>> Reilly: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON": I'M ADAM REILLY, IN FOR JIM BRAUDE.

THE PRESIDENT IS ANTI-DEATH PENALTY, BUT APPARENTLY HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISN'T, TAKING STEPS TO TRY AND REINSTATE THE PENALTY FOR MARATHON BOMBER DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV.

WHAT DOES THIS MOVE MEAN FOR THE CASE AND THE FUTURE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY?

THEN, LATER, JOURNALIST EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE ON HIS NEW BOOK, "BATTLE FOR THE SOUL: INSIDE THE DEMOCRATS' COMPAIGNS TO DEFEAT TRUMP."

♪♪ >> Reilly: DURING THE 2020 CAMPAIGN, JOE BIDEN DECLARED, "WE MUST ELIMINATE THE DEATH PENALTY."

NOW HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TRYING TO REINSTATE IT IN A CASE THAT THREATENS TO REOPEN OLD WOUNDS IN BOSTON.

LAST SUMMER A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT THREW OUT MARATHON BOMBER DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV'S DEATH SENTENCE AND ORDERED A NEW PENALTY PHASE, ARGUING PROSECUTORS FAILED TO PROPERLY VET THE JURY FOR BIAS.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION QUICKLY FILED AN APPEAL, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR EARLIER THIS YEAR.

AND NOW BIDEN'S D.O.J.

IS PICKING UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF, URGING THE JUSTICES TO REINSTATE THE SENTENCE IN A BRIEF FILED MONDAY.

FOR THEIR PART, THE WHITE HOUSE SAID IN A STATEMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS INDEPENDENCE REGARDING SUCH DECISIONS, ADDING THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE HAS DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUES THAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR SENSE OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS.

IF THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE LOWER COURT'S RULING, THE BOSTON FEDERAL COURT THAT FIRST CONVICTED TSARNAEV IN 2015 WILL HAVE TO IMPANEL A NEW JURY AND HOLD A SENTENCING RETRIAL.

IT'S SOMETHING PATRICIA CAMPBELL, WHOSE DAUGHTER, KRYSTAL, WAS ONE OF THE FOUR PEOPLE KILLED IN THE BOMBING AND ITS AFTERMATH, SAID SHE JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.

SHE TOLD "THE BOSTON GLOBE" LAST YEAR: "IT'S JUST TERRIBLE THAT HE'S ALLOWED TO LIVE HIS LIFE.

IT'S UNFAIR.

HE DIDN'T WAKE UP ONE MORNING AND DECIDE TO DO WHAT HE DID.

HE PLANNED IT OUT.

HE DID A VICIOUS, UGLY THING."

BACK IN 2015, THE PARENTS OF THE YOUNGEST VICTIM, 8-YEAR-OLD MARTIN RICHARD, ASKED PROSECUTORS NOT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY, SPECIFICALLY TO KEEP RETRIALS LIKE THE ONE THE JUDGE JUST ORDERED FROM HAPPENING.

THEY WROTE IN THE "GLOBE": "THE CONTINUED PURSUIT OF THAT PUNISHMENT COULD BRING YEARS OF APPEALS AND PROLONG RELIVING THE MOST PAINFUL DAY OF OUR LIVES."

ALL THESE YEARS LATER, IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER THEY OR ANY OF THE WITNESSES WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY AGAIN.

SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CASE AND THE DEATH PENALTY?

I'M JOINED SNOW BY THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED TSARNAEV AND WON THE DEATH PENALTY RULING IN THE FIRST PLACE, CARMEN ORTIZ, WHO'S NOW WITH ANDERSON AND KREIGER, L.L.P.

; AND KAREN PITA LOOR IS, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND THE ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION AT THE B.U.

SCHOOL OF LAW.

>> Reilly: THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> TAKE FOR HAVING US.

>> Reilly: I KNOW YOU WERE DISAPPOINTED WHEN YOU HEARD ABOUT THE APPEAL, AND WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THAT THEY WERE BE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT APPEAL.

>> I WAS NOT SURPRISED.

I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO DESPITE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S POSITION.

BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO RE-LEGISLATION TO REMOVE IT.

WHILE HE ADVOCATES A CERTAIN POSITION, HE HAS SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS AN INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION, AND THEY WILL MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS REALLY CHANGED IN THE CASE THAT I WOULD THINK THE DEPARTMENT WOULD CHANGE ITS POSITION.

IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIFIC TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11.

