>> Braude: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON": ON THE EVE OF THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE CAPITOL INSURRECTION, RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE NANCY GERTNER AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY MICHAEL SULLIVAN JOIN ME ON WHETHER A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS, OR SHOULD BE, IN DONALD TRUMP'S FUTURE.

THEN, LATER, HOW DID A PRESTIGIOUS ORGANIZATION LIKE BRIGHAM HEALTH END UP GAMBLING ON A VENTURE TO BUILD A HOSPITAL FOR ELITES IN CHINA, ONLY TO FAIL IN SPECTACULAR FASHION?

AND WHAT DOES THE WHOLE THING SAY ABOUT THE PRIORITIES OF NON-PROFIT HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS?

TWO "BOSTON GLOBE" REPORTERS BEHIND THE STORY JOIN ME.

♪♪ >> Braude: AS THE NATION GETS READY TO MARK ONE YEAR SINCE THE ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND GAVE AN UPDATE, OF SORTS, ON THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THOSE INVOLVED.

>> THOSE INVOLVED MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE ARRESTED AND CHARGED MORE THAN 725 DEFENDANTS IN NEARLY ALL 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR ROLES IN THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REMAINS COMMITTED TO HOLDING ALL JANUARY 6 PERPETRATORS, AT ANY LEVEL, ACCOUNTABLE UNDER THE LAW, WHETHER THEY WERE PRESENT THAT DAY OR OTHERWISE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY.

WE WILL FOLLOW THE FACTS WHEREVER THEY LEAD.

>> Braude: MOST WERE WAITING TODAY TO HEAR WHETHER THOSE FACTS MIGHT LEAD TO CHARGES AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT, THE MAN WHO MANY BELIEVE INCITED THE VIOLENCE THAT DAY.

BUT BY THE END OF GARLAND'S PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT QUESTION REMAINED UNANSWERED.

AND, OF COURSE, THE MAN HIMSELF SEEMS LARGELY UNBOTHERED BY THE POSSIBILITY, HAVING PLANNED TO MARK TOMORROW'S ANNIVERSARY WITH A PRESS CONFERENCE AT HIS MAR-A-LAGO HOTEL UP UNTIL LAST NIGHT, WHEN DONALD TRUMP ABRUPTLY CANCELED THE PLAN, REPORTEDLY ONLY AFTER SEVERAL ALLIES AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS REPEATEDLY URGED HIM TO DO SO.

TRUE TO FORM, THOUGH, HE TOOK A JAB AT THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE ATTACK IN THE PROCESS.

SAYING IN A STATEMENT: "IN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL BIAS AND DISHONESTY OF THE JANUARY 6 UNSELECT COMMITTEE OF DEMOCRATS, TWO FAILED REPUBLICANS, AND THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA, I AM CANCELING THE JANUARY 6 PRESS CONFERENCE AT MAR-A-LAGO, AND INSTEAD WILL DISCUSS MANY OF THOSE IMPORTANT TOPICS AT MY JANUARY 15th RALLY."

LEGAL EXPERTS AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH BASIC COMMON SENSE ALSO THOUGHT THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS A BAD IDEA, GIVEN THE COMMITTEE'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION.

AND WHILE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STILL WON'T SAY WHETHER HE'LL BRING A CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE PARTNER OF CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER BRIAN SICKNICK, WHO SUFFERED TWO STROKES AND DIED AFTER THE ATTACK, HAS ALREADY REACHED A VERDICT: >> I THINK HE NEEDS TO BE IN PRISON, THAT'S WHAT I THINK.

I HOLD DONALD TRUMP 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6.

>> Braude: SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE.

JUST YESTERDAY SOME D.C. AND CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS FILED TWO NEW CIVIL LAWSUITS AGAINST TRUMP FOR PROVOKING THE ATTACK, JUST THE LATEST IN A LONG LIST OF SUITS BY FELLOW OFFICERS AND LAWMAKERS.

