BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MELBER: Right. And we have to see where that evidence goes. I think it`s important for everyone to remember, especially in this fever pitch why a lot of responsible prosecutors and attorneys didn`t think there was that case. We have to see what the evidence is but the idea of turning Julian Assange strictly into a villain because of recent events legally doesn`t hold water unless, again, unless the facts change.
Stay with me. I want to bring in Congressman Joaquin Castro who serves on the Intelligence Committee. I appreciate you making time on a busy night, on Mueller Friday eve, sir. What do you think is important out of all the different things that have emerged today?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I do think that tomorrow is going to be very important. I feel also that we are going to have more leads and a better understanding really of three categories, on collusion, on obstruction of justice, and on money laundering issues as it relates to President Trump and the people in his orbit.
I don`t know, none of us know how much of that is going to be redacted based on what we`ve seen already. Probably a good bit. But I think that we`ll come out of tomorrow with a better sense of where Mueller is going, who else may be in jeopardy of prosecution, and which strains of these things, which of those three buckets basically present the most danger for the president and his people.
MELBER: And in the very sort of technical area of interbranch investigations which frankly a lot of people don`t think about all that often, what is your view of what Mueller has done here because there is some sort of quiet or careful communication between his Russia probe and the Congressional ones. But now we`ve seen to have passed a turning point. Well, for the first time, Bob Mueller has used lies to your institution as a matter to prosecute.
CASTRO: Yes. And I think that the Michael Cohen situation on lying to Congress was really just the tip of the iceberg. I`ll tell you right now that Roger Stone, I`m almost certain, will be prosecuted for lying to the House Intelligence Committee. In the same sitting, he first said to Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell that he had no advanced knowledge of the e-mail dumps. And then when I followed up a few hours later, he admitted that he did. So he basically gave us both sides of that answer while we were in the committee room.
MELBER: I haven`t heard you go that far before.
CASTRO: And so he lied to us.
MELBER: You`re saying tonight you think there is already written record evidence that Roger Stone criminally perjured himself in testimony before your committee?
CASTRO: Yes, absolutely.
MELBER: And do you have knowledge of how the Mueller probe would deal with that?
CASTRO: Well, I assume that at some point, they would bring forward that charge and then whatever else they may be charging Roger Stone with. But I will say, Ari, if there is nothing else to charge Roger Stone with, he certainly lied to our committee.
MELBER: Joyce, what do you think about that?
VANCE: So it`s interesting when you compare transcripts. Sometimes prosecutors are very hesitant to charge someone who clarifies their testimony in the same sitting where they say something that`s false. This will turn on the details and if he is clarifying the earlier comments, he may get away with it. If he`s told two different stories both under oath to the same sitting body, he`s in trouble. And I would certainly defer to the Congressman who was sitting there and heard him do it.
MELBER: Very interesting. Final word, Congressman?
CASTRO: No, I think that`s right. But, you know, everybody I think after January or in January will have a chance to read the transcript. But when you compare those two answers, at least for me in that room and I think everybody in that room, had the sense that this gentleman had perjured himself that day.
MELBER: Fascinating. And as I say, from you Congressman Castro, farther than at least I`ve heard Joyce Vance. Matt Miller and Astead Herndon, thanks all for your analysis tonight.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT