As President Biden has now clenched the Democratic Party's nomination with a win in the Georgia primary. This comes after we saw some fireworks on the Hill today as House lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, got their first crack at questioning the special counsel who declined to charge President Biden, despite Robert Hur, saying that he did determine Biden had willfully retained classified information. Both sides arguing that politics were at play in Hur's report, and one name in particular kept coming up.

And you later joined the Trump Justice Department as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, working as the right-hand man for another known federalist society member, Rod Rosenstein. Isn't that correct?

I served as Mr Rosenstein's Principal Deputy. Bill Barr didn't name Bob Mueller as a Special Counsel. Bob Mueller was named by Rod Rosenstein. That's a huge difference in how this whole thing works.

Rod Rosenstein was the Deputy Attorney General in the Trump administration and oversaw the Mueller investigation in his appointment. He happens to be sitting next to me right now. Great to have you here as you were name dropped several times during that testimony. Obviously, Robert Hur also was your Deputy when you were at the Justice Department. With him testifying today, and as you were able to read the transcript of his interview with President Biden, do you think it was reflected fairly in his report?

You know, Kaitlyn, Rob had a difficult job to do. He had to make a determination about whether criminal charges were warranted, and that required him first to determine what are the facts, and some of the facts were ambiguous. It was often the case in these investigations. You're not sure what was somebody's intent, what was their state of mind. That's what led Rob to produce such a lengthy report with so many details that reflected his factual findings. Then he had to exercise judgment about whether those facts gave rise to sufficient evidence that would warrant a criminal prosecution.

But do you think that what you saw on the transcript made the report look fair the way that he had constructed it, knowing it was going to become public?

Okay, I've read the whole report, which is 350 some pages. I didn't read all the transcripts, so I can't answer that fully, but I think he fairly summarized what was relevant to the investigation, yes.

You said that you agreed with his decision overall on the report here once it was initially issued, not to bring charges against President Biden. When it comes to the age part, specifically, there was this argument from Democrats, excuse me, from Democrats, pretty overtly, that partisan politics drove his report. What do you make of that, knowing Robert Hur?

That's ridiculous, Kaylee. What you saw today was a prosecutor up against 40 politicians, and they have different functions. I think that really played out very dramatically today. Rob Hur's job, like everybody in the Department of Justice, and he's one of the best people and best prosecutors I've worked with in my 30 years in the Department of Justice, analysis, both Democrats and Republicans. He plays it straight. Here are the facts. Here's my analysis. What does it mean in terms of the legal significance? Is the suspect culpable or not of committing a crime? The politicians are interested in the political significance of those findings, but that wasn't an issue for Rob. That wasn't his agenda. That wasn't his goal. And so he produced a report that reflected the relevant legal findings and simply ignored the political context.

Republicans now want the audio of the recordings of those interviews that he did with multiple witnesses, including with President Biden himself. If you were at the DOJ today, would you support releasing that?

I would say yes, Kaitlyn. Having already produced the transcript, the substance of it is all out there. I don't see any reason to withhold the audio recordings, given that the transcript is already public.

One thing that it was strongly contrasted with today was Donald Trump, your former boss, has classified documents, an indictment. Republicans saying that it was unfair that Trump was charged, if Biden wasn't, Democrats saying there's a big difference in what happened here. We spoke with one of the witnesses in the Trump case last night. This is what he told me. On that day, as you're helping load these boxes unwittingly into the plane and handing them to the pilots, Trump is back at Mar-a-Lago. And did you know that his attorneys were there that day?

It's funny because I remember seeing this taller guy, think, flick back, silver hair. I think it was Evan who I now know to be Evan Corcoran. And I saw a bunch of other people in the living room. I had no clue. I'm just seeing all these people.

And it was Evan Corcoran, Trump's attorney, and members of the FBI, Jay Brad.

Which I come to realize now, at the same time he's going in there, the boxes are going from somewhere into a vehicle, which are eventually going to the plane, which I load with Walt.

How powerful of a witness do you think he'd be if this goes to trial?

Okay, then I'm not in position a comment on the witnesses in the Trump case. I think like every case, it's going to depend upon all the witnesses, and not just the prosecution's witnesses, but also the defense witnesses and the theory the defendant lays out. I don't think you can comment on how you think a case is going to come out just based upon one particular witness.

The last time that you were on CNN, the immunity case had not yet gone to the Supreme Court. It is now before the Supreme Court. They're going to hear arguments on it. Do you believe the President should have full immunity from any prosecution while they're in office?

Caitlin, my history, I've worked on investigations of presidents. I worked on the Whitewater investigation. I was responsible for the Russia Special Council investigation. The issue that those investigations raise is, is it appropriate, number one, to investigate conduct that involves the President? Then if the evidence were to prove the President committed a crime, could you prosecute the President either while in office or after the President leaves office? Obviously, I I believe that those investigations were appropriate, that it was appropriate to conduct that investigation. The question raised in this case, in part, is whether or not the conduct at issue in the indictment was within the scope of the President's official responsibilities. If it was, then there's an argument for immunity. If it wasn't, if it exceeded the legitimate scope of presidential duties, then I think that there's no argument for immunity there.

Do you think that what he's alleged to have done is in the scope of presidential duties?

I don't want to comment, Kaitlyn, on the issue before the Supreme Court. I think wait and see what they have to say.

You don't want to say whether or not you believe that he has immunity in that election interference case.

Well, I will say that the DC Circuit opinion was a unanimous opinion and was quite an effective summary of the law. The probability is the Supreme Court will uphold that, but it's up to the five justices of the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I've got to ask you one more thing. I know you're not overtly political. You stick to the facts and the law, but you did work for Donald Trump in the Justice Department, and there are questions about what that would look like in a second Trump term, and he may well be the next President. He posted the other day that one of his first actions, if he took office, and I'm quoting him now, would be to free the January sixth hostages being wrongfully imprisoned. I don't have to tell you, there have been more than 950 convictions, but do you believe that would be appropriate?

So, Kaitlyn, I worked for President Trump. I also worked for President Obama and for President Bush.

Yeah, you were a US attorney under President Obama.

My approach, like Robbs, he worked in all three administrations as well, was to focus on the facts and the law. I don't think anybody who commits a crime involving assault on a police officer should go free. That's my opinion about that.

Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General. Great to have you on here tonight.Thank you. Glad to be here.Thanks much for joining.