THE D.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ALSO CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INCITEMENT INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP'S ROLE IN THE INSURRECTION, AND THOSE ARE JUST THE CASES RELATED TO JANUARY 6.

NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES CONFIRMED THIS WEEK THAT HER OFFICE HAS SUBPOENAED SOME OF TRUMP'S CHILDREN IN A CIVIL INVESTIGATION INTO THE FAMILY'S BUSINESS PRACTICES AND IS LOOKING TO QUESTION THE FORMER PRESIDENT, TOO.

THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE SAME ISSUE, AND TRUMP IS THE SUBJECT OF ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PROBES INTO ATTEMPTED ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN GEORGIA.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE OTHER CIVIL SUITS PENDING AGAINST TRUMP, INCLUDING THOSE OF HIS FORMER AIDE, MICHAEL COHEN, HIS NIECE, MARY TRUMP, AND THE NAACP, TO NAME JUST A FEW.

BUT FOR A MAN WHO'S BEEN INVESTIGATED AND SUED PLENTY OF TIMES BEFORE AND HAS ALWAYS SOMEHOW FOUND HIS WAY OUT OF TROUBLE, WILL THIS TIME BE ANY DIFFERENT?

I'M JOINED NOW BY NANCY GERTNER, RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE AND SENIOR LECTURER AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY MICHAEL SULLIVAN, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH, WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED THE SHOW BOMBER, WORKED WITH FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER AT THE D.O.J., AND IS NOW A PARTNER WITH THE ASHCROFT GROUP.

>> Braude: HAPPY NEW YEARLYHAPPY NEWYEAR TO BOTH OF YOU.

>> THANKS, JIM, HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> Braude: JUDGE GERTNER, STARTING WITH YOU, WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO WHAT ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND HAD TO SAY?

IS THAT ALL HE SHOULD SAY?

>> THAT'S ALL HE COULD SAY.

HE COULD HAVE SAID MORE IN THE WAY THAT BILL BARR DID AND THE WAY SESSIONS DID, BUT THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD SAY.

IT'S NOT JUST A FOCUS ON JANUARY 6 AND WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED ABOUT TRUMP'S ACTIVITIES, AND OTHERS' ACTIVITIES, WITH RESPECT TO GEORGIA AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT JUST THE DEMONSTRATIONS OR WHATEVER IT WAS, THE INSURRECTION, ON JANUARY 6, IT IS ALSO WHAT ELSE WAS BEING DONE TO SET ASIDE A LAWFUL ELECTION.

AND TO SOME DEGREE HIS REMARKS WERE ACTUALLY NARROW.

WE'LL FOLLOW JANUARY 6 WHEREVER IT GOES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BROADER QUESTIONS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INTERFERING IN GEORGIA, THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THEY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING AS WELL.

>> Braude: JUDGE, COULD pI JUST STAY WITH YOU FOR ONE SECOND?

IS IT POSSIBLE THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION ON, OR A GRAND JURY CONVENED, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE LEAKS THAT WE WOULD KNOW ABOUT, MEANING INTO DONALD TRUMP'S INVOLVEMENT?

>> IS IT POSSIBLE?

I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE IN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN WHICH HE IS ABSOLUTELY ADAMANT ABOUT THERE BEING NO LEAKS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, SO IS BOB MUELLER, AND THINGS LEAKED OUT.

SO IT IS POSSIBLE -- >> Braude: BUT UNLIKELY?

>> BUT UNLIKELY.

>> Braude: MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DID ATTORNEY GARLAND SAY ALL HE COULD SAY AT THIS POINT?

>> I AGREE WITH JUDGE GERTNER, THAT IS ALL HE SHOULD HAVE SAID.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WHEN YOU INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE SOMEBODY PUBLICLY, THEY'VE LOST THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I THINK MOST PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS CONDUCT THESE TYPES OF MATTERS IN SECRET, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

AND I THINK JUDGES GET EXTREMELY OFFENDED, PARTICULARLY WHEN PROSECUTORS TRY TO USE, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC MEDIA FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENHANCING THEIR CASE.