THERE WERE SPECIFIC REASONS, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY REASONS THAT THIS DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE A DIFFERENT POSITION.

YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED TIMOTHY MCVEIGH, AND HE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS, FAMILIAR WITH THIS TYPE OF SENTENCE.

TIMOTHY MCVEIGH WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED.

AND YOU HAVE THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION OVERSEEING MANY TERRORISM CASES.

I BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ERIC HOLDER, WHO PERSONALLY REALLY WAS OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY, AND YET HE WAS THE ONE WHO AUTHORIZED THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE TSARNAEV CASE -- IT IS A COMPLEX SITUATION, BUT I THINK GIVEN WHAT THE LAW IS AT THIS JUNCTURE, AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN REALLY NO CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD THINK WARRANTS THEM TAKING A DIFFERENT POSITION, SO I WAS NOT PRICED SURPRISED THAT THEY'RE ADVOCATING THE SUPREME COURT TO REIMPOSE THE SENTENCE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SET.

>> Reilly: I WANT TO GO TO KAREN IN A MOMENT, BUT FIRST, CARMEN, ONE MORE QUESTION TO YOU: WHEN THE APPELLATE RULING CAME DOWN, DID YOU WONDER, IN RETROSPECT, WONDERED IF MOVING THE VENUE FROM BOSTON MIGHT HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL IN A WAY THAT DIDN'T OCCUR TO YOU AT THE TIME?

BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIG POINTS THEY STRESSED IN THE APPELLATE RULING, SO WE ALL HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT THESE HORRIFIC DEATHS AT THE TIME.

IT WAS ALMOST IN INESCAPABLE.

DO YOU STILL THINK THAT HOLDING THE TRIAL IN BOSTON WAS THE RIGHT CALL?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.

WE LIVE IN A STATE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE REALLY -- IT IS A NO-DEATH-PENALTY STATE.

AND MANY PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

AND SO I THINK THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN A JURY THAT WAS VERY, VERY, YOU KNOW, THOUGHTFUL, FOCUSED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE CASE.

WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR VENUE, YOU DON'T GET TO PICK WHERE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE TRIAL.

SO TO MOVE IT FROM MASSACHUSETTS TO A STATE -- FOR EXAMPLE, TO TEXAS, TO FLORIDA, TO ALABAMA, TO OTHER STATES WHERE THEY ARE MUCH MORE PRO-DEATH PENALTY, AND PERHAPS IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AND UNBIAS JURY.

I NEVER THOUGHT WE WERE IMPACTED BY THAT.

I THINK THE WHOLE WORLD SAW WHAT HAPPENED.

AND THE REALITY OF THE CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A VIDEOTAPE SHOWING DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV PLACING A BOMB BEHIND A GROUP OF CHILDREN.

LOOKING, SEEING THE FIRST EXPLOSION, AND THEN MOVING AWAY.

AND CALLOUSLY, WE HAD OTHER VIDEOS SHOWING WHAT HIS BEHAVIOR WAS AFTERWARDS, EVEN ON THE NIGHT AFTER THE POOR M.I.T.

YOUNG OFFICER, SEAN COLLIE, WAS MURDERED.

I THINK HAVING THE CASE TRIED HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.

>> Reilly: KAREN PITA LOOR, LET ME ASK YOU FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE TRIAL, WATCHED THE TRIAL, BUT WAS NOT PART OF IT, THE APPELLATE RULING ESSENTIALLY SAID -- THAT VACATED THE DEATH PENALTY, SAID, THAT THE JUDGE WORKED HARD TO TRY TO VET THE POTENTIAL JURORS FOR BIAS.

HE JUST DIDN'T DO A GOOD ENOUGH JOB.

IS THAT A FAIR PARAPHRASE, AND IF SO, DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT RULING?

>> SO I THINK THAT IS A FAIR PARAPHRASING, BUT, I DO THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT RULING.

IF I COULD GO BACK TO THE RULING, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY INTERESTING, INCREDIBLY LONG APPELLATE OPINION -- SO THE DEATH PENALTY REALLY IN THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED FOR TWO REASONS.

BY THE WAY, THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES THAT THE COURT LEFT UNDECIDED, THAT THE APPELLATE COURT LEFT UNDECIDED, LIKE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO JURORS NOT BEING HONEST, FOR EXAMPLE.

ABOUT THE EXTENT OF WHAT THEY HAD POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA REGARDING THE INCIDENT.

