Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said he is not confident that special counsel Robert Mueller did a exhaustive job in his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In a podcast interview last week with former Obama adviser David Axelrod, Woodward said the Mueller case lacks the kind of solid evidence from the Watergate scandal — mainly the thousands of hours of Nixon tapes — that could be used to determine President Trump had obstructed justice.

"Quality of evidence, as you know, really matters," said the Washington Post associate editor, who said he has read the Mueller report twice.

Asked if he though Mueller did a thorough job, Woodward said, "No. I found people who Mueller didn't interview." In the podcast, Woodward did not elaborate on who these individuals might be, and the video of the discussion posted on YouTube by host University of Chicago Institute of Politics, cuts this part out completely. The conversation moves on to Woodward talking about his book, Fear, which focused on the inner workings of the Trump White House.

The press team for “The Axe Files” podcast told the Washington Examiner this portion of the interview was edited because the audiovisual component of the recording was briefly cut at the venue, but that the only thing missing was Axelrod's next question. "It was quite the cliffhanger I know, but nothing was cut," a spokesman said.

Mueller completed his 22-month investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election in March after roughly 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and 500 witness interviews. His report, released by the Justice Department with redactions in April, shows Mueller's team was unable to find criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Trump's legal team resisted having Trump sit down for an interview with Mueller, and the president only answered questions in writing about alleged conspiracy, not obstruction. Mueller, unsatisfied with Trump's level of cooperation, said in his report: "Ultimately, while we believed that we had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the President's testimony, we chose not to do so.”

Mueller outlined 10 scenarios of possible obstruction in his report, including a look at former White House counsel Don McGahn resisting Trump's order to fire the special counsel, but declined to make a determination about whether the president obstructed justice. Although Trump says he has been vindicated, Democrats argue Mueller's refusal to clear Trump on obstruction provides them a road map to continue to investigate and possibly seek impeachment. Attorney General William Barr said he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined there was not sufficient evidence to establish a crime had occurred.

Woodward, who is best known for his investigative reporting with Carl Bernstein that shed light on the Watergate scandal leading to President Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974, tied Trump to the 37th president in terms of "hate" in the U.S.

“If you look at it what Trump has done, you can draw a straight line from Nixon to Trump. Trump has legitimized hate and he has said it is acceptable in American politics," Woodward said.

“We are at a pivot point in history about how we are going to deal with the legitimization of hate in American politics," he added.

Woodward believes Democrats will be hard-pressed if they pursue a "redo" of Mueller's investigation. He also cast doubt on whether the Democrat-controlled House can succeed in obtaining Trump's financial information.

Woodward said Trump's taxes "are a road map to who he is and we didn't get them. And we should have" during the 2016 campaign. He said he faults himself "mightily" for not trying to track them down, but claimed he could have found them if he tried by speaking with sources.

Axelrod asked Woodward if he believes Trump's financial information could be disclosed now.

"No, I have a lot of doubt," Woodward said, noting Trump understands "the power of no" and that even if the matter is taken up by the Supreme Court it is not guaranteed to be a "winner" for the House Democrats.