WHETHER IT IS FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP OR A HOUSEKEEPER, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE NEGATIVE MEDIA STORIES ABOUT HIM, INCLUDING ALL THE LEAKED INVESTIGATIONS.

I THINK IT IS HORRIBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE LEAKED INFORMATION ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

>> Braude: WELL, YOU KNOW, MICHAEL SULLIVAN, I'M SURE YOU SAW THE "WASHINGTON POST" POLL, AND WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO THINK VIOLENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

BUT 60% OF ALL ADULTS THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT BORE A GREAT DEAL OR A GOOD AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CAPITOL ATTACK.

AND YESTERDAY ON TELEVISION, I HEARD THE FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL SAY THAT THE U.S. ATTORNEY MANUAL, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, SAYS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION WHEN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE REQUIRES IT.

IS THIS NOT SUCH A SITUATION?

>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT SUCH A SITUATION.

BUT THAT IS -- THAT HORSE HAS ALREADY LEFT THE BARN.

YOU KNOW, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID, BOTH AT THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL AND AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL.

I MEAN, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS SELECT COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE IS TO INVESTIGATE THE FORMER PRESIDENT.

>> AND THAT'S WRONG?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

>> Braude: GO AGAIN, JUDGE?

>> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

>> I THINK YOU LET THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCT WHATEVER INVESTIGATION THEY THINK IS APPROPRIATE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CRIME.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT IS THAT IT IS CLEARLY POLITICAL IN NATURE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE CONGRESS.

I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE RECOGNIZE WHAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE IS DOING IN CONGRESS, IS MOTIVATED BY POLITICS AND FAR LESS BY FACTS.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT IS MORE THAN CAPABLE OF CONDUCTING THIS TYPE OF INVESTIGATION AND YOU ARE HOPING THEY WOULD CONDUCT IT WITHOUT ANY POLITICAL INFLUENCE, THEY COULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE STORY.

YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENTS DOESN'T MAKE SOMEBODY RESPONSIBLE FROM A CRIMINAL PERSPECTIVE.

>> U BUT BUT THAT'S JUST THE POINT.

THE SELECT COMMITTEE IS CHOSEN BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE.

THEY COULD HAVE TREATED JANUARY 6 LIKE THE 9/11 COMMISSION, WHICH IS LET'S GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT FOR ALL OF US.

IT WAS BAD NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE AISLE YOU'RE ON.

THE OTHER THING IS EXACTLY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS LOOKING ONLY AT CRIME, AND CRIME IS A MUCH MORE NARROW SUBCATEGORY OF WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

WHEREAS THE SELECT COMMITTEE IS LOOKING FOR RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THAT IS -- AND IT MAY BE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OR JUST BEING RESPONSIBLE IN OTHER RESPECTS.

I THINK THAT, JUST AS THE 9/11 COMMISSION WASN'T DESIGNED NECESSARILY TO INDICT ANYONE; THEY WERE ELECTED TO UNDERSTAND INTELLIGENCE FAILURES, WHAT WERE THE POLITICAL FAILURES, WHAT FAILURES ON ALL SORTS OF LEVELS LED TO THAT.

THAT IS A BROADER CHARGE THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>> AND I -- >> Braude: WHAT'S THAT AGAIN?

>> I SAID THE ONLY ADDITIONAL POINTS: FIRST OFF, THE COMMITTEE WAS CHOSEN BY THE DEMOCRATIC SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

>> BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE.

>> JUDGE, IN ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M NOT SURE THAT IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE, BECAUSE THE TWO MEMBERS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE WERE REJECTED BY THE SPEAKER.

>> BUT THEY COULD GO IN IN DEFAULT -- >> Braude: IF I CAN, I WANT TO MOVE ON.

I WANT TO GET TO THE CRIMINAL ISSUE THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY NOT DEAL WITH.

THERE MAY BE NO REFERRAL.

