♪ >> Stephen: HEY, EVERYBODY.

>> Stephen:嘿，大家好。

WE'RE BACK WITH ONE OF THE LEAD PROSECUTORS FOR THE MUELLER

我們又回到了MUELLER案的首席檢察官的身邊。

INVESTIGATION AND AUTHOR OF "WHERE LAW ENDS," ANDREW

調查和 "法律終結之處 "的作者，安德魯。

WEISSMANN.

WEISSMANN.

THE FINAL REPORT DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT

最後報告沒有得出結論說主席

BROKE NEW LAWS, BUT IT ALSO SPECIFICALLY DID NOT CONCLUDE

違反了新的法律，但它也明確地沒有得出結論。

THE PRESIDENT HADN'T BROKEN ANY LAWS.

主席沒有違反任何法律。

>> SON THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

>> 兒子對你說得很清楚嗎？

>> Stephen: YES.

>> Stephen:是的。

( LAUGHTER ) YOU WERE ON THE INSIDE.

你是在裡面。

YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T AN OFFICIAL REPORT.

你知道，這不是一個官方的報告。

THIS IS JUST US SITTING ON TWO BAR STOOLS.

這只是我們坐在兩個酒吧的凳子上。

DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT ANY CRIMES?

主席有沒有犯罪？

>> THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD JUST

>> 有很多關於我們是否應該只是...

COME OUT AND SAY IT IN THE REPORT AS OPPOSED TO SAYING THE

出來，在報告中說出來，而不是說出來。

PHRASE THAT YOU JUST SAID, WHICH IS VERY CONVOLUTED.

你剛才說的那句話，是非常矛盾的。

MY VIEW, MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT ANY PROSECUTOR WORTH THEIR

我的看法，我個人的看法是，任何一個檢察官都是值得的。

SALT -- HOPEFULLY I'M ONE OF THEM -- WOULD SAY THAT THE

鹽 -- 希望我是他們中的一員 -- 會說...

PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

主席迕行司法。

>> Stephen: SO WHEN BARR WENT OUT THERE WITH HIS FOUR-PAGE

>> 史蒂芬: 所以當巴爾帶著他的四頁紙出去的時候

SUMMARY OF YOUR VOLUMINOUS REPORT, DID YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS

你的大量報告摘要，你知道他是...

GOING TO ABSOLUTELY SANDBAG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

要把美國人民徹底打成沙包嗎？

BECAUSE I READ A LOT OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU DO STATE IN THERE

因為我看了很多你的報告，而你在報告中也說了。

TEAM STATES IN THERE IN THE NAME OF MR. MUELLER -- THAT IF HE

團隊在那裡以穆勒先生的名義聲明：MUELLER -- -- 如果他

WASN'T PRESIDENT, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED, NOT SO MANY

他本來會被起訴的，不是那麼多。

WORDS BUT DEFINITELY IN THAT MEANING.

詞，但在這個意義上說。

WHAT DID IT FEEL LIKE TO HEAR YOU GET SOLD UP THE RIVER BY

聽到你被河邊的人賣了，你有什麼感覺？

BARR?

巴爾？

>> GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, THAT'S WHERE LAW

>> 回到你的第一個問題，這就是法律的作用。

ENDED.

結束：

>> Stephen: WHEN BARR STEPPED OUT THERE.

>> Stephen:當巴爾走出那裡，

>> YEP.

>> YEP。

THAT WAS REALLY SOUL CRUSHING.

那真是讓人心碎。

>> Stephen: WELL, IF THE PRESIDENT LOSES IN NOVEMBER,

>> 史蒂芬：好吧，如果總統在11月失利。

WOULD IT BE REASONABLE FOR HIM TO BE PROSECUTED?

他被起訴是否合理？

>> COMPLICATED QUESTION.

>> 複雜的問題。

IT WOULD BE REASONABLE, BUT, ON THE ONE HAND, YOU DON'T WANT TO

這是很合理的，但是，一方面，你不願意...

BE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WHERE WE'RE JUST PROSECUTING THE NEXT

成為第三世界國家，我們只是在那裡起訴下一個

PRESIDENT, YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT.

主席，你的政治對手。

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE SORT OF A LICENSE

另一方面，你不希望有某種程度上的許可證。

FOR SOMEBODY TO COMMIT A CRIME WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE OR

有人在任職期間犯罪，或

PREVIOUSLY AND FEEL LIKE THEY WILL NEVER BE HELD TO ACCOUNT

以前，感覺他們永遠不會被追究責任。

JUST BECAUSE THEY BECAME PRESIDENT.

只是因為他們當上了總統。

SO THE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE'S GOING TO HAVE A HARD

所以下一任的檢察長，他將會有一個艱難的過程。

DECISION.

決定：

>> Stephen: WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>> Stephen:好了，謝謝你這麼多 對於在這裡。

"WHERE LAW ENDS" IS AVAILABLE NOW.

"法律終結之處 "現在可以使用。

ANDREW WEISSMANN, EVERYBODY.

ANDREW WEISSMANN, EVERYBODY.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

我們馬上回來。

♪ ♪

♪ ♪