BUT THOSE WERE THINGS THAT ULTIMATELY THE APPELLATE COURT LEFT UNDECIDED BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE IT DIDN'T HAVE TO REACH THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE THE REVERSAL CAME FORWARD ON TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED.

ONE OF THE REASONS HAD TO DO WITH JURY SELECTION, AND WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE DID REALLY ENOUGH TO IMPANEL AN IMPARTIAL JURY.

AND THE SECOND REASON WAS RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THE JURY DID NOT HEAR ABOUT DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV'S BROTHER, TAMERLIN.

ON THE JURY QUESTION, I WANT TO SAY, IF I COULD, AS A PRIOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THE JURORS ARE REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM TO THE DEFENDANT, AND MAYBE THE U.S. ATTORNEY WOULD ALSO AGREE AS WELL TO THE GOVERNMENT; THEY DECIDE GUILT OR INNOCENCE, AND IN THIS CASE THEY NEEDED TO DECIDE LIFE OR DEATH.

FOR THAT REASON THEY'RE IMPARTIALITY IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.

WITHOUT AN UNBIAS OR IMPARTIAL JURY, WE CANNOT POSSIBLY HOPE FOR A FAIR TRIAL.

SO THE APPEALS COURT RULED THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DO ENOUGH TO PROBE DOOR VOIR DIRE, WHAT POTENTIAL JURORS HAD READ, SEEN, OR HEARD ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR TV ABOUT THE CASE.

>> Reilly: AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT SHARED, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, THE TRIPLE HOMICIDE IN WALTHAM THAT TSARNAEV SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN.

CARMEN SAYS SHE THINK IT IS INTUITIVE -- I'M PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I HOPE THAT IS FAIR -- THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD TAKE ACTION NOT BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S ONLY PERSONAL BELIEFS OR AMBIVALENCE.

DO YOU SEE THE LINE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE D.O.J.

THE SAME WAY THAT CARMEN DOES?

>> I DON'T.

I DON'T.

I WANT TO START BY SAYING I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND I TEACH LAW, AND POLITICS IS NOT WITHIN MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, OF COURSE.

BUT I WILL SAY AS A LAY PERSON, I CAN'T SQUARE THAT ADMINISTRATION'S POSITIONS WITH THESE ACTIONS.

IT FEELS LIKE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING ONE THING, WE OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY, AND DOING THE OPPOSITE, PURSUING THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS CASE, ONE WHERE THE APPEALS COURT FOUND OFFICIAL LEGAL ERRORS TO REVERSE A DEATH PENALTY SENTENCE, RIGHT?

MY DISAGREEMENT WITH CARMEN HERE IS THAT THERE IS A THING CALLED PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.

SO THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T HAVE TO PURSUE EACH AND EVERY CASE.

AND EACH AND EVERY APPEAL.

AND SO IF, YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, FEELS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS AN UNJUST -- THE WAY THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY, IT IS AN UNJUST PENALTY, THEN THIS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A LAY PERSON, BEING THAT IT IS SUCH A HIGH PUBLICITY CASE, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE IDEAL CASE IN WHICH TO MAKE A REALLY STRONG STATEMENT AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.

>> Reilly: CARMEN, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO WEIGH INTO THAT AND GIVE YOU THE LAST SENTENCE ON WHAT YOU THINK THE LAST CHAPTER WOULD BE IN A LOCAL CASE LIKE THIS.

WHAT ABOUT THE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, THAT KAREN MENTIONED?

>> THERE IS PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU HAD BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO PERSONALLY DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY, DIDN'T SUPPORT IT, BUT FELT THAT GIVEN THE LAW, GIVEN WHAT IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY OR NOT, ALL OF THOSE FACTORS WERE MET, AND THEY PURSUED IT.

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, I WORKED IN AN ADMINISTRATION WHERE YOU HAD TO -- YOU COULDN'T JUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND THE WHITE HOUSE CERTAINLY DIDN'T PICK UP THE PHONE AND CONTACT ME AS A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.

THERE WERE STRICT, DIFFERENT BARRIERS TO THE WAY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNICATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

I KNOW THAT ALL CHANGED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS -- >> Reilly: I WAS GOING TO SAY... >> BUT I THINK QUITE FRANKLY NOW IT IS GOING TO GO BACK.

I THINK, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL -- I DON'T BELIEVE ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND HAS EVEN PUBLICLY INDICATED WHAT HIS BELIEFS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

BUT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS REALLY DON'T COUNT.