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, STARTING WITH YOU, BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AROUND JANUARY 6, WHETHER IT IS INCITEMENT, AIDING AND ABETTING, DID DONALD TRUMP COMMIT A CRIME, OR SHOULD HE AT LEAST BE INVESTIGATED BASED ON THE FACTS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF?

>> I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME BY PARTICIPATING IN A RALLY, A DEMONSTRATION.

WE SHOULD EMBRACE THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO DEMONSTRATE, EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING A PERSON.

YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE EVENTS.

YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE BREACHED THE CAPITOL IS A CRIME, AS IT TURNS OUT.

AND PEOPLE ARE BEING INVESTIGATED AND CHARGED WITH THAT.

>> Braude: HUNDREDS OF THEM.

>> IF THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE COMPLICIT -- HUNDREDS?

.

IF THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE COMPLICIT, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THEY COMMITTED A CRIME, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC A LIKE THINK THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED.

>> Braude: YOU DON'T THINK HE WAS INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW AN ELECTION, WHETHER IT WAS THE CALL WE ALL HEARD HIS VOICE TELLING THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN GEORGIA TO GO FIND 11,000 PLUS VOTES THAT DIDN'T EXIST, OR HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH JEFFREY CLARK IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT SETTING THIS THING UP, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR GEORGIA'S RESULTS TO BE OVERTURNED.

THAT DOESN'T FALL -- >> I DON'T THINK SO, JIM.

THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE ELECTION RESULTS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT SOME BALLOTS EITHER WEREN'T COUNTED OR WERE DESTROYED OR SOME PEOPLE VOTED WHO DIDN'T VOTE AND EXPRESSED THOSE FEELINGS SHOULD NEVER BE A CRIME.

WHETHER YOU BE I DISAGREE WITH THE PERSON'S PREMISE, THE PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO AT LEAST OBJECT TO THE ELECTION RESULTS.

>> Braude: LET ME GET JUDGE GERTNER BACK IN THIS, IF I UNDERSTAND.

DO YOU THINK CRIMES WERE COMMITTED BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AROUND THE EVIDENCE AROUND JANUARY 6?

>> I THINK THE CRIME SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY QUESTION CRIME SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

I APPRECIATE THAT YOU CAN INCITE A CROWD AND IT BORDERS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT, HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, BUT THE QUESTION IS, THAT WAS IN TANDEM TRYING TO REPLACE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO DECLARE THE ELECTION INVALID.

IT WOULD THEN LEAD TO PUTTING PRESSURE ON PENCE, TO FORCE THE ELECTION INTO THE STATE LEGISLATURE WHERE TRUMP WAS LIKELY TO WIN.

IN ADDITION, JUST SECURITY, LAST WEEK, HAD AN INTERESTING REPORT ABOUT WHETHER TRUMP WAS HAPPY WITH THE CHAOS IN THE CAPITOL BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE VIRGE OF DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND STOPPING THE COUNT.

WHETHER THOSE THINGS CAN BE PROVED, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED?

WITHOUT A DOUBT.

>> Braude: JUDGE GERTNER, ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT POSSIBLE CRIMES.

I WANT TO PLAY TO YOU WHAT LIZ CHENEY, A REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, HAD TO SAY ON ABC ON SUNDAY.

>> HE WAS SITTING IN THE DINING ROOM, NEXT TO THE OVAL OFFICE, WATCHING THE ATTACK ON TELEVISION AS THE ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL OCCURRED.

HE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM TO STAND DOWN.

HE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM TO GO HOME, AND HE FAILED TO DO SO.

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A MORE SIGNIFICANT DERELICTION OF DUTY THAN THAT.

>> Braude: IS INACTION EVER A CRIME, JUDGE GERTNER?

>> NOT USUALLY, NO.

INACTION IS ONLY A CRIME IF YOU AN OBLIGATION OF DUTY TO ACT.

I THINK OF ALL OF THE GROUNDS WE'RE CONSIDERING WHAT TRUMP DID OR DIDN'T OR DIDN'T DO, THAT IS THE WEAKEST GROUND.

