[Camerota:] Special Counsel Robert Mueller's high stakes testimony before Congress happens this Wednesday. So will he answer some of the lingering questions about his report, including whether he thinks President Trump obstructed justice. Joining us now is Donald Ayer. He served as deputy attorney general under George H.W. Bush. He has worked with and known Robert Mueller since the 1970s. Mr. Ayer, it's great to have you here and your perspective. You say you wrote an op-ed you say Bob Mueller needs to finish the job. What does that mean?
[Donald Ayer, Worked With Mueller As Asst. U.s. Attorney And At Justice Department:] Well, I think what it means is that in any investigation where there's an issue of intent, and that's very much what we have here in the context of the obstruction of justice statute, it's essential that the prosecutor make a judgment about intent. And the only real way to make that judgment is by looking at all the evidence taken together. Because Bob Mueller believed and and took the position that he wasn't able to reach a final conclusion about whether there was an indictable offense, he never drew that final conclusion by looking at all the evidence. There are parts of the report on page seven and on page 157 and probably other places in volume two where he notes it's really important to look at all the facts and all the circumstances together. But he never does that because if he did, he would find himself saying what he believed he couldn't say. Now, what's interesting is that the attorney general has intervened essentially and after the fact has said that Bob Mueller was wrong and he misinterpreted the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel and he could have gone ahead and reached the conclusion. So what he needs to do now is what any prosecutor would do in a case involving multiple facts and a big issue of intent. And he needs to draw the conclusion from those facts. And when you do, it's perfectly clear that there's enormously powerful evidence of an intent to interfere dishonestly with the investigation.
[Camerota:] And you've known him for 40-plus years. Will he do that on Wednesday?
[Ayer:] Well, I don't know. It would be wrong for me to try to predict what he'll do. He's a person of great rectitude and great principle and enormous dedication to the country. And it's my hope that he'll reflect on the situation and realize that Attorney General Barr intervening and telling the public without any discussion of the facts at all that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction, that the only way that he can finish his job of telling the public what went on is to is to express the prosecutor's view of what the evidence shows. And that evidence is incredibly powerful when you view it together.
[Camerota:] Well, I mean, we have a full screen graphic to show people. These are the ten potential moments of compelling obstruction. I mean he laid out, you know, Robert Mueller in his report laid out all of these moments that our legal experts and prosecutors far and wide have said amount to obstruction of justice for anyone else. And so, obviously, Democrats will try to zero in on some of those moments. But this is the confusing part. Since he decided that he could not indict a sitting president because of whatever statutes and legal precedent he read, why did he feel he couldn't say it? Why did he feel he couldn't verbally say his findings?
[Ayer:] Well, I think it follows directly from his, I think, very punctilious view of the limits on his authority. And he he followed he knew he had to follow the policy of not indicting. And he inferred from that, that because he couldn't indict and the president couldn't be prosecuted, the president had no way to essentially redeem himself by proving his innocence. Now, what we have is the intervening statement in emphatic terms by the attorney general on May 30th that he didn't know why Mueller thought that and he was wrong essentially and and the the opinion of the attorney general about how to interpret an office of legal counsel opinion I think ought to be viewed as binding. And I think Mr. Mueller is now in a very good position to say, OK, stand corrected. And I will now give you my prosecutor's view. And I think that list of elements that you see there on the screen that you just put up, it's very powerful when you view them all together. And some of the ones that I would just like to highlight some arguments have been made that that certain things were within the president's power under Article 2, like he has the power to terminate the head of the FBI. He had the power to terminate Sessions if he wanted to. He had he had various powers. But what he doesn't have is the power to do those things corruptly. That is to say with a specific intent to interfere with an investigation. And so you look at all of these things together and you specifically look at particular acts that are on their face clearly corrupt, clearly dishonest, clearly intended to mislead. You look at him telling his White House counsel, Don McGahn
[Camerota:] Yes.
[Ayer:] To essentially lie about the fact that the president had told him that he need that he needed to deny that that the president had asked him to terminate Mueller.
[Camerota:] Yes.
[Ayer:] You you have the the statement that the president helped draft about the June 9, 2016 meeting.
[Camerota:] Sure. And I mean all of those things, Mr. Ayer, will come up. No doubt Democrats plan to ask him specifically and drill down on those things. But it's really interesting to hear you say that you think that the May 30th Bill Barr statement was a game changer. So we will see if Robert Mueller agrees. Mr. Donald Ayer, thank you very much for all of your expertise on this.
[Ayer:] Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.
[Camerota:] David.
[Gregory:] Alisyn, a baseball all-star is speaking out and another scary foul ball moment. The "Bleacher Report" coming up next.