THIS REALLY HAS TO DO WITH WHAT IS THE LAW?

WHAT IS REQUIRED?

WERE THERE AGGRAVATING SRKDZ INCIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE?

WERE THERE SUFFICIENT MITIGATING FACTORS?

AND BACK TO THE PROFESSOR'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE JURY AND THE FIRST CIRCUIT, IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGE STRIVED TO REALLY FIND AN IMPARTIAL JURY.

AND THE FACT THAT THIS JURY -- THERE WERE 17 COUNTS ON WHICH DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV COULD HAVE RECEIVED THE DEATH PENALTY.

THE JURY ONLY FOUND SIX COUNTS.

THAT MEANS THEY LOOKED AT EACH INDIVIDUAL FACTOR.

THEY WEREN'T SWAYED BY THE MEDIA.

THEY WERE SWAYED BY EMOTION AND PASSION.

THEY WERE LOOKING TO SEE SPECIFICALLY IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT REALLY WARRANTS THE IMPOSITION OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE.

I BELIEVE THEY GENERALLY DID THAT.

AND, FINALLY, ON THE MURDERS IN WATH WALTHEM INVOLVED THE BROTHER, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT DZHOKHAR KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

>> Reilly: POINT TAKEN.

WE HAVE TO, UNFORTUNATELY, WRAP IT THERE.

WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT LOCAL IMPACT ANOTHER TIME BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG QUESTION IN AND OF ITSELF.

KAREN AND CARMEN, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Reilly: THERE'S A BASIC HUMAN TENDENCY TO THINK THE MOMENT WE'RE LIVING THROUGH RIGHT NOW IS UNIQUE, MORE DRAMATIC, MORE INTENSE, MAYBE MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO U.S.

POLITICS, THAT ASSUMPTION JUST MIGHT BE TRUE.

LESS THAN HALF A YEAR AFTER THE ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS DOUBLED DOWN ON THE IDEA THAT THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WASN'T LEGITIMATE.

AND AS PRESIDENT TRUMP RE-ENTERS THE POLITICAL FRAY, WE'RE LEARNING NEW DETAILS ABOUT HIS WILLINGNESS TO VIOLATE NORMS IN HIS FAILED ATTEMPT TO HOLD ON TO POWER.

IT'S A LOT TO PROCESS, AND, FRANKLY, PRETTY EXHAUSTING, ENOUGH SO THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A BREAK FROM POLITICS FOR THE SUMMER.

BUT JOURNALIST EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE HAS OTHER IDEAS.

IN HIS NEW BOOK, "BATTLE FOR THE SOUL: INSIDE THE DEMOCRATS' COMPAIGNS TO DEFEAT TRUMP," HE DIGS DEEP INTO THE EVENTS THAT PRECEDED BIDEN'S WIN OVER TRUMP LAST FALL.

IT'S A FASCINATING LOOK NOT JUST AT THE CROWDED AND CHAOTIC DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CONTEST, BUT ALSO AT THE WAY BARACK OBAMA AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC LEADERS STRUGGLED TO WRAP THEIR BRAIN AROUND TRUMP'S 2016 VICTORY AND THE FORCES THAT PROPELLED IT, ALL OF WHICH ARE STILL WITH US TODAY.

ISAAC JOINS ME NOW TO DISCUSS.

>> Reilly: THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> Reilly: I WANT TO GIVE VIEWERS THE SENSE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU CONVEY IN THIS BOOK.

ONE OF MY FAVORITE PARTS IS YOUR LIST OF THE THINGS THAT IT TAKES TO KEEP BERNIE SANDERS HAPPY IN A HOTEL ROOM.

CAN YOU SHARE A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT HE, IN SORT OF A FULL ROCK-STAR MANNER, INSISTS UPON TO BE A HAPPY GUY WHEN HE IS ON THE ROAD?

>> BERNIE SANDERS, HIS WHOLE LIFE WAS KIND OF AN OUTSIDER.

HE WAS FAMOUS AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO KNEW, ALMOST TAKING THE MIDDLE SEAT ON PLANES WHEN HE WOULD FLY BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND BERLINGTON.

BUT HE SHOT TO PROMINENCE IN 2016 WITH THAT CAMPAIGN.

AND HE CAME TO LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF THE GOOD LIVING.

HE LIKED THAT HE HAD A CHARTER PLANE THAT LEFT WHEN HE WAS READY TO LEAVE.