THAT IN TANDEM WITH THE EVIDENCE HE WAS HAPPY WITH THE CHAOS IN THE CAPITOL BECAUSE AS MANY MILITARY LEADERS WERE SAYING, HE WANTED TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

THERE IS AN INTERESTING STORY ABOUT WHY THE NATIONAL GUARD WAS NOT CALLED UP AS QUICKLY -- OR VERY QUICKLY AT ALL.

AND ONE STORY IS THEY WERE AFRAID IF THERE WAS A FEDERAL PRESENCE ON THE CAPITOL STEPS THAT DAY, THAT TRUMP WOULD TURN THAT INTO -- ESSENTIALLY ARGUE THERE WAS A STATE OF EMERGENCY, AND THE FEDERAL TROOPS SHOULD, AS HE SAID, PROTECT THE DEMONSTRATORS RATHER THAN PROTECT THE CAPITOL.

THERE IS ENOUGH SWIRLING AROUND HERE THAT IS VERY TROUBLING, TOTALLY OUT OF THE ORDINARY, THAT OUGHT TO BE INVESTIGATED.

>> Braude: BEFORE WE GO, CAN I JUST CHANGE GEARS WITH YOU, MICHAEL SULLIVAN.

YOU WERE ONE OF THREE FORMER U.S.

ATTORNEYS, BUD, WELD, AND YOU, WHO ENDORSED THE NOMINATION OF RACHAEL ROLLINS FOR U.S. ATTORNEY.

SHE WILL BE WITH ME ON MONDAY NIGHT.

WHAT IS THE REACTION TO NONE OF YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE THINKING THAT RACHAEL ROLLINS WAS FIT TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY?

>> DISAPPOINTED, CERTAINLY.

AS I SAID PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY, I THINK RACHAEL ROLLINS IS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS U.S. ATTORNEY.

SO DISAPPOINTED.

>> Braude: I ASKED EDWARD MARKEY IF HE THOUGHT RACISM WAS INVOLVED IN THAT VOTE, AND HE SAID 100%.

DO YOU?

>> I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT.

I DON'T SEE ANY INDICATION AT ALL THAT IT WAS BASED ON RACE.

I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, RACHAEL ROLLINS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL EVENT.

AND SOME PEOPLE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE POSITIONS SHE'S TAKEN AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND I THINK USED IT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE A RACE ISSUE.

I HOPE IT WAS NOT RACE.

>> Braude: MICHAEL SULLIVAN AND NANCY GERTNER, AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Braude: AS JUST ABOUT EVERYONE KNOWS, THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

IT'S EXPENSIVE.

IT'S COMPLICATED.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE BEST OF THE BEST NON-PROFIT PROVIDERS, LIKE MANY HERE IN BOSTON, YOU'D LIKE TO THINK THEY'RE FOCUSING ALL THEIR ATTENTION ON THE PATIENTS COMING TO THEM FOR CARE.

OR IF THEY'RE SPLITTING THEIR FOCUS, IT'S FOR GOOD REASON.

BUT AS A NEW "BOSTON GLOBE" SPOTLIGHT INVESTIGATION FOUND, IN AT LEAST ONE INSTANCE, THAT WASN'T THE CASE AT ALL.

THE "GLOBE" REPORT DETAILS HOW BRIGHAM HEALTH PARTNERED WITH A CHINESE CONGLOMERATE IN 2013 TO BUILD A HOSPITAL IN CHINA WHERE WEALTHY PATIENTS WOULD PAY TOP DOLLAR, OUT OF POCKET, FOR HIGH-QUALITY CARE.

BUT IN THE END, DESPITE NEARLY 400 FACULTY AND STAFF FROM BRIGHAM AND DANA FARBER GETTING INVOLVED, WITH AROUND 200 20-PLUS-HOUR TRIPS FROM HERE TO CHINA, THE FINAL HOSPITAL ATTRACTED ALMOST NO PATIENTS AT ALL.

