent time in wichita. >> i met my wife in wichita and she anchored the news and she was not born and raised in
wichita but was born in dallas, texas but we met in wichita. i loved wichita. i had a great time there. the people are so nice. i fondly regard wichita and have been back several times and do you go back? >> i do. my mother was just here from wichita and my brothers and sisters come out so that's great. as we bring this to a conclusion obviously, your experience out there in the country with these different media jobs you have had does that give you perspective? >> when you live with the people of north carolina as i did people in maryland and i anchored the news there as well, you get a feel for the honesty
of america and what people care about and you become a part of them. it was one of the ratings of been a correspondent for several years as i think i went to just about every state and i had not been to alaska but you get to know people and it keeps you grounded and honest because they are honest and it's an important of being a reporter is understanding who your readers and viewers and listeners are. >> greg jarrett, a good man, the book is "witch hunt". everyone should go buy it but we appreciate you being our guest here today. >> great to be with you. thank you for having me. >> the sperm is available as a podcast. all "after words" programs can be viewed on our website at booktv.org.
>> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country. make up your own mind. crated by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local, cable or satellite provider. c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> you are watching book to be on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> an extra day of nonfiction author programs this veterans day. the secretary of the smithsonian institution, lonnie bunche chronicles the creation of the national museum of african-american history.
revolving and senator rand paul of kentucky discusses socialism. washington times national security columnist bill gertz report on china's efforts to become a superpower. journalist naomi klein talks about consumerism and climate change prayed for more information about the authors will see today visit booktv.org or check your program guide. on "after words" our weekly off the interview program for publican harassment matt gates of florida interviewed a reporting and senator rand paul of kentucky about his new book, the case against socialism. here is some of their discussion. >> i will be a successful capitalist and i sell something i'm not caring about my desires but i make one to be successful but i have to care about what you want. i do care about everything you want. everything is focused outwards towards trying to get you to accept and by my services or product but if i'm a socialist i am not caring too much about ocular opinion or pleasing a consumer. in fact, when we socialize
things like healthcare they say everybody will get it and you'll no longer be bankrupt but you will have to have rationing. they don't seem to care you wait in line for six months or year for your hip replacement but instructed more to their ideological concerns of how -- >> how does that drive selfishness? it seems you're making the event that country is more socialist becomes more selfish. >> i think that is true prayed it's an irony in a way because they would profess to be for the other man in every thing is for someone else but in the end it's driven by selfishness and driven by the elite in their society and they consume and accumulate power and money and homes all based on the cronyism of their system. >> to watch the rest of this interview and to find more episodes of "after words" visit our website, booktv .org and click on the "after words" tab at the top of the