AND HE GOT USED TO SOME NICITIES ON THE ROAD.

HE HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT HIS HOTEL ROOMS, NOT TOO NEAR THE ELEVATOR, OR NEAR THE ICE MACHINE.

HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY NO TO UPGRADES, BUT HE WOULD ASK FOR CERTAIN SNACKS TO BE PROVIDED TO HIM, VERY SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED, AND WAS A STICKLER FOR THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM AND THE NUMBER OF BLANKETS, AND THERE NAYR NEEDEDNEEDEDTO BE A FAN.

IT IS PART OF GIVING YOU A WINDOW INTO ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE AS HUMAN BEINGS.

BECAUSE WE CAN FORGET THAT SOMETIMES.

THEY'RE MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURES.

BERNANKE'S, ONEBERNIE SANDERS, ONE OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURES.

WITH BUTTIGIEG AND BIDEN -- THIS BOOK TELLS YOU WHO THEY ARE AS PEOPLE, TOO.

>> ONE OF THE MORE SERIOUS EXAMPLES OF BACKGROUND DETAILS, AT LEAST IN MY EYE, THAT YOU GET INTO IS THE SLOW, AND I WOULD SAY AGONIZED WAY, THAT FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA TRIED TO COME TO TERMS WITH DONALD TRUMP'S VICTORY IN 2016, AND TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE OF TRUMP AND TRUMPISM FOR THE COUNTRY.

IT IS A LONG ARK FROM 2016 AT LEAST TO WHEN JOE BIDEN BEAT DONALD TRUMP.

CAN YOU SKETCH OUT IN BROAD STROKES WHAT HIS EVOLUTION WAS?

>> THE BOOK STARTS ON ELECTION NIGHT 2016, WITH THESE NEVER BEFORE TOLD STORIES OF OBAMA AND BIDEN WATCHING TRUMP WIN.

PART OF WHY I INCLUDED THOSE STORIES IS THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TOLD BEFORE AND THEY'RE INTERESTING STORIES.

YOU SEE A LOT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY, CERTAINLY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, REFLECTING THOSE EXPERIENCES.

OBAMA BEING SURPRISED ON ELECTION NIGHT, LATE AT NIGHT, WHEN HE IS PUTTING OUT A STATEMENT TO CONGRATULATE TRUMP, THEY COULDN'T FIND A PHONE NUMBER FOR TRUMP, AND THEY HAD TO CALL KRIS KRISTOFFERSON.

KRIS CHRIS CHRISTY.

AND HE GOES THEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF THINKING, SO, MAYBE I CAN WORK WITH TRUMP.

MAYBE I CAN CONVINCE HIM OF SOME THINGS.

THERE IS A MEETING THEY HAVE IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE THURSDAY AFTER THE ELECTION, TWO DAYS LATER.

I WAS THERE AS A REPORTER WATCHING THAT SCENE, WHEN THEY LET THE REPORTERS IN.

IT WAS INSANE.

AND OBAMA, SLOWLY OVER THE TRANSITION, GETS MORE AND MORE ON EDGE, STARTS TO SEE TRUMP'S ELECTION AS MAYBE REFLECTING WHAT HE WOULD SAY AS THE COUNTRY BEING MORE RACIST THAN HE THOUGHT IT WAS, THE COUNTRY SORT OF DISAPPOINTED HIM IN WAYS HE WASN'T EXPECTING.

AND THEN OVER THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, GETS EVEN MORE AND MORE ALARMED.

THIS IS ANOTHER THING, WHEN YOU SEE THE WAY THAT THESE PEOPLE SHOW UP IN PUBLIC, AND OBAMA GAVE PEOPLE THE SENSE HE WAS DETACHED AND NOT REALLY GETTING TOO AGITATED, THERE ARE A LOT OF MOMENTS YOU SEE BEHIND THE SCENES OF HOW ANGRY HE WAS GETTING, HOW UPSET HE WAS GETTING.

SO AT THE TIME OF THE CAMPAIGNING HE WAS DOING LAST FALL, HE IS SEEING THIS AS A EXTRA -- >> Reilly: THESE DETAILS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE BEFORE, HOW DID YOU GET THEM FROM PEOPLE?

DID YOU GET THEM IN THE MOMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING I'M GOING TO USE THIS STUFF IN A BOOK DOWN THE ROAD.