SO THIS PAST JUNE, WHEN BRIGHAM'S CONTRACT WITH ITS OVERSEAS PARTNER EXPIRED, IT QUIETLY "SCRUBBED THE HOSPITAL FROM ITS WEB PAGE, TOUTING INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS."

AND THE NAME OF THAT CHINESE PARTNER, BY THE WAY?

YOU'LL LIKELY RECOGNIZE IT, AS YOU'LL FIND OUT IN A MINUTE.

BUT NOT FOR ANYTHING GOOD.

NOW, AS THE "GLOBE" ARTICLE STATES: "FEW FROM BRIGHAM HEALTH ARE EAGER TO TALK ABOUT IT."

IN FACT, AMONG THOSE WHO REFUSED TO SPEAK TO REPORTERS ABOUT ANY OF THIS: DR. ELIZABETH NABEL, BRIGHAM HEALTH'S THEN-PRESIDENT; MARK DAVIS, THE FORMER EXECUTIVE WHO LED THE COMPANY'S INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS AT THE TIME; LISA MORRISSEY, THE FORMER INTERIM CHIEF NURSING OFFICER, WHO WORKED ON NURSING PLANS AND TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR THE HOSPITAL; AND SEVERAL CLINICIANS INVOLVED IN THE VENTURE, WHO APPARENTLY NEEDED OFFICIALS' APPROVALS.

BUT FOR NOW, I'M JOINED BY A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT.

"BOSTON GLOBE" REPORTERS DEIRDRE FERNANDES AND REBECCA OSTRIKER, WHO WORKED ON THIS STORY ALONG WITH LIZ KOWALYCZYK AND SPOTLIGHT EDITOR PATRICIA WEN.

>> Braude: CONGRATULATIONS TO BOTH OF YOU, AND GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> THANK YOU, JIM.

>> GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> Braude: REBECCA, THESE NUMBERS ARE STAGGERING TO ME.

IT TOOK A YEAR FOR THE FIRST CANCER PATIENT TO APPEAR, AND WHEN A GLOBE CORRESPONDENT WENT OVER TO SEE HOW MANY OF THE 647 BEDS WERE FILLED, HOW MANY WERE?

>> WELL, WE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THAT IN THIS GIGANTIC HOSPITAL, 647 BEDS, THERE WERE TYPICALLY NO MORE THAN 10 PATIENTS AT ANY TIME.

AND THAT WAS OVER THE SPAN OF THE ENTIRE CONTRACT.

AS YOU MENTIONED, IT TOOK NEARLY A YEAR FOR THEM TO GET UP AND RUNNING.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, IT WAS VERY SLOW WORD OF MOUTH, GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT STILL, AS WE WERE TOLD, NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE HOSPITAL BY ANY MEANS.

>> Braude: DEIRDRE, I KNOW PEOPLE SHOULD READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT IN A NUTSHELL, WHY DID IT FAIL SO MISERABLY?

>> I THINK THE LOCATION WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE.

IT IS IN THIS ISLAND PROVINCE, AND BASICALLY THE VERY SOUTHERN MOST TIP OF CHINA.

THE PEOPLE THERE MAKE ABOUT $13,000 ANNUALLY, AND THIS HOSPITAL WAS BUILT ESSENTIALLY FOR WEALTHY PATIENTS AND IS GEARED TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO WOULD FLY FROM MAINLAND CHINA OR VIETNAM OR AROUND ASIA TO GET CARE AT THIS HOSPITAL THAT WAS THE BRIGHAM KIND OF TRAINING AND BRAND ON IT.

AND IN THE END, NOBODY REALLY CAME.

IT WAS HARD TO GET TO.

IT WAS LOCATED IN THIS KIND OF VERY ISOLATED TOWN ON THE ISLAND, AND PEOPLE DIDN'T SHOW UP.

SOME PEOPLE MENTIONED IF YOU WERE ABOUT TO GET CANCER CARE, DO YOU WANT TO TRAVEL BY PLANE AND THEN HAVE TO TAKE A CAR OR TRAIN TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL?

>> Braude: YEAH.

AT THE TIME -- DEIRDRE STAYING WITH YOU, THE COMPANY, CARRYING A MERE $300 BILLION IN DEBT, A DEVELOPMENT FIRM OVER THERE, IN REAL TROUBLE -- WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THIS COMPANY THAT BRIGHAM WAS PARTNERING WITH AS FAR BACK AS THE BEGINNING WAS A RISKY VENTURE, DEIRDRE?

SHOULD THE BRIGHAM HAVE KNOWN?

>> WELL, I THINK THE BRIGHAM -- THERE WAS INDICATION THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE, INVESTORS AND INVESTMENT PEOPLE, SUGGESTING THAT THIS COMPANY, EVERBRAND WAS USING CREATIVE ACCOUNTING TECHNIQUES.

AND THE COMPANY WENT INTO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

THEY WENT INTO BOTTLED WATER.

THEY BOUGHT A SOCCER TEAM.

THERE WAS A LOT OF KIND OF BUZZ AROUND IT, BUT ALSO THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THIS WAS REAL AND HOW MUCH COULD THEY REALLY SUSTAIN.

AND AS ONE INVESTMENT EXPERT KIND OF SAID, THIS IS KIND OF A PONZI SCHEME.

THEY WERE DOING A LOT -- ALL OF THEIR VENTURES WERE JUST A WAY TO RAISE MORE AND MORE MONEY.

SO THERE IS A QUESTION -- >> Braude: REB REBECCA -- GO AHEAD.

>> BRIGHAM SAID THEY VETTED THE COMPANY, AND THEY ALSO HAD AN OUTSIDE GROUP LOOK AT THIS PROJECT.

BUT THEY WOULDN'T SAY WHO THE OUTSIDE GROUP WAS, OR THIS OUTSIDE FIRM WAS, AND THEY WOULDN'T GO INTO MUCH DETAIL ABOUT WHAT KIND OF VETTING WAS DONE.

>> Braude: REBECCA, YOU MENTION IN YOUR PIECE THAT M.G.H.

IS A JOINT VENTURE AND IT IS GOING WELL, SO IS THE POINT HERE IS THAT IT FAILED OR WHO IT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR?

WHY THE FOCUS ON THEM?

>> IT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

BOTH THINGS ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.

THERE HRE PEOPLE WHO ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER LARGE, NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS SHOULD BE DOING THIS KIND OF THING AT ALL.

SHOULD LARGE, NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS BE GOING OVERSEAS TO TRY TO HELP CATER TO WEALTHY PEOPLE ABROAD IF THEIR BASIC MISSION IS HERE AT HOME?

BOTH HOSPITALS DID THAT.

ONE HOSPITAL OPENED AN -- M.G.H.PARTNERED AND OPENED A HOSPITAL IN SHANGHAI, AND THAT HOSPITAL IS DOING MUCH BETTER.

IT IS LOCATED IN A BUSY PART OF THE CITY.

>> Braude: SURE.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF EX-PATRIOTS AND WEALTHY FOLKS THERE.

AND IF YOU NEED TREATMENT AND YOU'RE ALREADY IN SHANGHAI, THAT'S WHERE YOU MIGHT GO.

I SPOKE WITH SOMEONE FROM DELOITTE WHO POINTED OUT THAT THE FEELING IN THAT HOSPITAL IS VERY REMINISCENT OF WHAT YOU MIGHT EXPERIENCE IN AN AMERICAN HOSPITAL.

BUT THE CHOICE THAT BRIGHAM MADE TO PARTNER WITH THIS GIGANTIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, WHO HAD NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL IN HEALTH CARE -- >> Braude: IT IS A DIFFERENCE -- >> YEAH.

ON AN ISLAND WHICH WAS DIFFICULT TO GET TO, YOU KNOW, IT IS EMBARRASSING THAT IT WAS A TERRIBLE FAILURE, BUT THERE REMAINS QUESTIONS JUST IN GENERAL WHETHER NON-PROFITS SHOULD BE GOING INTO THIS.