I WILL NOT WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SHARED WITH ME UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, OR DID YOU GO BACK AND TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH AT THE MOMENT?

WHAT WAS YOUR M.O.?

>> IT WAS ALL OF THAT.

I STARTED WORKING ON THIS BOOK, AND THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED IN 2018, AND I KNEW GOING INTO COVERAGE OF THE RACE THAT I WAS DOING FOR MY DAY JOB WITH THE ATLANTIC THAT THIS IS WHAT I WAS WORKING ON.

I TOLD THE COMPAIGNS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU INVOLVED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE CANDIDATES ALONG THE WAY, AND SPEAK TO YOU ALONG THE WAY, AND I HAD A SEPARATE RECORDER AND NOTEBOOK.

AND SOMETIMES THE CANDIDATES WOULD MAKE FUN OF ME AND SAY, WHICH RECORDER IS THIS GOING ON?

BUT IT GIVES THIS SENSE OF FRESHNESS AND THAT WINDOW INTO HOW THINGS WENT AT THE TIME.

OFTEN CAMPAIGN BOOKS OR ANY KIND OF HISTORY BOOK, WHEN THEY'RE WRITTEN AFTER THE FACT, EVERYTHING SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE AFTERWARDS.

THAT WAS A GOOD POSITION, AND THAT WAS A BAD DECISION.

SOMETIMES THERE IS MAKING MISTAKES.

AND THEN AFTER EVERYTHING WAS DONE, I GO BACK OVER THINGS, REACHING OUT TO NEW PEOPLE, TO FIND OUT MORE DETAILS OF IT.

I SPENT A LOT OF LAST YEAR TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN 2018 AND 2019,WHEN PEOPLE WERE MORE FREED UP TO TALK ABOUT THEM.

>> Reilly: I USED THE PHRASE "SLOW AND AGONIZED" TO TALK ABOUT OBAMA AND HOW IT PERTAINS TO TRUMP, BUT I THINK IT APPLIES TO JOE BIDEN, DECIDING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

YOUR BOOK CONVEYS THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH, AND JUST COULDN'T QUITE MAKE UP HIS MIND.

WHY WAS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR BIDEN TO SETTLE ON WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A HUGE DECISION, BUT ALSO GIVEN THE FACT HE HAS BEEN IN POLITICS HIS WHOLE LIFE, AND HAS RUN FOR PRESIDENTS BEFORE, AND SEEMS LIKE A STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE?

>> HE IS AN AMBITIOUS POLITICIAN.

NOBODY RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AS MANY TIMES AS HE HAS.

IT REALLY STARTS FOR HIM IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, MAYBE I'LL RUN, IF I'M WALKING, I'LL RUN, JOKES LIKE THAT.

CHARLOTTESVILLE IS WHEN WHAT DONALD TRUMP REPRESENTED TO HIM GOES WAY BEYOND POLITICS, THE DIFFERENCES IN TAX POLICY, AND HE THINKS THIS IS WHAT HE CALLS THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF THIS NATION.

HE CARRIES THAT FORWARD WITH HIM, SO THAT BY THE END OF 2017, HE IS SAYING TO PEOPLE, LOOK, I WON'T RUN IF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME SOMEONE ELSE CAN BEAT TRUMP.

BUT WE NEED TO BEAT TRUMP, AND IF NOBODY ELSE CAN BEAT HIM, I'LL RUN.

IT IS A LITTLE SELF-SERVING FOR A POLITICIAN TO SAY.

BUT HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE CAN DO IT IN A WAY HE WANTS TO DO IT.

PURSUING A PATH TO THE PRESIDENCY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT PROBABLY WOULDN'T WORK, THAT HE WAS OUT OF SYNC WITH THE PARTY.

THE BOOK ENDS WITH AN INTERVIEW I DID WITH HIM ON FEBRUARY 2nd, HIS FIRST AS PRESIDENT, AND HE SAID, PEOPLE WERE SAYING ALL OF THESE THINGS TO ME, BUT I SAID IF I DO IT, RUNNING AT 77 YEARS OLD, I'M GOING TO DO IT THE WAY I WANT TO DO IT.

AND TO NOT GET INTO ANY OF THE THINGS I DON'T WANT TO DO.

AND SO MUCH OF THE DEMOCRATIC FIELD MOVED IN WINONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER, AND HE DID NOT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT WENT INTO IT, AND THEY'RE DETAILED IN THE BOOK, BUT HIS WAY, OBVIOUSLY, WAS RIGHT.