>> Braude: CAN WE STAY ON THAT QUESTION FOR A SECOND.

TO TRANSLATE, NON-PROFIT MEANS TAX EXEMPT.

AND A NON-PROFIT INSTITUTION IN ANY JURISDICTION MEANS THOSE OF US WHO PAY TAXES MAKE UP FOR THOSE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES.

AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO SERVE BILLIONAIRES, OR AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE BILLIONAIRES, AND YOU COMBINE THIS WITH THE HEADS OF TEACHING HOSPITALS, INCLUDING THIS WOMAN, DR. NABEL, WHO WAS ON A COUPLE OF BOARDS, SOLD HER STOCK FOR $8 MILLION.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HIERARCHY OF THE BRIGHAM THAT IS CONCERNED AT LEAST ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF WHAT THIS HOSPITAL AND ITS LEADERS ARE DOING AS A NON-PROFIT ENTITY?

>> NOBODY THAT WE SPOKE SEEMED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

AND YOU RAISE A VERY GOOD POINT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE SPOTLIGHT TEAM AND OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT WITH OTHER STORIES.

AND YOU MENTIONED THE ONE, SOMETHING LIKE SIX OUT OF SEVEN BOSTON HOSPITAL CHIEFS TAKING LUCRATIVE POSITIONS ON BOARDS.

MORE COMMON IN BOSTON THAN IN ANY OTHER MAJOR U.S. CITY.

THERE WAS AN EARLIER STORY ABOUT ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENTS BY DANA FARBER TRUSTEES.

SO THERE ARE REAL QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED AROUND THIS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO BRIGHAM, NO.

THERE WAS ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T WANT TO TALK WITH US -- WE DID MANAGE TO SPEAK WITH ONE MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM EXECUTIVE ABOUT THE EVER EVERGRAND PROJECT, BUT HE MADE IT CLEAR HE HAD ONLY BEEN THERE SINCE 20, AND 2020, AND HE HADN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS HE WASN'T AWARE OF.

THEY SAY THIS IS PART OF THEIR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE GLOBAL HEALTH.

THEY SAY THAT THE CORPORATE VENTURES ABROAD HELP SUBSIDIZE, HELP SUPPORT, THE WORK THAT THEY DO IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT -- >> Braude: CAN I STOP YOU -- NO, GO AHEAD.

>> PLEASE.

>> Braude: YOU WERE GOING TO MENTION WORKING IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

YOU GUYS LIST -- THE HOSPITAL INDEXES RANKS THEM OF 341 HOSPITALS NATIONWIDE, COMMUNITY BENEFITS, CHARITABLE SPENDING, NEAR THE BECOME, 3188.

WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT ESSENTIALLY, DEIRDRE, CAN YOU GIVE ME 30 SECONDS ON HAS THERE BEEN A RESPONSE FROM LEGISLATORS, OTHER LEADERS WHO YOU DIDN'T INTERVIEW, INDICATING SOME CONCERN?

OR IS THIS JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE OFFICE?

QUICKLY, IF YOU CAN.

>> I THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE, RIGHT?

WHO IS WATCHING THESE HOSPITALS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE LIVING UP TO THEIR NON-PROFIT KIND OF STATUS.

AND THAT'S AN OPEN QUESTION.

AND WE HAVEN'T -- THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF OUTCRY FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT THE QUESTION IS: WHAT ARE LEGISLATORS AND THE LAWMAKERS GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

>> Braude: WELL, WE'LL ASK THEM IF WE CAN.

WE HOPE YOU DO, TOO.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR YET ANOTHER GREAT PIECE OF WORK.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Braude: THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW.

PLEASE BE SURE TO JOIN US ON MONDAY WHEN NEW U.S. ATTORNEY RACHAEL ROLLINS JOINS US.

THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND PLEASE STAY SAFE.

Captioned by Media Access Group at WGBH access.wgbh.org