HE WON THE NOMINATION.

HE PUT TOGETHER A COALITION IN NOVEMBER AGAINST TRUMP, NOT TO SAY NOBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE WON, BUT NOBODY WOULD HAVE PUT TOGETHER THE EXACT COALITION HE DID, SO THAT MAY MEAN NOBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE WON.

>> Reilly: I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SANDERS AND ELIZABETH WARREN -- ALL OF US GOT A PEEK AT THE TENSION, AND THERE WAS THIS STORY THAT CAME OUT BEFORE THE DEBATE, WHERE WARREN SAID SANDERS TOLD HER HE DIDN'T THINK A WOMAN COULD BEAT TRUMP.

AND HE SAID THAT'S WASN'T WHAT HE SAID.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK.

>> I THINK YOU CALLED ME A LIAR ON NATIONAL TV.

>> LET'S NOT DO IT RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, YOU CALLED ME.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY HI, BERNIE.

>> Reilly: THAT LAST BIT ALWAYS GETS ME, WHEN TOM SIRE SLIDES ON IN.

WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE WARRENSWARREN/SANDERS' RELATIONSHIP?

>> I THINK PEOPLE MISTAKE THE FACT BECAUSE THEY HAVE IDEOLOGIES THAT ALIGN AS THEM BEING SIMILAR PEOPLE.

THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

BERNIE SANDERS IS A GUY WHO CAME OUT OF BROOKLYN COLLEGE, LIVED IN VERMONT, AND THEN GOT INTO POLITICS RELATIVELY EARLY OUT, BUT IN A WEIRD OUTSIDER WAY.

AND ELIZABETH WARREN, OF COURSE, COMES IN AFTER BEING A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND COMES IN AS WORKING IN GOVERNMENT, AND THINKING ABOUT THINGS IN A VERY ACADEMIC WAY OF BEING.

THE FIRST CHAPTER THAT IS ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS ENTITLED "NOT FRIENDS," RIGHT?

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.

THEY'RE BARELY THE FRIENDS THE WAY THE POLITICIANS SAY MY FRIEND FROM VERMONT OR MY FRIEND FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

THEY HAD A VERY UNEASY ALLIANCE.

AND THAT BECAME, OBVIOUSLY, TESTED WHEN BOTH OF THEM WERE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

THEY BOTH WERE HOPING THAT THE OTHER ONE WOULDN'T RUN.

AND IT ENDED UP CAUSING A PROBLEM FOR BOTH OF THEM.

THEIR SUPPORTERS, WHO OVERLAPPED SOMEWHAT, WERE TORN.

BUT THE SUPPORTERS WHO DIDN'T OVERLAP WERE REALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER.

YOU SEE THIS ALL TRAVEL THROUGH TO A CONTENTIOUS PRIMARY TIME.

ELIZABETH WARREN HOPING THAT SANDERS WAS GOING TO DROP OUT AFTER HIS HEART ATTACK IN 2019, AND SANDERS EXPECTING WARREN TO DROP OUT AFTER SHE DID AS POORLY AS SHE DID.

AND WARREN, IN THE STORIES I HAVE ABOUT HER TALKING TO OBAMA ABOUT WHO SHE IS GOING TO ENDORSE AFTER SHE DROPS OUT, SHE CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER TO ENDORSE BERNIE SANDERS, OR TO ENDORSE JOE BIDEN.

BUT AT THAT POINT, SHE IS CLEAR SHE WANTS TO DO WHAT IS GOING TO END THE BERNIE SANDERS' CAMPAIGN AND PROMOTE JOE BIDEN.

PART OF THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IN A TROJAN HORSE WAY TO ENDORSE SANDERS.

AND SHE DECIDED TO ENDORSE NEITHER OF THEM AND WAIT IT OUT.

>> Reilly: WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO WRAP UP, BUT I WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE CLOSE, I ALWAYS LIKE READING YOUR STUFF.

I ENJOYED SEEING YOU ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL ON OCCASION.

I DID NOT THINK I WANTED TO READ A -- WHAT IS IT, A 500-PAGE BOOK ABOUT THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, AND IT TURNS OUT I WAS WRONG BECAUSE THE BOOK IS GREAT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Reilly: THE BOOK AGAIN IS "BATTLE FOR THE SOUL: INSIDE THE TRUMP'S DEMOCRATS' COMPAIGNS TO DEFEAT TRUMP."

THAT IS IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

♪♪